University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PERCEPTION OF ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION TEACHERS READINESS TO INSTRUCT
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS: AN EVALUATION STUDY

by

Kenneth Ko

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

December 2020

Copyright 2020 Kenneth Ko
ii
Dedication
This is dedicated to the ones I love.
God, Lord Jesus thank you for the blessings you have bestowed upon me in my life and the
continue love and hope you will give to me in time of need. Provide me with the blessings that
are meant to be mine and remove those from my path that will intrude in my peace.
To Maria, thank you for your support despite all the challenges we
faced during this three-year journey.
To my boys, Jared and Noah, it takes hard work, it takes heart, and it takes everything you have
inside of you to make it in this life. I am always here to support and love you.
To my parents who came to this country to give my brothers and I a better opportunity to be
successful in life. I want you to know Mom and Dad I have embraced this opportunity and
I put everything I have into my heart, mind, and soul all that I do.
Please know that everything I do is to represent the both of you and to make you proud.
For the last three years I have found strength in your teachings and
I have learned the meaning of Fight On.
To my friends and family who missed my presence but always had the patience and
understanding to support me in the best way possible.
To all my students, past, present, and future may you always have a teacher in your corner
willing to fight a good fight for you so that you will have a better future.
iii
Acknowledgements
To my dissertation committee, thank you for your guidance through this challenging process.
I’m glad you were part of my journey.
Dr. Ott, I cannot thank you enough for not only your support but your
kindness, patience and encouragement during a challenging time in my life.
Dr. Bewley, thank you for your guidance and for helping me become a better writer.
Dr. Moore, for your teachings in EDUC 603 and starting me off on the right foot and
for your support throughout the process.
Dr. Pritchard, thank you for helping me through the final stage of my journey.
To my organization for allowing me to conduct research on site. Thank you for offering me the
resources and support I needed to be successful. To Dr. Ramezani your subtle
influence helped me find my path into Administration and the Doctorate program.
To all the teachers who participated in the study
I appreciate the level of trust that you had in me to share your valuable thoughts and opinions
with the intentions of helping our at-promise students become successful young adults. To the
Title III team, for helping me understand the English Language Learner population.
To all the professors in the OCL program, your knowledge, passion, and dedication to
our cohort will always be appreciated. Finally, to Cohort 10 what an exceptional and incredibly
supportive group of people that I am proud to call my friends. I am a Trojan in heart, character,
mind, and spirit because I embrace the fight and that is the only way one can triumph. Fight on!

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
Problem of Practice 2
Organizational Context and Mission 3
Organizational Performance Status 4
Related Literature 5
Description of Stakeholder Groups 12
Stakeholder Performance Goals 12
Purpose of the Project and Questions 14
Methodological Framework 15
Definition of Terms 16
Organization of the Study 18
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 19
Theoretical Perspectives of Teacher Education 20
Social Constructivism 21
Community of Practice 23
Sociocultural Theory 25
Complexity Theory 26
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Second Language Acquisition 28
Perceptions of Preparation for Teaching ELLs 32
Links Between Preparation and Self-Efficacy 35
Characteristics of Teacher Education Programs for ELL 40
Instructional Strategies 42
Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD) Strategies 45
Organizational Culture 48
Cultural Proficiency 49
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework 51
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 52
v
Knowledge Influences 52
Motivation Influences 58
Organization Influences 61
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and the
Organizational Context 66
Conclusion 70
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 71
Methodological Approach and Rationale 71
Participating Stakeholders 73
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 74
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation 75
Interviews 76
Data Analysis 77
Credibility and Trustworthiness 78
Ethics 79
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS 82
Participating Stakeholders 83
Knowledge 84
Teachers Lack the Knowledge of ELD and Learning Theories 85
Applying Differentiated Lessons and Scaffold to Support ELL Needs 87
Teachers Analyze Student Data to Assess Student Performance 90
Motivation 93
Lack of PLCs and Additional Responsibilities Impact Self-Efficacy 93
Teachers Saw the Value in ELD Trainings 96
Organization 98
Some Teachers Were Being Held Accountable for Utilizing ELD 99
Some Teachers Found It Challenging to be Prepared and Seek Help 101
Conclusion 104
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS 106
Knowledge Recommendations 106
Providing Teachers ELD Knowledge to Instruct ELLs 107
Differentiating and Scaffolding Lessons for ELLs 108
Teachers Acquire the Knowledge to Analyze ELL Data 109
Motivation Recommendations 109
Increase Self-Efficacy of Alternative Education Teachers 110
vi
Teachers Value ELD Training 111
Organization Recommendations 112
A Culture in Which Teachers Implement ELD in Their Classroom 114
Administration Focuses on Internal Accountability 114
Teachers Wanting to Improve Their Instruction 115
Teachers Utilize PLCs to Improve Instruction and Student Learning 115
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 116
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations 117
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 118
Level 3: Behavior 119
Critical Behaviors 119
Required Drivers 120
Organizational Support 121
Level 2: Learning 122
Learning Goals 122
Program 124
Components of Learning 125
Level 1: Reaction 126
Evaluation Tool 128
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Gap Analysis Approach 129
Limitations 130
Delimitations 130
Future Research 131
Conclusion 131
References 133
Appendix A: 158
Appendix B: 160
Appendix C: 162

vii
List of Tables
Table 1 Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 14
Table 2 Assumed knowledge influences 58
Table 3 Assumed motivational influences 61
Table 4 Assumed organization influences 66
Table 5 Demographic Table 83
Table 6 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 107
Table 7 Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations 110
Table 8 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 113
Table 9 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 119
Table 10 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 120
Table 11 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 121
Table 12 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 126
Table 13 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 127

viii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework 70

ix
Abstract
Alternative education teachers need to have various strengths to work with English language
learners (ELLs). Teachers should be knowledgeable in English language development (ELD) and
instructional strategies. Teachers also need to be motivated to work toward organizational goals
focused on ELL achievement. School administrators, English learner (EL) services, and teachers
need to collaborate to create supportive school-wide systems that accommodate such teachers’
needs. The purpose of this study was to determine if a gap in knowledge, motivation, or
organization influences impacted teacher readiness to instruct ELLs, specifically at an alternative
education program in California. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model were used to
guide the study to determine if a gap exists among educators that impacted their competency. A
thorough review of the literature developed the assumed influences, which were validated by the
collected data. The study participants were alternative education teachers who work with ELLs
from grades ninth through twelfth. This study concluded that the participants demonstrated some
knowledge and weak motivation indicators to work with ELL students. The study participants
stressed the need to have ELD professional development they believed would increase
knowledge and motivation for all educators in the organization. The gap fell within the
organization’s culture settings and models, which impacted teacher’s readiness.
Recommendations are provided in Chapter Five to improve the organization’s culture and
school-wide support systems to increase teacher competency. These recommendations are based
on the validated influences and were developed using the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
This study addressed the disproportionately low level of academic achievement of
English language learners (ELLs) in alternative education programs in California. According to
California policy, an English learner is a child who does not speak English or whose native
language is not English and who is not currently able to perform ordinary classroom work in
English (Education Commission of the States, 2014). The Nations Report Card (Tharp et al.,
2000) reported the California achievement gaps between ELL and English Proficient (EP)
students in the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) reading assessment was 37
points at the fourth-grade level and 50 points at the eighth-grade level. This point difference
equates to a gap of two grade levels, demonstrating that this is a problem (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2013). The lack of academic achievement by ELL students has led to a
significant disparity between the graduation rate of ELL students and their EP peers. In 2018, the
U.S. Department of Education reported that California had a 72% graduation rate of English
Learners versus 86% for EP students. The importance of this problem was reaffirmed in 1974 by
the U.S. Supreme Court, in Lau vs. Nichols. This case held that schools must take affirmative
steps to help students overcome language barriers so that they can participate meaningfully in
school programs (United States Department of Education, 2015). The United States Department
of Education (2015) noted, even though the school districts treated all students the same, the
school still conducted an unequal impact on the non-English speaking. Non-English speaking
students were not able to understand the course content as effectively as English proficient
students. They therefore were disadvantaged of having "meaningful" education (United States
Department of Education, 2015).
2
Problem of Practice
There are many challenges California public schools are facing, including the increasing
number of English learners who are not successful in mastering academic content. According to
Li and Protacio (2010), the changing demographics “have highlighted an ill-prepared teaching
force that is struggling to deal with the cultural and linguistic diversity these new students bring
to the schools” (p. 353). Schools and teachers are challenged with implementing effective
teaching practices as the achievement gaps persist between ELLs and EP speakers in almost
every content area (Goldenberg, 2010; Short et al., 2012). Teachers are also challenged by the
lack of quality assessments and instructional ELL materials in the classroom. With inadequate
assessments, teachers do not have accurate data to provide student-specific placement,
instruction, and support. Teachers modify lesson plans by collecting the students’ English
proficiency and literacy level, background knowledge, and anecdotal notes from explicit
instruction and modeling (Darling-Hammond, 2012).
Furthermore, most states’ national curriculum standards, legislation, and increased
measures of school accountability at the state level have resulted in a greater focus on the literacy
and language development of ELLs. Preparing alternative education teachers to have the ability
to meet the needs of ELLs is critical, as it is likely that students who are non-native English
speakers will be present in their classrooms. A challenge to achieving the teachers’ performance
goal will be having a classroom of multiple grade levels and students with various learning styles
to teach. Each of the students will also come with their own social-emotional and academic
challenges the teacher will need to address. Teachers of ELLs need appropriate training to be
able to meet the student’s academic and language needs (Samson & Collins, 2012).
3
Organizational Context and Mission
The ALOE program (pseudonym)
1
is a Title I and Title III alternative education program
located in an urban setting in California. ALOE provides educational opportunities to students
who are referred by local school districts, probation, or social services, with quality education,
interventions, support services, and program options in alternative settings. Students enrolled in
ALOE programs may have social, behavioral problems, mental health challenges, probation or
dependent status, placement in group homes, and homelessness issues. Furthermore, they may
have challenges with truancy and credit recovery. ALOE also provides school settings for
referred students who feel that comprehensive traditional schools do not meet their academic
goals. The program consists of three community school regions, each with an administrative
office, and four to six schools spread throughout each region. The ALOE program is accredited
by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). It provides educational services to
over 17,000 students per year in its Alternative Education and Juvenile Correctional Education
programs. This alternative education program is unique. It has been in operation for more than
50 years, and its educational philosophy and programs have continued to evolve to meet the
students’ needs and reflect the current educational trends. Based on the Local Educational
Agency (LEA) (2016)
2
, the ethnic makeup of students for ALOE is 64% Hispanic, 22%
Caucasian, 6% Asian, and 7% other. There are 59% male students and 41% of female students
attending the programs. According to the ALOE Strategic Plan (2016)
3
, the divisional mission is
to serve all students in attaining the competencies they need to be successful in the 21st century
by providing various services for agency partners and school districts.

1
Information referencing ALOE originate from organizational documents and websites not cited to protect
anonymity.
2
Information originated from an organizational website not cited to protect anonymity.
3
Information originated from an organizational website not cited to protect anonymity.
4
ALOEs’ mission statement is derived from the LEA which states that every student
learns the knowledge and skills they need to be successful in the future. To ensure schools focus
on student success, the state enacted legislation in 2013 called the Local Control Funding
Formula (LCFF). The LCFF changes how all LEAs in California are funded, how they are
measured for results, and the services and supports they receive to allow all students to succeed.
All LEAs utilize a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) to establish goals, plan actions,
and acquire resources to meet those goals to improve student outcomes. To address the LCFF,
ALOE completed a 3-year LCAP. One of the goals is to have the 64% of ELL students enrolled
in ALOE advance at least one level on the English Language Proficiency Assessments for
California (ELPAC) every year.
The goal was established by the Assistant Superintendent of Alternative Education, with
her Administrative Cabinet (ACAB), which includes the Director of Student Services, Director
of School Services, and Director of Special Education. Met with a LEA representative to discuss
the report, outline the next steps, and highlight strengths and possible improvements. Discussion
of the report was followed up at monthly ALOE leadership meetings throughout the 2018-2019
school year. Each year the English Learner Services (ELS) department will track the
participation rate of ELL students taking the ELPAC and monitor progress toward a
reclassification of ELLs. This data will determine the next steps in improving participation and
how support can be provided to administration, teachers, and students.
Organizational Performance Status
The organization needs to support their teachers’ necessity to acquire the knowledge and
skills to meet their ELL students’ needs. This organizational need is critical to achieving the
organization’s LCAP goal to have the 64% of ELL students advance at least one ELPAC level
5
every year. The LCAP is a critical part of California’s new Local Control Funding Formula
(LCFF). The plan describes a school district’s key goals for students and the specific actions
(with purchases) the district will do to achieve the goals and metrics used to measure progress.
The California Department of Education (2020) describes LCAP as addressing all students’
needs, including specific student groups, and all districts must specifically address English
learners, foster youth, and low-income students. The LCAP must also address the state of
California's eight priority areas that include student academic achievement, school climate,
student access to a broad curriculum, and parent engagement. The district spending plan aligns
with these academic priorities.
Related Literature
This study offers a unique perspective in an educational program that has limited
research. Alternative education programs offer students an opportunity to continue their
education in a setting with smaller classroom sizes. Definitions of alternative education reveal
several points of view. One perspective is that “there are many ways to become educated, as well
as many types of environments and structures within which this may occur” (Morley, 1991, p. 8).
Another centers on students’ education challenges rather than students’ demographic
characteristics or classification (Roderick, 2003). The most common view of alternative
education found in the literature offers a concrete set of dimensions for defining and designing
programs and schools (Aron & Zweig, 2003). Aron and Zweig (2003) list the dimensions as to
whom the program serves, where the program operates, what the program offers, and how the
program is structured. These four dimensions reveal the complexity of developing a standard
definition of alternative education. For example, the definition of a vocational training program
6
may differ from that of a program on credit recovery. Each of these dimensions offers many
opportunities for variation.
Coles et al. (2009) state that alternative education programs are intended to support
students underperforming academically, have learning disabilities, and display emotional or
behavioral issues. Furthermore, serving students with behavioral problems, demonstrating a high
risk of dropping out of school, or displaying the need for individualized instruction (Coles et al.,
2009). In a survey of state-level policies on alternative education, half the states indicated that
alternative schools were designed to prevent students from dropping out of school (Lehr et al.,
2008).
The program setting is related to the services provided (Aron, 2003). Alternative
education programs can be located in a traditional school, in self-contained alternative schools,
in strip malls, and juvenile detention centers. Alternative education offers educational settings
that include homeschooling, online learning, and juvenile justice facilities. Each setting provides
services that include counseling services in their guidance on alternative education programs.
Programs may offer regular high school diplomas, GED diplomas, or occupational
certifications and often focus on necessary life skills, good behavior in school, and skills needed
to enter the workforce (Cable, Plucker, & Spradlin, 2009). Program services are diverse. Many
programs target students with behavioral problems, including conflict resolution, anger
management, positive behavioral support, behavioral shaping, and cognitive-behavioral
interventions. Services extend to social skills and support services, including social skills
development, life skills instruction, and skills to increase employability and success in the
community. Some alternative education programs provide career education, including workplace
or job training, vocational education, career readiness, and career counseling. For example, in
7
California, social skills and support services are designed to maximize student motivation and
self-directed learning (Aron, 2003). They also focus on building cooperative learning among
students, teachers, and parents.
Administration or funding of alternative schools and programs is through many agencies,
including state and local education agencies, charter schools, juvenile justice agencies, and
federally funded programs. Programs typically provide smaller than traditional classrooms,
emphasize new educational methods and hands-on learning, have a flexible structure, and offer
services and programs for individual and small group experiences (Cable et al., 2009). The
schools provide education during or after school or on weekends.
Targeting alternative education to specific groups of youth can drive the curriculum or
approach. For example, different alternative schools design programs for pregnant or parenting
teens, expelled students, recovered dropouts, delinquent teens, homeless students, and students
seeking vocational and technical education. This specialized setting can be challenging for
educators with classrooms with multiple grade levels and learning levels that the teacher needs to
address (Aron & Zweig, 2003).
Teachers who are ill-prepared to work with ELL students provide a low academic
instruction level or no opportunity for English Language Development (ELD). An investigation
by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found that the Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD) denied equal educational opportunities to 30% of its students
(Roblero, 2013). By not providing ELL students access to core academic classes required to
graduate and enroll in college or job training programs (Roblero, 2013). The U.S. Department of
Education (2011) reports one reason that contributed to this inequity is the large number of
unprepared teachers selected to teach ELL students. Few schools have trained teachers skilled in
8
English language development, and as a result, ELL students do not receive the academic
language instruction needed to improve their performance (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
With the wide range of English language and academic levels entering the classroom,
teachers have been frustrated with the lack of professional development or in-service training on
teaching ELL students. Gandara et al. (2005) conducted a survey study that involved teachers
from 22 small, medium, and large districts and four focus groups directed at different geographic
regions, programs, and demographic characteristics. Teachers noted their in-service time did not
devote enough to ELD instruction (Gandara et al., 2005). Goddard et al. (2000) conducted a
similar study with K-6 teachers to rate their ability in pedagogy, ELD, English reading, English
writing, primary language reading, and primary language writing. On average, teachers rated
their skills as “good” or slightly higher in only one area: teaching reading at the elementary level,
whereas more secondary teachers rated their teaching ability “fair” or “poor” in virtually every
area than K-6 teachers. Professional development that focuses on ELL instruction has
demonstrated a poor job of presenting how teachers can adapt the mainstream curriculum to ELL
students (Zehler et al., 2003). According to Berg, Petron, and Greybeck (2012), teachers who
receive adequate preparation for ELL students’ instruction yielded greater teacher confidence in
their skills when working with ELL students. Furthermore, a teacher’s awareness and
expectations increase concerning ELL students lacking proficiency in English, and ELL students
are not cognitively limited. Compounding the low level of academic instruction is the lack of
appropriate ELL instructional material.
The lack of quality tools to instruct, such as textbooks, assessment materials, and
instruments, is challenging for teachers. Many states did not have the expertise, time, or
resources to develop valid and reliable resources that meet accuracy and fairness (Van Roekel,
9
2008). Cho and McDonnough (2009) presented teachers with a survey containing 12 Likert-scale
questions and one open-ended question. This survey resulted in almost half of the teachers
reporting the lack of resources challenged them, making it difficult for teachers to adequately
improve English language proficiency and meet the criteria for Common Core State Standards
(CCSSs). The authors added that grade-level textbooks could be complicated for ELL students
because the content is heavy, and the academic language is dense (Cho and McDonnough, 2009).
Therefore, finding books adapted for ELL students is crucial.
A survey by the Council of the Great City Schools (2013) collected information from 284
teachers and school staff on the perceived quality of instructional materials for ELL students.
The survey findings indicated that instructional materials across grade levels, content areas, and
varying English language proficiency levels are below grade level. It also mentioned a quarter of
respondents believe the material to be of low quality, meaning the instructional materials used,
somewhat or not at all, meet specified criteria for raising the performance, particularly regarding
the rigor of the CCSSs (Council of the Great City Schools, 2013). Furthermore, Cho and Reich
(2008) presented a questionnaire to six EL-centered schools that asked teachers 14 items and an
open-ended question. The study revealed that schools have difficulty affording bilingual
instructional materials and specific guidelines, so teachers are left to creating their curriculum
(Cho & Reich, 2008). Having inadequate assessment and instructional material limits a school
from appropriately identifying struggling ELL students for proper placement and teachers to
provide instructional material to address their specific needs.
English Language Proficiency (ELP) criteria that guide districts and schools are often
unclear and inconsistent, creating a complex national picture (Van Roekel, 2008). The major
disconnect between ELP standards and tests arises when some states create their own ELP tests
10
or select a commercial test to measure ELP. Both assessment examples may not accurately align
with the range of standards different states have adopted (Van Roekel, 2008). The National
Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) has also found
mismatches in achievement levels between a state’s ELP standards and its tests. For example, a
state’s ELP standards have three achievement levels: beginning, intermediate, and advanced.
However, their ELP tests have five levels: basic beginner, beginner, low intermediate, high
intermediate, and advanced (Van Roekel, 2008). Differences in ELP standards and ELP standard
levels lead to inaccurately placing ELL students in programs and services to improve their
proficiency levels and academic achievement. These misalignments between the district and
school ELP test and state ELP standards encourage segregation with students placed in school
tracks that do not give them access to academic courses or higher linguistic expectations (King &
Scott, 2014). A study by Rodolfo et al. (2005) on the validity of English-language achievement
test scores revealed that test results are not always valid assessments of an ELL student's content-
area knowledge. English learners answered more items correctly on their home-language
mathematics test than on the same test in English, regardless of their level of English-language
proficiency or their grade level (Rodolfo et al., 2005).
According to Callahan (2005), academic achievement is dependent on appropriate
placement and educational opportunities for ELL students, so assessment becomes a critical
element necessary for successful placement and instruction. In his study with 2,000 student
participants in a rural high school in northern California, he collected all individual and
achievement data in the school’s student database and found race and socioeconomic status still
played a significant role in initial course placement. The results revealed many ELL students in a
low-track placement, separating them from other students and taught a simplified curriculum
11
(Callahan, 2005). Furthermore, scholars have noted that students’ early language deficiencies
prevent them from higher track status throughout their school careers (King & Scott, 2014).
Callahan (2005) argued that low-performing students must be separated from other students and
taught a simplified curriculum to bring them up to par with their peers. Low track placement
frequently results in less rigorous content and fewer learning opportunities than high track
placement (Callahan, 2005). ELL students will continue to have difficulty attaining academic
achievement if service placement, high expectations, specific content instruction, curriculum,
and programs are not established.
The low level of academic achievement of ELLs in public schools in the United States is
essential to solve for various reasons. In the 2007-2008 school year, English learners represented
10.6% of the K-12 public school enrollment, or more than 5.3 million students (Du Calderon et
al., 2011). Aggregate analyses show that their achievement levels were far below those of their
native- and fluent-English speaking peers (Fry, 2007). Left unsolved, the problem of low
academic achievement in California schools can lead to English learners at risk of dropping out.
Researchers repeatedly show that ELL students are more likely to drop out than native English
speakers, or even fluent English-speaking language minority students (Kim & Herman, 2009;
Olsen, 2010; Silver et al., 2008). Dropouts could mean a loss of 5.3 million future workers,
future voters, and future taxpayers nationally; their educational pathways will shape the nation’s
economic and demographic future (Callahan, 2005). ELL students’ ability to graduate from high
school will lead them to transition into college and careers and increasingly influence the
American economy, labor market, and higher education system to acquire the academic content.
12
Description of Stakeholder Groups
To achieve their goal, stakeholders play a pivotal role. The administration, which
includes principals, will provide staff development on ELL related issues, support with the
implementation of Designated English Language Development (dELD) and Integrated English
Language Development (iELD) with the adopted curriculum, Monthly English Language
Development (MELD). In addition to training on Constructing Meaning, organizing and
facilitating English Language Advisory Committee’s (ELACs) at each school site, supporting
with monitoring of ELL and Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) students, and
overseeing the proper academic placement (i.e., testing and reclassification) of ELL students.
The next stakeholder is the general education teacher, responsible for conducting student goal
setting consequences and follow-ups. Furthermore, analyzing ELL student data to determine how
students achieve at-grade-level proficiency across all content areas and providing the appropriate
support and assisting with ELLs reclassification and monitoring RFEP students. The final
stakeholder is the student, who is a critical part of the learning equation. Each student must take
responsibility for their education and perform to the best of their abilities. The student must also
listen attentively to instruction, whether instructors or peers communicate it, ask for assistance
when faced with a challenging task, and assist those with difficulty.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Teachers play an essential role in the classroom, and it is in the classroom that learning,
and change can occur. Administration and EL services staff believe the teachers’ access to ELL
students is a significant factor. The teachers are the focus of this study. Their initial assessment
of the ELL student, the relationships they build, and the instruction they provide will
significantly impact the ELPAC participation and an ELLs confidence in taking the test and
13
learning English and academic content. A good teacher can see the potential of each student and
help them work towards reaching their potential. Peske and Haycock (2006) state that a high-
quality teacher can significantly influence student outcomes; thus, teacher knowledge and skills
for working with ELLs is one way to improve student outcomes. The teacher must strive to
develop an array of teaching skills and adjust them to meet ELL students’ needs. Teachers must
be equipped to teach ELLs and understand the linguistic demands of academic tasks and skills to
address the role of academic language in their instruction (Schleppegrell, 2004). The teacher’s
role is to present a well-organized overview of the course material, prepare a challenging but fair
means of evaluating student performance, and establish an environment that encourages ELL
students to excel. Furthermore, teachers need to collaborate with peers and with the
administration to reflect, understand, and be proficient in servicing alternative education ELL
students.
Meeting the goal will be determined in several ways: by conducting training for teachers
to help implement the California State Standards and 21
st
-century skills, Human Resources and
administration will monitor teacher assignments to ensure all teachers are appropriately placed,
that teachers continue to support one another in lesson planning, observations, and structured
collaborative conversations in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), and continue staff
development training for certificated staff in strategies for ELL students. Failure to achieve these
goals with teachers can impact the success of the organizational goal of increasing ELPAC
participation, reclassification and having ELL students prepared to be college, career, and life
ready. Table 1 shows the organizational mission, the organizational global goal and the
stakeholders’ performance goals.
14
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
All students attain the competencies they need to be successful in the 21st century.
Organizational Global Goal
All alternative education students will be college, career, and life prepared.
Teacher Goal Administrator Goal ELL Student Goal
Advance 64% of the ELLs
enrolled in ALOE at least one
ELPAC level every year.
Administrators will support
teachers in their development
and use of the ELD
curriculum and instruction
through PD and evaluation.
ELL will improve their
English language proficiency
as demonstrated by advancing
one level on the ELPAC.

Purpose of the Project and Questions

The purpose of this project is to evaluate the organization’s teacher preparedness to
instruct their ELL students in order to meet its goal to have the 64% of ELL students advance at
least one level on the ELPAC every year. The analysis focuses on knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences related to achieving the organizational goals. While a complete
performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder
to be focused on in this analysis is teachers.
The study aims to understand the readiness of the ALOE program teachers in meeting the
organization’s goal. The study will also examine the resources, supports, and professional
development needed by stakeholders to meet their English language learners’ academic and
English language development needs. Integral to the study is an awareness of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that can impact the organizational goal’s success.
Determining the knowledge and skills of the stakeholders will be meaningful in knowing what
information is lacking. There are promising teaching methods for working with ELLs, the actual
knowledge and skills that teacher candidates need to support effective instruction for ELLs do
15
not always reach them (Garcia, 2005). Teachers need to have a sense of what signs to look for
when ELL students struggle with language learning and communication, in addition to knowing
how to assess or refer struggling students to the appropriate specialist (Toppelberg & Collins,
2010). Motivation influences can impact a stakeholder’s drive to continue accomplishing their
task. Teacher self-efficacy is vital because it impacts student-teacher interactions and, thereby,
student academic achievement (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Finally, organizational influences can
manifest in the culture and the policies and procedures. Each of these concepts plays a role in
making progress or hindering the organization from reaching its performance goal. The
following questions guide this study:
1. What extent is ALOE meeting its goal?
2. What is the ALOE teacher knowledge and motivation related to having English language
learners advance at least one ELPAC level every year?
3. What is the interaction between ALOE’s culture and context and teacher knowledge and
motivation?
A qualitative methodological approach was used to complete the study. Several characteristics
distinguish qualitative research from other research methods and make this appropriate for this
study.
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework is a systematic problem-solving approach
to improve performance and achieve organizational goals. The authors assert that performance
gaps are caused by three distinct factors: lack of knowledge and skills, lack of motivation, and
organizational cultural barriers. The assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that impact the organizational goal were created based on personal knowledge and
16
related literature. These influences will be evaluated by conducting extensive interviews and
literature review to determine the root causes and recommend solutions.
Definition of Terms
Aeries: student data management system used by K-12 public school districts and education
agencies (Aeries, 2020).
California English Language Development Standards (CAELD): standards used by ELL teachers
in California to ensure their instruction is effective and help them recognize areas where they are
deficient (California Department of Education, 2012).
Dashboard: an online tool that shows how local educational agencies and schools perform on the
state and local indicators included in California's school accountability system. The Dashboard
consists of easy-to-use reports that show a local educational agency or school performance on six
state indicators and five local indicators and seven for county offices of education (California
School Dashboard, 2017).
English language learner (ELL): refers to students who speak a language other than English and
who are in the progress of learning English (California Department of Education, 2009b).
English Language Development (ELD): refers to the process by which limited English proficient
students develop towards full English fluency (California Department of Education, 2009b).
English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC): required state test for
English language proficiency (ELP) given to students whose primary language is a language
other than English. State and federal law require that local educational agencies administer a
state test of ELP to eligible students in kindergarten through grade twelve (California
Department of Education, 2020).
17
Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD): an instructional model combining linguistic and
grade-level knowledge instruction regardless of current students’ English proficiency (Deussen
et al., 2015).
Professional Development (PD): the processes and practices that improve job-related knowledge,
skills, and attitudes of school employees. PD includes a discussion on teacher practice, which
refers to how teachers plan, instruct and develop their classroom environment (Borko, 2004).
Language Proficiency: the ability to use language effectively and appropriately through the range
of social, personal, school and work situations. This includes proficiency in oral and written
language, listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Peregoy & Boyle, 2005).
Local Educational Agency (LEA): school districts, county offices of education, and charter
schools (California School Dashboard, 2017).
Long-Term English Language Learner (LTELs): English learners enrolled in U.S. schools for
more than six years which are not progressing toward English proficiency. (Du Calderon et al.,
2011).
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP): instructional model designed specifically for
teachers of ELL students. It places equal emphasis on language development and content
learning. The model is based on eight elements for effective ELL teachers: “lesson preparation,
building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice and application,
lesson delivery, and review and assessment” (Kareva & Echevarria, 2013, p. 240). Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD): the difference between what a learner can do without help and
what he or she can do with help (Vygotsky, 1978).
18
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provides the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in discussing alternative education teachers’
readiness to advancing ELL students at least one ELPAC level. Chapter Two provides a review
of the current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of learning theories, self-
efficacy, perceptions of preparation, teacher education programs, and instructional strategies will
be addressed. Chapter Three details the assumed needs for this study and the research
methodology addressing the selection of participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter
Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on
data and literature, for addressing the needs and closing the performance gap, and
recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

19
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In this study, it was necessary to review pertinent literature on theoretical perspectives of
teacher education, teacher self-efficacy and second language acquisition, and perceptions of
preparation for teaching ELLs to address the research questions. Teachers in California are
responsible for over one million ELL students, making this a high priority (California
Department of Education, 2012). California decision-makers indicated their recognition of this
responsibility through the development of the California English Language Development
Standards (CAELD Standards), which are instrumental in ensuring ELLs have access to quality
instruction. CAELD Standards directly relate to the California Common Core State Standards:
English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
(California Department of Education, 2012). Moreover, the state recognized the need for ELL
students to develop English proficiency while also acknowledging the importance of a native
language. The CAELD is a tool used by ELL teachers in California to make sure their instruction
is practical while also recognizing areas where they are deficient (California Department of
Education, 2012). California decision-makers developed the CAELD Standards with the
guidance of extensive research literature on ELL education and several applicable theories
(California Department of Education, 2012). Theories based on sociocognitive, sociocultural,
and sociolinguistic concepts were instrumental in forming the standards since learning in
general, and language learning specifically involves social interaction. Teachers must appreciate
the need to incorporate ELL students’ prior knowledge into the learning process, which stresses
the need for inclusion of such theories (California Department of Education, 2012). Effective
ELL teachers apply theoretical principles that help learners develop the metacognitive and
metalinguistic skills required to become proficient in English. Teachers thus aid ELL students to
20
improve intentional learning, self-regulation, and the strategic use of English (Christie, 2012;
Duke et al., 2011; Hess et al., 2009; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pearson, 2011; Schleppegrell,
2004). Teachers must appreciate that interaction and language are instrumental in developing
cognitive abilities and new language skills. This social interaction process was established and
monitored by teachers to challenge ELLs to succeed while offering encouragement and support
as needed (Bruner, 1983; Cazden, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978; Walquí & van Lier, 2010).
Furthermore, the section will explore the interaction between organizational culture and
context and stakeholder knowledge and motivation. The section includes current research on
teacher education programs for ELL and instructional strategies available to the organization.
Following the general research literature, the review turns to the Clark and Estes gap analytic
conceptual framework and, specifically, knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
on teachers’ ability to implement the current practices.
Theoretical Perspectives of Teacher Education
Theory occupies a significant position in the field of education, both for researchers as
well as educators. Therefore, teacher education should be grounded in theory as a means to
provide training designed to enable success in the classroom (Higgs, 2013). One benefit of
teacher education based on theory, according to Higgs (2013), is the ability to free teachers from
classroom practices derived merely from political or ideological agendas and provide an
opportunity for critical self-reflection. Application of theory in education allows “critical modes
of enquiry that are aimed at exposing and examining the beliefs, assumptions and values implicit
in ideological and political agendas which often determine how teachers organize their
experiences and practices in the classroom” (Higgs, 2013, p. 105). Moreover, if teachers desire
to engage in the most effective forms of teaching, “it is therefore necessary for teachers to
21
acquire the necessary theoretical astuteness, in order to interact critically with those cultural,
political, social and economic concerns which impact either positively or negatively on their
classroom practice” (Higgs, 2013, p. 105). This section discusses the relationship to theoretical
foundations of teacher preparation, teacher self-efficacy, and second-language acquisition and
considers the literature relating to instructional strategies.
Social Constructivism
Social constructivism is one popular theory applied in the field of education. This theory
is based on the understanding that individuals attain knowledge-based, in large part, on existing
information and previous experiences, which allows them to assess and modify knowledge as
needed or desired (Kaufman, 2010). A constructivist perspective requires a teacher to accept that
he or she is not primarily responsible for students’ learning by conveying new knowledge but
more accurately as a director that enables the learner to make an appropriate modification of
current knowledge using new information. According to Kompf and Bond (1996), a teacher
allows student responses to direct lessons, modify instructional strategies, and alter the content.
An effective teacher applies this theory through learning experiences designed to help students
understand how existing knowledge cannot substitute for new skills and proficiencies. According
to Ndon, “a teacher as a facilitator, should provide rich environments, experiences, and activities
for learning by incorporating opportunities for collaborative work, problem-solving, authentic
tasks” (2010, p. 253). This type of education involves active engagement rather than passive
learning (Higgs, 2013; Kaufman, 2010). Simultaneously, social constructivism is not built on
pointless activities but focuses on activities that stimulate a student’s desire to develop new
knowledge. Such a process requires appropriate time to allow a meaningful consideration of new
experiences. One of the leading proponents of social constructivism, Vygotsky (1978),
22
established that genuine meaning and understanding leading to the development of knowledge
results from social experiences.
To fully understand Vygotsky’s theory, it is imperative to appreciate the benefits derived
from the learner’s interaction with educators and fellow learners. Vygotsky further explained the
process behind his theory by positing that cognitive development takes place within what he
called the “zone of proximal development (ZPD)” (1978, p. 86). Vygotsky’s popular definition
of ZPD is “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent
problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving
under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (1978, p. 86). Other
researchers shared Vygotsky’s assumptions and expanded on these ideas.
Similar to Vygotsky’s concept of ZPD, scaffolding was introduced in the field of
sociocultural theory to address specific issues in the context of education (Wood et al., 1976). A
teacher or a proficient fellow learner may implement scaffolding in the context of a particular
student’s ZPD, providing assistance and guidance as needed until that student becomes more
comfortable with the new knowledge. The benefit of this process is in its ability to allow a
teacher to recognize a learner’s current state of knowledge and provide challenges to motivate
that learner in ways that require outside assistance for success. Typically, this process involves
modeling the appropriate responses or behaviors while inciting the less-experienced learner to
participate (Kaufman, 2010). Less assistance is required from the teacher or qualified peer once
the inexperienced or less-proficient ELL student gains experience. At the same time, they will
continually advance to more complex problems and challenges.
Experiential Learning
Another theory sharing similarities with many of the principles of social constructivism is
23
the experiential learning theory. Developed by Kolb (1984), this theory is founded on the belief
that learners learn from experience through four steps: (a) the learner has a concrete experience;
(b) the learner observes and reflects on this experience; (c) the learner forms abstract concepts
about the experience and (d) the learner tests the concepts in new situations. Unlike what may be
expected from a numbered process, however, Kolb emphasized that learning may start at any of
the four steps in his process and learning also repeats steps across the list uninterruptedly.
To understand this process, it is essential to appreciate that learning may be initiated
when an individual performs an action and then observes its effects. Next, based on Kolb’s
(1984) theory, the individual understands the effects and can predict what would happen in a
similar circumstance. Third, the individual develops a greater understanding of the principle
behind the occurrence through research or conversations with peers. Finally, based on that
understanding, the individual can apply the new knowledge in a completely new situation. Thus,
Kolb’s (1984) theory of experiential learning is similar in some ways to scaffolding since both
are reliant at some point in time on interaction with others to aid developing knowledge.
Scaffolding acts as a temporary framework used to support and access meaning and is removed
once the ELL student masters a task, concept or language acquisition. The interactions between
the teacher and ELL student helps the student move beyond what they can do independently.
Community of Practice
Lave and Wenger (1991) proposed that the term community of practice (CoP) describes a
theory of learning that is also dependent on social interactions, especially within a community of
professionals sharing common goals and practices. A CoP was described by Barab et al. (2002)
as “a persistent, sustaining social network of individuals who share and develop an overlapping
knowledge base, set of beliefs, values, history, and experiences focused on a common practice
24
and mutual enterprise” (p. 495). Sharing concepts with scaffolding and experiential learning, the
foundation of a CoP is the idea that individuals learn from more experienced individuals in the
community and gradually develop sufficient knowledge to actively participate in the community
as more than a learner.
As discussed earlier, Vygotsky (1978) established that genuine meaning and
understanding leading to the development of knowledge results from social experiences, and a
proper understanding of CoP is directly related to Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory and
social dimension of learning. Like Vygotsky, Bandura believed learning, which is a cognitive
process, typically occurs in social settings. The theoretical concept of social learning provides a
basis for a much more in-depth understanding of the learning process since it combines the
individual’s internal processes with the individual’s social interactions and learning environment.
A clearer understanding of human learning and development is possible based on Bandura and
Vygotsky’s work, who altered learning as “a historical, cultural, individualistic unfolding, to
culturally historical, socially created processes” (Holzam, 2009, p. 3). The social dimension of
learning and social constructivism revealed that “biology and culture, learning and development
and the individual and society” (Mercieca, 2017, p. 6) were not separate concepts but interrelated
in ways critical to understand the learning process. Thus, social relations were understood as
integrally related to a human’s higher functions, meaning individuals and their social
environment “each mutually shape each other in a spiral process of growth” (Mercieca, 2017, p.
6). Thus, learning is not merely a process involving a teacher providing instruction to a passive
learner but involves a much more complex interplay reliant on the social context.
Understanding the critical role played by social interaction in the learning process further
contributed to the development of other sociocultural theories that appreciate and help explain
25
the role played by social interaction in cognitive development (Risko et al., 2008). Purcell-Gates
et al. (2004) noted such a connection when they confirmed: “we see cognition as always
occurring within cultural contexts, which we define as settings for human activity shaped by
social structures, languages, conventions, history, and goals” (pp. 26-27). This is also in line with
Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of ZPD, which asserts the importance of knowledge development
through “collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Hopper and Sanford
(2008) specifically investigated the role of sociocultural learning in the context of preservice
teachers since “teacher knowledge is not separate from the knower, but is constructed within his
or her intellectual, social and cultural contexts of teaching” (p. 58). When applied to educators,
this line of research is similar to the CoP construct since, as Shulman (2004) asserted, the
education of teachers includes principles based on the “community of learners” model (p. 493)
incorporating collaboration, community, and content, or sociocultural learning.
Sociocultural Theory
Sociocultural theory is involved in teacher education because new teachers build on their
professional knowledge by connecting to prior knowledge and constructing meanings of
classrooms and learning, including teacher educators and the children in their class (Risko et al.,
2008). This process is especially helpful when teachers are responsible for the education of
culturally and linguistically diverse learners. The development of sociocultural theories of
learning contributes to a greater appreciation for holistic viewpoints of teacher education as well
(Bainbridge & Macy, 2008). Pre-service ELL teachers benefit when they appreciate these
concepts and are committed to education based on a more thorough understanding of ELL
students’ sociocultural needs (Daniel, 2014). Moreover, these ELL teachers realize that
“speakers lacking the legitimate competence are de facto excluded from the social domains in
26
which this competency is required, or are condemned to silence” (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 55) so these
educators are dedicated to providing the most effective strategies for language development.
Approaching ELL education from a sociocultural perspective allows educators to consider
students’ social environment rather than merely focusing on delivering instruction.
Complexity Theory
Complexity theory was adopted into teaching and learning once the dominant
pedagogical model shifted from one featuring instructors conveying information to learners
unilaterally to one dominated by an interrelated and interconnected learning process (Deogratias,
2018). This theory shares many of the same principles as the social learning theories already
discussed, especially a belief that knowledge creation relies on shared participation in a social
environment (Davis & Simmt, 2006, Davis & Sumara, 2006, Doll, 1993; Newell, 2008), since a
classroom is viewed as a complex system. Complexity theory also allows both learners and
teachers to share in the learning process actively. In a complex ELL classroom, where learners
possess different English proficiency levels, complexity theory allows all members to participate
and contribute to the learning process (Deogratias, 2018). The overriding concept is the value of
a social collective contributing to a more effective and productive learning experience.
Complexity theory is beneficial in the context of teacher education since it allows
teachers a greater understanding of the challenges they face and provides a framework for
examining ways a classroom system develops and changes over time (Martin et al., 2019). The
purpose of applying this theory in education is its ability to allow teachers to move away from a
view of education and learning as a simplistic endeavor and appreciate its complex nature.
Incorporating aspects of the previous theories discussed, complexity theory also enables teachers
to appreciate that learning is rarely a linear process but requires input and effort in a social
27
context (Martin et al., 2019). This theory is beneficial from two perspectives, starting with its
application in explaining teacher education as a complex system (Davis & Sumara, 2006). To a
lesser extent, the theory is also utilized to analyze empirical studies on education (Martin &
Dismuke, 2018; McQuitty, 2012). Teacher learning and ultimate instructive decisions are shaped
in various ways by several complex systems. Martin et al. (2019) noted, however, that additional
research is still required to fully apply complexity theory in ways that will more thoroughly
benefit teacher education and, ultimately, students.
Theoretical frameworks contribute to a more profound understanding of the many
complex processes involved in teacher education, thus providing possible solutions for
overcoming current and potential problems. Moreover, the application of theory enables teachers
to ultimately identify keys to best practices in education that benefit students in the classroom
(Higgs, 2013). Thus, the literature highlights the need for teachers to be aware of the various
theories affecting the learning process to understand the nature of learning and the acquisition of
knowledge (Higgs, 2013). As observed by Darling-Hammond, “One of the perennial dilemmas
of teacher education is how to integrate theoretically based knowledge that has traditionally been
taught in university classrooms with the experience-based knowledge that has traditionally been
located in the practice of teachers and the realities of classrooms and schools” (2006, p. 8). In
this context, Cheng et al. (2010) explained the need for improvement in teacher education based
on a focus on applying theory into practice. The application to ELL instructors is also apparent
since understanding theory will contribute to improvements at all levels, from teacher education
to classroom practices that avoid influence from political or ideological agendas while focusing
on theoretically based practices contributing to English language development.
28
Application of theories to teacher education is thus beneficial, especially theories sharing
Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Ashton & Webb, 1986). One of the elements discussed within
that theory is the importance of teacher efficacy or teacher self-efficacy. Bandura (1994)
described this process as a teacher assessing their competency to accomplish desired goals for
student learning and to engage with students that may not demonstrate a clear desire to learn or
who are less proficient.
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Second Language Acquisition
Teachers need to assess personal viewpoints and attitudes toward students is increasingly
important, especially in California where teachers are responsible for the education of more than
one million ELL students (California Department of Education, 2012). Teachers must be able to
create a learning environment most conducive to learning and this is especially critical in the
case of ELL education. This involves a teachers’ continual evaluation of self to provide students
with the most effective learning environment, regardless of students’ levels of proficiency
(Rastegar & Memarpour, 2012). Education in the modern classroom must consider growing
diversity as well as ensuring the appropriateness of the curriculum for all students. For many
decades, little attention was paid to teacher self-efficacy in research, inasmuch it was accepted
that students simply learn based on the static distribution of information from a teacher. That
trend changed based on some theoretical models discussed earlier. Rastegar & Memarpour
(2012) investigated the concept of teacher self-efficacy and reported that many students are
uncomfortable and distressed when faced with learning a new language. Thus, teachers need to
appreciate students’ feelings and emotions to navigate the classroom when teaching another
language successfully.
In this context, Bandura’s (1994) theory of self-efficacy is applicable and relevant since it
29
is valuable in the earlier learning stages. New teachers, including ELL teachers, are also still
early in the learning process, which means they also need to develop a sense of efficacy (Hoy &
Spero, 2005). Similarly, Ashton and Webb (1986) explained that teacher efficacy involves two
aspects: general and personal efficacy. The former relates to a teachers’ belief that students are
capable of learning, while the latter involves the teacher’s confidence in providing the necessary
education. Personal efficacy is critical since it indicates the type of effort and persistence the
teacher demonstrates as an educator (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). This implies that a
teacher possessing an advanced sense of efficacy can apply best practices in education and
provide a social environment that motivates student learning. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001)
also acknowledged the value of this concept by observing, “teacher efficacy is a simple idea with
significant implications” (p. 783). Application to ELL educators is certainly understood.
Further highlighting the importance of teacher efficacy is Bandura’s (1994) assessment
that the concept carries a considerable influence on the ultimate success or failure of students’
academic efforts. Efficacy is accepted as one of the most extrapolative elements identifying
successful teachers since it determines their level of commitment, motivation, and teaching style,
which is especially imperative when teaching ELLs. Teachers demonstrating high efficacy are
confident in their students’ ability to succeed and therefore provide challenging instruction based
on collaborative social interactions. The literature thus recommends the inclusion of this concept
in teacher training (Chacon, 2005; Goker, 2006; Hoy & Spero, 2005; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy,
2001) particularly for ELL educators.
Teacher self-efficacy is a widely researched topic in the field of general teacher
education, and findings of studies consistently reveal positive effects for students as well as
teachers when exercised consistently (Henson, 2001; Henson et al., 2001; Milner & Hoy, 2003;
30
Poddell & Soodak, 1993; Ross & Cousins, 1993). Specifically, efficacy proves beneficial when
teachers experience unsupportive environments (Milner & Hoy, 2003), enables teachers to avoid
referring students to special education classes (Poddell & Soodak, 1993) supports higher
achievement scores in mathematics (Ross & Cousins, 1993), and is beneficial for new teachers.
Nonetheless, research is relatively limited, targeting investigations of efficacy in ELL teachers,
with only a few studies directed to that field (e.g., Chacon, 2005; Goker, 2006). One of the
reasons for such a lack of research among ELL educators is the apparent lack of self-efficacy
instruments available in this context, instead of the ready availability of instruments in other
teaching disciplines.
Following up on Bandura’s initial research, Bandura and Locke (2003) investigated the
role of self-efficacy in goal setting. The authors analyzed nine articles to confirm or reject
previous articles claiming a connection between self-efficacy and the development of a sense of
complacency. Following a careful analysis of the previous studies, Bandura and Locke (2003)
determined that self-efficacy contributes to more effective and challenging goal promotion and
ultimately results in greater success levels based on improved performance. There seems to be no
support for believing that engaging in self-efficacy produces any adverse effects, based on
Bandura’s research. On the contrary, in ways reminiscent of the theoretical constructs discussed
earlier, evidence indicates a positive role for self-efficacy as part of a teacher’s cognitive
development based on personal and socializing experiences.
Teachers are not always able to productively engage in self-efficacy, not because of a
lack of desire to engage in positive behavior benefitting their students, but due to a lack of
necessary specialized training required to teach ELL students effectively. Well-intentioned
teachers often realize after it is too late (i.e., once they are already assigned to a class) that the
31
necessary professional development opportunities are unavailable (Hamayan et al., 2013;
Kalyanpur & Harry, 2012). At the same time, federal law (including the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, or ESEA) established specific provisions that should have
made such professional development opportunities more readily available for ELL teachers. As
Chang (2012) explained, New York is one state where the need for ELL instruction was
recognized, and provisions were made to ensure ELL teachers were properly trained.
Earlier papers published by Kwiat (1989) and Tasan (2001) provided specific information
about improving ELL teacher self-efficacy and highlighted the need for ongoing professional
development as a critical factor. These studies provided evidence to support the position that
ELL teachers receiving additional professional development were well-equipped to provide the
type of learning environment required to ensure ELL students achieved the appropriate levels of
proficiency in language learning classes. Paneque and Barbetta (2006) also examined the
correlation between special education teacher efficacy and disabled ELL students. The results of
this study provided support for bilingual teachers receiving specialized training in teaching ELL
students since teachers conversant in students’ native language were much more likely to report a
sense of self-efficacy.
The lack of self-efficacy among ELL teachers was also investigated by Reeves (2004),
who noted that such experiences were often reported by teachers who felt unqualified or
inadequate to instruct low-proficiency language learners. Typically, ELL teachers become
frustrated and lack a sense of self-efficacy due to insufficient training and a lack of available
resources at a particular school. Nonetheless, educational requirements emphasize the need for
adequate teacher training, as exemplified by the CAEP Commission (2013) Standard 2.3, which
states the educator works with stakeholders to develop experiences that offer sufficient depth,
32
breadth, diversity, coherence, and duration to ensure a positive impact on all students’ learning
and development. Also, these experiences are structured to have multiple assessments at key
points to demonstrate the development of the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions
associated with a positive impact on the learning and development of all P-12 students.
Accordingly, teachers must be provided with the level of training and instruction necessary to
gain confidence and provide students with effective instruction. In the case of ELL teachers, it is
also imperative to provide additional specialized training designed to instill confidence in a
teacher’s ability to provide quality language education. However, the literature reveals that many
ELL teachers lack confidence in their ability to meet this basic need.
Perceptions of Preparation for Teaching ELLs
One recent study by Correll (2016) investigated the perceived level or preparation of ELL
teachers for dealing with the requirements of a diverse ELL classroom. The findings revealed a
considerable lack of confidence among many participants based primarily on insufficient
coursework, observational experiences, and field placement that would have prepared them for
the real-world environment of teaching ELL students. The teacher participants were convinced
that exposure to instruction featuring specific examples of teaching ELL, including specific
methods proven successful in the classroom, would have benefitted them and prepared them
more thoroughly for their future positions (Correll, 2016). Moreover, the teachers also
complained of a lack of hands-on or fieldwork experiences with currently successful ELL
instructors, which could have served as a pattern for future behaviors (Correll, 2016). In this
study, teachers who believed they received insufficient training could not incorporate successful
ELL learning methods, such as scaffolding or other theoretical concepts associated with social
learning. On the other hand, teacher participants that received thorough training that included
33
observational experiences, more in-depth coursework, and fieldwork experiences were able to
apply that training in the ELL classroom, which typically resulted in better student outcomes
(Correll, 2016). This study represents a small percentage of research directly examining ELL
teachers’ perceptions of their abilities to teach ELL students.
The literature contains many examples of investigations into the basic elements of ELL
teacher instruction and what classifies as effective instruction. However, there is a relative lack
of research directly related to ELL teachers’ perception of preparedness for the ELL classroom.
Most of the present studies on teacher perception of preparation found that teachers lack
confidence in their preparation to effectively teach ELL students, similar to Correll’s (2016)
findings of teachers failing to receive adequate training, lacked confidence. One study that
surveyed 3000 novice teachers reported that most participants felt they lacked preparation for
successfully teaching ELL students (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). Those results were also
confirmed in the studies carried out by Mueller et al. (2006), who concluded most classroom
teachers are unprepared for and unable to meet the needs of ELL students fully, and Conaway et
al. (2012) and Durgunoglu and Hughes (2010) who reported that teachers’ perceived lack of
preparedness results in increased levels of attrition in linguistically diverse schools.
Studies reporting higher levels of perceived preparation revealed specific teacher
characteristics resulting from such a perception of readiness to teach ELL students. In one study,
ELL teachers expressing confidence in their ability to teach ELL students exhibited a positive
attitude toward their students compared to those who lacked confidence in their abilities and
admitted to more negative feelings (Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010). Results of a lack of
confidence in preparation were also demonstrated in the findings of another study, which
revealed teachers expressing a belief they were not properly prepared for ELL teaching scored
34
lower on standardized tests of ELL knowledge while also failing to be attentive to ELL students
during classroom activities (Wright-Maley & Green, 2015). In contrast, teachers with positive
perceptions of their preparation scored well on tests and demonstrated beneficial interactions
with ELL students in the classroom.
Despite the relatively minimal research related to teachers’ perception of preparation for
ELL instruction, the research findings indicate a consensus of an overall lack of preparedness
(Gandara et al., 2005; O’Neal et al., 2008). For example, O’Neal et al. (2008) reported that 75%
of the teachers in their survey admitted they were not prepared to teach in the ELL classroom
effectively. In a much larger study conducted by Gandara et al. (2005) in California, the authors
reported teachers’ self-reported perception of preparation was only positive for one out of six
reviewed areas of ELL instruction content. Admittedly, this study did not investigate the
underlying reasons for the teachers’ lack of confidence in preparation for ELL teaching.
In some research, teachers expressed confidence in their ability to provide general
classroom instruction and indicated a strong pedagogical knowledge base; however, they were
not confident in their preparation for ELL instruction. This was the finding reported by
Karabenick and Noda (2004), who studied the attitudes and practices of 729 teachers and found
many teachers falling well short of the average requirements for ELL teachers. The researchers
observed that many of the teachers completing surveys for the study scored at the low end of an
applied ELL efficacy scale. Similarly, Siwatu (2011a) examined pre-service teachers’
perceptions of the preparation program they participated in and reported that the majority of
participants did not believe they were adequately prepared for classroom instruction of ELLs.
Participating teachers revealed that the instruction received was focused on declarative
knowledge and theoretical frameworks but lacked any strategies for teaching ELL students.
35
Thus, they were unable to make the connection between theory and practice, which is necessary
to perform in the classroom environment.
Darling-Hammond, Eiler et al. (2002) studied the Stanford Teacher Education Program
(STEP) intending to determine how teachers perceived their level of preparation for classroom
instruction. The researchers identified connections between teachers’ preparedness and self-
efficacy and their ability to engage in teaching strategies in line with best practices for ELL
education. Prepared teachers were more likely to institute scaffolding and other tools adapted to
students’ specific learning styles. Similar to the findings reported by Darling-Hammond, Eiler et
al. (2002), Curtin (2005), and Durgunoglu and Hughes (2010) provided additional support for a
conclusion that perceived and actual lack of preparation for ELL classroom instruction results in
negative impacts on ELL students.
Links Between Preparation and Self-Efficacy
The previous two sections indicated some overlap in the literature related to ELL teacher
preparedness and teacher self-efficacy. However, this relationship should be examined in greater
detail. Teachers exercising a high level of self-efficacy and confidence in their preparation to
teach ELL students are consistently able to provide the type of instruction and cooperative
environment that enables the students to become proficient English learners (Darling-Hammond,
Eiler et al., 2002). Such teachers are confident in their ability to contribute to students’ language
proficiency and, therefore, academic success, they are also more likely to believe they can serve
as a positive influence for students’ future endeavors (Darling-Hammond, Eiler et al., 2002).
While the previous sections provided literature supporting the contention that teachers need and
expect specialized training prior to teaching ELL classes, some outside the ELL discipline (i.e.,
psychologists, researchers, and scholars) claim that teachers’ “beliefs are so strong that they are
36
more influential in determining actions and behaviors than is learned knowledge” (Pappamihiel,
2007, p. 44). Thus, suggesting a positive attitude toward teaching ELL students could overcome
a lack of perceived training, but more research is needed.
Nevertheless, the majority of literature stresses the important role played by self-efficacy
in the ability for teachers to provide positive motivation for students and the correlation between
teacher preparation and self-efficacy (Darling-Hammond, Chung, et al., 2002; Darling-
Hammond, Eiler et al., 2002; Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010; Gandara et al., 2005; Siwatu, 2011a;
Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). A teacher’s self-efficacy level is commensurate with their
ability to perform in the classroom, especially under challenging circumstances (Durgunoglu &
Hughes, 2010). According to the findings of one study (Darling-Hammond, Chung, et al., 2002),
the primary factor contributing to teacher self-efficacy is the perception of preparation for the
teaching profession. Not only is the development of self-efficacy a critical element for success
among ELL teachers, but there is also evidence that once teachers develop self-efficacy, they are
unlikely to move away from that practice (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Links between self-
efficacy and perceptions of preparation are consistent throughout the literature.
Unprepared teachers do not fare well in the classroom, whereas teachers confident in the
level of preparation received before entering the teaching profession are more successful and
experience higher levels of efficacy (Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010; Siwatu, 2011a), which
necessitates continuing research related to teacher preparation, especially in connection with
ELL teachers. Self-efficacy does not usually develop without a basis according to most of the
literature, regardless of the position taken by sources cited by Pappamihiel (2007); and when
teachers are confident that they are highly prepared for the classroom, they are much more likely
to succeed. Such success is exemplified by positive relations with students, the ability to
37
contribute to students’ academic success, and overcoming any potential challenges in the
classroom (Darling-Hammond, Eiler, et al., 2002). In their study of ELL teachers, Gandara et al.
(2005) asserted that “good ELL teachers...have a sense of self-confidence regarding their ability
to teach ELL students, a finding that echoes a broader body of research on teacher efficacy in
general and its effect on student achievement” (p. 3). Thus, self-confidence and self-efficacy are
derived most often as the result of professional preparation.
As noted by Gandara et al. (2005), significant literature exists that investigated teacher
efficacy, but research directly related to the study of self-efficacy among ELL teachers is much
less common. Two notable exceptions are Karabenick and Noda (2004) and Paneque and
Barbetta (2006). As noted in a previous section, the former found a lack of self-efficacy among
ELL teachers studied, with many of the teachers holding negative views toward ELL students. In
contrast, Paneque and Barbetta (2006), who investigated special education teachers, identified
high levels of self-efficacy among those teachers and positive views of the ELL students. At the
same time, the researchers could not identify a significant correlation between teacher
preparation and teacher self-efficacy, which could be construed as support for the opinions on
self-efficacy reported by Pappamihiel (2007). Nevertheless, it is also possible that this result was
due to the qualifications of the participants, which ranged from advanced degrees in special
education to speaking the native language of the ELL students. These factors are known to
contribute positively (unrelated to any other factors) to high levels of self-efficacy in ELL
teachers (Gandara et al., 2005). ELL teachers thus seem to share characteristics with other
teachers regarding a connection between self-efficacy and preparation.
The articles cited above are not the only available studies to examine self-efficacy and
ELL teachers, but other studies fall more in line with research results from the investigations of
38
general education teachers that found correlations between preparation and efficacy (Durgunoglu
and Hughes, 2010; Shinde & Karekatti, 2012; Siwatu, 2007, 2011a). Most of these researchers
cited findings indicating a correlation between preparation and self-efficacy among ELL
teachers. Conversely, Durgunoglu and Hughes (2010) reported conflicting results inasmuch as
participants reported high confidence in preparation and also demonstrated self-efficacy but
results of the investigation indicated (based mainly on the administration of a questionnaire
designed to test ELL education knowledge) the teachers were not well-prepared for teaching
ELL students.
Location and demographics also contributed to teachers’ preparedness to teach ELL in
the findings reported by Siwatu (2011b). Specifically, the researcher concluded that school and
community context contributed to pre-service teachers’ perception of preparedness to teach ELL
students in a suburban environment rather than an urban classroom. In the context of this study,
it was posited that teachers’ received training and engaged in field experiences that did not
include urban settings, which could have contributed to a negative impression of larger city
schools. In contrast, suburban experiences primarily involved middle-class neighborhoods, and
primarily white, which were more appealing to the ELL teachers. While teachers assigned to or
anticipating an assignment to suburban schools demonstrated high self-efficacy levels, those
assigned to urban, extremely diverse schools experienced significantly diminished self-efficacy
(Siwatu, 2011b). In addition, Siwatu noted, “regardless of the context, pre-service teachers felt
most prepared to teach White American students and less prepared to teach African American
and Hispanic students, and ELLs” (2011b, p. 363). Preparation was confirmed as directly related
to self-efficacy, especially when teachers received preferred assignments.
Research connecting preparation for teaching ELL students with teacher self-efficacy is
39
important for teachers, ELL students, and teacher educators that establish professional
development for teachers. The literature provides evidence of a connection between professional
development and teacher preparation opportunities and increased self-efficacy in ELL teachers
(Gandara et al., 2005; Paneque & Barbetta, 2006; Shinde & Karekatti, 2012; Siwatu, 2011a).
Equally, when teachers do not receive adequate preparation or lack opportunities for professional
development, there is a diminished application of self-efficacy and a lack of confidence for
teaching ELL students (Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010; O’Neal et al., 2008; Siwatu, 2007).
Decision-makers in education are ultimately responsible for making sure ELL teachers are
allowed to receive adequate preparation for the demanding responsibilities of teaching in the
ELL classroom.
Moreover, the literature also reports a connection between well-prepared teachers and
positive student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Darling-Hammond et al., 2005;
Gandara et al., 2005) and teachers’ perceptions (Dunst & Bruder, 2013; Karabenick & Noda,
2004; Pappamihiel, 2007; Siwatu, 2011a). Another benefit of teacher preparation reported in the
literature relates to improvements in teachers’ viewpoints and attitudes toward teaching
culturally diverse language learners (Conaway et al., 2012; Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010). The
literature reviewed here largely indicates most teachers feel unqualified to teach ELL students
(Cummins, 1997; Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010; Mueller et al., 2006), and based on that
assessment, some scholars advocate for modifications in the way pre-service teachers are
educated in preparation for working with ELL students (Costa et al., 2005; Nieto, 2000; Sleeter
& Owuor, 2011). Teacher preparation may take the form of mandatory field experiences, hands-
on experience in classroom settings, and adjustments in coursework to clarify theoretical
frameworks that work toward increased social interaction with ELL students.
40
Characteristics of Teacher Education Programs for ELL
Teacher preparation programs in the United States lack consistency and are largely
dependent on state decision-makers to establish consistent standards. Training varies from
exclusive learning within a development school environment to various real-world experiences
such as fieldwork. At the federal level, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) issued teaching standards applicable to ELLs. The standards describe the
need for educators to obtain pedagogical knowledge to work with ELLs, teachers are evaluated
to demonstrate their level of preparedness, and teachers have opportunities to practice their craft
by modeling effective techniques in working with ELLs (Ballantyne et al. 2008). Furthermore,
educators will be culturally proficient and be provided with resources to support teachers’
growth to work with ELLs (Ballantyne et al., 2008). These standards reveal the importance that
should be placed on appropriate preparation designed to benefit the ELL students’ acquisition of
English proficiency.
While a great deal of discussion revolves around the need for adequate teacher
preparation, there is a lack of consensus regarding specific methods that should be included
(National Research Council, 2010) in spite of the NCATE guidelines. Included in the issues
creating this impasse are disputes related to measuring the effectiveness of fieldwork experiences
and specific types of pedagogical strategies to include in teacher preparation (National Research
Council, 2010). The effect of these ongoing debates was indicated by Zeichner and Conklin
(2005), who acknowledged that a “lack of success in finding empirical support for a particular
model of teacher education at the pre-service level is consistent with other analyses of research
on teacher education programs” (p. 704). Such variations in potential and competing programs
for clearer “visions of teaching” (Zeichner & Conklin, 2005, p. 702), and an inability to
41
accurately analyze student achievement further result in minimal empirical research that could
potentially create consensus. Nonetheless, there is an ongoing need for research designed to
investigate teachers’ preparedness for teaching ELL students to become proficient in the
language.
One of the more comprehensive studies identified in the literature related to this attempt
to clarify teacher preparation was Darling-Hammond’s (2000) lengthy case study that included
seven preparation programs from different states, all identified as containing a learner-center
focus. While each program approaches teacher preparation from a slightly different angle, they
possess a number of standard features. The teacher preparation programs have a similar vision of
good teaching; they have a standard of practice that guides and evaluates course work and
performance; a curriculum that is based on learning theory, cognitive development, motivation,
and instruction of subject matter; at least 30 weeks to practice teaching the content and applying
the course work they learned; and utilizing a case study, teacher research, performance
assessment, and portfolio to navigate real-world issues (Darling-Hammond, 2000). The data
were collected from surveys completed by program graduates, interviews with the educators,
classroom observations, as well as interviews with school administrators.
Some researchers identified preparatory coursework as a valuable tool in preparing
teachers to work with ELL students (Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010; Paneque & Barbetta, 2006;
Pappamihiel, 2007; Siwatu, 2011a; Wiggins & Folio, 1999). The type of preparatory classwork
and its ability to instill confidence in pre-service teachers was also identified as necessary for
teachers looking forward to instructing ELL students (Milner, 2005; Wiggins & Folio, 1999).
Education programs providing teachers with specific teaching strategies were also identified as
providing positive benefits for pre-service teachers (Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010). Some of the
42
beneficial learning techniques identified in the study conducted by Durgunoglu and Hughes
(2010) included cooperative techniques, projects selected by students in the course of field
experiences, and a widespread application of learning derived from the education programs.
Another line of research identified in the literature involved investigating the impact of
field experiences and coursework on teachers and ELL teachers’ active participation in the
learning process. Research by Paneque and Barbetta (2006) included more than 200 special
education teachers involved with teaching ELL students, and the researchers reported most of the
participants noted the importance of coursework directly related to the needs of ELL as critical to
their success. The quality of coursework included as part of their university education was also
listed as providing a positive level of preparation. Teacher participants expressed support for
numerous field-based learning experiences since they consider these essential to their proficiency
in ELL pedagogy.
Instructional Strategies
Regardless of what other types of instruction are provided through teaching education
programs, it is imperative that such programs contain appropriate elements of pedagogical
knowledge designed to augment ELL student learning. Such practices are included in the
Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol (CRIOP) for successful classroom
educational procedures (Powell et al., 2014). An additional element of successful learning is
ensuring that instruction is based on the cultural background of students and their families, which
results in an increased level of student engagement in the learning process (Cantrell & Wheeler,
2011; Echevarria & Vogt, 2010; McIntyre, 2010). When learning is associated with something
meaningful to students, they are more willing to apply the lessons and improve their language
proficiency.
43
Research consistently reveals that the application of content knowledge involving
activities easily relatable to ELL students allows students the to learn a new language while also
improving their grasp of concepts. Goal setting is an important element in this process, especially
regarding improving vocabulary and acquiring English proficiency which will ultimately result
in academic achievement (Cantrell & Wheeler, 2011; Echevarria & Vogt, 2010; Goldenberg,
2013). The connection of pedagogy with instructional knowledge is benefitted by applying
scaffolding techniques that enhance the learning process (Cantrell & Wheeler, 2011; Echevarria
& Vogt, 2010; McIntyre, 2010). Successful practices include visual aids, illustrations, modeling,
gestures, and other activities designed to engage the students and improve comprehension.
Echevarria and Vogt (2010) discussed the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
(SIOP), an instructional model explicitly designed for teachers of ELL students. This concept
places equal emphasis on language development and content learning. The model is based on
eight elements that represent proven practices for effective ELL teachers: “lesson preparation,
building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice and application,
lesson delivery, and review and assessment” (Kareva & Echevarria, 2013, p. 240). Research
indicates a significant improvement in ELL learning outcomes when teachers apply the SIOP
model.
According to Kareva and Echevarria (2013), successful instructional techniques include
social interaction, which allows students to interact with peers in the learning process, including
graphic organizers, and journaling. Other examples of process approaches are reading and
writing workshops. The literature includes several examples of schools applying the SIOP model
and also integrating these and similar methods in order to provide a beneficial environment for
ELL students that contribute to improved proficiency in a variety of diverse course structures
44
(Echevarria et al., 2006; McIntyre et al., 2010; Short et al., 2012). The SIOP model shares some
commonality with the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE)
standards inasmuch as both stresses the importance of collaboration between students and
teachers and students and their peers as well as utilizing elements from students’ background and
culture in the learning process. However, SIOP is more focused on assessment and lesson
delivery while CREDE standards incorporate challenging student activities.
To follow up on SIOP and CREDE’s shared elements, McIntyre (2010) incorporated key
principles from both models into six suggested curriculum accommodations for ELL students.
Specifically, teachers are expected to provide intentional collaborative activity that provides
scaffolding across curriculum language and content; opportunities to speak and write; curriculum
that connects to their background knowledge, culture, and interest of the students; careful to not
“water-down” the curriculum for ELLs; dialogue on instruction; planned lessons that allow
students to learn, practice and build on the language; and involving the family in and out of
school (McIntyre, 2010). McIntyre confirmed principles based on CREDE standards, including
maintaining high expectations for learners and instructional conversations to enhance student
learning.
In addition, Goldenberg (2010) provided a critique of CREDE’s lack of clear instructions
and emphasis on processes, claiming they are “not sufficient to promote the acquisition of the
specific skills that comprise reading and writing. Focused and explicit instruction in particular
skills and subskills is called for if ELLs are to become efficient and effective readers and
writers” (Goldenberg, 2010, p. 29). That view was supported by a review published by the
National Literacy Panel (NLP), which indicated a lack of research and the possibility that ELL
students would not benefit from improvements in academic achievement (August & Shanahan,
45
2006). The NLP report recommended making material available in students’ native languages
since that practice is more likely to elicit comprehension and higher achievement levels.
In line with the concept that explicit instruction is necessary for successful language
acquisition, significant literature supports that position (August & Shanahan, 2006; Barone,
2010; McIntyre et al., 2010). A variety of explicit instruction is mentioned in the literature, such
as approaches to reading comprehension, such as phonics, and lessons on speech sounds
(Barone, 2010). Explicit vocabulary instruction is generally viewed as essential for language
acquisition academically and socially (August & Shanahan, 2006; Goldenberg, 2010).
Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD) Strategies
Educators recognize the need for more effective ELL instruction approaches due to the
steadily increasing population of students across the United States that do not speak English as
their first language (Tharp et al., 2000). Providing linguistic support to the ELL population is
essential, so these students can maintain an appropriate academic grade level while learning
English (Echevarria et al., 2006). Research examining the effectiveness of a concept known as
sheltered instruction is still rather limited, although it does seem promising as a tool for helping
ELL students obtain academic success (Goldenberg, 2013). One example of the sheltered
approach to instruction is GLAD. The Guided Language Acquisition Design (also known as
Project GLAD) is used primarily on the west coast of the United States and features an
instructional model seeking to combine linguistic and grade-level knowledge instruction
regardless of current proficiency (Deussen et al., 2015). In most cases, GLAD is incorporated
into classrooms that are linguistically diverse to aid ELLs.
GLAD was reviewed by Deussen et al. (2015), who noted some similarities to other
English-only instructional approaches but differed in very specific ways from SIOP, Cognitive
46
Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), and Specially Designed Academic
Instruction in English (SDAIE). In particular, GLAD does not include a structured curriculum,
opting instead for instructional strategies that follow dedicated steps that are expected to support
ELL students at each English language proficiency level. The model may also be applied to
native English speakers as needed. GLAD incorporates scaffolding, interaction within small
groups, graphic organization, and visual aids to represent important content (Deussen et al.,
2015). Many teachers expressed satisfaction with the model and used it effectively (Lucas &
Mackin, 2012). However, Deussen et al. (2015) noted a lack of empirical investigation related to
GLAD’s impact on ELL student learning and attempted to fill that gap in research.
The GLAD model is not a new concept but was established initially in 1991 and has not
undergone any significant changes during the past three decades and remains focused on the
teachers’ professional development in general, not specifically ELL teachers (Brechtel, 2001).
The National Training Center notes they will provide Project GLAD trainers to train educators,
and at the time of the study, NTC had 259 fully certified and active trainers who have taught
300,000 teachers in 18 states, and several countries have been trained in the Project GLAD
instructional approach. (Deussen et al., 2015). Unlike some other models, GLAD does not
provide an established curriculum or any specific material for teachers or students. Rather, the
basics of the model are conveyed to teachers via 35 instructional strategies that comprise
GLAD’s foundation, which are applied to a school’s current curriculum. GLAD is not concerned
with providing teachers specifics to teach but with practical strategies for teaching (Deussen et
al., 2015). While supporters of the model appreciate teachers’ flexibility, a significant drawback
of the model is the need for teachers to create their own material to provide to students since
none is provided (Deussen et al., 2015). The process of creating visuals for the classroom is
47
notably time-consuming.
GLAD includes many standard components also incorporated into other models,
including graphic organizers, which are considered valuable for improving reading
comprehension in ELL classrooms (Kame’enui & Carnine, 1998). Students are encouraged to
work together by incorporating process grids and team task assignments that are known to
stimulate learning. Teachers will typically organize diverse groups to encourage further social
interaction, which is beneficial for ELLs (August & Shanahan, 2006). Ensuring that students can
work in small groups is an integral part of the GLAD strategy. Another strategy used in GLAD
involves teachers using in-depth methods to teach students a smaller number of words rather than
the standard approach that merely emphasizes learning definitions of a significant number of
words at one time (Darling-Hammond et al., 2019; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). GLAD allows teachers
the flexibility to select their own vocabulary words and the correct number of words to include in
each lesson.
While Deussen et al. (2015) acknowledged the benefits derived from applying the GLAD
model based on their study, they also admitted that it was not able to guarantee that ELL students
would finally achieve the same level of academic success as native English-speaking students.
They reported that ELLs need more than the language support GLAD provided in the classroom
based on the Gates-MacGinitie reading test results. Specifically, the mean scores for ELLs
moved from the 13
th
percentile at the pre-test to the 18
th
percentile at the post-test, while non-ELs
began the year at the 52nd percentile and ended the year at the 56th percentile (Deussen et al.,
2015). Thus, while improvement in achievement was noted under GLAD, gaps could not be
filled by the model alone. Nevertheless, some schools rely solely on GLAD to direct the
instruction provided to ELL students (Stephens & Johnson, 2015).
48
Based on Deussen et al. (2015) mixed findings regarding benefits derived from GLAD in
teaching ELL students, there remains a need for further research related to effective
implementation of strategies for ELL instruction and determining the impact on student
achievement and improved proficiency. Additional evidence is needed to enable all students to
obtain beneficial instruction and make informed decisions regarding ELL education.
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is also a relevant topic in a review of literature related to the
education of ELL teachers. Culture is generally understood as the existence of norms, traditions,
or standards within a group of people as well as a consistent way of thinking or acceptable
actions. At the same time, culture is often defined in different ways depending on the context.
Hinkel (1999) noted that culture is not always in the context of nations or ethnic groups but is
also understood to exist at a much smaller level, such as an organization or location. Hinkel
further clarified that culture is included in language research to define relational factors such as
students or location. According to the research, schools have a culture that may also impact how
language learning is delivered and received. In the context of language learning research,
Hinkel’s (1999) definition of culture is appropriate as he claims it includes “social norms,
worldviews, beliefs, assumptions, and value systems that affect many, if not all, aspects of
second or foreign language use, teaching, and learning” (p. 2). In that same context, Hinkel
stressed that language research focuses on “ways in which people’s worldviews affect their
learning, understanding, production, and interaction in a second language and a second culture”
(p. 2). This is an important concept, inasmuch as culture is not always noticed or considered until
an individual interacts with a different culture (Diedrich, 2014). ELL teachers experience various
cultures due to the nature of their profession and often experience different organizational
49
cultures that may be more or less likely to promote cultural and linguistic diversity.
Cultural Proficiency
The literature reveals a theme that ELL teachers need an acceptance of cultural diversity
and possession of cultural knowledge to be effective teachers of ELL students (e.g., Crabtree &
Sapp, 2004; Liyanage & Bartlett, 2008). Similarly, Calabrese, Goodvin, and Niles (2005)
indicated that teachers established that building relationships and caring for students was central
characteristics of effective teaching. Additionally, teachers with these characteristics are capable
of fitting in to the school and community’s culture to encourage students to succeed.
Cultural training is taught at many universities and is an important element in the
education of ELL teachers. To examine the effectiveness of such a program at one university,
Patridge and Robinson (2009) provided a survey to students that graduated from the school’s
Masters in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) program. Participants that completed
a course explicitly addressing cultural awareness were much more likely to describe themselves
as accepting of diverse cultures, while participants not taking the same course were less likely to
respond in a similar manner.
Scholars agree for changes in teacher training to prepare educators for working with
culturally and linguistically diverse students (Costa et al., 2005; Nieto, 2000; Sleeter & Owuor,
2011). Another study examining the need for cultural awareness and sensitivity on the part of
ELL teachers was carried out by Bollin (2007). That study investigated any possible connection
between service-learning experience and preparation for a role as an ELL teacher. In particular,
the researcher wanted to learn if such experience would enable the teacher to have a greater level
of empathy or understanding for ELL students. Based on the findings reported by Bollin, service-
learning may be a useful predictor of ELL teachers’ ability to overcome possible prejudices and
50
develop a desire to become more familiar with students’ cultures. One of the common problems
faced by beginner ELL teachers is the need to continually model their identity while also
attempting to harmonize multiple cultural and pedagogical expectations (Lindquist, 2016). In
addition, new ELL teachers must deal with their own cultural experiences while navigating their
new work environment’s organizational culture. Over time, cultural elements and other factors
become intertwined. In that context, Musanti and Pence (2010) concluded that “teacher identity
and knowledge are intricately interwoven” (as cited in Lindquist, 2016, p. 14) when discussing
collaboration and individuality. While teachers seek a personal identity, that identity will
ultimately be shaped mainly by their environment’s cultural context.
Liyanage and Bartlett (2008) noted issues connected with intercultural teaching practices
when a teacher is confronted with teaching methods that cannot be transferred into another
culture. This lack of transference may happen when a teacher obtains an education in one part of
the world and then returns home. Differences and barriers may include the teacher’s unrealistic
expectations regarding the students, or the students may have different expectations of the
teacher, all based on differences in culture. The researchers recommended a careful study of
pedagogy in different cultural contexts to find ways to reconcile potential variations and mitigate
unreasonable expectations. Similar to the research conducted by Patridge and Robinson (2009),
the study carried out by Lindquist (2016) investigated the possible role of culture training in the
education of ELL teachers. Participants in the study either took a course directly related to ELL
and culture, or they did not. Lindquist reported that teachers who did not take the course were
more prone to observe and speak about cultural and ethnic differences between students in the
ELL classroom. In contrast, the findings suggested the teachers that had taken the class
expressed a higher degree of confidence in their ability to teach a diverse ELL classroom
51
(Lindquist, 2016). Those teachers were also much more likely to be well-informed regarding
their students’ cultures and less likely to express any negativity related to the diversity of
cultures. Teachers with experience from the class expressed a high level of confidence in
engaging in collaborative relationships with ELL students and avoided stereotypes or
generalizations regarding cultures (Lindquist, 2016). In general, teachers with cultural training
appreciated the differences in cultures and were able to work with all students equally without
distinction. Without that training, teachers did not demonstrate the same level of respect and
consideration for the ELL students and lacked a genuine appreciation for diversity.
Finally, teachers in the group that took the culture class were confident in improving the
group interactions in the ELL classroom (Lindquist, 2016). When problems arose in classroom
groups, teachers without the ELL and culture training attributed such problems to individuals in
the group or poor group chemistry, possibly due to cultural differences. In contrast, teachers with
experience in the culture course took personal responsibility for correcting any issues that arose
in the group and were willing to make changes to assist the students (Lindquist, 2016). The
researchers reported that the latter group of participants considered it their responsibility to make
sure students had the knowledge necessary to succeed. If students failed, they never blamed the
student but simply worked hard to ensure the required knowledge was made available.
Differences between the two groups appeared to focus on identifying the direct cause of a
problem and a willingness to assist students in finding the solution instead of failing to recognize
the cause of problems and thus not knowing how to solve them (Lindquist, 2016).
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework

The gap analytic framework provided by Clark and Estes (2008) is a framework for
assessing the differences in performance between an organizational goal and the stakeholder
52
performance goal. The authors note that this approach is used to determine whether
organizational priorities are being met and, if not, what steps should be taken to ensure they are
met successfully. Gap refers to the space between "where we are" (the present state) and "where
we want to be" (the target state) (Clark and Estes, 2008).
Knowledge, motivation, and organizational assumed influences will be addressed to
determine the gaps and how they can be remedied to meet performance goals. Understanding the
research on knowledge and skills is integral to achieving ALOEs goal to advance students at
least one level on the ELPAC. Next, knowing motivation influences can help determine if
employees will have the drive to continue doing their job. Finally, organizational influences on
the performance goal are examined.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
For teachers to work with ELLs, teachers need a range of knowledge to build their
competency to provide adequate support to a unique student population. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) and DuFour and Eaker (1998) suggested that teachers reflect, create, and
follow fundamental steps, which include principles such as how students learn, what motivates
students to learn, how to manage a classroom, and how to assess student learning to build their
knowledge. These principles help expand educator knowledge toward implementing effective
intervention practices for ELLs (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
Knowledge Influences
An understanding of the research on knowledge and skills is integral to achieving
ALOE’s goal. Teacher preparation is essential for teaching effectiveness and student
achievement (Boyd et al., 2009). Teachers acquiring the knowledge of ALOEs daily and monthly
English language development (dELD/MELD) curriculum and incorporating ALOEs integrated
53
English language development (iELD) in all core subjects for ELLs, and knowing how to
analyze ELL data to determine how students are achieving at-grade-level proficiency across all
core subjects will improve ELD instructional practices and support. Moreover, teachers of
English learners need specific content and pedagogical knowledge for teaching these students
(Gandara, et al., 2005). According to Clark and Estes (2008), workers with knowledge can solve
new problems and adapt to changing conditions. Their work suggests that performance is
improved when employees use the new knowledge and skills to solve their performance
problems and close the gap on their performance goals. Bloom et al. (2001) assert four types of
knowledge that will guide a teacher’s preparation to teach culturally and linguistically diverse
students.
Bloom et al. (2001) suggested four knowledge dimensions: Factual Knowledge,
Conceptual Knowledge, Procedural Knowledge, and Metacognitive Knowledge. Factual
knowledge entails having comprehension of basic terminology and elements one must know to
accomplish a job or solve problems that may arise (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). The second
type of knowledge is conceptual knowledge. Rueda (2011) states it is “knowledge of categories,
classifications, principles, generalizations, theories, models, or structures” (p. 28). Krathwohl
(2002) sees it as an interrelationship of the essential elements within the larger structure that
enable them to work together. The final type of knowledge is metacognitive knowledge.
Metacognitive knowledge involves the employee’s awareness of when and why to do something
(Rueda, 2011). Krathwohl also states it as being mindful and knowledgeable of one’s thinking.
This section will examine the knowledge influences and the types of knowledge required
of the ALOE teachers critical to attaining their performance goal: conceptual knowledge and
procedural knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). The two knowledge influences relating to ALOE
54
teachers’ work will be discussed in connection with one of the four types of knowledge.
Fundamental to closing the performance gap requires identifying the knowledge type in order to
determine the improvement plan. Moore (2009) stated that teachers would need know a wide
array of effective instructional and evaluation strategies. A lack of instructional knowledge is
especially harmful when working with ELLs. It requires using various instructional and
evaluation techniques to ascertain valid and reliable information regarding these students’
academic language performance (Moore, 2009). DuFour & Eaker (1998) suggested that teachers
reflect, construct, and monitor essential steps, including how students learn, what engages
students to learn, how to manage a classroom, and how to assess student learning to build their
knowledge. These principles help develop the teacher’s knowledge toward implementing
effective intervention practices for ELLs (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). The first knowledge influence
ALOE teachers need to attain to meet their performance goal is effective English language
development (ELD) teaching practices. Specifically, conceptual knowledge of dELD and MELD
curriculum, and incorporating iELD in all content areas for ELLs, and procedural knowledge of
how to apply the principles, generalizations, theories, models, or structures. Raiche (2010)
explained that teachers might not have the “pedagogical training” to recognize the void of
knowledge that ELLs experience due to non-mastery of content knowledge, nor will those
teachers be able to remedy the void of knowledge experienced by ELLs without proper
instructional foundations, and the academic progress of ELLs will be compromised (p. 42). The
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2013) found that 41% of teachers who taught
ELLs in California, less than 13% had received eight or more hours of training in the last three
years in how to teach ELLs. In a survey of 5,300 teachers of ELLs in California, Gandara et al.
55
(2005) found that teachers had either one or no in-service training devoted to ELLs’ instruction
over a period of 5 years.
Effectively working in education requires practitioners to be knowledgeable about current
educational theories, models, and educational leadership principles and effectively utilize these
methods to enhance the educational environment successfully (Glickman, 2006). Cummins
(2001) explained that teachers who are knowledgeable about effective instructional practices
related to ELLs are more likely to accelerate second language acquisition. ELLs require teachers
who can construct a meaningful, purposeful curriculum focused on students’ learning
experiences (Walqui & Heritage, 2012). This knowledge type is also associated with conceptual
and procedural knowledge, as it involves knowing how to instruct ELLs. The ALOE
organization evaluates this knowledge gap by observing teachers every two years to document
instructional practices. The teacher evaluation intends to encourage discussion with the
administrator and teacher on improving instructional practices and determining what supports are
needed.
The second knowledge influence ALOE teachers need to know is differentiating lessons
and scaffolding to support English language learners’ individualized needs. English language
learners come from diverse sociocultural backgrounds and have distinct linguistic, academic,
emotional, social, and psychological needs (Lavery et al., 2019). Because of these unique
backgrounds and needs, the educator of English language learners must draw from several
different pedagogical approaches and strategies to ensure that they receive sufficient support in
their learning experience (Pentimonti et al.,2017). Two such strategies or approaches are
differentiated lessons and scaffolding.
56
Differentiated lessons are designed to foster support for individual students who are
learning in classrooms with diverse backgrounds (Young, 2016). Because English language
learners have unique sociocultural and academic backgrounds, it is inefficient to provide the
same lesson plan for all students (Webb et al., 2019). Instead, individualized and differentiated
plans are needed to maximize individual student strengths and address areas that require
continued development (Coady et al., 2016). Evidence suggests that lessons can be differentiated
based on four curriculum-related factors, which include content, affect, product, and process
(Mahalingappa et al., 2018). The content consists of the information that students must learn.
Affect refers to student feelings and attitudes, which may influence learning. The process
consists of how students understand the content. Finally, the product pertains to students’
demonstration of their learning. Furthermore, lessons can be differentiated based on factors
specific to each student (Mahalingappa et al., 2018). These include student readiness, learning
profile, and interest (Mahalingappa et al., 2018). Readiness pertains to students’ level of
preparation for a particular lesson. The learning profile consists of ways in which students
approach learning tasks. Lastly, interest consists of student motivations and gravitation toward a
particular style of learning or content. The ultimate goal of modifying these factors is to develop
learning opportunities that allow for individualization and equity in educational access (Coady et
al., 2016).
Another way educators can support English language learners’ needs is through
scaffolding (Banse et al., 2017). This process involves modifying one’s language to match the
level of understanding of the student (Banse et al., 2017). This type of modification requires that
instructors adjust their language to meet student needs and encourage an increased understanding
of the part of the learner. Evidence suggests that there are essentially four ways to implement
57
scaffolding to support English language learners (Young, 2016). One is to support learners’
writings through the use of sentence frames. Another is to pre-teach any academic vocabulary.
Educators can also implement scaffolding by striving to link any new information with students’
experiences. Educators can implement scaffolding by using visual learning aids to supplement
that content that is being delivered. These strategies are associated with facilitating learners’
individualized needs (de Oliveira & Athanases, 2017).
The third knowledge influence ALOE teachers need to know is how to read and analyze
ELL data to determine appropriate placement and support for ELLs. Using assessment practices
to guide instruction ensures that the lessons are focused on the student’s needs, and assessments
are purposeful and designed to elicit specific information about student progress. As Cizek
(1995) mentioned, one cannot separate high-quality teaching from high-quality assessments.
Likewise, relying solely on one assessment or assessment type can give educators inaccurate
information about a student’s academic knowledge. For linguistically diverse ELLs, this can be
detrimental to ongoing academic success because the students may not get an opportunity to be
successful. After all, the system is working against them. Cizek (1995) adds that since
assessment tasks complement and enhance student achievement, teachers should use assessment
data to design, monitor, and revise instruction to ensure that students achieve success and meet
standards and program goals. Accordingly, Nordby and Loertscher (2009) reported that clear
goals are necessary to ensure that ELLs are appropriately engaged in relevant learning tasks that
are contextually rich and focused, which will lead to more academic success among ELLs. As
Moore (2009) indicated, instructional strategies and learning experiences that bring students to
the identified competency levels should be planned once the desired outcomes and results have
been identified. Doing so allows educators to acquire, analyze, and display beneficial and
58
existing data and data patterns to detect student achievement and organizational efficiency issues
that need to be addressed. As Marrs and Eccles (2009) explained, outcomes for assessment
practices are a concern since the English language proficiency variations among the ELLs can
lead to assessment challenges. This procedural knowledge can be assessed using interviews to
determine the authenticity of formative and summative assessment. Table 2 is a summary of
stakeholder’s assumed knowledge influences. The table will also identify the knowledge type
and how the knowledge influence will be determined.
Table 2
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment

Organizational Mission
All students attain the competencies they need to be successful in the 21st century.
Organizational Global Goal
All alternative education students will be college, career and life prepared.
Stakeholder Goal
Advance 64% of the English language learners (ELLs) at least one ELPAC level every year.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Teachers must know (ELD)
instruction and learning theories
for ELLs.
Conceptual/Procedural
Interview teachers on their
perceived knowledge of ELD
and learning theories.
Teachers must know to
differentiate lessons and scaffold
to support ELLs needs.
Conceptual/Procedural
Interview teachers on their
knowledge of differentiating
and scaffolding lessons.
Teachers know how to analyze
ELL data to determine students
are achieving proficiency across
all content areas and provide the
support.
Procedural
Interview teacher to determine
their knowledge of ELLs levels
and how they assess them.

Motivation Influences
An understanding of motivation is required to achieve ALOEs goals. With motivation,
employees will have the drive to continue doing their job. There are three types of motivational
59
processes that influence motivation in the workplace. They are active choice, persistence, and
mental effort. Clark and Estes (2008) claim these three influences can be problematic in
achieving one’s goal if an employee is challenged by them. Active choice is when employees
decide to pursue their work goals. Persistence is continuing to accomplish their work goal
despite the distractions and obstacles in front of them. Mental effort is when one has decided
how much effort is needed to achieve the work goal.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is the first motivational influence important to ALOE teachers achieving
their goal. Self-efficacy, or an individual’s level of confidence that he/she can be successful with
a specific task, has been described by Bandura (1995) as the beliefs in one’s abilities “to
organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). Further,
self-efficacy may predict the level of persistence and effort exhibited by an individual when
confronted with a task. Individuals who undertake a challenging assignment and achieve success
will experience increased self-efficacy. Conversely, when an educator fails to reach a goal or
objective, it results in lowered self-efficacy. ALOE can impact productivity and effectiveness of
instruction by changing a teacher’s sense of preparedness. Thus, changing their belief in their
ability to help all students achieve academically, relate positively to students, and deal with
difficulties in the classroom (Darling-Hammond, Eiler et al., 2002).
Teachers need to have confidence that they will learn the ELD strategies and implement
them in all subject areas. Teachers need also to believe they are capable of instructing all ELLs.
Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy beliefs provide the groundwork for human motivation,
well-being, and personal accomplishment (Pajares, 2006). If teachers do not believe their actions
60
can produce positive outcomes, they have little incentive to act or persist through their
challenges.
Attitude
Teachers need to feel optimistic about teaching ELLs in alternative education. According
to Gandara et al. (2005), teachers continue to doubt their skills and capacities for working with
ELLs. ALOE teachers are provided with the opportunity to visit a peer’s classroom to observe
and share meaningful and constructive feedback. Collaborating with their colleagues can help
teachers improve their disposition towards their ELD instruction. Furthermore, observing others
offers a basis for comparison. Observing peers with similar skills, successfully performing a task
conveys to the observer that they can accomplish the same. Table 3 lists the assumed causes for
motivation and supporting literature. Based on the motivation influence of self-efficacy,
interviews will be utilized to assess the stakeholders’ level of self-efficacy.
Value
Subjective task value is the second motivational influence critical to ALOE
accomplishing their goal. This theory is linked to self-efficacy in that both are factors influencing
the individual’s motivation to begin, persist, and accomplish a goal (Eccles, 2006). According to
Eccles (2006), the expectancy value theory involves two key elements. Expectancy is the
likelihood that the behavior will have a successful outcome, and value is the value of the
expected outcome. Eccles (2006) continues to explain that four constructs determine one’s
perceived value. The first is intrinsic value, which is the enjoyment they have in doing the task.
The second construct is attainment value, which is an individual’s image of who they are and
what they would like to be. The third construct is utility value, which is how well a task fits into
one’s goals or plans. The fourth construct is cost value, which relates to how much an
61
individual’s time, energy, and emotion that a task might take. Each construct is pertinent in
determining a teacher’s perception of ELD training. Teachers who achieve their goal will see
utility value in the ELD preparation and choose to use the instructional practices, persist in
continuing to use it, and put in the mental effort to use it in the classroom effectively
(Karabenick, & Noda, (2004). Based on the motivation influence of expectancy value theory,
teachers will be utilized to assess how much teachers value ELD instructional practices. Table 3
lists the assumed causes for motivation, specifically a teachers’ self-efficacy and valuing ELD
training and their work with ELLs.
Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
All students attain the competencies they need to be successful in the 21st century.
Organizational Global Goal
All alternative education students will be college, career and life prepared.
Stakeholder Goal
Advance 64% of the English language learners (ELLs) at least one ELPAC level every year.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Self-Efficacy:
Teachers are confident in their ability to utilize
ELD curriculum in all content areas to instruct
ELLs.
Interview:
How confident are you that your experience
and training prepared you to teach ELLs?
Value:
Teachers see the value in the English language
development (ELD) training and teaching diverse
learners.
Interview:
How important is it to teach ELLs using the
ELD instruction and curriculum?

Organization Influences
An organization’s culture is strongly linked to the beliefs and values of the stakeholders.
Also, the stakeholders’ perception of the organization's structures and processes can significantly
impact an organization’s capability to meet its performance goals. The culture can be analyzed
62
by looking at two types of influences. The first is cultural model which is a shared mental
schema or normative understanding of how the world works, or ought to work, shared
environmental and event interpretations, what is valued and ideal, what settings should be
enacted and avoided and who should participate and the rules of interaction and the purpose of
the interactions (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The second is cultural setting which is the
contexts where behavior is enacted, and defined by “who, what, when, where, how, and why”
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Accountability. Maintaining teacher accountability is crucial to measure teacher
effectiveness in terms of student learning achievement. It promises to eliminate less direct
indicators of teacher quality. The accountability movement in education implies that, regardless
of credentials, experience, previous jobs, or evaluations, what is most important and what a
teacher is held most accountable for is whether their students learn. Increased accountability has
intended to create incentives to align curriculum and instruction with standards, foster data
analysis, and focus attention on continuous student progress (EdSource, 2000).
Teacher evaluation systems are deemed by most school administrators and teachers to be
extremely stressful, having little or no value, and acting as a barrier to staff morale. Wise and
Darling-Hammond (1985) indicated that “the time of evaluator is too short, the span of control
too wide and the expertise too limited to produce reliable and valid insights that might lead to
significant action” (p. 29). Few issues in education can generate as much fervor for educators as
the evaluation of teachers (Gitlin & Smyth, 1989).
Teacher evaluation is a complex process. It is a series of activities and actions that are
interconnected and related to specific purposes. The general purpose of teacher evaluation is to
safeguard and improve the quality of instruction received by students. According to Goldrick
63
(2002), teacher evaluation is the process by which teachers are professionally assessed. The
evaluation process usually involves preparation, observation, data collection, reporting, and
follow-up. Data collection typically includes a formal observation preceded by a pre-observation
conference and followed by a post-observation conference. Danielson (2001) maintained that, in
teacher evaluation, teachers must be held accountable for what they do as teachers but not for
what their students do as learners. The quality and effectiveness of teacher evaluations vary from
school to school and district to district.
Instructional practices. Instructional practices for ELL students may require
instructional modifications or accommodations to participate in instructional activities
successfully. To be successful, ELLs require teachers who are knowledgeable about designing
instruction for non-native speakers of English. Designing instruction for ELLs can begin with
planning lessons. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) advocated the method of backward mapping or
backward planning, in which detailed learning objectives are pinpointed, and plans are made to
ensure those objectives are realized. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) also identified three stages in
the backward design process, including identifying desired results, determine acceptable
evidence, and planning learning experiences and instruction. Doing so will ensure that the lesson
is effective and guided by the goals established within the planning process. Designing
instruction is but one component to be considered when addressing the needs of ELL. Specific
instructional strategies are necessary to ensure the most effective delivery method is chosen to
support the established goals while addressing the learners’ needs. Wiggins and McTighe (2005)
also indicated that designing curriculum and learning experiences to meet specific goals is an
integral part of one’s responsibility as an educator. Munoz-Aguirre and Boscardin (2008)
addressed the tendency for some educators in the past to “water down” the curriculum for ELLs.
64
Conversely, using a rigorous curriculum does not make instruction and learning effectively.
Instead, various instruction methods must be used to support the rigorous curriculum when
delivering instruction to ELLs. Munoz-Aguirre and Boscardin (2008) indicated that ELLs benefit
from extended time for full comprehension of the information presented, the use of visuals to
stimulate a connection between content and language, and targeted instruction on the standard
academic language. Glatthorn et al. (2007) espoused that educators should continually evaluate
policies related to curriculum and the schools’ accepted practices. Moreover, doing so will allow
for necessary adjustments to ensure continued curricular effectiveness.
Professional Development. Professional development is needed to meet the challenges
of teachers who need a range of knowledge and skills, including content knowledge, pedagogical
content knowledge, and knowledge about creating a learning environment that supports all
students (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). Most teachers do not feel they have the specialized
training needed to meet the needs of ELL students (Darling-Hammond, 2004). Teachers need to
be prepared to work with a growing population who are long-term EL or have limited schooling.
Besides having the content knowledge, teachers also need to be culturally aware and sensitive to
students’ challenges outside of school. Most states require a minimum amount of training for
teachers to meet the criteria of cultural competencies. However, in the United States, only 12.5%
of teachers received eight or more hours of ELL training (Darling-Hammond, 2000).
Darling-Hammond (2000) states that student learning is enhanced by teachers who are
knowledgeable and skilled at teaching. Guskey (2000) mentions that professional development
(PD) should improve teacher knowledge and increase student learning outcomes. Teacher
education needs to be an ongoing process as pre-service teachers transition from a credential
program to a classroom setting (Bean & Morewood, 2007). The concept of PD is a process of
65
changing teacher practices in ways that support student learning (Little, 1993). She states that PD
offers a limitation that guides teachers through a process and does not allow them to engage in
inquiry, problem-solving, and building their knowledge of educational research. This can be
addressed through ongoing professional learning communities (PLCs) that allow teachers time to
meet with their colleagues to review research that can be applied in their classroom and to reflect
on their practices. Professional development needs to be ongoing, appropriate, and planned
explicitly for teachers that work with ELLs (Guskey, 2000; Meltzer & Hamann, 2005).
According to Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995), PD must follow these guidelines. It
must: engage teachers in tasks of teaching, assessment, observation, and reflection through
processes of learning and development; be based on inquiry, reflection, and experimentation that
is participant-driven; be ongoing, intensive, and supported by modeling; and be connected to
other aspects of school change.
Finally, when educators are adequately trained on the implementation of professional
learning communities, the teachers will have the skills necessary to create and maintain an
effective professional learning community that will lead to the improvement of teaching and
learning, which will result in increased student learning for all students including ELLs (DuFour
& Eaker, 1998). For effective professional learning communities, ALOE needs to build teachers’
collaboration skills and reflection skills. Collaboration within learning communities can improve
student achievement because teachers are focused on working together on issues that can directly
improve teaching and learning. As Fullan (2006) states from his review of research, schools
focusing on collaboration among teachers tended to be better schools. Professional learning
community members should plan, seek support, and identify the benefits and intended results of
PLCs. These activities are necessary to ensure that the achievement gap is closed, and educators
66
can use the PLCs to create a continued atmosphere of collaborative learning within ALOE. Table
4 lists the summary of assumed organizational influences related to the cultural model and
cultural setting and how each will be assessed in the study.
Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences and Assessment
Organizational Mission
All students attain the competencies they need to be successful in the 21st century.
Organizational Global Goal
All alternative education students will be college, career and life prepared.
Stakeholder Goal
Advance 64% of the English language learners (ELLs) at least one ELPAC level every year.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1: The organization
needs a culture in which teachers implement ELD
in their classrooms to improve ELL instruction.
Interview teachers on their perception of
the organization's accountability process.
Cultural Model Influence 2: The organization
needs a culture that has teachers wanting to
improve their lessons and/or instruction.
Interview teachers on the barriers and
challenges of improving their lessons
and/or instruction.
Cultural Setting Influence 1: Teachers need more
professional development on the adopted ELD
curriculum and individual support with Teachers
on Special Assignment (TOSAs) of each core
subject (i.e. English, Social Science, Math and
Science).
Interview teachers on whether professional
training and individual support have been
available and effective.
Cultural Setting Influence 2: Teachers need to
utilize Professional Learning Communities
(PLCs) to improve instruction and learning.
Interview teachers on whether PLCs have
improved their instruction and offered
support when needed.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context

A conceptual framework is a tentative theory of phenomena the researcher will be
investigating. It is not merely a framework, but a story the researcher is constructing about what
they think is happening with a phenomenon and why (Maxwell, 2013). According to Miles and
Huberman (1994), it is a visual or written product that explains the main things studied such as
67
the key factors, concepts, or variables and the presumed relationships. The purpose of the
conceptual framework in my study is to bring things in the research into focus. It will help assess
and refine the goals, develop pertinent research questions, determine appropriate methods, and
identify validity issues (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher presents knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influencers or concepts in isolation of each other. The researcher recognizes that
they do not work independently and will present their presumed relationships.
The researcher selected these influences based on literature and years of experience with
the organization. The researcher has determined that two knowledge influences are fundamental
to closing the ALOE organizations performance goal. The first knowledge influence ALOE
teachers need to attain to meet their performance goal is procedural and conceptual knowledge of
ELD instruction and curriculum and incorporating ELD in all content areas for ELLs. Moore
(2009) stated that teachers would need to know about a wide array of effective instructional and
evaluation strategies. A lack of instruction knowledge is especially true when working with
ELLs. It requires the using of various instructional and evaluation techniques to ascertain valid
and reliable information regarding these students’ academic language performance. The second
influence is procedural knowledge to read and analyze ELL data to determine appropriate
placement and support for ELLs. Cizek (1995) states that assessments must be purposeful and
designed to provide specific information about student progress, and this practice guides
instruction to ensure the lesson is focused on the needs of the student.
There are two assumed motivational influences that will be explored to determine if these
factors impact the problem. With motivation, employees will have the drive to fulfill their
responsibility in the classroom. Self-efficacy is the first motivational influence significant to
ALOE teachers achieving their goal. Subjective task value is the second motivational influence
68
critical to ALOE accomplishing their goal. This theory is linked to self-efficacy in that both are
factors influencing the individual’s motivation to begin, persist, and accomplish a goal (Eccles,
2006).
Based on the researchers’ years of experience in the ALOE organization the researcher
has found that there are two organizational influences that impact ALOEs organizational goal.
The first is the cultural setting of providing regular PD and PLC opportunities to teachers, along
with follow-up and accessible support. The second organizational influence is the cultural model
of teachers implementing ELD in their classrooms to improve ELL instruction and a culture with
teachers who want to improve their lessons and instruction. The evaluation process will
Maintaining this culture of teacher accountability using the evaluation process. The knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences are interdependent, each relying on the other to attain
the stakeholder goal.
For the knowledge influences to exist for teachers, ALOE must establish a cultural setting
that gives teachers consistent PD or in-services and a continuous dialogue with colleagues and
teachers on special assignment (TOSAs). Thompson and Zeuli (1999) believe that professional
development organizations need to help teachers create a toolbox for practice consistent with the
new understandings the teachers are building. This highlights the need for the organization to
provide useful and accessible PD for teachers.
A teacher’s sense of preparedness is strongly linked to knowing the ELD instructional
practices and knowing how to use the curriculum. Teachers who have a higher sense of
preparedness are more likely to believe in their ability to help all students achieve academically,
relate positively to students and deal with difficulties in the classroom (Darling-Hammond, Eiler
et al., 2002). Darling-Hammond, Eiler et al. (2002) also suggest a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy
69
has a powerful influence on students’ motivation and the classroom environment. It is important
to acknowledge the influence of teacher preparation on attaining self-efficacy.
Figure 1 illustrates the interaction of the knowledge and motivation concepts with the
organization to pursue the stakeholders’ and organizations’ strategic plans. The large blue circle
states ALOEs cultural setting of having regular professional development and professional
learning communities provided to teachers followed with continuous support. It also includes the
cultural model of teachers implementing ELD in their classrooms to improve ELL instruction
and teachers wanting to improve their lessons and instruction to service diverse learners. Within
the blue circle is a green oval that details the conceptual and procedural knowledge needed for
teachers implementing English language development in the classroom and the procedural
knowledge of reading and analyzing the data to improve their instructional practice and increase
student performance. Also included in the green oval is the first motivational influence of self-
efficacy or an individual’s level of confidence that they to be successful with a specific task,
specifically using ELD in the classroom. The second is subjective task value, this theory is
linked to self-efficacy in that both are factors influencing the individual’s motivation to begin,
persist, and accomplish a goal. Meaning, the teachers value the ELD training and teaching
diverse learners. The blue arrow outside the circle leads outside to the yellow rectangle that
represents the stakeholder’s goal. The knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
interact to influence the teacher’s ability to meet the organization's goal successfully.

70
Figure 1

Conceptual Framework

Conclusion

This chapter addressed the ALOE program teachers’ readiness in meeting the
organization’s goal of advancing ELLs at least one ELPAC level every year. The study will also
examine the resources, supports, and/or professional development needed by stakeholders to
meet their English language learners’ academic and English language development needs. In
Chapter Three, will present the qualitative study that will address the three research questions
that guided this study.
71
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Integral to the study is an awareness of the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences that can impact the organizational goal’s success. Determining the knowledge and
skills of the stakeholders will be meaningful in knowing what information is deficient. The
extent of the teachers’ knowledge of ELD will translate into motivation influences that will
impact their drive to achieve their classroom obligations and realize the organizational goal.
Finally, organizational influences can be noticeable culturally, along with ALOEs policies and
procedures. When addressed, each of these concepts are pieces in a puzzle, to advance the
organization toward its performance goal. This evaluative study asks three research questions to
understand the meaning, context, and process of servicing ELLs. They are:
1. What extent is ALOE meeting its goal?
2. What is the ALOE teacher knowledge and motivation related to having English language
learners advance at least one ELPAC level every year?
3. What is the interaction between ALOE’s culture and context and teacher knowledge and
motivation?
Based on the research questions and the answers, I used a qualitative methodological approach to
complete the study. Several characteristics distinguish qualitative research from other research
methods and make this appropriate for this study.
Methodological Approach and Rationale
The study’s design is emergent, which involved data collection and analysis procedures
that evolved over the course of the research project in response to what was learned in the earlier
parts of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The approach is inductive, which means looking at
the data from the observations, interviews, and documents, and moving toward a theory by
72
examining the related issues. According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), qualitative research
explores and understands the meaning individuals or groups attribute to a social or human
problem. As a stakeholder with the ALOE organization, I sought to understand how the
participant’s experiences impact the success of ELL. Having a constructivist worldview, I built
on and interpreted the multiple realities of a single event (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In other
words, multiple participant meanings were used to “…generate or inductively develop a theory
or pattern of meaning” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 8). Creswell and Creswell (2018) mention
that these subjective meanings occasionally stem from socially and historically norms or formed
through interactions with others. This leads to the goal of constructivism or social constructivism
which relies on the participant’s perspective of the situation being studied. I can lessen the
possibility of jumping to any conclusions by using multiple data sources known as triangulation
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Also, I engaged in reflectivity. I frequently reflected on my own
emotions in the research process to ensure my beliefs and opinions are not affecting the data I
collected.
Using a qualitative methodological approach, I gained insight into the perceptions ninth
through 12
th
-grade alternative education teachers have in achieving the organizational goal.
According to Stake (2010), the qualitative method seeks to understand perceptions and share the
feelings of others. This qualitative research design method was ideal because it allowed for an in-
depth examination of the teacher’s feelings. The study was conducted in its natural setting or
within the organization, where I purposefully found participants who had the most information
that helped me answer the research questions. I utilized the inquiry design of a case study to
conduct a comprehensive analysis on the resources, supports, and professional development
73
provided to the stakeholders (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I undertook this study intending to
add to the field of teacher preparation for linguistically diverse students.
Participating Stakeholders
The study was conducted in an alternative education program administered by an
Alternative Education Division in California. The ALOE program provides educational services
at approximately 22 school sites with 83 teachers and over 3000 students, 829 of which are ELL.
The ALOE program provides year-round, K-12 educational opportunities to local school
districts, adult education (18-25-year-old students), juvenile correctional institutions, and parents
home-schooling their children.
The ALOE program offers multiple instructional learning environments to provide
individualized, targeted, and differentiated instruction. The instructional programs supporting
students are online learning, independent study, home-based education, adult education, juvenile
court schools, and community schools. I focused on community schools, where students are
provided educational services via two distinct instruction models to meet their academic and
individual needs. The Contract Learning (CL) or Independent Study (IS) model requires students
to meet with their teacher once a week for an hour to submit their weekly assignments and
receive support if needed. The Day School (DS) model offers a minimum of 240 minutes of
daily instruction in core curriculum areas: mathematics, language arts, science, social science.
Students in this model attend school daily, during scheduled hours, and are in a classroom of no
more than 21 students of various grade levels. Students in a Day School classroom comprise
grades ninth through 12
th
-grade students who are at varying degrees of learning and knowledge.
The DS classroom includes general education, special education, and English language learners
working independently and collaboratively.
74
ALOE community schools are organized geographically into three areas; a South Region,
North Region, and Central Region. A total of 64 teachers distributed into 18 school sites and a
Principal supervises each Region. I supervise one of the Regions that consists of 6 school sites
with 20 teachers and approximately 231 sixth through 12
th
-grade students, 77 of which are
Grades 9 through 12 ELLs in a Day School setting. My Region will be excluded as participating
stakeholders to avoid any conflicts or biases with teachers I supervise. Excluding my Region
leaves me with 21 DS teachers in the other two Regions. I elected to interview six ninth through
12th grade DS teachers in the North and Central region.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Alternative education ninth through 12th grade Day School teachers. The
teachers are in a unique setting with specific experience instructing multiple subjects (English,
math, science, social science, and electives) in a Day School setting with multiple grade levels in
a classroom.
Criterion 2. The teacher is thoroughly credentialed and has the Cross-cultural, Language,
and Academic Development (CLAD) certificate authorizing instruction to English language
learners.
Criterion 3. The teacher has ten or more years working with ninth through 12th grade
ELLs in alternative education.
For this study, the sample was chosen through purposeful selection. Purposeful sampling
provides data relevant to the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Purposeful sampling
is appropriate for the study because Creswell and Creswell (2018) advise that this approach
provides insight into the phenomenon. The recruitment process to identify participants included
reaching out to six ninth through 12th grade DS teachers within the ALOE program and
75
explaining what the qualitative investigation entailed. The participants were purposefully
selected and participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews. The number of participants
was appropriate for the research study because they provided the perceptions into how ready they
are to advance an ELL at least one ELPAC level every year.
The rationale is based on gaining a deeper understanding of the participants’ knowledge
and motivation of advancing an ELL at least one level on the ELPAC. The conducted research
provided another perspective of addressing the readiness of teachers in alternative education.
According to Johnson and Christensen (2015), the strength of interviews is probing and
gathering more in-depth information. I used open-ended questions to obtain a participant’s
thoughts, beliefs, knowledge, reasoning, motivations, and feelings (Johnson & Christensen,
2015).
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
The study examined the resources, supports, and professional development needed by
stakeholders to meet their English language learners’ academic and English language
development needs. This evaluative study asked three research questions that addressed the
purpose of the study. The data were collected using semi-structured interviews with six DS
teachers in ALOE. Teacher interviews are utilized to answer the research question related to
teachers’ perceptions of their readiness to instruct ELLs. Questions about teachers’ prior
classroom experiences with ELLs, their current practices with their ELL students, and
components of their teacher preparation program, and professional development that facilitated
their knowledge and skills for teaching ELLs was included in the interview protocol. Qualitative
interviews allowed me to provide a framework in which participants can express their
understandings in their terms or their perspective (Patton, 2002). The interview protocol was
76
semi-structured, with open-ended questions to ask for clarification, examples, or additional
information. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), this format assumes that participants
define the world differently.
As stated by Esterberg (2002), the goal of semi-structured interviews is “to explore a
topic more openly and to allow interviewees to express their opinions and ideas in their own
words” (p. 87). The interview questions were open-ended, and I included prompts of would you
describe, how, and do you know to facilitate in-depth responses. As stated by Miller and Crabtree
(2004), queries are designed to address “research themes through questions designed to elicit
narratives detailing the informant’s conception of the identified domains” (p. 191).
Interviews
I contacted six DS teachers and asked for their willingness to conduct an interview. I
scheduled times with each teacher. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, schools were physically
closed for the remainder of the school year as a precaution. However, the program continued to
serve students from a distance. I conducted interviews via Zoom, a web-based video
conferencing tool. All interviews were conducted on a day and time that worked best for the
participants. All interviews were held after the teacher’s class time, so students were not present
at the time the interviews occurred. The interviews lasted approximately 40 minutes to an hour
and were guided by the length of the participant responses. The teacher interviews provided data
for in-deep analysis of teachers’ classroom practices with their stated beliefs, perceptions, and
rationales for instructional decision making. During the interviews, I used the participants’
answers to inform my follow-up questions. According to Esterberg (2002), the interviewees’
responses shape the order and structure of the interview, and I listened to the participant’s
responses and to follow his or her lead. I also took hand-written notes during each interview, as
77
Miller and Crabtree (2004) stated in their article, to help recall key names and terms. I also
ensured that I would have notes preserved in the interview in the event of a technical failure.
While conducting these interviews, I wrote descriptions of events and speech in detail, while
noting specific quotations. Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) encourage researchers to record
quotations and speech as accurately as possible and note nonverbal behavior in relatively
concrete terms, thus reducing the possibility of inference and facilitating the construction and
reconstruction of the analysis. Transcriptions of the audio-recorded interviews provided context
and the exact wording of interviewees. Comparing interview responses from contrasting teachers
with low to high levels of perceived preparedness for ELLs highlighted variances and similarities
between teachers and facilitated the exploration of patterns and trends (Esterberg, 2002).
After all teacher interviews were transcribed, I contacted each of the focal teachers to ask
questions about the interview data I collected. These follow-up conversations served as a form of
member-checking, as I verified each teacher’s demographic information and asked questions to
verify specific information from interviews.
Data Analysis
Once I completed the interviews and transcribed them, I started coding the six interview
transcripts. I anticipated at least three cycles per transcript to complete coding. In the initial
coding cycle, I just read through my data and familiarized myself with it. At this point, I
developed an idea of the overall data. In the second and third cycles, I coded sections with a
broad code name for future reference, writing down notes as he read. I selected text and gave it a
code name that captured the essence of the text. The codes’ details depended on my research
questions and what I tried to get out of the data. I developed a line-by-line coding, putting similar
codes into the same categories and moving them around to find out a way that reflected the
78
researcher’s analysis the best. By analyzing and sorting the codes into categories, the researcher
detected consistent and overarched themes in the data. Moreover, within the themes, I deciphered
the interviewees’ stories. To account for typicality, I assessed whether an item belonged to a
category by reflecting on the passage and categories.
I used the conceptual framework in the analysis process to remind me what I thought was
going on with the issues, settings, or people I planned to study. The analysis process included the
theories, beliefs, and prior research findings that guided or informed my research and the
literature and personal experiences I drew on to understand the people or issues I studied. To
move from codes to findings, I analyzed the more prominent categories or overarching themes,
while the sub-categories are the supporting themes. This is where I can begin the storytelling
from my data. The themes will tell the same story from different perspectives or several different
stories that connect.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Researchers have a responsibility to address their own biases and describe the impact the
biases may have on the study design, data collection, and findings. According to Merriam &
Tisdell (2016), the data collected filters through the researcher’s theoretical position and biases.
As the primary data collection instrument, they decide what is important, what will be analyzed
and presented. The researcher, as the only data collector, raises the question of internal credible
research findings. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) propose triangulation, where the researcher will
collaborate with interviewees by asking them to clarify his biases and assumptions on the
interview findings. For example, theory triangulation is where the researcher will use more than
one theoretical scheme to interpret the phenomenon and methodological triangulation. The
researcher will use more than one option to gather data, such as interviews and documents
79
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003). In addition, the researcher will engage in reflectivity. He always
reflects on his own emotions in the research process to ensure his beliefs and opinions are not
affecting the data he collected (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). I used an audio-recorder and
transcribed the audio recording using Rev.com to ensure the accuracy of the interviewee’s
responses. I also took copious notes in case of technical issues, to reconstruct the dialogue and
the gestures, accents, and facial expressions (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
Ethics
The nature of the research, purpose, and how the inquiry is designed can present ethical
issues. According to Glesne (2011), intrusive research has led to recognizing the need for
informed consent, avoidance of harm, and confidentiality. A researcher’s intentions and
responsibility must go beyond the benefits it will give the subject or society but ensure adherence
to the code of ethics.
In this qualitative study, my approach included my ethical obligations to the stakeholders,
the people I work with, and the organization. I made every effort to cause no harm to their safety,
dignity, or privacy, either directly or indirectly. Participants remained anonymous, but the
researcher made it clear that their involvement can have repercussions despite anonymity efforts.
I reassured them that the data I gathered is in my possession and securely stored on my computer
or under lock and key at home. I allowed the individuals to reflect on what I presented and
followed-up in a couple of days to obtain their written consent. According to Glesne (2011), the
researcher must obtain consent, which includes “…consent of persons being studied, providing
information, owning, or controlling access to material being studied, or otherwise identified as
having interests which might be impacted by the research” (pg. 164). Glesne (2011) noted that
obtaining consent also required that I make them aware that participation is voluntary. He adds
80
any aspect of the research may impact their well-being and that of others around them. They can
choose to stop participating at any point in the research (Glesne, 2011).
I conducted the study in the ALOE program, where I am currently a principal for
community schools in one of the Regions. ALOE consists of two additional community school
regions I do not supervise. The participants will be DS teachers from these two Regions. I
wanted to retain the relationships I built in the organization, so I adhered to the obligations of
openness and informed consent. Deceit should not be an element in the interviewer and
interviewee relationship, so the researcher must be straightforward and occasionally remind them
they are being studied (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). For example, I called attention to the recorder
periodically during interviews.
The research of DS teacher’s perceptions of their preparation stemmed from my
professional and personal experiences and interests. My experiences are similar to the principals
and teachers I worked with for 18 years. Such as working with culturally and linguistically
diverse students with academic and social-emotional challenges. During the researchers’ time
with ALOE, I recognized that 64% of the students are Hispanic, 30% enter ALOE with limited
English proficiency. I also recognized that only 52% of the ELLs graduate. As an immigrant to
the United States, I can empathize with the students who struggle with the English language. The
difficulty of differentiating their culture and language from the mainstream. As a result, I began
to question the teachers’ preparation to meet the organization's strategic plan of advancing ELLs
to at least one ELPAC level every year.
To avoid any confusion with other members of ALOE, I refrained from any covert
research. My introduction and approach will be of the researcher and not a colleague or
supervisor. According to Blumer (1982), covert research is not ethically justified or necessary or
81
in the researcher’s best interest. I conducted an open autocratic case, where I was open to share
all aspects of my research and invite their feedback on the interpretations but not give them the
right to veto (Glesne, 2011). Inviting their feedback was a collaborative endeavor where research
participants’ continual communication and interaction were vital to minimizing the pressure to
participate. Whether the participants are my equal or subordinate, I did not conduct any
reciprocity to avoid any confusion regarding my role in the research. I did not directly supervise
the teachers, so I could not evaluate them or provide their supervisor input.
I was mindful that my background, principles, beliefs, biases will influence the
understandings and interpretations. Researchers are responsible for addressing their own biases
and describing the impact the biases have on the study design, data collection, and findings.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the data collected filters through the researcher’s
theoretical position and biases. Questions to internal validity or credible research findings exist
because what is important, analyzed, and presented is based on the researcher’s choice.

82
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This chapter focuses on the themes that emerged out of the interview data and the
findings that represented the perception of alternative education teachers on their readiness to
instruct English language learners. ALOE teachers have the challenging task of working with
ELLs in a classroom consisting of multiple grades and learning levels. Given that these students
typically lack content knowledge and English proficiency, teachers need to deliver instruction
effectively. It was essential to examine the ALOE teachers’ knowledge related to their role and
their motivation to fulfill their responsibilities and meet the organization's goals.
Six teachers were interviewed with open-ended research questions. These questions were
designed to measure their personal and organizational level preparedness to educate ELL
students by examining their knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Using
multiple participants, it is possible to identify a pattern or theory of meaning inductively
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 8). All interviews were conducted remotely using Zoom because
the COVID-19 pandemic restricted teachers from returning to school sites.
For this study, the knowledge, motivation, organizational influences were examined. The
following questions guided this research:
1. What extent is ALOE meeting its goal?
2. What is the ALOE teacher knowledge and motivation related to preparing English
language learners to advance at least one ELPAC level every year?
3. What is the interaction between ALOE’s culture and context and teacher
knowledge and motivation?

83
Participating Stakeholders
As per the participant selection criterion three, the teacher has ten or more years working
with ninth through 12th grade ELLs in alternative education. The teachers interviewed exceeded
criterion three, with an average of 22 years of teaching experience. The most experienced
teachers had 24 years of experience, and the least experienced had 20 years. All the teachers had
received their teaching degree through traditional, university-based certification. Three of the
participants were female, and three were male.
Four participants taught classes ranging from ninth to 12
th
grade while two teachers only
taught grades ranging from seventh to 12
th
. Based on the participants’ estimated classroom size
responses, the average class size was approximately 19 students. In their classes, an average of
three to four students were English language learners, which is almost double the rate of ELLs
present in K-12 classrooms throughout America (Du Calderon et al., 2011). Table 5 summarizes
the respondents by gender, grade levels they are teaching, the number of ELLs in their
classroom, and years of teaching experience.
Table 5
Demographic Table
Respondent Gender Grade Levels Number of ELLs Years Teaching
1 Female 9th to 12th 3 24
2 Female 9th to 12th 2 21
3 Male 7th to 12th 4 22
4 Female 9th to 12th 1 22
5 Male 7th to 12th 4 21
6 Male 9th to 12th 3 20
84
Knowledge
According to Krathwohl (2002), teachers must possess specific knowledge to accomplish
their goals. First, the researcher will examine the types of knowledge influences that facilitate or
impede the ALOE teachers’ ability to meet their goals. Specifically, it is crucial for them to have
conceptual and procedural knowledge regarding their position. For alternative education teachers
this would constitute knowledge of English language development, learning theories,
instructional strategies and analyzing ELL data. Additionally, the teachers need conceptual
knowledge. Conceptual knowledge would apply to the teacher having an understanding of the
theoretical concepts of ELD and instruction. This section focuses on the level of knowledge and
is followed by the section focusing on teachers’ motivation level.
The following sections present the findings as a result of two semi-structured interviews
with the six ALOE teachers designed to ascertain the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on their goal of providing instructional support to ELLs on advancing one ELPAC
level every year. Several emergent themes surfaced due to the data analysis process related to the
research questions driving this dissertation. The interactions between the knowledge and
organizational influences helped to provide insight into both Research Question #1 and Research
Question #2. Specific data from the interviews about Research Question #1 illustrated the
teacher’s knowledge related to providing support to ELLs by using effective instructional
strategies. Additionally, interview data provided insight into Research Question #2 regarding the
interaction between the organization’s current systemic practice for delivering professional
development and the teachers’ knowledge.
The following sections will explain the prevalent themes as they emerged from the
interview responses, such as the interaction between teacher’s knowledge of ELD, learning
85
theories, and their application as shaped by the organization’s professional development
opportunities.
Teachers Lack the Knowledge of ELD and Learning Theories
Based on the findings, all teachers interviewed had gaps in understanding the ELD
concepts and learning theories. Teachers were asked the question: “What is your definition of
ELD?” The teachers had varying degrees of knowledge. For example, Respondent One
explained:
ELD is teaching the students to appropriately speak English by having discourse, using
visuals, and speaking in class. I like to have opportunities in the lesson to have the
students speak to me and their peers, but they rarely want to…because they don’t want to
or probably shy. I don’t force them because they will shut down even more. It’s
frustrating when they don’t speak because I know it will help them.
Respondent One's definition of ELD is vague. However, it clarifies her understanding by citing
examples of asking her students open-ended questions, visuals, having ELLs working in peer
groups, and students presenting projects.
Similarly, Respondent Two sees the value of speaking in class to immerse them in the
language when responding to describing their knowledge and strategies for ELLs in a teacher
preparation program. According to Krashen and Terrell (1988), the best way to learn a second
language is through total immersion. ELD strategies support this learning method, enabling
students to acquire the English language like how they learned their native language, naturally
and through regular interaction with others who already know the language (Krashen & Terrell,
1988). Respondent Two failed to mention instructing her students on the English language
structure such as grammar, sentence structure, syntax and building vocabulary. These are used as
86
building blocks of language development (Krashen & Terrell, 1988). She states, “I have my
students read aloud on books that interest them and encourage them to speak in their groups or in
class discussions. This gives them the chance to hear others talk, understand what they read, and
use their own words to explain.”
The remaining four participants focused on sentence structure when defining ELD but
with negligible vocabulary development comments, fluency or function. Another interesting
strategy adopted by the teachers was that of using root words and etymology. Specifically,
Respondent Three explained, “the use of etymology and root words were specific strategies that
were taught to them in preparation for teaching ELLs.” Because root words and etymology help
students trace the fundamental building blocks of meaning inherent in vocabulary words, they
correspond to Kolb’s theory (1984) of experiential learning.
Experiential learning, which is related to social constructivism, holds that learning
happens based upon four necessary steps, the learner’s concrete experience, observation and
reflection from that experience, the development of abstract concepts from such experiences, and
then testing the concepts in new situations (Kolb, 1984). Root words and etymology practices
would support students in the second, third, and fourth steps of Kolb’s experiential learning
model. Respondent Three indicated, “By breaking down unfamiliar terminology in its more
familiar roots, I can give students the reflection they need to then develop abstract concepts
regarding the words involved.” Knowing the roots of words also allows students to make
inferences about their meaning in other situations. This practice directly corresponds to the
experiential learning model that Kolb (1984) emphasized could begin and be repeated through
any step.
87
As discussed above, all the teachers could define ELD (conceptual knowledge) but
lacked an in-depth understanding by providing examples incorporating vocabulary development,
fluency, form, and function of the English language (procedural knowledge). Unfortunately, they
did not encompass all facets of language acquisition. An inadequate explanation of ELD does not
constitute a teachers’ lack of procedural knowledge, but it does raise the question of can they
demonstrate ELD instruction. When asked how long they received professional development
specifically on ELD or addressing ELLs, only Respondent One was able to say, “a couple years
ago,” as opposed to the Respondent Three who stated, “I don’t recall” or Respondent Four with
“I don’t know.” Gaps in the ALOE teachers' understanding of ELD, learning theories, and
instructional strategies may indicate differences in their education and experience but can be
remedied with regular, systematic training.
Applying Differentiated Lessons and Scaffold to Support ELL Needs
In this section, discussion of the teaching strategies for ELL students around the
relevance of learning theory, scaffolding, and experiential learning from the interviewees’
responses. Teaching theory is crucial for educators to realize success in the classroom. Higgs
(2013) notes that teaching theory can both free teachers from bias and give them an opportunity
for critical self-reflection via the examination of implicit values and assumptions.
One of the main theories employed in the development of this study was social
constructivism. Social constructivism holds that individuals learn when they attain knowledge
based upon existing information and earlier experiences, leading them to assess or modify their
knowledge (Kaufman, 2020). The teacher’s primary responsibility is to support learners by
giving them familiar yet novel information appropriate to their developmental level. Active,
rather than passive, engagement is thus employed so that the student’s cognitive schema is both
88
used and tested to develop new understandings. Several notable examples of social constructivist
approaches to teaching were observed in the participants’ responses.
One of the most direct instances of social constructivist theory is the participant’s
discussion on scaffolding Two of the interviewees discussed using scaffolding as a strategy they
employed in the classroom for different contexts. Scaffolding entails systematically building on a
student's preexisting knowledge as they become more comfortable with new knowledge and
therefore a social constructivist theory (Wood et al., 1976). Respondents answered the question
to describe ELLs’ knowledge and strategies from their teacher preparation program or
professional development they currently use in their classroom. A common strategy was the use
of differentiation and scaffolding.
Respondent One described how she “used scaffolding to naturally break down
information into manageable parts to students until they understood what was necessary.
Breaking it down helps students to construct meaning and was a strategy that works across all
levels of English-speaking students.” According to Respondent One, this “strategy was taught to
me in my ELL training and was the most relevant to learn.” She adds, “It became a natural skill
for her to employ.”
Respondent Four stated that she used differentiated lessons and scaffolding to help ELL
students with reading and writing and other content areas. She adds that scaffolding is “a
successful and regularly used practice because each student is unique and has their learning
style.” Scaffolding aligns with the social constructivist approach that learning must be facilitated
through active engagement with individual students rather than passive group interactions
(Higgs, 2013; Kaufman, 2010). Respondent Four went on to affirm that successful teaching
requires teachers “to learn your students and recognize their style of learning and explore that
89
with them so they recognize it, as it will serve as a useful tool for them when they leave the
classroom.” Thus, the teacher’s use of the scaffolding strategy reveals how it can lead to self-
reflective benefits for the students, serving them for the rest of their life.
Finally, Respondent Five stated that scaffolding was used to create a more inclusive
culture within the classroom. Through scaffolding, students may “slowly build their knowledge.”
Respondent Five understands scaffolding and its relevance in the classroom, but he goes on to
say, “I rarely used the strategy because utilizing it in his classroom is difficult due to varying
learning levels of the students.” Rarely using the strategy is a sentiment that is described by
Respondent Six when asked the question, what barriers or challenges impede their instruction
with ELLs, “…the problem of having students with so many different skill levels.” Respondent
Six points out that he “struggles with ELL students because it is a mixed alternative education
classroom. Varied grade levels, skill sets, and varied behaviors.” Similarly, Respondent Two
identified “a wide range of student aptitudes to work within the classroom challenging.” This
mix of student ability levels makes a singular instruction method impractical as it alienates
students who are not “just down the middle,” as stated by Respondent Three.
When teachers spoke about differentiated lessons and scaffolding, they all had a general
knowledge of what they could incorporate into their lesson activities to build on or advance
English proficiency. What stood out from four out of the six interviewees is their responses
regarding how infrequent they used the strategies. It did not appear to be routine practice for the
majority of the teachers interviewed. Respondent Three mentioned the need for support in this
area, stating that “managing the various grade and learning levels, individual student
expectations, and misbehavior makes the task of differentiating lessons and scaffolding
challenging.” Four out of the six teachers responded that they manage multiple grade levels and
90
learning styles by having students work on their individual grade-level course work and
monitoring student progress throughout the day. That is, students are not working on concepts as
a class but work individually on grade-specific assignments. Though there is an understanding of
the benefits of differentiation and scaffolding lessons, there is the uncertainty of how to apply the
strategies to address the various grade levels, learning rates, and styles.
Teachers Analyze Student Data to Assess Student Performance
Both experiential learning and scaffolding emphasize moving from fundamental forms of
knowledge and experience to complex ones; they relate to the need to provide developmental
learning opportunities and assessments for students. Effective assessment practices are
invaluable for students’ progression since, through them, teachers can identify where students are
on the developmental spectrum and then give them appropriate developmental materials.
Teachers responded to the questions on what techniques they use for assessment and what to
assign ELL students based on assessment scores. Teachers provided an interesting insight into
how they assess their students and the students’ interest in the curriculum.
Repeatedly throughout the interviews, the teachers emphasized the need for
developmentally appropriate lessons to ensure the students’ progression. Respondent One
explained that “when a student is given skill-appropriate materials, I find they improve on their
own, and eventually are willing to work with the harder materials because their confidence is as
important as everything else.” Similarly, Respondent Four adds that “leveled reading materials
were the most effective tools for teaching ELL students’ writing and reading abilities.” These
statements imply that students learn best when they are in the “zone of proximal development”
that lies between their current and potential and cognitive ability described by Vygotsky (1978,
p. 86). However, providing relevant and developmentally appropriate materials for each student
91
is predicated on a teacher’s ability to assess a student’s ability level. This ability cannot be
overstated since high-quality teaching is inseparable from high-quality assessments (Cizek,
1995).
Respondent Two stated that she “assesses ELL student’s learning through
conversation and assignment review.” In assignments and instructions, this is done by
asking each student, regardless of whether they are ELL, to repeat back to them their
understanding of the assignments. She stated, “This not only ensures assignment clarity
but cuts down on behavior problems, for all students regardless of ELL status.” Such a
technique directly corresponds to goal setting which is particularly useful in improving
students’ developing English skills (Cantrell & Wheeler, 2011). Furthermore, it improves
instruction clarity, identified as one of the most important elements in helping students
become efficient and effective readers (Goldenberg, 2010). According to Respondent Six,
“verbal responses are also an important assessment method.” He stated that “students
who would ordinarily shut down, feeling comfortable enough to take the risk of speaking,
reading, asking a question, sharing out loud in a community day school setting without
fear” was a concrete way in which academic progress was monitored for ELL students.
Such a practice relates to the social cognitive theory of learning proposed by Bandura
(1977), which holds that an in-depth understanding of learning is largely driven by
individuals’ social interactions with their learning environment. Hence, when students
feel confident enough to interact socially, demonstrate their learning progress or, at least,
the significant potential to learn.
Teachers were asked the question: “Do you know what to assign students based
on assessment scores?” Respondent Two, Three, Five, and Six said they do not use the
92
adopted curriculum. Respondent Two describes her students as “easily distracted, which
causes them to lose interest with the material, so it’s better to find material that interests
them, or they will start to misbehave in class.” According to Respondent Five, this may
indicate resources and material that is “dull” and causes the students to lose focus.
Respondent Five adds, “when students begin to lose focus, the teachers must tend to the
behavior.”
Respondent Five noted that “the ELD curriculum is relevant and useful but it is
something that is usually not high interest for the students, culturally relatable and current
that can be used for direct instruction in a community day school whole class setting with
at-risk youth (who vary in age, grade, need, etc.) or in a distance model.” From the
standpoint of experiential learning, the culturally relatable resources are invaluable in the
four-step model, whose first stage begins with concrete experiences. With culturally
relatable materials to learn from, students have an excellent opportunity to reflect upon
familiar cultural experiences and develop new concepts about them with the framework
provided by the ELD materials and teacher guidance. Respondent Six likewise cited
“ELL materials as uninteresting for instruction,” however, the specific application and
benefits of such materials were not discussed in depth.
Teachers understood the importance of assessment to determine an ELL’s level of
English proficiency. They also understood that there are various ways to assess a
student’s knowledge and learning level to offer the appropriate resources. Unfortunately,
only two teachers used the assessment data to apply the adopted curriculum. Respondent
One said she “used the data to apply the adopted curriculum in their classroom.”
Respondent Four “evaluates the diagnostic test to appropriately assign their course
93
work.” Only Respondent One and Respondent Four understood that to make their
students’ learning experiences relevant, they needed to provide them with material that
will build on their strengths, address their deficiencies, and have high student interest.
In the following section, the findings will focus on teachers’ motivation to utilize
ELD and instructional strategies regularly.
Motivation
A teacher’s motivation is connected to their belief of whether they can perform a
given task. If the teacher lacks the confidence to perform a task, they will not make an
effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Staying motivated in the field of alternative education is not
an easy task. Teachers must be confident in their abilities and motivated to do what is
necessary for their students to achieve. Four of the interviews surfaced self-reported
concerns about the teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. In particular, the organizational
influences of competing priorities and workload assigned to the teacher shape their sense
of self-efficacy. Finally, the interaction between teacher motivation and how the
organization communicates and defines its role. Specifically, how teacher perceptions of
preparedness within the organization affect their sense of competency. In fact, four
ALOE teachers did not attribute their attempts to support students as making a difference
toward ELPAC outcomes. The interactions that surfaced between the motivation
influences and the organization’s influences helped to address Research Question #1.
Lack of PLCs and Additional Responsibilities Impact Self-Efficacy
Interview data revealed insight into the teacher’s motivation and its interaction
with the organization. Specifically, the data from five interviews surfaced self-reported
concerns about the teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. When asked to describe what a PLC
94
is, Respondent Four described several tasks related to PLCs, including “the sharing of
values and norms, collective and collaborative focus on student learning, and developing
teachers and increasing effectiveness.” Furthermore, she identified that “the PLCs that I
have participated in were not directly related to ELLs, but they did help me to see
students through a different lens.” Once again, it is important to note that she was the
only teacher who had involvement in a PLC at another district and therefore understood
the benefit of a community of practice through her interactions with other professionals,
but none related to ELD or instructional strategies specific to ELLs. When asking
participants to describe how she knows the proficiency of her students, Respondent One
stated that “I do know the proficiency level of my students, as our English Language
Liaison communicates with teachers regularly and provides updated EL scores via email
and at staff meetings.” All the teachers stated that organizational support was also evident
from the coordination they received from the English Language (EL) liaison in working
with ELLs. The EL liaison relays information from the EL coordinator down to the
administrator and the instructional staff. This support affirms the significance of an
organizational culture that communicates and provides resources to its teachers. The
organization must develop a community of teachers working collaboratively and include
administrators and other departments working for a common goal.
In the interviews, several of the questions asked if the participants helped to shed
light on the presence and benefit of various communities of practice on their teaching of
ELL students. Five of the teachers indicated the lack of a community of practice to
address their challenges and concerns. The community of practice model proposed by
Lave and Wenger (1991) suggests that learning is largely dependent on the social
95
networks of community professionals sharing their common practices and goals. By
working together, they may achieve similar goals and aid one another in developing more
experienced and, therefore, advanced pedagogy. Therefore, the community that teachers
do their work represents a significant social and cultural context of their teaching.
Another factor influencing a teacher’s self-efficacy is the responsibilities they
have in only four hours of instruction per day. This factor was revealed when teachers
were asked what barriers and challenges exist that averts them from implementing ELD
in their classroom. All the teachers indicated that they have other responsibilities to
perform that take time away from supporting ELLs. Respondent Four expressed the
following concerns about other duties when asked about her self-efficacy related to job
performance. She indicated:
I think the reality is that there has to be more support. Especially supporting
ELLs, not ‘I’m going to do ELLs but I’m also going to do math, I’m going to do
science,’ and all that. That is really hard and trying to be an expert in all the
courses.
By saying, “that is really hard and trying to be an expert in all the courses,” she referred
to her lack of confidence in being able to master all subjects. The majority of
Respondents focused on assisting English proficient students throughout the day, which
takes time away from supporting ELLs. Respondent Five mentioned, “being pulled away
to support English proficient students in other content areas and it takes away from the
time I have to build trust with and support the ELLs who require more attention.”
In summary, teacher self-efficacy is one of the most crucial aspects of their
teaching ability. Teacher confidence to help students understand the material and engage
96
in collaborative social interactions is mainly dependent upon their level of self-efficacy
(Chacon, 2005), especially in the arena of ELL. One clear example of how self-efficacy
can enhance a teacher’s performance was evident in Respondent Two's description of the
professional learning community, “recognizing and reflecting the unique learning style of
every student.” Based on the teacher’s responses, there are hints the teachers are
knowledgeable of ELD and ELL instructional strategies. However, the lack of regular,
systematic training and a community of practice influenced their confidence in their
ability to utilize the ELD curriculum in all content areas to instruct ELLs.
Teachers Saw the Value in ELD Trainings
All the teachers interviewed saw the value of ELD training when they answered,
“Did the training meet your expectations?” and “Do you plan on engaging in further
training?” Respondent Six recognized the absence of ELD training. He stated,
“I saw the value of the training because I’m able to recognize the needs of this
population” and expressed an interest in professional development to learn new
strategies and interact with colleagues. I always found value in the training I
participated in for our adopted curriculum and instructional technology especially
when it specifically addresses how to work with our students. If I’m able to add a
strategy to my toolbox I’ve benefited from the training.
Respondent Six appeared to be frustrated with not adequately supporting his ELL
students. Adding that guidance from “EL liaison and EL services is accessible but would
like to know how other teachers are applying ELD to more than one academic discipline
simultaneously, and how they can manage the four hours we have with ELLs.”
97
When asked to what degree do you believe you are prepared to meet the linguistic
needs of your ELLs? Respondent Three responded that he felt he would “better serve my
EL students by receiving additional and ongoing training and support from the EL
Department.” His answer shows a degree of motivation in furthering their professional
ability that positively aligns with the conceptual and procedural goals.
One of the most critical indicators of a teacher’s community of practice is the
degree of preparation and training they have received to teach ELLs. The responses of the
participants in this department ranged from minimal preparation to somewhat strong.
Five participants described how further and improved training would be necessary and
useful to improve their teaching skills with ELL students. Specifically, Respondent Four
described her ELL training opportunities, “I value the training, but they are not conducive
to the needs of the ELL. I mean, the training does not match what I need in the
classroom.”
When asked the question, do you believe what you learned in training is effective
with ELLs? Respondent Four’s response identifies a gap between what teachers are
taught in ELD training and the actual experiences faced in the classroom. Her answer
corresponds to what Hamayan et al. (2013) reported that teachers frequently are without
the necessary opportunities they require to teach ELL students and develop
professionally. A natural consequence of this deficiency is the teacher's devaluing their
work with ELL students. Such a conclusion is supported by Tasan (2001) and Kwiat
(1989) research, which report that teacher’s self-efficacy is significantly enhanced by
ongoing professional development, especially concerning ELL students.
98
According to Clark and Estes (2008), three main factors influence a worker’s
level of motivation, active choice, persistence, and mental effort. In this case, Respondent
Six's response suggests that he has all three attributes in effect since he wants to further
his ELD skills consistently and collaboratively. If given the support he wishes for, the
teacher would likely further improve their self-efficacy, relate with students, and achieve
better academic progress with their students (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). Such
outcomes are indicated by past research and the tenets of the expectancy-value theory,
which holds that outcomes are largely the result of utility value (Eccles, 2006). In this
case, the teacher desires to engage in further ELD training because they believe in its
value.
Organization
Teachers need the resources and support from ALOE and their school
administrators to accomplish their duties with ELLs. Teachers in the organization may
have the necessary knowledge to perform their duties to accomplish their goals and be
highly motivated to work toward that goal despite any barriers. However, if any barriers
exist, no degree of knowledge and motivation will be enough to meet their performance
goals to accomplish the set organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). This
study focused on using the gap analysis model to determine if ALOE teachers had any
organizational barriers hindering teachers’ competency from instructing alternative
education ELLs. The data gathered answered the following research question: “What is
the interaction between ALOE’s culture and context and teacher knowledge and
motivation?”
99
Some Teachers Were Being Held Accountable for Utilizing ELD
One potential ramification of a teacher’s lack of self-efficacy is a corresponding
lack of motivation to improve their ELD teaching skills. Respondent Five expressed
“minimal readiness to help his students academically and linguistically, but he adjusts the
curriculum and environment to meet his needs.” When asking teachers to share what
additional support he needed from his administrative team to meet ELL students’ needs,
Respondent Five went on to say, “I have not requested additional support from my
administrative team to better meet the needs of the ELL students.” Looking defeated, he
noted, “I’ve asked before but what I’m offered does not meet my needs or the students.
Something has to change to reach these students…to engage them, to be interested.” By
contrast, the other five participants described their level of ELD teaching skills.
Respondent Four saw her ELD teaching skills as “somewhat strong” and Respondent Six
saw his skills as “emerging”. Respondent Five mentioned supports he would like to have,
such as “classroom aides for ELL students including tutor/instructional assistants.”
Respondent Six would like to have “regular site-based TOSA support, ELDAs trained in
ELD and curriculum that is more interesting.”
Teachers were asked the question, “What additional support do you need from
your administrative team to meet the needs of your ELL students?” In Respondent Ones
case, she believes that further administrative support “does not apply in her classroom”
because, from experience, the resources did not apply to instructing ELL students and
could not engage the students. Her situation evidences a lack of motivation to further her
ELD skills. As described earlier, motivation consists of several factors, foremost of
which are the persistent desire to pursue further opportunities related to concern, active
100
choice, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). In this teacher’s response, she does not
seem interested in further training, which will support the ELLs, alluding to “past ELD
training experiences have been irrelevant in my teaching environment.” It is also possible
that a lack of organizational culture surrounding never being held accountable to
differentiate their lessons to teaching ELLs is a contributing factor. Perhaps, however, a
rare sighting of ELLs in their classroom is the major factor in effect since Respondent
Five has stated that they “rarely have EL students.”
These responses further indicate a relatively high level of organizational culture
regarding the needs of ELLs. Only Respondent Three indicated he was held accountable
for a teaching evaluation to ensure that ELL students received differentiated lessons. As
such, this act represents a higher level of organizational commitment towards ELLs
within this teacher’s community of practice. However, he went on to say, “the current
system offers insufficient accountability for teachers or administrators, insufficient
feedback to support teaching practice, and a lack of clear expectations.”
When teachers responded to the question, “Has your administrator discussed the
ELD curriculum and instruction in your evaluation?”, all teachers in this study mentioned
the need for timely feedback and support to improve their ELD instruction. The
participants wanted feedback to support growth in teaching ELLs. Respondent Four
expressed that feedback is always needed so teachers can “know their strengths and
challenges…it's necessary for student achievement.” Respondent Four noted, “the
evaluation system calls for useful feedback and reflection.” She added, administrators
have little opportunity to observe instructional changes saying, “if you’re giving
evaluations based on one year and then don't give them another evaluation for another
101
two or five years how do you know if they've improved?” Respondent Two saw it from a
growth mindset perspective:
There are educators who say, Done! I'm done learning. There are teachers with 20
to 30 years of experience who will not continue to improve. But we should never
be done, as educators, we need to learn and grow. A poor evaluation system
equates to no accountability.
Respondent Two goes on to add, “a need for an evaluation system that is more objective
with specific and clear expectations that administrators used to measure teacher
performance.” Similarly, Respondent Six indicated when “specific and clear
expectations…,” are not present, it can greatly influence a teacher’s motivation to
increase their knowledge of ELD and instructional strategies, and their motivation to
apply what they learn in the classroom. Only then will the ELLs benefit and be
successful.
Overall, there exist inconsistencies in how evaluations are being delivered to
teachers by the administration. These inconsistencies have caused miscommunication on
the teachers’ part, which holds no accountability for applying the ELD curriculum and
instruction. Clear expectations must be communicated to teachers to ensure they will
grow professionally and provide adequate classroom instruction.
Some Teachers Found It Challenging to be Prepared and Seek Help
The diversity of this teacher’s ELL experiences align with the finding in the
literature that there is a direct connection between a teacher’s opportunities for
professional development, teacher preparation, and increased self-efficacy in ELL
102
teachers (Gandara et al., 2005; Paneque & Barbetta, 2006; Shinde & Karekatti, 2012;
Siwatu, 2011a).
Five teachers struggle to grow and seek assistance to service ELLs. When asked
the question, have you been held accountable to differentiate your lessons for ELLs?
Respondent Six notes:
We work in an organization of silos. There are three community school areas, and
each area have a principal with a different expectation. Working in silos makes it
difficult to have a common goal when the message is different. Things are lost in
translation. One principal will require professional development, and another
offers it as an option. One principal invites a TOSA to support the teachers, and
the other does not.
Five teachers mentioned the lack of a consistent message from administrators, and the
organization leads the teachers to fall back on outdated instructional practices and
resources. Respondent Three notes, “I will do and use what I’m comfortable with. If I’m
not told to participate in training or to observe a classroom, I will continue what I have
done for many years.” When given an option rather than a mandate, teachers choose not
to participate. The teachers are comfortable with doing what they have always done in
their classrooms. The absence of a professional learning community, working in silos,
clear expectations and accountability precludes them from sharing, observing and
collaborating, which explains how the participants’ levels of self-efficacy varied
tremendously. A general theme emerged linking their degree of self-efficacy to their level
of training preparedness, involvement in PLCs, or organizational culture concerning
ELLs’ needs. These results align with the findings expressed in the literature review
103
concerning the importance of the teacher's community of practice in driving their levels
of self-efficacy.
By differentiating lessons, teachers give their ELL students personal consideration
which may support their experiential learning process in several important ways.
Respondent Five, stated he received assistance from TOSAs and EL services
differentiating his lessons to the students. According to Respondent Five “if lessons are
personalized, ELL students will likely find more to connect with and grow from.”
Respondent Five indicated that scaffolding, the technique building off of a student's past
knowledge to create new understandings, was a strategy he has used to create an
inclusive culture in the classroom. Five out of the six teachers have rarely used EL
services or the TOSAs to support their ELLs. Respondent Six noting that he has asked
TOSAs for assistance with instructional technology but is deterred from asking them
assistance working with ELLs because there is “little to no time in the day to seek them
out unless my administrator sets up professional development.”
In summary, five teachers are getting by with the resources and material they use
with their ELLs. Teachers can readily create PLCs and access the TOSAs and EL
services. However, teachers seemed to believe in the importance of flexibility, as
evidenced by “using curriculum and resources that have high interest with the students,
and the students can complete the work with very little assistance.” Respondent Six
mentioned that “we work in an organization of silos,” where the areas working
separately, but the teachers at the school sites are also disconnected from each other. The
current mentality of the teachers working with ELLs is satisfied. Teachers are
104
comfortable with what they know and relying on their experience to service ELLs, and it
is when they are mandated or held accountable will they make an effort.
Conclusion
The study consisted of interviewing six ALOE teachers to determine their level of
preparedness in teaching ELL students. The in-depth questions allowed them to share
several of the most important strategies they utilized to teach ELL students, such as
scaffolding, personal relationships, group work, and more. These strategies could
logically be traced to the theoretical frameworks of social constructivism and experiential
learning.
The teachers themselves expressed a wide range of self-efficacy in teaching ELL
students from ‘minimal’ to ‘somewhat strong’, affirming the need for ELL training
improvement. Respondent One's level of self-efficacy in teaching ELL students may be
the highest of the six teachers. She described a “seven out of ten” level of preparedness to
help students’ linguistic needs and “eight out of ten” for academic needs when asked the
question to what degree do you believe you are prepared to meet the linguistic needs of
ELLs. This degree of preparedness may correspond to her 24 years of experience
working with ELLs. Several studies in the literature affirm a direct connection between a
teacher’s level of perceived preparation and their readiness for teaching ELL students
(Correll, 2016). Unfortunately, most teachers feel unprepared in their ability to teach ELL
students, probably because they are not adequately prepared (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2002; Mueller & Frelow, 2002). When self-efficacy and motivation were strong, it was
likely driven by effective ELD training experiences and supportive organizational
cultures, as evidenced by findings in the literature review and emerging themes from
105
participants’ responses. Future researchers and education administrators may use these
conclusions to justify teacher’s ELL training experiences and further their self-efficacy.
106
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
The qualitative study evaluated ALOE’s DS teachers’ preparedness to instruct their ELL
to meet the stakeholder’s goal to advance ELLs at least one ELPAC level every year. The
analysis focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving
the organizational goals. Determining the knowledge and skills of the stakeholders will be
significant in knowing that the goal can be met. Motivation influences can impact a stakeholder’s
drive to continue accomplishing their task. Finally, organizational culture can influence policies,
procedures, and expectations of training, instruction, and professional growth. Each of these
concepts factor into ALOE’s progress in reaching its performance goal.
Knowledge Recommendations
Table 2 shows the three assumed knowledge influences that are a priority in achieving
ALOEs organizational goal. Teachers have a unique challenge when working with ELLs due to
the gaps in English proficiency (Olsen, 2010). Olsen adds that poor teaching practices influence
ELLs’ literacy skills and make significant deficits in reading and writing skills. Stakeholders in
the organization must obtain the knowledge and apply what they learned to build their
competency with a challenging student population. Evidence from the interviews showed that
teachers had the conceptual and procedural knowledge of differentiating lessons and scaffolding
to meet ELLs’ individual needs; therefore, no gap was validated for differentiating and
scaffolding. Unfortunately, consistent application of the instructional strategies in the classroom
does not exist. The interviews revealed that teachers likely have the procedural knowledge on
how to analyze ELL data to determine how students are achieving. However, it is questionable
that teachers are providing appropriate support and resources. This knowledge influence should
be revisited by the organization to determine the resources and the supports given by the teachers
107
are appropriate to the needs of ELLs. After collecting the data, there is a gap in conceptual and
procedural knowledge of ELD instruction and curriculum. It was validated as a knowledge gap
and is a priority for the organization to address. Table 6 also shows the recommendations for
these influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 6
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Need:
Teachers must know and
utilize English Language
Development (ELD)
instruction and curriculum
for ELLs. (C/P)
Knowledge of ELD involves
comprehension of basic
terminology and elements one
must know to accomplish a
job successfully or solve
problems as they arise
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda,
2011).
Provide training covering how to
use ELD foundations/strategies
and curriculum. To recognize the
void of knowledge that ELLs
experience due to non-mastery of
content knowledge.
Asset:
Teachers must know to
differentiate lessons and
scaffold to support ELLs
individualized needs.
(C/P)
ELLs each have unique
sociocultural and academic
backgrounds, it is inefficient
to provide the same lesson
plan for all students (Webb et
al., 2019).
Provide training utilizing
differentiating and scaffolding
lessons to address individual
needs of the ELL.
Asset:
Teachers know how to
analyze ELL data to
determine students are
achieving proficiency
across all content areas
and provide the support.
(P)
Procedural knowledge is
knowing how to do a job,
such as the, “methods of
inquiry, and criteria for using
skills, algorithms, techniques,
and methods” (Krathwohl,
2002, p. 214).
Provide training that provides
guidance to reading assessment
data, and the support and
resources to meet the student’s
needs.

Providing Teachers ELD Knowledge to Instruct ELLs
The recommendation is to provide professional development that offers guidance to ELD,
theoretical concepts, and curriculum. The qualitative study results show that teachers have the
procedural and conceptual knowledge of English Language Development (ELD) instruction and
108
curriculum for ELLs. Many teachers can have a limited knowledge base of the linguistic and
cultural influences on ELLs’ student learning (Lee et al., 2007; Sox, 2009). According to Rueda
(2011), the organization is responsible for providing professional development to enhance an
employees’ capabilities to complete daily tasks. Educators will demonstrate their capabilities by
applying their knowledge to meet the organizational performance goal. Mayer (2011) stated that
the transfer of knowledge empowers teachers to feel more confident in working with students.
Through professional development, teachers will expand their knowledge by analyzing the
information, discussing with their peers, and practicing its application. Participants stated they
are looking for professional development topics that cover cultural awareness and proficiency,
focused on alternative education classrooms and practical application of the instructional
strategies.
Differentiating and Scaffolding Lessons for ELLs
The recommendation is to provide training that reviews examples of differentiated
lessons and scaffolding their instruction to address students’ diverse groups in their classroom.
Training should be followed up with practicing differentiation and scaffolding to develop a
routine. Every week the teachers will discuss their experience with a small group of teachers for
feedback. The results show that ALOE teachers need to know to differentiate and scaffold their
lessons to help ELL comprehend the content. What the teachers lack is the consistency of using
them with the ELLs. This recommendation is rooted in social constructivism. It is the teacher’s
responsibility to support all students by giving them familiar yet fresh information appropriate to
their developmental level. Active engagement is key to activate and challenge the student’s
thinking to develop new understandings. Several examples of social constructivist methods of
instruction were detected in the participant’s responses.
109
Teachers Acquire the Knowledge to Analyze ELL Data
Teachers require training on reading assessment data and available resources to support
student needs fully. The results further reveal a high probability that teachers know how to
analyze ELL data to determine how students are achieving across all content areas but may not
provide the appropriate support. Data-driven decision-making is part of a systematic process of
collecting and analyzing several forms of data, including formative and summative assessments
to guide teachers to make decisions that will improve student learning (Marsh, Pane & Hamilton,
2006). Procedural knowledge for ALOE would be validated when they create effective
interventions to support ELLs. Growth in this procedural knowledge would also impact how the
teachers make decisions to differentiate and scaffold instruction for ELLs. According to Marsh et
al. (2010), teachers should create a routine to use data to guide instructional decisions and
ongoing changes when needed to promote learning. For example, a demonstration of reading
assessment data and matching the resources and supports will help students understand the
connection.
Motivation Recommendations
Table 7 shows the two assumed motivation influences that are a priority in achieving
ALOE’s organizational goal. The data revealed the teachers value the ELD training they have
received and value training that addresses explicitly ELLs; therefore, this is a priority of the
organization. After reviewing the data, there is a gap in the teacher’s confidence to utilize the
ELD curriculum in all content areas to instruct ELLs. According to Bandura (1977), motivation
impacts an individual’s performance. Depending on the outcome of a performance task,
attainment of a goal, vicarious experiences, and emotional arousal, self-efficacy for an individual
can be high or low (Bandura, 1977). The table below shows that teachers in the study had a low
110
sense of self-efficacy to use ELD in all content areas to instruct ELLs. Teachers who are
motivated to work with students need a high sense of motivation, and not having one impacts
their ability to perform their responsibilities in the classroom (McKinney, 2008). Table 7
provides the assumed motivation influences of teacher self-efficacy and value when working
with ELD and ELLs.
Table 7
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Need:
Teachers are confident in
their ability to utilize ELD
curriculum in all content
areas to instruct ELLs.
Darling-Hammond, Chung, et
al. (2002) note the primary
factor contributing to teacher
self-efficacy is the perception
of preparation for the teaching
profession.
Provide professional
development with regular in-
services or training.
Need:
Teachers see the value in
English language
development (ELD) training
and teaching diverse
learners.
Teachers who achieve their
goal will see utility value in
the ELD preparation and
choose to use the instructional
practices, persist in continuing
to use it, and put in the mental
effort to use it in the
classroom effectively
(Karabenick, & Noda, (2004).
Provide professional learning
communities (PLCs) regularly
to teachers to review their
lessons, instructional strategies,
and student assessment data.

Increase Self-Efficacy of Alternative Education Teachers
The recommendation for teachers to keep themselves motivated to work with a
challenging student population must have professional development that focuses on
understanding the student’s situation and how to work with this population to meet their needs
(Heckman, 2009). Teacher efficacy begins to develop early in teaching careers. While teacher
efficacy beliefs are malleable in the early years of teaching, they tend to become more rigid and
resistant to change once teachers acquire teaching experience to fall back on (Rastegar &
111
Memarpour, 2012). Professional development will provide mentorship for new teachers and
allow veteran teachers to work together with new teachers on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy has
become an important framework in education to predict and explain the perceptions and
judgments that influence teachers’ decisions and actions in the classroom (Rastegar &
Memarpour, 2012). Self-efficacy is a great predictor of teaching performance. Teachers need to
feel competent and confident in their ability to teach and connect with ELLs.
Professional development with guidelines on how to work with alternative education
ELLs would give educators confidence to handle obstacles, such as gangs, drug use, teen
pregnancy, trauma, and homelessness (Gandara et al., 2005). All these factors can influence a
teacher’s motivation to work with alternative education ELLs but understanding a student’s
background is a step to motivating a teacher and the students to perform (Heckman, 2008).
Teachers Value ELD Training
Teachers need to meet regularly in professional learning communities (PLCs) to review
their lessons, instructional strategies, and student assessment data. Teachers will see the value in
English language development (ELD) training. Completing professional development where
educators achieve their goal will bring value to the ELD preparation and choose to use the
instructional practices, sustain its use and motivate them to use it (Karabenick, & Noda, 2004).
This would suggest that teachers need to see student achievement based on their consistent use of
the instructional practices they learned.
There is a connection between professional learning communities’ opportunities and
increased value in ELL teachers (Gandara et al., 2005). When teachers do not receive adequate
preparation or lack opportunities for professional development, there is a diminished value and a
lack of confidence for teaching ELL students (Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010; O’Neal et al., 2008;
112
Siwatu, 2007). The organization is ultimately responsible for making sure the teachers are
provided training to teach ELLs and professional learning communities that support their
training. Creating a community of practice amongst the teachers will encourage a community of
practice in the classroom (Barab et al. (2002).
Organization Recommendations
Stakeholders in an organization may know to perform their tasks and may be motivated
to accomplish the organizational goals. If organizational barriers exist, teachers will not perform
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). An organization’s culture is strongly linked to the beliefs
and values of the stakeholders. Stakeholders’ perceptions of the organization’s culture can
significantly impact how they behave (Rueda, 2011).
The culture can be analyzed by looking at two types of influences. A cultural model
influences how an individual believes the world works in the organization or how it should work
within the organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). This section discusses an
organizational plan to have teachers collaborate in PLCs where they will have the ability to
improve teaching and learning, by holding each other accountable and encourage continuous
growth for educators and students (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Recommendations for the
organization will increase accountability, professional development, collaboration and follow-up
meetings to ensure sustainability. Table 8 lists the cultural model, cultural setting influences,
evidence of the need and the context-specific recommendation for each model and setting.

113
Table 8
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Need:
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The organization needs a
culture in which teachers
implement ELD in their
classroom
Danielson (2001) maintained
that, in teacher evaluation,
teachers must be held
accountable for what they do as
teachers but not for what their
students do as learners.
Create a development
(improvement) plan with
the teacher at the post-
observation meeting.
Need:
Cultural Model Influence 2:
The organization needs a
culture that has teachers
wanting to improve their
lessons and/or instruction.
Professional development needs
to be ongoing, appropriate, and
specifically planned for teachers
that work for ELLs (Guskey,
2000)
The organization focuses on
internal accountability
where administration and
HR are creating an
expectation of holding all
stakeholders accountable
for student achievement.
Need:
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Teachers need more
professional development on
the adopted ELD curriculum
and individual support with
Teachers on Special
Assignment (TOSAs) of each
core subject (i.e., English,
Social Science, Math, and
Science).
Fullan (2006) states that schools
that focused on collaboration
among teachers tended to be
better.
Schedule 30-45-day follow-
up meetings to determine
progress on the
improvement plan and
scheduling peer
observations and individual
TOSA and ELDA meetings.
Need:
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Teachers need to utilize
Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs) to
improve instruction and
student learning.
When educators are adequately
trained on the implementation
of PLCs, the teachers will have
the skills necessary to create
and maintain an effective PLC
that will lead to the
improvement of teaching and
learning all students, including
ELLs (DuFour & Eaker, 1998)
Teachers collaborate to
create guidelines for
conducting PLCs. Provide
opportunities to observe
effective PLCs.
114
A Culture in Which Teachers Implement ELD in Their Classroom
The recommendation is to have administrators create a development (improvement) plan
with the teacher at the post-observation meeting to ensure ELD implementation. Following the
classroom observation, the administrator will meet with the teacher to discuss the day’s strengths
and challenges. The discussion will determine what worked and what did not work in the lesson
and reflecting on how it can be improved. Together, the teacher and administrator will work on a
plan of action completed by the teacher during the school year. Based on the participants’
responses, there lacked relevant and intentional conversations with the administrator to improve
instruction. Creating a plan of action will focus the teacher’s direction on improving lessons and
applying instructional strategies in the classroom (Gitlin & Smyth, 1989).
Administration Focuses on Internal Accountability
It is recommended that the administration focus less on external accountability, such as
standardized tests, and state testing and more on internal accountability, which will encourage
moral and professional accountability (Gitlin & Smyth, 1989). According to Gitlin and Smyth
(1989), internal accountability focuses on effective teaching strategies and suggests creating an
expectation of holding all stakeholders accountable for student achievement. Based on the
responses of the participants. The quality and effectiveness of teacher evaluations vary from
school to school and district to district. The absence of accountability expressed by the teachers
in the study included a lack of communication from principals about the teacher’s instruction of
ELLs and meeting the organizational goal of advancing the ELL on the ELPAC. No teacher was
accountable for utilizing ELD and for creating interventions that increased the academic success
of ELLs. This is critical because, without clear expectations and accountability that encourages a
115
growth mindset, teachers will not strive to gain knowledge and motivation (Gitlin & Smyth,
1989).
Teachers Wanting to Improve Their Instruction
The recommendation is to have the administrator schedule 30-45-day follow-up meetings
to discuss progress on the improvement plan. Teachers are provided opportunities to collaborate
to improve their instruction and student learning. According to Olsen (2012), providing academic
success and engaging student interest can be challenging for educators. She adds that educators
will need to provide ELLs with challenging and relevant lessons to address their language and
academic gaps. Providing practical lessons can be a daunting task for an educator working alone.
Connections through collaborations before, during, after, and after the lesson increase learning
and development for the student and the teacher (Grossman & Salas, 2011).
Teachers Utilize PLCs to Improve Instruction and Student Learning
The recommendation is to have teachers and administrators collaborate to create
guidelines on conducting PLCs and provide opportunities to observe effective PLCs. To meet the
challenges of English language learners (ELL), teachers, and principal’s guidelines to create a
professional learning community that is intentional and sustainable (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner,
2005). Alternative education teachers need to understand the ELL population who are long-term
ELL or have limited schooling. Besides having conceptual and procedural knowledge, teachers
also need to be culturally aware and sensitive to students.
Guskey (2000) mentions that professional development (PD) should improve teacher
knowledge and increase student learning outcomes. Teacher education needs to be an ongoing
process that should not end once they are credentialed teachers (Bean & Morewood, 2007).
Changing and improving teacher practices can be achieved through professional development
116
and professional learning communities that aim to be critical of the teacher’s deficiencies and
highlight their strengths (Guskey, 2000). Guskey (2000) adds that PD needs to be ongoing,
appropriate, and intentional for teachers. PD offers a limitation that guides teachers through a
process and does not allow them to engage in inquiry, problem-solving, and building their
knowledge of educational research. This can be addressed through ongoing professional learning
communities (PLCs) that allow teachers time to meet with their colleagues to review research
that can be applied in their classroom.
For effective PLCs, ALOE needs to build teachers’ collaboration skills. Collaboration
within learning communities can improve student achievement because teachers are focused on
working together on issues that can directly improve teaching and learning. Fullan (2006) notes
that schools that focused on collaboration among teachers tended to be better. Professional
learning community members should plan, seek support, and identify the benefits and intended
results of PLCs. These activities are necessary to ensure that the achievement gap is closed, and
educators can use the PLCs to create a continued atmosphere of collaborative learning within
ALOE.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The Implementation and Evaluation Plan for this study is influenced by the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on the original Kirkpatrick Four
Level Model of Evaluation work (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The four evaluation levels
of training use an event-based approach meant to influence the training programs that would
result in the organization’s desired outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The purpose of
the model is to use the approach in reverse, which emphasizes the importance of evaluating
achievement as the desired result, followed by behavior, learning, and reaction, compared to
117
other frameworks that use the opposite sequence of order, which places a more significant
influence on reaction than on learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The Implementation and Evaluation model does not measure each level sequentially and
independently; instead, it measures and evaluates each level using a systematic approach. Each
level is evaluated to provide valuable information on implementing change (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The Implementation and Evaluation Plan of the New World Kirkpatrick
Model starts at Level 4, where the concentrated focus is on evaluating the achievement of
organization results. At this level, indicators that influence behavior and impacts the desired
organization results are selected, measured, and evaluated. Level 3 focuses on expected
behaviors and the drivers of those behaviors, including reinforcement of the desired behavior,
monitoring expected behavior, and interventions used to encourage the application of those
behaviors toward tasks performed (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 2 tracks the
stakeholder’s knowledge and motivation to perform tasks aligned with their job description.
Level 1 addresses the fundamental reaction to the provided training. Altogether, the four levels
outlined by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick involve all key stakeholders as part of the process by
providing a standard structure to identify gaps that affect the achievement of desired results, and
more in-depth knowledge and appreciation for implementing change within an organization
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
ALOE’s mission statement is derived from the LEA, which states that every student
learns the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in the future. Aggregate data show that
ELLs’ academic levels were far below those of their native and fluent English-speaking peers.
Left unsolved, the problem of low achievement levels in ALOE can lead to ELLs not having the
118
skills to succeed. There is a need to examine the resources, supports and professional
development of alternative education teachers to meet the ELLs academic and ELD needs.
The results reveal there is a need to have teachers acquire more knowledge of ELD and
instructional strategies. Furthermore, there is a need to revisit how to read assessment data to
determine a student’s English proficiency level and assign an adopted curriculum appropriate to
the student’s level. Next, a community of practice needs to be established to encourage a growth
mindset and motivate educators to value the ELD training and the academically and
linguistically diverse students. This community of learners will need to involve all stakeholders
to develop training that is intentional and relevant. The organization will also need to hold the
teachers accountable by having an evaluation system that provides immediate feedback and
follow up sessions to monitor progress. Teachers play a critical role in the classroom, but it
cannot be the teachers’ sole responsibility. Stakeholders also have a role in supporting the
teachers and ELLs.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Level 4 results and leading indicators include external, summative metrics, and internal,
formative metrics (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The results and indicators are related to the
outcome of the training received. To determine if the training delivered served the purpose of
meeting goals and the organization’s desired outcomes. The recommendation to create
professional learning communities aims to prioritize the type of training that educators are
receiving in the ALOE program. Level 4 of the Kirkpatrick Model provides a framework of how
to measure the outcomes of long-term goals. The external outcomes and metrics are a summative
assessment that shows the impact of successful student interventions, as shown in the table
119
below. Table 9 provides the external and internal outcomes and the method of noting the
outcome.
Table 9

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
ELL parent participation
increases in meetings,
training, and conferences
Number of parents attending
school functions and meetings
Attendance sheet
Title III state audit approves
ELD instruction and ELL
progress
Title III funding
Title III audit report
Yearly publication
Dashboard Alternative
School Status (DASS)
Internal Outcomes
64% of the ELLs enrolled in
ALOE advance one ELPAC
level every year.
ELPAC results

Yearly publication of School
Accountability Report Card
(SARC)
Yearly publication of DASS
All ALOE teachers utilize
ELD adopted curriculum and
ELD strategies in their
classrooms.
Lesson plans provide
differentiated instruction,
scaffolding, and ELL
strategies
Teacher evaluations
Lesson plans
ELLs have an individual
academic learning plan
Academic counselor meets
with each ELL regularly for
progress check
Academic learning plan
created and placed in the
student folder. Academic
counselor meets with student
regularly and takes notes
regarding progress

Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
Level 3 of the Kirkpatrick New World Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) centers
on behavior by focusing on three principles that provide a foundation for evaluating the desired
behavior, the drivers that monitor and reinforce critical behaviors, and organizational support and
culture resources used to support the desired behaviors. The level 3 behavior for this study is
120
used to determine the perceived readiness of alternative education teachers. This level could
determine if teachers needed extra support from administration or felt confident in translating
their knowledge from training into everyday classroom practices. The stakeholders’ first critical
behavior is identifying ELLs in their classroom and their proficiency levels which will build
accountable expectations among all stakeholders within the organization (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The second critical behavior is based on creating an individual academic
learning plan. The third critical behavior has the teacher, and the academic counselor meet ELL
students and parents for a progress check. Table 10 describes the critical behaviors and the
method of measuring each behavior.
Table 10

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
Teachers identify
ELLs and their
English
proficiency level.
Teachers’ create a
spreadsheet of ELLs
based on ELPAC
results in Aeries
database
Teachers’ confirm their
list with EL services
Every quarter
Teacher creates
and implements the
academic plan with
academic
counselor and
student
Individual academic
plan completed in
meeting with the
teacher, student,
parent, and academic
counselor
Referral sent to
academic counselor to
coordinate meeting
Every month
Teacher meets with
student and parent
for a progress
check
Academic
interventions
reviewed and signed
off
Copies of action plan
provided to teacher,
parent, and academic
counselor
Every month

Required Drivers
Reports and documentation will require additional stakeholders’ active support to achieve
the desired outcome and organizational goals. Administration, teacher, academic counselors, and
121
EL services (ELS) play an active and critical role in reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and
monitoring each critical behavior’s progress. Table 11 highlights the behavioral mechanisms of
reinforcement, encouragement, and monitoring, which are essential in providing the proper
knowledge and motivation for teachers working with at-risk ELL high school students.
Table 11
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Work with EL services to
determine proficiency levels
Ongoing 1
EL services review the
academic plan with the
teacher
Ongoing 2
Work EL services to discuss a
students’ progress
Ongoing 2, 3
Encouraging
Teachers meet in PLCs to
discuss ELD strategies
Monthly 2, 3
Rewarding
Principal recognizes the
increase of ELLs
reclassification
Yearly 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
EL services keep track of
ELLs enrollment
Monthly 1
Progress meeting with ELLs Monthly 2, 3
Organizational Support
The organization will support teachers’ critical behaviors by promoting a culture in which
teachers implement ELD to improve ELL instruction. The organization will also need teachers to
utilize Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) to improve instruction and student learning.
Finally, the organization will need to follow-up support after ELD training and accountability
122
measures to ensure implementation of ELD content and instructional strategies are utilized in the
classroom.
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals
The goals described in this section are categorized using the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) evaluation components of learning: skills, knowledge, attitude, confidence, and
commitment. The goals are aligned with the validated gaps described in Chapter Four. The
findings indicated that the gap for educators resulted from administration support and a gap in
the cultural setting and model of the organization. Therefore, the learning goals for educators are:
1. Acquire the knowledge of dELD/MELD curriculum and incorporate iELD in all subjects.
(Goal Setting, Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge, & Motivation).
2. Know how to analyze ELL data to determine student performance. (Procedural).
3. Confident in their ability to utilize ELD curriculum. (Self-Efficacy Motivation).
4. See the value in the English language development (ELD) training. (Value Motivation)
5. Understand culture to support the social and academic needs. (Declarative & Motivation).
6. Know how to use data as a valuable source of information. (Motivation, Formative
Feedback, & Goal Setting).
7. Demonstrate effective communication skills for ongoing discussions on ELLs progress.
(Procedural Knowledge).
8. Indicate confidence in their ability to implement literacy interventions to achieve the
desired outcomes successfully. (Self-efficacy, Conceptual Knowledge, & Confidence).
9. Recognize their role and responsibility in increasing ELD levels to promote
reclassification rates (Accountability).
123
An English language development program will support ALOE educators in reaching the
listed learning goals above by providing training to the alternative education teachers to improve
the cultural setting and models of the organization. The ALOE program will address the role and
responsibilities of teachers and support their work with ELLs. The organizations’ protocols as a
Title III school in developing and funding initiatives to increase student achievement. Including
how to engage and motivate teacher leaders on campus as vehicles of support to motivate and
educate other teachers on school sites.
Due to teachers’ time constraints and daily obligations on campus, online training in the
form of videos and modules would be a realistic approach to provide adequate training and
opportunities to encourage teachers to use the ELD program. Training would include short 30-
minute videos with interactive modules and monthly 45-minute webinars with peers to serve as a
sounding board that would focus on the teacher's role. The content material would focus on the
articulation of meaningful PD for educators by assessing the gap of knowledge or motivation
within the organization and supporting those areas through learning.
Another focus of the ALOE program is to help educators evaluate the success of
protocols and school systems to increase ELL student achievement. The program will guide
teachers in creating tools and various school expectations that include all stakeholders in
measuring accountability. At a Title III school, accountability measures are mandatory to track
allocated Title III Funds. Strategic development of programs driven by data will be a focus in
this portion of the program. Interactive workshops that involve teachers creating timelines,
performance feedback systems, and culture surveys will serve as an opportunity to receive
feedback before rolling out protocols with educators. The content also emphasizes the
importance of effective communication skills to articulate the clear expectations and preferred
124
behavior attributes of educators to follow the protocols to reach the desired outcome. The ALOE
training program will also have a component in which lead teachers will be taught how to
motivate other educators at their school site and serve as an extension of administration to
provide knowledge and motivation support.
The Literature Review revealed that a gap in either knowledge or motivation could
impact influencers and hinder an educator’s competency, resulting in poor classroom
performance and a lack of desire to work with ELL students. Therefore, it is important to
evaluate the learning for conceptual knowledge and motivation to ensure that educators have the
proper training and confidence in their teaching strategies. To enhance ELD for ELL students
and ensure that they are motivated by seeing the value of their decisions in creating effective,
data-driven ELD interventions to increase ELLs’ reclassification rates. Educators also need to
have the self-efficacy to apply the newly obtained knowledge provided through professional
development to motivate them to set goals.
Program
The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved with a training program
that explores the expectation of California legislative laws, regulations, and policies for ELD and
Title III. The teachers and administrators will study a broad range of topics on ELD instructional
foundations/strategies and curriculum. The program is blended, consisting of two e-learning
modules and one face-to-face application workshop. The total time for completion is 420
minutes (7 hours).
During the asynchronous e-learning modules, learners will be provided a job aid of key
terms and references to the text of rules and regulations on ELD, and a chart of different types of
ELD strategies ALOE has adopted. The chart of instructional strategies or job aid will be
125
demonstrated on video using authentic Alternative Education applications and scenarios, and key
terms will be defined with examples and non-examples. The video will pause from time to time
to enable the learners to check their understanding. Following the demonstrations, the learners
will be provided the opportunity to practice using the job aids on scenarios and reviewed by the
instructor. The demonstrations, practice, and feedback approach will also create a performance
or improvement plan.
During the synchronous in-person sessions, the focus will be on applying what learners
have learned asynchronously to Alternative Education scenarios in training groups, role-playing,
discussions, and peer modeling and teaching back to each other. English learner coordinators
will also discuss the value and benefits of ELD strategies and will model how to utilize
strategies.
Components of Learning
Demonstrating conceptual knowledge is often necessary as a precursor to applying the
knowledge to solve problems. Thus, it is important to evaluate learning for both conceptual and
procedural knowledge being taught. It is also crucial that learners value the training as a
prerequisite to using their newly learned knowledge and skills on the job. However, they must
also be confident that they can apply their knowledge and skills and be committed to using them
on the job. As such, Table 12 lists the evaluation methods and timing for the learning
components.

126
Table 12
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks by asking for examples used
in their classroom.
Asynchronous portions of the course
during and after video demonstrations.
Knowledge checks via pair sharing with
neighbor.
Periodically during the in-person
workshop and documented via notes.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
During the asynchronous portions of the course,
providing scenarios and solutions
Asynchronous portions of the course at the
end of each module/lesson/unit
Demonstration of an instructional strategy. During the course.
Individual application of ELD content and
instructional strategies
At the end of the course.
Retrospective pre- and post-test survey for
teachers’ proficiency levels before and after the
training.
At the end of the course.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Instructor’s observation of statements and
actions showing that they see the benefit.
During the workshop.
Discussions of the value of what they are being
asked to do in the classroom.
During the course.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After the course.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Survey items using Likert scale Following each module/lesson/unit in the
asynchronous portions of the course
Discussions following practice and feedback During the course.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After the course.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback During the course.
Create an individual action plan During the course.
Level 1: Reaction

The last level of measurement and evaluation of the Kirkpatrick New World Model
(2016) is Level 1, individuals’ reaction during the learning process. The purpose is to measure
127
how engaging the learning experience was and whether individuals found value in the
information to apply it to the work they do in the organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 1 evaluations are frequently done as both formative and summative evaluations. Formative
evaluations allow for corrections and clarifications of information to be made during the learning
process course; summative evaluations are performed to measure a reaction to the information
after the end of a course (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Evaluations allow participants to
increase engagement by making adjustments to content, offering clarification in delivery,
providing extra resources and support to participants, and creating a setting that participants find
meaningful. Table 13 illustrates the methods and frequency of measuring Level 1 reactions to the
learning program.
Table 13
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Data analytics On asynchronous portions of the course.
Completion of online modules/lessons/units On asynchronous portions of the course.
Observation by instructor/facilitator During the course.
Observation by Principal After the course.
Attendance During the course.
Course Evaluation Two weeks after the course
Relevance
Brief pulse-check via survey and discussion After every module/lesson/unit
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check via survey and discussion After every module/lesson/unit
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course

128
Evaluation Tool
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
During the independent work portion of the course, a tool in the online learning platform
will collect data about the start, duration, and completion of modules by the participants. This
data will indicate the commitment to working with the course material. The online learning
platform will conclude each module with a brief survey. The survey will ask the participant to
share how relevant the content is to their job performance and their overall satisfaction with the
online course content and delivery.
For Level 1, during the in-person workshop, the instructor will conduct periodic brief
pulse-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 role-playing in small groups in responding to questions and scenarios drawn from the
content.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Approximately two weeks after the professional development, and then again at four
weeks, the facilitator will administer a survey containing open-ended questions and Likert scaled
items using the Blended Evaluation approach. To measure, from the participant’s perspective,
satisfaction and relevance of the professional development (Level 1), confidence and value of
applying their knowledge and training in the classroom (Level 2), application of the training in
the classroom and the support from administration, EL services and TOSAs and colleagues they
are receiving (Level 3), and the extent to which their application of the English language
development strategies has become more effective in improving English language proficiency
for ELLs (Level 4).
129
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal of alternative education teachers is measured by the Title III audit
report and the yearly publication Dashboard Alternative School Status (DASS) showing ELLs’
proficiency levels. Each month, the administrator will observe the teacher and receive guidance
from lead teachers. Similar dashboards will be created to monitor Levels 1, 2, and 3.
Evaluation Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick framework and approach was used in this study to develop
an implementation plan that measures Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels by emphasizing the desired
outcome for the organization. In this study, ALOE educators valued the idea of achieving
organization, but barriers and gaps in the school’s culture model and setting impact teacher
competency in working with a demanding ELL student population. The New World Model was
specifically used to increase teacher knowledge, behavior, and motivation by training alternative
education teachers in providing adequate support and school protocols that teachers need to work
with ELL students. The training suggestions for teachers in the training program were influenced
by the gap influencers of the KMO model.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Gap Analysis Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework were used to examine problems with
performance within an organization and to create recommendations for improvement and change
based on the data gathered. The framework is a methodical approach to examining the
knowledge, motivation, and organization influences to determine the cause(s) that influenced the
KMOs. A shortcoming of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework is that the
organization might be unwilling to consider changes and excuse the gaps in the established
culture instead of organizational obstacles.
130
Limitations
Regardless of the research method and design, there are aspects of a qualitative study that
the researcher cannot control (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Using a gap analysis model from
Clark and Estes (2008) to discern KMO indicators within an organization needs an adequate
amount of time. However, the study took place in a short amount of time, from May 2020 to
August 2020. During this time, all qualitative data were collected through interviews. The
COVID-19 pandemic resulted in all schools closing in March 2020, months before the 2019-
2020 school year was to end. Teachers were no longer at their school site, so all interviews were
done via Zoom. I considered the limitations that participants placed on the study, especially
during the qualitative method portion. The response to qualitative questions is influenced by
many different factors, including respondent thinking, the interaction between the researcher and
the participant, exaggeration, false responses, comfort level of the participant, and the
respondent's mindset (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). To be clear, I did not supervise the teachers
participating in the study or influence how they are evaluated. A limitation to the study was that
it was not a mixed-method model; instead, with the pandemic, it limited the availability of
participants. The qualitative process was the most efficient method to collect data. With a mixed-
methods model, providing quantitative data to the study and observation would be considered.
Delimitations
Delimitations are the influences on the study that the researcher can control (Creswell,
2014). Criteria-based sampling was a strong method for this study to gather valuable data that
could provide a realistic examination of where the gaps lay for educators within the KMO model,
which affected teacher competency to work with ELLs. Criteria sampling allowed the researcher
to trust the educators’ responses because they met the set requirements that made them qualified
131
candidates to participate in the study. A delimitation to the study was that the participating
stakeholder group was limited to teachers who taught in day school. Another setting available in
ALOE is Independent study (IS), where the teacher services the student at least once a week. IS
teachers work with ELLs and use the same curriculum and assessments as the DS teachers.
However, their limited interaction does not afford them the ability to utilize instructional
strategies in a group setting fully.
Future Research
Future research should include an opportunity for teachers to provide feedback on
working with ELLs in alternative education. It would be important to know what professional
development topics will help them increase their knowledge and motivation. Also, administrative
support is critical to understanding a teacher’s role and goals and expectations when working
with the ELLs. Future research topics should evaluate best practices that are done in similar
programs and traditional schools. Lastly, there needs to be more research looking at
administrators, teachers and support staff on increasing their cultural awareness and cultural
proficiency.
Conclusion
The study examined the staff perception of alternative education teachers’ readiness to
instruct ELLs, specifically addressing the organizational goal of advancing ELLs at least one
ELPAC level every year. With approximately 1,148,024 English learners in California public
schools in the 2019-2020 school year (CDE, 2020). According to the California Department of
Education (2020) that accounts for 18.63 percent of California public schools’ total enrollment.
There is a significant number of ELLs attending schools in California. Educators will find
themselves with a class of students’ that are academically and linguistically diverse. Research
132
has shown that teachers need to be prepared to make an impact in the classroom. The teachers
are key factors in achieving success with ELLs. Teachers need to have the knowledge,
motivation, resources, and training to work with the ELLs. The organization will need to provide
opportunities to train, reflect, and monitor the progress of teachers. Many teachers lack the
knowledge and motivation to work with ELLs in alternative education due to student behavior
and expertise in course offerings. A system needs to be put in place to evaluate teachers and hold
them accountable for using ELD and instructional strategies leading to positive student
outcomes. Professional development and building a community of learners is critical to building
staff capacity, creating staff buy-in, and developing an organizational culture that values the
training, working with ELLs in a collaborative model. Overall, teachers need to feel confident in
their abilities to increase student achievement. Sometimes it is about educators addressing the
misconceptions they have with this population and believe all students can succeed. By
eliminating negative thoughts, educators may have more urgency in servicing ELLs.
There is much pressure put on schools, teachers, staff, and administrators to show they
are making progress with ELLs. Many schools are struggling to meet the performance goal and
make adequate yearly goals, but they have shown to be resilient in times of adversity. With
further research, there can be clarity on best practices to instruct ELLs in alternative education
and have professional development be intentional and relevant. The organization and staff at
ALOE need to build capacity together and make significant gains in student learning and school
improvement.

133
References
Aeries. (2020). About Our Company. Retrieved from https://www.aeries.com/
Aron, L. Y. (2003). Towards a typology of alternative education programs: A compilation of
elements from the literature. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Aron, L. Y., & Zweig, J. M. (2003). Educational alternatives for vulnerable youth: Student
needs, program types, and research directions. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Ashton, P. T. & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and
student achievement. New York: Longman.
August, D. & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners:
Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bainbridge, J. M. & Macy, L. (2008). Voices: Student teachers link teacher education to
perceptions of preparedness for literacy teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly,
65-83.
Ballantyne, K. B., Sanderman, A. R. & Levy, J. (2008). Educating English language learners:
Building teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National Clearing House for English
Language Acquisition. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521360.pdf
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (ed.) Encyclopedia of Human
Behavior, Vol 4, 71-81. New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press
Bandura, A. & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of
134
Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87-99. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87
Banse, H. W., Palacios, N. A., Merritt, E. G., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2017). Scaffolding
English language learners' mathematical talk in the context of Calendar Math. The
Journal of Educational Research, 110(2), 199-208.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1075187
Barab, S. A., Barnett, M. G. & Squire, K. (2002). Building a community of teachers: Navigating
the essential tensions in practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 489-542.
Barone, D. M. (2010). Engaging young ELLs with reading and writing. In G. Li & P. A.
Edwards (Eds.). Best practices in ELL instruction (pp. 15-43). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Bean, R. M. & Morewood, A. (2007). Best practices in professional development for improving
literacy instruction. In L. Gambrell, L. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in
literacy instruction (3
rd
ed. Pp. 373-394). New York: Guilford.
Berg, H., Petron, M. & Greybeck, B. (2012). Setting the foundation for working with English
Language Learners in the secondary classroom. American Secondary Education, 40(3).
Bloom, B. S., Airasian, P. W., Creikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. &
Wittrick, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA
(Prentice Hall).
Blumer, H. (1982). “George Herbert Mead.” In the Future of the Sociological Classics.
London and Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
135
Bollin, G. G. (2007). Preparing teachers for Hispanic immigrant children: A service-learning
approach. Journal of Latinos and Education, 6(2), 177-189.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language & symbolic power (Trans. G. Raymond & M. Adamson).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation
and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440.
Brechtel, M. (2001). Bringing it all together: Language and literacy in the multilingual
classroom (Rev. ed.). Carlsbad, CA: Dominie Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language. New York: Norton.
Cable, K. E., Plucker, J. A., & Spradlin, T. E. (2009). Alternative schools: What’s in a name?
Education Policy Brief. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, 7(4), 1–12.
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED510969
CAEP Commission (2013). CAEP accreditation standards and evidence: aspirations for
educator preparation. Retrieved from
http://caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/commrpt.pdf
Calabrese, L., Goodvin, S., & Niles, R. (2005). Identifying the attitudes and traits of teachers
with an at-risk student population in a multi-cultural urban high school. International
Journal of Educational Management, 19(5), 437-449. doi: 10.1108/ 09513540510607761
California Department of Education (2009a). Glossary of Terms. Retrieved on March 25, 2019
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/glossary.asp#el
California Department of Education (2009b). Glossary of Terms. Retrieved on March 25, 2019
136
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/glossary.asp#el
California Department of Education. (2012). California English Language Development
Standards: Kindergarten through Grade 12. Retrieved from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/documents/eldstndspublication14.pdf
California Department of Education, (2020a). English Language Proficiency Assessments for
California. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ep/
California Department of Education (2020b). Facts about English Learners in California-
CalEdFacts. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
California Department of Education, (2020c). Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP).
Retrieved from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/#:~:text=The%20LCAP%20is%20a%20tool,and%20evaluat
ion%20of%20an%20LCAP.
California School Dashboard (2017). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved on March 25, 2019
from https://www.caschooldashboard.org/about/faq
Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to
learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305-328. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/200368076?accountid=14749
Cantrell, S. C. & Wheeler, T. (2011). Pedagogy/instruction: Beyond “Best Practices”. In R.
Powell & E. Rightmyer (Eds.), Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for
closing the gap (pp. 152-189). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom Discourse. In M.C. Wittrock (ed.) Handbook of Research on
Teaching, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan.
137
Chacon, C. T. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language
teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 257-272.
Chang, T. (2012). Using no child left behind waivers to improve English language learner
education. Center for American Progress.
Cheng, M. M. H., Cheng, A. Y. N. & Tang, S. Y. F. (2010): Closing the gap between the theory
and practice of teaching: implications for teacher education programmes in Hong Kong.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(1), 91-104.
Cho, S. & Reich, G. A. (2008). New immigrants, new challenges: high school social studies
teachers and English language learner instruction. The Social Studies, 99(6), 235-242.
Cho, S. & McDonnough, J. T. (2009). Meeting the needs of high school science teachers in
English language learner instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(4), 385
-402.
Christie, F. (2012). Language Education Throughout the School Years: A Functional
Perspective. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cizek, G. J. (1995). The big picture in assessment and who ought to have it. Phi Delta Kappan,
77(3), 246.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Coady, M. R., Harper, C., & De Jong, E. J. (2016). Aiming for equity: Preparing mainstream
teachers for inclusion or inclusive classrooms? Tesol Quarterly, 50(2), 340-368.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.223
Cochran-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. (Eds.), (2005). Review of research in teacher education.
Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.
138
Coles, H., Lamb, L., Fernandes, M. J., Merrell-James, R., Lowther, E., Riley, D., et al. (2009).
Exemplary practices in alternative education: Indicators of quality programming.
Manassas, VA: National Alternative Education Association.
Conaway, B. J., Browning, L. J. & Purdum-Cassidy, B. (2012). Teacher candidates’ changing
perceptions of urban schools: Results of a 4-year study. Action in Teacher Education,
29(1), 20-31.
Correll, P. K. (2016). Teachers’ preparation to teach English language learners (ELLs): An
investigation of perceptions, preparation and current practices. Theses and Dissertations
-Curriculum and Instruction, 19. https://doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2016.531
Council of the Great City Schools (2013). Instructional materials for English language learners
in urban public schools, 2012-2013. Washington DC.
Costa, J., McPhail, G., Smith, J. & Brisk, M. E. (2005). The challenge of infusing the teacher
education curriculum with scholarship on English language learners. Journal of Teacher
Education, 56(2), 104-118.
Crabtree, R. D., & Sapp, D. A. (2004). Your culture, my classroom, whose pedagogy?
Negotiating effective teaching and learning in Brazil. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 8(1), 105-132. doi: 10.1177/1028315303260826
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cummins, J. (1997). Cultural and linguistic diversity in education: A mainstream issue?
Educational Review, 49(2), 105-114.
Cummins, J. (2001). Second language teaching for academic success: A framework for school
language policy development. Toronto: University of Toronto.
139
Curtin, E. A. (2005). Instructional styles used by regular classroom teachers while teaching
recently mainstreamed ESL students: Six urban middle school teachers in Texas share
their experiences and perceptions. Multicultural Education, 12, 36-42.
Daniel, S. M. (2014). Learning to educate English language learners in preservice elementary
practicums. Teacher Education Quarterly, 41(2), 5-28.
Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation: Educational leadership. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Arizona State University, Education Policy Analysis Archives. Retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392/515
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2000). Studies of excellence in teacher education. Washington,
DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and National Commission
on Teacher Education.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education,
51, 166-173.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Inequality and the right to learn: Access to qualified in
California’s public schools. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1936-1966.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 57(X), 1-15.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. Teachers College, New York and London.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs.
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
140
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R. & Frelow, F. (2002). Variations in teacher preparation: How
well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education,
53(4), 1-27.
Darling-Hammond, L., Eiler, M. & Marcus, A. (2002). Perceptions of preparation: Using survey
data to assess teacher education outcomes. Issues in Teacher Education, 11(1), 65-84.
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B. & Osher, D. (2019). Implications
for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied
Developmental Science, February 17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J. & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher
preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and
teacher effectiveness. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n42/
Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi delta kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
Darling-Hammond, L & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of
policy and practice (pp. 3–31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Davis, B. & Simmt, E. (2006). Mathematics-for-teaching: an ongoing investigation of the
mathematics that teachers (need to) know. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 293
319.
Davis, B. & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
de Oliveira, L. C., & Athanases, S. Z. (2017). A framework to reenvision instructional
scaffolding for linguistically diverse learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 61(2), 123-129. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.663
Deogratias, E. (2018). The possible ways of practicing complexity theory through concept study
141
in mathematics class. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 10(2), 142
-151.
Deussen, T., Roccograndi, A., Hanita, M., Autio, E. & Rodriguez-Mojica, C. (2015). The impact
of GLAD on fifth-grade literacy: Sheltered instruction and English learners in the
mainstream classroom. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association April 2015–Chicago.
Diedrich, M. (2014, April 1). Towards a more culturally responsive school system. Retrieved
from http://www.mn2020.org/issues-that-matter/towards-a-more-culturallyresponsive
school-system.
Doll, W. E. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Du Calderon, M., Slavin, R. & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners.
The Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for
Enhancing Student Achievement. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L. & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential Elements of
Fostering and Teaching Reading Comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. Farstrup (eds.)
What Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction, 4th ed., 51-93. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Dunst, C. J. & Bruder, M. B. (2013). Preservice professional preparation and teachers’ self
efficacy appraisals of natural environment and inclusion practices. Teacher Education
and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children. Retrieved from
142
http://tes.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/10/04/0888406413505873
Durgunoglu, A.Y. & Hughes, T. (2010). How prepared are the US preservice teachers to teach
English language learners? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, 22(1), 32-41.
Echevarria, J., Short, D. & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A
model for English-language learners. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195-210.
Echevarria, J. & Vogt, M. (2010). Using the SIOP model to improve literacy for English
learners. New England Reading Association Journal, 46(1), 8-15.
Education Commission of the States. (2014). How is an “English Language Learner” defined in
state policy? Retrieved from http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquestNB2?rep=ELL1402
EdSource. (2000). National accountability movement offers lessons for California. Palo Alto,
CA: EdSource, Inc. Retrieved January 18, 2019, from http://www.edsource.org/pdf
Eccles, J. (2006) Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Eiler, M., Darling-Hammond, L. & Marcus, A. (2002). Perceptions of preparation: Using survey
data to assess teacher education outcomes. Issues in Teacher Education, 11(1), 65-84.
Esterberg, K. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fry, R. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Pew
Hispanic Center, 1-32.
Fullan, M. (2006). Leading professional learning. School Administrator, 63 (10), 10-14. doi:
1166979201.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
143
31(1), 45-56.
Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J. & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language
learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional
development needs. Policy Analysis of Public Education, 1-26.
Garcia, E. E. (2005). Teaching and learning in two languages: Bilingualism and schooling in the
United States. New York: Teachers College Press.
Garcia, E. E. & Garcia, E. H. (2010). Language development and the education of dual language
learning children in the United States. In G. Li & P. A. Edwards (Eds.). Best practices in
ELL instruction (pp. 15-43). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
Gitlin, A. & Smyth, J. (1989). Teacher evaluation: Evaluative alternatives. London: Falmer.
Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F. & Whitehead, B. (2007). Curriculum leadership: Development and
implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Glickman, C. (2006). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria,
Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K. & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning,
Measure, and Impact on Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
37(2), 479-507.
Goker, S. D. (2006). Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional skills in TEFL
teacher education. System, 34, 239-254.
144
Goldenberg, C. (2010). Improving achievement for English learners. In G. Li & P. A. Edwards
(Eds.). Best practices in ELL instruction (pp. 15-43). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know-and don’t yet
know-about effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4-11.
Goldrick, L. (2002). Improving teacher evaluation to improve teacher quality: Issue brief.
Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association, Center for Best Practices.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103-120.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.
Hamayan, E., Marler, B., Sanchez-Lopez, C. & Damico, J. (2013). Special Education
Considerations for English Language Learners. Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing.
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography principles in practice. New York:
Routledge.
Harris, A. & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement.
Improving Schools, 13 (2), 172-181.
Heckman, J. J. (2008). Schools, skills, and synapses. Economic Inquiry, 46(3), 289–324.
doi:10.3386/w14064
Henson, R. K. (2001). Teacher Self-efficacy: Substantive Implications and Measurement
Dilemmas. Keynote address presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Research
Exchange, January 26.
Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R. & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study of the
teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological
145
Measurement, 61, 404-420.
Hess, K. K., Carlock, D., Jones, B. & Walkup, J. R. (2009). What Exactly Do ‘Fewer, Clearer,
and Higher Standards’ Really Look Like in the Classroom? Using a Cognitive Rigor
Matrix to Analyze Curriculum, Plan Lessons, and Implement Assessments. Presentation at
Council of Chief State School Officers, Detroit, MI, June 2009.
Higgs, L. G. (2013). Theory in educational research and practice in teacher education. Paper
presented at the Annual International Conference of the Bulgarian Comparative
Education Society (11th, Plovdiv, Bulgaria, May 14-17). Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED567134.pdf
Hinkel, E. (Ed.). (1999). Culture in second language teaching and learning. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Holzam, L. (2009). Vygotsky at work and play. NY: Routledge.
Hopper, T. & Sanford, K. (2004). Representing multiple perspectives of self-as-teacher: School
integrated. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(2), 57-74.
Hoy, A. W. & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of
teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education 21, 343-356.
doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Kalyanpur, M. & Harry, B. (2012). Cultural Reciprocity in Special Education: Building Family
Professional Relationships. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
Kame’enui, E. J. & Carnine, D. W. (Eds.). (1998). Effective teaching strategies that
accommodate diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
146
Karabenick, S. A. & Noda, P. A. (2004). Professional development implications of teachers’
beliefs and attitudes toward English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal,
28,(1), 55-75.
Kareva, V. & Echevarria, J. (2013). Using the SIOP model for effective content teaching with
second language and foreign language learners. Journal of Education and Training
Studies, 1(2), 239-248. doi:10.11114/jets.v1i2.173
Kaufman, D. M. (2010). Applying educational theory in practice. In P. Cantillon & D. Wood
(eds.) Learning and Teaching in Medicine, 2
nd
ed. (pp. 1-5). West Sussex: John Wiley.
Kim, J. & Herman, J. L. (2009). A three-state study of English learner progress. Educational
Assessment. 14. 212-231.
King, E. T. & Scott, L. M. (2014). English as gatekeeper: linguistic capital and American
schools. Journal for Multicultural Education, 8(4), 226-236.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kompf, M. & Bond, W. R. (1996). Changing research and practice: teachers’ professionalism,
identities, and knowledge. Routledge. London.
Krashen, S. D. & Terrell, T. D. (1988). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the
Classroom. London, UK: Prentice Hall Europe
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41, 212-218. doi: 10.1207/s1543042tip4104_2
Kwiat, J. (1989, March). Perspectives on fostering change in teachers of language minority
147
students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED306767)
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lavery, M. R., Nutta, J., & Youngblood, A. (2019). Analyzing student learning gains to evaluate
differentiated teacher preparation for fostering English learners’ achievement in
linguistically diverse classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(4), 372-387.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117751400
Lee, S., Butler, M., & Tippins, D. (2007). A case study of an early childhood perspective on
working with English language learners. Multicultural Education, 15(2), 43-49.
Lehr, C. A., Tan, C. S., & Ysseldyke, J. (2008). Alternative schools: A synthesis of state-lev- el
policy and research. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 19–32.
Li, G., & Protacio, M.S. (2010). Best practices in professional development for teachers of ELLs.
In G. Li & P. Edwards (Eds.), Best practices in ELL instruction (pp. 353-380). New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Lindquist, A. (2016). The novice ESL teacher and culture in the classroom: Understandings and
adaptations. Culminating Projects in English, 51.
https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/engl_etds/51
Little, J. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Liyanage, I., & Bartlett, B. J. (2008). Contextually responsive transfer: Perceptions of NNES on
an ESL/EFL teacher training programme. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1827
1836. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.009
148
Local Educational Agency (2016). Demographics
Lucas, L. M. & Mackin, J. R. (2012). Project GLAD two-year evaluation report. Retrieved from
https://oregoncf.org/Templates/media/files/rai_materials/north%20coast/GLAD_Year_2
Evaluation_Report_Final_12_10_12.pdf
Mahalingappa, L., Hughes, E. M., & Polat, N. (2018). Developing preservice teachers’ self
efficacy and knowledge through online experiences with English language learners.
Language and Education, 32(2), 127-146.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2017.1417996
Marrs, H. & Eccles, D. (2009). Assessment of limited English proficient students in a rural
Midwestern State. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(2), 22-31.
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-drive decision making
in education (RAND Education occasional paper). Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP170.html
Martin, S. D. & Dismuke, S. (2018). Investigating differences in teacher practices through a
complexity theory lens: The influence of teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 69(1), 22-39. doi: 10.1177/0022487117702573
Martin, S. D., McQuitty, V. & Morgan, D. N. (2019). Complexity theory and teacher education.
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. New York: Oxford University Press.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design. An interactive approach. (3
rd
ed., pp. 39-72).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McEwan, E. K. & McEwan, P. J. (2003). The process question. Making sense of research (pp.75-
90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McIntyre, E. (2010). Principles for teaching young ELLs. In G. Li & P. Edwards (Eds.), Best
149
practices in ELL instruction (pp. 61-83). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
McIntyre, E., Kyle, D., Chen, C. Munoz, M. & Beldon, S. (2010). Teacher learning and ELL
reading achievement in sheltered instruction classrooms: Linking professional
development to student development. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(4), 334-351.
McKinney, R. W. (2008). Teacher attitudes toward English language learners (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
McQuitty, V. (2012). Emerging possibilities: A complex account of learning to teach writing.
Research in the Teaching of English, 46(4), 358-389.
Meltzer J. & Hamann, E. (2005). Meeting the literacy needs of adolescent English language
learners through content-area learning. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at
Brown University.
Mercieca, B. (2017). What is community of practice? In J. McDonald & A. Cater-Steel (eds.)
Communities of Practice: Facilitating Social Learning in Higher Education. Singapore:
Springer
Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
ed., pp. 84-89). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, W. L. & Crabtree, B. F. (2004). Depth Interviewing in S. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds).
Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice. (pp. 185-202).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Milner, H. R. (2005). Stability and change in US prospective teachers’ beliefs and decisions
about diversity and learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 767-786.
150
Milner, H. R. & Hoy, A. W. (2003). A case study of an African American Teacher’s self
efficacy, stereotype threat, and persistence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 263
-276.
Moore, K. D. (2009). Effective instructional strategies: From theory to practice, 2. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morley, R. E. (1991). Alternative education. Dropout prevention research reports. Clemson, SC:
National Dropout Prevention Center. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED349652
Mueller, T. G., Singer, G. H. & Carranza, F. D. (2006). A national survey of the educational
planning and language instruction practices for students with moderate to severe
disabilities who are English language learners. Research & Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 21(3), 242-254.
Munoz-Aguirre, Z. & Boscardin, C. K. (2008). Opportunity to learn English learner
achievement: Is increased content exposure beneficial? Journal of Latinos and
Education, 7, 186-205. doi: 10.1080/15348430802100089.
Musanti, S. I. & Pence, L. (2010). Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking resistance,
constructing knowledge and navigating identities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1),
73-89.
National Center for Education Statistics (2013). English Language Learners. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/Indicator_CGF/coe_cgf_2013_05.pdf
National Research Council, Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in
the United States. (2010). Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy.
Retrieved from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12882
Ndon, U. T. (2010). Hybrid-Context Instructional Model: The Internet and the Classrooms: The
151
Way Teachers Experience It. Information Age Publishing Inc.
Newell, C. (2008). The class as a learning entity (complex adaptive system): An idea from
complexity science and educational research. Simon Fraser University Educational
Review 2(1), 5-17.
Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher
education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, (3), 180-187.
Nordby, A. & Loertscher, D. (2009). English language learners in the classroom. Teacher
Librarian, 36(3), 42-43. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for
California’s long-term English learners. Californians Together, 1-68.
O’Neal, D. D., Ringler, M. & Rodriquez, D. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of their preparation
for teaching linguistically and culturally diverse learners in rural Eastern North Carolina.
The Rural Educator, 30(1), 5-13.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension--fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-75.
Paneque, O. M. & Barbetta, P. M. (2006). A study of teacher efficacy of special education
teachers of English language learners with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal, 30,
171-193. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2006.10162871
Pappamihiel, E. (2007). Helping preservice content-area teachers relate to English language
learners: An investigation of attitudes and beliefs. TESL Canada Journal, 24(2), 42-60.
Patridge, M. & Robinson, J. H. (2009). TESL program assessment for intercultural
152
communicative competence student outcomes. St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). In Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.
Pearson, P. D. (2011). Toward the Next Generation of Comprehension Instruction: A Coda. In H.
Daniels (ed.) Comprehension Going Forward, 243-53. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Pentimonti, J. M., Justice, L. M., Yeomans-Maldonado, G., McGinty, A. S., Slocum, L., &
O’Connell, A. (2017). Teachers’ use of high-and low-support scaffolding strategies to
differentiate language instruction in high-risk/economically disadvantaged
settings. Journal of Early Intervention, 39(2), 125-146.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815117700865
Peregoy, S. F. & Boyle, O. F. (2005). Reading, writing and learning in ESL: A resource book for
K-12 teachers. Boston. Pearson Education.
Peske, H. & Haycock, K. (2006), Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students are
Shortchanged on Teacher Quality. Washington: The Education Trust.
Poddell, D. & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals.
Journal of Educational Research, 86, 247-253.
Powell, R., Cantrell, S. C., Correll, P. K. & Malo-Juvera, V. (2014). Culturally Responsive
Instruction Observation Protocol (3rd Ed.) Lexington, KY: Collaborative Center for
Literacy Development.
Purcell-Gates, V., Jacobsen, E., & Degener, S. (2004). Print literacy development: Uniting
cognitive and social practice theories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Raiche, J. G. (2010). Monitoring English language learners reclassified as fluent English
proficient. Retrieved from EBSCOhost,http://www.eric.gov/PDFS/ED510781.pdf.
153
Rastegar, M. & Memarpour, S. (2012). The relationship between trait emotional intelligence and
self-efficacy among Iranian EFL teachers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,
3(6), 1165-1174. doi: 10. 4304/jltr.3.6.1165-1175
Reeves, J. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language learners in
mainstream classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 131-142. doi:
10.2167/lcc331.0
Risko, V. J., Roller, C. M., Cummins, C., Bean, R. M., Block, C. C., Anders, P. L. & Flood, J.
(2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research
Quarterly, 43(3), 252-288. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.43.3.3
Roblero, B. (2013). The importance of preparing teachers to educate vulnerable populations.
Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 25.
Roderick, M. (2003). Alternative education roundtable. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Rodolfo, A. Urrutia, J. & Shneyderman, A. (2005). An examination of the validity of English
language achievement test scores in an English language learner population. Bilingual
Research Journal, 29(1), 127-144.
Ross, J. A. & Cousins, J. B. (1993). Enhancing secondary school students’ acquisition of
correlational reasoning skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 11, 191
-205.
Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Samson, J. F., & Collins, B. A. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English
154
language learners: Applying research to policy and practice for teacher effectiveness.
Retrieved from https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/ uploads/issues/2012/04/
pdf/ell_report.pdf
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics Perspective.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shinde, M. B. & Karekatti, T. K. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about teaching English to
primary school children. International Journal of Instruction, 5(1), 69-86.
Short, D. J., Fidelman, C. G. & Louguit, M. (2012). Developing academic language in English
language learners through sheltered instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 334-361.
Shulman, L. S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to
teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Silver, D., Saunders. M. & Zarate, M. E. (2008). What factors predict high school graduation in
the Los Angeles Unified School District. California Dropout Research Project, 1-4.
Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and
outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1086-1101.
Siwatu, K. O. (2011a). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy forming
experiences: A mixed methods study. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 360
-369.
Siwatu, K. O. (2011b). Preservice teachers’ sense of preparedness and self-efficacy to teach in
America’s urban and suburban schools: Does context matter? Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27, 357-365.
Sleeter, C. E. & Owuor, J. (2011). Research on the impact of teacher preparation to teach
diverse students: The research we have and the research we need. Action in Teacher
155
Education, 33, 524-536.
Sox, A. K., (2009). Latino immigrant students in southern schools: What we know and still need
to learn. Theory into Practice, 48, 312-318.
Stahl, S. A. & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Stephens, C. & Johnson, D. C. (2015). Good teaching for all students? Sheltered instruction
programming in Washington state language policy. Language and Education, 29(1), 31-
45.
Tasan, A. P. (2001, April). Teacher efficacy and diversity: Implications for teacher training.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. Seattle, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453201)
Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S. & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed:
Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
The Nations Report Card (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/states/groups/?grade=4
Thompson, C. L. & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and
professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes Building a Culture of
Teacher Learning 197 (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy
and practice (pp. 341–375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc
Toppelberg, C. O. & Collins, B. A. (2010). Language, Culture, and Adaptation in Immigrant
Children. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 19(4): 697-717.
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive
156
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education 17(7), 783-805. doi: 10.1016/S0742
051X(01)00036-1
United States Department of Education (2011). Education Department Announces Resolution of
Civil Rights Investigation of Los Angeles Unified School District. Office of Civil Rights.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-department-announces-
resolution-civil-rights-investigation-los-angeles
United States Department of Education (2015). Developing programs for English Language
Learners: Lau v. Nichols. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/lau.html
U.S. Department of Education (2018). 2015–16 Consolidated State Performance Report, Part II,
Section 2.11, Graduation Rates. Retrieved from ED Data Express,
https://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-elements.cfm
Van Roekel, D. (2008). English Language Learners face unique challenges. An NEA Policy
Brief.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Walquí, A. & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the Academic Success of Adolescent English
Language Learners: A Pedagogy of Promise. San Francisco: WestEd.
Walqui, A. & Heritage, M. (2012, January). Instruction for diverse groups of English language
learners. Paper presented at the Understanding Language Conference, Stanford, CA.
Webb, S., Massey, D., Goggans, M., & Flajole, K. (2019). Thirty ‐five years of the gradual
release of responsibility: Scaffolding toward complex and responsive teaching. The
Reading Teacher, 73(1), 75-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1799
Wiggins, R. A. & Folio, E. J. (1999). Development of knowledge, attitudes, and commitment to
157
teach diverse student populations. Journal of Teacher Education, 50, (2), 94-105.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wise, A. E. & Darling-Hammond, L. (1985). Teacher evaluation and teacher professionalism.
Educational Leadership, 42, 28-33.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89-100.
Wright-Maley, C. & Green, J. D. (2015). Experiencing the needs and challenges of ELLs:
Improving knowledge and efficacy of preservice teachers through the use of language
immersion simulation. Cogent Education, 2(1030176).
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1030176
Young, A. I. (2016). Facilitating functional complexity: Differentiated linguistic scaffolding in
two-way Spanish-English immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based
Language Education, 4(2), 251-273. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.4.2.05you
Zehler, A. M., Flieschman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson, P. G., Pendzick M. L. & Sapru, S.
(2003). Descriptive Study of Services to LEP Students and LEP Students with
Disabilities. U.S. Department of Education Office of English Language Acquisition,
Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement of Limited English Proficient
Students (OELA). Washington D.C.
Zeichner, K. M. & Conklin, H. G. (2005). Teacher education programs. In M. Smith & K.
Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research
and Teacher Education (pp. 641-735).

158
Appendix A:
Teacher Assent Form
Introduction

I will begin by reading the following:

Dear Madame/Sir,
My name is Kenneth Ko and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of
the capstone dissertation within the OCL doctoral program. My dissertation is focusing on the
Perceptions of Alternative Education Teachers to Instruct English Language Learners: An
Evaluation Study and you are invited to participate in the study. If you agree, you will participate
in an interview.
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me and for allowing me the privilege to learn from
you. This study will evaluate the organization’s teacher preparedness to instruct their ELL
students in order to meet its goal to have the 64% of ELL students advance at least one level on
the ELPAC every year. The analysis will focus on knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences related to achieving the organizational goals. While a complete performance
evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder to be focused
on in this analysis is teachers.
I want to first ask if it is ok that I record this session. I don’t want to miss anything, and I
want to capture your answers accurately and, in a way, that I can review later. Will this be ok?
I want to also reiterate that what you share will remain confidential. While some of the
ideas may find their way into a written research paper, your participation remains confidential. I
assure you that the data gathered will be in my possession and securely stored on my computer
159
or under lock and key at home. Participation in this study is voluntary. Your identity as a
participant will remain confidential at all times during and after the study. Do you have any
questions? Ok, we will get started.
Conclusion
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me and to engage with these questions.
Before we end and before I turn off the recorder, is there a question I did not ask that you think I
missed that may be important to consider?
Did you want to revisit any questions I asked where you may either want to change your answer
or add to it?
I just want to say again that I am truly grateful for the time you took to meet with me and
for teaching me new things. I am here to learn, and your input means a great deal.

Kenneth Ko
University of Southern California

160
Appendix B:
Semi Structured Questions for Participant Interviews
1. What grade do you teach?

2. What is your gender?

3. How many students are in your classroom?

4. How many English language learners (ELL) are in your classroom?

5. How did you obtain your teaching certification?
a. Alternative Certification program
b. Traditional, university-based degree with certification

6. Including this school year, how many years teaching experience do you have?

7. Do you know the proficiency levels of your students? If not do you know where to find it
or who to ask?

8. Do you know what to assign students based on assessment scores?

9. What is your definition of ELD?

10. To what degree do you believe you are prepared to meet the academic needs of your
ELLs?

11. To what degree do you believe you are prepared to meet the linguistic needs (increasing
speaking, listening, reading, writing, and thinking in English) of your ELLs?

12. Would you describe the techniques that you use for assessment with your ELL students?

13. How did your experiences in your teacher education program or professional
development affect your attitudes and beliefs toward ELLs?

14. Would you describe knowledge and/or strategies for ELLs from your teacher preparation
program that you currently use in your classroom?

15. Would you describe knowledge and/or strategies for ELLs from any professional
development that you currently use in your classroom?

16. Has your administrator discussed ELD curriculum and instruction in your evaluation?

17. Have you been held accountable to differentiate your lessons for ELLs?

161
18. How many professional developments in ELD have you participated in through the
organization?

19. How has EL services or the TOSAs supported you in the ELD curriculum and
instruction?

20. Are you confident you can use the ELD curriculum?

21. When faced with difficulty using the ELD curriculum, what do you focus on to
implement it?

22. What barriers or challenges exist that averts you from implementing ELD in your
classroom?

23. What barriers or challenges impede you from improving your lessons or instruction with
ELLs?

24. What was the quality of the training?

25. Do you believe what you learned in training is effective with ELLs?

26. Did the training meet your expectations?

27. Do you plan on engaging in further training?

28. What is a professional learning community (PLC) to you?

29. If you have participated in PLCs, how has it helped with instructing ELLs?

30. Have you participated in PLCs in the organization? In another school program?

31. What additional support do you need from your administrative team in an effort to meet
the needs of your ELL students?

32. Is there any other information you would like to add?
162
Appendix C:

Relation of Influences on Interview Items

Organizational Mission
All students attain the competencies they need to be successful in the 21st century.
Organizational Global Goal
All alternative education students will be college, career and life prepared.
Stakeholder Goal
Advance 64% of the English language learners (ELLs) at least one ELPAC level every year.
Assumed Influence Interview Item Document/Artifact
Conceptual/Procedural
Knowledge:
Teachers must know and utilize
English Language Development
(ELD) instruction and curriculum
for ELLs.
Demographic questions:
What grade(s) do you teach?
What is your gender?
How many students are in your
classroom?
How many English language
learners (ELL) are in your
classroom?
How did you obtain your
teaching certification?
● Alternative Certification
program
● Traditional, university-
based degree with
certification
Including this school year, how
many years teaching experience
do you have?
Is there any other information
you would like to add?
Transcribed interview
Conceptual/Procedural
Knowledge:
Teachers must know and utilize
English Language Development
(ELD) instruction and curriculum
for ELLs.
What is your definition of ELD?
Would you describe knowledge
and/or strategies for ELLs from
your teacher preparation
program that you currently use
in your classroom?
Would you describe knowledge
and/or strategies for ELLs from
Transcribed interview

163
any professional development
that you currently use in your
classroom?
Procedural Knowledge:
Teachers know how to analyze
ELL data to determine how
students are achieving at-grade-
level proficiency across all
content areas and provide the
appropriate support.

Would you describe the
techniques that you use for
assessment with your ELL
students?
Do you know the proficiency
levels of your students? If not,
do you know where to find it or
who to ask?
Do you know what to assign
students based on assessment
scores?
Transcribed interview
Self-Efficacy:
Teachers are confident in their
ability to utilize ELD curriculum.
in all content areas to instruct
ELLs.
Are you confident you can use
the ELD curriculum?
When faced with difficulty using
the ELD curriculum, what do
you focus on to implement it?
Transcribed interview
Value:
Teachers see the value in the
English language development
(ELD) training.
What was the quality of the
training?
Do you believe what you
learned in training is effective
with ELLs?
How did your experiences in
your teacher education program
or professional development
affect your attitudes and beliefs
toward ELLs?
Did the training meet your
expectations?
Do you plan on engaging in
further training?
Transcribed interview
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The organization needs a culture
in which teachers implement ELD
in their classrooms to improve
ELL instruction.
What barriers or challenges exist
that impede you from
implementing ELD in your
classroom?
Transcribed interview
164
Cultural Model Influence 2:
The organization needs a culture
that has teachers wanting to
improve their lessons and/or
instruction.
What barriers or challenges
prevent you from improving
your lessons or instruction with
ELLs?
Transcribed interview
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Teachers need more professional
development on the adopted ELD
curriculum and individual support
with Teachers on Special
Assignment (TOSAs) of each core
subject (i.e. English, Social
Science, Math and Science).

How many professional
developments in ELD have you
participated in through the
organization?
How has EL services or the
TOSAs supported you in the
ELD curriculum and
instruction?
What additional support do you
need from your administrative
team in an effort to meet the
needs of your ELL students?
Has your administrator
discussed ELD curriculum and
instruction in your evaluation?
Have you been held accountable
to differentiate your lessons for
ELLs?
Transcribed interview
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Teachers need to utilize
Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs) to improve
instruction and learning.
What is a professional learning
community (PLC) to you?
Have you participated in PLCs
in the organization? In another
school program?
If you have participated in
PLCs, how has it helped with
instructing ELLs?
Transcribed interview

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

PDF

Influences that impact English language acquisition for English learners: addressing obstacles for English learners’ success

PDF

Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices

PDF

Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

Evaluation of New Teacher Induction (NTI) mentor practice for developing NTI teachers capable of differentiating instruction to address cultural diversity, equity, and learner variability

PDF

Trending upward: an evaluation study of teacher practices in serving special needs students in a public high school

PDF

Improving the reclassification rate gap

PDF

Lack of culturally relevant teaching in international bilingual schools: a gap analysis

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners

PDF

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

PDF

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

PDF

An evaluation of teacher retention in K-12 public schools

PDF

Examining the achievement gap of seventh grade English language learners: A gap analysis

PDF

Sustaining faith-based organizations through leadership pipelines and programs: an evaluation study

PDF

Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners

PDF

Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

The Education Teacher Performance Assessment: a model for teacher preparation?

Asset Metadata

Creator Ko, Kenneth Bermejo (author)

Core Title Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/29/2020

Defense Date 10/23/2020

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

Tag alternative education,ELL,English language learners,High School,OAI-PMH Harvest,teaching strategies

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ott, Maria (committee chair), Bewley, William (committee member), Moore, Ekaterina (committee member)

Creator Email kbko@msn.com,kenethko@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-401295

Unique identifier UC11667559

Identifier etd-KoKennethB-9167.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-401295 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KoKennethB-9167.pdf

Dmrecord 401295

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ko, Kenneth Bermejo

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