University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Teaching literacy to Latino English learners in kindergarten, ready or not: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Teaching literacy to Latino English learners in kindergarten, ready or not: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TEACHING LITERACY TO LATINO ELs IN KINDERGATEN

Teaching Literacy to Latino English Learners in Kindergarten, Ready or Not:
An Evaluation Study

by

Rosanne A. Lampariello

A Dissertation Proposal 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 2017

Copyright 2017 Rosanne A. Lampariello
KINDERGATEN LITERACY INSTRUCTION FOR LATINO ELs 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In January, 2015, I was accepted into the OCL program at USC. I called my mother,
Anne-Marie, to tell her that I was going to begin working on my doctorate. Her response? “It’s
about time. What took you so long?” My parents grew up in households where a language other
than English was spoken; homes in which they were nurtured to become extraordinary,
successful adults. My parents have been incredible role models for me for as long as I can
remember. My mother, the daughter of second language learners, earned a PhD, and I now,
finally, follow in her wise, beautiful footsteps.
During the research, writing, and editing phases of this study, the love and understanding
of my family and inner circle has kept me going when the going was tough. The love of my life,
my steadfast husband, Todd, has kept our home and children in order for the past 898 days to
allow me to focus on this effort; our children, Auden, Luca, and Maria-Saveria, have been the
best supporters and continue to love me despite the fact that I have been an absentee mother for
the course of this project; my best friend, Anne, has graciously understood that our regular phone
calls would be on hold for a few years, and that we would see each other very little during the
time that I was conducting my research; my comadre Annie, has sat beside me on countless late
nights, until the wee hours of the morning, giving me moral support as we continued our doctoral
journey together; my mother-in-law, Carol, channeled her professional cheerleading skills to
inspire me during the process; and, finally, thanks to the encouraging texts and calls from my
friends Ruth Hensley, Charlotte Kaufman, Kim Kromas, Lisa Okamoto, Denise Perpall, Dale
Reinert, and Terri Wolfe, I always had the much-needed motivation to press on.
My work colleagues have been extraordinarily understanding of my perpetual running on
fumes due to lack of sleep, and I am forever in their debt for allowing me to distribute some of
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 3
my leadership to them during this process. My secretaries, Denise Laframboise and Jan Miller,
gave 100%, and then some, to maintaining order in our office, and for that, I am truly thankful. I
am also thankful to “Mary,” “Holly,” “Tammy,” “Brandy,” and “Ginny” for being inspirational
Kindergarten teachers, and to all my teacher-colleagues and support staff for being the village
that educates the students of TES. My mentor and coach, Lou Stewart, provided me with the
courage to continue and a shoulder to cry on, with kind, sage advice delivered in person and via
phone, text, and email, when I felt like I was just not good enough. I also must recognize my
Superintendent, Lois Klein, who encouraged me and my fellow principals to pursue our
doctorates and who took a genuine interest in my learning and in my study every step of the way.
Next, had it not been for my beloved Tuesday Trojans: Andy Surber (interviewer
extraordinaire), Annie Rinaldi, Arvind Ramakrishnan, Chris Riddick, Erika Maldonado, Melissa
Singh, and Stephanie George, I may not have had the fortitude to persevere. The worst part of
finishing is knowing that our Tuesday evenings will be heretofore spent apart. The Tuesday
Trojans kept me laughing when I felt like crying, and I am proud to call them my friends.
Finally, I offer my gratitude to my Chairperson, Dr. Kathy Stowe, who has generously
shared her wisdom with me throughout this program, and has also provided incredible feedback
throughout the process. My committee members, Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores and Dr. Kathy
Hanson, have imparted additional perspective, expertise from the field, and invaluable support to
my dissertation writing. I am full of admiration and respect for these three women, without
whose help it is unlikely that I would have made it to the finish line.
The conclusion of this research opens another door to continued exploration of literacy
instruction, in order to advocate for and promote the success of all students, regardless of
language fluency. I will, without a doubt, continue to Fight On!
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 8
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 9
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 11
Organizational Context and Mission ................................................................................ 13
Organizational Performance Status/Need ......................................................................... 14
Importance of the Organizational Evaluation ................................................................... 15
Organizational Performance Goal ..................................................................................... 16
Description of Stakeholder Groups ................................................................................... 17
Stakeholder Performance Goals ........................................................................................ 17
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................... 19
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .................................................................... 20
Definitions............................................................................................................. 20
Achievement gap. ............................................................................................................. 20
English learner (EL). ......................................................................................................... 21
English only (EO). ............................................................................................................ 21
Kindergarten readiness...................................................................................................... 21
Kindergarten readiness gap. .............................................................................................. 21
Literacy. ............................................................................................................................ 21
Phonological awareness. ................................................................................................... 21
Phonics. ............................................................................................................................. 22
Reading comprehension. ................................................................................................... 22
Reading fluency. ............................................................................................................... 22
Transitional Kindergarten (TK). ....................................................................................... 22
Vocabulary. ....................................................................................................................... 22
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 23
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 24
The Kindergarten Readiness Gap and Implications for Kindergarten Instruction ........... 24
Overview of Terms that Indicate Kindergarten Readiness ............................................... 25
The Kindergarten Readiness Gap ..................................................................................... 26
Kindergarten Readiness ........................................................................................ 26
Differences in Kindergarten readiness between EL and EO students. ............................. 27
Remediating Knowledge and Skill Gaps in the Kindergarten Classroom ........................ 28
Effective Instructional Strategies for ELs ............................................................. 28
Phonics. ............................................................................................................................. 28
Reading comprehension. ................................................................................................... 29
Reading fluency. ............................................................................................................... 29
Vocabulary development. ................................................................................................. 30
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 5
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework .................................................... 30
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ............................... 31
Knowledge Influences .......................................................................................... 32
Importance and benefits of using effective instructional strategies. ................................. 33
Reasons why instruction needs to be changed or adapted for ELs. .................................. 34
Understanding how to adapt instructional strategies for use with ELs. ............................ 34
Understanding how to prepare and deliver feedback. ....................................................... 35
Motivational Influences ........................................................................................ 37
Expectancy value theory: utility value. ............................................................................. 38
Teacher values. ................................................................................................................. 39
Self-efficacy theory. .......................................................................................................... 40
Teacher self-efficacy. ........................................................................................................ 40
Adapting instructional strategies....................................................................................... 42
Organizational Influences ................................................................................................. 44
Work processes and teacher collaboration. ....................................................................... 45
Value chain analysis. ........................................................................................................ 46
Alignment of organizational culture with organizational behavior. ................................. 46
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 48
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 50
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
with the Organizational Context ....................................................................................... 50
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 55
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale ............................................................ 55
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale ...................................... 55
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale ........................................................ 56
Interview (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .................................................. 56
Documents ............................................................................................................ 57
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 58
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 59
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 61
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 63
Validity ................................................................................................................. 64
Reliability .............................................................................................................. 64
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 65
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 67
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 67
Results and Findings ......................................................................................................... 68
Knowledge Influences .......................................................................................... 69
Motivation Results ................................................................................................ 82
Organizational Results .......................................................................................... 90
Heggerty Phonemic Awareness ............................................................................ 98
Nancy Fetzer Emergent Reading Kit .................................................................... 99
Nancy Fetzer Writing ............................................................................................ 99
California Treasures ............................................................................................ 100
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 6
Zoo-phonics ........................................................................................................ 100
Synthesis ......................................................................................................................... 101
Knowledge .......................................................................................................... 102
Motivation ........................................................................................................... 102
Organization ........................................................................................................ 103
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 104
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations ...................................................................... 106
Knowledge ...................................................................................................................... 106
Motivation ....................................................................................................................... 108
Organization .................................................................................................................... 108
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ......................................... 109
Knowledge Recommendations ........................................................................... 109
Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. .............................. 111
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. ............................... 112
Motivation Recommendations ............................................................................ 112
Value. .............................................................................................................................. 114
Emotion. .......................................................................................................................... 114
Organization Recommendations ......................................................................... 115
Work processes. .............................................................................................................. 117
Cultural setting. ............................................................................................................... 118
Resources. ....................................................................................................................... 118
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 119
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ....................................................... 119
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations ................................................ 120
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ............................................................. 120
Level 3: Behavior ................................................................................................ 122
Critical behaviors. ........................................................................................................... 122
Required drivers. ............................................................................................................. 123
Organizational support. ................................................................................................... 126
Level 2: Learning ................................................................................................ 127
Learning goals. ................................................................................................................ 127
Program. .......................................................................................................................... 127
Components of learning. ................................................................................................. 128
Level 1: Reaction ................................................................................................ 131
Evaluation Tools ................................................................................................. 132
Immediately following the program implementation. .................................................... 132
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. ................................................ 133
Data Analysis and Reporting .............................................................................. 133
Dashboard Reporting System ............................................................................. 134
Teacher collaboration...................................................................................................... 135
Student literacy scores. ................................................................................................... 135
Literacy instruction. ........................................................................................................ 136
Stakeholder perceptions. ................................................................................................. 136
Summary ............................................................................................................. 136
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ................................................................... 137
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 7
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 138
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 139
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 140
References ................................................................................................................................... 141
Appendix A: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................................... 158
Appendix B: Individual Interview Protocol ................................................................................ 161
Appendix C: Council of the Great City Schools ELL Metrics Instructional Materials Rubric .. 166
Appendix D: Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 171
Appendix E: Survey to be Administered Immediately After the Training Program .................. 172
Appendix F: Survey Items and Data to be Collected 90 Days After the Training Program ...... 173

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals………….....18
Table 2: Knowledge Influences, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessments………….….36
Table 3: Motivation Influences and Motivational Influence Assessments………………………..43
Table 4: Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments…………………47
Table 5: Survey Results for Causes of the Kindergarten Readiness Gap…………………………70
Table 6: Survey Results for Need to Differentiate Instruction for English Learners…………….74
Table 7: Survey Results for Reasons for Adapting Instruction for English Learners…………….75
Table 8: Survey Results for Instructional Materials and Strategies Used to Teach Literacy….…78
Table 9: How Respondents Address the Kindergarten Readiness Gap……………….….……….80
Table 10: Frequency of Individualized Literacy Instruction………………………….………….81
Table 11: Responsibility for Catching Students Up to Peers in Literacy…………………….…..84
Table 12: Survey Results for Effective Literacy Intervention for Struggling Students…….…….85
Table 13: Types of Student Literacy Data Collected…………………….……………………….88
Table 14: Frequency of Collaboration…………………………………………………………...91
Table 15: Most Impactful Resources to Promote Literacy……………………...……….………95
Table 16: Least Impactful Resources to Promote Literacy………………………………………96
Table 17: Ratings for Instructional Materials, Using the ELL Evaluation Matrix………………97
Table 18: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations………………….……...110
Table 19: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations……………………..….113
Table 20: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations……….………………116
Table 21: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes….…………..120
Table 22: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation…………...……….122
Table 23: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors……………………………….……..124
Table 24: Components of Learning for the Program………………………………………..….. 128
Table 25: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program……………………………..…….131

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A: Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………..…………..52
Figure B: Dashboard Thermometers to Measure Organizational Progress…………………....134

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 10
ABSTRACT
The academic achievement gap between Latino English learners (EL) and their native
English-speaking (EO) peers is significant and can have negative effects on Latinos who do not
catch up academically (Fitzpatrick, McKinnon, Bair, & Willoughby, 2014; Letgers & Balfanz,
2010; McKinsey, 2009; Verdugo, 2011). Latino EL students may start Kindergarten at an
academic disadvantage, as compared to their EO peers, who typically have more academically-
oriented preparation before they start school (Calderón, Slavin, & Sánchez, 2011). Providing
Latino EL students with appropriate, targeted intervention in the areas of phonological
awareness, phonics, reading fluency, reading comprehension, and vocabulary during the
Kindergarten year sets the stage for their for future academic success (Halle, Hair, Wandner,
McNamara, & Chien, 2012; Simmons et al., 2014). This small, qualitative evaluation study
examined the Kindergarten literacy instruction that four of the five Kindergarten teachers at
Thomas Ewes School (TES) deliver to Latino EL students. In order to answer the research
questions, “What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that hinder or
support TES Kindergarten teachers in the implementation of research-based instructional
strategies for English learners to develop literacy?” and “What are the recommendations for
organizational practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?”
data were collected from participant surveys, interviews of all participants, and a review of the
instructional materials used by the participants to teach literacy. Examination, analysis, and
reporting of the data were used to inform organizational recommendations to support future
literacy instruction and professional teacher practices that will best mitigate the Kindergarten
readiness gap for Latino EL students at TES.
Keywords: achievement gap, English learners, Kindergarten readiness, literacy
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 11
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The rich linguistic diversity that comprises today’s K-12 school-age population presents a
challenge for educators in the United States, who are responsible for providing an equitable
education for every child, regardless of language fluency. According to the U.S. Department of
Education, an English learner is a student between the ages of 3 and 21 whose native language is
other than English, who has difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or comprehending English to
the degree that those difficulties stand in the way of the student’s mastery of Common Core State
Standards and/or achieving at grade level in a classroom where instruction is delivered in English
(U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Furthermore, the U.S, Department of Education’s (2016)
definition describes an English learner as an individual whose lack of English language fluency
may deny him or her the opportunity to benefit from and function as a member of society. The
population of English learners (ELs) in U.S. schools is growing at a faster rate than any other
subgroup (Moore & Klingner, 2014).
In 2014, English learners comprised 9.3 percent of students enrolled in U.S. public
schools and Spanish was the home language of 76.5 percent of those English learners (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2016). Within the U.S. K-12 educational system, English
learners comprise a significant portion of the school-age population that is below grade level in
literacy (Richards-Tutor, Baker, Gersten, Baker, & Mercier Smith, 2016). Native Spanish
speaking ELs who have not yet developed fluency in English are at a distinct academic
disadvantage as compared to their native English-speaking peers (Calderón, Slavin, & Sánchez,
2011), from the moment they begin school as Kindergarten students, largely due to the
differences in school readiness between the two groups of students. A robust literacy program,
combined with intensive intervention in Kindergarten can substantially decrease EL students’
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 12
later risk of academic difficulties (Halle, Hair, Wandner, McNamara, & Chien, 2012; Simmons
et al., 2014).
Boivin and Bierman (2013) define school readiness as a set of social and cognitive skills
that a child has when entering Kindergarten, and assert that these skills enable a child to be
successful in the school setting. Kindergarten students come to school with differing levels of
school readiness: native English-speaking students typically start Kindergarten with a more
academically-focused set of school readiness skills than their native Spanish-speaking EL peers
(Halle et al., 2012). In order for ELs to acquire the skills that they lacked upon Kindergarten
entry, they require specialized instruction in the areas of phonological awareness, phonics
(Cheung & Slavin, 2012), reading comprehension (Bunch, Walqui, & Pearson, 2014), reading
fluency (Begeny, Ross, Green, Mitchell, & Whitehouse, 2012), and vocabulary (Calderón,
Slavin, & Sánchez, 2011). Phonological awareness, phonics, reading comprehension, oral
reading fluency, and vocabulary skills acquired in Kindergarten significantly predict a Spanish-
speaking English learner’s success in reading in later grades (Ford, Invernizzi, & Huang, 2014;
O’Connor, Bocian, Sánchez, & Beach, 2014; Simmons et al., 2014).
The school readiness achievement gap negatively impacts the future schooling of
children who are not prepared for Kindergarten (Puccioni, 2015; Quirk et al., 2011; Rhemtulla &
Tucker-Drob, 2011; Vadasy, Nelson, & Sanders, 2011). In other words, when a student starts
Kindergarten without the foundational skills upon which subsequent learning will build, it is
likely that academic deficiencies will continue throughout his or her educational career
(McKown, 2013; Reardon & Galindo, 2009). Graves (2010) and Lam & McMaster (2014) assert
that reading skills form the basis of a student’s future success in the academic arena. A student’s
reading proficiency is related to exposure to early learning before he or she began Kindergarten
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 13
(Cristofaro & Tamis-LeMonda, 2011; Holliday, Cimetta, Cutshaw, Yaden, & Marx, 2014;
Schnitzer, et al., 2008; Stuber & Patrick, 2010). Students spend their early elementary school
years learning to read, and, in later grades, are increasingly dependent upon the vocabulary that
they have acquired in order to be able to read to learn (Lesaux, Crosson, Kieffer, & Pierce,
2010). Reading is the foundation for all learning, and effective literacy instruction and early
intervention to correct the Kindergarten readiness gap is critical for the future success of English
learners (Ford, Invernizzi, & Huang, 2014; Halle et al., 2012).
Organizational Context and Mission
The Grand Mountain School District (GMSD) is small district with approximately 1,200
students in four schools: an elementary school, a middle school, a high school, and an alternative
high school. The district is located in Mountain County, in the central part of California, in a
small, isolated rural community with a population of less than 10,000. About 65% of the
students in GMSD are Latino, approximately 2% of the student body is mixed-race, African
American, Asian American, or Native American, and the remainder of the student population is
White. There is a significant percentage (about 60%) of students who receive free or reduced
lunch. Thomas Ewes School (TES) is the elementary school in the Grand Mountain School
District, and is the focus of this evaluation study.
Thomas Ewes School educates approximately 575 students of diverse backgrounds, in
grades TK-5, according to the most current school student information data. The demographics
at TES are consistent with the population of GMSD. Of the total enrollment, 63% of the students
at TES are Latino, 34% are White, 3% of students are comprised of students who are mixed-race,
Asian, African American, or Pacific Islander; and 58% of the students are Latino English
learners (California Department of Education, 2015a). The readiness skills of TES Kindergarten
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 14
students are evaluated during the first weeks of school using the Brigance® Screening Tool. The
Brigance® results demonstrate a disparity between the readiness skills of native Spanish
speakers and native English speakers. However, regardless of race or ethnicity, most students
who enter TES as Kindergarteners have not been to preschool, based on self-reported data from
parents. Preschool opportunities are scarce for children living in Mountain County. There is only
one Head Start classroom that serves about 20 low-income children, which is housed down the
street from TES. In 2014, the most recent year for which data is available, just 17% of preschool
age children with parents in the labor force had access to licensed childcare or preschool in
Mountain County (California Child Care Resource & Referral Network, 2015). For many of the
English learner students who start school at TES, their first day of Kindergarten is their first
formal exposure to the English language.
Organizational Performance Status/Need
In order to fulfill its mission and allow all students to achieve their full academic
potential, it is imperative for the staff at Thomas Ewes School to put into practice an
instructional program that will reduce the Kindergarten readiness gap before students complete
their Kindergarten year. Failure to do so will result in a continued, persistent academic
achievement gap between students from Spanish-speaking households (Latino ELs) and students
from English-speaking (English only) households. Thus, there is a need for Kindergarten
teachers to create a strong foundation in the area of literacy for all students through the use of
instructional strategies that teach literacy skills to all students, and Kindergarten teachers must
also address the unique needs of their EL students. It is thorough the thoughtful, thorough
teaching of literacy that the Kindergarten readiness gap will be closed. This study examined the
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 15
instructional practices in the area of literacy that are used by the Transitional Kindergarten
teacher and the three of the four TES Kindergarten teachers.
Importance of the Organizational Evaluation
It is important for the Kindergarten teachers to use research based literacy instructional
practices as a means of addressing the Kindergarten readiness gap for a variety of reasons. At
Thomas Ewes Elementary School, English only students significantly outperform English
learners from Kindergarten through grade five in English Language Arts and Mathematics, as
evidenced by scores California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) for
2015, 2016, and 2017, and the Renaissance Place STAR Reading, Early Literacy, and Math
assessments that are administered at least four times per school year. This difference in
achievement will have a profound, long-term effect on the Latino EL students’ education if the
gap is not remediated quickly.
The disparity in skills that exists between English only and Latino English learner
students when they enter Kindergarten continues to have a negative impact on the Latino EL
students as they go on to the middle and high school in the Grand Mountain School District, as
data from statewide assessments substantiate a persistent achievement gap in English Language
Arts. On the 2016 California Smarter Balanced assessments, 0% of English learners in the Grand
Mountain School District met or exceeded standard on the English Language Arts assessments,
as compared to 74% of White students in the district, and in 2015, 5% of English learners met
standard on the English Language Arts assessments (0% of EL students exceeded standard), as
compared to 68% of White students in the district. (California Department of Education, 2017).
The most recent results from the 2017 Smarter Balanced Assessments in English Language Arts
demonstrate a persistent gap between the White and English Learner subgroups. A total of 2% of
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 16
English learners met standard in English Language Arts (0% of EL students exceeded standard),
while 68% of White students met or exceeded standard. Numerous studies conducted throughout
the United States have found that students who experience academic struggles due to lower
achievement are more likely to drop out of high school (Legters & Balfanz, 2010; Verdugo,
2011) and far less likely to earn salaries as high as their peers who finish high school
(Fitzpatrick, McKinnon, Bair, & Willoughby, 2014; McKinsey, 2009). A strong academic
foundation will set the stage for the future success of Latino students who enter Kindergarten as
English learners.
The Kindergarten readiness gap becomes a significant problem for the students who must
catch up to their peers, as well as for the teachers who must remediate these deficiencies while
also continuing to move through the curriculum for the students who are prepared to do so.
When the body of research is considered (Beatty, 2013; Beecher & Sweeny, 2008; Daily,
Burkhauser, & Halle, 2012; Fitzpatrick et al., 2014; McKown, 2013; Reardon & Galindo, 2009),
it is likely that as long as the Kindergarten readiness gap exists, the academic achievement gap
between EO and EL students will remain throughout grades K-12 in the Grand Mountain School
District. Failure to implement instructional strategies that address the Kindergarten readiness gap
while the students are still in Kindergarten will allow an academic achievement gap to persist at
Thomas Ewes School, and will have a negative impact on the organization’s ability to achieve its
mission.
Organizational Performance Goal
By December, 2018, Kindergarten teachers at Thomas Ewes School will have fully
implemented instructional strategies in the area of literacy that will decrease the school readiness
gap and ensure that at least 45% of English learners are achieving at or above grade level, as
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 17
measured by their results on the STAR Early Literacy test. To achieve this goal, the teachers will
use instructional strategies that address the needs of their EL students. These instructional
strategies will specifically target EL students’ phonics, phonological awareness, reading
comprehension, reading fluency, and vocabulary. In addition to the targeted literacy instruction
strategies, teachers will provide weekly feedback to all students regarding their literacy
development and will set literacy goals with students. This goal was established in spring 2015,
when data indicated that none of the children who were tested in Spanish scored at the
“Kindergarten ready” level on the Brigance® screening that year. The degree to which TES
achieves this goal will be determined by the Kindergarten students’ STAR Early Literacy scores
in December, 2018 and by the Kindergarten teachers’ responses to survey items and individual
interview questions, as well as the results of a document review.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
TES currently employs 24 full-time classroom teachers, 1 reading specialist, 1 resource
specialist teacher, 1 special education teacher, 1 part-time music teacher, 1 part-time physical
education teacher, 1 part-time STEM teacher, 1 library aide, 10 paraprofessionals, and an
additional 9 classified personnel who work in clerical, custodial, and food service positions
(California Department of Education, 2015a). All teachers are considered to be “highly
qualified” under the No Child Left Behind Act, and paraprofessionals must pass a rigorous test in
order to be considered for employment in the district. There is one principal at TES, and no
additional administrative personnel at the school site.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Given the academic needs of the English learners at TES, and the persistent achievement
gap, there is a need to develop a plan to provide the necessary supports to English learners to
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 18
ensure their success in the area of literacy. English learner students and their teachers will all
benefit from having a goal that addresses the EL students’ needs in the area of literacy during the
Kindergarten year. Table 1 outlines the TES mission, a global goal, and a teacher performance
goal. Kindergarten teachers will work toward achieving the global goal, to have at least 45% of
EL students scoring at or above benchmark on the 2
nd
Benchmark STAR Early Literacy Test, by
using current research-based strategies and instructional materials to promote literacy for every
student, by planning and delivering effective instruction to meet the unique needs of EL students
and fill in any readiness gaps that ELs may have had when they started Kindergarten; and
through regular monitoring of individual student progress and adjusting instruction based on
individual student needs.

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
It is the mission of Thomas Ewes School for teachers and staff to collaborate with parents and the
community to educate and motivate our students to realize their distinct academic, physical,
emotional and social capabilities, in a kind, nurturing, and safe environment.
Organizational Performance Goal
By December, 2018, the Thomas Ewes School Kindergarten will have fully implemented
research-based instructional strategies and collaborative practices to ensure that at least 45% of
English learner students are performing at or above benchmark in the area of reading.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 19
TES Teacher Goal
By December, 2018, 100% of TES Kindergarten teachers will implement current research-
based literacy instructional strategies that target the learning gaps of the EL students who
entered Kindergarten lacking in readiness skills.

Both the organizational performance goal and the teacher goal directly address the TES
mission of educating all students to achieve their full potential. The goals were designed to
ensure that EL students receive a program of literacy instruction that allows them enter first
grade with the same, or a similar set of literacy skills as their native English speaking peers.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge and
skill, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational performance
goal. The organizational goal for Thomas Ewes School (TES) is to decrease the school readiness
achievement gap between English only (EO) students and English learner students in
Kindergarten and increase EL students’ performance on the STAR Early Literacy benchmark
test, through the use of research-based Kindergarten literacy instructional strategies. The analysis
began by generating a list of possible needs and then moved to examining these systematically to
focus on actual or validated needs. While a complete needs analysis would focus on all
stakeholders of TES, for practical purposes the stakeholders focused on in this analysis were the
TES Kindergarten teachers.

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 20
As such, the questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that hinder or
support TES Kindergarten teachers in the implementation of research-based
instructional strategies for English learners to develop literacy?
2. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
This study used Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, which is a systematic, analytical
method that helps to clarify organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual
performance level and the preferred performance level within an organization. This study used a
needs analysis as the conceptual framework. The methodological framework that was used is a
qualitative case study with descriptive statistics. Assumed knowledge, motivation and
organizational needs were be generated based on student performance data, personal knowledge
and related literature. These needs were be validated by using student performance data, surveys,
focus groups and interviews, literature review and content analysis. Research-based solutions
were recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Definitions
For clarity and consistency, this section defines the terms used throughout this study.
Achievement gap. According to The Glossary of Education Reform, the achievement
gap refers to the “significant and persistent disparity” in educational performance that exists
between groups of students (Abbott, 2013). For the purpose of this study, the achievement gap
refers to the gap in academic performance between native speakers of English and Latino ELs.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 21
English learner (EL). According to the California Department of Education (2016),
English learner students are those who have been parentally identified as being speakers of a
language other than English as part of the school enrollment process, on the Home Language
Survey. In addition, English learners have yet to demonstrate proficient levels of English in
listening comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing on the annual California English
Learner Development Test (CELDT).
English only (EO). An English only student is a student whose home language is
English, as identified by the parent on the Home Language Survey as part of the school
enrollment process.
Kindergarten readiness. Kindergarten readiness is defined as a set of skills that allow
students to be successful in their first formal school learning experiences (Hatcher, Nuner, &
Paulsel, 2012). Kindergarten teachers use assessment instruments to determine the level of
readiness with which a child begins Kindergarten, such as the Brigance® Assessment.
Kindergarten readiness gap. The Kindergarten readiness gap is the variation in
academic performance between groups of Kindergarten students at the start of the Kindergarten
year (Sadowski, 2006), as measured by assessment scores.
Literacy. Literacy is competency in reading and writing, which includes the ability to
decode the written word, construct meaning of text, and produce writing. Keefe and Copeland
(2011) add an additional dimension to the conventional notion of literacy by categorizing literacy
as a basic right to which every student has a right.
Phonological awareness. According to the Common Core State Standards for
Kindergarten, phonological awareness entails an understanding of spoken words, syllabication,
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 22
and units of sound, or phonemes (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
Phonics. The Common Core State Standards categorize phonics as the knowledge of the
sounds that individual letters and combinations of letters make. Students need knowledge of
phonics in order to decode or read words. (National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
Reading comprehension. Shanahan et al. (2010) define reading comprehension as a
process whereby the reader is able to interact with text through a process of concurrently pulling
out information and making meaning of words.
Reading fluency. Oral reading fluency is defined as reading with purpose and
understanding (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2010) as well as accuracy and expression.
Transitional Kindergarten (TK). The California Department of Education (2017a)
defines Transitional Kindergarten as the beginning year of a two-year Kindergarten program of
instruction for students who turn five between September 2 and December 2. TK was established
for California public schools in The Kindergarten Readiness Act of 2010. At TES, most students
who complete TK go on to a full year of Kindergarten, while a few matriculate to first grade
after the TK year.
Vocabulary. Students need to acquire academic vocabulary in a variety of domains in
order to be able to fully access and understand texts that they read (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 23
Organization of the Study
This study is organized in five chapters. This chapter provided the reader with the key
concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about the school readiness
achievement gap. This chapter also provided a snapshot of the organization’s mission, goals and
stakeholders and asserted the initial concepts of gap analysis adapted to the needs analysis. The
literature review in Chapter Two examines the current literature related to the Kindergarten
readiness gap and effective instructional strategies to teach literacy to English learners. Chapter
Three details the assumed needs for this study as well as the methodology underlying the choice
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, to address the needs
of and closing the gap for English learners. Chapter Five will also suggest recommendations for
an implementation and evaluation plan for the proposed solutions.

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 24
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter Two provides a synthesis of the literature that explains the Kindergarten
readiness gap, its relationship to the K-12 academic achievement gap between English only and
English learner students, and the instructional strategies that Kindergarten teachers can
implement to address gaps in learning that students possess when they start Kindergarten. The
first section provides an overview of factors influencing the Kindergarten readiness gap, and
areas in which students need intervention in order to catch up to their “Kindergarten-ready”
peers. The second segment addresses instructional strategies in the areas of phonics,
phonological awareness, reading fluency, reading comprehension, and vocabulary development,
as well as teacher use of feedback with students as ways to build Kindergarten students’ skills in
the area of literacy. The chapter ends with a gap analysis to examine the barriers that teachers
face in implementing instructional strategies to promote Kindergarten students’ literacy, through
the dimensions of knowledge, motivation, and organization.
The Kindergarten Readiness Gap and Implications for Kindergarten Instruction
There is a general expectation in the public school system that children should enter
Kindergarten “ready” for school, with certain knowledge and skills that will facilitate their
scholastic success. A readiness gap exists between students who have had many experiences-
facilitated by their parents- that prepare them for school, and Kindergarteners who enter school
for the first time lacking in parent-facilitated knowledge and experiences.
The demographic profile most typically associated with a student who is not prepared for
Kindergarten is a linguistic minority student, or English learner. The literature indicates that
Latino families who speak primarily Spanish at home do not focus on academic skills with their
children prior to school entry, while English-speaking families typically place a high emphasis
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 25
on academic skills. Thus, many EL students may start school ready to acquire a foundation to
prepare them for the rigors of learning to read, while many of their EO classmates already have
this foundation.
Some students start school without school readiness skills gained through parent-child
verbal interactions (Cristofaro & Tamis-LeMonda, 2011; Dotterer, Iruka, & Pungello, 2012;
Lally, 2010; Pérez & Dagen, 2009), early exposure to books and literacy-related activities in the
home (Linder, Ramey, & Zambak, 2013; Lugo-Gil & Tamis-LeMonda, 2008; Raag, Kusiak,
Tumity, Kelemen, Bernheimer, & Bond, 2011; Schaub, 2015; Schnitzer, Kaplin, Keane,
Zuckerman, & Sharfstein, 2008), and participation in preschool programs (Belfield & García,
2014; Stuber & Patrick, 2010). When children lack these concepts, which make up the broader
category of readiness skills, they are at a disadvantage as compared to their peers who possess
these skills at Kindergarten entry (DeFeyter & Winsler, 2009; Dotterer, Iruka, & Pungello, 2012;
Griffith, Kimmel, & Briscoe, 2010; Puccioni, 2015; Stuber & Patrick, 2010). Regardless of a
child’s level of readiness, her Kindergarten teacher is responsible for providing instruction to
address academic standards. Without instruction and intervention to address skill gaps in
Kindergarten, a child will not acquire grade-level literacy skills, and will fall further behind his
or her peers (Duncan & Sojourner, 2013; Griffith, Kimmel, & Biscoe, 2010; Linder, Ramey, &
Zambak, 2013).
Overview of Terms that Indicate Kindergarten Readiness
Being Kindergarten-ready means that a child is prepared to begin learning when they
start school for the first time (Quirk, Nylund-Gibson, & Furlong, 2013). This readiness typically
entails knowledge of the following:
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 26
1. Concepts of print: writing goes from left to right and top to bottom; the person who
writes a book is called the author; illustrations correspond to the words on a page
2. Beginning alphabet knowledge, phonics, and phonological awareness: each letter has a
name and a sound; the sounds of the different letters in a word are combined to make up a word;
and sounds can be combined in different ways to make different words
3. Vocabulary: the student has adequate vocabulary to describe his/her wants and needs
and the environment, and is able to respond appropriately to questions.
The Kindergarten Readiness Gap
Some students enter Kindergarten with a set of skills that allow them to begin learning
from day one, while others enter Kindergarten with few or no skills. The students in the latter
group require immediate remediation in order for them to gain the skills that their Kindergarten-
ready peers had when they began school. (DiBello & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2008). Furthermore,
according to DiBello and Neuharth-Pritchett (2008), students entering kindergarten are expected
to have a greater base of skills and knowledge today than they were in previous years.
Kindergarten Readiness
Children who start Kindergarten with readiness skills are more likely to perform at or
above grade level than those who enter Kindergarten without such skills (Voegler-Lee,
Kupersmidt, Field, & Willoughby, 2012). In addition, students’ language and vocabulary skills
play an important role in school readiness. Once students arrive in the Kindergarten classroom,
their teachers are tasked with teaching students the skills that are needed to develop literacy.
Some students will be able to start learning to read right away, whereas others will have to catch
up to their peers in terms of readiness skills.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 27
Changing academic expectations for Kindergarten, including the Common Core State
Standards, have affected the way that Kindergarten classrooms are structured and what and how
Kindergarten teachers teach. Due to the increasing rigor of the curriculum that Kindergarten
students are expected to master, Kindergarten teachers anticipate that their incoming students
will have a set of prerequisite skills and consider those students who possess these skills to be
Kindergarten ready. Whatever a Kindergarten teacher’s expectations may be for the preparation
of her students, the first-day-of school reality is often very different, leaving the teacher to plan
for two distinct profiles: the student who is ready, and the student who is not ready.
Research-based strategies to teach literacy can be successful tools in remediating
students’ skill gaps. Teachers need training and guidance in the implementation of such
programs. Many studies indicate that teachers feel ill-equipped to teach literacy, and welcome
the opportunity to receive professional development in the area of teaching literacy (Calderón,
Slavin, & Sánchez, 2011; Cheung & Slavin, 2012; Ford, Invernizzi, & Huang, 2014).
Differences in Kindergarten readiness between EL and EO students. Cultural
differences account for differences in the way that parents prepare their children for
Kindergarten (De Feyter & Winsler, 2009). Furthermore, according to De Feyter and Winsler
(2009), first-generation immigrant families of second-language learners have less access to
quality preschool than subsequent generations of immigrants and native English-speaking
families. The cultural differences in Kindergarten preparation amount to different strengths, as
immigrant children show relative strengths in the areas of social skills and behavior, while non-
immigrant children demonstrate strengths in the areas of cognitive skills and language.
While English learners may enter school without academic skills, their strengths in the
areas of social skills and behavior should be noted and valued. Teachers should not form
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 28
judgements of the way that students have been prepared for kindergarten, but should, rather, play
upon EL students’ strengths in order to build their academic skills.
Remediating Knowledge and Skill Gaps in the Kindergarten Classroom
Effective Instructional Strategies for ELs
Specific strategies have proven effective in teaching literacy, in order to support the
unique linguistic needs of English learners. Because students enter school with varying levels of
readiness, careful assessment and monitoring of students’ skill levels is recommended (Calderón,
Slavin, & Sánchez, 2011). The ongoing use of data to make instructional decisions and provide
intervention to English learners is effective.
English learners require additional support in order to learn how to read, and this
additional support should be delivered based on the evidence of student performance data. A
successful literacy program for English learners is one that is constantly changing based on
student needs.
Phonics. Phonics instruction in Kindergarten has long-term benefits for English learners
in the area of reading comprehension, and early instruction in phonics is linked to English
learners’ development of word-level skills equal to English only students (Vadasy & Sanders,
2012). In later grades, reading comprehension is necessary for academic success (Vadasy &
Sanders, 2012).
When English learner students receive a Kindergarten literacy program that includes
explicit phonics instruction, they benefit long-term from increased reading comprehension.
Phonics instruction is a necessary part of an effective instructional program for English learners.
Phonological awareness. It is important to identify areas of deficit in literacy for English
learners, and to remediate those deficits, in Kindergarten. For English learners whose first
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 29
language is Spanish, phonological awareness instruction in English promotes English reading
skills (Linklater, O’Connor, & Palardy, 2009). Use of systematic phonological awareness
strategies in the classroom is effective in teaching reading. Students who show a proficiency in
phoneme segmentation fluency early in Kindergarten are more likely to demonstrate later
success in reading (Linklater, O’Connor, & Palardy, 2009).
By providing a strong foundation of phonological awareness skills early in the school
year to students who enter Kindergarten without this knowledge, teachers provide their students
with a foundational skill that is necessary for the development of strong reading skills in first
grade. Furthermore, early identification of deficits in phonological awareness should accompany
a regular program of intervention for English learner students.
Reading comprehension. English learners may have skills that allow them to decode
written words, but may lack the requisite comprehension skills that allow them to assign
meaning to what they have read (Dresser, 2012). An explicit instructional focus on reading
comprehension has been proven to be effective with EL students to help them understand what
they read (August & Shanahan, 2010; Calderón, Slavin, & Sánchez, 2011). EL students benefit
from classroom routines that incorporate checking for understanding (August & Shanahan, 2010;
Begeny, Ross, Greene, Mitchell, & Whitehouse, 2012).
Bunch, Walqui, and Pearson (2014) stress that teachers must provide students with the
tools that allow them to access the meaning of text, and warn against modifying written materials
to make them easier for students to understand. A focus on meaning, rather than decoding, will
most benefit EL students (August, McCardle, & Shanahan, 2014).
Reading fluency. According to August, McCardle, & Shanahan (2014), students can
learn fluency through independent and teacher-led practice. There is a high correlation between
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 30
EL students’ reading fluency and their overall success on measures of reading assessment,
including comprehension (Begeny, Ross, Greene, Mitchell, & Whitehouse, 2012).
Vocabulary development. Vocabulary is another critical predictor of later success in
reading. Anthony et al. (2009) assert that second language learners have smaller vocabularies in
English than native speakers of English, which can be a barrier to literacy development, and
skills that children possess in their first language are predictors of the development of the same
skills in the second language. A strong vocabulary in Spanish was found to be a significant
predictor of phonological awareness in English (Anthony et al., 2009).
According to Ford, Invernizzi, & Huang (2014), not knowing the meaning of words that
they read is a significant problem for many EL students, and Vadasy, Sanders, & Nelson (2015)
further assert that a student’s vocabulary knowledge correlates directly to his or her later
development as a reader. Given the impact that a strong vocabulary has on literacy development,
Spanish-speaking students who enter school with few skills in their native language will require
remediation in Kindergarten to develop skills in English. An intense vocabulary development
program will benefit English learners in acquiring English and developing literacy skills in their
second language.
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework
This qualitative evaluation study used the systematic, analytical methodology of Clark
and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework. The gap analysis process began with setting a global
goal for the organization, then proceeded to establish a stakeholder-specific performance goal
and provided a detailed analysis of the gap between the desired and actual stakeholder
performance in terms of the goals. The gap analysis includes identification of the assumed
knowledge, motivational, and organizational barriers that could hinder goal achievement, and
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 31
concludes with recommended research-based solutions that are developed and evaluated in a
comprehensive manner.
A needs analysis forms the conceptual framework for the study. According to Clark and
Estes (2008), identifying a set of assumed needs in three areas is crucial: first, knowledge that
stakeholders need to possess in order to achieve the goals; second, motivation that stakeholders
have for achieving the goals, and, third, obstacles within the larger organization that are barriers
to goal achievement. These assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs were
identified based on student performance data, teachers’ self-reported knowledge, the researcher’s
observations, and related literature. In the study, organizational and stakeholder needs were
validated through a combination of qualitative and quantitative measures: student performance
data, teacher surveys and interviews, observation and analysis of current instructional practices,
and a literature review.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
The stakeholder goal of Thomas Ewes School (TES) is for Kindergarten teachers to
implement instructional strategies to promote the literacy development of English learners. In
order to successfully implement these strategies, teachers must possess certain key elements of
knowledge. Both Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011) stress the importance of process as a
key element of achieving goals. Clark and Estes (2011) further assert that the organization must
provide knowledge and skills to its stakeholders. This section provides a review of the relevant
literature that deals with the knowledge necessary to accomplish the stakeholder goal of
implementing instructional strategies to promote the literacy development of English learners.
First, the target stakeholder group, Kindergarten teachers, must understand and persevere in the
use of strategies to teach literacy to ELs; and second, Kindergarten teachers must know how to
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 32
deliver feedback to students as they develop their literacy skills. Strong knowledge for
Kindergarten teachers at TES in these areas will enable them to implement effective instructional
strategies to facilitate EL students’ literacy development, and also will allow EL students to
make growth in reading that is commensurate with the organizational goal. The analysis of
literature will focus on the conceptual topic of effective instructional strategies, the procedural
topic of feedback as part of the learning process, and the metacognitive topic of reflection on the
efficacy of instruction.
Knowledge Influences
In order for teachers to reach the goal of implementing instructional strategies to promote
the development of EL students, they must possess the appropriate knowledge to be able to do
so. This section investigates teacher knowledge of the components of effective instruction, which
is crucial to the literacy development of Kindergarten EL students; teacher knowledge of how to
use those effective instructional strategies with their EL students; and finally, teacher knowledge
of the practice of using feedback as a valuable tool for student learning.
There are three types of knowledge that are relevant to the knowledge influences that
relate to the TES stakeholder goal- declarative/factual, declarative/conceptual, and procedural.
First, the most basic concepts, terms, or information that is specific to a discipline is known as
factual knowledge (Rueda, 2011). Next, conceptual knowledge denotes the synchrony between
two or more elements that are part of a larger structure (Krathwohl, 2002), and also refers to the
principles of a certain subject area (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Finally, procedural knowledge is
process-oriented, and represents a set of skills necessary to perform a task effectively
(Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). It is important to distinguish between these three
knowledge types because all are required in order to achieve the desired outcomes of the
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 33
stakeholder goal. More specifically, teachers must know what needs to be done to promote
literacy for their English learners (factual knowledge), why certain strategies are most effective
for teaching literacy to English learners (conceptual knowledge), and how to most effectively
deliver literacy instruction to English learners (procedural knowledge).
Importance and benefits of using effective instructional strategies. Teachers need
knowledge of why certain instructional strategies are effective and how they benefit students.
Conceptual knowledge about instructional strategies is critical for teachers as part of the process
of literacy development for EL students. First, there is a wide body of research that asserts that
teachers must have specific assessment data that shows the areas in which students are proficient,
as well as the academic areas where the students need help, in order to provide effective, targeted
instruction (see Almomani et al., 2014; Forster & Souvignier, 2014; Haas, Stickney, &
Ysseldyke, 2016). Because teachers often discount research-based evidence that supports the use
of certain strategies to promote literacy (Spear-Swerling & Zibulsky, 2014), it is important that
teachers understand the value of, and implement such strategies to ensure that the literacy needs
of EL students are met.
Teacher knowledge of effective, research-based literacy instructional strategies is
positively associated with student achievement in reading (Piasta, Connor, Fishman, & Morrison,
2009). Furthermore, Piasta et al. (2009) found that students whose teachers had specific
knowledge of early literacy skills were more likely to provide students with quality instruction,
and their students scored higher on measures of early literacy.
When teachers have a well-developed base of knowledge in the area of literacy, there is
increased likelihood that they will be able to pinpoint students’ skill deficits and plan instruction
that targets those deficits (Brady et al., 2009; Podhajski, Mather, Nathan, & Sammons, 2009). In
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 34
order to meet the needs of their EL students, teachers must possess deep knowledge of
instructional strategies and understand how using those strategies will build their students’
literacy skills (Podhajski et al., 2009). In a study done by Kramer-Vida, Levitt, & Kelly (2012),
Kindergarten EL students benefited when their teachers understood the specific needs of each
student.
Reasons why instruction needs to be changed or adapted for ELs. Beyond general
knowledge about effective strategies for literacy instruction, teachers need a knowledge base in
order to understand why their literacy instruction should not be “one size fits all.” English
learners have specific needs in the area of literacy. Evidence-based practices are supported by
research findings (Mayer, 2011) and the TES teachers should be aware of research-based
instructional adaptations for teaching literacy to English learners. Rueda (2011) further asserts
that sociocultural factors should be taken into account when planning instruction. Teachers need
to know the impact of the Kindergarten readiness gap on their EL students’ academic
performance.
Mayer (2011) states that instructional objectives are designed to promote learning. Armed
with the knowledge about their instructional objectives for EL students, teachers will maximize
learning outcomes for those students and building appropriate upon the ELs’ knowledge and
linguistic base in the area of literacy.
Understanding how to adapt instructional strategies for use with ELs. Teachers need
to be able to interpret information in a way that benefits student learning (Stürmer, Könings, &
Seidel, 2013). Adapting instructional strategies for use with English learners ensures that those
students develop skills in reading. When teachers adapt their instruction and provide English
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 35
learners with a sound Response to Intervention (RTI) program (Rueda, 2011), the students are
able to develop literacy through strategies that address their unique needs.
Understanding how to prepare and deliver feedback. Chan et al. (2014) identify
feedback as a strategy that a teacher can use to promote student ownership of their own learning,
and categorize the use of feedback as an ongoing part of the learning process. Providing effective
feedback to students about their learning progress requires the teacher to have procedural
knowledge. First, the teacher must understand that they must provide candid, direct feedback to
learners about their progress toward goals (Cabral-Márquez, 2015). However, responding to
feedback is an unnatural task for a child, thus the teacher must explicitly teach students how to
receive feedback and react to it (Chan et al., 2014). Regular conferences between teachers and
students help to develop the students’ abilities to act on the feedback that their teachers provide
(Chan et al., 2014).
Since responding to feedback does not come naturally to students, teachers need to be
able to support students in the area of self-reflection. Teachers do this when they deliver
feedback that helps students to identify the reasons why they did or did not make progress
(Forster & Souvignier, 2014). Similarly, Konrad et al. (2014) find that learning targets help to
clarify for students the steps that they must take to reach a goal, and that these targets help
students to more clearly respond to feedback from their teachers on how they are progressing
relative to the goal.
Table 2 provides a summary of knowledge influences and assessments for the stakeholder
goal at TES. The literature supports the importance of knowledge influences on teacher success.
There are both declarative and procedural knowledge influences that are critical to teachers
reaching the stakeholder goal. These influences will be assessed through various interview and
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 36
survey questions. If Kindergarten teachers at TES understand the value of using research-based
instructional practices and strategies targeted to the specific needs of English learners, the
teachers will begin to examine the efficacy of their own literacy instruction to ensure that
English learners receive the most effective, robust literacy instruction, and there will be an
increased chance that the stakeholder goal will be met.

Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessments Related to TES Goals
Organizational Mission
It is the mission of Thomas Ewes School for teachers and staff to collaborate with parents and the
community to educate and motivate our students to realize their distinct academic, physical,
emotional and social capabilities, in a kind, nurturing, and safe environment.
Organizational Global Goal
By December, 2018, the Thomas Ewes School Kindergarten will have fully implemented
research-based instructional strategies and collaborative practices to ensure that at least 45% of
English learner students are performing at or above benchmark in the area of reading.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment
Teachers need to know why
literacy instruction for ELs
needs to be different from
literacy instruction for EOs
Declarative/Factual
Interview and survey questions asked
teachers to share their knowledge about
why instruction needs to be adapted or
changed for EL students.
Teachers need to understand
and persevere in using
Declarative/Conceptual

Interview and survey questions asked
teachers about instructional strategies
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 37
strategies to teach literacy to
ELs.

that they regularly use in the area of
literacy, with a rationale for the use of
each strategy.
Teachers need to know how to
adapt instructional strategies
for use with ELs

Procedural

Interview and survey questions asked
teachers to describe specific scenarios
about how they adapted their
instructional strategies when teaching
literacy to EL students.
Teachers need to understand
how to prepare and deliver
appropriate feedback to
students regarding the students’
literacy development
Procedural
Interview and survey questions asked
teachers for specific examples of how
and why they provide feedback to
Kindergarten students.

Motivational Influences
Mayer (2011) describes motivation as, “an internal state that initiates and maintains goal
directed behavior” (p. 39). Furthermore, according to Rueda (2011), individuals are motivated
by cultural or social forces. Clark and Estes (2008) identify “active choice”- whether a person
chooses to perform a task “persistence”- the person’s focus on the task, and “mental effort”- the
thought a person puts into a task, as the three components of motivation. Motivation creates the
necessary sense of urgency that allows individuals to accomplish goals, and if there are needs in
terms of active choice, persistence, and mental effort, the chances of success with the task are
diminished.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 38
This section will review the relevant literature on motivational influences that are
important to the attainment of the TES stakeholder goal of Kindergarten teachers implementing
instructional strategies to promote the literacy development of English learners. The two
motivational influences related to the TES teacher goal are related to task value, which falls
under the domain of expectancy value theory, and self-efficacy. Expectancy value theory
explores whether individuals are able to do a task, as well as whether individuals have the desire
to do a task (Eccles, 2006). Self-efficacy theory asserts that beliefs about one’s ability to learn
and/or accomplish tasks form the basis of human motivation (Pajares, 2006). In order for TES
Kindergarten teachers to be successful in reaching the goal of implementing instructional
strategies to promote the literacy development of English learners, they must find value in the
use of those strategies and be (or become) confident in their abilities to effectively and regularly
use those strategies in the classroom.
Expectancy value theory: utility value. According to Eccles (2006), expectancy value
theory asks two key questions- do individuals have the necessary knowledge and/or skills to
perform a task, and do individuals want to perform the task. Utility value refers to the latter
question. The higher the perceived value of a task, the higher the motivation to perform the task
(Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003).
When an individual views a task as one that aligns well with their existing goals, beliefs,
or desires, the individual is more likely to find utility value for that task (Eccles, 2006).
Conversely, if the individual is opposed to the task because of conflicts with their existing goals,
beliefs, or desires, the individual will likely not be motivated to engage in the task. Individuals
are more motivated to perform a task when they have “buy-in” for that task, and believe that
doing the task will provide them with some sort of benefit. In other words, a task has utility
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 39
value to an individual when they see that task as having a purpose in helping them reach future
goals (Eccles, 2006).
Teacher values. The stakeholder goal for TES is for Kindergarten teachers to implement
instructional strategies to promote the literacy development of English learners. Teachers will be
motivated to attain this goal if they recognize the value or importance of the use of effective
instructional strategies to promote literacy development.
Prior to participating in professional development on instructional strategies in the area of
literacy, the TES Kindergarten teachers initiated the request to participate in training to learn
effective strategies to use with EL students. According to Pop and colleagues (2010), there is a
positive relationship between participation in professional development and transfer of those
strategies to the classroom. Prior to attending the professional development, the TES teachers
placed utility value on the use of effective instructional strategies, and the professional
development served only to strengthen the teachers’ attribution of utility value to the use of those
strategies. Conversely, the findings of VanDuzor (2010) indicate that teachers tend to modify or
disregard altogether the transfer of skills learned through professional development when there is
no perceived value for what was learned in the professional development. VanDuzor (2010)
further asserts that when teachers have a negative view of professional development experiences,
they are less likely to transfer the skills learned from those experiences to their classrooms.
The literature on expectancy value theory points to a correlation between utility value and
motivation. In summary, the TES Kindergarten teachers are motivated to implement the goal of
using instructional strategies to promote the literacy development of English learners because
they place a high utility value on the use of such strategies.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 40
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy, motivation, and self-confidence help individuals
accomplish their goals. According to Pintrich (2003), changes in self-confidence over time are
correlated with changes in values, and there is a clear link between one’s motivation and one’s
self-efficacy. Furthermore, individuals who possess self-efficacy, or a personal belief that they
have the capability of doing something, possess high levels of task motivation (Pajares, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).
There are two types of efficacy: self-efficacy and collective efficacy (Bandura, 2000;
Borgogni et al., 2011; Pajares, 2006). Self-efficacy beliefs are how an individual views their
abilities (Pajares, 2006), whereas collective efficacy denotes the way an individual views the
abilities of a group (Borgogni et al., 2011). When members of a team are individually self-
efficacious, there are positive outcomes for the team as a whole, with regard to the promotion of
successful behaviors (Borgogni et al., 2011). Moreover, when individuals are self-efficacious,
they tend to be more cooperative in their work with their colleagues (Bandura, 2000).
Whether working alone or collaboratively, individuals are motivated toward achieving
goals when they believe that they are capable of doing so (Pajares, 2006). Also, individuals who
possess a positive sense of self-efficacy are more likely to be willing participants in initiatives
aimed at reform (Cerit, 2013). The organization that has high numbers of stakeholders with high
levels of self-efficacy is more likely to succeed at creating positive changes than an organization
that does not have high numbers of stakeholders with high self-efficacy.
Teacher self-efficacy. Teacher self-efficacy is linked to values, knowledge, and skills,
with prior success being the greatest predictor of self-efficacy. Additionally, if TES Kindergarten
teachers are confident in their abilities to implement instructional strategies to promote the
literacy development of English learners, they are more likely to place a high utility value on
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 41
those strategies. Furthermore, when teachers provide valuable feedback to students, the students
receive information that will further their literacy development. According to Pajares (2006),
teacher confidence leads to successful outcomes for students. More specifically, Dixon (2011)
found that teachers who felt confident in their abilities to give feedback to students were more
likely to continue using such practices.
Pajares (2006) defines collective efficacy as the shared set of beliefs, held by a group, in
the group’s ability to perform the tasks needed to achieve its goals. Aside from individual self-
efficacy, as a group, the TES Kindergarten teachers can increase the likelihood of their achieving
the goal of weekly student conferences by developing a sense of collective efficacy. In other
words, in order to meet the goal of 100% of TES Kindergarten teachers successfully
implementing instructional strategies to promote the literacy development of EL students, there
must be a sense of collective efficacy among the teachers. Dixon (2011) found that teachers with
high levels of self-efficacy about their ability to give feedback to students had the best outcomes,
and were most effective in providing focused feedback.
Teacher efficacy is also largely driven by perception (Bandura, 2000). If TES
Kindergarten teachers perceive themselves as effective in implementing instructional strategies
to promote the literacy development of EL students, they are more likely to devote more time
during the school day to implement such strategies, and attain the goal. Conversely, a barrier to
student success exists when teachers perceive that they do not have adequate time to address
student needs (Black, 2014). It is crucial for the teachers to perceive themselves as effective
users of instructional strategies to promote the literacy development of EL students in order to
ensure that the stakeholder goal is met.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 42
Finally, teacher efficacy is influenced by successful experience. Experience strengthens
teachers’ skills, and the more that the TES teachers use instructional strategies to promote the
literacy development of EL students and experience positive outcomes from the use of those
strategies, the higher the teachers’ self-efficacy will become Haverback (2009) points to teacher
experience as a key to self-efficacy, and states that the use of individualized, or targeted,
strategies will improve students’ reading abilities.
Adapting instructional strategies. According to Elmore (2002), educators should
examine and reflect upon classroom practices and the impact of those practices on students.
When a teacher takes the time to reflect on how effective their instruction is in helping students
make progress toward their goals, they are able to make changes necessary to improve teaching
and learning. This process of making informed instructional adaptations is a metacognitive
process, which gives the teacher a deep understanding of whether or not the instructional
strategies that they are using are effective for their EL students, and allows the teacher to make
adjustments to the instructional program that will benefit the literacy development of EL
students. According to Bingham and colleagues (2010), self-assessment nurtures metacognition,
which promotes teacher efficacy (Noormohammadi, 2014).
Rueda (2011) asserts that it is not enough for a teacher to merely know how to use
effective instructional techniques. The educator must engage in a deeper, metacognitive process
of understanding why and when changes need to be made (Rueda, 2011). When teachers begin to
engage in reflection about their instructional practices, they produce notable changes in the way
that they teach (Stover et al., 2011). If, through a process of metacognition, teachers determine
that they are not using instructional strategies that target areas of learning where students need
additional support, they will make appropriate adjustments, in the interest of student success.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 43
Bansilal and Rosenberg (2011) describe an effective process whereby teachers engage in
systematic reflection which creates a sense of ownership over teaching practices and allows
teachers to pinpoint and remediate problems of practice. Similarly, Camburn and Han (2015)
link teacher reflective practice to teachers making changes to the way that they teach literacy.
Table 3 provides a summary of the three motivational influences and corresponding
assessments for the stakeholder goal at TES. The literature supports the correlation between self-
efficacy, implementation of instructional strategies, and goal achievement. Thus, when TES
Kindergarten teachers demonstrate self-efficacy and work together to create an environment that
has high collective efficacy, the likelihood of achieving the stakeholder goal of implementing
instructional strategies to promote the literacy development of EL students is equally high.

Table 3
Motivation Influences and Motivational Influence Assessments Related to TES Goals

Organizational Mission
It is the mission of Thomas Ewes School to work together with parents and community to
educate and motivate all students to achieve their individual academic, physical, emotional and
social potential, in a caring, safe environment.
Stakeholder Goal
By December, 2018, 100% of TES Kindergarten teachers will implement current research-
based literacy instructional strategies that target the learning gaps of the EL students who
entered Kindergarten lacking in readiness skills.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivation Influence Assessment
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 44
Utility Value: Teachers need to understand the
value of using instructional strategies to promote
the literacy development of English learners.
Teachers will respond to a survey prompt:
“Please describe the impact of an
instructional strategy (or strategies) that
you use to promote the literacy
development of English learners.”
Self-efficacy: Teachers need to feel confident in
their abilities to deliver effective literacy
instruction to English learners.

Teachers will respond to an interview
question: “How comfortable are you with
your skills in delivering an effective
literacy program to your English
learners?”
Emotion: Teachers need the desire to change their
instructional practices to promote student growth.

Teachers will respond to an interview
question: “Under what circumstances do
you make changes to the literacy
strategies you use with your English
learners? Can you give an example?”

Organizational Influences
There is a great sense of urgency to ensure educational equity for all students, in light of
the persistent academic achievement gap that exists between English only and English learner
students, beginning in Kindergarten. In the school setting, teachers often cite organizational
barriers as hindrances to their being able to provide the most effective instruction to their
students. According to Clark and Estes (2008), an organization is only as good as the processes it
has put in place. In other words, in the absence of solid organizational processes, even the most
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 45
skilled members of the organization may experience performance problems. If a school does not
provide its teachers with processes that facilitate effective, high quality instruction, even the best
employees will be faced with challenges to their work. Clark and Estes (2008) identify alignment
of resources and organizational change as additional critical factors that have a powerful impact
on an organization’s ability to meet its goals. In short, the school, as organization, can facilitate
or hinder its own goal achievement.
Work processes and teacher collaboration. According to Clark and Estes (2008), work
processes are the means by which different components of an organization- human and
procedural- work in concert to achieve a stated result. In a school, teachers are the catalysts for
change, but it is difficult for change to occur when there are many outside forces that influence
the educational process. Teachers are tasked with ensuring that each of their students achieve at
grade level, while also following the rules and regulations of their profession. If the organization,
the school, does not have efficient and effective work processes, there will be little progress
toward the goal of equity in student achievement.
Both Datnow et al. (2013) and Little (2012) point to teacher collaboration as a shared
responsibility within a school, and assert that schools that provide a uniform structure for this
collaboration set the stage for teachers to improve teaching and learning. Collaboration between
teachers to improve teaching and learning, through the analysis of student data, has been shown
to be an effective process (Datnow, Park, & Kennedy-Lewis, 2013; Gasoi, 2009; Little, 2012).
The data analysis process promotes educational equity by allowing teachers to study student
achievement trends and plan instruction that will address the needs of every child.
Schools are faced with many mandates from district, state and federal levels, which are
often conflicting (Gasoi, 2009; Peck, Gallucci, Sloan, & Lippincott, 2009). The process of
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 46
balancing effective teaching practices with compliance to higher-level mandates is a difficult
one, as described by Gasoi (2009). A school-level organization must support its teachers so that
they are able to implement instructional practices that are both effective and compliant. If a
school is to achieve its educational goals, the organization must ensure that teachers are able to
deliver efficacious instruction to meet the needs of all students. Teacher collaboration to examine
student data in order to make informed decisions for classroom instruction is a school-wide
process that will allow teachers to better meet their goals for student achievement.
Value chain analysis. A value chain explores the objectives in place to meet the stated
goals of an organization, and provides insight into the efficacy of those objectives (Clark &
Estes, 2008). When collaboration between teachers is not a high-level objective at a school, there
is a negative impact on instructional program, which will adversely affect the students (Johnson,
2012). As teachers within the school organization work toward the goal of high levels of
achievement for all students, they often adopt specific instructional strategies to help them reach
their goals. Oftentimes, those instructional strategies are not effective in meeting the academic
needs of all students, specifically English learners (Molle, 2013). Thus, the very instructional
practices that are used can be a barrier to the organization meeting its goal. Johnson (2012)
recommends that the school context be examined to determine whether the organizational
structure supports goal achievement.
Alignment of organizational culture with organizational behavior. It is imperative for
the culture of an organization to support its goals by promoting behavior that is aligned with goal
achievement (Tosti, 2007). Clark & Estes (2008) recommend using core beliefs to drive
organizational decision-making that supports the organization’s goals. While an organization’s
culture is both pervasive and deep-rooted, it is possible for the culture of that organization to
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 47
change (Clark & Estes, 2008). If the school culture supports student achievement through the
objectives of teacher collaboration and the implementation of effective instructional strategies to
support the learning of every student, then teachers must embrace those objectives.
When a school culture that supports high academic achievement is in place, and teachers
align their instructional practices with that culture, the results are positive (Sleegers et al., 2011).
Thus, culture is a critical factor in closing the academic achievement gap between English only
students and English learners. Table 4 explains the cultural setting and cultural model influences.

Table 4
Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments Related to TES Goals

Organizational Mission
It is the mission of Thomas Ewes School to work together with parents and community to
educate and motivate all students to achieve their individual academic, physical, emotional and
social potential, in a caring, safe environment.
Organizational Performance Goal
By December, 2018, the Thomas Ewes School Kindergarten will have fully implemented
research-based instructional strategies and collaborative practices to ensure that at least 45% of
English learner students are performing at or above benchmark in the area of reading.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence
There is no established culture of collaboration
among teachers.

Survey and interview questions about
using data to plan instruction
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 48
Cultural Setting Influence
There is no consistency in the implementation of
pedagogical strategies for phonics and phonemic
awareness.

Survey and interview questions about the
literacy instruction strategies and
materials used by all teachers

Summary
The literature describes the Kindergarten readiness gap as one that can have profound
implications on English learner (EL) students’ academic achievement, if it is not remediated
early. As Kindergarten teachers provide instruction to their students who started Kindergarten
without the necessary readiness skills, the teachers’ needs in the areas of knowledge, motivation,
and organization must be addressed to eliminate any potential barriers to the achievement of the
organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2008) of having 45% of Kindergarten English learners
perform at or above grade level on the second STAR Early Literacy benchmark test.
This chapter provided an overview of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
elements that will be validated in Chapter Three. These elements are drawn from learning and
motivation theory and will allow for a deeper understanding of what teachers need to know and
be motivated to do. In addition these elements serve as a guide for the help and support that the
administration of Thomas Ewes School can provide to the teachers in order to facilitate the
achievement of stakeholder and organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Knowledge of
specific strategies for literacy instruction, how to provide students with feedback, and when and
why to adapt literacy instruction strategies for EL students are critical knowledge elements for
teachers to have. In terms of motivation, teachers need a desire to understand why certain
strategies are valuable in promoting literacy in EL students, a desire and confidence to provide
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 49
effective instruction and constructive feedback to allow EL students to develop literacy, and the
motivation to make changes to their instructional program when they are needed. Finally,
Thomas Ewes School, as the organization, must provide a structure and resources to the teachers
to allow ongoing student data analysis, continued use of effective instructional strategies and
time to deliver those strategies, and must promote structures that foster consistency among
teachers in the use of literacy strategies.

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 50
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the conceptual framework and the methodology of the study,
which are gap analysis and the qualitative approach, respectively. The research was conducted as
a case study, for the purpose of determining the needs associated with the implementation of
instructional strategies to promote the literacy development of EL students in the TES
Kindergarten. Developing an understanding of the TES Kindergarten teachers’ implementation
of instructional strategies may lead to increased support of literacy development for the TES EL
Kindergarten students. Data from surveys, interviews, and a document review of the instructional
materials used to teach literacy to Kindergarten students was collected and studied to bring about
an understanding of the literacy instruction program for EL Kindergarten students at Thomas
Ewes School.
The following research questions guided this qualitative evaluation study:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that hinder or
support TES Kindergarten teachers in the implementation of research-based
instructional strategies for English learners to develop literacy?
2. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation with
the Organizational Context
The conceptual (or theoretical) framework of a study explores the concepts that guide the
study and the relationships between those concepts (Maxwell, 2013). The framework is the basis
for the study- it is based on the questions that the researcher has about the topic and provides the
direction and the underlying foundation for the research study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Using
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 51
Clark and Estes’ gap analysis framework, this study explores the pedagogical practices used by
Kindergarten teachers at Thomas Ewes School to build the literacy skills of their English learner
students. EL students typically begin Kindergarten at Thomas Ewes School with significantly
fewer Kindergarten readiness skills than their English only classmates. This puts EL students at
an academic disadvantage, and their teachers must develop an instructional program to catch EL
students up to their classmates who started the Kindergarten year with a repertoire of more
readiness skills in academic areas.
In Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model, a study of the organizational,
motivational, and knowledge factors that have an impact on the stakeholder group of focus,
forms the basis for a research study. Although I present the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences separately, the three are inextricably linked in answering the question,
“What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that hinder or support TES
Kindergarten teachers in the implementation of research-based instructional strategies for
English learners to develop literacy?”, as shown in Figure A. How teachers are influenced by the
interaction of knowledge and motivational factors as they implement strategies to build their EL
students’ literacy skills was explored, as well as the impact that the organization has on the
process.
Figure A is a graphic representation of the conceptual framework for this study. The
Kindergarten teachers are the stakeholder group of focus. The stakeholder goal is for teachers to
help less school-ready EL students catch up to their peers who started school with more
academic skills in the area of literacy, through implementation of research-based instructional
strategies. Figure A demonstrates the specific areas of impact that Kindergarten teachers face in
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 52

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 53

the areas of knowledge, motivation, and the organization; how the three areas of influence are
interrelated; and, finally, draws attention to the relationship between teachers and EL students.
The blue boxes at the top and bottom right address the elements from the literature that
frame the problem of practice from the teacher and student perspective. EL students lack certain
skills in the area of literacy at the beginning of Kindergarten, and in order to catch up to their
English only classmates who entered school with those skills, will require their teachers to
provide intervention in specific areas: phonics and phonological awareness, and vocabulary
development. Furthermore, the literature asserts that the teachers’ use of conferencing and
feedback will also enhance the students’ growth in the area of literacy. When implemented
effectively, these instructional strategies will address the typical readiness gaps that EL students
have at the beginning of their Kindergarten year. The remaining elements of the chart address
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, as they relate to the stakeholders of focus- the
Kindergarten teachers.
To begin, in the area of knowledge, Kindergarten teachers have several influencers that
play a significant role in their abilities to achieve the stakeholder goal of effectively
implementing instructional strategies to build EL students’ skills in the area of literacy. These
influencers are color-coded in red and green. The knowledge influencers in red boxes have to do
with instructional delivery, and the influencer in a green box has to do with providing feedback
to students about their instructional progress. Next, the two influencers in the area of motivation
have direct relationships with the knowledge influencers, and are color-coded in red and green to
illustrate how they are related. First, teachers draw motivation to effectively implement literacy
strategies by understanding the value that these strategies have for the students. The research
points to clear benefits for EL students when they receive explicit instruction in foundational
literacy skills, such as phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary development, reading
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 54

comprehension, and fluency (August, McCardle, & Shanahan, 2014; August & Shanahan, 2010).
Second, when teachers have the desire to provide their students with feedback about their
progress in the area of literacy, students are made aware of their strengths and deficits, and
teachers can use that information to help them plan individualized instruction. Feedback gives
students and teachers valuable information about the student’s learning progress (Cheung &
Slavin, 2012; Solari et al., 2013) and also allows the teacher to appropriately model reading
behaviors (August & Shanahan, 2010; Begeny, Ross, Greene, Mitchell, & Whitehouse, 2012).
Finally, organizational influencers are found at the bottom of the diagram. The
organizational influencers provide a stable base within which teachers can work toward their
goal of implementing effective literacy instructional strategies. Again, the red and green color
codes highlight the relationship between the organizational influencers and the influencers in the
other two areas. When the organization provides structure to teachers, in the form of a protocol
for examining student data, material resources to promote the use of effective instructional
techniques and appropriate curricular materials, and a format to ensure consistency in the
implementation of instructional strategies, it enhances both the knowledge and motivation of
teachers to promote their EL students’ growth in the area of literacy. Lastly, when the
organization facilitates scheduling that will allow for individualized instruction, teachers are able
to provide their EL students with specific feedback about their progress in the area of literacy.
In conclusion, Figure A has teachers and students at the top and bottom of the diagram,
with the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers in between. It is those
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers that are critical to the work that teachers
must do to achieve both the stakeholder and organizational goals of effective implementation of
instructional techniques and EL student achievement in the area of literacy.

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 55

Participating Stakeholders
In a qualitative study, surveys can be used to provide additional data to enhance the
descriptive data collected during interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this qualitative,
evaluative study, Kindergarten teachers at Thomas Ewes School (TES) were the stakeholder
population of focus. The one Transitional Kindergarten and three of the four Kindergarten
teachers at TES were the focus of this study that examined the teachers’ instructional practices in
the area of literacy, and explored the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
hinder or support the use of those instructional strategies. Collectively, all of the teachers are
referred to as ‘Kindergarten teachers’ for the purpose of this study, regardless of Transitional
Kindergarten or Kindergarten grade level.
As the study aimed to provide an evaluation of the instructional practices used by the
Kindergarten teachers at TES to develop literacy for English learner students, the sample,
therefore, was nonrandom, and included 80% of the population of Kindergarten teachers.
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Four of the five Kindergarten teachers at Thomas Ewes School (TES) made up the
sample. The survey was used as a means to collect data with regard to the implementation of
research-based instructional strategies used by teachers to promote the literacy development of
their English learner students, and also the knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors
that have an impact on teachers’ literacy instructional strategy implementation. The rationale for
using the survey was to allow the teachers the opportunity for the most honest responses, in the
event that they were more guarded in their answers during the interviews.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Fink (2013) recommends that the first step for determining a survey sample is for the
researcher to determine who is to be included (and excluded) from the survey. Because the focus
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 56

of this survey is very narrow, and will evaluate the instructional strategies used by Kindergarten
teachers at TES to teach literacy, the survey was open to all five of the TES Kindergarten
teachers, although in the end, four completed it.
According to Fink (2013), a random sample may not accurately reflect a larger
population, for the purpose of sampling. In this case, all possible members of the population
(Kindergarten teachers at TES) are sampled. The selected group, TES Kindergarten teachers,
represents a convenience sample, but, more accurately, is purposefully selected (Maxwell, 2013)
because the population of Kindergarten teachers is so small, and total participation would yield
the most robust possible data.
The Kindergarten teachers were given access to the survey, created in Qualtrics, through
a link that was emailed to them. I explained how I would be using the survey data as part of the
research for this qualitative study. Four of the five teachers ultimately completed the survey.
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest using purposive sampling so that the respondents
selected will contribute the data necessary to answer the researcher’s questions. As such, all five
Kindergarten teachers at TES, the stakeholder group of focus, were invited to be interviewed.
Interview (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Fink (2012) describes the ideal size of a focus group as 10-12 participants. Because the
sample size of this study was only five teachers, interviews, rather than focus groups, were most
appropriate. Each of the five participating teachers were asked to participate in individual
interviews. As with the survey, a teacher opted out of the interview. The same teachers
completed the survey and the interview, and interviews took place one month after the teachers
completed the surveys. Data from the surveys was used to make revisions to the interview
questions.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 57

Teachers were asked to be part of the study after I explained the rationale for doing an
evaluation of the strategies that are used in the Kindergarten classrooms to teach literacy. There
appeared to be no hesitancy on the part of any of the teachers, all of whom expressed to me that
they were eager to receive recommendations on how to improve their instructional practice so
that they would be able to address the readiness gap as quickly and efficiently as possible.
However, one of the five teachers declined to be interviewed, for personal reasons.
Documents
Merriam & Tisdell (2016) assert that a thorough investigation of documents and other
relevant materials will provide the researcher with valuable data. In the case of this study, the
curricular materials used by the teachers form the foundation of the Kindergarten literacy
program. A detailed examination of the instructional resources used by the Kindergarten teachers
was necessary to determine whether the organization provides adequate materials that address
the specific needs of the Latino EL students in Kindergarten. I examined the teacher guides and
student materials from the Zoo-phonics program, the Treasures Language Arts program, the
Heggerty phonics program to look for elements of phonics, phonemic awareness, reading
comprehension, reading fluency, and vocabulary instruction, as well as other components
deemed critical for English learners. I used the ELL Metrics Scoring Sheet (Council of Great
City Schools, 2014) to collect data on each of the instructional programs and materials that the
teachers use. I also examined, using the modified ELL Metrics Scoring Sheet, the reading and
writing materials designed by Nancy Fetzer, which teachers use as part of their literacy
instruction block. In my examination of each of the instructional materials, I collected coded data
(using a scale of 1-4) as to the degree to which each resource addresses the areas of phonics,
phonological awareness, reading fluency, reading comprehension, vocabulary, and other areas
that are necessary for literacy development. (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 58

Data Analysis
For this qualitative evaluation study, I collected data via survey, interview, and document
review. The survey instrument for this study was carefully designed and was the first data
analyzed. In order to eliminate missing data, a response to each of the survey items was required,
in order to collect data from each participant for each survey question.
As the stakeholder group surveyed was small (n=4), the frequencies of responses to
Likert Scale questions was calculated, and percentages of respondents were compared based on
strong agreement or disagreement. The open-ended survey question responses were aggregated
and studied for commonalities and differences. Responses to the survey questions drove several
changes to the interview questions, as recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) who
recommend that data from one phase of a study inform the subsequent phases.
As recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), description, analysis and interpretation
of the survey responses took place once all participants submitted their survey responses. The
survey data from the participants was aggregated, compared, and analyzed to create a thick
description that encapsulates the teachers’ knowledge of literacy instruction, the nature of that
instruction, the materials used to teach literacy, and the role that the organization plays in helping
or hindering literacy instruction.
The next phase of this study was the individual interviews. The interviews were
conducted by a neutral third party, and transcribed by another third party. When I received the
anonymized transcripts of the interviews, I began data analysis. Maxwell (2013) describes the
value of using memos as means of understanding the data collected, answering the research
questions, and developing hypotheses. Maxwell (2013) recommends a multi-step process in
analyzing interview data that begins with reading the transcript, then moves to writing memos,
coding the data, and, finally, analysis. After studying each of the interview transcripts, I wrote
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 59

analytic memos, which included my initial reactions, concerns, and preliminary conclusions with
respect to the relationship between the data and my research questions and conceptual
framework. In the next phase, I first employed open coding to observe empirical codes and then
applied a priori codes correlated to the conceptual framework (Corbin & Strauss, 2007).
Following the open coding, I moved into axial, or analytic coding, where I looked for patterns
and themes in the participants’ interview responses, as suggested by Maxwell (2013) and
Creswell (2014). In the final phase of data analysis, I sought out themes and patterns related to
my research questions and the conceptual framework for the study.
Finally, I performed a document review to evaluate the efficacy of the instructional
materials that the teachers use to teach literacy, using the ELL Metrics Rubric (Appendix C).
Document review, or analysis is used as a means of triangulating data and as a means of
providing answers to questions that may arise from survey or interview data (McEwan &
McEwan, 2003). The purpose of document review for this study was to determine whether or not
the materials that the teachers are using to teach literacy to English learners are appropriate and
effective, based on the literacy components outlined in the conceptual framework.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
This is a qualitative evaluation study, which examined instructional practices used to
teach literacy to Kindergarten English learners at Thomas Ewes School. When looking at
qualitative data, rigor is synonymous with trust (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In order to maintain
credibility and trustworthiness of the qualitative portions of this study, I took appropriate steps to
ensure that the appropriate level of rigor was present in the data that I collected to answer the
research questions regarding the implementation of literacy strategies by the Kindergarten
teachers at Thomas Ewes School. According to Yilmaz (2013), qualitative data helps the
researcher to understand a specific area of focus from the viewpoints of individuals involved
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 60

with the topic. The qualitative data collected from teacher surveys and interviews and the
analysis of instructional materials provided information that sheds light on the literacy practices
that teachers use with their students by participating in an individual interview after completing a
quantitative survey (which is discussed in further detail in the Validity and Reliability section
below).
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), qualitative research involves discovery- the
researcher’s work focuses on gaining a deep understanding of the group that is being studied. To
strengthen the trustworthiness and credibility of the findings, I triangulated the information that
was discovered from the surveys, individual interviews, and document review to formulate a
thick description of the findings, after the interviewer performed member checks with those who
were interviewed (Yilmaz, 2013). Triangulation is a strategy whereby the researcher collects data
from a variety of individuals, in diverse settings, using different methods (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The three sources of data provided me with a thorough understanding
of the instructional practices and materials that the participants use to teach literacy in their
classrooms.
Although the data generated from the individual interviews and the survey data provided
self-reported information, the participants’ responses allowed me to gain an understanding
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) of their knowledge and motivation in the implementation of literacy
instruction strategies and their opinions of the organizational factors that help or hinder their
professional practice in the area of teaching literacy and data analysis. Furthermore, I analyzed
the data collected from the survey immediately, so that the survey findings that emerged allowed
me to change the interview questions to ensure that there was clarity to all responses given
during the interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 61

To further enhance the credibility of the study, I used a third party to conduct the
interviews with the participants. By having an interviewer who is not the teachers’ direct
supervisor, as I am, the teachers’ responses were likely more transparent and candid than they
might have been if I had conducted the interviews. In addition, in order to ensure that what the
respondents say was accurately transcribed and to ensure that I, as the researcher, clearly
understood what each participant said during the interviews, the interviewer was prepared to
perform member checks. A member check, according to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), is a means
to clarify what a respondent said by going back to the respondent to have him or her validate the
researcher’s understanding of what was said. At the end of the interviews, the participants were
informed that they might be contacted later if further clarification of their responses was needed.
This ensured that I gained the clearest possible picture of what the participants stated in their
interviews. Maxwell (2013) calls member checks the best way to avoid misinterpretation of what
the respondents say, and also serve as a means to include the participants in the research process,
as they give input as to whether or not the findings are understandable to them.
A thorough analysis of the participants’ responses to the questions on each of the study
instruments, in conjunction with the analysis and examination of the literacy instructional
materials, provided what Maxwell (2013) calls “rich data.” The interview transcripts yielded in-
depth information that allowed me to evaluate the literacy instructional practices that the
respondents use in their classrooms, as self-reported by the participants.
Ethics
Procedural ethics dictates that every facet of a study, from the information given to the
participants about the study to the measures taken to protect privacy and confidentiality for the
subjects of the research (Tracy, 2010). An ethical investigator ensures that her study is both valid
and reliable (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Because human subjects are involved in this research
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 62

study, I had a responsibility to thoroughly explain the purpose of the study, ensure that potential
subjects understood that their participation is voluntary and knew that any information obtained
in the study would be kept confidential and be assured that there would be no identifying
information regarding any of the participants, whose responses will be audio-recorded and
transcribed by a third party (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
As the Principal of Thomas Ewes School, I am the direct supervisor of all the
Kindergarten teachers who participated in the study. My position as the supervisor of the
teachers being studied called for a neutral party to administer the interviews, to prevent the
respondents from feeling pressured to answer a certain way. Thus, I used an individual unknown
to the participants to administer the interviews via Skype, which removed some of the bias of the
respondents (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All identifying information was omitted from the
transcription that I used for analysis. This was done to ensure that the participants had a clear
understanding that their participation in the study would not have any impact on their
performance evaluations- either in a positive or negative way.
The Kindergarten teachers and I discussed at length the importance of this study in
relation to the academic success of their English learner students. As such, the teachers had
significant commitment to participation in the study. The results of the study allowed me, as well
as the teachers, to better understand the instructional practices that the Kindergarten teachers use
in order to develop literacy skills with their English learner students.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) make the case for the researcher to identify her own biases
and allow those biases, or subjectivities, to rise to the surface, rather than bury them, as it would
be both dishonest and unethical to do so. Throughout the course of the research and subsequent
analysis, I was aware of my personal biases and knew the ethical implications connected to my
biases. I have worked with the teachers who comprised the study for the past seven years, and,
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 63

as such, have preconceived notions about the instructional practices that they use to teach
literacy, and the depth and scope of each teacher’s knowledge regarding such practices. In this
study, I acknowledged my biases as the Kindergarten teachers’ supervisor and did not allow
these biases to have an impact on my interpretation of the study results. Furthermore, I did not
allow these biases to be reflected in any evaluation of any of the teachers that I did or will do
during or after the time period covered by this research study.
Validity and Reliability
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest that validity and reliability should be directly related
to the purpose of the study itself. In this case, this research is being conducted as a case study of
the instructional practices used to teach literacy to Kindergarten students at Thomas Ewes
School.
According to Fink (2013), surveys are a useful tool in gathering information about a
specific topic. Surveys are typically considered to be tools of quantitative, rather than qualitative,
research (Creswell, 2014). The data collected as part of this qualitative study included the results
of a survey given to the Kindergarten teachers who participated in the research. Creswell (2014)
states that, in order for the information gathered from the survey responses to be useful and
credible, the survey instrument must be a valid, reliable one. The results gathered from the
survey instrument used in this study had both construct validity, in that they produced consistent
results and were reliable, in that they were administered uniformly and scored in a uniform
manner (Creswell, 2014), using the online tool Qualtrics.
To mitigate my own bias, I worked to maintain neutrality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016)
about the findings as a whole. As the direct supervisor of the teachers participating in the study, I
did not and will not allow any of the findings to have any impact whatsoever on my supervisory
relationship with any of the participants. At the conclusion of the study and analysis, I shared the
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 64

results with the teachers, to enable the team, including myself, to use the results as a means of
improving teaching and learning at TES. Throughout the data collection and analysis, I clearly
communicated to the teachers that the study results were not used as a means for criticizing any
teacher or her instructional practices.
Validity
The survey tool used in this study was a self-rating instrument that each of the
participating Kindergarten teachers completed online, on the Qualtrics website. Some argue that
self-rating tools lack validity, and this is mitigated when survey questions are carefully and
thoughtfully crafted (Braun, Woodley, Richardson, & Leidner, 2012). In designing the survey
questions, I used the research regarding effective literacy instruction and practices as a guide, to
ensure that all facets of an appropriate literacy program were addressed. To the best of my
knowledge, I designed survey questions that are valid by thoroughly consulting the literature on
effective literacy instruction practices for EL students.
The goal of the survey was to generate data to provide insight into the classroom and
professional practices of the teachers, as well as organizational structure that supports the
aforementioned. The survey data was compared to ideal practices and organizational structure
from the literature, in order to establish construct validity of the findings (Braun, Woodley,
Richardson, & Leidner, 2012). I conducted a pilot survey of Kindergarten teachers at another
elementary school with similar demographics to ensure that the survey items were clear and
understandable.
Reliability
The questions included in the survey instrument for this study were written to gather
robust information from teachers regarding the strategies they use to teach literacy, the frequency
with which they use those strategies, the nature of their collaboration with colleagues in the area
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 65

of literacy, and the organizational supports that exist for literacy instruction. Furthermore, the
wording of the questions and the nature of the (majority) multiple-choice responses in the survey
instrument elicited a set of response data that can be compared and that is consistent, which
limits the possibility of errors of measurement, and ensures that the survey instrument is reliable
(Braun et. al, 2012).
The information gathered from the survey results provided me with an understanding of
the reality of literacy instruction and support with regard to the Kindergarten program at Thomas
Ewes School. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), reliability has to do with the degree to
which the researcher is able to make sense of a particular phenomenon (in this case,
Kindergarten literacy instruction) by collecting data that allows her to get the whole picture of
the topic of study.
Limitations and Delimitations
The conceptual framework for this bounded qualitative evaluation study took into
account the problem of practice by addressing the needs of the key stakeholder groups-
Kindergarten teachers and English learner students at Thomas Ewes School- and applied them to
the KMO framework of Clark and Estes (2008). Given the small size of the organization and the
researcher’s role within the organization, there were a number of anticipated limitations, or
factors that could not be controlled, in this study. First, irrespective of the promise of anonymity
and the use of a third party to administer the interviews and anonymize the data, teachers’
responses may not have been truthful, as I am their direct supervisor, and am responsible for
their performance evaluations. Second, the study explored the instructional program in the
Thomas Ewes School Kindergarten, which required analysis of a very small sample size of only
five teachers. Use of such a small sample size is not recommended, but was necessary in order to
carry out the purpose of the study, which was to examine the instructional practices used to teach
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 66

literacy in the TES Kindergarten classrooms. Finally, the document review would be incomplete
if I failed to study all of the instructional materials that the teachers use in their programs of
classroom literacy. There is a chance that I was not aware of, or teachers did not mention, all of
the materials that are used to teach literacy in the Kindergarten classrooms at TES. When
examining the study results, I considered all of the aforementioned limitations and the potential
effect they may have had on the research findings. However, despite these limitations, it was
necessary to conduct the study with the small sample size, at school where the researcher is
Principal, in the quest for answers to the problem of practice and to thoroughly investigate the
research questions.
Delimitations of this research included the questions asked of the study participants and
the participants’ time commitment in terms of the interview and responding to the survey
questions. First, despite my best efforts at constructing survey and interview items, the teachers’
responses may not have provided enough robust information to fully answer the research
questions or allow me to create a snapshot of the instructional practices used to teach literacy at
TES. Second, there is a significant time commitment that is necessary for the teachers to fully
participate in all elements of the research study: the online survey and the individual interview.
Although I made every effort to limit the number of questions asked while still creating
opportunities to capture the information needed for this qualitative evaluation study, the teachers
may have grown tired of answering the large battery of questions that they were asked, and may
not have put forth the mental effort required to provide detailed answers that shed light on their
classroom practices and beliefs regarding their EL students.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 67

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this project was twofold. The first focus was to analyze needs in the areas
of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the
organizational performance goal, and to decrease the school readiness achievement gap between
English only (EO) students and English learner students in Kindergarten. The second focus of
the study was to inform recommendations to improve literacy instruction at Thomas Ewes
School through knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors. The questions that guided this
study were:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that hinder or
support TES Kindergarten teachers in the implementation of research-based
instructional strategies for English learners to develop literacy?
2. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?
To address the research questions, a three-pronged research approach was used,
consisting of a survey, individual interviews, and an analysis of the instructional materials used
by the Kindergarten teachers to teach literacy. This chapter presents the results and findings
based on comprehensive data analysis for each component of the research, organized by
knowledge, motivation, and organization as related to the first research question. The second
research question is addressed in Chapter Five, through an action plan that includes research-
based recommendations.
Participating Stakeholders
The target size for the participating stakeholders was five: four Kindergarten teachers and
one Transitional Kindergarten (TK) teacher. All teachers were invited to take part in the study.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 68

However, the sample ultimately consisted of the TK teacher and three of the four Kindergarten
teachers, as one Kindergarten teacher opted not to participate.
As shown in Table 4, the participants were all female, and had a range of total teaching
experience from eight to twenty years. The participants’ experience teaching TK or Kindergarten
ranged from one to seven years.

Table 4
Demographic Profile of Survey and Interview Participants
Name* Gender Grade Ethnicity
Years
Teaching
Current
Grade
Total Years
Teaching
Mary F TK White 5 12
Holly F Kindergarten White 4 12
Tammy F Kindergarten White 7 20
Brandy F Kindergarten White 1 8
*all names are pseudonyms

Results and Findings
The following section describes the intersection between the data collected from the
teachers’ survey and interview responses and the document review of the instructional materials
that the teachers use to teach literacy. The results and findings that follow serve to answer the
first research question, “What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
hinder or support TES Kindergarten teachers in the implementation of research-based
instructional strategies for English learners to develop literacy?” This section is organized, per
the Clark and Estes (2008) model, to explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences as they relate to the organizational goal of full implementation of research-based
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 69

instructional strategies leading to at least 45% of English learner students performing at or above
benchmark in the area of reading.
Knowledge Influences
This section addresses participants’ declarative, procedural, and conceptual knowledge
gleaned from the survey and interview data. Declarative knowledge encompasses both factual
and conceptual knowledge. Rueda (2011) describes factual knowledge as the basic information
within a discipline. In this study, factual knowledge is the knowledge that teachers possess in the
area of teaching literacy to their students. Procedural knowledge encompasses a skill-set that
includes knowledge of processes that are needed to carry out tasks (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer,
2011; Rueda, 2011). Procedural knowledge studied in this project included the teachers’
knowledge of how to implement various strategies to teach literacy to their students. Conceptual
knowledge, according to Krathwohl (2002), represents the understanding how two or more
elements work together as part of a larger structure. Specifically, in this research, conceptual
knowledge refers to how teachers take their knowledge of teaching literacy and apply and adapt
literacy instruction to the specific needs of their English learner students.
Four broad statements are addressed in this section, based on the results and findings:
1. TES Kindergarten teachers have similar opinions as to why EL students are less
prepared for Kindergarten than EO students and recognize the differences in the
knowledge with which each group of students begins school.
2. TES Kindergarten teachers know that literacy instruction is not “one size fits all.”
3. TES Kindergarten teachers demonstrate knowledge of the components of literacy
instruction, use various instructional materials and strategies to teach literacy and
desire training to gain more understanding of why certain strategies benefit English
learners.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 70

4. TES Kindergarten teachers understand how to deliver feedback to their students.
Teachers have similar opinions as to why EL students are less prepared for
Kindergarten than EO students and recognize the differences in the knowledge with which
each group of students begins school. The negative effects of the academic achievement gap
can be significant for Latinos (Fitzpatrick, McKinnon, Bair, & Willoughby, 2014; Letgers &
Balfanz, 2010; McKinsey, 2009; Verdugo, 2011). All teachers (100%, n=4) agree that a lack of
school readiness contributes to the academic achievement gap, although only one teacher (25%,
n=1) pointed to a lack of preschool as a contributing factor to the academic achievement gap.
Teachers demonstrate knowledge of a variety of causal factors for the academic achievement
gap, all but one of which (unwillingness to learn) are factors that are beyond the control of
students. It is important to note that the responses given by the participants are not based on
evidence, but rather on the information that the teachers believe to be true about their students’
preparation for Kindergarten. All of these suggested causes, including those offered by one or
two of the participants, provide a starting point for future research, which is discussed in Chapter
Five. Table 5 displays the responses, based on the teachers’ personal perspectives, as to the
causes of the Kindergarten readiness gap.

Table 5
Survey Results for Causes of the Kindergarten Readiness Gap
Suggested Cause Percent Responded (n)
Difficulties in comprehending English 75% (n=3)
Lack of cultural sensitivity in the school 25% (n=1)
Lack of exposure to school tools 25% (n=1)
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 71

Lack of preschool 25% (n=1)
Lack of school readiness 100% (n=4)
Limited exposure to books 50% (n=2)
Limited exposure to language 50% (n=2)
Parent education level 50% (n=2)
Socioeconomic status 25% (n=1)
Underdeveloped motor skills 25% (n=1)
Unwillingness to learn 25% (n=1)

Reinforcing the survey results, in an interview question, all four teachers described what
they notice about their students on the first day of school. On the one hand, three of the four
Kindergarten teachers talked about how their EO students had been read to before starting
school, and all four teachers described phonemic awareness, rhyming, and letter and sound
knowledge as being characteristic of their EO students at the start of the school year. On the
other hand, all four of the teachers describe their EL students as having many fewer literacy
skills than their EO students when school starts in August. Teacher #3 attributes the EL students’
lack of skills to a lack of preschool:
If they’ve had preschool, they [the EL students] have similar skills to the EO students. If
they didn’t have preschool…if they stayed at home with family or in an in-home daycare
not focused on literacy, they do not know the alphabet, or even sounds in Spanish.
The sentiments of Teacher #3 about the impact of preschool were echoed by Teacher #4 as she
addressed the differences at the beginning of the school year between her EO and EL students:
The Head Start ELs came in with skills; the other ELs come in without preschool and
have minimal skills writing their names, holding pencils. They don’t know what a letter
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 72

or a number is. Some can handle a book and turn pages correctly, but they have difficulty
answering questions about a story.
This contrasts with what Teacher #4 had to say about her EO students at the beginning of the
school year:
About 90% of my EOs had preschool and could write their names with mostly capital
letters. Two of them could write their first and last name correctly [last year]. They had
concepts of print; they knew characters and setting; they could sing the alphabet song and
knew at least half of the alphabet letters and a few or more sounds.
The impact of preschool and literacy exposure in the home was a theme common to all
four teachers’ responses, and is consistent with the literature that addresses the differences in the
way that families get their students ready for Kindergarten (De Feyter & Winsler, 2009).
However, none of the teachers made mention of their EL students as having needs in the area of
vocabulary, which is a critical area of literacy that English learners must develop.
Survey and interview responses were consistent in demonstrating that all four of the
Kindergarten teachers understand that English learners have been prepared for school in different
ways than their English only peers. With respect to adapting their literacy instruction, one of the
teachers acknowledged in her survey response that EL students have different needs, while the
other respondents’ reasons were related to the EL students’ need to understand the English
language as a means to access literacy instruction. All of the teachers cited the Kindergarten
readiness gap as the reason why many EL students lag behind their peers in literacy
development. Armed with the knowledge of the skills that their English learners and English
only students have, or do not have, at the start of Kindergarten, teachers are able to enact
instruction that helps close the readiness gap between both groups of students.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 73

Teachers know that literacy instruction is not “one size fits all.” According to
Darling-Hammond (2015), equitable support of students in the classroom is a necessary factor in
closing the achievement gap. Teachers demonstrate a thorough conceptual understanding of how
the academic achievement gap impacts their English learners in the classroom, and understand
the fact that specialized instruction is needed to meet the specific needs of their English learners.
However, the teachers did not demonstrate conceptual understanding about the specific needs of
their EL students.
Elmore (2002) asserts that educators should look at their instructional practices and study
the impact of those practices on their students. When a strategy or practice is not working, or not
producing the desired student outcomes, teachers should adapt their instruction. English learners
may not respond to literacy instruction in the same way as their English only classmates, and
require specific instruction to develop their skills in the English language. Interview responses
from all of the teachers mentioned that they adapt their literacy instruction for their EL students,
but only two respondents gave specific examples of how they do so. One respondent made the
statement that she will change her instruction when told that she must do so by the
administration. Teachers all stated that they change literacy instruction based on assessment data.
Teachers mentioned a total of seven different assessments from which they collect data, but none
of the teachers specified exactly what changes she makes to her literacy instruction based on
assessment results.
In the survey, participants were asked whether or not English learners need literacy
instruction that is different from that which their English only classmates receive. Again, there
was relative agreement between the teachers with respect to the concept of English learners
needing different literacy instruction than their native English speaking peers. All respondents
either agreed (75%) or strongly agreed (25%) that Kindergarten English learners need different
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 74

instruction in literacy than Kindergarten students who speak English as their first language.
Rueda (2011) asserts that, in order to develop skills in literacy, teachers must provide English
learners with differentiated instruction to meet their specific linguistic needs, and the responses
shown in Table 6 are consistent with teachers having knowledge of this.

Table 6
Survey Results for Need to Differentiate Instruction for English Learners
Strongly
Disagree
(n)
Disagree
(n)
Agree
(n)
Strongly
Agree
(n)
In Kindergarten, English learners need different
literacy instruction than native English speakers
0%
(n=0)
0%
(n=0)
75%
(n=3)
25%
(n=1)

Teachers were able to state what their literacy program looks like, and an additional
survey question further probed for the conceptual knowledge about why instructional adaptations
are needed to develop EL students’ literacy. Three of the respondents (75%) said that literacy
instruction should be adapted for ELs in order to develop their reading comprehension. The other
two responses, each given by one respondent (25%), show an understanding that adaptations for
ELs may be necessary because they are learning a second language. The reasoning provided by
the teachers about why they adapt their instruction for English learners demonstrates a basic
conceptual understanding that this group of students has different needs than English only
students, but is not indicative of a deep level of knowledge in this area. The responses in Table 7
represent the free-response format answers provided by the teachers.

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 75

Table 7
Survey Results for Reasons for Adapting Instruction for English Learners
Reason Percent Responded (n)
EL students have different needs 25% (n=1)
To develop reading comprehension 75% (n=3)
To develop skill in English 25% (n=1)
To expand upon the teachers’ conceptual understanding that English learners need
differentiated literacy instruction than English only students, several interview questions asked
teachers about their procedural knowledge of specific strategies they use to teach English
learners how to read. All of the teachers stated that they use instructional strategies to address the
gaps in literacy skills that most ELs have at the beginning of their Kindergarten year. All four of
the teachers described their literacy instruction as being sequential, with one step building upon
the next. Teacher #2 said:
I teach strategies that build upon each other. It will depend completely on how they come
in and what experience they come in with. I provide far more direct instruction [to my
ELs] than I would have done in the past, in small groups.
Teacher #4 acknowledged that specific strategies for English learners are part of her regular
instructional program, and the other three teachers mentioned the use of the same strategies,
without saying that they used them specifically for their EL students. Teacher # 4 stated:
I use English language learning strategies: pictures, acting things out, vocabulary
development where I write the word and we draw a picture and act it out… [there is]
repetition throughout the week, and I use songs, rhymes, and fables. We talk about the
pictures in books.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 76

Common to all four teachers’ responses was a lack of technical terminology with respect to
literacy instruction. However, many of the strategies that all four teachers described using in
their literacy instruction were consistent with phonics and phonemic awareness. For example,
teachers spoke about “looking at each letter and going over letter sounds” (Teacher #3); “sound
omissions” (Teacher #3); “hearing how sounds work together” (Teacher #2); and “pulling words
apart and putting them back together” (Teacher #1).
English learners have specific literacy needs and Kindergarten teachers need to
understand how to adapt their instructional strategies to best address the needs of their students
(Stürmer, Könings, & Seidel, 2013). All four teachers’ responses to the interview questions
regarding adapting instruction for English learners indicate that they do make changes to their
instruction based on students’ needs. However, only two of the teachers (Teachers # 1 and 3)
provided specific procedural examples of making changes to instruction based on EL student
needs. One such change was described by Teacher #1. Teacher #1 stopped teaching letter names
to her EL students because the letter sounds are more important as a foundation for decoding
skills. Similarly, Teacher #3 provided an example of changing her instruction. Teacher #3
noticed at the beginning of the school year, that her English learners were not yet able to decode
words. This prompted her to stop having her students write sentences, because the students
lacked a foundation of sounds to help them figure out how to write words. Teacher #2 gave a
broad answer about what she does to adapt her instruction:
[I change my instruction] if the principal or the district tells us that we have to…I make
changes based on what I see needs to change, my observations about student learning…I
use leveled reading groups, and students move in and out of them based on their up-to-
the-minute needs.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 77

What is missing from the rationale for changing instruction given by Teacher #2 is a foundation
based in research. While all four teachers’ responses support their practices of changing literacy
instruction for English learners, none of them gave an indication of a rationale for doing so that
was rooted in instructional research.
English Language Development was another area in which teachers had limited
knowledge and a desire to learn more. The California Department of Education (2014)
recommends that EL students’ foundational skills in English should be developed as a vehicle to
advancing foundational literacy skills. The California Department of Education requires teachers
of English learners to deliver both designated and integrated English Language Development, or
ELD. On the whole, the teachers’ responses did not indicate a high level of procedural
knowledge about either designated or integrated ELD. Teacher #4 stressed the fact that she does
not have a curriculum to teach ELD, but that she uses ELD strategies throughout the school day.
Teacher #1 also mentioned that she doesn’t, “…have or the tools or the resources to give it [ELD
instruction] to my students.”
Teachers demonstrate knowledge of the components of literacy instruction, use
various instructional materials and strategies to teach literacy, and desire training to gain
more understanding of why certain strategies benefit English learners. Each teacher reported
that phonological awareness, phonics, reading comprehension, reading fluency, and vocabulary
are part of literacy instruction in her classroom. Together, instruction in these five areas will
build a strong foundation of literacy. First, according to Linklater, O’Connor, and Palardy
(2009), early phonological awareness and phonics are critical to a student’s future success as a
reader. Second, an emphasis on teaching reading comprehension is recommended for English
learners (August & Shanahan, 2010; Calderón, Slavin, & Sánchez, 2011), which addresses
Dresser’s (2012) assertion that while ELs may be able to decode words, they may not be able to
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 78

make meaning of what they have read. Third, reading fluency highly correlates to EL students’
reading comprehension skills (Begeny et al., 2012). Fourth, according to the National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (2010),
students need knowledge of a variety of academic vocabulary that spans different curricular
areas. As EL students have smaller vocabularies in English than their classmates who are native
English speakers, their literacy development can be hindered by a lack of vocabulary knowledge
(Anthony et al., 2009). Furthermore, Vadasy, Saners, and Nelson (2015) assert that, vocabulary
is a predictor of young EL students’ later success as readers.
In response to six questions regarding how and why they use their instructional materials
to teach the different areas of literacy to their English learners, all participants gave detailed
procedural responses as to how they use the different programs, but none of the teachers gave
conceptual reasons why they use any of the curricular materials for developing their English
learners’ literacy skills. Table 8 shows the free-response list of what the respondents use to teach
phonological awareness, phonics, reading fluency, reading comprehension, and vocabulary.

Table 8
Survey Results for Instructional Materials and Strategies Used to Teach Literacy
Name of Resource/Strategy Percent Responded (n)
Phonological Awareness
Heggerty 75% (n=3)
Treasures 25% (n=1)
Phonics
Treasures 100% (n=4)
Zoo-Phonics 100% (n=4)
Reading Fluency
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 79

Daily 5 50% (n=2)
Leveled readers 50% (n=2)
Read-alouds 50% (n=2)
Sight word books 25% (n=1)
Treasures 75% (n=3)
Reading Comprehension
Daily 5 50% (n=2)
Read-alouds 75% (n=3)
Rubric for reading comprehension 25% (n=1)
Treasures 100% (n=4)
Vocabulary
Nancy Fetzer 50% (n=2)
Repeated Interactive Read-Alouds (RIRA) 50% (n=2)
Treasures 100% (n=4)

The adopted English Language Arts curriculum, Treasues, was the most consistently-
reported instructional resource for literacy, and the phonics instructional materials are consistent
among the four teachers. The teachers use a variety of tools to teach literacy, but their responses
do not indicate that they use certain materials to meet specific needs of their English learners.
All of the teachers mentioned, in some form, that they would like to get more training or
professional development to enhance their knowledge base in the area of teaching literacy to
English learners. The generalized responses given by the teachers to many of the questions about
teaching literacy to ELs indicates that the teachers would benefit from additional training in this
area.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 80

TES Kindergarten teachers understand how to deliver feedback and provide
individualized instruction to their students. Providing feedback to students regarding their
literacy development is necessary in order to build future reading success. Individualized
instructional time provides teachers with an opportunity to provide students with feedback. In a
study by Martin-Chang (2017), students who were provided with feedback about their reading
had higher levels of accuracy than students who were not provided about feedback about their
reading. Similarly, Van Gorp, Segers, and Verhoeven (2017) found that poor readers who
participated in a training program that included feedback made significant progress in reading.
Understanding the use of feedback was consistent between all of the teachers. They all
demonstrated procedural knowledge of the feedback process and how to provide feedback to
Kindergarten students. One element that was missing from some of the respondents’ answers,
however, was providing constructive feedback to students, rather than always giving praise.
The teachers provide 1:1 support to students: 75% (n=3) conference with individual
students and intervention targeted to specific student needs. Teachers also mentioned several
other strategies: small-group instruction, extra time with struggling students, online learning
programs, which are less specific. Table 9 shows teachers’ free-response answers to the prompt
about how they address the academic achievement gap in their classrooms.

Table 9
How Respondents Address the Kindergarten Readiness Gap
Strategy Percent Responded (n)
Conferences with individual students 75% (n=3)
Extra time with struggling students 50% (n=2)
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 81

Intervention targeted to specific student needs 75% (n=3)
Online learning programs 25% (n=1)
Scaffolding 25% (n=1)
Small-group instruction 50% (n=2)

Respondents provided data about the number of students for whom they provided
individualized instruction during the past month. One of the teachers (25%) delivered
individualized literacy instruction to 4-6 students, while the remaining 75% of respondents (n=3)
gave individualized support to 10 or more of their students. Based on these responses, teachers
would benefit from additional knowledge about how to serve more students on an individual
basis, as a means of improving students’ growth in literacy and providing needed feedback to
individual students about their progress. The distribution of the teachers’ responses is shown in
Table 10.

Table 10
Frequency of Individualized Literacy Instruction

0
Students
(n)
1-3
Students
(n)
4-6
Students
(n)
7-10
Students
(n)
10 or
More
Students
(n)
All of
My
Students
(n)
In the past month, I have
provided 1:1 individualized
instruction for…
0%
(n=0)
0%
(n=0)
25%
(n=1)
0%
(n=0)
25%
(n=1)
50%
(n=2)

During individual interviews, the Kindergarten teachers were questioned about the types
of feedback that they provide to their students. All four teachers’ answers confirmed their regular
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 82

use of feedback to improve their students’ literacy. Each teacher mentioned the use of individual
conferencing with their students, which is the schoolwide instructional strategy that was adopted
in 2016 at TES. Three of the teachers (Teacher #1, Teacher #2, and Teacher #4) mentioned that
they provide positive feedback. Teacher #4 described her use of positive feedback in this way:
I try to be as positive as I can. If I can encourage them with lots of positive feedback and
jump out of my seat when they get it right…The more positive a teacher can be with that
emergent reader, the better. I celebrate the little successes.
Three teachers (Teacher #1, Teacher #2, and Teacher #3) mentioned the use of specific,
constructive feedback as part of their conferencing process. “Well, you were working on these
sounds this week, and you got all four…but this is the one sound you need to work on more”
(Teacher #1). Teacher #1 also described how she always tries “to build them up a little and then
also give them one thing to work on,” giving students “very targeted feedback so they know
exactly what they need to work on.” Teacher #2 stated that her feedback is “constructive, based
specifically on a child’s areas of strength and areas for growth.” Providing students with
feedback about their literacy development is an area that appears to be a collective strength for
the teachers.
Providing individualized instruction and feedback to students is a strength of the TES
Kindergarten teachers. A typical Kindergarten English learner at TES has many literacy skills to
acquire in order to catch up to her English only classmates. Providing feedback is a procedure
that gives students constructive guidance and targeted to their areas of need is critical to their
development in literacy, and teachers demonstrate consistent knowledge in this area.
Motivation Results
Motivation is, according to Mayer (2010), is a force that drives one’s behavior toward
goal attainment, and can be driven by social or cultural forces (Rueda, 2011). In order to achieve
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 83

the goals of improving EL student achievement through the use of research-based instructional
materials, teachers require motivation. This motivation comes in the form of utility value and
self-efficacy. The motivational influencers that are examined in this section include the value
that the teachers place on using specific literacy instruction for ELs; self-efficacy: the confidence
that teachers have in their ability to deliver effective literacy instruction to ELs; and the value
that teachers place on the use of data and collaboration to benefit their EL students. Teachers
need to have motivation with respect to the value of and their effective use of research-based
instructional strategies to teach literacy to their English learners in order to provide students with
the strongest possible foundation of literacy and to address the readiness gap between their EL
and EO students.
This section examines whether teachers possess the knowledge and/or skills that are
needed to perform tasks (delivering targeted instruction to ELs, collecting data and collaborating
with colleagues to improve instruction for ELs) and whether or not they want to perform the
tasks. Two broad statements are addressed in this section, based on the results and findings:
1. The teachers place different degrees of value on specific instruction for their English
learners, and all lack confidence in their abilities to deliver the most effective literacy
instruction to their English learners.
2. TES Kindergarten teachers collect data from different assessments to gauge student
progress in literacy, to inform their instruction.
The teachers place different degrees of value on specific instruction for their English
learners, and all lack confidence in their abilities to deliver the most effective literacy
instruction to their English learners. Teachers are motivated to implement effective literacy
instructional strategies when they place a high value on the efficacy of such strategies. Table 11
illustrates how teachers responded to a survey item asking them who carries the most
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 84

responsibility in catching students up to their peers in literacy. All respondents (100%, n=4)
placed the most responsibility on the teacher. The results in Table 11 demonstrate that the survey
participants place a high value on their role in the process of providing the necessary
interventions to students struggling with literacy.
Table 11
Responsibility for Catching Students Up to Peers in Literacy
Who is Most Responsible Percent Responded (n)
Parent 0% (n=0)
Student 0% (n=0)
Teacher 100% (n=4)

All teachers expressed motivation to change instruction to benefit EL students, but that
sense of motivation did not carry over into the teachers’ views of teaching designated ELD.
It appears that all of the teachers see the need for teaching English Language Development, but
interview responses shed light on the fact that the teachers’ attempt at leveling students across
classrooms for ELD instruction during the 2016-17 school year was not successful, and that
experience may have left some of the teachers thinking that designated ELD is either not
necessary or not beneficial for their students, as one teacher summed up, “I am not super thrilled
with the way that turned out.” Another teacher’s interview response that she doesn’t know that
she has, “all the tools or resources to give it [ELD] to [her] students.” Teachers’ motivation to
deliver designated ELD instruction, and the value they place on such instruction, appear to have
been negatively impacted by their experience in trying to collaborate for ELD instruction in
2016-17. Despite their negative reactions to designated ELD instruction, the teachers all
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 85

acknowledged that they hold the primary responsibility for catching their EL students up to their
EO peers in literacy.
Teacher self-efficacy as it relates to providing effective instruction was the next area
examined in the area of motivation. When teachers possess self-efficacy, their students benefit.
Self-efficacious teachers have the confidence to use the strategies that they have been taught, and
persevere in their use (Dixon, 2011). Teachers responded to a question about the effectiveness of
their literacy intervention. One of the respondents (25%) strongly disagreed with the statement,
while 75% of the respondents (n=3) strongly agreed that they provide effective literacy
interventions to their students. The respondent who strongly disagreed with the efficacy of their
interventions may have read the question incorrectly, but there can be no clarification of this, as
the survey responses lacked identifying data. The results are displayed in Table 12.

Table 12
Survey Results for Providing Effective Literacy Intervention for Struggling Students
Strongly
Disagree
(n)
Disagree
(n)
Agree
(n)
Strongly
Agree
(n)
I provide effective intervention to students
struggling with literacy development
25%
(n=1)
0%
(n=0)
0%
(n=0)
75%
(n=3)

The disparity in teachers’ answers to the survey question in Table 18 prompted an
interview question, “How comfortable are you with your skills in delivering an effective literacy
program to your English learners?” to further probe their feelings of self-efficacy. In contrast to
the data provided by the teachers to the survey question, none of the teachers who were
interviewed were fully confident in their abilities to deliver effective literacy instruction to their
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 86

students, which can have a negative effect on the teachers’ willingness to embrace strategies that
will benefit English learners’ literacy development. According to Cerit (2013), a positive sense
of self-efficacy is correlated to willing participation in initiatives aimed at reform.
All four of the teachers expressed a range of confidence in their literacy instructional
skills. Teacher #1 indicated that she is “somewhat confident” in her ability to deliver an effective
literacy program to her ELs. She clarified, however, by saying, “I just feel like there are always
things that I can improve and I think if I get comfortable with something, I’m not going to
grow.” Teacher #2 spoke for the group as a whole”
If every kid left my classroom at grade level, I’d say, “I feel great.” Until that’s the case, I
feel comfortable in knowing that I’m improving all the time, but I have a long…we all
have a long way to go until that gap doesn’t exist.
Teacher #3 expressed that she was “more comfortable” teaching literacy to her Kindergarteners
than she was at the beginning of the year. The teacher whose response indicated that she had the
most confidence of all the teachers who were interviewed was Teacher #4, who rated herself as
being “8 out of 10” in her confidence to teach literacy to her EL students.
According to the California Department of Education (2014), English learners require
specific, targeted instruction in literacy in order to be prepared for college and career and
develop strong skills in literacy that will support their success in the 21
st
century. Based on the
interview responses, it is clear that three of the four teachers do not place a high value on English
Language Development for English learners. Teacher #1 stated that she “highly values
designated ELD instruction,” while the three other teachers responded with less enthusiastic
support for teaching designated ELD. Teacher #2 appears to value the concept of teaching
designated ELD, but believes that it was not implemented effectively during the 2016-17 school
year and the students were not engaged with the instruction during ELD time, “The students
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 87

looked forward to Fridays when they didn’t have to switch for designated ELD time.” Teacher
#2 went on to say that she prefers integrated ELD because it is “so much more beneficial than
doing the switching for designated ELD…because there are so many ELs who don’t understand
[instruction in English].”
Three of the teachers (Teacher #2, Teacher #3, and Teacher #4) did not demonstrate a
clear understanding of the value of doing designated ELD in addition to integrated ELD, and did
not appear to understand the differences between the two ways to provide ELD to their English
learners. Teacher #4 said, “I value integrated more than designated because the kids need it
throughout the day, not just for 30-40 minutes.”
The California Department of Education (2014) highlights the differences between
integrated and designated ELD by defining integrated ELD as something that teachers do “in
tandem with” their regular standards-based instruction during the school day. On the other hand,
designated ELD is a “protected time” during which teachers enhance content area instruction for
students by providing critical language that EL students need in order to access subject-matter
content. The Kindergarten teachers appear to have developed their own understanding of English
Language Development which does not entirely align with the California Department of
Education’s concept of ELD, and, as such, the teachers do not place a high value on delivering
the entire program of ELD that English learners are required to have. Teachers’ motivation with
regard to ELD instruction for their English learners may be negatively impacted by their levels
of stated self-efficacy in this area.
Teachers collect data from different assessments to gauge student progress in
literacy, to inform their instruction. Walker-Dalhouse, Risko, Lathrop, and Porter (2010)
underscore the value of assessments that provide timely data to the teacher, in that she can use
those results quickly to ensure that students get what they need to develop their literacy skills.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 88

All of the assessments mentioned by the respondents are tests that the teachers themselves
administer, and thus have immediate results, or are computer-administered (STAR Early
Literacy) with results as soon as the student finishes taking the test. Three of the tests listed
(BPST, DRA-2, and STAR) are given only 3 or 4 times during the year. The other assessment
measures are more frequent and provide ongoing information to the teachers. Just one respondent
(25%) mentioned the use of daily observation and conference notes, which is interesting given
the fact that all of the teachers regularly conduct student-teacher conferences, where they observe
students’ reading behaviors, check their reading comprehension, and assess students’ literacy
development. One respondent (25%) indicated use of student sight word knowledge data and
Zoo-phonics assessment results. Table 13 provides a list of the data sources that teachers
reported using, in free-response fashion, to collect information about student progress in literacy.

Table 13
Types of Student Literacy Data Collected
Data Collected Percent Responded (n)
BPST 75% (n=3)
DRA-2 75% (n=3)
Daily observation and conference notes 25% (n=1)
Interim assessment results 50% (n=2)
Sight word knowledge 25% (n=1)
STAR Early Literacy assessment results 75% (n=3)
Zoo-phonics assessment results 25% (n=1)

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 89

Another component of individualized instruction for English learners is English
Language Development, which, according to the California Department of Education (2014)
provides support to the teaching and learning of literacy. There are two components of ELD,
designated and integrated. Designated ELD is designed to be delivered to English learners in
more homogenous groups, based on their level of English acquisition. Teacher #2 described her
experience in teaching leveled, designated ELD during the 2016-17 school year with her
colleagues, “I think there is a great deal of potential value in designated ELD…but I am not
super thrilled with the way that looked and turned out [last year].” Teacher #1 offered an
explanation of why the designated ELD instruction that the Kindergarten teachers attempted was
not successful, “We all did our own thing with the group we had and we didn’t really have time
to meet as a group and plan together.” Teacher #1 described a school-wide need for teaching
designated ELD at Thomas Ewes School, “That’s one of the major gaps at our school…there’s
not an explicit instruction of the English language.” Teacher #1 acknowledges the need for
further professional development to provide teachers with the tools to teach ELD, a need which
is reinforced by the other teachers’ statements about a lack of continuity in ELD instruction and a
lack of collaboration to plan ELD instruction.
When strategies are not working, teachers need to reassess and make changes to their
literacy instruction program. According to Camburn and Han (2015), teachers make changes to
the way that they teach literacy by reflecting on their experiences. During the interview, the
responses given by all four of the teachers point to their desire to change their instruction to
promote literacy for their EL students. Three of the teachers explained their motivation to make
changes to literacy instruction based on monitoring of student learning. Teacher #1 said that she
uses assessments “along the way” to ensure that students are learning from a particular strategy,
and changes things as needed. Teacher #3 talked about how she will go back “for mastery of
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 90

foundational skills” when it is clear that an English learner needs additional help before they can
move forward in their literacy development. Teacher #4 pointed to a lack of engagement as
motivation for her to change her literacy instruction. “If the kids aren’t engaged, it is helpful to
stop using that strategy and change to something else.” In contrast to the other teachers’
responses, the answers given by Teacher #2 demonstrate that she is reluctant to change unless
she is told to do so “by the district or by the principal.”
The desire to change instructional strategies based on the needs of English learners
expressed by three of the four teachers indicates their intrinsic motivation to ensure that they are
providing the most effective instruction for their students with the most intense needs in the area
of literacy.
Organizational Results
The third and final factor explored in this study is organization. Clark and Estes (2008)
maintain that an organization is only as good as its processes. In other words, the success of an
organization depends on the systems and processes that it has put in place. This section looks at
work processes and the alignment of the organizational culture with organizational behavior.
Work processes, according to Clark and Estes (2008) are the ways in which the human element
of an organization interacts with the procedural elements of the organization.
The other dimension of organization explored in the survey was the alignment of
organizational culture with organizational behavior. Tosti (2007) states that an organization can
support achievement of its goals by fostering behavior that aligns with the goals. According to
Clark and Estes (2008), when an organization can successfully align its resources to foster
change, it increases the organization’s ability to meet its goals. By providing structures that
support collaboration and consistency, and providing appropriate instructional materials, the
organization sets the stage for successful completion of the goal of having 100% of TES
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 91

Kindergarten teachers use research-based literacy instructional strategies that target the learning
gaps of the EL students who entered Kindergarten lacking in readiness skills. Three broad
statements are addressed in this section, based on the results, findings, and document analysis:
1. TES has some organizational structures in place to facilitate teacher collaboration, but
more are needed.
2. TES Kindergarten literacy instruction varies from classroom to classroom, in terms of
the strategies and materials that teachers use.
3. TES Kindergarten curricular materials provided by the organization are not the most
effective for English learners.
Some organizational structures are in place to facilitate teacher collaboration, but
more are needed. Teachers were asked to talk about the frequency with which they collaborate
with colleagues to discuss and plan literacy instruction. Teacher collaboration for literacy can
result in improved instruction for all students, as teachers share ideas and best practices, they
create dialogue about literacy that benefits all children (Walker-Dalhouse et al., 2010). Three of
the four participants (75%) report that they engage in collaboration about literacy on a weekly
basis, while one of the teachers (25%) reported engagement in such interaction with colleagues a
few times a year, as shown in Table 14.

Table 14
Frequency of Collaboration

Weekly
(n)
2-3
Times
Monthly
(n)
Once Per
Trimester
(n)
Several
Times
Per
Year (n)
Never
(n)
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 92

I collaborate with my Kindergarten
teacher-colleagues to discuss literacy
instructional strategies and to plan
instruction…
75%
(n=3)
0%
(n=0)
0%
(n=0)
25%
(n=1)
0%
(n=0)

Datnow et al. (2013) and Little (2012) describe teacher collaboration as a vehicle for
improving teaching and learning, and state that collaboration is a responsibility shared by the
organization and the teachers themselves. The interview questions asked teachers about their
collaboration relative to data analysis and also relative to the purpose of improving their
instruction.
When asked about structures that the organization currently has in place that support
teachers in providing effective literacy instruction, two of the teachers (Teacher #1 and Teacher
#2) mentioned my offer of covering classes so that teachers can observe each other teaching
literacy. Teacher #1 and Teacher #2 indicated that they would like the organization to provide
them with more opportunities to collaborate with their teacher-peers for the purpose of delivering
effective instruction to all students. Teacher #1 stated that she would like to see an option to do a
three-way peer evaluation, whereby three teachers collaborate throughout the course of a school
year to observe one another and to provide each other with feedback on their teaching practice.
Teacher #2 said that she would like to see the school provide “more time with our grade level to
collaborate” and also “time during PD [professional development] for [instructional] problem-
solving.” One teacher did point out a drawback to the collaborative process, which may or may
not refer to the particular situation of the TES Kindergarten teachers:
It’s good to know and get different ideas from people, but I think that sometimes
personalities play into that, and if there are stronger personalities, those people might try
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 93

to assert their ideas as better than the ideas of someone else, which can make
collaboration difficult.
Based on the responses given by the four Kindergarten teachers, it is evident that the
organization has much work to do in order to promote collaborative engagement between
teachers that will improve teaching and learning. Collaboration to improve teacher instruction
and student learning, through data analysis, is effective (Datnow, Park, & Kennedy-Lewis, 2013;
Gasoi, 2009; Little, 2012). When Kindergarten teachers collaborate to look at data, they can
address the specific needs of their English learners in literacy.
Kindergarten literacy instruction varies from classroom to classroom, in terms of
the strategies and materials that teachers use. Cooter, Mathews, Thompson, and Cooter
(2004) describe consistency in literacy instruction as a powerful tool to drive positive change in
the literacy program within a district. A lack of continuity in Kindergarten literacy instruction
was evident in interview responses to a question regarding what their colleagues do during their
literacy instruction. It was clear that Teacher #2 implements a literacy program that is aligned
with her partner teacher’s program:
I would say [that we implement a] very similar program. Actually, my [literacy
instruction] program is identical to my partner teacher’s program. We both do leveled
groups during our English Language Arts instructional time, and both of us are
committed to our adopted curriculum, Treasures.
However, Teacher #1, Teacher #3, and Teacher #4 did not have personal knowledge of their
colleagues’ literacy instruction and made different assumptions regarding what their colleagues
teach. Teacher #1 talked about a three-group rotation that her colleagues do for literacy, while
Teacher #3 speculated that her colleagues’ programs were “looser” than hers, based on the fact
that they were all more experienced Kindergarten teachers than she. Finally, Teacher #4 guessed
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 94

at the content covered by her colleagues during their literacy instruction, saying, “We all work
on alphabet sounds, word building and things like that.”
Two of the teachers, Teacher #1 and Teacher #3, expressed interest in knowing what their
colleagues do for literacy instruction. Teacher #3 expressed wanting insight into her colleagues’
instructional practice “because I could use it in my class.”
When asked about how their daily schedules allow for individualized literacy instruction,
all four teachers’ answers were strikingly similar. All teachers reported that they use Daily 5
strategies during their literacy block, and all four teachers also reported that they conduct
individual conferences with students on a regular basis. Teacher #1, Teacher #2, and Teacher #4
indicated that they do their student-teacher conferencing in the afternoon, while the other
students have unstructured time. Teacher #1 and Teacher #3 gave specific information relative to
the number of conferences that they can do in a day as well as which students have more
frequent conferences. Teacher 1 stated:
I can fit in two conferences in five minutes at the beginning of the year. At the end of the
year, we get up to 10 minutes [of conference time during literacy instruction] and I can
conference about three kids, which is four to six conferences in a day.
Teacher #3 spoke about how she chooses students for conferencing, saying, “I conference more
with students who have greater needs and less with those already reading. It’s about equity.”
Equity is, indeed, a consideration for the Kindergarten teachers given the disparity in
skills with which their EO and EL students begin the school year. Cooter et al. (2004) remind us
that when literacy instruction is consistent from classroom to classroom, there is great benefit to
the students. However, according to Babione (2010) and Duncan and Stock (2010), teachers in
rural areas with differing understanding of standards will implement those standards in different
ways. The latter is the case at TES, where each of the Kindergarten teachers interviewed reported
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 95

a different program of literacy instruction in her classroom, with the exception of the
implementation 2 Sisters Daily 5 and conferencing strategies, which all five teachers reported
using.
Kindergarten curricular materials provided by the organization are not the most
effective for English learners. TES furnishes instructional materials to the teachers, and this
section examines teachers’ opinions about what resources are most and least helpful in
promoting literacy and presents the findings of a document review of instructional materials that
are currently in use at TES.
First, respondents were asked to rank different strategies and resources that promote
literacy, in order of impact. All of the items that respondents were asked to rank have been or are
currently implemented at Thomas Ewes School. The top three choices for the four respondents
were collaboration time (100%, n=4), conferencing with students (100%, n=4), and instructional
resources for phonics/phonological awareness (100%, n=4). All four teachers ranked the items in
Table 15 in their top three most impactful resources to promote literacy (out of a total of ten),
although each respondent ranked the resources in a different order.

Table 15
Most Impactful Resources to Promote Literacy
Strategy/Resource Percent Responded (n)
Collaboration time 100% (n=4)
Conferencing with students 100% (n=4)
Instructional resources for phonics/phonological awareness 100% (n=4)

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 96

All participants (100%, n=4) ranked instructional materials to teach reading
comprehension and reading fluency as having the least impact in promoting literacy. This may
explain the lack of specificity in the respondents’ answers to the questions about the materials
they use to teach reading fluency and reading comprehension. All of the strategies or resources
ranked in Table 16 as least impactful by the respondents were also chosen consistently, although
in different rank order, by the participants.

Table 16
Least Impactful Resources to Promote Literacy
Strategy/Resource Percent Responded (n)
Instructional resources for reading comprehension 100% (n=4)
Instructional resources for reading fluency 100% (n=4)
Online professional development for developing student
literacy
75% (n=3)

Document review is a data collection technique that can be used to gain additional
information or provide clarification to evidence gathered from survey or interview questions
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003). The purpose of document review component of this study was to
evaluate the quality of the instructional materials that the Kindergarten teachers are using to
teach literacy, through the lens of quality instruction for the English learner, and to determine
whether these materials are appropriate and effective based on the literacy components outlined
in the conceptual framework.
Table 17 provides a summary of scores for each literacy instruction program that the
Kindergarten teachers mentioned in their survey and interview responses. Five programs were
evaluated using the ELL Metrics Rubric, developed by the Council of Great City Schools (2017):
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 97

the Heggerty phonemic awareness curriculum (2015), the Nancy Fetzer Emergent Reading Kit
(2013), the Nancy Fetzer Writing Program (2010), California Treasures (2010), and the Zoo-
phonics (2005) program. With the exception of California Treasures, which is a comprehensive
literacy program, each program was evaluated in the areas that it addresses in its lessons or
curriculum, in addition to the “scaffolding and differentiation” category and the “other
considerations” category. Other considerations include additional resources for teachers as well
as suggestions and recommendations for lesson delivery and supplemental strategies that align
with lessons. Items in each category were scored on a scale of 1-4, as follows: 1- no evidence; 2-
some evidence; 3- sufficient evidence; 4- extensive evidence, and an average score was
calculated for each category. A discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each of the literacy
instructional materials that were evaluated follows Table 17.

Table 17
Ratings for Instructional Materials, Using the ELL Evaluation Matrix

Heggerty
Phonemic
Awareness
2015
Nancy Fetzer
Emergent
Reading Kit
2013
Nancy
Fetzer
Writing
2011
California
Treasures
2010
Zoo-
phonics
2005
Reading n/a n/a n/a 3 3
Text-Dependent
Questions n/a n/a n/a 2 2
Foundational
Skills 3 3 n/a 3 2
Language n/a n/a n/a 3 n/a
Speaking and
Listening n/a n/a n/a 3 n/a
Writing n/a n/a 4 2 2
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 98

Scaffolding and
Differentiation 1 3 3 2 2
Cultural
Relevance and
Respect n/a n/a n/a 3 n/a
Other
Considerations 3 4 4 3 2

Heggerty Phonemic Awareness
The Heggerty program has the most recent publication date (2015). This phonemic
awareness program consists of one book, which is laid out in a systematic manner and contains
lessons for 35 weeks of school that build on each other. There is a scope and sequence for the
year’s lessons. The program is aligned to the Common Core State Standards and it provides a list
of resources to teachers that includes professional books on phonemic awareness and word
books, as well as a bibliography.
The program does not provide assessments, but the guide does encourage teachers to find
their own assessment instruments online and tells teachers to assess students’ phonemic
awareness skills by looking at their writing. A significant weakness of the program is that it
contains no comparative linguistics- it does not highlight sound differences between English and
Spanish. However, the program uses nursery rhymes, which are helpful for English learners to
learn linguistic patterns in English. With respect to the phonemic awareness activities in the
guide, it is up to the teacher to decide whether to use real or nonsense words. The ELL Metrics
Rubric looks for the use of real words, rather than nonsense words. There is no mention of any
type of scaffolding or differentiation in the guide.

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 99

Nancy Fetzer Emergent Reading Kit
Like the Heggerty program, the Nancy Fetzer Emergent Reading Kit is a single book.
The book contains a variety of blackline masters for student resources, including decodable
readers. The program was published in 2013 and is aligned to the CCSS. There is a newer
version of the program, published in 2015, but the Kindergarten teachers at TES are using the
2013 version. The lessons and strategies in the kit cover the foundational skills of alphabet
knowledge, concepts of print, phonological awareness, phonics, sight words, and reading
fluency. Strengths of this program include the extensive video resource library on the author’s
website, as well as the comprehensive examples and models shown throughout the book. In
addition, the guide gives a comprehensive scope and sequence, as well as example schedules and
specific student and teacher routines for the various components of the program.
Areas in which the program is lacking include the lack of comparative linguistics, and
assessments, which do not assess fluency or concepts of print, which are important skills for
Kindergarten-age students. There are no strategies for differentiation present in the lessons.
Nancy Fetzer Writing
The Nancy Fetzer Writing Curriculum is another single volume that contains a Common
Core Standards aligned writing curriculum. It includes a variety of strategies that are beneficial
to English learners, including guided writing, chants, and other activities that promote
vocabulary development and comprehension of the English language. The guide is replete with
visuals and graphic organizers that can be reproduced for student use. Many of the lessons use
sentence frames, which is another tool that benefits English learners.
As with the Nancy Fetzer Emergent Reading Kit, the area of assessment is weak in this
program. The guide does not contain any formal assessment tools. The guide provides a script
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 100

for teachers, which is a component that the ELL Metrics Rubric cautions against, but the guide
also provides suggestions for teaching specific lessons.
California Treasures
Treasures is the English Language Arts program that was adopted by Thomas Ewes
School in 2012. It is not Common Core aligned. However, Treasures provides a robust program
for vocabulary development in its Kindergarten program, with oral vocabulary cards and explicit
instructions for their use are a foundational piece. Another strength of Treasures is that it uses
abundant informational text and provides many questions related to the stories are abundant
(many of which, however, are not text-dependent questions). Additionally, the literature
selections are culturally relevant to English learners. The read aloud sections of the teacher’s
guide for the Kindergarten Treasures program are thorough and strategies are focused on
development of oral vocabulary. Strategies for universal access are found throughout the
teacher’s guide and are focused on the needs of ELs. Finally, Treasures has a separate program
for ELD as part of the Kindergarten materials.
The lack of Common Core alignment is the major weakness of the Treasures program.
Text-dependent questions are not present for many of the reading selections, and the Common
Core Standards that are not aligned with the previous California ELA standards are not addressed
in the program. Another weakness of the program is the sheer volume of resources that it
includes, which forces a teacher to choose which are the most appropriate components to use,
and which to set aside. This can be a daunting task for any teacher, but especially for a new
teacher.
Zoo-phonics
The version of Zoo-phonics used by the Kindergarten teachers was published in 2005.
According to the Zoo-phonics website, there is a 2013 version which is Common Core aligned.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 101

The 2005 version does address ELs in a broad sense, and lists some culturally relevant reading
selections in its lessons. Zoo-phonics has reading, writing, and letter/sound awareness lessons
contained in a single guide for the teacher. The reading selections that are aligned to the lessons
cover a variety of genres. There is mention made of spiraling back through the lessons if students
are not ready to move on.
The oldest of the materials that the Kindergarten teachers use to teach literacy, the Zoo-
phonics program is not aligned to the Common Core Standards. The vocabulary component of
the program is weak- the “vocabulary words” listed for each week are words, usually c-v-c
words, that begin with the letter or blends studied that week and sight words. Furthermore, rather
than a sequence of teaching more-frequently used letters first, the Zoo-phonics program
introduces alphabet letters in sequence, from a to z. After the letters have been taught, blends are
introduced. Creative writing is introduced in Week 14, but writing activities lack rigor. Finally,
the program’s assessments only relate to letter names, sounds, and signal (the program has hand
signals for each letter).
Collectively, the instructional materials that are currently being used to teach literacy to
English learners did not score at the highest levels with respect to their efficacy for EL students.
Ideally, the instructional materials being used to teach literacy to English learners should receive
the highest possible rubric score, a 4, in each area. The organization must address this gap in
instructional materials by purchasing more current, more effective programs.
Synthesis
Data from three sources: a survey, an interview, and a review of the instructional
materials that the Kindergarten reported that they use, were collected in order to answer the
research questions “What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
hinder or support TES Kindergarten teachers in the implementation of research-based
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 102

instructional strategies for English learners to develop literacy?” and “What are the
recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources?” Following is the synthesis of information gleaned from the three data
collection methods, organized by knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors.
Knowledge
Knowledge elements examined first point to consistent understanding among teachers
regarding the Kindergarten readiness gap and its impact on English learners. Second, teachers
know that effective literacy instruction is not the same for every student. Third, teachers
demonstrate an understanding of effective literacy instruction, but do not demonstrate a full
understanding of why the use of certain strategies is beneficial to the literacy development of
their English learners. The fourth finding indicates a collective strength among the Kindergarten
teachers in understanding the feedback process and the importance of providing individualized
instruction for their students.
The teachers’ knowledge about English learners’ literacy needs and how to deliver
literacy instruction to their English learners, and their understanding of feedback is an asset to
the literacy instructional program for Kindergarten, as well as to English learners. Providing
additional support to teachers in these areas to grow their expertise as teachers of English
learners will benefit teachers and students alike.
Motivation
Motivation elements examined in the survey and in the interviews included teacher
values with respect to instruction for English learners and teacher self-efficacy as it relates to
teaching literacy to their English learners, as well as the value of collecting data to inform
instruction. Overall, the Kindergarten teachers value the process of providing literacy instruction
to their EL students, but expressed different levels of self-efficacy when it comes to teaching
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 103

literacy to English learners, demonstrating a range of confidence in their abilities, from
somewhat confident to “8 out of 10.” Even the most confident of the four teachers would benefit
from more training in this area.
Finally, with respect to using data to inform instruction, teachers are collecting data from
a variety of sources and report that they use these student assessment results to address students’
needs in the area of literacy, mostly in individualized or small-group settings.
Organization
Organizational elements examined in the survey and in the interviews included structure
for teacher collaboration, consistency of literacy instruction from classroom to classroom, as well
as the efficacy of curricular materials for Kindergarten literacy instruction. Each of the
Kindergarten teachers who participated in the survey and interviews have English learners in
their classrooms, but each teacher has developed different programs for literacy instruction.
Consistency among all of the Kindergarten teachers would allow for professional discourse and
strengthening of instruction for all English learners. Survey and interview data indicate that the
collaborative process is one in which teachers would like to participate, but it is not currently
occurring with regularity. Teachers’ interview responses were consistent with the survey answers
in that they all mentioned that a lack of time hindered their ability to either collaborate with peers
or deliver the most effective literacy instruction to their students. However, on the survey, three
of the four teachers stated that they collaborate weekly with their grade-level colleagues, and the
other teacher said that she collaborates with her colleagues once every few months. All of the
Kindergarten teachers have a common preparation period every day, but are not yet using that
time consistently to collaborate with one another. The organization can provide a structure and
schedule for teachers’ collaboration.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 104

Based on the responses, it does not appear that the Kindergarten teachers engage in
regular collaboration for the purpose of data analysis. Furthermore, the teachers pointed to a lack
of structure or protocol provided by the organization, to use when examining student assessment
results. Although time is dedicated to data analysis several times per year, during regularly-
scheduled professional development, it appears that the Kindergarten teachers would like a more
structured process put in place.
Given the stated needs of the teachers in terms of collaborating with one another, it is not
surprising that the tools that the teachers reported using to teach literacy are inconsistent. Some
of the teachers expressed that they did not have a clear understanding of their colleagues’ literacy
instruction, while one stated that her program is identical to her partner teacher’s program.
Finally, the document analysis uncovered many gaps in the materials that the teachers use
to deliver their literacy instruction. The adoption, that is scheduled for 2018, of a new Common
Core aligned literacy program that has a strong ELD component will mitigate some of the
inconsistencies in materials that currently exists in the TES Kindergarten classrooms.
Professional development to train teachers to use the new literacy program will be critical to
ensure consistent implementation as well as to initiate the process of collaboration as the teachers
learn to use these new materials.
An action plan that addresses organizational gaps and the organizational needs of more
time for the purpose of teacher collaboration and professional development; uniform literacy
instruction; as well as providing a structure and protocol for data analysis are needs that are
addressed in Chapter Five.
Summary
This chapter explored the assumed influences in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organization, as they relate to the Kindergarten teachers using research-based instructional
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 105

practices to increase the Latino English learners’ literacy achievement. The results of qualitative
and quantitative survey items, quantitative interview responses, and a document review of the
materials used to teach Kindergarten literacy at TES provide insight into current practices and
beliefs, and serve as the basis for the action plan outlined in Chapter Five which will support the
achievement of the stakeholder goal.

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 106

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study was to understand the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors that help or hinder Kindergarten teachers at Thomas Ewes School in
delivering effective literacy instruction to their Latino English learner students, and to provide
recommendations to support the teachers’ instructional practices to ensure the best possible
outcomes in literacy for their English learners. Results from a survey of teachers and findings
from individual interviews of teachers and a document review of the literacy were analyzed and
synthesized in the previous chapter. This chapter presents a plan to help close the gap between
the current program of Kindergarten literacy instruction and achievement of the goal of having
100% of the Kindergarten teachers deliver a program of literacy instruction that is research-
based, to allow for 45% of English learners at TES to score “at benchmark” or “above
benchmark” on the STAR Early Literacy assessment in December, 2018. The recommendations
that follow are based on the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick New World Model (2016).
Knowledge
The analysis of findings and results uncovered several themes with respect to the
teachers’ procedural and declarative knowledge in the areas of teaching literacy to English
learners, the needs of their English learner students, and their knowledge of giving feedback to
their students. It was assumed that teachers would need support in all of these areas. Based on
the results and findings, teachers have a body of knowledge in these areas that has allowed them
to provide literacy instruction to their English learners, using the materials that they currently
have.
First, teachers are aware of the components of a balanced literacy program and all
teachers, to some degree, acknowledge that English learners have different needs than EO
students have, in the area of literacy. The teachers are collectively strong in their understanding
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 107

of how to deliver instruction in phonics and phonemic awareness. In their interview and survey
responses, the teachers cited a variety of reasons for the Kindergarten readiness gap between
English learners and English only students. The teachers do view these reasons, including a lack
of preschool experience and not having been read to by parents, as barriers for the students. Each
of the Kindergarten teachers recognizes her important role in helping close that gap, which is
evidenced by their unanimous response on the survey stating that it is the teacher’s responsibility
to ensure that students catch up to their peers in literacy.
Second, in the area of teaching literacy, the Kindergarten teachers have basic
understanding of English Language Development instruction, including designated and
integrated ELD instruction. The teachers all provided examples of effective strategies that they
use to support EL students’ language development during the course of their regular literacy
instruction. At the same time, the teachers expressed their concerns about delivering an effective
designated ELD instructional program, and demonstrated that they need support in understanding
how and why particular strategies will benefit the literacy development of their English learners.
The organization needs to provide the teachers support in these areas.
Finally, in the area of providing feedback and individualized instruction to students, the
teachers displayed great collective strength. Teachers’ responses to survey and interview items
demonstrate that they understand how to deliver feedback to their students, and how this
feedback can have a positive impact on their EL students’ literacy development. Teachers also
described different ways that they provide individualized support and instruction to their English
learners. Teachers can be further supported in learning how to balance positive feedback that
reinforces students’ achievement with constructive feedback that gives students opportunities for
growth, and additional ways to provide targeted support to their English learners.

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 108

Motivation
This study looked at factors impacting teachers’ motivation in the areas of literacy
instruction for English learners, including teacher self-efficacy related to teaching literacy to
English learners. As with the knowledge area, it was assumed that teachers would benefit from
support in these areas. The motivation needs of the teachers were validated by the analysis of
findings and results.
Interview and survey responses indicate that the teachers value the use of specific
strategies to promote literacy development for their English learners, but require more support in
actually doing so. This is related to the teachers’ sense of self-efficacy as it relates to their
confidence in being able to deliver literacy instruction that addresses the needs of English
learners. None of the teachers expressed complete confidence in her abilities to meet her EL
students’ literacy needs, and this could have an impact on the teachers’ value of using EL-
targeted literacy strategies in the classroom.
Teachers expressed the desire to change their instructional practices to promote growth
for their English learners, and gave examples of changing instruction to address the needs of
their English learners, with differing degrees of specificity. Teachers stated that they want to
change practices, but the document review of instructional materials that teachers report using to
teach literacy uncovered a barrier to change. None of the materials being used to teach literacy to
English learners are aligned with the current California ELD/ELA Framework. This is, in part,
an organizational problem that will be addressed in the section that follows.
Organization
Organizational factors examined and validated in this evaluation study included the
consistency of literacy instruction in all of the Kindergarten classrooms, the structure that
teachers use for data analysis, and the materials used to teach literacy. As the school principal, I
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 109

believed that the teachers were collaborating regularly and, as such, were using more or less the
same materials to teach literacy to their students. It was unexpected to find that one of the
teachers reported collaborating with colleagues just a few times per year, and also surprising that
the teachers had a general sense of what their colleagues’ literacy programs look like, but did not
furnish too many specific details in their survey and interview responses.
It was made clear by the teachers’ answers to survey and interview items that they use
data to make decisions about literacy instruction, but it was also clear from the teachers’
responses that the organization has been deficient in providing a protocol and system for looking
at student assessment data. Teachers spoke about getting together to look at their students’
results on the STAR Early Literacy assessment, during designated professional development
time, but one teacher said that she would like guidance in next steps, or what to do with the
results once they have been analyzed.
Another unexpected finding was that the instructional materials that the teachers are
using are outdated. The organization must ensure that all materials that the teachers use to teach
literacy are aligned with current ELD standards and the Common Core standards. For example,
the Zoo-phonics program that several of the teachers use as part of their literacy instruction was
published in 2005, and there is an up-to-date version aligned with current standards available.
There is currently a plan to adopt a Common Core aligned program for English Language Arts,
which includes a rigorous ELD component, for the 2018-19 school year.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that declarative knowledge forms the foundation of
knowledge application, so it follows that teachers need to have knowledge of literacy instruction
for English learners in order for them to put those principles into practice. Table 18 provides a
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 110

summary of each knowledge influence in terms of its validation, or a high probability of being
validated, and assigns a priority to each influence with respect to its priority in terms of
achieving the stakeholder goal. Table 18 also provides context-specific recommendations based
on theoretical principles found in the literature. All of the knowledge influences were validated
and two are priorities.

Table 18
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence:
Cause, Need, or Asset
Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N) Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers need to
know why literacy
instruction for ELs
needs to be different
from literacy
instruction for EOs
(D)
N N Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more
accurately because it is
elaborated with prior
learning. (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)
Not an immediate
priority.
Teachers need to
understand how to
implement effective
strategies to teach
literacy to ELs (D)
V Y To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them, and
know when to apply
what they have learned.
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)
Job Aid: Provide
task cards that
outline the steps
for literacy
instructional
strategies that are
most effective for
ELs.
Teachers need to
know how to adapt
V N Focusing on mastery,
individual
improvement, learning,
and progress promotes
positive motivation.
Not an immediate
priority.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 111

instructional strategies
for use with ELs (P)
(Yough & Anderman,
2006).
Teachers need to
understand how to
prepare and deliver
appropriate feedback
to students regarding
students’ literacy
development (P)
N Y Feedback and modeling
increases self-efficacy.
(Pajares, 2006)
Job Aid: Graphic
organizer
explaining the
feedback process.
(D)eclarative; (P)rocedural
Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Teachers need to
understand how to use strategies to teach literacy to English learners. Schraw and McCrudden
(2006) found a correlation between mastery and acquisition, integration, and subsequent
application of skills. By providing teachers with task cards showing the steps for various literacy
instructional strategies that are effective for use with ELs, the teachers’ continued appropriate
use of effective strategies for teaching literacy to ELs may be encouraged. Furthermore, by
referring to these cards while teaching a particular skill to English learners, teachers will
reinforce their capacity to teach this skill, which may have an additional benefit in the area of
motivation, with respect to teacher self-efficacy.
The knowledge of why certain instructional strategies are effective and how they benefit
students will benefit teachers. This conceptual knowledge about instructional strategies is critical
for teachers as part of the process of literacy development for EL students. First, there is a wide
body of research that asserts that teachers must have specific assessment data that shows the
areas in which students are proficient, as well as the academic areas where the students need
help, in order to provide effective, targeted instruction (see Almomani et al., 2014; Forster &
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 112

Souvignier, 2014; Haas, Stickney, & Ysseldyke, 2016). Because teachers often discount
research-based evidence that supports the use of certain strategies to promote literacy (Spear-
Swerling & Zibulsky, 2014), it is important that teachers understand the value of, and implement
such strategies to ensure that the literacy needs of EL students are met.
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Teachers need to
understand how to prepare and deliver appropriate feedback to students regarding students’
literacy development. According to Pajares (2006), providing feedback increases self-efficacy.
When teachers provide regular feedback to students about their growth as readers, it empowers
their students to become more self-efficacious, which can lead to improvements in reading. The
area of feedback is an asset for the kindergarten teachers at TES.
According to Chan et al. (2014), teacher feedback promotes student ownership of their
own learning, and is critical to learning. Teachers require procedural knowledge in order to
deliver effective feedback to students. First, the teacher must understand that effective feedback
about student progress toward their learning goals is both honest and direct (Cabral-Márquez,
2015). Learning targets, according to Konrad et al. (2014), are a means to simplify the path
toward learning goals, to help students to more clearly respond to teacher feedback relative to
their progress toward a goal. The Kindergarten teachers at TES regularly deliver feedback to
their students during student-teacher conferences. All teachers reported conferencing with their
students, with varying degrees of frequency.
Motivation Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2008) identify three components of motivation: active choice,
persistence, and mental effort, and posit that motivated individuals are able to achieve goals.
Barriers to motivation will make task or goal completion difficult for stakeholders (Clark &
Estes, 2008). As illustrated in Table 19, the motivational influences related to the TES teacher
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 113

goal are related to task value, which falls under the domain of expectancy value theory, and
emotion. Table 19 also summarizes the literature on motivation related to value and emotion.
The recommendations outlined in Table 19 provide value validation and emotional
support to teachers. Both of the recommendations were validated by the results and findings, and
both are priorities. By promoting discussion between teachers regarding the value of specific
instructional strategies as they relate to literacy development of English learners, teachers will
better understand why these strategies are worthwhile in helping their English learners become
readers. In addition, by helping teachers feel in control of choosing the most appropriate literacy
instructional methodologies to use with their English learners, TES provides needed emotional
support for its teachers, as described in Table 19.

Table 19
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence:
Cause, Need, or Asset
Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N) Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers need to value
the use of instructional
strategies to promote
the literacy
development of
English learners (V)
V Y Rationales that include
a discussion of the
importance and utility
value of the work or
learning can help
learners develop
positive values (Eccles,
2006; Pintrich, 2003)
Rationales in the
form of a job aid
can enhance
discussions about
the value of using
specific strategies
to teach literacy to
English learners.
This can facilitate
discussions
between
collaborative
teams of teachers.
Teachers need the
desire to change their
instructional practices
V Y Positive emotional
environments support
Organization:
Foster and support
the teachers’ need
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 114

to promote student
growth (E)
motivation (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
for autonomy and
choice by allowing
them, as a group,
to choose from a
variety of effective
literacy strategies
as they plan
instruction for their
English learners.
(V)alue; (E)motion

Value. Expectancy value theory centers on individuals’ ability and desire to perform a
task (Eccles, 2006). Teachers at TES placed a high value on professional development targeted
toward strategies that benefit the literacy development of English learners, and have participated
in such training for several years. Both Eccles (2006) and Pintrich (2003) highlight discussion
that includes the rationale for implementing a particular task as being effective in promoting
utility value. Professional development focused on specific literacy strategies will help to
promote utility value for teachers.
Pop, Dixon, and Grove (2010) found a positive correlation between active participation in
professional development and transfer of said skills to the classroom. As such, when a teacher
places value on instructional strategies that are proven to be effective in meeting the unique
needs of English learners in the area of acquiring literacy, the teachers are more likely to
implement those strategies. As such, discussion during professional collaboration about the value
of using specific strategies to teach literacy to English learners, as described in Table 24, will
strengthen teachers’ value systems.
Emotion. According to Clark and Estes (2008), a positive emotional environment is
important for motivation. In order to motivate teachers to use instructional strategies to teach
literacy to English learners, they will require emotional support that allows them to feel
autonomous (Bono et al., 2007). Furthermore, the teachers will need an environment that
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 115

alleviates their anxiety (Lord & Kanfer, 2002) about implementing these instructional strategies.
The organization can provide the structure for this emotional support, as shown in Table 24
Lord and Kanfer (2002) explain that the more that the organization does to foster positive
emotions in its stakeholders, the more positive the outcomes will be. With respect to teachers’
unwillingness to change their long-used instructional strategies for more innovative, effective
strategies rooted in the latest research, TES can promote more positive attitudes by providing
teachers with opportunities to try new strategies and discuss the results with their peers.
Additionally, by allowing teachers choice and autonomy, by having them choose the particular
research-based literacy strategies that they will implement, they are more likely to be motivated
to use those strategies (Bono et al., 2007). Teachers will collaborate, as a grade-level team, to
choose the most appropriate strategies that they will all commit to using.
Organizational Recommendations
At TES, there is a great sense of urgency to ensure educational equity for all students, in
light of the persistent academic achievement gap that exists between English only and English
learner students, beginning in Kindergarten. In the school setting, teachers often cite
organizational barriers as hindrances to their being able to provide the most effective instruction
to their students. According to Clark and Estes (2008), an organization is only as good as the
processes it has put in place. In other words, in the absence of solid organizational processes,
even the most skilled members of the organization may experience performance problems. If a
school does not provide its teachers with processes that facilitate effective, high quality
instruction, even the best employees will be faced with challenges to their work. Clark and Estes
(2008) identify alignment of resources and organizational change as additional critical factors
that have a powerful impact on an organization’s ability to meet its goals. In short, the school, as
an organization, can facilitate or hinder its own goal achievement. Table 20 outlines validated
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 116

organizational needs that are aligned with the previously discussed knowledge and motivational
needs, two of which are priorities.

Table 20
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset
Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization
needs a structure for
teachers to collaborate
and examine student
assessment data in
order to plan
instruction. (work
processes)
V Y Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.)
needed to do their job,
and that if there are
resource shortages,
then resources are
aligned with
organizational priorities
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Together with the
leadership team,
develop a plan and
structure for data
analysis and
instructional
planning.
The organization
needs to promote
continued use of
effective instructional
strategies and
uniformity of
implementation
amongst the
Kindergarten teachers.
(cultural setting)
V Y Effective change
efforts are
communicated
regularly and
frequently to all key
stakeholders. (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
In the Weekly
Bulletin, provide
regular updates
regarding
teachers’ use of
effective
instructional
strategies. During
Kindergarten
grade level
planning sessions,
take time to
discuss the
teachers’
implementation of
these strategies.
The organization
needs to provide
teachers with
research-based
V Y Effective change
efforts use evidence-
based solutions and
adapt them, where
Ensure that all
teachers have a
voice, through the
Leadership Team,
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 117

instructional materials
that support the
literacy development
of EL students.
(resources)
necessary, to the
organization’s culture
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
in selecting the
research-based
instructional
materials that will
be used.

Work processes. According to Clark and Estes (2008), work processes are the means by
which different components of an organization- human and procedural- work in concert to
achieve a stated result. In a school, teachers are the catalysts for change, but it is difficult for
change to occur when there are many outside forces that influence the educational process. The
organization needs a structure for teachers to examine student assessment data in order to plan
instruction. This structure will benefit teachers, who are tasked with ensuring that each of their
students achieve at grade level, while also following the rules and regulations of their profession.
If the organization, the school, does not have efficient and effective work processes, such as a
structure for examining student assessment results, there will be little progress toward the goal of
equity in student achievement. Furthermore, the process of data analysis promotes educational
equity by allowing teachers to study student achievement trends and plan instruction that will
address the needs of every child.
The data analysis process also involves collaboration. Both Datnow et al. (2013) and
Little (2012) point to teacher collaboration as a shared responsibility within a school, and assert
that schools that provide a uniform structure for this collaboration set the stage for teachers to
improve teaching and learning. Collaboration between teachers for the purpose of improving
teaching and learning, through the analysis of student data, has been shown to be an effective
process (Datnow, Park, & Kennedy-Lewis, 2013; Gasoi, 2009; Little, 2012).
Schools are faced with many mandates from district, state and federal levels, which are
often conflicting (Gasoi, 2009; Peck, Gallucci, Sloan, & Lippincott, 2009). The process of
balancing effective teaching practices with compliance to higher-level mandates is a difficult
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 118

one, as described by Gasoi (2009). A school-level organization must support its teachers so that
they are able to implement instructional practices that are both effective and compliant. If a
school is to achieve its educational goals, the organization must ensure that teachers are able to
deliver efficacious instruction to meet the needs of all students. Teacher collaboration to examine
student data in order to make informed decisions for classroom instruction is a school-wide
process that will allow teachers to better meet their goals for student achievement, facilitated by
the process put in place by the organization.
Cultural setting. It is imperative for the culture of an organization to support its goals by
promoting behavior that is aligned with goal achievement (Tosti, 2007). Clark & Estes (2008)
recommend using core beliefs to drive organizational decision-making that supports the
organization’s goals. While an organization’s culture is both pervasive and deep-rooted, it is
possible for the culture of that organization to change (Clark & Estes, 2008). The organization
can assist the teachers by establishing a culture that promotes sustained, uniform implementation
of effective literacy instruction strategies.
If the school culture supports student achievement through the objectives of teacher
collaboration and the implementation of effective instructional strategies to support the learning
of every student, then teachers must embrace those objectives. When a school culture that
supports high academic achievement is in place, and teachers align their instructional practices
with that culture, the results are positive (Sleegers et al., 2011). Thus, culture is a critical factor
in closing the academic achievement gap between English only students and English learners.
Resources. Clark and Estes (2008) promote the use of research-based solutions to
organizational problems. In this case, the organization will provide its Kindergarten teachers
with effective instructional resources to teach literacy to English learners in order to mitigate the
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 119

Kindergarten readiness gap. Teachers will be part of the selection process for these new
instructional materials, as recommended by Clark and Estes (2008).
According to Kotter (2007), a critical part of the change process is changing structures
within the organization that do not align well with the vision. In this case, teachers need to have
access to instructional materials/resources that are well-suited for teaching literacy to English
learners. Many teachers continue to use outdated materials with which they are comfortable
using, but are not necessarily aligned to current research regarding English learners’ literacy
acquisition. When the organization provides research-based literacy instruction materials to
teachers, it facilitates changed structures that are aligned with the vision.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
This implementation and evaluation plan was designed using the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which is a four-level model that begins with the end in
mind. The basis for the Kirkpatrick model is the understanding that a thorough evaluation of
learning is needed in order to maximize the benefits of this learning for the organization as a
whole, and to further the work toward goal achievement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This
plan focuses on the Kirkpatrick Level 4, Results; then addresses Level 3, Behavior; next looks at
Level 2, Learning; and concludes with an assessment of Level 1, Reaction (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The specific organizational goals are directly related to component of the
New World Kirkpatrick Model in this plan, which ensures that learning outcomes are
measureable and that members of the organization are sufficiently invested in the desired
organizational outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 120

Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
At Thomas Ewes School, there is a significant, persistent, gap in Kindergarten readiness
skills between English language learners and English only students. In order to address this issue,
an organizational goal of having at least 45% of Kindergarten English learners perform at or
above benchmark by December, 2018. This will be achieved through 100% Kindergarten teacher
implementation of research-based literacy instructional strategies that are targeted to the specific
needs of English learners. The organizational and stakeholder goals align with the mission of
Thomas Ewes School, to educate and motivate students to realize their unique capabilities. By
implementing strategies that are proven to be effective in teaching literacy to English learners,
the Kindergarten teachers will address the issue of the Kindergarten readiness gap and bring the
organization closer to achieving its global goal.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 21 addresses the leading indicators that are aligned with desired external and
internal outcomes, along with proposed metrics and methods that will be used to measure and
evaluate these outcomes. The external outcomes directly relate to Kindergarten student
achievement in the area of reading, while the internal outcomes focus on classroom literacy
instruction and collaborative behaviors between the Kindergarten teachers, as shown in Table 21.

Table 21
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 121

Increased community
perception of the school.
Increased number of positive
scores vs negative scores on a
community survey
Twice-yearly stakeholder survey
Decreased number of
Kindergarten students
whose families choose
alternative educational
options for them.
Decreased number of students
who are age-eligible for
Kindergarten who do not enroll
in the school
Analysis of actual enrollment
data vs attendance at the
Kindergarten Round-Up
meeting prior to enrollment
Increased literacy
achievement for English
learners in the school
district
Increased numbers of English
learners scoring at or above
benchmark on district-wide
assessments in English
Language Arts
Results of STAR Early Literacy
and other reading assessments
Internal Outcomes
Implementation of
research-based strategies
to promote literacy in
Kindergarten
100% of Kindergarten teachers
will implement research-based
instructional strategies in the
area of literacy
Principal observation of these
literacy strategies being used
during weekly classroom
walkthroughs
Improved Kindergarten
literacy instruction
100% of Kindergarten teachers
will make changes to their
literacy instructional program to
reflect only research-based
strategies and practices
Principal observation of
Kindergarten classroom literacy
practices, with ongoing
documentation of results for the
purpose of comparison
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 122

Increased collaboration
between Kindergarten
teachers for data analysis
and instructional planning
100% of Kindergarten teachers
will participate in monthly
collaboration sessions to analyze
student data an plan instruction
Principal observation of
Kindergarten teacher
collaboration sessions

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The Kindergarten teachers must demonstrate certain, specific
behaviors in order to realize the outcomes related to the organizational and stakeholder goals. As
described in Table 22, the Kindergarten teachers must first understand the utility value of using
research-based instructional strategies to teach literacy. Second, the Kindergarten teachers will
collaborate with their Kindergarten teacher-colleagues in order to plan literacy instruction.
Finally, Kindergarten teachers will work together to analyze student literacy assessment results
in order to design appropriate interventions as required. The specific metrics, methods, and
timing for evaluating each of the aforementioned critical behaviors are detailed in Table 22.

Table 22
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Kindergarten
teachers understand
the utility value of
the use of research-
based literacy
100% of Kindergarten
teachers will
demonstrate an
understanding of the
value of using
research-based
1. Teachers will answer
questions related to the
value of research-based
literacy instruction
strategies on a teacher
A baseline survey
will be conducted
at the start of the
school year, then
again at the
halfway point of
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 123

instruction
strategies
strategies to teach
literacy
survey about literacy
instruction
the school year,
and again at the
end of the year
2. Kindergarten
teachers participate
in grade-level
instructional
planning sessions
for literacy
100% of Kindergarten
teachers will
participate in common
literacy instruction
planning sessions,
together with the rest
of their grade-level
colleagues
1. Teachers will
schedule regular
Kindergarten literacy
planning sessions, to be
attended by the
principal. Every
Kindergarten teacher
will be present at each
planning session.
At least 1
planning session
per month
3. Kindergarten
teachers participate
in grade-level data
analysis sessions to
examine student
achievement in
literacy
100% of Kindergarten
teachers will
participate in
scheduled data
analysis sessions
1. Kindergarten teachers
will collaborate to
analyze student
assessment results in the
area of literacy and plan
for remediation as
needed
Once per
trimester

Required drivers. In order to achieve the stakeholder outcomes, and ultimately have a
positive impact on English learners’ literacy development in Kindergarten, the Kindergarten
teachers must be provided with reinforcement, encouragement, and rewards tied to their literacy
instruction and collaborative work for lesson planning in the area of literacy as well as
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 124

collaboration for the purpose of analyzing students’ literacy assessment results. There also must
be a plan for monitoring the aforementioned behaviors of the Kindergarten teachers as they
pursue the organizational and stakeholder goals and outcomes. In Table 23, the specific methods
and timing of these required drivers are correlated to the 3 critical behaviors described in the
previous section.

Table 23
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job Aid: Provide task cards
that outline the steps for
literacy instructional strategies
that are most effective for
ELs.
1. Beginning of the school
year
2. Revisit task cards regularly
at collaboration sessions
1, 2, 3
Job Aid: Provide teachers
with a Common Core aligned
program for English
Language Arts
1.Beginning of the school year
2. Facilitate teacher
discussions about use of the
new material during
professional development and
collaboration sessions
2
Job Aid: Provide rationales
that can enhance teachers’
1. Beginning of the school
year
1, 2, 3
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 125

discussions about the value of
using specific strategies to
teach literacy to English
learners. This can facilitate
discussions between
collaborative teams.
2. Facilitate discussions at
each professional development
session as well as
Kindergarten collaboration
sessions
Encouraging
Feedback and coaching from
the principal
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Feedback and coaching from
peers
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Peer modeling during
collaboration sessions
Ongoing 2
Rewarding
Reporting student
achievement increases to
stakeholders via the weekly
newsletter
Quarterly 1
Providing updates to the
public regarding positive
classroom practices via the
local newspapers and updates
to the school board
Ongoing 2, 3
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 126

Displaying positive student
literacy data trends on a data
wall viewable by school staff
Ongoing 1, 3
Monitoring
Classroom walkthroughs by
the principal, to observe
literacy instruction
Weekly 1, 2
Principal participation in
grade-level collaboration
sessions for literacy
instructional planning and
data analysis
Ongoing 2, 3
Peer observations of literacy
instruction, followed by post-
observation feedback
Monthly 1, 2

Organizational support. The organization will provide needed support of the
Kindergarten teachers’ critical behaviors. This organizational support will be demonstrated
through providing up-to-date curricular materials for literacy instruction; reinforcement of the
use of appropriate instructional strategies and practices; peer and administrative feedback and
instructional modeling; positive and sustained communication regarding student outcomes and
classroom practices; and the development of a sustained literacy-centered collaborative practice.

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 127

Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. When the recommended solutions have been realized, Kindergarten
teachers will/will be able to:
1. Articulate an understanding of why literacy instruction for ELs needs to be different
from literacy instruction for EOs (Declarative)
2. Implement effective strategies to teach literacy to ELs (Declarative)
3. Adapt instructional strategies for use with ELs (Procedural)
4. Prepare and deliver appropriate feedback regarding students’ literacy development
(Procedural)
5. Value the use of instructional strategies that promote the literacy development of
English learners (Value)
6. Change their instructional practices to promote student growth (Emotion)
Program. In order to achieve the learning goals described in the previous section, a
comprehensive plan focused on literacy must be carried out within the organization. This plan
combines after-school professional development throughout the school year with collaborative
teacher activities, administrative support, and individual teacher goal-setting. There are a total of
14 minimum days during the school year that are designated as professional development days.
Approximately one hour of each of these sessions will be devoted to professional development in
the area of literacy.
Kindergarten teachers will receive support for their literacy instructional practices from
peers, through peer observation and feedback; and from the administrator through observation
and coaching feedback. Job aids will be provided to the Kindergarten teachers to reinforce their
use of research-based literacy instructional strategies. Observations, both peer and
administrative, will occur on an ongoing basis.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 128

During the 14 regularly-scheduled professional development sessions throughout the
school year (each session will provide approximately 60 minutes of professional development
related to literacy), teachers will engage in training and guided professional conversation around
research-based instructional strategies to teach literacy to English learners. Knowledge from
these professional development sessions will facilitate teacher collaboration, which is a key
component of the organizational goal achievement. The collaboration between the Kindergarten
teachers will serve a two-fold purpose: first, to help teachers strengthen their instructional
program in the area of literacy, and second, to help teachers develop targeted instructional
solutions based on student literacy assessment results. This collaboration will occur at least once
per month, and the principal will attend these sessions.
Components of learning. In order to implement the \effective, research-based literacy
strategies that will produce optimal results for English learners, the Kindergarten teachers must
first gain declarative knowledge regarding such literacy instruction. Furthermore, the
Kindergarten teachers must value the use of these instructional strategies as they provide benefits
to their English learners’ literacy development. Table 24 outlines the evaluation methods and the
timing for these critical components of Kindergarten teachers’ learning.

Table 24
Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks during professional
development sessions- group discussion, think-
pair-share
14 times per year, during PD activities
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 129

Knowledge checks during Kindergarten
collaboration sessions- group discussion, think-
pair-share
At each collaboration session
Knowledge checks during goal-setting
conferences between individual teachers and
the principal
Once per year, in August or September
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Individual demonstration of successful
implementation of effective, research-based
literacy instructional strategies/techniques
During administrative and peer observations
Content and quality of peer feedback given Post-peer observations
Demonstration of instructional planning based
on individual student needs, as identified by
assessment results
During grade-level collaboration for data
analysis
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Principal’s observation of Kindergarten
teachers’ conversations that demonstrate that
the teachers understand the benefit of the use of
research-based instructional strategies in the
area of literacy.
During professional development
During Kindergarten teacher collaboration
sessions
Peers’ observation of Kindergarten teachers’
instructional behaviors that demonstrate that
their fellow teachers understand the benefit of
During peer classroom observations
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 130

the use of research-based instructional
strategies in the area of literacy.
Teachers’ discussions of the value of using
research-based strategies in the area of literacy.
During professional development
During Kindergarten teacher collaboration
sessions
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Likert scale survey items related to teachers’
confidence in delivering literacy instruction to
their students.
Survey to be completed at the beginning,
middle, and end of the school year
Discussions following feedback of observation
of literacy instruction
Following administrator and peer observations
Teacher reflection pre- and post- assessment Before and after each benchmark assessment in
literacy
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following feedback of observation
of literacy instruction

Following administrator and peer observations
Create an individual action plan

During beginning-of-the-year goal-setting
conferences with the principal
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 131

Ongoing teacher reflection on literacy
instruction
At each grade-level collaboration session

Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) assert the importance of measuring participants’
reaction to learning events. As such, Table 25 lists the tools or methods and timing of
measurement of the Kindergarten teachers’ reactions to the proposed program. The teachers’
engagement in the training activities, the relevance of the activities to the teachers, and the
teachers’ satisfaction will be measured throughout the proposed program, using a variety of
evaluative methods and tools as described in Table 25.

Table 25
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Student data analysis After each benchmark assessment
Observation by principal Weekly
Teacher reflection-on-practice During Kindergarten collaboration sessions
Relevance
Brief pulse-check with teachers at the
beginning of each professional development
session and grade-level collaboration session
Ongoing, beginning with the first professional
development session in early September
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 132

Teacher self-evaluation Ongoing
Teacher/principal check-ins At least once per trimester
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check with teachers at the
beginning of each professional development
session and grade-level collaboration session
Ongoing
Teacher self-evaluation Ongoing
Individual teacher check-ins with the principal At least once per trimester

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. At the onset of the
implementation of the plan for implementing teacher collaboration for data analysis and
instructional planning, professional development, and coaching, the teachers’ levels of
engagement, the relevance of the program to instructional practice, and teacher satisfaction will
be measured. This Level 1 evaluation includes observations, data analysis, and teacher self-
reflection to measure engagement. Pulse checks with teachers during professional development
sessions and during grade-level collaboration sessions will be used, along with teacher self-
evaluation and teacher/principal check-ins to gauge the teachers’ satisfaction with the process as
well as the relevance of the process to their classroom practice. Once the program has been
established, Level 2 evaluation tools will include teachers’ deeper self-reflection and ongoing
professional discussions that are structured around a set of questions that will indicate the degree
to which teachers are engaged with the process, the degree to which the process is relevant to
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 133

their classroom literacy instruction, and the degree to which teachers are satisfied with the
process.
Appendix E contains the teacher survey that will be completed immediately following the
beginning of the training program. The survey consists of 11 items that concentrate on Level 1
engagement, relevance, and teacher satisfaction and Level 2 declarative and procedural
knowledge, as well as value and emotion.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. At the end of the first
trimester, and again at the end of the second trimester, teachers will complete a short survey that
consists of free-response and Likert scale items (Appendix F). As recommended by Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016), a survey that uses the Blended Evaluation approach will incorporate the
elements of each of the four levels: Level 1 reaction, Level 2 learning, Level 3 behavior, and
Level 4 results. Specifically, teachers will be asked to comment on their reactions to
implementing research-based instructional techniques to teach literacy, peer collaboration to plan
instruction and analyze data, and professional development in the area of literacy. The survey
will ask teachers to demonstrate what they learned about literacy instruction, as well as what they
are doing differently with their literacy instruction as a result of their participation in professional
development and collaborative activities.
Data Analysis and Reporting
External Level 4 goals focus on improved student achievement in the area of literacy. The
internal Level 4 goals address improved literacy instruction and increased teacher collaboration.
With respect to Level 4 external outcomes, student literacy assessment results will be reported
after each benchmark, comparing the latest results to previous results. Internal Level 4 outcomes
will be reported on a monthly basis, with grade levels reporting how many times they met to
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 134

collaborate, new literacy strategies/techniques they have tried, and the number of student
conferences they held.
Appendix F lists the survey questions, with scaled and open-ended responses, that the
teachers will complete. In addition, the other measures of data collection, including a one-question
survey for the community, tracking of numbers of local families who opt not to send their
Kindergarteners to the school, ongoing tracking of student literacy results on benchmark
assessments, and monthly monitoring of grade-level teacher collaboration sessions.
Dashboard Reporting System
The dashboard below includes four thermometers to take the “temperature” of the
organization, from the perspective of Teacher Collaboration, Student Literacy Achievement,
Literacy Instruction, and Stakeholder Perceptions, in relation to the literacy initiatives being
undertaken. The data represented in each of the thermometers will be gleaned from the
teacher/community survey data and student literacy data at various points throughout the process-
at the onset of the program, and then at several points during program implementation. One set of
dashboard thermometers will be developed for each of the four Kirkpatrick levels. These
thermometers will be displayed in the staff lounge for internal organizational purposes, and will
be published on the school website for external communication purposes. Each thermometer will
indicate “temperature” based on criteria detailed below.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 135

Figure B. Dashboard thermometers to measure organizational progress. Thermometers
will be developed to gauge how the organization is doing in each of the Kirkpatrick levels.
Teacher collaboration. Teacher collaboration is measured based on the number of days
of collaboration that occur between staff members, and data will be collected on a monthly basis,
self-reported by teachers.
Student literacy scores. Student literacy scores are based on the total percentage of
students who score at the Proficient level or higher on the STAR Reading assessments. Data will
be collected each trimester.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 136

Literacy instruction. Literacy instructional practices will be evaluated on a rating scale,
measured by self-reported survey data from teachers as to their literacy instruction and data from
principal observations.
Stakeholder perceptions. Stakeholder perceptions of the program will be gathered from
stakeholder and teacher survey data, and reported on a rating scale.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) consists of four
levels, which are worked backwards, with the end in mind. Levels 3 and 4 (Behavior and
Results) are evaluated after the program has been established, to determine the efficacy of the
program; while Levels 1 and 2 (Reaction and Learning) are evaluated at the beginning of the
program, so that changes can be made to the program if it is not working. Keeping the
organizational and stakeholder goals as the center of the program goals, I created a model
whereby teachers would strengthen their use of research-based instructional strategies to teach
literacy to their English learner students, whose typical achievement in literacy lags greatly
behind their native English-speaking peers. Through a systematic set of professional
development activities, peer and administrative observations, teacher collaboration for data
analysis and instructional planning, teachers’ instruction is strengthened and student outcomes in
the area of literacy are improved.
Using the New World Kirkpatrick Model as a guide, this program is set up for success, as
simultaneous evaluation and implementation is built into the plan. Having this up-to-the-minute
data provides metrics to the leadership team that help with decision-making as the program
continues. It also provides valuable return on expectations, with frequent checkpoints for
determining the reaction, learning, behavior, and results of the program.

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 137

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
This study used the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to examine the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that help or hinder Kindergarten teachers from
delivering a research-based literacy curriculum to their Latino English learners, in order for those
students to develop literacy at levels similar to their English only classmates. The gap analysis
begins with setting an organizational goal, then a stakeholder performance goal. From there, a
detailed analysis is done to uncover the gap between the desired and actual stakeholder
performance to determine what knowledge, motivation, or organizational barriers that may
hinder goal achievement. The last part of the gap analysis process involves recommendations in
order to close the identified gaps. Using the Clark and Estes framework for this evaluation study
had strengths and weaknesses.
The gap analysis framework was advantageous in conducting the research for this study
in that it uses knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements in order to provide an
enhanced understanding of the Kindergarten teachers’ classroom practices and beliefs about
instruction as well as how the school supports and hinders teaching and learning as it relates to
English learners. This deep understanding of the intersection of knowledge, motivation and
organizational factors at TES provided valuable information which was then used to create
recommendations for practice and the action plan detailed in this chapter.
The disadvantage of using the Clark and Estes (2008) framework to study a small group
of participants within a small organization, such as TES, is that the nature of the gap analysis
model assumes that a gap exists. Knowing that I was conducting research to study our
Kindergarten literacy program in order to identify needs and provide recommendations may have
caused some of the teachers to be reserved in their answers to survey and interview questions,
and may perhaps have been the reason why one of the teachers opted out of participating.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 138

Limitations and Delimitations
This study, like many studies, was not without its limitations and delimitations. As a
researcher, I am obligated to be transparent about the flaws and problems with the study of
which I am aware. This section will discuss the limitations and delimitations of this evaluation
study and will provide suggestions that could have improved the results.
There were clear limitations with respect to the data collected in this study. First, the
number of survey questions (20) was too many. The teachers’ responses to the open-ended, free
response questions toward the end of the survey were much shorter than their responses to the
questions at the beginning of the survey. There was a field test completed prior to my releasing
the survey to the Kindergarten teachers, but I did not press the field test participants for feedback
on the number of questions on the survey, and instead just asked for feedback regarding the
wording and content of the questions. Had the survey been shorter, I may have gained additional
information to add to my understanding of teachers’ beliefs about literacy instruction, English
learners, and the teachers’ instructional practices in the area of literacy.
The second limitation of the study was the use of an outside facilitator to conduct the
individual interviews. Because the interview facilitator was not as familiar with the topic of
study as I was, and because he does not have as intimate an understanding of the organization as
I do, some opportunities were missed to ask additional follow-up questions that were not stated
on the guide for the interview. Had someone more familiar with Thomas Ewes School been the
interviewer, additional data could have been collected to make the results more robust.
The final limitation of the study has to do with anonymity of the participants. The total
sample size of Kindergarten teachers is small, as there are just five Kindergarten teachers at TES.
As such, some of the participants’ responses may have been tempered due to the fact that I might
be able to discern which teacher gave which responses. I should have expanded my study to
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 139

include first grade, and perhaps even second grade teachers, to explore the literacy practices in
the primary grades.
The delimitations of this study have to do with the size and context of my organization.
The recommendations that I made in the action plan described in this chapter are easily
applicable to another elementary school that serves English learners. However, it must be noted
that my teachers have relatively little training in the area of English Language Development, due
to our remote location, and teachers in an area with greater access to training opportunities may
have a more in-depth understanding of current practices in literacy instruction, including ELD.
Future Research
This evaluation study has opened the door to several topics of future research. Further
action research to study the causes and effects of the readiness gap with English Learners by
expanding the perspective from Kindergarten to all grade levels would be beneficial. Such a
study can explore the ways in which schools can support early childhood literacy to ensure that
English learners experience academic success throughout the elementary grades, and beyond. It
is important to address the causes of the Kindergarten readiness gap from a perspective of
evidence, rather than assumptions based on personally-held beliefs or perspectives. As such,
further study into the home literacy practices of the Latino families in the TES community is
warranted.
Findings from this study demonstrated that the communication practices at Thomas Ewes
School is an area in which growth is needed. A study of how the teachers communicate with one
another, through the collaboration process or by other means as well as how the administrator
communicates with the instructional team, would yield valuable information to shed light on
needs and possible solutions. Better communication and collaboration between stakeholders is
essential for the delivery high-quality instruction for all students.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 140

Literacy instruction should always be of the highest-possible quality and teachers need to
be supported as they provide such instruction for the English learners. Findings from this study
point to the fact that teachers need more training in providing English Language Development
(ELD) instruction and support, perhaps in the form of coaching and guidance in their delivery of
ELD instruction. As such, it is important to examine the impact of coaching and focused
professional development on literacy instruction as a future study.
Conclusion
From the moment that a typical Latino English learner walks through the door at Thomas
Ewes School, she is at an academic disadvantage as compared to her English-speaking peers. It
is not for us to judge whether the experiences that her parents provided were adequate or not, or
whether the experience that her English only counterparts were better in preparing them for
Kindergarten. The reality is that we have an obligation to provide the best possible education to
every child, and must expeditiously address any deficits that a student may have coming into the
Kindergarten classroom. This study sought to provide clarity to the instructional practices that
the Kindergarten teachers at TES use to teach literacy, and how the teachers address the unique
needs of their English learners. Furthermore, this study looked at how the organization facilitates
or stands in the way of the literacy acquisition of our English learners.
This study uncovered information that was used to create an action plan to help teachers,
students, and administration work in tandem to ensure that every child, regardless of language
fluency, has the greatest chance at success at the elementary school level, and beyond. This
success will be rooted in the strong foundation of literacy that is provided by the teachers at
Thomas Ewes School.

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 141

REFERENCES
Abbott, S. (2013, December 19). The glossary of education reform. Retrieved from
http://edglossary.org/achievement-gap
Almomani, F., Josman, N., Al-momani, M. O., Malkawi, S. H., Nazzal, M., Almahdawi, K. A.,
& Almomani, F. (2014). Factors related to cognitive function among elementary school
children. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 21(3), 191-198.
doi:10.3109/11038128.2013.853098
August, D., McCardle, P., & Shanahan, T. (2014). Developing literacy in English language
learners: Findings from a review of the experimental research. School Psychology Review
43(4), 490-498.
August, D. & Shanahan, T. (2010). Response to a review and update on developing literacy in
second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority
Children and Youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(3), 341-348. doi:
10.1080/1086296X.2010.503745
Babione, C. (2010). Rural and small community educator responses to state academic
standards. The Rural Educator, 31(3), 7-15. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/746605825?accountid=14749
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bansilal, S., & Rosenberg, T. (2011). South African rural teachers’ reflections on their problems
of practice: Taking modest steps in professional development. Math Education Research
Journal, 2011(23), 107-127.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 142

Beatty, A. (2013). Schools alone cannot close achievement gap. Issues in Science and
Technology, 29(3), 69-75.
Beecher, M. & Sweeny, S. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and
differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502-530.
Begeny, J.C., Ross, S.G., Greene, D. J., Mitchell, R.C., & Whitehouse, M.H. (2012). Effects of
the Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) reading fluency program
with Latino English language learners: A preliminary evaluation. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 21(2), 134-149.
Belfield, C., & García, E. (2014). Parental notions of school readiness: How have they
changed and has preschool made a difference? The Journal of Educational
Research, 107, 138- 151. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2012.753863
Boivin, M., & Bierman, K. (2013). Promoting School Readiness and Early Learning:
Implications of Developmental Research for Practice. Retrieved from
http://www.eblib.com
Bono, J. E., Hannah, J. F., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of
supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1357. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2
13941304?accountid=14749
Bradshaw, G. E., Wrighton, C. A., & Clark, I.M. (2005). Zoo-phonics kindergarten: Safari into
reading, spelling, and writing. Sonora, CA: Zoo-Phonics, Inc.
Braun, E., Woodley, A., Richardson J.T.E., & Leidner, B. (2012). Self-rated competencies
questionnaires from a design perspective. Educational Research Review, 7(2012), 1-18.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 143

Bunch, G.C., Walqui, A., & Pearson, P.D. (2014). Complex text and new common standards in
the United States: Pedagogical implications for English Learners. TESOL Quarterly,
48(3), 533-559.
Cabral ‐Márquez, C. (2015). Motivating readers. The Reading Teacher, 68(6), 464-472.
doi:10.1002/trtr.1332
Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective Instruction for English Learners. The
Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.
edu/stable/41229013
California Child Care Resource & Referral Network (November, 2015). California Child Care
Portfolio. Retrieved from http://www.kidsdata.org/topic/99/childcare-
availability/Pie#fmt=262&loc=352&tf=79&ch=1247,1248&pdist=171
The California Department of Education. (2014). English language arts/English language
development framework for California public schools Kindergarten through grade
twelve. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/elaeldfrmwrksbeadopted.asp
The California Department of Education. (2015). School accountability report card reported
using data from the 2013-14 school year. Retrieved from
http://sarconline.org/SarcPdfs/6/26736926025969.pdf
The California Department of Education. (2015a). School enrollment by ethnicity for 2014-15
[Table]. Retrieved from
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Enrollment/EthnicEnr.aspx?cType=ALL&cGender=B&
cYear=2014-15&Level=School&cSelect=Thomas+Elementary--Green
Mountain+Unified--2673692-6025969&cChoice=SchEnrEth
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 144

The California Department of Education. (2016). Glossary of terms used in CBEDS and
language census data reports. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/glossary.asp#el
The California Department of Education (2017). Test results for English language arts/literacy
and mathematics. Retrieved from
http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2016/ViewReport?ps=true&lstTestYear=2016&lstTestType=
B&lstGroup=5&lstCounty=26&lstDistrict=73692-000&lstSchool=0000000
The California Department of Education (2017a). Transitional Kindergarten FAQs. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/em/kinderfaq.asp#program
Camburn, E. M., & Han, S. W. (2015). Infrastructure for teacher reflection and instructional
change: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 511-533.
doi:10.1007/s10833-015-9252-6
Cerit, Y. (2013). Trust and extra effort implementing curriculum reform: The mediating effects
of collaboration. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(3), 247-255.
Chan, P. E., Graham-Day, K. J., Ressa, V. A., Peters, M. T., & Konrad, M. (2014). Beyond
involvement: Promoting student ownership of learning in classrooms. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 50(2), 105-113.
Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H., Brooks-Gunn, J., Ayoub, C., Pan, B., Kisker, E., … Fuligni,
A. (2009). Low-income children’s school readiness: Parent contributions over
the first five years. Early Education and Development, 20(6), 958-977. doi:
10.1080/10409280903362402
Cheung, A. C. K. & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant
English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of research.
Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 351-395.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 145

Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Cooter, Jr., R. B., Mathews, B., Thompson, S., & Cooter, K. S. (2004). Searching for lessons of
mass instruction? Try reading strategy continuums. The Reading Teacher, 58(4), 388-
393.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Council of Chief State School Officers (2013). Toolkit for evaluating alignment of instructional
and assessment materials to the Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2013/Toolkit%20for%20Evaluating%20Alignment%20
of%20Instructional%20and%20Assessment%20Materials.pdf
Council of the Great City Schools (2017). A framework for raising expectations and
instructional rigor for English language learners, 2
nd
edition. Retrieved from
https://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/4/CGCS_ReinvisEngLan
g_pub_v11.pdf
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cristofaro, T., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. (2011). Mother-child conversations at 36 months and at
pre-Kindergarten: Relations to children’s school readiness. Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy, 12(1), 68-97. doi: 10.1177/1468798411416879
Daily, S., Burkhauser, M., & Halle, T. (2012). School readiness practices in the United States.
National Civic Review, 100(4), 21-24. doi: 10.1002/ncr.20080
Darling-Hammond, Linda. (2015). Want to Close the Achievement Gap? Close the Teaching
Gap. American Educator, 38(4), 14-18.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 146

Datnow, A., Park, V., & Kennedy-Lewis, B. (2013). Affordances and constraints in the context of
teacher collaboration for the purpose of data use. Journal of Educational Administration,
51(3), 341-362.
DeFeyter, J., & Winsler, A. (2009). The early developmental competencies and school
readiness of low-income, immigrant children: Influences of generation, race/ethnicity,
and national origins. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 411-431.
Denton, C. A. (2012). Response to intervention for reading difficulties in the primary grades:
Some answers and lingering questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 232-243.
DiBello, L. C., & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2008). Perspectives on school readiness and pre-
kindergarten programs: An introduction. Childhood Education, 84(5), 256-259. Retrieved
from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.
libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/210412603?accountid=14749
Dixon, H. (2011). The problem of enactment: The influence of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on
their uptake and implementation of feedback-related ideas and practices. Assessment
Matters, 2011(3), 71-92.
Dotterer, A., Iruka, I., & Pungello, E. (2012). Parenting, race, and socioeconomic status: Links
to school readiness. Family Relations, 61, 657-670. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-
3729.2012.00716.x
Duncan, G., & Sojourner, A. (2013). Can intensive early childhood intervention programs
eliminate income-based cognitive and achievement gaps? Journal of Human Resources,
48(4), 945-968. doi: 10.1353/jhr.2013.0025
Duncan, H., & Stock, M. (2010). From the Editors. The Rural Educator, 31(3), IV.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved
from http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value- -theory/
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 147

Fetzer, N. (2013). Nancy Fetzer’s emergent reading kit: The essential hands-on systematic and
explicit instructional tools for alphabet, concept of print, phonological awareness, phonics,
sight words, and fluency consolidated in this groundbreaking kit. Murrieta, CA: Nancy
Fetzer’s Literacy Connections.
Fetzer, N. (2011). Nancy Fetzer’s writing curriculum: Strategies and techniques aligned to the
Common Core Standards, grades K-1. Murrieta, CA: Nancy Fetzer’s Literacy Connections.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Fitzpatrick, C., McKinnon, R., Blair, C., & Willoughby, M. (2014). Do preschool executive
function skills explain the school readiness gap between advantaged and disadvantaged
children? Learning and Instruction, 30, 25-31.
Ford, K. L., Invernizzi, M. A., & Huang, F. (2014). Predicting first grade reading achievement
for Spanish-speaking Kindergarteners: Is early literacy screening in English valid?
Literacy Research and Instruction, 53(4), 269-286. doi: 10.1080/19388071.2014.931494
Forster, N., & Souvignier, E. (2014). Learning progress assessment and goal setting: Effects on
reading achievement, reading motivation and reading self-concept. Learning and
Instruction, 32, 91-100. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.02.002
Gasoi, E. (2009). How we define success holding values in an era of high stakes accountability.
Schools: Studies in Education, 6(2), 173-186.
Geoffroy, M., Côté, S. M., Giguère, C., Dionne, G., Zelazo, P. D., Tremblay, R. E., . . . Séguin,
J. R. (2010). Closing the gap in academic readiness and achievement: The role of early
childcare. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(12), 1359-1367.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02316.x
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 148

Graue, E. (2010). Reimagining kindergarten. The Education Digest, 75(7), 28-34. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.
usc.edu/docview/218198245?accountid=14749
Graves, A. W. (2010). A longitudinal study of the impact of effective beginning reading
instruction for English learners: Literacy, language, and learning disabilities. Literacy
and Learning: Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 23, 155-174.
Griffith, P., Kimmel, S., & Biscoe, B. (2010). Teacher professional development for at-risk
preschoolers: Closing the achievement gap by closing the instruction gap. Action in
Teacher Education, 31(4), 41-53.
Grove, C.M., Dixon, P.J., Pop, M.M. (2009). Research experiences for teachers: influences
related to expectancy and value of changes to practice in the American classroom.
Professional Development in Education, 35(2), 247-260.
Halle, T., Hair, E., Wandner, L., McNamara, N., & Chien, N. (2012). Predictors and outcomes of
early versus later English language proficiency among English language learners. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 1-20.
Hatcher, B., Nuner, J., & Paulsel, J. (2012). Kindergarten readiness and preschools: Teachers’
and parents’ beliefs within and across programs. Early Childhood Research & Practice,
14(2). Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy2.use.edu/ps/i.do?
id=GALE%7CA32498672&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=socal_main&it=r&p=
AONE&sw=w&asid=6c7fbb2ff1fef724ef59eed66fc50be4
Heggerty, M. (2015). Phonemic awareness: The skills that they need to help them succeed! River
Forest, IL: Literacy Resources, Inc.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 149

Holliday, M., Cimetta, A., Cutshaw, C., Yaden, D., & Marx, R. (2014). Protective factors
for school readiness among children in poverty. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 19(3-4), 125-147.
Johnson, S. M. (2012). Having it both ways: Building the capacity of individual teachers and
their schools. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 107.
Keefe, E. B. & Copeland, S. R. (2011). What is literacy? The power of a definition. Research &
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(3-4), 92-99.
Kirkpatrick, J.D., & Kirkpatrick, W.K. (2016). Four levels of training evaluation. Alexandria,
VA: ATD Press.
Klomoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and roles
of emotions in organizational behavior (pp. 5–19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Konrad, M., Keesey, S., Ressa, V. A., Alexeeff, M., Chan, P. E., & Peters, M. T. (2014). Setting
clear learning targets to guide instruction for all students. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 50(2), 76-85. doi:10.1177/1053451214536042
Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
85(1), 96–103.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Lally, J. R. (2010). School readiness begins in infancy: social interactions during the
first two years of life provide the foundation for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 17-
21.
Lam, E. A. & McMaster, K. L. (2014). Predictors of responsiveness to early literacy
intervention: A 10-year update. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(3), 134-147. doi:
10.1177/0731948714529772
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 150

Legters, N. & Balfanz, R. (2010). Do we have what it takes to put all students on the
graduation path? New Directions for Youth Development, 127, 11-24. doi:
10.1002/yd.359
Lesaux, N. K., Crosson, A. C., Kieffer, M. J., & Pierce, M. (2010). Uneven profiles: Language
minority word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 475-483.
Linder, S., Ramey, M. D., & Zambak, S. (2013). Predictors of school readiness in literacy and
mathematics: a selective review of the literature. Early Childhood Research & Practice,
15(1).
Linklater, D.L., O’Connor, R. E., & Palardy, G. J. (2009). Kindergarten literacy assessment of
English only and English language learner students: An examination of the predictive
validity of three phonological awareness measures. Journal of School Psychology, 47(6),
369-394. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2009.08.001
Little, J.W. (2012). Understanding data use practice among teachers: the contribution of micro-
process studies. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 143-166.
Lugo-Gil, J., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. (2008). Family resources and parenting quality: Links to
children’s cognitive development across the first 3 years. Society for Research in Child
Development, 79(4), 1065-1085.
Martin-Chang, Sandra. (2017). Learning to Read with and without feedback, in and out of
context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 233-244.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 151

McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not,
and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McKinsey & Company. (2009). The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America’s
Schools. New York, NY: Author.
McKown, C. (2013). Social equity and racial-ethnic achievement gaps. Child Development,
84(4), 1120-1136.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Molle, D. (2013). The pitfalls of focusing on instructional strategies in professional development
for teachers of English learners. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(1), 101.
Moore, B. A. & Klingner, J. K. (2014). Considering the needs of English language learner
populations: An examination of the population validity of reading intervention research.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(5), 391-408. doi: 10.1177/0022219412466702
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). English language learners in Public Schools.
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cgf.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2009
(NCES 2010-458). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
O’Connor, R. E., Bocian, K. M., Sánchez, V., & Beach, K. D. (2014). Access to a
responsiveness to intervention model: Does beginning intervention in kindergarten
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 152

matter? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(4), 307-328. doi:
10.1177/0022219412459354
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Peck, C. A., Gallucci, C., Sloan, T., & Lippincott, A. (2009). Organizational learning and
program renewal in teacher education: A socio-cultural theory of learning, innovation and
change. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 16-25. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.06.001
Pérez, D., & Dagen, A. (2009). School readiness: A policy examination of teaching and
learning for early childhood education. Childhood Education, 86(1), 35-39.
Piasta, S. B., Connor, C. M., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of
literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 13, 224–248.
Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
Podhajski, B., Mather, N., Nathan, J., & Sammons, J. (2009). Professional development in
scientifically based reading instruction: Teacher knowledge and reading
outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 403–417.
Pop, M., Dixon, P., & Grove, C. (2010). Research experiences for teachers (RET): Motivation,
expectations, and changes to teaching practices due to professional development program
involvement. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 127-147.
Puccioni, J. (2015). Parents’ conceptions of school readiness, transition practices, and
children’s academic achievement trajectories. The Journal of Educational Research,
108(2), 130-147. doi: 10.1080.00220671.2013.8503997
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 153

Quirk, M., Furlong, M., Lilles, El, Felix, E., & Chin, J. (2011). Preliminary development
of a Kindergarten school readiness assessment for Latino students. Journal of
Applied School Psychology, 27(1), 77-102. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2010.540518
Quirk, M., Nylund-Gibson, K., & Furlong, M. (2013). Exploring patterns of Latino/a children’s
school readiness at kindergarten entry and their relations with Grade 2 achievement.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(2), 437-449.
Raag, T., Kusiak, K., Tumity, M., Kelemen, A., Bernheimer, H., & Bond, J. (2011).
Reconsidering SES and gender divides in literacy achievement: Are the gaps across
social class and gender necessary? Educational Psychology, 31(6), 691-705. doi:
10.1080/01773410.2011.599835
Rahn, N. L., Wilson, J., Egan, A., Brandes, D., Kunkel, A., Peterson, M., & McComas, J. (2015).
Using incremental rehearsal to teach letter sounds to English language learners.
Education and Treatment of Children, 38(1), 71-92.
Reardon, S., & Galindo, C. (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading in
the elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 853-891.
Rhemtulla, M., & Tucker-Drob, E. (2011). Gene-by-socioeconomic status interaction on school
readiness. Behavior Genetics, 42, 549-558. doi: 10.1007/s10519-012-9527-0
Richards-Tutor, C., Baker, D. L., Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., & Mercier Smith, J. (2016). The
effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis.
Exceptional Children, 82(2), 144-169. doi: 10.1177/0014402915585483
Richards-Tutor, C., Solari, E. J., Leafstedt, J. M., Gerber, M. M., Filippini, A., & Aceves, T.C.
(2012). Response to intervention for English learners: Examining models for determining
response and nonresponse. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38(3), 172-184. doi:
10.1177/1534508412461522
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 154

Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Sadowski, M. (2006). The school readiness gap. Harvard Education Letter, 22(4), 1-4.
Schaub, M. (2015). Is there a home advantage in school readiness for young children? Trends in
parent engagement in cognitive activities with young children, 1991-2001. Journal of
Early Childhood Research, 13(1), 47-63. doi: 10.117/1476718X12468122
Schnitzer, M., Kaplin, D., Keane, V., Zuckerman, B., & Sharfstein, J. (2008). Giving literacy a
shot in the arm. Public Health Reports, 123, 523-526.
Schiefele, U., & Schaffner, E. (2015). Teacher interests, self-efficacy goals, and self-efficacy as
predictors of instructional practices and student motivation. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 42(2015), 159-171.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., &
Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd
grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides.
Simmons, D. C., Taylor, A. B., Oslund, E. L., Simmons, L. E., Coyne, M. D., Little, M.
E.,…Kim, M. (2014). Predictors of at-risk kindergarteners’ later reading difficulty:
examining learner-by-intervention interactions. Reading and Writing, 27(3), 451-479.
doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-9452-5
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 155

Sleegers, P. J. C., Peetsma, T. T. D., Oort, F. J., Thoonen, E. E. J., & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How
to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors and
leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 496-536.
Solari, E. J., Aceves, T. C., Higareda, I., Richards-Tutor, C., Filippini, A. L., Gerber, M. M., &
Leafstedt, J. (2013). Longitudinal prediction of 1
st
and 2
nd
grade English oral reading
fluency in English language learners: Which early reading and language skills are better
predictors? Psychology in the Schools, 51(2), 126-142. doi: 10.1002/pits.21743
Stuber, G., & Patrick, M. R. (2010). Using school readiness data to make a difference in student
learning. The Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 35-38.
Stürmer, K., Könings, & Seidel, T. (2013). Declarative knowledge and professional vision in
teacher education: Effect of courses in teaching and learning. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83(3), 467-483.
Tosti, D. T., C.P.T. (2007). Aligning the culture and strategy for success. Performance
Improvement, 46(1), 21-25. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/237249208?accountid=14749
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative
research. European Journal of Education, 16(10), 837-851. DOI:
10.1177/1077800410383121
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). The agenda for education in the United States.
Washington, D. C.: author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Non-regulatory guidance: English learners and Title III
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESSA), as amended by the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essatitleiiiguidenglishlearners92016.pdf.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 156

Vadasy, P. F., Nelson, J. R., & Sanders, E. A. (2011). Longer term effects of a tier 2 kindergarten
vocabulary intervention for English learners. Remedial and Special Education, 32(2),
91-101. doi: 10.1177/0741932511420739
Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2012). Two-year follow-up of a kindergarten phonics
intervention for English learners and native English speakers: Contextualizing treatment
impacts by classroom literacy instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4),
987-1005. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.
libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1011871394?accountid=14749
Vadasy, P., Sanders, E.A., & Nelson, J. R. (2015). Effectiveness of supplemental kindergarten
vocabulary instruction for English learners: A randomized study of immediate and
longer-term effects of two approaches. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,
8(4), 490-529. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2015.1033120
Van Duzor, A. (2010). Capitalizing on teacher expertise: Motivations for contemplating transfer
from professional development to the classroom. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 20, 363-374.
Van Gorp, K., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2017). The role of feedback and differences between
good and poor decoders in a repeated word reading paradigm in first grade. Annals of
Dyslexia, 67(1), 1-25.
Verdugo, R. (2011). The heavens may fall: School dropouts, the achievement gap, and
statistical bias. Education and Urban Society 43(2), 184-2004. doi:
10.1177/0013124510379875
Voegler-Lee, M. E., Kupersmidt, J. B., Field, S., & Willoughby, M. T. (2012). Student
characteristics as predictors of teachers’ implementation of a kindergarten readiness
program. Prevention Science, 13(5), 472-482. doi:10.1007/s11121-012-0274-5
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 157

Walker-Dalhouse, D., Risko, V. J., Lathrop, K., & Porter, S. (2010). Helping diverse struggling
readers through reflective teaching and coaching. The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 70-72.
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/750361911?accountid=14749
Wilhelm, J.D. (2010). California treasures. New York: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.
Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions:
epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of
Education, 48(2), 311-325.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 158

APPENDIX A
Survey Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study of the literacy instruction at TES. I really
appreciate your time to share your thoughts with me. This survey will take approximately 30
minutes to complete, and your responses are completely anonymous.

This study is for Rosanne Lampariello’s doctoral dissertation. The purpose of the study is to
understand the processes and strategies used by the Kindergarten teachers at Thomas Ewes
School (TES) to teach literacy to English learners and to gain insight into the degree to which
research-based literacy strategies are being implemented to provide English learners with the
pre-reading skills that they may have lacked at the beginning of their kindergarten year. The final
goal the study is to understand how to better support teachers’ practice in the area of literacy.

The results of the study, including data from this survey, may be incorporated into presentations
to district management, teachers, and other staff members at TES, as well as others. In addition,
the results of this study may be used as the catalyst for change in supporting teachers in their
instructional practices for developing student literacy at TES. However, the data in these
presentations will not contain your name or any information that might divulge your identity.
Rosanne Lampariello will provide you with a copy of the completed dissertation if you are
interested. Participation in this interview is voluntary and you are not required to answer any of
the questions, and may withdraw from the interview at any time.

Thank you very much for your responses to these survey questions.
For each question, choose the answer that best describes your practice.
1. In Kindergarten, English learners need different literacy instruction than native English
speakers. (K-F)
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree
2. Please rank the following resources that promote effective instruction, in terms of their
helpfulness to your teaching practice, from the most (1) to least (10) helpful. Please use each
number only once, so that all numbers from 1-10 are used in your response. (O)
___ time to collaborate with other teachers
___ time to conference with students
___ instructional resources for phonics and phonological awareness
___ instructional resources for reading comprehension
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 159

___ instructional resources for reading fluency
___ instructional resources for vocabulary development
___ in-person professional development for developing student literacy
___ professional development for teaching English Language Development
___ time to analyze student data
___ online professional development for literacy
3. Please describe the types of student data that you collect in the area of literacy. (K-P)
4. What do you do with this data? (K-P)
5. In the past month, I have provided 1:1 individualized instruction for… (M)
0 students 1-3 students 4-6 students 7-10 students 10 or more students
all of my students
6. When a student needs intervention to catch up to his or her peers in literacy, the
responsibility for ensuring that the student catches up lies with the (please order the response
choices from 1-3, with 1 meaning “most responsibility” and 3 “least responsibility”) (M)
___ parent ___ student ___ teacher
7. I provide effective intervention to my students struggling with literacy development. (M)
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree
8. Please describe how you provide feedback to students about their literacy development: (K-P)
9. List the instructional materials that you use to teach phonological awareness to your students
and describe why and how you use each resource: (K-F)
10. List the instructional materials that you use to teach phonics to your students and describe
why and how you use each resource: (K-F)
11. List the instructional materials that you use to teach reading fluency to your students and
describe why and how you use each resource: (K-F)
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 160

12. List the instructional materials that you use to teach reading comprehension to your students
and describe why and how you use each resource: (K-F)
13. What instructional materials do you use to teach vocabulary? Describe why and how you use
each resource. (K-P)
14. Why do you adapt instructional materials/strategies for use with your EL students? (K-C)
15. I collaborate with my Kindergarten teacher-colleagues to discuss literacy instructional
strategies and to plan instruction… (O)
weekly 2-3 times monthly once per trimester several times per year never
16. What do you believe to be the factors that impact an English learner’s readiness for
Kindergarten, in terms of the pre-academic and academic skills that they have when they
start the Kindergarten school year? (O)
17. What do you believe to be the cause of the academic achievement gap? (K-F)
18. How do you address the academic achievement gap in your classroom? (K-P)
19. Please describe two specific examples of how you successfully made instructional
adaptations to support the literacy development of EL students. (M)
20. Please describe the impact of an instructional strategy (or strategies) that you use to promote
the literacy development of English learners. (M)
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 161

APPENDIX B
Individual Interview Protocol
Name of Facilitator:
Name of Participant:
Time Started:___________________ Time Ended:_____________________ Total time:____

Hello, I am Andy Surber and I will be interviewing you on behalf of Rosanne Lampariello, who
is a doctoral student at USC.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study of the literacy instruction at your school. I
really appreciate your time to share your thoughts with me. This interview will last
approximately one hour, depending on the length of your responses.

Before we get started, I would like to give you an overview of the study and address any
questions you may have about being a participant in this study.

This study is for Rosanne Lampariello’s doctoral dissertation. The purpose of the study is to
understand the literacy instruction delivered to English learners by Kindergarten teachers at your
school and to gain insight into the degree to which research-based literacy strategies are being
implemented to provide English learners with the pre-reading skills that they may have lacked at
the beginning of their Kindergarten year. The final goal of the study is to understand how to
better support teachers’ practice in the area of literacy.

I want to assure you that I am not here as a supervisor. I am here as a researcher for this study
and the data I collect will be used for that purpose. This means that the questions are non-
evaluative and your answers will not be used as part of your periodic evaluation. All information
collected during this interview will be kept confidential through the use of an alias, and your
responses to these interview questions will be used solely for Rosanne Lampariello’s dissertation
research. The audio file from today’s interview will be transcribed by a third party and the
transcript will be given to Rosanne Lampariello, who will not have access to the recording itself.

The results of the study may be incorporated into presentations to district management, teachers,
and other staff members at your school, as well as others. In addition, the results of this study
may be used as the catalyst for change to support teachers developing student literacy. However,
none of the information in these presentations will contain your name or any evidence that might
divulge your identity. Rosanne Lampariello will provide you with a copy of the completed
dissertation if you are interested. Participation in this interview is voluntary. You are not required
to answer any of the questions, and may withdraw from the interview at any time.

Before we begin, please let me know if you have questions about the study. If you have no more
questions, I would like your consent to begin and your approval to audio record our interview so
that the conversation may be most accurately captured. Again, the only people who will have
access to this recording are the outside individual who will transcribe the audio from this
interview and I. The recording will be destroyed after it is transcribed.
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 162

1. Describe your English only students in terms of their literacy skills at the beginning of the
school year. (K-F)
Probing questions (if the respondent does not understand or does not give an answer to
the question):
-What reading/writing/prereading/prewriting skills does the typical native English
speaker in your classroom know when she or he begins Kindergarten? OR
-What can the typical native English speaker in your classroom do in terms of literacy
skills at the beginning of Kindergarten?
2. Describe your English learner students in terms of their literacy skills at the beginning of the
school year. (K-F)
Probing questions (if the respondent does not understand or does not give an answer to
the question):
-What reading/writing/prereading/prewriting skills does the typical native Spanish
speaker in your classroom know when she or he begins Kindergarten? OR
-What can the typical native Spanish speaker in your classroom do in terms of literacy
skills at the beginning of Kindergarten?
3. Are there literacy or preliteracy skills that one group has that the other doesn’t? Can you
please describe them? (K-C)
4. What strategies support literacy development for emergent readers, and why? (K-F; M-U)
Follow-up questions:
-What are some strategies that can be used to support English learners as they develop
literacy? (K-P)
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 163

-What are the necessary components of an instructional program to support literacy
development for emergent readers and writers? (K-F)
5. What strategies do not work in developing your English learners’ literacy skills? Why? (K-C)
6. What type of feedback can be used with emergent readers? Which kind of feedback is most
effective? (K-P)
7. When a student is struggling with decoding, how do you respond as a teacher? (K-P)
Probing questions:
-What feedback would you give the student?
-What materials or strategies would you use with that child?
8. When you see that a child’s English vocabulary is a barrier to their comprehension, how do
you respond as a teacher? (K-F)
Probing questions:
-What materials or strategies would you use with that child?
9. What value do you see in teaching designated ELD? What does designated ELD look like for
your students? (K-F)
10. What value do you see in integrated ELD? What does integrated ELD instruction look like
for your students? (K-C)
11. Under what circumstances do you make changes to the literacy strategies you use with your
English learners? Can you give an example? (M)
12. How comfortable are you with your skills in delivering an effective literacy program to your
English learners? (M-S)
Follow-up question:
-What, if anything, do you need in terms of knowledge or training to enhance the way you
teach literacy to your English learners? (O)
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 164

13. How does your daily schedule allow (or not allow) for providing individualized literacy
instruction to students? (O)
14. How can the school, as an organization, help your teaching practice so that you are able to
deliver the most effective instruction to all students? What supports can the school provide
you, and what supports has the school provided you? In what area(s) would you need more
support related to literacy for ELs? (O)
15. How, if at all, does your literacy instructional program differ from your colleagues’ literacy
instructional programs? (O)
If the respondent answers “I don’t know,” please ask
-Would you like to know about your colleagues’ literacy programs? Why? (or Why not?)
16. What organizational barriers currently exist that hinder your ability to plan and deliver the
most effective instruction to all of your students? What suggestions do you have to remove
those barriers? (O)
17. What organizational structures are currently in place are helpful for you in planning and
delivering instruction to your English learners? (O)
18. Does the school provide you with a structure/protocol for examining student data with your
colleagues? (If yes, please ask, “Can you describe the protocol you use to examine student
data?”) (O)
19. How do you use student assessment data in order to plan effective instruction? (M-U)
Probing questions (if the respondent does not understand or does not give an answer to the
question):
-After you assess a student, what do you do with the data?
-How, if at all, do you change what you planned to teach if you see that a student or group of
students was not successful on an assessment?
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 165

20. How do your colleagues use assessment data in order to plan effective instruction? (M)
Probing questions (if the respondent does not understand or does not give an answer to the
question):
If the respondent answers “I don’t know,” please ask
-Would this information be helpful for you? Why or why not?
21. What factors hinder you from examining student assessment data in order to plan effective
instruction? (O)
22. What factors help or hinder you and your colleagues, as Kindergarten teachers, to examine
student assessment data, as a group, in order to plan effective instruction? (O)

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 166

APPENDIX C
Council of the Great City Schools ELL Metrics Instructional Materials Rubric
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 167

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 168

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 169

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 170

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 171

APPENDIX D
Conceptual Framework

KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 172

APPENDIX E
Survey to be Administered Immediately After the Training Program
Scale 1-7
1. I prepare and deliver appropriate feedback regarding students’ literacy development (L1:
Engagement)
2. Instructional strategies that promote the literacy development of English learners are
valuable to the students’ literacy development (L2: Value)
3. I change my instructional practices to promote student growth (L2: Emotion)
4. I am confident that my literacy instruction program meets the needs of my English
learner students (L2: Value)
5. I am an active participant in my grade level collaboration sessions by sharing ideas and
experiences with my peers (L1: Engagement)
6. The professional development on literacy is relevant to my classroom practice (L1:
Relevance)
7. How satisfied are you with this year’s grade level collaboration as a means to
strengthening your literacy instruction? (L1: Satisfaction)
Open-ended
8. Why does literacy instruction for ELs need to be different from literacy instruction for
EOs (L2: Declarative)
9. Describe the effective strategies that you implement to teach literacy to ELs (L2:
Declarative)
10. Describe how you adapt instructional strategies for use with ELs (L2: Procedural)
11. Describe how collaboration with your colleagues will impact your classroom instruction
(L2: Value)
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 173

APPENDIX F
Survey items (A) and data to be collected (B) approximately 90 days after the training begins
A. Teacher Survey
Scale 1-7
1. I am implementing research-based strategies to promote my students’ literacy. (L4:
Internal)
2. In the 90 days since the training, my literacy instruction has improved. (L4: Internal)
3. I am an active participant in my grade level collaboration sessions by sharing ideas and
experiences with my peers (L1: Engagement; L3: Behavior)
4. Instructional strategies that promote the literacy development of English learners are
valuable to the students’ literacy development (L2: Value)
5. I am confident that my literacy instruction program meets the needs of my English
learner students (L2: Value)
6. The literacy professional development that the school has provided this year is relevant to
my classroom practice (L1: Relevance)
7. How satisfied are you with this year’s grade level collaboration as a means to strengthen
your literacy instruction? (L1: Satisfaction)
Open-ended
1. Describe the ways in which your collaboration with your grade-level colleagues has
changed since the beginning of the year. (L4: Internal)
2. Describe the value of using effective literacy strategies for your English learners. Give an
example of how a specific literacy strategy that you recently used helped one or more of
your English learners, and how this strategy is more valuable than one that you may have
used in the past. (L3: Behavior)
KINDERGARTEN LITERACY FOR LATINO ENGLISH LEARNERS 174

3. Why does literacy instruction for ELs needs to be different from literacy instruction for
EOs (L2: Declarative)
4. Describe how collaboration with your colleagues is impacting your classroom instruction
(L2: Value)
B. Additional data to be collected
Online question for community:
1. Does the school meet the students’ needs in reading and writing? (L4: External)
Data collection:
2. How many students remain in the school attendance area each year but are enrolled in
homeschool or other alternative education programs? (L4: External)
3. How do EL student results for Kindergarten-grade 12 on the STAR Early Literacy and
Reading tests, for the 4 yearly benchmarks compare from year to year? (L4: External)
4. What activities are occurring at monthly grade-level meetings? (L4: External)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The academic achievement gap between Latino English learners (EL) and their native English-speaking (EO) peers is significant and can have negative effects on Latinos who do not catch up academically (Fitzpatrick, McKinnon, Bair, & Willoughby, 2014

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Labor displacement: a gap analysis an evaluation study addressing professional development in a small business environment

PDF

Overcoming urban challenges: a succesful case study

PDF

The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

Increase parental involvement to decrease the achievement gaps for ELL and low SES students in urban California public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school

PDF

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

PDF

Fulfilling the promise to the silent majority: internal systems of accountability and effective site-level evaluations of Latino persistently emergent bilingual learners for reclassification as f...

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

Universal algebra: an evaluation

Asset Metadata

Creator Lampariello, Rosanne Amelia (author)

Core Title Teaching literacy to Latino English learners in kindergarten, ready or not: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 10/30/2017

Defense Date 10/18/2017

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

Tag achievement gap,English learners,kindergarten readiness,Literacy,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Hanson, Katherine (committee member), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email lamparie@usc.edu,maeestra@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-448687

Unique identifier UC11264435

Identifier etd-Lampariell-5862.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-448687 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Lampariell-5862.pdf

Dmrecord 448687

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lampariello, Rosanne Amelia

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