Preparing linguistically responsive teachers through experiential foreign language tasks: A phenomenological study

Importance of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching escalates as globalization and immigration increase the student diversity in classrooms. Although culturally responsive teaching has been studied in detail, the literature on linguistically responsive teaching is largely theoretical, with limited research-based practices. This article reports a phenomenological study of four prospective teachers’ experiences with four foreign language tasks. The purpose of the study was to propose and examine a research-based practice to raise awareness about preparing linguistically responsive teachers in teacher education programs. Data were collected through written participant reflections and analyzed using phenomenological analysis. Findings reveal that the tasks assisted participants to become aware of the linguistic, cognitive, and emotional hard work encountered while learning a new language. Participants also reported being empathetic toward English language learners. Implications for teacher education programs and teacher educators are presented. Subjects: Bilingualism/ESL; Initial Teacher Training; Teaching & Learning


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Guliz Turgut Dost is an assistant professor in Foreign Language Education Department in School of Education at Adnan Menderes University. She received her bachelor's degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language. She completed her MEd and PhD degrees in the USA in Curriculum and Instruction. Her research interests are teacher education, English language learners, and computer-assisted language learning.

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Classrooms in many nations are becoming not only culturally but also linguistically more diverse due to globalization and immigration. Therefore, teachers need to be culturally and linguistically responsive toward their students' diverse needs. However, unlike culturally responsive teaching, there has still not been enough discussion on how linguistically responsive teachers could be prepared. This study proposes and examines a method to raise awareness about preparing linguistically responsive teachers in teacher education programs. Four experiential, foreign language tasks were prepared and four prospective teachers' experiences with the tasks were investigated. Findings reveal that after completing the tasks, participants became aware of the linguistic, cognitive, and emotional hard work encountered while learning a new language. Participants also became empathetic toward English language learners. The study suggests that language shock activities are a short and target-focused method to raise awareness about linguistically responsive teaching among prospective teachers.

Introduction
The number of students with diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds is increasing in many nations due to immigration and globalization. As a result, preparing teachers who can meet the academic needs of these diverse students is an issue concerning many nations (Levine, Howard, & Moss, 2014). The USA has been one of the countries that has been experiencing constant increases in student diversity (Aud et al., 2013;Planty et al., 2008). Therefore, teacher educators in the USA have long been concerned about preparing culturally responsive teachers (Cochran-Smith, Davis, & Fries, 2004;Gay, 2000;Villegas & Lucas, 2002a, 2002b, 2007. Culturally responsive teachers understand and respect students' cultures, and it is important to create a positive and welcoming environment where students feel accepted and respected (Gay, 2000;Villegas & Lucas, 2007;Washburn, 2008).
However, culturally responsive teaching is not enough by itself for achievement in educational contexts where increasing the student achievement is a national goal (Lucas & Villegas, 2011). Hence, teacher educators have begun to vocalize the importance of preparing linguistically responsive teachers (Villegas & Lucas, 2007). In general terms, being a linguistically responsive teacher involves: having increased awareness and knowledge of language, knowing the language needs of English Language Learners (ELLs), and being able to appropriately scaffold their needs to help them develop academic proficiency in English (Lucas & Villegas, 2011;Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008). Theoretical and empirical work on preparing linguistically responsive teachers has been emerging only recently. Lucas and Villegas established the theoretical foundation of linguistically responsive teacher preparation by proposing a framework for linguistically responsive teaching (LTR) in 2011. However, there have been very limited studies on methods for integrating linguistically responsive teaching (LRT) into teacher education. This phenomonological study addresses a gap in the literature by proposing a method, based on LRT and experiential learning theory (ELT), to raise awareness about LRT in teacher education programs.
The following section reviews the literature on the LRT framework, ELT, and studies investigating language shock activities implemented to prepare teachers to work with ELLs. It is followed by the methodology and findings sections. The article concludes with a discussion of the findings and implications.

Framework for linguistically responsive teaching
Framework for linguistically responsive teaching (LTR) is established by Lucas and Villegas (2011). As Table 1 illustrates, the framework involves two major components: orientations; knowledge and skills of linguistically responsive teachers.

Learning about ELL students' language backgrounds, experiences, and proficiencies
Although majority of the ELLs in the USA are Spanish speakers (about 80%), they speak more than 400 different languages (Kindler, 2002). These students also differ in their schooling experiences and language proficiencies in English. All these factors-ELLs' native language, their language proficieny, and prior schooling experiences-impact their academic learning process and achievement. Therefore, Lucas and Villegas (2011) suggest teachers to learn about their ELL students' language backgrounds, experiences, and proficiencies.

Identifying the language demands of classroom tasks
While working with ELLs, teachers should also be able to analyze the linguistic demands of oral and written discourses used in classrooms (Cummins, 2008;Wong-Fillmore & Snow, 2005). The linguistic demands could be key vocabulary, confusing semantics, and complex syntactic structures used in written materials. Identification of linguistic demands could enable teachers to take precautions so that learning and teaching continue perpetually. Lucas and Villegas (2011) list key principles of second language learning that teachers should know and apply as: conversational language proficiency is different from academic language proficiency; skills and concepts learned in the first language transfer to the second language; anxiety about performing in second language can interfere with learning; ELLs need comprehensible input just beyond their current level of proficiency; and social interaction for authentic communicative purposes fosters ELL learning.

