Page 1
PERCEPTIONS OF ESL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS BY
MAINSTREAM TEACHERS: A DESCRIPTIVE QUALITATIVE STUDY
by
Ammar Al-Sharafi
Copyright 2015
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership/Curriculum and Instruction
University of Phoenix
Page 2
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States CodeMicroform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
ProQuest 3742244
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
ProQuest Number: 3742244
Page 4
iii
ABSTRACT
This descriptive qualitative study explored the viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers in the
state of Ohio about English as a Second Language (ESL) professional development and training
programs implemented in order to teach English Language Learners (ELLs) in mainstream
classrooms. The problem explored in this study is that mainstream teachers who teach ELLs
without professional training in teaching ELLs may produce a lower academic achievement level
than teachers who have had professional training in teaching ELLs. Mainstream teachers who
teach ELLs but do not have the professional training required for teaching ELLs may face
numerous challenges that hinder their ability to close the achievement gaps between ELLs and
their native English language-speaking peers. The purpose of this study was to explore and
examine the viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers about the ESL professional development
and training programs implemented for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream
classrooms. A descriptive qualitative approach was used in this study that involved 15
participants who responded to open-ended interview questions to describe their experiences with
wide range of ESL professional development programs that they have participated in. An
analysis of the participants’ responses yielded three themes: (A) teacher engagement, (B)
relevant communication, and (C) the efficiency and relevance of technology. These three themes
and the findings of this study can help educational leaders make research based decisions to
overcome the barriers involved in trying to cater for the needs of ELLs by improving the quality
of ESL professional training programs.
Page 5
iv
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my parents who inspired me and encouraged me to continue
my higher education and strive for the impossible. I dedicate this work to my loving wife,
Kristen Al-Sharafi, who has stuck with me since the beginning of my doctoral journey. Her
support and patience made it possible for me to keep going and reach my academic goals.
Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to my beloved son, Amjad, whose existence gave me the
energy and the power to push my boundaries and complete this difficult journey. I hope to
become an inspiration for him as he grows and help him develop a love for learning and dare his
dreams.
Page 6
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and thank my committee chair, Dr. Patricia Penn, for her
guidance throughout the research and dissertation process. She was always willing to help and
provide the best suggestions that helped me overcome many of the challenges and barriers that I
faced throughout this journey. Without her guidance and persistent help, this dissertation would
not have been possible. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Patricia Talbert
and Dr. Gale Cossette for the countless hours they spent reviewing my work and offering advice
and encouragement.
Page 7
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................... 3
ESL Support Programs in Ohio .............................................................................. 5
Bilingual instruction.................................................................................... 5
The immersion approach............................................................................. 5
Pullout ESL classes ..................................................................................... 6
In-class or inclusion instruction .................................................................. 6
Individual tutoring ...................................................................................... 7
Problem Statement .................................................................................................. 7
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 8
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................... 10
Significance of the Study for Educational Leadership ......................................... 11
Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................... 11
Nature of the Study ............................................................................................... 13
Qualitative approach. ................................................................................ 13
Descriptive design. .................................................................................... 14
Research Questions ............................................................................................... 16
Definition of Terms............................................................................................... 16
Page 8
vii
Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 18
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................... 18
Summary ............................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature .................................................................................. 21
Historical Overview .............................................................................................. 23
National ELL statistics .............................................................................. 25
Ohio ELL statistics ................................................................................... 25
Meeting the Needs of Ohio’s ELLs ...................................................................... 28
Second Language Acquisition .............................................................................. 28
Social Constructivist Theory................................................................................. 31
Social Constructivist Pedagogy ............................................................................ 32
ELLs’ Challenges.................................................................................................. 33
Mainstream Teachers as ESL Educators............................................................... 34
The Need for Professional Development .............................................................. 35
Effective Training ................................................................................................. 37
Obstacles and Teachers Struggle .......................................................................... 39
Training Mainstream Teachers to Teach ELLs .................................................... 40
Vision for Teacher Preparation ............................................................................. 41
Summary ............................................................................................................... 44
Chapter 3: Research Method ............................................................................................. 46
Research Method Appropriateness ....................................................................... 47
Research Design Appropriateness ........................................................................ 49
Page 9
viii
Descriptive design. .................................................................................... 49
Research ................................................................................................................ 50
Population ............................................................................................................. 50
Sample................................................................................................................... 51
Recruitment ........................................................................................................... 52
Consent Letters and Confidentiality ..................................................................... 52
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 53
Field interview. ......................................................................................... 54
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 54
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................... 56
Summary ............................................................................................................... 57
Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................. 59
Sample Characteristics .......................................................................................... 60
Themes in the Study.............................................................................................. 71
Theme 1: Teacher Engagement ............................................................................ 71
Theme 2: Relevant Communication ..................................................................... 73
Theme 3: The Efficiency and Relevance of Technology ...................................... 75
Synthesis of Research Questions .......................................................................... 77
Research Question 1 ............................................................................................. 77
Research Question 2 ............................................................................................. 80
Answer to Main Research Question ..................................................................... 83
Summary ............................................................................................................... 83
Page 10
ix
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................... 85
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 85
Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 88
Theme 1: teacher engagement. ................................................................. 89
Theme 2: relevant communication. ........................................................... 91
Theme 3: the efficiency and relevance of technology. ............................. 92
Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 94
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................... 95
Implications for Education Leaders ...................................................................... 96
Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................ 97
Summary ............................................................................................................... 98
References ....................................................................................................................... 101
Appendix A: Informed Consent ...................................................................................... 116
Appendix B: Non-Disclosure Agreement ....................................................................... 118
Appendix C: Confidentiality Statement .......................................................................... 122
Appendix D: Interview Questions .................................................................................. 123
Page 11
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Participant Characteristics .............................................................................................. 61
Table 2: Data for Interview Question 1 ........................................................................................ 63
Table 3: Data for Interview Question 2 ........................................................................................ 64
Table 4: Data for Interview Question 3 ........................................................................................ 65
Table 5: Data for Interview Question 4 ........................................................................................ 66
Table 6: Data for Interview Question 5 ........................................................................................ 67
Table 7: Data for Interview Question 6 ........................................................................................ 68
Table 8: Data for Interview Question 7 ........................................................................................ 69
Table 9: Data for Interview Question 8 ........................................................................................ 70
Page 12
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Average reading scores of 4th-grade students, by (ELL) status: Selected years, 2002-
11. Scale ranges from 0 to 500. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational
Statistics 2013. .............................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 2: Average reading scores of 8th-grade students, by (ELL) status: Selected years, 2002-
11. Scale ranges from 0 to 500. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational
Statistics 2013. .............................................................................................................................. 22
Page 13
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
English language learners (ELLs) in American schools face tremendous challenges that
hinder their academic achievement. Language barriers prevent ELLs from getting equal
educational opportunities, making the learning process unpleasant, and negatively affecting their
learning outcomes. These challenges increase when ELLs sit with their native English-speaking
classmates in mainstream classrooms. Many teachers are not trained to teach ELLs who are
having communication difficulties and challenges adjusting to the new environment. The
responsibilities those teachers have go beyond merely teaching content-area curriculum, as they
need to provide adequate support to help ELLs improve their English language skills and help
them adjust to a new environment (Shore, 2013). As a result, mainstream teachers may find it
difficult to help this category of students achieve academically on the same level as native
English-speaking students. Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2010) explained that ELLs face the
double task of having to learn content at the same time as they are learning English. In many
cases, ELLs do not have the luxury of waiting for content instruction until they are fluent in the
second language, which makes the achievement gap between ELLs and their English-speaking
peers grow wider, as the latter would make progress while the former would remain isolated
from content while learning language (Anderson, 2009).
This descriptive qualitative study explored the views of K-12 mainstream teachers about
the inclusive training programs in English as a second language (ESL) education that are
available to them and whether they believed such programs prepared them with the knowledge
that they needed to teach ELLs effectively. Many schools have inclusive ESL training programs
Page 14
2
for mainstream teachers. The goal of such training programs is to help close the achievement
gap between the ELLs and their native English-speaking peers. The state of Ohio, where this
study took place, does not require training in ESL education for mainstream teachers who teach
ELLs. However, many schools in Ohio with a sizeable population of ELLs promote
collaboration between ESL teachers and mainstream teachers and provide special ESL training
programs for mainstream teachers. The state of Ohio, as well as Arkansas, Montana, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, and Wyoming, have vague requirements for
mainstream teachers who have ELLs in their classrooms. These requirements include effective
teaching strategies and appreciation of diversity, but such requirements also apply to all teachers
whether they serve ELLs or not. The requirements make no explicit reference to ELLs or ELL
pedagogy (State Board of Education & Ohio Department of Education, 2009 National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2008b). In addition, even though the number
of ELLs sitting in K-12 mainstream classrooms is growing rapidly, most of the available
research focuses on ESL teachers or ESL learning theories.
Arkoudis (2006) argued that a need exists for more studies that involve mainstream
teachers and the collaboration between them and the ESL teachers. Arkoudis (2006) also
indicated that such studies might help improve the views of mainstream teachers as well as the
ESL teachers about the challenges that ELLs face in mainstream classes. These challenges
require an effective collaboration between mainstream teachers and ESL teachers in order to
develop an understanding of how to meet the language and learning needs of ELLs in
mainstream classes.
Page 15
3
Chapter 1 of this study consists of a brief description of the background of the problem,
the problem statement, the purpose of the study, and the significance of the study for educational
leadership. An explanation of the research takes a good portion of chapter one as it includes
information about the theoretical framework, the research design and methodology, research
questions, definition of terms, and the limitations and delimitations. Chapter 2 provides a
comprehensive overview of the existing literature regarding the challenges faced by ELLs and
mainstream teachers, ESL education, as well as the professional development programs for
teachers. Chapter 3 focuses on the research methodology and describes the design
appropriateness. Additionally, the chapter addresses the procedures chosen to accomplish this
study.
Background of the Problem
The levels of English language proficiency differ among ELLs who come from many
different backgrounds. Some ELLs have prior schooling and some others do not, especially
those who come from refugee camps. Additionally, ELLs face many barriers developing
academically in the American school system, which results in an achievement gap between ELLs
and mainstream students (Walqui, 2000). The academic achievement gap between ELLs in
American schools and their native English-speaking classmates is an ongoing issue that teachers
and educational leaders continue to address. Educational researchers have conducted several
studies in an effort to help improve the academic achievement of ELLs. However, the current
educational system emphasizes standardized tests, which causes ELLs to fall under the at-risk
students’ category. Mays (2008) argued that ELLs as well as minority children are the victims of
standardized tests because they end up in the at-risk groups most of the time. Mays suggested
Page 16
4
that differences in language usage in schools and ELLs’ homes could create barriers to academic
achievement for ELLs. Mays criticized the slow progress in educational reform. This slow
progress does not correspond to the growth in the minority population in the United States,
which is a major concern for educational leaders nationwide as they see an increasing number of
ELL students being left behind (Mays, 2008).
A major concern for educational leaders who are familiar with ELLs issues comes from
the low expectations mainstream teachers hold for ELLs. For instance, some mainstream
teachers tend to over-simplify content instead of providing additional support for ELLs to help
them improve their language skills. This reductive approach may widen the achievement gap
between ELLs and their mainstream classmates (Koelsch, n.d). Another concern that
educational leaders have is that the efforts to improve the academic achievement of ELLs have
not always been successful, even though the majority of schools with an ELL population have
intervention programs such as special ESL classes. Harper and De Jong (2009) explained that
many ELLs who exit from ESL support programs are not prepared enough in order to meet the
language demands of mainstream content classrooms.
This study contributes to the existing ESL literature by focusing on mainstream teachers
who are not specialized in English as a second language. Most of the available literature
concerning English language learners focuses on specialized ESL teachers, ESL learning
theories, and the general problems of ELLs. The role of mainstream teachers in helping ELLs to
improve academically is mostly forgotten, or not properly addressed, in the available literature.
As Hutchinson and Hadjioannou (2011) warned, the need to prepare mainstream teachers to
teach linguistically diverse students is very critical and educational leaders must act immediately
Page 17
5
to address this growing problem. Hutchinson and Hadjioannou (2011) argued the reason for this
urgency is that most of the current discussion relating to teacher preparation has been centered
around social issues such as diversity, which is not enough to address the real needs of ELLs.
ESL Support Programs in Ohio
In the State of Ohio, where this study took place, school districts can choose any of the
recommended ESL support programs by the Ohio Department of Education. The following is a
list of ESL support programs that the Ohio Department of Education recommends:
Bilingual instruction. Bilingual instruction could be useful for school districts that have
large numbers of ELLs who speak the same language. Many urban school districts in Ohio use
the bilingual instruction approach. The effectiveness of this approach is under ongoing
evaluation but supporters of bilingual instruction believe in two fundamental concepts. First, if
students can understand what their teachers are saying they can learn anything, including
English. Second, the achievement gap between ELLs and their native English-speaking peers
will not exit if ELLs are taught in their native languages (Ohio Department of Education, 2012a).
The immersion approach. Another approach to help ELLs acquire the English skills
that they need in order to be successful in school is the immersion approach. This alternative
approach could be useful for those districts where a large number of ELLs reside, but there are
not enough of one or more language groups to justify the establishment of bilingual education
classrooms (Ohio Department of Education, 2012a).
Students who sit in immersion classrooms are all ELLs. Teachers mainly teach content
with a little focus on teaching English but they make several adjustments to help ELLs
understand content and learn English at the same time. Teachers use English as the language of
Page 18
6
instruction. They, also, use visual aids, dictionaries, and other techniques to simplify and make
content and English easy to understand for ELLs. The argument of the immersion approach
supporters is that while ELLs are learning content they can learn oral and written language skills
at the same time, which will help them progress academically like everyone else (Ohio
Department of Education, 2012a).
Pullout ESL classes. The focus of ESL classes is to teach English language skills such
as reading, writing, speaking, and listening that will help ELLs succeed in school. Some school
districts that use the pullout ESL classes provide bilingual support to ELLs who speak little or no
English. Bilingual teacher assistants sit in the ESL classroom to help teachers and sometimes
come to the ELLs’ mainstream classrooms to provide additional support. Some school districts
employ bilingual teacher assistants to work with the mainstream teacher throughout the entire
school year.
In a typical ESL classroom, students learn English through a variety of activities
including games. Although the activities are purposeful and focused on teaching grammar,
reading, and writing, they can be very flexible. For instance, ESL teachers can use free
conversations and discussions in a variety of topics to help students learn communication skills.
All activities and instruction have to be in English (Ohio Department of Education, 2012a).
In-class or inclusion instruction. In this approach, ELLs sit in mainstream classrooms
with everyone else, but bilingual teacher assistant has to be in the classroom to help them
understand content. ELLs gain self-confidence when a bilingual teacher assistant is available to
help them participate in the classroom activities or group projects. Additionally, the bilingual
Page 19
7
teacher assistant can provide tutoring and help ELLs with their individual assignments (Ohio
Department of Education, 2012a).
Individual tutoring. School districts in Ohio use this approach when the numbers of
ELLs enrolled are very small. ELLs receive tutoring services either individually or in small
groups. Tutors are mostly volunteers who are bilingual and work under the supervision of
trained ESL specialists or mainstream teachers. Sometime the school districts hire tutors when
they do not have enough volunteers. The purpose of tutoring is to improve the communication
skills of ELLs by teaching them grammar, speaking, reading, and writing (Ohio Department of
Education, 2012a).
Problem Statement
The problem is that mainstream teachers who teach ELLs without professional training in
teaching ELLs may produce a lower academic achievement level than teachers who have had
professional training in teaching ELLs. Hite and Evan (2006) stated that ELLs present a great
challenge for mainstream teachers who have little or no training in ESL education. The teachers
who have no professional training to teach ELLs may feel unsure as to how to meet the unique
academic and social needs of this group of students. This may cause the ELLs to struggle
academically when they sit in mainstream classrooms. In extreme cases, ELLs drop out of
school completely, because they do not receive the support that they need (Ohio State University,
2012). Schools temporarily place the ELLs in English as a second language (ESL) classes that
serve as supplemental English learning methods to help this group of students overcome
language barriers. When the ELLs sit in mainstream classes, they continue to struggle because
mainstream teachers do not give them the same kind of attention that they usually receive when
Page 20
8
they sit in ESL classes. Good, Masewicz, and Vogal (2010) explained that ELLs need more time
than native English-speaking students to comprehend content. Therefore, mainstream teachers
who have had no professional training in ESL should slow down the instruction in a way that
will give ELLs enough time to process the information and integrate knowledge.
To explain the challenges of mainstream teachers who have ELLs in their classes, Hite
and Evans (2006) described the status quo as a high-stakes act, especially in this age of
standardized and high-stakes testing. Therefore, mainstream teachers need to expend extra effort
to provide effective instruction to their ELL students. Some mainstream teachers with no ESL
professional training may not recognize the language barriers that the ELLs suffer from; and if
they do, they do not have the solutions to help them overcome these barriers. According to Good
et al. (2010), “Teachers lack preparation in three critical areas: multiculturalism, language
acquisition, and ELL instructional strategies” (p. 331). This study explored the viewpoints of
mainstream teachers who teach ELLs about the effectiveness of the ESL professional
development programs that they have experienced. The findings may help future researchers and
educational leaders to develop a systematic ESL professional development model for mainstream
teachers that will improve the academic achievement of ELLs.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this descriptive qualitative study was to explore and examine the
viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers about the ESL professional development and training
programs implemented for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms.
Effective inclusive ESL teacher-education training programs can provide mainstream teachers
with the skills they need in order to help ELLs improve their academic achievement. Such skills
Page 21
9
can also change the personal perspectives and beliefs of mainstream teachers about ELLs. As
Thompson, Warren, and Carter (2004) explained, teachers’ beliefs and attitudes can manifest
themselves through low expectations toward ELLs. These expectations are communicated
during daily interactions. Thompson et al. (2004) also noted that beliefs and attitudes toward
ELLs could determine how teachers address instruction, how much they are willing to modify
lessons and to include ESL strategies in the lesson, and how much they feel that the achievement
of ELLs is a responsibility of mainstream teachers instead of the exclusive responsibility of the
ESL teacher. Therefore, the professional development for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs
through ESL teacher-education training programs will provide mainstream teachers with the
same set of skills that the ESL teachers have. According to Palaroan (2009), English as a second
language certified teachers learn ways to convey information to help Limited English Proficient
students (LEP) comprehend subjects effectively and have a positive effect on their achievement
scores.
One of the advantages of using a qualitative research approach is that the qualitative
research can point out limitations of existing theories and beliefs. Well-done qualitative research
is limited in its scope, but very rich in depth (Hopper, 2011). As this study sought to evaluate the
ESL training programs by exploring the viewpoints of mainstream teachers themselves, this
chapter explains that the implementation of the study’s findings and the transferability of the
study would be limited to the ESL training programs that have similar characteristics to the ones
that are examined in this study.
Page 22
10
Significance of the Study
The number of students who speak languages other than English is increasing rapidly. At
the national level, there has been a significant increase in the number of ELLs during the first
decade of the 21st century. Many schools have had to implement special English as a second
language classes to meet the needs of this group of students. According to the National
Clearinghouse of English Language Acquisition (2011), the number of ELLs in American
schools has increased by 51% during the first decade of the 21st century. In Ohio, the 2011-
2012 enrollment of ELLs in the public elementary and secondary schools exceeded 39,800
students, which makes an increase of 38% when compared to the number reported five years
prior and 199% over the number reported 10 years earlier (Ohio Department of Education,
2012b). ELLs come from different backgrounds. Some of them are immigrant students who
have just arrived in the U.S. and speak little or no English. Some students had limited, if any,
formal schooling in their home countries (Ohio State University, 2012).
Most teachers have taken courses that address the methods of teaching in their specific
content area like math, science, or social studies. They may have also taken courses in
classroom management, technology, special education, and multiculturalism. However, few
teachers have ever taken courses that address English language learners (Ohio Department of
Education, 2012b).
The teachers who have had no professional training to teach ELLs may feel unsure as to
how to meet the unique academic and social needs of this group of students. This causes the
ELLs to struggle academically when they sit in mainstream classrooms. In extreme cases, ELLs
drop out of school completely, because they do not receive the support that they need (Ohio State
Page 23
11
University, 2012). This study addressed the beliefs and perceptions of K-12 mainstream teachers
about their preparedness to help ELLs improve their academic achievement.
Significance of the Study for Educational Leadership
The number of ELLs is increasing rapidly, not only in urban schools but also in rural
regions. School districts in predominantly rural regions do not always have enough sources or
trained ESL teachers to cope with the challenges that result from this rapid and sometimes
sudden increase of students who are ELLs. These challenges cause real concern for educational
leaders who must lead the efforts to help ELLs succeed and improve their academic achievement
(Flynn & Hill, 2005). This qualitative study presented the viewpoints of mainstream teachers
about the ESL professional development programs that they have experienced. The findings of
this study should allow educational leaders to make research-based decisions to improve the
quality of future ESL professional development programs. The perceptions of mainstream
teachers may provide guidelines for educational leaders who are working to improve the quality
of education for ELLs through training programs for mainstream teachers. Improving ELLs’
academic performance is possible only with the implementation of high quality and consistent
sheltered instruction steered by research (Short & Echevarria, 2005). To ensure a quality of
education for ELLs that is equal to the quality of education the native English-speaking students
receive, ELLs must have access to the full resources available for regular mainstream students.
Theoretical Framework
The learning theories and hypotheses that have had the greatest impact on the field of
second language acquisition are behaviorism, acculturation, social constructivist, the universal
grammar hypothesis, the comprehension hypothesis, the interaction hypothesis, the input
Page 24
12
hypothesis, the output hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, the socio-cultural theory, and
connectionism (Myles, 2010). Each one of these theories has its own significance in the field of
second language acquisition but the choice between these theories has to be based on the needs
of learners. Mainstream teachers mostly start working with ELLs after they exit from special
ESL programs but that is not always the case. Many schools use the immersion approach or the
inclusion approach where ELLs sit in mainstream classes for academic as well as language
instruction. Both of these two approaches fit with social-cultural theories and the constructivist
notion of learning that suggest that students construct meaning and knowledge through
interactions with the surrounding environment (Genesee, 1999). ELLs learn by observing others
in social settings (Menezes, 2013). Therefore, mainstream teachers need to build a learning
environment in which ELLs interact with everyone in the classroom through different means.
Building such learning environment starts from lesson planning that includes cooperation and
collaboration between learners, sharing knowledge through social interaction, and providing
stimuli for constructive knowledge. This kind of learning environment allows learners to share
knowledge and make association with their prior knowledge as well (Menezes, 2013).
The social constructivist perspective of second language acquisition emphasizes the
dynamic interaction between learners, their peers, and their teachers. Culture has a significant
role in forming understanding according to social constructivism. Learning occurs through
social interaction as learners experience knowledge collectively rather than individually. Social
constructivism may not emphasize the structure of learning as much as it emphasizes meaning.
The point is to make meaning from social activities in a free environment (Menezes, n.d).
Page 25
13
Mainstream teachers may not have enough time to teach ELLs the proper use of grammar
rules while teaching content, but they can convey such grammar rules through a guided and
purposeful social interaction inside the classroom. Vygotsky, a leading educational psychologist,
argued that social interaction is the basis for learning (Vygotsky, 1978). The social interaction is
not limited by any means; therefore, learners may interact with each other, with their teachers, or
even with texts and books (Wilson, 1999). Consequently, learners make meaning from their
social interaction experience (Vygotsky, 1978). The idea that learning is interactive means more
than the concept of exchanging ideas and thoughts between learners in a social environment.
Learners do not only receive information, but they reshape the information they receive and
share it through dialogue and interaction (Yang & Wilson, 2006). Thus learners, through their
interactions with teachers, may be able to acquire more knowledge and improve their English
language skills. They may also benefit from learners who are English native speakers, especially
in the cultural and contextual aspects of language.
Nature of the Study
Qualitative approach. This study used qualitative research design. Research topic does
not determine the nature of the research method. However, factors related to the topic may lead
to one research method or another. The choice between different research methods should
depend upon what the researcher is trying to find out (Silverman, 2004).
According to Marshall (1996), the research questions should determine the choice
between quantitative and qualitative research method regardless of the preference of the
researcher. The purpose of this study and its research questions were behind the choice of the
qualitative research methodology. This study relied mainly on the participants’ responses that
Page 26
14
were guided by semi-structured interviews. Participants responded to open-ended interview
questions and had the opportunity to elaborate and clarify their points of view. The study
explored the viewpoints of mainstream teachers about the ESL professional development
programs that they have experienced.
Participants in this study work with native English language speaking students and ELLs
in the same classroom settings. Hence, the open-ended questions of the interviews were
designed only to address this group of teachers to ensure accurate, valid, and reliable results.
Leedy and Ormrod (2010) explained that interviews in qualitative studies usually employ open-
ended questions that focus on one or multiple central issues but could go in different directions
according to participants.
The data analysis process in this study involved in depth analysis to the viewpoints of
mainstream teachers who described their experiences with the ESL professional development
training by responding to the interview questions. Qualitative research allows researchers to
employ their critical thinking skills in order to make sense of the information that they gather and
simplify them for readers. One of the advantages of using a qualitative research is that it can
point out the limitations of the existing theories and beliefs. Well-done qualitative research is
limited in its scope, but very rich in depth. It can help the researcher see how many different
causes and actions lead to specific outcomes (Hopper, 2011).
Descriptive design. Qualitative research is descriptive in nature as researchers who use
it focus on describing and understanding phenomena. Participants in qualitative research
describe in detail their views, activities, and the process of a given experience (Moen, 1998).
Page 27
15
The descriptive qualitative design is most suitable for the nature of this study, which
addressed the experience of mainstream teachers during and after the ESL professional
development training programs. K-12 Mainstream teachers who deal with ELLs in mainstream
classrooms described their experiences when they responded to the open-ended interview
questions. According to Magilvy and Thomas (2009), participants’ descriptions to their
experiences make useful data for researchers who seek to understand the participants’ point of
views. In qualitative research, participants present their views and perceptions about an
identified problem through discussions or interviews (Lester, 1999). According to Welman and
Kruger (1999), qualitative researchers seek to understand the social and psychological
experience from the participants’ perspectives. Participants described their experience in simple
terms by using every day language to presented their views about the ESL professional training
programs that they have experienced. The interview questions in this study allowed participants
to provide a thorough description of the experience that included the social, psychological, and
academic aspects of the experience.
This descriptive qualitative study relied on a sample of 15 mainstream teachers who teach
ELLs and have a prior experience with ESL professional training. The sample size of
participants in qualitative research could be as small as five or as many as 25 participants
because sampling in qualitative research is purposeful in nature (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010).
Participants in a descriptive qualitative study must have experience with the problem being
studied and must be able to describe their experience to the researcher (Magilvy & Thomas,
2009).
Page 28
16
The data collection process in qualitative research includes interviewing of participants
who will respond to open-ended questions, which is the data collection method used in this
study. The interview questions in this study addressed the purpose of the study. Participants’
responses were carefully analyzed. The analysis of data generated patterns and themes that led
to rich description and understanding of the issue understudy (Magilvy & Thomas, 2009).
The participants’ experience with ESL professional training could be useful in
determining whether such professional training programs are helpful for mainstream teachers
who teach ELLs in mainstream classroom settings. The aim was to understand the very nature of
the experience by reducing the experiences of participants with a concise description that could
be accomplished through a descriptive qualitative design (Tavallaei & Abu Talib, 2010).
Research Questions
This study sought to answer the following central research question: How do mainstream
teachers describe their experiences with ESL professional development programs? The
researcher used the following sub-questions to examine any direct or indirect factors related to
the central question that could explain the varied perspectives of participants (Creswell, 2014):
RQ1: How do mainstream teachers perceive the ESL training programs that they have
experienced?
RQ2: What are the critical barriers and challenges that mainstream teachers continue
to face concerning ESL professional development?
Definition of Terms
Bilingual instruction. The term refers to instruction in two languages. In the United
States bilingual instruction or bilingual education refers to a range of instructional programs for
Page 29
17
students whose native language is not English, given in the native language of the student and in
English (Garcia, 2009).
Constructivism. Crotty (2003) defined constructivism as “the view that all knowledge,
and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human practices, being
constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and develop and
transmitted within an essentially social context” (p. 42).
English as a second language (ESL). A term that refers to students whose first language
is not English. At the same time, it refers to the intensive instructional approach in English
language for students who have limited English proficient or nonnative English-speaking
students (American Institutes for Research, 2010).
English language learners (ELLs). The term, “refers to students who are not yet
proficient in English and who require instructional support in order to fully access academic
content in their classes” (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2008a, p. 2).
Immersion. Refers to the full-time placement of ELLs in mainstream classes in which
English is the primary language of instruction. The linguistic needs of ELLs are addressed
during instruction to ensure achievement of content knowledge (American Institutes for
Research, 2010).
Limited English proficient (LEP). The term, “refers to language minority students who
have difficulty understanding, speaking, reading, or writing the English language at levels
appropriate to their age and grade in school” (Lapp & Flood, 1994, p. 261).
Mainstream – The term refers to regular school classes or regular schools
(Dictionary.com, 2013). In this study, the term is used for all non-ESL teachers.
Page 30
18
Pullout ESL. A program in which students who are English language learners leave their
mainstream classrooms in order to receive individualized instruction in English as a second
language (American Institutes for Research, 2010).
Sheltered instruction. Sheltered instruction is a teaching model in which a content area
specialist teaches a content course using specific accommodations and strategies for ELLs
(Snow, 2005).
Assumptions
Several assumptions contributed the foundation of this descriptive qualitative study. The
first assumption was that participants were willing to respond to the interview questions
honestly. Participants were aware that they have the option to decline or participate voluntarily
in this study. The informed consent that participants signed explained the participants’ rights
thoroughly (see Appendix A).
The second assumption was that the study sample of 15 mainstream teachers would be
representative of the general population of mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in the State of
Ohio. The third assumption was that participants in the study had participated in one or several
ESL professional development programs and they had the ability to recall information and
describe their experience.
Limitations and Delimitations
The delimitations of the study included the following. First, even though this study
addressed the ESL training programs, no ESL teacher participated in the study. The viewpoints
of the ESL teachers were not examined or considered. Second, the participants included 15
mainstream teachers who work and teach in Ohio, which means that the viewpoints of the
Page 31
19
participants were representative of those mainstream teachers who work in the State of Ohio and
any mainstream teachers who deal with ELLs in similar circumstances.
The limitations of the study included the following. First, the implementation of the
study’s findings and the transferability of the study is limited to the ESL training programs that
have similar characteristics to the ones examined in this study. Second, since participants did not
know or had any contact with the researcher prior to this study, they might not have provided all
the needed information for this study. However, the researcher asked the participants to
elaborate and asked them follow-up questions as needed to give them the opportunity to
elaborate and engage in further discussions. Participants were urged to provide as much
information as possible in their responses. Third, the selection process of participants was based
on the recommendations of two educational leaders who were familiar with the participants. The
researcher did not meet any of the participants before they agreed to participate in the study.
Since the choice of samples in qualitative studies is usually purposeful (Jones, Torres, &
Arminio, 2006), knowing the participants could make the study findings more reliable than the
findings from a qualitative study that uses random sampling. To help improve the choice of the
sample in this study, the researcher consulted with two educational leaders who knew the
participants and helped arrange individual meetings with each participant to discuss the purpose
and nature of the study before conducting the interviews.
Summary
Even though the number of ELLs in the American schools is increasing rapidly, Harper
and De Jong (2009) warned that many ELLs continue to struggle in mainstream content
classrooms after being exited from ESL support programs. In addition to the inability of ELLs to
Page 32
20
meet the language demand of mainstream classes, mainstream teachers lack the professional
development that could allow them to teach ELLs more effectively, learn ways to convey
information to help ELLs comprehend subjects effectively, and have a positive effect on their
achievement scores (Palaroan, 2009). In the state of Ohio, where this study was conducted,
some schools and school districts provide ESL training programs for mainstream teachers. The
purpose of this study was to explore and examine the viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers
about the ESL professional development and training programs implemented for mainstream
teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms.
In addition to explaining the purpose of the study, this introductory chapter included a
discussion about the theoretical framework, the research methodology, and the limitations and
delimitations of this study.
The following chapter provides review and analysis of the relevant literature. It includes
a historical overview of the ESL education and second language acquisition theories. Then, it
addresses the efforts of educational leaders and researchers to address the challenges that ELLs
face as well as the different programs that many schools use to meet the needs of an increasing
population of ELLs. The end of the following chapter contains a discussion about the
importance of ESL professional development programs for mainstream teachers and examines
the ongoing research to improve such training programs.
Page 33
21
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
Many educators and psychologists have put forward several second language acquisition
theories. It would be impossible and irrelevant to list every single theory in this study.
Therefore, within the literature review chapter the study listed some of the most popular theories
of second language acquisition and explained which one of these theories is relevant to the
purpose of this study, focusing on the role of mainstream teachers who teach ELLs.
The number of ELLs in American public schools is increasing rapidly because of the
growing number of immigrants to the United States. The population with the greatest rate of
increase among students in American schools is that of the children of immigrants. Half of these
children do not have a fluent command of the English language. In the 2007-08 school-year, 10.6
percent of the K-12 public school enrolment in the United States comprised ELLs. The total
number reaches 5.3 million students, representing a twofold increase in 15 years prior
(Calderson, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011). Moreover, the number of students who are ELL is
expected to double once more by 2015 (National Education Association, 2012).
ELLs struggle in the mainstream classroom settings because ELLs are not proficient
enough in English to understand everything the teachers say during instruction. Researchers
consistently find wide and persistent achievement gaps between ELLs and native English-
speaking students. An example of this achievement gap is apparent in the 2011 and all the
previous reading assessment years since 2002 according to the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP). As the figures below show, the scores for ELL fourth- and-eighth
Page 34
22
graders were lower than their non-ELL peers’ scores (National Center for Educational Statistics,
2013).
Figure 1. Average reading scores of 4th-grade students, by (ELL) status: Selected years,
2002-11. Scale ranges from 0 to 500. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Educational Statistics 2013.
Figure 2. Average reading scores of 8th-grade students, by (ELL) status: Selected years,
2002-11. Scale ranges from 0 to 500. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Educational Statistics 2013.
Page 35
23
Closing these achievement gaps means, in part, closing similar gaps in ESL education
within teacher preparation programs and ongoing professional development agendas. Today
ELLs spend more time in regular classrooms with mainstream teachers who know that they are
not fully equipped to teach ELLs (Calderson et al., 2011).
Historical Overview
The teaching of English as a second language is an American educational problem.
Throughout the history of the country, educators have grappled with the conundrum of how to
teach those who do not speak the common language; they have even wrestled with the question
of what the common language should be. The problem of a multilingual citizenry is inherent in a
multinational society (Cavanaugh, 1996). The United States is a multinational society, and
according to Cho and Reich (2008), new opportunities are opened for those who immigrate to it.
This has made the United States an attractive destination for immigrants worldwide. In
particular, a strong role has been played by public education institutions in integrating immigrant
children into the larger society while educating them. Those who immigrate to the U.S. today,
however, face challenges that earlier immigrants, up until the end of the 20th century, did not
face. These challenges spring from particular situations inherent to modern society that were not
previously present. Namely, one such challenge is the current nature of the economy as a post-
industrial work pool in which a middle-class, or even a stable working-class job, depends for the
most part on education. Immigrants have been an essential workforce that contributes to the
economy of United States, but in the 21st century the immigration system and policies need to
change, as the economy becomes more knowledge-based (Migration Policy Institute, 2006).
Page 36
24
Such is the importance of ELLs, that from the 1960s onward, many U.S. education
policies—in the local, state and federal levels and in all the three branches of government—have
been focused on ELLs (Garcia, Kleifgen, & Falchi, 2008). The Supreme Court ruling in the
Brown v. Board of Education case that declared segregated schools as unconstitutional opened
the doors for many educational reform acts that provide equal opportunities for minority and
linguistically diverse students. In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act that prohibits
discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, which contributed in protecting the
educational rights of ELLs in schools across the country (Crawford, 2004; National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational
Programs, 2006).
The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 made helping ELLs acquire English language
proficiency more quickly a federal goal, but it gave less emphasis on bilingual education.
However, Congress made funds available for school districts that created bilingual education
programs because of the large populations of certain language minority students (Garcia et al.,
2008). The same Act was revised in 1974 and 1978 to include students who had limited English
speaking ability (LESA), as well as limited English proficient students (LEP). However, those
two revisions did not dictate any type of instructional programs and left it to teachers to choose
their instructional methods. According to Garcia et al. (2008), the tone and focus of the federal
Bilingual Education Act started to shift in the 1980s to English-only programs. The 1984 and
1988 reauthorization of the federal Bilingual Education Act expanded funding for non-bilingual
programs and imposed a three-year limit on participation in transitional bilingual education
Page 37
25
programs. The Act was reauthorized in 1994 yet again, but this time to lift the quotas for
English-only programs and increase the funding for bilingual-education programs.
Finally, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) came to emphasize accountability
and push for standardized testing. NCLB mandated that all school districts must help improve
their students’ performance to meet their state annual targets, known as adequate yearly progress
or AYP. The emphasis of NCLB was on math, reading, and science (Garcia et al., 2008). NCLB
also required schools and districts to track ELLs’ AYP in terms of academic and English
language proficiency (Capps et al., 2005).
National ELL statistics. In 2011 the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) released a report showing a dramatic increase of ELLs across the
country because of the increasing population of new immigrants in the United States. According
to the NCES (2011), the number of K-12 students whose native language is not English
increased from 4.7 to 11.2 million between 1980 and 2009. In percentile, this represents an
increase from 10% to 21% among K-12 student population. However, the numbers did not
change from 2006 to 2009. Considering the differences by age, the percentage of five to nine
year olds who did not speak English at home and spoke English with difficulty (seven percent)
was greater than the percentages of 10- to 13-year- olds and 14- to17-year-olds who did so (four
percent each). These patterns by age held across most demographic and socioeconomic
characteristics (NCES, 2011).
Ohio ELL statistics. According to the latest data available to the Ohio Department of
Education (2012b), the 2011-2012 enrollment of ELLs in the public elementary and secondary
schools exceeded 39,800 students, which makes an increase of 38% when compared to the
Page 38
26
number reported five years prior and 199% over the number reported 10 years earlier. The Ohio
Department of Education uses both terms Limited English Proficient (LEP) and English
Language Learners (ELLs) to describe K-12 students whose mother-tongue is not English and
who face difficulties communicating in English that they are unable to learn and engage
effectively in classroom’s activities.
Ohio’s ELLs represent more than 110 different native or home languages. The top 10
language groups include Spanish, Somali, Arabic, Japanese, Pennsylvania Dutch (a dialect of
German used by the Amish), Russian, Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Serbo-Croatian and Korean (Ohio
Department of Education, 2012b).
A large number of ELLs in Ohio are children of recent immigrants who are new in the
United States. In March and April of 2007, the Ohio Department of Education surveyed 129
Ohio school districts and the results of those surveys indicated that these school districts were
serving 11,356 ELLs who have been in the country only for three years or less (Ohio Department
of Education, 2011). In addition, the most recent data indicate that during the school year of
2011-2012, the same school districts reported serving 11,881 ELLs who have been in the country
only for three years or less (Ohio Department of Education, 2012b).
Most of the recent immigrants in Ohio are refugees from countries like Somalia and Iraq
but many other immigrants come to this country for a variety of reasons. Some immigrants have
little or no education, especially those coming from war-torn regions, but some others are well
educated who come to this country to seek better life opportunities. Reports from the Ohio
Department of Job and Family Services' Refugee Services Office indicate that the State of Ohio
hosted 13,802 new refugees between 2003 and 2011. Although most of the refugees came from
Page 39
27
Somalia, many other refugees came from countries like Russia, Burma, Ukraine, Uzbekistan,
Ethiopia, Sudan, Iran, and Cuba. Moreover and during the same period, the state of Ohio
became the home of many immigrants who moved from other States. The city of Columbus
alone is now home to more than 40,000 newly arrived Somali refugees (Ohio Department of
Education, 2012b).
Not all ELLs are recent immigrants to the United States. Many ELLs come from families
that have lived in the United States for several years. Some of them were also born in the United
States. Those ELLs usually speak another language at home. For instance, children of Mexican-
American and Puerto Rican families learn Spanish as their first language. Spanish-speaking
migrants in Ohio work in the agricultural industry. Many of them reside in rural school districts,
which add to the complication of the situation since rural school districts do not have large
enough numbers of ELLs to justify spending on special ESL programs. Elementary and
secondary schools from all over Ohio enrolled about 1,180 Spanish-speaking migrant children
during the school year 2010-2011. In addition, Ohio has many Amish communities in rural
school districts. Children of the Amish families living in Northeastern Ohio learn German
language, also known as Pennsylvania Dutch, as their first language. Wayne and Holmes
Counties’ schools enrolled about 1,200 Amish ELLs during the school year 2010-2011(Ohio
Department of Education, 2012b).
Ohio’s ELLs come from different backgrounds and have different levels of education.
Some of them have little or no prior education and some others are well educated and literate in
their native language. Such differences require a wide range of ESL programs in order to meet
the needs of each ELL student (Ohio Department of Education, 2012b).
Page 40
28
Meeting the Needs of Ohio’s ELLs
Currently in Ohio, school districts have the flexibility to decide on the education
approach that best meets the needs of their ELLs. Therefore, school districts in Ohio use a
combination of various programs. The commonly used approaches are bilingual instruction, the
immersion approach, pullout English as a second language classes, in-class or inclusion
instruction, and individual tutoring (Ohio Department of Education, 2012a).
Second Language Acquisition
According to Myles (2010), until the end of the 1960s educators did not deal with second
language learning as an independent field. Instead, they examined it through the lens of
language teaching methodology, which was based on behaviorism—the pre-eminent theory of
education in psychology then. The focus was on pairing the first and second language, rather
than what the students do with the information they receive. However, this changed in the
second half of the 1960s, when researchers found that the differences and similarities between
the first and second languages do not always affect the difficulty of learning the second language
(Myles, 2010).
In 1945, Fries had developed a pedagogy of language based on behaviorism in which he
claimed that repetition and practice lead to accurate and fluent foreign language habits. Fries
also claimed that teaching must be based on the comparison between the first and the second
languages of the learner so teachers can focus on what is different and perhaps difficult in the
second language (Fries, 1945). Skinner (1957) added to the behaviorist learning theory the
stimulus-response reinforcement as a helpful method for language learning, which applies to any
other learning (Myles, 2010). Chomsky (1959) criticized Skinner fiercely, arguing that children
Page 41
29
have an innate faculty guiding them in their acquisition of language. Although Chomsky did not
address second language acquisition, his ideas have had a major effect on the field of English as
a second language and its subsequent abandonment of behaviorism as an explanation of second
language acquisition (Myles, 2010).
After Chomsky, a number of researchers argued against behaviorism. Walt (1992)
argued, in contrast to the behaviorist thinking, that teachers should let the learning process take
its course in the classroom rather than try to shape it as in behaviorist methods such as
audiolingualism. Corder (1967) drew attention to studying learners’ errors, arguing that a
significant number of errors do not come from the first language of the learners. Dulay and Burt
(1973) argued that only 3% of errors English learners make may result from the first language.
Hence, if English learners receive rich input, syntax will take care of itself. Bailey, Madde, and
Krashen (2006) pointed out that morpheme studies are highly important because they show that
learning the second language may not be different from learning the first language, as they are
both driven by the learners’ internal mechanism rather than behaviorist principles. English
learners who are closer to the English language community are likely to make the most progress
in learning the language, which explains the concept of acculturation advocated by Schumann
(1978).
Long (1980) provided a new foundation for later work that represented a departure from
the initial focus on contrastive analysis to a focus on the input learners receive and how they
engage with it (Myles, 2010). Krashen (1981) developed the influential monitor model, which
claims that learning and acquisition are different processes. Acquisition is a subconscious
process whereby the learner constructs the grammar of the second language consciously. This
Page 42
30
particular model supports the idea that not only ESL teachers can help ELLs learn English and
become fluent speakers. Mainstream teachers also play a significant role in the learning process.
Swain (1985) gave valuable input into the field of ESL education and the academic
achievement of ELLs, arguing that learners do not need only comprehensible language input.
They also need to produce output to develop their communicative abilities in English. This
assertion followed research on immersion students in Canada who are taught their academic
subjects in French, which is the students’ second language. Those students became close to
native-like in comprehension, but their productive abilities lagged behind and remained short of
native-like competence.
Some researchers believe that the first language has an impact on the learning of ELLs.
Cook (1991) declared that the bilingual mind is not merely two monolingual minds added
together. Not only does the first language impact the second, but the second also has an impact
on the first. This has major implications regarding the learners’ academic performance.
Computer-modeling for language learning started in 1992 (Myles, 2010). With the
advancement of technology during the last two decades, computers have become a truly useful
tool for English language learning and testing. The development of second language phonology
was started by Archibald in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Myles, 2010).
Carroll (2000) proposed an ambitious model outlining the role of processing mechanisms
and interaction in student language acquisition. This autonomous induction theory is the first
complex model linking language representation, processing and learning (Myles, 2010). The
new sophisticated technologies allowed researchers to investigate the neurological foundations of
language in the brain. Paradis (2004) reviewed new studies of the multilingual brains and
Page 43
31
proposed a linguistic theory of bilingualism, integrating a neurofunctional model and a set of
hypotheses about language processing.
Social Constructivist Theory
Learning theories embracing constructivist epistemology include the cognitive
constructivism, social constructivism and transformative learning theories (Xiao, 2008). The
theoretical approach in this study is based on the social constructivist learning theory. The
following section will address the significance of this theory for the effective instruction and
teaching of ELLs.
Understanding the social constructivist theory of learning requires an understanding of
the meaning of constructivism. According to Crotty (2003), constructivism posits that human
actions—with all aspects of the environment—are the sole builders of all knowledge, and
therefore determine the perception of reality and meanings. Meanings are then developed and
transmitted by means of a social network, which provides a context. Constructivism is a theory
about knowledge and learning that is based on findings from psychology, philosophy, science,
and biology (Fosnot, 2005). Its principles describe knowledge as emergent, developmental,
nonobjective, viable, constructing explanations by humans engaged in meaning-making in
cultural and social communities of discourse. In constructivism, individuals create meaning
through the interaction with the world and its objects. Individuals construct knowledge by
relating new information to personal experiences and through active engagement in the learning
process (Brooks & Brooks, 1999).
Social constructivism is a theory of learning derived from the constructivist paradigm that
is used in psychology and education. According to Schallert and Martin (2003), social
Page 44
32
constructivist learning means that learners construct interpretations of the ongoing events they
experience and actively make sense of language and life according to their experiences in these
events. Mainstream teachers, with this understanding of learning, can help ELLs make sense of
what they see and hear inside the classroom, regardless of their English language proficiency. In
fact, mainstream teachers can help ELLs construct meaning and develop their English language
proficiency through what Von Glasersfeld (1987) called the human engagement, which plays the
major role in the development of knowledge. The human engagement that Von Glaserfeld
referred to is the simple interaction between individuals with each other, or between learners and
teachers.
In social constructivist theory, collaborative learning represents a form of human
engagement. Cobb (2005) highlighted the major principles of social constructivist theory. Cobb
maintained that knowledge of language that has yet to be learned is not objective—it is not out
there, waiting to be discovered. Complete models of linguistic knowledge cannot be poured into
students who are perceived as passive containers. Knowledge is constructed, and its construction
is a collaborative effort; knowledge that has been constructed is difficult to test because learners
will have individualized constructions of any taught content.
Social Constructivist Pedagogy
Isaacson (2004) explained that constructivist beliefs are built upon numerous concepts,
such as hands-on experiences, problem-solving, decision-making, thinking at a higher level,
probing questions, and understanding the students’ background and their prior knowledge. An
example of proven social constructivist teaching methods is the research of Duffy et al. (1986),
which determined that the value of engaging teachers in public modeling via loud thinking and
Page 45
33
the use of reading strategies such as using context for the purpose of figuring out the meaning of
an unknown word. Duffy et al. noted that the third- and fifth-grade students of teachers who
were skilled in modeling mental processing when there was difficulty understanding the text
recalled more from the lessons and indicated a greater awareness of why they were learning
particular strategies.
The employment of technology in instruction is significant for social constructivist
pedagogy. Cobb (2005) argued that educators call for the use of technology in ESL education
but the theoretical framework is often missing. He noted that it is frequently pointed out that the
use of information technology is being implemented blindly and without much in the way of
theoretical background or planning. Cobb went on to suggest that treating a second language
learner as a linguist in a variation of the constructivism theory might be the answer to the lack of
theoretical basis and might provide what has been missing in past strategies such as the inductive
discovery and constructivist frames—the means learners require to induce, discover, and
construct.
ELLs’ Challenges
ELLs face a complex range of challenges that start with the difficulty in acquiring the
language orally and academically and continue when they attempt to learn content and keep pace
with native English-speaking peers. Researchers have not found agreement on which method of
learning can be most effective for teaching ELLs. The debate seems to be centered on the
development of bilingual programs and structured English language immersion (Gil & Bardack,
2010). The challenges that ELLs face go beyond this debate. Findings from multiple research
Page 46
34
studies have shown that language oral proficiency can take at least three years to develop.
Academic English proficiency may take up to seven years to attain (Gil & Bardack, 2010).
Helping ELLs to succeed academically is much more challenging than what many
educators think. Even in the most successful school districts in educating ELLs, attaining oral
proficiency could take three to five years and attaining academic proficiency could take four to
seven years (Cook, Boals, & Lundberg, 2011). The short-term programs that most schools apply
to assist ELLs in acquiring language proficiency become nonrealistic under these circumstances.
What ELLs need is not a short-term remediation but a curriculum that supports their academic
and linguistic needs over a sustained period of time and helps eliminate the achievement gap
between them and their native English-speaking peers (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000).
Mainstream Teachers as ESL Educators
Teachers encounter increasing numbers of students who are not proficient enough in
English to completely understand and utilize material presented in conventional academic
settings. This is a direct result of the shifts in the demographic composition of the United States.
(National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2008a). The increasing numbers of
ELLs pose major challenges to mainstream teachers. Hite and Evans (2006) suggested that, with
so much emphasis placed on testing and scores, working with ELLs turns into a merciless duty
with little room for mistakes.
Some important research findings in ESL education indicate that mainstream teachers
play a significant role, equal to that of ESL teachers, in the language acquisition of ELLs.
Teachers must have effective pedagogical content knowledge to better assist students. For
teachers who instruct ELLs, this knowledge means knowing how to concurrently teach content
Page 47
35
and language (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2008b). In other
words, mainstream teachers can facilitate the second language acquisition for ELLs while they
are teaching content and not so much when trying to directly teach second language acquisition
(Hite & Evans, 2006).
Focusing on mainstream teachers, Gibbons (2002) described how good teaching for ELLs
includes providing students with opportunities to learn and employ conversational language
while simultaneously learning academic concepts and language. Placing ELLs in mainstream
classes ensures that students learn linguistically while also acquiring the same content that their
peers, who are proficient in English, learn (Hite & Evans, 2006). Research has shown that
creating an environment where ELLs can interact and participate with their English language
proficient peers in mainstream classrooms allows them to learn English and improve on their
academic performance at the same time (Leavitt, 2013). According to Baik and Greig (2009),
the idea of learning through involvement in the classroom makes use of the development of
identities originating in a particular community. To that end, it is more important to learn actual
practices than it is to learn the language.
The Need for Professional Development
Many teachers find themselves teaching learners from growingly diverse cultural and
linguistic backgrounds. Yet these teachers are not prepared or have not received enough
professional development preparation specially linked to ELLs (Spinelli, 2008). The lack of
preparedness of teachers is a serious problem since the opportunities for ELL to succeed
academically is reliant on teachers’ knowledge to effectively teach in the mainstream classroom.
Thus, the need for professional development is to help teachers work with both the ELLs and
Page 48
36
Native English speaking students. Teachers cannot be fully prepared or equipped with the
necessary knowledge without quality ongoing professional development. In fact, quality
teaching calls for teacher-focused quality professional development. Thus, experienced and new
teachers require a kind of professional development that enables them to examine their beliefs
regarding their students and improve their repertoire of culturally and linguistically relevant
pedagogy (Spinelli, 2008).
In Ohio, many teachers accept that they seldom take part in professional development
focusing on instruction for ELLs, making many unprepared to address the needs of ELLs
(Spinelli, 2008). Mainstream teachers particularly are aware that they do not only lack training
and knowledge to work with ELLs, but also lack a coherent framework of second language
acquisition for integrating content instruction and language. Moreover, there is limited
professional development literature for mainstream teachers who work with ELLs.
ESL professional development programs for mainstream teachers who teach English
Language Learners is crucial for meeting the needs of the growing ELLs population. The
considerable achievement gap between language majority and language minority students,
together with the educational climate encouraging inclusionary practices, make it essential that
teacher preparation programs look into the depositions, skills and knowledge that mainstream
teachers require to develop to work effectively with ELLs (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2010).
Teachers require developing skills and knowledge in the field of ESL because it will help
teachers who teach ELLs make the academic content more reachable to all students.
Like any practitioners, teachers need ongoing honing of skills and knowledge so that they
become more competent at their work. As literature shows, however, very few mainstream
Page 49
37
teachers have been trained and prepared to tackle the cultural and linguistic differences and
challenges of ELLs. Youngs and Youngs (2001) noted that mainstream teachers frequently fall
short of the necessary knowledge to help the ELLs, but discover their in-service ELL training
unattainable or insufficient.
Effective Training
With the demands of No Child Left Behind, professional development remains a major
driving force and agent within schools to increase student outcomes (Li & Edwards, 2010).
Researchers and practitioners have commenced to analyze the best ways to carry out this
specialized training in order to realize positive outcomes for student learning. In spite of heavier
financial input in training professional development remains to be intellectually superficial,
fragmented, and fails to consider what teachers learn. A wealth body of literature winds up that
effective training should be sustained, collaborative, and be content-focused to bring about
change in teacher practice in ways that enhance student learning (Li & Edwards, 2010). For
effective professional development to be effective, its content and structure must center on
specific classroom strategies and engage teachers in active learning (Li & Edwards, 2010).
Professional developments affect teaching practices when the content involves specific
pedagogical practices, specific content areas, and instructional inquiry (Li & Edwards, 2010). A
focus on a particular pedagogical strategy or content area allows teachers to transfer this new
skill from professional development and incorporate it into classroom practice. Professional
developments activities that attach great importance to content or are better connected to teachers
are more likely to yield improved skills and knowledge. The professional development literature
supports certain essential priorities in training and preparing mainstream teachers to effective
Page 50
38
work with students. According to Dong (2003), ESL professional development should be able to
build an appreciation of ELL’s cultural and language differences, adapt instruction and
curriculum, and know how to incorporate content, as well as discipline-specific literacy and
language skills into instruction. August and Shanahan (2006) suggested that effective
professional development is the one that produces changes in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, in
their classroom practices, and in learners’ learning outcomes. Effective professional
development approach must integrate research and theory with demonstration of commendable
strategies, whilst giving time for practice and feedback. Gallimore, Ermeling, Saunders, and
Goldenberg (2009) carried out research on school-based professional development in which
teachers labored collaboratively over time and found a considerable effect in whole-school
improvement.
As Casteel and Ballantyne (2010) reported, professionals and researchers often support
and encourage the utility of models that employ collaboration, mentoring, and partnerships for
professional development preparation. Research has emphasized on collaborative learning via
learning communities in professional development programs. Effective professional
development focuses on addressing individual needs and giving opportunities for teachers to
congregate in learning communities and to engage in professional activities like curricular
development planning, action research groups, lesson study, and study groups (Li & Edwards,
2010). In doing so, teachers may congregate to tackle issues of concern, as well as discuss the
likely solutions to these issues.
For professional development to be effective, it must be continuous and ongoing. Studies
have found that one-shot seminars are not as effective as compared to sustained professional
Page 51
39
development when advancing teachers’ knowledge. Time span or duration of professional
development is critical when it comes to the effectiveness of professional development (Li &
Edwards, 2010).
Obstacles and Teachers Struggle
The major obstacle hampering effective professional development is the lack of
opportunities for professional development. Although professional development supported by
external agencies is vital, for effective ESL training in the mainstream the most important is that
which is built into the school itself, as part of a normal cycle of school evaluation and renewal
(Leung, Davidson, & Mohan, 2013). Teachers need to be encouraged and motivated to observe
colleagues, consult with colleagues, exchange feedback with colleagues, and plan together
(Leung et al., 2013). Supportive and friendly professional relationships contribute to teacher
satisfaction and institutional climate as well. Therefore, mainstream teachers who teach ELLs
require access to leaders and mentors in the areas who they can count on for support and
guidance.
Another factor hindering professional development is time. Inadequate resources and
time for on-going professional development is still a major challenge. Many studies show that it
takes a long period of time to develop new skills and knowledge and to integrate new skills into
practice. According to Leung et al. (2013), development programs and training that necessitate
changes in practice that totally differs with those of the current could take a significant period of
time, which is always a problem for teachers who are overwhelmed with busy schedule.
Bringing the benefits of professional development programs of mainstream teachers to
the mainstream classroom require reduction of numerous obstacles such as lack of human
Page 52
40
resources and teaching materials, as well as lack of management support, overburdened with
administrative tasks, poor quality relationships between teachers, discouraging behaviors of
students (Borko, 2004). In addition to organization, there are individual obstacles. Effective
teacher learning demands willingness to change their beliefs and to develop own teaching
(Borko, 2004).
Training Mainstream Teachers to Teach ELLs
Teachers face sizable difficulties in improving students’ performance in literary and
content-based subjects—even when English is the first language of the students. These
difficulties are even greater where language-minority students with varying levels of language
proficiency are concerned (Hite & Evans, 2006). Such greater difficulties faced by mainstream
teachers require adequate training for those mainstream teachers who teach ELLs. As Calderon,
Slavin, and Sanchez (2011) indicated, mainstream teachers are feeling the need to learn how to
teach ELLs as larger numbers of English learners enroll into America’s K–12 schools.
Research in ESL education has improved throughout the years and schools around the
country now implement many different ESL professional training programs. However, even
with the existence of a large number of ESL professional training programs, mainstream teachers
who deal with ELLs still lack the professional-level preparation and the basic training and
resources to teach ELLs (Henrichsen, 2010). Schools must improve the skills of all educators
through a comprehensive professional training. Training all mainstream teachers to teach ELLs
is an ambitious goal but it is a necessity that requires appropriate research, preparation, and
funding. Educational researchers always find constant achievement gap between ELLs and their
native English-speaking peers. This achievement gap signals an urgent need for a real reform
Page 53
41
that allows teachers as well as staff to acquire new skills and be prepared to deal with ELLs more
effectively. The entire school community and parents have to collaborate and work together as a
team to address the needs of ELLs but without a strong commitment for school leaders such
collaboration will be unreachable (Calderon et al., 2011).
The need for teacher and staff preparation becomes extremely high in schools that use the
inclusion method to improve the ELLs’ English language proficiency. In such cases, ELLs do
not sit in special ESL classes prior to their attendance in mainstream classes. Instead, they are
placed directly into a mainstream classroom. The inclusion method results all too often in a one-
size-fits-all attitude; this is despite the fact that ELLs are incredibly diverse, and differ from
each other in their ages, their place of origin, and their educational, cultural, linguistic and
economic background (Harper & De Jong, 2009). Including ELLs in mainstream classrooms
without adequate training for teachers can lead to unwanted consequences. Harper and De Jong
(2009) mentioned that studies conclusively show that doing so results in the ostracizing of ELLs
by their peers. It also leads to less participation in class by ELLs, less interaction with
classmates and teachers, and less chance of advancement and growth in either language or
academic content.
Vision for Teacher Preparation
The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition has proposed certain
criteria for ESL professional development programs in order to help mainstream teachers gain a
better understanding of the needs of students from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Any ESL
professional development program, according to the National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition (2008a), should continue throughout the career of an educator in an
Page 54
42
integrated fashion. This development program needs to be effectual and pertinent along a
spectrum of different forms of teacher education within a higher-education setting. In addition, it
needs to involve disciplinary standards and content learning goals, go hand-in-hand with active
learning, evolve with research and new data and evaluation, be multi-faceted with diversity,
promote cross-cultural education, and produce tangibly improved results with regards to
students, thus narrowing the achievement gap between ELLs and English-proficient students.
School districts around the country can use this vision to build teachers’ proficiency
through ESL professional development programs. In Ohio, teachers who feel the need for ESL
professional development programs usually enroll in additional ESL classes and programs such
as the ESL Content Teachers Collaborative (ECTC) program offered by Ohio State University.
According to the ECTC program director Samimy (2012), 140 teachers from 20 school districts
in Ohio enrolled in the program during the past five years. Some teachers enrolled for personal
reasons and through self-motivation, and some were fielded by their school districts. Teachers
who enrolled in the ECTC learned new teaching strategies and how to collaborate with ESL
teachers in order to improve instruction for ELLs (Zhang, 2012). Wisnor (2012) reported
positive changes in the teachers who have participated in the ECTC program. Those teachers
have become more knowledgeable about ELLs and on how to provide them with effective
content and language instruction. In addition, the teachers’ own beliefs regarding how languages
are acquired and taught have shown positive improvement overtime.
Mainstream teachers are actively seeking professional development opportunities to
improve their skills and teaching practices as they experience increasing numbers of student with
limited English language proficiency in their classrooms. Ye, Prater, and Steed (2011)
Page 55
43
conducted a need assessment study in August of 2007 that included 75 teachers. Eighty-nine
percent of the participants reported their interest in participating in ESL professional
development programs. Even though 46% of the participants reported having some training in
Sheltered Instruction, eight had additional ESL certification, and five attended graduate level
courses in language acquisition, those teachers felt the need for more ESL professional
development programs. Mainstream teachers are aware of the challenges that ELLs face and
want to find ways to better serve the ELLs and help close the achievement gap between the ELLs
and their native English-speaking peers.
Ye et al. (2011) conducted a study to evaluate a yearlong ESL professional development
program for mainstream teachers, which was part of the TESOL for ALL project supported by
the Department of Education. The Department of Education was the sponsor of TESOL for ALL
project. The project consisted of five years long professional development programs that address
the needs of ELLs and the persistent achievement gap between them and their native English-
speaking students. The programs were designed specifically for educational leaders and
mainstream teachers (Ye et al., 2011). The study involved 22 teachers, including nine ESL and
13 mainstream teachers. The findings of the study indicated that every teacher that deals with
ELLs must be prepared with knowledge, not only in languages and diversity; but also in
leadership skills, self reflection, and collaboration. This will help involve all educators in
changing schools for the better (Ye et al., 2011).
As the awareness of the need for ESL professional development for teachers continues to
grow, more colleges and universities offer graduate level programs in ESL education. These
programs entail a range of spotlights and stress academic content, teaching techniques, or both
Page 56
44
(National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2008a). The effectiveness of such
programs is still a good subject for research. As long as the number of ELLs continues to rise,
along with the need for qualified teachers who can deliver high quality education for all,
education researchers will continue to evaluate programs and suggest more recommendations.
Training programs at both the higher education level and the school professional stage continue
to bring forth productive theories, practical applications and effective teaching methods. These
make prime examples for teachers educating ESL students (Ye et al., 2011). However, ESL
professional development programs for mainstream teachers need to go beyond teaching
techniques and good practices, because issues such as coordination between mainstream teachers
and ESL teachers are highly important and must be part of any professional development
program (De Jong & Harper, 2005).
Summary
The statistics presented throughout the literature review indicate that ELLs represent one
of the fastest growing populations in the American public school system. This is also the case in
the state of Ohio. According to the NCES (2012), a dramatic increase of ELLs has occurred
across the country because of the increasing population of new immigrants in the United States.
According to the latest data available to the Ohio Department of Education (2012b), more than
39,800 ELLs enrolled in elementary and secondary public schools across Ohio during the 2010-
2011 school year. Researchers in the field of education have conducted many studies and they
continue to try different approaches to help this growing segment of the school population. One
of the approaches needed to improve outcomes for ELLs and other language minority students is
Page 57
45
to reform the entire school, and provide innovative approaches to curriculum, instruction,
assessment, and professional development (Calderon et al., 2011).
To understand the theoretical framework of the study, chapter 2 contained a review of the
literature relevant to the field of second language acquisition, highlighting the significance of the
social constructivist theory in teaching ELLs that emphasizes the importance of social interaction
inside mainstream classrooms. Constructivism is a theory about knowledge and learning that is
based on findings from psychology, philosophy, science, and biology (Fosnot, 2005). According
to constructivism, individuals create meaning through the interaction with the world and its
objects. Individuals construct knowledge by relating new information to personal experiences
and through active engagement in the learning process (Brooks & Brooks 1999). The end of the
chapter provided a discussion about ESL professional development programs for mainstream
teachers, indicating the need for more research regarding mainstream teachers and ELLs.
The following chapter discusses the research method used in this study and the
appropriateness of the research design. The chapter also provides an explanation of the study
population, the data collection and analysis process, and the validity and reliability of the study.
It ends with a brief clarification summary.
Page 58
46
Chapter 3
Research Method
The purpose of this study was to explore and examine the viewpoints of K-12 mainstream
teachers about the ESL professional development and training programs implemented for
mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms. Effective and inclusive ESL
teacher-education training programs can provide mainstream teachers with the skills they need in
order to help ELLs improve their academic achievement. Such skills can also change the
personal perspectives and beliefs of mainstream teachers about ELLs. As Thompson et al.
(2004) explained, teachers’ beliefs and attitudes can manifest themselves through low
expectations toward ELLs and these expectations are communicated during daily interactions.
This descriptive qualitative study could unveil the standing of mainstream teachers in the issue of
ELL’s academic achievement gaps.
Marshall (1996) emphasized the importance of selecting an accurate representative
sample for research. To study an entire population, the choice of the study sample should be
practical, efficient, and ethical. This descriptive qualitative study involved a group of 15
mainstream teachers who participated in open-ended questions interviews. The open-ended
questions gave the participants the chance to elaborate and express their ideas openly. The
participants in this study were mainstream teachers who teach ELLs and have had the
opportunity to participate in one or more ESL professional development programs.
The selection process of participants who meet the above qualifications was purposeful.
After the selection of participants was completed, participants were informed of the purpose of
the study and asked to participate in preliminary meetings that were conducted before the actual
Page 59
47
interviews. The preliminary meetings allowed participants to ask and allowed the researcher to
explain and clarify the purpose of the study furthermore. The semi-structured interviews were
conducted in a public place that was convenient for each participant.
Research Method Appropriateness
This descriptive qualitative study examined the experience of mainstream teachers with
the inclusive ESL training programs. McCleland (2005) said that qualitative research is most
effective when exploring actual personal knowledge of participants through socially constructed
and open-ended questions. Qualitative research is most suited for studies that explore the
experiences of participants (Creswell, 2008). The main goal of this descriptive qualitative study
was to explore the perceptions of mainstream teachers toward ESL professional development
programs. The open-ended interview questions focused on the knowledge gained from such
programs, the decision-making process of mainstream teachers to participate or not participate in
these programs, and the skills that mainstream teachers believed are necessary to teach ELLs
effectively.
The study participants shared their knowledge of the ESL training programs by
answering the interview questions. Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) stated that the socially
constructed view of science suggests that, “knowledge cannot be known separately from the
knower, because the content of knowledge is influenced by social practices and interactions, and
because the determination of what ideas count as knowledge is a meaning-making activity
enacted in particular communities” (p. 1025). According to Moustakas (1994), the
commonalities of qualitative research include the following:
Page 60
48
Qualitative research value is in the human experience that cannot be measured in
quantities
Qualitative research designs in general focus on the entire human experience rather
than the parts and pieces of events
The wholeness of human experience include personal behavior and knowledge
Qualitative researchers seek to understand the meanings and value of experience
The methods of qualitative research may include formal or informal interviews where
participants describe their experience verbally or in writing
Human behavior and individual opinions are important sources of data that qualitative
researchers use to make their findings
Qualitative researchers form problems and questions in relation to their knowledge
and commitment to the research.
The commonalities of qualitative research that Moustakas (1994) highlighted are relevant
to the nature of this study. The human experience that participants have had and the value of
such experience are at the center of this study. Therefore, this study looked into addressing these
commonalities and ensuring that the intended objectives were achieved.
Three main factors made the qualitative method the most appropriate method for this
study as opposed to quantitative or mixed methods. First, the focus of this qualitative study was
on the wholeness of the experience of mainstream teachers with the ESL professional training.
Second, the study was not experimental and did not include control groups, which are usually
common in quantitative studies. Third, the purpose was to develop ideas about a human
Page 61
49
experience, therefore the data was descriptive and non-quantitative (Pacifica Graduate Institute,
2012).
Research Design Appropriateness
Descriptive design. This study examined the experiences of mainstream teachers in ESL
training programs. Because the examination of qualitative data provides an in depth
understanding of how individuals perceive experiences (Van Manen, 2010), this study used the
descriptive qualitative design. In descriptive qualitative research, participants describe their own
experiences with phenomena in simple terms to allow a clear description of the phenomena from
the perspective of participants (Magilvy & Thomas, 2009). Thus, this study did not use a
theoretical approach that was mostly used in phenomenological and hermeneutical studies
(Neergaard, Olesen, Andersen, & Sondergaard, 2009). According to Lambert and Lambert
(2012), what makes descriptive qualitative research design unique is that it is the least theoretical
design among all the other qualitative designs. This makes descriptive research applicable to any
disciplinary, which is in contrast to the phenomenological, grounded theory, and ethnographical
research, for instance, that follow limited frameworks associated with specific factors and
traditions (Lambert & Lambert, 2012).
Descriptive qualitative research allows and encourages participants to describe their
experiences in detail and reflect on their own views on such experiences (Wong & Ng, 2008).
Participants in this study had the opportunity to describe their unique experiences in detail and
provide as much information as possible about their own perceptions, beliefs, and practices in
relation to the ESL professional development programs. Descriptive research is appropriate for
studies that examine experience of participants and do not involve cause and effect type of
Page 62
50
relationships (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). The participants’ responses to the interview questions
provided an insight to the mainstream teachers’ practices and efforts that affected the educational
outcomes of ELLs sitting in mainstream classrooms.
Research
The purpose of this study was to explore and examine the viewpoints of K-12 mainstream
teachers about the ESL professional development and training programs implemented for mainstream
teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms. Based on the purpose of the study, the
researcher sought to find answers to the following central question: How do mainstream
teachers describe their experiences with ESL professional development programs? The
researcher used the following sub-questions to examine any direct or indirect factors related to
the central question that could explain the varied perspectives of participants (Creswell, 2014):
RQ1: How do mainstream teachers perceive the ESL training programs that they have
experienced?
RQ2: What are the critical barriers and challenges that mainstream teachers continue
to face concerning ESL professional development?
Population
The population of the study was the mainstream teachers in the state of Ohio who teach
ELLs. The exact number of mainstream teachers in Ohio teaching ELLs is unknown, but
according to the latest data available to the Ohio Department of Education (2012b), more than
39,800 limited English proficient (LEP) students enrolled in the state’s elementary and
secondary public schools during the 2010-2011 school year. Ohio does not prescribe a specific
type of intervention program to help ELLs but school districts must provide effective programs
Page 63
51
that meet the educational needs of language minority students. In some cases, the ELLs do not
sit in special classes before sitting in mainstream classrooms because many school districts in
Ohio use the immersion approach or in-class inclusion as a way of helping ELLs improve their
English proficiency (Ohio Department of Education, 2012a). The most important consideration
about the study population was that it represented the characteristics and behavior of the larger
population (Creswell, 2014).
Sample
Sampling in qualitative research has to be purposeful, unlike the random sampling in
quantitative research (Jones et al., 2006). Participants in any research could have different
opinions on every issue. Mason (2010) noted that the sample size in qualitative research has to
be large enough to explore the different opinions but it cannot be too large that it produces
repetitive data. He warned that excessive data could lead to problems in developing conclusions.
The typical sample sizes in qualitative research vary from five to 25 individuals and all
participants must have a direct experience with the issue being studied (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010).
The purpose is to collect meaningful data from participants and ensure saturation (Lane &
Arnold, 2011). Saturation occurs when data collected from participants becomes redundant and
bringing new participants will add nothing new (Marshall, Cardon, Poddar, & Fontenot, 2013).
The sampling process in this study focused on the quality of participants who have shown
an understanding of the issue understudy (Jones et al., 2006). The participants in this study had
to meet a specific set of criteria because of the nature of this study that required this kind of
purposeful sampling strategy (Schumacher & McMillian, 1993). Keeping the issue of data
saturation in mind, the sample in this descriptive qualitative study included 15 mainstream
Page 64
52
teachers from different school districts in the State of Ohio who were familiar with the struggle
of ELLs and have had previous experience with the ESL training programs that were aimed for
professional development of mainstream teachers. After interviewing the 15 participants, data
saturation occurred; therefore, there was no need to recruit more participants.
Recruitment
The recruitment of participants was done with the help of two educational leaders in the
state of Ohio who oversaw or implemented the ESL professional development programs in their
school districts. The educational leaders provided recommendations during the selection process
of participants according to the sampling criteria. The recruitment and collection of participants
took place immediately after the researcher received the approval from the university to conduct
the study.
Consent Letters and Confidentiality
In compliance with the criteria set forth by the Protection of Human Research Subjects
standards, research study recruiters completed a non-disclosure agreement and each participant
signed a consent form before proceeding with the study. The consent form indicated that the
participants understand the nature of the study and that their identity would remain confidential.
Salkind (2008) noted that researchers could easily ensure anonymity if the records and data
collected are not linked with names and maintain confidentiality when anything that is learned
about the participant is held in the strictest confidence.
Prior to initiating the face-to-face interviews, participants were assigned identification
codes to insure anonymity and confidentiality. The digital recordings did not include the names
of participants. Instead, each participant was identified with his or her identification code.
Page 65
53
Those identification codes were used throughout the transcribing and data analysis processes.
The digital recordings and documents will remain in the possession of the researcher for three
years in a secure location at the researcher’s residence. After that, the digital recordings will be
deleted and the documents will be burned and destroyed.
The interview questions that participants responded to did not ask for any private
information. Instead, they focused on issues related to the nature of this study. Participants were
encouraged to share their views honestly, and because their participation was voluntary, the
option to withdraw from the study remained available to participants at all times during the
interviews and throughout the data collection process without any fear of penalty. The inform
consent stated that the results of the study could be published but the participants’ identities
would remain confidential and the names of participants would not be disclosed to any outside
party.
Data Collection
The purpose of data gathering in qualitative research is to provide evidence for the
experience it is investigating. The data required to study experience need to derive from an
intensive exploration with the participants (Polkinghorne, 2005). The data needed for this study
were collected through face-to-face interviews using open-ended questions. A preliminary
meeting with each participant was held to establish trust, explain the purpose of the study, and
respond to participants’ concerns. Participants had the convenience of choosing the place of the
preliminary meeting as well as the interview location. Participants then responded to the
interview questions in a semi-structured setting that allowed the participants to elaborate and the
researcher to ask follow-up questions.
Page 66
54
The face-to-face semi-structured interviews were recorded in an electronic device.
Participants were given plenty of time to respond to each of the interview questions and the
follow-up questions. The timeframe for each interview was 45 to 90 minutes. The researcher
went through the recorded responses given by each participant and transcribed them into written
documents to conduct the data analysis. Polkinghorne (2005) explained that analyzing written
language data is a complicated process that is not limited to merely combining words into
sentences and sentences into discourses, but it requires analytic tools that are designed
specifically to work with language data.
Field interview. The purpose of the field interview was to validate the interview
questions and to ensure clarity and rationality. The field interview was conducted with a
participant who volunteered to respond and provide feedback. The participant answered the
interview questions and shared her thoughts about the interview process. The participant
indicated that the interview questions were clear and was able to respond to every question. The
participant suggested adding a question about the obstacles that prevent many teachers from
participating in ESL professional development programs. This participant was not eligible to
participate in the full research study.
Data Analysis
The transcribed data analysis included a systematic process that generated codes and
themes with the aid of NVivo software. In this data analysis process, the transcribed interviews
were reassessed repeatedly to obtain meaningful data and ensure consistency (Creswell, 2008).
According to Leedy and Ormrod (2010), the central focus of the researcher during
qualitative data analysis should be to find common themes in people’s descriptions of their
Page 67
55
experiences. The process of identifying common themes went through many steps. The
researcher had to identify statements that were related to the research topic and then grouped
statements into meaningful units. Doing so made it easier for the researcher to identify divergent
perspectives and construct a composite (Creswell, 1998).
The researcher recorded reflective notes when significant ideas emerged from the data.
After completing a review of the data, the researcher identified the relevant information and then
broke it into small segments of phrases and sentences that represented certain thoughts. With the
help of NVivo software the thoughts were grouped into various categories and the researcher
created codes for each category. According to Elo and Kyngas (2008), the categorization of data
provides meaningful text units that can be condensed to formulate supporting descriptions for
each category. This data analysis process enabled identification of similarities and differences
between each category (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). The researcher identified the differences
between the participants’ experiences using structural and textual descriptions. The final step of
data analysis included the combining of the textual descriptions to explain the essence or the
ultimate meaning of the experience as provided by participants (Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell,
2004).
In short, the data analysis took three steps:
Horizontalization: All data were reviewed, re-read, and prepared for analysis, both in
transcript (Microsoft Word) format and when exported to NVivo for further analysis.
Thematization: The raw data were associated with themes on the basis of both keyword
identification and narrative analysis, both of which were facilitated by NVivo
Page 68
56
Synthesis: The themes were further analyzed and combined to generate answers to the
research questions
The computer programs used during this qualitative study data analysis included
Microsoft Word and NVivo. Microsoft Word facilitated the transcribing of recorded data,
writing notes, and developing tables, charts, and reports and NVivo software was the tool for
coding, grouping, and organizing the emerging categories.
Validity and Reliability
Validity is a methodological element of both the qualitative and the quantitative studies
(1994). Qualitative researchers addressed the issues of validity and reliability in many different
ways. Leedy and Ormrod (2010) asserted that researchers have the freedom to use a wide
variety of approaches to support the validity of their findings. The choice of which approach to
use should be dependent on the situation of the research, the nature of the data, and the
methodology used. For instance, to ensure the validity of the interviews, some qualitative
researchers use the technique of respondent or participant validation, in which the researcher
gives the respondents a copy of the interview or observation. For purposes of this study the
respondent validation technique was used to address the issue of validity. Leedy and Ormrod
(2010) explained that the researcher who uses the respondent validation techniques takes his or
her conclusions back to the participants in the study and asks them if they agree with the
conclusions or not. The researcher in this study validated the responses with each participant to
ensure clarity and validity.
Shank (2006) recommended several methods for demonstrating reliability in qualitative
research such as asking for clarification and following-up when unsure of certain facts. The
Page 69
57
researcher in this study asked for clarification from participants when their statements were not
clearly understood. These extra steps taken for adding reliability to data gathering seemed not
only relevant but also critical. When a qualitative researcher can ensure reliability in his or her
work, the work is credible, authentic and rich with facts (Shank, 2006).
Reducing researcher bias is an important part of ensuring the validity and reliability of
this study. The process of selecting participants in this study helped in the reduction of
researcher bias. Two educational leaders who were familiar with the participants recruited
participants in this study, but the researcher did not know any of the participants and did not have
any contact with any one of them prior to this study. The field interview study provided internal
validation of the interview questions. The participant in the field interview provided feedback
about the clarity and the appropriateness of the interview questions, which could reduce the
threat of researcher bias (Salkind, 2008). Additionally, the respondent validation technique was
part of the data analysis process in this study, which increased the trustworthiness and reliability
of its results.
Summary
The purpose of this descriptive qualitative study was to explore and examine the
viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers about the ESL professional development and training
programs implemented for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms.
In descriptive qualitative research, participants describe their experiences in simple terms.
They have the opportunity to provide as much details as they want. Sampling in qualitative
research has to be purposeful and not random in nature (Jones et al., 2006). This descriptive
qualitative study involved 15 mainstream teachers who teach ELLs and have participated in ESL
Page 70
58
professional development programs. The selection of the sample (participants) in this study was
based on the recommendations of two educational leaders who worked with the participants and
were familiar with the training programs in which they have participated.
Confidentiality was a crucial part of this study. Therefore, the identities of participants
in the study remained anonymous and will be so at all times and the interview questions did not
ask for any personal information.
Chapter 3 contained information about the data collection and data analysis process. The
chapter concluded with an overview of the study’s validity and reliability, which included the
participants’ validation techniques. Leedy and Ormrod (2010) explained that the researcher who
uses the respondent validation techniques takes his or her conclusions back to the participants in
the study and asks them if they agree with the conclusions or not. Chapter 4 addresses the data
analysis process in greater detail.
Page 71
59
Chapter 4
Results
Chapter 3 provided an overview of the methodology and research design of the study. In
this chapter, the results associated with the study are presented in detail with a focus on the main
research question: how do mainstream teachers describe their experiences with ESL professional
development programs? and the two sub-questions:
RQ1: How do mainstream teachers perceive the ESL training programs that they have
experienced?
RQ2: What are the critical barriers and challenges that mainstream teachers continue to
face concerning ESL professional development?
The following three-step process provided a means of answering the main research
question and the sub research questions.
Horizontalization: All data for the study were reviewed, re-read, and otherwise prepared
for analysis, both in transcript (Microsoft Word) format and when data were exported to
NVivo for further analysis.
Thematization: The raw data were associated with themes on the basis of both keyword
identification and narrative analysis, both of which were facilitated by NVivo
Synthesis: The themes were further analyzed and combined to generate answers to the
research questions
With the larger goal of answering the research questions in mind, the results have been
organized as follows. First, the characteristics of the sample will be provided and discussed.
Page 72
60
Second, the process of horizontalization will be explained in detail. Third, the themes of the
study will be presented and discussed. Fourth, the themes will be synthesized to yield answers to
the research questions of the study. Fifth, the quality of the study—in terms such as credibility
and trustworthiness—will be discussed. To ensure confidentiality, identification codes were
assigned to each participant (MT1, MT2, MT3… etc), MT stands for mainstream teacher. These
identification codes are used throughout the data analysis.
Sample Characteristics
Fifteen participants were included in this study. Data from all participants were
incorporated in the results. Each participant was a mainstream teacher who worked with ELLs
and who had attended at least one English as a second language (ESL) professional development
program. Each of the participants was from a school district in Ohio. The characteristics of the
sample are presented in Table 1.
Page 73
61
Table 1
Participant Characteristics
Participant Experience (Years) Gender Type of School
MT1 5 M Public
MT 2 4 F Public
MT 3 2 F Private
MT 4 2 F Private
MT 5 8 M Public
MT 6 11 F Public MT 7 10 F Public MT 8 9 F Public
MT 9 9 F Public MT 10 8 M Public MT 11 9 M Public MT 12 12 F Public
MT 13 2 F Public MT 14 1 F Public
MT 15 2 M Public
Table 1 shows that participants have different levels of teaching experience. Six of the
participants had nine or more years of experience while five were novices with one or two years
of teaching experience. Two of the participants hailed from private schools and the remainder
from public schools. Collectively, the teachers worked with many different kinds of students in
many different settings. Despite this diversity, there were many common themes that arose from
the participants’ narratives, themes that will be presented and synthesized in the remainder of
this chapter.
Horizontalization
In terms of data horizontalization, the following two steps were taken. First, all the
recorded interviews were transcribed into Microsoft Word. Second, all the data of the study
were removed from the Microsoft Word transcript of the interviews and posted to NVivo. Third,
Page 74
62
the data were tabulated in answer format, so that all of the data associated with the eight
interview questions became easily visible. The tabulation of the data made it possible to apply
keyword analysis and conceptual coding techniques to identify themes.
The first interview question was as follows: What kind of professional development and
support does your school district provide for mainstream teachers who work with ELLs? The
raw data for this question are presented in Table 2.
Page 75
63
Table 2
Data for Interview Question 1
Participant Response Data
MT1 Seminars and workshops promoting specific (unnamed) skills
MT2 Population-specific strategies including more repetition and visual components
MT3 One-on-one tutoring
MT4 None (teacher works at private school, not district)
MT5 Seminars and workshops promoting specific (listening and speaking) skills
MT6 Seminars and workshops promoting specific (unnamed) skills
MT7 Seminars and workshops promoting specific (unnamed) skills
MT8 Seminars and workshops promoting specific (unnamed) skills plus mentoring
MT9 3 professional development days a year
MT10 Workshops promoting specific (unnamed) skills plus mentoring
MT11 Training and group discussions; skills unspecified
MT12 No formal professional development; ad hoc only
MT13 One-on-one tutoring, mentoring
MT14 Professional development training, ad hoc mentoring
MT15 Seminars and workshops promoting specific (unnamed) skills
The second interview question was as follows: How many times have you participated in
any ESL professional development training (pre-service or in-service)? The raw data for this
question are presented in Table 3.
Page 76
64
Table 3
Data for Interview Question 2
Participant Response Data
MT1 5
MT2 5
MT3 0
MT4 0
MT5 6
MT6 3 (per year)
MT7 6
MT8 2
MT9 33
MT10 4
MT11 1
MT12 14
MT13 5
MT14 1
MT15 6
The fact that one teacher (MT6) noted that she attended development thrice a year but did
not quantify how many total development events she had attended rendered data comparability in
interview Question 2 somewhat difficult. On the other hand, participant MT9 noted that, as she
was exposed to three sessions a year and had been a teacher for 11 years, she had been in 33 total
professional development training events. Participant MT6’s response raises the possibility that
some of the teachers might have been thinking of annual sessions and others of total sessions.
The discussion of themes includes an evaluation of the difficulties created by these potential
disparities in the raw data.
The third interview question was as follows: How would you describe the effectiveness
of such professional development programs in preparing you to teach ELLs? The raw data for
this question are presented in Table 4.
Page 77
65
Table 4
Data for Interview Question 3
Participant Response Data
MT1 Better instructor (generic); patience
MT2 Good ideas, good execution of strategies
MT3 Good theory
MT4 Good theory, good hands-on experience
MT5 Good ideas, good execution of strategies
MT6 Good hands-on experience
MT7 Good materials for classroom utilization
MT8 Good theory
MT9 Good theory, good techniques for classroom utilization
MT10 Good materials
MT11 Good techniques for classroom utilization (specifically, communication)
MT12 Good case studies of success
MT13 ‘Okay’ effectiveness (generic)
MT14 Generation of awareness (specifically, linguistic and cultural diversity)
MT15 Good techniques for classroom utilization (specifically, communication
and student pairing)
Overall, the data generated by the fourth interview question were more comparable to
each other than the data generated by the second interview section. As with the other research
questions, however, varying levels of data quality were apparent in the responses to this
interview question, with some teachers providing more detailed, and others more laconic,
responses. Variations in data quality did not impede the generation of themes, because even
low-quality responses were fairly clear in terms of what participants liked about professional
development training.
The fourth interview question was as follows: How can the effectiveness of such
programs, in addressing the needs of mainstream teaches and ELLs, be improved? The raw data
for this question are presented in Table 5 below.
Page 78
66
Table 5
Data for Interview Question 4
Participant Response Data
MT1 Build on what ELL teachers know, do better in engaging teachers,
add practicum experience, add evaluation (of both teachers and
students)
MT2 Better strategies, integrate parents
MT3 More training, more hands-on experience in practicum settings
MT4 Provide insight into linguistic structures of native languages spoken
by ELLs
MT5 Integrate technology
MT6 Provide more and better materials, integrate technology
MT7 Provide more and better materials
MT8 More training, integrate technology, ensure that ideas are practical,
provide materials
MT9 Increase classroom peer observations
MT10 More activities, more materials, more focus on overcoming
communication challenges
MT11 More training, newer and more engaging methods
MT12 Improve trainer quality in terms of (a) experience and (b) knowledge
of theory; incorporate scaffolding; strengthen and include parent
relationships in training context
MT13 Increase training, incorporate trainers with more classroom
experience
MT14 Meet more regularly, more follow-up discussions with trainers
MT15 Integrate technology more
More voluminous and rich data were collected for the fourth interview question than for
the previous three research questions. Teachers contributed many different ideas about
improving the effectiveness of training programs, but also a level of recurrence in the data
suggested saturation. Overall, these data provided a strong foundation from which to generate
and synthesize themes.
Page 79
67
The fifth interview question was as follows: How relevant were these programs (that is,
the training programs invoked in the third and fourth research questions) to the teaching of ELLs
in your classroom? The raw data for this question are presented in Table 6.
Table 6
Data for Interview Question 5
Participant Response Data
MT1 Extremely relevant
MT2 Somewhat relevant; reinforcers
MT3 Relevant
MT4 Relevant
MT5 Extremely relevant
MT6 Extremely relevant
MT7 Somewhat relevant; reinforcers
MT8 Extremely relevant
MT9 Extremely relevant
MT10 Somewhat relevant
MT11 Somewhat relevant
MT12 Relevant
MT13 Somewhat relevant
MT14 Somewhat relevant
MT15 Extremely relevant
For the fifth interview question, three levels of relevance were discerned, as presented in
Table 6; the recurrence of these codes was evidence of data saturation for this interview question.
The coding of these data was therefore relatively straightforward. As with the other interview
questions, some participants went into more detail, whereas others were laconic. A few of the
responses to this question were worded counterfactually or in an otherwise indirect way,
requiring interpretative decisions. However, these interpretations were not difficult to extract
from the data.
Page 80
68
The sixth interview question was as follows: What are the main obstacles that prevent
you and other mainstream teachers that you know from participating in ESL professional
development programs? The raw data for this question are presented in Table7.
Table 7
Data for Interview Question 6
Participant Response Data
MT1 Time, lack of incentive to pursue formal offerings
MT2 Time
MT3 Time, lack of incentive to pursue formal offerings
MT4 Lack of formal offerings
MT5 Time, lack of incentive to pursue formal offerings
MT6 Time, lack of incentive to pursue formal offerings
MT7 Lack of technology
MT8 Time, lack of incentive to pursue formal offerings
MT9 Time
MT10 Time, lack of incentive to pursue formal offerings
MT11 Lack of formal offerings, lack of institutional support
MT12 Lack of formal offerings, lack of incentive to pursue informal
training
MT13 Time, funding
MT14 Time, funding, lack of ongoing training
MT15 No obstacle; mandatory participation
As with the data for the fifth interview question, the data for the sixth interview question
were relatively straightforward to extract and code. In addition, because of the recurrence of
words, phrases, and concepts, these data gave clear evidence of saturation; there were only a
handful of reasons, frequently cited by the participants, for non-participation in ESL professional
development programs.
The seventh interview question was as follows: What do you expect from future ESL
professional development training programs? The raw data for this question are presented in
Table 8.
Page 81
69
Table 8
Data for Interview Question 7
Participant Response Data
MT1 Tie to student outcomes, customize to teacher needs, help make
teachers self-sufficient
MT2 Make groups smaller, teach more strategies, integrate technology
MT3 Ensure that training is relevant to the classroom
MT4 Teach more strategies, cover broader range of issues faced by ELLs
MT5 Integrate technology
MT6 Be more motivating
MT7 Teach more strategies and styles
MT8 Integrate technology, provide more useful materials, ensure that
training is relevant to the classroom
MT9 Use more practical sources, incorporate more engaged trainers, orient
training towards more practical needs
MT10 Integrate technology and provide more practical solutions / creative
ideas for overcoming language barrier
MT11 More frequent programs, address more issues pertaining to ELLs’
learning gaps
MT12 Expand programs, ensure that methods and research-based and
implementable
MT13 Include trainers with more classroom experience
MT14 Integrate technology and more contemporary research / materials
MT15 Integrate technology, provide more incentives for participation
The eighth interview question was as follows: On a final note, will you participate in any
future ESL professional development training program if it becomes available? Why or why
not? The raw data for this question are presented in Table 9 below, which is the final
horizontalization table of the study.
Page 82
70
Table 9
Data for Interview Question 8
Participant Response Data
MT1 Yes, because (a) wants to improve as a teacher and (b) help
students
MT2 Yes, because (a) required and (b) wants to learn something
new
MT3 Yes, because wants to improve as a teacher
MT4 Yes, because wants to help students
MT5 Yes, no reason given
MT6 Yes, because wants to improve as a teacher
MT7 Yes, because required
MT8 Yes, because (a) wants to improve as a teacher and (b) help
students
MT9 Yes, because (a) wants to improve as a teacher and (b) help
students
MT10 Yes, because wants to (a) improve as a teacher and (b) help
other teachers
MT11 Yes, because wants to help students
MT12 Yes, because wants to help students
MT13 Yes, because ELLs / ESL students are owed teachers with a
high degree of competence in addressing their needs
MT14 Yes, because (a) wants to improve as a teacher and (b) help
students
MT15 Yes, because (a) generally useful and (b) a boon to career
development
Tables 2-9 constituted the end results of horizontalization for the study. Every
participants’ answer was transcribed, read, re-read, and re-transcribed into NVivo, and the results
were provided in tabular format. In the next section of the chapter, these horizontalization
results were used as bases from which to detect themes in the data, an important intermediate
step in being able to answer the research questions of the study.
Page 83
71
Themes in the Study
Analysis identified themes without regard to their immediate relevance to the research
questions, with the expectations that (a) discrepant or novel themes could be discussed in their
own right and (b) relevant themes could be mixed and matched in order to achieve synthesis and
answer the research questions of the study. A theme was defined as an explanatory trope that (a)
cut across more than one of the interview questions, thus parsimoniously explaining raw data;
and (b) served as an intermediate stage between the data and the research questions. The
following themes were identified in the study:
Theme 1: Teacher Engagement
Teacher engagement began to appear as a theme with the answers to the third interview
question (How would you describe the effectiveness of such professional development programs
in preparing you to teach ELLs?). In the context of the answers to that interview question,
teacher engagement was a construct that explained how teachers fared in ESL training and
development programs. Teachers (for example, participants MT1, MT2, MT3, MT14, and
MT15) noted that characteristics of the trainers, the training curriculum, and / or training
exercises were more or less engaging based on the following kinds of factors:
The relevance of training focus areas to classroom contexts
The relevance of training theories to the classroom experience of ELLs and mainstream
teachers of ELLs
The sufficiency of materials that could be taken back to, and implemented in, classrooms
The relevance of materials that could be taken back to, and implemented in, classrooms
Page 84
72
The relevance of trainers’ expertise to the kinds of classroom experiences of mainstream
teachers who teach ELLs
These factors were invoked in the answers to both the third and fourth interview
questions of the study and seem conceptually suited to the construct of engagement. The
participants (again, for example, participants MT1, MT2, MT3, MT14, and MT15) reported
being more or less attentive, animated, and motivated on the basis of the fit between their own
needs (reflecting not only the abstract pedagogical needs of teachers but also the concrete needs
of ELLs) and what was presented in training. Engagement seemed an appropriate classificatory
variable for the kinds of responses teachers gave to training that was perceived to be congruent
or not congruent with what they sought to get out of training. These responses had the net effect
of either bringing the teachers closer to, or further away from, both the content and context of the
training.
Participant MT1, who gave some of the richest responses to the interview questions,
presented an entire theory of engagement, beginning from the foundations of the training
program and extended to post-training outcome measurements. Participant MT1’s comments on
this topic are quoted at length below, not only because they help to illuminate a theory of
engagement from within participant experience, but also because they provide a comprehensive
explanatory framework from which to assess the entire lifecycle of training programs designed
for mainstream teachers of ELLs.
Unfortunately, not all professional development programs are effective, and there is a
need to improve the currently existing ones for them to fully address the needs of
mainstream teachers teaching in ELLs in the mainstream classrooms. For the
Page 85
73
programs to be effective, they must be based on a set of key principles whose primary
aim is to attain better education programs and higher student outcomes. The professional
development programs must build on the current foundation of basic knowledge, area of
expertise and skills of the teachers involved. By building on what mainstream teachers of
ELLs know, the programs will be able to extend the thinking of these teachers, and they
will, therefore, be effective. In addition, these programs need to engage participants who
are the mainstream teachers as learners. They should also offer these participants
opportunities for real practice accompanied by feedback and follow up on their
performance. Simply put, these programs should be accompanied by effective evaluation
processes that include measurements of changes in teacher’s skills and knowledge, as
well as changes in student performance (Participant MT1).
Based on the Participant MT1’s comments, teacher engagement is not a random function
of the teacher-trainer interaction, but rather a planned result of appropriately designed training
programs that are relevant to the mainstream teacher of ELLs and that are closely intertwined
with the apparatus of performance measurement. Thus, the theme of teacher engagement proved
to be highly relevant in the process of interpretative synthesis whereby the research questions of
the study were answered.
Theme 2: Relevant Communication
Communication is a theme that, like teacher engagement, reverberated across many of the
interview questions. The theme of relevant communication was prominent in the answers to the
seventh interview question. Participants (such as participants MT2, MT8, MT9, MT10, MT11,
and MT12 in their response to the seventh interview question) all suggested, in slightly different
Page 86
74
ways, the importance of communication between various stakeholders, including in particular
teacher-ELL student and trainer-teacher communication. Both of these headings of
communication can be understood under relevance, with relevance meaning a practical fit
between the needs of both parties. In several comments teachers complained, or at least noted,
that trainers’ communication—in terms of both theory and best practices—was not relevant to
their own experiences or needs or was not frequent enough to be of use. See, for example, the
responses of participants MT1, MT8, MT10, and MT12 to the fourth interview question.
Relevant communication was also cited as an explanatory theme in parsing the
relationships between mainstream teachers and their students who are ELLs. In his response to
the third interview question, participant MT10 noted, somewhat poignantly that “I find it hard to
communicate when my students cannot understand most of what I say.” For participant MT10,
this communication gap was the most important consideration in his classroom practice, and he
tied the gap back to training in his response to the fourth interview question:
We need more hands-on activities, more materials, and we need to be taught how to
overcome the language barriers with our ELLs. This is the most frustrating problem for
me as a teacher and for my students. I feel bad for my ELLs because I cannot explain
what I want to them or to their parents. (Participant MT10).
Participant MT10 went on to note that, while training was somewhat relevant in terms of the
provision of general theories and ideas, it was not specific enough to address the teacher-student
(and, for that matter, the teacher-parent) communication gap. This point was somewhat related
to participant MT1’s comment, quoted at length under theme one, about how training had to be
rooted in the experiences and needs of mainstream teachers of ELLs. The danger of an abstract,
Page 87
75
non-teacher-driven training approach was illustrated in participant MT10’s comments about the
irrelevance of so much training content.
Both trainer-teacher and teacher-student communication relevance can be understood as
manifestations of the same phenomenon, that of teacher-driven training. For example,
participant MT11 had a different experience than participant MT10; participant MT11 noted that
training was “effective in teaching me how to present things to our ELLs in a way that will make
them easier to understand”. Participant MT2, in her response to the first interview question,
noted that training was relevant in terms of emphasizing repetition and visual learning with
ELLs. In some settings, then, training communication is relevant because it addresses the
challenges that teachers themselves perceive to be the most important (as with participants MT2
and MT11). On the other hand, as expressed by participant MT10, there are also training
scenarios in which the content and context of the communication are not aligned with the needs
of the teachers. The only inference supported by the analysis of the raw data in this study is that
there were some cases in which trainer communication was not driven by the needs of at least
some of the mainstream teachers present in the training sessions.
Theme 3: The Efficiency and Relevance of Technology
Technology was mentioned several times by participants. Technology was described in
two basic ways: First, as a means of bringing efficiency to the process of training; and, second,
as a means of improving the content of training. These two advantages of technology were
portrayed in somewhat distinct terms.
The first mention of technology arose in the answers to the fourth interview question.
Technology was mentioned as a means of improving training by several participants (participants
Page 88
76
MT5, MT6, MT8, and MT15). Some of the comments were generic recommendations to
integrate technology. However, some participants were more specific in identifying the
relevance of technology to improve training for mainstream teachers. According to participant
MT5, training could improve “with new and different technologies to engage all children of all
cultures, because this is one thing they all have in common.” While this comment ventured
beyond the context of training to include classroom practice, it touched on a point that was also
raised by other participants (including participants MT6 and MT10), namely that there were
numerous effective means of teaching ELLs via technological means, and that was therefore a
need for training to integrate technology. Participant MT6, for example, referenced a program
named Angel that allowed ELLs to practice pronunciation. Participant MT10 stated, “We also
need to integrate technology in ESL instruction to facilitate learning.” Some participants were
therefore aware of the pedagogical usefulness of technology in teaching ELLs in mainstream
classrooms and faulted training for not taking such technology into account.
Participant MT8 made a link between the use (or, more accurately, non-use) of
technology in training settings and the efficiency and relevance of the training process itself.
Participant MT8 discussed technology in light of impractical ideas in training, implying that
technology could furnish a means of allowing teachers to view and access ideas and materials
that were more relevant to their contexts. Such an approach, which would leverage the ability of
technology to customize learning, was latent in participant MT6’s response.
Page 89
77
Synthesis of Research Questions
One main research question and two sub-research questions were posed in this study.
The main research question of the study was: How do mainstream teachers describe their
experiences with ESL professional development programs? The sub research questions were:
RQ1: How do mainstream teachers perceive the ESL training programs that they have
experienced?
RQ2: What are the critical barriers and challenges that mainstream teachers continue to
face concerning ESL professional development?
In this section, the two sub-questions will be answered through a synthesis of the themes
presented and discussed in the previous section of the chapter. The main research question will
be addressed separately at the end of this section.
Research Question 1
This research question could have been answered in numerous ways. One approach
would have been to comb through the raw data to identify every narrative having to do with
participants’ experiences of training. However, such an approach would have been
fundamentally unfocused; generating a list of disconnected experiences would not have helped to
identify larger phenomena related to training. Instead, the analytical approach taken was to
relate teacher experiences of training to the three main themes identified in the study, namely
teacher engagement, relevant communication, and the efficiency and relevance of technology.
These three themes served as conceptual frameworks through which the data pertaining to
teacher experience of training programs could be sorted and understood.
Page 90
78
The short answer to the first research question was as follows: Teachers experienced the
training programs they experienced through the lens of applicability. In other words,
applicability is the explanatory synthesis of the three themes of teacher engagement, relevant
communication, and the efficiency and relevance of technology. The remainder of this section is
dedicated to explaining how applicability was synthesized from the three themes of the study
when applied to the first research question.
A review of the data indicated that teachers’ experiences of training programs was
influenced by how they felt about the training. Some participants felt more connected to the
training than did others, and the experience of connectedness—, which can also be described as
engagement—was itself driven by the fit between the training and the needs of the teachers. In
this sense, the first and second themes of the study dovetailed conveniently when it came to
answering the first research question. Teachers came to the training sessions looking for specific
content, materials, theories, guidance, support, and other factors relevant to improving their
ability to teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms. When such factors were not communicated to
teachers in training, they felt disengaged. This synthesis of engagement and communication was
made explicit in participant MT1’s description of the links between training relevance, teacher-
driven experiences, and outcome measurement, which was quoted at length earlier in the chapter.
The third theme, that of technology, was of only marginal account in answering the first
research question, but it was still somewhat related. Participant MT8 made an implicit
suggestion that technology could have been used to make the context and context of training
more relevant to teachers. There was also a consensus (participants MT5, MT6, MT8, and
MT15) that one of the specific reasons that training failed to connect as well as it might have was
Page 91
79
the lack of integration of technology as part of the pedagogical engagement between a
mainstream teachers and ELLs. As such, technology likely played a role in the breakdown of
training applicability, but the main culprit was the lack of situation-specific content of training.
In trying to answer this research question, it was necessary to look beyond the teachers’
pro forma comments that training was relevant. None of the teachers overtly denigrated training
as being irrelevant; they were judicious in their choice of language. Nonetheless, teachers’
deeper attitudes to training could be inferred from the kinds of responses they gave to the third
and fourth interview questions, which asked, respectively, how training programs were beneficial
and how they could be improved. In their answers to the fourth interview question, numerous
participants made comments that disparaged the quality of training in a manner not evinced when
they were asked directly about the relevance of training. For example, two participants
(participants MT12 and MT13) directly impugned the quality of the trainers in terms of a lack of
practical experience. Participant MT15 noted that trainers were not available for follow-up
discussions. Participants MT6 and MT7 emphasized the lack of takeaway materials ready for
classroom implementation. Participants MT1 and MT11 reported that trainers used techniques
that did not engage teachers. Additionally, in their answers to the sixth interview question, 10 of
the 15 participants stated there was not enough time for training.
Individually and cumulatively, these comments pointed to the overall inapplicability of
numerous aspects of training. Training was, in the words of the participants, often inapplicable
to:
Individual classrooms
Specific populations of ELLs
Page 92
80
Teachers’ needs for more training
Teachers’ engagement with training content and format
Teachers’ need for materials
The single concept of inapplicability thus overlaps with all three of the identified themes of the
study and furnishes a parsimonious, convincing, and data-driven answer to the question of how
teachers experienced training. Simply put, they experienced a fair portion of what took place in
training as being inapplicable to their needs and circumstances.
Research Question 2
The second research question was answered through the same kind of approach applied
to the first research question. The second research question was: What are the critical barriers
and challenges that mainstream teachers continue to face concerning ESL professional
development? The first research question, which was designed to build knowledge around how
teachers experienced training programs, showed the second research question, as an important
component of teachers’ experience was indeed the critical barriers and challenges invoked in
the second research question.
A simple approach to answering the second research question, one that acknowledges the
complementary relationship between the two research questions of the study as well as the
importance of the three identified themes, was to determine whether the themes could be
synthesized into a single explanatory factor, as was done in answering the first research question.
Initially, the synthesized factor of inapplicability seemed to be a suitable answer to the
second as well as the first research questions of the study. However, inapplicability was
understood as an experiential phenomenon than a barrier. What the teachers experienced—in
Page 93
81
terms of their engagement, the content and context of communication with the trainers, and
technology—was the inapplicability of training. Barriers and challenges were more logically
understood as the factors that explained why, from so many perspectives, the training was
inapplicable.
The short answer to the second research question was that the critical barriers and
challenges in the professional development programs could be resulting from the absence of a
teacher-driven model. Because professional development was not driven by actual teacher
needs, it often failed to be responsive to what teachers hope to accomplish from participating in
such programs. Participant MT11 stated that, “I don’t feel I am prepared enough to teach ELLs,
yet I have many of them in my class. Luckily, we have an ESL teacher who always helps us
whenever we need her.” This comment epitomized the problem of the absence of a teacher-
driven model.
Numerous participants noted that their actual needs vis-à-vis ELLs education were not
the basis of the training. Participant MT1 noted the absence of the teacher-driven model in a
long and rich response to the first interview question; and other participants (including
participant MT9, MT11, MT12, and MT14) noted that they had to fill the gaps in training with
ad hoc means, such as asking other teachers, seeking informal mentoring, or even drawing on
college materials or experiences. Again, the relevance of these data could easily have been
missed without horizontalization. Not just one comment solidified the conclusion that training
was not teacher-driven. Rather, it was the steady accumulation of insights obtained from
comments about gaps, ad hoc measures, and other deficiencies in training that led to a
cumulative conclusion about the absence of a teacher-driven approach. Even participants who
Page 94
82
did not overly critique training and other structured development noted that such opportunities
were rare, and, it seems, pro forma events (for example, participants MT5, MT14, and MT15).
Participants acknowledged the substantial and undeniable demand for training and
professional development. All 15 of the participants indicated their willingness to participate in
training, and all 15 of the participants were able to cite the benefits of such training. Still, 10
cited time problems, and 7 cited the absence of incentives; moreover, as discussed throughout
this chapter, there were specific as well as general ways in which training failed to address the
needs of many participants, thus perhaps preventing them from able to obtain as much from the
experience as they might have done otherwise. Taken in conjunction with the data on ad hoc
means, these data solidify the impression that training, whatever its other, occasional benefits, is
not fundamentally structured in such a way to be of use to teachers, and the reason for this
shortcoming is that teachers themselves are not consulted as the drivers of training. It seems,
from the discussion of training as occasional and pro forma (participants MT5, MT14, and
MT15) that training a box that the district or the school has to check off, but that no substantive
effort is being put into the endeavor. Teachers, meanwhile, are using their own ad hoc means to
get around the deficits of training and development (participants MT9, MT11, MT12, and
MT14). Under these circumstances, teachers might be passive; they consume what is available
to them, apply it when they can, and lament what is not applicable. Particularly insightful
teachers, such as participant MT1, note that the model of training is not teacher-driven, but
teachers would rather continue to participate in training whenever they can for the sake of
professional development.
Page 95
83
Answer to Main Research Question
The main research question of the study was how do mainstream teachers describe their
experiences with ESL professional development programs? The answer to this question, based
on the analyses of the sub-research questions, is that mainstream teachers described their
experiences with ESL professional development programs as only partially relevant to the actual
challenges reported in classrooms. The partial relevance of ESL professional development
programs is a function of the following factors:
A lack of practical, usable material
Limited experience among trainers
Lack of sufficient follow-up
Lack of incentive to attend
Few development opportunities
Limited time
Summary
The 15 participants in this study contributed numerous data by responding to the
interview questions. The participants shared their views about the ESL professional
development programs that they have experienced. An analysis of the data yielded three themes.
The three themes identified in this chapter are teacher engagement, relevant communication, and
the efficiency and relevance of technology. In chapter 5, these three themes will be discussed in
details and the implications of the findings, particularly in light of their relation to past empirical
studies and to theory, will be presented. Additionally, the limitations of the methodology used to
Page 96
84
generate the findings will be acknowledged and suggestions for additional research will be
presented.
Page 97
85
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
The main research question in this study was, “How do mainstream teachers describe
their experience with ESL professional development programs?” To answer this main research
question and its sub-questions, the perceptions of K-12 mainstream teachers who teach ELLs
were explored through face-to-face interviews that included 15 participants. The data analysis
presented in Chapter 4 revealed common themes that emerged from the participants’ responses.
These themes described the perceptions of mainstream teachers who teach ELLs about the ESL
professional training that they have experienced. All of this information will be useful in
determining recommendations for educational leaders who oversee ESL professional
development programs, as well as future recommendations for further studies. Chapter 5
contains an overview of findings, the relation of findings to the past empirical studies and
theories, recommendations for educational leaders, recommendations for future studies, and an
acknowledgement of the limitations of the study.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this descriptive qualitative study was to explore and examine the
viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers about the ESL professional development and training
programs implemented for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms. The
development of effective inclusive ESL teacher-education training programs can provide
mainstream teachers with the skills that they need to help ELLs improve their academic
achievement. Currently, ELLs in the State of Ohio are taught via several methods, some school
districts are using bilingual classes, others are using pullout classes with ESL teachers, and some
Page 98
86
are using the full immersion approach with mainstream teachers (Ohio Department of Education,
2012a). The findings of this study could help educational leaders determine the efficacy of ESL
training for mainstream teachers. Improving ELLs’ academic performance is possible with the
implementation of high quality and consistent sheltered instruction steered by research (Short &
Echevarria, 2005). To ensure a quality of education for ELLs that is equal to the quality of
education the native English-speaking students receive, it is paramount that ELLs benefit from
the same full resources available for regular mainstream students.
One key aspect of assessing ESL training for mainstream teachers is the knowledge that,
once they attain necessary skills in this area, mainstream teachers may change their personal
perspectives and beliefs about ELLs, which is of significance in an era where mainstream
teachers often are the only educators with whom ELLs will interact. As Thompson et al. (2004)
explained, teachers’ beliefs and attitudes may foster low expectations toward ELLs. Thus, this
descriptive qualitative study focused on mainstream teachers who have attended ESL training. If
ESL training for mainstream teachers can assist teachers in being more comfortable working
with ELLs and provide tools and strategies to facilitate such work, the training could enhance the
instructional process for the teachers and improve the educational efficacy for the ELLs (Locas,
Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008). Knowing what is effective in ESL training can have
broad implications, therefore, for senior educators who design such courses, as well as those who
select the courses that they send faculty to attend.
This study used a descriptive qualitative research approach based on interviews that
uncovered limitations of existing ESL professional development programs. It involved 15
participants who have experienced the problem being studied and were able to describe their
Page 99
87
experiences (Magilvy & Thomas, 2009). In this study, the data were gathered from a sample
group of 15 Ohio mainstream teachers, which falls within the suggested number or participants
for appropriate qualitative narrative research of five to 25 directly experienced individuals
(Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). These teachers were selected due to their experience with ESL
training, and conducted through a series of interview questions that were broadly constructed to
allow for a wide variety of non-directed responses that reveal the ultimate meaning of their
experiences (Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004). It revealed their perceptions as to ESL
training’s relevance, benefits, and deficiencies. These narratives, produced via face-to-face
interviews and recorded to avoid the complications from deciphering written language data
(Polkinghorne, 2005), were validated and subjected to follow-up inquiries in order to ensure
reliability and reduce the chance of researcher bias (Salkind, 2008).
The analysis in this study was conducted through horizontalization, which is a means to
detect oft-repeated phrases or words; thematization, whereby consistent present of similar
concepts uncovered by horizontalization develops specific themes; and synthesis, a process of
analyzing and putting together these themes to conclude reliable answers to the research
questions and the hierarchy of their occurrence. NVivo software was used to code, group, and
horizontalize the data, again reducing researcher bias by eliminating human discretion in the
categorization process. Thus, an appropriate method of descriptive interviews, falling within the
realm of qualitative research, was used on purposefully-selected sample, with data gathered and
analyzed using means to ensure validity, reliability, and reduce researcher bias.
While undertaking the purpose of this study, which was to explore and examine the
viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers about the ESL professional development and training
Page 100
88
programs implemented for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms, data
was accumulated and processed. The processing of this data retrieved via horizontalization
produced emerging themes which then directed the analysis. Three themes emerged as a result
of this process, based on consistently-mentioned topics and phrases identified. The three themes
were teacher engagement, relevant communication, and the efficiency and relevance of
technology. Teachers expressed the need to be engaged by trainers and to receive relevant
communication that could optimize their own communication with ELLs. They also emphasized
the need for better use of technology in training as well as in the classroom. These three themes
can assist those who develop future ESL professional development programs, educators who
determine whether or not to send their faculty to such programs in the future, and what to expect
when making such decisions.
Summary of Findings
A sample of 15 mainstream teachers who work with ELLs and have attended ESL
professional development training participated in this descriptive qualitative study. The
participants described their experience with the ESL professional development training through
face-to-face interviews. The analysis of the data collected during these interviews revealed three
themes:
1. Teacher engagement
2. Relevant communication
3. The efficiency and relevance of technology.
Page 101
89
These three themes were compared to the social constructivist theory of learning to reach
meaningful conclusions and practical recommendations for educational leaders and future
research.
Theme 1: teacher engagement. A major part of the answer of the main research
question, description of ESL training by mainstream teachers, involved teacher engagement.
The concept of teacher engagement affected their reactions to questions that asked about the
obstacles and the expectations for future training programs. In essence, for ESL training to be
effective, it must catch the interest of, or engage, its participants. This concept is derived from
the social constructivist theory of learning, that of human engagement (Von Glasersfeld, 1987),
i.e. that knowledge will be developed by interaction between individuals. According to leading
educational psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1978), social interaction is the basis for learning.
Remove the interaction and learning is less likely to occur. This need for engagement was a
dominant theme culled from the data analysis and logically flows from the consideration of any
educational experience. If the experience does not interest the participants or seem relevant to
their situations, its usefulness will decrease significantly (Cobb, 2005).
In addition to relevancy (in terms of both classroom content and experience with ELLs),
other areas impacting engagement were sufficiency of materials available for future classroom
use, the relevance of those materials, and the trainers’ expertise relating to classroom experiences
of mainstream teachers with ELLs. The teachers’ comments parallel the social constructivist
theory, that learning is a collaborative form of human engagement (Cobb, 2005). In addition, the
individual background of the teachers and their own needs directed to some extent their feelings
of engagement, which is consistent with social constructivism (Isaacson, 2004). In response to
Page 102
90
interview question one, it is apparent that the type of learning programs supported by different
school districts varies considerably, from seminars and workshops of a general nature
(promoting specific, unnamed skills) to one-on-one tutoring and mentoring.
It seems imperative for teachers to be engaged and exposed to content, curricula,
materials, training styles, and measured outcomes that are both locally relevant in the context of
the teacher’s classroom experience (Isaacson, 2004); and be globally supported in terms of
theories and best practices that apply more generally to teaching ELLs in mainstream
environments (Duffy, et al., 1986). Based on this framework, the theme of teacher engagement
proved to be highly relevant in the process of interpretative synthesis whereby the research
questions of the study were answered.
In the responses to interview question four (“how can the effectiveness of such programs,
in addressing the needs of mainstream teachers and ELLs, be improved?”), the need for
engagement was singled out by two teachers. In addition, interview question three asked
teachers to describe the effectiveness of training programs they had attended. Good use of case
studies was mentioned once, whereas good theory as a contributor to efficacy appeared in four
answers. Good hands-on techniques (both in the training and to take back to the classroom)
appeared in five responses, and the quality of the instructor was noted once. All of these answers
support the need for content and approaches that will engage the teachers during training. They
also corroborate the efficacy of the social constructivist method of developing knowledge, which
was discussed in the literature review in terms of classroom application, but is equally applicable
to teacher training. Individuals construct knowledge by relating new information to their own
experiences and through active engagement in the learning process (Brooks & Brooks, 1999).
Page 103
91
Theme 2: relevant communication. The main research question regarding description
of ESL training by mainstream teachers could also be considered in terms of relevant
communication, which also influences the teachers’ perceptions of the training, and whether or
not the training leaves present the idea of more barriers, challenges or deficiencies with such
training. The theme of relevant communication emerged often, and in two distinct contexts. The
first aspect involved relevance of the trainers’ experiences as they relate to the teachers attending
training sessions. If the situations described by the trainers did not resonate with the
circumstances of the teachers present, it follows that the communication lacked relevance.
Second was relevance in terms of the teachers’ own communication with ELLs. It was
suggested that some training was abstract and did not address ways in which teachers might
actually communicate more effectively with ELLs, thus enhancing their own instruction
techniques.
Interview Question 4 (regarding improving effectiveness of ESL training) presented a
number of suggestions as to how the training communication could be made more relevant.
Building on what teachers already know (which would involve content connectivity) was
mentioned once, and relates to Isaacson’s explanation regarding the social constructivist
pedagogy, that part of its success depends on prior knowledge (2004). Use of better materials,
which would enhance communication during the sessions and perhaps be amenable to use in the
classroom, was mentioned four times., again reinforcing Isaacson’s inclusion of hands-on
experiences and problem-solving that is part of the social constructivist conceptualization of
learning (2004). The relevance of ESL training in general seemed acknowledged through the
responses to interview question five (asking about relevance of ESL programs) where every
Page 104
92
participant indicated at least some relevance to the teaching of ELLs in their classrooms (six said
extremely relevant, three relevant, and six somewhat relevant). Along the lines of
communication relevance, two respondents to interview question four mentioned the concept of
including parents in the teaching process, which would facilitate communication with the
students.
The consensus that may be drawn from the comments is that training, to be effective,
should be teacher-driven—serve the specific needs of the teachers. If training assists teachers to
learn ways to present information to ELLs in more understandable terms, it demonstrates
effective and relevant training communication that will assist in teacher-student communication.
Such teacher-student communication is in consonance with the social constructivist theory of
learning, whereby, in the ESL context, mainstream teachers help ELLs construct meaning by
interpreting what they experience via communication and collaboration (Schallert & Martin,
2003). Further research regarding this area would be beneficial, to identify why some instances
of teacher-training communication were so well-aligned while others were not.
Theme 3: the efficiency and relevance of technology. Finally, a factor often noted in
the description of ESL training by mainstream teachers involved use of technology. Its presence
or absence affected their perceptions of specific training and was seen as a means by which
future training could be improved. Thus, effective use of technology could help alleviate barriers
and challenges that mainstream teachers face in terms of ESL professional development.
As with communication relevancy discussed previously, the theme regarding efficiency
and relevance of technology emerged in bifurcated form from analysis of the data. First,
technology utilization during the training classes themselves was a concern: whether there were
Page 105
93
opportunities to use technology more effectively during the sessions. Second, possible
enhancement of technology usage in the classrooms was noted. Teachers are amenable to
suggestions for utilizations of technologies of various sorts that might engage students from
different backgrounds, cultural and linguistic, because technological tools are often universally
understood. Training programs within universities and as part of continuing education should
focus on practical applications and new teaching methods, often involving technology.
According to Ye et al. (2011), these programs are highly applicable for teachers educating ESL
students. Cobb (2005) aligned the use of technology with the goals of social constructivism as
well, in that it clearly can enhance the experiences of students and increase development of
knowledge in ways more traditional educational techniques cannot.
In terms of answers to specific questions, the idea of technology as an aid (either in the
training or in the classroom) was mentioned in response to interview question four (improving
ESL training) three times, and interview question seven (“what do you expect from future ESL
professional development training programs?”) a total of six times. One responder mentioned
technology alongside other means of overcoming language barriers. Technology is familiar to
many students regardless of their cultural or linguistic background. Particularly, it has been
shown that young children and teens in general are more comfortable with using tools such as
computers than their older counterparts (Sedghi, 2014), making them especially useful in today’s
classrooms. Resources for instruction of ELLs, including technology tools, is lacking
nationwide (Henrichsen, 2010), but this would be an invaluable investment, according to the
input from the teachers in this study.
Page 106
94
In addition, the use of technology could enhance time usage. An overwhelming obstacle
teachers noted (ten respondents) in interview Question 6 (“what are the main obstacles that
prevent you and other mainstream teachers that you know from participating in ESL professional
development programs?”) was the lack of time that prevent them from attending ESL
professional development programs. If technology could be introduced at trainings that helped
make classroom learning more efficient and speedy, it might have the unintended result of
helping free up teachers to attend more training sessions. Interview question eight revealed a
unanimous desire to attend further ESL professional development training programs, to help the
teachers improve as instructors, to assist the students, and in one case because the school district
required it.
Conclusions
The richest data for the study came from some of the questions (such as interview
questions three and four) that asked for an evaluation and critique of training programs. These
kinds of data were emphasized in the interpretations performed in Chapter 4, as this data
reflected a deeper level of participant engagement with training programs. The focus here is to
generate conclusions.
The following are conclusions reached from the analysis of results. First, it was
concluded that teachers experienced numerous aspects of training as being inapplicable to their
needs and circumstances. Second, it was concluded that ESL training and professional
development programs suffer from the absence of a teacher-driven model.
The limitations and delimitations of this study, the implications of the study findings,
particularly in light of their relation to past empirical studies and to theory will be discussed
Page 107
95
throughout this section. In addition, the findings will be used as a basis from which to make
recommendations to future scholars and to academic stakeholders.
Limitations and Delimitations
The primary delimitations concerning this study involve the participants. Even though
the topic at issue is ESL professional development, the study only involved mainstream teachers
with ELLs in their classrooms. Hence, the perceptions of ESL instructors regarding ESL
professional development training are not included. Additionally, all of the 15 participants come
from different school districts in the State of Ohio, and while the number of participants falls
within the appropriate range for such a descriptive qualitative study, according to researchers
such as Leedy and Ormrod (2010), the results of this study may have limited generalization to
ESL professional development programs implemented for mainstream teachers in the State of
Ohio.
The primary limitation of this study is related to the concern that participants share a
homogenous experience because they all teach ELL students in Ohio. This limitation was
addressed through the selection process to ensure diversity, with both public (13) and private (2)
schools represented, a mixture of male (5) and female (10) teachers, and experience levels
ranging from one year to twelve years (Table 1, participant characteristics). Additionally, since
sample groups in qualitative studies is usually purposeful (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2006),
hence knowing the subjects allows for better question design and impartation of more
information with increased reliability than through random sampling. To avert these concerns,
two measures were taken. The sample was constructed with advice of two senior educators
familiar with the participants, who also helped arrange meetings in order to discuss the purpose
Page 108
96
and nature of the study prior to the interviews. Moreover, participants were allowed to elaborate
through follow-up questions and discussions during the interviews to ensure clarification of
points and avoid misunderstandings.
Implications for Education Leaders
For those educational leaders who make decisions regarding use of resources and funding
for schools, this study could be a source of information regarding the efficacy of ESL training for
mainstream teachers of ELLs. It provides raw data as well as an analysis of what factors are
desirable in the ESL training sessions, what should be included in future sessions by those
designing them, and the factors limiting teachers from participating in such trainings. It has been
well-documented that the number of ELLs is increasing nationwide, and that many school
districts, both urban and especially those in rural areas, have limited funds to assist them in the
classroom, and in providing trained teachers. In particular, there are too few ESL-certified
teachers to meet the demand (Flynn & Hill, 2005). Much of the time, the task of teaching ELLs
will be on mainstream teachers. Although they are encouraged to coordinate with ESL teachers
as much as possible (De Jong & Harper, 2005), any knowledge that these teachers may have
gained first-hand will be invaluable.
Educational leaders could use the findings of this study to enhance the quality of ESL
professional development programs. For instance, 100% of participants indicated their need for
some form of training to better manage ELL students in mainstream classrooms. However, 10
participants (Participants MT1, MT2, MT3, MT5, MT6, MT8, MT9, MT10, MT13, and MT14)
also indicated time pressures as an obstacle to training. This finding should alert relevant
Page 109
97
educational leaders to the necessity of creating more professional training and development time
for teachers. If teachers are expected to attend professional development and training programs,
some special accommodation should be made to ensure that they do so without time pressures
from their schools. Educational leaders ought to treat professional development and training
time as vital for their organizations and ought to take the necessary actions to relieve teachers of
time pressure.
Based on the findings of this study the future ESL training sessions implemented for
mainstream teachers should include practical materials that deal with day-to-day practices inside
the mainstream classrooms. Trainers need have current and up-to date classroom experience and
should have an ongoing follow up and communication with mainstream teachers. Mainstream
teachers need to be encouraged to attend ESL training programs with extra incentives that make
them willing to devote the time and effort for such training.
Knowing the importance of ESL training, what to look for in a training session, or what
to emphasize when designing such sessions, are all pieces of information that can inform
educational leaders in the future to enhance the learning environment for ELLs. Thus, this study
has implications for education leaders in decision-making positions, as well as those who are
trainers.
Recommendations for Future Research
This type of study could be replicated in different settings with varied participants. The
fact that all the teachers involved teach in the same state makes it logical that to undertake
similar studies in areas with different socio-cultural and linguistic make-ups than Ohio would
provide information as to the reliability of this study, as well as augment it with new
Page 110
98
perspectives. Additionally, an area that was identified through the analysis of teacher interviews
where more research would also be beneficial regards the structure and effectiveness of the
training sessions themselves. While some teachers responded, for example, that communication
was relevant in the context of teacher-training, in other cases it was not. This bespeaks a need
for further studies to assess individual ESL trainings, with focus on what makes them effective or
accessible to mainstream teacher. It would follow from the comments analyzed herein that
studies of content-specific ESL training would be useful, to see if such training promoted
engagement or relevant communication.
In addition, studies focusing on the presenters or trainers and their styles and course
content might yield fruitful information. Moreover, follow-up studies that concentrate on what
happens after a teacher has attended ESL training could add to the literature gap in this area, and
provide insight for educational leaders, both those who design training and those who send
teachers to receive training.
Summary
This descriptive qualitative study explored the viewpoints of 15 mainstream teachers
about the ESL training that they have experienced. Participants responded to open-ended
questions and provided rich data that guided the data analysis in this study. With the number of
ELLs on the rise nationwide (Calderson, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011), it is imperative upon
educators to ascertain optimal methods and techniques to help ELLs learn, both content area
knowledge as well as basic English reading, writing and speaking skills. Resources and funding
is tight in most educational settings (Henrichsen, 2010), which has an impact on the availability
of services for ELLs. The task of teaching non-native English speakers often falls on
Page 111
99
mainstream teachers who are proficient in their own content areas but lack specific training that
takes into account non-English speakers in the classroom. Therefore, implementing and
promoting effective ESL professional development training is very critical. This study provided
information regarding the experiences of a sample of 15 mainstream teachers from different
backgrounds, teaching within the state of Ohio, regarding their expectations and experiences in
ESL training. The information that they provided during this study could help educational
leaders make research based decisions on what mainstream teaches look for in ESL professional
development programs and how to enhance the effectiveness and the relevance of such programs
to mainstream classrooms.
The findings of this study revealed three themes that emerged during the data analysis.
These three themes are teacher engagement, relevant communication, and the efficiency and
relevance of technology. The discussion of these themes in Chapter 5 was based on the
theoretical perspective of the social constructivist theory. This theory of learning that was
discussed thoroughly in the literature review chapter can be applied to each of these three themes
toward teacher training, just as it can be toward student learning in classrooms. Teacher
involvement and teacher engagement in training, for example, align with the social
constructivism claim that learning occurs a process of shared experiential knowledge that
develops constructs of learning (Von Glasersfeld, 1987). It is dependent upon many factors,
including hands-on experiences, problem-solving, decision-making, thinking at a higher level,
probing questions, and understanding the students’ background and their prior knowledge
(Isaacson, 2004), each of which impact the three themes to differing extents.
Page 112
100
In conclusion, the results of the study can provide administrators, teachers, and trainers
with information to consider in relationship to mainstream teachers and ESL training. The
exploration of the lived experiences and views of the participants in this study may encourage
other educators to examine current or prospective positions regarding the value of such training
and the content necessary in it to ensure its success and improve its effectiveness. This study
also opens the door for future research that can add the study findings. Ultimately, the aim is to
use information from mainstream teachers who have experienced ESL training, to assist
educators to explore the need and potential benefits of creating, implementing, supporting or
attending ESL programs that will carry over to the classroom in terms of improved ELLs’
academic attainment.
Page 113
101
References
American Institutes for Research. (2010). Common ELL terms and definitions. Retrieved from
http://www.air.org/files/NEW_-_Common_ELL_TERMS_AND_DEFINITIONS_6_
22_10.pdf
Anderson, E. M. (2009). Intervention on middle school mainstream teachers of English language
learners (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3399389)
Arkoudis, S. (2006). Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers. The
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 415–419. doi:10.2167/
beb337.0
August, D., & Shanahan, T., eds. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners:
Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baik, C., & Greig, J. (2009). Improving the academic outcomes of undergraduate ESL students:
the case for discipline-based academic skills programs. Higher Education Research and
Development, 28, 401–415. doi:10.1080/07294360903067005
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (2006). Is there a natural sequence in adult second
language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235–243. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
1770.1974.tb00505.x
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15. doi: 10.3102/0013189x033008003
Page 114
102
Brooks, M., & Brooks, J. (1999). The courage to be a constructivist. Educational Leadership,
57(3), 18-24. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/nov99/vol57/num03/The-Courage-to-Be-Constructivist.aspx
Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The
Future of Children, 21(1), 103–127. Retrieved from http://futureofchildren.org/
futureofchildren/publications/docs/21_01_05.pdf
Casteel, C. J., & Ballantyne, K. G. (Eds.). (2010). Professional development in action:
Improving teaching for English learners. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for
English Language Acquisition. Retrieved from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/PD_in_Action.pdf
Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new
demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Cho, S., & Reich, G. A. (2008). New immigrants, new challenges: High school social studies
teachers and English language learner instruction. Social Studies, 99, 235-242. doi:
10.3200/TSSS.99060235-242
Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s verbal behavior. Language, 35(1), 26–58.
Retrieved from http://cogprints.org/1148/1/chomsky.htm
Cobb, T. (2005). Foundations of linguistics approaches and concepts: Constructivism, applied
linguistics, and language education. Retrieved from http://www.lextutor.ca/cv/
constructivism_entry.htm
Page 115
103
Cook, H. G., Boals, T., & Lundberg, T. (2011, November). Academic achievement for English
learners: What can we reasonably expect? Retrieved from www.wida.us/get.aspx?id=485
Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second
Language Research, 7(2), 103–117. doi: 10.1177/026765839100700203
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 5(4), 161–169. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED019903.pdf
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed).
Los Angeles, CVA: Bilingual Educational Services.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc
Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research
process. London, UK: Sage.
De Jong, E., & Harper, C. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English language learners:
Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101-124.
Retrieved from http://www.teqjournal.org/backvols/2005/32_2/13dejong&harper.pdf
Dictionary.com. (2013). Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mainstream
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Book, C., Putnam, J., & Wesselman, R.
(1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading skill
Page 116
104
instruction and student awareness and achievement: A study of reading teacher effects.
Reading Research Quarterly, 21(3), 347–368. doi: 10.2307/747707
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23(2),
245–258. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.x
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2010). Making content comprehensible for English
learners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a second language. Ann Arbor, MI,
University of Michigan Press.
Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B., Saunders, W. & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the learning of
teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry
teams. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537-553. Retrieved from
https://people.stanford.edu/claudeg/sites/default/files/ESJ2009Gallimoreetalproofs.pdf
Garcia, G. (2009). Bilingual education. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/bilingual-education/
Garcia, O., Kleifgen, J. A., & Falchi, L. (2008). Equity matters: Research review No. 1. From
English language learners to emergent bilinguals. A Research Initiative of the Campaign
for Education Equity, New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Page 117
105
Genesee, F. (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students. Retrieved from
http://people.ucsc.edu/~ktellez/epr1.html
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language
learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH. Heineman.
Gil, L., & Bardack, S. (2010, May). Common assumptions vs. the evidence: English language
learners in the United States. A Reference Guide. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/
files/ELL_Assumptions_and_Evidence.pdf
Good, M. E., Masewicz, S., & Vogel, L. (2010). Latino English language learners: Bridging
achievement and cultural gaps between schools and families. Journal of Latinos and
Education, 9, 321-339. doi:10.1080/15348431.2010.491048.
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research:
Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today,
24, 105-112. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency? Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Publications/(2000)%20-
%20HOW%20LONG%20DOES%20IT%20TAKE%20ENGLISH%20LEARNERS%20
TO%20ATTAIN%20PR.pdf
Harper, C. A., & De Jong, E. J. (2009). English language teacher expertise: The elephant in the
room. Language and Education, 23(2), 137–151. doi: 10.1080/09500780802152788
Henrichsen, L. (2010). Basic training and resource connections for novice ESL teachers. Journal
of Adult Education, 39(2), 11–24. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ930242.pdf
Page 118
106
Hite, C. E., & Evans, L. S. (2006). Mainstream first-grade teachers’ understanding of strategies
for accommodating the needs of English language learners. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 33(2), 89–110. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795209.pdf
Hopper, J. (2011). Why do qualitative research? Retrieved from http://methodlogical.wordpress
.com/2011/02/16/why-do-qualitative-research/
Hutchinson, M., & Hadjioannou, X. (2011). Better serving the needs of limited English
proficient (LEP) students in the mainstream classroom: Examining the impact of an
inquiry-based hybrid professional development program. Teachers and Teaching: Theory
and Practice. 17(1), 91-113. doi:10.1080/13540602.2011.538499
Isaacson, L. S. (2004). Teachers’ perception of constructivism as an organizational change
model: A case study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (UMI No. AAT0388366)
Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative
research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Koelsch, N. (n.d.). Improving literacy outcomes for English language learners in high school:
Considerations for states and districts in developing a coherent policy framework.
Retrieved from National High School Center website: http://www.betterhighschools.org/
docs/NHSC_Adolescents_110806.pdf
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK:
Pergamon.
Page 119
107
Lambert, V. A., & Lambert, C. E. (2012). Qualitative descriptive research: An acceptable
Design. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, 16(4), 255-256.
Retrieved from http://www.tnc.or.th/files/2014/03/tnc_journal-
7642/pacific_rim_vol_16_no_4_pdf_15802.pdf
Lane, S., & Arnold, E. (2011, June). Qualitative research: A valuable tool for transfusion
medicine. Transfusion, 51(6), 1150-1153. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03112.x
Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (1994). Are we communicating? Effective instruction for students who are
acquiring English as a second language. Reading Teacher, 48(3), 260–264.
Leavitt, A. (2013). Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom: The
methods teachers use. The Researcher, 25(1), 79-93. Retrieved from
http://www.nrmera.org/PDF/Researcher/Researcherv25n1Leavitt.pdf
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research. Taurton, UK, Stan Lester
Development. Retrieved from http://www.sld.demon.co.uk/resmethy.pdf
Leung, C., Davison, C. & Mohan, B. (2013). English as a Second Language in the Mainstream:
Teaching, Learning and Identity (2nd Ed). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Li, G., & Edwards, P. A. (Eds). (2010). Best practices in ELL instruction. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring
intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of
Management Journal, 40(5), 1023–1062. doi: 10.2307/256926
Page 120
108
Magilvy, J. K., & Thomas, E. (2009, October). A first qualitative project: Qualitative descriptive
design for novice researchers. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 14(4), 298-
300. doi: 10.1111/j.1777-6155.2009.00212.x
Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in
qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of
Computer Information Systems. Retrieved from http://iacis.org/jcis/articles/JCIS54-2.pdf
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13, 522–525.
Retrieved from http://spa.hust.edu.cn/2008/uploadfile/2009-9/20090916221539453.pdf
Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interview. Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3). Retrieved from
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3027
Mays, L. (2008). The cultural divide of discourse: Understanding how English-language
learners’ primary discourse influences acquisition of literacy. Reading Teacher, 16(5),
415–418. doi: 10.1598/RT.61.5.6
McCleland, R. C. (2005). The executive coach’s experience: A qualitative phenomenological
exploration. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3188229)
Menezes, V. (2013). Second language acquisition: Reconciling theories. Open Journal of
Applied Science, 3(7), 404-412. doi: 10.4236/ojapps.2013.37050
Menezes, V. (n.d). Second language acquisition: From main theories to complexity. Retrieved
from http://www.veramenezes.com/slatheory.pdf
Page 121
109
Migration Policy Institute. (2006). Immigration and America’s Future: A new Chapter.
Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/task_force/new_chapter_summary.pdf
Moen, W., E. (1998). The development of ANSI/NISO Z39.50: A case study in standards
evolution. Retrieved from http://www.unt.edu/wmoen/dissertation/ch3.pdf
Moerer-Urdahl, T., & Creswell, J. (2004). Using transcendental phenomenology to explore the
“ripple effect” in a leadership mentoring program. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 3(2). Retrieved from
http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_2/pdf/moerercreswell.pdf
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
Myles, F. (2010). The development of theories of second language acquisition. Language
Teaching, 43, 320–332. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000078
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). English language learners. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2008a). Educating English language
learners: Building teacher capacity (Roundtable report; vol. 1). Retrieved from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/EducatingELLsBuildingTeacherCapacityVol1.
pdf
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2008b). Educating English language
learners: Building teacher capacity (Roundtable report; vol. 3). Retrieved from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/EducatingELLsBuildingTeacherCapacityVol3.
pdf
Page 122
110
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2008). The growing number of
English language learner students. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/
uploads/9/growingLEP_0809.pdf
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational
Programs. (2006). How many school-aged English language learners (ELLs) are there in
the U.S.? Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/01leps.html
National Education Association. (2012). Meet the needs of English language learner students.
Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/29914.htm
Neergaard, M. A., Olesen, F., Andersen, R. S., & Sondergaard, J. (2009). Qualitative
description- the poor cousin of health research? BMC Medical Research Methodology.
doi: 10.1186/147-2288-9-52
Ohio Department of Education. (2011, June 24). Profile of Ohio’s LEP students. Retrieved
from
http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRel
ationID=499&ContentID=1809&Content=107338
Ohio Department of Education. (2012a). Characteristics of programs serving LEP students in
Ohio. Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/
ODEDetail.aspx?Page=3&TopicRelationID=501&Content=119000
Ohio Department of Education. (2012b). Profile of Ohio’s LEP students. Retrieved from
http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail
.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=499&ContentID=1809&Content=107338
Page 123
111
Ohio State University. (2012). ESL–content teachers collaborative. Retrieved from
http://ehe.osu.edu/edtl/ectc/faq/
Pacifica Graduate Institute. (2012). Counseling psychology thesis handbook for 2012
matriculates. Retrieved from
http://www.pacifica.edu/uploadedFiles/Graduate_Degree_Programs/MA_Program_in_Co
unseling_Psychology/Thesis_Handbook_for_2012_Matriculates(2).pdf
Palaroan, M. (2009). Effect of teacher specialization training on limited English speaking
students’ assessment outcomes: Quantitative study. Dissertation Abstracts International:
University of Phoenix Dissertations and Theses Database.
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137–145. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.137
Salkind, N. J. (2008). Exploring research (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Practice Hall.
Samimy, K. K. (2012). Letter from the director. ESL Content Teachers Collaborative, 5(1).
Retrieved from https://ehe.osu.edu/edtl/ectc/downloads/ectc-newsletter-wi12.pdf
Schallert, D., & Martin, D. (2003). A psychological analysis of what teachers and students do in
the language arts classroom. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teaching in the English language arts (pp. 31–45). New York,
NY: Macmillan.
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginisation process: a model for second language acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Page 124
112
Schumacher, S., & McMillian, J. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Sedghi, A. (2014). Six-year-olds outstrip adults in digital understanding but teens lead the way.
The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/six-year-olds-outstrip-
adults-in-digital-understand-but-teenagers-lead-the-way
Shank, G. D. (2006). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Shore, K. (2013). Success for ESL students: 12 practical tips to help second-language learners.
Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/success-esl-students
Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2005). Teacher skills to support English language learners. Best of
Educational Leadership 2004-2005, 62, 8–13. Retrieved from http://www.kckps.org/
teach_learn/pdf/group2/t_l9_teacher.pdf
Silverman, D. (2004). Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice. London, UK. Sage.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Croft.
Snow, M. (2005). A model of academic literacy for integrated language and content instruction.
In E. Hinkle (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.
693-712). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spinelli, C. G. (2008). Addressing the issue of cultural and linguistic diversity and assessment:
Informal evaluation measures for English language learners. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 24(1), 101-118. doi: 10.108/10573560701753195
Page 125
113
State Board of Education & Ohio Department of Education. (2005). Standards for Ohio
educators. Retrieved from http://esb.ode.state.oh.us/PDF/Standards_OhioEducators.pdf
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Tavallaei, M., & Abu Talib, M. (2010). A general perspective on role of theory in qualitative
research. The Journal of International Social Research, 3(11), 570-577. Retrieved from
http://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/cilt3/sayi11pdf/tavallaei_abutalib.pdf
Thompson, G. L., Warren, S., & Carter, L. (2004). It’s not my fault: Predicting high school
teachers who blame parents and students for students’ low achievement. High School
Journal, 87(3), 5–14. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The condition of
education 2011. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011033.pdf
Van Manen, M. (2010). Researching the experience of pedagogy. Education Canada, 42(4), 24–
27. Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/sites/cea-ace.ca/files/EdCan-2002-v42-n4-
Van-Manen.pdf
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of
representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Page 126
114
Walqui, A. (2000). Access and engagement: Program design and instructional approaches for
immigrant students in secondary schools. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems for the Center of
Applied Linguistics.
Walt, J. L. (1992). Linguistics and second language teaching: An assessment. Stellenbosch
Papers in Linguistics. 25, 169-182. doi: 10.5774/25-0-80.
Welman, J. C., & Kruger, S. J. (1999). Research methodology for the business and
administrative sciences. Johannesburg, South Africa: International Thompson.
Wilson, K. (1999). Note-taking in the academic writing process of non-native speaker students:
Is it important as a process or a product? Journal of College Reading and Learning,
29(2), 166–179. doi: 10.1080/10790195.1999.10850077
Wisnor, S. (2012). Changes. ESL Content Teacher Collaborative, 5(1). Retrieved from
http://ectc.ehe.osu.edu/files/2012/10/ectc-newsletter-wi12.pdf
Wong, S. S., & Ng, V. (2008). A qualitative and quantitative study of psychotherapists’
congruence in Singapore. Psychotherapy Research, 18(1), 58-76. Doi:
10.1080/10503300-701324654
Xiao, Y. (2008). Building formal schemata with ESL student writers: Linking schema theory to
contrastive rhetoric. Asian EFL Journal, 32(2). Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-
journal.com/pta_November_08.pdf
Yang, L., & Wilson, K. (2006). Second language classroom reading: A social constructivist
approach. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 6, 364–372. Retrieved from
http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/yang_wilson/article.pdf
Page 127
115
Ye, H., Prater, K., & Steed, T. (2011). Moving beyond just got teaching: ESL professional
development for all teachers. Professional Development in Education, 37(1), 7-18. doi:
10.1080/19415250903467199
Youngs, C. S. & Youngs G. A. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers' attitudes toward ESL
students. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 97-120. doi: 10.2307/3587861
Zhang, Y. (2012). Collaboration and co-teaching: Strategies for English learners, by A
Honigsfeld & M G Dove. ESL Content Teacher Collaborative, 5(1). Retrieved from
http://ectc.ehe.osu.edu/files/2012/10/ectc-newsletter-wi12.pdf
Page 128
116
Appendix A
Informed Consent
Dear Participant,
My name is Ammar Al-Sharafi, and I am a student at the University of Phoenix working
on a Doctor of Education degree. I am conducting a research study titled Perceptions of ESL
Professional Development Programs by Mainstream Teachers: A Descriptive Qualitative
Study. The purpose of this descriptive qualitative study is to explore and examine the
viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers about the ESL professional development and training
programs implemented for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms.
This is a qualitative study collecting data through interviews.
Your participation will involve answering interview questions focusing on English
language learners and ESL professional development programs for mainstream teachers. Your
valuable participation is voluntary, and you can withdraw from this study at any time without
penalty or loss of benefits to yourself. The results of the study maybe published, but your
identity will remain confidential and your name will not be disclosed to any outside party. There
will be no foreseeable risks because of your participation in this study.
If you have any question about the research study, please feel free to call me at any time
at 904-294-1899 or send me an email at [email protected] . For questions about your rights
as a study participant, or any concerns or complaints, please contact the University of Phoenix
Institutional Review Board via email at [email protected] .
As a participant in this study, you should understand the following:
Page 129
117
1. You may decline to participate or withdraw from participation at any time
without consequences.
2. Your identity will be kept confidential.
3. Ammar Al-Sharafi, the researcher, has thoroughly explained the
parameters of the research study and all of your questions and concerns
have been addressed.
4. If Interviews are recorded, must give permission for the researcher,
Ammar Al-Sharafi, to record the interviews. You understand that the
information from the recorded interviews may be transcribed. The
researcher will develop a way to code the data to assure that your name is
protected.
5. Data will be stored in a secure and locked area. The data will be held for a
period of three years, and then destroyed.
6. The research results may be used for publication.
“By signing this form you acknowledge that you understand the nature of the study, the
potential risks to you as a participant, and the means by which your identity will be kept
confidential. Your signature on this form also indicates that you are 18 years old or older and
that you give your permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described.”
Signature of the interviewee _____________________________ Date _____________
Signature of the researcher ______________________________ Date _____________
Page 130
118
Appendix B
Non-Disclosure Agreement
Page 134
122
Appendix C
Confidentiality Statement
Page 135
123
Appendix D
Interview Questions
1. What kind of professional development and support does your school district provide for
mainstream teachers who work with ELLs?
2. How many times have you participated in any ESL professional development training
(pre-service or in-service)?
3. How would you describe the effectiveness of such professional development programs in
preparing you to teach ELLs?
4. How can the effectiveness of such programs, in addressing the needs of mainstream
teaches and ELLs, be improved?
5. How relevant were these programs to the teaching of ELLs in your classroom?
6. What are the main obstacles that prevent you and other mainstream teachers that you
know from participating in ESL professional development program?
7. What do you expect from future ESL professional development training programs?
8. On a final note, will you participate in any future ESL professional development training
program if it becomes available? Why or why not?