University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

(USC Thesis Other)

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Explicit Instruction’s Impact on the Student
Achievement Gap in K-12 English Language Learners
by
Roberto Perez, Jr.

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2021

Copyright 2021 Roberto Perez, Jr.
ii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my beautiful wife Monica and my loving children, Alyssa and
Aidan, who supported me throughout my educational endeavors. May it inspire them to follow
their dreams and aspirations.

To my parents, Roberto and Delia, who have always guided, supported and sacrificed to allow
me to explore and succeed in life.

I also dedicate this dissertation to Gary and Caroline McCabe who consider me family and were
always there to support and encourage me throughout my life.

Lastly, I dedicate this to all my teachers, coaches and professors who cared for me and
positioned me to succeed.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation could not be done without the collaborative work of many people. I am
especially grateful, for my committee chair, Dr. Alison Keller Muraszewski, for her valuable
guidance and unwavering encouragement on this journey. I would also like to thank my other
committee members, Dr. Jenifer Crawford and Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores for their academic
expertise and critical feedback. I am sincerely grateful to all three of you.
To Dr. Daryl Camp, Marcus Wirowek and Karen Young, thank you for your insight and
encouragement throughout this educational journey. To the GREAT Cohort 8 and Cohort X, I’m
thankful for all of your support and encouragement.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
Abstract x
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 1
Organizational Context and Mission 2
Organizational Performance Status 3
Related Literature 3
Importance of Addressing the Problem 10
Organizational Performance Goal 11
Description of Stakeholder Groups 12
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals 12
Stakeholder Group for the Study 13
Purpose of the Case Study and Questions 14
Methodological Framework 14
Definitions 15
Organization of the Project 16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 17
English Language Learner Reading Acquisition 17
Factors That Impact Literacy 17
Equity in Education 18
Student Poverty Barriers 19
Family Home Language Barriers 20
Language Programs for English Learners 21
Dual-Language Two-Way Immersion Programs 21
Transitional Bilingual Education 22
Pedagogy Influencing English Learners 23
Explicit Instruction Teaching Strategies 25
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework 31
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 32
Knowledge and Skills 32
Knowledge Influences 33
Explicit Instruction Implementation for ELLs 34
Reflection as a Tool to Improve Instruction 34
Motivation 36
Expectancy Value Theory 37
Teachers Need to Value Instructional Methods 38
Attribution Theory 38
Teachers Should Feel that ELL Proficiency is Linked
to Their Efforts 39
Organizational Influences 41
v

Cultural Models 41
Creating a Culture Open to Implementing Change 42
Cultural Settings 42
Collaboration time 43
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge, Motivation
and the Organizational Context 45
Conclusion 47
Chapter Three: Methods 48
Participating Stakeholders 48
Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale 48
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale 49
Interview Criteria 1 49
Interview Criteria 2 49
Interview Criteria 3 49
Case Study 49
Stratified Random Sampling 50
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation 50
Interviews 51
Interview Protocol 51
Interview Procedures 52
Documents and Artifacts 52
Document Protocol 52
Document Procedures 53
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation 54
Surveys 55
Survey Instruments 55
Survey Procedures 55
Data Analysis 56
Credibility and Trustworthiness 57
Ethics 57
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 61
Participating Stakeholders 62
Determination of Assets and Needs 66
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences 67
Procedural Knowledge 67
Metacognitive Knowledge 74
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes 77
Attribution Theory 78
Utility Value 81
Results and Findings for Organizational Causes 84
Cultural Model 85
Cultural Settings 92
Summary of Validated Influences 100
Chapter Five: Recommendations, Implementation and Evaluation 105
Organizational Context and Mission 106
Organizational Performance Goal 106
vi

Description of Stakeholder Groups 107
Goal of Stakeholder Group for the Study 107
Purpose of the Project and Questions 108
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 109
Knowledge Recommendations 109
Motivation Recommendations 114
Organizational Recommendations 117
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 122
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 122
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 122
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 123
Level 3: Behavior 124
Level 2: Learning 127
Level 1: Reaction 131
Evaluation Tools 132
Data Analysis and Reporting 133
Summary 133
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 134
Limitations and Delimitations 134
Future Research 135
Conclusion 136
References 138
Appendices 151
Appendix A: Informed Consent 151
Appendix B: K-12 Teachers Interview Protocol 153
Appendix C: K-12 Teachers Survey Protocol 157

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 12

Table 2: Knowledge and Skills Influences 35
Table 3: Motivation Influences 40
Table 4: Organizational Influences 44
Table 5: Demographic Information for K-12 Teachers – Survey 63

Table 6: Demographic Information for K-12 Teachers – Interview 65
Table 7: Knowledge and Skill Influences Validated and Not Validated 67
Table 8: Motivational Influences Validated and Not Validated 77

Table 9: Question 13: Please reflect on whether your effort to implement explicit
instruction is improving student success in the classroom? 79

Table 10: Question 14: Do you find value in implementing explicit instruction
to support English Language Learners? 82

Table 11: Organizational Influences Validated and Not Validated 84
Table 12: K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions of Cultural Model Factors 86
Table 13: Question10: Do you feel supported by your school site administrator
When implementing explicit instruction strategies? 87

Table 14: K-12 Teachers’ Perception of cultural Setting Factors for Collaboration Time 93
Table 15: K-12 Teachers’ Perception of cultural Setting Factors for Sharing Ideas 94
Table 16: K-12 Teachers’ Perception of cultural Setting Factors for Teaching Strategies 94
Table 17: K-12 Teachers’ Perception of cultural Setting Factors for Data Review 95
Table 18: K-12 Teachers’ Perception of cultural Setting Factors for Lesson Planning 96
Table 19: Question four: At Rama Unified School District, professional development
and support is provided regularly for explicit instruction teaching strategies? 97

Table 20: RAMA USD English Language Learners Data Over Ten Years 101
viii

Table 21: Summary of Validated Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 101
Table 22: Research Questions Aligned to Knowledge and Skills, Motivation, and
Organizational Validated Influences 103

Table 23: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholders Performance Goals 108

Table 24: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 110
Table 25: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 114

Table 26: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations 118
Table 27: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 123

Table 28: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 124

Table 29: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 126

Table 30: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 129

Table 31: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 131

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Interactive Conceptual Model to Improve ELLs Student Achievement 45
Figure 2: State Dashboard Sample 133

x

ABSTRACT
K-12 teachers continue to face increasing pressure to improve instruction and student
outcomes, especially in the COVID-19 era. This evaluation study examined why the RAMA
Unified School District cannot consistently meet its organizational goal to improve instruction
and standardized test scores for English language learners. A gap analysis framework was
utilized focusing on the knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational barriers of the
RAMA Unified School District’s K-12 teachers. Quantitative and qualitative data was collected
through surveys and interviews of K-12 teachers. Findings suggest K-12 teachers need to
expand their knowledge to improve the implementation of explicit instruction teacher strategies
and further their skills to improve instruction for all students, especially English language
learners. Successful implementation of the recommendations is anticipated to lead to capable
and effective teachers, improve instructional practices, increase student engagement, facilitate
collaboration horizontally and vertically, and ultimately meet the organization’s performance
goal.
1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
This case study evaluated the explicit instruction program implemented at a California
school district and the program’s impact on the student achievement gap between K-12 English
Language Learners (ELLs) and their English-dominant peers. As compared to their English-
dominant peers, an average of 87% of ELLs for the five-year period of 2014-2018 did not meet
grade level standards on the Smarter Balanced Assessment System in English Language Arts,
which demonstrated this is a problem in the state of California (CDE, 2019) and highlights a
persistent student achievement gap. Under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF),
additional funding was intended to improve and increase services for unduplicated students and
test scores for English Language Learners are not trending upward with the increased funding
(CA Education Code, 52060). This case study focused on evaluating the student achievement
gap at RAMA Unified School District, a pseudonym for a California school district, and
specifically studied the degree to which the district achieved its goal of improving English
Language Art scores on the Smarter Balanced Assessment. This student performance affects the
District’s mission per the LCFF and the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) to increase
and improve services for English Language Learners. The organizational performance was
related to the larger problem of utilizing LCFF funding to provide improved and increased
services to these students.
The reduction of the achievement gap for English Language Learners is important in
order to ensure the state of California’s 1.3 million English Language students are academically
successful and prepared for college or career. National statistics presented by the U.S.
Department of Education in 2017 demonstrates that young adults ages 25-34 with a bachelor’s
2

degree earn 33% more than graduates with an associate degree, 62% more than adult high school
completers and 99% more than those without a high school diploma. The median earning for
adults ages 25-34 with a bachelor’s degree was $51,800 and $26,000 for those without a high
school or equivalent (Snyder et al., 2019). A school district providing increased and improved
services via the LCAP will assist in preparing ELLs to succeed in high school, college or career.
Organizational Context and Mission
The RAMA Unified School District (RAMA USD) is a smaller sized school district in
the California central valley that is focused on educating students from transitional kindergarten
to twelfth grade for general education students and age three to twenty-one for students with
special needs. The mission of RAMA USD is through community engagement, effective
communication and a continuous improvement mindset, RAMA USD will improve educational
outcomes for all. RAMA USD is located in a socio-economically disadvantaged area comprised
of a majority Latino population. The District is comprised of 80% Latino students and 85% of
the District’s students are Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FRPM). The District currently enrolls
approximately 3,000 students across: two K-5 elementary schools; one 6-8 middle school; one
K-8 dual-language immersion charter school; one comprehensive high school; and one alternate
education high school. The district is comprised of 20 administrators and managers, a little
over 150 certificated teachers and 175 classified support staff. In addition to the school sites, the
District is supported by eight departments, including Human Resources, Business Services,
Educational Services, Student Services, Special Education and Maintenance, Operations and
Transportation.

3

Organizational Performance Status
The organizational performance problem at the root of this study was the student
achievement gap between K-12 ELLs and their peers. The study also examined the increased
funding from the state of California’s Local Control Funding Formula and the impact of
supplemental and concentration funds on the ELLs performance on standardized testing. As
compared to their English-dominant peers, approximately 87% of ELLs did not meet grade level
standards on the 2016 Smarter Balanced Assessment System in English Language Arts.
Currently, approximately 40% of RAMA USD’s students are classified as English Language
Learners. In order to fulfill the District’s mission and Local Control and Accountability Plan
goals, students will improve 5% year over year on the Smarter Balanced Assessment System in
English Language Arts. Failing to improve RAMA USD’s ELLs population will result in a
continuation of current trends and not prepare students for the future, including preparing them
for career or college programs.
Related Literature
As noted by Gandara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly and Callahan (2003) the United States
continues to be an immigrant nation and it is most apparent in public schools throughout the
country. For example, in the state of California, ELLs total 1.373 million students and comprise
22.1% of the total student population (CDE, 2016). Per statistics from the 2012 California
Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), the majority of ELL are coded in
the Spanish speaking subgroup and total 1.173 million students which is approximately 85% of
all ELLs. The ELL student population has maintained a student achievement gap of
approximately 40% versus their English Only peers as evidenced by the Stanford 9 Achievement
Scores between the years of 1998 and 2002 (Gandara et al., 2003). The Stanford 9 test is a
4

norm-referenced, English–only achievement test provided to all students in California. Since
ELLs are not yet proficient in the English language, the students displayed low reading scores
across all levels. Upon analysis of the Stanford 9 test results, English only students improved
from 581 points to 658 points between 2
nd
and 5
th
grades. During a comparison of the same
grades for Ells, the student achievement gap narrowed by 3 points.
To understand instruction and its effect on ELLs, we need to examine the traditional
model of teaching. In the traditional teacher-centered instructional model, the teacher is tasked
with transmitting knowledge and skills to their students (Crawford & Gross, 2020; Kaufman,
2004). Teacher instructional practices also tend to hinge on prior educational experiences that
shape a teacher’s beliefs, learning and teaching behaviors (Kaufman, 2004). The current
emphasis on accountability, assessments and standards-based instruction has reinforced the
teacher-centered lecture style approach (Kaufman, 2004). As a result, this has also decreased
teaching innovation and experimentation with learner-centered approaches (Kaufman, 2004).
In the current environment, a shortage of teachers in all disciplines has created alternate
routes to obtain teaching credentials. This teacher shortage has decreased opportunities for
different instructional approaches, guided research and practice, and reflection (Kaufman, 2004).
In a traditional instructional model, language instruction for ELLs focuses on the lack of
proficiency in English and minimizes student’s cultural, social and primary language (Crawford
& Gross, 2020). In essence, the traditional method of instruction focuses on developing fluency
in English and not creating a bilingual student (Crawford & Gross, 2020). A more progressive
teaching method revolves around constructivism practices that focus on learner-centered
approaches that focus on social and cognitive aspects of learning (Kaufman, 2004). Progressive
student-centered learning has a basis in the sociocultural theory developed by Vygotsky and the
5

need to eliminate feelings of inferiority by embracing a student’s cultural and language
(Smagorinsky, 2013). This has led to various programs such as dual language immersion
programs and transitional bilingual programs.
Dual language immersion programs, transitional bilingual and English-only programs can
be classified as instructional models (Moughamian, Mabel & Francis, 2009). Instructional
models are used to explain how something works, to describe a process, or order of events
(Hubbell & Goodwin, 2019). An instructional model can also explain how to combine different
instructional strategies to develop an instructional lesson (Akbulut & Hill, 2020). When used
consistently, an instructional model can provide teachers with lesson planning guidance, a
common vocabulary for instructional design, and help delivering quality instruction in every
classroom (Hubbell & Goodwin, 2019). Teachers using the same instructional model facilitates
teacher collaboration to develop a deep understanding of student learning and what teaching
strategies best support students (Hubbell & Goodwin, 2019). The use of an instructional model
guides teachers’ lessons and allows teachers to reflect on their own instructional practices and
which teaching strategies are most effective for student success (Hubbell & Goodwin, 2019;
Moughamian et al., 2009).
As we examined public education and equity in California, Governor Edmund G. Brown
Jr., in 2013 signed into law the Local Control Funding Formula and Local Accountability Plans
which replaced the Revenue Limit funding model which had been in place for 40 years. The
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) consists of equal base grant for all students plus
additional supplemental and concentration grants intended to increase and improve services for
ELLs, socially-disadvantaged students and foster youth. The LCFF flipped the script from
“Top-Down Accountability” enacted in Texas in 1993 and The No Child Left Behind federal
6

guidelines modeled after the Texas-style method (Heilig, Romero & Hopkins, 2017). The Local
Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) aspect of the funding formula was geared to local control
and requires input from diverse community stakeholders who best know the students and the
services needed to prepare ELLs for college or career and ultimately eliminate the student
achievement gap.
The LCAP was designed to bring the community together and consider equity-minded
reforms of English Language Learners based on limited funding. The LCAP is responsible for
seeking community stakeholder input and detailing the allocation of LCFF funds to serve ELLs
and measuring English Learner outcomes. The LCFF and LCAP are designed to work in
tandem to provide additional funds to the neediest students and involve community stakeholder
involvement to provide local control and allocation of state funds.
Through the LCAP and community feedback, school districts can improve existing
educational services or introduce new services to support ELLs. Additional state funds have
been utilized by school districts to support at risk students by improving instruction through
professional development, providing instructional supplies and hiring additional teachers for
English language support and mathematics interventions. This allows for smaller class sizes to
best support ELLs by enabling active learning including more writing, questioning and
discussion (Wright et al., 2019). In a university study by Wright, Bergom and Bartholomew
(2019), class sizes were decreased from 25 to 18 students in introductory and intermediate
college courses and instructors found more time to develop and implement active learning
strategies. This also allows instructors to provide more oral feedback in class to students that
they might not have interacted with larger classes (Wright et al., 2019).
7

Through the LCAP, RAMA Unified School District implemented and invested in an
explicit instruction model to create a uniform framework to provide instruction throughout the
district. The explicit instruction model includes six steps: 1) the review of prior learning; 2) the
presentation of learning goals, new material and teacher modeling; 3) guided practice; 4) check
for understanding; 5) monitored independent practice; and 6) a review of the knowledge taught
(Archer & Hughes, 2010; Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012; Rosenshine, 2012). The explicit
instruction model incorporates research-based teaching strategies which are considered more
progressive and student-centered than traditional teaching methods (Kaufman, 2004). The
explicit instruction model provides a structured system to implement engaging teaching
strategies to teach academic skills to students and allows for scaffolding to guide student learning
(Archer & Hughes, 2010; Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012; Rosenshine, 2012). Rosenshine
(1987) described explicit instruction as a method to teach new material in small steps, with
guided practice, independent practice and active student participation and checking for student
understanding. Active student participation in a collaborative environment has shown to
improve learning and preserve information for future use (Laal, Khattami-Kermanshahi & Laal,
2014). Student engagement can take the form of learner-to-learner engagement, learner-to-
instructor and learner-to-content (Martin & Bolliger, 2018). Martin and Bolliger (2018)
conducted a research study of 155 online students across eight universities and the study
confirmed the importance of all three engagement strategies, especially learner-to-instructor
engagement.
Through uniform teaching strategies, the district is working to create a coherence
framework that can guide action, is comprehensive and not too unyielding for the teaching staff
(Fullan & Quinn, 2015). In a coherence framework, the district can focus on guiding direction,
8

cultivating collaboration among K-12 teachers, increasing deeper learning, and developing
accountability (Fullan & Quinn, 2015). Implementing uniform teaching strategies across the
district with fidelity allows teachers to collaborate more effectively. To improve instruction and
student outcomes, RAMA Unified School District also invested human and fiscal resources in
professional learning communities (PLCs).
The goal of PLCs is to develop a community of learners where teachers and site
administration work together to improve instruction and student achievement (Fullan, 2006).
The district’s path to collaboration started with a need to improve instructional practices in order
to achieve the goal of all students meeting grade level standards on the Smarter Balanced
Assessment Test. As a district initiative, site administrators and their leadership teams were
provided opportunities to attend Solution Tree’s Professional Learning Communities at Work
Institutes. The leadership teams consist of grade level leaders for elementary school sites and
department leaders for secondary school sites. To provide ongoing professional development
opportunities, the district also contracted with Solutions Tree to provide on-site half day
workshops to all staff on PLCs and multi-day training to the site leadership teams.
For district PLCs to be successful, the school site culture needs “reculturing” in order to
build relationships in order to improve educator instruction (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).
Culture change is vital in order to shift professional development efforts toward communities of
practice where the students’ needs are met by examining the educator’s day to day practices
(Vescio et al., 2008). To have a successful culture change, the site principal needs the ability to
lead the work of teachers and site leaders to improve student learning (Fullan & Quinn, 2015).
The site administrator has historically been viewed as the instructional leader but should
be viewed more as the lead learner in order influence teachers and foster professional capital
9

(Fullan & Quinn, 2015; Loose, 2014). Professional capital is defined as human capital, social
capital and decisional capital (Fullan & Quinn, 2015). Human capital is the act of attracting and
developing teachers, social capital is the act of developing relationships and trust with teachers,
and decisional capital is the ability to use human and social capital to make the best decisions
(Fullan & Quinn, 2015). In the lead learner role, the principal uses his leadership team to help
implement change and improve instruction (Fullan & Quinn, 2015). In the lead learner role, the
principal manages a smaller group of management or lead teachers which allows the principal to
focus on key initiatives and goals. As a lead learner, the principal modeling learning by
participating in professional development opportunities helps to facilitate an environment of
continuous learning (Fullan & Quinn, 2015).
Through the LCAP’s process with community feedback, ELL intervention programs and
programs to track ELLs have been implemented to better serve the ELL student population. A
computer-based literacy intervention program was implemented to provide all students assistance
and especially focused on ELLs. A study by Hartman (2019) found that computer-based literacy
intervention programs were used successfully and resulted in increased growth in test scores for
ELLs. However due to the shortness and scope of the study, Hartman recommended a longer
study to be undertaken to examine and confirm the long-term results from computer-based
literacy intervention programs. The district also implemented an online program to monitor and
track ELLs to provide timely and effective support services and monitor students that fulfilled
the requirements for reclassification. This ensures that ELLs can be updated in the student
information system and student designations can be reclassified to fluent English proficient
(RFEP) in a timely manner. The software also ensures students are tested for the English
Language Proficiency Assessment for California (ELPAC) per state guidelines. The ELPAC is
10

the state required test for English language proficiency for non-native speakers that is
administered from K-12.
The district also implemented new student support services through the LCAP to provide
improved student social-emotional learning (SEL) and support services to the student population.
These new services included a SEL curriculum, an additional psychologist, mental health
clinician and student support specialists. Since the district’s student population includes a large
percentage of ELLs and lower socioeconomic status, these new programs and services are meant
to supplement support for students and to support academic growth. These social-emotional
learning programs are designed to provide noncognitive factors such as self-awareness, self-
management, decision-making, relationship skills and social awareness skills (Kendziora &
Yoder, 2016; Kennedy, 2019). Research shows that even a modest investment can improve
school climate, social and emotional competence, grade point average and a decrease in
discipline issues (Kendziora & Yoder; 2016). These new services are also in line with
Maslow’s theory that child growth occurs when a student’s fundamental needs are fulfilled
(Noltemeyer et al., 2012). These fundamental needs may include poverty, food insecurity,
safety, love and belonging and physiological needs (Noltemeyer et al., 2012). A study by
Noltemeyer, Bush, Patton and Bergen (2012), proves support for Maslow’s theory that academic
growth can be positively influenced by improvements in a student’s fundamental needs.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The reduction of the student achievement gap for English language learners is important
in order to ensure the state of California’s 1.3 million English language learner students are
academically successful and prepared for college or career. Providing sufficient increased and
improved services via the LCAP will ensure students are prepared to succeed in school and
11

beyond. School districts continue to adapt to the Local Control Accountability Plan to best serve
their unique student populations. School districts have the constant struggle to maintain the new
local control provided by the Governor while other state legislators continue to request
accountability and demand that districts return to categorical grants with specific uses which
restricts district leadership and best local uses to support students.
While districts work to improve and increase services for their students with community
input, advocacy groups continue to protect students and at the same time take the local control
away from school districts. As previously discussed, the premise of local control is allowing the
school district to best utilize funds based on community input and the local needs of their
students versus having the state dictate how funds can be used through categorical grants that
may not serve our students as effectively. Local control allows school districts and school sites
to be nimble to adapt and modify curriculum and services to best serve our students. Ultimately,
local control will allow districts to best serve the English language learners and allow them to be
successful in their studies and prepare them for college or career.
Organizational Performance Goal

RAMA Unified School District’s goal was to improve English Language Arts results on
the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) System’s Smarter
Balance assessment by at least 5% per year in comparison to the initial 2015 results. The
RAMA Unified School District’s Board of Trustees along with community stakeholder input
developed and approved the district’s five-year strategic plan in 2014. The strategic plan
includes the district’s vision, mission, strategic goals, objectives, evaluation criteria and action
plans. The strategic plan is designed to prioritize strategic goals and specific evaluation criteria
for each goal and link the goal to the district’s Local Control and Accountability Plan. The Local
12

Control and Accountability Plan is designed to improve services to students in order to meet
state level standards.
Description of Stakeholder Groups

The stakeholder groups that make up the RAMA Unified School District community
included students, parents, teachers, support staff, administration and the City of RAMA. The
main stakeholders included students, teachers and administration. The students are an important
group as the district is entrusted with educating and preparing students for college or career. The
teachers are a key stakeholder group and integral to achieving the district’s performance goal as
they are on the front line of educating the students and preparing them to be successful students
and members of society. The administration group included site and district administrators who
are key members to achieving the goals of the district by ensuring teachers and students have
safe facilities, instructional supplies, curriculum and appropriate professional development.
Stakeholder Group’s Performance Goals

The stakeholder group’s performance goals (Table I) summarized the RAMA Unified
School District’s organizational mission which included providing students within the district
with a high-quality education with qualified teachers and encouraging diversity and community
pride. The organizational performance goal section details the district’s goal for ELLs as
detailed in the LCAP. Lastly, Table I lists the goals for the three major stakeholder groups.
Table I.
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission

RAMA Unified School District, in partnership with our community, is committed to maintaining
high expectations for all students through:

• Providing high quality education through effective and rigorous instruction
13

Stakeholder Group for the Study

The combined efforts of all stakeholders provide contributions to the district’s goal of
improving English Language Arts scores on the Smarter Balanced Assessment by at least 5%
year over year. The stakeholder group for this study will be the District’s K-12 teachers. It is
important to evaluate the teachers’ contribution to achieving the District’s goal. The teachers are
tasked with A) developing a positive culture of learning and ensuring the explicit instruction
teaching strategies adopted by the district is implemented; B) engaging students, reviewing and
interpreting student achievement with administration; C) utilizing professional development to
improve student outcomes; and D) utilize the appropriate instructional supplies effectively. The
district’s teachers include school site K-12 certificated staff. The failure to continue to improve
• Ensuring a safe and supportive learning environment
• Embracing our diversity as a strength
• Promoting creative expression, critical thinking and technological literacy
• Encourage school and community pride
• Supporting a caring, experienced and qualified staff

Organizational Performance Goal

On a year over year basis, the RAMA Unified School District will improve ELA scores on the
Smarter Balanced Assessment by at least 5% starting in 2013-14 when LCFF was implemented
until state averages are achieved.

Teachers Students Administration
Effective the 2018-19 school
year, teachers will improve
instruction in ELA by utilizing
explicit instruction strategies
80% of the day to improve
ELLs scores by 5% on an
annual basis until state
averages are achieved.
Effective the 2018-19 school
year, students will improve
ELA test scores by 5% on an
annual basis until they reach
grade level standards.

Effective the 2017-18 school
year, site and executive
leadership will provide
teachers with the tools to
educate the students in order to
improve ELA scores by 5% on
an annual basis until state
averages are achieved.

14

English Language Arts performance will inhibit students from being successful and limit their
ability to become college or career ready. In addition to not preparing students, the county office
of education and California Collaborative for Education Excellence may provide additional
guidance and oversight of the district if continuous student improvement is not met.
Purpose of the Case Study and Questions

As mentioned above, the purpose of this case study was to evaluate the degree to which
the district is achieving its goal of improving English Language Art scores on the Smarter
Balanced Assessment by at least 5% annually. The analysis focused on the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences of K-12 teachers as it relates to implementing explicit
instruction teaching strategies and its impact on the achieving the organizational goal of
improving ELA test scores by 5% per year. While a complete performance evaluation would
focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis
is the district’s teachers’ group.
The questions that will guide this study are the following:

1. To what extent is the RAMA Unified School District achieving its goal of improving
student scores in English Language Arts?
2. What is the K-12 teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to the implementation of
explicit instruction teaching strategies to improve ELLs test scores by 5% year over year?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and K-12 teachers’
knowledge and motivation?
Methodological Framework
The case study applied Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis method which provides a
systematic, analytical approach that helps to clarify organizational and stakeholder performance
15

goals and identifies the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred performance
goal within the RAMA Unified School District. Assumed interfering elements were generated
based on personal knowledge and related literature. These elements were validated by using
surveys, interviews, literature review, document analysis and content analysis. Research-based
solutions were recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Definitions
California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS): a statewide
longitudinal data system used to maintain individual student level data including demographics,
courses, discipline, assessments, staff assignments, and other data for state and federal reporting
requirements (CDE, 2019).
English Language Learners (ELL): A general term for a group of students for whom
there is a report of a primary language other than English on the state-approved Home Language
Survey and who, on the state approved oral language assessment have been determined to lack
the English language skills of listening, comprehension, speaking, reading and writing necessary
to succeed in regular instructional programs (CDE, 2019).
Explicit instruction: Explicit direct instruction is defined as a collection of research-
based instructional strategies for designing and delivering lessons that explicitly teaches grade
level content to all students (Archer & Hughes, 2010; Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012).
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): California state funding formula enacted in
2013-14 that establishes base, supplemental and concentration grants designed to simplify the
previously existing funding streams (CDE, 2019).
16

Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP): The LCAP is a three-year plan that
describes a school district’s goals, actions, and services to support student outcomes that includes
state and local priorities.
Smarter Balanced Assessment System (SBAC): The SBAC are year-end summative
assessments utilizing computer-based tests based on Common Core State Standards for English
language arts and mathematics.
Organization of the Project
This case study is organized into five chapters. This first chapter provided the reader
with the key concepts and terminology related to the problem of the student achievement gap
between K-12 ELLs and their English dominant peers. The RAMA USD mission and
commitment to improving instruction for ELLs through the Local Control and Accountability
Plan is discussed, as well as a description of the stakeholders and the gap analysis approach to
addressing student achievement. Chapter Two provides a review of the current literature
surrounding the challenges in preparing ELL students for college, career or the workforce.
Topics covered include both historical and current factors influencing ELLs as well as a review
of some of the current efforts to improve instruction for ELLs. Literature related to instruction
methods for ELLs is included to inform the knowledge, motivation and organizational factors
influencing ELLs achieving grade level standards at RAMA USD. Chapter Three details the
assumed interfering knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements as well as the
methodology when it came to the selection of teacher participants, data collection and data
analysis. In Chapter Four, the interview and survey data and results are assessed and analyzed.
Chapter Five provides recommendations, based on the data and literature, for closing the
perceived gaps and strategies to improve instruction and student performance.
17

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter examined literature related to possible root causes in the student
achievement gap between K-12 ELLs and their English only peers. The first section reviewed
literature related to the student achievement gap of ELLs, the importance of reading skill
acquisition to achieve success and barriers to language acquisition. The second section reviewed
trends in teaching strategies and programs directed to provide support to ELLs throughout grades
K-12. The chapter then turns to the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic framework of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that K-12 school districts encounter in
closing the student achievement gap of ELLs.
English Language Learner Reading Acquisition
In the state of California, ELLs made up 20.4 percent (1,271,150) of the student
population in the 2017-18 school year (CDE, 2019). Compared to their peers, 62% of ELLs did
not meet grade level standards on the 2016 Smarter Balanced Assessment System in English
Language Arts which highlights a student achievement gap (CDE, 2016). Census data shows an
increasing number of students entering the K-12 educational system come from low
socioeconomic, immigrant backgrounds, or both (Lesaux, 2012). Approximately one in every
three Latino students grows up in poverty and begins school with limited English proficiency
that places these students at academic risk (Lesaux, 2012; Lopez & Velasco, 2011). One study
suggested that the lack of parent English proficiency and speaking Spanish at home are also
factors in literacy success (Waldfogel, 2012).
Factors that impact literacy. Factors that impact literacy of ELLs is important to
analyze as the district administration and teachers work to implement effective instruction
pedagogies to close the student achievement gap. In carefully examining the global education
18

systems, the United States ranks poorly primarily due to the inequality between educational
resources and educational outcomes between white students and non-Asian “minority” students
(Darling-Hammond, 2007). Over fifty years after the groundbreaking Brown v. Board of
Education (1954) decision, the gap in educational achievement remains large due to the
imbalances in access to educational opportunities for non-white students (Darling-Hammond,
2007). Another trend is that African American and Hispanic American students tend to be
concentrated in less affluent inner-city schools.
Equity in education. In a school setting equity is providing students with the resources
to be successful academically, linguistically, culturally, socially, and psychologically (Rios et al.,
2009). It differs from equality which provides each student the same resources regardless of a
student’s actual needs (Rios et al., 2009). As we examine educational equity, there are two main
dimensions to consider. The first dimension is fairness which means that personal and social
circumstances should not be an obstacle for a student achieving academic success (OECD,
2008). The second dimension is inclusion which means each student is provided a basic
minimum standard of education (Harrington, 2017; OECD, 2008). These two dimensions are
closely connected in attempting to overcome the socioeconomic and homelife factors affection
students (OECD, 2008).
Through the equity lens there is a continuing segregation of neighborhoods by
socioeconomic factors which creates inequalities between revenues, funding formulas, and
school administration practices that creates vast differences in educational resources available to
more affluent suburbs that typically have smaller class sizes, higher paid teacher, facilities and
wider range of course offerings (Darling-Hammond, 2007). One major factor affecting ELLs is
access to qualified teachers (Gandara et al., 2003). In 1992, in the case of Rodriguez et al. v. Los
19

Angeles Unified School District, it was determined there was an unequal assignment of
inexperienced and unprepared teachers in predominantly minority schools creating less access to
high-quality instruction and curriculum (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
In a study by WestEd, during the 2007-2008 fiscal year, the number of K-12 teachers
peaked at over 310,000 and decreased to 287,000 by 2010-2011 fiscal year. Since 2006, teacher
retirements have increased steadily, however enrollment in teacher preparation programs and the
issuance of new teaching credential has declined sharply between 2001 and 2010. This trend in
credentials continues to increase the equity issues of inner city and affluent suburbs (Bland et al.,
2011). Lastly, taking into consideration school site leadership experience also impacts the
quality of teachers and ultimately student performance. A study by Bruce Fuller et al (2007),
concluded that one-third of principals had less than four years of total experience which can
impact the way administrators think and act strategically. Principals appear to spend their day
responding to immediate needs rather than being strategic in their thinking (Fuller, 2007).
Student poverty barriers. Family poverty barriers impact a students’ access to
educational opportunities and further impacts their learning opportunities and ability to achieve
grade level standards. Socioeconomic status (SES) can be defined as a combination of three
variables indicators including parental income, education and occupation (Sirin, 2005).
Although SES has been the focus of many studies, there is continued dispute of the meaning of
SES and empirical measurements in studies (Sirin, 2005). Sirin (2005) defined parental income
as economic resources available to a student, parental education is an indicator of income and
occupation as the education and income required to maintain a particular job or career.
Minority status continues to be a major factor in student achievement. On average,
minority students lagged behind their white peers in terms of academic performance primarily
20

due to 1) minorities living in lower income housing or single parent households; 2) less parental
education; and 3) most often attend less affluent schools (Sirin, 2005). Family SES also had a
large impact on student achievement as it determines the child’s neighborhood, home resources
and supportive relationships which are necessary to success in academic achievement (Sirin,
2005).
Family home language barriers. The family’s home environment can impact an ELLs’
ability to develop fluency in English or can provide an opportunity for bilingualism. In the
United States, monolingualism is considered the norm and bilingualism is often viewed as a
stigma (Duursma, 2007; Farver, 2013). A major factor affecting a child’s language preference is
the language preference of the parent (Duursma, 2007). Although the parent’s language
preference plays a major factor, the father’s language preference played a larger role in their
research (Duursma, 2007).
The first-generation immigrant students typically learn English as a second language in
an effort to improve their social status and mobility, but they also tend to lose aspects of their
primary language through attrition (Duursma, 2007). Literacy is a way to belong to specific
communities and to the larger society (Gillanders, 2004). In their study, second generation
immigrant students typically grow up on a more complex linguistic environment (Duursma,
2007). Children of bilingual parents may grow up speaking English only, however, if the first
language is valued at home and used for social purposes with friends and family, children are
more likely to be bilingual (Duursma, 2007).
In addition, the role of parents at home not only impacts the language preference of the
child, but also support through shared reading, teaching and modeling literacy-related skills can
support early literacy skills development (Farver, 2013). Schools also can have a large impact
21

on child literacy if they communicate with parents in a language they understand and provide
information on expectations (Gillanders, 2004). Lastly, acculturation plays a significant role on
language acquisition at home and explains the extent that individuals may adapt to a larger
society or maintain their cultural heritage (Farver, 2013). As parents become more oriented to
American mainstream and become part of the “melting pot”, they begin to adopt more
Americanized child rearing values, goals, and encourage behaviors associated with positive
academic outcomes (Farmer, 2013).
Language Programs for English Learners

Dual-language two-way immersion programs. The effect of two-way immersion
programs have found great success in developing bilingual students that results in successful
academic performance on standardized testing. Although there are critics of bilingual education
being detrimental to academic success for minority-language students, increasing research is
suggesting some instruction in the native language benefits academic performance (Marian,
2013; Greene, 1998). Dual-language two-way immersion programs include minority-language
and majority-language students learning together. The two popular models for two-way
immersion programs are the 90/10 and the 50/50 model. The 90/10 model starts with 90% of the
instruction in the second language and 10% of the instruction in English. By the time students
reach the fifth grade, instruction is 50% in the second language and 50% in English. The 50/50
model maintains instruction equally throughout the program (CAL, 2016).
The results of a study suggest that minority-language students in bilingual immersion
programs increased standardized mathematics and reading scores across grades with students in
higher grades scoring better than students in lower grades (Marian, 2013). Although all
minority-language students showed improvement, students in 90/10 model programs become
22

fluent in English at the higher grades as more instruction is presented in English. These results
are consistent with prior studies since minority-language students can take four to seven years to
develop enough English proficiency to achieve successful academic performance (Marian,
2013). This results in greater improvement in standardized testing in the higher grades than the
lower grades when instruction continues in their native language (Marian, 2013). Majority-
language scores also increased over their mainstream peers. A possible explanation for an
increase in standardized testing scores for minority-language students is the manner that dual-
language two-way immersion programs foster language use and are encouraged to use both
languages regularly (Marian, 2013). Another observation for minority-language students is that
instruction of academic concepts are taught in their native language which increases
comprehension and instructional content is learned more effectively (Marian, 2013). There is
also a growing body of literature that reclassifying students from ELLs to “fluent English
proficient” status too early is not effective since fluency for most ELLs takes four to 10 years to
achieve (Conger, 2008). Students in English immersion classes have favorable outcomes on
standardized testing at the elementary level and dual-language two-way immersion students
catch-up and surpass their peers in middle school as their English language proficiency improves
in the later grades (Umansky, 2014).
Transitional bilingual education. Transitional bilingual education is in essence
assimilationism to some degree and not as language immersive as dual-language two-way
immersion programs. The United States public educational system has provided the belief of the
great equalizer for upward mobility (Growe & Montgomery, 2003; Spener, 1988). The belief
that children of lower socioeconomic status can use education to surpass their parents for a
brighter future (Growe & Montgomery, 2003; Spener, 1988). The goal of transitional bilingual
23

education is to mainstream students to English-only classes, but many times students are
mainstreamed before they have the skills to be successful (Garza-Reyna, 2019; Spener, 1988).
Transitional bilingual education programs typically only last two to three years which is
insufficient time to develop cognitive academic learning proficiency (CALP) in their native
language (Gándara & Escamilla, 2017; Spener, 1988). As a result, students transitioning to
English-only classes cannot cross language transfer from their native language to English due to
their CALP deficit in English (Spener, 1988). A high level of English CALP is needed to ensure
a high-quality equitable education and plays an important role in meeting the grade level
standards of English language arts and other core content areas (Gross, 2018).
Many critics believe students will learn the English language more effectively if they are
immersed in the language, however a study conducted by Slavin et al (2010), demonstrated that
there is no evidence from their study to unequivocally support either English only or bilingual
education. The findings of their study reinforced the conclusion that the quality of instruction
and not the language of instruction is the most important aspect of ELL instruction (Slavin,
2010). A study of an urban school district in Texas by Tong et al. (2008) has similar findings
that the quality of instruction is more important than the language of instruction to ELLs.
Pedagogy influencing English Learners. Many educators believe multilingualism is
important for students to thrive socially, academically, and professionally in the 21st century
(Crawford & Gross, 2020). A teacher to be successful must have a wide set of knowledge at
their disposal, however teachers with ELLs in their classroom must have knowledge of key
aspects of second language instruction. There are innovative programs structured to create
collaboration between mainstream, bilingual and English as a second language teachers, however
most literature does not articulate the knowledge base structures to be successful (Lucas, 2008).
24

In addition, collaboration between teachers can be difficult depending on the level of
engagement and discussion (Davison, 2006). A different body of literature brings attention to
the knowledge base to teach ELLs, but that information has not yet reached the teacher education
programs. (Lucas, 2008). For ELLs, teachers need to utilize established principals of second
language learning. Since language is the medium by which students access curriculum, language
cannot be separated from what is taught and learned in school (Lucas, 2008). ELLs are learning
English at the same time that they are learning the content of the curriculum. To best be
prepared for ELLs, a teacher needs to understand the following six principals that are highly
relevant to providing instruction to ELLs.
1. Conversational language is different from academic language.
2. ELLs must be able to understand the message conveyed and provide meaningful
expression.
3. Implement meaningful social interactions to foster the development of the English
language.
4. Create a safe and welcoming classroom environment for students.
5. ELLs with strong native language skills are more likely to learn from English only
students.
6. Incorporate explicit attention to linguistics and scaffolding in lesson plans (Lucas,
2018).
One of the main pedagogical practices for teachers of ELLs is the ability to adapt instructional
content to make it understandable to the student. In other words, the teacher needs to scaffold
the literature (Lucas, 2008). Explicit guidance and scaffolding of comprehension strategies such
as questioning, predicting, making inferences and summarizing can also benefit ELLs (Van
25

Staden, 2011). Scaffolding instruction for ELLs enables the teacher to consider the students
linguistic abilities and the tasks that are expected to be learned (Lucas, 2008).
Explicit instruction teaching strategies. The explicit instruction model can be defined
as a structured and systematic framework that includes a set of effective teaching strategies for
teaching academic skills to all students (Archer & Hughes, 2010; Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012;
Rosenshine, 2012). The teaching strategies are considered explicit due to its unambiguous and
direct approach that includes instructional design and delivery procedures (Archer & Hughes,
2010). Explicit instruction also contains a series of scaffolds, where students are guided through
the learning process with clear purpose statements, clear expectations and rationale, supported
practice with feedback until independent mastery is developed (Archer & Hughes, 2010;
Rosenshine, 2012). Explicit instruction is based on research in cognitive science, research on
master teachers and research on cognitive supports (Rosenshine, 2012). Rosenshine (2012)
describes cognitive science as the focus on how the brain acquires and uses information and
cognitive supports describes instructional procedures such as thinking allowed, scaffolding and
modeling are derived from. Research on master teachers included understanding how they
taught new information, whether they check for understanding and type of supports provided to
students (Rosenshine, 2012). The main components of the explicit instruction model include: 1)
the review of prior learning; 2) the presentation of goals, new material and models; 3) guided
practice; 4) check for understanding and feedback; 5) monitor independent practice; and 6)
engage in weekly and monthly review (Archer & Hughes, 2010; Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012;
Rosenshine, 2012).
The first component of explicit instruction is to begin the lesson with a short review of
prior knowledge. From an educational perspective, knowledge can consist of four forms of
26

knowledge: 1) factual, 2) conceptual, 3) procedural and 4) metacognitive (Krathwolh, 2002;
Rueda, 2011). From a cognitive perspective knowledge can applied with the following
processes: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate and crate (Crawford & Gross, 2019).
The ability to apply new knowledge and skills successfully can lead to improved performance,
commitment and higher student morale (Grossman & Salas, 2011).
The initial lesson of explicit instruction includes preparing the student for new
information (Archer & Hughes, 2010; Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012; Rosenshine, 2012). This
starts with reviewing prior knowledge such as homework, necessary skills and knowledge
(Archer & Hughes, 2010). This time is used to review concepts and knowledge relevant to the
day’s lesson and subsequent lessons (Rosenshine, 2012). A community ethnography and school
study of 30 young Latino students by Moje et al. (2004) focused on different prior knowledge
sources or funds of knowledge. The students in the study were from different neighborhoods in
a Latino community in Detroit, Michigan. All the students were bilingual or biliterate in Spanish
and English. The study found that the students were more engaged in their lesson when they
were able to relate prior knowledge to the subject matter studied.
A second study by Recht and Leslie (1988) examined how prior knowledge influences
short-term memory and long-term retention. Their study included 64 middle school students
randomly selected based on reading ability and prior knowledge of baseball. Students read a
baseball text and were asked to move figures on a board to reenact baseball game in the text.
After this process students were asked about school to interfere with their working memory and
then were asked to summarize the reading selection and sort 22 sentences that were important
concepts of the text. The results concluded that students with prior knowledge of baseball
performed better than students with less knowledge. The study also determined that reading
27

ability was not a factor in the study. In other words, students with high reading ability and low
baseball knowledge were no more capable then students with low reading ability and low
baseball knowledge.
The second step in explicit instruction method includes stating a clear goal for the lesson
and presenting new material in small steps (Archer & Hughes, 2010; Rosenshine, 2012). The
key to this step is that all the components build upon each other and focuses on the learning
objective (Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012). During daily instruction, steps two to four all blend
together during instruction. The lesson delivery strategies include modeling the new concept,
checking for understanding, implementing English learner language acquisition strategies, and
cognitive strategies (Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012). Throughout the lesson, student
engagement is key, specifically for ELLs. ELLs need to be engaged to learn the content and the
language presented in each lesson (Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012). The goal is to teach English
language arts in a meaningful way in every lesson (Goldenberg, 2008).
The modeling of instruction is a powerful tool in skill acquisition as it provides steps to
follow and allows the teacher to demonstrate how to perform the necessary steps (Archer &
Hughes, 2010; Rosenshine, 2012). The act of modeling consists of demonstrating the skill and
describing the steps in the process to the students. Describing the various steps is often referred
to as think-aloud. Think-aloud allows the students to internalize and remember the steps in
acquiring the new skill (Archer & Hughes, 2010; Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012). The teacher
can also use a second model and involve the students in guided student practice. This type of
modeling allows the teacher to facilitate the lesson by asking students to summarize main points
and supervise students practicing a new skill (Rosenshine, 2012).
28

A study by Bauman, Seifert-Kessell and Jones (1992) on the effect of think-aloud
instruction on elementary comprehension monitoring abilities included 68 fourth grade students.
The students were randomly assigned to a think-aloud group, a directed reading-thinking activity
group and a directed reading activity group. All students took a pretest 1 designed to evaluate
the students’ ability to monitor their comprehension and pretest 2 examined students on
strategies they believed would be useful to comprehension. After the pretests, the students spent
10 days of instruction based upon their assigned group. The students were then completed three
posttests to evaluate their progress. Posttest 1 was similar to pretest 1, posttest 2 was a different
version of test 2 and posttest 3 was a degrees of reading power standardized assessment. The
study found that think-aloud instruction was an effective method to increase reading
comprehension monitoring abilities.
The next step in explicit instruction is guided practice which allows students to practice
through the use of prompts. Prompts can be physical or verbal depending on the needs of the
student. Prompts can take the form of directives, questions, reminders or clues (Archer &
Hughes, 2010). In explicit instruction, checking for understanding is used throughout the
lesson to confirm students, especially ELLs, are learning what is being taught during the lesson.
Checking for understanding allows the teacher to assess the students, make instructional
decisions within the lesson, allows for slowing down or reteaching, and confirms that ELLs
know how to do homework before it is assigned (Archer & Hughes, 2010; Hollingsworth &
Ybarra, 2012). Checking for understanding is an important part of formative assessments and
can reveal student questions and concerns (Fisher & Frey, 2011; Rauschenbach, 1994).
Checking for understanding can take the form of oral language (i.e. thank-pair-share, discussion
29

prompts and Socratic seminars), questioning, writing, and verbal and visual hand signals (Archer
& Hughes, 2010; Fisher & Frey, 2011; Rauschenbach, 1994).
The fifth step in explicit instruction is independent work. This allows students
unprompted practice in which students perform the new skill without teacher guidance or
assistance (Archer & Hughes, 2010; Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012; Rosenshine, 2012).
Independent practice allows students additional review they need to become fluent in the skill
(Rosenshine, 2012). The sixth and last step in explicit instruction methods is to engage in
weekly and monthly review. Rosenshine (2012) explains that students need continued practice
to create well developed networks in their long-term memory. For example, when a student’s
knowledge on a subject is large and networked, it is easier to learn new information if prior
knowledge is readily available (Rosenshine, 2012).
Throughout the use explicit instruction, English language strategies include meaningful
support of ELLs within every lesson. These strategies include language objectives and
vocabulary development. Language objectives are used to develop an ELLs’ knowledge of
English and the use of the English language. Every lesson includes English language arts and
English language development built into the lesson. ELLs are meaningfully engaged in
structured listening, speaking, reading and writing (Archer & Hughes, 2010; Goldenberg, 2008;
Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012). Vocabulary can be divided into content, academic and support
vocabulary. Content vocabulary are specific to a subject area, academic vocabulary is specific to
words included in academic texts, and support vocabulary are those words needed to understand
the meaning of sentences or phrases from a lesson (Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012).
English language content access strategies are the tools, techniques or methods teachers
use to modify oral and written English for ELLs. Scaffolding or modifying instruction for ELLs
30

is a strategy to make the material easier for the student to understand until they master the
content and language to be able to reduce the modifications (Lucas, 2008; Walqui, 2006).
Explicit instruction includes comprehensible delivery which involves modifying sentences to
make them more understandable and speaking more clearly (Lucas, 2008; Walqui, 2006). A
second strategy is context clues which includes providing information to facilitate meaning of
unknown words (Lucas, 2008; Walqui, 2006). The third strategy includes supplementary
materials and modifying existing materials to increase ELLs access to the instructional content
(Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012; Lucas, 2008; Walqui, 2006.).
Explicit instruction is a systematic approach to provide meaningful and thoughtful
instruction to English only students and ELLs. A study by Slavin, Madden, Calderon,
Chamberlain, and Hennessy (2010) indicated that the quality of instruction is more important
than the language used for instruction. A study by Slavin and Cheung (2004) found a modified
version of direct instruction to be successful with ELLs in small group settings and one-to-one
tutorials. Slavin and Cheung’s (2004) study examined the findings from a case study by Gunn,
Biglan, Smolkowski and Ary (2000). Gunn et al. (2000) studied the efficacy of supplemental
instruction in early elementary grades. The study focused on 256 kindergarten through third
grade students from three small school districts in Oregon with large Mexican American
populations (Gunn et al., 2000). The students selected for the study were below grade level on
reading or pre-reading skills.
The study utilized Reading Master and Corrective Reading programs for supplemental
reading instruction, however the programs were unique due to the design of the instruction
(Gunn et al., 2000). Teachers in the study used a modified version of direct instruction strategies
to provide new instructional content and provided student feedback on their performance (Gunn
31

et al., 2000). New content was introduced until mastered using teacher modeling, practice
opportunities and a cumulative review or lesson closure (Gunn et al., 2000). The results of the
study supported the benefits of supplemental instruction to improve the students learning to read.
The students who received supplemental instruction were more skilled at decoding words than
peers that did not receive supplemental tutoring. The supplemental instruction benefited both
English speakers and ELLs. The researchers did imply that the duration of supplemental
instruction could be a critical factor and long-term intervention could prove more beneficial to
the students (Gunn et al., 2000).
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework

Clark and Estes (2008) provide a systematic, gap analytic framework of knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences. Gap analysis allows for effective performance
improvement by identifying the gap between current performance and the organization’s goals.
Once a gap is identified, this analytic framework examines the stakeholder knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences that may impact performance gaps (Clark and Estes,
2008). Knowledge and skills enhancement includes information, job aids, training and
education. Knowledge and skills reference the process to learn complex knowledge and
develop professional expertise (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation influences includes three
major facets of motivated performance: A) active choice; B) persistence; and C) mental effort.
Motivation includes the intent to consider a goal, continuing to work towards a goal and the
mental effort to accomplish the goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Motivational
variables such as self-efficacy, attributions, value and goals may be examined when analyzing
performance gaps (Rueda, 2011).
Lastly, gap analysis examines organizational influences on performance goals by
32

considering work processes, material resources and organizational culture (Clark & Estes,
2008). Each of the elements of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework will be
addressed below in terms of knowledge, motivation and organizational needs to meet the
performance goal of meeting grade level standards. Each of these assumed knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences on performance will then be studied further through
the methodology discussed in Chapter 3.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences

Knowledge and Skills

This section reviews the literature related to knowledge and skills transfer in the field of
K-12 education in order to improve educator learning and ultimately improve instruction to
English Language Learners (ELL). Analysis of performance problems in K-12 education
includes the review of knowledge and skills and allows resources to be targeted as a means to
achieve the organization’s global goal (Rueda, 2011). Practically all educators receive
professional development throughout their careers to improve knowledge and learn new skills
(Mathieu, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 1992). The ability to gain knowledge and transfer skills are
important outcomes of professional development and the application that knowledge and skills in
other contexts, such as the classroom are key to improving instruction to ELLs (Ford, Smith,
Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998; Mayer, 2011). It is important to determine whether educators
know how to achieve the organization’s goals, as many times educators are unaware or do not
want to disclose that they lack the knowledge and skills to be successful (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Applying new knowledge and skills successfully can lead to improved performance,
commitment, and higher morale, which benefits in achieving the organization’s goals (Grossman
& Salas, 2011).
33

Knowledge influences. Richard Mayer (2011) defines learning as the change in
knowledge due to new experiences, new knowledge and a change in the learner. Robert Rueda
(2011) further explains the four types or dimensions of knowledge. The four dimensions of
knowledge consist of factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive (Krathwolh, 2002;
Rueda, 2011). The factual knowledge dimension revolves around the recall of basic elements
and terminology needed to understand a subject or to solve problems (Krathwolh, 2002). An
example of factual knowledge is a student knowing the numbers one to 10. Conceptual
knowledge focuses on relationships of the basic elements and how they function together to
classify, generalize, model the elements (Krathwolh, 2002; Rueda, 2011). An example of
conceptual knowledge is a teacher understanding the importance of effectively engaging students
during instructional lessons. The third knowledge component is procedural knowledge.
Procedural knowledge focuses on “how to do something” and implements methods, algorithms,
techniques, and methods to accomplish activities (Krathwolh, 2002; Rueda, 2011). A teacher
knowing how to create and implement effective lesson plans is an example of procedural
knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge is the concept of being aware of one’s own cognition and
cognitive processes (Krathwolh, 2002; Rueda, 2011). As Linda Baker (2006) noted,
metacognitive knowledge is the “thinking about thinking (para.2).” Metacognitive knowledge
allows a person to understand and implement the strategies needed to complete a task effectively
(Baker, 2016; Flavell, 1979). An example of metacognitive knowledge is a teacher’s ability to
reflect on how to best differentiate learning for an ELL student. Although all four dimensions of
knowledge are important to teachers, this study will focus on one procedural knowledge and one
metacognitive knowledge component. The procedural knowledge component will focus on
implementing instructional methodologies in developing lesson plans. The metacognitive
34

knowledge component will focus on the ability to reflect on the effectiveness of implementing
lessons plans and engaging students.
Explicit instruction implementation for ELLs. Teachers need to know how to
effectively implement explicit instruction teaching strategies during their daily student lessons.
The ability to implement an effective lesson plan is procedural knowledge and focuses on
implementation methods, techniques, and methods (Krathwolh, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Educators
need to have the ability to implement instructional methodologies to provide effective lesson
plans to support ELL students.
A method to implement and improve lesson plans is allowing teachers to learn from
modeling and observation of lesson plans which reinforces the desired methods and techniques
(Bandura, 1977). Training through modeling provides educators increased confidence in their
abilities to be successful in developing lesson plans and increases their overall self-efficacy
(Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2006). As teacher implementation of lesson plans improves,
instructors can develop a systematic approach to connect new information to past learning,
engage student interest, provide meaningful practice and modeling for ELL students (Rupley,
Blair, & Nichols, 2009). As studies have shown, implementing explicit instruction teaching
strategies in the learning environment is effective in providing ELL students improved language
development skills (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005). Research has
also shown that interactive instruction combined with direct instruction, similar to explicit
instruction, is most effective to ensure mastery of literary skills (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary,
Saunders, & Christian, 2005).
Reflection as a tool to improve instruction. Teachers need the knowledge to reflect on
their effectiveness in implementing lesson plans and effectively engaging students.
35

Metacognitive knowledge describes the ability to have knowledge and control their own
cognition (Ford et al., 1998). Metacognitive thinking allows teachers to reflect on the knowledge
that has been acquired and adjust behavior and develop better strategies (Ford et al., 1998).
Teacher reflection is needed to create a constant improvement cycle and drawing on experience
to improve instruction (Ferry & Ross-Gordon, 1998). This reflection-on-action allows teachers
to reflect on their lesson plans that may not be functioning as intended and modify the lessons to
better suite their students to create more effective learning environment (Ferry & Ross-Gordon,
1998; Rueda, 2011). The intent of reflection in the educational environment is to encourage
teachers to think about their actions and bring about self-initiated conclusions or realizations of
their teaching style (Barnett & O’Mahony, 2006). Teachers can utilize observations, peer
coaching, reflective questioning, vision creation and action research as tools to reflect
individually or as a group. As noted by Barnett and O’Mahoney, school improvement only
flourishes when a culture of reflection is present to focus on instruction and learning (2006).
Table 2 below provides the organizational mission, stakeholder goal, specific knowledge
influences, knowledge types and knowledge influence assessments. As the table indicates, one
procedural influence and one metacognitive influence will be used to understand how educators
are implementing explicit instruction teaching strategies in their classrooms. The procedural
influence will specifically test if teachers are implementing pedagogy concepts in their lesson
plans and the metacognitive influence will test the how reflection may improve lesson plans for
ELLs.
Table 2.
Knowledge and Skills Influences
Organizational Global Goal
On a year over year basis, the RAMA Unified School District will improve ELA scores on the
CAASPP’s Smarter Balanced Assessment by at least 5%
36

Motivation
Human beings consist of two unique and cooperating psychological systems known as
knowledge and motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). As previously discussed, knowledge and
skills allow teachers to learn new information and skills to implement in educational instruction.
As a school district, administration needs to keep in mind that staff may know how to do
something, but that does not mean they have the will or want to do the task (Rueda, 2011).
Motivation is the mechanism that engages and sustains activities or tasks to reach a goal (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Most researchers believe that three motivational lenses affect the
work environment (Clark & Estes, 2008). These lenses include active choice, persistence and

Stakeholder Goal
Site and Executive Leadership will provide educators with the tools to improve ELL student
scores on standardized state testing by 5% on an annual basis.

Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
(i.e., declarative
(factual or
conceptual),
procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Teachers need to know how to
effectively implement Explicit
Instruction strategies during their
daily student lessons.
Procedural Teachers will be asked to
provide weekly lesson plans to
ensure lesson plans are
incorporating the key
instructional concepts.

Teachers need the knowledge to
reflect on their effectiveness in
implementing lesson plans and
effectively engaging students.

Metacognitive Teachers will be asked to rate
their effectiveness in teaching by
using student data to compare
improvements in English
Language Learners over the
school year.
37

mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Active choice reflects the internal choice to
pursue a goal, persistence reflects the motivation to complete a goal amongst other distractions
and mental effort refers to the sustained mental effort required to complete selected work goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). As one reviews motivation, more recent
research suggests that motivation is more cultural and environment based than individual based
(Rueda, 2011).
In this section, the motivational theories that will be studied include expectancy value
theory and attribution theory in the instructional environment. Expectancy value motivation
theory will guide the identification of motivational and social factors influencing educational
goals and cultural norms (Eccles, 2006). Attribution theory will guide the review of motivation
in an educational setting and seek to understand why events happen.
Expectancy value theory. The expectancy value motivation theory is at its most basic
psychological level, can be defined by two fundamental questions: 1) “Can I do the task?” and 2)
“Do I want to do the task?” (Eccles, 2006). In essence, the expectancy value theory will guide
the identification of staff values and the relationship to completing a goal (Eccles, 2006; Rueda,
2011). Eccles (2006) describes the perceived value of a task consisting of four related
components: intrinsic value; attainment value; utility value; and perceived cost. Intrinsic value
explains the enjoyment in completing the task. Attainment value refers to the importance of
completing the task well. Utility value explains the perceived useful the task will provide in the
future. Lastly, perceived cost places a value on activity in terms of time and effort on
completing the task. These four factors work together to determine the value of doing a task
(Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011).
38

Teachers need to value instructional methods. K-12 teachers need to see the value of
using the explicit instruction teaching strategies. Expectancy value theory describes that the
higher an educator values a task, the more likely they are to fully engage in completing the task
or organizational goal (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). As a result, motivation is key to engaging
staff to strive for the organizational goal. For a District, motivation is key to engaging the
teaching staff to strive towards the organizational goal of improving instruction and performance
goals. Since motivation has a larger cultural influence than individual influence, developing a
supportive educational culture districtwide can assist in reshaping how professional development
is perceived and implemented (Rueda, 2011). Staff finding value in explicit instruction
strategies will create a consistent instructional model and develop fidelity across the district. The
performance gaps will continue until motivation across the district improves to achieve a
common goal of improving student achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is noted that
instructional staff need continual support to change initial beliefs in instructional methodologies
to feel comfortable with implementing new knowledge and skills in the classroom (Hart & Lee,
2003). Research also suggests that although teacher beliefs may not have changed, teachers in
the study acquired new knowledge and skills and an awareness to improve in an area where they
felt confident previously (Hart & Lee, 2003).
Attribution theory. Attribution theory provides an important tool to gauge motivation
in an academic setting (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). It seeks to understand how individual
beliefs about current events affect future events. Attribution theory researchers consider
attributions to follow three main dimensions: stability, locus and control (Rueda, 2011; Weiner,
1985). Stability refers to whether attributes are temporary or permanent. If permanent, then the
result is more likely to occur again. For example, if a student performed poorly on a Spanish test
39

because they were ill, then that is a temporary attribute and should not affect future tests
(Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Rueda, 2011; Weiner, 1985). Locus refers to whether the
attributes are internal or external. In this example, if the student believes they performed badly
on a test due to their ability, that is an internal attribute (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). The
last dimension is control and refers to whether the event is under control of the student. For
example, if a student lost a cross country race because he forgot his shoes and had to borrow
shoes, that is under the student’s control (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Rueda, 2011).
Attribution theory attempts to explain an individual’s place in a larger social environment and
how each individual reacts differently to the same event (Rueda, 2011).
Teachers should feel that ELL proficiency is linked to their efforts. Teachers should
feel that reading proficiency of ELLs is directly linked to their efforts of implementing
instruction rather than the student’s lack of ability. Attribution theory attempts to explain how
each individual educator reacts differently to the same event (Rueda, 2011). Although classroom
performance varies from room to room, typically student demographics are similar throughout
the school. Teachers need to understand that they can affect the attributions that a student makes
(Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Teachers affect students on a daily basis and providing proper
comments, feedback and praise can have a tremendous long-term effect on learning (Anderman
& Anderman, 2006). If a student builds negative attributions, their motivation to achieve in the
future will be compromised. In addition, teachers can assist and educate parents with providing
positive attributions. Lastly, speaking to students about the successes and failures will open a
window into a student’s self-attributions and give them an opportunity to correct misconceptions
or harmful attributions.
40

Table 3 below provides the organizational mission, stakeholder goal, specific assumed
motivation influences and motivational influence assessments. As the table indicates, one utility
value influence and one attributions influence will be used to understand how teachers are
implementing explicit instruction teaching strategies in their classrooms. Utility value will
examine teacher value level of explicit instruction strategies and the attribution model will
examine teacher sentiment towards their efforts on instruction to ELLs.
Table 3.
Motivation Influences

Organizational Global Goal
On a year over year basis, the RAMA Unified School District will improve ELA scores on the
CAASPP’s Smarter Balanced Assessment by at least 5%

Stakeholder Goal
Site and Executive Leadership will provide educators with the tools to improve ELL student
scores on standardized state testing by 5% on an annual basis.

Assumed Motivation Influences

Motivational Influence Assessment

Utility Value – Teachers need to see the value of
using the explicit instruction teaching strategies.
Survey of teachers: “How important is
utilizing the explicit instruction strategies to
engage our English Language Learners?”
(Likert Scale)

Attributions – Teachers should feel that reading
proficiency of ELLs is directly linked to their
efforts of implementing Instruction rather than the
student’s lack of ability.
Survey of teachers: “English Language
Learners’ student achievement is linked
directly to my efforts to improve
instruction.” (Likert Scale)

“What are some suggestions to improve
reading proficiency of English Language
Leaners in your class?”

“What are some obstacles to improving
reading proficiency of English Language
Learners in your class?”

41

Organizational Influences

The organizational culture of RAMA Unified School District will influence the
knowledge and motivation and ultimately the academic success of ELLs. Organizational culture
will affect all attempts to improve student instruction and ultimately understanding the
organization’s culture is needed to implement change (Clark & Estes, 2008). Although there are
many organizational theories that address the role of culture on organizations (Kezar, 2011), the
most relevant to this study is cultural models and cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). Cultural models incorporate the shared beliefs, values and goals of an organization
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Cultural models examine
the norms and rules of an organization; however, they also study the spirit, fluidity and
complexity of an organization (Kezar, 2011). In contrast, cultural settings revolve around how
employees work individually or together to perform their day to day activities to create
something of value (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Typically, cultural settings are derived
from the organization’s cultural model, however, cultural settings could also alter the cultural
model over time (Rueda, 2011). As teachers attend professional development opportunities, they
can obtain new knowledge and skills that can modify the current instruction pedagogy. It is
important to study both cultural models and cultural settings as these are not independent
models, but dynamic and complementary (Rueda, 2011).
Cultural models. Within a K-12 school district setting, cultural models shape the
organizational structure, values, policies, practices and reward structure (Rueda, 2011). Cultural
models are always evolving and typically change is slow and long-term due to changing of
values, beliefs, and traditions (Kezar, 2011). In the K-12 environment, the superintendent,
impacts the tone and culture of the district (Schein, 2004). As the leader, the superintendent can
42

be a transformational or transactional leader. The transformational superintendent can create
organizational change and thus impact the culture model (Burke, 2004). Typically, district
leadership carefully examines potential changes in organizational behavior or reorganization
initiatives to minimize frustration amongst all staff (Rueda, 2011). For example, school districts
are not blank canvases, but have existing policies and procedures that need to be taken into
consideration when implementing innovative programs or instructional pedagogies (Rueda,
2011). Understanding cultural models is important to determine if they are barriers to
instructional learning and need to be targeted for change (Rueda, 2011).
Creating a culture open to implementing change. The organization needs a culture
that is open to implementing explicit instruction teaching strategies districtwide to improve ELL
instruction. Culture models explains that a strong leader can create a stabilizing force within a
school district and thus can facilitate a culture that provides identity, meaning and motivation
(Schein, 2004). For example, a strong superintendent can utilize stakeholder theory to identify
the definitive stakeholders to create a new culture or environment. Working with opinion
leaders, or champions for innovation, can assist a superintendent and his leadership team in
molding a culture that lends itself to innovate with new teaching pedagogies (Lewis, 2011). In
this case, opinion leaders are a group of stakeholders such as senior teachers, instructional
coaches or union leaders whose opinion leads other stakeholders (Lewis, 2011). Creating a new
culture that is open to change or adopting new teaching pedagogy is a balance between the
tensions of maintaining a strong and stable organizational culture and the ability to make change
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Cultural settings. While cultural models study the more invisible aspects of a school
district, such as the shared beliefs, values and goals of an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
43

2001; Schneider et al., 1996), the cultural setting studies the more visible aspects of a school
district (Rueda, 2011). The cultural setting includes the who, what and when of daily tasks
performed on school site (Rueda, 2011). As previously discussed, the study of cultural settings
examines how employees work together to create something of value (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). In the example of teachers, teachers share ideas and explore what is working or is not
working in their classrooms. The exchange of ideas and experiences may change the cultural
model with a more effective teaching strategy. Through the exchange of knowledge, teachers
need to reflect on the acquired skills and adjust behavior and apply new teaching strategies (Ford
et al., 1998). As new policies, procedures or programs are implemented, it is
important to understand the underlying cultural settings in order to implement successful change.
Collaboration time. The organization needs to provide staff time to collaborate with
their peers to improve instruction. As previously discussed, a school district’s cultural setting is
the who, what and when of daily tasks (Rueda, 2011). From this perspective, a daily or weekly
task is collaboration time. Collaboration time is time provided by a district or school that allow
teachers to meet as a larger group or smaller grade levels groups to share ideas, experiences,
strategies, data review and planning. Collaboration time can be informal or a more formal
process such as professional learning communities. Professional learning communities includes
an ongoing practice of sharing and interrogating teaching practices, reflection, collaboration, and
learning orientated methods (Stoll et al., 2006). The key to collaboration time and for successful
school change is finding time in the day (Raywild, 1993). Collaboration time for teachers can
develop and sustain school improvement and may be considered more valuable than equipment,
facilities and professional develop opportunities (Raywild, 1993). School districts can create
time by negotiating through collective bargained agreements, through site administers
44

prioritizing time to carve out collaboration time and teachers meeting on their own in informal
groups
Table 4 below provides the organizational mission, stakeholder goal, specific
organizational influences and influence assessments. As the table indicates, one cultural model
influences and one cultural setting influence will be examined to understand the organizational
culture. The cultural model influence will examine the organizational acceptance to instructional
methodologies and the cultural setting influence will examine teacher collaboration time.
Table 4.
Organizational Influences

Organizational Mission
On a year over year basis, the RAMA Unified School District will improve ELA scores on the
CAASPP’s Smarter Balanced Assessment by at least 5%

Organizational Global Goal
District leadership will provide educators with the tools to improve ELL student scores on
standardized state testing by 5% on an annual basis.

Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence: The organization
needs a culture that is open to implementing
explicit instruction strategies districtwide to
improve ELL instruction.

Teachers will be surveyed to examine
acceptance levels to implement district
instructional methodologies.
Cultural Setting Influence: The organization
needs to provide staff time to collaborate with
their peers to improve instruction.

Teachers will be surveyed to determine if the
collaboration time provided within
professional learning communities (PLC) is
useful to improve instruction?
Do teachers collaborate outside to PLC time?

45

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’
Knowledge, Motivation and the Organizational Context
The literature review above has considered both theory and research to explain why ELLs
have struggled to close the achievement gap on standardized testing with their English only
peers. It has also addressed the knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that may be
affecting ELLs student achievement, teacher pedagogy and state factors at RAMA Unified
School District. So far, these potential influences have been presented independently, but in
order to guide this inquiry, they are considered in relation to one another. A conceptual model
pulls together these theoretical concepts and research findings to create a framework for the
study (Maxwell, 2013). The following model and descriptive narrative will demonstrate how
these factors are believed to interact at RAMA Unified School District and how they potentially
influence the performance improvement objective to improve student achievement of ELLs.
Figure A. Interactive Conceptual Model to Improve ELLs Student Achievement

State of California:
Macro Culture
RAMA Unified
School District:
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings
Certificated
Staff:
Knowledge and
Motivation

Performance Improvement:
Improve ELL student scores on standardized
state testing by 5% on an annual basis.

46

This study aims to understand the student achievement gap of ELLs vs. their English only
peers at RAMA Unified School District in order to explore improvement strategies. Figure A
provides an illustration of how the various concepts presented can help guide this inquiry. The
knowledge and motivation influences are specific to the K-12 teachers at RAMA Unified School
District. Knowledge influences include factual knowledge which includes the ability to
understand ELLs and develop appropriate lesson plans (Krathwolh, 2002), conceptual
knowledge to model the elements and engaging students (Krathwolh, 2002; Rueda, 2011), and
procedural knowledge as to how to access techniques and implement lesson plans, and
metacognitive knowledge which is the teachers ability to reflect on differentiated learning
(Baker, 2016; Flavell, 1979; Krathwolh, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Motivation influences includes
expectancy value theory which explains the value and the motivation to complete a goal (Eccles,
2006) and attribution theory current events affect future events (Anderman & Anderman, 2006;
Rueda, 2011; Weiner, 1985).
The illustration shows the teachers embedded within RAMA Unified School District and
within the larger state environment. RAMA Unified School District provides a cultural model
and cultural settings that significantly influences both motivation and knowledge depending on
the value placed on the K-12 teachers and the settings to support or hinder performance
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Additionally, both the K-12 teachers and RAMA Unified
School District are embedded in a macro culture (Schein, 2017), a factor that seems to
significantly impact this area of inquiry. This inquiry will need to consider how this macro
culture impacts and is experienced by the district, K-12 teachers and its influence on ELLs.

47

Conclusion
The purpose of this case study addressed the problem of the student achievement gap
between K-12 English Language Learners (ELLs) and their English only peers, specifically at
RAMA USD, in order to evaluate student achievement. This chapter first explored some of the
possible root causes for the student achievement gap identified in the literature that have been
found to serve as barriers to ELLs performing at grade level standards. The chapter then
explored the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on teacher pedagogy, socio-
economic status and home influence on ELLs. The funding formula for school districts was also
examined to examine determine the effectiveness of supplemental and concentration funding to
provide increased and improved services to ELLs. Chapter three will present the study’s
methodological approach to the problem of practice, which is a qualitative and quantitative case
study of RAMA USD.

48

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This chapter examined the status of knowledge, motivation and organizational support
related to K-12 teachers implementing explicit instruction teaching strategies and its impact on
the student achievement gap of ELLs. The researcher also explored opportunities and strategies
to support ELLs at RAMA Unified School District. This chapter described the research
approach and rational, the study design and methods of data collection and analysis, and review
of issues related to credibility, trustworthiness and ethics.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus for this study was the K-12 teachers at RAMA
Unified School District. The certificated staff consists of 125 K-12 teachers and “stratified
random sampling” (Johnson & Christensen, 2014) was employed to select 8 to 12 K-12 teachers
to be interviewed. The K-12 teachers are referred to as “the case” to be studied and any
sampling that occurred within this case study was typical purposeful sampling of relevant
documents, school sites and K-12 teaching staff. Data analysis occurred during the course of
data collection, allowing for theories to emerge from the findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Due to the smaller size of the total population of the K-12 teachers, individual interviews were
feasible and hold the greatest potential for in-depth exploration of the individuals experience
related to ELLs. Surveys were also be utilized to ensure a larger population is reached during the
case study than time allows during the interview process.
Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale

Surveys were one of the two primary sources of data for this case study as they were utilized
to collect data from 24% of K-12 teachers and provide trends throughout the teacher ranks. As part
of the survey process, the researcher met with union representatives and then meet with teachers at
each site at their staff meetings to discuss the purpose of the dissertation and purpose of the survey.
49

The total population of the survey included all K-12 teachers at RAMA Unified School District. The
survey data collection process began upon conclusion of the interview process. The survey portion
was administered through the researchers USC email via the Survey Monkey application. The
researcher utilized site administrators as a medium to initiate the survey with teachers.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale

Individual interviews were one of the primary sources of data for this case study as it allowed
for rich data collection to help understand the knowledge, motivation and organizational support for
teachers and ultimately support for ELLs. The researcher anticipated participation from the K-12
teachers during the interview process as RAMA Unified School District’s executive team is
supportive. The interviews helped initially during the case study and surveys were sent shortly after
the conclusion of the interviews.
Interview criteria 1. The participants, teachers, must have ELLs present in their
classroom to be eligible for the interview portion of the case study. The rationale was to ensure
that knowledge, motivation and organizational data was relevant to the case study.
Interview criteria 2. Participants eligible for the interview portion of the case study
included all teachers with ELLs. The rationale was to ensure that all teaching experiences were
captured in the study, including initial training for new teachers.
Interview criteria 3. Participants eligible for the interview portion of the case study
must be from all school sites. The rationale was to ensure that knowledge, motivation and
organizational data for the case study includes elementary, middle school and high school
experiences.
Case study. The case being studied was the RAMA Unified School District’s K-12 teachers
and five teachers were interviewed. This represented approximately four percent (4%) of the K-12
50

teachers. K-12 teachers were interviewed to understand each person’s knowledge and motivation
and also explore the cultural setting and model and its effect on teacher support for ELLs.
Stratified random sampling. Stratified sampling is a technique that is used to divide a
population into exclusive groups or strata and then a random or systematic sampling is performed to
select a sample set (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). The stratified random method allowed K-12
teachers that work with ELLs to be selected from each school site. The sample set was drawn from
the total population of K-12 teachers that work with ELLs by a procedure where each member has an
equal chance to be selected to be interviewed. When every member in the sample set has an equal
chance to be selected it is called an equal probability of selection method. This method allowed for
opinions from randomly selected employees to be voiced for the case study.
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
Through an evaluation model approach, the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis process
was used as a framework to identify RAMA USD performance gaps in knowledge, motivation
and organization. The gap analysis process involved identifying root causes that can impact the
organization’s ability to meet its performance goal. Once the root causes were identified,
solutions were developed and implemented to ensure the performance goal is met. As the
performance goal results were evaluated, the process to identify further performance gaps
continued to create continuous improvement to meet the performance goal of the organization.
The methodological framework used included a mixed methods approach involving a
case study model. A mixed methods approach involves integrating both qualitative and
quantitative data within the research study (Creswell, 2018). This mixed methods study was
designed using the convergent mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2018). The convergent
mixed methods approach is designed to use quantitative and qualitative data to provide a
51

comprehensive analysis of the research problem. The quantitative and qualitative data was
collected at the same time and integrated to interpret the overall results (Creswell, 2018).
Utilizing the convergent mixed methods approach, quantitative data was collected using a
survey instrument and qualitative data was gathered through participant interviews. Additional
quantitative data was gathered via the use of secondary or existing data including student trend
reports since the inception of the Smarter Balanced Assessment System. The quantitative data
was analyzed using descriptive statistical procedures to determine significance and qualitative
data was grouped and coded into themes for interpretation. Knowledge, motivation, and
organization influences that impact the student achievement gap were identified based on
information gathered and related literature.
Interviews
Interview protocol. The interview protocol consisted of up to 15 semi-structured
questions to provide flexibility yet consistency among the participants to ensure knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences were gathered related to the student achievement gap
(Merriam & Tisdall, 2016). The questions were organized into four categories including
teaching experience, experience with explicit instruction strategies, support from site
administration and support from district administration. The semi-structured format best met the
needs of this study as it allowed the researcher the flexibility to modify the question structure to
gather specific information from the participants (Merriam & Tisdall, 2016). The semi-
structured format also allowed the researcher to probe further within the interview and add or
delete questions as deemed appropriate. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework was
used to develop interview questions to gather information on knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences focused on the student achievement gap.
52

Interview procedures. The interview procedures included selecting five teachers across
various grades and school sites. The interviews were scheduled for the fall of 2020. Purposeful
selection was used to determine participation in the interview process (Creswell, 2018). The
individuals selected included teachers from all sites, grades and varying levels of experience
within the district. Although there is no number of participants required for qualitative research,
the number established should provide enough information to address the research questions
(Creswell, 2018). Each participant participated in a single interview which was estimated to be
approximately one hour in length (Weiss, 1994). During a typical interview, participants were to
be provided three locations for the administration of the interview. Due to the COVID-19
pandemic, all interviews were conducted via the researcher’s USC zoom account. The zoom
interview format allowed the interviewee to feel more comfortable and safe in their classroom.
All interviews were recorded via tape and supported through written notes of the researcher. The
interview notes and recordings will be stored in a locked drawer and on the researcher’s
computer with password protection. At the end of the interview portion of the case study, each
participant will be provided a thank you letter and a $15.00 Starbucks gift card for their time.
Documents and Artifacts
Documents and artifacts as data is similar to obtaining data through interviews,
observations or surveys (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Documents and artifacts are ready-made
sources of information available to the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). There are several
documents that can be collected to provide further clarification and context to data obtained from
interviews and surveys proposed in this study.
Document protocol. The researcher works for RAMA Unified School District and had
access to the research setting. The documents that were collected include fiscal reports, board
53

presentations, site presentations, aggregated student and performance data from CDE and Local
Control and Accountability Plans (LCAP) for the last ten years. These reports are public
documents and served as primary source documents to demonstrate the student performance of
ELLs on standardized tests (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Documents that are considered
confidential in nature were not be copied and observational notes were taken for these
documents. The data derived from documents and artifacts can provide different aspects of the
research study and allowed for triangulation which reduced the biases from a single method of
study (Maxwell, 2013).
Document procedures. The reports and documents listed above were requested from
the business services and educational services division of RAMA Unified School District during
the survey and interview process. A major benefit of document and artifact collection is that
was collected at a time convenient to the researcher (Creswell, 2018). Documents were
requested in the fall and winter. Documents were stored on the researcher’s computer with
password protection. Within the conceptual framework of this study, documents and artifacts
were measured to ascertain whether there were performance gaps in the K-12 teacher population
affected by knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The selection of the documents mentioned above provided insight into all three of these
areas. First, it supported insights into the motivation of the K-12 teachers in implementing and
evaluating the LCAP and whether increased supplemental services are benefiting ELLs. It may
also show lack of knowledge if teachers are not able to implement explicit instruction strategies
properly to benefit the ELLs. If the student performance data is improving, it supports that
knowledge is being implemented effectively. On the other hand, if ELLs performance is
declining across all grades, it could indicate that organizational barriers are inhibiting student
54

learning and district teaching methodologies are not effective. Although the focus of this study is
on the implementation of district teacher methodologies, there are other factors such has parental
involvement, socioeconomic status and homelife that may affect student outcome.
Although the selected document and artifacts provided data related to student
performance of ELLs, there were limitations to using this data to support the research questions
for this study. The first limitation was that the documents selected provide information for the
district on a macro level. The documents and the derived data are not be produced for research
purposes and may not be available in a useful form to the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
A second limitation revolved around the difficulty to determine from the derived data if changes
in student performance were attributed to a specific action. The data may point to a positive or
negative change in student performance but may not provide sufficient information to explain the
change in performance.
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
As previously discussed in this chapter, the researcher utilized an evaluation model
approach, the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis process as the framework to identify RAMA
USD performance gaps in knowledge, motivation and organization. The methodological
framework used a mixed methods approach involving a case study model. This mixed methods
study was designed using the convergent mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2018). Following
the convergent mixed methods approach, quantitative and qualitative data was collected at the
same time an integrated to interpret the overall results (Creswell, 2018).
Surveys are best suited when a researcher is seeking information to evaluate programs
and for research (Fink, 2013). This case study was an evaluation model and the use of a survey
was appropriate for this mixed methods approach. Additional quantitative data was gathered via
55

the use of secondary or existing data including student trend reports based on the Smarter
Balanced Assessment System. The quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistical
procedures to determine significance and qualitative data was grouped and coded into themes for
interpretation. Knowledge, motivation, and organization influences that impact the student
achievement gap was identified based on information gathered and related literature.
Surveys
Survey instrument. The survey protocol consisted of up to 15 open ended questions,
closed ended questions using primarily Likert scale responses and open-ended ratio questions. In
designing the survey, Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework was used to develop
survey questions to gather information on knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
focused on the student achievement gap. Similar to the interview protocol, survey questions
were organized into four categories including teaching experience, experience with explicit
instruction strategies, support from site administration and support from district administration.
Survey procedures. The survey was administered to all certificated staff, including K-
12 teachers, instructional coaches and teachers on special assignment, at RAMA Unified School
District. The total survey population consisted of 125 certificated teachers. The case study used
nonrandom convenience sampling method to ensure all available participants are included in the
study (Fink, 2013). Attempting to capture the entire survey population allowed for the reduction
in the sampling error (Fink, 2013). The survey was created and administered online via Survey
Monkey. Each participant received an informed consent as part of the survey to explain the
purpose of the research project, procedures to complete the survey and inform them that all
information will be confidential in nature, the ability to withdraw from the survey and thanking
them for their time. The survey was sent to the participants RAMA Unified School District’s
56

email from the researcher’s USC email. The researcher utilized site administrators as a medium
to send the survey to their teaching staff. The participants were provided four weeks to complete
the survey. At the end of each week, a thank you/reminder email was sent to each participant.
During the last week, the participants were provided a reminder that the survey was concluding.
At the conclusion of the survey window, all participants will be sent a thank you email. The
survey results and findings were stored in Survey Monkey under password protection and the
researcher’s computer with password protection.
Data Analysis

The study utilized descriptive statistics survey data and articulated in an analytical
format. Data analysis began at the conclusion of the survey as delineated in phase one and at the
end of the interview was delineated as phase two. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted
once all survey results are submitted. For interviews and observations, data analysis began
during data collection. The researcher wrote analytic memos after each interview. The
researcher documented their thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the data in relation
to the conceptual framework and research questions. Once the researcher had completed the
interviews, interviews were transcribed and coded. In the first phase of analysis, the researcher
used open coding, looked for empirical codes and applied priori codes from the conceptual
framework. A second phase of analysis was conducted where empirical and priori codes were
aggregated into analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data analysis, the researcher identified
pattern codes and themes that emerge in relation to the conceptual framework and study
questions. The researcher analyzed documents and artifacts for evidence consistent with the
concepts in the conceptual framework.

57

Credibility and Trustworthiness

When developing a survey, it is important that the instrument and the individual
questions are assessed for reliability and validity. Reliability is defined by an understanding that
research findings can be repeated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Validity is defined as using an
instrument and to obtain useful and meaningful inference (Creswell, 2018). One method to
measure reliability and validity is to pilot test the instrument with participants in similar role in a
district other than RAMA Unified School District (Fink, 2013). The pilot study participants
were asked to complete the survey and the responses were reviewed for reliability and validity.
The pilot study participants were also interviewed for their interpretation of the instrument and
the questions. Based upon feedback from the participants, the survey and questions were
improved (Creswell, 2018).
To determine the value of this case study, it was important to address the concepts of
credibility and trustworthiness. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) use the term validity in place of
credibility, but they refer to the same threats to achieving accurate findings in qualitative
research: researcher bias and reactivity. The researcher was the primary instrument of data
collection and analysis and their familiarity with the data source allowed them to access reality
through the interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While this is a strength of the qualitative
approach, the researcher’s lens could affect their perception, leading to biases in the data and the
interpretation. Although bias cannot be completely eliminated, the researcher engaged in self-
reflection throughout the data collection and analysis process.
Ethics
This study employed a mixed methods approach including qualitative and quantitative
research methods. Qualitative methods included teacher interviews and document review.
58

Quantitative methods included a ratio and Likert Scale survey questions. The qualitative and
quantitative research methods require that the researcher collect information directly from the
participants in their work setting and demands confidentiality and adherence to ethical practices
(Meriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this case study, ethical concerns were minimized through the
review and monitoring of the data collection, analysis and dissemination process.
As the author and researcher of this case study, there is an ethical code of conduct that
was followed to maintain confidentiality and to ensure no harm comes to the case study
participants (Glesne, 2011). It was of paramount importance to maintain confidentiality of
participants as research investigated the effectiveness of school district supported teaching
strategies, professional development opportunities and administrator support. The case study
included written informed consent forms that were provided to each study participant to ensure
they are informed that 1) participation is voluntary; 2) aspects of the research may affect them;
and 3) they may stop to participate at any point in the study (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin,
2011). The informed consent also detailed permission to record and disclosure the storage and
security of data on a password protected computer and encrypted back-up data service.
The case study included document review (i.e. test score data) and teacher surveys and
interviews at the RAMA Unified School District. The researcher’s relationship to the
organization is as a member of the superintendent’s executive team overseeing the business
services division. In the researcher’s current role as the chief business official, the researcher
does not have any oversight of the educational side of the district nor does the researcher have
direct oversight of teachers or any input in their employee evaluation process. As a member of
the leadership team, the researcher was interested in the results of this study to determine if the
district’s fiscal resources from California’s Local Control Funding Formula are being utilized in
59

an effective manner and additional dollars are being used effectively to improve and increase
services for our unduplicated students.
Although the role of the researcher does not have direct oversight over the district’s
teachers, the researcher could have undue influence over the teachers in the district’s hierarchy
(Citi Programs, 2019). The informed consent process was very important in this case study to
ensure teachers that their confidentiality was maintained, research results will not be discussed
with site or district level administrators, and that they have the choice to participate or leave the
study at any time. In addition, the researcher clearly defined that during survey and interviews,
the researcher is strictly serving as a researcher for a dissertation and not representing the district
during that process.
As a result of research analysis there was the potential for reciprocity for the participants
as the findings could lead to recommendations to improve district sponsored teaching strategies,
improved professional development and district support. Additionally, the researcher intended
to send each interview participant a nominal gift card as a token of appreciation at the end of the
data collection phase. This was not promised to participants and was used to compensate
participants for their time supporting the case study. Throughout the study, the researcher
followed the key ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence and justice (CitiPrograms,
2018).
Researcher bias is inherent in qualitative research and cannot be eliminated nor should it
be eliminated (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher is an individual with their own subjectivity,
research theories, beliefs and perceptual lens on the case study (Maxwell, 2013). In order to not
ignore or sanction the researcher’s bias, the researcher utilized reflective memos to document his
values and assumptions related to the case study and as well as those that led to interest in this
60

case study topic. This was important due to the researcher’s experiences as an ELL student and
current role with the organization that assists with evaluating the district’s current educational
status and setting the future strategic goals and direction.

61

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This chapter described the participants and presented the findings of this evaluative case
study. All participants in this study taught English language learners and English dominant
peers in their classrooms. The survey data shared here was collected during a four-week period
via SurveyMonkey and interviews were conducted over a two-week period for the purpose of
capturing the teachers’ knowledge, perceptions and practices related to utilizing the explicit
instruction model and teaching strategies and the effect on English language learners on state
standardized tests. The explicit instruction model is a structured and systematic framework that
includes effective teaching strategies for teaching academic skills to all students and
incorporating English language strategies to support ELLs within every lesson (Archer &
Hughes, 2010; Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012; Rosenshine, 2012).
During the course of this case study, quantitative and qualitative data was collected and
then analyzed to develop an understanding of K-12 teachers’ knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organizational influences in implementing explicit instruction strategies. All the results were
then compared with the assumed influences of the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational influences discussed in Chapter Three, to establish validity or invalidity.
Recommendations were discussed for validated data and invalidated data will be rejected as a
root cause for gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, or organizational influences.
This evaluation case study was important to conduct to advance the understanding of K-
12 teacher competencies in implementing explicit instruction strategies as related to RAMA
Unified School District’s performance goal. The research questions guiding this evaluation case
study are the following:
62

1. To what extent is the RAMA Unified School District achieving its goal of improving
student scores in English Language Arts?
2. What is the K-12 teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to the implementation of
explicit direct instruction method to improve ELLs test scores by 5% year over year?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and K-12 teachers’
knowledge and motivation?
In this chapter, the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO framework was used to organize the results
of the data in the following sections;
● Results and findings for knowledge influences;
● Results and findings for motivation influences; and
● Results and findings for organizational influences.
The results and findings for each section of influences emphasized the validated and
invalidated influences. Chapter Four concludes with a synthesis of how each validated influence
supported answering each research question presented.
The next section presents the school site the participants in the study. First there is a
description of the participants involved in the survey including their teaching experience at
RAMA Unified School District and total teaching experience. Then, an account is given about
the five teachers who participated in the interview study with a description of their years of
teaching experience, type of credential possessed and educational background.
Participating Stakeholders

The first set of study participants included thirty K-12 teachers across four school sites at
the RAMA Unified School District. The K-12 teachers were all employed by RAMA Unified
School District during the 2020-21 school year. Due to the districts’ student demographics, all
63

K-12 teachers taught English dominant and English language learners at the elementary and the
middle school level. The survey phase of the research study was conducted during the COVID-
19 pandemic via the SurveyMonkey and the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on the quantity
of participants in this case study. In conversations with the RAMA Unified School District’s
Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, staff were not interested in doing additional
activities due to the pandemic and the virtual teaching being conducted during this time.
Teachers during the interview phase also expressed that they were exhausted from teaching
online and doing a survey was not a priority. The survey included 58 participants who answered
in the affirmative to question one which detailed the survey information sheet, however, only the
30 participants listed below completed the survey. An examination of the survey participants
indicated that 53% of teachers have 10 years or less classroom experience and 47% of the
teachers have greater than 10 years of classroom experience. The survey was administered over
a four-week period with weekly email reminders and a final call to action email in the last week.
Table 5 represents the K-12 teachers who participated in the survey portion of this study and
includes years of service at RAMA Unified School District and total years of service.
Table 5
Demographic Information of K-12 Teachers - Survey

Survey Participant Years of Service at Total Years of
RAMA USD Teaching Experience

Participant #1 11-15 years 11-15 years
Participant #2 5-10 years 5-10 years
Participant #3 16-20 years 16-20 years
Participant #4 5-10 years 16-20 years
Participant #5 Less than 5 years Less than 5 years
64

Participant #6 20+ years 20+ years
Participant #7 20+ years 20+ years
Participant #8 20+ years 20+ years
Participant #9 5-10 years 5-10 years
Participant #10 5-10 years 5-10 years
Participant #11 5-10 years 5-10 years
Participant #12 Less than 5 years Less than 5 years
Participant #13 16-20 years 20+ years
Participant #14 Less than 5 years Less than 5 years
Participant #15 20+ years 20+ years
Participant #16 16-20 years 20+ years
Participant #17 16-20 years 16-20 years
Participant #18 11-15 years 16-20 years
Participant #19 16-20 years 16-20 years
Participant #20 Less than 5 years Less than 5 years
Participant #21 11-15 years 11-15 years
Participant #22 Less than 5 years Less than 5 years
Participant #23 5-10 years 11-15 years
Participant #24 Less than 5 years 5-10 years
Participant #25 5-10 years 11-15 years
Participant #26 20+ years 20+ years
Participant #27 5-10 years 5-10 years
Participant #28 5-10 years 16-20 years
65

Participant #29 5-10 years 5-10 years
Participant #30 16-20 years 16-20 years

Interview participant demographics were detailed in the second set of study participants.
Interview participants included K-12 teachers employed by RAMA Unified School District for
the 2020-21 school year. All K-12 teachers taught English dominant and English language
learners at the elementary or the middle school level. Table 6 represents teachers who
participated in this study as related to the established criteria from Chapter Three and includes
years of service, credential, and educational level. The interview phase of the study was
conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic via the Zoom platform and the COVID-19 pandemic
had an impact on the quantity of participants in this case study. In conversations with the
RAMA Unified School District’s Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, staff were
not interested in doing extra activities due to the pandemic and the virtual teaching being
conducted during this time. Teachers during the interview also expressed they were exhausted
from teaching online and doing an interview was not a priority. The interview phase also
coincided with the first week of TK-K grades returning to in-person instruction via a hybrid
model. The hybrid model for RAMA Unified School District included the AB model with
distance learning one day a week. Table 6 represents the K-12 teachers that participated in the
interview portion of this study and includes years of total years of service, credential information
and educational background.
Table 6
Demographic Information of K-12 Teachers - Interview

Interview Total Years of Credential Held Education Level
Participant teaching experience

66

Participant #1 16 years MS MA
Participant #2 12 years MS BA
Participant #3 16 years SS BA
Participant #4 11 years MS BA
Participant #5 5 years MS BA

BA=Bachelor’s Degree, MS=Multiple Subject Credential, MA=Master’s Degree, SS=Single
Subject Credential
Determination of Assets and Needs
Data collected was analyzed to identify and develop a comprehensive understanding of
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps. The following sections for results and
findings for knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational influences begin with the K-12
teachers’ survey results to focus on essential competencies and either confirm or nullify the
principal competencies site administrators should possess in leading special education programs.
As results were analyzed, the influence was validated or invalidated. If the influence was
validated, it was deemed a need of the K-12 teachers to effectively implement explicit instruction
strategies. If an influence was invalidated, it was deemed an asset to the K-12 teachers in
effectively using explicit instruction strategies to improve instruction for ELLs. This case study
utilized a threshold of 70% or more to determine if participants identified through the survey and
interview data did not validated the knowledge, motivation or indicated the organization
supported the organizational influence. Results less than the 70% of the threshold indicated that
participants identified through the survey and interview data did validate the knowledge,
motivation or organizational influences.

67

Results and Findings for Knowledge and Skills Influences
Chapter two presented two knowledge influences that could improve the instruction for
all students, especially ELLs. Table 7 shows the results of assumed knowledge and skill
influences as derived from survey and interview phases of the case study. The table shows that
the assumed procedural knowledge influence was validated as a need and the metacognitive
assumed influence was not validated and is considered as an asset.
Table 7
Knowledge and Skill Influences Validated and Not Validated
Category Assumed Influences
Validated
(Need)
Not Validated
(Asset)
Procedural Teachers need to know how to
effectively implement explicit
instruction strategies during their daily
student lessons.
√

Metacognitive
Teachers need the knowledge to reflect
on their effectiveness in implementing
lesson plans and effectively engaging
students.

√
Robert Rueda (2011) explained that knowledge can be examined through the lens of four
dimensions of knowledge. The findings for the knowledge influences were organized using the
four knowledge dimensions consisting of 1) factual; 2) conceptual; 3) procedural: and
metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). For the purpose of this case study, procedural
and metacognitive knowledge was examined in relation to K-12 teachers assumed influences.
Procedural Knowledge
Influence 1. The first assumed knowledge influence based on procedural knowledge,
68

stated that “Teachers need to know how to effectively implement explicit instruction strategies
during their daily student lessons,” was validated as a need through survey and interview
responses on questions related to utilizing knowledge from professional development
opportunities and how explicit instruction is implemented in their daily lesson plans.
K-12 teachers’ survey results. The teacher survey contained both Likert scale and open-
ended questions. Question 12 of the survey, an open-ended question, focused on how
participants used explicit instruction teaching strategies in their daily lesson plans. The
participants’ responses demonstrated that 79% (19 out of 24) of the teachers used at least one
explicit instruction teaching strategy. Seven survey participants (29%) indicated they used five
or more of the explicit teaching strategies in their lesson plans. Forty-two percent (10 out of 24)
of the teachers utilized an objective to introduce the topic and guide the students’ instruction that
day. Survey participant nine explained they “Identify the learning objective and goal” at the start
of the lesson and survey participant 10 indicated “I present students with a learning intention and
success criteria.” Survey participant 49 also explained “essentially, I start with my objective” to
prepare the students for the day’s lesson.
The survey participants indicated 25% (6 out of 24) of the teachers activated the students’
prior knowledge to build upon the new instruction. Survey participant 10 explained that
“students access prior knowledge to help them realize they have a foundation to build on.”
Survey participant 16 listed how their math lesson “always begins with a question [to] connect
the previous lesson with today’s lesson.” Sixty-seven percent of teachers (16 out of 24) use
explicit instruction strategies to present new knowledge in their lesson plans. Survey participant
nine detailed that they “identify vocabulary necessary to obtain [the] lesson objective” and
survey participant 10 said “lessons are scaffolded to teach them steps to help students reach their
69

success criteria.” In addition, survey participant 24 explained “I use it [explicit instruction] to
introduce my topics and to teach new skills.” Lastly, survey participant 42 explained using
explicit instruction “when designing math lessons. It is easiest to teach the strategy, vocabulary
and steps.” Although 67% of teachers use explicit instruction strategies to introduce new
instructional content, only 25% of teachers indicated they activated prior knowledge to the new
lesson plan.
The survey participants also indicated 63% (15 out of 24) of the teachers utilized guided
practice and independent practice in their instruction. Survey participant 23 shared that “they
explain or demonstrate the skill in the same way students will practice it…[and] think of places
where students might get stuck.” Survey participant eight explained how “in addition to
modeling, I support my students by providing immediate feedback when they are independently
practicing.” Survey participants five, 29, 32, 39 and 47 indicated they follow the method “I do,
we do, you do” to model new instruction material (I do), then provided guided practice (we do)
and then students work on independent practice (you do).
Lastly, 58% (14 out of 24) of the survey participants indicated they used student feedback
to check for understanding. Checking for understanding is important for the teacher to assess
their students, slow instruction, reteach the lesson and ensure students are ready for the
homework assignment (Archer & Hughes, 2010; Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012). Survey
participant eight provides “immediate feedback when they [students] are independently
practicing” and survey participant nine includes “evaluate tools necessary to meet lesson
objectives.” Survey participant 15 utilizes “formative assessments [and] reinstruct if needed.”
Survey participant 50 has students “complete some type of exit ticket” during online learning to
check for student understanding and then “come back together to discuss.” Although, 79% of
70

the survey participants indicated they utilized at least one teaching strategy, the strategies were
not used consistently as an instructional model. The explicit instruction instructional model
consists of six teaching strategies including: 1) prior learning; 2) presentation of goals and new
material; 3) guided practice; 4) feedback; 5) independent practice; and 6) engage in weekly and
monthly review (Archer & Hughes, 2010; Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012; Rosenshine, 2012).
K-12 teachers interview results. The K-12 teachers interviewed were familiar with the
RAMA Unified School District’s explicit instruction teaching strategies, however similar to the
survey question 12, the interview participants did not use the teaching strategies consistently
across English language arts which is important to the development of ELLs. Every explicit
instruction lesson builds English language arts, English language development, and engages
ELLs in meaningfully structured listening, speaking, reading and writing (Archer & Hughes,
2010; Goldenberg, 2008; Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012). Each teacher also received differing
levels of professional development on the explicit instruction teaching strategies. Similar to the
survey responses, one teacher had the opportunity to learn the teaching strategies through the
new teacher program the district provides, two teachers had exposure to explicit instruction
strategies at their prior district and two teachers were provided training through the district’s
instructional coaches. New teachers to the district are provided explicit instruction training
through the district’s new teacher program, however the interview participants indicated large
scale district professional development opportunities have not been held for several years. The
veteran teachers utilize the instructional coaches for assistance with lessons planning, lesson
modeling and feedback. For example, interview participant one stated:
That most recently, I haven’t received much [explicit instruction professional
development] and I think that’s because I’m a more veteran teacher…I guess, I think in
the past, it’s mostly been do you need help and if you do, we’ll help you, but since I don’t
71

reach out saying I need help, then I don’t get sent to the professional development and
that’s fine with me because…in the past… I did attend.

Interview participant three discussed how “the trainings aren’t there anymore…new teachers
coming in…so we’re all not on the same page…some have had a bunch of training before
and...they’re really solid..and others who are just...rookie teachers coming in and the district is
not always offering it.”
Interview participant three also stated that their site administrator “refers to our
instructional coaches who have more experience” with explicit instruction strategies. Interview
participant three went into further detail and explained “I think the key is utilizing our coaches
and asking them for that feedback because…they do have that knowledge…and they are certified
so they can help.” Interview participant five stated “I try to go to my grade level first…to see we
are on the same page…then going to my instructional coaches next.” The interview participants
also explained site administrators with formal training in the district’s explicit instruction
teaching strategies would also recommend teachers work with their instructional coaches. Two
teachers also chose to immerse themselves in explicit instruction strategies and become district
certified teachers which included developing lesson plans with an instructional coach, modeling
the lesson for site and district staff and showing exemplary use of the teaching model.
The interview participants were all experienced in the teaching strategies and engaging
the students through review of prior knowledge, group modeling, engagement strategies, guided
practice, checking for understanding, independent practice and review. Interview participant two
discussed how she implemented explicit instruction strategies in her lessons:
After you give the directive or the objective, you really explain to the kiddos…what your
lesson is going to include…lots of ways they can help remember definitions of what
the…objective is being taught…then you went to a step-by-step process…you would
assess the kids on what you just taught and then re-assess and reteach, if needed.

72

Interview participant five discussed how she implemented explicit instruction strategies in her
math lessons:
I really likes the routine of I do, we do and you do…So I really like that because the idea
is…it’s me modeling to them an example of what it’s supposed to be like and then we do
it together so that they’re getting into practice…get that muscle memory on how to do the
program…Depending how well they do I might do a couple of math problems examples
with them and then I have them do it on their own and I really like using that routine.

Interview participant one explained “how are you going to show me that my instruction was
successful, so they have to show you on a whiteboard, thumbs up, thumbs down, something
that’s immediate feedback.”
The manner in which the teachers implemented the teaching strategies varied
tremendously. For example, participant one is a “huge fan” of explicit instruction and utilized
the teaching strategies extensively throughout their lesson plans. Due to the complexity of the
explicit instruction model, the teacher followed the easier to remember “I do, we do, you do”
process to emphasize the modeling to the students, then proceeding to guided learning and then
the independent practice by the students. Interview participant three taught English classes in
the middle school level and explained that she used the explicit instruction strategies extensively
in her class and modified them during online instruction. Participant four discussed that
“kindergarten doesn’t always lend itself to explicit instruction, but typically with math that’s
because it’s so step by step and methodical.” Participant five also felt that the explicit instruction
strategies worked better with math lessons because of the “routine with math…I feel like
it…goes hand in hand.” The teacher also found it “more challenging for language arts and I
don’t know if it’s just because I felt more confident in math.” Three of the interview participants
are more experienced teachers and utilized the explicit instruction teaching strategies through
73

their lesson plans, however one teacher in kindergarten only used it in mathematics and one
teacher was not as confident using the strategies in English language arts.
Summary. For this case study, procedural knowledge represented a teacher’s ability to
implement teaching strategies, techniques, and methods to improve instruction for all students,
especially ELLs (Krathwolh, 2002). Survey and interview responses were mixed in terms of
consistently using the teaching strategies together as a cohesive instructional model. RAMA
Unified School District K-12 teachers are all provided professional development opportunities
on explicit instruction through the new teacher program, collaboration or through their
instructional coach. Many of the case study participants believed the explicit instruction
teaching strategies the district adopted are successful at improving instruction for students,
however the survey and interview data indicated that teachers are not utilizing the teaching
strategies consistently throughout their lesson plans or for all subjects. Interview participant four
explained that the explicit instruction teaching strategies did not lend themselves to kindergarten
and typically used the strategies for mathematics only. Interview participant five used the
strategies in mathematics and have more difficulty implementing the strategies in English
language arts where ELLs would gain the most benefit.
Based on the survey results, 79% of the teachers listed using at least one of the explicit
instruction teaching strategies and only 29% of the teachers listed using more than five of the
teaching strategies. The interview participants demonstrated knowledge of the explicit
instruction teaching strategies, however one teacher (20% of the participants) primarily used the
teaching strategies only in mathematics. It is important to utilize the teaching strategies together
as an instructional model due to every lesson incorporating English language arts and English
language development for ELLs. (Archer & Hughes, 2010; Goldenberg, 2008; Hollingsworth &
74

Ybarra, 2012). Although there was substantial procedural knowledge demonstrated, the explicit
instruction teaching strategies were not used as a cohesive instructional model. Due to the lack
of cohesion in implementing the model, procedural knowledge was validated as a need for K-12
teachers. This lack of knowledge will interfere with meeting the organizational performance
goal of improving ELLs achievement on standardized testing by 5% annually.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Influence 2. The second assumed knowledge influence based on metacognitive
knowledge, states that “Teachers need the knowledge to reflect on their effectiveness in
implementing lesson plans and effectively engaging students,” was not validated through survey
and interview questions related to participants’ responses on questions related to self-reflection
and identifying ways to improve their implementation of explicit instruction learning strategies
to enhance student instruction for ELLs.
K-12 teachers’ survey results. The participants were surveyed in question eight, an
open-ended question, regarding their effectiveness in analyzing student data and using the data
results to modifying lesson plans to improve instruction for ELLs. The survey participants
responded that 70% (18 out of 24) analyzed student data with varying degrees of expertise and
30% (6 out of 24) did not use student data or did not feel it was very effective. Survey
participant five shared they are “somewhat effective but need more time for discussion of data”
and survey participant 41 stated “we are consistently looking at data to see best ways to serve
students and their learning.” On the opposite end of the spectrum, survey participant 26
indicated “I do not spend much time analyzing data. I would say not very effective.” The
participants provided responses to suggest 70% (20 out of 24) used student data to modify and
improve instruction for ELLs. Survey participant nine explained “I feel very comfortable
75

analyzing student data and modifying my instruction.” Survey participant 33 indicated “my team
and I have been effective analyzing data to drive instruction.” An additional 8% (2 out of 24) of
survey participants stated they modified lessons for ELLs students, although they did not analyze
student data. Participant 45 described they are “very comfortable taking the data and changing it
to fit the ELLs’ needs during a lesson.” Survey participant 49 stated “I'm able to see how my
ELLs are doing and make modifications needed to provide more support.” In total, 91% (22 out
of 24) reflected on the student data and modified lesson plans for ELLs. At RAMA Unified
School District, training on student data analysis was provided by instructional coaches,
however, no structured professional development was provided to the K-12 teachers. As a result
of survey results, the K-12 teachers were able to analyze student data and reflect on their
teaching practices and use that information to improve their lessons.
K-12 teachers interview results. The K-12 teachers in the interview phase exemplified
strong skills in the use of student data analysis. The teacher interviews expressed they used
different platforms to analyze data to modify their lesson plans. For example, participant one
stated teachers in the lower grades utilized the software ESGI as “an online assessment platform”
to monitor student progress in real-time. The teacher explained that the software was easy to use
to:
Assess the students and then it immediately gives us the data. So we have found that to be
an amazing tool that we can just look at that data and then drive our instruction, based on
what is lacking in what area… I'm using the ESGI platform to assess and I can see that in
the rhyming test my kids didn't do very well…I can look and see…student A, B, C, D,
you are in group one, because now I need to really get you guys… rhyming
intervention…You know rhyming, you're good. I'm going to move on to the next skill,
because when you talk about teaching reading. There's a progression. So this technology
is amazing.

76

Teacher participant one also stated they “reflect upon my own individual experience…I see
myself improving…I don’t want to toot my own horn, but I think it’s pretty good.” Teacher
participant one teacher also expressed that they reflect on their instruction with their teaching
partner to examine “what works and what doesn’t work.” Collaborating with their teaching
partner or grade level was key to reflection and understanding what strategies worked or did not
work. Participant four also expressed that ESGI is effective with helping to see a students’
growth and let the data drive their instruction. Participant four also stated the importance of
collaboration with a strong grade level team:
We are always examining our practices and seeing what was working and what wasn't
and understanding that we're not always going to be the best at everything and so another
teacher’s going to have a better example that we could use and not being afraid to reach
out and ask for that. I'm reflecting and a lot of discussion with my colleagues, but also
reflecting…I have a long I drive home to…every day. So I'm usually driving home and
thinking about my lessons during the day and how I can change it.

Participant five teaches in the older grades and utilized the I-ready online platform for
assessing students and with data analysis. For example, with a fluency test, I-ready allows the
teacher to easily group students by like skills and provides information on what skills students
are struggling in. The teacher also explained how they reflect:
I analyze a lot over how I’m teaching. Sometimes I can tell…that didn’t stick so what
can I do next time where I reflect just mentally kind of and then I also collaborate with
my coaches or my grade level team and life I felt like if I taught a lesson and I didn’t feel
like I taught it very well because…we’ve struggled all together…collaborate with my
grade level, say...how did you teach this..are there any other ways that we can get this
point across to them.

Collaboration with the grade level team and the coaches was also considered important to
improve instruction and what strategies are working or not working. Teacher reflection is
needed to create an environment of continuous improvement and drawing on experiences to
improve instruction (Ferry & Ross-Gordon, 1998).
77

Summary. Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011) found that metacognitive knowledge is
the concept of being aware of one’s own cognition and cognitive processes. Metacognitive
knowledge is in essence the “thinking about thinking” (Baker, 2006, para. 2). An analysis of
survey and interview data indicated that K-12 teachers possess the metacognitive knowledge to
improve instruction through data analysis and reflection on instruction. Responses to survey
question eight achieved the 70% threshold to be considered an asset and the individual responses
indicated the majority of K-12 teachers used data analysis and also used the data to drive
instruction. The interview participants also confirmed the survey results as the K-12 teachers
utilized data software to monitor student progress and reflected on their lessons to understand
what worked and what did not work. Due to the research study results, a metacognitive
knowledge gap was not validated and is considered an asset. The K-12 teachers’ ability to
modify lessons and reflect on their teaching practices is an area of strength and supports progress
to the stakeholder and organizational goals.
Results and Findings for Motivational Influences
Chapter two presented two motivation influences that could encourage K-12 teachers to
improve instruction for ELLs. Table 8 shows the results of the assumed motivation influences as
derived from the survey and interview phases of the case study. The table shows that the
assumed attribution motivations was validated as a need and utility value was not validated and
is considered an asset.
Table 8
Motivational Influences Validated and Not Validated
Category Assumed Influences
Validated
(Need)
Not
Validated
78

(Asset)
Attributions

Utility Value
Teachers should feel that reading
proficiency of ELLs is directly linked to
their efforts of implementing Instruction
rather than the student’s lack of ability.

Teachers need to see the value of using
the explicit instruction teaching
strategies.
√

√
Attribution theory. The first assumed motivation influence based on attribution theory,
stated that “Teachers should feel that reading proficiency of ELLs is directly linked to their
efforts of implementing Instruction rather than the student’s lack of ability,” was validated as a
need through survey and interview questions related to K-12 teachers feeling that their
instruction impacted a student’s ability to improve instruction.
K-12 teachers’ survey results. The K-12 teachers survey results illustrated that 68% (20
out of 29) of teachers believed their efforts to implement explicit instruction teaching strategies
improved student success (Q13). Thirty-two percent (9 out of 29) did not believe that their effort
to implement explicit instruction strategies improved student instruction. The results of the
survey suggested that a majority of the teachers believed their efforts to implement explicit
instruction improved student instruction; however, the K-12 teachers were not utilizing a
consistent instructional model and were incorporating other strategies such as guided language
acquisition design (GLAD) or the strategic instruction model (SIM). Although the case study
focused on the explicit instruction model, the use of GLAD and SIM teaching strategies could be
incorporated into the explicit instruction model to enhance instruction for ELLs. Table 9 reflects
79

K-12 teachers’ perceptions on attribution theory related to a teacher’s efforts to implement
explicit instruction to improves student success.
Table 9
Question 13: Please reflect on whether your effort to implement explicit direct instruction is
improving student success in the classroom?

K-12 teachers’ interview results. The participants in the interview phase of the case
study showed mix results in K-12 teachers’ effort to implement explicit instruction teaching
strategies to improve student success. Interview participant one stated “Yes, absolutely” they
believed that the students could achieve grade level standards with their assistance. The teacher
also explained that explicit instruction is “probably the best model to deliver instruction for
student success. I’ve done it other ways and it just doesn’t work.” In addition, the teacher
expressed that at the lower grades you need that extra attention and structured teaching strategies
to be successful. The teacher explained that distance learning has been difficult and as the
80

younger students return to an A/B Hybrid Style, students are beginning to build routines and
teachers are building the explicit instruction teaching strategies “back into our lessons so that
they can be more familiar with it and more comfortable with it...I think it’s very effective.” The
teacher also believed that the students have the ability to achieve grade level standards
“according to their report cards and their assessments…I’m seeing that they’re most of
them…typically on target or above target…we just have those few we work with one on one or
in smaller groups that we try to help improve or if this was normal time after school tutoring.”
Interview participant four shared “I think I truly think it does with math because…it is so
methodical and they are able to follow the step-by-step instructions” in relation to their efforts to
implement explicit instruction strategies to improve student success. Interview participant five
explained that it is “hard to tell right now” in a COVID-19 environment, however “given a
regular situation, I believe that, especially using a lot of the engagement norms and using the
routine I love to use, which is the…I do…we do, you do…I think that’s really when I can see if
they grasp it.”
Interview participant two also believed their effort to implement explicit instruction
teaching strategies can help improve student success. This teacher instructs in the higher
elementary grades and in terms of students meeting grade level with their assistance, this was a
more difficult question since many students are:
Already so far below grade level coming into us...and it depends on their home life…if
they have no way to immerse themselves in the English language at home it takes much
longer...it’s hard for them. It’s almost like a sink or swim for them…they get their
English through television and watching cartoons…and that’s a way that they understand
English…but I feel that even as hard as we try they are still not at grade level
expectations.
81

This teacher felt they can improve student success but may not be able to get the students to
grade level standards based on how far behind the students may be when they arrive in her class.
Interview participant two’s response is in direct contrast to the beliefs of attribution theory and
that their effort can impact a student’s learning and help them attain grade level.
Summary. Overall results from the survey and interviews suggest that the majority of K-
12 teachers believed that their efforts to implement the explicit instruction model and teaching
strategies improved student achievement and specifically reading proficiency. Based on the
survey data results, the motivation influence of attribution theory was validated as a need for K-
12 teachers. The survey question did not meet the 70% threshold to make this motivation
influence an asset. Sixty-eight percent of the survey participants believed their effort to
implement explicit instruction strategies improved student achievement and 32% did not believe
their efforts impacted student achievement. In addition, not all teachers surveyed used explicit
instruction strategies in their lesson plans as some used GLAD and SIM strategies in their
instruction. Although the focus of the research was on the explicit instruction model, the K-12
teachers did not incorporate prior teaching strategies into the explicit instructional model.
Teachers need to develop a connection between the various teaching strategies and the
instructional models. As interview participant two explained, they do their best to bring students
to grade level, but some students are far below grade level and teachers do their best to bring
them to grade level expectations. Teachers who are effective in implementing explicit instruction
teaching strategies to improve student achievement, have a greater opportunity to meet their
stakeholder goal and attain the organization’s goal of increasing ELLs test scores by 5% per year
Utility value. The second assumed motivation influence based on utility value, states
“Teachers need to see the value of using the explicit instruction teaching strategies,” was not
82

validated through survey and interview questions and was considered an asset. The K-12
teachers saw the value in explicit instruction teaching strategies to improve student outcomes.
Eccles (2006) and Rueda (2011) explain expectancy value theory will guide the motivation of a
teacher and the relationship to complete a goal. Expectancy value theory is comprised of
intrinsic value; attainment value; utility value; and perceived cost (Eccles, 2006). Utility value
explains how K-12 teachers perceive the value of explicit instruction teaching strategies to
support and improve instruction for ELLs (Eccles, 2006).
K-12 teachers’ survey results. Table 10 details the utility value theory question that
gauged the K-12 participants belief in valuing explicit instruction strategies to support ELLs.
The K-12 teacher survey results suggest that 90% (27 out of 30) of teachers value explicit
instruction teaching strategies as effective in supporting ELLs. The K-12 teachers’ survey
responses indicated that 27 out of 30 survey participates felt the perception of utility value for
explicit instruction teaching strategies was important. Table 10 reflects the K-12 teachers’
perceptions of essential utility value as related to explicit instruction teaching strategies to
support ELLs
Table 10
Question 14: Do you find value in implementing explicit direct instruction to support English
Language Learners?

83

K-12 teachers’ interview results. The interview participants all valued the
implementation of explicit instruction teaching strategies to support ELLs. Interview participant
five explained that explicit instruction teaching strategies to support ELLs is a:
good tool, especially for English language learners because it has a lot of …rich
vocabulary and explain what that is and a lot of hands on…which the ELLs do need
because…they need…practice with a new language. So I do believe that using explicit
instruction teaching strategies in the classroom…is beneficial.

Interview participant one also found value in implementing direct instruction for ELLs and is:
A huge fan of explicit…instruction especially being that I’m in a kindergarten and even
more so it’s a dual language program because you have to be explicit and explicit and
direct. I mean, you can’t just say do this. Okay, but how…I mean I think I already have
it programed in my brain the I do, we do, you do...So for me, I mean it changed my
teaching 100%.

Interview participant one valued the structured aspect of the explicit instructional model to teach
lessons to their students. Interview participant two suggested that “it does benefit ELLs…as
long as…[the lessons are] short, it’s easy..to understand…and doesn’t take too much translation
84

for the students.” Interview participant four also stated “Yes, I do” in reference to valuing
explicit instruction teaching strategies to support ELLs.
Summary. Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011) explained that motivation is the
mechanism that engages and sustains activities to reach a goal. Rueda (2011) also suggested that
motivation is more cultural and environmental based versus individual based. Data analysis of
surveys and interviews data demonstrated K-12 teachers value explicit instruction strategies to
improve instruction for ELLs and a utility value gap was not validated and was considered an
asset. K-12 teachers have the motivation to make progress toward the stakeholder and
organizational performance goals of improving ELL standardized test scores by 5% per year.
The survey participants indicated that 90% of K-12 teachers valued explicit instruction strategies
as effective in supporting ELLs. The interview participants also valued implementation of
explicit instruction strategies due to the introduction of rich vocabulary, hands on modeling and
student participation and the step by step methodical components of the model.
Results and Findings for Organization Influences
There were two assumed organizational influences presented in Chapter Two.
Organizational culture is important as it will impact the ability to improve student instruction and
ultimately understanding the organization’s culture is needed to implement change (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Table 11 shows that the cultural model was validated as a need and cultural setting
was not validated and is an asset.
Table 11
Organizational Influences Validated and Not Validated
Category Assumed Influences
Validated
(Need)
Not
Validated
85

(Asset)
Cultural
Model

Cultural
Setting
The organization needs a culture that is
open to implementing explicit instruction
strategies districtwide to improve ELL
instruction.

The organization needs to provide staff
time to collaborate with their peers to
improve instruction.

√

√
Cultural model. The first assumed organizational influence based on cultural model,
states that “The organization needs a culture that is open to implementing explicit instruction
strategies districtwide to improve ELL instruction” was validated as a need through survey and
interview questions related to K-12 teachers’ beliefs that they were not open to implementing
explicit instruction teaching strategies throughout the district.
K-12 teachers’ survey results. Table 12 details two cultural model questions in the K-12
teachers’ survey that looked deeper at the district’s ability to create an open culture for new
instructional models, software, or other district mandates. Question nine of the survey examined
educational culture and the implementation of explicit instruction teaching strategies throughout
the district. Question nine examined whether explicit instruction teaching strategies were
implemented with fidelity across the district. At RAMA Unified School District, 51% (19 out of
29) of the survey participants did not believe that the district approved explicit instruction
teaching strategies were implemented with fidelity across the district. This statistic indicated that
the survey participants believed that K-12 teachers did not value implementing explicit
instruction teaching strategies in their lesson plans. The results also revealed that the RAMA
86

Unified School District was not successful in creating an organizational culture that is open to
new ideas and experimentation with new teaching strategies
Question 16 examined how the district was communicating district goals on ELLs to K-
12 teachers. The K-12 survey results indicated that 66% (20 out of 30) of the survey participants
thought the district was providing information on district goals for ELLs. Question 17, an open-
ended question, examined the method that goals for ELLs were shared with K-12 teachers.
Thirty-three percent of K-12 teachers learned the ELL goals from their site administrator at staff
meetings and 20% of K-12 teachers received information during a recent professional
development event. One K-12 teacher indicated they learned the district goals for ELLs from the
EL resource assistant at the school site. Although 66% of participants felt that they received
information on district goals for ELLs, the message from the district was not clear and was not
reaching all the K-12 teachers. This displayed a lack of direction by the RAMA Unified School
District as it related to the district’s goals on ELLs. This lack of direction impacted the K-12
teachers as they were not working toward the same goals and also not using the explicit
instruction teaching strategies with fidelity. Table 12 reflects K-12 teachers’ perceptions on
cultural model factors impacting the organizational cultural.
Table 12
K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions of Cultural Model Factors
87

Table 13 displayed the results of Question 10 which examined whether K-12 teachers felt
supported by their site administrator in relation to implementing explicit instruction teaching
strategies. Overall, 83% (25 out of 30) of the K-12 teachers agreed or strongly agreed that they
felt supported by their site administrator when implementing explicit instruction teaching
strategies. This indicated there was a strong support system for the K-12 teachers and the
teachers felt they could reach out to their site administrator. Although question 10 indicated the
K-12 teachers felt supported by their site administrator, most of the cultural model related
questions demonstrated an organizational gap related to the district’s cultural model. Table 13
reflects K-12 teachers’ perceptions of being supported by their site administrator when
implementing explicit instruction teaching strategies.
Table 13
Question 10: Do you feel supported by your school site administrator when implementing
explicit direct instruction strategies?

1
1
14
9
13
13
1
7
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Q9 Explicit instruction implemented with fidelity
Q16 Distict has shared goals on ELLs
K-12 Teachers' Perceptions on Cultural Model Factors
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
88

Question 11, an open-ended question, examined what type of professional development
opportunities were provided by the side administrator. Although more formal professional
development has not been provided, most of the professional development opportunities
occurred working with their instructional coach, during professional learning communities and
peer observations. Survey participant 17 indicated receiving “feedback from coaches and admin,
constructive criticism, and side by side coaching.” Survey participant 25, a high school teacher,
explained “we are provided the opportunity to learn strategies and tools from colleagues and
other professionals.” Lastly survey participant 32 listed that “trainings given by the instructional
coach on site have been useful.”
K-12 teachers’ interview results. The K-12 teacher’s interview results were somewhat
consistent with the survey results. Interview question five examined how often site
administrators visit teachers’ classrooms and observe explicit instruction teaching strategies and
what type of feedback was provided. Interview participant one explained that their principal
89

“typically…doesn’t come often because she doesn’t speak the language…she doesn’t speak
Spanish” when the teacher was “teaching in English she would come very often…maybe once a
month.” Interview participant one teaches in the district’s multi-lingual immersion program that
teaches English, Spanish and exposes students to Mandarin. Interview participant four explained
that in a “typical year we’re seeing our administrators at least once a week to observe or just pop
in and see how things are going.” For the more experienced teachers, “they tend to come in…if
there’s something they can support us with or if…we can support other teachers.” Interview
participant two explained that their site administrator visited to observe their classroom quarterly
and they leave “little notes” describing “what she liked and maybe some improvements.” Based
on the interview results for question five, site administrators were not consistent in visiting,
observing and providing teachers feedback on their explicit instruction teaching strategies.
Interview question 10 inquired about explicit instruction teaching strategies being
implemented with fidelity across the district. Interview participant one explained that “I think
yes in the lower grades, but not necessarily as much in the upper grades.” Implementing with
fidelity across the district is important to understand as it shows a sense of value for explicit
instruction strategies districtwide based on teachers’ perceptions. Interview participant five
agreed that explicit instruction strategies are not implemented with fidelity and “it just depends
on the teacher and if the teacher is using explicit instruction in their classroom and it just
depends on the lesson plans because explicit instruction strategies can’t be used for every
lesson.” Interview participant two also noted that explicit instruction strategies are not used with
fidelity across the district. The results from interview question 10 are consistent with survey
question nine and addressed that the district did not create an organizational culture open to
implementing and exploring new teaching strategies.
90

Question 11 examined how the site administrator supported teachers in implementing
explicit instruction teaching strategies. This question examined the support the site
administrators provided to teachers to create a safe environment to experiment with explicit
instruction and seek assistance in mastering the teaching strategies. Interview participant one
explained that their site administrator:
I don’t necessarily know that they come and help us with explicit instruction. I mean,
they do our evaluations…but in directly supporting me I would feel that’s more the
instructional coach…I would say support in the way that they tell me where I could go if
I needed support.

