Page 1
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 1
Weighing the Social and the Academic:
The Effectiveness of the ESL Program in Reference to the High School Social Sphere
By
Kevin O’Leary
A research paper submitted in conformity with the requirements
For the degree of Master of Teaching
Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto
Copyright by Kevin O’Leary April 2015
Page 2
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 2
Abstract
This study seeks to analyse how English Language Learners (ELLs) are socially integrated into the main
student body in Ontario high schools, and whether those strategies are effective in their promotion of academic and social ELL success. Two former high school ELLs who have experienced teacher training
were interviewed and asked how their respective ESL programs were structured and whether they felt
they were effective. It was found that while the interviewees differed in how they perceive the value of
physically isolated ESL classrooms, both supported the notion that ELL social success in the mainstream English-speaking classroom influences and is influenced by academic success. I therefore concluded that
there must be a greater focus on social integration in ESL classrooms, so as to match the pre-existing
focus on academic factors.
Key Words: ESL, ELL, English Language Learner, English as a Second Language, Social Success
Page 3
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 3
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my two interviewees, who not only sacrificed their time but also
shared their personal beliefs and experiences with me. Without their willingness to candidly
explore their feelings, this paper would not have been possible. I would also like to thank Rob
Simon, my research supervisor, who was incredibly helpful, flexible, and understanding during
this process, and who granted me freedom but was always available to provide feedback. Any
successes within this paper can likely be traced back to him.
I would also like to thank my dog, Max, for sitting beside me during my writing sessions,
providing me with both warmth and company.
Page 4
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 4
Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6
The Research Question ................................................................................................................................... 6
Motivating Factors .......................................................................................................................................... 7
My Own Personal Stake ................................................................................................................................. 9
The Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 11
CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 14
The Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................................... 14
The Academic ................................................................................................................................................ 15
What teachers ought to know. .................................................................................................................. 15
Incorrect assumptions about success. ...................................................................................................... 16
Teacher perspectives. ................................................................................................................................ 18
The Social ...................................................................................................................................................... 19
Teacher perspectives revisited: a social outlook. .................................................................................... 19
A positive approach to ELL social justice. .............................................................................................. 20
Literature as a tool for social inclusion.................................................................................................... 21
A familial approach................................................................................................................................... 22
Articles that Synthesize the Academic and the Social ................................................................................ 23
Common Threads .......................................................................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER THREE: Methodology .............................................................................................................. 26
Research Design and Rationale .................................................................................................................... 26
Risk/Reward .................................................................................................................................................. 27
Interview Questions ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Data Collection .............................................................................................................................................. 27
Organization .................................................................................................................................................. 28
Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................................................. 29
CHAPTER FOUR: Findings ......................................................................................................................... 30
John. ........................................................................................................................................................... 31
Sal............................................................................................................................................................... 32
In-depth Analysis of Themes ........................................................................................................................ 33
Theme One: The ELL Program as Socially Isolating ................................................................................. 33
John. ........................................................................................................................................................... 34
Page 5
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 5
Sal............................................................................................................................................................... 35
Theme Two: Social Integration and Mobility as Possible individually but not Encouraged ................... 37
John. ........................................................................................................................................................... 37
Sal............................................................................................................................................................... 38
Theme Three: How to “Fix” the ESL Program: Schools as Active Promoters of Interaction ................. 40
John. ........................................................................................................................................................... 40
Sal............................................................................................................................................................... 41
Surprising Data: What was Missing and what I Expected to Find ................................................................. 43
The Missing ................................................................................................................................................... 43
The Unexpected. ............................................................................................................................................ 43
CHAPTER FIVE: Initial Assumptions versus Actual Findings .............................................................. 45
ESL Programs as Complex Social Ecosystems ........................................................................................... 45
The Literature Review versus Findings ....................................................................................................... 47
Findings Made Explicit ................................................................................................................................. 49
Initial Expectations versus Reality ............................................................................................................... 49
Implications for me as an Educator .............................................................................................................. 50
Implications for me as a Researcher ............................................................................................................ 51
Influence on me as a Person/Thinker ........................................................................................................... 52
Broader Administrative Implications and Recommendations .................................................................... 53
Qualifications and Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 54
Questions and Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 55
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 56
References .......................................................................................................................................................... 57
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................. 59
Appendix A: Interview Questions ................................................................................................................ 59
Appendix B: Letter of consent ..................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix C: Consent Form .......................................................................................................................... 61
Page 6
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 6
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
The Research Question
In Canada, the presence of immigrant groups is seen, by many, through a positive lens.
Yet while Canada’s mosaic culture is a laudable feat, there are certain issues that arise as a result.
This article seeks to tackle one such issue occurring in the academic realm: English Language
Learners (ELLs) and their social positioning within Canadian high schools. Are the strategies
used to socialize ELLs in high schools enough? Do such strategies even exist?
Specifically, this paper’s research question can be formulated as such: how are ELLs
integrated socially into the non-ELL community in Canadian high schools, and are such methods
effective? The term “effective” here will be explored from two perspectives: it will take an
“outsider” form, referring to how effective ESL teachers think the strategies they use to integrate
ELLs into their classrooms are, as well as how much they believe the students in their care have
integrated into the main student body; and it will take an “insider” or internal form, analyzing
how former ELL high school students view the strategies put in place to help them assimilate or
integrate into main classroom and school-wide social groups. This will be achieved through the
conducting of interviews. Note that “ELL” and “ESL” will both be used extensively in this paper,
with ESL usually referring to the teachers and the overarching program, and ELL the students
themselves, as that is the trend in modern literature.
Of note is the fact that the research question leaves open the possibility that there are
indeed effective methods in place encouraging ELL inclusion into the main student body, and
that this is not quite as troubling an issue as first thought. An important facet this paper explores
in greater depth later is the idea that there is a general lack of focus on ELLs as a social group;
Page 7
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 7
thus, the very fact that this paper analyses and give another voice to that group renders it useful
and worthwhile.
Motivating Factors
The research question above has its beginnings in my own interactions, or lack thereof,
with ELLs in my high school, John Cabot Catholic Secondary. In this school there were very few
cliques; the school was small enough (with approximately one thousand students) that each grade
was essentially one large social group. The segregation said to be present in larger schools was
arguably not there, allowing for a social environment that did not encourage the isolation of
certain ethnic and social groups. The result was a school where bullying was scarce, and there
was an atmosphere of healthy social interaction. The cafeteria was divided not by clique but by
grade.
One group did not fall in to this pattern of social cohesion, however—the (as they were
known then) English as a Second Language students. They were segregated both in the cafeteria,
sitting at a specific table near the main entrance, and within the classrooms, either spending most
of the day in the ESL room or sitting in complete silence in the main classrooms. These
individuals were not harassed or singled out for ridicule. In fact, the result was quite the
opposite—they were largely ignored.
I remember taking an interest in this group in grade eleven. One ELL student had been
placed in my art class. I did not hear him speak once, and did not know his name. I remember
asking other students in my grade if they knew who he was. None of them did, and many showed
confusion when I attempted to describe him. This individual—whose name I know now but will
not publish—had been at the school for three years, and yet nobody knew who he was, and
Page 8
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 8
nobody seemed to care. This fascinated me, and through further observation I found that this
trend extended to the other ELLs. For most, it seemed, they were Other. To students in many of
the mainstream social groups, they did not exist.
The above description, limited greatly by my own perception and biases, is an attempt to
make concrete the motivations at the core of this paper—the desire to find out whether my own
observations as a high school student regarding ELLs hold true in a general sense. If that is the
case, I find it quite troubling, as it is my understanding that all high schools students deserve the
option to integrate or recede from the mainstream social sphere. The opportunity for social
flexibility should be there; it seems both rational and intuitive to say that the conscious or
unconscious barring of individuals from that mainstream sphere is detrimental to both those
individuals, and to the general social landscape both within and without the school setting.
Further, there appears to be a marked lack of research on this specific subject. The
research conducted on ELLs in relation to community and inclusion seems to be centred on the
promoting of inclusion within those ELL groups rather than within the community at large, or
focus on ELLs outside of Canada; however, the limitations of the literature will be fully explored
in chapter three of this paper. Suffice it to say that, as in the high schools themselves, I do not
believe that ELLs have been given appropriate attention on the subject of mainstream inclusion
in the academic sphere.
The story told above was a simplistic one, presenting a series of generalizations, and it
should qualified with the statement that all “facts” presented above are from the perspective of a
white student who had little issue navigating the social space. The implications of this are
explored in the sub-section below exploring the limitations of this study.
Page 9
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 9
A piece of evidence that complicates the simplistic presentation above of John Cabot
Catholic Secondary issue exists in the form of a specific individual who branched out of that
ELL group and joined the “main” group, and who remains a friend of mine. This may seem
insignificant, in that no group’s members are all the same, but it presents an interesting set of
questions: why did this individual integrate himself into the non-ELL group, while the others did
not? What was the primary motivation, and did it originate from within that ELL group or from
without? An interview will be conducted with this individual parsing out his reasoning and
interpretation of events, an especially worthwhile endeavour in that he inhabited both groups
(ELL and non-ELL) during his time in high school.
My Own Personal Stake
It should be made explicit, if it is not already, that my motivations are somewhat personal.
Many of the individuals in my social group are immigrants who experienced many struggles in
their attempts to integrate into Canadian culture. Yet all of them, by high school, had largely
overcome those struggles and successfully navigated the mainstream social space (aside from the
individual in the aforementioned paragraph). I simply find it troubling that there are those who
remain on the fringe throughout all of adolescence; it may be that they desire this distance, but
many of my friends have told me, in the past, that during their time as “ELLs” there was an
intense sense of disconnect and alienation. To be trapped in that disconnected space with no way
to navigate one’s way out of it is enough motivation to warrant me exploring it as a topic of my
research paper.
Page 10
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 10
Who will Benefit?
The benefits to conducting this study are varied. I have already touched upon the intrinsic
benefit inherent in the very conducting of the study: in analyzing and critically thinking about
ELLs’ social place, this article is exploring another facet of a group I argue to be
underrepresented. Thus, regardless of this article’s findings, it is valuable in its very existence.
