Critical SFL Praxis Principles in English Language Arts Education: Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Reflective Practice

  • Mariana AchugarEmail author
  • Brian D. Carpenter
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 33)


This chapter describes a critical SFL praxis approach for English Language Arts pre-service teacher education that focuses on the development of conceptual tools to foster productive disciplinary engagement. Teachers need to develop an adaptive expertise to guide their decisions in the classroom. The appropriation of conceptual tools contributes to the development of adaptive expertise required by responsive teachers in multilingual classrooms. We present examples of the educational experience of pre-service teachers to illustrate how in these activities learners “use grammar to think” (Halliday MAK, On grammar and grammatics. In: Webster J (ed) On grammar: volume 1: the collected works of M.A.K Halliday. London, Continuum, pp 384–417, 2002 ). These activities incorporate the analysis, reflection, abstract conceptualization and application of authentic language use, grammar in the wild. Pre-service teachers see critical SFL conceptual tools in action and engage in analysis through supportive activities with expert facilitation. The conclusion provides an outline of the research project exploring the continuation of this teacher education during the practicum experience.


SFL critical praxis English Language Arts Grammar Conceptual tools Pre-service teacher education 


  1. Achugar, M., & Carpenter, B. (2012). Developing disciplinary literacy in a multilingual history classroom. Linguistics and Education, 23, 262–276. doi: http://dx.doiorg/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.002Google Scholar
  2. Achugar, M., & Carpenter, B. (2014). Tracking movement toward academic language in multilingual classrooms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 60–71. doi:
  3. American College Testing [ACT]. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Accessed 23 Nov 2014.
  4. American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Educational Disparities. (2012). Ethnic and racial disparities in education: Psychology’s contributions to understanding and reducing disparities. Accessed 16 Nov 2014.
  5. Borko, H., Liston, D., & Whitcomb, J. (2008). The teacher educator’s role in enhancing teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 111–116. doi: 10.1177/0022487108317803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (2006). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter, B., Achugar, M., Walter, D., & Earhardt, M. (2015). Developing teachers’ critical language awareness: A case study of guided participation. Linguistics and Education, 32, 82-97. doi:
  9. Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  10. Common Core State Standards Initiative. n.d.. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.
  11. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does “Scientifically-based research” actually tell us? American Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.Google Scholar
  14. Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to functional linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  15. Engeström, R. (2014). The interplay of developmental and dialogical epistemologies. Outlines-Critical Practice Studies, 15(2), 119–138.Google Scholar
  16. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners’ classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  19. Gebhard, M. (2010). Teacher education in changing times: A systemic functional linguistics (SFL) perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 4, 797–803. doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.237335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halliday, M. A. K. (1964). The users and uses of language. In M. A. K. Halliday, A. McIntosh, & P. Strevens (Eds.), The linguistic sciences and language teaching (pp. 75–110). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Halliday, M. A. K. (2002). On grammar and Grammatics. In J. Webster (Ed.), On grammar: Volume 1, The Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday (pp. 384–417). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  22. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Hancock, C. (2005). Meaning centered grammar. SUNY, Albany: Equinox.Google Scholar
  24. Hasan, R. (1996a). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 377–424). Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  25. Hasan, R. (1996b). Ways of saying: Ways of meaning. In C. Cloran, D. Butt, & G. Williams (Eds.), Ways of saying: Ways of meaning. Selected papers of Ruqaiya Hasan (pp. 191–242). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  26. Hasan, R. (1996c). What kind of resource is language? In C. Cloran, D. Butt, & G. Williams (Eds.), Ways of saying: Ways of meaning. Selected papers of Ruqaiya Hasan (pp. 13–36). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  27. Hasan, R. (2004). Reading picture reading: A study in ideology and inference. In J. A. Foley (Ed.), Language, education and discourse: Functional approaches (pp. 43–75). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  28. Johnstone, B. (2013). Speaking Pittsburghese: The story of a dialect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Macken-Horarik, M., Sandiford, C., Love, K., & Unsworth, L. (2015). New ways of working ‘with grammar in mind’ in school English: Insights from systemic functional grammatics. Linguistics and Education, 31, 145–158. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2015.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McConachie, S., & Apodaca, R. (2010). Embedding disciplinary literacy: Leadership and professional learning. In S. McConachie & A. Petrosky (Eds.), Content matters: A disciplinary literacy approach to improving student learning (pp. 163–196). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  32. Nocon, H., & Robinson, E. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ appropriation of conceptual tools. Outline-Critical Practice Studies, 15(12), 93–118.Google Scholar
  33. Resnick, L. (2010). Foreword. In S. McConachie & A. Petrosky (Eds.), Content matters: A disciplinary literacy approach to improving student learning (pp. vii–viii). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  34. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling. A functional linguistic perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Tellez, K., & Waxman, H. (2005). Quality teachers for English language learners. Prepared for the laboratory for student success. Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education. Accessed 22 Nov 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Modern LanguagesCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of EnglishIndiana University of PennsylvaniaIndianaUSA

Personalised recommendations