Relationships Among Teachers Attitudes Behaviors Toward English

Walden University
ScholarWorks
Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies
2016
Relationships Among Teachers' Attitudes,

Behaviors Toward English Language Learners,
Experience, and Training
Sandra Mitchell
Walden University
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations

Part of the Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons, and the Teacher
Education and Professional Development Commons
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral
Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact ScholarWorks@waldenu.edu.
Walden University
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
This is to certify that the doctoral study by
Sandra L. Mitchell
has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by
the review committee have been made.
Review Committee
Dr. Nicolae Nistor, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty
Dr. Beate Baltes, Committee Member, Education Faculty
Dr. Janet Reid-Hector, University Reviewer, Education Faculty
Chief Academic Officer
Eric Riedel, Ph.D.
Walden University
2016
Abstract
Relationships Among Teachers Attitudes, Behaviors Toward English Language
Learners, Experience, and Training
by
Sandra L. Mitchell
EdS, Jacksonville State University, 2007
MEd, University of Georgia, 2001
BS, University of Georgia, 1999
Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Walden University
August 2016
Abstract
Public school teachers must meet the unique needs of English language learners (ELLs)
in the general education classroom. There is a need to understand teacher attitudes toward
ELLs because attitudes can explain and influence teacher behavior and professional
practice. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the relationships between
attitudes and behavior with years of experience as well as professional development
among teachers working with ELLs. Sociocultural, situational learning, and second
language acquisition theories provided the theoretical foundation for the study. Data were
collected from 286 teachers using the Teacher Attitudes Toward English-as-a-Second-
Language Survey. Analyses included descriptive statistics, correlational analysis,
independent sample t tests, and Mann-Whitney U test. Results indicated a significant,
direct correlation between teachers years of experience and their attitudes regarding
coursework modifications. The independent sample t tests indicated significant
differences in a subscale of the variable teaching behavior between participants who had
and had not received adequate training. In addition, significant differences in teachers
attitudes existed among those teachers between participants who had and had not
received professional development. The study can effect social change at the local site by
fostering an increased understanding of how experience and professional development
influences teachers attitudes toward inclusion and behaviors toward ELLs, thereby
highlighting the importance of professional development and experience for meeting the
needs of ELL students.

Relationships Among Teachers Attitudes, Behaviors Toward English Language
Learners, Experience, and Training
by
Sandra L. Mitchell
EdS, Jacksonville State University, 2007
MEd, University of Georgia, 2001
BS, University of Georgia, 1999
Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Walden University
August 2016
Dedication
This experience of completing my doctorate has proved to be an extremely
difficult time in my life, full of temporary doubts and defeat. I dedicate this doctoral
study to my husband, LaBrone. I could not have completed this academic goal without
the belief that this will better the future for us. Thank you for encouraging me to finish
my work. To our son, LaBrone II and our daughter, Lea: Thank you for being with me
toward the end of this experience. May you also gain the strength and perseverance to
accomplish all the dreams you will have in life. You have been my motivation to get over
the final hurdle in completion of this document. May you one day experience this type of
academic achievement and professional fulfillment. I love you all more than anything.
Acknowledgments
This study would not have been possible without the support of Dr. Ayanna
Cooper, Laura Goudreau, and Juan Davenport. Thank you for your encouragement and
guidance through this process. Thank you for your words of positivity and belief that I
could finish this. I could not have completed this journey without you.
Table of Contents
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii
Section 1: The Problem ....................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Problem Statement .................................................................................................. 3
Nature of the Study ................................................................................................. 5
Research Questions and Hypotheses ...........................................................5
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 7
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 8
Sociocultural Theory....................................................................................8
Situational Learning Theory ......................................................................10
Second Language Acquisition Theory .......................................................11
Alternative Perspectives.............................................................................12
Operational Definitions ......................................................................................... 13
Assumptions.......................................................................................................... 15
Scope and Delimitations ....................................................................................... 15
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 16
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................... 17
Summary ............................................................................................................... 19
Section 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 20
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 20
i
Literature Search Strategy..................................................................................... 21
Theoretical Foundation ......................................................................................... 21
Sociocultural Theory..................................................................................22
Social Constructivism and Language Acquisition .....................................22
Situational Learning Theory ......................................................................23
Second Language Acquisition Theory .......................................................24
First versus Second Language Acquisition ................................................24
Multiple Intelligence .................................................................................26
Context and Language as a Barrier to Learning ........................................27
The Discrepancy ................................................................................................... 31
Increasing Student Diversity ......................................................................32
Decreasing Teacher Diversity ....................................................................33
Approaches to Effective ELL Instruction ............................................................. 36
Support Outside the Classroom .................................................................38
Professional Development .........................................................................39
Collaboration and Interaction ....................................................................43
A Holistic Approach to Teaching ..............................................................45
Culturally Competent Teaching ............................................................................ 46
Moving From Theory to Practice .......................................................................... 50
Native Language Immersion versus ESL ............................................................. 53
Insufficiency of ELL Teaching Frameworks ........................................................ 55
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 57
ii
Summary ............................................................................................................... 58
Section 3: Research Method ............................................................................................. 59
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 59
Research Design and Approach ............................................................................ 59
Setting ................................................................................................................... 60
Sample................................................................................................................... 60
Instrumentation and Materials .............................................................................. 66
Data Collection and Analysis................................................................................ 69
Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................... 72
Summary ............................................................................................................... 73
Section 4: Results.............................................................................................................. 75
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 75
Research Question 1 ............................................................................................. 75
Summary ............................................................................................................... 88
Section 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations............................................ 90
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 90
Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................... 91
iii
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 96
Implications for Social Change ............................................................................. 97
Recommendations for Action ............................................................................... 98
Recommendations for Further Study .................................................................. 100
Summary ............................................................................................................. 101
References ....................................................................................................................... 102
Appendix A: Survey Instrument ..................................................................................... 126
Appendix B: Permission to Use Survey.......................................................................... 129
Appendix C: Demographic Questionnaire ...................................................................... 130
Appendix D: IRB Approval Letter ................................................................................. 131
iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Ethnic Diversity of Schools With High Populations of Nonnative Speakers of
English in Five States............................................................................................ 35
Table 2. Demographic Description of Participants ........................................................... 63
Table 3. School Environment of Participants ................................................................... 64
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations of ESL Student Distribution ........................... 65
Table 5. Professional Development Profile of Respondents ............................................ 65
Table 6. Teachers Attitudes Toward ELLs (N = 286) ..................................................... 76
Table 7. Teachers Attitudes Toward ELLs (Inclusion, Coursework Modifications,
Professional Development, and Language Learning) ........................................... 78
Table 8. Relationship Between Teachers Attitudes Toward ELLs and Years of
Experience............................................................................................................. 79
Table 9. Teachers Behaviors Toward ELLs (n = 237) .................................................... 81
Table 10. Teachers Behaviors Toward ELLs (Classroom Practices, Influence of
Inclusion, and Teacher Support) ........................................................................... 82
Table 11. Relationship Between Teachers Behaviors Toward ELLs and Years of
Experience............................................................................................................. 83
Table 12. Differences in Attitudes (Inclusion, Coursework Modifications, and Language
Learning) Toward ELLs Between Teachers Who Attended Professional
Development Activities Pertaining to ELLs and Teachers Who Did Not ............ 85
v
Table 13. Differences in Attitudes (Professional Development) Toward ELLs Between
Teachers Who Attended Professional Development Activities Pertaining to ELLs
and Teachers Who Did Not................................................................................... 86
Table 14. Differences in Behaviors Toward ELLs Between Teachers Who Attended
Professional Development Activities Pertaining to ELLs and Teachers Who Did
Not......................................................................................................................... 88
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Power graph indicating sample size requirement based on power. ................... 61
vii
1
Section 1: The Problem
Introduction
The current state of English language education in U.S. public schools is a matter
of national concern (Cawthorn, 2010; Fry & Gonzales, 2008; Turgut, 2009). Increasingly,
students are originating from nonnative English-speaking backgrounds and,
simultaneously, teachers are coming from decreasingly diverse ethnic backgrounds
(Turgut, 2009). Although the majority of students from nonnative English-speaking
backgrounds spoke English with native fluency, approximately 42% (or 25.3 million)
were English language learners (ELLs) in 2010, composing an 81% increase since 1990
(Migration Information Source, 2011). Of these, 2.3 million were between the ages of 5
and 15 years, meaning they were most likely in school (Migration Information Source,
2011).
Because ELLs represent a rapidly expanding segment of the U.S. student
population (Cawthorn, 2010; Fry & Gonzales, 2008; Turgut, 2009), teachers must
continuously add strategies to meet the needs of students who bring different cultures,
languages, and abilities into the classroom (Colombo, McMakin, Jacobs, & Shestok,
2013; Gollnick & Chin, 2002). For many teachers, this task requires professional
development (PD) on inclusion attitudes and teaching behaviors appropriate to teaching
ELLs. In the present study, I examined the correlations among PD, years of experience,
inclusion attitudes, and teaching behaviors of teachers working with ELLs.
Recent estimates indicated that immigrants and their children will compose nearly
20% of the U.S. population by 2050 (Cawthorn, 2010; Passel & Cohn, 2008). The
number of ELLs in the United States has grown 81% since 1990 (Migration Information
2
Source, 2011). Between 1979 and 2008, the percentage of K12 students who spoke a
language other than English at home rose from 9% to 20% (Planty et al., 2008), and such
changes in student demographics are likely to continue accelerating well into the future
(Cawthorn, 2010; Passel & Cohn, 2008). The rising enrollment of ELLs in U.S. schools
presents educators with a number of challenges (Batalova, 2008; Howard, 2007; Planty et
al., 2008; Tintiangco-Cubales et al., 2015; Trent, Kea, & Oh, 2008; Washburn, 2008;
Zheng, 2009).
For example, far-reaching reforms in the educational system, primarily the
passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), have mandated that schools focus on the
academic achievement of all students, including those not yet proficient in English. This
mandate requires teachers to identify language-development strategies that support the
achievement of ELLs (Colombo et al., 2013; Tintiangco-Cubales et al., 2015). For
example, teachers can offer opportunities for students to learn by observing others, being
coached and nurtured by more expert peers, and practicing what they have learned in a
supportive environment (Wenger, 2011). Teachers can offer problem-based learning with
a focus on real-world problems that require critical thinking and collaborating with others
(Savery, 2006). ELLs need to become skilled in the use of academic English versus social
English to meet NCLB mandates. NCLB stipulates that ELLs be judged by their mastery
of academic content at the same levels as native-English-speaking students (Tintiangco-
Cubales et al., 2015; Wright, 2010), which makes rapid mastery of English critical.
Without the ability to master English, students lack access to the educational
opportunities that are readily available to their English-speaking peers (Campbell, 2004;
Wright, 2010).
3
Part of the difficulty ELLs encounter is not only grasping a new language but also
mastering academic language. Zwiers (2008) stated that academic language is complex,
versatile, and diverse, making it difficult to grasp for all students, let alone those with a
language barrier. Academic language has several definitions, but researchers agree that it
includes lexical and vocabulary, grammatical and syntactical, and discourse and
organizational skills (Gottlieb, Katz, & Ernst-Slavit, 2009; Hennink, Hutter, & Bailey
2010; Scarcella, 2003). According to Scarcella (2003), specific requirements of academic
language included the particular register and requirements used in academic settings,
beyond simple mastery of the language. The expectations of academic language, coupled
with basic language interference, may result in increased difficulty for ELLs (Haneda,
2014). Appropriately handling these potential pitfalls primarily falls to the teachers, but
inadequate training may result in continued disadvantages for ELLs as well as trouble in
meeting NCLB requirements (Wright, 2010).
Problem Statement
The rapid increase of diverse learners in U.S. classrooms has placed additional
demands on teachers as they address the unique needs presented by ELLs and other
diverse learners. Teacher attitudes toward ELLs must be understood because attitudes
explain and influence teacher behavior and professional practice (Clark, 1988). In a study
of teachers practices, perceptions, and perspectives for instructing ELLs, Otway (2007)
found that teachers want collaboration, team teaching, and consideration for instructional
models based on the linguistic needs of ELLs.
Knowledge of teacher attitudes toward diverse learners is important because these
attitudes form teachers interpretations of their classroom experiences (Wood & Floden,
4
1990). Pajares (1992) posited a relationship between teachers attitudes and their
classroom teaching performance, linking attitudes to sensitivity in instructional planning
and classroom strategies for diverse learners needs. Reeves (2006) suggested that
teachers might be concerned about lack of time to address unique classroom needs among
ELLs, might be overwhelmed with an intense workload, and might feel inadequate to
work with ELLs. Some researchers have called for additional studies that examine
teachers attitudes to understand the effect of attitudes on developing beliefs about
meeting the needs of diverse learners (Putnam & Borko, 2000).
Given the increase of ELLs in the United States and the lack of training teachers
receive for teaching them, PD has become a high priority for school districts (Reeves,
2006). However, in the school district under study, priority to train ELLs has not been at
the forefront. Because many classroom teachers were socialized in environments that did
not take into account multicultural sensitivity, they are likely to perpetuate mainstream-
centric, assimilation-oriented norms (Campbell, 2004). These teachers may need
assistance in understanding and meeting the unique needs of their ELLs.
Despite the critical role that English language acquisition plays in supporting
ELLs, methods for qualifying teachers as ELL instructors and preparing students for
success are inconsistent from state to state (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, &
Christian, 2006). Genesee, Lndholm-Leary, Saunders, and Christian (2006) noted that
one state might offer an instructional model designed to develop both English and
students native languages, whereas another state only provides students with native
language support. In addition, classroom teachers do not receive consistent training or
preparation to support ELLs; their preparation, or lack thereof, affects student progress
5
with language development and content mastery (Cawthorn, 2010; Passel & Cohn, 2008).
These inconsistencies have led to a dearth of literature regarding teachers attitudes, PD,
and teaching behaviors when teaching ELLs (Rubinstein-Avila & Lee, 2014). This topic
has received inadequate research attention (Rubinstein-Avila & Lee, 2014), and teachers
continue to experience difficulties in bringing ELLs up to academic standards (Haneda,
2014; Wright, 2010). Thus, the present study fulfilled a necessary gap in the literature
regarding the correlations among PD, years of experience, inclusion attitudes, and
teaching behaviors of teachers working with ELLs.
Nature of the Study
I used the Teacher Attitudes Toward English-as-a-Second-Language (TATESL)
Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey, developed by Reeves (2006), in this
quantitative study. In addition, I used a questionnaire to collect information on teaching
experience and PD activities. I examined attitudes and teaching behaviors pertaining to
ELLs held largely by largely White, U.S.-born, middle-class teachers teaching first-
generation students ELLs in the United States in a medium-sized, rural school system in
Georgia. Specifically, correlations among PD, years of experience, inclusion attitudes,
and teaching behaviors of teachers working with ELLs constituted the focus of the study.
The method I used in the study is described further in Section 3.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
I investigated the following six research questions in the study:
1. What are teachers attitudes toward ELLs as measured by Section A of the
TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey?

6
2. What is the correlation between teachers attitudes toward inclusion of
ELLs (as measured by Section A of the TATESL Students in Mainstream
Classrooms Survey) and their years of teaching experience?
H02: There is no significant correlation between teachers attitudes toward
inclusion and their years of teaching experience.
HA2: There is a significant correlation between teachers attitudes toward
3. What are teachers teaching behaviors toward ELLs in their classrooms (as
measured by Section B of the TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms
Survey)?
4. What is the correlation between teachers teaching behaviors toward ELLs in their
classrooms (as measured by Section B of the TATESL Students in Mainstream
H04: There is no significant correlation between teachers teaching
behaviors toward ELLs in their classrooms and their years of teaching
experience.
HA4: There is a significant correlation between teachers teaching
behaviors toward ELLs in their classrooms and their years of teaching
experience.
5. What is the difference in teachers attitudes toward inclusion between those
teachers who have attended PD activities pertaining to ELLs and those who have
not?
7
H05: There is no significant difference in attitudes toward inclusion
between those teachers who have attended PD activities pertaining to
ELLs and those who have not.
HA5: There is a significant difference in attitudes toward inclusion
between those teachers who have attended PD activities pertaining to
6. What is the difference in teaching behaviors toward ELLs between those teachers
who have attended PD activities pertaining to ELLs and those who have not?
H06: There is no significant difference in teaching behaviors toward
ELLs between those teachers who have attended PD training
pertaining to ELLs and those who have not.
HA6: There is a significant difference in teaching behaviors toward
ELLs between those teachers who have attended PD training
pertaining to ELLs and those who have not.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the correlations between
attitudes and behavior with years of experience as well as PD among teachers working
with ELLs. Independent variables included two demographic variables: years of teaching
experience and PD pertaining to ELLs. The dependent variables of the study are the
scores on the subscales of teachers attitudes toward ELLs (inclusion, coursework
modifications, PD and language learning) and teaching behaviors with ELLs (classroom
practices, influence of inclusion, and teacher support). The four variables for teachers
attitudes toward ELLs were measured by 16 items of the TATESL Students in

8
Mainstream Classrooms Surveyinclusion (five items), coursework modifications (six
items), PD (two items), and language learning (three items). I measured the three
variables for teaching behaviors with ELLs by the 11 items: classroom practices (five
items), influence of inclusion (three items), and teachers support (three items).
Theoretical Framework
Prior to NCLB, teacher education professionals worked to better prepare future
teachers for the inevitable challenges presented by an increasingly diverse student
population (Liggett, 2008). Key elements of that preparation included shifting the focus
of college courses, school curricula, fieldwork experiences, and other policies to
incorporate diversity and multicultural education (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005;
Ford, Polush, & Brooks, 2016). However, despite good intentions, curricula have not
developed quickly enough or become robust enough to keep pace with rapid changes in
the classroom. The result has been new teachers with little understanding of, interest in,
or concern for cultural and racial diversity (Colombo et al., 2013; Milner, 2005). New
teachers often do not think in terms of color or ethnicity (Johnson, 2002; Lewis, 2001;
Liggett, 2008; Milner, 2007) and view culture and native language as irrelevant (Ford et
al., 2016; Ford, Moore, & Milner, 2005; Rubinstein-Avila & Lee, 2014). For a theoretical
framework, I relied on sociocultural theory, situational learning theory, and second
language acquisition theory.
Sociocultural Theory
Sociocultural theory is based on the belief that learning and language, as higher-
order functions, develop primarily as the result of social interaction. In other words, the
theory proposes that it is impossible to understand how an individual developsor how

9
to assist an individual to developwithout examining the social and cultural
environment to which that individual relates. More specifically, learning is a process that
takes place in the context of interactions with people, knowledge, and events.
Sociocultural theorists have posited that ELLs are dependent on their social environment
for feedback to enable continual learning (Kublin, Wetherby, Crais, & Prizant, 1989;
Vygotsky, 1986). Differentiated instruction (DI), scaffolding, and social constructivism
have roots in sociocultural theory.
Sociocultural learning theory applies to the education of ELLs, and theorists
recommend concrete instructional methods based on this theoretical framework.
Scaffolding is an instructional technique where a teacher models the desired learning
strategy and then gradually shifts responsibility for the task to students. Students do not
merely copy teachers capabilities; rather, they transform what teachers offer them by
appropriation. ELLs need coaching and explicit instruction to appropriate the
fundamental skills of second language acquisition. Lack of such skills can hinder
improvement among ELLs as competent readers, writers, and language users (Turuk,
2008). Teacher involvement in providing rich input for students by way of print and oral
forms, using instruction that meet childrens interests, needs, and purposes, and
connecting language instruction to the real world in classroom lessons are methods of
applying sociocultural learning theory to meet the needs of ELLs (Eun & Lim, 2009).
Language development is best approached through respect for and incorporation
of a students primary language (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002). In all areas of education,
Vygotsky (1986) favored inclusion, grouping students for differentiated lessons, and
facilitating the most diverse human interaction possible. Based on Vygotskys

10
sociocultural learning theory, the practice of pull-out second language instruction would
limit rather than enhance second-language learning (Eun & Lim, 2009).
Situational Learning Theory
Situational learning theory extends sociocultural theory by including the role of
the environment during language knowledge acquisition. One tenet of situational learning
theory is that knowledge must be presented in an authentic context (i.e., taking into
consideration language and cultural nuances) where application of that knowledge would
normally be appropriate (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Knowledge acquisition takes
place gradually, based on a variety of activities performed in a context that the learner
understands and that requires social interaction and collaboration (Pashler, McDaniel,
Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008). Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) defined learning as a
process of enculturation (p. 33). The learning styles (LS) approach and multiple
intelligence (MI) theory are based on this theoretical concept.
Situational learning theory applies to the education of ELLs and requires concrete
instructional methods. For example, situated learning is an apprenticeship process that
takes place in a community. New learners learn by observing others, being coached and
nurtured by more expert peers, and practicing what they have learned in a supportive
environment (Wenger, 2011).
Situational or problem-based learning is characterized by a focus on real-world
problems that require critical thinking skills and collaborating with others (Savery, 2006).
An ELL classroom is a community of practice where teacher and students learn from one
another and all participants are engaged in situational learning (Miller, 2010). ELLs use
English when they watch television, listen to music, participate in conversations, and read
11
signs and memos. These materials can be used in the classroom to facilitate learning
(Miller, 2010). Recent research reviews suggest that problem-based learning with ELLs
can lead to long-term learning, whereas traditional instruction leads to slightly better
short-term learning, as measured by standardized tests (Strobel & Van Barneveld, 2009).
Second Language Acquisition Theory
Second language acquisition has attracted research attention in a wide variety of
disciplines, such as anthropology, linguistics, neurolinguistics, psychology, and sociology
(Freeman & Freeman, 2001). That variety can be problematic because context often
determines the definition and scope of second language acquisition (Craig, 2001; Walqui,
2000). In the current study, I applied language acquisition theory solely to the concept of
literacy, or gaining the ability to function in a culture on a daily basis. In relation to the
culture of a school setting, such daily functioning includes learning to speak, read, and
write in English (Walqui, 2000).
Second language acquisition theory applies to the education of ELLs, and
researchers recommend concrete instructional methods based on this theoretical
framework. Some strategies for teaching reading to ELLs are similar to those used with
native readers (Eskey, 2005). One similarity is that second language readers cannot read
texts beyond their level of proficiency; readers and texts should be matched for language
and interest level. In addition, reading is not only a means to an end but also a way of
acquiring language (Swain, 2005). To meet the needs of ELLs, teachers should conduct
reading and writing activities daily, explicitly model literacy skills and strategies, and
integrate literacy instruction with the rest of the curriculum, creating naturalistic
opportunities for developing literacy skills (Pressley, 2002).

12
An example of language acquisition theory in practice is vocabulary acquisition.
Although vocabulary provides the basis for spoken and written communication, many
school curricula place little emphasis on vocabulary acquisition (Beck, McKeown, &
Kucan, 2013). Robust vocabulary instruction begins with a contextualized, repetitive, and
meaningful introduction to an unfamiliar word. When students encounter a new word in a
story, the teacher might refer back to the text in which the word appeared, reread the
sentences that exemplify its meaning, and ask students to repeat the target word. Next,
the teacher provides an explanation of the meaning and offer examples of how the word
might be used in contexts other than the one in which it was discovered. Teachers would
then ask students to offer their own examples of applying the word in context. They
would then ask students to repeat the word to reinforce it (Anthony, 2008). The ELLs
need extended and repeated opportunities to engage in activities that offer interactions
with new words, according to second language acquisition theory (Stahl & Nagy, 2006).
Alternative Perspectives
This study was based on sociocultural theory, situational learning theory, and
second language acquisition theory. An alternative perspective is schema theory, which
Bartlett originally proposed to account for how information in stories and events is
reconfigured in memory for further recall. Bartlett believed that understanding and recall
happen mainly in the context of past experiences, or a schema. This theory has been used
to explain a host of cognitive processes such as inferencing, remembering, reasoning, and
problem solving. Schema theory has greatly influenced comprehension research and
teacher instruction (Nassaji, 2002).

13
A second alternative perspective is the adaptive control of thought theory. Its goal
is to explain how human cognition works and what the structures and processes of human
memory, thinking, problem solving, and language are. The core of this theory is a
production system with a pattern matcher that works on memory and perceptual-motor
modules via buffers (Anderson et al., 2004).
Operational Definitions
Adequate yearly progress (AYP): Measure used by individual states to determine
student progress toward achievement of academic standards in reading and language arts,
mathematics, and science (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition,
2013).
Deficit model: A traditional attitude of teachers toward ELLs, wherein they focus
on the disadvantages of instruction rather than advantages (Craig, 2001; Walqui, 2000).
Differentiated instruction (DI): A teaching approach that focuses on tailoring the
learning process to students by starting from a demonstrated skill level, being flexible
with time, and finding individualized ways to engage, as deeply as possible, individual
students coming from unique perspectives, backgrounds, experiences, and abilities
(Curtin, 2005).
English as a second language (ESL): The use or study of English by speakers
with a different native language (Freeman & Freeman, 2001). This acronym can also be
used to identify teachers who teach students who are learning English as a new language.
English learners (ELLs): Students who are learning English as a second language
and who have been identified as speaking a language other than English as their first
language (Freeman & Freeman, 2001).

14
Inclusion model: Offering access, participation, and support to succeed in a
general education classroom regardless of ability or disability (National Association for
the Education of Young Children, 2009).
Language shock: The concept of how deeply language and cultural values
intertwine to define who people are and how they relate to one another (Freeman &
Freeman, 2001).
Learning styles (LS) approach: A recognition that different students learn
differently, and that interactive, rather than didactic, teaching styles work best because
they focus on how students are thinking and learning rather than how they are behaving
or what they are doing (Pashler et al., 2008).
Mobilizing for action through planning and partnerships (MAPP): A community-
wide strategic planning tool (Caspe, Lopez, & Wolos, 2007).
Multiple intelligence (MI) theory: A theory of intelligence proposing that each
person has an intelligence profile reflecting aptitude in seven types of intelligence, that
each profile is unique, that each intelligence develops independently, and that this change
in the accepted intelligence construct allows for a more comprehensive view of
intelligence (Curtin, 2005).
Native language immersion: Programs that involve teaching academic content in
two languages: a native language and a secondary language, with varying emphasis on
each language in accordance with the program model (Escamilla, Chavez, & Vigil, 2005;
Jones, 2002; Lewis-Moreno, 2007).
Scaffolding: A teaching method based on considering students prior knowledge
and past experiences when introducing a second language. Scaffolding involves strong
15
social interaction between teachers and students, necessitating guidance, redirection,
modeling, and motivation building until independent problem solving is achieved.
Scaffolding is based on the idea that specialized instructional support best facilitates
learning when students are first introduced to a new language. It is based on Vygotskys
(1986) sociocultural theory (Kublin et al., 1989).
Social constructivism: An emphasis on the social context in which learning takes
place (Walqui, 2000).
Zone of proximal development: The idea that children learn most effectively when
adults support them until the point at which they can work on their own (Walqui, 2000).
Assumptions
I assumed that respondents answered survey questions fully and to the best of
their knowledge, and that they understood the questions that I asked. I assumed that
participants responded honestly regarding their perceptions of ELLs and their PD
attendance history.
Scope and Delimitations
For the purpose of the study, I evaluated attitudes and teaching behaviors
pertaining to ELLs held largely by largely White, U.S.-born, middle-class teachers
teaching first-generation students ELLs in the United States. Respondents consisted of
teachers in a medium-sized, rural school system in Georgia. I did not include the
responses of administrators or students because of the key role of teachers in
implementing ELL teaching behaviors. Within this sample, I assessed the correlations
among PD, years of experience, inclusion attitudes, and teaching behaviors of teachers
working with ELLs.

16
Several related theories composed the theoretical framework, including
sociocultural theory, situational learning theory, and second language acquisition theory.
I did not include thought theory and schema theory because they were too broad to
provide explanatory value for the study. Because of the limited geographic sample, the
results may not generalize to a wider population.
Limitations
The study may be potentially limited by my biases as the researcher. Because I
am currently employed by the school system under study, participants might have been
tempted to give desirable answers instead of true answers to survey questions. I
controlled for this limitation by ensuring that participation in the study was voluntary,
that participants could withdraw at any time, and that responses were anonymous.
The study may also have been limited by the design. I did not randomly select
teachers who participated in the study. Those who chose to participate might not be
representative of those in the school district at large. Finally, some participants might not
have acknowledged their prejudices and might have selected what they deemed to be
politically correct choices on the survey. To mitigate this limitation, I assured participants
of the anonymity of the responses and encouraged honest participation in the survey.
Further, I limited the study to one school district in a southeastern state. In
addition, the school system under study is located in a rural area close to a major
metropolitan area. A rural school system could have a lower population of ELLs than a
metropolitan system. In Georgia, population changes can occur depending on job market
shifts. These sample limitations may limit the generalizability of the study findings, but I
was careful in making widespread recommendations based on this limitation, and I also
17
suggested that future researchers replicate the study among a more varied sample in the
discussion.
Significance of the Study
The study has significance for researchers and for practice. Regarding research,
several studies have examined teacher attitudes as a determining factor in student
learning and growth (Fallon, 2006; Reeves, 2006). Estimates of the variance in student
achievement accounted for by the effect of teachers attitudes vary from 3% to 8%, based
on test results (Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Rowan, Correnti, & Miller 2002;
Wenglinsky, 2002). However, similar studies regarding ELLs and teaching attitudes do
not exist. Moreover, though PD is an essential factor in developing effective teaching
behaviors, I uncovered no study that examined the correlation among PD, teaching
attitudes, and teaching behaviors regarding ELLs. Thus, by examining these factors, this
study addressed a significant gap in the literature.
Moreover, the study has significance for local practices. I explored teacher
attitudes about ELLs in a medium-sized, rural school district in Georgia and the
correlation of ELL PD activities on those attitudes. This studys results can help solve a
local problem in ELL education and support effective teaching practice. Through further
understanding of the correlations among PD, teaching attitudes and teaching behaviors,
as well as teaching tenure, the study uncovered some significant implications for
addressing the issues in the school district under study.
In the school system under study, many teachers are not prepared to meet the
needs of ELLs adequately but are accountable for making AYP, with a focus on test
scores and English language proficiency scores. Teachers are accountable for student
18
progress without having the necessary training for meeting the needs of ELLs. Theorists
believe that the ability to maintain attitudes and beliefs consistent with and supportive of
ELLs is a significant teacher competency, yet teachers may feel unable to identify and
implement appropriate, effective instruction for mainstreamed ELLs (Campbell, 2004;
Reeves, 2006). Educational achievement among ELLs is sacrificed if they are educated in
general education classrooms with teachers who are not prepared to meet their needs. A
potential solution is to educate school administrators about the need for better-prepared
teachers and to assist teachers to gain more skills to deal with the unique needs of ELLs
(Campbell, 2004).
By increasing understanding about the variables related to positive teaching
behaviors, the present study provided guidance for teachers and administrators in
potentially improving practice and outcomes. The reality of the diverse classroom can no
longer be ignored, despite the fact that the U.S. education system is dominated by English
monolingualism and an accompanying ethnocentric philosophy that undergirds most
instructional models (Linton, 2006). The United States is not a monolingual community.
It is imperative that all students, including ELLs, are integrated into their learning
environments through culturally competent instruction. Teachers must recognize their
own prejudices or even racism toward certain groups to create an atmosphere of trust and
acceptance for students and their families, resulting in a greater opportunity for academic
success (Gollnick & Chin, 2002). The efforts of skilled and informed educators can result
in positive social change when they help ELLs achieve mastery.

19
Summary
Students with diverse cultural and language backgrounds have increased in
numbers, yet many teachers still lack the professional preparation to help those students
learn (Cawthorn, 2010; Fry & Gonzales, 2008; Turgut, 2009). Research has shown that
effective ELL instruction exists and is necessary; however, too many teachers are not
prepared to meet the challenges of teaching ELLs (Cawthorn, 2010; Passel & Cohn,
2008). To understand where PD to support effective teaching practices regarding ELLs
should begin, I investigated the attitudes of teachers regarding ELLs in a medium-sized
rural school district in Georgia.
Section 2 is a review of the relevant literature on ELL instruction and teachers
attitudes. In Section 3, I describe the study methods, including design, sample,
instrumentation, data collection and analysis, and ethical protections. Section 4 is a
summary of the results, and Section 5 consists of conclusions and recommendations.

20
Section 2: Literature Review
Introduction
Despite the increasing diversity of students in U.S. classrooms, the demographic
composition of teachers as primarily White, middle- and upper-class women has
remained largely unchanged in many school districts (Cawthorn, 2010; Fry & Gonzales,
2008; Turgut, 2009). The National Center for Education Statistics (2012) reported that
among both male and female teachers, 83% of public school teachers were White, 7%
each were Black or Hispanic, 1% each were Asian or of two or more races, and less than
1% each were Pacific Islander or American Indian or Alaskan.
The lack of racial diversity among educators can limit their efficacy in diverse
classrooms. Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, and Driscoll (2005) and Tintiangco-Cubales et al.
(2015) argued that cultural responsiveness and an appreciation for the unique needs of
ELLs are vital to integrating and educating this population. Some teacher education
programs have integrated diversity awareness in their curricula, and many districts offer
PD to teachers with the goal of creating greater cultural competence and responsiveness
in their schools (Batalova, 2008; Flynn & Hill, 2005; Ford et al., 2016). Despite these
developments, there has been little examination of how PD affects the attitudes and
behaviors of teachers working with ELLs, a gap in the literature that this study was
designed to address.
with ELLs. The review began with a discussion of increasing student diversity and
concurrent decreasing teacher diversity in the U.S. public school system. It continued
21
with a survey of specific techniques to bridge that gap. I compared theories of diversity
integration and discussed obstacles to the integration of diversity awareness.
Literature Search Strategy
The literature review began with a search of Google Scholar and the following
EBSCO databases: Academic Search Premier, MasterFILE Premier, ERIC, and PD
Collection. Keywords, used individually or together, were students, teachers, culture,
language, linguistic, diversity, English language learners, English as second language,
bilingual, classrooms, teaching, learning, competencies, professional development,
teacher education, teacher attitudes, teacher behaviors, differentiation, multiple
intelligence, and learning styles.
Theoretical Foundation
There is often a gap between theory and practice in education. Craigs (2001)
work on an operational theory of second language acquisition for guiding regular
classroom and ELL teachers was one attempt to bridge this gap. When developing
specific classroom practices meant to give teachers practical ways to apply theory, Craig
was influenced by Clay (1985), who argued that educators must be aware of the full
range of the childs communication experiences.
Clay (1985) recommended that teachers create opportunities for all types of
learning and relate to students frequently and personally. Clay suggested continually
challenging students to speak, think, and learn, and to engage them in critical inquiry.
Clay also suggested acting as a back-up resource and support system (p. 5), allowing
students to build on previous communication experiences, engage in here-and-now
classroom experiences, and extend learning experiences beyond the classroom.

22
Theoretical research supports elements of these learning experiences and similar ideas
regarding how to improve second language acquisition. These learning experiences and
similar ideas have been proposed for future research. Providing these opportunities has
been noted as informal regular practices of successful veteran teachers (Curtin, 2005).
For the purposes of this study, the theoretical foundation comprised of sociocultural
theory, situational learning theory, and second language acquisition theory.
Sociocultural Theory
Sociocultural theorists posit that learning and language, as higher-order functions,
develop primarily as the result of social interaction. In other words, under sociocultural
theory, it is impossible to understand how an individual developsor assist an individual
to developwithout examining the social and cultural environment to which that
individual relates. More specifically, learning takes place in the context of interactions
with people, knowledge, and events (Kublin et al., 1989; Vygotsky, 1986). Sociocultural
theorists would argue that the social environment of ELLs is a consideration when
designing curricula. Differentiated instruction, scaffolding, and social constructivism
stem from sociocultural theory. Some scholars (Vygotsky, 1986; Williams, 2001) have
applied sociocultural theory, specifically social constructivism, to language acquisition.
Social Constructivism and Language Acquisition
Vygotskys (1986) social constructivism laid the foundation for both Clays
(1985) philosophy and Tomlinsons (1999) DI theory. Vygotsky emphasized the
importance of the social context in which learning takes place, particularly with respect to
childrens language development and the greater social context of the learning
environment. Vygotsky coined the term zone of proximal development to refer to the idea
23
that children learn most effectively when adults support them until the point at which
they can work on their own. Williams (2001) used that notion in advocating that ELLs
receive integrated opportunities to gain English proficiency while mastering academic
content through classroom conversations on all academic subjects. Williams argued that
such conversations transform the classroom into a learning community, consistent with
Tomlinsons (1999) vision of academic equity and excellence for all students.
Another outgrowth of Vygotskys (1986) ideas is scaffolding, which refers to
considering students prior knowledge and experiences when introducing a second
language. These related ideas of teaching language in the greater context of students
prior knowledge and experience, fostering a community atmosphere, integrating language
teaching with regular studies, and providing strong support from adults inside and outside
the classroom are all outgrowths of social constructivism. They represent efforts to adapt
education theory to the classroom in practical ways that improve students second-
language acquisition. However, a shortcoming of the theory is the undefined nature of
knowledge acquisition, which situational learning theory provides.
Situational Learning Theory
Situational learning theory affords further understanding of knowledge acquisition
(Brown et al., 1989). Specifically, knowledge must be presented in an authentic context
(i.e., taking into consideration language and cultural nuances) where application of that
knowledge would normally be appropriate. Knowledge acquisition takes place gradually
based on a variety of activities performed in a context that the learner understands, which
requires social interaction and collaboration (Pashler et al., 2008; Steel, Laurens, &
Huggins, 2013). Brown et al. (1989) defined learning as a process of enculturation (p.
24
33). LS and MI are based on this theoretical concept. Situational learning, and its
clarification of knowledge acquisition, are essential for understanding second language
acquisition, as is second language acquisition theory (Huang, Yang, & Liaw, 2012).
Second Language Acquisition Theory
Second language acquisition has attracted a great deal of attention from a wide
variety of disciplines, including anthropology, linguistics, neurolinguistics, psychology,
and sociology (Freeman & Freeman, 2001; VanPatten & Williams, 2014). Some of the
debate regarding ELL instruction has been more political than pedagogical, a result of the
fact that context often determines the definition and scope of second language acquisition
(Craig, 2001; Walqui, 2000). However, in the current study, I applied language
acquisition theory solely to literacy: learning to speak, read, and write in a second
language. The processes of acquiring these literacies differ between first and second
language acquisition (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2006; VanPatten & Williams, 2014).
First versus Second Language Acquisition
Applying language acquisition theory to the classroom requires an in-depth
analysis of the similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition
(Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2006; VanPatten & Williams, 2014; Vygotsky, 1986). Craig (2001)
noted that whereas first language acquisition is a natural process, second language
acquisition demands detailed and specific instruction. Both formal and informal learning
activities are needed to develop second language fluency (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2006;
Moughamian, Rivera, & Francis, 2009). Craig stated that the first language learner is
driven by basic drives to communicate, whereas the second language learner is driven
by the need to survive (p. 8). Human beings have an innate need to express themselves
25
verbally and therefore learn first languages as naturally and with as much motivation and
vitality as they learn to satisfy other basic needs, such as feeding themselves and evoking
human touch from loved ones (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2006; Moughamian et al., 2009;
Vygotsky, 1986). In contrast, second language acquisition is motivated by far less
visceral, more cerebral desires to fit in socially or hold a job in a new country (Linton,
2006). Though these cerebral desires are strong, such desires are on a different level than
that of an absolute need to speak.
A common misconception among classroom teachers is that using their first
language impedes ELL progress in English (Jones, 2002; Karabenick & Noda, 2004). On
the contrary, until students master both languages, they will not only miss bilingualisms
benefits but also will be hindered by an incomplete grasp of both languages. The idea that
using the home language interferes with learning the second might arise from teachers
observations that students learning two languages sometimes mix the two, which could
seem problematic if teachers are unaware that this behavior is a natural phase in second
language development (Craig, 2001). There is also evidence that teachers attitudes
toward using the home language reflect personal biases (Escamilla et al., 2005;
Karabenick & Noda, 2004).
Understanding the differences and similarities between first and second language
acquisition is integral to effective ELL learning. Such understanding allows teachers to
build on known mechanisms of language acquisition from first language acquisition
literature and to avoid confusion between progress and counterproductive tendencies. Not
all language acquisition is identical; recognizing and evaluating that fact is necessary for
26
effective ELL education. Understanding of MI can reduce these biases among teachers
working with ELLs.
Multiple Intelligence
Grounded in situational learning theory, MI is based on the assumption that
people have an intelligence profile made up of individual aptitudes in seven different
types of intelligence, that each profile is unique, and that each intelligence develops
independently. This alternative to the accepted intelligence construct allows for a more
comprehensive view of intelligence, which empowers individuals to affect and improve
each aspect of their own intelligence (Gardner, 1995).
The applicability of this theory to education in general and for ELLs specifically
has been validated (Cluck & Hess, 2003; Craig, 2001; Poole, 2000). Likewise, teachers
who base their teaching on MI have reported perceiving their students in more positive
and constructive ways (Hopper & Hurry, 2000; Kornhaber, 2004; Noble, 2004; Vialle,
1997). The most striking feature is the blossoming of students who have been labeled as
underachievers. According to teachers who have adopted MI, its appeal to diverse
learners is the driving force in its popularity.
Craig (2001) and Gardner (1999) described the classroom as a partnership among
the learner, the learning environment, and the teacher. From the MI perspective, the
classroom is not a fixed entity but rather a dynamic, unfolding process in a continual state
of growth. In the context of second language learners, teachers must be aware that
differences in personality and cognitive styles are rooted in particular cultures and
traditions (Craig, 2001). This understanding is a cornerstone of culturally competent
teaching (Trumbull & Pacheco, 2005).

27
Second language acquisition is a communicative competence defined as that
aspect of communicating that enables us to send, receive, interpret, and understand
messages in specific situations and contexts (Craig, 2001, p. 10). This notion
encompasses an array of competencies, including grammar, discourse, and
sociolinguistics along with specific functions of language. Communicative competence
consists of two proficiencies: conversational proficiency, the capacity to use language in
interpersonal communication, and academic proficiency, the capacity to execute school-
related literacy and language activities (Craig, 2001). The literature cited in this section
makes it clear that a single approach to teaching ELLs is ineffective. Just as every student
in a traditional classroom is different and brings a wide variety of skills and weaknesses,
the individual ELL student must learn in the manner that is most effective for acquiring
language proficiency. This includes considerations of context and language (Craig,
2001).
Context and Language as a Barrier to Learning
As social constructivism researchers have theorized, the social context in which
students of language are embedded plays a role in their speed and depth of language
acquisition (Craig, 2001). The MI approach addresses, in part, the individuality of each
students language learning experience, as created by the students unique background
and experience. The effect of context on language acquisition is important and justifies
another look at the literature on the subject.
Recognizing the relationship between social context and language acquisition
enables language educators to design lesson plans that are context-embedded, context-
reduced, or a fusion of both (Craig, 2001). Craig (2001) argued that a theory of second
28
language acquisition must address the role of communicative competence and all of the
issues and components related to this notion because of its importance to second
language learners (p. 11). Awareness of the role of context in communication and the
potential for different interpretations of a single communication is important for effective
teaching.
Perhaps the element of context with the greatest effect on students overall
educational experience is how their language competency serves as a barrier or catalyst to
learning subjects taught in the new language. Monolingual teachers are frequently
unaware of how language permeates the learning environment (Washburn, 2008). It is
common to see the words language and literacy juxtaposed, as if English comprehension
were less relevant in subjects other than those directly related to language and literacy.
To learn the role of language acquisition outside language education, new educators
sometimes participate in what is called a language shock class. For example, Washburn
conducted a lesson using a Chinese textbook with numbers in Chinese.
In conducting ELL workshops for practicing and preservice teachers, Curran
(2003) always began by speaking in Spanish, a practice that inevitably elicited blank
stares, hesitant glances, and nervous giggles. Confusion was obvious when Curran asked
participants to take out a sheet of paper and number it from 110. Though Curran did not
ask the class to spell or write out words, lacking command of a language prevented the
class from achieving the task, demonstrating how language permeates the learning
experience. Because language can either enhance or detract from an ELs learning
experience, a teacher skilled in a students native language is able to communicate
specific tasks more effectively than one without that linguistic versatility.
29
In one subject-specific case, Ganesh and Middleton (2006) found that
mathematics teachers tend to be oblivious to how much ordinary English is part of their
math teaching and to the fact that their use of common English is largely inaccessible
to ELLs (p. 137). The popular notion that mathematics is its own language masks the
everyday language teachers use to deliver mathematics instruction (Ganesh & Middleton,
2006, p. 129). Further highlighting the importance of recognizing the effect of context on
language learning and the language barrier in learning other subjects, Furner, Yahya, and
Duffy (2005) outlined a variety of strategies for teaching mathematics to ELLs. The
researchers recommended that teachers allow students, particularly those in the early
stages of English acquisition, to use drawings and symbols when solving mathematics
problems. Then, as the students develop comprehension, teachers can use students
drawings and verbal rehearsals as testimony of their understanding of math concepts,
which can relieve frustration for both teachers and students (Furner et al., 2005, p. 17). In
the typical MI classroom, all students have the option of using drawings (or another
medium) to solve math problems (Gardner, 1999). The use of multiple modalities to
deliver lessons ensures that students can learn through ELLs beyond linguistic
intelligence.
Few researchers have taken these observations of context-embedded language
education to the next step: looking for solutions to overcoming the obstacles. Williams
(2001) advocated for classroom conversations to facilitate English language fluency
among second language learners. Commins (2008) observed that conversational language
proficiency develops much faster than academic language proficiency, and that
conversational language can provide a foundation for academic discourse. Most ELLs
30
master interpersonal communication in 2 to 3 years, whereas academic language
proficiency can take 5 to 10 years. One reason for this difference is that approximately
60% of the English words used in scholarly texts have Greek and Latin origins, whereas
most conversational words have Anglo-Saxon roots, which are typically shorter and
simpler (Commins, 2008). Williams (2001) noted that the connection between Spanish
and Latin are advantageous to Spanish-speaking students, provided these associations are
integrated into a lesson. This connection may explain, in part, why Spanish-speaking
students who participate in native language immersion programs surpass their peers from
ESL classrooms (Thomas & Collier, 2003).
Manyak (2008) described a second technique that can be adjusted for various
classrooms. Manyak implemented a daily news activity that simultaneously built the
conversational and academic language proficiency of ELLs while embedding learning in
an authentic and interesting context. The daily news activity was typically described as
having students participate in fervent engagement (Manyak, 2008, p. 450). During this
activity, students selected and produced news events from elements of their lives outside
the school setting. During this activity, students eagerly related, scribed, edited, and
read to gain their classmates and the teachers full understandings of what had occurred
(Manyak, 2008, p. 450). Students were allowed to share their news in Spanish and
English, thus facilitating involvement for students with limited knowledge of English and
providing monolingual English speakers opportunities to learn Spanish. The classroom
became a setting for two-way native language immersionan effective though underused
approach to promoting the linguistic and academic development of ELLs (Jones, 2002;
Thomas & Collier, 2003).

31
Language is a reflection of the culture from which it emerges; teaching only the
rules of language limits the richness and nuances of language. Failure to recognize the
cultural connections inherent to native language can create barriers between teacher and
student. Culturally competent teaching that connects to learners native language and the
second language is vital to effective language acquisition. The lack of awareness of how
to teach second language effectively or change in K12 pedagogy regarding ELLs has led
to a discrepancy in the increasingly diverse educational system.
The Discrepancy
The demographics of school-aged children in the United States have become
increasingly diverse, whereas the demographics of teachers have remained largely
unchanged. The U.S. population is growing older and more diverse. Between 2000 and
2010, the U.S. population grew 9.7%, from 281.4 million to 308.7 million. The West and
South are growing more quickly than the Northeast and Midwest. Between 2000 and
2010, the Wests population grew by 14.3% and the Souths by 13.8%. Non-Hispanic
Whites are the oldest residents, and Hispanics are the youngest. The youngest residents
are the most diverse: 47% of children under 5 years of age belong to a racial or ethnic
minority group (Center for Public Education, 2010).
This increase in population diversity has resulted in a widening of the diversity
gap between teachers and students in many public schools (Cawthorn, 2010; Fry &
Gonzales, 2008; Turgut, 2009). The shifting demographics also affect English language
learning, both inside and outside the classroom (Cawthorn, 2010; Passel & Cohn, 2008).
There is a significant nationwide learning gap between ELLs and non-ELLs, as measured
by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, with an average of 36 points

32
separating the two groups (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009, 2010).
Teachers are expected to support all students in achieving proficiency but may lack the
necessary expertise to support ELLs. Lacking expertise is particularly problematic
because of increasing student diversity (Colombo et al., 2013; Ford et al., 2016; Planty et
al., 2008; VanPatten & Williams, 2014).
Increasing Student Diversity
The proportion of public school students who are members of ethnic minorities
has increased steadily since the 1970s (Batalova, 2008; Colombo et al., 2013; Howard,
2007; Planty et al., 2008; Trent et al., 2008; Washburn, 2008; Zheng, 2009). Between
1979 and 2008, the percentage of K12 students who spoke a language other than
English at home rose from 9% to 20% (Planty et al., 2008). Such changes in student
demographics are likely to continue accelerating (Capps et al., 2005; Cawthorn, 2010;
Passel & Cohn, 2008). In California, for example, 40% of the states enrolled students are
bilingual, with close to one third classified as ELLs (Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll,
2005). Capps et al. (2005) found that 68% of ELLs were enrolled in California, Texas,
New York, Florida, and Illinois; however, immigrant families are increasingly moving to
areas of the United States that traditionally have not been host to large immigrant
populations. This trend presents new challenges to teachers accustomed to classes
composed mostly of native English speakers (Batalova, 2008; Colombo et al., 2013;
Flynn & Hill, 2005).
Although students who speak a language other than English at home constitute a
minority in most classrooms, it is common for teachers in particularly diverse schools to
have several ELLs in each class, and each of those students might speak a different native
33
language (Trumbull & Pacheco, 2005). Elementary school teachers tend to teach more
ELLs than do upper-grade teachers (Planty et al., 2008), with age distribution of ELLs
reflecting current immigration patterns. U.S.-born students are more prevalent in the
upper grades, whereas immigrant children predominate in primary school, with the
highest proportion attending kindergarten (Capps et al., 2005). Conversely, this same
diversity is not demonstrated among K12 teachers.
Decreasing Teacher Diversity
Although students are becoming more diverse, their teachers are not. The majority
of public school teachers are White and from primarily middle-class and monolingual,
English-speaking homes (Dorrington & Ramirez-Smith, 1999; Goldhaber, Theobald, &
Tien, 2015; Howard, 2007; Marx, 2000; Trent et al., 2008). Because of this disparity, the
proportion of diverse teachers to diverse students is shrinking, which may affect the
academic prospects of ELLs (Clair, 2000; Curtin, 2005; Flynn & Hill, 2005; Trumbull &
Pacheco, 2005). Particularly in low-income, high-risk areas, a diverse teaching body is
associated with increased student success (Goldhaber et al., 2015).
To address the need for greater cultural and linguistic sensitivity, several state
education agencies have begun requiring teachers to meet specific criteria for cultural
competencies prior to certification or licensure, to provide some assurance that diverse
learners will be served (Trumbull & Pacheco, 2005). Many researchers have asserted that
all teachers need professional training to be culturally competent educators (Clair &
Adger, 1999; Edwards, Carr, & Siegel, 2006; Flynn & Hill, 2005; Howard, 2007;
Trumbull & Pacheco, 2005), which is especially true for successfully teaching ELLs
(Clair, 2000; Curtin, 2005; Karabenick & Noda, 2004). Teachers are often unaware of the
34
extent to which sociocultural influences shape the learning experiences of students
grappling with learning materials in a second language (Washburn, 2008). For example,
subtle stimuli such as body language or the choice or size of a picture can make a
significant difference in the quality of a foreign language students learning experience.
In 1992, California became the first state to offer all teachers certification
specifically for teaching culturally diverse students, as opposed to only those primarily
teaching ELL and native language immersion classes (Jones, 2002). Six years later,
Proposition 227 passed, ending most native language immersion programs. At the time,
only 32% of the states teachers of primarily monolingual classes held cross-cultural
certification (Gandara & Maxwell-Jolly, 2000). In 2005, a survey of more than 5,000
teachers in California revealed insufficient preparation to teach ELLs (Gandara et al.,
2005). The finding that in the most diverse state in the United Statesa pioneering state
in ELL certificationthe majority of teachers were not prepared to teach ELLs may be
an indicator that teachers nationwide lack adequate preparation (Flynn & Hill, 2005;
McKeon, 2005; Shreve, 2005).
In 2010, Florida legislators put in place a consent decree that mandated teacher
training about ELLs. The consent decree is Floridas framework for compliance with
federal and state laws regarding the education of ELLs. It addressed the civil rights of
ELLs, especially their right to equal access to all education programs. The consent decree
provides a structure that ensures the delivery of instruction to which ELLs are entitled
(Florida Department of Education, 2014).
A recent study by the Center on Instruction by the Texas Institute for
Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics at the University of Houston found that some
35
schools are reversing the trend of disregarding the educational needs of ELLs and that
ELLs have achieved academic success in their acquired language. The study examined
key practices in schools with high populations of nonnative speakers of English in five
states (California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Texas). In these schools, the
percentage of culturally and ethnically diverse teachers was higher than national averages
in every school that achieved exemplary academic success for ELL students in their
acquired language (Rivera et al., 2010). Table 1 presents the demographic breakdown
(including schools in all five states) for elementary, middle, and high schools examined.
Table 1
Ethnic Diversity of Schools With High Populations of Nonnative Speakers of English in
Five States
Elementary Middle school High school

Ethnicity Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher
Hispanic 52 29 64 29 69 34
Asian 31 14 12 8 13 4
African
American 17 8 12 16 9 9
Caucasian 15 49 14 37 17 52
Native
American 1 0 25 7 2 1
Pacific
Islander 0 0 2 3 2 0
Note. Adapted from Effective Practices for English Language Learners. Principals From
Five States Speak, by M. O. Rivera, D. J. Francis, M. Fernandez, A. C. Moughamian, N.
K. Lesaux, and J. Jergensen, 2010, Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center
on Instruction.
36
It seems more than coincidental that academic success experienced by ELLs at
these schools was accompanied by high levels of teacher diversity. Indeed, other research
(Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2006; Liggett, 2008; Peregoy & Boyle, 2007; Rowan et al., 2002)
suggested that a lack of teacher diversityexemplified by teacher candidates with no
foreign language skillsoften creates frustration and poor communication skills when
these teachers attempt to interact with ELLs. This lack of second-language competency
may have contributed to the resultant lack of academic success among ELLs;
understanding of appropriate and effective ELL instruction, as available in the literature,
could reduce academic gaps among ELLs (Colombo et al., 2013).
Approaches to Effective ELL Instruction
According to Krashen (2007), knowledge of second language acquisition theories
is imperative for educators to provide the best instructional setting for ELLs. Krashen
argued that two of the worst mistakes educators can make are denying language learning
needs and not recognizing the native language as a resource to support language
acquisition. Krashen also stated that literacy in a first language is the quickest way to
become literate in a second language. Krashen argued that language acquisition
necessitates comprehended input containing structures beyond the acquirers current level
and a low affective filter that admits the input. Observing how second languages are
acquired naturally outside the classroomfor example, by adult immigrants attempting
to enter the workforce and learn English on the jobprovides insight into the most
effective language acquisition mechanisms. Yorio (1989) recommended memorizing
larger chunks of language, such as idioms, as opposed to individual vocabulary words,

37
and only in later stages applying the grammatical elements of these chunks to more
flexible, articulate language constructs.
Cummins (1979) introduced basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and
cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), which refer to a distinction between
BICS and CALP. Cummins (2000) made the distinction to emphasize the different
lengths of time ELLs typically require to acquire conversational fluency in their second
language, compared to grade-appropriate academic proficiency in that language.
According to Cummins (2000), conversational fluency is often acquired in 2 years of
exposure to a second language, whereas academic fluency can take at least five years and
is usually required to become equal to native speakers in academic features of the second
language. The difference between BICS and CALP, Cummins argued, has a significant
effect on a variety of educational guidelines and practices in both North America and the
United Kingdom. A misunderstanding of the nature of language proficiency has
exacerbated academic difficulties among ELLs.
Craig (2001) developed an operational theory of second language acquisition for
guiding regular classroom and ELL teachers. The theory emphasizes understanding what
language is, all facets of first language acquisition, and the distinctions between first and
second language acquisition. The theory also emphasizes general principles of human
intelligence and their influence on learning, along with knowledge, recognition, and
appreciation of variations in learners cognitive styles and personalities, and the
significance of culture and communication competence in the learning process. To be
effective in second language acquisition teaching, the literature suggests that an instructor
must have basic building blocks for success, including support outside the classroom, PD,
38
knowledge of effective teaching strategies and theory, and a holistic approach to student
success.
Support Outside the Classroom
Innovative approaches to education extend beyond the classroom. Family
involvement programs that tap the knowledge, resources, and experiences of cultural and
linguistic minority families are an effective strategy for advancing students academic
development and for establishing relationships among families, schools, and communities
(Caspe et al., 2007; Civil & Bernier, 2006; Gonzales et al., 2005). Programs such as
MAPP build on the funds of knowledge approach, which emphasizes the unique, diverse,
and vast bodies of knowledge that students from underprivileged or foreign backgrounds
have. That knowledge includes farming, construction, or trade and business across U.S.
borders, which are overlooked when the system focuses instead on what these students
lack in money, resources, or command of English (Gonzalez et al., 2005). Emphasizing
the disadvantages of ELLs rather than their advantages is often termed the deficit model
(Brown, 2004; Diaz & Klinger, 1991; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003) and has traditionally
shaped teachers attitudes toward language minority students and families in U.S. public
school classrooms.
The ecological approachalso referred to as embodied interactionis
exemplified by programs such as MAPP that build on language minority families funds
of knowledge (Caspe et al., 2007). An accumulating body of research documents the
positive effect of parents involvement in their childrens education. This effect is
intensified for children from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds.
Highlighting the importance of viewing culturally diverse students from an ecological

39
perspective, Caspe, Lopez, and Wolos (2007) noted that immigrant Latino parents are
often involved in their childrens education in ways that are not readily visible to
educators. Rather than directly assisting children with homework, parents may encourage
their children to seek out mentors in the community.
Parents of high-achieving Latino students explicitly and implicitly convey high
expectations by providing their children with nonverbal support, such as excusing them
from domestic tasks to focus on their homework and querying them about school
activities, projects, and events (Lewis-Moreno, 2007). Researchers tend to find that
immigrant parents have high aspirations for their childrens educational futures
(Carpenter, 2008; Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001; Shields & Behrman,
2005), but that these expectations are often countered by low expectations from the
childrens classroom teachers (Lewis-Moreno, 2007). PD may decrease these negative
discrepant expectations among teachers by emphasizing diversity and increasing
understanding of the development of ELLs (Cheatham, Jimenez-Silva, Wodrich, &
Kasai, 2014; Lewis-Moreno, 2007).
Professional Development
Despite increasing diversity in students cultural and linguistic backgrounds,
many teachers lack PD regarding the educational performance of ELLs (Cheatham et al.,
2014; Huang et al., 2012; Otway, 2007). PD for teaching ELLs involves training teachers
in various techniques so they can customize their students learning experiences
(Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Knight & Wiseman, 2005; Liggett, 2008; Milner,
2005, 2007). One goal of PD focused on ELLs is to provide teachers with a thorough
40
understanding of the mechanics of second language acquisition (Clair, 2000; Cheatham et
al., 2014; Craig, 2001; Lewis-Moreno, 2007; Trumbull & Pacheco, 2005).
Even though research has shown that effective instruction of ELLs requires
special preparation, a noteworthy number of teachers are not prepared to meet the
challenges of teaching ELLs (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). Research
has shown that high-quality teachers can make a considerable difference in student
achievement (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Early et al., 2006; Ferguson, 1998;
Hanushek, 1992; Rowan et al., 2002; Sanders & Horn, 1995; Sanders & Rivers, 1996,
2002; Wenglinsky, 2002). Although NCLB mandates that every student in every
classroom have access to quality teachers, the methods of qualifying teachers as ELL
instructors is not consistent across the country. Indeed, one state might provide
instruction in students native languages, whereas another state provides some level of
native language immersion education (Genesee et al., 2006).
Inconsistent training and preparation can lead to additional burdens for education
stakeholders, including the failure to meet mandated objectives for ELLs. States that
receive Title III funding for students identified as ELLs are required to report their annual
measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs). This mandate requires that state
educational agencies collect and report AYP and objectives that measure students
development and attainment of language proficiency in English.
There are three key AMAOs. The first AMAO measures the progress students
make in learning English. In Georgia, this progress is measured by student performance
on the ACCESS for ELLs annual language proficiency assessment. The second AMAO
addresses the progress students make in attaining English language proficiency. Georgia
41
has defined proficiency as a literacy subscore at or above 4.8 on Tier B or Tier C of the
ACCESS for the annual language proficiency assessment of ELLs. Finally, AMAO 3
involves the performance of the school districts English learner subgroup for Title I
accountability for AYP.
Nevertheless, the requirements of states are inconsistent. California legislators
have coordinated programs for ELLs and their teachers to meet students needs
(California Department of Education, 2014). Florida has put into effect a consent decree
that mandates training for teachers of ELLs (Florida Department of Education, 2014).
Many other states have been less zealous in meeting the needs of ELLs. Education for
ELLs is often considered a controversial issue in the United States, whereas many other
countries have implemented some form of native language immersion (Cummins, 2000).
Teachers inaccurate expectations of classroom demographics may have had a
negative effect on teacher preparedness (Ford et al., 2005; Johnson, 2002). Many
principals believe that new teachers are insufficiently prepared, resulting in unfulfilled
expectations and a high attrition rate (Markow, Moessner, & Horowitz, 2006). Jones
(2002) observed that prospective teachers preparing for monolingual English-speaking
classrooms rarely thought about the reality of teaching children from culturally diverse
backgrounds or different languages, and future native language immersion teachers
expected that they would only teach ELLs. Both groups had unrealistic expectations for
their future careers. The reality is that because of the trends of desegregating schools and
the increasing popularity of dual-language classes, a majority of monolingual teachers
will have ELLs in their classrooms, and many native language immersion teachers will be
42
teaching English-only students (Jones, 2002). This lack of sufficient teacher preparation
can affect the education system on a broader scale.
A study in Georgia revealed six themes related to perceived factors that
influenced the ability of regular education teachers to teach ELLs: preservice and in-
service training, collaboration, trial and error, scholarly reading, knowledge of best
practices, and exposure to diverse populations. I concluded that teachers require
collaboration, team teaching, and consideration of varied instructional models for ELLs
based on students linguistic needs. Recommendations included creating standards for
school-wide collaboration and PD (Otway, 2007).
A north Georgia survey of elementary ESL teachers from 21 public school
districts indicated that teachers who participated in a certain number of PD days focused
on teaching ELLs had a higher sense of self-efficacy than did those with fewer days of
PD. I examined the self-efficacy levels of elementary ESL teachers and explored factors
that contributed to individual differences in self-efficacysuch as teaching experience,
age, and genderand whether teachers abilities to speak students native language, type
of licensures, or number of days of ESL PD influenced their reported level of self-
efficacy (Cooper, 2009).
Another Georgia study compared two instructional models used in elementary
schools for educating ELLs: pull-out and push-in. The study used Assessing
Comprehension and Communication in English State to State scores of 115 third-grade
students. Results indicated that students instructed using the pull-out model scored higher
than did those instructed using the push-in model. This study could help change local
school policies to offer the most effective instructional practices for ELLs and effective
43
PD for those teaching ELLs (Woods-Washington, 2009). This PD could emphasize
teacher practices, like collaboration and interaction among students, which may support
effective second language instruction (Doherty & Hilberg, 2007; Flynn & Hill, 2005;
York-Barr, Ghere, & Sommerness, 2007).
Collaboration and Interaction
One method for improving ELL instruction is increased collaboration between
native language immersion teachers and general educators (Flynn & Hill, 2005).
Collaboration allows teachers with varied educational experiences and expectations to
brainstorm and benefit from one anothers perspectives and experiences (Curtin, 2005).
The success of collaborative approaches is that they help teachers adopt best practices
and customize instruction to learners individual needs (Doherty & Hilberg, 2007; York-
Barr et al., 2007).
Rock, Gregg, Ellis, and Gable (2008) described the collaborative effort between a
mainstream and special educator in a framework for DI. Differentiated instruction
emphasizes tailoring the learning process by starting from a particular classs skill level,
as opposed to the arbitrary beginning of a curriculum; being flexible with time; and
finding individualized ways to engage students coming from unique perspectives,
backgrounds, experiences, and abilities (Tomlinson, 1999). Teachers experienced in
teaching ELLs demonstrate an interactive teaching style (Curtin, 2005) and draw upon
successful strategies for teaching diverse groups of learners including DI, MI, and LS.
Differentiated instruction. According to Tomlinson (1999), Developing
academically responsive classrooms is important for a country built on the twin values of
equity and excellence (p. 12). The goal of NCLB is to attain equity and excellence in
44
U.S. education. Tomlinson envisioned schools as heterogeneous communities of
learning grounded solidly on high-quality curriculum and instruction that strive to
maximize the capacity of each learner (p. 12). This vision is impossible to achieve if
teachers are unaware of their students academic needs or if they lack an effective means
of working with a group or individuals who need additional assistance.
MI theory. Dr. Howard Gardner developed MI theory to challenge the
predominant view of intelligence as a single capacity, with which an individual is born,
and which proves difficult, if not impossible, to alter (Gardner, 1995, p. 16). MI theory
proposes that individuals have an intelligence profile made up of their aptitudes in seven
types of intelligence. Each profile is unique, and each intelligence develops
independently. According to Gardner, this change in the accepted intelligence construct
allows for a more comprehensive view of intelligence, thereby enhancing the ability to
affect and improve intelligence.
LS approach. Developed by Curtin (2005), the LS approach suggests that
different students learn differently and that interactive, rather than didactic teaching styles
work best. Specifically, these alternative approaches work by focusing on how students
are thinking and learning rather than how they are behaving. Motivation arising from
enhanced interest, engagement, and confidence is a key factor in student success.
DI, MI, and LS have demonstrated efficacy separately for instruction (Baecher,
Artigliere, Patterson, & Spatzer, 2012; Dunn et al., 2009; Gardner, 1995; Ghamrawi,
2014; Tomlinson, 1999). Moreover, raising academic achievement across grade levels,
abilities, and cultural heritages has been documented when using DI, MI, and LS teaching
45
strategies (Curtin, 2005; Dunn et al., 2009, Kornhaber, 2004). The efficacy of combining
elements is consistent with a holistic approach to teaching ELLs.
A Holistic Approach to Teaching
Collaboration among teachers is important for a holistic approach to effective
education, particularly when working with ELLs. Collaboration is part of a larger holistic
approach and is a critical element of PD for teachers. Grosjean investigated the holistic
view of language as applicable to bilingual individuals (1982, 2008, 2010). Second-
language instruction will not be effective if ELL learning is viewed in a vacuum
(National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2013; Rampey, Dion, &
Donahue, 2009; Stillman & Blank, 2009). Rather, the whole picture of students and
teachers experiences, strengths, and perspectives must be taken into consideration.
Lesson plans and teaching techniques should be designed and executed based on an
understanding that each ELL is unique (Grosjean, 2010).
Since the implementation of NCLB in 2002, educators have been concerned that a
focus on high-stakes testing deprives ELLs of enriched learning experiences and is
counterproductive to their academic success (Capps et al., 2005; Colombo et al., 2013;
Echevarria, Powers, & Short, 2006; Escamilla et al., 2005; Escamilla, Mahon, Riley-
Bernal, & Rutledge, 2003). A case study of Texas teachers showed that ELLs benefit
from being taught through learner-center approaches as opposed to the didactic, teacher-
centered approaches that some teachers consider necessary to prepare students for
standardized tests (Curtin, 2005). The practice commonly referred to as teaching to the
test is detrimental to all students learning and especially to cultural and language
46
minority students, whereas using a variety of teaching strategies improves ELL education
(Karabenick & Noda, 2004).
Commins (2008) found that despite rapidly changing demographics, most public
school districts have continued to organize instruction to address the needs of the
average student, who is by implication middle-class, native English-speaking and White
(p. 240). Consequently, efforts to adapt school policies and practices to minority needs
are often reactive and haphazard. Districts, schools, and individual teachers vary
tremendously in their approaches to teaching ELLs. The most successful efforts are
typically organized, data-driven, and based on best practices for teaching all students,
which equates to tailoring instruction to students individual needs and learning
preferences (Commins, 2008). PD is central to these initiatives (Flynn & Hill, 2005;
Knight & Wiseman, 2005; Zheng, 2009).
Teachers should recognize that education best occurs in the context of the
dynamic and complex synthesis of individuals experiences and perspectives. This
recognition requires teachers to be flexible and adapt methods, materials, and time
allotments according to the individual needs of their students. Teachers should resist
teaching to the test and understand that a less direct yet more comprehensive approach
will benefit students and will be reflected in standardized test scores. This flexibility and
holistic approach to student achievement particularly benefits teachers of ELLs in
constructing a culturally competent classroom.
Culturally Competent Teaching
Social constructivism and a holistic approach support culturally competent
teaching by facilitating a consideration of systemic dynamics, teachers experiences and

47
attitudes, and students social contexts. The National Council for the Accreditation of
Teacher Education appreciated this combined approach in the mid-1970s when it drafted
recommendations for addressing multicultural issues in teacher education programs
(Trent et al., 2008). In response, some programs began infusing their coursework with
multicultural content (Commins & Miramontes, 2006). The identified need for
multicultural competencies for classroom teachers also generated research on existing
practices and direction for program improvement (Barnes, 2006; Commins &
Miramontes, 2006; Downey & Cobbs, 2007).
Cultural competence should be further developed for its potential synergistic
effect on language acquisition education. Lewis-Moreno (2007) stated that the first step
in addressing the needs of ELLs is reflecting on the prevailing attitudes of the school
system toward students whose primary language is not English. Specifically, the goal of
any district should be an ecological approach rather than a medical model. That is,
students who arrive from other cultures with other languages should be viewed as assets
rather than liabilities (Lewis-Moreno, 2007, p. 772). Teachers often give lip service to
this belief but are less amenable toward teaching ELLs in their own classrooms (Curtin,
2005; Karabenick & Noda, 2004). Although this attitude could reflect a realistic appraisal
of their own knowledge and skills, teachers who prefer not to teach ELLs tend to have
less favorable attitudes toward ELLs. The majority of teachers desire PD opportunities to
enable them to work effectively with ELLs (Gandara et al., 2005).
Educators who view ELLs as deficient are more likely to act in a manner that is
antithetical to the holistic philosophy of developing the whole child and cultivating his or
her personal strengths. With a narrow focus on symptoms, educators ignore the wealth
48
of experiences students from other cultures bring with them (Lewis-Moreno, 2007, p.
773). ELLs might have a sound academic background, but because of their limited
English proficiency, they may be placed in programs designed for native English
speakers and then experience reading and writing difficulties. As a consequence, their
time is poorly spent remediating skills they already have in a language they have yet to
acquire (Lewis-Moreno, 2007, p. 773). Washburn echoed this conclusion (2008) when
she found that few teachers were even familiar with specific methods or theories for
teaching ELLs. Teachers lack of diversity and unfamiliarity with their students cultures
proved detrimental to student learning.
Lewis-Moreno (2007) implicated teachers low expectations as one of the most
formidable barriers to the English language progress of ELLs. Instead of scaffolding
instruction to assure that all students have opportunities to demonstrate mastery of class
material, some teachers give ELLs passing grades for work below academic standards
and grade-level proficiency on the grounds that the students dont know English and
cant be expected to do the same as everyone else (Lewis-Moreno, 2007, p. 775). When
taught through approaches that capitalize on their MI and LS, these same students often
surpass grade-level expectations (Curtin, 2005; Dunn et al., 2009; Kornhaber, 2004). Like
Tomlinson (1999), Lewis-Moreno believed that schools have a moral and ethical
obligation to prepare all students for future success, declaring that to accomplish this, all
classroom teachersregardless of grade, subject, or disciplineshould be capable of
scaffolding instruction and developing the language proficiency of ELLs. This
perspective is essential for cultural competencies in teacher education and PD (Trumbull
& Pacheco, 2005).

49
Central to the importance of cultural competencies for teaching language minority
students is the idea that language and culture are inextricably interrelated (Trumbull &
Pacheco, 2005). Understanding ELL students cultures can enhance teachers abilities to
respond to their learning needs. The standards established for teachers seeking credentials
in teaching English as a new language can be equally useful for guiding PD of regular
classroom teachers.
Trumbull and Pacheco (2005) developed eight standards as a guide for developing
cultural competence among teachers with dynamic classroom profiles. Firstly, a teacher
must have knowledge of language and language development. Teachers invoke this
knowledge to understand the learning process to make suitable curricular adaptations.
Secondly, knowledge of culture enhances teachers abilities to design successful learning
experiences. Next, teachers must possess knowledge of subject matter. In the fourth
standard, meaningful learning, teachers promote authentic learning through a repertoire
of strategies that challenge students to explore, confront, and understand key concepts,
issues, and topics in authentic and relevant ways.
Trumbull and Pacheco (2005) also emphasized that teachers should use multiple
channels to promote students language proficiency and their knowledge and
understanding of subject matter and create a classroom conducive to maximizing learning
for all students. This classroom is a culturally and linguistically rich learning community
where students work independently and collaborative on intellectually stimulating tasks.
After developing this environment, teachers use an array of assessment techniques to
inform student learning and development, which helps students reflect on their personal
progress. Lastly, teachers should create alliances with linguistically and culturally diverse
50
families to enhance and enrich students educational experiences (Trumbull & Pacheco,
2005).
The importance of cultural competency for effective teaching is widely
recognized (Abedi, 2006; Brown et al., 1989; Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2006; Ford et al., 2005;
Freeman & Freeman, 2001; Rivera et al., 2010; Tllez & Waxman, 2006; Vygotsky,
1986). Theories of language acquisition and cultural competence provide a framework in
which teachers can design second-language instruction. Integrating these theories into
classroom practices requires knowledge of the theories and the characteristics of
individual learners. PD is often the key to effective transition from theory to practice.
Moving From Theory to Practice
Standards for teachers seeking credentials in teaching English as a new language
reflect best practices for teaching all students across languages, cultures, and abilities,
with a focus on teaching cultural and linguistic minority students. Incorporating these
standards into effective PD programs requires that district and school administrators be
knowledgeable about cultural and linguistic diversity (Clair & Adger, 1999; Commins,
2008). However, theory is only as effective as the willingness and ability of teachers to
apply it. Introducing new developments in education and language acquisition theory and
equipping teachers with the tools to apply that understanding are critical (Moughamian et
al., 2009). PD must focus on bringing the theories and their practical applications to the
forces on the ground: teachers. To accomplish this, PD programs must be designed with
teachers beliefs, needs, and experiences in mind.
Clair (2000) emphasized that PD be ongoing and include learning opportunities
centered on teachers and students. A cohesive and data-driven approach based on a needs
51
assessment, with input from school stakeholders and tailored to the unique characteristics
of the school or district, is the best way to design PD. Gatbonton (2008) found novice and
experienced teachers of adult ESL courses to be similar in pedagogical knowledge,
including active and passive learning strategies. At the same time, Clair (2000) noted that
this knowledge does not necessarily translate into classroom teaching. Expertise in using
active teaching strategies often develops with time and experience. The standards
outlined by Trumbull and Pacheco (2005) offer a valuable framework for focusing a PD
program.
Flynn and Hill (2005) stressed the importance of strong, supportive leadership in
designing PD for teaching ELLs. They proposed that PD should be a top priority and
made several recommendations that reflect standards for cultural competencies. Flynn
and Hill recommended that teachers use students primary language to the fullest extent
possible, which entails investing in native language immersion materials. Although they
recognized that financial constraints can inhibit this practice, Flynn and Hill suggested
that schools seek out ways to support students ongoing development in their primary
language. Parents can be a valuable resource in this endeavor, providing they are
respected as genuine collaborative partners (Caspe et al., 2007).
Flynn and Hill (2005) also suggested that ELLs be allowed to engage in
conversations with more than one teacher. The researchers deemed it essential that
opportunities to master conversational English be strategically planned. In addition to
recommending that students be able to engage in informal, expressive conversation in
English, the authors noted that ELLs speak more productively in relaxed atmospheres
where they are not forced to compete with English-dominant students for speaking time
52
and are not afraid to take verbal risks. Most of Flynn and Hills recommendations reflect
the standards for cultural competencies presented by Trumbull and Pacheco (2005).
Curtin (2005) observed dramatic differences in the teaching styles of veteran and
novice teachers. Whereas experienced teachers freely used a wide range of teaching
strategies, novices were preoccupied with district policies and practices, standardized
testing, and maintaining orderly, disciplined classrooms, which resulted in a didactic,
autocratic, and less effective approach to teaching. Curran (2003) integrated strategies for
managing linguistically diverse classrooms into PD workshops. Currans culturally
competent approach involves creating a learning community in which all learners feel
welcome and included.
Gatbonton (2008) proposed additional training to accelerate novice teachers
expertise in using active teaching strategies. For K12 teachers, this training can be
conducted through a targeted PD program. The literature suggests that most teachers are
open to innovative teaching methods but are unsure of how to implement them. In
addition, teachers often have misconceptions about approaches such as DI and MI. Well-
designed PD activities increase teachers conceptual knowledge of the theoretical
framework and provide opportunities for translating theory into practice. The area of
greatest misunderstanding is probably the relationship between first and second language
acquisition (Craig, 2001; Jones, 2002; Lewis-Moreno, 2007), and specific methods of
introducing a new language. Immersion and ESL are two such approaches where
misunderstanding arises (Escamilla et al., 2005).

53
Native Language Immersion versus ESL
Teachers who participate in PD opportunities will increase their knowledge of
language acquisition education theory (Karabenick & Noda, 2004); however, there is
considerable debate about how the ideal classroom should be conducted. Two models
have evolved, each with avid advocates who believe in their approach and reject the
other: native language immersion and ESL.
Native language immersion has long been a topic of controversy (Escamilla et al.,
2005; Jones, 2002; Lewis-Moreno, 2007). The debate is more a reflection of sociocultural
issues regarding the use of language in schools than of the efficacy of native language
immersion versus other approaches to teaching ELLs. Based on the need to evaluate the
long-term success of language support programs, Thomas and Collier (2003) carried out
a longitudinal study of programs for language minority students. Conducted from 1996 to
2001 and built on 14 years of relevant research, Thomas and Collier designed the study to
collect information on student academic achievement in six school districts (three urban
and three rural) across the United States. The researchers analyzed records of students in
long-term language support programs (56 years), those in short-term programs (13
years), and those who left language support programs or received all or most of their
instruction in monolingual English classrooms.
Thomas and Collier (2003) further distinguished among specific types of
language support programs: (a) two-way native language immersion programs designed
to promote academic achievement and bilingual language fluency in both ELLs and
native English speakers, typically more than 5 to 6 years; (b) one-way developmental
native language immersion programs, similar in design and objectives to the two-way
54
native language immersion programs but serving only ELLs; (c) transitional native
language immersion programs, which provide ELLs with instruction in their native
language for 2 to 3 years prior to entering monolingual English classrooms; and (d) ESL
programs that integrate English language with subject content instruction. Additional
analysis focused on the proportion of time allocated to each language. In 90/10 programs,
students receive 90% of their instruction in their native language and 10% in English, and
50/50 programs give each language equal instructional time.
According to Thomas and Collier (2003), programs that helped ELLs reach and
sustain academic achievement in the 50th percentile or higher in their native language
and English across subject areas were 90/10 and 50/50 two-way native language
immersion and one-way developmental native language immersion programs. Students in
these programs were also the least likely to drop out of school. The least successful
students were those enrolled only in English mainstream classes because their parents
rejected language support programs. These students displayed dramatic declines in
reading and mathematics achievement by fifth grade compared to their peers who
attended language support programs, and this group had the highest dropout rates.
Thomas and Collier (2003) concluded that the extent of students formal
education in their primary language is the most powerful factor in their achievement in
English. Specifically, the more years students studied in their native language, the greater
their achievement in English. Alternatively, many preservice and in-service teachers
believe that ELLs are hindered by using their native language (Bollin, 2007; Jones, 2002;
Karabenick & Noda, 2004).

55
A review of the prevailing theories of language and language acquisition reveals a
great deal of dissent among the theorists regarding optimal strategies for language
acquisition. Existing frameworks may provide guidance, but each has shortcomings that
must be acknowledged in their application. Shortcomings of these frameworks are
detailed in the following section.
Insufficiency of ELL Teaching Frameworks
Academic indicators clearly show that ELLs are not being taught effectively
(Hayes, Salazar, & Vukovic, 2002; Rivkin et al., 2005; Sanders & Rivers, 2002; Tllez &
Waxman, 2006; Texas Education Agency, 2008; Wenglinsky, 2002; Zehr, 2009). If
educators want to support ELLs effectively, states with a high proportion of ELLs (such
as California) should be improving their teachers skills to ensure that these students are
able to succeed. However, this support has not been provided in California.
According to Gandara et al. (2005), only 10% of ELLs passed the 2004 California
English Language Arts Standards Test, and only 39% passed the English Language Arts
segment of the California High School Exit Exam the same year. In contrast, 81% of
English speakers passed the Language Arts Exit Exam. In mathematics, 49% of ELLs
passed the High School Exit Exam, versus 78% of English speakers. The poor
performance of ELLs on state standardized tests, combined with their growing numbers,
led to a collaborative effort by the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, the
Policy Analysis for California Education, and the University of California Linguistic
Minority Research Institute to find a solution to the growing situation (Gandara et al.,
2005).
56
Despite the needs implied by Californias test results, Gandara et al. (2005)
reported that many teachers received minimal or no PD targeted to help them teach ELLs,
and teachers with PD experience cited deficiencies in their training. Similar proportions
of elementary and secondary teachers (28% and 31%, respectively) complained that
workshops or seminars were poorly planned and presented by individuals with little ELL
experience, and that information was irrelevant, inappropriate, and not up to date. Small
but significant percentages of elementary and secondary teachers said their training was
not applicable or appropriate for teaching ELLs (17% and 14%) or was impractical for
classroom adoption and had no follow-up to show teachers how they could implement
what they learned (15% and 12%).
This lack of proper training is magnified when the lack of teacher diversity is
included in statistical comparisons. For example, Karabenick and Noda (2004) found
results similar to those in California, although the focus of their study was on the lack of
diversity among elementary, middle, and high school teachers. More specifically, three
quarters of surveyed teachers had ELLs in their classes, and 88% had taught ELLs at
some time; however, only 18% were fluent in a language other than English, and only 5%
had native language immersion or ESL training or certification. Other researchers have
reported similar findings (Escamilla et al., 2005; Flynn & Hill, 2005; Thomas & Collier,
2003).
The challenge of educating ELLs is not unique to the United States. Researchers
in New Zealand and Australia have concluded that successful ELL instruction is based on
an understanding of and appreciation for the cultural background of ELLs (Curtin, 2005;
Gibbons, 2008; Hammond, 2008; Phillips, McNaughton, & MacDonald, 2004). The goal
57
of those studies was to create a learning environment that matched students home
environments. In the United States, despite growing diversity in student populations,
teachers are often poorly equipped to teach ELLs and as a group lack a proportion of
diversity remotely resembling that of the students they are trying to teach. Although
research is clear about the need for more successful ELL instruction, there is still little
national progress on improving teachers skills or understanding their attitudes and
teaching behavior.
Conclusion
Schools in the United States are faced with a wide sociocultural divide between
teachers and learners. Even in California, with the most diverse student population in the
United States, a majority of teachers are unprepared to teach ELLs (Gandara et al., 2005).
As more linguistically and culturally diverse families move to regions that have not
traditionally been home to large immigrant populations, teachers who did not expect to be
teaching ELLs are confronting the challenge of teaching students whose native language
is something other than English (Flynn & Hill, 2005). A thread running through the
literature is that teachers need strategically-designed PD to enable them to teach ELLs
successfully. The elements of culturally competent teaching provide a useful framework
for guiding PD activities (Trumbull & Pacheco, 2005). To date, no studies have
specifically examined the effect that PD and experience have on the attitudes teachers
bear and the teaching behaviors they employ regarding ELLs.
Certain competencies and knowledge of second language acquisition are central
to effective ELL PD, as is dissipating negative beliefs about students using their primary
language in class (Craig, 2001; Escamilla et al., 2005; Thomas & Collier, 2003). The
58
most effective teachers of ELLs have an extensive repertoire of teaching strategies,
typically derived from MI, DI, and LS (Curtin, 2005). These approaches to learning are
best adopted in the context of PD programs (Dunn et al., 2009; Kornhaber, 2004;
Tomlinson, 1999). Targeted PD can challenge teachers ingrained beliefs about ELL
while advancing their knowledge of language and their expertise in using best practices
to teach all students.
Summary
This literature review revealed that, for the majority of U.S. teachers, schools, and
districts, ELLs are not being given the tools they need to succeed academically. A
significant gap exists between the progress made by native English-speaking students and
their ELL counterparts. Both a lack of sufficient training for teachers and decreasing
teacher diversity are contributing to these results. At the same time, some schools have
been exemplary in providing ELLs with the necessary tools for academic success, and
many of these schools have higher-than-average diversity among teachers. PD, though a
common recommendation, has not been examined regarding its efficacy in altering
teachers attitudes and behaviors to facilitate ELL academic success. The following
section consists of a description of and a rationale for the methods used in this study.
59
Section 3: Research Method
Introduction
with ELLs. The study was based on sociocultural, situational learning, and second
language acquisition theories. Participants were teachers in a medium-sized rural Georgia
school district. They completed the TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey
and a demographic questionnaire.
Research Design and Approach
Researchers typically select one of three designs: qualitative, quantitative, or
mixed-methods. Quantitative research is a deductive approach that typically relies on
experiments, surveys, histories, or analysis of archival data. Qualitative research is an
inductive process that makes use of case studies, participant observation, or interviews
(Wagner, 2002).
Quantitative researchers employ neutral scientific language. Data are presented
numerically and objectively because the overriding goal of such research is to discover
universal value (Smith, 1983). Quantitative studies are usually repeatable in other
contexts (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). Carr and Kemmis (1986) described one
weakness of the quantitative approach in education research: The sum of the relationship
between means and ends, which the positivist view of theory and practice assumes,
fails to recognize how, in education, aims, policies and methods are all intrinsically
related (p. 78). Correlational research is most appropriate when assessing the strength of
relationship between two variables of interest (Howell, 2010). A quantitative design

60
following a correlational approach was selected for the current study because it was most
appropriate for answering the six research questions of the study.
Setting
The current study was conducted in a medium-sized school district in rural
Georgia. In 2011, it was the fourth fastest-growing school district in the United States
(National Center for Education Statistics). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2012),
the county in which the school district is located has an average family size of 3.2 and a
median household income of $58,801, and its population comprises three major ethnic
groups: White (83%), African American (14%), and Hispanic (4%). The district employs
1,743 teachers in 33 schools, with a student population of 28,444. There are five high
schools, eight middle schools, and 20 elementary schools (Georgia Department of
Education, 2012).
Sample
In the 20102011 school year, the school district under study had 405 ELLs
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). Every teacher employed by the district is
certified, and 99% of them are considered highly qualified as defined by NCLB. Forty-
eight percent of school district employees hold a masters degree or higher, and 35% of
certified employees have 10 or more years of educational experience. In 2012, there were
401 male teachers and 1,511 female teachers. Of those, 126 (6.6%) were Black, 1,721
(90.0%) were White, 36 (1.9%) were Hispanic, 5 (0.3%) were Asian, 7 (0.4%) were
Native American, and 17 (0.9%) were multiracial (Georgia Department of Education,
2012). According to the U.S. Department of Education (2013), the five foreign languages
most commonly spoken by ELL students in Georgia are Spanish (66,955 students),
61
Vietnamese (2,412 students), Korean (1,812 students), Chinese (1,284 students), and
French (948 students).
To determine an appropriate sample size, I conducted an a priori power analysis
using G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Power was set at .80, alpha
was set at .05, and the expected effect size was set at .25. Based on this calculation, the
minimum sample size necessary to determine a moderate effect was 102, or 51 for each
of the two groups. This calculation means there is an 80% probability of rejecting the null
hypothesis when the specific alternative hypothesis is true. Although a sample size of 51
per group was deemed sufficient, as sample size increases, so does power. Power is the
probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when the specific alternative hypothesis is true
and correctly detecting an effect if one actually exists (Aberson, 2010). Results for the a
priori power analysis in the current study are displayed in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Power graph indicating sample size requirement based on power.

62
I sent an invitation to participate in the study to 1,743 teachers in the districts 33
schools. Complete responses were received from N = 286 teachers, for a response rate of
16%. As Table 2 shows, the majority of respondents were female (82%), many had a
masters degree (47%) or specialist degree (26%), and most spoke English as a native
language (92%). Approximately 75% of participants did not speak a second language.
Among the teachers who did speak a second language, most were at a beginner or
intermediate level. Table 2 summarizes respondents demographic data.

63
Table 2
Demographic Description of Participants
Characteristic n %
Gender
Male 34 11.9
Female 233 81.5
No response 19 6.6
Highest degree obtained

BA/BS 68 23.8
MA/MS 135 47.2
Specialist 73 25.5
PhD/EdD 6 2.1
No response 4 1.3
English is native language

Yes 264 92.3
No 2 0.8
No response 20 7.0
Speak a second language

Yes 58 20.3
No 209 73.8
No response 19 6.6
Level of expertise in second language

Beginner 28 48.3
Intermediate 21 36.2
Advanced 5 8.6
No response 4 6.9
Total 286 100
64
Participants also answered questions about their teaching areas. The majority of
participants taught the elementary grades (56%) and have had ESL students in their
classrooms (83%), with an average of two ESL students per class in 20112012.
Respondents had an average of 36.5 ESL students during their careers. Results for those
items are summarized in Table 3. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of
ESL student distribution.
Table 3
School Environment of Participants
Characteristic n %
Grade level taught

Elementary 161 56.3
Middle 82 28.7
High 53 18.5
Subject taught (multiple responses possible)

Elementary content K-5 132 46.2
Math 57 19.9
Science 24 8.4
English 27 9.4
Social studies 20 7.0
Language other than English 3 1.0
Fine arts 12 4.2
Health or physical education 11 3.8
Business 6 2.1
Special education 8 2.8
ESOL 5 1.7
Support service 10 3.5
High school electives 3 1.0
Have had ESL students enrolled in classroom

Yes 237 82.9
No 49 17.1
65
Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations of ESL Student Distribution
Characteristics SD M
Number of ESL students in classes in 20112012 2.03 3.73
Approximate number of ESL students in classes in entire career 20.42 36.50
The study asked participants about their participation in PD. As Table 5 indicates,
two thirds of the respondents indicated that they attended one to five PD activities per
year, but almost 70% indicated that they did not attend ELL professional activities.
Results for those items are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5
Professional Development Profile of Respondents
Characteristic n %
Professional development activities attended per year

15 190 67.1
610 67 23.7
1120 12 4.2
More than 20 14 4.9
Professional development activities attended per year pertaining

to ELLs
0 197 68.9
12 72 25.2
34 13 4.5
56 2 0.7
More than 6 2 0.7
Received training in teaching ELLs

Yes 91 31.8
No 177 61.9
No response 18 6.3
66
Instrumentation and Materials
To collect data for the study, I selected the TATESL Students in Mainstream
Classrooms Survey (see Appendix A). The instrument has been used in several similar
studies, such as Younces (2011) study regarding middle school teacher attitudes toward
the achievement of ELLs and measures the concepts that I wanted to investigate in this
study. Further reasons to select the instrument was the good reliability and validity, its
simplicity and low number of items as well as being granted permission by the instrument
developer (Reeves, 2006). As teachers were asked to participate in many studies and
might show participant fatigue, the instruments simplicity and low number of items
promised an appropriate response rate. Further, the instrument showed acceptable
reliability and validity, as will be discussed below.
The TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey has a total of 38 items,
which are divided, into four sections. Section A includes 16 items that measure the four
dependent variables corresponding to attitudes toward ELL and ESL inclusion
inclusion (five items), coursework modification (six items), PD (two items), and language
learning (three items). Those items use a 4-point Likert-type scale: 1 (strongly agree), 2
(agree), 3 (disagree), 4 (strongly disagree). Although a neutral option might have given
participants more flexibility in responding to survey items, Reeves (2006) did not include
that option so that participants would be forced to make a positive or negative response.
Likert-scale items for the variables within Section A include the following:
1. The inclusion of ESL students in subject-area classes creates a positive
educational atmosphere.
2. ESL students should avoid using their native language while at school.
67
3. It is good practice to simplify coursework for ESL students.
4. I would welcome the inclusion of ESL students in my classroom.
Only teachers who indicated they had ELLs in their classroom completed Section
B. Section B includes 11 items that measure the three dependent variables corresponding
to teaching behaviors toward ELL and ESL inclusionclassroom practices (five items),
influence of inclusion (three items), and teacher support (three items). Each item uses a 3-
point Likert-scale: 1 (seldom or never), 2 (some of the time), 3 (most or all of the time).
Likert-scale items for the variables within Section B include the following:
1. I allow students more time to complete their coursework.
2. The inclusion of ESL students in my classes increases my workload.
3. I receive adequate support from school administration when ESL students are
enrolled in my classes.
Section C of the TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey has two
short-answer questions, and Section D has six items that solicit demographic information.
I collected additional demographic information with a researcher-designed questionnaire
(see Appendix C).
To assess the TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms Surveys readability
and content validity, Reeves (2006) piloted the instrument with 30 middle school teachers
in a district with less than 2% of students identified as limited-English-proficient. Based
on the pilot study, Reeves determined that the TATESL Students in Mainstream
Classrooms Survey has strong content validity, but she did not report reliability data for
the instrument. I found no other studies that reported reliability values for the TATESL
Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey. Thus, I assessed for reliability of the

68
subscales with Cronbach alphas. Results of the reliability analysis indicated that inclusion
( = .73), influence of inclusion ( = .75), teacher support ( = .81), and coursework
modifications ( = .68) had acceptable reliability. Results for PD ( = .03) indicated low
reliability. The PD scale was created with two items. Due to the low reliability of the
two-item scale, the scale was redefined to use only one of the items, I have adequate
training to work with ESL students. Language learning ( = .44) and classroom practices
( = .51) also indicated low reliability; however, these scales approached the acceptable
threshold. The low reliability for these scales is attributed to participant error or the small
number of items in each corresponding scale. Consequently, statistical findings using the
language learning scale and the classroom practices scale will be interpreted with caution.
Demographic data (see Appendices A and C) collected included grade level and
subject areas taught, gender, years of teaching experience, native language, and second-
language proficiency. I also asked participants how many PD activities they attended per
year and how many of these activities pertained to ELLs. Two of the demographic
variables (years of teaching experience and PD pertaining to ELLs) were independent
variables in the data analysis. Years of teaching experience were a continuous variable
ranging from 0 to 40 years. PD activities that pertained to ELLs were a dichotomous
variable. Respondents who indicated that they attended at least one PD activity per year
pertaining to ELLs received a value of 1, whereas those who indicated that they did not
attend PD pertaining to ELLs received a 0. I calculated the dependent variables from the
subscales for teachers attitudes and behaviors toward ELL and ESL inclusion. These
dependent variables correspond to inclusion, coursework modification, PD, language
learning, classroom practices, influence of inclusion, and teacher support.

69
Data Collection and Analysis
After Walden University and the school district approved this study, I was able
to distribute the survey to 1,743 teachers via email through an online link. I analyzed data
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0 for Windows
(IBM, 2012). After evaluating the reliability of the scales, I created variables by taking an
average of the corresponding items. Means and standard deviations were examined for
the corresponding variables. The distribution of responses were examined for Research
Questions 1 and 3 by calculation of frequencies and percentages. Additional statistical
procedures I used were Pearsons product moment correlation for Research Questions 2
and 4 as well as an independent sample t tests for Research Questions 5 and 6. I described
details about data analysis in the following section according to the six research
questions.
1. What are teachers attitudes toward ELLs as measured by Section A of the
Research Question 1 is descriptive. I examined descriptive statistics for the
responses to Section A of the TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey. I
measured teachers attitudes towards ELLs by computing composite scores for inclusion,
coursework modification, PD, and language learning. I computed these variables from
responses to the 16 items in Section A of the TATESL Students in Mainstream
Classrooms Survey.
2. What is the correlation between teachers attitudes toward inclusion (as
measured by Section A of the TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms
Survey) and their years of teaching experience?

70
Research Question 2 is inferential to investigate any relationship of the variables
years of teaching experience and teachers attitudes toward ELLs (inclusion, coursework
modifications, PD, and language learning) as measured by Section A of the TATESL
Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey. I created a correlational matrix showing the
relationship between mean agreement scores for teacher attitudes toward ELLs and years
of teaching experience.
3. What are teachers teaching behaviors toward ELLs in their classrooms (as
Survey)?
Research Question 3 is descriptive. I examined descriptive statistics for the
responses to Section B of the TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey. I
measured teachers behaviors towards ELLs by computing composite scores for
classroom practices, influence of inclusion, and teacher support. I computed these
variables from responses to the 11 items in Section B of the TATESL Students in
Mainstream Classrooms Survey.
4. What is the correlation between teachers teaching behaviors toward ELLs in
their classrooms (as measured by Section B of the TATESL Students in
Mainstream Classrooms Survey) and their years of teaching experience?
H04: There is no significant correlation between teachers teaching behaviors

71
toward ELLs in their classrooms and their years of teaching experience.
HA4: There is a significant correlation between teachers teaching behaviors
Research Question 4 is correlational. The variables of interest are years of
teaching experience and teachers behaviors toward ELLs (classroom practices, influence
of inclusion, and teacher support) as measured by Section B of the TATESL Students in
Mainstream Classrooms Survey. I created a correlational matrix showing the relationship
between mean agreement scores for teacher behaviors toward ELLs and years of teaching
experience. I created a correlation coefficient for each correlational analysis.
5. What is the difference in teachers attitudes toward inclusion between those
teachers who have attended PD activities pertaining to ELLs and those who
have not?
H05: There is no significant difference in attitudes toward inclusion between
those teachers who have attended PD activities pertaining to ELLs and
those who have not.
HA5: There is a significant difference in attitudes toward inclusion between
those who have not.
The independent variable for this question was participation in PD activities
pertaining to ELLs (yes or no). The dependent variables corresponded to the mean
agreement scores on the subscales in Section A of the TATESL Students in Mainstream
Classrooms Surveyteachers attitudes toward inclusion, coursework modifications, PD,

72
and language learning. I analyzed data for Research Question 5 using a series of
independent sample t tests and a Mann-Whitney U test.
6. What is the difference in teaching behaviors toward ELLs between those
teachers who have attended PD activities pertaining to ELLs and those who
have not?
H06: There is no significant difference in teaching behaviors toward ELLs
between those teachers who have attended PD training pertaining to
HA6: There is a significant difference in teaching behaviors toward ELLs
between those teachers who have attended PD training pertaining to
The independent variable for this question was participation in PD activities
pertaining to ELLs (yes or no). The dependent variables corresponded to the mean
agreement scores on the subscales in Section B of the TATESL Students in Mainstream
Classrooms Surveyclassroom practices, influence of inclusion, and teacher support. I
analyzed data for Research Question 6 using a series of independent sample t tests.
Ethical Considerations
This study followed all human subjects rules outlined by Walden Universitys
Institutional Review Board at (see Appendix D) and conformed to the standards for
human subjects set forth by the school district under study. It is important to note that I
was an employee of the school district used in the study. I obtained permission to conduct
research in the school district from the local school superintendent. I asked for principals
permissions to email their staffs regarding the voluntary survey. After the principals
73
granted permission, I sent an email message with an online survey link to teachers at the
schools. I used this method to ensure that potential coercion was minimized.
I observed the guidelines of the participating school system as well as the rights of
participants. Teachers in the district received an email describing the study and inviting
them to participate, as well as a link to the TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms
Survey hosted through the Survey Monkey website. All participants received written
instructions that described the study and outlined potential risks and benefits associated
with their participation prior to accessing the survey. Participants were free to decline or
terminate participation at any time, and I assured anonymity to all participants.
The first page of the online survey was the implied informed consent (see
Appendix E). By choosing the I Accept option and by continuing with the actual survey
items, the participants indicated their decision to participate voluntarily in the study. I
assured participant anonymity by not collecting any personal identifiers. The raw data
will be held on my home computer for 5 years after conclusion of the study, after which
time they will be destroyed. I will make data available to school district stakeholders
upon request.
Summary
In this section, I described the methods for a quantitative study designed to assess
the correlation of PD and years of experience on the attitudes and behaviors of teachers
working with ELL students. In addition, I conducted independent sample t tests to
examine for differences in attitudes and behaviors of teachers by participation in PD
training pertaining to ELLs. Participants were teachers in a medium-sized school district
in rural Georgia. They completed an online version of the TATESL Students in

74
Mainstream Classrooms Survey and a demographic survey. All participants electronically
signed an informed consent form. I analyzed data with SPSS. The following section
details the results of the study.

75
Section 4: Results
Introduction
with ELLs. Participants completed the TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms
Survey and a demographic questionnaire. I sent an email message with an online link to
the survey to 1,743 K12 teachers in a rural Georgia school district.
Research Question 1
What are teachers attitudes toward ELLs as measured by Section A of the
Table 6 summarizes participants attitudes toward ELLs. More than 90% of
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that inclusion of ELLs creates a positive
educational atmosphere and that they would welcome ELLs in their classrooms. More
than 80% agreed or strongly agreed that including ELLs benefits all students. Almost
three quarters (74%) agreed or strongly agreed that native language use at school should
be allowed. Three quarters agreed or strongly agreed that they need more training in
teaching ELLs.
76
Table 6
Teachers Attitudes Toward ELLs (N = 286)
Level of agreement
Item in Section A of the TATESL Students (percentage of respondents)
in Mainstream Classrooms Survey Strongly Strongly
(attitudes toward ELLs) disagree Disagree Agree agree
Inclusion
1. Inclusion of ELL students in the subject-
area classes creates a positive educational
atmosphere. 1.4 4.9 61.5 32.2
2. The inclusion of ELL students in subject-
area classes benefits all students. 1.7 16.1 55.6 26.6
3. EL students should not be included in
general education classes until they attain a
minimum level of English proficiency. 18.2 44.4 28.0 9.4
6. Subject-area teachers do not have enough
time to deal with the needs of ELL
students. 10.8 47.9 37.4 3.8
15. I would welcome the inclusion of ESL
students in my class. 1.0 5.9 66.8 26.2
Coursework Modifications
7. It is a good practice to simplify coursework
for ELL students. 7.7 48.6 39.9 3.8
8. It is good practice to lessen the quantity of
coursework for ELL students. 6.3 47.9 43.4 2.4
9. It is good practice to allow ELL students
more time to complete coursework. 1.4 13.3 73.8 11.5
10. Teachers should not give ELL students a
failing grade if the students display effort. 8.7 55.6 32.5 3.1
11. Teachers should not modify assignments
for the ELL students enrolled in subject-
area classes. 13.3 63.6 19.9 3.1
12. The modification of coursework for ELL
students would be difficult to justify to
other students. 15.0 65.0 17.1 2.8
77
Level of agreement
Item in Section A of the TATESL Students (percentage of respondents)
in Mainstream Classrooms Survey Strongly Strongly
(attitudes toward ELLs) disagree Disagree Agree agree
Professional Development
13. I have adequate training to work with ELL
students. 26.2 46.9 22.0 4.9
Language Learning
4. ELL students should avoid using their native
language while at school. 13.6 60.1 22.7 3.5
5. ELL students should be able to acquire
English within 2 years of enrolling in U.S.
schools. 3.5 32.2 57.3 7.0
16. I would support legislation making English
the official language of the United States. 2.4 7.0 42.7 47.9
Note. aMean is based on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
Scores for the inclusion subscale ranged from 1.40 to 4.00, with M = 2.97 and SD
= 0.49. Scores for the coursework modification subscale ranged from 1.17 to 4.00, with
M = 2.64 and SD = 0.40. Scores for the PD subscale ranged from 1.00 to 4.00, with M =
2.06 and SD = 0.82. Scores for the language learning subscale ranged from 1.33 to 4.00,
with M = 2.73 and SD = 0.47. Descriptive statistics of the subscales are presented in
Table 7.
78
Table 7
Teachers Attitudes toward ELLs (Inclusion, Coursework Modifications, Professional
Development, and Language Learning)
Attitudes Towards ELLs na min max Mb SD
Inclusion 5 1.40 4.00 2.97 0.49
Coursework modifications 6 1.17 4.00 2.64 0.40
Professional development 1 1.00 4.00 2.06 0.82
Language learning 3 1.33 4.00 2.73 0.47
Note. an: number of items in scale

b
Mean is based on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
Research Question 2
Is there a correlation between teachers attitudes toward inclusion (as measured
by Section A of the TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey) and
their years of teaching experience?
Research Question 2 is correlational. The variables of interest were teaching
attitudes toward ELLs (inclusion, coursework modifications, PD, and language learning)
and years of teaching experience. A correlational matrix was created showing the
79
relationship between the subscales of teaches attitudes toward ELLs and years of
teaching experience.
A significant positive, weak correlation was found between coursework
modifications and years of teaching experience (r = .13, p = .031). The positive
correlation indicates that as teachers agreement with coursework modifications
increases, so do years of teaching experience. In addition, a significant positive, weak
correlation was found between PD and years of teaching experience (r = .17, p = .003). I
found no significant correlations between the other two subscales of teachers attitudes
toward ELLs and years of experience. The null hypothesis for Research Question 2 was
rejected. I presented results of the Pearson correlations in Table 8.
Table 8
Relationship Between Teachers Attitudes Toward ELLs and Years of Experience
Years of
Experience
Subscales in Section A of the TATESL Students in Mainstream
r p
Classrooms Survey
Inclusion .03 .581
Coursework modifications .13* .031
Professional development .17** .003
Language learning
.06 .282
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01.
80
Research Question 3
What are the teachers teaching behaviors toward ELLs in their classrooms (as
Survey)?
Research Question 3 is descriptive. I obtained teachers teaching behaviors
toward ELLs from 11 items in Section B of the TATESL Students in Mainstream
Classrooms Survey. A subset of participants (n = 237; see Table 3) responded to these
items based on whether they had taught ELL students during their teaching careers.
Table 9 summarizes responses to the 11 items pertaining to teaching behaviors
toward ELLs. More than 90% of respondents reported that they allow ESL students more
time to complete their coursework some or most of the time, and more than 50% reported
that they give ELL students less coursework than other students. Approximately 80%
reported that they never, seldom, or some of the time allow ELL students to use their
native language in class, and slightly more than one third (35%) provide materials for
ELLs in their native language. Approximately 75% of the teachers reported that the
inclusion of ELL students increases their workload and that ELLs require more of their
time than do other students. More than one half (54%) reported that some of the time,
effort is more important than grades for ELLs. Almost one half (46%) reported that some
of the time, adequate administration support is provided for their ELL students.
81
Table 9
Teachers Behaviors Toward ELLs (n = 237)
Level of agreement
(percentage of respondents)
Subscales in Section B of the TATESL Students Most or
in Mainstream Classrooms Survey Seldom Some of all of the
(behaviors toward ELLs) or never the time time
Classroom Practices
1. I allow ELL students more time to complete their
coursework. 7.2 54.4 38.4
2. I give ELL students less coursework than other
students. 48.5 45.6 5.9
3. I allow an ELL student to use her or his native
language in my class. 27.0 57.4 15.6
4. I provide materials for ESL students in their
native languages. 65.0 32.1 3.0
5. Effort is more important to me than achievement
when I grade ELL students. 29.5 54.0 16.5
Influence of Inclusion
6. The inclusion of ELL students in my classes
increases my workload. 24.9 55.7 19.4
7. EL students require more of my time than other
students require. 27.0 56.1 16.9
8. The inclusion of ELL students in my class slows
the progress of the entire class. 68.8 27.8 3.4
Teacher Support
9. I receive adequate support from school
administration when ELL students are enrolled in
my classes. 24.5 46.8 28.7
10. I receive adequate support from the ELL staff
when ELL students are enrolled in my classes. 16.9 42.2 40.9
11. I conference with the ELL teacher. 23.2 39.2 37.6
Scores for the classroom practices subscale ranged from 1.00 to 2.80, with M =
1.80 and SD = 0.36. Scores for the influence of inclusion subscale ranged from 1.00 to
82
3.00, with M = 1.73 and SD = 0.51. Scores for the teacher support subscale ranged from
1.00 to 3.00, with M = 2.14 and SD = 0.63. I presented descriptive statistics of the
subscales in Table 10.
Table 10
Teachers Behaviors Toward ELLs (Classroom Practices, Influence of Inclusion, and
Teacher Support)
Behaviors towards ELLs n min max Ma SD
Classroom practices 5 1.00 2.80 1.80 0.36
Influence of inclusion 3 1.00 3.00 1.73 0.51
Teacher support 3 1.00 3.00 2.14 0.63
Note. aMean is based on a scale ranging from 1 (seldom or never) to 3 (most or all of the
time).
Research Question 4
Is there a correlation between teachers teaching behaviors toward ELLs in their
classrooms (as measured by Section B of the TATESL Students in Mainstream
H04: There is no significant correlation between teachers teaching behaviors
HA4: There is a significant correlation between teachers teaching behaviors
Research Question 4 is correlational. The variables of interest were years of
teaching experience and teaching behaviors toward ELLs (classroom practices, influence
of inclusion, and teacher support). I created a correlational matrix showing the

83
relationship between years of teaching experience and the subscales of teaching
behaviors.
I found no significant correlations between teaching behaviors toward ELLs and
years of teaching experience. However, the relationship between influence of inclusion
and years of teaching experience approached significance (r = .13, p = .051). The null
hypothesis for Research Question 4 was not rejected. I presented results of the Pearson
correlations in Table 11.
Table 11
Relationship Between Teachers Behaviors Toward ELLs and Years of Experience
Years of
Subscales in Section B of the TATESL Students in Mainstream
Experience
Classrooms Survey
r p
Classroom practices .12 .070
Influence of inclusion .13 .051
Teacher support .01 .889
Note. *p < .05, **p <. 01.
Research Question 5
Is there a significant difference in attitudes toward inclusion between those
not?
H05: There is no significant difference in attitudes toward inclusion between those
teachers who have had PD pertaining to ELLs and those who have not.
84
HA5: There is a significant difference in the attitudes toward inclusion between
those teachers who have had PD pertaining to ELLs and those who have
not.
Research Question 5 was addressed using a series of independent sample t tests
and a Mann-Whitney U test. The dichotomous independent grouping variable in this
analysis corresponded to participation in PD activities concerning ELLs. The dependent
variables were teachers mean agreement attitudes toward ELLs as measured by the four
subscales in Section A of the TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey.
Those teachers who had not attended PD activities pertaining to ELLs were in the
first group (n = 197), and those who had attended at least one PD activity were in the
second group (n = 89). Table 12 shows means and standard deviations of the two groups
and results of the independent sample t tests used to determine if differences occurred in
the teachers attitudes about ELLs according to their mean agreement scores.
As Table 12 shows, I did not find a significant difference for inclusion,
coursework modifications, or language learning scores between those who did and did
not attend PD activities. Due to the PD scale being measured by one item, a
nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to examine for mean rank
differences in responses for PD between those who did and did not attend PD activities.
As indicated in Table 13, results of the Mann-Whitney U test were significant, suggesting
that there were significant differences in PD scores between those who did and did not
attend PD activities. Teachers who had not attended PD activities had mean rank PD
scores of 125.77. Teachers who had attended PD activities had mean rank PD scores of
182.74. I found no other significant differences between the two groups. Because I found
85
a significant difference on at least one subscale regarding attitudes toward EL, I rejected
the null hypothesis.
Table 12
Differences in Attitudes (Inclusion, Coursework Modifications, and Language Learning)
Toward ELLs Between Teachers Who Attended Professional Development Activities
Pertaining to ELLs and Teachers Who Did Not
Number of professional
development activities
pertaining to ELLs
Subscales in Section A of the None 1 or more
TATESL (n = 197) (n = 89)
(attitudes toward ELLs) Ma SD Ma SD t(284) p
Inclusion 2.96 .48 3.01 .49 -.94 .349
Coursework modifications 2.62 .40 2.70 .40 -1.53 .127
Language learning 2.75 .48 2.69 .46 .97 .335
Note. a is based on averages of Likert-scaled items ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4

(strongly agree).
86
Table 13
Differences in Attitudes (Professional Development) Toward ELLs Between Teachers
Who Attended Professional Development Activities Pertaining to ELLs and Teachers
Who Did Not
pertaining to ELLs
Subscales in Section A of the None 1 or more
TATSEL (n = 197) (n = 89)
(attitudes toward ELLs) Mean Ranka Mean Rank Z p
Professional development 125.77 182.74 -5.79 <.001
Note. a Mann-Whitney U test uses ranks of raw data.
Research Question 6
Is there a significant difference in teaching behaviors toward ELLs between those
not?
H06: There is no significant difference in teaching behaviors toward ELLs
between those teachers who have attended PD activities pertaining to ELLs
and those who have not.
HA6: There is a significant difference in teaching behaviors toward ELLs between
those who have not.
I addressed Research Question 6 using a series of independent sample t tests. The
dichotomous independent grouping variable in this analysis corresponded to participation
in PD activities concerning ELLs. The dependent variables were teachers mean

87
agreement behaviors toward ELLs as measured by the three subscales in Section B of the
TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey.
Those teachers who had not attended PD activities pertaining to ELLs were in the
first group (n = 197), and those who had attended at least one PD activity were in the
second group (n = 89). Table 14 shows means and standard deviations of the two groups
and results of a series of independent sample t tests used to determine if differences
occurred in the teachers behaviors about ELLs according to their mean agreement
scores.
As Table 14 shows, I found a significant difference was for teacher support scores
between those who did and did not attend PD activities (t = 2.80, p = .005). Teachers
who had not attended PD activities had average teacher support scores of 2.06. Teachers
who had attended PD activities had average teacher support scores of 2.30. I found no
other significant differences between the two groups. Because I found a significant
difference on at least one subscale regarding behaviors toward ELLs, I rejected the null
hypothesis.
88
Table 14
Differences in Behaviors Toward ELLs Between Teachers Who Attended Professional
Development Activities Pertaining to ELLs and Teachers Who Did Not
pertaining to ELLs
Subscales in Section B of the None 1 or more
TATESL (n = 197) (n = 89)
(behaviors toward ELLs) Ma SD Ma SD t(235) p
Classroom practices 1.78 .36 1.86 .35 -1.59 .114
Influence of inclusion 1.74 .50 1.72 .52 0.25 .800
Teacher support 2.06 .62 2.30 .62 -2.80 .005
Note. a is based on averages of Likert-scaled items ranging from 1 (seldom or never) to 3

(most or all of the time).
Summary
A total of 286 out of 1,743 teachers responded to a survey designed to examine
their attitudes about ELLs. More than one half (56%) reported that having ELLs in the
classroom increased their workload some of the time. A large majority (80%) disagreed
that justification of grade adjustments made for ELLs would present a problem to other
students. More than two-thirds (68%) disagreed that inclusion of ELLs in their classroom
slowed the progress of the entire class. Fewer than one half (39%) reported conferencing
some of the time with ELL specialist teachers.
I found a statistically significant, positive, low correlation between coursework
modifications, PD and years of teaching experience. Findings of these correlations

89
suggest that teachers with higher coursework modification and PD scores tended to have
more years of teaching experience.
I did not find significant correlations between teachers teaching behaviors and
years of teaching experience. However, classroom practices and influence of inclusion
approached significance with years of teaching experience. The null hypothesis for
Research Question 3 was not rejected.
A series of independent sample t tests and a Mann Whitney U test were conducted
to examine for differences in teachers attitudes toward ELLs between teachers who did
and did not attend PD activities pertaining to ELLs. Results of the independent sample t
tests indicated that there were not significant differences in inclusion, coursework
modifications, and language learning between teachers who did and did not attend PD
activities. Results of the Mann-Whitney U test indicated significant differences in PD
between teachers who did and did not attend PD activities. The null hypothesis for
Research Question 5 was rejected.
A series of independent sample t tests were conducted to examine for differences
in teachers behaviors toward ELLs between teachers who did and did not attend PD
activities pertaining to ELLs. Results of the independent sample t test indicated that there
were significant differences in teacher support scores between teachers who did and did
not attend PD activities. The null hypothesis for Research Question 6 was rejected. I
discuss these findings in Section 5 and make connections back to the literature and
theoretical framework.
90
Section 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Introduction
Schools in the United States have witnessed an increase in students whose
primary language is not English (Turgut, 2009). Nationwide enrollments of ELLs
increased by 18% from 2000 to 2005 (Swanson, 2009). From 2000 to 2006, Georgia
experienced the fifth-largest absolute growth in foreign-born population of all 50 states
(Migration Policy Institute, 2012). Classroom teachers are increasingly faced with
meeting the needs of students whose English proficiency levels and academic needs vary
widely. Per NCLB, teachers are responsible for testing ELLs as they would English-
speaking classmates, although a wide achievement gap exists between ELLs and their
English-speaking peers (Campbell, 2004; U.S. Department of Education, 2012). With
changing demographics, the need to understand how diverse students learn is critical in
providing an equal education for all (Viadero, 2009). This need can be addressed through
well-designed PD related to ELLs (Gandara et al., 2005), which requires an
understanding of how PD and experience with ELLs affects teachers attitudes and
teaching behaviors.
I examined attitudes about ELLs held by largely White, U.S.-born, middle-class
teachers in a medium-sized school system in Georgia who taught first-generation students
with a first language other than English. The study was based on sociocultural theory and
situational learning theory. The primary data-collection instrument was the TATESL
Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey. I present an overview of the study, a
discussion of the findings, implications for social change, and recommendations for
action and further study in this section.

91
Discussion of Findings
Results of the current study were consistent with the original research that used
the TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey (Reeves, 2006). Reeves
explored four categories of teacher attitudes toward ELLs: ELL inclusion, coursework
modification for ELLs, PD for working with ELLs, and perceptions of language and
learning. Following Reeves, I used single items.
Participants in the current study were similar to the original studys participants
regarding attitudes toward including ELLs in regular classrooms and coursework
modification for ELLs. These similarities could reflect the fact that the two samples were
similar: experienced teachers with opportunities for EL-related PD. In both studies,
participation was voluntary, which could mean that both samples reflected a genuine
interest in educating ELLs, leading to similarly positive attitudes.
The current study used the TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey
to determine attitudes toward teaching ELLs. Experienced teachers were compared with
novice teachers, and those who received ELL PD were compared with those who did not
receive such PD. Results showed that experienced teachers who had participated in PD
regarding ELLs had more positive attitudes that were consistent with ELL educational
best practices (Curtin, 2005; Flynn & Hill, 2005; Gatbonton, 2008; Lewis-Moreno, 2007;
Vygotsky, 1986). Those attitudes included the belief that ELLs can be successful in
inclusion settings and that coursework modification works for ELLs. That group of
teachers also had fewer misconceptions about how second languages are learned, and
they had a better sense of measuring ELL success beyond grades and the time required
for adequate instruction and completion of work.

92
Findings from this study indicated that teaching experience is positively
correlated with teachers attitudes towards ELL inclusion. Teaching experience and the
idea that ELLs require more time to complete coursework had a weak but significant
positive correlation. No significant correlations were present between years of teaching
experience and teachers behaviors toward ELLs.
Gatbonton (2008) found that novice and experienced ESL teachers demonstrated
similar pedagogical knowledge, although this knowledge may not always translate into
classroom behavior. In the current study, experienced teachers seemed more aware of the
time commitment and grading practices necessary for the success of ELLs. Results of the
current study are consistent with Curtins (2005) finding that experienced teachers felt
more comfortable with varied teaching modalities, compared to novice teachers focus on
district policies and practices. Experienced teachers increased their cultural competence
over time to better scaffold for the different needs of ELLs, consistent with best practices
that Curtin (2005), Lewis-Moreno (2007), and Vygotsky (1978) developed. However, it
is important to note that native language use in the classroom did not significantly
increase as teaching experience increased. Thus, it seems that native language use in the
classroom remains suspect in U.S. education (Craig, 2001; Escamilla et al., 2005).
Although experience increased teachers confidence and modified some attitudes toward
ELLs, there is room for improved understanding of ELL teaching best practices, which
could be furthered by adequate PD.
According to Clark (2008), most school districts assume that PD will provide a
sufficient foundation for ELL instruction, but this assumption has not been tested. The
current study was developed to test this assumption in a particular school system.
93
Because the majority of respondents had not received ELL-specific PD, but reported that
including ELLs in the classroom increases workload because of time demands,
attendance at PD events regarding ELLs could help alleviate this feeling and give
teachers ideas on how to save time and plan instruction for all students. Teachers need
continuous PD to gain new strategies for working with ELLs and to learn time
management skills.
In the current study, attending EL-specific PD was significantly associated with
participants perceptions that they had received adequate training, whereas those who had
not attended such PD did not feel that they have adequate training to work with ESL
students. Increased confidence in the current study is consistent with Coopers (2009)
findings regarding PD and teacher self-efficacy in addressing the needs of ELL students.
In the current study, teachers who received PD were more likely to provide additional
materials for ELLs than were those who had not attended EL-related PD. These results
suggest that PD increases focus on learner-centered, holistic teaching behaviors (Curtin,
2005).
In the current study, teachers who received PD were more likely to seek out
collaborative teaching opportunities with ESL teachers, compared to those who had not
received this PD. This finding supports recommendations by Doherty and Hilberg (2007),
Flynn and Hill (2005), and York-Barr, Ghere, and Sommerness (2007) to use
collaborative teaching to improve ELL achievement. Thus, findings in the current study
regarding the correlation of PD on teaching attitudes and behaviors align with best
practices for second-language acquisition, although progress remains to be made
regarding inclusion of native language materials (Craig, 2001; Escamilla et al., 2005).
94
Knowledge of teacher attitudes toward diverse learners provides a basis for
understanding how teachers interpret their classroom experiences (Wood & Floden,
1990). The current study showed that many teachers agree ELLs should be able to
acquire English within two years of enrolling in a U.S. school, a belief that is not
supported by research on second language acquisition. Such research indicates that it may
take 5 to 7 years to acquire proficiency in English as a second language (Cummins,
1979). Thus, teachers in the current study may be unaware of best practices consistent
with language acquisition theory. PD could dispel the misconception that language
acquisition occurs quickly. Subject-area teachers in the current study reported that they
do not have time to meet the needs of ELLs. PD could help these teachers understand the
need to confer with an ESL teacher about lesson development and time management
strategies for working with ELL students.
Reeves (2006) stated that given the increase in the ELL population and the lack
of training teachers have received for working with ELLs, PD, standards, and test scores
have become a high priority for many school districts. The current study confirmed that
more PD regarding ELLs is needed. Teachers reported that they do not have adequate
training to work with ELLs and that they are interested in receiving more training.
Campbell (2004) noted that researchers have found that because many classroom teachers
were socialized in environments that did not take into account multicultural sensitivity,
they tend to perpetuate mainstream-centric, assimilation-oriented norms. Teachers may
need assistance in understanding and meeting the unique needs of their diverse learners.
Tailored PD can help teachers meet the needs of ELLs.

95
According to sociocultural learning theory, learning is a process that takes place
in the context of interactions with people, knowledge, and events. Thus, ELLs are
dependent on their social environment for feedback (Kublin et al., 1989; Vygotsky,
1986). Situational learning theory also stresses the role of the environment during
language knowledge acquisition (Brown et al., 1989). Although participants reported that
including ELLs benefits all students, teacher practice regarding situational learning via
strategies such as native language inclusion is not consistent with the tenets of
sociocultural and situational learning theories.
Findings also suggest that many teachers do not have appropriate expectations
about second language acquisition. For example, more than one half of the respondents
indicated that ELLs should be able to acquire English within two years of enrolling in a
U.S. school, despite research suggesting that may take 5 to 7 years for second language
acquisition, and even more to attain proficiency. This gap between teacher expectations
and the potential of ELLs can negatively influence attitudes toward ELL students when
they are perceived as lagging in English language mastery. PD about ELL language
acquisition could change such attitudes by providing accurate information about the
characteristics and needs of ELL students.
In sum, PD regarding ELLs can help teachers understand their needs, and
teaching experience leads to more accurate expectations of the time required for effective
ELL instruction. Advice about how to adjust content and instruction is available through
books, journals, and PD initiatives. Teachers who pursue PD about ELLs will be better
equipped to identify and implement effective instruction for mainstreamed ELLs
(Reeves, 2006).
96
Limitations
The primary limitation of this study was use of a convenience sample. I am
employed by the school system under study, and a convenience sample was time-and
cost-efficient. Although convenience sampling is often used when a researchers
resources are limited and other forms of sampling are not practical, it limits the
generalizability of results.
A second limitation was that because the school system under study is in a rural
area close to a major metropolitan area, it may have a lower population of ELLs
compared to a metropolitan area school system. As a result, participants limited
experience with ELLs might not have offered a sufficient basis with which to respond to
survey items. Also, I limited the study to one school district, which limits generalization
to other school districts in Georgia and the nation.
Third, because participants were volunteers, they may or may not be
representative of all teachers with ELLs in their classrooms. Teachers might have
volunteered for the study because they have a personal interest in ELL education, along
with preformed attitudes about the issue, and this characteristic of the sample could have
influenced the results in a way that cannot be known. Also, the survey elicited attitudes
about ELLs. Some respondents might have been unable to acknowledge their prejudices
and might have marked politically correct answers on the survey. A fourth limitation is
that no researchers have previously conducted analyses to assess the reliability of the
TATESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms Survey. Thus, the results need to be
interpreted with caution.

97
Another limitation corresponded to the low Cronbach alpha coefficients for two
of the scales. I tried reverse coding and removing items from the language learning and
classroom practices scale. The Cronbach alpha for these scales were maximized and
further interpretations were made with caution.
Finally, the school district under study had not offered PD tailored for ELL
instruction. Participants may or may not have attended PD activities outside the school
system. I compared attitudes concerning ELLs of participants who had attended some
form of PD activities with participants who had not. Differences in attitudes between the
two groups could reflect factors other than PD, which could have affected the results of
the study.
Implications for Social Change
I designed this study to address a gap in the literature by examining the
correlation of PD on the attitudes and behaviors of teachers working with ELLs. The
results have implications for teachers, schools, and school districts. The most important
implication is a need for additional focused PD to give teachers greater confidence in
working with ELLs.
This studys results are congruent with Reevess (2006) conviction that teachers
need continuous PD regarding ELL needs. In the current study, there was little difference
in attitudes between those participants who participated in PD regarding ELLs and those
who did not. This finding provides support for training teachers regardless of their
previous experience; there is always room for more training opportunities. More PD
opportunities geared toward meeting the needs of ELLs can help improve their academic
performance.
98
Teachers who attended professional activities pertaining to ELLs reported that
they provided materials for ELLs more often than did their counterparts without such
development experience. More teachers are needed who can work in culturally diverse
classrooms using proven ELL instructional techniques. Teachers need a conceptual
understanding of ELL needs to make good planning and instructional decisions (Short,
2013). By training teachers how to support the needs of ELLs, teacher attitudes might
change, resulting in improved education for ELLs.
Administrators in K12 schools can use this studys findings to make changes
that will benefit not only ELLs but all learners. Findings could be used at both the district
and individual school level to inform ELL instruction. As teachers take responsibility for
the success of ELLs in their classrooms, they will need additional training, and the results
of this study can help inform PD opportunities. By highlighting the challenges of those
who teach an increasingly diverse student population, this study can affect social change
that will result in better educated and more productive citizens. Providing empirically
validated PD regarding ELLs will give teachers the tools they need for the ELLs to be
successful in the classroom and beyond. A successful academic experience will enhance
the potential of ELLs for success in society after their schooling is complete.
Recommendations for Action
The results of this study have implications for teachers, school-level
administrators, and district leaders in the participating school system. Those agents need
to be aware of how teacher attitudes affect the academic success of ELLs. As Short
(2013) emphasized, principals and their leadership teams need to be committed to
tailored PD regarding ELLs. Asking teachers what they are learning in workshops,
99
attending sessions with teachers, and listening to teachers share their experiences in
faculty meetings will help administrators evaluate PD programs. Short also suggested that
administrators look for specific ELL techniques in their classroom visits and comment
thoughtfully afterward.
PD about best practicesbased on sociocultural, situational learning, and second
language acquisition theoriescan help resolve the disconnect between teachers
positive attitudes about inclusion and the lack of best practices being applied in
classrooms. A specific recommendation is to increase the percentage of teachers who use
native language materials. Focused PD provides teachers an opportunity to interact with
colleagues who have successfully used such materials. Short (2013) recommended that
such training last for a full school year, with teachers attending a series of workshops and
practicing new techniques between sessions.
Even teachers who have previously participated in ELL-related PD might benefit
from additional training. As Short (2013) noted, ideas regarding what constitutes
effective ELL instruction change as the ELL population changes. Ongoing PD will
introduce teachers to additional strategies and updated research, as well as provide
learning communities where they engage in collaborative teams and work to build a
shared knowledge base (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). More job-embedded PD
about second language acquisition theory would benefit teachers of ELLs. Such training
should take place in teachers instructional environment, with in-class trials and coaching
feedback, as well as opportunities to discuss videotapes and student work from other
classrooms (Short, 2013).

100
I will disseminate results of the current study to district leaders, school-level
leaders, and teachers in the participating district. My hope is that those results will lead to
additional focused PD regarding the needs of ELLs. Such training can positively
influence teacher attitudes and behaviors, leading to improved academic performance by
ELLs in mainstream classrooms.
Recommendations for Further Study
This study was based on a relatively small sample. The study should be
replicated with a larger sample involving teachers in other Georgia school districts, as
well as other states or regions of the country, to capture differences in teacher attitudes
and behaviors based on location. Studies that compare rural and urban schools would also
be valuable, as would those involving schools with differing percentages of ELL
students.
The results of this quantitative study can provide the basis for a qualitative study
exploring the reasons behind reported attitudes and behaviors. Semi structured interviews
or focus groups of teachers could further inform PD practices related to ELLs. Another
option is a mixed-methods study based on the TATESL Students in Mainstream
Classrooms Survey and follow-up interviews with a subset of the survey population. The
current study looked only at teacher attitudes and behaviors. A qualitative study
exploring parents perspectives about ELL instruction might provide insights about how
to improve childrens learning.
This study captured a single moment in time. Replicating this study at set points
in the future could provide longitudinal insights into how PD influences teacher attitudes
and behaviors over time. Relatedly, a longitudinal study could follow ELL students from
101
elementary school through high school and compare their test scores to those of their
native English-speaking peers to determine the correlation of teachers participation in
PD regarding ELLs.
Summary
Research has documented that student demographics are changing, and U.S.
public schools are facing academic achievement gaps (Cawthorn, 2010; Fry & Gonzales,
2008; Turgut, 2009). Few teacher education programs adequately prepare teachers to be
effective in classrooms serving diverse students (Capps et al., 2005; Cawthorn, 2010;
Passel & Cohn, 2008). Those facts gave rise to a quantitative study designed to explore
the correlation of teaching experience and PD on attitudes and behaviors of teachers
working with ELLs.
Results indicate that teachers need further training on instructional strategies to
support ELLs in their classroom. Participants attitudes regarding ELLs were positive,
but many teachers are misinformed about the time required to learn a second language,
and they do not consistently use best practices in teaching ELLs. All school stakeholders
must collaborate to achieve positive school social change by adequately preparing
teachers to address the needs of ELLs. If teachers receive focused and ongoing PD
designed to meet ELL needs, schools will begin to see higher accomplishments among all
students.
102
References
Abedi, J. (2006). Psychometric issues in the ELL assessment and special education
eligibility. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 22822303. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9620.2006.00782.x
Aberson, C. L. (2010). Applied power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004).
An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 10361060.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1036
Anthony, A. R. B. (2008). Output strategies for English-language learners: Theory to
practice. The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 472482.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/rt.61.6.4
Baecher, L., Artigliere, M., Patterson, D. K., & Spatzer, A. (2012). Differentiated
instruction for English Language Learners as variations on a theme: Teachers
can differentiate instruction to support English Language Learners. Middle School
Journal, 43(3), 1421.
Barnes, C. J. (2006). Preparing preservice teachers to teach in a culturally responsive
way. Negro Educational Review, 57(12), 85100. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/
Batalova, J. (2008, January). Immigrant and ELL education: A demographic overview.
Symposium conducted at the meeting of ETS-NCLR, Princeton, NJ.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust
vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

103
Bollin, G. G. (2007). Preparing teachers for Hispanic immigrant children: A service
learning approach. Journal of Latinos and Education, 6(2), 177189.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348430701305028
Brown, E. (2004). The significance of race and social class for self-study and the
professional knowledge base of teacher education. In J. J. Loughran, M. L.
Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-
study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 517574). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 3242.
doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032
California Department of Education. (2014). English language proficiency framework.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/
Campbell, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom.
Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services.
Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new
demography of Americas schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind act.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Carpenter, D. M. (2008). Expectations, aspirations, and achievement among Latino
students of immigrant families. Marriage & Family Review, 43, 164185.
doi:10.1080/01494920802013078.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action
research. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

104
Caspe, M., Lopez, M. L., & Wolos, C. (2007). Family involvement makes a difference:
Family involvement in elementary school childrens education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Family Research Project.
Cawthon, S. W. (2010). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: The
case of former LEPs. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 15(13), 19.
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/
Center for Public Education. (2010). The changing demographics of the United States
and their schools. Retrieved from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/
Cheatham, G. A., Jimenez-Silva, M., Wodrich, D. L., & Kasai, M. (2014). Disclosure of
information about English proficiency preservice teachers presumptions about
English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 65 (1), 5362.
doi:10.1177/0022487113503687
Civil, M., & Bernier, E. (2006). Exploring images of parental participation in
mathematics education: Challenges and possibilities. Mathematical Thinking and
Learning, 8, 309330. doi.10.1207/s15327833mtl0803_6
Clair, N. (2000). Teaching educators about language: Principles, structures, and
challenges. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/
0008teaching.html
Clair, N., & Adger, C. T. (1999). Professional development for teachers in culturally
diverse schools. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED435185)
Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions
of research on teaching thinking. Educational Researcher, 17(2), 512.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189x017002005
105
Clay, M. (1985) Engaging with the school system: A study of interaction in new entrant
classrooms. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 22(1), 2038. Retrieved
from http://psycnet.apa.org/
Cluck, M., & Hess, D. (2003). Improving student motivation through the use of multiple
intelligences (Unpublished masters thesis). Saint Xavier University. Retrieved
from ERIC database. (ED479864)
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of
the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.).
Oxford, England: Routledge.
Colombo, M., McMakin, D., Jacobs, C., & Shestok, C. (2013). Hopefulness for teachers
of ELLs in the era of NCLB. Multicultural Perspectives, 15(2), 8187.
doi:10.1080/15210960.2013.781358
Commins, N. L. (2008). Responding to linguistic diversity. School Administrator, 65(10),
1014. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/
Commins, N. L., & Miramontes, O. B. (2006) Addressing linguistic diversity from the
outset. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 240246.
doi:10.1177/0022487105285591
Cooper, A. C. (2009). Perceived efficacy level of elementary ESL teachers (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No.
305079794)
106
Craig, D. V. (2001). Building a working theory of second language acquisition for
classroom and ESL teachers (Report No. FL026757). Retrieved from ERIC
database. (ED454701)
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic
interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working
Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 121129. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/
Cummins, J. (2000). Biliteracy, empowerment, and transformative pedagogy. In J. V.
Tinajero and R. A. De Villar, (Eds.), The power of two languages 2000: Effective
dual-language use across the curriculum (pp. 919). New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill School Division.
Curran, M. E. (2003). Linguistic diversity and classroom management. Theory Into
Practice, 42(4), 334340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/tip.2003.0042
Curtin, E. A. (2005). Instructional styles used by regular classroom teachers while
teaching recently mainstreamed ESL students: Six urban middle school teachers
in Texas share their experiences and perceptions. Multicultural Education, 12(4),
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining highly qualified teachers: What
does scientifically-based research actually tell us? Educational Researcher,
31(9), 1326. doi:10.3102/0013189X031009013
Diaz, R. M., & Klinger, C. (1991). Toward an exploratory model of the interaction
between bilingualism and cognitive development. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language
processing in bilingual children (pp. 140185). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
107
Diaz-Rico, L. T., & Weed, K. Z. (2006). The cross-cultural, language, and academic
development handbook: A complete K-12 reference guide (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
Doherty, W. R., & Hilberg, R. S. (2007). Standards for effective pedagogy, English
proficiency, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 101, 24
34. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/joer.101.1.24-35
Dorrington, A. E. L., & Ramirez-Smith, C. (1999). Teacher education: A minority
perspective on preparing majority pre-service teachers for diverse classrooms
(Report No. SP038539). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED430955)
Downey, J. A., & Cobbs, G. A. (2007). I actually learned a lot from this: A field
assignment to prepare future preservice math teachers for culturally diverse
classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 107, 391403.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2007.tb17762.x
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Dunn, R., Honigsfeld, A., Doolan, L. S., Bostrom, L., Russo, K., Schiering, M. S., &
Tenedero, H. (2009). Influence of learning-style instructional strategies on
students achievement and attitudes: Perceptions of educators in diverse
institutions. Clearing House, 82(3), 135140. doi:10.3200/TCHS.82.3.135-140
Early, D., Bryant, D., Pianta, R., Clifford, R., Burchinal, M., Ritchie, & Barbarin, O.
(2006). Are teachers education, major, and credentials related to classroom
quality and childrens academic gains in pre-kindergarten? Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 21, 174195. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.004

108
Echevarria, J., Powers, K., & Short, D. (2006). School reform and standards-based
education: A model for English-language learners. Journal of Educational
Research, 99, 195220. doi:10.3200/JOER.99.4.195-211
Edwards, C. J., Carr, S., & Siegel, W. (2006). Influences of experiences and training on
effective teaching practices to meet the needs of diverse learners in schools.
Education, 126, 580592. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/
Escamilla, K., Chavez, L., & Vigil, P. (2005). Rethinking the gap: High-stakes testing
and Spanish-speaking students in Colorado. Journal of Teacher Education, 56,
132144. doi:10.1177/0022487104273791
Escamilla, K., Mahon, E., Riley-Bernal, H., & Rutledge, D. (2003). High-stakes testing,
Latinos, and English language learners: Lessons from Colorado. Bilingual
Research Journal, 27, 2549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2003.10162590
Eskey D. E. (2005). Reading in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 563579). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Eun, B., & Lim, H. S. (2009). A sociocultural view of language learning: The importance
of meaning-based instruction. TESL Canada Journal, 27(1), 1226.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v27i1.1031
Fallon, D. (2006). The buffalo upon the chimneypiece: The value of evidence. Journal of
Teacher Education, 57(3), 139154. doi:10.1177/0022487105285675
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
109
sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175191.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
Ferguson, R. (1998). Teachers perceptions and expectations and the Black-White test
score gap. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp.
273317). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Florida Department of Education. (2014). Consent decree. Retrieved from
http://www.fldoe.org/aala/cdpage2.asp
Flynn, K., & Hill, J. (2005). English language learners: A growing population. Retrieved
from
http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/policybriefs/5052pi_pbenglishlanguagelearners.pdf
Ford, D. Y., Moore, J. L., & Milner, H. R. (2005). Beyond culture blindness: A model of
culture with implications for gifted education. Roeper Review, 27(2), 97103.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554297
Ford, K. L., Polush, E. Y., & Brooks, N. J. (2016). Living theory in action: Preparing a
new generation of educational researchers. In P. Blessinger & D.
Stockley (Eds.), Emerging directions in doctoral education (pp. 111127).
doi:10.1108/S2055-364120160000006017
Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y. S. (2001). Between worlds: Access to second language
acquisition (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fry, R., & Gonzales, F. (2008). One-in-five and growing fast: A profile of Hispanic
public school students. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

110
Furner, J. M., Yahya, N., & Duffy, M. L. (2005). Teach mathematics: Strategies to reach
all students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 1623.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10534512050410010501
Gandara, P., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2000). Preparing teachers for diversity: A dilemma for
quality and quantity. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and
Learning.
Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English
language learners: A survey of California teachers challenges, experiences, and
professional development needs. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of
Teaching and Learning.
Ganesh, T. G., & Middleton, J. A. (2006). Challenges in linguistically and culturally
diverse elementary settings with math instruction using learning technologies.
Urban Review, 38, 101143. doi:10.1007/s11256-006-0025-7
Gardner, H. (1995). Multiple intelligences as a catalyst. English Journal, 84(8), 1618.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/821182
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the twenty-first
century. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gatbonton, E. (2008). Looking beyond teachers classroom behavior: Novice and
experienced ESL teachers pedagogical knowledge. Language Teaching
Research, 12, 161182. doi:10.1177/1362168807086286
Genesee, N., Lindholm-Leary, F., Saunders, E., & Christian, C. (2006). Literacy
instruction for English language learners: A teachers guide to research-based
practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

111
Georgia Department of Education. (2012). State report card: District level. Retrieved
from http://www.gadoe.org/
Ghamrawi, N. (2014). Multiple intelligences and ESL teaching and learning: An
investigation in KG II classrooms in one private school in Beirut,
Lebanon. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(1), 2546.
doi:10.1177/1932202X13513021
Gibbons, P. (2008). It was taught good and I learned a lot: Intellectual practices and ESL
learners in the middle years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31,
155173. Retrieved from http://www.collaborativelearning.org/gibbons2008.pdf
Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001). Cause or effect? A
longitudinal study of immigrant Latino parents aspirations and expectations, and
their childrens school performance. American Educational Research, 38(3), 547
582. doi:10.3102/00028312038003547
Goldhaber, D., Theobald, R., & Tien, C. (2015). The theoretical and empirical arguments
for diversifying the teacher workforce: A review of the evidence. Center for
Education Data and Research Policy Brief. Retrieved from
http://m.cedr.us/papers/working/CEDR%20WP%202015-9.pdf
Gollnick, D. M., & Chin, P. C. (2002). Multicultural education for exceptional children.
Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children. Retrieved
from ERIC database. (ED333620)
Gonzales, N., Moll, L., Tenery, M. F., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, R., & Amanti,
C. (2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching in Latino households. In N.
Gonzalez, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing

112
practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 89118). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Gottlieb, M., Katz, A., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2009). Paper to practice: Using the TESOL
English Language Proficiency Standards in PreK-12 Classrooms. Alexandria,
VA: TESOL International Association.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Hammond, J. (2008). Intellectual challenge and ESL students: Implications of quality
teaching initiatives. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31, 128154.
Retrieved from http://www.alea.edu.au/publications
Haneda, M. (2014). From academic language to academic communication: Building on
English learners resources. Linguistics and Education, 26, 126135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.01.004
Hanushek, E. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of
Political Economy, 100(1), 84117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/261808
Hayes, K., Salazar, J., & Vukovic, C. (2002). Evaluation of the structured English
immersion program. Final report: Year 2. Los Angeles, CA: Program Evaluation
Branch, Los Angeles City Schools.
Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2010). Qualitative research methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

113
Hopper, B., & Hurry, P. (2000). Learning the MI way: The effects on students learning
using the theory of multiple intelligences. Pastoral Care in Education, 18, 2632.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0122.00176
Howard, G. R. (2007). As diversity grows, so must we. Educational Leadership, 64(6),
Howell, D. C. (2010). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Huang, A. F., Yang, S. J., & Liaw, S. S. (2012). A study of user's acceptance on
situational mashups in situational language teaching. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43(1), 5261. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01152.x
IBM. (2012). SPSS Statistics GradPack (Version 22.0) [Computer software]. (2012).
Armonk, NY: Author.
Johnson, L. (2002). My eyes have been opened: White teachers and racial awareness.
Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 153167.
doi:10.1177/0022487102053002007
Jones, T. G. (2002). Preparing all teachers for linguistic diversity in K-12 schools
(Report No. SP040556). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New York, NY. Retrieved from
ERIC database. (ED463264)
Karabenick, S. A., & Noda, P. A. C. (2004). Professional development implications of
teachers beliefs and attitudes toward English language learners. Bilingual
Research Journal, 28, 5575. doi:10.1080/15235882.2004.10162612

114
Kornhaber, M. L. (2004). Multiple intelligences: From the ivory tower to the dusty
classroombut why? Teachers College Record, 106, 6776. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9620.2004.00319.x
Knight, S. L., & Wiseman, D. L. (2005). Professional development for teachers of
diverse students: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 10, 387406. doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1004_3
Krashen, S. (2007). What is academic language proficiency? Language and
Communication Review, 6(1), 14. Retrieved from
http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/krashen_brown_alp.pdf
Kublin, K. S., Wetherby, A. M., Crais, E. R., & Prizant, B. M. (1989). Prelinguistic
dynamic assessment: A transactional perspective. In A. M. Wetherby, S. F.
Warren, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Transitions in prelinguistic communication (pp.
285312). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Lewis, A. E. (2001). There is no race in the schoolyard: Color-blind ideology in an
(almost) all White school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 781
811. doi:10.3102/00028312038004781
Lewis-Moreno, B. (2007). Shared responsibility: Achieving success with English-
language learners. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 772775.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003172170708801016
Liggett, T. (2008). Counteracting linguicism: The potential of ESL/bilingual education
field experiences in teacher education. Journal of Praxis in Multicultural
Education, 3(1), 6674. http://dx.doi.org/10.9741/2161-2978.1013

115
Linton, A. (2006). Language politics and policy in the United States: Implications for the
immigration debate (Working Paper 141). San Diego, CA: Center for
Comparative Immigration Studies.
Manyak, P. C. (2008). Whats your news? Portraits of a rich language and literacy
activity for English-language learners. Reading Teacher, 61, 450458.
doi:10.1598/RT.61.6.2
Markow, D., Moessner, C., & Horowitz, H. (2006). The MetLife survey of the American
teacher: Expectations and experiences. A survey of teachers, principals, and
leaders of college education programs. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
Marx, S. (2000, April). An exploration of pre-service teachers perceptions of second
language learners in the mainstream classroom. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
McKeon, D. (2005). Research talking points on English language learners. Retrieved
from http://www.nea.org/home.html
Migration Policy Institute. (2012). English language learner center. Retrieved from
http://www.migrationinformation.org/integration/ellcenter.cfm
Miller, S. F. (2010). Promoting learner engagement when working with adult English
language learners. CAELA network brief. Center for Adult English Language
Acquisition. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/
Milner, H. R. (2005). Stability and change in US prospective teachers beliefs and
decisions about diversity and learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21(7), 767786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.010

116
Milner, H. R. (2007). Preservice teachers learning about cultural and racial diversity:
Implications for urban education. Urban Education, 41(4), 343375.
doi:10.1177/0042085906289709
Moughamian, A. C., Rivera, M. O., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Instructional models and
strategies for teaching English language learners. Portsmouth, NH: RMC
Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Early childhood
inclusion: A joint position statement of the Division for Early Childhood
Education (DEC) and the National Association of Young Children (NAEYC).
Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Profile on school system. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sdds/index.aspx
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Fast facts. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2013). Resources about
accommodations of English language learners. Washington, DC: Author.

117
Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language
reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning,
52(2), 439482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00189
Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised Blooms Taxonomy with multiple intelligences:
A planning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record, 106,
193211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00328.x
Otway, M. N. (2007). Teachers practices, perceptions, and perspectives of instructing
English language learners (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 304761955)
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307322.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles concepts and
evidence. Psychological science in the public interest, 9(3), 105119.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
Passel, J., & Cohn, D. (2008). U.S. population projections: 20052050. Washington, DC:
Pew Research Center.
Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2007). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource
book for K-12 teachers (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Phillips, G., McNaughton, S., & McDonald, S. (2004). Managing the mismatch:
Enhancing early literacy progress for children with diverse language and cultural
identities in mainstream urban schools in New Zealand. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96, 309323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.309

118
Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Provasnik, S., Kena, G., Dinkes, R., & Kemp, J.
(2008). The condition of education 2008 (NCES-2008-031). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.
Poole, G. T. (2000). Application of the theory of multiple intelligences to second
language learners in classroom situations (Report No. FL026798). In National
Association of African American Studies and National Association of Hispanic
and Latino Studies: 2000 Literature Monograph Series, Proceedings (Education
Section). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED454739)
Pressley, M. (2002). Effective beginning reading instruction. Journal of Literacy
Research, 34(2), 165188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3402_3
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have
to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 415.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189x029001004
Rampey, B. D., Dion, G. S., & Donahue, P. L. (2009). NAEP 2008 trends in academic
progress (NCES 2009-479). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
Reeves, J. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language
learners in mainstream classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 131
139. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/joer.99.3.131-143
Rivera, M. O., Francis, D. J., Fernandez, M., Moughamian, A. C., Lesaux, N. K., &
Jergensen, J. (2010). Effective practices for English language learners. Principals

119
from five states speak. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on
Instruction.
Rivkin, S., Hanushek E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic
achievement. Econmetrica, 73(2), 417458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
0262.2005.00584.x
Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for
differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 3147.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/psfl.52.2.31-47
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What large-scale research tells us about
teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of
elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 15251567.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00212
Rubinstein-Avila, E., & Lee, E. H. (2014). Secondary teachers and English language
learners (ELLs): Attitudes, preparation and implications. The Clearing House: A
Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87(5), 187191.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2014.910162
Sanders, W., & Horn, S. (1995). Educational assessment reassessed: The usefulness of
standardized and alternative measures of student achievement as indicators for the
assessment of educational outcomes. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 3(6),
115. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v3n6.1995
Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future
student academic achievement (Research Progress Report). Knoxville, TN:
University of Tennessee, Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

120
Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (2002). Research progress report: Cumulative and residual
effects of teachers on future student academic achievement: Tennessee value-
added assessment system. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Value-Added
Research and Assessment Center.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Denitions and
distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 920.
Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework. Irvine, CA: University
of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Shields, M. K., & Behrman, R. E. (2005). Children of immigrant families: Analysis and
recommendations. Future of Children, 14(2), 115.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1602791
Short, D. (2013). Training and sustaining effective teachers of sheltered instruction.
Theory into Practice, 52(2), 118127.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770329
Shreve, J. (2005). Educators are poorly prepared for ELL instruction: Professional
development for teachers of English-language learners languishes. Retrieved
from http://www.edutopia.org/no-train-no-gain
Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the
issue. Educational Researcher, 12(3), 613. doi:10.3102/0013189X012003006
Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Steel, A., Laurens, J., & Huggins, A. (2013). Class participation as a learning and
assessment strategy in law: Facilitating students' engagement, skills development

121
and deep learning. UNSWLJ, 36, 3055. Retrieved from
http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/
Stillman, L., & Blank, R. K. (2009). Key state education policies on PK-12 education:
2008. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis
of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 4458. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-
5015.1046
Swain, M. (2005). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French
immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320
337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x
Swanson, C. B. (2009). Perspectives on a population: English language learners in
American schools. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education.
Tllez, K., & Waxman, H. C. (2006). A meta-synthesis of qualitative research on
effective teaching practices for English language learners. In J. M. Norris & L.
Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp.
245277). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Johns Benjamin.
Texas Education Agency. (2008). Enrollment in Texas public schools, 2007-08
(Document No. GE09 601 06). Austin, TX: Author.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2003). A national study of school effectiveness for
language minority students long-term academic achievement [Research briefs].
Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
122
Tintiangco-Cubales, A., Kohli, R., Sacramento, J., Henning, N., Agarwal-Rangnath, R.,
& Sleeter, C. (2015). Toward an ethnic studies pedagogy: Implications for K-12
schools from the research. The Urban Review, 47(1), 104125.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Trent, S. C., Kea, C. D., & Oh, K. (2008). Preparing pre-service educators for cultural
diversity: How far have we come? Exceptional Children, 74, 328350. Retrieved
from http://eric.ed.gov/
Trumbull, E., & Pacheco, M. (2005). Leading with diversity: Cultural competencies for
teacher preparation and professional development. Providence, RI: Education
Alliance at Brown University.
Turgut, G. (2009). Collaboratively feeling, thinking, and learning like an ELL through
Blackboard Vista. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of world
conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2009
(pp. 18961902). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education.
Turuk, M. C. (2008). The relevance and implications of Vygotskys sociocultural theory
in the second-language classroom. ARECLS, 5, 244262. Retrieved from
http://research.ncl.ac.uk/ARECLS/volume_5/turuk_vol5.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Most of the nations top 10 fastest-growing counties in the
South. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-
01.pdf
123
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Research facts and figures. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Research facts and figures. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2014). Theories in second language acquisition: An
introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate
response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00070
Viadero, D. (2009). Research hones focus on ELLs: Spotlight on ELL assessment and
teaching. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education.
Vialle, W. (1997). In Australia: Multiple intelligences in multiple settings. Educational
Leadership, 55(1), 6569. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wagner, S. A. (2002). Understanding green consumer behavior: A qualitative cognitive
approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
Walqui, A. (2000). Contextual factors in second language acquisition. San Francisco,
CA: West Education.
Washburn, G. N. (2008). Alone, confused, and frustrated: Developing empathy and
strategies for working with English language learners. Clearing House, 81, 247
250. doi:10.3200/TCHS.81.6.247-250
124
Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Communities, 17.
Retrieved from https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/11736
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom
practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
10(12), 130. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v10n12.2002
Williams, J. A. (2001). Classroom conversations: Opportunities to learn for ESL students
in mainstream classrooms. Reading Teacher, 54, 750757. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/
Wood, E. F., & Floden, R. E. (1990). Where teacher education students agree: Beliefs
widely shared before teacher education. Retrieved from ERIC database.
(ED331781)
Woods Washington, C. (2009). An evaluation of two models for instructing English
language learners. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses. (UMI No. 305080015)
Wright, W. E. (2010). Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research,
Theory, Policy, and Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Casion.
Yorio, C. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency.
Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity and loss.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
York-Barr, J., Ghere, G., & Sommerness, J. (2007). Collaborative teaching to increase
ELL student learning: A three-year urban elementary case study. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3), 301355.
doi:10.1080/10824660701601290
125
Younce, E. S. (2011). Middle school teacher attitudes toward the achievement of English
language learners (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/wcu/listing.aspx?id=7885
Zacarian, D. (2013). Mastering academic language: A framework for supporting student
achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Zehr, M. A. (2009, September 8). Graduation rates on ELLs: A mystery. Education
Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org
Zheng, H. (2009). A review of research on EFL pre-service teachers beliefs and
practices. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 4(1), 7381. Retrieved from
http://www.journal.acs-cam.org.uk/data/archive/2009/200901-article9.pdf
Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language, essential practices for content
classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

126
Appendix A: Survey Instrument
127
128
129
Appendix B: Permission to Use Survey
Copyrighted 2006
by Jenelle R. Reeves
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
118 Henzlik Hall TLTE
Lincoln, NE 68588
Jreeves2@unl.edu
Date : Thu, Mar 31, 2011 11:17 AM CDT

From : Jenelle R Reeves <jreeves2@unlnotes.unl.edu>
To : Sandra Mitchell <sandra.mitchell@waldenu.edu>
Hi Sandra,
Im glad to hear my survey is of interest to you. Yes, you have my permission to use the survey for your own research
and to adapt it as necessary. Please cite my work where appropriate.
Best of luck in your study--let me know what you find out!
Jenelle
Sandra Mitchell <sandra.mitchell@waldenu.edu>

03/26/2011 05:08 PM
To jreeves2@unl.edu
cc
Subject Permission Request
Dear Dr. Jenelle R. Reeves,
I would like to request your permission to use your survey "ESL Students in Mainstream Classrooms--A Survey of
Teachers" in my dissertation work. I am interested in surveying teachers in the__________School District in Georgia
as to their attitudes toward ELLs and professional development.
I would give full credit to you as the author for your survey in my dissertation documentation.
Thank you for your consideration.

Sandra L. Mitchell, Ed.S.
Walden 8090 Student
Title 1 Math Interventionist
2010 Georgia Master Teacher
sandra.mitchell@waldenu.edu
770-634-3181 Eastern Time Zone
130
Appendix C: Demographic Questionnaire
1. Years of full-time teaching completed ____
2. Grade level you teach:

____elementary
____middle school
____high school
3. The primary subject you teach:

____elementary education ____languages other than English
____math ____art, music, drama, or dance
____science ____health or physical education
____English ____business
____social studies ____other (please indicate_________________)
4. Educational attainment: (check one)

____bachelors
____masters
____education specialist
____doctorate
5. Professional development activities attended per year

____2 to 5
____6 to 10
____11 to 20
____more than 20
6. Professional development activities attended per year pertaining to English language learners
___0
___1 to 2
___3 to 4
___5 to 6
___more than 6
131
Appendix D: IRB Approval Letter

Relationships Among Teachers Attitudes Behaviors Toward English

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Relationships Among Teachers Attitudes Behaviors Toward English

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Walden University

Relationships Among Teachers' Attitudes,

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations

This is to certify that the doctoral study by

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

Chief Academic Officer

Eric Riedel, Ph.D.

Relationships Among Teachers Attitudes, Behaviors Toward English Language

Learners, Experience, and Training

EdS, Jacksonville State University, 2007

MEd, University of Georgia, 2001

BS, University of Georgia, 1999

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

attitudes and behavior with years of experience as well as professional development

Language Survey. Analyses included descriptive statistics, correlational analysis,

independent sample t tests, and Mann-Whitney U test. Results indicated a significant,

coursework modifications. The independent sample t tests indicated significant

fostering an increased understanding of how experience and professional development

needs of ELL students.

Learners, Experience, and Training

EdS, Jacksonville State University, 2007

MEd, University of Georgia, 2001

BS, University of Georgia, 1999

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

This experience of completing my doctorate has proved to be an extremely

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii

Section 1: The Problem ....................................................................................................... 1

Problem Statement .................................................................................................. 3

Nature of the Study ................................................................................................. 5

Research Questions and Hypotheses ...........................................................5

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 7

Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 8

Situational Learning Theory ......................................................................10

Second Language Acquisition Theory .......................................................11

Operational Definitions ......................................................................................... 13

Scope and Delimitations ....................................................................................... 15

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................... 17

Section 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 20

Theoretical Foundation ......................................................................................... 21

Social Constructivism and Language Acquisition .....................................22

Situational Learning Theory ......................................................................23

Second Language Acquisition Theory .......................................................24

First versus Second Language Acquisition ................................................24

Multiple Intelligence .................................................................................26

Context and Language as a Barrier to Learning ........................................27

The Discrepancy ................................................................................................... 31

Increasing Student Diversity ......................................................................32

Decreasing Teacher Diversity ....................................................................33

Approaches to Effective ELL Instruction ............................................................. 36

Support Outside the Classroom .................................................................38

Professional Development .........................................................................39

Collaboration and Interaction ....................................................................43

A Holistic Approach to Teaching ..............................................................45

Culturally Competent Teaching ............................................................................ 46

Moving From Theory to Practice .......................................................................... 50

Native Language Immersion versus ESL ............................................................. 53

Insufficiency of ELL Teaching Frameworks ........................................................ 55

Section 3: Research Method ............................................................................................. 59

Research Design and Approach ............................................................................ 59

Instrumentation and Materials .............................................................................. 66

Data Collection and Analysis................................................................................ 69