TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS PROFICIENCY OF ENGLISH LEARNER

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS

PROFICIENCY OF ENGLISH LEARNERS

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

Section 1: The Problem

Introduction

English learners (ELs) are the most rapidly increasing student population in

public schools in the United States with the majority falling into the group of students

who struggle academically (Ardasheva, Tretter, & Kinny, 2012; Cheatham, JimenezSilva,

Wodrich, & Kasai, 2014; Decapua & Marshall, 2011; Echevarria, Richards-Tutor,

Chinn, & Ratleff, 2011; Richards-Tutor et al., 2013; Sanford, Brown, & Turner, 2012;

Taherbhai, Seo, & O’Malley, 2014). ELs are a population of students who do not have the

listening, speaking, writing, and reading proficiencies in English needed to sufficiently

participate in the school program, and they can be U.S.-born or foreign born (California

Department of Education, 2015b; Kim & Garcia, 2014; Sanford et al., 2012; Sheng,

Sheng, & Anderson, 2011; Slama, 2012). Teachers have admitted that they have not

received adequate training to fully address the instructional needs of this quickly growing

segment of the student population; this is despite national school achievement data

exemplifying the importance of all teachers possessing the skills to help ELs meet high

academic standards (Baecher, Rorimer, & Smith, 2012; Boone, 2013; Cellante &

Donne, 2013; Hopkins, 2012; Pettit, 2011; Renner, 2011; Richards-Tutor et al., 2013;

Sanford et al., 2012; Sheng et al., 2011).

The problem this doctoral project study explored is ELs’ lack of proficiency in

English language arts (ELA) as measured by the California Standards Test (CST). The

purpose of the study was to examine teachers’ perceptions of their self-efficacy to

implement effective pedagogical strategies to support ELs in developing ELA

proficiency. In California, at the time this study began, ELA proficiency was measured

using the CST. The CST consisted of five clusters: reading comprehension, literary

response and analysis, word analysis, writing conventions, and writing strategies

(California Department of Education, 2013). For this study, I examined teachers’ efficacy

of their pedagogical skills to help ELs develop ELA proficiency to determine areas where

teachers’ perceived their skills to be the lowest. This study explored where teachers

believed their skills were lacking.

The population of ELs in U.S. schools has grown over the past decade, and

researchers have projected rapid growth to continue (Ardasheva et al., 2012; Decapua &

Marshall, 2011; Echevarria et al., 2011; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). One quarter of the

estimated 4.4 million ELs in the nation are enrolled in California public schools, thus

supporting the urgency for school and district personnel across the state to deliberately

focus on the English proficiency and academic achievement of ELs (Boone, 2013).

Researchers have identified the factors that contribute to the lack of English

proficiency as well as the effects that lacking English proficiency has on ELs (Ardasheva

et al., 2012; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Kim & Garcia, 2014; Pettit, 2011; Renner, 2011;

Richards-Tutor et al., 2013; Slama, 2010). In empirical studies, Pettit (2011) and Renner

(2011) explored teachers’ perceptions of their efficacy to instruct ELs efficiently. Many

teachers are not confident in their abilities to modify curriculum for ELs (Pettit, 2011;

Renner, 2011; Richards-Tutor et al., 2013). The research supported the existence of a gap

in teacher practice to service ELs effectively.

Definition of the Problem

Students identified as ELs at a middle school in southern California were not

meeting proficiency targets in ELA as defined by No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002)

proficiency criteria. According to the California Department of Education, as of 2014

XYZ Middle School (a pseudonym) served 991 seventh and eighth grade students with

19.5% of the student population identified as ELs. At the time of the study, the ethnic

breakdown of the school’s students was composed of 58% Hispanic, 32% Caucasian, 7%

African American, and 5% other. According to the district’s credentials analyst (personal

communication, November 9, 2015), the school’s staffing was less diverse with 70% of

the staff identifying themselves as White, 25% Hispanic, and 5% African American,

Asian, and other. XYZ Middle School employed 36 highly qualified credentialed general

education teachers, nine credentialed special education teachers, and 53 classified staff.

The middle school was in its third year as a Title I school due to 75.12% of its students

qualifying for free or reduced lunch (district credentials analyst, personal communication,

November 9, 2015). The problem this doctoral study explored was the lack of proficiency

in ELA by XYZ Middle School ELs as measured by the CST.

In California, student proficiency in ELA was assessed through the CST

administered annually to all students. The spring of 2013 was the final year California

used the CST as the measurement of student proficiency. The new state test developed by

the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) was first administered in the

spring of 2014. No scores for the 2014 SBAC testing administration were released.

According to the California Department of Education, scores at the research site from the release of

the 2015 SBAC data showed that ELs continued to fall behind their peers in ELA proficiency.

Although the CST and SBAC assessments are different measures, it is important to note that ELs have

continued to not meet proficiency in ELA.

The CST in ELA measured student proficiency in five clusters: word analysis,

reading comprehension, literary response and analysis, writing conventions, and writing

strategies (California Department of Education, 2013). Student results on the CST were

reported as one of five levels: (a) far below basic, (b) below basic, (c) basic, (d)

proficient, and (e) advanced. ELs at XYZ Middle School were not meeting ELA

proficiency criteria as a group. As shown in Table 1, a small percentage of ELs scored

proficient or advanced on the CST from 2010 to 2013.

Table 1

Percentage of ELs Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the CST from 2010 to 2013

Year

% Proficient/

Advanced

2010 19.4

2011 28.6

2012 27.3

2013 11.1

There was a 17.5% decline in the percentage of ELs proficient in ELA from 2011 to

2013. It is important to note that 2013 was the last year California administered the CST

as the standardized state test.

The development of ELs’ ELA proficiency is the responsibility of classroom

teachers (Echevarria et al., 2011; Lewis, Maerten-Rivera, Adamson, & Lee, 2011;

Renner, 2011). However, many teachers across the nation have admitted that they have

not been adequately prepared to instruct students whose primary language is not English

(Baecher et al., 2012; Boone, 2013; Cellante & Donne, 2013; Hopkins, 2012; Lewis et

al., 2011; Pease-Alvarez, Samway, & Cifka-Herrera, 2010; Pereira & Gentry, 2013; Pettit,

2011; Renner, 2011 ). A focus of school leaders must be on implementation of research-

based literacy practices to ensure alignment of teachers’ instructional practices with those

supported by research as being effective in developing English proficiency in

ELs (Echevarria et al., 2011; Renner, 2011; Sanford et al., 2012; Swanson, Solis, Ciullo,

& McKenna, 2012). Effective training and sufficient support are required for teachers to

feel confident in their pedagogical skills to instruct ELs (Boone, 2013; Cellante &

Donne,

2013; Kim & Garcia, 2014; Richards-Tutor et al., 2013).

Teachers at the research site have the opportunity to participate in after school

workshops on research-based instructional strategies for ELs, particularly the Sheltered

Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model. The district’s EL coach (personal

communication, March 6, 2014) reported that only one content area teacher, out of 36,

chose to participate in this opportunity over the past 2 years. SIOP is a model for

sheltered instruction that focuses on the design and delivery of lessons that provide ELs

opportunities to acquire academic content while developing proficiency in English

(Center for Applied Linguistics, 2016). When administration conducts informal

classroom walkthroughs in content area classrooms, there has been little evidence of

research-based instructional strategies for ELs being implemented consistently.

Proficiency in ELA directly affects student achievement (Andrasheva et al., 2012;

Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Slama, 2010). ELs throughout California have not been

meeting ELA proficiency as defined by the NCLB (2002) legislation. Forty percent of

ELs statewide met proficiency requirements in ELA in 2013, falling short of the 89%

proficient or advanced required by NCLB (2002) for 2013. Additionally, the statewide

data revealed an achievement gap in ELA between students identified as ELs and other

subgroups. In comparison with ELs, 32.4% more White students, 39.4% more Asian

students, and 5.5% more Hispanic (non-EL) met NCLB proficiency requirements in

2013. Because the population of ELs is increasing annually in California public schools

and projected to comprise 40% of the total student population by 2050, schools would

benefit from implementing strategies that promote the development of ELA proficiency

for students identified as ELs (Ardasheva et al., 2012; Dowdy, Dever, DiStefano, & Chin,

2011; Pease-Alvarez et al., 2010; Sanford et al., 2012). English literacy instruction needs

to be a top priority for schools due to ELs being the fastest growing population in public

schools and being overrepresented in the at-risk and special education student groups

(Boone, 2013; Cheatham et al., 2014; Echevarria et al., 2011; Kim & Garcia, 2014;

Richards-Tutor et al., 2013).

Rationale

ELs at XYZ Middle School were not meeting proficiency criteria as measured by

the CST. For the past decade, ELs drastically fell short of meeting proficiency

requirements outlined in NCLB and had continued to show an overall downward trend in

scores. From 2010 to 2013, the percentage of ELs scoring proficient or advanced on the

ELA CST fell 8.3% from 19.4% to 11.1%. This pattern is consistent with California

statewide data. Statewide, ELs were not meeting established NCLB criteria as of 2013.

Focusing on the problem of ELs not meeting proficiency criteria in ELA is important

because the EL student population in California continues to increase (Ardasheva et al.,

2012; Decapua & Marshall, 2011; Echevarria et al., 2011).

XYZ Middle School has seen a 55% increase of its EL population over the past

decade, which contributes to the need to explicitly address the problem of ELs’ lack of

proficiency in ELA. The increase in EL population at the school site, combined with the

lack of ELA proficiency by ELs on state tests, has exacerbated the urgency of addressing

the problem. Such a focus is imperative not only to meet federal accountability

requirements but also to ensure all students are adequately prepared to meet the demands

of a 21st century workforce (Kim & Garcia, 2014; Pettit, 2011; Renner, 2011).

Evidence of the Problem at the Local Level

Data from CST scores validated the problem of ELs at XYZ Middle School not

meeting ELA proficiency criteria established by NCLB. According to NCLB (2002),

schools were required to have 58.6% of students in each subgroup score proficient or

advanced in ELA in 2010. XYZ Middle School did not meet criteria as only 19.4% of

ELs met proficiency requirements. In 2011, the proficiency criteria were 67.7% with the

school having only 28.6% of ELs meeting proficiency. In 2012, the proficiency criteria

NCLB set was 78.4% with the school having only 27.3% of ELs meeting the criteria. In

2013, the proficiency criteria set by NCLB was 89.2% with only 11% of the school’s ELs

scoring proficient or advanced in ELA. The reauthorization of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires schools to focus on equity and improve

academic performance for all students (U.S. Department of Education, 2013); therefore,

it is imperative that XYZ Middle School specifically focus on the academic improvement

of ELs, which is directly related to English proficiency (Cheatham et al., 2014; Sheng et

al., 2011).

The problem of ELs lacking proficiency in ELA is ongoing. Although the public

data used for this study to identify the problem of ELs lacking ELA proficiency were the

2013 CST, the results from a more recent data source supported the fact that ELs continue

to lack proficiency in ELA. California changed the standardized measure for school

accountability from the CST to the Smarter Balanced Assessment in 2014. Results from

the May 2015 administration continued to show that ELs did not meet standards in ELA

and lagged far behind their peers (California Department of Education, 2015a). The

principal of XYZ Middle School (personal communication, July 8, 2015) also validated

that the problem has remained. ELs performed below proficiency on language arts

department created common assessments and on the district created ELA benchmark.

Furthermore, many ELs were not meeting grade level standards in ELA as reflected in

their ELA course end-of-semester grades (principal, personal communication, July 8,

2015).

The purpose of the study was to examine teachers’ self-efficacy to implement

effective pedagogical strategies to support ELs in developing ELA proficiency. Schools

would benefit from focusing on developing the ELA proficiency of ELs as the EL student

population in U.S. schools is rapidly growing (U.S. Department of Education, 2013),

especially in California (Kim & Garcia, 2014). EL student achievement is directly related

to the quality of teacher instructional practices, teachers’ knowledge and acceptance of

linguistic diversity, and teachers’ high efficacy of their ability to be successful (Akbari &

Tavassoli, 2014; Cheatham et al., 2011; Delgado, 2010; Echevarria et al., 2011;

Greenfield, 2013; Haworth, McGee, & Kupu MacIntyre, 2015; Heineke, Coleman,

Ferrell, & Kersemeier, 2012; Hopkins, 2012; Lewis et al., 2011; Renner, 2011; Sheng et

al., 2011; Swanson et al., 2012). Thus, it is imperative that education leaders ensure that

teachers have knowledge of research-based effective practices, including strategies

acknowledging language diversity, and implement the strategies daily. Teachers must

possess the skills necessary to increase EL achievement on a consistent basis (Baecher et

al., 2012; Hopkins, 2012; Kim & Garcia, 2014; Pease-Alvarez et al., 2010; Renner, 2011;

Sanford et al., 2012).

Evidence of the Problem from the Professional Literature

The academic success of ELs is directly related to ELA proficiency (Cheatham et

al., 2014; Sheng et al., 2011). English proficiency and mastery of academic content

standards both affect the academic achievement of ELs. Teachers and the daily

instruction provided to students have the greatest impact on the academic achievement of

students (Hopkins, 2012; Renner, 2011; Kim & Garcia, 2014; Schmoker, 2006; Sheng et

al., 2011). The alignment of teachers’ instructional strategies to research-based best

practices for EL instruction and the degree of implementation of the strategies determine

the extent of improving English proficiency and academic achievement of ELs

(Echevarria et al., 2011). The consistent use of evidence-based instruction and practices

by teachers is paramount (Swanson et al., 2012). However, effective training to support

the development of teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching ELs is lacking (Haworth et al.,

2015; Liu, Jones, & Sadera, 2010; Pettit, 2011; Sheng et al., 2011; Taylor,

AhlgrimDelzell, & Flowers, 2010).

Several factors contribute to ELs’ lack of ELA proficiency and academic progress.

Schmoker (2006) attributed ineffective instruction as being a primary factor in the lack of

progress by ELs. Swanson et al. (2012) posited that a misalignment between practices

teachers use and those backed by research is evident in classrooms, which contributes to

ineffective instruction. Many teachers may consider themselves ineffective when

teaching ELs, as one third of American teachers admitted they have not received adequate

formal training on how to teach this segment of the student population (Baecher et al.,

2012; Cellante & Donne, 2013; Heineke et al., 2012; Hopkins, 2012; PeaseAlvarez et al.,

2010; Pereira & Gentry, 2013; Pettit, 2011; Renner, 2011; Sheng et al., 2011). A lack of

linguistically responsive practices in schools also contributes to ELs’ lack of English

proficiency and academic achievement (Haworth et al., 2015; Heineke et al., 2012).

ELs experience other aspects of the U.S. educational system that may also

contribute to their lack of progress in English proficiency and academic achievement.

Western-style education in the United States is more individualistic as opposed to the

collectivist culture of other countries (Decapua & Marshall, 2011; Sheng et al., 2011).

ELs often remain in language learning programs or special education their entire school

experience, which causes a failure to develop the academic English needed to be

successful in U.S. schools (Aguirre-Munoz & Boscardin, 2008; Boone, 2013; Cheatham

et al., 2014; Greenfield, 2013; Kim & Garcia, 2014; Slama, 2012). Heineke et al. (2012)

coined the term ESL ghetto as they described the difficulties ELs face in moving into

mainstream classrooms from the low-level track where they are placed. Participation in

low-level EL and special education programs often causes ELs to fall further behind due

to the lack of rigor and challenge (Heineke et al., 2012; Kim & Garcia, 2014). ELs

experience difficulty as they progress through schools because the English needed for

academic success is complex and demanding while increasing in intensity through the

grade levels (Ardasheva et al., 2012; Echevarria et al., 2011; Keiffer, 2008; Kim &

Herman, 2009; Quirk & Beem, 2012; Renner, 2011; Sanford et al., 2012). Finally, a

language barrier contributes to the difficulty ELs have in developing their English

proficiency because U.S. teachers do not use the students’ primary language to support

the development of English as the student’s second language (Greenfield, 2013; Kim &

Herman, 2009). Teachers’ lack of understanding second language acquisition exemplifies

this problem (Cheatham et al., 2014; Heineke et al., 2012).

There are factors outside of the realm of the school that contribute to the lack of

English proficiency and academic achievement of ELs. Some ELs struggle in U.S.

schools due to a limited education in their primary language (Decapua & Marshall,

2011). The families’ socioeconomic status plays a role in the students’ academic

achievement. ELs from low-income families or those whose parents have limited

education are more likely to exhibit a lack of English development and academic

achievement (Ardasheva et al., 2012; Heineke et al., 2012; Sheng et al., 2011).

The lack of ELA proficiency may have devastating effects on ELs. ELs not

making adequate progress in developing English proficiency get poor grades and do not

perform well academically (Sheng et al., 2011). Students with low grade point averages

are more likely to drop out of high school (Boone, 2013). ELs experiencing a lack of

English proficiency have reading difficulties, remain in low-level classes that do not

prepare them to graduate high school or to be successful in postsecondary studies, are not

prepared to take high school exit exams, and are overrepresented in special education

(Boone, 2013; Cheatham et al., 201; Keiffer, 2008; Kim & Garcia, 2014; Slama, 2012).

Frustrated ELs are more likely to drop out of high school (Kim & Garcia, 2014; Kim &

Herman, 2009; Pereira & Gentry, 2013; Renner, 2011; Sheng et al., 2011; Slama, 2012).

The purpose of the study was to examine teachers’ perceptions of their self-efficacy to

implement effective pedagogical strategies to support ELs in developing ELA

proficiency.

Definitions

Adequate yearly progress (AYP): NCLB (2002) required each state to establish an

accountability system that included an annual report to measure progress toward meeting

the federal goal of all students becoming proficient in ELA and math by 2014. After the

first 3 years of NCLB, the AYP percent proficient criteria increased 11% annually until

reaching 100% in 2014 (No Child Left Behind, 2013).

California English Language Development Test (CELDT): The English

proficiency test used by all districts in the state to determine the level of English

proficiency, in the domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, of students whose

primary language is other than English. The CELDT is administered annually to ELs

until they are reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (California Department of

Education, 2013).

California Standards Test (CST): The CSTs were part of the Standards Testing and

Reporting (STAR) battery of assessments administered in California until the 20122013

school year. CSTs are criterion-referenced tests that assess student proficiency in ELA,

mathematics, science, and social studies content standards. The CST in ELA measures

ELA proficiency of all California students in the clusters of word analysis, reading

comprehension, literary response and analysis, writing conventions, and writing strategies

(California Department of Education, 2013).

Cross-cultural, Language and Academic Development (CLAD) Certificate: In

California, CLAD is the EL authorization provided to teachers through completion of a

credential program (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing [CCTC], 2015).

Course work for the CLAD certificate is built into teacher credentialing programs in

California. The CLAD certificate permits teachers to provide instruction for English

language development and to deliver specially designed academic instruction to ELs

(CCTC, 2015). Bilingual teachers may earn a Bilingual Cross-cultural, Language and

Academic Development (BCLAD) certificate that allows them to deliver content in the

primary language and provide instruction for primary language development (CTCC,

2015).

English learner (EL): In California, an EL is a student in Grades K-12 who has

not developed listening, speaking, writing, and reading proficiencies in English to

adequately participate in the regular school program (California Department of

Education, 2013). EL students need “specialized and effective language support to fully

participate in English-only educational programs” (Sanford et al., 2012, p. 56).

English proficiency: English proficiency is language-specific knowledge, such as

vocabulary, structures, and contextually appropriate language use (Ardasheva et al.,

2012).

Home Language Survey: A form required by the federal and state governments

that parents complete when a student enters a California school to determine the language

used in the home. If the Home Language Survey lists a primary language other than

English, the student is administered an English language proficiency test as required by

the federal government. In California, if the student does not score high enough on the

initial CELDT, the student is identified as an EL and enters an appropriate program

(California Department of Education, 2013).

Linguistically responsive practice: School practices that “construct policies,

foundations, structures, and communities to value, celebrate, and utilize language and

linguistic diversity” (Heineke et al., 2012, p. 131).

Long-term English learner (LTEL): A long-term EL is defined as an EL who has

attended schools in the United States for 7 or more years and continues to require

language support (Menken, Kleyn, & Chae, 2012).

Second language acquisition: “Both the study of the individuals and of groups

who are learning a language subsequent to learning their first one as young children and

to the process of learning that language” (Saville-Troike, 2012, p. 2).

Second language acquisition theory: Second language acquisition theory is

concerned with any phenomena involved with acquiring a second language

(SavilleTroike, 2012).

Smarter Balanced Assessments: Smarter Balanced Assessments are

computerbased tests for ELA and mathematics created by the SBAC. These new tests are

aligned with the state’s [California] rigorous new standards for English language

arts/literacy and math [Common Core]. Smarter Balanced is a part of a comprehensive

new testing program called California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress

(CAASPP), which replaces the Standardized Testing and Reporting [STAR] Program that

expired on July 1, 2013. (California Department of Education, 2015a, p. 1) The

ELA/Literacy assessment measures student proficiency in reading (demonstrating

understanding of literary and nonfiction text), writing (producing clear and purposeful

writing), listening (demonstrating effective communication skills), and research/inquiry

(investigating, analyzing, and presenting information).

Subgroup: For federal accountability purposes, a subgroup is a group of students

that number more than 100 or 15% of the school’s student population (NCLB, 2002).

XYZ Middle School’s subgroups are ELs, Hispanic, socioeconomically disadvantaged,

and White.

Teacher self-efficacy: The belief teachers have in their abilities and skills to

influence the learning and outcomes of students in a positive manner (Sosa & Gomez,

2012).

Significance

Examining the local problem of the lack of ELA proficiency among ELs is

significant to the local setting due to the possibility of changing teachers’ pedagogical

practices in working with EL students. Developing teachers’ knowledge of and ability to

implement effective pedagogical practices will contribute to increasing ELs’ proficiency

in ELA. All students in the United States are required to achieve certain levels of

proficiency in English and mathematics due to federal and state accountability; ELs are

not exempt (NCLB, 2002). ELs at XYZ Middle School have not been making adequate

progress in meeting federal proficiency requirements in ELA. School stakeholders must

focus on the academic achievement of ELs to meet requirements in the current highstakes

accountability system.

Changing teachers’ pedagogical practices in instructing ELs could affect the lives

of ELs positively. Increasing teacher knowledge of and effectiveness implementing

research-based best practices in instructing ELs may contribute to ELs possessing the

ELA skills that will lead to high school graduation and success in postsecondary studies.

Furthermore, ELA proficient ELs will possess the reading, writing, and communication

skills necessary to be competitive in the workforce. When ELs do not achieve

academically, it affects the nation’s economy through a high unemployment rate and a

workforce lacking necessary skills (Boone, 2013). EL students proficient in English have

a higher chance of contributing positively to the economic stability of the local

community and of becoming productive members of society.

The outcome of this study may benefit teachers. Teachers will gain a better

understanding of research-based practices to support ELs in developing proficiency in

ELA, thus increasing their self-efficacy. An increase in teacher self-efficacy in

pedagogical strategies will contribute to ELs’ development of proficiency in ELA.

Guiding/Research Question

The following research question guided the qualitative study to examine the lack

of proficiency by ELs as measured by the CST in ELA. The research question explored

teachers’ perceptions about their efficacy of supporting ELs in ELA.

• What are teachers’ perceptions of their efficacy to implement effective

pedagogical strategies to support middle school EL students in

developing proficiency in ELA?

By addressing this research question, I attempted to shed light on the

problem of ELs’ lack of ELA proficiency at XYZ Middle School by examining

teachers’ perceptions of their efficacy to support ELs. Alignment between what

teachers lack in professional preparation to meet students’ needs and researchbased

pedagogy was a focus.

Review of the Literature

A review of the literature provided scholarly insight and understanding of current

trends in regards to the academic achievement of ELs. Educational databases, such as

ERIC, SAGE, Education Complete, and Thoreau were used to access peer-reviewed

scholarly articles on the topic. A thorough search of the topic was conducted using

several headings (i.e., English Learners, English proficiency, second language learners,

teacher perception, teacher preparation, academic achievement) and several Boolean

combinations (i.e., English learners and academic achievement, teacher perception and

instructional practices, teacher and self-efficacy, teacher preparation and English

learners). Additionally, Google Scholar provided articles and ProQuest allowed access to

doctoral dissertations. Reviewing current literature provided background information to

think critically about the topic and generate new questions. The topics covered in the

literature review are

•EL identification process;

•program options for placement of ELs;

•measure of EL proficiency on CST;

•effects of lack of English proficiency on ELs;

•teacher education programs in California

•teachers’ perceptions of their preparation to support ELs; and

•teachers’ self-efficacy of their ability to support ELs in the classroom.

Theoretical Framework

Theoretical perspectives dictate how one views the world (Bogdan & Biklen,

2007; Theoharis & Causton-Theoharis, 2008). In qualitative research, a theoretical

framework provides a specific lens with which the researcher views every aspect of the

study (Anfara & Mertz, 2015; Merriam, 2009). A theoretical lens provides focus for all

components of qualitative methodology. According to Anfara and Mertz (2015), the

theoretical framework of the study will determine research design, identify data

collection methods, define questions for interviews, provide focus for data analysis, and

organize findings. Using a theoretical framework as a “way of seeing” helps the

researcher study the phenomenon and answer research questions through a specific

perspective (Anfara & Mertz, 2015; Merriam, 2009).

Second language acquisition theory is the theoretical framework for this study and

served as a lens for examining the phenomenon of ELs’ lack of proficiency in ELA.

Chapelle (2009) described a theory as statements explaining why natural phenomena

occur the way they do. Understanding the processes of how children acquire a second

language is imperative for educators and policy-makers to ensure academic success for

ELs (Cheatham et al., 2014).

The definition of second language acquisition is twofold. Saville-Troike (2012)

stated that second language acquisition “refers both to the study of individuals and groups

who are learning a language subsequent to learning their first one as young children and

to the process of learning that language” (p. 2). According to second language acquisition

theory, language is a complex interactive system for communicating meaning and is

influenced by approaches from linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and social

psychology disciplines (Chapelle, 2009; Montrul, 2012; Renner, 2011; Saville-Troike,

2012). Second language acquisition theory is concerned with any phenomena involved

with acquiring a second language (Saville-Troike, 2012).

As a theoretical framework, second language acquisition theory influences the

research approach, research questions, survey development, and data analysis of this

study. A qualitative case study approach allowed me to view the phenomenon through a

second language acquisition theory lens. The second language acquisition lens influenced

the research question as it was written to best provide insight on the problem of ELs

lacking ELA proficiency. Second language acquisition influenced the development of the

study’s anonymous survey by focusing on questions that would best provide insight into

participants’ views of how they support second language acquisition and ELA content

proficiency in their mainstream classroom. The study’s theoretical framework focuses

data analysis by providing concepts that a researcher may use to code the data (Anfara &

Mertz, 2015). The theory of second language acquisition relates to the study as it is the

lens educators must look through to ensure ELs are developing proficiency in ELA.

EL Identification Process

The federal government has mandated that states have procedures in place to

identify students whose primary language is other than English and have a protocol to

assess their level of English proficiency (U.S. Department of Education, 2013).

California uses the Home Language Survey as the initial means of determining if a

student’s primary language is other than English (California Department of Education,

2015b). Parents complete the form upon registering a student for school. Based on the

responses the parent provides on the form, the school identifies the student as English

only or English learner. If the student is determined to be an EL and is new to California

public schools, the student will take the California English Language Development Test

(CELDT) to determine the student’s initial English proficiency level. A student receiving

an overall score of advanced or early advanced is classified as initially fluent English

proficient (I-FEP) and is not identified as an EL. However, if the student scores below the

early advanced band, the student is identified as an EL and placed in an appropriate

educational program.

Taherbhai et al. (2014) posited that using a compensatory model for measuring

English proficiency, such as the CELDT, is not an adequate model because it does not

require the student to reach target criteria for each skill of language proficiency (listening,

speaking, reading, and writing), but only provides an overall score. A student could be

considered proficient in overall English acquisition, but not be proficient in reading,

which is the language skill most necessary for academic success. States may need to

review their assessment tool to ensure an accurate representation of student English

acquisition in all four domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Taherbhai et

al., 2014).

The federal government also requires states to have a protocol for exiting students

from EL status. California allows districts to create their own exit criteria (California

Department of Education, 2015b). In the district where XYZ Middle School is located,

there are three components included in the criteria to exit a student from EL status and

classify him or her as redesignated fluent English proficient (R-FEP). The director of K12

programs in the district (personal communication, February 2, 2014) reported that the

student must score advanced or early advanced on the overall CELDT with no domain

under the intermediate level, have a 2.5 grade point average at semester, score proficient

or advanced on the state test in ELA, and have parent approval. The criteria are

challenging for ELs; English only students have difficulty meeting the state test

requirement.

Program Options for Placement of ELs

According to the California Department of Education (2015a), schools have three

placement options for ELs. Structured English Immersion (SEI) is a placement for ELs

who lack reasonable fluency in English. Teachers in an SEI classroom provide instruction

in English but “with curriculum and presentation designed for children who are learning

the language” (California Department of Education, 2015a, p. 1). ELs who possess an

adequate level of English proficiency are placed in an English Language Mainstream

(ELM) program where they receive language development instruction as well as

additional support in deficient academic areas (California Department of Education,

2015a). A final option approved by the state is an alternative program that provides

instruction of academic subject areas in the student’s primary language with language

development targeted to the student’s specific overall English proficiency level

(California Department of Education, 2015a).

Carefully designed educational programs for ELs that include language supports

and a focus on academic language and second language acquisition are needed as

placement options for ELs (Cheatham et al., 2014; Chen & Eslami, 2013; Menken et al.,

2012). ELs placed in an inappropriate instructional program or a program poorly

designed to meet their needs can experience negative effects due to the placement.

Programs that lack adequate language support services are more apt to create long-term

ELs (Menken et al., 2012). Many programs ELs are placed in are lower level classes that

lead to students making slower gains in English development and do not provide the

student access to classes required for graduation from high school (Cheatham et. al,

2014; Kim & Herman, 2009; Slama, 2012). Furthermore, ELs are placed

disproportionally in special education programs (Boone, 2013; Cheatham et al., 2014;

McCray et al., 2011).

Measure of ELA Proficiency on the CST

Federal accountability through NCLB (2002) requires schools to measure the

proficiency of students in ELA content standards annually. For schools to make adequate

yearly progress (AYP) and meet federal accountability requirements as defined in NCLB,

the schoolwide population, as well as each subgroup, must meet the percent proficient or

advanced annual measureable objective standard for the year. A student subgroup, for

accountability purposes, is composed of a group of students that number 100 or more or

make up at least 15% of the school’s student population (NCLB, 2002). ELs are an

identified subgroup in the majority of California schools, including this study’s research

site.

Schools in California administered the CST to students to measure their

proficiency in ELA, mathematics, writing, science, and social studies until May 2013.

Each subject-specific CST had certain standard clusters it tested. For example, the ELA

CST measured student proficiency in five clusters: reading comprehension, literary

response and analysis, word analysis, writing convention, and writing strategies

(California Department of Education, 2013). Student scores on each assessment were

combined to determine whether subgroups and the school as a whole met AYP

requirements. Individual students’ CST scores were measured using five performance

bands: advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, and far below basic. The requirement of

NCLB (2002) was that all students score proficient or advanced on each CST. ELs have a

disadvantage in taking standardized tests as they may not have the English required to perform well on

assessments administered in English, therefore contributing to an achievement gap between ELs and

other subgroups (Kim & Herman, 2009; Menken et

al., 2012).

Effects of the Lack of English Proficiency on ELs

A lack of English proficiency has several adverse effects on ELs. ELs who lack

English proficiency experience academic disadvantages such as achieving lower in

reading comprehension, dropping out of high school, and not being prepared for

postsecondary coursework (Gutierrez & Vanderwood, 2013; Otaiba et al., 2009;

PeaseAlvarez et al., 2010; Quirk & Beem, 2012). These academic disadvantages

contribute to an achievement gap between ELs and other students. ELs often score lower

on standardized assessments than their non-EL peers (McCray et al., 2011; Menken et al.,

2012).

A lack of English proficiency by students identified as ELs has contributed to an

identified achievement gap between ELs and their non-EL peers on federal accountability

measures (Hopkins, 2012; Kim & Herman, 2009; Sanford et al., 2012). ELs perform

lower than their non-EL peers across content areas as well as grade levels (McCray et al.,

2011). Content areas that are based in literacy show larger achievement gaps in academic

performance compared to mathematics (Quirk & Beem, 2012). As grade level literacy

requirements become more complex through the grade spans, the achievement gap

between ELs and their non-EL peers widens (Quirk & Beem, 2012).

Lack of English proficiency has adverse consequences for ELs. ELs may drop out

of high school as a result of lacking proficiency in English (Boone, 2013; Gottardo &

Mueller, 2009; Kim & Garcia, 2014; Kim & Herman, 2009; McCray et al., 2011; Otaiba

et al., 2009; Sheng et al., 2011; Slama, 2012). ELs who are not proficient in English have

a difficult time passing high school exit exams and may have less access to classes

needed to graduate from high school (Boone, 2013; Kim & Herman, 2009; Slama, 2012).

Lacking English proficiency often leads to ELs being placed in lower level classes, which

research has shown causes them to make slower gains due to the lack of rigor and

challenge in the courses (Cheatham et al., 2014; Kim & Garcia, 2014). This contributes to

ELs not developing the academic English required to be successful in mainstream classes

(Chetham et al., 2014; Heineke et al., 2012; Slama, 2012). Slama (2012) stated that ELs

who received a high school diploma but still lacked English proficiency had inadequate

language skills to be successful at a postsecondary institution. Furthermore, ELs are more

often retained and disproportionally entered into special education programs (Boone,

2013; Cheatham et al., 2014; Otaiba et al., 2009; McCray et al., 2011; Menken et al.,

2012; Sanford et al., 2012). EL students who are placed in special education improperly

often experience rejection by peers due to a stigmatizing label, lowered teacher

expectations, and lowered self-esteem (Cheatham et al., 2014). ELs who do not make

adequate English progress can experience negative affective consequences during

adolescence, earn low overall academic grades, and live in poverty as adults (Kim &

Herman, 2009; McCray et al., 2011; Menken et al., 2012).

Lack of English proficiency over a period of time creates LTELs (Kim & Herman,

2009; Menken et al., 2012; Slama, 2012). Kim and Herman (2009) estimated that 60% of

ELs do not exit EL status after 10 years in public school. Menken et al. (2012) defined

LTELs as “students who have attended school in the United States for 7 or more years

and continue to require language support services in school” (p. 122). Several factors

contribute to an EL becoming a LTEL. These factors include inconsistency across schools

and programs within schools, limited literacy in the student’s primary language,

placement in an English only program without adequate language support, and significant

gaps in language services (Menken et al., 2012). LTELs are overrepresented in dropout

rates across the nation (Kim & Herman, 2009; Menken et al., 2012).

Teacher Education Programs in California

According to the CCTC (2015), teacher education programs in the state embed

course work for an EL authorization in their teaching credential course work. The

authorization in California to teach ELs is the Cross-cultural, Language and Academic

Development (CLAD) certificate (CCTC, 2015). Teachers who do not earn their teaching

credential from a program in California may satisfy the CLAD requirement through an

approved California Teachers of English Learners (CTEL) program, passing an

examination, or a combination of both course work and exams (CCTC, 2015). Although

the CTCC has established requirements for topics that must be covered in approved

credentialing courses, colleges and universities have autonomy on what fulfillment of

requirements look in each program (CCTC, 2015).

Teacher Perceptions of Their Preparation to Support ELs

Public school teachers across the nation are experiencing larger numbers of ELs

in their classrooms due to the rapid increase of families whose primary language is not

English (Faez, 2012; Haworth et al., 2015; O’Brien, 2011; Shaw, Lyon, Stoddart,

Mosqueda, & Menon, 204; Turkan & Buzick, 2016). This is causing United States’

classrooms to be more diverse than ever before (Chu, 2011; Haworth et al., 2015;

Heineke et al., 2012; Menken et al., 2012; Turkan & Buzick, 2016). Adequate teacher

preparation is important in effectively supporting ELs’ development of ELA proficiency

(Baecher et al., 2012; de Jong, Harper, & Coady, 2013; Faez, 2012; Haworth et al., 2015;

Hopkins, 2013). Despite the importance of adequate teacher preparation practices,

research shows that less than 1/3 of teachers across the United States have received

formal training on second language acquisition and best practices to meet the needs of

ELs in attaining proficiency in English (Baecher et al., 2012; de Jong et al., 2013; Faez,

2012; Richards-Tutor et al., 2013; Shaw et al., 2014; Sheng et al., 2011; Turkan &

Buzick, 2016). Teachers may be highly qualified in their content area and lack the skills

and knowledge to adequately instruct EL students in their mainstream classrooms (de

Jong et al., 2013; Faez, 2012; Turkan & Buzick, 2016).

Inadequate teacher training is an obstacle to the achievement of ELs (Haworth et

al., 2015; Heineke et al., 2012; O’Brien, 2011). Teacher preparation programs through

colleges and universities may not sufficiently provide pre-service teachers with the skills

needed to teach ELs effectively (Faez, 2012; Turkan & Buzick, 2016). One problem is

that programs are autonomous in that they create their own content, which may lack

consistency with other programs (Faez, 2012). Furthermore, the pedagogies and

strategies taught in teacher preparation classes to support diverse students vary greatly

(Faez, 2012; Turken & Buzick, 2016). Another concern with teacher preparation

programs is that faculty at colleges and universities may lack the skills necessary to teach

ELs in mainstream classes (Turken & Buzick, 2016). O’Brien’s (2011) study indicated

that teachers believed their university preparation program was inadequate in supporting

their development of pedagogical practices for ELs.

Teachers admitted they would benefit from effective professional development

opportunities to better meet the unique needs of EL students (Mady, 2012; O’Brien,

2011). Teachers also believed district trainings did not prepare them for supporting ELs in

a classroom setting (O’Brien, 2011). District-sponsored trainings often do not provide a

strong base in theories, research, and pedagogy for EL instruction (Heineke et al., 2012).

The lack of effective teacher preparation through college and university programs, as well

as the lack of professional development from districts, contribute to teachers’ lack of

knowledge and pedagogical skills to instruct ELs (Baecher et al., 2012; de Jong et al.,

2013; Faez, 2012; O’Brien, 2011; Richards-Tutor et al., 2013; Shaw et al., 2014; Sheng et

al., 2011; Turkan & Buzick, 2016).

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy of Their Ability to Support ELs

Sosa and Gomez (2012) defined teachers’ self-efficacy as “teachers’ belief in their

skills and abilities to positively influence students’ learning outcomes” (p. 879).

Other researchers provide a similar description of teacher self-efficacy (Ahmed, 2011;

Akbari & Tavassoli, 2014; Chu, 2011; Faez, 2012; Haworth et al., 2015; Kurt, Gungor, & Ekici, 2014;

Menken et al., 2012). Haworth et al. (2015) expanded the definition of teacher self-efficacy adding

that self-efficacy is contextual. Teachers may be efficacious regarding one group of students or

subject, while having low-efficacy with another group of students or subject (Akbari & Tavassoli,

2014; Chu, 2011; Faez, 2012; Haworth et al., 2015). Teachers’ belief in their self-efficacy has a direct

impact on their teaching practices (Faez, 2012). Because of this, creating and sustaining highly

efficacious teachers should be a focus of teacher preparation programs and school districts.

Teachers are faced with a challenge to improve the learning of culturally and

linguistically diverse students, which is creating teacher uncertainty in their abilities

(Chu, 2011; Shaw et al., 2014). Teachers, school leaders, and district leaders must make it

a priority to focus on the instruction provided to ELs in content areas by all teachers (de

Jong et al., 2013; Faez, 2012; Haworth et al., 2015; McCray et al., 2011). In the study

conducted by O’Brien (2011), teachers conveyed the importance of effective trainings

and site support in developing their abilities to efficiently teach ELs. Teachers reported

that their self-efficacy in teaching ELs would increase with more support and

professional development (Mady, 2012; O’Brien, 2011; Sosa & Gomez, 2012).

Supporting the continuing educational and practical experience of teachers will increase

their comfort in using effective instructional practices with ELs (Kim & Garcia, 2014;

Liu et al., 2010). Teachers’ self-efficacy greatly affects their perceptions of students and

teaching behaviors (Faez, 2012; Sosa & Gomez, 2012).

Developing teachers’ self-efficacy in supporting ELs is paramount as highly

efficacious teachers increase students’ academic resilience, motivation, and engagement

(Ahmed, 2011; Akbari & Tavassoli, 2014; Faez, 2012; Haworth et al., 2015; Sosa &

Gomez, 2012). At-risk students who develop the ability to be resilient can overcome

obstacles and achieve (Sosa & Gomez, 2012). Teachers who perceive themselves as

possessing the ability to support ELs are able to establish positive relationships with

students, provide students with challenging academic work, and have high expectations

for all students (Ahmed, 2011; Akbari & Tavassoli, 2014; Chu, 2012; Kurt et al., 2014;

Sosa & Gomez, 2012). Because teachers have the most influence over student resilience

and have a vital impact on student achievement school leaders have an obligation to build

teacher efficacy (Akbari & Tavassoli, 2014; Sosa & Gomez, 2012).

It is important to note that some teachers admitted they did not have the ability to

provide effective instruction to ELs but recognized that paraprofessionals possessed the

necessary skills to teach ELs (Haworth et al., 2015). In these cases, the teachers did not

feel the need to develop specific teaching strategies to effectively teach ELs as they

believed it was the responsibility of the paraprofessionals to teach ELs (Haworth et al.,

2015). These teachers were not motivated to develop adequate skills.

Aligning teachers’ teaching practices and perceptions of their instruction for ELs

to research-based strategies focused on second language acquisition is lacking (Cheatham

et al., 2014; Mady, 2012). In their study, Lewis et al. (2011) found a slight relationship

between what teachers said they did in science instruction for EL and the teaching

practices that were observed. This brings to light a possible misalignment between efforts

to increase the academic achievement of ELs and classroom practices. Cheatham et al.

(2014) noticed another misalignment: some teachers claimed to be knowledgeable about

ELs and believed they could meet their needs, but when observed, were unable to do so.

Therefore, it is imperative that educational leaders provide the training and support to

build teacher efficacy of their pedagogical skills and also monitor the alignment between

effective pedagogy and actual classroom practice. Improving teacher effectiveness has

the largest positive impact on student achievement (Akbari & Tavassoli, 2014;

Schmoker, 2006).

In sum, attention to the needs of ELs is imperative for education as the number of

limited English proficient students is growing dramatically in the United States (Chu,

2011; Dowdy et al., 2011; Otaiba et al., 2009; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). School and

district leaders would benefit from supporting the development of teachers’ self-efficacy

to increase the ELA achievement of ELs and close achievement gaps.

Implications

A series of professional development sessions were developed based upon the

study’s results. The goal of the sessions were to provide teachers with effective

pedagogical strategies to support ELs in increasing ELA proficiency. Each professional

development session will attempt to fill gaps where teachers feel they lack effective

pedagogical strategies to be successful with developing ELA proficiency in ELs.

Enhancing teachers’ pedagogical knowledge may increase their self-efficacy in their

ability to support ELs in gaining proficiency in ELA. Another component of the

professional development opportunity focused on teachers being deliberate in their use of

researched-based instructional strategies that benefit ELs on a daily basis. The

professional development sessions included teacher collaboration, mentor support, and

job-embedded coaching opportunities. The local gap in practice between the ELs’ lack of

ELA proficiency and where teachers feel they lack skills were addressed throughout the

proposed professional development sessions.

Furthermore, the lives of ELs would potentially be positively impacted through

changing teachers’ pedagogical practices in instructing ELs. EL students proficient in

English have a higher chance of contributing positively to the economic stability of the

local community and of becoming productive members of society.

Summary

XYZ Middle School EL students are failing to meet the ELA proficiency criteria

as required by federal AYP criteria. The purpose of this study was to examine the

perceptions of teachers in their ability to support the academic achievement of ELs. The

local gap in practice between the lack of EL proficiency in ELA and where teachers view

their skills to be lacking was addressed. There are adverse consequences on the lives of

ELs who are not proficient in ELA. The classroom teacher and the daily instruction

received by the student are the most significant indicators of EL success in developing

ELA proficiency and achieving academically. It is important for administrators and

teachers to develop a positive self-efficacy about their ability to increase ELs’ proficiency

in ELA.

Section 2 provides detailed information on the methodology used in this study. A

qualitative case study approach was used to answer the study’s research question with

anonymous open-ended survey data collected and analyzed to pose light on this

phenomenon. A series of professional development sessions were created based on the

study’s findings to assist teachers and administrators in aligning classroom instruction

with research-based strategies to enhance teachers’ efficacy in supporting the

development of ELA proficiency and academic achievement among ELs. An intense

focus by educators on ensuring all students identified as ELs possess the knowledge and

skills necessary to be competitive in the 21st century world will benefit society as a

whole.

Section 2: The Methodology

Introduction

The problem this study investigated is middle school ELs’ lack of proficiency in

ELA. The purpose of the study was to examine teachers’ self-efficacy to implement

effective pedagogical strategies to support ELs in developing ELA proficiency. A lack of

proficiency in ELA can have adverse effects on ELs, such as reading difficulties,

placement in special education programs, underpreparation to enter postsecondary

institutions, and dropping out of high school (Ardasheva et al., 2012; Cheatham et al.,

2014; Gutierrez & Vanderwood, 2013; Keiffer, 2008; Kim & Garcia, 2014; Kim &

Herman, 2009; Otaiba et al., 2009; Pereira & Gentry, 2013; Sheng et al., 2011; Slama,

2012). Teachers’ positive self-efficacy in their skills and deliberate use of effective

instructional practices daily to support the ELA growth of ELs is imperative. I used a

qualitative research approach to understand the problem fully from the perceptions of the

middle school teachers. Education studies are best conducted from a qualitative

perspective to capture a deep understanding of the problem and answers to research

questions (Merriam, 2009).

Research Design

A qualitative research approach was used to examine the problem of middle

school ELs’ lack of proficiency in ELA as measured by the CST. The research question

was aligned with the use of a qualitative approach, as the intent is to make meaning of

human behaviors in a natural context (Hatch, 2002; Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010;

Merriam, 2009). Through this study, I attempted to understand behaviors from the

informants’ perspectives; thus, it required a qualitative research approach (Bodgan &

Biklen, 2007). Qualitative studies develop an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon

through investigating how people make sense of their experiences (Bogdan & Biklen,

2007; Creswell, 2012; Lodico et al., 2010; Merriam, 2009). Yin (2015) stated that

“qualitative research represents views and perspectives of people, explicitly attending to

real-world contextual conditions” (p. 40), thus supporting the use of a qualitative research

approach.

There are several qualitative designs used to gather information on how people

interpret their life experiences. This study utilized a qualitative case study approach to

provide insight to the study’s research question. Case study research is designed to

examine “contextualized phenomena within specified boundaries” (Hatch, 2002, p. 38). A

case study is the detailed examination of a bounded system in one setting (Bogdan &

Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2012; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2015). Seventh and eighth grade

language arts teachers at a middle school were the bounded system to be investigated.

The case study approach allowed insight into and a deep understanding of the teachers’

perceptions in regards to EL proficiency in ELA and their own pedagogical efficacy to

increase the academic achievement of ELs (Creswell, 2012; Lodico et al., 2010; Merriam,

2004).

Although other qualitative approaches, such as phenomenology, ethnography,

grounded theory, and narrative analysis, also focus on the human experience, they are less

effective in generating appropriate data to respond to the research question in this study

(Merriam, 2009). For example, because the focus of a phenomenological study is to

derive the essence of the experience itself rather than focusing on how the participants

make sense of the experience (Merriam, 2009), it was not an effective design for this

study. An ethnographic approach was also not an appropriate design for this study, as

ethnographies use the perspective of culture to interpret the phenomenon under study

(Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2015), whereas this study did not. Grounded theory is not an

adequate qualitative approach because this study was not focused on analyzing data to

build a theory (Merriam, 2009). Finally, narrative analysis was not suitable to this

investigation because using stories that describe personal experiences of poverty,

inequality, sexism, or other cultural and societal experiences were not appropriate data to

adequately address the research question (Merriam, 2009). A case study format aligns

most effectively with this study’s purpose and research question due to its focus on

understanding how people interpret their lives and experiences in a bounded system as

the unit of analysis (Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2015).

Participants

Purposeful sampling was used to select participants for this study. Purposeful

sampling allows a researcher to recruit informants who best provide insights to gain a

deep understanding of the phenomenon under study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell,

2012; Hatch, 2002; Lodico et al., 2010; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2015). “Information rich”

participants are provided through purposeful sampling (Yin, 2015, p. 138). A

homogenous sample of participants who share common characteristics is useful for

studying a bounded system in depth (Creswell, 2012; Hatch, 2002; Lodico et al., 2010;

Merriam, 2009). The bounded system I examined consisted of seventh and eighth grade

language arts teachers, who taught middle school ELs in a general education setting, in at

least their second year of teaching. Participants for this study met two criteria. The

criteria used for selecting teachers for this study were that participants taught ELA to

middle school ELs and not be in their first year of teaching. First year teachers were not

invited to participate in this study due to limited experience as a teacher. XYZ Middle

School employed 14 teachers who meet the criteria. Teachers who met the purposeful

sample criteria were provided a consent form with information explaining the study. This

allowed teachers to understand the study before they decided to participate. The teachers

providing informed consent (through completing and submitting an anonymous survey)

were the study’s participants. The nature of case study research allows for a small sample

size of participants experiencing the phenomenon under study; therefore, having 14 or

fewer participants in a case study is acceptable (Creswell, 2012; Merriam, 2009). Yin

(2015) supported using a small sample size in qualitative studies because generalization

to a larger population is not the intent of qualitative research.

Procedure for Gaining Access to Participants

Gaining access to participants involves identifying gatekeepers who control

access to the research setting (Creswell, 2012; Hatch, 2002; Merriam, 2009). To get

permission to conduct the study, I gained cooperation at the site level and the district

level by first seeking site level permission. I met with the principal and provided him

with an informed consent so that he understood what would be expected of the teachers

who agreed to participate. I gained access at the district level by meeting with the

district’s superintendent and providing him with information as well. The key gatekeepers

were provided with the following information as suggested by several authors (Bogdan &

Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2012; Hatch, 2002; Merriam, 2009):

•the purpose of the study,

•the level of disruption to the site,

•the plan for communicating the study’s findings,

•the benefit to the district, site, and individual teachers,

•the procedures for maintaining anonymity,

•the requirements of participants, and

•the process of gaining informed consent.

Additionally, the gatekeepers were provided information to become familiar with the

types of questions that were asked (Creswell, 2012). I gained written permission from the

superintendent and site principal before providing informed consent to teachers.

After receiving necessary permissions to begin the study and access potential

participants, I scheduled a meeting with the 14 teachers who met the established criteria.

Each potential participant was provided with an informed consent form at this meeting

and information about the study. I stressed that participation was voluntary,

confidentiality would be maintained at all times, anonymity of the survey responses

would be preserved using Survey Monkey, and there would be no repercussions if a

teacher decided not to participate or decided to withdraw from the study after it began. I

emphasized the anonymity of the survey data because of my current administrative role at

the district office. This helped prevent teachers from feeling coerced into participating.

Participants were encouraged to ask questions about the study to ensure they were better

able to make an informed decision on whether to participate (Yin, 2015). After the

meeting, I e-mailed the informed consent and a link to the anonymous survey to

participants. The survey was created using Survey Monkey in order to ensure the

anonymity of the participants and their responses. The purpose of the meeting was for me

to build relationships with potential participants, to explain the study, and to allow

potential participants to ask questions (Creswell, 2012; Yin, 2015). Participants provided

implied consent when they completed and submitted the anonymous survey.

Methods for Establishing a Researcher–Participant Relationship

A close relationship between researcher and participant is important for the

researcher to have access to required data (Hatch, 2002; Lodico et al., 2010). In the role

of researcher, I implemented several strategies to establish and maintain a positive

researcher-participant relationship. Due to my previous position at the research site, I

developed a positive relationship with the participants while serving as their assistant

principal. This supported the development of a positive researcher-participant

relationship. While I am no longer the assistant principal at the site nor serve in a

supervisory role over potential participants, I do currently serve as a district-level

administrator. Other strategies I employed to contribute to the establishment of a close

researcher–participant relationship included explicitly providing participants with

information regarding what the study involved, providing information on what was

expected of them throughout the study, and allowing them to ask questions (Creswell,

2012; Hatch, 2002; Yin, 2015). Furthermore, as Hatch (2002) suggested, initial

interactions, while explaining the informed consent, were focused on building a close

relationship and allowing participants to gain comfort with my role as an investigator.

Due to my position as a former site administrator and current district office administrator,

data were collected anonymously, through Survey Monkey. This increased participants’

comfort and prevented coercion to participate. Furthermore, no identifying demographic

information was requested (Creswell, 2012). By implementing these strategies, a positive

researcher–participant relationship was established and maintained.

Creswell (2012) asserted that potential power imbalances between the researcher

and participants need to be identified and addressed. Because I am the former assistant

principal at the research site and current district-level administrator, a possible imbalance

may have existed between me, as the researcher, and the teacher participants in the study.

To address this imbalance, I did not conduct face-to-face interviews with teacher

participants, but collected data through an online anonymous open-ended survey using

Survey Monkey (Creswell, 2012). As another precaution, I did not collect signed

informed consent forms from participants. The completed anonymous surveys submitted

by participants served as implied consent. This prevented me from knowing which

participants agreed to participate in the study. These precautions supported the

establishment and maintenance of a close researcher–participant relationship.

Measures for Ethical Protection of Participants

Ethical considerations are of primary importance for researchers and must be

identified and addressed at the forefront of the study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell,

2012; Hatch, 2002; Lodico et al., 2010; Merriam, 2007). Participant rights are an ethical

issue requiring deliberate actions (Creswell, 2012; National Commission, 1979).

Participants have a right to know the purpose of the study, how findings will be used, and

any potential social repercussions the study may bring about in their lives (Bodgan &

Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2012). As a part of the process to gain informed consent from

potential participants, I disclosed the purpose of the research in general terms, informed

participants that the findings would be written up as a project study and published, and

explicitly shared any social ramifications (Bodgan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2012; Yin,

2015). Participants were also informed that they had the right to refuse to participate or to

withdraw from the study at any time without ramifications (Creswell, 2012; National

Commission, 1979). Participants were provided with a copy of the informed consent

form to review during a meeting and again when the anonymous survey was e-mailed.

However, participants were not asked to sign the form, as this would breach anonymity.

Rather, each prospective participant received an e-mail of the informed consent form that

also contained a link to the anonymous survey. If participants chose to be a part of the

study, they clicked the link, completed the survey, and submitted the survey. Implied

consent was received when the participant submitted the completed survey.

Additionally, participants have the right to reciprocity; the right to gain something

from the study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2012; Hatch, 2002; Merriam, 2009). I

will give back to participants by providing all 14 potential participants with an executive

summary of findings at the conclusion of the study. It is an ethical duty for researchers to

identify and account for the rights of participants (Yin, 2015).

Protecting participant confidentiality is an ethical issue needing to be explicitly

addressed (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2012; Hatch, 2002; Merriam, 2009;

National Commission, 1979; Yin, 2015). To protect the confidentiality of participants in

the study, data collection involved teachers providing survey responses anonymously

with no identifying descriptors asked or demographic information recorded (Creswell,

2012). A data analysis system was developed where a pseudonym was used for the

organization and a numbering system used for participants (Creswell, 2012; Merriam,

2009). The numbering system that was used for analysis purposes consisted of the label

“Teacher” and then consecutive numbering; Teacher 1, Teacher 2, Teacher 3, etc. The

numbering was assigned randomly to the completed anonymous surveys received

through Survey Monkey. Because no demographic information was collected to protect

anonymity, the numbering system did not include the grade level of the teacher. Quotes

used in reporting the findings were carefully selected as not to contribute to participant

identification (Merriam, 2009). Rather than focusing on any one individual in the study,

an overarching picture of the participants as a group was developed while findings were

analyzed and themes were developed (Creswell, 2012). Additionally, participants were

informed that I am the only person with access to the raw data collected and that

participant identities would not be able to be matched to responses due to the anonymity

of the survey (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Hatch, 2002).

The Belmont Report (National Commission, 1979) stated that respect for persons

mandates that participants have control over what happens to them. Before participants

were used in this study, informed consent was obtained to ensure well informed voluntary

participation (Creswell, 2012; National Commission, 1979). In combining suggested

elements from Creswell (2012), Hatch (2002), Lodico et al. (2012), and Yin (2015), the

following components were included in the informed consent for this study:

•a disclosure of the purpose of the research and the expected length of

participant involvement,

•a description of the procedures that directly involve the participants,

•a description of potential risks, discomforts, or social consequences,

•a description of possible benefits to participants and others,

•the systematic process used to ensure participant confidentiality; including

how records were stored and who has access to data,

•contact information for someone participants can talk to with questions about

the specific research or their participant rights, and

•a statement about participation being completely voluntary and that

participants have the right to withdraw at any time without repercussions.

At no time were participants coerced into participating in the study (Bodgan & Biklen,

2007; National Commission, 1979). Furthermore, the informed consent was written in a

manner comprehensible to participants (National Commission, 1979); free from research

jargon.

A final ethical issue that was addressed is the protection of participants from harm

(Lodico et al., 2010; Merriam, 2009; National Commission, 1979; Yin, 2015). Protection

from harm includes both physical and emotional harm (Lodico et al., 2010; National

Commission, 1979). There was no anticipated physical harm to participants related to this

study. There was a possibility that participants may experience emotional distress with

the realization they may not adequately serve EL students. To address this risk, a

statement was included on the survey referring participants to the district’s EL teacher

coach or site counselor as needed for dealing with distress (Merriam, 2009). Furthermore,

participants were protected from harm that could result from their identity being

revealed. Anonymity was maintained by not using any identifying comments or quotes

from participants and ensuring the numbering system is random. The potential risks of

the study, which were minimal, were disclosed and specific methods of addressing each

was described during the process of gaining informed consent.

Data Collection

Qualitative case study research requires the use of data collection methods that are

flexible, naturalistic, and contextualized (Lodico et al., 2010; Merriam, 2009). Such

methods of data collection best permit the case study researcher to gain an in-depth

understanding of how participants view their experiences with the phenomenon being

studied (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2012; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2015S). This

study’s research question required information from participants that uncovered their

perceptions of their efficacy to support the development of ELA proficiency among ELs

and of the instructional practices they use to meet the ELA needs of ELs. Because case

studies investigate phenomenon in contexts and require the researcher to uncover

meaning, develop understandings, and discover insights, interviews are common data

gathering methods (Bodgan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2012; Hatch, 2002; Lodico et al.,

2010; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2015). Due to concerns of my perceived position of authority

as a current district-level administrator, face-to-face interviews were not used as a source

of data. Instead, an online anonymous survey, through Survey Monkey, was used as the

method for data collection. The use of an anonymous survey eliminated any possibility of

teachers feeling coerced to participate because I am a current district administrator

(although I have no supervisory role over teachers). The anonymous survey included

open-ended questions that would be asked in a face-to-face interview.

Survey Instrument

Instead of conducting face-to-face interviews with participants, an anonymous

open-ended survey (Appendix B) was used for data collection. The survey included

questions that would have been asked in a face-to-face interview. The survey was created

using Survey Monkey and the link provided to potential participants through their district

e-mail. Survey Monkey maintains anonymity by allowing survey responses to populate

into a chart with no recording of the respondent’s e-mail address. Web-based surveys are

useful because they provide the researcher with quick access to participants and a text

database for analysis (Creswell, 2012; Lodico et al., 2010; Merriam, 2004). Anonymous

surveys increase the likelihood that completed surveys are returned and participants

respond honestly (Creswell, 2012; Lodico et al., 2010). Furthermore, open-ended survey

questions allow participants to create their own options for responding that best allow

them to voice their experiences without constraints from the researcher (Creswell, 2012;

Yin, 2015). In this study, an anonymous open-ended survey was used to solicit

participants’ perceptions of their self-efficacy in pedagogical ability to support ELs in

ELA and on instructional strategies they use to meet the needs of ELs.

I created the survey used in this study after reading teacher efficacy questions

used by Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, Jones, and Reed (2002) and Everling (2013). The

questions on this survey are the questions that would have been asked in a face-to-face

interview. The survey consisted of a total of 20 open-ended questions that addressed the

following topics:

•teachers’ perceived efficacy for engaging EL students in learning ELA,

•teachers’ perceived efficacy for implementing instructional strategies to teach

ELs,

•teachers’ self-reported pedagogical strategies to teach ELs, and

•teachers’ perceived efficacy in their skills based on professional development

they have received in credentialing program or through the district. The 20 open-ended

questions allowed the participants to share their views in their own words without

restrictions (Creswell, 2012; Yin, 2015).

Conducting surveys using open-ended questions through the Internet provides a

detailed text database for qualitative analysis while allowing for anonymity (Creswell,

2012). The study’s survey was placed on Survey Monkey with the link e-mailed to

participants. Survey Monkey was chosen as the online venue for the survey because it

allows for responses to be returned anonymously and has the ability for the responses to

populate into a chart automatically. The e-mail that includes the link to the survey

included other information for participants that would normally be provided by the

researcher before an actual interview. The e-mail included instructions for the process of

the survey, the purpose of the study, the estimated time it will take to complete the study,

the plans for the use of survey results, the availability of a summary when research is

complete, and assurance survey response will be anonymous (Creswell, 2012). The

returned responses were anonymous as no identifying information was needed to

complete the survey or to submit responses. Participants were provided as much space to

respond to each open-ended question as needed as there is no character limit on Survey

Monkey.

Conducting surveys through the Internet poses ethical considerations such as

ensuring informed consent is provided and maintaining confidentiality. Participants

provided implied consent when they submitted completed survey responses. Protection of

privacy is a concern that was addressed by the survey responses being anonymous. There

was no identifying information collected in the survey and care was taken to report

findings as a whole group.

Process for Generating, Gathering, and Recording Data

Using suggestions from Bogdan and Biklen (2007), Creswell (2012), Hatch

(2002), Lodico et al. (2010), and Merriam (2009), a process to gather and record survey

data was developed. This study used a web-based anonymous survey as the source of data

collection. After gaining access from the site principal and district superintendent and

finalizing the survey on Survey Monkey, I went through the process of providing

information on the study to potential participants by attending a language arts department

meeting. At this meeting, I provided potential participants with an informed consent form

(IRB approval number 04-01-16-0317879), reviewed the form with them, and answered

any questions. After the meeting, I e-mailed the link to the anonymous survey to

participants’ district e-mail address. The e-mail narrative that accompanied the survey

link included informed consent information, instructions on how to take the online

survey, a brief statement of the purpose of the study, a guarantee of the participant’s

confidentiality through the use of a numbering system, reassurance that there are no right

or wrong answers, and plans for the use of the survey results (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;

Creswell, 2012; Hatch, 2002; Lodico et al., 2010; Merriam, 2009). The survey itself

contained questions specific to the study’s research question (Creswell, 2012; Lodico et

al., 2010; Merriam, 2009).

At the end of the survey questions, participants were provided the opportunity to

add anything that had not already been stated in his or her responses (Hatch, 2002).

Before thanking participants for their insight and time, they were reminded of their

importance to the study and informed when they will have access to the findings

(Creswell, 2012; Hatch, 2002). Each participant provided implied consent by completing

and submitting the survey.

Participants were given 1 week to complete the survey and submit responses

electronically. The principal and superintendent provided permission for teachers to

complete the survey during the work day; therefore, teachers were asked to complete the

survey during their prep period. When the deadline for submission passed, the data

collection phase of the study concluded. I protected the survey results from being

accessed by others through storing the data on my password protected computer and by

deleting the survey on Survey Monkey after the deadline for submission passed. Results

from the survey provided information to answer study’s research question.

Immediately after each participant responded to the survey and submitted their

responses, the data was recorded anonymously through Survey Monkey. A research

journal was used to record emerging understandings as the data was reviewed after being

populated (Bogden & Biklen, 2007; Hatch, 2002). Themes were identified from analysis

of the data collected. Using a systematic data gathering process combined with protocols

for data recording, best permitted the examination of participants’ experiences to gain the

information required to answer the study’s research question.

Systems to Keep Track of Data and Emerging Understandings

A qualitative researcher must have a system in place to keep data organized for

analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009). A computer was used to keep track of

data in the form of the survey responses from Survey Monkey. The survey Word files

(saved from Survey Monkey) were organized on the computer for easy retrieval during

analysis. Because my personal password protected computer was used to store data, I am

the only one to have access to the data. Data files will remain on the computer for a

period of five years. A research journal was used to monitor emerging understandings by

tracking insights and patterns that may develop as data is gathered and analyzed (Bogdan

& Biklen, 2007; Hatch, 2002; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2015). These emerging

understandings served as the basis for identifying themes.

The Role of the Researcher and Biases

When beginning this study, my professional role at the school site where this

study took place was that of assistant principal where I served for eight years. However,

during the writing of the proposal, I was promoted to the district office as Coordinator of

Special Services. While serving as assistant principal at the research site, I served a

supervisory role over each of the participants, and all other site employees. However,

because there were two other administrators at the site, I did not conduct the formal

teacher evaluation for any teacher who was eligible to participate in the study.

Furthermore, when in the role of assistant principal, in anticipation of collecting data, I

referred participating teachers to the other two administrators for any disciplinary issue.

My previous role as site assistant principal and my current role as a district office

administrator may have influenced data collection. Teachers may have felt obligated to

participate in the study or may not have felt as though they could respond honestly to the

survey questions due to perceiving me in an administrative role rather than in a researcher

role. In order to prevent coercion to participate, and to help ensure participates responded

honestly, the data collection was anonymous. This may have helped participants separate

my role as a district administrator and my role as a researcher.

As a former administrator at the site of study and a former teacher, I possess

biases. All researchers come to the study with assumptions and biases, which need to be

identified and addressed (Lodico et al., 2010). I analyzed my own assumptions and

biases. First, my relationship with each participant may have caused me to look at the

data through a bias lens and may have influenced how data are gathered and interpreted.

Second, my former role as a teacher could have also contributed to bias. Lodico et al.

(2010) suggested that the researcher anticipate any bias and incorporate ways to address

to minimize influencing data collection and analysis. Conducting an anonymous survey

assisted in minimizing bias I may have brought to the data collection and analysis

processes, as I did not know the identity of respondents.

Data Analysis

Qualitative data analysis is an iterative and inductive process (Bogdan & Biklen,

2007; Creswell, 2012; Hatch, 2002; Lodico et al., 2010; Merriam, 2009). Data obtained

in this study were analyzed as they were populated into a table in Survey Monkey and

were saved in a computer software program (Microsoft Word) when collected (Bogdan &

Biklen, 2007; Hatch, 2002; Merriam, 2009). The more formal analysis was conducted

after all of the data was gathered (Merriam, 2009). NVivo 10 for Windows was the

qualitative software used to analysis text data from the anonymous surveys.

Qualitative data analysis is a systematic and comparative process used to gain

meaning from text so that research questions can be answered (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;

Creswell, 2012; Hatch, 2002; Merriam, 2009). Data analysis “involves synthesis,

evaluation, interpretation, categorization, hypothesizing, comparison, and pattern

finding” (Hatch, 2002, p. 144). Using suggestions from various authors, a systematic

process was developed for analyzing data collected in this study (Bogdan & Biklen,

2007; Creswell, 2012; Lodico et al., 2010; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2015).

The data analysis phase of the study began the day after the 1 week deadline to

submit survey responses passed. To begin analyzing the data, each data source was

prepared for coding immediately after it was collected. The anonymous survey data

populated into a table through Survey Monkey when participants submitted their

response. However, it was then saved in Microsoft Word and transferred to NVivo for

analysis. Open coding was used at the start of analysis to identify potentially useful data

(Merriam, 2009). Analytical coding was next used as the initial codes were reviewed,

interpreted, and reflected upon. Themes were generated from identifying the recurring

patterns of the study and were used to answer the research question. When the

anonymous survey data were ready to be analyzed, the following coding process was

implemented:

•Read data several times to get a general sense of its contents and details while

making notes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2012; Lodico et al., 2010,

Merriam, 2009).

•Begin coding the data by reading each section of text, bracketing the pieces

that may be relevant to answering the research question, and assigning a code

word or phrase to that text segment (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2012;

Lodico et al., 2010; Merriam, 2009: Yin, 2015).

•Make a list of code words and phrases, group similar codes, and eliminate

redundancies (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2012; Lodico et al., 2010;

Merriam, 2009).

After all data were collected, formal analysis began by taking the master list of

codes from the survey data and reviewing it again to look for supporting quotes from

participants (Creswell, 2012; Merriam, 2009). Codes were examined in-depth to generate

themes by identifying data that were most frequently discussed by participants and best

communicated an understanding of the case (Creswell, 2012; Lodico et al., 2010;

Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2015). A research journal was used to record codes and emerging

understandings (Appendix C).

Microsoft Word from the Microsoft Office Suite was used to assist in data

analysis. Computer software allowed me to better record, organize, and manipulate text

while I implemented the coding process outlined above (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;

Creswell, 2012; Merriam, 2009). Microsoft Word was also used to save data collected

from the online anonymous survey completed by participants. When participants returned

their responses from the Survey Monkey survey, responses were automatically populated

into a table. However, to aid in the ease of analyzing and identifying emerging themes,

the survey results were taken from Survey Monkey, saved in Microsoft Word, and

transferred to NVivo for analysis. After survey data were in NVivo, the Survey Monkey

survey was deleted from the Internet to prevent the raw data being available. Text data

from the survey were analyzed to determine themes that answer the study’s research

question.

Accuracy and Credibility

Qualitative researchers desire their studies’ findings to be accurate and credible

(Creswell, 2012; Merriam, 2009). Accuracy addresses the extent to which findings reflect

data and credibility refers to how well findings “make sense” based on data (Creswell,

2012; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2015). Several strategies were used to enhance the accuracy

and credibility of the study’s findings. Triangulation was used to cross-check and

compare data, which enhanced both accuracy and credibility (Creswell, 2012; Lodico et

al., 2010; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2015). Specifically, “within-method triangulation” was

included to enhance the reliability of participant responses (Sosa & Gomez, 2012). The

survey included multiple questions on the same topic to examine reliability of participant

responses. Also, peer examination was used as a means to increase credibility (Creswell,

2012). I had a colleague examine data to determine whether or not the data support the

findings (Creswell, 2012). As suggested by Lodico et al. (2010), an external audit was

conducted where an outside person provided input on the data collection and analysis

processes. A full-time faculty member at the local community college, who is a doctoral

candidate, conducted the external audit for this study. Deliberately implementing

strategies to enhance accuracy and credibility strengthened the study’s findings.

Discrepant Cases

Qualitative researchers purposefully seek out data that conflict with emerging

findings (Hatch, 2002; Lodico et al., 2010; Merriam, 2009, Yin, 2015). I maintained a

skeptical perspective when I analyzed data to uncover any “rival thoughts” (Yin, 2015, p.

134). When discrepant cases were identified during analysis, data sources were

reexamined to see if the conflict could be resolved (Lodico et al., 2010; Yin, 2015). If the

discrepant case was not supported by data, the original findings were substantiated

(Merriam, 2009). This allowed for a more confident answer to the study’s research

question. Conflicting perspectives were captured while writing up the study and possible

reasons for the difference were discussed (Lodico et al., 2010).

Limitations

Creswell (2012) stated that a responsibility of qualitative researchers is to suggest

possible limitations of their study. The primary limitation in this study is the fact that

face-to-face interviews could not be conducted with participants due to my position as a

district administrator. The anonymous online survey did not allow for probing the

participant to delve deeper into the information the participant provided or to seek

clarification. Also, due to the anonymity of the survey, any follow-up with the

participants was not possible. Another possible limitation of the study was the small

sample size of 11 teachers who participated in the study.

Results

Empirical research showed that teacher efficacy directly impacts teaching

practices and perceptions toward students (Faez, 2012; Sosa & Gomez, 2012). The

purpose of this study was to examine teachers’ perceptions of their self-efficacy to

implement effective pedagogical strategies to support ELs in developing ELA

proficiency. A qualitative case study design was used to answer the study’s research

question: What are teachers’ perceptions of their efficacy to implement effective

pedagogical strategies to support middle school EL students in developing proficiency in

ELA? The case study approach was the most appropriate approach to gain insight into the

research question because it allowed for an analysis of a bounded system.

Data to answer the research question were generated from an anonymous online

open-ended survey through Survey Monkey. Eleven out of 14 teachers completed the

survey by the deadline yielding a response rate of 79%. At the beginning of the study’s

data collection phase, I met with the 14 potential participants at a language arts

department meeting and provided them with a copy of the consent form. I discussed

information regarding the study and answered questions teachers had regarding the study.

I emphasized that participation in this study was voluntary, participation was anonymous,

and participants could withdraw at any time. Immediately after the meeting, I e-mailed

potential participants another consent form, which included a deadline date to complete

the survey of 1 week and a link to the survey. The three participants who did not

participate in the survey did not provide implied consent nor submitted survey responses.

Data were analyzed and emergent themes became findings.

Findings

The survey instrument provided information about teachers’ perceptions of their

self-efficacy to implement effective strategies to support EL students in developing

proficiency in ELA. During data analysis, patterns and relationships among the data were

examined and themes were generated. Three themes emerged from the data, which

provided insight into the study’s research question, what are teachers’ perceptions of

their efficacy to implement effective pedagogical strategies to support middle school EL

student in developing proficiency in ELA? The three themes that emerged from the data

were:

•teachers possessed different levels of self-efficacy in their ability to support

the development of ELs’ proficiency in ELA,

•teachers reported varied opinions in the adequacy of their teacher preparation

program and district professional development support in regards to

pedagogical practice, and

•teachers perceived that students and parents are to blame for the students’ lack

of success in the classroom due to a lack of parental involvement in the

student’s education and a lack of student effort.

Theme 1: Varying levels of self-efficacy in supporting ELs in ELA

proficiency. Six questions on the anonymous survey addressed participants’ confidence

in their skills to effectively instruct ELs, while specifically examining their ability to

differentiate instruction, understand and implement effective instructional strategies for

ELs, and develop ELA proficiency in ELs. Survey data suggested that participants vary in

their level of self-efficacy to support ELs.

Five of 11 teachers perceived that they are confident in their abilities to support

ELs in developing ELA proficiency. Three teachers stated they felt confident in their

abilities due to their preparation. Teacher 5 (T5) reported, “I am definitely comfortable

with my skills to teach EL students. When I first received my credential there was a big

push for training/classes on EL teachings on differentiation.” In response to another

question, T5 replied, “Every group requires its own set of effective instructional

methods…” In contrast to other participants, T5 seemed to understand that there are

specific research-based strategies that are specific to ELs. Teacher 7 (T7) responded, “I

have had a good deal of training in EL and academically at-risk students so I feel quite

comfortable.” It is important to note that the participants who stated they were efficacious

in their abilities to support ELs in developing ELA proficiency did not discuss strategies

specific to ELs. Rather, participants shared that they felt comfortable using general,

whole-class strategies. For example, Teacher 10 (T10) stated, “I am confident in my

abilities to use effective instructional strategies for all students in my classes. Again, I

don’t identify ‘EL’ strategies. Good teaching is good teaching.” Akin to T10, Teacher 2

(T2) stated, “I am confident in using strategies that I currently know for the whole class.”

Although T5’s response indicated he or she realizes ELs require specific strategies during

instruction, there was no mention of such strategies in any response from T5.

Teacher 4 (T4) felt as though his or her confidence in teaching ELs was due to

teaching higher level ELs. “I am confident, however, it is easier to say this when I have

the higher level ELs,” stated T4. Interestingly, although T4 and Teacher 6 (T6) perceived

themselves as efficacious in utilizing strategies to support ELs, they both mentioned that

their confidence depended upon the support they received from others. T4 shared, “I am

confident in my ability to adapt instruction for ELs especially if I have help/guidance and

can collaborate for ideas.” In responding to a similar question, T4 stated, “I feel confident

to use effective methods. Sometimes I need assistance with ideas for methods.” T6 stated,

“I am quite confident [in ability to develop ELA proficiency in ELs]; however, I have a

bilingual aide whom I rely on greatly.”

Four teacher participants perceived themselves as somewhat efficacious in their

ability to effectively support ELs in achieving ELA proficiency. Teachers who stated that

they were somewhat confident believed more training and support would be beneficial. In

response to the question, how confident are you in your ability to adapt instruction for

ELs, T2 replied, “Decent. I would like more training, maybe some new strategies, or new

up-to-date ways to interact.” Similarly, Teacher 3 (T3) replied, “I am knowledgeable on

some instructional methods to teach ELs, but am always wanting to learn more.” Along

this same thinking, T3 responded, “I could use more training,” when asked the question,

how comfortable are you in your skills to teach ELs? The data also revealed that the

teachers who were not fully confident in their abilities to support ELs in developing ELA

proficiency felt that collaboration with others affected their level of confidence. T6

stated, “I feel pretty confident with coordination with other teachers,” and Teacher 11

(T11) stated, “With the number of students in class, probably not that confident without

the help of other teachers.” When asked about how confident he or she is with his or her

skills to teach ELs, T2 replied,

I am fairly comfortable. For the most part, the majority of my EL students I have

had were to the point they were close to testing out of the EL program.

Therefore, I have not had much opportunity to utilize skills specific to my EL

students.

This perspective was notable for two reasons. First, the teacher recognized there are

effective strategies that are specific to ELs; however, does not feel the need to implement

such strategies with EL students who may be ready to test out and become Fluent English

Proficient. This teacher seemed to consider these EL students as equivalent to their

English-only classmates, although the students remain second language learners. Second,

in responding to another question, T2 replied that he or she knows which students are

identified as EL but this knowledge does not influence instruction.

Finally, four participants perceived themselves as not efficacious in their overall

ability to support ELs in developing proficiency in ELA. T10 stated, “I am not confident

in EL specific strategies since I use strategies that are good for all students.” In the

response to another question, T10 stated, “…I am not confident in skills specific to ELs

since I use the same strategies for the class as a whole.” Teacher 1 (T1) mirrored that

response by saying, “I am not that confident [in adapting instruction for ELs]. I design a

lesson for all learners. My EL aide then helps the EL students.” T1 and T10 reported

similar perceptions on their ability to differentiate instruction for ELs. T1 stated, “There

are so many diverse needs (even non-ELs). It is difficult to know what will work for

whom.” T10 responded,

I am not confident in differentiation specifically for ELs. I struggle with creating

different tasks for students based on their abilities. Differentiation is

timeconsuming and takes a lot of practice to gain comfort. I’m not there yet.

Another teacher expressed that he or she is not confident in supporting ELs due to

not having opportunities to use strategies taught; therefore, not being able to practice the

strategies. T3 stated, “I am not confident since I haven’t really had the opportunity to use

what knowledge I had in many years.” This statement was noteworthy due to the fact that

every teacher in ELA had identified EL students in their classroom at the research site,

according to the site’s lead counselor (personal communication, May 11, 2016).

A question was included in the survey that asked participants what instructional

strategies they currently employ in their classroom. The goal of the question was to

gather additional data about teachers’ perceptions of their pedagogical skills to support

ELs in developing ELA proficiency. Participant responses are listed in Table 2. Due to the

limitations of this study, participant interviews and observations were not conducted. This

study could have been strengthened by observing the strategies teachers use on a daily

basis and comparing to the strategies they said they used in the anonymous survey. It

would be beneficial for district administrators to conduct observations and get a deeper

understanding of instructional strategies teachers use daily in their classroom. Strategies

teachers say they use can be aligned with strategies administrators observe them

implementing. Any identified gap areas could be addressed through professional

development. This would benefit ELs greatly as the instruction they receive daily is a

leading factor in achievement (Echevarria et al., 2011; Renner, 2011; Sanford et al.,

2012; Swanson et al., 2012).

Table 2

Instructional Strategies Currently Implemented by Participant

Instructional Strategy Participant

Use of visuals Teachers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10

Use of repetition Teachers 1, 2, 10

Peer collaboration Teachers 1, 4, 7, 8, 11

Provide extra time

Use of graphic organizers

Use of modeling

Use of direct instruction

Provide practice

Provide choice

Use of technology

Activate background knowledge

Use of stories

Use of choral reading

Use of sentence prompts

Use of realia

Teachers 1

Teachers 1, 8, 10

Teachers 3, 4, 6, 11

Teacher 3

Teachers 3, 7

Teacher 4

Teacher 7

Teacher 6

Teacher 8

Teacher 2, 8

Note: Teacher 9 did not respond to this question.

Existing literature advocated that the placement of ELs in mainstream classrooms

with supports has advantages for ELs (Cheatham et al., 2014; Chen & Eslami, 2013;

Menken et al., 2012). It is essential their experiences be positive with high expectations,

rigor, and support (Boone, 2013, Cheatham et al., 2014, Menken et al., 2012). Creating

positive experiences for ELs is directly related to developing highly efficacious teachers

in their ability to utilize effective instructional strategies specific to ELs (Ahmed, 2011;

Akbari & Tavassoli, 2014; Faez, 2012; Haworth et al., 2015; Sosa & Gomez, 2012).

Efficacy of teachers influences their attitudes and behaviors in the classroom (Faez, 2012;

Sosa & Gomez, 2012). Given the responses of participants in the study, districts should

focus on ensuring that all teachers not only perceive themselves as highly efficacious, but

also ensure that there is data to support that teachers are effective in developing the ELA

proficiency of ELs.

Theme 2: Varying levels of perceived adequacy of teacher preparation

program and professional development. Questions 12, 13, and 18 on the anonymous

survey (Appendix B) directly inquired about participants’ perceptions of the adequacy of

their teacher preparation program and the district’s professional development

opportunities to support them in developing their efficacy in effectively instructing ELs.

Similar to Theme 1, the data reported varying levels among participants in their perceived

adequacy of their teacher preparation program and district professional development

boosting their confidence in utilizing effective instructional strategies to support ELs in

developing ELA.

Seven of the participants believed their teacher preparation program was

inadequate in preparing them to support ELs in the mainstream classroom. These

participants shared that the quality of their teacher preparation program was lacking. In

response to the question, has the training you received in your credentialing program

adequately prepared you to effectively service EL students in your mainstream classroom,

T1 replied:

No. I took one class on ELs in my credentialing program. The teacher I had was

awful. We had very few assignments. We mostly did presentations and left class

early every night. I didn’t learn anything from the presentations because they

were given by pre-service teachers such as myself. We did not have experience in

the classroom, so the presentations were not helpful. The teacher did not provide

us with any feedback. It was one of the [worst] classes I’ve taken.

T10 replied with a similar perception,

No. The coursework in my program was more book work and not much practical

application. The teacher didn’t really seem interested in providing us with skills

and knowledge that would be useful when we were in the classroom.

Two teachers replied that their preparation program gave them a good foundation,

but did not fully prepare them for the realities of the classroom. T3 stated, “My training

has given me a jump start, a taste if you will, but I know there is so much more.”

Similarly, T8 stated, “Although we need theory, we definitely need more practical

experience. I did not feel well prepared to teach, let alone effectively address the specific

needs of ELs.”

In regards to professional development support from the district, four participants

stated they have not received any professional development from the district and five

participants responded that the professional development they received from the district

was inadequate. T1 stated,

I went to SIOP training years ago offered through the district. However, with no

follow-up, I didn’t pursue it and kept using my same lesson design model. I

haven’t had EL training in years. At staff meetings, we were given “tips”—like

visuals, partner work, but again, no one came in to follow up and offer more

support. We have not had any information on ELs in a while.

T10 also felt district training was inadequate. The teacher stated,

Usually any training at the site or district level is a one-time training with no

follow up or coaching/mentoring. I have not had any training that has adequately

prepared me for the diverse students that are second language learners. We do

have one district coach who specializes in EL but I’m sure her plate is full

because I don’t see her at all.

T7 offered insight into the content of district provided EL professional development by

stating, “I would have to say it [district provided training] was more of an understanding

of the transition process of 1st to 2nd language vs. actual training on how to teach EL

students.” T11 would like to see more of a focus at the secondary level on LTELs. T11

shared, “Unfortunately there is a lot of emphasis on elementary, but long-term EL needs

at the secondary level must be addressed as well.”

Teachers agreed that they would benefit from professional development

specifically related to ELs. T3, T6, and T7 stated, “I could always use more training.”

T10 responded, “I realize I could use more training on instructional skills specific to

ELs.” T2 stated he or she could use training on more “up-to-date” methods for teaching

ELs. Although teachers expressed they would like more training, some teachers

expressed concerns over the timing and availability of EL specific training. T5 stated,

“The trainings have been voluntary, usually through the summer. I have not been able to

attend what they have offered.” T 8 replied, “There needs to be more trainings. One can

go years without going to a training that is specific to the EL population.”

A question (18) was included in the survey to solicit the type of training

participants were interested in to better help them support ELs in increasing proficiency

in ELA. Table 3 lists responses from participants. Designing professional development

experiences that allow teachers choice is an effective technique to build teacher efficacy

(O’Brien, 2011).

Table 3

Desired EL Training Topics by Participant

Topic Participant

SIOP Teacher 1

Culturally Diverse Teaching Teachers 1 and 7

2nd Language Acquisition Teacher 1

Differentiation for ELs

Spanish Refresher Class

Technology Integration

Concrete Examples of EL

Strategies

Levels of CELDT

(Including LTELs)

Teachers 4 and 10

Teacher 5

Teacher 3

Teachers 4 and 8

Teachers 10 and 11

Note: Teachers 2, 3, 4 replied “any.” Teacher 6 stated he or she does not need training but

suggested instructional aides be trained. Teacher 9 did not respond to this question.

The professional literature revealed that effective professional development is

imperative in developing teacher self-efficacy (Kim & Garcia, 2014; Lui et al., 2010).

Because the participants in this study believed that their teacher preparation program and

training provided by the district was inadequate to support them in their confidence

instructing ELs, the district should reflect and be more deliberate and purposeful in

providing professional development, including topics of teacher choice, to teachers

servicing ELs in the mainstream classroom.

Theme 3: Blame students and parents for student’s lack of success in the

mainstream ELA classroom. An unexpected theme that emerged from the data is that

nine teachers perceived that the success of their EL students [in gaining ELA proficiency]

solely relies with the student. Although success was not specifically defined in the survey,

it seemed that teachers defined success as motivation and effort. For example, in regards

to student success, T1 stated, “Students in my classroom are as successful as the effort

they put in. I offer support, but I can’t make a student put in effort to learn.” Similarly, T3

shared, “I feel that they [ELs] can be very successful. But a lot of the outcome is on them

and if they put forth the effort.” Furthermore, T7 stated, “Effort has so much to do with

their success….”

When teachers responded to the questions that addressed what teachers perceive

as the reasons for the success (or lack of success) of their ELs, none reported that they, as

the teacher, have an effect on student progress. This could lead to a conclusion that

teachers may not perceive themselves as playing a key role in the achievement of

students, which is inconsistent with empirical studies (Akbari & Tavassoli, 2014;

Cheatham et al., 2011; Greenfield, 2013; Haworth et al., 2015; Hopkins, 2012). Instead,

teachers reported that the student and parent are the factors that determine the success or

the lack of success for students. T7 stated, “As long as the student is ready, interested,

and motivated, proficiency will develop.” Related to T7’s response, T9 replied, “The

students themselves have to be motivated, and also have to have parents who are

motivated to learn the language also.” T6 provided a similar response but added, “Some

students get too frustrated that they don’t want to try.” Another participant stated, “There

are some students classified as EL that are more apathetic and do not seem to care about

making progress” (T11). Four teachers specifically mentioned that student effort

determined success as evidenced by the following quotes:

•“Students in my classroom are as successful as the effort they put in” (T1);

•“… but a lot of the outcome is on them and if they put forth effort” (T3);

•“Effort has so much to do with their success.” (T7); and

•“[My ELs are] somewhat successful as long as they put forth the effort like

other students” (T10).

Two teachers attributed success or lack of success to the student’s home life. T1

stated, “These [students not making progress] are the students who don’t try very hard for

varying reasons. They seem to lack motivation and interest. I know their lives are

complex and there is a lot going on at home.” Similarly, T7 responded, “…I have one

student in particular who has a strong negative influence at home so he is very much off

in his effort….”

A quote from T7 revealed that the teacher perceives his or her role as being a

provider of information. In response to the question, in regards to ELs who are successful

in your class, what do you perceive are the reasons for their success, T7 replied, #1

Personal motivation. #2 Family involvement. #3 Peer influence. #4 Teacher instruction.

The student that has a desire to grow does. Sometimes parental involvement is needed to

push them; but this is often too little, too late. If a close friend becomes an

encouragement or a friendly competitor, this is more beneficial. If these are in place, the

teacher merely needs to “take the stage” to provide instruction and support. Without the

first three, it almost becomes a competition to be more exciting or entertaining than those

three.

This quote from Teacher 7 contradicts literature that reported the teacher as being the

primary factor in increasing student achievement; despite home environment (Akbari &

Tavassoli, 2014; Cheatham et al., 2011; Greenfield, 2013; Haworth et al., 2015; Hopkins,

2012; Schmoker, 2006). Because the data did not reveal that teachers perceived

themselves in a key role in the achievement of their EL students, the district would

benefit from helping teachers realize their power to positively influence the lives of

students despite the outside obstacles students face.

Discrepant Case Analysis

Researchers should purposefully look for variation in the understanding of the

phenomenon being studied (Merriam, 2009). I deliberately reviewed the data three times

to search for strong supporting evidence of data that challenged the emerging themes. As

I reread each response in the data, I referred back to the three themes to determine if any

response provided strong evidence that contradicted the findings. Due to the nature of this

study and the data the survey instrument provided, there were no signs of discrepant

cases. Although there was evidence of differing opinions from participants, their opinions

fit into the emerging themes. For example, Theme 1 referred to participants having

varying levels of self-efficacy in their abilities to support ELs in their mainstream ELA

classroom and Theme 2 referred to participants having varying perceptions on the

adequacy of their teacher preparation program and district professional development to

support them in teaching ELs. The responses participants provided based on their

individual perceptions supported Themes 1 and 2. Theme 3 addressed reoccurring data

that illustrated the perception that teachers blamed students and parents for the student’s

lack of success in their mainstream classroom. Although there were two teachers who did

not include responses that supported Theme 3, frequent evidence existed from the nine

other participants to make it a notable data that became a theme. The data from the two

teachers did not support this theme, but it also did not contradict the theme.

Evidence of Quality

Several strategies were used to enhance the accuracy of the study’s data and

credibility of the findings. Accuracy addresses the extent to which findings reflect data

and credibility refers to how well findings “make sense” based on data (Creswell, 2012;

Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2015). “Within-method triangulation” was used to enhance the

reliability of participant responses (Sosa & Gomez, 2012). The survey included multiple

questions on the same topic to examine reliability of participant responses. Table 4 lists

the survey questions that were based on the same topic.

Table 4

Within-Method Triangulated Survey Questions

Topic Questions

Teacher ability to differentiate for ELs Questions 5 and 10

Teacher comfort in skills to develop ELA

proficiency in ELs

Questions 4 and 11

Success of ELs in mainstream class Questions 3 and 6

Teacher knowledge and use of effective

instructional methods for ELs

Questions 7 and 14

Each participant was consistent in their responses to the triangulated questions. For

example, T2 responded similarly to Question 5, which addressed the teacher’s knowledge

and use of differentiation and Question 10, which examined the teacher’s confidence in

his or her ability to adapt instruction for ELs. For Question 5, T2 replied, “I am

comfortable with differentiation” and for Question 10, the participant’s response was, “I

am very confident that I am capable of identifying the needs of ELs and modifying

lessons that will adapt to those needs.” T6 was another example of the consistency in

participant responses for triangulated questions. Questions 3 and 6 investigated the

participant’s perceptions of whether or not ELs are successful in their class. Responses

from T6 were:

•I feel like my EL students are very successful in my class. I wonder if their

success is also based on the fact that I have the higher level ELs. (Question 3)

•I feel my EL students are making academic progress, Again, I wonder if it is

because I have the higher level ELs. (Question 6)

Peer examination was another strategy used as a means to increase credibility

(Creswell, 2012). I solicited the assistance of a fellow administrator to review the data

with the intent of confirming that the data supported the findings. The peer examiner

affirmed that the findings were developed from the data that was collected. The peer

examiner did not identify any findings that were not reflective of the data.

Finally, an external audit was conducted where an outside person provided input

on the data collection and analysis processes (Creswell, 2012). A full-time faculty

member from the local community college, who is a doctoral candidate, was used to

conduct an audit of the study’s data collection and analysis processes. The external

evaluator provided a written critique, which included a limitation of the data collection

instrument. I did not conduct face-to-face interviews due to my perceived role of

authority, but rather, an anonymous survey was used as the sole data collection method.

The external auditor pointed out that this did not allow for probing participants to gain a

more in-depth understanding of their perceptions. The external auditor stated that the data

analysis process was sound and yielded credible findings. A study’s findings are

strengthened by purposefully implementing strategies to enhance accuracy and

credibility.

Discussion of Findings

The findings of this study helped to shed light on the problem of ELs lacking

proficiency in ELA. The specific focus of this problem was on teachers’ perceptions of

their efficacy to implement effective pedagogical strategies to support middle school EL

students in developing ELA proficiency. The data gathered from the survey instrument

yielded three important findings that supported the answer to the study’s research

question. First, teachers varied in their perceptions of their efficacy to support EL

students in developing proficiency in ELA. Second, teachers also varied in their

perceptions of the adequacy of their teacher preparation program and district professional

development in building their efficacy to support ELs. Lastly, an unexpected finding that

emerged from the data, was that some teachers blamed the student and parent for the

student’s lack of success in the classroom. These outcomes highlighted the need for

effective professional development to support teachers in becoming highly efficacious in

instructing ELs. Because teachers were not confident in their ability to instruct ELs and

they did not feel their teacher credentialing program or district professional development

were adequate, effective professional development is needed to increase their efficiency

with ELs in their mainstream ELA classroom. Also, data showed that teachers do not

perceive themselves as being the primary factor in student achievement, but rather, view

students’ home lives and effort as having the primary role in achievement.

One theme that emerged from this study was that teachers vary in their

perceptions of their efficacy in supporting ELs in achieving proficiency in ELA. The

majority of the participants in the study stated their efficacy was low in regards to

supporting ELs in their mainstream ELA class. This finding is consistent with

professional literature. Due to the rapid increase of ELs in K-12 public schools and

inclusion mandates, general education teachers are finding an increase of ELs in their

classrooms of whom they are not prepared to teach (Doorn & Schumm, 2013; Kibler &

Roman, 2013; Hopkins, Lowenhaupt, & Sweet, 2015; Lucas & Villegas, 2013; Molle,

2013b; Shaw et al., 2014; Short, 2013; Yucesan Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2012). In

examining differentiation specifically, five out of 11 teachers were confident in their

abilities to adapt instruction for ELs. This equated to 55% of the surveyed participants

requiring support to improve their abilities to differentiate instruction to best meet the

needs of students identified as ELs. Empirical research indicated that highly efficacious

teachers are instrumental in student achievement (Ahmed, 2011; Akbari & Tavassoli,

2014; Faez, 2012; Haworth et al., 2015; Kurt et al., 2014; Sosa & Gomez, 2012). It is

important to note that some teachers may be highly efficacious with a particular

population of student or in a specific content, while lacking efficacy with other student

groups or content areas (Akbari & Tavassoli, 2014; Chu, 2011; Faez, 2012; Haworth et

al., 2015).

When asked specifically about the perceptions of their efficacy as it relates to

their knowledge and implementation of research-based effective instructional strategies

beneficial for ELs, no participant responded that they were fully confident. Rather,

teachers who perceived themselves as being efficacious in their abilities to support ELs

stated their confidence was due to their knowledge and use of whole-class, “good

teaching” strategies, rather than EL-specific strategies. This view expressed by some

participants differs from empirical studies. Several empirical studies noted that ELs have

unique needs that differ significantly from their non-EL peers; therefore, they benefit

from specialized instructional approaches (Kibler & Roman, 2013; Hopkins et al., 2015;

Loeb, 2014; Lucas & Villegas, 2013; Molle, 2013b; Short, 2013; Sung-Yeol Choi &

Morrison, 2014). The contradiction may be explained by teachers not being familiar with

the specific needs of ELs. There is a need for effective professional development to assist

teachers in building their skills to become highly efficacious with the EL student

population.

One interesting detail revealed through the first theme, was that a teacher felt

efficacious due to the fact that there were higher level ELs in the classroom. This leaves

one to wonder if that teacher’s perceptions of his or her abilities would be different with

ELs with lower CELDT scores. Another interesting detail from the data was that some

teachers who felt they were highly efficacious or somewhat efficacious connected their

efficacy with the support they get from colleagues. Empirical research supported the

effectiveness of teacher networks in enhancing teacher learning and change in practice

(Hopkins et al., 2015; Santos, Darling-Hammond, & Cheuk, 2013; Sun et al., 2013;

TaitMcCutcheon & Drake, 2016). Although collaboration with colleagues is important,

professional development could be beneficial to support these teachers in developing

their efficacy since ELs (and all students) have different needs from class to class.

A second thread that reoccurred in the data was that teachers perceived their

teacher preparation program and the professional development through the district as

inadequate in supporting their efficacy in instructing ELs. This data were consistent with

empirical research from the literature. Research revealed that one obstacle to the

achievement of ELs is inadequate teacher preparation (Haworth et al., 2015; Heineke et

al., 2012; O’Brien, 2011). Research conducted by Faez (2012) and Turkan and Buzick

(2016) supported the perceptions of participants by revealing that teachers in their studies

viewed teacher preparation programs as lacking. Participants in this study stated that their

university teachers lacked the skills to support them in developing their confidence in

teaching ELs in a mainstream classroom.

Theme 2 revealed insight into participants’ perceptions of the professional

development provided through the district. Although the majority of participants viewed

district level professional development in regards to ELs as inadequate, they do agree

they would benefit from effective professional development with a specific focus on ELs.

Some teachers stated that appropriate professional development was not offered

frequently, and when it was offered, it was often voluntary and offered during the

summer. Furthermore, one teacher stated that professional development focused on

LTELs would be highly beneficial because most of the ELs in middle school are

considered LTELs. The perceptions of inadequate professional development expressed by

the study’s participants were consistent with those found in studies from professional

literature (Beacher et al., 2012; de Jong et al., 2013; Faez, 2012; Heineke et al., 2012;

O’Brien, 2011; Richards-Tutor et al., 2013; Turkan & Buzick, 2016). According to

Akbari and Tavassoli (2014) and Schmoker (2006), improving teacher effectiveness has

the largest positive impact on student achievement. Because of this, it is imperative that

district administrators provide effective training and support to build teacher efficacy of

their pedagogical skills to support ELs.

An unexpected outcome of this study emerged as the third theme. It is important

to note that data revealed that participants perceived student success, or lack thereof, as

the sole responsibility of the student and parent. This outcome was unexpected because it

contradicted the research from the professional literature. While student effort, resilience,

and parent support are factors in student success, research stated that teacher efficacy and

practice has the largest impact on student achievement (Akbari & Tavassoli, 2014; Hattie,

2009; Hopkins, 2012; Renner, 2011; Kim & Garcia, 2014; Schmoker, 2006; Sheng et al.,

2011). Teachers may blame students for their lack of progress due to mistaking ELs’ lack

of confidence in their abilities with the second language for passiveness, laziness, and a

lack of motivation (Molle, 2013b; Yucesan Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2012). Also, teachers

may have deficit views of students because rather than realizing that the teacher and

curriculum are inadequate to meet students’ needs, the student and family are blamed for

the student’s lack of progress (Sung-Yeol Choi & Morrison, 2014). Finally, Lopez-Torres

and Prior (2015) and Vanlaar et al. (2016) stated that socioeconomic factors do not

negatively influence student achievement. Teacher and school factors have a greater

impact on student achievement over socioeconomic status (Bellibas, 2016). Effective

professional development would support teachers in changing their views and realizing

that they are the primary factor in student achievement.

By analyzing the survey data and identifying the three themes that provided

insight to the problem of ELs lacking proficiency in ELA and answering the study’s

research question, areas of teacher need were identified. These areas of need were

appropriately addressed through professional development. A 3-full-day professional

development workshop was designed to increase teacher’s self-efficacy in their abilities

to support the achievement of ELs in their ELA mainstream classroom. Topics that made

up the foundation of the study’s professional development project included:

•differentiation specific for ELs,

•research-based instructional strategies specific to ELs,

•second language acquisition,

•teacher’s influence over student achievement, and • CELDT levels.

Conclusion

A qualitative case study approach was used to address the study’s research

question to examine the problem of ELs lack of proficiency in ELA. The study attempted

to examine teachers’ self-efficacy to implement effective pedagogical strategies to

support ELs in developing ELA proficiency. A focus of analysis was to determine the

skills teachers believe they are most lacking. Purposeful sampling was used to identify 14

ELA teachers, who teach middle school ELs, to serve as participants for the study. Site

and district level permission were attained to gain access to participants following the

district’s guidelines. When access was granted, potential participants received

information about the study and had an opportunity to understand informed consent for

their voluntary participation in the study. Data were collected through an online

anonymous survey that provided insight into participants’ perceptions of their selfefficacy

in supporting ELs’ development in ELA. The survey was created on Survey Monkey and

e-mailed to participant’s district e-mail. Implied consent was assumed when the

participant completed and submitted the online survey. Collected data were analyzed

through a process of transcription, using Microsoft Word, and coding utilizing NVivo to

determine major themes. The emerging themes were shared as the study’s findings and

reported using varying methods to enhance accuracy and credibility. Ethical

considerations were of utmost priority and procedures were strictly followed to gain

informed consent, to protect participant confidentiality and anonymity, and to protect

participants from harm.

A professional development project was developed to connect the study’s findings

and implications to the classroom. A 3-full-day workshop series for ELA teachers was

created to address any gap in practice after the areas in pedagogy where teachers believe

they are weakest were identified. The professional development sessions addressed ways

for teachers to increase their self-efficacy in their pedagogical skills to support ELs at the

classroom level. The professional development sessions focused on

•the reasons why ELs fail to achieve ELA proficiency,

•the adverse effects of a lack of proficiency in ELA by ELs,

•research-based strategies to support the learning of ELs in ELA classrooms,

•differentiation strategies for ELs,

•second language acquisition,

•CELDT levels, and

•teachers’ impact on student achievement.

These techniques can be used across disciplines to support the ELA achievement of ELs.

Section 3 explores the professional development project as a way the case study

could be valuable to mainstream teachers of ELs. Section 3 provides a description of the

professional development as well as the goals. Furthermore, a review of the literature is

discussed to provide a rationale on the appropriateness of professional development as a

means to address the findings of this study. An implementation plan for the professional

development project is outlined in addition to a plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the

professional development in changing teacher practice and impacting student outcomes.

Finally, implications for social change as a result of the professional development

sessions is discussed.

Section 3: The Project

Introduction

This study investigated the problem of middle school ELs’ lack of proficiency in