Critical SFL Praxis Among Teacher Candidates: Using Systemic Functional Linguistics in K-12 Teacher Education

  • Luciana C. de OliveiraEmail author
  • Mary A. Avalos
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 33)


Drawing on examples of how two teacher educators have developed a critical SFL approach to teacher education, this chapter discusses specific principles of critical SFL to guide analysis of texts in the content areas and planning instruction that integrates these principles. It shows how we have prepared elementary and secondary teachers to use CSFL to plan instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students, especially English language learners. The chapter concludes by providing some reflections on this process and a few guidelines for teacher educators to integrate this approach into teacher education programs.


Critical systemic functional linguistics Principles of CSFL English Language learners K-12 Teacher education Elementary teachers Secondary teachers Planning instruction 


  1. Athanases, S. Z., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2011). Toward program-wide coherence in preparing teachers to teach and advocate for English language learners. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 195–215). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Avalos, M. A., Medina, E., & Secada, W. (2015). Planning for instruction: Increasing multilingual learners’ access to algebraic word problems and visual graphics. In A. Bright, H. Hansen-Thomas, & L. C. de Oliveira (Eds.), The common Core state standards in mathematics and English language learners: High school (pp. 5–28). Alexandria: TESOL Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, A. L., & Butler, F. A. (2002). An evidentiary framework for operationalizing academic language for broad application to K-12 education: A design document. In Center for the Study of evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Los Angeles: Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California.Google Scholar
  4. Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37, 298-341. doi:  10.3102/0091732X12461772
  5. Carpenter, B., Achugar, M., Walter, D., Earhart, M. (2015). Developing teachers’ critical language awareness: A case study of guided participation. Linguistics and Education, 32, 82-97. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2015.03.016
  6. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  7. Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  8. Daniello, F. (2014). Elementary grade teachers using systemic functional linguistics to inform genre-based writing instruction. In L. C. de Oliveira & J. Iddings (Eds.), Genre pedagogy across the curriculum: Theory and application in U.S. classrooms and contexts (pp. 40–54). Bristol: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Oliveira, L. C. (2010). Nouns in history: Packaging information, expanding explanations, and structuring reasoning. The History Teacher, 43(2), 191–203.Google Scholar
  11. de Oliveira, L. C. (2013). The language demands of word problems for English language learners. In S. Celedón-Pattichis & N. Ramirez (Eds.), Beyond good teaching: Advancing mathematics education for ELLs (pp. 195–205). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  12. de Oliveira, L. C., & Lan, S. W. (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: A genre-based approach to teaching English language learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25(1), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Oliveira, L. C., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2015). Focus on grammar and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Derewianka, B. (1991). Exploring how texts work. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association.Google Scholar
  15. Galguera, T. (2011). Participant structures as professional learning tasks and the development of pedagogical language knowledge among preservice teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38, 85–106.Google Scholar
  16. Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to school reforms in the United States. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gee, J. (2002). Literacies, identities and discourses. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 159–175). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  20. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  21. Harman, R., & Simmons, A. (2014). Critical systemic functional linguistics and literary narratives in subject English: Promoting language awareness and social action among K-12 students. In L. C. de Oliveira & J. G. Iddings (Eds.), Genre pedagogy across the curriculum: Theory and application in U.S. classrooms and contexts (pp. 75–91). Bristol: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hodgson-Drysdale, T. (2016). Teaching writing through genres and language. In L. C. de Oliveira & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing in elementary classrooms: Instructional issues, content-area writing, and teacher education (pp. 69–87). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Lucas, T., & Grinberg, J. (2008). Responding to linguistic reality of mainstream classrooms: Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 606–636). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  25. Martin, J. R. (1993). Life as a noun: Arresting the universe in science and humanities. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 221–267). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  26. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2005). Designing literacy pedagogy: Scaffolding asymmetries. In R. Hasan, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen, & J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language (pp. 251–280). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  27. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  28. Massey, D. D. (2015). Reading history: Moving from memorizing facts to critical thinking. In K. L. Santi & D. K. Reed (Eds.), Improving reading comprehension of middle and high school students (pp. 19–47). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. MacDonald, R., & Molle, D. (2015). Creating meaning through key practices in English language arts: Integrating practice, content, language. In L. C. de Oliveira, M. Klassen, & M. Maune (Eds.), The common Core state standards in English language arts for English language learners (pp. 39–52). Alexandria: TESOL Press.Google Scholar
  30. Migration Policy Institute (2015). U.S. Immigrant population and share over time, 1850-present. Retrieved from Access 31 July 2015.
  31. Moschkovich, J. N. (Ed.). (2010). Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research. Charlotte: Information Age.Google Scholar
  32. Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write/reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86–123). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  34. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63(1), 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Unsworth, L. (1999). Developing critical understanding of the specialized language of school science and history texts: A functional grammatical perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(7), 508–521.Google Scholar
  38. Wineburg, S. (1999). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Phi Delta Kappa, 80(7), 658–665.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MiamiMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations