Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model
(USC Thesis Other)
A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 1
A CAPSTONE PROJECT: CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP OF ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNERS AT SUNSHINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL USING THE GAP
ANALYSIS MODEL
by
Enyetta Mingo-Long
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2013
Copyright 2013 Enyetta Mingo-Long
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 2
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to all of the literacy change agents who actively work to make
a difference in the lives of our youth by instilling the power of education and the prodigious
importance of reading.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 3
Acknowledgements
It has been a true honor and privilege to have had the opportunity to be a Rossier School
of Education doctoral student from the University of Southern California. I will forever be
grateful for the esteemed Rossier professors who have enlightened my educational journey while
embedding the seed of being a continuous reflective learner.
I would like to thank my Sunshine Elementary inquiry teammates, Sharon L. H. Bennett
and Juan Carlos Herrera. Thank you for your knowledge, experience, hard work, flexibility,
friendship, and commitment to work as educational change agents to close the literacy
achievement gap. I would also like to thank all the members of the 2013 Rueda thematic group,
thank you for the educational insight, drop box, comradery, and emotional support provided. I
am eternally grateful for the esteemed professors who served on this dissertation committee their
dedication, consistent feedback, high expectations, and encouragement is greatly appreciated. I
am honored to have worked under the guidance of my Dissertation Chair Dr. Robert Rueda an
active literacy change agent whose vision, patience, scaffolding, and literacy expertise will
efficaciously be ingrained within me. I would like to thank my Dissertation Co-Chairs Dr. Laurie
Love and Dr. Kenneth Yates for their dedication, knowledge, constructive feedback, and sincere
interest in helping my colleagues and I become educational change agents in closing the literacy
gap at Sunshine Elementary. This dissertation would not have been possible without all of you.
I am notably proud to acknowledge my family. My husband and biggest supporter Frank
Long for adjusting his life to accommodate my schooling and simply for always believing I
could do it. I am sincerely grateful for my children Qays and Qailen who sacrificed weekends
with friends and family because Mommy was writing. To my proud parents, Edward and Brenda
Mingo who continue to inspire and motivate me to reach back and make a difference in the lives
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 4
of our youth. To all of my friends and family that never stopped believing and praying for me
Brad, Herlanders, and Marcus Hutson, Horace, Uncle Lem, and Jomo Mingo, John and Sarah
Crawford, Allen and Gail Quon, Shanon Lampkins, Maryam and Beverly Munir, Mary Evans,
Nora Elzey, Aunt Jean, Aunt Paulette, and Grandma Jo who will turn 93 this year, it is through
all of you that I found the strength to FIGHT ON!
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 8
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Chapter 1: Introduction 11
The Problem 11
Importance of the Problem 12
Specific Purpose of the Analysis 15
Chapter 2: Literature Review 16
Literacy and English Learners 16
Language Components 17
Why is a Strong Literacy Program Essential for Academic Success? 18
The Elements of Literacy 18
Early Reading Activities 18
Parents Supports for Early Literacy 20
Phonics, Sight Words, Vocabulary, and Fluency 20
Reading Comprehension 22
Appropriate Instructional Activities 22
Barriers to Literacy – A National Dilemma 23
Barriers to Literacy-State and Local Concerns 26
Content Knowledge 27
Contributing Factors Related to EL Achievement 27
Urban School Reform 27
Accountability 28
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) 29
Chapter 3: Methodology 31
Introduction 31
Mission Statement 32
Mission 32
Organizational Goal 33
Stakeholders 33
Demographics 34
Community 34
District 35
School 36
Staff Demographics 36
Student Demographics 37
The Gap 37
Overview of the Modified Gap Analysis Process 38
The Modified Gap Analysis 39
Inquiry Team Process 40
Conclusion 46
Chapter 4: Findings 47
Overview of Possible Causes for EL Literacy Gap at
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 6
Sunshine Elementary School 47
Assets of Sunshine Elementary School 48
Leadership Commitment 48
Staff Respect for Principal 49
Caring Teachers 49
Teachers Actively Seek to Improve Student Achievement 50
School Environment 51
Active PTA 51
Culturally Rich School Community 52
Community Stability 52
Well-behaved Students 53
The Six Primary Causes for EL Literacy Gap at Sunshine Elementary 53
Goal Alignment 54
Chapter 5: Solutions – Literature Review 56
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 56
Substantial Coverage of the Five Essential Elements of
Reading Instruction Helps 58
Literacy in the Native Language is an Advantage 59
Characteristics of Effective Reading Programs for ELLs 60
Instruction and Assessment Needs to be Adjusted to Meet the
Needs of ELLs 61
Impact of Sociocultural Variables on Literacy
Achievement or Development 61
Second Language Considerations 63
Phonemic Awareness 63
Phonics 64
Vocabulary 66
Fluency 67
Reading Comprehension 69
Motivation 70
Self-efficacy 71
Indicators of Reading Motivation 72
Active Choice/Autonomy Support 72
Reading Engagement 73
Effects of the Cognitive Process of Motivation in Reading 74
Persistence 75
Mental Effort 76
Culturally Relevant Instruction 76
Cultural Modeling 83
Culturally Relevant Accommodations 84
Professional Development 87
Do Teachers Get the Support They Need? 88
Some Approaches to Addressing the Problem 89
What Are the Elements of Effective Programs? 91
Conclusion 93
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 7
Chapter 6: Recommendations and Conclusion 98
Recommendations 98
Recommendation-Phonemic Awareness/Phonics Instruction 98
Recommendation-Vocabulary Instruction 103
Recommendation-Reading Comprehension 105
Recommendation-Fluency Instruction 107
Recommendation-Engage in Academic Talk 109
Describing Strategies for Academic Talk 110
Recommendation-Independent Reading 111
Professional Development 112
Recommendation-Professional Development-Continuous In
Service ELL Training 115
Recommendation-Professional Development-Grade Level Specific 115
Recommendation-Professional Development-Collaborate 115
Recommendation-Professional Development-Establish Partnerships 116
Summary 116
References 118
Appendices
Appendix A: Parent Survey-English 141
Appendix B: Parent Climate Survey – Spanish 144
Appendix C: Teacher Survey 147
Appendix D: Student Reading Attitudes Inventory 149
Appendix E: Teacher Interview Questions 154
Appendix F: Principal Interview Questions 155
Appendix G: Assumed Causes Charts 156
Appendix H: Dissertation Proposal Presentation 159
Appendix I: Presentation to Sunshine Administration 161
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 8
List of Tables
Table 1: Mission Statement, Organizational Goal, and Stakeholder's Goals 34
Table 2: Summary of Teacher Demographics 36
Table 3: Sunshine Elementary Student Demographics Summary 37
Table 4: Knowledge Assumed Causes 41
Table 5: Motivation Assumed Causes 42
Table 6. Organization Assumed Causes 43
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 9
List of Figures
Figure 1: Illustration of the Performance levels of Sunshine Elementary School 38
Figure 2: Illustration of the Selection Of Assumed Causes 45
Figure 3: The Engagement Model of Reading Development 74
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 10
Abstract
This project was an alternative capstone dissertation conducted by a team of three doctoral
students. The project focused on systematic and long-term underachievement of the English
Language Learner (ELL) population of a single school, Sunshine Elementary, using the gap
analysis model (Clark and Estes, 2008). More specifically, the purpose of the analysis was to
examine possible causes for the literacy gap that impact student reading achievement at
Sunshine. As part of the problem-solving model, the inquiry group reviewed the school’s
mission, goals, and organizational gaps. The team investigated possible root causes for the
performance gaps noted. During this phase of the project, data were collected from Sunshine
Elementary administrators, teachers, parents and students who completed surveys regarding their
views towards literacy and the overall school environment. The principal, as well as several
teachers participated in semi-structured face-to-face interviews, discussions, and a review of the
current school adopted literacy program. This step led to a condensed list of validated root
causes: (a) goal alignment, (b) professional development, (c) teacher collaboration, (d) parent
involvement, (e) culturally relevant pedagogy, and (f) site based leadership. Finally, the inquiry
team developed recommendations for viable solutions based on a review of the literature as well
as research and theory on developmental perspectives on reading and literacy. Awareness of the
benefits of developmental reading instruction has implications for positive social change by
linking the multiple dimensions of reading, literacy, and comprehension development for ELs at
Sunshine Elementary.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 11
Chapter 1: Introduction
Authors: Enyetta Mingo-Long, Sharon L. H. Bennett, and Juan Carlos Herrera
1
This gap analysis project focused on the differences of systematic and long-term
underachievement of the English Learner (EL) population of Sunshine Elementary School.
2
The
goal of this analysis was to examine possible causes and recommend solutions. A picture of this
issue will be addressed from a national perspective, before describing the school at the local level.
The Problem
The rapid growth of the United States English Learner population is one of the most
significant demographic trends in the United States. With the expeditious evolution of ELs in the
U.S. accounting for one-fifth of the current school age population, the long-term educational
underachievement patterns of these students is of considerable importance (U.S. Census Bureau,
2006a). The dramatic increase of ELs in school age population has increased by 150%, and ELs
now account for one-sixth of the school-age population, and over one-fifth of the public
elementary school enrollments (Verdugo, 2006). In the U.S. school age population the educational
outcomes of English Learner students are far behind non-ELs. For example, ELs have lower levels
of school readiness at the start of kindergarten than their English speaking counterparts (Anderson,
2005). The high school completion rate for ELs is substantially lower than White students, EL
students are less likely to attend and graduate college (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006b). The disparity
of the underachievement of ELs in education continues to be seen as a formidable problem decade
1
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this
project. This section was predominantly written by Enyetta Mingo-Long. Contributions were
made by Sharon Bennett and Juan Herrera; these authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their
equal contribution.
2
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to
refer to the school, district, and community.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 12
after decade. The purpose of this project was to investigate specific causes for elementary EL
student literacy underachievement that may be addressed by targeted interventions. This review
examined the factors found to be important to the academic progress of EL students from the
national, state, and local district level, which provided the larger context for the current project.
Importance of the Problem
3
This particular problem is important at the national level because student demographics
are rapidly changing in the United States even as achievement differences continue. These
changes present new challenges for teachers and administrators across the nation. By the turn of
the millennium, there were fourteen million students who spoke a language other than English at
home (August, 2007). According to the Livingston and Wirt (2004), Spanish speakers are the
largest group of language minority students, followed by Asian language speakers, and then
other European languages. Schools nationwide are struggling to reach the demand of increasing
populations of English-language learners. One specific reason for the struggles that the schools
are encountering is that there is a huge diversity of languages that students are using all across
the fifty states. In the 2000-2001 school years, over 460 languages were reported to be spoken by
ELs in the United States (Kindler, 2002). The high number of ELs in schools, the vast number of
languages spoken by ELs, and the high rate of teachers that are unprepared to teach this
particular population has led to significant performance gaps between ELs and their non-EL
counterparts.
The rapid demographic shift during the last few decades has created new changes within
our society. For instance, there is a new wave of immigrant workers who are considered Limited
English Proficient (LEP). According to Sum, Fogg, Harrington, Khatiwada, Trub’skyy, and
3
This section was written by Juan Herrera. Contributions were made by Sharon Bennett and
Enyetta Mingo-Long; these authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 13
Palma (2002), about 46% of immigrant workers are considered LEP and that those of Hispanic
origin have shown to be particularly disadvantaged. This is more evident now than in previous
decades because the types of jobs available to workers with limited language skills have
changed. The jobs of today require increased literacy skills that some workers are not able to
meet. More entry-level jobs now demand that workers be able to read, write, and solve problems
in English. K-12 Schools are ideal places where students can master sufficient English to be
competitive in the job market and/or to succeed in higher education settings. Sadly though,
many ELs are not being adequately prepared for such tasks. Another reason why English
language proficiency matters is because it may determine what type of life an individual will
live. Work by Duval-Couetil and Mikulecky (2010) states that there is a strong correlation
between language proficiency and lifetime earnings. In other words, the higher the language
proficiency of an individual, the more money an individual will earn throughout his or her
lifetime. This reiterates the importance of EL population mastering the English language before
they graduate from high school. Society is demanding a new type of worker, one that is more
skilled and that has a mastery of the English language.
The overall low performance of ELs is a significant concern for both schools across the
country and to society as a whole. Currently, there are significant performance gaps between ELs
and their non-EL counterparts which affect schools and the larger context. As the number of EL
students increase, so does the need to find solutions on how to effectively improve the
performance of our ELs. This is an arduous task for educators because schools are not equipped
to effectively educate ELs, who present unique challenges.
Since the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002, states are
required to report the performance of all its students including the major subgroups (Kindler,
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 14
2002). One of the largest subgroups is the EL subgroup. The scores of ELs on the California
Standardized Test (CST) are used to determine the schools’ overall Academic Performance
Index (API) and the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Failure to meet one or both of these
targets may result in sanctions for the participating schools.
Moreover, schools are also required to help ELs improve their language proficiency. In
California, the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) has been implemented
since 2001. It is used to formally assess the English language proficiency of EL students (Mora,
Villa, & Dávila, 2006). Students are given the delineation of EL based on their home language.
Students who are tested using the CELDT are tested in four areas: reading, writing, listening and
speaking. The purpose of the assessment is (a) to measure the students’ English proficiency level
and (b) to help measure the movement of students to the early advanced and advanced bands,
which demonstrates that students are proficient in English. During the last decade, schools have
been held accountable at the state and federal level for improving the performance of their EL
population. It is imperative that schools across the nation identify the needs or their EL
population and come up with effective strategies to help improve their performance.
The underperformance of ELs in literacy has a negative impact on the larger context that
is society. If ELs struggle in literacy related activities, they are in danger of not meeting the
academic standards. Without this foundation, they are more likely to struggle in school and less
likely to graduate from high school. Students who do not graduate from high school may not be
prepared for the rigors of the workforce or for the academic demands of higher education.
Because of these issues, it is essential that schools address the problem of literacy instruction and
learning, especially at the elementary level. The problem must be acknowledged and then root
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 15
causes of the problem must be determined. It is essential to investigate this problem further and
determine some realistic and effective solutions.
Specific Purpose of the Analysis
The purpose of the project was to examine possible causes for the reading achievement
gap at a single school, Sunshine Elementary, using the gap analysis model developed by Clark
and Estes (2008). Specifically, the inquiry group examined factors that impacted student
achievement, investigated possible causes, and developed viable solutions for Sunshine. Specific
attention was given to the educational barriers that exist within the EL population from both a
national and local perspective.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 16
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Authors: Enyetta Mingo-Long, Juan Carlos Herrera, and Sharon L. H. Bennett
4
This chapter provides an overview of prominent factors that contribute to the disparity
between ELs and non-ELs academic achievement in general. Since this information provides the
general context for this problem area, it will be used as the foundation for examining EL reading
achievement in a single local setting. These factors include reading achievement on standardized
test (literacy development) of ELs, academic language, accountability, urban school reform, and
pedagogical content knowledge. Following this general overview, an analysis of how these
issues developed at Sunshine Elementary
5
will be provided with guidance through the literature.
Literacy and English Learners
According to research presented by the Report of the National Literacy Panel on
Language Minority Children and Youth, “Language minority students enter U.S. schools needing
to learn oral language and literacy in a second language, and have to learn with enormous
efficiency if they are to catch up with their monolingual English classmates” (August &
Shanahan, 2006, p. 53). The ability to read defines a student’s success throughout their entire
educational career (Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, Meisinger, Levy, & Rasinski, 2010). Without
concentrated attention to providing a strong, systematic literacy program for students, and their
success cannot be assured (Kuhn et al., 2010).
4
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this
project. This section was written by Enyetta Mingo-Long. Contributions were made by Sharon
Bennett and Juan Herrera; these authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal
contribution.
5
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to
refer to the school, district, and community.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 17
This section discusses the elements of literacy and how each one impacts the reading
achievement of the English Learner. Additionally, the barriers that exist for both English Learner
students and their teachers as it relates to literacy and reading will be discussed from a national
and local perspective.
Language Components
Research conducted by Ramirez (2001) connects the following five language components
with student success:
Phonemic Awareness: student ability to identify and manipulate phonemes into a spoken
language.
Phonics: student ability to understand the relationship between letters and spoken words.
Vocabulary & Syntax Development: student knowledge of stored information on the
meanings and pronunciations of words needed for communication.
Reading Fluency: student ability to read words accurately and quickly while recognizing
and comprehending them simultaneously.
Reading Comprehension Strategies: student ability to culminate all of the reading skills
and accomplish the goal of reading.
The aforementioned language components are seen as a requisite for effective instruction
of ELs as well as struggling readers Schulman (1986). Darling-Hammond (2000) affirms that
effective instruction must use language components. The research of Schulman (1986), Ramirez
(2001), and Darling-Hammond (2000) all indicate that teachers can effectively teach language
components by augmenting the language components with the students’ native language.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 18
Why is a Strong Literacy Program Essential for Academic Success?
6
Literacy development is a process that is componential and cumulative, and continues
through adulthood (August & Shanahan, 2008). Literacy refers to students’ ability to use
language to effectively communicate with others through reading, writing, listening and speaking
activities (Yopp & Yopp, 2000). A successful reader is one that can not only decode, but can
transfer what is read across the curriculum (August & Shanahan, 2008). The ability to read is a
large predictor of student’s attitudes about school and learning (LeClair, Doll, Osborn, & Jones,
2009). Because of this, teachers must make a commitment to giving students the tools they need
to ensure that they can navigate through the educational process successfully.
The Elements of Literacy
The elements of literacy are those specific and explicit activities that support novice,
developing and experienced readers (Dooley & Matthews, 2009). While there skills are taught
primarily throughout the elementary years, they follow readers throughout their educational
careers, and have the potential to impact College and Career readiness (Jones & King, 2012).
This section discusses the specific elements of literacy that are essential to creating a successful
reader. This section will also illustrate how these skills build upon one another, and that when
one is not appropriately addressed, reading difficulty will occur.
Early reading activities. Clay (1985) coined the term “Emergent literacy”, or the
behaviors that babies and young children demonstrate that emulate the act of reading before the
act of conventional reading occurs (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). She believes that children
become readers through a litany of pre reading activities that prepare them to make connections
with text and understand what is being read (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Research shows that,
6
This section was written by Sharon Bennett. Contributions were made by Juan Herrera and
Enyetta Mingo-Long; these authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 19
from birth, parents and caregivers need to engage babies and toddlers in activities that introduce
the beginnings of oral language (Smith, 2000; Yopp & Yopp, 2000a). Such activities, as being
read to, being sung to and expressive movement (Smith, 2000; Yopp& Yopp, 2000a) foster
emergent literacy.
Phonemic awareness is the understanding that the speech stream consists of sequential
sounds than make a difference in communication (August & Shanahan, 2008; Griffith & Olson,
1992; Yopp & Yopp, 2000b). Phonemic awareness activities must be child appropriate (Yopp &
Yopp, 2000b). This can occur through the use of songs and chants that manipulate phonemes by
changing the vowel or consonant sounds that provide engagement and encourage participation
(Smith, 2000; Yopp & Yopp, 2000b). Even if the words are nonsensical the manipulation
demonstrates to students how the simple change of one sound in a word can also change meaning
(Smith, 2000). While these activities are highly effective, it is important to remember that such
activities, such as singing and chanting must be deliberate and part of a systematic
literacy/reading program (Yopp & Yopp, 2000b). Without simple activities such as these,
learning how to decode text and comprehend what is read on a literal and figurative level will be
much more difficult (Halle et al., 2009). For EL students who may or may not have phonemic
awareness in their primary language, explicit activities that promote phonemic awareness will
promote success in this area (Yopp & Yopp, 2000b; Halle et al., 2009).
Students with strong phonemic awareness skills have a much better chance of being
successful readers than students who do not (Olson, Griffith, & Snowling, 2002; Yopp & Yopp,
2000b). Each day, teachers at the elementary level work with students who have not had the
opportunity to participate in these early activities, which contribute to the issues that so many
students have with learning how to read (Olson et al., 2002). For the English Learner, the
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 20
research suggests that, because of the differences in phonemes between languages, phonemic
awareness in English should be integrated into the reading readiness process (August &
Shanahan, 2008). When this does not occur, it makes reading and the motivation to persist in
reading related activities even more of a challenge (Halle et al., 2009). Phonological awareness
is the ability to consciously attend to the sounds of language as distinct from its meaning (August
& Shanahan, 2008). This step comes after students have phonemic awareness and is an indicator
of successful reading.
Parents supports for early literacy. How students’ progress in reading has to do with
how adults address the four following aspects of early literacy: (a) print knowledge; (b)
phonological awareness; (c) writing; and (d) oral language (Restrepo & Towle-Harmon, 2008).
Children who are between the ages of two and five need to have ample opportunity to participate
in these activities (Newman, 1996; Yopp & Yopp, 2000a). The literature suggests that parent
activities in the above areas support success in reading (Kissinger, 2004; Yopp & Yopp, 2000a).
To support this, parents must be the first and foremost literacy model for a child (Kissinger,
2004). For example, parents who make the conscious decision to read are modeling to that child
that reading is important (Kissinger, 2004). A concern is that the parents whose students need the
most support do not systematically participate in such activities (Kissinger, 2004). Parents who
have low literacy levels themselves may focus on the product of reading such as the book or the
words, versus the process of reading, which entails developing an understanding of what is
actually being read (Kissinger, 2004).
Phonics, sight words, vocabulary, and fluency. Once students have an understanding of
concept of print and phonological awareness, then they are prepared to transfer these skills to
phonics instruction, sight words, vocabulary, and fluency. The four elements go together because
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 21
as readers develop, the skills build upon one another in such a way that the more comfortable
students become in phonics and sight words, and the more sight words a reader knows, the more
fluent the reader will become. While these skills are focused upon from Kindergarten through
second grade, the processes continue throughout a students’ academic career, albeit not as
explicitly.
Phonics instruction involves understanding the connection with certain letters, groups of
letters, and symbols and assigning specific sound to the symbols through play as well as explicit
instruction (Scully & Roberts, 2001). Although many reading readiness activities have taken
place before students can understand and apply phonics, this is the point in a reader's
development that he or she comes to the realization that he or she is a "reader." For the EL
student, phonics can present difficulties if the sounds and alphabet in their native language
differs from English (Brice & Brice, 2009). This is especially the case if students have not
participated in the early literacy activities previously presented.
As students’ progress through Kindergarten and first grade, the development of sight
words and vocabulary assists students in moving quickly through text, and is the predecessor to
successful fluency and comprehension (Smith, 2000). Having a strong sight word vocabulary is
essential because there are words that may or may not have specific phonics rules, but are used
often enough that students need to look at the entire word and know what the word says (Allen,
1998; Williams, Phillips-Birdsong, Hufnagel, Hungler, & Lundstrom, 2009). Vocabulary
development instruction emphasizes the understanding of the meaning of words in and out of
context (Bauer and Arazi, 2011; Smith, 2000). For the EL student, the emphasis on sight words
and vocabulary development makes both oral and written production easier, and improves the
reading confidence as well (Bauer & Arazi, 2011).
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 22
Fluency is the ability to move through text quickly without losing meaning (Conderman
& Strobel 2008; Rasinski, 2000). Without strong fluency skills, students, especially ELs, will
experience reading difficulty (August & Shanahan, 2008; Conderman & Strobel, 2008; Kuhn et
al., 2010). While fluency can be related to phonics, vocabulary and sight words, it is also a stand-
alone skill that must be practiced explicitly in order for students to be successful.
Reading comprehension. According to Bauer and Arazi (2011), reading comprehension
is “a complex cognitive process that requires simultaneous use of rapid word recognition and
semantic and syntactic cues in order to construct meaning using personal knowledge and the
content of the text” (p. 383). The ability to comprehend what is read is the reason why schools
emphasize the other literacy activities previously discussed (Bauer & Arazi, 2011). It provides
access to all content area instruction (Moss, 2007). Effective comprehension also has strong
implications for college to career readiness (Jones & King, 2012). However, having all the
literacy skills discussed is not enough. Motivation, plays a large part in reading comprehension
(August & Shanahan, 2008). Ensuring that all students participate in instructional strategies in an
environment that promotes high levels of engagement fosters motivation.
Appropriate instructional activities. A classroom that is literate and print-rich seeks to
engage students in instructional activities that motivate and encourage reading development
(Hawkins, Musti-Rao, & Barkley, 2009). According to Vygotsky (2002) learning is a highly
social construct, where students learn best when they are given opportunities to discuss what is
being learned with peers. Because of this, students need to have the opportunity to manipulate
language in ways that strengthen their early literacy skills (Hawkins, 2008). This is through
appropriate instructional practices that allow for oral interaction. Additionally, instruction must
provide appropriate scaffolding for students in need (Manyak, 2008). Research concerning
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 23
student engagement strategies suggests that the systematic application of engagement strategies
(think-pair-share, use of white boards for response) allows the support necessary for student
success (Scott & Teale, 2009).
The steps to literacy are as simple as they are complex. Access to the literacy process as a
whole is the only assurance of success for all students (Guccione, 2011; Maynak, 2008).
Neglecting or omitting even one part of the process can prove detrimental for even the brightest
of student (Maynak, 2008; Netten, Droop, & Verhoeven, 2010). To compound this even further,
ELs experience more such concerns with access to the literacy process than the current dominant
group (Guccione, 2011; Hawkins, 2004). This section will discuss the key barriers to access to
literacy as it specifically pertains to the EL student. While both national and local perspectives
have a similar look, they will be discussed separately.
Barriers to Literacy – A National Dilemma
7
On a national level, there are over 400 languages that are spoken by ELs who are enrolled
in US schools (Kindler, 2002). The obvious dilemma is that with so many languages with their
own unique linguistic patterns that it is a challenge for teachers to address the literacy and
reading needs of all students (Harper & DeJong, 2009). Additionally, not being prepared to
engage in the literacy process has national ramifications. Students who attend public schools in
the U.S. come with their own perceptions of school and learning (Madrid, 2011). They are taught
by teachers who lack the experience and/or desire to service the English Learner population is
earnest (Harper & DeJong, 2009). Many of these teachers may have preconceived ideas
concerning the ability of the ELs in their classroom (Harper & DeJong, 2009). Many of the
schools are majority English Learner (more than 50%) so the impact of substandard teaching is
7
This section was written by Juan Herrera. Contributions were made by Sharon Bennett and
Enyetta Mingo-Long; these authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 24
concentrated on a very large group of students. Based on the teacher perception of EL students
and the level of instruction EL students receive, it is not surprising that there is a population of
ELs that do not have adequate access to the full advantage of the literacy process as early as the
third grade.
While there are many teachers who believe that the linguistic differences that EL students
bring to the classroom are beneficial to the overall learning process, there are too many teachers
who do not (Calderón, Slavin, & Sánchez, 2011). The literature suggests three issues that impede
teachers from believing that ELs can learn. First, teachers of English Learner students do not
always believe that the students have the capacity to learn (Bae, Holloway, Li, & Bempechat,
2008; Calderón et al., 2011). As students get older, and they become more adept to examine the
differential treatment of teachers, this perception greatly impacts their effort on tasks (Bae et al.,
2008; Calderón et al., 2011).
Due to the perceived ability of EL students, coupled with the lack of effort on the part of
students as a result of these perceptions, teachers feel validated to “water down” the curriculum,
therefore not allowing access to grade level appropriate content and learning activities (Calderón
et al., 2011). The No Child Left Behind Legislation requires that all students, including ELs, are
to be held to the same high academic standard (Curtin, Ingels, Wu, & Heuer, 2002); yet full
access to the curriculum is not guaranteed. Failure to focus on teaching grade level appropriate
curriculum adds to the disparity between the achievement of ELs and their non El counterparts
(Calderón et al., 2011). Second, teachers believe that, even though there is a growing amount of
ELs entering public schools who are in need of specific strategies to ensure literacy success, their
current practices in the classroom should remain the same (Calderón et al., 2011).
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 25
Keeping in mind the tremendous within-group variability, the perception of parental
involvement is also a concern with the English Learner. Depending on the cultural group, the
infrastructure of the school differs greatly from the culture of many parents (Madrid, 2011). For
example, in many cultures, there is a trust in teachers that compels parents to do what needs to be
done without interference from parents (Madrid, 2011). The perception of parents by teachers,
based on this trust, is that of disinterest (Madrid, 2011). Also, teaching strategies, expectations
and procedures may be so dichotomous that parents are unable to help their child (Madrid,
2011). For example, according to research by Dawson and Portsmouth (2009), homework is an
independent activity in the eyes of many groups of parents based on how they were schooled.
Much of the homework in the primary grades in United States schools requires parent direction,
participation and feedback (Dawson & Portsmouth, 2009; Gill & Schlossman, 2003). So, when
homework is not returned or completed to satisfaction, the assumption is that parents do not have
an interest in the education of their children. For example, according to a study by Buenning and
Tolleffson (2006), EL parents do care about their children, and they do place a high regard on
education. However, many EL parents simply have a value orientation that differs from most
white parents. For example, students whose families do not consider reading a recreational
activity, but as a survival function may not perceive reading as a viable choice outside of the
constraints of the classroom (Klauda, 2009). This is not to say that reading is not considered
important; it is just to what end should reading take place.
Another concern in regards to the instruction of ELs is that of teacher skill and
experience. Teachers are simply not prepared to teach EL students in the manner they should be
taught (Calderon et al., 2011). There is also a limited amount of teacher education programs that
offer more than peripheral training for ELs. In the United States, only twenty states have specific
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 26
requirements for EL instruction as part of the credentialing requirement, and even this varies
greatly. Although the need for qualified teachers of ELs is a grave concern, the reality is that the
least qualified teachers are servicing the ELs nationwide (Harper & DeJong, 2009; Hawkins,
2004). Large urban areas where large concentrations (30% or more) of ELs are being taught by
newer teachers who do not have the seniority to choose where they teach (Gandara & Maxwell-
Jolly, 2000; Harper & DeJong, 2009). These newer teachers may not have the repertoire of skills
necessary to effectively instruct ELs. Additionally, there is a nationwide climate of teachers who
have taught for less than five years receiving non-reelect notices due to budget constraints
(Harper & DeJong, 2009). Gandara and Maxwell-Jolly (2000) also discussed the issue of
preservice teachers participating in what they is called the “infusion approach” when preparing
new teachers for the rigors of working with culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. This
means that preservice teachers may be given a cursory glance of multiculturalism without the
actual tools to work with such a population. Or, there is an emphasis on one culture with the
incorrect assumption that this one culture will be the only one that will be taught.
Barriers to Literacy-State and Local Concerns
California has a myriad of languages. In Southern California, where Sunshine Elementary
was located, the predominant second language is Spanish (Hoefer, Rytina, & Baker, 2011).
According to the United States Census Bureau (2005) more than half of the citizens of
Centerville, CA were born outside of the Unites States. An unmistakable majority of these
immigrants were from Mexico. Also, most of the students within these groups were concentrated
in areas that are high poverty (Harper & DeJong, 2009). As discussed previously, teachers who
have the least experience were charged with the duty of teaching the students who need the most
support (Harper & DeJong, 2009).
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 27
Content Knowledge
8
In addition to language components, elements of literacy, and barriers to literacy the
literature states that student success is measured through teachers that have a strong command of
content knowledge (Ramirez, 2001). Haycock (1998) states that there is considerable research
that shows how important a teachers content knowledge contributes to student learning.
Research regarding the importance of content knowledge is also supported by Darling-Hammond
(2000) who suggests that content knowledge is vital to good teaching.
Every student and every culture constructs and develops language arts in their own way.
When a teacher fails to understand how cultural differences can yield different developments in
language arts, learners will be at a disadvantage. Haycock (1998) believes it is paramount for
teacher educators to attend to the culture of their students and use that culture as a means of
enhancing student knowledge to a diverse student population.
Contributing Factors Related to EL Achievement
There are three additional areas that merit brief discussion related to ELs’ achievement in
literacy. The areas are: urban school reform, accountability, and pedagogical content knowledge.
These three areas are important in understanding the educational context for EL students and also
provide clues about the areas that were needed to investigate during the course of this gap
analysis.
Urban school reform. Urban schools across the U.S. are faced with the challenge of
reforming literacy readiness and implementing literacy initiatives for ELs. Often the
accountability measures for urban school reform impede the ability of schools to improve the
literacy development of ELs in a meaningful way. Therefore, the purpose of urban school reform
8
This section was written by Enyetta Mingo-Long. Contributions were made by Sharon Bennett
and Juan Herrera; these authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 28
initiatives is to define what constitutes as a viable literacy program for ELs (Guccione, 2011).
Standards governing these criteria are established with curricular and instructional measures to
substantiate school reform.
As future change agents of urban school reform, an analysis of Sunshine Elementary
literacy readiness and implementation of literacy initiatives for its ELs is essential. More
importantly, as educational change agents we must work towards accomplishing the global goal
of promoting institutional changes that encourage long-term effects rather than short-term efforts
(Darling-Hammond, 2000).
Urban school reform is of particular importance to closing the literacy gap at Sunshine
Elementary. Currently, the school has been unable to close the literacy achievement gap with the
current literacy strategies used to teach ELs. Darling-Hammond (2000) affirms that it is the
urban students whom educators have most frequently failed.
The gap analysis project for Sunshine Elementary is significant because more than 50%
of students of color live in urban areas (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), and students of color are
nationally the fastest growing demographic group (National Center for Education Statistics,
2006). Darling-Hammond (2000) posits that as a nation, education systems are not experiencing
success with the current expanding student population on whom our future economic and social
well-being depend.
Accountability. As articulated by Rueda (2011), increased accountability is best
exemplified by the federal education law, No Child Left Behind, which holds states, districts, and
schools accountable for student achievement based on standardized test scores (Linn, 2003),
although individual states have implemented their own parallel systems.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 29
Accountability is what students should know represented by what is reflected on formal
assessments and how students compare to others in a specified reference group (Rueda, 2011).
Rueda (2011) asserts that the accountability approach has been a highly salient feature of the
educational landscape in recent years, and has been used as an essential tool in educational
reform. School accountability is crucial to the success of Sunshine’s Elementary English Learner
population. During the time of analysis Sunshine Elementary was not a program improvement
school. However, if the school continues to show significant EL underachievement, failure to
show consistent improvement may lead to reconstitution. Therefore, the gap analysis project for
Sunshine Elementary was used to assist the school with being accountable for the literacy
achievement of its EL students.
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). The literature suggests the significance of a
teacher possessing strong subject matter competency as well as being culturally relevant in the
classroom as necessary requirements for student success (Schulman, 1986). Pedagogical content
knowledge is best defined by Schulman (1986) as the knowledge of how to teach effectively in a
discipline, as opposed to knowledge of the discipline itself.
The ability to possess strong cultural competence and teach effectively in a discipline, as
opposed to knowledge of the discipline itself is often a challenge that exists for today’s teachers.
Moule (2012) defines cultural competence as the ability to interact effectively with people of
different cultural/ethnic backgrounds. In the context of teaching, cultural competence enables the
teacher to educate students whose cultures differ from their own. Teachers must understand that
the students’ cultures have a considerable influence on learning (Mayer 2008). Wilson, Konopak,
and Readence (1993) conclude that “teacher educators should attempt to understand the cultural
uniqueness of the individual and make concerted efforts to assist students with making personal
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 30
connections between the theories presented in the teacher education program and classroom
practice” (p. 230).
Another concept significant to PCK is the zone of proximal development (ZPD), as
presented by Vygotsky (1978). The ZPD is the difference between what a learner can do without
help and what he or she can do with the help of a teacher. Kozulin (1990) believes that the ZPD
is the essential element in the formation of higher mental functions and the process of
internalization. Kozulin (1990) asserts once children have gone through their ZPD they have
learned to use their language as tools allowing them to navigate through their culture and
environment. The ZPD theory is consistent with cultural competence as both enable the teacher
to educate students effectively.
This chapter has explored the research that pertains to the progress of EL students in
relation to literacy. The main points discussed were as follows: Literacy and ELs; language
components; elements of literacy; the complexities of learning for EL students; specific barriers
to literacy and learning that EL students face from a National and local level; and contributing
factors of EL achievement. The chapter that follows shall create an overall picture of
California’s Unified School District, Sunshine Elementary School, and the larger Centerville
community. Methodology used to analyze the current levels of achievement will be outlined.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 31
Chapter 3: Methodology
Authors: Sharon L. H. Bennett, Juan Carlos Herrera and Enyetta Mingo-Long
9
Institutional Review Board (IRB) Disclaimer. Based upon the description of this project as a
problem solving effort intended primarily for the setting examined, the USC University Park
Institutional Review Board (IRB) concluded that this project did not qualify as Human Subjects
Research and was not subject to further review. The names of the school, district, and all
stakeholders have been withheld to maintain confidentiality.
Introduction
This is a case study of Sunshine Elementary School in Centerville, CA.
10
The school is
part of the California Unified School District (CUSD), a large urban district in Southern
California. The analysis herein explored the possible factors that contributed to closing the
literacy gap of low performing Hispanic students at Sunshine Elementary School, along with
research-based solutions. At the time of the inquiry process, Sunshine Elementary School was
experiencing a 54% performance gap, as measured by the California Standards Test.
This chapter provides a context for the problem at Sunshine through the clear articulation
of the school's mission, organizational goal, and goals of the stakeholders. School demographics
are also introduced in order to provide further context for the problem. The inquiry team used a
modified gap analysis process to determine the reasons for the performance gap, based on
examining possible causes formulated through insights from the literature review as well as
9
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this
project. The authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
10
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to
refer to the school, district, and community.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 32
through inquiry team experience. The literature provided a foundation for exploring possible
causes for this specific school’s performance gap. The inquiry team used existing scholarship as
a basis for its analysis of Sunshine.
Mission Statement
The mission of a school is designed to convey an idea concerning how a school should
function. It should specifically direct the school on how to serve their stakeholders and how to
support learning improvement. Most significant, it is a basis on which school improvement
should be measured. An effective school clearly communicates the mission to all stakeholders,
with the understanding that all stakeholders assume the responsibility of working toward this
end. Examining the mission statement of Sunshine Elementary School provided the team with
an understanding of what the school believed and what it strived to accomplish.
Mission. Sunshine, like most schools, had a mission statement that was established by the
school and district. The mission focuses on collaboration between the staff and the community
(which may include parents); dedication to high standards for all students; an engaging
curriculum; and creating motivated students. The mission of Sunshine elementary school reads
as follows:
“Our mission is to challenge, inspire, and support our students to make a difference in the
world they live in. Together, the staff and community of Sunshine Elementary School are
dedicated to provide a safe environment, a powerful engaging curriculum, emphasizing
high standards that will empower all students to become motivated, successful and
lifelong learners.”
The mission provided for high standards, exceptional teaching, and an environment where
students were empowered to prepare for college and career.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 33
Organizational goal. The organization goal for Sunshine was established by the
mandates of NCLB; the legislation proclaimed "By 2014, 100% of students and significant
student subgroups will perform at the proficient or advanced level." The organizational goal
addresses the desired academic outcomes for all students, and specifically for EL students.
The gap. In 2010, Sunshine’s Academic Performance Index (API) rank was 808, eight
points above the statewide target of 800. Schools are ranked based on two measures: One is the
state rank and the other is a ranking that compares schools with similar demographics. In 2010,
the state ranking for Sunshine Elementary was 6 out of 10, and the similar schools ranking was a
10 out of 10. According to the CDE, the 2011 API was 765, a 43-point fall from 2010.
According to the California Standards Test results for spring 2011, 46% of students were
proficient on the Reading Language Arts test.
Stakeholders. There were four stakeholder groups at Sunshine Elementary School:
Students;
Teachers;
Administration;
Parents.
It was clear that, through the mission statement and the organizational goals, there was an
emphasis on what students need to accomplish. The mission statement also discussed
collaboration and engaging curriculum. The mission and the organizational goal influenced the
expectations of stakeholders in ways necessary to the improvement of literacy development and
achievement at Sunshine Elementary School. These precepts clearly influenced the goals of
parents, teachers, and the administration. Table 1 is an illustration of the mission statement of
Sunshine Elementary school. It shows how the mission statement related to the organizational
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 34
goal of all students, specifically EL students, being proficient readers as measured by the
California Standards test.
Table 1
Mission Statement, Organizational Goal, and Stakeholder's Goals
Mission
Our mission is to challenge, inspire and support our students to make a difference in the world
they live in. Together, the staff and community of Sunshine Elementary School are dedicated to
provide a safe environment, a powerful engaging curriculum, emphasizing high standards that
will empower all students to become motivated, successful and lifelong learners
Organizational Goal
All English Learners at Sunshine Elementary School will be proficient as measured by the
Reading Language arts portion of the California Standards Test
100% of Sunshine Elementary Students will have the literacy tools to access information across
the curriculum
Stakeholder Expectations
Students
All students will
perform at a proficient
or advanced level on
all school and
standardized tests
Teachers
All teachers will
provide culturally
relevant instructional
strategies and will
participate in
collaboration
activities that ensure
students will meet the
state standards
Administration will
provide appropriate
leadership that
encourages teacher
collaboration, parent
engagement, goal
alignment, site based
leadership support and
appropriate
professional
development
Parents
All parents will be
involved in their
students' education
through parent
engagement activities
that connect them to
the school
Demographics
The consideration of demographics provided useful context for the inquiry team to be
better able to recognize possible causes for the performance gap at Sunshine. This section will
specifically address the demographics of Sunshine Elementary and its surrounding community.
Community. Centerville, California is an urban city located approximately ten miles
southeast of Los Angeles. Currently, Centerville has a total population of approximately 69,800,
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 35
with the largest percentage of residents between the ages of 25-34. Centerville has a sizeable
Spanish-speaking population, with 76% of residents speaking Spanish, as compared to 23% for
the state of California, and 67% nationwide. 34% of Centerville residents are white; 14% are
Black and less than 1% are Native American or Asian. 82% of Centerville’s residents are
Hispanic. 39% of Centerville residents have completed high school, as compared to 80%
statewide. 4.5% have earned a Bachelor’s degree, as compared to 30% statewide. Less than 2%
of Centerville residents have earned Master’s degrees versus 10% statewide.
District. In 2010, the CUSD had nineteen schools. There were 12 elementary, three
intermediate, four high schools, and one continuation school. Fourteen of the schools were
Program Improvement (PI) schools and received Title I, Title III, Economic Impact Aid/Limited
English Proficiency, and Economic Impact Aid/State Compensatory Education funding. For
2010, the CUSD did not meet AYP standards. Only 13 of the 26 criteria were met. Of the 19
schools, all but five schools in the district were in PI status.
The CUSD served 11,927 students in grades Pre-K through 12. District student
demographics are as follows:
11,149 Hispanic or Latino;
643 Black or African American;
34 White or Caucasian;
22 Asian or Pacific Islander (including 8 Filipino);
2 Indigenous or American Indian;
40 Multiple Responses.
Additionally, the district has 7,628 EL students; 898 Special Education students; and 11,914
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 36
School. In 2010, Sunshine Elementary was a traditional Pre-K-5 school. At the time of
this inquiry, Sunshine received both Title I and Title III funds from the federal government.
Additionally, Sunshine was the only elementary school in the district not classified as a Program
Improvement (PI) school. The student enrollment for Sunshine Elementary was 629 students.
There was one principal, one teacher on special assignment, and a teaching staff of 26 teachers.
The average class size at Sunshine was 24 students per teacher.
Sunshine Elementary participated in many activities that enhanced the educational
process. Parent visitations, curricular focus days, and awards assemblies connected the parents
and the community to the school. Math nights and multicultural activities provided value to
students and celebrated their talents. Active parent groups worked tirelessly for the good of the
school and the students. The strong tradition of Sunshine continued through the academic
achievement of the students.
Staff demographics. The staff at Sunshine was very diverse in their years of experience,
ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds. In 2010, there were nineteen teachers at Sunshine, with
over half of the teachers on campus having been at the school for ten or more years. There are
two male teachers on campus. Table 2 summarizes this demographic information.
Table 2
Summary of Teacher Demographics
Category Number of Teachers
Bilingual (Spanish) 7
Male 2
Female 17
Taught more than 10 years at Sunshine 11
Taught more than 10 years all together 14
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 37
Student demographics. At the time of the inquiry project, Sunshine Elementary school
was predominately Hispanic/Latino with a 97.9%. The rest of the school population was
Black/African American (0.9%) and Asian (0.2%). Seventy-four point five percent of students
were designated as English Learners. Ninety-four point three percent were Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged. Table 3 is a summary of this demographic information.
Table 3
Sunshine Elementary Student Demographics Summary
Group Enrollment (Percentage)
Black or African American 0.9
Asian 0.2
Hispanic or Latino 97.9
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 94.3
English Learners 74.5
Students with Disabilities 2.1
The gap. In 2010, Sunshine’s API rank was 808, which was 8 points above the statewide
target of 800. Schools are ranked based on two measures: One is the state rank and the other is a
ranking that compares schools with similar demographics. In 2010, the state ranking for
Sunshine Elementary was 6 out of 10, and the similar schools ranking was a 10 out of 10.
According to the CDE, the 2011 Academic Performance Index (API) is 765, so Sunshine’s API
fell 43 points from 2010. According to the California Standards Test results for spring 2011,
46% of students were proficient on the Reading Language Arts test.
Figure 1 illustrates how the demographics and the current performance levels of Sunshine
Elementary School connect. It serves to summarize the information that the inquiry team used to
begin the Gap Analysis process.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 38
Figure 1. Illustration of the performance levels of Sunshine Elementary School.
The next section discusses the modified Gap Analysis process the inquiry team used to
determine the reasons for the 54% performance gap at Sunshine Elementary School.
Overview of the Modified Gap Analysis Process
The purpose of the project was to use a modified version of the Gap Analysis Model
developed by Clark and Estes (2008) to examine the performance of Sunshine Elementary
School as it relates to the literacy development and reading proficiency for the EL population.
Specifically, the objective was to look at the three reasons for performance gaps presented by
Clark and Estes (2008) that impede organizations from achieving both internal and external
goals. The performance gaps discussed in greater detail throughout the study are as follows:
Knowledge Gaps-Do all stakeholders (teachers, students, parents, etc.) have the
information, training and support necessary to achieve their goals?
Motivational Gaps-Are there reasons that stakeholders are unable to choose to start a
task, to persist at that task, and to exude the mental effort to complete said task?
Traditional, PK-5
One Principal, 26
Teachers
Average Class
Size-24 Students
Title I and Title III
Current Enrollment-
629 Students
API 2010-808
API 2011-765
State Rankings 2010
6 out 10
Currently, Sunshine
is NOT in PI
Currently, 54% of
students are not
proficient on the
RLA
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 39
Organizational-Are there issues within the organization (procedures, policies, etc.) that
may prevent stakeholders from achieving their goals?
There are five steps that were implemented for the gap analysis process. First, the inquiry
team identified the goals that the school wanted to achieve. Performance goals developed must
be concrete, challenging, and current, also known as C3 goals (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 26).
Second, the specific gaps were identified based on how the goals compared to the actual
performance. A hypothesis was made, to help determine the root causes so that the gaps could be
identified. When the root causes were identified, they were thoroughly analyzed to determine
whether knowledge and skill, motivation, or organizational barriers existed. Often, organizations
have more than one barrier that creates the gap, when this occurs the causes of the barrier must
be investigated. The investigation helped determine the root cause for substandard performance.
Fourth, solutions were developed based on what the target learning area was. Lastly, outcomes
were assessed once the solutions were implemented.
The Modified Gap Analysis
The modified Gap Analysis was used as the model for this dissertation project. A thematic group
approach was used modifying the Gap Analysis model of Clark and Estes (2008). As articulated
by Rueda (2011) the modified gap analysis format is meant to emulate the collaborative
problem-solving that the group will be expected to engage in within their professional work.
This gap analysis approach differs from the Clark and Estes (2008) approach in that it
examines the long-standing and systematic differences in literacy outcomes particularly relevant
to Sunshine Elementary — specifically, the outcomes related to ethnicity, race, language, and
socioeconomic status, which form the backdrop for the current educational landscape (Rueda,
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 40
2011). The systematic differences continue to characterize the educational outcomes that are
justified by the model’s ability to assist in closing the literacy gap at Sunshine Elementary.
Inquiry Team Process
On November 7, 2011, the inquiry team met with the principal at Sunshine Elementary
School. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the gap analysis process to the principal
and to determine the specific needs of Sunshine Elementary School's English Learners in terms
of literacy participation and improvement. While Sunshine was not currently in Program
Improvement, the principal was concerned about the literacy performance of third grade EL
students who had been classified as "Intermediate" on the CELDT for more than two years. This
is the information that the team used to move forward with the research.
On November 30, 2011, the inquiry team met with the entire Sunshine Elementary
teaching staff. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the team to the staff and to explain
the gap analysis process. The teachers at Sunshine were given the opportunity to ask the inquiry
team questions about the entire process.
From November 2011 through March 2012, the inquiry team completed a comprehensive
literature review concerning aspects of literacy on a national, state and local level. There was an
emphasis on barriers to literacy. During this time, the inquiry team also compiled a list of
assumed causes for literacy concerns in general. These assumed causes were based on the
literature studies as well as the professional experiences of the members of the inquiry team.
Tables 4, 5, and 6 are a compilation of the assumed causes. They were categorized by
stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, administrators) and the type of literacy barrier
(knowledge, motivation and organization).
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 41
Table 4
Knowledge Assumed Causes
Causes Students Parents Teachers Admin
Knowledge
Delayed
reading due
to holes in
literacy
processes
students are
not able to
develop
literacy
proficiency
in their first
language.
May not
understand
importance
of what is
being
learned
Possess
literacy
skills to be
effective
readers?
Possibly not
provided
appropriate
literacy
instruction
Education
level
possibly
similar to
their child’s
May not
understand
importance
of what is
being
learned
May not
have
knowledge
to access
resources
May not
have skills
to support
students
PD at beginning of
school
(centralized)
curriculum aligned
for teachers
consisted of
common
assessment,
coding for student
achievement,
benchmarked,
LEA plan, data
analysis protocol.
This is a data
driven program.
Is the data process
giving the right
data?
May not have
tools necessary to
work effectively
with students
Lack of teaching
strategies
Know the goals of
the school?
Goals effectively
communicated?
Knowledge of
reading and using
data to improve
instruction?
Knowledge of
school mission?
First principal
position
New to district,
new to school
Mastery of
elements of job
May not
understand
nuances of
school climate
District not fully
aware of myriad
tasks principal
must complete
School mission
articulated to all
teachers,
parents, and
students?
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 42
Table 5
Motivation Assumed Causes
Causes Students Parents Teachers Admin
Motivation
Student self-
efficacy
based on
teacher
attitudes
Student
work is not
presented in
a way that
motivates
them or
creates an
interest to
understand
the material.
Distracted
by the
language
barriers
Value
Students do
not know
how to be
Self-
Regulated.
Students are
not
motivated to
self-
regulate.
Self-Efficacy
Parents do not
hold their
students
accountable
due to
perceived
ability issues
(Probrecito)
Parents may
have a
different view
and
understanding
of the
Meaning of
Education
Parents trust
the teachers to
do what they
need to do for
their children
(and may not
feel the need
to provide
their children
with
additional
support)
Parents may
feel
intimidated by
teachers
Parent may
think that the
school has no
appreciation
for the family
Participate in PD
out of obligation vs.
desire to be a
lifelong learner
(teachers may not
see the value of the
PD)
Stereotyping of
students (low
expectations of
students)
Lack of interest to
learn new
techniques
Self-Efficacy
Teachers do not
care about EL
students
Teachers do not
believe that EL
student can succeed
Teachers may
believe that what
they are doing is
effective and
should not be
changed
The district
may not be
willing to
make any
additions to
the
administrative
team as long as
the school is
showing
growth and
running
effectively.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 43
Table 6
Organization Assumed Causes
From March 2012 through June 2012, the inquiry team conducted data collection
activities. The activities in which the inquiry team provided leadership were as follows: (a)
teacher surveys; (b) principal interview; (c) parent surveys; (d) Teacher interviews and (e)
student reading inventory. The parent survey and the student reading inventory were
administered by the school, and the school provided the data to the inquiry team. District and
school site state and federal accountability reports as well as the School Accountability Report
Card (SARC), and the California Standards Test (CST) reports were also reviewed. Further
Causes Students Parents Teachers Admin
Organization
Heavily
focused on LA
and Math, and
some of the
other subjects
may not be
pushed,
especially
those subjects
where literacy
skills (reading,
writing,
listening and
speaking) can
be practiced
Teachers may
not have the
appropriate
materials to
provide
effective
instruction
Lack of
resources to
support
system
Outside of
PTA, there are
few
opportunities
for parent
involvement
Family
dynamics may
impact parent
participation
Support from
Administrator
Time and space
for collaboration
may not exist
Teachers may not
be accountable to
one another
Teachers may
think that they
are collaborating
effectively
Teachers may be
reluctant to
collaborate
unless directed
Teachers may not
appreciate the
value of effective
and ongoing
collaboration
There is no
administrative
team.
Isolation
Little support
from District
office
Administrators
that are new to
the district
(outsider)
The district
does not have
the necessary
funds to pay the
salary for
another
administrator at
the school site.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 44
examination was made into the schools literacy instructional program, and the instructional or
academic alignment between Sunshine Elementary school and the district.
The purpose of these activities was to obtain additional information concerning how the
school functioned and how they perceive literacy. Specifically, the assumed causes examined
Sunshine Elementary organizational goals against the schools current literacy performance gap.
The inquiry team sought to validate the assumed causes in pursuit of obtaining the schools global
goal and performance achievement of closing the literacy gap. As illustrated in Tables 4, 5, and
6, the assumed causes were grouped into the three categories: knowledge, motivation, and
organization. The inquiry team analyzed the possible factors that may have been attributed to the
EL literacy gap at Sunshine Elementary. The inquiry team discussed all of the assumed causes
were able to place most of the causes into categories the following categories: students, parents’
teachers and administration. Those causes that were not validated or were determined to be
inconsequential were eliminated. Figure 2 shows the causes that remained after the elimination
process.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 45
Figure 2. Illustration of the selection of assumed causes.
In examining Figure 2, the inquiry team was able to determine the six causes that
contributed to the organizational gap at Sunshine. The summary of these causes and the specific
data that were used to validate each of these causes will be discussed in Chapter 4.
Students
Students need exposure to
instructional strategies that
specifically support their
language development
Students need to be
taught literacy
activities that
support learning
Students do not
know the mission
statement
Parents
Parents do not have
a lot of opportunities
to come on campus
There is no parent
training
opportunities at
Sunshine
Parents need to
feel that the
school appreciates
their contributions
Teachers
Teachers need training in
instructional practices that
support EL students
Teachers need to
learn how to
collaborate with
each other
effectively
Teachers need to make sure
they know how to guide
students through the literacy
process
Teachers need to have
opportunities to participate
in meaningful leadership
opportunities
Teachers are not
aware of the mission
statement
Teachers need to
support parent
training activities
Administrators
Principal needs to
support teachers in
collaboration
activities
Principal is isolated
and needs support
Teachers were not
aware of the mission
statement
The district may not
have articulated the
mission statement to the
school
Administration must
provide parent
training
opportunities
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 46
Conclusion
This chapter provided a context for the problem at Sunshine Elementary School. First, the
chapter examined the mission statement, organizational goals, and the various stakeholders at
Sunshine Elementary School. Next, the chapter addressed the demographics of Sunshine at the
community, district, and school level. Next, the chapter examined the differences between the
Gap Analysis model and the modified Gap Analysis model used for this dissertation project.
Moreover, the inquiry team process was discussed to provide the reader with the steps the
inquiry team took during this process. The next chapter will examine the findings from the data
collected.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 47
Chapter 4: Findings
11
Authors: Juan Carlos Herrera, Sharon L. H. Bennett, and Enyetta Mingo-Long
The purpose of this chapter was to report the findings from data collected related to the
literacy gap that exists between ELs and non-ELs at Sunshine Elementary School.
12
The goal of
the data collection was to examine the possible causes and validate the root causes of the literacy
gap. The inquiry team took on the role of consultants and used the gap analysis framework to
study the root causes behind the literacy gap at Sunshine Elementary School.
Overview of Possible Causes for EL Literacy Gap at Sunshine Elementary School
Based upon an initial review of the literature, the inquiry team was able create a list of
possible causes for the literacy gap at Sunshine Elementary School. A total of thirty-three
possible causes were listed. Once the list of possible causes was developed, the inquiry team
categorized the possible causes into the following three categories: knowledge, motivation and
organization. Within each of these three groups, the inquiry team further separated the list of
possible causes by the following four stakeholder groups: parents, students, teachers, and
administration. This table can be found in Appendix G. Out of the validation process by the
inquiry team, it was determined that both assets and causes for the literacy gap were discovered.
The following section provides details for both, and provided the team information concerning
possible solutions for Sunshine. These solutions are discussed in Chapters 5 and Chapter 6.
11
This section was written by Juan Herrera. Contributions were made by Sharon Bennett and
Enyetta Mingo-Long; these authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
12
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to
refer to the school, district, and community.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 48
Assets of Sunshine Elementary School
Based on in-depth interviews and parent, student, and teacher surveys, it was determined
that Sunshine Elementary School has a plethora of assets that benefit the students and families
they serve. This section will briefly discuss these assets.
Leadership commitment. The principal has only been at Sunshine elementary for
approximately two years and is fairly new to the district but is highly motivated to be an
effective principal for the students and teachers at Sunshine. From the scanning interview, the
principal stated many hats must be worn to be effective. Some of the roles as principal included
but are not limited to: instructional leader, plant manager, coach, collaborator, and advocate for
students and parents. During informal conversations, the principal, mentioned that she arrives to
school early in the morning and leaves long after everyone is gone. This was done to ensure that
all tasks were completed in a timely manner.
During the principal interview, it quickly became clear that the principal really cared
about the students and their families and felt responsible for student success. This is
demonstrated by the ongoing involvement in student activities, the intent to start a counseling
group for mothers who have been abused, and by the determination on the part of the principal to
close the achievement gap at Sunshine Elementary School.
The principal at Sunshine was very passionate about ensuring that all students have equal
access to the curriculum so that they can be successful in school. This was done so that all
students had the opportunity to be college and career ready upon high school graduation. The
principal ensured that students have access to the curriculum through monitoring the use of
SDAIE strategies in order to make content comprehensible. A forty-five minute daily
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 49
instructional block was dedicated to English Language Development instruction was part of the
daily schedule as well.
Staff respect for principal. Another major asset at Sunshine elementary was that the
staff respected the principal’s leadership. During the scanning interview, the principal described
the social atmosphere at Sunshine as a “non-toxic environment.” The principal went on to say
that although the teachers did not always agree with the school districts’ demands all of the time;
the teachers at Sunshine were generally comfortable at the school. Based on the twenty-one
teacher surveys that were distributed and returned, it is clear that the teachers had a favorable
view of their principal. For example, the Sunshine Elementary School teacher survey asked
teachers if they felt supported by the administrator at their site and every single teacher marked
that they agreed with that statement. Similarly, teachers unanimously agreed that the
administrator respected all races and cultures and that she also valued what the students have to
say. This positive organizational climate shifted the focus away from the teachers and
administrators and it allowed the maximum amount of attention to be placed on the students and
their needs.
A majority of the teachers believed that Sunshine elementary was a safe environment for
everyone. The teacher survey also showed that the teachers felt their school promotes a
curriculum that meets the needs of all students. Although the principal was not solely responsible
for these great feats, it was a positive reflection of the type of leadership that she has provided
and the school culture she created.
Caring teachers. The teacher interviews provided great insights as to the mentality of the
teachers at Sunshine elementary. A total of nine teachers were interviewed and all grade levels
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 50
were represented. The teachers were asked a total of ten questions regarding the background of
the school, the goals they set for their students and their views on reading and learning.
One consistent pattern quickly began to emerge. The teachers at Sunshine demonstrated
concern towards their students and their families. When asked who the main stakeholders at the
school were, one teacher said “For me, I hope that the stakeholders are the children. They are the
purpose and the reason we are here. We are accountable to the administrators but honestly I am
more accountable to the parents and the students than any of the administrators." When asked
about the relationship between the community and the school, another teacher said that “It's
pretty amazing. It's a real sense of home, of togetherness. Everyone takes care of everyone. For
example, kids come back and I have taught parents of students."
Throughout every interview, the teachers aligned themselves with the students and their
families. The expressions and gestures demonstrated a great admiration of the children in their
classes. Several teachers raved about Sunshine’s Parent Teacher Association (PTA). In fact five
out of seven interviewees discussed the excellence service the PTA has provided over the past
year.
Teachers actively seek to improve student achievement.
13
The teachers at Sunshine
were very interested in improving student achievement. Several teachers expressed an interest to
develop a better instructional program for their ELs. Despite not having all the resources to
develop an instructional plan for EL literacy achievement, the teachers continued to actively
search for methods and strategies to improve the achievement of their EL students.
13
This section was written by Enyetta Mingo-Long. Contributions were made by Sharon
Bennett and Juan Herrera; these authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal
contribution.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 51
School environment. The gap analysis approach helps address the literacy achievement
gap at Sunshine Elementary School through the systematic examination and validation of
presumed causes from the perspectives of parents, teachers and administration. One perspective
that is examined was the school environment. The information obtained from the teacher
interviews provided evidence that Sunshine Elementary teachers were interested in learning how
to understand subject matter deeply and flexibly in order to provide support for both EL and non-
EL students. More specifically, Sunshine teachers expressed a desire to learn how to help their
students connect their current background knowledge in the classroom and to everyday life. The
principal and the teachers at Sunshine were committed to provide a strong foundation for
culturally relevant pedagogical content knowledge that is accessible to all learners. The school
environment at Sunshine had the capacity to create the linkage between theory and practice by
developing professional roles for teachers that allow them the flexibility to create culturally
relevant literacy strategies for the schools English Language Learners.
Active PTA. According to the parent surveys and the teacher interviews, the PTA at
Sunshine Elementary had a strong presence on campus. The PTA was an asset to the school
because the participants were interested in working to make positive changes in the school and
the community. At the time of the inquiry project, this was the only parent organization
sanctioned by the school. The individuals that participated in the group were very conscious
about the direction of the group; the members possessed a strong feeling of community
representation. The PTA meetings were conducted from the parents’ point of view. According to
the information obtained from the teacher interviews, the level of participation of the Sunshine
Elementary School's PTA demonstrated that the parents who chose to participate shared a
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 52
willingness to contribute their best to school activities. Their tireless work showed that they were
concerned with the welfare of all students.
Culturally rich school community.
14
Sunshine Elementary School was very proud of its
traditions and cultural awareness. Parents and teachers reported that the school had participated
in events and activities that demonstrated their appreciation for diversity and that celebrated high
academic achievement. The teacher interviews revealed that students had many opportunities to
demonstrate pride in themselves and their accomplishments. Through assemblies, a strong Parent
Teacher Association, and participation in academic activities sponsored by the district (Math-A-
Thon, Spelling Bee, Science Fair, etc.), students were successful in demonstrating their abilities
to the schools as well as he larger community. The parents were a consistent presence on the
campus, and, according to the parent survey, most of them felt welcome on campus. For
example, many of the teachers reported in the interviews that parents enjoyed working in the
school garden, and maintained the garden on weekends and holidays. Parents cared about the
activities at school, and wanted to be on campus. When given opportunities to serve the school,
they did.
Community stability. Families have sent their children to Sunshine Elementary School
for several generations. According to the data from teacher interviews, there were teachers on
campus that have had several generation students in their classes. Students and families saw
Sunshine as a place of support even after they matriculated from the school. Teachers took this
opportunity to support and nurture the students, families, and the Sunshine community years
after the students move to middle school, high school and college. There was a sense of pride
with the teachers as they discussed their relationship with students and their families.
14
This section was written by Sharon Bennett. Contributions were made by Juan Herrera and
Enyetta Mingo-Long; these authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 53
Additionally, there were teachers at Sunshine who were previous Sunshine students or attended
other schools within the Centerville Unified School District. This further supports the strong
community ties to the school.
Well-behaved students. The students at Sunshine had pride in their school, according to
the teacher interviews, and from anecdotal observations. It was reported by parents and teachers
that there was significant gang activity in the Sunshine neighborhood; in fact, that there were two
rival gangs that lived on either side of the school. In spite of this, the students clearly exhibited
positive conduct. This conduct is supported by the teachers, administration and the parents.
Teachers reported that the students have excellent behavior. Moreover, based on information
extrapolated from the parent surveys, students respected the learning that takes place in the
classroom. Students believed that teachers were there to help them learn and they responded
appropriately to the instruction given.
This section has detailed some of the considerable strengths of Sunshine Elementary
School. In the next section, the focus shifts to the six primary causes for the gap in literacy.
The Six Primary Causes for EL Literacy Gap at Sunshine Elementary
15
Through the review of the literature, surveys that were provided to the inquiry team from
Sunshine parents and students, as well as site visits in which conversations with the principal and
teachers took place, the inquiry team began to compile a list of assumed causes for the literacy
gap among ELs at Sunshine Elementary School. Once the team conducted the teacher interviews
and made sense of the data from the parent and student surveys, the process of eliminating some
causes and validating others occurred. The following six root causes were selected as areas of
15
This section was written by Enyetta Mingo-Long. Contributions were made by Sharon
Bennett and Juan Herrera; these authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal
contribution.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 54
focus: Goal alignment, professional development, teacher collaboration, parent engagement,
culturally relevant instructional strategies, and site based leadership. Each of these causes will be
discussed in detail and will include a table that summarizes the details of each cause in terms of
knowledge, motivation and organization.
Goal alignment. From the interview with the principal it came to the team's attention that
Sunshine elementary had not formulated its own school mission and that they followed the
mission the district provided to the school. This was true for most of the other schools in the
Centerville district. The problem was twofold: First, the staff had an inconsistent perception of
the school mission. Second, there was no clear goal alignment; therefore teachers created their
own goals for the students. This was problematic because the teacher goals were not always
consistent with the mission provided by the district. For example, during the teacher interviews,
one teacher stated that, “The goals are to have a safe environment, where every student will be
challenged, and provided with a clean and safe learning environment, and the goal is for each
student to reach the challenge level for reading and math." Another teacher stated that having
“Students on grade level and to master grade level standards” are the goals of Sunshine
elementary. Yet another teacher felt that “Academically, the goals are for the students to succeed
in Language Arts." Although all of these goals were created with good intentions, they were
radically different.
None of these goals provided immediate direction for action. Since the teachers did not
have a consistent understanding of the goals, they created their own. Unfortunately, this allowed
teachers to move in various instructional directions and thus collective results could not be
reached. It is not that these were not admirable goals, but they did not reflect an overall
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 55
agreement about, or knowledge of, the goals of the school and district and how they translated to
individual teachers’ day-to-day work.
A summary of the findings under Goal Alignment can be found in Table 1. The items are
categorized based on knowledge, motivation and organization as outlined in Clark and Estes'
(2008) work.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 56
Chapter 5: Solutions – Literature Review
16
This gap analysis was a joint team effort. The inquiry team focused on and validated
several root causes, including: (a) goal alignment, (b) professional development, (c) teacher
collaboration, (d) parent involvement, (e) culturally relevant pedagogy, and (f) site based
leadership. As part of the gap analysis approach, the inquiry team divided the solutions aspect of
the work by the areas of interest and specialization of the other team members. While the
complete gap analysis needs to consider all of the root causes jointly, this chapter and the
following chapter, therefore, focus more narrowly on: (a) culturally relevant pedagogy, and (b)
professional development. Both areas focus on the final goal of improving student achievement.
Current views and current assessment practices place reading and literacy as the core of
achievement. Therefore, in order to provide a context for the discussion of culturally relevant
pedagogy and professional development, a brief overview of current views of reading and
literacy will be provided.
The purpose of this chapter is to review current literature and theory focused on solutions to
these problems in order to provide guidance to the district in solving the outstanding issues
related to the goals. The chapter is outlined as follows: a review of the literature related to
culturally relevant pedagogy and the alignment within the gap analysis process, followed by a
review of the literature related to professional development.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
Throughout the duration of the last three decades of the 20
th
century, various researchers
Au (2002), Gay (2000), Jimenez and Graf (2008), Ladson-Billings (1994), Solano-Flores and
Trumbull (2003) consistently writes about the failure of public schools ability to have equitable
16
This chapter was written by Enyetta Mingo-Long.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 57
education outcomes for non-dominant culture students. In accordance with the 2001 No Child
Left Behind act (NCLB) guidelines were developed which clearly state that all district schools
must hold the same academic standards for all students including English Language Learners.
In 2002, the No Child Left Behind act stated that student success is based on a teachers
qualifications and pedagogical training. However, Ardila-Rey (2008) argues that NCLB does not
give a true definition of what it means to be a highly qualified teacher for all students. NCLB’s
provisions, standards, and policies for a highly qualified teacher does not address the cultural
issues of diverse populations, only a handful of states have developed policies or standards for
multicultural teacher preparation and credentialing (Ardila-Rey, 2008). NCLB also holds
educators accountable for the academic achievement of all students to meet proficiency in the
required content areas. Specifically, in the area of literacy under NCLB guidelines the Reading
First legislation requires all K-3 reading programs to provide systematic, research-based literacy
instruction identified by the National Reading Panel (NRP) (2000). The five recommended
content areas of literacy instruction that focus on the psychological process of reading are:
phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and reading
comprehension strategies.
Of equal importance is an examination of the individual motivation factors that contribute
to reading success. Rueda, Velasco, & Lim (2008) found that reading engagement is an
important motivational factor of reading. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis problem-
solving model identifies the following three indicators of motivational factors: active choice,
persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Schieffer, Marchand-Martella, Martella, Simonsen, & Waldron-Soler (2002) criticize the
literary recommendations given by NRP for being incomplete. Although the recommendations
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 58
were based on an extensive review of research, public hearings, and discussion, they did not
include studies on second language learning and reading. Therefore, additional research must be
examined in order to address this shortcoming, and additional literature focused on second
language learners will be reviewed on NRP specific literacy recommendations.
In 2002, the U.S. Department of Education funded the National Literacy Panel on
Language Minority Children and Youth to survey, select, and synthesize research in a four year
report on second language learning and reading. August and Shanahan (2006) published the
report on "Educating Language Minority Students". The Major Findings of the report identify
the following recommendations: 1) substantial coverage of the five essential elements of reading
instruction helps; 2) literacy in the native language is an advantage; 3) reading programs for ELL
students should include intensive language development as well as instruction in literacy
strategies and skills; 4) instruction needs to be adjusted to meet the needs of ELL students; and
5) impact of sociocultural variables on literacy achievement or development.
Substantial Coverage of the Five Essential Elements of Reading Instruction Helps
The National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth
provides substantial coverage in the key components of reading—identified by the National
Reading Panel (2000) as 1) phonemic awareness, 2) phonics, 3) fluency, 4) vocabulary, and 5)
reading comprehension. The report findings identify clear benefits for language-minority
students that focus on the aforementioned key components of reading. However, August and
Shanahan (2006) suggests that adjustments to these approaches are needed to have maximum
benefit with language-minority students. For example, researchers found that young Spanish-
speaking students learning to read in English might make the best progress when given more
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 59
work with particular phonemes and combinations of phonemes in English that do not exist in
their home language (August & Shanahan, 2006).
The authors note that specific focus on the five essential elements has a positive influence
on the literacy development of language-minority students, just as it does for native English
speakers, and writing instruction has clear benefits for language-minority students, as it does for
native English speakers.
Literacy in the Native Language is an Advantage
August and Shanahan (2006) assert that there is clear evidence that tapping into first-
language literacy can confer advantages to English-language learners. The authors note that
language-minority students are able to take advantage of higher order vocabulary skills in the
first language, such as the ability to provide formal definitions and interpret metaphors, when
speaking a second language. Additional studies cited by August and Shanahan (2006) indicate
that students are able to take advantage of cognate relationships between their first language and
English to understand English words, an important precursor to comprehension. However, the
author’s state that there is limited evidence as well that cognate knowledge is associated with the
development of reading comprehension in English (August & Shanahan, 2006).
Cognates are defined as words that have similar spellings and meanings in two languages.
For example the English word “continue” has the Spanish cognate “continuar”. Research has
shown that first-language oral proficiency also influences developmental patterns in second-
language speech discrimination, speech production, intraword segmentation, and vocabulary,
which reflect the patterns of the first language. Cognates are related to literacy development in
English, including word and pseudo word reading, reading comprehension, reading strategies,
spelling, and writing English (August & Shanahan 2006).
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 60
Moreover, research indicates that instructional programs that provide opportunities for
students to develop proficiency in their first language are successful. For example, August and
Shanahan (2006) attest that studies that compare bilingual instruction with English-only
instruction demonstrate that language-minority students instructed in their native language as
well as in English perform better, on average, on measures of English reading proficiency than
language-minority students instructed only in English.
Characteristics of Effective Reading Programs for ELLs
August and Shanahan (2006) note that instruction in the key components of reading is
necessary, but not sufficient for teaching language-minority students to read and write
proficiently in English. Oral proficiency in English is critical as well; however student
performance suggests that it is often overlooked in instruction. The authors note that word-level
skills in literacy such as decoding, word recognition and spelling are often taught well enough to
allow language-minority students to attain levels of performance equal to those of native English
speakers (August & Shanahan, 2006).
Research has shown that in text-level skills language-minority students rarely approach
the same levels of proficiency achieved by native English speakers. The research suggests that
the reason for the disparity between word- and text-level skills among language-minority
students is oral English proficiency (August & Shanahan, 2006). August (1997) writes that oral
proficiency in English is not a strong predictor of English word-level skills. However, August
and Shanahan (2006) show how it correlates with the underlying cognitive skills (letter-sound
awareness, rapid naming of words, and phonological memory) that do predict word identification
skills in both language-minority students and native English speakers.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 61
Instruction and Assessment Needs to be Adjusted to Meet the Needs of ELLs
Research shows that English literacy development is a dynamic process and is influenced
by individual differences in general language proficiency, age, English oral proficiency,
cognitive abilities, previous learning, and the similarities and differences between the first
language and English (August & Shanahan, 2006). For example, August and Shanahan (2006)
posit that adolescent language-minority students schooled only in their first language may have
well-developed phonological skills in both languages, but a similar level of development would
not be as likely for 6-year-olds, who are cognitively less advanced in this regard. The author’s
further state that older language-minority students are more likely than primary-level learners to
notice cognates common to Spanish and English (August & Shanahan, 2006).
Often, when language-minority students experience reading difficulties it is a function of
individual differences than of language-minority status. August and Shanahan (2006) suggests
that underlying processing deficits, as opposed to language-minority status, are the primary issue
for students experiencing word-level difficulties. In fact, studies reveal that, given proper
instruction, some language-minority students classified as learning disabled can achieve grade-
level norms however, adequate assessments are essential for gauging the individual strengths and
weaknesses of language-minority students, making placement decisions, and tailoring instruction
to meet student needs (August & Shanahan, 2006).
Impact of Sociocultural Variables on Literacy Achievement or Development
August and Shanahan (2006) researched the effects of six sociocultural factors on literacy
achievement and development: immigration status; discourse/interactional characteristics; other
sociocultural factors; parents and family influences; district, state, and federal policies; and
language status or prestige. The authors findings suggest that bridging home–school differences
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 62
in interaction patterns or styles can enhance students’ engagement, motivation, and participation
in classroom instruction (August & Shanahan, 2006). The research also suggests that students
perform better when they read or use material that is in their first language. More specifically
August and Shanahan (2006) note that culturally meaningful reading material can help to
facilitate comprehension. August and Shanahan (2006) list the following three findings for
English-language learners’ literacy achievement in English:
• First, language-minority parents express willingness—and often have the
ability—to help their children succeed academically. For various reasons,
however, schools underestimate and underutilize parents’ interest,
motivation, and potential contributions.
• Second, more home literacy experiences and opportunities are associated
with superior literacy outcomes. Measures of parent and family literacy
often predict children’s literacy attainment. Features of family life, such as
domestic workload and religious activities, appear to influence the value
children place on reading and their concepts of themselves as readers.
Parent education is associated with children’s literacy outcomes as well.
• Third, the relationship between home language use and literacy achievement
in English is unclear. In general, home experiences with the first and second
languages are positively (but modestly) correlated with literacy achievement in
the first and second languages, but negatively (and also modestly) correlated with
literacy achievement in the second language. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to
make policy and practice recommendations about home language use. For Sunshine
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 63
Elementary this contributes to the literacy gap. For example, Sunshine Elementary ELL
students are not able to develop literacy proficiency in their first language.
Second Language Considerations
An urgent challenge exists for educators to close the literacy gap amongst non-dominant
students in the nation’s K-12 schools. The NLP report provides significant literacy findings that
show the importance of Literacy in English, and how it is essential to achievement in every
academic subject and to educational and economic opportunities beyond schooling.
Currently, second language considerations in the aforementioned areas deemed critical by
the reports written by the NRP and NLP are crucial to the reading, literacy, and comprehension
success of English Language Learners. Sunshine Elementary is faced with the challenge of
improving the academic literacy achievement of the ELL population in accordance with NCLB
guidelines specifically, the recommendations provided by NRP. This challenging issue is
critically important to the literacy development of Sunshine’s ELL students and the
multiculturalism preparation of its teachers. Therefore it is imperative to examine the literature
that addresses the five content areas of literacy determined by the National Reading Panel.
Phonemic Awareness
The ability to identify and manipulate phonemes into spoken words is defined as
phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness is the foundation of basic reading instruction. The
English language consists of about 41 phonemes. Phonemes are the smallest units that make up
spoken language; they combine to form syllables and words. Some English phonemes may not
be present in an ELL student’s vocabulary, therefore, it may be difficult for the student to
pronounce the phoneme or understand the context. Antunez (2002) notes that it is necessary for
ELL students to have knowledge of English phonemes, because they may have difficulty
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 64
distinguishing and pronouncing phonemes in their first language that conflict with English
phonemes. Scientifically-based research shows that ELL students respond well to meaningful
phoneme activities that focus on sounds and letters through songs and poems, these phoneme
activities are easily memorized and can be used to teach phonemic awareness and print concepts
(Hiebert, Pearson, Taylor, Richardson, & Paris, 1998).
Phonics
Phonics instruction is the understanding that there is a predictable relationship between
phonemes (the sounds of spoken language) and graphemes (the letters and spellings that
represent those sounds in written language) (International Reading Association, 2001). Phonics
instruction teaches beginning readers about the relationship between letters and speech sounds,
and how to apply this knowledge to reading and spelling. Often, ELL students may have learned
to read and write in another language in which the letters correspond to different sounds than
they do in English, or they may have learned to read and write in a language with characters that
correspond to words or portions of words. For example, in Spanish (the native language of 77
percent of ELL students in U.S. schools, (National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education,
2002), the letters b, c, d, f, l, m, n, p, q, s, and t represent sounds that are similar enough to
English that they may transfer readily to English reading for some students. Peregoy & Boyle,
(2000) write that consequently, many students need minimal phonics instruction for these
consonants. In contrast, vowel letters look the same in Spanish and English but are named
differently and represent very different sounds. Therefore, English vowel sounds and their
numerous spellings present a challenge to Spanish literate students learning to read English
because the one-to-one correspondence between vowel letters and vowel sounds in Spanish does
not hold true in English (p. 239).
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 65
Longitudinal research conducted by Lesaux and Siegel (2003) in a Canadian school
district, showed that systematic training in phonemic awareness and phonics can improve
literacy outcomes for ELL students learning to read in English. The study involved 978 second
grade children, 188 of whom were ELL students; the research investigated the development of
reading in a program designed for children who enter kindergarten with little or no proficiency in
the language of instruction. Most of the second language learners were immigrants to Canada,
and most had been previously schooled in mainstream English classrooms at the same time as
their English-proficient peers. The ELL students in the study spoke a total of 33 different
languages, and they could not read in their native language when they entered kindergarten.
The students completed standardized and experimental measures including reading, spelling,
phonological processing and memory. During the study the students received phonological
awareness instruction in kindergarten and phonics instruction in first grade provided by the
classroom teachers and resource teachers who provided interventions three to four times a week
for 20 minutes. The phonemic awareness and phonics training that consisted of a variety of
literacy practices, including a combination of activities that emphasized sound-symbol
relationship and independent activities such as story and journal writing that used invented
spelling. At the end of the second grade, the ELL students’ literacy skills were equivalent to the
non-ELL students. More specifically, the ELL students outperformed the non-ELL students in
reading, rapid naming, word spelling, and arithmetic (Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). The researchers’
findings support the belief that ELL students benefit from a model of early identification and
intervention, it also shows the positive effect that bilingualism has on early reading skills.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 66
Vocabulary
Vocabulary knowledge is developed when information about the meanings and
pronunciations of words necessary for communication is stored. Vocabulary knowledge is a key
factor for beginning reading, it is a primary determinant of reading comprehension. In general
readers cannot understand the content of what they are reading unless they understand the
meaning of the words in the text. As articulated by August (2003) children acquire vocabulary in
their primary language indirectly from fluent family members and adults, when these students
begin to read in their native language they acquire 5,000 to 7,000 words before they begin formal
reading instruction. August (2003) acknowledges that ELL students who parents are not fluent in
English do not have a large vocabulary in the second language, and may have limited
understanding of English grammar syntax.
Scientific research conducted on vocabulary development by the Center for the
Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (Center for the Improvement of Early Reading
Achievement [CIERA], 2001) shows that children learn the majority of their vocabulary
indirectly in the following three ways: (1) through conversations, mostly with adults; (2)
listening to adults read to them; and (3) reading extensively on their own (CIERA, 2001).
Armburuster, Lehr, & Osborn (2001) emphasize that vocabulary must be taught explicitly and
that ELL students need to be instructed in specific strategies for developing word meanings.
Cummins (1992) and Antunez (2002) discuss the importance of teachers being aware of the
distinction between language proficiency needed for everyday, face-to-face communication
(BICS, for Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) from the proficiency needed to
comprehend and manipulate language in the decontextualized educational setting (CALP, for
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency). Cummins (1992) notes that the BICS/CALP
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 67
distinction highlights that some aspects of language proficiency are more relevant for students’
cognitive and academic progress than are the surface manifestations commonly focused on by
educators. Antunez (2002) affirms that ELL students must acquire CALP, it is an area where the
most support is needed and is central to their academic success.
A two year experimental vocabulary study located in California, Virginia, and
Massachusetts was conducted by Carlo et al. (2004) they worked with teachers to develop and
implement intervention strategies aimed at improving vocabulary knowledge and boosting
reading comprehension for fourth and fifth grade ELL students. Half of the students in the study
were Spanish-speaking, the other half were English-only speakers. Approximately half of the
students were in intervention classes, while the other half were in control classrooms with
vocabulary development activities that were not related to the intervention. The authors chose to
conduct a study that focused on the depth and breadth of vocabulary development noting that
traditional research on vocabulary knowledge has focused on the number of words in a students’
lexicon rather than the students’ understanding of the multiple meanings of words, and how
different aspects of meaning are emphasized in different contexts. The first year the intervention
strategies consisted of 95 lessons to build fourth grade vocabulary and teach strategies for
acquiring word knowledge. The second year, the intervention focused on fifth grade vocabulary
strategies and consisted of 75 lessons. Some of the features of the intervention included direct
instruction in vocabulary, the use of cognates, root words and activities outside the classroom,
each lesson lasted for 20 to 40 minutes (Carlo et al., 2004, p. 134)
Fluency
Fluency is the ability to read words accurately, quickly, and with appropriate expression.
Research conducted by August (2003) indicates that repeated oral reading practice is effective in
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 68
building fluency for children in their first language. Fluent readers possess the ability to
recognize and comprehend words simultaneously. However, ELL students often have less
opportunity to read out loud, often struggle to comprehend the English text due to their limited
English proficiency, or they may not have parents who are literate in English. The National
Reading Council and the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement recommend
that ELL students learn to read in their first language. Antunez (2002) states that if ELL students
do not know how to read in their native language, then it is important for them to participate in
read-alouds, read along with proficient readers, and to listen repeatedly to books read aloud to
gain fluency.
An eight week ELL fluency study located in Baltimore, Maryland was conducted by
Schoenbrodt, Kerins, and Gesell (2003) analyzed the effects of narrative language intervention
on the communicative competence of 12 Spanish speaking school-aged children.
Communicative competence is defined as the knowledge and usage of the grammatical structure
of the language used in that culture or speech community. Communicative competence in
relation to fluency is the nonverbal interaction skills, and alters according to the setting.
Narrative language intervention is “maintaining one’s native language while building
communicative competence in a second language” (p. 50). Narrative interventions involve
stories with role-playing and the engagement of students reading stories repeatedly using
strategies that focus on teaching the content of the stories, as well as the internal structure or the
story grammar.
The participants of the intervention attended an afterschool tutoring program at a public
elementary school. The control group received the intervention in English, while the
experimental group received the intervention in Spanish. The researchers obtained narrative
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 69
samples from pre-/post testing examined communication unit (CU) clauses, number of words,
story grammar, and narrative style. The study found that the use of narrative intervention
increased the communicative competence in both groups of students. The experimental group
showed a significant difference in performance indicating that intervention in the native language
yields greater success versus interventions that use English (Schoenbrodt et al., 2003). The
research findings support the belief that reading fluency is a critical factor necessary for reading
comprehension.
Reading Comprehension
As articulated by Hiebert et al. (1998) reading comprehension is the culmination of all of
the reading skills and the ultimate goal of learning to read. However, reading comprehension is
often the area that ELL students struggle the most with. As referenced earlier by August (2003)
vocabulary plays a major role in the comprehension of text, it is an important factor in explaining
the poor literacy performance of ELL students. National Reading Panel (NRP) (2001) lead
research and found that reading comprehension is clearly related to vocabulary knowledge and
development, and comprehension is an active process that requires an intentional and thoughtful
interaction between the reader and the text (NRP, 2001).
Research conducted by Kucer and Silva (1999) examined a third-grade whole-language
classroom with 26 bilingual Mexican American students from working class homes. The study
looked at the effects of using multiple strategies to develop comprehension skills for ELL
students beginning their formal transition into English literacy. The curriculum consisted of four
components: theme based literacy activities, teacher reading, free reading, and free writing. The
thematic units included literacy activities such as paired reading, reader response groups,
compare and contrast exercises, learning logs, and strategy wall charts. The students were not
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 70
given isolated instruction in written language conventions such as phonics, spelling, punctuation,
or capitalization. The researcher’s analysis of the reading miscue data shows statistically
significant improvements in the student’s ability to produce more meaningful sentences, as well
as significant gains in the overall number of retelling units and matches produced by the
students. The students’ capitalization and spelling also improved. However, the students written
stories did not show improvement in overall writing abilities, nor did the analytic evaluation
show an increase in the number of sentences or conventional use of pronunciation. The results
from this analysis led the authors to conclude that the complex nature of second language
learning may require “differentiated mediation.” The authors posit that the use of the
differentiated mediation approach, would help students continue to be engaged in authentic
meaningful literacy activities, but when a student is having repeated difficulty with written
language, “focused instructional events would be developed that explicitly teach over time the
matter in which the child is experiencing difficulty’ (Kucer & Silva, 1999, p. 21).
Motivation
As identified by Clark & Estes (2008) motivation is the response or product of
interactions between people and their environment. Rueda (2011) writes that motivational beliefs
are likely to be context-specific, so that motivational causes should be considered with respect to
the dynamics of specific situations. Therefore, in order to develop literacy motivation amongst
students the goal and process must be cultivated to initiate student movement toward
implementation. For example, an ELL student may have received the knowledge and skills to
achieve the literacy goal, but unless the student is motivated to start the process of implementing
the knowledge and skills to accomplish the goal, the effort is pointless. Research shows that
often it is common for low achieving students to believe that they lack ability or are not smart –
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 71
presumably relatively permanent condition (Rueda, 2011). The author further states that
motivation is normally directed toward a particular goal, sometimes known only to the individual
“students with higher self-efficacy, have a greater belief in their own competence, and higher
expectancies for positive outcomes and are motivated to engage in, persist at, and work hard at a
task or activity (Rueda, 2011, p. 41).”
Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1997) describes self-efficacy as an important construct in motivation. Self-
efficacy is defined as a person’s belief about their ability to organize and execute courses of
actions necessary to achieve a goal. Self-efficacy has a compelling impact on the
accomplishment of one’s goals; it has the ability to influence behavior, choice, and motivation.
For example, students tend to avoid intimidating school work that they believe exceed their
ability.
Bandura (1997) describes perceived self-efficacy as affecting how successful goals are
accomplished by influencing the level of effort and persistence exerted against obstacles. The
stronger an individuals perceived self-efficacy, the more progressive the achievement.
Bandura (1997) further notes that higher self-efficacy is a trait that allows individuals the
ability to gain corrective experiences that reinforce a sense of self-efficacy. Therefore, the factors
that influence an individual’s belief to accomplish the goal, and the probability of achieving
success are key factors that influence one’s active choice to engage, to persist and apply mental
effort to obtain the goal. Clark & Estes (2008) note, that when the constructs are aligned, the
individual is “motivated” to achieve the goal.
Research conducted by Pintrich and De Groot (1990) shows that students who believe
they can read well are going to read often. Guthrie (2009) writes that when students have high
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 72
self-efficacy in reading, the potentially daunting task of reading a text that is challenging
becomes surmountable; students work towards goals and enjoy the feeling of success that comes
with tackling a difficult passage. Self-efficacy in students is related to cognitive engagement and
persistence at challenging tasks.
Indicators of Reading Motivation
Active choice/autonomy support. Clark (1999) suggested that active choice is essential
to motivation, as this is the behavioral evidence that one has replaced his or her intention to
pursue a goal with action. Clark (1999) defines the motivational goal of active choice as learners
who actively start to do something that they formerly “intended” to do but had not started.
Research conducted by Guthrie et al. (2004) found that teachers who support autonomy
in the classroom guide their students' motivation and belief that they are capable of reading well.
Kamil, Mosenthal, Pearson, and Barr (2000) define autonomy support as “the teacher’s guidance
in helping students make choices among meaningful alternatives in texts and tasks to attain the
knowledge and learning goals” (p. 408). Students will become motivated and engaged in reading
when autonomy support is implemented in the classroom. Active choice allows students the
ability to achieve success in reading and increase their self-efficacy. Teachers who support
student self-efficacy also evaluate student work based on effort and accuracy. Active choice
helps to promote a student’s willingness to place effort on challenging texts and reading tasks,
which then has a reciprocal effect where the student experiencing meaningful success (Guthrie et
al., 2004).
Clark (2003) posit that evidence from a number of studies support the generalization that
active choice in learning may be influenced by voluntary or involuntary individual participation,
along with their specific self-efficacy for learning. Active choice is also enhanced when learners
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 73
personally value what they expect to learn, when students’ believe that they have the ability or
efficacy to learn and apply what has been taught (Condly, Clark, & Stolovitch, 2003; Schunk,
Pintrich, & Meece, 2008; Rueda 2011).
Reading engagement. Guthrie (2001) writes that “engaged reading is a merger of
motivation and thoughtfulness. Engaged readers seek to understand; they enjoy learning and they
believe in their reading abilities. They are mastery oriented, intrinsically motivated, and have
self-efficacy” (p. 1). The author found that engaged readers are motivated to read for a variety of
personal goals, and that they interact socially in their approach to literacy (Guthrie et al., 1996).
Guthrie et al. (1996) identifies engaged readers as being strategic in using multiple approaches to
comprehend by using knowledge actively to construct new understanding from text. Engaged
readers are decision makers whose language and cognition play a significant role in their reading
practices. Guthrie et al. (1996) sum up active reading engagement as involving attunement of
motivational processes with the cognitive and language processes in reading (Guthrie &
Wigfield, 2000). Guthrie and Alao (1997) developed an engagement model of reading
development to help educators foster instructional engagement processes and reading outcomes
for ELL students.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 74
Figure 3. The Engagement Model of Reading Development Guthrie & Alao, 1997
Effects of the cognitive process of motivation in reading. Researchers have discussed
how motivational and cognitive processes interact, and how each affects achievement outcomes
(Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Pintrich, 2003; Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993). More
specifically, research has focused on the cognitive processes and how motivation provides an
activating, energizing role, which in turn can impact achievement (Pintrich, 2003; Eccles et al.,
1998). For example, Pintrich (2003) noted that there is little specific research that details the
strength of these activating processes or how they function. Pintrich (2003) further writes that, it
is likely, that there are “multiple motivational pathways for the energization of students’
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 75
behaviors such that some students may be motivated by their self-efficacy beliefs, whereas others
may activate cognitive processes through personal interests or contextual factors” (p. 672).
Research that examines the different ways that motivation relates to various cognitive
processes speaks of the need for integrated models of motivation and cognition that has been
emphasized in the motivation field (Pintrich, 2003). Taboada and Buehl (2012) note that in the
field of reading motivation educators should begin studying how motivation, cognitive
processes, and reading comprehension relate. The author further notes that this process can be
done with students through interview studies to ascertain individuals’ understandings of how
their motivation relates to their cognitive effort, and reading strategies in particular and their
perceptions of these relations (Taboada & Buehl, 2012). Taboada, Kidd, and Tonks (2010)
believes that educators can gain a better understanding of the motivation and cognition process
by becoming involved in developing effective interventions to enhance both the motivation for
reading and the use of cognitive reading strategies.
Persistence. Clark (2003) identifies persistence as an element of motivation that allows a
person to keep taking action, to overcome distractions, and to focus on the process of working to
achieve the goal oriented-results. Clark’s (1999) review of studies on persistence suggest that
with persistence a positive attitude and mood can be maintained if teachers incorporate what
learners feel are positive features.
Persistence is enhanced by students’ beliefs that they have the ability or efficacy to learn
and apply what is being taught (Clark, 1999). The author further writes that persistence motivates
students to believe that they are capable of achieving learning and performance goals, when
effective instruction supports a positive attitude, maintains student interest, and self-efficacy.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 76
Mental effort. The third indicator of motivated performance is mental effort. Clark and
Effort (2004) writes that the more learners are convinced about the important elements of
learning, the more mental effort they will invest to succeed. Conversely, the author notes that the
more students believe that a learning task is familiar, the more overconfident they become, the
less mental effort they invest to learn, and the less they are inclined to accept responsibility for
failure to learn (Clark, 1999). Mental effort is largely determined by an individual’s confidence.
Clark & Estes (2008) confer that people who lack confidence or have misjudged their abilities
and are overconfident do not invest much mental effort. However, researchers believe that
people who are challenged by the task or process but are neither under confident or
overconfident appear to exert the most mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Bandura (1997) adduce that in general, mental effort may be influenced in large part by
the amount of perceived difficulty. The author further states that when moderately challenging
learning goals and tasks are presented, mental effort increases, and when learning tasks are too
easy or impossibly difficult, mental effort decreases radically.
Culturally Relevant Instruction
Culturally relevant instruction is defined by Lee (2009) as a pedagogy that recognizes the
diverse cultural characteristics of students from different ethnic backgrounds and adjusts
teaching methods to account for this diversity. Lee and Fradd (2001) further notes that culturally
relevant teachers display cultural competence: skill at teaching in a cross-cultural or multicultural
setting by enabling each student to relate course content to his or her cultural context. Research
conducted by Ladson-Billings (2005) has found that students of diverse backgrounds, often
struggle to grasp the content, and that they approach the literacy content from very different
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 77
perspectives. Lee (2009) writes that by drawing on students’ background knowledge and
experiences, teachers can make the content more accessible for all students.
Often with ELL students, there are language issues and cultural issues that must be
considered. Gutierrez and Rogoff (2003) suggest that a cultural-historical approach can be used
to help teachers move beyond assumption. The authors define the cultural-historical approach as
focusing “on variations in individuals’ and groups’ histories of engagement in cultural practices
because the variations reside not as traits of individuals or collections of individuals, but as
proclivities of people with certain histories of engagement with specific cultural activities”
(p. 21). Thus culturally relevant instruction is meant to address the following cultural issues
specifically:
1. students with cultural differences often fare poorly academically,
2. some have explained this by the observation that there are cultural differences that may
clash with the norms and expectations and curricula of schools – and that there is often a
“disconnect” between home/community and school for many students,
3. In addition researchers have noted that there is a history of focusing on student
differences as deficits (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003);
4. More recent work (Gutiérrez, Morales, & Martinez, 2009)) has focused on an “assets-
based” approach, focusing on and building on students’ and communities existing skills
and knowledge to advance academic goals.
5. One example of the assets based approach is culturally relevant instruction.
The preceding issues are especially important if one keeps in mind the demographics of
urban schools that were described earlier in the document. Educators must implement diverse
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 78
instructional strategies; these strategies are a critical component of effective instruction for ELL
students.
Cochran-Smith (2008) identifies the following as a gateway to culturally relevant
instructional strategies from the American Association of Colleges and Teacher Education, &
Professional Standards: (1) Cultural diversity is a valuable resource, (2) multicultural education
preserves and extends the resource of culture diversity rather than merely tolerating it or making
it “melt away,” and (3) a commitment to cultural pluralism should permeate all aspects of teacher
preparation programs (Cochran-Smith, 2008). If effective learning and literacy development is to
take place in the classroom non-Eurocentric theories and practices must be embraced by all
educators in order to prepare them to successfully promote the educational success of all
students. Dingus (2003) advised no student should have to sacrifice cultural heritage, ethnic
identity, and social networks in order to obtain an education. As articulated by Gay (2003)
highly-qualified educators have received teacher preparation that include competencies in which
teachers learn, reflect, introspect and incorporate diverse ideas and actions in their classrooms.
Teachers must understand multicultural strategies themselves before they can effectively and
authentically teach multicultural strategies students to be multicultural. Moreover, Gay (2000)
proposed that culturally responsive teachers validate, facilitate, liberate and empower ethnically
diverse students by simultaneously cultivating their cultural integrity, individual abilities, and
academic success.
Effective culturally relevant teacher preparation has been defined by Ladson-Billings
(2001) as addressing the need for teachers to acknowledge students’ diversity and incorporate
their pluralistic backgrounds and experiences into the learning experiences and classroom
environment through culturally relevant pedagogy. Ladson-Billings (1995) further states that in
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 79
order to have culturally relevant teaching as pedagogy, three criteria must be followed: (1)
students must experience academic success, (b) students must develop and/or maintain cultural
competence, and (c) students must develop a critical consciousness where they challenge the
status quo of the current social order. Gay and Kirkland (2003) note that teachers that have
received culturally relevant instructional strategies understand the experiences and diverse
perspectives students bring to educational settings and are responsive to the cultures of different
groups in designing curriculum, learning activities, classroom climate, instructional materials,
assessment procedures and techniques.
Culturally relevant instructional strategies aspire to ensure that teachers recognize and
respect the diverse viewpoints of the non-dominant student population and abstain from
advocating Eurocentric curriculum strategies that are viewed as the perspectives for universal
pedagogy. It is critical that educators use their knowledge of students’ background and
incorporate what they know about these learners into quality learning experiences.
Culturally relevant instruction involves incorporating into learning experiences
components of what is known about students’ knowledge of their cultures, their prior
experiences both in their countries of origin and their current living situations, and the relevant
instruction of diverse students, to make instruction more appropriate and effective for them
(Gay, 2000). Gay (2002) postulates that effective teachers understand that culture is central to
learning. Culture plays a role not only in communicating and receiving information, but also in
shaping the thinking process of groups and individuals. Gay (2002) identifies the following five
essential culturally relevant teaching practices: a) developing a knowledge base of cultural
diversity; b) designing culturally relevant curricula; c) demonstrating cultural caring and building
a learning community; d) cross-cultural communications; and e) cultural congruity in classroom
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 80
instruction. Culturally relevant pedagogy acknowledges, responds to, and celebrates
fundamental cultures offers full, equitable access to education for students from all cultures
(Gay, 2000). Gay’s (2002) concept of using a students’ culture and experiences to improve their
academic achievement is an example of how to implement and embrace a student’s funds of
knowledge.
Funds of knowledge a term originally coined by Wolf (1966) is defined as resources and
knowledge that households manipulate to make ends meet in the household economy. An
ethnographic study of economically vulnerable Mexican communities in Mexico and USA
conducted by Moll, Veléz-Ibánez, and Greenberg (1988) drew on Wolf’s funds of knowledge
concept. The research conducted by Moll and colleagues’ (1988) work was inspirational to Moll
et al. (1990) who recognized the relevance of incorporating both sociocultural and social
constructivist theories to help determine the academic achievement of ELL students.
Funds of knowledge refers to historically developed and accumulated strategies (e.g.,
skills, abilities, ideas, practices) or bodies of knowledge that are essential to a student’s academic
success. As articulated by Moll et al. (1990) funds of knowledge is centered on the principle that
the best way to learn about lives and backgrounds of students is through a focus on their
households’ everyday practices, by learning about “what students do and what they say about
what they do” (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005, p. 40). Gonzalez et al. (2005) states that
teachers who possess accurate background knowledge of their students can draw on those
experiences and priorities in the classroom; thus validating student knowledge and life values,
and enabling them to scaffold student learning from the familiar. Moll et al. (1990) agreed with
Freire’s (1970) assessment of the banking model of teaching and learning. The banking model
of education is defined as teachers "deposit" information and skills into students. The emphasis
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 81
is on memorization of basic facts rather than on understanding and critical thinking. The idea of
the banking model was critiqued and rejected by Freire (1970) who favored problem-posing
education in which students act as "critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher” (p.41).
Moll et al. (1990) believed that students are not empty vessels, and that each student brings their
prior background knowledge which includes their culture and language.
The concept of funds of knowledge has important implications for teacher practice. Nieto
(2007) affirms that funds of knowledge challenge teachers to reconsider their conceptualization
of knowing their students, to illuminate new opportunities for authentic culturally responsive
pedagogy. The funds of knowledge concept also challenge teachers to identify students’ prior
knowledge. It encourages teachers to consider how they can effectively develop the background
knowledge and cultural congruence each student brings to the classroom, essentially funds of
knowledge help teachers’ tap into their awareness of the valuable culturally rich resources each
student possesses. It reinforces the importance of teachers understanding that all students have
culturally relevant background knowledge that can assist in the scope and depth of their
academic achievement.
Teachers that express an interest in their student’s culture while embracing their
background knowledge help foster academic success for their ELL students. As articulated by
Freire (1970), rather than seeing students as empty vessels, to be filled with the expert
knowledge of teachers, teachers must consider students as creators rather than consumers of
knowledge, as makers of meaning rather than passive recipients of socially sanctioned truths.
Ladson-Billings (2001) further agrees with Freire’s theory by stating that culturally relevant
instructional strategies are a component in the foundation of competencies effective teachers
require. These “routine instructional strategies for good teaching” are the criteria for effective
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 82
teaching and learning. It is with this repertoire of theories, skills, and practices that effective
teachers are able to create environments conducive to achieving the goal of education (Ladson-
Billings, 1995a). That goal is to facilitate the development of intelligent, life-long learners who
possess the strategies and metacognitive processes to make meaningful connections with their
knowledge basis and transfer their skills to the challenges they encounter in their daily life
(Cochran-Smith, 2008).
Highly qualified teachers are cognizant of the cultural components necessary for learning
to take place. These educators possess a range of instructional strategies that meet the diverse
educational needs of all students in the classroom, to ensure that all of their students will
succeed. Effective teachers plan for successful learning, they make a concerted effort to
deliberately plan for classroom experiences in which all learners can be reached at multiple
points throughout the learning experiences (Ladson-Billings, 1999). Research indicates that
when a classroom is designed around culturally relevant instructional strategies, meaningful
learning interactions exist amongst students as well as between students and the teacher.
Effective teachers carefully plan culturally relevant instructional strategies for a learning
environment that is conducive for all students. These highly qualified or effective teachers work
steadfast to construct an environment that ensures differentiation by incorporating various
learning styles, multiple intelligences, and cooperative learning.
Villegas and Lucas (2002) further define culturally relevant teaching as not simply a
matter of applying instructional techniques, nor is it primarily a matter of tailoring instruction to
incorporate assumed traits or customs of particular cultural groups. Culturally relevant teachers
“have a high degree of sociocultural consciousness’s, hold affirming views of students of diverse
backgrounds, see themselves as agents of change, understand and embrace constructivist views
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 83
of learning and teaching, and know the students in their classes” (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p. 28).
The authors further posit that cultural relevance in teaching is a combination of dispositions,
knowledge, and skills that enable teachers to design instruction that facilitates student learning,
by creating a classroom environment in which all students are encouraged to make sense of new
ideas—that is, to construct knowledge that helps them better understand the world (Villegas &
Lucas, 2002).
Culturally relevant instructional strategies help teachers achieve the goal of constructing
a classroom environment that is conducive to learning for all students. Weinstein, Curan, and
Tomlinson-Clarke (2003) posit that the following premises can assist educators in achieving
culturally relevant classroom strategies: (1) Recognize that we are all cultural beings, with our
own beliefs, biases, and assumptions about human behavior, (2) Acknowledge the cultural,
racial, ethnic, and class differences that exist among people, and (3) Understand the ways that
schools reflect and perpetuate discriminatory practices of the larger society.
Cultural Modeling
As articulated by Lee (2001) cultural modeling is an attempt to provide support for the
empowerment of Language Arts departments in urban schools through curriculum development,
technology information, professional development and assessments. Cultural modeling is based
on the premise that “students bring to the classroom a rich array of knowledge that is useful for
learning generative concepts and strategies in reading and writing” (p. 100). Lee’s (2001)
cultural modeling framework is based on the strategic knowledge of the ways that literacy
authors embed meaning in tropes and certain literacy forms is necessary to negotiate rich literacy
texts (Lee, 2001 p. 106). Lee acknowledges the importance of bringing cultural biases to a
conscious level, where we as educators are less likely to misinterpret the behaviors of our
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 84
culturally different students and treat them inequitably. Weinstein et al. (2003) further explain
that people must acquire “cultural content knowledge.” They must learn for example, about their
students’ family backgrounds, their previous educational experiences, their culture’s norms for
interpersonal relationships, their parents’ expectations for discipline, and the ways their cultures
treat time and space, and use acquired cultural knowledge as a way of demonstrating an openness
and willingness to learn about the aspects of culture that are important to students and their
families.
Cultural modeling aligns the cultural funds of knowledge of students with the cultural
practices of the subject matter (Lee, 2001). Lee (2001) further writes that by using cultural-
historical activity theory, the knowledge base of the teacher, to scaffold underachieving students
is radically changed to understand the different intellectual culture of the students (Lee, 2001).
The literary success of ELL students continues to be on an unleveled academic playing
field. An ethnographic study conducted by Godina (2004) elucidates the literacy disconnect that
ELL students face at school and home. During Godina’s five month study he examined 10
students of Mexican heritage who had different levels of bilingual ability in English and Spanish.
Godina’s study illustrates the important role and literacy responsibility the students have to their
family and within their community. For example, the students are often relied on to translate
important documents from English to Spanish and often negotiated transactions in the
community for family members. Godina’s (2004) study found that the essential bilingual literacy
practices the students demonstrated away from school were not acknowledged in the classroom
or within the school environment.
Culturally Relevant Accommodations
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 85
Researchers have argued the importance of considering both language and cultural
factors in the academic literacy development of ELL students (Geisinger, 2003; Solano-Flores &
Trumbull, 2003; Faircloth & Tippeconnic, 2004). Thus, if ELL students have not yet obtained
adequate dominant culture language skills, they may not be able to sufficiently demonstrate their
literacy knowledge in the classroom or on a content-based assessment. By augmenting the
current classroom literacy strategies, educators will be able to narrow the existent language and
cultural divide at Sunshine Elementary to help close the literacy achievement gap between their
ELL students and non-ELL students. Geisinger (2003) affirms that non conducive instructional
strategies that lack cultural relevance interfere with the language proficiency of an ELL students’
ability to demonstrate literacy content mastery.
Culturally relevant accommodations for ELL students are intended to facilitate the
language acquisition progress and provide building language blocks by using teaching strategies
and learning resources that make content comprehensible and enable English learners the ability
to show content mastery. Culturally relevant accommodations have been viewed as a way to help
ELL students have literacy success in the classroom and on standardized assessments. However,
100% support of accommodations for ELL students continue to have contrasting frames of
reference. Specifically, the current research on accommodations that embrace culturally relevant
pedagogy help to identify possible instructional strategies that can be used to reduce the
achievement gap amongst non-dominant and dominant culture students.
Goldenberg (2008) writes that few accommodations for ELL students have shown
substantial results that validate the given concepts which are designed to give ELL students’
greater access to academic content. The author notes that there are some instructional
accommodations for ELL students, which can be effective. However, Goldenberg (2008)
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 86
acknowledges that the following instructional accommodations have varying degrees of
empirical support. The instructional accommodations for ELL students are: a) the adjustment of
instructional delivery (the teacher’s choice of vocabulary, rate of speech, and sentence
complexity); b) consistent classroom management routines assisted by visual charts and
schedules; c) use of graphic organizers to make content visually explicit; d) identifying,
highlighting, and clarifying key information and difficult words within texts; e) extended
amounts of time to practice concepts individually and with peers; and f) targeting both content
and English language objectives in every lesson (Goldenberg, 2008).
According to Rivera, Collum, Shafer-Willner, and Sia (2006), for accommodations to be
effective they should “address the unique needs of the students for whom they are provided” (p.
1). More broadly, Rivera et al. (2006) emphasize that ELL students should be provided with
assistance to overcome both linguistic and sociocultural barriers that make the content
inaccessible to them. For example, to help scaffold ELL students’ literacy development teachers
can accommodate students during reading instruction by asking students the following questions:
1) Are the characters in the story like you and your family? 2) Have you ever had an experience
like one described in this story? 3) Have you lived in or visited places like those in the story? 4)
Could this story take place this year? 5) How close do you think the main characters are to you in
age? 6) Are there main characters in the story who are boys or girls (for girls)? 7) Do the
characters talk like you and your family? 8) How often do you read stories like these?
The aforementioned authors note that accommodations for ELL students must be valid
indicators of the construct being assessed. Specifically, the accommodation of ELL students
must produce valid outcomes, and results that are comparable with non-accommodated students.
If an accommodation gives an unfair advantage to those receiving it, or if everyone including
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 87
non-ELL students would benefit from an ELL accommodation, then the accommodation is not
feasible (Sireci, Li, & Scarpati, 2003). Furthermore, research cautions against the development
of a “one size fits all” approach to accommodations for ELL students. Sireci et al. (2003) notes,
ELL students are a heterogeneous group, and content specific constructs could be related to a
language skill construct.
It is important to note that assessment accommodations provided to ELL students are also
appropriate accommodations for classroom instruction. Therefore, critical factors exist when
accommodating ELL students that can be viewed as especially challenging and educators must
take into account all of these factors. Given the importance of instructional factors to the success
of EL students, much attention has focused on teachers and the types of professional
development and support they need. The following section reviews some of the critical issues on
this topic.
Professional Development
There is evidence that teacher quality and effectiveness are key factors in student
academic success (Darling-Hammond, 2005). This is especially true with teachers of ELL
students (Gutiérrez, & Rogoff, 2003). Gutiérrez and Rogoff (2003) posit that a key issue of
academic success for ELL students, is the type of support that teachers of EL students require in
order to be effective and successful.
Across the U.S. schools are faced with increasing numbers of culturally and linguistically
diverse students. NCLB guidelines and school accountability measures has forced schools to
place a high priority on professional development.
Professional development is defined as formal learning opportunities provided for
teachers to improve their knowledge, skills, and classroom practices (Smylie, Allensworth,
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 88
Greenberg, Harris, & Luppescu, 2001). In education, professional development is considered a
critical mechanism to developing teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogy (Desimone, Porter,
Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002) as well as a mechanism leading to school reform (Borko, Elliott,
& Uchiyama, 2002). Several research studies conducted by (Casserly (2002); Desimone et al.,
(2002); Sparks & Hirsh (2000) has shown a strong correlation between good teaching and
student achievement.
Do Teachers Get the Support They Need?
Lucas and Grinberg (2008) pose a valid question on professional development that has
yet to be answered, “How are teachers who have not received adequate ELL professional
development able to be effective teachers” the authors present a strong statement that must be
acknowledged. The percentage of teachers from 1998 and 2000 that participated in culturally
relevant ELL professional development decreased from 31% to 26%, (Lucas & Grinberg, 2008).
From a National perspective fewer than 20% of all classroom teachers are certified ESL or
bilingual teachers (Tellez & Waxman, 2006).
In 2000, researchers from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported
that 74% of U.S. teachers stated that they did not receive relevant ELL professional development
(West, Denton, & Germino-Hausken, 2000). The teachers that did receive training spent only a
few hours in those activities (Lucas & Grinberg, 2008). Data reported by NCES in 2000, showed
that only 12.5% of teachers with ELL students, received more than 8 hours of training over a 3-
year period (Shreve, 2005). According to Rasinski et al. (2005) the amount of teachers who
received professional development or in-service training on how to teach ELL students found the
quality of the professional development spotty and uneven.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 89
Consequently, professional development programs both in-service and pre-service must
prepare teachers to meet the diverse instructional needs of their ELL students, to ensure all
students benefit from a quality education. Currently, teachers and their instructional strategies are
at the center of reform. Teachers must carry out the demands of high standards in the classroom.
As expressed by Curran (2003) many grade level teachers feel at a loss and do not know what
they can do to improve student learning. Often, mainstream teachers are hard- pressed to
differentiate instruction for their ELL students (Abedi, 2008). Fregeau and Leier (2008) state that
classroom teachers have little time to prepare special accommodations for ELLs because they are
overburdened with responsibilities.
Some Approaches to Addressing the Problem
Lieberman and Wilkins (2006) looked at how different states have responded to the shift
to mandate professional development. The authors note that states have restructured their
teaching credential process, while colleges and universities are re-evaluating and re-designing
their teacher education programs by collaborating with local schools to help design effective
professional development models (Lieberman & Wilkins, 2006). The writers describe the
Professional Development Pathways (PDP) model. The PDP model builds on the unique needs
of each school or district by implementing the following four recommended steps: a) assess the
needs; b) determine the appropriate professional development pathways; c) reflect; and d) revisit
the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA).
Tellez and Waxman (2006) identify a successful professional development training
modeled after Moll et al.’s (1990) research that suggest the culture of students pervades all
educational activities. The Funds of Knowledge for Teaching model (FKT) is a professional
development program for teachers of ELL students it is designed to enhance teacher quality.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 90
The FKT model suggests that training for teachers must be comprehensive and systematic at all
levels. The FKT is an in-service program that assists teachers in creating academic materials,
strategies, and activities that substantially build on what students know and can do outside of
school. FKT creates opportunities for teachers to: a) learn the methods of ethnography and use
their knowledge in home visits; b) analyze the content and methods of typical school lessons; c)
engage in collaborative study; and d) create instructional units that use the content and methods
of home learning to inform the content and methods of school learning (Tellez & Waxman,
2006). Tellez and Waxman (2006) express that even though the FKT professional development
training model is successful it does require teachers to use both additional time and resources.
Hart and Lee (2003) conducted a 3-year longitudinal professional development
intervention. The research involved 53 third and fourth grade teachers at six elementary schools
in a large school district with a highly diverse student population.
The study discussed the results of the professional development intervention that was
aimed at understanding the second language acquisition processes and enabling teachers to
promote science and literacy achievement for culturally and linguistically diverse elementary
students. The objectives of the intervention were: a) to examine teachers’ initial beliefs and
practices about teaching English language and literacy in science and b) to examine the impact of
the intervention on teachers’ beliefs and practices.
The results of the first year professional development efforts, which form part of a 3-year
longitudinal design, indicate that, at the end of the year, teachers expressed more elaborate and
coherent conceptions of literacy in science instruction (Hart & Lee, 2003). In addition, the
researchers provided more effective linguistic scaffolding in an effort to enhance students’
understanding of science concepts. The results also suggested that teachers require continuing
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 91
support in the form of professional development activities in order to implement and maintain
reform-oriented practices that promote the science and literacy achievement of culturally and
linguistically diverse students (Hart & Lee, 2003).
What Are the Elements of Effective Programs?
A more recent study conducted by Batt (2008) collected survey data from 161 teachers,
including 157 educators from Idaho and four from a bordering rural county in Oregon. The
purpose of the research was to directly solicit solutions and priorities from participants in order
to design professional development and to proactively rethink teacher education. The two major
study questions addressed were: a) what are the greatest challenges impeding effective education
for the state’s ELL students and b) what areas of professional development are needed to
overcome these challenges (Batt, 2008). The teachers worked closely with a large percentage of
ELL students in their schools and were motivated to voluntarily provide thoughtful input for
improvement in ELL education (Batt, 2008).
The researchers’ findings suggested that the top seven ranked areas in which educators
expressed a need for professional development were: a) parental involvement; b) ELL
curriculum development; c) Spanish language class; d.) first and second language literacy
methods; e) sheltered English instruction; f) ELL instructional methods; and g) how to establish
a newcomer center (Batt, 2008). Additionally, Batt (2008) noted that collaboration with foreign
language or educational linguistic professors, professional development and restructuring are
needed to design and teach a course for all pre-service teachers across the content areas. The
author further states that the language/linguistic collaboration would be a critical beginning to
impart an understanding of second language acquisition and strategies needed to teach ELL
students effectively in schools today (Batt, 2008).
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 92
Curran (2003) believes that to effectively teach ELL students, teachers need professional
development to: a) understand the perspective of ELL students and the natural responses to being
immersed in a second language, b) use pedagogical strategies to aid second language acquisition,
and c) create a classroom climate that affirms linguistic diversity. Teacher educators must
provide all teachers with the necessary preparation for teaching ELL students (Lucas &
Grinsberg, 2008). “Without appropriate preparation, classroom teachers are left to sink or swim,
much as the ELL students in their classes are expected to do” (Lucas & Grinsberg, 2008, p. 609).
Professional development preparation programs must be able to identify diverse themes
that are both cultural and linguistic. For example, professional developments that show teachers
how to adapt curriculum content and create supplemental activities that are tailored to the
specific linguistic and cultural needs of their ELL students. As articulated by Lieberman and
Wilkins (2006) the professional development process must be an ongoing, cyclical process of
continuous quality improvement by which educators seek to maintain and enhance their
competence in both current classroom instruction and anticipated future content area
developments. Lieberman and Wilkins (2006), note that the cyclical process begins with
planning and moves through implementation and into evaluation. The authors state that during
the evaluation phase, changes are considered and made that are then considered during
subsequent planning, and the process continues (Lieberman & Wilkins, 2006).
In summary, the professional development of teachers must be addressed in order to
improve ELL education (Fitzgerald, García, Jiménez, & Barrera, 2000; Téllez & Waxman,
2006). As stated by Jackson and Davis (2000) “Teachers cannot come to expect more of their
students until they come to expect more of their own capacity to teach them.” Tellez & Waxman
(2006) note that more emphasis must be placed on providing high-quality professional learning
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 93
experiences and opportunities for ELL teachers that create a collaborative culture for the
teachers. Yet, the writers posit, that the professional development is rarely enough to help
teachers overcome some of the state, district, and school policies that limit their capacity for
helping ELLs in their classrooms (Tellez & Waxman, 2006). For instance, high-stakes testing
creates a sense of powerlessness and alienation among teachers that result in a weak sense of
teacher self-efficacy and self-belief (Curran, 2003). When teachers have a strong sense of their
own efficacy, they can make a real difference in the lives of their students (Ashton & Webb,
1986). On the other hand, when teachers lack hope, optimism, and self-belief, schools and
classrooms will “become barren wastelands of boredom and routine” (Hargreaves & Fullan,
1998). Tellez & Waxman (2006) believe that schools need to provide continuous, quality,
professional learning experiences for all teachers, to help them feel empowered so that they
believe that they can help improve the education of all children.
Conclusion
For the last 30 years the U.S. student ELL population has shown a very dramatic well
documented growth rate. Specifically, during this time, the population of English language
learners has increased by over a million students (Migration Policy Institute, 2010). Fleishman &
Hopstock (1993) conducted numerous studies on English language learners who comprise 5.5%
of the school-age population. The researchers assert that a disproportionate number of these
students live in California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois (Terrazas, 2010). According to
the Stillwell (2010) about 49.9 million students were enrolled in US public schools (pre-K to
12th grade) in the 2007-2008 academic years. Of those students, 10.7 percent (5.3 million)
children were English language learners; California currently has the largest number of students
in need of English instruction (Terrazas, 2010). Sunshine Elementary is home to a large ELL
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 94
population, these students are not a “homogenous group”; more than one in four of the nation’s
ELL students (about 1.5 million children) live in California (Stillwell, 2010).
Federal legislation under NCLB has brought interest towards the disparity of ELL
students’ academic achievement to the forefront. NCLB mandates that educators be held
accountable for the academic success of all students. For the last three decades the data shows
that an achievement gap exists between dominant and non-dominant students. These data suggest
that we face a daunting challenge as we continue to seek ways to communicate across racial,
cultural, social lines of unequal power (Delpit, 1995).
Ladson-Billings (1995b) established three culturally relevant criteria that help outline the
significance of teachers implementing diverse pedagogical instructional strategies. She asserts
that the academic divide amongst dominant and non-dominant students cannot close if the
environment where students are exposed to monoculture instead of multiculture instructional
strategies does not change. Culturally relevant instructional strategies will remain dormant if the
teacher focuses on a monoculture curriculum, not on culturally relevant pedagogical practices
that embrace the students’ background knowledge and their inherent intellectual capability.
Cochran-Smith (2008) identified three culturally relevant instructional strategies that can aide in
the literacy and linguistic development of Sunshine Elementary School ELL students. She asserts
with much research that effective teachers must strive to acknowledge the kaleidoscope of
background knowledge students bring to the classroom and to ensure the materials and
instructional strategies used are culturally relevant and representative of this ever-growing
diversity (Cochran-Smith, 2008). It is inherent that educators understand that culturally relevant
instructional strategies are irrelevant without the actions from educators embracing and reflecting
on the essential principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural classroom.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 95
Goldenberg (2008) describes a few accommodations that can be used as possible
alternatives for ELL students. Accommodations are used to help provide ELL students with
opportunities to connect their learning experiences to their own lives. Goldenberg (2008) writes
that the judgment on the validity of accommodations for ELL students is still inconclusive on the
effectiveness of reducing the literacy gap between ELL students and non-ELL students.
However, research does show that culturally responsive modifications to the curriculum are
beneficial to the academic success of ELL students. The quest for a superior academic education
that embodies culturally relevant instructional strategies for ELL students is dialogical in nature,
these students come to school “representing a diversity of languages, cultures, experiences with
school, and economic and social power” (OELA, 2006).
Educators committed to educational reform for ELL students face enormous challenges,
not the least of which is the education of teachers. Lucas and Grinberg (2008) note that, most
mainstream classroom teachers are not sufficiently prepared to provide the types of assistance
that ELLs need to successfully meet this challenge. At present, the majority of teachers have had
little or no professional development for teaching ELLs (National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2002); few have taken a course focused on issues related to ELL students (Menken &
Antunez, 2001); and most do not have the experiential knowledge that comes from being
proficient in a second language (Zehler et al., 2003). It is not surprising, then, that the majority of
teachers report that they do not feel prepared to teach ELL students (Campbell, Hombo, &
Mazzeo, 2000). Cochran-Smith and Zeichner (2005) and Darling-Hammond and Bransford
(2005) write that to be effective, today's teachers need a broad range of knowledge and skills,
including deep content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of how children
and adolescents learn in a variety of settings, skills for creating a classroom community that is
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 96
supportive of learning for diverse students, knowledge about multiple forms of assessment, and
the ability to reflect on practice.
To be successful with ELLs, however, teachers need to draw on established principles of
second language learning (Davies-Samway & McKeon, 2007; Harper & DeJong, 2004). The
authors state that language is the medium through which students gain access to the curriculum,
display content mastery, and are assessed for what they have learned.
Clearly, professional development plays a role in equipping schools to meet the
challenges of effectively educating English language learners and closing the achievement gap.
Knowles (1980) attest that effective professional development for teachers incorporates
principles of adult learning: (1) adult learners need to be self-directed, (2) display a readiness to
learn, and (3) desire immediate application of new skills and knowledge. Professional
development is embedded in the reality of schools and teachers’ work. It is designed with teacher
input. Lieberman and Wilkins (2006) describe the Professional Development Pathways (PDP)
model that build on the unique needs of each school by implementing the following: a) assess the
needs; b) determine the appropriate professional development pathways; c) reflect; and d) revisit
the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA).
Cummins (2000) states that effective teachers must participate in professional
developments that educate them on the basic constructs of bilingualism, special second language
development, the nature of language proficiency, the role of the first language and culture in
learning, and the demands that mainstream education places on culturally diverse students.
In all, the review of the literature has provided practical suggestions for ELL students
that teachers can use to reduce cultural bias and cultural discontinuity in their classrooms. The
literature has identified various culturally relevant strategies for ELL students such as
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 97
constructing classroom lessons and activities that build upon cultural values of ethnically and
culturally diverse students. These strategies help to reduce cultural discontinuity as non-
dominant students are no longer asked to forego their culturally aligned learning practices and
preferences (Cummins, 1981).
This literature review has indicated that culturally relevant instructional practices for ELL
students help enhance their academic performance outcomes. When teachers learn diverse
professional development strategies it enables them to use these concepts in an effort to reduce
cultural discontinuity and promote optimal performance among ethnically and culturally diverse
students.
Moreover, when all students are viewed along the same continuum cultural bias will be
reduced in teaching. Specifically, classroom teachers using culturally responsive pedagogical
practices are exposed to instructional practices and learning activities that do not solely reflect a
mainstream cultural value system (Delpit, 2003). Rather, many of the diverse practices reflect the
cultural values and customs of ELL students. The implementation of these diverse practices and
instructional strategies has proven to be beneficial to ELL students. Delpit (2003) posit that the
implementation of culturally relevant pedagogy and reflective professional development
trainings can result in the broadening of classroom teachers’ understanding of what works best
for a diverse student population.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 98
Chapter 6: Recommendations and Conclusion
17
The goal of this gap analysis was to investigate the possible causes for the literacy gap at
Sunshine Elementary School. Specifically, the analysis sought to determine the causes of
performance gaps related to the schools goals, and to provide a systematic way to derive
solutions to these gaps. The literature reviewed in the previous chapter serves as the foundation
for recommendations in this chapter related to culturally relevant instructional pedagogy,
motivation, and teacher professional development to promote the literacy achievement of
Sunshine Elementary ELL students.
Recommendations
The recommendations for Sunshine Elementary are based on culturally relevant reading
instruction and teacher training derived from a developmental perspective of reading. A
developmental outlook on literacy recognizes the various intrinsic reading and language skills,
and the varying developmental stages that provide ELL students with successful reading
outcomes. The recommendations are guided by the following five literacy domains: a) phonemic
awareness; b) phonics; c) vocabulary; d) fluency and e) reading comprehension. The
recommended literacy principles are linked to effective instruction for all students. The
recommendations demonstrate the necessity to enhance and amend the existing educational
system at Sunshine Elementary School to better meet the needs of their ELL students who are
experiencing reading difficulties.
Recommendation-Phonemic Awareness/Phonics Instruction
1. ELL students at Sunshine Elementary need early, explicit and intensive instruction in
phonological awareness and phonics in order to build decoding skills.
17
This chapter was written by Enyetta Mingo-Long.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 99
Documented research from Iruka sand Carver (2006) has shown that, as early as
kindergarten, it is possible to identify ELL students, who are at risk for reading difficulties. At an
early age these students demonstrate underdeveloped phonological awareness skills and
difficulty earning sound-symbol correspondences (Rodriguez, 1998). Research shows that word-
level skills in Literacy such as decoding, are often taught well enough to allow language-
minority students to attain levels of performance equal to those of native English speakers
(August & Shanahan, 2006).
Unfortunately, schools tend to overlook ELL students who experience reading challenges
at an early age due to their inability to decode print or adversity with developing language-
processing skills. One way to help educators not overlook ELL students who struggle with
reading is to identify the students in need of supplemental intervention and implement evidence-
based interventions that promote ELL reading achievement.
Supplemental intervention instruction takes place in small homogenous groups ranging
from three to four students using curricula that address the major components of reading
instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, reading comprehension, fluency and vocabulary).
The instruction provided by the educator is systematic-building skills gradually and introducing
skills first in isolation and then integrating them with other skills. Explicit supplemental
instruction involves more teacher-student interaction, including frequent opportunities for the
student to practice, comprehend the subject matter and receive specific feedback from the
teacher. Teachers must provide intensive instruction three to five times per week for 20 to 40
minutes. Researchers have conducted studies on supplemental intervention instruction for ELL
students in reading and affirm that it is an effective way to improve reading performance in
phonemic awareness and decoding. Six of the studies showed positive effects on decoding
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 100
(Ebaugh & Curry, 2000; Gunn, Biglan, Smolkowski, & Ary, 2000; Jenkins, 2004; Lennon &
Slesinski, 1999; Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton, 2005; Vaughn et al., 2006) and four showed effects
on both decoding and reading comprehension (Gunn et al., 2000; Jenkins, 2004; Vadasy et al.,
2005; Vaughn et al., 2006). The above research-based studies suggest that educators emphasize
the critical reading skills of phonemic awareness and phonics instruction with their ELL
students. Often educators believe that the reading development of ELL students is linked to their
poor oral language proficiency, so generally, educators use a “wait and see” approach and hold
off on intervention for ELL students, assuming that these skills will develop as they acquire more
proficiency in English and experience increased exposure to print (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux,
Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006a). During our analysis at Sunshine Elementary, it was noted that
educators demonstrated a “wait and see” approach due to limited literacy resources and
professional development trainings on phonological awareness and phonics in order to build
decoding skills in ELL students.
Research conducted by Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, and Rivera (2006a) shows that
ELL learners need explicit, intensive instruction or intervention in phonemic/phonological
awareness and phonics. The intervention must be explicit, systematic, and intensive in order to
augment students’ abilities and prevent further difficulties with word-reading acquisition
(Francis et al., 2006a).
Francis et al. (2006b) note that ELL students in the primary grades, show a weak
relationship between phonological skills and vocabulary, with phonological skills typically better
developed than vocabulary skills, and more important to the development of word-reading
accuracy. The authors posit that there is a need for a child to have a certain amount of vocabulary
knowledge in order to receive phonics instruction (Center of Instruction, 2006). However, the
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 101
writers state that this is not the case for phonological awareness because ELL students, who
demonstrate difficulty, benefit from phonological awareness instruction and activities (Francis et
al., 2006b).
Research conducted by August and Shanahan (2006) list the following three aspects of
phonological awareness and phonics that teachers of ELL students can incorporate into their
instruction:
1.) ELLs cannot develop phonological awareness in English until they are familiar
with the sounds of English. ELL students must have extensive experiences with songs,
poems, and read-alouds that help them to reproduce the sound patterns of English before
explicit instruction in phonological awareness begins.
2.) Modifications must be made once explicit instruction begins to allow for more
practice with sounds that can potentially cause confusion. Teachers of ELL students, will
have to become familiar with the language backgrounds of their students because of the
differences from one language to another, often, there are sounds that don't exist in the
native language or sounds that are perceived as different in English but the same in the
native language.
3.) Once phonological awareness has developed in any language, it transfers to o
other languages that are learned. The authors note that students who are literate in their
native language will not need to develop this skill again in English; they will only need to
become familiar with the sounds of English and to learn to discriminate sounds that are
different between their native language and English (August & Shanahan, 2006).
4.) Systematic phonics instruction can be very effective in helping ELL students, even
those at fairly low levels of language proficiency, learn to decode words. Reading
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 102
instruction should be combined with intensive development of oral language proficiency
needed to decode words and understand the text.
5.) The most effective reading programs for ELL students combine modified systematic
phonics instruction with a print-rich environment that provides exposure to appealing
reading materials in varied genres.
Literacy skills practiced and acquired from extensive reading programs transfer words into
meaningful texts that help to ensure that decoding skills don't progress beyond the students'
comprehension ability. ELL students have the phonemic awareness skills they need in order to
perceive individual sounds in words with a degree of accuracy commensurate with their
pronunciation abilities, before they are taught to make associations between those sounds and
particular letters.
The following literacy formats are recommended for Sunshine Elementary School to use
with their ELL students. The complementary formats are designed for explicit, intensive, and
systematic instruction and intervention in phonological awareness and phonics for ELL students;
it will increase their opportunity to learn and provide them with a firm foundation for reading.
The formats are as follows:
1. Class-wide instruction for all learners and their classmates;
2. Supplemental intervention for the subgroup of children who experience sustained
difficulties despite effective class-wide instruction, and whose skills are significantly
below their peers, whether ELLs or native speakers.
3. All students need 12-14 exposures to a word.
4. Intensive instruction with ELL students should occur three to five times per week for
20 to 40 minutes.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 103
Recommendation-Vocabulary Instruction
2. All classrooms at Sunshine Elementary must increase opportunities for ELL students to
develop sophisticated vocabulary knowledge.
Across the U.S. the area of vocabulary instruction has generally been neglected in an
effort for educators to support all learners’ academic development. As articulated by August,
Carlo, Dressler, and Snow, (2005) ELL students who experience slow vocabulary development
are less able to comprehend text at grade level than their non-ELL peers, and they may be at risk
of being diagnosed as learning disabled, when in fact their limitation is due to limited English
vocabulary and poor comprehension that results in part from this limitation. The average teacher
spends only 5 to 10 percent of their classroom instructional time on vocabulary instruction, with
most lessons not containing any attention to the students understanding of word meanings. For
example, middle and high school students are instructed to focus on rare words highlighted in the
textbook that are not important for comprehension. Unusual words such as dandelion, burrowed,
or bootlegging are highlighted in the text, instead of using high-utility academic words such as
analyze or frequent, or important function words such as although and therefore. August &
Shanahan (2006) affirm that early, ongoing, and intensive oral proficiency efforts help to
develop stronger vocabulary skills for ELL students. For example, there is evidence that ELL
students are able to take advantage of higher order vocabulary skills in their first language by
providing formal definitions and interpreting metaphors, when speaking a second language.
Pashler et al. (2007) describes the importance of intensive, interactive English language
development instruction for all English learners. Pashler and colleagues believe that vocabulary
instruction needs to focus on developing academic language-the decontextualized language of
the schools, the language of academic discourse, of texts, and of formal argument, (Pashler et al.,
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 104
2007). The panel provides the following three evidenced based approaches for effective
vocabulary instruction for ELL students:
1.) Adopt an evidence-based approach to vocabulary instruction. The IES panel believes
that an evidence-based approach should require that teachers provide daily explicit v
ocabulary instruction as an integral part of English language development. Researchers
converge in noting that effective vocabulary instruction includes multiple exposures to
target words over several days and across reading, writing, and speaking opportunities
(Pashler et al., 2007).
2.) Develop district wide lists of essential words for vocabulary instruction. These words
should be drawn from the core reading program and from the textbooks used in key
content areas, such as science and history. The IES panel states that a major part of any
vocabulary curriculum is specifying the words to be taught. It is the panel’s belief that
adopting a district wide core vocabulary list for English learners will help focus
instruction on valuable words and reduce unnecessary duplication (Pashler et al., 2007).
3.) Vocabulary instruction for English learners should also emphasize the acquisition of
meanings of everyday words that native speakers know and that are not necessarily part
of the academic curriculum.
The authors note that English learners can acquire vocabulary words easily if teachers provide
them with brief instruction that can emphasize the meanings of common phrases and
expressions, not just single words during the lesson (Pashler et al., 2007).
The National Reading Panel (NRP) (2000) attest that in order to provide ELL students
with access to content-area curriculum and increase their academic achievement, effective
vocabulary instruction must be frequent, intensive, systematic, and complex. NRP (2000) further
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 105
believes that intensive instruction must occur in all classrooms, from kindergarten through 12th
grade, and be cohesive and consistent across the grade levels. The following reading instruction
guidelines are offered to Sunshine Elementary School to serve as a guide to help determine what
vocabulary instruction must be based on an understanding of:
1. The differences between conversational language and academic language;
2. The difference between having a word label and having knowledge of the concept
behind the word; many ELL students have the label but lack any kind of deep conceptual
knowledge of the word;
3. How words relate to one another (word families) and can be transformed into different
words through manipulation of word parts (roots, suffixes, affixes, prefixes);
4. The interrelatedness of content-area knowledge and academic language;
5. The various levels of word knowledge, including the need to know multiple meanings for
many words;
6. The need for vocabulary instruction to occur through oral, reading, and writing activities;
7. The need for students to be equipped with strategies to learn words independently.
Recommendation-Reading Comprehension
3. Reading instruction in Sunshine classrooms must equip ELL students with strategies and
knowledge to comprehend and analyze challenging narrative and expository texts.
Standard comprehension instruction focuses on the products of comprehension rather
than the process of comprehension. Thus making it mostly uni-dimensional where students read
from a text and answer assigned questions that are related to the text. Effective comprehension
instruction for ELL students and their classmates must be explicit and direct, must actively
engage the student in monitoring and carefully selecting and reflecting upon their own use of
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 106
strategies during the comprehension process. According to August and Shanahan (2006) when
students are actively engaged, effective instruction promotes meta-cognition—students’ ability to
reflect on, monitor, and control their own thinking processes.
The following techniques can be used at Sunshine Elementary School to promote active
reading and engagement with text, fostering better comprehension and a more thoughtful
approach:
1. Teaching students to make predictions consciously before reading. When students make
predictions before reading, they must recall what they know about the type of text to be
read and anything they might know about the specific text or the topic it covers. Making
predictions before reading also, gives students an opportunity to check, and reflect on,
their predictions while reading as well as after reading. Discussions of predictions that
include teacher supports and scaffolds also provide an opportunity for students to gain an
understanding of the purpose for reading the text.
2. Teaching students to monitor their understanding and ask questions during reading.
Monitoring understanding and asking students questions during reading cues students to
recognize when their comprehension breaks down and to identify the knowledge (e.g., of
a vocabulary word or a content concept) they need to repair their comprehension. Asking
ELL students to explain their processes for making meaning while reading and strategies
to overcome difficulties is another method to increase opportunities to produce language.
3. Teaching students to summarize what they have read after reading. Writers and speakers
summarize because it requires them to synthesize what they have tried to communicate,
distinguishing for their audience what is important from what is not. Similarly, having a
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 107
reader summarize what he has read requires that he synthesize the information and
differentiate between more and less important information.
4. Teaching students to have knowledge of the cognate relationships that exist between
Spanish and English as a positive transfer of knowledge that facilitates English reading
comprehension; providing students with the ability to recognize cognates develop with
age. Teachers of ELL students must understand the extent to which cognate relationships
are related to the degree of semantic, morphological, orthographic, and phonological
overlap.
Recommendation-Fluency Instruction
4. Instruction and intervention to promote ELL students reading fluency must focus on
vocabulary and increased exposure to print.
When ELL students read with fluency, they possess automaticity in word-recognition
skills, and they have access to knowledge of word meanings and the ability to hold information
in working memory while constructing and extracting meaning from text. Fluency and reading
comprehension is bi-directional, ELL students whose word-recognition skills are automatic can
devote greater cognitive resources to comprehending the text. However, when ELL students
encounter words they do not know or do not understand in the context of the passage, reading
rate and fluency decrease. Moreover, the research conducted by August and Shanahan (2006)
indicates that instructional programs that promote reading fluency work when they provide
opportunities for students to develop proficiency in their first language. Studies that compare
bilingual instruction with English-only instruction demonstrate that ELL students instructed in
their native language as well as in English have a stronger fluency level. These students both
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 108
elementary and secondary perform better, on average measures of English reading proficiency
than language-minority students instructed only in English (August & Shanahan, 2006).
As articulated by the NRP (2000) many ELL students who struggle with reading
comprehension have fluency difficulties but their reading rate is within the average range.
The researchers’ further states that these same learners are not likely to show improvement in
fluency following phonics instruction, and do not necessarily need more practice learning the
code and increasing their decoding rate. The difficulties that ELL students exhibit reflect
underdeveloped vocabulary and insufficient exposure to print. As a result, ELL students benefit
from increased practice reading text that is at their instructional level (can be read with 90%
accuracy), with the goal of developing deeper representations and more efficient access (lexical,
syntactic, semantic) to the words and their meaning(s) in varying contexts (Francis, 2006b).
The elements of successful fluency in reading and the corresponding likely benefits for
Sunshine Elementary School ELL students include:
1. Oral reading, which forces the reader to slow down and attend to each word and provides
an opportunity to increase vocabulary knowledge and practice speaking and reading with
appropriate expression;
2. Corrective feedback from adults, which brings the student’s attention to
her miscue and provides the correct pronunciation;
3. Discussions and questioning about the book, which is an opportunity to
promote comprehension strategies and vocabulary development;
4. Increased exposure to print which, for a variety of reasons, has been
shown to have effects on students’ overall reading ability; and
5. The likelihood of increased engagement and motivation given the small
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 109
group format and interaction with a supportive adult who structures and
leads the intervention.
Recommendation-Engage in Academic Talk
5. All classrooms at Sunshine Elementary need significant opportunities for ELL students to
engage in structured academic talk.
It is important for Sunshine Elementary School educators to understand that language
learning is not a passive process; it is facilitated through production and interaction, and
therefore, depends heavily on the ability to practice and produce language, especially in
academic settings. One key component to developing language skills for ELL students is the
amount of time on task spent by the teacher producing academic language in interactive
educational settings where there is opportunity for repeated exposure to and use of words, and
opportunity for feedback.
In order to increase Sunshine Elementary ELL students’ academic language skills, and in
turn their academic achievement, the following principles and factors should be considered:
1. Like most other academic skills, the development of oral language is a
cumulative process and one that must be supported from kindergarten
through twelfth grade.
2. Although the primary means to developing language should be structured
practice with language itself, this practice is further optimized when also
connected to reading and writing activities.
3. Reading aloud and shared readings that are accompanied by structured
discussions are an excellent way to promote language development.
Although reading aloud and shared reading are thought of as especially
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 110
important in the primary grades and primarily thought of to promote
comprehension skills, they are equally important in the middle and high
school years when there is sophisticated language and content to be
discussed. Reading aloud and shared readings provide an opportunity for
practice and modeling effective language use, appropriate expression,
and a platform for structured discussion, with scaffolds, to promote
language development.
4. Effective language practice and production needs to be supported by
teachers, but not necessarily led by teachers. Ideally, teachers would plan
for structured opportunities to practice language, model effective
questioning and conversational practices, and gradually turn over the
responsibility to students for peer-led discussions and conversations.
A key variable in the language acquisition of ELL students is the amount of
opportunity to practice language with peers who have slightly more
developed language and/or are native English speakers.
5. More structured “talk” in classrooms across the U.S. would provide
increased opportunities to informally assess students’ oral language
development in different contexts and for students to monitor and
become more aware of, and active in, their own language development.
Describing strategies for academic talk. Teachers at Sunshine Elementary can choose
two or three objects or pictures of objects that are related to the topic.
Students describe object
Name the object
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 111
Name categories the object belongs in
Name the functions of the object
Name the objects color, size, and shape.
Compare it to another object.
Use a simile or a metaphor.
Recommendation-Independent Reading
6. Independent reading is only beneficial when it is structured and purposeful, and there is
a good reader-text match
As articulated by the NRP (2000) independent reading holds promise as a means for
vocabulary development, increasing exposure to print, and improving fluency and
comprehension. Francis et al. (2006a) profess that independent reading is only beneficial to
learners when it is very carefully planned and when several conditions are met. The most
important of these conditions include: 1) the need for a careful match between the reader’s
ability and the characteristics of the text, and 2) explicit goals must be set for the independent
reading activity, and there must be a link between the content of the reading activity and other
aspects of the curriculum.
The following recommendations are provided for Sunshine Elementary School when
planning for successful independent reading:
1. Is there a match between the reader’s ability and the text characteristics?
2. Is the reader able to read the text with 90 percent accuracy?
3. Is there a ratio of known to unknown words that supports vocabulary
knowledge development during independent reading?
4. Is there a relationship between the content of the book(s) for independent
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 112
reading and the content and material being covered in the class?
5. Is there a follow-up activity or discussion planned to be held after
independent reading?
6. Do the teacher and the student have a shared understanding of the
purpose or goal that guides that particular session of independent reading?
Supporting and promoting the reading development of ELL students at Sunshine
Elementary School is both a challenge and a necessity for the schools educators.
Developing effective reading skills for Sunshine’s ELL students is a multi-dimensional, complex
process that requires educators at Sunshine to develop many skills that contribute to positive
reading outcomes for their ELL students. The culturally relevant developmental reading
recommendations provided in this section are instrumental in the planning and implementation of
culturally relevant instructional strategies that will assist Sunshine’s ELL students in literacy
development.
Professional Development
The quality of teacher professional developments is a central component to the success of
the educational program. Research has shown that despite, the general acceptance of
professional development as essential the higher the quality of instruction the more productive
the training (Guskey 2000). Government guidelines on education, consistently point out the
ineffectiveness of most professional development programs. Guskey (2000) writes that policy-
makers increasingly recognize that schools can be no better than the teachers and administrators
who work within them. Most professional developments share a common purpose: to alter the
professional practices, beliefs, and understanding of school persons toward an articulated end;
the end in most cases represents an improvement in student learning (Griffin, 1978).
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 113
As stated by Guskey (2000) professional development programs are systematic efforts to
bring about change in the classroom practices of teachers, in their attitudes, beliefs, and the
learning outcomes of their students.
Often professional development trainings for educators are not sensitive enough to the
diverse literacy needs of ELL students. Research conducted by August and Shanahan (2006)
clearly demonstrates that variables unrelated to the focal measurement construct (e.g.,
sociocultural factors, culturally relevant instructional training, and cultural biases) can affect the
quality of the professional development (August & Shanahan, 2006).
Therefore, implementation of the recommendations presented may yield different
outcomes that reflect the needs of the community, parents, teachers, educators and students of
Sunshine Elementary. Specifically, the outcomes of the recommendations may not cover all
pertinent literacy areas for ELL students in evaluating effective professional development
instruction due to possible limitations. Moreover, considering that existing research provides a
limited view of what constitutes effective professional development instruction for ELL students,
the recommendations provided by (Fernandez, Cannon, & Chokshi, 2003; Joyce & Showers,
2002; Poglinco et al., 2003; Reeves, 2004; Sparks & Hirsch, 2000; Wheelan & Kesselrung, 2005)
are used to guide the work. The emphasis for the professional development recommendations
are: 1) what do educators need to learn to achieve literacy goals with ELL students during
professional development; 2) the theory that establishes the value of the PD; 3) and the factors
that enhance or inhibit the effectiveness of the professional development instruction (Ardila-Rey,
2008).
Effective professional development training can help teachers learn strategies to close the
literacy gap. Educators will not only engage ELL students and give them a chance to
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 114
demonstrate their knowledge but also disclose more in-depth information on the students’
academic needs. Ongoing professional development is an important part of every ELL teacher's
role. Staying informed about new literacy developments in research, curriculum, and methods of
instruction enhance performance and improve learning outcomes for your students.
The recommended professional development strategies for Sunshine Elementary School
correlate with effective instructional approaches that enable teachers to be successful with all
students. The professional development suggestions demonstrate the urgency to modify the long
established and outdated professional development procedures for teachers who teach ELL
students. The design of professional development, therefore, is critical to school improvement.
Research conducted by (Fernandez et al., 2003; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Poglinco, et al., 2003;
Reeves, 2004; Sparks & Hirsch, 2000; Wheelan & Kesselrung, 2005) suggests that professional
development should:
provide opportunities for teachers to build their content and pedagogical knowledge and
to examine practices;
be research based and engage teachers in the learning approaches they will use with their
students;
provide opportunities for teachers to collaborate with colleagues and other experts to
improve their practice and;
include a design based on student learning data that will be evaluated and improved
continuously.
Convergent research conducted by Miller and Fuller (2006) note the following professional
development recommendations as effective, the following suggestions have been provided for
Sunshine Elementary School to implement:
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 115
Recommendation-Professional Development-Continuous In Service ELL Training
1. Sunshine Elementary School should establish minimum professional development
requirements and develop policies to ensure that teachers receive continuous ELL
training and development in order to meet the academic needs of their ELL students.
According to NCLB guidelines all schools must be held accountable for the academic
progress of all students. Currently, teachers are being held accountable for their ELL students’
academic achievement. For decades teachers have not received the required ELL training needed
to effectively help their students be held accountable for their students’ academic achievement in
all content areas.
Recommendation-Professional Development-Grade Level Specific
2. The ELL student professional development programs for Sunshine teachers should be
grade level specific in order to be beneficial to ELL instruction.
Collier & Thomas (1992) state that to effectively teach ELLs, teachers need professional
development to: a) understand the perspective of ELLs and the natural responses to being
immersed in a second language, b) use pedagogical strategies that aid in second language
acquisition, and c) create a classroom climate that affirms linguistic diversity.
In regards to Sunshine Elementary the aforesaid recommendations can work as a guide to
help the schools educational administrators to offer beneficial ELL instruction that offers insight
into the kinds of instructional strategies needed.
Recommendation-Professional Development-Collaborate
3. Sunshine Elementary educators should collaborate with other local elementary schools in
the district to further address the issue of teacher preparation of ELL students.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 116
Teacher and administrative collaboration with local educators is a key component to the
success of the professional development learning process. Often, the learning process is
strengthened by the educational camaraderie and culturally relevant teaching strategies obtained
that help, to foster a learning process that is ongoing and results driven. Darling-Hammond,
(2000) noted that when teachers participate in sustained professional development that is
grounded in content-specific pedagogy that improves teacher outcomes, in turn, impacts student
outcomes.
Recommendation-Professional Development-Establish Partnerships
4. A partnership should be established between Sunshine Elementary school systems
and local higher education institutions to develop professional development programs for
teachers’ in classroom instruction for ELL students. With NCLB guidelines continuing to gauge
the direction of our educational system there is a need for teacher education programs to be
embedded in institutions of higher learning. Partnerships established with district schools and
Universities that focus on developmental trainings on ELL reading instruction can have a
substantial effect on the strategies teachers use with their ELL students.
Summary
This modified gap analysis project was designed to assist with closing the literacy
achievement gap at Sunshine Elementary School. The modified gap analysis approach examined
the long-standing and systematic differences in literacy outcomes at Sunshine Elementary. The
inquiry team identified the root causes that contributed to the literacy gap. The root causes were
validated through the use of research based literacy strategies that addressed the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational performance gaps at Sunshine Elementary School. The English
Language Learner literacy gap was consistently linked to address the aforementioned root causes
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 117
that framed the analysis. The findings presented in this gap analysis offer several implications for
action that could prove beneficial to educators and stakeholders of Centerville who are interested
in closing the literacy gap and improving the reading achievement of English Language
Learners. Based on the validated causes, several recommendations were suggested by the inquiry
team to help improve the instructional literacy pedagogy and learning opportunities for Sunshine
Elementary School English Language Learners. The adoption of the literacy strategies provided
for Sunshine Elementary English Language Learners will help to close the literacy gap by
reducing cultural bias and cultural classroom discontinuity.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 118
References
Abedi, J. (2008). Utilizing accommodations in assessment. The encyclopedia of language and
education, 7, 331-348.
Adler, C. R. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to
read. National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved from
http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/reading_first1text.html
Allen, L. (1998). An integrated strategies approach: Making word identification instruction work
for beginning readers. The Reading Teacher, 254-268.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, National Commission on Teacher
Education, & Professional Standards (US). (1975). Journal of teacher education (Vol.
26). American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Anderson, J. (2005). Historical context for understanding the test score gap. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Antunez, B. (2002). English Language Learners and the Five Essential Components of
Reading Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/341.
Ardila-Rey, A. (2008). Language, culture, policy, and standards in teacher preparation. In M. E.
Brisk (Ed.). Language, culture, and community in teacher education (pp. 331–351).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Armbruster, B.B., Lehrer, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building
blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and
student achievement. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 119
Au, K. H. (2002). Multicultural factors and the effective instruction of students of diverse
backgrounds. What research has to say about reading instruction, 3, 392-413.
August, D. (2003). Supporting the Development of English Literacy in English Language
Learners: Key Issues and Promising Practices. CRESPAR Tech. Rep. No. 61. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed
at Risk. Retrieved from www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report61.pdf
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary
development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
20(1), 50-57.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Executive summary. Developing literacy in second-language
learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and
Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2007). Developing reading and writing in second language
learners: Lessons from the report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority
Children and Youth. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Executive summary. Developing literacy in second-language
learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and
Youth. Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org/projects/archive/nlpreports/Executive_Summary.pdf
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2008). Developing reading and writing in second-language
learners: Lessons from the report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority
Children and Youth. New York, NY: Rutledge, co-published by the Center for Applied
Linguistics and the International Reading Association.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 120
Bae, S., Holloway, S. D., Li, J., & Bempechat, J. (2008). Mexican-American students’
perceptions of teachers’ expectations: Do perceptions differ depending on student
achievement levels? The Urban Review, 40(2), 210-225.
Bandura A. (1997). Self-self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Batt, E. G. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of ELL education: Potential solutions to overcome the
greatest challenges. Multicultural Education, 15(3), 39-43.
Bauer, E. B., & Arazi, J. (2011). Promoting Literacy Development for Beginning English
Learners. The Reading Teacher, 64(5), 383-386.
Bennett, S. L. H. (2013). A capstone project: Closing the achievement gap of English learners in
l literacy at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model(Unpublished
doctora doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California. Team project co-authored by J.
C. Herr C. Herrera & E.Mingo-Long
Brice, R. G., & Brice, A. E. (2009). Investigation of phonemic awareness and phonic skills in
Spanish-English bilingual and English-speaking kindergarten students. Communication
Disorders Quarterly, 30(4), 208-225.
Buenning, M., & Tollefson, N. (2006). The cultural gap hypothesis as an explanation for the
achievement patterns of Mexican ‐American students. Psychology in the Schools, 24(3),
264-272.
Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The
Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127.
Campbell, J. R., Hombo, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (2000). NAEP Trends. National Center for
Education Statistics, 2(4), 31.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 121
California. State Board of Education. English-Language Arts Curriculum Framework, Criteria
Committee, California. State Board of Education, & California. State Dept. of Education.
(1987). English-language arts framework for California public schools: Kindergarten
through grade twelve. California Department of Education.
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., & White,
C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English ‐language
learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2),
188-215.
Casserly, M. (2002). Developing a concept of collection for the digital age. Portal: Libraries and
the Academy, 2(4), 577-587.
Clark, D. A. (2003). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for OCD. New York: Guilford Press.
Clark, R. E. (1999). The CANE Model of Motivation to Learn and to Work: A Two- Stage
Process of Goal Commitment and Effort. In J. Lowyck, (Ed.), Trends in corporate
training. University of Leuven: Belgium.
Clark, R. E., & Effort, M. M. (2004). What works in distance learning: Motivation strategies. In
H. O’Neil (Ed.), What works in distance learning: Guidelines (pp. 89-110). Greenwich,
CT: Information Age.
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2008). Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions and
changing contexts. New York, NY: Routledge.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 122
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of
the AERA panel on research and teacher education. HILLSDALE, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Collier, V., & Thomas, W. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language
minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1-2),
187-212.
Conderman, G., & Strobel, D. (2008). Fluency flyers club: An oral reading fluency intervention
program. Preventing School Failure, 53(1), 15.
Condly, S. J., Clark, R. E., & Stolovitch, H. D. (2003). The effects of incentives on workplace
performance: A meta ‐analytic review of research studies 1. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 16(3), 46-63.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education,
(Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-50).
Los Angeles: California State University: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment
Center.
Cummins, J. (1992). Language proficiency, bilingualism and academic achievement. In
P.A. Richard-Amato & M.A. Snow (Eds.), (pp. 58-70), The multicultural classroom:
Reading for content area teachers. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Curran, M. E. (2003). Linguistic diversity and classroom management. Theory into practice,
42(4), 334-340.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 123
Curtin, T. R., Ingels, S. J., Wu, S., & Heuer, R. (2002). National education longitudinal study of
1988: Base-year tofourth follow-up data file user's manual (NCES2000- 323). Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nels88/
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a
profession (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing
world: Report of the Committee on Teacher Education of the National Academy of
Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davies-Samway, K. & McKeon, D. (2007). Myths and realities: Best practices for English
language learners. (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Dawson, P., & Portsmouth, N. H. (n.d.) Beyond “Lazy and Unmotivated”. Retrieved from
http://mestringskonferansen.no/PDF/2012/2012-09-13%20Peg%20Dawson.pdf
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New
Press.
Delpit, L. (2003). Educators as “seed people” growing a new future. Educational Researcher,
32(7), 14-21.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal
study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 124
Dingus, J. (2003). Making and breaking ethnic masks. In G. Gay (Ed.), Becoming multicultual
educators: Personal journey toward professional agency (pp. 91–1116). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Dooley, C. M., & Matthews, M. W. (2009). Emergent comprehension: Understanding
comprehension development among young literacy learners. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 9(3), 269-294.
Duval-Couetil, N., & Mikulecky, L. (2011). Immigrants, English, and the workplace:
Evaluating employer demand for language education in manufacturing companies.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 23(3), 209-223.
Ebaugh, H. R., & Curry, M. (2000). Fictive kin as social capital in new immigrant communities.
Sociological Perspectives, 43,189-209.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon (Series
Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5
th
ed., Vol. III, pp.
1017-1095). New York: Wiley.
Faircloth, S. C., & Tippeconnic, J. (2004). Utilizing research methods that respect and empower
indigenous knowledge. Tribal College, 16(2), 24-27.
Fernandez, C., Cannon, J., & Chokshi, S. (2003). A US–Japan lesson study collaboration reveals
critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 171-185.
Fitzgerald, J., García, G. E., Jiménez, R. T., & Barrera, R. (2000). How will bilingual/ESL
programs in literacy change in the next millennium?. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4),
520-523.
Fleishman, H. L., & Hopstock, P. J. (1993). Descriptive study of services to limited English
proficient students. Arlington, VA: Development Associates.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 125
Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006a). Practical guidelines
for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for
instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation,
Center on Instruction.
Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006b). Research-Based
Recommendations for Instruction and Academic Interventions. Practical Guidelines for
the Education of English Language Learners. Book 1 of 3. Portsmouth, NH: RMC
Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Fregeau, L. A., & Leier, R. D. (2008). Assessing ELLs in ESL or mainstream classrooms: Quick
fixes for busy teachers. The Internet TSEL Journal, 14(2).
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gandara, P., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2000). Preparing teachers for diversity: A dilemma of quality
and quantity. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106-116.
Gay, G. (2003). Introduction: Planting seeds to harvest fruits. In G. Gay (Ed.), Becoming
multicultual educators: Personal journey toward professional agency (pp. 1–16). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in
preservice teacher education. Theory into practice, 42(3), 181-187.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 126
Geisinger, K. F. (2003). Testing students with limited English proficiency. In J. Wall & G. R
Walz (Eds.), Measuring up: Assessment I issues for teachers, counselors, an
administrators (pp. 147-159). Greensboro, NC: CAPS Press.
Gill, B., & Schlossman, S. (2003). Parents and the politics of homework: Some historical
perspectives. Teacher College Record, 105(5), 846-871.
Godina, H. (2004). Contradictory literacy practices of Mexican-background students: An
ethnography from the rural Midwest. Bilingual Research Journal, 28(2), 153-180.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does and does not
say. American Educator, 32, 42-44.
Griffin, V. (1978). Self-directed adult learners and learning. Learning, 2(1), 6-8.
Griffith, P. L., & Olson, M. W. (1992). Phonemic awareness helps beginning readers break the
code. The Reading Teacher, 45, 516-523.
Guccione, L. M. (2011). Integrating literacy and inquiry for English learners. Reading Teacher,
64(8), 567-577.
Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental
instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary
school. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 90-103.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press
Guthrie, H. (2009). Competence and competency-based training: What the literature says.
Adelaide, South Australia: National Centre for Vocational Educational Research
(NCVER).
Guthrie, J. T., & Alao, S. (1997). Designing contexts to increase motivation for reading.
Educational Psychologist, 32, 95-105.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 127
Guthrie, J. T. (2001). Contexts for engagement and motivation in reading. Reading Online, 4(8).
Washington DC: International Reading Association.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P.
B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume
III (pp. 403-422). New York: Erlbaum.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., ... &
Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing Reading Comprehension and Engagement Through
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Morales, P. Z., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture,
difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities. Review of Research
in Education, 33(1), 212-245.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires
of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.
Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E., Perper, K., Wandner, L., Wessel, J., … & Schultz, T. (2009).
Disparities in early learning and development: Lessons from the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort (ECLS-B). Washington, DC: Child Trends.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What's Worth Fighting for Out There? New York:
Teachers College Press.
Harper, C., & De Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152-162.
Hart, J. E., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve the science and
literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3),
475-501.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 128
Hawkins, D. (2008). Vocabulary acquisition in early literacy and relations to learning
modalities. (Doctoral dissertation). California State University, Sacramento.
Hawkins, J. (Ed.) (2004). Language learning and teacher education: a socio-cultural approach.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hawkins, R. O., Musti-Rao, S., & Barkley, E. A. (2009). Effects of repeated readings on the
oral reading fluency of urban fourth-grade students: Implications for practice. Preventing
School Failure, 54(1), 12-23.
Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the g
gap. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 1-16.
Herrera, J. C. (2013). A capstone project: Closing the achievement gap of English learners in
literacy at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model(Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California. Team project co-authored by S.
L. H. Bennett & E. Mingo-Long.
Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, P. D., Taylor, B. M., Richardson, V., Paris, S. G. (1998). Every child a
reader: Applying reading research to the classroom. Center for the Improvement of Earl
Reading Achievement. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan School of Education.
Hoefer, M., Rytina, N., & Baker, B.C. (2010). Estimates of the unauthorizeImmigrant
population residing in the United States: January 2010. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics Retrieved from
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2010.pdf
International Reading Association. (2001). Preparing students for their literacy future: A
position statement on literacy and technology. Newark, DE: IRA.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 129
Iruka, I. U., & Carver, P. R. (2006). Initial results from the 2005 NHES early childhood program
participation survey (NCES 2006-075). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning Points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st
century. Williston, VT: Teachers College Press.
Jenkins, H. (2004). Media literacy goes to school. Retrieved from MIT Technology Review
Website: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402380/media-literacy-goes-to-school/
Jiménez, T.C., & Graf, V.L. (Eds.) (2008). Education for all: Critical issues in the education of
children and youth with disabilities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass and Sons Ltd.
Jones, A. G., & King, J. E. (2012). The common core state standards: A vital tool for higher
education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(6), 37-43.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd Ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr R. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of reading
research. (Vol. 3). New York: Erlbaum.
Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available
educational programs and services: 2000–2001 summary report. Washington, DC:
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction
Educational Programs.
Kissinger, A. M. (2004). The need for emergent literacy events in schools. Knowledge Quest,
33(2), 58.
Klauda, S. L. (2009). The role of parents in adolescents’ reading motivation and activity.
Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 325-363.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 130
Knowles, C. J. (1980). Concern of teachers about implementing individualized instruction in the
physical education setting. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 52(1), 48-57.
Kozulin, A. (1990). The concept of regression and Vygotskian developmental theory.
Developmental Review, 10(2), 218-238.
Kucer, S. B., & Silva, C. (1999). The English literacy development of bilingual students within a
transition whole-language curriculum. Bilingual Research Journal, 23(4), 345-371.
Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Meisinger, E. B., Levy, B. A., & Rasinski, T. V. (2010).
Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prose, and definitions
of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230-251.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The Dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African-American
teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice 34(3), 159–165.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race
theory perspective. Review of Research in Education, 24, 211–247.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse
classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2005). Is the team all right. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 229-234.
LeClair, C., Doll, B., Osborn, A., & Jones, K. (2009). English language learners’ and non-
English language learners’ perception of classroom environment. Psychology in the
Schools, 46(6), 568-577.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 131
Lee, C. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for
underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97-141.
Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (2001). Instructional congruence to promote science learning and literacy
development for linguistically diverse students. In D. R. Lavoie & M.W. Roth (Eds.),
Models for science teacher preparation: Bridging the gap between research and practice
(pp. 109-126). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Lee, Y. J. (2009). Not if but when pedagogy collides with culture in Singapore. Pedagogies: An
International Journal, 5(1), 17-26.
Lennon, J. E., & Slesinski, C. (1999). Early intervention in reading: Results of a screening and
intervention program for kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 28, 353-364.
Lesaux, N. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak
English as a second language. Developmental psychology, 39(6), 1005.
Leu, D. J., & Kinzer, C. K. (1993). Examining Central Issues in Literacy Research, Theory, and
Practice. Forty-Second Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. National Reading
Conference. Chicago, IL.
Lieberman, J. M., & Wilkins, E. A. (2006). The professional development pathways model:
From policy to practice. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(3), 124-128.
Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations (Tech. Rep.). Los
Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, CRESST.
Livingston, A., & Wirt, J. (2003). The Condition of Education 2003 in Brief. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, 2003. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003068.pdf
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 132
Lucas, T., & Grinberg, J. (2008). Responding to the linguistic reality of mainstream classrooms:
Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners. Handbook of research on
teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts, 3, 606-636.
Madrid, E. M. (2011). The Latino achievement gap. Multicultural Education, 18(3), 7.
Manyak, P. C. (2008). What's your news? Portraits of a rich language and literacy activity for
English-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 450-458.
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Teaching by priming students’ motivation to learn. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.),
Learning and instruction 63 (8), 760. Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River.
Menken, K., & Antunez, B. (2001). An overview of the preparation and certification of teachers
working with limited English proficient (LEP) students. Washington, DC:
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Miller, K. J., & Fuller, D. P. (2006). Developing cultural competency in early childhood preservice
educators through a cultural self-analysis project. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 27(1), 35-45.
Mingo-Long, E. (2013). A capstone project: Closing the achievement gap of English learners in
literacy literacy at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California. Team project co-authored by S. L. H
L.H. L.H. Bennett& J. C. Herrera
Mora, M. T., Villa, D. J., & Dávila, A. (2006). Language shift and maintenance among the
children of immigrants in the U.S.: Evidence in the Census for Spanish speakers and
other language minorities. Spanish in Context, 3(2), 239-254.
Moss, P. (2007). Bringing politics into the nursery: Early childhood education as a democratic
practice. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(1), 5-20.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 133
Moule, J. (2012). Cultural Competence: A primer for educators. Belmont, California:
Wadsworth/Cengage.
Moll, L.C., Vélez-Ibañez, C., & Greenberg, J. (1988). Project implementation plan. Community
knowledge and classroom practice: Combining resources for literacy instruction. Tucson,
AZ: College of Education and Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology.
Moll, L. C., Velez-Ibanez, C., Greenberg, J., Whitmore, K., Saavedra, E., Dworin, J.,…Andrade, R.
(1990). Community knowledge and classroom practice: Combining resources for literacy
instruction (OBEMLA Contract No. 300-87-0131). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona,
College of Education and Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology.
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (2002). Survey of the states' limited English
proficient students and available educational programs and services, 1999-2001.
Washington, DC: NCBE.
National Reading Panel (NRP). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment
of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
National Reading Panel (2001). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://
www.nationalreadingpanel.org/faq/faq.htm
Netten, A., Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2010). Predictors of reading literacy for first and second
language learners. Reading and Writing, 24(4), 413-425.
Newman, S. B. (1996). Children engaging in storybook reading: The influence of access to print
resources, opportunity, and parental interaction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
11(4), 495-513.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 134
Nieto, S. (2007). School reform and student learning: a multicultural perspective. In J. A. Banks, &
C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (6th Ed.) (pp. 425-
443). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA), Language Enhancement, and Academic
Achievement for Limited English P Proficient Students. (2006). California: Rate of LEP
growth 1994/1995-2004/2005 [poster]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/policy/states/reports/statedata/2004LEP/California-G-
05.pdf.
Olson, M., Griffith, Y. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2002). Predictors of exception word and
nonword reading in dyslexic children: The severity hypothesis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94(1), 34.
Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., Metcalfe,
J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007
2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research.
Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2000). English learners reading English: What we know, what we
need to know. Theory into practice, 39(4), 237-247.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. Journal of educational psychology, 82(1), 33.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The
role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of
conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–199.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 135
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in Education: Theory, research, and
applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Poglinco, S., Bach, A. J., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., & Supvitz, J. (2003). The
heart of the matter: The coaching model in America’s Choice schools. University of
Pennsylvania: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Ramirez, J. D. (2001). Bilingualism and literacy: Problem or opportunity? A synthesis of reading
research on bilingual students. In A research Symposium on High Standards for Students
from Diverse Language Groups: Research, Practice & Policy. Washington, DC: Office of
Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs, US Departament of Education,
Proccedings (pp. 9-41).
Rasinski, T. V. (2000). Commentary: Speed does matter in reading. The Reading
Teacher, 146-151.
Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., McKeon, C. A., Wilfong, L. G., Friedauer, J. A., & Heim, P.
(2005). Is reading fluency a key for successful high school reading?. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(1), 22-27.
Reeves, D. B. (2000, December). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning
organizations. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
Restrepo, M. A., & Towle-Harmon, M. (2008). Addressing emergent literacy skills in
English-language learners. ASHA Leader, 13(13), 10.
Rivera, C., Collum, E., Shafer-Willner, L., & Sia, J. K., Jr. (2006). An analysis of state
assessment policies regarding the accommodation of English language learners. In C.
Rivera & E. Collum (Eds.), State assessment policy and practice for English language
learners: A national perspective (pp. 1-173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 136
Associates.
Rodríguez, Y. (1998). An examination of sustaining effects in Descubriendo la Lectura
programs. Literacy, 3(2), 59.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College press.
Rueda, R., Velasco, A., & Lim, H.J. (2008). Comprehension instruction for English Learners. In
C. C. Block & S. R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best
practices. (pp. 294-308). New York: The Guilford Press.
Schieffer, C., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., Simonsen, F. L., & Waldron-Soler, K.
M. (2002). An analysis of the Reading Mastery program: Effective components and
research review. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2(2), 87-119.
Schoenbrodt, L., Kerins, M., & Gesell, J. (2003). Using narrative language intervention as a tool to
increase communicative competence in Spanish-speaking children. Language Culture and
Curriculum, 16(1), 48-59.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (Eds.). (2008). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications (3rded.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril Prentice Hall.
Scully, P., & Roberts, H. (2001). Phonics, expository writing, and reading aloud: Playful literacy
in the primary grades. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(2), 93-99.
Shreve, J. (2005). Let the Games Begin. Edutopia, April/May, 29-31. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=E
484796.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
researcher, 4-14.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 137
Sireci, S. G., Li, S., & Scarpati, S. (2003). The effects of test accommodation on test performance:
A review of the literature. Center for Educational Assessment Research Report, 485.
Smith, J. A. (2000). Singing and songwriting support early literacy instruction. The Reading
Teacher, 53(8), 646.
Smylie, M. A., Allensworth, E., Greenberg, R. C., Harris, R., & Luppescu, S. (2001). Teacher
professional development in Chicago: Supporting effective practice. Chicago, IL:
Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Solano-Flores, G., & Trumbull, E. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new
research and practice paradigms in the testing of English-language learners. Educational
Researcher, 32(2), 3-13.
Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (2000). A National Plan for Improving Professional Development.
National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from
http://www.nsdc.org/library/authors/NSDCPlan.cfm
Stillwell, R. (2010). Public school graduates and dropouts from the common core of data:
School year 2007–08 (NCES 2010-341). National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010341
Sum, A., Fogg, N., Harrington, P., Khatiwada, I., Trub’skyy, M., & Palma, S. (2002). Immigrant
Workers and the Great American Job Machine: The Contributions of New Foreign
Immigration to National and Regional Labor Force Growth in the 1990's. Center for
Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University.
Taboada, A., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Teachers’ conceptions of reading comprehension and
motivation to read. Teachers and Teaching, 18(1), 101-122.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 138
Taboada, A., Kidd, J. K., & Tonks, S. M. (2010). A qualitative look at English language
learners’ perceptions of autonomy support in a literacy classroom. Research in the
Schools, 17, 39-53.
Tellez, K., & Waxman, H. C. (2006). Preparing quality educators for English language learners:
an overview of the critical issues. In: K.Tellez, & H. C. Waxman (Eds.), Preparing
quality educators for English language learners: Research, policies, and practices (pp.1-
22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Terrazas, A. (2010). Mexican immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration
Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm
US Census Bureau. (2000). Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: Census
Bureau.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006a). Population profile of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006b). School enrollment – social and economic characteristics of
students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2005). Relative Effectiveness of Reading Practice
or Word-Level Instruction in Supplemental Tutoring How Text Matters. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 364-380.
Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D., Hagan, E. C., ...
Francis, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English intervention
for English-language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational
Research Journal, 43(3), 449-487.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 139
Verdugo, D. R. (2006). A study of intonation awareness and learning in non-native speakers of
English. Language Awareness, 15(3), 141-159.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers rethinking the
curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2002). Mind in society and the ZPD. Readings for reflective teaching, 112-14.
Weinstein, C., Curran, M., & Tomlinson-Clarke, S. (2003). Culturally responsive classroom
management: Awareness into action. Theory Into Practice, 269–276. Whitehurst, G. J., &
Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development,
69(3), 848-72.
West, J., Denton, K., & Germino-Hausken, E. (2000). America’s Kindergartners: Findings from
the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99, Fall 1998
(NCES 2000–070). US Department of Education. National Center for Education
Statistics. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Wheelan, S. A., & Kesselring, J. (2005). Link between faculty group: Development and
elementary student performance on standardized tests. The journal of educational
research, 98(6), 323-330.
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child
Development, 69(3), 848-72.
Williams, C., Phillips ‐Birdsong, C., Hufnagel, K., Hungler, D., & Lundstrom, R.P. (2009). Word
study instruction in the K–2 classroom. The Reading Teacher, 62(7), 570-578.
Wolf, E. (1966). Peasants. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 140
Yopp, H. K., & Yopp, R. H. (2000a). Sharing informational text with young children. The
Reading Teacher, 53(5), 410-423.
Yopp, H. K., & Yopp, R. H. (2000b). Supporting phonemic awareness development in the
classroom. The Reading Teacher, 130-143.
Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson, T. G., Pendzick, M. L., &
Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with
disabilities, Volume 1A: Research report. Development Associates, Inc. Retrieved
from http://www.devassoc.com/LEPdoclist.html
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 141
Appendix A
Parent Survey – English
Sunshine Elementary School Climate Survey
Dear Families,
We want Sunshine Elementary School to be the best that it can be. Please fill out this survey and
tell us what you think our school’s strong points are and what you think could be better. We
welcome your comments and ideas.
………………………………… ……………………………………………………………
Caring Environment at Sunshine Elementary
1. When I walk into this school I feel welcome.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
2. I am treated with respect at this school.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
3. The school respects my cultural heritage.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
4. Students at my child’s school are treated fairly no matter what their race or cultural
background.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
5. I feel welcome at PTA/parent group meetings.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
………………………………………………………………………………..…………..
Problem Solving at Sunshine Elementary
1. I have a good working relationship with my child’s teacher.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
2. I can talk to the school principal when I need to.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
3. The school has a clear process for addressing concerns about my child (ren).
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
4. If the school can’t help me, I know they will refer me to someone who can.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
……………………………………………………………………………………………
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 142
Appendix A (continued)
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Communication at Sunshine Elementary
1. My child’s teacher notifies me if my child is having a problem with (circle all that apply):
Behavior Reading Classwork Homework Tests
2. It is easy to get all school information written in Spanish and English.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
3. The school consults me before making important decisions about my child.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
4. Every year the school informs me of what grade level standards are expected of my child.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
……..………………………………………………………………………………………
Student Progress at Sunshine Elementary
1. My child’s teacher keeps me well informed about how my child is doing in school.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
2. I understand the grade level standards that my child is supposed to meet.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
3. Sunshine Elementary gives useful information on how to improve my child’s progress.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
4. At Sunshine Elementary students feel challenged to do their best.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
5. At this school students enjoy reading
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
………………………………………………………………………………………
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 143
Appendix A (continued)
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Satisfaction of Sunshine Elementary
1. I am very satisfied with the quality of this school
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
2. I would recommend this school to family and friends with children.
Always Almost always Sometimes Rarely Never
3. What grade is your child in? List all if you have more than one._______________
4. I identify my child’s race as: __________________________________________
5. What is the school doing that is most helpful to you as a parent?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
6. Write one thing you would like the school to do to improve your child’s learning
experience?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 144
Appendix B
Parent Climate Survey – Spanish
Encuesta de clima en la escuela primaria Sunshine
Queridas familias,
Nosotros queremos que la escuela primaria Sunshine sea la major escuela posible. Por favor
tome unos minutos y llene esta encuesta y diganos cuáles son las areas fuertes de la escuela y que
areas pueden ser mejor. Sus comentarios e ideas son bienvenidas.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Un medio ambiente de carino en la primaria Sunshine
1. Cuando entro en la escuela me siento bienvenido/a
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
2. Me tratan con repeto en esta escuela
Siempre Casi Siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
3. La escuela respeta mi herencia cultural
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
4. Los estudiantes de la escuela de mi hijo (a) reciben un trato justo sin importar su raza u
origen cultural.
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
5. Me siento a gusto en las reuniones de padres/grupo PTA
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Resolucion de problemas en la primaria Sunshine
1. Tengo una buena relación de trabajo con el maestro (a) de mi hijo (a).
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
2. Puedo hablar con la directora de la escuela cuando lo necesito hacer.
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
3. La escuela cuenta con un proceso claro para abordar las preocupaciones acerca de mi
hijo(a).
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
4. Si la escuela no me puede ayudar, sé que me va a referir alguien que pueda hacerlo.
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
…………………………………………………………………………………………
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 145
Appendix B (continued)
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Comunicacion en la primaria Sunshine
1. La maestra/El maestro de mi hija(o) me notifica si mi hija(o) tiene un problema con
(marque lo que corresponda):
Comportamiento Lectura Trabajo de clase Tarea Exámenes
2. Es fácil de obtener toda la información de la escuela por escrito en Español/Inglés.
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
3. La escuela me consulta antes de tomar decisiones importantes acerca de mi hija (o)
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
4. Cada año la escuela me informa de los estándares de nivel de grado que se espera de mi
hija (o).
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Progreso del estudiante en la escuela primaria Sunshine
1. La maestra/el maestro de mi hija (o) me mantiene bien informado acerca de cómo mi hija
(o) está haciendo en la escuela.
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
2. Entiendo las normas de nivel de grado que mi hija (o) se supone que debe cumplir.
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
3. La primaria Sunshine ofrece información útil sobre cómo mejorar el progreso de mi hija
(o).
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
4. En Sunshine, los estudiantes de primaria se sienten desafiados a hacer lo mejor.
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
5. En esta escuela, los estudiantes disfrutan de la lectura
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
………………………………………………………………………………………
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 146
Appendix B (continued)
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Satisfaccion de primaria Sunshine
6. Estoy muy satisfecho con la calidad de esta escuela.
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
7. Yo recomendaría esta escuela a mi familia y amigos con niños.
Siempre Casi siempre Aveces Casi nunca Nunca
8. ¿En qué grado está su hija/o? liste todos si usted tiene más de uno
______________________________________________________________
9. Identifico la raza de mi hija/o, como: ________________________________
10. ¿Qué está haciendo la escuela que es más útil para usted como padre?
________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
11. Escriba una cosa que le gustaría que la escuela haga para mejorar la experiencia de
aprendizaje de su hija/o?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 147
Appendix C
Teacher Survey
Gender:
Male_____ Female_____
Race:
Years teaching at Sunshine:
Circle Years of Teaching:
0-3 4-6 7-10 11-13 14-16 17-20
1. Sunshine Elementary School Agree Disagree
The administrators at Sunshine Elementary support its teachers.
Sunshine Elementary School is safe.
Sunshine has a curriculum that meets the needs of all students.
Sunshine Elementary School’s student discipline policy is fair.
At Sunshine, the teachers develop lesson that are culturally relevant to
all races.
At Sunshine, teachers value what students have to say.
At Sunshine, administrators respect all races and cultures.
At Sunshine, administrators value what students have to say.
2. Please mark how well you think Sunshine Elementary is preparing
students for the following
Not Well Very
Well
Proficiency in reading by the close of 2nd grade.
Developing students critical thinking skills.
To meet State Standards.
Close the literacy gap for disadvantaged youth.
Prepare students for the next grade.
Prepare students for standardized test
3. Which of the following are the most important qualities for teaching? (Circle 3)
Explaining material well to students. Working with all students' styles of learning &
culture.
Using fun and creative techniques. Building trust and respect with students.
Having control of the classroom. Subject matter expertise
Believing in all students' abilities to learn. Giving students individualized help with their
work.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 148
Appendix C (continued)
4. Thinking about the students at Sunshine (overall), please mark if you
agree or disagree:
Agree Disagree
Students at Sunshine care about learning and getting a good education.
Students at Sunshine get to be creative and use their abilities in school.
I know about what's going on in my students' lives outside of school.
I am able to teach to my students' individual strengths and weaknesses.
At Sunshine students should take responsibility for their learning.
Student-teacher relationships affect overall school success.
Students at Sunshine care about learning and getting a good education.
Students at Sunshine get to be creative and use their abilities in school.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 149
Appendix D
Student Reading Attitudes Survey
(Administered by the school)
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 150
Appendix D (continued)
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 151
Appendix D (continued)
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 152
Appendix D (continued)
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 153
Appendix D (continued)
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 154
Appendix E
Teacher Interview Questions
Background
1) Who are the stakeholders?
2) Who is influential in the decision-making? Tell me more about the EL population?
3) What is the committee structure of the school? Informal? Formal?
4) What is the relationship of the school and community?
5) What is your perception of the school neighborhood?
6) How long has the current structure been in place at this school?
7) How do policies get made?
8) How receptive is the school to teacher input?
Goals
1) What are the goals of the school? Are the goals practical? How do the goals impact your
teaching?
Problem
1) What are your views on reading and learning?
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 155
Appendix F
Principal Interview Questions
1. How do you perceive your role as principal? What level of support do you receive?
2. What is your school mission? How aligned is the mission to the reality of your school?
3. Who are the stakeholders at your site/district? What is your level of interaction with
these stakeholders?
4. How are decisions made at your site?
5. Discuss the climate at Sunshine. What are some strengths? What are areas of possible
growth?
6. How are your teacher leaders selected? What are their duties?
7. Who are your “unofficial” teacher leaders? How do they impact school policy
decisions?
8. What is your perception concerning teacher collaboration at Sunshine?
9. How would you describe the students at Sunshine?
10. How involved is the community (parents, families, others) in the area surrounding
Sunshine? What are some outreach/education activities that you offer? What are your
plans for future opportunities?
11. What programs and systems currently exist that serve EL students, both directly and
indirectly?
12. How are your EL programs structured? How have these programs changed since your
arrival at Sunshine?
13. In What professional development activities has your staff participated? In relation to
these activities, how is student progress monitored?
14. What are some things you would like to see changed that you believe would assist with
EL student achievement? Ate these things feasible
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 156
Appendix G
Assumed Causes Charts
Table G1
Knowledge Assumed Causes
Causes Students Parents Teachers Admin
Knowledge
Delayed
reading due
to holes in
literacy
processes
Students
may not
understand
the
importance
of what is
being
learned
Do students
have the
literacy
skills to be
effective
readers?
Students
may not be
provided the
appropriate
literacy
instruction
Education
Level may
be similar
to where
their
students
are.
Parents
may not
understand
the
importance
of what is
being
learned
Parents
may not
have the
knowledge
to access
resources
Parents do
not have the
skills to
support
their
students.
PD at beginning of
school (centralized)
curriculum aligned for
teachers which
consisted of Common
Assessment, Coding
for student
achievement,
benchmarked, LEA
plan, Data Analysis
Protocol. This is a
data driven program.
Is the data process
giving the right data?
Teachers may not
have the tools
necessary to work
effectively with
students
Lack of teaching
strategies
Do teachers know the
goals of the school?
Are the goals
effectively
communicated?
Knowledge of how to
read and use data to
improve instruction
Knowledge of school
mission
First principal
position
New to district,
new to school.
Appears to
know the
elements of the
job
Principal may
not understand
the nuances of
the school
climate
The district is
not fully aware
of all the
various tasks the
principal has to
complete.
Has the school
mission been
articulated to all
teacher, parents
and students?
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 157
Appendix G
(continued)
Table G2
Motivation Assumed Causes
Causes Students Parents Teachers Admin
Motivation
Student self-
efficacy
based on
teacher
attitudes
Student
work is not
presented in
a way that
makes them
want to
understand
the material.
Distracted
by the
language
barriers
Value
Self-
Regulation
Self-Efficacy
Parents do not
hold their
students
accountable
due to
perceived
ability issues
(Probrecito)
Meaning of
Education
Parents trust
the teachers to
do what they
need to do for
their children
However,
parents may
feel
intimidated by
teachers
Parent may
think that the
school has no
appreciation
for the family
Participate in PD
out of obligation vs.
desire to be a
lifelong learner
Stereotyping of
students
Learning of new
techniques
Self-Efficacy
Teachers do not
care about EL
students
Teachers do not
believe that EL
student can succeed
Teachers may
believe that what
they are doing is
effective and
should not be
changed
Principal
appears highly
motivated and
wants her
students and
teachers to
perform well
Principal is
involved in
several
programs at
school
The district
may not be
willing to
make any
additions to
the
administrative
team as long as
the school is
showing
growth and
running
effectively.
CLOSING ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LITERACY 158
Appendix G
(continued)
Table G3
Organization Assumed Causes
Causes Students Parents Teachers Admin
Organization
Heavily
focused on LA
and Math, and
some of the
other subjects
may not be
pushed,
especially
those subjects
where literacy
skills (reading,
writing,
listening and
speaking) can
be practiced
Teachers may
not have the
appropriate
materials to
provide
effective
instruction
Lack of
resources to
support
system
Outside of
PTA, there are
few
opportunities
for parent
involvement
Family
dynamics may
impact parent
participation
Support from
Administrator
Time and space
for collaboration
may not exist
Teachers may not
be accountable to
one another
Teachers may
think that they
are collaborating
effectively
Teachers may not
be willing to
collaborate
unless directed
Teachers may not
understand the
value of effective
and ongoing
collaboration
There is no
administrative
team.
Isolation
Little support
from District
office
New to district,
outsider
The district
does not have
the necessary
funds to pay the
salary for
another
administrator at
the school site.
159
Appendix H
Dissertation Proposal Presentation
160
Appendix H (continued)
161
Appendix I
Presentation to Sunshine Administration
162
Appendix I (continued)
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English learners in literacy at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model
PDF
A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of english language learners at sunshine elementary school using the gap analysis model
PDF
A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model
PDF
A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readinesss gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent involvement
PDF
An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school
PDF
A capstone gap analysis project of English learners' achievement at a suburban high school: a focus on teaching strategies and placement options
PDF
A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on school support and school counseling resources
PDF
An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district
PDF
Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis
PDF
Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model
PDF
An alternative capstone project: A gap analysis inquiry project on the district reform efforts and its impact in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap in Rowland Unified School District
PDF
Implementation of the Social Justice Anchor Standards in the West Coast Unified School District: a gap analysis
PDF
Addressing the challenges for teachers of English learners in a California elementary school using the gap analysis approach
PDF
A capstone gap analysis project of English learners' achievement at a suburban high schol: a focus on teacher collaboration and cultural competence
PDF
The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes
PDF
Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction
PDF
An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: teacher factors
Asset Metadata
Creator
Mingo-Long, Enyetta
(author)
Core Title
A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
04/29/2013
Defense Date
03/04/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
achievement gap,culturally relevant pedagogy,English language learner,fluency,funds of knowledge,gap analysis,Literacy,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogical content knowledge,pedagogy,phonemic awareness,phonics,reading comprehension,self-efficacy,socio-cultural barriers,vocabulary
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Rueda, Robert (
committee chair
), Love, Laurie (
committee member
), Yates, Kenneth A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
enyetta@gmail.com,mingolon@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-248830
Unique identifier
UC11293962
Identifier
etd-MingoLongE-1623.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-248830 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-MingoLongE-1623.pdf
Dmrecord
248830
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Mingo-Long, Enyetta
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
achievement gap
culturally relevant pedagogy
English language learner
fluency
funds of knowledge
gap analysis
pedagogical content knowledge
pedagogy
phonemic awareness
phonics
reading comprehension
self-efficacy
socio-cultural barriers
vocabulary