Language Analyses of Multicultural Text Discussions: How Preservice Teachers Reflect on Their Own Talk About Multilingual Texts

Abstract

We present data from a qualitative study examining how one class of preservice teachers (PSTs; n = 34) engaged in book club discussions about young adult literature featuring multilingual text and protagonists. Data focus on audio recordings and written reflection notes from a book club meeting where PSTs were asked to analyze transcripts of their previous book club conversations to explore their stances related to multilingualism. We ask the following questions: (1) What moments of their own previous talk during book club discussions about multilingual texts did PSTs select to analyze, and what reasons did they state for selecting those moments? (2) How did PSTs reflect on these moments during group discussion? and (3) What larger ideologies or discourses were manifested in these reflective discussions? We used descriptive coding to identify the topics of their selected events and rationales for selection, as well as tools of microethnographic and critical discourse analysis to consider how PSTs discussed and reflected on their own and others’ stances and how these conversations pointed to broader ideologies about multilingualism and the experiences of multilingual students.

1. Introduction

Regardless of where they choose to teach, preservice teachers (PSTs) in the United States will likely work with diverse groups of multilingual learners (MLs), or students who have experience speaking two or more languages. Students across the U.S. are increasingly multilingual (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023), with rapid growth in the southeast and other parts of the U.S. that have not historically had large populations of MLs (Carnock, 2017). In contrast to racially and linguistically diversifying student populations, PSTs are predominantly white and female (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021) and largely considered to be English speakers (Schaeffer, 2021; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In addition to this demographic difference, which implies contrasts between the lived experiences of many teachers and their students, all PSTs are products of their own educational experiences and thus breathe the metaphorical “smog” of whiteness (King & Reynolds, 2017) and the supremacy of white mainstream English. Without interrogating ideologies about language, cultural practices, and racial inequities with PSTs, cycles of harm to students of color and MLs will continue (Lazar, 2022; Perry et al., 2022).

As teacher educators working with undergraduate elementary education PSTs, we designed opportunities in an undergraduate course for these PSTs to interrogate their ideologies about diverse student populations. In this paper, we examine an assignment asking PSTs to conduct a language analysis of their own discourse during book club meetings discussing multilingual texts centered on the experiences of bi/multilingual protagonists. We explore how this language analysis prompted reflection about the linguistic and cultural practices of multilingual protagonists. Specifically, we ask the following questions: (1) What moments of their own previous talk during book club discussions about multilingual texts did PSTs select to analyze, and what reasons did they state for selecting those moments? (2) How did PSTs reflect on these moments during group discussion? and (3) What larger ideologies or discourses were manifested in these reflective discussions? In doing so, we seek to understand how PSTs probed (or avoided probing) their ideologies about language and cultural practices in order to begin reversing the normalization of whiteness.

2. Theoretical Framework and Related Literature

To explore how PSTs engage in language analyses, we draw on the theoretical framework of critical reflection. Reflection and reflective practice have been studied at length as practices in-service and preservice teachers take to improve their teaching (Schraw et al., 2017). The ubiquity of reflective practice in teacher education is illustrated by the abundance of assignments engaging PSTs in reflections following field assignments (Seltzer, 2022) and reflection activities based on course readings and course content (e.g., Huth et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2011). Reflection is defined as “a thought, idea, or opinion formed or a remark made as a result of meditation” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.), meaning that it is an individual activity that ends with any type of thought, idea, or opinion. Importantly, reflection goes beyond simply recalling the past or noticing the present and includes deliberate, active consideration of beliefs and supposed knowledge based on evidence (Dewey, 1933; S. Liu et al., 2025).

Extending the idea of reflection, Yolanda Sealey-Ruiz (2022) defines critical reflection as thinking “through the various layers of our identities and how our privileged and marginalized statuses affect the work” (p. 2). The result of critical reflection, then, should consist of a thought, idea, or opinion that takes antiracist stances that question dominant assumptions and cultural norms. Critical reflection is considered to be on one end of the continuum or typology of reflection (Gorski & Dalton, 2020) and is frequently a goal that teacher educators have for PSTs to reach, though movement towards critical reflection often requires time (K. Liu, 2015; O’Flaherty et al., 2025).

Reflection as a Key Element of PST Education

There is a body of literature that examines the importance of reflection and reflective practice in PST education contexts. This body of research frequently positions reflection as a key part of teaching practice and, more specifically, as an integral practice for multicultural and social justice-oriented education, as it has the potential to transform teacher practice (Garcia & O’Donnell-Allen, 2015; Gorski & Dalton, 2020; K. Liu, 2015; Lund & Carr, 2013; Muhammad, 2023). Research on reflection with PSTs ranges from reflecting on teaching practice (Karlström & Hamza, 2023; S. Liu et al., 2025; Rothe & Göbel, 2024) to reflection that is rooted in understanding how teachers’ identities influence their practice (Azevedo et al., 2024a) and to reflection that asks PSTs to consider systems of power and their positionalities in order to take action (Andrews & Leonard, 2023; Azevedo et al., 2024b). This continuum of reflection increases in complexity as teacher educators support PSTs in moving towards critical reflection, which requires knowledge of and willingness to engage in critical conversations about systems of power, like racism, linguicism, sexism, and more (Austin, 2025; Gorski & Dalton, 2020).

Research on critical reflection with PSTs acknowledges the importance of cultivating multilingual and multicultural stances, as they may have a direct impact on teaching practices (Bacon, 2020; Deng & Hayden, 2021; Pontier & Abbasi, 2024; Uzum et al., 2022; Volknant & Licandro, 2024). Efforts to support PSTs with critical reflection about language and language use in order to prepare them to work with linguistically diverse students have included written language reflections or language autobiographies (Austin, 2025; Barros et al., 2021; Lew & Siffrinn, 2019; Pontier, 2022; Shi & Rolstad, 2022), question-posing routines (Rowe et al., 2024; Azevedo et al., 2024a), and reflective course activities like language inventories (Athanases et al., 2019; Banes et al., 2016). In a study by Athanases et al. (2019), researchers designed a course for PSTs with layers of reflection for students to consider their own language use, language use in their community, and how their language use was positioned sociopolitically. After engaging in course content, writing reflections, conducting personal language inventories, privilege inventories, and reflecting through surveys, researchers found that the modeling and inclusion of layers of reflective practice expanded PSTs’ knowledge of language and led to many students taking up multilingual stances, with some rejecting the normalization of white ways with language in written reflections (Athanases et al., 2019). While this is an example of activities that led to critical reflection for PSTs, there is also evidence that critical reflection is difficult to reach for many PSTs, often for those who identify as white and monolingual (Barros et al., 2021; Deng & Hayden, 2021; Pontier, 2022) because it requires reflection on one’s own positionality in relation to larger systems of power, as well as deconstructing ideas of normativity from which those in privileged positions often benefit. This all suggests a need for multiple and diverse approaches to reflection across PST education courses. Specifically, there is a need for teacher educators to include time and space for PSTs to center and reflect on their own raciolinguistic subjectivities, or the interconnectivity between racial and linguistic experiences and identities, and how those impact one’s position as a teacher and student (Daniels & Varghese, 2020; Flores & Rosa, 2015).

Another type of activity that has been explored as a way to promote critical reflection for PSTs is work that asks PSTs to reflect by using tools of discourse analysis to analyze their own speech and teaching actions as a form of reflection. Discourse analysis is typically used in education research as a tool for researchers to analyze teacher and student talk in use (Bloome et al., 2022). There are a few examples of studies that examine how teachers apply tools of discourse analysis to reflect on their teaching practice (Hunt & MacPhee, 2019; Rogers & Mosley, 2013), and a few that specifically explore PSTs applying discourse analysis to reflect on their speech or actions (Schieble et al., 2015; Vetter et al., 2018). Schieble et al. (2015) is a notable example of teacher educators who engaged PSTs in using discourse analysis tools to analyze videos of their own teaching. Acknowledging video analysis as a popular tool for teacher educators, these researchers designed a discourse analysis protocol for PSTs to apply when watching their teaching videos, specifically with the goal of PSTs reflecting on how their words and actions positioned themselves and students. They found that the activity provided unique opportunities for PSTs to reflect on their identities and the impact of their words and actions on students, using concrete evidence based on analysis of their own words and actions (Schieble et al., 2015). Rooting reflective practice in the analysis of one’s own words and actions, then, provides unique opportunities for PSTs to engage in critical reflection, moving past basic reflection by using the discourse analysis tools provided by teacher educators. This study bridges research that seeks to encourage PSTs to adopt multilingual stances and research about the use of discourse analysis tools as a means of critical reflection, which has not yet been explored in teacher education research.

3. Methods

Part of a more extensive qualitative study investigating undergraduate PSTs’ stances towards multilingualism and multiculturalism during book club discussions, this analysis examines the fourth and final day of book club discussions in a course for elementary education undergraduate PSTs. Specifically, this study draws on qualitative methods of data collection and analysis (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2005) to answer the following questions about PSTs’ language analyses during the final book club meeting: (1) What moments of their own previous talk during book club discussions about multilingual texts did PSTs select to analyze, and what reasons did they state for selecting those moments? (2) How did PSTs reflect on these moments during group discussion? and (3) What larger ideologies or discourses were manifested in these reflective discussions?

3.1. Study Context and Participants

The PSTs in this study (n = 34) were students enrolled in a course on literacy instruction for MLs in Spring 2024 at a large public university in the southeastern U.S. This was the only course in their undergraduate sequence dedicated to the teaching and learning of MLs. The class’s makeup was consistent with the university’s college of education demographics, with 94% of PSTs identifying as female (n = 32) and 88% identifying as white (n = 30). Ninety-one percent self-identified as monolingual (n = 31) in an initial course survey, with the primary spoken language being English. Four PSTs in the course identified as African–American or Black, and two PSTs identified as male. Three PSTs identified as multilingual learners, with one calling herself a “subtractive bilingual” (Shin, 2017), once considering herself fluent in two languages, but no longer doing so. Six PSTs in the course reported speaking named languages beyond English, including Spanish, American Sign Language, and French, and one PST had studied German, Korean, Mandarin, Thai, and Japanese. While many PSTs went beyond the initial survey to describe named languages they were familiar with, the dominance of whiteness, monolingual ideologies, and English in American school contexts was evident from the start of the semester, illuminating the need to disrupt whiteness and monolingual ideologies throughout the course.

3.2. Book Clubs and the Language Analysis Activity

The class was a semester-long (16-week) required course with book club discussions taking place during weeks three to six for approximately 25 min each week. PSTs were asked to rank their top four choices of books for the book club. All texts centered on the experiences of a young, multilingual protagonist in the U.S. and were written by authors who identified as members of the same racial, ethnic, and linguistic groups as the text’s protagonist (see

Table 1. Text options for book clubs with short book descriptions.

Title	Author	Book Description
The Poet X	Elizabeth Acevedo	A novel-in-verse narrated by Latina high school student Xiomara Batista, who pours her heart into her poetry as she navigates expectations from her religious parents, budding romance, and coming into her body as a young woman.
Efrén Divided	Ernesto Cisneros	Mexican–American Efrén Nava is in middle school when his family is torn apart by the sudden deportation of his mother, and he steps into roles he never knew he could to bring his family back together.
Everything Sad is Untrue	Daniel Nayeri	Daniel Nayeri relays his experiences moving to Oklahoma in middle school as an Iranian refugee in this memoir that weaves together Persian tales and middle school realities with humor and honesty.
Breathe and Count Back from Ten	Natalia Sylvester	A novel narrated by Peruvian–American high schooler Verónica, who navigates life with hip dysplasia, parental expectations, cultural values, romance, and her desire to become a mermaid at a local theme park.
Ander & Santi Were Here	Jonny Garza Villa	Ander is a nonbinary Mexican–American taking a gap year before college when they meet Santi, and young love blooms until ICE agents come for Santi, leaving Ander to learn the true meaning of home.
Beautiful Country	Qian Julie Wang	This memoir relays Qian’s experience immigrating from China to the United States, detailing the ups and downs of creating a new life while living amidst fear and scarcity in her new country.
Other Words for Home	Jasmine Warga	The novel-in-verse recounts Jude’s experience as a Syrian refugee moving to America with her mother to start a new life, navigating middle school, learning English, and staking a claim for herself.
American Born Chinese	Gene Luen Yang	This graphic novel weaves together three seemingly unrelated tales: one of Chinese–American student Jin, another the fable of the Monkey King, and the last a satire featuring the ultimate negative Chinese stereotypes.
American Street	Ibi Zoboi	Fabiola migrates from Haiti to Detroit with her mother, who is unexpectedly detained when they arrive, and now must navigate her new life with her American family and dangers that seem to lurk around every corner.

Note. Book club texts were selected because they met the following criteria: (1) they were designated by publishers as middle grades or young adult realistic fiction, (2) featured a multilingual protagonist, (3) were set primarily in the United States, (4) included translingual text, and (5) were written by authors who identified as a member of the same racial, ethnic, and linguistic groups as the protagonist. These books were chosen as they represent a range of identities that reflect the varied student populations PSTs may teach.

).

All books included multilingual or translingual text in English and additional languages (Gallagher & Bataineh, 2020), representing the language practices of the story protagonist. PSTs were put in groups (n = 8) with one of their top two book choices. For the first three weeks of book club discussions, PSTs prepared by reading one-third of their book and documenting questions and thoughts through various preparation methods provided by the course instructor (i.e., literature circle roles, thinkmark, and critical literacy questions). All three weeks of book club discussions were recorded using an audio recorder and transcribed using the transcription service Rev.

To prepare for the final book club meeting, PSTs were asked to conduct an analysis of their previous language from their first three book club meetings using the transcripts provided by the course instructor. Specifically, prior to their final book club meeting, PSTs completed a written language analysis document that asked them to (1) read through transcripts of their previous book club discussions, (2) identify a 2–3 min portion of one of their book club discussions that they considered to be a rich point of discussion, (3) copy this transcript portion into a table and analyze it using a provided continuum of stances towards multilingualism and multiculturalism, and (4) answer reflection questions about the moment and their analysis, such as “Why did you pick this moment to analyze?” and “What do you notice about the stances you displayed towards multilingualism/multiculturalism in the transcript?”

During the fourth book club meeting, PSTs then brought their language analysis preparation documents and were invited to do the following during their 25 min of discussion time: (1) share their language analysis and show the transcript to their group to let them re-read what was said, (2) consider sharing “Why did you pick this moment? What did you learn from the analysis? What was it like to do a reflection like this? What can you/your group learn from each language analysis? Connect your reflections to teaching,” and (3) after everyone shared, discuss the similarities and differences across analyses they noticed. As PSTs discussed in their book club groups, the instructor circulated the classroom, taking notes and listening and, at times, contributing to the group discussions.

3.3. Researcher Positionality

Lindsey and Katie are white women who grew up speaking English and have learned some Spanish through schooling and teaching experiences. We both previously taught linguistically diverse students in public K-12 schools. We designed the course focused on in this paper, including the book club and language analysis activities, and Katie was the instructor for the course section analyzed in this paper. In designing the book club for this course, we aimed to foster multiple opportunities for PSTs to engage in dialogue that gave space for negotiating their understandings of multilingualism. The language analysis activity was an aspect that we added to book clubs after analyzing our own teaching and PSTs’ participation in book clubs during the course in the previous year. We sought to design an opening for PSTs to engage in more personal reflection about ways they were upholding and critiquing dominant ideologies about multilingualism and multiculturalism.

A key goal of our instruction was not only to convey pedagogical literacy practices that support MLs but also to include opportunities for PSTs to interrogate deficit ideologies and develop asset-based stances towards MLs (Bartolomé, 2010). When considering PSTs’ responses to this activity, we draw on culturally sustaining (Paris & Alim, 2017) and teacher-solidarity (Philip et al., 2016) lenses. That is, we sought always to center the need for critical reflection and pedagogical growth to create more equitable school spaces that center the rich cultural and linguistic resources of minoritized youth, and designed instruction and analyzed PST responses with this urgent need in mind. At the same time, we understood PSTs as often just entering into and working towards culturally sustaining and critical reflective practices, understanding this as an ongoing process and that our own teaching was often at fault when PSTs were not yet supported to critically reflect.

3.4. Data Collection

We collected several sources of qualitative data related to the larger book club experience and the language analysis activity, in particular. First, across the three initial weeks of book clubs, each group’s discussion was audio-recorded. This resulted in 24 audio recordings (3 recordings each for 8 groups), each lasting approximately 25 min. Data collected related to the language analysis activity included a written analysis document submitted by each individual PST (n = 34) as well as an audio recording of each book club group’s in-class discussion of the language analysis (n = 8), which again lasted roughly 25 min. All audio recordings (from book club and language analysis meetings) were initially transcribed using Rev.com and then revised by the authors. Finally, Katie collected field notes (Emerson et al., 2011) after each class session involving book clubs (n = 4) to document any observations not captured via audio recordings.

3.5. Data Analysis

Data analysis occurred in two phases to address the three research questions. Phase one addressed the first research question, asking what moments of their own talk PSTs chose to analyze and what reasons they stated for selecting those moments. To do this, we first examined each PST’s written language analysis sheet (n = 34) to analyze all events selected by PSTs for their language analysis. We descriptively coded (Miles et al., 2014) the content of each of these moments to describe what PSTs were talking about in their selected moments.

Table 2. Descriptive analysis of selected event topics.

Topic	Operational Definition	Example	Count
Parenting	The event is primarily about the character’s relationship with parent(s), including parental discipline.	“how different Veronica’s parents discipline, and parents… Oh, discipline and parent her, compared to like, her American friends”	17
Family relationships (beyond parents)	The event is primarily about character(s) relationships with family members (beyond only parent relationships).	“if somebody came into my home and I’m the only child in the house in this whole time and then you bring this new girl and it’s like, what is happening”	5
Stereotypes	The event is primarily about discussing stereotypes in the text, using this term.	“how does the text perpetuate or counter stereotypes?”	5
Language	The event is primarily about how character(s) use named languages.	“he was, it was like, “Oh, to fit in, I need to speak their language. I’m not one of them unless…””	4
Religion	The event is primarily about how character(s) experience and/or practice religion.	“shedding light on a culture that doesn’t really allow women a lot of opportunities or families who have religious freedom and just transitioning into America”	3

displays these codes, an example of each, and the number of PSTs who selected an event of each type.

We then went through the same process to code and describe the reasons PSTs stated for selecting those moments in their response to the question, “Why did you pick this moment to analyze?”

Table 3. Descriptive analysis of reasons for event selection.

Reason	Operational Definition	Example	Count
Prominent story theme	The rationale provided for event selection is that the group discussed key story elements or themes.	“I picked this moment to analyze because I feel like this time in the conversation had a lot of systems that were brought up in the book. We talked about Veronica’s disability, along with the social status of her family and the differences seen in an immigrant family”.	16
Pivotal discussion moment	The rationale provided for event selection is that it showed a pivotal discussion moment where conversation flowed, experienced tension, reflected, and/or questioned.	“I picked this moment because in the moment I know we thought that we were being very reflective inclusive with our language etc. but when I read the transcript I realized that we did more disbelieving than anything else”.	11
Connection to text	The rationale provided for event selection is that the group discussed made connections between the text and their own experiences or course content.	“I liked that in this part we were connecting the book to a show we have all watched and our own personal experiences”.	7

shows these reasons and their frequency.

After analyzing what types of moments PSTs selected for their language analysis, the second phase of data analysis addressed our second and third research questions, analyzing how PSTs reflected on their selected moments during group discussions and what larger ideologies or discourses were manifest in these reflective discussions. To do this, we re-examined all transcripts of PSTs’ language analysis discussion meetings, where they met with their book club groups and talked about their selected moments from previous book club meetings. We analyzed transcripts of these conversations, looking for moments of reflection where PSTs went beyond merely naming their previous talk. From the eight total language analysis group discussions, we identified three events where PSTs approached critical reflection (Sealey-Ruiz, 2022) because they reflected on their identities and privilege in relation to the statements they made about multilingual protagonists’ cultural practices. All other conversations focused on factual recall, with PSTs describing their previous talk but not reflecting on their own identities.

We then selected one of these three events for close analysis. The three events were similar in terms of content, length, and reflective practices, so this event is representative of reflection discussions in this particular context and thus was selected as a “theoretically rich event” (Dyson & Genishi, 2005, p. 88). The chosen event occurred during the language analysis discussion for one of the book club groups reading Breathe and Count Back from Ten (Sylvester, 2022). The novel’s protagonist, Verónica, is a Peruvian–American high school student navigating various life experiences such as hip dysplasia, parental expectations, cultural values, and romance. This book club group was comprised of four white, female PSTs who identified as English speakers.

To understand how PSTs engaged in reflection on their previous discourse and what larger ideologies or discourses were manifest in these reflections, we applied tools of critical discourse analysis (CDA) to the selected event. CDA is based on the idea that all discourse is ideological (Fairclough, 1992), and attention to speech genres, Discourses, and styles allows the analyst to consider social, historical, and political context and how those shape or privilege ideologies (Rogers, 2004). After transcribing the event with contextualization cues (see Appendix A for transcription conventions), we separated utterances into meaning units (Rogers, 2004) based on changing genres throughout the discussion. We then analyzed the transcript using orders of discourse (Fairclough, 1992; Haddix, 2010; Rogers, 2004), which involved “systematic analysis of ways of interacting (genre), ways of representing (discourse) and ways of being (style)” (Rogers, 2004, p. 56).

Table 4. Example critical discourse analysis.

Speaker	Meaning Unit	Orders of Discourse
Sloan:	“So, like, trying to navigate those—different dynamics as a teacher	Teacher (D)
	who has never been through it. I will never understand it.	Critical Reflection (G) Discourse of Otherness (D), Pronoun (S), Absolute Modality (S), Adverb (S)
	You can only do, like, obviously, I’m gonna try and understand it as much as possible,
	but, like, I will never have gone through that. So, like, you can only do so much to like really help them and really understand them…”	Pronoun (S), Absolute Modality (S), Adverb (S), Savior (D), Parallel Structure (G)

shows an example of this analysis.

Table 5. Orders of discourse identified across the theoretically rich event.

Genre	Discourse	Style
Critical Reflection Empathy Display Expanding Personal Story Parallel Structure Personal Story Reflection Repetition	(Critiquing) Dominant Parenting Practices Cultural Norms Discourse of Otherness Grit Savior School Systems Teacher Work Ethic Mindset	Absolute Modality (e.g., “never”) Acknowledgement Modality Adverb Modal Verb Pronoun

shows the multiple genres, discourses, and styles identified across the entire event.

Analysis of genre and style, in particular, revealed how PSTs talked about their selected moments. Analysis of Discourse then showed how this talk pointed to larger ideologies. Findings illustrate this through representative excerpts from the theoretically rich event.

4. Findings

In this section, we first describe findings from analyses describing the types of events PSTs selected for their language analyses and the reasons they provided for these selections. Then, we discuss results describing how PSTs verbally reflected on those moments and how their reflections pointed to larger ideologies and discourses.

4.1. Events PSTs Selected for Language Analyses and Rationales for Selections

PSTs were asked to select rich moments for analysis that stood out to them when looking at transcripts of their previous meetings. Table 2 shows the topics of PSTs’ selected moments, which dealt with (1) parenting, (2) family relationships beyond parenting, (3) stereotypes, (4) language, or (5) religion.

Half of the PSTs (n = 17) selected events where the topic of conversation dealt with parenting. During these selected moments of conversation, PSTs discussed the protagonists’ relationship with his/her parents, and many of these events discussed how parents disciplined their children. Other instances related to parenting dealt with how parents expected their children to practice religion and how parents dealt with their children’s mental and physical health. Five other PSTs selected moments that focused on family relationships other than those between the protagonists and his/her parents. These moments included discussion about sibling and extended family (e.g., cousin) relationships, how protagonists were treated in comparison to other family members, and their sense of belonging in relation to these family members.

Five PSTs selected events where the group discussed stereotypes in the text, using that term. In these moments, PSTs discussed how characters in a text represented or challenged stereotypes of multilingual immigrants. Four PSTs selected moments where the group explicitly talked about the bi/multilingual language practices of story characters. These moments often focused on how protagonists’ bi/multilingual language practices were not valued in school settings. Finally, three PSTs selected moments where they were discussing religion and how story characters practiced their religious beliefs.

We also analyzed the reasons PSTs stated for their selected moments. Table 3 shows the reasons they provided when asked why they chose their selected events, which were (1) prominent story theme, (2) pivotal discussion moment, and (3) connection to text. Specifically, nearly half of PSTs (n = 16) gave the reason that their selected discussion moment focused on and explored prominent themes in their text. Eleven PSTs selected their moments because they felt it was a pivotal moment for discussion for their group, where conversation flowed well, or where the group reflected and perhaps experienced tension, questioned their previous understandings, or changed their minds through that tension. Finally, seven PSTs selected their events because they felt it was a moment where their group made connections to the text, either to their own experiences (e.g., related to the protagonist’s experiences) or to the course content.

Overall, it is interesting to note that the majority of PSTs (n = 22) selected moments that dealt with parenting and family relationships for these analyses, despite the focus of the course being on bi/multilingualism and the experiences of bi/multilingual students. Only four PSTs selected moments that dealt with language, and no PSTs selected moments that explicitly mentioned race. This suggests that these PSTs were inclined to select moments for discussion that dealt with aspects of multiculturalism that felt safer or easier to discuss, while avoiding topics of race in particular (Chang-Bacon, 2022). This avoidance of topics related to language and race showed a resistance to reflecting on raciolinguistic subjectivities (Daniels & Varghese, 2020), suggesting a need for more intentional instructor support in this area. These were also topics of discussion that PSTs perhaps felt more familiar with, as everyone has a parent/caregiver relationship, perhaps making those topics of conversation easier to discuss and relate to personal experiences. PSTs’ reasons for selecting their moments gave further insight into how they viewed their conversations and what they saw as important about their discussions related to the texts. Most PSTs felt they were selecting moments that dealt with prominent story themes, and yet they did not discuss the themes of racism or linguicism directly, despite these topics being aspects of every text. Taken together, PSTs’ event selections and rationales gave insight into what kind of reflection they were engaging in at this point, and how those reflective practices often evidenced a desire to consider and discuss more comfortable topics while avoiding the topic of race.

4.2. How PSTs Reflected on Previous Language During Discussions and Ideologies Manifest in Reflective Discussions

After selecting moments for analysis, PSTS engaged in an additional discussion with their book club group, where they reflected on their previous talk during the selected moments. Analyses of one theoretically rich discussion example gave insight into how PSTs reflected on these moments as well as the larger ideologies manifest in those reflections. Specifically, two speech genres emerged during the language analysis discussion that seemed to promote critical reflection in these discussions. These speech genres were (1) personal storytelling and (2) instructors connecting to systems. We also identified two larger ideologies manifest in PSTs’ talk: (1) “normative” parenting practices and (2) neoliberal ideologies. In what follows, we present excerpts from the transcript. Each example was selected because it illustrates both a speech genre and ideology manifest in PSTs’ reflective discussions.

The two excerpts come from one of the book club groups reading Breathe and Count Back from Ten (Sylvester, 2022). All four PSTs in this group selected events to discuss where the group was talking about topics of parenting and discipline. When discussing these moments, they problematized their stances in previous book club discussions when they had denounced the actions of the main character’s Peruvian parents, whom they at the time believed to be “overly strict.”

4.2.1. Personal Storytelling and Ideologies About “Normative” Parenting Practices

PSTs consistently used the speech genre of personal storytelling to relate to and empathize with cultural practices different from their own, using these personal stories to extend moments of critical reflection and relate to each other and multilingual protagonists. In Excerpt 1 (see

Table 6. Excerpt 1.

Speaker	Line	Meaning Unit
Sloan	1	I lived in a house with two parents who always = helped me. =
Nicole	2	=yeah=
Sloan	3	So, like, trying to navigate those—different dynamics as a teacher who has never been through it.
	4	I will never understand it.
	5	You can only do, like, obviously, I’m gonna try and understand it as much as possible, but, like, I will never have gone through that.
	6	So, like, you can only do so much to like really help them and really understand them…
Shannon	7	And I think—we talked about it a little bit earlier, but, like, part of it, and part of our understanding is like, showing grace at the beginning.
	8	Like, we have kids that ah, I work in an afterschool program too, and we have kids at work that were like,—like will get sent to school…
	9	And we were like, I was talking to a little girl a couple of weeks ago and she was sick on Friday, then came to school on Monday.
	10	I was like, “Oh, are you feeling better? Did you like get sick this weekend?”
	11	And she was like, “Oh, yeah. I threw up yesterday.”
	12	But she still got sent to school—
	13	and so then my boss was immediately putting it on the parents and was like, “Oh, her parents must be so terrible and then whatever.”
	14	And it hurts my heart because I’m like,—maybe they’re really trying their best and like =maybe… she’s doing her best?=
Sloan	15	=maybe they couldn’t [inaudible]=

), PSTs were discussing how the actions of the protagonists’ parents differed from their own experiences with their parents and how that might affect their teaching of students with varied parental experiences. Specifically, at this moment, PST Sloan used the genre of personal storytelling to reflect on experiences that were different from her own. Throughout this excerpt, PSTs’ language also pointed to ideologies about normative parenting practices.

This excerpt opened with Sloan initiating the genre of personal storytelling by describing her own experiences with her parents: “I lived in a house with two parents who always helped me” (line 1), an experience Nicole echoed (“yeah,” line 2). Sloan noted her personal privilege as a barrier to her ability to “navigate those different dynamics as a teacher” because she had “never been through it” (line 3). We considered this interaction as a moment of critical reflection because Sloan voiced thinking that identified “layers of [her] identities and how [her] privileged… statuses affect the work” (Sealey-Ruiz, 2022, p. 2). However, it should be noted that it also revealed a hesitancy to fully learn about students and communities with cultural practices that differed from her own (line 6: “you can only do so much to like really help them and really understand them”).

Following this moment of critical reflection, Shannon also used the genre of personal storytelling to relate to what Sloan had shared, extending statements that reflected on her privilege and using the personal story to push Sloan towards a more accepting stance towards students’ cultural practices. Shannon’s personal story launched with an acknowledgment that the group, as future teachers, should show “grace at the beginning” (line 7) to parents, then told a story from her experience at an afterschool program where her boss assumed the parents of a child were “terrible” (line 13) instead of assuming “they’re really trying their best” (line 14). This story extended Sloan’s moment of critical reflection and engaged the group in a personal experience that they could relate back to their learning in class. Sloan joined in agreement with the story, interjecting, “maybe they couldn’t” (line 15), showing her understanding of the story and demonstrating the “grace” that Shannon suggested before her story began.

While this is one moment of conversation, throughout this group discussion, PSTs engaged most frequently with this speech genre of personal storytelling. The purposes of each story extended moments of critical reflection in ways that seemed to validate the stances and ideologies about cultural practices that the group had deemed acceptable. Excerpt 1 is an illustration of the way these stories functioned as an extension of critical reflection and held status in the discussion.

Furthermore, the discourses present in PSTs’ language throughout this excerpt pointed to ideologies about “normative” parenting practices. That is, their language pointed to views on what types of parenting practices were deemed normal, appropriate, or correct. This is set up through Sloan and Shannon’s juxtaposing narratives, with Sloan sharing about her experiences with her two parents always helping (line 1) as compared to the experiences of Shannon’s student, whose parent(s) sent her to school while sick (line 13). Sloan’s parenting experience is positioned as normative or ideal and acceptable in school contexts, while the parenting choices of Shannon’s student are positioned as problematic. While these PSTs sought to understand and reflect on parenting differences throughout this conversation and others, their discourses pointed to and continued to construct certain parenting practices as normative.

4.2.2. Instructor Connecting to Systems and Neoliberal Ideologies

PSTs also engaged in critical reflection and discussion about larger educational systems with implications for their beliefs about students and families across cultures when prompted to do so by their instructor (Katie). Excerpt 2 (see

Table 7. Excerpt 2.

Speaker	Line	Meaning Unit
Nicole	1	My dad is the same because he works in IT and risk for a bank, so he has to do a lot of the stuff in the dead of the night because most people aren’t online at that time.
	2	But it’s exactly that because especially because some of it, when he worked for [company] with international banking, he would do exactly that and try to match the times of people internationally and he would be on at the = weirdest times. = Yeah.
Katie	3	=Hustle culture, = Where he feels like he has to do that.
Nicole	4	Has to. Yeah.
Sloan	5	I even feel like Papi had that as well in the book—He was saying, “We don’t need a second car because we can just drop off mom on my way to work,” or whatever.
	6	But he would work two shifts and stuff like that and get home and it would be at…
Katie	7	Yeah. It’s so different too—when you take the time to look back at…
Sloan	8	Yeah.
Katie	9	That’s one of the things I like about analyzing your language is you take the time to look back at like—
	10	“Wait, we’re treating this like it’s a norm,” like we just said,
	11	but if I step back and I look at the social, political, historical reasons why that’s a norm, that’s only a norm in this = right here. =
Sloan	12	=Yeah, that’s weird=
Nicole	13	What we do is odd when you think about it… (giggles)

) illustrated this pattern of the instructor pointing out larger systems that related to PSTs’ stories, which connected their personal reflections to larger systems and neoliberal ideologies. Excerpt 2 occurred later in the conversation after Excerpt 1, as the group had begun to discuss work culture in the U.S. The instructor (Katie) approached the group as PSTs shared about experiences with work hours and expectations in the U.S. compared to other countries, such as Italy. Nicole shared a personal story about her father’s experiences working for a large banking company that required extended hours, following which Katie interjected to draw a connection between these stories and larger systems.

As the instructor (Katie) heard this conversation, she responded to PSTs sharing personal stories problematizing shared American values about work ethic by naming this phenomenon as “hustle culture” (line 3). Later, she brought up again how “we’re treating this like it’s a norm” (line 10), mentioning, “if I step back and I look at the social, political, historical reasons why that’s a norm, that’s only a norm in this right here” (line 11). While these moments of connection on Katie’s part did not lead to an in-depth discussion of the way that systems play a role in cultural practices and perceptions of cultural practices, in this discussion, PSTs indicated agreement by saying “yeah” (line 8), “yeah, that’s weird” (line 12), and “what we do is odd when you think about it” (line 13). PSTs showed their willingness to consider questions about the roles of larger systems in their own reflections.

Across this conversation and others, PSTs’ discourses pointed to neoliberal ideologies, which Saunders (2010) describes as “a varied collection of ideas, practices, policies, and discursive representations…united by three broad beliefs: the benevolence of the free market, minimal state intervention and regulation of the economy, and the individual as a rational economic actor” (p. 45). In this interaction, for instance, their language evidenced discourses of grit and a work ethic mindset. Nicole’s initial story about her father (lines 1–2) described his work ethic and grit, positioning these as necessary practices for individual advancement in society. Through instructor connections (e.g., line 3, naming this type of work as “hustle culture”), the group began to name and question these practices.

Overall, this excerpt exemplifies the instructor’s role in prompting critical reflection, showing initial stages of PSTs considering how larger systems impact personal experiences. Notably, however, these moments did not name whiteness as a system that affects perceptions of cultural practices, which is a moment of opportunity for instructor prompting in future conversations.

5. Discussion

These analyses explored PSTs’ experiences reflecting on their previous language use when discussing multilingual texts about multilingual protagonists. The goal of this activity was to support PSTs’ critical reflection about multilingualism and multilingual students’ experiences. Analyses of PSTs’ selections of moments of their own previous talk to analyze, as well as the reasons they stated for selecting those moments, showed that PSTs primarily selected moments related to parenting and family experiences to discuss. All texts PSTs read for book clubs contained translingual writing and prominent story themes related to the language practices of the multilingual characters. Despite this, most PSTs did not select moments dealing with language, and no PSTs selected moments explicitly dealing with race for discussion. In many ways, then, this analysis was illustrative of what was missing from PSTs’ language analyses, rather than what was present. PSTs primarily discussed the experiences of multilingual protagonists through the lens of parenting, family relationships, and religion, while avoiding topics of language and race (Chang-Bacon, 2022).

After selecting moments of their previous talk to reflect on, PSTs then met again with their book club groups to discuss their previous language use. Analyses of how PSTs reflected during these group discussions focused on moments of critical reflection to understand the genre patterns that supported this kind of reflective work. We found that personal storytelling and instructor connections supported critical reflection. Furthermore, we found that PSTs’ language most often pointed to larger ideologies about normative parenting practices or neoliberal ideologies. These discussions at times led to instances of reflection about cultural practices that can be a starting point for PSTs to develop racial literacy, a key component of anti-racist pedagogies (Price-Dennis & Sealey-Ruiz, 2021). Additional work is needed to push PSTs toward reflection on their raciolinguistic subjectivities (Daniels & Varghese, 2020) through discussion on topics that this analysis found they avoided, including race, linguicism, and their own identities and positionalities. Critical reflection is not a skill that develops during one assignment or one semester, but we suggest that an assignment like a language analysis is a potential starting point for PSTs to start to engage in this work before they enter the classroom.

5.1. Implications for PST Education

Providing PSTs with space to analyze and discuss their own language has the potential to prompt critical reflection that can move PSTs toward antiracist and equitable stances toward diverse populations of students. Our findings reveal three main implications for teacher educators to consider when planning language analysis and discussion opportunities for their students with the goal of supporting critical reflection. First, analysis of moments of critical reflection suggests that, even if PSTs have similar backgrounds on the surface, opportunities for sharing personal stories are important for creating points of connection between PSTs and their peers, as well as making connections to cultural practices that are different from their own. Second, PSTs may benefit from more formal guidance and questions from their instructor that help them connect personal stories and experiences to larger social, political, and historical systems. The instructor may also be able to support PSTs’ discussion of topics PSTs in our study avoided, such as race and linguicism. Finally, based on PSTs’ event selections, and given that the instructor cannot personally be present in every group discussion, guiding questions or additional support with helping PSTs identify moments when they can connect to larger systems can support them with critical thinking about differences in cultural practices that extend beyond pointing out how they are different.

5.2. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This analysis reports on the experiences of one group of PSTs from primarily white, monolingual backgrounds. PSTs with different linguistic and cultural experiences would likely engage differently with these texts, including bringing more critical lenses to the texts and their discussions. However, we know that, demographically, many PSTs in the U.S. are similar to those we worked with in this study (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021) and may similarly be at the beginning stages of their work as critical language educators (Deng & Hayden, 2021; Uzum et al., 2022). The question for this and future work, then, is how to continue to design PST educational spaces that meet PSTs where they are in order to challenge and grow their critical awareness and pedagogy (Banes et al., 2016; Pontier, 2022). In general, PSTs in our study did not pick events to analyze that focused specifically on race or language. This suggests that future work should explore additional scaffolds within the course structure to help lead PSTs to more critical reflection and discussion on these topics. This could include analysis of PST interactions with texts through a diffractive reflection lens (Hill, 2017), exploring the role of both humans and more-than-human texts in creating space for new possibilities and critical thinking.

In future iterations of the course, we plan to support PSTs’ selection of rich events by pre-selecting one event for PSTs to analyze, along with them selecting another event on their own to analyze. This will allow us to point out discussions related to language and race and guide PSTs to reflect on these moments. Furthermore, we intend to embed Socratic discussions throughout the course, which are student-centered discussion formats that provide opportunities for sustained, evidence-based dialogue between students about fundamental questions (Knezic et al., 2010). We posit that the inclusion of seminar-style discussion may better support PSTs’ ability and willingness to discuss topics that may make them uncomfortable. Finally, we recognize that this is not work that can occur in only one class but instead must be embedded across PST education programs and courses in a systemic way.

6. Conclusions

All teachers must be prepared to work with MLs in ways that are asset-based, equitable, and supportive of multilingualism (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). This preparation should include not only knowledge of pedagogical practices for MLs but also critical reflection that pushes PSTs to reflect on their own experiences and privilege(s) in relation to teaching in order to question dominant cultural norms (Sealey-Ruiz, 2022). This is especially vital for white, monolingual PSTs whose experiences may significantly differ from those of their MLs (Bacon, 2020; Uzum et al., 2022). Critical reflection must be ongoing work, and the responses of PSTs in this study illustrate what this work can look like when at the very initial stages of critical reflection. PST educators must meet PSTs where they are and support their work towards more critical reflection. We argue that reading translingual, multicultural texts and asking PSTs to analyze their language during discussions about those texts are supportive practices of critical reflection.