Working Toward Linguistically and Culturally Responsive Math Teaching through a Year-Long Urban Teacher Training Program for English Learners




activity theory, in-service teachers, LCRMT, teaching competences, urban education


This qualitative study examined how participating in-service teachers demonstrated linguistically and culturally responsive mathematical teaching (LCRMT) competences after they completed a year-long National Professional Development Program grant-funded project. A two-dimensional LCRMT framework was developed to measure participating teachers’ mathematical and mathematics-related competences. The qualitative data source was from three in-service teachers’ observations and interviews. The interview and observation data were analyzed using open and axial coding and activity systems. Three themes emerged: 1) mathematics-related content teaching practices, 2) tools to support mathematics learning, and 3) teachers’ mindsets and attitudes towards English Learner (EL) teaching. The researchers then compared verbatim examples using activity systems to examine the following research question: How did participating urban in-service teachers apply linguistically and culturally responsive mathematics teaching competences for ELs learned at a university EL teacher training program to their actual mathematics teaching in the classroom? The results, in general, indicated that the urban in-service teachers demonstrated improvement of LCRMT strategies that they used in their actual mathematics teaching after they completed the university training. However, challenges in the areas of mathematical discourse competences and teachers’ sociocultural beliefs toward ELs revealed the need for ongoing professional support.

Author Biography

Sarah Coppersmith, University of Missouri - St. Louis

Adjunct Professor at Department of Educator Preparation and Leadership, University of Missouri - St. Louis.


Aguirre, J., Zavala, M., & Katanyoutanant, T. (2012). Developing robust forms of pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through culturally responsive mathematics teaching analysis. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 14(2), 113–136.

Austin, T. (2009). Linguicism and race in the United States: Impact on teacher education from past to present. In R. Kubota & A. M. Y. Lin (Eds.), Race, culture, and identities in second language education: Exploring critically engaged practice (pp. 252–270). Routledge.

Bonner, E., & Adams, T. (2012). Culturally responsive teaching in the context of mathematics: A grounded theory case study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(1), 25–38.

Bunch, G. (2010). Preparing mainstream secondary content-area teachers to facilitate English language learners' development of academic language. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 109(2), 351–383.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.

Charmaz, K. (2010). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In W. Luttrell (Ed.), Qualitative educational research: Readings in reflexive methodology and transformative practice (pp. 183–207). Routledge.

Crouch, E. (2015, October 4). Vexing problems. St. Louis Post Dispatch, A1, A7.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.

Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. In C. T. Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp. 7–54). Delta Systems.

Forbes, C. T., Madeira, C., Davis, E. A., & Slotta, J. D. (2009, April 13–17). Activity-theoretical research on science teachers’ learning: Challenges and opportunities [Paper presentation]. 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, United States.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Gee. J. P. (2016). The vexed nature of language learning and teaching. In R. H. Jones & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Creativity in language teaching (pp. 63–76). Routledge.

González, J. M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). New concepts for new challenges: Professional development for teachers of immigrant youth. Delta Systems; Center for Applied Linguistics.

Gorard, S. (2013). Research design: Creating robust approaches for the social sciences. SAGE.

Grossman, P., Schoenfeld, A., & Lee, C. (2005). Teaching subject matter. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 201-231). Jossey-Bass.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.

Hardman, J. (2015). Pedagogical variation with computers in mathematics classrooms: A cultural historical activity theory analysis. Psychology in Society, 48, 47–76.

Horn, I. S., Nolan, S. B, Ward, C., & Campbell, S. S. (2008). Developing practices in multiple worlds: The role of identity in learning to teach. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(3), 61–72.

Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1010–1038.

Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2009). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. The MIT Press.

Kersaint, G., Thompson, D. R., & Petkova, M. (2009). Teaching mathematics to English language learners. Routledge.

Kim, S., Song, K., & Coppersmith, S. (2018). Creating an interactive virtual community of linguistically and culturally responsive content teaching-learners to serve English learners. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 442–466.

Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use. Heinemann.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84.

Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice-Hall.

Liggett, T. (2014). The mapping of a framework: Critical race theory and TESOL. The Urban Review, 46(1), 112–124.

Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2010). The missing piece in teacher education: The preparation of linguistically responsive teachers. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 109(2), 297–318.

Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M, & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373.

Moll, L. C. (2015). Tapping into the “hidden” home and community resources of students. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 51(3), 114-117.

Moschkovich, J. (2012). Mathematics, the Common Core, and language: Recommendations for mathematics instruction for ELs aligned with the Common Core. In Proceedings of the Understanding Language Conference: Language, literacy, and learning in the content areas (pp. 17–31). Stanford University.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for teaching mathematics.

Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pappamihiel, N. E. (2002). English as a second language students and English language anxiety: Issues in the mainstream classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36, 327–355.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (2nd ed.). SAGE.

Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Richards, J. (2013). Creativity in language teaching (EJ1127396). ERIC.

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(2), 139–159.

Shank, G. D. (2006). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach (2nd ed.). Pearson.

Song, K., & Coppersmith, S. (2017, April 27–May 1). Training linguistically and culturally responsive mathematics teachers versus teaching mathematics to English learners: LCRMT model [Paper presentation]. 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX, United States.

Song, K. H., & Simons, J. D. (2014). Beyond Gardner: A pilot case study assessing teachers’ linguistic intelligence. NYS TESOL Journal, 1(1), 66–81.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.

Swars, S. L., Hart, L. C., & Dumas, H. (2015). A mixed methods study of “Teach for America” teachers’ mathematical beliefs, knowledge, and classroom teaching practices during a re-form-based university mathematics methods course. SRATE Journal, 24(2), 25–39.

Tran, Y. K. (2014). Professional development and teacher efficacy: Contexts of what, when, and how in serving ELLs. Multicultural Education Review, 6(2), 81–116.

Turner, E. E., & Drake, C. (2016). A review of research on prospective teachers' learning about children's mathematical thinking and cultural funds of knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(1), 32–46.

Uribe-Flórez, L. J., Araujo, B., Franzak, M., & Writer, J. H. (2014). Mathematics, power, and language: Implications from lived experiences to empower English learners. Action in Teacher Education, 36(3), 234–246.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M. L., & Koh, C. (2012). Sub-dimensions of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence: Expanding the conceptualization and measurement of cultural intelligence. Social and Personality Psychology Com-pass, 6(4), 295–313.

van Ek, J. A. (1986). Objectives for foreign language learning. Manhattan Publishing Company.

World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment. (n.d.). WIDA: Can do descriptors.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. Springer.