Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Preparing students for the global society: sustaining a dual language immersion program
(USC Thesis Other)
Preparing students for the global society: sustaining a dual language immersion program
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: DUAL IMMERSION 1
PREPARING STUDENTS FOR THE GLOBAL SOCIETY: SUSTAINING A DUAL
LANGUAGE IMMERSION PROGRAM
by
Stephanie Anderson Hardaway
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2019
Copyright 2019 Stephanie Anderson Hardaway
DUAL IMMERSION 2
DEDICATION
In memory of my father, Leon V. Anderson, Sr. I pray that I have made you proud.
To my husband, Chuck Hardaway, your unconditional love means everything to me.
Thank you for your unwavering support even in the most difficult times.
Finally, to my mother, Sandra Jones Anderson, never will I be able to repay the sacrifices
you made in your life to ensure that all my needs were met. This dissertation is a testament to
your enduring strength. Thank you for always knowing I could and making sure that I did.
DUAL IMMERSION 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincerest thanks to everyone who has supported me through
this dissertation process. Your words and acts of encouragement, positive thoughts, patience,
and love have made this journey possible. To the members of my committee, Dr. Teresa Alonzo
and Dr. Michael Escalante, thank you for your unfailing support and guidance. I am especially
indebted to my chair, Dr. Artineh Samkian, for her ongoing encouragement and feedback and for
consistently making me feel like I was her only graduate student. I am forever grateful. I would
like to express my gratitude to Dr. Deanna Campbell and Reginald Ryder who dedicated
themselves to getting me through life’s setbacks and challenges. Their guidance and
encouragement propelled me forward at a time I needed it the most.
I wish to extend my gratitude to the administrators who agreed to participate in the
interviews. Thank you for taking the time to share your insights and perspectives. Without your
willingness to be open and honest about your experiences, this study would not have been
possible. I also want to thank and acknowledge the superintendent who introduced me to the
USC OCL program and encouraged me to apply. Your mentorship and thoughtful actions
changed my life.
Thank you to my most amazing Ed.D. OCL Cohort 5 colleagues, in particular, the
Saturday crew. It was an honor to learn with such an exceptional group of people. Jerri, Estella,
and Corsha, thank you for lifting me up and being there when I needed you.
To my husband, Chuck, who stood by me from the first class to today, I thank you for
allowing me the space and time to complete this adventure and for being my rock.
Finally, I thank my parents, Leon and Sandra J. Anderson, for their unending confidence
in me. While my dad was not able to stay with me through the end of this journey, I know he is
DUAL IMMERSION 4
smiling from Heaven and is proud. Thank you, mom, for never faltering in your belief that I
would succeed. Your determination, fortitude, and will have been my scaffold. Your
unconditional love has been my saving grace.
DUAL IMMERSION 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Introduction 10
Organizational Context and Mission 11
Organizational Performance Goal 12
Related Literature 13
Importance of the Evaluation 17
Description of Stakeholder Groups 19
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals 20
Stakeholder Group for the Study 21
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions 21
Methodological Framework 22
Definitions 23
Organization of the Project 23
Chapter Two: Literature Review 25
The Responsibilities of School Administrators 25
Developing a Shared Vision 26
Creating an Engaging Learning Environment 26
Promoting a Leadership Culture 27
Raising the Level of Effective Instruction 28
Managing Resources 28
Additional Roles for DLIP Administrators 29
DLIP Administrators’ Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 31
Knowledge and Skills 32
Motivation 42
Organizational Influences 48
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction Of DLIP Administrators’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context 52
Conclusion 56
Chapter Three: Methods 58
Participating Stakeholders 58
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale 60
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 60
Data Collection and Instrumentation 61
Interviews 62
Data Analysis 66
Credibility and Trustworthiness 67
Ethics 69
Limitations and Delimitations 72
Limitations 72
Delimitations 73
DUAL IMMERSION 6
Chapter Four: Findings 75
Study Participants’ Paths to DLIP 77
Michelle 77
Bob 78
Susan 79
Nicole 80
Tim 81
May 82
Cindy 83
Dlip Administrators’ Knowledge and Motivation in Relation to Sustaining Effective DLIPS 87
Organizational Climate 10487
Respectful Leaders 91
Resilient Leaders 104
Interaction Between Organization and Site Administrators’ Knowledge and Motivation 115
Resourceful Leaders 116
Summary 132
Chapter Five: Discussion 135
Implications for Practice 136
Recommendations for Practice 139
Knowledge and Organization Recommendations 139
Motivation and Organization Recommendations 143
Future Research 145
Conclusion 146
References 149
Appendix A: California Professional Standards For Education Leaders 170
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 172
Appendix C: Informed Consent 176
DUAL IMMERSION 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goal 20
Table 2: Knowledge Influences and Types for Knowledge Gap Analysis 42
Table 3: Motivational Influences and Type for Motivation Gap Analysis 48
Table 4: Organizational Influences 52
Table 5: Administrator Position by Site in the Cortana Unified School District 59
Table 6: DLIP Administrators’ Path to DLIP 86
DUAL IMMERSION 8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual framework. 53
DUAL IMMERSION 9
ABSTRACT
This study examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences
that shape how dual language immersion program (DLIP) administrators sustain these programs
on their campuses in a California public school district. Using a modified version of Clark and
Estes’ gap analysis model, a qualitative case study explored the assumed KMO influences that
shaped these administrators’ performance in achieving their goal to improve their ability to
sustain their programs and to address the needs of the English language learners (ELLs). The
study findings were based on seven semi-structured interviews. These findings revealed three
broad themes. The first theme was that participants were respectful. They engaged in strategic
planning for the program, created inclusive and positive school environments, and focused on
building capacity for their DLIP community. The second theme was that these administrators
were resilient. They demonstrated self-efficacy and their utility value drove their desire to
increase their knowledge. The third theme was that these administrators were resourceful
leaders. Within the context of their district, these administrators proved to be self-sufficient and
persistent in their efforts to meet the needs of their programs and the DLIP community. The
findings also revealed that, regardless of the level of support in the district, participants were
tenacious in their efforts to increase their ability to sustain their programs. This study provides
insights into what supports administrators employ to sustain programs that meet the needs of
ELLs in DLIPs in public schools.
DUAL IMMERSION 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The changing face of America is reflected in student populations at schools (Center for
Public Education, 2012). As the United States becomes more diverse with families arriving from
non-English speaking countries, the number of students whose primary language is other than
English also increases (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2017). During the enrollment
process, schools classify these students as English language learners (ELLs) and determine their
English proficiency via English language assessments (California Department of Education
[CDE], 2015a). According to National Education Association (NEA, 2008), by 2025, one in
every four public school students will be an ELL. With this increase in the ELL population,
schools are placing greater importance on addressing how to meet these students’ academic
needs (Weintraub, 2012), as, historically, this population has had limited access to highly
qualified teachers, supplemental services, resources, and adequate curriculum (Rumberger &
Gándara, 2004). Parrish et al. (2006) reported that data from the CDE’s 5-year study conducted
in 2000 regarding the achievement of ELLs showed that there has been little decrease in the
performance gap between ELLs and mainstream English (ME) speakers. Olsen (2010) contends
that, to close the achievement gap for ELLs, schools must have a school-wide focus on
improving instruction for these students. Additionally, with the significant increase in this
student population, it is important for schools to address their learning needs (Perkins-Gough,
2007).
Studies by Collier and Thomas (2004), Lindholm-Leary (2005), and Genesee (2004)
posited that dual language immersion programs (DLIPs) prepare ELLs to meet grade level
standards while learning a second language. Research has found that DLIPs are effective models
to meet ELLs’ academic, linguistic, and social needs (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Gerena, 2011;
DUAL IMMERSION 11
Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Olsen, 2010). Collier and Thomas (2004), in their 18-year longitudinal
study of 23 school districts in 15 states, found these programs effective in closing the
achievement gap for ELLs. Access to DLIPs provides these students opportunities to benefit
from high-performing, linguistic, and culturally rich school settings (Lindholm-Leary, 2001).
The programs also provide an environment that embraces students’ primary language, their
culture, and their heritage (Howard et al., 2018). While there is a need for school districts to
sustain successful programs that meet the needs of their ELL population, sustainability is
threatened by a lack of professional development for administrators, lack of funding, lack of
qualified teachers, and lack of professional development for teachers (Alanís & Rodríguez, 2008;
Combs, Evans, Fletcher, Parra, & Jiménez, 2005; Torres-Guzman, 2007). Districts that address
areas of need in DLIPs should be able to sustain these programs effectively, thereby supporting
ELLs’ educational experience in school and ensuring a strong and educated society (Perkins-
Gough, 2007).
Organizational Context and Mission
The Cortana Unified School District (CUSD, a pseudonym) is a school district in a
densely-populated area of the southwestern United States serving an urban population of more
than 20,000 pre-kindergarten to adult students (California Department of Education (CDE),
2016). In this district, ELLs make up just fewer than 35% of the total student population (CDE,
2016), exceeding the United States Department of Education’s ELL student population estimate
by close to 10%. As ELLs make up more than one-third of the district population, their success
is directly related to the success of the district. CUSD’s mission reflects its values,
commitments, and beliefs. The district values an organizational culture of lifelong learners and
an environment that is conducive to collaboration, having high expectations, and developing
DUAL IMMERSION 12
relationships. CUSD is committed to continuous refinement of its efforts to provide an
outstanding education for all students, preparing them for success in college, career, and beyond.
The belief that the district will develop and nurture all stakeholders via conditions and
environments that promote rigor, relevance and relationships permeates through the organization.
Organizational Performance Goal
The mission of the Board of Education (BOE) of the CUSD is to ensure effective
preparation of all students so that they may be successful in college, career, and beyond and
thrive in a global society. To that end, CUSD has offered the DLIP to students for over 15 years.
The primary goal of the BOE in relation to its DLIPs is that, by December 2019, CUSD will
create and implement a Dual Language Immersion Program Sustainability Plan (DLIPSP) that
will demonstrate unity of purpose, alignment, accountability, focus, and coherence. The
expectation is that this plan will govern the policies, procedures, protocols, and actions of all
DLIPs in the district and will support program monitoring. CUSD will create a committee to
research, draft, and establish the plan that all DLIP schools will follow. In addition to supporting
the sustainability of current programs, this strategic plan will support the implementation of new
programs throughout CUSD.
To support CUSD leadership’s goal of developing the DLIPSP, this study examined the
current practices of DLIP administrators who have been operating autonomously with little
direction from the district and little communication among school leaders about their school’s
program. An examination of their current systems and routines that promote grade level
achievement, bilingualism and biliteracy, cross-cultural competence and equity for all groups
may offer insight and help inform the plan that CUSD desires to create. The findings from the
examination of the three out of 17 elementary and two out of the seven intermediate schools that
DUAL IMMERSION 13
offer DLIP may assist CUSD leadership with creating better alignment among the schools.
Through an examination of how administrators provide an effective DLIP to students, this study
will inform CUSD leadership on how to address the challenges of effectively sustaining
programs that meet the needs of the ELL population that has remained steady at 32% of
enrollment (CDE, 2018) while total student enrollment over the past 7 years has declined. Some
of the challenges that CUSD leadership has encountered include establishing a clear vision and
goals for its DLIPs and providing ongoing professional development for teachers and
administrators. The literature suggests several challenges to sustainability, including
administrator professional development (Herrity & Glasman, 2010) and belief in DLIP (Howard
et al., 2018), funding (Howard, Sugarman, Christian, Lindholm-Leary, & Rogers, 2007), and
staffing and building teacher capacity (Knight, Izquierdo, & DeMatthews, 2016; Lucas, Villegas,
& Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008). To fulfill its mission and prepare students linguistically for their
future, it is imperative that administrators pay careful attention to and address the areas that
challenge the sustainability of the program. Failure to do so can result in substandard programs
that will not result in student academic success, which will hinder achievement of the
organizational goal.
Related Literature
Schools in the United States are charged with providing all students access to an
education that meets their needs (Elmore, 2008). Historically, there has been a gap in
achievement between ELLs and their ME peers (Abedi & Gándara, 2006). Research has shown
that DLIPs are effective at closing this achievement gap (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Lindholm-
Leary, 2001) and, thus, are a common program that districts implement sometimes using funding
from the local control funding formula (LCFF) to support ELLs. Research on language
DUAL IMMERSION 14
immersion programs found that ELLs mastered grade level content at a proficiency level equal to
or higher than their peers in monolingual classrooms while also learning a new language and
gaining a cultural and linguistic experience (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Glover, 2015; Lindholm-
Leary, 2012). ELLs in these programs can take advantage of a classroom setting where they
become fluent in two languages, learn how to transfer skills, and prepare for communication with
diverse people (Potowski, 2007). The environment within these programs maximizes ELLs’
learning, enabling them to be successful in school. In short, ELLs can learn in a classroom that
supports academic achievement (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Glover, 2015) and can develop an
appreciation for cultural and linguistic traditions that could prepare them for a global,
multilingual society (Christian, 1994; Met, 2012).
To meet students’ needs, and to reap the benefits of such programs, schools and school
districts require adequate funding. With the passage of the 2013–2014 Budget Act, California
enacted landmark legislation that shifted how the public education system would be funded
(CDE, 2013). The LCFF represents this reform and changes the funding landscape for school
districts that now must appropriate funds specifically to support the academic achievement of
ELLs who comprise over 21% of the state’s student population (CDE, 2017). Moreover, while
funding under LCFF allows districts to spend money for ELLs, in their qualitative study of 17
schools in New York City, Menken and Solorza (2015) found that DLIP administrators must be
adept at allocating the necessary resources to sustain their programs effectively.
School administrators must seek ways to address and meet the needs of all learners
(Elmore, 2008), but they must be positioned to do so. DLIP administrators, like typical school
administrators, need professional development. Principals are the second most important group
that affects student achievement after teachers (Epstein et al., 2017; Leithwood & Mascall,
DUAL IMMERSION 15
2008). Menken and Solorza (2015) found that, for DLIP administrators to be advocates, they
“must have a deep knowledge of and belief in theories and practices proven effective in bilingual
education” (p. 693). Similarly, Kotok and DeMatthews (2018) found that these administrators
need “meaningful professional inquiry” (p. 4) with a shift from focusing solely on student
achievement data to a shift to a problem-solving mindset addressing topics like how they will
create support systems for students struggling with the language or parents struggling with how
to support their children. Learning to use an “integrated approach to multicultural education,”
(Howard et al., 2018, p. 90) that addresses more than student achievement data and how to
improve test scores will enhance administrators’ ability to support their students. Kotok and
DeMatthews (2018) note that administrators should focus on “problems of practice” in an effort
to develop “the culture and structures to co-plan, co-teach, and cultivate a seamless and
integrated curriculum” (pp. 4–5). Furthermore, DeMatthews and Izquierdo (2018) added that,
for administrators to sustain DLIPs in schools that are “more culturally and linguistically
responsive” (p. 57), these administrators need training specific to the needs of ELLs. Yet, even
with research demonstrating a need for administrator training, Menken and Solorza (2015) note
the gap in research about how administrators are prepared professionally to address planning for
language programs.
To achieve the goals of preparing students for life in a multilingual world, administrators
must address additional challenges, such as staffing and supporting DLIP teachers, that come
with sustaining effective programs (Fortune, Tedick, & Walker, 2008; Genesee, 2007; Howard et
al., 2007; Howard et al., 2018; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Menken, 2017). These additional
challenges include finding teachers that have the required bilingual authorizations (CCTC,
2017), have received adequate training, and are prepared to meet the students’ needs (Lindholm-
DUAL IMMERSION 16
Leary, 2001; Wong, Fillmore, & Snow, 2002). The quality and experience of the teacher are two
of the most important considerations in meeting students’ needs (Garcia, Arias, Harris Murri, &
Serna, 2010; Rockoff, 2004). Teachers who are knowledgeable about the subject matter they
teach are effective (Darling-Hammond, 2000). In DLIPs, according to Howard et al. (2018),
teachers must have native or native-like proficiency in the target language and understand the
goals and expectations of bilingual education. However, researchers have found that there is a
significant shortage in the number of qualified bilingual teachers prepared to meet the needs of
ELLs (Cummins, 2000; Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005; Garcia et al., 2010; Lucas &
Villegas, 2010; Wong et al., 2002). Of equal concern is the shortage in the number of teachers
who hold the proper state credentials to teach in a bilingual setting (Montaño, Ulanoff,
Quintanar-Sarellana, & Aoki, 2005).
School districts and site administrators are responsible for building teacher capacity to
ensure that teachers have the necessary skills and strategies to address the learning needs of their
students (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014; Lucas et al., 2008). Thus, administrators must ensure that
they provide adequate professional development for staff (Oliva-Olson, Estrada, & Edyburn,
2017). A well-designed learning experience should provide teachers with ongoing support of
their professional growth and be specific to the settings in which they teach (Darling-Hammond,
Hyler, & Gardner, 2017). The professional learning and support that these teachers need is
complex; these teachers need tools and resources to teach both content and language (Cammarata
& Tedick, 2012). While professional development is a critical element in supporting teachers’
learning, not all professional development opportunities are effective (Avalos, 2011). Fullan
(2007) stated that teachers’ professional learning is key to their ability to improve and enhance
their instruction; however, he notes that the professional development opportunity should be
DUAL IMMERSION 17
robust, compelling, and sustained over time for change to occur in teachers’ classrooms. DLIP
administrators have the challenging task of finding adequate professional development
opportunities for their teachers that meet these criteria.
Once DLIP administrators have recruited highly qualified teachers and determined
effective professional development for them, there is still a need to engage in a shared leadership
model in which teachers and staff share the decision-making responsibility with the
administrators (Hong, 2017). In Hunt’s (2011) study of three public elementary schools in New
York City, she found that shared leadership is an essential element of support that affords the
team an opportunity to collaborate and share the responsibility of sustaining the program.
Participants in this study described shared leadership as a “collective process in which different
people come together to discuss ideas and workout problems” (p. 197). The benefits of
collaboration and individuals’ appreciation of their colleagues’ collective skills enhance the
groups’ motivation to achieve their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). This sense of collective
efficacy is developed through the positive and consistent team members’ interactions
(Tschannen-Moran, Salloum, & Goddard, 2014), particularly in a shared leadership model.
Bandura (2000) notes that teams’ abilities to accomplish their performance tasks are enhanced by
their perceived collective efficacy; the higher their perceived collective efficacy, the greater their
willingness to persist through challenging tasks together to be successful.
Importance of the Evaluation
DLIPs have been shown to be effective at preparing ELLs for a global, diverse world
promoting high academic achievement and increasing cultural awareness via an additive
linguistic approach (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Gerena, 2011; Lindholm-Leary, 2016; Lindholm-
Leary & Borsato, 2005; Lindholm-Leary & Hernández, 2011; Marian, Hook, & Schroder, 2013;
DUAL IMMERSION 18
Olsen, 2010). While dual language immersion is gaining popularity (Center for Applied
Linguistics, 2016), only 134 of the 2,457 (5%) elementary public schools in California have
these programs (California Department of Education, 2015b). As such, the California elementary
school population enrolled in DLIPs is fewer than 6%. ELLs who do not have access to these
programs are deprived of the benefit of learning in an instructional program with demonstrated
positive outcomes that supports their academic achievement (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Glover,
2015). There are far fewer occasions for ELLs in a monolingual classroom to develop an
appreciation for cultural and linguistic traditions that could prepare them for a global society
(Christian, 1994). Therefore, in schools where these programs are in place, it is critical to ensure
their sustainability and effectiveness.
For CUSD to meet the expectations of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015),
which requires schools to prepare students to be successful into and through their educational
career and beyond, CUSD DLIP administrators must rise to the challenge of sustaining effective
programs. For students to receive rigorous academic and language instruction, administrators
must ensure that they have the necessary professional development to support teachers’ practice,
that they have adequate funding to support the program, and that they employ and provide
qualified teachers with professional development to ensure they understand the goals,
expectations, and pedagogy of DLIP (Alanís & Rodríguez, 2008; Collier & Thomas, 2004;
Combs et al., 2005; Gerena, 2011; Howard et al., 2018; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Olsen, 2010;
Torres-Guzman, 2007). CUSD must address these issues to meet its goal of preparing students
to be successful in college, career, and beyond; not doing so violates students’ inalienable rights
to a free and appropriate education.
DUAL IMMERSION 19
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The CUSD stakeholder groups are DLIP administrators, teachers, and students. Each
group plays a key role in supporting and sustaining the program. It is incumbent upon
administrators to empower and champion the teachers’ success in the classroom, ensuring that
they receive professional development and the materials necessary to teach effectively in the
classroom (Howard et al., 2018) The actions and practices of the administrators are key in
CUSD’s efforts to create the DLIPSP. Program monitoring and an examination of
administrators’ practices should inform CUSD leadership of the direction the plan should take to
support administrators with sustaining these programs effectively.
DLIP teachers must be dedicated to the program and must be able to use the target
language to instruct students while requiring students to respond to them in the target language
(Howard & Sugarman, 2007). Additionally, this stakeholder group is tasked with consistently
integrating language and grade level content (Howard et al., 2018); they must ensure that
students receive a cognitively rigorous grade level curriculum in English and the target language
to support student academic success.
Students in the DLIP benefit from exemplary practices of the teachers and administrators
(Howard et al., 2018). The students and their families must commit to the program as students
use the target language primarily to learn grade level concepts in lower elementary adding more
English instruction annually (Howard et al., 2007). The students are responsible for learning
both languages, grade level content, and being able to demonstrate what they have learned
(Elmore, 2000).
DUAL IMMERSION 20
Stakeholder Groups ’ Performance Goals
Table 1 presents CUSD’s mission and organizational goal as well as the goals of the three
stakeholder groups. CUSD’s ability to achieve its goal of creating a dual immersion
sustainability plan to improve and enhance the operationalization of the DLIPs at each of the
schools requires the contribution of all stakeholder groups. While all these groups will affect
CUSD’s achievement of its organizational global goal, the stakeholder group of focus for this
study will be the DLIP administrators whose goal is to improve their ability to address the needs
of ELLs by successfully sustaining the program. The goals of the other stakeholders are listed in
Table 1.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goal
Organizational Mission
CUSD’s mission reflects its values, commitments, and beliefs. The district values an organizational
culture of lifelong learners and an environment that is conducive to collaboration, having high
expectations, and developing relationships. CUSD is committed to continuous refinement of its efforts
to provide an outstanding education for all students, preparing them for success in college, career, and
beyond. The belief that the district will develop and nurture all stakeholders via conditions and
environments that promote rigor, relevance and relationships permeates through the organization.
Organizational Global Goal
By December 2019, the Cortana Unified School District (CUSD) will create and implement a strategic
sustainability plan for its Dual Language Immersion Programs (DLIPs) that will demonstrate unity of
purpose, alignment, accountability, focus, and coherence.
DLIP administrators DLIP teachers DLIP students
By June 2020, all DLIP
administrators will
improve their ability to
sustain their DLIPs
effectively and address the
needs of the ELLs enrolled
in DLIP.
By March 2020, all DLIP teachers will
receive professional development to
support the complex task of teaching
academic content, language literacy,
and language instruction concurrently
in the DLIP classrooms as measured
by meeting agendas and sign in sheets.
By June 2021, 75% of the
CUSD DLIP 5
th
grade students
will promote to the
intermediate school with
adequate proficiency in
Spanish as measured by the
Spanish summative
assessment.
DUAL IMMERSION 21
Stakeholder Group for the Study
DLIP administrators are tasked with sustaining the programs at their school sites. As
such, given their important role in the district’s sustainability plan, this group served as the focus
for this study. Like all school site administrators, many demands are made on administrators.
The Wallace Foundation (2013) in its series investigating school leadership found the following
five responsibilities of site administrators: (a) develop a vision for all students to succeed
academically; (b) create an engaging learning environment; (c) promote a leadership culture; (d)
raise the level of effective instruction; (e) maximize resources to improve the school overall. In
addition to these five responsibilities for all site administrators, DLIP administrators must be
language advocates promoting the program at every turn to be successful (DeMatthews,
Izquierdo, & Knight, 2017).
The 15 DLIP administrators in CUSD, working at five different schools, have as their
goal to improve their ability to sustain their programs and to address the needs of ELLs enrolled
in them. This goal, set by the district superintendent and the BOE, addresses the district’s desire
to demonstrate unity of purpose, alignment, accountability, focus, and coherence within the
program and among the DLIP schools.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this project was to examine how DLIP administrators at CUSD sustain
dual language programs on their campuses and how this examination of their practices might
inform CUSD’s efforts to create a DLIPSP. The analysis focused on an examination of the
current practices of administrators within the various schools in the district. CUSD leadership
may find the data from this analysis useful in the process of creating a plan that aligns the
programs and standardizes expectations of implementation and sustainability.
DUAL IMMERSION 22
The questions that guided this study are as follows:
1. What are the CUSD DLIP site administrators’ knowledge and motivation related to
sustaining effective dual language immersion programs at their CUSD DLIP sites?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and the CUSD DLIP
site administrators’ knowledge and motivation in relation to sustaining effective dual
immersion programs at their school sites?
3. What are the recommended DLIP knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions for sustaining effective DLIPs?
Methodological Framework
Using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to
clarify organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the
preferred performance level within an organization, this study examined the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that shaped the DLIP administrators’ performance in
achieving their goal to improve their ability to sustain their programs and to address the needs of
the ELLs enrolled in them. Their goal is in direct alignment and support of CUSD’s goal of
creating and implementing a strategic plan that will demonstrate unity of purpose, alignment,
accountability, focus, and coherence.
To investigate and gain an understanding of what could be affecting goal attainment, I
generated interfering elements based on the related literature and personal knowledge. Using a
qualitative case study design (Creswell, 2014) allowed me to study the issues of the
administrators in their natural setting and afforded me the opportunity to learn from their points
of view and through their experiences. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016) a qualitative
approach aims to understand “how people make sense out of their lives, delineate the process
DUAL IMMERSION 23
(rather than the outcome or product) of meaning-making, and describe how people interpret what
they experience” (p. 15). I used interviews to examine the relevant elements. Following my
analysis of the coded interview transcripts, I evaluated and recommended research-based
solutions comprehensively.
Definitions
Achievement gap: A term that refers to disparity in academic achievement between
minority and low-socioeconomic students and their peers.
English language learner students (ELLs): A term that refers to students (formerly known
as limited English proficient or LEP) who speak another language and are acquiring proficiency
in English. Students demonstrate English language acquisition on state approved language
assessments. These students need to develop English language skills in the following areas:
listening, speaking, reading, and writing (CDE, 2015a).
Organization of the Project
This study is organized into five chapters. The introduction presented in this chapter
outlined issues surrounding DLIP administrators and factors affecting their ability to sustain their
programs at their school sites. In addition to providing the context and background of the
problem of practice, this chapter introduced the organization’s mission and goals, key concepts,
and terminology commonly found in a discussion about DLIP. Also presented in this chapter are
the organization’s stakeholders and the stakeholders’ goals as well as the project’s framework
and definitions of terms. Chapter Two provides a review of the literature on the role
administrators play in supporting these programs. Included in the chapter are a discussion of
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences thought to affect administrators’ ability to achieve their goals and the conceptual
DUAL IMMERSION 24
framework that guides this study. The research design of this qualitative case study, including
the methods of data collection, selection of participants, and analysis are discussed in Chapter
Three. Chapter Four includes the data and results that were assessed and analyzed and the
study’s main findings. The interpretations and solutions, based on data, literature, and the
findings as well as recommendations are discussed in Chapter Five.
DUAL IMMERSION 25
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents a thorough review of the foundational literature that pertains to the
responsibilities of school administrators, particularly DLIP administrators, and their knowledge
and motivation and the organizational culture that are integral in sustaining their programs. The
review incorporates literature both about the responsibilities of school administrators generally
as well as the specific responsibilities of these administrators.
The Responsibilities of School Administrators
The responsibilities and tasks of school administrators are great as they are at the helm of
their schools and oversee everyone and everything on the campus. Administrators are
accountable for the well-being of their students and staff, the academic success of their students,
and the continuous learning of the staff who work with their students (Berson & Oreg, 2016;
Hightower, 1979; Stevenson, Hedberg, O’Sullivan, & Howe, 2016). They are responsible for the
programs on the campus and for advocating and sustaining these programs (Howard et al., 2018).
Guiding administrators work, since 2001, is the state of California’s Professional Standards for
Education Leaders (CPSEL; see Appendix A); these professional standards delineate the school
administrators’ responsibilities (Commission on Teacher Credentialing [CTC], 2014). Standard
1 concentrates on facilitating the development and implementation of a shared vision of learning
and growth while instructional leadership is the focus of Standard 2. Managing the learning
environment and engaging families and the community are the aims of Standards 3 and 4
respectively. Standards 5 and 6 place an emphasis on ethics and the leader’s influence on
improving education policy and practices. These six standards represent important competencies
of leadership and provide a guide for administrators to use to support them in service to their
school communities (Howard et al., 2018).
DUAL IMMERSION 26
Developing a Shared Vision
Developing a shared school vision, focused on students’ academic success, is an integral
component of a school administrator’s task (Wallace Foundation, 2013) in ensuring sustainable
programs. School administrators are directly responsible for facilitating the creation of this
vision (Kose, 2011). The CTC standards and the five responsibilities noted earlier from The
Wallace Foundation (2013) work in tandem and provide the foundation for a site administrator to
sustain academic programs successfully.
As the school’s instructional leaders, administrators build a school vision of learning, to
ensure that raising student achievement is the focus of all actions (Waters, Marzano, McNulty,
2004). Establishing this vision sets the direction of “a plan that forces forward progression and
improvement” for students (Hong, 2017, p. 128). This shared vision, encompassing what the
team values and deems important, is paramount and lays the foundation for what will be the
team’s modus operandi (Schein, 2010). Administrators that develop a shared vision, that all team
members understand, create positive school environments in which students learn successfully
(Ylimaki, 2006). “Understanding what the goals are and building the pathway by which the
organization will reach [them]” (Hong, 2017, p. 128) is the leader’s primary function. This
shared vision sets the course for student achievement and keeps the entire team focused on the
task of educating students.
Creating an Engaging Learning Environment
As noted in the CPSEL, Standard 3 (CTC, 2014), and The Wallace Foundation (2013)
investigative series, school administrators are expected to provide the necessary supports for
school personnel to create a learning and working environment that is productive and engages all
learners. “Effective principals ensure that their schools allow both adults and children to put
DUAL IMMERSION 27
learning at the center of their daily activities” (Wallace Foundation, 2013, p. 8). Creating this
culture of learning that engages students equates to an environment in which “teaching and
learning pervade the social life and interpersonal relations of those working in the school” (Fink
& Resnick, 2001, p. 5). In this positive learning environment, that administrators nurture and
support, students are challenged academically to increase their level of proficiency (Cohen,
McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009). Developing this environment enhances the school
climate, which, by definition, “reflects students’, school personnel’s, and parents’ experiences of
school life socially, emotionally, civically, and ethically as well as academically” (Thapa, Cohen,
Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013, p. 369). Administrators who sustain these environments
have a significant effect on students and their motivation to excel in school (Cohen et al., 2009).
Promoting a Leadership Culture
Administrators enhance the school climate and learning environment when they promote
a culture of “teaching and learning informed by professional standards and focused on student
and professional growth” (CTC, 2014, p. 5). Schein (2010) defines culture as “the foundation of
the social order that we live in and of the rules we abide by” (p. 3). As institutions of learning,
the underlying expectation in schools is that teachers are teaching, and students are learning; the
schools focus on instruction (Grissom, Loeb, & Master, 2013). Effective administrators engaged
in promoting this culture are “leaders of learning” (Wallace Foundation, 2013, p. 6) who develop
their staff into deliverers of instruction that is effective and engages students. Schein defines
leadership as the act of “shaping the behavior and value of others” (p. 3). The leadership of these
administrators is critical to the support and development of a learning organization (Argyris &
Schon, 1978).
DUAL IMMERSION 28
Raising the Level of Effective Instruction
Administrators are responsible for creating structures, implementing policies, and
utilizing processes that support student learning and achievement (CTC, 2014). Within these
structures, policies, and processes, administrators promote dynamic and productive school and
classroom environments that will lead to a higher level of rigor and relevance in instructional
practice (McNulty & Besser, 2011). By building teachers’ capacity, administrators can raise the
level of effective instruction (Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006). Providing
teachers with high quality professional development, modeling effective teaching strategies, and
encouraging collaboration assists administrators with improving teachers’ ability to address the
rigor and increasing demands of the standards that their students must learn (Blasé & Blasé,
2000). A particularly popular and effective collaborative strategy is the implementation of
professional learning communities (PLCs; Schmoker, 2006). The PLC process demands that
administrators assist their teachers with focusing the teams through a collaborative process of
inquiry (McNulty & Besser, 2011). Administrators, whose teams can engage in collaborative
conversations around student data, effective instructional strategies, and the effect those
strategies have on student learning, are able to raise the level of student achievement and the
rigor of classroom instruction (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009; Marzano, 2003).
Managing Resources
Effective instructional leaders maximize available resources to affect positive classroom
and school environments in which students can thrive (Wallace Foundation, 2013). Available
resource streams include school staff, student and teacher data, school processes, and procedures,
student interventions and enrichment. Administrators evaluate and monitor these data to
determine successful implementation of particular strategies and their effectiveness (Marzano,
DUAL IMMERSION 29
2003). Triangulating multiple sources of data provides administrators with the necessary
feedback to improve (McNulty & Besser, 2011) situational performance and to ensure they have
properly allocated resources. Resource allocation identifies those strategies, processes, and
programs that administrators deem important to student success; this examination serves to
support administrators’ next steps in planning and establishing school-wide goals and
expectations for student learning (Marzano, 2003; McNulty & Besser, 2011).
Additional Roles for DLIP Administrators
The roles of all school administrators, as discussed in the section above, are equally
relevant to DLIP administrators; however, in addition to those roles, administrators have further
roles to fulfill. As primary advocates for their DLIPs, administrators must be courageous,
“steadfast visionaries, an upholder of high expectations, and a risk taker . . . to create a cohesive
environment where all students can thrive” (Hong, 2017, p. 5). Administrators’ attitudes and
perceptions about their educational program have significant influence on the program’s success
(Lindholm-Leary, 2001). Of equal significance is their sense of self-efficacy, their perception of
their ability to execute (Rueda, 2011). These programs “demand administrative support and
instructional leadership” (Carrera-Carrillo & Smith, 2006, p. 68). Administrators must feel
confident to promote language learning and build program awareness (DeMatthews et al., 2017;
Moeller & Abbott, 2017). The administrator must establish a “unified vision for the program
and an equitable, positive school environment” ensuring an educational setting in which students
can succeed (Hong, 2017, p. 49). Sharing the DLIP vision is a critical task for administrators as
program advocates (Aguirre-Baeza, 2001). Programs like these require leaders who demonstrate
efficient practices and have a “clear understanding of the theory underlying the model in order to
make appropriate instructional decisions” (Howard et al., 2018, p. 12).
DUAL IMMERSION 30
Howard et al.’s (2018) Guiding Principles for Dual Language is a resource to assist
administrators with sustaining effective DLIPs. The guidebook organizes the principles into
seven strands: (a) program structure, (b) curriculum, (c) instruction, (d) assessment and
accountability, (e) staff quality and professional development, (f) family and community, and (g)
support and resources. Within each strand is a literature review and tables that depict the guiding
principles and key points of that strand. Howard et al. (2018) recommend using the guiding
principles to support program implementation and sustainability and to strengthen the
administrators’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of DLIPs. Howard and Sugarman (2007)
offer that administrators must be strong, empowered leaders who advocate for language
programs by ensuring appropriate program design and implementation as well as hiring
appropriate teachers and staff. Language advocate administrators understand the importance and
cognitive benefits of learning additional languages, of preparing their students for the global
economy, and they know that learning another language is far from just an elective but is
essential to a student’s ability to be college and career ready (August & Hakuta, 1997; Lindholm-
Leary, 2001; Potowski, 2007; Thomas & Collier, 2002).
The tasks are numerous that administrators must accomplish to support their schools and
sustain DLIPs. Hong (2017), in her study of DLIP administrators and staff in two school
districts, notes that, in addition to the expectations and job duties of administrators at any school,
administrators must be visionary, transformative leaders willing to “believe in a program that is
outside of the mainstream…[and] to confidently imagine what can be accomplished through a
carefully crafted plan and purpose” (p. 127). The success of these programs is dependent on the
administrators’ knowledge and motivation and the processes and procedures the organization has
in place for administrators to advocate and support them (Howard et al., 2018). For programs to
DUAL IMMERSION 31
be successful, districts need to set goals, monitor progress, implement effective strategies,
advocate for the program, and address gaps in sustaining programs (Lindholm-Leary, 2001).
DLIP administrators need to plan how they will address and close gaps in sustaining the program
at their school sites (Howard et al., 2018). Additionally, as Hong posits, DLIP administrators
must have the courage to stay the course as they are faced with a variety of challenges to the
DLIP and they must have that “unrelenting will to follow this model” (p. 134).
DLIP Adm in i s t r at o r s ’ Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Organizations that identify and examine the gaps between their goals and performance
are likely to move the organization in a positive direction. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
framework provides organizations with an analytical tool for such an examination. One of the
most critical steps in gap analysis is to ensure that an organization understands the causes of its
performance problems (Rueda, 2011). These organizations need to evaluate the knowledge,
skills, and motivation of their employees as well as determine if the supports the organization
provides its employees are sufficient to assist them with achieving their goals (Clark & Estes,
2008). While this study did not focus on the gaps in DLIP administrators’ performance in the
way that the gap analysis framework directs, the concepts of knowledge, motivation and
organization helped guide the study’s focus. Using the Clark and Estes gap analysis framework,
the following sections examine the knowledge and motivation of the administrators to sustain
their DLIPs and organizational factors that either support and promote or hinder and impede their
ability to achieve their performance goal. The first section examined the influences related to
knowledge and skills that affect administrators’ performance. The second section will discuss
the motivational influences that affect administrators’ performance. The third section will
investigate the organizational factors that affect administrators’ performance.
DUAL IMMERSION 32
Knowledge and Skills
Clark and Estes (2008) state that “knowledge and skills are required to close a
performance gap” (p. 63) in that they directly affect an organization’s ability to meet its goals via
employees’ ability to perform their jobs effectively. Within CUSD, it is imperative to examine
the knowledge-related influences that shape DLIP administrators’ ability to sustain their
programs. These abilities can influence employees’ effectiveness in achieving the goals of the
organization (Rueda, 2011). To sustain their DLIPs, administrators need knowledge and skills
related to the guiding principles of dual language education, knowledge of how they can support
their teachers’ use of effective teaching strategies in the classroom, and knowledge of how to
promote their programs to ensure future community interest. The following section will
introduce the four types of knowledge influences that are key to achieving this stakeholder goal.
Knowledge influences. Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011) describe four types of
knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. The authors define factual
knowledge as knowledge of basic facts as they relate to a topic or specific domain. Conceptual
knowledge refers to knowledge of relationships and an understanding of how categories of
information, theories or principles relate to one another (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). While
conceptual knowledge refers to how concepts are connected, procedural knowledge refers to the
specific steps, skills, inquiry methods, or strategies necessary to accomplish a task successfully
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). The final knowledge type, metacognitive knowledge, refers to
having an awareness of one’s own cognition (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011) and includes an
understanding of how one would plan to approach a situation and monitor progress toward a goal
while metacognition is the understanding of one’s own thinking (Rueda, 2011).
DUAL IMMERSION 33
Understanding these knowledge types and how they influence stakeholders’ ability to
achieve their goals is critical (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). This literature review will focus
on all four knowledge types. While an examination of the influences of each knowledge type
will be presented in isolation, it is important to note that all four knowledge types weave together
and play a role in DLIP administrators’ actions and abilities to meet their organizational goal of
sustaining their programs. It is equally important to note that each of the knowledge types is key
to learning though some types of knowledge are rudimentary while others more complex (Rueda,
2011). For example, administrators must know dual immersion vocabulary (factual). From this
knowledge, they learn and understand the guiding principles of dual immersion (conceptual).
These two knowledge types couple with DLIP administrators’ understanding of how to support
and sustain an effective program (procedural). Finally, administrators’ awareness of their own
cognition enables them to seek guidance if they lack the knowledge and skills necessary to
sustain their programs (metacognitive).
DLIP administrators need to know what dual immersion is. DLIP administrators need
declarative knowledge of dual immersion. The term itself can confuse many as researchers use it
in different ways. Lindholm-Leary (2001) and Carrera-Carrillo and Smith (2006) used the term
to describe two-way immersion, yet Howard and Christian (2003) used the term to describe a
variety of language models. Administrators must be familiar with DLIP vocabulary and have
knowledge of specific features and elements that contribute to an effective program (Howard &
Sugarman, 2007). They need this knowledge so that they can advocate for their program
(Thomas & Collier, 2002). This advocacy may come in the form of informational meetings for
prospective families so that they may grow the program (Carrera-Carrillo & Smith, 2006).
Advocacy might also come through the promotion of multiculturalism and diversity (Howard &
DUAL IMMERSION 34
Sugarman, 2007). DLIP administrators’ knowledge of dual immersion reflects in their positive
attitude toward the program (Lindholm-Leary, 2001), but to sustain the DLIP, administrators
must first have knowledge of the program, its characteristics, goals, and instructional approaches
(Alanís & Rodríguez, 2008; Lindholm-Leary, 2001).
DLIP administrators need knowledge of the principles of dual immersion. DLIP
administrators need conceptual knowledge of the principles of dual immersion education to be
able to sustain the programs in their districts. This knowledge is predicated on their
understanding of the pedagogy and the program structure (Lindholm-Leary, 2001). Howard et
al. (2018) list seven strands of principles about which administrators should be familiar including
knowing the structure of the program, the program’s curriculum, the instructional model, the
program assessments, the program’s professional development, the goals for community and
family engagement, and the available resources to support the program. Knowledge of these
principles assists administrators with foundational understanding of DLIP and the positive
effects of aligned elements (Howard et al., 2007).
The program structure or model of the program must be wedded to the vision, mission,
and goals that the administrators set for their program (Howard, Olague, & Rogers, 2003).
Knowledge of the model and an unwavering commitment to the program are essential to the
program’s success (Montecel & Danini, 2002). The administrators must consider the following
factors: the grade level that students will enter and exit the program, the distinct separation of
language by determining in which languages students will learn academic content, and whether
to follow a minority language dominant (90:10 or 80:20) or a balanced language model (50:50)
for academic instruction in both languages (Howard & Christian, 2003; Howard & Sugarman,
DUAL IMMERSION 35
2001; Lindholm-Leary, 2001). How students receive literacy instruction is the next
consideration for administrators of balanced language programs.
DLIP administrators need to be familiar with the curriculum that the program uses and
must determine if students will receive instruction in the target language and English
simultaneously, subject matter taught in both languages at initial grade, or successively, subject
matter taught in partner language, then in English (Howard et al., 2018; Howard & Sugarman,
2001). Fullan (2007) articulated the importance of being able to identify effective classroom
instruction. Lessow-Hurley (2009) posited that identifying effective instructional strategies is of
equal importance. Effective administrators should demonstrate proficiency with these skills to
support their teachers (Howard et al., 2018).
Upon observing in classrooms, administrators should be able to recognize appropriate
instruction and effective instructional strategies that will support student learning and
bilingualism (Howard et al., 2007). In the DLIP classroom, administrators should observe
teachers engaging in sheltered instruction to support their ELLs as this type of instruction
“provides clear and accessible content and academic language to ELLs” (Hansen-Thomas, 2008,
p. 165). One of the tools that administrators can use to document teachers’ use of sheltered
instruction is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), an observational tool that
provides specific examples of the critical features of sheltered instruction (Short, 2000).
Echevarria, Vogt, & Short (2000) developed the SIOP to ensure that teachers were using
sheltered instruction to support the learning of their ELLs. The authors include eight
components in the SIOP that should support teachers’ lesson planning and classroom instruction:
(a) preparation, (b) building background, (c) comprehensible input, (d) strategies, (e) interaction,
(f) practice and application, (g) lesson delivery, and (h) review and assessment. Ensuring that
DUAL IMMERSION 36
teachers are making the content area concepts comprehensible for their students and that they are
supporting language development (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005) is a
task in which DLIP administrators must engage to achieve their goal of sustaining their program.
Krashen and Brown (2007) offer that students’ academic proficiency is directly related to
teachers’ “competence in the use of strategies that aid in the acquisition of academic language
and that aid in subject-matter learning” (p. 1). Instructional strategies that administrators should
observe teachers using include those that provide students with a learning environment focused
on the development of students’ language and content knowledge (Fortune, 2012). Hansen-
Thomas (2008) concurred with Fortune (2012) and added that teachers should present an
approach that focuses on communication and the functions of language. Krashen and Brown
contend making academic language more comprehensible for students is key to enhancing their
acquisition of language and development of literacy. With strategies like these implemented in
the classroom, administrators should then be able to evaluate the classroom teachers’ ability to
engage students in frequent opportunities to improve their language fluency and language growth
(Lindholm-Leary, 2001). Knowledge of how teachers assess students and how they use those
data to support students’ learning is critical for administrators. With this knowledge, these
administrators will be able to monitor student progress through the program (Howard et al.,
2018).
DLIP administrators must understand the importance of employing highly trained
teachers who have the necessary credentials to meet the learning needs of their students
(Montecel & Danini, 2002). Additionally, they must know the importance of ongoing
professional development to support their teachers’ learning and classroom instruction
(Lindholm-Leary, 2001). Clark and Estes (2008) define educating one’s staff as providing them
DUAL IMMERSION 37
tools that will enhance their “conceptual, theoretical, and strategic knowledge and skills” (p. 59).
DLIP administrators with knowledge of the importance of preparing their teachers will provide
them with this support.
Knowledge of the power of an inclusive school environment that welcomes family and
community engagement is also important (Howard et al., 2018). Administrators build rapport
with families that feel welcomed into the school environment, and this rapport assists
administrators with creating greater program advocacy (Montecel & Danini, 2002). To sustain
their programs, they must understand the need for program support from school district
administration and community partners; they must seek out opportunities to promote the program
(Carrera-Carrillo & Smith, 2006).
DLIP administrators created greater opportunities to support the program through a
shared leadership model. According to Howard et al. (2018), this leadership team can provide
the additional supports necessary for an effective program creating “higher stability and
sustainability for the program” (p. 12). Shared leadership affords the DLIP administrator the
opportunity to reduce her cognitive load while also providing other team members an
opportunity to demonstrate their expertise in support of the program (Drescher, Korsgaard,
Welpe, Picot, & Wigand, 2014). Lindahl (2008) noted that this sharing of leadership enhances
and supports a positive environment conducive to teamwork. Engaging others and empowering
them to take leadership roles within the organization will enable the team to coordinate a more
effective approach to meeting their goals (Drescher et al., 2014). These efforts will assist
administrators sustaining an effective program.
DLIP administrators need to know how to implement the guiding principles to sustain
the DLIP. Sustaining a DLIP is a grand undertaking. Of significant assistance to administrators
DUAL IMMERSION 38
is the dual language guiding principles (Howard et al., 2018). In addition to having knowledge
of the guiding principles, they must know how to put a plan of action into place that addresses
each principle. Howard, Sugarman, and Christian (2003) proposed that DLIP administrators
must create a school environment that is conducive to developing and nurturing bilingualism,
biliteracy, and cross-cultural competency. The rubrics contained within the Howard et al. (2008)
text assist these administrators with creating such an environment and a plan of action for
effective sustainability of the DLIP.
Program Structure. DLIP administrators who exhibit exemplary practice about
establishing the structure of their program ensure that the program design, the program mission,
and the program goals all are in alignment (Howard et al., 2018). Key to this alignment is the
administrators’ commitment to the program, with a focus on ensuring students attain
bilingualism and biliteracy and cross-cultural competence, values both the target language and
English equally and explicitly (Howard et al., 2018; Lindholm-Leary, 2001). In valuing the two
languages, effective program structures ensure that each language has a dedicated time within the
instructional day and that the languages are not mixed during instruction (Carrera-Carrillo &
Smith, 2006).
Professional development for DLIP administrators. Menken and Solorza (2015) found,
in their study of principals in 17 New York City schools, that most school administrators had not
received the necessary professional development to address the needs of their ELLs. School
administrators are at the helm of the proverbial ship and need professional development to ensure
that “best practice is everyday practice” (Edwards, 1998, p. 2). DeMatthews and Izquierdo
(2018) concurred finding that DLIP administrators need quality professional development to
support them in their efforts to ensure that their programs are meeting the needs of their ELLs.
DUAL IMMERSION 39
Those who sustain their programs effectively engage in professional development that is
“aligned with the competencies needed to meet dual language standards” (Howard et al., 2018, p.
101).
Professional development for DLIP teachers. In addition to building their own capacity
and maintaining an environment appropriate for dual immersion, DLIP administrators must
know how to support their teaching staff. Coupled with the academic language demands, DLIP
teachers must understand their students’ culture and must be able to connect with the families of
the students they teach (Lessow-Hurley, 2009) to support an environment for learning.
Furthermore, administrators must offer their teachers professional development that will support
a culture of equity within the program and the school (Howard & Sugarman, 2007) that ensures
that students feel valued and that their culture is valued. Administrators also must provide
teachers with strategies to engage students with separating the languages and using both
languages in the classroom setting (Howard et al., 2018). Moreover, administrators must plan
staff development with a focus on effective instructional strategies (Collier, 1995). Finally, DLIP
administrators must secure professional development for teachers so that they are able to
maintain a balanced program and a balanced use of the target language to ensure students receive
rigorous instruction in the target language (Lindholm-Leary, 2001).
Funding support. Effective DLIPs require “substantial commitment and finances”
(Potowski, 2007, p. 211) to support administrators with addressing the needs of the program and
students. Menken and Solorza (2015) found that the bilingual educators did not believe that
bilingual programs were any more costly than other programs. Though these same educators in
this study reported that in addition to having a good program design, they had to be creative with
their funding allocations to provide an effective program for students. In contrast to Menken and
DUAL IMMERSION 40
Solorza’s (2015) findings, Lemire (1989) found, in his study of 12 principals in French
immersion program schools in Canada, that administrators reported additional costs to purchase
language learning resources. These same administrators noted that the extra federal funding they
received was a significant support for their program. Montone and Loeb (2000) posited that
DLIP administrators must budget appropriately as they will need to purchase materials for
instruction in two languages to sustain their program effectively.
Recruitment of DLIP teachers. The shortage of qualified bilingual teachers who have the
proper certification and credentials to teach in a dual immersion setting has created a challenge
for administrators who must ensure that they have teachers employed who can meet the linguistic
and academic needs of their students (Howard et al., 2018). Kennedy (2013) noted that the
number of available applicants has remained static while the demand for them continues to
increase as the popularity of these programs increases. As in all supply and demand scenarios,
the lack of qualified teachers poses a significant threat to DLIP administrators’ programs. When
considering whom to hire, DLIP administrators must pay careful attention to several factors and
characteristics of potential teachers, including their educational experience and academic
background, their level of native or native-like proficiency in the target language, their content
knowledge and academic language proficiency, and their perceived dedication to the program
model and structure (Carrera-Carrillo & Smith, 2006; Howard et al., 2018; Lindholm-Leary,
2001; Montecel & Danini, 2002).
Shared leadership in DLIPs. Shared leadership has been described as a “method of
management that allows teachers to participate in decision-making and share in the
implementation of those decisions” (Alanezi, 2016, p. 50). While shared leadership is not
specific to DLIP, shared leadership practices are essential elements in their success (Hong, 2017;
DUAL IMMERSION 41
Hunt, 2011). Lambert (2002) stated that an instructional leader engaged in shared leadership
shares a
vision with members of the school community, convenes the conversations, insists on a
student learning focus, evokes and supports leadership in others, models and participates
in collaborative practices, helps pose the questions, and facilitates dialogue that addresses
the confounding issues of practice. (p. 5)
Leaders who engage in shared leadership practices can foster a culture with a common focus and
goal (Bell, Thacker, & Schargel, 2011). With a focus on collaboration among stakeholders,
leaders create a positive learning environment (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). This positive
environment may assist DLIP administrators with effectively sustaining their programs.
DLIP administrators need to know metacognitive strategies to evaluate their actions in
sustaining the DLIP effectively. Knowledge of metacognitive strategies can assist DLIP
administrators with addressing challenges that arise within their programs. Reflecting on one’s
actions can assist with developing plans to address areas of concern and areas that should be
enhanced (Baker, 2006; Mayer, 2011). Metacognitive strategies support an evaluation of one’s
performance and provide an opportunity to monitor one’s actions, making necessary adjustments
to improve performance (Rueda, 2011). Leithwood and Steinbach (1992), in studying whether
school administrators could be taught to increase their problem-solving skills, noted that, by
manipulating factors within learners’ learning/working environment, the learners were able to
improve their ability to recognize, learn from, and correct their mistakes. The rubrics in Howard
et al.’s (2018) guiding principles provide DLIP administrators with progress indicators. DLIP
administrators can utilize these rubrics as a reflective tool to address the areas in which they need
to augment their behavior to enhance their programs. Being self-aware (Rueda, 2011) is a
DUAL IMMERSION 42
powerful tool for DLIP administrators. The ability to self-regulate (Mayer, 2011) should assist
DLIP administrators with handling the demands of their jobs (Tikkanen, Pyhӓltö, Pietarinen, &
Soini, 2017), reflect on their actions (Rueda, 2011), and develop a plan of action that will assist
them with achieving their goal of sustaining their programs effectively.
Table 2 presents the knowledge influences and the knowledge types for DLIP
administrators to meet the goal of sustaining their programs effectively. Performance gaps in
these areas should be addressed to enhance the DLIPs in the district.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences and Types for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Example
DLIP administrators need a
clear understanding of what
dual immersion is to sustain
the program effectively.
Factual Program Model and Structure
DLIP administrators need
theoretical knowledge of the
principles of dual immersion.
Conceptual Curriculum and Assessment
DLIP administrators need to
know how to implement the
dual language guiding
principles to sustain the DLIP
effectively.
Procedural Alignment of Program Design, Mission, and
Goals
DLIP administrators need to
evaluate their behaviors,
actions, and efforts as they
work to sustain their DLIP
effectively.
Metacognitive Reflective Practices
Building Capacity
Motivation
While knowledge of how to accomplish organizational goals is necessary, it is imperative
that people in organizations have the motivation to accomplish these goals (Mayer, 2011).
Mayer (2011) and Pintrich (2003) describe motivation as an internal human behavior that drives
DUAL IMMERSION 43
people to initiate work on a task, stay focused on the task, and see the task through to
completion. Clark and Estes (2008) extend this description including that motivation is
interdependent on the task and the people with whom one is working and that motivation “gets
us going, keeps us moving, and tells us how much effort to spend on work tasks” (p. 80). Both
internal and external factors influence motivation (Rueda, 2011; Yough & Anderman, 2006). A
sense of commitment and responsibility to their students increase intrinsic motivation (Fullan,
2007) for DLIP administrators to sustain their programs, while praise from peers or from the
superintendent for a job well done increases DLIP administrators’ extrinsic motivation.
Individuals must expect that their persistence and mental effort to accomplish a task will
have a successful outcome (Rueda, 2011). Their motivation is reflected in the amount of energy
they exert to accomplish a task (Mayer, 2011). Similarly, they must choose to complete the task
(Rueda, 2011). The questions, “Can I do the task?” and “Do I want to do the task?” are key
motivational questions in Eccles’ (2006) expectancy value model. The answers to these
questions reflect directly on the level of motivation one has to complete the task. Self-
efficacious individuals believe that they can do the task (Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006). This
positive belief about one’s ability to achieve lends itself to successful outcomes and task
completion (Clark & Estes, 2008). If, however, DLIP administrators do not see the
connectedness of their goals to the district’s goal or if they do not believe that they possess the
mental effort and persistence to accomplish their goals, then they may not make an active choice
to engage in the necessary work to produce a successful outcome. Conducting a gap analysis
will assist an organization with determining whether individuals within the organization have the
motivation to attend to and meet their goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study examined DLIP
administrators’ self-efficacy and their perceived utility value in relation to their goal of
DUAL IMMERSION 44
sustaining their programs effectively. As such, the following sections will focus on these two
elements of motivation.
Self-efficacy and DLIP administrators. Self-efficacy is central to Bandura’s social
cognitive theory in which Bandura finds that individuals’ perception of their abilities to address a
task provides them with the necessary motivation to complete the task adequately (Grossman &
Salas, 2011; Pajares, 2006). Individuals’ level of self-efficacy drives their motivation; thus, with
higher degrees of self-efficacy, they exert more effort and persevere (Pintrich, 2003). These self-
efficacious behaviors manifest into an optimistic outlook toward goal setting and task
completion; people with a “high sense of self-efficacy visualize success scenarios that provide
positive guides and supports for performance” (Bandura, 1993, p. 118). In addition, individuals
increase their self-efficacy in a variety of ways: through personal experiences with successful
task completion, vicariously by witnessing others complete tasks successfully, and by receiving
positive and encouraging feedback (Pajares, 2006). Conversely, Bandura (1993) found that
those with self-doubting behaviors, or a lack of self-efficacy, have the perception that they will
fail at setting goals and accomplishing tasks. These individuals may not be motivated to attempt
the task and they may not employ the necessary mental effort to persist through it (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Eccles, 2006).
Key to successful schools that demonstrate positive student outcomes is the effective
leadership of school administrators (Calderon & Carreon, 2002; Howard et al., 2018; Leithwood,
Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003; Waters et al., 2004).
Essential for their success is a positive perception of their self-efficacy as they work to
accomplish the goals they set (Bandura, 2000). Van de Rijt, Kang, Restivo, and Patil (2014)
shared that individuals who demonstrate success in particular endeavors tend to experience more
DUAL IMMERSION 45
success in similar future endeavors. A key factor in enhancing DLIP administrators’ self-
efficacy, then, would be for them to experience success in a variety of situational tasks within the
DLIP.
School administrators must believe in their abilities to create and define the school
environment as well as develop leaders within the school community (Argyris & Schon, 1978;
Schein, 2010). As individuals see their peers’ effective execution of a task, they may be encouraged
to believe that they too can complete the task successfully (Bandura, 1977). Support, whether
explicit or implied, can lead to enhanced self-efficacy (Ormond, 2010). DLIP administrators who
observe their peers’ success or receipt of commendations for a successful activity are likely to
attempt to engage in similar behaviors as a result of what Ormond (2010) noted as vicarious
reinforcement.
Administrators must feel confident to cultivate a professional learning community that
supports collegiality among administrators and teachers and that reflects a dynamic school
environment in support of student academic achievement (CTC, 2014; Marion, 2004; McNulty
& Besser, 2011; Wallace Foundation, 2013). The leader as well as the group’s collective
efficacy may increase as they focus on their ability to be successful as a team (Bandura, 1977)
within this shared leadership model. Additionally, DLIP administrators must commit themselves
to sustaining their programs (Howard & Sugarman, 2007). Included in this commitment must be
the belief in their ability to address and commit to the shared vision and goals of the program, to
advocate for the program, to ensure that all languages are valued equally, and to develop teacher
capacity in bilingual education (Menken, 2017). To complete these tasks successfully, leaders
must believe in their ability and develop the expertise required (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pintrich,
2003).
DUAL IMMERSION 46
Expectancy value and DLIP administrators. Eccles (2006) explained that expectancy
value theory, a belief in one’s ability to accomplish a task and the value one assigns to the task,
has a motivational influence over the individual’s active choice, persistence, and mental effort.
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that individuals want to be effective in what they do and are
thereby motivated to choose tasks they value. Like Clark and Estes (2008) and Eccles (2006),
Rueda (2011) stated that individuals who have high expectations for how they will perform a
task will have greater motivation to complete the task. Rueda (2011) further described the four
value elements of expectancy value: attainment value or the person that an individual is or would
like to be, intrinsic value or the pleasure one derives from completing the task or would expect to
experience during the task, utility value or the usefulness of the task, and cost value or how the
individual will be perceived or what the individual might give up by participating in the task.
Each of these values is significant in the theory; however, the data gleaned from research on
bilingual education student outcomes (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Genesee, 2004; Gerena, 2011;
Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Olsen, 2010), necessitates a focus on utility value as the DLIP
administrators need to see the usefulness of sustaining the program that addresses the needs of
ELLs.
DLIP administrators must appreciate how the value of sustaining their programs relates to
them achieving their personal goals and being successful administrators and how both relate to
the district’s goal of providing an outstanding education for all students, preparing them for
success in college, career, and beyond. Eccles (2006) stated that individuals must be able to find
value in a task and be able to relate that task and value to their individual goals. According to
Thomas and Collier (2002), ELLs in DLIPs had the opportunity to accelerate their academic
achievement while learning content in two languages. Meeting the needs of underserved
DUAL IMMERSION 47
populations (Lindholm-Leary, 2001), is a factor that supports increased utility value for
administrators as they are tasked with ensuring positive student outcomes (Howard et al., 2018).
Research shows that the level of importance, or the perceived utility value of their tasks may
determine how well individuals will attend to their goals (Pintrich, 2003; Rueda, 2011) and that
the alignment of the task to their personal goals and psychological needs is a motivating factor
(Eccles, 2006). As the primary advocates for their programs, administrators in effective schools
dedicate themselves to ensuring they have a “cohesive school-wide shared vision; a set of goals
that define their expectations for achievement; and an instructional focus and commitment to
achievement and high expectations” (Howard et al., 2018, p. 10). Individuals that have a
personal interest (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006) in a task are more likely to accomplish it.
Administrators who are passionate about the DLIP and its success are likely to do all they can to
ensure program sustainability. Similarly, though in a different vein, utility value is reflected in
individuals who see the benefits in accomplishing a task, regardless of their enjoyment of the
task (Clark & Estes, 2008). Administrators who relate the value of sustaining their programs to
their students’ achievement and perhaps to benefit them personally via career advancement also
are likely motivated practitioners. This study examined DLIP administrators’ self-efficacy and
perceived utility value in relation to the sustainability of their programs. Table 3 presents the
motivational influences for these administrators to meet the goal of sustaining their programs.
DUAL IMMERSION 48
Table 3
Motivational Influences and Type for Motivation Gap Analysis
Motivational Indicator
Active Choice
Motivation Influences Motivation Type Motivation Influences Examples
DLIP administrators need to
believe they are capable of
advocating for their program,
including a commitment to a
shared vision, language parity, and
development of teacher capacity to
sustain their DLIP effectively.
Self-Efficacy
Successful Task Completion
Vicarious Experiences
DLIP administrators need to see
the usefulness of improving their
ability to sustain the program that
addresses the needs of the ELLs
enrolled in DLIP.
Utility Value
ELL Academic Progress and
Language Proficiency
Meeting the Needs of Underserved
Students
Organizational Influences
An examination of the organizational influences relevant to sustaining DLIPs in CUSD is
a critical step in determining whether organizational barriers are negatively affecting
organizational performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Rueda (2011) and Schein (2010) suggested
that a closer look at the culture of the organization might shed light on the “automated” (Rueda,
2011, p. 54) and “implicit standards and values” (Schein, 2010, p. 14) that individuals have
created so that their environment will be “sensible and orderly” (Schein, 2010, p. 17). An
organization’s culture is created by the shared experiences of its members (Schein, 2010) and
while it is “dynamic and continually created and re-created in the course of daily life” (Rueda,
2011, p. 55), culture also provides an organization with “structural stability” that is “deeply
embedded” and “covers all of a group’s functioning” (Schein, 2010, pp. 16–17). This shared
experience lends itself to an environment and culture that supports shared leadership which
DUAL IMMERSION 49
Bandura (2000) suggests increases the motivation and willingness of the organization’s members
to persist through challenging tasks to achieve their goals.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) asserted that the culture in an organization can be
examined in terms of the organization’s cultural models and its cultural settings. Cultural
models represent the norms and values that members of an organization share; cultural models
are like the backdrop of an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). The
backdrop is so familiar and constant that it becomes an invisible layer of reality for the
organization (Rueda, 2011). Cultural settings, by contrast, are the actual events or activities in
which members of the organization participate (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). They are
tangible activities in which members of the organization gather to accomplish tasks that they
value and where the collective performs the work (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). This study
examined the organizational influences within CUSD’s cultural models and cultural settings to
determine whether any gap exists.
Culture of trust. Changes in leadership may equate to changes in priorities as each
leader may have her own strategic goals on which she wants to focus. An example of a change
in leadership and priorities is exemplified by President Trump’s current budget proposal that
eliminates funding for after school programs while increasing funding for in-school choice
programs (Belkin & Brody, 2017); funding changes tend to accompany priority changes,
particularly in schools. Menken (2017) suggests that these priority changes necessitate a greater
amount of flexibility and resourcefulness by school level administrators to heed the various,
sometimes conflicting, change initiatives of the executive leadership team. DLIP administrators
have had to “negotiate and resist top-down policies and external pressures” (Menken, 2017, p. 3)
when district leaders’ priorities change-priorities that may no longer value or be willing to
DUAL IMMERSION 50
support the DLIP. Administrators must remain steadfast in their advocacy for DLIPs as an
effective program model for ELLs (Howard et al., 2018). In this environment, these
administrators know that they can trust that they have district support, which at the minimum is
represented in their budgets with a specific line item for program funding (Howard et al., 2018).
This support is also communicated in an organization that engages in shared leadership,
involving DLIP administrators in the decision-making process regarding their programs (Hong,
2017). When organizations commit trust violations, or employees perceive that a trust violation
has been committed, it behooves the organization to respond to their members quickly to reduce
the negative effects of the violation (Poppo & Schepker, 2010). Employees who have trust in
their organizations are more likely to make an active choice to apply their mental effort and
persist through task completion successfully (Sousa-Lima, Michel, & Caetano, 2013). A culture
of trust communicates to administrators that they are supported; this support will enhance their
ability to sustain their programs effectively.
Culture of commitment. Bishop and Scott (2000) characterized organizational
commitment as the members’ confidence in the values and goals that the organization has
established and their desire to be a part of the team. Effective organizations ensure that their
leaders work with all stakeholders as they build collective responsibility for the organization’s
goals (Lambert, 2002). These collaborative partnerships support shared leadership and afford the
DLIP administrators the opportunity to “build[ing] from each person’s individual strengths and
skills” (Hunt, 2011, p. 196). A culture of commitment reflects “values and practices [that] are
genuine” (Kelleher, 1997, p. 5). Individuals who perceive genuineness in their organization’s
values, goals, and practices are likely to identify with them and behave in a way that is
conducive to them (Salancik, 1977). Organizations that engage in shared leadership practices
DUAL IMMERSION 51
actively involve stakeholders in the decision-making process via collaborative conversations to
create a shared vision focused on student learning (Bell et al., 2011). A culture of commitment
creates an environment in which DLIP administrators feel supported in their effort to achieve
their performance goals.
Resources. School districts that offer a DLIP to their students must base their program
on a theoretical model of bilingual instruction that has at its core the goal of producing students
who are bilingual and biliterate, who value multiculturalism, and who excel in their academics
(Howard et al., 2018). Leaders in these learning organizations are “designers, teachers, and
stewards . . . responsible for building organizations where people are continually expanding their
capabilities to shape their future” (Senge, 1990, p. 9). These leaders set the tone for learning and
leading (Argyris, 1999) and ensure that the members of the organization have the knowledge,
skills, motivation, tools, and resources they need to be successful in achieving their performance
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Included in these is the necessary professional development that
will ensure DLIP administrators’ level of understanding of the DLIP solidifying their
commitment to the program (Howard et al., 2018). A shared agreement and dedication to an
instructional focus with a commitment to student academic achievement are additionally
necessary tools (Lindholm-Leary, 2001). The leaders in these organizations maintain alignment
with the organization’s shared vision and goals as well as the structures and processes in place to
achieve those (Clark & Estes, 2008). This shared agreement and alignment are reflected in
multiple ways: (a) adequate school funding for materials, curriculum, and assessment tools
(Howard et al., 2018); (b) high expectations for student achievement (Lindholm-Leary, 2001);
(c) best practices and effective instructional strategies (Carrera-Carrillo & Smith, 2006); (4)
shared leadership and vision in support of consistency of programs (Lambert, 2002). Equipping
DUAL IMMERSION 52
educators with tools for success denotes the school district’s commitment to the DLIP and may
assist DLIP administrators with achieving their goal of sustaining their programs effectively.
Table 4 presents the assumed cultural model and setting influences DLIP administrators
need to achieve their goal of sustaining their programs.
Table 4
Organizational Influences
Organizational
Models/Settings
Organizational Influences Organizational Influence
Examples
Cultural Model
Influence
1/Culture of trust
CUSD must create and establish a
culture of trust for DLIP
administrators to sustain DLIPs
effectively.
Provide adequate funding for
programs.
Demonstrate the program’s
priority through
actions/activities.
Cultural Model
Influence
2/Culture of
commitment
CUSD must demonstrate its
commitment to DLIP for DLIP
administrators to be effective in
their task of sustaining their DLIPs.
Inspire confidence in the
genuineness of the
organization’s goals and values.
Engage in collaborative practices
that encourage shared leadership.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1/
Resources
CUSD needs to ensure DLIP
administrators have adequate
resources to provide support to their
DLIP administrators who are tasked
with effectively sustaining their
DLIPs.
Ensure that the alignment of
resources reflect the
organization’s goals and values.
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of DLIP Administrators ’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) define a theoretical or conceptual framework as the tool that
organizes the ideas and objectives of a study through a graphical and/or narrative representation.
This framework reflected the discipline from which the researcher had been socialized and
presents a graphic depiction of the researcher’s topic, what key concepts and factors she studied,
and the interconnectedness of these concepts and factors (Maxwell, 2013). This study relied on
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, which focuses on the three critical influences,
DUAL IMMERSION 53
knowledge, motivation, and organization discussed above, independently. While these three
critical influences were presented independently, they are in fact, interrelated. The interaction of
these factors and their influences on each other determine the extent to which DLIP
administrators in CUSD may be successful in achieving their goal of sustaining their programs
effectively.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
DUAL IMMERSION 54
Figure 1 depicts the interaction between the organizational culture in the CUSD and
DLIP administrators’ knowledge and motivation in relation to their goal. The blue oval
represents the CUSD and its cultural environment and how it influences the green oval and the
knowledge, skills, and motivation of the DLIP administrators in achieving the goal. The green
oval inside the blue oval represents the relationship among the knowledge, skills, and motivation
of DLIP administrators to address their performance goal of sustaining their programs. The
black arrow from the green oval to the yellow rectangle points to the DLIP administrators’ goal,
depicted inside the CUSD as this is the cultural context in which DLIP administrators work. The
black arrow that points from the blue oval to the red rectangle represents the organizational goal
of ensuring alignment among the DLIPs in CUSD. CUSD is the cultural context in which this
goal will be achieved, thus, remains inside the blue oval. Several elements in the CUSD
interacted with and influenced DLIP administrators’ knowledge and motivation to achieve their
goal.
For DLIP administrators to sustain their programs successfully, they needed the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational supports from CUSD. As the cultural models and
settings in CUSD defined what members within the organization deemed valuable, DLIP
administrators needed to be able to work in an organizational culture of trust and commitment,
with adequate resources to be effective. An organization’s ability to sustain change is
interrelated with its ability to create new basic assumptions with which others in the organization
can share (Schein, 2010). A culture of trust was essential for DLIP administrators to achieve
their performance goal. In a culture of trust, members of an organization tasked with achieving
goals can believe in what others say and do and are more likely to perform tasks successfully
(Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Further, individuals must be able to trust in their leadership and
DUAL IMMERSION 55
know that their leadership trusts them (Kouzes & Posner, 2008). Their learning and motivation
increase in a cultural setting that has positive expectancies for success (Pajares, 2006).
Moreover, in these supportive environments, individuals are motivated to achieve (Clark &
Estes, 2008). With trust as the basis for teamwork (Lencioni, 2002), individuals within these
environments are likely to have a high sense of self-efficacy, knowing that there is support for
their work (Pajares, 2006). DLIP administrators’ sense of self-efficacy is interconnected to the
culture of trust in the CUSD cultural model.
Creating a culture of commitment within an organization will effectuate an environment
in which members of the organization value relationships, choose to maintain them (Moorman,
Deshpandé, & Zaltman, 1993), and feel connected to the organization (Bishop & Scott, 2000).
This sense of connectedness and commitment support individuals with valuing the goals and
tasks of the organization (Kelleher, 1997; Salancik, 1977). Members of an organization are
likely more motivated when they find value in the tasks they need to achieve (Eccles, 2006).
DLIP administrators need procedural knowledge of the principles of dual language immersion
(Howard et al., 2018) to support the value they perceive in their goal of sustaining their
programs. Their perceived utility value relates directly to how well they will attend to their tasks
(Pintrich, 2003; Rueda, 2011). A culture of commitment will positively affect their perception of
the utility value of achieving their goal to sustain their programs.
Providing support and resources to DLIPs is an essential function of district
administration as an effective program equates to student achievement (Howard et al., 2018).
These resources reflect district level support to self-efficacious administrators assisting them
with maintaining their effectiveness through professional development and trainings (Gándara et
al., 2005) and evaluation (Howard et al., 2018). Districts must build educator capacity to ensure
DUAL IMMERSION 56
that the specific learning needs of students in language programs are addressed (Elfers &
Stritikus, 2014; Lucas et al., 2008). Through an organization’s focus on its members, individuals
and groups may become motivated to engage in the necessary tasks to achieve the organizational
goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Key to this organizational environment
is the DLIP administrator’s understanding that she must take charge of her own learning (Fullan,
2007) and engage in self-evaluation (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2006). Administrators’
conceptual and procedural knowledge and their use of metacognitive strategies support their
focus on achieving their performance goal of sustaining the program. This knowledge, coupled
with resources and the metacognitive strategies they employ in a cultural environment of trust
and commitment, support their perceived utility value in their work.
Conclusion
Chapter Two reviewed the literature on the responsibilities of DLIP administrators and
the role they play in support of their programs. School administrators are responsible for
building their organizations and supporting the organization’s learning needs of (Senge, 1990).
They equally are responsible for establishing a shared vision (Kose, 2011), managing a positive
learning environment (Cohen et al., 2009), encouraging and inspiring their school community to
focus on student achievement and rigor in the classrooms (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009;
Marzano, 2003) and building relationships with community partners (CTC, 2014). In addition to
these responsibilities, DLIP administrators also must serve as the primary advocates for their
programs (Carrera-Carrillo & Smith, 2006). This advocacy includes promoting language
learning and cultural awareness (Howard et al., 2018). It is reflected in administrators who are
visionaries, courageous, and steadfast in their support of their programs (Hong, 2017).
DUAL IMMERSION 57
In addition to delineating the DLIP administrators’ responsibilities, this chapter also
included a theoretical explanation and discussion of the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that shape their ability to achieve their performance goal of sustaining
their programs. The chapter presented a written and graphic representation of the conceptual
framework, which delineated how this study was guided.
Running head: DUAL IMMERSION 58
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this case study was to investigate the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that shaped DLIP administrators’ ability to sustain dual language
programs on their campuses effectively. This examination yielded an exploration of the ways in
which administrators’ current practices at their school sites influenced the program. To gain an
understanding of the current practices, the study asked the following questions: What are the
CUSD DLIP site administrators’ knowledge and motivation related to sustaining effective dual
language immersion programs at their CUSD DLIP sites? What is the interaction between
organizational culture and context and the CUSD DLIP site administrators’ knowledge and
motivation in relation to sustaining effective dual immersion programs at their school sites? The
study also included the following project question to highlight the desired applied purpose of this
investigation: What are the recommended DLIP knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational solutions for sustaining effective DLIPs?
In this chapter, the research design and methods for data collection and analysis are
presented. A description of the participating stakeholder group, the interview sampling criteria
and rationale, and the interview sampling (recruitment) strategy and rationale follow. The
instrumentation used to collect the data is described and the data analysis is presented. Finally,
credibility and trustworthiness as well as ethical considerations and the limitations and
delimitations of the study are offered.
Participating Stakeholders
The population of focus for this study was the DLIP administrators in CUSD. Of the 15
administrators who were asked to participate in the study, seven agreed to participate. I
interviewed these participants, who were a subset of the full population of DLIP administrators
DUAL IMMERSION 59
and who were responsible for and supported the program at their respective schools and the
district office, including three elementary schools and two intermediate schools in the district.
Table 5 shows the full population of the various administrators who were invited to participate
and who worked at each of the five school sites including the school principal, principal on
special assignment, assistant principal, program specialist, and teacher on special assignment
(TOSA). While each of these participants’ roles at the school site or district office may differ,
each has a specific role in sustaining the programs on campus.
Table 5
Administrator Position by Site in the Cortana Unified School District
Elem1 Elem2 Elem3 Int1 Int2 DO
Principal X X X X X
Principal on Special Assignment X
Assistant Principal X X
Program Specialist X X X X X
Teacher on Special Assignment X X
The elementary and intermediate schools have different levels of staff. At the elementary
school, the DLIPs have a school principal and a program specialist to support the program. At
the intermediate schools, there is a greater level of support with the school principal, the assistant
principal, a program specialist, and a TOSA. In the CUSD and for the purposes of this study,
TOSAs are considered a part of the administrative team responsible for the program. At the
district level, a principal on special assignment and a TOSA support the programs at all the
school sites.
DUAL IMMERSION 60
This study examined the knowledge and motivation of the DLIP administrators and
TOSAs in relation to their goal to sustain their programs effectively and the interaction of that
knowledge and motivation with CUSD’s organizational culture and context. The administrators
are my peers; however, none of them reports to me or works directly with me at my school site.
Each school site administrator or TOSA has a responsibility to sustain the program at the school
site.
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. The participants must be administrators or TOSAs who work directly with
or in support of those who work directly with students who are enrolled in DLIP in CUSD. The
rationale for this criterion is that these participants are accountable for the effective sustainability
of the program.
Criterion 2. The participants will be employed by CUSD for a minimum of 5 years to
ensure they are familiar with the CUSD environment, the organizational structure, and the DLIP
and are thus able to provide their perceptions of the program at their school site. As depicted in
the conceptual framework, the study examined the administrators’ knowledge and motivation in
relation to the goal of sustaining the program effectively, so administrators who have had a
history in the district were needed for the study.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The purpose for interviewing the participants was to allow me to “enter into the other
person’s perspective” (Patton, 2002, p. 341) with the objective of understanding and examining
any interfering elements in knowledge, motivation, or organizational influences in relation to
their efforts to sustain their programs effectively. Maxwell (2013) contended that purposeful
selection of study participants is an important aspect in qualitative research. In this study,
DUAL IMMERSION 61
because eight of the 15 people responsible for the DLIPs were not available to participate, I used
a subset of seven. Each participant has been employed by CUSD for at least 5 years and all have
had direct knowledge of the DLIP. Coupling their specific knowledge across multiple grade
spans and district office perspective, I framed the interview questions in terms specific to the
DLIP context to minimize sampling concerns or inaccurate generalizations (Maxwell, 2013).
Because I have a personal relationship with many of the participants and to mitigate any feelings
of intimidation or pressure, I initiated contact with the participants via email requesting their
participation. I conducted the in-person interviews in a location of the participant’s choosing and
offered an incentive, a low value gift card, to each participant to thank them for their time.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The following section will discuss the research design for this study. The research design
includes information about the process and procedures of the study, information about the study
participants, data collection and instrumentation, and the role of the researcher (Creswell, 2014).
Included in the discussion in the next session will be the rationale for the use of a qualitative
study and the plan to maintain the credibility and trustworthiness of the study.
Qualitative research seeks to explore and describe how people make meaning and
interpret what they experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These ideas formulate the
constructivist approach that allows the researcher to learn from her participants and interpret
their beliefs, perceptions, and experiences (Creswell, 2014). The role of a constructivist
researcher is to gather the broad views of study participants and “generate or inductively develop
a theory or pattern of meaning” (Creswell, 2014, p. 8). The study of factors that shape the
sustainability of DLIP by administrators was best served with a qualitative study as there was a
DUAL IMMERSION 62
need to explore participants’ thoughts, perceptions, beliefs, and motivations (Patton, 2002) and
understand the context and challenges they encountered when accomplishing their goals.
Through interviews of DLIP administrators, this study gathered qualitative data about
their knowledge, motivation, and perceptions of organizational models and settings related to the
goal of sustaining an effective program. I sought to understand participants’ conceptual
knowledge of DLIP, procedural knowledge of how to engage in effective methods for sustaining
the program, and metacognitive strategies for ascertaining the effectiveness of their behaviors
and actions. The interviews also served as a tool to inquire about what motivation influences
participants needed to achieve their goal of sustaining their DLIP. Finally, the interviews sought
to glean information regarding interviewees’ perceptions of their self-efficacy and utility value
related to program sustainability and their perceptions of the organizational environment related
to trust, commitment, and resources.
Interviews
In this study, I used a constructivist approach (Creswell, 2014) to engage with the seven
participants who volunteered to engage with me through face-to-face, one-on-one semi-
structured 60- to 90-minute interviews that allowed me the opportunity to gather data about their
backgrounds and personal experiences with improving their ability to address the needs of ELLs.
Through in-person interviews as well as follow-up probes to clarify information or to yield a
response with more depth, participants had the opportunity to receive and respond to the same
mix of open-ended questions (Patton, 2002). I took careful consideration to ensure that the
questions were well worded, “couched in familiar language,” and understandable to the
participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 117) by engaging in peer debriefing, asking
nonparticipants to review and critique the questions. The mix of question types (Patton, 2002),
DUAL IMMERSION 63
in relation to the participants’ knowledge and experiences, reflected the elasticity for flexible
views as Creswell (2014) suggested providing the researcher with a complex set of data that may
inform the field of research. The intent of these questions was to generate data that were
descriptive, that drew out the participants’ opinions, thoughts, and feelings (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016) in a conversational style allowing participants to share their knowledge and motivation in
relation to the goal of sustaining their DLIP effectively. Focused conversations that took place in
the participants’ office or in a location that the participant felt the most comfortable assisted me
with eliciting information by building trust, gaining acceptance, and establishing relationships
with the participants (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
The time that I spent interviewing each DLIP administrator varied. The longest interview
was 128 minutes, and the shortest was 55 minutes. The average time for the interviews was 80
minutes, and the total time for all interviews was 564 minutes. While the interview protocol
served as a guide to assist me with recording and organizing the participants’ responses
(Creswell, 2014) and ensured consistent engagement with the same questions (Patton, 2002), it
was challenging with some of the participants to keep them focused on the question at hand.
Relying on the participants to answer the specific questions posed to them is one of the
challenges of the interview process (Creswell, 2014); however, by following a semi-structured
interview process, I also was able to provide participants the space to make connections within
their responses. As they elaborated on the questions, some inadvertently answered upcoming
question. Again, the interview structure allowed the participants and me the flexibility and space
to engage with each other productively. Providing this space afforded me the opportunity to
glean rich and germane information that supported the emerging themes of this study.
DUAL IMMERSION 64
Protocol. The interview protocol, which is presented in Appendix B, guided me through
each interview (Creswell, 2014) and included the overview of the study’s purpose and an
assurance of confidentiality and privacy for the participants. As discussed previously in this
chapter, the protocol supported my efforts to engage in conversation with the participants that
was framed within a consistent, focused, and systematic inquiry (Patton, 2002). The questions
that I asked during each interview were informed by my research questions and my conceptual
framework with the intent of gathering data that would answer the research questions. Prior to
engaging in the questions, the initial participant conversation focused on informing the
participants about the study and my role as the researcher. The first few questions assisted me
with building rapport with the participants and easing them into the inquiry process as these
questions asked them to tell me about themselves. In addition to using a mix of question types
with a focus on the participants’ experiences, opinions, thoughts, and perceptions as Patton
(2002) recommended, the interview protocol also included prompts to assist me with clarifying
participants’ responses to ensure that the data I gathered would generate responses that addressed
my research questions. I provided each participant with an information sheet that contained the
protocol and included a reminder that they could choose not to answer any question, that they
could stop the interview at any time, and that I would not use their names, allowing each
participant to select a pseudonym.
Data collection approach. During the interviews, I sought to understand the elements
that supported or detracted interviewees to improve their ability to sustain their programs
effectively and to address the needs of their ELLs. The interview participants and I scheduled a
mutually agreed upon date and time to meet. I began each interview by thanking each
participant for meeting with me and reaffirming their permission to audio record the interview. I
DUAL IMMERSION 65
shared with each participant that, in addition to the audio recording, I would take notes to assist
me with documenting their thoughts. The participants had an opportunity to ask questions to
clarify further any concerns they may have had. As I engaged with the participants, I took notes
in my journal during and immediately following the interviews to ensure an accurate and precise
collection of the participants’ thoughts and expressions. These field notes assisted me with
documenting my thoughts and any commonalities, themes, and atypical responses that began to
emerge. Before ending the interview, I asked each participant if I could follow up with them by
email or phone to clarify responses if necessary. Following each interview, I submitted the
recording to a private transcribing service to assist me with documenting each participant’s
account. While the verbatim account took a few days to receive, I was able to use my field notes
to reflect on the participant’s comments and begin documenting any common themes from each
participant.
Data management. Researchers who engage in data management tasks prepare their
data for analysis by converting the data into smaller, retrievable, manageable units (Knafl,
Webster, Benoliel, & Morse, 1988). Following each participant interview, I submitted the
interview data for transcription by a private web-based transcription service. Once I received the
transcriptions, I created and stored them in a separate file on my personal computer. In addition
to my field notes in my journal, I used these transcripts to form my data corpus. To facilitate the
analysis process and access to my data, I used a data software system for the computer. These
data also were stored, organized, and managed on my personal computer. In addition to
maintaining paper files of collected data, such as field notes, and paper copies of participants’
transcripts, I created and stored a separate file for Atlas.ti, the data software tool I used to
DUAL IMMERSION 66
manage field codes. I will maintain the electronic files and the paper files for three years
following the completion of the study.
Data Analysis
As a researcher engages in the data analysis process, she gathers and reflects upon her
data, breaking it into parts and reassembling it as she interprets and draws conclusions from the
data to gain a deeper understanding of them (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2014). My
analysis began with a first read of the participants’ transcripts coupled with the use of a priori
codes from my conceptual framework and the use of analytic tools, specifically, the use of
questioning, making comparisons, using personal experience, and noting the emotions that the
participants expressed and the situations that seemed to arouse them (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Using these analytic tools, I interrogated the data to make meaning and understand what the data
were telling me, investigating the participant responses to gain greater understanding of their
perspectives. In this step of the analysis process, I was able to begin sorting participants’
responses, noting patterns, words, phrases, and passages that were relevant to my conceptual
framework, highlighting them or making notes in the margins of the transcripts. This in vivo
coding (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014) was facilitated using this jotting strategy (Saldaña,
2013).
Following my first read, I used Atlas.ti to assist me with searching deeper for patterns in
the participants’ responses, including any similarities, typical or atypical responses, and the
frequency of responses. The software program enabled me to reassemble the data through word
usage, quotation by codes, and code frequency. This constant query into the transcripts assisted
with prioritizing codes that represented key concepts from the data and yielded recurring themes
DUAL IMMERSION 67
that presented themselves through participant’s responses. Finally, I used member-checking to
ensure that I captured participants’ thoughts, feelings, words and recurring themes accurately.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Validity or credibility and trustworthiness are an integral part of qualitative research
(Maxwell, 2013). Creswell (2014) defines validity as ensuring that the researcher has produced
accurate findings from the perspective of the participants, the researcher herself, and the readers
of the study. Because the findings from qualitative studies can have a direct impact on people’s
lives, the researcher must conduct the study in an ethical and objective manner (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). To ensure credibility and trustworthiness she must gather the data, interpret the
findings, state the conclusions, and address possible validity threats to the study as well as
identify strategies that will address these potential threats (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013). A
threat to validity in a qualitative study about which a researcher must be aware is the potential
for her subjectivity to affect the interpretation of the data. The researcher must account for this
potentiality and other threats to validity and employ strategies to address them (Maxwell, 2013).
This study included strategies to strengthen the validity of the findings, including
considerable attention to the research design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To ensure that I
captured administrators’ words, feelings, and emotions accurately, I recorded and transcribed
their responses. In so doing, I minimized what Maxwell (2013) describes as threats to accurate
data collection or descriptive validity and ensured that I presented what the administrators found
to be significant in the support of their school programs. Critical to providing administrators the
opportunity to share their thoughts, feelings, and concerns in relation to sustaining their program,
was my use of open-ended interview questions that were not leading; these allowed the
administrators to share their experiences in their own words. Additionally, interviewing
DUAL IMMERSION 68
administrators from the elementary, intermediate, and district level allowed me to present
perspectives that represent viewpoints from various levels in the district.
I engaged in member-checking, peer debriefing (Creswell, 2014), and researcher
reflexivity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to strengthen the validity of the study. Member-checking,
a systematic process by which one restates or summarizes information and has the participants
confirm understanding of their responses, reduced the validity threats to the study (Creswell,
2014; Maxwell, 2013) while utilizing the mechanically recorded interviews as part of this
process aided with capturing the thoughts and essence of each participant’s input; these follow-
up conversations and recordings ensured that researcher assumptions and bias from respondent’s
comments were minimized.
Through peer debriefing, I requested two program specialists, one from a school site and
one from the district office, outside of the participant group to evaluate and question the study.
This peer debriefing aided in increasing the study’s validity as peers reviewed and examined the
emerging themes from the participants (Creswell, 2014). My dissertation advisor also served as
a peer reviewer. Engaging in researcher reflexivity, considering one’s relationship with the
participants and one’s position within the organization, assisted with recognizing how issues
impacted the research process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Using reflective memos to document
my feelings, opinions, and thoughts as the participants shared their views assisted me with
ensuring that I followed the suggestion of Merriam and Tisdell (2016) to mitigate my personal
biases ensuring that they did not cloud the participants’ responses. During the interviews, I had
to be mindful of my position and ensure that I allowed each participant’s voice to be heard.
Clarifying the participants’ responses, taking notes, using the audio tape, reviewing each
interview and making analytic memos assisted me with recognizing any effects that I may have
DUAL IMMERSION 69
had on the research process. Additionally, as a principal in CUSD, I am directly involved with
preparing the students at my school for academic success. My initial review of the literature
revealed that students who participate in dual language immersion programs perform as well as
or better than their non-DLIP peers over time (Lindholm-Leary, 2012). This information had the
potential to bias me toward presenting the program in a positive light. I used member-checking
to confirm my understanding of the participants’ responses and to mitigate potential threats from
my biases (Maxwell, 2013). Furthermore, I shared my conclusions with participants and asked
them to validate their responses (Maxwell, 2013). Member-checking also was useful in
addressing any misinterpretations and biases as I drew conclusions from the data. Finally,
working with my committee chair during the analysis stage assisted me with ruling out “specific
plausible alternatives and threats to [my] interpretations and explanations” (Maxwell, 2013, p.
124) of the data.
As a CUSD employee, I needed to make sure that I addressed any assumptions or biases I
had as a result of conducting my study in the same district where I work. Utilizing analytic
memos enabled me to record my thoughts and reflect on my interaction with the data. These
memos helped me to recognize my biases as encouraged by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), which
include my years in the district and my personal and professional experiences, and how they
affected my process of collecting and understanding the data. I cannot alter these experiences,
but I made note of them and addressed the impact they had on my study.
Ethics
In our search for meaning and understanding all around us, qualitative researchers must
ensure that we respect from whom, where, or what we collect data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
As researchers engage in activities and interact with participants to assist them with
DUAL IMMERSION 70
understanding the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that may be shaping
their performance, it is essential that they are mindful of the needs of their study participants and
that their interactions with them are respectful and ethical (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Ethical considerations include acknowledging my role within the district. I am an insider
in the organization with knowledge of the DLIPs in the district and the work that my
administrator colleagues do at their school sites. Additionally, the district has determined that
my elementary school site will be the next DLIP site in the district. It is critical that I
acknowledge that I welcome this program and believe that it will be a positive influence and an
excellent opportunity for my students. It also is incumbent upon me to divulge that I have been
working diligently for the last 3 years to become the next DLIP site. I believe strongly in
multilingual education and want to ensure I provide my students with the opportunity to learn
multiple languages. With my strong belief in DLIP, I had to ensure that I disciplined my
subjectivity during the research process and ensured that my biases did not cloud my interactions
with participants and their responses. As the researcher, I had to stay objective and open to all
comments that participants shared with me. As an organization insider with some knowledge of
the job that my participants do, I needed to make sure that I did not anticipate their responses and
behaviors or make assumptions about our interactions.
Respectful interactions include providing participants with enough information about the
study that will allow them to decide if they want to participate. Glesne (2011) and Krueger and
Casey (2009) pointed out that the researcher must be explicit in describing to the participants
what it means for them to participate in the study. Communicating to my participants what their
level of involvement would be was critical. I explained to them that their input was all that I
required and that their responses would be confidential. In this informed consent process
DUAL IMMERSION 71
(Glesne, 2011), I communicated the purpose of my study, how the information that the
participants provided would be used, and, hat their participation in the study was voluntary.
Within the informed consent process, I shared with participants that their identity would
be kept confidential. Only my committee chair and I know who they are and what their responses
were to the various questions. The information that they shared with me is stored in my personal
computer and on the recording device. Each of these devices requires a password that only I
know. I shared with the participants that there would not be an incentive or compensation for
participation, but after the interview process was complete, I delivered thank you notes and a gift
card to them as a small token of appreciation for their participation in the study. Not offering an
incentive helped to avoid any possibility of coercion, while the thank you gift was a small
gesture of my appreciation for the time they committed to my study.
I informed participants that their participation was voluntary and that they could
withdraw from the study at any time. During the interview and on the consent form, I provided
participants with my committee chair’s contact information in case they had additional questions
about the study. Finally, as a respectful researcher, I asked permission to audio record the
interview as well as asked permission to quote specific responses.
While I am not a direct supervisor to any of the study participants, it is possible that my
role as a principal in the district intimidated some of them. In requesting their participation in
this study, I stressed my role as a researcher appealing to their desire to improve the programs
that we offer our students. Again, clarifying how the data gleaned from the study will be used
may have supported their decision to participate (Krueger & Casey, 2009). Some of the
participants and I have established friendships over the years of working in CUSD. When I
conducted interviews with these participants, I consciously had to maintain a professional
DUAL IMMERSION 72
relationship so that I did not skew the data or inadvertently take advantage of our relationship
while seeking information (Glesne, 2011).
As I interacted with my study participants, I informed them of the goal of my research
and how the results will be disseminated. The purpose of the study was to support CUSD in
preparing and graduating students who are college and career ready. In addition to presenting
my dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree I seek, I will present the
findings from this study to the CUSD superintendent of schools for his consideration. I would
like the superintendent to reflect on the qualitative approach of this study, gain a deeper
understanding of how the administrators in the district make decisions on supporting their
programs, and consider potential actions he can take following the research-based
recommendations that I presented to him.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Influences that the researcher cannot control are the limitations to a study. There are
several limitations that can affect a study. Creswell (2014) cites limitations when conducting
interviews including receiving self-reported data from the participants. The self-reported data
that I collected through interviews of 7 of the 15 DLIP administrators of the represented schools
and district office in charge of the DLIP was a limitation because I must accept participants’
responses at face value and could not verify their reports independently. From participant
interviews, there were sources for bias, which had the potential to come from what people shared
with me during the interviews. A second factor that was beyond my control was the time
constraint in conducting my research due to a research window of three months. An additional
limitation was that participants may have attempted to respond to my questions in a way that
DUAL IMMERSION 73
they thought I wanted them to respond rather than giving me their perspective and opinions.
They may have given favorable responses for a variety of reasons including not feeling
comfortable discussing the topic, wanting to please me with their responses, or possibly fear of
judgment of themselves or their responses. Furthermore, the participants’ responses may have
been influenced by a narrow perspective or they may not have been able to articulate their
responses to the questions clearly (Creswell, 2014). Finally, during the interview process, an
interview participant could have been called away or become otherwise disengaged from the
interview presenting another limitation.
Delimitations
Factors that delimit the study are those that are within the researcher’s control. This
study was delimited by several factors. Due to the timing of my research, the school year ended
before I could engage in qualitative observations. By not completing observations, I was unable
to collect data on the actions and behaviors of participants (Creswell, 2014) in their natural
environment to inform the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While interviews
offered me insight into the participants’ perspective, observations would have allowed me an
insight into how the participants behave in situations as it relates to the study’s research
questions (Maxwell, 2013). By observing administrators’ actions firsthand, I may have been
able to glean some underlying beliefs that they had regarding supporting and sustaining school
programs. I might have been able to observe interactions among district and site-based
administrators that might have been telling about how they felt about school programs and
supporting them: body language, facial expressions, eye contact, and social interaction among
the groups might have reveled frustration, discord, and conflict among meeting participants
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
DUAL IMMERSION 74
Additionally, because I was not able to conduct observations, it follows that I was not
able to conduct “anchored interviewing” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 139) to understand further
the specific behaviors that were observed by following the observation with an interview of the
participants. I missed the opportunity to establish myself as “observer as participant” (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016, p. 144) in which I would have been afforded access to and interaction with the
group, while conducting the observations.
Another delimiting factor was using self-authored questions in the interview that may not
have examined what I intended. While the intent of the questions was to provide participants an
opportunity to express their views, opinions, and beliefs regarding DLIP, the questions may have
been too broad or too narrow for them to share these thoughts comprehensively.
DUAL IMMERSION 75
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Cortana USD has an identified the goal of improving the sustainability of its DLIPs in the
district. This study sought to identify the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
on program sustainability using an adapted version of the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
process model. The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences that shaped the participants’ ability to sustain their programs
effectively. These were the questions that guided this study:
1. What are the CUSD DLIP site administrators’ knowledge and motivation related to
sustaining effective dual language immersion programs at their CUSD DLIP sites?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and the CUSD DLIP
site administrators’ knowledge and motivation in relation to sustaining effective dual
immersion programs at their school sites?
3. What are the recommended DLIP knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions for sustaining effective DLIPs?
As delineated in Chapter Three, this study followed a qualitative methods approach.
Interviews of DLIP administrators were the data collection employed to answer the study’s
research questions. Seven participants reflected on their knowledge and motivation and the
organizational structures in place in CUSD. Their contemplative responses established the basis
for the study’s findings and assisted me in responding to the study’s questions. By interviewing
DLIP administrators from the district office and elementary and intermediate levels, I was able to
ensure credibility and trustworthiness by triangulating the data with multiple sources (Maxwell,
2013).
DUAL IMMERSION 76
In the first part of this chapter, I will introduce the study participants. Some of the
participants chose to be at schools with a DLIP in place, some advocated to create a DLIP in
their schools, and some were assigned to schools with an active and functioning program already
in place. While the district may have placed each administrator at a school for a particular
reason, it is important to note the administrators’ background, journey, and experiences that
molded them into DLIP administrators charged with the task of sustaining an effective program
at their school sites.
The sections that follow will present the study findings organized by themes drawn from
the data. In examining DLIP administrators’ knowledge and motivation and the organizational
influences in CUSD, the themes that emerged from the data focused on their characteristics,
strengths, and their self-reported effectiveness in sustaining their programs within the
organizational culture and context of CUSD. Via analysis of the interviews with these
administrators, three overarching themes emerged. First, it was found that DLIP administrators
(a) had a respectful character. The participants understood the guiding principles of DLIP. This
understanding was reflected in their display of respect of others’ culture, language, heritage, and
the power of learning through a target language. This knowledge of the guiding principles
assisted them in their effort to sustain their programs effectively. Coupled with this knowledge,
participants appreciated the value of the DLIP and were motivated to advocate for their programs
as well as engage in actions that would improve their ability to sustain them. Also, two
participants were resilient and maintained their motivation and focus on providing support to
their staff even when the organizational climate did not seem to endorse the program. And
finally, three participants were resourceful; their knowledge and motivation drove them to seek
adequate support from CUSD and from outside sources when necessary in their efforts to sustain
DUAL IMMERSION 77
their programs. Operating within a multi-level organization that has many areas of focus and
participants, administrators had to be respectful, resilient, and resourceful in their efforts to
sustain their programs effectively. The interaction of the interviewees’ knowledge and
motivation with the organizational environment of CUSD will be presented using these three
themes.
Study Participants ’ Paths to DLIP
Michelle
Michelle has been working in education for over 25 years. She knew she wanted to work
with children when she graduated from college. After working in an afterschool program and
with migrant children, she became a substitute teacher. As an ELL herself and with her work at
various schools, Michelle found her passion to support students’ learning through the
development of their primary language and English language development. Michelle “sought
ways that [she] could build [her] knowledge” to address the needs of ELLs. Upon completing
her teacher certification, Michelle earned her Master of Arts degree in education and
immediately began working as a bilingual teacher.
In her career, Michelle worked with ELLs at various grade levels. Wanting to affect even
greater change for this population, Michelle reported that she became a “professional learning
provider” so that she could mentor and support teachers of ELLs and provide professional
development to school site administrators. Michelle’s concerns for the ELL population included
how teachers are addressing illiteracy, students’ English language development (ELD), and
honoring students’ primary language and culture.
Michelle embraced dual immersion calling it an “organic movement” in education that
acknowledges biliteracy as an asset, “not just calling it bilingualism, but truly a dual immersion
DUAL IMMERSION 78
model and dual immersion education.” In her position, to which she was assigned, Michelle
worked in support of the DLIPs in CUSD. She spoke of a time when the program became a
“dormant program” with little to no support from the district office. During this time, Michelle
reported that the DLIP “was sustaining itself through word of mouth, through teachers who were
really interested and believed in biliteracy.” Finally, Michelle noted that the focus is changing
and that, refreshingly, there has been a “rebirth” of interest in the program. She continued to
advocate for the program as she saw the success of DLIP students in comparison to their
mainstream peers. She said, “We have to look at the data because the data are what will support,
sustain the program over time and bring in more community, more students, and more families.”
Michelle explained that through presentation of the data, more families will be encouraged to
provide this language learning opportunity to their children.
Bob
As an ELL himself, Bob understood the academic challenges that some of his ELLs
experience. Bob became an educator for that very reason. He was passionate about the work he
had done in support of “his kids.” When the opportunity presented itself for him to work at a
school with a DLIP, Bob jumped at the chance. He said, “Language opens up windows, doors,
the world, for my kids; why wouldn’t we want them to learn more?” Bob’s support of bilingual
education and dual immersion was evident. He shared that he worked with students at the
intermediate school level for many years and always encouraged them to seek opportunities to
expand their language and knowledge of the culture of others: “I wanted to make certain that my
kids were college-bound. Not only that, they needed to be able to compete with any kid, from
anywhere!”
DUAL IMMERSION 79
Bob shared that his 17 years in education prepared him to be where he is today. He
recalled that, when he was in school, his parents were determined that he and his siblings would
be successful. With the support of his parents who believed strongly in educating their children,
Bob knew that failure was not an option. His parents instilled in him that he could do as well or
better than all the children in his class; they expected him to study and work as hard at school as
they had to in their jobs.
In his support for his intermediate students as a classroom teacher and a school
administrator, Bob noted that some of the students coming in from the elementary level lacked
certain skills. Their language deficits in English and their primary language gave him the
encouragement to work at the elementary level to assist “my new kids with getting prepared for
their future.” Bob’s passion for developing his students and his desire to prepare them for a
global society compelled him to “seek out professional learning opportunities where [he] could
be the scaffolding [his] kids needed to acquire academic language in English and in Spanish.”
Bob shared that he would retire from a DLIP school. He found his “forever school family” and
is motivated to see “his kids succeed.”
Susan
Susan reported that she had “always” been in education starting as an instructional
assistant right after graduating from high school. As an ELL, she felt compelled to assist other
ELLs who were challenged by acquiring the academic language necessary to be successful in
school. Susan worked at all levels in the K-12 experience, including various positions at the
district office. Throughout her career, she attended school to increase her own education. She
began her teaching career as a bilingual teacher following her receipt of her Bachelor of Arts
degree in Chicano studies.
DUAL IMMERSION 80
With experience as an administrator in all levels in CUSD, Susan defined her experience
as “vast” and that this experience gave her the opportunity to “grasp different positions and how
they are all aligned to the educational leadership position as a whole.” Her perspective on
bilingual education and DLIP in CUSD differed from several participants as she was, at times,
the district administrator responsible for sustaining both programs. Like Michelle, Susan noted
that, at times, “no one really supported the program the way it should have been supported.” She
recalled a time when, as the district administrator, she went to visit a school that was having
difficulty deciding what program offerings they would continue to have for students. The
debate, she said, was whether the school would offer bilingual education, DLIP, or both. The
decision was to offer DLIP, and, at that point, Susan “started to really take a look at the dual
language in [her] school district.”
Susan, who was assigned her position, described the program as ensuring students “have
bilingualism throughout their educational career.” The program “supports them not only in their
college career, but also in their work experience when they graduate and get a job.” She also
explained that as a district administrator, she began to witness a refocus on DLIP with an
increase of awareness of the guiding principles of dual language. This refocus made Susan
happy as it has brought the DLIP teams “closer together” and, while the program “still needs a
lot of support, much more support… it’s very rewarding, and it’s great to see that strengthening.”
Nicole
Nicole’s experience and path to DLIP was unique in that “teaching was never in [her]
plan.” She felt that, as a bilingual female, she would be an automatic hire if she decided to apply
to be a teacher. As such, she decided to work on her master’s in business administration. After a
time, she recalled that she did not seem to fit in that environment. She described her entrance
DUAL IMMERSION 81
into education as one that she “just fell into.” However, once she was in the classroom, she
“loved working with the students, working with the parents, the community.”
After 9 years in the classroom working with bilingual transition and newcomer students,
Nicole recalled the district made the decision that the intermediate school would continue the
DLIP. She shared that the district was “already tapping [her] on [the] shoulder,” letting her
know that she would be the support for the teachers who would receive the DLIP 6th grade
students. Nicole “felt that there wasn’t a lot of support for the program” and that she and the
teachers who were passionate about the program would determine a way to ensure the program’s
success.
Together with her team, Nicole did just that. She and her teachers partnered with other
organizations to ensure that her teachers received professional development in the areas of dual
language educational strategies. She met with parents to educate them on how they could best
support their intermediate students through DLIP, and she worked with the PTA to secure
additional funds to host cultural events that celebrated the target language, heritage, and culture.
As Nicole reflected on where the district is with its support for DLIP, she stated that “we’ve
moved forward a bit, but we’re still kind of going in circles.” Nicole is passionate about
supporting the program in CUSD, and while her start into education may have differed from her
peers, what was not different was her drive to see successful student outcomes.
Tim
In his 21 years of experience in education, Tim has been a classroom teacher, a teacher
leader, and a school administrator. Like other participants, Tim worked in schools with bilingual
programs, but unlike many other participants, Tim was not an ELL in school. Tim participated
in mainstream English classes through his educational career. He asserted that education always
DUAL IMMERSION 82
was important in his family and he valued the DLIP experience that his students received. He
was drawn to the program because he believed that it was his “responsibility to prepare students
for their future.” He described our society as “competitive” and that we needed to “give our
students an advantage in terms of their language abilities to make them more marketable for jobs
and careers in the future.”
Tim, like one other participant, noted that he learned his second language later in life. He
commented that learning a second language as an adult was difficult. Tim said that as students
participated in the program, they had the opportunity to “strengthen their primary language
through the course work and the curriculum.” The fact that his students would leave his school
bilingual and biliterate motivated him to make sure that they understood that their
accomplishment “is special.” He added that “the appreciation that you have for other people
having more cultural awareness and more language abilities is powerful.” Tim noted that he
advocated for the DLIP and was pleased that he had the opportunity to work at a school that
offered this program to students.
May
May knew that she wanted to be a teacher since she was a little girl. She remembered
“playing school with [her] dolls and always being excited to go to school.” In her 22 years in
education, May held many positions including classroom teacher, teacher on special assignment,
assistant principal, and principal. The draw to education, for May, was her passion to learn new
things. May stated that she “wanted to instill that love of learning into others.”
May noted that while not an ELL, she had “an ear for languages.” She believed in the
power of multilingualism and multiculturalism and when she learned about DLIP, she “was
ready to sign up to support the program.” May chose to work at a school with the program
DUAL IMMERSION 83
because “[I] want to do all that I can to ensure that our children have access to quality programs
that will prepare them to be successful and productive citizens.” So that she could be of better
support to the program, May attended professional development sessions at the local county
office of education and through other professional development agencies. She shared, “In my
effort to enhance the DLIP at my site, I had to increase my knowledge of how best to support the
students and teachers.”
Cindy
Like Susan, Cindy felt like she had “worked in education probably [her] entire life.”
Cindy described school as being “a safe place” that “was a good place” for her. She expressed
that she was “always trying to be the best student, and just do [her] best in school.” She related
this feeling of security as part of the reason that she became a teacher. Cindy commented, “I had
always wanted to be a teacher…to provide other students with the same feeling of safety and
success in my classroom.”
Unlike her colleagues, Cindy’s educational career began as a student worker in the local
university she attended. Cindy worked full-time and attended school taking two classes per
quarter. In her job at the university, Cindy assisted her director with booking prominent guest
speakers to visit the university. Cindy noted, of this time in her life, that she gained an
appreciation for other’s culture, heritage, and ethnic backgrounds. The direct interaction she had
with famous politicians, world leaders, and civil rights activists had a significant impact on her
life and her calling to educate others. Cindy’s time at the university enabled her to complete her
Bachelor of Arts in education, her teacher credentialing certificates, and to begin a dual master’s
program.
DUAL IMMERSION 84
After working there 10 years, Cindy left the university and began her teaching career.
Some of the positions Cindy held were classroom teacher, assistant principal, principal, and
various positions at the district office. In all her assignments, Cindy described them as
“rewarding,” from receiving students in her classroom that other teachers found challenging to
have in their classrooms to working on a variety of committees in support of student learning.
Cindy described working in various programs including “English, mainstream, bilingual,
traditional bilingual.” She shared that her most fulfilling experience was working with students
who had been retained. Cindy noted a distinct commonality in that many of the retained students
were ELLs. Cindy’s curiosity was sparked, and she was determined to explore better ways to
support their learning.
Cindy explained that she learned her second language much later in life. While her
family spoke a language other than English, they expected Cindy to learn to speak English. She
had not had the same schooling experience as her ELLs, and in working with the retained
students, Cindy researched ways to support them. Cindy noted that she was not aware that her
district had a DLIP. She commented, “in my experience with the bilingual program…I almost
always thought it was that way throughout the entire district.” Cindy began to explore other
school sites and learned about the program and then, “I thought, oh my gosh, we need that over
here.” Cindy commented that the power in DLIP is that students are language models for each
other in the classroom:
When I think of [dual language], I think what's ideal is when you do have a program that
is a two-way, because that's where you're really seeing all your students as models, right?
But you're able to create a classroom, or a system within your school where you have
models in all your languages. You have models in your target language, and you have
DUAL IMMERSION 85
models in your English. You talk about your native language, or your non-native
language, or your language one, or language two. Right? And then you have those
students that have it both.
From this exploration, Cindy engaged her colleagues in the “DLIP movement” and was able to
participate in bringing the program to the school. The community welcomed the opportunity for
the students and the program was successful in its implementation. Cindy worked to ensure the
CUSD community was aware of the DLIP and the opportunities available for their children.
Like Cindy, all the participants valued the education that their students received. While their
paths to DLIP differed, each participant advocated for their program.
Table 6 presents a summary of the interviewees’ path to DLIP. In the section that
follows, I will present the findings from the participant interviews and their statements that
assisted me with examining their knowledge and motivation in relation to sustaining or
supporting the program on the various campuses in CUSD. Through this examination, I will
present evidence that demonstrates that participants were effective in sustaining their program
and were respectful of others’ culture, language, and heritage, and that they respected the power
of learning through a target language. Additionally, the examination will evince interviewees’
determination and their resilience in overcoming obstacles in their efforts to ensure that they
provided a program that would meet the needs of their ELLs. Furthermore, the next section will
illustrate their strategic efforts to leverage current resources to sustain their programs effectively.
Finally, the examination also will elucidate the interconnectedness of the administrators’
knowledge and motivation and the environment in which they do their work. The culture and
context of CUSD had a direct effect on DLIP administrators’ ability to be successful in
improving their ability to sustain their programs effectively.
DUAL IMMERSION 86
Table 6
DLIP Administrators’ Path to DLIP
Name
Language
Experience
Years in
Education
Certificated/Classified
Positions
Administrative Positions
Michelle Bilingual Over 25
years
After school program
aide
Substitute Teacher
Bilingual Classroom
Teacher
Teacher on Special
Assignment
Program
Specialist
Principal
District
Administrator
Bob Bilingual 17 years Classroom Teacher
Teacher on Special
Assignment
Program
Specialist
Susan Bilingual Over 30
years
Instructional
Assistant
Bilingual Classroom
Teacher
Teacher on Special
Assignment
Program
Specialist
Assistant
Principal
Principal
District
Administrator
Nicole Bilingual Over 30
years
Classroom Teacher
Teacher on Special
Assignment
Program
Specialist
Principal
Tim Bilingual 21 years
Classroom Teacher Program
Specialist
Principal
May Monolingual 22 years Classroom Teacher
Teacher on Special
Assignment
Program
Specialist
Assistant
Principal
Cindy Bilingual Over 25
years
Bilingual Classroom
Teacher
Classroom Teacher
Teacher on Special
Assignment
Program
Specialist
Assistant
Principal
Principal
District
Administrator
DUAL IMMERSION 87
DLIP Adm in i s t r at o r s ’ Knowledge and Motivation in Relation to Sustaining Effective
DLIPs
An examination of the participants’ knowledge and motivation related to sustaining
effective DLIPs at their sites cannot exclude the environment in which they worked. The
interviewees’ knowledge and motivation interacted with the organizational influences in which
their work was framed. As such, in this section, while the focus will be on the participants’
knowledge and motivation, the section also will include how their knowledge and motivation are
interrelated with the organizational influences that defined their working environment. To
understand that interrelatedness of the organizational influences and what DLIP administrators
know and are motivated to do, it’s important to examine the organizational climate in which they
work.
Organizational Climate
In examining the current environment in which they worked, the participants, all of
whom have a rich history in the district, shared what working in CUSD was then and what it is
now. They described a time when there was an entire department devoted to ELLs and their
learning. The DLIPs fell under that department which was overseen by an assistant
superintendent and a director and which was staffed with program specialists and teachers on
special assignment. Michelle, Susan, and Nicole reported that the level of support for ELLs and
the DLIP was significant. Further, they shared that CUSD applied for and received a federally-
funded multimillion dollar grant that was for CUSD’s use to promote dual language instruction.
Michelle noted that she thought the grant was received around 1999. Nicole also made mention
of the grant calling it the “FLAP grant.” The United States Department of Education’s Foreign
Language Assistance Program (FLAP), provided grants to schools so that schools could create or
DUAL IMMERSION 88
enhance foreign language programs, including immersion programs (United States Department
of Education (USDE), 2014). In the fall of the year after receiving the funds, Michelle noted that
CUSD began its DLIP in one elementary school. In July of the next year, Michelle commented
that two other elementary schools opened DLIP settings. Michelle shared that the grant provided
for a “district designee who was overseeing the grant and worked with an outside consultant that
would look at the data and would look at the systems to support and implement a dual immersion
program.” Michelle and Nicole explained that the DLIP was well supported and grant-funded
for about ten years. As it so happened, Michelle noted, the grant ended just as Proposition 227
made its way onto the educational stage.
Michelle remarked, that once Proposition 227 became law,:
there was pressure on the English language development. There were some contradictory
messages just from society, community in general, this pressure to learn English, to
demonstrate proficiency in English. So, the dual immersion program, or being in the dual
wasn't as highlighted from the district.
As a result, support from the district level for DLIP in CUSD waned; however, Michelle
indicated that families who were participating in the program, remained faithful. These families
and the DLIP teachers maintained their focus on DLIP and Michelle stated that they
put pressure on the Board of Education, on the superintendent, to create this advisory so
that all dual immersion schools would come together and share how are you promoting
the program? What are steps that you're starting to take? It became a platform for the
schools to come and say to the district, "This is what we need."
The then interim superintendent of schools demonstrated his support for the DLIP. Some of the
Board of Education members did as well. Their support was reflected in the creation of a DLIP
DUAL IMMERSION 89
Advisory Committee (DLIPAC) that was inclusive of DLIP administrators and teaching staff,
and DLIP families. The DLIPAC met regularly and provided CUSD’s DLIP community a forum
to share school activities, engage in strategic planning for the DLIP in CUSD, and provide
support for each of the programs.
By this time, however, what once was a department of people who supported the DLIP
had reduced to about five people, and then three people, and then to one person as Nicole and
Susan reported. The dwindling of administrative support for the DLIP was much of what the
participants discussed and was one of the areas they would like to see improve. Additionally, the
participants shared that while they perceived support from the superintendent and some Board
members for the DLIP, they believed that the support fell short of what they needed to sustain
their programs.
As discussed in Chapter 2, DLIP administrators have additional responsibilities than their
administrator peers in non-DLIP schools. In addition to being responsible for positive student
outcomes, student achievement, and continuous professional growth of their staff and themselves
(Berson & Oreg, 2016; Hightower, 1979; Stevenson et al., 2016), they also must demonstrate
their knowledge of and their unwavering ability to detail their DLIP to families and their school
community (Aguirre-Baeza, 2001). This description must be explicit and include benefits,
challenges, barriers, and assets (Howard et al., 2018). Within this description, administrators
must communicate their theoretical knowledge of dual immersion via their shared vision and
mission for the program. They also must demonstrate their understanding of their programs
through their goals and plans to meet those goals if the program is to be sustained.
DLIP administrators served as program advocates and cheerleaders (Howard &
Sugarman, 2007) and demonstrated their understanding and the importance of believing in the
DUAL IMMERSION 90
program (Schein, 2010). As advocates, these administrators displayed their self-efficacy as they
communicated expectations and educated families about the experience on which their children
were about to embark. These actions affirmed their respect for their DLIP community. This
advocacy also included being respectful of the heritage and culture of the target language and
what parents, staff, and the school community at large needed to know about the program
offering (Kose, 2011). A collaborative approach with families and staff that reflected inclusive
actions and behaviors conveyed their respect and assisted DLIP administrators with garnering
families’ support and trust. Of equal importance, the administrators’ knowledge of how to best
implement the guiding principles in support of the program, the students, and the community
reflected their self-efficacy and their respect for the DLIPs.
Additionally, participants were resilient in their advocacy for and support of the program.
Their advocacy reflected their motivation to achieve their goals of addressing the needs of their
ELLs and sustaining the DLIP to meet the students’ needs. Advocacy also included being
courageous in support of the program (Hong, 2017). Interviewees displayed a high sense of self-
efficacy and were steadfast in seeking greater knowledge to improve their ability to sustain a
program that they valued.
Participants were resourceful in seeking the knowledge they needed to advance their
skills to sustain their programs. They were self-sufficient and took the initiative to search for
opportunities that would help them to achieve their goals. When faced with challenges, they
found innovative ways to address the situation and were persistent in doing all they could to
minimize negative external factors. Their dedication to their programs fueled their motivation to
counteract obstacles in their organization and environment. Motivated participants evaluated
DUAL IMMERSION 91
their actions and their needs and reflected a persistent nature to leverage their current resources
and use them strategically to sustain their programs effectively.
Respectful Leaders
Respectful DLIP administrators knew and appreciated the importance of the guiding
principles for dual language, as these principles, they reported, supported their efforts to ensure
that the needs of their most underserved students, their ELLs, had a program in place to meet
their needs and to assist them with closing the achievement gap. Each referenced them during
the interviews, one commenting that they were the school’s DLIP “Bible.” Collectively, the
administrators remarked that establishing the program structure was the foundation for the other
strands of the guiding principles. Within the principles are equally important elements that
reflect a high regard for the program and its community that the interviewees referenced. They
reported that they had to ensure that their programs reflected and valued the culture and heritage
of the target language and that of the students as well. They noted that both equity and fidelity to
the program were central in their daily operations. They stressed the importance of building
capacity among staff and community to ensure effective sustainability of the program. As the
literature suggests, building teacher capacity is an effective strategy to enhance language
programs (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014; Lucas et al., 2008; Stoll et al., 2006). Finally, they remarked
that demonstrating respect for their DLIP community and the target language was integral to
sustaining their programs effectively. By increasing their knowledge and skills, participants
were able to provide better support to their programs. Key to closing the performance gap in an
organization is the employees’ ability to do their jobs effectively (Clark & Estes, 2008). With an
increase in their knowledge via the guiding principles, interviewees reflected respect for their
DLIP community and program through their engagement in strategic planning. Demonstrating
DUAL IMMERSION 92
their ability to implement the guiding principles for program sustainability, the participants’
actions included using the principles to create current and 3-year strategic plans. These plans
evidenced their desire to maintain positive school environments for and to build capacity in the
DLIP community.
DLIP administrators engaged in strategic planning. Tim commented that the guiding
principles were “the framework that our district is following” and that this “has helped guide
[us].” In stating that the district is following a specific framework, Tim’s comment suggested to
me that there was some level of a unified vision in the district regarding planning for the
program. At some point in time, Tim and his colleagues received a directive to use the guiding
principles to support the sustainability of their programs. Tim expanded this idea by stating that
the framework the district is following assisted them with their program. Creating a strategic
plan for student achievement following the principles includes key areas of focus such as
curriculum and instruction, staff quality, and professional development to ensure an effectively
sustained program (Howard et al., 2018; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Stoll et al., 2006; Wallace
Foundation, 2013). Tim and the other participants, having reported that they synthesized their
understanding of the guiding principles for dual language, created current and three-year DLIP
plans which included these strands. Additionally, some of them included other strand foci
depending on where the school was on the DLIP journey. Bob shared that his school was
“focused on Strand 6, oh, right, Family and Community because we want to ensure that the
parents know that they are included in this process.” Inclusive school environments demonstrate
respect for families and students (Howard et al., 2018). Interviewees remarked that ensuring
adequate program preparation reflected their respect for their students’ families, thus
demonstrating their knowledge of DLIP tenets.
DUAL IMMERSION 93
The participants spoke reverently of the guiding principles. They reported that they
referred to them often, particularly when educating others about the program offerings. As the
advocate for his program and the leader of his school, Tim stated that “[my] words and actions
must reflect a deep understanding of dual language…I have to demonstrate my respect for the
power of learning through a second language.” Tim remarked that through the use of the guiding
principles and other professional learning, he was able to educate himself and then his
community and future DLIP families about the program advantages and challenges. Tim
explained that, while many of his families wanted the program for some time, there were still
those families that expressed hesitancy and concern regarding their children’s participation. Tim
stated that he had to be prepared with as many possible responses to families’ inquiries about the
program. Tim commented that he “needed to be respectful of his families and I also I needed to
assure them that I was confident in my program structure and design and I had to make sure that
they felt confident in their choice too.” Tim understood that he had to provide families with
specific information regarding the program if they were to enroll their students. This
understanding motivated Tim to seek the knowledge necessary to be an advocate for the program
at his site. DLIP administrators are called upon to be the primary supporters of the program and
as such must be able to communicate their program knowledge to their school communities
(Aguirre-Baeza, 2001).
May commented in a similar fashion as Tim stating, “we’re working within the confines
of [the guiding principles] and use them for our short-term and long-term planning.” As May
expressed, the DLIP administrators use their program knowledge and understanding of the
guiding principles to support their plans for their programs. Interestingly, May described her use
of the guiding principles as “working within the confines” of them. When asked to expound on
DUAL IMMERSION 94
this statement, May shared that in the recent past, many of the programs were “doing their own
thing” and that “few of us were on the same page.” As a result of these actions, May reported
that what was happening at one school wasn’t happening at a different one. She commented that,
“It just wasn’t ethical, and we needed to do better for our students and the school community at
large.” May’s comments reflected her respect and concern for the DLIP community as she
wanted to ensure that all children were receiving similar opportunities. May explained that, by
delineating the strands on which the school would focus and creating a plan based on these focus
areas, it was clearer to see what the schools were offering and how they were presenting it to the
families and to the students in the classroom. This change, May remarked, affirmed for families
that what was happening on one end of the district was the same thing that was happening on the
other end of the district. Fairness and respect are key components of educational equity (de
Jong, 2011). Coupled with strategic planning, engaging in a culture of equity (Howard &
Sugarman, 2007) and respectful behaviors provided the administrators the opportunity to
enhance their program sustainability.
DLIP administrators created positive school environments. According to Howard
and Sugarman (2007), effective DLIP administrators promote their program not only by
demonstrating their knowledge of the program and its guiding principles, but also by knowing
that they must demonstrate their respect for multiculturalism and diversity. To create a positive
school climate (Ylimaki, 2006), respectful leaders know that they must recognize and value
others’ culture, language, and heritage. All their actions should reflect this respect for their
community. As Michelle commented:
It [The DLIP] also needs to be about the practices and the perspectives and how it’s
reflected in our identity as a school when we do assemblies, when we put banners out
DUAL IMMERSION 95
there. What is the language of privilege and status? We need to make sure that there is
equity in how we approach things and that we are mindful that we have different types of
learners.
DLIP administrators who are effective in sustaining their program (Howard et al., 2003) must
reflect on their actions (Rueda, 2011) to ensure that their behaviors are aligned (Mayer, 2011) to
respecting the target language and its culture and heritage. Their actions must reflect respect and
equity for both languages (Lindholm-Leary, 2005) as these actions demonstrate a mindset of
equity to the community at large. Susan described what honoring the target language looked like
at her school:
The program is done with fidelity. If I walked into a classroom and I was the program
specialist, right away, my participation, or how I greeted the teachers had to be in
Spanish. If there is anybody that wants to be in the classroom, it has to be in Spanish,
because that was it.
The DLIP teachers and administrators at Susan’s school held high expectations for all students
and staff in relation to maintaining the target language in the classroom as well as in the
hallways. Susan equated language equity to supporting the culture of the program. To her, this
equity was reflected in hearing both languages in the hallways and in the classrooms with the
same frequency. Susan described that the frequent use of both languages was the foundation of a
positive school environment and, this feeling of social connectedness is essential to the success
of ELLs in school (Yeh & Inose, 2003).
Susan commented that if the Spanish “teacher is walking down the hallway and they see
me, they talk to me in Spanish, because they have to make sure that the students know that that
teacher is their target language teacher, and not their ELD teacher.” The focus on the target
DUAL IMMERSION 96
language, even in casual conversation in the hallways, not only reflected the staff members’
respect for the language, it also demonstrated an environment in which Spanish was given the
same status as English. Schools and teachers create positive environments for ELLs when those
environments welcome and honor multiculturalism or promote a sense of belonging (Coulter &
Smith, 2006; Yeh & Inose, 2003). Engaging in language parity was critical in maintaining a
positive school environment.
Susan shared that these actions, speaking in Spanish to her teachers, demonstrated to the
students that Spanish was valued equally and that there was an expectation that students, too,
would speak in Spanish with their peers outside of the classroom. The participants were
committed to sustaining their programs and evaluated their daily behaviors to ensure that those
behaviors were respectful and conducive to maintaining positive environments for all DLIP
students as they worked to sustain their programs. Leadership is critical in support of school
programs (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Through their actions that assign value to the target
language, the interviewees set the tone for their programs and school community. Susan shared
that the tone she was attempting to set in her school community was that there was no minority
language; that, as equal partners, Spanish and English partnered equally in her school.
Just as with Susan’s school, Bob shared that his staff is very “in tune with the program,
to its fidelity, and making sure that it was done with fidelity.” Bob reported that in their respect
for the program, his teachers demonstrated a shared commitment to program equity and engaged
in creating a sense of connectedness with their students. Bob described one instance in which his
staff asked to meet with him regarding administrator visits to their classroom. He shared that his
teachers told him that they needed the administrators to mind the DLIP schedule when
conducting observations. Bob stated that his teachers told him something to the effect of “as
DUAL IMMERSION 97
administrators, when you visit our classrooms, if we’re in Spanish mode, you need to speak in
Spanish.” Bob commented that his teachers had high expectations regarding being respectful to
each language and that they expected everyone to be mindful of that too. The teachers were
mindful of their ELLs in the classrooms and needed to ensure that everyone who entered the
classrooms supported the ELLs’ educational experience (Perkins-Gough, 2007) to ensure a
positive school environment.
Bob reflected that ensuring equity of access to learning strategies signaled respect for
students and the program; whatever the school does in the mainstream English classes, they do
the same in the DLIP, “just in Spanish:”
Our school decided that we would focus on position partnering as a strategy to support
student learning. When I walk in the English classrooms, I should see it just as I should
see it in the DLIP classrooms. The language of instruction is the only difference. What
is happening in the two different settings should mirror each other. My task, as the DLIP
administrator, is to ensure that this is happening consistently.
Bob explained that, in previous years, some DLIP classrooms were not using the same
instructional strategies as the English only classrooms. Teachers struggled to find materials in
Spanish, or they would attempt to create their own or they would not teach a particular strategy
to the students. In his work with his staff, Bob reiterated the importance of an equitable
education that values all learners. Bob shared that once the teachers received their new
curriculum that they piloted and chose, the equity issue lessened as the curriculum had the
supports they needed. Bob’s actions showed his respect for his DLIP community as he
advocated for their learning, particularly as it related to making sure the DLIP and non-DLIPs
were functioning equally. DLIP administrators are language advocates and must seize every
DUAL IMMERSION 98
opportunity to support and sustain their programs (DeMatthews et al., 2017). Additionally,
ELLs should be afforded the same access to the materials and instruction that occurs in the
mainstream classrooms (Coulter & Smith, 2006) reflecting a positive environment that is
inclusive, supportive, and focused on their learning.
From just outside the office of May’s school, it is evident that the DLIP has a significant
place at the school. There is evidence throughout the school that the school community values
the heritage and culture of the target language. Bilingual signs abound and everything that is
available in English is readily available in Spanish. May explained that she has worked tirelessly
to ensure that the DLIP is represented at the school “because, when I first got here, you couldn’t
tell by any of our actions that we even had the program here.” She shared that they have two
multicultural events annually to honor and celebrate Latino heritage: “It is critically important
that we recognize and value all cultures, but we especially need to honor the Latino culture as
Spanish is the target language in our dual.” May acknowledged that, while she did not speak
Spanish fluently, she knew she needed to be a tremendous support to the program in her work as
an assistant principal. May’s incorporation of the guiding principles into her daily work life
afforded her the opportunity to support and advocate for the program and create a learning
environment that supported students’ culture, heritage, and primary language. She shared that
she valued the program and the opportunities it provides for the students. She commented that
she respected all her families’ decisions to enroll their children in this program. It is critical that
DLIP administrators value the importance of both languages (Howard et al., 2018; Lindholm-
Leary, 2001) in an environment in which students can attain bilingualism, biliteracy and
multicultural awareness. Through her actions, May was ensuring that she was propelling the
program forward and creating a hospitable environment in which to learn. The environment she
DUAL IMMERSION 99
was creating was one of connectedness and inclusion, positively affecting students’ motivation
and academic success (Faircloth & Hamm, 2005).
DLIP administrators provided capacity building. Respectful participants displayed
knowledge of and a positive attitude toward the DLIP (Thomas & Collier, 2002; Lindholm-
Leary, 2001). This positive attitude was reflected in their desire to impart this knowledge to their
staff. DLIP administrators recognized that they needed to engage in professional learning to be
able to provide their staff with similar professional learning opportunities. This recognition of
their need to enhance their knowledge demonstrated their willingness to engage in personal
reflection. The participants in this study invested time in a cycle of continuous improvement
through an evaluation of their actions, behaviors, and practices. Bob remarked that the
occasional meetings that he had with his DLIP administrative peers helped him to reflect on
better ways to support his team through professional development. Bob’s reflection and his use
of metacognitive strategies and self-regulated learning afforded him the opportunity to set and
plan to achieve his goals of supporting his team. Self-regulated individuals take the time to set
their goals, monitor and reflect on their progress, and then modify their behaviors as necessary to
attain their goals (Pintrich, 2003). In his self-examination, Bob remarked, “I’ve learned quite a
bit about the theories of dual language and how other school teams support their folks. We’ve
gotta keep this train moving forward; my kids have places to go and goals to accomplish!” Bob’s
appreciation for his students’ DLIP pathway mirrored his desire to increase his teachers’
theoretical understanding of dual language. He noted, however, that the learning had to start
with him first. DLIP administrators, effective in sustaining their programs, ensure that they have
the necessary knowledge to be successful (Alanís & Rodríguez, 2008).
DUAL IMMERSION 100
Similar to what Bob expressed, Nicole also commented on the value of the dual language
advisory meetings hosted by the district office. She shared that “getting everybody to start
talking about the guiding principles” and to learn what each team is doing to focus on the
principles has increased her knowledge and has helped her with new ideas. Attending the
advisory meetings, Nicole reported, provided her with information to take back and share with
her staff. It was a good opportunity, she explained, for her to learn how to better implement and
critique her use of the guiding principles. Nicole remarked that, “You’re talking about what
you’re celebrating as a school. Everyone’s kind of on the same playing field there.” She noted
that there is a level of comfort in knowing that you have the support of other administrators and
that together they were able to give each other feedback. Nicole reported that the feedback she
received from her peers was meaningful. She shared that she appreciated having a place for her
voice to be heard and that there was time for celebrating successes that the DLIP administrators
had as well as supporting each other in areas of need. Nicole remarked that having parents on
the committee was an asset because they were learning with the DLIP administrators and
offering their suggestions about how to make the programs better. She noted that the
professional growth and the parent education that occurred at the meeting was beneficial and
provided supports to the teams and families for their programs. Nicole reported that being
inclusive of the parents on the advisory council affirmed their voice and signaled to them that not
only were their thoughts and comments important to the district, but that the district also valued
increasing their knowledge of the DLIP as well. Inclusive school environments (Howard et al.,
2018) provide administrators the opportunity to build rapport with families, (Montecel & Danini,
2002), demonstrate respect for their input, and provide opportunities to engage families in
learning opportunities.
DUAL IMMERSION 101
Participants who built teacher capacity in bilingual education and ensured that the target
language was equally valued (Menken, 2017) demonstrated respect for and knowledge of their
program. Michelle chose to focus her efforts on professional development for her staff, and
DLIP parenting classes to educate her community. Michelle stated that “teachers had been
thirsting for [professional development] and wanting this for a long time.” She directed
professional learning participants to approach dual immersion as more than “oh, it’s talking, it’s
speaking in another language.” Educating the participants about the program model and
increasing their capacity for their commitment to the program were essential elements to ensure
program sustainability (Montecel & Danini, 2002). Through the professional learning she
provided, she reported that she focused participants on understanding that dual immersion is
“calling for academic biliteracy and bilingualism, but also cultural proficiency.” Michelle stated
that “professional learning needs to now shift” in relation to the “revised guiding principles.”
She shared that with “program structure as the very first principle…one of the most key
foundational pieces or pillars” will assist our community with “understanding that we have a
program structure that is supportive of academic success in each of the languages.” By focusing
participants and families on the high expectations for student success, Michelle reflected her
respect for the students’ opportunities. Michelle explained that the data showed that her students
were outperforming their non-DLIP peers. Their success, she commented, was a significant
motivating factor for her. She also expressed that there seemed to be greater camaraderie among
the DLIP students. From the exit tickets that she used after her parenting classes, Michelle noted
that the participants seemed to be gaining significant knowledge and understanding of how they
could support their children in DLIP. She commented that after that she “really got inspired and
really focused more on leadership and what it takes to really move a community of learners and
DUAL IMMERSION 102
parents and schools.” Additionally, she commented further about the importance of engaging
with the families of DLIP students and building capacity “and understanding that they have
needs . . . and that we have monolingual families supporting their child, learning a different
language that they know nothing about.” Michelle detailed that providing this level of support to
families not only helped her build rapport with them and reflected the respect that she had for
them and their choice to participate in the DLIP, but also supported her efforts to sustain her
DLIP effectively.
Like Michelle, Cindy focused her efforts on working with the DLIP community and
families in CUSD to increase their dual language knowledge. With parenting classes and
professional development for CUSD employees, Cindy stated that she planned to continue
“building the support and advocacy through our parents, and our communities.” Cindy shared
that, often, parents questioned her about the benefits of the programs and were concerned with
their children’s ability to do well in English if more than 50% of their day is spent in the target
language through third grade. Cindy noted that she appreciated concerns of this nature and that
she respected families for their concern. She stated that this provided her with the welcomed
opportunity to discuss with them that “we only learn how to read once” and to take them into
classrooms to hear from the students themselves. Cindy recalled and shared one such
conversation:
I think the first thing I would say to someone, I have had the conversation with some
parents at some of our tours and orientations is I think, I always say, I appreciate you
sharing that with me and your concerns of course, and I respect your beliefs, but I'm
going to try to change your mind about that. Let me show you some data. Let me show
you and give you the experience of talking to some of our students, of seeing what
DUAL IMMERSION 103
actually happens in the classrooms, what happens to their teachers, talking about all the
requirements, all the things what we need to make sure that we're doing so that we're in
compliance, so that we're providing the best that we can.
Cindy explained that, after conversing with the families and taking them into classrooms
to hear DLIP students discuss the program, most families were ready to sign up for the program.
She noted that these respectful conversations and classroom visits were critically important for
families who were unsure of the program. Cindy explained that her knowledge of the DLIP is
paramount to her conversations with families who were “on the fence about the program.”
Within her presentations to families, Cindy explained that she shared DLIP student data
and data from students in mainstream English classes. Additionally, she stated that she showed
families the level of commitment that the program required and the students’ projected pathway
from kindergarten through the intermediate school. From the thank you cards in her office from
families with whom she had similar conversations, it was evident that Cindy’s conversations
with families were respectful and motivating, as reported by her in the above quote. Cindy
supported the DLIP’s sustainability by introducing families to the program expectations and the
potential success that their children may have in the program. Leaders carry the responsibility of
building and sustaining their organizations as they are responsible for the organization’s success
(Senge, 1990). Cindy’s part in building CUSD was evidenced in her respectful character when
she engaged families in seeking educational opportunities for their children.
Summary. DLIP administrators are the program’s greatest advocates, and, as such, they
must have extensive knowledge and belief in the theories and practices of dual language
(Menken & Solorza, 2015). In addition to a deep understanding of their programs, their
advocacy includes a genuine respect for the target language, culture, heritage, students, and their
DUAL IMMERSION 104
families. Respect is demonstrated in a variety of ways, from being inclusive of and
communicative with all families, to creating a positive environment in which to learn, to
ensuring language equity and program fidelity, to building capacity for families and the DLIP
community. Further, in all their actions, the DLIP administrators affirmed their desire to provide
an education to their students that would improve student achievement through a target language
enhancing their students’ future abilities to compete in a global economy. Providing a DLIP
education to their students is no easy task. DLIP administrators must maintain their motivation
to accomplish their goals and to meet the needs of their ELLs. This necessary ingredient of
motivation is discussed further in the next section.
Resilient Leaders
Resilient leaders participate actively to achieve their goals. They are motivated by
knowing that they must accomplish their goals and by wanting to accomplish them (Eccles,
2006). According to Bandura (2000) and Pajares (2006), motivated people believe they can
accomplish their tasks. When their sense of self-efficacy is high, they are further motivated to be
successful (Pintrich, 2003). This cycle of self-efficacy, that drives motivation, that leads to task
completion (Bandura, 1993; Mayer, 2011; Pintrich, 2003) reflected individuals who were
resilient, strong, spirited, and resistant to self-doubt. Participants fell within this self-efficacious
cycle.
As introduced in the above sections, highly self-efficacious DLIP administrators’ utility
value drove their desire to learn and become more knowledgeable about their programs.
Ambitious individuals choose tasks that are of value to them (Clark & Estes, 2008) and that will
effectuate their success in those tasks. In appreciating the value that a DLIP education had for
their ELLs, the participants sought every opportunity to enhance their knowledge about
DUAL IMMERSION 105
supporting and sustaining the program. Additionally, they were steadfast in their efforts to be
successful in this endeavor. Interviewees faced challenges to their goals and displayed resilience
in combatting obstacles that got onto their path. These next sections will present the DLIP
administrators’ motivational influences that were integral in meeting their goal of sustaining their
programs effectively.
DLIP administrators were self-efficacious. The DLIP site administrators’ experiences
of achieving their goals in support of their programs, their self-efficacy, made them resilient.
Their belief in and knowledge of the importance of sustaining effective DLIPs to address the
needs of their underserved ELL population enhanced their resilience. Across all participants,
there was a strong belief that they were working successfully within their programs in support of
this student population. They held high expectations for themselves and their staff. They shared
that they worked hard to support and sustain their programs and to overcome any barriers that
came across their paths. They reported some of their successes in counteracting stumbling
blocks that may have hindered their progress sharing that the DLIP was too important for them to
falter.
Cindy reported that, in her work with the DLIP, she and her team were accomplishing
tasks and as a result she knew that they would continue their achievement in the coming year:
My primary goal, I think, is really to have our dual master plan in place this year. One of
the expectations of the superintendent is that we try and complete the plan. And I think
he's been waiting for it for a few years now. It's just for many reasons that it's where it is.
I think now the biggest thing that needs to be worked on is we need to include all the
Mandarin, and so I think the sooner…My goal is to be done with everything by January.
So that's our goal right now as a group. I feel really confident.
DUAL IMMERSION 106
Cindy’s expressions of confidence in her ability to complete the plan reflected a high level of
self-efficacy. She and her team had success in completing the majority of the plan, and, as Cindy
stated, they just “need to include all the Mandarin” information as this new language was added
within the last school year. Cindy shared that some of the “many reasons” that the plan had not
been completed yet were due to outside forces that were affecting the entire district and were not
specifically related to the DLIP. She commented that now that “things are better under control
from the district standpoint,” she and her team would be able to focus and get the work
completed.
Susan concurred with Cindy’s belief that the “district is getting better.” She stated, “I
think being at that particular school, the principal and I created a vision and there is support.
Everybody knows [about the DLIP]; everybody is onboard.” The success that Susan experienced
working with her team to create the school’s vision and to get everyone focused working toward
the same goals did not come without its challenges. She explained that becoming a dual school
was difficult and “it has to be very carefully done.” Susan shared that it was important for the
DLIP administrators to work with their teacher teams and “create a true DLIP learning
community. As we worked together and began speaking the same language, we were successful
in staying on the same page.” DLIP administrators who can communicate and commit to a
shared vision (Howard et al., 2018) are more likely to experience success in completing their
tasks. These successful team experiences build the collective efficacy of the group (Bandura,
1977). Additionally, the leaders’ self-efficacy increases as they experience success in
completing their tasks (Pajares, 2006), as the interview responses suggested they did.
Like Susan, Tim also experienced success. At his school, his team planned and
implemented the DLIP at his school site. Tim remarked,
DUAL IMMERSION 107
So, when the idea came for a dual language program, it was proposed, and we were given
some time to think about it. We spoke with our staff and we felt like it was a good fit, so
we chose it…it was a good fit because of the history and the makeup of our school. We
felt “a strong sense of accomplishment in our first year of implementation.”
As Tim and his staff planned and implemented the DLIP, they experienced success. Tim
remarked that his team and he believed that they could accomplish the task of implementing the
program, and they did. Believing that a task can be accomplished and having that belief come to
fruition increase motivation and self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000; Grossman & Salas, 2011; Pajares,
2006).
Tim reflected that he felt successful when he could meet with parents who were
apprehensive about the program and he could “sit with them and calm them and convince them
this is a good thing for their children…If I’m having those conversations, I am successful.” Tim
remarked that while some of those conversations with parents could be difficult and sometimes
challenging, they were an essential part of the process. He noted that:
There also are different administrative challenges with it, in terms of the parents. There's
a certain level of communication and I don't know perhaps, massaging or coaxing
parents. It's a little different than just your traditional mainstream classrooms, there's a
little bit more risk involved in it. It requires another level of engagement with parents
and building that trust and rapport and we do that through the different meetings and
trainings we have for the parents.
Tim explained that there are greater demands on DLIP administrators due to the nature of the
program. However, he reported positive outcomes in his conversations with his families. The
dedication to the program and to the students increases intrinsic motivation (Fullan, 2007) and
DUAL IMMERSION 108
enhances the mental effort and persistence needed to accomplish tasks (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Tim explained that key to his success was his ability to hold steadfast in the wake of challenges
that might otherwise throw his program off course. His resilience and motivation were vital to
his goal of supporting and sustaining the DLIP at his site.
Susan’s self-efficacious actions in support of her DLIP were evident also. She
commented that she could not wait for the district to provide training for her and for her staff.
She shared that, in all her years in education, what she noted was that “you have to knock on a
lot of doors to get what you need. And if no one decides to answer, you may just have to go to a
different building altogether.” Susan explained that she’s been in the business too long to let
anyone or anything hold her “up, down, back, or any other preposition out there!” She chuckled
and explained,
I had to go out, of course, and search my own PD [professional development], and I did
throughout the state, and in emails, and webinars, and really getting into the different
dual languages, and the data, and how we can be a great dual school.
Susan’s success in finding professional learning opportunities that were relevant to her need to
acquire more knowledge about dual language learning assisted her in her task to improve her
school’s program. Finding value in and relevance to a task to one’s individual goals is a
motivating factor (Eccles, 2006). Susan’s resilient nature was reflected in her determination to
increase her knowledge of dual language programs which she equated to a greater ability for her
to sustain her school’s program, ultimately making her more self-efficacious.
Similarly, May stated that she felt like, “Okay, if I'm going to support the program, let’s
go ahead and get some books. Let's go and get into the PD. What conferences can we tap into?”
May reported working resolutely to develop teacher capacity alongside her own, “it’s what I do.
DUAL IMMERSION 109
That’s what I’m really good at!” Personal interest (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006) drove May’s
support of her DLIP team. Like Susan, May reported going outside the district to find
educational opportunities for her staff and felt she was “good at” doing so, thus demonstrating
her self-efficacy. She commented,
The district just didn’t have what we needed, but that’s okay because I went out and I
found what my teachers and I needed. You can’t sit around and wait for someone to hand
feed you. You have to get in there and meet your own needs.
May’s success with and enjoyment of finding professional learning opportunities for her DLIP
site team served to further raise her level of self-efficacy. Individuals who believe they can
accomplish tasks and who experience success in those same tasks increase their levels of self-
efficacy, which drives their motivation (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Pajares, 2006; Pintrich, 2003).
In addition to her increased motivation, May’s resilient spirit was reflected in her comments that
one must “get in there and meet your own needs.” May refused to let challenges or problems
hinder her efforts to support her program. Her resilience was fueled by her self-efficacy.
Both Nicole and May were motivated to improve their ability because in addition to
deeming the DLIP worthy as noted by data that have demonstrated positive student outcomes,
they were successful in fostering positive relations within the DLIP school community in support
of student learning. Nicole noted,
The vision has always been supporting bilingualism, biliteracy, supporting, like any other
program, academic achievement, but I think at this specific school, I could see, and I
think maybe because of the area, just that pride of being able to maintain the language
alive so that we can say, “Our students, our community, is able to read, write, listen,
speak in another language, primarily Spanish.”
DUAL IMMERSION 110
Nicole commented that she was proud of her accomplishment of bringing the program to the
forefront in her school community as her school is now known for its DLIP. Seeing the benefits
of one’s work is significant in motivating individuals to attend and complete a task (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Nicole shared that, while the program had been in place for some time at the
school, many did not equate the school with the program. Nicole remarked that she was resolved
to transform that mindset and felt that many of her actions were responsible for her school now
being “known for that.”
Similar to Nicole’s drive to have her school recognized for its DLIP offering, May
remarked that, at her school, she has “been diligent about celebrating DLIP achievements and
accomplishments. Our community has to know that this is our focus area.” May reported that
she tasked herself with bringing the program to the forefront on her campus. She said that she is
pleased with the work she has done in raising awareness of the program within her school
community. She commented, “We have to do a better job of marketing our programs and
highlighting district success to our communities. I am doing that; my efforts have been fruitful.”
Attending to the task successfully increases self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006), and, as Nicole and May
continue having successful task completion experiences, their self-efficacious behaviors will fuel
their motivation. Pintrich (2003) posits that greater levels of self-efficacy drive individuals to
persist and engage energetically in the task.
May and Cindy shared that an additional motivating factor for seeking professional
learning opportunities to further their programs was to increase the pattern of success that they
had experienced so far in their positions. May noted, “I love what I do, but I’m always looking
to advance my career. The more I know, the more marketable I will be.” May commented that,
DUAL IMMERSION 111
in her role as an assistant principal, she was successful in meeting her teams’ needs, providing
them the necessary supports that they required. She commented,
The DLIP teachers are always working, whether they are translating a document,
researching for materials, or finding ways to introduce something that is only provided in
English. Their jobs are constant. I have to do what I can to support them.
May described that her support of her DLIP was equally a support of her own learning and
professional growth. She commented that her continued support of the teachers and students
helped her, too. From each interaction with her team, May reported that she was successful in
building capacity for herself as well.
Cindy also shared that the work she was doing ultimately prepared her for her next steps
in the educational field:
With each new thing that I learn, I am adding to my toolbox. The new information is
helping me to work with the DLIP in the immediate, but it’s also preparing me for my
future careers.
Both May and Cindy recognized the personal benefits and the benefits to their programs
as they improved their abilities to meet the needs of their staff and students. May reported that
being successful at supporting others was no easy task: “You have to be deliberate, dedicated,
and strong in providing the support that people need. I am doing that; I think my staff
appreciates the work that I do to support them.” The greater the belief in one’s ability to
accomplish a task, the greater one’s motivation to complete the task (Grossman & Salas, 2011;
Pajares, 2006). May and Cindy continued experiencing success in their tasks which also
increased their level of self-efficacy. As noted earlier, Pintrich (2003) suggested that those with
DUAL IMMERSION 112
higher levels of self-efficacy have a greater resilience to complete the task as they persist through
adverse conditions and apply more effort to accomplish the tasks.
DLIP administrators ’ utility value strengthened their resolve to face challenges. As
mentioned previously, the participants in this study communicated a value of the programs they
were running and trying to sustain. This recognition of DLIP’s value to their students encouraged
them to think strategically in the face of challenges to the program. Bob’s desire to support the
program was reflected in his determination to increase his professional learning. He stated that
his commitment to the program never waned because “his kids [his students] need the
opportunity.” Bob explained that, to increase his understanding of dual language education, he
attended the dual committee meetings:
[The meetings have] provided me knowledge so that I can better support my staff and
principal. This program is important. We see the success our kids are having and how
proud their parents are as a result. I have to learn more so that I can be the support that
they all need. Also, If I go into a classroom, I need to be able to support the teachers too
with my observation comments. I need to be able to discuss with them better ways to
improve the kids’ fluency and communication.
Bob shared that he continually sought professional learning opportunities so that he could
better support the program. He shared that, prior to attending his district meetings, he attended
meetings sponsored by the local county office of education and “snuck in with friends” who
were attending professional development training in other districts. He said, “If my district
doesn’t have what I need or isn’t offering any trainings, then I have to go and find them on my
own.” He remarked that hurdles such as a lack of professional learning opportunities would not
get in his way of obtaining more knowledge about the DLIP. Bob reflected that there is much to
DUAL IMMERSION 113
know and understand about dual language and language acquisition. From his actions and
behaviors, I noted that he was an administrator who got what he needed to advance his
knowledge, particularly when it was for something he valued, reflected in his comment above
that “this program is important.” Bob’s commitment to the program was palpable, and he
demonstrated that providing support to the program was an imperative.
Cindy was equally willing to investigate other means of increasing her knowledge if
opportunities were not available in the district. She said of supporting others and answering
questions they may have, “And what I don't know, I research, and you do the whole, let me get
back to you. I promise, just give me time, I'm not really sure. We will figure it out. But I'm
very confident in my ability to learn what I need to learn to support others.” Cindy reported that
she believed that her support of others directly supported the DLIP. She commented that the
program addressed the needs of ELLs, which was important to her. She tasked herself with
guaranteeing that support because:
You know what, we need to do this. This is good for kids, right? I said, “Because those
are the kind of conversations you have when you're in your meetings.” I said, “And what
you want, and we were told years ago, you make decisions as a group, you collaborate
and think of kids first.”
Cindy’s comments revealed a person who was passionate about student learning and student
success, and that she saw the program as a means to that end: “This is good for our kids.” Her
comments also suggested that she was a team player and someone others could rely on for
support. She did not hesitate to act when students or their DLIP administrators were in need and
she did not let problems stand in her way. Participants were deliberate in increasing their
knowledge in support of the DLIPs because they saw value in the program. Increasing their
DUAL IMMERSION 114
knowledge better prepared them to support their ELLs in a program that meets their needs
(DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2018).
Tim stated that his team and he were motivated by the value of the DLIP education for
their students to work hard in the face of adversity. He reported that his teams’ dedication to
high expectations and hard work supported the sustainability of the program at his site. Tim
commented on what motivated him regarding his work:
It’s my and our responsibility to prepare students for their futures. It’s a very competitive
world as we know and if we can give our students an advantage in terms of their
language abilities to make them more marketable for jobs and careers in the future, then
that's a value for me. And then just the other more personal aspect of it, the appreciation
that you have for other people having more cultural awareness and more language
abilities. I think it’s just powerful and nice.
Tim’s comment points squarely to the value he saw in the program to prepare students for an
ever-changing, global, complex world. By saying “we can give our students an advantage in
terms of their language abilities,” Tim was suggesting that the program was worth sustaining.
Tim reported that his sense of duty to his ELLs and other DLIP students also drove his
motivation. He shared that he had to work diligently to ensure that he was meeting the needs of
the “students that have been marginalized for so long.” He found that, as he worked hard to be
knowledgeable about how to support his students, so did his staff. Tim remarked that he was
fortunate to work with people whose high expectations and desire for student success mirrored
his. Instructional leadership is a critical component in a successful program (Carrera-Carrillo &
Smith, 2006). Having administrators and staff at his school who identified areas of improvement
DUAL IMMERSION 115
that should be addressed and identified ways to address them supported Tim in sustaining his
DLIP effectively.
Summary. All the participants held high expectations for themselves and those with
whom they worked to seek out knowledge and learn how they could better support their
programs. They were motivated by the opportunities their ELLs had in the DLIP and equally
motivated to ensure successful student outcomes. Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011)
found that motivated individuals are effective at accomplishing their tasks. These same
motivated individuals were encouraged further to accomplish their tasks by finding the
connections and relatable structures of their task to their goals (Eccles, 2006). The participants
reflected individuals who were self-efficacious in their ability to accomplish the necessary tasks
to sustain DLIPs and found value in these programs, particularly for their ELLs. They were
motivated because they wanted to ensure that their school communities were afforded the
opportunity to develop and nurture students who would become bilingual, biliterate, and
culturally proficient. Participants were not willing to allow challenges to sway them from their
course. Their resilience was reflected in their actions and in their desire to improve their ability
to sustain their programs effectively. For the participants to leverage this motivation and
continue to provide the DLIP experience for their students, they needed the support of the
district. The following section moves to the second research question that further explored the
interaction between administrators’ knowledge and motivation and the organizational structures.
Interaction Between Organization and Site Ad m in is t r at or s ’ Knowledge and Motivation
The interaction between the organizational culture and context and the CUSD DLIP site
administrators’ knowledge and motivation in relation to sustaining effective dual immersion
programs at their school sites showed itself in how the participants perceived how they needed to
DUAL IMMERSION 116
operate within the district, as they were respectful and resilient leaders who reflected their
respect to the DLIP community through their knowledge and advocacy for the programs. They
were resourceful and self-efficacious leaders whose utility value drove them to seek out
professional learning opportunities and to engage their communities with educational workshops.
The interviewees framed these actions following district policies and goals. However, when the
organizational culture and context were devoid of these, they forged their own culture and
context to ensure sustainability of their programs. Participants placed value on district policies
and goals only inasmuch as these existed and appreciated that their programs would be
successful when they were able to establish an environment that supported and respected
students’ cultural heritage, primary language, and the target language (Howard et al., 2018).
These DLIP administrators reported that their work within the CUSD environment was arduous
and gratifying. How their experiences working within CUSD interacted with their respectful and
resilient character will be discussed in the next section.
Resourceful Leaders
Resourceful leaders optimized their current resources to respond to adversity and
challenges. They were able to continue working toward their goals despite the organizational
challenges and adverse conditions. Though the participants in this study shared the ways in
which they kept motivated to persevere through these situations, some external factors may
affect individuals’ motivation (Rueda, 2011; Yough & Anderman, 2006). Clark and Estes
(2008) posited that individuals’ motivation is interrelated to what they need to do and with whom
they have to work. The interviewees, in sharing their experiences working with DLIP, offered
interesting accounts of how their knowledge and motivation interacted with their environment
within CUSD. Some common threads shared throughout the interviews were the concepts of
DUAL IMMERSION 117
self-sufficiency and persistence and all responses related to their efforts and ability to accomplish
their tasks. While these were common threads with similar responses regarding their
resourcefulness, the examples the participants expressed varied. In the next section, I will
provide evidence that shows how these three concepts, which tie directly into the participants’
knowledge and motivation, interacted with the organizational environment in CUSD.
DLIP ad m in is t r at o r s ’ self-sufficiency. In our conversations about their experience in
the DLIP, several administrators noted how they worked on their own to accomplish some of
their major tasks related to running a DLIP. Nicole stated that at times she felt like “It's just me,
myself, and I” doing the work. She shared that, while difficult, the experience of doing it all by
herself prepared her for life as a school administrator as “much of what I do is solitary-like,
particularly when something goes wrong!” Nicole shared that she was tasked with supporting the
DLIP, but that she was challenged because she did not receive the administrative, materials, or
funding support she needed. She stated,
It was up to me to make sure the teachers attended PD which I had to find by myself. For
funding their training, I had to get super creative so that it would go through [the
requisition for professional development] because we just weren’t the priority then. I had
to seek out the things my staff needed to be successful [emphasis added].
Nicole’s resourcefulness and self-sufficiency were reflected in her ability to find and fund
professional development opportunities for her staff when none were available at the district
level or offered by the district for her staff to attend. Through her actions, Nicole safeguarded an
environment that supported capacity building and respect for the teachers’ craft.
Also forging alone through her DLIP journey, May commented that it afforded her the
opportunity to increase her knowledge as she had to “figure out so much on [my] own.” May’s
DUAL IMMERSION 118
comments about needing to figure things out on her own revealed a significant gap in support
provided by the district. May shared that she enjoyed researching and digging deeper to increase
her knowledge, but also commented that she missed the opportunity to
discuss and debate new information, to bounce ideas off of others. I miss not having that
immediate feedback. I mean, I can make a phone call or go and meet with someone, but
there’s nothing like having someone right here (gestured around her office) to collaborate
with.
In a culture of trust, individuals feel supported and included in the decision-making process
(Hong, 2017). They tend to have greater motivation to attend to tasks and complete them
successfully (Sousa-Lima et al., 2013). In May’s report, she expressed that she felt that she
lacked a consistently supportive and motivating environment to ensure her effective
sustainability of her DLIP.
Cindy’s description of CUSD’s organizational environment was similar to what Nicole
and May described. Cindy commented that “in CUSD, it’s more like a hands-off approach.”
Cindy also remarked that this approach provided the DLIP administrators the opportunity to seek
their own knowledge and build their own motivation for the task, but,
some days, you just want someone there to take you by the hand and support you on your
walk to get whatever you need. Our work is tedious and challenging and there are
sometimes when I just feel like, ENOUGH!
Cindy’s comments reflected her frustration at the level of support that she received from the
district. It is evident from her comments that she was diligent in her work with the DLIP. It also
is evident that her mental effort and persistence had the potential to diminish when she tired from
doing the work on her own. As previously mentioned, Clark and Estes (2008) described that an
DUAL IMMERSION 119
individual’s motivation is directly tied to the sense that the goal can be attained. Without this
motivation or with depleted motivation levels, the individual may perceive the task to be too
difficult or impossible to complete. While relying on and increasing individuals’ intrinsic
motivation (Fullan, 2007) may be of benefit to the organization, Eccles’ (2006) expectancy value
model reminds us that individuals may also be asking themselves whether they feel that they can
do or if they want to do the task. If individuals are not intrinsically motivated to engage in their
own learning or they do not feel that they can accomplish the task (Mayer, 2011; Pintrich, 2003;
Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006), this solitary environment that these administrators described
could cause other DLIP administrators to be unsuccessful in attempting or accomplishing their
goals.
Along the lines of self-sufficiency, but in a different vein, participants shared that the
program was sustaining itself without support from the district office. Michelle remarked that
for a time, the DLIP “was sustaining itself through word of mouth, through teachers who were
really interested and believed in biliteracy.” Michelle explained further that DLIP families were
talking with other families to get them interested in the program and to share the program’s
benefits. Michelle remarked that the actions of the DLIP community proved successful in
addressing the lack of commitment that from the district to sustain the program. She shared the
DLIP communities’ efforts:
Again, parents felt that there was the shift that had been over time impacting the program,
but it was really due to support, lack of support, lack of initiative from the district in
wanting to grow the program and sustaining it with appropriate materials, professional
learning, adequate knowledgeable leaders within the sites. It became so apparent to
teachers and families in the program that they put pressure on the Board of Education, on
DUAL IMMERSION 120
the superintendent…What are steps that you're starting to take? It became a platform for
the schools to come and say to the district, "This is what we need."
Michelle remarked that the community’s advocacy for the program was the springboard to
refocusing the district’s commitment to the DLIPs. Involving others and encouraging their
advocacy for the program, assisted DLIP administrators with meeting their goals (Drescher et al.,
2014). In the CUSD environment, the DLIP community had to act on its own to increase
awareness and ask for a commitment from the district to support a program that they valued.
Susan recalled that the DLIP was “all but a dormant program for a time.” She shared that
the level of support that the program received was disheartening at best. Susan explained that
during this time of minimal support from the district office, she made the best of the situation.
She purported that, in addition to “no one really support[ing] the program the way it should have
been supported,” she also felt that the “district undermined [her] at several turns.” By her
account, Susan equated the district’s lack of support with “undermin[ing]” her or that the district
was attempting “to subvert or weaken [her] insidiously or secretly” (Undermine, n.d.). She
commented, regarding bringing professional learning to a school site,
Yes, absolutely. Especially administrators that have the program. That’s what they need,
they need support. Let’s say you as a principal, or any principal say, “We've done
research. We like this PD.” It would be ideal just going and asking, “Can we have some
support with this, some resources, can my teachers go? Can I bring in a consultant?” As
a principal you want someone to say, “Yes, go ahead.” I trust what you say. Right?
Well, that’s not what I would get. It felt like they were working against me.
In Susan’s recollection of her experience in CUSD, she did not trust that the district was
supporting her efforts to sustain her program. An organization’s violation of the culture of trust
DUAL IMMERSION 121
has a negative impact on employees (Poppo & Schepker, 2010). The implicit lack of trust that
Susan had in her organization because CUSD committed a trust violation pervaded her
commentary. Clark and Estes (2008) posited that individuals’ motivation is affected by those
with whom one works and the tasks that one must accomplish. From the discussion with Susan
about her experience in the DLIP in CUSD, it was evident that while she continued to
accomplish tasks, Susan’s motivation suffered due to feeling a lack of trust in her organization
and because she always had to be self-sufficient.
DLIP ad m in is t r at o r s ’ persistence. In her reflection of her experiences in the CUSD
DLIP community, Cindy spoke of a time when administrators were working diligently to
implement the DLIP at their school site. Cindy expressed that the administrators faced several
roadblocks and persevered despite them. As resourceful leaders, Cindy noted that these
administrators took the initiative to implement a new program. Their perception of how they
should accomplish their goals was framed within their understanding of what they needed to
support their efforts. Cindy commented that they were tenacious in their persistence and creative
in finding resources to support their successful implementation:
It's so exciting because it took 5 years for that to happen. And I never ... I hadn't realized
it took five years until I had a conversation with [a DLIP administrator] who said, "[DLIP
administrator], you really have to push this this year. You have to make it happen.
We've been working on it for four years.”
Cindy explained that a team of administrators succeeded in implementing a DLIP at their school
site after a four-year journey. She remarked that the team worked doggedly to find solutions to
the challenges they faced in their efforts to bring the program to their school. Their
resourcefulness and dedication were undeniable. Cindy commented that “most would have
DUAL IMMERSION 122
given up after year two or three, I would think, but not those two. They kept at it.” Individuals
who believe that their efforts will lend themselves to a positive outcome display the mental effort
and persistence to complete the task (Rueda, 2011). These self-efficacious individuals, who
Cindy described, displayed self-sufficiency, resourcefulness, and persistence in taking on their
task that took them four years to accomplish.
Susan described that her experience of trying to move the district forward along its DLIP
journey was filled with moments of excitement. She shared that she continued her efforts to
support the DLIP because she knew the program worked for ELLs. She remarked that she went
outside of the district to garner resources to assist her with sustaining the program:
I remember my feeling was, I was enthusiastic. I was at a point where I wanted to know
everything, everything. I wanted to see what programs work. We went out to go visit
other schools, school districts in dual programs. And I’d take people with me, but first I
had to go…I personally was very enthusiastic, and I had a team with me, a one-man
team, a two-man team, that were also enthusiastic. They really believed in the program,
so that helped me. We supported each other. I was very enthusiastic getting everything
in, trying to learn, bring it back and saying, “Okay, this is what's going on. These are the
different programs.” Then, just trying to move forward. When we are able to get our
consultant, and that was like, I think we started the year before [to request the consultant],
and then we finally got her in…
Susan’s recollection of her enthusiasm was demonstrable. She shared what she saw at the
various schools she and her team visited and discussed conversations that they had on the way to
and from those schools. Her team felt empowered, she recalled, after each visit and were
anxious to implement the new ideas that they observed at the other schools. Susan reflected that
DUAL IMMERSION 123
she had to become inventive in her interaction with the powers that be to secure additional
supports for her program including the hiring of a consultant. She noted that it took her about a
year to bring in a consultant to support the district’s sustainability of the DLIP, and she was
proud, she recalled, of her accomplishment. Susan’s persistence and resourcefulness to support
the DLIP were exhibited through these actions. Susan shared that after some of the visits to
other schools, she felt equally frustrated. She noted that some in the district did not seem to
share the same vision:
We have to wait for the right time. It’s not a good time right now. “Okay, when is the
right time?” I’ll be honest, I got frustrated. I got very frustrated. At some time, I would
just pick up my head and say, “Okay.” Then we always came back, what are we doing,
because of that Seal [of biliteracy], because of my connection with the state, and going
there, and hearing people. When we got together at the state level, it would be
representatives from different districts that had high English learners. They would go
over there and talk about the wonderful program that they have in their district. Then I
would get real jazzed and come back, and say, “Can we have this?” No, that's not the
right time. Needless to say, it was a little bit frustrating to move forward.
Susan shared that, sometimes, even with her tenacity and her enthusiasm, she was not able to
move the district forward at the rate she would have preferred, but they “always came back.”
She did note, though, that “after a while, things are moving forward. Then, at that time, we did
get a board member very supportive. That helped us to move forward. Then we started again.
That’s when we moved forward.” As noted in Chapter Two, Belkin and Brody (2017) suggested
that, with a change in leadership may also come a change in priorities. Susan’s comments
reflected this change as she described that the board member’s interest in the DLIP, assisted the
DUAL IMMERSION 124
program’s forward progress. Coupled with Susan’s resourcefulness and persistence and new
interest in the program, Susan was able to continue her work supporting the DLIPs.
DLIP administrators expressed their need for an organizational culture of sustained
support. In addition to the common threads that the participants shared, I noted that one
underlying thread permeated all the interviews, which was the desire for a supportive
environment. Each of the interviewees shared a desire for CUSD to engage in creating an
organizational culture and environment that would enhance their ability to sustain their programs
and improve their practice. This common theme or norm of how things are (or are not) working
in the district reflects Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) concept of cultural models. Gallimore
and Goldenberg (2001) defined cultural models as those behaviors, actions, and practices in
which employees of an organization naturally engage. These cultural practices become so
ingrained that they seem undetectable by those within the organization. In their interviews about
their ability to sustain their DLIP, the participants discussed the need for consistent, ongoing, and
dependable support. While their needs in each of these areas differed slightly, the call for more
support was evident.
As stated in Chapter One, DLIP administrators have additional responsibilities than those
of their non-DLIP administrator peers, including advocating for the DLIP and its community.
This advocacy encompassed understanding the importance, significance, and effectiveness of a
program that maximized student learning in an environment of bilingualism, biliteracy, and
cross-cultural competence. The DLIP administrators in this study reported that they needed an
environment of sustained support in which to work to effectuate sustainability of their programs.
They described this supportive environment in a variety of ways, all of which with the goal of
DUAL IMMERSION 125
supporting their improvement of their ability to sustain their programs. Their descriptions of
what that sustained support looked like or should look like are presented in the next section.
Sustained support would be consistent, ongoing, and dependable. Sousa-Lima et al.
(2013) suggested that employees will engage in difficult tasks through completion when they
trust that they are receiving support from their organization. This trust can be communicated
through shared leadership (Hong, 2017). Shared leadership provides DLIP teams the opportunity
to participate in decision-making, building the vision, mission and goals, and ensuring alignment
thereof (Howard et al., 2018). In this environment, employees are likely to exert more mental
effort and persevere through challenges to accomplish the organization’s goals (Clark & Estes,
2008). This collective efficacy will support the group’s successful goal attainment (Bandura,
1977).
Susan shared that DLIP administrators need support with planning and dedicated time to
meet with their peers to check in, to make sure everyone is progressing appropriately. She
commented,
You really need to focus on…I think it starts with getting people together and being able
to share different things that are going on at the different school sites; planning is key, we
know. Planning your meetings way in advance, so that everybody puts them on their
calendar. Bringing in consultants to help the principals in their leadership. It would be
bringing someone in and saying, “How are you doing [DLIP administrator]? How are
you doing [DLIP administrator]? What's your school doing right now; what's moving
you forward; what things are holding you back; how can we help?”
Susan’s comments reflected the need for regularly scheduled meeting times where DLIP
administrators would meet to discuss program sustainability and direction, their needs, wants,
DUAL IMMERSION 126
accomplishments, and challenges. Susan suggested that an environment such as this would
support her efforts to meet the needs of her students. Employees will make a more concerted
effort to support the organization’s goals if they trust that the organization supports their efforts
(Sousa-Lima et al., 2013) As Susan speculated in her quote above, if she had experiences like the
one she described, she likely would invest more personal time to the DLIP, working harder, and
likely would feel good about doing both.
In contrast to Susan’s comments regarding the CUSD organizational environment, Tim
shared that he felt supported. Tim’s responses regarding the organizational environment, in
comparison to that of his DLIP administrator peers was atypical. While many of the participants
noted several instances of needing more from the district, Tim’s remarks demonstrated that he
did not concur with their sentiments:
Overall, I feel like we have adequate support from district at this time. Of course, I think
there's always room for improvement and personally for my school I think as the years go
by and this program grows and becomes more of what we do, I think we'll be able to
provide some of the leadership as well.
Tim was satisfied with the level of support that he received from the district while also
acknowledging that the level of support always could improve. Within his comments were the
expectations that as his team and he support the DLIP, it will become their culture. He noted
that, as his school becomes acculturated to the DLIP, his team’s ability to support the program
will also improve. Tim commented that in the future, he expected that his team would be able to
provide some of the leadership. In a culture of sustained support, DLIP administrators would
participate in shared leadership. The district would engage in providing them adequate,
consistent, and ongoing support to ensure DLIP administrators knew that the district supported
DUAL IMMERSION 127
them. DLIP administrators need this level of support as their advocacy for their programs must
remain steadfast (Howard et al., 2018).
Nicole explained her perspective of what support (or lack of support) looked like in the
CUSD environment:
But, in regard to, I would say, support with supplemental materials, making sure that
whatever is done in the English, it’s just as important to do it in the Mandarin or to do it
in the Spanish. Whenever we talk about assessments, or monitoring, or goals, or review
of curriculum guides, there have to be the same interests in the other program. Look at
how long we’ve had the program, and I still feel like a second step-child, having to,
remind them “Okay, don't forget the dual language program. Don't forget about this.
Don't forget about that.”
Nicole’s comments reflected a level of frustration with the district’s lack of forethought for the
needs of the DLIP. In an environment of trust, no individual or program should be made to feel
“second.” An environment of trust should reflect an environment that promotes equity for the
various programs, both languages, the heritage and culture of all the DLIP participants (Howard
& Sugarman, 2007; Lindholm-Leary, 2005).
Sustained support would reflect a culture of commitment. In a culture of
commitment, the organization’s members are confident in the goals and values that the
organization has established (Bishop & Scott, 2000). Bob commented that he knew
that the district wants our kids, all of our kids, not just the DLIP ones, to succeed, but as
far as district guidelines for us to follow, they just aren’t there. I mean, I know we have
the guiding principles, and those have helped us to stay on track. We need more. We
need more guidance just like what other programs have.
DUAL IMMERSION 128
Bob reflected that with a consistent focus on the DLIPs, with a commitment from the district to
assist with sustaining the programs, the DLIP administrators might be able to affect greater
change and progress in the programs. He noted that he was confident that the district wanted the
DLIP students to experience successful student outcomes. He also commented that he would
appreciate a district plan to which DLIP administrators could refer to ensure that they were
making adequate progress in their efforts to sustain their programs. Bob’s comment above
suggested that he believed that the district’s commitment to the DLIPs needed demonstrable
improvement. Though he didn’t express feeling “second” as Nicole did, Bob compared the
support for the DLIP to the support he saw the district giving other programs. In a culture of
commitment, the organization creates an environment that encourages its employees to be a part
of the team and develop the necessary skills to achieve organizational goals (Bishop & Scott,
2000; Hunt, 2011). An increase in CUSD’s commitment to the DLIP would foster an
environment in which these programs’ administrators would feel emboldened to improve their
ability to sustain their programs effectively.
Like Bob, May also shared areas in which the district could strengthen its commitment to
the DLIPs and their DLIP administrators. May commented that, because she was not bilingual,
she faced challenges that she described as “different from my peers.” May shared that,
sometimes, she had difficulty communicating with the DLIP families and expressed her
frustration with her inability to communicate with them in the manner that she wanted. She
commented,
I am passionate about dual immersion and students having the opportunity to learn a
second language, but I get frustrated when I can’t communicate with families in the way
that I want to. My lack of language is not a district issue, but what is an issue is when I
DUAL IMMERSION 129
don’t have something available in Spanish so that parents can refer to it while I am
speaking with them about it.
When I asked May to be specific about what materials she needed to have translated in Spanish,
she referred to the individualized education program meetings that she attended. She
commented,
First, it’s embarrassing to tell parents that it is going to take a few months to receive their
translated IEP. And, while the parents’ rights are translated into Spanish, none of the
service providers’ reports are. It’s like we’re saying, “Too bad for you. You’ll just have
to take our word or the translator’s word for it that these reports say what we tell you they
say.”
May’s comments related to DLIP students who received special education services. The
comments reflected her frustration with the district’s lack of commitment to its Spanish-speaking
parents. She shared that if the district valued the work that DLIP administrators did, then they
would have translated materials available in the same way that English materials were available.
Organizations that are committed to their stakeholders secure the necessary materials that leaders
need to work with them (Lambert, 2002). May stated, “If one of our tenets is to demonstrate
language equity, we are failing.” The culture of commitment must extend to ensuring linguistic
and language equity. All languages, target and primary would be valued equally (Howard et al.,
2018) in a culture of commitment.
Sustained support would provide resources as needed. As previewed above, several
of the participants commented that securing necessary materials in the target language proved
challenging. Tim’s account was as follows:
DUAL IMMERSION 130
I think another administrative difference in dual programs is the professional
development, getting the appropriate materials for teachers. Sometimes there are
supplemental things and it’s not always easy to find these things so there’s certain
challenges with that. And then of course always finding the resources to get those things
in Spanish.
Tim’s comment was similar to what Nicole shared about feeling “second” in regard to addressing
the needs of the DLIP. Tim stated that, in an environment in which both languages were
respected equally, he would be able to trust that the district would provide the same materials for
his DLIP teachers as he received for his mainstream teachers if CUSD’s culture reflected a
culture of commitment as discussed in the previous sections. He shared, “It just sends the wrong
message when I have to tell them, or the vendor tells them, “oh, we don’t have that in Spanish.”
Ensuring language equity is imperative in a DLIP (Lindholm-Leary, 2005; Howard & Sugarman,
2007). For DLIP administrators to sustain their programs effectively, they should have the
necessary resources to provide all DLIP families with materials in the families’ own language.
In addition to instructional resources and materials, Cindy suggested that the DLIP
administrators would improve their ability to sustain their programs if the district provided them
with more qualified personnel as a resource to assist them. Cindy shared that she felt that the
DLIP administrators needed greater support at the school site and that they would benefit from
having additional people to support their program. Cindy commented,
I think, ideally, if there was actually a team of individuals, I think that we could be more
successful. I think, because then we would really have individuals that could be out in the
different schools often. Not just there to observe, but to help. I wouldn’t mind if I went
in and taught a lesson. I’m okay with that. Or, co-plan or co-teach with somebody for a
DUAL IMMERSION 131
lesson, or a mentor. I think that’s something that our teachers need. Right now, I don’t
feel like all our principals feel confident in doing that. They’re very supportive, and
they’re trying to manage, but I think there’s a need for that, for a different type of
support.
Cindy felt that a good support for the DLIPs would be for the sites to receive a team of
individuals to work with teachers as mentors or co-teachers. She stated that, currently, there is
no model of support that looked like this, and she noted that, at present, she was not sure if the
DLIP administrators would feel confident that they had the time to engage in this model or
confident in their ability to provide this level of support to the teachers. Providing the DLIP
administrators with greater resources, in the form of instructional materials, translated
documents, and additional qualified staff, CUSD would increase their ability to sustain their
programs effectively.
Summary. The DLIP administrators in this study shared that an organizational culture of
sustained support would provide the type of environment they needed to be effective in support
of their programs. Sustained support, they described was consistent, ongoing, and dependable.
The participants remarked that this sustained support was reflected in a culture of trust, a culture
of commitment, and by providing adequate resources for them to sustain their program.
Sustained support in a culture of trust, they explained, was inclusive of an environment in which
there was a support structure of shared leadership (Hunt, 2011) that would enhance the group’s
collective efficacy (Bandura, 1977). They described the sustained support in a culture of
commitment as one that assured them that the district established and communicated a shared
vision that was inclusive of equity which would permeate all actions and decisions. Sustained
support, they also explained, was reflective of assisting DLIP administrators with securing the
DUAL IMMERSION 132
necessary resources, both human capital and materials that their programs needed. The
participants suggested that an organizational culture comprised of these sustained supports,
would provide them the environment they needed to improve their ability to sustain their
programs effectively.
Summary
This chapter reviewed the findings from the data gathered from the participants in my
study. The study participants discussed the organizational culture in which they worked and
revealed their knowledge and motivation related to sustaining effective DLIPs in that
environment. The participants demonstrated that the organizational environment in which they
worked was directly related to the knowledge and motivation influences that affected their work.
In relation to their knowledge about dual immersion, the areas in which they should focus to
sustain their programs, and how to implement the guiding principles, the interviewees remarked
that they should be able to trust that the culture in which they worked was committed to their
success by providing them professional development opportunities in necessary areas.
Participants used metacognitive strategies to reflect on their learning and their needs so that they
could support their DLIP communities. Their success in sustaining their programs so far has
been in large part due to their unrelenting drive to make the programs work. These successes
have increased the DLIP administrators’ self-efficacy. Also driving their motivation is their
recognition of the expediency of improving their skills and ability to sustain their programs.
Three overarching themes, that described these leaders’ actions in relation to the support they
provided their programs, emerged from the discussion.
DLIP administrators’ responses portrayed them as respectful leaders. Their respectful
character was reflected in their advocacy for their programs, in their desire to seek out greater
DUAL IMMERSION 133
knowledge to support the program, and in their creation of a positive and inclusive school
environment in which they engaged in capacity building opportunities for the entire DLIP
community. Participants confirmed their respect for both the target language and their students’
primary language as well as the students’ culture and heritage through their appreciation of the
value of the power of learning through the target language. Their respect for their students and
their students’ families was evinced through their passion and dedication to enhance their
knowledge in support of effective sustainability of their programs.
Additionally, engagement with the DLIP administrators showed a resilient group of
individuals who were highly motivated and who held high expectations for themselves and their
staff to meet the needs of their underserved ELL population. This self-efficacious group
described that their utility value drove their motivation. The participants represented a group of
individuals who would not be deterred by challenges or obstacles, because they were confident
in their ability to do the tasks and valued the principles of DLIP. Their resilient nature reflected
their motivation to improve their ability to sustain their programs effectively.
The organizational culture and context in which DLIP administrators worked framed
their actions and behaviors. In CUSD, participants presented as resourceful leaders. The
experiences these resourceful leaders shared regarding their support of their programs in CUSD’s
organizational culture reflected leaders who were self-sufficient. They described their ability to
emerge successful through difficult situations. The participants shared that they were persistent
in their efforts to meet the needs of their ELLs and forged through challenges to maintain their
programs. In describing their challenges and the supports that they would desire, they shared
that an organizational culture of support that was consistent, ongoing, and dependable would
assist them in successfully achieving their goals. The culture of sustained support that they
DUAL IMMERSION 134
described encompassed an environment in which they could trust that they would receive the
supports necessary for them to be successful. Adequate funding for their programs and actions
by the district that suggested that DLIPs were a priority would serve as building blocks to a
culture of trust in the district and among the DLIP administrators. The culture of sustained
support would also include a commitment from the district reflected in a district vision and goals
that signaled a genuine focus on dual language education for all students and that DLIPs were a
district priority. Finally, sustained support would be manifested in provisions of adequate
resources provided to all DLIPs in the district. Across all participants comments, I deduced that
an organizational culture such as this, would increase the DLIP administrators’ motivation to
increase their knowledge and ability to sustain their programs effectively.
DUAL IMMERSION 135
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This study examined the current practices of CUSD DLIP administrators in their efforts
to support and sustain dual language programs on their campuses. Additionally, this study was
designed to inform CUSD’s practice as a district, specifically regarding CUSD’s support of
DLIP administrators in their work with their students, staff, and community in a dual language
program that advances the academic preparation of an underserved student population, ELLs.
This qualitative case study aimed to answer the following questions:
1. What are the CUSD DLIP site administrators’ knowledge and motivation related to
sustaining effective dual language immersion programs at their CUSD DLIP sites?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and the CUSD DLIP
site administrators’ knowledge and motivation in relation to sustaining effective dual
immersion programs at their school sites?
3. What are the recommended DLIP knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions for sustaining effective DLIPs?
Chapter Four analyzed interview data to answer research questions 1 and 2. This chapter
will address question 3 and is organized into four sections. The first section presents the
implications for practice based upon the findings for DLIP administrators and CUSD.
Delineated in the next section are the recommendations and suggestions for practice for the DLIP
administrators and CUSD regarding their efforts to sustain their programs effectively. The
following section presents topics for future research in support for the sustainability of DLIPs.
Finally, the conclusion synthesizes the study’s findings and describes how this study might be
useful to other dual language practitioners and school district administrators.
DUAL IMMERSION 136
Implications for Practice
This study examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the
CUSD DLIP administrators’ current practices in sustaining their programs effectively. These
findings were gleaned from interview data from seven DLIP administrators from school sites and
the district office. While these findings are specific to sustaining DLIPs in CUSD, they may be
relevant to DLIP administrators at the site and district level in other school districts. School
districts may use these findings as a springboard for future conversations regarding supporting
and sustaining their DLIPs or other programs effectively. The implications from these findings
may be important to consider in their leadership practices in support of programs in their district.
The three implications gleaned from the data communicated the interrelatedness of the
participants ’ knowledge and motivation within the organizational culture and context of CUSD.
The first implication is related to participants’ respectful nature and points to the need to ensure
that DLIP administrators have adequate declarative and procedural knowledge of DLIP to be
program advocates. The second implication is the need to ensure these administrators are
resilient, have high self-efficacy, and utility value in their drive to increase capacity throughout
the DLIP community. The third implication is linked to DLIP administrators’ resourcefulness
and details the need to ensure that they have the requisite tools to sustain their programs so that
their primary focus can be on student achievement and capacity building to sustain their
programs effectively.
The first of the three implications points to the need that CUSD ensures that DLIP
administrators have the necessary tools, including declarative and procedural knowledge to be
able to advocate effectively for their programs. Clark and Estes (2008) found that effective
organizations ensure that their policies and procedures that govern the work of the organization
DUAL IMMERSION 137
are aligned to the organization’s goals and values and are communicated to employees. Howard
et al. (2018) noted that school districts that engage in a continuous program planning process that
includes a shared vision and focus on the mission and goals of the DLIP assist their employees
with sustaining their programs effectively. Additionally, setting clear and meaningful goals
coupled with the necessary resources to work through and accomplish them are motivating
factors (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, as cited in Marzano, 2003).
In the organizational culture and context of CUSD, participants communicated that, while
the district mandated the use of the guiding principles for dual language, the DLIP administrators
were not afforded the opportunity to receive training on the guidelines. Rather, they, as the
primary advocates of their programs and in demonstrating a desire and respect for their
programs, took the initiative to study and synthesize the principles to be able to create a current
and 3-year strategic plan at their respective sites and to create a positive learning community.
Participants were persistent in their efforts to create their plans for their programs that reflected a
respectful and inclusive environment. These plans, which were dependent on the DLIP
administrators’ knowledge reflected their respect for their students and families and for the DLIP
target language, culture, and heritage. While participants created strategic plans and positive
school environments at their respective sites, lacking in CUSD was a districtwide master plan for
the DLIPs that reflects respect for the program in a positive district environment. Also lacking
was an improvement plan to increase the Board of Education members’ declarative and
procedural knowledge of DLIP. This increased knowledge and deeper understanding of the
value of the program to the district could motivate the Board of Education to examine the current
state of affairs and the district’s culture as it relates to DLIP. An implication of this finding is
that until members of the Board of Education have adequate knowledge of the benefits that
DUAL IMMERSION 138
DLIPs can have in CUSD, including increased student enrollment and increased funding for
CUSD, they may not be motivated to evaluate and take action on improving the district’s DLIP
culture.
A finding was that the participants were tenacious in seeking professional learning
opportunities for themselves and their DLIP community. The interviewees’ understanding of the
importance of meeting the needs of an underserved population reflected their utility value and
drove them to enhance their knowledge in support of the DLIPs. Noting that professional
learning opportunities within their district were either nonexistent or inconsistently available,
participants demonstrated their resilience, counteracting this challenge and found opportunities
outside the district. The lack of professional learning opportunities suggests that an
organizational barrier was present in CUSD that was negatively affecting organizational
performance. CUSD was not equipping DLIP administrators with the necessary tools for
successful sustainability of their programs. An implication of this finding is that, until the district
removes the barriers, administrators will be spending time and effort to do the work themselves.
The last of the three implications focused on the importance of providing DLIP
administrators with the resources necessary for them to sustain their programs effectively. The
participants’ reports of being self-sufficient and persistent in successfully securing needed
materials, professional development, and other resources reflected their resourcefulness. It also
reflected an area of need that CUSD should address, as an essential function of a district is to
provide adequate support and resources to DLIPs (Howard et al., 2018). Additionally, in
learning organizations, leadership is responsible for ensuring that the individuals within the
organization are building their capacity and expanding their capabilities (Senge, 1990). If the
DLIP administrators’ focus is on securing materials, they hardly can manage and advocate for
DUAL IMMERSION 139
their programs. This final implication suggests a need for CUSD to improve its support for
DLIPs in procuring necessary materials.
Recommendations for Practice
Rueda (2011) and Schein (2010) remind us that an examination of an organization’s
culture leads us to understand how an organization supports or impedes its stakeholders in
achieving their goals. In examining CUSD’s culture, all the DLIP administrators in this study
called for a culture of sustained support and greater resources from the district office. This
culture of sustained support was reflected in a culture of commitment in which they would be
able to trust that their programs were a district priority.
Colquitt, Scott and LePine (2007, as cited in Starnes, Truhon, & McCarthy, 2010) stated,
When employees trust their organization, they are more likely to enjoy their work, take
the time to do their jobs correctly; make their own decisions; take risks; innovate;
embrace the organization’s vision, mission, and values. (p. 6)
Through all C USD’ s actions, all forms of communication, and its mission and goals,
CUSD must demonstrate a culture of commitment in which the DLIP administrators and
community can trust that the DLIPs are valued. In the sections that follow, the recommendations
for practice will be presented. These knowledge and motivation recommendations are
interrelated with the organization recommendations. As such, the knowledge and organization
recommendations will be presented concurrently followed by the motivation and organization
recommendations.
Knowledge and Organization Recommendations
As explained in Chapter Two, declarative knowledge refers to knowing the elements and
terminology of a subject, procedural knowledge includes knowing the necessary steps to
DUAL IMMERSION 140
complete a task (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011), and metacognitive knowledge focuses on one’s
self-awareness and the ability to control one’s own cognitive process to achieve a goal
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Self-efficacy, or individuals’ belief that they can complete a
task, drives their motivation to accomplish it (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Pajares, 2006). Coupled
with self-efficacy is an additional motivating factor, utility value (Rueda, 2011), or the
perception of the usefulness of the task to the achievement of the individuals’ goals.
The data in the study showed that participants needed to have extensive knowledge of
dual immersion practices. In their 3-year study of DLIP staff and administrators, Calderon and
Carreon (2002) stated that knowledgeable DLIP administrators are vital to the effective
sustainability of their programs. The authors suggested that DLIP administrators must
understand the purpose of and components of the program, as they are the DLIPs’ primary
advocates. Individuals who have developed mastery know how to integrate their skills and when
to apply them (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Having this level of mastery equips individuals
with the tools necessary to increase their understanding of effective practices (Clark & Estes,
2008). Providing opportunities for employees to process and practice their craft assists them
with internalizing new knowledge (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). So that CUSD can support
the administrators’ knowledge of how to sustain the DLIP, it is recommended that CUSD
provide these administrators with consistent and ongoing training (Alanís & Rodríguez, 2008) in
the form of professional development meetings geared specifically at teaching the DLIP
principles and how to implement them effectively.
These professional development meetings, in which DLIP administrators engage in
practice exercises, preferably with other DLIP administrators, containing the steps on how to use
case studies to apply new learning would afford them the opportunity to build capacity, reflect on
DUAL IMMERSION 141
their practices, and increase their belief that they could produce positive outcomes. Additionally,
Schraw and McCrudden (2006) found that as individuals acquired component skills, practiced
integrating them, and knew when to apply what they had learned assisted them with developing
mastery. Coupled with increasing mastery development during the meetings, CUSD would be
able to provide DLIP administrators with self-regulatory strategies that enhance learning and
performance (Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Denler et al., 2006) to improve their efforts to evaluate
their ability to sustain their programs. The successful engagement with these exercises would
reaffirm the DLIP administrators’ belief in their ability. Individuals who have successful
experiences, tend to have more success in experiences that are similar (Van de Rijt et al., 2014).
This increase in self-efficacy can have a positive influence on motivation (Pajares, 2006).
In addition to professional development opportunities for the DLIP administrators, the
data gleaned from the study showed that each of the participants expressed a desire to engage in
collaborative conversations with their peers and with those who could increase their knowledge.
Three study participants specifically called for an additional support of having CUSD provide
each DLIP administrator with a mentor who would thereby afford them the opportunity to
engage in professional discourse around issues that may arise within their programs (Calderon &
Carreon, 2002). Many of the study participants communicated doing the work alone. A DLIP
administrator mentor could ameliorate their working environment and diminish the sense that
DLIP administrators were working in silos. This mentor support that the participants called for
could address the frustration that the participants voiced regarding feeling unsupported by the
district. CUSD would need to determine whether these mentors would come from within the
district or if a mentorship program as described would necessitate outsourcing for support for the
DLIP administrators. By providing DLIP administrators with mentors who could address their
DUAL IMMERSION 142
desire to increase their knowledge in DLIP, CUSD would be providing them with the support
they desired and a resource to meet their needs. In addition to receiving training on effective
dual immersion procedures, DLIP administrators would be afforded the opportunity to meet
regularly to collaborate with their mentors (Alanís & Rodríguez, 2008) to solidify their learning
and improve their performance. The mentors also would serve as a springboard to assist the
administrators with planning for their program and as someone with whom the administrators
could converse regarding frustrations as well as their successes.
The mentors could further assist the administrators with enhancing their skills and
evaluating their ability to support the DLIPs by providing administrators targeted feedback to
engage them in guided self-monitoring and self-assessment practices. Hattie (2009) posited that
feedback was the most significant factor that influenced and enhanced achievement. Feedback
assisted learners with examining their performance, whether satisfactory or unsatisfactory, so
that they could take note of and celebrate factors that yielded successful outcomes and take note
of and modify factors that yielded less than successful outcomes (Sadler, 1989). In both cases,
appropriate feedback enhanced on par and subpar performance (Hattie, 2009). This evidence
affirms that mentors may be able to support the administrators with sustaining their DLIP
through ongoing, consistent, and appropriate feedback. With these supports in place, the
organizational culture and context would reflect the culture of sustained support that the
administrators seek. These recommendations reflect a culture of commitment and provisions of
resources in which DLIP administrators can trust that CUSD would provide them the supports
they needed to improve their ability to sustain their programs effectively.
DUAL IMMERSION 143
Motivation and Organization Recommendations
Self-efficacy and utility value played a significant role in impacting the motivation of the
DLIP administrators who participated in this study. The participants demonstrated their belief
that they were capable of advocating for their program, including a commitment to a shared
vision, language parity, and development of teacher capacity to sustain their programs
effectively. Pajares (2006) posited that learning and motivation are enhanced when learners have
positive expectancies for success which coupled with high self-efficacy can have a favorable
influence on motivation (Pajares, 2006). The participants in this study reflected DLIP
administrators with high self-efficacy. CUSD would demonstrate the support that these
administrators sought by providing them with support and resources to advocate for their
program which should increase their expectations of success. Additionally, during their
professional development sessions, providing them multiple goal-directed practice opportunities
coupled with frequent, accurate, credible, targeted, and private feedback on their progress in
learning and performance should increase their ability to sustain their programs effectively.
Bandura (1977) posited that encouragement, like verbal feedback, supports people’s
efforts to persist through a task when things become challenging. The feedback that people
receive when this persistence yields a positive outcome, drives their motivation (Mayer, 2011)
and increases their self-efficacy (Rueda, 2011). Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) stated that school
administrators’ self-efficacy drives their actions in their schools. Further, they offered that when
school administrators receive “direct experiences includ[ing] offering intellectual stimulation,
providing individualized support, and providing an appropriate model,” (p. 508) their motivation
to work increases significantly. This positive cycle of motivating factors that build self-efficacy
and positive expectancies feeds right back in to motivation. From a theoretical perspective, then,
DUAL IMMERSION 144
by providing DLIP administrators with an increased level of individualized support, CUSD will
improve its culture of commitment, in which DLIP administrators work, thereby strengthening
these administrators’ efforts to increase their ability to support and sustain their programs.
The literature further supported the recommendation to create a culture of commitment as
Sousa-Lima et al. (2013) noted that employees are more likely to choose to persevere through
difficult tasks to achieve their performance goals when they trust their organizations. Tan and
Lim (2009) found that individuals develop strong relationships with the organization and its
members through openness and communication. This communication among co-workers and the
organization facilitate individuals’ willingness to exhibit a greater propensity to take the
initiative (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007) to overcome obstacles to achieve organizational
goals. Organizations that create an environment in which employees can trust their employers,
create an environment in which individuals receive the necessary supports to focus on achieving
work tasks (Tan & Lim, 2009).
The DLIP administrators in this study professed their desires to support and sustain their
programs. They also expressed their utility value, understanding the usefulness of their tasks in
relation to their goals of sustaining their programs. Additionally, they articulated their
frustration with having to struggle to find the tools they needed to be effective in their positions.
While challenging to their motivation, their respect for their DLIP community and the program,
their resilience in facing obstacles, and their resourcefulness to leverage their resources to
achieve their goals carried them successfully through the moments of frustration. To ameliorate
the cultural environment in which these administrators work, CUSD should provide them with
adequate supports and resources enabling them to be effective in their jobs (Tan & Lim, 2009).
These provisions would reflect CUSD’s commitment to the DLIP. Lindholm-Leary (2001)
DUAL IMMERSION 145
discussed the critical nature of strong support for the DLIPs ensuring that they are integrated
properly within the district and school structures. Semler (1997) noted that “positive
alignment…can improve performance by ensuring that the output of each organizational process
contributes to the achievement of the organization’s strategic goals” (p. 2). Ensuring that all
activities and actions align with and further the vision, mission, and goals of the organizations
are actions of effective organizations (Clark & Estes, 2008). Following these themes of
alignment and focus on the organization's values, it is noted that the literature supports the
recommendation that CUSD build a culture of commitment to benefit DLIP administrators’
efforts to improve their ability of the effective sustainability of specialized programs like the
DLIP.
Future Research
This dissertation examined how CUSD DLIP administrators supported and sustained
their programs. All the reported findings are from the perspective of DLIP administrators. This
factor served as a delimitation to the study. In addition to examining DLIP administrators’
perspectives of how they sustain their programs, future research might include the perspectives
of the teachers and parents also integral to these programs. What areas of improvement might
teachers find essential in their administrators’ ability to sustain the DLIP? How might the
parents’ perspective augment or guide the professional development that districts provide to
DLIP administrators? Additionally, an investigation of the students’ thoughts and perceptions of
their program might yield critical implications on the areas in which administrators might
improve their ability to support the programs. Student feedback regarding their course of
instruction may necessitate changes to the program, including the teachers, the course material,
and the pacing.
DUAL IMMERSION 146
The data generated from this study should serve as a catalyst for discussions regarding
how to support DLIP administrators. Should school districts invest in or develop an induction
program for new DLIP administrators? In consideration of an induction program for
administrators, would districts need to outsource or would they have the ability to build capacity
using current district staff? Would an induction program such as this be efficacious? What type
of in-service program might provide ongoing support and mentorship opportunities to current
administrators? A mixed methods research study that surveyed current DLIP administrators and
higher education administrators working in schools of education and interviewed potential DLIP
administrators might yield data that would provide guidance in these areas.
Finally, research on the supports provided to DLIP administrators in states that have the
governor and the state legislature’s full support of dual language instruction might enlighten
California’s department of education and the state superintendent of education, Tony Thurmond,
on ways to improve the supports for DLIPs and their administrators across the state. By studying
the ways in which other states implement and sustain a model of support for DLIP administrators
that effectuate their ability to improve their programs and sustain them effectively to meet the
needs of their ELLs, California’s government and lawmakers may learn how to better engage in
practices that respond to and address the instructional gaps in ELLs’ education.
Conclusion
With the ever-increasing ELL population, and with data from numerous studies showing
that dual language education adequately supports their academic achievement and meets their
linguistic needs, DLIPs are becoming more commonplace and more valued. CUSD has
maintained its DLIP for almost 20 years, and these programs’ administrators have reported
working in quasi-isolation at their school sites to support and sustain the programs. As such,
DUAL IMMERSION 147
using an adapted gap analysis model, this study sought to examine the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences on the current practices of DLIP administrators in relation to
sustaining effective DLIPs at their school sites. The findings indicated that participants were
respectful of their programs and their communities, were resilient in seeking support for
themselves to be able to maintain their programs, and were resourceful in securing the tools and
resources they needed to sustain their programs effectively. Additionally, the findings intimated
that while participants reported managing to sustain their programs, organizational barriers
existed that lessened their success.
Gaps existed in the organizational support necessary for DLIP administrators to enhance
their declarative, procedural and metacognitive knowledge, their self-efficacy, and their utility
value. Participants demonstrably high utility value for improving their ability to support their
programs was reflected in their resilience and resourcefulness to find and provide professional
learning opportunities for themselves and their DLIP community. The need to enhance their
knowledge, to do their best in support of their ELLs signified their respect for the program, its
students, and community. Their utility value also drove their desire to learn and increase their
knowledge. The participants’ successful endeavors in sustaining their programs in a district
culture that did not mirror their same level of utility value increased their self-efficacy.
DLIP administrators will experience greater success when CUSD implements solutions to
bridge the existing gaps. CUSD needs to improve its ability to provide DLIP administrators with
an organizational culture that reflects sustained support. This support will be reflected in a
culture of commitment in which these administrators trust and believe that CUSD will champion
their efforts to sustain their programs in the same way as they do.
DUAL IMMERSION 148
The CUSD DLIP administrators have spoken, and in their words is a definitive yearning
for professional development and ongoing support of their efforts to meet the needs of their
underserved students. Undoubtedly, these administrators’ dedication and passion to the program
that meets the needs of their ELLs are much like those of other DLIP administrators across
California. School districts and DLIP administrators must address and meet ELLs’ educational
and linguistic needs as the number of non-English speaking students and their families arriving
in California continues to increase. In 6 years, 2025, one in four students will be an ELL (NEA,
2008). Meeting the needs of underserved ELLs is not discretionary. It is not a choice. It is not
optional. Meeting the needs of ELLs is a moral imperative.
DUAL IMMERSION 149
REFERENCES
Abedi, J., & Gándara, P. (2006). Performance of English Language Learners as a Subgroup in
Large ‐ Scale Assessment: Interaction of Research and Policy. Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 25(4), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00077.x
Aguirre-Baeza, L. (2001). Creating two-way dual language schools through effective leadership.
Educational Horizons, 79(4), 167–170.
Alanezi, A. (2016). The relationship between shared leadership and administrative creativity in
Kuwaiti schools. Management in Education, 30(2), 50–56.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020616643159
Alanís, I., & Rodríguez, M. A. (2008). Sustaining a dual language immersion program: Features
of success. Journal of Latinos and Education, 7(4), 305–319.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348430802143378
Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A
research agenda. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press.
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten
years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
DUAL IMMERSION 150
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(9), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Belkin, D., & Brody, L. (2017, Mar 16). Trump budget proposal cuts $9 billion from department
of education; after-school programs, instructional support and research face cuts; school
choice gets boost. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-budget-proposal-cuts-9-billion-from-department-of-
education-1489684887
Bell, J., Thacker, T., & Schargel, F. (2011). Schools where teachers lead: What successful
leaders do. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Berson, Y., & Oreg, S. (2016). The role of school principals in shaping children’s values.
Psychological Science, 27(12), 1539–1549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616670147
Bishop, J., Scott, K., & Bishop, J. (2000). An examination of organizational and team
commitment in a self-directed team environment. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(3), 439–450. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.439
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how
principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration,38(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230010320082
Bogdan, R. C., & Bilken, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
DUAL IMMERSION 151
Calderon, M., & Carreon, A. (2002). A two-way bilingual program: Promise, practice, and
precautions. In R. E. Slavin & M. Calderon (Eds.), Effective programs for Latino students
(pp. 125-170). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2017). Administrator’s assignment manual
Retrieved from: https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/credentials/manuals-
handbooks/administrator-assignment-manual.pdf?sfvrsn=8
California Department of Education. (2013). Local control funding formula. Retrieved from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/yr131tr0807.asp
California Department of Education. (2015a). Glossary of terms. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/glossary.asp#e
California Department of Education. (2015b). Two-way immersion programs directory.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/ip/ap/directory.aspx
California Department of Education. (2016). English learner students by language by grade.
Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/sdprofile/search.aspx
California Department of Education. (2016). Enrollment in California public school districts.
Retrieved from https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/content.asp
California Department of Education. (2018). District language group data – Districtwide
Retrieved from https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/lc/DistrictLC.aspx?cYear=2017-
18&cSelect=
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The
experience of immersion teachers. Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–269.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x
DUAL IMMERSION 152
Carrera-Carrillo, L., & Smith, A. R. (2006). 7 steps to success in dual immersion. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2016). Dual Immersion Programs Offer Opt-In Bilingual
Education. Retrieved from: http://www.cal.org/news-and-events/in-the-news/dual-
immersion-programs
Center for Public Education. (2012). Changing Demographics: at a glance. Retrieved from:
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/research/changing-demographics-glance
Christian, D. (1994). Two-way bilingual education: Students learning through two languages.
Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second
Language Learning.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research,
policy, teacher education and practice. Teachers College Record, 111, 180–213.
Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school. Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education
for all. Retrieved from http://www.berkeleyschools.net/wp-
content/uploads/2011/10/TWIAstounding_Effectiveness_Dual_Language_Ed.pdf?864d7
Combs, M., Evans, C., Fletcher, T., Parra, E., & Jiménez, A. (2005). Bilingualism for the
children: Implementing a dual-language program in an English-only state. Educational
Policy, 19(5), 701–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805278063
DUAL IMMERSION 153
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC). (2014). California professional standards for
education leaders (CPSEL). Sacramento, CA: Authors. Retrieved from
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-prep/standards/cpsel-booklet-
2014.pdf
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Coulter, C., & Smith, M. L. (2006). English language learners in a comprehensive high school.
Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 309–335.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596773
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher
Education,51(3), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487100051003002
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional
development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
de Jong, E. (2011). Foundations for multilingualism in education: From principles to practice.
Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
DeMatthews, D., & Izquierdo, E. (2018). The importance of principals supporting dual
language education: A social justice leadership framework. Journal of Latinos and
Education, 17(1), 53–70. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2017.1282365
DUAL IMMERSION 154
DeMatthews, D. E., Izquierdo, E., & Knight, D. (2017). Righting past wrongs: A
superintendent’s social justice leadership for dual language education along the U.S.-
Mexico border. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(1), 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2436
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473–490.
https://doi.org/10.1086/499651
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Drescher, M. A., Korsgaard, M. A., Welpe, I. M., Picot, A., & Wigand, R. T. (2014). The
dynamics of shared leadership: Building trust and enhancing performance. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 99(5), 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036474
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. (2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and classroom
leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Edwards, M. A. (1998). Turbo-charging professional development. School Administrator,55(11),
34–36.
Elfers, A. M., & Stritikus, T. (2014). How school and district leaders support classroom teachers’
work with English language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 305–
344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13492797
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert
Shanker Institute.
DUAL IMMERSION 155
Elmore, R. F. (2008). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice and performance.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Epstein, R., Gates, S., Arifkhanova, A., Barrett, M., Bega, A., Chavez-Herrerias, A., & Wrabel,
S. (2017). School leadership interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act:
Evidence review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1550-3.html
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95, 114th Cong. (2015-2016).
Faircloth, B., & Hamm, J. (2005). Sense of belonging among high school students representing 4
ethnic groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(4), 293–309.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-5752-7
Fink, E., & Resnick, L. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Retrieved
from http://lst-iiep.iiep-unesco.org/cgi-
bin/wwwi32.exe/[in=epidoc1.in]/?t2000=026192/(100)
Fortune, T., Tedick, D., & Walker, C. (2008). Integrated language and content teaching: Insights
from the language immersion classroom. In T. Fortune & D. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to
Multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 71–96). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690371-007
Fortune, T. W. (2012). What the research says about immersion. In Chinese language learning in
the early grades: A handbook of resources and best practices for Mandarin immersion.
(pp. 9–13). New York, Ny: Asia Society.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers
College, Columbia University.
DUAL IMMERSION 156
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
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language
learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional
development needs. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
Garcia, E., Arias, M. B., Harris Murri, N. J., & Serna, C. (2010). Developing Responsive
Teachers: A Challenge for a Demographic Reality. Journal of Teacher Education,
61(132-2), 132–142.
Genesee, F. (2007). French immersion and at-risk students: A review of research evidence.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(5), 655–688.
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.5.655
Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for minority language students?
In T. K. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism and multiculturalism(pp.
547–576). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language
learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327671espr1004_2
Gerena, L. (2011). Parental voice and involvement in cultural context: Understanding rationales,
values, and motivational constructs in a dual immersion setting. Urban Education,46(3),
342–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085910377512
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
DUAL IMMERSION 157
Glover, A. B. (2015). The academic success of native English speakers participating in a two-
way dual language program (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (10106146)
Grissom, J., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders:
Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8),
433–444. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13510020
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2419.2011.00373.x
Hansen-Thomas, H. (2008). Sheltered instruction: Best practices for ELLs in the mainstream.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(4), 165–169.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2008.10516517
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The Fourth Way. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Herrity, V. A., & Glasman, N. S. (2010). Training administrators for culturally and linguistically
diverse school populations: Opinions of expert practitioners. (report). Journal of School
Leadership, 20(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461002000105
Hightower, T. (1979). The role of the principal. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 52(8), 373–377.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.1979.10113627
Hong, N. (2017). A case study of principals in dual language immersion programs (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (10685458)
DUAL IMMERSION 158
Howard, E. R., & Christian, D. (2002). Two-way immersion 101: Designing and implementing a
two-way immersion education program at the elementary level. Santa Cruz, CA: Center
for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED473082.pdf
Howard, E. R., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., Rogers, D., Olague, N., Medina, J., Kennedy, D., . . .
Christian, D. (2018). Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education (3rd ed.).
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org/resource-center/publications/guiding-principles-3rd-edition-pdf-
download
Howard, E. R., Olague, N., & Rogers, D. (2003). The dual language program planner: A guide
for designing and implementing dual language programs. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for
Research, Education, Diversity, and Excellence.
Howard, E. R., & Sugarman, J. (2001). Two-way immersion programs: Features and statistics.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from
https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt6z68j0g2/qt6z68j0g2.pdf?t=krnsya
Howard, E. R., & Sugarman, J. (2007). Realizing the vision of two-way immersion. Washington,
DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in two-way immersion education:
A review of the research. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Rogers, D. (2007).
Guiding principles for dual language education (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
DUAL IMMERSION 159
Hunt, V. (2011). Learning from success stories: Leadership structures that support dual language
programs over time in New York City. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 14(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2010.539673
Kelleher, H. (1997). A culture of commitment. Leader to Leader, 1997(4), 20–24.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.40619970408
Kennedy, B. (2013). A qualitative case study of the bilingual teacher shortage in one Texas
school district (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (3606445)
Knafl, K., Webster, D., Benoliel, J., & Morse, J. (1988). Managing and analyzing qualitative
data: A description of tasks, techniques, and materials. Western Journal of Nursing
Research,10(2), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/019394598801000207
Knight, D. S., Izquierdo, E., & DeMatthews, D. E. (2016). A balancing act: School budgeting
and resource allocation on a new dual language campus. Journal of Cases in Educational
Leadership, 19(4), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458916664766
Kose, B. W. (2011). Developing a transformative school vision: Lessons from peer-nominated
principals. Education and Urban Society, 43(2), 119–136.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124510380231
Kotok, S., & DeMatthews, D. (2018). Challenging school segregation in the twenty-first century:
How districts can leverage dual language education to increase school and classroom
diversity. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,
91(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2017.1336405
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2008). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
DUAL IMMERSION 160
Krashen, S., & Brown, C. (2007). What is academic language proficiency? Singapore Tertiary
English Teachers Society (STETS) Language and Communication Review, 6(1), 1–4.
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
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
research(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37–40.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership with large scale reform:
Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and
Improvement, 17(2), 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565829
Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529–561.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321221
Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1992). Improving the problem-solving expertise of school
administrators. Education and Urban Society, 24(3), 317–345.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124592024003003
Lemire, H. P. (1989). Perceptions of principals of French immersion schools in Alberta (Order
No. ML52881). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (303842422).
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Lessow-Hurley, J. (2009). The foundations of dual language instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson.
DUAL IMMERSION 161
Lewicki, R., & Bunker, B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R.
Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research,.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610.n7
Lindahl, R. (2008). Shared leadership: Can it work in schools? The Educational Forum, 72(4),
298–307.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595332
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2007). Effective features of dual language education programs: A review
of research and best practices. In E. R. Howard, J. Sugarman, D. Christian, K. J.
Lindholm-Leary, & D. Rogers (Eds.), Guiding principles for dual language education
(2nd ed., pp. 5–50). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org/twi/Guiding_Principles.pdf
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2005, April). Synthesis of the scientific research on the academic
achievement of ELL students. Paper presented at the conference of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2016). Students’ perceptions of bilingualism in Spanish and Mandarin
dual language programs. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(1), 59–70.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1118671
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2012). Success and challenges in dual language education. Theory into
Practice, 51(4), 256–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2012.726053
Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Borsato, G. (2005). Hispanic high schoolers and mathematics: Follow-
up of students who had participated in two-way bilingual elementary programs. Bilingual
Research Journal, 29(3), 641–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2005.10162856
DUAL IMMERSION 162
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Hernández, A. (2011). Achievement and language proficiency of Latino
students in dual language programmes: Native English speakers, fluent English/previous
ELLs, and current ELLs. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(6),
531–545.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. (2010). The missing piece in teacher education: The preparation of
linguistically responsive teachers. National Society for the Study of Education, 109(2),
297–318.
Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher
education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of
Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108322110
Marion, S. (2004). Understanding pre -service teachers’ experience in a multi -modal teaching
methods course: A constructive -developmental perspective. ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305190612/
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McNulty, B., & Besser, L. (2011). Leaders make it happen! Englewood, CO: Lead and Learn
Press.
Menken, K. (2017). Leadership in dual language bilingual education. Washington, DC: Center
for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/ndlf/pdfs/publications/NDLF-
White-Paper-October-2017.pdf
DUAL IMMERSION 163
Menken, K., & Solorza, C. (2015). Principals as linchpins in bilingual education: The need for
prepared school leaders. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
18(6), 676–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.937390
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Met, M. (2012). Curriculum and literacy. In Asia society (Ed.), Chinese language learning in the
early grades: A handbook of resources and best practices for Mandarin immersion (p.
36). Retrieved from http://asiasociety.org/education/chinese-language-
initiatives/chineselanguage-learning-early-grades
Miles, M., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Montaño, T., Ulanoff, S. H., Quintanar-Sarellana, R., & Aoki, L. (2005). The DEbilingualization
of California’s prospective bilingual teachers. Social Justice, 32(3), 103–121.
Montecel, M., & Danini, J. (2002). Successful bilingual education programs: Development and
the dissemination of criteria to identify promising and exemplary practices in bilingual
education at the national level. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2002.10668696
Montone, C., & Loeb, M. (2000). Implementing two-way immersion programs in secondary
schools (Educational Practice Report No. 5). Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC:
Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org/crede/pubs/edpractice/EPR5.htm
DUAL IMMERSION 164
Moorman, C., Deshpandé, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81–101.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700106
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2017). English learners in public schools.
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp
National Education Association. (2008). English language learners face unique challenges.
Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/ELL_Policy_Brief_Fall_08_(2).pdf
Oliva-Olson, C., Estrada, M., & Edyburn, K. (2017). Preparing California’s early care and
education workforce to teach young dual language learners. Issues in Teacher Education,
26(2), 87–113.
Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for
California’s long term English learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.
Ormond, J. (2010). Social Learning Theory. 1632-1635.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0892
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Parrish, T., Merickel, A., Perez, M., Linquanti, R., Socias, M., Spain, A., & Delancey, D. (2006).
Effects of the implementation of proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-
12. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Perkins-Gough, D. (2007). Responding to changing demographics: Special report/focus on
adolescent English language learners. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 90–91.
DUAL IMMERSION 165
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
Poppo, L., & Schepker, D. (2010). Repairing public trust in organizations. Corporate Reputation
Review, 13(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2010.12
Potowski, K. (2007). Language and identity in a dual immersion school. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters Ltd.
Rockoff, J. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from
panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.
https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041302244
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Rumberger, R., & Gándara, P. (2004). Seeking equity in the education of California’s English
learners. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 2032–2056. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9620.2004.00426.x
Sadler, D. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015
Salancik, G. (1977). Commitment is too easy! Organizational Dynamics, 6(1), 62–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(77)90035-3
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications.
DUAL IMMERSION 166
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in
teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Schoorman, F., Mayer, R., & Davis, J. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past,
present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–
354.https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24348410
Semler, S. W. (1997). Systematic agreement: A theory of organizational alignment. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 8(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.3920080105
Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 32(1), 7.
Short, D. (2000). What principals should know about sheltered instruction for English language
learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. NASSP Bulletin, 84(619), 17–
27. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650008461902
Sousa-Lima, M., Michel, J. W., & Caetano, A. (2013). Clarifying the importance of trust in
organizations as a component of effective work relationships. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 43(2), 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2013.01012.x
Starnes, B. J., Truhon, S. A., & McCarthy, V. (2010). A primer on organizational trust.
Retrieved from http://asqhdandl.org/primers.html
DUAL IMMERSION 167
Stevenson, M., Hedberg, J., O’Sullivan, K., & Howe, C. (2016). Leading learning: The role of
school leaders in supporting continuous professional development. Professional
Development in Education, 42(5), 818–835.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2015.1114507
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning
communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8
Tan, H. H., & Lim, A. K. H. (2009). Trust in coworkers and trust in organizations. The Journal
of Psychology, 143(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.1.45-66
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school
climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language
minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for
Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence
Tikkanen, L., Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2017). Interrelations between principals’
risk of burnout profiles and proactive self-regulation strategies. Social Psychology of
Education, 20(2), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9379-9
Torres-Guzman, M. E. (2007). Dual language programs: Key features and results. In O. Garcia &
C. Baker (Eds.), Bilingual Education: An Introductory Reader (pp. 50–63). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
DUAL IMMERSION 168
Tschannen-Moran, M., Salloum, S. J., & Goddard, R. D. (2014). Context matters: The influence
of collective beliefs and shared norms. In L. E. Martin, S. Kragler, D. J. Quatroche, & K.
L. Bauserman (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs, (pp. 246-
264). New York, NY: Guilford.
Undermine. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster dictionary online Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/undermine
United States Department of Education. (2014). Programs: Foreign language assistance program
(LEAs). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/flap/index.html
van de Rijt, A., Kang, S., Restivo, M., & Patil, A. (2014). Field experiments of success-breeds-
success dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, 111(19), 6934–6939. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1316836111
The Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better
teaching and learning. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from
www.wallacefoundation.org
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning.
Educational Leadership, 61(7), 48–51.
Weintraub, D. (2012). Comparing perceptions between dal language teachers and traditional
public school teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (3514344)
Yeh, C., & Inose, M. (2003). International students’ reported English fluency, social support
satisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of acculturative stress. Counselling
Psychology Quarterly, 16(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951507031000114058
DUAL IMMERSION 169
Ylimaki, R. M. (2006). Toward a new conceptualization of vision in the work of educational
leaders: Case of visionary archetype. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 620–
651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06290642
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/
DUAL IMMERSION 170
APPENDIX A
California Professional Standards for Education Leaders
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR EDUCATION LEADERS (CTC, 2014)
STANDARDS AND ELEMENTS
STANDARD 1: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A SHARED VISION
Education leaders facilitate the development and implementation of a shared vision of learning and
growth of all students.
Element 1A: Student-Centered Vision
Leaders shape a collective vision that uses multiple measures of data and focuses on equitable access,
opportunities, and outcomes for all students.
Element 1B: Developing Shared Vision
Leaders engage others in a collaborative process to develop a vision of teaching and learning that is
shared and supported by all stakeholders.
Element 1C: Vision Planning and Implementation
Leaders guide and monitor decisions, actions, and outcomes using the shared vision and goals.
STANDARD 2: INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP
Education leaders shape a collaborative culture of teaching and learning informed by professional
standards and focused on student and professional growth.
Element 2A: Professional Learning Culture
Leaders promote a culture in which staff engages in individual and collective professional learning that
results in their continuous improvement and high performance.
Element 2B: Curriculum and Instruction
Leaders guide and support the implementation of standards-based curriculum, instruction, and
assessments that address student expectations and outcomes. Example Indicators:
Element 2C: Assessment and Accountability
Leaders develop and use assessment and accountability systems to monitor, improve, and extend educator
practice, program outcomes and student learning.
STANDARD 3: MANAGEMENT AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
Education leaders manage the organization to cultivate a safe and productive learning and
working environment.
Element 3A: Operations and Facilities
Leaders provide and oversee a functional, safe, and clean learning environment.
Element 3B: Plans and Procedures
Leaders establish structures and employ policies and processes that support students to graduate ready for
college and career.
Element 3C: Climate
Leaders facilitate safe, fair, and respectful environments that meet the intellectual, linguistic, cultural,
social-emotional, and physical needs of each learner. Leaders ensure that management practices
are free from bias and equitably applied to all students.
DUAL IMMERSION 171
Element 3D: Fiscal and Human Resources
Leaders align fiscal and human resources and manage policies and contractual agreements that build a
productive learning environment.
STANDARD 4: FAMILY AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Education leaders collaborate with families and other stakeholders to address diverse student and
community interests and mobilize community resources.
Element 4A: Parent and Family Engagement
Leaders meaningfully involve all parents and families, including underrepresented communities, in
student learning and support programs.
Element 4B: Community Partnerships
Leaders establish community partnerships that promote and support students to meet performance and
content expectations and graduate ready for college and career.
Element 4C: Community Resources and Services
Leaders leverage and integrate community resources and services to meet the varied needs of all students.
STANDARD 5: ETHICS AND INTEGRITY
Education leaders make decisions, model, and behave in ways that demonstrate professionalism, ethics,
integrity, justice, and equity and hold staff to the same standard.
Element 5A: Reflective Practice
Leaders act upon a personal code of ethics that requires continuous reflection and learning.
Element 5B: Ethical Decision-Making
Leaders guide and support personal and collective actions that use relevant evidence and available
research to make fair and ethical decisions.
Element 5C: Ethical Action
Leaders recognize and use their professional influence with staff and the community to develop a climate
of trust, mutual respect, and honest communication necessary to consistently make fair and
equitable decisions on behalf of all students.
STANDARD 6: EXTERNAL CONTEXT AND POLICY
Education leaders influence political, social, economic, legal and cultural contexts affecting education to
improve education policies and practices.
Element 6A: Understanding and Communicating Policy
Leaders actively structure and participate in opportunities that develop greater public understanding of the
education policy environment.
Element 6B: Professional Influence
Leaders use their understanding of social, cultural, economic, legal and political contexts to shape policies
that lead to all students to graduate ready for college and career.
Element 6C: Policy Engagement
Leaders engage with policymakers and stakeholders to collaborate on education policies focused on
improving education for all students.
DUAL IMMERSION 172
APPENDIX B
Interview Protocol
Interview Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed for my dissertation. I appreciate the time that
you have set aside to answer some of my questions. The interview should take about 60 – 90
minutes, does that work for you? Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview
of my study and answer any questions you might have about participating in this interview. I am
currently enrolled as a student at USC and am conducting a study on leadership in dual language
immersion programs. I am particularly interested in understanding how district leaders support
dual language immersion programs and how school site leaders sustain the programs in their
schools. I will be interviewing several district and site administrators to learn more about this. I
am also interviewing some previous site administrators who are now teachers on special
assignment (TOSAs) to gain more information.
While your responses will be used as data for my dissertation, this interview is
confidential. I will not share your name, identifying details like the name of your district and
school before I submit my findings. I may use some of what you say as direct quotes; however,
none of these data will be directly attributed to you as I will use a pseudonym to protect your
confidentiality. I will not share your comments with other teachers, site or district administrators,
or the district. I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested.
The questions are not intended to make you feel uncomfortable but if there is a
question that you do not feel comfortable answering, you can choose to skip it. You also can
choose to end the interview at any time. Again, our discussion should take approximately
DUAL IMMERSION 173
60 – 90-minutes. I would like to record the audio of our interview so that I accurately capture
your perspective. Do I have your permission to record the interview? I will not share the audio
file with anyone other than the transcriber and will delete it once the transcription is complete. I
will also take notes as we talk. As stated in the Study Information Sheet I shared with you, I will
keep the data in a password-protected computer and will destroy all data after 3 years. I am
happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested. Do you have any
questions before we begin? I will begin by stating today’s date, the time, and your position.
Interview Questions
I ’ d like to begin by asking you some background questions.
1. First, please tell me about your background in education?
o How long have you worked in the field?
o What roles or positions have you held?
2. How did you become involved with the dual language immersion program in CUSD
(Probe: assigned, inherited, chose the position)?
o Please provide a specific example that best demonstrates your role in the
program?
Now I ’ d like to ask you some questions about DLIP.
1. What are the primary areas of focus for the dual immersion program?
o What are your goals, vision, and mission for the program?
o What is your program design and model?
o How does your program design, goals, vision, and mission align with the district’s
mission?
2. Discuss with me your theoretical knowledge of DLIP. (Probe: Two-way vs.
developmental vs. heritage vs. foreign language immersion)
3. Based on this knowledge, share with me in what practices you engage to sustain your
program?
o Are these practices similar to those of your non-DLIP administrator peers or are
they specific to DLIP?
4. What does work in the DLIP context say about meeting the needs of the DLIP students
through the curriculum?
o Explain how you address the needs of your English language learners in the dual
language immersion program.
o Tell me about the DLIP curriculum and what it includes.
DUAL IMMERSION 174
5. (School site admin only) What are your methods for ensuring (monitoring student
achievement) that students build and maintain
o proficiency in Spanish (the target language)?
o proficiency in English?
o proficiency in the content areas?
6. (School site admin only) How do you integrate your DLIP students and staff into the
whole school experience?
o (Probe: As a DLIP administrator, how do you create a positive school
environment with DLIP and non-DLIP students and staff?
7. (School site admin only) Describe how you determine the professional development
needs of your DLIP teachers. (Probe: assessment/observations of their instruction
8. Describe for me what you believe the ideal DLIP experience for students should be from
kindergarten through twelfth grade.
9. From your perspective, how close is the district to the ideal DLIP experience that you
described previously?
10. What is the value to students who participate in DLIP?
o What is the value to you as a DLIP administrator?
11. How does participation in the DLIP benefit English language learners?
12. Reflect on your previous school year and your behaviors and actions as you worked with
your DLIP staff and students, what feedback would you give your last year’s self?
13. How confident are you in your ability to advocate for your program?
Now I ’ d like to ask you some questions about how the dual language immersion program is
supported.
1. As we know, administrators have a multitude of tasks to complete on any given day.
Who supports your efforts to provide instructional leadership to your DLIP staff?
o Describe that support (Probe: shared leadership, leadership team)
i. What does this support look like?
ii. What does this support sound like?
(If answer to question 2 and 3 is “none,” or is lacking, try, describe how you and
your team are reaching your goals (is anyone/anything blocking you from
reaching your goals; is anyone/anything supporting you in reaching your goals).
2. Tell me about any professional development you have received in the last year related to
your role in the DLIP?
o How did you hear about this professional development?
o What were some reasons you decided to attend?
3. How did your experiences with professional development translate into providing
relevant professional development for the DLIP teachers?
o How do you build DLIP teacher capacity?
4. Can you describe any informal support you received in the last year related to your role
in the DLIP? [same probes as above]
DUAL IMMERSION 175
I ’ d like to ask you some questions about district administration and the environment.
1. Share with me the current policy or plan in place for DLIP? (Probe: Is it written, implied,
communicated?)
2. How does district administration support your efforts to sustain an effective DLIP?
3. During budget considerations, what resources do you use to ensure continued priority of
the DLIP?
4. How does the district establish priorities for funding programs?
o In your estimation, where does DLIP rank? Please explain.
5. What evidence can you cite that demonstrates that DLIP is a district priority?
6. How frequently does the district assess/monitor the DLIP at school sites?
This set of questions will address your perceptions of DLIP elements within the district
environment
7. How is bilingualism encouraged in the district, if at all?
o Can you provide a specific example?
8. How is cross-cultural understanding encouraged in the district, if at all?
o Can you provide a specific example?
9. How is biliteracy encouraged in the district, if at all?
o Can you provide a specific example?
10. Some people might say bilingualism, biliteracy, and cross-cultural understanding
shouldn’t be the goal of educators. What are your thoughts about this perspective?
11. If you could create your ideal school where bilingualism thrives, what would district
administrators need to do?
12. I realize that dual language immersion is not for everyone. Some say that learning
another language confuses children and impedes their ability to acquire content
knowledge. How would you respond?
Finally, the last part of the interview will cover what lies ahead for the DLIP work.
13. One of the things that we are all interested in is how we keep the momentum of DLIP
going. I am hoping that you can share a little bit about your plans for next year?
o What supports have you had to build capacity and to keep the work going in the
DLIP?
o How might a different level of support assist you in even more effective
sustainability of the program?
IV. Closing Question
Is there anything that you would like to add to our conversation today that I did not cover?
V. Closing
I appreciate your time and willingness to share your thoughts with me today. Thank you!
Everything that you have shared is helpful for my study. If I need to ask a follow-up question,
may I contact you? Is email ok? Again, thank you for participating in my study.
DUAL IMMERSION 176
APPENDIX C
Informed Consent
University of Southern California
Information Sheet for Research
PREPARING STUDENTS FOR THE GLOBAL SOCIETY: SUSTAINING A DUAL
IMMERSION PROGRAM
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Stephanie A. Hardaway at the
University of Southern California. Please read through this form and ask any questions you
might have before deciding whether you want to participate.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand how dual language immersion program administrators
sustain dual language programs on their campuses effectively.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to interview with me for about an hour
and a half in a location of your choosing. I will ask for your consent to audio record the
interview so that I can make sure that I capture all your thoughts and responses accurately. You
do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
I will not provide payment or compensation for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. At
the completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed, and the de-identified data may
be used for future research studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you
should not participate.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Stephanie A.
Hardaway at shardawa@usc.edu.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A case study of the roles of principals in dual language immersion programs
PDF
A case study on the planning and implementation of a dual language immersion program in a K-12 school district
PDF
A case study on African American parents' perceptions of Mandarin Dual Language Immersion Programs and the role social capital plays in student enrollment
PDF
Examining dual language immersion program instructional practices with regard to cognitive load theory
PDF
Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners
PDF
Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners
PDF
Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study
PDF
Improving the reclassification rate gap
PDF
Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development
PDF
Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom
PDF
Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis
PDF
Embracing globalization and 21st century skills in a dual language immersion school
PDF
Lack of culturally relevant teaching in international bilingual schools: a gap analysis
PDF
Classroom environment for Common Core
PDF
Administrators' role in supporting teachers through feedback
PDF
A comparative study of motivational orientation of elementary school English learners in a dual language immersion program and a transitional bilingual education program
PDF
School integration as a reform strategy: the principal’s role, an evaluation study
PDF
Increase parental involvement to decrease the achievement gaps for ELL and low SES students in urban California public schools: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Hardaway, Stephanie Anderson
(author)
Core Title
Preparing students for the global society: sustaining a dual language immersion program
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
02/27/2019
Defense Date
02/19/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
dual immersion,dual language,dual language administrators,English language learners,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Samkian, Artineh (
committee chair
), Alonzo, Teresa (
committee member
), Escalante, Michael (
committee member
)
Creator Email
shardawa@usc.edu,stephsol@sbcglobal.net
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-127995
Unique identifier
UC11676779
Identifier
etd-HardawaySt-7118.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-127995 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-HardawaySt-7118.pdf
Dmrecord
127995
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Hardaway, Stephanie Anderson
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
dual immersion
dual language
dual language administrators
English language learners