A CONTEXTUAL MEASURE OF TEACHER EFFICACY …eprints.qut.edu.au/16514/1/Donna_Tangen_Thesis.pdfKey Words cyclical model of teacher efficacy, English as a second language (ESL), ESL

A CONTEXTUAL MEASURE OF TEACHER EFFICACY FOR TEACHING PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS WHO HAVE ESL

Donna Tangen – BA, BEd., MEd., Grad Dip (TESOL)

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy within the School of Learning and Professional Studies

Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology Kelvin Grove Campus

September 18, 2007

Citation Tangen, Donna Jean BA UWO, BEd Brock, MEd. QUT, Grad Dip (TESOL) QUT Thesis Title: A contextual measure of teacher efficacy for teaching primary school students who have ESL Supervisors: Dr Ruth Fielding-Barnsley (Principal) Dr Rebecca Spooner-Lane (Associate) Citation: This thesis utilised a modified cyclical model to examine the conceptual measure of teacher efficacy. The study identified teachers’ perceptions of their strengths and needs in relation to teaching students who have English as a Second Language and identified ‘gaps’ in teachers’ understanding of how to differentiate the curriculum to constructively teach these students. Stereotypical assumptions that influence teachers’ efficacy lead to important considerations for educational authorities and for higher education. Australian teachers have been grappling with the issues of teaching students who have ESL for decades and, from the current research, it appears that there is still a long way to go to ensure that teachers have the necessary skills required to meet the needs of these learners. The links with community awareness of the cultural contexts of the research suggest the need for further consideration in this area from the teaching community. Dr. Ruth Fielding-Barnsley (Principal Supervisor) Dr Rebecca Spooner-Lane (Associate Supervisor)

Key Words

cyclical model of teacher efficacy, English as a second language (ESL), ESL contextual considerations, sources of efficacy beliefs, teacher efficacy, teaching strategies

i

Abstract

The current research utilised a modified cyclical model of tracking teachers’ efficacy

beliefs from their source through to their implementation in teaching strategies. Key

inclusions to the model were four factors (personal efficacy, teaching efficacy, classroom

management efficacy and outcome efficacy) of teacher efficacy and four contextual

considerations (culture load, learning load, language load and cognitive load) in relation

to teaching students who have ESL. Data were collected through three studies, ultilising

both qualitative methodologies (focus groups, hypothetical teaching scenarios) and a

quantitative methodology (researcher-generated survey). Results revealed a two-factor

model of teacher efficacy (not a four-factor model) with the two factors being personal

efficacy (general teaching abilities) and teaching efficacy (overcoming environmental

factors such as home life). Culture load and language load were significant contextual

considerations given to teaching students who have ESL. Results of the research

suggested that specific teacher training needs to focus on how to adapt curriculum to

meet the needs of a diverse group of learners, emphasising in particular why chosen

strategies should be used. More training is needed which involves learning how to

include parents and other community members as valuable resources in the learning

processes of the classroom.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Key Words..………………………………………………………………………………..i Abstract…….……………………………………………………………………………...ii Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………....iv List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………… vi List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………. vi Statement of Original Authorship………………………………………………………..vii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………..viii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………......1 Purpose of the Research…………………………………………………………………...1 Rationale for Investigating Teacher Efficacy in Relation to Teaching Students

who are ESL………………………………………………………………….........4 Sources of Efficacy Information…………………………………………………………..9 Specific contextual Considerations for Teaching Students who are ESL…………………9 Conceptualisation of the construct of Teacher Efficacy…………………………………11 Research Program Outline……………………………………………………………….13 Study 1…………………………………………………………………………13 Study 2…………………………………………………………………………14 Study 3…………………………………………………………………………15 Contributions to the Field of Research…………………………………………………15 Organisation of the Thesis………………………………………………………………17

CHAPTER 2 Literature Review………………………………………………………………………...18 Conceptualisation of the Construct of Teacher Efficacy………………………………18 Measurement of Teacher Efficacy………………………………………………………19 A Model of Teacher Efficacy……………………………………………………………24 Specific Contextual Considerations of Teaching Students who are ESL………………26 Cognitive Load…………………………………………………………………28 Language Load…………………………………………………………………...30 Culture Load……………………………………………………………………32 Learning Load……………………………………………………………………36 Extending the Cyclical Model…………………………………………………………38 Summary of the Literature……………………………………………………………43

iii

CHAPTER 3 Methodological Considerations…………………………………………………………46 Sampling Issues………………………………………………………………………….47 Sampling for Study 1……………………………………………………………………48 Preservice Teachers……………………………………………………………48 Inservice Teachers………………………………………………………………49 Sampling for Study 2……………………………………………………………………50 Sampling for Study 3……………………………………………………………………53 Measurement Issues……………………………………………………………………54 Qualitative Research……………………………………………………………………54

Study 1………………………………………………………………………54 Study 3…………………………………………………………………………56

Quantitative Research……………………………………………………………………57 Study 2…………………………………………………………………………58

Item Development………………………………………………………………………58 Exploratory Factor Analysis……………………………………………………………60 Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methodology……………………………………62

CHAPTER 4

Study 1…………………………………………………………………………………...63 Rationale for Conducting Focus Groups…………………………………………………63 Method…………………………………………………………………………………64 Participants………………………………………………………………………………64 Procedure………………………………………………………………………………65 Results……………………………………………………………………………………66 Analysis Procedures for Focus Groups…………………………………………………68 Qualitative Results………………………………………………………………………70 Defining the Term “ESL”………………………………………………………………70 Sources of Efficacy Information…………………………………………………………76 Contextual Considerations………………………………………………………………84 Summary of Results……………………………………………………………………89

iv

CHAPTER 5 Study 2…………………………………………………………………………………...92 Rationale for Study 2…………………………………………………………………92 Development of the Questionnaire…………………………………………………93 Method…………………………………………………………………………………94 Participants……………………………………………………………………………...94 Results…………………………………………………………………………………..96 Preliminary Data Analysis……………………………………………………………96 Principle Component Analysis………………………………………………………97 Summary………………………………………………………………………………101 Limitations……………………………………………………………………………101

CHAPTER 6

Study 3………………………………………………………………………………….103 Rationale for Utilising Hypothetical Teaching Scenarios……………………………103 Method………………………………………………………………………………….104 Participants……………………………………………………………………………104 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………105 Analysis of Data from the Preliminary Questions for Study 3…………………………106 Hypothetical Teaching Scenarios………………………………………………………112 Summary………………………………………………………………………………..123

CHAPTER 7 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………127 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..127 Exploring the Modified Cyclical Model………………………………………………128 Discussion of Results…………………………………………………………………130 Students who are ESL and Students with Learning Disabilities………………………148 Summary of the Research……………………………………………………………154 The Main Finding of the Research…………………………………………………156 Contributions to the Study of Teacher Efficay………………………………………159 Recommendations for Future Teacher Training………………………………………160 Limitations of the Study………………………………………………………………161 Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………………162

v

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………164 APPENDICES Appendix A: Consent Script/Participant Letter of Information.………………………178 Appendix B: The Research Survey………………………………………………….181

LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1 The cyclical model of teacher efficacy………………………………………24, 38 Fig. 2 Cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency……………………………...31 Fig. 3 Modified cyclical model of teacher efficacy………………………………..39, 127

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Summary of the Three Studies for the Research………………………...16 Table 3.1 Summary Statistics for the Demographic Variables of Preservice Teachers……………………………………………………...51 Table 3.2 Summary Statistics for the Demographic Variables of Inservice Teachers……………………………………………………….52 Table 3.3 Coding Structure for Study 1…………………………………………….55 Table 4.1 Mean and Standard Deviations for Preservice and Inservice Teachers’ Responses to Short Questionnaire – Study 1…………………67 Table 4.2 Themes from Focus Group Interview Responses………………………..69 Table 5.1 95% confidence Intervals of Mean and Standard Deviation of Change for Personal Efficacy and Teaching Efficacy…………………...98 Table 5.2 Pattern Matrix for Oblique Factors of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale for Teaching ESL Learners Scale………………………..99

vi

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my

knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made

Donna Tangen 17 September 2007

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisors, Dr Kym Irving and Dr Ruth Fielding-Barnsley for their guidance, help and support throughout the major portions of this research. Each has provided me with unique insights of the research process and have kept me on track and on task over the past three years. I would also like to express my sincerest thanks and gratitude to Dr Rebecca Spooner-Lane whose assistance, knowledge and clarity of thought were invaluable to me in completing this thesis. I would also like to thank my family who were patient and supported me in many different ways throughout the project, my friends who allowed me to use them as sounding boards when I needed to talk and my colleagues who provided advise and encouragement.

viii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The current research explores the construct of teacher efficacy within

the context of teaching students who are English-as-a second language (ESL)

learners in regular primary classrooms. The research stems from an

understanding that the presence of students who have ESL in the classroom has

always been a challenge for teachers and that such a challenge has a direct

effect on teachers’ efficacy. Teachers’ confidence in their capabilities to teach

these students has far reaching implications in that without a good

understanding of the complexities involved in teaching students who have ESL,

these students may not have their learning needs met and, as a consequence,

may not reach their learning potential.

Research indicates that teacher efficacy is an important construct in

teaching and learning and has been described as teachers’ “…belief or

conviction that they can influence how well students learn” (Guskey & Passaro,

1994, p.528). Teachers who believe that they can perform certain teaching

related tasks will attempt them with the expectation of producing certain

outcomes (high efficacy) while teachers who do not believe that they can

perform these tasks will not attempt them or, if they do, will not persist at them

to attain desired outcomes (low efficacy). There is little evidence in the

literature to suggest that teacher efficacy has been examined in relation to

teaching students who have ESL. The current research aims to address this

issue beginning with an explanation of the purpose for the research.

Purpose of the Research

The purpose of the research is fourfold. First, the thesis explores

teachers’ perceptions and understanding of the term ‘ESL’. There is no single

phrase to describe students who have ESL. Indeed, there is much debate as to

which term to use in identifying these students. Learners who fall into this

category have been variously described as language minority students (Byrnes,

1

Kiger & Manning, 1997; Langman, 2003), limited-English-proficient (LEP)

students (Lee, 1996) and English language learners (ELL) (Cummins, 1997).

The term, ESL, used for the current research describes students in primary

school who are non-fluent English language learners. While perhaps not the

most ideal of labels, if indeed there is such a thing, ESL was chosen for the

thesis because it is the term used by Education Queensland (2006) and so is the

one that was most familiar to teachers in the study (as the research was

conducted in Queensland). However, rather than making an assumption about

teachers’ perceptions of students who are described as ESL it was important to

make this determination at the outset of the research by asking teachers for their

descriptions of these students. These descriptions are presented in Study 1 of

the research.

Additionally, it is proposed in the research that efficacy stems not only

from teachers’ perceptions of ESL students but also takes into consideration

personal sources of efficacy information in association with specific contextual

needs for these students. Sources of efficacy information include mastery

experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion and physiological arousal

(Bandura, 1997) while contextual considerations are culture load, language load,

learning load and cognitive load (see Meyer, 2000). These variables will be

described in more detail later in this chapter and are explored through the

research questions:

How do teachers understand the term, ESL?

What sources of efficacy information are used to teacher students who

have ESL?

What contextual factors are taken into account when teaching students

how have ESL?

Thirdly, the thesis explores the construct of teacher efficacy. While

teacher efficacy surveys have been used before, no specific measure has been

developed for examining teachers’ efficacy in relation to teaching students who

have ESL. The current research addresses this imbalance through a researcher-

generated measure that focuses specifically on the target student group. In

2

particular, the current research explores four factors of efficacy beliefs

proposed by Brouwers and Tomic (2003) (i.e., personal, teaching, classroom

management and outcome) in association with four contextual considerations

(cognitive load, learning load, language load and culture load). The construct of

teacher efficacy in the context of teaching students who have ESL is explored

in relation to the research question:

What dimensions constitute teacher efficacy for teaching students who

have ESL?

Finally, the study explores how teachers’ efficacy beliefs influence

teaching strategies used to accommodate students who have ESL. Few studies

have tracked teachers’ efficacy beliefs from their source through to their

application as teaching strategies. The exploration of teachers’ confidence in

their teaching strategies is explored in the research question:

How confident are teachers in their chosen strategies for working with

students who have ESL?

In this thesis, the exploration of teacher efficacy is informed by a

cyclical model developed by Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy and Hoy (1998)

(as presented on p.38). It is suggested from the model that teacher efficacy

results from an individual’s interpretation of four sources of efficacy

information through the analysis of a teaching task in association with an

assessment of one’s personal teaching capabilities. The combination of these

variables leads to consequences of teacher efficacy such as developing goals

and/or committing effort and persistence to achieve goals, which ultimately

affects teaching performance (actioning teaching tasks). These actions, in turn,

result in the formation of new sources of efficacy information. The model

developed by Tschannen-Moran et al., however, is not specific to certain

contexts and therefore the current research utilised a revised cyclical model that

includes contextual considerations for teaching students who have ESL (as

presented on p.39). The cyclical model of teacher efficacy as developed by

Tschannen-Moran et al. will be described in the next chapter, The Literature

3

Review, as will be the rationale for the modified cyclical model used in the

current research.

The following section of this chapter describes current provisions made

for primary students who have ESL. Next an explanation will be given of the

sources of efficacy beliefs and the contextual considerations for teaching

students who have ESL. A description of the four-factor model of teacher

efficacy will be given before outlining the research plan. The chapter will

conclude with an explanation of the organisation of the thesis.

Rationale for Investigating Teacher Efficacy in Relation to Teaching Students

who have ESL

In 1987, Lo Bianco, commissioned by the Australian government,

produced The National Policy on Languages (NPL). In the report, Lo Bianco

argued for a greater awareness of English language learning for students for

whom English was not their first language, as well as Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander students in Australia, and recommended that students maintain

their native language while learning to learn in English. Lo Bianco argued

against waiting for English language learning to be ‘complete’ before

introducing students to subject content suggesting that such an action would be

discriminatory and disruptive towards students’ overall academic learning, a

view later expressed by Cummins (1991). A recommendation of the report (Lo

Bianco, 1987) was that all preservice teachers and inservice educators should

have components on language learning, ESL and bilingualism included in their

training.

The Australian government’s ‘Australian Language and Literacy Policy’

(ALLP) and subsequent discussion ‘Green Paper’ (Department of Employment,

Education and Training (DEET), 1990; DEET, 1991), on the whole, did not

follow up on important items in Lo Bianco’s recommendations. Instead, the

Green Paper emphasised that native English language learners should learn to

speak a language other than English but placed little emphasis of the

importance of the mother tongue for ESL students. However, one initiative that

was taken up in the ALLP (Green Paper, 1991) was the 12-month intensive

4

English language program for new arrivals (first phase learners) to Australia,

with provision for federal funding. The ALLP allowed funding for a one-year

intensive English language program for primary students, provided students

began school within 18 months of arriving in Australia. The policy did not

account for students who arrived outside those parameters, nor was there a

provision of funding for ongoing support for students beyond the one-year

intensive program (for so-called second and third phase learners). Such a policy

goes against research that suggests that it can take a student up to 7 years to

become academically proficient (Cummins, 1991) and goes against what Lo

Bianco (1987) recommended in his report, which was to have language and

content integration.

In response to the ALLP paper (DEET, 1991), Christie, Freebody,

Devlin, Luke, Martin, Threadgold and Walton (1991) produced a nationwide

report on preservice training for teaching English literacy identifying a need for

awareness training for preservice teachers on the uniqueness of ESL language

development. The Australian Language and Literacy Council (ALLC; 1995)

subsequently challenged Christie et al.’s findings, suggesting that specific

language development awareness programs were not needed for teaching ESL

students because all teachers in Australia are English teachers, because all

teachers in Australia teach in English. The ALLC (1995) deemed that schooling

for students who have ESL should be the same as that of native English

language learners, with no recognition of support needed beyond the one-year

intensive program. Indeed, the ALLC expressed the view that there is no

‘fundamental difference’ in the process of literacy in a student’s first language

and their second language. The ultimate aim from the ALLC’s report was to

enable students to enter ‘as soon as possible’ into mainstream education where

English is the dominant discourse.

Further to the ALLC (1995) report, Lo Bianco and Freebody (1997)

suggested that there are many students who have ESL entering schooling in

Australia at an age older than 5 years (the age group focused on in the ALLC

report). A policy with a focus on one stage of childhood development is

5

inadequate to address the needs of older students at a different stage of

development. Many upper primary students enter school with insecure literacy

in their home language (for example, refugee children who have received little

or no schooling in their home country). According to Lo Bianco and Freebody,

many students in the second and third phases of English language development

continue having difficulties in their English language and academic

development, suggesting that one year intensive training is not enough to

develop English language skills to cope successfully in school. Students’ gains

in oral proficiency can mask their need for ongoing assistance in academic

language proficiency as children struggle with learning through learning

English (Cummins, 1991).

Intervention programs have been developed to assist mainstream

teachers to teach students for whom English was not a first language. For

example, the State of Victoria, Department of Education and Training (1991)

developed “ESL in the Mainstream”, a program to train teachers and school

administrators in the development of materials and teaching approaches, to

meet the cultural and linguistic needs of students. This program has been

adopted by some schools in Queensland, but it is the choice of the school to do

so. McKay (1997) studied a Queensland school where staff had completed the

“ESL in the Mainstream” program and where the principal of the school

believed that, through such staff training, the needs of students were being met.

However, McKay found that there was little evidence at the classroom level of

students’ cultures being included in texts and classroom activities. Additionally,

the ‘weaker’ ESL learners were not always clear about the purpose of a task and

appeared to lack confidence in individual work. On the positive side, McKay

found that the students felt accepted and a part of the school community.

Davison (2001) suggests that programs like “ESL in the Mainstream” focus on

the ‘how’ (methodologies/strategies for teaching students) rather than the

‘what’ (curriculum content). Such an approach to teaching ESL learners may

become a technical, lock-step approach, without leading teachers to a closer

understanding of the contextual considerations for teaching these students.

6

From the census taken in Australia in 2001, the Australian Bureau of

Statistics (2006) records that 17.2% of respondents in Queensland identified

themselves as ‘persons born overseas’. While the majority of these people were

from English speaking countries such as England, New Zealand and Scotland,

12% spoke a language other than English at home (e.g. Italian, Cantonese,

Mandarin, German, and Vietnamese). Education Queensland (2006) describes

the state’s current cultural and linguistic diversity: 40% of Queenslanders are

migrants or the children of migrants, 10% of Queenslanders over 5 years old

speak a language other than English at home; Queensland is host to more than

200 nationalities. Educators cannot ignore the particular learning needs of ESL

students by treating them the same as students who are proficient in only one

language; English.

Children, who are ESL, aged 5 to 12 and newly arrived in Queensland

(the focus of this study), are usually placed in a regular classroom at their local

school rather than being placed in a special English-as-a-Second Language

(ESL) class as a way to have students assimilate quickly in the established

Queensland school culture (Osborne & Dawes, 1992). According to the current

Minister of Education for Queensland, Rod Welford MP (Welford, 2006),

government funding for teaching students who have ESL is distributed to each

district level which then determines the allocation of money to support the

development, management and implementation of policies. Each district is able

to direct the money to where it sees the most need for both administration

duties and teacher responsibilities.

For example, there are 850 students in the Logan Albert Beaudesert

District who are ESL, including students from the Pacific Islands (45%),

African refugees (30%), and students from Asia, Europe and the Middle East

(25%) (van Gilst & Gura, 2006). Funding to schools in this district is allocated

on a points system with the bulk of the money dedicated towards students’ first

year of schooling. These schools have established ESL programs and are visited

by Advisory Visiting Teachers’ (AVT). AVT responsibilities include providing

classroom teachers with strategies, planning, resources and professional

7

development to teach students who have ESL as well as liaising with

parents/care givers, assessing students and/or directly teaching students either

individually or in small groups. According to van Gilst and Gura (2006), most

AVT’s travel to more than five schools per week. Having to spread themselves

out across a number of schools limits the amount of time AVT’s can spend

working with individual students. With limited student-AVT contact time, the

onus is on classroom teachers to teach the same classroom content to students

who have ESL as that provided to classroom peers.

According to Grimbeek and Carrington (2003), students who have ESL

attend primary schools in every region of Queensland, incorporated under the

umbrella of inclusive education. Inclusive education for this thesis is in line

with the philosophy that schools should provide for the needs of all students in

the community, celebrating the diversity of abilities, cultures, ethnicity and

social backgrounds (Foreman, 2005). In primary schools with high numbers of

eligible students, ESL teachers may be part of the school staff; in other schools,

support is received from visiting ESL teachers (Education Queensland, 2006).

Teachers’ willingness to adapt or modify their strategies to teach to the

differing needs of students will, in part, be manifest through their efficacy

(Allinder, 1994). Research has indicated (Lopez, 2000; Rhine, 1995) that

teachers lack confidence in how to interact comfortably with students who have

limited English language proficiency. Because it is believed that teachers’ self-

beliefs have a direct influence on how they behave with students (Cabello &

Burstein, 1995; Wheatley, 2002), it is important to study teachers’ efficacy in

relation to teaching students who have ESL because, with lowered teacher

efficacy, learning for these students may be compromised. Little research has

investigated teacher efficacy in relation to ESL learners.

The following section will describe the first phase of the cyclical mode

of teacher efficacy, exploring possible sources of efficacy information from

which teachers draw when determining how they will approach teaching

students who have ESL.

8

Sources of Efficacy Information

Efficacy beliefs have to do with self-perceptions of competence rather

than actual levels of competence (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). The

perception that a performance has been successful or unsuccessful raises or

lowers efficacy beliefs and contributes to the expectation of future performance

at a similar task. According to Bandura (1986, 1997) there are four sources of

efficacy information: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal

persuasion and physiological arousal. Mastery experiences, considered the most

powerful source of efficacy information are a person’s actual, past performance

at a task. Self-perceptions derived from the success or failure at completing a

past performance at a task will influence efficacy when one is considering

engaging in a similar task. Vicarious experiences are those in which the skill at

a particular task is modelled by someone else. The degree to which the observer

identifies with the model will influence the observer’s efficacy. The closer the

observer identifies with the model the stronger will be the impact on efficacy. If

a model performs well, the efficacy of the observer is enhanced; if the model

performs poorly, the efficacy of the observer decreases. Verbal persuasion and

physiological arousal are described as specific performance feedback, such as a

‘pep talk’ by a supervisor or colleague. Verbal persuasion can also be derived

from general chatter – in the teacher’s lounge, for example – or from other

sources such as the media, for example, a documentary on the ability of

teachers to influence students. The effects of verbal persuasion and

physiological arousal are limited in their power to create enduring increases or

decreases in efficacy. However, if positive, they may contribute to a person

initiating a task, to attempt new strategies or to try harder to succeed. Set-backs

in performance may instil enough self-doubt to interrupt persistence at a task.

The potency of persuasion depends on the credibility, trustworthiness and

expertise of the persuader (Bandura, 1986).

Specific Contextual Considerations for Teaching Students who have ESL

Teacher efficacy is widely acknowledged as being context specific

(Bandura, 1986, 1997; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998). The

9

specific context for the current research is teaching students who have ESL in

regular primary classrooms. Identifying the context for studying teacher

efficacy is important because evidence suggests that there are cultural and

language differences to which teachers must attend when teaching students who

have ESL (Igoa, 1995; Jones, 2000; Ogbu, 1994). It is hypothesised in this

thesis that contextual considerations will have a bearing on teaching strategies

chosen by teachers as a consequence of their efficacy beliefs. Researchers agree

that teaching students who have ESL in mainstream classrooms has added

complexities to teaching native-English language learners in the same class

(Jones, 2000; Meyer, 2000). Meyer (2000) suggested that there are four

contextual considerations in relation to teaching students who have ESL:

cognitive load, learning load, language load and culture load which are briefly

described below.

Cognitive load refers to teachers having an understanding that primary

school students must process information in at least two languages; these

students must transfer thoughts from one language (English) to another (home

language) and then back again to English in order to demonstrate their learning.

Such mental processing requires more time and effort than that required of

students who are processing learning and understanding using only one

language. Learning load describes teachers’ perceptions of how students learn,

in effect, what teachers ask students to do in set learning activities and tasks. It

is concerned with how teachers accommodate ESL students’ learning to help

them meet instructional outcomes that are on a par with their native-English

language peers. Language load refers to teachers’ use of language in the

classroom and the fluidity of communication that students must understand in

order to learn. Regardless of their particular backgrounds, cultures and

languages, the one constant for all students is school (McKay, Davies, Devlin,

Clayton, Oliver & Zammit, 1997) and schools in Australia are purposely

language-rich. Therefore, the language load expected of students is set by

predetermined standards common for all students and students who have ESL

must adapt to these demands. Culture load refers to teachers’ understanding of

10

the differences and similarities of culture through language (i.e. through world

views, classroom talk) (Meyer, 2000). Culture load is also concerned with how

much new culture a student must comprehend to participate in learning

activities, how aware teachers are of the differences in culture between the

dominant Australian culture and that of their student(s) and what teachers do to

address these differences to assist students in their learning.

Conceptualisation of the Construct of Teacher Efficacy

The current research examines contextual considerations for teaching

students who have ESL in association with the construct of teacher efficacy. As

a construct, teacher efficacy attempts to identify both teachers’ motivation to

persist at a teaching task and teachers’ willingness to overcome teaching

difficulties (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Teacher efficacy, like Bandura’s

(1986) concept of self-efficacy, relates to individuals’ judgements about their

capabilities to execute behaviours needed to produce or attain designated

outcomes. For instance, Ghaith and Shaaban (1999) found that teachers with

high efficacy were more likely to stay in teaching because they attribute

students’ successful achievements to their own personal efforts and abilities to

teach. Teachers with a strong sense of efficacy put more effort into meeting the

learning needs of their students, showed more enthusiasm for teaching and set

higher goals for themselves as well as for their students. Rimm-Kaufman and

Sawyer (2004) found that teachers who felt high efficacy and expressed

positive attitudes towards teaching also reported high efficacy in their

capabilities to establish and maintain classroom discipline.

The following section of the thesis provides a description of teacher

efficacy as it was conceptualised for the research. As a multifaceted construct,

teacher efficacy has generally been examined as a two dimensional construct

(Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990); it has also been explored as

a three dimensional construct (Soodak & Podell, 1996) and as global construct

(Deemer & Minke, 1999). By and large, it is considered a two-dimensional

construct with the two dimensions being personal efficacy and teaching efficacy

11

derived from the most widely used measure of teacher efficacy developed by

Gibson and Dembo (1984).

In relation to a two-factor solution, it has been suggested that personal

efficacy is a teacher’s general sense of their capabilities to do the job (Gibson &

Dembo, 1984; Soodak and Podell, 1996). This kind of efficacy influences how

much effort a teacher will expend in working with students. Personal efficacy

has been strongly represented in teacher efficacy research and appears to be

easily identifiable by teachers.

Teaching efficacy is related to activities to overcome environmental

factors on student learning such as family life and socio-economic status. The

Hobart Declaration on Schooling (1989) and the follow-up, Adelaide

Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century (1999)

(Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs

(MCEETYA), accessed 4/11/2004), state that one common and agreed goal for

schooling in Australian is to strengthen schools as learning communities where

teachers, students and their families work together in partnership with business,

industry and the wider community. Teaching efficacy measures teachers’

confidence to develop and maintain those links beyond the classroom. Links

with the community fall within the parameters that suggest that learning is

located not only in people’s minds but also in their social interactions (Hendry,

1996). Therefore, teachers of students who have ESL cannot ignore that

environmental factors must be salient variables to consider.

However, in a study of 540 teachers, Brouwers and Tomic (2003) tested

different factorial models proposed by authors including Gibson and Dembo’s

(1984) two-factor model which includes personal efficacy and teaching efficacy,

Emmer and Hickman’s (1991) three-factor model that included classroom

management efficacy and Soodak and Podell’s (1996) four-model that included

the factor of outcome efficacy. Factor analysis revealed that the four-factor

model fitted the data significantly better than the other models, although its fit

did not reach the recommended criterion of adequately fitted models

statistically. One possible reason for an inadequate fit may have been due to the

12

employment of a global measure of teacher efficacy rather than context-specific

measure. It is continually recommended that teacher efficacy is context-specific

(Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1992); therefore, the current research sought to

measure the construct within the context of teaching students who have ESL.

Little research has focused on the four dimensions of teacher efficacy; however,

the four dimensions identified by Brouwers and Tomic (2003) describe

meaningful aspects of effective teaching: classroom management, outcomes,

overcoming environmental factors and having confidence in one’s own

teaching abilities. It is proposed in the current research that teachers lacking in

efficacy beliefs in any of these four dimensions are unlikely to promote wholly

successful learning situations for their students. Further discussion of teacher

efficacy is provided in the next chapter, The Literature Review.

Research Program Outline

Using a cyclical framework of teaching efficacy, Tschannen-Moran et al.

(1998) examined the pathway of efficacy from the sources of efficacy

information (i.e., verbal persuasion, vicarious experience, physiological arousal

and mastery experience) through to the manifestation of efficacy beliefs (i.e.,

goals, effort and persistence), which in turn leads to the formation of new

efficacy beliefs (as presented on p. 46). What is missing from the model is a

specific context for examining teacher efficacy. The present study modified the

Tschannen-Moran et al. model to include the four specific contextual

considerations (i.e. cognitive load, language load, learning load and culture load)

associated with teaching ESL students and four factors of teacher efficacy (i.e.

personal efficacy, teaching efficacy, outcome efficacy and classroom

management efficacy) (as presented on p. 46). The cyclical model and the

modified cyclical model are described in Chapter 2, The Literature Review.

The current research program, which consisted of three successive

studies, is briefly outlined below.

Study 1

The first study commenced in February, 2003. Study 1 involved a qualitative

component of the research program in which focus groups were conducted with

13

17 preservice teachers (14 female and 3 male) and nine inservice teachers (8

female and 1 male). Focus groups are defined as “in-depth, open-ended group

discussions that explore a specific set of issues on a predefined and limited

topic” (Robinson, 1999, p.905). The issues explored in Study 1 included

examining sources of teachers’ efficacy beliefs to teach the target group of

students and examining associated contextual factors related to teaching

students who have ESL as per the first phase of the cyclical model of teacher

efficacy.

Study 1 was designed to address the principal research questions:

(1) How do teachers understand the term, ESL?

(2) What sources of efficacy information are used to teach students who

have ESL?

(3) What contextual factors are taken into account when teaching

students who have ESL?

Findings from research questions (2) and (3) in Study 1 were taken into

consideration in the development of survey items for Study 2. Findings from

research questions (1) and (3) in Study 1 above were utilised to feed into the

development of hypothetical teaching scenarios used in Study 3. Study 2 will

now be outlined.

Study 2

The qualitative data from Study 1 provided insights into context specific

components of teaching students who have ESL in regular classrooms. The four

contextual components examined were: cognitive load, learning load, language

load, and culture load. These findings enabled the researcher to conceptualise

the teacher efficacy construct in relation to teaching ESL students and thereby

address the principal research question for Study 2:

What dimensions constitute teacher efficacy for teaching students who

have ESL?

14

A questionnaire to measure the four factors of teacher efficacy within

the context of teaching ESL students was then developed for the second study

of the research. The four factors examined were: personal efficacy, teaching

efficacy, outcome efficacy, and classroom management efficacy.

Little is known about the dimensions comprising teacher efficacy in

relation to teaching students who have ESL. Evidence of their construct validity

and reliability in the current research was demonstrated using a number of

statistical procedures. To assess the factor composition of these scales, the

statistical technique known as factor analysis was conducted utilising the

statistical package SPSS 12.0.1 for Windows.

Study 3

The qualitative findings from Study 1 and information from the

literature were utilised in Study 3 to develop hypothetical teaching scenarios to

examine how efficacy beliefs might influence teaching performance as per the

final phase of the modified cyclical model (Performance) (Tschannen-Moran et

al., 1998). Based on their analysis of a teaching task in association with an

assessment of their capabilities to do the task, teachers set goals and commit to

a course of action (performance) to accomplish the task. The current study

explored the research question:

How confident are teachers in their chosen teaching strategies for

working with students who have ESL?

Contributions to the Field of Research

Few studies have examined preservice and inservice teachers’

understanding of students who have ESL and how such understanding

influences teacher efficacy beliefs and subsequent teaching strategies.While

there is much information describing approaches teachers could take to teach

students who have ESL (see Dare & Polias, 2001; Gibbons, 1991; Rose, Gray,

& Cowey, 1999; Sale, Sliz, & Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2003), there is little

information on teachers’ efficacy in this context.

In particular, there are no studies that examine contextual considerations

as they pertain to teachers’ efficacy for the target student group of the current

15

research. This area of teacher efficacy warrants closer scrutiny so that the best

outcomes for ESL students can be reached by teachers who feel confident that

they understand how best to facilitate learning for these students.

Important to the research is the inclusion of a four-factor model of

teacher efficacy (Brouwers & Tomic, 2003) as a means to more clearly define

the construct of teacher efficacy. The utilisation of this factoral model breaks

new ground in that such a model has not been tested specifically to teaching

students who have ESL. Furthermore, research on teacher efficacy traditionally

employs self-report scales. The current research uses a mixed-method approach

to more comprehensively explore the various features of teacher efficacy.

While other researchers have employed mixed-method approaches (see Hebert,

Lee, & Williamson, 1998), the current research aimed to extend previous

approaches to studying teacher efficacy by utilising three studies to explore the

specific facets of the construct within a cyclical model. Such a program of

research has not been undertaken before. The research questions that guided the

research were derived from the literature are posited in Chapter 2.

To test the factoral structure of the construct, a new measure of teacher

efficacy was developed for this research, the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale

for Teaching ESL Learners scale. No such teacher efficacy scale exists for this

population. Understanding teachers’ confidence to teach students who have

ESL will help to identify professional development and further resources

needed to achieve optimal teaching practices for working with these students.

Below (Table 1.1) is a summary of the three studies for the research.

Table 1.1

Summary of the Three Studies for the Research _________________________________________________________________________

Research Questions

_________________________________________________________________________

Study 1 1. How do teachers understand the term ‘ESL’?

2. What sources of efficacy information are used to teach students who

have ESL?

16

3. What contextual factors are taken into account when teaching students

who have ESL?

Study 2 1. What dimensions constitute teacher efficacy for teaching students who

have ESL?

Study 3 1. How confident are teachers in their chosen strategies for working with

students who have ESL?

Organisation of the Thesis

Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature on teacher efficacy and on

teaching students who have ESL is presented to provide a framework for

analysis of data within the cyclical model of teacher efficacy (Tschannen-

Moran et al., 1998). A modified version of the cyclical model developed for the

research is presented with an argument for its inclusion.

Chapter 3 provides an overview of the research methodology, including

sampling techniques, strategies used to enhance reliability and validity of the

findings, a rationale for using both qualitative and quantitative methodology,

data analysis techniques and the principle research questions. Chapters, 4, 5 and

6 describe the three studies comprising the research, the methodology of each

successive study and their results. Chapter 7 discusses how the three studies are

related with a discussion of the findings with recommendations for future

teacher preparation, limitations of the research and recommendations for further

research in the field.

17

CHAPTER 2 Literature Review

This chapter presents a review of the literature on teacher efficacy and

contextual considerations in relation to teaching students who have ESL.

Consideration will be given to how teacher efficacy is presently conceptualised

in the literature before presenting a discussion of the measurement of teacher

efficacy. Next a model of teacher efficacy that tracks efficacy beliefs from their

source to subsequent teaching application will be critiqued before an extended

cyclical model which includes four factors of teacher efficacy and specific

contextual considerations will be described. This extended model is used as the

basis for exploring the nature of teacher efficacy and how it influences teaching

ESL students in the current research.

Conceptualisation of the Construct – Teacher Efficacy

The construct of teacher efficacy is derived from Bandura’s (1986, 1997)

notion of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is concerned with people’s beliefs in their

capabilities to produce given attainments. According to Bandura, efficacy

beliefs can be self-enhancing or self-debilitating and play a part in determining

an individual’s choice of what course of action to pursue, how long a person

will persevere along that course of action in the face of obstacles and in an

individual’s resiliency to adversity. The stronger the sense of efficacy at a task

in a given domain, the greater will be the individual’s perseverance to keep at it

and the higher the likelihood that the person will perform the chosen activity

successfully.

One of the great appeals of teacher efficacy for researchers is that it is

one of the few teacher characteristics that is related to student achievement

(Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005); teachers can make self-judgements on their

teaching based on the achievements their students produce. Teacher efficacy is

a self-perception of competence rather than a measure of actual competence.

18

Allinder (1994) suggested that efficacy beliefs appear to affect the level of

effort a teacher will invest in a teaching task; the stronger a teacher’s efficacy

beliefs, the better planning, organisation and greater enthusiasm for teaching

appears to occur. It would seem natural then that schools would prefer to have

teachers who have high efficacy working for them. However, Wheatley (2000)

suggests that high efficacy beliefs can be misplaced. For example, if teachers

feel pressured they may purport to be efficacious at a task when in reality they

do not feel confident they can do the job at all, exhibiting what Wheatley

describes as a “pretend efficacy”, for example, pretending to be efficacious in

order to save face. Alternatively, teachers may have found a level of teaching at

which they perceive themselves to be efficacious but one in which they are

resistant to change or reform. Wheatley (2000) described this efficacy as “too-

certain efficacy” where teachers believe that they have the curriculum “all

figured out” (p.19), implying that they have a fixed procedural approach to

teaching that eliminates opportunities for change and growth.

Wheatley (2002) further suggests that having doubts about one’s

teaching capabilities can foster a sense of disequilibrium, which in turn can

foster self-reflection. With support, teachers can learn to handle self-doubts and

become responsive to reforms and a greater diversity in the teaching/learning

context. However, having “overly-optimistic efficacy” can set the stage for

disillusionment. Teachers’ expectations of their capabilities may be challenged

in real teaching situations, which may cause innovative teaching practices to be

abandoned for a safer more established approach to teaching.

Measurement of Teacher Efficacy

In measuring efficacy, people are being asked to judge their operative

capabilities as of now (Bandura, 2001). That is, individuals judge their

capabilities against an activity that may occur in the imminent future rather than

in the more distant future. Efficacy beliefs influence motivation through

individuals having a sense of persistence at achieving set goals and it supports

motivation in the degree of optimism individuals have in their capabilities to

attain their goals.

19

Seminal research in teacher efficacy was conducted by Gibson and

Dembo (1984) who developed an efficacy scale that produced two factors:

personal teaching efficacy (a person’s belief in their capability to do the task)

and teaching efficacy (outcome expectations in regards to the degree to which

students can be taught given their family background, socioeconomic status and

school conditions). Gibson and Dembo (1984) found that teachers with high

efficacy were more effective in classroom management issues than teachers

with low efficacy. For example, teachers with high efficacy were observed to be

able to provide supervision to the whole class, even while working with a small

reading group, whereas teachers with low efficacy appeared to be flustered if

interrupted while working with a small group.

Since its introduction, the Gibson and Dembo scale has been the basis

for most teacher efficacy research (Ghaith & Shaaban, 1999; Hebert, Lee &

Williams, 1998; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). What

follows is a brief history of teacher efficacy research to the present day.

Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) examined prospective teachers’ efficacy in relation to

control and motivation. They found that teachers with high efficacy anticipated

being loyal members of a school’s organisation (and thus be controlled by the

hierarchical rules of the organisational structure) but the same teachers also

expected to deal with their students in a personal and humanistic way, allowing

their students to control their learning. Woolfolk and Hoy described this as a

dichotomy where teachers held positive efficacy about being controlled but

negative efficacy about controlling their students. Like Gibson and Dembo

(1984), Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) found two formulations of the efficacy

construct: teaching efficacy and personal efficacy.

Guskey and Passaro (1994), however, found an anomaly for both the

Gibson and Dembo (1984) scale and the Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) scale. In

both scales, items that loaded on the personal teaching efficacy factor were all

positively described, had an internal locus of control and used the referent ‘I’

(e.g. “I can…”). Items that were loaded on the teaching efficacy subscale were

negatively described, had an external locus of control and used the referent

20

‘teachers’ (e.g. “teachers cannot…”) (p. 628). Guskey and Passaro suggested

that a scale based on an internal-external distinction would produce more

reliable results than the ‘personal’ and ‘teaching’ efficacy scales; however,

there has not been widespread acceptance of this distinction. For example,

Soodak and Podell (1996) argued that the concept of locus of control should be

viewed as a continuum, making reliable identification of either an internal or

external orientation difficult. Bandura (2001) argued that because locus of

control is different to self-efficacy it should be measured as a separate construct.

Unlike Gibson and Dembo (1984) and Woolfolk and Hoy (1990),

Soodak and Podell (1996) retained three factors of teacher efficacy, which they

described as teaching efficacy, personal efficacy and outcome efficacy.

Teaching efficacy measured activities to overcome environmental factors such

as family life. Personal efficacy measured teachers’ assessment of their

teaching ability while outcome efficacy reflected teachers’ beliefs about the

extent to which desirable outcomes are the result of their actions. The scale

used for the Soodak and Podell study included 16 items from Gibson and

Dembo’s (1984) original scale and an additional 18 times with a particular

focus on examining the role of outside influences on teachers’ beliefs.

Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) posited that in a three-factor solution, personal

efficacy would be differentiated by positive versus negative student outcomes;

Soodak and Podell suggest that it is not a positive-negative differentiation but

that personal efficacy was comprised of two different factors: personal efficacy,

which refers to teachers’ beliefs about their teaching skills and outcome efficacy,

which refers to teachers beliefs about the effectiveness of implementing those

skills. Soodak and Podell (1996) argued that the distinction between personal

efficacy and outcome efficacy demonstrated independent aspects of efficacy and

so found that there were three factors not two as is generally accepted.

In contrast, Deemer and Minke’s (1999) study revealed that teacher

efficacy may, in fact, be a unidimensional construct, at least in relation to the

Gibson and Dembo (1984) scale. Deemer and Minke tested a modified version

of the Gibson and Dembo scale developing two forms using only the referent

21

“I”, to examine the positive-negative wording orientation of the original Gibson

and Dembo scale. In the original scale, positive wording orientation of items

used the referent “I can” while negative wording orientation used the referent

“teachers cannot”. On the Deemer and Minke (1999) scale each item from the

Gibson and Dembo (1984) scale was revised so that a positive and negative

version of each item was available, using only the referent “I” for both modified

versions. For example, an original item from the Gibson and Dembo scale reads:

When a student does better than usual, many times it is because I exerted a

little extra effort. A revised version on the Deemer and Minke scale reads:

When a student does better than usual, it is often not because I exerted a little

extra effort. Deemer and Minke found that in the absence of wording confounds,

the items loading as teaching efficacy were primarily an internal dimension of

personal efficacy, with a separate external factor not identified. Deemer and

Minke suggested that the two factor structure of the Gibson and Dembo (1984)

scale may be partially “…an artefact of item wording and not the result of

underlying, distinct construct dimensions” (p 5 of 24). According to Deemer

and Minke (1999), the Gibson and Dembo scale did not appear to represent the

two dimensions of teacher efficacy that the authors claimed it did.

Lately researchers have begun to develop new ways of examining

teacher efficacy. Hebert, Lee and Williamson (1998) used both quantitative and

qualitative measures of teacher efficacy. As well as using the Gibson and

Dembo (1984) scale, Hebert et al. took observations of teacher behaviour and

found this approach added depth and understanding to the numerical ratings and

provided a contextual underpinning for teachers’ expressed efficacy beliefs.

Gerges (2001) found that that there was a rich source of data gleaned from

qualitative methodology. The qualitative data in Gerges’ study was collected

through structured interviews, direct observation and written documents and

revealed that preservice teachers with high efficacy were able to adapt to their

new frame of reference (the reality of the classroom) much more readily than

preservice teachers with low efficacy and that high efficacy had an impact on

instructional choice in delivering content in the classroom. Extending teacher

22

efficacy research beyond a single scale measure adds depth to our

understanding of the construct within a particular context.

Brouwers and Tomic (2003) found that a four-factor model showed a

‘significantly better fit’ than other models. The four factors from Brouwers and

Tomic’s study were teaching efficacy (overcoming environmental factors),

personal efficacy (one’s teaching/instruction activities), outcome efficacy

(activities to reach educational outcomes) and classroom management efficacy

(activities to manage student behaviour). Three of these factors are consistent

with those advocated by Soodak and Podell (1996): teaching efficacy, personal

efficacy and outcome efficacy. However, Brouwers and Tomic (2003) included

the additional factor of classroom management efficacy from a study conducted

by Emmer and Hickman (1991).

Furthermore, Brouwers and Tomic found that teacher efficacy had been

measured as a global construct when it should have been contextually based

(Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1991; Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998). For example,

thinking about being able to manage a classroom in a global sense is different

to managing a classroom of students within a specific context such as having

students who have ESL in the class, and so one’s efficacy in both cases could

be different. According to Bandura (1986, 1997), measuring efficacy as a global

construct cannot produce reliable results because from its conception efficacy

has been described as context specific, in this, Brouwers and Tomic’s (2003)

study has added to the argument that teacher efficacy should be measured

within a specific context.

In the present thesis quantitative data combined with qualitative data is

combined to enhance our understanding of the construct of teacher efficacy

within the context of teaching students who have ESL. Elaboration of the

description of the research methodologies to test teachers’ efficacy in relation to

teaching students who have ESL used for the current research is provided in

Chapter 3, Methodological Considerations.

23

A Model of Teacher Efficacy

As a new way to conceptualise the construct, Tschannen-Moran,

Woolfolk Hoy and Hoy (1998) proposed a cyclical model of teacher efficacy.

This model (see Figure 1) tracks the pathway of efficacy from the source of

efficacy information through to the development of new efficacy beliefs.

According to the model, efficacy beliefs are manifest as goals, effort and

persistence, which in turn leads a commitment to teaching performance

resulting in the formations of new efficacy beliefs.

Figure 1: The cyclical model of teacher efficacy (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998)

According to Tschannen et al. (1998), interpretation of the four sources

of efficacy information and the analysis of a teaching task in relation to the

assessment of one’s competence at that teaching task are major influences on

efficacy beliefs. It may be recalled that sources of efficacy information derived

from Bandura’s (1986, 1997) description of self-efficacy include verbal

persuasion, vicarious experience, physiological arousal and mastery experience.

Verbal persuasion refers to a ‘pep talk’ or specific performance feedback.

Alone it cannot create enduring increases in efficacy beliefs, but can provide a

24

persuasive boost that will lead to an increased effort and/or persistence to

succeed. Vicarious experiences occur when someone else models an

accomplishment. The more closely one identifies with the model, the greater

impact on a person’s sense of efficacy that they can also do the task.

Physiological arousal refers to an individual’s overall feeling about their

capabilities. An individual who feels positive about their capabilities will

persist to achieve their goal whereas individuals who do not feel positive may

have to dig deeper to convince themselves that they can succeed, or may give

up altogether. Mastery experiences are one’s own direct experiences and are

considered the most powerful source of efficacy information.

When presented with a potential situation, an individual taps into their

sources of efficacy beliefs as a starting point to determine how capable they feel

about committing to this new activity or course of action. What has been

experienced or remembered in the past has an impact on efficacy beliefs. An

individual may feel optimistic or pessimistic in their expectations of meeting

the demands of a new task based on pre-existing beliefs and the sources of

information they attend to or consider important (Bandura, 1997), for example,

if a teacher has met with success at a teaching task previously (mastery

experience), they will feel more efficacious to do the same or a similar task

again. Teachers consider both internal and external factors in attributing past

success or failure. In the cyclical model, the cognitive processing that

teachers undertake is believed to be an analysis of a teaching task in

conjunction with an assessment of one’s personal teaching competence. The

analysis and assessment process is carried out through the filter of current

efficacy beliefs that are based on sources of efficacy information. An example

of this process using mastery experience as the source of efficacy information

would be for the teacher to analyse the proposed teaching task – teaching

students who have ESL - against their pre-existing schemata of doing such a

task – for example, have they already taught students who have ESL. The

teacher would then analyse the perceived difficulty of the new task in relation

25

to the perceived capabilities needed to successfully complete the task as a way

to evaluate the probability of attaining the desired trajectory.

In the next stage of the model, the teacher sets goals and expends effort

and/or persistence to complete the task, which is described as the consequences

of teacher efficacy. As a result of these consequences teachers commit to a

course of action which is described as teaching performance which, in turn,

leads to new efficacy beliefs.

According to Tschannen- Moran et al. (1998), efficacy information is

more likely to be processed positively when individuals assess themselves as

continually improving on a task in spite of periodic setbacks, rather than when

individuals perceive that they have reached the limit of their capabilities to do

the task. In Tschannen-Moran et al.’s cyclical model, high efficacy leads to

better teaching performance, which in turns leads to greater efficacy whereas

low efficacy leads to less effort and giving up, which leads to poor teaching

outcomes and produces decreased efficacy for the next task. However, to date,

this model has not been utilised to examine teacher efficacy.

Furthermore, it has been repeatedly cautioned that teacher efficacy must

be measured within a particular context (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1992;

Whealtey, 2001). That being so, it should be noted that the above cyclical

model does not include a particular context (other than overall teaching) and so

is limited in examining teachers’ efficacy beliefs in relation to teaching students

who have ESL. Therefore, modifications to the model are needed. One such

modification is the inclusion of contextual considerations for teaching students

who have ESL. Below is a description of these contextual considerations.

Specific Contextual Considerations for Teaching Students who have ESL

As previously described in this thesis, there is no overall description of

students who have ESL. For the current study, these students include those who

have limited (or no) English language proficiency at peer level in the classroom

and come from a variety of backgrounds. For example, the report from the

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) (1999) described

26

many barriers migrants face as they begin their new lives in Australia, barriers

such as language and cultural differences and racism, which can make the

experience of migration a highly stressful one. As well as non-English speaking

migrants newly arriving in Australian schools, there are also second-generation

Australian-born children who begin school with little or no English (Iredale,

1997). While the Australian Bureau of Statistics keeps records on newly arrived

migrants who have limited English, they keep no records on second-generation

students who enter school. However, the researcher, who has taught ESL

students in primary classrooms would suggest that in spite of the lack of

statistical evidence of second-generation migrant children entering school with

limited English language proficiency, at the classroom level these children exist

and must be given the same consideration as those newly arrived. Additionally,

there are Indigenous Australian students who do not speak English as their first

language.

For their part, educators are challenged to meet the needs of this diverse

group of students, some of whom have had a smattering of schooling, some

who have had a good foundation for schooling and others who have had no

schooling at all (Campey, 1992). Iredale (1997) suggested that many children

continue to miss out on adequate English language instruction due to limited

teacher preparation, limited resources and government policies on education. It

would appear that there are no simple answers to ease the challenges teachers

face in teaching students who have ESL.

Meyer (2000) identified four barriers in relation to the cultural exchange

between teachers and students who have ESL in providing meaningful

instruction. These contextual considerations are: cognitive load, culture load,

language load and learning load. These contextual considerations are not

mutually exclusive; for example, it would be difficult to talk about language

load without also referring to cognitive load. Indeed, it would be impossible to

fully separate these contextual considerations as each has an impact on the other.

What follows is a description of each.

27

Cognitive Load is described by Meyer (2000) as the number of new

concepts embedded in a lesson or text with which a student who is ESL must

deal. Cognitive load involves two different operations, one is translating

language and the other is in understanding the context/language interface. A

child who is not yet proficient in English relies on their first language for

interpretation of meaning. For example, a child reads something in English but

must translate what he has read into his home language so it makes sense to him

(however accurate or inaccurate their interpretation is). He must then translate

his home language meaning back into English to demonstrate his understanding

to the teacher. At the same time that translations are being made, the child must

also make meaning of the content being read and that the meaning made must

approximate that of the other children in the class. In this sense, cognitive load

has a strong connection to language load (which is described below).

Factors that affect students’ cognitive development include parents’

level of education, the literacy environment at home and at school, the level of

first language proficiency and group identification (Kagiteibasi, 1996). While

some children who are ESL have had little experience of schooling before

arriving in Australia, many experience gaps in their schooling as they move

from their home culture to their new culture. These children are more than

‘language minority’ children; they are children who have been uprooted from

all that was familiar to find themselves constantly trying to make adjustments to

new situations that continually change. Their sense of group identity is

constantly challenged, which in turn has an impact on their ability to learn

(Campey, 2002; Kirova-Petrova, 2000).

The literature suggests, however, that learning a second language

contributes to students’ cognitive flexibility as students must utilise the

processes of cognition (categorising, analysing, selecting and integrating

information/concepts) in two languages (Cummins, 1980; Lo Bianco, 1987).

Bialystock (2002) posits that children at a very early age practice inhibiting

linguistic processing in order to use one language over another. Children in her

study were able to cognitively control the inhibition of attention to one

28

language in order to attend to the other language; this selective attention is a

primary mechanism in cognition. According to Bialystock, this highly

developed cognitive strategy was less developed in mono-linguistic children;

mono-linguistic children, she claims, did not need to think about language

strategies before using language. Furthermore, Bialystock found that the

bilingual children were able to transfer their cognitive skills to other domains

such as performing mathematical functions. Language development, therefore,

appears to be intimately connected to cognitive development and the cognitive

skills of selective attention inhibition are developed in relation to language use.

It has been claimed that children who are ESL begin to connect with

new concepts taught in school when lessons convey meaning to them, whether

they understand English or not, simply by being in the classroom environment

(Curtain & Dahlberg, 2004; Gardner, 1983, 1999). Indeed, it is suggested that

cognitive development will occur along with language development but there is

no need to wait for oral language proficiency for a student to develop

understanding of the content (Baca & Cervantes, 1989; Gibbons, 1991;

Halliwell, 1998; Watts-Taffe & Truscott, 2000). Cognitive demands on children

are determined by the complexity of the learning task relative to students’

abilities. As there appears to be universal cognitive capabilities across cultures

(such as the ability for abstract and logical reason, the capacity to remember

and/or categorise and being able to generalise in forming concepts), it is

suggested that students have the capabilities to learn new ways of thinking as

required according to their new cultural reference (Kagitcibasi, 1996; Kirova-

Petrova, 2000). Therefore, it would seem to be appropriate that addressing the

development of students’ cognitive capabilities is an important factor for their

academic success.

Carrasquillo and Rodriguez (1995) suggest, however, that many

mainstream teachers have not been trained to teach students who have ESL.

The main focus in these classrooms becomes the development of English

language skills more so than on students’ cognitive development. Gersten (1999)

describes these as lost opportunities for teachers who choose to focus on

29

reduced cognitive demands for their students, having them do vocabulary

building, spelling and grammar skills rather than engaging these students in

more cognitively demanding work alongside their classroom peers. Teachers

can become focused on the product of the work (correct spelling and grammar)

and not the process of learning (Nunan, 1999). For effective cognitive

development, there is a need for attention on both process and product to be

incorporated when teaching students who have ESL.

Language Load refers to the amount of English words in academic texts

or talk, including teacher talk with which students who have ESL are expected

to cope (Meyer, 2000). Students who have ESL must learn both academic

English and everyday English and in which circumstances each is appropriate.

In understanding academic language students must learn to understand what

teachers expect of them, whether through written or oral discourse. How a

teacher delivers instructions is as important as the instructions themselves.

Genesse (2002) found that young children demonstrated code-mixing

when they began to learn a second language and that they generally became

more proficient in one language over another. However, if young children are

not fully proficient in their first language before they begin to learn a new

language, they may stop using the first language altogether. For example,

students may pour all their efforts into learning English because that is what

teachers emphasise as their priority in order for students to fit in with their

peers at school (Wong Fillmore, 1991). Wong Fillmore found that often

younger children who did not have a strong first language will lose that

language if there is no concerted effort on the part of their parents/caregivers

and teachers to have them maintain it. She also found that older students may

learn to speak a ‘fossilised version’ of inter-language, a hybrid of their first

language and English, so they end up speaking neither proficiently.

Cummins (1980, 1991, 1997) suggests that there is a close connection

between conversational language proficiency and academic language

proficiency, but with a distinction made between the two. The distinction drawn

by Cummins is between contextualised and decontextualised language.

30

Cummins describes two dimensions of language proficiency: basic

interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive/academic language

proficiency (CALP). BICS tends to measure surface fluency of a language

whereas CALP is tapping into more complex cognitive and academic aspects of

English language learning. Below is Cummins’ (1991) model (see Figure 2)

that demonstrates the various aspects of language proficiency development.

Figure 2: Cross-lingual dimension of language proficiency

(Cummins, 1991)

In the model above, two intersecting axes are portrayed where the

horizontal axis indicates the level of contextual support of language use while

the vertial axis indicates the cognitive demands on the language user. The

quadrants of the model portray the progress of students’ learning from context-

embedded, cognitive undemanding (A) through to context reduced, cognitive

demanding (D) language understanding and use. Context-embedded

communications allows participants to actively negotiate meaning by having

language use supported by a range of meaningful interpersonal and situational

cues. Context-reduced communication relies on linguistic cues to provide

meaning. Thus, successful interpretation of the message depends on one’s

knowledge of the language itself (Cummins, 1991). Quadrant A and C represent

conversational skills that develop fairly rapidly (approximately 2 years to be

conversationally proficient) and lower level academic skills. Quadrant B and D

represent more complex skills such as persuading others of your point of view

31

or writing an academic essay (skills that may take up to 7 years to master).

Cummins suggestes that access to interactions with native English language

speakers is a major causal variable to the success of developing English

language proficiency.

Gersten and Baker (2000) claimed that using lesson content as a way to

develop language limits students’ opportunities to develop the complexities of

their new language with an increased risk that their language learning becomes

either truncated or omitted altogether. They suggested that language

development and cognitive development should have separate goals to

underscore the double demand placed on these students. However, Cummins

(1991) argues that teaching English to ESL students must occur simultaneously

with their academic learning, appropriate to students’ cognitive development.

Cummins points out that while students who have ESL are learning through

learning English, native English language learners do not stop their learning to

wait for ESL students to catch up, so in order to keep up to what their peers are

learning, students who have ESL must be taught the same content as their

native English speaking peers.

It should be noted that children who are ESL begin school in

Queensland with the same language development as native English-speaking

children but in a language other than English. However, teachers may say of the

child, “…s/he has no language” (Makin, 1992, p. 35) meaning that the child

does not speak English. In effect, these teachers are equating the lack of English

with a lack of language development. One role of teachers is to assess where

the student is at in their language development and then provide the support

(scaffolding) needed to help with learning through learning English. To do this

successfully, teachers need an awareness of how to teach students who have

ESL in a range of contexts where students will have to use language to make

meanings appropriate to those contexts (Dare & Polias, 2001; Hammond, 2001)

at the same cognitive and language load as their peers.

Culture Load refers to the amount of cultural knowledge required but

never explicitly explained in order for the learner to accurately comprehend the

32

meanings of a text or to appropriately participate in a learning activity in

English (Meyer, 2000). Culture load, in this sense, is concerned with the

meaning of words, how one word has different meanings in different cultures

and contexts. For example, the word ‘chips’ in Australia means hot chips

whereas in the USA ‘chips’ means the same as Australian potato crisps.

However, as more Americanised language infiltrates Australian lexicon, the

word ‘chips’ now also means Australian crisps. To add to the confusion, hot

chips in the USA are called, French fries or simply fries. Chips are also called

French fries at Australian fast-food take-away restaurants, mainly American in

origin, but at Australian fish and chip shops, which are relatively unknown in

the USA, chips remain chips. Such is one aspect of the culture load ESL

students face in learning English.

Through culture load, migrant children may experience feelings of

isolation, exhaustion, cultural disorientation and loneliness. When they begin

school in their new country they often lapse into a period of silence where they

may appear unwilling to communicate with the teacher and their peers. To

some teachers it may appear that the child is dysfunctional and uncooperative,

but Igoa (1995) describes this silence as a period of incubation, a survival tactic

needed for children to come to grips with their new situation and one in which

they will come through successfully with positive teacher support. Students

who have ESL may experience a discontinuity of their home customs and

practices as they relate to new religious observances, food, dress, manners and

language use in their new culture (Sing Ghuman, 1994). Tileston (2004) and

others (Major & Celedon-Pattichis, 2001; Peragay & Boyle, 2000; Rueda,

MacGillivray, Monzo, & Arzubiaga, 2002; Williams, 2001) argue that for

teachers to become responsive to teaching to a culturally diverse group of

students they must examine their own cultures and be sensitive to the idea that

they also possess a cultural and ethnic identity. Sheets and Fong (2003)

advocate that teachers need to explore ways to use their own personal cultural

knowledge and pedagogical strengths to develop and implement curriculum

with a focus on including cultural awareness for all their students.

33

The socialising and academic focus of parents and families can have a

profound effect on a child’s preparation for school. There is some evidence in

the literature to indicate that parents’ level of education may have a significant

bearing on the academic support they offer their child (Bialystock, 2002; Igoa,

1995). For example, Li (2002) found that university educated parents felt

compelled to tutor their child at home to ensure that the child would succeed

academically in a ‘western’ school. These parents also worried about their

child’s social development and saw having their child participate in extra

curricular activities with other children as a positive avenue for both social

development and English language development. In comparison, in another

family in Li’s study, parents who were not highly educated owned a restaurant

and had little time to spend with their children because of the demands of

running their business in a new country. The youngest child in this family was

completing Grade One for the third time and exhibited behaviour problems in

the classroom. His level of English language proficiency was poor and his main

source of information came from watching television. In this house there were

few books and the television stayed on all day. Li (2002) claims that the literacy

experiences of the parents played a large part in the literacy practices with their

children. While it is an overgeneralisation to suggest that the education of the

parents will produce the same results as those described above, it would appear

that the literacy habits of parents can be a factor in children’s cultural and

linguistic development.

Teachers, for their part, may adopt a negative attitude towards children

if parents are perceived to be uninvolved (Huss-Keeler, 1997). Huss-Keeler

observed teachers who did not have high expectations of ESL students whose

parents did not attend school activities. However, upon visiting the home of one

of these students, these same teachers were surprised to find that the home was

clean, the children were well behaved and the parents were actually interested

in their children’s schooling. As it turned out, the parents had limited English so

would not have understood what was going on during organised school

activities without an interpreter, which the school did not supply. After the

34

home visit, the teachers changed their behaviour towards the student and gave

him more challenging work, appropriate to his abilities with positive results for

the student.

In her study of Hispanic families in the south-west United States of

America, Valdes (1996) found that Hispanic parents were neither committed to

nor involved in their children’s education. Culturally, Hispanic parents valued

education in as much as they believed English was necessary for their children

‘to get on in life’, but school success generally meant that someone was ‘book

smart’. Being book smart was viewed by the parents as an individual talent that

not everyone shared. Parents were prepared to accept that some children simply

struggle with school work and so schooling was less important for these

children. In the Hispanic community of Valdes’ study, people who did well in

school were not considered particularly gifted over other people. The view was

that all people have talents and everyone should be respected for their

individual talent. School activities for parents, such as parent-teacher interviews,

were viewed as social occasions rather than times to learn about their child’s

level of academic achievement, much to the frustration of teachers who were

white, Anglo-Americans.

Malin (1990) describes a similar situation with Aboriginal children in

Australia. In this research, the teacher treated Aboriginal children in the class

differently to bicultural Aboriginal-Anglo children and children who were

Anglo-Australian. Malin found that Aboriginal parents did not expect their

children to immediately obey their directives and used modelling and informal

conversation to indicate desired behaviour. In contrast, teachers did expect

children to obey instructions. When Aboriginal children did not follow the

teacher’s directives immediately, they were seen to be defiant of authority and

punished.

As stated earlier in this chapter, one cannot view students who have

ESL as a single group. Indeed, there is as much dissimilarity as there is

similarity. For example, length of residency in the host country will have a

bearing on the way children interpret culture. Sing Ghuman (1994) describes

35

how first generation migrants cling to their home cultures for an extended

length of time while they settle in to their new environment. The second

generation have a stronger affinity for the host culture because they are born in

the country, taking up the norms and habits of that country, sometimes in

conflict with the culture of their parents. The literature reviewed suggests that

teachers need to be aware of the cultural diversity that each child brings to the

classroom in order to overcome the barriers of culture load.

Learning Load refers to what teachers ask students to do in set learning

activities and tasks (Meyer, 2000). Meyer describes whole-class brainstorming

as one such learning load. Brainstorming is a fast-paced, unstructured flow of

ideas unsupported by visual aids or contextual clues. This kind of activity very

often proves to be too linguistically challenging and too conceptually abstract

for students who have ESL, especially students newly arrived in Australia.

When children lose their ability to communicate at the same level as their peers,

they experience a sense of loss of personal power (Makin, 1992). They are

forced to use body gestures and restricted utterances to convey what they

understand, which can become a frustrating and humiliating form of

communication. Their previously learned cultural tools of communication may

become ineffectual and inefficient in their new environment. Penfield (1987)

suggests that students in these situations sit through a class neither trying to

participate nor encouraged to participate by the teacher.

Clair (1995) suggests that many teachers do not understand the

complexity of learning that students who have ESL must undertake. Not only

must these students learn the same content as the native English language

learners in the class but they must process that learning through two languages,

in effect learning through learning English (as described by Cummins (1991)

above). Teachers who do not know how to teach students who have ESL may

keep students engaged at busy work (non-academic or lower academic work

than what the rest of the class are doing) so that it appears as if these students

are on task (Gersten, 1996). Busy work, however, requires constant vigilance

on the part of the teacher to ensure that students keep busy. Students, for their

36

part, express embarrassment that they have to do what they perceive to

be ’baby’ work (Gersten, 1996), so it is not surprising that students become

bored and distracted being in the same class as their English proficient peers.

Students expect to work at the same age and grade level as their peers, not be

stigmatised at working way below that level.

A teacher may misinterpret the learning styles that students who have

ESL exhibit as demonstrating disinterest, misunderstanding or defiance to

comply with the expected mode of learning in the classroom. Kagitcibasi (1996)

has extensively studied comparisons between majority and minority cultures

and describes these quiet periods as modes of learning, similar to the periods of

silence described by Li (2002). According to Kagitcibasi (1996), in minority

cultures such as rural Turkish (Kagitcibasi’s home culture) and other rural

European cultures, east-Asian cultures and African cultures, children are taught

by observing an adult do a task without verbal explanation. The child then

imitates the task until they have acquired the skills needed. This approach to

teaching is in contrast to that utilised in urban industrialised Western schools

(what Kagitcibasi described as majority cultures). Western schools are

language-rich; children are taught and are expected to use language in all its

forms to demonstrate learning. Children who have been taught to quietly watch

how to perform a task can become overwhelmed with the amount of verbal and

written instructions that occur in the general ‘Western’ approach to teaching.

Educators advocate that teaching to the whole child (social, emotional,

intellectual spheres) helps students to become participants in classroom

activities rather than leaving them in isolation for part or parts of the school day

due to their limited English proficiency (Hollins, 1993; Williams, 2001).

Creating a supportive classroom by developing interpersonal relationships helps

to promote greater learning performance. It has been suggested that strategies to

involve ESL students in the learning process do not have to be any more

elaborate than those a teacher would generally employ. For example, Vaughn,

Bos, and Schumm (2006) suggest using a variety of examples of content from

different cultures to illustrate concepts, principles and general theories to

37

provide alternative views to Anglo-European views. Teachers might affirm the

diversity of students by hanging posters or pictures, reading books or music of

different cultures integrated into a unit of study.

The four barriers to learning posited by Meyer (2000) provide a specific

context for testing teacher efficacy within the context of the current research.

What follows is a description of how these contextual considerations can be

placed in the cyclical model of teacher efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998)

to provide the context specific focus needed to understand the construct better.

Extending the Cyclical Model

A modified version of the cyclical model of teacher efficacy is

presented below (see Figure 3) and was the model used for the current research.

The original model from Tschannen-Moran et al.’s (1998) study (Figure 1) is

also presented to indicate where the modifications have occurred. It should be

noted that the cyclical model has not been used in research to date, so the

modified model is at best a first attempt to track efficacy beliefs for teaching the

target group for the current research. The modified model includes contextual

considerations for teaching ESL students as well as the four-factor model of

teacher efficacy. As with the original model, the modified model examines

teacher efficacy from its source through to the implementation of teaching

practices.

Figure 1: The cyclical model of teacher efficacy

(Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998)

38

Figure 3: Modified cyclical model of teacher efficacy (Original from: Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998)

Sources of Efficacy Information

Verbal Persuasion

Vicarious Experience Physiological Arousal Mastery Experience

New Sources of Efficacy Information

Cognitive

Processing

Four-Factor Model of Teacher Efficacy Analysis of Teaching Task Assessment of Personal Teaching Competence (Personal Efficacy) Assessment / Attaining Learning Outcomes (Outcome Efficacy) Assessment / Attaining Classroom Management (Classroom Management Efficacy) Assessment / Overcoming Environment Factors (Teaching Efficacy)

Consequences of Teacher Efficacy

Goals, effort, persistence

Etc.

Performance

Teacher Efficacy

Contextual Considerations

Cognitive Load Language Load Learning Load Culture Load

As with the original model, there are four sources of efficacy beliefs:

verbal persuasion, vicarious experience, physiological arousal and mastery

experiences. In the modified model, these sources of efficacy information are

linked to contextual considerations and form the basis for Study 1 of the current

research in an attempt to examine teachers’ use of efficacy information

specifically in relation to teaching students who have ESL. Students who have

ESL have the double demand of learning academic content as well as learning

the pragmatics of using a new language within a new culture (Gerston & Baker,

2000; Makin, 1992; Vaughn, Bos & Schumm, 2006). Therefore, contextual

considerations need to be included because of the immediate impact they have

teachers’ perceptions of their capabilities within the specific teaching/learning

situation of teaching students who have ESL.

In considering a new teaching situation, a teacher’s efficacy response

will depend upon their sources of efficacy information filtered through the

contextual considerations of the teaching task. For example, a teacher who has

observed someone else teach a student who is ESL (vicarious experience) or

who has their own experience of teaching a student who is ESL (mastery

experience) may be aware of the cognitive load or language load experienced

by such a student in that the student has to think and understand concepts from

the framework of two languages. Or the teacher may be aware of the culture

39

load such as particular religious customs different from the classroom norm.

The teacher then may assess their capabilities to meet the particular needs of the

student’s cognitive load (personal efficacy) and/or culture load (teaching

efficacy) to engage a student into being a contributing member of the class.

In the original cyclical model (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998), teachers’

self-perceptions of teaching competence are the judgements they make about

their capabilities or deficits in relation to a teaching task while, at the same time,

analysing the resources and restraints in a particular teaching context (analysis

of teaching task/assessment of personal teaching competence). That is, teachers

weigh their self-perceptions of teaching competence in light of assumed

requirements of the anticipated teaching task. In the current research, the

teaching task under analysis is teaching students who have ESL and teachers’

assessment of this task is examined using the four-factor model of teacher

efficacy (Brouwers & Tomic, 2003). This phase of the model is the focus for

Study 2 of the research (examining the four-factor model of teacher efficacy in

association with the four contextual considerations for teaching students who

have ESL in regular primary classrooms).

Awareness of ESL contextual considerations in relation to a teaching

task may have the teacher modify their teaching strategy/lesson plan to

accommodate for students’ particular learning needs. Successful execution of

the teaching/learning situation would result in the teacher feeling positively

efficacious about their ability to complete the task successfully in the future. A

teacher with low efficacy may not feel confident to modify strategies or lessons

or may transfer responsibility to the student claiming that “…the problem is in

the student and not in the educational system, the teacher or the school”

(Carrasquillo & Rodriguez, 1995, p.10), expecting the student to adapt to the

new circumstances. Teachers may feel like failures in their inability to have

students produce results at age and grade level with their peers. In this case,

teachers may not feel efficacious about their abilities to teach students who

have ESL in the future. Clair (1995) cautioned against mainstream teachers

assuming that “good teaching is good teaching” without taking into

40

consideration the modifications to teaching required for addressing the needs of

students who have ESL. Clair found that many teachers did not accommodate

for ESL students’ language or cultural needs during lessons even though they

rated themselves as good teachers.

Byrnes, Kiger and Manning (1997) found that teachers who did not

have knowledge of ESL contextual considerations became frustrated more

easily in teaching students than teachers who had formal training or some

previous experience with language minorities, either through teaching or

through their own experience as a traveller or worker in a non-English speaking

country. Teachers who could relate former experiences to the students’

difficulties in their classrooms felt a higher sense of personal efficacy to teach

these students. Making adjustments for students may be as simple as providing

more visual aids or writing instructions on the board to support verbal

instructions (Knobel, 1997) to assist with the cognitive, language and learning

load for students. Kennedy and Kennedy (1996) suggest that there is sometimes

a gap between statements of intent and the reality of what happens in the class.

That is, teachers may have every intention of working towards meeting the

needs of students who have ESL, but in reality may not have the knowledge or

capability to carry those intentions through to implementation. The third study

of the current research, then, examines teaching strategies (performance in the

cyclical model) used to teach students who have ESL which are derived from

self-perceptions teachers have of their capabilities and from their interpretation

of the expected teaching task.

As described earlier in this literature review, many teachers have

misconceived views of students’ home life and the impact their culture has on

learning (Sing Ghuman, 1994; Valdes, 1996; Huss-Keeler, 1997). For example,

students who come originally from rural backgrounds struggle with adapting to

an urban industrial society, which tends to emphasise the cultural differences

between them and those of the dominant group (Kagitcibasi, 1996; Ogbu, 1994).

Burtonwood (2002) suggests that some teachers are culturally ignorant (having

few sources of efficacy information) rather than hostile to minority cultures and

41

advocates for more training to enrich teachers’ perceptions of culture (culture

load) and to create a ‘permeability of cultural boundaries’ to create greater

awareness and acceptance of differences.

Students may need considerable time before they are able to adequately

cope with the expectations of the classroom, both explicitly stated and

implicitly implied. For example, McKay (1997) suggests that it is unfair to

expect students who have ESL to be tested alongside native English language

peers, particularly when there is a lack of resources and a lack of professional

development to appropriately teach students who have ESL in mainstream

classrooms. Teachers who do not have specialised training may not take into

account the impact of ESL contextual considerations of students’ learning

(learning load/ cognitive load/language load) but teachers with high efficacy

have the capabilities to modify curriculum and classroom activities for effective

learning to occur (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990; Hebert, Lee & Williams, 1998).

Valdes (1996) and Li (2002) found that children who begin to fall

behind in schoolwork due to cultural (culture load) and linguistic differences

(language load) can begin to act out their frustrations and become behaviour

problems for the classroom teacher. Valdes relates that, in her study, the vast

majority of parent-teacher interviews in the Hispanic community were focused

on behaviour issues rather than academic achievement issues. Ogbu (1994)

claims that there are two types of minority students: voluntary and involuntary

and that each responds differently to being in their new countries. Voluntary

minorities have chosen to immigrate to a new country and on the whole work

hard to fit into their new lives through all facets of contextual considerations.

Involuntary minorities are peoples who have been colonised, enslaved or

conquered and/or have moved from their home country due to political and

social unrest, are resentful and threatened by the dominant culture and so act

out negatively against the host society. According to Ogbu (1994), each group

approaches the learning situation from different needs and desires.

For example, the Hispanic students in Valdes’ (1996) study would fall

into the involuntary minority group because they were initially incorporated

42

into American society against their will (Ogbu, 1994). The Aboriginal students

in Malin’s (1990) study would also fall into this category as they have been

dominated by Anglo-Australian culture and politics since the arrival of the first

European settlers. The Hispanic and Australian Aboriginal people have been

‘traditionally’ treated as inferior in the majority culture and the interpretation of

such treatment has been reflected generally in low academic achievement

(cognitive load/learning load/language load) and a rejection of many of the

cultural norms (culture load/language load) of the majority culture. On the other

hand, voluntary minorities generally have established cultural frames of

reference that predate their arrival in their new country so they do not have the

same sort of negative reactions to their host country as involuntary minorities.

They approach being in their new country as an improvement for them from

living in their home countries (Sing Ghuman, 1994). Without teachers attending

to the contextual considerations that shape students’ lives, students can be

disadvantaged in their learning.

Summary of the Literature

A review of the literature shows:

- Teacher efficacy is a multifaceted construct (Pajares, 1992) with

a suggestion that there are at least two factors: personal efficacy

and teaching efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1996) but that

there is a possibility that there may be four factors: personal

efficacy, teaching efficacy, classroom management efficacy and

outcome efficacy (Brouwers & Tomic, 2003).

- Teachers must be aware of and understand the barriers to

learning (Meyer, 2000) that face students who have ESL in order

to provide effective learning experiences for these students. In

the current thesis, these barriers are described as contextual

considerations and include: culture load, language load, learning

load and cognitive load.

- The modified cyclical model of teacher efficacy (from the

original developed by Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998) offers the

43

possibility of examining the construct in greater depth using a

mixed-method of research rather than utilising the often used

Gibson and Dembo (1984) “Teacher Efficacy Scale” as a stand-

alone measure.

A review of the literature also demonstrates that there is no evidence

that the cyclical model of teacher efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998) has

been used to examine primary teachers’ efficacy to teach students who are non-

native English language learners. There is no evidence of research done on

primary teachers’ efficacy in relation to teaching ESL students and in particular

through the utilisation of the cyclical model. Because there is evidence that ESL

continue to enrol in Australian schools, it is important that teachers’ efficacy to

teach these students is measured to indicate areas of strengths for teaching and

areas where professional development should occur to prepare teachers to more

effectively teach students who have ESL.

In summary, the current research addresses these gaps in the literature

through 3 studies. Study 1 of the research explores sources of teacher efficacy

in relation to contextual considerations for teaching students who have ESL,

responding to the research questions:

How do teachers understand the term, ESL?

What sources of efficacy information are used to teach students who

have ESL?

What contextual factors are taken into account when teaching students

who have ESL?

Study 2 of the research explores teachers’ self-perceptions across the

four components of teacher efficacy in association with contextual

considerations for teaching students who have ESL, responding to the research

question:

What dimensions constitute teacher efficacy for teaching students who

have ESL?

44

Study 3 of the research explores the influence of efficacy beliefs on

expected teaching strategies used for teaching students who have ESL,

responding to the research question:

How confident are teachers in their chosen strategies for working with

students who are ESL?

The following chapter will describe methodological considerations

related to the current research.

45

CHAPTER 3 Methodological Considerations

In this chapter methodological considerations pertinent to the research

are described. Included are matters related to choosing a representative sample.

Next, the strategies used to enhance the reliability and validity of the finding

are discussed. This chapter also describes the rationale for employing a

qualitative research methodology in Studies 1 and 3 and a quantitative

methodology for Study 2 of the research program. An overview of the data

analysis techniques performed for each study are briefly summarised followed

by a delineation of the principal research questions that comprised the three

studies.

It may be recalled that the research questions for the research are as

follows:

Study 1: How do teachers understand the term, ESL?

What sources of efficacy information are used to teach students

who have ESL?

What contextual factors are taken into account when teaching

students who have ESL?

Study 2: What dimensions constitute teacher efficacy for teaching

students who have ESL?

Study 3: How confident are teachers in their chosen strategies for

working with students who have ESL?

Study 1 utilises focus group interviews as the data collection

methodology, Study 2 utilises a researcher generated survey and Study 3

utilises written, hypothetical teaching scenarios. Studies 1 and 3 utilised

qualitative measures and Study 2 utilised a quantitative measures. Issues related

to methodology for the three studies will be discussed further in this chapter.

An initial consideration for conducting research is sampling, which will be

discussed next.

46

Sampling Issues

Participants in the research were primary school preservice teachers or

primary school inservice teachers. For the current research, primary school

teacher refers to teachers who are teaching (or training to teach) students from

kindergarten through to Year 7 (approximately ages 5 to 13) and who have not

taken further training as a specialist in teaching ESL. This description of the

participants does not exclude, however, any inservice or further courses

teachers may have taken as a matter of professional development, whether these

courses were taken as part of a university degree or participation in

workshops/seminars for teaching students who have ESL.

Inservice teachers in the current research are described as qualified and

registered teachers currently working in primary classrooms in schools.

Preservice teachers are described as university students in a Faculty of

Education in a Queensland university. Preservice teachers had completed at

least one field experience placement in a school as part of their teacher

preparation and as a condition for participation in the research. Field experience

practicum in schools for these students runs over a 4-week period. The reason

for this condition was that without some personal classroom experience as a

teacher (albeit a teacher-in-training) preservice teachers would have only theory

from which to draw for their responses to research questions. Field experience

placements provide scope for preservice teachers to connect theory to practical

classroom application. The use of these two sample groupings was consistent

across all three studies of this research.

It is recognised that the possibility of limitations in regards to recruiting

participants; therefore, it is important to consider what kind of sampling

techniques should be used in any given study. Purposive sampling techniques

were used in the research to define the sample and to place a control on the

possibility of gaining highly erratic data (Hansen & Hauser, 1971). Sampling

techniques for each of the studies are described below.

47

Sampling for Study 1

Focus group methodology was used to explore teachers’ perceptions

about the term “ESL” as well as to explore teachers’ efficacy in relation to

teaching ESL students in response to the three research questions for Study 1:

How do teachers understand the term, ESL? What sources of efficacy

information are used to teach students who have ESL? and What contextual

factors are taken into account when teaching students who have ESL?

It was proposed at the beginning of the study that two to four focus

group interviews for each participating group of teachers would be conducted.

Therefore, there would be two to four focus groups with both preservice

teachers and inservice teachers. A general guide is to continue conducting focus

groups until little more information can be gathered and the moderator of the

focus groups can predict what will be said in the next group (Krueger, 1994;

Morgan, 1988). There is no consensus on how many participants should

comprise each focus group. Numbers range from 6 to 12 participants and as few

as three (Morgan, 1988). In the current study, practical constraints, such as the

fact that participants were either busy with the requirements of course studies

(assignment due dates, studying for exams) or busy with duties such as class

teaching limited the number of each group towards the lower numbers (3-6) of

participants.

Preservice Teachers: The researcher was granted permission to canvas

undergraduate Bachelor of Education students in one unit of study at a Faculty

of Education in a Queensland university. An invitation to participate was sent

via an email attachment to students in the unit by the unit coordinator. The

email requested volunteers for the study, detailed the format and nature of the

study, provided information with regards to ethical clearance from the

university ethics committee to conduct the research and assured participants of

anonymity throughout their participation in the research. Two hundred and

fifty-three students were enrolled in the targeted undergraduate unit of study; 17

(3 male and 14 female) students agreed to participate in the focus groups (a

participation rate of 7%). Five focus groups were conducted with four

48

participants in the first three groups, three in one of the focus groups and

initially three in a fifth group, although one participant left half-way through,

leaving only two preservice teachers in this focus group. With regards to the

preservice teacher participants, 18 % stated that they had some training to teach

students who have ESL through their university course work; however, 59%

stated that they had taught students who had ESL during their field experience

placements.

Inservice Teachers: Inservice teachers were recruited via a snow-balling

technique whereby three primary school teachers were invited to participate in a

group interview and these invitations were extended to other teachers. In all, 9

teachers (1male and 8 female) participated in the group interviews. Three focus

groups were conducted with inservice teachers with three participants attending

each. One participant in the second focus group attended via telephone

conferencing. Fifty-seven (57) % of inservice teachers claimed to have had

some training to teach students who have ESL through workshops and/or by

attending seminars; 86% claimed that they had taught or were presently

teaching students who are ESL.

A difficulty with focus groups is having people not attend after having

initially expressing an interest (Morgan, 1988). As an example to illustrate this

for the current research, the researcher had made arrangement for eight people

to attend each of the preservice teacher focus groups but only half that number

actually attended. For the inservice teacher focus groups, the research initially

had commitments from six people for each group with only half that number

actually attending.

The researcher acted as facilitator for the focus groups. One reason for

this arrangement was the facilitators’s familiarity with the subject matter

(Morgan, 1988). The researcher/facilitator is a primary school trained teacher

who has specialist training as an ESL teacher. The researcher acknowledges

that there is a potential for bias to occur through this method; however, a semi-

structured interview guide was used, with the same list of questions prepared

for use in all interviews as a way to minimise bias.

49

The focus group questions will be described further in this chapter in the

discussion of the measurement issues. A pilot test was conducted to determine

participant understanding of the questions and to clarify procedures for the

group discussion. The focus group began with the researcher introducing

herself, the topic and by outlining the group rules and procedures. During initial

contact, participants had been informed that the focus group would be audio-

taped but upon attendance were once again reminded that they were being

audio-taped. They were assured of the confidentiality of the information

gathered and of their anonymity in attending. It was explained to participants

that their participation was voluntary and that they could pull out of the focus

group at any time without penalty.

Sampling for Study 2

Study 2 of the research was conducted through the completion of a

researcher-generated survey, Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale for Teaching

ESL Learners (a copy of the survey is found in Appendix B, p181), to examine

a four-factor model of teacher efficacy in association with contextual

considerations related to teaching students who have ESL in response to the

research question for Study 2: What dimensions constitute teacher efficacy for

teaching students who have ESL?

Data in Study 2 were analysed through factor analysis. There is little

agreement with regards to sample size when conducting factor analysis. Pett,

Lackey and Sullivan (2003) suggested that the number of subjects needed for a

study will depend on the number of items that are initially included in the

measure developed. Ratios of subjects to variable range from as low as 2:1 to as

high as 20:1 (Kline, 1994). The general suggestion is to have a range of 10 to

15 subjects per initial item (Kline, 1994; Norman & Streiner, 1997; Pett et al.,

2003), with 10 subjects per item tending toward the norm. Kline (1994)

recommended that with data that has a clear factor structure, a sample of 100-

200 is sufficient. Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) recommended having at least

300 cases for factor analysis. However, Pett et al. (2003) pointed out that the

number of subjects used may depend on availability.

50

In the present study, two hundred and fifty surveys were delivered to

preservice teachers in an undergraduate teaching program; 211 completed

surveys were returned (a return rate of 88%). Seventy-five surveys were

delivered to inservice teachers currently employed as primary school teachers;

39 completed surveys were returned (a return rate of 50%). In total of 250

questionnaires were completed and analysed. This sample size fits within the

parameters of subjects needed as suggested from the literature as somewhere

between 200 and 300 participants for the study. A further discussion of the

methodology for Study 2 is described in Chapter 4 of this thesis.

Descriptive statistics for preservice teachers in Study 2 and Study 3 are

presented in Table 3.1. Participant numbers and percentages are reported for

gender, age, whether the subject has had training to teach ESL students,

whether the subject has already taught ESL students, whether the participant

had studied a language other than English and how long the participant had

been overseas in a non-English speaking country.

Table 3.1 Summary Statistics for the Demographic Variables of Preservice Teachers Variable Categories n % Gender Male 53 25 Female 158 75 Age 18-25yrs 144 68 26-33yrs 36 17

34-42yrs 21 10 43-48yrs 7 3

>49yrs 3 1

Training Yes 52 20 No 159 80 Have taught Yes 67 27 No 144 73 Studied LOTE Yes 135 64 No 76 36 Visit non-English 0 (never) 110 52

51

Country 0-1week 32 15 2-4weeks 28 13 5-6weeks 22 10 >7weeks 19 9

Table 3.1 indicates that there were more participants between the ages

of 18 to 25 (68%) than all the other age group combined but that is not

surprising in a university setting where the overall demographics for primary

school trainees are within this age bracket. The majority of participants (52%)

had never been to a non-English speaking country; 80% indicated that they had

not received any training to teach students who have ESL while 27% claimed

that they had taught ESL students while on their field experience placements.

Table 3.2 describes the demographics for the inservice teachers.

Table 3.2

Summary Statistics for the Demographic Variables of Inservice Teachers

Variable Categories n % Gender Male 4 10 Female 35 90 Age 18-25yrs 2 5 26-33yrs 16 41

34-42yrs 7 17

43-48yrs 10 25 >49yrs 4 10

Training Yes 12 30 No 27 69 Have taught Yes 33 84 No 6 16 Studied LOTE Yes 14 35 No 25 65 Visit non-English 0 (never) 16 41 Country 0-1week 5 12 2-4weeks 9 23 5-6weeks 7 18 >7weeks 2 5

52

Despite a lower response rate than desired, it can be seen from Tables

3.1 and 3.2 that the sample population resembles the demographic composition

of the teaching population, with respect to gender, in Australia during 2006,

particularly the preservice group. According to the Australian Bureau of

Statistics (2007), 75% of primary school teachers currently employed are

female and this was reflected in the current research where 75% of preservice

teachers and 90% of inservice teachers were female.

Sampling for Study 3

In Study 3, fifty (n=50) preservice teachers (13 male and 37 female) and

17 (n=17) inservice teachers (1 male and 16 female) volunteered to continue

with the research by responding to four hypothetical teaching scenarios that

were attached to the questionnaire from Study 2 in response to the research

question: How confident are teachers in their chosen teaching strategies for

working with students who have ESL? The purpose of Study 3 was to examine

how teacher efficacy influences teaching strategies to accommodate learning

for students who have ESL. Responses to the hypothetical teaching scenarios

were collected at the time the questionnaires were collected for Study 2.

Fifty (n=50) preservice teachers volunteered to complete the teaching

scenarios as an in-class discussion. Preservice teachers in this class who did not

want to participate were given the option of being excused; however, none of

the students chose to leave. Participants formed four discussion groups (4 in

two groups, 5 in two groups) and responded to each of the hypothetical

teaching scenarios as a group. One member of each group acted as scribe,

jotting down the main points of the discussions which were then returned to the

researcher for analysis. Two of these groups were also audio-taped. These tapes

were then transcribed by the researcher for analysis.

Eight (n=8) inservice teachers from state schools completed written

responses to the hypothetical teaching. Their responses were returned with their

completed surveys from Study 2. Nine (n=9) inservice teachers who had been

contacted at a small catholic school for Study 2 completed written responses to

the hypothetical teaching scenarios. Responses from inservice teachers at the

53

catholic school (as part of the questionnaire for Study 2) were collected by the

researcher from the school one week after distribution of the questionnaires.

Seventeen (n=17) inservice teachers completed written responses to the

hypothetical teaching scenarios. In total, 67 (n=67) teachers participated in

Study 3.

Measurement Issues

The current research utilised both qualitative and quantitative

methodologies. Important to consider in research is the reliability and validity

of the measurement instruments and the data for both qualitative and

quantitative research. These issues are discussed below for each of the three

studies of the research.

Qualitative Research

Study 1 and Study 3 were conducted using qualitative methodology. The

following section briefly describes these studies.

Study 1

The purpose of study 1 was to explore the association between the

sources of efficacy beliefs and contextual considerations in relation to teaching

students who have ESL. Various steps were taken to ensure the finding from

the qualitative data were reliable and valid. To prepare for the focus groups

conducted in Study 1, the researcher wrote a set of statements that would be

addressed. A plan of how the information would be obtained, who the targeted

participants for the study would be and resources required to conduct the focus

groups were detailed. Specific focus group questions were then generated.

Focus group questions generated for the research were examined with three

independent experienced focus group researchers. The focus questions used in

Study 1 were:

1. How would you describe ESL students?

2. How confident do you feel about teaching students who have ESL?

3. Where do you believe your confidence to teach these students comes

from?

54

4. How confident are you that you can take students’ cultural

backgrounds into consideration when teaching ESL students?

A pilot focus group was conducted with preservice teachers to

determine whether the focus group questions were easily understood by

participants and whether the questions produced adequate data for answering

Study 1’s principal research questions. The focus groups were audio-taped with

participants’ consent. The data were later transcribed and analysed in relation to

the predetermined codes for the four sources of efficacy information (mastery

experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and physiological arousal)

and the four contextual considerations (cognitive load, language load, learning

load and culture load) for teaching students who have ESL (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3

Coding Structure for Study 1 Variable Categories Mastery Experience actual, past personal experience self-perceptions of success or failure at the task Vicarious Experience behaviour at the task modelled by someone else degree to which individual identifies with model Verbal Persuasion performance feedback – i.e. a pep talk. general talk, viewing videos/other media Physiological Arousal feelings of confidence / lack of confidence Cognitive Load literacy environment at home/school level of first language proficiency Language Load amount of academic talk in the classroom teacher expectations Learning Load classroom activities content of lesson Culture Load cultural knowledge of new environment group identification parental expectations _________________________________________________________________________

Responses were coded in an a priori coding method. A codebook was

complied that contained each unique idea or concept from the responses. In

some instances responses contained multiple concepts and were, therefore,

55

assigned multiple codes. For example, 81% of responses indicated that mastery

experiences were influential in efficacy to teach students who have ESL as well

as 73% indicating that vicarious experiences were influential. Coded responses

were assigned to each thematic category and subcategories. Because of the

small number of participants, coding was hand-done rather than entered on a

statistical tool such as SPSS. Examination of participants’ responses confirmed

that the focus group questions were suitably worded and that they provided

sufficient detail to address the principal questions examined in Study 1. Further

information on the data collection and analysis process is given in Chapter 4.

Study 3

Study 3 also utilised a qualitative methodology. In study 3, four

hypothetical teaching scenarios were developed from the data from Study 1 and

from the literature to explore how teachers’ efficacy in relation to teaching

students who have ESL influence their teaching strategies (the final phase of

the cyclical model). An example of a hypothetical teaching scenario was:

A new student in your Grade 6 class has studied English-as-a-foreign

language in his home country. He can communicate in English at a

fundamental level but is reluctant to do so because there has been some

taunting by his classmates about his ‘funny’ accent. He has befriended

another student in the class from his home country and they tend to keep

mostly to themselves, speaking only their home language when together,

both in class and outdoors. When you try to engage this student in

learning tasks he complains that he doesn’t understand the work, that

it’s too difficult. The new student’s parents are well-educated but do not

speak English well. Nevertheless, they are ambitious for their son to

succeed in school.

The question asked of participants was:

Please describe what you would do in this situation and briefly explain

why you would take the action described.

Analysis of data collected in response to the hypothetical teaching

scenarios were conducted as per the predetermined codes identified in Study 1

56

through the emerging themes and sub-themes provided in participants’

responses. Identified themes derived from responses to the hypothetical

teaching scenarios were compared with themes that emerged in Study 1.

Important to the research were teachers’ accounts of contextual considerations

(cognitive load, language load, learning load and culture load) in association

with their efficacy in choosing particular teaching strategies for working with

students who have ESL. Further details of data collection and analysis for this

study are provided in Chapter 6.

A criticism of qualitative methodology is the subjective nature of data

analysis in that the researcher’s biases may distort the findings (Borg & Gall,

1983). However, it must be noted that all researchers bring their own

backgrounds to the field in the shape of experiences and knowledge. For

example, the present researcher has worked in the field of ESL for over ten

years and having done so has needed to engage in critical reflection of self in

relation to the research in order to minimise bias as much as humanly possible.

A further criticism of qualitative research is the difficulty with

replicability (Burns, 2001). Replicability is concerned with the conundrum that

if someone else did the research, would the results be the same? This question

is a difficult one to answer because one cannot control all the variables that go

into making a final research project. Certainly with qualitative research

different researchers may make different analytical decisions; however, Borg

and Gall (1983) suggest that if the researcher states the research perspective and

can justify analytical decisions the difficulty with replicabilty can be reduced.

There is an implicit acceptance with qualitative research of the natural scheme

of things that can highlight subtle differences in behaviour. Behaviour is

recognised as being dynamic, situational, social and contextual (Burns, 2000;

Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Robson, 1993).

Quantitative Research

Study 2 was conducted using a researcher-generated survey in response

to the research question: What dimensions constitute teacher efficacy for

57

teaching student who have ESL? The following section briefly describes the

methodology for Study 2.

Study 2

It was decided at the outset of the research that a factor analysis would

be conducted in Study 2 to determine the underlying dimensions of the

construct of teacher efficacy in relation to teaching students who have ESL.

Factor analysis is a statistical variable reduction procedure, which extracts a

small number of latent variables from a larger set of observed variables that

accounts for correlations occurring at and/or between scale level responses and

that detects and evaluates unobservable patterns (Santos & Clegg, 1999). SPSS

12.0.1 for Windows was utilised as the statistical tool for a factor analysis of the

data.

Item Development

Items for the questionnaire were developed from data gathered in Study

1 and from the literature. Items were formatted similarly to those traditionally

found on teacher efficacy scales, which use a Likert-type measure with

generally a measure from 1=strongly disagree to 6=strongly agree. For example,

a question from the Gibson and Dembo (1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale reads:

1. When a student does better than usual, many times it is because I exerted a 1 2 3 4 5 6 little more effort. (p.581)

Scales used by Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) and Guskey and Passaro (1994) also

utilised a 6-point Likert-type measure (ranging from 1=not at all to 6=a great

deal) and this format is generally used in most teacher efficacy instruments.

Bandura (2001) has devised a new set of scales of teacher efficacy with

strengths of efficacy beliefs on a 9-point scale; however, the 6-point Likert-type

scale is most usually found in the research and that was the scale measure used

for the current research. The measure Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale for

Teaching ESL Learners also used a 6-pint Liker-type measure as is consistent

with most teacher efficacy scales. A sample item from the measure reads as

follows:

58

How much are you able to adjust your lessons to meet the needs of individual 1 2 3 4 5 6 individual ESL students in your class?

The wording of the questions took into consideration concerns of the

Dembo and Gibson (1984) scale, as highlighted by Guskey and Passaro (1994),

in regards to the positive/negative descriptions of items and internal/external

locus of control. All items on the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale for

Teaching ESL Learners had a referent to the domain of teaching students who

have ESL to underscore the specific context of this study. The same

questionnaire was utilised for both the preservice teacher participants and the

inservice teacher participants; this was deemed to be appropriate because the

measure of teacher efficacy seeks to address individual operative capabilities at

the present time (Bandura, 2001). Preservice teachers, who have taught in a

classroom, while not as experienced as employed teachers, have personal

information beyond teaching theory through their field experience placements

from which to draw in reflecting upon their capabilities in the specific domain

of teaching students who have ESL; however, it is expected that inservice

teachers, who are more experienced, are better equipped to take into

consideration the complexities of teaching students who have ESL.

Important to scale development are measures of reliability and validity.

Reliability is concerned with the consistency of a variable (Burns, 2001). Test-

retest, a measure of external reliability, (Bryman & Cramer, 2004) is concerned

with stability of item responses over time. A shortcoming to test-retest is the

time between tests (e.g. how much time between testing is enough?). Generally

a 2-week time frame is accepted; however, within such a timeframe there is a

possibility that respondents’ standing in regards to the construct may have

changed due to unforseen circumstances or respondents could rely on memory

from time 1 to time 2 of testing.

When piloting the questionnaire, there was a time lag of three weeks

between the first issuing of the survey to the sample of 60 participants and the

second issuing of the survey. This timeframe was due to the test being delivered

59

at the end of semester for preservice teachers. There was a concern that the

same group of students would not be contactable in the time period elapsing

from one semester to another. While this number of participants is small, the

purpose of the procedure was to test the reliability of items over a short period

of time. Upon review of the results from the pilot test, refinements were made

to the survey instrument wherein 2 items were dropped (i.e. To what extent can

you control whether or not there is inclusion of students who have ESL in state

wide testing in your classroom? and How much can you do to ensure that

students who have ESL are learning the same content as non-ESL student in

your class?) because the wording of the items rendered them redundant in

relation to other items on the measure and/or feedback from participants

indicated that they were confused by the wording of the items (indicated by a

question mark “?” beside the item) or a sufficient number did not respond to the

item. Results indicated a high degree of agreement between the first testing and

the second testing which allowed for factor analysis to be conducted.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted through a Principal

Component Analysis (PCA) framework. PCA seeks a linear combination of

variables such that the maximum variance is extracted from the variables. A

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy and a Bartlett’s

Test of Sphericity were conducted through SPSS 12.0.1 for Windows to

determine if the data were suitable for factor analysis. Sampling adequacy

measured by the KMO predicts if data are likely to factor well based on

correlations or partial correlation measures (Hutchenson & Sofroniou, 1999).

Values vary between 0 and 1, where values closer to 1 are better. A value of 0.6

is suggested as a minimum as useful for factor analysis. In the current research,

an overall value of .93 was obtained, which supports a factor analysis.

Analyses were conducted utilising the SPSS computer program. An

initial PCA was conducted using both orthogonal (VARIMAX) and oblique

(OBLIMIN) rotations. Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum and Strahen (1999)

suggested that oblique rotations produce a better estimate of the true factors and

60

a better simple structure than orthogonal rotation. With oblique rotation, the

new axes are free to take any position in the factoral space. The degree of

correlation allowed amongst factors is small because two highly correlated

factors are better interpreted as only one factor (Abdi, 2006). Simplifying the

data makes interpretation easier and more reliable in that it is easier to replicate

with different data samples. Orthogonal rotation maximises the variance of the

squared loading of a factor on all thee variables in a factor matrix and assumes

that the factors are at right angles to each other, that is, they are not correlated

(Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999), making it easy to identify

each variable on a single factor. It is suggested that if there are similar

correlations of variables in the results for the orthogonal and oblique rotations,

the data are suitable for factor analysis. However, while the orthogonal and

oblique solutions were very similar in the current research, the oblique solution

was judged to be more appropriate as the pattern matrices found using oblique

rotation are more interpretable that the orthogonal rotation solution with fewer

variables loading significantly on more than one variable.

A frequent use of factor analysis is found in test construction (Popham

& Sirotnik, 1973). Development of the survey items for the current study

followed guidelines for developing self-efficacy scales (Bandura, 2001; Pajares,

Hartley, & Valiante, 2001) wherein it is recommended to pretest the items and

discard those that are ambiguous, that do not differentiate amongst respondents

and where most people are checking the same response point. Efficacy scales

should have as a minimum face validity in that items on the scale should

measure what they purport to measure which, in the current research, was

teachers’ perceived capabilities to produce given attainments at teaching

students who have ESL. While the four-factor model (Brouwers & Tomic, 2003)

was initially proposed for the research, a three-factor solution and a two-factor

solution were also examined as a way to shed some light on the confusion over

the make-up of the construct of teacher efficacy (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990;

Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Soodak & Podell, 1996).

61

A criticism of quantitative methodology is that humans are complex

beings who respond to environmental factors in a variety of ways. A person

may react passively to their environment, or actively, and each will respond

with varying perceptions and interpretations. Researchers may make

misassumptions from the data “…that facts are true and the same for all people

all the time” (Burns, 2000). However, a strength of quantitative methodology is

in its precision and control. Research control is gained through sampling and

design and through quantitative and reliable measures using instruments that

utilise such things as closed-ended items, rating scales and behavioural

responses.

Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methodology: Tashakkori and Teddlie

(2003) describe the advantage of a mixed method approach in that it allows the

research to “…simultaneously answer confirmatory and exploratory questions,

and therefore verify and generate theory in the same study” (p. 15). A major

advantage to using both quantitative and qualitative methodology is that the

task of integration of methodology occurs from the beginning of the research

project and continues through to the end. With a mixed methodology, a

synthesis of data collection can occur, which helps to establish internal

reliability. When different results are compared and contrasted, a greater

confidence in the data is obtained over results gathered from one method alone

(Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003).

In summary, this chapter has presented important sampling and

methodological considerations for the current research. In particular, issues

relating to sampling selection and strategies were described as was a rationale

for the research methods utilised for the three studies. In the following chapter,

the first study of the research is detailed.

62

CHAPTER 4 Study 1

Phase one of the modified cyclical model of teacher efficacy was

explored in Study 1 of the research addressing the principle research questions:

(1) How do teachers understand the term, ESL? (2) What sources of efficacy

information guide teachers in relation to teaching students who have ESL? and

(3) What contextual factors are taken into account when teaching student who

are ESL? This chapter presents a brief rationale for conducting focus groups. In

addition, before commencing the focus groups, participants completed a small

survey designed to elicit teachers’ efficacy in relation to teaching ESL students.

Results of this small survey and data analysis of the focus groups will be

described.

Rationale for Conducting Focus Groups

The purpose of collecting qualitative data in Study 1 is two-fold. First,

the study seeks to address the lack of published research concerning teachers’

efficacy to teach students who have ESL. While there is much information on

programs that teachers can use to teach these students (Dare & Polias, 2001;

Gibbons, 1991; Halliwell, 1998) there is a dearth of information about how

confident teachers are in using these resources to effectively teach students who

have ESL. Indeed, the literature suggests that teachers do not feel confident in

their abilities to teach these students.

Focus group discussions were utilised in Study 1 to determine the

sources of teachers’ efficacy information in relation to teaching students who

have ESL. As previously discussed, the four sources of efficacy information are:

mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion and

physiological arousal. Determining sources of efficacy information provides a

valuable insight into teachers’ level of engagement at a teaching task in that the

more informed teachers are about the task the more likely they are to engage in

it in a meaningful way.

63

Secondly, it is important to examine teachers’ perceptions of the term,

ESL. Understanding the term includes having an idea of the dimensions for

learning an ESL student faces in a regular classroom. Therefore, this study

explores whether teachers take into consideration contextual features (cognitive

load, language load, learning load and culture load) associated with their

understanding of who ESL students are. Such understanding will help to

identify where possible gaps in teaching may be occurring in relation to these

students as without an awareness of contextual considerations in relation to the

learning for these students, effective teaching can be hindered. To that end,

focus groups were conducted to determine if teachers attend to the contextual

considerations associated with students who have ESL.

Focus groups facilitate a social construction of meaning where shared

frames of references are likely to be revealed through the social interactions of

group discussions (Gibbs, 1997). With focus groups, participants can reflect on

their own ideas through learning about the thoughts of others. Data from the

present study will serve to establish greater clarity as to teachers’ understanding

of students who have ESL as well as insights into teachers’ perceptions of the

contextual dimensions considered when teaching these students. Schwandt

(2000) suggested that “…we are self-interpreting beings [and] it is language

that constitutes that being” (p.198). Through focus groups participants have the

opportunity to compare and contrast elements of the discussion put forward by

other group members as a way to develop deeper meanings for themselves and

so further the discussion.

Method

Participants

In Study 1, 17 (n=17) preservice teachers (3 male and 14 female) and 9

inservice teachers (1 male and 8 female) participated in the focus groups,

making a total of 26 participants. Preservice teachers were recruited from a

Faculty of Education in a large university in Queensland. Inservice teachers

were recruited from Queensland schools. A total of 8 focus groups were

64

conducted. Further details on the selection of the sample were presented in

Chapter 3.

Fifty-three percent (53) % (n=9) of the preservice teachers were in their

second year of study, 23% (n=4) in their third year, 18% (n=3) in fourth year

and one participant was in her fifth year of teacher preparation, part-time. The

majority of inservice teachers had been teaching for more than 21 years (56%)

(n=5), 33% (n=3) had been teaching between 5 and 9 years and one had been

teaching for 19 years. More inservice teachers (56%) (n=5) had some training

to teach students who have ESL compared with the preservice teachers (18%)

(n=3). Fifty-nine percent (59) % (n=10) of the preservice teachers claim to

have taught ESL students during their field experience placement; 89% (n=9) of

inservice teachers claimed to have taught students who have ESL as regular

students in their classes.

Procedure

Ethical approval to conduct the research was granted by the university’s

ethics committee. The researcher liaised with a unit coordinator at the

university where the study was conducted to discuss the research project. A

copy of the research information sheet outlining the program was sent to the

unit coordinator to be included as an attachment to an email sent out to students

with an invitation to participate in the study (see Appendix A). The information

sheet detailed the purpose and nature of the research, the time and venue for the

focus group discussions, the conditions of the focus group and how the

information was going to be used and stored. The information sheet also clearly

stated that participants’ involvement was voluntary and they that could

withdraw from the study at any time.

The focus groups were set out to be conducted for one hour each. At the

commencement of the proceedings, the researcher briefly introduced herself to

the group, reiterated the nature and aims of the study, issues of confidentiality

and how the focus group information was going to be used and stored.

Participants were then asked to complete a small survey, designed to elicit their

information about their confidence in teaching students who have ESL. At the

65

same time a range of demographic and background information were gathered

such as age, gender, training to teach students who have ESL and whether or

not participants had taught students who have ESL. It should be noted that

‘training to teach students who have ESL’ in each of the three studies includes

course work, inservice workshops or other professional development

workshops/seminars. It does not include formal training to become an ESL

teacher.

In addition, five statements were posed in relation to teaching ESL students,

asking participants to respond on a 6-point Likert type scale, ranging from

1=strongly disagree to 6=strongly agree. The five statements were:

1. I feel certain that my teaching strategies would address ESL students’

understanding of concepts. 2. I feel certain that my classroom language speaking/listening/reading/

writing) would address ESL students’ needs. 3. I feel confident that learning outcomes in my class would be met by

ESL students in my class.

4. I feel confident that I would take ESL students’ cultural backgrounds into consideration when preparing lessons.

5. I feel certain that my classroom management would be sufficient for

ESL students in my class.

Results

Due to the small sample size, frequency analysis for the responses to the

five above statements were calculated to get an overall sense of participants’

efficacy on the research topic utilising the computer program SPSS 12.0.1 for

Windows (Table 4.1).

66

Table 4.1

Mean and Standard Deviations for Preservice and Inservice Teachers’ Responses to Short Questionnaire – Study 1 ________________________________________________________________ Preservice Inservice _____________ ______________ N Mean SD N Mean SD ________________________________________________________________ Teaching Strategies 17 4.46 1.37 9 5.22 .833 Classroom Language 17 4.76 1.14 9 5.22 .666 Learning Outcomes 17 4.52 1.12 9 5.00 .707 Cultural Background 17 5.52 .62 9 5.77 .440 Classroom Management 17 4.52 .71 9 5.55 .527 ________________________________________________________________

Overall, inservice teachers in Study 1 expressed higher efficacy in

relation to the above questions than did the preservice teachers. For example,

47% of preservice teachers agreed or strongly agreed that their teaching

strategies would address ESL students’ understanding of concepts compared

with 77% of inservice teachers; 58% of preservice teachers agreed or strongly

agreed that their classroom language would address students’ needs compared

with 89% of inservice teachers; 59% of preservice teachers agreed or strongly

agreed that the learning outcomes they set would be met by students compared

with 78% of inservice teachers; 94% preservice teachers agreed or strongly

agreed that they would take students’ cultural backgrounds into consideration

when comparing lessons compared with 100% of inservice teachers; and 52%

of preservice teachers agreed or strongly agreed that their classroom

management strategies would be sufficient compared with 100% of inservice

teachers. None of the inservice teacher participants for this study ranked

themselves as ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ to any of the five questions

posed, indicating high efficacy in relation to the questions asked.

While the sample size was small, there appeared to be a distinct trend to

suggest that inservice teachers expressed higher efficacy beliefs overall about

teaching students who have ESL than did preservice teachers. One reason for

this might be the differing amounts of teaching experience for each group.

Preservice teachers had limited experience at formally teaching while the

67

average time teaching for the inservice teacher participants in the study was 10

years. Preservice teachers, while having completed a practicum in schools and

so had limited teaching experience, relied on the knowledge they gain through

their preservice coursework expressed confidence to teach students who have

ESL.

Analysis Procedures for Focus Groups

Focus groups were conducted with participants responding to open-

ended questions designed to gather information in regards to sources of efficacy

information in relation to contextual considerations for teaching students who

have ESL. Probes were used such as “Could you explain that a bit more?” to

clarify responses and/or elicit more information. Focus group interviews were

audio-taped to ensure accuracy in recording participant responses. The

researcher also took written notes during the interview which were transcribed

directly upon completion of the interviews as additional data while the

interview was still fresh in memory. Making notes at the end of the interview

helps to avoid bias that might occur with hindsight created by a time lag

(Morgan, 1988).

Transcribed notes from the audiotapes and written notes taken at the

time of the interviews were margin coded to identify themes, issues and topics

(Bertrand, Brown & Ward, 1992), which were then assembled into categories

through a ‘scissor and sort’ technique (Morgan, 1988). The emerging themes

and sub-themes were colour-coded where the aim was “…to produce concepts

that seem to fit the data” (Strauss, 1987, p. 28). Coding was expected to initiate

the formation of connections between the interactional realm (teachers, ESL

students and others in the environment) and the ESL contextual conditions. The

37 coding categories derived from the focus group interviews are described in

Table 4.2. The most frequent variable mentioned as a source of efficacy

information was mastery experience 67% with a combination of verbal

persuasion/ vicarious experience the next most frequent source of efficacy

information 43%. Overall, cultural load at 65% and language load at 59% were

the most often mentioned contextual consideration participants gave in relation

68

to their efficacy to teach students who have ESL. An additional category not

mentioned as part of the cyclical model of teacher efficacy (p.46) was

developed in relation to the overarching question asked of focus group

participants: Who would you describe as an ESL learner? Eight main themes

emerged including: someone who doe not speak English as a first language,

someone whose parents do not speak English and someone from a different

cultural background to Australians.

Table 4.2

Themes from Focus Group Interview Responses Identifying ESL - does not speak English as a first language - parents do not speak English at home - have a different cultural background - are a multilingual speaker - born overseas - are a refugee - have a different nationality to Australian - have difficulty (grammar/syntax) with English

Mastery Experiences Vicarious Experiences - personal contact teaching ESL - university studies about ESL - personal history as ESL student - practicum in schools - relationships (friends – ESL) - attending seminar/workshop - travel to non-English country - reading material/other media - conversations with others Verbal Persuasion Physiological Arousal - consersations with teachers/fellow - feel confident about teaching students/university lecturers - do not feel confident

Axial coding was conducted to build a ‘dense texture of relationships’

(Strauss, 1987) around the categories identified. Axial coding is done to relate

categories to sub-categories. In such an analysis, strategies, consequences or

conditions are identified in relation to each other and to categories and sub-

categories. Encoded data for each of the groupings were then compared with

data from the other groups and sorted into major themes connected with the

research. Identified and emerging themes were recorded in the written analysis.

Quotations from participant interviews were used to illustrate identified themes

and, where appropriate, are included in the results write-up.

69

A general limitation of such data collection is that focus group

interviews generally occur outside the setting where social interactions typically

occur (Madriz, 2000). Behavioural information is limited to verbal

communications, body language and self-reports. These limitations may throw

doubt about the authenticity of focus group interactions; however, as Madriz

points out, the limitations of authenticity is also shared with participant

observations. There is never full certainty with participant observations that the

presence of the researcher has or has not altered the behaviour of those

observed.

Qualitative Results

Defining the Term ‘ESL’

The main purpose of Study 1 was to ascertain sources of efficacy

information (mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion,

physiological arousal), as identified as the first stage of the cyclical model of

teacher efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998) in relation to contextual

considerations for teaching students who have ESL (see Meyer, 2000). In order

to ensure that participants understood the purpose of the research and as a way

to establish parameters of the discussion, an initial question was asked of each

participating group. The initial question was: Who would you describe as an

ESL learner?

Preservice Teachers: In response to the initial question for this study,

preservice teachers described students who have ESL as people who did not

have English spoken at home; whose parents spoke a language other than

English at home where the student may or may not speak the home language,

and included Australian Aboriginal students.

For example, students who have ESL were:

“…anyone that doesn’t speak English as their first language...could be

Aboriginal, Asian could be…well that’s about it really, that’s how I

interpret it”

70

“…students who their first language is not English would be my main

ones or the students that may speak English but their parents at home

speak other languages”

“…an ESL student would be anyone who comes from a home

background where their parents speak another language. They [the

students] don’t necessarily have to speak it themselves…a lot of times

the parents speak it to the children and so they’re [the students] not

getting that immersion in the English language that an everyday

Australian kid would”

“…someone from a different cultural background and also non-English

speaking”

The above responses were from participants who described themselves

as native English language learners. They identified that both English language

proficiency and an awareness of different cultural backgrounds are major

considerations for identifying students who have ESL. However, these

participants did not go beyond these basic descriptions of students who have

ESL. In contrast, the following responses were from participants who grew up

in homes where English was not the only language spoken:

“…they’ve [ESL] grown up speaking it [another language] and then

having to come to school or society speaking English they’ve had to

then try to like use parts of their own language already to try to get use

to how English works”

“…some students who have ESL…would also be perhaps be

multilingual as well they would have a…national language, a dialect

and then they would also have like let’s say myself…would be maybe

Spanish…a dialect, a national language developed and the core would

be English because…that…would be taught in the…native country

where they were originally born…and both their parents may or may

71

not be able to speak…English…one of the parents would speak a

different language of course…and they may or may not speak it

[English] at home”

The above two respondents described in more detail additional elements

that ESL students as barriers to learning, describing the process of using a

native language to learn English and the process of learning English from a

heritage of having learnt several languages, indicating an understanding of the

cognitive load and language load undertaken by students who have ESL. These

participants indicated that because they held mastery experiences in learning

additional languages to their native language they could empathise with

additional load students who have ESL had to cope with in school.

The last of the participants above described her background as ESL;

however, the first participant was not as clear on this matter. This participant

described his sister as once being [ESL] but not himself. Their father was a

migrant from Macedonia while their mother was an English-only speaking

Australian. This participant described that his sister had learnt Macedonian as

her first language but when she started school she stopped speaking

Macedonian and spoke only English. At first he said that she would be

classified as ESL as a child (from the definitions given by participants) but

because she now only speaks English he was left unsure if she was still ESL or

not.

“…my dad’s Macedonian…but I never learned the language at all

partially because he was trying to teach me the alphabet before I learnt

words…but my sister spoke fluent Macedonian before she could speak

English as like a small child but…now she doesn’t know any

Macedonian words so like I suppose yeah definition she would be

classified English-as-a-second language but now she only has English

as her only language so I don’t know how that works”

72

This participant claimed to have never learnt Macedonian so did not

consider himself as being ESL; he felt no confusion about his own identity in

this matter only confusion about the status of his sister. The confusion may

have derived from the focus group’s description of [ESL] students. Indeed, they

could not as a group decide on a formal description of non-native English

language learners. This dilemma is consistent with research in this area as there

are a number of different ways to describe these learners (Byrnes, Kiger &

Manning, 1997; Cummins, 1997; Education Queensland, 2002; Langman, 2003;

Lee, 1996; Michell, 1999). Another participant also expressed some confusion

about what it meant to be ESL. His father had migrated to Australia from

Greece and had married an English-only speaking Australian. The participant

and his siblings learnt only English; yet, from the description developed by the

group, where students who have ESL are children of parents who speak English

and a language other than English in the home, he felt that he might also be

described as being [ESL]:

“…but I’ve never equated myself as being a non-English speaking

background even though I think I probably do fall into that category I

think in the broad definition. I’m not too sure and...so I don’t really

class myself as English-as-a-second language because my father never

taught us Greek even though I was around it a lot”

Describing students who have ESL seemed to be challenging for the

preservice teachers in this study. The following remark by a participant

indicated confusion about how to identify students who have ESL by

suggesting that they were:

“…maybe people with bad grammar…back in high school you used to

have …parents who hadn’t had a lot of education. They used to come to

ESL class…like they used to hate it but they’d come in because it’s

[poor grammar] affecting their English and Maths and everything else

that (does) with a lot of

reading”

73

What is remarkable about this response it that the participant, and her

family, had migrated to Australia from China. Native English language learners

would have identified this participant as ESL because her English language

syntax and pronunciation in English were difficult to follow at times. The

participant had spent a great deal of her high school years in an ESL unit at

school in which, it seems, semi-literate adult English speaking Australians also

attended to finish their education. For this participant, ESL meant not having a

basic understanding of English grammar regardless of your first or second

language because that was her experience as an ESL student. It appeared that

she had difficulty differentiating between how to describe students who were

ESL and native English language learners who had difficulty with academic

English at the classroom level; however, in this study, this participant’s

particular confusion was an isolated one.

The focus for categorising the target group of students as ESL by the

participants in the focus groups lay with the view that these students were

essentially non-fluent English speakers so labelling them ESL may have created

more confusion than clearly describing who the students really are.

Inservice Teachers: Inservice teachers in this study described ESL

students in the same manner as did the preservice teachers in that English was

not ESL students’ native language and that ESL students may or may not have

been born in Australia.

“…they are in a native English speaking country…whether they are

here just on a summer program; it’s still a second language. Or if they

are refugees that have come here to Australia with their family or their

parents are studying here; it’s still their second language. They need to

get by; they need to speak one or more other language”

“…I can’t really describe them in general…they’re just so different

and…even looking at nationalities, they’ve different personalities within

the nationalities they represent so that’s…a hard question”

74

“…we kind of tend to…some extent group students by their

nationality…on the basis that nationalities do definitely have certain

characteristics within the classroom…the general demeanour of the

Japanese students as compared to say Middle Eastern students is quite

different”

All inservice teachers in this study described themselves as native

English speaking Australians. An anomaly presented by the responses of the

inservice teachers was that they identified student characteristics by

nationalities. For example, inservice teachers described that Japanese students

are different to Middle Eastern students in their approach to learning and in

their classroom behaviour, with a preference shown for teaching Asian students.

There is much in the literature that warns against categorising students by

culture and/or ethnicity especially with regards to classroom behaviours

(Limbos & Geva, 2001; Penfield, 1987). Categorising students in this way may

lead to a segregation of students according to their ethnic origins, not an ideal

practice for an inclusive approach to education.

There was not a great deal of difference in the descriptions identifying

students who have ESL between the two groups of participants. The difference

was primarily in respect to the amount of contact each group had had working

with students who have ESL. Preservice teachers had more limited experience

in relation to teaching students and were more inclined to refer to their

university training to support their ideas. Inservice teachers’ recounts were

given in relation to having worked with various groups of students who were

ESL (i.e., considering the different national characteristics of students when

teaching) over the course of their teaching career.

Having participants develop their own descriptions of students who

have ESL at the beginning of the focus groups allowed them to work within

their own understandings of the concepts and through discussion within a group.

75

Group discussions allowed participants to have their understanding further

developed in new and challenging ways.

Sources of Efficacy Information

Preservice Teachers: Preservice teachers generally expressed a belief

that either their overall teaching capabilities would serve them well for teaching

these students or they felt confident that they could access appropriate strategies

and resources to do the job.

“…it’s a task that I would have to certainly prepare, you know, I

wouldn’t say I’m trained to just walk in there and work with an ESL

teacher if there is one in the school and but certainly I would see about

what strategies and ESL books and so forth to make sure my class was

inclusive which is of the role to do”

“…I’d be confident like cause I’d be confident in myself. I just like to

think to myself well I’m a good teacher and I’m sure I can find any way

possible to meet the needs of every child in this classroom”

“…I feel fairly confident because I’m confident in my creativity and um

yeah and resourcefulness and networking skills. I think they’re really

what you would need to rely on”

The above three participants described acquiring new skills, gaining

access to books, doing research on teaching ESL students (vicarious

experiences) and contacting/networking with others as support for their

classroom teaching (verbal persuasion/vicarious experiences). They described

their abilities to get the needed support to do the job through vicarious means

rather than describing any previous experiences they already had at the job of

teaching through field experience placements even though each had previously

taught students who have ESL while on their field experience placements. The

majority source of efficacy information for preservice teachers was through

vicarious experiences.

76

While vicarious experiences were a valuable source for preservice

teachers as a means to learn new teaching (Hagen et al., 1998) these

participants also had mastery experiences upon which to draw. However,

mastery experiences were described in a more global sense, “…I feel confident

I have the ability to acquire the necessary strategies…”; “…I’d be confident

like cause I’d be confident in myself”; “…I feel fairly confident because I’m

confident in my creativity”, rather than specifically in relation to teaching

students who have ESL.

Preservice teachers who identified themselves as ESL learners referred

to their own mastery experiences as non-native English language learners.

Having been through the experience, they described that they had a particular

insight into the process of teaching/learning with students who have ESL that

native English language learners did not:

“…I can relate my own experience to those…you know in the lectures. I

think I have more understanding than people maybe beside me [who are

not ESL students themselves]”

While describing mastery experiences in that this participant had gone through

the process of being a student who is ESL, the above response also indicate the

role of verbal persuasion through university lectures. This participant expresses

that she understood the lectures better than non-ESL students because of her

personal background.

The confidence of one participant in particular was tempered with the

realities she had experienced in the classroom while on her field experience

placement:

“…I was confident at first because I thought…as an ESL student myself

I should have my personal experience as something to fall back on…

and because I did diversity as one of the modules [at university]… I

guess as a teacher you probably try to find out as much as you can but I

don’t know in practice how much you can actually do or to cater to

77

everybody I mean…is it realistic to actually put a lot of ESL…four or

five ESL students with everybody else”

This participant initially thought she could fall back on her own

experiences as an ESL student (mastery experience) to help her work with

students who have ESL. She had completed a module on teaching to diversity

(verbal persuasion/vicarious experiences) but this experience, her own

experience of being an [ESL] student (mastery experience) and her experience

of a field experience placement in a classroom which held [ESL] students

(vicarious/mastery experience) still left her in doubt about teaching students

who have ESL in mainstream classrooms. It may be that she has not yet

integrated similarities of the two situations; reconciling her efficacy beliefs

towards a more positive orientation as a teacher.

The second theme expressed by the participant in the second response:

“is it realistic to actually put a lot of ESL…four or five ESL students with

everybody else” was expressed by other preservice participants:

“I enjoyed teaching them [ESL students] but I yeah you know like um

just can’t get enough time just for one person and then there’s all these

other kids waiting for help as well and probably those kids [ESL]

almost get pushed in a corner. Sometimes it’s easier to teach everyone”

“…if I had a kid…who’s spoken and written English was extremely poor

you wouldn’t know where to start…I honestly would not know where to

start”

The low efficacy expressed by these preservice teachers appeared to

stem in the main part from their lack of experience in the classroom. These

preservice teachers were uncertain how one goes about teaching to diversity in

a mainstream classroom. One suggested that students might get ‘pushed in a

corner’ while a teacher worked with the other students in the class, while

78

another preservice teacher simply did not know where to begin teaching

students who have ESL.

The two reasons most often stated in relation to expressing high efficacy

were having the ability to speak more than one language and having travelled to

a non-English speaking country, both a form of mastery experience. These

findings are consistent with the literature (Costa, McPhail, Smith, & Brisk,

2005; Cummins, 1997; Malin, 1990). It seems the more authentic the

experience, the greater impact it has on forming efficacy beliefs.

“…your own personal background gives you better insight and belief

that you can teach these students rather than somebody who’s Anglo-

Australian”

“…some Anglos or some Australian people who have been overseas

or…speak more than one language…I find they are more understanding

than everybody else that just speaks one [language]…if you’ve never

travelled overseas, you have never been in that situation where nobody

understand you, what it means”

Other preservice teachers expressed regret about their limitations in this area:

“…it’s a shame that so many of us…can only speak one language

because being bilingual or multilingual is a real gift and it’s a shame

we can’t model it. That’s what I would like to be able to do but of course

unless I go out and learn one [another language] I don’t know when I’d

have the time but I’d like to be able to do that make it real”

Preservice teacher participants also described a change in efficacy due

to the support offered either vicariously through observing the [ESL] teacher

work as described by the first participant below or through verbal persuasion

(the ESL support teacher explaining things) as is described by the following

participant. Having additional support from the [ESL] teacher appeared to have

helped these preservice teachers understand teaching students.

79

“… I [volunteer] two hours every Tuesday morning in the Year 2 class

[with] the ESL students there so I sat in with the ESL teacher last week

to take a Year 2 class just to watch what she did and that was good”

“…I spent a half day... with my first prac with the ESL teacher and went

through what she did and the strategies and actually she explained quite

a lot of the politics and how to get help”

In contrast, one presevice teacher related that she followed the lead of

her supervising teacher who did not seem to make a special effort to teach

students who have ESL in the class and so she, the preservice teacher, did not

make an effort either. She described the ESL students as being quiet, so quiet in

fact that they appeared to have been overlooked:

“…we actually had students that…came from overseas and they were

very quiet. You never were quite sure whether they got it or not… but I

noticed that two or three of them…particularly these ones that come

from overseas – just dead quiet”

Receiving no encouragement from her supervising teacher to consider

the learning needs of these students from overseas that were so quiet in the

class, the preservice teacher did not do so either, an indication of poor vicarious

experiences and/or verbal persuasion. Further in the discussion the participant

completes this recount by stating:

“…Because I was so new at it [teaching], it didn’t occur to me that I

should have paid more attention to what they [ESL students] actually already

knew”

In this situation there was no verbal persuasion or vicarious support in

the particular area of teaching ESL in the classroom although there were ESL

students present. This preservice teacher repeatedly said that she did not give

the issue of teaching ESL students much thought because there was no

indication from her supervising teacher that this was an area to be considered.

80

The preservice teacher seemed to have found solace in the fact that her teaching

approach was consistent with those of her fellow practicum teachers:

“…when I was doing my prac there was also two other Year Three

(practicum) students doing their block teaching and I thought they were

brilliant but now come to think of it they did exactly what I did. They

just prepared a lesson plan for the class, what they wanted to teach…I

don’t think it was ever who they were teaching”

Inservice Teachers: Inservice teachers described how they began with

low efficacy but through personal experience at teaching (mastery experience)

felt that they had overcome those former feelings of doubt about their abilities:

“…let me see, my first memories of going into the classroom were of

kind of sheer terror…I remember that…just out of fear I kind of threw

activities at the students and sat back while they did them…and I was

really backing away from the students…and I guess my style now is

more of an interactive style of teaching ESL [students]”

“…when I first started teaching…and encountered some students who

were learning English as their second language I felt insecure, lacked

confidence in knowing whether I was actually helping them or doing

anything for them really I had no background knowledge no theory to

base anything on so I felt very inadequate…now after having done some

study [inservice/workshops]…I feel much more comfortable in helping

them. I realise that modelling and scaffolding are very, very important

things for them”

In the above two responses both participants had positive shifts from

low efficacy to high efficacy due to their experiences teaching students who

have ESL (mastery experiences). The first participant above described that fear

prompted him to take a very hands-off approach to teaching students in the

classroom but over a period of four months he experienced a transition in his

teaching approach which he described as his ‘biggest learning curve as a

81

teacher’. This change in teaching style, a more interactive style, appeared to suit

him more. The second participant, a teacher of 30 years, described that she was

‘thrown in the deep end’ without any [ESL] support when she first started

teaching. Since that time she had taken inservice and completed workshops

(verbal persuasion/vicarious experiences) to learn about teaching this group of

students and has worked with various ESL support teachers (vicarious

experience/verbal persuasion) over the years and so felt more confident about

doing the job.

Inservice teachers described how their efficacy beliefs in relation to

teaching ESL students changed when they had gained more experience

(mastery experiences) and thus more confidence in their abilities to do the job.

These remarks demonstrate that efficacy beliefs are fluid in nature not static;

new circumstances will have an impact on the strength and direction of an

individual’s efficacy.

Low efficacy was also expressed by inservice teachers who had ESL

students in their classrooms:

“…I’ve still got more research or work or something before I’d feel

comfortable or confident in teaching ESL [students]”

“…I find that really difficult to cope with in a class of 30 students and

you’ve got two children who just have no idea what you’re saying let

alone cannot do the math equation or even English you know I find that

really difficult and as a classroom teacher… you don’t have good

support structures in place from, you know, the specialised teachers in

the field and I really feel that it’s not a waste of time but it’s just so

difficult to meet those needs apart from meeting the needs of the class

anyway but it’s just you don’t get support”

“And the way you interact with parents are different as well. If you lived

in an area that was predominately one or two languages or cultures, it

would be easy but when they’re different every year, it just makes it

82

more difficult. And I really…I know I should do some inservice but I’ve

never ever seen any offered”

Lack of support, resources and information about how to teach ESL

students in mainstream classrooms appeared to be the main concerns of

inservice participants (verbal persuasion/vicarious experiences). Lack of

knowledge about how to do the job may well lead to lower efficacy

(Bandura,1997) but ultimately, participants were confident that they would be

able to equip themselves to effectively teach students, drawing upon vicarious

sources (books, research, networking skills).

Inservice teachers also mentioned being able to speak another language

and travelling overseas (mastery experiences) as reasons for their particular

interests in this area of teaching:

“…we’ve all travelled a little bit and travelled to countries that are of

non-English speaking backgrounds and that I think it just that helps it

opens the mind and you don’t have such a narrow vision of the place

and the world and there are many different sorts of Australians going to

other places in the world and people from other places coming here so

it’s all rather exciting and fascinating and one sort of wants to know

more about it so I have a personal interest in it”

“…I suppose now that I have a grandson who’s going to be speaking

another language…so yeah I suppose I have, you know, the interest is

there from that point of view”

In summary, mastery experiences were cited by both participant groups

the strongest sources of efficacy information (67%). Mastery experiences were

first-hand experiences such as personally working with students, being a non-

native speaker of a second language or travelling to a non-English speaking

country and experiencing life as a non-native speaker. Verbal

persuasion/vicarious experiences were described as taking training courses,

83

inservice and workshops to learn more about other cultures and strategies to

teach students who have ESL. Inservice teachers mentioned that they would

talk to their colleagues or an ESL support teacher about their teaching strategies

and activities as confidence boosters. Vicarious experiences were given less

often as a source of efficacy information and were often mentioned in relation

to verbal persuasion (43%). Preservice teachers mentioned that the teaching

behaviour being modelled by their supervising was not always positive in

meeting the needs of students who have ESL. A positive model was found by

those students who volunteered to observe a trained ESL teacher at work.

Physiological arousal was indicated by teachers through either their positive or

negative perceptions of teaching students. For example, in the above comments

one inservice teacher described that teaching in this area “…it’s all rather

exciting and fascinating”, and that she had a “personal interest in learning

about new cultures”.

Contextual Considerations

It may be recalled that contextual considerations are: culture load,

language load, cognitive load and learning load (Meyer, 2000). Culture load is

the amount of cultural knowledge required but never explicitly explained in

order for learning to occur. An example of culture load was given by the

inservice teacher who identified student characteristics by nationalities. For

example, inservice teachers described Japanese students as different to Middle

Eastern students in their approach to learning and teachers expected different

behaviours according to the culture of the child. At times, issues relating to

culture load were identified in association with language load. For example,

when parents were described as key players in the educational process by both

preservice and inservice teachers, one preservice teacher described:

“…one of my daughter’s…they had a girl that came from France for a

while. This kid didn’t speak any English at all but the father did so he

came and sat in the class for a bit…I don’t know how he did it with his

job but he did…in that situation…and I wouldn’t mind…if there could

be someone else in the classroom to help out, interpret a bit”

84

An inservice teacher’s comments mirrored those of the preservice comment:

“…at the beginning of the year one father said: yes, he [the child]

understands but I’ll come with him for the first few days and he [the

father] translated everything I said into Chinese and he showed the

child exactly what he was doing and…that was so good and now when I

have particular problems I ask parents to come and do their bit. It

really does help a lot because he realised that the child understood

English but in this new situation he may not understand”

These comments indicate the close association of culture load and

language load. Having parents help children adjust to their new environment,

then, was appreciated and welcomed by teachers. Teachers expressed high

efficacy when parents interacted in classroom activities to help their children

settle into their new environment. Parents in these examples took the time to

stay with their children in their classroom, acting as interpreters until their

children gained some knowledge of the classroom routine. In the last example

the child appeared to have been able to understand English but perhaps not at a

level that would allow him to follow what was required of him in the class at

that stage. In both situations, the teachers described their willingness to ease

both the language load and the culture load of students through positive

involvement with parents. Teachers also expressed that they would utilise this

strategy of parent involvement again; they found that it was a positive and

effective way to ease the child into the class routine and a way for teachers to

gain an understanding of the child’s needs in their new culture.

In contrast, one preservice teacher, herself ESL, described that parent

expectations can act as a hindrance, acting as pressure on the child:

“…a lot of parents from Asian background would think that, well, I

want results that I can see and if I don’t get results within three months,

six months, you know, what are you doing here? My kid’s going

backwards…I think the kids are under a lot of pressure”

85

This participant described that many of her Chinese friends’ parents

expected their children to been proficient in English at school within a very

short time of their arrival in Australia even though the parents’ English

language proficiency was very poor to non-existent. According to this

participant, parents expected schools to somehow fast-track their child’s

English language development and when results were slow in coming parents

showed strong disapproval. There was a suggestion by this participant that

parental disapproval would result in lowered teacher efficacy because such

criticism may undermine a teachers’ sense of self.

One group of preservice teachers spoke about the impact of racism on

classroom teaching and learning and, consequently, how such behaviour could

have a negative effect on teacher efficacy:

“…so the white people’s kids get this attitude towards Aboriginals and

the Aboriginals get this resentment also towards…the white people and

then that goes into the classroom with the divide and it’s very hard I

think it would be for a teacher to try and resolve years and years of

conflict in just one day or even a term.”

This negative description of culture load was expressed as likely to lead

to low efficacy for a teacher if the teacher perceived that the community’s

culture would have a greater impact on the classroom situation than the impact

a teacher could reasonable expect to have to make an effective and positive

change in attitudes.

Language load: Language load refers to the amount of English a student

is expected to cope with whether academic English or everyday English (Meyer,

2000). Wong Fillmore (1991) found that students who are not competent in

their first language have difficulties gaining proficiency in their second

language and this idea was expressed by one of the participants:

“…if they [children] are not competent in the first language, from my

experience, you can almost assume that they’re going to find it difficult

to gain knowledge of the second language”

86

There is no consensus in the literature on when it is best for children to

learn a second language. Schumann (1997) suggested that children’s

neurobiological development plays a role in when they might best learn a new

language. Schumann claimed that children need to have a good grounding in

one language before they begin to learn a new language and the intellectual

capacity for learning a new language does not occur until late childhood/early

adolescence. Nevertheless, children enter schools at all ages from preschool to

high school and have to learn English as a new language to cope academically

and socially.

One participant expressed concern that taking time to address the needs

of students who have ESL may take away time that could be spent teaching the

others:

“…particularly with Year One, the little ones…we speak English but if

they don’t understand we slow down for them then what about the ones

that think it’s boring, that speed you’re going”

This preservice teacher showed concern that catering to the language

needs of students who have ESL would have a somewhat negative effect on the

rest of the students who would get bored waiting for their peers to catch up with

them. However, slowing down the rate of speech is what is advocated teachers

do for student understanding (Fueyo,1997). But learning language is more than

the words spoken, it also involves interpersonal interactions. Rhine (1995)

found that some teachers became impatient teaching students who have ESL.

When going over points of a lesson teachers tended to ask numerous questions

of the students without expecting an answer. Rhine claimed that students

become overloaded with the language (language laod) rather than with the

concepts of the content being taught as, while the questions may be similar,

they varied significantly in wording. For a child who is struggling to learn a

new language their only defence might be to retreat into silence (Igoa, 1995).

Having children retreating into silence might be what happened with the

following preservice teacher:

87

“…the ones I experienced were so quiet in fact if you don’t look at them

you wouldn’t even know they’re there. I don’t think they caused that

much problem”

This preservice teacher’s statement appeared to be more focused on the

children’s good (quiet) behaviour rather than on cognitive, language or learning

development. Focusing on the lack of English language proficiency as a lack of

the ability to communicate and learn was a common comment by participants:

“…I do work at Sunday school in our church. We have a lot of African

kids coming. They have problems…they don’t communicate at all

because they can’t speak English. But even the few…children who can

speak English, they pretend they can’t because they want attention”

This preservice teacher is suggesting that because these children do not

speak English they ‘don’t communicate’. It may be recalled that Makin (1992)

found that teachers suggested that children do not have any language if they had

not yet learnt to speak English. Instead of considering the difficulties students

may face as a result of a lack of English language proficiency, the above

preservice teacher seems to indicate that the students’ lack of communication in

English is used as an attention seeking device.

Learning load: According to Meyer (2000), learning load refers to

teachers’ perceived expectations that students who have ESL know how to

learn. In the current study, participants did not identify any separate learning

expectations that would be particular to students who have ESL other than for

these students to learn to speak English. Participants stated that until students

learnt English their participation in classroom activities was limited.

Teaching strategies to help students attain outcomes, such as scaffolding

and interactive teaching described by participants earlier were considered

beneficial to students who have ESL but also to all learners in the class.

Participants did not identify any particular program or teaching/ learning

strategies that they would consider unique to students who have ESL. The

88

consensus from the focus group discussions seemed to be that learning for

students who have ESL would fit within the overall learning outcomes

framework for all students in the classroom; this view was put forward by both

preservice and inservice teachers. Participants described that part of their

teaching role was to prepare the learning environment in such a way that each

student would be able to progress at their own pace towards peer-related

learning outcomes. There seemed to be general agreement that children’s

socialisation with classmates was a great benefit in helping them learn more

about the subtle social concepts their new culture through language. Being

accepted by peers was considered an important part of cultural adjustment for

classroom learning.

Cognitive load: refers to teachers’ understanding that students who have

ESL must process information, ideas and concepts from within the framework

of at least two languages (Meyer, 2000). Cognitive load was not strongly

described by participants in this study. Preservice teachers in particular made

little mention of issues related to cognitive load. One participant discussed

earlier that she did what all the preservice teachers did – prepared the lessons

without really thinking of the children they were teaching. One participant

described how if he had a student in Year 7 who could not read English, he

would use a Year 1 reader to build up spelling and grammar skills such as

indicating to the student that ‘C-A-T’ is cat. The provision of this ‘busy’ work

(Gersten, 1996) where students are given work well below their cognitive level,

but something with which they can be kept busy, would not be lost on these

students. Participants did not offer a solution to this potential problem.

Summary of Results

There was some difficulty for both preservice and inservice teachers in

describing students who have ESL. This group of learners was variously

described as some having English language proficiency before arriving in

Australia while others had none, that parents of these students spoke a language

other than English and that the child may or may not speak English well. One

89

descriptor that participants in the study appeared to agree upon is that what the

target group of students has in common is that English is not their first language.

Mastery experiences were described as having already taught ESL

students, having an ESL background or travelling to non-native English

language countries. From participants responses this contextual consideration

seemed to be the most frequent source of efficacy information and the most

powerful in that participants with mastery experiences appeared to empathise in

particular with the language load and culture load that act as barriers to

learning for ESL students. Verbal persuasion/vicarious experiences such as

learning about teaching to diversity through university courses or through

inservice seminars and workshops were also mentioned. Participants who

described having mastery and/or vicarious experiences from which to drawn

upon, expressed higher efficacy about teaching students who are non-native

English language learners than participants who had no such experiences.

Participants who described having limited or no mastery experiences (or poor

vicarious experiences) expressed more doubt about their capabilities to teach

students who have ESL.

Culture load and language load were the most frequently mentioned

contextual considerations (Meyers, 2000) for teaching students who have ESL.

Language is a dominating feature of culture (Vygotsky, 1978) so it is not

surprising that these two areas have received such prominence in the study.

Australian schooling is language-rich and children who have difficulty with

language soon begin to fall behind their peers.

To a lesser degree, learning load was mentioned by participants in

relation to teaching students who have ESL. These student needs were

addressed by preservice teachers as being similar to the general needs of

students; that is, there were examples of lesson modifications for these students.

Modifications described included where a Year 7 student might have to be

given a Year 1 reader in order to learn the alphabet. Cognitive load was least

mentioned by participants in the study.

90

In summary, the combination of coding between sources of efficacy

information and contextual considerations for teaching students who have ESL

identified the context specific nature of teacher efficacy within the first stage of

the modified cyclical model (Figure 2) utilised for the research. Mastery

experiences in association with culture load and language load appeared to

strongly connected, in that individuals who had mastery experiences in either

being a student who was ESL or through personal connections with other

cultures appeared to have higher efficacy in relation to teaching students who

have ESL. Placing the four sources of efficacy information and the four

contextual considerations within the modified cyclical model serves to reinforce

the concept that there needs to be a context in relation to examining teacher

efficacy.

Data collected in Study 1 were used to help in the development of

survey items for Study 2 and the hypothetical teaching scenarios for Study 3.

The following chapter will describe Study 2 in detail.

91

CHAPTER 5 Study 2

This chapter will describe Study 2 of the research, which addresses

question (4) of the research: What teacher efficacy factors are associated with

teaching students who have ESL? Study 2 explores the four factors of teacher

efficacy as delineated in the modified cyclical model utilised for the research.

A survey, Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale for Teaching ESL Learners, was

devised to measures four factors of teacher efficacy (Brouwers & Tomic, 2003)

as they relate to teaching students who have ESL in primary school. The aim of

the study was to provide some insight into the factorial structure of teacher

efficacy for this population group of students. This chapter includes the

rationale for exploring the four factors of teacher efficacy, the development of

the questionnaire survey, the procedure utilised for the study and the factor

analyses of the study.

Rationale for Study 2

The purpose of collecting quantitative data in Study 2 of the research

was to explore the construct of teacher efficacy within the context of teaching

students who have ESL. In the current study, a four-factor model of teacher

efficacy in relation to teaching students who have ESL was constructed. The

four-factors examined were: personal efficacy (confidence in one’s teaching

abilities), teaching efficacy (the ability to overcome environmental factors such

as home life), outcome efficacy (activities to reach educational outcomes), and

classroom management efficacy (activities to manage student behaviour) as

described by Brouwers and Tomic (2003).

Brouwers and Tomic suggested that the two-factor measures of teacher

efficacy generally used in research were inadequate as there are more that two

aspects of efficacy in relation to teaching. Generally there is a two factor

formulation of personal efficacy and teaching efficacy (see Gibson & Dembo,

1984; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). However, Soodak and Podell (1996) found in

92

their study that the third factor could be retained, which they called outcome

efficacy. Brouwers and Tomic (2003) found evidence of a fourth factor which

they called classroom management efficacy from research conducted by Emmer

and Hickman (1991). It is these four factors that were explored in the current

study.

Study 1 of the current research confirmed the importance of including

the four contextual considerations when examining teacher efficacy in relation

to teaching students who have ESL. It may be recalled that the four contextual

considerations are language load, learning load, cognitive load and culture

load (see Meyer, 2000) and these perceived barriers to learning for students

who have ESL provide the specific context for the items on the questionnaire.

While there have been many teacher efficacy studies conducted in the past,

there has been no studies that explored the four factors of teacher efficacy in

association with the four contextual considerations for teaching students who

have ESL. Therefore, it was deemed necessary to develop a survey to

investigate teacher efficacy further within this particular context.

Because Study 2 is exploratory in nature, some evidence of the

construct validity and reliability of the instrument is needed and these are

demonstrated using a number of statistical procedures. A factor analysis was

conducted to assess the composition of the scale measurement. The computer

program SPSS 12.0.1 for Windows was utilised as the statistical tool for a factor

analysis of the data. Through factor analysis, major areas of concerns that have

an impact on all responses can be identified and only those variables which

effectively influence the extracted components are retained. Additionally,

Cronbach’s alpha is calculated to estimate the internal consistency of the sub-

scales; clarifying the psychometric soundness of the instrument aids in

identifying the statistical significance of the findings.

Development of the Questionnaire

Items for the questionnaire were developed from data gathered in Study

1 and from the literature. Items were formatted similarly to those traditionally

found on teacher efficacy scales, which use a Likert-type measure. The survey

93

items were structured on a 6-point Likert type response scale. Items were

constructed with a referent to the domain of teaching students who have ESL to

underscore the specific context of this study. The same questionnaire was

utilised for both the preservice teacher participants and the inservice teacher

participants.

Initially 32 items were constructed for the survey across the four factors

of teaching efficacy, personal efficacy, classroom management efficacy and

outcome efficacy; however, after a pilot study was conducted, 2 items (i.e., item

24 “How much can you do to ensure that students who have ESL are learning

the same content as non-ESL students in your class” and item 26 “How much

are you able to determine if students who have ESL understand classroom

terminology such as ‘classify’, ‘analyse’, ‘predict’ and ‘create’?), were

dropped because the wording of the items rendered them redundant in relation

to other items on the measure and/or feedback from participants indicated that

they were confused by the wording of the items (indicated by a question mark

“?” beside the item or did not respond to the item).

Item 18 of the survey was designed as a foil question. Sometimes called

a detractor, a foil is used to detect bias in individual items (Veale & Foremen,

1983). Item 18 asks: How much are you able to teach female students who have

ESL better than male students who have ESL? In analysing a foil, the researcher

must examine the proportion of “pull indices”, that is, the extent to which the

foil is attracting or pulling respondents away from the correct answer as a test

of item reliability. For item 18, the correct answer would be 1=not at all as

ideally teachers should not show a bias towards either gender of student when

teaching. The responses for item 18 did not indicate a particular pull and so the

item was removed from the data for analysis. The final survey contained 30

items.

Method

Participants

Preservice Teachers: Permission was given to the researcher to deliver

the questionnaires to preservice teachers by three unit coordinators of subjects

94

taken as part of a Bachelor of Education degree. The researcher delivered the

questionnaires to preservice participants during class time with a brief overview

of the research. The researcher explained that participation in the research was

voluntary and that participants could pull out of the research at any time

without penalty. Participants were provided with an introductory letter outlining

the research and a consent script. Two hundred and thirty questionnaires were

delivered to preservice teachers; 211 (n=211) completed preservice

questionnaires were returned suitable for use in the study, a return rate of

approximately 92%.

Inservice Teachers: Inservice teachers were recruited initially via a

snowballing effect, through word of mouth and via email request. Fifty (n=50)

teachers contacted were teaching in various Queensland state schools and were

provided with an introductory letter outlining the research and a consent script.

Twenty-six (n=26) completed questionnaires were returned from this group.

The researcher also contacted the principal of a small, primary catholic school

in Queensland and was granted permission to deliver questionnaires to the

teachers at this school. The researcher had worked at this school as an ESL

teacher on a contractual basis for three years. Twenty (n=20) questionnaires

were left in the teachers’ mail boxes at the school with an introductory letter, a

script describing the research and a consent form. Thirteen (n=13) completed

questionnaires were returned. The questionnaires were collected from the

school by the researcher one week after they were delivered. In total, seventy

(n=70) inservice teachers’ questionnaires were delivered. Thirty (n=30) were

not returned and one (n=1) questionnaire was returned incomplete and so not

used for the study, resulting in 39 inservice teachers’ questionnaires suitable for

use in the research, a return rate of approximately 55%. In total, 250

questionnaires were completed and used in the analysis for this study. Further

information on sampling techniques was given in Chapter 3, Methodological

Considerations.

95

Results

Preliminary Data Analysis

Prior to performing a PCA, the suitability of data for factor analysis was

assessed through a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy

and a Bartlett’s. In the current research the KMO value was .96, exceeding the

recommend value of 0.6 and the Bartlett’s Tests of Sphericity reached statistical

significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix. The scree

plot was used to determine the initial number of factors to be explored. The

Scree plots the variables as the X axis and the corresponding eigenvalues as the

Y axis and is used as one rule of thumb to determine the number of factors in a

data set (Netemeyer, Bearden & Sharma, 2003). As one moves further to the

right of the plot, the eigenvalues drop. When the drop ceases and the curve

makes an elbow, all further variables are dropped after the one starting at the

elbow. The eigenvalue measures the amount of variance in all the variables

accounted for by a given factor where values exceeding 1 are retained.

Estimates of the scree plot and eigenvaluse suggest that between 2 and 4 factors

should be retained for analysis.

Initially, a factor analysis was conducted on the data from the two

participant groups separately. When compared, there was no significant

difference in the results between the two groups so the two groups were

combined together. The combined grouping of inservice and preservice teachers

resulted in a participant group of 250 teachers. The four-factor model

(Brouwers & Tomic, 2003) was initially proposed for the research; however, a

three-factor solution and a two-factor solution were also examined as a way to

shed some light on the construct of teacher efficacy (Guskey & Passaro, 1994;

Soodak & Podell, 1996; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990) in relation to teaching students

who have ESL.

In an initial analysis, item 28 (“To what extent can you control whether

or not there is inclusion of students who have ESL in state-wide testing done in

your classroom?”) was removed from the analysis procedure as it was

96

considered an outlier. With the foil item and item 28 removed, the factor

analysis was conducted on the remaining twenty-eight (28) items.

Principle Component Analysis

It is recommended that there should be a minimum of three variables

loading per factor (Kline, 1994; Popham & Sirotnik, 1973; Santos & Clegg,

1999). In the current study, the four- factor solution was analysed first, then a

three-factor solution then a two-factor solution. The four-factor solution of the

data revealed the presence of three rather than four components with

eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 49.9%, 4.4% and 3.9% of the variance

respectively. An inspection of the scree plot revealed a break after the third

component so further analysis with a three factor solution was conducted.

In a three factor analysis, the factor solution revealed the presence of

three components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 49.8%, 4.4% and

3.9% of the variance respectively. However, upon inspection of the item

loadings there was no clear delineation of the three factors. The scree plot again

revealed a break after the third component but the break was not clear in that it

was difficult to interpret whether there were three factors or two; therefore, a

two-factor solution was tested.

The two-factor solution (presented in Table 5.1) explained 54.3% of the

total variance. Table 5.1 delineates the two factor structure which was obtained

using principal axis factor analysis followed by oblique (Oblimin) rotations. An

estimate of internal consistency of the two factors was conducted using

Cronbach’s alpha. Cronbach’s alpha for factor 1 (21 items) was .95; Cronbach’s

alpha for factor 2 (7 items) was .82. Values for the coefficient alpha of the two

retained factors suggest that the scale scores are reasonably reliable for

inservice and preservice teachers.

97

Table 5.1 95% Confidence Intervals of Mean and Standard Deviations of Change for Personal Efficacy and Teaching Efficacy ________________________________________________________________ N Mean SD ________________________________________________________________ PersonalEfficacy Preservice Teachers 210 84.45 18.62 Inservice Teachers 39 84.76 18.62 TeachingEfficacy Preservice Teachers 211 27.76 6.02 Inservice Teachers 39 26.46 4.98 ________________________________________________________________

The means and standard deviations were relatively similar for preservice

teachers and inservice teachers with scores for personal efficacy and teaching

efficacy moderate. While preservice teachers rated higher levels of teaching

efficacy they were not significantly different from inservice teachers.

Items loading onto Factor 1, accounted for 49.85% of the total variance.

Factor 1 appears to fit within the parameters of what was designated in the

study as personal efficacy (an individual’s belief in their capabilities to do a

task). Items that were written for the factors outcome efficacy and classroom

management efficacy loaded on to factor 1. One explanation for such a strong

result for Factor 1 could be that respondents in Study 1 of the current research

described that they did not differentiate teaching tasks so discretely. Classroom

management and learning outcomes for participants in Study 1 were considered

as part of the development and delivery of lessons and activities. For example,

strategies to best manage student behaviour (e.g., “How much can you do to

influence ESL students to follow the class rules?”) loaded on to personal

efficacy rather than a separate factor of classroom management efficacy.

Learning outcomes were also a part of lesson planning, and were described as

being measured throughout a unit of work rather than solely as an end product.

As one teacher in Study 1 described it, “It’s all just a part of the job. It comes

with being a teacher”. Teachers in the research did not describe variables in

relation to classroom management efficacy and outcome efficacy as separate

98

components in developing and delivering lessons and activities. Results in the

Study 2 appear to support these views in that these variables were grouped as

sub-categories of a single factor: Factor 1, which for the current research is

described as personal efficacy.

Items that loaded on Factor 2 accounted for 4.4% of the variance. An

inspection of the screeplot revealed a clear break after the second component.

Factor 2 from the analysis appears to fit within the parameters of what was

designated in the instrument as teaching efficacy (the degree of control a

teacher has over environmental factors outside the classroom). For example,

items that loaded on this factor included: (How much can you do to assist

families to help their (ESL) children do well in school?” and “How much can

you do to get parents/caregivers of ESL students to become involved in their

children’s school activities?”) These items reflect environmental factors and so

were retained as teaching efficacy. It was decided then there were two

components for the construct of teacher efficacy for the current study, not four

as initially thought. There were 21 items loading onto the first factor, personal

efficacy with 7 items loading onto the second factor, teaching efficacy.

The pattern matrix of the oblique factors for the two factor solution of

teacher efficacy is presented in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2

Pattern Matrix for Oblique Factors of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale for Teaching ESL Learners Scale Factors and Items Factors I II 1. Personal Efficacy 13. How much can you do to ensure that students who have ESL participate in group .87 -.19 Learning activities in your class? 2. How much can you do to influence children who are ESL to follow class rules? .85 -.21 5. How much can you assist students who have ESL to communicate effectively with .82 -.04 Non-ESL students in your class? 21. To what extent can you make your expectations clear about acceptable behaviour in class to students who have ESL? .80 -.06 3. How much can you do to provide a variety of assessment measures in your class for ESL students? .79 -.06 1. How much can you do to adjust your lessons to meet the needs of individual ESL students? .79 .00 22. How much can you assist the development of cognitive strategies (e.g. rehearsing, organising, reflecting) with students who have ESL? .76 .08 24. How much are you able to assist students who have ESL to develop metacognitive strategies (e.g. planning, monitoring, self-regulation)? .73 .08 30. To what extent can you ensure that students who have ESL understand the pragmatics

99

(e.g. when, where and how to communicate) in your classroom? .73 .03 9. How well can you establish routines for students who have ESL to keep activities running smoothly in your class? .72 .01 16. How much can you do to promote learning in your class for students who have ESL when there is a lack of support from the home? .68 .05 27. How much can you do to help students who have ESL to believe that they can do well in school? .68 .06 12. How much can you do to improve learning for an ESL student who is failing in .67 .16 your class? 17. How much can you do to motivate ESL students when they show low interest in .66 .11 school? 23. How much are you able to teach proper grammar to students who have ESL? .64 .13 20. How much can you do to help students who have ESL to develop problem .61 .27 solving skills? 4. How much can you do to assist families to help their children who are ESL to do well in school? .54 .20 14. How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable students .53 .09 who have ESL? 11. How much are you able to scaffold learning for students who have ESL? .49 .30 25. How much can you do to promote learning in English with students who have ESL when they are still largely reliant on their home language for communication? .48 .30 10. How much can you do to provide effective feedback to students who have ESL? .44 .39 2. Teaching Efficacy 19. How much can you do to help parents/caregivers of students who have ESL to become involved in their children’s school activities? -.01 .795 26. To what extent can you control racist behaviour and language in your classroom? -.07 .772 15. To what extent in your lessons can you refer to the culture of students who have .27 .466 ESL? 6. How much can you do to minimise potential cultural conflicts (e.g. food, dress, gender issues) between home and school in your classroom? .16 .457 29. To what extent can you help students who have ESL to monitor their own .392 .445 comprehension? 7. To what extent can you draw on ESL students’ prior knowledge in their home language to assist with learning in your class? .331 .428 8. To what extent can you take ESL students’ religious/ethnic beliefs and customs into consideration when preparing classroom activities? .248 .408 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Personal Efficacy: eigenvalue = 13.95, total variance explained = 49.82%; Teaching Efficacy: eigenvalue = 1.24, total variance explained = 4.43%

A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to evaluate the

relationship between scores for personal efficacy and teaching efficacy for

preservice teachers and inservice teachers. The ANOVA was significant for

personal efficacy, F(1,247) = .01, p >.05 and teaching efficacy F(1,248) = 1.62,

p > .05. There was a score range of 21-126 for personal efficacy and a score

range of 7-42 for teaching efficacy.

Teacher efficacy research generally supports a two-factor model

(Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990).

The two factors are: personal efficacy and teaching efficacy. Generally in the

research, personal efficacy is deemed to be the strongest factor and findings in

100

the current study support this. The factor of teacher efficacy is also generally

reported in the research, but as a weaker factor; findings in the current study

support this as well.

Item 29: “How much can you do to assist students who have ESL to

monitor their own comprehension in your classroom?” loaded on both the

factor of personal efficacy and on the factor of teaching efficacy. On first

inspection, this item would appear to be misplaced as a variable of teaching

efficacy which is related to overcoming environmental factors. However, upon

further consideration, teachers’ responses may be the result of a confounding of

the item’s wording. Some teachers may have perceived the item to refer to their

personal capabilities to assist students in this area while others may have

perceived the item to refer to teachers helping students monitoring their

comprehension through two languages/cultures as they develop English

language proficiency, which is more in line with teaching efficacy. Further

investigation of this item needs to be done to evaluate its place in the current

questionnaire.

Summary

The aim of Study 2 was to explore the measure of teacher efficacy. The

four factors under examination for this study were: personal efficacy, teaching

efficacy, outcome efficacy and classroom management efficacy (Brouwers &

Tomic, 2003) as they relate to teaching students who have ESL. The current

study was the first to analyse the four-factor model of teacher efficacy in

relation to teaching students who have ESL. However, results from the study

did not support this model. Rather, results indicated a two-factor model:

personal efficacy and teaching efficacy. These results are consistent with those

reported in the literature that there are two factors for teacher efficacy (Gibson

& Dembo, 1984; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990).

Limitations

As this study was a first attempt at exploring a scale that measures

teacher efficacy in relation to teaching students who have ESL, the findings

101

should be viewed with caution. The items retained in this study’s questionnaire

need to be further analysed in relation to testing teacher efficacy within the

context of this study. It may be that the wording of some items confounded the

results. As was indicated above, participants in Study 1 did not always

differentiate between the various aspects of teacher efficacy. Instead their

responses indicated little differentiation within their concept that “teaching is

teaching”, wherein it was difficult for them to clearly separate one aspect from

another (for example, outcome efficacy from personal efficacy).

Despite the limitations, there was sufficient evidence of reliability and

validity of the two factors of teacher efficacy from this study: personal efficacy

and teaching efficacy. These two factors were used as the basis of analysis for

Study 3 . Study 3 examined the effects of teacher efficacy on teaching strategies

for working with students who have ESL, which is the next phase of the

cyclical model of teacher efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). The

associations of the two factors from the current study and strategies teachers

consider using in their teaching practice is describe in the next chapter.

102

CHAPTER 6 Study 3

Study 3 addresses the research question: How do teachers’ efficacy

beliefs influence their teaching strategies for teaching students who have ESL?

(the “Performance” part of the modified cyclical model of teacher efficacy

utilised for the current research). Participants were asked to respond to four

hypothetical teaching scenarios in relation to teaching students who have ESL

(the scenarios are presented and analysed within the body of this chapter). Data

from Study 1 suggested that mastery experiences and verbal

persuasion/vicarious experiences were the more prevalent sources of teacher

efficacy and that culture load and language load were most often cited by

teachers as areas of contextual consideration for teaching students who have

ESL. Data from Study 2 revealed two factors of teacher efficacy (personal

efficacy and teaching efficacy) only not four as suggested by the literature

(Brouwers & Tomic, 2003). This chapter will describe the analysis of the four

hypothetical teaching scenarios in relation to the findings from Studies 1 and 2.

Rationale for Utilising Hypothetical Teaching Scenarios

The purpose for collecting data in Study 3 was to explore the final phase

of the modified cyclical model of teacher efficacy (from the original by

Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998) utilising the data results from Study 1 and Study

2 of the current research. Because efficacy is measured as self-perceptions of

one’s capabilities in successfully completing a potential future teaching task

(Bandura 1997, 2001), hypothetical teaching scenarios were considered

appropriate for data gathering. Participants in the study, while varying in the

level of experience at teaching, had each spent some time in a classroom as a

teacher. Therefore, the situation was one not completely unknown to them; the

teaching scenarios were constructed in part from teaching situations described

in Study 1 of the research.

103

Method

Participants

Participants from Study 2 volunteered to continue with the research for

Study 3; however, not all participants from Study 2 continued with the research.

Fifty (n=50) preservice teachers and 17 (n=17) inservice teachers participated

in the Study 3, making a total of 67 (n=67) participants. Those who volunteered

to continue with the research did so with the condition that consent to

participate was maintained from the previous study.

Inservice Teachers: Eight (n=8) inservice teachers from state schools

completed written responses to the hypothetical teaching. Their responses were

returned with their completed surveys from Study 2: Teachers’ Sense of

Efficacy Scale for Teaching ESL Learners. Nine (n=9) inservice teachers who

had been contacted at a small catholic school for Study 2 completed written

responses to the hypothetical teaching scenarios. Responses from inservice

teachers at the catholic school (as part of the questionnaire for Study 2) were

collected by the researcher from the school one week after distribution of the

questionnaires. In total, seventeen (n=17) inservice teachers completed written

responses to the hypothetical teaching scenarios.

Preservice Teachers: Thirty-two (n=32) preservice teachers volunteered

to continue with the research by continuing with the questionnaire from Study 1.

Their responses to the hypothetical teaching scenarios were collected at the

time the questionnaires were collected for Study 2. Eighteen (n=18) preservice

teachers volunteered to complete the teaching scenarios as in-class discussions.

Those in this class who did not want to participate were given the option of

being excused; however, none of the students chose to leave. Participants

formed four discussion groups (4 in two groups, 5 in two groups) and

responded to each of the hypothetical teaching scenarios as a group. One

member of each group acted as scribe, jotting down the main points of the

discussions. In total, 50 (n=50) preservice teachers participated in Study 3.

Data indicated that more inservice teachers (82.4%) had taught students

who have ESL than had preservice teachers (28%). Preservice teachers in Study

104

3 were younger (approximately 78% under age 33) than inservice teachers, as

might be expected of a random group of university students. The majority of

inservice teachers in the study ranged from ages 25 – 42 (76.5%). There was

only one male participant in the inservice teacher group (5.9%) but 13 or (26%)

male participants in the preservice group.

The amount of training to teach students who have ESL was relatively

the same for both groups with preservice teachers at 22% trained and inservice

at 23.5%. Training for teaching students who have ESL included workshops

and/or seminar and courses taken at university. Twenty-eight (n=28) % of the

preservice teachers claimed to have taught students who have ESL; 82% of

inservice teachers claimed to have taught students who have ESL.

Data Analysis

Analysis of the hypothetical teaching scenarios was conducted as per

the coding procedures for Study 1. The first stage involved identifying themes

and sub-themes by using theory and past research to look for variables. Axial

coding was then done to identify categories and sub-categories. The variables

for the research included the four factors of teacher efficacy (from Brouwers &

Tomic, 2003) and the four barriers to teaching students who have ESL (Meyer,

2000). For example, the major theme of culture load was divided into sub-

themes of parental influence Encoded data for each of the two participant

groups were then compared and sorted into major themes and categories.

Identified themes that emerged in Study 3 were compared with results from

Studies 1 and 2. This constant comparing and contrasting of data is consistent

with strategies used for a mixed-method approach to research.

Coding of data began initially with these categories; however, Study 1

revealed that mastery experiences and verbal persuasion/vicarious experiences

were the main sources of teacher efficacy and that culture load and language

load were most often cited by teachers as areas of contextual consideration for

teaching students who have ESL. Data from Study 2 revealed two factors of

Teaching Efficacy (personal efficacy and teaching efficacy), not four as

105

suggested by the literature (Brouwers & Tomic, 2003). Therefore, particular

attention was paid to these factors for analysis of the data in Study 3.

Participants in the current study were presented with four hypothetical

teaching scenarios. For each of the scenarios participants were asked to “Please

describe what you would do in this situation” and “briefly explain why you

would take the action described.” The hypothetical teaching scenarios were

attached to the end of the questionnaire delivered in Study 2 as Part B of the

questionnaire.

Analysis of Data from the Preliminary Question for Study 3

Before responding to the four hypothetical teaching scenarios in Part B

of the questionnaire, participants were asked to respond to a preliminary

question: How confident do you feel about teaching students who are non-

native English language learners? to ascertain their self-evaluated level of

efficacy.

Preservice Teachers: 65% of preservice teachers claimed that they felt

confident about teaching students who have ESL, while 35% did not feel

confident. Reasons stated for feeling confident stemmed most prominently from

mastery experiences:

“Most of my responses are based on personal experience as I taught my

daughter to read and write English in three months”

“I have always felt confident teaching ESL children in my practicum

classes and in my employment as a childcare assistant”

“I have grown up with and am friends with ESL students”

“I feel confident as I experienced prac at Z. State School where this was

quite common. I feel I did very well.”

“…with my experience in teaching overseas, I have a high level of

confidence in this area”

106

These preservice teachers described mastery experiences as personal life

experiences (own home life, friendships), previous teaching episodes and travel

experiences. These findings are consistent with those identifying sources of

teacher efficacy in relation to mastery experience related in Study 1.

Mastery experiences such as adapting knowledge of teaching in general

to the area of teaching students who have ESL were also described as sources

of teacher efficacy:

“…by incorporating art and media into class. Art is a visual teaching

and all students’ cultures can play a big part in class…”

“Being a music specialist is great as music is a universal language.

Many ESL students relate and excel at music and this allows growth in

development and comprehension of much curriculum material, as well

as personal and language development”

“I feel that because of my Early Childhood training I will be able to find

ways to build connections with ESL children”

These teachers are describing confidence in their own capabilities to

teach students who have ESL and so are exhibiting high personal efficacy. In

contrast, the lack of mastery experiences was cited by preservice teachers as the

main reason for their lack of confidence and so, these preservice teachers

exhibited low personal efficacy:

“I’ve never taught ESL so I have not much idea. It’s a bit scary”

“My prac experience was at GT State School [where] the majority of

students are white Australian so I have had no experience whatever with

ESL students”

However, preservice teachers with limited or no mastery experience

teaching students who have ESL stated that they hoped their current university

107

studies (verbal persuasion/ vicarious experiences) would help them become

more confident about teaching students who have ESL:

“I’m currently completing a language and literacy subject with a major

focus on teaching ESL. After doing this, hopefully, I will become more

confident”

I have knowledge thanks to subjects at uni but haven’t put any of that

into practice, which makes me unsure of how my strategies will actually

work. I feel I am at an advantage to my peers as they have done very

little study on ESL students”

These responses show a potential for the development of higher

personal efficacy in relation to teaching students who have ESL. While these

preservice teachers have not had an opportunity to test what they have learned

in their studies, they expressed feeling confident that they are equipped with the

proper knowledge to use when such a teaching situation arises.

Preservice teachers also mentioned external influences on their ability to

work with students who have ESL, such as home life. The first two of the

following responses indicate that presevice teachers felt confident that they

could work with families in supporting students (high teaching efficacy) while

the third and fourth responses indicated potential difficulties respondents felt

they may have in working with family members to support students (low

teaching efficacy):

“It’s easy to help ESL students and encourage them but the student and

their family also need to be supportive and believe that they can do

anything”

“I’d like to think I would adapt the curriculum and my teaching

strategies to help [ESL] students. I’d also like (and think it’s important)

to work with the family”

“I think if it’s just me I can do/make a difference, help, but outside

influences make it harder i.e., home, outside school hours”

108

These responses indicated high personal efficacy but less efficacy in

relation to working with students’ families (teaching efficacy). For example, in

the above responses, there was concern that outside influences such as the home

would make teaching students who have ESL harder. The final participant

expressed high personal efficacy to teach these students but low teaching

efficacy in that external factors would make the job harder. Mastery experiences

of having already taught students who have ESL and verbal persuasion/

vicarious experiences in relation to learning effective teaching strategies as part

of their university course work contributed to preservice teachers expressing

high personal efficacy in relation to teaching the group of students targeted for

this study; in contrast, not having mastery experiences and/or verbal

persuasion/vicarious experiences in this area of teaching resulted in preservice

teachers expressing low personal efficacy.

Contextual considerations were mentioned in a broad sense by

preservice teachers in the study. These participants mentioned familiarity with

aspects of culture that needed to be considered when working with students

who have ESL both through mastery experiences (their field experience

placements, personal friendships) and verbal persuasion/vicarious experiences

(university studies). Those who had positive experiences and/or indicated that

they would be confident in their abilities to address cultural considerations in

their teaching expressed high teaching efficacy whereas those respondents who

did not feel confident in this area expressed low teaching efficacy. These

participants generally had little or no contact with students or cultures that were

not mainstream Australian and so expressed that they did not feel confident that

they would know what to do to work with students who have ESL.

Inservice teachers: Seventy-three percent (73%) of inservice teachers

claimed that they felt confident in their abilities to teach students who have ESL

while 27% stated that they did not feel confident. Unlike preservice teachers,

inservice teachers qualified their efficacy by indicating the need for support

when teaching students who have ESL:

109

“I am not confident alone but with the support of a wonderful ESL

support teacher, I feel more confident”

“A little confident. I need help from qualified people”

“I feel fairly confident when supported”

The mention of the need for support by inservice teachers indicated that

teaching students who have ESL was not easy, that inservice teachers felt that

to do the job adequately they would need support from trained and qualified

teachers. As with the preservice teachers, inservice teachers indicated that their

general abilities (personal efficacy) as teachers would help them in teaching

students who have ESL:

“I have not taught many students who have ESL but feel that I have

some abilities as a teacher to manage the learning situation somewhat

effectively”

“Like teaching any child who needs extra attention for any reason, it is

up to the individual teacher as to how much extra effort they are willing

to put in to accommodate that child”

Inservice teachers suggested that because they were confident in their

abilities to teach in general (high personal efficacy), they would have the

capabilities to teach students who have ESL, provided they received some

support to do the job. Indicating a need for support and help to teach students

who have ESL may well indicate low teaching efficacy. These participants did

not mention contextual considerations specifically in relation to teaching

students who have ESL. The data did not indicate what in particular these

participants felt they needed help at doing when working with students who

have ESL, although they did mention that the support should come from

specialist teachers such as ESL teachers and/or Learning Support teachers.

Only two inservice teachers mentioned environmental factors that

would have an effect on their teaching through a reflective statement:

110

“…if the teacher hasn’t any understanding of the child’s primary

language, how does this influence the situation? If the parents aren’t

helpful, this could further affect the situation of school and

socialisation”

In this response there is an integration of language load (child’s primary

language), culture load (parents-school-socialisation) and the effects these have

on teaching efficacy (control over environmental factors). The above participant

expressed low teaching efficacy in that the child’s language and home life may

impact on her ability to teach students who have ESL. The following comment

described the effects of government funding as an indicator of teaching efficacy:

“Any experience is worthwhile and a learning experience. The

continued support of the government to find more aid time for one-on-

one teaching would be appreciated. Currently preschool and prep

children do not have access to funding for support. This needs to

change”

This participant described the effects of environmental conditions (lack

of government funding) as having a negative impact on her ability to teach

students who have ESL (eg. this lack of funding needs to change). The

perceived negative impact on her capabilities to teach can be described as low

teaching efficacy, but this teacher also expressed high personal efficacy in

believing that any experience in the classroom would be a learning one for

students. Describing both low teaching efficacy and high personal efficacy in

relation to a particular teaching situation is not unheard of (see Woolfolk &

Hoy, 1990), and serves to demonstrate that teacher efficacy is a multifaceted

construct (Bandura, 1986, 2001). Nevertheless, expressing high personal

efficacy does not ensure that the child’s specific needs at learning are being met.

As was found in Study 1, mastery experiences and verbal

persuasion/vicarious experiences were the most prevalent sources of efficacy

information for both preservice and inservice teachers in relation to their

confidence in teaching students who have ESL. As with Study 2, personal

efficacy was stronger for these two groups of participants than was teaching

111

efficacy. Contextual considerations were described in relation to confidence

levels for preservice teacher more so than for inservice teachers in that more

preservice teachers mentioned their awareness of such things as language load

and culture load and the need to attend to them when teaching students who

have ESL than did inservice teachers.

Hypothetical Teaching Scenarios

Participants were asked to respond to four hypothetical teaching scenarios

developed from the literature and from focus group discussions held in Study 1.

Participants were asked to describe what they would do in each teaching

scenario and briefly explain why they would take the action described. The first

teaching scenario read as follows:

1) A new student in your Grade 6 class has studied English-as-a-foreign

language in his home country. He can communicate in English at a

fundamental level but is reluctant to do so because there has been some

taunting by his non-ESL classmates about his ‘funny’ accent. He has

befriended another student in the class from his home country and they tend to

keep mostly to themselves, speaking only their home language when together,

both in class and outdoors. When you try to engage this student in learning

tasks he complains that he doesn’t understand the work, that it’s too difficult.

The new student’s parents are well-educated but do not speak English well.

Nevertheless, they are ambitious for their son to succeed in school.

Preservice Teachers: The main theme to emerge from preservice teachers’

responses to this hypothetical teaching scenario was the need to create a

supportive environment for the student described above. Strategies suggested to

create this environment included adapting lessons, scaffolding learning, peer

tutoring and giving the student more time in class to complete activities,

supporting the child’s English and creating a community environment in the

class by encouraging friendships with other students. These strategies are a

demonstration of preservice teachers’ high personal efficacy in relation to

teaching students who have ESL. For example:

112

“Give the student easier learning tasks as he finds the language too

difficult, gradually making the learning tasks harder so that confidence

can be built”

“…structure social support for the child – buddy or friend. Make it a

class task to get inclusion. Encourage conversational language,

immersion and scaffold learning”

“…having set times when they [the two students] can speak in their own

language […] maybe when they’re discussing like the instructions…”

These comments indicated that the preservice teachers felt confident in

their overall teaching capabilities to effectively manage the teaching situation.

The question posed to them in relation to the teaching scenarios was to describe

what they would do in the situation and explain why they would take that action.

While respondents were able to describe what they would do few indicated why

they would take the chosen action. One example above describes a reason for

the chosen action (give easier learning tasks as the student finds the language

difficult). Such a response suggests a depth of understanding this respondent

had about the actions she would take that other responses did not have. It may

be that, on the whole, participants missed this part of the question or were

pressed for time and ignored it or they simply did not know why they would use

one strategy over another. If the latter is the case, it may be that preservice

teachers are taught to think about the strategies they might use but are not

encouraged to reflect on why they would chose one course of action over

another for one particular student or group of students.

Preservice teachers mentioned incorporating some aspects of the student’s

home culture (culture load) into lessons and were more forthcoming about

describing why they would take certain actions; for example, to develop an

awareness of and appreciation for diversity and that there was no place for

intolerance or bullying in the class. Preservice teachers mentioned activities

113

such as role plays where all students tried to speak in a language new to them

and projects on different cultures including that of the new student:

“Do a multicultural project – incorporate the culture of the ESL students –

also Australian culture. Bring self-worth / cultural awareness into class.

Discuss with the class present examples of different languages and explain

that each produces different accents”

The strategies mentioned for creating a supportive and inclusive

environment demonstrate preservice teachers’ high personal efficacy in this

area of teaching, although personal efficacy in this instance should be viewed

with the knowledge that participants were strong in their suggestions on

activities they could use to assist students who have ESL within the classroom

but were weak in explaining why they would do what they would do. Making

connections with students’ home cultures and home/families indicated teaching

efficacy; however, preservice teachers expressed less confidence in this area

asking such questions as “how do you get through to the parents?” if the parents

do not speak good English. A common solution to meeting the contextual

considerations in this situation was to obtain the assistance of a translator.

However, there was little mention of involving the parents/families of students

in relation to this teaching scenario. These findings presented the anomaly that

the expressed high personal efficacy of preservice teachers was not

accompanied by a depth of consideration in relation to the teaching situation

whereas expressed low teaching efficacy was considered in some depth. That is,

high confidence in their general teaching abilities did not cause these

participants to question their strategies, whereas doubt about their capabilities

in relation to contextual considerations in relation to the specific teaching task

did cause them to question their teaching strategies.

Inservice Teachers: Contacting the family or community members to

have them involved in the teaching situation and/or provide support for both the

child and the teacher (teaching efficacy) was not mentioned at all by inservice

teachers in relation to this teaching scenario. This result could mean that

114

inservice teachers did not think that the situation was sufficiently important to

warrant contacting parents – that teachers felt they could deal with it on their

own (high personal efficacy) or that they did not believe that making contact

with families would be helpful in the situation (low teaching efficacy) – or a

combination of both. As with preservice teachers, inservice teachers described

many strategies and activities they would use in the classroom to make it a

supportive and inclusive environment for a new student who was a non-native

English language learner, focusing on language development (language load)

and incorporating the student’s culture (culture load) into lessons.

“…give the child opportunities to use English in a non-confrontational

environment”

“…involve the child’s culture in class – include language, cooking etc.

– lots of encouragement to join in –rewards”

“get children to do a project on different countries including the

country the ESL student is from – let the ESL child become ‘the expert’”

Awareness of the student’s language load and incorporating aspects of

the student’s culture into lessons indicated the expression of teaching efficacy

by inservice teachers. So while these participants did not mention the need to

involve families and/or community members, they were able to identify ways to

address specific needs of students who have ESL in their classrooms.

Strategies mentioned by inservice teachers were described as creating an

inclusive classroom. For example, strategies included teaching the whole class

about teasing and taunting by doing lessons on tolerance as well as having the

student mentioned in the scenario work in a small group and/or paired activities

to encourage the development of socialisation skills and as ways to help the

child adjust to his new environment. On the whole, inservice teachers provided

reasons why they would take the actions described:

“…work on students’ attitudes about tolerance, understanding etc. –

this should help the ESL student feel more comfortable about

115

participating if it’s a non-threatening environment. Make sure ESL

students [are] always involved in group with others to socialise more”

These results indicated that inservice teachers expressed high personal

efficacy in relation to teaching students who have ESL; their responses

indicated a greater depth of understanding of why certain actions would need to

be taken, which may be due to the fact of their current experiences as classroom

teachers. Working with children at the time would give these participants more

opportunity to reflect upon their actions and witness the outcomes of their

actions. Even if they had no students who have ESL in their class at the time,

they were able to draw upon their experiences to address the teaching scenario

put to them. Teaching efficacy was expressed by inservice teachers but not at as

high a level as their personal efficacy as they did not consider the role of

family/community cultural and background influences on the student’s ability

to learn and become fully integrated into the classroom.

The second hypothetical teaching scenario read as follows:

2) A Grade 2 student in your class, who is a non-native English language learner,

is withdrawn and cries a lot. She says that she wants to go back ‘home’

because she misses her grandparents. There is little interaction between this

child and the non-ESL students in your class. Some of the girls tried to

befriend her for the first few days after her arrival but gave that away because,

they claim, the new student cries too much.

Preservice Teachers: Making connections between home and school was

strongly suggested by preservice teachers as a way to handle this situation:

“Involve student’s parents”, “liaise with parents”, “talk to parents to find out

more” (high teaching efficacy). Preservice teachers stated that they would

contact parents to determine if the child cries all the time at home and what

recommendations parents had to help this child settle in the class. One

suggestion was that parents be invited into the classroom to teach the other

children about their culture (culture load) to build a community of acceptance:

“Possibly allow the parents and child to present a day of their national

country to develop an interest in where she is from in the other students.

116

If the other students are interested then they will ask questions and draw

the child out and get her to remember the good things in her country”

Preservice teachers indicated strong support for the idea of including

parents/families in the decision making process of how to help this child (high

teaching efficacy). Other strategies included creating a safe and secure

environment for the child and involving the child in fun-filled, group activities

to take her mind off her sadness, have a unit of lessons about families and the

importance of grandparents and other family members (high personal efficacy):

“…I’d be inclined to get all the children to bring in photos of their

families and create like a picture board so that they call all look at it”

Preservice teachers also indicated that they would encourage the other

students to be patient with the child and ‘buddy’ her with a small group of girls

to encourage the development of friendships and to assist in the development of

positive social skills for all the students in the class. The responses to this

teaching scenario indicated a higher personal efficacy from preservice teaching

than that expressed in the first teaching scenario in that preservice teachers

provided ample reasons why chosen strategies would be taken.

Inservice Teachers: Only one inservice teacher indicated that parents be

involved in this teaching situation: “talk with parents about objects/routines etc

that will help her [the new student] feel comfortable” (teaching efficacy). This

inservice teacher also indicated a need to include aspects of the child’s culture

into lessons (books, music, videos, objects from her culture) (culture load) and

the use of words of the child’s culture (language load) as “…young students

love words – include words of her culture in class”. As with the previous

teaching scenario, the data did not indicate reasons why the majority of

inservice teachers did not consider approaching the family or community

members in regards to addressing the issue presented in this teaching scenario;

however, these teachers did describe strategies they would use in relation to this

scenario.

Inservice teachers described strategies such as they would pair the child up

with “a special friend”, have the child form a friendship with an older child who

117

speaks the same language to help ease the child’s transition into the class

(language load / learning load), create a safe and secure environment and

include things that interest the child into class lessons:

“Try to find out what the ESL student is interested in or enjoys doing and

include the subject or activity in the class programme as much as

possible…set up a playtime buddy roster so that the children play with a

group of different children from our class each 2 days”

These strategies indicated both personal efficacy and teaching efficacy;

teachers felt confident in their chosen strategies and that some of the strategies

chosen, specifically addressed cultural considerations of the child in the

scenario. Language load was particularly mentioned by inservice teachers as an

area that needed addressing. Research indicates that conversational language

development generally precedes academic language development (see

Cummins, 1991; Gersten, 1996) so it may be that teachers’ mastery experiences

in working with students who have ESL had led them to believe that providing

the child with opportunities to develop their oral skills would be the best way to

help the child settle down into the everyday routine of the classroom.

The third hypothetical teaching scenario read as follows:

3) You have a new student placed in your Grade 4 class whose family has been

granted refugee status. The boy’s prior schooling was interrupted due to

political unrest in his home country. After arriving here and completing a

year’s tuition of intensive English language learning, your new student’s

English proficiency has not reached Grade 4 level and his low level of English

language skills is hampering his ability to keep up with the work done by the

non-ESL students. No English is spoken at the home of your new student. In

class he spends most of his time watching the other children then appears to

imitate what they do.

Preservice Teachers: Responding to this teaching scenario appeared to

challenge the preservice teachers in the study who stated that they would need

outside assistance to meet the needs of this student:

“In this situation I would find myself a little out of my depth. In

acknowledging so, I would ask that the student be given remedial

118

teaching. Perhaps for half-an-hour a day will allow him the time to

connect all the dots”

“I don’t know. Maybe you’d also want to contact people who give

English tuition to see what they’d do”

“I’d say he’d need a lot of trauma help like being a refugee and […] I

don’t know where you’d get that from. I’m just assuming that you’d

have to check that out”

“You’d have to get in contact with I don’t know […] even a debriefing

time once a week with the guidance officer with him or something but if

you could just go through the issues that he has so they’re not so much

popping up in class”

The contextual considerations involved with teaching a student who was

a refugee appeared to cause low personal efficacy and low teaching efficacy for

these preservice teachers. These participants initially appeared to be somewhat

overwhelmed by the idea of teaching a student who has come to Australia as a

refugee; however, they then did describe possible strategies they would use.

This feeling of disequilibrium about one’s capabilities in a teaching situation

and subsequent thoughts on how to resolve the situation could be exhibiting

what Wheatley (2002) described as positive doubt in that these teachers were

uncertain about what exactly they would do but that uncertainty lead them to

adjust their thinking to come up with alternative ideas to help the student settle

into his new environment. Strategies preservice teachers suggested using were

visual cues to reduce the language load for the child, seat the child near a more

advanced learner so that he is imitating the correct way to do things, provide

extra one-on-one tuition and modifying the curriculum so that he is doing

similar work as the rest of the class but at a lower level of competence. One

preservice teacher suggested that the student could create his own picture

119

dictionary as a way to connect words with objects in the environment.

Additionally preservice teachers suggested involving parents, asking if they had

any ideas on what should be done for their child as well as providing a secure

and supportive environment. So, while it first appears that these preservice

teachers experienced low personal efficacy and low teaching efficacy, they

turned things around for themselves by creating their own solutions. Offering

viable solutions indicates high rather than low efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

Inservice Teachers: Inservice teachers did not suggest involving parents

or others outside the classroom to help in working with this student although

one respondent replied “Ask for help!” but did not indicate who or where to ask

for the help. These results would indicate low teaching efficacy in that inservice

teachers did not consider or ignored environmental influences that could either

further hinder or help in this teaching situation. There was no data from the

study to suggest that inservice teachers considered that the student’s

background as a political refugee might have an impact on his ability to learn in

the classroom.

Inservice teachers suggested strategies that they would use in the

classroom such as differentiating the curriculum to meet the student’s current

learning level (learning load), work with the child on individual goals to

increase his English comprehension (language load), seat him with a peer who

is patient and enjoys helping others, provide extra teacher-time for working

with the student and start a ‘homework club’, encouraging all children who

need help to stay so that the target student in this scenario does not feel that he

is being singled out. These strategies indicated that the inservice teachers in this

study experienced high personal efficacy in relation to this teaching scenario.

They described how to help a student settle in a new school environment but

these strategies may not necessarily address the specific needs of the student in

this particular teaching scenario. The fact that inservice teachers did not

mention accessing outside help (teaching efficacy) may indicate that, like the

preservice teachers in the study, they did not know where to locate such help, or

they may have simply felt no need for outside help. Instead they indicated that

120

they would use strategies they already knew and these would be sufficient to

help the student, suggesting high personal efficacy. Wheatley (2002) described

that teachers can adopt a “too-certain efficacy” in their capabilities to their

detriment of the teaching situation. A too-certain efficacy may have teachers

adopt a more procedural approach to problems wherein teachers opt for feeling

comfortable about their teaching strategies, resisting disequilibrium about their

teaching capabilities and the need to adopt new strategies.

The fourth hypothetical teaching scenario read as follows:

4) You have an Indigenous student in your class who speaks and comprehends

Australian Standard English but is below grade level in written and reading

levels of English. Her best friend is also an Indigenous student, although this

student’s school work is at a level on par with her peer group. The first student

mentioned above appears to be bored with lessons and continually distracts

her friend so that they are both off-task frequently through the day.

Preservice Teachers: Understanding Indigenous culture (culture load) and

adopting strategies to meet the needs of Indigenous students was mentioned by

preservice teachers as important considerations for this teaching scenario. There

was some suggestion that teachers needed to employ different strategies when

working with Indigenous students:

“I’m doing Indigenous Education at the moment and we’re told you

don’t teach them [Indigenous students] like everybody else in the

classroom. You have to treat them differently because they come from

different cultures”

“Indigenous students don’t like to be singled out. Have elders

associated with the school who might talk to the class on general issues

about culture”

These results indicated that preservice teachers had high personal

efficacy and high teaching efficacy in relation to teaching Indigenous students.

They expressed a willingness to adapt curriculum to meet the needs of these

students and a willingness to contact Indigenous community members to learn

culturally appropriate teaching methods for working with these students.

121

Strategies mentioned for teaching Indigenous students by preservice teachers

included making the lesson more relevant and authentic to increase the

student’s motivation to learn and to look a one’s self and the teaching approach

taken to consider whether there needed to be adjustments made in the teaching

approach. Also mentioned was utilising oral story telling (culturally appropriate

for some Indigenous students) which could lead to recording and transcription

of the stories to encourage more participation in class (language and learning

load). The behaviour management strategy of separating the two students for

some parts of the day was also mentioned (personal efficacy).

Generally, there was a mix of positive personal efficacy and positive

teaching efficacy for preservice teachers in this study. There appeared to be

more awareness of issues to address with Indigenous students (as compared

with students who are refugees). Preservice teachers drew upon their current

studies and knowledge of teaching Indigenous students in Australia when

responding to this teaching scenario, expressing both high personal efficacy and

high teaching efficacy.

Inservice Teachers: In contrast to the preserive teachers in this study,

the inservice teachers did not mention students’ culture as a consideration in

addressing in this teaching scenario. This finding is consistent with results from

inservice teachers in the other three teaching scenarios above in that they gave

scant attention to the environmental issues (teaching efficacy) of the students

described other than those that had a direct impact on learning in the classroom

– such a lack of English language proficiency. It is not clear from these results

why inservice teachers did not give students’ other cultural considerations

higher priority in their responses. It may be that they were working with the

premise that all teaching is teaching (Clair, 1995); that is, all children regardless

of their backgrounds are treated the same and so no special consideration is

given to students’ culture. Alternatively, the reason may be what Wheatley

(2002) described as a ‘pretend teacher efficacy’ where teachers hide their

uncertainty about their capabilities in situations where they perceive that they

are expected to be capable. The inservice teachers in this study continually

122

stated that they felt efficacious ‘with support’. ESL support is generally given

outside the classroom as a withdrawal program, not as a within class everyday

program. It may be that these inservice teachers felt that it was the ESL

teacher’s responsibility to deal with students’ cultural considerations not theirs;

that their responsibility was to create an inclusive environment by treating

everyone the same.

Inservice teachers, like the preservice teachers above, mentioned that

they would separate the two students to avoid them both becoming off-task,

provide differentiated learning activities to alleviate their boredom, give

individual help if possible and read instructions together as a class so the

students will know what to do and will not be singled out. These strategies

expressed a high personal efficacy in relation to the teaching scenario. As with

the previous three hypothetical teaching scenarios, inservice teachers were

found to have high personal efficacy.

Summary

In relation to contextual considerations, language load (classroom

language and the fluidity of communication) and culture load (differences and

similarities of culture) were most often mentioned by participants in the study.

Learning load (teachers’ perceptions of how students who have ESL learn) and

cognitive load (students who have ESL must process information in at least two

languages) were also mentioned but to a lesser degree. Contextual

considerations were discussed in relation to both personal efficacy and teaching

efficacy. For example, participants mentioned strategies they felt confident they

would use to help students overcome language difficulties (give easier tasks,

encourage conversational language –indicating high personal efficacy) and

include aspects of students’ culture into lessons (do a multicultural project –

indicating high teaching efficacy). While the strategies described were good in

that they may well assist in helping students who have ESL settle into the

classroom, inservice teachers in particular made little mention of how they

would connect classroom teaching with students’ home or community lives as

123

part of their inclusive practices (low teaching efficacy); participants gave few

reasons at to why they would take the actions they described although that was

a question asked for each of the teaching scenarios.

Gersten (1999) suggested that while teachers have a need to feel that

they are competent at their jobs, they may feel a cultural distance between

themselves and students who have ESL and so retreat into ‘safe’ teaching

practices which involve little risk-taking for themselves and their students. It is

unclear if participants in this study were describing ‘safe’ teaching practices in

their responses but few gave any explanation of why they would take the

actions they described in relation to the target students of this study. There is

much in the literature that suggests that teachers must become familiar with

students’ cultural background in order to provide students with effective

learning (see Carrasquillo & Rodriguez, 1995; Tileston, 2004). Inservice

teachers in Study 3 did not mention an awareness of students’ culture or interest

in learning more about their cultural backgrounds beyond what was described

in the teaching scenarios; therefore, this limited amount of information may be

one reason why their responses did not include an awareness of the impact of

students’ culture on their involvement in school activities or how these teachers

could draw upon environmental support to help the students in the teaching

scenarios. In particular, inservice teachers did not mention the impact of

cultural background for Indigenous students; however, preservice teachers did

mention the importance of learning about and attending to Indigenous cultures

and that they were learning about such issues in their university studies.

Participants responded most completely to the second teaching scenario

in which a Grade 2 student is withdrawn and cries a lot at school. Both

preservice and inservice teachers described strategies on how to help this child

feel safe, secure and included as a class member. The third teaching scenario,

which described the arrival of a student granted refugee status, appeared to be

the most challenging for participants. Preservice teachers acknowledged the

student’s background and the impact this background may have on the student,

and that they were not sure how to deal with such an issue but mentioned

124

avenues they might try (get remedial teaching, English tuition and checking out

where to get help for someone who has suffered trauma). In contrast, only one

inservice teacher made mention of the student’s background in considering

what to do to work with this child and did so by suggesting that she would need

help but did not indicate what kind of help. A student’s family who has had to

flee their country because of political unrest may well suffer from trauma; the

preservice teachers in this study indicating such an awareness demonstrated

more sensitivity to the individual needs of the student than did the inservice

teachers. The preservice teachers who expressed uncertainty about what to do

but then suggested possible solutions are demonstrating what Wheatley (2002)

described as positive doubt. Positive doubt can cause teachers to question the

situation rather than retreat from it. There is not enough data here to thoroughly

examine inservice teachers’ lack of response to this case study. Were they too

overwhelmed by the thought of teaching such a student that they chose to

ignore the student’s background situation altogether? Did they consider it

inconsequential to classroom activities? More study is needed in this area to

determine how teachers think about teaching students who are not only

culturally different from them but who have also experienced traumatic

circumstances before coming to Australia.

One theme for both preservice and inservice teachers was that they

would do what they could to provide students with a safe and secure

environment. In doing so, these participants may be exhibiting implicit

awareness of the difficulties these students experience in coming to such an

alien environment to what they have always known. However, to be truly

effective in helping these students, teachers must have a greater awareness of

the exact nature of the difficulties that may affect a child’s learning. With a

greater awareness, teachers can choose the most appropriate strategies for the

given situation.

To conclude, mastery experiences and verbal persuasion/vicarious

experiences were the most prevalent sources of efficacy information used in

response to teachers being asked how confident they felt about teaching

125

students who have ESL. This finding supports those of Study 1 of the current

research. Personal efficacy was identified as most frequently displayed by

participants in Study 2 and these findings concur with that of Studies 1 and 2.

Culture load and language load were the contextual considerations most often

mentioned by participants although, as in Study 1, learning load and cognitive

load were also mentioned to a lesser extent in Study 3. For example,

participants mentioned that they would reduce the learning load for the student,

and adapt lessons.

Chapter 7 will present a discussion of the results of the three studies in

relation to the cyclical model of teacher efficacy followed by an examination of

the strengths and significance of the study with recommendations for future

teacher preparation for working with students who have ESL.

126

CHAPTER 7 Discussion

The aim of the current research was to explore the construct of teacher

efficacy within the context of teaching primary school students who have ESL.

This chapter will describe the results of the three studies of the research within

the modified cyclical model of teacher efficacy utilised for the research. A brief

recount of the model will be given, followed by a description of the connections

between the various stages of the model and a summary of the results of the

three studies for the current research. Recommendations for future teacher

preparation are given, followed by a review of the limitations of the research.

The chapter concludes with recommendations for future research in the area of

teaching students who have ESL in mainstream classrooms.

Introduction

Through the utilisation of a modified cyclical model, teacher efficacy

for teaching students who have ESL was tracked from the source of efficacy

beliefs through to the effects of efficacy beliefs on teaching strategies (Figure 3). Figure 3: Modified cyclical model of teacher efficacy

Sources of Efficacy Information

Verbal Persuasion

Vicarious Experience Physiological Arousal Mastery Experience

New Sources of Efficacy Information

Four-Factor Model of Teacher Efficacy Analysis of Teaching Task Assessment of Personal Teaching Competence (Personal Efficacy) Assessment / Attaining Learning Outcomes (Outcome Efficacy) Assessment / Attaining Classroom Management (Classroom Management Efficacy) Assessment / Overcoming Environment Factors (Teaching Efficacy)

Performance

Cognitive

Processing

Consequences of Teacher Efficacy

Goals, effort, persistence

Etc.

Teacher Efficacy

Contextual Considerations

Cognitive Load Language Load Learning Load Culture Load

(Original from: Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998)

127

According to Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998), teacher efficacy can be

tracked from the source of efficacy information through to the development of

new efficacy beliefs as a result of a commitment to teaching performance.

Three components of the cyclical model were explored in the current research;

the modified model included a context for study (in this research described as

contextual considerations for teaching students who have ESL), the exploration

of four factors of teacher efficacy (personal efficacy, teaching efficacy,

classroom management efficacy and outcome efficacy) and, finally, explored

teaching performance (as teaching strategies).

Exploring the Modified Cyclical Model

Study 1 of the research examined four sources of efficacy beliefs in

association with four contextual considerations in relation to teaching students

who have ESL and referred to the research questions: How do teacher

understand the term, ESL; What sources of efficacy information guide teachers

in relation to teaching students who have ESL; and What contextual

considerations are taken into account when teaching students who have ESL?.

Sources of efficacy information included verbal persuasion, vicarious

experience, physiological arousal and mastery experience (as described by

Bandura, 1986, 1997). It was proposed that in the modified model these sources

of efficacy beliefs are filtered through the teaching context, which for this

research was described as ESL contextual considerations (as derived from

Meyer, 2000). These contextual considerations were cognitive load, language

load, learning load and culture load. In brief, results indicate that mastery

experiences in association with language load and culture load are the most

prominent sources of teacher efficacy for both preservice teachers and inservice

teachers. These results will be discussed further below.

Study 2 explored a four-factor model of teacher efficacy: teaching

efficacy, personal efficacy, outcome efficacy and classroom management

efficacy (from Brouwers & Tomic, 2003). Study 2 addressed the research

question: What efficacy factors are associated with teaching students who have

ESL? After a factor analysis was completed, it was found in this research that

128

there were two factors: personal efficacy and teaching efficacy in relation to

teaching students who have ESL, not four as was hypothesised.

In Study 3, consequences of efficacy beliefs, demonstrated as teaching

strategies were explored in response to the research question: How do teachers’

efficacy beliefs influence their teaching strategies for teaching students who

have ESL? In this phase of the model, teachers commit to a course of action

which exhibit as teaching performance which, in turn, leads to new efficacy

beliefs – thus completing the cycle. In the current research, developing and

using teaching strategies that addressed students’ language load and culture

load were most often mentioned in relation to the efficacy factors of personal

efficacy and teaching efficacy. Results indicated that teachers felt high personal

efficacy in their chosen teaching strategies (that is, they felt confident in their

capabilities to teach in a general sense) but expressed lower teaching efficacy

(confidence in their capabilities to overcome environmental factors) in relation

to teaching students who have ESL. In other words, teachers expressed that

when they taught a student who was ESL as just another student in the class,

they were confident in their abilities to do so; however, when pressed to

consider contextual considerations in relation to the same students, teachers

were less confident in their capabilities, indeed, they could describe what

strategies they would use for teaching these students but were less able to

describe why they would chose these strategies. It would appear, then, that

there is a connection between teachers’ efficacy beliefs (in the current research)

and their chosen teaching strategies in that it could be suggested that teachers

who are confident about the strategies they choose to use would have an

understanding of why one particular strategy would be preferred over another.

More research into this area is needed to explore further the links between

efficacy beliefs and teachers’ commitment to a particular course of action.

A common research question for all three studies asked participants

how confident they were in their capabilities to teach students who have ESL.

Overall, it would appear that both preservice and inservice teachers have high

129

levels of personal efficacy and moderate levels of teaching efficacy in relation

to teaching students who have ESL.

While the cyclical model of teacher efficacy has not been used before in

exploring teacher efficacy in relation to teaching students who have ESL, the

current research indicates that the model is useful for tracking efficacy beliefs

from their source through to the implementation of teaching strategies. Mastery

experiences in association with language load and culture load were the most

described sources of efficacy information for both Studies 1 and 3, which

suggests a consistency throughout the cycle. The two factors of personal

efficacy and teaching efficacy were also consistently revealed throughout all

three studies. As the current research was exploratory, more research utilising

the cyclical model is needed to add to our understanding of the flow of efficacy

beliefs from sources of efficacy information to performance of teaching tasks.

For example, is the flow of efficacy similar in relation to a different group of

students as was found in relation to teaching students who have ESL in the

current research? The next section will describe the overall results of the three

studies for the research.

Discussion of the Results

In the current research, personal efficacy includes teaching instruction

and/or activities to manage student behaviour and activities to reach

instructional outcomes; teaching efficacy refers to teachers’ beliefs regarding

the influence of environmental factors beyond their control on student learning.

In the literature personal efficacy and teaching efficacy have been identified as

strong factors of efficacy beliefs (Allinder, 1995; Gibson & Dembo, 1984;

Pajares, 1992; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Allinder (1995) found that different

gains in student achievement were related to differing degrees of personal and

teaching efficacy and that high efficacy beliefs resulted in positive influences

on student learning.

In the current study, high and/or low personal efficacy and teaching

efficacy appeared to have a direct relation to mastery experiences and verbal

130

persuasion/vicarious experiences in relation to teaching students who have ESL.

For example, one preservice teacher stated: “I think if it’s just me I can do/make

a difference, help, but outside influences make it harder i.e. home, outside

school hours”. This comment is fairly consistent with many in the current

research in that participants felt efficacious in their general abilities as a teacher

(personal efficacy) but not in their abilities to work with parents/caregivers

and/or overcome environmental influences outside the classroom (teaching

efficacy). Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) described this dichotomy of efficacy

beliefs where teachers may feel high efficacy in one aspect of a teaching

context but low efficacy in another aspect of the teaching context as is indicated

in the current research. Overall, teachers in the research felt higher personal

efficacy than they did teaching efficacy for working with students who have

ESL and this was evident from the beginning of the research where participants

described the sources of their efficacy beliefs.

Sources of Efficacy Beliefs: The main source of efficacy beliefs revealed

by both preservice teachers and inservice teachers in the research was mastery

experiences. Mastery experiences describe an individual’s own past

performance on a particular task. In Study 1, mastery experiences for preservice

teachers included such things as having taught students who have ESL during

their field experience placements, being an ESL learner, having friends who

were ESL and travelling to non-English speaking countries. Mastery

experiences were also linked to preservice teacher’s beliefs in their general

capabilities to teach rather than specific capabilities to teach students who have

ESL. Preservice teachers suggested that because they had confidence in their

general abilities as a teacher (high personal efficacy) they would be able to

transfer these competencies to teach to a specific area of learning needs such as

those presented by students who have ESL. Preservice teachers who claimed

not to have taught students who have ESL (no mastery experiences) described

their lack of confidence (low personal efficacy) to do the job. Low efficacy was

identified in statements such as: “…we’re definitely not prepared for it

[teaching students who have ESL]”.

131

Some of the preservice teachers considered teaching ESL learners

within in their general teaching abilities as just part of the overall job of

teaching: “…they’re another kid in the class and I don’t see it as a problem.”

Others stated that they had taught in a classroom in which there were students

who are ESL but gave these students no particular consideration different to

that given to the other students in the class. These preservice teachers believed

that they had been effective teachers in the class; however, when some

participated in a discussion interview with other participants in this study, they

realised that they had not taught to the individual needs of the students in the

class: “…when I first went out teaching I was not made aware of how hard we

as the teacher should really think about who we are teaching more than what

we are teaching”. It seemed that while preservice teachers had some

knowledge about teaching ESL students through their university course work,

they did not then apply the theory to a practical situation. While describing the

impact of a negative mastery experience, the change in perception about

teaching students who have ESL expressed by this preservice teacher is an

indication of the power of verbal persuasion in that before the focus group

discussion, this participant had not really thought about her students but was

more concentrated on teaching the content. Through the focus group discussion,

the participant was able to reflect upon her behaviour in the class with students

who were ESL and this made her realise that she could do better. This incident

demonstrates that there is value for teacher trainers to conduct such discussions

in lectures and tutorials to alert preservice teachers that teaching the content of

the lesson is only part of what is needed to teach students who have ESL.

However, Neuharth-Pritchett, Reiff and Pearson (2001) found that relatively

few preservice teachers made connections between university coursework and

practicum experiences. Findings in the current study concur with those of

Neuharth-Pritchett et al. in that some preservice teachers did not make the

connections between what they had been taught about addressing the individual

needs of their students in their university studies and what they enacted with

these students on their practicum:

132

“…like I said, I actually didn’t even think of the ESL students…it didn’t

occur to me that I should have paid more attention to what they actually knew

already.”

As with the preservice teachers, mastery experiences were most often

cited by inservice teachers as a source of efficacy beliefs. Mastery experiences

were described as classroom teaching, being able to speak a language other than

English and travelling to countries where English was not the first language.

Inservice teachers described how they began their careers with low efficacy in

relation to teaching students who have ESL but with experience gained more

confidence in working with these students. This result concurs with that found

with the preservice teachers in the current study in that teacher efficacy changed

over time and in relation to specific contexts. Woolfolk and Hoy (1990)

suggested that new circumstances will have an impact on the strength and

direction of an individual’s efficacy with positive experiences resulting in

higher efficacy and this seemed to be the case with participants in the current

research. For example, one preservice teacher stated: “…with my experience in

teaching overseas, I have a high level of confidence in this area. Songs were

useful when teaching English in Kenya.” This preservice teacher is describing

high personal efficacy in relation to his experiences teaching in Kenya. He felt

that the success he had in that situation will carry over into future teaching

situations with non-native English language learners in Australia. The situation

the preservice teacher described is an example of a mastery experience. He had

experienced success in one teaching situation and felt he could continue being

successful in other teaching situations. This incident also describes a high level

of teaching efficacy in that the community was supportive of their children

learning English. This participant did not describe teaching students who have

ESL in Australian schools but felt that he would be able to achieve high levels

of success from his teaching experiences overseas.

Educators have come to appreciate the value of authentic experiences

for teachers to gain an understanding of what it means to be an ESL learner and

are developing new ways to provide such experiences. An example of one

133

program that offers positive mastery experiences for teachers is “Verano en

Mexico”, a travel abroad program sponsored by the University of Arizona

(Fletcher, 2006). Verano en Mexico is a bilingual foreign study program

offered to teachers of Latino students in the United States, including students

with special needs. The four-week program is offered to ESL, bilingual, regular

and special educators at both the graduate and undergraduate levels and consists

of academic work, cultural activities and experiences working with children,

their families and teachers in Mexico. Students in this immersion program can

earn up to six credits towards their university degree studying such units as

‘Cultural and linguistic diversity in exceptional learners’ and ‘Observation and

participation in regular and special education programs’. While the university

courses are offered in English, students in the program spend much of their

time embedded in the Mexican language and culture living with families,

visiting a school and participating in the everyday cultural activities of the

region. Participants of the program (the majority monolingual English speakers)

described that they were able to better appreciate the contextual considerations

that confront a student learning in an unfamiliar language and culture in an

unfamiliar setting (Fletcher, 2006). Fletcher claimed that travel abroad

programs prepare teachers to better meet students’ need through their developed

sense of empathy and understanding.

A service learning program (Carrington & Saggers, 2006) is another

mode of delivery to enable preservice teachers to gain mastery experiences in

working with non-native English learners. The program goals as set up by

Carrington and Saggers were to connect “…theory with experience and thought

with action”, to raise awareness of social justice issues and to provide “…a

richer context for student learning”. Community agencies included having

preservice teachers working with culturally and linguistically diverse students,

including refugee children, through the Anglicare Refugee and Migrant Service

(ARMS). Having achieved its initial goals, the service learning program has

expanded as both students and community service agencies have realised the

gains for all stakeholders.

134

Verbal persuasion/Vicarious experience: Apart from mastery

experiences, the next most cited sources of efficacy beliefs were verbal

persuasion/vicarious experiences. Verbal persuasion was described as speaking

with ESL teachers about how to teach students who have ESL and speaking

with colleagues. Participants indicated that such talks were significant in

helping them gain better understanding of how to teach these students.

Vicarious experience refers to efficacy information gained from observing a

particular task being performed (e.g., direct personal observation, watching a

video demonstrating behaviour, learning through lectures/ workshops/case

studies). Hagen, Gutkin, Wilson and Oats (1998) found that efficacy

perceptions can be increased through verbal persuasion/vicarious experiences

such as videotapes of teaching scenarios that explicitly demonstrate specific

teaching behaviours.

In the current study, preservice teachers indicated that they had gained

verbal persusion/vicarious experiences through university lectures and courses

and by ‘shadowing’ ESL teachers in schools. Preservice teachers also described

that they followed the lead of their host teachers in schools. One preservice

teacher described that she did not observe her host teacher working differently

with the students who have ESL and that the students were very quiet in the

class. Following the lead of her host teacher, this preservice teacher did not

change her teaching to accommodate non-native English language learners, nor

did it occur to her to consider why these students were so quiet. So, in this

instance, the verbal persuasion/vicarious experience was negative in promoting

awareness of how to effectively teach students who have ESL. The data did not

reveal how long these children had been learning English but their quiet

demeanours may have indicated that they did not understand English well

enough to follow the lesson or participate in class activities, or it may have been

an indication of the cultural influences on the students in that in many countries

it is expected that children will remain quiet in the process of learning (Igoa,

1995; Li, 2002). This preservice teacher appeared to have lost a valuable

135

training session on appropriate strategies to use with these students because of

the modelling of the host teacher.

Neuharth-Pritchett et al. (2001) claimed that preservice teachers were

given a lack of quality models to follow in field experience placements. In their

study Neuharth-Pritchett et al. found that only 16% of students surveyed

demonstrated a strong understanding of multicultural education. In the current

study, 47% of preservice teachers indicated that they felt their teaching

strategies would meet the learning needs of students who have ESL; 94% of

preservice teachers indicated that they would take students’ cultural background

into consideration when preparing lessons having studied about such things at

university. However, the preservice teacher described above felt that at the time

she had been an effective teacher in the class. The situation may be that

preservice teachers have high personal efficacy in their teaching strategies but if

they have not been trained in how to adapt these strategies to particular

student’s needs then their strategies may well not meet those needs. Preservice

teachers may able to appreciate the theory of teaching to a diverse group of

students from their university course work, but in reality they may not be able

to enact the theory in a classroom situation without support from host teachers.

If host teachers have little knowledge about addressing the needs of students

who have ESL, they cannot pass this information on to the preservice teachers

in their care.

Inservice teachers stated that they had engaged in verbal

persuasion/vicarious experiences through inservice workshops and seminars

and/or through taking a course at university. In the current study, 77% of

inservice teachers indicated that they felt their teaching strategies would meet

the learning needs of students who have ESL; however; only 52% of inservice

teachers indicated that they would take students’ cultural background into

consideration when preparing lessons. Rhine (1995) found that even after an

inservice workshop, training teachers to assess ESL students, teachers

continued to lack confidence in their abilities to evaluate student learning and

that teachers did not know how to interact comfortably with students who had

136

difficulties with English language proficiency. Cabello and Burstein (1995)

suggested that short courses are not enough to transform thinking and

behaviours in relation to teaching; change occurs with experience over time.

Teachers need time not only to reconceptualise their teaching behaviours but

also how to physically change their behaviours. Results gained through a one-

off short course can easily be forgotten if there is no immediate follow-up and

continuing program to assist with the transition to adopting new teaching

approaches.

It should be noted that inservice teachers in the current study repeatedly

indicated that they would like more information and training in relation to

teaching students who have ESL. Only 24% of inservice teachers claimed to

have had any training to teach these students whereas 83% claimed that they

had already taught students who have ESL. It would seem from these results

that much more help is needed for teachers to prepare them to provide the most

effective teaching possible for students who are non-native English language

learners.

Physiological arousal for both preservice and inservice teachers was

expressed by some as feeling positive about their abilities to teach in general

and so being able to extend those capabilities to teaching students who have

ESL. Others expressed that they did not feel confident about teaching these

students and felt worried about the prospect of teaching these students. “I am a

little daunted and scared as balancing the curriculum workload with giving

ESL student enough attention will be extremely challenging”.

Sources of efficacy beliefs were connected to contextual considerations in the

current research as teacher efficacy is acknowledged as being context specific

(Bandura, 1986, 1997; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998).

Contextual considerations for Study 1 were cognitive load, language load,

learning load and culture load.

Cognitive load (understanding that students are processing information

in at least two languages) was not described often by inservice teachers in the

research. Cognitive development requires students to connect new concepts

137

learnt in school to their previous knowledge (Baca & Cervantes, 1989;

Cummins, 1991). More than one preservice teacher in the study suggested that

reading material be adjusted for students; for example, using a Year 1 reader for

a Year 7 student struggling to learn in English. Such an approach to teaching/

learning would be cognitively undemanding for a Year 7 student and might be

more of a solution to make teaching easier for the teacher but may do little to

cognitively challenge the student. Research suggested that many teachers are

not trained to teach non-native English language learners (Carrasquillo &

Rodriguez, 1995; Connor & Boskin, 2001). It is suggested that with training in

the various aspects of second language acquisition teachers would be better able

to meet the cognitive load of students.

Participants in the current research described whole-class strategies and

activities they would use when teaching students who have ESL but did not

discuss particular ways to help develop students’ cognitive understanding.

Cognitive load in second language acquisition involves the process of students

using their first language to gain access to their new language and, for a time,

having to translate information from their new language back into their first

language to make sense of the concepts and ideas presented to them. Students

will need to use their first language in order to understand their new language

until they have become familiar enough and practiced enough with the new

language to the point where they do not need their first language to understand

things. This cognitive load is complex and demanding on students and occurs

over a period of time; students cannot simply arrive in a classroom with little or

no English and be expected to understand the language within a matter of

weeks. The teacher’s role should be to provide strategies and lessons that

specifically aid students’ cognitive development. However, in the current study

there was scant mention of addressing students’ needs in this area. Teachers in

the study did, though, ask for assistance in the form of teaching resources.

Penfield (1987) found that teachers were uncertain about how to

integrate lesson content with English language development for these students

with most teachers in her study indicating that they would prefer the ESL

138

teacher prepare materials for them. Inservice teachers in the current research

suggested that what they needed were prepared resources for immediate use:

“Just give us the resources and we’ll take it from there”. The danger in this

kind of approach to teaching is that students who have ESL represent a range of

diverse cultures, prior knowledge and abilities, so asking ESL teachers to

prepare all the resources for teaching these students is impractical. As van Gilst

and Gura (2006) pointed out, ESL teachers (or Advisory Visiting Teachers)

have limited time to work one-on-one with students and limited time to prepare

lessons to meet individual needs of these students. As indicated earlier in this

thesis, the onus is on the classroom teacher to address the individual needs of

their students. In asking for ready-made resources to use, inservice teachers are,

in fact, expressing low personal efficacy to teach students who have ESL.

When asked specifically about strategies to assist students who have ESL,

inservice teachers stated that they needed help from ESL teachers or Learning

Support teachers.

Learning load (what teachers ask students to do in set learning tasks)

was given scant mention by participants in the study in that there was no

mention of learning expectations for students who have ESL that would be

different to those for native English language learners, nor was there mention of

any separate learning programming apart from learning English on top of the

regular classroom work required of all students in the class. The data revealed

that teachers expected that separate, specific learning for students who have

ESL would be done with the ESL teacher at the school. Teachers expressed that

they either did not feel confident to meet the specific learning needs of these

students and so needed help in this area or else they did not address the issue at

all. In the latter instance, this approach to teaching reflects Clair’s (1995) notion

that many teachers do not understand how to teach students who have ESL and

so do not deviate from regular teaching practices to accommodate for these

students’ learning needs.

Preservice teachers in the current study mentioned that students who

have ESL were generally quiet in class and so drew little attention from the

139

teacher. Being quiet in the classroom may be a feature of culture as well as a

feature of a student settling into a new environment. For example, Ruan (2003)

suggested that in traditional Chinese homes children are not encouraged to

engage in conversations with adults unless invited. In contrast, children in

Australian schools are continually expected to engage in conversation with

adults and, in many instances, initiate conversations with adults. When teachers

are not sensitive to cultural differences, children who are not talkative can be

overlooked.

On the other hand, not all students were quiet and compliant. Disruptive

behaviour proved to be a challenge for preservice teachers. For example, one

participant mentioned a child who was disruptive. It is not clear from the data

why the child was disruptive; the preservice teacher did not inquire about the

child’s behaviour or background, nor did she adjust her teaching to address the

particular needs of this student. She described how she felt frustrated by this

child’s behaviour and stated that she expected him to behave properly and learn

along with the other students in the class. There are many possible reasons why

this child was disruptive. The child may have been new to the class and so felt

frustrated, angry or fearful because he did not know what was expected of him.

He may not have understood the behaviour of those around him and felt sad and

lonely. He may have been experiencing a cultural loss of the home he once had.

The preservice teacher did not state a reason why they child might have been

disruptive but instead focused on her own feelings of frustration. This

preservice teacher may be doing what Connor and Boskin (2001) described as

judging a student by their behaviour rather than working with the child to

understand the reasons for the behaviour. In the current study these feelings of

frustration for the preservice teacher (low personal efficacy) may remain with

her as a new source of efficacy information that will play a part in determining

how she will react in future similar situations.

There was a suggestion by participants in the study that learning

occurred best for students who have ESL through socialising with native

English language peers. The effects of socialisation for learning is advocated as

140

important in helping students adjust to their new environment (Major &

Cledon-Pattichis, 2001; Peragay & Boyle, 2000). Participants in the current

research described the need to create a safe and secure environment and have

activities that would assist the development of students’ socialisation skills and

English language skills so that students could participate more widely in the

class. Curtain and Dahlberg (2004) advocated creating a low-anxiety

environment to help ease the transition for these students into their new

schooling life. Creating a safe and secure environment for students who have

ESL helps them to feel included rather than excluded and consequently, helps

as a confidence builder (Kirovo-Petrova, 2000; Watts-Taffe & Truscott, 2000).

Participants in the current study suggested employing activities such as a

buddy-system to pair-up students and other inclusive practices to help the

student feel safe and comfortable as part of the class. These strategies indicated

a high level of personal efficacy in that participants felt confident that they

could provide the needed environment and activities to help students

Culture load: (teachers’ understanding of the differences and

similarities of culture through language and how much new culture a student

must comprehend to participate in learning activities) was one of the most often

mentioned of the contextual considerations by participants in the current study.

Participants mentioned that they would research students’ culture and include

reference to students’ cultures in class activities. Incorporating aspects of

students’ cultures into lessons was advocated by participants, both preservice

teachers and inservice teachers. Participants described activities such as

allowing students to share artefacts from their culture and/or teaching the class

words from their home language. These strategies indicated participants’

awareness of the need to include students’ cultural backgrounds in class

activities to make them feel welcomed and valued and indicated a high level of

personal efficacy in that teachers felt confident in their capabilities to include

such activities in the curriculum. Meaningful class activities can enhance

students’ English language development and social development (Curtain &

Dahlberg, 2004; Gardner, 1983). Meaningful activities provide a context for

141

students and help them to learn how to become a valued member of the class.

However, including one-off activities of cultural awareness (e.g. multicultural

week) is not the same as adapting curriculum to the individual needs of students.

An example of adapting curriculum was described by Twyman,

Ketterlin-Geller, McCoy and Tindal (2003) where curriculum and instruction

were intentionally aligned with assessment in an instructional approach called

concept-based instruction. According to Twyman et al., traditional instruction

presupposes that students have the prior knowledge and skills to access new

knowledge. In contrast, concept-based instruction is delivered in three distinct

stages. The first stage focuses on delivering information organised into critical

knowledge forms (facts, concepts, attributes and principles) with follow-up

reflections to reinforce the learning. In the second stage, declarative and

procedural knowledge is delivered using graphical presentations of information,

selective scaffolding of activities and through interactive discussions. In the

third stage, activities to develop critical thinking skills and problem-solving

skills are administered to encourage students to transfer knowledge from one

domain to another. The students in the Twyman et al.’s program were Hispanic

and the chosen topic for learning covered four Meso-American civilisations

(Olmec, Maya, Aztex and Inca), which acknowledged the heritage of the

students but was also broad enough to appeal to native English language

learners as well.

This approach to teaching/learning the content of the lessons differs to

that described by the participants of the current study. Participants in the current

study stated that they would have to do research to find out about students’

cultural backgrounds and then incorporate that information into lessons or class

activities. In the concept-based approach, the students did the research.

Information on the cultural heritage of the Meso-Americans was not given to

students as facts but was discovered by the students through students’

exploration and engagement in the learning. One boy in the experimental group

of Twyman et al’s (2003) study, who had been identified as ‘at risk’ because of

his low level of performance in school, produced work that was described as

142

exemplary except in the area where references to the textbook was needed. This

result indicated that developing lessons and activities that encourage students to

take responsibility for their own learning can produce excellent results. Lessons

and activities that are given to students as factual information (e.g. via a

textbook), require a lot of students who have limited English language

proficiency and, who in the end, may not understand the required content of the

lesson. The concept-based approach to teaching may not work for all students,

but it is an example of one approach that adapts curriculum to meet students’

needs.

Another aspect of cultural load described by participants in the current

research was the effect of families and the community on students’ learning

(teaching efficacy). Preservice teachers, in particular, mentioned the effects of

family on children’s adjustment to their new school. One focus group of

preservice teachers discussed the effects of racism on teaching and learning not

only for students who have ESL but for all students, teachers, families and the

community at large. These preservice teachers, however, described that they

felt that their teaching would have little impact to counter racist attitudes if such

an attitude prevailed in the community. In contrast, Huss-Keeler (1997)

demonstrated in her study that a concerted effort from teachers to overcome

such barriers can have a positive effect in the classroom and in the community.

When teachers are willing to initiate behaviour that recognises and accepts

diversity in the classroom and in the community and work towards eliminating

racist attitudes, positive changes can be made. There is much in recent literature

that suggests teachers must be willing to examine their own cultural frames of

reference in order to appreciate what is needed to work most effectively with

students who have ESL (see Kagitcibasi, 1996; Kirova-Petrova, 2000). When

one has taken the time to reflect on oneself culturally in relation to others, there

develops a greater appreciation of the diversity in learning and thinking in the

students one teaches and the community beyond. Measures such as the

Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale for Teaching ESL Learners, developed for

the current research, help to identify teachers’ strengths in relation to teaching

143

students who have ESL and areas where their teaching approach may need to be

strengthened to provide the most effective learning for these students.

Campey (2002) suggested that there needs to be a strong home-school

connection, that parents are a valuable resource for teachers. In the current

study, inservice teachers, in particular, did not refer to environmental factors

that might impact on students (such as the home life), indicating their low

teaching efficacy. Inservice teachers did not describe students’ home life or

cultures in negative ways; discussion in this area was simply missing from

these participants. There was scant mention of the need for connections to be

made between home and school to help ease the transition for students into

school life and no mention of how parents could participate within the school.

DeCastro-Ambrosetti and Cho (2005) suggested that home-school

communication and understanding is the key to promoting parental involvement;

however, preservice teachers in the DeCastro-Ambrosetti and Cho study,

preservice teachers stated that they felt ill-equipped to make connections with

what they perceived to be culturally and linguistically different families. The

preservice teachers blamed the home for students’ poor academic performance,

believing that parents did not value education and passed these values onto their

children. In contrast, preservice teachers in the current study did not display

such fear about making home-school connections. Preservice teaches in the

current research indicated that they would learn about their students’

backgrounds in order to be more effective teachers and would invite parents and

other community members into the classroom.

There was a marked difference in how preservice and inservice teachers

in the current study spoke about incorporating environmental factors into

teaching practices (teaching efficacy). Preservice teachers mentioned that they

felt confident that they would be able to include parents and community

members in school activities to meet the needs of students who have ESL (high

teaching efficacy) whereas inservice teachers indicated that they needed

learning support teachers to work with these students, not parents and

community members (low teaching efficacy). This data was revealed in the

144

focus groups but also in the data from the survey in Study 2 where scores for

preservice teachers’ teaching efficacy was higher than that for inservice

teachers. However, it should be noted that preservice teachers had not yet had

many opportunities to actually invite parents and/or community members into

the classroom so from the data it is not clear how these trainee teachers would

go about including community members in classroom activities.

Preservice teachers in the current study described that they would invite

community members into their classrooms as a valuable resource, but what

would they have these people do? These preservice teachers believed that they

could rely on parents and community members to act as interpreters and teacher

aids to ESL students on a daily basis; however, the realities of teaching may

cause them to think about their ideas in relation to including family and

community members in their teaching activities. As an illustration of this point,

the researcher has worked in a school in which there were a large number of

students who were refugees from the Sudan. All the students at this school learn

Italian as a language other than English (LOTE). Children from the Sudan do

not speak Italian, they speak Arabic. If the school were to connect to the

community they serve, it would seem logical that the students at the school

learnt Arabic instead of Italian. There are no Italian migrant families at the

school. To include parents and/or other community members originating from

the Sudan into school activities they could be invited to participate as tutors in

Arabic (as a LOTE) and/or teach about Sudanese culture, but this does not

happen. No Arabic language learning occurs at the school. Indeed, the school

has a sister-school overseas, not in the Sudan or in Italy, but in South Korea.

However, students at the school do not learn to speak Korean as their LOTE,

they learn Italian. Members of the Korean community are not invited into the

school to teach students Korean or about Korean culture, even when there are

study groups of Korean students at the school. The students at this school learn

Italian. When parents are invited into the school they fulfil such duties as

photocopying and one-on-one remedial reading or maths with students, sitting

outside the classroom. A preservice teacher doing a practicum at this school

145

would see parents involved but more or less as an assistant to the teacher as a

rather low-key arrangement. Studies of cultures other than mainstream

Australian culture is delivered as one-off units of learning and generally in

relation to an Australian event such as the Commonwealth Games or the

Olympics as was described by participants in the current study. So perhaps it is

in the teaching of preservice teachers where change needs to occur. What do

university lecturers really want preservice teachers to do in relation to home-

school connections that they are encouraged to initiate as new teachers? If a

university lecturer were a Year 6 teacher at the school described above, what

would they recommend be done to initiate an effective home-school connection?

Language Load: Another contextual consideration mentioned by

participants in the study was language load (teachers’ use of language in the

classroom and fluidity of communication that students who have ESL must

understand in order to learn). Teachers’ use of language in the classroom was

referred to as slowing down for student comprehension. This is a good strategy

as students who have ESL need time to process information from one language

to another. However, in second language acquisition, learners need to learn

grammar, pronunciation, listening skills, metaphors and language as discourse

(the relationship between sentences and text) and how to negotiate the meaning

of English words (Nunan, 1999) and they must do this while also learning the

content being taught to their native English speaking peers. Teachers of

students who have ESL should be aware of the language load as it pertains to

students who have ESL and how these features differ for these students

compared with non-ESL learners. Many of these skills, ESL students can learn

without formal lessons outside of school. However, children who spend their

days in school need a teacher who will provide them with the appropriate

scaffolding to help them acquire their new language. Many of the participants

in the current study mentioned that learning should be scaffolded but did not

provide details of what they meant by scaffolded learning for students who

have ESL. Nunan (1999) would suggest that part of the scaffolding should

146

include teaching the skills such as grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation as

well as teaching students the content.

More frequently, participants in the current research described the need

for students to learn English as quickly as possible in order to participate fully

in class activities. In this instance it appeared that the onus is on the child to get

up to speed in learning English in order to become a full member of the class

rather than the teacher adjusting strategies to accommodate student learning.

Cummins’ (1980, 1991) cross-lingual dimension matrix indicated that

participating in class activities is a complex process for students who have

limited English language proficiency. Cummins suggested that it may take up

to 7 years for students to master academic English, although they may acquire

adequate conversational skills within 2 years. The literature suggested that there

are benefits for including students in activities to assist them in learning English

(see Gibbons, 1991; Hammond, 2001; Sale, Sliz, & Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2003).

The more immersed the child is in the context of learning, the better their

language development and understanding of what is being taught.

In a recent study, Tangen and Fielding-Barnsley (2006) evaluated the

establishment of a gardening program as part of a primary school’s

implementation of inclusive education. At the school, one-third of the student

population were ESL with half of these students refugees from the Sudan. The

study tracked a Grade 2 teacher at the school to determine what effect an

outdoor, contextualised learning environment would have on student learning

and found that students who were ESL displayed richer language when placed

within this context for their learning than those who did not have an opportunity

to go into the garden for learning. In the indoor Grade 2 classroom, students

struggled to find the right words to describe their activities in relation to the

garden; however, in the garden setting, they were able to utilise contextual

clues to help them talk about their learning, using much richer language.

Additionally, the Grade 2 teacher adapted the curriculum to include the outdoor

environment in his lessons (personal efficacy). What the research in the garden

study indicated was that contextual learning provides many opportunities for

147

language development. Ideas and concepts for learning that can be acted on

present a richer learning experience for students. Another strong feature of this

gardening program was the inclusion of parents, other family members and

community members (teaching efficacy). Vegetable crops indigenous to the

Sudan were grown in the gardens under the guidance of the Sudanese women

who also provided cooking classes to parents and other community members.

At the end of the year, a harvest festival was held with dishes prepared from the

garden produce. Reaching out to the community in this way was another

positive addition to students’ learning as lessons learnt in relation to the garden

were not isolated activities but were placed within a larger context of authentic

learning; that is, children were living what they were learning.

Students who have ESL and Students with Learning Disabilities

Although beyond the parameters of the current research, one barrier not

mentioned by Meyer (2000) but discussed by the participants in the current

study was identifying students who had limited English proficiency in relation

to students who had a learning disability/learning difficulty. Equating a student

who has a learning disability with a student who lacks English language

proficiency appeared not to be an isolated incident. For example, one of the

preservice teachers described a situation in which a Vietnamese student was

diagnosed as having autism. The preservice teacher’s perception was that

because there was no funding to assist with the student’s English language

development, the child was assessed as being autistic. It was not possible from

the data provided to determine if this child indeed had autism; however, it

seemed apparent that the child did have limited English language proficiency as

the child had recently arrived from Vietnam, speaking no English. The

preservice teacher who described this situation seemed to be under the

impression from his host teacher that all one needed to do to ‘get through’ to

the child was to rephrase words and continually repeat instructions:

“…they have to rephrase things a lot for him until he gets it in a way

that it is phrased right for him to understand and then he’ll be fine he’ll

go and do it and everything and do it well but it’s just that rephrasing

148

and I suppose if that’s all you’ve got to do you might take a couple more

minutes in your day but it’s not a hard task to teach ESL if they’re like

that”

The view of this preservice teacher is grossly simplistic in relation to

teaching students who have ESL and students who have a learning disability

and, indeed, teaching any children. It would be difficult to know how much of

the classroom interaction and lesson content the child actually understood

without a proper diagnosis, but it appeared that there were difficulties for this

child in understanding English.

Garcia and Ortiz (1988) suggested that one reason why students who

have ESL may experience learning disabilities is because they are taught solely

in English as happened with the child described above. Lo Bianco and

Freebody (1997) described this mode of teaching students a ‘sink or swim’

approach. The child is placed in an English speaking classroom and learns

English and the classroom protocol quickly (swims) or struggles with the

process until the point of giving up (sinks). It difficult to speculate on the actual

problem the Vietnamese child described above had from the preservice

teacher’s description, other than limited English language proficiency.

Nevertheless, the preservice teacher’s interpretation of the situation suggested a

lack of understanding about how to effectively teach this student. It could be

that there was much more going on in the classroom with the child that the

preservice teacher did not observe or was made aware, thus, his limited

approach to dealing with a proposed similar situation in the future. For example,

how much did the child understand these repeated instructions in relation to

how much the child mimicked the other children’s classroom behaviour? How

much of the problem was limited English language proficiency and how much

autism? More information is needed before this preservice teachers is able to

make the judgements he has.

149

One inservice teacher in the study expressed some confusion about how

to identify ESL students in an English-speaking classroom even though she has

taught ESL students for most of her teaching career:

“…I’ve taught a child who…their parents were able to speak the same

language [other than English] but the little boy he really…Mum really

did interpret a lot of the English too in his so-called mother

tongue…and I think sometimes too the parents do think their child has

got a decent grasp of this other language [English] and therefore they

really are reluctant to probably agree that this child does need support

and help and it really is their second language...and it often requires

further investigation and interview with parents to really find out what it

is they speak at home, what percentage of time they would be using their

native tongue and what percentage this new language in their life”

This participant identified that both the child’s parents spoke a language

other than English as well as English and she accepted that the child himself

spoke English based on the mother’s insistence rather than her own day-to-day

interactions with the child. Accepting that the child could speak English could

be described as a demonstration of low personal efficacy in that it appeared that

this teacher did not trust her own judgment about her capabilities to recognise

that the child’s English language proficiency was wanting. She allowed her

judgment to be swayed by the parent. However, this teacher clearly identified

that there was a particular need this child had that was not being met. She then

decided to investigate whether there was ‘an impairment of development’ and

seems to have taken no further action with English language development until

she came full circle and realised that the child’s problem was a lack of English

language proficiency, not a learning impairment.

Connor and Boskin (2001) found that because teachers lacked

understanding of second language acquisition theory there was a danger that

children are misdiagnosed as having a learning difficulty rather than

recognising that they are at a particular stage of second language development.

150

Connor and Boskin found that there was an overrepresentation of students who

have ESL in special education classes starting at kindergarten level of learning

because teachers were not able to identify students’ particular learning needs.

Had the participant in the current study more understanding of second language

acquisition and theory she might have utilised that information for determining

the child’s learning needs in that area before assessing the child for a learning

difficulty. It may be that children have both issues with second language

development and a learning difficulty (Davis, McCray, & Garcia, 2002) and in

some instances students who have ESL are identified as having learning

difficulty needs but there is limited special education available to them. Davis

et al. claimed that multicultural and bilingual special education is not generally

a part of mainstream teacher discussion and consequently identifying student

needs in these connecting areas becomes problematic for educators.

In another instance from the current research, a preservice teacher

described how a teacher (her friend in this case) approached the issue of

working with a student who was of a particular culture (Muslim) and who also

has been diagnosed as having dyslexia.

“…this friend of mine…this was primary school Grade 6 and she [the

friend] had the other teacher and the mother absolutely up in arms

because she had given him [a Muslim boy] a telling off for having this

disgraceful workbook and they came marching in and she [the friend]

didn’t know that he was dyslexic she’d never been told it had never been

an issue and they were like: look he’s dyslexic he’s very upset he’s been

told off cause his workbook’s an absolute mess and you know blah blah

blah and she said: right he’s dyslexic I don’t care if he’s dyslexic this is

week one his workbook is beautiful this is week twelve it’s a disgrace he

was dyslexic back then and he’s still dyslexic now but he can do better

and that’s why he got in trouble and they slunk off and…that’s I guess

where I’d be coming from with ESL students”

151

It is not clear that this student was, in fact, ESL. The participant may

have assumed that the student was ESL because he was Muslim. English

language proficiency may not have been this child’s particular learning

difficulty; it would appear, though, that dyslexia was. However, the student’s

workbook might have been messy due to English language difficulties, due to

dyslexia or a combination of both. According the report from this preservice

teacher, the child’s classroom teacher dismissed any reason why the child’s

workbook was not as neatly done in week twelve as it had been done in week

one; this appeared to be the main issue for the teacher. The teacher discounted

both lack of English language proficiency and dyslexia as good enough reasons

for the student to produce messy work and the preservice participant in the

focus group had determined from her recount that she would probably respond

in the same way as her friend if faced with a similar situation as a teacher.

There is no explanation from the data as to the reason why this student’s

work was messy. Fielding-Barnsley (2007) suggested that there could be many

reasons why a student may exhibit difficulties in class. For example, the child

may have attended many schools and so may have missed vital aspects of his

learning. In the current study, the student may have felt conflict between his

home culture and the classroom culture and/or felt discriminated against by the

teacher and was reacting in an emotionally negative way by producing messy

work. It is not clear from the data as to the source, or sources, of the messy

work; what is clear, though, is that the participant describing the scenario did

not delve deeper into reasons for the student’s work, but had decided that she

would behave similarly as the teacher if confronted with a similar situation in

the future. Such an attitude by a teacher may result in a state of foreclosure on

the possibilities of creating a safe and supportive classroom as described by

other participants in the study. While other participants in the current research

had described an awareness of the need to include students’ cultural

backgrounds to make them feel welcomed and valued members of the

classroom, taking such an aggressive stance towards the child, his mother and

152

the other teacher as described by this particular preservice teacher would do

little to help this child produce better quality work.

The dismissive attitude toward the parent displayed in the above

participant’s statement mirrors that found in research where teachers preferred

to keep parents out of the classroom, especially parents they perceived to be

from culturally and linguistically different backgrounds (DeCastro-Ambrosetti

& Cho, 2005). Kalyanpur and Harry (2004) claimed that parents in culturally

diverse families were excluded from the process of evaluating their children in

the schooling context because of teachers’ perceptions that these parents

possessed ‘poor parenting skills’. Rather than disenfranchising the valuable

input of parents, Kallyanpur and Harry argued that educators need to provide

avenues for parents’ ‘authentic participation’ in the process of their children’s

education. While the above participant in the current study expressed an

aggressive attitude towards the parent, most preservice teachers in the research

expressed that they would be willing to make connections between their

classroom and students’ homes. Further study needs to be done on exactly how

these preservice teachers would make these connections, and how they would

sustain these connections.

Educators have been reluctant to diagnose ESL learners for learning

disabilities (Geva, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Schuster, 2000; Rhine, 1995). Testing

individual students can be expensive and time consuming (Fielding-Barnsley &

Murray, 2002) and the cultural bias of traditional IQ tests has long been

recognised (Gardner, 1983, 1999; Gunderson & Siegel, 2001). Nevertheless,

there are often similarities drawn when comparing ‘ESL’ teachers and Learning

Support teachers. For example, Markham, Green and Ross (1996) found that

ESL and Learning Support teachers experienced high levels of stress about

preparing students for participation in regular classrooms. Their stress was

compounded when students had limited previous schooling such as in the case

of refugee students. Vaughn, Bos and Schumm (2006) described that minority

groups have disproportionately higher classifications of learning

disabilities/disabilities and emotional/behavioural problems than those of the

153

majority population group. The study of students who have ESL and those who

have learning disabilities is not extensive. More research in this area is needed

to shed light on first, identifying these students and secondly, on developing

strategies and programs to help these students learn to the best of their abilities.

Summary of the Research:

The modified cyclical model utilised in the research as a tool to track

teacher efficacy beliefs offers a new approach to examining the construct. In the

current research, high efficacy to teach students who have ESL appears to be

connected to teachers having some previous information about working with

these students through such sources as mastery experiences and/or verbal

persuasion/vicarious experiences. Having high efficacy, however, did not

necessarily mean that teachers chose the most effective teaching strategies for

students’ learning. For example, in Study 1 of the research both preservice and

inservice teachers indicated having high personal efficacy in relation to

teaching students who have ESL; however, in the third study of the research

participants suggested strategies they would use to include students who have

ESL in the class (e.g. implement a multicultural unit). Such activities were

described in relation to the development of students’ cultural and English

language development with little mention of incorporating factors such as home

life, home values and home beliefs as issues that they would consider to adapt

curriculum to be more inclusive of students who have ESL. Including a

multicultural activity may be a good way to have all the children in the class

gain a greater sense of identity but it is not really adapting the curriculum to

meet the individual needs of students who have ESL. Such a strategy is more

like an add-on to existing curriculum. In this respect, participants appeared to

be more focused on encouraging students to adapt to the curriculum already in

place rather than having teachers move out of their comfort zone to adjust the

curriculum for students (see Wheatley, 2000, 2001). Participants described

strategies that incorporated teaching instruction/activities and maintaining the

classroom in a general sense rather than specifically for students who have ESL.

154

Therefore, in this instance, the information described in Study 3 would work

towards reinforcing old beliefs about teaching students who have ESL, which

does not allow for adaptation of curriculum. Indeed, in Study 3 of the research,

participants suggested that they wanted learning support teachers (ESL) to give

them a set of resources to use with the students whereas ESL learning support

teachers are more interested in helping teachers adapt curriculum (van Gilst &

Gura, 2006).

The modified cyclical model used for the current research, then, enables

educators to track self-perceptions about teaching within a specific context

through to how those perceptions are enacted as teaching strategies. The

literature suggests that teachers need to be specially trained to work with a

culturally diverse student population. Participants in the current research were

clear in their need to have more training to do their jobs effectively. Inservice

teachers, in particular, expressed confidence in teaching students who have ESL

but that confidence was conditionally upon their received support. In Study 1 of

the research, participants indicated higher personal efficacy to teach students

who have ESL than teaching efficacy. These data are borne out in Study 3 of

the research where teachers felt personally confident in their capabilities to

teach students who have ESL (high personal efficacy) but not in attending to

environmental contextual considerations (such as the home life) when teaching

these students (low teaching efficacy). In support of these findings, data from

Study 2 also indicated higher personal efficacy than teaching efficacy in

response to the survey Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale for Teaching ESL

Learners (p.181) . Utilising such a model for tracking teacher efficacy is

beneficial, then, in identifying where gaps may be between self-perceptions

about one’s teaching and the actual implementation of teaching strategies.

One reason for such a gap in the current research may be found in the

response to the first of the principle research questions asked: How do teachers

understand the term, ESL? Participants in the current study had difficulty

agreeing on a description of these students. Without a clear concept of who to

include or not include within the term, ESL, teachers in the study, on the whole,

155

appeared to take a stance where ESL students were simply like other students in

the class and that the teaching strategies and curriculum already in place would

serve these students equally as well as any other student in the class. Indeed,

there was some confusion expressed by participants on how to clearly identify

students who have ESL as different to students who have a disability such as

autism and dyslexia.

The Main Findings of the Research

- sources of efficacy information for teaching students who have

ESL included mastery experiences, verbal persuasion/vicarious

experiences and physiological arousal to varying degrees. While

inservice teachers described having mastery experiences

teaching students who have ESL they frequently stated that they

needed help from ESL and learning support teachers on site

thereby indicating the dichotomous nature of teacher efficacy in

that teachers can feel efficacious about teaching in general

(personal efficacy) but feel less certain about teaching

specifically to students who have ESL (teaching efficacy)

because of the cultural and linguistic challenges these students

may pose

- preservice teachers described verbal persuasion/vicarious

experiences (primarily from university studies) a major sources

of efficacy information; however, these participants expressed

concern that theory learnt at university was not always enacted

in practice during their field experience placements

- recounts from participants indicated that culture load and

language load and to some extent learning load, were the most

often cited contextual considerations for teaching students who

have ESL; cognitive load was rarely mentioned as a contextual

consideration

156

- the research did not support a four-factor model of teacher

efficacy; the two factors of teacher efficacy suggested by the

results of the study were personal efficacy and teaching efficacy

- personal efficacy was strongly connected to both mastery

experiences and verbal persuasion/vicarious experiences in

relation to culture load and language load in that participants

felt confident in their general teaching abilities to overcome any

barriers to teaching students who have ESL in the areas of

culture load and language load

- preservice teachers expressed a stronger sense of teaching

efficacy than did inservice teachers in that preservice teachers

mentioned the impact of environmental factors in relation to

teaching ESL learners (such as the role of parents/families and

other external factors); inservice teachers rarely commented on

these factors as influencing their teaching of these students

The findings presented here add to the body of research on teacher efficacy

in the relatively new area of examining contextual considerations in relation to

teaching students who have ESL. There is a growing interest in understanding

how to engage diverse learners in regular classrooms (see Byrnes, Kiger &

Manning, 1997; Carrasquillo & Rodriguez, 1995; Gersten & Baker, 2000) but

relatively little research in the area of teacher efficacy in relation to teaching

ESL learners.

The construct of teacher efficacy is generally described as having two

dimensions: personal efficacy and teaching efficacy and results from the current

research concur with other research. Personal efficacy was strongly represented

by participants in the three studies. Both inservice and preservice teachers

described feeling confident in their generally teaching abilities to the extent that

they could rely on those teaching capabilities to teach students who have ESL.

However, preservice teachers felt the least efficacious about teaching ESL

learners who were refugees. These participants openly described their lack of

knowledge about how to teach such students and described that they would

157

need to learn more and make contact with support groups and agencies.

Inservice teachers, on the other hand, did not refer to contextual considerations

in relation to teaching students who were refugees.

There are inherent problems in the inservice teachers’ approach to

teaching these students. Inservice teachers described that they would teach a

multicultural unit to help the child who was a refugee feel safe and included.

These teachers did not consider the background of the child that lead to refugee

status. People come to countries like Australia as refugees because they fear for

their lives in their home countries due to political and social unrest (Human

Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1999). Children often arrive as

orphans from refugee camps having had to flee their homes with little more

than the clothes on their backs, so having a multicultural unit where children

bring in photos and other artefacts of their family may work more to cause

these children stress than ease them into the classroom routine.

The teaching strategies participants described throughout the research

included few adaptations to curriculum. In this, participants appeared to be

striving to have students achieve traditional goals of schooling (that would lead

to high personal efficacy for teachers) rather than reforming their teaching to

the actual needs of non-native English language learners (teaching efficacy).

Participants described that they needed help to work with students who have

ESL. Brown (2004) found that teachers lacked general knowledge about how to

teach culturally and linguistically diverse students and that there was a need to

provide specific teacher preparation in this area so teachers can learn how to

adapt curriculum and appropriately scaffold learning for these students.

Teachers can feel frustrated if presented with situations that impede

their ability to help students attain prescribed educational outcomes (Wheatley,

2000). Participants in the current study described their concerns at having to

spend time teaching students who have ESL at the expense of the other students

in the class. They wanted ready-made resources to use with these students.

These findings concur with those of Skiba, Simmons, Ritter, Kohler, Henderson

and Wu (2006) who found that frustrated teachers felt that working with

158

students who have ESL a drain on their ability to meet the needs of the other

children in the class. The teachers in Skiba et al.’s study saw the special

education unit as a method for providing additional resources for students who

were struggling. In other words, children were assessed and removed from the

classroom for a period of teaching time, leaving teachers ‘free’ to get on with

the job of teaching without the distraction of teaching students who have ESL.

Contributions to the Study of Teacher Efficacy

The cyclical model of teacher efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998)

in relation to teaching students who are non-native English language learners

had not previously been tested. Additionally, the four-factor model of teacher

efficacy, examined within the cyclical model (modified for the current research)

had not been tested and so in this respect the current research adds to the body

of research on teacher efficacy by utilising a modified model. Results from the

current research, however, indicated that the four-factor model was not

supported.

The researcher-generated survey utilised within the cyclical model must

be seen as a first attempt to understand the construct of teaching efficacy in a

new format. Results from the current research indicated that tracking the flow

of teacher efficacy from the sources of efficacy beliefs through to teaching

practices through utilisation of the cyclical model of teacher efficacy shows

promise for future research. For example, there is a need to test relationships

between variables using Structural Equation Modelling in future studies.

Teaching efficacy, as revealed by the data, indicated that participants

had only a superficial understanding of how environmental factors had an

impact on students’ learning. Examination of the data revealed that participants

in fact felt confident about their teaching practices in general but not confident

in teaching specifically to students who have ESL. It was found that

participants did not know how curriculum could be adapted to accommodate for

these environmental factors (such as the home life). These results show where

gaps in teacher preparation can be improved for future teachers. It is important

to know effective strategies to apply in the classroom but it is equally important

159

to understand why one would apply particular strategies. Participants in the

current study had no difficulty explaining what they would do but were less

clear on why they would use the strategies/activities chosen in working with

students who have ESL.

The research revealed that preservice teachers were more aware (or at

least described their awareness) of issues in relation to the impact of

environmental factors on students who have ESL (teaching efficacy) than did

inservice teachers. This is good news for teacher trainers, as fifteen years ago

Christie et al. (1991) advocated that preservice teachers in Australia be made

more aware of the uniqueness of second language learning for students in

regular classrooms. The current research indicated that teacher preparation

programs have responded to this recommendation and are attempting to raise

preservice teachers’ awareness of issues facing culturally and linguistically

diverse students. Participants described strategies that they would use to create

a safe and secure environment for ESL learners; however, they did not describe

how they would adapt curriculum for these students. These data identified a gap

in preparing preservice teachers for teaching students who have ESL in that

having a kit-bag of strategies is only one aspect of being an effective teacher;

another aspect is understanding why certain strategies would be applied to a

certain situation, data that was not reported strongly in the research.

Recommendations for Future Teacher preparation

Three major areas for future consideration in relation to teacher preparation

for teaching students who have ESL were revealed by the current study:

• Preservice teachers in the research were able to discuss what strategies

they would use to work with students who have ESL but could not

describe why they would use these strategies. It appeared that preservice

teachers did not have a solid theoretical background in second language

acquisition theories from which to draw when presented with a situation

of having to teach non-native English language learners. Without a

theoretical background in second language acquisition preservice

teachers fell back upon general teaching theories. Learning for students

160

who have ESL, however, is different than learning for native English

language learners because students who have ESL are learning through

learning English. While teacher preparation programs have improved,

since the report by Christie et al. (1991), in raising awareness of issues

related to teaching students who have ESL, it is time that awareness of

these issues is converted into appropriate teaching practices that meet

the needs of these students. It is important that a core component of

teacher preparation includes teaching preservice teachers how to adapt

curriculum and adopt strategies that will assist them in effectively

teaching students who have ESL.

• The research revealed that there is a need to assist preservice teachers in

learning about the diverse cultures that comprise their communities

through such programs as service learning that will immerse these

future teachers into the worlds of the students they teach. Gaining

mastery experiences in working with culturally and linguistically

diverse community members will move preservice teachers out of a

monolingual/mono-cultural comfort zone and provide them with new

insights and unique opportunities to view the world through new eyes.

The current research revealed that mastery experiences provided the

richest sources of efficacy information and from such information an

understanding of other cultures develops. With understanding comes a

willingness to work with these students in attaining effective outcomes.

• Preservice teachers in the research identified the importance of

involving parents and/or caregivers in the process of teaching students

who have ESL but lacked specific strategies/activities for doing so.

Preservice training needs to include theory and practical information on

why parents should be included in the process of teaching/learning and

how best to involve parents as a valuable resource in the classroom.

Limitations of the Study

The number of inservice teacher participants in the research was small

compared with the number of preservice teachers which creates difficulties for

161

generalising results. A much larger pool of participants would need to be tested

in order to assess the application of the cyclical model and the theoretical

frameworks of the research in wider contexts.

Data for studies two and three studies were gathered by the same pool of

participants; however, participants in the first study were an independent group.

It is possible that had the same participants been followed throughout the study

as a longitudinal study, results would be different. Further, the diversity of age

and experience of the participant pool may have skewed the results and findings.

Another study addressing these issues would help to strengthen findings.

The survey, Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale for Teaching ESL

Learners, developed for this research requires further refinement to better

understand the construct of teacher efficacy in relation to teaching students who

have ESL. Future research needs to ascertain if teachers’ perceptions in relation

to teaching this group of students falls clearly into the two factors of teacher

efficacy and personal efficacy.

Data indicated that teachers could state what particular teaching

strategies they would use under particular teaching situations. However, it is

difficult to know whether, given the constraints of classroom practice, that they

would actually use the strategies mentioned. More research into what teachers

actually do in teaching students who have ESL is needed to identify areas

where students could be further helped and areas that could be addressed in

teacher education programs before students go out on their practicum.

Recommendations for Future Research

Tracking preservice teachers in a longitudinal study through their

training program and into practice in their own classroom would further

understanding of the flow of teacher efficacy beliefs within the cyclical model

of teacher efficacy. Such an undertaking would assist staff in Faculties of

Education in identifying were programming for preservice teachers could be

targeted to deepen preservice teachers’ understanding of the most effective

teaching approaches and strategies to use to teach students who have ESL.

162

With the current numbers of students who have ESL enrolling in

schools, more programming in teacher preparation programs needs to be

provided in relation to teaching non-native English language learners in

inclusive classrooms. Research in this area of teaching is growing and for

Faculties of Education to be considered leaders, they will need to incorporate

this facet of teacher preparation to help new teachers do their jobs effectively.

There appears to be an overrepresentation of non-native English

language learners in special education programs in areas where there is a high

population of students who have ESL. More information needs to be provided

to teachers and teachers in training on the process of second language

acquisition so that students are correctly assessed and teachers can recognise

the difference between a learning disability and lack of English language

proficiency. Such information should help teachers adapt curriculum to meet

the specific needs of their students.

163

References Abdi, H. (2006). Factor rotation in factor analysis. Retrieved May 9, 2006, from http://www.utdallas.edu/~herve/Abdi-rotations-pretty.pdf Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationships between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2001) Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Retrieved February 24, 2007 from www.abs.gov.au/.../79fab04272992d54ca25697e0018bebd/$FILE/ Australian Bureau of Statistics (nd.) 2001 Census. Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Retrieved February 24, 2007 from http://www8.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/reenav/ProductSelect?newproducttype=Quic... Australian Literacy and Language Policy (ALLP). (1991). Teacher education in English language and literacy. Preservice and inservice teacher education in both school and adult education contexts, in the fields of English literacy and English as a Second Language. Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET). Canberra: Australian Government. Baca, L. M., & Cervantes, H. T. (1989). The Bilingual Special Education Interface (2nd Ed.) Columbus, OH: Merril Publishing Company. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman Bandura, A. (2001). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales (Revised, 2001). Retrieved September 23, 2003 from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/ mfp/ Betrand, J. T., Brown, J., & Ward, M. (1992). Techniques for analysing focus group data. A Journal of Applied Social Research, 16, 198-209. Bialystock (2002). Cognitive processes of L2 users. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 147-165). Sydney: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational Research (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

164

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989. Multimethod Research. A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Brown, C. L. ((2004). Reducing the over-referral of culturally and linguistically diverse students (CLD) for language disabilities. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2, 225-243. Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2003). A test of the factorial validity of the teacher efficacy scale. Research in Education, 69, 67-78. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows. East Sussex: Routledge. Burns, R. B. (2001). Introduction to research methods (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Burtonwood, N. (2002). Anthropology, sociology and the preparation of teachers for a culturally plural society. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 10, 376-386. Byrnes, D. A., Kiger, G., & Manning, M. L. (1997). Teachers’ attitudes about language diversity. Teacher and Teacher Education, 13, 637-644. Cabello, B., & Burstein, N. D. (1995). Examining teachers’ beliefs about teaching in culturally diverse classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 46, 285-293. Campey, J. (2002). Immigrant children in our classrooms: beyond ESL. Education Canada, 42, Retrieved February 15, 2005, from ProQuest Educational Journals. Carrasquillo, A. L., & Rodriguez, V. (1995). Language minority student in the mainstream classroom. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Carrington, S., & Saggers, B. (2006). Service Learning Program Report. Queensland University of Technology. Presented at a seminar entitled: Transforming teacher education programs: through infusion of cultural and inclusive competencies. Cashmore, J. A., & Goodnow, J. J. (1986). Influences on Australian parent: Ethnicity versus socioeconomic status. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 17, 441-454. Christie, F., Freebody, P., Devlin, A., Luke, A., Martin, J., Threadgold, T., & Walton, C. (Eds.) (1991). Centre for Studies of Language in Education. Teaching English Literacy. A project of national

165

significance on the preservice preparation of teachers for teaching English literacy (Vol. 1,2,3). Department of Employment, Education and Training. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Clair, N. (1995). Mainstream classroom teachers and ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 189-196. Connor, M. H., & Boskin, J. (2001). Overrepresentation of bilingual and poor children in special education classes: A continuing problem. Journal of Children and Poverty, 7, 32-32. Costa, J., McPhail, G., Smith, J., & Brisk, M. E. (2005). Faculty first. The challenge of infusing the teacher education curriculum with scholarship on English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 104-118. Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 175-186. Cummins, J. (1991). The acquisition of English as a Second Language. In K Sprangenberg-Urbschat & R. Pritchard (Eds.), Kids come in all languages: Reading instruction for ESL students (pp. 36-62). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Cummins, J. (1997). Cultural and linguistic diversity in education: A mainstream issue? Educational Review, 49, 105-114. Curtain, H., & Dahlberg, C. A. (2004). Language and children. Making the match. New languages for young learners, Grades K-8 (2nd Ed). New York: Pearson Education, Inc. Daley, B. J. (1999). Novice to expert: An exploration of how professionals learn. Adult Education Quarterly, 49, 133-147. Dare, B., & Polias, J. (2001). Learning about language. Scaffolding in ESL classrooms. In J. Hammond (Ed.), Scaffolding. Teaching and learning in language and literacy education (pp. 91-201). Newtown, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association. Davis McCray, A., & Garcia, S. B. ((2002). The stories we must tell : developing a research agenda for multicultural and bilingual special education. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 599-612.

166

Davison, C. (2001). In B. Mohan, C. Leung & C. Davison (Eds.) English as a Second Language in the mainstream. Teaching, learning and identity. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. DeCastro-Ambrosetti, D., & Cho, G. (2005). Do parents value education? Teachers’ perceptions of minority parents. Multicultural Education, 13, 44-47. Deemer, S. A., & Minke, K. M. (1999). An investigation of the factor structure of the Teacher Efficacy Scale. Journal of Educational Research, 93. Retrieved July 7, 2002, from Academic Search Elite. Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET). (1990). Language of Australia. Discussion paper on an Australian literacy and language policy for the 1990s. Canberra: Australian government Publishing Service. Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET). (1991). Australia’s Language. The Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP). Companion volume to the Policy Paper. Canberra: Australian government Publishing Service. Education Queensland (2002). Literate Futures: Reading. Brisbane: State of Queensland (Department of Education). Education Queensland (2006). Equity Programs – English-as-a-second language (ESL). Retrieved November 13, 2006, from www.education.qld.gov.au/curriculum/advocacy/access/equity/students /inclusion… Emmer, E. T., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline. Education and Psychological Measurement, 51, 755-765. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 3, 272-299. Fielding-Barnsley, R. (2007). Literacy and learning disabilities: successful outcomes for all students. In M. Keeffe & S. Carrington (Eds.), Schools and Diversity (pp. 147-163). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Murray, S. (2002). ESL + specific reading disability: Diagnosis and intervention. Special Education Perspectives, 11, 3 18.

167

Fletcher, T. V. (2006). Journeys in cultural competency of in- and pre-service teachers from Arizona and California universities participating in Mexico study-abroad programs. Proceedings from the ‘The Transformation of Teacher Education Programs: the Development of Cultural and Inclusive Education Competencies’. Brisbane:QUT. Foreman, P. (2005). Inclusion in Action. Southbank, Vic: Thomson. Fueyo, V. (1997). Below the tip of the iceberg. Teaching language minority students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30, 61-65. Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (1988). Preventing inappropriate referrals of language minority students to special education. Retrieved December 6, 2006 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/classics/focus/05referral.htm Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences. NY: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: M.Is for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books. Gennesse, F. (2992). Portrait of the bilingual child. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 170-196). Sydney: Multilingual Matters. Gerges, G. (2001). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ variation in use of instructional methods: Why is teacher efficacy not a significant contributor? Teacher Education Quarterly, 28, 71-88. Gersten, R. (1996). Literacy instruction for language-minority students: The transition years. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 227-244. Gersten, R. (1999). Lost opportunities: Challenges confronting four teachers of English-language learners. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 37-56. Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454 470. Geva, E., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Schuster, B. (2000). Understanding individual differences in word recognition skills and ESL children. Annals of Dyslexia, 50,123-154. Ghaith, G., & Shaaban, K. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of teaching concerns, teacher efficacy, and selected teacher characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 487-496.

168

Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Social Research Update. Retrieved March 20, 2003 from http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU19.html Gibbons, P. (1991). Learning to learn in a second language. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. Grimbeek, P., & Carrington, S. (2003). Survey of training, skills and professional development needs for teachers: Staff College Inclusive Education: Education Queensland. Gunderson, L., & Siegel, L. S. (2001). The evils of the use of IQ tests to define learning disabilities in first-and second-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 55, 48-55. Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643. Hagen, K. M., Gutkin, T. B., Palmer Wilson, C., & Oats, R. G. (1998). Using vicarious experience and verbal persuasion to enhance self-efficacy in preservice teachers: “Priming the pump” for consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 169-178. Halliwell, S. (1998). Teaching English in the primary classroom. Essex: Longman. Hammond, J. (2001). Scaffolding. Teaching and learning in language and literacy education. Newtown, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association. Hansen, M. H., & Hauser, P. M. (1971). Area sampling – some principles of sample design. (In B. J. Franklin & H. W. Osborne, Eds.), Research methods: Issues and insights (pp.170-178). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Hebert, E., Lee, A., & Williamson, L. (1998). Teachers’ and teacher education students’ sense of efficacy: Quantitative and qualitative comparisons. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31, 214-225. Hendry, G. D. (1996). Constructivism and educational practice. Australian Journal of Education, 40, 19-45.

169

Hollins, E. R. (1993). Assessing teacher competence for diverse populations. Theory into Practice, 32, 93-99. Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93 355-372. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (1999). New country, new stories: Discrimination and disadvantage experienced by people in small and emerging communities. Retrieved August 30, 2004 from www.humanrights.gov.au/racial_discrimination/report/new_country html Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (date n/a). face the facts: Migrants and multiculturalism. Retrieved July 29, 2004 from http:www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/face_facts/mig_htm.htm Huss-Keeler, R. L. (1997). Teacher perceptions of ethnic and linguistic minority parental involvement and its relationships to children’s language and literacy learning: A case study. Teaching & Teacher Education, 13, 171-182. Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Igoa, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Iredale, R. (1997). The impact of immigration on school education in New South Wales, Australia. The International Migration Review. Retrieved August 8, 2002, from ProQuest Educational Journals. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Jones, R. (2000). Out of the abyss. The current stat of multicultural education in primary education. Education, 3, 60-64. Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). Family and human development across cultures. A view from the other side. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

170

Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (2004). Impact of the social construction of LD on culturally diverse families: A response to Reid and Valle. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 530-543. Kennedy, C., & Kennedy, J. (1996). Teacher attitudes and change implementation. System, 24, 351-360. Kirova-Petrova, A. (2000). Researching young children’s lived experiences of loneliness: Pedagogical implications for linguistically diverse students. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 46, 99-114. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge. Knobel, M. (1997). Bilingual Interface Project. The Queensland Case Study. Retrieved January 9, 2003 from ProQuest Educational Journals. Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups (2nd Ed.) A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Langman, J. (2003). The effects of ESL-trained context-area teachers: Reducing middle-school students to incidental language learners. Prospect, 18, 14-26. Lee, P. (1997). Cognitive development in bilingual children: A case for bilingual instruction in early childhood education. Bilingual Research Journal, 20, 99-522. Li, G. (2002). “East is East, West is West”? Home literacy, culture, and schooling. NY: Peter Lang. Limbos, M. M., & Geva, E. (2001). Accuracy of teacher assessments of second language students at risk for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 136-151. Lo Bianco, J. (1987). National Policy on Languages. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Lo Bianco, J., & Freebody, P. (1997). Australian literacies. Informing national policy on literacy education. Melbourne: Language Australia Ltd. Lo Bianco, J., & Freebody, P. (2001). Australian literacies. Informing national policy on literacy education (2nd Ed.). Melbourne: Language Australia Ltd. Lopez, S. A. (2000). What is still needed in English as a second language K-12 teaching? Education Research Quarterly, 23, 52-70

171

Madriz, E. (2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Second Edition (pp. 835-850). Major, E. M., & Celedon-Pattichis, S. (2001). Integrating socio-political awareness into a teacher education curriculum. TESOL Journal, Spring, 21-26. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Makin, L. (1992). Language teachers by necessity, not choice. Early childhood teachers in a multilingual society. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 33-49. Malin, M. (1990). The visibility and invisibility of Aboriginal students in an urban classroom. Australian Journal of Education, 34, 312-329. Markham, P., Green, S. B., & Ross, M. E. (1996). Identification of stressors and coping strategies of ESL/Bilingual, Special Education and regular education teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 141-150. McDade, R. (2006). ESL Provision within Catholic schools. AQTESOL Newsletter No. 2, 10-12. McKay, P. (1997). The Queensland Case Study. In P. McKay, A. Davies, B. Devlin, J. Clayton, R. Oliver & S. Zammit, The Bilingual Interface Project Report: The relationship between first language development and second language acquisition as students begin learning English in the context of schooling. The Commonwealth of Australia: ACER. McKay, P., Davies, A., Devlin, B., Clayton, J., Oliver, R., & Zammit, S. (1997). The Bilingual Interface Project Report: The relationship between first language development and second language acquisition as student begin learning English in the context of schooling. The Commonwealth of Australia: ACER. Meyer, L. M. (2000). Barriers to meaningful instruction for English learners. Theory into Practice. 39, 228-236. Michell, M. (1999). ‘Wither’ ESL? Post-literacy prospects for English as a Second Language programs in Australian schools. Prospect, 14, 1-23. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). The Hobart Declaration on Schooling (1989). Retrieved April 11, 2004 from http://www.mceetya.edu.au/hobdec.htmMinisterial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). Adelaide Declaration. Australia’s Common and Agreed Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-first Century: Review of the 1989

172

Common and Agreed Goals for Schooling in Australia (The ‘Hobart Declaration’).Retrieved April11, 2004 from http://www.mceetya.edu.au/discpap.htm Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Nassar-McMillan, S. C., & Borders, L. D. (2002). Use of focus groups in survey item development. The Qualitative Report, 7. Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedure. Issues and application. Retrieved 15 April, 2006 from www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=04se=gglsc&d=5006369022 Neuharth-Pritchett, S., Reiff, J. C. & Pearson, C. A. (2001). Through the eyes of preservice teachers: Implications for the multicultural journey from teacher education. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15, 256-269. Norman, G. R., & Streiner, D. L. (1997). PDQ Statistics Second Edition. Toronto: Mosby. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Ogbu, J. U. (1994). From cultural differences to differences in cultural frame o reference. In P. M. Greenfield & R. R. Cockling (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 365-391). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Osborne, B., & Dawers, G. (1992). Communicative competence in an ESL task: A dilemma in a Torres Strait Island class. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 83-100. Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332. Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. (2001). Response format in writing self -efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 214 -221. Penfield, J. (1987). ESL: the regular classroom teacher’s perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 12, 21-39.

173

Peregay, S. F., & Boyle, O. W. (2000). English learners reading English: What we know, what we need to know. Theory into Practice, 39, 237-247. Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis. The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Popham, W. J., & Sirotnik, K. A. (1973). Educational statistics: Use and interpretation, Second Edition. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Rhine, S. (1995). The challenge of effectively preparing teachers of limited English proficient students. Journal of Teacher Education. 46 381-389. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Sawyer, B. E. (2004). Primary-grade teachers’ self- efficacy beliefs, attitudes toward teaching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in relation to the Responsive Classroom approach. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 321-341. Robinson, N. (1999). The use of focus group methodology – with selected examples from sexual health research. Journal of Advanced Nursing 29, 905-913. Rose, D., Gray, B., & Cowey, W. (1999). Scaffolding reading and writing for Indigenous children in school. In P. Wignell (Ed.), Double power. English literacy and Indigenous education. Melbourne: Language Australia. Ruan, J. (2003). Toward a culture-sensitive pedagogy: Emergent literacy learning in Chinese-English bilinguals in America. Language Culture and Curriculum, 16, 39-47. Rueda, R., MacGillivray, L., Monzo, L., & Arzubiaga, A. (2002). Engaged reading: A multi-level approach to considering sociocultural factors with diverse learners. In D.M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning. Vol 1, (pp.233-264). Greenwich, Conecticut: Information Age Publishing. Sale, L., Sliz, L., & Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2003). Creating an inclusive climate for newly arrived students. In S. R. Schecter & J. Cummins (Eds.), Multilingual Education in Practice (pp. 17-31). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Santos, J. R. A., & Clegg, M. D. (1999). Factor analysis adds new dimension to extension surveys. Retrieved July 19, 2006 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/ rb6.html

174

Schumann, J. H. (1997). The neurobiology of affect in language. Malden, MA.: Blackwell Publishers. Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 118-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sheets, R. H., & Fong, A. (2003). Linking teacher behaviour to cultural knowledge. The Educational Forum, 67. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from ProQuest Educational Journals. Sing Ghuman, P. A. (1994). Coping with two cultures. British Asian and Indo- Canadian adolescents. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Skiba, R., Simmons, A., Ritter, S., Kohler, K., Henderson, M.., & Wu, T. (2006). The context of minority disproportionality: Practitioner perspectives on special education referral. Teachers college Record, 100, 1424-1459. Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct. Teaching & Teacher Education, 12, 401-511. State of Victoria (1991). ESL in the Mainstream. Melbourne: Department of Education and Training. Retrieved May 5, 2004, from http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/lem/esl/eeslm2004.htm Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Mixed methodology. Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Tangen, D., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (submitted). Environmental education for inclusive classrooms in culturally diverse school. Australian Journal of Environmental Education Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Tileston, D. W. (2004). What every teacher should know about diverse learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

175

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk, A. (2002). Research Instruments. Retrieved February 6, 2003, from

http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu/aholy/researachinstruments.htm Twyman, T., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., McCoy, J. D., & Trindal, G. (2003). Effects of concept-based instruction on an English language learner in a rural school: A descriptive case study. Retrieved December 15, 2006 from http://proquesto.umi,com.ezo02.library.qut.au/pqdweb?index=458949851... Valdes, G. (1996). Con respecto. Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools. NY: Teachers College Press. van Gilst, F., & Gura, F. (2006). The role of the Advisory Visiting Teacher- ESL Programs. QATESOL Newsletter No. 2, 12-14. Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2006). Teaching exceptional, diverse and at risk students in the general education classroom. (3rd ed.). Sydney: Pearson Education Inc. Veale, J. R.. & Foreman, D. I. (1983). Assessing cultural bias using foil response data: Cultural variation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 249-258. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman ( Eds.). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Watts-Taffe, S., & Truscott, D. M. (2000). Using what we know about language and literacy development for ESL students in the mainstream classroom. Language Arts, 77, 258-265. Welford, R. (2006). Letter from Rod Welford MP in response to Queensland Association of Teachers of English to Students of Other Languages (QATESOL). AQTESOL Newsletter No. 2, pp 24-25. Wheatley, K. F. (2000). Positive teacher efficacy as an obstacle to educational reform. Journal of Research and Development in Educational Psychology, 34, 14-27. Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 5-22.

176

Williams, J. A. (2001). Classroom conversations: Opportunities to learn for ESL student in mainstream classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 54, 750-757. Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing a first. Early Childhood Research, 6, 323-346. Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.

177

Appendix A – Consent Script/Participant Letter of Information

Participant Letter of Information – Study 1 (2003)

Dear Participant

My name is Donna Tangen. I am a graduate student in the School of Learning and Professional Studies in the Faculty of Education at the Queensland University of Technology. I am conducting a research project under the supervision of Dr Kym Irving and Dr Ruth Fielding-Barnsley as part of the requirements towards a PhD degree. This letter is to inform you of my research project: The Relationship Between Teachers’ Efficacy and Teaching Practices for teaching ESL Learners, so that you can make an informed decision regarding your participation. The purpose of the study is to explore primary teachers’ confidence in their abilities about teaching ESL learners. There are three components to this research: (i) preliminary focus groups; (ii) a survey questionnaire on teacher efficacy; and (iii) responses to hypothetical teaching scenarios. This part of the research will be conducted through focus groups. Participation in the focus group will require about one (1) hour of your time. You should be aware that even if you have agreed to participate, you are free to withdraw from the research at any time, for any reason. Data will be gathered via audio-taping and note-taking; however, it will be gathered in such a sway so as to ensure anonymity. There will be no personal identifying details taken at the time of the focus groups. Group data may be published in relation to my thesis; however, any individual responses reported will be done in a way that will protect your identity. The raw data will be kept in a secure location and destroyed two years after it has been analysed. A consent-scrip to participate in the research has been attached. If you have any questions regarding this research, please feel free to contact me at any time at (07) 3855 1162 or contact my supervisors: Dr Kym Irving at (07) 3864 3233 or Dr Ruth Fielding-Barnsley at (07) 3864 9615. Thank you for your time and consideration, Donna Tangen School of Learning and Professional Studies The Queensland University of Technology (2003)

178

Participant Letter of Information – Study 2 (2004)

Dear Participant

My name is Donna Tangen. I am a graduate student in the School of Learning and Professional Studies in the Faculty of Education at the Queensland University of Technology. I am conducting a research project under the supervision of Dr Kym Irving and Dr Ruth Fielding-Barnsley as part of the requirements towards a PhD degree. This letter is to inform you of my research project: The Relationship Between Teachers’ Efficacy and Teaching Practices for teaching ESL Learners, so that you can make an informed decision regarding your participation. The purpose of the study is to explore primary teachers’ confidence in their abilities about teaching ESL learners. There are three components to this research: (i) preliminary focus groups (completed); (ii) a survey questionnaire on teacher efficacy; and (iii) responses to hypothetical teaching scenarios. This part of the research will be conducted through the completion of a survey. Participation to complete the survey will require about one-half (1/2) hour of your time. You should be aware that even if you have agreed to participate, you are free to withdraw from the research at any time, for any reason. Data will be gathered via audio-taping and note-taking; however, it will be gathered in such a sway so as to ensure anonymity. There will be no personal identifying details taken at the time of the focus groups. Group data may be published in relation to my thesis; however, any individual responses reported will be done in a way that will protect your identity. The raw data will be kept in a secure location and destroyed two years after it has been analysed. A consent-scrip to participate in the research has been attached. If you have any questions regarding this research, please feel free to contact me at any time at (07) 3855 1162 or contact my supervisors: Dr Kym Irving at (07) 3864 3233 or Dr Ruth Fielding-Barnsley at (07) 3864 9615. Thank you for your time and consideration, Donna Tangen School of Learning and Professional Studies The Queensland University of Technology (2003)

179

Participant Letter of Information – Study 3 (2004)

Dear Participant

My name is Donna Tangen. I am a graduate student in the School of Learning and Professional Studies in the Faculty of Education at the Queensland University of Technology. I am conducting a research project under the supervision of Dr Kym Irving and Dr Ruth Fielding-Barnsley as part of the requirements towards a PhD degree. This letter is to inform you of my research project: The Relationship Between Teachers’ Efficacy and Teaching Practices for teaching ESL Learners, so that you can make an informed decision regarding your participation. The purpose of the study is to explore primary teachers’ confidence in their abilities about teaching ESL learners. There are three components to this research: (i) preliminary focus groups (completed); (ii) a survey questionnaire on teacher efficacy; and (iii) responses to hypothetical teaching scenarios. This part of the research will be conducted through the completion of responses to hypothetical teaching scenarios. Participation to respond to the teaching scenarios will require about 20 minutes of your time. You should be aware that even if you have agreed to participate, you are free to withdraw from the research at any time, for any reason. Data will be gathered via audio-taping and note-taking; however, it will be gathered in such a sway so as to ensure anonymity. There will be no personal identifying details taken at the time of the focus groups. Group data may be published in relation to my thesis; however, any individual responses reported will be done in a way that will protect your identity. The raw data will be kept in a secure location and destroyed two years after it has been analysed. A consent-scrip to participate in the research has been attached. If you have any questions regarding this research, please feel free to contact me at any time at (07) 3855 1162 or contact my supervisors: Dr Kym Irving at (07) 3864 3233 or Dr Ruth Fielding-Barnsley at (07) 3864 9615. Thank you for your time and consideration, Donna Tangen School of Learning and Professional Studies The Queensland University of Technology (2003)

180

Appendix B – The Research Survey – Study 2 (2004)

Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale for Teaching ESL Learners

by

Donna Tangen

QUT, 2006

Please circle the answer that most clearly corresponds with your current situation. Age 18-25 26-33 34-42 43-48 49+ Gender Female Male My first language is English Yes No I have studied/trained to teach ESL students Yes No I have taught ESL students Yes No I have studied languages other than English Yes No (at school, home or in another country) Current course and year of study at university I will be able to speak a language other than English Yes No I have visited or lived in a country that is Yes No predominately non-English speaking? If so, for approximately how long?

181

Preservice Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale For teaching ESL Learners

Teacher Beliefs Directions: This questionnaire is designed to gain a better understanding of preservice teachers’ opinions about teaching ESL learners in mainstream classrooms. Please indicate your opinion about each of the statements below. There are no right or wrong answers. Your responses are confidential. N

ot a

t all

Ver

y L

ittle

So

me

Influ

ence

Q

uite

A B

it A

Gre

at D

eal

When you consider teaching students who are English as Second Language (ESL): 1. How much can you do to adjust your lessons to meet the needs of individual ESL students in your class?

2. How much can you do to influence ESL students to follow the class rules?

3. How much can you do to provide a variety of assessment measures in your class for ESL students?

4. How much can you do to assist families to help their children who are ESL to do well in school?

5, How much can you assist students who have ESL to communicate effectively with non-ESL students in your class?

6. How much can you do to minimise potential cultural conflicts (eg. food, dress, gender issues) between home and school in your classroom?

7. To what extent can you draw on ESL students’ porior knowledge in their home language to assist with learning in your class?

8. To what extent can you take ESL students’ religious/ethnic beliefs and customs into consideration when preparing classroom activities?

9. How well can you establish routines for students who have ESL to keep activities running smoothly in your class?

10. How much can you do to provide effective feedback to students who have ESL?

11. How much are you able to scaffold learning for students who have ESL?

12. How much can you do to improve learning for an ESL student who is failing in your classroom?

13. How much can you do to ensure that students who have ESL participate in group learning activities in your class?

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

182

14. How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable students who have ESL?

15. To what extent in your lessons can you refer to the culture of students who have ESL in your class? 16. How much can you do to promote learning in your class for students who have ESL when there is a lack of support from the home? 17. How much can you do to motivate ESL students when they show low interest in school?

18. How much are you able to teach female ESL students better than male ESL students? 19. How much can you do to get parents/caregivers of students who have ESL to become involved in their children’s school activities?

20. How much can you do to help students who have ESL to develop problem solving skills? 21. To what extent can you make your expectations clear about acceptable behaviour in class to students who have ESL? 22. How much can you assist in the development of cognitive strategies (eg rehearsing, organising, reflecting) with students who have ESL? 23. How much can you do to teach proper grammar to students who have ESL? 24. How much can you assist ESL students to develop metacognitive strategies (eg planning, monitoring, self-regulation)? 25. How much can you do to promote learning in English with students who have ESL when they are still largely reliant on their home language for communication? 26. How much are you able to control racist behaviour and language in your class? 27. How much can you do to help students who have ESL to believe that they can do well in school? 28. How much can you control the inclusion of ESL students in state-wide testing in your classroom? 29. To what extent can you help students who have ESL monitor their own comprehension?

30. To what extent can you ensure that students who have ESL understand the pragmatics (eg when/where/how to communicate) in your classroom?

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

183

How confident do you feel about teaching ESL students? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for taking the time to participate in completing this section of the survey. ESL Hypothetical Teaching Scenarios – Study 3 Below is presented a series of scenarios that involve ESL students in mainstream classrooms. Please write a brief response to each scenario describing what you would do in each situation. Because each classroom/school is unique, there are no right or wrong responses to the scenarios described.

1) A new student in your Grade 6 class has studied English-as-a-foreign language in his home country. He can communicate in English at a fundamental level but is reluctant to do so because there has been some taunting by his non-ESL classmates about this ‘funny’ accent. He has befriended another student in the class from his home country and they tend to keep mostly to themselves, speaking only their home language when together, both in class and outdoors. When you try to engage this student I learning tasks he complains that he doesn’t understand the work, that it’s too difficult. The new student’s parents are well-educated but do not speak English well. Nevertheless, they are ambitious for their son to succeed in school.

Please describe what you would do in this situation, briefly explaining why you would take the action described.

2) A Grade 2 student in your class, who is a non-native English language learner, is withdrawn and cries a lot. She says that she wants to go back ‘home’ because she misses her grandparents. There is little interaction between this child and the non-ESL students in your class. Some of the girls tried to befriend her for the first few days after her arrival but gave that away because, they claim, the new student cries too much.

Please describe what you would do in this situation, briefly explaining why you would take the action described.

3) You have a new student placed in your Grade 4 class whose family has been granted refugee status. The boy’s prior schooling was interrupted due to political unrest in his home country. After arriving here and completing a year’s tuition of intensive English language learning, your new student’s English proficiency has not reached Grade 4 level and his low level of English language skills is hampering his ability to keep up with the work done by then non-ESL students. No English is spoken at the home of your new student. In class he spends most of his time watching the other children then appears to imitate what they do.

Please describe what you would do in this situation, briefly explaining why you would take the action described.

184

4) You have an Indigenous student in your class who speaks and comprehends Australian Standard English but is below grade level in written and reading levels of English. Her best friend is also and Indigenous student, although this student’s school work is at a level on par with her peer group. The first student mentioned above appears to be bored with lessons and continually distracts her friend so that they are both off-task frequently through the day.

Please describe what you would do in this situation, briefly explaining why you would take the action described.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this section of the questionnaire. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

185