Educator language ideologies and a top-down dual language program

• Shannon Fitzsimmons-Doolan ^[1] ; Deborah Palmer ^[2] ; Kathryn Henderson ^[3]
  1. [1] Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi

     Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi

     Estados Unidos

     
  2. [2] University of Texas at Austin

     University of Texas at Austin

     Estados Unidos

     
  3. [3] University of Texas at San Antonio

     University of Texas at San Antonio

     Estados Unidos

     

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, ISSN 1367-0050, Vol. 20, Nº. 6, 2017, págs. 704-721
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Dialnet Métricas: 1 Cita
• Resumen

  • Dual language bilingual education (DLBE) programs are framed to reflect pluralist discourses (de Jong, E. [2013]. “Policy Discourses and U.S. Language in Education Policies.” Peabody Journal of Education 88 (1): 98–111) and affiliated language ideologies. The continued expansion of DLBE programs not surprisingly brings to light the diverse and ever-changing landscape of educator language ideologies. This survey-based study used inferential statistics and qualitative thematic analysis to explore the language ideologies of a random sample of administrators and teachers involved in a district-wide, top-down implementation of a DLBE program in a large urban school district. The following three research questions guided our investigation: (1)What are prevalent educator language ideologies in DLBE schools? (2) How and to what extent do these language ideologies vary by: participation in the DLBE, level of teaching experience, educator's home language, and degree of DLBE training? (3) How do educators perceive the attempted program shift to DLBE? Eight language ideologies including languages other than English (OTE) as endowments and multiple languages as a problem accounted for 46% of the variance in the data. All four experiential variables differentiated ideological orientation. Educators reported that ideological tensions and lack of support influenced their implementation.