University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Influences that Impact English Language Acquisition for English Learners: Addressing
Obstacles for English Learners’ Success: A Gap Analysis
Jeannette C. Martinez
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024

© Copyright by Jeannette C. Martinez 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jeannette C. Martinez certifies that approval of this Dissertation
Maria Ott
Jenifer Crawford
Darline Robles, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this project was to identify the instructional models that best influence and
support English language learners to attain English language proficiency. Through a gap analysis
framework, this study collected and analyzed data to help gain an understanding of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes that prevent teachers from effectively
supporting English language learners to attain English language proficiency. The stakeholders of
focus for this study were teachers in grade levels kindergarten through fourth grade. This study
employed a qualitative design for data gathering and analysis, including interviews and
document analysis, to identify data regarding the instructional methods used by classroom
teachers and the factors that contribute to the attainment of English language proficiency. The
study findings identified 11 influences that impact English learner’s programs. Based on the
findings, recommendations were made using the new world Kirkpatrick model to address the
organization’s current model of teaching English learners.
Keywords: English language learners (ELL), English language proficiency

v
Dedication
To my beloved husband, Rich, your unwavering and constant love, support, and understanding
have been the pillars that have sustained me throughout this academic journey. Your patience
and encouragement throughout this process have been the driving force behind my perseverance.
I am grateful for your love and your resolute belief in me, which has been the guiding light that
has led me to this moment of achievement.
To our three remarkable young adult children, Jeannette, Stephanie, and Ricky. Witnessing your
growth, independence, and achievements has been a source of immense pride and inspiration.
Your continuous encouragement has been the driving force behind my dedication and
perseverance to complete this dissertation. As you navigate through your own paths and pursue
your own dreams and aspirations, may your strength, determination, and kindness to one another
fuel your own academic and career journeys.
To my father and mother, who courageously embarked on a journey to the United States in
search of a better life and opportunities for their children. Your resilience, sacrifices, and your
belief in the power of education have shaped the person I am today and what I have been able to
accomplish. Your sacrifices have been the foundation upon which I have built my personal,
academic, and professional goals and dreams.

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Robles, my esteemed chairperson, for
her invaluable guidance, support, advice, and scholarly expertise throughout this dissertation
process. Dr. Robles’ insightful feedback and mentorship have been instrumental in shaping my
dissertation study. Additionally, I extend my heartfelt appreciation to my dissertation committee
members, Dr. Ott and Dr. Crawford, for their time, expertise, and valuable contributions to my
research study. I am truly grateful and honored to have had the privilege of working with such a
dedicated dissertation committee.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem of Practice ................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2
Importance of Addressing the Problem ...............................................................................4
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................5
Organizational Performance Status......................................................................................5
Organizational Performance Goal........................................................................................6
Description of Stakeholder Groups......................................................................................6
Stakeholder Group for the Study .........................................................................................8
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................9
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .....................................................................10
Definitions..........................................................................................................................11
Organization of the Project ................................................................................................13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 14
History of the Identification of English Language Learners .............................................14
Site Administrators, Teachers, and Instructional Coaches and Preparation: Overview
of the Roles and Responsibilities.......................................................................................16
Best Practices for Teaching ELLs: Pull-Out and Push-In Models and Their Impact on
ELL Achievement..............................................................................................................18
Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework ...............................................................................20
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences...............................21

viii
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................35
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 37
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .....................................................................37
Assessment of Performance Influences .............................................................................39
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection ..............................................................48
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................49
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................50
Trustworthiness of Data.....................................................................................................51
Role of Investigator............................................................................................................51
Limitations.........................................................................................................................51
Chapter Four: Results and Findings.............................................................................................. 52
Participating Stakeholders..................................................................................................52
Determination of Assets and Needs...................................................................................54
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes.....................................................................54
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes.....................................................................63
Results and Findings for Organization Causes..................................................................66
Summary of Validated Influences......................................................................................72
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation......................................................................... 74
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................75
Organizational Goal ...........................................................................................................75
Description of Stakeholders Groups..................................................................................75
Stakeholder Group for the Study .......................................................................................76
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................77
Introduction and Overview ................................................................................................77
Recommendations for Practice to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
Influences...........................................................................................................................78

ix
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan................................................................93
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation ............................................................107
Limitations and Delimitations..........................................................................................108
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................109
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................109
References................................................................................................................................... 111
Appendix A: Interview Protocol................................................................................................. 117
Introduction......................................................................................................................117
Interview Questions.........................................................................................................118
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................120
Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol................................................................................. 121
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 122
Appendix D: Email to Recruit Research Participants................................................................. 124
Appendix E: Evaluation Tool To Be Used Immediately Following Training ............................ 125
Appendix F: Evaluation Tool Delayed for a Period After Training ........................................... 126

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission and Performance Goals 8
Table 2: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve
the Performance Goal 27
Table 3: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve
the Performance Goal 31
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve
the Performance Goal 35
Table 5: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment 41
Table 6: Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment 44
Table 7: Summary of Organization Influences and Method of Assessment 47
Table 8: Participating Stakeholders 53
Table 9: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Assets or Needs As Determined by the
Data 73
Table 10: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 79
Table 11: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 86
Table 12: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 90
Table 13: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methodsfor External and Internal Outcomes 96
Table 14: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 98
Table 15: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 99
Table 16: Professional Development Program 102
Table 17: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 103
Table 18: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 105

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Gap Analysis Process 38

1
Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem of Practice
English language learners (ELLs) in California come from all over the world and from
within the state. Many come from Mexico, Central and South America, as well as from Asia, the
Middle East, and European countries with a range of cultures, socioeconomic levels, and
immigrant experiences that require academic support. As these students represent a growing
population in the public school system, school districts must determine how to best support them.
Researchers and the department of education have identified two different categories with
different models of instruction for teaching ELLs in each category. The first category is
instruction in English-only or English immersion, and the second is bilingual instruction
(instruction in English and the student’s native language).
Under the first category, the instructional models include sheltered English instruction, in
which content knowledge and skills are the goal, and structured English immersion, in which
English language acquisition is the goal. Another model, content-based English as a second
language (ESL), includes teaching English using academic content materials, such as social
studies or science charts, as a medium to teach English. Lastly, pull-out ESL involves taking
students out of their mainstream classrooms for special instruction to learn English. Under the
category of bilingual instruction, school districts have options for dual immersion or two-way
immersion in which students receive instruction in both English and a target language, such as
Spanish or Vietnamese. In transitional bilingual programs, students are taught in English and
their native language with the goal of decreasing instruction in the native language as English
proficiency increases. In a developmental bilingual program, students are taught core content in
both languages with the goal of bilingualism and biliteracy. In a heritage language program,

2
students receive instruction in their native language (National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition [NCELA], 2019a).
Throughout the state, ELLs constitute 19% of total student enrollment, and the
percentage who progress at least one level is 56% (California Department of Education, 2019).
The performance problem I focused on is the high percentage of these students who do not
advance and meet the criteria to reclassify as English proficient by the end of fourth grade.
Students who reclassify by the end of fourth grade have wider access to academic opportunities
in the middle and high school grades (Chin, 2021). They are expected to advance through four
proficiency levels (Levels 1 through 4) based on the annual summative English Language
Proficiency Assessment for California (ELPAC) that measures listening, speaking, reading, and
writing the English language based on a range for their grade level (California Department of
Education, 2021).
The Riverview Preparatory Academy (RPA, a pseudonym) is the specific school site of
focus for this study. As of 2022, the rate of ELLs at RPA has remained at 16%, and the
percentage who progressed at least one level on the ELPAC was 34%, while 34% maintained the
same level from the prior school year and 33% decreased a level, resulting in an English learner
progress rating of low (California Department Education, 2019). This is a significant problem as
these students advance through the grades and their academic performance in English language
arts (ELA) and mathematics widens away from the performance of students who speak only
English.
Background of the Problem
Barrow and Markman-Pithers (2016) reported on the need for ELLs to become proficient
in English to succeed academically in all subjects and beyond high school as their number across

3
the nation continues to grow exponentially. As their number increased in California, educational
leaders over the last decade have questioned their ELL programs’ efforts, effectiveness, and
inclusiveness. The best way to support ELLs is difficult to assert as the federal department of
education provides several teaching options to qualify for Title 3 funding at the district and
school level (California Department of Education, 2019). Effective classroom teachers and
school leaders understand that students struggling with English language acquisition benefit from
receiving instruction to improve their vocabulary, core content knowledge, and social-emotional
skills (Whitting, 2017).
The California local control funding formula legislation changed the funding for local
school districts, and targeted funding is allocated yearly for teacher professional development in
the English language teaching strategies and methods of scaffolding core subject material
(Daniel, 2014). Due to the different options authorized by the U.S. Department of Education,
there is a lack of consistency across and within school districts on how to provide ELL
instructional support (NCELA, 2022). Some school sites pull students out of their general
educational classrooms to provide language intervention in small groups, while other districts
practice push-in instruction in which a specialized English language development (ELD) teacher
or paraeducator provides support for core content lessons in the general education classroom. In
both cases, co-planning with classroom teachers should take place to ensure ELLs meet the
learning objectives of the core content standards and paraeducators effectively run small groups
for intervention purposes (Yates et al., 2020). Other schools solely use teacher-led classroom
instruction and interventions without the assistance of paraeducators or ELD teachers (Daniel,
2014).

4
Importance of Addressing the Problem
I know this is a problem because RPA must meet all students’ needs, yet ELLs as a
subgroup scored 62 points below the standard in ELA and 98 points below the standard in
mathematics in the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) in
2019. Improving academic instruction and state assessment results at RPA is important for
several reasons, including that improving ELLs’ academic results will ensure these students have
opportunities for educational success.
Distance from standard measures how far, on average, students score from the lowest
possible standard-met score (California Department of Education, 2019). In comparison with
students who speak English only, who scored 0.5 points below the standard in ELA and 40
points below the standard in mathematics, ELLs at RPA demonstrate an achievement gap of 61.5
points in ELA and 58 points in mathematics.
This is an important problem to address, as students who do not meet reclassification are
at a higher risk of dropping out of high school (Barrow & Markman-Pithers, 2016). This problem
also affects RPA’s annual accountability scores and the district’s rating on the California School
Dashboard. Additionally, this problem represents an equity and access educational problem due
to the inconsistency in the delivery of instruction across the school site, as some teachers utilize
bilingual instructional assistants and others do not. Some ELLs receive instruction in their
mainstream classroom, while others receive support through a pull-out program. One approach
that has gained more acceptance over the last 2 decades has been to keep these students in the
mainstream classroom to provide intervention and content teaching (Whitting, 2017). Removal
from the core instructional environment is detrimental to academic growth and ensures

5
educational inequity and lack of access to core instruction from a certified teacher (Olvera,
2015).
Organizational Context and Mission
The RPA, a school in southern California that serves students from kindergarten through
eighth grade, serves a student population of 1,200, which includes 65% Hispanics, 21% African
Americans, 12% White, and 2% of two or more races. Sixteen percent of the student population
speaks a language other than English at home. The RPA is divided into two sections. The lower
school consists of kindergarten through Grade 4, and the upper school is made up of Grades 5
through Grade 8. Each section has a cafeteria and playground. The school’s staff consists of 49
certificated classroom teachers, two instructional coaches, 12 paraeducators (two ELD and 10
special education paraeducators), four custodians, one nurse, one counselor, five office support
assistants, eight supervision proctors, two assistant principals, and one principal. The school
population consists of students and staff with rich multicultural and ethnically diverse
backgrounds. The mission of RPA is that each student deserves an education in a safe and
inclusive environment that provides the skills to succeed academically. The RPA encourages
parent and community involvement to join the many school activities, committees, and
associations, which include the school site council, school safety committee, English language
advisory committee, and parent-teacher-association.
Organizational Performance Status
The RPA’s current organizational performance is measured against its intended goals and
objectives to serve ELLs. In the school plan for student achievement (SPSA), the school’s
academic goal for these students’ progress and proficiency indicates that 75% of them will either
move up one level or meet reclassification criteria. During the last measured state standardized

6
testing, only 35% of ELLs improved one level, and 38% maintained their level from the previous
school year, resulting in 27% decreasing a level. To fulfill the school mission and the goals
outlined in the SPSA, RPA must improve instructional support for these students with a focus on
providing the skills and competencies required to succeed in high school and beyond. Failure to
improve on the current structure of services provided will result in many students falling behind
in reading and mathematics as they work through their academic challenges without consistent
academic support.
Organizational Performance Goal
Per RPA’s SPSA academic goals, by May 2025, 75% of ELLs will move up one level or
meet reclassification criteria. The school’s administrators established this goal in consultation
with the school site council (SSC) to fulfill the school vision. The intended output will be
measured by the results of the 2025 CAASPP and ELPAC scores that will become available by
August 2025.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Four stakeholder groups contribute to the achievement of RPA’s SPSA goals: the ELL
students, their classroom teachers, two instructional coaches, and site administration. The first
stakeholder group makes up 16% of the school population, and this percentage continues to grow
as more migrant families move into the district's residential area (California Department of
Education, 2021). The second stakeholder group consists of 31 elementary classroom teachers
responsible for delivering instruction and ELD support in all core subjects. The elementary
teachers are tasked with providing high-quality instruction to all students. However, ELL
students receive ELD pull-out instruction away from their regular classroom from uncertificated
staff members or paraeducators for a percentage of the school day to receive tutoring and reading

7
support and to make content comprehensible. This practice can be problematic as these students
miss instructional time.
The third stakeholder group consists of two instructional coaches who provide support
and guidance to all classroom teachers with the goal of improving their instructional practices
and enhancing student learning across the school site. At RPA, instructional coaches also
collaborate with the classroom teachers during professional learning community (PLC)
collaboration meetings and plan and deliver professional development training. The coaches
complete non-evaluative classroom observations to provide ongoing support and coaching.
Additionally, they develop individual teacher coaching plans and implement personalized
coaching cycles to help teachers improve their instruction. Instructional coaches may also
support new curriculum implementation and model effective teaching strategies and classroom
management techniques while collaborating with school administration to align instructional
goals and school initiatives.
The fourth stakeholder group consists of administrators: one district director, one
assistant superintendent, and three site-level administrators: two assistant principals and one
principal. The district director and assistant superintendent develop educational initiatives and
curriculum goals and provide direction, funding, and support for training and staffing for the
academic programs. The school administrators are tasked with communicating and implementing
education programs at the site level. For this study, the stakeholder focus was the classroom
teachers due to their responsibility to provide instructional support for all students.
Table 1 displays the organizational mission, goal, and stakeholder group performance
goals.

8
Table 1
Organizational Mission and Performance Goals
Organizational mission
At Riverview Preparatory Academy (RPA), we believe that each student deserves an education
in a safe and inclusive environment that provides the skills necessary to succeed
academically.
Organizational performance goal
By June 2025, 100% of English language learners (ELLs) will have completed all four sections
of the ELPAC state assessment, and 75% of ELLs will move up one level or meet
reclassification criteria as measured by state ELPAC.
Stakeholder 1 goal:
English language
learners
Stakeholder 2 goal:
K–6 classroom
teachers
Stakeholder 3 goal:
instructional coaches
Stakeholder 4 goal:
administration
By June 2025, 100%
of RPA ELLs will
have completed all
four sections of the
ELPAC state
assessment to
measure English
proficiency.
By October 2024, all
RPA K–4 teachers
will have completed
training on the
ELPAC
administration and
research-based
instructional
strategies and will
consistently use
research-based
instructional
strategies
throughout the 24–
25 school year.
By December 2024,
instructional
coaches will have
provided
professional
development in the
areas of testing data
analysis, researchbased instructional
strategies, and
lesson plan
development with
classroom teachers
(K–4) to provide
ELLs support in the
classrooms.
By September 2024,
RPA site
administration will
have scheduled
training for ELLs in
the K–4 grade
levels.
Administration will
also consistently
support researchbased instructional
strategies and
complete classroom
observations to
verify
implementation.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
All RPA stakeholders contribute to achieving the organizational goal. However, it is
important to understand the significant ethical barriers involved in working with students when
conducting research. Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this study are RPA classroom

9
teachers in Grades K through 4 who teach ELLs. Each grade level span has four to five
classrooms, making it a stakeholder group of 22. The stakeholders’ goal, supported by the school
principal, is to have completed training on the ELPAC administration and research-based
instructional strategies to use in daily classroom instruction. These teachers will consistently use
research-based instructional strategies throughout the 2024–2025 school year. Compliance and
accountability procedures include activities like student file review, ELPAC score analysis, and
trimester grade reports. The RPA cannot meet the organizational goal without these teachers’
implementation of instructional strategies and completion of training to support ELLs. Therefore,
these teachers are the focus of the study.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to identify the instructional
models that best influence and support ELLs to attain English language proficiency. I examined
literature, policies, and school practices to identify areas for improvement. The goal was to
highlight gaps in knowledge, motivation, or organizational practices and propose solutions to
address these. The root cause of the organizational problem at RPA is inconsistency in support
for ELLs. While a complete gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes,
the focus was on the teachers in kindergarten through fourth grade. The analysis focused on the
causes of this problem due to gaps in these teachers’ knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational resources. The analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed
influences to examine systematically to identify actual or validated causes. As such, the
following questions guided this study:

10
1. What are the elementary teachers’ knowledge, skills and motivational influences that
interfere with implementing instructional strategies within the classroom setting to
support ELLs?
2. What are the organizational influences that support or hinder the classroom teacher in
supporting ELLs?
Based on the analysis of the findings, recommendations were made regarding
professional development, classroom instructional models and practices, and district-wide
protocols for implementation.
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
This study employed a qualitative design for data gathering and analysis. I applied gap
analysis as the conceptual framework. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that a gap analysis is a
systematic and analytical method that helps to clarify organizational goals and identify the gap
between an organization’s actual and preferred performance levels. The methodological
framework is a qualitative case study with descriptive statistics. I generated assumed influences
of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with organizational goal
achievement based on personal knowledge and related literature. The data sources were
interviews and documents. Documents provided a comprehensive and detailed insight into the
teacher and administrator meeting practices at RPA. Through PLC and staff meeting agendas and
minutes and training schedules, I sought to understand RPA’s organizational structure and use of
meeting time. Plus, the analysis of lesson plans and annual student assessment results provided
evidence of patterns, trends, and gaps, which enabled me to make informed research-based
recommendations thoroughly and comprehensively.

11
Definitions
Provided in this section are the terms and definitions used in this study.
● Achievement gap: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (2019) defined
achievement gap as a statistical difference (larger than the margin of error) in the
average standardized test scores in reading and mathematics of one group of students
as compared to another. For this study, ELLs are compared to native Englishspeaking students.
● Bilingual paraeducator: A bilingual paraprofessional who works under the
supervision of a certificated teacher to provide assistance and support to ELLs (Yates
et al., 2020).
● English language development (ELD): Instruction designed specifically for ELLs to
develop their listening, speaking, reading and writing skills in English (Daniel, 2014).
● English language learner (ELL): According to the U.S. Department of Education
(2020), ELLs are “individuals who come from environments where a language other
than English has had a significant impact on the individual’s level of English
language proficiency” (p. 308).
● English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC): an assessment
administered yearly to all ELLs to measure English proficiency (California
Department of Education, 2021).
● English only: According to the U.S. Department of Education (2020), English-only
students are students who only speak English.

