








































Article 
 

Dr. Lindsey A. Chapman, Clinical Assistant Professor, Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood 
Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; email l.chapman@coe.ufl.edu; ORCID 0000-0001-7515-5013 

Dr. Chelsea T. Morris, Assistant Professor, Department of Literacy and Special Education, University of West 
Georgia, Carrollton, GA; email cmorris@westga.edu; ORCID 0000-0002-4266-5559 

Dr. Katherine B. Green, Associate Professor, Department of Literacy and Special Education, University of West 
Georgia, Carrollton, GA; email kbgreen@westga.edu; ORCID 0000-0001-8280-5061 
 

Supporting Practitioner Inquiry in 
Teacher Education: Opportunities 
and Challenges in ESOL Contexts 

GATESOL Journal 
2021, Vol. 31(1), pp. 36–46 

doi:10.52242/gatesol.116 
ISSN: 2331-6845 

 

Lindsey A. Chapman 
University of Florida 
 

Chelsea T. Morris 
University of West Georgia 
 

Katherine B. Green 
University of West Georgia 
 

Abstract 
Formal preparation and professional development with an explicit focus on the teaching of 
English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) is essential. Thus, teacher preparation 
programs play a vital role in meeting this pressing need. Practitioner inquiry has the potential 
to be a powerful anchor in clinical field experiences for teacher candidates working with 
emergent bilingual/multilingual students (EB). The purpose of this paper is to present 
practitioner inquiry as a promising pedagogical practice for teacher education, drawing from 
examples of implementation in an elementary, preservice teacher preparation program that 
leads to state credentialing in ESOL. Opportunities and challenges related to the use of this 
practice with teacher candidates, as well as recommendations, are discussed. 
 
Keywords 
practitioner inquiry, professional development, teacher education, English to Speakers of 
Other Languages (ESOL), bilingual/multilingual students 

 
Background 
As the cultural and linguistic diversity of the K–12 education system increases, the need for well-
prepared teachers for emergent bi-/multilingual (EB) students has never been greater (Castro, 
2010; Coady et al., 2011). In recent decades, Georgia has seen rapid growth in immigration 
(Hooker et al., 2014), and consistent with nationwide trends (Loeffer, 2007), its growing 
population of EBs in K–12 schools outpaces general student enrollment. According to the Georgia 
State Department of Education, EBs currently make up approximately 8% of the state’s PK–12  
student population (Sugarman & Geary, 2018). 

Both nationwide and in Georgia, wide and alarming gaps have been reported between EBs 
and their peers in both achievement and graduation rates (Sugarman & Geary, 2018) despite 
increased accountability and performance monitoring under federal regulations described in the 
Every Student Succeeds Act (Callahan et al., 2020). To remediate these gaps, formal preparation 

mailto:l.chapman@coe.ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7515-5013
mailto:cmorris@westga.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4266-5559
mailto:kbgreen@westga.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8280-5061


Chapman, Morris, & Green 37 
 

and professional development to develop expertise for teaching English for Speakers of Other 
Languages (ESOL) is essential for all teachers, especially given widespread efforts toward 
inclusion in general education classrooms (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). To this end, all teacher 
preparation programs must have a strategic and intentional focus on the academic, linguistic, 
instructional, and socio-environmental needs of EBs. 
 
Teacher Preparation Programs 
As the first phase of the teacher development continuum, teacher preparation programs play a vital 
role in the educator pipeline (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). Strong teacher preparation programs 
support teacher candidates in developing the knowledge, disposition, and pedagogical skills to 
effectively meet the needs of EBs in terms of language development and content acquisition 
(Coady et al., 2011; Torres et al., 2019). Effectively prepared teachers are also better positioned to 
serve as advocates for and with EBs and their families (Athanases & de Oliveira, 2008; Linville, 
2020). Effective teacher preparation programs also challenge misunderstandings around 
multiculturalism and social justice in order to foster the critical consciousness necessary to teach 
in culturally and linguistically diverse settings (Castro, 2010). Likewise, Smolcic and Katunich 
(2017) emphasized that practice-oriented programs (i.e., those that utilize field experience 
opportunities) are a necessary pathway for developing educators who are prepared to work 
effectively across cultures. However, a “pivotal dilemma of teacher education” (p. 354) is 
determining how to fully prepare educators to meet the nuanced and varied needs of EBs within a 
short period of time (Reeves, 2010). 

