UNION UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

We hereby recommend that the Dissertation by

Kisha LaJuan Thompson

The Perceptions and Experiences of English Language Learners,

Parents of English Language Learners,
and High School Teachers in the General Education Classroom

Be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education
In Educational Leadership

Dissertation Committee: Michele W. Atkins, Ph.D., Chairperson

Sharon Chaney, Ed.D.

Kymberly Kelley, Ed.D.

Ed.D. Program Director: Ben T. Phillips, Ed.D.

Dean of the College: John Foubert, Ph.D.

The Perceptions and Experiences of English Language Learners,
Parents of English Language Learners,
and High School Teachers in the General Education Classroom

A Dissertation

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Doctor of Education Degree

Union University

Kisha LaJuan Thompson

December 2018




ProQuest Number: 10974930




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 10974930

Published by ProQuest LLC (2018 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my uncles: Charles Lathan, who transitioned

after I began this doctoral journey, and Johnnie Levert “Bunch” Lathan, who transitioned as I

was completing this doctoral journey.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Mark 11:24 reads, “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe

that you have received it, and it will be yours.” Going through the doctoral program has been a

colossal journey, both spiritually and personally. I had to learn to really lean on God, for I can do

all things through Him who strengthens me. I had to learn to ask for assistance and that it is okay

to need and get that assistance. It has not been an easy journey, but a necessary journey.

First, I must thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for blessing and keeping me through

it all. At times, I did not think that I would make it, but You pulled me through. God, your mercy

kept me, so I would not let go. Al Lathan, Daddy, my amazing rock, thank you for the “talks,”

your understanding, your encouragement, your prayers, and of course, the jokes that keep me

going. Sarah Isaac, Mom, my beautiful hard place, I thank you for your words of encouragement,

your texts, and most of all, your prayers.

Secondly, to my awesome chair, Dr. Michele Atkins, and dissertation committee

members, Dr. Sharon Chaney and Dr. Kymberly Kelley, I am filled with gratitude for your

patience, expertise, encouragement, and assistance. Dr. A., you were right on time. To my editor,

Dr. Coffman, your expertise and timeliness were remarkable. Other Union University faculty and

staff members who also assisted along the way, thanks to you.

Thank you to Georgia Department of Education and local school district officials for

allowing me to conduct my research. Thank you to my school family for working with me,

checking on me, and encouraging me. Amie McCleod, thank you for your extra eyes. You guys

are the best!

iii
 Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Nina Small for reaching and pulling me with you. Not

only were you my cohort member, but you are now a sister. I am so grateful to have met you for

such a time as this. Dawn Smith, thank you for your encouragement and assistance along the

way. Naming names is hard for me, as there are far too many who gave words of

encouragements, prayers, smiles, breaks, and whatever was needed to get me through this

process. I do thank each one of you from the bottom of my heart. And if I did not write your

name in these acknowledgments, your name is forever written in my heart. I thank you so much.

Galatians 6:9 reads, “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap

a harvest if we do not give up.”

iv
 ABSTRACT

This study examined the perceptions and expectations of English Language Learners (ELLs),

their parents, and teachers in general education classrooms. The researcher utilized qualitative

data to gain insight into how ELLs feel, interact, get support, and communicate in a general

education classroom. The research also contributed understanding of how ELL parents feel,

interact with, get support, and communicate with the general education teachers and

administrators. Along with insight into the perspectives and experiences of ELLs and parents of

ELLs, this research gave account of the training of general education teachers of ELLs and how

these teachers feel, reach, teach, interact, give and receive support, and communicate with the

ELLs and their parents. The researcher utilized face-to-face interviews and audio-recordings to

gather data from each sample group; data were transcribed and then analyzed to identify

common themes. Two emerging themes were found through the analysis of the lived experiences

of the ELLs, their parents, and general education teachers. Primarily, the English for Speakers of

Other Languages teacher and program were a great benefit to the ELLs, parents of ELLs, and the

general education teachers regardless of their varying expectations. Further studies should

explore others’ perspectives of ELL education by including different populations such as other

schools or districts, various grade levels, or counselors. Additionally, a longitudinal study would

be beneficial to explore the development of perspectives and experiences over time.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem ...............................................................................................2

Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................3
Significance of the Study ...............................................................................................4
Research Questions ........................................................................................................5
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................6

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................8

Theoretical Considerations of Language Acquisition....................................................8

English Language Learners in Public Schools...............................................................9
Historical Perspective ...............................................................................................9
Prevalence ...............................................................................................................15
Experiences of ELLs in the Classroom ........................................................................16
Parental Involvement and Experiences ........................................................................20
Challenges of Teaching ELLs ......................................................................................22
General Education Teacher Attitudes toward ELLs ....................................................30
Attitudes of Pre-service Teachers ...........................................................................30
Attitudes of In-service Teachers .............................................................................35
Educator Preparation Programs: Curriculum and Practices ........................................40
Pre-service Teacher Training ..................................................................................41
In-service Teacher Training ....................................................................................43
School Staff Training ..............................................................................................48
Strategies for Improving ELL Instruction....................................................................51
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................63

3. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................65

Purpose of Study ..........................................................................................................67

Research Questions ......................................................................................................67
Research Design...........................................................................................................68
Research Question 1 ...............................................................................................68
Research Question 2 ...............................................................................................69
Research Question 3 ...............................................................................................69
Participants ...................................................................................................................70

vi
 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................71
Student Interviews ..................................................................................................71
Parent Interviews ....................................................................................................71
Teacher Interviews ..................................................................................................71
Research Procedures ....................................................................................................72
Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................76
Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................76

4. FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................78

Data Collection ............................................................................................................78

Participant Demographics ............................................................................................79
Research Findings ........................................................................................................83
English Language Learner Perspectives .................................................................83
English Language Learner Parent Perspectives ......................................................87
General Education Teacher Perspectives ................................................................91
Conclusion .................................................................................................................101

5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION .....................................................................103

Conclusions ................................................................................................................104
Recommendations ......................................................................................................105
English Language Learners...................................................................................105
Parents of English Language Learners .................................................................106
General Education Teachers of English Language Learners ................................107
Implications................................................................................................................109
Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................................... 110
Discussion .................................................................................................................. 111

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 114

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................121

Appendix A: Student Interview Questions ...............................................................122

Appendix B: Teacher Interview Questions ...............................................................124
Appendix C: Parent Interview Questions .................................................................126
Appendix D: Preliminary Email to Teachers ............................................................127

vii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

According to Kouakou (2014), as far back as the 17th century bilingual education has

existed in some form in North America. During the 17th century, at least 18 languages were

spoken in the U.S. in addition to many Native American languages. As more groups from

various backgrounds arrived in the U.S. during the 18th and 19th centuries, states began to adopt

bilingual education laws that authorized instruction in languages other than English. During the

early 20th century, various organizations advocated for immigrant students to be placed in

English-only (EO) classrooms with no bilingual instruction in an effort to “Americanize” them.

In early 1960, a large number of Cuban refugees arrived in Dade County, Florida, as a result of

the Cuban Revolution. This influx of refugees prompted Florida to resume bilingual education.

Around this same time the Civil Rights Movement and the Cold War led to multiple initiatives

and laws to address social inequalities and promote the education of all students.

The increase in English Language Learner (ELLs), students whose first language is not

English and who are in the process of learning the English language in an English-speaking

country, in U.S. public schools has continued over the past century. In fact, according to a report

from Grantmakers for Education (2013), “The population of K-12 English learners grew by 60%

in the last decade compared with 7% growth of the general student population” (p. 4).

Furthermore, the ELL population is projected to comprise 40% of the elementary and high

school population by 2030 (Flynn & Hill, 2005). Because of the rapid rise in the ELL population,

1
education programs have struggled to train an adequate number of teachers and administrators to

meet these students’ needs (Reeves & Van Tuyle, 2014). Not all teachers have had coursework

or experience working with ELLs, and many teachers who have had coursework may feel

unprepared to teach ELLs because their courses may not have included strategies for addressing

ELLs’ social and emotional needs (O’Neal, Ringler, & Rodriquez, 2008). As a result, many

school district officials have realized the need to assist teachers with teaching ELLs and offer

training and workshops for teachers. Some districts have even offered programs to assist

paraprofessionals to become teachers of ELL students (Valenciana, Morin, & Morales, 2005). In

addition to being unprepared to teach ELLs, many teachers receive little help from parents of

ELLs because these parents trust the schools to make decisions and do what is best for their

children.

According to Garrett and Holcomb (2005), general education classrooms can be

overwhelming to ELL students. The authors noted several factors that may contribute to these

feelings, such as using texts and other materials that are only in English. Additionally, American

school systems enroll ELL students in classes based on their age and not their background

knowledge or English language acquisition. These students may not have the prerequisites to be

in certain classes, yet prior to testing ELLs or receiving students’ records, schools often place

ELLs into classes where they may not thrive.

Statement of the Problem

The number of ELLs has increased steadily in schools across the United States; however,

teachers are not always prepared for the requirements of teaching these students. ELLs often

enter classes without much of the beginning knowledge that English-speaking students in the

United States have when they begin school. Schools also require ELLs—with little

2
understanding of the English language—to take and pass exams written in English. This lack of

knowledge has led to ELLs’ receiving lower scores than their English Proficient Learner (EPL)

classmates, even with classroom accommodations, and tragically, this disadvantage has also

contributed to high dropout rates (Menken, 2010).

Also, due to lack of transportation, cultural differences, and other factors, ELL parents

may have experienced adverse reactions from teachers or may feel that teachers view them

negatively. Parents may not know how to volunteer at their child’s school or may feel ill-

equipped to do so, which leads to low to no parental involvement (Shim, 2013).

Additionally, general education teachers may not have completed necessary coursework

in their teacher education programs to prepare them to teach ELLs, school districts may not have

professional development available to train school officials, and teachers may find getting

assistance from ELLs’ families difficult. Moreover, credentialing requirements to teach ELLs

vary from state to state. Even so, when districts experience a teacher shortage, they often place

ELLs in general education classrooms with teachers who may not be prepared to teach them (de

Jong, Harper, & Coady, 2013).

Purpose of the Study

This phenomenological study had several purposes. First, this study explored first-person

experiences of ELL students in general education classrooms in grades 9 through 12 in a high

school in West Georgia. Secondly, this phenomenological study gave voice to parents of ELL

students regarding the experiences of their children in a general education high school classroom.

A final purpose of this phenomenological study was to examine the experiences of the

teachers who work with ELLs in general education classrooms at this high school. Specifically,

teachers’ perceptions regarding their preparation for teaching ELLs and their classroom

3
experiences with teaching ELLs were explored. Understanding the perceptions of not only of

ELLs and the parents of ELL students, but also of the general education classroom teachers is

critical since all stakeholders play an essential role in the education of children.

Significance of the Study

Every year, a continually increasing number of ELLs sit in general education classrooms

with teachers who often feel unprepared to teach them. Depending on when and where teachers

matriculated through their education preparation programs, they may not have had coursework

regarding teaching ELLs or may have had some limited coursework that did not fully prepare

them for the task. Furthermore, some teachers who have taken coursework with an ELL

component may not be receptive to their district’s professional development opportunities

because they feel that they have already taken classes to teach ELLs or that teachers specifically

certified to help these students should assume the responsibilities (G. D. Smith, personal

conversation, February 16, 2015).

Teachers bring their own beliefs and attitudes into the classroom as they encounter

challenges when teaching ELLs. According to Harper and de Jong (2004), teachers may have the

misconception that ELLs learn the English language in the same manner as all other students;

however, teachers must understand that ELLs enter the learning environment with various levels

and degrees of English-language mastery.

Unfortunately, some teachers may be reluctant to attend and participate in professional

development on teaching ELL students. Even though some teachers may have completed limited

coursework in teaching ELL students, they may not feel they need additional training.

Regardless of when and where the training occurred, the teacher may feel “if I was not qualified

to teach, why was I hired?” (G. Smith, personal communication, February 16, 2015).

4
Imperatively, educators need to understand that change in methods, technology, and students is

inevitable.

A challenge with some school districts is that district personnel are not always available

to offer relevant training in effective teaching strategies of ELL students. Teachers face other

challenges within the classroom, such as not having access to information on ELL students’ level

of fluency in the English language. Furthermore, teachers may not know ELLs’ geographic

origin or their dialect. Attending professional development could assist teachers with new

methods, techniques, technology, and ideas for reaching and teaching ELLs. These challenges

are some of the double demands that Gersten (1996) mentions in his study.

To teach effectively, educators should understand how ELLs perceive being in the

general education classroom. These students attend school and undergo some of the same

schedules, tests, and struggles that their EPL counterparts do, but these experiences may affect

ELLs differently. Consequently, teachers should recognize how ELLs interact in the classroom,

how these students feel while in the classroom, and how teachers and peers react with and to

them. Teachers should intentionally explore and implement appropriate accommodations that

work for these students to ensure they receive the level of education commensurate with their

EPL counterparts. These considerations are significant for this study as they will assist not only

educational institutions preparing teachers to teach ELLs but also teachers as they reach and

teach these students. Gathering information and views from all parties—teachers, students, and

parents—is essential to improving the educational experience of ELLs.

Research Questions

1. What are the perceptions and experiences of ELL students in high school general

education classrooms?

5
 2. What are the perceptions and experiences of parents with ELL high school students

educated in general education classrooms?

3. What are the perceptions and experiences of high school general education teachers who

teach ELL students?

Definitions of Terms

Bilingual. This term is used to describe a learner who fluently speaks two or more

languages to communicate.

English Language Learner (ELL). The English Language Learner is a person who

comes from a home in which a language other than English is spoken and is learning the English

language (Berg, Petro, & Greybeck, 2012).

English as a Second Language (ESL). English as a Second Language is an educational

approach in which English language learners are instructed in the use of the English language.

English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). The term ESOL is generally used

when describing programs outside of the P-12 school setting that are designed for ELLs who

seek proficiency in social and academic language. ESOL programs, which may also be referred

to as ESL programs, generally teach basic grammar, vocabulary, and colloquial terms and

phrases to ELLs in a community college, community program, or online program setting.

General education classroom. A general education classroom is one in which students

of varying cognitive and academic ability are learning together under the guidance of a general

education teacher.

In-service teacher. An in-service teacher refers to a teacher who has completed his or

her pre-service training and coursework and is serving as a full-time educator.

6
 Limited English Proficient (LEP). An LEP is one who speaks English as their primary

language but has a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand the English language

(Kouakou, 2014).

Mainstream classroom. A mainstream classroom, used interchangeably with general

education classroom, is one in which students of varying cognitive and academic ability are

learning together under the guidance of a general education teacher.

Paraprofessional. A paraprofessional is an individual to whom a particular aspect of a

professional task is delegated but who is not licensed to practice as a fully qualified professional

(Valenciana, Morin, & Morales, 2005).

Pre-service teacher. A pre-service teacher refers to a teacher in training before they

enter into service as a fully certified teacher.

Professional Development (PD). Professional development is training that school

officials offer to teachers as an opportunity to develop knowledge, skills, and dispositions.

Examples of PD include completing formal coursework, attending conferences or workshops,

and participating in informal learning opportunities situated in practice (de Jong, Harper, &

Coady, 2013).

TESOL International Association (TESOL). TESOL is the largest professional

organization for teachers of English as a second or foreign language. TESOL may also refer to

courses or training programs designed to prepare teachers to work with the ELL population.

7
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The perceptions and preparation of English Language Learners (ELLs), their parents, and

general education teachers are often overlooked, even though these issues are pertinent to the

academic success of ELLs. This review of literature delves into how ELLs and their parents

perceive general education classroom teachers and the school district where they attend. The

experiences of ELLs and their parents in the school setting are also explored as their experiences

likely affect perceptions of education and learning. This literature review also considers how

general education teachers perceive ELL students and their parents in the classroom, as well as

the preparation of general education teachers to work with ELLs. Furthermore, this literature

review provides direction for the investigation of research questions and data collection

concerning the perceptions and preparation of ELLs, parents of ELL students, and general

education teachers.

Theoretical Considerations of Language Acquisition

Languages are interconnected and influence one another, as revealed in Cummins’ (1979)

developmental interdependence hypothesis. The interdependence hypothesis explains the

construct of common underlying proficiency (CUP). CUP, also known as the “one balloon

theory,” argues that cognitively demanding tasks are common across languages. When an

individual demonstrates proficiencies in one language, he or she will have the same proficiencies

in another language. Conversely, when an individual has problems in learning specific concepts

8
in one language, he or she will have problems learning those concepts in another language.

Cummins also proposed the threshold hypothesis, which states when an individual demonstrates

high levels of proficiency in one language, he or she will demonstrate high levels of cognitive

abilities in that language and in the new language. The converse is also true; that is, when an

individual demonstrates low levels of proficiency in one language, he or she will demonstrate

low levels of cognitive abilities in that language and in the new language.

According to Cummins (1979), in addition to working on learning the English language,

ELL students also need extra assistance with learning concepts introduced in English. Moreover,

ELLs who demonstrates low levels of proficiency in understanding a concept in their native

language will also have low level of proficiency grasping that concept in the English language.

Knowing deficiencies and proficiencies of each ELL student will assist the general education

teacher in knowing how to meet the needs of these students. Cummins advised teachers to

communicate with parents to reveal concerns they may have about their child’s learning. In

doing so, the general education teacher is better equipped to assist child in the learning process.

English Language Learners in Public Schools

Historical perspective. Kouakou (2014) asserted that bilingualism has existed in the

United States since early Colonial days. In fact, just on the island of Manhattan inhabitants spoke

at least 18 different languages. Many schools in this period of history incorporated bilingual

education, depending upon the dominant language of the area. Corroborating this information, an

article from Teaching as Leadership (n.d.) states that bilingual education began as far back as

1664 and that some states actually instituted laws concerning bilingual education as far back as

1839. However, at the cusp of the 1900s, fear of the “alien” grew as demonstrated by the poem,

Unguarded Gates, written by Thomas Bailey Aldrich (1892, July) about immigrants and

9
published in The Atlantic Monthly: “These bringing with them unknown gods and rites,/Those,

tiger passions, here to stretch their claws./In street and alley what strange tongues are

loud,/Accents of menace alien to our air…” (p. 57). This fear led to an English Only (EO) and

“Americanization” movement, which encouraged and supported the dispersal of immigrant

groups and even had Native Americans forcibly removed from the Eastern states with the

purpose of instilling and teaching Anglo-Saxon values and culture. Consequently, numerous

states began to restrict the language of education in public schools to English.

In the 20th century, schools promoted the Americanization of immigrants, especially

those living in large cities. Although some communities offered non-English speaking students

classes taught in their native languages, schools more frequently placed these students in EO

classrooms. By the 1920s, bilingual schools were virtually nonexistent, an educational reality

that persisted until the 1960s when the U.S. government began to require bilingual education

programs in response to social, cultural, and political developments (Teaching as Leadership,

n.d.).

According to Crawford (2004), three major events sparked bilingual education

legislation: (a) the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, (b) the Anti-Poverty Initiative of

Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, and (c) the Cold War (Crawford, 2004). For

instance, in 1958, the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) sought to guarantee that

American scientists could compete with and exceed Soviet scientists who had launched the first

spacecraft, Sputnik. This law also bolstered college enrollment and made resources accessible to

promote interest in math and science. Furthermore, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited

discrimination based upon race, color, religion, or national origin, and the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 aimed to ensure academic success for the

10
“disadvantaged,” to educate and recruit scholastic personnel, and to provide language support for

students who are immigrants, students who do not speak English as their primary language, and

also those who have limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English, or Limited

English Proficiency (LEP) (Crawford, 2004).

Another political event that greatly impacted bilingual education in America actually

occurred on foreign soil—the Cuban Revolution of 1959. Large numbers of Cuban refugees

entered Florida to escape the political upheaval in their native country (Kouakou, 2014). Mainly

because of this influx of Cuban immigrants, Dade County, Florida, initiated a bilingual education

program on a large scale (Teaching as Leadership, n.d.). This government-sanctioned program

unofficially became a model for the rest of the nation. In response to the growing demand for

English as a Second Language (ESL) materials, the professional organization Teachers of

English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) was established in 1966. Two years later,

Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act, which was the first to nationally acknowledge that

LEP students had special and specific needs (Teaching as Leadership, n.d.).

Many education laws of the 1960s addressed discrimination, mainly against African

Americans and not toward immigrant children; however, following the enactment of the

Bilingual Education Act in 1968, a string of laws and court cases advanced the bilingual

education movement. In 1970, the director of the Federal Office for Civil Rights drafted a memo

calling for schools to assume responsibility in providing services for language minority students

(Crawford, 2004). In 1974, a federal court required the New York City Chancellor of Education

to implement bilingual education programs that incorporated rigorous English instruction along

with some content instruction in Spanish. Also in 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the

case of Lau vs. Nichols established the expectation that school systems across the country must

11
attend to the needs of non-English speaking students by implementing a comprehensive program

of some kind; the Court pronounced that to ignore the needs of these students denied them access

to equal educational opportunities (Teaching as Leadership, n.d.).

Legislation and court case victories, such as Lau vs. Nichols in 1974, gave the impression

that school systems were handling the requests of LEP students. According to Crawford (2004),

in reality only 6% of eligible LEP students were receiving appropriate accommodations, which

led Senators Ted Kennedy and Walter Mondale to propose legislation to increase this number to

at least 15% of qualified LEP students. Another sign that bilingual education was not advancing

as much as legislation and court rulings might indicate was an American Institutes for Research

report issued in 1977‒1978, claiming that no evidence supported the success of bilingual

education. Subsequently, Epstein (1977) criticized bilingual education, calling it “Affirmative

Ethnicity,” and opposed the use of taxpayer funds to sponsor bilingual education. The author

contended that it was parents’ responsibility, rather than the government, to teach their children

pride in their ethnicity. Crawford (2004) purported that Epstein’s work influenced many people,

including President Reagan, who also argued against programs that advocated maintaining

students’ primary languages. In 1984, with the re-certification of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

(Title VII) came innovative programs, called Special Alternative Instructional Programs (SAIP),

conceding to new stipulations for bilingual education.

Also in 1984, policymakers restructured the ESEA into Title I and Title II. Title I

appropriates funds for disadvantaged school children and migrant education programs, whereas

Title II grants funding to states under the Ethnic Heritage Act and Emergency School Act. Both

Title I and Title II provide funds for LEP students (Teaching as Leadership, n.d.). However,

funding for bilingual education programs became an easy target with the growth of EO sentiment

12
across the nation. For example, California Senator Hayakawa formed an EO group, U.S. English,

to campaign for the adoption of English as the official language of the United States. Even

though English had been the dominant language of the United States for over 200 years, the

nation had no official language by law. Asserting that the English language was endangered,

Hayakawa and U.S. English planned to persuade the government to pronounce English as the

only language to be used in any program funded by federal and state institutions. U.S. English

gained momentum as statesmen, stateswomen, and superstars started to support its agenda;

however, when some of the group’s members used racially charged language in describing

immigrants, causing some to label the group as racist, support for the group declined. In

response, the group named a Hispanic woman as president to repair their image, and the group

began growing again. However, the public discovered another racially charged message,

resulting in the decline of the group’s membership and momentum once again (Crawford, 2004).

The decline of U.S. English’s membership and momentum allowed for the formation of a

new group, English Plus, in 1985. In contrast to U.S. English, the members of English Plus,

formed from the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Spanish American League

Against Discrimination (SALAD), promoted multiculturalism and multilingualism through its

creation of the English Plus Information Clearinghouse. Still, U.S. English’s influence on

policymakers persisted, with frequent meetings concerning educational policy between group

members and the Reagan administration. Then, Congressman Augustus Hawkins, the education

secretary, asked the General Accounting Office of Congress to evaluate whether or not bilingual

education programs had been successful. This assessment, handled by an independent group of

specialists, concluded that bilingual education programs were successful, stating that students in

13
these programs achieved high scores on standardized tests, often higher than native English

speakers (Crawford, 2004).

Although the conclusions of the assessment backed bilingual education, Crawford (2004)

explained that politics overshadowed research in educational policy, leading to the Standard

Working Group’s publication of “A Blueprint for the Second Generation.” This document

proposed the incorporation of bilingual education within a whole school reorganization plan,

equal opportunity for all students, and distinctive programs for limited language students. The

Clinton administration in the 1990s accepted many of the Standard Working Group’s

recommendations, and bilingual education advocates started to make gains, such as

developmental bilingual education programs; more clearly defined responsibilities for states in

guaranteeing sufficient LEP programs; and the mandate for districts to identify students with

LEP, address their needs, and include parents in the decision-making process.

Perhaps New York best exemplifies the development of bilingual education in the United

States over the past half a century. In 1974, a federal court mandate required the implementation

of bilingual education programs, but today, approximately 100 schools throughout the city

provide ESL or bilingual education in some form (New York City Department of Education,

2010). In recent years, New York has established several ESL/bilingual programs created to

address the needs of its ever-changing student population. According to the New York City

Department of Education ELL webpage (2018), the department offers a choice of three programs

for ELL students: Dual Language, Transitional Bilingual Education, and English as a New

Language. By providing a choice of three distinct programs, the city is involving parents in

educational decisions regarding the best support services for their children.

14
 After examining the evolution of bilingual education in America from Colonial days to

the present, Kouakou (2014) concluded that diversity is an undeniable part of the American

educational landscape and that all education stakeholders should work to prevent language

challenges from hindering a student’s success. He emphasizes the necessity of involving all

stakeholders—administration, teachers, second language acquisition specialists, and parents.

Even teacher education programs can contribute to improved bilingual education during

teachers’ pre-service years; the findings of research studies on ELLs can inform these programs

as they train not only ESL/bilingual teachers but also content area teachers to work effectively

with ELL students.

Prevalence. According to Breiseth (2015), the percentage of ELLs in American schools

increased dramatically between 1979 and 2003. Whereas the number of all students (ages 5‒17)

increased 19% during this time, the number of ELLs increased by 124%. In fact, California

reported 1.5 million ELLs in 2005, almost 25% of its K-12 population. Although the majority of

ELL elementary students (68%) attended school in California in the early years of the 21st

century, several other states also enrolled unprecedented numbers of ELLs. For example,

between 1990 and 2000, Nebraska’s schools saw an increase of 350% in the number of

elementary-age ELLs they served; Colorado and South Dakota likewise experienced triple-digit

growth in their elementary ELL populations (Flynn & Hill, 2005). Furthermore, in recent years

the number of ELLs has risen 400% in Indiana and 800% in South Carolina, and multiple

southeastern states (e.g., Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama) have experienced

increases of 200% or more (Breiseth, 2015).

Not only is the number of ELLs growing but also the diversity of languages spoken by

these students. Although Spanish is the most common language spoken by ELLs, as a group,

15
ELLs speak over 150 different languages, and as of 2012, Spanish was not the primary language

of ELLs in five states: Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Maine, and Vermont (Breiseth, 2015).

Moreover, Thomas and Collier (1997) forecasted that elementary and high school students who

speak a language other than English at home will comprise over 40% of school populations by

2030.

Experiences of ELLs in the Classroom

Although much research has focused on teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, training, and

practices, the perspective of the students themselves is invaluable. To meet ELL students’ needs,

educators must gain an understanding of the students’ feelings regarding their educational

experiences.

To illuminate the many challenges ELLs experience in English-dominant schools, Garrett

and Holcomb (2005) described multiple ELL experiences and reviewed the related literature.

Many ELLs report being mocked by their fellow students because of language differences and

being ignored or demeaned by teachers. Adapting to a new school can be difficult for any

student; however, for ELLs additional challenges complicate the process. Many ELLs are not

accustomed to the school environment and adapting requires “(a) acquiring English language

skills and the ability to communicate with others, (b) understanding classroom routine, and (c)

behavioral control in the classroom” (p. 50). Additionally, academic challenges can seem

overwhelming. Still, many ELLs demonstrate determination and a commitment to academic

success; frequently, the families value educational opportunities that were not available in their

native country. Unfortunately, teachers often correlate a lack of English proficiency with a lack

of intelligence and do not provide the quality instruction ELLs deserve. Also, depending on the

school district, schools often lack certified personnel to teach and work with ELLs. As a result,

16
ELL students may become stressed from a lack of background knowledge and limited resources

to meet their needs.

LeClair, Doll, Osborn, and Jones (2009) hypothesized that ELLs’ perceptions of

classroom experiences would differ significantly from their non-ELL peers’ perceptions. To test

this hypothesis, the researchers gathered data using the ClassMaps Survey (CMS), a 55-item

Likert-scale instrument designed for elementary and middle school students. This study used a

sample of 257 third- through fifth-grade students in a Midwestern school district. Of these

students, 37 (14%) were classified as ELL. Specific demographic information was not collected

for individual students; however, all students present on the day the survey was administered at

their school participated, allowing the researchers to conclude that the sample closely reflected

the district’s demographics. Across the district, ELL students spoke several native languages

including Spanish (50.2%), Vietnamese (20.3%), Arabic (12.9%), and Kurdish (7.0%). To

administer the survey, a graduate assistant read the questions aloud to the students while two

other graduate students walked around the classroom aiding the students as needed.

The CMS measured students’ perceptions on eight subscales; three of these concerned

students’ self-regulation (academic efficacy, self-determination, and behavioral self-control), and

the other five concerned classroom relationships (teacher-student relationships, home-school

relationships, peer friendships, peer conflict, and concerns about bullying). Of these eight

subscales, ELL students’ perceptions differed significantly from their non-ELL peers’

perceptions in two areas: academic efficacy and behavioral self-control. Not surprisingly, ELL

students were less likely to believe that they could succeed academically than their non-ELL

peers were. Although this study did not explore the exact reasons for these feelings, ELL

17
students often struggle academically, which could account for their lower ratings on academic

efficacy.

More surprising was the difference in ELL students’ perceptions of behavioral self-

control. ELL students viewed the classroom as more organized than did their non-ELL peers, and

they rated students’ consistently following classroom directions more highly than their non-ELL

peers did. Again, the researchers did not explore the exact reasons for these feelings and

recommended that more research be conducted to explore these perceptions more fully. Finally,

a positive finding was that ELL students’ perceptions of their school relationships were not

significantly different from their non-ELL peers’ perceptions, suggesting that the ELL students

felt their classrooms to be positive and supportive learning environments (LeClair et al., 2009).

Likewise, Pereira and Gentry (2013) explored the perceptions of elementary ELL

students; however, their study focused specifically on Hispanic students from low-income

families who had been classified as high-potential students based upon teacher responses on an

11-item questionnaire assessing students’ academic and social characteristics. Prior to this study,

the researchers had been affiliated with a program called Project HOPE (Having Opportunities

Promotes Excellence), a three-year project for high-potential, elementary school students from

low-income families, and only students who had been identified for this program were used in

this study. Even if students had elected not to participate in Project HOPE, they could still

participate in this study since they had been identified as having high potential. In addition to

interviewing these students, the researchers interviewed the students’ parents and teachers.

Of the 96 Hispanic students selected for this study, the researchers obtained consent to

interview 24 students (15 HOPE and 9 non-HOPE). Of these, the researchers completed

interviews with 22 students (14 HOPE and 8 non-HOPE). Additionally, they interviewed 18

18
teachers who had worked with the student participants (2‒5 from each of four schools

represented), 3 ESL teachers, 2 ESL aides, and 20 parents. The interviewer, who had no prior

interaction with the participants, spoke both English and Spanish and conducted the interviews in

the students’ schools or homes.

Through the semi-structured interviews, the researchers gathered information regarding

the perceptions of school atmosphere, classroom experience, available activities, teachers, and

peers. Some questions applied specifically to the type of participant being interviewed. For

example, students discussed “their experience participating in the university programs for high

ability students, their perceptions of being smart, and difficulties related to learning English

while coming from Spanish-speaking families” (Pereira & Gentry, 2013, p. 171). In addition to

some of the general questions about school atmosphere, classroom experiences, and activities,

teachers responded to questions concerning serving ELL students and identifying high-potential

students, and parents discussed issues related to parental involvement in the schools.

After coding the data for various themes, the researchers found no differences between

the HOPE and non-HOPE participants and therefore treated all respondents as one group. Three

major themes emerged: (a) students described their school and classroom experiences as

engaging and enjoyable; (b) students reported positive interactions with teachers and peers; and

(c) students felt committed to performing well in school, earning high grades, and bettering their

futures. Similarly, both teachers and parents reported very positive experiences and feelings

(Pereira & Gentry, 2013). Like LeClair et al. (2009), Pereira and Gentry (2013) found that ELL

students felt positive about their school experiences; however, these students also reported

feeling positive about their academic efficacy. Presumably these feelings result from the

students’ being classified as having high potential. Unlike those students in the LeClair et al.

19
(2009) study, the students in Pereira and Gentry’s (2013) study reported that they did not find

school to be particularly challenging and that they did not view themselves as different from

their Anglo-American peers.

Parental Involvement and Experiences

A lack of parental involvement is one reason that teachers have experienced difficulty

with teaching ELLs as Chen, Kyle, and McIntyre (2008) discovered in an 18-month professional

development initiative created to assist classroom teachers with their mission to work with and

get to know their ELLs. Two cohorts of K-12 teachers completed the Sheltered Instruction and

Family Involvement (SIFI) program, which used the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol

(SIOP) as a model to train teachers and to gather data related to teachers’ attitudes and practices

toward involving parents of ELLs. At the beginning of the study, teachers completed a survey

based on the SIOP, and they completed the same survey at the end of the program. The SIOP had

eight components, including one section that connected the family with what the student learns.

Cohort 1 consisted of 20 teachers, with 18 completing the ending survey. At the

beginning of the study, teachers reported using parent conferences, reports, and other customary

avenues to reach families. Beyond these communications, a few teachers said they had made

attempts to connect with a handful of their students’ families. For example, 17 teachers indicated

that they had made a positive phone call to the family of 0-25% of their students, and only 15 of

the participants asked for positive information about the child from the parents of 0-25% of their

students. Even fewer, only three reported using information they had learned about the students

and their families to make instructional connections. During the 2005‒2006 school year, teachers

made positive changes in family involvement. At the end of the program, nine teachers made

positive phone calls to over 50% of their students, whereas seven stated they had asked for

20
positive information about the child from the parents for 76-100% of their students. Seven

teachers also reported using information they had learned about the students and their families to

make instructional connections, although their descriptions of these connections were vague or

generalized (Chen et al., 2008).

Cohort 2 consisted of 18 teachers, with 12 completing the ending survey. In Cohort 2,

teachers expressed positive views regarding parental involvement at the beginning of the SIFI

project, although 67% agreed that their contact with parents was usually because of a problem or

concern. The majority (94%) believed that teachers did not have time to involve parents in a

useful way. At the conclusion of the program, only 25% reported that phone calls to parents were

usually about problems or concerns, and only 33% still agreed that teachers did not have time to

involve parents in a useful way. Thirty-three percent reported making phone calls to all of their

students’ families, and 11% actually made physical home visits (Chen et al., 2008).

Chen et al. (2008) concluded that at the beginning of the SIFI program, teachers believed

that parental involvement was important; however, they did not know how to meaningfully

involve parents. Once teachers received training on new ways to reach out and involve families,

they made positive changes and saw results. Teachers described numerous ways they had

improved their instruction, such as family reading logs and family tree projects. They also

reported an increase in parental involvement in the PTA and other school events as well as a

feeling of partnership with parents. Still, teachers reported various obstacles that impeded

parental involvement. For example, many parents lacked transportation or worked several jobs

limiting their time. Also, the teachers reported some challenges on their part to increasing

parental involvement—chiefly a lack of time and the language barrier.

21
 Similarly, Shim (2013) explored hindrances to the involvement of ELLs’ parents at

school. Shim gathered data from the parents of ELL students attending a middle school in a rural

area of a Western state. The school had a total population of 385 students, and 20% of these were

identified as ELLs. The researcher and an assistant contacted parents of ELLs by phone call or in

person to invite them to participate in the study, and a sample of six parents volunteered. Four of

the six participants spoke Spanish as their native language, and the other two spoke Chinese. One

Spanish-speaking father and one Chinese-speaking father participated; the other four parents

were mothers. Shim and the parents met at a parent night held twice a year for parents of ELLs

and conversed with each parent individually. Later, a follow-up interview was conducted with

each parent to gather more information.

An analysis of the interview data revealed three major themes. First, parents of ELLs felt

that teachers judged them and viewed them as unintelligent because of their lack of proficient

English. Also, tension existed between the teachers and the parents because the parents felt they

were not heard and did not have a voice. The parents reported that when they asked questions,

teachers grew defensive and did not adequately answer the parents’ questions; the teachers

seemed to believe they had all the answers and knew the best way to educate without any

parental input. Finally, parents feared their children could suffer possible repercussions if the

parents spoke up or raised concerns, so the parents remained silent. Overall, the parents in this

study were not involved due to having negative interactions or reactions from teachers, not due

to a lack of care for their children.

Challenges of Teaching ELLs

Even though many people assume most ELLs are immigrants, the majority were born in

the United States; in fact, 85% of pre-kindergarten to 5th-grade ELL students and 62% of 6th-

22
grade to 12th-grade ELLs were U.S.-born. However, ELLs often bring challenges to the

classroom that stem from unstable family situations. Many ELLs enter America’s schools

through the refugee resettlement agencies located in nearly every state, with concentrations in

Minneapolis, Minnesota; Burlington, Vermont; St. Louis, Missouri; and Dallas, Texas.

Additionally, from 2014‒2015, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services detained more

than 62,000 children crossing the Mexico-U.S. border without an adult. Although some of these

children were trying to reunite with their families, others were seeking to escape poverty, gang

violence, or drug trafficking (Breiseth, 2015).

For many ELL students, living conditions in the United States are less than optimal, with

almost 60% coming from low-income families. Consequently, many ELLs shoulder

responsibilities, such as working multiple jobs or caring for siblings, that occupy much of their

time outside of school and that hinder regular school attendance. Many ELLs have had little to

no formal schooling prior to coming to the United States, and ELLs, especially children of

migrant workers, are often transferred from school to school, disrupting their academic progress.

Acquiring academic English generally requires five to seven years, and frequently changing

schools may slow this process due to inconsistent language instruction. For example, a student

may attend a school with an effective bilingual education program but then transfer to a school

with an ineffective program or with English-immersion practices and little support for ELLs. As

a result, the student may receive little practice with academic language. Furthermore, parents of

ELLs often have a limited education, thereby restricting their ability to assist their children

academically. Although acquiring social English takes less time than acquiring academic

English, ELLs, as newcomers, often undergo a “silent period.” During this time, the ELL does

not talk much with others, although he or she is probably listening intently to others in an effort

23
to learn. Still, with all of the above obstacles, many students designated as long-term ELLs do

not achieve academic language proficiency within six years of being in a United States school. In

fact, 60% of ELLs in grades 5‒12 are considered long-term ELLs (Breiseth, 2015).

According to Flynn and Hill (2005), in addition to obstacles facing ELLs, the rapid

growth of ELLs has outpaced the number of teachers trained to teach these students. Even if

trained and certified teachers were available, districts enrolling the largest numbers of ELLs are

often the poorest and lack the financial resources needed to employ those teachers.

Consequently, general education teachers have assumed the responsibility for educating ELLs

despite evidence that many of these teachers are not prepared for the task. The authors reported

that 67% of teachers from metropolitan areas, 58% from central municipalities, and 82% from

rural areas had never participated in professional development that addressed the needs of ELL

students. Gruber, Wiley, Broughman, Strizek, and Burian-Fitzgerald (2002) conducted the 1999‒

2000 School and Staffing Survey for the National Center for Education Statistics and found that

of the 41% of teachers working with ELL students, less than 13% received eight or more hours

of training during the previous three years specifically geared toward the instruction of ELLs. In

urban areas with large ELL populations, general education teachers may have received some in-

service training on teaching ELLs, but meeting ELL students’ needs remains a daunting task.

Pressure to meet this challenge comes not only from the teachers’ desire to reach every student

but also from a federal order to appropriately meet the scholastic needs of ELL students. Under

Title I of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), schools must demonstrate adequate progress in meeting

the needs of several subgroups of students who often lag in academic performance; ELLs

constitute one of these subgroups. Furthermore, Title III requires schools to use research-based

24
curricula for language instruction. These mandates, coupled with a lack of training, raise the

stakes and increase pressure on teachers of ELLs (Flynn & Hill, 2005).

A linguistics professor at City University-New York, Menken (2010) further explored the

negative impacts NCLB on ELLs. Passed under the Bush administration in 2002, NCLB sought

to ensure that all students make “adequate yearly progress” as measured by standardized tests.

However, Menken (2010) contended that NCLB’s promise to improve education for ELLs and

other subgroups has failed in part because of the law is based upon faulty assumptions.

According to Menken, one incorrect assumption of NCLB was that if schools focus exclusively

on student learning outcomes they will experience an improvement in student achievement;

however, the achievement gap between ELLs and their EO counterparts remains. The law places

too much emphasis on test scores rather than on the implementation of programs to promote

language learning and assist ELLs, as the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 did.

Approved in 1968, the Bilingual Education Act mandated that educational entities deliver

language provision services to ELLs; however, under NCLB of 2002, the Bilingual Education

Act was replaced with Title III, the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and

Academic and Achievement Act. Title III of NCLB required ELLs to pass the same state

assessments that their EO peers must pass. States used the tests not only to measure content

knowledge and evaluate college readiness but also to grant high school diplomas; students who

could not pass the state assessments could not graduate from high school. Although the tests

purportedly measured students’ content knowledge, when ELLs took a test written in English,

they scored 20% to 50% lower than their EO classmates due to language barriers rather than a

lack of knowledge or skills. Consequently, ELLs usually do not reach the proficient level,

thereby negatively impacting schools’ graduation rates and adequate yearly progress.

25
Furthermore, the dropout rate is higher among ELLs than among their EO peers, possibly

because passing the state assessments written in English is a formidable—and demoralizing—

task (Menken, 2010).

Menken (2010) explained that another false assumption of NCLB is that state

assessments can provide valid results upon which states can make high-stakes decisions. In

addition to mislabeling ELLs as low-performing and preventing them from graduating, states—

based upon state assessment scores—can place districts on the “failing list,” denying them

funding, closing their schools, or assuming control of the schools. In jeopardy of being seized by

the state as a result of low ELL test scores, several California school districts sued the state for

being unfairly penalized because of their high ELL populations. Similarly, a principal in New

York, another state with a high number of ELLs and representation on the failing schools list,

expressed resistance to admitting ELLs to his school because schools serve ELLs typically have

a more difficult time achieving the annual progress goals of NCLB.

Similar to Flynn and Hill (2005), de Jong, Harper, and Coady (2013) noted that the rapid

increase in the ELL population has contributed to an ESOL teacher shortage and that districts are

grappling with monetary and personnel constraints. Consequently, schools are placing more and

more ELL students in general education classrooms, also referred to mainstream classrooms,

which raises questions regarding the preparation and ability of general education teachers to

work with these students. Although 88% of general education teachers work with ELLs, most of

these teachers lack basic knowledge and foundational skills to adequately serve this population.

Believing that teachers who are prepared and well-grounded in content and pedagogy can make a

difference in student learning, de Jong et al. (2013) maintained that teaching ELLs requires three

additional elements.

26
 The first element relates to the teachers’ knowledge of their students. Of course, all

teachers should gain an understanding of their students’ backgrounds, but with ELLs, this

understanding involves many more factors unfamiliar to the teacher. For example, the teacher

must know about each student’s language and literacy level in his or her first language as well as

in English and about the student’s cultural experiences. An unfamiliarity with this type of

knowledge and an inability to communicate with the student or the family may hinder this

process. Even more, most general education teachers lack the knowledge of where or how to

gain information about the student’s language skills, such as assessment results, diagnostic

information, or cultural background. Consequently, the teacher often provides vague feedback

and fails to set specific learning objectives. Secondly, teachers of ELLs need to understand how

the students’ languages and cultures shape ELLs’ school experiences, such as how they interact

or learn, and how to make necessary pedagogical adjustments. For instance, the teacher should

understand how the students’ native languages are similar to and different from English and how

those connections impact the learning process. Teachers of ELLs must be able to link the

students’ first languages with the academic content, as well as to build assessments that support

the students’ learning. Finally, teachers of ELLs need to recognize and understand a variety of

factors that impact their students. As discussed previously, legislation, such as NCLB, and other

directives do not always serve ELLs in the intended or best possible way. Moreover, according

to de Jong et al. (2013), teaching ELLs in the general education classroom in middle and high

schools can be even more challenging: “Content area teachers need sophisticated knowledge of

the language of their discipline and may find integrating language and content objectives more

challenging at the secondary level” (p. 98).

27
 Noting that only 12.5% of teachers had received at least 8 hours of training on teaching

ELLs, Carrier (2005) asserted that most classroom teachers want to know how to help their ELL

students. However, she explained that in their search for effective teaching strategies, general

education teachers can be overwhelmed and may lack a full understanding of the principles that

undergird effective ELL instruction. The author highlighted some specific challenges that

teachers of ELLs encounter. Like Breiseth (2015), Carrier (2005) stated that acquiring the

English needed to read, write, and comprehend in the content area classroom could take an ELL

up to seven years. Additionally, ELLs are learning both a new language and new academic

content. Another issue noted was that teachers should have a variety of teaching methods to

teach ELLs; however, Carrier also explained that adequate time to train teachers was not

available due to the rapid growth in the ELL population.

In light of the severe limitations in training, financial resources, and other resources

necessary for successful bilingual education, teachers’ feelings of frustration and inadequacy are

understandable and inevitable. To assist rural schools with smaller numbers of ELL students,

Flynn and Hill (2005) recommended practices for schools to adopt in creating environments that

are conducive to ELLs’ success. The authors noted that strong school leadership is a critical

factor in the success of any school seeking to implement programs for ELLs. School leaders

should assume responsibility for ensuring that all staff know the legal requirements for serving

ELLs and for monitoring and evaluating the implementation and integration of the ELL program.

Setting the tone for the rest of the school, school leaders need to believe that students will

achieve in the content areas, foster an environment that accepts diversity, and support teachers as

they learn and adjust their teaching methods. School leaders should allocate resources equitably

and prioritize professional development.

28
 The importance of professional development is obvious in light of teachers’ lack of

training specifically for ELL instruction. Flynn and Hill (2005) provided recommendations for

maximizing professional development, including the importance of knowing students’ history

and culture as well as their level of English language acquisition. Contrary to EO philosophies,

Flynn and Hill recommend using the students’ primary language when possible and helping

students transfer their native language skills to their acquisition of English. Of course, various

factors may limit how often students’ primary language is used in instruction; however, allowing

students to converse with more people than the teacher—such as other students who speak their

native language—can increase frequency. “When ELL students do not have to compete with the

English-dominant students for speaking time and when they feel they can take verbal risks,

productive talk will occur” (Flynn & Hill, 2005, p. 7). Teachers should use content-based ESL

instruction and should make connections between students’ experiences and the content they are

expected to learn. Finally, while developing academic language, teachers should provide explicit

instruction within the context of literacy; that is, teachers should read authentic texts to students

daily rather than try to teach language skills, such as letter recognition, in isolation (Flynn &

Hill, 2005).

As previously emphasized, a successful bilingual education program must involve not

only teachers and students but also parents. However, various factors often limit the involvement

of ELL parents. For example, parents may feel that teachers view them negatively, or they may

not know how to volunteer at their child’s school, or may feel ill-equipped to do so (Shim, 2013).

To help increase parental involvement, Flynn and Hill (2005) recommended using visuals

throughout the school to communicate that the school values the various cultures and languages

represented within the school. When possible, schools should use bilingual staff and community

29
members to improve communication with parents. Additionally, schools should hold regular,

well-advertised meetings for parents to learn how they can be involved in their children’s

education and in the decision-making at their schools. Finally, schools should consider offering

ESL classes for parents, possibly in conjunction with a local community college.

Due to the continual and rapid increase of the number of ELL students, school districts

should adopt a proactive approach. Embracing and implementing the above recommendations,

district leaders can support teachers in meeting the needs of ELL students by providing essential

professional development to teachers in addition to actively welcoming parents of ELL students

to participate in the educational process (Flynn & Hill, 2005).

General Education Teacher Attitudes toward ELLs

Teachers enter the education profession with the intention of making a difference in their

students’ lives and the world. They complete teacher education programs to acquire necessary

education and skills to reach and teach their students. However, as the previous studies illustrate,

teachers’ attitudes and beliefs can undermine their best efforts to teach their students. Although

most teachers would report wanting to reach and teach each and every student in their

classrooms, they may not recognize the challenges their own attitudes and beliefs present, or they

may not be prepared for the challenges of teaching various types of students, particulary ELLs.

Attitudes of pre-service teachers. Markos (2012) conducted a study investigating pre-

service teachers’ beliefs and understanding of ELLs as a result of participating in a Structured

English Immersion (SEI) course taught by the researcher. Taking the course as a mandated part

of their teacher education program, 72 students in the SEI course over the course of three

semesters granted Markos, the instructor, permission to utilize data gathered from discussions

and class work. Data from observations, anecdotal records, classroom activities, and students’

30
work and artifacts were analyzed using the analytic induction method. That is, data were viewed

as one significant component and then broken down into assertions and arguments. Markos

discovered two primary assertions within the data. First, drawing on their past experiences, the

students at the beginning of the course held narrow and mostly negative views of ELLs. For

example, the students thought that ELLs could not speak English, could not speak English

fluently, or were immigrants; none of the students commented on the abilities or skills of ELLs,

only on their perceived deficiencies. Secondly, by learning more about ELLs and reflecting on

their own preconceived notions, students were able to broaden their views and shift from a

negative perspective to a more accepting one. At the conclusion of the course, students discussed

how their perceptions and understanding of ELLs had evolved. The students realized that their

initial thoughts about ELLs were not true and that they had thought of ELLs as a group rather

than as individuals. Markos asserted that teacher education programs need to ensure they include

courses focusing not only on instructional strategies for ELLs but also on pre-service teachers’

attitudes and beliefs.

Also studying pre-service teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward and preparation for

teaching ELLs, Durgunoglu and Hughes (2010) conducted two studies in one. The first study

explored pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy and awareness to determine the level of readiness

and assurance for educating ELLs. The sample included 62 education majors at a Midwestern

university who had completed two required courses related to teaching ELLs as well as 60 hours

working in a diverse classroom setting. The participants completed a survey and a knowledge

test about teaching ELLs. The pre-service teachers held positive views toward ELLs but neutral

views toward their preparedness to teach them. Although neutral ratings may not seem bad, the

researchers felt these ratings were a negative since the teachers were at the end of their teacher

31
education program and should feel more prepared. Additionally, the average score on the

knowledge test was 6.29 out of a possible 26 points, indicating that these pre-service teachers

lacked understanding of ELL demographic, instructional, and assessment concepts.

The researchers’ second study observed and evaluated the use of “the teachers’ resources,

activity alterations in the classroom, and personal modifications to assist the ELL students” (p.

36). Four of the participants from the first study (all Caucasian females) were twice observed

teaching in the language arts classroom; one of the participants was observed in two separate

classrooms, yielding a total of 10 observations. Following the observations, the researcher met

with each teacher for discussions. From these observations and discussions, several themes

emerged. The first theme was one of neglect, which means that the pre-service teacher did not

interact with ELLs and they did not seek assistance. Often the pre-service teachers justified this

lack of interaction by saying she believed the ELLs’ lack of involvement was a cultural

difference. Instead of receiving support from the teacher, ELLs got help from their peers. Finally,

each pre-service teacher had a mentor teacher who was not involved during the observation.

Durgunoglu and Hughes (2010) concluded that both pre-service and in-service teachers need

more training to sensitize them to the linguistic and cultural differences of ELLs as well as

strategies for helping them. Although the participants had positive attitudes toward ELLs, these

feelings did not translate to effective instruction.

Hutchinson (2013) also explored pre-service teacher preparation by investigating the

effect of a foundations class for teaching ELLs. The sample consisted of 25 mostly female pre-

service teachers in their junior year of an elementary education program at a university in a large

metropolitan area. All participants had some experience working in the schools, such as

observing or tutoring, but had little to no experience working with ELLs. The study had both

32
quantitative and qualitative components. At the beginning and end of the course, the students

completed a survey, the Language Attitude of Teachers Scale (LATS); the researchers used a

one-sample t-test to discover which statements had significant differences in responses in the

three areas measured by the instrument: language politics, limited English proficiency (LEP)

intolerance, and language support. For the qualitative component, the participants observed ESL

classrooms for three days over the course of 10 weeks and then composed a research paper

discussing their observations.

The language politics statements related to whether English should be the official

language used in public settings (e.g., a person needs to speak English to be considered an

American; English should be the official language of the United States). The results of the survey

data analysis revealed the overall mean scores for these statements were higher on the post-

survey than on the pre-survey, meaning at the end of the course more pre-service teachers agreed

that English should be the primary communication language and that it should be utilized in

public. However, no significant changes were found at the .01 level. Although the majority

(76%) agreed that “Parents of non- or limited-English-proficient students should be counseled to

speak English with their children whenever possible,” the research papers discussing classroom

observations revealed that most of the pre-service teachers felt that it was best to have a bilingual

teacher in the ESL classroom to provide support to ELLs as needed.

Another area that was researched in this study was LEP intolerance, which measured the

teachers’ beliefs regarding the English language, how the English language should be obtained,

and how the teachers perceived ELLs in schools. The results showed an increase in pre-service

teachers’ tolerance toward ELLs in their classroom. Significant differences were found on two

statements in this area (i.e., “Having a non- or limited-English-proficient student in the

33
classroom is detrimental to the learning of the other students” and “Non- and limited-English-

proficient students often use unjustified claims of discrimination as an excuse for not doing well

in school.”) with more students disagreeing with these statements at the end of the course.

Likewise, the classroom observation data revealed that at the end of the course, pre-service

teachers felt that “ELLs do not use unjustified claims of discrimination as an excuse for not

doing well” (Hutchinson, 2013, p. 41). Several commented that the classroom observations

helped them to understand the realities of working with ELLs; one student commented, “The

experience demystified the ESL classroom for me and was an eye-opening view into what

teachers deal with on a daily basis” (p. 41). Observing the ELLs and their teachers allowed the

pre-service teachers to see the students as individuals rather than as stereotypes.

The final area of focus was language support, measuring how pre-service teachers and

ELLs could be supported in schools. The surveys and the classroom observations revealed that

the pre-service teachers believed that the government should invest more money into better

programs to assist ELLs, people in the United States should become bilingual, and teacher

training should be required to accommodate ELL needs. Many of the pre-service teachers were

surprised by the lack of support for ELLs in the general education classroom and by the

disconnect between instruction in the general education classroom and in the ESL classroom.

Overall, the above studies reveal the need for teacher education programs to provide not

only coursework but also experiences in working with ELLs. Additionally, each study revealed

that pre-service teachers need to identify and reflect upon their underlying assumptions about

ELLs so that negative, misinformed, or incorrect beliefs or attitudes do not adversely impact

their effectiveness as teachers.

34
 Attitudes of in-service teachers. As with pre-service teachers, in-service teachers may

have attitudes or beliefs that hinder effective instruction of ELLs. An ESOL educator with years

of experience, Gottschalk (2016) addressed 10 misinformed comments and questions she has

heard over the years about ELL students. Many people erroneously believe that all ESOL

teachers speak all their students’ native languages; however, although many ESOL teachers have

spent time and studied in other countries with other cultures, to know all the languages of ELLs

represented in a single classroom would be virtually impossible. Gottschalk herself commented

that her students spoke eight different languages, more than any one teacher would speak. Still,

living in different cultures cultivates empathy that is needed to teach ELLs as the teacher has

experienced what it is like to be a second language learner. Furthermore, fluency in an ELL’s

native language may be helpful, but it is not required to teach an ELL effectively.

Misconceptions concerning the school-home dynamic abound. Many teachers think that

ELLs will never learn English if the only language spoken in the home or with other ELL

students at school is their native language. However, research in second language acquisition

says that when students are lucky enough to have strong native-language skills, they will be able

to learn English more easily. Therefore, parents of ELLs can assist their students’ progress by

focusing on developing literacy and language skills in their children’s native language, which

will, in turn, aid their students’ progress in learning English. General education teachers should

also understand that in many cultures, parents separate school and home, giving the schools

permission to do what is best for their children academically. Additionally, ELL parents may not

realize that U.S. schools generally welcome parental involvement, and a lack of transportation,

funds, language skills, or time may further impede parental involvement. Cultural differences

35
and family circumstances may lead teachers to falsely conclude that ELL families do not care

about their child’s education (Gottschalk, 2016).

Other misconceptions concern issues related to ELLs’ behavior at school. Because many

cultures highly respect educators, some teachers expect ELL students to be better behaved than

other students. However, ELL students should be held to the same behavioral standards as all

other students. Furthermore, just as EO students have freedom to play and converse with their

friends at lunch and recess, so ELL students should be allowed to play and converse with their

friends, using their native languages rather than being expected to use only English at school

(Gottschalk, 2016).

Finally, Gottschalk (2016) addressed misconceptions related to ELLs’ academic

preparedness. For instance, many teachers assume that ELLs possess strong math skills;

however, although many ELLs have taken advanced math courses, the language component in an

American math classroom (e.g., having to write a paragraph on a standardized test explaining

how the student solved a problem) can introduce complications the student would not encounter

in a course taught in his or her native language. Often, academic difficulties or even a lack of

understanding of cultural or community-specific topics lead teachers and classmates to assume

that ELLs are not intelligent. Some teachers believe that using a curriculum below the students’

developmental level would be appropriate. Nonetheless, even though pinpointing an ELL’s

reading ability in terms of grade level may be difficult, using a kindergarten curriculum with a

fifth-grade student would not be productive. Teachers need to use a modified, age-appropriate

curriculum to teach ELLs. Of course, teachers cannot expect that ELLs will perform at the same

level as their English-speaking peers. According to Gottschalk (2016), “fully mastering a

language and catching up to grade-level peers can take a student from five to seven years” (p.

36
63); therefore, ELLs will need modifications and accommodations to perform up to grade-level

standards and should not be retained, which is another mistaken belief.

Focusing on teachers’ frequent pedagogical misconceptions, Harper and de Jong (2004)

explored several beliefs about teaching ELLs that may cause teachers mistakenly to think they

are addressing ELLs’ needs. First, many teachers believe that if they regularly expose ELLs to

English and give them frequent opportunities to interact with English speakers, then English

language learning will simply and naturally occur. However, Harper and de Jong contended that

many ELLs do not possess the necessary skills to interact productively with English speakers in

cooperative learning activities and that teachers must provide more explicit instruction about the

language itself (e.g., grammar, morphology, and phonology) in addition to content instruction.

Most non-ESOL teachers feel ill-equipped to identify, let alone teach, such concepts within their

content area. Another common misconception was that teaching strategies that work with native

English speakers will work with ELLs. Although strategies can be effective for both native

speakers and ELLs, teachers must provide additional supports for ELLs. For example, literature

circles and reading journals have proven effective in allowing students to engage more

authentically with literature; still, teachers must make modifications for ELLs who may not be

accustomed to elements of this process, such as paraphrasing, understanding indirect feedback in

the forms of questions from teachers and peers, or supporting an opinion in a group discussion.

Similarly, just as “one size fits all” instruction will not work with native speakers and

ELLs, so one size fits all does not apply to all students who are ELLs. Teachers should not

assume that all ELLs learn at the same rate or in the same manner. In fact, ELLs can vary widely

in how they acquire the language; some can speak the language fluently and struggle with

reading, whereas others are more adept at reading but struggle with expressing complex thoughts

37
orally. Older ELLs may struggle with reading; yet, as Gottschalk (2016) noted, curriculum

designed for early readers may not be appropriate. Finally, many teachers assume that the use of

nonverbal support, such as graphic organizers and hands-on activities, equates to effective

instruction for ELL students. Harper and de Jong (2004) asserted that although nonverbal

supports may help teach content, they do not address ELLs’ language learning needs.

Consequently, teachers must gain an understanding of how language acquisition affects learning

and modify their instruction accordingly.

Reeves (2006) conducted a study that examined teachers’ attitudes regarding ELLs in

general education classrooms. The researcher used a 38-question, four-section, Likert-type scale

survey and four case studies to measure 279 teachers’ attitudes and views pertaining to teaching

ELLs in their classrooms. The survey, which was distributed during faculty meetings in January

and February 2002 to middle and high school teachers, included teachers’ agreement or

disagreement with statements regarding ELLs in the classroom, the frequency of certain

behaviors among ELL teachers, the strengths and limitations of including ELLs, and

demographic data of the participants.

On the demographic portion of the survey, Reeves (2006) discovered that 77.8% of those

who participated in the survey had experience with ELL inclusion, whereas 15.1% reported that

they had no experience with ELLs. Thirty-seven percent of the participants were women, and

98.2% were native-English speakers. Of the 108 native-English speakers who spoke a second

language, 43% described themselves as having a beginner’s level of proficiency in the second

language; 36% said they were proficient and 21% said they were advanced in speaking their

second language. The majority of the participants (90.3%; 252 participants) had no ESL training,

38
and only 17 participants (6.1%) reported some preparation; the remaining participants did not

respond to the question.

An analysis of survey data concerning teachers’ attitudes toward ELLs revealed

conflicting feelings in several areas. Overall, teachers reported positive attitudes regarding the

inclusion of ELLs. The majority (72%) said they would welcome the inclusion of ELLs in their

classrooms, and 75% of the teachers believed that including ELLs in the general education

classroom contributed to a positive educational atmosphere. However, close to 70% of

participants reported that they did not have enough time to meet ELLs’ needs adequately, and

75% believed the ELLs should not be included in the general education classroom until they had

achieved a certain level of English proficiency. Furthermore, although many teachers said they

would welcome ELLs in their classroom, feelings about modifying ELLs’ work were mixed.

More than half (53.4%) disagreed with simplifying coursework for ELLs; likewise, 53.4%

disagreed with decreasing the quantity of work for ELLs. However, a great majority of

participants (80.7%) agreed with giving ELLs more time to complete classwork (Reeves, 2006).

Reeves (2006) also explored teachers’ attitudes towards professional development. The

majority of participants (81.7%) felt that they were not adequately trained to work with ELLs,

but only 53% of respondents indicated interest in receiving additional training. Nearly half (45%)

said they had no interest in professional development related to teaching ELL students.

In the same vein, Colombo, McMakin, Jacobs, and Shestok (2013) conducted a study

exploring teacher hopefulness regarding ELLs in the general education classroom during the

time of NCLB. The researchers interviewed 15 female and 5 male middle school teachers with

years of teaching experience ranging from 4 to nearly 30 years. All 20 teachers worked at middle

schools on the “failing list” in Massachusetts. The 50‒60-minute interviews explored goals for

39
student success, pre-service preparation and in-service training for teaching ELLs, and beliefs

about teaching children and families of diverse cultures. The data revealed that the teachers cared

deeply for their students, had solid lesson plans, and often spent their own money on school

supplies. However, the teachers described an atmosphere of hopelessness within the school

resulting from the NCLB goal of ELLs’ passing the state tests. To combat this feeling, the

participants often chose to focus on more attainable goals; however, “setting appropriate,

rigorous and attainable instructional goals for ELLs requires both agency (the belief one can help

ELLs to reach these goals) and pathways (depth of knowledge and strategies needed to achieve

the goals)” (p. 84). Unfortunately, the burden of high-stakes testing along with insufficient

preparation to teach ELLs diminished teachers’ agency and pathways, resulting in a loss of hope

for helping ELLs succeed.

Educator Preparation Programs: Curriculum and Practices

The results of previous studies exploring teachers’ attitudes toward teaching ELLs and

the well-documented increase of ELLs in America’s schools overwhelmingly demonstrate the

need for changes in teacher education programs for pre-service teachers and for increased

professional development for in-service teachers. DelliCarpini and Alonso (2014) examined data

obtained between 1979 and 2003, which showed general education teacher education programs

have not changed to add appropriate coursework to prepare teachers to teach ELLs. In fact, with

the exception of five states, teacher education programs do not require coursework in teaching

ELLs. Moreover, when states revise or adopt standards or when legislators mandate expectations

for public school students, these policymakers often do not consider ELLs. Consequently,

general education teachers do not feel as though it is their responsibility to ensure language

40
acquisition for the ELL students in their classrooms even though these students spend the

majority of their day in the general education classroom.

Pre-service teacher training. DelliCarpini and Alonso (2014) also examined the

effectiveness of a course designed and co-taught by a TESOL professor and a mathematics

education professor. The purposes of the course were to support beginning math and science

teachers who teach ELLs, support beginning ESL teachers with comprehending and effectively

engaging in content-based instruction (CBI), and finally, to support a partnership between ESL

and content area teachers on the secondary level.

The researchers used a mixed-method research design to study the course using a survey,

position papers, reflective teaching journals, observations, and curriculum materials. The

participants included 25 pre-service and in-service math and science general education teachers

and 8 ESL teachers who taught secondary math or science. The researchers administered the

same 25-item, Likert-type survey at the beginning and the end of the course, and the analysis

revealed significant improvements in participants’ attitudes and beliefs toward ELLs, as well

their understanding and implementation of strategies for ELL instruction.

The qualitative results revealed several findings. First, DelliCarpini and Alonso (2014)

found that “mainstream teachers generally held a deficit view of ELLs at the start of the class”

(p. 168). For example, the teacher candidates felt that responsibility for an ELL student’s failing

in class lay with the non-English speaking family rather than with the school and the teachers.

Another finding was that general education teachers did not have, but desired to obtain, a high

level of understanding of ways to meet ELLs’ needs. This finding suggested that teachers

realized that they needed to know more about their ELL students’ cultures and needs.

Nonetheless, general education teachers lacked awareness of academic language’s role in the

41
classroom and strategies for building academic language in ELL students. Teachers need to

know how to assist ELLs with content knowledge and general language in content area courses.

Both the quantitative survey and qualitative data in the study conducted by DelliCarpini

and Alonso (2014) revealed positive changes in teacher candidates’ thinking and beliefs by the

conclusion of the course. The teacher candidates realized their responsibility in assisting ELLs

with acquiring general language as well as content area language, and the ESL teacher realized

the importance of engaging in content-based instruction, in addition to knowing ELLs’ language

acquisition techniques. Due to the success of the TESOL course, the university proceeded with

further institutionalization, expansion, and revision of the course in hopes that restructuring the

teacher education program to include a focus on strategies for teaching ELLs will better prepare

teachers to meet these students’ needs.

Also commenting on the sluggishness of teacher education programs to respond to the

increased need for coursework related to teaching ELLs, Daniel and Peercy (2014) reported that

a minority of educator preparation programs require ESL or TESOL coursework. Moreover, less

than 30% of educator preparation programs require field placements that intentionally expose

candidates to teaching ELLs. Although research has explored pre-service teachers’ perceptions

and experiences, Daniel and Peercy sought to gain insight into the perceptions of the educators

who teach in teacher preparation programs. For this study, the researchers used a sample of eight

educators in a 13-month master’s with certification in elementary education program (MCEE) of

various ages, education, areas of expertise, and educational positions. The researchers, who had

no affiliation with the MCEE, analyzed a wide variety of qualitative data (e.g., interviews,

classroom observations, and course syllabi). In order to triangulate data, the researchers also

interviewed 16 teacher candidates in the program.

42
 An analysis of interview data revealed two primary findings. First, all of the teacher

educators strongly believed in the immediacy and importance of preparing general education

teacher candidates to work with ELLs in their future classrooms, and each of the educators

sought to do so within their individual courses. However, the second finding was that because no

unified plan for addressing this need existed within the MCEE program, the teacher educators’

efforts lacked consistency and cohesion. A parallel between Daniel and Peercy’s (2014) findings

and those of studies focusing on pre-service teachers’ perceptions is that feeling responsible for

educating ELLs does not necessarily translate into skillful implementation of such a program.

Collaboration among educators for a purposeful design, implementation, and assessment is also

needed. The authors concluded, “Identifying an explicit goal, enacting distributed leadership, and

restructuring programmatic features can all help to improve teacher preparation for students

learning English as an additional language” (p. 112).

In-service teacher training. Although states and universities are beginning to realize the

need for changes to teacher education programs, an equally important need is for professional

development for in-service teachers, many of whom report completing little to no training or

coursework related to ELL instruction. However, designing effective professional development

requires an accurate appraisal of teachers’ needs. Professors at Ohio State University (OSU),

Newman, Samimy, and Romstedt (2010) designed and disseminated a needs survey to teachers

in six Ohio school districts that represented urban, suburban, and rural school populations and

that served a high number of ELLs. An invitation to complete the survey, along with a link to the

survey, was emailed to 1,672 teachers; 144 teachers (9%) completed the survey. Newman et al.’s

30-question survey included several topics, such as numbers of ELLs in teachers’ classrooms,

the status of services and existing infrastructure, and opportunities for professional development.

43
Almost all respondents (96%), primarily content area teachers in various disciplines, reported

having ELLs in their classes, yet few (26%) reported completing coursework on teaching ELLs

and less than half (45%) had received in-service training related to teaching ELLs.

Encouragingly, the majority of the teachers reported interest in pursuing further professional

development or coursework in this area. The researchers listed various factors that might

influence teachers’ willingness and ability to partake in professional development and found that

cost (e.g., tuition, textbooks) and convenience (e.g., offered at or near the teacher’s school;

offered during the summer or via distance education) were the largest influencers of teachers’

interest. Fewer teachers were willing or able to participate on weekends or to travel to the

professional development site (e.g., classes at the OSU campus).

Additionally, teachers in this study responded to questions about their perceptions of

ELLs’ needs, which related mostly to linguistic (e.g., a lack of reading and writing skills, limited

knowledge of content vocabulary, and inability to productively participate in class discussions)

and sociocultural concerns (e.g., classroom behavior, student-teacher relationships and

communications, and social isolation). Several teachers also indicated a need for their district to

provide more support for ELLs, such as sheltered classes and welcome centers. Based on

Newman et al.’s (2010) findings from literature reviews and the needs survey, they, with the

support of a $1.5 million U.S. Department of Education grant from the Office of English

Language Acquisition, developed a year-long program that included seven TESOL courses. In

response to teachers’ needs, grant monies covered costs of supplies, tuition, and textbooks. The

courses were offered via distance education with three face-to-face meetings to encourage

collaboration and group trust.

44
 Finally, as a result of their work, Newman et al. (2010) assisted program developers and

the Ohio school districts to create a four-part professional development program for teachers.

The researchers recommended that professional development help teachers learn practical

methods of teaching English to ELLs and ways to look for best practices; additionally, training

should focus on how culture influences the classroom and how societal issues influence policies

and programs.

O’Neal, Ringler, and Rodriquez (2008) also explored teachers’ feelings about their

preparation to teach ELLs, both in their university coursework and in their current school district.

At the beginning of the study, 22 female and 2 male teachers at an elementary school in North

Carolina completed a demographic survey. Of these 24 teachers, 21 were interviewed in small

groups of 2‒3 at a time; the other three teachers were not interviewed due to scheduling conflicts

after several attempts. The interview questions concerned teacher preparation courses,

professional development, and teacher preparedness. Only 14% of the teachers said they had

completed a course on explicit instruction of language acquisition. Interestingly, almost half

(46%) had received licensure within the previous 10 years, indicating that teacher preparation

programs had not updated their coursework to reflect the changing needs of teachers working in

diverse classrooms. Although 48% said their coursework had included some information

regarding ELLs, the teachers were not able to articulate any particular information, suggesting

the instruction was not specific enough to inform teachers’ practice when working with ELLs.

Seven teachers (33%) reported that their teacher education program required them to take

a course on teaching culturally diverse students; however, they indicated that the focus was

mostly the inclusion of African American students. When asked whether they would have taken

a course regarding working with ELLs had one been available, 12 teachers said they would have,

45
but added a statement such as “if I knew then what I know now” (O’Neal et al., 2008, p. 10).

Similarly, the nine teachers who said they would not have taken the course indicated that they

said no because they could not have foreseen the need at the time. Clearly, teacher education

programs must make their students more aware of the challenges they will face in today’s

classrooms.

The final three interview questions concerned teachers’ feelings about preparation to

work with ELLs now that they were in the classroom. All of the teachers said they felt

responsible for teaching ELLs, but only 25% said they felt prepared to do so. Consequently,

100% of the teachers said they would participate in professional development regarding ELLs if

offered. When asked which method of delivery they preferred, the teachers’ answers varied from

on-line webcasts, to in-person workshops, to both online and in-person combinations (O’Neal,

2008). As Newman et al. (2010) discovered, teachers want to learn how to work with ELLs, but

districts and schools of education must consider convenience when designing professional

development training for teachers, especially for those in rural areas.

As previously discussed, schools in five states, including Florida, serve the majority of

ELLs in the United States (Flynn & Hill, 2005). Because Florida has a high ELL population and

the state believed social studies instruction was crucial for teaching citizenship, the state decided

all its social studies teachers were to attend mandated in-service workshops or receive college

credits from a state-approved ELL education course. O’Brien (2011) conducted a study to

explore these high school social studies teachers’ attitudes towards the training and support they

received. The researcher sent a survey to all of the social studies teachers in a Florida district that

had mandated its social studies teachers participate in an ESOL professional development

program if they had not completed the required ESOL coursework during their teacher education

46
program. Out of the 344 surveys distributed, 123 were returned. A little more than half of the

participants (51.2%) felt they did not have enough training in their college coursework to teach

ELLs. Even so, 56.2% indicated that their district had provided training to help them teach ELLs.

In an open-ended section of the survey, several teachers commented on the provision of district

training, but none of the teachers commented that the training helped them to become more

effective teachers of ELLs.

To further explore the teachers’ attitudes concerning working with ELLs and their

opinions of the district training, O’Brien (2011) selected eight teachers from the survey

respondents to interview. When asked about working with ELLs, teachers identified the inability

to communicate as the greatest challenge. Teachers’ responses indicated the next greatest

challenge was not knowing how to modify ELLs’ work, a probable result of a lack of training.

Of the eight interviewees, six had participated in the district’s 60-hour in-service training. Three

of those six participants reported that the training was ineffective, often because of the method of

delivery: Teachers watched videos and answered questions. Some interviewees indicated that a

mentor program would be more effective than a “traveling salesmen” approach.

For some teachers of ELLs, language learning is not the students’ only challenge. Topor

and Rosenblum (2013) conducted a study to explore the training and experiences of teachers who

work with ELLs who are visually impaired. The researchers advertised their online survey on

electronic bulletin boards during a four-week period in the spring of 2012. The survey consisted

of five sections: (a) demographics, (b) university preparation, (c) ELLs in their schools, (d)

teacher knowledge of strategies for working with ELLs, and (e) ELLs with visual impairments.

Sixty-six teachers of ELLs with visual impairments completed the survey. Mostly female, more

than half of the participants were over the age of 50 and had different years of experience.

47
 All respondents had attended universities to prepare to work with students with visual

impairments, but only 9% had completed coursework related to teaching ELLs. Despite a lack of

coursework, “two-thirds of the participants felt qualified to meet the educational needs of

students who are visually impaired and English language learners, while one-third did not”

(Topor & Rosenblum, 2013, p. 89). The respondents reported using various approaches (e.g.,

natural approach, vocabulary building, and language experience) to work with ELLs with visual

impairments, and two-thirds of respondents said they had taught braille to ELLs with visual

impairments, an unusually high percentage considering less than 10% of individuals registered

with the American Printing House for the Blind in 2011 were braille readers. The researchers

surmised that the teachers who responded to the survey may have done so because they felt

qualified to respond to questions about their work with ELLs with visual impairments, whereas

those who felt less qualified may not have responded. Consequently, the survey results may not

reflect the experiences of most teachers who work with ELLs with visual impairments. Still, the

researchers noted the results underscored the importance of training: “Additional course work

through certification programs for English language learning or in-service training on relevant

topics could allow teachers of students with visual impairments to broaden their knowledge base

in regard to supporting students in learning English” (p. 90).

School staff training. Though much research has focused on teachers’ preparation to

work with ELLs, school administrators are not immune to feeling or being unprepared to work

with ELLs. Having the fifth largest ELL population in the nation, Illinois has passed legislation

to require principals of schools with ELL populations of more than 200 students to hold special

certification. However, universities with principal preparation programs face multiple challenges

in restructuring their programs to meet these requirements. Reeves and Van Tuyle (2014)

48
evaluated requirements of Illinois legislation as well as internship placements of 34 candidates in

the principal preparation program at an Illinois university.

As part of the state’s effort to address multiple achievement gaps on various state

assessments, Illinois passed Public Act 96-0903, which requires principal preparation programs

to provide candidates with training for directing effective programs to meet the needs of a few

specific populations, including ELLs. Because most of the Illinois ELL population is in the

Chicago area, districts in other parts of the state have a much smaller number of ELL students.

Consequently, few schools in those areas have state-approved ELL programs. Of the 34 principal

candidates in Reeves and Van Tuyle’s (2014) study, only five were completing internships in

schools with state-approved programs. A safe assumption is that working with leaders who are

already directing a successful ELL program would most benefit aspiring principals seeking the

ELL administrative certification; however, the scarcity of schools with such programs in most

areas of the state means that most principal candidates are interning at schools with extremely

small, sometimes ineffective ELL programs. Unfortunately, such a situation may actually

perpetuate ineffective practices. The researchers acknowledge that improving the state’s ELL

programs should be a priority, but doubt that the passage of new legislation will accomplish this

goal since Illinois’ public schools lack effective ELL programs from which new leaders can

learn.

Finally, many schools utilize paraprofessionals to assist teachers in working with ELLs.

A paraprofessional is a person who is trained to work alongside and assist licensed and certified

professionals. In education, paraprofessionals assist teachers and students with day-to-day

activities. For example, paraprofessionals may assist ELLs with classwork, homework, or other

tasks the teacher assigns the student. Valenciana, Morin, and Morales (2005) described the

49
Paraprofessional Teacher Training Project (PTTP), a California program developed to increase

the number of teachers credentialed to work with ELLs by recruiting and supporting schools’

paraprofessionals to become fully licensed teachers. A consortium of two California school

districts collaborating with a community college and a four-year university developed the PTTP

to serve as a “career ladder,” meaning individuals begin their coursework while being employed

as paraprofessionals in the schools, transition to intern positions, and finally earn full teaching

credentials. The teacher training program yielded a degree, qualifications to teach, and increases

in compensation and professional duties.

For many paraprofessionals various obstacles—financial, academic, social, and

bureaucratic—hindered their educational progress. This program sought to provide needed

support for these underrepresented individuals to complete their degrees and become teachers of

ELLs:

The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing funded PTTP and began in 1995.

The funds paid for tuition, textbooks, and a small stipend for school supplies, as well as

test fees, including the Multiple Subject Credential (BCLAD) Culture and Language

Tests and the Reading Instruction Competency Assessment. Support services included

funds for the California Basic Educational Skills Test preparation, writing seminars,

tutorial services, and other participants' needs. Citrus College also provided special

tutoring in math and writing. (Valenciana, Morin, & Morales, 2005, pp. 84‒85)

At the beginning of the program, the consortium disseminated an interest survey to

bilingual and special education paraprofessionals in the two school districts. In addition to

completing the survey, the paraprofessionals must have completed at least 15 hours in college

classes. The PTTP director or coordinator screened the participants’ applications, requested a

50
principal’s recommendation for work attendance, reviewed the participants’ grade point averages

from college, and interviewed the applicants. Additionally, participants agreed to teach, upon

completion of the program, in specified schools one year for every year of support the teachers

had received. The participants were admitted to Cal State Los Angeles after either having

completed the prerequisites or having completed an Associate’s degree. From there, they were

admitted to the Multiple Subject program to complete a teaching internship and a sequenced

schedule of classes. Over a 5-year period, 30 paraeducators completed the program, earning their

Bachelor of Arts degree and credentials to teach ELLs in kindergarten through eighth grade.

Providing traditional and nontraditional support systems for paraprofessionals, the

program successfully reached an underserved population of teachers and students. It also formed

partnerships among the school districts, the community college, and a four-year university. As

states continue to grapple with supplying qualified teachers for ELLs, they should consider

developing the skills of paraprofessionals already working in the schools (Valenciana, Morin, &

Morales, 2005).

Strategies for Improving ELL Instruction

Although some people may believe teaching ELLs to be essentially the same as teaching

English-speaking students, this assumption is patently false. Teachers of English-speaking

students do not need to think about the syntax of their spoken sentences, whereas teachers of

ELL students must conscientiously consider their expression and other language-related issues

and adjust their instructional practices to accommodate their students. Flynn and Hill (2005)

enumerate just some of the competencies that teachers of ELLs must develop in addition to

teaching content knowledge and skills: “(a) make content comprehensible; (b) integrate language

with content instruction; (c) respect and incorporate first languages; (d) recognize how culture

51
and language intersect with classroom participation; and (e) understand the needs of students

with different levels of formal schooling” (p. 3). Moreover, no two ELL students are alike,

presenting another significant challenge for teachers, for those with and without ELL training.

One challenge of ELL instruction begins when ELLs enter their new schools. Frequently,

schools determine student placement by age rather than development, and they often make these

placements prior to testing ELLs. Conducting appropriate tests early on can assist schools in

providing ELLs with needed interventions. However, language barriers can complicate the

testing process. Although much research exists on testing for language impairment (LI) for ELLs

whose native language is Spanish, very little research exists for ELLs whose native language is

not Spanish. Whereas most ELLs in the United States speak Spanish as their native language,

approximately 20% of ELLs speak a native language other than Spanish. Therefore, finding an

effective way to test these children for LI at an early age is needed. Paradis, Schneider, and

Duncan (2013) conducted a study to determine whether using a combination of a variety of

linguistics tests and a parent questionnaire about the child’s first-language development could

assist in identifying ELLs with LI. The sample contained 178 ELLs—152 typically developing

(TD) children and 26 children with LI—from Edmonton or Toronto, Canada. All of the children

had foreign-born parents who spoke various languages, and 42% of the children were foreign

born. Prior to attending preschool, the children were primarily exposed to their native language.

On average, the TD ELLs began learning English at age 4 years and 2 months, whereas the ELLs

with LI began learning English at age 3 years and 8 months.

The children completed a series of four standardized English tests to measure various

aspects of language development (non-word repetition, tense morphology, story grammar, and

receptive vocabulary), and the parents completed the Alberta Language Development

52
Questionnaire, which measured abilities in the native language, language milestones, behaviors,

and family history. The ELLs with LI scored significantly lower than the TD ELLs on the parent

questionnaire and on all of the standardized tests except for the measurement of receptive

vocabulary. Furthermore, the strongest discriminator for LI was the parent questionnaire,

supporting the importance of using this type of measure in addition to standardized tests. Using a

combination of data from parent questionnaires and standardized tests has the potential to

identify ELLs with LI even with diverse cultural backgrounds and during the development of

English skills. Since ELLs’ development of English proficiency requires several years, early

testing strategies such as these can allow schools to identify ELLs with LI and to provide them

with the necessary interventions more quickly (Paradis et al., 2013).

Also exploring early interventions for ELLs, Ford, Cabell, Konold, Invernizzi, and

Gartland (2013) conducted a longitudinal study which examined the within-group individual

differences of Spanish-speaking ELLs. Teachers often view ELLs as a homogenous group;

however, the researchers hypothesized that, like their English-speaking peers, ELLs have

different strengths and weakness in content area skills. Therefore, rather than teaching ELLs as

one group with limited English proficiency, teachers should utilize differentiated strategies just

as they would with their English-speaking students. Using archival data from the Virginia

Department of Education, the researchers obtained demographic and test data for 98% of the

Virginia K-3 students. Then, using data from the students’ kindergarten year, the researchers

selected the sample based on four criteria: (a) designated Hispanic by parents, (b) received ESL

services (c) had no diagnosed disabilities, and (d) had a complete data set for the fall of the

kindergarten year. The resulting sample consisted of 2,351 children (49% females, 51% males)

who attended kindergarten in 436 Virginia public schools during the 2007‒2008 school year.

53
 The classroom teacher administered the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for

Kindergarten (PALS-K) in the fall and spring of kindergarten and the PALS 1-3 in the fall of

first grade. The PALS-K measured three constructs: phonological awareness, alphabet

knowledge, and orthographic knowledge. Based upon students’ scores in the fall of their

kindergarten year, the researchers divided the students into four clusters. The first cluster had the

highest literacy, scoring at least one standard deviation higher than the sample mean. The second

cluster had average phonological awareness and phonetic spelling skills, but strong alphabet

knowledge. Like Cluster 2, the third cluster had average phonological awareness, but they had

weak alphabet knowledge and phonetic spelling skills. Finally, the students in Cluster 4 had low

scores on all three measures, scoring at least one standard deviation below the sample mean. An

examination of demographic data revealed that the proportion of students who attended

preschool was significantly higher in Clusters 1 and 2 than in Clusters 3 and 4. No gender

differences were found.

For the participants assigned to a cluster based upon their kindergarten scores, 1,549 had

available first-grade literacy composite scores. Using these scores, the researchers divided the

students into the four clusters. An analysis of the data revealed statistically significant

differences among the clusters with 23.2% of the variance attributable to between-cluster

differences. The researchers’ findings suggest that ELLs have individual strengths and

weaknesses in literacy skills, just as their English-speaking peers do. The ELLs’ individual

literacy profiles in kindergarten correlated with later literacy milestones. Therefore, teachers

should differentiate literacy instruction early on rather than instructing all ELLs based only on

English language proficiency.

54
 Also focusing on kindergarten ELLs, Cirino, Pollard-Durodola, Foorman, Carlson, and

Francis (2007) conducted a longitudinal study exploring how teacher quality and various teacher

characteristics affected ELLs’ language and literacy success. Within several large districts with

high proportions of ELLs, the researchers selected school sites based upon several criteria: “(1)

40% of the students were Latino, (b) 30% of the kindergarten students were considered limited

English proficient, and where (c) the schools were performing adequately or better on their

respective state assessments” (p. 344).

During the 2002‒2003 school year, trained observers collected data on both teachers and

kindergarten ELL students. Using three standardized instruments, the observers evaluated

teacher quality, teaching competencies (planning, management, instruction, mentoring of

students, and personal characteristics), and classroom literacy instruction. From 35 schools, 141

teachers comprised the sample. Mostly Hispanic (76%) and female (91%), the teachers had an

average of 9.7 years of teaching experience. Additionally, most of the teachers held certification

in bilingual or ESL education.

Additionally, scores on multiple standardized instruments administered at the beginning

and end of the school year measured students’ letter recognition and identification, oral language

skills, and vocabulary. A total of 1,451 Spanish-speaking ELLs in kindergarten comprised the

student sample, but of those, 1,156 had measurement data for both measurement periods. Student

data were linked to their reading/language arts (RLA) teacher; 379 students had RLA teachers

who taught mostly in English, and 777 had RLA teachers who taught mostly in Spanish.

Teachers scored above average on teacher quality measures, which was not surprising

since they worked at schools with above average scores on state assessments. Additionally,

teacher quality and student interaction correlated positively; students were engaged and little

55
time was spent on non-instructional tasks. Teacher quality was positively correlated to word-

reading skills; however, teacher knowledge in either Spanish or English instruction was

unrelated to student literacy outcomes (Cirino et al., 2007).

Although teaching ELLs to speak English is a primary goal, teaching them to read

English and improving their reading comprehension is of utmost importance. Because a lack of

vocabulary is the greatest inhibitor to reading comprehension, Wallace (2007) suggested

numerous strategies for developing ELLs vocabulary in the general education classroom. Often,

ELLs do not have enough vocabulary to read and understand sufficiently to complete

assignments in class. ELP students have generally learned between 5,000 and 7,000 words before

starting school, whereas ELLs have learned relatively few. Therefore, teachers should teach

ELLs the meaning of basic words that ELP students would already know (e.g., pencil). Not only

do ELLs not know as many words as ELP students when starting school, but also they often do

not understand the various meanings words may have or the various forms of words. Wallace

argued that relating vocabulary instruction to the students’ native language can increase ELLs

level of learning. For example, learning word cognates that are similar in the students’ native

language and in English can help ELLs retain word meanings and more fully understand the

vocabulary. Additionally, direct vocabulary instruction, such as strategies for determining word

meaning from context and analyzing word morphology, is effective with both ELLs and ELP

students.

In an effort to capture what effective ELL instruction looks like, Gersten (1996), along

with six others (four researchers, a bilingual special educator, and a bilingual school

psychologist), observed 26 classrooms, grades 3‒6, in two large cities serving high numbers of

ELLs over a three-year period. The students had completed sheltered English programs,

56
“programs that teach English as a second language through content instruction” (p. 20), and were

enrolled in what the districts termed transition programs. In most of the classrooms, teachers

focused on low-level literacy skills and did not intellectually challenge their ELL students. In

contrast, five teachers provided more rigorous instruction while remaining sensitive to the ELLs

needs.

Examining notes from over 200 observational hours and interviews, Gersten (1996)

discovered four practices for instructing ELLs that emerged as challenging and effective. First,

the teachers focused on using descriptive words and discussing their meanings. Although some

of the words may have seemed below the students’ grade level, dictionary definitions cannot

fully capture their various meanings and connotations. Rather than drilling students on weekly

vocabulary lists, the teachers focused on two or three important words, emphasizing them for

several days. Another practice of effective teachers of ELLs was to ask students to provide

evidence for their answers. For example, when a student said a character in a short story had

become a “good man,” the teacher asked for evidence to support this statement. Furthermore, the

teachers were supportive of their students; rather than telling students they were wrong, they

asked questions to help elicit deeper thinking. Only as a last resort did the teacher provide the

correct answer.

A third common practice for effective ELL instruction was to help the students to transfer

their thinking from their native language into English. Although the literature provides few

specific strategies for helping students in this process, allowing the students time to organize

their thoughts by speaking in their native language before answering in English seemed to be an

effective strategy. Finally, effective ELL teachers encouraged students to write and speak about

their lives, even if those experiences were unpleasant. Less effective teachers often tried to avoid

57
difficult topics, such as poverty, but listening to the students’ true feelings and experiences

strengthens the student-teacher relationship and demonstrates respect for the students as

individuals.

Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson, and Francis (2005) studied the effectiveness of a

four-phase reading intervention program for first-grade ELLs with reading disabilities. The first

phase consisted of being proactive in reading and required the students to identify and isolate

sounds as well as recognize letters. Phase two was language support for the ELLs. Phase three

brought in the Spanish intervention with reading syllables, recognizing words, connecting text

and fluency, and comprehension. Finally, phase four combined both English and Spanish

interventions. Although Vaughn et al. did not share specific findings because of pending

publications, they did summarize some major conclusions. For example, they found that

combining strategies that work with ELP students with reading disabilities with strategies

designed specifically for Spanish-speaking students being instructed in English was effective.

The content of instruction was similar in reading instruction in both English and in Spanish, but

the order and speed of skills was different. Therefore, the researchers emphasized the importance

of considering more than just the content of instruction when considering interventions for ELLs

and their effectiveness. Teaching ELLs with reading disabilities using the same strategies as are

used with monolingual students will not yield the same benefits as adding strategies specifically

designed for ELLs.

Similar to other researchers (e.g., Breiseth, 2015; Carrier, 2005), Berg, Petro, and

Greybeck (2012) noted that acquiring academic language requires more time than learning social

language, as there are five stages of language acquisition. In the first stage, ELL students are

usually silent and are “primarily taking in language input, building oral comprehension skills and

58
their ability to infer meaning from context clues” (p. 35). In the second stage, students build

upon the skills gained previously and begin to use short phrases. During the next stage, ELLs

begin to have a simple social conversation, and in the fourth stage, sentences—both oral and

written—become more complex; however, students did not utilize academic language until the

final stage.

In addition to describing the stages of ELLs’ language acquisition, Berg et al. (2012)

identified specific strategies for working with ELL students. For example, teachers should relate

instruction to ELLs’ life experiences to make it meaningful to the students. Also, teachers should

remain cognizant of their vocabulary to ensure instruction is comprehensible. Next, teachers

should become knowledgeable of appropriate modifications and should be inventive. To assist

ELLs with English language acquisition and classroom interaction, collaboration with peers is an

effective strategy.

Understanding the different stages of language acquisition can also assist teachers in

designing appropriate and rigorous instruction. Unfortunately, teachers often refrain from asking

students questions or they ask only low-level questions; yet, ELLs may understand more of the

content than they can express orally. An associate professor of science education at Miami

University in Ohio, Bautista (2014) described five levels of ELL proficiency, similar to Bloom’s

Taxonomy: starting, emerging, developing, expanding, and bridging. Bautista defined each level

and then, using examples from the science classroom, provided examples of developmentally

appropriate tasks for each.

In Level 1, the student rarely uses English; therefore, teachers should use visuals (e.g.,

pictures, figures, or actual objects) along with the text and should allow nonverbal responses. For

example, in a lesson on thermal energy, the teacher could provide pictures or objects and ask the

59
student to separate them into two groups, insulators or conductors. In Level 2, the emerging

stage, the student uses simple conversation with everyday expressions and simple academic

vocabulary. In the previous example, the teacher could ask students to verbalize simple

definitions of insulators and conductors in addition to separating the pictures into two groups.

During Level 3, the developing level, the student can use more complex language, although

grammatical errors are still present. At this stage, students could explain conductors or insulators

by providing examples from their daily lives. Students at Level 4 can sufficiently communicate

in English and read and write with limited mistakes, so teachers could ask them to use academic

language in their oral or written explanations of conductors or insulators. The final level, Level

5, is bridging. Students at this level can communicate, read, and write along with their EO

counterparts.

Concluding the article, Bautista (2014) detailed an engineering activity in which the

teacher provided complete, step-by-step directions to students at Level 1 and Level 2. These

students were allowed to take pictures of their data collection and to use simple sentence

structures with a teacher-provided word bank. The students at Levels 3‒5 followed written and

oral instructions, explained with written paragraphs, and orally presented their findings.

Cho and Reich (2008) conducted a study investigating the needs, practices, and

challenges of high school social studies teachers of ELLs. During a faculty meeting, the

researchers distributed a 14-item survey that focused on ELL classroom accommodations,

challenges that teachers experience while teaching ELLs, and the type of training and support

that teachers would find effective. Although 211 teachers responded to the survey, the

researchers chose only the 33 social studies teachers’ responses for analysis. These 33 teachers

possessed different licenses and varying years of experience with 29 of the teachers holding a

60
primary social studies license, 2 holding a math license, and 1 holding a license in science. The

amount of teaching experience varied from less than one year to more than 25 years, with the

majority having less than 10 years of experience.

Among other issues, teachers commonly reported challenges and frustrations stemming

from ELLs’ lack of background knowledge, insufficient time and resources to teach ELLs, and

insufficient support from their school and district. Cho and Reich (2008) made several

recommendations for working with ELLs. First, the social studies teachers could increase the

comprehensibility of texts and oral instruction in multiple ways: (a) altering speech rate and

enunciation, (b) introducing main vocabulary terms, (c) using visual aids, (d) providing

information or directions to tasks in verbal and written forms, (e) linking students’ previous

knowledge to new information, (f) breaking down information into progressive steps, and (g)

using a smaller amount of text-dense instructional materials. Another suggestion was to increase

collaborations between English-speaking students and ELLs by incorporating more group work.

Additionally, teachers could increase their sensitivity by being aware of the various languages

spoken by their students and by trying to consider the ELLs’ perspective of the classroom

experience. Finally, teachers should increase collaboration and communication with ESL

teachers by meeting regularly to discuss students’ strengths, limitations, and improvement and to

share lessons and materials.

Green (2005) reviewed several studies on how computer-assisted instruction (CAI) could

assist ELLs with the learning process and how CAI could serve as a bridge between home and

school. One study reviewed explored how computers helped ELLs with language acquisition.

Working with other students, ELLs read books on computers and the researcher videotaped the

students’ interactions. Students discussed both the computers and the stories, and the results

61
suggested that the use of the computer books promoted communication and English language

acquisition. One study reviewed by Green was conducted in Seoul, South Korea, with fifth-grade

students and explored the use of CAI for vocabulary development. Results revealed that students

learned and retained more vocabulary with CAI. Other studies suggested that CAI promoted

ELLs’ reading and writing skills as well. Several case studies revealed that email could be a

helpful tool for ELLs, who used email to practice language skills in their responses along with

utilizing dictionaries and other online resources. CAI allowed teachers to provide quick feedback

and to mark the students’ work utilizing the computer program’s assortment of fonts. Finally,

Green’s review discussed ways that CAI strengthens the school-home connection, involves

parents in their children’s education, and improves parents’ literacy.

Lacking training, many general education teachers often feel frustrated in their efforts to

help ELLs. Frequently, teachers are unsure of how to accommodate ELLs or to modify their

assignments. Tomlinson (2016) described how a group of teachers with no training in teaching

ELLs took charge of teaching themselves strategies for working with ELLs. Imagining what

being an ELL in a new school might be like—being expected to carry around heavy books and to

complete assignments without knowing the language—, one history teacher explained that he

would highlight portions of text and choose pictures and graphics that “captured the essence of a

chapter” in the textbook (p. 89). The teacher said this modification greatly helped ELLs,

especially because the students knew that the teachers cared for them.

Tomlinson (2016) also explained how another teacher allowed the students to choose the

next steps they wanted to take in their learning process. Several times a week in this fifth-grade

class, the teacher set aside specific times for students to work on a subject of the student’s

choice; the students could work independently or collaborate with their peers or the teacher.

62
These times allowed ELLs to learn to read and write in English and to talk with classmates in

small groups, thereby providing a safe space for practicing a new language.

In a seventh-grade English class, the teachers gave students information in a variety of

ways; the teachers provided textbooks, peer tutoring, recordings of texts, and technology with

translation apps. To help translate during class discussion, community volunteers visited the

classroom. Finally, the teacher provided ELLs a copy of the next day’s questions so they could

prepare for class the next day.

In a high school history class, students learned the importance of everyone through class

discussions. During the discussions, each student would first summarize the previous student’s

statement and then add to the conversation with his or her own ideas. In a third-grade

mathematics class, the students could explain their mathematical thinking in multiple ways. The

students could use numbers, draw pictures, write out explanations, or use manipulatives to

explain how they arrived at the answers to their math problems.

Tomlinson (2016) realized that these teachers did not have any formal training to teach

ELLs, yet they realized that ELLs are humans with various needs and challenges, just like ELP

students. Rather than using a lack of training as an excuse, the teachers proactively sought to

learn ways to assist their students in meeting these needs and challenges.

Conclusion

The number of ELL students in America’s schools has risen dramatically in recent years,

and schools have struggled to meet the demands of educating this population. Although

policymakers have passed some legislation to require school districts to ensure ELLs receive

equal educational opportunities, legislation frequently ignores the challenges that render the

mandates unrealistic. Most teachers lack adequate training, and teacher education programs have

63
been slow in updating their courses of study to address specific strategies for ELLs. School

districts, especially in rural areas, lack adequate funding to train teachers or to hire adequate

certified staff. Even attitudes and beliefs of educators toward ELLs can hinder effective

instructional shifts. For example, many teachers believe ELLs should be proficient in English

before entering the general education classroom or that ELLs are lazy or unintelligent. The

parents of ELLs also experience discriminatory attitudes and sometimes feel unwanted.

Moreover, a lack of resources can hinder their becoming involved in their students’ education.

To more fully understand the perspectives of those most directly impacted by the

demands and challenges of ELL education—ELLs, their teachers, and their parents—, educators

and policymakers must listen to their experiences and recognize what factors facilitate ELLs’

school success, and they must then take steps to develop effective and well-supported ELL

programs.

64
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The number of English Language Learners (ELLs) is increasing at a high rate (LeClair et

al., 2009). According to Breiseth (2015), the rate of increase in the number of ELL elementary

school students between 1979 and 2003 was 124%, whereas the increase in the total elementary

school population during this same time period was 19%. In fact, Flynn and Hill (2005)

projected ELLs to comprise 40% of the elementary and high school population by 2030. With

such exponential growth, all educators must consider the unique demands for serving these

students.

To address ELLs’ needs adequately, educators must understand the experiences of the

students themselves. Gauging ELLs’ backgrounds when they register for school can be

problematic; consequently, until testing can take place, ELLs may be enrolled in general

education classes for some time without the assistance they need (Paradis et al., 2013). In fact,

some ELLs enroll in schools without previously having been in a classroom at all, yet schools

most commonly place them in grades based upon the students’ ages rather than their

developmental stages or academic abilities. To further complicate matters, a lack of technology

instruction or access can overwhelm ELLs. However, with or without educational preparation,

ELLs often report positive perceptions of the mainstream classroom (LeClair et al., 2009; Pereira

& Gentry, 2013).

65
 Additionally, educators must also understand the perspectives and experiences of ELLs’

parents. Frequently, teachers believe that ELL families do not wish to be involved in their

children’s education; however, a deeper awareness of cultural differences and family

circumstances reveals that this assumption is likely false. In many cultures, parents separate

school and home and yield educational decisions to schools; moreover, many parents feel unable

to become involved at school because of a lack of funds, transportation, or language skills

(Gottschalk, 2016).

When new teachers enter the profession, their perceptions of what teaching will be like

do not always match the realities they meet. When a student neither speaks nor understands the

English language, the teacher may lack the preparation and training to address the student’s

needs, yet multiple legislative mandates, the expectations of school administration, and the

desires of the teachers themselves to help their students increase the pressure to produce

quantitative evidence of all students’ growth, especially special subgroups, such as ELLs, that

typically fall behind their peers in achievement scores. During their pre-service teacher education

programs, teachers may have had a course on teaching ELLs, but to what extent did such

coursework prepare teachers to teach a student with a language barrier? Moreover, teachers who

graduated before the influx of ELLs may not have had a course on teaching ELLs at all.

Realizing that some teachers lack training or preparation to teach ELLs, school districts

may offer workshops, webinars, and classes to assist teachers who need help in this area. Even

so, teachers must still recognize and often adjust their own perceptions of and attitudes toward

ELLs.

66
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore and understand the

phenomenon of teaching and learning in an environment where the dominant language of

instruction is different from the students’ native languages. Primarily through interviews of those

most directly impacted by this situation—ELLs, parents of ELLs, and their general education

teachers—, the researcher sought to capture their perceptions and experiences so educational

stakeholders can more deeply understand the factors that hinder or aid ELLs’ success in school.

First, the study explored the experiences and perceptions of ELL students in grades 9‒12

in a high school in West Georgia. Secondly, the study investigated the ELL parental perspective

of their children’s being in a general education classroom. Understanding the perceptions and

experiences not only of those in the classroom—teachers and students—but also of ELL parents

is critical to developing effective strategies and practices for serving this historically underserved

population. Finally, this study explored the experiences and perceptions of the teachers who

work with ELLs in general education classrooms in this high school in West Georgia. In addition

to reporting their perceptions of and experiences with teaching ELLs, the study explored the

perceptions and experiences of teachers regarding their preparation to teach this population.

Research Questions

1. What are the perceptions and experiences of ELL students in high school general

education classrooms?

2. What are the perceptions and experiences of parents with ELL high school students

educated in general education classrooms?

3. What are the perceptions and experiences of high school general education teachers who

teach ELL students?

67
Research Design

Phenomenological research “refers to the study of personal experience and requires a

description or interpretation of the meanings of phenomena experienced by participants”

(Padilla-Díaz, 2015, p. 103). This research design is appropriate when the researcher seeks to

gain “a profound understanding of human experiences common to a group of people” (Padilla-

Díaz, 2015, p. 104). To gain such insight, the researcher must allow members of the group to

describe their experiences in detail in open or semi-structured interviews. Padilla-Díaz

recommended that the studied group consist of a small number (3 to 15) of individuals to allow

the researcher to analyze and interpret the data more fully; groups of larger numbers will

introduce too broad a spectrum of individual variables, complicating the researcher’s being able

to identify common themes attributable to the phenomenon being studied.

The process of a phenomenological study requires the researcher to identify and suspend

his or her personal judgments or prejudices so that they do not skew the findings. After gathering

data through interviews, the researcher proceeds by listing relevant quotes and considering each

one equally in relation to the group’s expressions of lived experiences, a process called the

“horizontalization” of data. The researcher then groups relevant topics into units of meaning and

composes descriptions which include direct quotes from the participants. Next, the researcher

writes a structural description and identifies the “essence of the phenomenon” (i.e., the common

elements repeated by each participant) based upon the textual and structural analysis (Padilla-

Díaz, 2015).

Research Question 1. What are the perceptions and experiences of ELL students in high

school general education classrooms? Through interviews with ELL students who are taught in

the general education setting, the researcher sought to understand what ELLs perceive and

68
experience while learning in a general education classroom. ELLs’ articulation of their

experiences can help educators to understand how ELLs’ processes work in a general education

classroom with English Language Proficient (ELP) students and language barriers, while

completing the work that is expected of them and having their needs met. Additionally, this

question sought to share the terminology ELLs utilize to describe their general education

classroom experiences. Overall, Research Question 1 was intended to capture what experiences

ELLs share in the general education classroom and how these experiences affect them as

students.

Research Question 2. What are the perceptions and experiences of parents with ELL

high school students educated in general education classrooms? As an integral part of their

children’s lives, ELL parents were also a focus of this research study. The researcher sought to

understand the parents’ experiences with the school and their interactions with their children’s

teachers as well as their perspective of their children’s experiences in a general education

classroom. By understanding the needs and experiences of ELL parents, school districts and

teachers can more fully involve parents in their children’s education and can address the needs of

the ELL parents and students whom they serve.

Research Question 3. What are the perceptions and experiences of high school general

education teachers who teach ELL students? Through interviews of general education teachers of

ELL students, the researcher sought to capture their thoughts and experiences regarding ELLs in

the general education classroom. Responses provide insight into the teachers’ thoughts regarding

having students with language barriers in their general education classrooms. This question will

also share the resources the general education teachers have that assist them in teaching ELLs.

69
By understanding the needs and experiences of ELL parents, school districts and teachers can

more fully involve parents in their children’s education and can address the needs of the ELL

parents and students whom they serve.

Participants

The school from which the study sample was selected is a public high school in West

Georgia with an enrollment of approximately 3,000 students in grades 9‒12. The school has 6

administrators, 5 counselors, and 135 teachers. Ethnicities represented within the student body

population are Caucasian (59.9%), African American (23.1%), Ethnic Hispanic (9.7%), Asian

(3.2%), and multi-racial (4.2%). The school operates on a four-by-four block schedule, which

consists of four classes per day for 90 minutes per class with course schedules changing each

semester. The researcher invited all 96 students at this high school classified as ELLs through the

English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes to participate. The school district uses

the ESOL program to teach the English language to students whose native language is not

English. These students come to the school from various countries and speak various dialects and

languages. All students who returned the consent and assent forms within two weeks from the

time invitations were sent home comprised the sample. The specific languages and

races/ethnicities of the students in the sample are discussed in the next chapter.

The participating parents were the parents of ELL students attending the high school.

Parents of ELLs whose child was not willing to participate were given the opportunity to

participate without the child. Specific demographic information concerning the parent

participants is provided in the next chapter. The participating teachers were 9th- through 12th-

grade elective and core subject teachers of ELLs at the same West Georgia high school.

70
Instrumentation

Student interviews. Using qualitative methods, the researcher gathered data through

one-on-one, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews. Seven questions formed the basis for the

student interviews that sought to capture students’ experiences and perceptions of being in a

general education classroom, transitioning to and from classes, and communicating with teachers

and peers (Appendix A). The first two questions asked students to identify their ethnicity, as well

as the language(s) spoken and countries or places lived. The remaining questions explored ELLs’

communication experiences, classroom experiences, resources available to the ELLs, and

classroom barriers. Sample questions included the following: What is it like being in class here at

this school? Have you gone to another school before? If so, how is this school different? How is

this school the same?

Parent interviews. The researcher gathered data from the parent participants through

one-on-one, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews that lasted from 45 minutes to an hour. The

researcher conducted the interviews based upon seven questions, and like the other sample

groups, parents could add any additional information or experiences that they wished to share

(Appendix C). Sample questions included the following: Before enrolling your child at this

school, what were your educational expectations for your child? What were your expectations of

the school and staff? Tell about an educational experience your child has had at the school. Share

an experience that your child shared with you that made them more successful at school. Has

your child experienced any challenges at school? If so, how did they handle it?

Teacher interviews. Using both a preliminary questionnaire and an in-person interview,

the researcher gathered data from the teacher participants. The preliminary questionnaire

consisted of four brief questions regarding teaching credentials, years of experience, teacher

71
education program attended, and completion of ELL education courses. Seven questions formed

the basis of the teacher interviews and explored experiences related to serving, teaching, and

interacting with ELLs in the general education classroom, experiencing and dealing with barriers

to teaching ELLs, and accessing resources available to the teachers to assist with the ELLs

(Appendix B). The researcher also gave teachers the opportunity to add any pertinent

information concerning experiences with ELLs that were not addressed in the previous

questions. Sample questions included the following: Does incorporating ELLs in a class with

non-ELLs provide a benefit or cause complications for these or other students? How do you feel

about modifying assignments for ELLs? How do you feel about ELLs being pulled out of your

class to complete your assignments?

Research Procedures

After obtaining approval from Union University’s Institutional Review Board, the

researcher sent consent forms to the school district’s Department of Curriculum and Instruction

and the district’s Lead Psychologist via interoffice mail to obtain permission to perform the

research within the school. Upon gaining permission from the school district, the researcher

obtained consent from the building level administrator (principal) to perform the research within

his school.

Next, the researcher sought permission from the school’s ESOL teacher to speak with the

students in her classes. At the beginning of the study, the researcher visited the ESOL classroom

at the beginning of blocks one, two, and three to speak with the ELL students. Translated into the

various languages spoken by ELLs served at this high school, the parental consent forms and

student assent forms were printed in both English and the students’ native languages and were

given to the ESOL teacher for distribution. Once the researcher left the room, students chose

72
which forms to take home based upon their native languages. These consent and assent forms

explained that participation in the study was strictly voluntary and that if they chose to

participate, the parent and child would be interviewed separately and individually.

The parents of the ELLs were given a chance to read over the consent and assent forms.

If they decided to participate, the parents returned the signed consent and assent forms with their

child. Students who chose to participate were required to return both parental consent and

student assent forms. Parents of non-participant students could still indicate their wish to

participate by returning the parental consent form. The ESOL teacher secured returned consent

and assent forms in her locked closet until the researcher picked them up at the end of the day.

Once parental consent forms were received, the researcher contacted parent participants

via a phone number they listed on the consent form. During this phone call, the researcher

expressed her gratitude and scheduled a date and time for the parent to come to the school during

the researcher’s planning block, in the morning between 7:00 and 8:20, or after school to

complete the interview. Alternatively, the researcher offered to meet the parents off campus in a

public place at a more convenient time for the parents. During this phone call, the researcher also

obtained permission for students to stay after school and scheduled student interview times. Like

the parent participants, students could meet with the researcher in a classroom, media center, or

computer lab during the early morning hours between 7:30 and 8:20, after school between 3:40

and 4:30, or at a different time in a public location with a parent or guardian present, if they

preferred. Five of the six ELL students met with the researcher at the school in the afternoon.

The remaining ELL student met with the researcher at a restaurant, away from all other patrons.

At the beginning of each student interview, the researcher requested permission to audio-

record; however, if the participant elected not to be audio recorded, he or she could still

73
participate. The researcher explained that she would write down the answers, causing the

interview to take longer. One ELL student granted permission for the researcher to record; the

researcher took thorough notes during the remaining interviews to capture the students’

responses. The researcher conducted all interviews, and a translator was present as needed for the

interviews.

The researcher began by offering a snack, explaining the purpose of the meeting, and

reiterating that the meeting was strictly voluntary and that their identity would remain

confidential. Once the interview was complete, the researcher returned to her classroom to secure

the recordings and notes in a locked closet until the end of the day when she took the information

home to be stored in a locked file cabinet. For the student interview that occurred at a restaurant,

the researcher kept all notes/recordings locked in her vehicle trunk until she transported the data

home to secure it in a locked file cabinet.

To form the teacher participant group, the researcher emailed ELLs’ general education

teachers to explain the study, invite them to participate, and outline steps to take if they wished

to participate (Appendix D). Additionally, the researcher attached the preliminary interview

questionnaire and teacher consent form. The teachers who were willing to participate replied to

the researcher, and she then delivered to them a 10” x 13” brown envelope to place their filled-

out forms in. After three days, the researcher returned to pick up the envelopes unless the teacher

participant emailed earlier to say that his/her envelope was ready. When the researcher picked up

a participating teacher’s envelope, she scheduled the teacher’s interview day and time.

Teacher interviews occurred before school, during planning blocks, or after school. As

with the student interviews, the researcher requested permission to audio-record; however, if the

participant elected not to be audio recorded, he or she could still participate. The researcher

74
explained that she would write down the answers, causing the interview to take longer. Seven

teacher participants granted permission for the researcher to record; the researcher took thorough

notes during the remaining interviews to capture the teachers’ responses.

If the interview occurred during the school day, the researcher took the interview notes

and audio recordings back to her classroom and locked them in a closet until the end of the

school day. At the end of the school day, the researcher took the notes home and stored them in a

locked file cabinet. If the teacher requested to meet outside of school, the researcher kept all

notes and audio recordings locked in her vehicle trunk until she transported the data home to

secure it in a locked file cabinet.

As with the student and teacher interviews, during parent interviews the researcher

requested permission to audio-record; however, if the participant elected not to be audio

recorded, he or she could still participate. The researcher explained that she would write down

the answers, causing the interview to take longer. One ELL parent granted permission for the

researcher to record; the researcher took thorough notes during the remaining interviews to

capture the parents’ responses. The researcher conducted all interviews, and a translator was

present as needed for the interviews.

If the parent interview occurred at the school, once the interview was complete, the

researcher took the interview notes and/or recordings back to her classroom and secured them in

a locked closet until the end of the school day. At the end of the school day, the researcher took

the notes and audio recordings home and secured them in a locked file cabinet. If the

parent/guardian requested to meet outside of the school, the researcher stored all notes and audio

recordings locked in her vehicle trunk until she transported the data home to secure it in a locked

file cabinet. The researcher compensated parent participants with a $10 gift card for their time

75
and participation. Additionally, the research compensated the ESOL teacher with a $25 gift card

for her participation.

Data Analysis

In order to answer the research questions, the researcher thoroughly read and transcribed

each audio recording to a password-protected computer file within 24 hours of the interview.

During transcription, participant names were removed and pseudonyms were assigned. After

transcription of the recordings, every participant was invited to review their responses to validate

accuracy and to clarify or amend any responses as necessary.

After participants validated their responses, the researcher compiled the interview

transcripts, questionnaire responses and notes, and the researcher’s notes from contact logs and

grade books into a Microsoft Word document. Utilizing Microsoft Word, the researcher used

familiar words, or codes, to run macros, which are a series of commands and instructions that are

grouped as a single command to accomplish a task automatically. Utilizing Microsoft Excel, the

researcher identified common themes, perceptions, and experiences of ELL students, parents of

ELL students, and teachers who teach ELL students in general education classrooms.

Limitations and Delimitations

One limitation of this study was the researcher could not control participants’ level of

honesty during the interviews. Some teachers may have felt threatened by a sense of revealing

weaknesses in their or their colleagues’ instructional practices. Student participants may have felt

the need to protect their teachers and may have felt disrespectful in discussing more negative

aspects of their educational experiences. Similarly, parents may have felt vulnerable in revealing

what may have been perceived as shortcomings on their part, on the part of their children, or

teachers. The voluntary and confidential nature of participation in the study was emphasized to

76
all participants in an effort to alleviate any anxiety they may have felt concerning revealing their

honest perceptions and experiences.

Another limitation was that this study was not a longitudinal study so no follow-up with

the participants will reveal any changes in perceptions, experiences, and practices over time. As

the ELL population is often transitory, following the students over the course of multiple years

was not feasible within the parameters of this study.

Some delimitations of the study include that the researcher was a teacher at the high

school from which the sample was selected. Additionally, the sample size was small since the

study was conducted at one high school in West Georgia. However, sample sizes for

phenomenological studies are generally small, and the researcher used purposive sampling, as

phenomenological research necessitates, to provide a clearer picture of teachers’, ELLs’, and

parents’ experiences by controlling for a wide variety of variables that could impact the findings

(e.g., different school administrations, a variety of ESOL programs, or differing levels of

technology access).

77
 CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

As phenomenological research, this study sought to understand the essence of ELLs’

educational experiences by analyzing common ideas and themes described by ELLs, their

teachers, and their parents. In short, one overarching question guided the study: What do

commonalities across the first-person accounts of high school ELL students, general education

teachers of ELL students, and the parents of ELL students in general education classes reveal

about the current status of bilingual education?

To explore this question, the researcher used purposive sampling to form three groups—

ELL students, general education teachers of ELLs, and parents of ELLs. For each of these

groups, the researcher conducted face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with individual

participants to gather firsthand information about participants’ feelings and experiences related

to the ELLs’ education within the general education classroom.

Data Collection

Occurring between April 17, 2017, and June 30, 2017, individual face-to-face interviews

with 6 ELL students, 6 ELL parents, and 14 general education teachers provided qualitative data

for analysis. Because the ELL parents clearly stated that they and their families would be leaving

the country as soon as school was out for the summer, the timeline for the interviews,

transcription of notes, and validation of responses was short, requiring the researcher to complete

each of these steps directly after completing the interviews. During the face-to-face interviews,

one ELL student, one ELL parent, and seven general education teachers agreed to allow the

78
researcher to audio-record the interviews using a USB voice recorder. During the remaining

interviews, the researcher carefully documented each participant’s responses. Once she had

carefully transcribed the recordings, she allowed every participant to review their responses to

validate their accuracy and to clarify or amend any responses as necessary.

After participants validated their responses, the researcher compiled the interview

transcripts, questionnaire responses and notes, and the researcher’s notes from contact logs and

grade books into a Microsoft Word document. Utilizing Microsoft Word, the researcher used

familiar words, or codes, to run macros, which are a series of commands and instructions that are

grouped as a single command to accomplish a task automatically. Once the macros were set up,

the researcher used codes to pull themes and patterns. Once the common themes and patterns

were extracted, they were put into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Utilizing the Microsoft Excel

spreadsheet, the researcher identified common themes, perceptions, and experiences of ELL

students, ELL parents, and teachers who teach ELL students in general education classrooms.

Participant Demographics

The researcher visited the ESOL classroom at the beginning of blocks one, two, and three

to speak with the ELL students about the study and answer questions. Consent and assent forms

were provided for the students to take home to obtain permission to participate in the study. Six

students returned their parental consent forms and student assent forms and agreed to participate

in the study. Table 1 provides demographic characteristics of the participants. Pseudonyms were

assigned to each student in order to maintain confidentiality. Four of the six students began

school in Georgia when they were in middle or high school; the other two began in elementary

school.

79
Table 1

Student Demographic Information

Country of
Student Gender Grade Age Origin

Tommy Male 11th 16 Peru

Sonya Female 11th 17 Puerto Rico

Kate Female 11th 16 Haiti

Claudia Female 11th 16 Honduras

Kenny Male 9th 15 Puerto Rico

Charlie Male 12th 17 Korea

The researcher sent the parents of ELL students information about the study and consent

forms through the students. Parents have the opportunity to ask questions of the researcher via

phone or email. Six parents, all females (100%), consented to participate. Among these were two

participants from Puerto Rico and one participant from each of the following countries: Peru,

Korea, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. Their time in the United States ranged from five

months to three years. To maintain confidentiality, pseudonyms were assigned to each parent

participant.

80
Table 2

Parent – Student Demographic Information

Country of
Parent Student of Origin

Mrs. Desiree Tommy Peru

Mrs. Robyn Sonya Puerto Rico

Ms. Jasmine Kate Haiti

Mrs. Angel Claudia Honduras

Mrs. Pam Kenny Puerto Rico

Mrs. Sue Charlie Korea

In response to the researcher’s email to the general education teachers who teach ELLs,

14 of the school’s 135 general education (core and elective) teachers (10%) consented to

participate. Before setting up interviews with teacher participants, the researcher asked the

teachers to provide some background information in a preliminary questionnaire. In addition to

their years of experience and level of education, teacher participants also indicated if they had

taken an ELL course during their teacher education program. Table 2 presents the specific

teacher credentials for the teacher participants. Pseudonyms were assigned to each teacher in

order to maintain confidentiality. As indicated in the table, three of the teachers (21.4%) have

alternate certifications. These are teachers who became certified through a practicum or special

teacher education program and received a passing score on the teacher exam to become certified.

Notably, only four of the teachers (29%) had completed one ELL course during the teacher

81
education coursework. The teacher sample included three African American males, four African

American females, two Caucasian males, and five Caucasian females.

Table 3

Credentials of Teachers

Teacher Level of Education Years of Experience ELL Course?

Mrs. Glover Specialist 5 Yes

Mrs. Carrie Specialist 13 No

Mrs. Thomas Masters 10 No

Mrs. Brody Specialist (one-year state

training program) 13 No

Mr. Wells Bachelors 1 Yes

Mr. Houser Masters 8 No

Mrs. Pearl Bachelors

(Teacher Tested In) 34 No

Ms. Ward Masters 37 No

Mr. Jess Specialist 5 Yes

Mr. Chips Bachelors (one-year

practicum through district) 14 No

Mr. Mickey Doctorate 22 No

Ms. Rose Bachelors 6 Yes

Mrs. Street Bachelors 14 No

82
Research Findings

Phenomenological studies attempt to understand individual's perceptions, perspectives,

and understandings of a particular situation (or phenomenon). This study was to gain insight into

the perceptions and experiences of ELL students, their parents, and general education teachers.

In studying the data, the researcher discovered various themes and patterns. Findings from

analysis of each group’s data are described below. Two central themes emerged across all

groups: (a) ESOL teachers were relied on heavily and (b) perceptions varied among the

participants.

English Language Learner perspectives. Through Research Question 1, the researcher

sought to understand how the ELL students relate to the general education teacher in the

classroom when needing assistance. Five of the six ELL students met with the researcher at the

school in the afternoon. The remaining ELL student met with the researcher at a restaurant, away

from all other patrons. During the interviews, the students were asked to share (a) feelings about

their current school in comparison to their school in their native country, (b) expectations from

teachers and peers at the beginning of the semester, (c) successful and challenging moments in

school, (d) transitioning to classes, (e) getting assistance with their work, (f) communicating with

teachers and peers, (g) strategies their teachers used, and (h) changes or improvements they

would make in the school. The researcher asked the ELL students how their general education

teacher helps them with their work and the expectations they had of their teachers and classmates

at the beginning of the semester. Follow-up questions asked if these students were expecting the

classes to be easy or hard and if they were expecting the students to be friendly.

All six of the ELLs (100%) spoke positively about the ESOL teacher and being in the

ESOL classroom. Additionally, they expressed their reliance on the ESOL teacher in relation to

83
their success at school. When the researcher asked the ELLs about their expectations of their

teachers and their peers, responses varied greatly, but five of the six ELLs (83%) expected

classes to be difficult. The discussion that follows provides more detail about each ELL student

participant.

Tommy. A 16-year-old 11th-grader from Peru, Tommy was talkative during the interview.

Tommy, who lived with his mom, aunt, cousins, and stepdad, had been in the United States (in

Georgia) for two years. Before that time, he had attended school in his home country. His

cousins had attended this school and had given Tommy some directions as to what to expect.

Responding to the questions about how he interacts with his teachers, Tommy answered:

Oh, I raise my hand and they come to me. I ask them or I work with my ESOL teacher,

Ms. Evans, she helps a lot. I go to her class and sit in there and do my work while

listening to my music (smiles).

When the researcher asked Tommy about his expectations at the beginning of the semester,

Tommy responded, “I expect them to be good teachers and teach all students. I thought my

classes were going to be hard; I mean, I’m taking English, math, and history” (shakes his head).

The researcher asked about his expectations for his classmates; he responded that he “expected

them to be friendly and they were.” Tommy described a happy moment in class when he finished

his work early and got to play his game.

Sonya. A bubbly 17-year-old 11th-grader from Puerto Rico, Sonya came to Georgia with

her older sister, mom, and dad when she was in the third grade. The family moved here with an

uncle. Sonya had attended school back home in Puerto Rico before coming to the United States.

Despite her vivacious personality during the interview, Sonya said she knew no one when she

moved here and stayed to herself for the first two years before she decided to open up and talk to

84
other students and her teachers. When the researcher asked Sonya how she got assistance when

she needed help at school, her response was: “I didn’t. I didn’t talk to anyone. I saved my work

until I got home and asked my mom to help me. As time wore on and I started going to the

ESOL classes, my ESOL teacher would help me.” The researcher asked Sonya about her

expectations at the beginning of the semester; she replied, “I didn’t think about the teachers. I

just knew the work was going to be hard; I didn’t understand speaking English and I wrote very

little English.” When the researcher asked Sonya about what she expected from her classmates,

she said “Other students pointed and laughed when I tried to talk. I only had one friend; we

traded snacks and I followed her everywhere, but we didn’t talk at all” (big laugh). Sonya

explained that she knew numbers and got smiles when she volunteered to go to the board to do

math problems.

Kate. A quiet 17-year-old 11th-grader from Haiti, Kate had moved to Georgia with her

mother and two younger sisters to live with an aunt five months prior to the interview. In Haiti,

Kate had attended an all-girls’ Catholic school where she had to wear uniforms. Kate had an

older cousin, a previous graduate of her current school, who gave her some information about the

school. When the researcher asked Kate about getting assistance in the classroom, Kate

responded, “Oh, I could ask them. I also get help from my ESOL teacher and the other kids in

the ESOL class.” The researcher asked Kate what she expected when she began her classes at her

current school in January (five months earlier). She replied, “I was just scared; I didn’t know

anyone; it was so big. I thought classes were going to be hard; I’m taking biology and

accelerated math.” The researcher asked Kate about her expectations or thoughts on her

classmates; she replied, “They didn’t look friendly. They still aren’t friendly. They sit in cliques,

so I just stay to myself or go into the ESOL classroom.”

85
 Claudia. A quiet 16-year-old 11th-grader from Honduras, Claudia lived with her mother,

older and younger brothers, and dad. Claudia had been in America for three years and had

attended school in Honduras before coming to America. Claudia knew no one prior to entering

this school. When the researcher asked Claudia how she gets assistance from her teachers,

Claudia responded, “My ESOL teacher is very good with helping me. At first, I used Google

translator, but I get more help from my ESOL teacher.” The researcher asked Claudia about her

expectations for the class and teachers at the beginning of the semester. Claudia explained, “I

expected them to be good with the students, help me with my work. I was really expecting or

hoping for no homework” (laughs). The researcher asked Claudia about her expectations of her

classmates; she responded that they were nice and “I’m shy, but they talked to me” (smile).

Kenny. A shy 15-year-old ninth-grader from Puerto Rico, Kenny lived with his mother,

younger brother, and father. Kenny had attended school back in Puerto Rico and another high

school in this district for one semester prior to enrolling in this high school five months earlier.

Kenny only knew of the school what he had heard from the students at his previous high school.

When the researcher asked him about getting help from his teachers, Kenny responded, “I ask

them, or I just wait and go talk to Mrs. Evans [ESOL teacher]. She explains to me when I don’t

get to ask the teacher.” When the researcher asked Kenny about his expectations of the teachers

and students in the classroom when he came to this school, Kenny replied, “I expected the

teachers to be hard and the students to be friendly. It was hard; I didn’t know English good. The

students were nice and helped me.” Kenny described a time when he had been successful in class

when he made a high grade on a test. He also explained a challenging moment when a teacher

asked him a question and he didn’t know the answer. The researcher asked him how he felt about

86
it. He said, “I was good; she went on to other students; they didn’t know the answer either”

(laughs).

Charlie. An active 17-year-old senior from Korea, Charlie lived with his mother and

father. Charlie moved to Georgia when he was in the second semester of his eighth-grade school

year and attended a middle school in this district before advancing to this high school. When

asked how he got assistance from his teachers, Charlie answered:

I loved working with my ESOL teacher the most. Being in the ESOL classroom, there

were more students in there like me, so I was more comfortable being in there at first.

Even though I still go in there now, I don’t have to; I just like to (big smile).

The researcher asked Charlie, who had already attended middle school in this district, about his

expectations of his teachers and his classmates when he entered the classes at this high school.

Charlie held generally positive expectations:

I expected the teachers to be like they were in middle school; I expected them to be more

helpful. I expected the students to be nice and they were. Classes were hard but easier

than I thought; I had to put more studying in (laughs).

Charlie went on to explain a success in class when he got chosen to join marching band.

English Language Learner parent perspectives. In order to answer Research Question

2, interviews with participating parents of ELL students were conducted. Once the parents

returned their consent forms, the researcher began contacting them using the phone number

provided on the form to schedule interview dates and times. Two interviews occurred at school

during the researcher’s planning block or after school; two interviews, at the parents’ invitation,

occurred in the parents’ homes. The remaining two parents met with the researcher at a

restaurant, sitting away from all other patrons.

87
 The researcher conducted the semi-structured parent interviews using six questions

related to (a) expectations for the school and staff, (b) their child’s educational experiences, (c)

school and/or district support, (d) communicating with teachers, (e) advice for incoming parents,

and (f) improvements or suggestions for the school district.

The researcher also sought to gain an understanding of the ELL parents’ experiences with

their children’s school, such as when registering their child or just communicating and getting

wanted information throughout the school year. The researcher asked the parents to describe the

type of supports the school or district had provided for their child and for them as a parent. The

researcher also sought to find out the parents’ educational expectations for the teachers and the

school district. The parents’ expectations also varied.

All six parents (100%) explained that the ESOL program was a great resource for their

child, but only four of the six parents (67%) responded that the ESOL teacher was a great

support system. As for expectations, all six of the ELL parents (100%) expected their child to

graduate high school. However, only four of the six parents (67%) expected any type of support

from the teachers and school district for themselves. The discussion that follows provides more

detail of participants’ responses.

Mrs. Desiree. A working mother of one son and a deceased daughter, Mrs. Desiree

moved with her husband and son to Georgia from Peru. She could speak English and declined a

translator. Mrs. Desiree wanted her son to finish school and begin working in a good profession.

Concerning the school’s educational support system for her and her child, she said, “They allow

me to find out the progress of his studies; they give support in reporting the progress of my child

in my home with respect, and the ESOL teacher is great with communicating with me.”

88
 When the researcher asked Mrs. Desiree about her son’s successes or challenges while

being in the general education classroom, she replied, “I found out by his tutor what a good

student he is; he has good behavior, applies himself, and he is responsible. He is very intelligent;

he presents in his class. It’s good for him to be in those classes.”

Mrs. Robyn. A Puerto Rican working mother of two daughters, Mrs. Robyn moved to

Georgia with her husband and two elementary-age daughters. Mrs. Robyn had firsthand

experience as to what her daughters might have experienced as she too moved to the United

States as a child. When she was eight, her family moved to Michigan where she lived for several

years before she moved back to Puerto Rico. Mrs. Robyn was able to assist her daughters with

processing their feelings about going to a new school in a new culture. When the researcher

asked Mrs. Robyn about getting assistance for her children or herself, she indicated that support

for her child was important:

I wanted and got ESOL class for my girls, I knew the ESOL teacher and made certain

that my girls got with her. I knew that getting into the ESOL classes would really help my

girls. I didn’t want any support for myself; my husband and I were both working, we

figured and worked everything out ourselves. I wanted my daughters to learn and fit in. I

wanted them to get the one-on-one from the ESOL teacher.

The researcher asked Mrs. Robyn about the successes or challenges for her daughters in general

education classes. She noted both positives and negatives depending upon the teacher:

My older daughter had a negative experience with a male teacher her first year; he

wanted to hold her back instead of helping her and seeing her progress. She had a teacher

the next year that really believed in her and she flourished. My younger daughter did

well, she just sat in there and listened.

89
 Mrs. Pam. A Puerto Rican mother of two who worked three part-time jobs, Mrs. Pam

came to Georgia from Puerto Rico with her husband and two sons. Mrs. Pam’s two sons had

attended another high school in the district before transferring to this high school. When the

researcher asked Mrs. Pam what support was available for her and her sons, she responded,

“There is ESOL for my boys and special education services. They get to use Google translator

and get more help in their ESOL class.” Mrs. Pam also stated that she wanted the school to help

her sons learn English more and she wished more teachers spoke Spanish.

When the researcher asked Mrs. Pam about her sons’ successes or challenges in general

education classes, she had generally positive perceptions and laughed about one of her son’s

enthusiasm for his classes: “It’s good for him. He really likes his cooking class; he talks about

cooking a lot. He is now telling me how to cook in the kitchen. I do wish there were more

Spanish-speaking teachers.”

Mrs. Sue. A Korean wife and mother, Mrs. Sue moved to Georgia four and a half years

ago with her husband and son. She was very quiet and only answered the questions the

researcher asked, giving no extra information. Although she felt acclimated to the American

culture, Mrs. Sue longed to return to Korea. She chose to meet me at a public restaurant. When

the researcher asked Mrs. Sue about support from the school or district for her or her son, she

responded, “There was none for me, but ESOL classes for my child; he loves his ESOL teacher”

(smiles). “Those classes helped him.” Mrs. Sue’s expectations for her son were to “learn

education-based trade and for the school to be good.” She also wanted the school to help him

speak English, and she added with a laugh that she wanted the school to have patience with her

son.

90
 Mrs. Angel. A parent of three from Honduras, Mrs. Angel had been in Georgia for three

years. She was very quiet and nervous. When the researcher asked Mrs. Angel about the support

for her and her child, she responded, “There was no support for me, but there was ESOL for my

children. I am glad about that; that really helped them learn to read and write English a lot. This

is a great school, great ESOL teacher; they teach a lot of English.”

When the researcher asked Mrs. Angel about the successes or challenges of her son in the

general education classroom, she responded, “She enjoys everything; she has motivating

teachers. She loves the classes and does well.” Mrs. Angel’s expectations for her children were

to “learn more English and pass each grade successfully.”

Ms. Jasmine. An unemployed mother of three, Ms. Jasmine and her daughters moved to

Georgia from Haiti and have been here with her sister since January of 2017. She had a soft

demeanor. When the researcher asked Ms. Jasmine about support from the school or district, she

answered, “There is none for me; they only have ESOL class for her.”

When the researcher asked Ms. Jasmine about successes or challenges that her child may have in

class, she responded, “She doesn’t talk about school” (laughs). “I take it that she is doing well

since I get no complaints” (laughs).

Ms. Jasmine expected her children “to finish school, go to college, and be happy” (big

smile). She also expected the school to “give good advice about college and give extra help with

homework.”

General education teacher perspectives. In order to answer Research Question 3, the

researcher conducted semi-structured teacher interviews using eight questions related to (a) the

incorporation of ELL students in their classes, (b) feelings about modifying assignments, (c)

feelings about ELL pullout, (d) ELL level of engagement after pullout, (e) ELL classroom

91
management style, (f) school or district support, (g) ELL classroom benefits/challenges, and (h)

other thoughts regarding ELLs in their classes. Additionally, more background information was

obtained during the interviews, such as the number of students on the teachers’ classroom

rosters, the teachers’ gender, and their race.

During the teacher interviews, the researcher explored the perceptions and experiences of

general education teachers in working with ELLs. The researcher asked about the teachers’

thoughts and expectations when the ELL students came to class at the beginning of the semester

and over time. A major theme of the general education teachers’ comments concerned the

support they had and resources they used in working with ELLs. The researcher asked the

general education teachers what support has been made available by the school/district to

promote their success as an ELL teacher? All 14 of the teachers (100%) stated that the ESOL

teacher and program helped them to teach and reach the ELL students and parents and that they

relied heavily on her assistance. They knew that when they needed assistance with the ELL or

ELL parent, they could depend on the ESOL teacher to translate, speak with parents, or assist

with work. The discussion that follows provides more detail of each participant’s responses.

Mrs. Glover. A biology teacher with five years of teaching experience, Mrs. Glover had

an average class size of 30. Mrs. Glover earned an Education Specialist degree from the

University of Phoenix. She was very positive about having ELL students in her class.

Commenting on the benefits of having ELL students in the general education classroom, she said

that “having ELL students in the class allows the students to receive peer-to-peer help and helps

the ELL students to feel immersed in the school environment.” When the researcher asked Mrs.

Glover about the support that the school or district may have for teachers, she responded, “Well,

92
there’s the SLDS (State Longitudinal Data System) which gives reading level and past Lexile

scores. And then there’s also the great guidance that comes from the ESOL teacher.”

When the researcher asked Mrs. Glover about her thoughts and expectations when there

is an ELL student on her roster or when she sees the ELL student in her class, Mrs. Glover

responded, “Fearful; sometimes you don’t know how much the students actually know.” Even

though Mrs. Glover said she is “100% okay with modifying the students’ work and will search

for resources,” she still stated that initially working with ELLs can be frightening because she

wants to reach all of her students.

Mrs. Carrie. A biology teacher with 13 years of experience, Mrs. Carrie had earned an

Education Specialist degree from Georgia State through the TEEMS program (Teacher

Education in English, ESOL, Mathematics, Middle-Level Education, Social Studies, and

Science). Mrs. Carrie had an average of 28 students in her classes. Believing that having ELL

students in the general education class is a benefit, Mrs. Carrie stated, “Oh, it is a benefit to have

them in the class; the immersion into the language is good for them; it helps them to learn the

language.” When the researcher asked Mrs. Carrie about the support the school or district

provided, she responded, “The ESOL teacher is great. And we have the World Language

Department teachers as well.”

Mrs. Carrie summarized her initial thoughts and expectations for her ELL students: “It is

a concern. What if I can’t talk with the parent?” Mrs. Carrie also explained that she does not

mind modifying assignments and working with the students.

Mrs. Thomas. A teacher in the mathematics department with 10 years of experience,

Mrs. Thomas had earned a Master’s degree from Georgia State University. Mrs. Thomas had 27‒

32 students in each class. Mrs. Thomas thinks that having ELL students in her class is both a

93
benefit and a complication. A major benefit is when “the ELL students can tutor other students”;

the complication is “due to the word problems and vocabulary in the class.” When the researcher

asked Mrs. Thomas about the support the school or district provides, she responded, “Ooh, the

ESOL teacher is wonderful. I also utilize the teachers in the World Language department to

translate too.”

In commenting on her thoughts and expectations for the ELL students, Mrs. Thomas

noted, “I need to look at any forms and see what they have given me on the student.”

Additionally, Mrs. Thomas explained that her coursework in Spanish was enough to allow her to

communicate a little better than someone who has not had any classes.

Mrs. Brody. Mrs. Brody had been a teacher in the family and consumer sciences

department for one year with another 12 years of experience in the special education department.

She held an Education Specialist degree and received her teaching certification from GaTAPP, or

Georgia Teacher Academy for Preparation and Pedagogy. Mrs. Brody sees including ELLs in the

general education classroom as a benefit, as it, “both teaches how to assimilate, and it helps them

to work on language skills.” When asked about the support the school or district offers to assist

with teaching ELLs, Mrs. Brody answered, “The ESOL teachers are an email away and they

come into the classroom if needed.”

Asked about her thoughts when an ELL student comes into her classroom, Mrs. Brody

said, “I question to see if the student is going to understand and to determine what type of

modifications I should do.” She went to on to explain that with her special education

background, modifying and accommodating assignments comes naturally to her.

Mr. Wells. A first-year teacher in the history department, Mr. Wells held a Bachelor’s

degree from the University of North Georgia. Mr. Wells indicated that he had one course

94
regarding teaching ELLs in his college career but did not remember the name of it. He had an

average class size of 30 students. Mr. Wells had a positive attitude about working with ELL

students and believed that having ELLs in the general education classroom was a benefit but did

cause complications for these students:

It benefits them because ELLs get to hear English and they are fully immersed in the

language and they get to use their English skills. It can be a complication due to the

language gap. I had a student who wrote a paper partly in Spanish to show me how he

sees my notes.

When the researcher asked Mr. Wells about any support that the school or district

provided to assist him in the classroom with ELL students, he said that he had an aide in one

class who also spoke a different language that assisted when he needed help. He continued, “The

co-lab teacher helps and then there is the ESOL teacher.”

When asked about his expectations concerning his ELL students, Mr. Wells replied, “I

had to mentally prepare how to explain in different ways.” He is fine with modifying

assignments and even allowed one Spanish student “to write a paper half in Spanish and half in

English.”

Mr. House. A teacher in the business department with eight years of experience, Mr.

House had earned a Master’s degree from the University of Phoenix. Mr. House was also a

sports coach and spoke about one of the players, an ELL, on his team as well. He had an average

of 18 students in class and 14 on his team. He also thought that having the ELL students in his

class and on his team was a benefit: “On the team, it has brought cultural differences; these boys

from over here see his drive because of where he came from and it pushes them to work harder.”

When asked about any support the school or district provided to assist him either in the

95
classroom or with his sports team, Mr. House responded, “There are the teammates, the ESOL

class, and the ESOL teacher really helped a lot.”

Mr. House thought that “it would be hard due to the language barrier” for his ELL

students when they entered his class. His class was taught via computer. Fortunately, the students

know and understand technology, so Mr. House reports that there haven’t been any problems in

the classroom. As for his player, he has no problem with pulling him out and “giving him one-

on-one coaching on the side”.

Mrs. Isaac. A teacher in the fine arts department with 26 years of experience, Mrs. Isaac

held a Master’s degree from Georgia State. She had a positive attitude regarding ELLs’ being in

her class, which had an average of 27 students. When asked about the support that the school or

district offered her, she responded, “There are the ESOL teachers; they have been great. I have

also used other teachers as well.”

When the researcher asked Mrs. Isaac about her thoughts and expectations for her ELL

students at the beginning of the semester, she responded, “I’m okay with it. It requires a lot of

differentiation. I have to be conscious of how I explain the concepts and the lessons.”

Mrs. Pearl. A biology teacher with 34 years of experience, Mrs. Pearl was certified using

an alternate route; after working for some years as a paramedic, she took the Praxis, the teaching

test, to become certified to teach. She does hold an Education Specialist degree in administration.

She had an average classroom size of 28 students. Mrs. Pearl commented on the benefits of

having ELLs in the general education class:

The ELL students bring a richness, different experiences to the student and teacher; they

bring a cultural awareness. I had a student to tell me that he wasn’t going to be in school

96
 on one Friday, I was like ‘Why not?’ And he said it was Cinco de Mayo and I had him to

explain its significance to the whole class.

She also gave the perspective that the EO students benefited from having ELL students in class

with them, as the ELL students “have tutored the EO students in other classes, such as Spanish or

math.” However, she had also seen where there was no assistance for the ELL students within

her class. The researcher asked how she assisted the ELL students and what support she received

from the school or district. Mrs. Pearl replied, “There are two ELL teachers that support us and

the forms that we send home are already translated.”

Mrs. Pearl thought that she would “have to find a way to do something more” when her

ELL students first came into her class at the beginning of the semester. She had no problem with

modifying assignments and allowing these students to get assistance, but she noted, “I am wary

of them using translation devices during vocabulary quizzes.”

Mrs. Ward. A part-time teacher in the English and Language Arts department with 37

years of education experience, Mrs. Ward held a Master’s degree from Albany State University.

Mrs. Ward had an average of 25 students in her classes. She believed that having ELL students

in the general education class was a benefit, as it gives them the opportunity to interact with

other students, to share their thoughts, and to hear the language. When the researcher asked Mrs.

Ward about the support that the school or district provided to assist her with teaching ELL

students, she replied, “We have the ESOL teacher, who is great.”

At the beginning of the semester in her class, Mrs. Ward has every student to complete a

learning survey to obtain the students’ strengths and limitations.

Mr. Jess. A biology teacher with five years of teaching experience, Mr. Jess held an

Education Specialist degree from LaGrange College. His classes had an average of 32 students,

97
and he taught a state-examined course. Mr. Jess was less positive than other teacher participants

about having ELLs in the general education classroom:

I see it as a complication, having ELL students in the general education classroom.

Because regardless of their proficiency level, it inhibits the fast pace in a state-examined

credit course, and the teacher can’t help the student keep up. With group assignments,

there is a different quality and the quantity of work that’s turned in as well.

When asked about the resources or support that the school or district provided to assist him with

his ELL students, Mr. Jess’ reply was, “We have the ESOL educators.”

When the researcher asked Mr. Jess about his thoughts and expectations regarding ELL

students at the beginning of the semester, Mr. Jess commented, “Having informal education

training, I see no difference than my thoughts for other students.” Even though he stated that he

viewed teaching ELLs the same as teaching his other students, he stated he will do modifications

“as long as they are justified within reason.”

Mr. Chip. A teacher in the history department with 14 years of teaching experience, Mr.

Chip is another teacher who has an alternate route certification. He obtained a Master’s degree in

History at Morehouse College. He then completed a practicum, a one-year program offered

through the district, to become a teacher. Mr. Chip’s average class size was 26 students. Mr.

Chip explained that having ELL students in his class is both a benefit and a complication:

It benefits the ELL students socially; they get to listen to other students. The English-only

students also learn from ELLs with projects and get different perspectives. It causes

complications as they can feel left out with group work due to language; sometimes they

feel they will be made fun of.

98
 When the researcher asked Mr. Chip if the school or district offered support for assisting

him with teaching the ELL students, he responded, “They used to have textbooks in various

languages, audios of textbooks in various native tongues, but now we have the ESOL teacher.

Oh, they are great!”

Asked about his thoughts for the ELL students at the beginning of the semester, Mr. Chip

again noted his reliance on the ESOL teacher:

I know I have to check with the ESOL teacher. If she says the student can do something,

then I expect that type of performance from that student. If she says that student is

incapable of a certain assignment, I will send that student to her for her to help them and

make it where they can understand and do it.

Mr. Micke. A teacher in the World Languages department with 22 years of experience,

Mr. Micke earned a Doctorate in Divinity from West Georgia College (now University of

Georgia). Mr. Micke’s average class size was 31 students. He said, “The ELL students are a

benefit to me because when I have an ELL student who is Hispanic, I team them with an

English-speaking student who may be having difficulty; this allows the English-speaking student

to hear authentic accents.”

When the researcher asked Mr. Micke if the school or district offered support to assist

him with teaching ELLs, he said, “The ESOL teachers are great; they allow them to take tests in

the ESOL classroom.”

Reflecting on his expectation for his ELL students at the beginning of the semester, Mr.

Micke stated, “I thought my Spanish students would be better with speaking and listening.”

However, he also said the students have done well in his class and rarely choose to leave when

they have an assignment.

99
 Ms. Rose. A teacher in the family and consumer sciences department with six years of

experience, Ms. Rose had a Bachelor’s degree from Georgia College. Ms. Rose has a unique

position as she teaches one semester at this high school and the second semester at another high

school in the district. However, the researcher asked her to consider only her time and students at

this high school when responding to the researcher’s questions. Ms. Rose’s average class size is

25 students. She sees having ELL students in her class as a complication: “These students had a

hard time; they did not understand the language. There were also cultural differences.” When

asked what support the school or district provided to assist her in reaching ELL students, Ms.

Rose said, “All I know of is the ESOL teachers. I have used them and had students to go to their

class to finish worksheets and take tests.”

Ms. Rose said her primary thought for her ELL students is “What’s the most important

thing I want these students to learn?” Ms. Rose does admit that even though she does not mind

modifying the work for her ELL students, when they are pulled out of her class, it does interfere

with other lessons.

Mrs. Stewart. A teacher in the family and consumer sciences department with 14 years of

teaching experience, Mrs. Stewart held a Bachelor’s degree from Southeastern Louisiana

University, and in addition to teaching in Georgia, she has taught in Louisiana and Florida. Her

average class size is 30. She too sees having ELL students in the general education classroom as

a complication:

I must figure out where the student is proficiency-wise; I have to see what he can do.

When they work with the English-speaking students, they’ve had to carry more weight.

There is one benefit: the English-speaking students get to work with students of other

nationalities.

100
When the researcher asked Mrs. Stewart about the support the school or district provided to

assist her with teaching ELLs, she replied, “We have the ESOL teacher; she is great.”

Reflecting on her expectations for teaching ELLs at the beginning of the semester, Mrs.

Stewart said, “How am I going to reach this child with the language barrier? I don’t know the

language to translate it in.” She added that she does not mind assisting these students; she just

does not always know if she can.

Conclusion

Although the sample sizes were small, as recommended for phenomenological studies,

participants provided ample data for analysis. Two common themes emerged from all three

groups of participants. First, the ESOL teacher and class were valued resources for both teachers

and ELL students and had a positive impact on the parents. Secondly, expectations among ELL

students, the ELL parents and the general education teachers varied.

The ELL students had varying expectations when they entered the general education

classrooms. They relied on the ESOL teacher and spending time in the ESOL classroom to assist

them with assignments and getting through school. Overall, the ELL students’ expectations and

experiences were met with assistance from the ESOL teacher and being in the ESOL classroom.

Although students did feel they had difficult classes, with the use of the resources in the ESOL

classroom, these students could communicate with the teachers and their peers.

ELL parents felt the district provided no assistance for them; however, they still felt that

their expectations for their children and the teachers were met. Similarly, beyond the ESOL

teacher, the general education teachers felt the district provided no assistance in teaching ELLs.

The general education teachers expected that their classes would be difficult for the ELL students

and they felt that the inclusion of ELL students made teaching the class more difficult for the

101
teacher. These teachers had to find innovative ways to modify assignments to reach and teach

these students, resulting in utilizing the ESOL teacher for assistance. In Chapter 5, discussions

and recommendations for future research, will be provided.

102
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The English Language Learner (ELL) population continues to grow in schools in the

United States every year. However, general education teachers, who may not have had adequate

training to address the challenges ELLs bring to the classroom, often feel ill-equipped to teach

these students. In addition to a lack of training, a lack of support or resources and increasing

pressures from legislation and evaluation models may also compound teachers’ frustration in and

resistance to teaching ELLs. Unfortunately, ELL students often feel overwhelmed in classrooms

where the dominant—if not the only—language is English, and they may not know how to

request or receive the support they need to overcome language barriers and to meet educational

expectations. Many English Proficient Learners (EPLs) benefit from the support of parents;

however, ELL parents frequently speak little, if any, English and may not feel able to gain the

support they and their children need. Consequently, ELLs generally lag behind their ELP peers

in performance on standardized tests, and the dropout rate of ELLs exceeds that of ELP students.

This phenomenological study explored the perceptions, feelings, and experiences of

ELLs, their parents, and their general education teachers in a high school in West Georgia in an

effort to reveal the hindrances to and supports for providing an effective educational experience

for ELLs. What do ELLs perceive to be the biggest challenges they face and what resources do

they use to overcome these challenges? What roles, whether positive or negative, do teachers and

classmates play in ELLs’ educational experiences? How do ELLs perceive their ability to

succeed in general education classes? Similarly, how do adults, such as parents and teachers,

103
perceive ELLs’ ability to succeed in general education classes? How do these adults work to

serve ELL students or what attitudes might they possess that help or hinder these students? By

allowing students, teachers, and parents an opportunity to describe their personal experiences,

the researcher hoped to provide qualitative data that can assist all educational stakeholders in

improving ELL educational experience and outcomes.

Conclusions

The data in this study revealed that, as expected, having access to appropriate resources

and supports was necessary for success. For ELLs, their parents, and their teachers, the English

Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program and especially the ESOL teachers were the most

often cited resource for assistance and support. Outside of the ESOL teachers and program,

participants felt somewhat at a loss for where to go when assistance was needed. The ELLs

relied on the ESOL teachers to assist with classwork, projects, and tests; similarly, the general

education teachers utilized the ESOL teacher in various ways. Although they reported no school

support for themselves and few specific resources for their children, ELL parents spoke very

positively of the ESOL teacher and program and attributed much of their students’ success to

these supports.

Additionally, the data revealed that, overall, ELLs, their parents, and their teachers hold

positive attitudes in relation to ELLs’ being in the general education classroom. Although some

teachers expressed some frustration with teaching ELLs because of a lack of training, they were

willing to modify assignments and work with the ELLs and ESOL teacher to achieve the best

possible outcome.

104
Recommendations

English Language Learners (ELLs). Overall, the ELL students in this study reported

mostly positive school experiences. Like Pereira and Gentry (2013), who reported the students in

their study “had positive interactions with peers and teachers” (p. 180), four of the six students

expected their classmates to be friendly and agreed that their expectations were met. Three of six

students expected good teachers and gave positive responses about their teachers. The other half

did not know what to expect or expressed some anxiety about what the teachers would be like.

In relation to academic challenges, five of the six students in this study expected the

classes to be hard, but they had mixed reviews as to the level of difficulty of their classes. For

assistance, the ELLs mostly looked to their ELL peers and the ESOL teachers. They relied on the

ESOL teachers to assist with classwork, projects, and tests. Additionally, ELLs found technology

to be a helpful resource. According to Green (2005), ELLs’ “learning process was made possible

and more effective by the use of computers” (p. 7). The ELL participants of this study reported

going into the ESOL classroom to use Google translator and other translating devices that these

students would not be able to use in the general education classrooms. These devices were useful

to four of the six ELLs who did not speak nor read the English language when they began school

in Georgia. Tommy stated, “I like going to the ESOL classroom because I get to use the Google

translator and it helps me to do my work better.” Additionally, Kate explained that she would go

into the ESOL classroom to use an electronic dictionary, which assisted her with learning terms

and helped her to make better grades. Having the ESOL teacher and technological resources also

increased students’ confidence and improved their perceptions of their ability to succeed.

Similar to Breiseth’s (2015) findings, the data also revealed that personal responsibility,

resilience, resourcefulness, and commitment to success were strengths of the ELLs. Five of the

105
six ELLs described utilizing the school map to learn their way around the school. Charlie

explained that he “took a picture of the school map on his phone to use to learn my way around.”

Similarly, Tommy’s response was “I see the signs, pictures in hallway, memorize, learn the

different hallways.” Multiple students expressed a commitment to earning good grades even

when they thought classes would be difficult, and they often equated success with “making a

high grade on a test or other assignment.

Parents of English Language Learners. As discussed in the literature review, a lack of

parental involvement often presents a challenge for teachers of ELLs (Chen, Kyle, & McIntyre,

2008; Gottschalk, 2016; Shim 2013). All six of the parents in this study held high expectations

for their children; they wanted their children to do well and graduate from high school.

According to Gottschalk (2016), in many cultures, parents separate school and home, giving the

schools permission to do what is best for their children academically. However, five of six ELL

parents in this study expected the teachers to phone, email, and communicate with them about

their children’s progress. Mrs. Pam explained that she expected the teachers to “email me, call

me and for them to respond when I email and call them. I wanted for them to let me know if

there was anything going on with my girls.” In the same way, Mrs. Sue said she wanted “the

school to let [her] know about [her son’s] school life, his character, and how he was doing

overall.”

Similar to Gottschalk’s (2016) appraisal, some of the parents in this study did express a

sense of separation between family and school. Two ELL parents in this study stated that they

chose to rely on family, church, and community rather than on schools as support. Also, two of

the six ELL parents in this study stated that they did not want anything from the district for

themselves, choosing only to get their child into the ESOL program. Mrs. Robyn explained, “I

106
didn’t want anything from the school; my husband and I were working, and we found what we

needed ourselves. As long as our girls were in the ESOL program, that was all we wanted.” Mrs.

Angel stated, “I didn’t want nothing from them. I get support from my church.”

However, unlike Shim’s (2013) findings that suggested ELL parents’ lack of involvement

stemmed from having negative interactions or reactions from teachers, the parents in this study

did not indicate any negative feelings about the schools. In fact, the ELL parents praised the

ESOL teacher and program for assisting their child. These parents did not receive assistance

from the district, but their expectations of the general education teachers were met. Mrs. Sue

said, “[The district] offered no assistance for me, but ESOL [program] for my child.” The

researcher asked the ELL parents what they would say to another parent who was considering

bringing their ELL student to this school. Mrs. Pam responded that she would tell them, “This is

a great school. They have a great ESOL program and a great ESOL teacher. To get involved with

the ESOL program.”

General education teachers of English Language Learners. General education

teachers who teach English Language Learners (ELLs) experience challenges and successes in

the classroom. General education teachers must realize their strengths; to better improve the

confidence and pedagogical practices along with confidence with reaching their students. These

teachers must also be aware of their areas of limitations; to solidify where the largest rifts in

understanding and know where to pay closer attention to the deficits that may develop with the

ELL students while increasing their awareness of the resources available when teaching ELLs,

which bridges the possible gaps in their strengths and weaknesses to better facilitate a holistic

and homogenous positive learning environment.

107
 Challenges. The findings of this study supported previous findings concerning general

education teachers’ lack of training or coursework specifically geared toward teaching ELLs. In

fact, according to de Jong, Harper, and Coady (2013), “Research suggests that most mainstream

teachers lack basic foundational knowledge related to ELL issues, despite the fact that as many

as 88% teach ELLs” (p. 90). Of the 14 general education teachers in this study, only four had

taken one ELL course. Furthermore, while most teachers have not taken specific coursework

related to teaching ELLs, even those teachers who have had coursework are still unprepared to

teach ELLs (O’Neal, Ringler, & Rodriquez, 2008). Mrs. Rose admitted, “I graduated so long

ago, that they weren’t offering those classes. And I hadn’t had to take any to continue, so I have

had no coursework on working with ELLs.” Similarly, Mrs. Street said, “When I came through,

we did not have any courses for ELLs, and I have not gone back to take any.”

In addition to a lack of training, teachers’ attitudes and perceptions were another

challenge in teaching ELLs. Although most of the general education teachers in this study felt

that having ELLs in the general education classroom was a benefit, some of the teachers felt the

students would be better served in the ESOL class with a trained teacher and that the teacher and

EO students could move at a faster pace if ELLs were not in the class.

Successes. All of the general education teachers stated that their primary resource in

teaching ELLs was the ESOL teacher. For example, Mrs. Thomas said that she did not have any

ELL courses; however, when she needed assistance, “the ESOL teachers [were] an email away

and [would] even come into the classroom.” General education teachers received assistance for

writing lessons for their ELLs and advice on how to deliver their lessons to their ELLs.

Additionally, the general education teachers utilized the ESOL teachers to assist the ELLs with

classwork, homework, and projects. The ESOL teachers were the “go-to for all things ELL,” as

108
the general education teachers did not speak the ELLs’ languages, often did not know the

students’ educational background, and were not acquainted with academic strategies to teach

ELLs.

As mentioned previously, teacher attitudes and perceptions of ELLs constitute a

challenge; however, many teachers held positive attitudes and expectations for their ELL

students. Furthermore, all the teachers in the study stated they were willing to do what they could

to modify assignments or to seek additional information to better serve these students. When

asked about her thoughts when she saw ELLs in her class, Mrs. Thomas stated, “I need to look at

the info, forms, and see what information they have given me on the student, if any at all.”

Likewise, Mrs. Stewart responded, “I must figure out where the student is proficiency wise; I

have to figure out what this student can do, especially if there is no paperwork about them to

help me.”

While teachers were sometimes frustrated with instructional strategies for ELLs, the

teachers reported no classroom management issues related to ELLs. Although many cultures

highly value education and cultivate respect for educators, ELLs may misbehave as any other

student may; however, teachers should hold ELLs to the same behavioral standards as all other

students (Gottschalk, 2016). Correspondingly, 13 of the 14 teachers in this study said they were

consistent with their rules and classroom management. They desired normalcy and wanted these

students to be and feel part of the class and culture. Mrs. Carrie explained, “I have no change in

my rules, these students have to learn to assimilate, right?” Mrs. Thomas also said, “I have no

change in my rules; these students have to learn the culture.”

109
Implications

Although adequate training for all teachers who work with ELLs would be ideal,

achieving such a goal may not be feasible for some time. Teacher preparation programs should

continue to address this need by requiring all pre-service teachers to take coursework—

preferably more than one course—and to complete a minimal number of practicum hours

working with ELL students, if possible.

Furthermore, school districts must place a high priority on employing quality, highly

trained ESOL teachers who can serve as a crucial and indispensable resource for ELL students,

their teachers, and their parents. Districts should also invest in high quality, ongoing professional

development for teachers who are not adequately trained. Since many ELL students find

technology helpful, teachers and students should have access to technology, which would also

require teacher training in successful strategies for implementing these tools in the classroom.

Finally, schools must broaden their focus to improve communication, resources, and

support for the parents of ELLs. Additional professional development should include

multicultural training, addressing strategies for overcoming language, cultural, and social

barriers. The district should offer classes to assist ELLs and ELL parents in getting acclimated to

the school system and community and English classes to help with language skills if needed. The

district should have a room at the central office with resources for parents such as computers,

internet access, job posts and other resources.

Recommendations for Future Research

Although this study focused on a relatively small group of participants, future research

could replicate this study to provide a broader view of this growing issue. Perhaps ELLs in

different regions of the country can provide alternate perspectives, such as differences in the

110
experiences of students who attend schools with large ELL populations and of students who

attend schools with small ELL populations. In addition, expanding the research to include

elementary, middle, and high school students would provide differences in perspectives and

experiences related to students’ developmental capabilities.

Additionally, future research could seek the perspectives of other individuals who work

with ELLs. For example, school counselors could provide their perspectives on the social,

cultural, and academic life of ELLs. The counselors’ perspectives could provide insight into how

they view and work with ELLs when these students register for school and classes or when they

enter the counselor’s office for assistance. Interviewing EO students who take classes with ELLs

would provide yet another perspective. Research focusing on district or school administrators’

perspectives could provide insight into some of the challenges and successes of implementing

and supporting ESOL programs and of creating a school environment that values diversity.

Finally, the researcher suggests longitudinal studies to see if ELLs or the general

education teachers’ perspectives and experiences change over time. Longitudinal studies could

also include field observations in addition to face-to-face interviews. The field observations

could also include not only the general education classroom but also the ESOL classroom.

Discussion

The exponential increase in the number of ELL students in America’s classrooms is a

cultural shift that educators cannot continue to ignore. In fact, “The population of K-12 English

learners grew by 60% in the last decade compared with 7% growth of the general student

population” (Grantmakers for Education, 2013, p. 4). Although most of these students have

traditionally attended schools in only a handful of states, ELLs now attend schools in states

across the nation, and general education teachers—no matter their location—will inevitably work

111
with ELL students. Moreover, the ELL population is projected to comprise 40% of the

elementary and high school population by 2030 (Flynn & Hill, 2005).

To teach effectively, educators should understand how ELLs perceive being in the

general education classroom. Although these students sit side-by-side their EO counterparts,

often taking the same tests, completing the same assignments, and undergoing many of the same

challenges, these experiences may affect ELLs differently. Consequently, teachers should

recognize how ELLs interact in the classroom, how these students feel while in the classroom,

and if teachers and peers treat them differently. Teachers should also intentionally explore and

implement appropriate accommodations that work for these students to ensure they receive an

education equal to that of their EO counterparts.

Gathering information from and views of various individuals is essential to improving the

educational experience of ELLs. This study explored the experiences of a small sample of ELL

students, their parents, and their teachers and discovered some factors that both contribute to and

hinder the success of ELL students. Notably, all three groups of participants identified the ESOL

program and ESOL teacher as invaluable resources. However, ESOL teachers will not be able to

shoulder all the responsibility for ELL instruction. All teachers need training in strategies for

working with these students, and the teachers in this study, like most general education teachers

nationwide, did not feel adequately prepared to address these students’ needs. Contrary to

popular belief, ELLs do not learn English simply by being surrounded by English speakers, and

strategies that work with other learners may not be effective with ELLs. Although ELLs are

unique individuals with different experiences, backgrounds, and learning styles, listening to the

voices of these students and those who work most closely with them can assist willing educators

112
to alter their misconceptions and adapt their instructional practices to meet the needs of this

frequently underserved population.

The findings in this research support the literature that general education teachers do not

feel prepared to teach ELLs due to having taken little or no specific coursework relating to

teaching ELLs as stated by O’Neal, Ringer, and Rodriquez (2008) as these general education

teachers had either one course or no courses during their teacher education programs that gave

them the tools to help ELLs succeed. Due to the ESOL teacher and program at this high school,

the findings of this study do not support the research that ELLs are not successful. The ELLs at

this high school achieve high honors and fit in with their peers socially and academically, which

does not agree with the findings of LeClair, Doll, Osborn, and Jones (2009) that revealed the

students in a Midwestern school district thought they were less likely to believe they could

succeed academically than their non-ELL peers.

113
REFERENCES

114
 REFERENCES

Aldrich, T. B. (1892). Unguarded gates. The Atlantic Monthly, 70(417), 57.

Bautista, N. (2014). Leveling up. Science Teacher, 81(4), 32-37.

Berg, H., Petro, M., & Greybeck, B. (2012). Setting the foundation for working with English

language learners in the secondary classroom. American Secondary Education, 40(3), 34-

44.

Bilingual Education Act of 1968. Pub. L. No. 90-247, 81 Stat. 816 (1968).

Breiseth, L. (2015). What you need to know about ELLs: Fast facts. Retrieved from

http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/what-you-need-know-about-ells-fast-facts

Carrier, K. (2005). Key issues for teaching English language learners in academic classrooms.

Middle School Journal, 37(2), 4-9. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ752850

Chen, C., Kyle, D., & McIntyre, E. (2008). Helping teachers work effectively with English

language learners and their families. School Community Journal, 18(1), 7-20.

Cho, S., & Reich, G. A. (2008). New immigrants, new challenges: High school social studies

teachers and English language learner instruction. The Social Studies, 99(6), 235-242.

Cirino, P., Pollard-Durodola, S., Foorman, B., Carlson, C. D., & Francis, D. J. (2007). Teacher

characteristics, classroom instruction, and student literacy and language outcomes in

bilingual kindergartners. Elementary School Journal, 107(4), 341-364. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uu.edu:2048/10.1086/516668

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 471 (1964).

115
Colombo, M., McMakin, D., Jacobs, C., & Shestok, C. (2013). Hopefulness for teachers of ELLs

in the era of NCLB. Multicultural Perspectives, 15(2), 81-87. doi:

10.1080/15210960.2013.781358

Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.).

Cummings, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual

children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251.

Daniel, S., & Peercy, M. M. (2014). Expanding roles: Teacher educators’ perspectives on

educating English learners. Action in Teacher Education, 36(2), 100-116. doi:

10.1080/01626620.2013.864575

de Jong, E. J., Harper, C. A., & Coady, M. R. (2013). Enhanced knowledge and skills for

elementary mainstream teachers of English language learners. Theory into Practice,

52(2), 89-97. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2013.770326

DelliCarpini, M., & Alonso, O. B. (2014). Teacher education that works: Preparing secondary-

level math and science teachers for success with English language learners through

content-based instruction. Global Education Review, 1(4), 155-178.

Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Hughes, T. (2010). How prepared are the U.S. pre-service teachers to

teach English language learners? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in

Higher Education, 22(1), 32-41. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ913527

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, H. R. 2362, 89th Cong., Pub. L. 89-10

(1965).

116
Flynn, K., & Hill, J. (2005). English language learners: A growing population. Retrieved from

http://chansenedconsultantaea11.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/50595003/McRelenglishlangu

agelearnerspop.pdf

Ford, K. L., Cabell, S. Q., Konold, T. R., Invernizzi, M., & Gartland, L. B. (2013). Diversity

among Spanish-speaking English language learners: Profiles of early literacy skills in

kindergarten. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(6), 889-912. doi:

10.1007/s11145-012-9397-0

Garrett, J. E., & Holcomb, S. (2005). Meeting the needs of immigrant students with limited

English ability. International Education, 35(1), 49-62.

Gersten, R. (1996). The double demands of teaching English language learners. Educational

Leadership, 53(5), 18-22.

Gottschalk, B. (2016). Ten (usually wrong) ideas about ELLs. Educational Leadership, 73(5),

62-64.

Grantmakers for Education. (2013). Educating English language learners: Grantmaking

strategies for closing America’s other achievement gap. Retrieved from

https://edfunders.org/sites/default/files/Educating%20English%20Language%20Learners

_April%202013.pdf

Green, T. (2005). Using technology to help English language students develop language skills: A

home and school connection. Multicultural Education, 13(2), 56-59.

Gruber, K. J., Wiley, S. D., Broughman, S. P., Strizek, G. A., & Burian-Fitzgerald, M. (2002).

Schools and staffing survey, 1999-2000: Overview of the data for public, private, public

charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary and secondary schools. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

117
Harper, C., & de Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners.

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152-162. doi 10.1598/JAAL.48.2.6

Hutchinson, M. (2013). Bridging the gap: Pre-service teachers and their knowledge of working

with English language learners. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 25-54. Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.uu.edu:2048/doi/10.1002/tesj.51/epdf

Kouakou, E. A. (2014). A short history of esl/bilingual education. Retrieved from

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140810131928-39092336-a-short-history-of-esl-

bilingual-education

LeClair, C., Doll, B., Osborn, A., & Jones, K. (2009). English language learners’ and non-

English language learners’ perceptions of the classroom environment. Psychology in the

Schools, 46(6), 568-577. doi: 10.1002/pits.20398

Markos, A. M. (2012). Mandated to learn, guided to reflect: Pre-service teachers’ evolving

understanding of English language learners. Issues in Teacher Education, 21(1), 39-57.

Menken, K. (2010). NCLB and English language learners: Challenges and consequences. Theory

into Practice, 49(2), 121-128. doi: 10.1080/00405841003626619

New York City Department of Education (2010, Winter). New York City dual language

programs. Retrieved from

https://www.cfn107.org/uploads/6/1/9/2/6192492/dual_language_programs.pdf

New York City Department of Education (2018), English language learners. Retrieved from

https://www.schools.nyc.gov/multilingual-learners/process/english-language-learners

Newman, K. L., Samimy, K., & Romstedt, K. (2010). Developing a training program for

secondary teachers of English language learners in Ohio. Theory into Practice, 49(2),

152-161. doi: 10.1080/00405841003641535

118
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).

O’Brien, J. (2011). The system is broken and it’s failing these kids: High school social studies

teachers’ attitudes toward training for ELLs. The Journal of Social Studies Research,

35(1), 22-38.

O’Neal, D. D., Ringler, M., & Rodriquez, D. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of their preparation

for teaching linguistically and culturally diverse learners in rural eastern North Carolina.

Rural Educator, 30(1), 5-13.

Padilla-Díaz, M. (2015). Phenomenology in educational qualitative research: Philosophy as

science or philosophical science? International Journal of Educational Excellence, 1(2),

101-110. doi:10.18562/ijee.2015.0009

Paradis, J., Schneider, P., & Duncan, T. S. (2013). Discriminating children with language

impairment among English-language learners from diverse first-language backgrounds.

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(3), 971-981.

Pereira, N., & Gentry, M. (2013). A qualitative inquiry into the experiences of high-potential

Hispanic English language learners in Midwestern schools. Journal of Advanced

Academics 24(3), 164-194. doi: 10.1177/1932202X13494204

Reeves, A., & Van Tuyle, V. (2014). Preparing principals for success with English language

learners: Challenges and opportunities in Illinois. International Journal of Educational

Leadership Preparation, 9(1). Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1024119

Reeves, J. R. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English language learners in

mainstream classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 131-142.

119
Shim, J. M. (2013). Involving the parents of English language learners in a rural area: Focus on

the dynamics of teacher-parent interactions. Rural Educator, 34(3), 18-26.

Teaching as Leadership. (n.d.) A brief history of ESL and bilingual education. Retrieved from

http://teachingasleadership.org/sites/default/files/Support-

Materials/PP/Tools/HistoryofESLandBilingualEducation.doc

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students.

Washington, D.C.: National Center for Bilingual Education at George Washington

University.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2016). One to grow on/If I were an ELL…. Educational Leadership, 73(5),

89-90.

Topor, I. & Rosenblum, L. P. (2013). English language learners: Experiences of teachers of

students with visual impairments who work with this population. Journal of Visual

Impairment & Blindness, 107(2), 79-91.

Valenciana, C., Morin, J. A., & Morales, R. S. (2005). Meeting the challenge: Building

university-school district partnerships for a successful career ladder program for teachers

of English learners. Action in Teacher Education, 27(1), 82-91.

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Teaching English

language learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting research into practice.

Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(1), 58-67.

Wallace, C. (2007). Vocabulary: The key to teaching English language learners to read. Reading

Improvement, 44(4), 189-193.

120
APPENDICES

121
 APPENDIX A

STUDENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. Tell me how what it is like being in class here at your school.

Follow-up questions/explanation questions:
A. Have you gone to another school before?
B. If so, how is your school is different? How is this your school the same?

2. Prior to beginning this semester, what were you expecting from the teachers and the other
students in your classes?
Follow-up questions/explanation questions:
A. Do you have any friends who talked with you about what the school and classes
are like here?
B. Were you expecting the classes to be easy or hard?
C. Were you expecting the students to be friendly?

3. Share a successful/challenging moment in class, one that made you happy, excited, or not
happy?
Follow-up questions/explanation questions:
A. What was it specifically about that moment that made it successful/challenging?
B. How did your peers treat you during this successful/challenging moment?
C. How did your teacher treat you during this successful/challenging moment?
D. How did their responses impact your experience, how did those responses make
you feel?

4. This is a large school with a lot of buildings, does transitioning, or moving from one class
to another, or one building to another, impact, or confuse you in any way?
Follow-up questions/explanation questions:
A. How did you learn your way around the school?
B. Do you leave one class and run to the next class or, given the time between
classes, you have enough time and can get to class and be ready when the bell
rings?

5. How do your teachers help you to understand your work?

Follow-up questions/explanation questions:
A. If you are confused about something, what do your teachers do?
B. If you have a question, comment, suggestion, how do you feel about letting your
teachers and your peers know?
C. When you know the answers to questions, do you share the answers?
D. How do you teachers respond to you when you share?
E. How do your peers respond when you share?

6. What is the best way for you to communicate with your peers?

122
 Follow-up questions/explanation questions:
A. Do you text each other?
B. Do you just talk during class, lunch room, just in school, or outside of school?
C. What is the best way for you to communicate with your teachers?
D. Do you talk with them, raise your hands to ask questions, and/or email them?
E. Why are these forms of communication better for you?
F. Tell me about group and partner assignments and projects, how do you
communicate with your peers, teammates, and teachers about these assignments?

7. What are some strategies that say your math or Science teachers have used to teach that
works for you?
Follow-up questions/explanation questions:
A. Do you like it when they use PowerPoints slides on the board for you to see it?
B. Does it work for you when they lecture, just talk to you about the lesson?
C. Or would you rather just talk with you, give you the assignment and just let you
research and get it on your own?

8. Now, this a time for you to tell me anything you would like to that would help the
administrators and teachers here at this school improve your experience.
Follow-up question/explanation question:
A. How could we make it better for you in school here?

9. What grade entered into school here? What grade are you now? How long been here?

123
 APPENDIX B

TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Preliminary questions to be answered prior to interview:

1. Tell me about your history as a teacher.

A. years of experience
B. level of education
C. teacher education program/nature of training for working with ELL

2. What is your average class size?

3. Does incorporating ELLs in class with non-ELL students provide a benefit or cause
complication to these or other students?
Follow-up/explanation questions:
A. How?
B. What were your thoughts when the ELL students came to class in the beginning
of the semester?

4. How do you feel about modifying assignments for ELL?

Follow-up/explanation questions:
A. How much modification have you had to do on an assignment for an ELL to be
successful?
B. What were your initial thoughts on modifying assignments at the beginning of the
semester?

5. How do you feel about ELL being pulled out of your class to complete your assignments?
Follow-up/explanation questions:
A. Have you found that pulling ELL out of the mainstream classroom enhances
and/or impedes ELL success in your class?
B. Explain to me an instance where you have observed the pull-out of an ELL
enhancing their success in your class.
C. Explain to me an instance where you have observed the pull-out of an ELL
impeding their success in your class.

6. How would you describe ELL level of student engagement in your classroom after being
returned from a pull-out?
Follow-up/explanation question:
Did you feel in the beginning that it was going to be hard to for the ELL students to keep
up with the class?
7. How does your classroom management style differ in a class with ELLs as compared to
your classroom management style in a class without ELLs?
Follow-up/explanation questions:

124
 A. Do you feel that you have to have different rules for ELLs?
B. If so, what are your thoughts about that?
C. Have you had an ELL and you had to change the rules or bend the rules to
accommodate them?

8. Describe the type(s) of support made available by the school/district to promote your success
as an ELL teacher?
Follow-up/explanation question:
Describe the type(s) of support you would find beneficial to you and/or the
students/families the district serves?

9. Share a benefit/challenge regarding having ELL students in your class.

Follow-up/explanation question:
Just tell me, when the semester (or year) began, did you think that the ELL could have
brought that much joy or have you to work that hard?

10. Anything else you would like to add?

125
 APPENDIX C

PARENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. Prior to enrolling your child here at this school (used for the time being), what were your
educational expectations for your child?
Follow-up/explanation questions:
A. What were your expectations of the school and staff?
B. Had your child attended another school before?

2. Tell me about an educational experience your child has had at the school.
Follow-up/explanation questions:
A. Share an experience that your child shared with you that made them more
successful at school.
B. Has there been a challenge they experienced, and, if so, how did they handle it?
C. What are some things you hoped that your child would experience?
D. Did your expectations match up with the experiences?

3. Describe the type of supports the school and/or district had provided your child.
Follow-up/explanation questions:
A. Supports for you as a parent?
B. How did your experience match your expectations?

4. In communicating with the teachers and administrators, what expectations did you have
for working together?
Follow-up/explanation question:
What did you experience?

5. If another parent was considering bringing their ELL student to this school, what would
you tell them to expect?

6. What would you suggest to impact or improve the experience for ELL students at this
school?

126
 APPENDIX D

PRELIMINARY EMAIL TO TEACHERS

Good Morning All,

My name is Kisha Thompson and I am a doctoral student at Union University. I am in the

dissertation phase of the program, embarking upon completing my research. This letter serves as

recruitment for participation in my voluntary research study.

The study will examine preparation and perception of teachers who teach English Language

Learners (hereafter referred to as ELL) in mainstream classrooms. The study will take place in

__________ High School in the _________ School System and will be an appreciative inquiry.

The target is to capture the voices of content area teachers in this high school. More specific, the

appreciative inquiry will engage teachers in discussion about the academic needs of ELL

students with the hope that insight and solutions will materialize out of this engagement.

The discussion will further explore possible barriers ELL students are faced with on a daily basis

and provide useful information as ELLs are identified “the fastest growing student population in

U.S. schools” (Columbo, McMakin, Jacobs, & Shestok, 2013, p. 81). This information will be

gathered from individual teacher interviews.

Invitations to include a brief questionnaire is attached for your completion. Please reply by

March 31, 2017.

Interviews will last approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour. I am available before school, after

school, and if need be, we can meet off campus at your convenience.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at kisha.thompson@my.uu.edu.

Professionally Yours,

127
Kisha Thompson

FACS Teacher,

__________ High School

1. Level of education - 2. Number of years teaching in all –

o Bachelor’s _____________________
o Master’s
o Educational Specialist
o Educational Doctorate

3. What Teacher Education Program did you attend? _________________________________

4. Did you attend any English Language Learner teaching courses?

o Yes
o No
If yes, title of course(s) _______________________________________________

128