12
● Local control and accountability plan (LCAP): a tool for California school districts to
set goals, plan actions and resources to meet goals to improve student outcomes
(California Department of Education, 2021).
● Newcomer: A student who has recently arrived in the United States and is still
developing their English language U.S. Department of Education (2020),
● Professional development: The training sessions and set of tools and resources for
classroom teachers to improve their instructional effectiveness (Samson & Collins,
2012).
● Professional learning communities (PLC): a team of educators who meet regularly to
enhance their teaching and classroom environment for all students to reach their
fullest academic potential (Samson & Collins, 2012).
● Push-in model: An instructional model that involves the classroom teacher or
bilingual paraeducator working inside the ELLs’ general education classroom to
provide instruction (Haynes, 2016).
● Push-out model: An instructional model that involves pulling the ELLs out of their
general education classroom to work in a small group setting in another room
(Haynes, 2016).
● School site council (SSC): According to the California Department of Education
(2021), the SSC is a legally required decision-making body that includes parents,
teachers, students, and administrators who work together to develop and monitor the
SPSA.
● School plan for student achievement (SPSA): According to the California Department
of Education (2021), the SPSA is a comprehensive document used to provide details

13
about a school’s planned goals, actions, and expenditures to support student academic
achievement. The actions and goals found in the SPSA are connected to the district’s
LCAP.
Organization of the Project
This study was organized using five chapters. This chapter presented the problem of
practice that was the central focus of this study, the key concepts and terminology commonly
found in a discussion about methods of instruction used to support ELLs. It introduced the
organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders, as well as the initial concepts of gap analysis.
Chapter Two provides a review of the literature surrounding the scope of the study and focused
research framed around Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework. It also
addresses topics of teachers’ knowledge gaps, skills, motivation, best practices, supports,
intervention models, policy, and funding. Chapter Three details the assumed interfering elements
as well as the methodology when it comes to the choice of participants, data collection, and
analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results were assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five
provides solutions based on data and literature for closing the perceived gaps, as well as
recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Academic instruction of ELLs has become the focus for a large number of districts in the
United States, given their increasing number over the last decade. The states of Alaska,
Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Washington
reported that these students comprised 10% or more of their school enrollment. Per the U.S.
Department of Education (2020), Texas reported the highest percentage with 19.6%, followed by
California (18.6%) and New Mexico (16.5%). It is important to study this issue because as these
percentages grow across the nation, policymakers, educational districts, school administrators,
researchers, and classroom teachers should be invested in identifying effective instruction to
meet these students’ learning needs (Hass & Esparza-Brown, 2019).
In this chapter, I first present a literature review of current policies, procedures, and
program recommendations that influence the support ELLs receive. Then, I discuss the roles of
the school and district administrators, classroom teachers, and instructional coaches in support of
effective instruction to achieve the organizational goal of improving these students’ English
language proficiency. Next, I review the literature to address the differences in methods of
instruction and practices that affect the learning of English language skills and overall academic
success. Finally, I turn my attention to the gap analysis conceptual framework by Clark and Estes
(2008). The framework offered a foundation for analyzing the data and underlying factors and
structures related to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational assumed influences on ELLs’
learning outcomes.
History of the Identification of English Language Learners
The history of ELLs in the United States is a complex and evolving process that has been
shaped by various educational policies, practices and societal changes over time. From the early

15
days of public education, the identification of ELLs has undergone significant transformations
and understanding the evolution of this process is essential for educators and policymakers to
effectively support the needs of ELLs in today’s educational landscape.
Legal Framework
Case law from the 1970s and 1980s shaped current policies and program
recommendations that assist in identifying and supporting ELLs. This historical background and
civil rights battle to prohibit harmful segregation based on students’ English language limitations
has been a longstanding issue in education (Uro & Lai, 2019). In 1971, a class action lawsuit
against the San Francisco Unified School District claimed that Chinese students who did not
speak English did not receive additional instruction to learn the language. A district court denied
the lawsuit, but ruling on an appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the California Education
Code required schools to ensure all students’ mastery of English. In another case, Lau v. Nichols
(1974), the U.S. Supreme Court issued the same ruling. This landmark decision led to the
passage of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, which aimed to address ELLs’
educational needs.
The Supreme Court ruling in Castaneda v. Pickard (1981) established a three-pronged
test to determine if schools were taking appropriate action to address ELLs’ academic needs.
This test, known as the Castaneda Standard, required that instructional programs be based on
sound educational theory, implemented with adequate and sufficient resources and personnel,
and periodically evaluated for effectiveness. Del Valle (2003) further emphasized language
learning rights and the law in the United States to ensure educational equity for all students.
Barrow and Markman-Pithers (2016) highlighted the current state of ELLs in the nation,
citing key legislative acts such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Educational

16
Opportunities Act of 1974, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015. Notably, the No Child Left Behind Act referred to students in the
process of learning English as “limited English proficient,” while ESSA replaced the term with
“English learners,” signaling a shift in terminology to better reflect this student population’s
educational needs. Thus, legislation and court rulings have shaped policies and practices to
improve educational outcomes for ELLs and to promote educational equity for all students,
Current State Requirements
The U.S. Department of Education provides guidelines to all states for identifying and
supporting ELLs. While these guidelines offer a framework for addressing these students’ needs,
they do not prescribe specific interventions or programs for states to follow or implement.
Instead, the U.S. Department of Education emphasizes ensuring that ELLs have equal access to
quality education and appropriate supportive services to facilitate their ELD and academic
success.
The NCELA (2019) further underscored schools’ legal obligations. It provides resources
and information on teaching practices to support ELLs, as well as guidance on compliance with
federal mandates related to instruction. By highlighting the legal responsibilities of districts and
schools, NCELA helps promote awareness and equitable educational practices for ELLs across
the nation.
Site Administrators, Teachers, and Instructional Coaches and Preparation: Overview of
the Roles and Responsibilities
School site administrators have primary responsibility over program design and setting
learning expectations for ELLs. With a background in ELD, administrators can foster a
schoolwide environment that effectively addresses ELLs’ needs (Brooke, 2017). According to

17
Theoharis and Toole (2011), building a socially just school environment and recognizing the role
of site administrators in creating an effective learning environment are important considerations
in promoting educational equity and success for ELLs. The site administrators’ role also includes
continuously cultivating and developing their teams’ competencies, particularly their
instructional coaches’ skills (Zacarian & Haynes, 2012).
Instructional coaching is another key aspect of supporting teachers of ELLs in inclusive
environments. Considering the important role of instructional coaches when working with
classroom teachers and planning differentiated instruction are essential components of effective
instructional coaching, according to Nuss (2020). Administrators and instructional coaches
working in collaboration can ultimately benefit all students by preparing all teachers to work
effectively with ELLs and encouraging them to advocate for their students (Daniel, 2014). By
investing in high-quality professional development for teachers, schools can ensure educators
enhance their skills and knowledge of teaching strategies and create a more inclusive and
supportive learning environment (Good et al., 2010).
Addressing ELLs’ needs is a pertinent issue in education, particularly in light of the rapid
increases in immigration that have led to demographic shifts in the nation. Thus, there is a need
to hire and support new teachers who prioritize student learning. Maynes and Hatt (2013) delved
into this topic in their study, emphasizing the significance of providing new teachers with the
support and resources to effectively focus on student learning. Samson and Collins (2012)
highlighted preparing all teachers to meet ELLs’ needs through research-based instructional
practices and knowledge of curriculum and assessments. While federal and state laws do not
address which instructional practices or programs are best, there is a growing recognition of the

18
need for teachers to have a thorough understanding of the most effective curriculum,
assessments, and instructional strategies.
Well-trained paraeducators provide support to students and teachers. Yates et al. (2020)
explored the tools and strategies for working effectively with these staff members, emphasizing
training and collaboration between teachers and paraeducators. Although paraeducators cannot
take the place of credentialed classroom teachers, schools can enhance their ELD programs by
fostering a collaborative environment and clearly defining the paraeducator’s role and
responsibilities.
Best Practices for Teaching ELLs: Pull-Out and Push-In Models and Their Impact on ELL
Achievement
Effective teaching practices for ELLs support their academic achievement and ELD. Two
commonly used strategies are the pull-out and the push-in models. Murphy et al. (2019)
discussed educators’ beliefs about appropriate pedagogical models for Spanish-speaking ELLs
who differ in home language and English language literacy abilities in the United States. They
called for considering students’ linguistic backgrounds and literacy levels when determining an
instructional approach for ELLs and noting that educators can create a more inclusive and
supportive learning environment when students practice their English skills during collaborative
classroom interactions (Murphy et al., 2019).
Haynes (2016) compared the push-in and pull-out models, examining the benefits and
challenges of each approach. In the push-in approach, the English language teacher goes into the
classroom to provide support. The pull-out approach involves removing students from their
regular classroom for individual or small group instruction in another classroom. By evaluating

19
students’ needs and the benefits and limitations of both approaches, administrators can make
informed decisions to maximize ELLs’ learning opportunities.
In the realm of English language instruction, the choice between push-in and pull-out
approaches can significantly affect academic achievement. The NCELA (2019) provided insights
into these instructional programs, emphasizing selecting the most effective approach to support
language development and academic achievement. Understanding ELLs’ proficiency levels and
academic needs is essential for administrators and teachers to create an inclusive and effective
learning program.
McClure and Cahnmann-Taylor (2010) examined the complexities of the push-in model,
highlighting teacher resistance to having another teacher or paraeducator in the classroom and
the challenges involved in co-teaching. Their work also noted that there is a shift away from the
traditional pull-out approach toward inclusive models of instruction. By advocating for including
ELLs in mainstream classrooms for all core subjects, educators can promote a more integrated
and supportive learning experience for them. Drawing inspiration from the inclusive models in
special education training programs, teachers can ensure differentiated instruction tailored to
needs in the general education classroom. This shift toward inclusion fosters a more
collaborative and inclusive educational environment and nurtures students’ social-emotional
well-being.
Whiting (2017) explored teachers’ perceptions of mainstreaming and pull-out
approaches, emphasizing mainstreaming as the ideal model of instruction. While pull-out
instruction may be optimal for newcomers to receive targeted individual or small-group
instruction on vocabulary and phonics, this method of instruction, when used with more
advanced students, can cause them embarrassment and social anxiety, potentially marginalizing

20
them. Additionally, the fragmented nature of pull-out instruction may result in gaps in learning
as students miss out on core classroom instruction. Ultimately, push-in, pull-out, and
mainstreaming offer academic gains and social-emotional benefits as ELLs learn alongside their
peers.
Paraeducators play an important role in supporting the academic growth of ELLs when
well-trained and supervised by classroom teachers, as highlighted in the work by Yates et al.
(2020). By collaborating closely with classroom teachers, paraeducators can effectively assist in
implementing instructional strategies, providing additional support, and fostering a conducive
learning environment for ELLs. With tools and strategies for planning, performance feedback,
and evaluation, paraeducators can effectively support ELLs on their path to academic success.
Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework is a systematic method to determine
gaps by identifying the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence
performance. This problem-solving framework is well-suited for studying stakeholders’
performance by examining motivation, knowledge, and organizational influences on
stakeholders’ performance. For this study, the organizational goal was to reclassify English
learners as English language proficient by the end of fourth grade or, at minimum, to
demonstrate that they had moved one level toward English language proficiency per school year.
The gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) identified the gaps between the
organizational and the stakeholders’ current performance in relation to the instructional models
in the kindergarten through fourth-grade classrooms.
In this study, I adapted Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework to evaluate the effectiveness
of instruction for ELLs to meet the organizational goal. The purpose of this study was to

21
understand the stakeholders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors based on the gap
analysis theory and past literature on effective instructional practices for English learners. The
next part of this section provides stakeholder-specific assumed influences regarding knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors related to the instructional practices to support
ELLs.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Understanding stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences is
essential for effective decision making within an organization. All stakeholders, including
teachers, parents, administrators and community members, bring unique perspectives which can
impact the academic success of instructional programs and student achievement. Through a
comprehensive understanding of stakeholder knowledge, motivation and organization influences,
district and site administrative leaders can address student needs and improve student outcomes.
Knowledge and Skills
To complete the gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008), it was important to examine the
knowledge and skills of the stakeholders involved in meeting the organizational goal. According
to Rueda (2011), stakeholders must know or be able to acquire knowledge to achieve the
organization's goal. There are four types of knowledge Krathwohl (2002) defined: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge refers to the basic components
that need to be understood within a discipline, such as facts, information, and terminology
related to the discipline (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Declarative factual knowledge in this
study refers to knowledge about what teachers need to know to teach to meet ELLs’ needs and
ultimately reach the organizational goal. According to Krathwohl (2002), conceptual knowledge
is the understanding of concepts and principles. In this study, conceptual knowledge refers to

22
what teachers need to know to support ELLs to meet the organizational goal. Procedural
knowledge refers to knowing how to do something, including applying skills, algorithms,
techniques, methods, or strategies to accomplish a goal (Rueda, 2011). Metacognition is the
awareness of one’s cognition, thinking, and self-knowledge, including the ability to reflect and
know when to adjust to reach a goal (Krathwohl, 2002). Having completed this gap analysis, in
Chapter Four, I provide information on the gaps in knowledge, skills and performance of the
focus stakeholders.
Declarative Factual Knowledge Influences
Declarative factual knowledge refers to the basic knowledge that includes terminology,
dates, and data that pertains to a specific field (Krathwohl, 2002; Ruedas, 2011). Declarative
factual knowledge is necessary in education to support the organization’s goal and, in this study,
to ensure that teachers know the terminology that pertains to supporting ELLs. In the context of
the school setting, teachers need to know the district’s goal, the state’s annual assessment
requirements, and the testing domains that ELLs must master to demonstrate language
proficiency. Therefore, the teacher’s knowledge of the annual assessments and specific domains
within the assessments can influence their daily lesson planning and ELLs’ ability to score at a
proficiency level.
Factual Influence: Teacher Know the Domains of the English Language Proficiency
Assessment for California Annual Assessment. Across the nation, states utilize their own
assessments to determine English proficiency. However, each commonly assesses proficiency in
four domains: listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Beck & Muhammad, 2021; California
Department of Education, 2021). The four domains measure annual progress in English language
and proficiency. Teachers who know the four domains can create lesson plans and deliver

23
instruction that prepares students to reach the next level. Additionally, for ELLs to achieve
English language proficiency on the annual assessment, teachers must connect the annual
assessments and state standards in their daily instruction (Beck & Muhammad, 2021).
Factual Influence: Teachers Know the Role of the Annual State Standardized
Assessment Results. To adequately instruct ELLs, teachers must know the role of the annual
state standardized assessment and how to utilize the results to differentiate instruction (Coady et
al., 2015). Understanding the domains and effectively utilizing the assessment results or English
language proficiency level for each student will help teachers address these students’ needs
(California Department of Education, 2021; Coady et al., 2015). Beck and Muhammad (2021)
emphasized the need for teachers to use the state standards and assessment results to create
powerful and targeted academic instruction.
Conceptual Knowledge Influences
While declarative factual knowledge relates to facts and terms, conceptual knowledge
demonstrates a deeper understanding of the principles and the relationships that underline a
specific domain (Krathwohl, 2002). At RPA, conceptual knowledge refers to what teachers need
to know to achieve the organizational goal. Therefore, an assumed influence that may prevent
meeting the goal is teachers’ lack of understanding of the goals and what they must do to support
ELLs. Interviews with classroom teachers provided background information on what they know
about the organization’s goal and their understanding of their role in supporting ELLs.
Conceptual Influence: Teachers Need to Know the Different Levels of English
Proficiency. Teachers must have a conceptual understanding of the different levels of English
language proficiency and how annual assessments determine these. In 2012, California adopted
ELD standards to promote essential language skills and to align with the state Common Core

24
State Standards (California Department of Education, 2021). As students progress through the
levels independently, they must receive differentiated classroom instruction based on their
current proficiency.
Conceptual Influence: Teachers Need to Know the Different Instructional Models
for ELLs. Hass and Esparza-Brown’s (2019) work suggests improving ELLs’ education
programs, as states and local districts vary in their identification and programming policies.
According to McClure and Cahnmann-Taylor (2010), the lack of clear mandates on
programming and failure to commit to proven instructional materials and resources create an
environment in which each district creates its own mandates. These variations hinder educators’
ability to fully understand the learning challenges for ELLs and the best instructional models to
follow (Hass & Esparza-Brown, 2019; Nuss, 2020). To create learning opportunities, teachers
must develop a conceptual understanding of these students’ needs and instructional models for
supporting academic growth (Samson & Collins, 2012). While in California, colleges and
universities have incorporated specific college coursework on how to best teach ELLs, other
states’ teacher training is inconsistent, and school districts are left to prepare teachers (McClure
& Cahnmann-Taylor, 2010; Samson & Collins, 2012). For teachers to better prepare ELLs, they
must first understand the instructional models and how to support these students (Murphy et al.,
2019; Nuss, 2020). Additionally, Zacarian and Haynes (2012) reported on developing local
district-wide efforts to strengthen programming for ELLs and supporting teachers in the selection
of models of instruction to promote ELL proficiency.
Conceptual Influence: Teachers Need to Know Cooperative and Grouping
Instructional Strategies That Best Support ELLs. Along with understanding the various
instructional models, teachers must know and understand how to incorporate cooperative

25
learning strategies into their daily lessons (Nuss, 2020). Dove and Honigsfeld (2018) emphasized
the need to lead these students in cooperative and collaborative teams to help develop their
language and practice literacy skills while working under the teachers’ supervision. By offering
opportunities to interact with other classmates, students develop listening, oral, and writing skills
as they find themselves in academic interpersonal situations that will foster their confidence and
communication skills (Coady et al., 2015).
Procedural Knowledge Influence: Teachers Need to Know How to Assess ELLs Academic
English
Procedural knowledge is the application of knowledge or the knowledge about the steps
to complete a specific skill, task, process, or method (Krathwohl, 2002). With regard to
instructing ELLs, teachers are required to demonstrate a practical understanding of the
organization’s goal and basic instructional strategies to help students attain reclassification.
Therefore, an assumed influence that may act as a deterrent to proficiency would be a lack of
teacher preparation and failure to use supportive instructional strategies.
While it remains important to teach ELLs using appropriate instructional models, it is
equally important to assess their academic English proficiency throughout the school year
(Samson & Collins, 2012). Teachers can assess oral and written progress during class time
through project completion and collaboration exercises with classmates. Lesson plans can be
targeted and tailored to meet the students’ needs based on the information gathered from teacher
observations and assignment completion (Dormer, 2013).
Metacognitive Influence: Teachers Need to Use Reflection to Identify Areas of
Improvement in Their Teaching Practices for ELLs. Metacognition is the self-awareness of
one’s thinking and the ability to reflect and adjust based on critical awareness (Krathwohl, 2002:

26
Rueda, 2011). Teacher effectiveness is based on metacognition and reflecting on teaching
practices that impact student learning (Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010). To improve reclassification
rates, teachers must invest time and effort in assessing their skills, developing their instructional
strategies, and reassessing the lesson results.
Dove and Honigsfeld (2010) recommended developing a reflective practice on both the
challenges and the successes of teaching. Teachers should reflect on their daily teaching and
engage in purposeful metacognitive exercises when meeting with their PLCs to review
assessment data results from formative common assessments, state assessments, student work,
exit tickets, and other quick end-of-the-lesson assessments. Working with other teachers to
address lessons and making adjustments based on a reflective practice will create an inquiry
community cycle, as Dove and Honigsfeld (2010) described, in which teachers dialogue,
problem-solve, act, and evaluate.
Table 2 shows the stakeholder’s influences and the related literature.

27
Table 2
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed knowledge influences Research literature
Declarative factual (terms, facts, concepts):
Teachers know the domains of the ELPAC.
Beck and Muhamad (2021)
California Department of Education (2021)
Declarative factual (terms, facts, concepts):
Teachers know the role of the annual state
standardized assessment results.
Beck and Muhammad (2021)
California Department of Education (2021)
Coady et al. (2015)
Declarative conceptual (categories, process
models, principles, relationships): Teachers
need to know the different levels of English
proficiency.
California Department of Education, 2021
Declarative conceptual (categories, process
models, principles, relationships): Teachers
need to know the different instructional
models for ELLs.
Hass & Esparza-Brown (2019)
Mcclure & Cahnmann-Taylor (2010)
Murphy et al. (2019)
Samson and Collins (2012)
Nuss (2020)
Zacarian and Haynes (2012)
Declarative conceptual (categories, process
models, principles, relationships): Teachers
need to know cooperative and grouping
instructional strategies that best support
ELLs.
Coady et al. (2015)
Honigsfeld & dove (2010)
Nuss (2020)
Procedural: Teachers need to know how to
assess students’ academic English.
Dormer (2013)
Samson and Collins (2012)
Procedural: Teachers need to know how to
utilize research-based instructional
strategies to support ELLs in the classroom.
Coady et al. (2015)
Nuss (2020)
Pereira and de Oliveira (2015)
Whiting (2017)
Metacognitive: Teachers need to use
reflection to identify areas of improvement
in their teaching practices for ELLs.
Honigsfeld & dove (2010)

28
Motivation
Motivation plays a vital role for individuals to set goals, persist in their efforts and achieve
results. Gaining a deeper understanding of individual’s motivation and how it serves as a driving
force to move from setting goals to taking action and achieving positive results, will empower
the organization to promote a positive learning environment.
General Theory
Rueda (2011) described motivation as a belief or orientation a person develops about
themselves as learners in completing tasks and activities. Motivation helps children and adults
focus their attention and efforts to complete goals and activities. However, knowing how to
complete a task is irrelevant to whether the person is willing to complete it (Rueda, 2011).
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation is an influential factor in organizational
performance gaps. While knowing what and how to complete goals sets the stage for
stakeholders to have the skills to engage in difficult work, motivation will keep their attention
focused on attaining the goals (Pintrich, 2003; Rueda, 2011).
Clark and Estes (2008) outlined three motivational factors likely to impact performance:
active choice, persistence, and mental effort. The active choice to pursue and complete a goal
involves intentional decision making to complete activities over others of equal importance,
persistence relates to the ability to avoid possible distractions and maintain attention through
challenges, and metal effort refers to the cognitive work and intentional energy applied to see the
task through to completion (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). This study explored three
motivational factors regarding RPA’s organizational performance: value, self-efficacy, and
mood.
Stakeholder/Topic-Specific Factors

29
Teacher motivation plays a key role in student performance by energizing and setting the
direction for the desired goal or outcome (Khan, 2014). In the context of RPA, if the classroom
teachers place value and energy in designing intentional learning goals and instructional
strategies for ELLs, they are more likely to achieve the organizational goals. Conversely, the
lack of motivational effort and intentional focus to provide instructional support for ELLs will
negatively impact their learning outcomes and increase the organizational performance gap
(Clark & Estes, 2003; Rueda, 2011; Khan, 2014).
Value: Teachers Need to Value Supporting ELLs in Their Classrooms During Core
Instruction. Teachers need to value supporting ELLs using core instruction and differentiating
strategies (Nuss, 2020). When teachers understand and value the need to create high-quality
learning opportunities for ELLs, they engage in collaborative work with other teachers and
design lessons that benefit all students (Hass & Esparza-Brown, 2019). The intrinsic value of
assisting their students through the process of learning the English language, the more they will
engage in activities or tasks such as collaborating with other teaching professionals to increase
learning opportunities (Rueda, 2011). Although ELD was considered a separate program or
activity that occurred outside of the core classroom, Dove and Honigsfeld (2010) suggested that
language acquisition is not a separate subject matter but a systematic practice that should occur
in the classroom with the support of the teacher. Moreover, teachers need to value how ELLs
learn, their cultural backgrounds, and the role that culture and families play in their academic
success (Coady et al., 2015).
Self-Efficacy: Teachers Need to Have Confidence That the Instructional Practices
Implemented in the Classroom Create Learning Opportunities for ELLs. Bandura (1997,
2001) defined self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in his or her capacity. Bandura (2012)

30
pointed out a connection between self-efficacy and achieving goals. Classroom teachers who
demonstrate confidence in their ability to make a difference in how students learn are more likely
to value research-based instructional strategies (Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010). Additionally,
Burchard et al. (2017) emphasized that teachers demonstrated a strong relationship between
external factors, such as having administrative support and strong collegial relationships, and
teacher confidence in utilizing evidence-based classroom practices and strategies. Teachers who
are confident in their teaching abilities and experience external school or administrative support
are more likely to stay motivated and focused to achieve organizational goals. Alternatively,
teachers who experience less administrative support and experience less self-efficacy may create
less effective learning environments for ELLs (Burchard et al., 2017).
Affect/Emotions: Teachers Need to Believe That ELLs Can Learn Content and
English Language Skills. Many educators perceive a lack of motivation on the part of the ELL
and parent when the student has not been reclassified as proficient in the English language after 5
years of American schooling (Olvera, 2015). These assumptions can harm already-challenged
ELLs and can translate into less focused content level and ELD to support student learning
(Buchard et al., 2017). For students to succeed at learning core content and English language
skills, teachers must believe in their students’ capacity to learn, as their own biases may be easily
noticed and communicated through their lesson delivery and communication with parents
(Olvera, 2015).
Table 3 shows the stakeholder’s influences and the related literature.

31
Table 3
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Assumed motivation influences Research literature
Value: Teachers need to value supporting
ELLs in their classrooms during core
instruction.
Coady et al. (2015)
Dove and Honigsfeld (2010)
Hass and Esparza-Brown (2019)
Nuss (2020)
Self-efficacy: Teachers need to have
confidence that the instructional practices
implemented in the classroom create
learning opportunities for ELLs.
Burchard et al. (2017)
Bandura, a. (1997, 2002, 2012)
Affect/emotions: Teachers need to believe
that ELLs can learn content and English
language skills.
Olvera, c. (2015)
Burchard et al. (2017)
Organization
Organizational goals and objectives present a promising structure, and in many cases,
they provide guidance for members to focus on the important areas of their work. Nevertheless,
even when compliance is seemingly apparent and stakeholders show adequate knowledge and
motivation, some factors can impede success and performance (Rueda, 2011). This performance
gap can be attributed to the third component of Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework,
which addresses organizational barriers that affect change, including lack of resources,
knowledge of academic policies and procedures, and cultural models and settings that do not
align with the performance goals. In the context of the educational setting, these cultural models
and settings refer to the shared school or organizational culture, shared beliefs and values of how
things get accomplished, and how the school functions (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).

32
Resources: Teachers and Instructional Coaches Need Time to Attend Professional
Development Training Refreshers That Focus on the Most Updated Instructional Strategies to
Support ELLs
An organization’s resources consist of tangible and intangible materials and assets, such
as school supplies, instructional tools, and equipment that support programs and help in the
attainment of the organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the case of supporting ELLs to
achieve English language proficiency, these resources include adequate and consistent funding to
provide the required resources, teachers, technology, instructional coaching and instructional
materials.
Yates et al. (2020) pointed out the positive and lasting effects of even minimal training
for classroom teachers. The delivery of high-quality instructional support can only be achieved
through preparation and the integration of best practices (Haas & Esparza-Brown, 2019).
Research suggests that teachers need new and refreshed instructional training to support ELLs
with the latest and most trusted evidence-based strategies (Dove & Honingsfeld, 2010; Gallimore
& Goldenberg, 2001; Haas & Esparza-Brown, 2019). Through new and follow-up training,
teachers and instructional coaches will use and implement new strategies in their daily lesson
planning and instructional delivery.
Policies, Processes, and Procedures: Teachers Know About the Annual Assessments Schedule
and Placement Policies to Support ELLs
Policies and procedures are an organization’s rules and guidelines that influence the
stakeholder’s performance and the achievement of goals (Rueda, 2011). To reduce confusion and
lack of follow through, policies and procedures must be communicated with all stakeholders.
Furthermore, the most effective organizations align their policies and procedures to their

33
organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Teachers need awareness of the district and school
policies that relate to their work with ELLs.
To support ELL students in achieving language proficiency, teachers must know about
the annual assessments, their scheduling, and the school’s placement policies. Teachers must be
aware of the annual testing required across the nation to assess English proficiency. Through
standardized assessments, teachers can better prepare students to demonstrate proficiency in the
four domains (California Department of Education, 2021; Coady et al., 2015). Teachers can
utilize the ELD standards and prepare lessons that target the domains for students to master the
expected domains.
Cultural Model. Cultural models are the values, practices and behaviors that develop
over time and that must be understood to fully analyze performance gaps (Rueda, 2011). These
cultural models or mental schema of how the world works have influence throughout the
organization and eventually help shape the organization’s cultural setting (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001).
Cultural Model: Teachers Need to Feel the School Has a Shared Culture That Values the
ELLs’ Academic Achievement.
According to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), through cultural models, stakeholders
understand what is valued and ideal for their setting. Therefore, administrative support in the
form of resources, training and class master scheduling is essential to communicate to
stakeholders that ELLs achievement is valued and expected across all core disciplines. Teachers
need to feel the school has a shared culture that expects the success of all ELLs rather than a
responsibility to be fulfilled by an assigned teacher in an isolated classroom (Dove &
Honigsfeld, 2018).

34
Cultural Setting: Teachers Need to Feel the School Values the Academic Growth of ELLs
The cultural setting refers to the core values, goals, beliefs, and processes that develop
over time in an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the context of a district or school, the
cultural setting provides information on what the stakeholders believe and why they behave the
way they do, and it must be taken into consideration to determine its impact on the
organization’s performance (Rueda, 2011).
Teachers need to feel that district and site administration values the academic success of
all ELLs. Districts and schools communicate their priorities when teachers have the resources to
meet ELLs’ needs in the classroom. According to Rueda (2011), organizations that follow
through on their policies and procedures improve stakeholder’s performance and achieve
organizational goals.
Cultural Setting: Teachers Need to Feel That Professional Development Training in ELL
Strategies Is a High Priority for Their School Administration and District
Theoharis and Toole (2011) reported on the impactful role an administrator has on ELL
programs’ success. School site principals can advocate for ELLs through funding for classroom
resources and professional development training for teachers. Through the allocation of
resources and training, teachers will feel their professional growth is valued and useful in
implementing high-quality instructional practices for ELLs.
Table 4 shows the stakeholder’s influences and the related literature.

35
Table 4
Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed organization influences Research literature
Resources: Teachers and paraeducators need
time to attend professional development
training refreshers that focus on the most
updated instructional strategies to support
ELLs.
Dove and Honingsfeld (2010)
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
Haas and Esparza-Brown (2019)
Yates et al. (2020)
Policies, processes, and procedures: Teachers
know about the annual assessments’
schedule and placement policies to support
ELLs.
Barrow and Markman-Pithers (2016)
Beck and Muhammad (2021)
California Department of Education (2021)
Coady et al. (2015)
Cultural model: Teachers need to feel that the
school has a shared culture that values the
ELLs’ academic achievement.
Dove and Honigsfeld (2018)
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
Cultural setting: Teachers need to feel that the
school values the academic growth of
ELLs.
Rueda (2011)
Cultural setting: Teachers need to feel that
professional development training in ELL
strategies is a high priority for their school
administration and district.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
Theoharis and Toole (2011)
Conclusion
This study identified the knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors that
influence RPA in providing instructional support to ELLs. This literature review provided the
historical and legal background that has shaped the landscape for all school districts across the
nation and its impact on how students receive support to gain English language proficiency.
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework was introduced, and the literature

36
presented provided context to the assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational
influences that impede ELLs from achieving proficiency at RPA. In Chapter Three, I will shift
focus to the methodology employed in this study to address the problem of practice. The
literature review conducted revealed several notable shortcomings that this study aimed to
address, particularly in the area of previous research predominantly focused on teachers’
academic strategies while neglecting to explore the impact the organizations, administrators and
school framework have on ELL success. There is limited research that combines both academic
strategies and implementation for classroom teachers. In Chapter Five, a clear recommendation
plan to guide the efforts of classroom teachers will be provided, which places the responsibility
on school administrators to establish the recommendation plan to monitor and evaluate progress
at different intervals during the academic year.

37
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to identify the instructional
models that best influence and support ELLs to attain English language proficiency. The root
cause of the organizational problem at RPA is inconsistency in support provided. The
stakeholders of focus in this analysis were teachers of kindergarten through fourth grade. The
study focused on the causes of this problem due to gaps in the areas of staff members’
knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational resources. The analysis began by generating
a list of possible or assumed influences that I systematically examined to focus on actual or
validated causes. Two research questions guided this study:
1. What are the elementary teachers’ knowledge, skills and motivational influences that
interfere with implementing instructional strategies within the classroom setting to
support ELLs?
2. What are the organizational influences that support or hinder the classroom teacher in
supporting ELLs?
Based on the analysis of the findings, recommendations were made on instructional
models and school and district protocols for implementation.
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
For this study, I used Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework to gather data and
identify the steps taken to achieve the organizational goals. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that a
gap analysis is a systematic and analytical method that helps identify the gap between an
organization’s actual and preferred performance levels through an analysis of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational (KMO) root causes. As reported by Clark and Estes (2008),
effective solutions to solve organizational problems can be uncovered by addressing the KMO

38
domains. Using Clark and Estes’ (2008) methodology to identify the KMO influences, I
analyzed the problem and diagnosed solutions to solve the performance gap.
Clark and Estes’s (2008) methodological framework used in this study (Figure 1) is a
qualitative case study with descriptive statistics and influences of KMO factors that interfered
with the organizational goal at RPA to support ELLs in achieving language proficiency. The
methods used to collect data included document analysis and interviews. I analyzed the data
using thematic analysis to interpret the findings and identify insightful conclusions. I looked for
patterns and themes in the data. This involved systematically coding the data to identify
recurring themes, concepts, and patterns from the participants. Research-based solutions were
evaluated and recommended comprehensively to close the performance gap.
Figure 1
The Gap Analysis Process

39
Assessment of Performance Influences
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis made it possible to assess the teachers’ knowledge,
motivation, and understanding of the organizational goals at RPA in relation to providing
academic support to ELLs. The KMO influences and the literature provided in Chapter Two
provided the ground work to determine if teachers at RPA had the KMO support to achieve the
organizational goal. Through interviewing stakeholders and conducting document analysis to
address the research questions, the gap analysis provided information to determine the
performance gaps and recommendations to address ELL students’ needs and meet the
organizational goals.
Knowledge Assessment
Once an organization’s goal is identified and shared, Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap
analysis provides a methodological approach to determine the stakeholders’ performance and
gaps in achieving the goal. Krathwohl (2001) identified four types of knowledge influences to
assess: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Each of these knowledge types were
assessed to determine the teachers’ knowledge and skills at RPA to support ELL students. These
knowledge influences assisted in the development of a recommendation plan for RPA.
Declarative Factual Knowledge
According to Krathwohl (2001), declarative factual knowledge refers to the basic facts
and information about a topic. In the case of teachers, this includes basic educational jargon,
knowledge of academic concepts, and facts related to teaching strategies (Krathwohl, 2001). At
RPA, teachers needed to demonstrate knowledge of annual assessments and the domains in
which students are assessed to demonstrate English language proficiency. Therefore, to

40
determine this type of teacher knowledge, information is compiled through interview questions
and document review.
Declarative Conceptual Knowledge
Krathwohl (2001) defined declarative conceptual knowledge as the understanding of the
principles and their interrelationships while understanding the functions among the elements that
make up a larger structure. Conceptual knowledge is essential for an organization to achieve
common goals. For this study, the assessment of conceptual knowledge included asking
classroom teachers questions related to understanding the levels of English language proficiency,
knowledge of instructional models for ELLs, and understanding the value of cooperative
learning and conversational development for ELLs.
Procedural Knowledge Assessment
Procedural knowledge includes the steps and procedures stakeholders carry out to
achieve goals (Krathwohl, 2001). In this study, procedural knowledge assessment can be
understood as the knowledge of the steps, procedures, techniques, and methods classroom
teachers follow to support ELLs at RPA. To assess procedural knowledge, I interviewed teachers
and asked questions regarding their ability to apply knowledge and skills (Krathwohl, 2001).
Metacognitive Knowledge Assessment
Metacognitive knowledge is the ability to reflect on one’s thinking and the ability to
adjust to achieve goals (Krathwohl, 2001). To assess this knowledge, I interviewed teachers to
determine if they self-reflected on their teaching practices and methods. Another method of
metacognitive knowledge assessment included the analysis of documents from PLC meetings
that consisted of meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and training feedback forms. The document

41
data analysis will provide evidence of self-reflection to improve their teaching practices and
collaboration with other colleagues to share teaching strategies that support ELLs.
Table 5 provides an overview of the interview questions used to assess teachers’
knowledge related to supporting ELLs.
Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed knowledge
Influences
Interview item Document
Declarative factual: Teachers
know the domains of the
ELPAC.
What are the four ELPAC
domains, and what do they
measure?
Meeting minutes
ELPAC teacher resources
Declarative factual: Teachers
know the role of the annual
state standardized
assessment results.
Describe how you use the results
of the annual state
standardized assessments.
Meeting minutes
Student records
Lesson plans
Annual assessment results
Declarative conceptual:
eachers need to know the
different levels of English
proficiency.
What are the English language
proficiency levels?
Meeting minutes
Training schedules
Lesson plans
PLC meeting minutes
Declarative conceptual:
Teachers need to know the
different instructional
models for ELLs.
Tell me about the different
instructional models used to
teach ELLs.
Meeting minutes
Student records
Lesson plans
Training schedules
Declarative conceptual:
Teachers need to know
cooperative and grouping
instructional strategies that
best support ELLs.
Describe the cooperative and
grouping instructional
strategies that best support
ELLs.
Meeting minutes
Lesson plans
Procedural: Teachers need to
know how to assess
students’ academic English.
How do you assess your ELL
students’ level of academic
English skills?
Meeting minutes
Lesson plans
Annual assessment results
Procedural: Teachers need to
know how to utilize
What research-based
instructional strategies do you
Meeting minutes
Lesson plans

42
Assumed knowledge
Influences
Interview item Document
research-based instructional
strategies to support ELLs
in the classroom.
use to assist ELLs reach the
next English proficiency
level?
Metacognitive: Teachers need
to use reflection to identify
areas of improvement in
their teaching practices for
ELLs.
Based on your ELL students’
most recent ELPAC results,
what would you change
moving forward to assist them
in making measurable
progress by the next ELPAC
assessment?
Meeting minutes
Lesson plans
PLC meeting minutes
Motivation Assessment
According to Rueda (2011), understanding the stakeholders’ knowledge is the first step in
identifying performance gaps. The next step is to determine if the person is motivated to perform
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Rueda (2011) pointed out that motivation depends on value,
self-efficacy, and mood. These three areas of motivation were explored in relation to RPA’s
organizational performance goal to support ELLs.
Value Assessment
One of the key dimensions that characterize motivation, according to Pintrich (2003) and
Clark and Estes (2008), is the value one attaches to a task. Placing value on one’s work
influences one’s behaviors and actions and increases one’s willingness to overcome barriers and
challenges to complete a goal (Pintrich, 2003). To assess the value teachers at RPA hold on
supporting ELLs, I asked interview questions pertaining to how their teaching relates to ELLs
attaining English language proficiency. In addition to the interview questions, document analysis

43
was conducted to assess the value teachers placed on ELLs’ cultural backgrounds and family
involvement.
Self-Efficacy Assessment
Self-efficacy, as Bandura (1997, 2001) defined, is an individual’s belief in his or her
capacity to carry out a specific task or goal. According to Dove and Honigsfeld (2010), teachers
who demonstrate confidence in their abilities are more likely to value research-based
instructional strategies and will be more willing to attempt new methods to support their
students. To assess teachers’ self-efficacy at RPA, interview questions focused on their ability to
create valuable learning experiences and their PLC’s ability to cooperate to meet all ELL
students’ needs.
Affect/Emotions Assessment
A teacher’s affect, mood, attitude, and emotional expressions play an important role in
how students learn (Burchard et al., 2017). Teachers’ affect and emotions are formed by the
values they hold and can translate into less focused content to support student learning and
ultimately impact student engagement (Buchard et al., 2017). Thus, students’ learning of core
content and English language skills requires that teachers believe in their students’ capacity to
learn (Olvera, 2015). To assess affect, mood, and emotions, I asked teachers at RPA interview
questions, and documents such as lesson plans and PLC meeting minutes were analyzed.
For each assumed motivation influence, Table 6 outlines the interview questions and
documents analyzed to assess teachers’ motivation related to using teaching strategies to support
ELLs.

44
Table 6
Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed motivation
influences
Interview items Document
Value: Teachers need to value
supporting ELLs in their
classrooms during core
instruction.
How does your teaching in
the classroom support
ELLs to learn the core state
standards? Do you see it as
your responsibility to teach
core content state standards
and ELD standards? How
do you involve parents to
assist in their ELLs’
learning?
Meeting minutes
Lesson plans
Self-efficacy: Teachers need
to have confidence that the
instructional practices
implemented in the
classroom create learning
opportunities for ELLs.
Describe how confident you
are about supporting ELLs
in your classroom. What
learning opportunities that
you utilize are the most
effective to support ELLs?
How is your PLC
collaboration time with
your colleagues used to
share best teaching
practices that support ELL
learning?
Meeting minutes
PLC meeting minutes
Affect/emotions: Teachers
need to believe that ELLs
can learn content and
English language skills.
Tell me about your ELLs’
abilities to learn content
and English language skills.
Meeting minutes
Lesson plans
PLC meeting minutes
Organization/Culture/Context Assessment
The third possible cause of performance gaps can be attributed to organizational factors
that prevent stakeholders from reaching the organization’s goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). As Clark
and Estes (2008) noted, it is not uncommon for stakeholders with exceptional knowledge and

45
motivation to encounter barriers due to the lack of adequate resources and procedures.
Additionally, the work culture may also prevent even the most well-intentioned stakeholders
from reaching the organization’s goal (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). In this section,
organizational factors were assessed to determine if a lack of resources, procedures, or cultural
factors presented barriers to organizational goal attainment.
Resource Assessment
To achieve goals, an organization requires tangible and intangible resources, materials,
and assets such as school supplies, instructional tools, coaching or mentoring, and equipment that
support programs (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the case of supporting ELLs to achieve English
language proficiency, these resources are adequate and consistent funding to provide the required
resources, teachers, instructional coaches, technology, and instructional materials needed for
students to learn. To assess the quantity and quality of resources for teachers at RPA, documents
such as budgets, schedules, professional development plans and interview questions were
utilized to gather information.
Policies, Processes, and Procedures Assessment
Teachers are better prepared to meet expectations when educational policies, processes,
and procedures are shared and aligned with the organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda, 2011). Policies and procedures support both the teaching staff and students to ensure the
learning environment is structured and focused on meeting the organizational goal. I asked
stakeholders interview questions about the policies, processes, and procedures to support ELLs.
Cultural Models Assessment
Rueda (2011) referred to cultural models as the values, practices, and behaviors that
develop over time and may impact the stakeholder’s ability to achieve organizational goals.

46
These cultural models or mental schema of how the organization works help shape the
organization’s cultural setting (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). To assess the organizational
cultural models, I asked teachers to describe how RPA supports ELLs’ academic achievement.
Cultural Settings Assessment
The cultural setting refers to an organization’s core values, goals, beliefs, and processes,
including the social context that develops over time (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda,
2011). The cultural setting helps us understand what the stakeholders believe and why they
behave in certain ways (Rueda, 2011). For this study, I asked interview questions to assess how
teachers believe their organizational cultural setting supports ELLs and what additional supports
are needed.
For each assumed organizational influence, Table 7 outlines the various interview
questions used and documents analyzed to assess the organizational culture, resources, policies,
and processes, procedures that support ELLs.

47
Table 7
Summary of Organization Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed organization
influences
Interview items Document
Resources: Teachers need
time to attend professional
development training
refreshers that focus on the
most updated instructional
strategies to support ELLs.
What training have you
attended to support English
language learners?
Meeting minutes
Professional development
schedule
Policies, processes, and
procedures: Teachers know
about the annual
assessment schedule and
placement policies to
support ELLs.
Describe the annual
assessment schedule and
placement policies for
ELLs.
Meeting minutes
Schedules
Cultural model: Teachers
need to feel that the school
has a shared culture that
values the ELLs’ academic
achievement.
Describe RPA’s expectations
for ELLs academic
achievement. How
supportive of the needs of
ELLs is RPA as an
organization? Provide
examples.
Meeting minutes
Professional development
schedules
Cultural setting: Teachers
need to feel that the school
values the academic
growth of ELLs.
How does RPA support
ELLs’ academic
achievement? As a teacher,
what additional resources
are needed to support
ELLs? Does RPA have an
academic instructional
coach who supports
teachers who work with
ELLs?
Meeting minutes
Budgets
Schedules
Cultural setting: Teachers
need to feel that
professional development
training in ELL strategies
is a high priority for their
school administration and
district.
Does RPA value professional
development for teachers
to support ELLs? What and
when was the last ELL
strategies training that RPA
provided for teachers?
Meeting minutes
Professional development
schedule

48
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The stakeholder group of focus for this study was elementary teachers in grade levels
kindergarten through four, as they provide general education in all core subjects and ELD
support for ELLs in the beginning stages of English language proficiency. Each grade level
group was represented by at least one to two teachers to speak for the specific learning and
teaching needs of that grade level. The stakeholders’ goal is for 75% of ELLs to move up one
proficiency level or meet reclassification criteria as measured by the state ELPAC assessment.
To achieve this organizational goal, this stakeholder group must intentionally implement
instructional strategies that support ELLs’ progress toward English language proficiency (Nuss,
2020).
Sampling
The sampling used for this study was a convenience sample as I invited the stakeholders
to interview based on their grade level teaching assignments and availability to participate (Fink,
2017). The sample included teacher representation across kindergarten through fourth-grade
levels, and the group varied across gender, ethnicity, and years of experience. I specifically chose
these interviewees whose classroom populations were made up of at least 10% ELLs.
Recruitment
The sampling strategy included an email from the school principal on my behalf to all 22
teachers in levels kindergarten through fourth grade. Teachers were invited to participate in the
study and were explained the purpose of the study. The email also included information on
where to meet and the length of time needed for the interview. The participation target was 40%
to 50%, which aimed to result in at least one to two teachers per grade level. Ultimately, 11
teachers participated: one kindergarten teacher, three first-grade teachers, two second-grade

49
teachers, two third-grade teachers, and three fourth-grade teachers. They agreed to schedule a
date and time to meet with me.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation used for this qualitative study consisted of interviews and document
analysis. I conducted interviews to gather information regarding the stakeholders’ KMO factors
that may influence their ability to meet the organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, to enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings,
document analysis was conducted to provide further context and confirm evidence collected
from the interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interview Protocol Design
The interview design for this study included individual interviews with classroom
teachers from kindergarten through fourth-grade levels. Appendix A outlines the interview
questions related to the research questions and focused on the stakeholders’ KMO influences
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews began with an introduction and
a summary of the interview purpose, followed by 26 open-ended questions directly linked to the
potential KMO influences on the problem of practice (Clark & Estes 2008; Merriam & Tisdell
2016).
Document Analysis Design
As the principal investigator, I conducted document analysis of student records, lesson
plans, standardized assessment manuals, district-approved curriculum, budget reports, training
materials, professional development documents, and staff meeting agendas and minutes to
provide insight and context to the classroom (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I followed all RPA and

50
school district protocols for collecting and reviewing documents. I analyzed the documents using
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework, as outlined in Appendix B.
Data Collection
Following University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval,
I recruited participants via email. I also recruited participants via in-person communication to
further explain the purpose of the study. I reminded all potential participants that their
participation was voluntary and received an informed consent form, and information regarding
the purpose of the study and procedures regarding their participation (Appendix C). Once I
obtained consent from the participants, I scheduled the interviews.
Interviews
Stakeholders who agreed to voluntarily participate in the study received an interview
protocol designed to gather data pertaining to their knowledge, motivation and organizational
factors at RPA. I collected consent forms and explained the interview process before scheduling
the individual interviews. I interviewed the participants individually for approximately 60
minutes after school hours in locations where they felt comfortable.
Document Analysis
In addition to the interviews, I collected and analyzed documents to gain additional
insight into the KMO influences at RPA. The documents were student records, master schedules
of class assignments, lesson plans, testing manuals, district curriculum, budget reports, training
materials, professional development documents, and staff meeting agendas and minutes,
including PLC meeting notes.

51
Data Analysis
In this qualitative study, data collection and analysis occurred through interviews and
document analysis, as described in the data collection section of this chapter. I evaluated the
interview data and document analysis to identify KMO influences at RPA.
Trustworthiness of Data
To maintain this study’s credibility and trustworthiness, I used triangulation to ensure
cross-checking and comparison across the data sources (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews
served as the first method of data collection, and document analysis served to confirm
consistency and ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of this study.
Role of Investigator
As the investigator and currently serving as a school principal at another school in the
same district, I do not supervise any of the study participants I interviewed. Additionally, I
reassured the interviewees that their participation would be voluntary and confidential and would
not be used to formally evaluate their programs or teaching practices. I also reminded them that
they would be allowed to withdraw without penalty at any time during study participation.
Limitations
The limitations of this study included that RPA was the only school examined, and the
stakeholder sample was limited to 1 to 2 teachers per grade level. This factor presented a validity
concern.

52
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to identify the reasons for the high percentage of ELLs
who do not advance and meet the criteria to reclassify as English proficient by the end of fourth
grade or at least move up one proficiency level per school year. This chapter outlines the results
and findings of this study and an analysis of the data. Through the gap analysis framework
(Clark & Estes, 2008), this chapter addressed the research problem and presented the results. The
gap analysis process included reviewing the data, generating the initial codes, searching for
themes, reviewing the data once more, and defining the themes identified. Through this process,
I identified key themes and patterns from the data analysis. This step-by-step process allowed for
a deeper understanding of the participants’ perspectives and experiences. By employing
qualitative data analysis techniques, I uncovered rich, detailed insights from the results and a
new understanding of how teachers prepare and work with ELLs, which generated implications
for teaching practices and further research.
I organized the presentation of these results by the categories of assumed causes and the
influences regarding KMO elements related to the achievement of this organizational goal. I
employed interviews and document analysis to understand the KMO needs, as well as the
participants’ experiences and perceptions regarding their teaching practices for ELLs in the
context of the organization’s goal. I conducted interviews first. In the document analysis, I
reviewed state test data to support current English proficiency rates. By examining the interviews
and document data, this chapter offers insights into the performance problem under investigation.
Participating Stakeholders
The primary source of research data for this study were classroom teachers in grade
levels kindergarten through fourth as they primarily provide academic support for ELLs.

53
Twenty-two potential participants received an email (Appendix D) requesting they participate in
an interview for this study. The goal was to have between 40% to 50% of the teachers in those
grade levels participate, with at least one teacher from each grade. Eleven participants emailed
back and reported interest in participating. Table 8 presents the interviewees’ demographic data.
Each study participant was assigned a number, and I did not collect demographic data about
them to ensure confidentiality. Table 8 outlines their’ grade levels and teaching experience.
Table 8
Participating Stakeholders
Participant Grade level
taught
Years of teaching
experience
EL
authorization
BCLAD
credential
1 K 29 Y N
2 1 6 Y Y
3 1 6 Y Y
4 1 27 Y Y
5 2 7 Y N
6 2 10 Y Y
7 3 3 Y N
8 3 5 Y N
9 4 7 Y N
10 4 23 Y N
11 4 8 Y N

54
Determination of Assets and Needs
Interviews were the primary data source. The interviewees responded to a protocol
focused on KMO influences determined in Chapters 2 and 3. The data analysis provided answers
to the research questions. The criterion for determining an influence as a need or asset was that a
minimum of seven participants indicated a particular influence was present. If at least seven
participants indicated it was present, the influence was determined as an asset, and if not, the
influence was determined as a need.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
The analysis of the results and findings answered the KMO categories and the assumed
causes for each category. The data analysis revealed a significant relationship between
knowledge and its impact in shaping the teaching and learning outcomes for ELL students at
RPA.
Factual Knowledge Influence 1. Teachers Know the Four ELPAC Domains That Measure
English Proficiency
Interview Findings
Five participants were knowledgeable about ELPAC domains. Participant 9 stated, “No. I
don’t know all the domains or levels. I have an EL para that works with ELs in my classroom.”
Participant 7 reported, “No. I don’t use it and I have never given the assessment myself. I do
know it measures their reading and writing skills in English.” On the other hand, Participant 4
indicated,
Yes. Students are tested on their ability to listen, speak, read, and write academic English
language. I also use the test results to group my students into homogeneous and

55
heterogeneous groups in order to have role models for the ELs and establish target
language skills.
The ELPAC domains serve as a guideline and align with the ELD state standards.
Additionally, the ELPAC domains can help teachers provide support to ELLs in the most needed
academic areas.
Document Analysis
Grade-level PLC meeting minutes revealed no articulation regarding ELPAC domains,
ELLs’ progress, or discussions related to developing English language proficiency. The PLC
notes for 1st grade included mention of the ELPAC testing taking place but not support for ELLs
to advance through the domains. Students’ ELPAC test score records demonstrated ELL
representation in kindergarten through fourth grade; however, there was no mention in the PLC
meeting minutes regarding the usage of the ELPAC domain data results to develop their
proficiency.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers know about the four ELPAC domains that measure
English language proficiency was determined to be a need based on the interview data and
document analysis. Interview results demonstrate that only 45% of the participants know about
the four ELPAC testing domains. Additionally, the PLC meeting minutes and ELPAC testing
results revealed that teachers did not discuss the domains or student test results during their PLC
meetings. Teachers also did not share possible instructional strategies to prepare studentsin those
academic areas. Therefore, this influence was determined to be a need.

56
Factual Knowledge Influence 2. Teachers Know the Different Instructional Models Used to
Teach ELLs
Understanding and using a variety of effective instructional models is vital for teachers
working with ELLs to effectively meet these students’ diverse academic needs. Through the use
of instructional strategies, teachers tailor and adapt their teaching practices to support ELLs.
Interview Findings
When I asked the participants regarding their knowledge of instructional models used to
teach ELLs, five did not have an answer. Participant 9 responded, “The way I was trained was it
depends on the grade level. My English learners are more advanced, and they speak English.”
Participant 5 did have an answer:
I always want to cover all bases. I use small grouping and try to teach students using
visual, kinesthetic, and auditory strategies to make sure I reach all students regardless of
their learning modalities. I also do lots of repetition, gestures, visual representations, and
I give them lots of time to respond.
Participant 6 added, “I try to incorporate visuals, and I give them ample opportunities to talk to
each. I also have them turn to their partners so they can talk.”
Five participants reported they teach all students the same way without using different
instructional strategies to address ELLs’ needs. Participant 11 stated, “I teach them all the same.
I had an ELL paraeducator last year, and she helped my students when they needed support. I
don’t have any paras this school year.” Only 54% of the participants could articulate the different
instructional strategies and modalities they used to support ELLs.
Document Analysis

57
The PLC meeting minutes do not show evidence of sharing strategies and discussing
modalities to teach ELLs. Professional development in WestEd’s quality teaching for English
learners (QTEL) was available to teachers in the district over the summer break, but it was not
made mandatory. This influence is determined as a need.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers know different instructional modalities to teach
ELLs to reach English language proficiency was determined to be a need. Only 54% of the
participants could provide examples of instructional strategies that support ELLs. Furthermore,
the document analysis of PLC meeting minutes lacks evidence that teachers share teaching
strategies to address ELLs’ needs.
Conceptual Knowledge Influence 1: Teachers Understand the Proficiency Levels
In order to support ELLs in the classrooms, teachers must have a deep understanding of their
students’ proficiency levels such as those defined by the California ELD state standards. These
proficiency levels provide teachers valuable information about their ELLs’ English language
abilities and their learning needs.
Interview Findings
When asked about the EL proficiency levels as defined in the California ELD state
standards, only 27% of the participants were able to demonstrate knowledge of the three
proficiency levels, emerging, expanding, and bridging, to describe the stages students traverse as
they gain English language proficiency. Participant 9 stated, “No. I have never been given
training.” Participant 1 indicated, “I don’t know. I teach all my students what they need
regardless of their levels.” On the other hand, Participant 6 stated, “I know the levels are
emerging, expanding, and bridging.”

58
Document Analysis
The district professional development calendar included QTEL training for all teachers
last summer, but only three of the participants attended. The PLC meeting minutes demonstrated
that teachers do not utilize their collaboration time to address ELLs’ needs and progress through
the proficiency levels.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers understand the proficiency levels was determined to
be a need. With only 27% of the participants knowing the levels, there was a need for teachers to
know these levels to incorporate instructional support in their daily instruction.
Conceptual Knowledge Influence 2: Describe the Grouping Instructional Strategies That
Best Support ELLs
Interview Findings
All participants provided examples of grouping instructional strategies to support ELLs.
Participant 4 mentioned, “I group students into homogeneous and heterogeneous groups in order
to have role models for the ELs.” Participant 6 reported, “I group students in English-only and
ELL mixed groups, and I also have them pair up with one English-only student and one ELL
student to practice or grade each other.” The participants placed ELLs with speakers of English
only to provide models for ELLs. However, the participants’ responses were significantly
different, as only 27% of them were intentional in their grouping strategies and placed ELLs in
mixed groups. Participant 9, for example, indicated, “I do a random call of names, and
sometimes I group them by reading levels. It depends on the lesson.”

59
Document Analysis
There was no evidence in the PLC meeting minutes about participants sharing grouping
strategies for ELLs.
Summary
Only 27% of the participants demonstrated intentionality in their grouping strategies for
ELs. Therefore, the assumed influence that teachers understand the importance of strategically
grouping ELLs was determined as a need.
Procedural Knowledge Influence 1. Teachers Need to Know How to Assess ELLs’ Level of
Academic English Skills
Assessing ELLs’ level of academic English skills is an important aspect of supporting
their learning. By using a variety of assessment measures and tools, teachers can identify these
students’ strengths and areas of growth for their English language acquisition. When equipped
with a deep understanding of their students’ levels of academic English skills, teachers can
differentiate instruction and create learning activities that target their needs.
Interview Findings
Based on the participants’ responses, only 36% of them knew how to assess ELLs’
academic English skills. Participant 4 indicated, “I use unit assessments that are built into the
curriculum, running records, benchmarks, and ELPAC scores once a year to assess my ELLs.”
Participant 6 added, “I mostly assess when working with my students in small groups during
reading, writing, and journaling. This type of assessment works the best for me to see where their
academic English skills are at that moment.” However, for the remaining 64% of the
participants, assessing ELLs’ academic English skills was not a routine process throughout the

60
academic school year. Participant 10 reported, “Towards the end of the school year, our ELLs
get pulled out by our EL paraeducators, and they assess the students.”
Document Analysis
The PLC meeting minutes do not reflect teachers working in collaboration to discuss
ELLs’ academic English skills or assessments to support ELD.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers need to know how to assess ELLs’ academic English
skills was determined as a need. Lack of formal training and focus on supporting ELLs was
demonstrated in the participants’ responses, with only 36% of teachers able to articulate their
assessment strategies when working with ELLs.
Procedural Knowledge Influence 2: Teachers Need to Know How to Use Research-Based
Instructional Strategies to Support ELLs
Teachers must have a strong foundation in research-based instructional strategies that
have been proven to improve English language acquisition and academic growth. Researchbased instructional strategies equip teachers with tools, skills, and knowledge to deliver high
quality instruction that targets the needs of ELLs.
Interview Findings
All participants could name research-based instructional strategies, but when specifically
asked if they would use any of those strategies to support students in reaching the next level of
English proficiency, only 54% of them affirmed they would intentionally use the strategies.
Participant 4 indicated, “I use front loading, think-pair-share, sentence frames for oral language
development, as well as differentiation and multiple learning modalities to support my ELLs.”
Participant 10 reported using research-based strategies for all her students and shared this

61
statement, “I front load key concepts and vocabulary for all my students.” Based on the
participants’ responses, 46% of the teachers interviewed do not differentiate instruction or
intentionally use research-based strategies to teach ELLs. Although the participants articulated
the research-based strategies, this influence was determined to be a need due to the percentage of
teachers who intentionally use the strategies to help students reach the next English proficiency
level.
Document Analysis
Document analysis of the PLC meeting minutes demonstrated that teachers focus
primarily on current grade level tasks, such as completing running records, rather than
discussions about research-based strategies that would support ELLs in the classrooms. Teachers
should spend time sharing research-based strategies with their grade-level teams to improve their
ability to work with ELLs.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers need to know how to use research-based strategies to
support ELLs in reaching the next level of English proficiency was determined as a need. All
teachers gave examples of research-based strategies but also indicated not implementing those
strategies. Quality and mandatory ELD professional development would strengthen teachers’
ability to implement research-based strategies consistently and intentionally.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 1. Teachers Need to Analyze the ELPAC Results and
Reflect on Their Teaching Practices to Assist ELLs in Making Measurable Progress
Analyzing the results of the ELPAC assessment is crucial for teachers to understand the
language development progress for ELLs. By examining the ELPAC results teachers also gain
valuable insights into their students’ proficiency levels and their overall academic English

62
growth. Reflecting on the ELPAC assessment results can also empower teachers to evaluate their
teaching practices and make informed decisions to adjust their instruction to address the specific
needs of their ELLs.
Interview Findings
Only one interviewee was unable to share about their self-reflecting practices in relation
to the ELLs’ academic progress. Participant 1 indicated, “The EL paraeducators do that. I don’t
get the scores right away.” Participant 5 also added, “Yes. You receive the results, but there’s
always a gap, and no one tells me what to do.” Participant 4 shared that she reviewed the test
scores regularly in preparation for her lesson planning and stated, “I look at the current EL level
given, and in the course of lessons, I see what students need.” However, this analysis of the
ELPAC results was for her current ELLs, and she did not engage in self-reflection of the ELPAC
scores for her previous year’s ELLs to determine if her teaching practices had been effective.
Document Analysis
Participants reported that lesson plans were only provided to their site administrators
when requested, but self-reflection would not be included as the site and district do not have a
universal template for teachers to use. Additionally, PLC meeting minutes also lacked an area for
teachers to self-reflect on their teaching practices.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers need to analyze ELPAC results and self-reflect on
the effectiveness of their teaching practices was determined to be a need. Participants did not
speak of their self-reflecting practices. Moreover, the lack of documentation on their PLC
meeting minutes to address analysis and self-reflection also indicated that teachers do not have a

63
formal expectation or practice of self-reflection. Analyzing ELPAC assessment data and selfreflection can help teachers identify areas to improve in their lesson delivery to ELLs.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
The data analysis revealed that teachers’ motivation impacted the teaching practices and
learning outcomes for ELL students at RPA. The motivation causes were determined to be assets
that allow for a positive connection between teachers and ELLs in the classroom.
Value Influence 1. Teachers Need to Value Supporting ELLs in Their Classrooms During
Core Instructional Time
Supporting ELLs in their classroom during core instructional time creates an inclusive
and equitable learning environment. By doing so, teachers ensure that these students have access
to high quality instruction and opportunities to engage with the core subject content, scaffolding,
classroom discussions and peer collaboration that other students in their classroom are provided.
Interview Findings
Supporting ELLs during core instructional time allows students to stay up to date on the
daily core instruction presented to all classmates. In regards to supporting ELLs during core
instructional time, all of the participants reported placing value on their support of ELLs.
Participant 8 responded, “Yes. I support all my students during core instructional time.”
Participant 6 added, “I feel I do. I try my best to make sure my ELLs get all their core
instruction.” Participant 2 also shared, “That’s what I do. I teach all my students during core
instruction. I support all my students in the classroom.”
Document Analysis
The PLC meeting minutes lacked evidence of teachers engaging in collaborative
discussions regarding teaching their ELL students. Meeting notes reflected discussions around

64
ELLs taking their ELPAC assessment during the instructional day, but there was no
documentation on the teaching strategies used to support them during core instructional time.
Rather, teachers reported the inconvenience of having the ELLs removed from their classrooms
during core instruction to take the ELPAC test.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers need to value supporting ELLs during core
instructional time was determined to be an asset based on the participants’ responses.
Additionally, teachers only discussed in their PLC meetings the need to keep their ELLs in their
classrooms during core instruction. All teachers expressed value in keeping their ELLs during
core instructional time.
Self-Efficacy Influence 1. Teachers Need to Have Confidence That the Instructional
Practices They Use Create Learning Opportunities for ELLs to Develop English
Proficiency
Confidence in their instructional practices ensures teachers create an effective learning
environment that supports English language proficiency. By believing in their instructional
practices, teachers are empowered to design engaging and culturally responsive lessons.
Interview Findings
All the participants responded positively to having confidence in their instructional
practices used to support ELLs. Participant 5 shared, “I felt prepared to work with ELLs from
what I learned in my teacher credential program, but not as confident as I feel now. I enjoy
teaching my ELLs.” Participant 8 reported having more confidence after completing the summer
QTEL training and stated, “I’m more confident after attending QTEL. I will keep learning.”
Participant 6 said she was highly confident in the instructional practices she had implemented,

65
and she welcomed visitors to observe her teaching: “We don’t focus on ELLs in our PLCs, but I
do welcome other teachers to visit my classroom. I can share strategies with them that support
our ELLs.”
Document Analysis
Document analysis of the grade-level PLC meeting agendas and minutes revealed a lack
of discussions that centered around the instructional practices used by the participants. Therefore,
there was no evidence to validate teacher confidence in this area.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers need to have confidence about the instructional
practices they implement are effective in creating opportunities for ELLs to learn was
determined to be an asset. Despite the lack of PLC meeting notes that address collaboration
between teachers about ELLs, the participants’ positive responses and their willingness to
continue to continue to learn from each other demonstrated that they have confidence in their
instructional practices.
Affect Influence 1: Teachers Need to Believe That ELLs Can Learn Content and English
Language Skills
Believing in the potential of ELLs to learn content knowledge and English language
skills is a fundamental mindset that can shape teachers’ instructional approaches and interaction
with students. Setting high expectations can foster student confidence and instill a sense of selfefficacy to overcome academic challenges.
Interview Findings
All the participants reported that they believed that ELLs can learn both content and
English language skills. Participant 9 commented that her ELLs learned both content and English

66
language best when working in small groups and stated, “My ELLs can learn content and
English skills best when they collaborate in small groups. They need their peers to practice and
learn.” Participant 4 added, “All ELLs can learn, but they will learn best when we differentiate
our lessons and we assign homework.” This influence was determined to be an asset.
Document Analysis
PLC meeting agendas and minutes did not include statements from teachers about their
beliefs about ELLs learning content and English language skills.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers need to believe that ELLs can learn academic
content and English language skills was determined to be an asset. All participants reported that
ELLs can learn, and a few provided suggestions that included using collaboration, small groups,
homework assignments, and lesson differentiation.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
The results and findings for the organizational causes revealed a significant need to
improve resources, policies, and procedures and a need to develop a shared school cultural value
for the academic improvement of ELLs.
Resources Influence 1: Teachers Need Time to Attend Professional Development Training
That Focus on the Most Updated Instructional Strategies to Support ELLs
Attending professional development on the most updated instructional strategies to
support ELLs helps teachers to enhance their knowledge, skills and effectiveness in the
classroom. Through this professional development, teachers can stay abreast of current researchbased instructional strategies and academic approaches that support ELLs and their academic
needs.

67
Interview Findings
All interviewees reported the need to attend professional development that focuses on
instructional strategies for ELLs. The district-provided training for teachers has been scheduled
during the summer break, and teachers reported difficulties attending due to prescheduled family
vacations. Participant 10 shared her difficulties with attending training in the summer by stating,
“We need training during the school year. I have a family, and I can’t take time away during the
summer months.” Participant 8 also shared, “We need training on how to analyze and use the
ELPAC data, but not during the summertime.” Participant 5 also noted, “I would love training on
how to collaborate with other teachers, particularly as students move forward and we need to
hand them off to the next grade level teacher.” Participant 6 added, “We need training during the
school year on how to use digital resources. I know our district can provide good professional
development in this area.” Due to the lack of professional development during the school year,
this influence was determined to be a need.
Document Analysis
Based on professional development and PLC calendars, there was evidence that teachers
lacked time to attend training focused on teaching ELLs during the school year. To achieve
equitable outcomes for ELLs, training should be required for all grade-level teachers to engage
in productive collaboration in their PLC meetings.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers need time to attend professional development
training that focuses on the most updated instructional strategies to support ELLs was
determined to be a need. All interviewed participants reported interest in attending professional
development to either strengthen their knowledge or to improve their teaching skills to support

68
ELLs. Professional development is particularly important for teachers to engage in discussions
about best practices and positive outcomes.
Policies, Processes, and Procedures Influence 1. Teachers Know About the Annual
Assessment Schedule and Placement Policies to Support ELLs
Understanding the school’s annual assessment schedule and placement policies helps
teachers proactively prepare and plan around the assessment schedule. By utilizing the annual
assessment schedule, teachers can implement strategies in time to support ELLs to prepare for
the assessments. When teachers know about the placement policies, they will be better prepared
to collaborate with other teachers and administrators to create a cohesive learning environment
for ELLS.
Interview Findings
To assess this influence, I asked interviewees about the annual assessment schedule and
school placement policies that support ELLs. All participants reported having knowledge of the
annual assessment but having no input on when ELLs are assessed. Participant 11 indicated,
“Admin schedules the annual assessments, and the paraeducators make sure all our ELLs are
tested.” In regard to placement policies to support ELLs, all participants declared having no
responsibilities related to placement policies. Participant 8 stated, “We have placement policies
but that’s done by administration. They decide if we get a paraeducator to help us with our ELLs,
and they also created the testing schedules.”
Document Analysis
The RPA’s schedules showed evidence of the EL paraeducator schedules and student
placement for support purposes. There was also evidence that parents were informed when their

69
student met the criteria for reclassification as a fluent English speaker and would no longer
require daily support.
Summary
The results showed that the school has assessment schedules and placement policies to
support ELLs. However, teachers were not involved in the procedures to create and carry out the
annual assessment or placement policies that affect ELL academic achievement. Therefore, the
assumed influence is determined to be a need.
Cultural Model Influence 1: Teachers Need to Feel the School Has a Shared Culture That
Values the ELLs’ Academic Achievement
Creating a school culture that values and prioritizes the academic achievement of ELLs’
is essential for fostering an inclusive and supporting learning environment. This collective
commitment to value these students’ academic achievement promotes a culture of equity and
respect for all students.
Interview Findings
I asked the interviewees two questions pertaining to influence. Only 18% reported that
the school had a shared culture that valued ELLs’ academic achievement. When I asked
participants how supportive administrators were of ELLs, Participant 9 reported she felt the
school was supportive of the ELLs because teachers were provided paraeducators for portions of
the school day. Participant 8 also responded to the question by saying, “Administration does not
mention ELLs, but I know they’re supportive because they hire paras to come into the classroom
to work with our ELLs.” When I asked the interviewees to describe RPA’s expectations for
ELLs academic achievement, their responses indicated that school administrators did not voice
clear expectations to demonstrate a shared understanding to focus on the academic achievement

70
of ELLs. Participant 5 commented, “Administration needsto refocus the ELL support and how it
applies to the classrooms.” Moreover, participant 10 also stated, “I don’t think we have a shared
culture that values ELLs because we are never asked to meet in PLCs to discuss them, and we’re
not meeting the needs of the ELLs.” This influence was determined to be a need.
Document Analysis
Grade-level PLC meeting agendas and minutes did not make mention of discussions
about ELLs’ academic achievement or instructional strategies to support their learning. Teachers
did mention that the district provided ELD training over the last few years, but it was not
mandatory to attend.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers need to feel the school has a shared culture that
values the ELLs’ academic achievement was determined to be a need. In addition, for the 18% of
the teachers who reported positively about having a shared school culture that valued ELLs, their
answers were based on having paraeducators visit their classroom, which was translated to mean
the school valued ELLs. The lack of administrative direction for grade-level teachers to
collaborate in PLCs to discuss equitable resources, strategies, and outcomes for ELLs
demonstrated a need.
Cultural Settings Influence 1: Teachers Feel the School Values the Academic Growth of
ELLs
When teachers believe the school values, recognizes and prioritizes the academic needs
and growth of ELLs, they are more likely to feel empowered and invested in supporting their
students. This sense of shared commitment and value for the students’ academic growth
promotes a school culture that cultivates a positive learning environment.

71
Interview Findings
This influence was assessed by asking interviewees if the school or district had an
academic coach to support teachers working with ELLs. All participants reported that their site
has two instructional coaches to support them when needed. However, the instructional coaches
provide teacher support and lesson designs for all students, not only ELLs. Participant 10
commented, “I have never asked the instructional coaches to help me with our ELLs. I don’t
know if they have expertise in that area, but I hope they do.” Participant 2 added,
I have never reached out to the instructional coaches to assist me with my ELLs. I would
rather reach out to the district EL teachers on special assignment. They know how to
work with ELLs, and they have been helpful to me in the past.
Participant 1 asserted more confidence in asking the instructional coaches for support and stated,
“Our instructional coaches would help me out with questions having to do with ELLs, but I have
never reached out to them with that particular question.”
Document Analysis
The PLC meeting minutes and school schedules did not provide evidence of instructional
coaching in ELD. Additionally, participants reported uncertainty in requesting assistance from
the Instructional Coaches when related to ELL support. This influence was determined as a need
due to a lack of evidence that the school has placed value on the academic growth of ELLs.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers feel the school values the academic growth of ELLs
was determined as a need. There was a structure to provide support for teachers who work with
ELLs. However, the school must place value and intentional focus on advancing the academic
growth of ELLs.

72
Summary of Validated Influences
Table 9 presents the KMO influences for this study and their determination as assets or
needs. The influence was determined to be a need or an asset if a minimum of 75% of
participants indicated a positive response. For example, if 75% or more of the participants
indicated a particular influence was present, then the influence was determined to be an asset. If
75% or more of the participants responded that a particular influence was not present, the
influence was determined to be a need.

73
Table 9
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data
Assumed influence Asset or need?
Factual knowledge: Teachers know the four ELPAC domains that
measure English proficiency.
Need
Factual knowledge: Teachers know the different instructional models
used to teach ELLs.
Need
Conceptual knowledge: Teachers understand the EL proficiency levels. Need
Conceptual knowledge: Describe the grouping instructional strategies
that best support ELLs
Need
Procedural knowledge: Teachers need to know how to assess ELLs’
level of academic English skills
Need
Procedural knowledge: Teachers need to know how to use researchbased instructional strategies to support ELLs in reaching the next
English proficiency level.
Need
Metacognitive knowledge: Teachers need to analyze the ELPAC results
and reflect on their teaching practices to assist ELLs in making
measurable progress.
Need
Motivation (value): Teachers need to value supporting ELLs in their
classrooms during core instructional time.
Asset
Motivation (self-efficacy): Teachers need to have confidence that the
instructional practices they use create learning opportunities for ELLs
to develop English proficiency.
Asset
Motivation (affect): Teachers need to believe that ELLs can learn
content and English language skills.
Asset
Organization (resources): Teachers need time to attend professional
development training that focuses on the most updated instructional
strategies to support ELLs.
Need
Organization (policies, processes, and procedures): Teachers know
about the annual assessment schedule and placement policies to
support ELLs.
Need
Organization (cultural model): Teachers need to feel the school has a
shared culture that values the ELLs’ academic achievement.
Need
Organization (cultural setting): Teachers feel the school values the
academic growth of ELLs.
Need
Having presented the qualitative evidence, Chapter Five includes recommendations to
address the gaps in KMO influences at RPA. Chapter Five also provides solutions for RPA’s
teaching practices to support English learners.

74
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation
The primary purpose of this study was to analyze the KMO influences that impact RPA’s
ability to reach its organizational goal of having their ELLs improve one ELPAC level per
school year or meet reclassification criteria as measured by state ELPAC. In this study, I
identified a disparity between teacher knowledge and motivation. Based on the data analysis,
teachers lacked knowledge of teaching strategies and skills to support ELLs but expressed high
levels of confidence in their ability to teach them, and they shared a belief that ELLs can learn
both content and language skills. One possible explanation could be a phenomenon known as the
Dunning-Kruger effect, in which individuals with limited knowledge and expertise in a particular
area tend to overestimate their abilities due to a lack of awareness of their own (Magnus &
Peresetsky, 2022).
Additionally, RPA teachers may have developed confidence in their teaching skills due to
a lack of administrative feedback and professional reflective practice. It may be possible that the
lack of administrative feedback on the essential knowledge and skills could have influenced
teachers to believe in their abilities to support ELLs. Understanding this discrepancy between
knowledge and motivation calls for ongoing professional development to ensure teachers’
confidence aligns with their actual level of competency in the classroom. Through the gap
analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), this qualitative study’s results presented the
knowledge and organization influences that negatively impacted the problem of practice and
offered a solid recommendation plan to promote effective teaching practices and enhance ELL
student learning.