Field experiences are a frequently used approach in teacher preparation programs to 
develop teacher candidates’ pedagogical skills. These experiences can provide teacher candidates 
the opportunity to work directly with EBs and the teachers who support them. Field experiences 
offer an opportunity to provide deeper connections between coursework and the practical realities 
and daily experiences of EBs in local classrooms (Reeves, 2010). These experiences, combined 
with a strong framework for content and language learning embedded within coursework, can 
contribute to teacher candidates’ perception of general preparedness to support EBs (Coady et al., 
2011) as well as the overall quality of their pedagogical practice (Bollin, 2007). However, teacher 
educators need to be intentional in the design and implementation of field experiences for teacher 
candidates to maximize their effectiveness. Careful attention needs to be given to where teacher 
candidates are placed, with whom, and the expectations once assigned to their placements. 
 
Practitioner Inquiry 
Practitioner inquiry, defined by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) as “systematic and intentional 
inquiry carried out by teachers” (p. 3), is increasingly being used as an anchor for field experiences. 
As an umbrella term that sometimes encompasses related approaches such as teacher research, 
action research, and self-study (Dana, 2015), this type of disciplined inquiry blurs the lines 
between research and practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). It positions teacher candidates as 
reflective practitioners and natural inquirers (Delane et al., 2017), and therefore, can be both a 
valuable learning tool and an ideal professional stance. 

According to Ginns and colleagues (2001), practitioner inquiry is particularly well suited 
for use with teacher candidates because it can “empower teachers to examine their own beliefs, 
explore their own understandings of practice, foster critical reflection, and develop decision 
making capabilities that would enhance their teaching” (p. 129). In this way, engaging in 
practitioner inquiry can help dismantle deficit perspectives and stereotypes of EBs commonly held 



38 GATESOL Journal 31(1)  
 

by teacher candidates that impede the likelihood of student success (Castro, 2010; Schroeder, 
2020). By providing teacher candidates with a greater and more nuanced insight into the varied 
ways that EBs experience the social, academic, and environmental dynamics of a specific 
classroom (Nguyen et al., 2019), practitioner inquiry helps teacher candidates to be more 
responsive to the unique needs of their students. It also allows them to use their own voice by 
sharing their experiences through “insider stories of learning to teach” as they develop and study 
their practice simultaneously (Phillips & Carr, 2009, p. 223). 

Athanases and colleagues (2015) noted that inquiry often emerges from problems of 
practice identified by teachers. These problems are sometimes characterized as “felt difficulties” 
(Ma et al., 2018, p. 17) or something puzzling that occurs in daily practice. When coaching to use 
the process of practitioner inquiry with teacher candidates, they are often simply asked to reflect 
on burning questions they have. These initial wonderings are the catalyst for short, iterative inquiry 
cycles embedded within the classroom’s natural rhythm and occur regularly over time (Dana, 
2015). The goal of engagement in these cycles is improved classroom practice that supports 
students’ learning and development (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2019). 

Dana (2013) put forth a five-stage cycle that serves as the backbone of the practitioner 
inquiry process (see Figure 1). The five stages are: (a) develop a wondering (i.e., a burning question 
about practice), (b) develop a plan to collect data (e.g., field notes, documents, interviews, 
quantitative measures of student achievement), (c) analyze data (i.e., carefully examining the data 
to identify its story), (d) take action (i.e., make adjustments to your practice), and (e) share with 
others. It is important to note this process is neither linear nor fixed; in other words, inquirers move 
back and forth between stages as needed rather than through a prescriptive and restrictive 
progression from one stage to the next (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2019). That is to say, the process 
is intentionally iterative to account for the complexities and ebbs and flows of daily classroom 
practice and lends itself to implementation that is recurring over time (Dana et al., 2011). 
 
Figure 1 
Inquiry Cycle (adapted from Dana et al., 2011) 
 

 
 

We agree with the argument by Schroeder and Currin (2019) that to be most effective, 
practitioner inquiry must always start with teacher candidates, regardless of the context. Therefore, 
in this paper, we present practitioner inquiry as a promising pedagogical practice for developing 



Chapman, Morris, & Green 39 
 

teacher candidates who are effectively prepared to support EBs within and beyond the ESOL 
classroom. We first provide an overview of practitioner inquiry within a teacher preparation 
program and then describe the experiences of two teacher candidates who engaged in the process. 
Next, we use insights from these experiences to share opportunities and challenges learned. 
Finally, we conclude with recommendations for teacher educators to embed practitioner inquiry 
into their teacher preparation programs. 
 
Insights from Implementation 
Here, we share the implementation experiences of two former teacher candidates, Kimberly and 
Shauna (pseudonyms), in order to discuss both opportunities and challenges when using 
practitioner inquiry with teacher candidates. At the time of implementation, they were enrolled in 
a formal teacher preparation program that grants certification in Elementary Education (K–6), as 
well as endorsements in both Reading (K–12) and ESOL (K–12). Like many other programs of its 
kind, theoretical and pedagogical knowledge specific to ESOL is taught through two standalone 
courses in addition to content infusion across eleven different courses (e.g., reading methods, 
teaching strategies) in the program. 

Each semester of the program is also teamed with a field experience of varied intensity, 
duration, and focus. The program’s initial field experience occurs in a rural setting with an 
emphasis on ESOL. However, typically, students have had infrequent opportunities to engage with 
EBs in their subsequent field experiences. In the advanced field experience (i.e., practicum) that 
occurs during the program’s final semester, teacher candidates work alongside their assigned 
mentor teachers (MT) for three full days per week. They also attend a weekly seminar, focused on 
supporting teacher candidates to process and reflect on their field experience, while simultaneously 
completing their remaining program coursework. The seminar is led in small groups by an 
interdisciplinary team of university supervisors who also provide direct observations and feedback 
to students during their placements. Practitioner inquiry is a central feature of the advanced 
practicum. The process as defined by Dana et al. (2011) is used to explicitly teach students each 
component of the inquiry cycle. They are also expected to engage in at least one inquiry cycle 
during their placement while being coached through the process by their supervisor. Each student 
presents the findings of their inquiry at the end of the semester. 

Kimberly and Shauna were advanced practicum students at Parkside Elementary 
(pseudonym), the district’s only elementary school designated as a formal ESOL center. In 
addition to being a neighborhood school, the district also provides transportation to the school for 
EBs from across the county so that students have access to specially trained teachers and staff with 
expertise and experience in ESOL. The four most represented languages in the school are Spanish, 
Chinese, Portuguese, and Korean; however, the school has rich linguistic diversity with more than 
20 languages spoken by its staff, students, and families.  
 
Kimberly’s Inquiry 
Kimberly’s advanced field experience placement was in a second grade English Language Arts 
(ELA) class. A White female from out of state, Kimberly was interested in becoming an ESOL 
teacher after graduation and enjoyed studying Spanish as a second language. She was pursuing 
elementary certification but hoped to pursue further her expertise in ESOL in graduate school after 
completing her initial program. Kimberly’s MT was a monolingual English speaker and the ESOL 
lead on the grade level team. Nearly half of the students in her assigned general education 



40 GATESOL Journal 31(1)  
 

classroom were identified as EB. Their English proficiency levels varied widely, and many 
received formal ESOL services via a pull-out model during the ELA block. 

Kimberly’s practitioner inquiry emerged from observations of her students’ daily 
interactions within and beyond the classroom. Broadly, she was puzzled by the limited engagement 
of EBs in class activities and discussions and wondered how she could be more intentional in her 
practice to support positive and frequent verbal interactions among students. At the same time, she 
was attuned to patterns of language use among her students. More specifically, the EBs appeared 
to reserve use of their first language (L1) to non-academic settings (e.g., during lunch, at the 
playground) and were expected to interact entirely in English during class time. From these 
observations, she wondered if and how adoption of a translanguaging pedagogy (García, 2009), 
an approach she learned through her ESOL coursework and further explored in the practitioner 
literature, would facilitate more positive interactions for the EBs in the class by encouraging them 
to draw from the entirety of their linguistic repertoires (Kleyn & García, 2019). Translanguaging 
pedagogy encourages fluid languaging practices of EBs and is a teaching method that promotes 
equity, valuing language policies in schools that do not position students’ language as singular 
processes (Sánchez et al., 2018). 
 
Shauna’s Inquiry 
Shauna’s advanced field experience placement was in an ESOL classroom where she, alongside 
her MT, supported EBs in second and third grade in a pull-out model. She was a White female 
who had recently improved her ability to communicate in Spanish after living abroad for an 
extended period prior to the start of the semester. She explicitly requested an ESOL placement for 
her advanced field experience upon returning to the United States and her program. Shauna’s MT 
was a bilingual Latina, and Spanish and English were frequently used interchangeably in the 
classroom among the adults and students. Their classroom was also supported part-time by a 
paraprofessional who was bilingual in English and Mandarin. Among the students in the class, six 
languages were spoken. However, more than half of the students were Spanish speakers. 

Shauna and her MT’s frequent use of Spanish in their classroom is what initially triggered 
her inquiry. She recalled a puzzling encounter with a student whose primary language was Arabic. 
He greeted her one morning in Spanish and then stated that he wished he could speak Spanish. 
This interaction made Shauna wonder how students who did not speak Spanish experienced its 
frequent use in their classroom, especially because of her inability to communicate in the other 
students’ L1. She believed that this discrepancy was likely a common dilemma for teachers 
supporting linguistically diverse students, though she had not previously considered how to 
approach it. Shauna wondered how she could provide more L1 support for students whose primary 
language she could not speak, and like Kimberly, drew from practitioner literature and resources 
on translanguaging pedagogy (e.g., a translanguaging guide for educators; Celic & Seltzer, 2013) 
as a guide to her practice.  

Closely examining the inquiry experiences of Kimberly and Shauna provided important 
insight related to understanding the implementation of this practice to support EBs. Several 
exciting opportunities emerged, both for the teacher candidate as well as for the MT. However, the 
use of practitioner inquiry to support teacher candidates to develop effective practice for EBs is 
not without challenges. These opportunities and challenges center around: (a) bridging coursework 
and practice through the inquiry process, (b) the teacher candidates’ preparedness to implement 
practitioner inquiry, and (c) the frequency of practitioner inquiry’s use in practice. 
 



Chapman, Morris, & Green 41 
 

Bridging Coursework and Practice 
One of the most exciting opportunities related to practitioner inquiry is the teacher candidates’ 
ability to build on the knowledge gained in their formal ESOL coursework. Practitioner inquiry 
allows teacher candidates to strategically “try out” practices from their coursework in order to 
determine what works and for whom. Through the inquiry process, Kimberly found that she 
initially had misconceptions about adopting a translanguaging pedagogy in her classroom. For 
example, she believed translanguaging necessitated a common spoken language between teacher 
and student. With support from her supervisor, using the practitioner literature base as a data source 
and useful resource helped her identify and remediate these misconceptions in ways that extended 
her knowledge and ability to implement in practice with all EBs regardless of language 
background. Shauna, too, drew heavily from her prior ESOL coursework in conceptualizing her 
research action plan and potential data collection sources, a part of the process that effectively 
provided her with insight into her wondering (Dana, 2015). Through their respective inquiries, 
both teacher candidates demonstrated “critical competencies of a professional educator as they 
practice a cycle of assessment, planning, and implementation based upon data collected in the 
classroom” (p. 208). 

However, because the students’ inquiry experiences were formally tied to participation in 
a practicum and its corresponding seminar course, it was easy for some students to equate inquiry 
with an assignment or project rather than as “stance” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). While 
Kimberly and Shauna appeared to embrace this notion in their written and oral reflections, 
Schroeder (2020) advised all teacher preparation programs to make this distinction an explicit goal 
of the inquiry process. The seminar supervisor is an integral part in meeting this need. Supervisors 
must be aware of this potential misconception to combat it. Streamlining expectations—focusing 
on the process rather than compliance—and fostering ongoing and reflective dialogue can help 
students to differentiate a course assignment from an approach to practice (Schroeder, 2020). 

Another potential challenge relates to power dynamics and decision-making, resulting 
from the teacher candidates’ unique positioning as guests within the classroom space (Phillips & 
Carr, 2009). While this challenge did not affect Shauna’s inquiry experience, Kimberly found 
herself making decisions about her own practice that were at times contradictory to the preferences 
of her MT. These disagreements centered on the MTs preference to uphold a traditional, English-
only approach in the classroom space versus Kimberly’s insistence on a translanguaging pedagogy. 
This discrepancy reflected broader shifts in language pedagogy and policy and illustrated 
Kimberly’s ability to disrupt monolingual approaches that she is likely to encounter again in the 
field (Menken & Sánchez, 2019). Likewise, the high-stakes accountability context can pose similar 
barriers to implementation (Schroeder, 2020), something experienced by Shauna when working 
with her third-grade students. She encountered a heavy emphasis on test preparation and 
supporting EBs in developing strategies to navigate the state assessment when the content is 
incomprehensible. 
 
Preparedness to Implement  
Embedding practitioner inquiry within advanced field experiences in formal teacher preparation 
programs equips teacher candidates with a highly specialized and useful skillset that they can 
utilize across their career span. Done well, teacher candidates enter the field as reflective educators 
equipped to systematically use data to inform and enhance their practice. Practitioner inquiry can 
serve teacher candidates as a professional learning tool as they continue to develop their practice. 
Building a cadre of reflective educators who are prepared to adopt inquiry as a stance also 



42 GATESOL Journal 31(1)  
 

necessitates well-prepared faculty who can facilitate and coach this process. In this way, the 
practitioner inquiry experience builds a community of practice not just among teacher candidates 
engaging in the process, but among teacher candidates coaching it as well. 

At the same time, several researchers (e.g., Phillips & Carr, 2009; Schroeder, 2020) have 
raised critical questions about the effectiveness and trustworthiness of practitioner inquiry among 
preservice teachers. They raise crucial questions about teacher candidates’ preparedness to 
implement systematic and intentional inquiry that improves academic outcomes for students, 
including EBs. While the supervisor is intended to scaffold the process, it is worth noting that often 
supervisory teams are interdisciplinary. While they may be well-equipped to coach the inquiry 
process, they may have less expertise in particular disciplines (e.g., ESOL, special education) or 
content areas that would enhance their ability to offer suggestions about best pedagogical practice. 
Collaboration within and among the supervision team must play a central role in rectifying these 
gaps. 
 
Frequency of Use in Practice 
While many teachers do not frequently engage in practitioner inquiry in the classroom (Cole, 
2020), Shauna’s engagement in the inquiry process served as an invitation for her MT to do the 
same. Though Shauna initiated the process through the identification of an initial wondering, the 
two collaboratively used what they were learning about their students to make data-informed 
decisions (Cole, 2020). On the one hand, their collaborative approach speaks to the potential spread 
of the practice within classrooms partnered with university field experiences. At the same time, 
their dynamic was unique in that Shauna’s MT was a graduate of the same teacher preparation 
program and was therefore somewhat familiar with the practice from the start. A bigger question 
arises, then, as to why the MT did not choose to continue engaging in practitioner inquiry as a 
professional learning tool. It is also not clear if changes to the support provided to teacher 
candidates in using practitioner inquiry would have increased the frequency of use in practice by 
Shauna’s MT and other earlier graduates of the program. 

There are often logistical challenges (e.g., time, training support; Cole, 2020) to the 
implementation of practitioner inquiry among practicing teachers, especially when considering the 
varied and numerous demands and expectations placed on teachers. Some teachers may also be 
under the misconception that research activities are irrelevant to their practice (Kezar, 2000) or 
feel unprepared. As a result, MTs are often not prepared to support the inquiry process with their 
students. In Kimberly’s case, her MT took a hands-off approach to the inquiry process. Kimberly 
engaged in the inquiry cycle nearly independently within the classroom, instead drawing from her 
peers and supervisor during meetings and when attending seminar. It is unclear if the MT was 
unwilling or unable to support Kimberly through the implementation of practitioner inquiry within 
the classroom. 
 
Recommendations 
All teachers must accept the responsibility for creating and sustaining learning environments that 
foster success for culturally and linguistically diverse students, and EBs in particular. Thus, teacher 
educators play a critical role in preparing teacher candidates who are equity minded (Bensimon, 
2012). Practitioner inquiry can be a useful tool in teacher education in that it provides structured 
opportunities for teacher candidates to reflect on their role in disrupting educational disparities and 
inequities for EBs (Ching, 2018). Even more promising, practitioner inquiry provides an avenue 
for teacher candidates to reflect critically and intentionally on the extent to which their current 



Chapman, Morris, & Green 43 
 

practices effectively meet the unique and nuanced needs of the EBs in their classroom. Considering 
the opportunities and challenges presented, we conclude with three recommendations for teacher 
educators looking to implement practitioner inquiry with their preservice teacher candidates in 
ESOL placements. 

First, we recommend providing multiple opportunities for collaboration centered on 
inquiry and best practice for EBs. This collaboration should be facilitated amongst and between 
varied stakeholders (e.g., supervisor to supervisor, peer to peer, teacher candidate to MT, teacher 
candidate to supervisor). Collaboration between the supervisor and MT centered on practitioner 
inquiry may also be particularly useful. This type of collaboration can help build school-university 
partnerships and bring practitioner inquiry into more classrooms as an equity-driven professional 
development tool that centers the experiences of EBs in the classroom. It can also leverage the 
specific content and pedagogical expertise of the MT (e.g., in ESOL pedagogy) to guide 
pedagogically sound practice that is reflective of the home languages and cultural backgrounds of 
the students in the classroom (Baker, 2019). In exchange, the supervisor serves as a support for 
practitioner inquiry and coaching its implementation in the classroom. 

Second, it may be helpful to provide teacher candidates with structured support to guide 
the implementation and documentation processes by providing a structured journal for students to 
reflect on initial wonderings, field notes, pictures of student artifacts, and relevant literature from 
their coursework. The journal can also house additional guidance (e.g., reminders related to data 
analysis procedures, expectations related to timelines, visuals of the inquiry cycle) and other 
resources on both the inquiry process (e.g., embedded links and videos, examples from previous 
semesters) as well as best practices in ESOL taught in program coursework. Using a shared, virtual 
platform like those available in the Google Suite (e.g., Google Slides, Google Docs) integrated 
within an existing Learning Management System (e.g., Canvas) allows supervisors to monitor the 
implementation process and provide asynchronous feedback to students using comment features, 
an ideal space to pose questions or seek clarification related to students’ entries. This asynchronous 
feedback can be teamed with ongoing, synchronous discussion and professional development that 
may occur through field experience seminars or other relevant meetings in order to provide robust 
and comprehensive support for the teacher candidates on practitioner inquiry and ESOL pedagogy. 
These discussions and opportunities for feedback are crucial in ensuring teacher candidates are 
engaging in practitioner inquiry from an asset-oriented (Schroeder, 2020) view of diversity, 
bilingualism, and EBs (Baker, 2019). 

Finally, we encourage other teacher educators to engage in their own practitioner inquiry 
cycles, echoing Campbell’s (2013) call to lead by example. Campbell (2013) noted the “unique 
position of teacher educators to address the research/practice divide” (p. 3), highlighting the power 
teacher educators hold in preparing teacher candidates who are equipped to do the same. Likewise, 
through studying their own practice, teacher educators can model how they identify and respond 
to challenges they encounter (e.g., providing pedagogical support and feedback in areas outside of 
their primary expertise). In this way, teacher educators can make visible and transparent what it 
means to engage in equity-minded (Ching, 2018) risk taking and reflection that is the core of the 
practitioner inquiry process. We encourage other teacher educators to develop inter- and intra-
institution communities of collaborative practice centered on practitioner inquiry to support EBs, 
fostering the collaboration we hope that teacher candidates will emulate in their own practice. 
 
 
 



44 GATESOL Journal 31(1)  
 

References 
 
Athanases, S. Z., & De Oliveira, L. C. (2008). Advocacy for equity in classrooms and beyond: 

New teachers’ challenges and responses. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 64–104. 
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ825484 

Athanases, S. Z., Bennett, L. H., & Wahleithner, J. M. (2015). Adaptive teaching for English 
language arts: Following the pathway of classroom data in preservice teacher inquiry. 
Journal of Literacy Research, 47(1), 83–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X15590915 

Baker, M. (2019). Playing, talking, co-constructing: Exemplary teaching for young dual language 
learners across program types. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(1), 115–130. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0903-0 

Bensimon, E. M. (2012). The Equity Scorecard: Theory of change. In E. M. Bensimon & L. 
Malcom (Eds.), Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the Equity Scorecard 
in theory and practice (pp. 17–44). Stylus. 

Bollin, G. G. (2007). Preparing teachers for Hispanic immigrant children: A service learning 
approach. Journal of Latinos and Education, 6(2), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15348430701305028 

Callahan, R., Gautsch, L., Hopkins, M., & Carmen Unda, M. D. (2020). Equity and state immigrant 
inclusivity: English learner education in ESSA. Educational Policy. Advance online 
publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820925819 

Campbell, K. H. (2013). A call to action: Why we need more practitioner research. Democracy 
and Education, 21(2), 1–8. https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol21/iss2/7 

Castro, A. J. (2010). Themes in the research on preservice teachers’ views of cultural diversity: 
Implications for researching millennial preservice teachers. Educational Researcher, 
39(3), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10363819 

Celic, C., & Seltzer, K. (2013). Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. 
https://www.cuny-nysieb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Translanguaging-Guide-
March-2013.pdf 

Ching, C. D. (2018). Confronting the equity “learning problem” through practitioner inquiry. The 
Review of Higher Education, 41(3), 387–421. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0013 

Coady, M., Harper, C., & de Jong, E. (2011). From preservice to practice: Mainstream elementary 
teacher beliefs of preparation and efficacy with English language learners in the state of 
Florida. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(2), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882. 
2011.597823 

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next 
generation. Teachers College Press. 

Cole, A. M. (2020). Encouraging practitioner research engagement: Overcoming barriers. Journal 
of Practitioner Research, 5(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5038/2379-9951.5.2.1165 

Dana, N. F. (2013) Digging deeper into action research: A teacher inquirer’s field guide. Corwin. 
Dana, N. F. (2015). Understanding inquiry as stance: Illustration and analysis of one teacher 

researcher’s work. Learning Landscapes, 8(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.36510/
learnland.v8i2.702 

Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2019). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research: 
Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Corwin. 

Dana, N. F., Thomas, C., & Boynton, S. (2011). Inquiry: A districtwide approach to staff and 
student learning. Corwin. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387505 

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ825484
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X15590915
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0903-0
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348430701305028
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348430701305028
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820925819
https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol21/iss2/7
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10363819
https://www.cuny-nysieb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Translanguaging-Guide-March-2013.pdf
https://www.cuny-nysieb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Translanguaging-Guide-March-2013.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0013
https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2011.597823
https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2011.597823
https://doi.org/10.5038/2379-9951.5.2.1165
https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v8i2.702
https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v8i2.702
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387505


Chapman, Morris, & Green 45 
 

Delane, D., Hooser, A., Richner, M., Wolkenhauer, R., Colvin, S., & Dana, N. F. (2017). 
Practitioner inquiry as the anchor of clinical practice throughout the teacher preparation 
program. In R. Flessner & D. R. Lecklider (Eds.), The power of clinical preparation in 
teacher education (pp. 69–85). Rowman and Littlefield. 

García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A. 
Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson, & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual education 
for social justice: Globalising the local (pp. 128–145). Orient Blackswan.  

Ginns, I., Heirdsfield, A., Atweh, B., & Watters, J. J. (2001). Beginning teachers becoming 
professionals through action research. Educational Action Research, 9(1), 111–133. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790100200140 

Hooker, S., Fix, M., & McHugh, M. (2014). Education reform in a changing Georgia. Migration 
Policy Institute. https://bit.ly/3ejI5Ap 

Kezar, A. J. (2000). Higher education research at the millennium: Still trees without fruit? The 
Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 443–468. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2000.0018 

Kleyn, T., & García, O. (2019). Translanguaging as an act of transformation: Restructuring 
teaching and learning for emergent bilingual students. In L. C. de Oliveira (Ed.), The 
handbook of TESOL in K–12 (pp. 69–82). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781119421702.ch6 

Linville, H. A. (2020). A closer look at ESOL teacher advocacy: What we do and why. TESOL 
Journal, 11(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.508 

Loeffler, M. (2007). NCELA fast FAQ 4: What languages do ELLs speak? National Clearinghouse 
for English-Language Acquisition and Language Instruction. 

Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the 
foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 98–109. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770327 

Ma, V. W., Dana, N. F., Adams, A., & Kennedy, B. L. (2018). Understanding the problem of 
practice: An analysis of professional practice EdD dissertations. Impacting Education: 
Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 3(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.5195/
ie.2018.50 

Menken, K., & Sánchez, M. T. (2019). Translanguaging in English‐only schools: From pedagogy 
to stance in the disruption of monolingual policies and practices. TESOL Quarterly, 53(3), 
741–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.513 

Nguyen, D., Harris, A., & Ng, D. (2019). A review of the empirical research on teacher leadership 
(2003–2017): Evidence, patterns and implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 
58(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2018-0023 

Phillips, D. K., & Carr, K. (2009). Dilemmas of trustworthiness in preservice teacher action 
research. Action Research, 7(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750308097027 

Reeves, J. (2010). Looking again at add‐on ESOL certification. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 354–
364. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.222216 

Sánchez, M. T., García, O., & Solorza, C. (2018). Reframing language allocation policy in dual 
language bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15235882.2017.1405098  

Schroeder, S. (2020). “Bad inquiry”: How accountability, power, and deficit thinking hinder pre-
service practitioner inquiry. Journal of Practitioner Research, 5(1), Article 1. https://
doi.org/10.5038/2164-0866.5.1.1122 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790100200140
https://bit.ly/3ejI5Ap
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2000.0018
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119421702.ch6
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119421702.ch6
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.508
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770327
https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2018.50
https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2018.50
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.513
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2018-0023
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750308097027
https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.222216
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1080/15235882.2017.1405098
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1080/15235882.2017.1405098
https://doi.org/10.5038/2164-0866.5.1.1122
https://doi.org/10.5038/2164-0866.5.1.1122


46 GATESOL Journal 31(1)  
 

Schroeder, S., & Currin, E. (2019). Syncing our cycles: An inquiry-based coaching model for 
distant supervision. Journal of Practitioner Research, 4(1), Article 6. https://doi.org/
10.5038/2379-9951.4.1.1098 

Smolcic, E., & Katunich, J. (2017). Teachers crossing borders: A review of the research into 
cultural immersion field experience for teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 62, 47–
59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.11.002 

Sugarman, J., & Geary, C. (2018). English learners in Georgia: Demographics, outcomes, and 
state accountability policies. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/
sites/default/files/publications/EL-factsheet2018-Georgia_Final.pdf 

Torres, K. M., Arrastia-Chisholm, M. C., & Tackett, S. (2019). A phenomenological study of 
preservice teachers’ perceptions of completing ESOL field placements. International 
Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development, 2(2), 85–101. https:// 
doi.org/10.4018/IJTEPD.2019070106 

 
____________________________________________________________________________ 
 

Received: January 28, 2021 | Accepted: April 6, 2021 | Published: July 30, 2021 

https://doi.org/10.5038/2379-9951.4.1.1098
https://doi.org/10.5038/2379-9951.4.1.1098
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.11.002
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/%E2%80%8Csites/default/files/publications/EL-factsheet2018-Georgia_Final.pdf
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/%E2%80%8Csites/default/files/publications/EL-factsheet2018-Georgia_Final.pdf

	GATESOL Journal2021, Vol. 31(1), pp. 36–46
	Supporting Practitioner Inquiry in Teacher Education: Opportunities and Challenges in ESOL Contexts
	doi:10.52242/gatesol.116
	ISSN: 2331-6845