2.2.3.1.
Conversational language proficiency is different from academic language proficiency. In his prominent work, Cummins (1981Cummins ( , 2008 named conversational language proficiency as Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS), and academic language proficiency as Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). BICS is claimed to take a year or two for ELL students to become proficient. However, CALP is claimed to take five to seven years to become proficient in as it requires knowledge of less frequently used words with Greek and Latin roots and more complex syntax structures (Jameson, 1998;Snow & Uccelli, 2009). Knowing the difference Table 1. Orientations, knowledge, and skills of linguistically responsive teachers

Orientations of Linguistically Responsive Teachers
(I) Sociolinguistic consciousness (a) Understanding the connection between language, culture, and identity (b) Awareness of the sociopolitical dimension of language use and language education (II) Value for linguistic diversity (III) Inclination to advocate for ELL students.

Knowledge and Skills of Linguistically Responsive Teachers
(I) Learning about ELL students' language backgrounds, experiences, and proficiencies (II) Identifying the language demands of classroom tasks (III) Apply key principles of second language learning (a) Conversational language proficiency is different from academic language proficiency (b) Skills and concepts learned in the first language transfer to the second language (c) Anxiety about performing in second language can interfere with learning (d) ELLs need comprehensible input just beyond their current level of proficiency (e) Social interaction for authentic communicative purposes fosters ELL learning (IV) Scaffolding instruction to promote ELLs' learning Source: Lucas and Villegas (2011). between BICS and CALP is important for teachers to consider their ELL students' language proficiencies separately and accurately, and to be patient with their academic language development.
2.2.3.2. Skills and concepts learned in the first language transfer to the second language. Language Transfer Theory (Cummins, 1979(Cummins, , 1981 explains that skills and concepts learned in the first language transfer to the second language. For example, if ELLs' first language consists of sounds (phonemes) that the target language has, language learners can transfer these sounds to the target language. This transfer between languages may explain the association Thomas and Collier (2002) found between strong academic language skills in native languages and successful second language learning and academic achievement.

2.2.3.
3. Anxiety about performing in second language can interfere with learning. In his renowned Second Language Acquisition Theory, Krashen (1982) identified one of the factors impacting second language learning as "affective," and proposed the Affective Filter Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, for the successful learning of a second language, a learner should have high motivation, self-confidence, self-esteem, and low anxiety. Therefore, teachers working with ELLs should keep the affective filter low to facilitate language development.

ELLs need comprehensible input just beyond their current level of proficiency.
In Theory of Second Language Acquisition, Krashen (1982) also discussed Input Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, a learner learns a second language only when the input is understandable, which is termed as Comprehensible Input. Therefore, providing a large quantity of input does not lead to language learning, as long as the input is incomprehensible. However, providing comprehensible input is not enough by itself to lead to new learning. In order for learners to learn something new, the input should be one step beyond their current stage of linguistic competence, which is represented as " +1." While "i" represents previously acquired linguistic competence, the "+1" represents new knowledge or language structures.

Social interaction for authentic communicative purposes fosters ELL learning.
Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory (Vygotsky, 1978) states that individual learning occurs through social interaction. It is believed that when ELLs actively engage in meaningful social interactions, such interactions nurture their conversational and academic English (Lucas et al., 2008). Hence, learning contexts involving social interaction for authentic communication purposes should be created in classrooms to stimulate ELL learning.

Scaffolding instruction to promote ELLs' learning
The term scaffolding was first used by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976). They define scaffolding as "a process that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts" (Wood et al., 1976, p. 90). Scaffolding is given by a more experienced or knowledgeable person (peer or teacher), and it is removed gradually until the learner is able to carry out the activities alone (Lucas et al., 2008;Peregoy & Boyle, 2008). Research suggests that using scaffolding with ELLs helps them learn content, progress in language learning and in reading and writing (Au & Jordan, 1981;Peregoy & Boyle, 2008;Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Scaffolding can also help ELLs complete tasks more efficiently with less stress and anxiety (Fitzgerald & Graves, 2004).
Currently, many teacher education programs in the USA require prospective teachers to take courses on linguistics, bilingual education, or Sheltered English Instruction (SEI). In these courses, teacher candidates read about most of the knowledge and skills that Lucas and Villegas (2011) discuss in their framework. However, information acquired about language, language learning process, or language teaching in courses is not necessarily internalized or applied to teaching practices. For instance, the importance of vocabulary for reading comprehension and achievement has been widely stated in research studies (such as Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982;Hiebert & Kamil, 2005; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Perfetti, 1983). The results of these studies are also commonly discussed in teacher education courses. Despite the stated importance of vocabulary, studies indicate that vocabulary is not taught frequently and systematically in most schools, including programs serving ELLs (Biemiller, 2006;Biemiller & Boote, 2006;Durkin, 1979;Gersten & Baker, 2000;Scott & Nagy, 1997). Therefore, although prospective teachers may learn the important knowledge and skills that should be used with ESL through a book, they need eye-opening experiences to truly understand the value of second language teaching principles and importance of being linguistically responsive.

Experiential learning theory
A potential method for providing eye-opening experiences could be experiential activities, as learning by experiencing is found to be highly effective compared to other practices such as lectures and group work (Jimenez-Silva, Olson, & Jimenez Hernandez, 2012). Kolb (1984) offered a dynamic, multi-linear, and holistic model of learning process, which placed experience in the center, and named it experiential learning theory (ELT). In ELT, learning is defined as "the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience" (Kolb, 1984, p. 41).
The theory is dialectically related and has four modes: two modes for grasping experience and two modes for transforming experience (Kolb, 1984;Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 1999). The two modes for grasping experience are Concrete Experience (CE) and Abstract Conceptualization (AC). The two modes for transforming experience are Reflective Observation (RO) and Active Experimentation (AE). In an experiential learning cycle, the learner experiments, experiences, does reflective observations, and creates abstract concepts in a recursive manner (Figure 1). Experiential learning is implemented commonly during the practicum phase in teacher education programs. Most teacher education programs require prospective teachers to observe their practicum contexts and keep weekly journals on various topics, such as school and classroom culture, classroom management, assessment and evaluation, and more. Through these journals, prospective teachers are asked to implement some information attained from course readings and write about their experiences. They are also asked to conduct observations at the practicum site on specific topics. Furthermore, they self-reflect on their learning and teaching experiences. Through the reflections, they conceptualize new information, shape their own teaching style, and set goals for Source: Kolb (1984). their future teaching practices. Thus, prospective teachers complete the learning cycle of experiential learning-experimentation, experience, reflective observation, and abstract conceptualizationduring their practicum.
Experiential learning is reported to foster empathic disposition (Giordano, Stare, & Clarke, 2015;Kohonen, Kaikkonnen, Jaatinen, & Lehtovaara, 2014). Empathy is stated to be important for teachers working with diverse student populations because it has been discussed to stimulate sensitivity to different cultures, openness, attentiveness, positive relationships and interactions, supportive classroom environments, and student-centered classrooms (McAllister, 1999;McAllister & Irvine, 2002). It is also identified as a key characteristic of being an effective teacher in diverse school contexts (Darling-Hammond, 2000;Gordon, 1999).

Language shock activities through a foreign language
Language shock activities, where the instructor uses a foreign language for instruction, could be a potential method to prepare linguistically responsive teachers in a focused and affordable manner. Despite its potential, only two studies have been placed in the literature that used language shock activities with prospective teachers. One of the studies was by Washburn (2008) who required her students to understand how to write numbers in Chinese through reading an elementary Chinese workbook. She reported positively on the activity and explained that her students felt frustrated, isolated, and had a sense of what language learners experience. The second study was by Wright-Maley and Green (2015). Their intervention involved both a language shock activity and a model lesson from which prospective teachers learned strategies to support the learning of their ELLs. Their findings were similar to Washburn (2008) in terms of frustration, confusion, and isolation. Participants also indicated that they had a deeper understanding of what it is like to be an ELL in a classroom setting, were able to identify multiple strategies to help support ELLs, and felt more confident that they could address the needs of ELLs in their classrooms (Wright-Maley & Green, 2015). The researchers suggest that such short-term language shock experiences may positively affect the selfefficacy of prospective teachers who are not bilingual or ELL specialists. However, the activity appeared to have little influence on participants' existing beliefs. Therefore, similar to Lucas and Villegas (2011), researchers state that more time, resources, and extensive training are required for any significant changes in participants' values and beliefs (Wright-Maley & Green, 2015).
Both studies are informative for teacher educators as they indicate that language shock activities raise awareness among prospective teachers about what ELLs experience and how they feel in mainstream classrooms. However, current diverse educational context requires raising not only empathy toward ELLs, but also awareness about LRT and research-based methods to prepare linguistically responsive teachers. Existing studies have not investigated language shock activities in relation to LRT framework. Therefore, there is a need for studies investigating if language shock activities could address LRT framework and be a potential method to prepare linguistically responsive teachers.

Methodology
The present study has two purposes: connecting theoretical work on LRT to practice through experiential learning theory, and contributing to the teacher education field by proposing a research-based method to raise awareness about linguistically responsive teaching among prospective teachers during the practicum phase of teacher preparation. The study examined four experiential foreign language tasks from prospective teachers' perspective and compared participants' experiences to the "knowledge and skills" component of the LRT framework. The research question was: What are the experiences of prospective teachers with short-term, experiential languagelearning tasks prepared in a foreign language?
The study was conducted in an urban private college located in the northeastern part of the USA and phenomenology was used to address the research question. Phenomenological research investigates individuals' lived experiences and feelings about a phenomenon (Husserl, 1969;Moustakas, 1994). Among the various types of phenomenologies, such as transcendental, existential, and hermeneutic, this study used Edmund Husserl's (1970) transcendental phenomenology. Transcendental phenomenology studies a phenomenon when little is known about it and describes the phenomenon from the perspective of those directly involved in it without making any interpretations (Husserl, 1969;Moustakas, 1994). This study used transcendental phenomenology as the research approach because it studied a phenomenon with limited information, a method to raise awareness about linguistically responsive teaching in teacher preparation. It also investigated the phenomenon from the lived experiences and perspectives of prospective teachers who were directly involved in completing the foreign language tasks. In transcendental phenomenology, every experience has two dimensions: noesis (the act of experience) and noema (the object of action) (Husserl, 1969;Moustakas, 1994). In this study, noema was the phenomenon of foreign language tasks prepared in light of experiential learning theory, while the noesis was participants' experiences of the tasks.

Sampling and participants
Phenomenological framework requires selection of participants who have significant and meaningful experiences of the phenomenon being investigated (Creswell, 2007). Participants for this study were selected through a combination of convenience and criterion sampling methods. According to Merriam (1998), convenience sampling is "based on time, money, location, and availability of sites or respondents" (p. 63). During the study, the author/researcher was supervising practicum students at various schools. Because the samples occurred naturally at a site the researcher had access to, they qualified as convenience samples. However, one of the disadvantages of convenience sampling is its vulnerability to selection bias. In order to overcome any potential selection bias, criterion sampling method was used to choose participants among convenience samples. Criterion sampling also allows discovery and understanding of rich information through a sample from which the most can be learned (Merriam, 1998). The criterion for identifying participants was contacting studentteachers who: had completed one of their practica in diverse school contexts or were placed in an urban school with diverse student populations at the time of the study, and had taken courses on teaching to ELLs, bilingualism, and theories of second language learning.
The typical sample size for phenomenological studies ranges from 1 to 10 people (Creswell, 2007). For this study, 12 student-teachers that fit the criteria were requested to volunteer in the study. They were informed about the study a few weeks after their placement to their practicum sites so that they had time to adjust to their school sites. A few weeks following the adjustment period, they were informed about the nature of the research, and were invited to participate in the study. Eight of them rejected the request due to heavy course-and practicum-related workload. Four female studentteachers gave consent for and participated in the research. Pseudonyms were given to the participants to protect their identity. Julia, Mirenda, and Liala were Caucasian, while Tanya was of Asian/ Pacific Islander background. Julia and Laila had limited knowledge of Spanish from their high school Spanish courses. While Mirenda was monolingual, Tanya was bilingual in English and Vietnamese. All participants had been abroad for holiday, during which they were exposed to a foreign language.

Reflexivity
In terms of my own positionality, as their practicum supervisor, I was responsible for supporting their professional learning throughout the semester. I checked their lesson plans, visited them at school sites, observed their teachings, read their weekly reflection journals, and provided feedback to their teachings and lesson plans. Throughout the research, I was mindful of some blurring that could have occurred between my role as a researcher who collected data and as a supervisor who provided feedback. In order to minimize such blurring, I took a few preventive measures. Firstly, I collected data through written responses so that participants would not feel the pressure they would have felt, if I had had face-to-face interviews. Secondly, I finished data collection in one week so that participants would be back to the regular flow of the practicum in a short time. Furthermore, I did not read participant responses until their practicum ended. Finally, participants were contacted a few years later to ensure that they would not mind the data to be used for publication. They all gave their consent for publication.

Materials and procedure
Four tasks (see Appendix A) were prepared based on the experimenting, experiencing, reflective observation, and abstract conceptualization steps of the experiential learning theory. They were prepared with a colleague who had a major in Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and a minor in Applied Linguistics. While preparing the tasks, three areas were given attention. The first area was addressing the "knowledge and skills" component of the LRT framework because changing them could be achieved in a shorter time than changing "orientations" (Lucas & Villegas, 2011;Wright-Maley & Green, 2015). Additionally, by addressing "knowledge and skills," the purpose was giving participants an opportunity to connect their theoretical course readings to practice in their practicum contexts. The second area of attention was replicating some difficulties that ELLs experience in mainstream classrooms. Therefore, Turkish was used as the foreign language due to its orthographical and syntactical difference from English. While English has deep orthography, Turkish has shallow orthography. In languages with shallow orthography, the letter graphemes are highly associated with one and the same phoneme (sound) (Seymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003). However, in languages with deep orthography, this association is low. Syntactical order of English and Turkish is also different. While English has Subject-Verb-Object syntax order, Turkish has Subject-Object-Verb order. The last area of attention given during task preparation was addressing different language skills and content areas to raise awareness about linguistically responsive teaching in various content areas. Table 2 summarizes the content and purposes of the four tasks.
The first task targeted speaking skills and participants were asked to learn a few foreign words, their pronunciation, and use in a sentence in any foreign language. The second task was related to math and participants were asked to solve two math questions.
In the third task, participants were requested to answer five comprehension questions after reading a story written half in English and Turkish. Finally, the fourth task targeted writing skills and Table 2. Summary of the content and purposes of the four experiential foreign language tasks

Content of the tasks Purposes of the tasks
Task 1: English language arts-Speaking • to highlight the difficulties or timidity that ESLs experience in learning new words and speaking a new language Participants were asked to learn a few foreign words, their pronunciation, and use in a sentence in any foreign language

Task 2: Math
Participants were asked to solve two math questions • to highlight the importance of content-specific vocabulary and language in ESL classrooms The first question: asked the sum of two numbers through mathematical symbols The second question: asked the same math operation as a word problem, but half in English and half in Turkish. Turkish was used at the most critical parts of the word problem, such as numbers and math operations

Task 3: English language arts-Reading comprehension
Participants were given a story written half in English and Turkish along with five comprehension questions, also written half in English and Turkish. The difficulty of questions varied, some were wh-questions, while others asked about information taken directly from the text • to emphasize the importance of vocabulary for reading comprehension • to highlight the fact that comprehension questions vary in evaluating comprehension

Task 4: English language arts-Writing
Participants were given two sentences in English along with their word-byword translation in Turkish. However, since the syntax structure is different in both languages, translations with correct Turkish syntactical order were also provided. These two sentences served as examples. Based on these examples, participants were asked to put another set of Turkish words into correct Turkish syntactical order • to highlight the complex mental process ELLs face during writing participants were asked to put a set of Turkish words into correct Turkish syntactical order based on two previously given sentences that served as examples.
At the end of each task, similar to weekly journal reflections kept during practicum, some guiding questions were provided for participants to reflect on their experiences and think about how the tasks informed their teaching. Before implementing the tasks, they were piloted on 24 students in a teacher education course during a 30-min session and their feedback was utilized to make some minor changes. Following the piloting and minor corrections, the tasks were printed and distributed to participants individually. Participants were requested to do the tasks, answer the questions at the end of each task by writing in the blank areas left after each task, and return them in one week.

Data collection and analysis
In this study, data were collected through participants' written responses to and reflections about each task. Creswell (2007) suggests researchers to "Include data collection types that go beyond typical observations and interviews. These unusual forms create reader interest in a proposal and can capture useful information" (p. 184). Collecting data through written responses enabled participants to avoid possible biases that may raise from researcher's presence and gave them time flexibility to thoughtfully reflect on their experiences (Creswell, 2007).
Data were analyzed using phenomenological analysis (Moustakas, 1994). As the first step of the analysis, data were horizonalized by regarding every statement equally valuable (Moustakas, 1994). From the horizonalized statements, meaning units were listed by splitting statements when the meaning changed (Moustakas, 1994). These meaning units were evaluated through imaginative variation to understand if they addressed the sub-components of the "knowledge and skills" in the LRT framework. The meaning units were later clustered into common themes (Moustakas, 1994). In order to support and exemplify the themes, participants' written statements were selected from their reflections. These statements constituted individual textural descriptions, representing participants' descriptions of their experiences of the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). From the textural descriptions, individual structural descriptions were constructed, which provide researchers an account of the underlying dynamics of the experience, such as how the feelings and thoughts connected with the phenomenon aroused (Moustakas, 1994). As the final step of the analysis, texturalstructural synthesis was contrived by combining the individual textural descriptions and individual structural descriptions. The textural-structural synthesis is an in-depth description of the participants' experiences of the phenomenon and synthesis of the underlying dynamics of the experience.

Validity
Several measures were taken to address validity based on the principles of phenomenological research (Guba & Lincoln, 1982;Merriam, 1998). Initially, I wrote a subjectivity statement (Wolcott, 1990) for myself and for readers to understand how my personal and educational background as a researcher might have affected my views about the phenomenon and data interpretation process (Appendix B). Subjectivity statement also helped me follow the epoche (bracketing) process, during which I took notes to identify and set aside my presuppositions about the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). Furthermore, I requested a colleague to be a peer debrief investigator for the task preparation, data analysis, and reporting of the findings processes (Guba & Lincoln, 1982). Finally, while reporting the study, I provided detailed accounts of how participants were selected, how data were collected and analyzed, and reported the limitations of the study to achieve transparency (American Educational Research Association, 2006).

Findings
In this section, participants' descriptions of their experiences with the phenomenon-individual textural descriptions-are presented under four themes: multidimensionality of word knowledge, methods for improving teaching and learning in content areas, importance of vocabulary for comprehension, and limitations in transferability of first language to second language. Finally, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1169614 participants' conclusive reflections on the experiential tasks are presented as the fifth theme: feeling, thinking, and learning like ELLs. As the findings reflect participants' experiences of the phenomenon, transferability of the findings to other settings may be judged by readers (American Educational Research Association, 2006).

Multidimensionality of word knowledge
In the first task, some participants had difficulty with pronouncing foreign words. For example, Julia stated, "As I am not a native speaker, my accent really does not do the words justice and it was very difficult to make my words sound like the words of my student." She further explained that "… The part that gave me some anxiety was speaking them because I am conscious that my accent sounds very foreign." Similarly, Mirenda wrote, "each word was difficult for me to pronounce and I felt foolish attempting them." In their reflections, Mirenda and Liala insightfully addressed the roots of the issue. Mirenda wrote: I had the most trouble with the words that had a sound combination not found in English, like multiple consonants. I found that I was talking quietly and when my ESL student would correct me I would try harder but feel insecure about my productions.
Similarly, Liala wrote, "… I believe that having grown up only speaking English, there are certain sounds that are unfamiliar and thus I need to almost train my mouth to shape itself in a certain way." Both Mirenda and Liala identified the root of their pronunciation-related issues as sounds and sound combinations that do not exist in English. The pronunciation-related difficulties made some participants empathic toward ELLs. For instance, Mirenda wrote, "I can imagine that in order not to appear wrong or seem stupid, ELL students may not want to participate, or talk in large group settings." This empathy Mirenda had toward ELLs seemed to assist her to have a better understanding of why some ELLs may not participate in class.
Another experience participants had in Task 1 was related to remembering words' meanings. Liala wrote, "… It is difficult to remember the meaning of the words after not being exposed to them throughout the week." On the other hand, Tanya explained the difficulty she had in using words in context. She mentioned: I had a lot of difficulty becoming comfortable enough to use it. … Often times it is easy to learn what the word means, but not the contexts in which they are used. For this reason, it is most helpful to have to use these new words in various ways to be more exposed to its proper use.
By mentioning difficulties with pronunciation, remembering word meanings, and using them in context, participants experienced the fact that word knowledge is multidimensional-ranging from pronunciation, spelling, register, stylistic, and morphological features (Haastrup & Henriksen, 2000;Meara, 1996;Nation, 1990;Richards, 1976) to syntactic and semantic relationships with other words in the language, as well as its antonym, synonymy, and hyponymy (Henriksen, 1999;Read, 2000).

Importance of teaching and scaffolding content-specific language
In the second task, all participants stated being confident in solving the first math question as it was asked through numbers and mathematical symbols. However, they felt frustrated, confused, and stressed while solving the second question since it was asked as a word problem with Turkish words. Mirenda expressed her feelings as: As I read this, I did not know how to begin and I was confused. The vocabulary used is novel and has an unfamiliar spelling pattern. I was unable to solve it because I have no clue what is being asked. The first question was easy to answer because it uses familiar graphemes. The second questions is incomprehensible to me, both mathematically and reading it.
Liala similarly commented, "I didn't even want to read the second question because I immediately noticed unfamiliar words. I was unmotivated to even read the question because I was very frustrated by the words that I didn't understand." Tanya reflected on the importance of content vocabulary knowledge in her comment as; "… outside of this specific question I may know the math material well, but may not be able to apply them in situations where literacy is needed." Through the task, participants realized that teachers need to consider content objectives as well as English language development objectives, such as key vocabulary, commonly used sentence structures, tenses, word forms, and more (National Council of Teachers of English, 2006;Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1989). As a result of this realization, they suggested some strategies that informed their teaching for the future. For instance, Tanya realized the importance of scaffolding and wrote: The activity was helpful in putting me in the position of an ELL. The most helpful part of this exercise was that it allowed me to think about what would make these tasks easier for me. I then can translate these into ways I can be helpful to ELL during English instruction. Above all, it made me realize that often times the student may know the material you are trying to teach, but may not be able to communicate their knowledge. This is especially evident in subject areas in which the English language is not the main goal of the instruction, but is used in the process (such as math).
In addition to scaffolding, both Tanya and Liala mentioned that they would be more careful about identifying the source of difficulties ELLs have in content courses. They stated that they would carefully inquire if the difficulties in content courses emerge from not knowing a concept or not having necessary language skills to understand the concept.
Participants' comments to the second task describe valuable methods they can use to improve teaching and learning in their classrooms in the future: teaching content-specific vocabulary, providing scaffolding to make content comprehensible, and identifying the source of learning difficultieslack of content or vocabulary knowledge.

Importance of vocabulary for comprehension
While discussing comprehension questions that were formed using a sentence taken directly from the text, Julia explained that they "were the easiest to answer because you could use context clues to respond to the question even if you did not know the meaning of each word." On the other hand, she found questions which required deeper understanding and critical thinking to be difficult. Furthermore, Tanya stated, "The most difficult question to answer was the last because it was more open-ended. It required me to understand the content of the paragraph, analyze it, and form an opinion on it." Participants mentioned that some questions were difficult due to unknown words. For example, Mirenda explained her struggle with unknown words as: Question 3 asks for a definition, I can make an educated guess based on context, but I am not confident that "tohum" means seed. Based on my experience of stories and plants, I guessed "Seed" because the paragraph said, "…they would grow". Question 5 required me to think about how I would use the "altin bezelye". Since I am not entirely sure what this is, my answer was vague… If I knew what exactly it was then I could make a more definitive answer of what I would do with them if I had them.
The incomprehensibility of the reading text and comprehension questions made participants emphatic toward ELLs. For instance, Mirenda expressed her empathy as, "… I can understand how frustrations would arise with students if they were faced with many unknown words and then asked to complete questions and write about what they read." Through the third task, participants seemed to realize that being able to answer comprehension questions does not necessarily indicate in-depth comprehension, and that having comprehensible input is important to understand a reading text. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1169614

Limitations on transferability of first language to second language
Among all participants, only Julia was able to put Turkish words into correct syntactical order in the fourth task. All participants expressed confusion about the task as well as empathy toward ELLs. For instance, Liala wrote: I felt very frustrated because I was unable to complete the last task. I can not better understand the difficulties of ELL students. I think I have a better sense of how ELL students must feel. Everything takes a lot longer when you have to translate each individual word and it is difficult to comprehend the overall message when you are focusing on each individual word.
Mirenda and Tanya stated the source of difficulty as unknown vocabulary and identification of their role in the sentence. Mirenda wrote, "… What was very difficult for me was that I did not know the meaning of two words (ise, tren) and was not sure where to put them in the sentence." Compared to the unknown words, participants seemed to be more confused about the syntactical order of Turkish due to the syntactical difference between English and Turkish. They used their syntax knowledge of English to analyze the Turkish syntax. For instance, Tanya "… was able to pick up on the fact that the preposition goes before the verb in Turkish." On the other hand, Julia identified that "the Turkish sentence structure puts the verb at the end of a clause, after the description of the action." Through this task, participants experienced the emotional and cognitive challenges that language learners go through on a daily basis in classrooms, especially in writing classes.

Becoming linguistically responsive by feeling, thinking, and learning like ELLs
Participants' conclusive reflections of the tasks indicated that they all found the tasks helpful from various aspects. For instance, Mirenda expressed finding the tasks helpful in terms of understanding the emotional aspect of language learning process. She commented: I feel that these activities are helpful in understanding the complexity of emotions and thoughts that any person learning another language may feel. Frustration, confusion, and isolation, are a few I felt. … After completing these tasks I feel that I have a "window" into some possible feelings of ELLs and that I can use that to be empathetic to the situation and try to help as much as possible. I would say that my feelings for ELLs have changed, prior to this activity my feelings were indefinably hazy "they are students that I need to use more language with" but now I feel that more specific interventions should be used on targeted skills. I found these tasks to be a great learning exercise; each was a good length to understand the targeted concept but not too long to be daunting or to put off teachers.
Julia, on the other hand, emphasized the teaching and learning aspect of the tasks, and wrote: … They made me realize all the different aspects of a language that English Language Learners must deal with in a classroom. Even if an ELL has a good vocabulary base, if they do not understand the syntax then they will still have lots of trouble verbalizing and writing their ideas. Also, an ELL could be a great math student, but if they do not understand all the vocabulary of a word problem, they will not be able to use their analytical math skills. It really shows you how even if an ELL student is highly capable, the language barrier will make all school tasks more difficult. … These activities made me think about the specific challenges that ELLs have to deal with while trying to learn a new language and keep up with the curriculum.
Participants stated the tasks to be helpful in understanding the complexity of emotions and thoughts that any person learning another language may feel. Overall, the reflections indicate that the tasks were helpful in putting them in ELLs' shoes and made them feel, think, and learn like them.

Discussion
In this section, an in-depth description of the participants' experiences of the phenomenon and synthesis of the underlying dynamics of the experience-textural-structural synthesis-is provided by connecting findings to the items listed under the "knowledge and skills" component of the LRT framework. The connections between the findings and items demonstrate that seven, out of the eight, items were addressed through the tasks. Table 3 provides summary of findings and their connection to the LRT framework.
The first item in "knowledge and skills" is learning about the ELL students' language backgrounds, experiences, and proficiencies, and it was addressed by the first task. In the first task, participants had difficulties with pronouncing foreign words because the foreign language they tried to learn had different sounds and sound combinations from participants' language background. Furthermore, participants had limited experience with and proficiency in the foreign language, which caused them to have difficulty in completing the task. They had non-standard pronunciation of the foreign words, which upset them, and made them empathize with ELLs who stay silent in class.

Findings
Connection to "knowledge and skills" of LRT framework

Multidimensionality of word knowledge
Difficulties with: pronunciation, remembering the meaning of words, and using them in context (I) Learning about ELL students' language backgrounds, experiences, and proficiencies Fear of sounding wrong and foreign (III) Apply key principals of second language learning Empathy toward ELLs (c) Anxiety about performing in second language can interfere with learning + Silent Period

Importance of teaching and scaffolding content-specific language
Importance of knowing content-related vocabulary (II) Identifying the language demands of classroom tasks Importance of carefully identifying the source of problem in content courses: problem with content/concept or vocabulary?
(III) Apply key principals of second language learning (a) Conversational language proficiency is different from academic language proficiency Importance of scaffolding to make content comprehensible (IV) Scaffolding instruction to promote ELLs' learning

Importance of vocabulary for comprehension
Difficulty with answering wh-questions (III) Apply key principals of second language learning Importance of vocabulary for reading comprehension (d) ELLs need comprehensible input just beyond their current level of proficiency Importance of scaffolding to make text comprehensible (IV) Scaffolding instruction to promote ELLs' learning Empathy toward ELLs +

Limitations on transferability of first language to second language
Confusion and frustration (III) Apply key principals of second language learning Importance of knowing meaning and function of words in building sentences (b) Skills and concepts learned in the first language transfer to the second language Empathy toward ELLs (c) Anxiety about performing in second language can interfere with learning

Conclusive reflections on experiential tasks
The tasks were helpful in understanding "the specific challenges that ELLs have to deal with while trying to learn a new language and keep up with the curriculum." The tasks were at "good length to understand the targeted concept but not too long to be daunting or to put off teachers." The second item of the framework-identifying the language demands of classroom tasks-was addressed by the second task, in which participants solved two math problems: one asked through symbols and the other as a word problem. When participants had difficulty in solving the word problem, they suggested studying key vocabulary before working on the task because they identified some content-related words as a language demand that should be resolved before the learning process began.
The third item of the framework is applying key principles of second language learning, and it has five sub-components, each of which was addressed by various tasks. The first sub-component is "conversational language proficiency is different from academic language proficiency." It was addressed again by the second task when participants realized the importance of pre-teaching content-specific words. Unlike conversational language (BICS), which could be learned implicitly and in a shorter time frame, learning content-specific words requires explicit teaching as they are part of academic language (CALP) (Cummins, 2008).
The second sub-component is "skills and concepts learned in the first language transfer to the second language." The fourth task, where participants re-ordered the given Turkish words based on exemplary sentences, addressed this item in a different manner. Contrary to the expected transfer between languages, the skills and concepts participants learned in English did not transfer to Turkish in the fourth task. The first reason for the lack of transfer was related to the syntactical difference between Turkish and English. The second reason was the unknown words. Since participants did not know their meanings, they could not correctly identify what part of speech the words were, which prevented them from putting them in correct syntax order. This finding confirms Verhoeven's (1994) longitudinal study in which he investigated the interdependence of language proficiency of sixeight-year-old Turkish students in Turkish and Dutch, and found hardly any evidence of interdependence in lexicon and syntax. Furthermore, although he found strong positive transfer from L1 abilities to similar L2 abilities, he found only moderate interdependence between L1 and L2 regarding phonological skills (Verhoeven, 1994), which might explain the difficulty participants had in pronouncing foreign words in the first task. This task emphasizes the fact that while positive transfer from L1 abilities to similar L2 abilities is possible, based on the differences between the two languages, transfer might not occur.
The third sub-component is "anxiety about performing in second language can interfere with learning." It was addressed by the first and fourth tasks. In the first task, participants expressed feeling insecure about pronouncing foreign words. They also felt anxious about sounding foreign or stupid and forgot the meanings of words. Similarly, when participants could not transfer their L1 lexical and syntactical knowledge to Turkish in the fourth task, they felt confused and frustrated, which in return impacted their performance negatively. Their insecurity, anxiety, and fear interfered with their learning process (Krashen, 1982).
The fourth sub-component is "ELLs need comprehensible input just beyond their current level of proficiency," and it was addressed by the third task. The large amount of unknown words in the reading text made it incomprehensible and caused cognitive overloading as well as emotional distress. In order to make the text more comprehensible, participants offered various scaffolds, such as previewing unknown as well as crucial words before reading texts, using pictures for unknown words, and using students' first language to explain a word or a sentence.
The fifth and last sub-component of "applying key principles of second language learning" is "social interaction for authentic communicative purposes fosters ELL learning." It is the only item that wasn't addressed by any task. However, failing to address this component was not surprising as the tasks were implemented in written format.
Finally, the last item of the "knowledge and skills" component of the LRT framework is "scaffolding instruction to promote ELLs' learning." It was addressed by both the second and third tasks. In order to make the second and third tasks less demanding, participants offered various scaffolding methods, such as previewing unknown words, using visual aids like pictures or universally known symbols to explain content or words, and using students' first language to explain a word or a sentence.
In addition to addressing majority of the items in the LRT framework, findings also suggest adding two more items. The first item is silent period (Krashen, 1982) because while pronouncing foreign words, the insecurity, anxiety, and fear participants experienced helped them understand why "ELL students may not want to participate, or talk in large group settings." During the silent period, students may not speak out for multiple reasons ranging from not having enough language proficiency to being too shy to speak (Toppelberg, Tabors, Coggins, Lum, & Burger, 2005). Teachers could misinterpret this period as unwillingness to participate or disinterest in class. However, linguistically responsive teachers that are aware of the silent period could help their ELL students overcome this period by respecting their need to stay silent until they attain the necessary language proficiency and confidence to speak. Therefore, silent period could be added as the sixth item to "apply key principles of second language learning." The second item to be added in the framework is activating background knowledge, also referred as prior knowledge. In their responses to the third task, Mirenda mentioned using background knowledge to guess the meaning of unknown words and comprehend the text. Research shows a well-established correlation between background knowledge and reading comprehension (Langer, 1984;Long, Winograd, & Bridge, 1989;Stevens, 1980). Furthermore, to complete the fourth task, participants used their prior knowledge. They knew from English that words in a sentence serve different functions, and they should be placed in a sentence according to the rules of the language. Based on this information and their knowledge of English grammar, participants tried to analyze the Turkish grammar. Therefore, it is important for teachers to activate it while working with ELLs to scaffold the learning process. Activating background knowledge could be added as the sixth item to the "knowledge and skills" component of the framework.
Findings of this study are important for teacher educators as they illustrate that the short-term experiential foreign language tasks not only addressed almost all items listed under "knowledge and skills" component of the LRT framework, but also contributed to the framework by suggesting to add two more items. Findings also indicate that the tasks informed participants' instruction plans for the future. For instance, participants offered various methods for scaffolding in multiple tasks, indicating that they found scaffolding to be a valuable method for helping ELLs learn content and progress in language learning and in reading and writing (Au & Jordan, 1981;Peregoy & Boyle, 2008;Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). They also made insightful reflections approved by second language learning studies, such as the importance of learning and repeating vocabulary words (Stahl, 2005;Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999) and the importance of vocabulary for reading comprehension (Carney, Anderson, Blackburn, & Blessing, 1984;Hickman, Polllard-Durodola, & Vaughn, 2004;Hu & Nation, 2000;Nation, 2006;Whipple, 1925;Wixson, 1986).
Findings of the study contribute to the teacher education research field as they support findings of the existing literature. For example, after completing the tasks, participants empathized with the cognitive challenges and emotional frustrations ELLs feel in mainstream classrooms. These findings confirm Washburn (2008) who stated, "an experiential learning activity develops empathy and can stimulate thinking about strategies for improving communication across the language barriers" (p. 248). Therefore, although teacher education programs mainly attend to increase pedagogical competence and subject matter knowledge, they should not overlook the importance of increasing skills required for empathizing with students to understand their difficulties and scaffolding teaching and learning experiences (Kennedy, 1991;McAllister & Irvine, 2002).
This study is valuable to the teacher education field in that it suggests that language shock activities are a short and target-focused method to raise awareness about linguistically responsive teaching among prospective teachers. Despite its contributions to the field, this study has limitations, which could be used as suggestions for future research studies. This study investigated the phenomenon with only four participants through one data collection method. Therefore, future studies could be designed with larger number of participants and various data collection methods. Furthermore, longitudinal and comparative research methods could be used to investigate the impact of language shock activities in classroom practices following prospective teachers' graduation from the teacher education programs.

Conclusion
While considerable theoretical and empirical attention has been devoted to preparing culturally responsive teachers, much less attention has been focused on preparing linguistically responsive teachers. This phenomenological study investigated the experiences of four prospective teachers with the short-term, experiential language learning tasks prepared in a foreign language to raise awareness about linguistically responsive teaching during the practicum phase of teacher preparation. Results suggest that similar tasks could be implemented in teacher education programs to raise awareness about linguistically responsive prospective teachers. This study contributes to teacher education field by offering a research-based, short, affordable, and target-focused method to prepare linguistically responsive teachers.
(a) 2 + 23 = __________ (b) Ashley has iki pens and Christina has yirmiüç pens. If they toplarlarsa, how many pens they will have in toplam?
Task: White about how you felt while solving the questions. What made them easy/difficult to solve? What is the difference between two questions? How would a teacher make it easier to solve these questions?

Task 3: Reading
Once upon a time there was a girl named Ayşe. She yaşıyordu in a uzak and small village. Her family was çiftçi and they had cows, sheep and tavuk in their çiftlik. One day an old man with yepyeni clothes came to their house and gave her a bag of tohum. He said that if she ekmek these tohumları, they would grow into altın bezelye and she can sell them in the köy for high price…..
(2) What does her family do?
(4) Which animals they had in their çiftlik?
(5) What would you do if you had these altın bezelye and why?
Task: Which questions were difficult/easy to answer? Why? Do you think you were able to comprehend the story? How would a teacher make the comprehension of the text easier?

Task 4: Syntax
Task: Put the following words in correct Turkish order based on the information provided above.
Ben / gittim / işe / kaldım / bugün / ve / işe / geç / tren / ile What does that sentence mean in English? What were the differences/similarities with the Turkish sentence structure (syntax) and English? What were the difficulties you had in completing the task? How did you feel? Were the first examples helpful to complete the task? How? Why/ why not?