Teachers have a profound effect on student learning and their social and emotional development. Research has shown that teachers are the most important in-school factor affecting language minoritized student learning (Calderón et al., 2011). Yet language minoritized students receive instruction from teachers with significantly less experience for those students (Samson & Lesaux, 2015). We argue that one glaring consideration in teacher education for language minoritized students (here, multilingual learners, ML) is the role of place. Teacher education programs assume an urban-normativity in their conceptualization, implementation, and evaluation. This geospatial blindness characterizes educational policies and practices, which fail to consider place and how place shapes education (Roberts & Green, 2013, p. 765). Scholars of rural education (Brenner, 2016) illuminate why place matters and how it shapes teaching and learning. The paper addresses the question, what are the impacts of a place-based rural in-service teacher education program on the education of rural multilingual students?
This paper uses a theoretical framework of spatial injustice (Soja, 2009) and critical pedagogy of place (Gruenewald, 2003). Soja defines spatial injustice as "an intentional and focused emphasis on the spatial or geographical aspects of justice and injustice… this involves the fair and equitable distribution in space of socially valued resources and the opportunities to use them" (p. 2). Discussing the spatial and social dialectic, Soja argues that the spatial shapes the social and vice versa. Thus, as the work of educators of ML students is both social and relational, place becomes an integral and illuminating feature of teachers' work.
Data were collected over a five-year period with 22 rural educators and include qualitative (archival data from coursework; observations and field notes; focus groups; photographs) and quantitative (satisfaction surveys; and ML student achievement) data. Data were coded and axial coded by six team members and shared using NVivo R.1 software. Weekly team meetings were held do interrogate emerging themes, and expand and collapse themes as more salient findings emerged.
Findings show how place shaped participants' experiences and decisions surrounding their ML students' learning. We identify "pivotal points" where educators made equity decisions on behalf of their ML students, including relational collaboration and the central role of place. This paper presents results of student learning among teachers who participated. Based on findings that demonstrate these impacts, this paper suggests a place-based model of rural teacher education for MLs.
References
Brenner, D. (2016). Rural educator policy brief: Rural education and the Every Student Succeeds Act. 22-27. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1225319.pdf
Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. Future of Children, 21(1), 103–127.
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3-12.
Roberts, P. & Green, B. (2013). Researching rural places: On social justice and rural education. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(10), 765-774.
Soja (2009). The city and spatial injustice. Social Justice. https://www.jssj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/JSSJ1-1en4.pdf
Samson, J.F., & Lesaux, N.K. (2015). Disadvantaged language minority students and their teachers: A national picture. Teachers College Record, 117, 1–26.