Based on the response from interview participant one, the teacher did not feel supported by their
site administrator in respect to explicit instruction teaching strategies. The site administrator
performs evaluations, however they were not trained on the teaching strategies.
Interview participant two explained that their site administrator supported them and they:

refers to our instructional coaches who have more experience with it…that’s how she
supports us because I don’t think she has been…fully trained…Yeah she wasn’t there for
all of it [professional development]…the way that she could support us would be like,
yay go for it. If you think that’s the best way to teach your children right now for that
particular subject or that particular concept.

This further detailed the lack of expertise by the site administrator on the teaching strategies and
further placed an emphasis on the site administrator evaluating K-12 teachers without the
necessary knowledge on the teaching strategies. Interview participant three advised that her site
administrator would be willing to provide support and training, if requested. As described by
Fullan and Quinn’s (2015), a site administrator should be viewed more as the lead learner that is
able to influence their teachers to achieve school and district goals. A site administrator or lead
learner not proficient in the explicit instruction teaching strategies may not have the confidence
91

of their teaching staff and may not be able to influence their teachers to implement the approved
teaching strategies to improve instruction.
Question 12 examines the district goals for educating ELLs and whether the district has
done a good job of sharing those goals. This question examined the organizational culture in
relation to K-12 teachers understanding the district goals to ensure all stakeholder groups are
working towards the same goal. Interview participant one explained that the “ultimate goal is to
eventually redesignate them, so they’re no longer identified as English language learners.”
Interview participant two explained that the district goal was to make “them all proficient. I
mean, that’s our goal…for them to be able to understand the English language.” The teacher
also shared that district goals had not been shared recently. The teacher stated they would
receive ELL data “once a year towards the end of the year…[and] the last time we had any goals
or information…[was] three years ago.” Interview participant five explained “I think… their
goal is to educate them and get them reclassified…before they get out of high school.” Interview
participant five did not have a clear understanding of the goal and made an educated guess of
what the goals for ELLs might be. This also demonstrates that this is not a priority for the
district. The district’s lack of clarity on goals for ELLs would lead one to believe the district
does not have a culture that is open to implementing explicit instruction strategies. The
organizational culture needs to be improved to ensure all K-12 teachers understand the district’s
goal on ELLs. Although the district has done a poor job of communicating goals for ELLS,
improving instruction through explicit instruction teaching strategies can improve student
engagement and improve the learning environment for ELLs.
Summary. The District’s goal was to improve instruction for ELLs and more importantly
improve test scores on standardized test scores by 5% per year per the district’s LCAP. The
92

RAMA Unified School District has done a poor job of sharing district goals on ELLs to all
teachers with a consistent message. K-12 teachers learned site goals but were not receiving the
district’s goals so there was not a clear consistent message to staff and teachers were not working
toward a common goal. The district also did a poor job of creating an organizational culture that
is open to implementing new teaching strategies such as explicit instruction and implementing
the teaching model with fidelity across the district. Survey results indicated that 51% of the
teachers believed there was a lack of fidelity in implementing explicit instruction strategies
across the district. The district has emphasized the explicit instruction model and the K-12
teachers are unaware they can incorporate teaching strategies from prior models into the explicit
instruction model to improve instruction for ELLs.
Survey results also indicated that 83% of surveyed participants felt supported by their site
administrator when implementing the explicit instruction teaching strategies. However, the
interview responses showed that some site administrators did not have the necessary knowledge
of explicit instruction teaching strategies to support their staff. Interview results also showed site
administrators were not consistent in visiting, observing and provided feedback to the K-12
teachers on the teaching strategies. Developing an organizational culture open to new teaching
strategies requires site administrators to be knowledgeable in the teaching strategies, allowing
teachers to experiment, ensuring consistency and accountability. As a result of the survey and
interview data, the cultural model influence was validated as a need for K-12 teachers.
Cultural setting. The second assumed organizational influence based on cultural setting,
states that “The organization needs to provide staff time to collaborate with their peers to
improve instruction.,” was not validated through survey and interview questions related to
teacher collaboration to share ideas, teaching strategies, data analysis and lesson planning.
93

K-12 teachers’ survey results. The K-12 teacher survey also examined collaboration
time provided to teachers to improve instruction through sharing ideas, sharing teaching
strategies, lesson planning, student data analysis. Question 6 examined monthly collaboration
time with peers and grade level leaders. On average, K-12 teachers spent 241 minutes or four
hours per month collaborating. Monthly collaboration minutes among the survey participants
had a minimum of 60 minutes and a maximum of 500 minutes. Table 14 displays monthly
collaboration time responses for each survey participant in the study.
Table 14
K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions of Cultural Setting Factors for Collaboration Time

The K-12 teachers survey also examined how the survey participants time was spent
during professional learning communities. Question 7a examined how much monthly
collaboration time was spent sharing ideas (Table 15), teaching strategies (Table 16), data review
(Table 17) and lesson planning (Table 18). Table 15 displays the amount of monthly
collaboration time that was spent on sharing ideas per the survey participants in the study. On
94

average, 89 minutes or one and a half hours was spent sharing ideas among the K-12 teachers.
Monthly collaboration time spent sharing ideas had a minimum of 10 minutes and a maximum of
360 minutes.
Table 15
K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions of Cultural Setting Factors for Sharing Ideas

Question 7b also examined how much monthly collaboration time was spent sharing
teaching strategies. Table 16 displays the amount of monthly collaboration time that was spent
on sharing teaching strategies per the survey participants in the study. On average, 71 minutes
was spent sharing teaching strategies among the K-12 teachers. Monthly collaboration time
spent sharing teaching strategies had a minimum of 10 minutes and a maximum of 360 minutes.
Table 16
K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions of Cultural Setting Factors for Teaching Strategies
95

Question 7c also examined how much monthly collaboration time was spent on student
data analysis. Table 17 displays the amount of monthly collaboration time that was spent on
student data analysis or sharing student information per survey participants in the study. On
average, 55 minutes was spent on student data analysis among the K-12 teachers. Monthly
collaboration time spent student data analysis had a minimum of zero minutes and a maximum of
180 minutes.
Table 17
K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions of Cultural Setting Factors for Data Review
96

Question 7d also examined how much monthly collaboration time was spent on lesson
planning. Table 18 displays the amount of monthly collaboration time that was spent on lesson
planning per survey participants in the study. On average, 72 minutes was spent on lesson
planning among the K-12 teachers. Monthly collaboration time spent student lesson planning
had a minimum of zero minutes and a maximum of 360 minutes.
Table 18
K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions of Cultural Setting Factors for Data Review

97

The K-12 survey also examined professional development opportunities provided by the
district. Drawing attention to question four (Table 19), 63.3% of teachers stated that they
received frequent professional development opportunities on explicit instruction strategies. After
examining professional development opportunities closer through question five, an open-ended
question, 79% (19 out of 26) of the respondents stated they received professional development
on explicit instruction during formal trainings, collaboration time or working with their
instructional coach. Survey participants also indicated that 42% (10 out of 26) of the teachers
discussed explicit instruction during formal or informal collaboration time. Survey participant
16 stated they “have collaboration every Wednesday, we work as PLC by departments. We plan
units, lesson, and write common assessments.” Survey participant 55 explained that they work
on “explicit instruction lesson planning” during collaboration time. Table 19 reflects on the K-
12 teachers’ perceptions of explicit instruction professional development opportunities provided
by the district.
Table 19
Question Four: At RAMA Unified School District, professional development and support is
provided regularly for explicit instruction teaching strategies?

98

K-12 teacher interview results. Interview question six examined how often teachers
collaborated formally in professional learning communities, grade level meetings and outside of
professional hours. Interview participant one explained that she collaborates everyday due to the
Spanish component of the program. The teacher discussed that they collaborate “every day… I
think at the end of every day.” They “don’t formally sit down…but…we do get together” to
discuss “this worked this didn’t work, this work, this did not work.” They frequently discuss
how to create “active participation…with visuals, the pictures...having the students do
something…the whiteboards”. Interview participant two discussed that informally they
“collaborate all of the time and it’s not really specific to explicit instruction.” Their grade level
is meeting “every single day.” Collaboration has been very important during COVID-19 and
determining what works online with distance learning. The teacher also discussed that formal
collaboration through professional learning communities every two weeks.
Interview participant four detailed that formal collaboration is “about three hours a month
because it’s an hour and a half every two weeks…but most of us go outside of our own time.”
99

Interview participant five explained that formal collaboration for “professional learning
communities is, in general…twice a month…according to the contract…they’re like 90
minutes.” Interview participant five also mentioned that “grade level meetings I believe are
once a month, if not twice a month.” The teacher also explained that with her teaching partner,
they are “collaborating a lot especially right now…I think this is the most I’ve ever
collaborated.” This time for professional learning communities is consistent with the teachers’
contract for collaboration time. The district negotiated 90 minutes up to twice per month for
teachers to collaborate through professional learning communities.
Summary. Analysis of the K-12 teachers’ survey and interview findings indicate that
teachers and the district place a great deal of importance on collaboration through professional
learning communities and are provided 90 minutes up to two days a month for professional
learning communities. The K-12 teachers also collaborated informally through grade level
meetings or with their teaching partners and grade level on a regular basis. Some teachers met
informally on a daily or weekly basis. Based on the survey data, the K-12 teacher survey
participants collaborated more than the 180 minutes required under the contract. Topics
discussed by K-12 teachers included sharing ideas, student data analysis, student engagement,
teaching strategies and lesson planning. K-12 teachers also indicated that explicit instruction
professional development was discussed during collaboration time. The results and interview
findings indicate there is no organizational gap in the cultural setting. The cultural setting
influence was invalidated and is considered an asset. The increased collaboration and district
support is not an organizational barrier to reaching the stakeholder and organizational
performance goal.

100

Summary of Validated Influences
In researching the stakeholder performance goal of effectively implementing explicit
instruction teaching strategies 80% of the day and improving ELLs scores by 5% per year, the
results indicate the K-12 teachers do not possess all the necessary competencies to improve
instruction for ELLs (Table 21). Research results also indicated teachers used other teaching
strategies such as GLAD and STEM, however the district focus was on the explicit instructional
model and teachers have not incorporated other teaching strategies into the district model.
Analysis of survey results and interview findings indicate knowledge and organizational gaps
interfered with the stakeholder group reaching their performance goal. Knowledge gaps in
understanding how to effectively implement explicit instruction teaching strategies 80% of the
day was confirmed. Motivation gaps in K-12 teachers’ belief that their instructional effort is
directly linked to student success was not confirmed. Finally, organizational gaps in district lack
support of creating an environment that supports innovation and new ideas related to improving
instruction were revealed through survey and interview analysis. These barriers to
implementing explicit instruction teaching strategies with fidelity throughout the district has
hindered student achievement of English language learners per Table 20 below. The table
examines the yearly percentage of RAMA Unified School District’s ELLs that were redesignated
and fluent English proficient students compared to the state average over the 10-year period.
Overall, RAMA Unified School District is lagging the state in the percentage of ELLs
redesignated ELLs and fluent English proficient students by a wide-margin in both categories.
The percentage of ELLs proficient in English follow a similar trend over the ten-year period,
however the gap between the district and state averages remain constant. The percentage of ELL
reclassifications do not follow a similar trend and percentage widens dramatically over several
101

years compared to the state averages. Table 20 also addressed research question one which
inquired to what extent the RAMA Unified District was achieving its goal of improving student
scores in English Language Arts. Based on the ten-year data, the district is lagging behind
statewide averages in making ELLs proficient in the English language.
Table 20
RAMA USD English Language Learners Data Over Ten Years (CDE, 2020)

Table 21
Summary of Validated Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences
102

Knowledge Influence Assumed Knowledge Influences Validated (Need)
Procedural
Teachers need to know how to effectively
implement explicit instruction strategies during
their daily student lessons.
√

Motivation Influence Assumed Motivation Influences Validated (Need)
Attribution
Teachers should feel that reading proficiency
of ELLs is directly linked to their efforts of
implementing Instructions rather the student’s
lack of ability
√
Organization Influence Assumed Organization Influences Validated (Need)
Cultural Model
The organization needs a culture that is open to
implementing explicit instruction strategies
districtwide to improve ELL instruction.

√
Through analysis of the results and findings and the research questions presented, the K-
12 teachers’ role in improving instruction for all students and especially ELLs had been clarified.
The purpose of the study was to better understand the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational influences of the K-12 teachers in implementing explicit instruction strategies for
all students and especially for ELLs. The data collected from the research study highlighted the
needs and assets of the K-12 teachers. The RAMA Unified School District can utilize the
results of this case study to maintain the assets and target the needs to improve instruction and
103

increase ELL scores on standardized tests. Table 22 represents the responses to the research
questions posed in the study as they relate to the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational influences.
Table 22
Research Questions Aligned to Knowledge and Skills, Motivation, and Organizational Validated
Influences
Research Questions KMO Validated Influences (Needs)
To what extent is the
RAMA Unified School
District achieving its goal of
improving student scores in
English Language Arts?
District and Site administrators need to understand and
provide staff with clear and concise goals for ELLs so K-12
teachers can work towards a common goal. (Cultural Model)

Site administrators need to better understand the explicit
instruction teaching strategies in order to support improved
teacher instruction and to evaluate lesson plans and
instruction. (Procedural Knowledge)
What is the K-12 teachers’
knowledge and motivation
related to the
implementation of explicit
instruction teaching
strategies to improve ELLs
test scores by 5% year over
year?

K-12 teachers need to know how to implement explicit
instruction strategies in all their content lesson plans to
improve instruction for ELLs. (Procedural Knowledge)
Teachers should feel that reading proficiency of ELLs is
directly linked to their efforts of implementing Instructions
rather the student’s lack of ability. (Attribution Theory)

What is the interaction
between organizational
culture and context and K-
12 teachers’ knowledge and
motivation?
The organization needs a culture that is open to implementing
explicit instruction strategies districtwide to improve ELL
instruction. (Cultural Model)

Chapter Four presented the findings and results of the validated influences. The chapter
concluded with alignment of the research questions and knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational influences. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for
104

closing the perceived gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation
plan for the solutions.

105

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPELMENTATION, AND EVALUTION

This case study examined the root causes for the organizational performance problem
preventing RAMA Unified School District from meeting its performance goal for ELL achieving
grade level on state standards assessments. An analysis of K-12 teachers’ ability to implement
explicit instruction strategies focused on gaps in the knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational barriers. The results reveal there is a need for a systematic professional
development program for K-12 teachers to develop essential knowledge skills in explicit
instruction strategies if the district wants to meet its performance goal of ensuring ELLS are
succeeding and meeting grade level standards.
Modeled after Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method was
used to clarify organizational goals and identify gaps between the actual performance level of K-
12 teachers in relation to implementing explicit instruction strategies. Surveys were
administered to K-12 teachers to establish their perceived levels of knowledge and skills,
motivation and organizational factors. An interview was conducted with K-12 teachers to
provided additional information to the researcher related to implementing explicit instruction
strategies. Data was analyzed and categorized into knowledge, motivation, and organizational
assumed influences and a determination was made if each assumed the influence is interfering
with the stakeholder group of focus, the K-12 teachers, in meeting their stakeholder performance
goal of improving instruction for ELLS. Chapter Five will explore recommendations for
validated influences identified in Chapter 4.
Recommendations for validated influences will use the Clark and Estes (2008)
categorical framework for knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model’s framework was used to design an
106

integrated implementation and evaluation plan to address the validated influences. The New
World Kirkpatrick Model uses four levels that address reaction, learning, behavior, and results,
starting with the end of the plan as the beginning.
Organizational Context and Mission
The RAMA Unified School District is a smaller sized school district in the California
central valley that is focused on educating students from transitional kindergarten to twelfth
grade for general education students and age three to twenty-one for students with special needs.
The mission of RAMA Unified School District is through community engagement, effective
communication and a continuous improvement mindset, the District will improve educational
outcomes for all. RAMA Unified School District is located in a socio-economically
disadvantaged area comprised of a majority Latino population. The District is comprised of 80%
Latino students and 85% of the District’s students are Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FRPM).
The District currently enrolls approximately 3,000 students across: two K-5 elementary schools;
one 6-8 middle school; one K-8 dual charter school; one comprehensive high school; and one
alternate education high school. The district is comprised of 20 administrators and managers, a
little over 150 certificated staff and 175 classified support staff. In addition to the school sites,
the District is supported by eight departments, including Human Resources, Business Services,
Educational Services, Student Services, Special Education and Maintenance, Operations and
Transportation.
Organizational Performance Goal
RAMA Unified School District’s goal is to improve English Language Arts results on the
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) System’s Smarter
Balance assessment by at least 5% per year in comparison to the initial 2015 results. The
107

RAMA Unified School District’s Board of Trustees along with community stakeholder input
developed and approved the district’s five-year strategic plan in 2014. The strategic plan
includes the district’s vision, mission, strategic goals, objectives, evaluation criteria and action
plans. The strategic plan is designed to prioritize strategic goals and specific evaluation criteria
for each goal and link the goal to the district’s Local Control and Accountability Plan. The Local
Control and Accountability Plan is designed to improve services to students in order for students
to meet state level standards.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The stakeholder groups that make up the RAMA Unified School District community
include students, parents, teachers, support staff, administration and the City of RAMA. The
main stakeholders include students, teachers and administration. The students an important
group as the district is entrusted educating and preparing students for college or career. The
teachers are a key stakeholder group and integral to achieving the district’s performance goal as
they are on the front line of educating the students and preparing them to be successful students
and members of society. The administration group includes site and district administrators who
are key members to achieving the goals of the district by ensuring teachers and students have
safe facilities, instructional supplies, curriculum and appropriate professional development.
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study
The stakeholder group’s performance goals (Table 23) summarizes the RAMA Unified
School District’s organizational mission which includes providing students within the district
with a high-quality education with qualified teachers and encouraging diversity and community
pride. The organizational performance goal section details the district’s goal for ELLs as
detailed in the LCAP. Lastly, Table 26 lists the goals for the three major stakeholder groups.
108

Table 23
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission

RAMA Unified School District, in partnership with our community, is committed to maintaining
high expectations for all students through:

● Providing high quality education through effective and rigorous instruction
● Ensuring a safe and supportive learning environment
● Embracing our diversity as a strength
● Promoting creative expression, critical thinking and technological literacy
● Encourage school and community pride
● Supporting a caring, experienced and qualified staff

Organizational Performance Goal

On a year over year basis, the RAMA Unified School District will improve ELA scores on the
Smarter Balanced Assessment by at least 5% starting in 2013-14 when LCFF was implemented
until state averages are achieved.

Teachers Students Administration
Effective the 2018-19 school
year, teachers will improve
instruction in ELA by utilizing
explicit instruction strategies
80% of the day to improve
ELLs scores by 5% on an
annual basis until state
averages are achieved.
Effective the 2018-19 school
year, students will improve
ELA test scores by 5% on an
annual basis until they reach
grade level standards.

Effective the 2017-18 school
year, site and executive
leadership will provide
teachers with the tools to
educate the students in order to
improve ELA scores by 5% on
an annual basis until state
averages are achieved.

Purpose of the Project and Questions
As mentioned above, the purpose of this case study is to evaluate the degree to which the
district is achieving its goal of improving English Language Art scores on the Smarter Balanced
Assessment by at least 5% annually. The analysis will focus on the knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences of K-12 teachers as it relates to implementing explicit direct instruction
109

and its impact on the achieving the organizational goal of improving ELA test scores by 5% per
year. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is the district’s teacher group.
The questions that will guide this study are the following:

1. To what extent is the RAMA Unified School District achieving its goal of improving
student scores in English Language Arts?
2. What is the K-12 teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to the implementation of
explicit instruction strategies to improve ELLs test scores by 5% year over year?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and K-12 teachers’
knowledge and motivation?
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis method provided a systematic and analytical
approach to examine organizational goals and identify gaps between the actual performance level
of site K-12 teachers and the stakeholder group’s performance goal. In responding to the
research questions, the researcher used the findings and results from surveys and interviews at
RAMA Unified School District to develop recommendations. An analysis of the K-12 teachers’
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in implementing explicit instruction
teaching strategies validated one knowledge influences, one motivation influences, and one
organizational influence.
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011) explain that knowledge influences can
be organized using four knowledge dimensions consisting of 1) factual; 2) conceptual; 3)
procedural: and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). The knowledge influences in
110

Table I represent the complete list of assumed knowledge influences and their probability of
being validated based on the knowledge influences needed to achieve the stakeholders’ goal
supported by the literature review, including Rueda (2011) and Clark and Estes (2008), who
suggest that procedural knowledge focuses on “how to do something” and implements methods,
algorithms, techniques, and methods to accomplish activities. In addition, Rueda (2011) and
Krathwolh (2002), suggest metacognitive knowledge is the concept of being aware of one’s own
cognition and cognitive processes. Metacognitive knowledge allows a person to understand and
implement the strategies needed to complete a task effectively. As such, as indicated in Table
23, it is anticipated that these influences have a high probability of being validated and have a
high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 24 also shows the recommendations for
these highly probable influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 24
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge Influence

Validated
as a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers need to know
how to effectively
implement Explicit
Instruction strategies
during their daily student
lessons. (P)
HP Y To develop
mastery,
individuals
must acquire
component
skills,
practice
integrating them,
and
know when to
apply what they
have learned
(Schraw &
Provide teachers with
trainings on district
approved teaching
methods and provide
continuous feedback.

Provide teachers with
trainings on how
prior teaching
strategies can also be
incorporated into
lesson plans to
improve instruction
111

McCrudden,
2006).
and enhance the
explicit instruction
model.

Provide refresher
training sessions
developing a
continual
improvement
process.
Teachers need the
knowledge to reflect on
their effectiveness in
implementing lesson plans
and effectively engaging
students. (M)
N Y Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners set
goals, monitor
their
performance
and evaluate
their progress
towards
achieving their
goals.
(Ambrose et al.,
2012; Mayer,
2011)
Provide and reinforce
training on effective
teaching strategies
and student
engagement,
including peer
modeling and
observations to
provide peer
feedback.

Provide teacher
training to review
student data in order
to evaluate
effectiveness of
lesson plans to
English learners.

Provide teachers with
training on reflection
to develop goal
setting, monitoring
one’s own progress,
and reflecting on
student data and
instruction.
*Indicate knowledge type for each influence listed using these abbreviations: (D)eclarative; (P)rocedural;
(M)etacognitive.

Increase knowledge to implement effective lessons. The results and findings of this
study indicated that 50% of K-12 teachers need more in-depth procedural knowledge about
teaching strategies and methods to implement Direct Explicit Instruction in their daily student
112

lesson plans. A recommendation rooted in information processing theory has been selected to
close this procedural knowledge gap. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) explains how K-12
teachers organize knowledge influences, how they process new information and how to apply
that information to their lesson plans. Information processing theory suggests that providing K-
12 teachers with workshops and refresher trainings would support their learning. The
recommendation then is to provide all K-12 teachers with workshops on district approved
teaching methods and frequent feedback from site administration to create instructional fidelity
across the district. An example of the recommended training includes a seminar of approved
teacher methodologies for all teachers with opportunities for modeling and observations.
Another example of training includes a seminar on utilizing prior knowledge from other
instructional models and incorporating the teaching strategies in the explicit instruction model to
improve ELLs’ instruction. Annually, teachers will also be provided a refresher workshop to
ensure reinforcement of methods previously presented and to keep K-12 teachers current on a
variety of teaching strategies.
To be effective, K-12 teachers need to be provided knowledge and skill enhancements to
be successful. Knowledge and skill enhancement may take the form of information, job aids and
training (Clark & Estes, 2008). K-12 educators may simply need information to reach their
performance goal, others may require a higher level of information such as job aids which is
more self-help, and trainings (i.e. workshops) provides more “how to” training which includes
practice and feedback to be truly effective (Clark & Estes, 2008). Training is designed to create
“permanent cognitive and behavior changes” to develop competencies for improved job
performance (Grossman & Salas, 2011, Pg. 104). From an information processing system
theory perspective, training is effective when it allows the educator to learn through modeling
113

and observation of lesson plans (Bandura, 1977, Schraw & McCrudden, 2006)). Training
through modeling provides educators increased confidence in their abilities to be successful in
developing lesson plans and increases their overall self-efficacy (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon,
2006).
Reflection as a tool to improve instruction. The results and findings of this study
indicated that 9% of K-12 teachers need more in-depth metacognitive knowledge about
reflection strategies to develop effective lesson plans that effectively engage students. A
recommendation rooted in metacognition theory has been selected to close this metacognitive
gap. Ambrose et al. (2012) and Meyers (2011) explains that K-12 teacher knowledge is
enhanced when teachers can set goals, monitor their performance and evaluate their
performance. Metacognition theory suggests that providing K-12 teachers with learning
strategies for self-regulation and time for reflection would support their learning process. The
recommendation then is to provide all K-12 teachers with workshops on effective teaching and
engagement strategies, opportunities for peer modelling and observations, and workshops on
student data analysis to allow teachers to reflect, develop goals, and self-monitorization.
Teachers need the knowledge to reflect on their effectiveness in implementing lesson
plans and effectively engaging students. Metacognitive knowledge allows teachers K-12
teachers the ability to understand knowledge and control their own cognition (Ford et al., 1998).
Metacognitive thinking allows teachers to reflect on the knowledge that has been acquired and
adjust their teaching strategies to best suit their students (Ford et al., 1998). Metacognitive
thinking allows teacher reflection which then creates a constant improvement cycle and drawing
on prior experience to improve instruction (Ferry & Ross-Gordon, 1998). The intent of
reflection in the educational environment is to encourage teachers to think about their actions and
114

bring about self-initiated conclusions or realizations of their teaching style (Barnett &
O’Mahony, 2006). As noted by Barnett and O’Mahoney (2006), school improvement only
flourishes when a culture of reflection is present to focus on instruction and learning.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. The motivation influences in Table 25 represent the complete list of
assumed motivation influences and their probability of being validated based on the most
frequently mentioned motivation influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during informal
interviews and supported by the literature review and the review of motivation theory.
Motivation is the mechanism that engages and sustains activities or tasks to reach a goal (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Most researchers believe that three motivational lenses affect the
work environment (Clark & Estes, 2008). These lenses include active choice, persistence and
mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Active choice reflects the internal choice to
pursue a goal, persistence reflects the motivation to complete a goal amongst other distractions
and mental effort refers to the sustained mental effort required to complete selected work goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). As one reviews motivation, more recent
research suggests that motivation is more cultural and environment based than individual based
(Rueda, 2011). As such, as indicated in Table 25, some motivational influences have a high
probability of being validated and have a high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal.
Table 25 also shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 25
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
115

Assumed Motivation Influence

Validated
as a Gap
Yes, High
Probability
, No
(V, HP, N)
Priorit
y
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Expectancy Value – Teachers
need to see the value of using the
explicit instruction strategies.
N Y
Activating
personal interest
through
opportunities for
choice and
control can
increase
motivation
(Eccles,
2006).
Develop a
positive
emotional work
environment by
engaging staff in
decisions and
building
consensus.
Work to develop
a plan to create a
link between
staff interests
and the
performance
goals.
Attributions – Teachers should
feel that reading proficiency of
ELLs is directly linked to their
efforts of implementing
instruction rather than the
student’s lack of ability.
N Y
Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
individuals
attribute success
or failures to
effort rather than
ability.
(Anderman &
Anderman,
2009).
Provide teachers
with
professional
development on
teaching ELLs
and the impact
teachers can
make in the
lives of these
students.
Ensure that
consistency is
maintained in
the teaching
methods and
provide constant
feedback.

Teachers need to value instructional methods. The results and findings of this case
study indicated that 10% of teachers did not value the use of Explicit Direct Instruction in their
lesson plans to assist ELLs. A principal rooted in expectancy value theory has been selected to
close this resource gap. Eccles (2006) states that activating personal interest through engaging
116

and empowering staff can increase motivation to complete a task. This suggests that K-12
teacher learning and motivation increases they can make a personal connection which engages
them and can increase motivation to reach the task or goal. The recommendation to increase
value of instructional methods includes developing a positive work environment and engaging
staff in decision making to build consensus. This includes developing a plan to create a link
between a teachers’ interests and the district’s performance goals
K-12 teachers need to see the value of using the Explicit Direct Instruction model. In
essence, the expectancy value theory will guide the identification of staff values and the
relationship to completing a goal (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Expectancy value theory
describes that the higher an educator values a task, the more likely they are to fully engage in
completing the task or organizational goal (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). As a result, motivation
is key to engaging staff to strive for the organizational goal. For a District, motivation is key to
engaging the teaching staff to strive towards the organizational goal of improving instruction and
performance goals. Staff finding value in explicit direct instruction will create a consistent
instructional model and develop fidelity across the district. The performance gaps will continue
until motivation across the district improves to achieve a common goal of improving student
achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Teachers should feel that ELL proficiency is linked to their efforts. The results and
findings of this case study indicated that 32% of teachers did not feel that the success of ELLs
was linked to their efforts in instruction. A principal rooted in attribution theory has been
selected to close this resource gap. As stated by Eccles (2006), learning and motivation is
enhanced when teachers attribute success or failures to their effort rather than abilities. This
would suggest that teachers should feel that the success of ELLs in English language arts is
117

linked directly to their efforts in implementing their instructional methods. The recommendation
is to provide professional development to teachers and the impact teachers can make in a
student’s life. To ensure consistency, teachers should be trained in teaching methods supporting
ELLs and provided consistent feedback focused on improving instruction and their efforts to
impact students.
Teachers should feel that reading proficiency of ELLs is directly linked to their efforts of
implementing instruction rather than the student’s lack of ability. Attribution theory attempts to
explain how each individual educator reacts differently to the same event (Rueda, 2011). It
seeks to understand how individual beliefs about current events affect future events.
Attribution theory researchers consider attributions to follow three main dimensions: stability,
locus and control (Rueda, 2011; Weiner, 1985). Stability refers to whether attributes are
temporary or permanent. Locus refers to whether the attributes are internal or external. The last
dimension is control and refers to whether the event is under control of the student. Teachers
need to understand that they can affect the attributions that a student makes (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). Teachers affect students on a daily basis and providing proper comments,
feedback and praise can have a tremendous long-term effect on learning (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). If a student builds negative attributions, their motivation to achieve in the
future will be compromised.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. The organization influences in Table 26 represent the complete list of
assumed organization influences and their probability of being validated based on the most
frequently mentioned organization influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during
118

interviews and supported by the literature review and the review of organization and culture
theory. Although there are many organizational theories that address the role of culture on
organizations (Kezar, 2011), the most relevant to this study is cultural models and cultural
settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models incorporate the shared beliefs, values
and goals of an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996).
In contrast, cultural settings revolve around how employees work individually or together to
perform their day to day activities to create something of value (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Thus, it is important to study both cultural models and cultural settings as these are not
independent models, but dynamic and complementary (Rueda, 2011). As such, as indicated in
Table 26, some organizational influences have a high probability of being validated and have a
high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 26 also shows the recommendations for
these influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 26
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization Influence

Validated
as a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model Influence: The
organization needs a culture that
is open to implementing explicit
direct instruction districtwide to
improve ELL instruction.
HP Y
Effective change
begins by
addressing
motivation
influencers; it
ensures the group
knows why it
needs to change.
It then
addresses
organizational
barriers and then
Utilize
monthly
meetings with
key
stakeholders to
discuss
implementing
new
instructional
models and
research based
strategies.
Develop buy-in
119

knowledge and
skills needs
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
by involving
staff in decision
making and
ensure all staff
have the
resources and
training to be
successful.
Cultural Setting Influence: The
organization needs to provide
staff time to collaborate with
their peers to improve
instruction.
N Y
Effective change
efforts ensure
that
everyone has the
resources
(equipment,
personnel, time,
etc.) needed to
do their job,
and that if there
are resource
shortages, then
resources are
aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Develop a plan
to provide staff
with training on
effective
collaboration
and time to
work
collaboratively
to review
student data,
barriers to
success and
teaching
strategies. Site
administrators
can utilize
supplemental
and
concentration
funding to
create
additional
collaboration
time during the
month for
teachers.

Creating a culture open to implementing change. The results and findings of this
study indicated that 51% of K-12 teachers believes the culture is not open to explicit instruction
teaching strategies districtwide to improve instruction for ELL students. A recommendation
rooted in organizational change and specifically cultural model theory has been selected to close
the organizational gap. Clark and Estes (2008) found that effective change starts by addressing
120

motivation influences, ensures that the group understands why change is needed and works to
address organizational barriers and knowledge needs. This suggests that K-12 teachers need to
have discussions to address these factors to become more successful teachers. The
recommendation includes establishing monthly meetings with key stakeholders to discuss
implementation strategies of researched based instructional models and teaching strategies. This
will allow for staff to better understand of instructional methods and develop buy-in and ensure
staff have the resources and training to be successful.
Within a K-12 school district setting, cultural models shape the organizational structure,
values, policies, practices and reward structure (Rueda, 2011). Cultural models are always
evolving and typically change is slow and long-term due to changing of values, beliefs, and
traditions (Kezar, 2011). For example, school districts are not blank canvases, but have existing
policies and procedures that need to be taken into consideration when implementing innovative
programs or instructional pedagogies (Rueda, 2011). Understanding cultural models is
important to determine if they are barriers to instructional learning and what needs to be targeted
for change (Rueda, 2011). Working with opinion leaders, or champions for innovation, can
assist the leadership team in molding a culture that lends itself to innovate with new teaching
pedagogies (Lewis, 2011). Creating a new culture that is open to change or adopting new
teaching pedagogy is a balance between the tensions of maintaining a strong and stable
organizational culture and the ability to make change (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Collaboration time. The results and findings of this study indicated that 19% of K-12
teachers believe the organization needs to provide staff time to collaborate with their peers to
improve instruction to ELLs. A recommendation rooted in the cultural setting model has been
selected to close the organizational gap. Clark and Estes (2008) found that effective change
121

efforts ensure all staff have the necessary resources to perform their job effectively and that
resources are aligned with the organizational priorities. This suggests that K-12 teachers need
the proper resources to create effective change that is aligned to the organization’s goals. The
recommendation is to develop a training plan to ensure staff are trained in effective collaboration
strategies and have the time and resources to review student data, barriers to success and
effective teaching strategies.
The cultural setting includes the who, what and when of daily tasks performed on school
site (Rueda, 2011). The study of cultural settings examines how employees work together to
create something of value (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). In the example of teachers, teachers
share ideas and explore what is working or is not working in their classrooms. Through the
exchange of knowledge, teachers need to reflect on the acquired skills and adjust behavior and
apply new teaching strategies (Ford et al., 1998). Collaboration time can be informal or a more
formal process such as professional learning communities. Professional learning communities
includes an ongoing practice of sharing and interrogating teaching practices, reflection,
collaboration, and learning orientated methods (Stoll et al., 2006). The key to collaboration time
and for successful school change is finding time in the day (Raywild, 1993). Collaboration time
for teachers can develop and sustain school improvement and may be considered more valuable
than equipment, facilities and professional develop opportunities (Raywild, 1993). School site
administrators can utilize their supplemental and concentration funding from the LCAP to create
additional time during the month for teacher collaboration.

122

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The model that is utilized for this implementation and evaluation plan is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which is based on the original Kirkpatrick
Four Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The New World Kirkpatrick
Model suggests that evaluation plans start by focusing on the goals of the organization and by
working backwards, the “leading indicators” that bridge recommended initiatives to the
organization’s goals are easier to identify and more aligned with those goals. In addition, the
“reverse order” of the New World Kirkpatrick Model allows for the evaluation of three other
actions: a) the development of solution outcomes that focus on assessing work behaviors, b) the
identification of indicators that learning occurred during the implementation phase, and c) lastly,
the emergence of indicators that training participants are satisfied with implementation strategies.
The design of the implementation and evaluation plan in this manner creates connections
between the recommended solutions and the larger organizational goal and which solicits staff
“buy in” to ensure success (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The purpose of RAMA Unified School District includes providing students within the
district with a high-quality education with qualified teachers and encouraging diversity and
community pride. The main organizational goal is to improve English Language Arts results on
the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) System’s Smarter
Balance assessment by at least 5% per year in comparison to the initial 2015 results. This
research paper examined the knowledge and skills, motivational, and organizational barriers that
prevent K-12 teachers from implementing district approved teaching strategies effectively in
123

their lesson plans. The proposed solutions, a comprehensive professional development program
for new and existing teachers, related on-the-job support and feedback, and allowing K-12
teachers time to collaborate, should provide teachers with the necessary tools to be successful
and improve instructional to RAMA Unified School District’s ELLs.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 27 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for RAMA Unified
School District. If the internal outcomes are met as expected as a result of professional
development and organizational support for new and existing teachers, then the external
outcomes should also be realized.
Table 27

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Increase on CDE
English Learner
dashboard

Improved scores on standardized
tests and ELL reclassifications
Solicit annual results from CDE
dashboard
2. Increase on CDE
college and career ready
dashboard
Improve number of ELL
students that
are meeting A-G requirements
Quarterly and annual checks of
student progress on student
information system
3. Increase on CDE
mathematics dashboard
Improved scores on standardized
tests for ELLs
Solicit annual results from CDE
dashboard
Internal Outcomes
4. Increased scores on
SBAC test for ELLs
SBAC test results for ELLs Solicit annual results from CDE
5. Increase effectiveness
of Collaboration
Positive/negative feedback from
teachers and principals
Set aside regular times for 1:1
conversations with teachers and
principal and survey teachers.
6. Increase ELL
reclassification
Number of students reclassified
each year
Quarterly and annual checks of
student progress on student
information system
124

7. Improve professional
development plans for
new and experienced
teachers.
Positive/negative feedback from
teachers and principals
Set aside regular times for 1:1
conversations with teachers and
principal and survey teachers.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the K-12 teachers for RAMA Unified
School District. The first critical behavior is that new and experienced K-12 teachers will
correctly apply explicit instruction teaching strategies into their daily lesson plans. The second
critical behavior is that K-12 teachers will be able to collaborate effectively as a team and in
professional learning communities. The third critical behavior that K-12 teachers are able to
reflect on their teaching strategies and instruction to modify their teaching style to improve
instruction for English Language Learners. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of
these outcome behaviors appears in Table 28.
Table 28
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Implement
explicit instruction
strategies
effectively in
lesson plans
The number of
improvement
comments provided
by administrator
1a. The site
administrator shall
monitor implementation
of teaching strategies via
regular classroom
observations and
feedback.
1a. During first year
of employment, a
new teacher will be
reviewed formally
three times;
informal
observation can
occur weekly.
Thereafter –
informal
observations can
occur monthly, so
long as previously
successful.
Tenured staff will
be formally
125

evaluated every two
years; informal
observations can
occur monthly.
Thereafter –
informal
observations can
occur quarterly, as
long as previously
successful
1b. The site
administrator will
provide a mentor such
as an instructional coach
which will model
lessons and provide peer
feedback.
1b. Mentor will
work with teacher
weekly and
monthly, as needed.
2. Improve
effective
collaboration
The number of
positive comments
about collaboration to
site administrator will
improve.
2a. The site
administrator will
provide teachers with
formal training on
professional learning
communities to develop
effective collaboration.
2a. The site
administrator will
monitor progress on
a monthly and
annual basis.
3. Teachers will
reflect on their
teacher
methodologies
Improvement on
survey or interview
with a focus on the
importance and value
of a task
3a. The site
administrator will
provide teachers with
professional
development on
reflection.
3a. The site
administrator will
monitor progress on
a monthly and
annual basis.
3b. The site
administrator will allow
time for teachers to
reflect on instruction
and test results.
3b. The site
administrator
monitors teacher
progress quarterly.

Required drivers. K-12 teachers require the support of their direct supervisors and the
organization to reinforce what they learn in professional development and to encourage them to
apply what they have learned in the classroom to improve instruction for ELLs. Rewards should
be established for achievement of performance goals to enhance the organizational support of K-
126

12 teachers. Table 29 shows the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of K-12
teachers.
Table 29
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job Aid including glossary of
teaching terms and
methodologies
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Job Aid including checklist for
implementing effective
teaching strategies.
Ongoing 1, 3
Administrator and mentor
observations and feedback
Ongoing 1, 3
Site leadership meeting to
troubleshoot formal and
informal collaboration
Monthly 2
Site leadership and teacher
feedback on reflective
practices.
Monthly 1, 3

Encouraging
Collaboration and peer
modeling during informal and
formal meetings.
Monthly 1, 3
Feedback and coaching from
administrator and mentors
Ongoing 1, 3
Rewarding
Performance incentive when
K-12 teachers have earned
certification for mastering
district approved teaching
strategies
One-time 1

Monitoring
127

Share success stories at staff
meetings
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Administrator can ask K-12
teachers on confidence in
implementing teaching
strategies
Quarterly 1, 3
Administrator can ask K-12
teachers about confidence and
effectiveness of reflective
practices.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3

Organizational support. The RAMA Unified School District will support the
stakeholders’ critical behaviors by providing a clear message from the Board of Trustees and the
District leadership team. This will ensure all stakeholders know the mission and goal of the
organization and supporting site administrators with the tools necessary to lead and coach their
staff in District approved teaching strategies and providing the fiscal and human resources to
ensure K-12 teachers receive training, feedback and reinforcement to be successful.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, most notably
professional development in explicit instruction strategies, professional learning communities
and reflective practices, the stakeholders will be able to:
1. Apply the teaching strategies of explicit instruction in their daily lesson plans 80% of
the day,
2. Engage students in critical thinking, sharing and checking for understanding,
3. Recognize student levels and implement differentiated learning strategies for ELL
students,
128

4. Apply strategies for implementing professional learning communities that would create
effective collaboration meetings,
5. Plan, monitor and share teaching strategies during collaboration meetings to best serve
ELLs,
6. Create an appropriate timeline to improve student learning of ELLs, and
7. Value the value of improving ELLs student achievement in classwork and assessments,
8. Apply reflective methods to teaching strategies to improve overall instruction in the
classroom and student achievement.
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section, will be achieved with a
variety of professional development programs that explore in–depth teaching strategies,
collaboration, and reflective practices. The learners, K-12 teachers, will be exposed to a broad
range of topics pertaining to the Explicit Direct Instruction, classroom management, professional
learning communities and reflection. The professional development programs will consist of
four main in-person training modules and workshops. The total time for completion is 25 hours.
During the in-person training modules and workshops, learners will be provided a job aid
of key terms and references to teaching strategies included within Explicit Direct Instruction, as
well as a job aid identifies the necessary requirements to include in daily lesson plans. The
training modules will allow staff time to discuss amongst their peers and enable the learners to
check their understanding. Following the modules, teachers will be allowed to demonstrate their
new strategies and receive feedback from site administrators and mentors.
129

Staff will also attend the professional learning communities workshop and learners will
receive job aids on key terms and strategies on collaboration. The conference will allow the
learners to demonstrate and practice team collaborative strategies to review student learning,
achievement and strategies to improve instruction. Following the workshop, teachers will be
able to implement collaboration strategies with grade level teams and larger teams in order to
improve instruction for all students. During professional learning communities, learners will be
taught to reflect on their current practices and understand what is working and what needs to
improve to create differentiation in instruction and improve instruction for all students.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Demonstrating declarative knowledge is
often necessary as a precursor to applying the knowledge to solve problems. Therefore, it is
important to evaluate both the declarative and procedural knowledge being taught to the learner.
It is of equal importance that the learners’ value professional development in order to apply their
newly acquired knowledge and skills in the classroom. The learners must also have the
confidence to apply this new knowledge in the classroom. The learners also need to incorporate
their newly acquired knowledge and blend it with prior knowledge to improve student
instruction. As such, Table 30 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these components of
learning.
Table 30
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks through discussions, “pair,
think, share” and other individual/group
activities.
.
Periodically during workshops and
through documented observation notes.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
130

Demonstration in groups and individually of
using the job aids to successfully perform the
new skills.
During the workshops.
Receive quality feedback from peers during
group sharing.
During the workshops.
Individual application of the skills with fellow
learners.
During the workshops.
Retrospective pre and post surveys asking
participants about their level of proficiency
before and after the training. .
At the end of the workshop.

Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Instructor’s observation of participants’
statements and actions demonstrating that they
see the benefit of what they are learning to
improve instruction practices.
During the workshop.
Discussions of the value of what they are
learning to improve instruction for students.
During the workshop.
Retrospective pre and post survey assessment
tool.
At the end of the workshop.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Survey items using Likert scale questions. Following each workshop/lesson in the
professional development plan.
Discussions following practice and feedback.

During the workshop.
Retrospective pre and post survey assessment
tool.
At the end of the workshop.

Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the workshop.
Learners will create an individual action plan. During the workshop.
Retrospective pre and post survey assessment At the end of the workshop
131

tool.

Level 1: Reaction
Demonstrating customer satisfaction, participant engagement and relevance are key to a
successful training program. Customer satisfaction measures how the participants feel about the
training program. Engagement refers to how participants are actively involved and participating
in the training program. Lastly, relevance measures the degree to which participants have the
opportunity to apply the learned skills in their classroom setting. As such, Table 31 lists the
components to measure reactions and quality of the training program.
Table 31
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Completion of individual workshops and
conferences.
Ongoing during the workshops.
Observation by instructor/facilitator to
ensure transfer of knowledge.
During the workshop
Observation by site administrators to ensure
staff is engaged and learning.
During the workshop
Completion of online participant surveys During the workshop
Attendance During the workshop
Course evaluation One week after the course
Relevance
Brief pulse-check with participants via
online surveys and discussions
After every workshop/lesson
Course evaluation One week after the course
Customer Satisfaction
132

Brief pulse-check with participants via
online surveys and discussions
After every workshop/lesson
Course evaluation One week after the course

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. During the in-person training
modules and workshops, the instructors and instructional coaches will collect data related to the
start, duration, and completion of training modules by the participants. This data will indicate
the engagement with the professional development opportunities. The instructors will also
administer brief surveys after each training module requesting the participant to indicate the
relevance of the material to their job performance and their overall satisfaction with the content
and delivery of the professional development.
For Level 1, During the in-person workshop, the instructor will conduct periodic brief
knowledge-checks by asking the participants about the relevance of the content to their work and
the organization, delivery, and learning environment. Level 2 will include checks for
understanding using games, pair share or competition among groups in responding to questions
and scenarios drawn from the training module content.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately four weeks
after the implementation of the training, and then again at eight weeks, site administrators will
administer a survey containing open and scaled questions to evaluate, from the participant’s
perspective, satisfaction and relevance of the professional development modules (Level 1),
confidence and value of applying their training (Level 2), application of the professional
development content to instruction in the classroom and support from site administrators and
133

instructional coaches (Level 3), and the extent to which their implementation of instructional
strategies on explicit direct instruction and collaboration has been embedded in the classroom to
benefit ELLs.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal of K-12 teachers is to implement instructional strategies effectively in the
classroom and collaborate with staff to improve instruction for ELLs. On an annual basis, CDE
will provide dashboard information related to increases in English Language Learners, College
and Career Ready and Mathematics. On a quarterly basis, administrators will review SBAC testing
results for ELLS, feedback on collaboration opportunities and feedback on professional
development plans. The dashboard (figure 2) below will report the data on these measures as a
monitoring and accountability tool. Similar dashboards will be created to monitor Levels 1, 2 and
3.
Figure 2 – State Dashboard Sample (CDE, 2017)

134

Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was utilized to implement and evaluate the author’s
recommendations for the organization to improve stakeholder achievement goals and the
organizational goals. The New World Kirkpatrick Model allows for professional development
plans to be evaluated and to monitor the progress of the participants and how successful they are
in incorporating knowledge transfer from professional development to the classroom and
ultimately improving instruction in the classroom and improving test scores for ELLs.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach

The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework in combination with the Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model provided a comprehensive approach to
identify, categorize, and validate knowledge, motivation, and influence gaps and create an
evaluation plan with recommendations to mitigate the validated influence gaps. A weakness of
using a gap analysis framework for this study is that this framework does not always work for
every case study and the K-12 teachers awareness related to not following district teaching
strategies may skew the results. A final weakness is the researcher used a modified Clark and
Estes gap analysis framework focused on one stakeholder group versus examining all
stakeholder groups.
Limitations and Delimitations

Naturally, there are limitations in this evaluative case study. The limitations of the study
included the truthfulness of all respondents, the small number of K-12 teachers vs. a large school
district, and the role of the researcher. The use of open-ended interview questions and
exploratory questions were utilized to facilitate truthful responses. The flow of the interview
questions was designed to begin with less threatening questions and allowed time to develop a
135

relationship and trust between the researcher and the respondent. The researcher was also
trained in interview and listening skills, including reflection, summarization, and clarification
responses. All interview respondents were also provided the opportunity to review the study
results for accuracy and could request any statements be removed without penalty. The
researcher also holds an administrative role in the RAMA Unified School District that is not
directly involved in the educational or evaluation activities of the participants. It was possible
that some participants responded in a manner that appeared more favorable to the researcher if
they believed the researcher had influence with their managers. Some of these concerns were
addressed in the previous discussion of ethics.
Delimitations included the number of interview participants and the number of survey
responses as part of the case study. The use of three data sources (interviews, surveys and
document collection) further increased the amount and quality of the data and provided the
potential to mine meaningful data and develop valuable recommendations. The focus on one
stakeholder group also limited the study. Other stakeholder groups in the RAMA Unified School
District may have provided additional data which would support achievement of the
organization’s performance goal. Lastly, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, participation in the
case study was low. Although the researcher intended to have 70% participation in the survey,
only 24% of the teachers participated in the survey. Due to the lower participation, the results of
the survey were not as rich as intended. In addition, the limited participation in the interview
phase of the case study was also a factor. The researcher intended to interview 8 to 12 teachers,
however, only 5 teachers volunteered for the survey. Due to the online learning environment
during the COVID-19 environment, teachers were not inclined to participate in additional
136

activities such as a research study and collaboration may have increased as a necessity compared
to a typical school year.
Future Research

Due to the limitations and delimitations of this evaluative case study, it is recommended
to conduct more in-depth research which would expand the scope of the study. This study
focused on one stakeholder group in the organization and limited the generalization of the
findings to RAMA Unified School District. The same study could be conducted again although
expanding the participant pool to incorporate more school districts that incorporate explicit
instruction strategies allowing for more breadth in understanding the instructional model’s
impact on ELL. Another recommendation is to include site administrators and district
educational services staff to include a broader perception of the explicit instruction teaching
strategies and the effectiveness of other instructional models and teaching strategies. A final
recommendation related to conducting the same study on a larger participant pool is to extend
the length of the study to allow for more depth in qualitative data collection and expand the
collection of site administrator and assistant superintendents interview data resulting in a greater
depth of understanding of the gaps in knowledge, motivation and the organization. One last note
is to conduct the case study when COVID-19 is no longer factor in society and understand the
impact of distance learning and the teaching strategies utilized to increase engagement and
improve student instruction for ELLs.
Based on the findings, an additional recommendation for future study is to evaluate if the
recommended solutions are implemented with fidelity and to what degree were the
recommended solutions successful. An in-depth study exploring whether the recommended
solutions increased the procedural knowledge of K-12 teachers to improve instruction for all
137

students. Lastly, did the improved instruction in daily lessons improve student outcomes for
ELLs.
Conclusion

The purpose of this evaluative case study was to gain an understanding of the root causes
interfering with the organizational performance problem that the RAMA Unified School District
is having of meeting its goals of improving instruction and standardized test scores for ELLs by
5% per year. The impact of improved instruction to all students and ELLs in particular is to
prepare the students for college, career or the workforce. According to research, the RAMA
Unified School District implemented explicit instruction strategies to develop a uniform teaching
method to improve instruction for all students, especially ELLs. The intent was to implement
explicit instruction teaching strategies with fidelity throughout the district to ensure a uniform
teaching methodology across the district and to facilitate collaboration horizontally and
vertically. The K-12 teachers were the major stakeholder selected as the teachers are on the
frontlines impacting student learning and have the most effect on student outcomes.
Utilizing the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis method, the research findings revealed
that the K-12 teachers all possess some level of competency with explicit instruction teaching
strategies although gaps were revealed in their procedural knowledge and the organizational
cultural model that inhibited their ability to fully implement the teaching strategies with fidelity
and attain their stakeholder goal and achieve the organization’s performance goal. The
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model was used to develop an implementation
and evaluation plan encompassing the proposed recommendations of the validated influences.
Improving instruction for all students and ELLs is important in the community due to the lower
socioeconomic demographics of the district. An education is key for the students to be
138

successful and be prepared for college, career or the workforce. Successful implementation of
the recommendations is anticipated to lead to increased procedural knowledge of the teaching
strategies and will allow for improved instruction to all students and accomplishment of the
organization’s performance goal.

139

References
Akbulut, M. Ş., & Hill, J. R. (2020). Case-Based Pedagogy for Teacher Education: An
Instructional Model. Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), ep287.
Anderman, E. & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from http://www.education.com
/reference/article/attribution-theory/.
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching.
Guilford Press.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/metacognition/
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
review, 84(2), 191.
Barnett, B. G., & O’Mahony, G. R. (2006). Developing a culture of reflection: implications for
school improvement. Reflective practice, 7(4), 499-523.
Baumann, J. F., Seifert-Kessell, N., & Jones, L. A. (1992). Effect of think-aloud instruction on

elementary students' comprehension monitoring abilities. Journal of Reading Behavior,

24(2), 143-172.

Bland, J., Sherer, D., Guha, R., Woodworth, K., Shields, P., Tiffany-Morales, J., & Campbell, A.

(2011). The Status of the Teaching Profession 2011. Center for the Future of Teaching

and Learning at WestEd.

Burke, W. W. (2004). Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

CAL (2016). Two-Way Immersion. Retrieved from: http://www.cal.org/twi/

CDE (2017). California School Dashboard. Retrieved from: https://www.caschooldashboard.org/

140

CDE (2019). California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. Retrieved from:
https://caasppelpac.cde.ca.gov/caaspp/DashViewReport?ps=true&lstTestYear=2019&lst
TestType=B&lstGroup=1&lstSubGroup=1&lstSchoolType=A&lstGrade=13&lstCounty
=00&lstDistrict=00000&lstSchool=0000000
CDE (2019). California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). Retrieved
from: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sp/cl/
CDE (2019). Facts about English Learners in California – CalEdFActs. Retrieved from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
CDE (2019). Glossary of Terms used in CBEDS and Language Census data reports. Retrieved
from: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/glossary.asp#el
CDE (2019). Local Control Funding Formula Overview. Retrieved from: https://www.cde.ca.
gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
CDE, (2020). Data Quest. Retrieved from: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/page2.asp?level
=District&subject=LC&submit1=Submit
CITI Program (2018). Social -Behavioral Human Subjects. https://www.citiprogram.org/
members /index.cfm?pageID=50&showInstitution=498#view
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Conger, D. (2008). Testing, time limits, and english learners: Does age of school entry affect

how quickly students can learn english? IESP working paper #08-04. Institute for

Education and Social Policy, New York University, Joseph and Violet Pless Hall, 82

Washington Square East, New York, NY 10003.

141

Crawford, J., & Gross, E. (2019). Critical Multilingual Pedagogy: A Practical Guide to

Linguistically & Culturally Sustaining Teaching. Routledge. Introduction: Sociopolitical

and Raciolinguistic Context of Multilingual Education;

Chapter 1: Language Theories and Approaches to Multilingual Teaching and Learning;

Chapter 2: Building on Background Knowledge

Crawford, J., and Gross, E. (2020). Towards a Critical Multilingual Pedagogy: Synthesizing SLA

theories, educational orientations, and language pedagogy for equitable and effective

instruction for emergent bilinguals. TESOL Journal.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know when
we are doing it right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
9(4), 454-475.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Third Annual "Brown" Lecture in Education Research - The Flat

Earth and Education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future.

Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Duursma, E., Romero-Contreras, S., Szuber, A., Proctor, P., Snow, C., August, D., & Calderón,

M. (2007). The role of home literacy and language environment on bilinguals' English

and Spanish vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(1), 171-190.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
142

Farver, J. A. M., Xu, Y., Lonigan, C. J., & Eppe, S. (2013). The home literacy environment and

Latino head start children's emergent literacy skills. Developmental Psychology, 49(4),

775.
Ferry, N. M., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998). An inquiry into Schön's epistemology of practice:
Exploring links between experience and reflective practice. Adult Education Quarterly,
48(2), 98-112.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2011). Feedback and feed forward. Principal Leadership, 11(9), 90-93.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–
developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of
goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes
and transfer. Journal of applied psychology, 83(2), 218.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2015). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. Corwin Press.
Fuller, B., & Tobben, L. (2014). Local control funding formula in california: How to monitor
progress and learn from a grand experiment. Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law
and Social Policy. University of California Berkeley School of Law, 2850 Telegraph
Avenue Suite 500, Berkeley, CA 94705.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to

connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational

Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.

143

Gándara, P., & Escamilla, K. (2017). Bilingual education in the United States. Bilingual and
multilingual education, 1-14.
Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell, J. and Callahan, R., (2003). English Learners in
California Schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(36).
Garza-Reyna, G. L. (2019). The academic preparedness of Latino students in dual language and
transitional bilingual education programs. Journal of Latinos and Education, 18(4), 340-
348.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language
learners in US schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363-385.
Gersten, R. (1985). Structured immersion for language minority students: Results of a
longitudinal evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(3), 187-196
Gillanders, C., & Jiménez, R. T. (2004). Reaching for success: A close-up of Mexican immigrant

parents in the USA who foster literacy success for their kindergarten children. Journal of

Early Childhood Literacy, 4(3), 243-269.

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English Language Learners. AMERICAN EDUCATOR.

Greene, J. P. (1997). A meta-analysis of the rossell and baker review of bilingual education

research. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(2), 103-122.

144

Gross, E.S. (2018). Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency Development in Two-Way
Immersion Schools: Teachers’ Ideologies and Practices (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California). Retrieved from: http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/
cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll40/id/493197
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: what really matters. International

Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103-120.

Growe, R., & Montgomery, P. S. (2003). Educational Equity in America: Is Education the Great

Equalizer?. Professional Educator, 25(2), 23-29.

Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental

instruction in decoding skills for hispanic and non-hispanic students in early elementary

school. Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 90-103.

Harrington, T. (2017). Q&A: Educator and lecturer advocates for equity in education. EdSource.

Retrieved from: https://edsource.org/2017/q-a-educator-and-lecturer-advocates-for-

equity-in-education/580541

Hartman, M. (2019). Does a Computer-Based Intervention Program Increase Dynamic Indicator

of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Scores for English Language Learners and

English Proficient Students?. Retrieved from: https://repository.arizona.edu/

handle/10150/632547

Hollingsworth, J. R., & Ybarra, S. E. (2012). Explicit direct instruction for English learners.

Corwin Press.

Hubbell, E. R., & Goodwin, B. (2019). Instructional Models: How to Choose One and How to
Use One. McREL International. 4601 DTC Parkway Suite 500, Denver, CO 80237-2596.

145

Fuller, B., Loeb, S., Arshan, N., Chen, A., & Yi, S. (2007). California principals’ resources:
Acquisition, deployment, and barriers. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Education
Policy and Practice, Stanford University. Retrieved July, 23(2009), 3-07.
Hart, J. E., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve the science and
literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3),
475-501.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Laal, M., Khattami-Kermanshahi, Z., & Laal, M. (2014). Teaching and education; collaborative
style. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4057-4061.
Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Reading and reading instruction for children from low-income and non-
English-speaking households. The Future of Children, 22(2), 73-88.
Lewis, L. (2019). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication.
John Wiley & Sons.
Lopez, M. H., & Velasco, G. (2011). Childhood poverty among Hispanics sets record, leads
nation. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Loose, W. (2014). The principal: three keys to maximizing impact. Journal of Catholic

Education, 18(1), 208-211.

Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher

education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach english language learners. Journal of

Teacher Education, 59(4), 361-373.

Kaufman, D. (2004). 14. Constructivist issues in language learning and teaching. Annual review

of applied linguistics, 24, 303.

146

Kendziora, K., & Yoder, N. (2016). When Districts Support and Integrate Social and Emotional
Learning (SEL): Findings from an Ongoing Evaluation of Districtwide Implementation of
SEL. Education Policy Center at American Institutes for Research.
Kennedy, K. (2019). Centering Equity and Caring in Leadership for Social-Emotional Learning:

Toward a Conceptual Framework for Diverse Learners. Journal of School Leadership,

29(6), 473-492.

Kezar, A. (2011). Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st

Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education

Report, Volume 28, Number 4 (Vol. 155). John Wiley & Sons.

Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.

Association for Talent Development.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice,

41(4), 212-218.

Marian, V., Shook, A., & Schroeder, S. R. (2013). Bilingual two-way immersion programs
benefit academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(2), 167-186.
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the
importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online
Learning, 22(1), 205-222.
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and situational
characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of management journal,
35(4), 828-847.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

147

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Menefee-Libey, D., & Kerchner, C. T. (2015). California's first year with local control finance
and accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(22), 15.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to the design and
implementation (4
th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004).
Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds
of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70.
Moughamian, A. C., Rivera, M. O., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Instructional Models and Strategies
for Teaching English Language Learners. Center on Instruction.
Noltemeyer, A., Bush, K., Patton, J., & Bergen, D. (2012). The relationship among deficiency
needs and growth needs: An empirical investigation of Maslow's theory. Children and
Youth Services Review, 34(9), 1862-1867.
Odden, A., & Geranios, J. (1988). Chief school business officer certification in california: An
idea whose time has come? Retrieved from: http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://
search-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/63097847?accountid=14749
O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation
and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of
educational research, 78(1), 33-84.
OECD (2008). Policy Brief: Ten Steps to Equity in Education. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.
org/ education/school/39989494.pdf

148

Rauschenbach, J. (1994). Checking for Student Understanding—Four Techniques. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 65(4), 60-63
Raywid, M. A. (1993). Finding Time for Collaboration. Educational leadership, 51(1), 30-34.
Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers' memory
of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 16.
Rios, F., Bath, D., Foster, A., Maaka, M., Michelli, N., & Urban, E. (2009). Inequities in public
education. Unpublished.
Rosenshine, B. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training. Journal of teacher education,
38(3), 34-36.
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers
should know. American educator, 36(1), 12.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New
York, NY 10027.
Rupley, W. H., Blair, T. R., & Nichols, W. D. (2009). Effective reading instruction for struggling
readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(2-3), 125-
138.
Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for
sustainable organizational change. Organizational dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.

149

Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education:
Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in science
education, 36(1-2), 111-139.
Sciarra, D. G., & Hunter, M. A. (2015). Resource accountability: Enforcing state responsibilities
for sufficient and equitable resources used effectively to provide all students a quality
education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(21), 31.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of
research. Review of educational research, 75(3), 417-453.
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2003). Effective Reading Programs for English Language Learners.
A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2004). How do english
language learners learn to read? Educational Leadership, 61(6), 6-52.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N., Calderon, M., Chamberlain, A., & Hennessy, M. (2010). Reading and
language outcomes of a five-year randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual
education. Center for Research and Reform in Education, Available from: School of
Education Johns Hopkins University. 200 West Towsontown Boulevard, Baltimore, MD
21204.
Smagorinsky, P. (2013). What does Vygotsky provide for the 21st-century language arts
teacher?. Language Arts, 90(3), 192-204.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning
communities: A review of the literature. Journal of educational change, 7(4), 221-258.
Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2019). Digest of Education Statistics 2017, NCES
2018-070. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.
ed.gov/fulltext/ED592104.pdf
150

Spener, D. (1988). Transitional bilingual education and the socialization of immigrants. Harvard
Educational Review, 58(2), 133.
Susan Aud and Gretchen Hannes (2010). The Condition of Education 2010 in Brief. US
Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Tong, F., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B., Mathes, P., & Kwok, O. (2008). Accelerating early academic
oral english development in transitional bilingual and structured english immersion
programs. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1011-1044.
Umansky, I. M., & Reardon, S. F. (2014). Reclassification patterns among latino english learner
students in bilingual, dual immersion, and english immersion classrooms. American
Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 879-912.
Van Staden, A. (2011). Put reading first: Positive effects of direct instruction and scaffolding for
ESL learners struggling with reading. Perspectives in Education, 29(4), 10-21.
Vasquez Heilig, J., Romero, L. S., & Hopkins, M. (2017). Coign of vantage and action:
Considering California’s local accountability and school finance plans for english
learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(15), 24.
Vasquez Heilig, J., Ward, D. R., Weisman, E., & Cole, H. (2014). Community-based school
finance and accountability: A new era for local control in education policy? Urban
Education, 49(8), 871-894.
Waldfogel, J. (2012). The role of out-of-school factors in the literacy problem. The Future of
Children, 22(2), 39-54.
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for english language learners: A conceptual
framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-
180.
151

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological review, 92(4), 548.
Wright, M. C., Bergom, I., & Bartholomew, T. (2019). Decreased class size, increased active
learning? Intended and enacted teaching strategies in smaller classes. Active Learning in
Higher Education, 20(1), 51-62.

152

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
University of Southern California
Information Sheet for Research

EXPLICIT DIRECT INSTRUCTION’S IMPACT ON THE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
GAP IN K-12 ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Roberto Perez, Jr., Doctoral Candidate

FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Alison Keller Muraszewski

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Roberto Perez at the
University of Southern California (USC). Your participation in this study is voluntary. This
document provides an overview about this study and please ask questions about anything
that may be unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this research study is to understand the effectiveness of explicit
instruction strategies on English Language Learners. I hope to learn the knowledge,
motivation and organizational barriers related to implementing explicit instruction and its
impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English Language Learners.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Participation in this study is voluntary and you may stop at any time without penalty. If
there is any aspect of the study that may affect your well-being, you may stop the process.
Your well-being is of the highest value as is your time and expertise.

The first part of this research study will include a survey. If you agree to take part in this
study, you will be asked to complete a survey where the responses will be strictly
anonymous. The survey will take approximately 10-25 minutes in which you will be asked
about your role as teacher and experience with Explicit Direct Instruction strategies. Due
to the Covid pandemic, the second part of this research study will include an interview via
Zoom. The interview will take approximately 20-40 minutes in which you will be asked
questions about your role as a teacher, your experience with Explicit Direct Instruction
and collaboration. I will independently conduct a review process after the survey and the
interviews have been completed. Participants of the interviews will be recorded during
the interviews to best capture individual sentiments for data collection and analysis.
Participants will have an opportunity to obtain transcriptions of your interview recordings
to ensure one’s voice was appropriately captured. Additionally, you do not have to answer
any questions you do not want to during the interview or provide documents/artifacts you
do not want to provide.

153

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment or compensation for your participation in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential
and be kept in a secured, locked location. At the completion of the study, direct identifiers
will be destroyed and the de-identified data may be used for future research studies. If
you do not want your data used in future studies, you should not participate.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Roberto Perez at
pere726@usc.edu or (714) 856-6481.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Thank you for your consideration!

154

APPENDIX B
Interview Protocol
Introduction: Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to participate in this
interview. This interview is part of a case study that will contribute to the dissertation research I
am conducting to full the requirements of my doctoral program. My dissertation case study will
examine the possible root causes in the student achievement gap between K-12 ELLs and their
English only peers. As a participant in this case study, I will make every effort to keep your
identity confidential and will also use a pseudonym when quoting or citing your response. If you
are worried about your anonymity, I will share the document prior to publication and
dissemination for your review and approval to ensure your identity is not inadvertently revealed.
I would like your written permission to record this interview in order to ensure that I
accurately capture our conversation. At any point, you may request that I stop recording the
interview or decline any recording and I can take written notes of our interview. If you agree to
be recorded, the recording of our interview will be transcribed, and the transcription will be
stored on a secure computer and encrypted and stored online. Any hard copies will be destroyed
promptly after review. At the completion of my doctoral program, all records of our interviews
will be destroyed. During the interview, you may choose not to answer questions and if you
wish to end the interview, please let me know. If you wish, you may also withdraw from the
study at any time.
I would like to know more amount your teaching experience with ELLs and the
implementation of explicit instruction at RAMA Unified School District. I am interested in your
thoughts and opinions related to your experiences with professional learning communities,
explicit instruction strategies and the student achievement gap between ELLs and their English
155

only peers. This case study will examine the possible root causes of the student achievement gap
and some of the interview questions will ask specifically about your experience with ELLs. Do
you have any questions before we start?

1. Please describe your teaching experience in the district? (K)
a. How many years do you have teaching in total?
b. Please describe your education to prepare you for this career?
2. Please describe your experience using the explicit instruction strategies in your classroom?
(K-P)
3. What type of professional development have you received on explicit instruction? (K-P)
a. How often do you receive professional development on this teaching pedagogy?
b. What resources are available to you if you need additional support?
4. Please describe step-by-step how you utilize explicit instruction strategies in your lesson
plans? (K-P)
a. If you need assistance with explicit instruction what resources are available to support
you in your instruction.
5. How often does your site administrator visit your classroom to observe your instruction to
students and your use of explicit instruction? (O-CS)
a. Does your site administrator provide you any feedback when they visit your
classroom?
6. Please describe how often you collaborate with your fellow teachers to discuss and share
explicit instruction strategies to effectively educate ELLs? (O-CS)
156

a. How much time does the school set aside for whole group collaboration and grade
level collaboration?
b. Do you meet informally with your colleagues outside of professional hours?
7. Please explain your effectiveness analyzing student data and modifying your instruction to
improve instruction for ELLs? (K-MC)
8. Please reflect on whether your effort to implement explicit instruction is improving student
success? (M-AT)
a. Do you feel that these students can achieve grade level standards with your
assistance?
9. Please explain how you reflect on your teaching methods and what process do you use to
adapt your lesson plans to better support your students? (K-MC)
Let’s now talk about district-wide implementation and fidelity.
10. Do you find value in implementing explicit instruction strategies to support ELLs? (M-ET)
a. Is explicit instruction implemented with fidelity across all grade levels?
b. How important is it to implement explicit instruction to your instructional plan?
11. Please describe how your site administrator supports you in implementing explicit
instruction? (O-CM)
a. Are they successful in providing support?
12. Please describe the District’s goals for educating English Language Learners? (O-CM)
a. Has site or district administration done a good job of sharing these goals?
13. In your opinion, do you feel supported by the District Office in implementing explicit
Instruction? (O-CM)
a. How can the District Office provide more support?
157

14. In your opinion, please describe the ideal teaching method to educate our English Language
Learner students? (K-P)
a. What type of resources would be required to fully implement it?
That concludes our interview. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today.

158

APPENDIX C

Teacher Survey Questions

1. How many years have you worked for RAMA Unified School District?
a) Less than 5 years
b) 5 – 10 years
c) 11-15 year
d) 16-20 years
e) Greater than 21 years

2. How many years of teaching experience do you have in total?
a) Less than 5 years
b) 5 – 10 years
c) 11-15 year
d) 16-20 years
e) Greater than 21 years

3. At RAMA Unified School District, professional development and support is provided
regularly for explicit instruction strategies? (K-P)
a) Strongly Disagree
b) Disagree
c) Agree
d) Strongly Agree

4. Please provide examples of professional development opportunities and support provided
by the district on explicit instruction strategies. (K-P)

5. During a typical school year, At RAMA Unified School District, we spend ____ minutes
a month on collaboration time with our peers and grade level leaders? (O-CS)

6. When working with peers in professional learning communities, please explain how
much time is spent sharing ideas, teaching experiences and strategies, data review and
planning? (O-CS)

159

7. Please explain your effectiveness analyzing student data and modifying your instruction
to improve instruction for ELLs? (K-MC)

8. At RAMA Unified School District, has explicit instruction strategies been implemented
effectively across the district with fidelity? (O-CM)
a) Strongly Disagree
b) Disagree
c) Agree
d) Strongly Agree

9. Do you feel supported by your site administrator in implementing explicit instruction
teaching strategies? (O-CS)
a) Strongly Disagree
b) Disagree
c) Agree
d) Strongly Agree

10. Please explain what type of supports are provided at the site level to be successful in
implementing explicit instruction. (O-CS)

11. Please describe step-by-step how you utilize explicit instruction strategies in your lesson
plans? (K-P)

12. Please reflect on whether your effort to implement explicit instruction is improving
student success? (M-AT)
a) Strongly Disagree
b) Disagree
c) Agree
d) Strongly Agree

160

13. Do you find value in implementing explicit instruction to support ELLs? (M-ET)
a) Strongly Disagree
b) Disagree
c) Agree
d) Strongly Agree

14. How often does your site administrator visit your classroom to observe your instruction
to students and provide feedback on your use of direct instruction? (O-CS)

15. School site administration has done a good job of sharing the District’s goals on ELLs?
(O-CM)
a) Strongly Disagree
b) Disagree
c) Agree
d) Strongly Agree

16. What are some ways that site and district administration have shared goals for ELLs: (O-
CM)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Closing academic achievement gap between economically advantaged and economically disadvantaged students: an improvement study

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

PDF

Effective reading instruction for English learners

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

A gap analysis of homeless student school attendance in a large urban school district

PDF

Teacher role in reducing the achievement gap: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis

PDF

Practices supporting newcomer students

PDF

Leading instructional shifts in emergent bilingual education: a principal's role

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school

PDF

Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners

PDF

An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement

Asset Metadata

Creator Perez, Roberto Jr. (author)

Core Title Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 02/11/2021

Defense Date 01/15/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag English language learners,Explicit Direct Instruction,explicit instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest,student achievement gap

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Muraszewski, Alison (committee chair), Crawford, Jenifer (committee member), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email rgperez@mac.com,rgperezjr@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-421351

Unique identifier UC11668074

Identifier etd-PerezRober-9268.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-421351 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PerezRober-9268.pdf

Dmrecord 421351

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Perez, Roberto Jr.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA