University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A comparative study of motivational orientation of elementary school English learners in a dual language immersion program and a transitional bilingual education program

(USC Thesis Other)

A comparative study of motivational orientation of elementary school English learners in a dual language immersion program and a transitional bilingual education program

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATION OF
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ENGLISH LEARNERS IN A DUAL LANGUAGE
IMMERSION PROGRAM AND A TRANSITIONAL BILINGUAL EDUCATION
PROGRAM

by
Elizabeth C. Ma

_______________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2010

Copyright 2010 Elizabeth C. Ma

ii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my family
Joseph, Jaina and Isaiah Chu
who gave me all their love and support through the program.

To my parents
Dr. Ma Lin and Dr. Chen Meng Hua
who believed in me since day one.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To my committee chairperson, Dr. Robert Rueda, committee members Dr. Linda Fischer
and Dr. Pedro Garcia, I give my unending gratitude and appreciation for your continuous
and never ending support and guidance.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
ABSTRACT vii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1
Background of Problem 4
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 11
Methodological and/or Design Assumption 12
Limitations and Delimitations of Study 14
Significance of Study 14
Definition of Terms 15
Organization of the Study 17

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 18
Motivational Constructs Predicting Student Learning 19
The Application of Motivational Constructs to Second Language
Learning: Gardner’s Socio-Emotional Model 25
Second Language Acquisition 29
Teachers’ Behaviors and Classroom Practice 32
Effects of Classroom Goal Structures on Students’ Motivation 37
Summary of Literature Review 42

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 45
Study Design 46
Research Setting 46
Participants 47
Instrumentation 48
Data Collection 50
Procedures 52
Data Analysis 53
Reliability and Validity 56
Chapter Summary 57

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS 58
Participants 59
Data for Research Question One: Classroom Level Factors 63
Data for Research Question Two: Teacher Behavior and Classroom Practice 79
Data for Research Question Three: Student Motivational Perceptions
of Language Learning 107
Chapter Summary of Result Findings 115

v
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, IMPLICATION OF FINDINGS
AND DISCUSSION 120
Summary of Findings 123
Discussion of Findings 127
Recommendations for Research 133
Implication for Practice 134
Chapter Conclusion 135

REFERENCES 137

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Classroom Observation Protocol 148
APPENDIX B: Students’ Interviews 150
APPENDIX C: Teachers’ Interviews 156

vi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE A: Teachers’ Experience Information 62

TABLE B: Classroom Observations Findings 76

TABLE C: Teacher Interviews Findings 104

TABLE D: Student Interviews Findings 110

vii
ABSTRACT
The focus of this research is to compare the motivational orientation of English
Learners in a Dual Language Immersion and a Transitional Bilingual Education program.
These programs were chosen for several reasons. First, comparative studies on the
various variables and constructs relating to English Learners in these two instructional
models are not abundant. Second, various studies from Thomas and Collier (2002),
Klesmer (1994), Ramirez et al (1991), Cummins (1981) concluded that Dual Language
Immersion students had higher academic achievement. Thirdly, the question of whether
the additive and subtractive models associate with different motivational outcomes for
English Learners has not been adequately addressed.
The result showed significant differences in DL students attributed higher task
values to English language arts and reported higher self-efficacy in English grammar than
those in the TBE Program. Second, DL teachers considered students’ needs and cultures
when lesson planning. Third, DL teachers used grouping much more. Fourth, DL teachers
were more willing to allow students to have more autonomy, authority and were more
flexible in decision-making and planning and in the use of time as outlined by the
TARGET protocol.

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
According to 2000 US Census, about 47 million US school children age five and
older were English Learners (hereafter abbreviated as EL or ELs). In Illinois, the number
of ELs reached 130,390 in 2009 and rising (Interactive Illinois Report Card, 2009).
Effective January 1, 2010, all school districts in Illinois were required to apply new
proficiency levels (a minimum overall composite proficiency level of 4.8 and a minimum
literacy composite proficiency level of 4.2) using the WIDA-ACCESS Placement Test™
(W-APT) to determine ELs’ English Language Learning program placements. The W-
APT measures four language domains: reading, writing, listening and speaking. The
current mandate for educators in Illinois is to assist EL students to achieve higher levels
of English proficiency. Thus far, Illinois has responded to this mandate through two
programmatic approaches: (a) The English-only approach and (b) The primary-language
approach.
The English-only Approach
Perhaps the most traditional method used within schools, the English-only
approach uses English exclusively as teaching and learning medium for ELs. The two
most common English-only programs are the English Mainstream Program and the
Structured English Immersion Program (SEI). In an English Mainstream Program all
instruction is conducted in English and no support in the students’ primary language is
provided. In a Structured English Immersion program students are taught exclusively in
English in all curricular areas. Academic support in the students’ primary languages is
available only when deemed necessary.

2
The Primary Language Approach
In contrast to the English-only options are the various alternative programs that
permit the role of learners’ primary language in English acquisition (Thomas & Collier,
2002). Within these programs there are wide variations that highlight the positive role of
learners’ primary language in English acquisition in different ways. Of these varieties, the
Transitional Bilingual Education Program (TBE) and the Dual Language (DL) Program
are the most prominent. The Transitional Bilingual Education Program provides
instruction in the student’s native language with transitional strategies for the first three
to four years (Krashen, 1996). Students are usually transitioned to all English instruction
in either third or fourth grade. When students are in the transitional state, native language
is used only as a last resort to support instruction. The Transitional Bilingual Education
Program is a prominent solution in Illinois; the state law requires that when any single
school has an enrollment of 20 or more Limited English Proficient students of the same
language classification, the school district must establish a TBE program for each
language classification represented by those students (Section 14C-3 of the School Code).
The Dual Language Program (DL) differs from TBE program and all other
English acquisition programs in that it focuses on the simultaneous acquisition of both
the native and the target languages (Howard et al., 2007). The DL program design calls
for the usage of English and the learner’s primary language in daily classroom
instruction, with the stipulation that the proportion of English used gradually increases as
students move from lower to upper grades. By encouraging and facilitating the learning
of English and ELs’ primary languages, Dual Language programs recognize the subtle
intersections among (a) the ELs’ socio-cultural and emotional needs; (b) the immediacy
3
of their language acquisition needs; and (c) their actual (as opposed to perceived)
cognitive abilities (Cummins, 1998).
The English-only and Primary-language approaches therefore have different
philosophical belief structures that guide their implementations (Lambert, 1975). The
former reflects the pedagogical belief that assimilation and immersion are essential to
teaching ELs (see, for example, Ramirez, Pasta, Yuen, Billings, & Ramey, 1991). English
has primacy over all other languages and ELs’ primary languages are used only as the
last resort for academic support. But for the primary-language approach, particularly
Dual Language programs, both the ELs’ primary language and English are equally
important for them to develop high levels of proficiencies in English.
From the linguistic perspectives, the English-only and primary-language
approaches also mirror two distinctively different models of second language acquisition,
namely, the additive and subtractive modes of language learning (Lambert, 1975).
Additive bilingualism (Cummins, 1998) is a learning environment in which students learn
a second language while continuing to develop conceptually and academically in their
first language. On the contrary, its subtractive alternative focuses solely on the
acquisition of the target language at the expense of the first language. Since one’s first
language is not developed in this environment, it could be partially or completely lost.
These two vastly different approaches, namely the English-only/subtractive approach and
primary-language/additive approach, may have very different impacts on English
Learners. Of great interest to this researcher is ELs’ motivational orientation in different
English language learning programs, an area, as shown in the Literature Review section,
not well studied at all.
4
To explore the motivational orientations of ELs in additive and subtractive learning
environments, this researcher focused on three motivational constructs for English
acquisition – task value, self-efficacy and interest. English learning programs chosen for
comparison were two Dual Language (DL) classes and two Transitional Bilingual
Education (TBE) classes at 4
th
and 5
th
grade levels. It is important to note that TBE
programs are not technically subtractive or English-only in orientation. In the lower
grades, TBE programs use ELs’ primary language extensively but gradually transition
into the English-only mode in 4
th
and 5
th
grades. It is therefore appropriate to use 4
th
and
5
th
grade TBE classes to represent the subtractive model in comparison with comparable
DL classes, which represent the additive model of second language development.
Background of the Problem
The 1973 enacted Illinois state law section 14C-3 of the school code requires that
the school district must establish a TBE program for each language classification
represented by those students. The state law does not specify students in these language
groups in the same school need be in the same grade levels; neither does it require the
school to administer “individual” language student assessments. If there are more than 20
ELs at school sharing the same primary language, a TBE program is required. As a
consequence, students whose primary languages are more prevalent in a school may
automatically be placed in a TBE program without having their language skills tested. If
so, TBE or even English immersion program will be the one-size-fit-all, “default”
language acquisition programs for ELs in Illinois.
For educators and scholars alike, the dominance of structured English immersion
and transitional bilingual education programs in the Illinois school districts raise many
5
questions: Is the subtractive (or English-only) model language acquisition the most
effective instructional methods for ELs to reach high levels of English proficiencies to
ensure their success in life? Also, how does it compare with other options, such as the
Dual Language Immersion model? The effectiveness of language learning programs
cannot simply be measured by student academic achievement alone. As language is
intimately related to individuals’ cultural, ethnic and personal identities, the ways
language acquisition programs are structured might have socio-cultural and even
psychological implications to students. As mentioned, the English-only or subtractive
model used the assumption of assimilation, would it then have the effects of encouraging
and even forcing ELs to forgo their own languages and deny their own cultural heritages?
While these are important questions, they are outside of the scope of the current study.
There have been many studies on the academic performance of Dual Language program
on ELs (e. g., Alanis, 2004; Howard, Christian, & Genesee, 2004; Jong, 2002; Lindholm-
Leary & Borsato, 2001; Senesac, 2002; Thomas & Collier, 2002), however, comparative
motivational studies on ELs in Primary-language and English-only programs are almost
non-existent. The current study was designed to compare the additive and subtractive
models of language acquisition from one perspective, namely, the motivational
orientation of English Learners.
Statement of the Problem
The Dual Language and Transitional Bilingual Education programs, which
exemplify the additive and subtractive models of English learning for ELs, respectively,
were chosen for this study because there was a need to understand the motivational
variables affecting students’ learning in these programs An assumption here was that the
6
two programs offer English Learners vastly different learning environments that might
inadvertently influence motivational variables. This assumption was based on two sets of
research findings: First, more than two decades of research that points to the academic
effectiveness of Dual Language programs (Cummins, 1981; Klesmer, 1994; Thomas &
Collier, 2002; Ramirez et al, 1991) over its subtractive alternatives, and second, the body
of research by motivation theorists that affirm motivational constructs as a strong
predictor of academic success and student perseverance (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Eccles
& Wigfield, 2002)
Just as important are the classroom practices of teachers in these contrasting
learning environments. Many researchers (Smith & Fouad, 1999; Eccles & Wigfield,
2002; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002) argued that the context, environment, circumstances and
teachers’ practices interact strongly with student motivation for learning. If so, this
second assumption was a reasonable postulation to the first; that is, if there are
differences in motivational orientation between ELs in additive and subtractive learning
environments, there should also be differences in how teachers conduct themselves in
these different environments. The central question guiding the study was therefore: What
are the motivational characteristics of the two English learning environments?
This study was built on an earlier pilot study (Ma, 2006) that examined this
question from a quantitative perspective. In contrast, the current study explored the
qualitative aspects of the variables involved. This research was therefore an extension of
the first study and was designed to better understand the phenomenon from the
perspective of participants most directly involved (students and teachers). The 2006 was
a descriptive study comparing English Learners in a Dual Language Immersion program
7
and a Structured English Immersion program on three motivational constructs for English
learning English, namely, self- efficacy, task value and interest. This researcher’s focus
on the motivational constructs was prompted by the fact that comparative studies of
student motivations between the additive and subtractive models of English learning were
non-existent. The study addressed the following questions:
1. How do students in Structured English Immersion versus Dual Language
Immersion programs compare on task value, self-efficacy, and interest?
2. How do parents of students in the two programs compare in their attitudes
toward language acquisition?
Previous literature on motivation and bilingual education led to the expectation that
learners in the Dual Language Immersion program would have higher self-efficacy, task
value, and interest in English language development than their counterparts in Structured
English Immersion programs and that parents of learners in the Dual Language
Immersion program would value the English language development of their children
more than those in Structured English Immersion programs. A total of 65 students and 61
parents were recruited and surveyed from a public elementary school in the greater Los
Angeles area with both a Structured English Immersion and Dual Immersion program.
The student questionnaire, which was administered to subjects individually in English,
included three parts designed to measure each of the following: (a) students’ self-efficacy
(Bandura, 2001), (b) task value (Eccles et al, 2003), and (c) interests in English learning
(Mc Kenna & Stahl, 2003).
A total of 36 Dual Language (DL) students (female = 13, male = 23) and 29
Structured English Immersion (SEI) students (female = 16, male =13) participated in the
8
study. Descriptive data from the survey, such as means and standard deviations, were
used to summarize the data. Except for the intrinsic value subscale, statistical analyses
revealed no significant differences in motivational variables and subscales between
students in the two academic programs. In general, students’ scores were high on almost
all of the questions posed. As a result of this ceiling effect, and perhaps the small sample
size, it was difficult to ascertain any differences between the two groups. Further, the
ratings were particularly high for academic achievement, self-regulated learning,
ability/expectancy, attainment value/ importance, and extrinsic/ utility value subscales.
Contrary to expectations, statistical analyses did not reveal significant differences
between the two groups for self-efficacy. However, the intrinsic interest value subscale
did show significant difference. Intrinsic value, a key component of task value beliefs,
refers to the degree of students’ interest in an academic subject matter or the way they
perceive the benefits of a task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). In
this case, students in the DL program ascribed higher interest in English assignments and
class work than their SEI peers. This finding was consistent with the hypotheses
predicting higher task values among DL subjects.
As observed by Sharon and Milian (2002), the parent questionnaire was designed to
determine if parental choices and perspectives of program effectiveness in addressing
language learning might be different for the two programs in question. A total of 61
parents volunteered to complete the survey individually at their homes. Results of the chi-
square analysis revealed that parents of participating students in the DL program
perceived their children as more likely to speak Spanish fluently. Beyond that, no
differences in parental attitudes and beliefs regarding their children’s English language
9
development, Spanish proficiencies, or program effectiveness of the respective programs
were found. Analyses of the parent survey also failed to find significant differences in
parental attitudes towards’ their children’s English development or the respective
programs enrolled in by their children. The earlier expectation that parents of DL students
placed higher values on their children’s English development than parents in the SEI
program was not supported.
Even though the earlier study did not confirm any of the hypotheses, it was
possible that differences were masked by measurement and study design problems. First,
the size of the sample (65 students) might have been inadequate in detecting group
differences in task value, self-efficacy, and interest beliefs. Second, the language used in
the student surveys might not have been sufficiently appropriate for students’ reading
levels and language status. In this case, surveys with items more aligned with students’
performance level would have been preferred. Third, student survey construction was
problematic in that it did not support students’ understanding of the English context. As a
result, students might have experienced difficulties distinguishing between academic or
language arts English and playground English in responding to the questionnaire.
However, failure of the previous study to support hypotheses did not necessarily
rule out the possibility of motivational differences between students in the English-
only/subtractive and Dual Language/additive learning environments. Sample size, survey
design problems and other factors might have also influenced results. The statistical
significance found in the intrinsic interest value subscale could be indicative of trends
consistent with my predictions. In addition, the survey methods employed did not provide
a sense of the classroom environments in these types of settings; nor did they give a sense
10
of what processes might be operating in producing potentially different motivational
orientations for students.
The first study was therefore inconclusive in that it was not clear whether or not
differences in students’ self-efficacy, task value, and interest beliefs actually existed
between the two programs. Scholars such as Cummins (1981), Klesmer (1994), Thomas
and Collier (2002) and Ramirez et al. (1991) all found that a strong foundation in the
primary language enhances a person’s acquisition of the second language. Insights from
these authors therefore suggest that motivational differences exist in the type of program
experienced. Lambert (1975), as well as Stritikus and Garcia (2003), noted that the
additive model of ESL learning (particularly when implemented through the Dual
Language program) affirms the value of both the primary and second language of English
Learners. If the primary language is essential, we would expect that its affirmation would
lead to greater motivation among English Learners to be proficient in English as well as
their primary language.
Based on the earlier findings, it was determined that further inquiry was needed in
order to sufficiently assess possible differences between the two approaches to ELs’
English proficiency development. This study was therefore a continuation of the earlier
one and was intended to facilitate deeper inquiry into the underlying factors influencing
the motivational variables in both programs. In contrast to the earlier study, which
emphasized quantitative analyses to understand motivational differences between the two
programs, the current study includes a qualitative investigation of the various classroom
processes used in the two programs along with participants’ and teachers’ experiences
and perceived benefits of the two programs in question. More specifically, using a case
11
study method, students’ motivational perspectives were examined through classroom
observation, teacher interviews and student interviews.
Purpose of the Study
As noted earlier, comparative studies on the various variables and constructs
relating to English Learners in these two instructional models were almost non-existent
even though the body of scholarly work on the academic outcomes (e.g., Alanis, 2004;
Howard, Christian, & Genesee, 2004; Jong, 2002; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2001;
Senesac, 2002; Thomas & Collier, 2002), parents’ perspectives (e.g., Coady, 2001; Craig,
1996; Linton, 2004; Shannon & Milan, 2002; Smith, Hopffer, Carichael, Murphy, Valle,
& Gonzales, 2002) and other factors relating to Dual Language and other language
development programs (Linton, 2004; Ngai, 2002; Smith, 2001; Smith et al., 2002) were
quite substantive. The purpose of this study was to build upon the earlier one by
continuing to explore specific motivational constructs exhibited in an additive (Dual
Language Immersion) and a subtractive English learning environment (Transitional
Bilingual Education) through student interviews and classroom observations. As in the
first study (hereinafter referred to as Study 1), the motivational variables targeted were
ELs’ task value, self-efficacy, and interest for English-language arts development. These
constructs were selected based on the documented influence they have on students’
achievement. In addition, teachers’ behaviors and classroom practices in the two settings
were examined in order to understand the didactic contexts that might associate with
ELs’ motivational orientations Numerous researchers (e.g., Dunkin & Biddle, 1974;
Rosenhine & Stevens, 1986; Stipek, 1996), as well as Pintrich and Schunk’s own study
(2002), revealed that teachers’ behaviors and classroom practice affect students’
12
motivation. This researcher hoped to contribute to the field of English Language learning
programs for ELs by tackling it from the theoretical framework of the motivational
theorists, with the hope that comparative studies on ELs’ motivational factors will be
multiplied in the future. In so doing, the researcher also hopes to contribute to the on-
going policy debate on the effectiveness the various EL programs and the proper actions
of school districts.
The three research questions which guided this study are:
1. In what ways do classroom organization, classroom environment, activities, and
instructional practices differ between Dual Language and Transitional Bilingual
Education classrooms?
2. In what ways do teachers’ behaviors and classroom practice as well as their
self-reported attitudes and perceptions regarding their practices differ in a Dual
Language and Transitional Bilingual Education classroom?
3. What are students’ motivational perceptions of language learning in these two
settings? How are they being reflected in student self-efficacy, task value, and
interest in language learning?
Methodological and/or Design Assumptions
There were three primary assumptions guiding this study. The first was the
general belief that one’s cognition has a powerful influence on the quality of learning and
performance pursued. That is to say, individuals do not simply react to external stimuli;
rather, they are also actively engaged within the environment and imprint their own
thoughts, values, and emotions in a dynamic way. A second assumption was that socio-
cultural and emotional aspects of learning environment have implications on student
13
motivations. Volumes of research have focused on the relationship between motivation
and learning (e.g., Pintrich & Schunk, 2002) but few, if any, examined the relationships
between motivation and the socio-cultural and emotional aspects of the learning contexts.
Intuitively, primary language and culture are intimately linked to the emotional and social
dimensions of a person’s life. Their importance led this researcher to assume that learning
environments that affirm the learners’ primary languages and cultures could have positive
impacts on ELs in general and their motivational orientations in learning in specific. The
third assumption was that the differences in the way the TBE and DL programs treat ELs’
native language differentiate the two learning environments and therefore their potential
motivational consequences for ELs’ English language development. Scholars such as
Cummins (1981), Klesmer (1994), Thomas and Collier (2002), and Ramirez et al. (1991)
found that a strong foundation in one’s primary language greatly enhances one’s ability
to acquire a second language. The key programmatic implication from these studies was
that both English and ELs’ primary languages should be treated with equal importance,
which is the core principle of a Dual Language setting. By contrast, a Transitional
Bilingual Education programs treats ELs’ primary language very differently even though
it is classified as a Primary-language approach program. A TBE program develops
students’ primary language in their early grades but becomes a “subtractive” program
where English has primacy over any languages when ELs reach fourth and fifth grades.
More importantly, by design a TBE treats ELs’ primary language as a means to the end,
i.e., English proficiency, and not as equal pillars for ELs’ language and cognitive
development. This was an important assumption that justifies the use of a TBE, a
14
program, as the representation of the subtractive model of English language acquisition in
this comparative study.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
In this study, the sample was confined to a small group of fourth and fifth grade
classroom teachers and students in two elementary schools. The sample was a group of
volunteers was not a multi-cultural or multi-ethnic group. As an exploratory endeavor,
this study did not address the questions of causal effects of the variables involved and did
not take into account Stuart’s (2007) three building blocks for defining causal effects,
namely, treatment and control conditions, measurable units, and potential outcomes (p.
187). Although the current study was designed to address earlier concerns from a
qualitative paradigm, similar limitations might apply regarding the generalization of data
collected given the sample size and volunteer nature of participation.
Overall, there were four primary concerns that may apply in this case. First, the
size of the sample was small. Second, the answers to the questions regarding self-
efficacy, task value, and task interest are based primarily on classroom observations,
teacher and student interviews. Third, the study examined the three motivational
constructs of EL in two academic programs and did not attempt to explain or identify the
causal relationships among the many variables involved. Fourth, the study design might
not yield sufficient information to ascertain differences in motivational variables between
the types of programs offered.
Significance of Study
A key goal of this research was to facilitate the understanding of any differences in
motivational processes and characteristics between these an additive and subtractive
15
language learning environments. This researcher hoped that this exploratory study could
make a contribution to this under-explored field that combines motivational studies and
language acquisition programs for ELs. She further hoped that this study could, in a
modest manner, pave ways for more extensive studies in this area in the future. This
researcher believed that a fuller understanding of the nature of the various language
acquisition programs from the perspectives of motivational orientation, student
achievements as well as socio-cultural and even racial dynamics is critical for scholars,
educators, public officials and the general public to devise and implement the most
effective programs that for millions of ELs in this country.
Definition of Terms
Transitional Bilingual Education Programs. The Transitional Bilingual Education
program is for non-native English speaking students who have difficulty with written or
spoken English. The program provides instruction in the student’s native language with
transitional strategies to assist with the acquisition of the English Language. The program
helps students to succeed in academic subjects and learn English. English Learners
receive ESL and native language instruction in subject areas with the goal of transitioning
into English instruction as their English language proficiency increases.
Dual Language Programs. Dual Language Immersion programs were previously
known as Two Way Bilingual Education, Two Way Immersion, Bilingual Immersion and
Two Way Language Immersion programs. While the most common target language is
Spanish, other languages such as Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Navajo, Russian,
Portuguese and French are also used. By design, each class has a healthy mix of English
learners and those fluent in English so that students can learn from each other. The
16
program is implemented by using either a “50/50” model or “90/10” model. In the
“50/50” model, students receive instruction in both languages for an equal amount of
time throughout the various grades. In the “90/10” model, students in early grades receive
90% of the instruction in the target language, with the stipulation that the proportion of
English instruction would increase gradually until it reached the 50 percent level.
Self-efficacy. Self-Efficacy in this study refers to “People’s judgments of their
capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types
of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391)
Task value. Task value, a critical construct in expectancy-value models, refers to
one’s subjective belief on why a task should be performed at a given level (Pintrich & De
Groot, 1990).
Interest. Student interest refers to the emotional factors that stimulate and empower
students as individuals (Mitchell, 1993).
English learning. English learning refers here to the mastery of academic English
or English language arts, as opposed to social communication language. Social
communication language, a.k.a. playground language, is not the same as academic
language that students need to have to be successful in school and takes five to seven
years to acquire (Cummins, 1998). It is recognized that there are differences between
playground English and English language arts (Collier, 1989). In most cases, most
English Learners do not have trouble with playground English (Collier, 1989), but the
mastery of the grammatical structure and use of the English language arts, which
encompasses reading comprehension, grammar, and writing, might be a challenge to
English learners.
17
Goal orientation. Lastly, goal orientation is concerned with the approach or
perspective one takes to engage in achieving a specific goal. For example, students
respond differently to tasks depending on the motivational variables to achieve success
(e.g., their desire to achieve good grades). In this study, goal orientation is focused, as
Pintrich and Schunk (2002) observed, on the goals and purpose by which students pursue
achievement tasks.
Organization of the Study
Chapter One has summarized the importance of studying the motivational aspect
of differences in a transitional bilingual education and dual language program to English
Learners in the elementary school. Chapter Two discussed the literature regarding studies
on dual language immersion and transitional bilingual education programs, motivation
and second language acquisition, the three key motivational constructs used in this study,
English language learner motivation and language acquisition programs, and teachers’
behaviors and classroom practice affect students’ motivation and classroom practices.
Chapter Three explained the design of the study, the instrumentation used, the data
collection and an analysis of the data. Chapter Four presented the data for each research
question, an analysis of the findings and discussion of key findings. Chapter Five,
includes a summary of the study, conclusions drawn from the study and future
implications for practitioners.
18
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The topic of motivational orientation of elementary school English learners in a
dual language immersion program and a transitional bilingual education program is an
important topic to study because there are over 192,000 students who are English
Learners in Illinois in 2005 and ranked number nine in the 51 states after Nevada,
Florida, California, New York, and Texas and the two approaches have different
philosophical belief structures that guide their implementation (Lambert, 1975). The
researcher chose this topic to study because comparative studies on the various variables
and constructs relating to English Learners in these two instructional models are not
abundant. However there are studies examining (a) the academic outcomes of students in
dual language immersion programs (e.g., Alanis, 2004; Howard, Christian, & Genesee,
2004; Jong, 2002; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2001; Senesac, 2002; Thomas & Collier,
2002), (b) parents’ perspectives of the DL programs (e.g., Coady, 2001; Craig, 1996;
Linton, 2004; Shannon & Milan, 2002; Smith, Hopffer, Carichael, Murphy, Valle, &
Gonzales, 2002), and (c) factors impacting the effectiveness of DL programs (Linton,
2004; Ngai, 2002; Smith, 2001; Smith et al., 2002). There are also studies attesting to the
importance of motivation on second language acquisition (e.g., Dörnyei & Clémente,
2001; Gardner, 2001; Noels & Clémente, 1996). However, the question of whether these
two models could be associate with different motivational outcomes for English Learners
has not, to date, been adequately addressed.
Articles reviewed were obtained through online searches of databases such as
ProQuest, PsyINFO, PsychoARTICLES and FirstSearch. Key words employed during
the search included second language acquisition, motivation, task value, self-efficacy,
19
ESL, Dual Language Immersion and Bilingual programs. Only scholarly, peer reviewed
articles were selected. In addition, resources available online from the Center for Applied
Linguistic and the Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence websites
were used.
The review is organized by first discussing the studies that identify how
motivational constructs predict student learning, followed by Gardner’s socio-emotional
model and how it relates to second language acquisition. The two different model of
second language acquisition were then presented – additive and subtractive model. The
discussion further examine how teachers’ behaviors impact classroom practices and the
motivational effects using social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) which student, teacher
and the environment all influence one another. Finally, the effects of classroom goal
structures on students’ motivation were discussed.
Motivational Constructs Predicting Student Learning
The motivational factors of students in Dual Language Immersion and Transitional
Bilingual Education programs are the focus of this study. Research on motivation
variables and student learning has, to date, been very rigorous and study after study
confirmed correlations between the various motivational constructs and student
performance, choice, perseverance and other indicators (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). The
researcher chose the following articles to illustrate the three key motivation construct –
task value, self-efficacy and interest because previous research has shown them to be
good predictors for student learning and are related to student academic performance.
Eccles and Wigfield (1995) and Pintrich and Schunk (2002) revealed three key
motivational constructs in predicting student learning: (1) task values; (2) self-efficacy;
20
and (3) interest. Each of these is discussed briefly below. The researcher chose the work
of Eccles and Wigfield (1995) and Pintrich and Schunk (2002) because previous research
has found them to be related to performance and student achievement.
Task Values
Task value beliefs are among the key motivational constructs in modern
expectancy-value theories. Eccles and Wigfield (Eccles, 1984; Eccles et al., 1983;
Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) who did extensive
longitudinal motivation research with students in elementary through high school, are the
key theorists of this construct. Modern expectancy-value theories also have their roots in
the classical work done in 1964 by Atkinson (cited in Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
Essentially, as suggested by the terms expectancy and value, this theory has two foci: (1)
expectancy is the anticipated outcome of behavior; and (2) value is the desirability of the
outcomes.
On the expectancy side of the equation are two components: (a) one’s belief of the
possible results of one’s actions; and (b) one’s evaluation of personal ability to
accomplish the tasks (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). In many ways, the concept expectancy
developed by Eccles and Wigfield (2002) bears many similarities to Bandura’s self
efficacy theories, which are explored in the next section. Theoretically, the difference is
that self-efficacy is task-specific whereas expectancy beliefs are more global and general.
For example, self-efficacy might refer to one’s judgment of individual abilities to
perform mathematical tasks and expectancy beliefs would be one’s perceptions of
personal ability to succeed in school. However, according to Wigfield & Eccles (2000),
the measurements of the two constructs are similar and empirically difficult to
21
distinguish. Like self-efficacy, expectancy beliefs are found to be a very powerful
predictor of student achievement (see, for example, the longitudinal studies of Eccles and
Wigfield (2002).
Task value is therefore the value that one attributes to a specific task. This
motivational construct is comprised of four components: (1) attainment value; (2)
intrinsic value; (3) utility value; and (4) cost (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995). Attainment value
refers to how one views the importance of a task in relationship to one’s actual or ideal
self-schema. Intrinsic value highlights the degree of one’s interest in a subject matter or
the way one perceives the benefits of a task. Utility value indicates how one understands
the proximity of a goal – whether it is long-term or short-term. Finally, cost suggests the
negative element relating to the completion of a task, including the price that one must
pay when choosing one task over another (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Longitudinal studies conducted by Eccles and Wigfield (2002) on junior and high
school students concluded that task value, as well as performance expectancy, correlate
with students’ achievement and academic choices. However, task value is a good
predictor of student enrollment decisions in mathematics, physics, English, and sports
activities. Bong (2001a; 2001b; 2002, 2004; Bong & Hocevar, 2002; Bong & Skaalvik,
2003) carried out extensive studies with students from South Korea in middle and high
schools and found that self-efficacy (which is similar to expectancy beliefs) and task
value beliefs correlate strongly with student achievements, task choice, perseverance, and
other personal qualities. In conclusion, students who have high task value and whose
one’s belief of the possible results of one’s actions and believe that one’s personal ability
to accomplish the tasks tend to have higher student achievement.
22
Self-efficacy
Self-Efficacy is considered one of the most crucial constructs noted in the social-
cognitive theoretical framework. Bandura (1986, p. 391) defined self-efficacy as
“[p]eople’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action
required to attain designated types of performance.” By definition, there are two foci in
this construct: (1) one’s level of confidence in personal abilities; and (2) the specific task
that one would like to accomplish (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). First of all, self-efficacy is
the belief of an individual to successfully perform the many subtasks required to
complete a larger project. For instance, being able to comprehend a chapter involves
many steps including (among others): (a) having a basic knowledge of English grammar;
(b) understanding the terminologies in the text; and (c) perceiving the overall
organization of the chapter. An individual’s confidence in this case differs depending on
the subtasks pursued. In self-efficacy studies, researchers often ask subjects to rate their
levels of confidence in satisfactorily completing various subtasks required for a larger
task and took the average as their overall self-efficacy rating for the project (Pintrich &
Schunk, 2002).
As specified by the phrase “designated types of performance” in Bandura’s
definition, another key point about self-efficacy is that it is always task and goal specific
(Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). For example, self-efficacy cannot be one’s belief about
individual general ability to be successful in school. Rather, it is the person’s sense of
confidence in carrying out the various subtasks required to excel in a particular academic
subject. Smith and Foaud (1999) found that self-efficacy, goals, and outcome
expectations are all subject-specific and are not transferable to one another. Further,
23
students build self-efficacy through prior experiences and actual performance in specific
tasks (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). However, self-efficacy is not necessarily based on one’s
objective evaluation of actual abilities and is affected by many factors, such as personal
emotions prior to performing a task.
Self-efficacy is noted in the literature to affect task choice, achievements, and the
intensity and quality of one’s efforts in academic endeavors (e.g., Pintrich & Schunk,
2002). A student with low self-efficacy might therefore experience difficulty completing
a task. Self-efficacy is particularly relevant when encountering tough problems. A student
who is highly self-efficacious might work harder, persist at the task, and have a higher
possibility in completing the task.
Various studies (e.g., Pintrich & De Groot, 1990a; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992;
Schunk, 1982, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1983d, 1984, 1987, 1996), have noted that students
in junior high with high self-efficacy typically use various cognitive strategies to deepen
learning. Further, students with lower self-efficacy generally perform worse than those
with higher self-efficacy. Pintrich and Schunk have identified that self-efficacy as a good
predictor of student achievement. It is therefore reasonable to infer that students who are
successful in learning a second language might have higher self-efficacy for the specific
acquisition of that language.
Task Interest
Task interest is the how much one is interested in a task, we will learn and do well
on the task, but when boredom sets in, performance decrease. The research of interest
began in the early nineteenth century when Herbart developed a model of interest. Both
William James and John Dewey explained the role of interest in learning in the twentieth
24
century (Dewey, 1913). William James stated that teachers need to always relate topics
that they are teaching to students in some form that focuses on their interest. Once
interest is established on one topic, interest will be able to be related to another topic.
However, even though additional research occurred in the 1980s and 1990s (Renninger,
Hidi & Krapp, 1992), the construct is still much less developed as compared to the
expectancy value or the self-efficacy theories.
There are three approaches to interest studies: (1) personal interest; (2)
interestingness as a contextual factor that leads to situational interest; and (3) interest as a
psychological state (Krapp et al., 1992). Personal interest is similar to personal traits or
characteristics that are stable and enduring to an individual. Personal interest is also
directly related to a specific topic, such as sport or music. Interestingness as a contextual
factor that leads to situational interest refers to a person’s interest in a specific task or
activity and the result of the factors specific to the task or activity. For example, different
texts could associate with different levels of interest in a reader. For Hidi and Baird
(1986), interest is a triggering factor that leads to action. However, there is a need to
ensure that the duration of activities pursued continues. Mitchell (1993) illustrated that
interest is multifaceted and proposed the term “catch and hold.” In terms of classroom
application, Mitchell described catching as stimulating students’ interests whereas
holding their interest empowers students. Ainley et al. (2002) concluded further that topic
interest could lead to affective response, then persistence, and finally learning.
Interest as a psychological state was described by Renninger (1992) as interest
that occurs when an individual has high value and stored knowledge. Renninger asserted
that interest does not occur when an individual only has high value and no adequately
25
stored knowledge. Tobias (1994) disagreed with this characterization and argued that
even though children have high value and low prior knowledge, interest in tasks still
exists. According to Pintrich and Shunk (2002), there is an inseparable relationship
between interest and cognitive development.
In conclusion, students who have high task value, whose one’s belief of the
possible results of one’s actions and believe that one’s personal ability to accomplish the
tasks tend to have higher student achievement. Self-efficacy was identified by Pintrich
and Schunk as a good predictor of student achievement and is task and goal specific.
Task interest will lead student to affective response, persistence, and learning. It is
therefore reasonable to conclude that the above motivational constructs are good
predicators of student motivational orientation. What is not clear in the literature
reviewed above were students’ motivational perceptions of language learning for
elementary school English learners in a dual language immersion program and a
transitional bilingual education program and how are they being reflected in student self-
efficacy, task value, and interest in language learning? The next section will consider
motivational work that is an extension of general motivation theories to the second
language context specifically, including Gardner’s socio-emotional model and it’s
relation to second language acquisition.
The Application of Motivational Constructs to Second Language Learning:
Gardner’s Socio-Emotional Model
Gardner and Lambert have contributed extensively to the research on second
language acquisition and motivation since 1959. These authors used the
Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) as a key instrument (Gardner, 1985; Gardner
26
& MacIntyre, 1993; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995). The majority of these studies were
conducted in Canada, where French is the second language for learners. The ATMB test,
which was developed to measure English speaking Canadians learning French, measured
the integrative motivation of adult second language learners.
Gardner identified integrative motivation as the key to learning a second language
for second language learners. The concept of integrative motivation includes three
components: integrative motivation, attitudes towards the learning situation, and
motivation (Gardner, 2000). According to Gardner, integrativeness refers to learners’
willingness and openness to learn a second language. Further, attitudes toward the
learning situation involve students’ attitudes towards their classmates, teachers, course
materials, and so forth. Gardner also observed that motivation includes three elements:
(a) the students’ willingness to expend efforts to learn the language; (b) their desire to
achieve the goal; and (c) their enjoyment during the learning process. The ATMB survey
also includes measurements for two orientations: (1) integrative orientation; and (2)
instrumental orientation (Gardner, 1985). Both orientations refer to the learners’ view of
the importance of acquiring language. Integrative orientation indicates the learner’s
perception of how the language might make it easier to gain friends. In contrast,
instrumental orientation addresses how the language might help learners acquire good
jobs or became better educated (Gardner, 2000). The areas that are measured by the
ATMB are similar in nature to the motivational constructs that predict student learning –
task value, self-efficacy and interest that were discussed in Eccles and Wigfield (1995),
Pintrich and Schunk (2002), and Atkinson (1964).
27
Masgoret and Gardner (2003) conducted a meta-analysis involving 75 studies that
used the ATMB with a total of 10,489 individuals. Ten of the studies involved non-
Canadian samples and nine were conducted outside of Canada. A total of 56 were
published articles, 19 were from unpublished articles or dissertations, 71 used correlation
methodology and 4 were experimental design. The age group of subjects varied. Sixteen
studies included students at the elementary level, 42 evaluated those in secondary
education, and 13 researched students at the university level. The result of their meta-
analysis, reached three conclusions: (1) that second language learning success was
positively correlated with the three components of integrative motivation
(integrativeness, attitudes towards learning situations, and motivation) and the two
orientations (integrative and instrumental orientations); (2) achievement in second
language acquisition is highly related to motivation, more so than the other four variables
(integrativeness, attitudes towards learning situation, and integrative and instrumental
orientations); and (3) that the availability of people who speak the targeted second
language within the environment, as well as the age of the learners, did not greatly affect
academic achievement.
Despite the differences in terminology, the basic findings of Gardner et al. (1997)
were similar to those of the large body of recent research on motivation that show strong
correlations between students’ motivational constructs and various aspects of academic
learning (e.g., Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). In fact, the motivational constructs used in the
social-educational model may not be as different as they appeared to be. Using 173 high
school students as participants, MacIntyre, McMasters and Baker (2001) conducted a
study examining the extent to which four major theoretical frameworks on motivation
28
studies overlap with one another. The four theories tested were Gardner’s socio-
educational model, Pintrich’s perspective on academic motivation, Kuhl’s action control
model, and McCroskey’s perspective on willingness to communicate. Of the 22
motivational variables examined, ten were from the socio-educational model and six were
from expectancy-value theories, three were from Kuhl’s action control model and three
were from McCroskey’s perspective on willingness to communicate. The questions for
the survey were drawn from the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) developed by
Gardner and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) by Pintrich
Smith and McKeachie (1989). Both measures are standardized instruments for motivation
research and had been used by Gardner and Pintrich et al. in the development of their
respective theoretical orientations for a long time. Results showed that Gardner’s 10
variables had strong correlations with Pintrich’s six variables. Also, the 22 variables can
be summarized into three major factors – attitudinal motivation, motivated action, and
self confidence. Using factor analysis, MacIntyre et al. (2001) found that the constructs
used in both the socio-educational and the expectancy-value frameworks overlapped
extensively. In fact the highest loading came from Pintrich’s task value and Gardner’s
attitudes towards learning French and desire to learn French.
Motivation is undeniably a critical variable for second language development, the
relevant question for this study is: Of the English Learners in both Dual Language
Immersion and Transitional Bilingual Education programs, which program inspires the
greatest motivation for students to learn English? In the next section, the researcher will
further examine the additive and subtractive second language acquisition approach and
29
how differences in structure may influence the language acquisition motivation of the
learners.
Second Language Acquisition
Dual Language Immersion and transitional bilingual education programs likely
have different impacts on the learners and their native language; moreover, there may be
possible motivational implications on the students. A very brief examination of the
research on second language acquisition was therefore in order. For example, Lambert
(1975) suggested that there are two types of bilingual schooling, namely subtractive and
additive schooling. The transitional bilingual education program uses the subtractive
schooling model. The students’ first language (L1) is essentially replaced by the second
language (L2). In additive schooling, students’ first language is not ignored and in no
danger of being replaced. Instead, a student’s first language, culture, and values are
believed to have an enhancing effect on the acquisition of the second language (Garcia,
1995). As in the case of the Dual Language Immersion program, the two languages are
used side-by-side and the second language is an addition to the first language. Students’
primary and second languages are valued simultaneously. A number of the studies
reviewed affirm the positive academic outcome of English Learners using the Dual
Language approach which is based on an additive model (Alanis, 2004; Howard et al.,
2004; Jong, 2002; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2001; Senesac, 2002; Thomas & Collier,
2002; Lindholm-Leary, 2005; Lindholm-Leary & Molina, 2006; Lindholm-Leary &
Ferrante, 2005; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006; Lindholm-
Leary, 2001; Christian, Montone, Lindholm, & Carranza, 1997; Howard, Sugarman,
Christian, Lindholm-Leary, & Rogers, 2007).
30
Cummins (1984) established a theoretical framework, which embeds the
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) within a larger theory of Common
Underlying Proficiency (CUP). The theory was based on the following assumptions:
When a person acquired two or more languages, there is one integrated source of
thoughts. Educational achievement may be developed through two languages as well as
one, it is more successful to deliver the content through two languages. Speaking,
listening, reading or writing in the first or the second language helps the whole cognitive
system to develop. Children who are second language learners need to have a well-
developed second language in order to be successful. If not the academic materials that
they are learning will be jeopardized.
Stritikus and Garcia (2003) observed two teachers, one using the additive
approach and the other using the subtractive approach with students in the language
minority. The authors found that, in the classroom where the teacher believed and used
the subtractive theory, students were more resistant in learning the English language. As
a result, the teacher believed that students needed more basic instruction, such as that
included in a scripted language program provided by the school district. In contrast, in the
classroom where the teacher believed and used the additive theory, students appeared to
be more engaged in their learning. Some of the activities pursued by the teacher in this
case included using story retelling, concept questions, and comments from students
drawn from their personal experiences.
Collier (1992) and Collier and Thomas (1989), found that well structured
bilingual programs, that is, programs that use English as well as the students’ primary
language in a structured manner, actually helped learners and shortened the time needed
31
for them to master English by a year or two. Collier (1992) synthesized multiple studies
that reported on the long-term language minority student data on academic achievement.
She found that students who are in dual immersion and late exit bilingual programs
reported to have higher achievement in English compared to students who are in early
exit bilingual program or structured English immersion program that have limited support
in their native language. Collier and Thomas (1989) examined how quickly second
language learners can acquire English. Their findings are that it depends on the student’s
cognitive development of their first language. They also recommended that school
programs needed to emphasize cognitive academic development in both first and second
language. Two-way immersion was one recommendation because it included strong
cognitive academic development in both first and second language and both majority and
minority are treated more as equals.
A longitudinal study by Thomas and Collier (2002) affirmed that learners who are
proficient in their primary language are more likely to achieve academic success in the
English language. Cummins (1981), Klesmer (1994), Ramirez et al, (1991), Lindholm-
Leary (2005), Lindholm-Leary and Molina (2006), Lindholm-Leary and Ferrante (2005)
arrived at similar conclusions and advocated the importance of helping learners maintain
their first language at school. These findings suggest that settings using the dual language
immersion model are more facilitating for English Learners. It is reasonable to
hypothesize that students are more motivated in these programs. In the next section, the
researcher will discuss teachers’ behaviors and classroom practice affects student
motivation.

32
Teachers’ Behaviors and Classroom Practices
Stipek (1996) argued that everything teachers do has a potential influence on
students’ motivation. According to Stipek, teachers choose to set goals for students,
reward positive behavior and achievement, group students, provide motivational
feedback, and convey their expectations both verbally and nonverbally in numerous
ways. Teachers’ behaviors also affect students through teacher planning and decision
making, instructional practices, teacher-student interaction, teacher expectations,
classroom management and organization, and constructivist approaches to teaching
(Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
Dolezal, Lindsey, Pressly and Vincent (2003) observed how nine third grade
teachers motivated students’ academic engagement. They found that teachers can be
classified into 3 levels: low, moderate and highly engaging. Highly engaging teachers
allow students to complete assignments that are cognitively challenging and appropriate.
These teachers used cooperative learning techniques, held individual students
accountable for performance, scaffold student learning, made connections across the
curriculum, encouraged student to have choice, had a gentle and caring manner,
interacted positively with students one-to-one, made home-school connections, provided
many opportunistic mini-lessons, made deep and personal connections to students,
supported appropriate risk-taking by students, made the classroom fun, encouraged
student creativity, and set a positive tone in the classroom. Many of these instructional
strategies can be used in either TBE or DI classrooms. With a foundation in that
everything teachers do has a potential influence on students’ motivation Stipek (1996), it
is essential to explore how teacher may influence student motivation.
33
Motivational Effects
In social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), motivation is viewed as an interrelated
effect in which the student, teacher and the environment all influence the other. There are
six categories that may affect student motivation. They are: teacher planning and decision
making, instructional practice, teacher-student interaction, teacher expectations,
classroom management and organization, and constructivist classroom practices.
Teacher planning and decision making. Teachers’ planning activities are
directly correlated to students’ abilities, needs, and motivation (Clark & Yinger, 1979). A
study by Clark and Yinger (1979) found that teachers usually do not make any change in
the course of their plan unless they sense that student motivation is lacking. The authors
noted that cooperative instructional grouping promotes self-efficacy where students’
goals are positively linked with the task.
Romero (1997) surveyed 89 second grade bilingual teachers on how they utilize
teacher planning and decision making for English Learners and English only students. He
wanted to find out if teachers plan differently for students who are English Learners and
those who are not. His findings were that teachers place a higher priority on variables that
benefit non-Limited English Proficient (non-LEP) students. He further concluded that
teachers did not use effective learning strategies, such as cooperative learning, whole
language strategies, learning styles, interdisciplinary, integrated thematic units, and other
active learning practices that are proven instructional strategies that benefit all students,
especially ELs.
Instructional practice. Murphy, Weil and McGreal (1986) illustrated six
learning environments that have been shown to have an impact on student achievement.
34
They are: teacher centrality, task orientation, positive expectations, student cooperation
and accountability, nonnegative affect, and established structure. When the teacher
maintains teacher centrality, students show greater involvement and more on task
behavior. Teachers’ emphasis of on-task orientation and completing academic tasks are
also helpful in improving student academic achievement. When teachers expect student
cooperation and hold students accountable for what they do in a group, positive results
occur. Nonnegative affect also impacts student achievement. Finally, as to established
structure, when teachers establish class rules, create warm positive environments, and
promote self esteem, learning is facilitated. Modeling also enhances students’ self-
efficacy. Modeling can be provided through the teacher and peers or multiple peers. In
this case, students learn by viewing the model, which reinforces their ability to succeed
given that they have witnessed someone else doing the same (Schunk, 1987).
Teacher-student interaction. There are four types of feedback teachers use when
interacting with students: (1) performance; (2) motivational; (3) attributional; and (4)
strategy. In addition, rewards, classroom climate, praise, criticism and unsolicited help
also affect students’ self-efficacy (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Bazron, Osher and
Fleishman (2005) recommended that schools can serve students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds if they set high expectations, give students direct
instructions, create environments where students and teachers are able to connect, and
help build a classroom community to ensure that students receive high quality of
education.
Teacher expectations. Several researchers (e.g., Al-Fadhli & Singh, 2007;
Ladson-Billings, 1994; Mc Brien & Brandt, 1997; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) have
35
found that teacher expectations and how they are communicated to students greatly
influences students’ motivation and achievement. One of the more important expectations
is teacher self-efficacy. Teachers who believe that students can learn are more likely to
plan challenging activities, help students’ learn when experiencing difficulty, and assist
students in the development of student motivation (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Tenenbaum
and Ruck (2007) conducted a meta-analysis regarding teachers’ expectations different for
racial minority students and European American students. Their findings were that
teachers held more positive expectations for Asian American students and European
American students than with African American and Latino/a students. Positive and
neutral speech such as questions and encouragement were directed to European American
students more than to African American and Latino/a students. Negative speech such as
criticism was directed to all students. The study concluded that teachers’ expectation and
speech differs between European Americans and African Americans and Latino/a
students. The study also reported that this unfair treatment is more prominent in the South
than in the West and Midwest regions. Tenenbaum and Ruck (2007) concluded that this
unfair treatment may translates into a less fair classroom where African American and
Latino/a students having more limited educational opportunities. The implication of this
study may reflect that teachers in the TBE classrooms may not favor or even provide
equitable educational opportunities to the English Learners in their classrooms as their
counterparts in the DL program.
Classroom management and organization. Wang, Haertel, and Walberg (1993),
examined the work of 11,000 studies and found that classroom management is identified
as most important for student achievement. In the study (Wang et al., 1993) classroom
36
management includes group alerting, learner accountability and smooth transitions. Wang
et al., (1993) found that effective classroom management help increases students’
engagement, decrease disruptive behaviors, and provide valuable instructional time.
In addition, Kounin (1977) define classroom management to include teachers’
“with-it-ness,” learners’ responsibilities, group altering, and smooth transitions.
Similarly, classrooms where students are motivated to learn include management
strategies such as “desists,” where teachers’ use clarity, firmness, and roughness to stop
misbehavior. Kounin described “with-it-ness” as when teachers inform students through
their actual behavior. Likewise, overlapping occurs when teachers respond to two
incidents simultaneously; movement management relates to how smoothly teachers deal
with the flow and transition of the lesson, and group focus to teachers’ efforts in keeping
students on task. Lastly, programming to avoiding satiation – repetition creates boredom.
Kounin (1977) found that when teachers do not make work repetitious, students feel more
challenged and are more positive.
Constructivist classroom practices. A constructivist classroom is one that
focuses on the belief that learning occurs when students are actively involved in a process
of meaning and knowledge construction rather than only receiving information from the
teacher. Constructivist teaching fosters critical thinking and creates motivated and
independent learners. In a constructivist classroom, it involves creating agency for
learning, providing opportunities for reflection, and organizing the classroom for
collaboration and cooperation among students, teachers and others. In a constructivist
classroom, teachers use authentic assessments, create classroom discussions on learning
and knowledge, and provide opportunities for thinking and learning. In addition, teachers
37
provide learning tools that support student learning when working on challenging tasks,
assist students to create and use various artifacts, provide scaffolding to support student
learning, and create a culture of learning that includes respect for others (Greeno, 1989;
Simpson, 2002). Constructivist classroom practice can be implemented in both TBE and
DL classrooms.
In conclusion, teacher planning and decision making, instructional practice,
teacher-student interaction, teacher expectations, classroom management and
organization, and constructivist classroom practices can have both positive and negative
impact on student motivation depending on how the teacher focus and structured each of
the area. Therefore, it was important to examine the classroom organization, classroom
environment, activities, and instructional practices to determine if they differ between in
the dual language and transitional bilingual education classrooms. In addition, how do
classroom environment, organization, and instructional practices reflect these attitudes
and perceptions? The next section the researcher will discuss how classroom goal
orientation affects student motivation.
Effects of Classroom Goal Structures on Students’ Motivation
Dweck and Leggett (1988) and Elliott and Dweck (1988) identified two
classroom goal orientations: learning and performance goals. Learning goal oriented
students tend to choose challenging tasks, persistence, remain unaffected in self-esteem
in regards to failure of task, and always wanted to optimize their chances of success.
They tend to utilize difficult tasks to develop competencies and view mistakes and
feedback as learning opportunities that enables them to build self-efficacy (Bandura,
1986). In contrast, performance goal orientated students tend to avoid challenge when
38
compared with peers, concentrate on the end result of the task, focus on disapproval of
others, and give up when face with difficult tasks. Using slightly different terminologies,
Ames & Archer (1987, 1988) defined goal orientation to be mastery and performance.
Students with mastery goal orientation tend to have a long term and high quality
involvement in learning; they usually are more engaged with the task and show greater
perseverance when faced with difficult tasks. Performance goal orientated students, on
the other hand, tend to avoid challenging tasks, handle failures with negative affects, and
associate failures with their own lack of abilities. These students also tend to use short
term learning strategies such as memorizing and rehearsing. Based on Locke and
Latham’s (2002) contention that goal setting requires self-efficacy, it is reasonable to
assume that students with high self-efficacy are more likely to set and sustain goals and
are mastery oriented and students who are performance goal orientation will have high
self efficacy only when they perform well on the task.
Elliott and Harackiewicz (1996) proposed an integrative achievement goal
approach that includes: mastery, performance-approach and performance-avoidance.
Elliott and Church (1997) concluded that mastery goal orientation provides achievement
motivation, high competence expectancies and intrinsic motivation. Performance
approach orientation promotes achievement motivation, fear of failure, and high
competence expectancies. It works best with graded performance. This orientation is
unfavorable to both intrinsic motivation and grade performance because this is an
extrinsic goal orientation, student focus on getting good grades, doing work for reward or
to avoid punishment.
39
Patrick et al. (2001) investigated how teacher communication affects the goal
orientation of students in fourth and fifth grades. Teachers who facilitate mastery goal
structures typically want to understand the curriculum and utilize teaching tasks that
foster the value of learning (Maehr & Midgley, 1991). Performance goal teachers, on the
other hand, tend to promote competition among students and reinforce the importance of
outperforming others or achieving success with little efforts (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Performance avoidance is when student are negatively motivated to avoid looking stupid
and as a failure (Elliott, 1997; Elliott & Harackiewicz, 1996).
Epstein (1989) identified six classroom dimensions that affect motivation. Goal
orientation theorists Ames (1992) and Maehr and Midgley (1996) used these six
categories to determine how classroom-learning environment can contribute to different
goal orientation. These categories were described using the acronym TARGET, which
stands for Task, Authority, Recognition, Grouping, Evaluation, and Time.
Task (Ames, 1992) refers to whether the task is meaningful and challenging to the
students. Task dimension has three features: the diversity of the task helps student to
maintain interest, the way teachers present the task to the students will allow students to
see relevance and meaning to the task, and tasks that are challenging and contain specific
and short term goals can help students feel efficacious.
Authority/autonomy is defined by Ames (1992) as how rules are established in the
classroom and the type of discipline plan in place (e.g., Are students allowed to
participate in classroom decision-making? Do students have choices in the classrooms?).
This dimension can include allowing students to decide when the work will be completed
40
and how the task will be completed. This allows students to become self regulated
learners.
Recognition was defined as how students are recognized for effort, progress and
accomplishment (Ames, 1992). She further illustrates the need to allow all students
opportunities to earn rewards. If students feel that they will never be able to obtain
reward then interest and motivation for the task will diminish. She also suggested that
recognition should be private and based on personal improvement.
Grouping is how students are able to work with each other (Ames, 1992). This
may include how students are grouped in various sizes and configurations for instruction.
Examples may include small group instructions, cooperative groups and whether students
have different roles within the groups. Small group work is beneficial to low achievers as
they can feel efficacious through the success of the group.
Evaluation dimension is the use of student evaluations and assessments (e.g., the
criteria for evaluation, whether students evaluate each others work, social rankings, and
the use of portfolios). Mastery goal can be accomplish through the use of displaying all
student work, heterogeneous grouping of student ability and evaluation that allow
students to show growth and improvement.
Time use was defined as how time is utilized within the classroom. Examples
include time restrictions, whether or not students are allowed to self-select when they do
their work during the week and opportunities for students to set proximal goals.
The main features in Dual Language Immersion programs may include teachers
using instructional strategies that will allow second language learners to understand the
lesson and, at the same time, provide second language development (Christian, Howard,
41
& Loeb, 2000). In these settings, teachers should utilize a variety of strategies that
challenge second language learners to use academic language skills. This includes using
thematic unit approaches where students have the opportunity to be exposed to the same
subject matter through different curricula areas. Also included are intensive peer
interactions where students serve as experts in their first language and gain confidence in
the process. Cooperative learning, peer coaching, and student-centered classrooms are
also instructional strategies used in a Dual Language Immersion program (Christian,
Howard, & Loeb, 2000) are parallel to the motivational effects of teachers’ behaviors and
classroom practices.
Patrick et al. (2000) surveyed 223 students regarding their classroom goal
orientation. Based on the survey, researchers identified four classrooms that have very
different motivational profiles: two high and two low mastery goal oriented classrooms.
Patrick et al. then extensively observed these classrooms. Based on their analysis of both
quantitative and qualitative data, the authors concluded that even though participating
teachers identified students’ grades publicly, teachers in the two high mastery goal
orientation classrooms presented grades in a matter of fact manner and did not take
students’ effort into consideration. In addition, in high mastery goal orientation
classrooms, teachers emphasized formal assessment, grades, and students’ performance.
Teachers in the two high mastery goal orientation classrooms also indicated to students
the importance of understanding, learning as an active process, participation, interaction
among students, and the relevance of recognizing their efforts.
Similarly, a recent study from Karabenick and Clemens Noda (2004) surveyed
729 teachers in a Midwestern suburban district. Results indicated that while, in general,
42
teachers have positive attitudes towards English Learners, and many of them have less
supportive beliefs, attitudes, and practices regarding bilingual education. Karabenick and
Clemens Noda also found that teachers who are supportive of English Learners in their
classroom tend to believe that students’ first language promotes their school performance
and does not hinder development of the second language. In addition, the researchers
found that teachers with favorable attitudes towards English Learners tend to use mastery
goals rather than performance goals in their classroom instruction. These teachers also
have a higher self-efficacy in their own teaching of the English Learners.
In conclusion, the findings of Karabenick and Clemens Noda (2004) indicate that
teacher beliefs influence classroom orientation and processes; in turn, these factors have
motivational implications for students. Specific to this study, teachers working in dual
immersion programs who believe in the effectiveness of the additive model of language
acquisition might use different instructional strategies than their peers in transitional
bilingual education programs who are more committed to the subtractive model. These
potential differences, which can be observed through the categories outlined in the
TARGET model previously described, might also have different motivational effects for
English learners during English language acquisition. Therefore this research will
examine the teachers’ perceptions and attitudes regarding native language instruction in a
dual language and transitional bilingual classroom.
Summary of Literature Review
The increase of English Learners in the US had been undeniable. Researchers had
been diligently seeking the best way to educate these students. Studies from Eccles and
Wigfield, Pintrich and Schunk (2002) and Ainley et al. (2002) have concluded that
43
students who have high task value, self efficacy and interest are indicators of higher
student achievement. Eccles and Wigfield (2002) concluded that students who have high
task value to have higher student achievement. These are students who believe that one’s
actions and one’s personal ability has direct relationship to the accomplishment of the
tasks. Pintrich and Schunk have identified that self-efficacy as a good predictor of student
achievement. Ainley et al. (2002) concluded that topic interest could lead to affective
response, persistence, and learning. Gardner’s socio-educational model have identified
that motivation is undeniably a critical variable for second language development.
Research had shown that additive model of language acquisition approaches have great
influence on the language acquisition motivation of the learners (Stritikus & Garcia,
2003). Many research have found that dual language immersion program provide positive
academic outcome for English Learners (Alanis, 2004; Howard et al., 2004; Jong, 2002;
Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2001; Senesac, 2002; Thomas & Collier, 2002; Lindholm-
Leary, 2005) and Dual language immersion program is based on the additive model.
In addition, teachers’ behaviors and classroom practice have a potential influence
on students’ motivation (Stipek, 1996); teachers can be classified into 3 levels: low,
moderate and highly engaging. The different levels can have different affects to student
motivation. Bandura (1986) social cognitive theory viewed motivation as an interrelated
effect in which the student, teacher and the environment all influence the other. There are
six categories that may affect the student motivation. They are: teacher planning and
decision making, instructional practice, teacher-student interaction, teacher expectations,
classroom management and organization, and constructivist classroom practices. In
addition, researcher found that classrooms that exhibit the indicators of mastery goal
44
orientation have motivational implications for students. Goal orientation (Maehr &
Midgley, 1996) can be observed in the classroom using these six categories: Task,
Authority, Recognition, Grouping, Evaluation, and Time.
If the findings of Collier et al. hold true, Dual Language Immersion programs
provide a more facilitating learning environment for English development and acquisition
for students in promoting self-efficacy (Eccles & Wigfield,1995; Pintrich & Schunk,
2002; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich & Schrauben,1992), task value (Bandura,
1986; Bong 2001a; 2001b; 2002, 2004; Bong & Hocevar, 2002; Bong & Skaalvik, 2003)
and interest (Renninger et al., 1992; Krapp et al. 1992; Ainley et al., 2002). If teachers’
behaviors (Stipek, 1996; Clark & Yinger, 1979; Romero, 1977) and classroom practices
(Murphy et al, 1997; Kounin, 1977) have direct effects on students’ motivation to learn a
second language and teachers of Dual Language Immersion programs have more positive
perceptions and attitudes regarding native language instruction, language learning
environment, then these positive attitudes may lead to favorable impacts on student
motivational factors. There is a good reason to expect that the dual language immersion
program will make a difference in the students’ learning.

45
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Using case study methods and classroom observations, the purposes of this study
were twofold: First, it was designed to explore the characteristics of specific motivational
constructs of English Learners in pursuing English proficiency in an additive (Dual
Immersion) and a subtractive (Transitional Bilingual Education) environment.
Specifically, the study focused on English Learners’ task value, self-efficacy, and interest
in English-language arts development (as opposed to the development of playground
English.) The selection of these motivational constructs derived from the documented
influence they had on student achievements. Second, this study examined the
characteristics of teachers’ attitudes, behaviors, and instructional practices in the two
settings and how these factors might have motivational implications on student learning.
An underlying goal of this research was to examine if there were differences in
motivational processes and characteristics between these two very different language
learning environments. The research therefore followed three guiding questions:
1. In what ways do classroom organization, classroom environment,
activities, and instructional practices differ between Dual Language and Transitional
Bilingual Education classrooms?
2. In what ways do teachers’ behaviors and classroom practice as well as
their self-reported attitudes and perceptions regarding their practices differ in a Dual
Language and Transitional Bilingual Education classroom?
3. What are students’ motivational perceptions of language learning in these
two settings? How are they being reflected in student self-efficacy, task value, and
interest in language learning?
46
Study Design
The subjects of this study were 4th and 5th grade English Learners and teachers.
The space and temporal boundaries of this study were confined to two elementary
schools and a three-month period within an academic year. During this time, this
researcher conducted interviews and classroom observations of both EL students and
teachers. Student behaviors, teacher expectations, classroom practice and concrete
examples of program implementation were the topics of these inquiries.
Research Setting
The current study was conducted at two elementary schools. The target group in
this research included fourth and fifth grade Dual Language and Transitional Bilingual
Education classrooms and teachers who worked in these settings. The school district
involved was located about 20 miles south of downtown Chicago. There were 10
elementary schools and 3 intermediate schools. The total enrollment of the school district
was approximately 4,100. The schools where the research conducted were both 4-5
elementary schools with about 250 students. The Dual Language school was the feeder
school to a K-3 building with Dual Language Immersion program in the district; the
program had been in existence for nine years. The Transitional Bilingual Education
school was also a grade 4-5 building and a feeder school to a K-3 building that had the
Transitional Bilingual program.
According to the Illinois Interactive Report Card (2009) the demographic
composition of the DL school in 2009 included 26.9% qualifying for English language
learners support, and 88.9% enrolled in the free, reduced lunch program. The racial
composite of the school was 11.1% White, 16.2% Black and 69.7% Hispanic. The
47
demographic composition of the TBE school in 2009 included 26.6% qualifying for
English language learner support, and 85.6% enrolled in the free, reduced lunch program.
The racial composite of the school was 8.6% White, 23.7% Black and 64.4% Hispanic.
The TBE school was identified as Academic Early Warning Status in 2009 while the DL
school was identified as Academic Watch Status. These schools did not make Adequate
Yearly Progress for two or more consecutive years and were eligible for state sanctions
(IIRC, 2009). The researcher observed two DL and two TBE classrooms, two fourth
grade classes and two fifth grade classes from. These students were chosen because they
had been in the respective program for the longest period of time. The average class size
was 22 students. DL students received 90% of instruction in Spanish and 10% in English
in Kindergarten; when they reached fifth grade, 50% of the instruction is in English and
50% in Spanish. For TBE students, kindergarten students received 90% of instruction in
Spanish and 10% in English; by fourth grade, all instructions are in English. TBE
classrooms only used ELs’ primary language as a last resort whereas their DL
counterparts could use Spanish to ask questions, even during English instructional
periods.
Participants
The researcher selected eight students for in-depth interviews. The criteria for
selection were: 1) English Learners in grades four and five whose primary language is
Spanish; and 2) English Learners who were in either the Dual Language Immersion
program or the Transitional Bilingual program since kindergarten. The researcher also
conducted individual interviews with four teachers (two from the TBE program and two
from the DL program). All four teachers had similar teaching experiences. The fourth
48
grade DL teachers had been in the DL program for two years but had taught TBE classes
for six years elsewhere in the district. The fifth grade DL teacher had three years of DL
program experience, two in another district and one in the current district. The fourth
grade TBE teacher had six years of teaching experience with a TBE program. The 5th
grade TBE teacher had been teaching 5th grade TBE for two years in this school district
and seven years of experience with a TBE program. All four teachers were certified to
teach elementary school in Illinois with a Type 03 certificate. A type 03 certificate is a
general certificate that permits the teacher to teach in K-9 settings. In addition, all four
teachers also had a bilingual endorsement, which was granted them after the completion
of an additional 18 credits in the area of language acquisition and the passing of a
language proficiency test to prove proficiency in the targeted language. Classes that
fulfill the bilingual endorsement include: Foundations in Language Minority Education,
Assessment of Language Minority Students, Methods and Materials for Teaching English
as a Second Language, Cross Cultural Education, Methods and Materials for Teaching
Bilingual Students and one elective course either Introduction to Linguistics or Reading
in a New Language: Linguistic Considerations.
Instrumentation
The instrumentations used for classroom observations, teachers’ interviews and
students’ interviews were developed based on the motivational framework described in
the literature review. The classroom observation protocol (see Appendix A) was taken
from the Teachers’ Communication of Goal Orientations in Fourth and Fifth grade
classrooms by Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Ryan, Edelin, and Midgley (2001). Goal
orientation theorists Ames (1992) and Maehr and Midgley (1996) used six categories to
49
determine how classroom-learning environment can contribute to student learning. Using
the acronym TARGET, these six categories stand for Task, Authority, Recognition,
Grouping, Evaluation, and Time.
An interview protocol was developed to better focus the teachers’ interviews (see
Appendix C). Probing questions were developed in accordance with the guiding
questions. These questions focus on: (a) teachers’ behaviors in classroom practices for
English Learners; instructional methods; (b) motivational considerations in classroom
organization; (c) instruction and teaching methods that might promote or inhibit students’
self-efficacy; and (d) task value and interest among English Learners in academic English
development (Strikus & Garcia, 2003). These dimensions were adapted from Pintrich and
Schunk (2002) and represent teacher and classroom factors that have been shown to
influence student motivation.
An interview protocol was developed to better focus the students’ interviews (see
Appendix B). Probing questions were developed to guide the questions. These questions
focused on the students’ self efficacy, task value, and interest in learning English that
might promote or inhibit the English Learners in learning English. The self efficacy
questions were adapted, in part, from Bandura’s (2001) children self-efficacy scale. The
researcher utilized the following parts: self-efficacy in enlisting social resources, self-
efficacy for academic achievement, and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning. The task
value, and interest in learning English questions were adapted from Eccles and Wigfield
(2003) and McKenna and Stahl (2003).
The guiding questions for students included the following dimensions: (a) Self-
Efficacy and Enlisting Social Resources (from teachers / adults; from students/ friends);
50
(b) Task Value (believes learning English is worthwhile to the students; interested in
working on English assignments; enjoys doing English schoolwork; thinks it important to
get good grades in English and that doing so helps with finding jobs; views the language
important in his/her daily life); and (c) Interest (enjoys reading English books; reads an
English book for fun; reads instead of play; goes to a bookstore; completes workbook
pages and worksheets; reads aloud).
Both the teachers’ and students’ interview protocols included sections for
interviewee’s responses, interviewer’s comments, as well as space for reflective notes.
These protocols provided useful structures for the researcher to converse with the
interviewees in sequential and orderly manners; they also assisted the researcher in data
analysis.
Data Collection
Classroom Observation
The researcher conducted ten classroom observations in both the DL and TBE
classrooms. During these observations, classroom processes, interactions, and activities
were analyzed relative to the literature on motivational variables vital for students’ ability
to acquire academic English skills. In this case, the literature served as a critical lens by
which salient themes are identified that might potentially interfere with the students’
academic progress. Notes from these observations were further synthesized following
each observation and aggregated in order to identify pedagogical implications related to
the study.
The researcher observed each classroom at least five times over a period of three
months from February to May 2009. This provided multiple “snapshots” of classroom
51
activities over time so as to avoid selective bias. For each observation, the researcher was
present in a classroom for no less than 1.5 hours. The researcher also observed the
different classrooms at different times of day to ensure that the “snapshots” were not
biased in the data collection. The researcher designated at least half of the time to observe
English Language Arts lessons and the other half to observe lessons in which various
other subjects were taught in English.
Student Interviews
The purpose of the interviews was to further examine the emerging themes and
patterns obtained from classroom observations. The interviews provided the opportunity
to continue to clarify and ask students questions regarding task value, self-efficacy, and
interest. The student interviews allowed the researcher to establish credibility and
trustworthiness in qualitative paradigms through the collection of data from multiple
sources, a technique known as the triangulation of research data. “Triangulation
strengthens a study by combing methods,” stated Patton (2001). It is compilation of data
from multiple and different sources, including different methods, investigators and even
theoretical frameworks, that help confirm and explain the evidence observed (Ely et al.
1991; Lincoln & Cuba, 1985; Miles & Hubberman, 1994; Patton, 1990). Golasfshani
(2003) further characterized that engaging multiple methods, such as observation,
interviews and recording will lead to more valid, reliable and diverse construction of
realities.
The researcher conducted student interviews with eight students, four from the
Dual Language Immersion program and the rest from the Transitional Bilingual
52
Education program, with one male and one female in each class and limited the number
of student interviewees to eight for quality time and in-depth individual interviews.
During the interview the researcher recorded the entire interview as well as took
notes to ensure the accuracy of data collected. Through the student interviews the
researcher explored EL students’ self -efficacy, task value, and interest in studying
English language arts. The interview protocol facilitated open-ended response. All
interviews took place on school ground and lasted no more than 30 minutes.
Teachers’ Interviews
Like student interviews, teacher interviews were an attempt to triangulate data to
achieve greater reliability and validity of data collected.
Procedures
The researcher contacted the district personnel and school principal by phone and
then a letter inviting them to participate in the study. Once school permissions were
obtained, parental consent was also obtained prior to the student interviews. A consent
form and parent letter in Spanish and English were given to parents of the students. The
form and letter included the purpose of the survey, an acknowledgement that
participation was voluntary, and a confidentiality statement.
Next, the researcher conducted the classroom observations. The teacher and
student interviews were also scheduled and were conducted at the school site. Prior to all
teacher interviews, consent to participate forms were reviewed and signed by each
interviewee. The teacher and student interviews were tape recorded. If any clarification
was needed after the initial interview, the researcher contacted the interviewees by phone.
Interviews were conducted with all selected participants at the two schools. The
53
researcher scheduled at least 45-minute interviews with each teacher and between 15-30
minutes for each student.
Data Analysis
This researcher followed the three essential steps of data identified by Miles and
Huberman (1994): (1) data reduction, (2) data display, as well as (3) conclusion drawing
and verification. Data reduction involved the trimming down and organization of the data
in a meaningful way. The data need to be presented in a manageable amount and be
categorized according to the research questions. Even though one may want to purely
address the research question in straight forward manner, one must be aware that new
meaning and ideas emerged from the collected data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Data
display was the next step in data analysis. This process allowed the researcher to begin to
draw conclusion from the collected data. One technique for data display was to use flow
charts. Miles and Huberman (1994) discussed two types of data display: intra-case
analysis and cross-case analysis. Intra-case analysis reports the data from different groups
within a site while cross-case reports information collected from the same group across
different sites. For this study the researcher used intra-case method to display the data
collected among the different participants, i.e., classroom observation, classroom
teachers, and students. The last step of data analysis was to draw and verify conclusions.
Verification would lead to conclusions. This included re-examining the data as many
times as necessary to verify that the emergent conclusions were clearly identified.
Data analysis in this study included the analysis of classroom observations,
teacher interviews and student interviews. To remain cognizant of the interviewer’s
beliefs and the research structures that might otherwise shape and even bias the analysis
54
and interpretation of data, this researcher maintained an implementation journal through
each encounter with the subject. These notes allowed the researcher to identify the
portions of the reported data in which she might have inadvertently interjected her
personal views into those of the teachers and students involved (Glesne & Peshkin,
1992). In addition, the researcher periodically conducted member-checks with teachers to
obtain their reactions to her observations and to verify the accuracy of their interview
accounts. Data were triangulated using multiple methods and data sources (individual
teachers, individual students, and classroom observations).
Classroom Observation Data
Upon completion of all classroom observations the researcher organized the field
notes with codes derived from the three research questions. The codes were related to the
potential differences in student self-efficacy, task value beliefs, and interest for English
language arts development (Walcott, 1994). The data were coded manually and presented
using tables or graphs. They were also presented descriptively in terms of qualitative
characterizations of each of the settings (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992).
The coded document and tables allowed the researcher to identify patterns,
themes or categorizes emerged from the data. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggested
critical questions to be asked during data analysis. They include the followings: First,
what patterns and common themes emerge from the responses under specific items? How
do these patterns (or lack thereof) help to illuminate the broader study question(s)? Are
there any deviations from these patterns? If yes, are there any factors that might explain
these atypical responses. Secondly, what interesting stories emerge from the responses?
How can these stories help illuminate the broader study question(s). Thirdly, do any of
55
these patterns or findings suggest that additional data may need to be collected? Do any
of the study questions need to be revised? Finally, do the patterns that emerge corroborate
the findings of any corresponding qualitative analyses that have been conducted? If not,
what might explain these discrepancies?
Teacher and Student Interviews Data
The subcategories in the interview questions were used as a beginning coding
system to categorize the teachers’ responses. For example, when the researcher ask about
their planning and decision making, this researcher looked for grouping practices such as
competitive grouping, cooperative grouping, and individualistic grouping. The teacher
and student interview protocol included research questions, interviewee’s response,
interviewer’s comments, and space to make reflective notes (see Appendix B and C). The
reason for using an interview protocol was to facilitate open-ended responses and provide
an opportunity to converse with all participants in a sequential way to ensure that all
categories of questions were answered. The interview protocol was also used to assist the
researcher in analyzing data.
The teacher and student interviews were analyzed using qualitative methodology
that was descriptive and interpretive. The researcher first reduced and organized the data,
then the interviews was transcribed them using the various sections in the interview
protocol as guides guiding transcription. Data were then be sorted and rearranged for
presentations. While analyzing the parts, this researcher made a conscious efforts to read
through the complete set of data several times to ensure the interpretations of the parts
were consistent with the overall meaning conveyed through the entire set of data. The
56
researcher read the data to get a general sense of the information and then reflect on the
overall meaning.
Reliability and Validity
With the data collected from student surveys, classroom observations and teacher
interviews at various intervals, the researcher was able to use triangulation to ensure the
credibility of the data and, thus, the research. Specifically, the researcher examined if the
patterns surfaced during classroom observations over time had consistency and if the
themes emerged during classroom observations coincide with those observed through
teacher’s interviews.
To ensure reliability this researcher maintained detailed field notes during
classroom observations and teacher’s interviews. She also performed a member check
that includes checking the findings with the classroom teachers, principals, and district
administrators to further increase the levels of reliability. Participants’ quotations and
literal descriptions were used during data analysis and every attempt was made to search
for discrepancies in the data. In addition, this researcher recruited another doctoral
candidate to code a part of the observations to enhance the reliability of the research. The
doctoral student was given a set of typed notes collected from the classroom
observations, teacher interviews and student interviews as well as coding guides. The
themes and patterns identified by her were consistent with those observed by this
researcher. She coded one of the classroom observations for me to determine if the same
patterns were identifies. The findings were consistent with my own coding.

57
Chapter Summary
To explore the possible differences in motivational characteristics in two different
English language development settings, this researchers conducted classroom
observations in two DL classrooms (one 4th grade and one 5th grade) and two TBE
classrooms (also one 4th grade and one 5th grade) in two elementary schools of the same
school district near the city of Chicago. In addition, she conducted in-depth interviews
with eight students in the four classes, with the number of students equally distributed
across programs and grade levels. Observations and interview protocols (see Appendices
A, B & C) were developed from the research of motivational theorists (Bandura, 2001;
Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001), goal theorists (Ames, 1992;
Maehr & Midgley, 1996) as well as researchers of teachers’ classroom practices. For
student interviews, in particular, the motivational constructs of self-efficacy, task values
and interests of ELs’ English language arts development were the sole focus. Separately,
she also conducted in-depth interviews with all four teachers from these classes. Data
analyses of the three sets of observations followed the steps outlined by Miles and
Huberman (1994): first, data reduction, second, data display and third, conclusion
drawing and verification. The researcher performed careful coding of the data collected,
using the three research questions as well as the outlines of the interview and observation
protocols as guidelines for coding. To ensure validity and reliability of conclusions
drawn, the researchers recorded the interviews in their entirety, took copious journal and
notes throughout the interviews, used member-checking technique to check her
observations, carefully triangulated data from three sources to ensures themes and
patterns emerged from the various sources were consistent.
58
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This chapter presents the data collected from teachers’ and students’ interviews as
well as classroom observations to explore the potential differences motivational factors in
a Dual Language Immersion and a Transitional Bilingual Program in two elementary
schools. The variables examined were ELs’ task value, self-efficacy, and interest in
studying English language arts and teachers’ instructional practices in the two respective
programs. This study used case study methodology to collect data at two elementary
schools in Illinois within the same district. The data was collected using teacher
interviews, student interviews and classroom observations.
The researcher interviewed four teachers: one fourth grade and one fifth grade
Dual Language program teacher, as well as one fourth grade and one fifth grade
transitional bilingual teacher. Eight students were interviewed, one male and one female
from each program and each grade level. The researcher observed each classroom five
times at various times of day. Students were engaged in language arts, social studies,
science, or mathematics. The researcher will first describe the participants in the study,
followed by the discussions of findings in the order of the three research questions.
Findings in the subcategories under each research questions will be highlighted; relevant
studies in literature reviews will be cited for reference purposes.
The data obtained from the selected schools was analyzed using the analysis form
developed by the researcher to answer the three research questions. Research Question
One examined the potential differences in classroom organization, classroom
environment, activities, and instructional practices the two types of learning
environments through classroom observations. The subcategories included task,
59
authority, recognition, grouping, evaluation and time (TARGET). According to goal
theorists Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Ryan, Edelin, and Midgley (2001), the proper
implementation of instructional strategies in one or more of these areas could have
potential motivational and goal orientation implications for learners. Research Question
Two explored teachers’ self reported attitudes and instruction practices in these two
different environments through one on one in-depth interviews. The subcategories
encompassed teacher planning and decision making, instructional practices, teacher-
student interactions, teacher expectations, classroom management and organization, and
teaching in constructivist classroom. These dimensions were adapted (in part) from
Pintrich and Schunk (2002) and represented teacher and classroom factors that have been
shown to influence student motivations. Finally, Research Question Three compared
ELs’ self-ascribed motivational attributes for English Language arts development in self-
efficacy, task value and interest in classroom contexts that treat their primary language
very differently.
Participants
In order to keep confidentiality for the teachers and students, the researcher used
pseudo names for the schools, teachers and students. The researcher will describe a) the
demographic information regarding the school and the school districts, b) teachers’
characteristics and c) students’ characteristics.
School District Information
The school district, which was located about 20 miles south of downtown
Chicago, had ten elementary schools and three intermediate schools. The total enrollment
of the school district was approximately 4,100. The two schools involved where the
60
research conducted were both fourth and fifth grade elementary schools with about 250
students each. The Aeolian School, which housed the two DL classes, had been operating
a DL program for nine years; students in these classes came from a K-3 feeder school.
The two TBE classes were from the Nelson School; their TBE students came from a
feeder K-3 school that had a Transitional Bilingual Education program.
According to the Illinois Interactive Report Card (2009) the demographic
composition of the Aeolian school in 2009 included 26.9% qualifying for English
language learner support, and 88.9% enrolled in the free, reduced lunch program; the
racial composite of the school was 11.1% White, 16.2% Black and 69.7% Hispanic. The
demographic composition of Nelson School in 2009 were comprised of 26.6% qualifying
for English language learner support, and 85.6% enrolled in the free, reduced lunch
program; the racial composite of the school was 8.6% White, 23.7% Black and 64.4%
Hispanic. The Nelson School was identified as Academic Early Warning Status in 2009
while The Aeolian School was identified as Academic Watch Status. These schools did
not make Adequate Yearly Progress for two or more consecutive years and were eligible
for state sanctions (IIRC, 2009).
Information about the Classes
Of the two DL and two TBE classes, two of them were fourth grade and two were
fifth grade. Student interviewees were chosen for their longevity in their respective
programs. The average class size was 22 students. DL students in kindergarten received
90% of instruction in Spanish and 10% in English. When students reached fifth grade,
50% of the instruction was in English and the other half in Spanish. EL students in the
TBE program could use their primary language for academic support in early grades. But
61
when they reached third grade, English have primacy over their native language, in this
case Spanish was used only as a last resort.
Teachers’ Characteristics
The two DL teachers from the Aeolian School were Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLT), the
fourth grade Dual Language Immersion (4DLC) teacher and Mrs. Serrano (5DLT), the
fifth grade Dual Language Immersion teacher (5DLC). Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) and Mrs.
Garcia (5TBET) were fourth grade Transitional Bilingual Education teacher (4TBEC)
and fifth grade Transitional Bilingual Education teacher (5TBEC), respectively, at Nelson
School.
Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLT) had taught in the school district for six years and was in
her second year teaching a fourth grade Dual Language class at Aeolian. Prior to this, she
also taught TBE program for six years. Mrs. Serrano (5DLT) was in her first year at
Aeolian as a 5th grade Dual Language teacher. She had taught Dual Language for two
years at another school prior. In addition, Mrs. Serrano (5DLT) also taught English as a
Second Language at the high school level for three years and was an instructional
assistance for this district for another five years.
Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) had been teaching TBE classes at Nelson School and the
district for six years. Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) had been teaching 5th grade Transitional
Bilingual program for two years in Nelson. She had a total of seven years of experience
with TBE program. This was her fifth year in the school district and she had been
teaching for a total of nine years. The following table (Table A) provides teachers’
experience information.

62

Table A: Teachers’ Experience Information

Aeolian School Nelson School

Mrs. Rodriguez
(4DLT)
Mrs. Serrano
(5DLT)
Mrs. Brindle
(4TBET)
Mrs. Garcia
(5TBET)

4
th
grade Dual
Language
Teacher
5
th
grade Dual
Language
Teacher
4
th
grade
Transitional
Bilingual
Education
Teacher
5
th
grade
Transitional
Bilingual
Education
Teacher
Experience
within district
1 yr with DL 2 yrs with DL
4 yrs with TBE
6 years with
TBE
2 years with
TBE
Experience
outside district
1 yr with DL
3 yrs high
school ESL
2 yrs TBE 5 years with
TBE
2 years other
program

Students’ Characteristics
Both Aeolian and Nelson school housed only 4th and 5th grade students, therefore
all students had been in the school for either one or two years, depending on their grade
levels. In order to qualify as a subject for this research, all student interviewee spoke
Spanish as their primary language, and used it at home; they were all classified as English
Learners. Student interviewees were completely gender balanced. Juan (4DLM) and
Sandy (4DLF) were in Mrs. Rodriguez’s fourth grade Dual Immersion class and Alex
(5DLM) and Maiya (5DLF) were DL students in the Mrs. Serrano’s fifth class. On the
other hand, Maria (4TBEF) and Jorge (4TBEM) were in the fourth grade TBE class with
Mrs. Brindle whereas Jennifer (5TBEF) and Jonathan (5TBEM) were fifth grade TBE
ELs in Mrs. Garcia (5TBET)’s class
63
As to language usages, Maria (4TBEF) and Jonathan (5TBEM) spoke both
Spanish and English at home with older siblings. Juan, Sandy, Alex and Maiya, the four
DL students, indicated that their teachers spoke to them in both English and Spanish. On
the other, Jorge, Maria, Jonathan, and Jennifer, the four TBE students, said that their
teachers spoke to them in English only. All eight students said that their parents spoke
Spanish. Three parents also spoke English. Sandy’s (4DLF) father spoke English as well
as Spanish. Maria’s (4TBEF) mother spoke English and Spanish and for Jennifer
(5TBEF), both parents were trying to learn English. All eight students unanimous said
that they felt comfortable speaking both English and Spanish.
Data for Research Question One: Classroom Level Factors
Research Question One stated, “In what ways do classroom organization,
classroom environment, activities, and instructional practices differ between Dual
Language and Transitional Bilingual Education classrooms?” Six categories considered
by from goal orientation theorists that to have impacts on classroom-learning
environment – (TARGET) were used as the tool for classroom observations. These six
categories were: Task, Authority, Recognition, Grouping, Evaluation and Time. This
protocol is taken from the Teachers’ Communication of Goal Orientations in Fourth and
Fifth grade classrooms by Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Ryan, Edelin, and Midgley (2001).
One may infer that teachers working in Dual Language Immersion programs who believe
in the effectiveness of the additive model of language acquisition might use different
instructional strategies than their peers in Transitional Bilingual Education programs that
are more committed to the subtractive model. These potential differences, which can be
64
observed through the categories outlined in the TARGET model, might also have
different motivational effects for English learners during English language acquisition.
The researcher observed each classroom a minimum of five times during different
classroom activities and lessons. The researcher also observed the classrooms on different
days of the week and time of the day to get an understanding how goal orientation
contributed to the classroom learning environment. The following codes were used to
identify the teachers: fourth grade Dual Language classroom (4DLC), fifth grade Dual
Language classroom (5DLC), fourth grade Transitional Bilingual Education classroom
(4TBEC) and fifth grade Transitional Bilingual Education classroom (5TBEC). Data
were presented according to the categories outlined in the TARGET framework. The
coding helped distinguish if the classroom was an additive or a subtractive setting.
Task
The task category includes six subcategories: content of the task; (1) participation
structures required or suggested by the teacher; (2) expected products; (3) anything the
teacher says about the reasons for doing the task; (4) the value, or the difficulty, routines,
rules, and procedures for doing the task; (5) materials and resources used, and (6) how
the materials are distributed (Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001).
These categories were critical because tasks that are challenging and containing specific
and short term goals could help students feel efficacious. Here the focus was to
investigate that teachers who use the additive model are more aware and will provide
students reason for doing the task and its value whether it is through real life connections
or how it pertains to their background or future, while subtractive model teachers are not.
65
All four teachers predetermined the tasks for the content areas that they taught
which included reading, writing, science, math and social sciences. They stated the
objectives of the lessons and gave teacher-directed lessons. They also told their students
what they expected from them. In Mrs. Garcia’s class (5TBEC), the researcher did not
observe the teacher ever indicating to her students the reasons for their learning. She did,
however, clearly explain to her students what was expected of them and the tasks they
were required to complete. Students who were responsible in distributing the materials in
the group were also the ones who distributed the materials to the class. In Mrs. Garcia
class, the task was not clearly stated to the students. Students were unclear of the
expectations and this may have lead to the unruly behavior in the classroom.
Authority
Questions addressed under Authority included: what are the class rules and who
determines the rules? What implicit rules are assumed or referred to? What are the
implications for noncompliance with norms or rules? Is there a discipline system in place,
and how consistently sanctions are imposed or followed through? Students tended to have
higher self-efficacy when allowed to be involved in the authority structure in the
classroom. The researcher will first discuss the program that the schools have in place for
behavior and will then discuss how each of the observed classrooms managed their
classroom and how the classroom authority structure may have affected students’ goal
orientation.
Both schools implemented the Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
(PBIS) system, a school-wide initiative that provides behavioral and social support to all
students in order to achieve social, emotional, and academic success. PBIS includes a
66
three-tiered system of support, and a problem-solving process to ensure the success of all
students (http://www.pbisillinois.org). There are three basic rules for PBIS schools: be
safe, be responsible and be respectful, which are determined within the school. These
rules were posted in all 4th and 5th grade classrooms observed. Parents and students both
signed consent forms at the beginning of each school year to show agreement to the rules
set forth by PBIS. A tracking and tiered system was also in place to support students who
are continuously unable to abide by the rules. All classrooms have a red, yellow and
green paper with students’ names on a clothespin. When students misbehave their
clothespins are moved from green to yellow, and for the third offense, they will be sent to
the principal’s office. The consequences are as follows: warning for first offense, warning
for second offense and then time out in the classroom and a call home, and finally a trip
to the principal’s office. Observations from all classes were consistent in that no students
had to move their clothes pin, but there were a couple warnings to the students with
regard to being too loud and talking too much. This demonstrated that the expectations
should be clear to the students and that students have opportunities to be successful in the
classroom and when students chose not to, there are a tiered system to help students.
The rules posted in Mrs. Brindle’s classroom (4TBEC) were: honesty, friendship,
cooperation, acceptance, self-discipline, respect, generosity and responsibility. These
rules were posted on the door upon entering into the classroom. No consequences were
necessary during observations. During the observations, the students seemed to be well
behaved; no one was given any warning and the teacher did not make any references to
the behaviors of the classroom. On the other hand, Mrs. Garcia’s classroom (5TBEC) was
quite different. The researcher did not observe any norms or rules posted in the
67
classroom, not even the three that were set forth by the PBIS program. There was one
small poster that stated, “25 paw points earn bowling”. The teacher continuously
expressed that her class was very difficult class during interview and that she would be
moving to a lower grade classroom the following year. During the observation, the
researcher observed two incidents that the students were being disrespectful to the
teacher. The first time was when the students were lining up to go to the computer lab to
complete a social studies assignment. The teacher asked some boys to be quiet, but the
students continued to talk, laugh and giggle and ignore the teacher. Mrs. Garcia (5TBEC)
said, “Boys we are going to the computer lab to work on our project, you need to be quiet
when we walk through the halls.” The teacher stopped and spoke with them but there was
no consequence to the action. Another time in class students were working on some math
problems involving a manipulative required for the assignment. The teacher did not have
the manipulative ready, and was trying to look for them after she realized that she needed
them for the lesson. Students then began talking and the teacher got upset with the
students saying that they were not listening to her. Students in Mrs. Garcia class were not
following her directions and were disrespectful to her. This may be caused by a couple
reasons. One was that there were no norms posted in the classroom and Mrs. Garcia also
seems to be unprepared for her lessons. If she had the manipulative ready before she
started the lesson, the students would not have an opportunity to be talking while she
looked for the manipulative. Kounin (1970) and Wang et al. (1993) found that effective
classroom management including smooth transition help increases students’ engagement,
decrease disruptive behaviors, and provide valuable instructional time.

68
Autonomy
In autonomy, the categories included any instance in which students have choice,
i.e., the order in which students complete the tasks, the content of the task, the form of the
product, the other students with whom the students work, when they have completed the
task, and how their work is evaluated. There were many differences observed in the two
programs as to the autonomy in the classroom. The researcher will first discuss what
were observed in the TBE classrooms and then the Dual Language classrooms. The
observations suggested that there were less autonomy in the TBE classrooms than in the
DL classrooms.
In the Transitional Bilingual Education Classrooms both 4th and 5th grade
students were not given much autonomy. Both teachers told the students what they
needed to do, and the students complied with the directions. In both TBE classrooms
when students requested a change in the lesson, teachers did not accept their suggestions.
In Mrs. Brindle’s class (4TBEC), the teacher asked the students to copy what was on the
board for social science and the students followed her directive. Some choices were
observed during science class. Students were provided with a pre-determined list of
science project ideas, and were allowed to choose from the list and complete the science
project as a group. The teacher assigned the students to science project groups. She
wanted to assign the groups because she wanted to have high achievers paired with low
achievers so they could help each other to complete the science project. In Mrs. Garcia’s
class (5TBEC) students had no choice at all. Everything was assigned and directed by the
teacher; the teacher even admitted that she did not give them choices because the class
was not able to follow directions. Mrs. Garcia said in her interview, “I used to give them
69
choice but since they cannot follow directions, I do not give them anymore choices and I
just have them do individual work. This is a really hard group, they do not behave.” In
short, in Mrs. Brindle’s (4TBEC) class, students were given some autonomy while Mrs.
Garcia’s (5TBEC) class, students have no autonomy at all. Dolezal, Lindsey, Pressly and
Vincent (2003) found that teachers who are highly engaging allow students to complete
assignments that are cognitively challenging and appropriate. These teachers used
cooperative learning techniques, held individual students accountable for performance,
scaffold student learning, made connections across the curriculum, encouraged student to
have choice, had a gentle and caring manner, interacted positively with students one-to-
one, made home-school connections, provided many opportunistic mini-lessons, made
deep and personal connections to students, supported appropriate risk-taking by students,
made the classroom fun, encouraged student creativity, and set a positive tone in the
classroom.
In the Dual Language Program the teachers took students’ requests into
consideration. For example, in Mrs. Serrano’s class (5DLC) students suggested that they
should make a greeting card for a student who was admitted to the hospital a couple days
before the observation. The teacher took their suggestions and adjusted the schedule and
allowed the students to take care of their friend and their needs. In the Mrs. Rodriguez’s
class (4DLC) the students also had choices as to whom the students would like to work
with in a group. Clark and Yinger (1979) noted that cooperative instructional grouping
promotes self-efficacy where students’ goals are positively linked with the task. When
students completed the task they could choose to do different things, like read, continue
to work on writing or answer some pre-selected questions. For evaluation, both Mrs.
70
Serrano (5DLC) and Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLC) allowed students to evaluate each other’s
work, and if there were mistakes the teacher explained the questions again. This is a
characteristic of a mastery goal orientation where students are allowed to show growth
and improvement.
Recognition
Recognition subcategories consisted of whether teacher’s praise and criticism is
public or private; upon what the teacher’s praise and criticism is contingent on (e.g.,
conduct, participation, achievement), to what the praise and criticism is attributed to (e.g.,
effort, ability, luck); and concrete forms of recognition beyond praise (e.g., candy,
stickers); and any nonverbal recognition (Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Ryan, Edelin, &
Midgley, 2001). Therefore, the aim was to determine if these characteristics were
evidenced in either the TBE or the DL classroom and how it was exhibited.
During classroom observations, the researcher observed that the Mrs. Garcia
(5TBEC) publicly criticized the students’ behavior. Unfortunately, there were not any
reactions from the students. The students continued to talk and ignore the teacher. The
teacher was not able to control the class and she just moved on and continued to walk
away. Mrs. Brindle (4TBEC) was stricter with her students; the class was very quiet
during the observations. The students were praised for trying out math problems and
solving the problems on their own. The students were also warned for not working well
on the science project. The students were praised for their preparation on the interviews.
During the observation some students were playing around and the teacher gave the
students a warning and asked them to continue to practice the science project interview.
Students in Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLC) and Mrs. Serrano (5DLC) classrooms were praised
71
for their classroom participation. The researcher observed a lot of verbal praise like
“good job,” “I like that” and “good idea” but did not see any rewards like candies and
stickers. When students were doing their class work, the researcher also noted non-verbal
recognition when the teacher recognized students being on task and working well by
tapping on the students’ shoulder. The observation above suggested that the DL
classroom had more positive re-enforcement than the TBE classrooms. It is also evidence
that Mrs. Garcia (5TBEC) did not have good classroom management skills and when
students misbehaved she chose to ignore the problems.
Grouping
The grouping category included the number of groups, the size of the groups, the
basis of the group formation (e.g., ability, cooperation, competitive teams), the extent to
which the groups are stable or flexible, whether students have different roles within the
group and, if so, how the roles are allocated and what they involve, and finally, the
characteristics of the groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, special-needs students). The
researcher would like to be able to observe the characteristics of grouping.
For grouping both the Dual Language classrooms and the Mrs. Brindle (4TBEC)
were in small groups of two and four. However, Mrs. Garcia’s students (5TBEC) were in
rows because the teacher had difficulty with classroom management. Mrs. Garcia
indicated in several occasions that she would not put the students in groups because they
misbehaved and they were a very difficult group of students. There was no evidence in
the classroom that students were in any kind of grouping formation. Therefore, analysis
of groupings will be concentrated on the other three classrooms.
72
In Mrs. Rodriguez’s fourth grade Dual Language classroom, students were in
groups of four and there were six groups. During the observations, students worked in
their groups during math and science activities. The groups appeared to be mixed in
gender and ability. It was not clear how the groups were formed. Roles were defined
within the groups. For example, one student was observed to be responsible for retrieving
and distributing materials in the group. During reading students were also allowed to go
on to the floor and designated reading areas to read in small flexible groups by student
choice. In Mrs. Serrano’s (5DLC) classroom, the grouping was very similar to Mrs.
Rodriguez’s (4DLC), the students were in groups of 2s and there were 12 groups.
Students worked in their small group for math, science and writing were observed. There
was also one person from each small group who was responsible for retrieving and
distributing the materials. In Mrs. Brindle’s class (4TBEC), the researchers observed
ability grouping. The students were assigned to their science project groups. Teacher
assigned four students to a group and students worked in their group to complete the
science project. The classroom in general was also set up in a group, there were five
groups of six and these groups were also formed based on ability. Mrs. Brindle’s
(4TBET) small group size was beneficial to her students because this would help her
students feel efficacious through the success of the group (Ames, 1992). Students were
also given group responsibilities and were in small group instructions and these are
instructional strategies that are beneficial to low achievers (Ames, 1992).
Evaluation
The evaluation category included whether evaluation occurs within the class or
elsewhere (e.g., teacher grading away from class), the criteria for evaluation, whether
73
students evaluate their own work, whether students evaluate one another’s work, and if
any attribution statements are made for success or failure and how students’ previous
successes or difficulties are referred to. The researcher observed students grading each
other work in both DL classrooms. Mrs. Brindle (4TBEC) was administering a
benchmark assessment with her students while in Mrs. Garcia’s class, evaluation was not
observed at all during the observations.
During the observations, the researcher observed Mrs. Brindle (4TBEC)
administering a local reading assessment. The teacher was scoring the assessment as the
students completed each part. Mrs. Garcia (5TBEC), the researcher did not observe any
grading by teacher or by students. The researcher did observe students grading each other
assignments in Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLC) and Mrs. Serrano (5DLC) classrooms. The
students exchanged their mathematics assignments and were grading each other’s work.
Mrs. Rodriguez and Mrs. Serrano read the answers, and as students found mistakes, the
teachers explained the questions on the board to clarify the questions. The researcher did
not observe Mrs. Rodriguez and Mrs. Serrano grading during class time. There was an
instructional assistant who entered scores into the grade book for the Mrs. Rodriguez.
The main difference between the two programs on evaluation was that Mrs.
Rodriguez and Mrs. Serrano allowed students to grade each other’s work and this is one
of the attributions of master goal orientation. Mastery goal can be accomplish through the
use of displaying all student work, heterogeneous grouping of student ability and
evaluation that allow students to show growth and improvement. Teachers in the high
mastery goal orientation classrooms also indicated to students the importance of
understanding, learning as an active process, participation, interaction among students,
74
and the relevance of recognizing their efforts (Patrick et al., 2000). Mastery goal
orientation was also evidenced in Mrs. Brindle class classrooms, through the evidence of
formal assessment, grades, and students’ performance.
Time
The time category includes observance of a set time schedule; the extent to which
time schedules are adhered to, and under what circumstances they are not, and any
comments made by the teacher or students about time restrictions. During the classroom
observations, Mrs. Garcia (5TBEC) again did not show any evidence in the time
category. Mrs. Serrano (4DLC) and Mrs. Rodriguez (5DLC) classes allowed students
opportunities to make schedule change due to different reasons.
During the observations, the Mrs. Serrano and Mrs. Rodriguez classrooms had the
daily class schedule written on the board. Mrs. Brindle (4TBEC) classroom also has the
daily class schedule written on the board. During the observations, the researcher was not
able to locate the schedule written anywhere in Mrs. Garcia (5TBEC) classroom even
though the teacher had indicated that she puts the schedule on the board so students will
know what was happening in the classroom.
The classroom schedule was adhered more strictly in the Mrs. Brindle (4TBEC)
classrooms. During one of the observations, in Mrs. Serrano (5DLC), on the previous day
a student was admitted to the hospital. The teacher was going to work on mathematics,
but she changed the schedule and allowed the students to make some greeting cards for
the sick student. The students were engaged and some students put in classroom award
tickets for the girl when she returns. Classroom schedule was altered during a science
lesson in the Mrs. Serrano (4DLC). The students were working on a science experiment
75
where they cut a potato in two and placed one piece of potato in a bag with salt water and
one in regular tap water. When the researcher observed the lesson, it was the second day
of the experiment, students were to take out the potato and examine the differences
between the two halves. The students were very excited about being able to see what
happened to their potato. Mrs. Serrano allotted 20 minutes on the schedule for this part of
the lesson. Students took longer and wanted more time to discuss and observe their
potato. The teacher asked the students, “five more minutes, is that enough?” Students
replied “yes,” and five more minutes were granted to the students to record the result of
their experiment.
While observing Mrs. Brindle (4TBEC) classrooms, the fourth grade students
were working on their science project. The students were practicing how to present their
science project as they would be interviewed by the judges. The students were practicing
with each other and asked the teacher for more time. The teacher denied the request and
told them that if they were working on what they were supposed to they should have
enough time. Another incident was when the Mrs. Brindle was teaching about
measurement. The students worked in pairs with a partner and estimated the length of
different objects. Students again requested some extra time to work on the assignment but
were denied this by the teacher. In the Mrs. Garcia (5TBEC) class, Mrs. Garcia was
reading a story, “Among the Hidden,” to the students and students requested that she read
more. The teacher denied the request and did not give a reason; she simply told the
students that they needed to move on to the next thing.
Time was more flexible within the Mrs. Rodriguez and Mrs. Serrano DL
classrooms, these were examples of allowing students to self-select when they do their
76
work and opportunities for students to set proximal goals, an indicator of promoting
motivation in the classroom. This was not observed in Mrs. Brindle and Mrs. Garcia TBE
classrooms, time was more strictly abide by and students did not have the flexibility to
change the schedule.
Discussion
Based on the evidence it was clear that task and time were not evidenced in both
of the Transitional Bilingual classrooms where it was evidenced in both of the Dual
Language classrooms. In addition, for authority, autonomy, recognition, grouping, and
evaluation, it was clearly evidenced in both of the dual language classrooms and they
were inconsistent in the transitional bilingual classrooms. The following table (Table B)
provides at a glance the significant indicators that emerged related according to the
TARGET model. A discussion of the differences and significance of the data will be
followed.
Table B: Classroom Observation Findings
Mrs. Brindle
4
th
TBE
classroom
Mrs. Garcia
5
th
TBE
classroom
Mrs.
Rodriguez
4
th
DL
classroom
Mrs. Serrano
5
th
DL
classroom
Task Minimally
Observed
Minimally
Observed
Consistently
Observed
Consistently
Observed
Authority Occasionally
Observed
Minimally
Observed
Consistently
Observed
Consistently
Observed
Autonomy Occasionally
Observed
Minimally
Observed
Consistently
Observed
Consistently
Observed
Recognition Occasionally
Observed
Minimally
Observed
Consistently
Observed
Consistently
Observed
Evaluation Occasionally
Observed
Minimally
Observed
Consistently
Observed
Consistently
Observed
Time Minimally
Observed
Minimally
Observed
Consistently
Observed
Consistently
Observed
77

During the various classroom observations, the researcher found that there were
some significant differences in the way that the dual language classrooms and the
transitional bilingual classroom handled the classes in the areas of TARGET. Some
examples include: the goal of the task was not communicated to the students in the TBE
programs; Mrs. Brindle (4TBEC) and Mrs. Garcia (5TBEC) did explain what the task
needed to be and how to complete the task but not the goal of the task. They were more
focused on explaining the step of the task but not what the goal of the task was. In the
area of authority and autonomy, students in the TBE classrooms were not given as much
autonomy as the DL classrooms. The TBE teachers did not honor the students’ request to
change schedules. In Mrs. Garcia’s classroom students basically have no autonomy
because the teacher felt that the students were very disrespectful and unmanageable.
During the observations, the researcher observed verbal recognitions in Mrs. Rodriguez
(4DLT) and Mrs. Serrano (5DLT) classrooms when the students were trying to complete
the tasks. There were verbal warnings by all teachers but none of the students needed to
change their color cards. In the DL classrooms, recognitions were verbalized in both
English and Spanish. It was evidenced that both teachers and students were praising each
other in both languages and value the ability to do so. In the area of grouping, there was
grouping observed only in three of the classrooms, Mrs. Rodriguez and Mrs. Serrano, the
two Dual Language classes and Mrs. Brindle the fourth Transitional Bilingual Education
classroom. In the two Dual Language classrooms there was choice grouping as well as
ability grouping, while in the Mrs. Brindle only allowed ability grouping. Mrs. Garcia’s
classroom had no grouping at all.
78
This finding was also evidenced in Romero (1997); he found that teachers did not
use effective learning strategies such as cooperative learning, and active learning
practices that are proven to be effective with EL. Students were able to evaluate each
other’s work in the Mrs. Rodriguez and Mrs. Serrano classrooms, where only teacher
evaluation was observed in Mrs. Brindle’s Transitional Bilingual classroom. Lastly, time
was more strictly controlled in Mrs. Brindle (4TBEC) and Mrs. Garcia (5TBEC)
classrooms even when students requested extra time to work on the task. In Mrs.
Rodriguez (4DLC) and Mrs. Serrano (5DLC) classrooms, students were allowed to adjust
time when requested. In the DL classrooms, teachers did allow time for students to clarify
questions using native language. Students were also allowed to converse using their
native language.
The significance of this data indicated that both Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLC) and Mrs.
Serrano (5DLC) classrooms have implemented the TARGET model extensively where
students were allowed to have choice, autonomy, grouping, and time. The strategies that
are being used in Dual Language Immersion programs are parallel to the motivational
effects of teachers’ behaviors and classroom practices stated in the TARGET model. This
observation may be sue to the design of the DL program too where teachers and students
are allowed to use their first language to support instructions. These are also
characteristic of an additive classroom. None of the TARGET model characteristic was
evidenced in Mrs. Garcia’s (5TBEC) classroom. There might be many reasons that this
could be happening and it is difficult to draw conclusion on why this was happening only
in Mrs. Garcia’s classroom. Through the teacher interview, it was evidenced that Mrs.
Garcia had much difficulty with her classroom management. Mrs. Garcia admitted that
79
she needed to work on classroom management and continued to express that this was a
difficult group of students. She was planning to change school and change grade level the
following year. Even though Mrs. Brindle’s (4TBEC) class also shown to have
implemented the TARGET model, the degree of implementation was not as extensive as
the DL classrooms where her classroom was very much a teacher directed classroom
where students did not have as many choices and flexibility. Due to the discrepancy that
were found in Mrs. Brindle and Mrs. Garcia classrooms, the conclusion that could be
drawn from the classroom observations were that the TARGET model were implemented
more extensively in the dual language program.
Data for Research Question Two: Teacher Behavior and Classroom
Practices
Research question two asked, “In what ways do teachers’ behaviors and
classroom practice as well as their self-reported attitudes and perceptions regarding their
practices differ in a Dual Language and Transitional Bilingual Education classroom?”
Important to this inquiry are: (a) teachers’ behaviors, classroom practices and
instructional methods between TBE and DL programs; (b) motivational considerations in
classroom organization; (c) instruction and teaching methods that might promote or
inhibit students’ self-efficacy; and (d) task value and interest among English Learners in
academic English development (Strikus & Garcia, 2003). These dimensions were adapted
(in part) from Pintrich and Schunk (2002) and represent teacher and classroom factors
that have been shown to influence student motivation. Significant to the results was that
Mrs. Brindle and Mrs. Garcia (TBE program teachers) were both more focused on
students’ English acquisition, Mrs. Rodriguez and Mrs. Serrano (DL teachers) tend to
80
plan more according to the needs of their students, have student grouping, allow student
to have choice and relate better with their students. The researcher will be presenting the
findings using teacher planning and decision making, instructional practice, teacher
student interaction, teacher expectations, classroom management and organization and
teaching in constructivist classroom and findings in these areas will be discussed.
Teacher Planning and Decision Making
In this section, the researcher will present the ways that teachers plan their lessons
and classroom activities and how teachers conduct groupings in their classrooms. One of
the most significance findings in this section was that Mrs. Rodriguez and Mrs. Serrano
(DL teachers) were more adept to change their lesson plans due to the needs of the
students while Mrs. Brindle and Mrs. Garcia (TBE teachers) were not. The other finding
was that the Mrs. Rodriguez and Mrs. Serrano (DL teachers) were more inclined to use
flexible grouping and allow student choices in the classroom and Mrs. Brindle had
assigned grouping and Mrs. Garcia (TBE teachers) did not allow grouping at all.
Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLT) teacher indicated that she changes her lesson plan a lot;
she would modify her lesson plan as she felt it was appropriate with her students. Mrs.
Serrano (5DLT) planned her lesson plans based on students’ demographics in her class.
Mrs. Rodriguez said, “Basically, what I have right now, I have students from different
cultural backgrounds. I have one African American and some Latinos, some Mexicans,
and I have some that are from Guatemala and Ecuador. So basically what I based my
lessons were a lot of cultural enrichment.” Mrs. Brindle (4TBET), she completed weekly
lesson plan and adjusted them when testing occurs. Mrs. Brindle said, “I usually work on
my plans every week. And since I’ve been doing the same grade level for six years, you
81
know, the first year was the hardest because I didn’t know when and how. So usually I
follow that same format, it’s usually, it worked out with the timeline, with the testing or
the things that the kids have to know. Sometimes we have to do, like this year testing,
state testing was so early, that we had to do a lot of things, a lot earlier or spend less time
and things like that. So I try for my instruction not to be guided, or, you know, towards
the test, but there are certain things that they have to know, so if we have to skip over
some things, that’s usually what we do. We do have a timeline, so that usually how, my
planning is guided.” Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) based her lesson plan on the Illinois English
Learners standards. There are four domains: listening, speaking, reading and writing. She
said she tried to address all the domains and have activities that were related to each of
the domains. Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) said, “I like to target reading and writing, a lot of my
activities have to do with reading and writing and trying to help them bolster their
academic language and their use of that language in writing.”
As to classroom grouping and student choices, there was quite a difference in the
two programs. Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLT) indicated that groups are formed randomly
because there were five boys and fourteen girls in the classroom. She allowed students to
have choice during science and social studies. She had groups both by abilities and mixed
abilities. Sometimes she put all the low students together and all the high students
together, and sometimes she put all the high ability and low ability students within the
same group. Mrs. Rodriguez did this a lot in writing groups because the student who
composed in Spanish and English needed to have good writers to model for them. They
also need modeling in both English and Spanish. For those students who were quiet in the
group, Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLT) would walk around to make sure that the students were
82
participating in their group activities. She would also make sure that they understood the
concepts that she was teaching. Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLT) said, “I’ll go to them and say,
you know, what is it about this that you’re having trouble with or is there something that
you didn’t understand, but usually they’ll come to me and say” I don’t, I didn’t get this”
or “My group thinks it should be done this way, but I disagree.” Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLT)
believed that her students were pretty comfortable in telling her when they did not
understand something. She also communicated her objectives either by writing it on the
board, on an overhead or on the paper that they were working on. She also asked the
students to repeat the objectives to her so they fully understood what they needed to do.
She felt that her students were clear about what needed to be completed and the
objectives of the lessons.
For instructional grouping, Mrs. Serrano (5DLT) also used mixed ability grouping
and ability grouping depending on the activities that she was working on. Mrs. Serrano
indicated that she used differentiated instruction in the classroom with the students. She
wanted the students be able to be challenged. For those who needed to be re-taught, she
wanted to give them plenty of opportunities to learn what they needed to learn. If there
was a student who needed one on one type of instruction, then she would provide that
when the students were in group work. As to evaluation, she used rubrics and both formal
and informal evaluations with her students. Her lesson objectives were always written or
posted on the board. She made sure that her students were clear about the objectives by
presenting them in different ways. Sometimes she would need to give them background
knowledge to help them understand the concept.
83
Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) also had different groupings in the classroom. She told the
researcher that she had guided reading groups, cooperative groups and collaborative
groups and they are determined by the activity that she was doing. The groups were fluid
and they changed according to the activity or skill. An example she gave the researcher
was her science projects. Mrs. Brindle placed the students in pairs and she said, “I
figured, they could get more out of it by really doing the steps at the same time. I decided
being in pairs would be better for both students to kind of see more of the scientific
process. I paired them together by abilities. The ones who had a little bit more difficulty
reading and understanding would be paired with the ones who did not. I wanted the kids
that understood and got it to help their partner.” She addressed individual instructions
through differentiation instruction and modifications. For those students who may have
problems with answering all the questions, she may have them answer only a few
questions. As to evaluation, she used rubrics and for the science project, she used a peer
rubric, and she also had a checklist of items that the students needed to complete. She
indicated that her students were graded on a curve. She would introduce the lesson or
objective as a whole group and then they would do group or individual work. She felt that
the students were clear about the objectives because they were presented as a group and
she said, “…things have to be clear, especially for, for this group of kids. If the
vocabulary is not clear, then they’re not going to have a clear understanding of what it is
that I need from them.”
Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) instructional grouping and teaching strategies were quite
different than the other teachers. Mrs. Garcia responded with “I’m very creative. I like to
have a lot of kinesthetic activities like art, math and hands-on activities so I do a lot of
84
my work unstructured.” She also indicated that this group of student needs structure. The
students continuously asked her what they were going to do next. She tried to put the
schedule on the board but she believed it was still “too cloudy and nebulous” for them.
She gave me an example in mathematics. They had been studying geometry and the
concept was very abstract for the students. The students were struggling with the concept.
Mrs. Garcia decided instead of having a long lesson, and then has the students take home
the practice for homework. She gave a mini lesson, and then had the students work in
class. It gave her time to really work with the students and find out what they did not
understand. Her students were not in any grouping formation, and she indicated that was
because she wanted to have structure for this class. She believed that this class needed
more structure than any other classes that she had in the past.
As to teacher planning and decision making Mrs. Rodriguez and Mrs. Serrano
(DL teachers) took students demographic, cultural background and students’ need into
consideration when they plan their lessons. They also utilizes flexible grouping and
permits student to have choices in the classroom. These are all indicators that provide
student motivation in the classroom according to Pintrich and Schunk (2002). Mrs.
Brindle (4TBET) plans her lesson the same way every year and only changes it due to
assessment schedules and Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) did not allow any student grouping in the
classroom. These examples of teacher planning and decision making do not promote
student motivation in the classroom.
Instructional Practices
In the instructional practices domain, Mrs. Rodriguez, Mrs. Serrano (DL teachers)
used a lot of different instructional strategies to try to teach their students. They bring real
85
life objects that help to support instruction in the classroom, make learning meaningful
and are very attentive to the needs of their students. Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLT) stated that
she consistently bring in many different objects like different vegetables, artifacts from
different cultures and one time even a suit case to illustrate what she wanted her students
to understand. Mrs. Serrano conducted hands on experiments like the potato osmosis
experiment with her students to illustrate the concept. Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) also tried to
build a lot of background knowledge with her students. She indicated sometimes it took
double the time for them to cover a topic because of the background knowledge that she
had to build with her student. Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) first response was that her classroom
was constructivist classroom. Unfortunately, from the researcher observations and her
responses to the interview, I am not sure if she understood what it meant by a
constructivist classroom because what Mrs. Garcia claimed and what was observed did
not match.
Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLT) started the English Language Arts lesson by asking
students to think about words in a different way. They started with a definition of some
sort and then she would help them to understand how it could be applied to what they are
reading to help students understanding the concept. She also used what students already
knew to help them make connections to remember new words or things that they are
learning. For example, verbs in Spanish that end in “ar” and one of them was “escuchar”
which means to listen. The students already knew “escuchar” means listen so that when
they said it, hopefully they’ll remember the motion meant to listen. In the whole class
instructions, she would try to find a riddle to get students to think about the subject, or the
class might even start with a vocabulary word or two. For example, if they were working
86
with inference they would talk about what the word meant. She then followed up with
about 20 different examples in short two to three sentence passages. Students would also
ask questions if needed. For example, “The kitchen was a mess. Pots and pans were all
over. Chocolate chips were on the floor, but the smell was delicious.” What happened?
Students would be asked to figure out what had happened in the example. Mrs. Rodriguez
would go through several examples like that and she also used a book called “Stories
with Holes written by Nathan Leavy” and there were more examples for the students.
These exercises provided students opportunities to think about words in different ways.
Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLT) also used picture books to introduce concepts to her students.
Sometimes she would introduce the lessons using different examples. She gave me an
example with how she taught the revolutionary war. She gave the students little bingo
chips told them it was candy and each thing that is true they had to give the teacher a chip
back. For example, if you have brown hair you had to give the teacher a chip back. If you
have brown eyes, you had to give the teacher a chip back. After several examples she
said, “if you have any candy left you can eat it” and of course they did not. She asked the
students, “is that fair?” The students all replied “No.” The teacher told her students, “well
this was how the colonist felt when the king was taxing they weren’t getting anything in
return.” The teacher believed that her students would remember this example.
Mrs. Serrano (5DLT) indicated that she did a lot of mimicking. She said,
“Sometimes I have to act like a clown in order for the students to understand. When I am
teaching in English, I do a lot of acting, using pictures, and LCD projector. I use a lot of
visuals and a lot of hands-on activities, and group activities. We also took trips to the
library and field trips. When we did math, and we’re looking for shapes I took the
87
students outside and had the students looked for shapes and measure them.” She also
used the overhead a lot because the students liked visuals. The teacher would also use
colors to define different concepts like in a sentence the difference between verbs or
nouns. It made it easy for the students to understand and identify. I also gave students
index cards and the students would write the words and wrote sentences to go with the
vocabulary. Sometimes she asked students to correct some sentences on the card to help
them remember. As to modeling concepts to the English Learners Mrs. Serrano (5DLT)
said, “One of the things that they really don’t like and that I love to have them do is that
whenever they’re reading something they have to tell me what happened in the reading,
but how would they would change the meaning or ending of the story. How would they
end the story, I gave the story a different meaning, write it in their own words. The
students have to come out with different ideas, and that they’re being challenged.” She
provided feedback to students through grading their work. When she found that the
students were not mastering the concepts, she would approach the students and asked
them to speak to her individually to help the students understand what they missed, so
that the students would not make the same mistakes again.
Mrs. Serrano (5DLT) also modeled for the students, she brought a lot of materials
from home and she modeled to her students. Sometimes she even had the students model
what she wanted them to understand. She gave me an example that when her students did
not get a mathematics word problem, the teacher asked a student who understood the
problem to explain to the others how they completed the problem and also to model on
the board for others. Mrs. Serrano walked around the room a lot to monitor what the
students were working on and have students grade their own work so they could find
88
their own mistakes. She also provided immediate feedback to her students. If the students
were not getting the concept she would provide the student with help right away. Mrs.
Serrano provided students with rubric to show them what and how she assessed them and
if they wanted a better grade, they could redo or complete what the rubric indicated to get
a better grade. If the students just wanted a passing grade, they could work on only the
requirements for a passing grade. She also tried to bring in real life experience to her
students; she would sometimes go off topic when she realized it could be related to what
the students may need in the future. The students were very appreciative and liked her
examples a lot.
Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) used a lot of visuals, Powerpoints and credible websites to
assist her in teaching. In reading, she used web-based programs like Academy of Reading
and Accelerated Reader. These tools helped her to make sure the students were hold
accountable for the reading that they completed. She also indicated that she did a lot of
scaffolding; at times, it took a long time to build up to where she wanted them to be, but
she made sure that the students have background knowledge and were able to work on
what she was presented. In addition, her principal checked their plan book once a month
and she worked on her plans weekly. She also said that she had been in the same grade
level for six years so she was familiar with the curriculum and was able to have a general
plan for the school year. She did make sure that she covered what was on the state test
before the test and this way the students would be able to know what was expected on the
state assessment.
The class was reading the “Diary of Ann Frank” and the teacher used leveled
books to introduce concepts that are difficult for students like World War II, Hitler, and
89
the holocaust. After the background knowledge the teacher would then begin the story.
She told me that if she did not provide students with background knowledge and
scaffolding, the students would not be able to comprehend the story. These kinds of story
may take the regular class six weeks but it would take the TBE students about eight to ten
weeks. Mrs. Brindle also used different ways to help students to connect with difficult
concepts. She felt that if she only talked about the story without background knowledge it
would be difficult for the students to understand. When she modeled the concept using a
book or a video it was a lot easier for her students to comprehend. She said, “It definitely
makes it easier for them, and for me too.” Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) also used differentiated
instruction with her students through the use of extensions from their textbook and
leveled books. To Mrs. Brindle, the most important things for her students were to model,
pre-teach, and introduce concepts. She also asked her students a lot of questions to make
sure that the students understood the concepts before they moved on to the next concept.
In addition, for practicing, she used word sorts, sequencing, premade materials,
manipulatives, and maps that would enhance the learning and understanding for her
students.
Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) told me that she was a constructivist. She said she liked
communicating a lesson to the students and then the students actually completed the
activity. She said, “Because I know that I learn by doing. Some students in the class were
able to read a passage and then found the answers and that was how they learn.” Mrs.
Garcia believed that she needed to offer different strategies when it came to learning so
she incorporated a lot of kinesthetic activities. She said, “I did a lot of activities where
there were interaction including talking with each other so those kids who learn by oral
90
can also comprehend.” She gave me an example of what the students worked on in
mathematics. The students progressed from one-dimension, then to two-dimensions, and
then to three-dimensional figures. She began by asking the students to open the math
book and went verbatim down the page. Then she thought if she can give them some
examples of objects that they are going to see in the classroom that would help solidify
their understanding. She also believed that the fifth grade students are good readers but
not necessarily reading at grade level and what held them back was their comprehension.
She believed that students are taught to read faster but not to comprehend what they read.
What was the purpose of reading? Are we creating the picture? Are we making
connections? For example when discussing inferences, she always opened by saying, “If I
told you that there was an apple on the teacher’s desk, what color would that apple be?”
Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) replied with almost everybody would say red. Why was that? She
said because you may have seen a red apple in pictures or in movies.” Mrs. Garcia also
tried to point out objects they may have seen in the classroom to give students further
examples of what she was trying to teach them.
Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) indicated that she tried to select books that would relate to
her students in some way. An example was our huge unit at the beginning of the year on
Native American life and the reason I did that was that the Hispanic culture contains a lot
of Native American culture. I wanted the students to learn about their culture in a subtle
way and how some of that knowledge had been passed on from generation to generation.
Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) also read books with her students like “Children of the Log
House,” a book about the Mohawk tribe. In the book there were a set of twins, a boy and
91
girl who were the same age as her students so she thought it helped them to relate to what
happened in the story.
As to assessments, Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) used informal assessment. She said, “I
could give them a whole bunch of tests but I know that they are not going to do well
because reading and writing are their weakest subjects. So my assessments are project
based. For instance, the Native American unit, they had to take a specific tribe and do a
poster on five areas that we discussed in class like homes, clothing, and food. The
students liked it and enjoyed the report.”
Some conclusions that can be drawn from the instructional practice domain were
that Mrs. Rodriguez, Mrs. Serrano (DL teachers) made use of many different
instructional strategies to try to teach their students. They used visuals, hands on
activities, modeling by teachers and modeling by students, immediate feedback, and real
life experiences. Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) also used visuals with her students. She also
wanted to be sure that she had provided her students with background knowledge. She
indicated sometimes it took double the time for her class to cover a topic because of the
time that she needed to build background knowledge with her students. Mrs. Garcia
(5TBET) believed that her students did not comprehend what they read and that informal
assessments are the best way to assess her students.
Teacher-Student Interactions
Teacher-student interaction is the domain that illustrated how feedback was
provided to the students and how rewards and sanctions are managed. In this section, the
DL teachers provided feedback to the students in the classroom on a regular basis with
both verbal and written feedback in both English and Spanish. Mrs. Brindle and Mrs.
92
Garcia (TBE teachers) did not believe in student choices, they believed that chaos
happened when students have choices.
In the Dual Language classroom, Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLT) provided feedback to
the students through calling the students over for a quick conference. Especially when she
spotted a problem, she tried to get to them right away the next day and talk to the students
in the morning and say, “you know, I can see that you didn’t get this, let’s talk about
what isn’t going right here.” The other thing she would do was to go over the concepts in
class again. Mrs. Rodriguez said, ”… because I feel like if I’m just grading papers and
hand them back, the students never get a chance to learn from their mistakes, so we do
that a lot. We talked about, what might have gone wrong when they get a mistake.” She
also used verbal rewards, “wow” ticket, and Jolly Ranchers. They played a spelling game
called “Sparkle” and she always gave the top four spellers each week a Jolly Rancher. If
a student came up with an idea and she could tell they have really been struggling with it,
she would reward them with a Jolly Rancher. There was also have a prize box for the
accelerated reader program and every five points that they earned, they could choose
from the prize box as well.
Mrs. Serrano (5DLT) provided her students with feedback orally or one on one.
She said, “I usually have a lot of communication with them. Sometimes I even go home
and say I don’t think I pay too much attention to this particular student today. The next
day I try to help that student even more or try to acknowledge that the student was there
so that they know I’m there for them. If they did something wrong, I will let them know
that they can do better here and they feel better, they feel more confident.” As to
motivation, she said, “I have a lot of energy and they see that so they want to do it too
93
and they want to keep me happy. There are quite a few because of their parents they are
motivated and they are the ones that are really aiming higher. There are also some
students that need an extra push.” Mrs. Serrano (5DLT) rewarded her student by having a
student of the week. She also had raffle ticket, where she gave the students prizes and
tickets. There were also extra points coupons for good behavior in the classroom. When
students continuously turned in homework, she gave them a free homework pass and the
students liked that too. The students could also earn free time to use the math games and
have popcorn. Mrs. Serrano said, “I just love what I do, and I put myself into it 100% and
they can see that.” She loves being at school and tried to create an environment that
reflects it. Her students liked to stay in the classroom and always wanted to eat lunch in
the room with her. They did not want to go to recess because they wanted to stay in the
class with the teacher.
Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) monitored her students’ reading levels using the DRAs.
This was an assessment that they took three times a year. She also gave fluency checks to
her class every other week to see if they made any improvements. They also used
curriculum-based measurement for math, science, social studies and reading. If the
students did not get the concepts the first time then she re-teaches. The school
administered local assessments as they finished each unit of study, and she gave the
students an assessment to see where they were. For example, Mrs. Brindle worked on
double digits multiplication on the board and a third of the classes did not master the
concept. She told the students that they needed to receive small group instruction either
with her or the teacher assistant so they could understand how to compute double digits
multiplication. Mrs. Brindle also tried to tell her students that education is very important
94
and if you wanted something you have to go to school. She said, “I constantly remind
them that education is very important.” She rewarded the students with a “panther paw”
when they did something good for themselves, somebody else, or when they went out of
their way to be good. Every quarter there was a field trip that the students could go on as
long as they have earned the required “panther paw” for the field trip. The April field trip
was bowling. The students needed to earn 25 panther paws before they could attend the
trip. The students did not have a lot of choices in the classroom. Mrs. Brindle (4TBET)
believed that if students were given the choice, they would do whatever they wanted. She
believed this might be due to the make up of your class. She has 13 boys and 5 girls and
the boys tend to overpower the girls and four out of five of the girls were extremely quiet.
She indicated that she usually gave her students choices. We also voted for things, I did
not think it’s all by choice, it’s because that’s the way I structured the classroom.
Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) indicated that that she provided feedback to her students
right away when she saw something that was incorrect. She also told her students that
each year they would learn some things that they would need the following year so it was
very important for them to form a foundation for what they were going to see next year.
She always told the students that, “It’s not to say that you’ll know it the first time but
then you’ll be able to know that to say I don’t understand, but if you don’t even try or
don’t even have any interest in doing it, you are not going to give yourself that
opportunity.” She also believed that her students lacked of understanding of how
important school was and the importance of doing well in school. She believed that the
importance of education might not be reinforced at home. She tried to stimulate their
interest by creating problems and if they tried to solve it she would give them a “panther
95
paw”. She believed if she did not do that then the students would simply give up and not
try at all.
Student and teacher interactions were more positive in the dual language
classrooms. Mrs. Rodriguez and Mrs. Serrano (DL teachers) had many ways to reward
their students. They rewarded students with choices, candy and verbally. They took
students’ interest and personal interest and life into their teaching and learning. Mrs.
Brindle and Mrs. Garcia (TBE teachers) were more interested in formal assessments.
They also felt that the students are not as interested in school. Mrs. Brindle told her
students that they needed to come to school and Mrs. Garcia believed that their families
did not care about education that much.
Teacher Expectations
Teacher expectations concerned the expectations that the teacher had for her
students and how the teacher communicated their expectations to their students. In this
section, the theme that seems to have emerged was that the Dual Language teachers have
very high expectations for their students while the transitional bilingual education
teachers were more concerned with the English acquisition of their student.
Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLT) and Mrs. Serrano (5DLT) both indicated that they had
very high expectation for their students. Mrs. Rodriguez related, “We have certain
expectations for all fourth grade students but I guess mine are a little bit higher than
average. Because I know that they’re coming in already a little more motivated than the
average student and I know that it’s going to be a smaller classroom size and I also know
that they have that parental motivation behind them or they wouldn’t be in here in the
96
first place. So, I do expect quite a bit.” Mrs. Serrano stated, “They are a great group and
we want them to be successful.”
Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) and Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) were more concerned if the
students were able to acquire the English language. Even though both of the TBE
teachers wanted to have high expectations for the students, it seemed sometimes difficult
because of their language proficiency levels. Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) indicated how much
time was spent on testing and trying to develop the fluency with the students. Mrs.
Brindle said, “My expectations are, I want to close the gap with the other students,
whether it’s a language gap, or academic or both. For the English language learner, it is
definitely the language gap. Some have problems with speaking, you know, I have kids
that have a lot of trouble speaking so whatever the reason might be, they understand and
they just can’t communicate in the other language. We also have a lot of assessments that
we have to give, like the DRA, fluency tests every other test, ACCESS, ISAT and local
assessments. ” Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) also said a lot of her students did not want to speak
Spanish because they heard so much that they needed to learn English. She said, “that is
why I try to tell the parents, if he or she at home reading Spanish is no big deal, it is
going to transfer automatically. If they are a good reader in their first language they will
be a good reader in their second language.” Mrs. Brindle believed in additive model of
teaching but the TBE program goal was to acquire English which was a subtractive
model in nature so it was very difficult for her to do what she believed.
Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) was only able to focus on the behavior, and because of the
continuous behavior problem in the class, it really hindered the class progress. Mrs.
Garcia continuously said, “I would say I have very high expectation. I am always talking
97
about, going to college even though I know that very few of these kids would really
honestly go to college. Like tomorrow we’re going to the Field Museum and our school
tied the students’ behavior with these kinds of trips. They have to earn so many panther
paws before they can go and if they do not behave they could loose the opportunity to go
on the field trip.”
Teacher expectations seemed to have revealed the frustrations that the Mrs.
Brindle and Mrs. Garcia (TBE teachers) had, whether it was because of too many
assessments, the gaps that the students had in their language and academic, to students
loosing valuable experience because they were not able to behave in the classroom. The
researcher was shocked by Mrs. Brindle comment that her students will not be able to
attend college. On the other hand, Mrs. Rodriguez and Mrs. Serrano (DL teachers) had
very high expectations for their students and the students seemed to appreciate the
challenges. This may be due to the additive model that the DL students are in versus the
subtractive model that the TBE students are in. Even though Mrs. Brindle believed in
additive model, the TBE program did not allow her to utilize the first language to support
students’ learning.
Classroom Management and Organization
Classroom management and organization explored how teachers deal with
classroom management; how are the rules, procedures and consequences are established.
The DL teachers are more adept to use groupings and differentiation instructions in the
class while the TBE teachers are more focused on direct instruction whether it is whole
group or copying notes from an overhead.
98
Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLT) indicated that she usually started the year off firm so the
students did not think that she was too nice and can take advantage of her. She told all the
students in the beginning of the school year the rules and the expectations. She kept a
positive attitude with her students for the past few years. She said, “I did not have any
major behavior problem in my classroom. I will also call parent when the students do not
bring their homework in like two days in a row. The parents are very appreciative of
that.” Her classroom was organized in different ways; she mixed it up a lot. During the
interview the classroom was sort of a modified horseshoe except that they’re sitting as
partners. She had seven groups of two that form kind of a double-decker “U” shape. Mrs.
Rodriguez differentiates her lessons by having students in mixed ability grouping, the
high achievers with the low achievers so they can help each other. For math she would
use hands on materials, either manipulatives or drawing the problem out so the students
could see the problem and understood the problem.
Mrs. Serrano (5DLT) established the rules and procedures with her class through
the use of a contract between the teacher and their parents. All parties had to sign a
contract. Whenever the student misbehaves, the teacher would remind them about the
contract. She also used a behavior sheet where if the student was misbehaving or they’re
talking too much, they got a check mark and at the end of the week she would provide the
parents with a behavior report. For students who continuously misbehaved in the
classroom she had also taken their recess away if it is necessary. As to academics, she
charted the student progress on the homework chart and when students did not turn in
their homework, she would call their parents. As to grouping, she had different kind of
groupings; her core groups consist of four students, and one group of five students. She
99
had the students’ desks in a horseshoe formation. She said she changed her room seating
about once a month. The students liked to change around too because they have
opportunities to sit next to different students. There was also a library set up in the corner,
a couch, and a carpet where students could go for silent reading and be comfortable. The
Mrs. Serrano (5DLT) also had a math center set up, where there were math games or
reinforcement materials. She also had a center where students can find extra credit
materials. These centers helped her to differentiate her lessons and provide choices. She
also provided students with choices when they completed their necessary work. For
example, the students were working on the computer, and when the students completed
what she asked of them, they had a few minutes to use easels, the whiteboard, go to the
library, play a game or use the computer. She monitored her students by walking around
the room. If she noticed they were not paying attention she would pat them on the back,
tried to keep their focus on whatever they were working. If she was lecturing, she would
remind them, by saying, “Is everyone being an active listener?”
Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) said with laughter that she is not a “softy” when I asked
her about classroom management. She said she remembered her first principal told her
that her she didn’t smile to the kids till Christmas. She also expressed that she was not a
drill sergeant either. She had very high expectations of her students and she let the
students and their parents know early in the school year. She said she would not send the
students to the office just because they misbehaved and only if they harmed someone
then she would send them to the office. The Mrs. Brindle always tried to solve everything
as much as she could. “I have a behavior system that has five colors, the first two colors
were for verbal warnings and then the third one was to write a note home and the next
100
color was for detention, and the last one is to call the parents.” She said that there were
not any students who had to go to detention this year. The students came up with the rules
and consequences with the teacher.
Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) also had the five color cards; the first two colors are for
verbal warnings, and then the third one was to write a note home; the next color is for
detention, and the last one was to call the parents. She told me that her classroom was in
rows because the students could not work together and talked too much so she now
placed them in rows. She believed that her students needed structure, because they
always asked her “what are we doing next?” She said, “I put the schedule on the board
and the students still asked what are we doing next. This is a very difficult group to
control.” The researcher also observed the students being disrespectful to Mrs. Garcia.
In classroom management and organization, the evidence suggested that the dual
language teachers established their classroom rules with student input and make sure that
parents and students are involved in the process. On the other hand, the transitional
bilingual education teachers did not establish the classroom rules with the students. In
addition, Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) had poor classroom management and she seemed to have
believed that the students are just too difficult to teach.
Teaching in a Constructivist Classroom
Constructivist classroom characteristics were that teachers organized their
classroom for collaboration where students have opportunities to negotiate and work in
small groups. Teachers provide and support learning in the classroom when working on
challenging task. The teacher works as a facilitator to promote democracy. Activities in
the classroom are also student centered.
101
Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLT) described her classroom with a reading corner/ classroom
library that had a lot of paperback books. There were also textbooks that were available
in Spanish. Students were in small groups. There were posters and student work on the
walls. She provided reflection to her students in various ways through small group
instruction, walking around the classroom and when she graded the students’ class work.
Students were allowed to use a variety of materials to support learning like dictionaries,
computers and resources that were in the classroom.
Mrs. Serrano (5DLT) described her classroom as warm and welcoming. She said
her students liked to stay in the classroom with her even at recess and lunch. She had a
classroom library, an area for students to read, a few mathematics centers that the
students could use when they completed their work. There were also textbooks and
reference books that students could use. Mrs. Serrano also indicated that she always
wanted to tell the students that her teaching related to their everyday life experience,
making that connection helped her students understand that why learning is important.
She also said, she reflected with her students through writing and asking questions,
students usually did not like to write so getting them to write their reflections helped with
writing. Mrs. Serrano also said, she enjoyed teaching this program because she felt a
connection with them and the students wanted to learn and she was making a difference
with these students.
Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) said, “I wanted my students to feel comfortable and safe
and wanted them to feel like the class is their second home.” She also had a lot of
different materials in her room, like textbooks, resources for students to look up
information, computers, library books and mathematics manipulatives. Her classroom
102
was set up in small group of fours. She used many different kinds of materials to help
students understand background knowledge because they students needed to have that
before they could learn the concepts. She reflected with them mainly when they were in
small group and when she had her whole group instruction.
Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) said, “Well I’m a constructivist so I like communicating a
lesson and then having them do it. Because I know that I learn by doing. I want give
those students who do need that, the touchy feely aspect of learning. I want them to have
the opportunity.” Mrs. Garcia indicated that she had problem with classroom
management. Her students were not listening to her, and were not acting appropriately in
the classroom. She had several incidents during the school year that students were
referred to the office. In addition, she was working with the social worker to provide
empathy training for her class so the students could understand how others feel due to the
action that they did. She indicated that she tried to give the students background
knowledge when she introduced the concepts to them because the students came from
very limited background. She said, “I’m really trying, as hard as I can, to, to get those
connections, to get them thinking because that’s what the students really need to jump
start their learning.”
Mrs. Rodriguez (4DLC), Mrs. Serrano (5DLC) and Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) all
have students in groups and the teachers tried to create the classroom as an agency for
learning by providing small group and scaffolding in their instructions. On the other
hand, Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) who said she is a constructivist, but there was no evidence
that she created her classroom as a constructivist classroom. Mrs. Garcia did not have
grouping, her classroom instructions are based on direct instruction and scaffolding of
103
instruction was not observed. The researcher felt that Mrs. Garcia already gave up on her
class and the rapport between the students and the teacher was poor. Even though she
might think she had high expectations her responses did not reflect that. In fact Mrs.
Garcia did not think her students would be able to attend college. Table C illustrates the
findings from the teacher interviews.
104
Table C: Teacher Interviews Findings
Mrs.
Brindle
4th TBE
Mrs. Garcia
5th TBE
Mrs.
Rodriguez
4th DL
Mrs. Serrano
5th DL
Teacher Planning and Decision Making
Change lesson plan to
adapt
Some for
testing only
None Often and
ongoing
Often and
ongoing
Classroom grouping and
student choices
Some None Flexible and
Ability
Flexible and
Ability
Instructional Practice
Teaching Strategies Visuals and
Powerpoint
Through
activities
Different
strategies
Acting
Present English
Language Arts lesson
State
standards
Kinesthetic
activities
Attend to the
needs of the
students
Technology
Model Concepts Background
knowledge
Examples Picture books Modeling
Teacher-Student Interactions
Provide Feedback Formal
assessment
Informal Often and
immediate
Often and
immediate
Teacher Expectations
Expectations English
acquisition
English
acquisition
English and
Spanish
English and
Spanish
Classroom Management and Organization
Classroom Management Straight Lack control Firm Develop
classroom
rules with
students
Classroom Organization Direct
Instruction
Direct
Instruction
Groupings
and
differentiation
instruction
Groupings
and
differentiation
instruction
Teaching in Constructivist Classroom
Describe your classroom Comfortable
and safe
classroom
I’m a
constructivist
Provided
support and
challenging
tasks
Provided
support and
challenging
tasks

105
Discussion
Most significant finding was that the dual language teachers were more aware of
the needs of their students. The dual language teachers plan according to the students’
need. Even though the Mrs. Garcia (5TBE) teacher responded that she had a
constructivist classroom, there was no evidence in practice. Her main concern was that
her students do not behave and was not respectful. The classroom was in rows and no
groupings were observed. Students did not respect her as a teacher, and the climate of the
classroom was a power struggle and definitely not a culture of learning and respect for
each other. She also reported that she changed her lessons a lot, not because of the
students’ needs but was due to her lack of preparation. She began teaching a mathematics
lesson, found that she needed a manipulative, and then she looked for it during the lesson.
The two dual language teachers Mrs. Rodriguez and Mrs. Serrano were more aware of
using grouping in their classrooms. There were ability and non-ability groupings.
Students were allowed choices in the classroom. They were aware of the needs of the
students and wanted to provide connection between what students were learning with real
life experience.
The transitional bilingual education program teachers told their students why they
were learning a concept and how it was related to real life experience. Mrs. Rodriguez
and Mrs. Serrano also allowed students to evaluate each others work while the Mrs.
Brindle (4TBET) did not. It also seemed that the dual language teachers related better
with their students than the transitional bilingual teachers because Mrs. Rodriguez and
Mrs. Serrano continuously took student learning into consideration and will contact
parents when students misbehave or were missing homework.
106
Even though the researcher cannot conclude that what was observed in the
transitional bilingual education program and dual language program was all based on the
structure, belief and philosophy of the two programs or is simply a lack of teaching
experience and competence between the teachers in the two programs. The DL teachers
did allow students to use their native language to support their learning. They were more
aware of the students’ needs and are more willing to make changes accordingly. One area
that the researcher did want to stress was that Mrs. Garcia (5TBET) had nine years of
teaching experience where seven of them were in a TBE program and Mrs. Brindle
(4TBET) had 6 years of teaching experience with the TBE program. Comparatively, Mrs.
Rodriguez (4DLT) had the least experience with five years of teaching experience in
total. Two of Mrs. Rodriguez teaching experience was in DL and three years was
teaching high school ESL students. Mrs. Serrano (5DLT) had eight years of teaching
experience and two were in DL and 6 were in TBE program. I have to say the teaching
experience of the TBE teachers (6 years and 9 years) were very comparable to the
teachers for the DL program (5 years and 8 years). Mrs. Garcia who had the most
difficulty with students had nine years of teaching experience. If all teachers teaching
experience were comparable then how does the classroom structure of the two programs
either enhance or prohibit the use of language? How have classroom structure affected
the motivational factors of the students?
One of the unexpected finding regarding language use in the classroom was that
Mrs. Brindle differences in her belief of additive and subtractive model of instructions.
Mrs. Brindle (4TBET) said a lot of her students did not want to speak Spanish because
they heard so much that they needed to learn English. She said, “that is why I try to tell
107
the parents, if he or she at home reading Spanish is no big deal, it is going to transfer
automatically. If they are a good reader in their first language they will be a good reader
in their second language.” Mrs. Brindle believed in additive model of teaching but the
TBE program goal was to acquire English, which was a subtractive model in nature so it
was very difficult for her to do what she believes. Stritikus and Garcia (2003) noted that
the additive model of ESL learning affirms the value of both the primary and second
language of English Learners. In conclusion, TBE program discouraged the use of
student first language due to the goal of the program being English acquisition and the
DL goal is to promote bilingualism and utilize the student native language as a resource
for students to acquire English. This program differences may have caused the
motivational differences in students in learning English.
Data for Research Question Three: Student Motivational Perceptions of
Language Learning
Research question three asked: What are students’ motivational perceptions of
language learning in these two settings? How are they being reflected in student self-
efficacy, task value, and interest in language learning? Some examples of questions that
were asked of the students were: What steps do you take to help you solve the problem,
do you think it is important to learn English and why and are you interested in learning
and reading English and why? The focus here is on the students’ self efficacy, task value,
and interest in learning English that might promote or inhibit the English Learners in
learning English. The questions were adapted, in part, from Bandura (2001), Eccles and
Wigfield (2003), and McKenna and Stahl (2003).
108
The researcher will first provide a brief introduction to the subjects followed by
the findings from the background question, then students’ self efficacy, task value, and
interest in learning English. Three important findings emerged from the students
interviews. First, students who are enrolled in the Dual Language program wanted to be
able to speak both English and Spanish well while students in the Transitional Bilingual
Education students prefer to only speak English and indicated that at times they forgot
their native language. Second, students who are enrolled in the Dual Language reported
to have more self-efficacy with grammar than the students in the transitional bilingual
education. Lastly, for task value the Dual Language students reported that learning
English would benefit them in the future while the Transitional Bilingual students
reported that learning English was more as a survival tool.
A total of eight students were interviewed, two students (one male and one female
student) from each program (DL and TBE) from each grade level (4th and 5th grade).
Juan (4DLM) and Sandy (4DLF) are in Mrs. Rodriguez fourth grade Dual Language
program. Alex (5DLM) and Maiya (5DLF) are in the Mrs. Serrano fifth grade Dual
Language program. Maria (4TBEF) and Jorge (4TBEM) are in the fourth grade
Transitional Bilingual Education program with Mrs. Brindle and Jennifer (5TBEF) and
Jonathan (5TBEM) are in the fifth grade Transitional Bilingual Education program with
Mrs. Garcia.
Several background questions were asked of the students, the ones that had the
most significance were the responses to three of the questions. They were: how much
does this classroom make you want to keep speaking your first language, and how do you
think learning English will help you in the future?
109
Juan, Sandy, Alex and Maiya, all four students who are enrolled in the Dual
Language program felt they wanted to continue to speak Spanish while all four students
who are in the Transitional Bilingual Program disagreed. Their response ranges from
“No, I prefer English; I’d rather speak English; sometimes I forget my native language.”
This finding was significance because in a subtractive model (TBE) the students’ first
language was essentially replaced by the second language where in an additive schooling,
students’ first language was not ignored and in no danger of being replaced (Garcia,
1995). Stritikus and Garcia (2003) found that, in the classroom where the teacher
believed and used the subtractive theory, students were more resistant in learning the
English language. As a result, the teacher believed that students needed more basic
instruction. In contrast, in the classroom where the teacher believed and used the additive
theory, students appeared to be more engaged in their learning. These were similar to
some of the findings in this study which will be discussed in the later sections.
Another question that showed significance was do you think learning English will
help you in the future? Even though all eight students agreed that learning English would
help them in the future. Alex (5DLM) said, “It will give me a good career because I want
to be a lawyer when I grow up. Then you can work with both kinds of people. Because I
know a lot of people from Mexico come here and I want to be able to help them. And in
high school, I’m thinking about taking Italian because I think it’s pretty interesting ’cause
it’s a lot like Spanish so I think it would be easy for me to learn it.” Maiya (5DLF) said,
“Because if I went to the doctor and if I don’t speak English, I might not be able to
answer people and in school.” Sandy said, “I was born here, but my parents took me back
110
to Mexico because they wanted me to, not to just have my culture from here, but they
also wanted me to learn what their culture was.”
Jorge (4TBEM) response was, “Yes.” Maria said, “Yes, I can help people that
only speak Spanish” and Jonathan said, “Yes, I do care. Because my dad is Mexican and
we usually go to Mexico for vacations, so I need to learn Spanish.” This is similar to
Collier and Thomas (2002) findings that students who are enrolled in dual language
program have more long term goals than students who are in a subtractive model
environment. In the next section, the researcher will further discuss student self-efficacy
findings from the student interviews. Table D illustrates the findings from the student
interviews.
Table D: Student Interviews Findings
4
TBEM
4
TBEF
5
TBEM
5
TBEF
4
DLM
4
DLF
5
DLM
5
DLF
Student Self-Efficacy
Reading High High High High High High High High
Grammar Lower Lower Lower Lower High High High High
Solve the
problem
in reading
Lower Lower Lower Lower High High High High
Student Task Value
Learning
English
High High High High High High High High
No evidence to future In relation to future

Interest
Learning
and
reading
English
High High High High High High High High
Read
over play
High Low Low High High High High High
111

Student Self-Efficacy
Self-Efficacy is considered one of the most crucial constructs noted in the social-
cognitive theoretical framework. Self-efficacy is the belief of an individual to
successfully perform the many subtasks required to complete a larger project, is always
task and goal specific (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). The researcher will present how
students think about the reading aloud, grammar, and writing and what kind of steps they
took when students had difficulties in these areas. There were two characteristics that
emerged from the data collected. They were: how the students perceived themselves in
reading and the steps you took to help you solve the problem when they have problems in
reading and language arts.
The first characteristic which emerged related to student self efficacy was how the
students perceived themselves in reading. All eight students’ responded that they thought
they did well in reading. They told the researcher that their grades As and Bs in my
reading and language arts classes. Juan, Sandy, Alex and Maiya, students from the DL
classroom felt that they were good or at least felt comfortable with grammar while Jorge,
Maria, Jonathan and Jennifer, students from the TBE classroom did not have as much
self-efficacy with grammar. The two 5th grade TBE students’ responses were: Jonathan
(5TBEM) said, “I have a hard time with grammar”, and Jennifer (5TBEF) said, “I guess
so, I’m doing well, but in some I need a little more help.” Jorge (4TBEM) and Maria
(4TBEF) from the 4th grade TBE said, “Sometimes, I need help from my teacher” and “I
get very confused”.
112
The second significant finding was when the researcher asked the students, “What
steps do you take to solve the problem when the students have problems in reading and
language arts”. Students in the two programs both took different steps to solve their
problems before asking for adults help. It appeared that teachers in the DL program
provide students with steps and ways to solve problems and the TBE teachers did not
provide the students these skills which will in turn help with student self-efficacy. The
quotes from the DL students were as follow: Juan (4DLM) said, “They will tell me how
to pronounce it right or tell me what the definition is. She gives us ideas and tells us to
try.” Sandy (4DLF) said, “Yes, sometimes. If they know, they tell me, but if they don’t I
look up in the dictionary. They think about it for a few seconds, so they don’t want,
because they don’t want me to tell me the wrong answer.” Alex (5DLM) said, “Usually,
they just pull us to the back table and then after that she explains again what an adjective
is, or whatever it is. And then after that she’ll just say okay, read the two words again.
And I told you was an adjective is so try to figure it out.”
The Transitional Bilingual program teachers did not provide students with more
instructions on how to do a task and steps that they could use to solve the problem.
Examples of quotes were: Jorge (4TBEM) said, “Telling me how, telling me how to do
it.” Maria (4TBEF) said, “The teacher repeats, repeats it again so I get, get it more clear”
and Jonathan (5TBEM) said, “I will use the books that are from 3rd grade and see if I can
find words in there.”
Students’ Task Value
Task value theory is based on the value that one attributes to a specific task. This
motivational construct is comprised of four components: (1) attainment value; (2)
113
intrinsic value; (3) utility value; and (4) cost (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995). This is the
construct where it shows the most significance of difference in the responses from the
students from the two programs. This is the consistent with the findings in the first study
(Ma, 2006) where the intrinsic interest value subscale did show significant difference.
Intrinsic value, a key component of task value beliefs, refers to the degree of students’
interest in an academic subject matter or the way they perceive the benefits of a task
(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). In this case, students in the DL
program perceived higher interest in English assignments and class work than their TBE
peers. This finding was consistent with the hypotheses predicting higher task values
among DL subjects.
The significant themes that the researcher will present for this research are: 1) the
importance of learning English to the student 2) the interest to the student in learning
English. Of the 6 students, four felt that it was very important to learn English whether it
was because they wanted to talk to their friends or to be successful in their life. Maiya
(5DLF) response was “Yeah. I think it’s important because let’s say that you wanted a
really important job but they really need you to speak English and you love that job, you
need to know, if not you’re not getting the job you want, and you’ll get he job you kind
of like but you didn’t really want.” Juan (4DLM) said, “English can help me make
friends and I can get a good job when I grow up and help people.” Jorge (4TBEM) said,
“I like being able to talk to my friends in English.” Jennifer (5TBEF) said, “I need to
learn English because I need it at school.” All eight students agreed that it is important to
them to get good grades in English. Juan, Sandy, Alex and Maiya (DL students)
responses related to how both languages would benefit them in the future. Sandy (4DLF)
114
said, “…is important because if not then, you want to get a scholarship for college, and
you need to really think, is that serious”. Juan (5DLM), “I can get good job if I learn
English well.” Alex (5DLM) said, “When I grow up, I want to use my English and
Spanish to help people.” Jorge, Maria, Jonathan and Jennifer (TBE students) the
responses were more towards that they did not exert enough effort into learning English.
Jorge (4TBEM) said, “I need to have good grades, if I don’t I did not try hard enough.”
Jonathan (5TBEM) said, “I need help with English sometimes.” Jennifer (5TBEF) said “I
need to be better in my reading.” There was no indication to how it would affect the
future for them. They were more concerned about their current grade and situation. This
was again evidence when the researcher asked the students, how do you think learning
English will help you find jobs? Juan (4DLM) said, “I believe that it will give me the
paper that I need to find jobs.” Alex (5DLM) said, “Yes, I can find better jobs when I
grow up.” Maiya (5DLF) said, “I can have better opportunities with jobs.” The TBE
students were not able to answer the question. Jorge (4TBEM) said, “I am not sure”.
Jennifer (5TBEF) said, “I don’t know.”
Finally, students in both programs expressed that they are interested in learning
and reading English. One comment from Alex (5DLM) was that it was like watching
television in my head. For the TBE students their responses were because they need to
learn English for survival. Jorge (4TBEM) said, “… because most of the people here talk
in English.” Maria (4TBEF) said, “I enjoy reading English because I need to learn it.”
Jonathan (5TBEM) said, “I am used to speaking Spanish at home and my English is not
that well and now I am better.” The most interesting responses was from Jorge (4TBEM)
that indicated he used to be able to read in Spanish but now he is not comfortable in
115
doing so anymore. Some of the books that the students read for fun include: Sideways
Stories from Wayside Schools and Diary of a Wimpy Kid. All eight students agreed that it
was fun to read books in English. All four of the DL students admitted that they will read
instead of play. Two out of four of the TBE students Jorge (4TBEM) and Jennifer
(5TBEF) indicated that they would not choose reading over play. All eight students
agreed that they are interested in going to a bookstore. The researcher then probed a little
deeper with asking if the students enjoy read aloud, reading and language arts classes. All
eight students agreed that they enjoy reading aloud to the class or to each other, and if it
was interesting, they liked it.
These findings suggested that the students in both DL and TBE have high interest
in reading, read aloud, language arts classes and enjoy read aloud. The task values of
TBE students are lower than the DL students because all four DL students chose reading
over play while only two of the TBE students chose that. One of the shortfalls of the TBE
program is that it is a subtractive model and it was affirmed with the comment from Jorge
(4TBEM) that he used to be able to read in Spanish but now he is not comfortable in
doing so anymore.
Chapter Summary of Result Findings
This study identified significant differences between the Dual Language and
Transitional Bilingual Education learning environments in four areas: First, student
autonomy and authority and use of time; second, student grouping; third, DL teachers
considered cultural and language needs when planning their lessons; and fourth higher
task values in English and higher self efficacy in grammar were reported by the DL
students.
116
First, regarding the autonomy and the authority of students in classroom, students
were given significantly more autonomy and the authority in DL classrooms through the
goal of the task in the classroom. For example, DL teachers, in contrast to their TBE
counterparts, gave much more verbal recognitions to students when they were trying to
complete tasks. They honored students’ requests for schedule changes whereas the TBE
teachers did not. One TBE teacher gave students very little autonomy because she felt
that they were very disrespectful and unmanageable.
Second, grouping in DL classrooms was more intensive and extensive than in
TBE classrooms. Grouping was evident in both DL classrooms but only in one TBE
classroom. Choice grouping as well as ability grouping was found in both dual language
classrooms, only ability grouping was observed in the one TBE class. In DL classes,
students evaluated each other’s work; yet this practice was visibly absent in either TBE
classes.
Third, DL teachers were more aware of the needs of their students and made
teaching plans accordingly; they tried harder than their counterparts to connect what
students were learning with their real life experience. They related better with their
students than the transitional bilingual teachers. The DL teachers plan according to the
cultural and linguistic needs of the students. These findings also paralleled those of
Christian, Howard, and Loeb (2000), who maintained that teachers in Dual Language
Immersion programs would use instructional strategies that allow second language
learners to understand the lessons and, develop second language proficiencies at the same
time. These strategies included thematic unit approaches, intensive peer interactions,
117
cooperative learning, peer coaching, and student-centered classrooms, etc. (Christian,
Howard, & Loeb, 2000).
Fourth, compared to their TBE counterparts, DL students reported to have higher
self-efficacy in one particular area - English grammar. In addition, they placed higher
task value on academic English learning. DL students reported that learning English
would benefit them in the future while the TBE students considered English learning
more as a survival tool.
The first three findings showed strong and consistent compliance to the TARGET
model and with mastery goal orientation in the DL classrooms. In both DL classes,
students were allowed to have more task choice, autonomy, grouping, and time. In one
TBE class the researcher did find some evidence of the components of the TARGET
model; yet it was also clear that her classroom was very much a teacher-run setting where
students had limited choices and flexibility. In the other TBE classroom, there was very
little evidence of TARGET practice. These are also characteristics of a mastery goal
orientation classroom (Ames, 1992) where students are allowed to make meaningful
decisions, develop responsibilities and develop self-management and monitoring skills.
It was evidenced from the last finding that students from the DL program
demonstrated higher self efficacy and task value among the motivational construct that
were examined in this study. The evidence was clear that on two motivational variables –
self-efficacy and task value for English language arts acquisition - DL students displayed
stronger motivational tendencies than their TBE counterparts.
There were four unexpected findings: First, teaching practices and classroom
behavior differences; second, the obvious differences in seating arrangements between
118
DL and TBE classrooms; third, the differences in lesson planning amongst the two
programs; fourth, the distinct differences between the students’ self reported differences
in utility value and self-efficacy in grammar.
First, the teaching practices and classroom environment were fairly different
between the two programs. DL teachers are more aligned with the TARGET model and
utilized most of the characteristics illustrated in the model while DL teachers did very
minimal of that. In addition, the DL classroom environment were more conducive to a
mastery goal orientation, teachers took students learning into considerations and were
consistently adjusting lessons according to the needs of the students.
Second, in both TBE classrooms students were sitting in rows but in the DL
classes students were divided into small groups. This researcher was struck by the
apparent and rather striking physical differences between the two types of classrooms.
Ames (1992) stated that grouping facilitated students working together on projects. If so,
TBE classes were not set up for grouping and student led activities to take place
naturally.
Third, the differences in lesson planning amongst the two programs. The TBE
teachers only consider Illinois learning standards and local assessment data when
planning. The rarely divert from their lesson plan while TBE teachers take students’
culture and language needs into consideration and lesson plan were changed based on
students’ needs.
Fourth, the two students in the DL students reported that they have high self
efficacy in three areas: reading, grammar and problem solving in reading while TBE
students only reported higher self efficacy in one area - reading. The three areas in which
119
DL students felt efficacious were skills critical to English-language arts development.
While this researcher did predict greater self-efficacy on the parts of DL students, the
researcher could not anticipate the responses of the students. This finding was important
in two ways: a) it strengthened the conclusion of the current study about the motivational
implications of DL classes; b) it provided valuable insights for future research in that
future researchers might consider including specific skill sets for English-language arts
acquisition in similar studies.
In all, the findings provided strong evidence to support the study’s assumption
that additive language learning environments were more consistent with the TARGET
model and teaching environment of the DL classroom are more conducive to using the
mastery goal orientation and therefore had greater motivational effects on learners than
their subtractive counter parts. These findings also provided evidence that there are
differences in classroom organization, classroom environment, activities, instructional
practices, teachers’ behavior and classroom practices between the Dual Language and
Transitional Bilingual classrooms. DL students also reported to have higher self-efficacy
and utility value in some specific English language arts areas.
120
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS OF
THE FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The numbers of English Learners (ELs) are on the rise in US and it is incumbent
on educators to find the most effective methods to help ELs gain proficiencies in English
language arts. Current programs for ELs, such as Dual Language Immersion program,
TBE programs, bilingual education program, are based on two very different approaches:
the additive model that intentionally uses English and the students’ first languages in all
aspects of the learning process and the subtractive model which uses English only
(Lambert, 1975; Garcia et al., 2005). Scholars such as Cummins (1998), Thomas and
Collier (2002), Howard et al. (2004), and Genesee et al. (2006) have argued strongly for
the effectiveness of additive programs over the subtractive model, yet the debates on the
effect of two models has not abated, not only at scholarly forums, but in public policy
arena as well. The passing of Proposition 227 in California in 1998 was an example of
the polemical nature of the issue in public policy. The needs for further and thorough
studies on the various methods for educating ELs continue.
There were many studies on dual language and bilingual education programs
(Alanis, 2004; Howard et al., 2004; Jong, 2002; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2001;
Senesac, 2002; Thomas & Collier, 2002; Lindholm-Leary, 2005; Lindholm-Leary &
Molina, 2006; Lindholm-Leary & Ferrante, 2005; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders,
& Christian, 2006; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Christian, Montone, Lindholm, & Carranza,
1997; Howard, Sugarman, Christian, Lindholm-Leary, & Rogers, 2007) but studies on
the motivational aspects of these programs were almost non-existent. Motivational
variables were important because studies after studies had affirmed the predictive value
121
of motivational constructs, such as self-efficacy, task values and interests, on student
achievements and perseverance (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002;
Ainley et al., 2002). In addition, Gardners, et al. (1997) identified motivation, more than
other variables, as the most important predictor for successful second language
acquisition. There was a real need for educators and researchers to understand ELs’
motivational constructs.
As mentioned, a number of researchers (Thomas & Collier, 2002; Lindholm-
Leary & Borsato, 2001) postulated and documented the effectiveness of dual language
programs and the additive model for ELs in English language acquisition over against the
subtractive learning environments. Given the strong links between learning achievements
and motivations, it was reasonable to postulate the association between the additive
model of English learning and student motivations; simply put, ELs in additive learning
environments are more motivated. It was the purpose of this researcher to determine if
there were motivational differences between EL students in the DL and TBE program.
Specifically, this study concentrated on three specific motivational variables –
self-efficacy, task values and interest - that had proven predictive values for student
achievements (Bandura, 1986; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002,
Ainley, 2002). Furthermore, the subject of inquiries behind these motivational constructs
was not English language in general or playground English, but English Language Arts
(Cummins, 1998). The EL programs under study for comparison purposes were Dual
Language and Transitional Bilingual programs, which represented the additive and
subtractive model of language acquisition, respectively. The researcher’s predicted that
students in Dual Language classes would exhibit stronger motivational construct in self-
122
efficacy, task value and interest in English language arts in comparison to their
counterparts in Transitional Bilingual Education classrooms.
In addition, studies (Epstein, 1989; Ames, 1992; Maehr & Midgley, 1996; Stipek;
1996; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002) demonstrated that student motivations were not
developed in a vacuum but were significantly impacted by teachers’ classroom practices.
If so, the researcher’s predictions about the different motivational tendencies of ELs in
Dual Language classes for English language arts acquisition could reasonably lead to
another assumption, namely, teachers’ practices and behaviors in DL classes were more
conducive for student motivation development than their TBE counterparts. The
TARGET dimension developed by goal theorists (Epstein, 1989; Ames, 1992; Maehr &
Midgley, 1996) as well as other classroom practice related dimensions and categories
(Clark & Yinger, 1973) could be useful tools to gauge classroom and teachers’ practices.
This study was designed to test the two assumptions that DL students are more
motivated than TBE students in studying English language arts and DL teachers’
classroom behaviors are more effective in facilitating student motivations than those in
TBE classes. Using a case-study method, this researcher conducted a comparative study
of teachers and students in DL and TBE classes using classroom observations as well as
one-on-one interviews students and teachers in the two respective classrooms. The three
research questions which guided this study were:
1. In what ways do classroom organization, classroom environment, activities,
and instructional practices differ between Dual Language and Transitional Bilingual
Education classrooms?
123
2. In what ways do teachers’ behaviors and classroom practice as well as their
self-reported attitudes and perceptions regarding their practices differ in a Dual Language
and Transitional Bilingual Education classroom?
3. What are students’ motivational perceptions of language learning in these two
settings? How are they being reflected in student self-efficacy, task value, and interest in
language learning?
Summary of Findings
This researcher found significant differences between the DL and TBE
classrooms in the motivational orientations of students as well as classroom environments
and teachers’ classroom behaviors in the following areas: First, students in the DL
classrooms attributed higher task values to English language arts and reported higher self
efficacy in English grammar than those in the TBE Program (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995,
Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Ainley et al., 2002). Second, DL teachers considered students’
needs and cultures the key considerations for lesson planning whereas TBE teachers
created teaching plans according to state guidelines for English language proficiency and
testing schedules. Third, DL teachers tended to use grouping much more extensively and
intently than their TBE colleagues (Ames, 1992, Dolezal, Lindsey, Pressly & Vincent,
2003; Wang et al., 1993). Fourth, using TARGET as an observation protocol and
teacher’s self-reports as collaborating evidence, the study showed that DL teachers were
more willing to allow students to have more autonomy, authority and were more flexible
in decision-making and planning and in the use of time. In fact, DL teachers and
classrooms were more compliant with the TARGET ideals that are likely to help enhance
mastery goal orientations among students (Ames & Archer, 1987 & 1988).
124
There were four unexpected findings: First, there was a lack of significant
difference in interest for English learning for ELs in the two programs. Of the three
motivational constructs related to English language acquisition – self efficacy, task value
and interest, the researcher did not find significant differences between TBE and DL
students in interest orientation; both student groups reported to have high interest in
learning English and the DL students also value learning Spanish. The planning and
grouping practices are very different between the two programs. DL teachers are more
inclined to plan their lessons based on the needs of their students and have various
grouping combination in their classroom. Lastly, the DL teachers’ classroom practices
were more compliant to the ideals of TARGET that facilitated mastery goal orientation
among students.
First of all, there were pronounced differences between DL and TBE students in
task value, particularly utility value, and self-efficacy in grammar and solving problem in
reading. All four DL students considered high proficiency and even good grades in
English language arts valuable and critical for their success in the future in endeavors
such as good jobs and scholarship in college, etc. However, TBE students’ reported task
values for study English language arts were much more immediate; they were more
consumed with passing the current classes. The discrepancies in self-efficacy across the
two groups were significant; while all DL students reported being confident or at least
comfortable with English grammar, a critical skill for mastering English language arts,
TBE students expressed uncertainty about their abilities in this area. As a result, the
finding of this study supported the researcher’s assumption that DL students are more
motivated in various aspects of English Language Arts than TBE students.
125
Second, DL and TBE teachers approached classroom planning very differently.
TBE teachers followed the Illinois state curriculum very closely. They used formal
assessment tools such as the Developmental Reading Assessments (DRA) and other local
assessment instruments to evaluate student progress and made lesson plans according to
the schedule and requirements of these instruments. Once planning decisions were made,
they tended to adhere to them without alterations. TBE teachers appeared to be much
more performance goal oriented as they were more concern if the students acquire the
English the skills necessary for passing proficiency tests. By contrast, DL teachers
considered student needs and abilities, as well as individual cultural and ethnic
backgrounds, the primary concerns for considerations in lesson planning. They were
willing to change lesson plans according to student needs and special circumstances. DL
teachers were more mastery goal oriented because they tended to plan for activities that
facilitate individual students’ mastery of subject concepts and skills; both languages were
used to support the learning process.
Third, DL and TBE teachers handled the various areas described by the TARGET
protocol, particularly groupings, very differently. To being with, the dissimilarities in
physical appearance in the two types of classroom settings were striking: In both TBE
classrooms, desks and chairs were in rows; in contrast, classroom furniture in DL classes
was set up in small groups. DL teachers used groupings much more extensively;
examples included students’ selected groupings, ability grouping and problem solving
grouping. One of the two TBE teachers also used groupings, but much less extensive than
their DL colleagues. This TBE teacher’s group focus was assigned grouping for the
completion of a science project. The other TBE teachers did not use groupings at all. As
126
to autonomy, both DL teachers allowed much more autonomy for their students. They
listened to student requests and made changes to class plans if there were legitimate
reasons; in short they were not sticklers of time and schedule. Students were encouraged
to correct each other’s work and were given extra time to complete work if needed. TBE
teachers, on the other hand, were much more restrictive regarding time and scheduling;
they did not allow students more time to complete work and declined students’ request to
listen more of a story in class.
Fourth, in all, compared to their TBE colleagues, DL teachers’ classroom
behaviors and teaching methods were more consistent with teaching strategies that
scholars found to have motivational effects on students; for example, they were more
intentional and extensive in engaging students, embracing cooperative learning
technique, facilitating scaffolding, encouraging student choices and autonomy, making
connections between home and school, etc. (Dolezal, Lindsey, Pressly & Vincent (2003).
Not only were DL teachers’ practices more motivational, they were more consistent with
mastery goal orientation identified by goal theorists. According to Ames (1992), in order
to facilitate mastery goal orientation, teachers needed to provide opportunities for
students to make meaningful decisions, encourage student to develop responsibility and
independence and supporting students to develop and use self-management and
monitoring skills. These strategies were much more descriptive of the DL teachers’
teaching methods than those of the two TBE teachers. On balance, this study also
supported this researchers’ second assumption was that DL classrooms are more
facilitating of student motivations in learning in comparison to the TBE classes. In the
following section, this researcher will compare the current study with previous
127
researches, evaluate the strengths and limitations of the current research and offer
suggestions for future studies.
Discussion of Findings
ELs Motivational Orientations
The current study predicted that ELs in DL classrooms have stronger motivational
orientations than those in the TBE classes. Specifically, by comparing elementary EL
students in DL and TBE classes using qualitative methods and student interviews, this
researcher found differences in task value and self-efficacy among DL students in
English language arts development. On one level, the current findings were consistent
with those of the large body of scholarly work that affirmed the greater effectiveness of
the additive model of second language development for ELs (Thomas & Collier, 2002;
Smith, 2001; Ramirez et al, 2001; Lindholm-Leary, 2001). Yet there is a major
difference, namely, the absolute majority, if not all, of these studies measured ELs’
academic achievements and test scores (e.g., the longitudinal study by Thomas and
Collier (2002). A rare exception was the comparative study conducted by Lindholm-
Leary and Borsato (2001), who concluded that ELs who had completed two-way
immersion programs in elementary school developed stronger motivation to study and
greater resilience to stay in school than those who did not. But Lindholm-Leary &
Borsato’s study did not make reference to the motivational constructs and concepts
advanced by motivational theorists whereas the current study did. Therefore the findings
of the current study helped move the research on the effectiveness of language
development methods into a new arena, namely, the field of motivational constructs. Not
only did it affirm the multitude researches that favored the additive model, it also verified
128
the body of work that pointed to the predictive values of motivational constructs on
student academic achievements.
This study was an extension of this researcher’s previous study (Ma, 2006) on the
same topics. In Ma (2006), this researcher used structured questionnaires and quantitative
methods with 5th grade EL students and found statistically significant differences
between DL and TBE students on one motivational construct only, namely, intrinsic
value. All other areas of the motivational construct had a ceiling effect and did not show
any significance, i.e., students in both DL and TBE groups gave a very high score on
almost every question regarding their motivational orientation in English. In retrospect,
the researcher suspected that the questions in the questionnaire were inadequate in
communicating clearly to students that the subject under inquiry was English language
arts and not simply verbal English or playground English (Cummins, 1998). In light of
this, the current study used case study method and one-on-one student interviews together
with guiding questions that attempted to made clear reference to English language arts.
These steps had probably contributed to the significant findings on self-efficacy and task
values.
As mentioned earlier, a major surprise from this study was that no significant
differences were found among students in their interest in English. In fact, both groups
attributed high interest to English learning, a pattern reminiscent of the ceiling effects
found in student answers on most questions in this researchers’ previous study (Ma,
2006). One possible explanation was that the guiding and probing questions in the student
interest section did not clearly point to English language arts and subsequently ELs
subjects interpreted the questions in light of verbal or playground English. The guiding
129
question of the student interest section was: “Are you interested in learning and reading
English and why?” Neither this nor the probing questions listed the more challenging
aspects of English language arts, such as grammar, English comprehension, critical
reading, etc. Students might have thought that the questions in this section were about
daily life English or playground English. If this explanation is valid, future researchers
should take serious the potential tendency for students to confuse English language arts
as an academic subject and verbal, playground English as daily communication tool.
In all, the current study was only a very modest first steps to inquire into the
motivational impacts of additive and subtractive models of English learning on ELs. As
English learning is pivotal for ELs and the debates on the two competing models of
English language learning will continue, more extensive research on the relationship
between EL motivational orientations and different models of language developments
will greatly benefit ELs in the long run. The current findings were based on the one-on-
one interviews with eight students only. More inquiries into the various aspects of these
programs are needed in order that the results of the current findings can be universalized.
For example, the current study focused only on students’ self report motivational
orientation in English language arts, future studies should expand into other academic
subjects, such as math, as well. Also, comparisons could be done between the various
academic programs for ELs, such as the English Only, One-Way Immersion program,
etc., that are based on the additive and subtractive models in various ways. To further
refine the study on motivational constructs, future researchers may focus on the
subcategories within self-efficacy, task values and interests. To enhance the reliability
and validity of this study, researchers should consider using both qualitative and
130
quantitative methods to measure the motivational orientations of ELLs. The guiding
questions used for this study (see Appendix B) can possibly be revised and adapted into
multiple structured questionnaire and survey questions for EL students.
Teachers’ Practices
Findings two, three and four supported the second assumption that classroom
practices of DL teachers were more motivating for ELs than those of their TBE
counterparts. Specifically, DL teachers’ placed greater emphasis on students’ needs,
exercised more flexibility in planning, scheduling and the use of time, utilized grouping
far more extensively and allowed for greater autonomy among students – ideals of
motivational enhancing practices in the TARGET protocol framework. By contrast, TBE
teachers were much more focused on implementing state standards and standardized
testing. In all, it appeared that DL teachers’ approaches were much more mastery goal
oriented and much less performance oriented than those of the TBE teachers. The current
study shared some similarities with the case study research by Stritikus and Garcia
(2003), who examined how three EL teachers with very different beliefs about English
development approached teaching literacy. The two additive-model believers allowed
students to use Spanish in class, focused on the events of the stories rather than the
mechanism of the English language, drew upon students’ own social and cultural lives
and encouraged students to draw conclusions on concepts. By contrast, the third teacher,
a believer in the subtractive model, placed primary focus on linguistic mechanisms such
word meaning, convention and phonetic exactness. To the extent that the additive
believers used ELs’ own life stories and cultures as assets and that the subtractive
believers placed strong emphasis on ELs’ linguistic skills development, the subjects in
131
Stritkus and Garcia (2003) study shared similarly approaches with the DL and TBE
teachers in the current study, respectively. Karabenick and Noda (2004) surveyed 729
teachers in a school district and they found that teachers with more positive attitudes
towards ELs tend to use teaching approaches that were significantly more mastery goal
oriented. Specifically, they would give students work that was more creative and relevant
to their own life experiences and were also less likely to encourage competitions among
ELs and give special privileges to higher achievers. In short, it appeared that the DL
teachers in the current study, together with the two additive-model believing teachers in
Stritikus and Garcia (2003) and the ELs favoring teachers in Karabenick and Noda
(2004) shared some commonalities - they tended to use teaching methods that enhanced
mastery goal orientations among students.
The current findings that DL teachers were more compliant to the ideals of
TARGET and used mastery goal orientation approaches were surprises as well. From a
strictly theoretical point of view, the ideal motivating approaches within each of the
TARGET protocol areas could be achieved by teachers in any classroom environments.
Likewise, all teachers could create classroom atmospheres where students are encouraged
to focus on individual progress and proficiency rather than performances and
competitions, hallmarks of mastery goal oriented classes. Bilingualism or
monolingualism by themselves should not be determining factors for teachers to reach
these ideals. Theoretically, one likely scenario that might have set DL and TBE learning
environments apart was that while both groups of teachers would use teaching practices
that were compliant with TARGET ideal and mastery goal orientations, they
implemented their approaches differently because of language requirements; in turn,
132
these practices would create differing motivational impacts on students. Another scenario
is that the two groups of teachers might use the same TARGET compliant and mastery
goal oriented teaching techniques but create different learning environments because
additive learning environments are inherently more motivating for ELs. Cummins (1981)
coined the term Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) to explain the effectiveness of
the additive model. He theorized that ELs could achieve academic proficiencies utilizing
both their primary and secondary languages; specifically, proficiency and understanding
acquired in one language could be transferred to another. Under this model, one might
postulate that what makes additive classrooms more motivating for ELs is that the use of
students’ primary languages would facilitate greater understanding of academic concepts.
If so, even when DL teachers and TBE teachers use identical approaches, additive
classroom environments would still be more motivating for students to learn. But these
two scenarios were not the results observed in the current study.
The surprising findings raised a number of questions: First and foremost, are the
discrepancies in TARGET compliant and goal orientation between the two groups of
teachers the results of whether students’ primary language was used in classroom
teaching alongside with English? Were there variables outside the purview of the study
that contributed to the differences between DL and TBE teachers? For example, teachers’
own beliefs about language acquisition (Stritikus & Garcia, 2003), their positive or
negative attitudes towards their students and their own self-efficacy in teaching ELs
(Karabenick & Noda, 2004), as well as their own qualifications and experiences could be
potential factors. This researcher did try to seek teachers with the same experience and
training but could not assume that the teacher training and competency as well as
133
curriculum between the two programs were identical. Also, why were TBE teachers so
much more preoccupied with standardized test scores and state-wide curriculum? Was it
the results of program requirements of this particular school district or other factors?
These are not questions that could be answered by this current study. However, these
lingering questions also raised a fundamental question, to what extent were the
motivational differences found in students in the DL and TBE classes attributed to
additive or subtractive models of language development and to what extents other factors
are involved? This is a question that needs to be explored in future studies.
Recommendations for Research
From the aforementioned discussions, it is cleared that more studies with more
refined methodologies are needed in order that the significant findings in student
motivational orientations and teachers’ practices can be further universalized. Some
future possibilities include: First, expand the subject pools significantly. Second, use
qualitative and case study tools alongside with quantitative methods. Third, to ensure
elementary students understand the precise intent of the structured survey or individual
interviews, ensure proper choice of words. For instance, in studying English language
arts, researcher must make sure that students do not confuse academic English with
playground or day-to-day survival English. Fourth, instead of using questions that cover a
wide range of variables and concepts, create or adapt questions in the written and/or
verbal surveys, structure questions that reflect more precisely the perceptions and/or
behaviors that the research set out to measure. Future researchers might pinpoint the
subcategories of motivational constructs and used questions that measure teachers’
compliance of mastery or performance orientation. Current studies provided rich
134
resources for future studies. Future studies that hone in on variables more precisely will
help strengthen the conclusion of the current study that additive model of English
development relates more positively with teachers’ practices that enhances student
motivation; in turn, additive classroom environments are more conducive to student
motivational development.
Implications for Practice
There are two major implications for practice from this research. First of all, even
as DL students expressed willingness and interest in being proficient in both English and
Spanish, they also exhibited more self-efficacy with English grammar and task value for
academic English learning as a whole. If so, the use of both languages was not a
hindering factor for academic English development (Lambert, 1975) and the opposite
seemed to be true. School districts should take seriously the potential motivational
implications of the additive model English language development for ELs (Lambert,
1975; Garcia et. al., 2005). Therefore they should consider using dual language programs
rather than transitional bilingual programs for ELs. In events that a district could not
implement DL programs due to financial constraints or political realities, district
administrators should consider “relaxing” the structure of transitional bilingual programs
to allow for the use of the first languages of ELs students in the programs. The second
recommendation is directed towards classroom teaching. There are no reasons why TBE
teachers cannot use groupings extensively and effectively; neither are there reasons for
TBE teachers NOT to use mastery goal oriented approached for ELs. Furthermore, even
though TBE teachers cannot use students’ primary languages as teaching tools, they do
not need be overly rigid about adhering to State standards; they too can use students’
135
cultural background and life experiences to assist their mastery of academic subject. If
the above analysis about teachers’ practices is correct, the current findings did not
definitively associate additive model with teachers’ compliant with TARGET Protocol
ideas or mastery goal orientation.
Chapter Conclusion
Seeking effective methods to assist ELs to become fully proficient in academic
English continue to be a high priority for educators across the nation. While extensive
researches have affirmed the effectiveness of the additive model for ELs’ academic
performances, the debate on whether school districts should use additive or subtractive
models to educate ELs is still lingering in both the academic circle and public policy
arena. Multiple studies have confirmed the predictive values of motivation orientations
on academic success in general and second language acquisition in particularly.
However, studies on ELs’ motivational construct in various English language acquisition
programs were almost non-existent. Likewise, while goal theoretic have developed
concepts such as TARGET protocol and mastery and performance goal orientation to
study teachers’ approaches, hardly any academic studies contrasted teachers’ practices in
additive and subtractive classrooms.
Using case study and qualitative analysis, this researcher conducted classroom
observations and one-on-one interviews with four DL students, four TBE students, two
DL teachers and two TBE teachers in two elementary schools in Illinois. The findings of
the current study supported the assumption that DL students have greater motivational
orientation than TBE students and the second assumption was that DL teachers’ teaching
method were more motivating than TBE teachers, specifically, DL teachers were more
136
inclined to use teaching methods that were considered more motivating under the
TARGET protocol and tended to encourage mastery goal orientation in classrooms. Yet
analysis showed that DL teachers’ motivating teaching approaches might be caused by
factors other than additive or subtractive models. Future studies should consider the
followings: expand the subject pool and use both qualitative and quantitative methods;
choose words in questions that precisely convey the variables under investigation and
refine questions so that they reflect more precisely the concepts and variables being
studies. Last and not least, school districts should consider adopting additive models of
English learning for ELs; at the least, teachers should be encouraged to adhere to
motivating practices outlined in the TARGET protocol and methods that are conducive to
ELs’ development of mastery goal orientation.
137
REFERENCES

Ainley, M., Hidi, S. & Berndorff, D. (2002) Interest, learning and the psychological
processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology,
94(3), 545-561.

Al-Fadhli, H. & Singh, M (2006). Teachers' Expectancy and Efficacy as Correlates of
School Achievement in Delta, Mississippi. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 19(1-2), 51-67. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from ABI/INFORM
Global database. (Document ID: 1269225821).

Alanis, I. (2004). A Texas two way bilingual Program: Its effects on linguistic and
academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(3), 225-247.

Ames C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

August, D. and Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners:
Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (2001). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales – Children’s Self Efficacy
Scale (Revised). Available from Frank Pajares, Emory University.

Black, Paul. (1999, February 2). Proposition 227. Retrieved October 18, 2003, from
Centre for Studies of Language in Education Web Site:
http://www.ntu.edu.au/education/csle/issues/prop227.html.

Bogdan, R. C., Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative Research for education: An introduction
to theory and methods : Boston: Allyn & Bacon

Bong, M. (2001a). Role of self-efficacy, and task-value in predicting college students’
course performance and future enrollment intentions. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 26, 553-570.

Bong, M. (2001b). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among
middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement
goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 23-34.

Bong, M. (2002). Predictive utility of subject-, task-, and problem-specific self-efficacy
judgments for immediate and delayed academic performances. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 70(2), 133-162.
138
Bong, M., Hocevar, D., (2002). Measuring self-efficacy: Multitrait-multimethod
comparison of scaling procedures. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(2),
143-171.

Bong, M., Skaalvik, E., (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different
are they really. Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1-40.

Bong, M. (2004). Academic motivation in self-efficacy, task value, achievement goal
orientations and attributional beliefs . Journal of Educational Research, 97(6),
287-297.

Christian, D., Montone, C., Lindholm, K., and Carranza, I. (1997). Profiles in Two-Way
Immersion Education. Washington, D.C.: Delta Systems, Inc. and ERIC
Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.

Christian, D., Howard E.R., & Loeb, M.I. (2000). Bilingualism for All: Two-Way
Immersion Education in the United States. Theory into Practice, 39, 4, Children
and Languages at School. pp.258-266.

Clark, C. & Yinger R. (1979). Teachers’ thinking. In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walberg
(Eds.), Research on Teaching: Concepts, findings and implications (pp.231-263).
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan

Coady, M. (2001). Attitudes toward bilingualism in Ireland. Bilingual Research
Journal, 25(1/2), 39-58. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from Education
Module database. (Document ID: 97910425).

Collier, V. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in
second language. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641.

Collier, V. & Thomas, W. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in
school English? Journal of Educational issues of Language Minority Students, 5,
26-38.

Collier V.P. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority
student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1-2), 187-
212.

Craig, B. A. (1996). Parental attitudes towards bilingualism in a local two-way
immersion program. Bilingual Research journal, 20 (3/4), 383-410.

Crawford, James. (1987). Bilingual education: Language, learning, and polities.
Education Week. April, 19-50.
139
Cummins , J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting
educational success for language minority students. Schooling and language
minority students: A theoretical framework , 3.

Cummins, J. (1984). Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating language proficiency
to academic achievement among bilingual students. In C. Rivera (ed.), Language
Proficiency and Academic Achievement . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J (1998). Beyond Adversarial Discourse: Searching for Common Ground in
the Education of Bilingual Students. Presentation to the California State Board of
Education. Sacramento, California.

Dolezal, S.W., Lindsey M., Pressley M., Vincent M. (2003). How nine third-grade
teachers motivate student academic engagement. The Elementary School
Journal, 103(3), 239-268. Retrieved November 5, 2007, from Research Library
Core database. (Document ID: 289042741).

Dörnyei, Z., & Clément, R. (2001). Motivational characteristic of learning different target
languages. Results in a national survey. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.),
Motivation and second language acquisition (Technical Report #23, p.399-432).
Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center

Duncan, M.J. & Biddle, B.J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.

Dweck, C.S. & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychology Review, 95, 256-273.

Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’
achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215-225.

Eccles, J., O’Neil S., and Wigfield, A. (2003) Ability Self-Perceptions and Subjective
Task Values in Adolescents and Children at the Indicators of Positive
Development Conference for the Bureau of Labor Statistics Conference Center at
Washington, DC. Retrieved November 15, 2005 from
http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Self-Perceptions-paper.pdf.

Eccles J., Wigfield A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109-32. Retrieved December 29, 2007, from Research Library
Core database. (Document ID: 109965451).

140
Eccles, J. S. (1984). Sex differences in achievement patterns. In T. Sonderegger (Ed.),
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 32, pp. 97 – 132). Lincoln, NE: Univ.
of Nebraska Press.

Eccles J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., &
Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T.
Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75– 146). San
Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.

Elliott, A. (1997). Integrating the “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to
achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. In Maehr & Pintrich (Eds.). Advances in motivation and
achievement (vol. 10, pp. 243-279). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Elliott, A. & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-
232

Elliott, A. & Harackiewicz. J. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and
intrinsic motivation: A mediational analyses. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 461-475

Garcia, E. E. (1995). Educating Mexican American students: Past treatments and recent
development in theory, research, policy and practice. In J. Banks & C.A. Banks
(Eds.), Handbook on research on multicultural education. New York: MacMillian.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). The attitude motivation test battery: technical report. London,
Ontario, Canada: University of Western Ontario, Department of Psychology.

Gardner, R. C. & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective variables in
second language learning. Language Learning, 43, 157-194.

Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A. M. (1997). Towards a full model of
second language learning: An empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal,
81, 344-362.

Gardner, R. C. (2000). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z.
Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Ed.), Motivation and second language acquisition (p. 1-
19). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
141
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z.
Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition
(Technical Report #23, p. 1-19). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second
Language Teaching and Curriculum Center

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K.J., Saunders, W., and Christian, D. (2006). Educating
English Language Learners. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 567-582.

Golafshani, Nahid. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research.
The Qualitative Report. 8, 4, 597-607

Greeno, J., Collins, A., and Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In Berliner & R.
Calfee (Eds.) Handbook for Educational Psychology. New York. Macmillian

Hickey, D. (1997). Motivation and contemporary socio-constructivist instructional
perspectives. Educational Psychologist, 32, 175-193

Hidi, S. and Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness—A neglected variable in discourse
processing. Cognitive Science, 10, 2, 179-194

Howard, E. R., Christian, D., & Genesee, F. (2004). The development of bilingualism and
biliteracy from grade 3 to 5: A summary of findings from CAL/CREDE study of
two-way immersion education (Research Report No. 13). Washington, DC: Center
for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.

Howard, L., Sugarman, J, Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., and Rogers, D. (2007).
Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education. Washington DC: US
Department of Education and National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition. www.cal.org/twi/guidingprinciples.htm

Illinois Interactive Report Card (2009), the premier web site for test results and other
school improvement information for Illinois schools, Retrieved May 30, 2010
from Illinois Interactive Report Card website: http://iirc.niu.edu

Jong, E. (2002). Effective bilingual education: From theory to academic in a two way
bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 65-83.

Karabenick S. A. & Clemens Noda, P. A. (2004). Professional development implications
of teachers’ belief and attitudes toward English language learners. Bilingual
Research Journal, 28, 1, p. 55.

142
Klesmer, H. (1994). Assessment and teacher perception of ESL student achievement.
English Quarterly, 26(3), 8-11.

Kounin, J. (1970), Discipline and Group Management in Classrooms,. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.

Kounin, J. (1977). Discipline and group management in classrooms. Huntington, NY:
Krieger

Krapp, A., Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning, and development. In K.
A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and
development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Krashen, S. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA:
Language Education Associates, pp.108.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). What We Can Learn from Multicultural Education Research.
Educational Leadership. 51(98), 22–26.

Lambert, W. E. (1975) Culture and language factors in learning and education. In A
Wolfgang (editor) Education of Immigrant Students. Toronto: Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Lindholm-Leary , K. J. & Borsato, B. (2001). Impact on two-way immersion on students'
attitudes toward school and college(Research Report No. 10). Washington, DC:
Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.

Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Dual Language Education. Avon, England: Multilingual
Matters.

Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Ferrante, A. (2005). Follow-up study of middle school two-
way students: Language proficiency, achievement and attitudes. In R. Hoosain &
F. Salili (eds), Language in multicultural education. Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing, pp. 157-179.

Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2005). Review of Research and Best Practices on Effective
Features of Dual Language Education Programs. Washington, DC: Center for
Applied Linguistics. http://www.lindholm-
leary.com/resources/review_research.pdf

143
Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Molina, R. (2006). The power of two-way bilingual immersion
programs in promoting educational success in Latino communities. In L. Diaz
Soto (Ed). Praeger handbook of Latino education. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Linton, A. (2004). Learning two languages: Spanish English immersion in U.S. public
school. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 24(7/8), 46-74.

Loche, E. & Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Ma, E. (2006). A comparative study of motivational orientation of elementary school
English learners in a dual language immersion program and a structured English
immersion program

MacIntyre, P., MacMaster, K., Baker, S. (2001). The Convergence of multiple models of
motivation for second language learning: Gardner, Pintrich, Kuhl and McCroskey.
In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Ed.), Motivation and second language acquisition
(p. 461-492). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Maehr, M.L. & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Maehr, M.L. & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide
approach. Educational Psychologist, 26, 399-427

Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation and second language
learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates.
Language Learning, 53(1), 123-163.

McBrien, J.L. & Brandt, R.S. (1997). The Language of Learning: A Guide to Education
Terms. Alexandria,VA. ASCD. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from
http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.

McKenna, M. and Stahl, S (2003). Elementary Reading Attitude Survey. Assessment for
Reading Instruction. Guilford Press. New York., p.216-222.

Miles, M.B, and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Ed.,
NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary
school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 424-436.

Murphy, J., Weil, M., & McGreal, T.L. (1986).The Basic Practice Model of Instruction.
The Elementary School Journal, 87, 1 p. 83-95.

144
Ngai, P. B. (2002). Bilingual Education for All: A benefit model for small towns.
Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 269-294.

Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (1996). Communicating across cultures: Social determinants
and acculturative consequences. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27,
214–228.

Patrick, H; Anderman, L. H.; Ryan, A. M.; Edelin, K. C.; Midgley, C (2001). Teachers’
communication of goal orientation in fourth fifth-grade classrooms. The
Elementary School Journal. 102, 1, 35-58.

Pintrich, P., & De Groot (1990).Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-
40.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: theory, research, and
applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Pintrich, P. R. & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive
engagement in classroom tasks. In D. Shunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Students
perceptions in the classroom: Causes and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F. & McKeachie, W.J. (1989). A manual for the use of the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Unpublished
manuscript, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and
Learning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Ramirez, J. D., Pasta, D. J., Yuen, S., Billings, D. K., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Final
report: Longitudinal study of structural immersion strategy, early exit, and late
exit transitional bilingual education programs for language minority children.
San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International, 1991. vol. 2, Appendix C.

Renninger, A. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implications for theory and
practice. in Renninger, K. Ann; Hidi, Suzanne; Krapp, Andreas (1992). The role
of interest in learning and development. (pp. 361-395). Hillsdale, NJ, England:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and
development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Romeo, Jesus (1997) Teacher planning and decision-making in a heterogeneous
classroom setting with fluent and limited English proficient students. Ed.D.
dissertation, Texas A&M University - Kingsville, United States -- Texas.
Retrieved November 14, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.
(Publication No. AAT 9736995).
145

Rosenshine, B. & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed)
Handbook of research and teaching (3
rd
ed) New York. Mcmillian.

Rothenal, R. & Jacobson L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt,
Reinhart & Winston.

Senesac, B. K. (2002). Two way bilingual immersion: A portrait of quality schooling.
Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 85-101.

Shannon, S. M., & Milan, M. (2002). Parents choose dual immersion programs in
Colorado: A survey. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(3), 681-696.

Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children’s perceived
self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 548-556.

Schunk, D. H. (1983a). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects
on self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 848-
856.

Schunk, D. H. (1983b). Developing children’s self-efficacy and skills: The roles of social
comparative information and goal setting. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 8, 76-86.

Schunk, D. H. (1983c). Goal difficulty and attainment information: Effects on children’s
achievement behaviors. Human Learning, 2, 107-117.

Schunk, D. H. (1983d). Reward contingencies and the development of children’s skills
and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 511-518.

Schunk, D. H. (1984). Sequential attributional feedback and children’s achievement
behavioral change. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1159-1169.

Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of
Educational Psychology, 1, 173-208.

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s cognitive
skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 359-382.

Shannon, S. M., & Milan, M. (2002). Parents choose dual immersion programs in
Colorado: A survey. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(3), 681-696.

Simpson, G. (2001). Learner characteristics, learning environments and constructivist
epistomologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 47(2), 17-24. Retrieved
February 9, 2008, from Education Module database. (Document ID: 86041150).
146

Smith, P. H. (2001). Community language resources in dual language schooling.
Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 375-404.

Smith, P. H., Hopffer, E. A., Carmichael, C. M., Murphy, E., Valle, A., Gonzalez, N., et
al. (2002). Raise a child, not a testscore: Perspectives on bilingual education at
Davis Bilingual Magnet School. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 103-207.

Smith, P. L., & Fouad, N. A. (1999). Subject-matter specificity of self-efficacy, outcome
expectancies, interests, and goals: Implication for the social-cognitive model.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 461-471.

Snow, C. E. and Kenji Hakuta. 1988 “ The costs of monolingualism” In James Crawford,
ed Language Loyalities: A Source Book on the official English Controversy.
Chicago University of Chicago Press.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stipek, D. J. (1996), Handbook of educational psychology, D. C. Berliner and R. C
Calfee, Eds. MacMillan.

Stritikus, T. T. & Garcia, E. (2003). The role of theory and policy in the educational
treatment of language minority students: Competitive structures in California.
Education Policy Analysis Archives. 11(26). Retrieved November 28, 2005 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n26.

Tenenbaum, H. & Ruck, M. (2007). Are Teachers' Expectations Different for Racial
Minority Than for European American Students? A Meta-Analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(2), 253. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from Research
Library Core database. (Document ID: 1283992371).

Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language
minority students' long term academic achievement (CREDE Project 1.1).
Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.

Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge and learning. Review of Educational
Research, 64, 37-54.

Tremblay, P. F. & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivational construct in
language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 505-518.

Wang, M., Haertel, G., & Walberg, H. (1993). What helps students learn? Educational
Leadership, 74–79.

147
Walcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis and
interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A
theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265– 310.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement Motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 1, 68-81

148
APPENDIX A
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Classroom observation will include the six categories from Goal orientation that
contribute to classroom-learning environment – TARGET. This protocol is taken from
the Teachers’ Communication of Goal Orientations in Fourth and Fifth grade classrooms
by Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Ryan, Edelin, and Midgley (2001).
Task
• Content of the task
• Participation structures(s) required or suggested by the teacher
• Expected product
• Anything the teacher says about the reason for doing the task, its value, or the
difficulty
• Routines, rules, and procedures for doing the task
• Materials and resources used, and how the materials are distributed
Authority
• What are the class rules?
• Who determines the rules?
• What implicit rules are assumed or referred to?
• What are the implications for noncompliance with norms or rules?
• Is there a discipline system in place?
• How consistently are sanctions imposed or rules followed through on.

Autonomy
• Any instance in which students have choice (and note the degree of choice)
• The order in which students complete the tasks
• The content of the task
• The form of the product
• With whom the students work
• When they have completed the task
• How their work is evaluated
Recognition
• Whether the teacher’s praise and criticism is public or private
• What the teacher’s praise and criticism is contingent on (e.g., conduct,
participation, achievement)
• What the praise and criticism is attributed to (e.g., effort, ability, luck)
• And concrete forms of recognition beyond praise (e.g., candy, stickers)
• Any nonverbal recognition
149
Grouping
• The number of groups
• The size of the groups
• The basis of the group formation (e.g., ability, cooperation, competitive teams)
• The extent to which the groups are stable or flexible
• Whether students have different roles in group and, if so, how the roles are
allocated and what they involve
• The characteristics of the groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, special-needs students)
Evaluation
• Whether evaluation occurs within the class or elsewhere (e.g., teacher grading
away from class)
• What the criteria for evaluation are
• Whether students evaluate their own work
• Whether students evaluate one another’s work
• If any attributional statements are made for success of failure
• How students’ previous successes or difficulties are referred to
Time
• Is there a set time schedule?
• The extent to which time schedules are adhered to and under what circumstances
they are not
• Any comments made by the teacher or students about time restrictions
150
APPENDIX B
STUDENTS’ INTERVIEWS
Demographic Information:
Introduction:
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. My name is Elizabeth Ma. I
am a student from the University of Southern California. I am working on some
schoolwork that I need you to help me with. I need to find out some information about
you and your class, specially your reading and language arts classes. I will not tell anyone
what you have said to me. I will ask you some questions about you and your classroom.
Background information
1. What grade are you in?
2. How long have you been in this school?
3. What is your first language?
4. What language do you speak at home?
5. Does your teacher speak to you in Spanish or English?
6. Does your parent speak to you in Spanish or English?
7. Are you more comfortable speaking in English or in Spanish?
8. What is it like learning English in this classroom?
9. Does this classroom make you feel confident that you can learn English well?
10. How much does this classroom make you want to keep speaking your first
language?
11. How do you think learning English will help you in the future?
12. Do you think it is important to be able to speak Spanish when you grow up?
151
Student Self Efficacy

1. Tell me about how well you think you do in your reading and language arts?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

Probing Questions:
1. What is your grade in reading?
2. Please tell me how you think you do in:
a. Read aloud
b. Grammar
c. Writing
d. Oral communications
e. Sustained silent reading
3. Do you think they are easy or hard for you and why?

152

2. Tell me when you have problems in your reading and language arts classes; what
steps do you take to help you solve the problem?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

Probing Questions:
1. Who will you ask for help?
2. How will they help you?

153
3. Tell me what steps you take to get good grades in your reading and language arts
classes?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

Probing Questions:
1. Do you always complete assignments deadlines?
2. Do you concentrate during class?
3. How do you organize your schoolwork?
4. Do you always complete your schoolwork?
5. Do you participate in reading/language arts class discussions?
6. How do you use resources to help with homework/assignments?
7. Where do you study?

154

Students’ Task Value

4. Do you think it is important to learn English and why?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

Probing Questions:
1. Do you think learning English is worthwhile?
2. How do you feel about working on English assignments?
3. Do you enjoy doing English schoolwork?
4. How important it is to you to get good grades in English?
5. How do you think learning English will help you find jobs?
6. Do you think it is important in your daily life to learn English? Give me some
examples.
155
Students’ Interest in learning English

5. Are you interested in learning and reading English and why?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

Probing Questions:
1. Tell me about how you enjoy
a. reading English books
b. reading an English book for fun
c. reading instead of play
d. going to a bookstore
e. doing workbook pages and worksheets
f. reading aloud
g. reading and language arts classes

156
APPENDIX C
TEACHERS’ INTERVIEWS

Introduction: Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. I am a doctoral
candidate from the University of Southern California. I am working on my dissertation,
which focuses on motivational issues in language learning classrooms. I am trying to
understand how teachers think about motivational issues in language learning classrooms.
This interview will be used for this purpose only and will be confidential. (I will not
identify you by name in the report or in any conversations with other people.) I will ask
you some questions regarding your classroom and teaching practices.

Background information

1. What grade do you teach?
2. How long have you been teaching this grade?
3. How long have you been teaching in this school and district?
4. How long have you been teaching in this program?

157
Teacher Planning and Decision Making

1. Tell me about how you plan the activities in your classroom. How and when will
you consider changing your plan?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

2. Tell me about your thoughts in instructional grouping in your classroom.
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

158

Reflection:

3. What kind of students’ grouping do you have?
Interviewees’ Response:

Interviewers comments:

Reflection:

Probing Questions:
1. How are groups structured?
2. How do they get evaluated?
3. How do you group students in ability grouping?
4. How are the groups structured?
5. How do the students get evaluated? Curve or standard-based?
6. How do students work as a group?
159
7. How do you address individual instruction?
8. How do you communicate the lesson objectives to the students when they are
in a group?
9. Do you feel that students are clear about the objectives when they work in
groups?
160
Instructional Practices

4. What kind of teaching strategies do you use in your classroom with the English
Learners?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

5. Can you tell me how you typically present an English Language Arts lesson to
your class?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

161
Reflection:

6. How do you model concepts to your English Learners?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

Probing Questions:
Please tell me about how you …
a. Provide short review before the lesson
b. State lesson objectives
c. Provide step-by-step instructions and provide practice time
d. Provide clear, detailed instructions and explanations
e. Provide students with high levels of active practice
f. Ask questions and check for understanding
162
g. Provide systematic feedback and corrective instruction
h. Provide explicit instruction and practice for seatwork exercise
i. Monitor student progress
j. Provide closure at the end of the lesson
k. Provide feedback to students
l. Provide peer modeling
m. Provide teacher modeling
n. Provide multiple modeling
o. Inform students that learning is important
163

Teacher-student interactions
7. How do you provide feedback to your English Learners?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

Probing Questions:
Please tell me about how you address …
a) Performance – accuracy of work and correction of work
b) Motivation – inform on progress and competence, social comparison, and
persuasion
c) Attribution – student attention to more than one attribution, like working
hard, doing well
d) Strategy – how wells students are applying a strategy to improve their
work
e) Rewards
164
f) Classroom Climate – democratic; implications are clear, supportive, warm
g) Praise and Criticism
h) Unsolicited Help – teachers provide feedback as corrective feedback

165
Teacher Expectations

8. What kinds of expectations do you have for your English Learners?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

9. How do you communicate your expectations to your English Learners?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

166

10. How do you feel about your confidence in teaching English Learners?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

Probing Questions:
a. What examples can you give me to help illustrate what you told me?
167
Classroom management and organization

11. Tell me about your classroom management?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

12. How do you organize your classroom?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

168

Probing Questions:
Can you tell me about how you would address…
a. Misbehavior
b. Letting students know they misbehave
c. Movement in the classroom
d. When two problems arise at the same time
e. Transition from lesson to lesson
f. Keeping students focus on task
g. Differentiation in Instruction
h. Student autonomy
i. Grouping patterns
j. Performance evaluations

169
Teaching in Constructivist Classroom
13. Will you describe your classroom?
Interviewee’s Response:

Interviewer’s comments:

Reflection:

Probing Questions:
Tell me how you:
a. Create agency for learning within your classroom
b. Provide opportunity for reflections in the classroom
c. Organize classroom for collaboration and cooperation among students,
teachers, and others
d. Use authentic tasks, problems, and assessments
e. Create and sustain classroom discourse on learning and knowledge
f. Provide opportunities for practicing ways of thinking and learning
g. Provide learning tools that support student learning when working on
challenging tasks
170
h. Have students create and use various artifacts
i. Provide scaffolding to support student learning
j. Create a culture of learning and respect for others.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The focus of this research is to compare the motivational orientation of English Learners in a Dual Language Immersion and a Transitional Bilingual Education program. These programs were chosen for several reasons. First, comparative studies on the various variables and constructs relating to English Learners in these two instructional models are not abundant. Second, various studies from Thomas and Collier (2002), Klesmer (1994), Ramirez et al (1991), Cummins (1981) concluded that Dual Language Immersion students had higher academic achievement. Thirdly, the question of whether the additive and subtractive models associate with different motivational outcomes for English Learners has not been adequately addressed.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A case study on the planning and implementation of a dual language immersion program in a K-12 school district

PDF

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

PDF

The perceived effectiveness of dual language programs at the middle school level

PDF

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

PDF

A case study of the roles of principals in dual language immersion programs

PDF

Implementing Chinese-English dual language programs in international schools: a study for an international school in southeast Asia

PDF

Preparing students for the global society: sustaining a dual language immersion program

PDF

Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners

PDF

Factors related to the training, recruitment, and retention of quality bilingual teachers in dual language immersion programs in international schools

PDF

Motivation, language learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and acculturation patterns among two groups of English learners

PDF

Creating a language immersion teacher recruitment pipeline: understanding the needs and motivation of prospective candidates

PDF

Factors contributing to outperformance in nontraditional urban schools: a case study of a public elementary school with a dual immersion program

PDF

Dual language programs at Qatar Foundation schools: examining teachers' perspective

PDF

Examining dual language immersion program instructional practices with regard to cognitive load theory

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district

PDF

Two-way bilingual education in a post-1998 California elementary school

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

A case study on African American parents' perceptions of Mandarin Dual Language Immersion Programs and the role social capital plays in student enrollment

PDF

An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school

PDF

Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics

Asset Metadata

Creator Ma, Elizabeth C. (author)

Core Title A comparative study of motivational orientation of elementary school English learners in a dual language immersion program and a transitional bilingual education program

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/26/2010

Defense Date 08/03/2010

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

Tag additive model,dual immersion,dual language program,interest,motivational orientation,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-efficacy,subtractive model,task value,transitional bilingual education program

Place Name Illinois (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rueda, Robert S. (committee chair), Fischer, Linda A. (committee member), Garcia, Pedro (committee member)

Creator Email ecfma@sbcglobal.net,elizabcm@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3412

Unique identifier UC1242850

Identifier etd-Ma-4041 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-388459 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3412 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Ma-4041.pdf

Dmrecord 388459

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ma, Elizabeth C.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu