A Comparative Study of Bilingual Teacher Preparation Programs in California and Spain

  • Laura Alonso-DíazEmail author
  • Gemma Delicado
  • Francisco Ramos


In response to the European Union’s call for the promotion of linguistic diversity and multilingualism among its member states at various levels, the Teacher Training College at the Universidad de Extremadura in Spain launched a bilingual track in its primary education degree. The track has four main goals: Increasing graduates’ English language proficiency and knowledge of English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching methods and techniques, fostering intercultural communication, and augmenting the internationalization of the program. Save the first one, these are also the goals of the Bilingual Authorization and the M.A. in Bilingual Education at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California. Despite noticeable differences in their respective courses of study, student bodies, and graduates’ future job opportunities, existing similarities between the programs encouraged the authors to conduct a comparative study of their main components: Background, goals, curricula, and requirements for graduation, while granting special consideration to necessary variations in design and implementation. The findings of the study may benefit the global educational community in the field of bilingual teacher preparation by contributing to a better understanding of similarities and range of variations across programs sharing similar goals, despite their implementation in distant locations.


Teacher preparation Bilingual program Professional development 


  1. Arias, M. B., & Faltis, C. (Eds.). (2012). Implementing education language policy in Arizona: An examination of legal, historical, and current practices in SEI. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Cadiero-Kaplan, K., & Rodríguez, J. (2008). The preparation of highly qualified teachers for English Language learners: Educational responsiveness for unmet needs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(3), 372–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. California Department of Education. (2017). English learner students by language by grade. State of California, 2014–15. Retrieved from
  4. Carmel, E. (2011). European Union migration governance: Utility, security and integration. In E. Carmel, A. Cerami, & T. Papadopoulos (Eds.), Migration and welfare in the new Europe: Social protection and the challenges of integration (pp. 49–66). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carter, B. A. (2008). Teacher-learners’ voices: Not the same old song. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castro-Feinberg, R. (2002). Bilingual education: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English Language learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Darder, A. (2014). Cultura hegemónica, lenguaje y políticas del olvido: Cuestionando las políticas lingüísticas restrictivas. Retrieved from–antonia-darder-loyola-marymount-university.
  9. Delicado, G., & Pavón, V. (2015). La implantación de titulaciones bilingües en la educación superior: El caso de la formación didáctica del profesorado bilingüe de primaria en la Universidad de Extremadura. Educación y futuro: Revista de Investigación Aplicada y Experiencias Educativas, 32, 35–64.Google Scholar
  10. Delicado, G., & Pavón, V. (2016). Training primary student teachers for CLIL: Innovation through collaboration. Pulso, 38, 35–57.Google Scholar
  11. Diaz-Rico, L. T. (2013). The crosscultural, language, and academic development handbook: A complete K-12 reference guide (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission. (1995). White paper on education and training—Teaching and learning—Towards the learning society. (COM (95) 590 final, 29 November 1995). Brussels: European Union Law and Publications.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2000). Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. (2000/C 364/01). Brussels: European Union Law and Publications.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2001). Report from the commission to the council, the European Parliament, the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions—The implementation and results of the European year of languages 2001 (in accordance with Article 11 of Decision n° 1934/2000/EC /* COM/2002/0597 final). Brussels: European Union Law and Publications. Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. (2003). Communication from the commission to the council, the European Parliament, the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions—Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: An action plan 2004–2006. (COM/2003/0449 final *). Brussels: European Union Law and Publications.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2005). Communication from the commission to the council, the European Parliament, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions—A new framework strategy for multilingualism. (COM/2005/0596 final *). Brussels: European Union Law and Publications.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2007). Report on the implementation of the action plan promoting language learning and linguistic diversity. (COM/2007/0554 final *). Brussels: European Union Law and Publications.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2008a). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions—Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment. ({SEC(2008) 2443} {SEC(2008) 2444} {SEC(2008) 2445} COM/2008/0566 final). Brussels: European Union Law and Publications.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission. (2008b). Council resolution of 21 November 2008 on a European strategy for multilingualism. (2008/C 320/01). Brussels: European Union Law and Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Fairbrother, G. P. (2014). Quantitative and qualitative approaches to comparative education. In M. Bray & B. Adamson (Eds.), Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (pp. 39–62). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Favell, A. (2008). Eurostars and Eurocities: Free movement and mobility in an integrating Europe. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gándara, P., & Hopkins, M. (Eds.). (2010). Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies. NY: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gun, B. (2011). Quality self-reflection through reflection training. ELT Journal, 65(2), 126–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanson, V. D. (2003). Mexifornia: A state of becoming. San Francisco: Encounter Books.Google Scholar
  25. Hopkinson, A. (2017). A new era for bilingual education: Explaining California’s proposition 58. Retrieved from
  26. Hornberger, N. (Ed.). (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  27. Hornberger, N. (Ed.). (2017). Honoring Richard Ruiz and his work on language planning and bilingual education. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  28. Johannessen, G. G., Thorsos, N., & Dickinson, G. (2016). Current conditions of bilingual teacher preparation programs in public universities in USA. Education and Society, 34(2), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. LMU. (2017). Bilingual education. Retrieved from
  30. Loughran, J. (2011). On becoming a teacher educator. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2017). Profiles of English learners. Retrieved from
  33. Ovando, C. J., Collier, V. P., & Combs, M. C. (2003). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  34. Raventós, F. (1983). El fundamento de la metodología comparativa en educación. Pedagogía Comparada, 3, 61–75.Google Scholar
  35. Rothstein, R. (1998). The way we were? The myths and realities of America’s student achievement. New York: The Century Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tollefson, J. (1995). Power and inequality in language education. NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Alonso-Díaz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gemma Delicado
    • 1
  • Francisco Ramos
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidad de ExtremaduraCáceresSpain
  2. 2.Loyola Marymount UniversityLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations