Academic Language, English Language Learners, and Systemic Functional Linguistics: Connecting Theory and Practice in Teacher Education

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by SANS

Academic language instruction for English language learners is framed as a key component of teacher education, especially in California and Nevada. The text argues that teachers need knowledge of academic language grammar, vocabulary, and discourse structures to design language-focused scaffolding that accelerates ELLs’ academic literacy development. Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) is presented as a practical theory and metalanguage for identifying language patterns in content areas and embedding them into classroom practice and teacher preparation, with examples from science, mathematics, and history.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages22

Reading Time55 min

AccessFree to download

Overview of academic language demands

Teacher knowledge of language (KOL)

Role of systemic functional linguistics (SFL)

Impact on teacher knowledge and instruction design

Purpose and scope of the article

Definitions and practical applications

SFL for analyzing academic language

Examples from science, mathematics, and history

Academic Language, English Language Learners, and Systemic Functional Linguistics: Connecting Theory and Practice in Teacher Education Teacher educators need linguistic tools to help preservice teachers develop a deeper understanding of the academic language demands ofthe literacy practices required by the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) serves as a tool for developing teachers’ knowledge of content-area language. Teachers’ increased knowledge of language facilitates the construction of language-focused instruction to support the academic literacy development of English language learners. I introduce SFL theory and illustrate how I put the theory into practice to support the literacy development of beginning-level English language learners in a middle school classroom. I include recommendations for teachers and teacher educators regarding how to embed the theory in classroom practice and teacher preparation. Ensuring that new teachers possess a comprehensive under standing of the academic language demands ofthe content area they teach remains an important facet of teacher preparation in California and Nevada. Research indicates that if teachers have a strong knowledge of academic language, including the grammar, vocabulary, and distinctive discourse structure of the texts that typically appear in their content areas, they are better equipped to design language-focused, instructional scaffolding that will potentially accelerate the academic literacy development of English language learners (ELLs) (Fenwick, Humphrey, Quinn, & Endicott, 2014; Gebhard, Willett, Jimenez, & Piedra, 2010; Schleppegrell, 2012) . However, recent research indicates that teachers do not have the sufficient knowledge of language (KOL) necessary to integrate academic language instruc The CATESOL Journal 27.1 • 2015 • 109 tion effectively into their routine teaching practice (Gebhard, Chen, Graham, & Gunawam, 2013; Macken-Horarik, Love, & Unsworth, 2011; Rose & Martin, 2012) . Therefore, teacher educators need to foster KOL within teacher-preparation programs to ensure that future teachers can identify the language patterns and rhetorical structures prevalent in the content areas they teach, so that future teachers may design instruction to make those linguistic features visible to ELLs. Consequently, for teacher educators to apprentice future teachers in designing effective academic language instruction, they must have a deep understanding of academic language themselves. Systemic functional linguistic (SFL) theory may hold the key for teacher educators who want to support preservice teachers in developing deeper KOL. For two decades, educational linguists in Australia have turned to SFL to better understand how language works in the content areas and to develop a metalanguage for talking about academic language with students, teachers, and teacher educators (Gibbons, 2012; Macken-Horarik et al., 2011) . Research throughout Australia, and more recently in North America, indicates that integrating SFL into teacher professional development and preparation can have a significant impact on developing teachers’ knowledge of language and positively affect the teachers’ ability to design instruction that supports the academic literacy development of ELLs (Brisk, 2014; Fenwick et al., 2014; Gebhard et al., 2013; Rose & Martin, 2012) . Although these initial findings suggest a potential positive impact of integrating SFL into teacher preparation and professional development, a barrier to reproducing similar results in the US is that not all teacher educators have sufficient knowledge of SFL to integrate the theory effectively into existing teacher-preparation or professionaldevelopment programs. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to bridge this theoretical knowledge gap in teacher education by providing an introduction to SFL, defining some of its key terms and concepts, and illustrating how the t

FAQs

Why does teacher education emphasize academic language demands for content-area teaching?

Because teachers with strong knowledge of academic language can design language-focused instructional scaffolding that supports ELLs’ academic literacy development more effectively.

How does the text define systemic functional linguistics (SFL) for teacher preparation?

SFL is described as a theory and metalanguage that helps educators explain how language works in content areas and make academic language patterns visible to learners.

What challenges in academic language are highlighted using SFL examples from different subjects?

The text points to lexical complexity driven by nominalizations and passive voice in science, dense noun phrases in mathematics, and appraisal resources and agency-reducing nominalizations in history.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by SANS