00001.tif

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Contact Us

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UM I films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, som e thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type o f computer printer. The quality o f th is reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f the copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. A lso, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back o f the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 ASIAN BILINGUAL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAM S IN CALIFORNIA by Gay Yuen Wong A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) Copyright 1995 May 1995 Gay Yuen Wong UM I Number: 9621649 Copyright 1995 by Wong, Gay Yuen A H rights reserved. UMI Microform 9621649 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007 This dissertation, written by Qr'Ptt under the direction of h.t+.T.... Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re quirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dean of Graduate Studies Date l?.?5 DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairperson DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my maternal grandparents who taught me how to be Chinese, to my parents who taught me how to be Chinese-American and to my husband and children who taught me how to be human. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to extend my deepest gratitude to the members o f my dissertation committee, Dr. Stephen Krashen and Dr. Robert Rueda for their guidance and support. A very special thank-you goes to my Chair, Dr. Reynaldo Macias for being my mentor and my friend. I am grateful to Edmund Lee for the hours he spent helping with my data analysis and to my “support group”, Cecilia Silva, Heide Wrigley, Kathy Martin and Stephanie Taylor for being there to share laughter, tears, dreams, and hope. I want to acknowledge my sincere appreciation to my colleagues at California State University, Los Angeles, for their encouragement to finish my dissertation. A special thank-you goes to Dean Allen Mori, Dr. Alan Crawford, and Dr. Philip Chinn for their good natured prodding. Gratitude also goes to my friends, Marilynn Fong Choy, Esther Lam and Sharon Wong for being my emotional supports as well as being my “substitutes” when my family needed them. Finally, to my husband, Mike, who sometimes had to be both mother and father to our children and to Stefanie and Shannon who, while so young, tried so hard to understand why mommy could not always be there when they needed her, there are no words to adequately express my love and gratitude. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE DEDICATION.............................................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................... 1 The State o f Education in the Nation and State......................................... 1 California’s Language Classification Process.............................. 3 The National Teacher Shortage...................................................... 5 Statement o f the Problem............................................................................. 6 Research Questions...................................................................................... 7 Delimitations................................................................................................. 7 Definition o f Terms...................................................................................... 8 Organization o f the Study........................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.......................................................... 12 Introduction................................................................................................... 12 Research on bilingual education programs.................................................13 Research on the Skills and Competencies Needed for Effective Bilingual Teaching................................................................ 19 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY........................................................................... 24 Introduction.................................................................................................... 24 Selection of the Sample.................................................................................25 Development o f the Instrument................................................................... 28 Constructing Individual Items..................................................................... 28 Finalizing the Questionnaire...................................................................... 29 Data Collection............................................................................................ 30 The Research Data...................................................................................... 31 Secondary Questions for Analysis............................................................. 32 CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS................34 Introduction................................................................................................. 34 Data Analysis..................................................................................................34 Demographic Data......................................................................................... 34 PAGE Specific Skills Identified for Effectiveness.......................................... 37 Perceptions of Effectiveness of Teacher Training Programs 50 Other Beneficial Training Experiences/Resources.............................. 75 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................ 79 Summary o f the Study.............................................................................. 79 Findings.................................................................................................... 80 Discussion o f Findings........................................................................... 84 Conclusion................................................................................................ 85 Recommendations for Further Research............................................... 87 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................. 88 APPENDIXES........................................................................................................ 94 A Survey Questionnaire................................................................................ 95 v 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LIST OF TABLES Page Asian Bilingual Teachers in California by Language 27 Gender and Birthplace of Respondents by Most Fluent Language 35 Respondent’s Language by Certification 36 Competencies Needed for Effective Teaching 39 Knowledge and Competencies Ranked by Importance 42 Importance of Asian Oral Language Proficiency by Place o f Birth 44 Importance of Asian Language Native-like Fluency by Place o f Birth 45 Importance o f Asian Academic Proficiency by Place o f Birth 45 Importance o f English Oral Language Proficiency by Place o f Birth 46 Importance o f English Native-like Proficiency by Place o f Birth 47 Importance o f English Academic Proficiency by Place o f Birth 47 Importance of Bilingual Methodology by Place o f Birth 48 Importance o f Knowing Student’s Home Culture by Place o f Birth 48 V I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page Importance o f Bilingual Classroom Management by Place o f Birth 49 Ratings o f University Teacher Preparation Programs 51 Quality o f Programs by Training Areas 53 Quality o f University Teacher Preparation Programs by University Systems 55 Quality o f Training in the Understanding o f BE Theories and Practices by University Systems 57 Quality of Training in the Application of BE Theories and Practices by University Systems 58 Quality o f Training in the Understanding o f Curriculum Modification by University Systems 59 Quality of Training in the Methods of Teaching Asian Primary Language by University Systems 60 Quality of Training in the Methods in Using Asian Primary Language for Instruction by University Systems 61 Quality of Training in the Methods of Teaching ESL by University Systems 62 Quality of Training in Using Sheltered English for Instruction by University Systems 63 Quality of Training in the Incorporation o f Students’ Cultures into the Classroom by University Systems 64 Quality of Training in the Use o f Asian Primary Language Materials by University Systems 65 Vll Table Page 27 Quality o f Training in the Understanding o f Different Learning Styles by University Systems 66 28 Quality o f Training in the Management and Teaching in a Multilingual/Multidialect Classroom by University Systems 67 29 Quality o f Training in the Assessment o f English Language Proficiency by University Systems 68 30 Quality o f Training in the Assessment o f Primary Language Proficiency by University Systems 69 31 Quality o f Training in the Reclassification of Asian Students by University Systems 70 33 Quality o f Training in the Assessment o f Academic Progress by University Systems 71 33 Quality o f Training in Working with Asian Parents and Communities by University Systems 72 34 Quality o f University Teacher Preparation Programs by Language 74 35 Distribution of Settings Where Skills Were Developed 76 36 Distribution of Other Settings and Resources Where Respondents Developed Skills Needed for Teaching Asian LEP Students 78 viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The United States entered into a period o f intense educational reform in the 1980's. Schools in the country were scrutinized by a myriad o f educational commissions and task forces and were found to be failing in their charge to educate the children of this resource-rich and technologically advanced nation. A Nation at Risk, a report published in 1983 by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, found the students of the United States achieving less than their peers in other countries. The report strongly criticized teacher education. The Commissioners found teacher education curricula to be overly laden with instructional methods courses and lacking in subject matter courses. The Commission's recommendations were to raise criteria for the selection of teacher education students, to prescribe more subject area courses in the undergraduate years, and to make teacher education programs more relevant by involving master teachers in the designing o f such programs (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, pp. 30-31). The public outcry and media criticism brought forth by A Nation at Risk focused needed attention on the nation's schools and teacher education programs. Other reports followed, focusing specifically on the reform o f teacher education programs to bring about educational excellence. Two major reports in this category were Tom orrow ’s Teachers, a report by the Holmes Group, and the Carnegie Forum's A Nation 1 prepared; Teachers for the 21st Century. Both reports called for a major overhaul o f teacher education and the teaching profession. Missing from these numerous recommendations for educational and teacher education reform was a comprehensive focus on the diverse and changing student population in the United States, and the implications this change would have on the recommendations for educational reform. W hile both the Holmes and Carnegie reports voiced commitment to the recruitment and retention o f minority teachers to teach a growing minority student population in the United States (Holmes Group, 1986, p. 67; Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1985, pp. 79-83), this commitment was not reflected in their recommendations (Holmes Group, 1986, p. 94; Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1985 p. 55). Little attention was given to the diverse educational needs of ethnic and language minority students. Often, the linguistic and cultural diversity o f the students and the schools' inability to cope with such diversity are cited as major causes o f poor student achievement, yet few recommendations could be found in the reports on how to address the challenges. California, with its window to the Pacific and its borders shared by Mexico to south, has one of the most diverse populations in the nation. The public schools are microcosms of the state. School districts such as Los Angeles, San Diego, Long Beach, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno and others have large 2 numbers immigrant and refugee students who speak a variety of languages other than English. California’s State Department of Education (SDE) is required by state law to conduct a yearly language census o f all the students enrolled in public schools in grades kindergarten through twelve. In turn, each school district is required by SDE to submit a yearly language count reporting the number of students by home language and by each student’s level o f English proficiency. Students are classified by one of three labels; limited English proficient (LEP), fluent English proficient (FEP), or English only (EO). The language classification for each student is determined by an initial identification or a reclassification process. In initial identification, when a student enrolls in a school for the first time, he is given a Home Language Survey. The survey asks parents to identify the language spoken in the home by adults and children, as well as the language in which the child first learned to speak. If the student comes from an English speaking home and learned to speak English as his first language, then he would be classified as English-only (EO). Should one or more of the answers on the survey indicate a language other than English in the home, then the child is tested in both the home language and English by a state- approved oral language assessment. In addition, the child is also tested for basic skills in English. From the results o f the initial assessment process, the child will be classified as Fluent English proficient (FEP) or Limited English Proficient (LEP) according to the test scores. The difference between EO and FEP is that EO’s come from English speaking homes and have only been exposed to English. FEP students come from non-English speaking homes and may have been LEP prior to learning sufficient English skills to become “proficient”. Students who had been initially classified as LEP but had been in the schools for a period o f time may be reassessed for reclassification into FEP status. The reclassification process considers multiple criteria, involving teacher nomination, standardized test scores, oral language assessment and parental input. When all criteria have been passed, then a student originally identified as LEP is reclassified to FEP status. According to the California State Department of Education's Spring, 1990 Language Census Data, 1,483,036 students came from homes where a language other than English is spoken. O f these students, 861,531, or 15% o f the total California public school enrollment, were formally identified as limited English proficient (LEP). (DATA/BICAL Report #90-2A) Limited English proficient students in the Spanish language group is by far the most numerous with 655,097 students or approximately 75% of the total LEP student population. Asian and Pacific language groups make up approximately 19% of the statewide LEP student population. While this number appears to be small compared to Spanish, it reflects the phenomenal growth o f Asian and Pacific groups in the state during the past decade of demographic changes. 4 A national study conducted by the Tomas Rivera Center on bilingual teacher supply and demand in the United States projected a conservative shortage o f 79,880 bilingual teachers in the United States for the year 1990 and 97,140 for the year 2000. For the Asian languages, the shortage for 1990 was 3,460, with a projected shortage o f 3,790 for the year 2000 (Macias, 1989, p.22). In California, the Department o f Education reported the immediate need for 22,365 appropriately trained bilingual teachers. According to figures for the Spring of 1990, there were approximately 8,033 teachers with bilingual credentials or certificates of competence. The figures indicated a shortage o f 14,332 bilingual teachers in California. O f the shortage, 3,493 were in the Asian and Pacific languages (SDE, 1991, p.29). Many school districts in California are "minority majority" districts, where the combined percentage o f minority students surpasses that o f non-minority students. California's public school system became a "minority majority" system for the first time in 1989 when the governor announced in September of that year that the minority student enrollment had exceeded 50%. It would not be unrealistic to predict that every teacher in California will be facing a growing number o f ethnic and language minority students in their classrooms. This study is a contribution to the literature presently available in the area o f Asian bilingual teacher training research. It examined Asian American bilingual teachers' perceptions of the quality o f their teacher education programs at universities in California and their identification o f competencies needed to teach Asian LEP students. Statem ent o f the Problem Faced with the phenomenal growth o f Asian groups in the state, California school districts are in need o f teachers who are bilingual in a diverse number o f Asian languages and dialects, and who can effectively teach the growing number o f Asian LEP students in public schools. The bulk of the responsibility for recruiting and training Asian bilingual teachers falls on teacher preparation programs at the universities. It follows that the effectiveness of the teachers in the classrooms will be deemed effective if the quality of the preservice training provided by these universities are effective. Available literature shows no empirical data specifically related to the training o f Asian bilingual teachers or to the effectiveness of university teacher education programs for Asian bilingual teachers. The limited amount of available data are studies identifying competencies for Spanish/English bilingual teachers and bilingual teacher preparation programs. The assumption seemed to be that studies o f Spanish bilingual programs would be generalizable and applicable to other, non-Spanish bilingual programs. The purpose of this study was to examine Asian bilingual teachers’ perceptions concerning the quality o f their professional preparation at California universities. It also sought to find other training arenas, experiences and 6 resources, outside o f preservice, that Asian bilingual teachers have found helpful in the development o f job related skills. Specifically, the study sought to answer the following questions: 1. What specific skills do Asian bilingual teachers identify as important for effectiveness in teaching in an Asian bilingual classroom? 2. What are the Asian bilingual teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the teacher preparation programs at California universities in developing their teaching ability with Asian LEP students? 3. What other types of training, experiences and resources, outside o f pre service, do the Asian bilingual teachers identify as being helpful in the development of job related skills? Research focusing on bilingual education and bilingual teacher training for the Asian language groups is needed. This study was a start. Hopefully, the data and findings of this study will encourage others to conduct other studies o f the many problems confronting Asian bilingual teachers and programs and contribute to their solution. This study was designed with the following delimitations: 1. The sample included only those teachers who received their basic credential and/or their bilingual credentials in a California university teacher credential program. 7 2. The study involved only those teachers who were holders o f a California Bilingual Crosscultural Emphasis Credential, a Bilingual Specialist Credential or a Bilingual Certificate of Competence in one or more o f the Asian languages or dialects. No other sampling o f the Country’s Asian bilingual teachers was done. 3. The respondents were Asian bilingual teachers who were teaching in California public schools during school year 1990-91. No attempt was made to identify those who may have taught earlier and were no longer in the active teaching force. D efinition o f Terms The following terms have been used throughout this study and are defined below for common understanding. 1. Asian bilingual teacher is a teacher who holds a California Bilingual Crosscultural Emphasis Credential, a California Bilingual Specialist Credential, and/or a Bilingual Certificate of Competence in one or more o f the Asian languages or dialects. 2. Asian Lim ited English Proficient (LEP1 students are those Asian language background students who have been identified upon entry into a California school district as being non- or limited proficient in English. This designation involves a series of aural, oral, reading and writing assessments, approved by the state’s Department o f Education, in both English and the students’ primary language. 8 3. Bilingual education utilizes both English and the students’ primary language for instruction. Bilingual education programs also incorporate the students’ home cultures into the curriculum. These programs may range from quick exit programs where the primary language is removed as soon as the students have developed a minimal level o f English comprehension, to maintenance-type programs where the goal is for the students to be truly bilingual and biliterate in both languages. 4. Bilingual classrooms are classrooms where the majority o f students share a common primary language or dialect and are limited English proficient. Such classrooms are staffed by a bilingual teacher or a monolingual English teacher and a bilingual aide who share the common primary language/dialect of the LEP students. 5. Bilingual methodology refers to the ways of using two languages for instruction in order to provide comprehensible instruction for LEP and English proficient students. This includes subject area instruction and language development. 6. ESI-, methodology refers to ways of teaching English as a second language to LEP students. 7. Home culture refers to the student's dominant behavioral patterns that are typical for or usually identified or associated with his/her group, as determined by such factors as beliefs, traditions, language, etc. 8. M ultilingual classrooms are classroom where more than one non-English language or dialect exists. In many schools, Asians are treated as a homogeneous group and place together in one classroom, even though they speak very different languages or dialects. 9. P rim ary language refers to the language in which the students are most proficient. This is often the home language although not necessarily so in many o f the Asian homes. For instance, an ethnic Chinese 5th grader from Vietnam may be more fluent in Vietnamese even though the home language spoken by his parents and grandparents may be Chiuchou, a dialect of Chinese. 10. Second language in this study refers to English. 11. T eacher credential program refers to the university programs which lead towards a California basic teaching credential or a specialist credential. O rganization of the Study Chapter II presents a selected review of literature and research on bilingual education and effective bilingual teaching. Chapter III presents the research design. It describes the population sampled, procedures for the development of the survey instrument used for data collection, procedures for data gathering and treatment Chapter IV presents the findings o f the analysis of the data. 10 Chapter V presents a summary of the study, its findings, conclusions, recommendations to faculty members with responsibility for the training o f Asian bilingual teachers at the universities and suggestions for further research. 11 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction Bilingual education in US schools has been a topic o f continuous debate between bilingual education supporters and critics for over 20 years. Both camps have cited evidence, and the lack of evidence, to support their stands for or against bilingual education. The controversy has been further complicated by what is meant by "effectiveness". The US Department o f Education measures effectiveness from the standpoint o f how quickly limited English proficient students learn English and can be "mainstreamed" into all-English classrooms (Bennett, 1988, p. iii). Most bilingual education supporters define effectiveness by looking at the quality, and not the quantity, of English acquisition and all-round cognitive development (Crawford, 1989, p. 91). From these two very different definitions o f effectiveness, supporters and attackers of bilingual education have established, funded and published a growing number of research studies supporting or opposing bilingual education in the schools. While the debate continues, educators and researchers are continuing their search for more effective ways o f providing education for students who are limited English proficient. 12 The review of literature provides a basis for a better understanding o f the efforts needed to improve Asian bilingual teacher training programs. While the literature herein reviewed does not specifically focus on Asian bilingual programs or Asian bilingual teachers, it does present (1) research on the effectiveness of bilingual education programs; and (2) research on the skills and competencies needed for effective bilingual instruction. R esearch on bilingual education program s Several major studies have been completed in the last twenty years stating that bilingual programs have or have not "worked". One study evaluated federally funded Title VII bilingual programs in the United States and concluded that there had been no significant impact on the education of LEP students' achievement (AIR, 1978). The study found that the students performed at a lower level of English than those in non-bilingual programs and no difference in mathematics. The AIR findings were very different from another study's which looked at the accumulated results o f twelve studies and evaluation reports on the performance o f students in bilingual education and concluded that there were significantly positive effects of bilingual education over monolingual education for limited English proficient students (Dulay and Burt, 1979). When the US Department of Education in 1980 looked, once again, at the literature on the effectiveness of bilingual education, the AIR Report was included among 28 studies selected for review. The Department's analysts, found no 13 conclusive evidence to support the effectiveness of bilingual education (Baker and de Kanter, 1980) and recommended that the Department not mandate transitional bilingual education programs. Of the many responses to the Baker de Kanter report, Willig (1985) used meta-analysis to replicate the study, but included an even larger number of research studies in her re-analysis. Willig found that "when statistical controls for methodological inadequacies were employed, participation in bilingual education programs consistently produced small to moderate differences favoring bilingual education..." (Willig, 1985, p.269). One o f the strongest piece of research and policy analysis supporting the effectiveness o f bilingual education was a report by the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) published in 1987. GAO gathered together a panel of ten independent experts, six o f whom were recommended by the Department o f Education. By the consensus o f the panel of researchers and practitioners in the field, the report concluded firmly its support for the existing Title VII mandate for native-language instruction and rejected alternative, English-only, methods supported by then Secretary o f Education, William Bennett. In California, a number of studies were conducted on Spanish bilingual programs that stressed Spanish and English instruction, as well as language development in both languages. The studies found dramatic gains in the students' academic achievement in these programs, (California State Department of 14 Education, 1985; Krashen and Biber, 1987). These studies found that effective bilingual programs can be highly effective in reversing the pattern of minority students' academic failure (Cummins, 1989, p. 38-39). The studies cited up to this point have been evaluations o f the effectiveness o f bilingual programs. The next study looked at the effectiveness of bilingual instruction. The Significant Bilingual Instructional Features (SBIF) study was a three-year (1980-1983) descriptive study into the successful instruction o f LEP students. (Tikunoff, 1985) The study applied the findings of previous research on effective instruction and practices to bilingual education and identified five instructional features that were significant for the effective instruction o f LEP students (Tikunoff, 1985, p. 3). The study found that successful teachers o f LEP students: * use "active teaching" behaviors that were also identified as important in the effective schools research. * have classroom management strategies which allow them to organize and deliver instruction that result in positive student outcomes * integrate second language development into other subject areas, including those subjects taught in the primary language. * use and integrate information from the student's home culture in all areas of instruction to make learning more meaningful. * use both the student's primary language and second language effectively for clarification and mediation of instruction. While the first two features listed above are important for generally all successful classroom teachers, the third and fourth features, "integrating ESL into all areas of instruction" and "incorporating the children's culture into the 15 classroom" are important for any teachers o f LEP students regardless of whether the teachers are monolingual or bilingual (Macias, 1989, p. 8). "The effective use o f both languages for clarification and mediation o f instruction," is the featured unique to bilingual teachers because it specifically addressed instruction in two languages. The commonly accepted rationale for bilingual education is, by using the primary language of the child, s/he will have access to and will be able to take part in the school curriculum. At the same time, the student will be able to develop the second language at his/her rate of acquisition. While some studies concluded that the use o f the primary language takes time away from exposure to English and therefore, delays English language development (Baker and de Kanter, 1981; Glazer, 1985; Bennett, 1985), other studies find that primary language support does not interfere but enhances English acquisition (California State Department o f Education, 1981; Krashen, 1982; Cummins, 1984; Edelsky, 1986). Knowledge gained in one language is transferable to another, therefore, knowledge acquired about language use, math concepts, scientific theories, etc. may be transferable from the primary language to second language. The findings o f a study conducted in Fairfax County, Virginia support the belief that second language development is more successful when there is a strong foundation in the first language. Collier and Thomas (1987) used achievement 16 test scores of 4th, 6th, 8th, and 11th graders over a six-year period to compare rates at which children of different ages achieve second language proficiency for academic purposes. They found that LEP students who arrived in the United States between the ages of eight to eleven out-performed students who arrived at a younger age. The researchers noted that most o f the eight-to-eleven year olds had primary language literacy prior to arrival. The younger students in Colliers study had less "knowledge o f language use" information to transfer to their second language than the older ones. Edelsky (1986) in her studies of bilingual children and their bilingual writing development concluded that the belief that primary language interferes with English language development is unfounded. Her subjects' ability to talk and write Spanish did not prevent them from acquiring English. Instead, Edelsky found that they were developing both systems and applied to their English writing what they knew about Spanish writing (Edelsky, 1986, pp. 93-94). Edelsky's research supports the belief that the best way to develop language is to focus on some meaningful non-language content or task. A more recent study comparing the relative effectiveness o f English Immersion, Early-Exit Transitional and Late-Exit Transitional programs was a national, eight year longitudinal project (Ramirez and others, 1991). Known as “The Longitudinal Study”, the researchers concluded: 17 "These findings suggest that providing LEP students with substantial amounts o f instruction in their primary language does not impede their acquisition o f English language skills, but that it is as effective as being provided with large amounts o f English. O f equal importance is the finding that students who are provided with substantial amounts o f primary language instruction are also able to learn and improve their skills in other content areas as fast as or faster than the norming population, in contrast to students who are transitioned quickly into English-only instruction." (Ramirez and others, p. 36) The researchers of The Longitudinal Study gave recognition to the need to improve the quality of training programs for teachers serving language-minority students both at the universities and school district levels "so that they can provide a more active learning environment for language and cognitive skill development." (Ramirez and others, p. 40) Beyond the issue o f language in the teaching of LEP students are other issues which affect the effectiveness o f bilingual education, such as attitudes toward minority groups, status of the home language in the dominant culture, family socio-economic status, child rearing practices, self-identity and learning styles. (California State Department of Education, 1986). In a three year longitudinal study of Chicano/Latino and Chinese students in California, Wong-Fillmore found that Chinese students learned best in structured, quiet classrooms with frequent teacher interaction. The 18 Chicano/Latino students seemed to profit most from interaction with peers and were more sensitive to the quality o f teaching than were the Chinese students (National Clearing House for Bilingual Education, 1986). Studies using cooperative learning strategies for Chicano/Latino students have also found that some students benefited from peer interaction/collaboration (Kagan, 1986). Studies have found that power and status between minority and majority groups also greatly influence school performance (Cummins, 1984; Ogbu and Matute-Bianchi, 1986). Lower status and lower caste minority group students develop insecurities and ambivalence about the value of their own cultural identities, resulting in poor academic performance. Ogbu and Matute-Bianchi's study showed when such students relocate to another cultural environment and their status is increased, the poor performances were reversed. Research on the Skills and Competencies Needed for Effective Bilingual Teaching A review of the research conducted to identify effective bilingual teacher competencies and bilingual teaching showed that little empirical evidence exist in the earlier attempts o f identification (Center for Applied Linguistics, 1974; Casso, 1976; Commission on Teacher Preparation and Licensing, 1977; Acosta and Blanco, 1978). The studies were generally designed to bring together "experts in the field" for the purpose of identifying, through discussion and consensus, 19 bilingual teacher competencies. The "experts" were selected by their job titles, reputations, experiences and/or associations with other bilingual experts. One reason for relying on expert opinion and consensus during early attempts at competency identification may be the "grass roots" perception of bilingual education researchers. In the seventies, when bilingual education had little research evidence to guide the instructional treatment for LEP students, the designing and implementation o f bilingual instruction became the responsibility of the practitioners (Tikunoff, 1985). The bilingual teachers, program directors and teacher trainers were the "experts" of bilingual instruction and researchers went to them for their studies. The competencies defined by such experts were stated in a variety of ways. Some are in terms of teacher training courses (Ryan Act, 1970) and others were stated in general language, opened to broad interpretations (Acosta and Blanco, (1978). One such widely accepted set of competencies for bilingual teacher training was developed inn 1974 by the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL). CAL gathered a group o f experts in the field o f bilingual education to identify competencies for bilingual teachers. The competencies that were identified fell into eight categories: language proficiency, linguistics, culture, instructional methods, curriculum utilization and adaptation, assessment, school- 20 community relations, and supervised teaching. The Commission on Teacher Preparation and Credentialing (CTPL) in 1977 specified a set o f competencies for bilingual teachers in California. The Commission emphasized fluency in the target language, familiarity with the culture of the students and knowledge o f the primary and second language methodologies necessary to promote the achievement of language minority students. These, too, were identified by expert input In the 1980's, as bilingual education programs matured and became more established in school districts across the nation, there was a small but growing body o f empirical research on bilingual teachers and bilingual teaching. Some were dissertation studies conducted by doctoral students, while others were large research projects funded by state and national agencies. These studies have incorporated singular or multiple methods of quantitative and/or qualitative research in their designs. In her study to define competencies for effective bilingual teachers (Rodriguez,1980), the researcher used the Behavioral Event Analysis instrument to identify competencies for effective job performance. Interviews with "star" and non-star bilingual teachers were compared. The analysis yield six competency clusters which differentiated the effective elementary bilingual teacher from other bilingual teachers. They were: sociocultural knowledge, positive regard for 21 others, non- authoritarianism, pedagogic flexibility, self-confidence, and communication skills. Ybarra Paz (1980) identified bilingual competencies by using the Modified Delphi Technique for data collection. He first sent out an open-ended, questionnaire asking the respondents to generate a list of five specific competencies that bilingual teachers need. The replies given in the first questionnaire were incorporated into a second questionnaire where the respondents were asked to rate from 1 to 5 the importance o f each competency listed. His study identified six major categories o f competencies necessary for a bilingual education teacher: language; culture; assessment; classroom management techniques; theoretical and philosophical applications; and parent and community involvement. The empirical findings of Ybarra Paz and Rodriguez supported the five significant bilingual instructional features identified by Tikunoff, as well as Cummins' framework for intervention. When classrooms are well managed so that instruction is delivered effectively, when the teacher can mediate instruction in two languages, when the teacher has the knowledge of the student's culture and can incorporate that knowledge into all areas of the curriculum, when the teacher understands the theories o f primary and second language acquisition and can apply those theories for language development and academic achievement, then, 22 that teacher has the competencies necessary for effective bilingual instruction (Cummins, 1989) While the body o f research on bilingual education programs, needed skills and competencies of bilingual teachers and university bilingual teacher training programs is slowly growing, there is still too little research conducted on the education o f Asian teachers or LEP students from Asian language backgrounds. This study is an attempt to contribute to the literature presently available in the area o f Asian bilingual teacher training research. 23 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction A substantial proportion of the research conducted in the field of education involved surveys. Survey research has also been popular in studies of bilingual teachers and teaching. The advantage to conducting survey research, especially using the standardized questionnaire method, is the potential for a large sample size for data collection and the fairly simple quantification o f data for analysis. Anonymity may be built into the research design to protect the identity o f the respondents resulting in a larger percentage o f voluntary participation in the study. Most questionnaire survey studies involved descriptive analysis o f data, using measures of central tendency. Data from this type of research is a relatively quick way to obtain a large sampling of opinions from groups who are directly involved in the education of bilingual students. This chapter presents the procedures used to conduct the study. It begins with general information about the selection and characteristics o f the sample, followed by descriptions of the survey instrument, data collection techniques, research design, and statistical analysis. The purpose o f this study was to examine Asian bilingual teachers' perceptions of the quality of their professional preparation at California 24 universities. It also sought to find other training arenas, experiences and resources, outside of preservice training, that Asian bilingual teachers have found helpful in the development o f their job related skills. This study employed a survey research design using a questionnaire for data collection. The following procedures were used to conduct the survey. Selection of the Sample Subjects participating in this study were 165 California credentialed, Asian bilingual teachers who held a Bilingual Emphasis Credential, a Bilingual Specialist Credential and/or a Bilingual Certificate of Competence at the time o f the study. They were identified by using the following process: 1. The State Department of Education's 1990 DATA/BICAL reports were used to find out the total number of Asian bilingual teachers in California. Each year, the State Department o f Education compiles summaries o f each school district's LEP and FEP student counts and the status of the teachers and/or aides providing primary language instruction to such students. Teachers who have a Bilingual Emphasis Credential, a Bilingual Specialist Credential and/or a Bilingual Certificate o f Competence are identified in the reports as "CTC Bilingual Teachers" on the DATA/BICAL reports. There were a total o f 382 identified CTC Bilingual Teachers in the Asian languages providing primary language instruction in California's public schools. O f these, 220 (57.6%) were Cantonese, 56 (14.7%) were Pilipino, 46 (12.0%) 25 were Vietnamese, 34 (8.9%) were Korean, 13 (3.4%) were Mandarin, 11 (2.9%) were Japanese and 2 (0.5%) were Lao (2). (See Table 1.) (DATA/BICAL REPORT #90-9C) The next step was to find the location o f these Asian bilingual teachers. 2. The next step was to find the location o f the Asian bilingual teachers. The 382 Asian Bilingual Teachers were distributed across eleven counties in California: San Francisco, 123 (32.2%); Los Angeles, 119 (31.2%); Sacramento, 32 (8.4%); Alameda, 32 (8.4%); San Diego 22 (5.8%); and the remaining 54 (14.1%) scattered throughout Santa Clara, San Joaquin, Solano, San Mateo, Orange, and San Bemadino counties. (DATA/BICAL REPORT #90-9B) 3. DATA/BICAL Report #90-9A provided a summary count o f staff providing primary language instruction to LEP students by language by district. Again, using the numbers listed by language under the CTC Bilingual Teachers column, the researcher was able to locate the number of teachers at each district. 4. The researcher telephoned the administrators in charge of bilingual/ESL instruction for each o f the identified school districts, explained the nature and purpose of the study and requested the names and school locations o f each teacher. It was explained that the survey would be mailed directly to the teachers at their schools and that no district personnel would be involved with the mailing of the survey questionnaires. All of the districts contacted were willing to cooperate. Some districts required formal procedures involving the submission o f 26 a written proposal to the Board of Education for approval. Other districts willingly provided the information from their database after the initial telephone contact. 18 teachers could not found. 5. Using the information provided by the school districts, 364 questionnaires were sent to Asian bilingual teachers at their school sites TABLE 1 ASIAN BILINGUAL TEACHERS IN CALIFORNIA BY LANGUAGE LANGUAGE LEP STUDENTS SDE COUNT RESPONDENTS (n) (%) (n) (n) (%) Vietnamese 34,934 (4.1) 46 9 19.57 Cantonese 21,154 (2.5) 220 120 54.55 Korean 13,389 (1.6) 34 1 5 44.12 Pilipino 16,338 (1.8) 56 34 60.71 Mandarin 7,201 (0.8) 1 3 **28 215.38 Japanese 5,505 (0.6) 1 1 3 27.27 Lao 12,177 (1.4) 2 1 50.00 Total 110,698 (12.8) 382 210 54.50 Source: DATA/BICAL, California State Department of Education, 1990. ** Some of the Chinese respondents have certification in more than one language, however the DATA/BICAL only counts the language of the credential in use in a designated bilingual classroom. 27 Development of the Instrum ent An eighty-four item questionnaire was developed for the purpose o f this study. It was designed to produce two kinds of data: demographic data on the respondents in order to obtain a profile o f the Asian bilingual teacher; and data to answer the three research questions.(See Appendix A). In addition to collecting demographic data of the respondents, the following questionnaire items were generated to answer the three research questions o f the study: 1. What specific skills do Asian bilingual teachers identify as important for effectiveness in teaching in an Asian bilingual classroom? (Questionnaire items 58-66 and 77) 2. What are the Asian bilingual teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the teacher credentialing programs at California universities in preparing them to teach Asian LEP students? (Questionnaire items 41-57) 3. What other types o f training, experience settings and resources, outside o f pre-service, do the Asian bilingual teachers identify as being helpful in the development o f job related skills? (Questionnaire items 67-76) Constructing Individual H em s The initial items for the questionnaire were developed after a review of the literature relevant to effective bilingual education programs and bilingual teacher research. Many o f the items were borrowed and adapted from the Latino Teacher 28 Profile questionnaire developed by the Tomas Rivera Center (Macias, 1989). The items were modified to address Asian bilingual teachers. After the questions were written, the initial draft of the questionnaire was given to five university teacher education instructors and three district bilingual education personnel for their comments and suggestions. They were asked to comment on both the content and format of the questionnaire. Their input included suggestions for the rephrasing of items for clarity, the appropriateness of the different scales used, the inclusion or exclusion o f particular skills, the length o f the questionnaire and its physical layout. After considering each o f the suggestions given by the reviewers, the questionnaire was revised and readied for pilot testing. The pilot test was administered to five bilingual teachers from the Alhambra, Garvey and Los Angeles Unified school districts. In addition to the teachers, the pilot test was also given to the bilingual director of the Modesto Unified School District and the Coordinator of Asian Programs o f the Los Angeles Unified School District. The seven participants were again asked to give their comments and suggestions relating to the content and format of the questionnaire. Finalizing the Questionnaire The final version o f the questionnaire was developed based upon the comments and suggestions gathered from professional input and the field testing. 29 It is an eight page questionnaire with 83 close-ended items and one open- ended item. The instrument required approximately 20 to 25 minutes to complete. The questionnaire was organized into six parts: (1) Introduction, (2) Background Information, (3) Professional Experience, (4) Schooling and Credential Information, (5) University Preparation Program, and (6) Job Satisfaction. The introduction presented an explanation of the purpose o f the research study, provided instructions for answering the questions and assured the respondents of anonymity. The first item on the questionnaire served as a "screener" to ensure that only data from Asian bilingual teachers were analyzed. The questionnaire was designed using Survey Pro 1.01 (Apian Software, 1991), a computer software program specifically designed for survey research. The program allows the user to develop survey questionnaires, input data using the same file, conduct simple descriptive analysis o f data, and generate summary reports with tables and bar graphs. D ata Collection After the Asian bilingual teachers were identified in each school district by name and by school, the information was entered into a data base to generate sets o f mailing labels. A questionnaire was mailed to every name provided by the school districts. Included in the initial mailout was a self-addressed, stamped envelope for the purpose o f returning the completed questionnaire. Two weeks 30 after the initial mailing, reminder postcards were sent to all o f the 364 identified Asian bilingual teachers on the original mailing roster. O f the 364 questionnaires sent, 192 (53%) were returned. Twenty seven questionnaires were eliminated, including 23 that indicated no bilingual credential or certificate and 4 indicating only a Language Development Specialist Certificate. 165 (45%) o f the returned questionnaires were included for analysis. (See Appendix B). The Research Data Responses from each returned questionnaire were entered into the computer software program. Once data were entered, results were organized for analysis according to their relationship to the three research questions: 1. What specific skills do Asian bilingual teachers identify as important for effectiveness in teaching in an Asian bilingual classroom? (Questionnaire items 58-66 and 77) 2. What are the Asian bilingual teachers' perceptions of the effectiveness of the teacher preparation programs at California universities in preparing them to teach Asian LEP students? (Questionnaire items 41-57) 3. What other types o f training, experience settings and resources, outside o f pre-service, do the Asian bilingual teachers identify as being helpful in the development of job related skills? (Questionnaire items 67-76) 31 Items were first analyzed and reported using frequency distributions, averages and rankings according to their relationship to each of the research questions. Preliminary analysis of the data uncovered information that pointed to the need for a second level of analysis, seeking possible patterns and relationships between variables. Four additional questions were generated from the primary set o f research for further analysis. 1. Do the responses o f the foreign-bom and US bom respondents differ significantly in their assessment o f the importance of each of the skills needed for effective instruction in an Asian bilingual classroom? 2. Was there a significant difference in the respondents' evaluation of how well the universities did in preparing them to be effective teachers of Asian LEP students, by university systems? 3. Was there a significant difference in the respondents' evaluation of how well the universities did in preparing them to be effective teachers o f Asian LEP students, by language groups? In order to do the cross tabulations, data which were stored in the SurveyPro program were converted into an ASCII file and transferred to a DBASE 3 file using an IBM personal computer. A total of sixty-four (64) numeric fields were created for this new file. The sixty-four fields were created to match those survey questions with a "fixed" choice response. Field 64 was created to analyze the responses from respondents bom within and outside the 32 United States. The personal computer version of SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was then utilized to read the DBASE3 file. All the data from the DBASE3 file were converted into a compressed SPSS data file. All subsequent data analyses for this study were then conducted using the SPSS on an IBM personal computer. Every session involving data analysis was saved to an output listing file and printed. Chapter IV presents the findings o f the three research questions and the follow-up questions presented above. 33 CHAPTER4 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Introduction This chapter presents the data gathered and analyses o f the findings o f this study. It is organized according to the demography information provided by the respondents and data related to the three research questions guiding this descriptive study. Each research question is stated, then followed by a narrative summary o f the responses to the items o f the questionnaire that answered the stated research question. The frequency counts and percentage responses to each question surveyed are presented under each research question. Following the descriptive findings are the results of cross tabulations of questions related to the three research questions. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Data Analysis The demographic data were gathered from the answers to questions 2-37. These data provided information on the characteristics o f the subjects o f the study, and, therefore, also the Asian bilingual teachers o f California Responses were received from 165 persons, representing 43% o f the universe. O f the 165 respondents, 138 (83.6%) were female, 26 (15.8%) were male and one did not indicate gender. 46 (27.9%) respondents were bom in the United States and 119 (72.1%) were bom overseas. 105 (63.6%) of the respondents identified Cantonese as their most fluent non-English language, 26 34 (15.8%) identified Pilipino, 11 (6.7%) Mandarin, 11 (6.7%) Korean, 9 (5.5%) Vietnamese, 2 (1.2%) Japanese and 1 (0.6%) Lao. (See Table 2) TABLE 2 GENDER AND BIRTHPLACE OF RESPONDENTS BY MOST FLUENT LANGUAGE LANGUAGE GENDER PLACE OF BIRTH Total M F NA Overseas U.S. Vietnamese 9 6 3 0 9 0 Cantonese 105 1 3 91 1 62 43 Korean 1 1 1 10 0 1 1 0 Pilipino 26 3 23 0 26 0 Mandarin 1 1 2 9 0 10 1 Japanese 2 0 2 0 0 2 Lao 1 1 0 0 1 0 Total 165 26 138 1 119 46 The 165 respondents hold a total of 207 bilingual credentials and/or certificates. Some held multiple types o f certificates while others held certificates in multiple languages. There were 118 ( 57%) Bilingual Certificates of Competence, 55 (26.6%) Bilingual Specialist Credentials and 34 16.4%) Bilingual Emphasis Credentials. 35 While DATA/BICAL Reports counted only 13 Mandarin bilingual teachers, 25 o f the respondents identified Mandarin as the language of their bilingual credential. This discrepancy could be explained by reviewing the process by which school districts report their bilingual teacher count to the State DOE. The numbers reported to the state only identified those teachers serving in designated bilingual classrooms who hold a bilingual credential. Therefore, the report showed 13 credentialed Mandarin bilingual teachers serving in Mandarin bilingual classrooms. The figure did not include those Cantonese teachers teaching in Cantonese bilingual classroom who are bi-dialectal and also hold Mandarin credentials (See Table 3). TABLE 3 RESPONDENTS LANGUAGE BY CERTIFICATION LANGUAGE BEC BSC BCC (n) TOTAL (%) Vietnamese 0 1 8 9 ( 4.3) Cantonese 22 27 71 120 (57.0) Korean 4 2 9 1 5 ( 7.1) Pilipino 7 16 1 1 34 (16.2) Mandarin 3 7 18 28 (13.3) Japanese 0 2 1 3 ( 1.4) Lao 1 0 0 1 ( 0.4) Total 34 55 118 210 (100.0) Codes:BEC=Bilingual Emphasis Credential, BSC=Bilingual Specialist Credential, BCC= Bilingual Certificate of Competence 36 Answers from 165 respondents provided the data to answer the following research questions: 1. What specific skills do Asian bilingual teachers identify as important for effectiveness in an Asian bilingual classroom? 2. What are the Asian bilingual teachers' perceptions o f the effectiveness of the teacher preparation programs at California universities in developing their teaching ability? 3. What other types o f training experience settings and resources outside of preservice, do the Asian bilingual teachers identify as helpful in their work as bilingual teachers? Specific Skills Identified for Effective Asian Bilingual Teachers The first research question sought to identify the specific skills which Asian bilingual teachers believed to be important for effective teaching in an Asian bilingual classroom. Questions 58 through 66 presented to the respondents nine pre-identified skills and competencies for consideration. The respondents were asked to judge each of the nine skills as either very important, somewhat important, not very important, or not necessary for an effective Asian bilingual teacher. The nine items were: 1) Oral language proficiency in the Asian language 2) Native-like fluency in the Asian language 3) Academic proficiency/literacy in the Asian language 4) Oral language proficiency in English 5) Native or native-like fluency in English 37 6) Academic proficiency/literacy in English 7) Knowledge of bilingual methodology 8) Knowledge of students' home culture(s) 9) Ability to manage a bilingual/multilingual classroom Table 4 presents the frequency counts and percentage responses for questions 58 through 66. A cursory look at the table shows that for all the skills, the responses VI (Very Important) had the highest frequency. For “academic proficiency/literacy in the Asian language”, however, the Vi's were only slightly higher than the Si's (Somewhat Important). This indicates that all the pre identified skills were judged by the respondents as very important. This result confirms the findings o f earlier research on the importance of these skills for bilingual teachers' effectiveness as cited in the review o f literature. The table further shows the order in which the skills/competencies were assessed by the respondents as "very important". Highest in the order are oral English proficiency where 150 respondents (90.0%) selected that skill as "very important". English academic proficiency/literacy was identified by 141 (85.5%) o f the respondents as very important while 138 (83.6%) of the respondents rated the ability to organize and manage a bilingual classroom as very important. Following those items are the knowledge of bilingual methodology, 126 (76.4%), native or native-like fluency in English, 125 (75.6%), oral proficiency in the native language, 120 (72.7%), knowledge of students' home culture(s) 120 (72.7%). Lowest in order are native or native-like fluency in the primary 38 TABLE 4 COMPETENCIES NEEDED FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHING VI SI NVI NN NA n n n n n COMPETENCIES (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Av* 1) English Oral 150 1 1 0 0 4 1.07 Proficiency (90.9) (6.7) (0.0) (0.0) (2.4) 2) English Academic 141 1 9 1 0 4 1.13 Proficiency (85.5) (11.5) (0.6) (0.0) (2.4) 3) Classroom 138 24 0 0 3 1.15 Managementt (83.6) (14.5) (0.0) (0.0) (1.8) 4) Bilingual 126 33 2 0 4 1.23 Methodology (76.4) (20.0) (1.2) (0.0) (2.4) S) English Nativelike 125 30 6 0 4 1.26 Fluency (75.8) (18.2) (3.6) (0.0) (2.4) 6) Students' 120 42 0 0 3 1.26 Culture (72.7) (25.5) (0.0) (0.0) (1.8) 7) Asian Oral 120 34 6 0 5 1.29 Proficiency (72.7) (20.6) (3.6) (0.0) (3.5) 8) Asian Nativelike 80 63 16 2 4 1.63 Fluency (48.5) (38.2) (9.7) (1.2) (2.4) 9) Asian Academic 66 63 25 5 6 1.81 Proficiency (40.0) (38.2) (15.2) (3.0) (3.6) * Averages do not include missing answers. ** Codes (values): VI =Very important (1) SI =Somewhat important (2) NVI=Not very important (3) NN =Not necessary (4) NA =No answer (5) 39 language, 80 (48.5%) and Asian academic proficiency/literacy 66 (40.0%). In both English and Asian languages, oral proficiency is higher in order than academic/literary proficiency and native-like fluency. Question 77 provided an open-ended opportunity for the respondents to identify the three most important skills they believe Asian bilingual teachers must have in order to be effective. Unlike questions 58 through 66, question 77 did not asked the respondents to evaluate pre- selected skills and competencies. Instead, they were presented with an open-ended question. It should be noted here that there are apparent duplications and some ambiguities in the terms used by the respondents in identifying the skills. This is a limitation of the open-ended method of questioning. Table 5 presents the frequency and percentage scores for all o f the responses, therefore, it is compiled by the overlapping of 3 frequency distributions. It is also important to remember that each item in the listing on the table below is considered by at least one respondent as among the three most important skills that a teacher should have to be effective in the teaching of Asian LEP students. In their opinion, therefore, all of the skills lists in Table 5 are very important. Table 5 shows that the respondents most frequently cited Classroom management skills (30.9%) and knowledge o f the students' home cultures (24.8%) as the two top answers. Primary language proficiency (20.6%) or bilingualism 40 (20.6%) were tied for third place. Since "Bilingualism" is understood to refer to the ability to use two languages proficiently, the proficient use of English and the Asian language in this case, are embodied in the term. The fact that "primary language proficiency" ties with "bilingualism" seems to be an underscoring o f the need for proficiency in an Asian language at the time when the students are learning their new language, English. Comparing the items in Table 4 with those in Table 5, it is interesting to note that only 5 items in the 9-item list appear in the second list. The items "English academic proficiency," "native-like fluency in English," "Asian language academic proficiency," and "Asian language native-like fluency," are not found in the second list. This means that while the respondents considered these four items very important, they did not regard them as among the three most important ones. It should also be noted that the remaining 5 items in Table 4: oral English proficiency, classroom management, bilingual methodology, knowledge o f students' cultures and oral proficiency in the Asian language" appear among the 10 top items in the second listing. This indicates agreement in the two sets o f responses. Also, in comparing Tables 4 and 5, when the respondents were asked to rate the importance of specific skills, 90.9 percent o f the respondents felt that oral English proficiency was very important. 85.5 percent of the respondents indicated that they though English academic proficiency was very important, making that 41 skill second in the ranking. Yet, when the respondents were asked to list the three skills most necessary for effective Asian bilingual teachers to have, only 13.3 percent cited English proficiency. TABLE S KNOWLEDGE AND COMPETENCIES RANKED BY IMPORTANCE KNOWLEDGE/COMPETENCIES n % Classroom Management 51 30.9 Student's Home Culture 41 24.8 Bilingualism 34 20.6 Primary Language Proficiency 34 20.6 Multiculturalism 33 20.0 Bilingual Methodology 30 18.2 Interpersonal Skills 29 17.6 ESL Methodology 22 13.3 English Proficiency 22 13.3 Effective Teaching 17 10.3 Curriculum Implementation 16 9.7 Oral Asian Language Proficiency 1 5 9.1 Knowledge of Learning Styles 1 4 8.5 General Methodology 1 2 7.3 Assessment 7 4.2 Oral English Proficiency 7 4.2 Working with Parents 3 3.6 Bilingual Theories 5 3.0 Curriculum Modification 3 1.8 Working with Paraprofessionals 3 1.8 Biculturalism 2 1.2 Knowledge of Reclassification 1 0.6 No Answer 6 12.1 42 A puzzling difference between the two sets o f answers is in the ranking of primary language skills. In the first set o f questions, Asian oral proficiency, Asian native-like fluency and Asian academic proficiency were ranked in the bottom three o f nine skills. However, bilingualism and primary language proficiency were the third and fourth most often cited, with 20.6 percent o f the respondents listing those among the three most important skills to have. Because o f the differences in the answers related to language skills, it was felt that a search for possible patterns o f differences might yield interesting results. An additional question, "Do the responses o f the foreign-bom and US bom respondents differ significantly in their assessment of the importance of skills needed for effective instruction in an Asian bilingual classroom?" was generated for that purpose. Tables 6 through 14 present the results of the cross- tabulations o f each of the nine skills and the respondents' place o f birth. The findings indicated four statistically significant items: 1) Asian oral language proficiency; 2) Asian Native-like fluency; 3) Asian academic proficiency, and 4) Bilingual methodology. While 98% of the overseas respondents rated Asian Oral Language Proficiency as "Very Important", only 47.8% of the US bom respondents gave it the highest level of importance. (See Table 6) 43 TABLE 6 IMPORTANCE OF ASIAN ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY BY PLACE OF BIRTH ** BIRTHPLACE VI SI NVI NN NA Row Total US 22 19 3 0 2 46 (47.8) (41.3) (6.5) (0.0) (4.3) (27.9) Overseas 98 1 5 3 0 3 119 (82.4) (12.6) (2.5) (0.0) (2.5) (72.1) Column Total 120 34 6 0 5 165 ** Significant at 0.05 (72.7) (20.6) (3.6) (0.0) (3.0) (100.0) On the importance of having Asian Native-like Fluency, 59.7% o f the overseas group rated it as "Very Important" while only 19.6% of the US group gave it the "Very Important" rating. (See Table 7) For Asian Academic Proficiency, 52.1% of the overseas respondents and only 8.7% of the US ones rated that proficiency as "Very Important". (See Table 8) Assuming that the respondents bom overseas would have higher levels of proficiency in the primary languages, it would be understandable that they, as a group, would rate primary language skills more importantly than the US bom respondents. This difference in the two groups' views o f the importance of primary language carried over to the importance they placed on the knowledge of 44 TABLE 7 IMPORTANCE OF ASIAN LANGUAGE NATIVE-LIKE FLUENCY BY PLACE OF BIRTH ** BIRTHPLACE VI SI NVI NN NA Row Total US 9 27 7 1 2 46 (19.6) (58.7) (15.2) (2.2) (4.3) (27.9) Overseas 71 36 9 1 2 119 (59.7) (30.3) (7.6) (0.8) (1.7) (72.1) Column Total 80 63 16 2 4 165 *'"Significant at 0.05 (48.5) (38.2) (9.7) (1.2) (2.4) (100.0) TABLE 8 IMPORTANCE OF ASIAN ACADEMIC PROFICIENCY BY PLACE OF BIRTH ** BIRTHPLACE VI SI NVI NN NA Row Total US 4 20 16 3 3 46 (8.7) (43.5) (34.8) (6.5) (6.5) (27.9) Overseas 62 43 9 2 3 119 (52.1) (36.1) (7.6) ( 1.7) (2.5) (72.1) Column Total 66 63 25 5 6 165 (40.0) (38.2) (15.2) (3.0) (3.6) (100.0) """Significant at 0.05 45 Bilingual Methodology (the ability to deliver instruction in both languages), where 82.4% o f the overseas-born group gave it a VI whereas only 60.9% of the US-born group did so. (See Tables 12) TABLE 9 IMPORTANCE OF ENGLISH ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY BY PLACE OF BIRTH BIRTHPLACE VI SI NVI NN NA Row Total US 42 2 0 0 2 4 6 (91.3) (4.3) (0.0) (0.0) (4.3) (27.9) Overseas 108 9 0 0 2 119 (90.8) (7.6) (0.0) (0.0) (1.7) (72.1) Column Total 150 1 1 0 0 4 165 (90.9) (6.7) (0.0) (0.0) (2.4) (100.0) (Not significant) 46 TABLE 10 IMPORTANCE OF ENGLISH NATIVE-LIKE FLUENCY BY PLACE OF BIRTH BIRTHPLACE VI SI NVI NN NA Row Total US 40 4 0 0 2 46 (87.8) (8.7) (0.0) (0.0) (4.3) (27.9) Overseas 85 26 6 0 2 119 (71.4) (21.8) (5.0) (0.0) (1.7) (72.1) Column Total 125 30 6 0 4 165 (Not significant) (75.8) (18.2) (3.6) (0.0) (2.4) (100.0) TABLE 11 IMPORTANCE OF ENGLISH ACADEMIC PROFICIENCY BY PLACE OF BIRTH BIRTHPLACE VI SI NVI NN NA Row Total US 41 3 0 0 2 46 (89.1) (6.5) (0.0) (0.0) (4.3) (27.9) Overseas 100 16 1 0 2 119 (84.0) (13.4) (0.8) (0.0) (1.7) (72.1) Column Total 141 19 1 0 4 165 (Not significant) (85.5) (11.5) (0.6) (0.0) (2.4) (100.0) 47 TABLE 12 IMPORTANCE OF BILINGUAL METHODOLOGY BY PLACE OF BIRTH ** BIRTHPLACE VI SI NVI NN NA Row Total US 28 1 4 2 0 2 46 (60.9) (30.4) (4.3) (0.0) (4.3) (27.9) Overseas 98 1 9 0 0 2 119 (82.4) (16.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.7) (72.1) Column Total 126 33 2 0 4 165 (76.4) (20.0) (1.2) (0.0) (2.4) (100.0) ** Significant at 0.05 TABLE 13 IMPORTANCE OF KNOWING STUDENTS' HOME CULTURE BY PLACE OF BIRTH BIRTHPLACE VI SI NVI NN NA Row Total US 30 14 0 0 2 46 (65.2) (30.4) (0.0) (0.0) (4.3) (27.9) Overseas 90 28 0 0 1 119 (75.6) (23.5) (0.0) (0.0) (0.8) (72.1) Column Total 120 42 0 0 3 165 (Not significant) (72.7) (25.5) (0.0) (0.0) (1.8) (100.0) 48 TABLE 14 IMPORTANCE OF BILINGUAL CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT BY PLACE OF BIRTH BIRTHPLACE VI SI NVI NN NA Row Total US 34 10 0 0 2 46 (73.9) (21.7) (0.0) (0.0) (4.3) (27.9) Overseas 104 1 4 0 0 1 119 (87.4) (11.8) (0.0) (0.0) (0.8) (72.1) Column Totals 138 24 0 0 3 165 (Not significant) (83.6) (14.5) (0.0) (0.0) (1.8) (100.0) The analysis involving English Oral Language Proficiency and English Academic Proficiency were not statistically significant. Neither were the items on the Knowledge o f the Students' Home Culture and Bilingual Classroom Management. Interestingly, English Native-like Fluency was almost significant (.0574) with 87.8% of the US group rating it as "Very Important" and 75.8% of the overseas group giving it that highest rating. In fact, 5% o f the overseas respondents felt that Native-like Fluency was even "Not Very Important." In conclusion, the respondents considered as “very important” the following skills: 1) English oral proficiency; 2) English academic/literacy proficiency; 3) The ability to manage a bilingual/multilingual classroom; 4) Bilingual methodology; 5) Native-like fluency in English; 6) Knowledge o f the students' home cultures; and 7) Asian oral proficiency. 49 The respondents identified the four most important skills to be: 1) The ability to manage a bilingual/multilingual classroom; 2) Knowledge of students' home cultures; 3) Bilingualism; and 4) Primary language proficiency. There are significant differences between the responses o f foreign-bom respondents and the US-born relative to the importance of the primary (Asian) language. Four o f the cross-tabulations yielded statistically significant differences. Theses were: 1) Asian oral language proficiency; 2) Native-like fluency in the Asian language; 3) Asian academic proficiency; and 4) Bilingual Methodology. While the foreign- bom respondents perceived all four items as "very important", US-bom teachers tended not to rate these items highly. Perceptions of Effectiveness of Teacher Training Programs The second research question sought to determine whether or not Asian bilingual teachers perceived the universities as successful in preparing them to be effective teachers of Asian LEP students. Questions 41 through 57 were designed to answer this research question. First, question 41 asked the respondents to evaluate, overall, how well their university programs prepared them to be teachers o f Asian LEP students. The respondents were asked to indicate on a four point scale how well the university was able to do this by marking each item either: very well, well, not well and not at all. Table 15 shows the results. 50 TABLE 15 RATINGS OF UNIVERSITY TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS RATINGS n (%) Very well 16 ( 9.7) Well 34 ( 20.6) Not well 65 ( 39.4) Not at all 31 ( 18.8) No answer 19 ( 115) TOTAL 165 (100.0) O f the 165 respondents, only 50 (30.3%) felt that the university prepared them very well or well, 96 (58.2%) felt that the universities did not do a good job, while 19(11.5%) did not give an opinion. O f those who responded to the question, nearly twice as many felt that their university training programs did not adequately prepare them to teach Asian LEP students as to those who did. In order to obtain more detailed information as to which specific areas the universities excelled or did not do as well in the training of Asian bilingual teachers, the respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of their university programs' in sixteen areas. Questions 42 through 57 focused on sixteen training areas that have been identified in the review of research as significant features of bilingual programs. The respondents were asked to evaluate on a four point scale how well their universities prepared them in each o f the areas. 51 The sixteen training areas were: 1) Understanding o f bilingual education theories and practices 2) Application o f bilingual theories and practices in the classroom 3) Knowing how to modify and adapt curriculum for LEP Asian students 4) Methods of teaching primary language development in one or more Asian languages 5) Methods of using primary language for instruction 6) Methods o f teaching English as a second language 7) Using sheltered English for instruction 8) Knowing how to incorporate the students' cultures into the classroom curriculum 9) Knowing how to use primary language materials for instruction 10) Understanding of different learning styles o f diverse Asian groups 11) Knowing how to manage and teach in a multilingual classroom setting (where several languages/dialects are present in one classroom) 12) Knowing how to assess English language proficiency of Asian students 13) Knowing how to assess primary language proficiency of Asian students 14) Knowing when to reclassify/redesignate Asian students from LEP to FEP status. 15) Knowing how to assess the academic progress of Asian LEP students 16) Knowing how to work with Asian parents and communities to improve student academic achievement Table 16 represents each o f the training areas with the corresponding frequency counts and percent distributions. As seen on Table 16, the respondents felt that the universities did not do well in preparing them to teach Asian LEP students, as indicated in fifteen o f the sixteen identified training areas. 52 TABLE 16 QUALITY OF PROGRAMS BY TRAINING AREAS AREAS 1 2 3 4 NA AV 1) Understand 27 44 38 31 25 2.52 BE Theories (16.4) (26.7) (23.0) (18.8) (15.2) 2) Teach 22 45 45 28 25 2.56 ESL (13.3) (27.3) (27.3) (17.0) (15.2) 3) Incorp. 20 34 57 28 26 2.67 Cultures (12.1) (20.6) (34.5) (17.0) (15.8) 4) Sheltered 17 40 43 36 29 2.72 English (10.3) (24.2) (26.1) (21.8) (17.6) 5) Apply 20 33 49 38 25 2.75 BE Theories (12.1) (20.0) (29.7) (23.0) (15.2) 6) Modify 16 32 41 52 24 2.91 Curriculum (9.7) (19.4) (24.8) (31.5) (14.5) 7) Second Lang 1 1 34 40 52 28 2.97 Assessment (6.7) (20.6) (24.2) (31.5) (17.0) 8) Learning 15 21 53 49 27 2.99 Styles (9.1 (12.7) (32.1) (29.7) (16.4) 9) Assess Acad. 1 2 34 33 59 27 3.01 Progress (7.3) (20.6) (20.0) (35.8) (16.4) 10) Teach the 1 5 22 41 57 30 3.04 Asian Lang. (9.1) (13.3) (24.8) (35.5) (18.2) 11) Teach in 1 5 21 43 58 28 3.05 Asian Lang. (9.1) (12.7) (26.1) (35.2) (17.0) 12) Teach w/Asn 1 3 24 40 60 28 3.07 Materials (7.9) (14.5) (24.2) (36.4) (17.0) 13) Multi-ling 14 24 38 61 28 3.07 Classroom (8.5) (14.5) (23.0) (37.0) (17.0) 14) Reclassify 12 29 34 63 27 3.07 LEP Stud'ts (7.3) (17.6) (20.6) (38.2) (16.4) 15) Working w/ 1 5 25 32 66 27 3.08 LEP Parents (9.1) (15.2) (19.4) (40.0) (16.4) 16) Asian Lang. 1 2 26 36 64 27 3.10 Assessment (7.3) (15.8) (21.8) (38.8) (16.4) Code: l=Excellent, 2=Good, 3=Fair, 4=Poor, NA=No answer, AV=Average 53 The universities were judged as doing a "Good" to "Fair" job in the training o f teachers in "Understanding bilingual education theories and practices" and "Methods o f teaching English as a second language" with average scores of 2.52 and 2.56 respectively. However, in eight out o f the sixteen training areas, the universities were judged as doing less than a fair job. The two lowest ratings were in the areas o f "Working with parents and community to help Asian LEP students improve academic achievement" (3.08) and "Knowing how to assess primary language proficiency o f Asian students" (3.10). To find out if there are significant differences in the way the different university systems were rated, a cross-tabulation was made of the three university systems with question 41. (See Table 17) The cross-tabulation yielded significant results at the .05. The table shows that the category "Other" was rated higher than either the CSU or UC systems. According to the data collected, there were 30 respondents who checked "Other" in answer to the survey item on university systems. O f the thirty, five (16.6%) were from the University o f Southern California (USC), fifteen (50%) were from the University o f San Francisco (USF) two (6.7%) were from the University of the Pacific (UOP). These are private universities. Eight (26.7%) did not identify a specific university. It is important to note that all three of the identified private universities have had ESEA Title VII funds supporting teacher training programs in one or 54 more Asian language. USC had programs for the training of Cantonese, Mandarin, Korean and Japanese bilingual teachers. UOP had programs for Cantonese, Mandarin and Pilipino. USF had provided bilingual teacher training programs for Pilipino, Cantonese and Japanese. It would seem that these federally-funded training programs had helped the private universities to provide more effective training programs for Asian bilingual teachers. TABLE 17 QUALITY OF UNIVERSITY TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS** IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total CSU 6 23 51 21 1 1 112 (5.4) (20.5) (45.5) (18.8) (9.8) (67.9) UC 2 3 6 7 2 20 (10.0) (15.0) (30.0) (35.0) (10.0) (12.1) OTHER 7 8 7 3 5 30 (23.3) (26.7) (23.3) (10.0) (16.7) (18.2) No Response 1 0 1 0 1 3 (33.3) (0.0) (33.3) (0.0) (33.3) (1.8) Column Total 16 34 65 31 1 9 165 (9.7) (20.6) (39.4) (18.8) (11.5) (100.0) ** Significant at .05 Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 55 The university systems were also cross-tabulated with each of the 16 training areas to determine if there were significant differences in each area. For these analyses, significance levels were set at .05. Tables 18-33 present the results. The cross-tabulations show that there were seven items that yielded significant differences. These items are: 1) Understanding of curriculum modification for Asian LEP students (Table 20); 2) Methods o f teaching primary language development in one or more Asian languages (Table 21); 3) Using Asian primary language for instruction (Table 22); 4) Ways of incorporating the students' culture into the classroom (Table 25); 5) understanding o f different learning styles (Table 27); 6) Managing a multilingual/multicultural classroom (Table 28); and 7) Assessment of primary language proficiency o f Asian LEP students (Table 30). Three o f these seven areas involved the Asian language; the teaching of primary language development, methodologies using primary language for instruction and assessment o f primary language proficiency of Asian LEP students. Two other areas involved familiarity with socio-cultural aspects o f Asian students. They were training in the ways o f incorporating the students' culture into the classroom and understanding o f different learning styles. The final two significant training areas involved a combination o f language and socio 56 cultural knowledge o f how to manage and teach in a multi- lingual/multidialect classroom, and understanding of curriculum modification for Asian LEP students. TABLE 18 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION THEORIES AND PRACTICES BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total CSU 1 5 30 32 21 14 112 (13.4) (26.8) (28.6) (18.8) (12.5) (67.9) UC 2 5 1 7 5 20 (10.0) (25.0) (5.0) (35.0) (25.0) (12.1) OTHER 9 9 5 2 5 30 (30.0) (30.0) (16.7) (6.7) (16.7) (18.2) No Response 1 0 0 1 1 3 (33.3) (0.0) (0.0) (33.3) (33.3) (1.8) Column Total 27 44 38 31 25 165 (16..4) (26.7) (23.0) (18.8) (15.2) (100.0) (Not significant) Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 57 TABLE 19 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN THE APPLICATION OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION THEORIES AND PRACTICES BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total CSU 1 1 21 40 26 14 112 (9.8) (18.8) (35.7) (23.2) (12.5) (67.9) UC 3 2 2 8 5 20 (15.0) (10.0) (10.0) (40.0) (25.0) (12.1) OTHER 6 9 7 3 5 30 (20.0) (30.0) (23.3) (10.0) (16.7) (18.2) No Response 0 1 0 1 1 3 (0.0) (33.3) (0.0) (33.3) (33.3) (1.8) Column Total 20 33 49 38 25 165 (12.1) (20.0) (29.7) (23.0) (15.2) (100.0) (Not Significant) Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 58 TABLE 20 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF CURRICULUM MODIFICATION BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS ** IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total CSU 7 (6.3) 20 (17.9) 35 (31.3) 37 (33.0) 13 (11.6) 112 (67.9) UC 2 (10.0) 2 (10.0) 1 (5.0) 10 (50.0) 5 (25.0) 20 (12.1) OTHER 7 (23.3) 9 (30.0) 5 (16.7) 4 (13.3) 5 (16.7) 30 (18.2) No Response 0 (0.0) 1 (33.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (33.3) 1 (33.3) 3 (1.8) Column Total 16 (9.7) 32 (19.4) 41 (24.8) 52 (31.5) 24 (14.5) 165 (100.0) ** Significant at .05 Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not W ell, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 59 TABLE 21 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN THE METHODS OF TEACHING ASIAN PRIMARY LANGUAGE BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS ** IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total CSU 6 12 34 43 17 112 (5.4) (10.7) (30.4) (38.4) (15.2) (67.9) UC 2 2 0 1 0 6 20 (10.0) (10.0) (0.0) (50.0) (30.0) (12.1) OTHER 7 8 7 3 5 30 (23.3) (26.7) (23.3) (10.0) (16.7) (18.2) No Response 0 0 0 1 2 3 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (33.3) (66.7) (1.8) Column Total 15 22 41 57 30 165 (9.1) ** Significant at .05 (13.3) (24.8) (34.5) (18.2) (100.0) Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 60 TABLE 22 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN THE METHODS IN USING ASIAN PRIMARY LANGUAGE FOR INSTRUCTION BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS ** IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total CSU 6 12 35 43 16 112 (13.4) (5.4) (31.3) (38.4) (14.3) (67.9) UC 2 2 1 10 5 20 (10.0) (10.0) (5.0) (50.0) (25.0) (12.1) OTHER 7 7 7 4 5 30 (23.3) (23.3) (23.3) (13.3) (16.7) (18.2) No Response 0 0 0 1 2 3 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (33.3) (66.7) (1.8) Column Total 15 21 43 58 28 165 (9.1) ** Significant at .05 (12.7) (26.1) (35.2) (17.0) (100.0) Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 61 TABLE 23 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN THE METHODS OF TEACHING ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS IHE SYSTEMS I 2 3 4 5 Row Total CSU 1 3 31 33 21 14 112 (11.6) (27.7) (29.5) (18.8) (12.5) (67.9) UC 2 2 5 6 5 20 (10.0) (10.0) (25.0) (30.0) (25.0) (12.1) OTHER 6 1 2 6 1 5 30 (20.0) (40.0) (20.0) (3.3) (16.7) (18.2) No Response 1 0 1 0 1 3 (33.3) (0.0) (33.3) (0.0) (33.3) (1.8) Column Total 22 45 45 28 25 165 (13.3) (27.3) (27.3) (17.0) (15.2) (100.0) (Not Significant) Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 62 TABLE 24 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN USING SHELTERED ENGLISH FOR INSTRUCTION BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total CSU 9 27 31 27 1 8 112 (8.0) (24.1) (27.7) (24.1) (16.1) (67.9) UC 2 1 5 7 5 20 (10.0) (5.0) (25.0) (35.0) (25.0) (12.1) OTHER 6 1 1 6 2 5 30 (20.0) (36.7) (20.7) (6.7) (16.7) (18.2) No Response 0 1 1 0 1 3 (0.0) (33.3) (33.3) (0.0) (33.3) (1.8) Column 17 40 43 36 29 165 (10.3) (24.2) (26.1) (21.8) (17.6) (100.0) (Not Significant) Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 63 TABLE 25 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN THE INCORPORATION OF STUDENTS’ CULTURES INTO THE CLASSROOM BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS ** IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total CSU 9 22 48 1 8 15 112 (8.0) 19.6) (42.9) (16.1) (13.4) (67.9) UC 2 5 1 7 5 20 (10.0) (25.0) (5.0) (35.0) (25.0) (12.1) OTHER 9 6 8 2 5 30 (30.0) (20.0) (26.7) (6.7) (16.7) (18.2) No Response 0 1 0 1 1 3 (0.0) (33.3) (0.0) (33.3) (33.3) (1.8) Column Total 20 34 57 28 26 165 (12.1) (20.6) (34.5) (17.0) (15.8) (100.0) ** Significant at .05 Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 64 TABLE 26 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN THE USE OF ASIAN PRIMARY LANGUAGE MATERIALS BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total c s u 6 13 32 44 17 112 (5.4) (11.6) (28.6) (39.3) (15.2) (67.9) u c 1 3 2 9 5 20 (5.0) (15.0) (10.0) (45.0) (25.0) (12.1) OTHER 6 8 5 6 5 30 (20.0) (26.7) (16.7) (20.0) (16.7) (18.2) No Response 0 0 1 1 1 3 (0.0) (0.0) (33.3) (33.3) (33.3) (1.8) Column Total 13 24 40 60 28 165 (7.9) (14.5) (24.2) (36.4) (17.0) (100.0) (Not Significant) Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 65 TABLE 27 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF DIFFERENT LEARNING STYLES BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS ** IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total c s u 6 12 43 35 16 112 (5.4) (10.7) (38.4) (31.3) (14.3) (67.9) u c 1 3 2 9 5 20 (5.0) (15.0) (10.0) (45.0) (25.0) (12.1) OTHER 8 6 7 4 5 30 (26.7) (20.0) (23.3) (13.3) (16.7) (18.2) No Response 0 0 1 1 1 3 (0.0) (0.0) (33.3) (33.3) (33.3) (1.8) Column Total 15 21 53 49 27 165 (9.1) ** Significant at .05 (12.7) (32.1) (29.7) (16.4) (100.0) Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 66 TABLE 28 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN THE MANAGEMENT AND TEACHING IN A MULTILINGUAL/MULTIDIALECT CLASSROOM BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS ** IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total c s u 5 13 33 45 16 112 (4.5) (11.6) (29.5) (40.2) (14.3) (67.9) u c 2 2 2 8 6 20 (10.0) (10.0) (10.0) (40.0) (30.0) (12.1) OTHER 7 8 3 7 5 30 (23.3) (26.7) (10.0) (23.3) (16.7) (18.2) No Response 0 1 0 1 1 3 (0.0) (33.3) (0.0) (33.3) (33.3) (1.8) Column Total 14 24 38 61 28 165 (8.5) ** Significant at .05 (14.5) (23.0) (37.0) (17.0) (100.0) Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 67 TABLE 29 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN THE ASSESSMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total CSU 4 21 33 38 16 112 (3.6) (18.8) (29.5) (33.9) (14.3) (67.9) u c 1 3 4 7 5 20 (5.0) (15.0) (20.0) (35.0) (25.0) (12.1) OTHER 6 9 3 6 6 30 (20.0) (30.0) (10.0) (20.0) (20.0) (18.2) No Response 0 1 0 1 1 3 (0.0) (33.3) (0.0) (33.3) (33.3) (1.8) Column Total 1 1 34 40 52 28 165 (6.7) (20.6) (24.2) (31.5) (17.0) (100.0) (Not Significant) Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 68 TABLE 30 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN THE ASSESSMENT OF PRIMARY LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS ** IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total CSU 4 18 29 45 16 112 (3.6) (16.1) (25.9) (40.2) (14.3) (67.9) u c 1 2 1 1 1 5 20 (5.0) (10.0) (5.0) (55.0) (25.0) (12.1) OTHER 7 6 5 7 5 30 (23.3) (20.0) (16.7) (23.3) (16.7) (18.2) No Response 0 0 1 1 1 3 (0.0) (0.0) (33.3) (33.3) (33.3) (1.8) Column Total 1 2 26 36 64 27 165 (7.3) ** Significant at .05 (15.8) (21.8) (38.8) (16.4) (100.0) Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 69 TABLE 31 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN THE RECLASSIFICATION OF ASIAN STUDENTS BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total CSU 6 20 25 45 1 6 112 (5.4) (17.9) (22.3) (40.2) (14.3) (67.9) u c 1 3 2 9 5 20 (5.0) (15.0) (10.0) (45.0) (25.0) (12.1) OTHER 5 6 6 8 5 30 (16.7) (20.0) (20.0) (26.7) (16.7) (18.2) No Response 0 0 1 1 1 3 (0.0) (0.0) (33.3) (33.3) (33.3) (1.8) Column Total 12 29 34 63 27 165 (7.3) (17.6) (20.6) (38.2) (16.4) (100.0) (Not Significant) Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 70 TABLE 32 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN THE ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC PROGRESS BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total CSU 6 (5.4) 22 (19.6) 28 (25.0) 40 (35.7) 16 (14.3) 112 (67.9) u c 1 (5.0) 3 (15.0) 1 (5.0) 10 (50.0) 5 (25.0) 20 (12.1) OTHER 5 (16.7) 8 (26.7) 4 (13.3) 8 (26.7) 5 (16.7) 30 (18.2) No Response 0 (0.0) 1 (33.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (33.3) 1 (33.3) 3 (1.8) Column Total 12 (7.3) 34 (20.6) 33 (20.0) 59 (35.8) 27 (16.4) 165 (100.0) (Not Significant) Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 71 TABLE 33 QUALITY OF TRAINING IN WORKING WITH ASIAN PARENTS AND COMMUNITIES BY UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS IHE SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 Row Total CSU 6 (5.4) 16 (14.3) 24 (21.4) 50 (44.6) 1 6 (14.3) 112 (67.9) u c 2 (10.0) 1 (5.0) 3 (15.0) 9 (45.0) 5 (25.0) 20 (12.1) OTHER 6 (20.0) 8 (26.7) 5 (16.7) 6 (20.0) 5 (16.7) 30 (18.2) No Response 0 (0.0) 1 (33.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (33.3) 1 (33.3) 3 (1.8) Column Total 1 4 (8.5) 26 (15.8) 32 (19.4) 66 (40.0) 27 (16.4) 165 (100.0) (Not Significant) Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 72 In all the seven areas that were statistically significant at 0.05, the universities in the "other" category showed greater numbers o f positive responses (EX and GD) than negative ones (FR and PR). In contrast, the CSU and UC systems had frequency distributions that showed greater totals for negative responses than positive ones. These indicate that the private universities were rated higher than CSU and UC in the seven training areas cited above. In all the other items there were no significant difference in the ratings. The number of significant results in the previous analysis initiated an additional question for this section. Was there a significant difference in the respondents' evaluation of how well the universities did in preparing them to be effective teachers of Asian LEP students, by language groups? A cross-tabulation o f Question 41 and 8 yielded statistically significant results. (See Table 34) The most outstanding aspect of the data is in the responses of the Pilipino group where almost seventy percent (69.3) felt that their university training was either "Very well" or "Well". 73 TABLE 34 QUALITY OF UNIVERSITY TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS BY LANGUAGE** LANGUAGES 1 2 3 4 5 ROW TOTAL Cantonese 4 1 9 46 22 14 105 (3.8) (18.1) (43.8) (21.0) (13.3) (63.6) Japanese 0 0 1 1 0 2 (0.0) (0.0) (50.0) (50.0) (0.0) (1.2) Korean 1 3 4 2 1 1 1 (9.1) (27.3) (36.4) (18.2) (9.1) (6.7) Mandarin 1 1 5 4 0 1 1 (9.1) (9.1) (45.5) (36.4) (0.0) (6.7) Pilipino 10 8 4 0 4 26 (38.5) (30.8) (15.4) (0.0) (15.4) (15.8) Vietnamese 0 3 4 2 0 9 (0.0) (33.3) (44.4) (22.2) (0.0) (5.5) Lao 0 0 1 0 0 1 (0.0) (0.0) (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.6) Column Total 16 34 65 31 19 165 (9.7) (20.6) (39.4) (18.8) (11.5) (100.0) ** Significant at .05 Codes: l=Very Well, 2=Well, 3=Not Well, 4=Not at all, 5=No response 74 Other Beneficial Training Experiences/Resources The third research question asked respondents to identify other types of settings and resources, outside of pre-service, as having been helpful in their work as Asian bilingual teachers. Questions 67 through 76 were developed to answer this research question. In questions 67 through 75, respondents were given a specific skill or knowledge area and were asked to identify the main training source for each. The possible training sources included: 1) university program, 2) district inservice programs, 3) on-the-job training, 4) professional conferences, and 5) still learning. It is important to note that a large number of answers had to be discarded because the respondents did not follow directions and marked more than one response choice for each question (Even though the direction to mark only one answer appeared twice and boldly highlighted in the directions immediately preceding the question items!) Table 35 presents the results of questions 67 through 75. 75 TABLE 35 DISTRIBUTION OF SETTINGS WHERE SKILLS WERE DEVELOPED (N=I65) SKILLS IHE SDI SETTINGS OJT PCF SLN NA ESL 40 57 39 5 8 16 Methodology (24.2) (34.5) (23.6) (3.0) (4.8) (9.6) Bilingual 50 53 35 10 4 1 3 Methodology (30.3) (32.1) (21.2) (6.1) (2.4) (7.9) English 27 51 57 4 1 5 1 1 Reading (16.4) (30.9) (34.5) (2.4) (9.1) (6.7) Sheltered 21 63 40 1 3 14 14 English (12.7) (38.2) (24.2) (7.9) (8.5) (8.5) Classroom 14 35 82 8 15 1 1 Management (8.5) (21.2) (49.7) (4.8) (9.1) (6.7) Multi-ling 1 3 29 84 8 21 10 Classroom (7.9) (17.6) (50.9) (4.8) (12.7) (6.1) Bilingual 4 28 113 3 8 9 Aides (2.4) (17.0) (68.5) (1.8) (4.8) (5.5) Asian 6 1 8 111 5 12 1 3 Parents (3.6) (10.9) (67.3) (3.0) (7.3) (7.9) Classroom 23 18 97 8 7 12 Discipline (13.9) (10.9) (58.8) (4.8) (4.2) (7.3) Codes: IHE = University Program SDI = School District Inservices OJT = On-the-job Training PCF = Professional Conferences SLN = = Still Learning NA = No response 76 Table 35 shows that in none o f the 9 areas was the university program credited with being the major source o f training. For each skill or knowledge area, the majority o f the respondents indicated that they received their training outside o f the university environment. District inservice programs were credited for the development the use of Sheltered English for instruction (38.2%), ESL methodology (34.5%) and bilingual methodology (32.1 %), "on-the-job" training was given the majority o f the credit for the other 6 areas. Question 76 asked the respondents to identify other settings and resources which helped them to develop the skills needed to better teach Asian LEP students, other than the settings identified in questions 67 through 75. They were asked to select from a list which included: other teachers, books and journals, summer institutes, and study abroad programs, or "other". Those who checked "other" were asked to identify further the settings or sources in a blank provided next to the question. (See Table 36). The results showed that 63% of the answers credited other teachers in helping the respondents acquire the needed skills for the teaching of Asian LEP students. 41% of the answers respondents' answers to this question supported their initial responses to the previous set of questions where they felt that most of their needed skills were developed on the job. 77 TABLE 36 DISTRIBUTION OF OTHER SETTINGS AND RESOURCES WHERE RESPONDENTS DEVELOPED SKILLS NEEDED FOR TEACHING ASIAN LEP STUDENTS (N = 165) SETTINGS/ RESOURCES n (%) Other teachers 104 63.0 Books and journals 69 41.8 Summer institutes 35 21.2 Study abroad programs 19 11.5 Other 1 1 6.7 Note: More than one response was permitted, credited self study, using books and journals. 78 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was to identify the skills and competencies Asian bilingual teachers felt were needed for the effective teaching o f Asian LEP students. In addition to identifying the skills and competencies, the study also sought to examine the respondents' perceptions of the quality of their teacher training programs at the universities. The third part of the study sought to identify other training areas and experiences which were helpful in the development of needed skills and competencies, other than the university teacher training programs. Figures released by the California State Department of Education for Spring, 1990 showed three hundred and eighty two (382) certified Asian bilingual teachers serving 129,932 Asian LEP students in the state public schools. The teachers were certified in Vietnamese, Cantonese, Korean, Pilipino, Mandarin, Japanese, and Lao. This translates to a ratio of one bilingual teacher for every 340 Asian LEP students. In some languages, such as Cantonese, the ratio was slightly better with 1 bilingual teacher for every 96 students. However, that ratio is still higher than the 86 to 1 for Spanish speakers. For some o f the more recently arrived language groups, such as the Lao, the ratio is 6,089 to 1. There was no 79 certified Khmer bilingual teacher to service the 19,234 Cambodian LEP students in California in 1990. There are few available studies describing the type o f training Asian bilingual teachers receive nor are there a body o f literature identifying empirical studies conducted on the effectiveness o f university teacher training programs for Asian bilingual teachers. This study sought to open a window into the university training programs that the 382 certified Asian bilingual teachers completed by asking them to evaluate the effectiveness o f those programs in the development of the skills and competencies that they identified as being necessary for the teaching of LEP students. A total o f 165 California certified Asian bilingual teachers participated in the study. The data gathered from the surveys that were sent to the respondents' schools were entered into a statistical software using a personal computer. Data collected from survey items created to answer each o f the three main research questions and the three later-generated sub-questions were grouped and analyzed for frequency distribution and cross- tabulated for tests o f significance. The results o f findings are summarized below. Findings 1. All nine skills identified in the survey instrument were felt to be either "Very Important" or "Important". However, the three items that had the highest average ratings were English Oral Proficiency, with an average score o f 1.07 (a 80 score o f 1 = Very Important and 4 = Not necessary), English Academic Proficiency (1.13) and Bilingual Classroom Management (1.15). 2. When asked to identify the three most important skills needed for teaching Asian LEP students, the respondents identified most frequently, Bilingual Classroom Management, Knowledge of the Students' Home Culture, Bilingualism and Primary Language Proficiency. 3. There were significant differences between the responses o f those bom overseas and those bom in the United States in four o f the nine skills presented to the respondents for importance ratings. Three of the significant findings were related to levels o f proficiency in the primary language and the fourth was the knowledge of Bilingual Methodology. 4. Asian bilingual teachers did not feel that California universities did a good job in preparing them to teach Asian LEP students. Only thirty percent felt that the universities did "Very well" or "Well" in contrast to fifty eight percent who responded "Not well" or "Not at all". 5. The two training areas which California university programs performed fairly well in were in the training o f teachers to “Understand Bilingual Education Theories” and in the “Methodologies for the Teaching o f ESL”. 6. The two training areas which California universities performed the worse in were in training o f teachers to Work with Asian Parents and Community and in Asian Language Assessment. 7. There was a significant difference in the responses to the question of how well the universities were able to train the teachers to teach Asian LEP students by university systems. Fifty percent o f the group identified as "Other" felt their universities did "Very well" or "Well". The respondents in this category were from independent universities. 8. Seven training areas yield statistically significant differences when cross-tabulated with the three university systems. The seven training areas were: a. The teaching o f primary language development b. Methodologies using primary language for instruction. c. Assessment o f Asian primary language proficiency d. Knowing how to incorporate the students' culture into the classroom e. Understanding different learning styles. f. Knowing how to manage and teach in a multilingual/multidialect classroom g. Understanding o f curriculum modification for Asian LEP students. 9. There was a very significant difference in the responses o f the different language groups in their evaluation of the university teacher training programs. The most glaring difference was in the responses of the Pilipino group where almost seventy percent (69.3) felt that their university training was either "Very well" or "Well". 10. Asian bilingual teachers did not identify university programs as their major source o f training for the acquisition of skills needed to teach Asian LEP 82 students. Their skills were acquired mostly from on-the-job training and through school district inservices. 11. Overwhelmingly (63%), Asian bilingual teachers felt that they had acquire additional knowledge and skills while performing on the job and with the help o f their colleagues. Discussion of Findings The results of the study indicate that as a group Asian bilingual teachers in California were provided with little training in their university teacher training programs that were specifically targeted for the teaching o f Asian LEP students. Those who became effective bilingual teachers did so with the help o f their colleagues, by attending district inservices and by trial or error as they struggle with their daily teaching responsibilities. As a group, the Asian bilingual teachers gave the universities very low scores. However, it appeared that those language groups who had the opportunity to attend universities where Asian bilingual teacher training programs were available rated their training more positively. In particular, most of the Pilipino respondents attended the University of San Francisco. That university has had a long history o f Asian bilingual teacher training programs and the program administrator is a fully tenured professor who is a bilingual Filipino- American. Almost 70% o f the Pilipino group rated their university training as "Very well" or "Well". 83 The Asian bilingual teachers felt that high levels of English proficiency were needed for the teaching o f Asian LEP students. While it is not very important for teachers to sound "Native-like", it is definitely very important for the teachers to have oral English language proficiency and English academic proficiency. Another very important skill Asian bilingual teachers should have is bilingual classroom management. Although as a group the respondents agreed on the importance o f the skills mentioned above, they did not agree on the importance of primary language skills. As expected, the Asian bilingual teachers bom overseas viewed primary language proficiency as important whereas the teachers bom in the United States did not. Yet when asked to list the three most important skills Asian bilingual teachers should have, "Bilingualism" was selected with the third highest frequency. It seems that US bom teachers may not be strong in primary language skills, therefore do not rate those skills as important but later, admitted to the importance o f bilingualism when asked to identify their own list o f most important skills. Conclusion If California teacher training universities are to be successful in the training o f teachers for the present and future students o f this state, they must take stock o f their current practices and ask if their programs are graduating well- prepared teachers who can effective teach the large numbers o f linguistically and culturally diverse students in the schools. The demographic data presented by the 84 latest census point to phenomenal increases in the Asian language groups and trends indicate that the growth will continue to increase and not decrease. Given this information, the educational future of Asian students in California looks bleak if no major changes occur in the way universities train teachers. The traditional "cookie cutter" approach to teacher training is no longer appropriate for the student population o f this state and has not been appropriate for many years. Universities can no longer claim to be effectively training teachers when the curriculum does not reflect changes in methodology and field experiences that would incorporate the changing needs o f a changing student population. When over fifty percent o f the students in California are students of color or come from homes where English is not the language of communication, then a generic approach to teacher training is inappropriate. In order to provide appropriate and effective teacher training programs for Asian bilingual teachers, universities must be willing to offer courses which specifically focus on the educational needs of the Asian student population. Often, what works for Spanish bilingual programs do not work for Asian programs. One example is the linguistic make-up o f the bilingual classrooms. While schools may identify specific classrooms as bilingual in one language, i.e. Cantonese, those classrooms often become the "dumping" grounds for any Asian LEP student, regardless of whether the student's home language is Cantonese, Mandarin, Chiu-chou, Vietnamese or Korean. The Asian "bilingual classroom" often becomes a "multilingual classroom" where the challenges to the bilingual teacher are drastically increased. While this is not the process for how LEP students should be place, until such practices are changed at the school sites, an important aspect of Asian bilingual teacher training may be to provide them with the skills to cope in a mixed language, mixed cultural classroom. Yet, how many universities are cognizant of this tendency and have provided for training in the teaching and management of a multilingual classroom? This survey indicates that few have. Just as school districts are actively recruiting teachers from diverse backgrounds who are more reflective of the student population, universities must also recruit more faculty members in their schools o f education who are more knowledgeable of the current educational needs o f a changing student population. Recom mendations for F urther Research Based on the findings o f this study, the following are recommendations for further study: 1. Additional research is needed in the area of bilingual Asian teacher training models. An extensive study should be conducted on all of the Title VII Personnel Training Programs funded to date, throughout the nation. A systematic review may yield valuable information as to the successes and failures of each program, with particular attention to the different language groups. The 86 information may provide a basis for better designing o f Asian bilingual teacher training programs at the IHE's. 2. National and State figures review a disproportionately small number of Asians enter into the teaching force. Further research is needed to identify the reasons for not selecting teaching as a career choice and find ways to increase the number o f Asian teachers in California and across the nation. 3. O f the Asians who responded to this study, many were dissatisfied with their career and plan to leave the teaching field in the near future. Further research is needed to discover the reasons for their dissatisfaction and find ways of retraining those Asian teachers who are already in the schools. 4. It is recommended that a follow-up to this study be conducted to identify differences, if any, in the training of teachers from different language groups. In particular, the Pilipino teachers should be interviewed to gain more detailed information about why their perceptions o f their training were so much more positive than the other groups. 87 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Acosta, R. & G. Blanco. 1978. Competencies for university programs in bilingual education. U.S. Office o f Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Ada, A. F. 1986. Creative education for bilingual teachers. Harvard Educational Review. V56 n4 (November). Babbie, E. R. 1973. Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc. Baker, K. A. & A. A. de Kanter. 1981. Effectiveness o f bilingual education: A review o f the literature. Washington, D.C.: Office o f Planning and Budget, U.S. Department o f Education. Baca,L. 1984. Teacher education programs. Education of culturally and linguistically different exceptional children. P. Chinn (ed.) Reston: ERIC and the Council for Exceptional Children. Bennett, W.J. 1988. The condition o f bilingual education in the nation: 1988. A report to Congress and the president. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Borg, W. R. and M. D. Gall. 1983. Educational research, an introduction. New York: Longman, Inc. Calderon, M. 1986. Multi-district trainer o f trainer institute: A trainer o f trainers model focused on the acquisition of literacy bv limited English proficient students. Santa Barbara: University of California. Calderon, M. & D. Marsh. 1989. Applying research on effective bilingual instruction in a multi-district inservice teacher training program. NABE Journal. V12 n2 (Winter), pp. 133-152. California Commission on the Teaching Profession. 1985. Who will teach our children? A strategy for improving California's schools. Sacramento California Commission on Teacher Preparation and Licensing. 1977. Comprehensive report on bilingual cross-cultural teacher education. Sacramento. 89 California Tomorrow. 1988. Crossing the schoolhouse border. San Francisco. California State Department o f Education. 1986. Bevond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students. Los Angeles: California State University. California State Department of Education. 1985. Case studies in bilingual education: A first year report. Sacramento. California State Department o f Education. 1981. Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: California State University. Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, Task Force on teaching as a Profession. 1986. A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York. Casso, H. J. 1976. Bilineual/bicultural education and teacher training. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association. Center for Applied Linguistics. 1974. Guidelines for the preparation and certification of teachers of bilingual- bicultural education. Arlington. Chamot, A. U. 1988. Bilingualism in education and bilingual education: The state o f the art in the United States. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. V9 nl& 2, pp. 11-35. Chu, H. and J. Levy. 1984. Institutionalizing a bilingual training program: A case study o f George Mason University. NABE Journal. 8:3 (Spring), pp. 42-54. Collier, V. P. 1987. Age and rate of acquisition o f second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly. V21, pp. 617-641. Crawford, J. 1989. Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice. Trenton: Crane Publishing Co. Cummins, J. 1989. Empowering minority students. Sacramento: California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. 1984. Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego: College- Hill Press. Cummins, J. 1981. The role o f primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: California State University. Danoff, M. N. et al. 1978. Evaluation o f the impact of ESEA Title VII Spanish/English bilingual programs. American Institutes of Research. Washington, DC: Office o f Planning and Budget, U.S. Department of Education. Dulay, H. and Burt, M. 1979. The efficacy of bilingual education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1:72-73. Edelsky, C. 1986. Writing in a bilingual program: Habia una vez. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corp. Fradd, S. H., B. Algonzzine, & S. J. Salend. 1988. A survey o f training needs in bilingual special education. Educational issues o f language minority students. V2 (Spring), pp. 5-16. Genesee, F. 1987. Learning through two languages: Studies o f immersion and bilingual education. Cambridge: Newbury House. Glazer, N. & J. Cummins. 1985. Viewpoints on bilingual education. Equity and Choice, V2, pp. 47-52. Goodman, K. & Y. Goodman. 1981. A whole-language comprehension-centered view o f reading development. NIE. Harste, J. & C. Burke. 1977. A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: Both teaching and learning o f reading are theoretically based. In Reading: Theory, research and practice. Twentv-sixth yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Pearson (ed.). St. Paul: Mason Publishing Company. Heath, S. B. 1983. Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holmes Group, 1986. Tomorrow's Teachers. East Lansing. Joyce, B. & B. Showers. 1980. Improving inservice training: The message of research. Educational Leadership. V37, pp. 379-385. 91 Kagan, S. 1986. Cooperative learning and sociocultural factors in schooling. In B eyond la n g u a g e; Social a n d c u ltu ra l fa cto rs in schooling la n g u a g e m in o rity students. Los Angeles: California State University. Krashen S. & D. Biber. 1988. On course: Bilingual education's success in California. Sacramento: California Association for Bilingual Education. Krashen S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press. McFerren, M. 1988. Certification o f language educators in the United States. Educational Report Series, Office o f Educational Research and Improvement, Education Department, Washington, D.C. Macias, R. (1989). Bilingual teacher supply and demand in the United States. Los Angeles: Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research and The Tomas Rivera Center. Marsh, D. D. 1980. University roles in inservice education: Planning for change. Washington, DC: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Ogbu, J. U. & M. E. Matute-Bianchi. 1986. Understanding sociocultural factors: Knowledge, identity and school adjustment. In Beyond Language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students. Los Angeles: California State University. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. 1986. Learning English through bilingual instruction. Factsheet. Wheaton. National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A Nation at Risk: The Im p era tiv e fo r . E d u ca tio n a l R efo rm . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Patton, M. Q. 1980. Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Ltd. Peters, A. F. 1987. The role of student teaching in teacher development: A study o f factors influencing the concerns of bilingual elementary student teachers. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University o f California, Los Angeles. 92 Rodriguez, A. M. 1980. Empirically defining competencies for effective bilingual teachers: A preliminary study. Bilingual Papers Series. V3 nl2. Los Angeles: California State University. Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Rueda, R. S., R. F. Rodriguez, & A. G. Prieto. 1981. Teachers' perceptions of competencies for instructing bilingual/multicultural children. Exceptional children, V48,pp.268-270. Smith, F. 1983. Essays into Literacy. Exeter: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc. Tikunoff, W. J. 1985. Applying significant bilingual instructional features in the classroom. Rosslyn: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Tsu, J. B. 1977. The future of Asian bilingual bicultural education. Keynote address to the Washington State Asian American Education Annual Convention in Seattle, WA. United States General Accounting Office, 1987. Bilingual education: A new look at the research evidence. Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: GAO Willig, A. C. 1985. A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness o f bilingual education. Review o f Educational Research. V55, pp. 269-317. Ybarra Paz, Estanislado. 1980. Identification of bilingual education Spanish/English teacher competencies. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University o f Arizona. 93 APPENDIXES 94 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE BILINGUAL TEACHER SURVEY: Asian Languages INTRODUCTION: This survey is part of a research study on the training of Asian-language bilingual teachers in California. The conclusions drawn from this study will assist universities to better design teacher training programs to meet the educational needs of Asian limited English proficient (LEP) students in the public schools. All answers will be treated anonymously and only summarized aggregate results will be released. Please read each of the items in this survey carefully and respond as completely as you can. W hen you have completed the survey, please return it in the self-addressed stamped envelope by February 21, 1992. Thank you for your time and cooperation. (1) Please place a check mark ( S ) next to all the credentials and/or certificates that you hold. Indicate the language where applicable. Q Bilingual Crosscultural Emphasis Credential: Language________ □ Bilingual Crosscultural Specialist Credential: Language________ □ Bilingual Certificate of Competence: Language________ □ Language Development Specialist Certificate □ None If your answer to Question 1 is "None", please stop here. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Please place this Survey into the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope and return it by February 2 1 , 1 9 9 2 . All other respondents, please continue to answer all of the remaining questions on this Survey form. PARTI: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ( 2 ) What year were you born?___________________________ (3) What is your gender? □Male □Female (4) In what country were you born? □ Hong Kong QTaiwan □The Philippines □ Japan □The People's Republic of □Vietnam □ Korea China □The United States □Other:____________________________________________________________ 96 (5) What is your race/ethnicity? G A sian or Pacific Islander Q Latino Q American Indian or Alaskan Native Q W hite (not of Latin origin) Q African American (not of Latin origin) (6) If you are of Asian or Pacific Islander origin, to which of the following groups do you belong? Q Not applicable Q Chinese Q Filipino Q Japanese Q Korean Q Vietnamese Q Other:_____________________________________________ ____________ (7) Please indicate the Asian language(s) or dialect(s) in which you consider yourself fluent. You may check more than one box. QNone Q Japanese Q M andarin Q Vietnamese Q Cantonese Q Korean QPilipino Q Other:____ _____________________________________________________ (8) Please indicate the one Asian language or dialect which you feel you are most fluent. QNone Q Japanese Q Mandarin Q Vietnamese Q Cantonese Q Korean QPilipino Q Other:__________________________________________________________ For questions 9-12, please respond according to the Asian language/dialect identified in Question 8. How well would you say you are able to perform the following: (9) Understand the Asian language Q Very well QWell Q Not W ell QNot at all (10) Speak the Asian language QVery w ell QWell Q Not W ell QNot at all (11) Read the Asian language QVery w ell QWell QNot W ell QNot at all (12) Write the Asian language Q Very w ell QWell Q Not W ell Q Not at all How well would you say you are able to perform the following: (13) Understand English QVery w ell QWell Q Not W ell Q Not at all (14) Speak English QVery w ell QWell QNot W ell QNot at all (15) Read English QVery w ell QWell QNot W ell QNot at all (1«) Write English Q Very w ell QWell QNot W ell QNot at all PARTH: PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (17) What year did you begin teaching?_________________________ ._______________ (18) Prior to becoming a teacher, did you work as a bilingual aide? Q Yes Q No (19) Have you taught in a bilingual classroom? Q Yes Q No 97 (20) If yes, what year did you first begin teaching in a bilingual classroom?---------------------- (21) What level did you teach last year (1990-91)? Q Elementary: Grades K-6 (Continue w ith Questions 22-25) □Secondary: Grades 7-12 (Continue w ith Questions 26-28) QDid not teach during School Year 1990-91 □Other: If you taught in an elementary grade during school year 1990-91, please answer Questions 22 to 25 according to that year’s assignment. (22) Which elementary grade(s) did you teach last year? □ K Q l Q2 0 3 Q4 Q5 Q6 □Other:_________________ ___________________________________________ (23) Was it a designated bilingual classroom? □ Y es □ No (24) If yes, please indicate the designated language of your bilingual classroom. □None □Japanese □Mandarin □Vietnamese □Cantonese □Korean □Pilipino □Other:____________________________________________________________ (25) Please identify ail the Asian languages and dialects spoken by the Asian LEP stduents in your classroom last year. You may mark more than one box. □ None □ Japanese □Mandarin □Vietnamese □Cantonese □Korean □Pilipino □Other:_____________________________________________________________ (Please continue to Question 29.) If you taught in a secondary grade level during school year 1990-91, please answer Questions 26-28 according to that year’s assignment. (26) If you taught secondary school, which subject(s) did you teach? □ESL □Math □Science QHistory/Soc.St. □English □ Foreign language □Other:_______________________ (27) Were any of the courses designated as bilingual, ESL, or sheltered? □ Yes □ N o (28) If yes, which ones? □ESL □Math □Science QHistory/Soc.St. □English □ Foreign language □Other:_____________________________________________________________ All respondents, please answer Questions 29-32 according to your 1990-91 teaching assignment. (29) In a typical instructional day last year, did you use one or more Asian language(s) or dialect(s) for instruction? □ Y es □ N o 98 (30) If yes, which one(s)? You may mark more than one box. QNone Qjapanese Q M andarin Q Vietnamese □ Cantonese Q Korean QPilipino □Other:_____________________________________________ _______________ (31) What percentage of the day did you use English for instruction?_______ ____________ (32) What percentage of the day did you use the Asian language for instruction?---------------- (NOTE: The answers to Questions 31 and 32 should add up to 100% .) PART m: SCHOOLING AND CREDENTIAL INFORMATION. (33) For the degrees listed below, please indicate, where applicable, the type of degree, the year it was received, the nmJor field of study in which the degree was completed, and the country where the university is located. Should you have more than one type of degree (i.e. two B.A. degrees, please list and identify under "Other*. QBA Year:___ Major:_________ Country: QBS Year:_ _ Major:_________ Country: QMA Year:___ Major:_________ Country: QEd.D__Year:___ Major:_________ Country: QPh.D._Year:___ Major:_________ Country: Q Other:__________________________________ (34) Please place a check mark ( / ) next to ail of the basic California teaching credentials that you currently hold and specify which year it was completed. You may mark more than one box. □ Multiple Subject Preliminary: Year □ Multiple Subject Clear: Y ear Q Single Subject Preliminary: Year Subject_____________ □Single Subject Clear: Year Subject______________ □Bilingual Crosscultural Emphasis Credential: Y ear □ Emergency Credential: Year □Other:_________________ _______________________________ (35) Which credential did you have when you first began teaching? □Emergency Credential QSingle Subject Preliminary: Q M ultiple Subject Preliminary Subject________ □ M ultiple Subject Clear Q Single Subject Clear: Subject________ QOther:_________________________________________________ 99 (36) At which college/university did you complete your basic California teaching credential program? □University of California at,_____________________ □ California State University, at __________________ □Other:_____ _______________________________________________________ (37) Did you do one or more student teaching assignments in an Asian-ianguage bilingual classroom? O Yes □No PART IV: OPINIONS ABOUT YOUR UNIVERSITY TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM. (38) How satisfied are you with your university’s teacher credential program? □Very satisfied □Satisfied □Not very satisfied □Not at all satisfied (39) How satisfied are you with the university’s teacher credential program, from the perspective of teacher preparation for Asian LEP students. □Very satisfied □Satisfied □Not very satisfied □Not at all satisfied (40) Did the university’s teacher credential program provide courses which dealt specifically with the teaching of students from diverse Asian cultural and language groups? Q Yes □No (41) In your opinion, how well did the university teacher credential program prepare teachers to teach Asian LEP students? □ Very well QWell QNot Well QNot at all Please indicate how well, in your opinion, the university’s teacher credential program w as able to address the following areas from the perspective of teaching Asian LEP students: (42) Understanding of bilingual education theories and practices Excellent Good Fair Poor □ □ □ □ (43) The application of bilingual theories and practices in the classroom □ □ □ □ (44) Knowing how to modify and adapt curriculum for limited English proficient Asian-ianguage students □ □ □ □ (45) Methods of teaching primary language development in one or more Asian language(s) □ □ □ □ (46) Methods of using primary language for instruction □ □ □ □ (47) Methods of teaching English as a second language (ESL) □ □ □ □ 100 Excellent Good Fair Poor (48) Using sheltered English for instruction □ □ □ □ (49) Knowing how to incorporate the students’ culture(s) Into the classroom curriculum □ □ □ □ (50) Knowing how to use primary language materials for instruction □ Q □ □ (51) Understanding of different learning styles of diverse Asian groups □ □ □ □ (52) Knowing how to manage and teach in a multilingual classroom setting (where several languages/dialects are present in one classroom) □ □ □ □ (53) Knowing how to assess English language proficiency of Asian students □ □ □ □ (54) Knowing how to assess primary language proficiency of Asian students □ □ □ □ (55) Knowing when to reclassify/redesignate Asian-ianguage students from LEP to FEP status □ □ □ □ (56) Knowing how to assess the academic progress of Asian LEP students □ □ □ □ (57) Knowing how to work with Asian parents and communities to improve student academic achievement □ □ □ □ In order to be an effective Asian bilingual teacher, how important, in your opinion, are the following skills and competencies? Very Somewhat Not very Not (58) Oral language proficiency in the Asian important important important necessa language □ □ □ □ (59) Native or native-llke fluency in the Asian language □ □ □ □ (60) Academic proficiency/literacy in the Asian language □ □ □ □ (61) Oral language proficiency in English □ □ □ □ (62) Native or native-like fluency in English □ □ □ □ (63) Academic proficiency/literacy in English □ □ □ □ (64) Knowledge of bilingual methodology □ □ □ □ 101 (65) Knowledge of students’ home culture(s) (66) Ability to organize and manage a bilingual/multilingual classroom Very Somewhat Not very N ot important important important necessary □ □ □ □ The following areas of professional expertise have been identified by bilingual teachers as important to be effective. However, bilingual teachers have acquired them in different ways and from different sources. For the items listed below, please indicate where you acquired or developed each one. Please select the ONE setting that had the most influence. If you don’t feel confident yet about your ability in any area, please mark it as "still learning". (67) ESL teaching (Please only mark ONE box for each item) University District On-the-job Professional program inservices training Conferences Still leamin methodology □ □ □ □ □ (68) Bilingual methodology □ □ □ □ □ (69) Teaching English reading to LEP students □ □ □ □ □ (70) Sheltered English for content instruction □ □ □ □ □ (71) How to organize and manage a bilingual classroom □ □ □ □ □ (72) How to organize and manage a multilingual classroom □ □ □ □ □ (73) Working with bilingual aides □ □ □ □ □ (74) Working with Asian parents □ □ □ □ □ (75) Classroom discipline □ □ □ □ □ (76) Other than university programs, district inservices, professional conferences and on-the-job training, what other settings or resources have been valuable in helping you to develop the skills needed to better teach Asian language LEP students? □Other teachers O Books and journals Q Summer Institutes Q Study abroad programs QOther:___________________________________________________________ (77) In your opinion, what are the three most important skills or competencies that an effective Asian bilingual teacher must have? (78) In your opinion, did your university’s teacher credential program successfully provide you with training in the 3 skills identified in the previous question? QYes QNo PART V: JOB SATISFACTION (79) In your opinion, how effective are you as a teacher of Asian LEP students? QVery effective Q Effective Q Somewhat effective □Stilllmproving (80) How satisfied are you with your job in the public schools? □ Very satisfied O Satisfied □ Not very satisfied Q Not at all satisfied (81) Have you ever seriously considered leaving teaching to go into some other field? □ Yes Q No (82) If yes, please identify the reasons for wanting to leave. You may mark more than one answer. □Salary is too low □Concerned for m y personal safety □ W orking conditions too hard □ Want to go back to school full time □ Not enough appreciation Q Want to devote more time for my family □ M ore money in other professions □Other:_____________________________________________________________ (83) Are you considering leaving the teaching profession in the next 5 years? QYes QNo (84) Wouldyou voluntarily choose to be a teacher of Asian LEP students? QYes QNo Thank you very much for your cooperation. Please remember that all answers are anonymous. Only summary aggregate results will be released. If you would like a summary of the results, please send me a 3X5 postcard separately in the mail. Results should be available by Summer, 1992. Please return this Survey in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope by February 21, 1992. Thank you for your time. 103 APPENDIX B REMINDER CARD CARD Please Please Please do +f»is* * uo u/ r\of aXre&clu done 6o} please, -Pfll 016,+ fWeuy. "QUtayuu/ I tA c k ts r S ^ v ^ y _ \jJ&S> m a .i lees/ ' ir> u o i c | a s + u/e*~k. &*cl re+urn ] + ■ in'ihz, Sel{-addressee/ 5-f^mpe.d e/H/e^ope-* . JC rea lly n eed j o u r I'n p af /V > <M/s research study- " ' * * * " ' • r * * 105

Linked assets