More obviously, and in less abstract terms, this study will be beneficial to individuals
interested in teaching ESL; it will emphasise the need to take overarching socialization into
account, rather than focusing purely on how specific concepts and subjects can be taught. It will
also prompt those individuals to think critically about certain methods used to socialize ELLs,
such as the pull-out strategy (pulling ELLs out of the primary classrooms and teaching them in
separate areas) that are perhaps taken for granted. Even if such persons disagree with the points
made in this paper, they will be forced to examine preconceived notions and truly think about
why they work or do not work. In a similar way, it will be useful to policy makers, who have the
potential to change the norms of ESL teaching on a much wider scale.
Lastly, it will benefit individuals at all interested in Canada’s proposed role as a diverse
mosaic, and those who wish to improve or cement that role. The implications of this study are
not narrow, but relate to Canadian society as a whole; it will be shown that the micro issues
present in high schools relating to ELL can be seen on a macro level in Canadian society in
general. As such, individuals existing outside of the academic sphere, without any input
regarding what concepts are taught to ELLs, will still benefit from thinking critically about how
immigrants effectively enter the mainstream social realm in Canadian society.
Page 11
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 11
My Background
I have little experience within the field of proper qualitative research. I am, rather, a
student of Humanities with experience in the History, English, and Philosophy fields; my
expertise thus lies in the examination of stories and the abstract interpretation of those stories—
the parsing out of arguments or themes in stories or papers where perhaps those things are
obscured. My academic background is thereby more likely to inform how I will structure this
paper rather than its content; that is, it will often attempt to parse out abstract ideas and
arguments from the specific stories and facts told. The primary danger there is finding patterns
where there are none. I must simply acknowledge, and make clear, whenever I am extrapolating
on the evidence in a way that may be considered subjective. That said, many would argue that
coding data is, in general, a subjective task.
This article takes for granted the view that immigration in Canada is a positive and
promoting integration is necessary. Therefore there will obviously be no exploration of the view
that the segregation of ELLs is a necessary or good thing for reasons specifically related to
ethnicity. Somewhat related are my experiences with ELLs, explored in detail above—many of
my personal friends are former ELLs, though most of them transitioned from ELL classes to
non-ELL classes before high school. It is difficult to tell how relevant those relationships will be
in reference to this article, and whether they will affect my opinions or arguments, but it is
something to be conscious of in the reading (and, for myself, the writing) of this piece.
The Limitations of the Study
One of the primary limitations of this study is my own role as an “outsider looking in”. I
am a white male living in Canada. I am a part of the majority, without any significant experience
Page 12
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 12
regarding feelings of cultural alienation. There are no powerful stories I can tell regarding my
own struggles with this issue that perhaps an individual with an ELL background might be able
to recite. There is a troubling disconnect there; this is yet another article written by a white male
about a group with which he has relatively little contact. I will call this the limitation of
heightened perspective. Not “heightened” in the sense that it is superior, but heightened in that
there is relatively little grounding me to the subject I am exploring.
To illustrate the above paragraph, simply look at the story told in the Motivating Factors
sub-section of this chapter; it is presented from the perspective of a distant observer, from
somebody who does not know the inner workings of the group he is describing. It is marred by
bias and my own limited perspective. How much more effective would that story be if told by an
individual within that group? And yet there is arguably value in an outsider’s perspective; it
allows for the exploration of an “othered” group by a member of the group contributing (even
implicitly) to the othering taking place. Such critical self-evaluation is arguably necessary and,
despite any inherent flaws, ultimately positive for all groups involved. Regardless, my own
positioning within Canada’s complicated cultural mosaic is an issue interwoven within this study,
for better or worse, and should always be kept in mind even when not explicitly referenced. And
although the focus of the paper is not on the inner workings of the ELL community as a group,
but rather on how the schools implement certain strategies, I will nonetheless act as a filter
between the voices of the ELLs being interviewed and the reader of this study, so it is important
that I make clear my place (or lack thereof) on this complex sociocultural map.
The other main limitation is more practical, and relates to the limited number of
interviewees present in the case study; due to limitations of time and resources, only two
individuals will be interviewed: a former ESL teacher, and a former ELL student. Having only
Page 13
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 13
two interviews will make it difficult to parse out general ideas. The ideas presented in those
interviews will have to be supplemented by other resources, such as academic articles and books,
as limited as they may be.
Another issue is that of labelling. This study has thus far used the term “ELLs”
extensively. In doing so, it arguably Others the group being analyzed. Unfortunately, this term is
necessary in both its brevity and its ability to differentiate non-ELLs from students in the ESL
program. Where it would be much more acceptable to label them “students in the ESL program”
so as to put their role as students first, it is too awkward a term to implement effectively and
universally. There will have to be an implicit understanding that the terms utilized are utilitarian
in nature.
Lastly is a problem mentioned earlier: the idea that this paper views this othering in a
negative light, where an ELL student may desire or actively promote this othering and distancing
for a variety of reasons. To clarify, this paper does not argue that all ELLs wish to enter the
mainstream social realm—it simply posits that such social flexibility should be an option. That it
takes the view that social flexibility is a positive for granted may itself be an issue to some, but
generally speaking it is uncontroversial to state that ELLs should have the opportunity to
integrate socially into non-ELL social cultures.
Page 14
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 14
CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review
The Theoretical Framework
This chapter will be dedicated to the analysing and structuring of academic works that
relate to this paper’s proposed research question. Before those works are discussed, however, it
is worth describing the theoretical framework this paper will utilize, as it will not only affect my
own research, but will have an implicit role in my critically assessing the pre-existing research
on this subject. This paper will draw upon critical theory in its structure and purpose; it seeks to
review the social and systematic elements constraining the social freedom of ELL students, and
promotes the overcoming of such constraints. “Promotes” here is taken to mean the suggesting of
alternative modes of thinking and structuring learning environments, although the majority of the
paper will be spent analysing and illuminating the pre-existing structures.
Of note is this paper’s eschewing of “critical race theory” as a singular focus in favour of
a more general approach. While race may play a large role, I do not want to presuppose that race
is the only relevant factor; so while this paper acknowledges the importance of race and ethnicity
in the discussion, and borrows many elements from critical race theory, it is not truly abiding by
critical race theory in its willingness to deviate from race as its central theme.
The Pre-Existing Literature
This next section delves into pre-existing literature on the subject of ELL learners and
their place in the classrooms and schools. It splits up into two categories: the academic, and the
social. “The academic” is a list of studies that relate to academic ELL inclusion, while “the social”
are studies relating to ELL social inclusion. By utilizing this structure it will hopefully be evident
that taking an academic approach to ELL inclusion is not enough—that the articles appearing in
Page 15
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 15
that section are more helpful to teachers than they are to students, and often have problematic or
troubling implications. Hopefully it is clear that a focus on the social is more rewarding for all
involved, in that academic success is a natural consequence of social and cultural inclusion.
The Academic
What teachers ought to know.
Mary J. Drucker (2003), in “What Reading Teachers Should Know about ESL Learners”,
presents an example of an article focused on the academic rather than the social. Drucker lists
specific strategies teachers may use to help ELL learners attain proficiency with academic, as
opposed to conversational, English, such as the use of rhetorical questions or choral reading
(Drucker, 2003, pp. 23-24). The focus on academic English is interesting in that it represents the
focus on the academic over the socially beneficial—that is, where conversational English would
be much more useful for ELL students in the social sphere, academic English, which will benefit
them in their formal learning, is promoted.
The article acts as a useful resource for teachers, but its title is troubling in that it appears
to presume that the knowledge being bestowed by Drucker is all-encompassing and well-rounded,
when in fact it fails to adequately address the social sphere. The title also implies that the
complexities surrounding ELL learners can be distilled into a very simple set of guidelines,
which is obviously not the case. The article has little else to offer in terms of content, but is an
apt representation of the assumption that teachers must be aware only of how to teach
information effectively, without a real focus on the integration of their students into the school
body (in this case, through conversation). This conflation of general success and academic
success is embodied in the article discussed below.
Page 16
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 16
Incorrect assumptions about success.
The article by Kelleen Toohey and Tracy M. Derwing (2008) called “Hidden Losses:
How Demographics Can Encourage Incorrect Assumptions about ESL High School Students'
Success” is an examination of ELL student success rates. The article questions the idea that, in
British Columbia, ELL students graduate at a higher rate than non-ELL students. It is ultimately
found that, while this is true, ELL students in BC are less apt to take classes that involve
examinations that make post-secondary education possible, and are also more likely to take
classes that do not require any substantial understanding of English (Toohey and Derwing, 2008,
pp. 188).
The above findings are obviously important, and underscore troubling trends
academically for ELL students, but what is interesting and troubling in equal measure is the
article’s definition of “success”. What does it mean for an ELL student to be successful in his/her
school? Toohey and Derwing seem to take the Government of British Columbia’s ESL policy at
face value, which states that the goal of the ELL program “is to assist students to become
proficient in English, to develop intellectually and as citizens and to enable them to achieve the
expected learning outcomes of the provincial curriculum” (Toohey and Derwing, 2008, pp. 179).
The article takes this definition and labels it a “successful outcome” (Toohey and Derwing, 2008,
pp. 179). But is this all success is for ELL students? The definition refers, almost entirely, to
proficiency, intellect, and learning; the only non-academic goal is the development of students as
“citizens”, which seems a vague side-note, and is unsurprisingly ignored by Toohey and
Derwing, who use graduation rates and literacy as the primary indicators of success.
Page 17
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 17
Thus, for the purposes of this paper, this article represents the troubling trend of defining
success in an academic context. Can you truly quantify ELL success? One can look at graduation
and course statistics, but there is no chart or datasheet displaying social success—by which I
mean a student’s level of comfort interacting with others in English. Indeed, it seems reasonable
to state that success for students learning English is far more complex, entering both the
academic and social spheres, and that this social aspect requires a qualitative approach. This idea
that ELL success is purely academic has also (disconcertingly) been adopted by teachers, as will
be shown below the Teacher Perspectives section.
The article “The Impact of High School Exit Exams on ESL Learners in British
Columbia” by Dennis Murphy Odo (2012) adds to this idea that ELL success should be more
than their quantifiable academic scores. Odo notes that ELL students often have issues with exit
exams in British Columbia due to the tests not adequately accounting for lower language
proficiency or cultural understand (Odo, 2012, pp. 4). In solving this dilemma, Odo promotes a
variety of solutions, all of which take on a decidedly academic character—he suggests altering
the tests, the use of accommodations (dictionaries, extra time), and dual-language assessment
(Odo 6). Yet like Toohey and Derwing, Odo would benefit from a social perspective—why not
alter ELL exams in such a way to incorporate social knowledge, such as an oral portion? The
result would be a formal recognition of the importance of social learning for ELL students, and
would essentially force teachers to place a greater emphasis on ELL social learning. How,
exactly, that social element would be evaluated is difficult to figure out, but it is an idea worth
exploring.
Page 18
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 18
Teacher perspectives.
“New Immigrants, New Challenges: High School Social Studies Teachers and English
Language Learner Instruction” by Seonhee Cho and Gabriel A. Reich (2010) is an article
discussing the findings of a study that asked high school social studies teacher what their needs
are in relation to ELL students. This reading is especially useful in its analysis of the teacher
perspective—of what teachers believe ELL students require of them. It is found that ELL
teachers are willing to differentiate their instruction only when “they do not take too much of a
teacher’s time or require considerable extra effort” (Cho and Reich, 2010, pp. 238). And the
strategies the teachers do use in helped ELL students are focused on the superficially academic—
on enunciation, slower speech, and extra time (Cho and Reich, 2010, pp. 238).
While the above article has been placed in “The Academic” section of this chapter, it has
implications for the social development of ELL students; as will be shown below, in an article by
George Theoharis and Joanne O’Toole, the social inclusivity for immigrant and ELL students
takes effort, time and resources. Thus, if teachers, as Cho and Reich show, are not only putting in
minimal effort but also limiting that effort to the academic sphere, then it stands to reason that
enacting any sort of change will be a difficult process. Cho and Reich thus display the self-
centred approach many teachers take to ELL students. This mindset indicates an othering of ELL
students—if it seems that helping an ELL student might take too much time or effort, they are,
by virtue of that “ELL” label, given up on and sent elsewhere. Since ELL-specific programs
exist outside of the primary classroom, they are seen, evidently, as expendable. Notably, Cho and
Reich’s solutions for these teachers rest upon an academic foundation as well; they promote
breaking down information, breaking down oral and written tasks, and the like (Cho and Reich,
2010, pp. 239). Of special note is their suggestion to “think like an outsider” (Cho and Reich,
Page 19
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 19
2010, pp. 239). This wording is interesting, as well as troubling—there is the implicit acceptance
here that ELL students are indeed outsiders. Would it not be better advice to have teachers
eliminate that outsider mindset among those students?
The Social
Teacher perspectives revisited: a social outlook.
Where, in the last section, Cho and Reich discuss the perspectives of teachers in regard to
ELL learners from an academic standpoint, Bogum Yoon discusses the effect of teachers’
perspectives on ELL learners from a social standpoint. In her article entitled “Uninvited Guests:
The Influence of Teachers' Roles and Pedagogies on the Positioning of English Language
Learners in the Regular Classroom”, Yoon notes that how teachers see ELL students directly
influences their level of participation. Do they self-identify as teachers for all students? As
teachers for “regular education” students? Or as teachers for a single subject (Yoon, 2008, 515)?
The latter two types of teachers, represented in Yoon’s study as Mr. Brown and Mrs. Tayler
respectively, have a narrow focus (either on what their students require, or what they should be
teaching) and ignore the social and cultural needs of their ELL students (Yoon, 2008, pp. 504).
Teachers who believe themselves teachers for all students, as embodied by Mrs. Young,
recognize the diverse needs of ELL students, and are aware of their social and cultural needs
(Yoon, 2008, pp. 504). The methods by which ELL students might be included focus primarily
on the sharing of cultural information and perspectives; the students are prompted not to
assimilate, but to share their different cultural practices, while the non-ELL students are
encouraged to appreciate those differences (Yoon, 2008, pp. 504-505).
Page 20
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 20
Here we see an active attempt to eliminate the aforementioned “outsider” mindset—to
take differences that define that label and turn them into something empowering. This article not
only elaborates on (in a much more socialization-centric way) the idea of teacher perspectives
affecting ELL students, but also provides a strategy to eliminate the “outsider” role, rather than
merely suggesting that teachers try to view things from the outsider perspective.
A positive approach to ELL social justice.
The article “Leading Inclusive ELL: Social Justice Leadership for English Language
Learners” by George Theoharis and Joanne O’Toole (2011) dicusses social justice for ELL
students, and strategies that could be used to better integrate them into the school communities. It
is, perhaps, the article most similar to my own subject. It does, however, utilize a much more
“positive” approach, focusing not on how schools are failing to meet this need, but on strategies
schools can use, and are using, to meet and exceed it. For example, Theoharis and O’Toole decry
the use of both “pullout” (the pulling out of ELL students to separate classrooms) and
“immersion” (the placing of ELL students into the general student population without any
support); they instead recommend placing the ELL students into the classrooms, wherein they
receive differentiated instruction and home language support from various individuals, including
bilingual staff (Theoharis and O’Toole, 2011, pp. 654).
The key point the article promotes is the use of differentiated, specialized instruction that
is not obvious, so as not to segregate the ELL students from the general populace; in doing so,
the ELL students receive the benefit of interaction with their English speaking peers, while not
suffering academically. The entire paper goes through various strategies similar to this one—that
is, strategies which promote inclusion, and make viable the elimination of separate ELL
Page 21
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 21
programs altogether. Ultimately the paper promotes various methods by which schools and
teachers may meet the needs of ELL students and their families (Theoharis and O’Toole, 2011,
pp. 682). However, as noted, the paper does not go into detail regarding how the average school
is failing to meet these social needs, but simply analyses schools that already have these
progressive strategies in place; this is obviously pragmatic and useful, but I believe that by
illuminating how schools have failed, or are failing, further solutions will become obvious.
Literature as a tool for social inclusion.
“Language, Literature, and Learning in the ESL Classroom” by Mary Kooy and Annette
Chiu takes an interesting approach to ELL social and cultural inclusion; the article promotes the
idea that literature can be used to help students integrate into the classroom. Note that
“integration” here in no way relates to “assimilation”; Kooy and Chiu promote classes wherein
ELL students “become ‘one of us’ without necessarily becoming ‘like us’” (Kooy and Chiu,
1998, pp. 80). “Us” here obviously means the majority. This is an interesting approach in that it
does not contradict Yoon’s ideas above, which promote the sharing and appreciation of different
cultures as a means to help the ELL students “belong”. It takes a “have your cake and eat it too”
approach to cultural acceptance, in that it promotes both acceptance and the keeping of one’s
cultural identity, rather than pure assimilation and the obliteration of that cultural self.
Kooy and Chiu’s approach is also interesting in its melding of the academic and the
social—that is, the use of a typically academic tool as a social lubricant. According to the article,
literature is useful in its role as a tool where language and meaning meet, and as a source of
encouragement for the ELL learner—a beacon showing what is possible once they attain a
greater understanding of the English language and truly attain their own English voice (Kooy and
Page 22
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 22
Chiu, 1998, pp. 79). The argument could be made that the ideas presented in the article are very
narrow—that is, it presents only one solution for a very complex issue—but it is valuable in its
novelty and as a resource to draw upon in addition to the other, more recent articles on ELL
social inclusivity. Regardless, this idea of ELL students having a voice in classrooms without
necessarily mimicking the voice of the majority is, in my opinion, an incredibly important one;
the goal of inclusivity is not to strip them of their Othered identity, but to change the landscape
so that that different identity is accepted.
A familial approach.
“Urban Principals’ Facilitation of English Language Learning in Public Schools” by
Derry Stufft and Rebecca Brogadir (2011) is an attempt to list the strategies being used by
principals in schools to facilitate ELL learning, as well as strategies they deem most effective. It
functions as a sort of guiding document for teachers and principals, and lays out what I believe to
be a very balanced approach to ELL teaching; Stufft and Brogadir not only emphasise catered
instruction (Stufft and Brogadir, 2011, pp. 565), but also the importance of collaboration
between ELL students and teachers, and ELL students and other, non-ELL students (Stufft and
Brogadir, 2011, pp. 566). Yet this interaction between the social and academic is not the article’s
only strength—Stufft and Brogadir also place importance on involvement from parents of ELL
students (Stufft and Brogadir, 2011, pp. 568).
This focus on family life is a novel one, unseen in the other articles appearing in this
chapter. Yet it seems obvious, upon reflection, that family life is an important and worthwhile
focus for schools, especially in reference to ELL students. As the article notes, “family
connections are central to one’s sense of identity and responsibility”, which relates to the idea
Page 23
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 23
promoted by Yoon, Chui, and Kooy, that schools must not destroy that sense of identity when
attempting to integrate ELL students (Stufft and Brogadir, 2011, pp. 568). By breaking down this
barrier between family and school life, perhaps schools will feel less alien and segregated from
the cultural practices and norms recognized by ELL students’ families.
Articles that Synthesize the Academic and the Social
Some researchers do take both the social and academic into account; in “The Intersection
of Cognitive and Sociocultural Factors”, Jim Cummins (2012) argues that the social has a direct
and observable effect on an ELLs ability to engage academically with his or her course work.
Cummins (2012) states, “…students from communities whose identities have been devalued in
the wider society will benefit from instruction that affirms their identities within the context of
the school” (p. 1975). Cummins indicates a clear link between where a student exists or
perceives herself to exist on the social hierarchy (within both society and the school), and how
that affects a student’s academic performance. Cummins frames an ELLs cultural background
and home language as “social capital” to be exchanged and negotiated between student and
teacher (Cummins, 2012, pp. 1983). It is the article’s focus on this intertwining of the social and
academic that I find especially noteworthy. Cummins does not take a binary approach but views
the social and academic as intertwined, with one affecting the other and vice versa. In this article,
teachers who somehow incorporate or advocate for a student’s sociocultural concept of self are
(in essence) rewarded with a greater level of focus and engagement from that student. The reality
of this concept will become evident in the fifth chapter of this study.
Norma Gonzalez, Luis C. Moll, Martha Floyd, Tenery Anna Rivera, Patricia Rendon,
Raquel Gonzales, and Cathy Amanti (1995) analysed a concept created by Moll known as “funds
of knowledge” in a study entitled “Funds of Knowledge for Teaching in Latino Households”.
Page 24
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 24
The article observed teachers entering the households of Latino students and functioning not as
arbiters of knowledge, but as learners absorbing the cultural and social knowledge present in
their Latino students’ home lives (Gonzalez et al., 1995, pp. 444). This “funds of knowledge”
concept can, and has been, applied to several different immigrant cultures and families. Here too
we see the combining of the social and academic in the acknowledgement that a student’s social
place in the home and their local community can have a direct impact on their learning, and by
acknowledging and considering this social reality teachers can better accommodate those
students. Once again the effect of the social on the academic is acknowledged and illuminated;
and the date of the article (1995) indicates that this is not new or particularly novel information.
Common Threads
There are a variety of common threads running through all of these works. Hopefully the
point has been made that focusing purely on the academic is not enough—that a foray into the
ELL social environment is a much more worthwhile endeavour, in that (as many researchers
have shown) academic success often follows social success, as it promotes engagement with the
material, as well as participation through the promotion of the ELL “voice”. That is not to say
that the researchers who focus on the academic have “failed” in any way, or that their findings
are not useful—they certainly are; this chapter merely seeks to reinforce the idea that an
academic focus should be built on a strong social foundation. Where the minutia of ELL
academia is the roof, the social environment are the walls and foundation—the walls must be
sturdy before the roof can even be considered, with the walls being the deciding factor in the
shape, size, and overall aesthetic of the roof; so too does academia follow social practice in the
ELL realm.
Page 25
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 25
Looking at the articles present in the social section of this chapter, it appears that the
subject has been exhausted—that this paper’s foray into that realm is largely unnecessary. This I
do not agree with; the social thinkers referenced in the paper all present an impressive array of
solutions and strategies, but relatively little attention is paid to the reality that these strategies are
not utilized. Most were abstract explorations of ideal methods of teaching. This paper takes on a
grittier, more realistic tone—it seeks to explore the reality of ELL teaching in Ontario, with a
focus on its failures, after which it will explore, in brief, possible solutions. I believe that it is
incredibly important to recognize and exhume the existing social and institutional structures
constraining ELL students before you can adequately approach novel ways to make their
situation better; this is where I feel the social thinkers failed. Broken systems ought to be put on
display before their replacements are installed, if only as a form of consolation for those that
system has touched (albeit a hollow prize when one’s social life has been so negatively affected).
Further, none of the researchers appeared to explore this subject from an explicit critical theory
lens, so looking at the subject from that mindset will prompt some novel ideas and concepts.
Ultimately I believe that the articles that attempt to synthesize the social and academic –
Cummins (2012) and Ganzalez et al. (1995)—are the most useful and the most realistic; to focus
purely on just the academic or just the social is to deny the reality that both concepts are closely
intertwined. It would be more accurate to state, in fact, that ELLs are influenced by a
“socioacademic” amalgamation—a claim which will be elaborated upon as I reveal my findings.
Indeed, when I propose a more socially-oriented focus, I do not propose that educators or
academics ignore the academic aspect of ESL teaching and learning, as such a move would be
impossible given the irreversible symbiosis between the social and academic.
Page 26
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 26
CHAPTER THREE: Methodology
Research Design and Rationale
This study is interested in exploring the issue of “voice”—of voices that are heard, and
voices that are silenced. This study does not make any grand or sweeping claims about ELLs
being silenced, but it does acknowledge that more attention needs to be paid to the ESL program
in the academic sphere, with a more pronounced focus on the opinions of English Language
Learners. As such, it is only fitting that the primary source of data collection be interviews
focused on the experiences of former English Language Learners.
Participants
There are two interviewees; both interviewees are former ELL students who are now in
the teaching profession or TESOL trained. Both interviewees are of Korean descent, and were
chosen because they were/are in a teaching program that involved learning about or directly
teaching current ELLs (John was in a full-fledged concurrent teaching program and Sal received
TESOL training). Note that while John intends to teach full-time, Sal has decided that he does
not want to pursue an ESL teaching career despite having the credentials necessary to teach
English in Korea; he did not state why. Both interviewees were recruited via email. I wanted to
get the perspective of both the teachers and the students, but did not have the adequate
permissions to interview a current student; I believe my solution is a balanced approach
nonetheless.
Page 27
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 27
Risk/Reward
The risk for Sal and John is minimal; however, my questions do concern themselves with
the issue of neglect in relation to ethnic identity, which may prove an emotional subject for some,
especially if they have experienced significant discrimination in the past. I have touched upon
the reward in previous sections—the very exploration of this alleged discrimination in schools
and the promotion of the ELL-centric voice is a reward in and of itself. I further posit that there
are benefits for the interviewees; the former ELLs get their voices heard and have their
experiences recorded, while the ESL teachers perhaps have an opportunity to reflect on their own
teaching strategies, and the strategies utilized by those in the ELL program generally, and have
their voices heard as well.
Interview Questions
The interview questions, appearing in Appendix A, place a focus on personal experience
and subjective perception—focusing both on what the subjects think of the ELL program in a
theoretical sense, as well as on their experiences and the specific beliefs resulting from those
experiences. How social were ELL students? How social did the ESL teachers believe their
students to be? Why—what experience or experiences lead them to believe this? From these
viewpoints I seek to tease out more general beliefs about the effectiveness of the program as a
whole in that setting.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with two participants. One
interview was conducted in an OISE library study room, and another via Skype (the only option
Page 28
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 28
given that the interviewee no longer resides in Canada). In terms of atmosphere, the interviews
were structured and professional, but relaxed and candid enough to parse out genuine opinions.
Data was analysed via the pinpointing of statements relating to either social or academic
ELL success in both interview transcripts, resulting in the creation of two very general categories
for each participant. This was followed by my comparing each category; for example, I would
look at John’s “social” category, and the statements therein, and compare it to Sal’s “social”
category, finding similarities and differences. From this I created specific themes that reflected
the recurring motifs within each interview, both in terms of what John and Sal agreed on and
what they disagreed on. These more specific categories were used to structure my fourth chapter,
with each sub-heading representing a different theme.
Organization
The interview answers were recorded with my phone, and then transcribed verbatim
(albeit with any “ums” and “uhs” omitted). One major issue I had with the literature on ELLs is
this proclivity for the quashing the voices of ELLs in research reports, even though the authors
sought to improve the ELL program or, ironically, create measures by which the ELL
perspective is better heard. In many of the articles I read, interviewees would often be
paraphrased and bunched together into a unified whole, with their collective views summed up in
a single sentence. For this reason, I chose to include many of my interviewees’ answers in full,
followed by my analysis. And as stated, the fourth chapter is divided according to the theme that
those interview excerpts support.
Page 29
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 29
Ethical Considerations
A letter of informed consent was sent to all parties involved, and appears in Appendix B.
I verbally reiterated the information on the consent form during the actual interview, and made
clear that it is not a binding contract (that is, that they are not obligated in any way to participate).
I also made it clear that they may refuse to answer any questions, can withdraw from the study at
any time, and may also review the final transcript to look for any errors.
Limitations
There are pitfalls to the approach outlined above. Since the amount of interviewees is
limited, so too is my ability to apply their stories in any universal or near-universal manner, even
with the addition of my personal reflections. But that is not what this paper seeks to do; I do not
seek to create a unified theory decrying the ELL system in Ontario or Canada. I merely hope to
prove that, in certain schools, ELL students are not receiving the support they require socially,
and even if this is not some overarching problem occurring in all schools, the fact that it is
happening at all is troubling and worth exploring. The dissatisfaction of the few should not be
drowned out by the satisfaction of the many, if in fact that majority of ELL students receive the
necessary social support.
Page 30
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 30
CHAPTER FOUR: Findings
This chapter presents the data gleaned from my conversations with participants. I
interviewed two individuals who had experience with the ELL program and are now trained as
ELL teachers themselves. My questions were primarily intended to gather information regarding
whether, from their perspectives, the ELL program is doing enough currently to promote social
integration, although I was also concerned with the link, if any, between academic and social
success, and how the program could change.
Unexpectedly, the second participant, Sal, indicated that his ELL environment was much
different than the environment seen in public Ontario schools (how it was different will be
discussed later); as such, his questions had to be altered and improvised mid-interview, resulting
in a slightly incongruent relationship between the questions asked of each participant. The
themes, however, mirror each other and are organized thusly. While surprising, I believe this was
actually a positive thing in that it allows me to compare two drastically different approaches to
the ELL teaching environment and how those environments foster or deter social inclusion.
Note that locations and names of specific schools and school boards have been redacted,
and participants’ names changed to keep their identities anonymous. Many of the questions I
asked prompted criticism of the administration and the way things are currently run in schools
and teaching programs; the first participant, “John”, was especially candid in his criticism of the
ELL program and the teaching program in general. For these reasons, anonymity was and is of
vital importance.
Page 31
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 31
Summary of each Participant’s Experiences and Background
John.
John is about to graduate and obtain his teaching certificate, although his motivations for
doing so do not relate to ESL—he believes that math is being taught in an obtuse way by most
teachers and wishes to teach in a more accessible way. John arrived in Canada in 2005 and ended
up in a Catholic high school, where he spent one year as a student in the ELL program. His
program was structured so that ELL students would attend mainstream classes, and occasionally
be removed and placed in specialized ELL classes. John believed that these ELL classes were not
helpful, and instead stated that it was his friends that taught him English through simple
conversation about topics he was interested in, such as philosophy and television shows. He
posited that the ELL teachers were incapable of speaking in-depth about these subjects, focusing
purely on the clinical side of teaching—grammar, vocabulary, etc—and thus what they taught
was often uninteresting and ineffectual.
John also stated that most students in the ELL program were not being socially integrated
or encouraged to socially integrate into the main student body, and instead generally opted to
bunch together in groups. This may have negatively impacted their academic success, since they
were not interacting with Canadian students. Further, John believed that ELL teachers did not
know how to properly judge and categorize ELL students, and as such ELL students with low
abilities were being placed in the same group as though with higher abilities, resulting in
academic stagnation. Interestingly, John posited that he did not believe the ELL program to be
socially harmful, and that ELL students can interact with and become friends with “Canadian”
students if they so choose—it is simply that many of them do not make the effort and resolve to
band together with others from their country. The onus, to John, is on the student—that is to say
Page 32
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 32
if students want to be socially successful, they can be, but must self-advocate and make friends.
The bulk of his criticisms fall primarily in the academic sphere, on teachers and administrators,
believing ELL teachers to be negligent in every sense of the word (socially, academically, etc),
and wants the government to focus more on the ELL program in an effort to improve teacher
performance.
Sal.
Sal arrived in Canada when he was fifteen and entered a school that differed from John’s
in its approach to ELLs. It was a private academy, and instead of pulling ELLs out of the main
classrooms periodically there was an entirely separate “institute” where they would learn
independent of the other students. ELLs would spend all day in the academy learning only
English, and would interact with other mainstream students during the lunch period. Once an
ELL became “good enough” at speaking and writing English, he or she would be transferred to
the main high school, although according to Sal most students opted to go to a different school in
a different area (perhaps due to the private school’s status as a “Christian” institute).
Sal spent one year in the institute and did not interact with any of the “Canadian” students
during lunch. Both groups were completely segregated and there was no attempt by
administration to merge both groups. Sal left that school after one year and specifically sought
out a school that had no ELL program, feeling that the ELL program was holding him back
academically and would make it more difficult to graduate. He had no trouble interacting with
the Canadian students at his new school and believed that his one year of intensive English study
was necessary in that it provided a buffer between his entering Canada with limited English
knowledge, and his interacting with native English speakers.
Page 33
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 33
Sal seemed to look at that one year of isolated English study as a positive—granted it was
followed up with integration into the main student body. It provided a comfortable zone where
those who were uncertain about their English abilities could interact, with the comfort coming
not from any shared language but a shared inability to speak English with fluency. However,
according to Sal, if taken too far such a program could backfire and result in groups of students
banding together and speaking only their native tongue, leaving them unprepared for University
and life in Canada. This, Sal posited, is not an issue with the ELL program specifically, but a
matter of course considering the high number of East Asians in Canadian and the ease with
which students can find a group that caters to their specific linguistic needs.
Like John, Sal emphasized the role of the individual. He stated that social movement is
possible, but it depends on the personality of the individual—for example, he left the isolating
ELL program and took it upon himself to enter an environment where such isolation was
impossible.
In-depth Analysis of Themes
In this section I look at four themes and discuss how each participant expressed ideas
related to that theme. In each instance John will be discussed, followed by Sal.
Theme One: The ELL Program as Socially Isolating
Both John and Sal state that the ELL program is socially stifling in certain ways, but they
appear to disagree on whether such imposed isolation has any value or is necessary either
socially or academically. John believes it hinders one’s academics and, possibly, one’s social
standing. Sal seems to view the one year of social isolation and academic focus as a positive
thing leading to social integration.
Page 34
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 34
John.
I asked John whether enough was being done to promote social success among ELLs—
whether the program was encouraging or enabling learners to socialize with native English
speakers. John responded:
Not necessarily. I've seen this case where all these ESL kids hang out with ESL
kids. Then their level of English is going to be staying that same, you know,
among their group, which, there's no improvement. While I hang out with whole
bunch of Canadian kids […] I picked up English and learned words right away.
There appears to be a transparent link here between social and academic success—between
natural conversation and a more natural acquisition of language.
When asked about whether the ELL program does enough to promote academic success,
the answer was similar, with John replying:
I just asked my friends help, 'cause they also speak English too, right? And then
my friends were actually great teacher, because they know the material and then
they know what type of writing they have to write. But ESL students [he later
corrected this and said he meant to say “ESL tutors” or “ESL teachers”], they
don't know the material, so if I take philosophy and we're talking about maybe
some philosopher... My friends would know what they're talking about. They will
know... what topic we have to go over and what type of words we have to put it in
to satisfy those rubric. […] So [ESL teachers] can only make--fix grammatical
error, but friends, they can actually help you with the contents, and the
grammatical error, and words and vocabularies and so on.”
An interesting point is being made here about ESL Teachers and their lack of knowledge, or their
unwillingness to speak on deeper issues. Again this harkens back to the idea espoused by
academics like James Cummins (2012) that natural language studies, ie. candid social
Page 35
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 35
communication and negotiation, is more valuable academically than more clinical or isolated
studies in grammatical structure.
I believe that how students are seated in a cafeteria is an excellent indicator of social
norms in that environment. When asked where ELL students generally sat during lunch, John
replied, “I still noticed that [groups bunched together]... Like, for example, a lot of Spanish kids,
they hang out with themselves, they would actually meet in cafeteria with Spanish people and
they talk Spanish and hang out.” This stands in contrast to John’s less insular approach.
Sal.
Sal spoke about the interaction between ELLs and mainstream students, stating:
So like mostly I know that public schools, they go to actual classes with other
people but then they still take ESL courses together but mine was like, um, just
like whole ESL class, like you don't get to see other people except on lunch hours,
but it was in separate buildings, but then just like learning English not like other
subjects but English.
In his school the ESL structure was novel, in that they were placed in an entirely different
building where the only subject taught and learned was English.
I asked him whether it was full immersion, and whether any non-English, mainstream
classes were offered:
No, it was all English. Listening and vocab and things. But yeah mostly people, if
they are qualified--there are three different levels--if they are qualified after all
they get to go to actual classes. But then like mostly, I did too, they just change to
either public school or private school later on.
He discussed whether he viewed the total segregation of the ELL school populace in a
positive light.
Page 36
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 36
Yeah, somewhat, because usually… Well, I didn't get a chance to go other ESL
classes like the ones in public school, but then I felt you know it's just mostly
they're FOBs [fresh off the boats], and then if you're just totally separated than to
what people... You are just not much nervous and then maybe you will be still
able to have some conversation in your own language, like, mother tongue
language, right? But still you were learning English in English. Because teachers
only speak English and they teach you grammar and everything in English, right?
So still you get to learn it and you don't get too nervous compared to the ones who
go to public school--they don't speak much English but still have to go to regular
classes learning other subjects.
Sal views this isolation as a necessary period of transition for ELLs, wherein they are given a
year where they are learning English but do not have to speak it to Canadian students, helping to
ease their nerves. It also grants these students the skills they need to converse naturally in later
years. This is, of course, is in direct contrast to John’s (and Cummins’) points about ESL-based
social isolation leading to linguistic stagnation.
I asked the same question I asked of John—about the makeup of student in the cafeteria
and the placement and whether ELLs could/wanted to interact with non-ELLs.
Well, you could, but then it's just we are sharing one big cafeteria. Well yeah, I
think they could, but at least I didn't. […] But mostly I--from what I remember--
hardly they have any other conversation. Except a few.
We see a direct conflict here between approaches to ELL socialization. John experienced
gradual integration and partial isolation, whereas Sal went from one extreme to the other after a
single year—pure isolation to assimilation and sociocultural mainstream immersion. There is a
difference here regarding the perceived value of isolation in the ELL socialization process; John
does not seem to view it as a necessary part of the process, but Sal presents it as a sort of
necessary evil.
Page 37
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 37
Theme Two: Social Integration and Mobility as Possible individually but not Encouraged
My participants each reiterated the idea that, individually, movement among the
mainstream student body was very much possible if certain steps were taken by ELL students,
but not necessarily encouraged by ESL teachers or the program. John explicitly addressed this
idea in his responses. By contrast, Sal was more abstract in his responses, though he still
emphasized individual qualities and choice that allow one to overcome the pressure to simply
stay within your own ethnic group, and the choices he made personally that allowed him to move
among different social groups.
John.
I asked John what ELL students generally did when placed in a classroom full of non-
ELL students, to which he replied:
I didn't really look for Koreans, I just looked for my friends who were in, like, my
Canadian friends from elementary school, maybe, right? So I wasn't really
looking for Korean people. But I've seen, for example, one Iraqi--one of my Iraqi
friends, he sat with another Iraqi friend. They were both in these classes, so they
kind of... cultural, they met together, they sat down together.
Note that he responds here not as a teacher but from the perspective of a former English
Language Learner; I did not specify which role I wanted him to embody. I responded by asking,
“[…] you [could] interact with just the main students if you wanted to?” to which John
responded, “It really depends on the person's personality”.
Here, then, we see John contrasting himself with an Iraqi ELL. He says that he wanted to
speak with his Canadian friends, and was able to achieve that goal, but that the Iraqi student did
not venture outside of his social comfort zone.
Page 38
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 38
John gave a similar answer when asked whether the ELL program provides adequate
preparation for University life:
I don't think so. But it also goes down to personal aspect. Cause if the person
wants help for actual Canadians, then he will, but sometimes there are a lot of--a
lot of immigrants who intend to meet their own country-people. Which they start
only speaking their own language, so they don't improve English.
This was itself followed up with a question asking, “[…] so it's up to the individual in the ESL
program. It doesn't necessarily force you to interact socially with anyone?” to which John
responded in the affirmative. Here we have this theme made very concrete; the ESL program can
prepare ELLs socially for University, but that requires some desire on the part of the student,
some self-advocacy. The “default” seems to be culturally segregation, with ELLs who exercise
social mobility having some added quality that the others maybe do not have.
Sal.
This theme was less obvious in Sal’s answers, but is still, I believe, present in an answer I
have already eluded to, about ELL behaviours in the cafeteria.
Well, you could, but then, um, it's just we are sharing one big cafeteria. Well yeah,
I think they could, but at least I didn't. But then the way it works was people were
qualified--if they think one is good enough to go to actual regular class, you know,
they send--they're able to go to actual class and attend. Like, quitting ESL classes
and go to that actual class. And also there are some of them already there. Like,
you know, there's like Korean or any other Asian people were actually attending
regular class in that school. So, um, yeah, like, through them just maybe cause
they will know some of the people there too. But mostly I--from what I
remember--hardly they have any other conversation. Except a few.
Again there is this notion of choice; Sal could have spoken to other students at lunch, and
some of his peers did, but he did not feel compelled to. And the ones that did were
Page 39
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 39
seemingly in the minority. It appears that self-advocacy dwindles in settings where ELLs
are overtly segregated from non-ELLs. Though ELLs have agency they are perhaps
influenced by the overt message being sent by the administration that the two groups
should not yet mingle.
Sal went into the qualities necessary for one to feel “Canadian”. His response delved into
the qualities necessary for certain immigrants to truly feel integrated:
Usually it depends on people but then some people, even if they live in Canada
for long time, they don't feel like they are assimilated. But then like for me I
always try to adapt to new things and then try to discover something new and then
try to get along with them. So yeah, for me it's just like, you know, yeah, I would
consider myself as being Canadian later on. For even now, too.
The “For even now, too” refers to his still feeling Canadian, despite his leaving the country. This
contrasts the previous answer in that Sal, evidently, does feel compelled to integrate himself into
Canadian culture at this point in time, a change that occurred, it seems, in spite of the ESL
program in which he was enrolled.
Sal described why ELLs were unable to interact with non-ELLs:
[…] all the people have different language ability, right? I was the most good
speaking level, but mostly, if they just are not good enough to speak much in
English, you know, still after they go to regular class for like even starting from
that other public school, they are somewhat nervous to speak English, and then
not even trying to speak to them. So it really depends but then, another reason
would be [that in] Canada, there are so many Koreans--Asians, especially
[redacted city name], you know, the population of Asians is so high. So even if
you don't talk to other--try to get along with other people, you know, to white
people, or any other Canadian, but then they don't even try, but then still people
finish school with only having their own ethnic people, right?
Page 40
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 40
There are two important points here. First, Sal states that one’s language level influences one’s
willingness to interact socially with Canadians (made more interesting by John’s belief that
social interaction leads to a higher language level). Secondly, he states that it is incredibly easy
for those insecure about their English skills to bunch together into ethnic groups—a feat made
easy in Canada’s multicultural cities. This is a complicated issue, as multicultural cities are
intuitively a good thing. And yet, as Sal indicates, they seem to foster an insular attitude among
some immigrants, hindering social and linguistic growth.
Theme Three: How to “Fix” the ESL Program: Schools as Active Promoters of Interaction
I believe that exposing which steps the participants believe should be taken to “fix” the
ESL program is necessary in its illumination of current issues in the program. Ultimately both
John and Sal appear to promote schools “pushing” ELL students to interact with non-ELL
students through various means—John promotes a buddy system (while implying that this will
not completely solve the issue since the Ministry of Education simply pays too little attention to
the ESL program), and Sal promotes not only a specific teaching style for ESL teachers, but also
appears, from my perspective, to promote a method of socialization similar to his own
experiences (one year of isolated study followed by placement in a non-ESL environment).
John.
John believes that ESL programs need to improve. He elaborated with the following:
I would say, you add a—maybe buddy system. Like a Canadian kids become
friend with ESL students so that they, you know, hang out together after school,
or even in school together. You know? So that they can actually speak more, and
Page 41
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 41
maybe that buddy can bring his friends, and then you know, become… So that
ESL student can make more friends and he can learn even better English, right?
Seeking clarification, I asked, “…[that’s] the social, right, but it leads to academic success?” He
responded in the affirmative but offered no further clarification. Regardless, it is clear that this
directly related to John’s earlier belief that social success is intrinsically linked with academic
success.
It must be noted that John states that the ESL program could improve if the Ministry of
Education simply paid more attention to it, and cared more. To him it is not a matter of ignorance
or a lack of understanding, but a lack of empathy and care. When asked if the Ministry is
concerned enough with the well-being of ELL Students, John stated, “I don't think they are
[concerned about ESL students]. I don't think, generally, the Ministry of Education–I don't think
they care about the education system.” This statement is simple but striking, and perhaps
indicates a feeling of disenfranchisement on John’s part. Whether this disenfranchisement is the
result of his experiences in the ESL program is pure speculation, but given his previous
comments and his negative attitude towards the program it would not be entirely surprising. It is
interesting that, despite feeling that the ministry does not care about ELLs or the education of
students, John decided to become a teacher himself.
Sal.
Sal’s solution was two-fold, and also less explicit. I asked what strategies he would
utilize if he were to teach an ESL class. He responded:
It really depends. It depends on the age, pretty much. If I were to teach like my
age when I was in ESL class, like teenagers, I don't know. Hm. I think I will mix
half and half [half activity-based and half lecture-based teaching]. I felt like kind
of boring there, cause, you know, you don't do any activity, but you just get a
Page 42
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 42
grammar book and we just go over together and then, you know, and then vocabs
you have to just--there's like a little elementary school level of books and then
you get to just, you know, practice the handwriting, you know, you have to do the
handwriting and just memorize the vocabs and thing. I think all that matters is the
age.
The above quotation appears to concern teaching style rather than socialization. It is a
valuable answer, however, in that it displays his willingness to incorporate and his perceived
value of methods of teaching that John would likely decry (lecture-based studies of grammar).
Sal’s idea of how ELL students ought to navigate socially within the program appeared
later, after I asked whether his one year of isolated ELL study hurt him socially.
Usually I would work so it was like, for me, if you just go to public school and
you don't speak much English, and the other white people there are not even
going to try to have any conversation with you. Because, you know, you'll be the
one who doesn't speak English and they don't even want to start any conversation.
So that would be more isolated because you don't know anybody and trying to
only get along with Asian people in regular high school, but I was in the other
ESL-only based class for a year and then, um, for that way I just managed to have
made other Asian friends there only anyways, right? But then still, you know,
since I came, like, just came to Canada and then I didn't go that nervous and then I
still get to have many other friends and then after a year, after I changed the new
school, still I was somewhat okay to speak English. And then, since there weren't
many other Asian people there and then people were still nice in my school too. It
wasn't much of a big deal to just have talk and have some friends.
Thus Sal’s proposal for how the ESL program could change socially appears more implicitly in
his description of his own socialization process and the effect that one year had on him as an
immigrant still coming to terms with the English language. He seems to value his transition-
based approach and supports the idea of the temporary isolation of ELLs from Canadian students,
followed by the placing of those students in situations where those cultural support structures are
Page 43
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 43
no longer viable. Note that I am extrapolating from his points and attitude and he at no point
states that all students ought to be subject to this same form of social integration.
Surprising Data: What was Missing and what I Expected to Find
The Missing
As a researcher I attempted to be as unbiased as possible; that said, I still went into these
interviews with certain expectations. One thing I wholly expected to find was explicit statements
by both participants that their ESL programs were actively socially stifling. Sal did say that his
one year of intensive study was socially isolating, but then emphasized that it was necessary to
allow for social freedom in later years, and that most students simply chose to leave the program.
John, again being more explicit, simply stated that the program was not socially harmful, but
academically harmful, and also emphasized that it was the choice of the student to isolate him or
herself socially, with many taking that route.
This unexpected data reveals my naivety when speaking about ELL students; in assuming
that they are constantly being acted upon or subjugated, I have downplayed their agency and
failed to give them the credit they deserve. Lacking full access to English does not make one
incapable of choice and movement in an English dominated climate. This does not derail my
paper, however, in that while the ESL program does not seem to actively stop ELL students from
navigating socially, it also does not seem to be doing enough to promote this movement. This is
an idea that will be explored in greater depth in Chapter Five.
The Unexpected.
One major surprise for me in carrying out these interviews was the amount of
disenfranchisement John seemed to feel—not just toward the ESL program but his teaching
Page 44
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 44
program in general. He seemed to feel that the Ministry simply does not care about students and
the issues they face. He also placed great emphasis on this concept of obscured teaching
methods—that is, teachers were not being as clear as they should be, and were abstracting
relatively simple concepts in their teaching. I found this fascinating but could not delve too
deeply into these concepts as his answers were veering away from ESL and into the math realm.
Another unexpected event occurred when Sal revealed the unorthodox structure of his
ESL program, as well as his relative lack of interest in teaching (he explained that he entered the
TESOL training program because he wanted a backup career available to him when he re-entered
Korea). I did not anticipate these two shifts and thus had to reconfigure my questions mid-
interview—I not only had to remove or alter questions that assumed the participant was placed in
a traditional high school setting, but also had to reconfigure questions that were too teacher-
centric. This is readily apparent in the interview transcript, as I seemed to struggle slightly to
come up with appropriate questions at the beginning of the interview.
Page 45
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 45
CHAPTER FIVE: Initial Assumptions versus Actual Findings
ESL Programs as Complex Social Ecosystems
This study was concerned with methods of social inclusion for English Language
Learners in the Ontario high school setting; it sought to analyse what was being done to include
ELLs and whether these methods were effective. “Effective” here meant it gave ELLs ample
opportunity to integrate into the main student body if they so chose. I decided to conduct
interviews with two individuals who were not only ELLs but also received TESOL or general
teacher training—individuals who could provide a dual perspective in their ability to recount
experiences not only as students learning English, but also had insight into how ESL is currently
taught. Ultimately it seemed that both individuals spoke more as students than as teachers, with
most answers drawing upon their experiences as ELLs or former ELLs in the high school setting.
The findings were somewhat complex in that John and Sal’s answers differed in many
respects, but nonetheless touched upon similar themes. I found that certain forms of the ESL
program were not necessarily socially stifling at all, as John’s case illustrates. The program did
allow for mingling between students, with the ESL class as something an ELL did in addition to
his or her mainstream classes. John further emphasized that whether one integrates into the
mainstream Canadian school population is up to personal preference; he contrasted his own
desire to speak to Canadian students with that of an Iraqi student who would only seek out other
students with an Iraqi background.
Sal’s private program looked significantly different, however, with his program utilizing
a segregated approach. Sal spent his first year in Canada in an English-only institute separate
physically from the main school. Students interacted only at lunch, and even then very few ELLs
chose to speak to Canadian students, and vice-versa. Nonetheless there was, again, a focus on
Page 46
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 46
personal choice and one’s own priorities, with Sal claiming that many ELLs simply chose to
leave the program once they felt ready, or were graduated from the program, and entered
different schools where (presumably) there was more ELL-mainstream interaction. This is
slightly more complex than John’s situation, what I would regard as a socially stifling program,
with its segregated structure—and yet Sal indicated that this one year of intensive and isolated
study allowed him to comfortably transition into the mainstream environment.
While both programs allow for current or eventual social movement, it is important to
note that they also allow for social stagnation. Both participants took advantage of opportunities
to implant themselves into environments where English was the dominant language, gravitating
towards more multi-ethnic groups, which is the only reason I ended up interacting with them in
the first place. But what of the students mentioned in their interviews that did not feel compelled
or confident enough to engage in this movement? Both interviewees contrast themselves
occasionally with students who did not take the same social route, and who either became
comfortable with isolation or who receded into small, ELL-only groupings.
From the above, then, it is clear that while the ESL program in Ontario is not actively
quashing the social movement of students in as absolute a way as I perhaps insinuated earlier, it
nonetheless fails to promote or more explicitly allow for the social inclusion of language learners.
And while earlier I indicated that having ESL programs give ELLs the opportunity to socially
integrate into the primary student body would “be enough”, I believe there are systematic,
cultural, and psychological barriers that keep these students from self-advocating and taking
advantage of this social freedom. Without forcing the students to make friends if they do not
want to, ESL programs must nonetheless do more to expose ELLs to other social groups. John
Page 47
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 47
indicated as much when he proposed a “buddy system” approach, and Sal himself voiced
concern over the insular nature of many groups, especially in a multicultural Canadian context.
Perhaps the most confusing finding related to the academic importance of socialization.
John appeared to wholeheartedly believe that his social interactions as a student provided the
richest learning opportunities, with ESL classrooms far too intellectually dry and lacking in deep
content. Speaking in English about interesting concepts, rather than speaking about childish
concepts or about English itself, was what lead to a greater learning experience for him. Sal,
however, appeared to view social isolation as a prerequisite for true learning. There should be a
period, he seemed to state, wherein one is involved in intensive English study and is not
concerned with English-based social matters; this will result in the quickest academic
achievement. While both participants seem to disagree with one another, their arguments are
more similar than one might initially think. Although Sal posits that non-social frontal loading is
a necessity, both arguably agree that socialization is a hugely influential factor in
thedevelopment of a student’s English abilities. For John this is quite obvious; he makes this
clear in his placing all-English interactions as the ultimate goal for any student studying in a
segregated ESL-only environment. It is still a necessity for students wishing to achieve a well-
rounded understanding of English.
The Literature Review versus Findings
In chapter 2 I analysed and critically engaged with literature that already exists on this
topic. I placed the articles into two macro-sections: papers that focused on the academic, and
papers that focused on the social. Within those sections were micro-sections breaking down the
Page 48
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 48
themes of each article. There was also a small third section discussing studies that combined the
social and academic.
In chapter 2 I stated that many articles focused purely on the academic when discussing
ELL success; Mary Drucker (2003), for example, spoke only about academic achievement and
framed her suggestions as all-encompassing. Toohey and Derwing (2008) framed ELL success
as purely academic. And yet there was existing research on the importance of the social, with
Bogum Yoon (2008) working to eliminate this “social outsider” mindset among teachers, and
George Theoharis and Joanne O’Toole (2011) discussing very concrete and practical ways to
incorporate more socialization opportunities for ELLs in schools. There were other articles, but I
will not speak to them individually; rather, I intend to speak on the themes I parsed from the
articles as a whole.
What this research has emphasized for me is the need to view the ESL program not as
either in need of social or academic attention; there needs to be, rather, a greater synthesis of
those two concepts in the literature, as the work of Cummins (2012) and Gonzalez et al. (1995)
illustrates. For the ESL program, the academic and social cannot be separated into separate
categories, but are two sides of the same coin. John stated that the social leads directly to
academic achievement, whereas Sal appeared to state that academic achievement will lead to
greater social achievement, which will in turn lead to increased academic achievement. Both
concepts flow into one another, are inseparable from one another, and compliment one another.
This is not to say that I believe all academics are making this mistake, or even that most
are—only that this is what I have perceived in the majority of the literature discussed in this
paper, and indeed was a mistaken assumption that I held unconsciously while creating the
structure of my second chapter. These categories merely warrant more scrutiny and explicit
Page 49
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 49
engagement, and need to have a greater presence in publications. That said, I do acknowledge
that sociocultural/academic synthesis is well-established as a concept; it merely needs to be
given more of a focus.
Findings Made Explicit
To make my findings clear, then: while ESL programs do not actively stifle English
Language Learners, they also do not grant enough opportunities for ELLs to venture outside of
their comfort zones and socially interact with those outside of their respective ethnic or social
contexts. Administrators need to implement something like the buddy system, or even just make
it more explicit that social growth will lead to academic growth—an idea posited and supported
by both interview participants. The specifics of this new program fall outside the scope of this
paper, but it is nevertheless clear that social intermingling between ESL classrooms and
mainstream classrooms needs to be given some attention, and the benefits of this intermingling
need to be made overt to English Language Learners.
Initial Expectations versus Reality
I must admit that the findings of my research painted a much more complex picture than I
anticipated. I had created a very neat theoretical binary (social vs. academic) and because this
theory coincided with my own subjective understandings, believed that my interviews would
more or less support that binary. And yet reality is often much muddier and opaque than theory,
and I was left with interview responses that presented a much more subjective and complicated
picture, and fell more in line with the Cummins’ (2012) view of sociocultural ESL contexts.
Page 50
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 50
John presented an understanding of the ESL program that very much fell in line with my
observations. He was explicit and candid in his answers, and was very much entrenched in the
viewpoint he presented. Sal, however, presented answers that were more layered and obscured—
which is not to say that I believe his answers were worse. From my understanding his stance on
ESL was merely less defined, resulting in answers that saw him grappling with certain concepts
that he did not necessarily consider before; this is all, of course, my subjective assumptions.
Nonetheless his answers had to be parsed more carefully and with a greater eye for detail.
I believe, however, that this complicated narrative resulted in a superior study; my
findings are layered and complicated, and would likely be interpreted in a different way had they
been encountered by a different researcher. And this is okay—good, even—as the research will
not be confined to my own dichotomized understandings of the ESL program but will have value
to others who perhaps interpret certain details in different ways.
What this muddiness meant for my “neat theoretical dichotomy”, however, related to
what I stated earlier about the academic and social influencing and flowing into one another.
Simply, it has become obvious that there is no black or white, but several shades of grey; in other
words, one teacher’s strategy will never be purely focused on the academic or social, but rather a
mix of both, with each one influencing the other in both positive and negative ways.
Implications for me as an Educator
While ELLs were already a focus for me by virtue of my wanting to teach the subject,
this research has nonetheless influenced me greatly as a teacher. I plan to take the knowledge I
have gained—namely, the knowledge that the social and academic are intertwined, and that
greater attention must be paid to the social not only for the sake of the ELLs academics but for
Page 51
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 51
their wellbeing in general—and try to make real, positive changes in the classroom. No longer
will I merely pinpoint an ELL in the classroom and create various accommodations for him or
her, as well as provide one-to-one help for him or her, but I will also consider what I can do to
promote social movement.
Take, for example, a student who I met in one of my early practicum schools. A girl in
grade ten, she was in the ESL program. She did not speak to any other students and often sat
alone. At the time I made an effort to speak with her during work periods and ensure that she
understood what needed to be done; however, with this new appreciation of the social, I feel I
may have failed her in some small way. Now I would make an effort, perhaps, to have more
group work with assigned and randomized groups. In so doing she would be given the
opportunity to interact with her fellow students, without being forced to extend that interaction
passed the purely academic. There were, of course, group assignments, but they often were not
random and could have benefitted from my explicitly considering the student’s isolated social
position.
This research has also emphasized the need for me to advocate for these students,
however. I mentioned in the first chapter how, as a student, I noticed that ELLs were isolated and
often forgotten; in doing this research I have become aware that this is still largely the case. I
believe it is only right that I shift the focus to ELLs whenever appropriate, not just in an effort to
promote the idea that they need to be given social agency, but just in general.
Implications for me as a Researcher
This study has promoted the idea for me that theories are often far too neat and clean to
apply to the real world. Even the findings I present in this chapter, after I have completed my
Page 52
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 52
interviews and revised my understandings in light of this new information, I present an argument
that is far too simplistic to apply in many situations. Reality is inherently subjective, and will not
wholly conform to any hypothesis, no matter how logical or backed by evidence. This is
heightened by the reality of teaching, wherein there are several variables in play, such as the
board you are in, the school, the makeup of one’s classroom.
Thus, it is important not to take one’s research-based understandings of a situation and
attempt to apply them wholesale to reality, as one of two things will happen, both problematic:
you will find yourself doing the wrong thing at the wrong time, or you will warp your own
interpretations to fit into the neat theoretical package you have created for yourself.
I have also learned to become suspicious of myself and my biases; though qualitative
research (and indeed all research) will always have biased elements, there are ways to make
these biases less pronounced. I am constantly questioning whether my biases are affecting my
research questions, and how I interpret this research. Indeed, I even wonder whether I was
displaying non-verbal (or verbal) hints during my interviews that indicated what kind of answer I
wanted to receive. Ultimately I believe this self-reflective skepticism is healthy, as it leads to the
eventual quashing of such problematic questions and interpretations, and so I welcome the
uncertainty it heralds.
Influence on me as a Person/Thinker
Broadly, this research has reinforced the idea that there are insidious and less obvious
forms of exclusion that go largely unchecked by those in privileged positions of power. The
teacher does not mean to ignore the ELL, but it happens—thus neglecting that student of certain
social and academic needs, resulting in exclusion and inequity. This extends outside of the
Page 53
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 53
academic realm into every context. Some individuals are simply forgotten or not given the
attention that they require to thrive.
This paper will not attempt to find a solution for all of society’s socio-cultural ills.
Nonetheless this research has resulted in me paying greater attention to those who may not be
actively subjugated, but who are nonetheless forgotten and not given the attention they need to
achieve their potential, both within schools and without.
Broader Administrative Implications and Recommendations
There are several implications residing in the policy and pre-service realm; though school
administrators ought to play a reactive role and implement strategies to promote social ELL
integration, it is arguably more imperative that ESL programs not only change but that language
education is a greater focus in teacher education programs like OISE. Doing so would represent a
more proactive approach—meaning teachers do not have to be trained during the school year but
will enter schools with the knowledge they need.
Based on my own experiences, the OISE Masters of Teaching program did not focus on
the ESL program or offer a class focused purely on ESL. This changed recently (2015), with
ESL being given the focus it deserves moving forward. Rightly so, as I believe this lack of focus
could have been contributing to the systematized ignoring of ELLs as an educational priority. It
has yet to been seen how effective these new programs are, but that ESL is being made a focus at
all is a very positive step.
For teachers looking to improve this situation, I recommend looking up strategies that
allow for ELL social movement. Mentioned in the literature review, “Language, Literature, and
Learning in the ESL Classroom” by Mary Kooy and Annette Chiu uses literature to promote
Page 54
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 54
social inclusion. This is just one example—the point is to collect and adapt various activities and
strategies that bring ELLs into the classroom socially, and emphasize how important that process
is in mastering English, without necessarily forcing those students to assimilate. Obviously this
is a more complicated process than I describe here, but simply trying is a step in the right
direction.
Qualifications and Limitations of the Study
Most of this study’s limitations have been mentioned and elaborated upon in previous
sections, but will be collected here for the sake of clarity. First, the study may be coloured by my
biases, both in how I have crafted and how I have interpreted my research question/interview
question, which is something I view as largely unavoidable. Second, I present here a neat
theoretical framework that likely does not entirely remain stable when compared to a variable-
filled, subjective reality.
What has not been mentioned in detail is the problematic nature of my role as a white
man. I speak from a place of great societal privilege in this study about a group I claim is
subjugated, which is an issue for two reasons: one, because I do not have full access to their
perspectives outside of the interviews I have conducted, and two, because this research paper
may be interpreted as me “speaking on their behalf”, which I cannot do as a result of my lack of
access and my privileged societal standing. All I can do to remedy this is emphasize that I speak
on nobody’s behalf, and that my perceptions are coloured by my own biases and reflect only the
reality that I inhabit.
I also limited myself by recording only two interviews, although this was a practical
decision born out of time limitations and other logistical factors. Nonetheless I do not intend for
Page 55
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 55
this study to represent any universal truth, and have made this clear in my discussion of bias and
theoretical limitations, so this is largely a non-issue.
Questions and Next Steps
Related to the section above, I question how universal my findings are. Limited as I am
by time, I focused only on southern Ontario and was limited to interviewing two individuals. I
wonder, then, if these findings may have application to north, west, and eastern Ontario, and
indeed to all of Canada. What does the ESL program look like in Quebec? Vancouver? Nunavut?
Even beyond that, how might my findings apply to the United States? Certainly some of the
literature I read was based on American data or were influenced by American research. If I
interviewed two ELLs from New York, or Ohio, or Florida, would I receive the same or similar
results?
Of course, one natural progression for future research would be to explore other countries.
This is interesting in that it can take two forms: you can ask how the native language of, for
example, Korean is taught to foreign learners, and also how English is taught to native Korean
learners. How does it compare? Do students face the same challenges?
Indeed, for next steps I will be conducted research in Korea. I will be spending a year in
Korea teaching English at a private academy, and will, through simple informal observation, be
paying attention to my own English lessons and prescribed teaching styles, as well as how I am
taught Korean as a foreign learner, as I will be taking courses to further my understanding of
한국말—the Korean language. Hopefully this abrupt change of perspective will give me some
much needed insight not only into how ESL is handled abroad, but also what it is like to be the
learner in a situation similar to those of adult ELLs in Canada. I will have to negotiate the
balance I myself strike between the social and academic.
Page 56
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 56
Conclusion
This study has attempted to parse out the intricacies of the ESL program in the context of
social inclusion, finding that there truly is no distinction between academic and social success—
one will inevitably lead to the other. Whether the results of a study interviewing two individuals
can be made universal is debateable, but I nonetheless feel that the knowledge obtained through
this research is valuable in its merely discussing problem of ELL exclusion, as I believe it is a
subject that does not get the attention it deserves. All I can ask as a researcher and educator is
that the reader considers what has been written in this study and attempts to come up with his or
her own solutions.
Page 57
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 57
References
Cummins, J. (2012). The Intersection of Cognitive and Sociocultural Factors in the Development
of Reading Comprehension Among Immigrant Students. Reading and Writing, 25(8),
1973-1990.
Drucker, Mary J. (2003). What reading teachers should know about ESL learners. The Reading
Teacher, 57(1), 22-29.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, R., & Amanti, C. (1995).
Funds of Knowledge for Teaching in Latino Households. Urban Education, 29(4), 443-
470.
Kooy, M., & Chiu, A. (1998). Language, literature, and learning in the ESL classroom. A
Classroom Kaleidoscope, 88(2), 78-84.
Odo, D. M. (2012). The impact of high school exit exams on ESL learners in British Columbia.
English Language Teaching, 5(9), 1-8.
Seonhee, C., & Reich, G. (2008). New immigrants, new challenges: high school social studies
teachers and English language learner instruction. The Social Studies, 99(6), 235-242
Stufft, D., & Brogadir, R. (2011). Urban principals’ facilitation of english language learning in
public schools. Education and Urban Society, 43(5), 560-575.
Theoharis, G., & O’Toole, J. (2011). Leading inclusive ELL: Social justice leadership for
English language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(4), 646-688.
Toohey, K., & Derwing, T. M. (2008). Hidden losses: How demographics can encourage
incorrect assumptions about ESL high school students' success. Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 54(2), 178-193.
Yoon, B. (2008). Uninvited guests: The influence of teachers’ roles and pedagogies on the
Page 58
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 58
positioning of English language learners in the regular classroom. American Educational
Research Journal, 45(2), 495-522.
Page 59
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 59
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Interview Questions
1. In what way(s) have you been involved in the ELL/ESL program?
2. How was the program you were involved with run—were the ELLs taught in a separate
classroom, were they integrated into the primary classrooms, or was another method
used?
3. Was the method you described above effective, from your perspective? In what ways was
it effective? In what ways was it ineffective?
4. Were the ELLs in your program isolated from the main student body? If so, in what
way(s) were they isolated? If not, can you describe what this integration looked like?
5. Do you feel that enough was/is done to promote academic success among ELLs?
6. Do you feel that enough was/is done to promote social success among ELLs?
7. Do you feel that the ELL program needs to improve? If so, in which ways?
8. Does the ELL program have a responsibility to promote both academic and social
improvement among ELL students? If so, should there be an equal focus, or does the
scale skew in a certain direction? If not, why?
9. Do you believe that the ELL voice and perspective is well represented and listened to on
an administrative level?
10. Did you, or do you, see evidence of the ELL program improving over time? If so, how is
it improving?
11. Does the ELL program adequately prepare students for social challenges they will face
after graduation?
12. Do ELL students generally emerge from the program after graduation “fully formed”, or
is there usually a need for additional academic, linguistic, or social support?
13. Where do ELLs see themselves in relation to Canadian culture?
14. What do/did the ELL students do during lunch period? Do they eat together, disperse, or
do something else? Paint a general picture.
15. How do ELL students behave in a classroom of non-ELL students? Did you ever see that
happen?
16. Does gender play a role at all in the success of ELL students? Is there a disparity at all?
Page 60
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 60
Appendix B: Letter of consent
Date:
Dear __________________,
This is a formal letter inviting you to participate in a voluntary research study on ELL social
integration in high schools. I am an Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) Masters of
Teaching Graduate Student, and am conducting research on this topic for my final research
project. My course instructor guiding this process is ____________, and my research supervisor
is ________________.
The purpose of this study is to analyse the amount of academic and social support ELL students
are receiving in high schools, with a focus on social integration into the wider student body. As a
researcher I will benefit directly from your contribution, as your experiences and perspectives
will provide insight for both the readers of my research and for myself as I develop my paper.
I am requesting a maximum one and a half-hour interview at a place that suits you. The interview
can be conducted in a place of your choosing, or I can arrange a space in the OISE library.
Compensation for public transit will be offered if required. I also request that you make yourself
available for further email consultation if needed.
The findings of my report will be published on a UofT website (“T-Space”) and will also be
presented to my peers at a research conference. No identifying names will be used; your identity
will be confidential. The only individuals privy to this information will be my course instructor
and supervisor, ________ and __________ respectively. There is minimal risk for you as a
participant.
This is not a binding contract, and you may withdraw your contributions at any point, and
request the audio recording be deleted. Further, you may refuse to answer any questions, and
may request to look over the transcript to ensure accuracy or omit any pieces of information.
Lastly, I will not be taking notes during the interview process; I will record only your voice.
Please sign the attached form if you agree to the above process.
Thank you,
Kevin O’Leary
Phone:
Email:
Page 61
Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 61
(Instructor)
Phone:
Email:
(Supervisor)
Phone:
Email:
Appendix C: Consent Form
I acknowledge that I have read the letter of consent and agree to the terms laid out therein. I am
aware of my rights as a participant and have addressed any questions or concerns to Kevin
O’Leary, and will continue to do so. By signing below I agree to participate in this study.
Signature: ________________________________________
Name (printed): ___________________________________
Date: ______________________