Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Teacher perceptions of instructional practices for long-term English learners
(USC Thesis Other)
Teacher perceptions of instructional practices for long-term English learners
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 1
Teacher Perceptions of Instructional Practices for Long-Term English Learners
by
Elizabeth Danielle Evans
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2013
Copyright 2013 Elizabeth Danielle Evans
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 2
Abstract
This dissertation is a case study, which allowed the researcher to explore a program in-depth in
order to understand teacher perceptions of instructional practices for Long-Term English
Learners. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify teacher perceptions of cross-
content and grade-level instructional practices that facilitate the ability of Long-Term English
Learners to access language, increase comprehension, and build vocabulary. This case study
measured effectiveness as the degree to which teacher-reported perceptions of implementation
matched consistent use of research-based strategies. The study focused on teacher perceptions of
instruction in fourth through eighth grade that targeted English Learners at the intermediate level
based on CELDT scores. Teachers participated in focus groups, a survey, and interviews. The
researcher then compared perceived grade-level practices to the design in order to measure the
degree to which implementation matches research-based practices. Findings from this study
indicated that teacher perception is consistent with research-based practices across grade levels.
This study begins to expose the perceptions of teachers in regards to instructional practices for
Long-Term English Learners, and contributes to work examining instructional practices for
language-minority students.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 3
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my family. First and foremost to my husband, Drew, for
his love and unwavering support, and for the sacrifices he has made that enabled me to pursue
my doctorate. Thank you for cooking me meals, editing many drafts, and being at my side
through extreme highs and lows. You continue to amaze me. This dissertation is also dedicated
to my parents who taught me at a very young age the importance of setting goals, working hard,
and never giving up on your dreams. I am so thankful for your guidance, wisdom, and
unconditional love. Finally, this dissertation is dedicated to my first-born child. You are my
miracle from God. We wrote this dissertation together while you were still inside the womb.
Knowing I would soon meet you pushed me to continue researching, meet deadlines, write and
re-write, and to create a product that I will one day be proud to share with you. I love you.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 4
Acknowledgements
I am profoundly grateful for the guidance and influence of my dissertation committee.
To my chair, Professor Guilbert Hentschke, thank you for serving as my chief advisor. You took
the time to help me work and re-work my topic, spent countless hours editing drafts, and were
always available to talk when I needed advice. To my second committee member, Professor
Robert Rueda, your expertise in language-minority students provided me with a wealth of
knowledge. Your feedback provided me insights that strengthened my study. Finally, to my
third committee member, Dr. Mary Louise Labrucherie, you inspired me on a daily basis. From
the moment I began working at my current district, I realized that I found a school with
incredible leadership. I’ve watched, with great admiration, as you have made our district
amazing. I am forever grateful to you for believing in me as an educator and as a student.
Nearly four years ago, I asked you for a letter of recommendation for USC’s doctoral program.
You not only wrote me that letter, you also agreed to serve as my mentor and committee
member. Thank you for spending your weekends editing my drafts, late evenings in your office
reviewing changes with me, and most of all for allowing me to be a part of the most incredible
150 year-old school district in the greater Los Angeles area.
Additionally, I’d like to thank the administration and teachers at my current district. I'd
especially like to thank my mentor, Lynn Bulgin, for helping guide my research, providing me
with access to teachers and materials, and for always supporting me at every stage of the process.
Thank you to my colleagues at work, who are so much more than co-workers; you are also my
friends. Additionally, I’d like to thank the administration and teachers at the district where my
study focused. Thank you to all the teachers who took the time to participate in this study
through the surveys and the interviews.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 5
Finally, thank you to my fellow USC Trojans. The friendships we have formed over the
course of this program will last a lifetime.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 6
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................2
Dedication ............................................................................................................................3
Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................4
List of Tables .....................................................................................................................10
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................11
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .............................................................................12
Background ........................................................................................................................12
Conceptual Underpinnings for the Study ...........................................................................16
Student Placement .........................................................................................16
Lack of Consistent English Language Development Programs ...................18
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................19
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................19
Research Questions ............................................................................................................21
Significance ........................................................................................................................19
Limitations, Assumptions, and Design Controls ...............................................................23
Definition of Key Terms ....................................................................................................23
Summary ............................................................................................................................24
Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature ......................................................................25
Introduction ............................................................................................................25
Levels of English Proficiency ................................................................................26
Characteristics of Long-Term English Learners ....................................................28
Barriers to Achievement ........................................................................................32
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 7
Misplacement and Potential Pitfalls .......................................................................35
Effective ELD Instructional Models ......................................................................36
Teachers’ Educational Beliefs ...............................................................................39
Teachers Views on Teaching with Technology .....................................................40
The Impact of High Stake Testing on Teachers’ Attitudes ....................................40
Positive Student-Teacher Interactions ...................................................................41
Summary ................................................................................................................42
Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology ..........................................................44
Introduction ............................................................................................................44
Study Design ..........................................................................................................45
Unit of Analysis .....................................................................................................46
Sample and Population ..........................................................................................47
Site Selection .........................................................................................................48
Rationale for Site Selection ...................................................................................48
Data Collection and Instrumentation .....................................................................49
Sub-Question #1............................................................................................50
Sub-Question #2............................................................................................51
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................52
Sub-Question #1 Analysis.............................................................................52
Primary Research Question Analysis ............................................................53
Chapter Four: Findings ......................................................................................................57
Introduction ............................................................................................................57
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 8
Primary Research Question Results: Academic Access for
Long-Term English Learners ........................................................................58
Monitoring and Implementation of the Individual Plans for
Student Achievement (IPSA) to Guide Instruction for
LTEL Students ..................................................................................59
Explicit Academic Vocabulary Instruction Promotes
Stronger Language Acquisition ........................................................60
Verbal Engagement through Cooperative Learning Produces
Language Gains ................................................................................63
Sub-Question #1 Results: Perception of Individualized Instruction ......................64
Routine Use of District-Wide Programs to Support EL Students .................66
A Need for Additional Designated ELD Instructional Time ........................68
Importance of Aligning IPSA Goals with ELD Standard Objectives ...........70
Sub-Question #2 Results: Perceptions of Cross-Content and
Cross-Grade Level Strategies .......................................................................71
Data-Driven Decision Making to Guide Instruction .....................................72
Increasing Student Motivation through Maintaining Positive
Teacher-Student Relationships .........................................................73
Importance of Rigor and High Expectations in Promoting
EL Success ........................................................................................75
Correspondence with Research-Based Practices ...................................................76
Summary ................................................................................................................77
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 9
Chapter Five: Discussion ...................................................................................................78
Limitations .............................................................................................................82
Further Implications and Proposed Next Steps for District ...................................82
Recommendations for Research ............................................................................84
Recommendations for Practice and Conclusions ...................................................84
References ..........................................................................................................................86
Appendices
Appendix A: Certified Recruitment Document ...................................................100
Appendix B: Information Fact Sheet for Non-Medical Research .......................101
Appendix C: Participant Interview Questions .....................................................103
Appendix D: Online Participant English Language Development Survey ..........104
Appendix E: Individual Plan for Student Achievement Template ......................105
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 10
List of Tables
Table 1 Sub-Question #1 Focus Group Questions ........................................................53
Table 2 Codes for Sub-Question #1 ..............................................................................55
Table 3 Codes for Primary Research Question .............................................................56
Table 4 Codes for Sub-Question #1 ..............................................................................57
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 11
List of Figures
Figure 1 Primary Resource Question Themes ............................................................................ 61
Figure 2 Focus Group Interview Themes .................................................................................... 67
Figure 3 Grade-Level Chair Interview Themes .......................................................................... 74
Figure 4 Teacher Perceived Practices .......................................................................................... 79
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 12
Chapter One
Introduction to the Study
Background
Language-minority students have historically been an underserved population in
American public schools. Legislation, both past and present, has attempted to rectify the
deficiencies of the school system, yet year after year these students continue to go unnoticed
failing to receive the attention they deserve. English Learners (EL) currently makes up the
largest growing student subgroup in the United States (Hadaway & Young, 2006). Over a
decade ago, in 2001, the U.S. Department of Education indicated that over 3.9 million students
attending public schools were Limited English Proficient (LEP). The number of LEP students
had grown to over 5.3 million in 2009 (Olsen, 2010). Overall, approximately 10% of all students
served by the public school system are language-minority students. California is the state with
the largest population of Limited English Proficient students. According to 2009 data, over 1.5
million students in California are Limited English Proficient (Olsen, 2010). The number of
English Learners served in the United States continues to grow. Eighteen percent of all
secondary school students are English Learners and 59% of these students enter secondary
school having lived “in United States for more than six years without . . . English Proficiency”
(Olsen, 2010, p. 1). Policy makers are aware of the large percentage of English Learners the
public education system serves; however, few solutions have been developed regarding how best
to meet the educational needs of this group.
The California Standards Test (CST) serves as an indicator that language-minority
students are achieving at far lower levels than English Only (EO) students (Gandera &
Rumberger, 2006). English Learners that are not English proficient consistently score lower,
while reclassified English Learners identified as Fluent English Proficient (FEP) score higher in
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 13
the lower grades, but by middle school are scoring below their English Only peers. Performance
for English Learners is shown to peak in fourth grade and then steadily decline as they approach
high school (Olsen, 2010). The achievement gap between EO and EL students widens as ELs
progress through the public education system (Gandera & Rumberger, 2006).
While the CST serves as an academic achievement indicator, the California English
Language Development Test (CELDT) is an assessment that allows educators to monitor the
progress ELs are making in English language acquisition (Mora, 2006). The CELDT measures
growth in key areas: listening/speaking, reading, and writing. The process of acquiring English
proficiency is expected to take an average of five to six years. Attaining proficiency in less time,
even with intensive instruction has not proven to produce effective outcomes (Hakuta, Butler, &
Witt, 2000). Students that attain proficiency in less time, even when reclassified, often struggle
to compete academically as they progress into secondary school.
Efforts to measure improvement in education for language and minority students have
evolved over time. Thirty years ago, Lau v. Nichols (Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, v. Supreme
Court, 1974) proved to be a landmark Supreme Court ruling establishing that the country has an
obligation to provide equal access to educational opportunities for English Learners. The case
ruled, “There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities,
textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively
foreclosed from any meaningful education . . .” (Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, v. Supreme Court,
January 1974, para. 5). This case categorized language-minority students as “Limited English
Proficient.” For the first time, the public school system was being held accountable for
facilitating an educational environment that would produce English proficient students. In
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 14
response to the ruling, language and linguistic theory programs began to be developed, and
districts began to implement services to aid students in gaining proficiency.
While effective instructional programs and strategies continue to be developed, federal
and state governments have been closely monitoring the progress of English Learners. The No
Child Left Behind Act (2001) identified English Learners as a “significant subgroup” due to the
increasingly large size of the English-Learner population. Districts nationwide exposed a
subgroup that was underachieving and not receiving the services necessary to access curriculum.
Lau v. Nichols (Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, v. Supreme Court, 1974) had ruled three decades
earlier
any . . . system employed . . . to deal with the special language skills needs of . . .
minority group children must be designed to meet such language skill needs as soon as
possible and must not operate as an educational deadend or permanent track. (para. 9)
Unfortunately, districts across the country were consistently failing to meet the responsibility to
provide access and protect the rights of English Learners.
California has begun reform movements designed to address the achievement gap and
raise the achievement of underperforming subgroups. However, many of these reform
movements failed to target the specific characteristics and needs of the English-Learner
population. “Despite reform efforts, the achievement gap continues to exist” (EdSource, 2013).
Perhaps even more startling than the widening achievement gap is the fact that one in
every three English Learners is a secondary student. While one might assume that these
secondary students were newcomers to the country, that assumption is incorrect. In fact, most
English Learners at the middle or high school level are not newcomers and have attended public
schools in the United States since kindergarten. However, despite the many years spent in the
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 15
public school system, these students are failing to progress in English proficiency, continue to
struggle in academic courses, and have a much higher dropout rate than other subgroups.
Teachers face the challenge of providing secondary ELs access to all areas of curriculum
while still meeting state standards. Meeting the needs of these linguistically-diverse students is
necessary in order to provide access not only to curriculum, but also access to opportunities in
society. Reading and writing proficiency is crucial to achieving success inside and outside of the
classroom. Language-minority students are three to five times more likely to drop out of high
school due to academic difficulty (National Center of Education Statistics, 2004). Therefore,
teaching ELs literacy skills is imperative. For example, it cannot simply be assumed that
independent reading will automatically increase comprehension. Few will succeed without
explicit and intentional reading and language instruction (Snow, 2002).
According to a study conducted by the Center for Applied Linguistics (August &
Shanahan, 2006), a National Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth, revealed that
elementary EL students achieve mastery in word decoding, recognition, and spelling. These
skills are explicitly taught using instructional techniques that allow language-minority students
access to these skills. However, reading comprehension and writing instruction often lacks the
scaffolding necessary to allow students access to the curriculum. As a result, EL students
struggle to compete with their EO classmates. Reading comprehension and vocabulary
instruction are the most important factors in predicting EL comprehension and proficiency
(Slavin & Chueng, 2005). Language and comprehension must be explicitly taught. For nearly
three decades, it has been evident that student vocabulary was the best indicator of academic
reading comprehension success (Anderson & Freebody, 1981). This qualitative study will focus
on identifying cross-content and grade-level instructional practices that facilitate EL students’
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 16
ability to access language, increase comprehension, and build vocabulary. The researcher will
measure the degree to which perception aligns with the intended design.
In California, effectiveness is often measured by the percent of English Learners who are
reclassified as English proficient. The process of reclassifying English Learners varies
depending on district policies. The district being studied requires English Learners to score
intermediate or above on every section of the California English Language Development Test in
order to be reclassified. In addition, these students are required to score proficient in English
language arts (ELA) and mathematics on the California Standards Test. If academic proficiency
is not met, students who score basic must also receive a teacher recommendation for
reclassification. District criteria mandates students score at least 325 on the English language
arts portion of the California Standards Test in order to be considered for reclassification.
Seventy-four percent of the studied district’s Long-Term English Learners are in sixth through
eighth grade. This data revealed a significant number of secondary English Learners are in need
of reclassification. For the purpose of this study, effectiveness will be measured by the degree at
which English Language Development instructional implementation matches the design based on
the literature. Since reclassification may take between four to six years, the study’s length does
not allow for reclassification to be used as a measure of effectiveness.
Conceptual Underpinnings for the Study
Student placement. English Language Learners, especially at the secondary level, are
commonly placed in mainstream classrooms which mean English Learners are receiving very
little English Language Development support. Many times teachers are unaware that English
Learners are even in their class (Saunders & Goldenberg, 2010). The instruction, pacing, and
curriculum are identical to their English proficient peers. The classrooms lack scaffolding and
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 17
classroom instruction modes do not address the specific language and comprehension gaps that
English Learners presently possess.
Another type of placement that serves as a barrier to many Long-Term English Learners
is being placed in an English Language Development course designed for newcomers. Long-
Term English Learners tend to plateau at the intermediate level; therefore, many districts keep
them with beginning English Learners (Gandera, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003).
These Long-Term English Learners do not gain the instruction necessary to move them forward.
Instead, many of these students internalize a learned sense of helplessness since they are put in
the same classes as students just arriving in the country.
Finally, a third and frequently assigned placement for Long-Term English Learners is in
intervention and/or reading support classes. The Long-Term English Learners are often placed
in these courses due to low performance on state tests. Many districts substitute additional
reading interventions for dedicated English Language Development. These courses are not the
same. In these intervention classes, Long-Term English Learners are placed with native English
speakers, and the intervention does not have an ELD component. Long-Term English Learners
fail to receive the targeted oral language development necessary to attain English proficiency.
Often these interventions include no oral language practice at all and fail to address vocabulary
development (Olsen, 2010).
Ultimately, most Long-Term English Learners are left with limited access to curriculum.
Intervention support classes, English, and math take up their school schedules, leaving little
room for college preparatory classes or electives. When Long-Term English Learners’ CELDT
scores do not progress past intermediate, they cannot enter college preparatory English courses.
Instead of having access to electives, students are forced into programs mandated by state
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 18
policies. Although many of these programs are well intentioned, the result is a limited
educational experience that reduces Long-Term English Learners’ ability to compete with EO
peers and denies them access to classes necessary for college and career readiness.
Lack of consistent English language development programs. A large contributing
factor in the development of Long-Term English Learners is a history of inconsistent English
Language Development programs across districts and time. Since bilingual programs have been
abandoned over the past decade, classrooms across the state have moved towards offering diluted
ELD programs that are often misinformed and misguided (California Department of Education,
2012a). Due to severe budget limitations, few teachers and administrators have received training
or guidance on how to create and implement strong ELD programs. Due to these limitations,
ELD instruction often varies from classroom to classroom. Practices are left to the discretion of
the teacher, many of whom are unable to identify how their ELD instruction differs from
mainstream lessons.
Even when students do remain in one district for the course of their education, program
inconsistencies still have a negative impact on student achievement. These factors may include:
changing state and district policies surrounding what should be occurring, administrators and
teachers who lack knowledge or understanding, and inadequate professional development or
classroom materials. In addition, individual decisions made by the teacher can have a
tremendous impact on the consistency of ELD instruction. Depending on a teacher’s perspective
and preparation, ELD may or may not be emphasized in the classroom setting (Olsen, 2010).
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 19
Statement of the Problem
The student population in California is rapidly changing. We are seeing an increasingly
large number of English Learners entering schools seeking the American Dream. Yet, few of
these students exit the system academically and linguistically successful. This is often due to a
lack of explicit language and comprehension instruction. Many English Learners blend in and
seemingly go unnoticed through the schooling system because they initially succeed at decoding
and word recognition. As they begin to struggle with text comprehension and analysis, they fall
further behind academically. Instead of exiting the system or being reclassified, a new group has
formed, Long-Term English Learners. Long-Term English Learners are defined as students who
have attended “United States schools for more than six years without reaching sufficient English
proficiency to be reclassified” (Olsen, 2010, p. 1). These students are not new to the country.
They traveled through the public school system just like their peers, and yet as they get older the
academic achievement gap grows larger. Many graduate without ever attaining academic or
language proficiency. In Rebecca M. Callahan’s (2005) article Tracking and High School
English Learners: Limiting Opportunity to Learn, she sites Robin Scarcella (1996) stating,
“Academically unprepared to participate in a rigorous high school curriculum, these Long Term
English Learners are caught in a cycle of under preparation” (p. 323). Long-Term English
Learners (LTEL) experience difficulty accessing content, elementary ELs over time create a
class of Long-Term ELs labeled “lifers” (Faltis & Wolfe, 1999).
Purpose of the Study
Facilitating a learning environment that promotes language acquisition and academic
proficiency for English Learners is a demand that schools across the state are facing. Teaching
literacy is no longer limited to English classrooms. Language, text comprehension, and
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 20
vocabulary development must be taught in all subject areas as well. Without literacy, academic
success in any of the core subjects is virtually impossible. According to the literature, the ability
to comprehend academic language is required for advancement in our educational system
(August & Shanahan, 2006). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to ascertain the degree to
which teacher perception of ELD district-wide implementation aligns with the intended design.
Without academic proficiency, students face an increasingly limited reality. Language and
academic proficiency are catalysts that lead to career opportunities, social mobility, and a higher
quality of life (Olsen, 2010).
Earlier it was discussed that fundamental skills such as decoding, spelling, and word
recognition are often explicitly and effectively taught to English Learners (August & Shanahan,
2006). The challenge occurs when English Learners are expected to achieve the same level of
reading comprehension and writing application as their English Only peers. August and
Shanahan (2006) indicated that at this stage English Learners are often unable to compete with
native speakers. The result is a widening of the achievement gap between LTELs and their peers
(Callahan, 2005). Therefore, additional research is needed in two areas: distinct characteristics
of LTELs and research-based instructional practices that increase comprehension and vocabulary
development.
The purpose of this qualitative study is to identify teacher perceptions of effective cross-
content and grade-level instructional practices that facilitate the ability of Long-Term English
Learners to access language, increase comprehension, and build vocabulary. According to the
literature, these factors are key components of successful ELD instructional design. This case
study will measure effectiveness of the degree to which teacher-reported perception of
implementation matches the design based on the literature reviewed. The focus is on explicitly
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 21
teaching comprehension and vocabulary through intentional instruction that increases academic
achievement and language acquisition. The study will focus on instruction in fourth through
eighth grade and target English Learners at the intermediate level based on CELDT scores.
The researcher’s goal is to support and improve district-wide, cross-grade-level
alignment of ELD instruction. In order to meet this goal, the researcher must determine the
degree to which teachers feel ELD instructional implementation aligns with the district’s
literature-based intended design. The study will attempt to determine if the design tools
provided by the district match teaching practices inside the classroom. Effective instructional
strategies across content areas will be investigated, and effectiveness will be measured by the
degree to which teachers perceive ELD instructional implementation aligns with the intended
design. Teachers will participate in focus groups to discuss strategies currently being
implemented to support LTELs. Grade-level chairs and ELD core teachers will be interviewed
in order to identify consistent grade-level practices utilized for EL instruction. The researcher
will then compare perceived grade-level practices to the design in order to measure the degree to
which implementation matches research-based practices. Finally, a survey will be completed by
teachers in the district to reveal teacher perceptions of EL programs and practices. The
researcher will then triangulate the data to reveal the extent to which classroom instruction aligns
with the design.
Research Questions
The study’s goal is to ascertain the degree to which teacher perception of ELD
implementation aligns with the intended design based on literature. In order to reveal this
information, the researcher will identify consistent and effective cross-content and grade-level
instructional practices that facilitate LTEL students’ ability to access language, increase
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 22
comprehension, and build vocabulary. The ultimate aim is to uncover which effective strategies
that explicitly teach comprehension and vocabulary in an intentional and meaningful manner are
being utilized across grade levels. Effectiveness will be measured by measuring the degree to
which teacher-reported implementation aligns with the design based on literature. The primary
research question the researcher will examine is:
What are teachers’ perceptions of currently implemented instructional practices in
facilitating LTEL students’ ability to access language, increase comprehension, and build
vocabulary?
In addition to this primary question, the following sub-questions will also be investigated
in order to provide further depth:
1. What are teachers’ perceptions of how instruction is individualized to meet the needs of
each LTEL student?
2. Which instructional practices are consistently implemented with LTELs across grade
levels and content areas that align with design criteria?
These questions have been developed to enable the researcher to determine the extent to
which ELD instructional implementation matches design criteria and increase district-wide
understanding of instructional practices that currently affect LTELs. The challenges that face the
studied school district represent a statewide phenomenon that will impact millions of students
over the next decade. Instructional decisions made today will have outcomes that affect society
tomorrow. My goal as a researcher is to assist in building the capacity of teachers to better
impact students and increase the capability of the district to meet the academic needs of LTELs.
Through comparing ELD design criteria to actual classroom implementation, I seek to identify
research-based practices being implemented across the district and ELD instructional areas in
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 23
need of district-wide improvement. Ultimately, this process will enable the district to improve
the quality of instruction LTELs currently receive and increase the percentage of students that
are successfully being reclassified.
Limitations, Assumptions, and Design Controls
This study is meant to be informative; however, it will have significant limitations. First,
the study is extremely limited in size. This study’s information will be obtained from an
elementary and a middle school located in a small district. In addition, the study assumed 20
teachers would participate in focus groups, interviews, and surveys. These teachers impact 302
English Learners served by the district. Due to the uniqueness of the district’s size, the study
will not be generalizable to larger districts. However, the study may easily be replicated in
districts with similar student populations and at individual school sites.
Definition of Key Terms
California school districts do not currently have a shared definition of what it means for a
student to be a “Long-Term English Learner.” This is a group of students that often goes
unnoticed and only 25% of all school districts monitor the progress of these students. For the
purpose of this study, the term “Long-Term English Learner” is defined as a student who has
attended “United States schools for more than six years without reaching sufficient English
proficiency to be reclassified,” (Olsen, 2010, p. 1). “Academically unprepared to participate in
rigorous high school curriculum, these Long Term English Learners are caught in a cycle of
under preparation,” (Scarcella, 1996, as cited in Callahan, 2005, p. 323). In addition, Long Term
English Learners often report feeling alienated from grade level peers (Callahan, 2005).
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 24
Summary
There is no doubt that public schools today face a great challenge. California is
responsible for educating more English Learners than any other state. Nationally, 10% of all
students attending public schools are English Learners. Accountability is higher, funding is
lower, and gaps in achievement are wider than ever before. Now is the time when educators
must work together to develop solutions. English Learners must not be left behind. Rather, it is
imperative that districts identify strategies that work and implement the very best instructional
practices possible to ensure that English Learners attain both academic and language proficiency.
Research has suggested that keys to increasing the success of LTELs are improving language,
comprehension, and vocabulary through consistent ELD instruction. In the next chapter these
themes will be explored.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 25
Chapter Two
Review of Related Literature
Introduction
The following review explores the literature surrounding barriers preventing "Long-Term
English Learners" from attaining proficiency and the role educational institutions have played in
creating and denying access for these students. The second portion of this review focuses on
successful ELD instructional strategies. LTELs who receive consistent and explicit ELD
instruction acquire proficiency (Kinsella, 2012). Many districts lack structured programs
designed for English Learners. No language development program, or poor language
development programs, results in English Learners becoming “Long-Term” English Learners by
the time they are in middle school. The outcome for these students is often destructive.
After attending American public schools for nearly a decade, these Long-Term English
Learners continue to struggle academically. California continues to serve the largest population
of Limited English Proficient students. According to 2011 data, nearly 1.5 million students in
California are English Learners (California Department of Education, 2012b). The number of
English Learners served in the United States continues to grow. Eighteen percent of all
secondary school students are English Learners and 59% of these students enter secondary
school having lived “in the United States for over six years without . . . academic or language
proficiency (Olsen, 2010, p. 1). While many Long-Term English Learners have high social
language acquisition, they lack the academic language used by many of their peers. Reading and
writing skills are below proficiency levels, and the majority of these students possess significant
gaps in background knowledge needed to access core content.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 26
Academic language acquisition is not the only deficit. The lack of background
knowledge often keeps students from accessing coursework, electives, and opportunities that
would lead to college. Most districts do not have a formal program designed to reclassify Long-
Term English Learners. Long-Term English Learners at the middle- and high-school level are
frequently mainstreamed with no additional support or placed in classrooms with newcomer
English Learners where they do not belong. Inappropriate placement limits student access to the
full curriculum and precludes their ability to participate in electives (Olson 2010).
Ultimately, the result is a systemic failure to prepare English Learners for post-secondary
schooling and career opportunities. Many of these Long-Term English Learners enter American
public schools in kindergarten and exit them as seniors in high school without having been
reclassified. Most of these students peak academically in fourth grade, then fall behind their
grade-level peers. In order to be reclassified, LTELs must successfully pass the CELDT and
have a score of 325 on the English language arts portion of the CST to be considered for
reclassification. As students get older, these performance measures become more difficult to
pass (Gandera et al., 2003).
Levels of English Proficiency
As students journey through their path to proficiency, English Learners possess distinct
needs based on their current level of language acquisition. No Child Left Behind (2001)
mandated that states be able to determine the level of student achievement on academic
standards-based tests. The State of California uses the following categories: Far Below Basic,
Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. However, these categories relate only to
academic performance and do not take into consideration a student’s instructional level based on
their language skills.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 27
The English Language Development Standards for California Public Schools adopted in
1999 (California Department of Education, 2002) created terms used to indicate the English
proficiency level of English Learners. These categories used a student’s instructional
understanding level to measure where they were along the English Language Continuum (Dutro
& Kinsella, 2010). Each category assists educators in understanding what distinct language
needs a student possesses. In addition, these growth levels allow teachers and administrators to
track progress being made as they advance through the system. The goal is that “upon exiting
the advanced level of English proficiency, a student is considered to be approximately grade-
level and native-like proficiency,” (Dutro & Kinsella, 2010, p. 158.
The term “beginning level” is used to describe students that are new to English. These
students often gain much growth as they become familiar with sounds, rhythms, and language
patterns. Eventually, beginning-level students learn Basic English and will be able to follow
simple directions and use sentences necessary for daily activities. Beginning English Learners
often use hand gestures and learn high-frequency words rapidly. Most of the sentences they will
use are simple sentences. They will make errors in their speech and often have minimal
understanding of the word meanings (Dutro & Kinsella, 2010).
Early intermediate students differ from beginning students in their ability to use routine
expressions. Early intermediate students will more easily converse with their peers as their
comprehension is dramatically increasing. Early intermediate English Learners are also able to
use pictures and other visual cues to help them answer questions. Students at the early
intermediate level are able to use past and present tense when speaking, and when provided with
academic sentence frames, can write paragraphs and grasp the general meaning of what they are
writing and speaking (Dutro & Kinsella, 2010).
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 28
Intermediate English Learners are distinct because they often appear to be English
proficient. They are able to answer questions, explain passages, identify key points, and write
paragraphs using compound sentences. Since they demonstrate good comprehension, it can be
difficult to distinguish them in a classroom filled with English Only students. However, it is
important that they do not stop developing the language at this level. As they progress through
the system, they will be required to complete more complex and demanding tasks that will
require higher levels of language acquisition (Brock, Lapp, Salas, & Townsend, 2009).
Early Advanced and Advanced English Learners are successful in English interactions in
nearly all settings. They comprehend complex materials and learn new vocabulary through their
interactions. Long-Term English Learners are often deprived of explicit academic vocabulary
instruction because these students appear to be English proficient. Therefore, it can become hard
for them to compete as they move into secondary school. Since they appear to be able to
participate in conversations and provide adequate responses, they often do not receive additional
support from teachers. Precise vocabulary and understanding figurative language devices can be
challenging even for these Early Advanced and Advanced English Learners (Dutro & Kinsella,
2010).
Characteristics of Long-Term English Learners
Parents of English Learners trust that the public school system will teach their children to
succeed in society. Five-year old English learners enter public schools trusting their teachers and
full of excitement and anticipation. At five years old, everything seems within reach and
somehow even young children seem to understand that education is the catalyst that has the
power to change their lives. Likewise, parents place their trust in the teachers, the schools, and
the hope that their children will attain the American dream. And while schools do not set about
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 29
to fail these students, too often, they do. “In California, studies of cumulative file records of 48
Long Term English Learners indicated that three out of four [75%] had spent at least two years
in ‘no services’ or in mainstream placements, and that 12% of Long-Term English Learners may
have spent their entire schooling in mainstream classes with no services,” (Olsen, 2010, p. 14).
Similarly, other studies with large English Learner populations have reported the same
educational experiences among their English Learners. Even when districts do report offering
programs and supplemental services to English Learners, it is difficult to interpret what
instructional support was actually received.
Research has revealed that the effectiveness of instructional programs varies but that
ultimately the very worst outcome for English Learners is being placed in “mainstream” classes
without English Learner support (Olsen, 2010). Often times this placement not only led to
students becoming Long-Term English Learners but could also result in low academic
achievement and higher dropout rates in high school.
While formal ELD programs are intended to produce better outcomes, the reality was
often that the program implementation “model” did not match the reality. Statewide, districts
and schools have found that while “on paper” ELD is strong, in practice very little ELD
instruction occurred inside the classroom. English Learner education should include structured
English Language Development (ELD) in order to support language acquisition, specifically,
academic language. However, lack of ELD was one of the primary failures of many districts
(Saunders & Goldberg, 2010). Without ELD, Long-Term English Learners continue to struggle.
Academically, Long-Term English Learners struggle to succeed in core content areas
such as reading and math. Test scores and overall achievement decline as Long-Term English
Learners are promoted from one grade to the next. The majority of Long-Term English Learners
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 30
will have a grade point average lower than 2.0 and test scores that display below-grade level
achievement. By the time Long-Term English Learners enter high school, they are among the
lowest performing subgroups. Once Long-Term English Learners are in their junior year, nearly
three-quarters of all Long-Term English Learners are classified as Below or Far Below Basic in
language arts and math (Olsen, 2010).
After years of struggling to achieve proficiency, many Long-Term English Learners
eventually underestimate their own potential. Failure to understand vocabulary and syntactical
knowledge may result in not only lower achievement but also teachers’ and parents’ inabilities to
recognize the students’ true ability level (Olsen & Romero, 2006). In addition, as these students
enter secondary school, language demands become greater, and access to content is often limited
further (Dutro & Kinsella, 2010). Without proper support and guidance, these students become
at risk of dropping out.
Despite the fact that schools are no longer legally segregated, many English Learners
attend public schools in relatively linguistically segregated neighborhoods. Even in more
linguistically diverse communities, English Learners are clustered together in the school system.
When this situation occurs, students lack the opportunity to access day-to-day conversations with
native English speaking students. Without interacting with native English speaking students, it is
difficult for English learners to develop the skills necessary to attain English proficiency.
Therefore, it is crucial for English learners to have access to meaningful opportunities to
converse and dialogue with their English Only peers. In many secondary classrooms where
direct instruction is the primary and only form of instruction, collaborative conversation among
students is extremely limited.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 31
The linguistic characteristics of these students may differ. Some English learners were
born in the U.S. or arrived prior to beginning kindergarten. For many of these students, their
home language is not English. For some they will not begin acquiring the English language until
they begin school, but for others they are being raised in a bilingual setting. Others might appear
to be dominant in the English language but have actually lost the ability to speak proficiently in
their native language. But for all of these English Learners, there are educational needs that are
not currently being met in public schools (Collier et al., 2006).
One of the most valuable components of English language acquisition is interaction with
native speakers. The opportunity to use the language in everyday situations and see the language
being modeled by peers is crucial to language development. Unfortunately, too many English
Learners lack access to these social situations, and so they rely completely on their teachers to
model English (Olsen, 2010).
Long-Term English Learners often display similar learning habits. Characterized as well
behaved but non-engaged, this group of students struggles to participate in class and easily
become invisible in the classroom setting (Olsen, 2010). Self characterized as courteous and
respectful, many English Learners see themselves as good students because they don’t get in
trouble. The majority of these students want to do well in school and go to college. However,
most of these Long-Term English Learners have not been able to attain high levels of academic
proficiency in English or their first language. Although Long-Term English Learners have many
of the same long-term goals as their English proficient peers, they lack the skills to help them
attain these goals. The cognitive and linguistic demands of secondary students are great, and
many Long-Term English Learners have not been able to access quality instructional programs
that are consistent enough to help them access these demands (Calderón, 2012).
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 32
Barriers to Achievement
Background knowledge is acquired through two major components: processing and
storing information and the frequency of experiences. The second component refers to “the
number of experiences that will directly add to our knowledge of content we encounter in
school,” (Marzano, 2004, p. 5). Marzano (2004) provided an example of two students. One
student had the opportunity to visit museums with his family on a weekly basis; another student
only had the opportunity to visit a museum once a month. Although the second student is
accessing other types of experiences, the first student had greater opportunity to generate
background knowledge about museums. This example makes it easier to see how some students
possess a much greater academic advantage.
The result for English Language Learners is multi-dimensional. Long-Term English
Learners face linguistic challenges. They also face academic difficulty. The effect of lacking
linguistic proficiency and not having received proper support in developing proficiency is an
inability to attain academic achievement. In many situations, this problem is due to students
being unable to understand the language being used for instruction. Long-Term English
Learners understand conversational English used on the playground, but they do not comprehend
formal academic language used in the classroom. For this reason, many Long-Term English
Learners struggle in every content area because all contents require academic language be
understood. Too often this academic language is not explicitly taught. Therefore, it is hard for
students to access curriculum when they have not yet gained the ability to access the language.
Initially, English Learners desire to be like their English proficient peers. Olsen (2010)
suggested, “Over time, however, some Long Term English Learners have become convinced
they simply can’t do it, and are wearied of not understanding and doing poorly” (p. 26). Olsen’s
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 33
statement shows the outcome when a system fails. For these students, years of academic
struggling and doing poorly created a sense of discouragement and failure. Instead of sending
the message that they will succeed, the system has sent these students the message that they do
not belong in school.
“Universal Access” was a term coined by the State Board of Education for adopting
textbooks that met the needs of all learners (California Board of Education, 2002). When the
State Board of Education voted to adopt English Language Arts textbooks that met the
“Universal Access” criteria, pressure was put on underperforming schools to adopt and
implement the materials the textbooks provided. Each publisher released supplemental materials
to help English Language Learners access core content; however; the depth of the material was
often detrimental rather than beneficial (Calfee, 2004). The pacing guides included in the newly
adopted textbooks were written for native English speakers, and English Learners and teachers
alike found the content and pacing frustrating and “unworkable” (Calfee, 2004).
These textbooks sought to provide “Universal Access,” yet the result was a watered down
partial access curriculum that did not meet the needs of English Learners. The result, “older
ELLs have more ground to cover in catching up . . . this difference in terms of the demands of
both language and content learning should not be underestimated,” (Fairbairn & Vo, 2010,
p. 16). In order to meet the needs of these students, lessons must be strategic and purposeful.
While the population of the students served is continuously changing, the population
working with these students is not. The current teaching population is comprised primarily of
native speakers of English. The teacher task force is dominated by females, most of whom are
unfamiliar with the linguistic and cultural backgrounds of their students (Brock et al., 2009).
“Teachers must develop the ability to tailor instruction that helps all ELLs achieve English
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 34
literacy. However, without a thorough understanding of students’ background and current
literacy levels, teachers have difficulty providing effective instruction,” (Lenski, Ehlers-Zavala,
Daniel, and Sun-Irminger, 2006, p. 33). It is crucial that these teachers be prepared to work with
the students they are serving.
One of the greatest factors contributing to why English Learners are becoming Long-
Term English Learners is inconsistent English Language Development (ELD) programs.
Programs have been inconsistent as districts struggle to align policy and programs. For some
students, family mobility or transiency is the cause, but for most even when remaining in one
district across many years, the yearly experience changes as the kind of program and instruction
provided by the teacher differs from year to year. Over the past 10 years, a shift away from
allowing students to access their home language has occurred as English Only testing has pushed
districts towards English Only classrooms. However, having a strong foundation in a first
language was often an indicator of academic success in English literacy (Olsen, 2010).
According to Baker, “Literacy in the minority language, not only provides a greater chance of
survival at an individual and group level for that language. It [Literacy] may also encourage
feelings of rootedness, and self-esteem,” (Baker, 2006, p. 328).
English Learners rely heavily on their teacher to make curriculum accessible. While in
the process of gaining English proficiency, many districts increased the time spent in teaching
them English. While these students were using the time taking additional English courses, they
were only being taught a portion of science and social studies. This caused these students to gain
further gaps in attaining academic vocabulary crucial to accessing this core content. In fact,
according to Lindholm-Leary & Borsato (2006) more time will not yield better outcomes.
However, districts across the country continue to remove parts of science, history, music, and art
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 35
in order to make more time for language arts instruction. Even at the state level, policies have
emerged that narrow the curriculum for many underperforming schools—that are heavily
enrolled by English Learners (Olsen, 2010).
Misplacement and Potential Pitfalls
Students progressing into secondary schools faced a new set of challenges. Frequently
middle schools and high schools placed Long-Term English Learners into courses with the
purpose of expediting language acquisition and academic performance. The outcomes often
proved to be detrimental to English Learners (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007). Secondary schools
routinely provided English Language Development courses for students at the beginning, early
intermediate, and intermediate levels. However, these students were often grouped together. In
order for students, specifically intermediate students to progress, they must be in an ELD class
that is dedicated to their proficiency level (Saunders & Goldenberg, 2010). Instead of offering
dedicated ELD, secondary schools were grouping all ELD levels together and once they reach
the early advanced and advanced levels many of these students did not receive any additional
services. There is no course set aside for these Long-Term English Learners on the cusp of
attaining English Proficiency.
Another consideration is the large number of English Learners that are placed in reading
intervention programs. The problematic component with placing Long-Term English Learners
in reading intervention is that reading interventions typically focus on decoding and fluency.
LTELs have already mastered letter-sound patterns, clustering, and syllables; it is comprehension
that poses the greatest challenge to this group of students (Lapp & Flood, 2006). LTELs may
decode unknown words, but cannot comprehend the word’s meaning (Chamot & O’Malley,
1994). These students do not struggle with decoding; rather they struggle with academic
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 36
language. The course does not cover the scope or sequence of English Language instruction
necessary to meet these students’ needs. August and Shanahan (2010) reiterated,
although instructional approaches that have worked with native speakers of English can
be a good place to start, using these procedures slavishly with no adjustment despite the
real differences that often exist between first and second language learners is less
effective. (p. 222)
For English Learners, dedicated language development must be done in conjunction with
the reading intervention in order to ensure measurable gains. Language and literacy must be
built together if students are to be successful in secondary schools (August & Shanahan, 2010).
In addition, the intended purpose of Sheltered Content Area Instruction was to assist
English Learners in gaining access to grade-level content. Another goal was to equip students
with the skills necessary to use the language associated with the content being taught.
Vocabulary and language structures used during sheltered content instruction were designed to
make core content meaningful. However, Arreaga-Mayer and Perdomo-Rivera (1996) suggested
that teaching core content and teaching effective language are not always effectively done
together. However, due to time constraints in the classroom, building effective language is not
always purposeful. In other cases, language is built, but content is omitted. While ideally both
language and content would be explicitly taught, frequently, language instruction does not
sufficiently prepare English Learners to gain a solid command of English (Dutro & Kinsella,
2010).
Effective ELD Instructional Models
In order to improve existing classroom conditions, ELD instruction must be explicit and
intentional. The focus should be on improving the quality and quantity of student engagement in
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 37
both verbal and written interactions (Kinsella, 2012). Fillmore and Snow (2000) stressed the
importance of language being modeled not only in ELD classrooms, but across content areas.
“They [teachers] must engage children in classroom discussion of subject matter that are more
and more sophisticated in form and content” (p. 22). This statement assumed that teachers have
proficient language skills and the ability to discuss the use of language with students. Often,
teachers dilute academic language in an attempt to make the content more accessible to students.
Unfortunately, this practice prevents students from interacting with sophisticated language forms
necessary to succeed in school. Teachers must use strong academic language frequently.
Through continuous exposure, students learn how to use this language and develop language
skills. As stated earlier, LTELs struggle with reading comprehension. Proficient English Only
students are able to identify and explain what they understand and what they do not understand.
LTELs often lack the academic language skills required to clarify meaning and ask
comprehension questions. Reading skills improve and comprehension increases for proficient
English Only readers able to identify and seek clarification while the achievement gap between
LTELs and proficient EO peers widens.
Students benefit from instruction that is productive and engaging. In the late 1970s,
Vygotsky (1978) specified that in order to develop new knowledge, learners must use language
and personal experiences. LTELs have successfully found meaningful ways to use every day
English to communicate with their peers. They have practiced this form with classmates and
other LTELs, but they have not been exposed or practiced using precise academic English.
Kinsella (2012) stressed the importance of differentiating between every day and academic
English. Teaching students the various language registrars ensures that they will be able to
successfully communicate with adults at school. Examples of every day English include the
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 38
following types of student responses: “Huh? What? I don’t get it.” Frequently, LTELs respond
using this type of language which lacks precision and clarity. Kinsella (2012) recommended
teaching students how to transfer registrars and use academic English phrases such as “Will you
please repeat that?” or “I don’t quite understand your response” (p. 1, slide 6). By teaching
students how to use academic language, the quality and quantity of verbal engagement in ELD
classrooms improves significantly. In addition, these skills transfer across content areas allowing
LTELs to successfully communicate with teachers and peers (Kinsella, 2012).
LTELs cannot be expected to simply know how to transfer everyday language into
precise academic language. Therefore, it’s the teacher’s responsibility to provide scaffolds that
build vocabulary and have specific language targets (Kinsella, 2012). Teachers frequently
provide implicit feedback to students. This includes the teacher restating what the student was
trying to say with the correct revision. The problem with this model is LTELs often mistake the
feedback for validation that they have answered correctly and do not register or hear the
teacher’s revision. As a result, LTELs often continue to speak using verbal errors that travel
with them from one grade to the next. To remedy this situation, teacher feedback must be
explicit. When a student makes a verbal error, it may be assumed that other LTELs also struggle
with that type of error, and the teacher should explicitly show the student the error and encourage
them to restate their response correctly in an encouraging and positive way (Lyster, R. 2007).
When teachers ignore verbal errors, they are missing the opportunity to aid the student in error
correction.
Another effective strategy to ease the transitions from every day to academic and precise
language is through the use of academic sentence and response frames (Kinsella, 2012).
Sentence and response frames are verbal and written frames that allow students to produce
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 39
accurate and orally fluent responses. These frames also allow teachers to identify specific
language targets and provide effective and timely feedback (Kinsella, 2012). It is also important
to recognize that content-area teachers must also understand the complexity of effectively
teaching LTELs. Teachers must understand the importance of modeling academic language,
promoting precise student responses, and providing explicit feedback.
Teachers’ Educational Beliefs
Creating a student-centered learning environment was considered an imperative part of
fostering a productive learning environment. According to a university study, 55% of education
students believed that creating a student-centered environment was the most important
characteristic of effective teachers (Minor, Onwuegbuzie, Witcher, & James, 2002, p. 119).
However, this factor was not the only distinguishing characteristic. Effective teachers were also
believed to be strong classroom and behavior managers, competent in their subject manner,
ethical, and enthusiastic in regards to their teaching (Minor et al., 2002).
Many teachers’ educational beliefs stem from their experiences as students in school.
While teacher preparation courses and pre-service programs focus on teaching individuals to
become effective teachers, there was evidence suggesting that teachers form their beliefs long
before they enter the classroom as a teacher. A study conducted by Murphy, Delli, and Edwards
(2004) investigated this belief when they compared the responses of second-grade students to the
responses of pre-service teachers in regards to the meaning of good teaching. The outcome of
the study suggested that elementary students and pre-service teachers hold similar beliefs
established at a young age (Murphy et al., 2004).
While student-centered learning environments are believed to foster positive educational
conditions, a growing trend has emerged. Many teachers believe that inquiry-based learning is
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 40
more effective than transmission-based instruction. In transmission-based instruction, teachers
are generally responsible for transmitting knowledge to the students. Inquiry-based instruction
focuses on the students creating and discovering new knowledge. Over time teachers’ beliefs
regarding inquiry-based instruction have become favorable due to its ability to increase student
engagement and motivation (Harwood, Hansen, and Lotter, 2006).
Teachers Views on Teaching with Technology
The classroom has changed as technology has progressed. Technology now allows
learning to extend far beyond the textbook. Using technology in the classroom is new not only
to students, but also to teachers. With varying degrees of technological competency, good
teaching may depend based on the institutional culture of the school. According to a study on
teachers’ beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture of technological use, integration of
technology into classroom instruction was powerfully impacted by the school’s belief system and
culture (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002).
Through incorporating the use of laptops into the classroom setting, teachers who were
discontent with teacher-centered practices such as direct instruction and the lecture model, were
able to transform their teaching practices. According to Windschitl and Sahl (2002), teachers
used technology as a tool to promote project-based learning and collaboration among students.
As instructional practices began to shift, the school culture and belief system also became more
student centered and technology based.
The Impact of High Stake Testing on Teachers’ Attitudes
Many teachers perceived an increasingly results-driven accountability system to stifle
student learning. In a study conducted by Leonard (2001) for the Journal of Educational
Research, new expectations placed on teachers often left teachers feeling helpless and
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 41
disempowered. Part of this frustration was a result of regular-imposed interruptions that occur
throughout the school day and disrupt the learning environment (Leonard, 2001).
Another cause of frustration was a feeling that expectations have increased, intensified,
and expanded over the years (Valli & Buese, 2007). In their article entitled The Changing Roles
of Teachers in an Era of High-Stakes Accountability, Valli and Buese (2007) examined how
federal, state, and local policies impact teachers’ attitudes inside and outside of the classroom.
The results showed that teachers felt increased expectations in the areas of instruction,
collaboration, and learning. Because of high-stakes accountability systems, these teachers
reported many negative consequences such as a poor sense of professional well-being, negative
relationships with students, and a difficulty in providing differentiated instruction. Teachers in
this study blamed an era of high-stakes accountability for these negative consequences.
Positive Student-Teacher Interactions
Positive interpersonal interactions between teachers and students foster an environment
conducive to teaching and learning. In order to create this type of environment, students and
teachers must be open-minded and value students’ point of views (Anderson & Carta-Falsa,
2002). Teachers must value the culture of English Learners and view their academic background
as a benefit rather than a deficit. When teachers show interest in a student’s background
knowledge, the student becomes more engaged in the learning setting. According to Anderson
and Carta-Falsa (2002), strong mentor-peer relationships form when these interactions occurred
resulting in greater student achievement and overall satisfaction.
How are positive interpersonal relationships built? Over three decades ago a teacher
selection instrument was created. This instrument identified characteristics of highly effective
teachers working with many language-minority students in urban schools. Among the qualities
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 42
listed, individualized perception was considered key to successfully working with students.
Individualized perception is the ability of a teacher to consider the interest and needs of a student
(Metzger & Wu, 2008). In addition, successful teachers listened to their students’ feelings and
were responsive to students’ thoughts and views. These characteristics were combined with a
strong rapport drive that implied the teacher genuinely liked the student and therefore promoted
an environment of warmth and acceptance.
Unfortunately, classroom teachers often viewed English Learners as “deficient” and
considered them challenges and frustrations in the classroom (Fu, 1995). Since Long-Term
English Learners are regularly mainstreamed and provided with a mere period of ELD
instruction, many mainstream teachers perceived their role as being responsible for the progress
of English Only students, and disregarded the importance of their role in appropriately promoting
the growth of English Learners. Interactions between teachers and students can intentionally or
unintentionally send positive or negative messages to English Learners and their peers. Positive
actions in response to linguistic and cultural needs are necessary in order to encourage English
Learners to participate in their learning (Yoon, 2008).
Summary
Public schools currently serve a largely linguistically diverse population. Many students
begin their schooling as English Learners. As they progress through the system, policies and
practices are in place with the intention of facilitating growth and promoting language
acquisition and achievement. However, literature suggested that many of these students graduate
without having attained English proficiency and having struggled academically. Ironically, a
system designed to support language acquisition, has too often become a barrier to achievement
and academic success.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 43
A large majority of English Learners become Long-Term English Learners by the time
they reach secondary schools. They have a unique set of characteristics and have a great desire
to succeed. Yet, many current practices serve as obstacles that make success in schools difficult
for English Learners.
We know that a lack of consistency and focus on ELD instruction is often a barrier that
prevents LTELs from achieving. As ELs advance in years in American public schools, they
often lag increasingly behind their English Only peers. While sheltered content instruction offers
vocabulary support so critical to language acquisition, the result is often diluted curriculum and
lack of access to core curriculum. Consistency and improved vocabulary and comprehension
instruction are necessary to promote LTELs’ achievement. Research suggested that explicitly
teaching academic language elements, utilizing consistent routines, and encouraging peer
interactions with precise language targets will provide LTELs with the academic and language
growth necessary to succeed (Kinsella, 2012). The researcher will identify consistent and cross-
content and grade-level instructional practices. The researcher will attempt to uncover strategies,
which teachers perceive facilitate the ability to access language, increase comprehension, and
build vocabulary.
Based on the review of literature, it is evident that strong ELD instructional
implementation is imperative to student success. Therefore, an exploration of research questions
that will enable the researcher to determine the extent to which ELD instructional program
design aligns with implementation will be discussed in Chapter Three.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 44
Chapter Three
Research Design and Methodology
Introduction
The urgency of meeting the educational needs of a growing English Learner population
was explained in Chapter One. The challenges facing this demographic were examined. It
became apparent that while many English Learners enter American public schools at a young
age, they do not progress at the same rate as their English Only peers. It was determined that
these students face many barriers that make achieving academic proficiency and language
acquisition difficult. Hadaway and Young (2006) indicated California’s role as being critical as
California is home to the largest EL population, most of whose primary language is Spanish.
The California Department of Education (2012b) acknowledges that an achievement gap
continues to exist between English Learners from native speakers. Legislation under No Child
Left Behind (2001) has mandated that every child achieve academic proficiency, yet this sub
group has failed to make gains. Additionally, it was presented that 59% of secondary English
Learners are not new to the country (Olsen, 2010). These Long-Term English Learners have
been in the public school system for years and have fallen further and further behind.
Data indicated that reading comprehension and vocabulary development posed the
greatest challenge for English Learners and that vocabulary was the greatest indicator of
academic proficiency (Olsen, 2010). Therefore, it is important to identify effective
comprehension and vocabulary instruction strategies that promote both language acquisition and
academic achievement.
The purpose of this study is to identify instructional practices in three areas: access
language, increase comprehension, and build vocabulary. By identifying consistent strategies,
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 45
ELD instruction will be explicitly taught and comprehension and vocabulary will be intentional
and meaningful. This instruction will enhance the academic achievement and language
acquisition of Long-Term English Learners.
The English Learner subgroup has not met proficiency standards on the CST in language
arts or mathematics. As a result, Academic Yearly Progress (AYP) criterion was not met for the
studied district. Although the studied district’s Academic Performance Index (API) is over 800,
the English Learner subgroup falls short of 800. This subgroup is of special interest to the
researcher due to the similar gaps being experienced by districts across the state.
The methodology of this study will be described in this chapter. Design, sample,
population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis process will also be explained. The
primary question to be answered in this research is: What are teachers’ perceptions of currently
implemented instructional practices in facilitating LTEL students’ ability to access language,
increase comprehension, and build vocabulary?
In addition to this primary question, the following sub-questions will also be investigated
in order to provide further depth:
1. What are teachers’ perceptions of how instruction is individualized to meet the needs of
each LTEL student?
2. Which instructional practices are consistently implemented with LTELs across grade
levels and content areas that align with design criteria?
Study Design
The researcher has been allowed to explore a program in depth, so a case study is the
design (Creswell, 2003). Teachers participated in focus groups in order to gather information
about current instructional practices and experiences working with LTELs. Grade-level chairs
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 46
were interviewed in order to gather information about current grade-level practices that were
consistent across classrooms. In addition, all teaching staff completed an online survey. The
survey results revealed teachers’ perceptions regarding current EL programs and district
practices. The study viewed overarching group perceptions.
Case studies investigate trends and phenomenon in real life settings, and they rely heavily
on evidence gathered. Multiple sources were used as evidence. Notes from focus groups,
interview transcriptions, and survey results all contributed to informing the researcher regarding
which strategies are consistently and effectively being implemented with LTEL students. A
thorough collection of information using multiple data sources was analyzed.
Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis for this case study was a group of teachers. The teachers selected to
participate in this study were certificated, multiple-subject teachers of students in grades four
through eight. Additionally, grade-level chairs and ELD teachers were invited to participate in
interviews. All teachers possessed a Cross-cultural Language and Academic Development
(CLAD) certificate or the equivalent. This certification authorizes teachers to provide instruction
for English Learners in English Language development courses, English as a Second Language
(ESL) course, or Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Additionally, the
CLAD certificate certifies teacher authorization to provide Specially Designed Academic
Instruction Delivered in English (SDAIE) to aide English Learners in accessing curriculum. All
teachers participating in this study possessed tenure and have been employed by the studied
district for a minimum of six years and a maximum of 22 years.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 47
Sample and Population
The studied district was an elementary district located east of Los Angeles. The total
district enrollment was over 1,100 with 86% of the students eligible for free- or reduced-price
lunch. The studied district’s elementary school served over 400 students in kindergarten through
third grade and the middle school served over 600 students in fourth through eighth grade.
According to the district’s 2010-2011 School Accountability Report Card (SARC), 50% of the
elementary school’s students and 34% of the middle school’s students were classified as English
Learners. Approximately 95% of the district’s student population is Latino. Overall, the district
has experienced large gains in the district-wide Academic Performance Index (API) over the last
six years. Both schools achieved an API of over 800 and were recognized as California
Distinguished Schools. The district API was 815 at the time of this study; and although the
district demonstrated growth, a significant achievement gap still existed for English Learners at
the district. The API for the English Learner subgroup was 772, a difference of 43 points from
the district base API of 815. Additionally, the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) criterion which
was established by legislation under No Child Left Behind (2001) was not met for English
Learners. The district’s Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO) targets were 67%
proficient for English language arts and 68% proficient for mathematics. Of the 302 English
Language Learners tested by the district, only 46% of the English Learners were proficient in
English language arts and 53% in mathematics. The discrepancy in achievement between
English Learners and English Only students is not unique to the district. This is a nationwide
occurrence that requires the immediate attention of educators and policy makers alike (Data
Quest, 2012).
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 48
Site selection. The study focused on one district as it saw extensive improvement over
the last decade; however, the gap between English Language Learners and English Only students
continued. The district was selected for the study due to the information-rich nature of the
setting. While achieving overall academic excellence, the studied district failed to meet AYP
criterion as established by No Child Left Behind (2001) legislation. Therefore, the district had
an interest in conducting a self-study to help analyze teacher perceptions of best research-based
practices to improve LTEL achievement.
The studied district’s current professional development focus was on increasing LTEL
achievement. The district had been working collaboratively with their County Office of
Education to ensure English Learners were offered the support and resources necessary to attain
academic proficiency. Despite continuous efforts and some growth, ELs continued to fall behind
as they progressed through the system.
Rationale for Site Selection
The middle school was placed in program improvement status a few years before this
study after failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress. English Learners failed to meet English
language arts targets and mathematics targets. As a result, the district realized a need to closely
examine all aspects of services offered to English Learners. The district conducted a needs
assessment and proposed a two-year action plan as mandated by the county designed to improve
the performance of English Learners. The school site also recognized the importance of also
gaining teachers’ opinions on current instructional practices impacting ELs. The researcher
recognized the benefit of collaborating with the university to conduct a study that would examine
teacher perceptions and analyze common themes that emerged.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 49
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The focus of this study was to examine which instructional strategies teachers felt were
being implemented that made vocabulary, comprehension, and language accessible to LTELs.
The units of analysis of this study were 18 classroom teachers that in total serve 302 English
Learners. Data for the study was collected through focus groups, interviews, and surveys.
The primary research question was: What are teachers’ perceptions of currently
implemented instructional practices in facilitating student ability to access language, increase
comprehension, and build vocabulary?
Data for the primary research question was sourced from triangulating all of the data
collected from the teacher focus group interviews, individual standardized open-ended questions
interviews with grade-level chairs and ELD leads, and teacher open-ended question surveys.
Focus groups, interviews, and surveys will be discussed through sub-question explanations.
Observation data was triangulated in order to identify trends and discrepancies.
Data for the primary resource question was also sourced from standardized individual
open-ended computer-based survey questions (see Appendix D). Responses were then examined
to identify recurring themes and trends. The following questions were on the survey:
1. Do you feel the school district provides appropriate ELD programs for English Learners
who have plateaued in their second-language development and/or who have recently been
reclassified with disappointing state exam scores? Explain.
2. How does the instruction implemented in your classroom promote gains in language,
speaking, and writing for LTELs?
3. In your opinion, what would effective modeling of academic language throughout the day
look like at your school?
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 50
4. What criteria do you think principals should consider when conducting classroom
walkthroughs and looking for evidence of effective verbal engagement for LTEL
students?
Sub-question #1. What are teachers’ perceptions of how instruction is individualized to
meet the needs of each LTEL student?
Data for sub-question #1 was sourced from focus group interviews. Participants brought
district data (Individual Plans for Student Achievement) to discuss with group members. The
researcher provided standardized open-ended questions (see Appendix C). The researcher took
field notes to record conversations. Participants provided copies of Individual Plans for Student
Achievement, a form of district-data to submit to the researcher. Focus groups took place over
the course of a two-hour period of time. The school district provided release time for teachers to
participate in these groups. Data pertaining to sub-question #1 was gathered from the questions
shown in Table 1.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 51
Table 1
Sub-Question #1 Focus Group Questions
Focus Group Questions for Grade Levels Focus Group Questions for Vertical K-8
What specific instructional strategies/methods
were implemented that produced positive
outcomes for ELD students?
Identify consistent instructional
strategies/methods used across multiple
classrooms in your grade level. Were student
outcomes similar or different? Explain.
How did your grade level integrate new
strategies into lessons to make content more
easily accessible to EL students?
How can the Individual Plan for Student
Achievement process be improved?
How is instruction customized at your
grade level to provide ELs access to
language development and challenging
grade-level curriculum? Provide
examples.
What are some activities conducted in
your classroom that ensure vocabulary
instruction is incorporated into daily
routines?
How do you model reading
comprehension in all subject areas for EL
students?
Identify any consistent trends that occur
across grade levels.
Sub-question #2. Which instructional practices are consistently implemented with
LTELs across grade levels and content areas?
Data for sub-question #2 was sourced from individual standardized open-ended
interviews with grade-level chairs. Three interview questions were asked, an illustrative
question was used to prompt a genuine response, a role-play simulation question was used to
provide context, and presupposition questions were used to elicit an opinion. The researcher
then triangulated data to identify common instructional practices utilized across grade levels.
Interview questions included:
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 52
1. I know there are many forms, tools, and strategies the district uses to support English
Learners. I also know from being a classroom teacher that it can be hard to implement all
the strategies all the time, so you can be honest with me. What are some of the
instructional strategies your grade level uses regularly and which ones do you dismiss?
2. Suppose I was a new teacher at your grade level and I knew nothing about providing
instruction to LTELs. What strategies would you recommend I use in my classroom to
help my LTELs make language gains?
3. What have you learned from working with LTELs in x grade?
Data Analysis
Upon collecting all data, the researcher analyzed data to construct a case study narrative.
The case study narrative was constructed following Patton’s (2002) steps: organize and assemble
raw data, construct and classify data, and write and present final narrative. The researcher
followed this process for each of the sub-questions:
Sub-question #1 analysis. Following the focus group discussions, the researcher
transcribed all focus group notes. Once the transcribed data was completed, the researcher
reviewed the transcribed data for each question. This process involved reviewing transcriptions
line by line and dividing the data into significant analytical units. Segmenting the data in this
manner allowed the researcher to locate meaningful information. The codes developed by the
researcher represent key components of the literature review and research questions. For Sub-
question #1 the researcher utilized the codes as shown in Table 2.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 53
Table 2
Codes for Sub-Question #1
While coding, the researcher kept a master list of all codes developed and used in the
study. Once all transcriptions had been coded, the researcher identified and generated a list of
key themes based on commonalities among the teachers’ comments for each category. During
this phase, the researcher reviewed themes with district stakeholders, discussed impressions, and
tested identified themes against data gathered from other sub-questions to check for validity. In
order to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings, the researcher relied on the mutual
consent of district administration and committee members for validation of the themes.
Primary research question analysis. Following the individual standardized open-ended
interviews with grade-level chairs, the researcher transcribed the recorded conversations. Once
the transcribed data was complete, the researcher reviewed the transcribed data for each
question. This process involved reviewing transcriptions line by line and dividing the data into
significant analytical units. Segmenting the data in this manner allowed the researcher to
identify instructional practices used at each grade level. The codes developed by the researcher
Grade Level Focus Groups Vertical 4-8 Focus Groups
IST+= Positive Instructional Strategies
ISO= Instructional Strategies (Other)
CIS= Consistent Instructional Strategies
SO= Student Outcomes
IPSA=Individual Plans for ELD
Improvement
O= Other
LDA= Language Development Access
VI= Vocabulary Instruction
RC= Reading Comprehension
CIT= Consistent Instructional Trends
O=Other
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 54
represented key components of instruction found in the literature review and research design.
For the primary research question the researcher utilized the following codes:
Table 3
Codes for Primary Research Question
While coding, the researcher kept a master list of all codes developed and used in the
study. Once all transcriptions had been coded, the researcher identified and generated a list of
key instructional practices implemented based on commonalities among the teachers’ comments
at each grade level. The researcher reviewed common instructional practices as reported across
grade levels with district stakeholders. The researcher then determined which themes were
re-occurring based on teacher responses. Finally, the researcher tested identified themes against
data gathered from other sub-questions. In order to ensure the validity and reliability of the
findings, the researcher relied on the mutual consent of district administration and committee
members for validation.
Codes for Primary Research Question
ISU= Instructional Strategies used Regularly
ISD= Instructional Strategies Dismissed
ISR= Instructional Strategies Recommended
ISG= Instructional Strategies that Promote LTEL Language Gains
TL= Evidence of Teacher Learning
RBP= Research Based Practices
DAP= District Adopted Practices
O= Other
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 55
Following the standardized individual open-ended computer-based survey questions, the
researcher transcribed all recorded responses. Once the transcribed data was complete, the
researcher reviewed the transcribed data for each question. This process involved reviewing
transcriptions line by line and dividing the data into coded units. The codes developed by the
researcher represented key components of the literature review and research questions. For
Sub-question #1 the researcher utilized the following codes:
Table 4
Codes for Sub-Question #1
Codes for Sub-Question #1
APELD= Appropriateness of ELD Student Placement
LG= Language Gains
SG= Speaking Gains
WG= Writing Gains
EMAL= Effective Modeling of Academic Language O= Other
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 56
Once all transcriptions had been coded, the researcher identified and generated a list of
key themes based on commonalities among the teachers’ comments for each category. These
themes revealed overarching perceptions based on all three data sources of current ELD
programs and practices. During this phase, the researcher reviewed themes with district
stakeholders, discussed impressions, and tested identified themes against data gathered from
other sub-questions to check for validity.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 57
Chapter Four
Findings
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the degree to which teacher perception of ELD
implementation aligned with the intended design based on literature. In order to reveal this
information, the researcher identified teacher perceptions of consistent cross-content and
grade-level instructional practices that: facilitated LTEL students’ ability to access language,
increased comprehension, built vocabulary, and then aligned results with research-based
literature design. The researcher first uncovered which strategies teachers perceived were
explicitly teaching comprehension and vocabulary in an intentional and meaningful manner
across grade levels. Subsequently, the researcher determined the degree to which those
perceived strategies matched research-based literature. The degree to which teacher-reported
perception aligned with the design was ultimately measured. This chapter includes a
presentation the results of the research described in the previous chapter, as well as answer the
research questions presented in Chapter One.
The researcher distributed 20 online survey invitation letters to all middle-school district
teachers for grades four through eight students (see Appendix A). The return from the first
distribution was 16 completed surveys. A second request for participation was rendered via a
district weekly memo from the principal two weeks after the initial invitation and resulted in two
additional returned surveys. Overall, teachers completed and returned a total of 18 surveys to the
researcher for a response rate of 90%. Of the completed surveys, all were successfully entered
and submitted using Survey Monkey, a professional electronic, web-based survey program.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 58
The researcher extended interview invitations to five grade-level chairs in grades four
through eight. Following these interviews, two additional interview invitations were extended to
English Language Development (ELD) lead teachers covering grades six through eight. All
seven invitations were accepted and each participant received a copy of Appendix B. All seven
interviews took place between the months of June and September 2012.
Primary Research Question Results: Academic Access for Long-Term
English Learners
Data for the primary research question was sourced from the data collected from teacher
focus group interviews, individual standardized open-ended question interviews with grade-level
chairs and ELD leads, and teacher open-ended question surveys. Once data from each sub-
question was gathered, the researcher analyzed transcriptions to identify themes.
Data for the primary resource question was also sourced from standardized individual
open-ended computer-based survey questions (see Appendix D). Responses were then examined
to identify recurring themes.
Three major themes emerged upon data collection and analysis. First, teachers regularly
reported monitoring and implementing Individual Plans for Student Achievement (IPSA) to
measure language comprehension and observe progress towards goals. Second, teachers
perceived the importance of explicit academic language instruction in improving language
acquisition. A final theme was the existence of routine opportunities for students to verbally
engage with grade-level peers and adults. These three themes are described in Figure 1.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 59
Figure 1: Primary Resource Question Themes
Monitoring and implementation of the Individual Plans for Student Achievement
(IPSA) to guide instruction for LTEL students. The first theme that emerged as a result of
focus group discussions, interviews, and the online survey was the crucial role the IPSA played
in guiding instruction for LTEL students. Seventy-seven percent of online survey participants
perceived the IPSA as being a key tool used in allowing teachers to measure LTELs’ ability to
access language and improve comprehension. During focus groups, teachers further discussed
the IPSAs monitoring system, and grade-level teams shared IPSA goals and outcomes. Among
groups, a common theme emerged. Although IPSA’s were utilized by all grade levels, the types
of goals written and the forms of assessments used to measure mastery varied across grade
levels. Each teacher of EL students wrote an IPSA goal for every EL in their class. These goals
primarily focused on English language arts and mathematics. The goals were set three times a
year and assessed at the end of every 12 weeks. According to the survey results and focus group
discussions, the IPSAs ensured that EL students never went unnoticed and were always
recognized in mainstream classes. Since LTELs often go unnoticed in mainstream classrooms,
Access
for
Long
Term
English
Learners
Implementa6on
and
monitoring
of
the
Individiualized
Plan
for
Student
Achievement
(IPSA)
to
measure
progress.
Importance
of
explicit
academic
language
instruc6on
in
improving
language
aquisi6on.
Rou6ne
opportuni6es
for
verbal
engagement
with
grade
level
peers
and
adults.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 60
the Individual Plans for Student Achievement proved to be a valuable tool in preventing this
negative outcome.
Once this theme was uncovered, the researcher ascertained the degree to which this belief
aligned with design based on literature. Educators must continuously seek to improve
instructional outcomes for students by carefully monitoring each element of the programs
impacting ELs. Teacher teams continuously monitored the implementation of these
Individualized Plans for Student Achievement. Since teachers were utilizing the same program,
it allowed for teachers to share ideas and answer questions that occurred during discussions. The
IPSA planning tool also allowed teachers to collect data and identify students that may have
needed additional support both in and out of the classroom. Monitoring implementation and
outcomes is crucial to accelerating the level of instruction students receive (Calderón, Slavin, &
Sanchez, 2011). According to Calderón et al. (2011), the use of a consistent program such as the
IPSA allowed for strategic monitoring of implementation that produced more informed decision-
making. Therefore, Calderón et al. concluded that the implementation of the IPSA is a program
that benefits English Learners and teachers alike.
Explicit academic vocabulary instruction promotes stronger language acquisition.
All grade levels four through eight reported the belief that building academic language and
explicitly teaching academic vocabulary were crucial to promoting language acquisition.
Common strategies for teaching academic vocabulary included front-loading information prior to
beginning a lesson, using realia–including pictures and objects, utilizing synonyms to show
multiple words with similar meanings, and marking the text to identify key words throughout the
lesson. In addition, survey results indicated that teachers utilized district-wide strategies
including thinking maps to help students access language, sentence frames, and cloze exercises.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 61
However, despite each grade level reporting use of these strategies and the importance of
building academic vocabulary, 22% of the teachers were unable to define the term “academic
vocabulary.” Therefore, many of these teachers felt that they were unsure of what “academic
vocabulary” they should be teaching or modeling at their grade level. One teacher even pointed
out that it would be beneficial to have a common list of words used at each grade level that built
systematically from one grade level to the next. While 22% of teachers were unable to put a
label on the term “academic vocabulary,” the remaining 78% offered varying definitions
spanning from textbook highlighted words to weekly spelling lists.
It is not surprising that this theme emerged. When defining “academic vocabulary,” it
quickly became evident that it is impossible to find a consistent definition across sources. How
can teachers be expected to bring clarity to a term that encompasses so many definitions and
meanings? Researchers have produced various related terms including: academic literacy,
background, domain knowledge, competence, linguistic knowledge, and content vocabulary.
However, many of these terms carry multiple definitions, and while the general consensus
among teachers was inconclusive, their responses pointed to a close definition derived by Ehlers-
Zavala (2008). The definition described academic language as “a specific register . . . that
students are expected to use in school subjects” (p. 76). This definition was clearly what
teachers perceived as the overarching definition of “academic vocabulary.”
The natural follow-up question was what vocabulary, specifically, are students expected
to use in school subjects? Does this domain knowledge vary from one setting to the next?
According to Jetton and Alexander (2004), academic vocabulary should be organized around
core concepts and principles. These concepts should be distinguishable. Researchers further
differentiated academic vocabulary into two groups: domain specific and general. The majority
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 62
of teachers surveyed pointed to domain-specific academic vocabulary as a tool utilized regularly
in the classroom. This is not surprising since much of the Professional Development offered at
the studied district had placed an emphasis on content-specific academic vocabulary introduced
by Marzano and Pickering (2005). Marzano and Pickering emphasized that teaching specific
terms to students in a systematic and meaningful way ensures that they develop the background
knowledge necessary to uncovering content in schools.
Additionally, the district in this study consistently relied on Fisher and Frey’s (2008)
instructional model as a framework to guide teaching. Fisher and Frey focused on domain-
specific academic vocabulary, but referred to it as “technical vocabulary.” Fisher and Frey
reinforced the belief that in order for many struggling EL students to succeed in academic
content classes, technical vocabulary must be front-loaded and constantly reinforced. So while
the theme emerged that stronger academic vocabulary promoted language acquisition, this is not
necessarily the case. Teachers at the school continuously emphasized the importance of
domain-specific academic vocabulary, which often produced an improvement in student grades
and performance on content assessments, but not necessarily overall language proficiency.
Literature suggested that across-content academic vocabulary was missing from many
classrooms. Coxhead (2000) pointed to academic words as being those that regularly and
frequently occur across content areas and in multiple forms of academic material. In addition,
Brock et al.’s (2009) definition of academic vocabulary included words that are used across
content areas with abstract definitions that are also difficult to master. For English Learners and
struggling students, teachers too often mistakenly assumed that students were familiar with these
words. These words are not found in the “terms and definitions” sections of most textbooks, but
occur frequently in many subjects and grade levels.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 63
To a certain degree, it appears teacher perception of the importance of “academic
language” aligns with the literature. It also seemed that teacher confusion and inability to define
the term itself was essentially justified. Multiple variations of the terms and varying author
definitions cloud a simple definition of the term itself. Still, several researchers have attempted
to bring clarity to this dilemma. Fisher and Frey (2008) suggested clustering words into three
groups: general high frequency words, specialized words that occur across content, and technical
words that are content-specific. This suggestion may allow teachers to develop word lists or
strategies that can be implemented across grade levels and content areas.
Verbal engagement through cooperative learning produces language gains. Verbal
engagement was the third theme that emerged from the primary research question. Teachers
unanimously felt that in order for LTELs to make language gains it was necessary for them to
have access to verbal engagement with peers and adults. ELD teachers reported that allowing
students multiple opportunities to engage in dialogue was imperative to their oral language
development. For LTELs, teachers specifically felt that asking the right probing questions and
modeling types of responses was effective in ensuring these students made steady gains.
In addition to verbal engagement with the classroom at large, teachers pointed to the
importance of collaborative learning in groups for English Learners. Teachers reported that by
putting Long-Term English Learners in mixed-ability groups with English Only peers, these
students had the opportunity to engage in dialogue with one another, model sentence structure,
and teach each other.
Teacher perceptions regarding the importance of verbal engagement with peers aligned
strongly with literature. Slavin and Madden (2008) established that cooperative learning for
English Learners was extremely effective because it allowed students with the opportunity to
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 64
teach each other after the teacher has taught the lesson. In addition, since cooperative learning
occurs in groups, the process focused on the learning of all members in the group. For English
Learners specifically, cooperative learning groups gave students who may be reserved or shy in
class the opportunity to speak to classmates in a safe and small environment. Since many
English Learners were being exposed to general and content-specific academic vocabulary for
the first time, cooperative learning groups gave them a forum to practice using this academic
language in a useful and meaningful context.
Additionally, Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, and Christian (2006) suggested that
utilizing interactive approaches during explicit instruction would provide Long-Term English
Learners with the opportunities necessary to make oral language gains. Conversational and
expressive language was crucial to helping students develop skills necessary to participate in
academic discussions and engage with their peers (Spada & Lightbown, 2008). Teacher
perception that verbal engagement through oral language is imperative to achieving language
proficiency was aligned with literature. However, the literature also suggested that direct
instruction must be utilized to help students develop specific academic content language prior to
interaction with peers (Bailey, 2007).
Sub-question #1 Results: Perception of Individualized Instruction
Data for sub-question #1 was sourced from focus group interviews. Participants brought
district data (Individual Plans for Student Achievement) to discuss with group members;
participants provided copies of district data to submit to the researcher. The researcher provided
standardized open-ended questions. The researcher took field notes to record conversations. .
Focus groups took place over the course of a two-hour period of time. The school district
provided release time for teachers to participate in the focus groups.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 65
Routine use of district-wide programs to support EL students, a need for additional ELD
instructional time, and alignment of IPSA goals with ELD standard objectives were the primary
themes that emerged as a result of teacher beliefs regarding individualized ELD instruction.
These themes are referred to in Figure 2. The first of the these three themes focused on
systematic programs and structures currently in place for all students that also served many of
the district’s English Language Learners. These programs included interventions and
supplemental services available during school hours. The second theme that emerged was a
frustration with the current amount of instructional minutes provided for ELD instruction. With
state-level pressure on teachers to expedite the language acquisition process, teachers reported
feeling that additional ELD time would produce optimal outcomes. Finally, since the district has
seen the IPSA produce academic achievement growth for EL students, teachers reported that
having IPSA goals align with ELD Standard Objectives may help move students from one
CELDT level to the next in a timelier manner.
Figure 2: Focus Group Interview Themes
Percep6on
of
Individualized
Instruc6on
Rou6ne
use
of
district-‐wide
programs
to
support
English
Learners
A
need
for
addi6onal
ELD
instruc6onal
6me
Alignment
of
IPSA
goals
with
ELD
standard
objec6ves
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 66
Routine use of district-wide programs to support EL students. Teachers regularly
mentioned district-wide programs that ELs are enrolled in alongside their grade-level peers. For
example, several teachers mentioned that ELs benefited from being a part of the Diagnostic
Online Reading Assessment (DORA)® program (Let's Go Learn, 2012), a K-12 computer-based
program that provides individualized assessment data and measures reading comprehension.
This program provides teachers with a profile of each student’s reading abilities. The program
then prescribes individual learning lessons based on assessment results. The benefit of this
program for English Learners is that it is individualized instruction and computer adaptive,
which means the level of difficulty and rigor increases as the students show academic growth.
DORA® also allows English Learners access to multiple learning tools. The program includes
visual aids, audio recordings, and text.
Teachers also reported regular usage of Study Island, a formative on-going online
assessment. Teachers reported feeling that Study Island allowed them to regularly monitor EL
student progress and make decisions regarding what standards required re-teaching or additional
support. Grade-level Chair 3 also shared that the questions asked on Study Island use the same
language conventions that students see on the test. The Interviewee 7 felt that in a classroom
setting, students don’t always seek clarification when doing paper and pencil work. However,
since Study Island is completed individually by students in a computer lab with teacher
monitoring, students were more likely to ask a question if they did not know the meaning of a
word, phrase, or solution.
Teachers indicated that ELs also have access to supplemental programs, such as
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID). Teachers reported that they felt these
programs increase EL students’ self-efficacy and allowed them access to content-area support
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 67
through tutorials. While these district-wide programs were not exclusively offered to EL
students, having these programs on campus did seem to have a positive impact on EL student
outcomes.
According to the program’s publisher, DORA® assesses students in eight sub-skill areas:
“high frequency words, word recognition, phonics, phonemic awareness, oral vocabulary,
spelling, reading comprehension, and fluency” (Let's Go Learn, 2012, Overview). Several of
these categories specifically benefit ELs. For example, it is imperative that students are provided
with linguistically rich environments. This includes becoming familiar with the written and
spoken languages used in the classroom (Yopp & Yopp, 2000). DORA® familiarizes students
with the language through teaching them how to communicate and express ideas in an engaging
manner.
Teachers pointed to Study Island, a formative assessment tool, as a program regularly
utilized by all English Learners in the district. Since English Learners, especially LTELs, often
go unnoticed in mainstream classrooms, Study Island provides teachers with a valuable resource
for monitoring the academic progress of LTELs. Formative assessments help teachers identify
students who are struggling with specific objectives and become aware of students that may be
operating under misguided information. Also, because formative assessments are ongoing,
student motivation and self-awareness often improves (National Council of Teachers of English,
2010). Offering formative assessments in all content areas promotes positive student outcomes
(Black & Wiliam, 1998). Teachers are able to evaluate whether learning has occurred and
measure areas of weakness that may require additional attention.
Finally, upper-grade teachers reported that EL students have had the opportunity to be
part of the AVID program in the past. The AVID curriculum has a large EL component
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 68
specifically designed to address the needs of Long-Term English Learners, the category which
most of the middle school’s ELs fall into. AVID’s English Learner College Readiness
curriculum is designed to break the cycle that keeps many students continuously labeled LTEL.
AVID’s English Learner component focuses on academic language acquisition, building
vocabulary, developing study skills, improving self-confidence, and providing students with the
academic foundation to succeed in a college setting (Bennett & Ramirez, 2012).
Teachers voiced very positive perceptions of the district’s programs utilized by EL
students. The key features of the programs described above provided positive outcomes for EL
students according to intended design: providing students with language-rich classrooms,
utilizing formative assessments to guide instruction, and providing opportunities for students to
access rigorous coursework.
A need for additional designated ELD instructional time. When focus groups initially
took place, a common theme that emerged was teachers’ perception that they needed additional
ELD instructional time in order to focus explicitly on language acquisition. Teachers also voiced
a desire to better understand the California English Language Development Test given to ELs in
order to more adequately prepare them for the test. The district followed this request by offering
CELDT training to teachers interested in learning about and administering the CELDT test. The
outcome of these trainings and further discussions resulted in teachers realizing the language
demands that the test imposes on students. Therefore, teachers reiterated the need for additional
ELD time during the school day. By the time follow-up interviews took place during early
September of 2012, teachers reported that they now have 45 minutes designated ELD time
allotted by the district at the middle level. Even with these 45 minutes, ELD teachers reported
that students would benefit from a longer amount of time and smaller class sizes during this
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 69
period. Teachers reported that due to the size of the district and the limited number of EL
students and teaching staff, it would be hard to cluster students by proficiency level while still
separating older from younger students.
Another reason why teachers felt additional ELD time would benefit students was due to
the fact that the current ELD program offered, English 3D by Scholastic, is a comprehensive
program that includes multiple dimensions. These dimensions consist of reading, writing,
speaking, and listening. In order to adequately cover each of these four areas tested on the
CELDT, teachers felt that additional time would allow for more in-depth lessons and allow for
more content to be covered over the course of the year.
In a small district, such as the one where this study took place, a blended service model
would be optimal (CDE, 2010). The model would place students from multiple classrooms in
instructional groups during ELD time based on their language proficiency level. Often in grades
four through six, teachers reported incorporating ELD into content areas throughout the day.
However, this is not the meaning behind the blended services model. Rather, the core purpose of
instruction should focus on English acquisition. Since teachers perceived the problem as a
shortage of ELD time, additional time may be an initial hurdle. However, literature pointed to
the importance of planning instructional delivery, agreeing to a consistent time of day, clustering
students based on proficiency level, and finally, assessing and monitoring student progress
throughout the year. So while teachers perceived that there is not enough time provided for ELD
instruction, the reality may be that further planning may be required to maximize the
effectiveness of the time currently available, and focus instead on collaborative structures to
create more meaningful instructional periods (CDE, 2010).
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 70
Goldenberg and Coleman (2010) recommended an average of 45 minutes of English
Language Development instruction a day. Currently, seventh and eighth grade English Learners
are provided with this amount of time daily. However, the current structure of fourth- through
sixth-grade programs allow teachers to structure ELD time during a 45-minute window of their
own choosing. For this reason, it is possible that the 45 minutes dedicated to ELD instruction
may not be occurring on a regular basis due to the demands of other content areas. Goldenberg
and Coleman (2010) stressed the importance of a separate ELD period benefiting students and
allowing them to focus solely on language acquisition rather than try to integrate ELD into other
parts of the curriculum.
Importance of aligning IPSA goals with ELD standard objectives. As mentioned in
the results for the primary research question, IPSAs play a key role in providing ELs the support
necessary to succeed. As noted above, the IPSA goals generally focus on language arts and math
content goals (see Appendix E). Teachers noticed that EL students, especially LTELs, had a
tendency to struggle in their core courses. However, after exposing the reality that many of the
EL students were also failing to meet reclassification criteria, it became evident that language
goals may be necessary as well. Multiple grade-level chairs reported a need to create IPSA goals
not only for content area achievement, but also for meeting language acquisition requirements.
Teachers perceived the necessity of students to pass the CELDT to be as important as achieving
proficiency in mathematics and English.
While teachers perceived CELDT scores to be as important as proficiency in mathematics
and English in California, these two types of proficiencies greatly impact one another. Language
proficiency and academic readiness are both measurement tools used to determine
reclassification for English Language Learners. Confusing these two or ignoring one
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 71
requirement may cause English Learners to be prematurely expelled from English Learner
programs (Cummins, 1984). However, since nearly 70% of middle and high school English
Learners are ELs that have been in U.S. public schools for seven or more years, the level of
academic rigor offered by the time they are in high school is often less than their mainstream
peers (Callahan, 2005). Therefore, the fact that teachers perceive it necessary to add an EL
component to the currently existing IPSA is a plausible solution. Incorporating ELD goals,
while maintaining goals for language arts and mathematics, will provide support in both areas—
academic readiness and language proficiency. Teacher perception accurately aligned with
Callahan’s (2005) belief that both academic readiness and language proficiency are necessary for
reclassification.
Sub-Question #2 Results: Perceptions of Cross-Content and Cross-Grade
Level Strategies.
Data for sub question #2 was sourced from individual standardized open-ended
interviews with grade-level chairs. The researcher then analyzed data to identify perceived
common instructional practices utilized across grade levels. The first theme to emerge was the
consistent usage of data-to-drive decision-making. Two important data tools teachers
continuously mentioned were the IPSA and English Language Development (ELD) matrix used
for guiding classroom instruction in all content areas. The second theme to emerge was an
awareness of the importance of motivating Long-Term English Learners and maintaining
positive student-teacher relationships. Finally, the third theme to emerge was a consistent belief
that providing rigor and setting high expectations would produce successful outcomes for
English Language Learners. Each of these themes is referred to in Figure 3.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 72
Figure 3: Grade-Level Chair Interview Themes
Data-driven decision making to guide instruction. Of all the resources available to EL
students, use of the IPSAs as a form of data collection was the tool most consistently utilized
across all grade levels. The IPSA becomes a timeline for teachers to look at growth from one
year to the next. Teachers reported using the IPSA to ensure that ELs were meeting academic
goals as well as state standards. These goals and student outcomes were kept in the student’s
cumulative file, allowing for teachers to access information, communicate with parents, and
analyze growth patterns over time.
Another consistently used tool as reported by teachers was the use of the ELD matrix for
guiding instruction. The ELD matrix allowed teachers to monitor EL students throughout the
year by viewing their performance on district benchmark assessments, reading levels, IPSA
status, and CELDT levels. Grade-level chairs reported that this information engendered
awareness of an EL’s progress throughout the year, and alerted them to sudden drops or gains.
In addition, grade-level chairs shared that the EL matrix allowed for greater discussion between
Percep6on
of
Cross-‐
Content
and
Cross-‐
Grade
Level
Strategies
Data-‐driven
decision
making
to
drive
instruc6on.
Mo6va6on
and
posi6ve
student-‐
teacher
rela6onships.
Providing
rigor
and
seLng
high
expecta6ons.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 73
classrooms and promoted conversations regarding which students were making progress and
how instruction may impact those gains.
Teacher perception of the importance of utilizing data to drive classroom instruction
supports literature claims. All data should be used to improve the learning opportunities
available to students and provide for greater student outcomes (Johnson, Lessem, Bergquist,
Carmichael, & Whitten, 2002). Due to the current educational climate, accountability systems
demand that data be collected by districts. Teacher perception regarding data collection did not
appear negative nor did it suggest a viewpoint of collecting only state testing data. Teachers
reported utilizing district-created forms to provide themselves with information on how to
modify instruction to meet the needs of their English Language Learners. According to the
Education Trust (2005) this is extremely important to increasing student achievement levels.
Since teachers reported collaborating with each other to discuss data and examine individual
growth patterns, it appears that data is not only driving decision making, but it is also creating a
culture that acts on data and is continuously seeking to improve. Utilizing data in this manner
builds school structures that help all stakeholders refine practices and build capacity while
ensuring sustainability (Datnow, Park, & Wohlstetter, 2007).
Increasing student motivation through maintaining positive teacher-student
relationships. A common theme that emerged from interviewing grade-level chairs and ELD
teachers was the importance of maintaining positive and strong relationships with their Long-
Term English Learners. Interviewee 4 said, “Students will do anything if they think you like
them; you can make them feel special, and they know you believe in them.” Since English
Learners often go unnoticed in mainstream classes, recognizing their strengths is important so
that they don’t become invisible (Olson, 2010). Interviewee 5 said, “Once you lose them, they
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 74
are gone and they won’t do anything for you.” This teacher was referring to the importance of
maintaining student engagement and pointing out the negative consequences of teaching a
disengaged student. The researcher repeatedly heard accounts of students whose scale CELDT
and CST scores improved. Teachers perceived the reason to be constant encouragement and
taking the time to have lunch with them, talking to them after school, or acknowledging them in
the hallways.
Literature suggests that the quality of teacher-student relationships is most critical during
the middle school years (Matsumura, Slater, & Croson, 2008). In classrooms where students
have meaningful relationships with their teachers, learning is more likely to occur. Matsumura
et al. (2008) did emphasize, however, that there must be a balance between creating a warm
productive classroom climate and providing academically demanding content.
Additionally, motivation is a combination of an individual’s choices, persistence, and
performance levels (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Therefore, if teachers are continuously
recognizing positive performance levels of English Learners, students may be more likely to
choose to engage in learning and persist in areas of difficulty. When students believe that their
teachers care about them, they are more likely to make the right choices, persist even when
academics are challenging, and progress a performance level.
When poor student-teacher relationships develop, students can quickly become
disengaged and performance levels drop. According to Schmid (2001), this often occurs when
teachers fail to help English Learners make meaningful connections to what they are learning.
Some students become intrinsically motivated when they are able to make these connections.
However, many students perform based on extrinsic motivation. Therefore, some English
Learners are more likely to complete a project or participate in an oral discussion because they
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 75
will receive a score or the teacher will compliment them (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Research
suggested that teachers must have an awareness of what actions motivate the students in their
class to learn. Teacher perception that relationships are of extreme importance aligns strongly
with design.
Importance of rigor and high expectations in promoting EL success. The literature
suggested that too often EL students fall victim to watered-down curriculum and by the time they
are in high school lose access to the university required coursework such as the A-G courses that
lead to higher education. Teacher perception at the studied district could not be further from that
statement. Teachers reported feeling accountable for aiding EL students in accessing rigorous
content, whether it is algebra in eighth grade or preparing them to enter biology as ninth graders.
When interviewing teachers, teachers frequently brought up the challenge they have in helping
students access grade-level material without lowering the level or diluting the content.
Interviewee 2, a former EL herself, shared that she finds herself being harder on her EL students
and holding even higher expectations for them than her EO students. She stated that her
reasoning behind this is, “I know they have gaps that are widening with every passing year, and
so closing those gaps before they get to high school is of paramount concern.” Interviewee 5
emphasized, “I never tell them ‘if’ you go to college, I always tell them ‘when’ you go to
college.” She shared that too often students give up on themselves if teachers don’t show them
that they are believed in their ability to succeed, “I decided a long time ago that I was going to
believe in every one of them.” She went on to explain that with EL students at the middle school
level, this can be just the push they need to motivate them to continue moving forward.
Research suggested that English Learners are often denied access to the most rigorous
academic courses (Callahan, 2005). Literature revealed that English Learners are often placed in
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 76
remedial or intervention classes due to their limited English proficiency. However, this is far
from reality based on teacher perception of providing rigor to English Learners within the
district. Schmid (2001) found that teachers who readily provided students with access to
complex curriculum and engaging content not only increased student engagement, but also
prepared students to access rigorous coursework in high school. Teachers’ beliefs that setting
high expectations and providing pathways to rigorous coursework promoting EL success aligns
with the design.
Correspondence with Research-Based Practices
Based on teacher-reported survey results, the degree to which teachers align instruction
with research-based practices varied considerably based on the individual. Due to the unique
size of the school district and confidentiality agreements, the researcher is unable to describe
individual situations. However, it is apparent that teachers perceive themselves to implement
research-based practices to varying degrees. After viewing individual responses, the researcher
created a continuum ranking teachers based on level of perceived implementation of research-
based practices. Teachers reporting zero to two research-based practices were categorized as
low. Teachers reporting three to five research-based practices were categorized as medium, and
teachers reporting six to eight research-based practices were categorized as high. This
continuum was based on what teachers perceived were practices implemented in their
classrooms, and did not take into account quality of instruction or actual classroom practice.
Two teachers fell into the low category resulting in 11%. Seven teachers were categorized as
medium resulting in 38%. Ten teachers reported utilizing six of more research-based
instructional practices resulting in 55%. These results are displayed in Figure 4.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 77
Figure 4: Teacher Perceived Practices
Summary
Routine use of Individual Plans for Student Achievement, importance of academic
vocabulary, and a consistent desire to refine current programs and processes were the major
themes uncovered by the researcher. While focus groups shed light on current practices and
consistent grade-level themes, the interviews and surveys allowed for a deeper look inside areas
of concern. Teachers perceived current district programs and processes benefit EL students.
However, those processes and programs have room for growth. Teachers consistently felt that
having a greater amount of ELD time and a more aligned format for teaching academic
vocabulary would benefit students. In addition, while the IPSAs have aided teachers in better
understanding the academic proficiency levels of ELs, providing language acquisition goals
would strengthen the IPSA process. These findings will be discussed in Chapter Five.
0
20
40
60
Low
Medium
High
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Level
of
Perceived
Implementa3on
of
Research-‐Based
Prac3ces
Teacher
Correspondence
with
Research-‐Based
Prac3ces
Percent
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 78
Chapter Five
Discussion
After conducting this study, it became clear that while teacher perceptions aligned with
much of the literature reviewed, four major aspects of the literature review mirrored the study’s
outcomes. In regards to placement of ELs and potential pitfalls, the literature reviewed revealed
both strengths and weaknesses of the district’s current structures. Lapp and Flood (2006) found
that a large number of English Learners are frequently misplaced in reading intervention
programs. This type of intervening was common practice at the studied district. Like the
literature suggested, the problematic component is that reading interventions focus on decoding
and fluency. Since the district’s primary ELs are also LTELs, this form of intervention may not
be effective since many LTELs have already mastered letter-sound patterns, clustering, and
syllables. LTELs decode unknown words, but consistently struggle with comprehending
meaning (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994). Therefore, correct placement should focus on building
academic language. There is no course currently in place designed solely to build academic
language. Often LTELs struggled alongside their English Only peers, and teachers assumed that
eventually the same instructional approaches that worked with native speakers would eventually
work with ELs. This idea proved highly ineffective and prevents ELs from receiving the proper
services necessary to succeed (August & Shanahan, 2010). Dedicated language development
and reading intervention must be done simultaneously in order to ensure measurable gains.
While the district is working toward this model, limited scheduling options and time prevents
optimal structures from being in place. Language and literacy must be built together if students
are to be successful in secondary schools (August & Shanahan, 2010).
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 79
Teachers perceived a need for ELD instruction to be explicit and intentional. Many
teachers reported the need to focus on quality and quantity of student engagement in both verbal
and written interactions aligning strongly with literature (Kinsella, 2012). Fillmore and Snow
(2000) also stressed the importance of language being modeled not only in ELD classrooms, but
across content areas. Teachers reported a need for modeling of academic language across
content areas, but also revealed an uncertainty regarding which language to model and how to
model it appropriately. In order for language modeling to take place, teachers have to possess
proficient language skills and have the ability to discuss the use of language with students.
LTELs experienced difficulty transferring everyday language into precise academic language.
Students rely on teachers to provide scaffolds that build vocabulary and have specific language
targets (Kinsella, 2012). The teachers that participated in this study acknowledged the
importance of providing scaffolds and reported regular use of scaffolding in the classroom, but
did not consistently utilize language targets. The result was many LTELs continue to speak with
verbal errors that travel with them throughout their academic career. Implementing language
targets would promote acquisition in an encouraging and positive way (Lyster, R. 2007).
Literature revealed the role teachers’ educational beliefs play in creating or denying a
positive learning environment for students. Research suggested student-centered learning
environments create productive learning environments (Minor et al., 2002). While teachers in
the studied district did not explicitly state the importance of creating student-centered
classrooms, responses implicitly assumed student-centered learning was occurring. For example,
teachers reported the importance of student collaboration, positive relationships with peers and
teachers, and an emphasis on valuing students’ backgrounds; these characteristics are each
indicators of student-centered learning environments.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 80
Teachers at the studied district also relied heavily on personal anecdotes from their
experiences as students and educators. Literature suggested that many teachers’ educational
beliefs began as students (Murphy et al., 2004). While drawing from their own backgrounds,
teachers also formed beliefs based on current educational trends. Many teachers believed that
inquiry-based learning to be crucial to engaging students in learning. Literature reviewed
suggested that inquiry-based instruction focuses on the students creating and applying new
knowledge (Harwood et al., 2006).
Forming positive student-teacher interactions was one of the most dominant beliefs held
by teachers. According to literature, positive interpersonal interactions between teachers and
students are extremely important in creating an environment conducive to learning (Anderson &
Carta-Falsa, 2002). In order to create this type of environment, students and teachers must be
open-minded and value students’ point of views (Anderson & Carta-Falsa, 2002). Presently,
many teachers reported the importance of having positive relationships with students through
displaying warmth and care. However, teachers must value the culture of English Learners and
view their academic background as a benefit rather than a deficit. This element is currently not
in place. While teachers value the students in the classroom, many teachers viewed the students’
backgrounds as a deficit. The teachers showed interest in a student’s background knowledge, but
through incorporating their background knowledge into the curriculum, the student may become
more engaged in the learning. Unfortunately, classroom teachers often viewed English Learners
as “deficient” and considered them challenges and frustrations in the classroom (Fu, 1995).
Yoon (2008) suggested that many mainstream teachers perceive their role as being responsible
for the progress of English Only students, and disregard the importance of their role in
appropriately promoting the growth of English Learners. This is not the case at the studied
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 81
district. Mainstream teachers felt an urgency to help their LTELs make gains and meet
proficiency. IPSAs played a crucial role in promoting stronger accountability amongst teachers.
Still, interactions between teachers and students can intentionally or unintentionally send positive
or negative messages to English Learners and their peers. Positive actions in response to
linguistic and cultural needs are necessary in order to encourage English Learners to participate
in their learning (Yoon, 2008). Teachers reported feeling positively towards their LTEL
students, but frustration due to time constraints and increased state accountability. Teachers
should be aware that their feelings may be felt by students, so it is important to remain positive.
Teacher perceptions of current educational practices aligned strongly with literature.
Teacher beliefs regarding effective ELD instruction continuously matched researched-based
strategies. The researcher utilized interviews and surveys to uncover teacher perceptions of
effective ELD instruction and then compared the teacher responses to literature. Since teacher
perceptions aligned with literature, one implication is that teacher beliefs may not align with
teacher practices. It is possible that a discrepancy between perception and actual classroom
practices exists. Another consideration is teachers believe in research-based practices, but may
not be fully equipped to fully implement best practices. In order to provide effective ELD
instruction, practice is necessary and refinement takes time. Since explicit ELD instruction is a
relatively new district-wide focus, full implementation takes time and results will not occur
immediately.
The district is continuously provided with research-based literature from their county
office and state mandated accountability systems. These accountability systems are designed to
monitor the progress of Long-Term English Learners and measure the percentage of students
gaining proficiency in content areas and language acquisition. The system requires large
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 82
amounts of paperwork be maintained by teachers, administrators, and county level employees.
Unfortunately, this process does little to impact the students in the classroom. Teachers have a
clear understanding of the strategies outlined in the district’s plan; however, the teacher’s
knowledge may not equate with the teacher’s actual instructional practices. Teachers may be
reporting their knowledge of educational practices rather than reporting actual perceptions of
their practices.
Limitations
There were clear limitations to this project. Since the dissertation focused on one small
district and aligned teacher perception with literature, the results may not be generalized, since
the perceptions represent a specific location. The study was specific to the people and
organization where the research occurred (Patton, 2002). Although the sample was small and the
results not generalizable, the study could easily be replicated in other districts. The treatment of
the setting was also limited as the researcher is currently a district employee. Thus, teacher
responses may have been different if the interviewer was from an outside agency. However,
because the researcher was an employee of the district, the researcher had access to key
stakeholders and the ability to access people and information not readily available to the general
public. A final limitation of the study was that the literature was chosen by the researcher, so the
researcher determined which literature was most relevant to the study. This process created a
researcher’s bias and a limited scope of literature chosen.
Further Implications and Proposed Next Steps for District
The outcome of the study revealed that teachers have a strong knowledge base regarding
research-based instructional practices. However, even with this background, English Learners
are failing to make substantial gains. An implication for the district may be that despite teacher’s
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 83
foundational understanding of practices, implementation may not be consistent when measuring
actual classroom practice. It would seem that if teachers understand research-based practices,
English Learners would be excelling at a more rapid pace. Since this occurrence is not a reality,
there are a number of considerations as to why academic and language proficiency has, to an
extent, plateaued. The first consideration is that while teachers understand research-based
practices, they may not yet feel comfortable or have the expertise to fully implement best
practices in their own classrooms. Secondly, these practices may not be consistent from year to
year. Finally, language acquisition takes time, and the process does not occur immediately.
In addition, an implication from the study is that teachers still require further professional
development and support in two main areas: academic vocabulary instruction and systematic
structures to allow for ELD time. These two categories are areas of weakness that require further
exploration. It may be that because of these gaps, student achievement is stunted. Providing
further professional development in these categories and re-structuring the school day to
incorporate more ELD instructional time would provide teachers and students with further
resources.
Finally, based on the outcomes of the study it appears that several next steps may be
beneficial to improving the ELD program. First, since many teachers reported different ways of
teaching ELs, it would benefit the district to create a tool to identify actual practices that are most
effective with Long-Term English Learners in the district. Secondly, it would benefit all
teachers to be able to conduct walkthroughs of each other’s classrooms to ensure consistency in
teaching strategies so that strong routines can be utilized from one grade level to the next.
Additionally, developing academic vocabulary lists and ensuring visibility of this vocabulary
throughout campus would help teachers know what vocabulary to focus on in and outside the
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 84
classroom. Creating an additional block of ELD time in grades four through six and selecting a
consistent ELD curriculum that corresponds with students’ CELDT level would also maximize
ELD instructional time.
Recommendations for Research
It is apparent that teacher perceptions aligned heavily with literature. Recommendations
for future study are to measure the correlation between teacher perceptions of ELD instructional
practices with actual classroom behavior. A larger sample of teachers in several districts would
also contribute depth to the research. A qualitative study would investigate further relationships
between research-based practices, teacher perception, and classroom realities. Extensions to the
study would include looking at teacher behavior in comparison to perception and comparing
different types of teachers. For example, examining teachers based on years of experience or
level of education.
While it is evident that teacher-perceived practices matched research-based literature,
English Learners have made only minimal gains. An intriguing study would be to measure EL
growth over time based on individual student growth patterns and teacher success rates in aiding
students in moving up a proficiency level on the CELDT. Once specific students and teachers
had been identified as significantly successful in making progress, observations could be
conducted to ascertain which practices were producing optimal results. This would provide data
that would allow districts to identify strong ELD teachers and look for which strategies produce
the greatest gains.
Recommendations for Practice and Conclusions
The studied district is acutely aware of the responsibility it has to serve English Learners.
Teachers of Long-Term English Learners understand that nationally, this group of students is
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 85
frequently underserved. Teachers perceived instructional strategies to be those that strengthen
academic language skills and expedite the language acquisition process. While it is evident that
the language acquisition process takes several years, teachers understood the importance of
aligning instruction and promoting use of strong academic vocabulary. Based on teacher
responses, it appears that in order to see this into fruition teachers stressed the importance of
being provided with supplemental ELD instructional time and further training opportunities.
Teacher perceptions regarding English Language Development practices within the
district were consistent with the literature design. A need for a strongly structured ELD time
block is a crucial component of ELD programs. Additionally, understanding academic language
is a gap for Long-Term English Learners across districts. Teacher recognition of this deficit is
imperative to moving forward and rectifying this situation. Further development of academic
vocabulary, both content specific and cross-content curriculum, will benefit instruction.
Perceptions across grade levels revealed a team of dedicated educators committed to the belief
that English Language Learners deserve access to the most rigorous and exceptional school
experiences offered. While teachers within this district are aware of research-based instructional
practices, there are still areas that require further attention. The district would benefit from re-
structuring student schedules to allow for maximal ELD instructional time, and classroom
instruction may improve if professional development focusing on types of academic vocabulary
was implemented and academic vocabulary lists developed. The perceptions of teachers across
the studied district convey a determination to close the achievement gap and a willingness to
implement best practices in order to ensure Long-Term English Learners make the gains
necessary to succeed.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 86
References
Allison, B. N., & Rehm, M. L. (2011). English language learners: Effective teaching strategies,
practices for FCS teachers. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 103(1).
Anderson, J. (2005). Historical context for understanding the test score gap. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press.
Anderson, L. E., & Carta-Falsa, J. (2002). Factors that make faculty and student relationships
effective. College Teaching, 50(4). 134-138.
Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In Comprehension and
Teaching: Research Reviews, Guthrie, J. (ed.) 77-117. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Arreaga-Mayer, C., & Perdomo-Rivera, C. (1996). Ecobehavioral analysis of instruction for at-
risk language-minority students. Elementary School Journal, 96, 245–258.
August, D. (2007). Developing reading and writing in second language learners: Demographic
overview. New York, NY: Center for Applied Linguistics and the International Reading
Association.
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of development for
English Language Learners. Washington, DC: Learning Disabilities Research Practice,
20 (1), 50-57.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners:
Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 87
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2008). Developing reading and writing in second-language
learners: Lessons from the Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority
Children and Youth. New York, NY: Routledge, co-published by the Center for Applied
Linguistics and the International Reading Association.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2010). Effective English literacy instruction for English learners. In
Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches. Sacramento, CA:
California Department of Education.
Bailey, A. (Ed). (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Beck, I. L. & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary
repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107(3),
251-271.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G ., & Kucan, l. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York, NY: Guildford.
Bennett, Sacha, & Ramirez, Nicolette. (2012). Accelerating English learners for college
readiness. Retrieved October 28, 2012 from
http://www.alasedu.net/resources/1/newsletters/Summer%20Newsletter/Accelerating%20
English%20Learners%20for%20College%20Readiness-%20AVID.pdf
Biemiller, A. & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating the root vocabulary growth in normative and
advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 498-520.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 88
Black, Paul, & Wiliam, Dylan. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. The Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-144, 146-148.
Brock, C. H., Lapp, D., Salas, R., & Townsend, D. (2009). Academic literacy for English
learners: High-quality instruction across content areas. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Calderón, M. (2012). Breaking through: Effective instruction & assessment for reaching English
learners. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Calderón, M., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Slavin, R. E. (1998). Effects of bilingual cooperative
integrated reading and composition on making the transition for Spanish to English
reading. Elementary School Journal, 99(2), 153-165.
Calderón, M., & Rowe, L. (2011). Preventing long-term ELs: Transforming schools to meet core
standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The
Future of Children, 21(1).
Calfee, R. C. (2004). Educational research and NCLB: A view from the past. In J. Carlson & J.
R. Levin (Eds.), Scientifically-Based Education Research and Federal Funding Agencies:
The Case of the No Child Left Behind Legislation. Greenwich CT: Information Age
Publishing.
California Board of Education. (2002). State Board of Education (SBE) Home. Retrieved
April 18, 2012, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/
California Department of Education. (2002; reposted 2009). English Language Development
Standards for California Public Schools: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/englangdevstnd.pdf
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 89
California Department of Education. (2012a). Overview of the California English Language
Development Test. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/cefceldt.asp
California Department of Education. (2012b). Facts about English learners in California –
CalEdFacts. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
Californians Together. (2008). English Learner State and Federal Accountability Systems Survey
Results. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.
Callahan, R. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn.
American Educational Research Journal, 42(2). 305-328.
Campos, D. (2008). The Hispanic English language learner. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 7(1).
Carlo, M., August, D., Mclaughlin, B., Snow, C., Dressler, C. Lippman, D., . . . White, C.
(2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English language learners in
bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188-215.
Cary, S. (2000). Working with second language learners: Answers to teachers' top ten questions.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
CDE. (2010). Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches.
Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education; CDE Press.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive
academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Chen, L. & Mora-Flores, E. (2006). Balanced literacy for English language learners, K-2.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 90
Cheung, A. & Slavin R. E. (2005). Effective reading programs for English language learners and
other language-minority students. Bilingual Research Journal 29(2), 241-267.
doi:10.1080/15235882.2005.10162835
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. V. (2009). Literacy instruction for English language
learners: A teacher's guide to research-based practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Collier, V. P., Thomas, W. P. & Tinajero, J. V. (2006). From remediation to enrichment:
Transforming Texas schools through dual language education. TABE Journal, 9(1), 23.
Coxhead, Averil. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), (Summer, 2000),
pp. 213-238.
Creswell, J. W. 2003. Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingual education and special education: Issues in assessment and
pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College Hill.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child. Phi
Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193-201.
Data Quest. (2012). Data files. Retrieved November 5, 2012, from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with Data: How high-performing
school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles, CA:
Center on Educational Governance University of Southern California.
Dutro, S. & Kinsella, K. (2010). English language development: Issues and implementation in
grades 6-12. In Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches.
Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 91
Dutro, S., & Moran, C. (2002). Rethinking English language instruction: An architectural
approach. (Unpublished) Dolson, D. P., & Massey, L. (2011). Redesigning English-
medium classrooms: Using research to enhance English learner achievement. Covina,
CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.
EdSource. (2013). The Achievement Gap in California. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/stu_achivegap.html
Ehlers-Zavala, F. (2008). Teaching adolescent English language learners. In S. Lenski and
J. Lewis (Eds.), Reading Success for Struggling Adolescent Learners. New York, NY:
Guilford Press. p. 74-89
Fairbairn, S., & Vo, S. (2010). Differentiating instruction and assessment for English language
learners: A guide for K/12 teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.
Faltis, C. & Wolfe, P. (Eds.). (1999). So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism, and ESL in the
secondary school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Feldman, K. & Kinsella, K. (2005). Narrowing the language gap: The case for explicit
vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Scholastic, Inc.
Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language?
Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics Special Report. August 23, 2000.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the
gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Fisher, D., Rothenberg, C., & Frey, N. (2008). Content-area conversations: How to plan
discussion-based lessons for diverse language learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 92
Flood, J., & Anders, P. L. (2005). Literacy development of students in urban schools: Research
and policy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, Inc.
Flores, B., & Verdugo, R. R. (2007). English-language learners: Key issues. Education and
Urban Society, 39(2), 167-193.
Fu, D. (1995). My trouble is my English: Asian students and the American dream. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Gandera, P., & Rumberger, R. (2006). Resource needs for California’s English learners. Los
Angeles, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Gandera, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, & J. Callahan, R. (2003). English language learners
in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(36).
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. M., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English
language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language
learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does and—does
not—say. American Educator, 32(2), 8-23, 42-44.
Goldenberg, C., & Coleman, R. (2010). Promoting academic achievement among English
learners: A guide to the research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Guccione, L. M. (2011). Integrating literacy and inquiry for English learners. Reading Teacher,
64(8), 567-577.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 93
Hadaway, N. L., & Young, T. A. (2006). Matching books and readers: Helping English learners
in grades K-6. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency? Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research
Institute.
Harper, C., & de Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152-162.
Harwood, W. S., Hansen, J., Lotter, C. (2006). Measuring teacher beliefs about inquiry: A
blended qualitative/quantitative instrument. Journal of Science Education & Technology,
17(1), 71-82.
Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the gap.
Thinking K-16, 3(2), 1-16.
Jetton, T. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2004). Domains, teaching, and literacy. In T. L. Jetton and
J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 15-36). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Johnson, C., Lessem, A., Bergquist, C., Carmichael, D., & Whitten, G. (2002). Disproportionate
representation of minority children in special education. Austin, TX: Texas Education
Agency.
Kinsella, K. (2012). Evidence-Based principles to guide English language development in the
common core standards era. Power Point Presentation & Resources. Claremont, CA:
Scholastic Leadership Conference. April 19, 2012.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 94
Lapp, D. & Flood, J. (2006). Where’s the phonics? Making the case (again) for integrated code
instruction. In R. D. Robinson (Ed.) Issues and innovations in literacy education.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 59-65. (Reprinted from The
Reading Teacher, 50(8), pp. 696-700. © 1997 by The International Reading Association.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, v. Supreme Court. (January 1974). Retrieved from
http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/lau.htm
LeClair, C., Doll, B., Osborn, A., & Jones, K. (2009). English language learners’ and non-
English language learners’ perceptions of the classroom environment. Psychology in the
Schools, 46(6), 568-577.
Leonard, Lawrence. (2001, Nov-Dec). From indignation to indifference: Teacher concerns about
externally imposed classroom interruptions. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(2),
103-109.
Lenski, S. D., Ehlers-Zavala, F., Daniel, M. C., & Sun-Irminger, X. (2006, Sept.). Assessing
English-language learners in mainstream classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 60(1), 24-34.
Let's Go Learn. (2012). Diagnostic Online Reading Assessment (DORA)®. Retrieved from
http://www.letsgolearn.com/lglsite/DORA_K_12/educators/
Lindholm-Leary, K. & Borsato, G. (2006). Academic achievement. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-
Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian, Educating English language learners: A synthesis of
empirical findings, pp. 176-222. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Linn, R. L. (2003, July). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations (Tech.
Rep.). Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, CRESST.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced
approach. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 95
Madrid, E. M. (2011). The Latino achievement gap. Multicultural Education, 18(3), 7.
Manyak, P. C. (2008). What's your news? Portraits of a rich language and literacy activity for
English-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 450-458.
Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement research on
what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2005). Building academic vocabulary: Teacher’s manual.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., & Crosson, A. (2008). Classroom climate, rigorous instruction and
curriculum, and students’ interactions in urban middle schools. The Elementary School
Journal, 108(4), 294-312.
Metzger, S. A., & Wu, M. J. (2008). Commercial teacher selection instruments: The validity of
selecting teachers through beliefs, attitudes, and values. Review of Educational Research,
78(4), 921-940. American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from
http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/0034654308323035
Minor, L. C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E., & James, T. L. (2002). Preservice teachers’
educational beliefs and their perceptions of characteristics of effective teachers. The
Journal of Educational Research, 96(2), 116-127.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 96
Mora, J. K. (2006). Differentiating instruction for English learners: The four-by-four model. In
T. A. Young & N. L. Hadaway (Eds.). Supporting the Literacy Development of English
Learners: Increasing Success in All Classrooms. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association, pp. 24-40.
Murphy, K., Delli, L. & Edwards, M. (2004). The good teacher and good teaching: Comparing
beliefs of second-grade students, preservice teachers, and inservice teachers. Journal of
Experimental Education, 72(2), 69-92.
National Center of Education Statistics. (2004). Retrieved on February 13, 2012 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2004077
National Council of Teachers of English. (2010). Retrieved on October 6, 2013 from
http://www.ncte.org/
Netten, A., Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2011). Predictors of reading literacy for first and
second language learners. Reading and Writing, 24(4), 413-425.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). (Public Law 107-110, 2002). United States at Large 115,
1426-2025. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for
California's long term English learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.
Olsen, Laurie, & Romero, Alicia. (2006). Supporting effective instruction for English learners.
Oakland, CA: California Tomorrow and Los Angeles County Office of Education.
Opitz, M. F., & Guccione, L. M. (2009). Comprehension and English language learners: 25 oral
reading strategies that cross proficiency levels. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 97
Reeves, J. (2009). Teacher investment in learner identity. Teaching and Teacher Education,
25(1), 34-41
Restrepo, M. A., & Towle-Harmon, M. (2008). Addressing emergent literacy skills in English
language learners. ASHA Leader, 13(13), 10.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Schmid, Carol L. (2001). Educational Achievement, Language-Minority Students, and the New
Second Generation. In Aaron M. Palas (Ed.), Currents of Thought: Sociology of
Education at the Dawn of the 21st Century, Sociology of Education [Extra Issue], pp. 71-
87. Retrieved from http://www.asanet.org/members/special/soe2001.cfm
Saunders, B., & Goldenberg, C. (2010). Research to guide English language instruction. In
Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches. Sacramento, CA:
California Department of Education.
Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring
language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners – A report to
Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction
for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 247-284.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2008, March). Understanding bias due to measures inherent to
treatments in systematic reviews in education, paper presented at the Annual Meetings of
the Society for Research on Effective Education, Crystal City, Virginia, on March 3-4,
2008.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 98
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading
comprehension. Rand Reading Study Group. Prepared for the Office of Education
Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education.
Sousa, D. A. (2011). How the ELL brain learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Interaction research in second/foreign language
classrooms. In C. Polio & A. Mackey (Eds.), Multiple Perspectives on Interaction. New
York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Spencer, T. G., Falchi, L., & Ghiso, M. P. (2011). Linguistically diverse children and educators
(re)forming early literacy policy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(2), 115-123.
Valli, Linda, & Buese, Daria. (2007, Sept.). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-
stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), pp. 519-558.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy: Value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Windschitl, M. & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer
school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture.
American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165-205
Yoon, Bogum. (2008). Uninvited guests: The influence of teachers’ roles and pedagogies on the
positioning of English language learners in the regular classroom. American Educational
Research Journal, 45(2), 495-522.
Yopp, H. K., & R. H. Yopp. 2000. Supporting phonemic awareness development in the
classroom. The Reading Teacher 54(2), 130–143.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 99
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006, January). Population profile of the United States. Race and Hispanic
origin in 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 100
Appendix A
Certified Recruitment Document
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 101
Appendix B
Information Fact Sheet for Non-Medical Research
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 102
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 103
Appendix C
Participant Interview Questions
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 104
Appendix D
Online Participant English Language Development Survey
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 105
Appendix E
Individual Plan for Student Achievement Template
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 106
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 107
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education
PDF
Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction
PDF
Examining the effectiveness of the intervention programs for English learners at MFC intermediate school
PDF
Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics
PDF
Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement
PDF
Teacher perceptions of Marzano's instructional strategies in traditional and virtual classrooms
PDF
Effective reading instruction for English learners
PDF
An investigation on the integration of science and literacy for English language learners
PDF
Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction
PDF
Factors that influence the ability of preservice teachers to apply English language arts pedagogy in guided practice
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of direct instruction intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Beliefs and perceptions of DPRK teachers of English towards CLT instruction and factors that influence program implementation
PDF
Influences that impact English language acquisition for English learners: addressing obstacles for English learners’ success
PDF
Addressing the challenges for teachers of English learners in a California elementary school using the gap analysis approach
PDF
Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study
PDF
Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement
PDF
Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment
PDF
Self-reflective practices and procedures to systematically examine reading comprehension instruction
PDF
MAT@USC and Latino English language learners
PDF
Leading conditions to support reclassification of long-term multilingual learners
Asset Metadata
Creator
Evans, Elizabeth Danielle
(author)
Core Title
Teacher perceptions of instructional practices for long-term English learners
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/06/2013
Defense Date
11/27/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
English learners,instructional practices,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher perceptions
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hentschke, Guilbert C. (
committee chair
), Labrucherie, Mary Louise (
committee member
), Rueda, Robert (
committee member
)
Creator Email
elizabee@usc.edu,mrs.suzukievans@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-233483
Unique identifier
UC11293723
Identifier
usctheses-c3-233483 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-EvansEliza-1522.pdf
Dmrecord
233483
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Evans, Elizabeth Danielle
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
Tags
English learners
instructional practices
teacher perceptions