75
Organizational Context and Mission
The RPA is a kindergarten through eighth-grade school in Southern California. Among
its 1,200 students, 65% are Hispanic, 21% are African American, 12% are White, and 2% are of
two or more races. The population of students who speak a language other than English
represents 16% of the student population. The school employs 49 certificated classroom teachers,
12 paraeducators, four custodians, one nurse, one counselor, five office support assistants, eight
supervision proctors, two assistant principals, and one principal. The mission of RPA is that each
student deserves an education in a safe and inclusive environment that provides the skills to
succeed academically. The school is currently lacking active parent involvement, but the
administrators encourage parents and community members to participate in various school
activities, events, committees, and parent volunteer opportunities.
Organizational Goal
The RPA’s academic goals include that by May 2025, 75% of ELLs will move up one
level or meet reclassification criteria as measured by state ELPAC. The school administrators
established this goal in consultation with the SSC to fulfill the school’s vision. The intended
output will be measured by the results of the 2025 ELPAC scores that will become available by
August 2025.
Description of Stakeholders Groups
The stakeholders who contribute to the achievement of RPA’s SPSA goals are ELL
students, teachers, instructional coaches, and administrators. The ELL students made up 16% of
RPA’s population in 2010. There are 31 elementary classrooms in kindergarten through Grade 6
responsible for delivering instruction and ELD support in all core subjects. The second
stakeholder group consists of 22 classroom teachers in grade levels kindergarten through fourth

76
grade. They provide daily instruction in self-contained classrooms. However, RPA’s ELL
students received ELD pull-out instruction away from their regular classroom from
uncertificated staff members or paraeducators for a percentage of the school day. This practice
was problematic as ELLs missed 30 to 45 minutes of instructional time per day.
The third stakeholder group consists of two full-time instructional coaches assigned to
support all classroom teachers with the goal of improving their instructional practices and
enhancing student learning. At RPA, instructional coaches also collaborated with the teachers
during PLC meetings and planned and delivered professional development training at the school
site level.
The fourth stakeholder group consists of district directors, assistant superintendents, two
assistant principals, and a principal. The district directors and assistant superintendents develop
educational initiatives and curriculum goals and provide direction, funding, and support for
training and staffing for the academic programs. The school administration is tasked to
communicate and implement education programs at the site level. For this study, the stakeholder
focus was the classroom teachers due to their responsibility to provide instructional support for
all students.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
All stakeholders at RPA contributed to achieving the organizational goal. Therefore, the
stakeholders of focus for this study were all RPA classroom teachers in Grades kindergarten
through 4 as they provide instruction to ELLs. Each grade level span has four to five classrooms,
making it a stakeholder teacher group of 22. The stakeholders’ goal, supported by the school
principal, was that elementary teachers would complete training on the ELPAC administration
and engage in co-planning with their grade-level PLC to ensure ELLs meet learning objectives.

77
Compliance and accountability procedures include activities such as student file review, ELPAC
score analysis, and trimester grade reports. RPA’s organizational goal cannot be met without the
stakeholders’ implementation of strategies and completion of training to support our ELLs.
Therefore, elementary grade-level classroom teachers were the focus of the study.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to identify the instructional
models that best influence and support ELLs to attain English language proficiency. The root
cause of the organizational problem at RPA was the inconsistency in instruction across the
school site to support ELLs. The stakeholders of focus were the elementary classroom teachers
in kindergarten through fourth grade. The analysis focused on the staff members’ knowledge and
skill, motivation, and organizational resources to systematically focus on actual or validated
causes. Two research questions guided this study:
1. What are the elementary teachers’ knowledge, skills and motivational influences that
interfere with implementing instructional strategies within the classroom setting to
support ELLs?
2. What are the organizational influences that support or hinder the classroom teacher in
supporting ELLs?
Introduction and Overview
The primary goal of this study wasto determine the organization influences that impacted
teachers and ELL students to achieve the organizational goals. The findings outlined in Chapter
Four provide evidence regarding the organizational influences as framed by the two research
questions. Chapter Five provides recommendations based on the study’s results regarding the
teachers’ and ELLs’ ability to achieve the organizational goal of either maintaining or improving

78
their English language fluency level or meeting reclassification criteria as measured by the
ELPAC state test.
In addition to addressing the research questions, the following sections present
recommendations for RPA to reach the organizational goal of having ELL students improve their
English language proficiency in relation to the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources that support staff and students.
Recommendations for Practice to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
Influences
While ELLs’ academic success is linked to their English proficiency, schools are charged
with providing quality programs to address their needs. The recommendations presented in this
chapter will address the KMO influences through the data analysis.
Knowledge Recommendations
The data analysis revealed seven knowledge influences as needs: two factual, two
conceptual, two procedural, and one metacognitive influence. These influences were determined
as needs through the interviews and document analysis conducted, which provided insight into
the PLC meeting practices, staff meetings, training provided to staff, lesson plans or lack of
lesson plans to address instructional support for ELLs, and student annual assessment results.
Table 10 illustrates a priority level for each validated influence in achieving the organizational
goal and research-based principles and citations to support the stated context-specific
recommendation. Additionally, a discussion is provided following the table to address each
influence, the identified principle, and the context-specific recommendation based on the
supportive research.

79
Table 10
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed knowledge
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority
yes or
no
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Factual: Teachers
know the four
ELPAC domains
that measure
English
proficiency.
Need Yes What teachers know
about educating
ELLs and what
they apply in their
classrooms
influences their
daily instruction
(Daniel, 2014).
Provide targeted
professional
development focused on
learning the ELPAC
domains and specific
teaching strategies to
support ELLs.
Instructional coaches
will model how to use
the ELPAC domains,
and teachers will utilize
the ELPAC domains
when planning lessons to
support ELL learning
needs. Administrators
will evaluate the
implementation of the
new skills in the
classrooms.
Factual: Teachers
know the different
instructional
models used to
teach ELLs.
Need Yes What teachers know
about educating
ELLs and what
they apply in their
classrooms
influences their
daily instruction
(Daniel, 2014).
Provide targeted
professional
development focused on
instructional models to
teach ELLs. Instructional
coaches will model the
different instructional
models and ask teachers
to practice and utilize the
different instructional
models to support ELLs.
Administrators will
evaluate to verify that
the new learning was
utilized in the
classrooms.
Conceptual: Teachers
understand the EL
proficiency levels.
Need Yes Teachers demonstrate
a detailed
understanding of
curriculum,
Provide targeted
professional
development focused on
proficiency levels.

80
Assumed knowledge
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority
yes or
no
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
assessments and
EL proficiency
levels to best
support ELLs
(Samson &
Collins, 2012).
Instructional coaches
will model instructional
strategies in the
classrooms using the EL
proficiency levels, and
teachers will practice
and apply the new skills
in the classrooms.
Administrators will
evaluate the
implementation of new
skills in the classrooms.
Conceptual: Describe
the grouping
instructional
strategies that best
support ELLs.
Need Yes To support ELLs,
teachers must
know collaborative
learning strategies
and when to use
them (Samson &
Collins, 2012).
Provide targeted
professional
development to develop
teacher capacity in the
areas of strategic
grouping and
collaboration.
Instructional coaches
will model how to
strategically group
students and how to use
collaborative strategies.
Teachers will apply their
learning in the
classrooms to support
ELLs in grouping and
collaborative learning
activities. Administrators
will conduct
observations to evaluate
the new skills that were
implemented.
Procedural: Teachers
need to know how
to assess ELLs’
level of academic
English skills.
Need Yes Prepare teachers in
the area of
assessing ELLs’
level of academic
English skills and
which assessments
best measure
learning (Samson
& Collins, 2012).
Provide professional
development focused on
how to assess ELLs’
levels of academic
English skills and
prepare teachers to
assess ELLs effectively
to adjust instruction that
best supports learners in

81
Assumed knowledge
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority
yes or
no
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
the classrooms.
Instructional coaches
will model how to assess
students, and teachers
will practice new skills
before administrators
evaluate the new skills’
implementation.
Procedural: Teachers
need to know how
to use researchbased instructional
strategies to
support ELLs in
reaching the next
English proficiency
level.
Need Yes Develop teacher
capacity in the
areas of researchbased instructional
strategies to meet
ELLs’ needs
(Samson &
Collins, 2012).
Provide professional
development targeted to
increase teacher capacity
in the areas of
understanding of
curriculum, assessment,
and instructional
methods that best
support ELLs.
Instructional coaches
will model how to
incorporate researchbased strategies, and
teachers will practice
new skills before
administrators evaluate
the new skills’
implementation.
Metacognitive:
Teachers need to
analyze the
ELPAC results and
reflect on their
teaching practices
to assist ELLs in
making measurable
progress.
Need Yes Teacher effectiveness
is based on
metacognition and
the ability to reflect
on teaching
practices that
impact student
learning (Dove &
Honigsfeld, 2010).
Provide opportunities for
teachers to practice selfreflection and
reassessment of their
lesson results.
Instructional coaches
will model how to
analyze ELPAC results
and assist using
reflective practices.
Teachers will document
their ELPAC analysis
and reflecting activities
on PLC meeting
minutes.
Factual Knowledge

82
The study revealed teachers’ lack of knowledge in the areas of ELPAC domains that
measure English language proficiency, and instructional models used to teach ELLs. These two
influences were validated as needs and were identified as high-priority because this knowledge is
essential for teachers to differentiate instruction for ELLs (Daniel, 2014). For teachers to
effectively measure English language proficiency, teachers must have a thorough understanding
of the different domains assessed in the ELPAC. By having a comprehensive knowledge of the
four domains, teachers can purposefully instruct ELLs to master the standards that address those
domains. The recommendation for school and district administrators is to provide teachers with
ELPAC training that includes practice on how to assess students in the four domains and how to
use the assessment results. With this knowledge, teachers will support ELLs with listening,
reading, writing, and speaking skills in the classroom.
To effectively support ELLs, teachers need to be familiar with a variety of instructional
models tailored to meet ELL students’ diverse needs (Daniel, 2014). Additionally, teachers
should understand the benefits of incorporating visual aids, total physical response methods,
realia, scaffolding, and sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) support strategies
(Samson & Collins, 2012). Through a range of instructional models, teachers will promote
language development for ELLs (Daniel, 2014). This confirms the need for school site and
district administrators to provide focused professional development for teachers to gain
knowledge and understanding of research-based instructional models that support language
development and academic success for ELLs.

83
Conceptual Knowledge
According to Samson and Collins (2012), teachers need to demonstrate a detailed
understanding of curriculum, assessment, and proficiency levels to best support ELLs. The study
revealed that teachers lacked conceptual knowledge and understanding of the levels and
collaborative grouping instructional strategies to address these students’ multiple needs. These
two influences were validated as needs and were identified as high-priority, as teachers should
use the levels to develop lessons and strategically group students. However, there was a lack of
documentation in the PLC meeting minutes to demonstrate teachers’ shared collaborative
grouping instructional strategies for ELLs. The data results indicate a need for teachers to receive
adequate training during their teacher preparation courses and once hired by a school district.
Furthermore, teachers need to have a solid understanding of the proficiency levels and the
abilities associated with each proficiency level to design appropriate and challenging
instructional and grouping activities that will meet individual students’ needs.
Additionally, teachers should create collaborative learning environments. By working
and learning in collaborative groups, these students can receive language support to enhance
their speaking, writing, listening, and reading skills across all core content areas. School site
administrators and instructional coaches may model effective collaboration strategies through
quality professional development and PLC training. After the targeted professional development,
teachers should apply their new skills in the classroom to demonstrate their readiness to work
with ELL students (Samson & Collins, 2012).
Procedural Knowledge
Teachers should be familiar with a variety of assessments that measure ELLs’ levels of
academic English skills. For example, in California, teachers should administer the ELPAC to

84
measure students’ English language proficiency in listening, speaking, writing, and reading. This
influence was validated as a need and was identified as a high priority because these assessment
results provide information about the ELLs’ language abilities. Samson and Collins (2012) stated
that teachers who are adequately prepared to work with ELLs use the results of assessments and
differentiate instruction through research-based strategies. By using the English language
proficiency assessment results, teachers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of
students’ skills to support them in reaching the next proficiency level. This indicates the need for
teachers to receive professional development in the areas of ELL assessments and research-based
instructional strategies to provide them with the essential knowledge and skills to work with
ELLs (Maynes & Hatt, 2013).
As recognized by Rivkin et al. (2005), research has consistently shown that the quality of
teaching has a significant impact on student learning outcomes and academic achievement. With
the growing numbers of ELLs in U.S. public schools, now reaching 10.6% across the nation,
teachers’ efficacy to support ELLs is in greater demand (United States Department of
Education., 2020). If the quality of a student’s classroom is regarded as necessary for success,
providing high-quality, targeted training and instructional coaching to teachers who work with
ELLs can significantly improve ELL language proficiency.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Teachers need to analyze the ELPAC results and regularly reflect on their teaching
practices to assist ELLs in making measurable progress. This influence was validated as a need
and was identified as a high priority because by analyzing assessment results, teachers can
identify areas of strength and areas for growth in their instruction. For instance, if a teacher
analyzes assessment data and identifies a significant number of ELLs struggling with a particular

85
concept or standard, the teacher can adjust instruction or use a different teaching strategy or
approach to provide additional support. Teacher effectiveness is based on metacognition and the
ability to reflect on teaching practices that impact student learning (Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010).
By engaging in this cycle of assessment, reflection, and re-teaching, teachers can
continuously improve their teaching practices and foster meaningful learning for ELLs.
Therefore, if teacher effectiveness improves with self-reflection, as Dove and Honigsfeld (2010)
stated, school administrators should provide support for continuous teacher growth through
professional development and PLC practices that focus on data analysis, teacher collaboration,
and sharing of instructional strategies. We can leverage student achievement through applicable
and quality professional development (Darling-Hammond, 2019).
Motivation Recommendations
The data analysis revealed that no validated motivational influences were identified as
needs related to the problem of practice. Motivation is a significant asset to the organization and
should remain a high priority when implementing the context-specific recommendations
included in Table 11 and the following sections.

86
Table 11
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed motivation
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority
yes or
no
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Value: Teachers need to
value supporting
ELLs in their
classrooms during
core instructional
time.
Asset Yes Teachers need to
become aware of
how their
teaching
methods impact
student learning
(Olvera, 2015).
Guide teachers to examine
the time and effort spent
with ELLs during core
instruction and how
core instruction
supports language
development and
content learning.
Self-efficacy: Teachers
need to have
confidence that the
instructional practices
they use create
learning opportunities
for ELLs to develop
English proficiency.
Asset Yes Self-efficacy will
influence
teaching
practices and
student outcomes
(Daniel, 2014).
Provide professional
development and
opportunities for
teachers to collaborate
with their grade level
PLC on effective
instructional strategies.
Affect: Teachers need to
believe that ELLs can
learn content and
English language
skills.
Asset Yes Teachers’
perceptions of
ELLs abilities
can impact
student learning
(Olvera, 2015).
Reduce deficit thinking
through targeted
professional
development focused on
recognizing strengthsbased teaching
approaches for teachers
to better support ELLs.
Value
Teachers need to value supporting ELLs in their classrooms during core instructional
time. According to Olvera (2015), teachers are the most influential factor in an ELL’s academic
success and ultimate reclassification as a fluent English speaker. The interviewees reported
valuing the time spent with ELLs during core instructional time. To maintain this influence as an
asset for the organization, administrators need to guide teachers to examine the time and effort

87
spent with ELLs during core instruction and how core instruction supports language
development and content learning.
Furthermore, teachers at RPA can inspire students to learn and use their critical thinking
skills to advance in all subject areas. Keeping teachers motivated to value their instructional time
with students can help create positive learning environments where ELLs feel valued and
confident about their learning (Burchard et al., 2017). Through their dedication and efforts
during core instruction, teachers can have a profound impact on ELLs and their academic
growth.
Self-Efficacy
Teachers need to have confidence in the instructional practices they use to create learning
opportunities for ELL students to ensure effective and successful learning outcomes. Confidence
in their teaching practices allows teachers to plan and deliver instruction with clarity and
purpose, which can positively impact student engagement and understanding of the content
material (Daniel, 2014). Additionally, when teachers believe in the effectiveness of their
teaching practices, they are more likely to invest time, effort, and resources into refining their
teaching strategies to meet their students’ needs.
The data findings indicate that self-efficacy is an asset for the organization, as teachers
reported having confidence in their teaching skills and the learning opportunities they create for
their ELL students. Site administrators must maintain this motivation by providing professional
development and scheduling time for teachers to collaborate with their grade-level PLC members
to discuss effective instructional strategies. Teachers who are confident in their abilities are more
open to receiving feedback and sharing effective strategies with other colleagues with fewer
years of classroom experience (Maynes & Hatt, 2013). Therefore, developing teacher self-

88
efficacy through professional development, mentoring, and collaboration with other
knowledgeable teachers is a school resource that can have a positive effect on student
achievement (Rivkin et al., 2005).
Affect
Teachers need to believe that ELLs can learn content and English language skills to
effectively support and empower students. When teachers believe their ELL students have the
ability to learn, they are more likely to incorporate new teaching strategies and provide
scaffolding to assist students (Olvera, 2015). Moreover, teachers who believe in their students’
abilities to learn are more likely to communicate positive expectations and provide
encouragement when students learn at slower rates (Boaler, 2015). Believing in ELL students’
potential can lead teachers to set higher learning expectations. School site administrators can
reduce teacher deficit thinking through targeted professional development focused on
recognizing strengths-based teaching approaches.
A pitfall of deficit thinking is that it may attribute students’ academic struggles solely to
their ability to learn rather than to other factors, such as the learning environment, ultimately
limiting their opportunities to learn (Olvera, 2015). Therefore, it is essential that teachers feel
positive about their ELLs’ learning capabilities and for administrators to maintain this influence
as an asset through training and encouragement.
Organization Recommendations
The data analysis validated the following four organizational influences on the problem
of practice: resources, policies, processes and procedures, cultural model, and cultural setting.
These influences were validated through interviews and document analysis. Table 12 lists the
priority level for each of the validated influences and the research-based principles and

89
recommendations. Following the table is a detailed discussion of each high-priority cause, the
corresponding principle, and the specific recommendations based on the supporting literature.
The organizational influence that teachers know about the annual assessment schedule and
placement policies for ELLs was listed as a low priority. Based on the interview data, the testing
examiners received information regarding annual assessments that was possibly shared with
teachers at the beginning of the school year. In regard to ELL placement policies, the
administrative team made decisions on this topic. Therefore, a recommendation to share this
information with teachers was included.

90
Table 12
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed organization
influence
Priority
Yes or
no
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Resources: Teachers
need time to attend
professional
development
training that
focuses on the most
updated
instructional
strategies to support
ELLs.
Yes Professional development
supports teachers to
improve their skills and
demonstrates the
organization’s values
and resources (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Provide professional
development that focuses
on how to teach ELLs to all
teachers. Instructional
coaches will model
instructional strategies, and
teachers will practice new
skills before administrators
evaluate the new skills’
implementation.
Policies, processes,
and procedures:
Teachers know
about the annual
assessment
schedule and
placement policies
to support ELLs.
Yes Organizational policies and
procedures align with
the school vision and are
provided through clear
and timely
communication (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Rueda,
2011).
Inform teachers regarding
annual assessments and
placement policies that
support ELLs.
Cultural model:
Teachers need to
feel that the school
has a shared culture
that values the
ELLs’ academic
achievement.
Yes A shared culture includes
the values, practices, and
behaviors that develop
over time and impact the
stakeholders’ ability to
achieve organizational
goals (Rueda, 2011;
Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001).
Establish practices and
traditions that celebrate the
ELLs’ achievements.
Cultural setting:
Teachers feel the
school values the
academic growth of
ELLs.
Yes The organization’s cultural
setting refers to an
organization’s core
values, goals, beliefs,
and processes, including
the social context that
develops over time
(Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001;
Rueda, 2011).
Ensure school policies,
practices, and site goals
explicitly communicate
support for the academic
achievement of ELLs at the
school site.

91
Resources
Both interview and document data analysis validated a gap in the assumed organizational
influence of resources and lack of accountability to ensure that all grade-level teachershave the
resources to support ELLs. Teachers at RPA have not received a systematic training course on
how to work with ELLs. Some professional development offered through their district office
often takes place during the summer when teachers are not available or during after-school
hours, which has made it difficult for teachers to attend. The district-provided professional
development is also not mandatory, which has resulted in discrepancies in knowledge about
ELLs across the grade levels. As Clark and Estes (2008) mentioned, professional development
supports teachers in improving their skills and demonstrates the organization’s values and
resources. Therefore, intentional effort should be made to provide quality professional
development to all elementary grade level teachers on effective instructional strategies to support
ELL students. The recommendation includes providing targeted professional development on
how to work with ELLs and creating a schedule for follow-up training for new teachers.
Cultural Model
A shared culture includes the values, practices, and behaviors that develop over time and
impact the stakeholders’ ability to achieve organizational goals (Rueda, 2011; Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Teachers need to feel the school has a shared culture that values the ELLs’
academic achievement; however, the data analysis validated a gap in the assumed organizational
influence of the cultural model. Teachers reported an inconsistency in how resources are
provided for ELL students as some are pulled out of class for instructional support, and others
are only pulled out for their annual ELPAC testing. The recommendation is to establish practices

92
that serve all ELLs equitably and celebrate the achievements made by ELLs, such as
reclassification as fluent English speakers.
Cultural Setting
The cultural setting includes an organization’s visible customs, traditions, and values that
represent its culture. This cultural setting influences staff members, students, parents, and
administrators as it operates through our school values, goals, initiatives, and priorities
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). The data analysis revealed a gap in the assumed
organizational influence of the cultural setting, as teachers reported feeling the school did not
value the academic growth of ELLs. Based on the literature and guiding principles, the
recommendation is to ensure the school policies, practices, and site goals explicitly communicate
support for the academic achievement of ELLs at the school site.
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Recommendations
Based on the interview data and document analysis of PLC and staff meeting agendas,
minutes, training schedules, lesson plans, and annual student assessment results collected, I
gained a holistic understanding of RPA’s organizational structure, including the lack of
accountability to attend training, implement the new knowledge, and discuss student data at PLC
meetings or share effective instructional strategies with their grade-level peers. Therefore, the
following specific recommendations are presented for the knowledge and organizational
validated influences determined as needs for improvements in RPA’s educational environment:
• Offer targeted professional development for teachers to enhance their skills in
teaching ELLs.
• Encourage teachers to apply knowledge gained from training in their instruction for
ELLs.

93
• Facilitate opportunities for teachers to reflect on assessment and lesson outcomes.
• Encourage teachers to evaluate the amount of time spent with ELLs during core
instructional time.
• Provide collaborative opportunities for same-grade-level teachers through PLC and
provide guidance for collaborative discussions.
• Work to minimize deficit thinking and focus on a strength-based approach in teaching
and supporting ELLs through training and instructional coaching.
The following organization recommendations are based on the study’s data-validated
organizational influences on the problem of practice:
• Provide professional development that focuses on how to teach ELLs to all teachers
at RPA.
• Inform teachers regarding annual assessments and placement policies that support
ELLs at RPA.
• Establish practices and traditions that celebrate ELLs’ achievements, such as in
reclassification ceremonies.
• Ensure school policies, practices, and site goals explicitly communicate support for
the academic achievement of ELLs at the school site.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The RPA’s mission statement is for each student to receive an education in a safe and
inclusive environment that provides the skills to succeed academically. Students in Kindergarten
through eighth grade receive academic instruction in their classrooms, socio-emotional support
through the assistance of a school counselor and a district school psychologist, and character

94
education through the teaching of school core values that focus on becoming responsible,
respectful, and kind.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The ELLs at RPA as a subgroup scored 62 points below the standard in ELA and 98
points below the standard in mathematics in the California Assessment of Student Performance
and Progress (CAASPP). In comparison with students who speak English and who scored 0.5
points below the standard in ELA and 40 points below the standard in mathematics, ELLs
demonstrate an achievement gap of 61.5 points in ELA and 58 points in mathematics. RPA’s
organizational goal, by May 2025, 75% of ELLs will move up one level, maintain their current
level for a second year, or meet reclassification criteria as measured by state CAASPP and
ELPAC. This study evaluated what elementary teachers at RPA need to help achieve the
organizational goal. The following implementation and evaluation framework will outline the
professional development needed by classroom teachers and other support strategies that will
provide desired outcomes for ELLs at RPA.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is an approach to
evaluate the training programs and provide the organization with a holistic and in-depth analysis
of the effectiveness of the training programs. The new world Kirkpatrick model provides a more
comprehensive assessment of training impact than the original four-level model. In this new
model, the levels of evaluation are categorized as Level 1 (reaction), Level 2 (learning), Level 3
(behavior), and Level 4 (results). The recommendation is to follow the plan in reverse by
beginning with Level 4 and ending with Level 1. By following the plan in reverse order, the new

95
world Kirkpatrick model helps the organization focus on the desired outcomes and then prioritize
changes to achieve the goal.
In the sections that follow, Level 4 results examine the overall impact of the training
program on the organizational goals and objectives and assess the return on investment in
professional development. Therefore, the results are measured against the organization’s mission
and goals, and for this study, I measure RPA’s organizational goal. In Level 3, the behavior level
evaluates the application of the newly acquired skills and knowledge in the workplace or
classrooms by observing changes in behavior that ultimately impact performance. In Level 2, the
learning level assesses the knowledge and skills acquired by the teachers during training, testing
their comprehension and retention of the material presented during training. In Level 1, at the
reaction level, teachers’ feedback and training satisfaction surveys about the training are
collected and reviewed to gauge their initial impressions and level of engagement during the
training session. By utilizing the new world Kirkpatrick model, RPA will gain an understanding
of the effectiveness of the training program, allowing them to make more informed decisions
about their professional development and desired outcomes.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Level 4 results measure the overall impact of the training program on the organizational
goals and objectives and assess the return on investment. This level measures the overall success
of the training through the metrics and observation methods described. Table 13 indicates the
Level 4 leading indicators for the external and internal outcomes and the metrics to be used to
measure their effectiveness based on the results from the professional development plan.

96
Table 13
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods
External outcomes
RPA is an exemplary model
school within the district
due to high ELA and math
state scores for ELLs.
Number of RPA teachers that
share their teaching and
assessment strategies to
support ELLs with other
teachers in the district and
neighboring districts.
Number of school visitations
from other schools and
districts to observe the EL
strategies used by RPA
teachers.
RPA teachers lead
professional development
for other district teachers.
Other schools visit RPA to
observe and learn from the
EL program.
ELLs are recognized annually
for reclassification
accomplishments.
Number of ELLs that
reclassify and receive
recognition in front of their
parents and peers.
District and site
administrators establish an
annual reclassification
recognition ceremony.
Internal outcomes
All RPA kindergarten
through fourth-grade
teachers utilize researchbased instructional
strategies to support ELLs.
Number of research-based
teaching strategies utilized
by classroom teachers are
documented in lesson
plans.
Classroom observations and
walkthroughs
Teacher lesson plans
All RPA kindergarten
through fourth-grade
teachers understand the EL
proficiency levels and the
ELPAC domains.
Number of documented
teacher planning sessions
where EL proficiencies and
ELPAC domains were
discussed and used for
lesson planning.
Collaboration PLC agendas
and meeting minutes
Teachers incorporate equitybased teaching approaches
that focus on ELLs’
strengths.
Number of equitable
classroom practices used
by teachers
Classroom observations and
walkthroughs
Teacher lesson plans
All RPA kindergarten
through fourth-grade
teachers collaborate with
their grade level PLC to
review assessment data and
discuss teaching strategies
to support ELLs.
Number of PLC collaboration
meetings for teachers in
grade levels kindergarten
through fourth grade are
documented.
Collaboration PLC agendas
and meeting minutes
Level 3: Critical Behaviors

97
The behavior level evaluates the application of the newly acquired knowledge and skills
from professional development. Level 3 focuses on the impact the training had on the teacher’s
job performance and measures the extent to which teachers apply what they learned to achieve
the desired outcomes. This level anticipates behavioral changes after the training has occurred,
and the goal is for teachers to apply the new skills in their classroom settings. Table 14 indicates
the Level 3 critical behaviors for the teacher stakeholders in grade levels kindergarten through
fourth to reach the organizational goal. Also included in Table 14 are the metrics, methods and
timing to measure the critical behaviors. The critical behaviors are specific, observable, and
measurable. Above all, if Level 3 is achieved and sustained, it will most likely influence the
Level 4 results.

98
Table 14
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metrics Methods Timing
ELL language proficiencies
are reviewed and discussed
to guide instruction using
research-based strategies.
Number of teachers that
review and discuss ELL
proficiencies
Number of research-based
instructional strategies
used in the classrooms
Classroom
observations and
walkthroughs
Lesson plans
Daily
ELPAC language domains are
utilized for lesson planning
purposes that address
ELLs’ academic needs.
Number of teachers that
use the ELPAC domains
for lesson planning
purposes
Classroom
observations and
walkthroughs
Lesson plans
Daily
Teachers incorporate equitybased teaching approaches
that focus on ELLs’
strengths.
Teachers use equitable
classroom practices that
provide ELLs with
instructional support and
focus on their abilities.
Classroom
observations and
walkthroughs
Lesson plans
Daily
Teachers collaborate in PLC
meetings that focus on
discussing EL progress,
assessments, researchbased strategies, lesson
planning, and reflection
cycle.
Number of teacher
collaboration PLC
meetings on calendar
PLC meeting
agendas and
meeting minutes
Administration
attends PLC
meetings
Weekly
Required Drivers
In the context of the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), a
required driver refers to an element that is essential to achieve successful training outcomes. To
maximize the achievement of the critical behaviors, the required drivers will reinforce,
encourage, monitor, and reward the behavior learned through training. By focusing on these
required drivers, the organization can ensure that training maximizes their impact and
effectiveness. Table 15 indicates the required drivers, the timing, and the critical behaviors each
driver supports.

99
Table 15
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Methods Timing Critical behaviors
supported
Reinforcing
Clear expectations to use research-based
strategies and examples
Once per trimester 1 and 2
Ongoing instructional coaching for new and
existing teachers to reinforce EL focus
Once per trimester 1 and 2
ELPAC domain guidelines and ELL
proficiency definitions
Once per trimester 1 and 2
Equitable classroom practices checklist Once per trimester 3
Encouraging
Transparent communication regarding
challenges and resources needed to support
ELLs
Once per trimester 1–4
Timely feedback from observations and
walkthroughs identifying teacher growth and
strengths
Twice per month 1–4
Rewarding
School newsletter recognition shared with
families and staff
Once per trimester 1–4
Handwritten thank you notes for their efforts Regularly (when
observed)
1–4
Monitoring
Administrators conduct observations and
walkthroughs.
Twice per month 1–4
Review weekly PLC meeting minutes. Weekly 1–4
Quarterly EL meetings with instructional
coaches, teachers, and administrators to
address instructional concerns and annual
assessments
Once per trimester 1–4
Organizational Support
The RPA can increase the likelihood of achieving the organization’s goal and addressing
the validated gaps by supporting the stakeholder’s critical behaviors listed in Table 15. Effective
schools ensure that policies and procedures that impact student learning align with their

100
organization’s goals and values (Clark & Estes, 2008). To support the critical behaviors, RPA
should be committed to realigning resources, procedures, policies, and cultural settings with the
organizational performance goal and primarily providing professional development for
elementary teachers on how to work with ELLs. RPA should offer regular professional
development opportunities to address the teachers’ learning gaps, and to enhance their
knowledge and skills on how to work with ELLs, ensuring they are equipped to effectively
implement research-based teaching strategies. Additionally, RPA should provide ongoing
instructional coaching and feedback from administrators to help teachers improve their
classroom practices and encourage the desired critical behaviors. The RPA should also prioritize
creating a culture of collaboration and teamwork, where teachers share assessment results and
instructional strategies in their grade levels. By fostering a culture of collaboration and
continuous learning, RPA will support and reinforce the critical behaviors identified in Table 15.
Level 2: Learning
The new world Kirkpatrick model (2016) Level 2, learning, assesses the knowledge and
skills acquired by the participants during the training. This level addresses the participants’
comprehension and retention of the material presented during the training. Additionally, this
level focuses on measuring the extent to which participants have gained new knowledge,
improved their skills, or changed their attitudes based on the training. At Level 2, learning
evaluation typically involves conducting assessments, observations, or surveys to measure the
learning outcomes, commitment, and effectiveness of the training.

101
Learning Goals
The following learning goals were formulated in response to the validated needs
identified in Chapter Four. By completing the recommended solutions, RPA teachers will be able
to
• Explain the California ELD standards, including the three proficiency levels of
emerging, expanding, and bridging that describe the stages of ELD.
• Explain research-based strategies that support EL learning.
• Understand the Summative ELPAC domains and how they measure ELL progress
toward English language proficiency.
• Understand Equity-Based Teaching approaches and equitable classroom practices that
focus on ELL strengths.
• Understand how to collaborate effectively with their PLC grade-level team, focusing
on assessment data, strategic student grouping, sharing research-based strategies,
lesson planning, and reflection.
Program
The training program recommendation is in response to RPA’s organizational goal that
by May 2025, 75% of our ELLs will move up one level or meet reclassification criteria as
measured by state ELPAC. This training program will consist of a blend of internal training
sessions and external training opportunities that will take place away from the RPA campus. All
kindergarten through fourth-grade teachers will participate in all training sessions to ensure RPA
achieves the organizational goal. Additionally, instructional coaches and administrators will also
attend the training sessions to provide leadership support, demonstrate commitment to the
training program to foster collaboration among the team, provide support and feedback, and

102
monitor the training’s effectiveness along the way. The proposed professional development
program will consist of training sessions as described in Table 16.
Table 16
Professional Development Program
Type/strategies Location Facilitator/trainer Target times
Introduction to ELD District office El district coordinator 1-day training
ELA state standards overview District office El district coordinator 1-day training
ELD state standards District office El district coordinator 1-day training
Proficiency level descriptors and
setting ELL goals
County office
of education
El curriculum and
instruction trainer
2-day training
Summative ELPAC domains and
how to measure ELL progress
County office
of education
El curriculum and
instruction trainer
2-day training
Research-based strategies to
support ELLs (including SIOP
& GLAD strategies)
RPA school
site
RPA instructional coach 3-day training
Designing effective EL core
instructional time
RPA school
site
RPA instructional coach
and administration
1-day training
Small group differentiated
targeted ELD instruction
District office El district coordinator 1-day training
ELD collaborative grouping
options
District office El district coordinator 1-day training
Supplemental ELD intervention
instruction
County office
of education
El curriculum and
instruction trainer
1-day training
Formative assessment
development and use (to
implement in PLC time)
RPA school
site
RPA instructional coach
and administration
2-day training
Equitable classroom practices County office
of education
Equity, diversity &
inclusion trainer
1-day training
Lesson planning and reflection
skills
RPA school
site
RPA instructional coach
and administration
1-day training

103
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
The professional development plan listed in Table 16 provides the required
individualized training needed by RPA teachers to close their knowledge and skills gaps. This
training plan should be provided, monitored, and evaluated by RPA administrators to ensure
effective implementation in the kindergarten through fourth-grade classrooms for their
declarative and procedural knowledge. It is important to emphasize the administrative role in this
professional development plan as leadership support will demonstrate commitment and
encourage teachers to stay motivated throughout the process. Table 17 lists the evaluation
methods to be used by administration and timing.
Table 17
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or activities Timing
Declarative knowledge: “I know it.”
Explaining the key components of ELD across core content During and after training
Understanding the ELA and ELD state standards During and after training
Explaining the EL proficiency levels During and after training
Understanding the summative ELPAC domains and how to
measure ELL progress
During and after training
Understand research-based teaching strategies to support ELLs,
including collaborative grouping strategies to allow student-tostudent conversations.
During and after training
Understand PLC collaborative practices, including assessment
development, data analysis, lesson planning, and teacher
reflection.
During and after training
Procedural skills: “I can do it right now.”
Incorporate ELD instruction After training
Utilize the ELA and ELD standards to support ELLs in the
classroom
After training
Use ELPAC results to measure ELL progress and design rigorous
EL instruction.
After training
Incorporate research-based teaching to support ELLs in the
classroom
After training

104
Methods or activities Timing
Use of PLC time to review assessment data, share research-based
strategies and lesson plan
After training
Self-reflect on lesson effectiveness and teaching practices for
ELLs
After training
Incorporate small group instruction to provide targeted EL
invention
After training
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Grade-level PLC time to discuss and share effective teaching
practices
During and after training
Designing quality core time instruction for ELLs in the classroom During and after training
Use of equitable classroom practices that focus on students’
strengths
After training
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job.”
Openly hold PLC collaborative discussions about assessments and
strategies with grade-level colleagues.
After training
Openly discuss current knowledge and skills with administration
and instructional coaches to determine additional training
options.
After training
Commitment: “I will do it on the job.”
Observe other elementary teachers onsite and offsite After training
Set professional goals for learning purposes (attend and complete
training modules)
After training
Level 1: Reaction
The new world Kirkpatrick model’s (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) Level 1, reaction,
pertains to the participants’ feedback and satisfaction with the training program. This level
measures the participants’ initial impressions and engagement with the training material
presented. This level does not measure the training effectiveness but rather how relevant, useful,
and applicable it was to their work. Table 18 lists the methods used to solicit participant
feedback and responses regarding engagement, relevance, and satisfaction. By using these
methods, administrators can effectively measure teacher engagement and training relevance to
tailor future professional development sessions and enhance the learning outcomes for the
participants.

105
Table 18
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods or tools Timing
Engagement
Observation of teacher’s body language, teacher-to-teacher
interactions, and participation level with the trainer during
the training sessions
During training
Feedback from the trainer regarding participant’s engagement During training
Relevance
Group discussions and collaborative activities between
participants using the new material
During training and ongoing
at PLC meetings
Participants’ reflection form where teachers share ideas on
how they plan to apply their new knowledge and skills
After training session
Follow-up participant interviews or group discussions to ask
regarding the applicability and impact of the training session
After the training session or
at the next PLC meeting
Customer satisfaction
Training feedback forms or surveys completed by participants
at the end of the training sessions
After training session
Feedback from the trainer regarding overall participation After training session
Evaluation Tools
In the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), immediate and
delayed evaluation tools refer to the timing of when to assess the effectiveness of the training
program. The purpose of each type of evaluation tool is to gather information, feedback, and data
at different points in time to measure the learning outcomes.
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
The purpose of the immediate evaluation tools is to gather feedback immediately after the
program training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). These tools should focus on the
participants’ reactions to the training session, their level of engagement during the training, their
understanding of the material, and overall retention of the content presented. To assess Level 1
(engagement, relevance, and satisfaction) and Level 2 (declarative knowledge, procedural skills,

106
attitude, confidence, and commitment to the professional development program), the evaluation
tool (Appendix E) can be used to collect data and to allow administration and trainers to make
immediate adjustments for future training sessions. This evaluation tool will be completed
anonymously by all training participants immediately after completing the training session.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Delayed evaluation tools are used to assess the long-term impact and application of the
training material (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Through delayed evaluation tools,
administrators can also assess the participants’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviors,
performance, and organizational outcomes over time. The purpose of the delayed evaluation
tools is to gain a comprehensive understanding and to track the sustained impact the training
sessions had on participants and the organization. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggested
delaying evaluation for some time to allow participants the opportunity to implement the
knowledge, skills, and required drivers to support critical behavior. Appendix E includes a
delayed evaluation tool that addresses Levels 1 through 4 and can be used up to 6 weeks after the
training has been completed. The evaluation tool allows participants to provide feedback
regarding Levels 1 through 4 using a rating scale and open-ended questions.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The new world Kirkpatrick model’s recommendation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016)
is to utilize evaluation tools at multiple points in time after the training has been completed. The
purpose of these evaluation tools is to measure effectiveness and long-term impact and allow
supervisors to make informed decisions to improve the training program. Data collected using
the immediate evaluation tool in Appendix E will be analyzed and shared with administrators,
instructional coaches, and participating teachers at the next PLC meeting or within a week,

107
whichever occurs first. The data results will be presented in the form of a chart for the Likert
scale response and an entire list of open-ended responses for participants to review as well as a
summary of the responses provided.
After a period of four to six weeks following training, administrators should conduct
classroom observations to document strategy implementation and use in the classrooms. Soon
after the classroom observation data is analyzed and charted, the data from the delayed
evaluation tool (Appendix F) will be incorporated into a report to share with PLC grade-level
teams. The evaluation data will be shared in a similar format as the immediate evaluation tool
data with charts and a list of open-ended responses. In addition to sharing the training feedback,
administrators should highlight the positive growth and address the challenges the team needs to
overcome to reach the organizational goal. It is essential that administrators acknowledge, praise,
and reinforce the critical behaviors demonstrated by the participants.
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is a widely
recognized framework for evaluating training programs and integrating implementation. It was
used to address and recommend solutions to the validated gaps identified in Chapter Four of this
study. Using the new world Kirkpatrick model offers several advantages, including using a
comprehensive framework to evaluate training programs at the reaction, learning, behavior, and
results levels. Additionally, the model helps align training to the organizational goals and
provides a system to evaluate training effectiveness. By evaluating the implementation and the
training outcomes, the organization can use the feedback data to analyze the long-term impact on
the organization’s goals and make informed decisions. This feedback cycle allows for continuous

108
improvement of the training program to maximize the critical behaviors and obtain the desired
results.
Specific evaluation criteria and metrics were established to measure the success of the
recommendation plan. These criteria and metrics were designed to assess the impact and
effectiveness of the recommendations regarding teacher practices and student outcomes. One key
evaluation criterion was the implementation fidelity of the recommendations, the training,
knowledge of new instructional strategies, and the use of the new classroom strategies. To assess
the extent to which teachers implemented the recommended teaching strategies, I included the
instructional modeling from the instructional coaches, feedback from instructional coaches, and
classroom observations. Another important metric will be student outcomes from standardized
assessments such as ELPAC and CAASPP testing results to verify English language proficiency
growth and academic achievement.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) emphasized the value of training interventions and
focused on the return on expectations by measuring the observable benefits in contrast with the
training time and resources invested to achieve the organizational goal. Using this model, RPA
can close the teachers’ knowledge gaps, enhance overall teacher performance, and achieve the
organizational goal.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are limitations to this study, including that RPA was a single school included in the
data collection and it may not be representative of the broader school population or applicable to
other schools with different demographic characteristics. Additionally, the stakeholder sample
was small, and it may lack diversity in terms of teaching practices, resources, and school culture.

109
Therefore, data collection from only one school and the limited teacher diversity are limitations
to this study that can be resolved with broader data collection.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study addressed the KMO influences impacting RPA’s ability to reach its
organizational goal of having ELLs move up one level, maintain their current level for a second
year, or meet reclassification criteria. The study identified knowledge and skill gaps among the
stakeholder group of kindergarten through fourth-grade teachers. Future research is warranted to
delve deeper into the identified gaps, as this study was limited to a single school. Future
investigations should involve a broader sample of teachers across more grade levels to provide a
more comprehensive understanding and to explore additional factors that may influence the
teachers’ performance and the school’s ability to reach their organizational goals. Broadening the
research scope will enhance the generalizability and applicability of the findings to additional
schools and school districts.
Conclusion
The RPA’s mission is to provide each student with an education in a safe and inclusive
environment that provides the skills to succeed academically. All students’ academic success in
an inclusive environment requires teaching ELLs effectively. Although classroom teachers in
grade levels kindergarten through fourth were the stakeholders for this study as they provide the
fundamental reading and writing skills in the lower grade levels, all teachers across the nation
that instruct ELLs are responsible for effectively teaching ELLs to reach English proficiency as
soon as possible. Teaching ELLs effectively is also essential for promoting equity, multicultural
awareness, and college and career readiness. Schools that provide high-quality instruction and
support for ELLs can create an inclusive and supportive learning environment that meets

110
students’ diverse needs. Through this study’s findings and recommendations, RPA has a solid
plan to close the teachers’ knowledge and skills gaps while working on achieving the school’s
organizational goal.

111
References
Barrow, L., & Markman-Pithers, L. (2016). Supporting young English learners in the United
States. The Future of Children, 26(2), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2016.0017
Boaler, J. (2015). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math,
inspiring messages and innovative teaching. Jossey-Bass.
Brooke, E. (2017). Empowering teacher effectiveness: Five key factors for success. Lexia
Learning. https://www.lexialearning.com/resources/white-papers/teacher-effectiveness
Burchard, M., Dormer, J., & Fisler, J. (2017). Interactions between teachers’ attribution for
student learning and implementation of evidence-based practices. AASA Journal of
Scholarship & Practice, 14(3), 28.
California Department of Education. (2019). Facts about ELs in California.
http://science.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
Chin, M. (2021). The effect of English learner reclassification on student achievement and
noncognitive outcomes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 14(1), 57–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2020.1831116
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. CEP Press.
Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2007). Mendez v Westminster: Paving the way to school
desegregation. Bill of Rights in Action, 23(2). https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-inaction/bria-23-2-c-mendez-v-westminster-paving-the-way-to-school-desegregation
Daniel, S. M. (2014). Learning to educate English language learners in pre-service elementary
practicums. Teacher Education Quarterly, 41(2), 5–28.

112
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Klein, S. P. (2019). A license to teach: Building a
profession for 21st century schools. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429039928
Del Valle, S. (2003). Language rights and the law in the United States finding our voices.
Multilingual Matters. https://nili.uoregon.edu/files//2012/07/Legalframework.pdf
Dormer, J. (2013). Improving speaking accuracy through awareness. Journal of Adult Education,
42(1), 16–22.
Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct surveys: a step-by-step guide (6th ed.). SAGE.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Good, M., Masewicz, S., & Vogel, L. (2010). Latino English language learners: Bridging
achievement and cultural gaps between schools and families. Journal of Latinos and
Education, 9(4), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2010.491048
Haynes, J. (2016). Push in versus pull out strategies for English learners. The Educator’s Room.
https://theeducatorsroom.com/push-in-versus-pull-out-in
H.R. 40 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/40
Khan, P. (2014). An analysis of motivational factors for teachers in the teaching profession and
their impact on students’ performance. The Dialogue, 9(4), 374–385.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. BerrettKoehler.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

113
Magnus, J. R., & Peresetsky, A. A. (2022). A statistical explanation of the Dunning–Kruger
effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 840180.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.840180
Maynes, N., & Hatt, B. (2013). Hiring and supporting new teachers who focus on students’
learning. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 114, 93–110.
McClure, G., & Cahnmann-Taylor, M. (2010). Pushing back against push‐in: ESOL teacher
resistance and the complexities of coteaching. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 101–129.
https://doi.org/10.5054/tj.2010.214883
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Michalak, D. F. (1981). The neglected half of training. Training and Development Journal,
35(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00373.x
Murphy, A. F., Torff, B., & Sessions, D. (2019). Educators’ beliefs about appropriate
pedagogical models for Spanish-speaking ELLs who differ in home-language and
English-language literacy abilities in the United States. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 22(4), 402–413.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1259291
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2019). Nation’s report card.
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. (2022). Brown v. The Board of
Education of Topeka of 1954: The case that changed the nation.
https://www.naacpldf.org/brown-vs-board/

114
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2019a). English learners and
instructional programs. https://ncela.ed.gov/English-learner-toolkit
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2019b). Legal obligations schools to
English Learners. https://ncela.ed.gov/faqs/view/6
Nuss, S. V. (2020). Instructional coaching for teachers of ELs in inclusive environments:
Practical insights for a low-incidence EL setting. ORTESOL Journal, 37, 23–32.
https://doi.org/10.56930/JTAG3960
Olvera, C. (2015). Teacher perceptions of English learners acquisition of academic English:
Impacts on long term English learner classification. eJournal of Education Policy, 78–92.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
0262.2005.00584.x
Samson, J., & Collins, B. (2012) Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language
learners: Applying research to policy and practice for teacher effectiveness. Center for
American Progress.
Texas State Historical Association. (2008). Delgado v. Bastrop Independent School District.
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/delgado-v-bastrop-isd
Theoharis, G., & O’Toole, J. (2011). Leading inclusive ELL: Social Justice Leadership for
English language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(4), 646–688.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11401616

115
Uro, G., & Lai, D. (2019). Historical background and civil rights battle to prohibit harmful
segregation of students based on their language limitations. Council of the Great City
Schools.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Castaneda v. Pickard (1981)
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/edlite-glossary.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Developing programs for English language learners:
Developing Programs for English Learners: Lau v Nichols.
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Developing programs for English language learners:
Glossary. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/glossary.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
U.S. Department of Labor. (2021). Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/regulatory/statutes/title-vi-civil-rights-act-of-1964
Whiting, J. (2017). Caught between the push and the pull: ELL teachers’ perceptions of
mainstreaming and ESOL classroom teaching. NABE Journal of Research and Practice,
8(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/26390043.2017.1206779
Yates, P. A., Chopra, R. V., Sobeck, E. E., Douglas, S. N., Morano, S., Walker, V. L., &
Schulze, R. (2020). Working with paraeducators: Tools and Strategies for Planning,
Performance Feedback, and Evaluation. Intervention in School and Clinic, 56(1), 43–50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220910740

116
Zacarian, D., & Haynes, J. (2012). The essential guide for educating beginning English learners.
Corwin Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387758

117
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Mrs./Mr./Dr. X, thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. As you know, I am a
doctoral student with the Rossier School of Education, and I am conducting an evaluation study
to examine the effectiveness of pull-out versus push-in practices to support ELLs at RPA. I’m
hoping to gain a deeper understanding of how our teachers, school, and district work together to
provide academic support for ELLs. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study through
the University of Southern California. The information you share will be placed in the study as
part of the data collection. This study’s purpose is to evaluate teachers’ knowledge, motivation
and organizational factors and resources that impact ELLs. Your responses will allow for the
development of recommendations for improving the overall learning experiences for ELLs.
Introduction
The research protocols that I will use to ensure your confidentiality and comfort. I would
like to record this meeting and ask your permission to do so, as this will allow for accurately
capturing your responses. As we chat today, I will also avoid using your real name. Throughout
the analysis of the interview data, I will use pseudonyms in place of your real name and the
school. The recording will only be listened to by me, and it will not be linked with your name at
all. The purpose of the recording is to allow me to ensure that I have captured the information
accurately. All recorded data and the transcriptions of these interviews will be kept in passwordprotected files on my computer. If you would like to review or edit the recordings or answer
transcripts, please let me know at the end of this interview. This interview will take
approximately 60 minutes to complete. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary,
and as such, you may choose to skip any questions today or to withdraw from the interview at
any time. Do you have any questions about these procedures?

118
As we begin, please consider the English language learners in your classroom and their
academic needs.
Interview Questions
1. How long have you worked as a teacher at RPA? (K, declarative factual)
2. What grade level do you currently teach? (K, declarative factual)
3. What are the four ELPAC domains, and what do they measure? (K, declarative
factual)
4. Describe how you use the results of the annual state standardized assessments (K,
declarative factual).
5. What are the English language proficiency levels? (K, declarative conceptual)
6. Tell me about the different instructional models used to teach ELLs (K, declarative
factual).
7. Describe the cooperative and grouping instructional strategies that best support ELLs
(K, declarative conceptual)
8. How do you assess your ELL students’ level of academic English skills? (K,
procedural)
9. What research-based instructional strategies do you use to assist ELLs reach the next
English proficiency level? (K, procedural)
10. Based on your ELL students’ most recent ELPAC results, what would you change
moving forward to assist them in making measurable progress by the next ELPAC
assessment? (K, metacognitive)
11. How does your teaching in the classroom support ELLs to learn the core state
standards? (M, value)

119
12. Do you see it as your responsibility to teach core content state standards and ELD
standards? (M, value)
13. How do you involve parents to assist in their ELLs’ learning? (M, value)
14. Describe how confident you are about supporting ELLs in your classroom (M, selfefficacy).
15. What learning opportunities do you utilize are the most effective to support ELLs?
(M, self-efficacy)
16. How is your PLC collaboration time with your colleagues used to share best teaching
practices that support ELL learning? (M, self-efficacy)
17. Tell me about your ELLs’ abilities to learn content and English language skills (M,
affect/emotions).
18. What training have you attended to support English language learners? (O, resources)
19. Describe the annual assessment schedule and placement policies for ELLs (O,
policies, processes, procedures).
20. Describe RPA’s expectations for ELLs’ academic achievement. (O, cultural model)
21. How supportive of the needs of ELLs is RPA as an organization? Provide examples
(O, cultural model).
22. How does RPA support ELLs’ academic achievement? (O, cultural setting)
23. As a teacher, what additional resources are needed to support ELLs? (O, cultural
setting)
24. Does RPA have an instructional academic coach who supports teachers who work
with ELLs? (O, cultural setting)

120
25. Does RPA value professional development for teachers to support ELLs? (O, cultural
setting)
26. What and when was the last ELL strategies training that RPA provided for teachers?
(O, cultural setting)
Conclusion
We have reached the end of our interview. If there is anything else you would like to add
about your teaching role supporting ELLs? Thank you for your time and participation in this
interview. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

121
Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol
Document/Artifact Influence assessed
(K-M-O)
Present
Y/N
Comments

122
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles CA, 90089
STUDY TITLE: Influences that Impact English Language Acquisition for English Learners:
Addressing Obstacles for English Learners’ Success
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Jeannette Martinez
FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Darline Robles
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to identify the instructional models that best influence and support
English language learners to attain English language proficiency in grade levels kindergarten
through fourth at RPA as outlined in the organizational goal of the school. The intent is to learn
about the gaps in participants’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture and its impact
on achieving our organization’s goal. You are invited as a possible participant because you are
currently teaching in a grade level between kindergarten through fourth. Once the data is
collected and analyzed, the data will serve to inform recommendations for closing any gaps in
ELL learning. You are invited as a possible participant because of your role as a classroom
teacher and experience working with ELL students.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to participate in an individual interview and you will
also be asked permission to be observed in your classroom during instructional time with your
students.
The interview should last about 1 hour and will be recorded with your consent. The recording
will be used by the researcher for the sole purpose of ensuring that all information is captured
correctly. If you prefer to not have your interview recorded, you may decline recording prior to
or during the interview. Your participation will not be affected.
Data related to activities and interactions, as well as conversations will be observed but no
participant identifying information will be connected to the data collected. You will be notified
two weeks in advance of the meetings that will be observed. You have the option of declining to
participate in these meeting observations.

123
PAYMENT / COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a $15 gift card for your time, and this will be given to you at the end of the
interview.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
Throughout the interview, your real name will not be used. Throughout the analysis of the
interview data a pseudonym will be used in place of your real name. The interview recording
will only be listened to by the principal investigator, and will not be linked with your name. The
purpose of the recording is to ensure that the information has been captured accurately. All
recorded data and the transcriptions of this interview will be kept in password protected files on
the principal investigator’s computer. All data will be destroyed upon the completion of this
study.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact the following individuals:
Principal Investigator
Jeannette Martinez
jeannecm@usc.edu
Faculty Advisor
Darline P. Robles, PhD.
dprobles@rossier.usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

124
Appendix D: Email to Recruit Research Participants
Subject: Jeannette Martinez’ Dissertation
Dear teachers in grade levels kindergarten through fourth:
As many of you know, I am currently enrolled in a doctoral program at the University of
Southern California, and I am conducting an important study on the efficacy of pull-out vs pushin instructional models to support English language learners. I would like to solicit your
voluntary participation in this study, which will consist of a 60-minute interview and a classroom
observation. The interview and observational data will be confidential, and your name will not be
disclosed or included in the study. Please read the attached Information Sheet for Exempt
Research to learn more about the study and your voluntary participation.
During the interview, I will record the session to capture all your responses in an accurate
manner. Your responses will remain confidential and will be saved in a secure location. I am
looking forward to interviewing at least 9 to 10 volunteers, and each participant will receive a
$15 gift card as a token of appreciation. If you are interested in participating, please email me no
later than___________.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Jeannette Martinez

125
Appendix E: Evaluation Tool To Be Used Immediately Following Training
Training Title: ___________________ Date: _______________
Please rate the following on a scale of 1 to 5. A Choice of 1 indicates that you strongly disagree,
and a choice of 5 indicates you strongly agree.
1= Strongly Disagree 2= Disagree 3= Neutral 4= Agree 5= Strongly Agree
The training content was relevant to my learning needs 1 2 3 4 5
The trainer encouraged participation during the session 1 2 3 4 5
Participants were taught how to apply the news skills 1 2 3 4 5
Opportunities to practice the new skills were provided 1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident about applying what I learned today 1 2 3 4 5
I plan to implement the new skills in my classroom 1 2 3 4 5
Overall, I am satisfied with the training session 1 2 3 4 5
Please respond to the following questions:
1. What did you find effective from today’s professional development training to implement
research-based strategies to support ELLs in your classroom?
2. What is one concept or strategy that you will implement or use immediately?
3. What additional resources do you believe you need to implement the instructional
strategies from today’s professional development?
4. What part of the training did you find unnecessary or irrelevant to implement researchbased strategies in the classroom, if any?

126
Appendix F: Evaluation Tool Delayed for a Period After Training
Please answer the following questions to evaluate the quality of the professional development
training on research-based strategies to support English language learners.
Rate the following on a scale of 1 to 5. A Choice of 1 indicates that you strongly disagree, and a
choice of 5 indicates you strongly agree.
1= Strongly Disagree 2= Disagree 3= Neutral 4= Agree 5= Strongly Agree
1. The training sessions provided were relevant and useful for my work with English language
learners in the classroom. ______
2. After completing the training sessions, I feel more empowered to implement research-based
strategies in my daily lessons to support English language learners. ______
3. Since the training sessions, I can describe the ELPAC domains and English language
proficiency levels. ______
4. Since the training sessions, I feel confident in assessing English learners’ language
proficiency. ______
5. Since the training sessions, I can analyze and evaluate my English learners’ ELPAC
assessment results. ______
6. Since the training sessions, I feel my classroom instruction can support English learners to
achieve English language proficiency. ______
7. What additional resources or tools do you believe you need to continue to implement
research-based strategies in your daily lessons? ________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners

PDF

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners

PDF

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

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

Arts integration for standard English learners: implications for learning academic language

PDF

Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

PDF

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

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

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

PDF

Teacher perceptions of instructional practices for long-term English learners

PDF

A capstone gap analysis project of English learners' achievement at a suburban high schol: a focus on teacher collaboration and cultural competence

PDF

Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation

PDF

Special education grading practices and challenges to implementing equitable grading practices

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms

PDF

A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education

PDF

An evaluation of the effective engagement of English-language students’ parents in UTK-8th grade schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Martinez, Jeannette Claudia (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 08/07/2024

Defense Date 07/12/2024

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

Tag English language learners (ELL),English language proficiency

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Robles, Darline (committee chair), Crawford, Jenifer (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email jeannecm@usc.edu,jeannette829@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113998TAS

Unique identifier UC113998TAS

Identifier etd-MartinezJe-13355.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-MartinezJe-13355

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Martinez, Jeannette Claudia

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240807-usctheses-batch-1194 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu