University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

(USC Thesis Other)

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Building Capacity in Homeroom Teachers to Support English Language Learners
by
Tara Lynn Moore Simeonidis

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2021

© Copyright by Tara Lynn Moore Simeonidis 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Tara Lynn Moore Simeonidis certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Jenifer Crawford
Eugenia Mora-Flores
Darline Robles, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources necessary for homeroom teachers to reach the organizational goal of providing
improved instruction for students who speak a language other than English at home. While a
complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, the stakeholders that were
focused on in this analysis were homeroom teachers in preschool through Grade 3. This study
employed a qualitative design for data gathering and analysis using interviews and document
analysis methods. Findings from this study indicate ten influences on the problem of practice in
the areas of factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge, resources,
policies/processes/procedures, and cultural setting. The indicated influences were used to select
evidence-based recommendations for solutions using the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This study informs the initiatives at MAA towards building
capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners.
Keywords: English language learners, elementary students, WIDA framework

v
Dedication
To my husband, Nick, my love, my rock, and my most trusted confidant, for his unwavering and
caring support. Your steady encouragement throughout this process and your support with how
much time I would need to see this through helped make this dream a reality. I am grateful to
you for always finding the perfect way to nudge, guide, and provide an occasional push for me to
achieve my goals.
To my children, Stephen and Andrew, who lead lives with their moral compasses pointed in the
right direction. Your support of the idea that we must dream big and work hard to make dreams
a reality fills me with energy and hope. I am in awe of you and recognize how you support each
other and my ambitions.
To my mom and dad, who have always supported and celebrated my life. You set a high bar for
parenting, and I always feel your love and support.
Finally, to friends, family, and colleagues who have encouraged me at all stages of my life, I am
genuinely grateful.

vi
Acknowledgements
The first day I stepped foot on the University of Southern California campus, I met Dr.
Robles at the meeting that started this process. I was in awe of her then and even more now.
Her thoughtful and caring guidance and encouragement each step of the way allowed this
accomplishment to become a reality. I am filled with gratitude for her dedication and expertise.
Dr. Robles selected an amazing and distinguished dissertation committee for my work. I am
genuinely grateful for the support and advice of the committee members Dr. Eugenia Mora-
Flores and Dr. Jenifer Crawford. I am thankful to the committee for sharing their expertise,
thoughtful feedback, time, and attention throughout this process.
I would also like to gratefully acknowledge Kathy Limmer for conducting the interviews
for this study and Virginia Blais for her on-going and dedicated work to support our English
language learners.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem of Practice ....................................................................1
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................2
Organizational Goal .............................................................................................................3
Related Literature.................................................................................................................4
Importance of the Evaluation ...............................................................................................4
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................................6
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals ...........................................................................7
Stakeholder Group for the Study .........................................................................................8
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................8
Methodological Framework .................................................................................................9
Definitions..........................................................................................................................10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................12
Teacher Preparation ...........................................................................................................12
State Requirements for Teaching ELLs .............................................................................13
School Districts Compensating for the Lack of Teacher Training ....................................13
Social and Academic Language .........................................................................................14
Effective Instructional Models for Teaching ELLs ...........................................................15
Pedagogical Approaches to Support ELLs ........................................................................19

viii
Professional Development .................................................................................................20
Clark and Estes’s (2008) Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework.......................................21
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................37
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................38
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .....................................................................38
Assessment of Performance Influences .............................................................................40
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection ..............................................................51
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................52
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................53
Trustworthiness of Data .....................................................................................................54
Role of Investigator............................................................................................................54
Limitations .........................................................................................................................55
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................56
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................56
Research Question 1 ..........................................................................................................57
Research Question 2 ..........................................................................................................73
Interaction Between Organizational Influences and Stakeholder Knowledge and
Motivation ..........................................................................................................................86

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation ..........................................................................89
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................89
Organizational Goal ...........................................................................................................90
Description of Stakeholder Groups ....................................................................................90
Stakeholder Group for the Study .......................................................................................91
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................92

ix
Introduction and Overview ................................................................................................92
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ............................................93
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..............................................................108
Limitations and Delimitations ..........................................................................................122
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................122
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................123
References ....................................................................................................................................125
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................141
Appendix B: Document Analysis Influence Assessment ............................................................145
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ................................................................150
Appendix D: Email to Recruit Research Participants ..................................................................153
Appendix E: Evaluation Tool To Be Used Immediately Following Training .............................155
Appendix F: Evaluation Tool Delayed for a Period After Training ............................................156

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission and Performance Goals 7
Table 2: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Teachers’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal 27
Table 3: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Teachers’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal 32
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Teachers’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal 36
Table 5: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment 42
Table 6: Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment 46
Table 7: Summary of Organization Influences and Method of Assessment 49
Table 8: Participating Stakeholders 57
Table 9: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Assets or Needs as Determined by the
Data 86
Table 10: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 95
Table 11: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 102
Table 12: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 107
Table 13: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 110
Table 14: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 111
Table 15: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 113
Table 16: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 117
Table 17: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 118
Table B1: Document Analysis 146

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Gap Analysis Process 39

1

Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem of Practice
English language learners (ELLs), students who have not met the standard for English
proficiency to succeed in an English-only instructional classroom without support, represent a
growing percentage of students in schools around the world and the United States (U.S.). From
the fall of 2000 to the fall of 2016, the rate of ELLs in U.S. schools grew from 8.1% or 3.8
million students to 9.6% or 4.9 million students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018).
Van Roekel (2008) projects the U.S. will have approximately 10 million ELLs enrolled in K-12
public schools by the year 2025. As ELLs advance through the grades, their achievement gap
widens. An achievement gap is a statistical difference in the average standardized test scores in
reading and math of one group of students as compared to another (National Assessment of
Educational Progress, 2019).
One way to determine if an achievement gap exists is to review data from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (2019), also known as the Nation’s Report Card. According
to the Nation’s Report Card (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2017), 41% of Grade
4 ELLs scored at the below basic level in math, and 69% scored at that same level in reading.
Basic level represents the minimal requirements for the grade level and content area (National
Assessment of Educational Progress, 2019). Fifteen percent of non-ELL Grade 4 students scored
at the below basic level in math and 28% at that same level in reading, creating an achievement
gap of 26% for math and 41% for reading. The results for Grade 8 indicate that 70% of ELLs
scored at the below basic level for reading and 69% at the same level for math. In comparison,
24% of their non-ELL counterparts scored at that same level for math, creating a gap of 45%.
The gap for reading is 51%, as 19% of non-ELLs scored at that same level for reading.
2

An additional problem for ELLs, connected to achievement gaps, are gaps in access and
opportunity, as students must learn from qualified teachers a quality curriculum with effective
instruction (Brooke, 2017; Carter & Welner, 2013; Ellis, 2012; Malo-Juvera, 2018; O’Day,
2009). According to the Learning Policy Institute (2016), an estimated 108,757 teachers in the
U.S. were not fully certified for their teaching assignments, including some who support ELLs.
In 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Education, 32 states reported having shortages of
qualified teachers to support ELLs. Universities in only six U.S.states offer bilingual education
coursework, and there is a significant discrepancy in what is taught in those programs
(Johannessen et al., 2016).
When teachers believe they lack the knowledge to support ELLs, their motivation
decreases, and student learning declines, according to Malo-Juvera (2018). To address the
problems with achievement, access, and opportunity gaps, ELL students require teachers highly
skilled in second language pedagogy and practices and in second language acquisition teaching
strategies to meet their overall academic needs, ensuring educational equity and student success
(Brooke, 2017).
Organizational Context and Mission
Marley American Academy (MAA, a pseudonym) is a nonprofit, independent school
serving over 1,000 preschool through Grade 12 students on one campus in a capital city in
South-East Asia. The school is organized into three divisions. The lower school consists of
preschool through Grade 5, the middle school of Grades 6 to 8, and the upper school of Grades 9
through 12. Each division has a principal and associate principals reporting to a head of school
who oversees the organization. The school is charged with providing an American-style
education to the children of expatriates living overseas. Nearly 70% of the faculty hold American
3

passports, with the next largest group of passport holders being Canadian at 20%. Parents expect
a seamless transition when their children transfer to MAA from public or private schools in the
U.S. MAA follows an American curriculum based on Common Core standards. Its mission is to
inspire students to become independent thinkers who are passionate about learning, who thrive in
an innovative environment where academic excellence and character education remain at the
forefront of the student experience. MAA compares itself with independent schools in the U.S.
regarding student outcomes. English is the language of instruction, and 80% of the students
speak a language other than English at home. The majority of those students speak Mandarin at
home. Only 8% of the overall student population receives support with English as an academic
language (EAL). MAA is a member of the National Association of Independent Schools, and the
Western Association for Schools and Colleges is the accrediting organization.
Organizational Goal
The goal of MAA is to provide improved instruction for students who speak a language
other than English at home. MAA is a leader in the region in supporting lower school students
who qualify for second language support with a specially trained team of teachers. However,
students who do not qualify for the support need homeroom teachers trained in second language
pedagogy and instructional practices. “Homeroom teacher” is the term used at MAA for the lead
teacher in lower school division classroom; in some schools, they are referred to as classroom
teachers. MAA will provide resources for the initial and on-going training and support for
implementing second language pedagogy and practices for homeroom teachers to support all
ELLs.

4

Related Literature
Effective teachers understand each student’s strengths and challenges, apply instructional
strategies, understand the pedagogy, and deliver lessons to meet their individual needs (Brooke,
2017). Teachers’ level of expertise depends on the preparation they received at their schools of
education and varies greatly, which impacts their effectiveness (Brooke, 2017). In their teacher
education programs, teachers do not usually receive sufficient instruction on English language
instructional strategies (Daniel, 2014; de Jong & Harper, 2005; Samson & Collins, 2012).
Numerous studies have suggested teachers’ knowledge gaps prevent closing the achievement gap
for ELLs (de Jong & Harper, 2005; Johannessen et al., 2016; Loeb et al., 2014; National Center
for Education Statistics, 2018; National Council of Teachers of English, 2008). Research devoted
to best practices, cultural pedagogy and context, and second language acquisition explains how
to fill teachers’ knowledge gaps in all academic areas (Berk & Winsler, 1995; Board of Regents
of the University of Wisconsin System, 2013; Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010; Peercy et al., 2015).
Researchers found that professional development is lacking for teachers who support ELLs and
is an essential contributing factor to student learning (Poekert, 2012; Roblero, 2013).
Importance of the Evaluation
For MAA, with a student body consisting of 80% ELLs, this evaluative study is
important, as it will enable stakeholders to gather formative data to be used to inform MAA’s
decisions to increase all their ELLs’ progress. Currently, 62% of students in preschool through
Grade 3 who speak a language other than English at home must rely on the homeroom teacher
for this support, as they do not qualify for the additional support of the EAL team. For students
to qualify for the additional support, their overall language proficiency must be at or below level
4 on the World-class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) proficiency rubric. However,
5

for students to fully access the grade-level curriculum, they need to be at proficiency level
6/Reaching, meaning they use social and academic language at the highest level (Board of
Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 2013). The EAL team of teachers supports the
students with the greatest need, 18% of students in preschool through three, who are unable to
access the curriculum because their English language proficiency level is at or below level 4.
This study evaluated what the homeroom teachers in each preschool through Grade 3 classroom
need to support the 62% of ELLs who access the curriculum but are also acquiring English as a
second language and are not at proficiency level 6/Reaching. A growing body of evidence has
begun to document the positive outcomes of curriculum development and training for teachers
who work with ELLs (Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 2013; Vaughn
et al., 2006; Yeung, 2018).
It is important to evaluate MAA’s performance regarding ELLs because the problem
hinders learning and the overall student experience. It is necessary to evaluate the homeroom
teachers’ knowledge and motivation and what support they need from the organization to
provide effective instruction for ELLs at MAA and other schools. Solving this problem is
important for a variety of reasons. First, ELLs represent a growing percentage of students in
schools around the world (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). Second, as these students
advance through the grades, their achievement gap widens (National Assessment of Educational
Progress, 2005, 2019). Third, highly skilled and motivated teachers working in organizations
equipped to support these students help ensure educational equity and student success. Results
from this evaluative study can provide information to other schools to ensure ELLs succeed.

6

Description of Stakeholder Groups
Three stakeholder groups contribute to the performance goal of 100% of MAA students
in preschool through Grade 3 receiving English language support: their homeroom teachers, the
EAL support teachers, and the school administrators, consisting of central administration and
divisional principals. There are 30 homeroom teachers in preschool through Grade 3 responsible
for delivering lessons that support second language acquisition in literacy, math, science, social
studies, and social/emotional development. Ten of these teachers identify as male, 20 identify as
female, 60% hold American passports, 20% have Canadian passports, and the others are from
Australia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. Each teacher’s teaching
credentials are from universities from their country of citizenship. Their average tenure at MAA
is 7.7 years, and five teachers did not have international teaching experience before joining
MAA.
The second group of stakeholders consists of the EAL support teachers who work with
students in Grades 1 through 5. This group of teachers currently supports ELLs with the greatest
need who qualify for support using internal assessments and the WIDA framework. Currently,
18% of preschool through Grade 3 students qualify for this support. This group’s role in meeting
the organization’s goal is to co-plan, co-assess, and co-teach with the homeroom teachers to
support the 62% of the students who do not qualify for EAL support.
The third group of stakeholders is made up of two groups of school administrators:
central administrators and divisional principals. The central administrators are the head of
school, deputy head of school, director of programs, dean of faculty, and chief financial officer.
Central administrators contribute to the performance goal, as their overall support of the goal is
needed to secure funding for training, review of curriculum articulation, programmatic review.
7

The elementary school principal is the divisional stakeholder, as preschool through Grade 3 falls
within this division.
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1 displays the organizational mission, goal, and stakeholder group performance
goals.

Table 1
Organizational Mission and Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of Marley American Academy (MAA) is to provide an American-based education
to students with foreign passports. Academic excellence, character education, and preparing
students to thrive anywhere in the world are the pillars of an MAA education.
Organizational Performance Goal
By June 2022, homeroom teachers in preschool through Grade 3 will be trained on second
language pedagogy to provide ELLs with support in their homerooms.
Preschool-Grade Three
Homeroom Teachers
By June 2022, 100% of
MAA preschool–Grade 3
homeroom teachers will
have had training and will
implement strategies to
support English language
learners.
EAL Teachers
By June 2022, 100% of EAL
teachers will co-plan, co-assess,
and co-teach with preschool
through Grade 3 homeroom
teachers.
Administration
By June 2022, the
administration at MAA will
have funded the training and
will support the
implementation of
instructional strategies for
English language learners in
preschool through Grade 3.

8

Stakeholder Group for the Study
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders contribute to achieving the organizational goal,
only one stakeholder group served as the focus of this study. The stakeholders of focus for this
study were the homeroom teachers in preschool through Grade 3, as they engage the students in
learning for the longest time each school day. The stakeholder’s goal, supported by the EAL
teachers and the administration, is that 100% of preschool through Grade 3 homeroom teachers
will use their training to implement strategies to support ELLs. The organizational goal cannot
be met without these stakeholders’ implementing strategies to support their students’ second
language learning. Therefore, they are the focus of the study.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which MAA is meeting its
organizational goal of providing improved instruction for students who speak a language other
than English at home. The analysis focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational
elements related to achieving this organizational goal. While a complete performance evaluation
would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders focused on in this
analysis were the homeroom teachers in preschool through Grade 3. Questions that guided this
study are as follows:
1. What are the homeroom teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to implementing
strategies to support English language learning?
2. What is the interaction between MAA’s organizational culture and homeroom teachers’
knowledge and motivation regarding English language learning?
In addition, analysis of the findings from the two research questions informed the answer
to the following question examined in Chapter Five:
9

1. What are the recommendations for MAA’s practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources regarding English language learners?
Methodological Framework
This project employed a qualitative design for data gathering and analysis. Creswell and
Creswell (2014) state the purpose of a qualitative study is to fully understand and analyze how
people make sense of their work, their world, and all aspects of what they do. To ensure the
credibility and trustworthiness of a qualitative study’s findings, according to Merriam and
Tisdell (2016), the best strategy is triangulation to ensure cross-checking and comparison with
two or more sources of data. The methods used to collect data were interviews and document
analysis.
A convenience sample was used, as the stakeholders are teachers within MAA; therefore,
they are available when needed (Fink, 2017). For this study, the most can be learned from the
homeroom teachers in preschool through Grade 3 at MAA, so they are the stakeholders of focus.
The interview questions all relate to the two research questions framed around Clark and Estes’s
(2008) gap analysis framework. Each question is directly linked to influence types described by
Clark and Estes, Krathwohl (2002), and Pintrich (2003). The semi-structured interview approach
was used for this study due to the flexibility it allows with question types and structure and
guided the interviewer to create an environment for a targeted conversation (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
The systematic procedure of document analysis was used to review and evaluate artifacts
and public records at the organization (Bowen, 2009). The analysis included artifacts such as
meeting agendas, meeting minutes, training materials, handbooks, and website postings for
professional development opportunities. Further document analysis included public records such
10

as student reports, policy manuals, strategic planning documents, and curriculum articulation.
The documents included in the analysis also relate to the two research questions framed around
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework. Each document is directly linked to influence
types described by Clark and Estes, Krathwohl (2002), and Pintrich (2003).
Definitions
Provided in this section are the terms and definitions used in this study.
• Achievement gap: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (2019), also known
as the Nation’s Report Card, defines achievement gaps as a statistical difference (larger
than the margin of error) in the average standardized test scores in reading and math of
one group of students as compared to another. For this study, ELLs are compared to
native English speaking students.
• Dual Language Education (DLE): The Glossary of Education Reform (2014) defines
DLE as academic programs taught in two languages. Dual language education is the new
term for the program formerly called bilingual education.
• English language learner (ELL): According to the United States Department of
Education (2020), ELLs are “national-origin-minority students who are limited-English-
proficient” (para. 6).
• English as a second language (ESL): The United States Department of Education (2020)
defines this as “a program of techniques, methodology and special curriculum designed
to teach ELL students English language skills, which may include listening, speaking,
reading, writing, study skills, content vocabulary, and cultural orientation” (para. 7).
• WIDA: An acronym for World Class Instructional Design and Assessment, provides
language development resources to those who support the academic success of multi-
11

lingual learners. WIDA’s resources are used by 42 states and territories and
approximately 500 international schools (Wisconsin Center for Education Research,
n.d.).
Organization of the Project
This evaluation was organized using five chapters. This chapter provided the reader with
the problem of practice that was the central focus of this study, key concepts, and terminology
commonly found in a discussion about second language learning. The organization’s mission,
goals, and stakeholders, and the framework for the study were introduced. Chapter Two provides
a review of the current literature surrounding the scope of the study and focused research framed
around the Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework. Topics of teachers’
knowledge gaps, best practices, and misdiagnosis of learning differences for ELLs, among other
topics, will be addressed. Chapter Three details the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
elements to be examined as well as the methodology when it comes to the choice of participants,
data collection, and analysis. Data collected from interviews and document analysis are
presented and analyzed in Chapter Four. Chapter Five provides solutions based on data and
literature for closing the perceived gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and
evaluation plan for the solutions.

12

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter reviews the research that influences ELLs’ achievement, including teacher
preparation and practices. Research-based instructional models, pedagogical approaches,
professional development, and the school’s social and academic language are also reviewed in
this chapter. Following the review of the general literature, the second part of the chapter
introduces the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). The framework provides a
structure for examining the possible knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
assumed to impact the instruction of students who speak a language other than English at home.
Teacher Preparation
Universities’ schools of education do not equip future teachers with the skills necessary
to meet ELLs’ needs. For many teachers of ELLs, the knowledge gap begins in the U.S.
university system, and this contributes to their future students’ achievement gap (Brooke, 2017;
Daniel, 2014; de Jong & Harper, 2005; Johannessen et al., 2016; Samson & Collins, 2012).
According to the 2018 report from the American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education, despite efforts to attract teachers to the high-need fields of bilingual education and
English language acquisition, fewer candidates are selecting these degree fields, contributing to
teacher shortages in the areas that support ELLs. According to de Jong and Harper (2005), the
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education’s survey of 417 schools of education
demonstrated that fewer than one in six required any coursework regarding bilingual or second
language learning. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2018, only 12%
of ELLs’ teachers received this training or coursework at their university. The National Council
on Teacher Quality in 2014 determined that, of 665 universities with teacher preparation
programs, 76% did not have coursework to address strategies for teaching ELLs how to read.
13

According to Johannessen et al. (2016), universities in only six states in the U.S. have
coursework for bilingual education. There is a great discrepancy in what those programs teach.
Daniel (2014) examined practices to prepare educators to support ELLs among elementary
teachers enrolled in a Masters with Certification in Elementary Education program. The author
found that effective practices were lacking, and teachers left the program unprepared to support
ELLs (Daniel, 2014). If prospective teachers leave universities without the knowledge or training
to work with ELLs, they must rely on states and school districts to train them and ensure the
transfer of those skills and knowledge to close the achievement gap.
State Requirements for Teaching ELLs
According to a 2020 report from the Education Commission of the States, 21 states do
not require any teacher training for teachers to support ELLs beyond what federal law requires,
and only 22 states explicitly require ELL teachers to hold a specialist certification. The law
requires school districts to provide research-based professional development to all teachers,
administrators, and staff who work with ELLs. The law further states that the training must focus
on methods for working with ELLs and be offered frequently enough to have a positive and
lasting impact. According to Samson and Collins (2012), teachers who work with ELLs need to
be prepared with specific coursework and training to meet the students’ needs adequately. Yet, in
one example, less than half of one percent of the teachers in Montana have training or an
endorsement to support ELLs (Carjuzaa et al., 2016).
School Districts Compensating for the Lack of Teacher Training
Teachers arrive at school districts without the training to meet ELL students’ needs
(Cohen & Bhatt, 2012; Ehri & Flugman, 2018; Good et al., 2010). According to Cohen and Bhatt
(2012), the districts must take on the responsibility of teacher preparation. Good et al. (2010)
14

claim that teachers arriving in a rural school district enrolling primarily Hispanic students did so
without a comprehensive plan or strategies for ELL students to acquire both English language
proficiency and content knowledge within a realistic time frame. To meet ELLs’ literacy needs,
teachers must be skilled in teaching beginning reading to students, and many teachers lack the
knowledge of the English language’s writing system to teach phonics effectively (Ehri &
Flugman, 2018). Also, Ehri and Flugman (2018) found that teachers needed a 45-hour long
course followed by 90 hours of in-school training and mentoring throughout an entire school
year to teach reading and spelling to elementary students, including ELLs.
Without consistent university programs of study to support ELLs, teachers graduate and
are unprepared for the demands they will encounter in school districts throughout the country
(Brooke, 2017; Carjuzaa et al., 2016; Daniel, 2014; Johannessen et al., 2016; Samson & Collins,
2012). This lack of infrastructure and organization begins as teachers earn teaching degrees at
universities yet are unprepared to meet ELLs’ needs (Samson & Collins, 2012). It then becomes
the districts’ responsibility to prepare and support teachers’ professional growth (Cohen & Bhatt,
2012).
Social and Academic Language
Research by Cummins (1979, 2001) introduced the phrase “basic interpersonal
communication skills” to describe the informal language used by students during social
interactions as well as “cognitive academic language proficiency” to describe the language
needed for success in school. While these distinctions allow teachers to understand the basics of
how a students’ language can shape their experience, it is important to note that students need
both types for school success. Still, more importantly, language learning must have relevance
and context (Aukerman, 2007). Fostering an asset-based approach to language development is
15

critical to ELLs’ well-being and success (Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin
System, 2013; Zwiers, 2019). Supporting and respecting all the language a student brings from
home, building on their language and life experiences, listening closely to them as they learn and
play, and making all learning relevant blurs the line between social and academic language,
which makes for effective teaching (Aukerman, 2007; Flores & Rosa, 2015; MacSwan, 2018).
Effective Instructional Models for Teaching ELLs
Research outlining effective models to support ELLs’ academic outcomes is plentiful
(Dormer, 2013; Gay, 2002; Gort, 2003; Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010; Thomas & Collier, 1997;
Zwiers, 2019; Zwiers & Hamerla, 2018; Zwiers & Soto, 2017). Cummins’s (2001) work
suggests a model of reciprocal interaction where students and teachers engage in genuine
dialogue to promote high-level language development skills. Models of culturally responsive
teaching (Gay, 2002) and developing academic language while raising thinking and conversation
levels (Zwiers & Hamerla, 2018) are proven, researched-based practices and methods schools
could adopt with sufficient training and on-going support. Literature regarding effective
instructional models to support ELLs as they develop academic language in supportive
classroom environments is inclusive of, but not limited to, the models discussed below.
Project Guided Language Acquisition Design
Blending a skills integration approach with cognitive second language acquisition theory
and culturally responsive pedagogy, the Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD) model,
developed by educators from California, encourages inclusivity within classrooms (Boloz, 1981).
The model is anchored by five foundational strategies to support ELLs: graphic organizer input
chart, pictorial input chart, expert groups, process grids, and cooperative strip paragraphs. These
strategies make this instructional model solidly grounded in the consistent integration of skills
16

throughout the content areas while drawing on background knowledge and making learning
relevant to students’ experiences (Brechtel, 2001).
Researchers found instruction is more effective when teachers receive training through
Project GLAD, as student motivation increases and ELLs’ achievement improves (Elfers &
Stritikus, 2014; Hernández et al., 2019; Hoff, 2017). Integrating social studies into a literacy
block with fourth-grade students using Project GLAD, Hoff (2017) found academic
conversations with ELL students and their use of academic vocabulary increased, as did their
motivation and achievement. Using Project GLAD as a professional development tool resulted in
unified instruction and targeted learning, leading to improved achievement for ELLs (Elfers &
Stritikus, 2014; Hernández et al., 2019).
The Sobrato Early Academic Language
A language-rich, developmentally appropriate yet academically rigorous model, the
Sobrato Early Academic Language (SEAL) model is designed to support preschool through
Grade 3 ELLs (Hurwitz & Olsen, 2018; Olsen, 2014). Based on 11 practices, four pillars, and
three foundations, the model is designed to address the achievement gap affecting ELLs and
reduce the number of long-term ELLs (Lindholm-Leary, 2015). The SEAL model, based on
Common Core State Standards and California’s preschool learning foundations, is designed for
social studies and science instruction delivery with an emphasis on oral language and vocabulary
development.
Research indicates that second language proficiency occurs over time and during the
course of several grade levels (Thompson, 2015; Umansky & Reardon, 2014; Valentino &
Reardon, 2015). Building academic language during the early school years is a priority for
student success in the short and long term (Thompson, 2015). Lindholm-Leary (2015) found that
17

students who received the full intervention, preschool through Grade 3, with the SEAL model
scored significantly higher in reading and math when compared to students with partial
participation in the model. Also, the study found that students who fully participated in SEAL
had test scores comparable to or higher than the district and state averages in literacy and math.
Collaboration
School environments where homeroom teachers work closely with ESL specialist
teachers each day to collaborate, co-plan, co-teach, and co-assess support ELLs’ overall
development (Bauler & Kang, 2020; Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010; Nguyen, 2012; Peercy &
Martin-Beltrán, 2012; Peercy et al., 2015) and provide the least restrictive environment to
support students. Schools must provide and sustain the training and on-going support with
coaches and time for co-planning and co-assessing for these collaboration practices and models
to ensure the continual transfer of these practices to the classroom (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010).
Collaboration among homeroom teachers and ESL specialists benefits both ELL success
and teachers’ professional growth (Peercy & Martin-Beltrán, 2012). With the increased
communication, planning, and access to resources to support ELLs, teachers noted their practices
and goals improved, and they understood how to best support students (Peercy & Martin-Beltrán,
2012; Peercy et al., 2015). Effective collaboration must include time for homeroom and ESL
teachers to meet regularly, and the organization must support this structure (Bauler & Kang,
2020).
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model is n instructional model
based on research to support ELLs’ academic needs (Echevarria et al., 2000, 2010). Based on
sheltered instruction, a term first used by Stephen Krashen (Krashen & Terrell, 1983), the SIOP
18

approach integrates content and language instruction using a framework for any content area for
ELL students in their general education classroom. Supported by the Center for Research on
Education, Diversity, and Excellence and funded by the U.S. Department of Education, this
model consists of eight interrelated components: lesson preparation, building background,
comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice/application, lesson delivery, review, and
assessment. Gort (2003) found that creating meaningful teacher–student and student–student
interactions through the SIOP model is an effective practice for supporting ELLs’ needs.
Response to Intervention
The Response to Intervention (RTI) model allows schools to determine how responsive
students are to researched-based interventions in the least restrictive learning environment, their
homeroom class. Research states this tiered response works for ELLs not because they are
classed as requiring special education but because the model is based on high-quality research-
based instruction targeted to students’ specific needs (Keller-Margulis, 2012; Park, 2019; Ybarra
et al., 2015). When properly implemented and supported by the school, this multi-tiered
approach to identifying students’ needs and supporting their learning is a model that benefits
ELLs (Keller-Margulis, 2012; Park, 2019; Ybarra et al., 2015). According to the National Center
for Learning Disabilities (2020), RTI implementation works best when classroom instruction is
high-quality and research-based, student progress is assessed and monitored frequently to
determine achievement and the effectiveness of instruction, and interventions are targeted to
meet all students’ needs in the least restrictive environment.
For the RTI model to be most effective for ELLs and achieve the intended purpose of
supporting students in the homeroom class, Park (2019) found that Tier 1 support must include
high-quality English language development strategies. Keller-Margulis (2012) found that
19

implementing the RTI model must be done with fidelity and monitored regularly. Ybarra et al.
(2015) found, after a 2-year analysis, that ELLs in an RTI school system that followed the model
with fidelity made significant gains in reading achievement.
Effective instructional models to support ELLs promote similar pedagogical approaches,
such as differentiation, scaffolding, collaboration, cultivating relationships, conversations about
learning, and direct instruction for new vocabulary (Howard, 2018; Zwiers, 2019). In addition to
schools’ adopting instructional models that support ELLs, teachers require the knowledge of
these various approaches and the ability to determine which methods the ELLs in their care need
(Loeb et al., 2014; Santos et al., 2012).
Pedagogical Approaches to Support ELLs
Teachers require specific knowledge and training to meet their ELL students’ unique
needs and must be ready to promote appropriate strategies (Loeb et al., 2014; Helman & Burns,
2008; Santos et al., 2012). Evaluating their ELLs’ needs and being poised to deliver instruction
that best meets them are requirements for teachers to effectively support these students (Loeb et
al., 2014; Helman & Burns, 2008; Santos et al., 2012). Effective ELL teachers are characterized
by bilingual certification, knowledge of specific skills, and the ability to communicate effectively
in more than one language. Loeb et al. (2014) found suggestive evidence that ELL teachers’
knowledge of their students’ home language, the ability to effectively communicate in both a
student’s home language and English, and the credential of bilingual certification determined
their effectiveness. Teachers without such knowledge or skills were less effective with ELLs.
Teachers must be prepared to utilize specific practices proven to support ELLs as they
access a language-rich curriculum in all content areas (Helman & Burns, 2008). Scaffolding
lessons to build on students’ native language abilities and supporting their literacy development
20

by providing books in native languages promotes learning and literacy growth (Helman & Burns,
2008). With the extra language demands of Common Core State Standards, teachers must be
skilled and equipped to support ELLs by addressing and understanding language progressions
and analyzing and supporting students with the curriculum’s new language demands (Santos et
al., 2012). Instructing ELLs effectively requires knowledge and an understanding of students’
cultural and linguistic backgrounds and the pedagogical tools to support learning in a language
different from one’s native language (He et al., 2011).
Specific strategies and tools to scaffold learning benefit all ELLs, including those who
acquire languages more quickly than the norm (Pereira & de Oliveira, 2015). Teachers must be
responsive to their students’ linguistic needs, allowing for all to thrive. Strategies that support
students’ linguistic needs include differentiating and understanding that not all ELLs need the
same level or type of support and building a language-rich environment where all students can
thrive (Pereira & de Oliveira, 2015; Zwiers, 2007). Supporting thinking skills and language
functions such as cause/effect, compare/contrast, persuade, and interpret and academic language
strategies such as voice and sentence complexity support are examples of specific and effective
practices for ELLs that teachers need to incorporate into instruction (Zwiers, 2007).
Professional Development
Researchers found that teachers who support ELLs lack professional development, which
is an important contributor to student learning (Poekert, 2012; Roblero, 2013). Investing in
teachers’ professional growth and development is necessary to meet ELLs’ needs. According to
the National Council of Teachers of English (2008), less than 13% of teachers have received
professional development on teaching ELLs. This knowledge gap is widespread, as only three
states have policies that require all teachers to have some knowledge of effective strategies for
21

teaching ELLs. According to the report, well-meaning teachers with inadequate training and
knowledge gaps in their professional learning add to the growing ELL student achievement gap
(National Council of Teachers of English, 2008).
When considering the effectiveness of professional development, the New World Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006) provides a four-level model of evaluation: Level 1/Reaction,
Level 2/Learning, Level 3/Behavior, and Level 4/Results. The model allows organizations to
analyze the implementation and effectiveness of professional development. Offering and
attending professional development training opportunities does not always result in the transfer
of new knowledge and skills (Michalak, 1981). Successful professional growth stems from
professional training in the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that lead to improved
performance (Salas et al., 2006) and the transfer of that training into daily practice (Grossman &
Salas, 2011). Investing in teachers’ professional development is necessary to meet ELLs’ needs.
Analyzing the effectiveness of professional development and ensuring the transfer of the training
is a necessary and important contributor to student learning for ELLs (Poekert, 2012; Roblero,
2013).
Clark and Estes’s (2008) Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework creates a method for identifying the
steps an organization needs to achieve its goals. For this study, the organizational goal is that
100% of MAA students in preschool through Grade 3 who speak a language other than English
at home will receive English language support from their homeroom teachers. The methodical
and systematic approach to analyzing knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on
performance gaps is the evaluative approach used for this study.

22

Knowledge and Skills
The four types of knowledge outlined by Krathwohl (2002) are factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive, and an individuals’ overall knowledge impacts their performance
and an organization’s overall goal for better or worse (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Rueda
(2011), for students to succeed, we must consider the knowledge they must acquire, the
knowledge of the various teachers who work with the students, and the knowledge of the
administrators to create an organization conducive to teaching and learning. Conducting a gap
analysis allows for examining possible causes of gaps in performance, and this section focuses
on knowledge and skills.
Declarative Factual Knowledge Influences
To function effectively in an organization, a person must have basic knowledge of terms
and details within their field and/or organization (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). These basic
elements of knowledge are necessary to problem solve and support the organization’s goals at
the most basic level. For MAA to achieve the organizational performance goal of supporting
100% of students who speak a language other than English at home, all homeroom teachers will
need to know the terminology associated with teaching students who are learning a second
language to effectively implement the program of study and support the students’ needs.
Factual Influence: Teachers Know the Difference Between Academic and Social
Language. To effectively support ELLs, teachers must know the terminology associated with
teaching students who are acquiring a second language. Knowing the difference between
students’ social and academic language and knowing both are important to their success is
critical for the development of learning goals and objectives and students’ long term academic
23

success (Aukerman, 2007; Cummins, 1979, 2001; Flores & Rosa, 2015; MacSwan, 2018; Zwiers
& Crawford, 2011).
Factual Influence: Teachers Know the Terminology for Research-Based Language
Development Strategies. For teachers to function in a classroom with ELLs effectively, they
need to know the terminology for strategies that support language development. Research-based
strategies such as scaffolding, differentiation, direct instruction for new vocabulary, student
conversations, increased wait time, use of sentence stems must be known by teachers who work
with ELLs (Dormer, 2013; Gay, 2002; Nguyen, 2012; Zwiers, 2007).
Factual Influence: Teachers Know the Different Levels of Language Proficiency.
When working with ELLs at MAA, teachers need to know the different levels of language
proficiency outlined in the WIDA framework (Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin
System, 2013) and the seminal work of Krashen and Terrell (1983) outlining and describing
levels of language proficiency. Teachers also need to know the importance of having mastery in
all levels for students to succeed academically. The levels of language proficiency are Level
1/Entering, Level 2/Emerging, Level 3/Developing, Level 4/Expanding, Level 5/Bridging, Level
6/Reaching.
Conceptual Knowledge Influences
According to Krathwohl (2002), conceptual knowledge refers to the interrelationships
among the basic elements within a larger structure to provide a way for them all to work
together. At MAA, conceptual knowledge describes what teachers need to know to support the
organizational goal of supporting students who speak a language other than English at home. The
knowledge of models, principles, and relationships are examples of conceptual knowledge
(Rueda, 2011).
24

Conceptual Influence: Teachers Understand Collaborative Instructional Practices.
To fully support ELLs at MAA, teachers must know and understand collaborative instructional
practices for effectively co-planning, co-teaching, and co-assessing to meet their students’
various needs (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010). To effectively co-plan, teachers review classroom
behavior expectations, establish that both teachers take responsibility for linguistic and academic
needs, ensure lessons are differentiated, map out units of study and agree on a co-teaching
approach to effectively deliver instruction. Three phases of a co-planning routine are preplanning
(completed separately), collaborative planning (completed together), and post-planning
(completed separately). To co-teach effectively, teachers must agree on which of the seven
models outlined in Co-Teaching for English Learners (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010) are the best
approach for their work. To effectively co-assess, teachers establish a shared foundational
understanding to design formative and summative assessment measures, collaboratively examine
student work with consideration for linguistic development, academic needs, cultural
experiences, and social-emotional aspects of learning.
Conceptual Influence: Teachers Understand the Different Levels of Language
Proficiency. To fully support preschool through Grade 3 students who speak a language other
than English at home, teachers must have a conceptual understanding of categorizing students’
needs and the principles for supporting second language learning in their classrooms. When
working with ELLs at MAA, teachers need to understand the of the WIDA framework principles
and explain the differences in the language proficiency levels (Board of Regents of the
University of Wisconsin System, 2013).

25

Procedural Knowledge Influences
Procedural knowledge requires that one demonstrates their ability to apply knowledge
and implement a practice or method (Krathwohl, 2002). This type of knowledge, according to
Rueda (2011), refers to knowing how to do something and can also refer to the specific methods
and techniques required to accomplish a goal. MAA’s organizational goal requires teachers to
demonstrate they can analyze student work and implement instructional strategies to support
ELLs.
Procedural Knowledge Influence: Teachers Need to Know How to Analyze
Students’ Oral and Written Language. Promoting academic success for ELLs requires
knowing how to analyze students’ oral and written language and their effectiveness in
communicating in English, as teachers must use this information to develop lessons to support
their students’ specific literacy needs. Becoming highly aware of language use promotes deep
understanding and successful application (Dormer, 2013). When teachers put procedures in
place, such as using rubrics developed for language analysis and partnering with an EAL
specialist to do this type of work, student learning is targeted to specific needs.
Procedural Knowledge Influence: Teachers Need to Know How to Implement
Research-Based Instructional Strategies to Support ELLs. The language-rich guidelines of
Common Core Standards and the New Generation Science Standards place extra demands on
language learners at MAA. Therefore, teachers must implement research-based instructional
strategies to meet ELLs’ needs as they navigate language-rich lessons (Helman & Burns, 2007;
Loeb et al., 2014; Pereira & de Oliveira, 2015; Santos et al., 2012; Thomas & Collier, 1997;
Zwiers, 2007). Understanding how best to teach second language learners when the curriculum is
26

rich with academic language, vocabulary, and calls for students to explain their thinking orally
and in writing requires teachers to demonstrate procedural knowledge to support their students.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence
The metacognitive influence assessed was that teachers need to self-reflect on the
effectiveness of their teaching practices. Metacognition is one’s ability to reflect, adjust, be
aware of one’s own cognition, and know when and why one is doing something (Krathwohl,
2002; Rueda, 2011). For an organization to grow, stakeholders need to reflect, assess, and adjust
accordingly before, during, and after goal implementation. At MAA, stakeholders must take time
for this important process to reach their organizational goal.
Student learning improves when teachers self-reflect on their teaching practices and take
time to learn and grow from their reflections (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010; Turkan & Buzick,
2014). This model is particularly effective when all teachers’ reflections are focused on their role
in supporting ELLs (Burchard et al., 2017). In practice, this will include dialogue with co-
teachers, and/or at team meetings regarding why lessons are or are not successful, problem-
solving for future lessons, and noting adjustments to make for future lessons.

27

Table 2
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Teachers ’ Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Assumed Knowledge Influences Research Literature
Declarative Factual (terms, facts,
concepts) Teachers know…

Teachers know the difference between
academic and social language.
Aukerman (2007)
Cummins (1979, 2001)
MacSwan (2018)
Flores & Rosa (2015)
Zwiers & Crawford (2011)
Teachers know the terminology for
researched-based strategies that support
language development.
Dormer (2013)
Gay (2002)
Nguyen (2012)
Zwiers (2007)
Zwiers & Crawford (2011)
Zwiers(2019)
Declarative Factual (terms, facts,
concepts)
Teachers know…

Teachers know the different levels of
language proficiency, as outlined in the
WIDA framework and the seminal work
of Krashen and Terrell.
Krashen & Terrell (1983)
Board of Regents of the University of
Wisconsin System (2013)
Declarative Conceptual (categories,
process models, principles, relationships)
Teachers need to know...

Teachers need to understand collaboration
and co-teaching practices.
Honigsfeld & Dove (2010)
Teachers need to understand the
principles of language proficiency as
outlined in the WIDA framework.

Board of Regents of the University of
Wisconsin System (2013)

28

Procedural
Teachers need to know how to…

Teachers need to know how to analyze
students’ oral and written English
language.
Dormer (2013)
Teachers need to know how to implement
research-based instructional strategies to
support ELLs effectively.
Helman & Burns (2007)
Loeb et al. (2014)
Pereira & de Oliveira (2015)
Santos et al. (2012)
Thomas & Collier (1997)
Zwiers (2007)
Zwiers & Soto (2017)
Zwiers & Hamerla (2018)
Metacognitive
Stakeholders need to know how to reflect
on...

Teachers need to self-reflect on the
effectiveness of their teaching practices
for their ELLs.
Burchard et al. (2017)
Honigsfeld & Dove (2010)
Turkan & Buzick (2014)

Motivation
The fact that a person has the knowledge to perform a task does not mean that they will
do so with any level of success; the person must be motivated (Rueda, 2011). According to Clark
and Estes (2008), motivational issues are another possible cause of organizational performance
gaps. Motivation is defined as “the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and
sustained” (Schunk et al. 2014, p. 4), and three factors related to motivation: active choice,
persistence, and effort (Schunk et al. 2014). Active choice involves the intentional decision to
pursue one activity over another, persistence is the ability to stick with pursuing a goal in the
face of distractions, and effort requires the mental stamina to see a task through to completion
29

(Rueda, 2011). With the incorporation of all three motivational factors, goal attainment is
possible (Clark & Estes, 2008).
In addition, the following motivational principles have emerged from research dedicated
to understanding motivation (Pintrich, 2003; Rueda, 2011): self-efficacy beliefs, attribution
beliefs, value, goal content, and goal orientations. Self-efficacy is a person’s belief in their own
ability to achieve a particular goal (Bandura, 1997). Motivational attribution refers to the beliefs
a person has regarding the reasons goal attainment is successful or not, and the amount of control
a person has in that outcome (Wiener, 2005). Motivational value is the level of significance one
gives to a goal or task (Rueda, 2011). Goal content focuses on the work of Bandura (2001) and
how goals can or cannot motivate behavior. Goal orientation, according to Pintrich (2003), seeks
to understand the reasons one participates in achieving a goal. Three areas of motivation will be
explored regarding MAA’s organizational performance goal: value, self-efficacy, and
affect/emotions.
Value
The value-related influence assessed teachers need to value the implementation of
collaborative instructional strategies and supporting language learners. Teachers need to see the
value of collaborating with colleagues to support their language learners. The implementation of
co-teaching, co-planning, and collaborative instructional strategies provide opportunities for
teachers to engage in professional dialogue that supports student learning (Honigsfeld & Dove,
2010). The intrinsic value of enjoying collaborative work with colleagues and valuing the
extrinsic reward of finding the work and training helpful will benefit students. When teachers
value supporting all students, including language learners, they create opportunities that stretch
well beyond the specific lessons being taught; they build a community of acceptance with rising
30

levels of student participation (Yoon, 2008). Malo-Juvera (2018) found that, when teachers
believe they lack the knowledge to support their ELLs, their motivation decreases, and student
learning declines; teachers and administrators need to value the needs of language learners.
Self-Efficacy
The influence related to self-efficacy examined was that teachers need to have their own
confidence in the learning opportunities they create for their language learners. Bandura’s (1997,
2001) work lays the groundwork for understanding the connection between self-efficacy and
achieving goals. Those who are self-motivated and confident in their ability are more likely to
engage in tasks and achieve goals. In contrast, those with low self-efficacy avoid work, have low
motivation levels, and give up more quickly. A motivated teacher who is confident in their
ability and has positive expectations for success is likely to meet their students’ learning
objectives. Teacher attitudes influence the quality of instruction for ELLs. In their study,
Burchard et al. (2017) found that teachers who had the knowledge and support to implement
strategies to support ELLs were confident, and their students reaped the benefits. Those who
lacked the confidence and knowledge had students who achieved less. Teachers who display low
self-efficacy create classroom environments less conducive to learning, and this is especially
detrimental to ELLs’ needs (Heineke, 2019; Kraut et al., 2016; Malo-Juvera 2018). For MAA to
achieve the organizational goal of supporting all preschool through third grade students who
speak a language other than English at home, teachers need to feel confident, have positive
expectations for their success and their students’ success, and persist each day to support the
goal.

31

Affect/Emotions
Regarding affect/emotions, the influence assessed was that teachers need to feel positive
about implementing strategies to support their language learners. Preschool through Grade 3
teachers at MAA need to feel and activate positive emotions about working with language
learners. Their affect/emotions affect their motivation and their students.’ Task engagement can
increase or decrease accordingly (Pekrun, 2007). It is imperative that MAA teachers feel positive
about supporting language learners, as emotions are easily noticed and communicated, especially
with second language learners who use many ways to interpret and understand communication.
Negative emotions can jeopardize learning and motivation, and teachers’ positive emotions can
support students’ learning (Burchard et al., 2017; Kraut, 2016; Malo-Juvera, 2018).

32

Table 3
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Teachers ’ Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Assumed Motivation Influences Research Literature
Value
Stakeholders need to value…

Teachers need to value the implementation of
collaborative instructional strategies.
Honigsfeld & Dove (2010)
Teachers need to value supporting language learners in
their classrooms.
Malo-Juvera (2018)
Yoon (2008)
Self-Efficacy
Stakeholders need to have confidence that ..

Teachers need to have their own confidence in the
learning opportunities they create for all of their
language learners.
Bandura (1997, 2001)
Burchard et al. (2017)
Heineke (2019)
Kraut et al. (2016)
Assumed Motivation Influences Research Literature
Affect
Teachers need to feel positive about…

Teachers need to feel positive about implementing
strategies to support their language learners.
Burchard et al. (2017).
Kraut et al. (2016).

Organization
Even when all stakeholders are highly motivated and have the necessary knowledge and
information about the organization’s goals and what needs to be done to accomplish them, some
factors can impede the overall performance (Rueda, 2011). When there are gaps in an
organization’s performance, one must also look at the culture of the organization to determine
possible causes, as any change in the way an organization expects employees to do their jobs
33

creates an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the change within the organization (Clark
& Estes, 2008). Barriers that affect organizational change, according to Clark and Estes (2008),
include a lack of resources, inadequate policies/procedures, and cultural models and settings that
are not aligned with the performance goals.
Cultural Model
To fully understand gaps that prevent an organization from achieving its goal, an
understanding of the cultural model that shapes the organization’s customary and normal
operating procedures must be understood (Rueda, 2011). Cultural models are the unseen
workings within an organization that determine stakeholders’ behavior (Rueda, 2011). These
cultural models are enacted in various ways throughout an organization and become the
organization’s cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Cultural Setting
The cultural setting, the more visible aspects of an organization’s culture must be
understood when analyzing a possible gap in an organization’s ability to reach its goal (Rueda,
2001). Cultural settings allow for understanding why an organization’s stakeholders think and
behave the way they do (Rueda, 2011). The cultural setting consists of the core values, goals,
beliefs, and processes learned and developed over time that become the everyday experience of
those in the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). To fully understand the organization’s
performance, the cultural setting must be analyzed (Rueda, 2011).
The influence pertaining to the cultural setting assessed that teachers need to feel the
school has a shared culture for supporting second language learning. Teachers need to feel the
school values professional learning to support English learners. Research supports the fact that,
when an organization’s cultural model and cultural setting are aligned, students who are
34

acquiring a second language are supported and are more successful (Cox, 2005; Poekert, 2012;
Roblero, 2013; Santos et al., 2012). When the customary practices of MAA include supporting
ELLs by integrating second language pedagogy and practices in homeroom classrooms, the
school will reach its organizational goal. A school culture that visibly supports ELLs within all
institutional settings is needed for our teachers to feel supported.
Resources
Teachers Need Time for Collaboration. Teachers Need Training and Professional
Development to Support Language Learners. Research indicates that, to support language
learners, teachers need training and time to collaborate (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001;
Heineke, 2019; Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010; Malo-Juvera, 2018; Poekert, 2012). Teaching and
meeting schedules must allow time for teachers to meet to collaborate to support ELLs, and, in
practice, schedules will reflect the time needed for collaboration. At MAA, the organization must
prioritize having the financial resources to support teachers’ on-going professional growth if we
are to achieve our organizational goal. MAA will support professional growth, including on-
going training regarding second language pedagogy and teaching strategies, and prioritize time
in the school schedule for teachers to collaborate and plan with coaches and EAL specialists.
Teachers Need Follow-Up Training and Support to Transfer Newly Learned
Teaching Strategies into Their Practice to Support English Learners. Research supports
teachers’ need for follow-up training and support to transfer the newly acquired skills into their
daily practice to support second language learners (Chu & Flores, 2011; Figueroa & Newsome,
2006; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006, 2016). MAA must prioritize the time and resources
needed for follow-up training and support for homeroom teachers as they implement
instructional practices to support ELLs. In practice, this will have the EAL coordinator and
35

instructional coaches supporting teachers directly in classrooms, during one-on-one meetings and
during team meetings, as they transfer the new learning strategies into their daily teaching
practice.
Policies, Processes, and Procedures
The influence assessed policies, processes, and procedures that teachers know the school
has in place to support the needs of ELLs. According to Rueda (2011), an organization’s
policies and procedures influence whether the performance goals will be met. Organizations are
most effective when their policies, processes, and procedures are aligned with their
organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Teachers need to feel that policies and procedures
are in place to support their ELLs, such as allowing students to receive multiple types of
specialized support, not only support for language acquisition (Chu & Flores, 2011; Figueroa &
Newsome, 2006). To support MAA’s organizational goal, teachers must feel the school has
processes to support their instructional and assessment goals. In practice, this will look like
coaches, a literacy coordinator, and the EAL coordinator creating processes that include the
addition of English language development standards for the content areas and the professional
support and training to transfer to daily teaching. Teachers will see the school has a process to
develop and analyze assessments to support ELLs’ academic needs. Research supports the
importance of all stakeholders within the organization aligning their commitment to supporting
ELLs’ achievement (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Poekert, 2012; Roblero, 2013; Santos et al.,
2012).

36

Table 4
Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Teachers ’ Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Assumed Organization Influences Research Literature
Resources (time; finances; people)
Stakeholders need resources to …

Teachers need time for collaboration.
Teachers need training and professional
development to support language learners.
Gallimore & Goldenberg (2001).
Heineke (2019).
Honigsfeld & Dove (2010).
Malo-Juvera (2018).
Poekert (2012).
Teachers need follow-up training and support to
transfer newly learned teaching strategies into their
practice to support English learners.
Chu & Flores (2011).
Figueroa & Newsome (2006).
Policies, Processes, & Procedures
Stakeholders need to have policies that align with
...

Teachers know the school has policies and
procedures in place to support the needs of ELLs.
Chu & Flores (2011).
Figueroa & Newsome (2006).
Teachers feel the school has processes in place to
support their instructional and assessment goals for
ELLs.
Poekert (2012).
Roblero (2013).
Santos et al. (2012).
Cultural Model
Stakeholders need to be part of a culture that aligns
with ...

Teachers need to feel the school has a shared
culture for supporting second language learning.
Teachers need to feel the school values
professional learning to support English learners.
Cox (2005).
Poekert (2012).
Roblero (2013).
Santos et al. (2012).
Cultural Setting
Teachers feel the school has systems in place to
integrate second language pedagogy practices in
homeroom classes.

Cox (2005).
Poekert (2012).
Roblero (2013).
Santos et al. (2012).

37

Conclusion
This evaluation study sought to identify the knowledge, motivational and organizational
factors that will allow MAA to reach its goal of providing support to all students in preschool
through Grade 3 who speak a language other than English at home. This literature review
explained the barriers that create instructional gaps for ELLs and effective research-based
practices for teachers to support their learning. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis conceptual
framework was introduced, and the literature review informed the identification of assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that are directly related to MAA achieving
its performance goal.

38

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which MAA is meeting its
organizational goal of providing improved instruction for students who speak a language other
than English at home. The analysis focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational
elements related to achieving this organizational goal. While a complete performance evaluation
would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders focused on in this
analysis were the homeroom teachers in preschool through Grade 3 at MAA. The questions that
guided this study are as follows:
1. What are the homeroom teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to implementing
strategies to support English language learning?
2. What is the interaction between MAA’s organizational culture and homeroom teachers’
knowledge and motivation regarding English language learning?
In addition, analysis of the findings from the two research questions informed the answer to the
following question addressed in Chapter Five:
1. What are the recommendations for MAA’s practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources regarding English language learners?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework creates a method for identifying the
steps an organization needs to follow to achieve its goals. For this study, a modified gap analysis
was used. The gap analysis diagnoses the human causes behind performance gaps through an
analysis of causes related to stakeholders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors.
According to Clark and Estes, performance improvement must begin with developing and
communicating the organization’s goal and then determining the current performance in relation
39

to the goal. The systematic process of the gap analysis allows for examining the current
knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) factors of the employees who are charged
with the organization’s goal attainment, which may contribute to the organization’s performance
gap (Clark & Estes, 2008). The organization must then address the identified KMO influences
impeding goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The methodical and systematic approach to analyzing KMO influences on performance
gaps, as described by Clark and Estes (2008), was the evaluative approach used for this study
(Figure 1). This modified gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) guided this evaluative
study to analyze the assumed KMO factors at MAA regarding instruction for students who speak
a language other than English at home. Once analyzed, the data informed solutions for closing
gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

Figure 1
The Gap Analysis Process

40

Assessment of Performance Influences
For MAA to achieve the organizational goal of providing improved instruction for
students who speak a language other than English at home, assessing teachers’ knowledge,
motivation, and understanding of the organizational barriers through a gap analysis is necessary
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The KMO influences outlined in Chapter Two and supported by the
literature were the foundation of inquiry for assessing performance influences at MAA. Through
interviews and document analysis, guided by the research questions, this gap analysis helped
determine the needs for achieving the organizational goal. After the needs were identified, an
evaluation plan addresses the gaps to ultimately meet the organization’s goal.
Knowledge Assessment
According to Krathwohl’s (2002) taxonomy, four types of knowledge influences need to
be assessed to identify the teachers’ knowledge and skills to support ELLs at MAA. As outlined
in Chapter Two, the assumed influences for factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge were assessed using interviews and document analysis. Once the knowledge
influences were identified, this data were used to develop an evaluation plan for MAA.
Factual Knowledge Assessment
Krathwohl (2002) describes factual knowledge as the basic information required for
successful performance. Knowledge of the basic jargon, language, and facts associated with
doing one’s job is necessary to perform successfully (Krathwohl, 2002). At MAA, teachers who
work with ELLs need to demonstrate their knowledge of the terms associated with second
language development and acquisition. Through interview questions designed to elicit answers
regarding basic factual knowledge and the analysis of meeting minutes and student records,
teachers demonstrated whether they possessed basic factual knowledge regarding teaching ELLs.
41

Conceptual knowledge assessment
According to Krathwohl (2002), conceptual knowledge, the interrelationships among the
basic elements of knowledge within a larger structure allows the elements to work together.
Conceptual knowledge is necessary, along with factual knowledge, for an organization’s
stakeholders to function effectively. The assessment of conceptual knowledge, for this study,
included asking stakeholders, during interviews, to identify and explain key principles of
teaching ELLs, such as collaboration and co-teaching practices and the different levels of
language proficiency. The analysis of documents such as print and digital resources, student
records, and professional development plans allowed for further assessment of stakeholders’
conceptual knowledge.
Procedural Knowledge Assessment
Procedural knowledge requires that one demonstrates the ability to apply knowledge and
implement a practice or method (Krathwohl, 2002). The assessment of procedural knowledge,
for this study, require interview questions and analysis of documents to determine whether
stakeholders can demonstrate how to apply second language methodologies to their work with
students. Teachers must know how to analyze students’ ability to effectively communicate in
English and implement research-based instructional strategies to support ELLs.
Metacognitive knowledge Assessment
Krathwohl (2002) describes metacognitive knowledge as one’s ability to reflect on one’s
work and adjust accordingly to achieve success. The assessment of metacognitive knowledge, for
this study, occurred by interviewing stakeholders regarding whether they demonstrate they self-
reflect on their effectiveness in teaching ELLs. Analysis of documents such as professional
development plans, feedback forms completed after professional training, and meeting minutes
42

provided evidence of whether and how teachers self-reflect on their effectiveness when teaching
ELLs. Details as to how teachers reflect on training opportunities, their plans for transferring the
training into daily practice, and how they articulate their reflections during meetings allowed for
further assessment of metacognitive knowledge.
Table 5 outlines for each assumed knowledge influence the various interview questions
used to assess teachers’ knowledge related to implementing strategies to support ELLs. Table 5
also includes documents used to analyze the assumed knowledge influences.

Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed Knowledge
Influences
Interview Item Document
Declarative Factual
Teachers know the difference
between academic and social
language.
What is the difference between
academic and social language?
Meeting minutes
Student records
Teachers know the
terminology for research-
based strategies that support
second language development.
Tell me some of the researched-based
teaching strategies that support
second language development.
Meeting minutes
Student records
Teachers know the different
levels of language proficiency,
as outlined in the WIDA
framework and the seminal
work of Krashen and Terrell.
What do you know about WIDA and
the different levels of language
proficiency?
Digital and print
teacher resources
Meeting minutes
Student records

43

Assumed Knowledge
Influences
Interview Item Document
Declarative Conceptual
Teachers understand
collaboration and co-teaching
practices.
If you had to explain collaboration
and co-teaching practices to
someone, what would you say?
Professional
development plans
Print and digital
teacher resources
Meeting minutes
EAL Program
Handbook
Teachers need to understand
the principles of language
proficiency, as outlined in the
WIDA framework.

Describe a student at one of the levels
of WIDA language proficiency.
Print and digital
teacher resources
Lesson Plans
EAL Program
Handbook
Procedural
Teachers need to know how to
analyze students’ oral and
written English language.
Based on the student you described,
why did you place them at that level
of proficiency? How did you arrive at
this conclusion? What tools or
evidence did you use?
Do you have the support you need to
do this type of analysis - please
explain?
Print and digital
teacher resources
Meeting minutes
Student records
Assessments
Teachers need to know how to
implement research-based
instructional strategies to
support ELLs effectively.
Thinking about the student you
described, what instructional
strategies did you use to support them
to get to the next proficiency levels?
How were those strategies similar or
different for a student at a different
proficiency level in your class?
Print and digital
teacher resources
Meeting minutes
EAL Program
Handbook
Metacognitive
Teachers need to self-reflect
on the effectiveness of their
teaching practices for their
ELLs.
Thinking about the student you
described, did they move to the next
proficiency level or make measurable
progress towards the next level?
Meeting minutes
Lesson Plans
Classroom
Observation Notes

44

Motivation Assessment
Rueda (2011) states that the knowledge to perform a task does not always mean a person
will perform said task with any level of success, as the person must be motivated. According to
Clark and Estes (2008), motivational issues are another possible cause of performance gaps.
Self-efficacy, a person’s belief that they can succeed and their belief in their own ability to
achieve a particular goal, contributes to motivation (Bandura, 1997).
Indices of motivation, active choice, persistence, and mental effort, indicate whether a
motivational problem exists. These indices can determine the nature of the motivational
influence, such as value, self-efficacy, and affect/emotions, and each was assessed in this study.
Value Assessment
According to Clark and Estes (2008) and Pintrich (2003), if one values their work, one is
motivated to learn and perform. Intrinsic, attainment, and utility value motivate individuals to
follow through on their work and goal attainment. In this study, through interviews, and
document analysis, the value teachers assign to collaborating with colleagues to support ELLs
was assessed. The degree to which teachers value supporting ELLs in the homeroom was also
assessed through interviews and document analysis.
Self-Efficacy Assessment
Self-efficacy, one’s belief in one’s ability and capacity to succeed in accomplishing a
goal, contributes to how one approaches tasks, challenges, and goal attainment (Bandura, 1997,
2001). Those who are confident in their own ability are more likely to persist and execute all that
is necessary to achieve goals by controlling their own motivation, behavior, and social
environment (Bandura, 1997, 2001). To achieve the organizational goal of supporting all
preschool through third grade students who speak a language other than English at home,
45

teachers need to be confident in their abilities to meet their students’ needs. Interview questions
assessed the level of confidence teachers have in their ability to create effective learning
opportunities for their students. Analyzing documents such as feedback forms after professional
training and meeting minutes helped assess the teachers’ confidence in their abilities to meet
their ELLs’ needs.
Affect/Emotions Assessment
A teacher’s affect determines their motivation and that of their students, as engagement
can increase or decrease accordingly (Pekrun, 2007). Assessing affect is important for this study
because emotions are easily noticed and communicated, and second language learners use many
strategies to interpret and understand communication. Teachers’ negative affect/emotions could
jeopardize student learning and motivation, and their positive affect/emotions can translate to a
supportive learning experience for students (Burchard et al., 2017; Kraut, 2016; Malo-Juvera,
2018). Interview questions and documents such as meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and
student records assessed whether teachers feel positive about supporting ELLs.
For each assumed motivation influence, Table 6 outlines the various interview questions
used to assess teachers’ motivation related to implementing strategies to support ELLs. Table 6
also includes documents used to analyze the assumed motivation influences.

46

Table 6
Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Interview Items Document
Value
Teachers need to value the
implementation of
collaborative instructional
strategies.
Can you tell me about a time
when you valued working
collaboratively to help your
English learners and why that
was valuable?
Meeting minutes
Lesson plans
Assessments
Classroom observation notes
Teachers need to value
supporting language
learners in their
classrooms.
As a homeroom teacher, do you
see personal value in
supporting English learners?
Please explain.
Is it the responsibility of all
teachers to teach English
learners?
Classroom observation notes
Meeting minutes
Lesson plans
Self-Efficacy
Teachers need to have
their own confidence in
the learning opportunities
they create for all of their
language learners.
Tell me about a time you felt
confident about how you
supported English learners in
your classroom?
Please talk through a time you
felt less confident.
Describe how confident you are
in your ability to differentiate
instruction for your English
learners.
Teaching unit reflections
Meeting minutes
Affect
Teachers need to feel
positive about
implementing strategies to
support their language
learners.
Tell me about a time when you
felt positive about
implementing the necessary
strategies to support English
learners?
Describe how you feel about
using your class teaching time
to support English learners?
Teaching manuals
Lesson plans
Meeting minutes
Observation notes

47

Organization Assessment
When stakeholders have the knowledge and motivation to accomplish the organizational
goals, other factors can impede organizational goal attainment (Rueda, 2011). According to
Clark and Estes (2008), when there are gaps in an organization’s performance, one must look at
the culture, the way an organization expects employees to do their jobs, to determine possible
causes. Barriers such as lack of resources, inadequate and misaligned policies/procedures affect
organizational performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Resources
To achieve organizational goals, resources (supplies, equipment, funding, time) are
necessary and must be available to stakeholders (Clark & Estes, 2008). In this study, interview
questions were designed to assess the degree to which stakeholders feel they have the resources
they need to support language learners. Documents such as budgets, schedules, policy/procedure
manuals, professional development plans, and electronic communications were also analyzed to
assess if stakeholders had the resources they need for goal attainment.
Policies, Processes, and Procedures
When policies, processes, and procedures are aligned with organizational goals,
stakeholders are more effective and better able to achieve goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). In this
study, stakeholders were asked through interview questions if our organization has the necessary
policies, processes, and procedures to support ELLs’ needs. Documents analyzed included policy
and procedure manuals, budgets, the school website, and electronic communications.
Cultural Models and Settings
When there are gaps in an organization’s performance, one must also look at the
organization’s culture to determine possible causes, as any change in the way an organization
48

expects employees to do their jobs creates an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the
change within the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). To fully understand gaps that prevent an
organization from achieving its goal, the cultural model that shapes its customary and normal
operating procedures must be understood (Rueda, 2011). The cultural setting, the more visible
aspects of an organization’s culture, must also be understood when analyzing a possible gap in
an organization’s ability to reach its goal (Rueda, 2001). Cultural settings allow for
understanding why stakeholders think and behave the way they do (Rueda 2011).
For this study, interview questions assessed how teachers believe the organization’s
cultural model and setting support ELLs. Interview questions were also designed to seek advice
on how the organization can and should do more to achieve the goal of supporting ELLs.
For each assumed organizational influence, Table 7 outlines the various interview
questions used to assess teachers’ beliefs about the organization’s culture, resources,
policies/procedures/processes to support ELLs. Table 7 also includes documents used to analyze
the assumed organizational influences.

49

Table 7
Summary of Organization Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed Organization
Influences
Interview Items Document
Resources
Teachers need time for
collaboration.

What kind of collaborative
planning time, if any, does our
school provide? Please explain.
Schedules
Essential Agreements for
grade-level teams
Teachers need training and
professional development
to support language
learners.
Teachers need follow-up
training and support to
transfer newly learned
teaching strategies into
their practice to support
English learners.
What training have you received to
support your English learners?

What follow-up support do you
receive after training to support
English learners? Probe: Are there
coaches or other teachers who
support the work you do for your
English learners?
Staffing budgets
Professional development
budgets
Schedules
Policies, Processes, &
Procedures

Teachers know the school
has policies and
procedures in place to
support the needs of ELLs.
What are some of the policies and
procedures we have at our school
that support the needs of English
learners?
Probe: Explain
Are there policies and procedures
that don’t support their needs?
Probe: Explain
Policy and procedure
manuals
School website
Teachers feel the school
has processes in place to
support their instructional
and assessment goals for
ELLs.
What processes are in place that
support your instructional and
assessment goals for ELLs?
What other processes are needed to
support these goals?
School website
Strategic Plan
Policy and Procedure
manuals
Professional development
plans
Curriculum maps

50

Assumed Organization
Influences
Interview Items Document
Policies, Processes, &
Procedures

Teachers feel the school’s
commitment is aligned
with their commitment to
support ELLs.
Is our school aligned with your
commitment to supporting English
learners? Please explain.
School website
Curriculum maps
Policy and Procedure
manuals
Budgets
Electronic
communications
Cultural Model
Teachers need to feel the
school has a shared culture
for supporting second
language learning.
Can you think of a time when you
noticed our school culture
supporting English learners? Please
explain.
Electronic
communications
Policy and procedure
manuals
Strategic Plan
Meeting minutes
Teachers need to feel the
school values professional
learning to support English
learners.
Does our school value professional
learning to support English learners
- how do you know?
Professional development
budget
Professional development
plans
Policy and Procedure
Manual
Meeting Minutes
Cultural Setting
Teachers feel the school
has systems in place to
integrate second language
pedagogy and practices in
homeroom classes.
What systems does our school have
in place to integrate second
language pedagogy practices in
homeroom classes?
Class Observation Notes
Policy and procedure
manuals
Meeting minutes
Budget – EAL teachers
Grade level schedules
School website

51

Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The stakeholders of focus for this study were the homeroom teachers in preschool
through Grade 3, as they are the group who engages the students in learning for the longest time
each school day. The stakeholder’s goal, supported by the EAL teachers and the administrators,
is that 100% of preschool through Grade 3 homeroom teachers will use their training to
implement strategies to support ELLs. Without this group of stakeholders implementing
strategies to support their students’ second language learning, the organizational goal cannot be
met. Therefore, they are the focus of the study.
Sampling
A convenience sample was used, as the stakeholders are teachers within MAA; therefore,
they are available when needed (Fink, 2017). The sample included representation across grade
levels, gender, years of teaching experience, and nationality. To maximize response rates, the
benefits of participating need to outweigh the time expended, according to Dillman et al. (2014).
Therefore, the interview protocols specified how the results would be used, were designed to
reduce length and complexity, and avoided sensitive, threatening, alienating, and excluding
language (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
Recruitment
For this study, all 30 of the preschool through Grade 3 homeroom teachers received an
email from the study’s co-investigator asking them to participate in an interview, as noted in
Appendix D. The email communication introduced the co-investigator, described the purpose of
the study, and stated that participation was voluntary and confidential. The email also outlined
the anticipated length of time needed and options for participating (in person, via Zoom). The
participation target was 30%, which was nine teachers; however, the co-investigator agreed to
52

interview as many as 12 teachers, 40% of the teachers. Ten teachers agreed to be interviewed for
the study, representing all grade levels from preschool to Grade 3.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation used for this qualitative study consisted of interviews and document
analysis. To ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings of this qualitative study,
according to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the best strategy is triangulation to allow for cross-
checking and comparison with two or more types of data collection.
Interview Protocol Design
The interview questions designed for this study, main questions and probes, are all
related to the two research questions and framed around Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
conceptual framework. The interview questions followed the semi-structured approach because
of the flexibility it allows in question types and structure and guided the interviewer to create an
environment for a guided conversation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each interview question is
directly linked to influence types described by Clark and Estes, Krathwohl (2002), and Pintrich
(2003) and is outlined in Appendix A. Since the principal investigator is the stakeholders’
supervisor, to minimize the potential for stakeholders to feel coerced to participate, a co-
investigator with no supervisory or decision-making role with these stakeholders conducted the
research. The co-investigator conducted the interviews, collected all the data, and maintained the
confidentiality of the participants (stakeholders). The co-investigator sent the recruitment email
that clearly stated the employees’ participation is voluntary.
Document Analysis
The systematic procedure of document analysis was used to review and evaluate
organizational artifacts and public records (Bowen, 2009). As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) note,
53

most documents were created before the start of this study, and it is the responsibility of the
researcher to seek out various types for analysis to gain a deeper understanding of the setting and
thinking around the topic for the research. Documents provide important data regarding the
context of the organization and allow for tracking changes/development over time, provide
details and data that stakeholders do not remember, and provide detailed descriptions of many
facets of an organization (Bowen, 2009).
The analysis included artifacts such as meeting agendas, meeting minutes, training
materials, handbooks, and website postings for professional development opportunities. Further
document analysis included public records such as student reports, policy manuals, strategic
planning documents, and curriculum articulation. Documents were coded and organized by
themes and influences. The documents included in the analysis all relate to the two research
questions framed around Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework. Each document is
directly linked to influence types described by Clark and Estes, Krathwohl (2002), and Pintrich
(2003) and are outlined in Appendix B.
Data Collection
Following the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board’s approval,
the co-investigator solicited participants via email by using potential participants’ MAA school
email addresses. All participants were reminded their participation was voluntary and received
the information sheet for exempt research form included in Appendix C, explaining the purpose
of the study and the procedures regarding their participation.
Interviews
Stakeholders who agree to be interviewed by responding to an email sent by the co-
investigator received a follow-up email to set a convenient day and time for the interview. The
54

participation target was 30%, which is nine teachers. Participants could choose to conduct their
interview in person or via Zoom, and the co-investigator made the arrangements. In-person
interviews followed the safety protocol of having the interviewer and interviewee wearing
protective masks and remaining at least six feet apart. The interviews lasted approximately 60
minutes and were recorded with participants’ permission. Participants were informed about the
purpose of the study and that their identities would remain anonymous, as noted in Appendix C.
Document Analysis
The researcher collected documents that add to the study’s relevance and provide deeper
insight into the KMO influences. For this study, documents such as policy and procedure
manuals, strategic planning documents, meeting minutes, the school’s website, professional
development plans, student records, budgets, and lesson plans were collected using the school’s
website, databases, and Google drives for shared documents. As an employee of the school, the
researcher had access to the information mentioned above.
Trustworthiness of Data
The best strategy to maintain this qualitative study’s credibility and trustworthiness is
triangulation to ensure cross-checking and comparison with two or more sources of data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews served as one method, and data analysis served as the
second. Regarding reliability, according to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), results from each of the
methods must be consistent. Triangulation ensured the credibility and trustworthiness of this
study.
Role of Investigator
As the study participants’ supervisor, my positionality posed an issue, as these
stakeholders report directly to me. To mitigate this issue, the co-investigator for this study was a
55

graduate of the USC Rossier OCL doctoral program (the co-investigator) who does not have any
supervisory role with this group of stakeholders. The co-investigator’s role was to conduct the
interviews, collect all the data, and maintain the participants’ confidentiality.
Ethical practices were used, such as receiving informed consent to participate in the
study, voluntary participation, confidentiality, the right to withdraw without penalty, seeking
permission to record the interviews, and storing/securing the data.
Limitations
There are some limitations to this study. MAA is the only school examined for the study,
and the stakeholder sample is small. Both of these factors might reduce the findings’ validity.
Further, this study’s author holds a leadership position at MAA, which could result in a biased
interpretation of the data.

56

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which MAA is meeting its
organizational goal of providing improved instruction for students who speak a language other
than English at home. This chapter presents the results and findings. Applying the gap analysis
framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), the results are organized by influences regarding KMO
elements related to achieving this organizational goal. Qualitative data were collected through
interviews and document analysis to understand the KMO needs and assets homeroom teachers
experience regarding the organizational goal. Surveys and observations were not conducted for
this study. Interviews were conducted first as the central source of determining needs and assets.
Document analysis followed to allow further assessment, evidence, and validation of the needs
and assets.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders for this study were the homeroom teachers in preschool through Grade
3, a total of 30 stakeholders, as they engage the students in learning for the longest time each
school day. They received an email (Appendix D) requesting they participate in an interview.
Since the principal investigator is the stakeholders’ supervisor, to minimize the potential for
feelings of coercion, a co-investigator with no supervisory or decision-making role sent the email
and conducted the interviews to maintain the stakeholders’ confidentiality. The participation
target was 30%, or nine teachers, and that was exceeded, as 10 teachers volunteered to be
interviewed. As outlined in Table 8, all grade levels, preschool through Grade 3, were
represented in the study. Each stakeholder was assigned a participant number, and demographic
data about the stakeholders are not available to ensure confidentiality. However, the grade level
for each participant is known and outlined in Table 8.
57

Table 8
Participating Stakeholders
Participant Grade Level Taught
1 Preschool
2 Preschool
3 Preschool
4 Kindergarten
5 Kindergarten
6 Kindergarten
7 Grade 1
8 Grade 2
9 Grade 2
10 Grade 3

Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “What are homeroom teachers’ knowledge and
motivation related to implementing strategies to support English language learning?” This
study’s results and findings are presented by the identified KMO influences determined in
Chapters 2 and 3. The criterion for determining an influence as a need or asset was that a
minimum of eight participants indicated a particular influence was present. If at least eight did,
then the influence was determined as an asset; if not, the influence was determined to be a need.
Document analysis provided more in-depth insight into the KMO influences and determined the
presence of an influence. However, cross-referencing interview data with documents for
assumed influences might have indicated the presence of an influence for documents, and
teachers might have been unaware these documents exist or that they have access.

58

Factual Knowledge
Influence 1. Teachers Know the Difference Between Academic and Social Language
Interview Findings. Nine participants knew and could speak to the differences between
academic and social language. Participant 1 stated, “Academic language is the language and
vocabulary they learn during formal lessons and reading books. Social language is the language
children pick up through interacting with their peers on the playground, at lunch, during snack or
interacting more casually with me.” Participant 5 asserted, “Academic language involves
learning the words and language for instructions and directions. Social language is the language
that people use when talking casually.” While Participant 10 added, “Academic language…being
able to explain your thinking about a topic, how you solved a math problem using the correct
terminology. Social language…how they’re going to interact on a less formal level with their
peers.” Social language, according to Participant 9, “is used by students to navigate their
interactions with peers on the playground, lunchroom, transitions in the hallways. Academic
language [is] specific terminology that helps unlock the understanding of a subject.” Participant
4 noted, “We need to teach both as both serve a purpose.” Participant 2 stated, “Social language
is playground language” but was unable to articulate the meaning of academic language and how
it differs from social language.
Document Analysis. Meeting minutes for preschool, kindergarten, and Grade 1, note
evidence of agenda items and discussions about developing social and academic language with
students. Meeting minutes for Grades 2 and 3 contain agenda items for developing academic
language with little or no mention of social language. Student records have examples of students’
social and academic language development in preschool and kindergarten and focus more
heavily on academic language at the other grade levels. Student records in Grade 2 indicate the
59

following as some of the areas of focus for academic language development “using a logical
sequence or relationship between phrases and sentences in writing and speaking” and “using a
variety of sentence types, and “using sequential language in writing.”
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers know the difference between academic
and social language was determined to be an asset for interviews and document analysis.
Interview results indicate 90% of the participants explained the differences between social and
academic language. One interview participant knew about social language but not how it differed
from academic language. The document analysis revealed discussions about the differences
between social and academic language at the team level and examples of social and academic
language on student records. Therefore, this influence is determined to be an asset.
Influence 2. Teachers Know the Terminology for Research-Based Strategies That Support
Second Language Development
Interview Findings. Four participants did not know and could not speak to research-
based teaching strategies that support second language development. Participant 1 asked,
“Research-based…can we skip this one?” Participants 2 and 8 both shared, “I don’t know.”
Participant 9 added, “It’s hard for me to drop names of specific strategies.” Participant 3 did not
share any research-based strategies.
Five participants shared research-based strategies such as recasting, direct instruction for
new vocabulary, providing language scaffolds, and conversations about learning. Participant 1,
who earlier asked to “skip this question,” shared the following about building background
knowledge in their native tongue while answering Question 14:
Of course, I always teach in English, but I’ll have them try and make the connection in
Mandarin. I let them speak Chinese because I feel if they’ve got the vocabulary in their
60

mother tongue, then we just build on it. I did check with admin, and they supported the
Chinese to make the connection.”
That new response from Participant 1 provided evidence of knowing research-based strategies;
however, the knowledge could not be retrieved when taken out of context.
This influence was determined as a need as only 50% of the participants knew the
terminology when asked the question. A minimum of 80% of the participants is required for an
influence to be an asset.
Document Analysis. The EAL team’s shared drive documents have evidence of the
research-based terminology that supports second language development. However, whether
homeroom teachers access these materials is unknown. Meeting minutes for co-planning with
EAL teachers and homeroom teachers indicate strategies to be used and that the following
question should be asked during meetings: “What scaffolds/supports can be used in the
classroom for upcoming skills/academic needs?” This assumed influence is determined as a
need.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers know the terminology for research-based
strategies that support second language development was determined to be a need. Fifty percent
of the interview participants did not know and could not give examples of strategies when asked
at this phase of the interview, and this does meet the 80% criteria. Further, document analysis of
digital teacher resources provides this information, and there needs to be an expectation that
teachers would use the shared documents.

61

Influence 3. Teachers Know the Different Levels of Language Proficiency, as Outlined in the
WIDA Framework and the Seminal Work of Krashen and Terrell
Interview Findings. Of the 10 participants, only two were able to identify some
knowledge of the different levels of language proficiency as outlined in the WIDA framework.
Eight participants stated in a variety of ways that they had little knowledge. Participant 2 stated
knowledge on this topic as “very little,” and Participant 3 added, “I don’t know very much.”
Participant 5 noted, “I can’t remember them specifically. You can be proficient at different
levels. I can’t remember what they are.” Participant 6 stated, “I don’t know it that well.”
Participant 1 has some knowledge by stating, “Level 1, you’re just beginning. When you’ve
reached Level 5, it means you are mainstream, and you can access the curriculum.” Overall, the
general finding is a lack of knowledge about WIDA’s levels of language proficiency.
Document Analysis. The print and digital teacher resources analysis shows evidence that
language proficiency levels can be accessed through the EAL team’s shared google drive.
Proficiency levels are not referred to by homeroom teachers in student records and are recorded
in the documents EAL teachers share and write during collaborative meetings with homeroom
teachers. Those documents are accessible to homeroom teachers.
Summary. As outlined in the WIDA framework, the assumed influence that teachers
know the different levels of language proficiency was determined to be a need in the interview
responses, as only 20% of the participants were able to identify some knowledge of this
influence. However, this information is available in shared documents that teachers can access.
Given the lack of knowledge expressed during the interviews, this influence remains a need for
the school insomuch as school leaders must prioritize homeroom teachers accessing the available
information.
62

Conceptual Knowledge
Influence 1. Teachers Understand Collaboration and Co-Teaching Practices
Interview Findings. Eight of the 10 participants knew and were able to speak to
collaboration and co-teaching practices. Participant 2 clearly stated, “I would be partially
guessing.” Participant 3 added, “We do things so differently.” Both participants are assigned to
preschool classrooms. Therefore, this influence was determined as a need for this grade level.
Speaking to the practices, Participant 4 stated, “Two teachers planning a lesson and
thinking how to meet the needs of every student. Then, executing that lesson, whatever the plan
is and then reflecting on it.” Participant 8 added, “They plan how they can utilize the strengths of
both teachers in the classroom in a way that maximizes the benefit for the students.”
Document Analysis. There is evidence in the PD budget from the school year 2019–
2020 to provide knowledge about collaboration and co-teaching practices. The Collaboration
Book Club funding was to pay author fees and book costs; however, this PD was optional for
homeroom teachers and mandatory for EAL teachers. Participants in the book club read Co-
Teaching for English Learners: A Guide to Collaborative Planning, Instruction, Assessment, and
Reflection (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2018). Nine of the 30 preschool through Grade 3 homeroom
teachers participated, and since the names of the interview participants are unknown due to
confidentiality, there is no evidence to show if the study participants took part in the book club.
There is evidence of print and digital teacher resources with various co-teaching models in a
shared drive managed by the EAL team. Meeting minutes for the EAL team have evidence of co-
planning.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers understand collaboration and co-teaching
practices was determined to be a need. While the interview provides evidence of 80% of teachers
63

knowing the practices, the document analysis reveals a need, as only nine of 30 homeroom
teachers participated in the professional learning book club. For a school to adopt these practices,
100% of teachers must understand collaboration and co-teaching practices.
Influence 2. Teachers Need to Understand the Principles of Language Proficiency, as
Outlined in the WIDA Framework
Interview Findings. No participants knew and or were able to speak to their
understanding of language proficiency principles as outlined in the WIDA framework.
Participant 2 shared, “I can’t really do that,” while Participant 6 added, “I don’t know it that
well. I don’t remember all the criteria for that.” Participant 3 stated, “My students don’t have any
type of EAL program or anything.” However, at the beginning of the interview before the
questions started, Participant 3 stated, “For 100% of my students, English is a second language.”
Document Analysis. The analysis of print and digital teacher resources shows evidence
of the principles of language proficiency outlined in the WIDA framework can be accessed
through the EAL team’s shared google drive. Those documents are accessible to homeroom
teachers, but there is no evidence that they do so. There is evidence in the EAL Program
Handbook, but there is no evidence that homeroom teachers access this handbook.
Summary. As outlined in the WIDA framework, the assumed influence that teachers
need to understand the principles of language proficiency was determined as a need. No
participants knew or could give examples of their understanding. Analysis of documents showed
that resources exist through the EAL team; however, there is no evidence that homeroom
teachers access this information.

64

Procedural Knowledge
Influence 1. Teachers Need to Know How to Analyze Students ’ Oral and Written Language
Interview Findings. It is evident that 50% of the participants know to analyze students’
oral and written language. Participant 7 stated they “analyzed things like sentence structures,
sentence length, the syntax and words used within the sentences as well as the grammar.”
Participant 9 added, “Based on writing workshop evidence, I presented work side-by-side with
my EAL support teacher. We looked at their level of discourse, and the word choice and the
grammar.” Participant 4 shared, “The writing piece would have complete thoughts, complete
sentences with some describing words. There are different types of tools we use when the
analysis is done with the EAL teacher.”
For the other 50%, their responses acknowledged they had not done this type of work,
and they are unsure of the tools to use. Participant 10 stated, “This is not something that we use
or do on a regular basis…not sure about the tools they use with EAL.”
Document Analysis. Analysis tools exist, and meeting minutes starting in the school year
2018–2019 have evidence of homeroom and EAL teachers working collaboratively to analyze
oral and written assessments three times per academic year. The Grade 3 Team Meeting Agenda
at the beginning of the 2018-19 school year noted a purpose of the EAL/homeroom teacher
meetings is to “analyze students’ academic language.” At that meeting, homeroom teachers
reviewed what the analysis for students’ writing could look like for a science assessment. There
is evidence in the records for all EAL students of analysis of their written work; however, for
students who are not identified as EAL and are language learners, there is a very small
percentage of language analysis for their work.
65

Summary. The assumed influence that teachers need to know how to analyze students’
oral and written language was determined as a need. With only 50% of interview participants
presenting any evidence of this influence, this is a need for the school. All teachers need to know
how to analyze students’ oral and written language. The tools exist within the EAL department;
however, there is no evidence that the tools are being accessed.
Influence 2. Teachers Need to Know how to Implement Research-Based Instructional
Strategies to Support ELLs Effectively
Interview Findings. Eight of the 10 participants articulated how to implement research-
based instructional strategies to support ELLs effectively. While the factual influence on this
same topic yielded only five participants who were able to name research-based strategies out of
context, participants could do so while talking about teaching. Participant 9 shared, “Pre-
teaching specific vocabulary, conferring to expand basic sentences. I would scaffold it differently
for this student versus another.” Participant 7 added, “Explicit instruction around the use of past
tense verbs, small group work to introduce new concepts and practice.” Participant 6 responded,
“visuals, scaffolding with vocabulary, sentence stems.” Participant 3 shared, regarding oral
language development, “encouraging the use of vocabulary…conversations about learning with
students.”
Document Analysis. An analysis of the digital resources, housed primarily in the EAL
department, has evidence of research-based strategies that can be implemented by homeroom
teachers. For example, a digital resource focusing on various ways to scaffold for students
outlines examples such as using sentence starters, repetitions, vocabulary previews, wait time to
process thinking and ask questions, using visuals such as pictures, photos and charts. Meeting
minutes reflect more of the work the EAL teachers do to implement research-based strategies to
66

support ELLs rather than the homeroom teacher. However, the strategies are discussed during
meetings. This influence is determined as an asset.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers need to know how to implement
research-based instructional strategies to support ELLs effectively was determined as an asset.
Eighty percent of the interview participants knew and gave examples of effectively
implementing research-based strategies for their ELLs. In contrast, the participants were unable
to name the strategies in isolation, yet their explanations provided evidence of implementation.
This discrepancy could be because of how this interview question asked participants to talk about
their teaching and the strategies they use to support students. Participants, when talking about
their teaching named and described research-based strategies without realizing they were doing
so unlike the factual question that asked for research-based strategies to be named without
context.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence: Teachers Need to Self-Reflect on the Effectiveness of
Their Teaching Practices for Their ELLs
Interview Findings
Eight of the 10 participants could not speak to their self-reflecting process on the
effectiveness of their teaching practices for their ELLs, mentioning only that students make
progress. Participant 8 noted, “I can’t say for sure because we haven’t actually sat down and had
that conversation about students.” Participant 10 added, “I would have to look carefully at those
measuring tools, which I’m not using that much.”
Participants 4 and 7 were able to speak to their self-reflection. While answering Question
1 about supporting English learners in the classroom, Participant 7 shared feeling “less effective
reading through students’ writing,” and, when answering Question 11, added,
67

At the end of the lesson and the next day, when we came back to it and circled back from
our discussion, I was really astounded at what the students could remember and their use
of some of the language.
Participant 4 shared during the response to Question 1, “There are a lot of things I have learned
through failure: how to make my lessons better.” Participant 4 also shared, while answering
Question 13, feeling positive about “reflecting on how the lesson went and what did they need
and how can we make it better.”
Document Analysis
An analysis of meeting minutes, lesson plans and classroom observation notes confirmed
the need to foster the practice of reflecting on and adjusting the effectiveness of homeroom
teachers’ teaching practices for their ELLs. According to the documents, the practice of
reflecting on the effectiveness of teaching strategies is not formalized and is determined as a
need.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers need to self-reflect on the effectiveness of their
teaching practices for their ELLs was determined to be a need. The interview data provided
evidence that eight of the 10 participants cannot speak to how they self-reflect, so this influence
does not meet the criteria to be deemed an asset. Document analysis supports the determination
that self-reflection is a need for the stakeholders.

68

Value
Influence 1. Teachers Need to Value the Implementation of Collaborative Instructional
Strategies
Interview Findings. Nine of the 10 participants value the implementation of
collaborative instructional strategies. Participant 2 stated, “it’s always valuable when you’re
planning and thinking with other educators.” Participant 4 added, regarding the value of
implementing collaborative instructional strategies, “All the time. You learn from each other. It
benefits students” and then added, “I do think our school needs to move in that direction.”
Participant 1 asserted, “It can be quite powerful because you’re working together, and your
voices are in the room.” Participant 7 shared, “That’s been really beneficial. The EAL teacher
and I worked together to facilitate an investigation in science. We planned out each step and who
was going to say what almost word for word.” Participant 8 added, “My EAL teacher and I do
that quite often…more engagement from the students. They were really able to review and
access the vocabulary.” Participant 10 suggested less value than the others by stating, “That’s not
something that I have done so much of.” Participant 9 shared personal value with implementing
collaborative instructional strategies, but, for Question 10, suggested, “Some homeroom teachers
are a little territorial about other people coming in.”
Document Analysis. Meeting minutes and lesson plans indicate co-planning is taking
place in kindergarten as well as in Grades 1, 2, and 3 regularly. There is no evidence for
preschool. There is evidence in meeting minutes of a homeroom teacher canceling co-planning
meetings quite regularly. There is evidence of co-assessing regularly in kindergarten through
Grade 3.
69

Summary. The assumed influence that teachers need to value the implementation of
collaborative instructional strategies was determined to be an asset in interviews as participants’
responses demonstrated motivation, choice, and engagement. Document analysis revealed
evidence of value with the exceptions of one teacher who regularly cancels co-planning meetings
and with preschool not meeting or planning collaboratively. However, overall, this influence is
determined to be an asset, as the interview data exceeds the criteria, strongly suggesting value.
Influence 2. Teachers Need to Value Supporting Language Learners in Their Classroom
Interview Findings. All 10 participants value supporting language learners in their
classroom. Participant 2 stated, “All of us are responsible for their English language growth.”
Participant 3 added, “Yes, yes, of course, that’s basically our job here.” Participant 9 confirmed,
“Yes, I’m here to serve the students,” while Participant 10 shared, “I think, no matter what class
you’re teaching, you do what your students need. Our students need language support.”
Participants 4 through 8 shared, “Yes…absolutely.” While answering Question 8, Participant 1
shared, “If teachers are open-minded, then there are the tools and there are people with a wealth
of knowledge. If you are willing to put the time in, yes, there is all the support you need.”
Document Analysis. Observation notes have evidence of teachers engaged with
language learners in all grade levels. The following are the notes from a Grade 2 observation:
The activity for math games that you developed was scaffolded with action steps for
accessing the content of word problems as well as language stems to help students
produce and practice the academic language required of all students. You used shared
reading to get the students all engaged and then had students share out their next steps
before going off to independent practice. This gave you the opportunity to see which
students needed additional scaffolding or support from you – which some did!
70

Lesson plans and meeting minutes in kindergarten through Grade 3 have evidence of teachers’
planning in collaboration with their EAL teacher for strategies to support language learners.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers need to value supporting language
learners in their classrooms was determined to be an asset in the interview and document
analysis results. All interview participants expressed positive interest and motivation for
supporting language learners, exceeding the criteria. Documents provided evidence of planning
for and engagement with language learners.
Self-Efficacy Influence: Teachers Need to Have Their Own Confidence in the Learning
Opportunities They Create for all of Their Language Learners
Interview Findings
This influence was assessed with two questions. Eighteen of the 20 responses to both
questions provided evidence that teachers were able to speak to their own confidence in the
learning opportunities they create for all of their language learners. For the first question,
participants were asked, “Tell me about a time you felt confident about how you supported
English learners in your classroom.” Nine of the 10 participants responded by recounting a time
they felt confident. Participant 1 commented on feeling confident “during morning
meeting…give children opportunities to share their thinking before they turn and talk, give them
time to collect their thoughts.” Participant 2 feels confident “on a daily basis, as I do a lot of
showing…providing visuals while I talk.” Participant 7 shared feeling confident “when
introducing new vocabulary.” Participant 9 added, “It’s felt very successful to work with the
EAL support person in the classroom, when we team plan, deliver a lesson, and then see the kids
taking part in what we’ve asked them to do.” Participant 3 shared feeling “less confident this
71

year. The common language among students is Mandarin. I feel like it slows down the language
acquisition process.”
The second question asked participants, “Describe how confident you are in your ability
to differentiate instruction for your English learners.” Nine of the 10 participants were confident
in their ability. Participant 1 asserted to be “quite confident. I understand the importance of
visual cues, of teaching vocabulary explicitly, in making sentences simpler for those who cannot
access it.” Participant 8 shared being “pretty confident. The way our program is set up, it allows
us to differentiate in pretty much every area.” Participant 10 stated, “I feel confident in my
ability to analyze where they are, and that’s kind of the first step in being able to differentiate.”
Document Analysis
Unit reflections for reading and writing units at all grade levels provided evidence of
homeroom teachers investing effort with their planning for ELLs. Meeting minutes provide
supporting evidence of teachers’ engagement in the task of planning for their students’ learning
during language arts meetings at all grade levels.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers need to have their own confidence in the learning
opportunities they create for all of their language learners was determined to be an asset.
Interview data from two questions supports this finding, as does the analysis of the documents,
particularly with the meeting minutes noting teachers’ engagement on task with planning for
language learners.

72

Affect Influence: Teachers Need to Feel Positive About Implementing Strategies to Support
Their Language Learners
Interview Findings
All 10 participants feel positive about implementing strategies to support their language
learners. This influence was assessed using two questions. For the first question, participants
were asked, “Tell me about a time you felt positive about implementing the necessary strategies
to support English learners.” It was evident that all participants felt positive. Participant 8 shared,
“I think, every lesson we do, we modify in ways for EAL kids.” Participant 5 stated, “I feel
positive about helping them all the time,” and Participant 4 added, “any time we plan together,
sit together, and reflect on how the lesson went and what they need and how can we make it
better.”
For the second question, participants were asked, “Describe how you feel about using
your class teaching time to support English learners.” The responses were all positive, with
Participant 6 stating, “I feel like it is part of the job: make your environment inviting, welcoming
and fun.” Participant 1 shared, “I feel it’s critical.” Participant 9 added, “That’s my class.
They’re 20 kids, and they’re all in 20 different places in their English language learning, and I
just support them all.” Participant 10 shared, “I feel it’s time well spent.”
Document Analysis
Teaching manuals have details about supporting ELLs and lesson plans and meeting minutes
confirm the details from the teaching manuals are included while planning. Observation notes
have evidence of supporting English learners, and the notes for all grade levels indicate positive,
welcoming classroom environments with positive engagement with students.

73

Summary
The assumed influence that teachers need to feel positive about implementing strategies
to support language learners was determined to be an asset for interviews and document analysis.
All participants, through responses to both interview questions, expressed feeling positive about
supporting language learners. The finding was corroborated by the document analysis, which
demonstrated planning and executing strategies in welcoming classroom environments.
Summary of Knowledge and Motivation Findings
While knowledge gaps were identified with six of the eight influences, it is noteworthy
that the preschool participants are outliers with several influences, including collaboration.
Overall, with collaboration, participants state they have the time, and they value collaboration,
however, there is a need for homeroom teachers to understand and own their knowledge instead
of relying on the EAL teachers. There is also a great need to share with homeroom teachers the
expectation that they access and use the EAL team's shared materials.
Teacher motivation to support ELLs is an asset as evidence is noted for all four
influences. Clark and Estes (2008) state that positive emotional environments support
motivation. Therefore, the study’s implementation plan includes specific actions to support,
encourage, reward, and continue to build confidence with teachers.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “What is the interaction between MAA’s
organizational culture and homeroom teachers’ knowledge and motivation regarding English
language learning?” The criterion for determining an influence was the same as for the
influences previously discussed. If a minimum of eight participants indicated the influence was
present, then the influence was determined as an asset. If not, the influence was determined to be
74

a need. Document analysis provided more in-depth insight into the KMO influences and
determined the presence of an influence. However, cross-referencing interview data with
documents for assumed influences might have indicated the presence of an influence for
documents, as teachers might have been unaware these documents exist or that they have access.
Resources
Influence 1. Teachers Need Time for Collaboration
Interview Findings. All 10 participants were able to speak to and support that they need
time for collaboration and that they are given that time. Participant 2 asserted, “We have an
abundance of collaborative planning time,” and Participant 5 stated, “They provide a lot. The
EAL coordinator comes in and plans with us and attends our team meetings.” Participant 9
confirmed, “There’s a lot of collaborative planning time” and explained,
There’s time that’s officially set aside in our schedule. Besides that, the EAL teachers are
present in team meetings, and we also have informal planning time when they stop by
before school, check in on something, stop by after school.
Participant 8 also confirmed, “We get a lot of collaborative planning time. I’m grateful for it.”
Document Analysis. For school years 2019–2020 and 2020–2021, there is evidence in
grade-level team schedules and their essential agreements that time is made for collaboration in
kindergarten through Grade 3. There is no evidence in preschool schedules or essential
agreements that there is time set aside for collaboration. Before the school year 2019–2020, there
was no formal time or agreements for collaboration at any grade level.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers need time for collaboration was
determined to be an asset. All interview participants agreed they need time and have time for
collaboration. Document analysis supports the finding and reveals the organization has put in
75

place formal times in schedules for collaboration and has this embedded in essential agreements.
Even though preschool schedules and agreements present a need, the overall determination
supports this influence’s determination as an asset.
Influence 2. Teachers Need Training and Professional Development to Support Language
Learners
Interview Findings. Eight of the 10 participants disclosed that they lack training and
professional development to support language learners. The two participants who have training,
Participants 7 and 8, shared the following details. Participant 7 stated,
Aside from classes in my undergraduate, I took a one-week course at the University of
Minnesota, and it was specifically for teachers for students who speak other languages. It
really changed the way I thought about myself in the classroom as a language teacher.
I’ve done a WIDA weekend of PD.
Participant 8 shared, “I participated in a book club last year for co-teaching. I did some on-site
work with the WIDA framework.” Participant 3 shared, when asked about professional training
to support language learners, “Really none,” and Participant 2 shared, “I haven’t received much
training specific to supporting language learners.” Participant 1 stated,
I don’t know how much we receive about explicitly teaching the kids. Actually thinking
about it, that is quite interesting. We do a lot about how to work with each other
but, how do you teach a second language learner, I don’t think that much.
Participant 6 stated, while answering Question 17, “I don’t know if I’ve had direct training on
second language acquisition. Our EAL coordinator has been very helpful. She’s our on-site
expert.” While answering Question 13, Participant 4 shared, “I think we need more training in
76

what’s developmentally appropriate for language learners. We need just more time and more
practice.”
Document Analysis. There is evidence in the PD budget from the school year 2019–
2020 of funding for a Collaboration Book Club to pay author fees and book costs; however, this
PD was optional for homeroom teachers and mandatory for EAL teachers. Nine of the 30
preschool through Grade 3 homeroom teachers participated. There is evidence in schedules due
to the hiring of substitute teachers for homegrown PD with EAL teachers working directly with
homeroom teachers to provide training regarding analyzing writing and oral language. All other
evidence of resources shows attendees for PD are EAL teachers, not homeroom teachers.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers need training and professional
development to support language learners was determined to be a need. Analysis of interview
data revealed teachers need second language acquisition training. Document analysis supports
this need, as training has been for some teachers to learn about collaboration. Besides some on-
site, homegrown professional learning, training has not been funded or offered to homeroom
teachers to support language learners.
Influence 3. Teachers Need Follow-Up Training to Support the Transfer of Newly Learned
Teaching Strategies Into Their Practice to Support English Learners
Interview Findings. All 10 participants felt supported by literacy coaches; however, the
support is generally not for teaching strategies for their English learners; it is for the broader
program development of the Workshop Model. Participants 1, 4, and 6 agreed the literacy
coaches, who are not trained in second language acquisition pedagogy, are their greatest support.
Specifically, Participant 1 shared, “You can always go see and ask the literacy coaches.”
Participant 6 shared, “The literacy coaches…they are very aware of our language arts program.”
77

Participant 5 could not remember any official follow-up and shared, “Follow-up? I don’t know. I
guess working with the EAL teachers and then if you’ve learned something, you can work with
them to try and implement some of the stuff.” Participant 10, in addition to noting, “You can
always go see a literacy coach or one of the EAL teachers,” also shared, “There really hasn’t
been any kind of real follow-up in terms of if you would like to know more or if you want to do
more with WIDA.”
Document Analysis. There is evidence in the school year 2020–2021 professional
development budget for the author of the Collaboration Book Club to follow up with the work
that was started in the previous year. However, due to the pandemic and other school initiatives,
this was postponed to the school year 2021–2022, and the funds were reallocated within the
budget. Grade-level meeting schedules have some evidence of meetings to follow up with
homeroom teachers and EAL teachers regarding the book club work.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers need follow-up training to support the
transfer of newly learned teaching strategies into their practice to support English learners was
determined to be a need in both the interview results and document analysis. While there is
general support for teachers with coaches and other teachers, follow-up training that allows the
transfer of skills to support English learners is not evident.
Policies, Processes, and Procedures
Influence 1. Teachers Know the School has Policies and Procedures in Place to Support the
Needs of ELLs
Interview Findings. This influence was assessed using two questions to learn about
policies and procedures that support or do not support ELLs’ needs. For the first question,
participants were asked, “What are some of the policies and procedures we have at our school
78

that support the needs of English learners.” Participants 3 and 8 did not respond to this question,
and, for the other eight participants, it was evident the school has policies and procedures in
place to support ELLs’ needs. According to Participant 4, “The policy of having an EAL teacher
in our room, meeting with them regularly and reviewing student work quarterly.” Participant 5
added “EAL teachers working in our rooms for a determined amount of time…in kindergarten
this year the EAL coordinator works with the whole class.” Participant 7 shared information
about this policy:
At the end of each semester, a decision is made about whether or not the student should
continue to receive EAL support. This is done collaboratively, not based on one test.
There is also monitor status…continue to be checked-in with by the EAL teacher to make
sure they really are able to function independently in the classroom.
For the second question, participants were asked, “Are there policies and procedures that
don’t support the needs of English learners?” Five of the 10 participants mentioned the fee the
school charges to families for the first two years their child receives EAL support. Participant 3
shared, “I know there’s an extra fee, and I don’t think that’s a good idea. I know the school has a
long history of doing that.” Participant 5 asserted, “I think the policy of having parents pay what
they pay for EAL doesn’t really support English language learners. It creates a negative stigma
around that.” And Participant 10 stated, “I think because the EAL program has an extra charge,
sometimes, the parents can be very eager for the students to exit the program, and that’s
counterproductive.” Participant 7 wondered about another policy that does not support the EAL
students: “If they continue to receive EAL support in third grade, they don’t receive a Mandarin
class. Instead, they are receiving extra English support during that time. I’ve wondered about
whether or not that supports them as whole students.”
79

Document Analysis. Policy and Procedure Manuals (school-wide and for the EAL team)
have evidence that homeroom teachers and EAL teachers meet quarterly to analyze student work
in preschool through Grade 3. Those same documents have evidence of clear guidelines and
processes regarding what evidence is needed for a student to be released from EAL support and
what monitor status entails. There is evidence on the school website about hosting parent
workshops to inform parents about language acquisition and the support program. There is
evidence of policies and procedures through admissions to interview, screen, and determine
language acquisition needs. There is evidence in the documents given to parents through the
admissions process that the EAL support is a fee-based system. Additionally, EAL students in
Grade 3 cannot enroll in the world language program (Mandarin); instead, the class time is used
to support English language development.
Summary. While the school has policies and procedures in place to support the needs of
ELLs, primarily through the establishment and work of the EAL department, it is also the policy
of the school that students who receive support from that department are subject to an additional
fee for two years on top of the tuition. Therefore, the assumed influence is determined to be a
need.
Influence 2. Teachers Feel the School has Processes in Place to Support Their Instructional
and Assessment Goals for ELLs
Interview Findings. Eight of the 10 participants indicated the school has a process to
support ELLs’ instructional and assessment goals. Two participants, both working in the
preschool, did not respond to this question. Participant 7 explained, “Students’ writing is
collected very systematically at certain dates…scored using the WIDA scale…analyzed to
80

determine the next steps.” Participant 6 stated, “We have the EAL screening for kindergarten
students” Participant 4 explained,
We analyze a piece of writing…and in other subjects, math, science, social studies…we
collect the writing every quarter, and then we analyze that. There is a process for that,
and we meet with homeroom teachers and EAL teachers and discuss goals for our ELLs.
Participants 1 and 10 both shared that assessments are regular and support language goals.
Document Analysis. There is some evidence in the Policy and Procedure Manual
regarding school-wide assessment goals; however, they are not specific to ELLs. Professional
development plans have evidence of EAL teachers supporting homeroom teachers in
kindergarten through Grade 3 with assessment and instructional goals for ELLs. Analysis of
curriculum maps revealed evidence with language arts for preschool through Grade 3 for
instructional and assessment goals.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers feel the school has processes to support
their instructional and assessment goals for ELLs was determined as an asset. Eighty percent of
the interview participants articulated processes in place. While the school-wide Policy and
Procedure Manual is not specific to ELLs, there is evidence with documents for the grade levels
for this study to support this influence is an asset. Therefore, the overall determination from
interviews and analysis of documents is that this influence was determined to be an asset.
Influence 3. Teachers Feel the School ’s Commitment is Aligned with Their Commitment to
Support ELLs
Interview Findings. All 10 study participants indicated that the school’s commitment is
aligned with theirs to support ELLs. Participant 11 stated, “I can do the things that I need to do,
and I have the support that I need.” Participant 5 added, “I wouldn’t have stayed as long as I
81

have if the school weren’t as committed to the students.” Participant 1 noted, “Yes, it is very
powerful that we have a Mandarin-speaking assistant in the classroom.” Even more, Participant 3
asserted, “Yes…aligns exactly to what I would expect. It aligns with my early childhood
philosophy on language acquisition.”
Document Analysis. It is evident with the document analysis that this influence is an
asset. Evidence on the school’s website includes the Policy and Procedure Manual, and section
4.8 states, “A goal is to encourage all students to use English effectively.” The lower school EAL
section of the website has evidence of the school’s commitment to communicating with ELLs’
parents by using English, Mandarin, and Korean on the website. There is evidence of an
increasing number of electronic communications to parents in multiple languages. Evidence in
the Strategic Plan notes, “increase English proficiency in all four language areas for all students.”
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers feel the school’s commitment is aligned
with their commitment to support ELLs was determined to be an asset. Interview data provides
evidence that all participants could speak to the alignment for them and the school. Analysis of
documents provides evidence through strategic planning, policies, and expanding the school’s
languages for communication that the school is committed to supporting ELLs.
Cultural Model
Influence 1. Teachers Need to Feel the School has a Shared Culture for Supporting Second
Language Learning
Interview Findings. Nine participants could speak to the school having a culture for
supporting second language learning. Participant 3 shared, “I don’t know enough about that. I
shouldn’t speak to it because I don’t know.” However, the other nine participants did speak to a
82

supportive culture for second language learning, with Participants 8 and 9 sharing the following
statements. Participant 8 shared,
We’ve put a lot of work in the time I’ve been here into changing the way we see our
English language learners and the program, the expectations, how we support them. I
think it’s moved from a very each teacher does their own thing type of model to being
much more intentional and uniform across the grade levels.
Participant 9 stated, “the whole staff or whole group in the lower school are dedicated to doing
ELL work…the school has prioritized the needs of our ELL population.”
Document Analysis. Analysis of documents for the assumed influence that teachers need
to feel the school has a shared culture for supporting second language learning determined this
influence as an asset. The professional development budget includes funding for the
Collaboration Book Club hosted by the lower school EAL team and funding to support EAL
teachers’ attendance at regional and international conferences/workshops that focus on second
language acquisition. There is evidence of increasing external communications in Mandarin and
Korean on the school website’s lower school’s EAL section. There is also evidence in electronic
communications that parent meetings will include headphones for translation in Mandarin and
Korean. Lastly, there is evidence of alignment within the EAL department to support students in
Grades 1 through 5.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers need to feel the school has a shared
culture for supporting second language learning was determined to be an asset. Ninety percent of
interview participants asserted their belief the school has a shared culture for ELLs. The analysis
of documents supports the determination of this influence as an asset, as there is evidence in
policies, strategic plans, budgets, and communications.
83

Influence 2. Teachers Need to Feel the School Values Professional Learning to Support
English Learners
Interview Findings. All 10 participants confirmed that the school values professional
learning to support English learners. As Participant 4 stated, professional learning comes in a
variety of types: “We get professional development, we have an EAL committee, we have
literacy coaches, we have protocols for those kids who need it.” Participant 1 added, “We have
the book club work, EAL meetings with those teachers leading meeting.” Participant 2 shared,
“Definitely, yes. This school has so much opportunity for professional development and is
willing to help teachers get training and get the support they need.” Even more, Participant 5
indicated, “We have lots of PD opportunities. We’re so spoiled at this school.”
Document Analysis. An analysis of the Policy and Procedure Guide indicates funding is
available for professional development. The school’s website has a section dedicated to the
procedures for applying for funding for professional learning. Further, there is evidence of
professional development plans and funding for WIDA, ELLSA, collaboration, and Teachers
College to support second language acquisition. There is evidence with meeting minutes that
EAL teachers started leading discussions to support ELLs during the school year 2019–2020.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers need to feel the school values
professional learning to support English learners is confirmed as an asset. All 10 interviewees
participants expressed viewpoints of the types of professional learning that support ELLs.
Results of the document analysis support the determination and show evidence of the school’s
on-going support with funding and on-site with EAL teachers.

84

Cultural Setting Influence: Teachers Feel the School has Systems in Place to Integrate
Second Language Pedagogy and Practices in Homeroom Classes
Interview Findings
Seven of the eight participants were able to speak to the system of having EAL teachers
in place to integrate second language pedagogy and practices in homeroom classes. Participants
2 and 3 did not respond to this interview question. Participant 1 shared, “We have EAL teachers
working more closely with the kids.” While answering Question 8, Participant 1 also shared, “If
you are willing to put the time in, yes, there is support from the EAL teacher.” Participant 5
added, “An EAL teacher that comes into the classroom,” and Participant 6 noted, “The EAL
coordinator is in all our classrooms right now, but this is the first time this has happened that
she’s in there co-teaching with so. So, watching her teach has been helpful and has helped us.”
However, Participant 8’s response was quite different from the rest and identified the following
need regarding the integration of second language pedagogy and practices in homeroom classes:
I don’t think there’s a lot. We rely on the fact that our EAL teachers are experts in that
and that they will help us to put in place what we should be doing in those areas and
what’s best practice, but I don’t know how much work is being done around making
homeroom teachers understand that.
According to the evidence, the school’s system to integrate second language pedagogy and
practices in homeroom classes is the specialist EAL teachers with homeroom teachers relying on
them for ELLs’ support.
Document Analysis
Analysis of meeting minutes found evidence of co-teaching, co-planning, and co-
assessment in Grades 1 through 3. Classroom observation notes from the 18 months prior to this
85

study have evidence of co-teaching in kindergarten through Grade 3. The school-wide budget
includes funding for EAL teachers. Grade-level schedules for Grades 1 through 3 have evidence
of EAL teachers supporting students in a homeroom class for approximately 75 minutes per day.
Students in Grade 3 have an additional 35-minute class with the EAL teacher in lieu of Mandarin
class. If the school relies on the EAL teacher to integrate second language pedagogy and
practices in homeroom classes, students in Grades 1 and 2 spend 75 minutes per day with an
EAL teacher while students in Grade 3 spend 110 minutes per day. This evidence was
determined as a need, as students spend 3 hours and 45 minutes in Grades 1 and 2, and those in
Grade 3 spend 3 hours and 10 minutes without an EAL teacher each day in their homeroom.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers feel the school has systems in place to integrate
second language pedagogy and practices in homeroom classes was determined as a need. The
system in place is providing the expertise of the EAL teachers in homeroom classes to support
students. However, when analyzing the documents and determining the amount of time EAL
teachers are scheduled each day to support students, this influence is determined as a need as the
amount of time second language pedagogy and practices are integrated into homeroom classes is
insufficient.
Summary of Organization Findings
The study found that MAA’s system for supporting ELLs is to rely on the EAL teacher.
Given the limited amount of time an EAL teacher spends in a homeroom class and the limited
number of students they support, MAA needs to build the homeroom teacher's capacity to
support ELLs as the current system has other teachers taking responsibility for student learning.
The study also found that while the school does have policies and procedures to support ELLs,
86

mostly through the EAL teacher's work, a significant finding that does not support ELLs is the
fee structure the organization has for students who work with EAL teachers. EAL designated
students' fee structure, and the policy stating these students cannot attend Mandarin classes, the
home language for the majority, is an important finding.
Interaction Between Organizational Influences and Stakeholder Knowledge and
Motivation
Table 9 presents the KMO influences examined in this study and their determination as
assets or needs. The criterion for determining an influence as a need or asset was that a minimum
of eight participants indicate a particular influence was present. When this was the case, then the
influence was determined as an asset; if not, the influence was determined to be a need.
Document analysis provided more in-depth insight into the KMO influences and determined the
presence of an influence. However, cross-referencing interview data with documents for
assumed influences might have indicated the presence of an influence for documents, as teachers
might be unaware these documents exist or that they have access.

Table 9
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Knowledge Influence Asset or Need?
Factual
Teachers know the difference between academic and social language Asset
Teachers know the terminology for research-based strategies that support
second language development
Need
Teachers know the different levels of language proficiency, as outlined in
the WIDA framework and the seminal work of Krashen and Terrell
Need
Conceptual
Teachers understand collaboration and co-teaching practices Need
Teachers need to understand the principles of language proficiency, as
outlined in the WIDA framework
Need
87

Procedural
Teachers need to know how to analyze students’ oral and written language Need
Teachers need to know how to implement research-based instructional
strategies to support ELLs effectively
Asset
Metacognitive
Teachers need to self-reflect on the effectiveness of their teaching practices
for their ELLs
Need
Assumed Motivation Influence Asset or Need?
Value
Teachers need to value the implementation of collaborative instructional
strategies
Asset
Teachers need to value supporting language learners in their classroom Asset
Self-Efficacy
Teachers need to have their own confidence in the learning opportunities
they create for all of their language learners
Asset
Affect
Teachers need to feel positive about implementing strategies to support
their language learners
Asset
Resources
Teachers need time for collaboration Asset
Teachers need training and professional development to support language
learners
Need
Teachers need follow-up training to support the transfer of newly learned
teaching strategies into their practice to support English learners
Need
Policies, Processes, & Procedures
Teachers know the school has policies and procedures in place to support
the needs of ELLs
Need
Teachers feel the school has processes in place to support their instructional
and assessment goals for ELLs
Asset
Teachers feel the school’s commitment is aligned with their commitment to
support ELLs
Asset
Cultural Model
Teachers need to feel the school has a shared culture for supporting second
language learning
Asset
Teachers need to feel the school values professional learning to support
English learners
Asset
Cultural Setting
Teachers feel the school has systems in place to integrate second language
pedagogy and practices in homeroom classes
Need

88

These findings inform the recommendations and solutions in Chapter Five to address the
gaps in KMO influences identified in Chapter Four. Chapter Five also answers the following
question: What are the recommendations for MAA’s practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources regarding English language learners?

89

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation
This evaluation study analyzed the KMO influences impacting MAA’s ability to reach its
organizational goal of providing improved instruction for students who speak a language other
than English at home. Applying the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), this
qualitative study’s results validated knowledge and organizational influences on the problem of
practice. All motivational influences were identified as assets. In this chapter, the results and
findings guide evidence-based solutions and recommendations. Next, the New World
Kirkpatrick Model was utilized to create an implementation and evaluation plan for
recommended solutions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). As a starting point, this chapter
revisits the organizational context and mission, organizational goal, stakeholders, the purpose of
the project, and the research questions.
Organizational Context and Mission
MAA is a nonprofit, independent school serving over 1,000 preschool through Grade 12
students on one campus in a capital city in South-East Asia. The school is charged with
providing an American-style education to the children of expatriates living overseas. Nearly 70%
of the faculty hold American passports, with the next largest passport holders being Canadian at
20%. Parents expect a seamless transition when their children transfer to MAA from public or
private schools in the U.S. MAA follows an American curriculum based on Common Core
standards. Its mission is to inspire students to become independent thinkers who are passionate
about learning, thrive in an innovative environment where academic excellence and character
education remain at the forefront of the student experience. MAA benchmarks against
independent schools in the U.S. regarding student outcomes. English is the language of
instruction, and 80% of the students speak a language other than English at home. The majority
90

of those students speak Mandarin at home. Only 8% of the overall student population receives
support from the EAL team as they have been identified as not being able to access the
curriculum. The 72% of students were never designated as needing additional support, and
students in grades 6 through 12 are only assessed for EAL support through the admissions
process; there is no further re-evaluation once they are admitted students. MAA is a member of
the National Association of Independent Schools, and the Western Association for Schools and
Colleges is the accrediting organization.
Organizational Goal
The goal of MAA is to provide improved instruction for students who speak a language
other than English at home. MAA is a leader in the region in supporting lower school students
who qualify for second language support with a specially trained team of teachers. However,
students who do not qualify for the support need homeroom teachers trained in second language
pedagogy and instructional practices. MAA will provide resources for the initial and ongoing
training and support for implementing second language pedagogy and homeroom teachers’
practices to support all ELLs.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Three stakeholder groups contribute to the performance goal of 100% of MAA students
in preschool through Grade 3 receiving English language support: their homeroom teachers, the
EAL support teachers, and the school administrators, consisting of central administration and
divisional principals. There are 30 homeroom teachers in preschool through Grade 3 responsible
for delivering lessons that support second language acquisition in literacy, math, science, social
studies, and social/emotional development. Ten of these teachers identify as male, 20 identify as
female, 60% hold American passports, 20% have Canadian passports, and the others are from
91

Australia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. Each teacher’s teaching
credentials are from universities from their country of citizenship.
The second group of stakeholders consists of the EAL support teachers who work with
students in Grades 1 through 5. This group of teachers currently supports ELLs with the greatest
need who qualify for support using internal assessments and the WIDA framework. Currently,
18% of preschool through Grade 3 students qualify for this support. This group’s role in meeting
the organization’s goal is to co-plan, co-assess, and co-teach with the homeroom teachers to
support the 62% of the students who do not qualify for EAL support.
The third group of stakeholders is made up of two groups of school administrators:
central administrators and divisional principals. The central administrators are the head of
school, deputy head of school, director of programs, dean of faculty, and chief financial officer.
Central administrators contribute to the performance goal, as their overall support of the goal is
needed to secure funding for training, review of curriculum articulation, programmatic review.
The elementary school principal is the divisional stakeholder, as preschool through Grade 3 falls
within this division. Table 1 displays the organizational mission, goal, and stakeholder group
performance goals.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
While all stakeholders’ joint effort contributes to achieving the organizational goal, only
one stakeholder group was the focus for this study. The stakeholders of focus were the
homeroom teachers in preschool through Grade 3, as they engage the students in learning for the
longest time each school day. The stakeholder’s goal, supported by the EAL teachers and the
administration, is that 100% of preschool through Grade 3 homeroom teachers will use their
training to implement strategies to support ELLs. The organizational goal cannot be met without
92

these stakeholders’ implementing strategies to support their students’ second language learning.
Therefore, they were the focus of the study.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which MAA is meeting its
organizational goal of providing improved instruction for students who speak a language other
than English at home. The analysis focused on KMO elements related to achieving this
organizational goal. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders,
for practical purposes, the stakeholders of focus for this analysis were the homeroom teachers in
preschool through Grade 3. Questions that guided this study were as follows:
1. What are the homeroom teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to implementing
strategies to support English language learning?
2. What is the interaction between MAA’s organizational culture and homeroom teachers’
knowledge and motivation regarding English language learning?
Introduction and Overview
Analysis of the findings in Chapter Four provided evidence regarding the two research
questions above. Chapter Five presents recommendations of evidence-based solutions and an
integrated implementation and evaluation plan for the validated KMO influences regarding
English learners at MAA and answers the final research question: What are the recommendations
for MAA’s practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources
regarding English language learners?
Organized by the categories of validated influences and aligned with principles, each
recommendation is context-specific. The recommendations informed the implementation
program as a solution to the problem of practice. Further in the chapter, using the New World
93

Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) as a framework, an integrated
implementation plan was developed for this study. This model provides a comprehensive
blueprint of four levels of evaluation for training consisting of reaction (Level 1), learning (Level
2), behavior (Level 3), and results (Level 4). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend
using the model in reverse order, and this order serves as the plan for this study.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The recommendations are presented and organized by the knowledge and organizational
validated influences determined as needs/gaps through analysis of qualitative data analysis. The
study’s data, outlined in Chapter Four, indicated no needs/gaps with motivation influences.
However, assets must be maintained, therefore, motivation influences must remain a priority for
recommendations for the organization to achieve its goal.
To achieve the organizational goal of providing improved instruction to ELLs, MAA
must address the significant finding that preschool teachers as a whole lack the basic knowledge
needed to support ELLs. MAA will need to provide basic training for this group of teachers to
fill the factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge gaps in addition to the
training and implementation plan outlined in this chapter. This is important as preschool is the
entry level at MAA. By filling these knowledge gaps and having the teachers participate in the
training plan outlined below, instruction will improve for MAA youngest learners and provide a
stronger foundation for future learning.
Another significant finding is the recognition that homeroom teachers rely heavily on the
EAL teachers to support ELLs, and their knowledge is limited. With the study’s finding of high
levels of motivation for supporting ELLs, homeroom teachers will begin to fill their knowledge
gaps and build their capacity for the ELLs in their classes.
94

The significant finding at the organizational level is to address the fee structure for ELLs.
The study found the fee policy to not be in alignment with the organization’s goal. As the
evidence stated, this is important because the fee creates a negative stigma, and parents pressure
students and teachers to release their child from the EAL support to avoid paying the fee.
MAA’s Head of School and Board are aware of this finding and are considering a policy change.
Knowledge Recommendations
The data from this study validated six knowledge influences as needs regarding the
problem of practice: two factual, two conceptual, one procedural, and one metacognitive
influence. Influences were validated as needs through interviews and document analysis. Table
10 indicates a priority level for each validated influence in achieving the organization’s goal and
the research-based principles that support this recommendation. Following the table, a discussion
is provided for each influence, the associated principle, and the specific recommendations based
on supporting literature.

95

Table 10
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Asset
or
Need
Priority
Yes or
No
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Factual
Teachers know the
terminology for
research-based
strategies that support
second language
development.
Need Yes How individuals
organize knowledge,
influences how they
learn and apply what
they know (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Provide targeted
learning opportunities
that both demonstrate
and ask teachers to
name the research-
based strategies that
support second
language development.
Teachers know the
different levels of
language proficiency,
as outlined in the
WIDA framework
and Krashen and
Terrell’s seminal
work.
Need Yes How individuals
organize knowledge,
influences how they
learn and apply what
they know (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Provide targeted
learning opportunities
that both demonstrate
and ask teachers to
name the proficiency
levels.
Conceptual
Teachers understand
collaboration and co-
teaching practices.
Need Yes Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors
improves self-efficacy,
learning, and
performance (Denler,
Wolters, & Benzon,
2009).
Provide targeted
learning opportunities
that ask teachers to
identify collaboration
and co-teaching
practices.
Model the effective use
of collaboration and co-
teaching practices, and
allow teachers to
demonstrate these
practices with
scaffolding and
support.

96

Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Asset
or
Need
Priority
Yes or
No
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Conceptual
Teachers need to
understand the
principles of
language proficiency,
as outlined in the
WIDA framework.
Need Yes Targeting training and
instruction between the
individual’s independent
performance level and
their level of assisted
performance promotes
optimal learning (Scott
& Palincsar, 2006).
Provide targeted
training, sufficient
scaffolding, and job
aids outlining language
proficiency principles
as outlined in the
WIDA framework.
Procedural
Teachers need to
know how to analyze
students’ oral and
written English
language.
Need Yes To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating
them, and know when to
apply what they have
learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Provide targeted
training, instruction,
sufficient scaffolding,
tools training in job
aids, and worked
examples to guide
teachers through the
analysis process for
students’ oral and
written language.
Metacognitive
Teachers need to self-
reflect on the
effectiveness of their
teaching practices for
their ELLs.
Need Yes The use of
metacognitive strategies
facilitates learning
(Baker, 2006).
Provide opportunities
for teachers to engage
in guided self-
monitoring and self-
assessment of their
teaching practices.

Factual Knowledge
Teachers need to know the terminology for research-based strategies and the different
language proficiency levels as outlined by WIDA to support ELLs. These influences were
identified as high priorities because this foundational knowledge must be present to support
ELLs. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) found that how individuals organize knowledge
influences how they learn and apply what they know. This suggests that providing homeroom
97

teachers with targeted learning opportunities and job aids, such as charts with the proficiency
levels and lists of research-based strategies, would support their learning. The recommendation
for homeroom teachers is to provide focused learning opportunities to demonstrate their
knowledge and give them access to job aids outlining researched-based strategies and WIDA’s
proficiency levels.
Teachers require specific knowledge and training to meet their ELL students’ unique
needs and must know and be ready to deliver appropriate strategies (Helman & Burns, 2008;
Loeb et al., 2014; Santos et al., 2012). Teachers must be prepared to utilize research-based
practices proven to support ELLs as they access a language-rich curriculum in all content areas
(Helman & Burns, 2008). Specific practices such as scaffolding lessons to build on students’
native language abilities and supporting their literacy development by providing books in native
languages promotes learning and literacy growth (Helman & Burns, 2008). When working with
ELLs, teachers need to know the different levels of language proficiency outlined in the WIDA
framework (Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 2013) and the seminal
work of Krashen and Terrell (1983) outlining and describing levels of language proficiency.
Teachers also need to know the importance of having mastery in all levels for students to
succeed academically. This confirms that providing targeted learning opportunities for teachers
regarding research-based strategies and understanding language proficiency levels would help
close the current knowledge gap for teachers and support ELLs.
Conceptual Knowledge
Teachers need to understand collaboration and co-teaching practices to support ELLs.
Denler et al. (2009) found that modeling to-be-learned strategies or behaviors improves self-
efficacy, learning, and performance. This suggests that providing homeroom teachers with
98

targeted learning opportunities that ask them to identify collaboration and co-teaching practices
would support the implementation of these practices. Also, modeling effective collaboration and
co-teaching practices and allowing teachers to demonstrate these practices with scaffolding and
support from coaches would strengthen these teaching practices.
School environments where homeroom teachers work closely with ESL specialist
teachers to collaborate, co-plan, co-teach, and co-assess support ELLs’ overall development
(Bauler & Kang, 2020; Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010; Nguyen, 2012; Peercy & Martin-Beltrán,
2012; Peercy et al., 2015) and provide the least restrictive environment to support students. To
ensure the continual transfer of collaborative practices in classrooms, according to Honigsfeld
and Dove (2010), schools must provide and sustain the training and ongoing support for co-
planning and co-assessing. According to Peercy and Martin-Beltran (2012), collaboration among
homeroom teachers and ESL specialists benefits both ELL success and teachers’ professional
growth. With the increased communication, planning, and access to resources to support ELLs,
teachers noted their practices and goals improved, and they understood how to best support
students (Peercy & Martin-Beltrán, 2012; Peercy et al., 2015). This confirms that providing
targeted learning opportunities that ask teachers to identify collaboration practices and modeling
and allowing teachers to demonstrate these practices with scaffolding and support would help
close the current knowledge gap for teachers and support ELLs.
Teachers need to understand the principles of language proficiency as outlined by WIDA
to support ELLs. Scott and Palinscar (2006) found that targeting training and instruction between
the individual’s independent performance level and their level of assisted performance promotes
optimal learning. This suggests that providing targeted individual training within a teacher’s
zone of proximal development will foster meaningful and lasting learning. Additionally, the
99

training would include sufficient scaffolding and job aids outlining language proficiency
principles as outlined in the WIDA framework. The recommendation for teachers would be to
provide these individualized, targeted learning opportunities with scaffolding and job aids.
With the extra language demands of Common Core State Standards, teachers must be
skilled and equipped to support ELLs by addressing and understanding language progressions
and analyzing and supporting students with the curriculum’s new language demands (Santos et
al., 2012). To effectively instruct ELLs, teachers require knowledge and an understanding of
students’ linguistic backgrounds and the pedagogical tools to support learning in a language
different from one’s native language (He et al., 2011). Teachers’ knowledge of the different
levels of language proficiency outlined in the WIDA framework (Board of Regents of the
University of Wisconsin System, 2013) and understanding the importance for ELLs to have
mastery in all levels allows students to access the curriculum and succeed academically. This
confirms that providing target training, scaffolding, and job aids outlining language proficiency
principles would help close the teachers’ knowledge gap and support ELLs.
Procedural Knowledge
Teachers need to know how to analyze students’ oral and written language to support
ELLs. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) found that, to develop mastery, individuals must acquire
component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned.
This suggests that providing homeroom teachers with targeted training, sustained instructional
coaching, and job aids in the form of worked examples to guide teachers through the language
analysis process will enable teachers to develop mastery. In addition, modeling the effective use
of language analysis tools and using the analysis to inform instruction strengthens teaching
practices and student learning.
100

Evaluating ELLs’ linguistic learning needs and being poised to deliver instruction that
best meets these needs are requirements for teachers to effectively support these students (Loeb
et al., 2014; Helman & Burns, 2008; Santos et al., 2012). Using data from language analysis to
support students with language functions such as cause/effect, compare/contrast, persuade, and
interpret and academic language strategies such as voice and sentence complexity is an effective
practice teachers need to incorporate into instruction (Zwiers, 2007). According to Dormer
(2013), becoming highly aware of students’ language use promotes deep understanding and
successful application of teaching practices. With the extra language demands of the Common
Core State Standards, teachers must be skilled and equipped to support ELLs by addressing and
understanding language progressions and analyzing and supporting students with the
curriculum’s new language demands (Santos et al., 2012). This confirms that providing targeted
training, coaching after training, scaffolding, and job aids such as rubrics developed for language
analysis would help close the teachers’ knowledge gap and target student learning to meet their
specific needs.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Teachers need to self-reflect on the effectiveness of their teaching practices to support
ELLs. Baker (2006) found metacognitive strategies facilitate learning. This suggests that
providing opportunities for teachers to engage in guided self-monitoring and self-assessment of
their teaching practices would allow them to be aware of their cognition, adjust their teaching
practices, and better understand why they are doing something (Krathwohl, 2002).
Student learning improves when teachers self-reflect on their teaching practices and take
time to learn and grow from their reflections (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010; Turkan & Buzick,
2014). This model is particularly effective when all teachers’ reflections focus on supporting
101

ELLs (Burchard et al., 2017). As a vital component of the collaboration model (Honigsfeld &
Dove, 2018), reflection allows teachers to engage in dialogue with colleagues or on their own to
problem solve, evaluate their effectiveness, develop a plan to adjust their teaching to serve their
ELLs better. This confirms that prioritizing time for teachers to engage in guided self-monitoring
and self-assessment of their teaching practices would lead to more effective teaching for ELLs.
Motivation Recommendations
The data from this study, outlined and highlighted in Chapter 4, indicated no validated
motivational influences determined as needs on the problem of practice. Interviews and
document analysis indicate motivation is a strong asset to the organization. Assets must be
maintained; therefore, motivation influences must remain a priority for the organization to
achieve its goal.

102

Table 11
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Asset or
Need
Priority
Yes or
No
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Self-Efficacy
Teachers need to have
their own confidence in
the learning
opportunities they
create for all of their
language learners.
Asset Yes High self-efficacy
can positively
influence motivation
(Pajares, 2006).

Point out how learning
and training will be
useful.
Make it clear that
homeroom teachers are
capable of learning
what is being taught.
Provide homeroom
teachers instructional
support early on, and
build in multiple
opportunities for
practice and gradually
remove supports.
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Asset or
Need
Priority
Yes or
No
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Affect/Emotions
Teachers need to feel
positive about
implementing strategies
to support their
language learners.
Asset Yes Positive emotional
environments
support motivation
(Clark & Estes,
2008)..
Provide evidence-
based study skills and
strategies to homeroom
teachers during
training to enable their
success and alleviate
anxiety.

Self-Efficacy
Teachers need to have their own confidence in the learning opportunities they create and
will create for all of their language learners. Pajares (2006) found that high self-efficacy can
positively influence motivation. This suggests professional development leaders must point out
how the training will be useful and find ways to instill in the homeroom teachers that they are
103

capable of this new learning. Training methods must include instructional supports such as
scaffolds, and multiple opportunities to practice during and after the training to maintain
motivation and self-efficacy.
The findings of this study indicate that self-efficacy is an asset, as homeroom teachers,
were able to speak to their own confidence regarding the learning opportunities they create for
their ELLs. This motivation must be maintained and supported and the learning program must
provide what teachers need to sustain their motivation during and after training. Those who are
self-motivated and confident in their ability are more likely to engage in tasks and achieve goals
(Bandura, 2001). In their study, Burchard et al. (2017) found that teachers who had the
knowledge and support to implement strategies to support ELLs were confident, and their
students reaped the benefits. Those who lacked the confidence and knowledge had students who
achieved less. It is imperative that, even though this influence was found to be an asset, the level
of confidence and motivation must be maintained and nurtured. Teachers who display low self-
efficacy create classroom environments less conducive to learning, and this is especially
detrimental to ELLs’ needs (Heineke, 2019; Kraut et al., 2016; Malo-Juvera 2018). For MAA to
achieve the organizational goal of supporting all preschool through third grade students who
speak a language other than English at home, teachers need to remain confident, have positive
expectations for their success and their students’ success, and persist each day to support the
goal.
Affect/Emotions
Teachers need to feel positive about implementing strategies to support language
learners. According to Clark and Estes (2008), positive emotional environments support
motivation. To maintain this influence as an asset, this suggests that homeroom teachers’ training
104

and support must enable learner success, alleviate anxiety and continue to build positive
emotional environments.
Preschool through Grade 3 teachers at MAA need to feel and activate positive emotions
about working with all the language learners in their classes. A teacher’s affect/emotions affect
not only their motivation but that of their students, too, as task engagement can increase or
decrease accordingly (Pekrun, 2007). It is imperative that homeroom teachers feel positive about
supporting their language learners, as emotions are easily noticed and communicated, especially
with second language learners. These students use many ways to interpret and understand
communication. Negative emotions can jeopardize learning and motivation, and teachers’
positive emotions can support students’ learning (Burchard et al., 2017; Kraut, 2016; Malo-
Juvera, 2018). This confirms that homeroom teachers need to remain positive about
implementing strategies to support ELLs.
Organization Recommendations
This study’s data validated four organizational influences on the problem of practice: one
cultural setting, one policy and procedures, and two resource influences. The influences were
validated through interviews and document analysis. Table 12 indicates a priority level for each
validated influence in achieving the organization’s goal and the research-based principles that
support this recommendation. Following the table, a discussion is provided for each priority
influence, the associated principle, and the specific recommendations based on supporting
literature. The organizational influence that teachers know the school has policies and procedures
to support ELLs’ needs was listed as a low priority for this study. The data analysis found the
gap for this influence focused primarily on adjusting tuition and school fees. These decisions
105

take place solely at the board level; therefore, this evaluation plan does not include a
recommendation other than sharing this data with the head of school.
Cultural Settings
The data validated one gap in the assumed organizational influence of cultural settings,
showing that the school needs systems to integrate second language pedagogy and practices in
homeroom classes. The cultural setting, the more visible aspect of an organization’s culture,
must be understood when analyzing a possible gap in an organization’s ability to reach its goal
(Rueda, 2001). Consisting of the core values, goals, beliefs, and processes learned and developed
over time that become the everyday experience of those in the organization, cultural settings
must be aligned with organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Elmore (2002) found that
accountability is increased when individual roles and expectations are aligned with
organizational goals and mission. This suggests that systems’ alignment to integrate second
language pedagogy and practices in homeroom classes must be in place to reach the
organizational goal.
Research supports the fact that when an organization’s cultural model and cultural setting
are aligned, students who are acquiring a second language are supported and more successful
(Cox, 2005; Poekert, 2012; Roblero, 2013; Santos et al., 2012). When MAA practices include
supporting ELLs by integrating second language pedagogy and practices in homeroom
classrooms, the school can reach its organizational goal. The literature and guiding principle
confirm that the organization, to achieve its goal, must develop strategies to align systems with
integrating second language pedagogy and practices into homeroom classes.
106

Resources
The two validated organizational resource influences are connected, as one cannot work
in isolation from the other. Teachers need training and professional development to support
language learners. They must also have follow-up training and support to transfer newly learned
teaching strategies into their practice. According to Clark and Estes (2008), effective change
efforts ensure everyone has the resources to do their job and that, if there are resource shortages,
then resources are aligned with organizational priorities. The organization’s investment in
professional learning, follow-up and support aligns with their performance goal. The
organization’s recommendations are to prioritize English learners and identify key stakeholders
whose role supports implementing practices to support English learners and ensure they have the
needed time to coach and provide ongoing support and in-house training for homeroom teachers.
Research indicates that, to support language learners, teachers need training and time to
collaborate (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Heineke, 2019; Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010; Malo-
Juvera, 2018; Poekert, 2012). Without follow-up training and support, newly acquired skills are
unlikely to transfer to daily practice; therefore, these critical steps must be part of any training
plan (Chu & Flores, 2011; Figueroa & Newsome, 2006; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006, 2016).
Harnessing the strength of the performance goal, the organization must allocate resources to train
homeroom teachers on second language pedagogy to support ELLs. The funding must also be an
expectation and set in place. Equally important is the teachers’ investment in professional
learning. Building on self-efficacy as an asset, teachers will be reminded they are capable of
learning what is taught and transferring their learning to daily practice (Bandura 1997; Pajares
2006). Administrators and coaches will provide accurate and credible feedback on progress on
their learning and performance.
107

Table 12
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence
Priority
High
Low
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Settings
Teachers feel the
school has systems
in place to integrate
second language
pedagogy and
practices in
homeroom classes.
High
(Need)
Accountability is increased
when individual roles and
expectations are aligned with
organizational goals and
mission (Elmore, 2002).
Develop strategies to align
systems to integrate second
language pedagogy and
practices in homeroom
classes with organizational
goals.
Policies and
Procedures

Teachers know the
school has policies
and procedures in
place to support the
needs of ELLs.
Low
(Need)
Effective organizations
ensure that organizational
messages, rewards, policies,
and procedures that govern
the work of the organization
are aligned with or are
supportive of organizational
goals and values (Clark and
Estes, 2008).
Ensure policies and
procedures align with
supporting the needs of
English learners at our
school.
Resources
Teachers need
training and
professional
development to
support language
learners.

High
(Need)
Effective change efforts
ensure that everyone has the
resources needed to do their
job and that if there are
resource shortages, then
resources are aligned with
organizational priorities
(Clark and Estes, 2008).
Establish English
language learners as a
priority among school
initiatives.

Resources
Teachers need
follow-up training
and support to
transfer newly
learned teaching
strategies into their
practice to support
English learners.
High
(Need)
Effective change efforts
ensure that everyone has the
resources needed to do their
job, and that if there are
resource shortages, then
resources are aligned with
organizational priorities
(Clark and Estes, 2008).
Identify key stakeholders
whose current role supports
implementing practices to
support English language
learners and ensure they are
given the needed time to
coach and provide ongoing
support for homeroom
teachers.
108

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on the
original Kirkpatrick four-level model of evaluation of training programs (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2006), guided this implementation plan. In the New World Model, the
recommendation is to follow the plan in reverse, beginning with the end in mind: Level 4 results,
then Level 3 behaviors, Level 2, learning, and, finally, Level 1 reaction. This backward design
creates accountability and forces the organization to envision and plan for the intended
outcomes. In the following sections, Level 4 results are outlined first. Results are determined
after considering the mission and goals and for this study align with the stated organizational
goal. Level 3 is next and defines the critical behaviors stakeholders must perform consistently to
impact the intended results. Level 2 follows and defines the learning goals and the degree to
which stakeholders acquire the knowledge to achieve the intended results. Finally, Level 1
measures stakeholders’ satisfaction with the training. Implementing the New World Kirkpatrick
Model will foster value and buy-in from stakeholders and ground and guide the organization to
achieve the expected outcomes.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
MAA’s mission is to provide an American-based education to students with foreign
passports. Academic excellence, character education, and preparing students to thrive anywhere
in the world are the pillars of an MAA education. The language of instruction is English, and
80% of MAA’s students speak a language other than English at home. Mandarin classes are
included in the schedule for approximately 35 minutes each day to support students’ home
109

language. A foundational component of the past three strategic plans is to increase English
proficiency in all four language areas (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) for all students.
For MAA, with a student body consisting of 80% ELLs, the data from this evaluative
study will inform MAA’s decisions to support homeroom teachers and, most importantly, the
ELLs in their classes. Currently, 62% of students in preschool through Grade 3 who speak a
language other than English at home must rely on the homeroom teacher for this support, as they
do not qualify for the additional support of the EAL team. This study evaluated what the
homeroom teachers in each preschool through Grade 3 classroom need to support this 62% of
ELLs. The following implementation and evaluation plan will ensure that teachers are trained on
second language pedagogy and will implement strategies to provide ELLs with support in their
classrooms.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 13 shows the Level 4 leading indicators for the external and internal outcomes and
the metrics and methods to be used to measure them. Overall, Level 4 results measure the degree
to which MAA’s targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training plan.

110

Table 13
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
MAA teachers are leaders
in the region (and world)
with supporting ELLs
Number of teachers hosting
PD and workshops related to
supporting ELLs
Number of schools visiting
MAA to better understand our
program/practices
Number of invitations to speak
at conferences
Hosting PD events with full
enrollment; visits from other
schools to study our program
and practice
Families of ELLs know the
school has policies in place
to support their children.
Feedback from parents The Board of Directors
decides EAL services do not
require an additional fee

Internal Outcomes
Implementation of research-
based instructional
strategies by homeroom
teachers to support ELLs in
all preschool-grade three
classes
Number of strategies outlined
in lesson planning
Number of strategies observed
during class observations
Classroom observations
Review of lesson plans
Attend collaboration meetings
All preschool through
Grade 3 homeroom teachers
analyze students’ oral and
written English language to
inform instruction.
Number of pieces of writing
analyzed by each teacher
Number of recordings of
students’ oral language
analyzed by each teacher
Review of lesson plans
Attend collaboration planning
meetings
Review student files
Internal Outcomes
Collaboration model is
implemented in all
preschool through grade
three homerooms to support
ELLs
Frequency of collaboration
meetings for each homeroom
teacher
Frequency of co-teaching in
each of the homeroom classes
during the ten day schedules.
Class observations
Meeting minutes
Attend collaboration
planning meetings
Preschool through Grade 3
teachers understand the
principles of language
proficiency and use this
knowledge to inform
instruction for ELLs.
Frequency of use of
terminology associated with
principles of language
proficiency during planning
meetings
Collaboration meeting
minutes
Attend collaboration
planning meetings

111

Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
The stakeholders of focus are the homeroom teachers in preschool through Grade 3 at
MAA, and the behaviors noted in Table 14 are critical for this group if MAA is to reach its goal.
These behaviors will have the largest impact on our Level 4 desired results. Table 14 also
specifies the metrics, methods, and timing for evaluating each of these critical behaviors. Each
critical behavior is specific, observable, and measurable and will most influence Level 4 results.

Table 14
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Principles of language
proficiency and
second language
pedagogy inform
instruction where
research-based
strategies are
implemented.
Number of teachers
who are implementing
Number of different
strategies that being
implemented

Class observations
Lesson plans
Daily
Grade level teams will
conduct co-planning
meetings that include
plans for co-teaching,
co-assessing and
reflection.
Number of co-
planning meetings on
teachers’ schedules.
Number of times
classes are co-taught.
Number of times co-
assessment takes
place for each
homeroom teacher.
Meeting meetings
shared with Admin and
Coaches
Admin and/or Coaches
to attend meetings
At least once in a
ten-day cycle.
Analysis of oral and
written language to
inform their
instruction and create
target teaching points
for students.
Number of homeroom
teachers conducting
language analysis.
Number of pieces of
written language and
oral language
analyzed for each
student
Admin and/or Coaches
to attend meetings and
analysis work sessions.
Meeting minutes

Quarterly
112

Required Drivers
To influence the achievement of the critical behaviors, required drivers reinforce,
monitor, encourage, and reward performance of the critical behaviors. Table 15 identifies and
categorizes the required drivers, the timing, and the specific critical behavior each driver
supports. These required drivers and the active monitoring help hold us accountable to ensure the
on-the-job application of what is learned during training.

113

Table 15
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job Aids: levels and principles
of language proficiency, lists
of research-based strategies,
worked examples for
language analysis
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Coaching to support planning
and instruction
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Administrators and team
members listen to challenges
and problem solve together
Once in a ten-day cycle 1, 2, 3
Feedback from coaches on
what is working well and plan
together for the next steps.
Twice per month 1, 2, 3
Informal feedback from
administrators that
acknowledges the effort.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
“Teaching Spotlight” in our
divisional weekly bulletin that
is shared with faculty and
administrators.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Personalized, handwritten
letter from administrator
recognizing the effort and
work.
Regularly 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Observations by
administrators
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Review meeting minutes Every ten-day cycle 1, 2
Touch bases/meetings with
teachers, coaches, and
administrators.
Once per ten-day cycle 1, 2, 3

114

Organizational Support
The critical behaviors in Table 14 and the required drivers in Table 15 rely on the
recommendations at the organizational level. To meet the organizational goal and address the
validated gaps, organizational support is critical. Cultural settings, resources, and policies and
procedures at MAA must be aligned with the organizational performance goal that preschool
through Grade 3 teachers will be trained on second language pedagogy to provide ELLs with
support in their homerooms. The data analysis from Chapter Four found teachers are motivated
and confident, feel positive about implementing strategies to support their language learners, and
value supporting their ELLs. However, these motivated teachers have gaps in their knowledge
that need to be addressed, and the organization must align its systems and policies and allocate
resources to support this important work. Specifically, the current system has students spending a
small fraction of their time with an EAL specialist to support their language acquisition. Building
capacity in homeroom teachers to provide second language acquisition support allows ELLs
access to targeted instruction to meet their needs throughout their school day. Establishing ELLs
as a priority among school initiatives will allow teachers to receive the needed training and
follow-up support to ensure their learning transfers to benefit the students.
Ensuring policies and procedures align with supporting English learners’ needs at MAA
is critical to achieving the organizational performance goal. Evidence from interviews and
document analysis in Chapter Four found a specific policy, charging ELLs’ parents an additional
fee for up to two years on top of tuition, not to align with supporting our ELLs. Clark and Estes
(2008) remind us that effective organizations ensure that organizational policies align and
support organizational goals and values. Fifty percent of interview participants found this policy
115

to not align with supporting our ELLs, as it creates added stress for students as their parents
pressure them to learn.
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals
The following learning goals were developed based on the validated needs from Chapter
Four. Upon completion of the recommended solutions, homeroom teachers at MAA will be able
to:
1. Explain the research-based strategies that support second language development (F)
2. Understand the principles of language proficiency as outlined in the WIDA framework
(F)
3. Explain the different levels of language proficiency as outlined in the WIDA framework.
(C)
4. Understand collaborative and co-teaching practices (C)
5. Analyze students’ oral and written language (P)
6. Self-reflect on the effectiveness of their teaching practices for their ELLs (M)
Program
The training program will be in response to the stakeholder’s goal that 100% of
homeroom teachers in preschool through Grade 3, supported by the EAL teachers and the
administration, will use their training to implement strategies to support ELLs. However, training
will be a multi-pronged approach, as some will be outsourced and some will take place in-house
led by the EAL team and coordinator.
This evaluation and implementation plan will focus on the necessary training for
homeroom teachers on second language pedagogy and language proficiency principles. This
116

training will be outsourced for homeroom teachers in preschool through Grade 3. Also attending
the training will be the EAL team, as they are a source of support and will provide post-training
coaching. Instructional coaches, and administrators will also attend the training.
MAA will elicit the EAL team’s expertise and their coordinator for homeroom teacher
training to analyze students’ oral and written language. Working side-by-side with homeroom
teachers, EAL specialists will target training to the teacher’s needs, provide worked examples,
and provide the necessary learning validated as a need in this study. This training, individualized
to meet the homeroom teachers where they are with their learning, will be ongoing, monitored,
and regularly evaluated by administrators.
EAL teachers and their coordinator have already been trained with the collaboration and
co-teaching model. They will work with homeroom teachers to introduce the practices of co-
planning, co-teaching, co-assessing, and reflection on their teaching. Implementation will occur
once the co-teaching teams have established their preferred model, and timelines will be flexible.
Follow-up and feedback from this training will be informal and observed by administrators.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
Evaluating homeroom teachers’ learning for declarative and procedural knowledge is
important, as this knowledge is the foundation for the expected application. It is also important to
assess teachers’ value, confidence, and commitment to ensure motivation isn’t detracting from
learning. As the data verified in Chapter Four, motivation is an asset among the study
participants. It is crucial to continue to assess this important influence with the entire group of
stakeholders. Table 16 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these components of learning.

117

Table 16
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Explaining key components of research-based
strategies that support second language
development.
During and after
Explaining the principles of language
proficiency as outlined in the WIDA
framework.
During and after
Explaining the different levels of language
proficiency as outlined in the WIDA
framework.
During and after
Understands collaborative and co-teaching
practices.
During and after
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Analyze students’ oral and written language. During and after
Self-reflect on the effectiveness of teaching
practices for ELLs.
After training
Implement research-based strategies to support
ELLs.
After training and ongoing
Co-plan, co-teach, and co-assess After training and ongoing
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Pre and post-survey of homeroom teachers
from initial training regarding attitudes.
Before and after training
Discussions at the team level about the value
and rationale for the learning.
Before and after training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Post survey of teachers with likert scaled items
related to confidence.
After training
Discussions within the team and with the coach After training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Goal setting After training and ongoing to monitor
progress
Observations by coaches and/or admin After training and ongoing to monitor
progress

118

Level 1: Reaction
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), Level 1, reaction, refers to the degree
to which participants find the training useful and applicable to their work. Table 17 lists the
methods used to determine the teachers’ reactions to the training program regarding engagement,
relevance, and satisfaction.

Table 17
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observations of how present and attentive
teachers are during the training (Admin).
During
Feedback from instructor(s) regarding
participant engagement.
During
Relevance
Discussions with teachers regarding using this
new learning.
During the training and ongoing at team
meetings
Check-ins by instructor during training to
gauge relevance.
During training
Anonymous survey on relevance of training to
classroom instruction.
After training sessions
Customer Satisfaction
Feedback from instructor During
Feedback from teachers via survey to elicit
ideas about what is going well and what
suggestions they have to improve the
experience.
During

119

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Training
Applying the blended evaluation methodology (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016),
valuable data about the training’s effectiveness will be collected. To assess Level 1 (engagement,
relevance, and customer satisfaction) and Level 2 (declarative knowledge, procedural skills,
attitude, confidence, and commitment) and to measure anticipated application and outcomes, an
evaluation tool (Appendix E) could be used immediately following the program training.
Participants will complete this anonymous survey to provide immediate feedback to
administrators. Additionally, the training instructor will conduct check-ins to ask for feedback,
address questions and ask teachers if the learning is relevant to their daily work. Administrators
and coaches will have discussions with teachers during the training to check in about
engagement during the learning and immediately afterward to learn opinions about relevance.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Appendix F outlines potential survey items regarding Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 that could be
used approximately six weeks after the training. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend
evaluating the impact of the training program after a lapsed period of time to allow participants
to reflect on the impact and allow time for drivers and critical behaviors to take effect. The
evaluation tool is designed to obtain feedback regarding Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4. Open-ended
questions allow participants to provide feedback regarding additional support they might need
and identify any implementation barriers.
Data Analysis and Reporting
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), data should be gathered and analyzed
throughout the implementation process to allow supervisors to influence what is happening for
120

short-term and long-term desired results. The data collected via the suggested tool in Appendix E
will be shared with the stakeholders within days of completing the training at grade-level team
meetings. The Likert-type responses will be presented using pie charts, and the open-ended
responses will be categorized by theme and shared with the charts. The same system will be used
for sharing data with the stakeholders for the delayed survey in Appendix F. Data from informal
class observations charting the various strategies used with students will also be collected and
shared with grade-level teams. Additionally, during grade-level planning meetings, teams will
share their celebrations and challenges about implementation, and these data will be collected on
shared documents for all stakeholders to access. The goal of collecting, analyzing, and sharing
data is to monitor progress toward the performance and stakeholder goal. Stakeholder buy-in,
encouragement, monitoring, and reinforcement are essential to reach the goal. Keeping them
involved and engaged with charting the progress and feedback on goal attainment can lead to
positive results.
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was the framework for the integrated implementation
and evaluation plan to address recommended solutions to the validated gaps identified through
the data analysis in Chapter Four (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Their work highlights three
reasons to evaluate training programs: to improve the program, maximize the transfer of learning
to behavior, and demonstrate the value of training to the organization. Overall, when
organizations identify gaps and address the problem with training, the training program’s
implementation is expected to make a measurable difference in the organization’s goals and
results.
121

Adhering to the recommendation to use the training evaluation plan in reverse, the
leading indicators for goal attainment were identified in Level 4. Critical behaviors and the
required drivers to achieve those goals were outlined for Level 3, and the critical details
regarding organizational support and alignment of goals were identified. Learning goals and
evaluating the learning program are outlined in the section dedicated to Level 2. Finally,
outlining a plan to measure reactions to the training program completed the implementation and
evaluation plan for Level 1.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend collecting, analyzing, and sharing data
continuously through the training and implementation process. Possible data collection tools,
Appendices E and F, will provide data immediately after the training and six weeks post-training.
As data are collected and analyzed, observations and discussions with stakeholders will
determine the need for additional data collection tools to be used as we work toward the common
goal of providing improved instruction for students who speak a language other than English at
home.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework provided a process for evaluating
gaps related to knowledge, motivation, and the organization. That framework informed how the
research was organized and sorted in Chapter Two as well as the data collection tools identified
in Chapter Three and utilized in Chapter Four. The gap analysis informed the recommendations
in this chapter. This chapter introduced the New World Kirkpatrick Model, a methodological
framework designed to maximize the results of training plans to allow organizations to receive
the greatest return on their investment.
122

The strengths of the gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) include seeing all aspects of an
organization through the KMO lens: the assets and the needs. This approach allows the
organization to find the root causes of gaps in knowledge, motivation, and the organization and
further understand their interconnectedness. For this study, the approach brought to light assets
and needs to help move the school toward achieving its goal.
Well-aligned with the gap analysis, the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) seamlessly accepted into the various evaluation levels the KMO validated
needs and gaps identified in Chapter Four. Creating an evaluation plan in reverse also aligned
with the gap analysis and served as an effective way to organize the training and overall
evaluation plan’s targeted outcomes. The next step is for MAA to implement the recommended
plan to address the gaps with achieving its organizational goal.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are imitations to this study. MAA was the only school examined for the study, and
the stakeholder sample was small. Both of these factors might reduce the findings’ validity. Of
the 30 stakeholders, 10 participated in the study. While the targeted number of participants was
nine, which was exceeded, this is still a limitation, as a larger group of participants would
provide a broadened data set to analyze. Examining only one school is a limitation. A larger
context could broaden the data scope and provide deeper insights into the KMO challenges of
supporting ELLs. Further, this study’s author holds a leadership position at MAA, which could
result in a biased interpretation of the data.
Recommendations for Future Research
This evaluation study analyzed the KMO influences impacting MAA’s ability of to reach
its organizational goal of providing improved instruction for students who speak a language
123

other than English at home. The stakeholder group of focus was the homeroom teachers, and the
study identified gaps with knowledge about supporting language acquisition within the
homeroom class. Future research could focus on other grade levels at international schools and
study how and by whom all language learners receive second language acquisition support.
Another study could focus on a group on international schools for best practices for supporting
second language acquisition and how schools are harnessing the power of students’ bilingualism
and multilingualism to inform instruction. Research could also focus on what international
schools need to promote students’ full linguistic capabilities to allow for effective
communication in the language of instruction while celebrating their home language. Research
can determine how prepared teachers are worldwide to create classrooms where bilingual and
multilingual students are safe to take risks when learning and synthesizing languages. Future
research could also focus on how teachers can support ELLs’ social and emotional needs as they
acquire the language of instruction.
Conclusion
The goal of MAA is to provide improved instruction for students who speak a language
other than English at home. While all stakeholders’ joint efforts contribute to achieving the
organizational goal, the stakeholder of focus for this study was the homeroom teachers in
preschool through Grade 3, as they engage the students in learning for the longest time each day.
With a student population consisting of 80% ELLs, this evaluation study was an important step
to informing stakeholders of the knowledge and organizational gaps at MAA while
acknowledging motivated teachers as an asset. ELLs are a growing population in schools
worldwide, as noted in Chapter 1, and schools must be prepared to support and celebrate
students’ language learning; at MAA the majority of the students are language learners. As
124

noted in the literature review in Chapter Two of this study, teacher preparation and instructional
practices influence ELLs' achievement. This study found the homeroom teachers at MAA do not
have the knowledge, preparation, and instructional strategies to support their ELLs. When
teachers lack knowledge and preparation to support ELLs, schools must prioritize professional
training and ensuring the transfer of the training to daily practice. Schools cannot assume
teachers have the knowledge and pedagogical practices to support ELLs. This study's findings
confirm knowledge gaps for MAA’s preschool through grade 3 teachers regarding second
language pedagogy and practices for ELLs. With 80% of MAA’s students identified as language
learners, homeroom teachers must have the capacity to support their needs. At the conclusion of
this evaluation study, there is a clear plan for addressing the identified gaps and moving the
school forward with supporting second language learners by building teachers’ capacity. There
will always be more work to do as students and their needs should always be at the center, and
schools must do everything possible to meet all of their needs.

125

References
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2018). Colleges of education: A
national portrait. https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=4178&ref=rl.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: A
report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth.
Erlbaum.
Aukerman, M. (2007). A culpable CALP: Rethinking the conversational/academic language
proficiency distinction in early literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 626–
635. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.60.7.3
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bauler, C., & Kang, E. (2020). Elementary ESOL and content teachers’ resilient co-teaching
practices: A long-term analysis. International Multilingual Research Journal, 14(1), 339–
354. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2020.1747163
Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children ’s learning: Vygotsky and early
childhood education. National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2013). A theoretical framework for
early English language development standards for dual language learners.
https://wida.wisc.edu/resources/theoretical-framework-early-english-language-
development-e-eld

126

Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2017). Identifying ELLs with specific
learning disabilities: facts, advice and resources for school teams. https://wida.wisc.edu/
sites/default/files/resource/FocusOn-Identifying-ELLs-with-Specific-Learning-
Disabilities.pdf
Boloz, S. A. (1981). The GLAD Project: Energizing language. (ED214734). ERIC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED214734
Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Brechtel, M. (2001). Bringing it all together: Language and literacy in the multilingual
classroom (Rev. ed.). Dominie Press.
Brooke, E. (2017). Empowering teacher effectiveness: Five Key factors for success. Lexia
Learning. https://www.lexialearning.com/resources/white-papers/teacher-effectiveness
Burchard, M., Dormer, J., & Fisler, J. (2017). Interactions between Teachers’ Attribution for
Student Learning and Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices. AASA Journal of
Scholarship & Practice, 14(3), 28–44.
Carjuzaa, J., Ruff, W., & Lamb, S. (2016). American Indian English language learners:
Misunderstood and under-served. Cogent Education, 3(1), 11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1229897
Carter, P., & Welner, K. (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give
every child an even chance. Oxford University Press.,
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199982981.001.0001
Chen, C., Kyle, D. W., & McIntyre, E. (2008). Helping teachers work effectively with English
language learners and their families. School Community Journal, 18(1), 7–20.
127

Chu, S., & Flores, S. (2011). Assessment of English language learners with learning disabilities.
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(6), 244–
248. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2011.590550
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age.
Cohen, D. K., & Bhatt, M. P. (2012). The importance of infrastructure development to high-
quality literacy instruction. The Future of Children, 22(2), 117–138.
https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2012.0012
Cox, D. D. (2005). Evidence-based interventions using home-school collaboration. School
Psychology Quarterly, 20(4), 473–497. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.2005.20.4.473
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the
optimum age question and some other matters. (Working Papers on Bilingualism, No.
19). Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Cummins, J. (2001). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard
Educational Review, 71(4), 649–676.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.71.4.j261357m62846812
Daniel, S. M. (2014). Learning to educate English language learners in pre-service elementary
practicums. Teacher Education Quarterly, 41(2), 5.
de Jong, E., & Harper, C. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners:
Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101–124.
128

Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2009). Social cognitive theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Dormer, J. (2013). Improving Speaking Accuracy through Awareness. Journal of Adult
Education, 42(1), 16–22.
Dillman, D., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode
surveys: the tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2000). Making content comprehensible for English
language learners: The SIOP Model. Allyn & Bacon.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2010). Making content comprehensible for elementary
English learners: The SIOP Model. Pearson.
Education Commission of the States. (2020). Fifty state comparison. https://internal-
search.ecs.org/comparisons/50-state-comparison-english-learner-policies-11.
Ehri, L. C., & Flugman, B. (2018). Mentoring teachers in systematic phonics instruction:
Effectiveness of an intensive year-long program for kindergarten through 3rd grade
teachers and their students. Reading and Writing, 31(2), 425–456.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9792-7
Elfers, A., & 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
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Wiley.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Albert Shanker Institute.
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/shanker/files/Bridging_Gap.pdf
129

Figueroa, R. A., & Newsome, P. (2006). The diagnosis of LD in English learners: Is it
nondiscriminatory? Pro-Ed Inc.
Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (6th ed.). SAGE.
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language
diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171.
https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149
Fond, M., Smirnova, M., Gerstein Pineau, M., & Sweetland, J. (2017). When more means less:
Mapping the gaps between expert and public understandings of dual language learners.
FrameWorks Institute.
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
Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse
students: Setting the stage. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 15(6), 613–629.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English
language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499913
Glossary of Education Reform. (2014). Dual-language education. In edglossary.org glossary.
Retrieved January 10, 2021, from https://www.edglossary.org/dual-language-education/
Goldenburg, C. (2010). Improving achievement for English learners: Conclusions from recent
reviews of emerging research. In G. Li & P. A. Edwards (Eds.), Best Practices in ELL
Instruction (pp. 15–43). The Guilford Press.
130

Good, M., Masewicz, S., & Vogel, L. (2010). Latino English language learners: Bridging
achievement and cultural gaps between schools and families. Journal of Latinos and
Education, 9(4), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2010.491048
Gort, M. (2003). Transdisciplinary approaches in the education of ELLs. In D. Kaufman, D.
Moss, & T. A. Osborn (Eds.), Beyond the boundaries: A transdisciplinary approach to
learning and teaching (pp. 117-130). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
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
Halle, T., Hair, E., Wandner, L., McNamara, M., & Chien, N. (2011). Predictors and outcomes
of early versus later English language proficiency among English language learners.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.07.004
He, Y., Prater, K., & Steed, T. (2011). Moving beyond just good teaching: ESL professional
development for all teachers. Professional Development in Education, 37(1), 7–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415250903467199
Heineke, A. J., Papola-Ellis, A., Davin, K. J., Cohen, S., Roudebush, A., Wright-Costello, B., &
Fendt, C. (2019). Language matters: Developing educators’ expertise for english learners
in linguistically diverse communities. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 32(1), 63-77.
doi:10.1080/07908318.2018.1493493

131

Helman, L., & Burns, M. (2008). What does oral language have to do with it? Helping young
English-language learners acquire a sight word vocabulary: becoming proficient readers
who not only decode but also understand what they are reading is a crucial goal for young
English-language learner students, and a sight word vocabulary that can be used in fluent
reading is an important component of this proficiency. The Reading Teacher, 62(1), 14–.
Hernández, A., Bonscher, S., Recio, P., Esquivel, J., & Hererra, M. (2019). Crossing over:
Professional development opportunities with preservice teachers and public school
students in dual-language classrooms. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based
Language Education, 7(1), 88–114. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17018.her
Hoff, R. (2017). Improving outcomes for English language learners by integrating social studies
and literacy with OCDE Project GLAD strategies. The New Educator: Developing an
Inquiry Stance Toward Instructional Improvement: Teacher Leader Action Research,
13(2), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2016.1144123
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2010). Collaboration and co-teaching: Strategies for English
learners. SAGE.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2018). Co-teaching for English learners: A Guide to
Collaborative Planning, Instruction, Assessment, and Reflection. Corwin.
Howard, T. C. (2018). Capitalizing on culture: Engaging young learners in diverse Classrooms.
YC Young Children, 73(2), 24–33.
Hurwitz, A., & Olsen, L. (2018). Supporting dual language learner success in superdiverse
PreK-3 classrooms: The Sobrato Early Academic Language Model. Migration Policy
Institute.
132

Johannessen, B. G. G., Thorsos, N., & Dickinson, G. (2016). Current conditions of bilingual
teacher preparation programs in public universities in USA. Education and Society,
34(2), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.7459/es/34.2.03
Keller‐Margulis, M. (2012). Fidelity of implementation framework: A critical need for response
to intervention models. Psychology in the Schools, 49(4), 342–352.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21602
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Berrett-
Koehler.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick ’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. Pergamon Press.
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
Kraut, R., Chandler, T., & Hertenstein, K. (2016). The interplay of teacher training, access to
resources, years of experience and professional development in tertiary ESL reading
teachers’ perceived self- efficacy. Gist: Education and Learning Research Journal, 12,
132–151. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=5560190
Learning Policy Institute. (2016). Uncertified teachers and teacher vacancies by state.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/uncertified-teachers-and-teacher-vacancies-state
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2015). Sobrato Family Foundation Early Academic and Literacy Project
after five full years of implementation: Final research report. Sobrato Family
Foundation.
133

Linn, D., & Hemmer, L. (2011). English language learner disproportionality in special education:
Implications for the scholar practitioner. Journal of Educational Research and Practice,
1(1), 70–80.
Loeb, S., Soland, J., & Fox, L. (2014). Is a good teacher a good teacher for all? Comparing
value-added of teachers with their English learners and non-English learners. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 457–475.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714527788
MacSwan, J. (2018). Academic English as standard language ideology: A renewed research
agenda for asset-based language education. Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 28–36.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777540
Malo-Juvera, V., Correll, P., & Cantrell, S. (2018). A mixed methods investigation of teachers’
self-efficacy for culturally responsive instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74,
146–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.05.003
Master, B., Loeb, S., Whitney, C., & Wyckoff, J. (2016). Different skills? Identifying
differentially effective teachers of English language learners. The Elementary School
Journal, 117(2), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1086/688871
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass
Michalak, D. F. (1981). The neglected half of training. Training and Development Journal,
35(5), 22–28.
Milner, H. R., IV. (2012). Beyond a test score: Explaining opportunity gaps in educational
practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 693–718.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934712442539
134

Milner, H. R., IV. (2013). Analyzing poverty, learning, and teaching through a critical race
theory lens. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 1–53.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12459720
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). Nation ’s report card. https://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/pubs/main2005/2006451.asp
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2017). Nation ’s report card.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2017_highlights/
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2019). Nation ’s report card.
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). The condition of education, 2018. U.S.
Department of Education.
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2020). What is RTI?
http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2019). English learners and
instructional programs. https://ncela.ed.gov/files/fast_facts/19-
0353_Del4.4_InstructionalPrograms_122319_508.pdf
National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). English language learners: A policy research
brief. https://cdn.ncte.org/nctefiles/resources/policyresearch/ellresearchbrief.pdf
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2014). Teacher prep review: A review of the nation ’s
teacher preparation programs. https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher_Prep_
Review_2014_Report
135

Nguyen, H. (2012). General education and special education teachers collaborate to support
English language learners with learning disabilities. Issues in Teacher Education, 21(1),
127–151.
O’Day, J. (2009). Good instruction is good for everyone-or is it? English language learners in a
balanced literacy approach. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(1), 97-
119.
Olsen, L. (2014). The California campaign for biliteracy. Californians Together.
Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., Wilkinson, C. Y., Liu, Y., McGhee, B., & Kushner, M. I. (2011).
The role of bilingual education teachers in preventing inappropriate referrals of ELLs to
special education: Implications for response to intervention. Bilingual Research Journal,
34(3), 316–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2011.628608
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Park, S. (2019). Disentangling language from disability: Teacher implementation of Tier 1
English language development policies for ELs with suspected disabilities. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 80, 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.02.004
Peercy, M., & Martin-Beltrán, M. (2012). Envisioning collaboration: Including ESOL students
and teachers in the mainstream classroom. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
16(7), 657–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.495791
Peercy, M., Martin-Beltrán, M., Silverman, R., & Nunn, S. (2015). “Can I Ask a Question?”:
ESOL and mainstream teachers engaging in distributed and distributive learning to
support English language learners’ text comprehension. Teacher Education Quarterly,
42(4), 33–58.
136

Pekrun, R. (2007). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: An integrative approach
to emotions in education. In R. Schulze & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Emotional intelligence:
An international handbook (pp. 13–36). Hogrefe & Huber.
Pereira, N., & de Oliveira, L. (2015). Meeting the linguistic needs of high-potential English
language learners: What teachers need to know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47, 208–
215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915569362
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
Poekert, P. (2012). Examining the Impact of Collaborative Professional Development on Teacher
Practice. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(4), 97–118.
Robinson, S., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE.
Roblero, B. (2013). The importance of preparing teachers to educate vulnerable populations.
Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 25, 97.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Salas, E., Wilson, K., Priest, H., & Guthrie, J. (2006). Design, delivery, and evaluation of
training systems. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (3rd
ed., pp. 472–512). Wiley.
Samson, J., & Collins, B. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language
learners. Targeted News Service. (ED535608) ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535608.pdf
137

Santos, M., Darling-Hammond, L., & Cheuk, T. (2012). Teacher development to support English
language learners in the context of common core state standards. Stanford Graduate
School of Education. https://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academic-papers/10-
Santos%20LDH%20Teacher%20Development%20FINAL.pdf
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications (4th ed.). Merrill Prentice Hall.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Scott, S. & Palinscar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/
Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1997). Two languages are better than one. Educational Leadership,
55(4), 23–26.
Thompson, K. D. (2015). English learners’ time to reclassification an analysis. Educational
Policy, 31(3), 330–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815598394
Tienken, C., & Zhao, Y. (2013). How common standards and standardized testing widen the
opportunity gap. In P. L. Carter & K. G. Weiner (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap:
What America must do to give every child a chance (pp. 111–122).
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199982981.003.0008
Turkan, S., & Buzick, H. (2016). Complexities and Issues to Consider in the Evaluation of
Content Teachers of English Language Learners. Urban Education, 51(2), 221–248.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914543111
138

Umansky, I. M., & Reardon, S. F. (2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English learner
students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American
Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 879–912.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214545110
United States Department of Education. (2016). Teacher shortage areas nationwide listing 1990–
1991 through 2016–2017. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.pdf
United States Department of Education. (2017). SY 2015-2016 Consolidated State Performance
Reports Part I. https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/ sy15-
16part1/index.html#ca
United States Department of Education. (2020). Developing programs for English language
learners: Glossary. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/glossary.html
Valentino, R. A., & Reardon, S. F. (2015). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed
to serve English learners variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 612–637.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715573310
Van Roekel, N. (2008). English language learners face unique challenges. An NEA Policy
Brief. National Education Association.
Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan‐Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard‐Durodola, S.,
Cardenas‐Hagan, E., & Francis, D. (2006) Effectiveness of an English intervention for
first‐grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. The Elementary School
Journal, 107(2), 153–180.https://doi.org/10.1086/510653
139

Wiener, B. (2005). Motivation from an attribution perspective and the social psychology of
perceived competence. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation (pp. 73–84). Guilford Press.
Wisconsin Center for Education Research. (n.d.). About. https://wida.wisc.edu/about/history
Ybarra, C., Jung, A., & Cote, D. (2015). Reading Achievement of English Learners Who
Participated in the Response to Intervention Model. NABE Journal of Research and
Practice, 6(1), 193–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/26390043.2015.12067788
Yeung, S. S. (2018). Second language learners who are at-risk for reading disabilities: A growth
mixture model study. Research in Developmental Disabilities. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 78, 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.05.001
Yoon, B. (2008). Uninvited Guests: The influence of teachers’ roles and pedagogies on the
positioning of English language learners in the regular classroom. American Educational
Research Journal, 45(2), 495–522. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208316200
Zwiers, J. (2007). Teacher practices and perspectives for developing academic language.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 93–116.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2007.00135.x
Zwiers, J. (2019). Next steps with academic conversations: new ideas for improving learning
through classroom talk. Stenhouse.
Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic Conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical
thinking and content understanding. Stenhouse.
Zwiers, J., & Hamerla, S. (2018). Academic conversations: Practices, scaffolds, and activities.
Corwin.
140

Zwiers, J., & Soto, I. (2017). Academic language mastery: Conversational discourse in context.
Corwin. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506338033

141

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Safety Protocol: The interviewer and interviewee will wear protective masks and will remain at
least six feet apart during the interview process.
Introduction: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this voluntary discussion about English
learners at our school. My name is ______, and I am assisting Tara Simeonidis with data
gathering for a doctoral study through the University of Southern California. I want to express
Tara’s gratitude for agreeing to participate in her research. She would like to thank you for
taking the time out of your extremely busy schedule to meet with me as her co-investigator. As
Tara’s co-investigator, I would like to emphasize that I am only acting in the role of collecting
data for the study. The information you share with me will be placed in her study as part of the
data collection. This study’s purpose is to evaluate homeroom teachers’ knowledge, motivation,
and organizational resources regarding English learners, and your responses will allow for the
development of recommendations for improving the overall learning experience of English
learners.
Everything you say during this interview will be kept confidential, and the responses to
this data collection will be used only for research and educational purposes. Tara may choose to
utilize a direct quote from you in her study, but she will not know your name and make the best
effort possible to remove any potentially identifying data information. Your name will not appear
in any published documentation, and throughout the interview, I will use a pseudonym in place
of your real name. I would like to record this meeting and ask your permission to do so, as this
will allow for accurately capturing your ideas. PAUSE TO HEAR THE RESPONSE
REGARDING PERMISSION TO RECORD. The recording will be heard only by me and will
not be shared with Tara. All identifying information will be removed before the information is
142

stored and shared in a transcript. If you want to review/edit the recordings or transcripts, please
let me know at the end of the interview. The recording will be destroyed after two years from the
date of Tara’s dissertation defense is approved. The interview will take approximately 60
minutes. Before we begin with the interview, tell me about what drew you to teach here. As we
begin, think about the English learners in your classroom - how many of your students are
English learners?
Interview Questions:
1. Tell me about a time you felt confident about how you supported English learners in your
classroom? Please talk through a time you felt less confident. (M-Self-Efficacy)
2. Describe how confident you are in your ability to differentiate instruction for your
English learners? (M-Self-Efficacy)
3. Tell me some of the research-based teaching strategies that support second language
development. (K-Declarative/Factual)
4. What is the difference between academic and social language? (K-Declarative/Factual)
5. What do you know about WIDA and the different levels of language proficiency? (K-
Declarative/Factual)
6. Describe a student at one of the levels of WIDA language proficiency. (K-
Declarative/Conceptual)
7. This is a three-part question: Based on the student you described, why did you place them
at that level of proficiency? How did you arrive at this conclusion? What tools or
evidence did you use? (K-Procedural)
8. This is also a three-part question: Thinking about the student you described, what
instructional strategies did you use to support them to get to the next proficiency levels?
143

How were those strategies similar or different for a student at a different proficiency level
in your class? Do you have the support you need to do this type of analysis? (K-
Procedural)
9. Thinking about the student you described, did they move to the next proficiency level or
make measurable progress towards the next level? (K-Metacognitive)
10. If you had to explain collaboration and co-teaching to someone, what would you say? (K-
Declarative/Conceptual)
11. Can you tell me about a time when you valued working collaboratively to help your
English learners and why that was valuable? (M-Value)
12. What kind of collaborative planning time, if any, does our school provide? (O-Resources)
13. Tell me about a time when you felt positive about implementing the necessary strategies
to support English learners. (M-Affect)
14. As a homeroom teacher, do you see personal value in supporting English learners? Please
explain. Is it the responsibility of all teachers to teach English learners? Please explain.
(M-Value)
15. Describe how you feel about using your class teaching time to support English learners.
(M-Affect)
16. What training have you received to support your English learners? (O-Resources)
17. What follow-up support do you receive after training to support English learners? Probe:
Are there coaches or other teachers who support the work you do for your English
learners? (O-Resources)
18. What are some of the policies and procedures we have at our school that support the
needs of English learners? Probe: Please explain (O-Policies, Processes, Procedures)
144

19. Are there policies and procedures that don’t support the needs of English learners? Probe:
Explain (O-Policies, Processes, Procedures)
20. What processes are in place that support instructional and assessment goals for English
learners? What other processes are needed to support these goals? (O-Policies, Processes,
Procedures)
21. What systems does our school have in place to integrate second language pedagogy and
practices in homeroom classes? (O-Cultural Setting)
22. Does our school value professional learning to support English learners? If yes, tell me
how this is demonstrated? If no, please explain. (O-Cultural Model)
23. Is our school aligned with your commitment to supporting English learners? Please
explain. (O-Policies, Processes, Procedures)
24. Can you think of a time when you noticed our school culture supporting English learners?
Please explain. (O-Cultural Model)
Conclusion: We have reached the end of the prepared questions. Is there anything else you
would like to add about the homeroom teacher’s role in supporting English learners?
Thank you for participating, and feel free to contact me directly should you have any questions
or anything more that you would like to add. My contact information is: _______.

145

Appendix B: Document Analysis Influence Assessment
Protocol: To conduct the document analysis, the following questions will be asked to determine
whether the KMO influences are present, and comments will be added to help with coding and
theme identification.
Meeting Minutes/Agendas: Is there evidence from homeroom teachers in the team
meeting minutes that these topics were covered?
Teacher resources/Handbooks/Website/Manuals: Is there evidence these resources
include these topics? Is there evidence that the manuals include policies, processes, procedures,
and systems to support the needs of English learners and their teachers? Is there evidence that
homeroom teachers know how to access these resources?
Student records/Assessments/Communications: Is there evidence that homeroom teachers
are referencing the terminology and various knowledge influences in student
records/assessments?
Professional Development Plans/Feedback forms/Budgets: Is there evidence that
professional development plans have been implemented to support homeroom teachers with
pedagogy and instructional practices to support second language acquisition? Is there evidence of
investment in resources in professional development? Is there evidence in the feedback that
homeroom teachers self-reflect regarding these teaching practices?
Schedules: Is there evidence of collaborative meeting time?
Strategic Planning Documents/Curriculum Maps/Communications: Is there evidence the
school makes supporting second language learning a priority?

146

Table B1
Document Analysis
Assumed Influence Documents to Analyze Present Yes/No Comments
Knowledge:

Factual: Teachers
know the difference
between academic and
social language.

Meeting minutes
Student records

Factual: Teachers
know the different
levels of language
proficiency, as
outlined in the WIDA
framework and the
seminal work of
Krashen and Terrell.

Print and digital teacher
resources
Student records

Conceptual: Teachers
understand
collaborative
instructional practices

Professional
development plans
Print and digital teacher
resources
Meeting minutes
EAL Program
Handbook

Conceptual: Teachers
need to understand
principles of language
proficiency, as
outlined in the WIDA
framework

Print and digital teacher
resources
EAL Program
Handbook

Procedural: Teachers
need to know how to
analyze students’ oral
and written English
language

Print and digital teacher
resources
Meeting minutes
Student records
Assessments

147

Assumed Influence Documents to Analyze Present Yes/No Comments
Knowledge:

Procedural: Teachers
need to know how to
implement research-
based instructional
strategies to support
ELLs effectively.
Print and digital teacher
resources
Meeting minutes
EAL Program
Handbook
Student records

Metacognitive:
Teachers need to self-
reflect on the
effectiveness of their
teaching practices for
their ELLs.

Meeting minutes
Lesson Plans
Classroom observation
notes

Motivation:

Value: Teachers need
to value the
implementation of
collaborative
instructional
strategies.

Meeting minutes
Classroom observation
notes
Lesson plans
Assessments

Value: Teachers need
to value supporting
language learners in
their classrooms.

Classroom observation
notes
Meeting minutes
Lesson plans

Self-Efficacy:
Teachers need to have
their own confidence
in the learning
opportunities they
create for all of their
language learners.

Meeting minutes
Teaching unit
reflections

Affect: Teachers need
to feel positive about
implementing
strategies to support
their language
learners.
Meeting minutes
Student records
Meeting agendas

148

Assumed Influence Documents to Analyze Present Yes/No Comments
Organization

Resources: Teachers
need time for
collaboration.

Schedules
Essential Agreements
for grade-level teams

Resources: Teachers
need training and
professional
development to
support language
learners.

Professional
development budget
Schedules

Resources: Teachers
need follow-up
training and support to
transfer newly learned
teaching strategies
into their practice to
support English
learners.

Professional
development budget
Schedules

Policies, Processes,
and Procedures:
Teachers know the
school has policies
and procedures in
place to support the
needs of ELLs.

Policy and procedure
manuals
School website

Policies, Processes,
and Procedures:
Teachers feel the
school has processes
in place to support
their instructional and
assessment goals for
ELLs.

School website
Policy and procedure
manuals
Professional
development plans
Curriculum maps

149

Policies, Processes,
and Procedures:
Teachers feel the
school’s commitment
is aligned with their
commitment to
support ELLs.

School website
Curriculum maps
Policy and Procedure
manuals
Budgets
Electronic
communication

Cultural Model:
Teachers need to feel
the school has a
shared culture for
supporting second
language learning.

Electronic
communication
Policy and Procedure
manuals
Meeting minutes
Strategic Plan
Professional
development budget and
plans
School website

Cultural Model:
Teachers need to feel
the school values
professional learning
to support English
learners.

Policy and procedure
manuals
Meeting minutes
Professional
development budget
Professional
development plans
School website

Cultural Setting:
Teachers feel the
school has systems in
place to integrate
second language
pedagogy and
practices in homeroom
classes.
Policy and procedure
manuals
Meeting minutes
Class Observation Notes
School website
Grade level schedules

150

Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research

STUDY TITLE: Building Capacity In Homeroom Teachers To Support English Language
Learners

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Tara Simeonidis

CO-INVESTIGATOR: Kathryn Limmer, EdD

FACULTY ADVISOR: Darline P. Robles, Ph.D.

You are invited to participate in a research study, and your participation is voluntary. This
document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything
unclear to you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to evaluate homeroom teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors regarding instructional strategies for English language learners at Marley
American Academy. The participants for the study are preschool through grade three teachers at
Marley American Academy. We hope to learn how homeroom teachers’ knowledge, motivation,
and organization impact English learners’ learning. Once analyzed, the data will inform
recommendations for closing any gaps and recommendations for an implementation and
evaluation plan for the solutions. You are invited as a possible participant because of your role as
a homeroom teacher in preschool through grade three at Marley American Academy.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Since the study’s principal investigator is the participants’ supervisor, to minimize the potential
for employees to feel coerced to participate, a co-investigator with no supervisory or decision-
151

making role with the participants will conduct the research. The co-investigator will conduct
interviews, collect the data, and maintain the confidentiality of the participants. The co-
investigator will send a recruitment email stating the employees’ participation is voluntary. The
interview questions are designed to assess the participants’ current knowledge of terms and
strategies to support English learners. The interview questions will also ask participants to
respond to their motivation, organization culture, and available resources for supporting English
learners. Each interview will last approximately 60 minutes and will be scheduled at times
convenient for the participant. Each participant will have an option to be interviewed in person,
or via zoom, and with permission, the interview will be recorded. Data collected from the
interviews will be de-identified and maintain the confidentiality of the participants.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a $15 gift certificate for your time, and this will be given to you at the end of
the interview.
CONFIDENTIALITY

The research team members and the University of Southern California Institutional Review
Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the
rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the research results are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information
will be used. Study data will be stored electronically on a local computer with appropriate
electronic safeguards such as usernames/passwords and limited to authorized study personnel.
Security software will be regularly updated on the study’s computer and regularly scanned for
viruses, and problems will be resolved.
152

Participants have the right to review/edit the audio/video recordings or transcripts, and this will
be arranged after the interview if you chose to do so. All audio/video recordings will be
transcribed and destroyed after two years from the date her dissertation defense is approved. The
recordings will be modified to eliminate the possibility that study participants could be
identified. After the study, the transcripts will be retained for two years for study record-keeping
purposes.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Tara Simeonidis at simeonid@usc.edu
or Darline Robles, faculty advisor, at dprobles@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

153

Appendix D: Email to Recruit Research Participants
Subject: Tara Simeonidis’ Dissertation
Dear homeroom teachers in KA through Grade Three,
As many of you know, Tara Simeonidis is currently enrolled in a doctoral program at the
University of Southern California and is conducting an important study on homeroom teachers’
capacity to support English Language learners. Tara’s study’s participants are: “Homeroom
teachers in KA through Grade Three at Marley American Academy.” Tara is your supervisor, so
to eliminate any theoretical conflict of interest and preserve participants’ confidentiality, I will
serve as her co-investigator. As you know, I have no supervisory or other decision-making role
with homeroom teachers at MAA.
Tara’s study requires volunteers across each of these grade levels to be interviewed. I will
conduct all the interviews, and the interview will take about 60 minutes. I am asking you to
participate. You can choose to have your interview take place in person or via Zoom, and we will
arrange for a convenient time for you. The interview is confidential, and your name will not be
disclosed to Tara. Please read the attached Information Sheet For Exempt Research to learn more
about the study and your voluntary role.
During the interview, I will utilize a recording device to capture all of your responses wholly and
accurately. This recording will not be shared with Tara. The recording will be transcribed for
Tara; in this way, she will not be able to identify the participants through their voices. Before
Tara views the transcript, I will also remove any potential identifiers to ensure that your identity
remains confidential. While Tara may choose to utilize a direct quote from a participant in her
study, she will not know that participant’s identity.
154

We are looking for 9-12 volunteers, and each participant will receive a $15 gift certificate as a
token of appreciation. If you are interested, please contact me directly via email no later than
______. Please also don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Kathy Limmer

155

Appendix E: Evaluation Tool To Be Used Immediately Following Training
Please select the number that best correlates with how you feel about the statement for each of
the following questions. A choice of 1 indicates that you Strongly Disagree, and a choice of 5
indicates you Strongly Agree.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
The training held my interest (L1) 1 2 3 4 5
My participation was encouraged by 1 2 3 4 5
the instructor (L1)
During the training we discussed how 1 2 3 4 5
to apply what I learned (L1)
I feel positive about applying what I 1 2 3 4 5
learned during training to my teaching
practice. (L1)

I am committed to applying what I learned. 1 2 3 4 5
(L1)

I found the feedback during the discussions 1 2 3 4 5
valuable for informing my practice. (L1)
I am satisfied with the training on 1 2 3 4 5
implementing research-based strategies to
support the ELLs in my class. (L1)

Please provide feedback for the following questions, and remember your responses will remain
anonymous:
1. What part of the training did you find not useful for your goal to implement research-
based strategies to support ELLs? How would you change the training? (L1)
2. What is one concept you learned that you will apply immediately in your classroom? (L2)
3. What additional support will you need to implement what you learned? (L2)
4. What barriers do you anticipate that could limit your success at applying what you
learned? (L2)

156

Appendix F: Evaluation Tool Delayed for a Period After Training
The purpose of the following questions is to evaluate the quality of performance results since
completing the training to learn research-based strategies to support English language learners?

1. I feel more confident about implementing research-based strategies to support English
language learners. (L1)
● Strongly Disagree
● Disagree
● Neither Agree or Disagree
● Agree
● Strongly Agree

2. I feel more positive about the impact these strategies have on student learning and
outcomes. (L1)
● Strongly Disagree
● Disagree
● Neither Agree or Disagree
● Agree
● Strongly Agree

3. Since the training's completion, describe a newly learned strategy you used and the
impact it had on your students. (L2, L3, L4)

4. Describe the value of implementing research-based instructional strategies to support
language learning in your classroom. (L1, L2)

5. I incorporate research-based instructional strategies in my lessons each day. (L3, L4)
● Strongly Disagree
● Disagree
● Neither Agree or Disagree
● Agree
● Strongly Agree

157

6. I am more confident in my ability to implement research-based strategies to support
language learners. (L1)
● Strongly Disagree
● Disagree
● Neither Agree or Disagree
● Agree
● Strongly Agree

7. I have utilized the information and skills I learned in the training sessions to support
language learners. (L2, L3, L4)
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Neither Agree or Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

8. What additional support will you need to implement what you learned from the training?
(L2)

9. What barriers do you anticipate that could limit your success at applying what you
learned? (L2)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

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

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

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

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Practices supporting newcomer students

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

Raising special needs: an evaluation study of respite care for medically fragile children living with autism and other illnesses

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices

PDF

Increasing the number of minoritized teachers in the Apex public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Evaluation of New Teacher Induction (NTI) mentor practice for developing NTI teachers capable of differentiating instruction to address cultural diversity, equity, and learner variability

PDF

The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

A qualitative study of educators’ attitudes towards blended learning institutional adoption

PDF

Increasing family engagement at Lily Elementary School: An evaluation model

PDF

First-year retention: Community college students -- a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Simeonidis, Tara Lynn Moore (author)

Core Title Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/19/2021

Defense Date 03/31/2021

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

Tag elementary students,English language learners,OAI-PMH Harvest,WIDA framework

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Robles, Darline (committee chair), Crawford, Jenifer (committee member), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email simeonid@usc.edu,taralsimeonidis@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-449049

Unique identifier UC11668696

Identifier etd-Simeonidis-9500.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-449049 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Simeonidis-9500.pdf

Dmrecord 449049

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Simeonidis, Tara Lynn Moore

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