language aqusition in grade 4 pupils.pdf

Section 1: The Problem

The Local Problem

At one representative local urban Title I primary school, in a district in the

southeastern region of the United States, there has been an increased demand for dual

language immersion (DLI) programs coupled with a shortage of such programs to meet

both students’ needs and the interests of local parents who have monolingual or

multilingual students and value bilingualism. Too few DLI programs or places in

kindergarten through second grade (K–2) DLI exist for emergent bilingual students to

fulfill the number of parent requests for placement of their children. The need for K–2

DLI programs in primary schools exceeds availability. This local problem—too few DLI

programs—is evident from the waiting lists for student enrollment in DLI programs at the

district office (curriculum director, personal communication, September 2022). At the

primary school in this district, faculty meeting minutes document reports from DLI

teachers on the waiting list of students whose parents, for the past four years, have

wanted their children to have access to the district’s K–2 DLI program. These reports

include the years of virtual schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic (DLI team meeting

minutes, August 19, 2022; faculty meeting minutes, August 2021).

Further support for this local need includes evidence at the district level, where

DLI programs are offered in 9% of elementary schools (seven of 80 elementary schools),

and waiting lists have been established at many of the schools that offer DLI. The

problem is also found at the state level, where only 3% of schools statewide (71 of 2,365

schools) offer DLI programs. Data also support the need for more DLI programs across

the United States; Lam and Richards (2020) revealed that 4% of elementary schools

(3,600 of 87,500) offer DLI programs.

DLI programs were created to support academic achievement, develop

bilingualism, and foster biliteracy and sociocultural competence (Esposito, 2020). An

estimated 1 in 5 adults in the United States speaks a second language other than English

(Gration, 2022). Primary grade DLI programs are beneficial because as bilingualism

increases and more children are emergent bilinguals (Ecole Bilingue, 2022). Not only do

DLI programs enable cross-cultural communication, they also positively affect cognitive

abilities (Ecole Bilingue, 2022). DLI programs were also created to help minority

language-speaking children keep up with academic content while gaining proficiency in

English. As the need for bilingual education in the United States grows so does the

demand for DLI programs (Ee, 2018; Lam & Richards, 2020; Roberts, 2021). However,

information on bilingual education programs is limited, and further studies are needed

(Castey Moreno & Paz-Albo, 2020; del Mar Sanchez-Perez & Manzano-Agugliaro, 2021;

Henderson, 2022; Olivos & Lucero, 2020).

Rationale

According to the Department of Education in the state where this study was

conducted (elementary school, 2022), there are 2,365 elementary schools in the region.

Only 58 of these elementary schools offer dual-language programs (elementary school,

2022). There are nearly 40,000 students in the county, and of those, only 2,500 students

are enrolled in dual-language programs (Malik, 2020). Malik reported that only 900

students in a nearby county have participated in DLI programs, and another county has

1,300 students in such a program. Therefore, only 4,700 students currently benefit from

dual-language programs in this state. As of 2019, there were 786,893 students in

elementary schools in this state (state Department of Education, 2022).

There is evidence beyond that gathered in the local urban school district that the

problem of insufficient programs to meet the needs of DLI students in schools must be

addressed. Researchers have suggested that not enough is known about bilingual

education programs, and further studies are needed (Castey Moreno & Paz Albo, 2020;

del Mar Sanchez-Perez & Manzano-Agugliaro, 2021; Henderson, 2022; Olivos &

Lucero, 2020). Castey Moreno and Paz Albo (2020) investigated the importance of

bilingualism in determining students’ language development and cognitive skills and

found a growing demand for bilingual education programs because of these benefits.

Castey Moreno and Paz Albo (2020) recommended further studies on how early

childhood bilingualism grows out of and benefits from children’s home and school

environments. Del Mar Sanchez-Perez and Manzano-Agugliaro (2021) analyzed the

growth of bilingual education programs and the research surrounding them between 1970

and 2020. These researchers noted worldwide changes during this period and

recommended further studies to identify barriers to offering bilingual education (del Mar

Sanchez-Perez & Manzano-Agugliaro, 2021).

Henderson (2022) explored the ideological stances of language teachers who

implemented a district-wide dual language (DL) bilingual education program in a

southern state and suggested that further studies are needed to understand different

perspectives across different stakeholder groups such as teachers, administrators, district

officials, and district members involved in DL program implementation. Olivos and

Lucero (2020) examined parents’ perceptions of the benefits of bilingual education and

dual programs and found that parents agree about the program’s benefits. These benefits

include parent involvement in helping their children with homework and reading at home

at least once or twice a week. Olivos and Lucero (2020) recommended that further

studies are needed on the benefits of bilingual programs, specifically an investigation of

DLI programs and why parents are so satisfied with the DLI program (Olivos & Lucero,

2020). Esposito et al. (2019) explained that parents who speak English at home want their

children to speak a second language as well. Therefore, the research problem addressed

in this basic qualitative study was educators’ perspectives on the benefits of primary

grade DLI programs.

Definition of Terms

Bilingual education: When children are taught two or more languages, usually

taught in their native language in concurrence with a second language (Education Corner,

2022). Children learn academic content and language simultaneously. According to

Esposito (2020), bilingual education includes but is not limited to two-way DL education,

one-way dual education, and immersion education models. Bilingual education involves

DL and DLI models (Esposito, 2020).

Bilingualism: Fluency and accuracy in two or more different languages, coupled

with the ability to handle different linguistic codes naturally and interchangeably

(Zamora et al., 2019).

Biliteracy: The capability to read and write in two or more languages (Aguilar et

al., 2020).

Dual language (DL) programs: DL programs are also referred to as DL

immersion (DLI) or two-way immersion programs. These programs were designed for

students to receive content and language instruction in a major language (e.g., English),

as well as in a target language (e.g., Spanish). These programs often enroll both

language-minority students (e.g., Spanish-speaking students) and language-majority

students (Ee, 2018).

Immersion programs: Programs that enable biliteracy (speaking, listening,

reading, and writing) in two different languages. These programs usually start in

kindergarten and extend into middle school or high school (Warner, 2022).

Significance of the Study

DLI programs foster bilingualism, biliteracy, and young children’s linguistic and

cultural diversity consciousness (DL Education, 2022). According to Castey Moreno and

Paz-Albo (2020), early childhood is a crucial period for learning one or more foreign

languages. According to Participate Learning (2022), exposure to cultures in which a

target language is spoken is a critical factor in students’ ability to acquire more than one

language in a DLI program. DLI programs give students opportunities to strengthen their

cognitive potential. Tran et al. (2019) found that bilingualism has a significant effect on

students’ cognitive control processes. As students use selective attention, code switching,

and inhibition in learning a target language, this improves their cognition (Tran et al.,

2019). Further, measurements indicate this bilingualism effect is most pronounced while

students learn about cultures, and it influences students’ behavioral regulation and

response inhibition (Tran et al., 2019). Waterford (2019) found that a key advantage of

being bilingual is literacy acquisition because young children who are exposed to

multiple languages are better equipped to identify word structure in several languages at a

faster pace.

Freire et al. (2022) suggested that increasing the number of DLI programs offered

throughout the country is based on a crucial perspective committed to social justice and

equity. Dorner and Cervantes-Soon (2020) advocated for decision makers and leaders to

decide which programs would serve all students in a school district and address the

learning needs of the district. Fewer than 9% (7 of 80) of schools in the school district in

this study offer DLI opportunities, despite research showing that DLI schools outperform

demographically similar single-language schools (Castey Moreno & Paz-Albo, 2020;

Empower Language Academy, n.d.). Only 3% (71 of 2,365) of the state’s elementary

schools offer DLI, while the national percentage is 4% (3,600 of 87,500). Nationwide, the

existence of DLI programs grew from 300 in 2,001 to slightly above 3,000 in 2015 (Lam

& Richards, 2020), suggesting there are still too few programs given their track records

for academic achievement. The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of a

group of educators in the southeastern United States on the benefits of primary grade DLI

programs and to increase understanding of the benefits of providing primary-grade DLI

programs.

Researchers have recommended exploring context-specific challenges and

mitigations to prepare DLI bilingual education teachers (Amanti et al., 2022). MacLeod

et al. (2022) recommended gaining an understanding of the way the system is evolving

for individual children and families. Investigating this topic helps to better understand

how Bronfenbrenner’s theory, combined with bilingualism, might help the local district.

Henderson (2022) also suggested exploring the diversity in language philosophies and

pressures on different stakeholders involved in DLI bilingual education program

implementation. In the district where this study was conducted, a low percentage of

schools offer DLI Education. This research was conducted to help stakeholders

understand the benefits of DLI programs and their value for K–2 students in local urban

school districts.

Research Question

This basic qualitative study was conducted to explore educators’ perspectives on

the benefits of primary grade DLI programs. The following research question guided the

study:

RQ: What are educators’ perspectives on the benefits of primary grade DLI

programs?

Review of the Literature

In this section, I summarize the concepts related to the benefits of DLI programs

for K–2 students. These include types of encounters for DLI students, factors that

influence students’ academic achievement, and increased teacher–parent–community

engagement (Montanari et al., 2022). My interest in conducting this study grew from

recognizing that teachers and administrators aspire to better understand DLI programs to

better strengthen their students’ academic success. Stakeholders have agreed that teacher

and parent involvement is important for students in DLI programs (Noguerón-Liu et al.,

2020). Researchers agree that understanding the way the system evolves will help

children and families. Such an understanding would also help to grasp how

Bronfenbrenner’s theory, in combination with bilingualism, operates in communities

(MacLeod et al., 2022). Investigating DLI programs as well as parents’ satisfaction is

essential (Olivos & Lucero, 2020). However, I was unable to locate studies on the

benefits of DLI programs in primary grades and how teachers design lesson plans to help

students succeed. Therefore, this basic qualitative study, using interviews, was

undertaken to address the problem in local schools by exploring teachers’ and

administrators’ perceptions about the benefits of primary grade DLI programs. The

literature review also includes a conceptual framework subsection that explains how it

guided the study, as well as additional subsections citing other studies that used concepts

within that framework.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework that guided this qualitative study was a combination of

Bronfenbrenner et al.’s (2007) ecological systems theory and Krashen’s (1981) language

acquisition theory. Bronfenbrenner viewed development as a transactional process for

humans, with interactions from different domains of the environment, each of which help

influence each development. This ecological systems theory, focusing on how

interactions influence a child’s development in their family, school, peer group, and

community (Bronfenbrenner et al., 2007), was used in my conceptual framework.

Language acquisition theory proposes that young children acquire a second or more

language in the same manner as their first language (Krashen, 1981). That conceptual

framework relates to my problem and purpose as I was exploring educators’ (teachers

and administrators) perspectives on the benefits of DLI in K–2 programs. By framing my

study this way, I explored stakeholders’ perspectives on the influences of a child’s

microsystem (home), mesosystem (school), and ecosystem (community) regarding the

benefits of DLI bilingual education programs. Language is acquired during meaningful

interaction in that language, with natural communication at home, in school, and in the

district. In straightforward communication, speakers are primarily concerned with

understanding what is said, and so the aim of language is to be comprehensible.

Ecological System Theory

Bronfenbrenner, a Russian American psychologist, created a theoretical

framework that is widely known and influential in the fields of human development and

education (Velez-Agosto et al., 2017). In this theory, Bronfenbrenner (1979) suggested

that human development throughout a lifespan is a mixture of changes in one’s

immediate environments. In writing about culture, Bronfenbrenner noted that it is a

dynamic system in which communication involving language and interpretation is

practiced daily. Meaning changes within the context of social communities where

communication is exchanged. According to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory,

this dynamic occurs in five different domains: the microsystem, the mesosystem, the

exosystem, the macrosystem, and the chronosystem.

The first layer, the microsystem, involves relationships and interactions that

directly influence the child, usually within the home. This might occur in a place where a

participant engages in an activity with a particular role, at a particular time, in a complex

of relations (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The second layer, the mesosystem, refers to how key

settings a person develops within interrelate at a certain point in their lives. These

interactions happen within family, school, and peer groups and in settings such as church

or camp. The mesosystem is considered a system of microsystems. What a child learns at

school or daycare may change the way they interact with their parents or siblings at home

and vice versa. The same interrelation occurs in the process of a child’s learning and

development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

The exosystem is the third layer and is considered an extension of the

mesosystem, but with more detailed social structures (formal and informal). These events

do not emerge from within the person, but from an external environment having an

impact on development, usually from within the community. Such events could include,

for example, how a divorce affects a child’s behavior in the classroom or in any

environment having developmental significance. These ecological changes help to form

the different courses and content of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

The fourth layer, the macrosystem, refers to general models that exist in a culture

or subculture that set patterns for structures and activities happening at the concrete level.

These could be considered blueprints of how some institutions may work and tend to be

informal and implicit, with little direct impact on development. (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

The fifth and last layer of the Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system is the chronosystem.

This layer refers to lifetime changes that include how both external systems and internal

systems evolve over time and how this evolution affects the development of a child

(Charles, 2021). Such changes, which include major life transitions and historical events,

help influence a child’s development (Bronfenbrenner’s 1979).

Language Acquisition Theory

Language acquisition theory was developed by American linguist Krashen (1981),

who built upon Chomsky’s theory that humans have an essential capacity for language.

This capacity has allowed children to learn language by trial and error or for language to

grow out of involvement in a comprehensible environment. Krashen added to this idea by

suggesting that learning a second language is similar to how children learn their first

language, through trial and error and meaningful communicative interface (Billings,

2021). Acquiring a language is an unconscious, implicit process arising from a natural

drive to find meaning in particular messages (Patrick, 2019). In essence, every student

has the capacity to learn a new language, as students’ brains are programmed to speak

languages, and the adults in children’s lives need to understand how to facilitate that

acquisition.

Theories important to language acquisition also include the work of Cummins

(2008), who elaborated on Krashen’s work. Cummins introduced basics interpersonal

communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in

1979 (Amitabh Vikram Dwivedi, 2021). The relationships between academic and social

language skills challenge second language learners when competing linguistically with

their peers in academic settings. BICS describes the oral fluency of a learner, whereas

CALP describes the process of understanding and expressing ideas and concepts in

writing and oral forms (Amitabh Vikram Dwivedi, 2021).

Alignment of Concepts

Bronfenbrenner’s theory offers insights about and implications for how a social

environment can influence human development and behavior (Charles, 2021). Krashen’s

theory explains that language is culturally rooted as well as cognitively linguistic, which

is why meaningful communication interface is vital to acquire a second language

(Billings 2021). The use of these concepts came together during this project study as it

demonstrated the development of a second language.

According to the concept of communicative competence, a speaker will alter their

speech to fit a given situation (Billings, 2021). Ecological systems theory and language

acquisition theory combine to support both children’s optimum development and

language acquisition. Because language acquisition happens through interactions and trial

and error, the ecological systems theory model demonstrates how interactions within the

different systems help children develop language. These components come together in

the mesosystem layer as each interaction (family, friends, teachers) contributes to a

child’s learning and development. He et al. (2022) explained how important it is to

understand how children in a DLI programs adapt to their bilingual environments and

how they develop academic and social competence. By understanding this, children’s

adaptation to their bilingual environment can fortify specific developmental needs, which

can lead to higher quality programs. He et al. emphasized the need for homework and

after-school activities because these activities may be helpful for children in the DLI

bilingual education programs.

Previous Studies Using Components of the Conceptual Framework

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory was developed to explore the

growth and development of primary-level children based on their interactions with their

family, school, and community. Liu and Buckingham (2022) built upon Bronfenbrenner’s

theory as part of their study, using Bronfenbrenner’s framework to explore factors that

influence the choice of language. In that study, some of the factors affecting the

microsystem part of Bronfenbrenner’s framework were the affiliated institution and the

participants’ family environment. In the mesosystem, participants had to deal with the

choice of career development or family obligation due to their gender, whereas in the

microsystem, participants were able to participate if husbands or mothers-in-law took

care of the family. Exosystems were influenced by governmental agencies for research

and journal indexing systems. Within the macrosystem, the most frequent factor was the

need to protect and preserve the academic status of the target language. Liu and

Buckingham (2022) identified the sorts of issues that families in the DLI programs might

encounter when making decisions for their children in these programs.

In another study, Merçon et al. (2020) used Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological

theory to emphasize the importance as well as the complication of human development.

In this study, the researchers focused on how interactions, parent–child relationships, and

joint activities influenced human development. Merçon et al. also looked at the proximal

processes as effective engines of development. Proximal processes were described as

intricate equal interactions between two individuals that also must be extensive and

enduring in the immediate environment.

Concurring with this framework, Krashen’s theory refers to meaningful

interaction produced by a subconscious process (Dervić & Spahić, 2018). Dervić and

Spahić (2018) explained that learning a new language requires using and producing the

language. This process also entails error connection and building on rules that have

already been learned from a previously learned language. Krashen also stated that

proficiency in a new language comes from acquiring the language not from learning it

(Dervić & Spahić, 2018). Lastly, Dervić and Spahić (2018) suggested that the following

factors affect learning a new language: age, classroom instructions, environmental

influences, and language input.

DLI Programs

In the sections to follow, explicit details of the benefits from DLI programs will

be described. A bilingual student is described as a child who is learning a second

language simultaneously or sequentially. Research has suggested that learning a second

language should begin as early as possible (Wallin & Cheevakumjorn, 2020).

Search Strategy

I conducted a systematic review of current literature on the benefits of DLI

programs. During my studies at Walden University, I centered all my assignments in all

my courses around the topic of the benefits of DLI programs and bilingualism. I have

been able to collect articles for several years on this topic. I used the Walden University

library to conduct in-depth searches in several databases, such as ERIC, Taylor and

Francis Online, and Springer e-books. I also used Google Scholar to identify resources.

I made several appointments with Walden University’s librarian to help me

ensure I was accessing all the necessary resources. The search procedure was performed

using the primary concepts of bilingual education, dual language education, dual

language programs, bilingualism, teacher language beliefs, dual language bilingual

education, two-way immersion, and dual language immersion. Secondary concepts of

bilingual brain, early bilingualism, Bronfenbrenner, and language acquisition were also

searched. As I continued to research and read these articles, I kept a research log and

searched for common themes. During my research I only focused on recent, published

within 5 years, peer-reviewed articles.

Bilingual Education Programs

Since the Civil Rights era, bilingual education, or DL education, has been hard-

fought in the United States in predominantly language-minoritized communities

(Cervantes-Soon et al., 2021). Thirty-nine states now offer DLI programs (Cervantes-

Soon et al., 2021). DLI programs have grown immensely and now there are over 2,600

programs in the United States (Cervantes-Soon, et al., 2021).

Tabatadze (2019) explained that the political problems in the state where this

project study was undertaken began with the lack of bilingual education being perceived

by 78 bilingual educational policy representatives as a violation of the educational rights

of ethnic minorities. The issue was the exclusive teaching of the state language rather

than improving minority schools. This discrepancy was a barrier to effectively

implementing bilingual educational programs as political policy. According to the state’s

budget and policy institute, this state’s emergent bilingual enrollment grew 3.5 times

faster than the national average (Wilson, 2021). Wilson (2021) also explained that

although this state educates many emergent bilingual students, it is still one of the few

states that evaluates students in only one language, English. This has caused a

disadvantage for many children. This discrepancy created a deficit in the graduation rates

for emergent bilinguals, with only a 56.5% graduation rate for emergent bilinguals as

opposed to an 80.2% graduation rate for non-emergent bilingual students (Wilson, 2021).

Since the 1980s, school districts in the Southeastern United States have struggled to

educate language-minoritized students, causing these states’ graduation rates to be

between 43.9% and 52% (Cervantes-Soon et al., 2021). These numbers were due to the

two-way immersion (TWI) programs in the Southeast, where English is integrated

(Cervantes-Soon et al., 2021). Cervantes-Soon et al. (2021) described the TWI as a

program model that puts together two different linguistic groups of students.

DLI Programs and English Language Learners

Lam and Richards (2020) described how DLI programs are beneficial not only for

English language users to obtain a new language, but also for English Language

Learners. Garrity et al. (2019) noted that some programs in the United States tend not to

frame bilingualism as a factor affording greater cognitive, creative, and affective

advantages for minority students. Researchers found benefits were enhanced for students

who they are educated in their native language as they start learning English (Cardoza &

Brown, 2019). Cardoza and Brown (2019) described how newcomers who continue to

have both languages in their DLI programs have significantly helped in their content

instructions.

Ball et al. (2022) discussed how early exposure to bilingualism in the home

benefits student’s language skills. Ball et al. (2022) also showed the importance of

acknowledging the value of a child’s cultural identity, and how this helps increase a

child’s confidence and self-worth (Ball et al., 2022). Another important piece of

information revealed by their research is how families are more involved when their

communities are better resourced with reading materials and engaging toys, because these

help families assist with educational tasks. Porto Currás et al. (2020) explained that

although teachers may complain about implementation and collaboration within the

bilingual programs, they are very pleased with the improvements students showed in their

language skills. When students showed progress, teachers felt motivated to continue to

learn and explore other pedagogical approaches and methodologies to improve their

work.

Bilingual education teachers have created a community to support and encourage

each other as they realized the importance of their work in these programs, and as these

teachers come to understand the greater demands upon them (Porto Currás et al., 2020).

According to Madorava and Laborda (2020), bilingual education brings unlimited

possibilities to students and offers evidence that governments should support bilingual

education. Muszyńska and Parra (2019) added that DLI programs help improve cognitive

abilities in all students, as well as success in academic achievements and sociocultural

integration.

Zamora et al. (2019) suggested that being exposed to more than one language not

only helps students master new languages but also increased students’ abilities to adapt to

unfamiliar lifestyles as they are exposed to different cultures, and ethnic or social groups.

Programs offered in DLI schools allow students to acquire different sociocultural

perspectives, and they support students’ development of their self-esteem as they create

group cohesion (Zamora et al., 2019). Zamora et al. (2019) also noted that being fluent in

different languages helps individuals move to another country and acquire a job.

Zheng et al. (2022) noticed that Latinx students in the DLI programs considered

bilingualism as normal and a tool for future options, while English-only students saw

bilingualism as exceptional but beneficial for future success. Bernstein et al. (2021)

pointed out that there has also been a change in how bilingual speakers are now viewed

as valuable for national interests such as security, diplomacy, and trade. This changed

view—looking at DLI from the motive of profit rather than pride—demonstrates how

language acquisition can be seen to add value to employment (Bernstein et al., 2021).

DLI education helps create equity as a neutral economic commodity, and this can make

language acquisition programs more desirable to everyone (Bernstein et al. 2021).

Higher Academic Performance

In a recent study, Park et al. (2022) found that children who participated in the

two-way DLI program showed higher performance in math on standardized test scores

and faster response times in both Simon task and bivalent shape task (BST) measures,

taking into account other confounding variables. Inhibitory control ability is measured by

the Simon task, which presents a stimulus-response conflict task for students to complete.

The BST is a nonverbal computerized test measuring the ability to discard irrelevant

information and suggests that bilingual children have faster reaction time and better task

performance. Esposito (2020) explained that students show an advantage in academic

performance in math across the third, fourth, and fifth grades, and in reading in the third

grade. Ball et al. (2022), however, reported that children who come from English-only

homes and participate in DLI programs do better on reading comprehension and irregular

word reading tasks. Esposito (2020) also agreed that children in bilingual education

models match or exceed their peers in academic outcomes in mainstream education

models. Chung (2020) concurred that DLI programs narrow the achievement gap for

all—minority, and majority students—in either reaching or exceeding grade level

expectations. Students who participated in DLI excelled in oral proficiency, reading, and

writing tests administered in both languages (Chung, 2020). According to Wong and Tian

(2022) developing meta—linguistic awareness is also another important practice in

bilingual classrooms, and having consistent exposure in a second language has led to

higher levels of biliteracy and metalinguistic development.

In further research, Bibler (2021) found there were benefits for students attending

DLI programs. Among these were performance improvement at the higher end of grade

exam scores of about 0.09 and 0.05 standard deviations per year in math and reading.

Correspondingly, Steele et al. (2017) shared their findings from a different state public

school, where DLI students outperformed their peers by 13% of a standard deviation in

Grade 5 on state reading tests, and by 22% of a standard deviation in Grade 8. Steele et

al. (2017) explained that students’ native languages made no significant difference in the

program outcomes.

Peer Relationships

Another benefit to students enrolled in a two—way immersion program may

accrue because teachers remain with the same group of students throughout their primary

grade levels (Ayscue & Uzzell, 2022; Esposito & Bauer, 2019). The relationship that are

built create a strong bond with the students, who generally are from different racial and

linguistic backgrounds (Ayscue & Uzzell, 2022). When students consider themselves

more bilingual, they are prouder and tend to have higher self-confidence in their abilities

to do well in school (He et al., 2022). Children in the DLI programs are encouraged to

work together to understand difficult math concepts, vocabulary, and reading in both

English and Spanish (Uzzell & Ayscue, 2021).

DLI programs also help to create a balance of learners from different linguistic

backgrounds (Ayscue & Uzzell, 2022). Non-structured time is also essential for language

development (Wallin & Cheevakumjorn, 2020). Providing a general atmosphere or a

period where students might freely converse and carry on nonsense conversations can

create a warm and trusting environment where they feel comfortable in speaking a new

language (Wallin & Cheevakumjorn, 2020). Uzzell and Ayscue (2021) explained that

DLI programs help students create longlisting relationships with other students from

different cultures. Also, students who participate in DLI programs benefit from different

aspects of the programs. Students whose first language is the target language may benefit

from having that connection with their cultural heritage, while English-dominant students

gain language skills and other practical knowledge (Zheng et al., 2022). DLI programs

also help build strong classroom communities as students forge special bonds with each

other. These bonds help them navigate through new content and language together as

they celebrate each other’s hard work and determination (Empower Language Academy,

2022).

Brain Plasticity

Our brain and its plasticity are developed based on what we have learned (Castey

Moreno et al., 2020). Bilingual toddlers demonstrate a lengthy period of flexibility when

it comes to interpreting potential words, so that quality positively correlates with the

quantity of the speech they hear in each language. Bilingualism at an early age is

biologically linked to brain development, when a second language is being learned, and

the environment in which students grow up (Zamora et al., 2019). Ball et al. (2022) also

explained how bilingual exposure at an earlier age gives students advantages over their

monolingual peers in language and reading skills. They agreed that the earlier the child is

exposed to a second language the better their language skills (phonological awareness,

vocabulary). Wallin and Cheevakumjorn (2020) found that, just as in learning a first

language, students need to be immersed in the sounds and daily experiences of the new

language. Acquiring linguistic competences in one or more language happens very early

in a child’s life due to how the brain develops (Wallin & Cheevakumjorn, 2020). The

younger the student, the better accent and better diversified vocabulary they will have, as

opposed to a student who began learning a new language at an older age (Wallin &

Cheevakumjorn, 2020).

Parent’s Reasons for Choosing DLI Programs

According to current research, parents choose DLI programs for different reasons,

such as developing bilingual abilities, improving academic success, and enhancing

integration capabilities (Ee, 2018). Ryan (2020) also noted that families sharing the same

language used that opportunity to pursue ties to their heritage. In contrast, families

speaking non-native languages see options for a future where their children would benefit

from proficiency in a language other than English. Ee (2018) concurred that a parent’s

foremost reason for choosing DLI programs is not only the development of bilingualism

and biliteracy but also because they foresee greater opportunities for their children’s

future career-related opportunities as they encounter a global society with increased

global connections. Ee (2018) explained that target language-speaking families choosing

DLI programs also foresee opportunities to preserve their own home language and

culture, as well as to increase their ability to communicate across intergenerational

differences.

Many bilingual parents want their children to trust and value the bilingual

experience that they have had and seek this same valuable experience for their children.

These parents may also feel that DLI programs help them reconcile with their own

language loss and give them a stronger connection to their ethnic identity. Beliefs and

attitudes connected to learning a new language affect both parents and children and have

an impact on how they perceive learning the language (Chung, 2020). How a child’s

parents regard learning a new language will influence how much or how little that child

gets out of the DLI program. Parents’ beliefs and attitudes also influence how children

use the language and can motivate their learning (Chung, 2020)

Bilingualism, Biliteracy, and Cultural Integration

As students are exposed to a new language in DLI programs, they benefit from

gaining in bilingualism, biliteracy, and linguistic/cultural integration (Balloffet & Téllez

(2021). Uzzell and Ayscue (2021) also found that throughout DLI programs, all students

benefit from bilingualism, biliteracy, and biculturalism. He et al. (2022) agreed that DLI

programs help students learn about cultures and understand different cultures and people

within different cultures express beliefs and values of that culture. When bilingualism,

biliteracy, and biculturalism are part of the curriculum, researchers found there is more

rigor in what and how students learn (Uzzell & Ayscue, 2021). Students in DLI programs

are more likely to persevere in their studies (Balloffet & Téllez, 2021; Garrity et al.,

2019; Uzzell & Ayscue, 2021). Garrity et al. (2019) observed that 70% of the students

who participate in DLI programs are habitually better problem solvers, more creative, and

more tolerant than their monolingual peers. Garrity et al. (2019) expounded on that

observation by noting although bilingual children maybe have different patterns of

acquiring certain aspects of language, these students develop the same level of

proficiency as their monolingual peers over time. Garrity et al. (2019) found that the

geographic location of each program being offered may influence beliefs and support for

bilingual programs. Another reason for students to participate in DLI programs is to

strengthen the building of positive traits by interrelating with different racial, ethnic, and

linguistic groups (Ee, 2018). He et al. (2022) described children in DLI programs as

having cross-cultural attitudes and being more positive and social than children in

English-only programs. Uzzell and Ayscue (2021) suggested that DLI programs help

students develop an ethnocentric view of the world, where they do not perceive non-U.S.

countries as inferior. Such students are able to embrace different cultures and languages

as they are exposed to them throughout the DLI programs (Uzzell & Ayscue, 2021).

Students who participate in the DLI programs find both the program and what they are

learning to be resourceful and authentic (Wong & Tian, 2022). DLI teachers help expand

the worldviews of their students (Uzzell & Ayscue, 2021). Wong and Tian (2022)

suggested that teachers help students develop a metalinguistic awareness is also an

important practice in bilingual classrooms, as well as consistent exposure in the language

led to higher levels of biliteracy and metalinguistic development.

Content and Language Integrated Learning

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) infers that a second language is

learned through a subject content (Oattes et al., 2022). Only the target language is used in

CLIL lessons. Students’ first language is discouraged during their CLIL time. To support

and reinforce learning, however, the English teacher will include a short session on the

students’ first language vocabulary (Oattes et al., 2022). Oattes et al. (2022) conducted

different studies to defend the view that the development of the subject content through a

second language models diversity, due to the variety and diversity of settings presented.

The CLIL method stimulates deeper learning, and its effectiveness is validated when

students in the DLI programs outperform their mainstream peers. This result

demonstrates how subject content is acquired through a second language. (Castey

Moreno & Paz-Albo, 2020).

Hussain (2022) clarified that CLIL is not a specific approach but a pedagogical

tool. Setyaningrum and Khoiriyah (2022) argues that for CLIL to succeed, teachers need

to understand how CLIL pedagogical knowledge applies to scaffold learners. Hussain

(2022) explained that language is used as a learning tool, which helps the learning of the

content, which, simultaneously, will help develop language acquisition. Effective

communication when using a new language implies intercultural communication

proficiency (Hussain, 2022). Hussain (2022) suggested implementing a CLIL program

that trains teachers on its proper function in language and content teaching. CLIL is being

taken into consideration more and more by ministries of education around the world.

Hussain (2022) described it as having a useful impact on the internationalization of

multilingualism. Setyaningrum and Khoiriyah (2022) stressed that it is also important for

teachers with different backgrounds to come together for the collaborative process of

planning, and recommended offering CLIL intensive workshops for teachers’

professional development.

Implications

Findings from this study will determine the direction of a proposed professional

development workshop (PDW) project. Such a project would be aimed at developing an

expansion to more DLI programs throughout the county. Another project that might be

created from this study would be to expose more children to DLI at their schools, either

integrated with a subject or as a special class. The study results might also be useful in

helping policymakers see the benefits of children being bilingual from an early age. The

problem investigated here placed emphasis on how to create positive social change that

will open the door for future students to become bilingual.

Muszyńska and Parra (2019) described successful DLI programs as efficient in

advancing language proficiency, academic achievement, and positive attitudes about

learning languages. Bilingual, biliterate, and multicultural competences are also great

advantages gained through the DLI programs (Muszyńska & Parra, 2019). Students who

participate in a DLI program benefit from an effective curriculum ensuring that all

content areas are covered; content, language, and culture are integrated; materials are

varied, high quality, interesting and provided in two languages; and assessments

encompass both content and language (Muszyńska & Parra, 2019).

Summary

The focus of this basic qualitative study is the limited knowledge of stakeholders,

including kindergarten through second grade (K–2) teachers and administrators in urban

districts in the southeastern United States, concerning the benefits of DLI programs for

K–2 students. In section 1, I introduced and discussed the local problem, rationale,

evidence of the problem from the professional literature, definition of terms, the

significance of the study, research questions, review of the literature, conceptual

framework, and implications. Section 2 will describe the study’s methodology, data

collection and analysis, and results.

Section 2: The Methodology

In this study, interviews were conducted to elicit and explore educators’

perceptions about the benefits of DLI programs for K–2 students. The goal of the study

was to help address the problem of too few DLI programs for K–2 DLI students in

primary schools located in a particular district in the southeastern region of the United

States. The study’s results may be generalized and used to advocate for additional DLI

programs. There remains a gap in the literature on why bilingual education programs are

so limited, and further studies are needed (Castey Moreno & Paz-Albo., 2020; del Mar

Sanchez-Perez & Manzano-Agugliaro, 2021, Henderson, 2022; Olivos & Lucero, 2020).

Research Design and Approach

In this basic qualitative research project, I used a self–designed interview protocol

to gather data from participants and explore perceptions about the benefits of DLI

programs for K–2 students. The conceptual framework for this study was based on the

ecological systems theory of Bronfenbrenner (1979) and language acquisition by Krashen

(1981). The research question that directed this study was:

RQ: What are educators’ perspectives on the benefits of primary grade DLI

programs?

This project study allowed me to work towards making a difference in the

community by exploring perceptions of a program I am passionate about and potentially

being able to offer information that might help other educators. I chose a qualitative

research method because this approach is effective in eliciting contextual and

idiosyncratic material crucial in uncovering real-world perceptions and attitudes (see

Truijens et al., 2022). I did not feel that a case study, focusing analysis on a single unit,

would accurately give me the specific information needed for this study. Taking an

ethnographic approach was also not appropriate, as this would require taking into account

not only interviews but observations and documentaries. A basic interview–based

qualitative study best supported my research goals and my sense of responsibility as a

researcher, and I chose to design an interview protocol to gather data from participants.

To explore the benefits of primary grade DLI programs, I interviewed 10 teachers

from eight schools and four administrators from four different schools. I conducted

interviews with voluntary participants I did not know personally. This group of

stakeholders comprised 10 teachers and four administrators, each with a minimum of 3

years working with DLI programs. These interviewees worked in several schools that

offer DLI programs in a district located in the southeastern United States. Interviews

were not conducted during school hours.

Participants

Population and Sampling

For this qualitative study, I explored the perspectives of a group of educators in

the southeastern United States on the benefits of primary grade DLI programs. The

educators in this study were K–2 teachers and administrators, and my aim was increasing

understanding of the benefits of providing primary-grade DLI programs. A total of 14

volunteers participated in this study, which included 10 teachers and four administrators

(two assistant principals and two principals) at various schools in a county with DLI

programs. Each volunteer had a minimum of 3 years working in the DLI program. I

initially pursued volunteers by sending invitations to all participants who qualified. This

method did not work, and I turned to snowball sampling and had participants reach out to

peers who qualified to help me be successful in my study. Due to this change of

recruitment, I was able to collect data, and the data analysis showed data saturation was

reached.

Procedures for Gaining Access

I used the Walden University Institutional Review Board (IRB) manual to prepare

materials and conduct this study ethically. I was also required to apply to the local IRB.

After I received approval from both the Walden IRB and the local school IRB, I emailed

invitation letters and consent forms to potential volunteers for the study. I sent a letter of

informed consent that included information describing my study, the purpose of my

research, potential risks of participating in the study, consent to the study or asking

questions, and my contact information. I took measures to protect participants’ rights,

including confidentiality, informed consent, and protection from harm. I stored all data

on a password-protected laptop and will dispose of it per Walden University

requirements.

After receiving local and Walden University IRB approval, I sent emails inviting

teachers who have been in the DLI programs for more than 3 years and were at local DLI

schools to participate in the interview process. Enough participants are crucial for data

collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The selection criteria, the study description, the

research purpose, and sample interview questions were shared with the prospective

participants. Walden University IRB provided the documents and process used for the

interview protocol. The documents to guide the interview process included the script, the

purpose of the research, the interview questions, the rights of the participants, and

information on how participants could exit the study if they desired to do so.

Establishing Researcher/Participant Relationships

To build rapport with study volunteers, I began by introducing myself in the

introductory email sent to each participant. In my introduction, I expressed gratitude to

each participant for choosing to be a part of the process. I also assured them that they

could withdraw from the study without any consequences and for any reason. Each

participant had the opportunity to ask questions or offer their thoughts or concerns, Once

the invitations were all emailed, I used the snowball effect to recruit more participants.

Snowball sampling is when participants refer other participants (Chambers, 2020).

I used the manual templates supplied by the IRB department at Walden University

to create and structure the protocol for the interviews, and I developed 10 questions

followed by prompts for teachers (see Appendix). The interview questions were based on

concepts from the conceptual framework, and one research question also helped me

collect data on educators’ perspectives on the benefits of bilingual education. I consulted

a panel of experts in DLI education to help ensure the questions were valid and on target

to gather the data needed to address the research question.

Data Collection

Data were collected from volunteer interviewees working in schools where

students in DLI programs are learning the target language through the content areas of

math, science, and the target language’s literature. Selecting suitable participants is

essential in collecting data exploring the same questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), and

my data collection approach highlighted the contextual and unique characteristics of a

group of people in a particular context (see Truijens et al., 2022). Each interview lasted

from 30–45 minutes. Basic qualitative research protocols were followed for each open-

ended question, including prompts to encourage each participant to elaborate on their

initial response. Rapport was established at the start of each interview, and this was

followed by the interview itself, which consisted of a series of open-ended questions

aligned with the study’s conceptual framework. These interview questions had been

shared beforehand in person with a DLI specialist, who confirmed the interview

questions were appropriately designed to elicit educators’ perspectives.

I followed two interview protocols because I interviewed two groups of

stakeholders: K–2 teachers and administrators. The RQ was the same and the conceptual

framework and related literature applied to both teachers and administrators. Both

teachers and administrators were familiar with and understood ecological systems theory

and language acquisition theory and their importance in supporting students, teachers,

and families who understood the benefits of DLI programs in the urban district located in

the southeastern United States. The interview questions helped the interview stay on topic

and maintain consistent timing and helped me exclude any possible biases of my own

(see Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

In qualitative research, saturation is the end goal when all data collection is

completed. To this end, my next step, after interviewing the 14 participants who

responded and volunteered, was to gather the data and begin to organize and analyze

them. After each interview, I listened to the digital audio record and transcribed the

recording. These transcriptions were kept on a password-protected laptop that only I had

the right to use, along with the notes I had taken during interviews that helped me reflect

on interpretations and biases. The interview data were compiled manually. A code book

was created and supported the data analysis process. The Microsoft Word document

became the codebook for the collection and analysis of data.

A system is necessary for managing data collection. Digital audio-recorded

interviews were transcribed for each participant, and all digital audio tapes were

maintained on a password-protected laptop that only I had access to. I also maintained a

reflective journal with notes that assisted me in checking my interpretations and/or biases

and those print copies are securely kept in a locked file cabinet and will remain in my

home office that only I have access to for a period of 5 years per Walden University

policy. After 5 years they will be destroyed.

Ethical Protection of Human Subjects

I completed Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) training in

February 2023 to understand and follow the ethical guidelines required in conducting my

research. The interview questions were designed to avoid bias. These interview questions

were used for all participants in the same order and the same language. The interview

protocol and script were used with all interviewees to ensure consistency. During each

interview, all questions from the interview protocol were asked, and enough time was

allotted for each participant to share anything that came to mind for each question. All

required steps were taken to guarantee this study was done ethically. Measures were

taken for the protection of participants’ rights, including confidentiality, informed

consent, and protection from harm.

Before scheduling interviews, I emailed consent documents to each participant to

ensure they understood the study. Each participant chose the time and date they were

available to be interviewed, although all interviews took place through Zoom or

Microsoft Teams. All data were stored on a password-protected laptop. The information

will be disposed of per Walden University’s requirements after 5 years by file deletion

and shredding. The information provided by each participant has been kept confidential.

Role of the Researcher

As a researcher, I was responsible for transparently presenting the information

gathered from interviews. As a graduate student working on a basic qualitative study, I

planned to interact with my professors, classmates, librarians, and learning resources

within the learning environment. During this study, I was the sole researcher. The

opportunities to conduct interviews, record, code data, analyze results, present findings,

and make recommendations for further studies were provided. I was able to reflect on the

process as I carried out different roles during my study (Corlett & Mavin, 2018). I was

able to interact in many different learning environments to learn about the research

process, consider ethical issues, and understand my responsibilities to follow Walden

University’s mission for good. The findings from this study were used to continue to

advocate for the benefits of DLI.

Data Analysis

In this section I discuss the data analysis processes followed in this basic

qualitative study with interviews. A researcher must follow a rigorous process when

analyzing qualitative data (DeSilva, 2019). First, I collected data from interviews with 10

teachers in DL education and four administrators of schools that offer DLI programs in

three schools in an urban district located in the southeastern United States where I was

not employed or known. I followed four steps for the data analysis process, as outlined by

Castleberry and Nolan (2018). The four steps for thematic analysis were as follows:

(a) transcribe the interview data, (b) conduct Level 1 coding, (c) conduct Level 2 coding,

and (d) identify themes. As per Castleberry and Nolan (2018), thematic analysis made it

possible for me, as the researcher, to identify patterns and categories. I also followed

Saldaña’s (2016) guide of analysis of codes, patterns, and categories to identify the

themes that emerged from the data collected during the interview process. I also kept a

reflexive journal during the interview process. As stated, Saldaña’s (2016) guide was

used to code and analyze the data.

During the first cycle of coding, the data were accurately transcribed. Each

recording was revisited to ensure each transcript was precise. I familiarized myself with

the data by listening to the transcripts multiple times. I recorded notes in my journal to

address bias. I performed post-coding transition. The information was coded into cycles:

single words and short phrases.

During the second cycle of coding, the information was color coded, which

helped in visualizing patterns and correctly categorizing the data. I also bolded quotations

that I found meaningful. After the Second Cycle of coding, I created visual

representations in the form of tables from the coded material to use as a part of the final

presentation of the data.

The study’s first cycle of coding was initial coding or open coding. Saldaña

(2016) described this part of the coding process as an opportunity for a researcher to

reflect deeply on the content of the data. The data collected revealed bilingual educators’

opinions on the benefits of DLI programs at different schools. For Step 2 of the analysis,

I revisited each recording to ensure each transcript was precise. In Step 3, I familiarized

myself with the data by listening to the recordings multiple times to allow me to further

explore the material and see which direction the data might take.

In Step 4, I reviewed my notes. I followed these steps with all 14 of my

interviews. I used Saldaña’s (2016) guide to code the data analysis. Saldaña’s (2016)

initial coding breaks down the information and thoroughly examines it, then compares its

similarities and differences. During the first cycle, I aligned the conceptual framework

with the codes I had created; there was no software application used during the coding

process.

As recommended, I went line-by-line during the initial coding to begin the data

analysis. Initially, I wrote open codes in a codes journal, and I also highlighted repeated

words. Then, these open codes were put in a table for better display. As part of the initial

coding, I developed an alphanumeric code for each participant. This helped ensure

confidentiality for each participant and helped keep their information separate and

organized.

Post-coding Transition

To begin to move to second-cycle coding after the first cycle of coding, I worked

on the post–coding transition, during which there was some preparatory work to be

completed. This work consisted of deciding how to move forward and determine the best

method for second–cycle coding. During this process I used code mapping to reorganize

the data into a list of categories to be further condensed into central themes. Throughout

the post-coding transition, meaning came into focus and brought structure to the data.

Following Step 5, I organized, reviewed, and analyzed the data to be coded. Categories

were created, taking the data a step further than merely comparing and sorting. This is

also where code charting started to become part of my data analysis. Tables were created

to condense the transcribed interviews in one column into major codes in another column.

Second Cycle of Coding

After completing the post–coding transition, I moved into the second–cycle

process. Saldaña (2016) explained that the second cycle of coding helps the analyst to

revisit the first cycle and use its coded information to move forward into supplementary

coding and further qualitative data methodology. After following Step 6, I looked for

themes, and as a way of turning first–cycle coding into more meaningful categories. I was

able to better understand the themes that were emerging from the data (Saldaña, 2016).

After Second Cycle Coding

Lastly, after first and second cycles of coding were complete, I created a table.

From this analysis, I was able to identify themes that emerged from the interview data.

These themes were also inserted to the table to create a better visual.

Evidence of Quality

Appropriate practices were taken to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the

findings. I worked to ensure that data were obtained during the interview process

ethically. I carefully followed the IRB manual and procedures and analyzed data by

listening repeatedly to the audio tapes that were transcribed by me.

Discrepant Cases

During analysis of the study data, I encountered no evidence that would contradict

the findings, and no further analysis was needed. I looked through each column of the

codebook to find any discrepancies. There were no discrepant cases in the study.

Limitations

This study was limited to 14 DLI programs educators: 10 teachers and four

administrators in primary schools located in an urban school district in the southeastern

United States. A major limitation of this study is the generalization of educators’

perspectives, as I was not able to represent the views of DLI teachers or administrators

beyond those of the study’s participants. By choosing just 14 educators, I could capture

the thoughts and experiences of only these participants, and I may have missed out on the

views of other DLI education experiences. Also, due to my specification that the

participant needed at least 3 years of experience, one school that would otherwise have

been included was eliminated, as this was their first year with the program. Another

limitation of the study was the different levels of teaching experiences and professional

development of each educator. Additionally, because I needed help recruiting teachers

and administrators willing to accept to do the interview, I had to get an extension to the

local IRB. When I was getting close to the last day of approval that the local IRB gave

me to complete my interviews, I had to request the approval of three more weeks to

continue the interview process.

Results

At one representative local urban Title I primary school, in a district in the

southeastern region of the United States, there has been an increased demand for DLI

programs coupled with a shortage of such programs to meet both student needs and the

interests of local parents who have monolingual or multilingual students and value

bilingualism. The participants were representatives of eight of the 10 schools in this

county that offer DLI programs. This district includes eight schools offering a Spanish

DL, one offering French, and one offering Korean. These schools teach math and science,

and second language literacy in the target language at each school. The French and

Korean programs are mostly one–way immersion programs, while the Spanish programs

are both one– and two–way immersion program. The programs vary due to the

population at each school. At all these schools, the students are learning the target

language through the content areas of math, science, and the target language’s literature.

The purpose of this study, therefore, was to explore the perspectives of a group of

educators in southeastern United States on the benefits of primary grade DLI programs,

and to increase understanding of the benefits of providing primary-grade DLI programs.

The research question guiding the study:

What are educators’ perspectives on the benefits of primary grade DLI programs?

The RQ was derived from the study’s problem and the purpose.

After the selection of participants was completed, interviews were scheduled at

times each participant selected. All interviews were hosted digitally. Each participant was

asked the same questions in the same order. The open–ended interview questions were

created to answer the research and guide the conceptual framework along with the help of

my chair and the DLI director. There were 10 questions in total. Questions were aligned

with relevant literature and the conceptual framework and were designed to help answer

the research question. Data was collected Zoom interviews with 10 K-2 teachers and four

administrators who met the criteria for the study. Each participant had an alpha–numeric

code assigned to protect their identities. The codes were used throughout the data

collection and data analysis processes, and for the final write up of the findings. After all

data was collected, I followed the four steps for data analysis described by Castleberry

and Nolan (2018). After I concluded each interview, I began manually transcribing voice

to text. I listened to the audio recordings many times and read over the data I transcribed

several times, as I revered to my reflective journal. I made notes as needed.

In order to find patterns, codes, categories, and themes I used an inductive method

of coding. After all the data were transcribed and in order to keep everyone’s data

separate and confidential, I labeled each teacher by grade level taught, the order I

interviewed them, and lastly, a letter to represent the school they represent. The

alphanumeric code helped me organize the demographic of the study. For example, the

first kindergarten teacher I interviewed was coded KT1A, meaning K for grade level

Kindergarten T1 because she was the first teacher and A because it was the first school

being represented (see sample table 1)

Table 1

Research Participants

Participants

Current role

for DLI

Gender

Program

language

Nationality

KT1A

English/Spanish

Argentina/U.S.

1T1H

English/Spanish

Cuban/U.S.

KT2F

English/Korean

Ireland/U.S.

2T1C

English/Spanish

Colombian/U.S.

KT3F

English/Korean

Korean/U.S.

KT4D

English/Spanish

Puerto Rican/U.S.

1T2C

English/Spanish

United States

2T2G

English/Spanish

Dominican Republic/U.S.

2T3B

English/French

United States

2T4D

English/Spanish

Dominican Republic/U.S.

A1B

Assistant

principal

English/French

United States

A2C

Assistant

principal

English/Spanish

United States

A3D

Principal

English/Spanish

United States

A4E

Principal

English/Spanish

United States

First Cycle Coding

After each interview, I listened to the recording multiple times to ensure I

captured all details accurately. Once I transcribed the information, I listened to the

recording again to ensure I did not miss anything. I did this process for all 14 of my

interviews. As recommended by Saldaña (2016), the first cycle of coding that was used

was initial coding or open coding. I began looking at meaningful words for open coding.

I kept a coding book, which allowed me to start seeing and creating patterns and

categories from the codes (Braun & Clark, 2006). I read each transcript multiple times

during this process of coding as I highlighted and wrote in my coding book key words

and phrases. During my first cycle of coding, I developed some of the following open

codes: diverse enrollment, parent involvement, culture, language in content (see table 2).

Table 2

Sample of Open Codes

Code

Participant

Excerpt

Diverse

enrollment

2T2C

“I mean it’s very diverse. some Hispanic students,

some from African Americans, Europe, South

America, different backgrounds.”

Parent

involvement

A1B

“And the parents were involved so they could sit there

and you know, be a part of that and hear their children

speak and talk.”

Culture

A1B

“Incorporate their cultures within you know, certain

activities or special holidays”

Language in

content

A4E

“We had a huge celebration because our third graders

in math, and I made sure I repeated this a ton with

parents outscored the rest of our third graders, who in

turn outscored the rest of the county”

Post Coding Transition

Post–coding transition helped me move from the first to the second cycle of

coding. During this process, I reorganized by code mapping a select list of categories.

The post coding transition, help me assign meaning and structure to the data. After

patterns in the information emerged, I began to create categories. I also began to use code

charting for my data analysis, making charts from both the tables I created and the coding

book, organizing information into different columns and findings.

Second Cycle of Coding

The second cycle process involved reading each transcript line by line and

looking at pieces of data to help establish each code’s significance. I then began to

identify categories. These categories were added as a separate column on the tables. A

few examples of these categories are such as: language in content, effective

communication, building relationships (Table 3).

Table 3

Samples of Codes

A priori

Open code

Participant

Excerpt

Language in

content

Math

Science

Literacy

English

KT4D

“they’re not just learning math in

Spanish, but they’re getting the

math in English is not like a whole

lesson, but they’re getting the most

important part which is the

vocabulary.”

KT3F

“I only teach in Korean math,

science and Korean literacy.”

Effective

communication

Communication

Individual

students

Parents

2T4D

“I think it’s great because it builds

their it communication skills.”

Building

relationships

Relationships

Family

Parent

2T3B

“The majority they have great

relationships with every person in

this school.”

This table shows a few samples of the a priori, open code, participant

alphanumeric identifier, and excerpts from the interview. After completing the first and

second cycle of coding I recognized the different categories. During the process of

reviewing the categories, I found further connecting words with the same characteristics

that were synthesized to generate themes. As I identified themes, I made sure to align

them with the study’s overall research question. After evaluating the coding process, four

themes emerged to address the research question: What are educators’ perspectives on the

benefits of primary grade DLI programs? Analysis of data collected during

semistructured interviews revealed four themes regarding educators’ perspectives of the

benefits of DLI programs: (a) learning language through language immersion in the

content areas facilitates student achievement; (b) content-integrated language teaching

increases student understanding and valuing of diverse cultures; (c) teacher-child-parent-

community relationships are strengthened by student bilingualism, and (d) PDW promote

advocacy for the DLI program. The themes that emerged were as follows:

Table 4

Sample of Categories and Themes

Categories

Themes

Content area immersion

Theme A: Learning language through language

immersion in the content areas facilitates student

achievement.

Understanding and valuing

diversity

Theme B: Content–integrated language teaching

increases student understanding and valuing of

diverse cultures.

Getting to know your students/

building parent relationships.

Theme C: Teacher–child–parent–community

relationships are strengthened by student

development of bilingual skills.

Parent workshops, professional

development for educators

Theme D: Professional development workshops

(PDW) promote advocacy for the DLI program.

Findings of the study revealed that teachers’ and administrators’ perspectives of

the benefits of DLI programs are:(a) learning language through language immersion in

the content areas facilitates student achievement; (b) content–integrated language

teaching increases student understanding and valuing of diverse cultures; (c) teacher–

child–parent–community relationships are strengthened by student development of

bilingualism.

Theme A: Learning Language Through Language Immersion in the Content Areas

Facilitates Student Achievement

When asked how learning language through content improves student’s

achievement, participants’ responses aligned. Participant 2T2C said:

Student’s brains seems to develop faster. It amazes me how we teach the students

in Spanish for example, and then they take a test in English, and they do very

well. My students normally have done very well in math and science tests for

several years in a row, so there is something about some kind of brain function

that the kids actually do well, academically well.

Participant KT3F added a similar thought by saying, “They’re using their brain more than

other general classrooms. So, I feel like that becomes an exercise of understanding a

language.” Teacher 2T3B added, “They’re learning how to read and write in English and

Spanish at the same time.” School administrator A4E said:

We had a huge celebration because our third graders in math, and I made sure I

repeated this a ton with parents outscored the rest of our third graders, who in turn

outscored the rest of the county. [These students have] taken milestones in

English. They’ve only ever learned Spanish in math or math in Spanish, and still,

they’re outperforming all the other kids.

KT2F added that another benefit to students could be from having to “…switch all the

time into a different language just makes you, like, become a more focused student

early.” A3D shared that many benefits occur, “…because again, not only are they

practicing the content, so the strategies that are being used that are taught to our teachers

in professional development really help our students to be successful in the program.”

Teachers shared that the DLI program has helped many newcomer students get

acclimated faster than other programs of bilingual education. Participant KT1A

explained, “If they are a lower ESOL student who just moved here and has hardly any

English, I think it really helps them academically understand what’s happening.”

As students take different exams, they have to use what they have learned in a

different language and translate in order to perform as the tests are in English. Participant

A3D explained:

So the test scores for those classes tend to be higher, which is always a shock for

parents because they feel like the students are learning in a different language that

that would not be the case but it is even with kindergarteners who take the second

semester assessments, they tend to do better than the students who are not in the

DLI program.

Participant A4E added, “I think it’s the best gifted education model that the county has as

far as rigor and cognitive load.” 2T4D added “All the connections that we have to make

in their brains I think it’s amazing.”

Later in the DLI experience, 4th grade, students take a test to see how much they

have learned in the second language and participant A1B said, “They scored equal to or

better than the high school students who took that same test and the high school students

were not part of the DLI.” Participant A4E added,

I should also say that the number of students who test into gifted from DLI is a

higher percentage, excuse me, the number of DLI students who test into gifted is a

higher percentage than your average kiddo at the school.

Having all these benefits participant 1T2C added, “I do think if they offered more

specials or something for other students who are non DLI, I think that could get them

better opportunities in the future.”

All the participants, both teachers and administrators, mentioned during the

interviews that learning language through content improves student achievement. The last

participant, an administrator, brought it all together by explaining that some of the

strategies teachers use in their classrooms come from professional development.

Theme B: Content–Integrated Language Teaching Increases Student

Understanding and Valuing of Diverse Cultures

Teachers and administrators agreed that their schools are very diverse, and that

the diversity in schools and the curriculum followed helps students to understand and

value diversity as they interact with their peers. Teacher KT1A said, “I think we have

over 30 languages spoken at school.” Another teacher KT2F said, “All of the kids,

regardless of whether or not they’re in DLI, have Korean specials to learn about the

Korean culture.” Learning content through a second language or content-integrated

language teaching increases students’ understanding and valuing of diversity. An

administrator said. “We understand how learning content through a second language

supports diversity.” Most educators can see how diverse students in DLI programs help

one another. KT1A described the diversity of the school as, “I think we have over 30

languages spoken at our school.” 1T2C shared, “Trying to incorporate their cultures

within certain activities or special holidays. The students are getting exposure to a wide

range of cultural backgrounds.” Showing students, they belong is important because it

helps their learning. It also teaches other students to understand and have empathy for

one another. Participant A1B added that “At our school we did French, and all of our kids

came into French not knowing the language.” They continued to explain, “But once they

caught on, they were pretty quick to move forward.” A1B said, “I think it helped expose

them to different cultures, different practices.”

The DLI program also helps students become bilingual in the content areas.

Participant 2T3B said, “They’re learning how to read and write and the English and

Spanish at the same time… our students perform as well as and most of the time better

than their peers.” Another great benefit according to participant 2T3B is “They are

exiting from the ESOL program faster than students that are just in a regular English

classroom.”

Participant 1T1H expounded on a bigger and more futuristic view she sees in the

program.

It is wonderful because the future is all about knowing as many languages as you

can, socially, they will be able to interact more with different students, different

people, different cultures. And then emotionally, the same, they would be able to

the word is communicate with other students of their same age, but with different

backgrounds and in building the community.

Participant KT3F added, “There’s a lot of students who have learned a different language

and they are more competitive in their careers eventually… And even knowing that all

kids learn languages the best when they’re younger.” This same participant goes on

“They’re using their brain more than other general classrooms. So, I feel like that

becomes an exercise of understanding a language, understand our cultural understanding

a different perspective.” Participant 2T3B added that it also “helps them be more

empathetic and understand what it feels like when you don’t speak the language.”

Participant KT3F supported this statement by saying, “When I say DLI, it’s not just about

the language. Again, it’s about the culture, the perspective, and other opening doors for

other languages.”

Theme C. Teacher–Child–Parent–Community Relationships Are Strengthened by

Student Development of Bilingualism

Learning language through content has benefits in the home. Some families have

expressed they want their children to continue to learn their own primary language.

Participant 2T3B said, “Their parents speak Spanish, but a lot of the students understand

but they don’t really speak it. So, it’s important for the parents that they learn the

language.”2T4D said, “I feel like they feel represented, they feel welcomed. And there’s

support for parents as well.” Because parents feel welcome with DLI programs, another

way to make the connection between home and school is through homework. Participant

2T4D said, “They will have homework in Spanish, they will continue to learn even

though they don’t know that the language, their parents can help them at home.” KT3F

continued,

The parents are actually learning how to read and speak Korean while they try

that and at home…So where the homework I feel like it’s a foundation of building

the partnership between the school and the parents, the parents to see where their

child is at, they can ask questions when the teacher can provide feedback about

their child and also guide them to a different way.

Participant KT4D added “I feel that not only our students are learning the target

language, but the parents as well.” Participant 1T2C added, “More practice at home with

their parents that can connect with their academic growth in the classroom. It also gives

the opportunity for students to practice the language at home.” Participant 13D said, “So

we try to offer resources at home for students to practice the language along with the

content.” Regarding this topic, according to A4E, homework builds the opportunity “used

for parents to see and hear and be able to interact a little bit in a language with which the

vast majority are not familiar… nice connection just so parents can see what kids are

doing.” Lastly, participant 2T3B said, “DLI parents are more involved in the school than

the regular student parents.”

KT4D described benefits for the community and how the DLI program will help.

“This program will help in the future, to have bilingual kids and bilingual communities

and will be more connected to each other.” 1T1H agreed and added that “students will be

able to interact more with different students, different people, different cultures.”

Participant KT2F also expressed that DLI programs help students “live, listening,

speaking, reading, writing everything, whereas they wouldn’t if they were not enrolled

in” the program. KT4D continued, “So I feel like this program will help in the future, to

have bilingual kids, bilingual community and will be more connected to each other.”

Participant 2T2C revealed that students are transferring their learning to outside of the

classroom as “A lot of the parents say, ‘Well, we went to this Spanish restaurant and my

kid basically took over.’ Some kids actually go on vacations, and they said, ‘Oh, my

daughter, or my son, basically was our translator because nobody spoke English.”

Participant 2T4D added, “I think it’s very culturally responsive to our community.” As

students are learning together, they go from grade level to grade level participant. A4E

explained, “They have a little community within a much larger community of about 1100

kids.” Many parents in the DLI community are “a community that’s used to getting what

it wants. And part of what it wants is academic success” explains participant A4E. A

great opportunity for the community to be involved would be as participant 2T3B said, a

“great idea if we did have an after school program that was around DLI just for them to

keep practicing the language that are learning Spanish.” If different community members

could partner up with the schools to create more opportunity for students. As participant

A1B says their schools have “a connection with our library, the local library by our

school and they love to get together and being able to have conversations that were

academic focused.”

Theme D: Professional Development Workshops Share DLI Benefits and Promote

Advocacy for the Program

An administrator shared the following comments in speaking about the DLI

program:

In that case, we can also create professional development to help stakeholders in

the DLI programs understand the importance of this benefit. Professional

development on content-integrated language teaching would be beneficial for

teachers and administrators to be on the same page when helping DLI students. It

will also help all stakeholders (parents, community volunteers, etc..) work

alongside DLI students and teachers in the various programs.

Participant A2C said,

We have worked with our parent liaison to try to come up with some parent

workshops… explain the various roles that they can have in a school and to get

familiar with the school and then kind of explain some of the ways that they can

help support their kids at home.

Participant 2T3B suggested professional development is needed in content-integrated

language teaching to “know the instructional strategies in an elementary program.”

Participant 2T3B added, “Training and professional development of teachers is probably

the most important… having them understand really what it is before they step in and

actually do it.”

Several administrators discussed how beneficial creating different resources

during a PDW will assist stakeholders. A3D said,

Because again, not only are they practicing the content, but they’re also practicing

the language and our teachers do a great job of using sentence stems to get the students to

practice speaking in the Spanish language, so the strategies that are being used that are

taught to our teachers to professional development really help our students to be

successful in the program.”

These are a few excerpts to show that diversity is also a very important part of

DLI programs. Recognizing the importance of diversity and using it to get the most out of

DLI programs will help both our students and our stakeholders. An administrator said,

Professional development focused on diversity will help us learn to connect with

others, and benefit everyone. Increasing student engagement increases reading

engagement. It is important to understand how to get your students engaged. As we have

seen, being engaged in the classroom increases reading engagement.

A1B agreed with this statement, noting, “It gets them more engaged in the lessons

if they’re really paying attention to the teacher.” A1B continued,

As they grow into adults, that ability to be bilingual, and not just in speaking the

language but in writing the language and reading it. A lot of the teachers were

great teachers, but they couldn’t write the language as well as they could read it.”

Giving teachers the right strategies to help students become more confident will

help their teaching as they start seeing the resulting increase in students’ reading. Having

professional development designed to help discover different reading strategies will

enable teachers and administrators to challenge students more each day. Commenting on

administrators seeking to fill positions in DLI programs, KT1A added,

If your strength is math, then teach math if it’s your strength; if your strength is

reading and writing then teach language arts… I’ll record myself reading

something, or I’ll make like a Google slide activity, or I’ll have them practice.”

Understanding their strengths as teachers and administrators and being able to

recognize these strengths will help educators to ensure that they are meeting their

students in the right place. Assisting stakeholders see many different techniques and

strategies will also give them the tools to help students become more confident.

Developing PDWs improves DLI programs’ instruction and support. Teachers who

understand that professional development has helped them become better teachers may

also feel that other stakeholders will benefit and improve DLI programs and provide

instruction and support for students. A2C stated,

We have worked with our parent liaison to try to come up with some parent

workshops to kind of get our multilingual kids, their families and explain the

various roles that they can have in a school and to get familiar with the school and

then explain some of the ways that they can help support their kids at home.

This was an important comment. A number of teachers agreed that parents

sometimes believe they don’t understand and can’t help their students. If are provided to

address the concerns of parents and families, both teachers and parents will feel more

confident in helping at home and at school. 2T3B explained: “I think the biggest barrier

would be finding qualified teachers. I think that there are a lot of people that speak

languages, but you have to have people that understand the instructional strategies… I

think that teacher training and professional development of teachers is probably the most

important… I think getting into classrooms and seeing it will help because DLI is not

foreign language instruction, like what people are familiar with. It’s so different. So, I

think getting people involved and having them understand really what it is before they

step in and actually do it because they probably need to spend quite a bit, about three

weeks, in the classroom before they really have a good idea of what they’re going to get

into.

Another reason why professional development will help stakeholders understand

what DLI is and why it’s the best way to support language learning is that different

strategies to apply in the classroom and ways to promote reading aloud are offered or

could be offered. These strategies help not only teachers but also other stakeholders. The

more strategies we know the more we can implement with the students, whether is at

home, school, or community.

Summary

In section 2, I discuss the methodology for this basic qualitative project study with

interviews. I provide a comprehensive review of the research design and approach. The

process of how the data collection and data analysis is explicitly explained during this

section. In section 3, I will discuss the project that was created through this study.

Section 3: The Project

Introduction

In this section, I present the PDW that I created based on the findings from the

study. The purpose of the basic qualitative study was to explore the perspectives of

educators on the benefits of primary grade DLI programs. Participants were 10 K–2

teachers who taught in DLI programs in Title I schools located in the southeastern region

of the United States and administrators from the different primary grade schools. All

educators volunteered to participate in open–ended interviews based on the conceptual

framework and current research in the field. Analysis of data collected during

semistructured interviews revealed four themes regarding educators’ perspectives of the

benefits of DLI programs: (a) learning language through language immersion in the

content areas facilitates student achievement; (b) content–integrated language teaching

increases student understanding and valuing of diverse cultures; (c) teacher–child–

parent–community relationships are strengthened by student bilingualism, and (d) PDW

promote advocacy for the DLI program. Data were used to develop a project that

included PDWs to promote stakeholders’ knowledge and greater understanding of the

DLI program. An aim of the PDW was to develop their advocacy skills to promote

awareness of the benefits of the DLI program.

Rationale

The problem I sought to address by conducting this basic qualitative study is the

limited knowledge of stakeholders, including K–2 teachers and administrators in urban

school districts in the southeastern United States, concerning the benefits of DLI

programs for K–2 students. This problem has contributed to local districts limiting the

number of DLI primary school programs, which does not meet local needs. DLI

programs are in high demand throughout the southeastern United States for students from

monolingual and multilingual families who desire their children to become bilingual due

to the rapid increase in multilingual families moving into urban school districts.

Data collected through this interview–based study represent how teachers and

administrators perceive the benefits of preparing PDW to support DLI programs. The

study was conducted to address the question of how limited knowledge and

understanding of the benefits of DLI programs contributes to limited availability of DLI

programs for K–2 students in the United States. The study findings revealed that teachers

generally believe DLI programs are beneficial for all children academically and socially.

All interviewees agreed that, although such programs involve a lot of work, they are

willing to participate in them because they can see how DLI programs help students.

The purpose of the project was to use the information gained from the study to

create a PDW for all stakeholders (parents, teachers, administrators, and the community)

involved with assisting, teaching, and supporting students in DLI programs. The goal was

to help these stakeholders identify helpful research–based strategies that enhance the

benefits of primary DL programs. Analysis of data collected during semistructured

interviews revealed four themes regarding educators’ perspectives of the benefits of DLI

programs: (a) learning language through language immersion in the content areas

facilitates student achievement, (b) content–integrated language teaching increases

student understanding and valuing of diverse cultures, (c) teacher–child–parent–

community relationships are strengthened by student bilingualism, and (d) PDWs

promote advocacy for the DLI program.

The study’s data analysis resulted in information suggesting that more

stakeholders need to be better informed. Based on this finding, I created a PDW to inform

stakeholders about DLI programs’ benefits for primary-grade students. The workshop

was designed as a 3-day PDW, but each session was a come-as-you-want session. The

workshop’s title was “Benefits of Primary Grade Dual Language Immersion Programs.”

The learning goal of this workshop was to inform stakeholders of the findings from the

project study and from current literature on the subject.

Review of the Literature on PDW

To inform my work and learn more about PDWs, I used the Walden University

library database, Google Scholar, and ERIC to gather literature to perform a literature

review. Some examples of keywords used to search peer–reviewed articles included what

is professional development, professional development, benefits of professional

development, professional development for early childhood teachers, professional

development and parents, content language integrated learning, and sharing of

information between parents and teachers. I reviewed the PDW literature not only to

validate the use of PDW, but to supplement information from the project study, such as

themes found through the data analysis process, which were also supported by the review

of literature. For example, Kaye et al. (2022) found that participants who attended PDWs

were better prepared with strategies they learned to support their students.

Professional Development Workshop

PDWs for stakeholders can lead to changes in practice, impact children’s learning

outcomes, and improve schools. Teachers in DLI programs have asked for PDW to

support teachers’ effectiveness and intentionally engage target language in dialogues and

reflective on their professional experiences (He et al., 2022). Germuth (2018) stated that

to have participants change anything in their practice, professional development must be

structured. Vance (2021) added that social connection is essential for professional

development. Pham (2022) further explained that participants of a PDW develop more

pedagogical skills through workshops when they are allowed to use what they have

learned to develop their practices from. Also, these trainings help participants become

empathetic and understand how to communicate better or find ideas to assist students

(Pham, 2022). During these workshops, there are many simulations, which allow

participants to self–reflect. Levin and Muchnc–Rozanov (2023) found that workshop

learning increases participant self-awareness and confidence, helps them to be open

toward others, and instills in them an emotional involvement in accepting others.

Content Language Integrated Learning

There are many different ways to learn a second language. Hussain (2022)

described CLIL as studying a core subject while at the same time studying a language.

Studies have shown that students are more likely to improve their learning if teachers

acquire more math and science content knowledge (Germuth, 2018). Memon et al. (2023)

found that learners who are taught through CLIL acquire a fuller vocabulary than

students not taught through CLIL. Hussain (2022) explained that CLIL, which involves

curricular integration, positively influences language learning. According to Hu (2022),

CLIL is considered one of the most beneficial ways to prepare students to communicate

professionally and efficiently in a second language. CLIL has been transformed

throughout the years and now has more potential to promote linguistic proficiency and

subject discipline in knowledge, skills, and understanding (Coyle & Meyer, 2021). Coyle

and Meyer (2021) also found that CLIL helps create a multilingual and multicultural

environment that raises the national linguistic capital.

Enhanced Language Awareness

Understanding how learning a new language impacts an individual in many

aspects is important. Language awareness is a person’s unambiguous understanding of

language and how it relates to executive functioning, such as its role in thinking, learning,

and social life (Irani & Purmohammad, 2023). Marsh et al. (2019) described language

awareness as how language achieves a primary goal in communication, while

metalinguistic awareness is how language reflects on the first language. Language

learners are believed to develop more metalinguistic awareness (D’Angelo & Sorace,

2022). D’Angelo and Sorace (2022) acknowledged that metalinguistic awareness strongly

affects literacy and grammar-related activities. Although bilingual and monolingual

students’ understanding of proverbs may not differ, some studies say bilingual students

outperform their monolingual peers on executive functions (Irani & Purmohammad,

2023). Language awareness also creates a bridge between the content area at school and

students’ backgrounds and languages (Makarova et al., 2023).

Translanguaging

Part of learning a new language also includes being able to differentiate between

resources. Translanguaging is described as the flexibility to call upon different linguistic

resources and contexts (Krause et al., 2022). Bilinguals engage in translanguaging and do

not alternate between two languages but, instead, use different features in their linguistic

system (Krause et al., 2022). Translanguaging is a component of a pedagogical practice

that permits code switching when concepts are being learned (Krause et al., 2022).

Makarova et al. (2023) expounded on translanguaging by describing it as a pedagogical

approach and a way to be flexible in bilingual performance, as learners are stimulated to

practice linguistic repertoire and knowledge.

Professional Learning Communities

A group of individuals must feel supported when they are working. To meet the

professional development of DLI target teachers, professional learning communities

(PLCs) were created (He et al., 2022). PLCs are popular in the United States and were

created for teachers to share leadership and collaborative inquiries to support student

learning and school improvement (He et al., 2022). Hernández (2022) explained that

PLCs allow teacher knowledge and character to cooperatively improve the language

competence and academic achievement of DLI students. Luyten and Bazo (2019)

described how having PLCs has a strong impact on teaching practices. Due to the

nuanced ways educators do things and how every classroom, school, and district asks for

different things, it is important to come together and collaborate (Berg, 2018).

Collaboration among teachers also brings together practices from various levels and

settings and gives everyone space to express themselves and take action for their students

(McPartland, 2018). He et al. (2022) confirmed that PLCs are known to have a positive

impact in teacher professional growth and student learning. During PLCs, administrators

focus on guaranteeing equitable pedagogy and critical examination of instruction for

continuous improvement and acceleration of student achievement (Hernández, 2022).

Becoming and Advocate for DLI

Students depend on their parents. According to Xiaoliang (2020) there are three

types of parent involvement: guiding, lenient, and advocate. Guiding parental

involvement includes those parents who have strong interactions and rules at home but

have low interactions at school. Lenient parental involvement are parents who have low

participation at home and at school. Lastly, advocate parental involvement are those

parents who have strong school and home interactions (Xiaoliang, 2020). Griffin et al.

(2021) added family engagement and participation envisages positive outcomes in

children’s social, emotional and behavioral, as well as literacy and mathematical skills.

Xiaoliang (2020) explained parent involvement could be things such as

communication, homework, parental expectations, reading, attendance and participation,

and parental styles. In this same research, Xiaoliang found that parent involvement is

significantly related to academic achievement. Griffin et al. (2021) also agreed that

family involvement and participation has a positive outcome across culturally and

linguistic backgrounds. Xiaoliang (2020) also highlighted the importance of collaborating

with teachers to create school– and home–based components for parents. Maddamsetti

(2023) also expressed the important actions teachers are taking to advocate for emerging

bilingual students and their families. Many teachers may change their practice but not be

aware of emerging bilingual students’ linguistic and cultural needs (Maddamsetti, 2023).

Teachers must understand these needs to challenge every student. Maddamsetti

(2023) described the difference between advocacy within the classroom and advocacy

action beyond the classroom. Intentional curricular and pedagogical decision making to

enable students’ native language and advocacy beyond the classroom help look at

educational resources and serve as a liaison for stakeholders and schools (Maddamsetti,

2023). Long (2023) explained that parents and the communities should be allies for the

students no matter the situation. Long (2023) acknowledged the importance of

reimagining how to prepare educators to engage successfully with families—to build

trusting, reciprocal relationships with families and community partnerships, co-create

learning pathways with families. To create a family centered and culturally responsive

community, teachers, families, and administrators must work to build trust and respect to

be culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse (Griffin et al., 2021). Lund et

al (2022) addressed community-based participation research that includes academic

research and community members as equal partners. This framework helps community

members advocate for the needs of their communities. Griffin et al. (2021) also

emphasized the resources needed to build trust and support by providing free learning

materials to support families at home.

Project Description

A 3–day PDW was created for parents, teachers, administrators, and the

community. This workshop was planned to be offered in a local community recreation

center conference room. The main objective of the PDW stipulates how they might learn

about the different findings of bilingual education and how CLIL helps students learn

academic content in a second language. There will be a brief overview to exhibit the

study findings to stakeholders. I have received a grant to help buy resources to increase

learning in the PDW. To maximize learning in the PDW, different adult learning

strategies would be used to engage participants and help them to understand the content

presented in the workshop. Many (2023) emphasizes the adult learning needs–based

professional development, safe spaces for conversations and opportunities for

collaboration. During these opportunities it would also be beneficial for exchanging

ideas, sharing resources and developing a professional learning community (Many,

2023). According to Qureshi et al. (2020), social factors, collaborative learning, and

engagement stimulate participant learning. During collaborative activities with others in

the PDW, participants can contribute and will have time to reflect on their learning. Many

different resources, such as computers, multi-media projectors, the internet, books, chart

paper, handouts, sign-in sheets, evaluation forms, snacks, and stipend for last day culture

celebration would be used during this PDW.

Potential Barriers

A potential barrier to this PDW could be the malfunction of technology. To avoid

this, all the technology would be checked prior to the start of the presentation, and all

information printed for participants. Another potential barrier could be a lack of interest

in participation. To help with this, the workshop’s activities would involve active

learning and collaboration, and snacks would be provided for all participants. Networking

among parents and participants would also be encouraged. The use of different resources

should be a big draw to attract more attendees.

Proposal for Implementation and Timetable

In order to ensure that the presentation has the most up–to–date and helpful

information, the study’s findings would be shared with the county program directors, and

they will be asked for their input and recommendations. Based on the information shared,

recommended changes will be made. The program directors will also be asked to share

the invitation to the workshop with any DLI teachers, families, or community members

interested in learning more about how CLIL benefits students in the DLI programs. Due

to the limited space in the local community recreation center’s conference room, all

sessions will be recorded, to share with other participants unable to attend.

The PDW will be hosted during summer vacation when students are not in school.

The training will consist of 3 days of participants engaging in different activities. The

focus for each day will be as follows: (a) Day 1, understanding findings and CLIL;

(b) Day 2, CLIL in depth, creating read aloud with CLIL; and (c) Day 3, scenarios and

how to make better decisions to help DLI students. Each session will allow participants to

reflect and give feedback on their learning.

Roles and Responsibilities of Researcher and Others

I will host this PDW and be responsible for organizing and facilitating all the

sessions. I am responsible for meeting with the program directors to organize the best

PDW for all stakeholders. It is also my responsibility to invite participants, prepare all

presentations to learn resources, and facilitate each session of the PDW. I am also in

charge of ensuring that the environment is a fun and engaging one for all participants. I

have received a grant to help provide this PDW. The funds will be used to buy different

resources and materials to help facilitate the PDW and maximize the learning. During the

PDW I plan to budge a stipend for each participant to bring a dish to represent their

culture. This will help end in a positive note and will help start building a bridge in the

adults in charge of helping the DLI be culturally rooted.

Project Evaluation Plan

Formative Assessment

In order to get the most out of all participants, there will be formative assessments

throughout the PDW. King (2023) described one of the main benefits of formative

assessments as collecting data from student learning, which could be used to guide

students, and also noted that formative assessments are a treasured part of teaching, as

they tell us what the learners have gained from what they’ve previously been taught. This

is the main reason to continue to use formative assessments for the PDW.

These assessments will help to evaluate the participants’ overall understanding of

their learning. I will be able to receive feedback on the PDW and adjust as needed. To

ensure that I receive adequate feedback, each assessment will be confidential. This will

allow participants to feel more comfortable about their answers. Toward the end of the

day, participants will have the opportunity to give feedback on the PDW, express their

satisfaction, offer any suggestions, or ask any lingering questions they may have.

Menagarishvili et al. (2022) refer to feedback as a tool to help you identify what you are

doing right or wrong, and help you improve or clear any misconceptions.

Overall Evaluation Goals

This PDW plan aims to give stakeholders the opportunity to gain knowledge,

skills, tools, and strategies to address the influences of CLIL in the development of

students in DLI classrooms. This PDW was designed to expose stakeholders to different

tools, strategies, and resources that can influence the experiences that students, teachers,

and families have with DLI classrooms. By the end of the PDW, each stakeholder will

have gained the knowledge, dispositions, and skills to better understand the different

benefits of DLI programs.

Key Stakeholders

This program was intentionally designed for specific stakeholders. The key

stakeholders of this PDW are parents, teachers, administrators, and members of the

community who are interested in DLI programs. These key stakeholders would most

likely be interested in DLI primary grades.

Parents will be invited to attend the PDW in order to learn about the study and

find ways to integrate CLIL at home. Based on the information gathered from interviews,

some parents need clarification regarding DLI programs. This PDW will benefit parents

of current and future students by helping them better understand the study findings.

Parents will also have the opportunity to collaborate with teachers and get a better

understanding of the planning that goes behind the scenes of the classroom. Parents will

have the opportunity to create a better community between home (parents) and school

(teachers) to better support their students.

Teachers will be invited to attend the PDW because they are the most actively

involved in the DLI programs. The PDW will help them to understand the different

perspectives revealed by the study, and because this PDW will also be open to

stakeholders other than DLI teachers, those participants may gain new perspectives on

what their DLI colleagues do on a day-to-day basis. During the PDW teachers will have

the opportunity to create different resources that they could use in their classroom.

Teachers will be able to work with others to receive feedback on their work and help

them get more ideas for future lessons.

Administrators are a group of stakeholders who should attend the PDW because

they work alongside teachers and parents. Administrators also get many questions about

DLI programs at their schools. By attending the PDW, administrators may be better able

to answer these questions from having gained a clearer understanding of what teachers

are doing with students and why they are doing it. Administrators will also have the

opportunity to work alongside teachers to provide feedback in the work that will be

created during the PDW.

Any member of the community who has yet to be invited will be able to attend, as

this is program will be offered at a school near them. Attending the PDW is also an

excellent way for community members to collaborate with the schools and form

partnerships to support students’ learning. Having the community attend will also expand

the opportunity students will have with after school activities as new partnerships could

be created to help parents and teachers to support students.

Project Implications

Social Change Implications

This project study was designed with the potential of impacting positive social

change that will benefit all stakeholders who are curious about enrolling themselves or

their students in a DLI program. Stakeholders include, but are not limited to, parents,

teachers, administrators, and the community. This project can promote positive social

change by delivering stakeholders opportunities to increase their knowledge and practices

related to the benefits of primary grade DLI programs. The findings from the project

study have shown the many ways that DLI programs can benefit students. The PDW was

designed to help stakeholders understand and learn practices to assist students in DLI

programs. The PDW will help stakeholders understand the connection between home,

school, and community to maximize the future of our students.

Importance of the Project to Local Stakeholders

The findings from the project study guided the development of the PDW plan for

stakeholders in local DLI programs. The PDW project has the potential to promote

positive social change to benefit parents, teachers, administrators, and the community.

Parents of students who speak a second language at home sometimes feel that DLI

programs do not help their students and may only hinder them. This PDW can be of

benefit to DLI students if those around them learn how to best assist them in learning a

second language.

Importance of the Project to the Larger Context

The county where this study took place would gain from it if the knowledge

presented through the PDW helps increase parents’ and teachers’ desire to have more

DLI programs offered in the county schools. This study could also inform other counties

or states interested in adding more DLI programs in their areas. Communities could, as

well, use the PDW as a foundation for future planning and support when introducing or

talking about DLI programs. The PDW will also help us understand different culture and

how to be empathetic to all those around us as we learn a little bit more about each other.

Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions

Because bilingualism is quickly growing in the United States, schools are

challenged with needing more DLI programs to support the demand (Castey Moreno &

Paz-Albo, 2020). In this study, I explored the benefits of primary grade DLI programs. I

designed the PDW, which may benefit any stakeholder interested in DLI programs, based

on the responses provided by teachers and administrators.

In this section, I identify the project’s strengths and limitations and recommend

alternative approaches, developments, and changes. I reflect on the importance of this

project study, its implications and applications, and recommendations for future research.

Then, I present the conclusion of the study.

Project Strengths and Limitations

This project has various strengths. The first strength is the use of an interview

protocol to collect quality data through semistructured interviews. This allowed me to

develop a more in-depth PDW for stakeholders and establish an environment where

participants were comfortable sharing their perspectives on DLI programs and in their

classrooms and schools. The findings from the project study made possible a better

understanding of the benefits of DLI programs and helped facilitate an effective PDW for

all stakeholders.

Another strength of this project is the marginal cost for implementing it. I

received a grant to help prepare for the PDW. A conference room at a local community

recreation center was donated by the local manager, and the equipment needed to

facilitate the training—multimedia projectors, chart paper, and other such items—is

inexpensive and easily available. I budgeted to buy books to help participants create

different resources to bring back for their use. I also budgeted for food and a final culture

celebration to help stakeholders experience different cultures in the community. Finally,

another strength of this qualitative project study is that it may help researchers reevaluate

the benefits of bilingual education and its many purposes for students (see Tabatadze,

2019).

A limitation of this study could be the potential of more participants showing up

for the PDW than anticipated. Although there will be registration for this event, people

may still attend without registering. To plan for this, I will create additional resource

materials and be prepared to arrange additional seating if needed.

Recommendations for Alternative Approaches

A major recommendation in considering alternative approaches involves the

preparation of instructional leaders to staff bilingual educational programs (Tabatadze,

2019). Tabatadze (2019) pointed out the necessity of providing adequate resources for

pre-service and in-service professionals handling bilingual education and explained how

crucial it is to have parent and community involvement in the life of the school.

Professional development should be implemented for educators, parents, and community

members to inform them of the benefits and importance of these programs to the

community.

Alternative Definitions of the Problem

The problem that inspired this study was the limited knowledge of stakeholders

about the benefits of DLI programs for K–2 students, which has led to limited DLI

primary school programs in the southeastern United States. An alternative approach to

the problem could be for monolingual and bilingual educators to support the language,

academic, and social development of all students by integrating some second language in

their classrooms (Ruiz, 2020). Parents and teachers might also come together to share

views on providing suitable instructions or resources to support their students in DLI

programs.

Alternative Solutions to the Local Problem

An alternative approach to the PDW could have been to assign mentors as

participants to arrive at the sessions. Mentors could assist when strategies are being

shared and work together with participants to find strategies to support the DLI students.

Additional PDWs could also be arranged to assist educators in creating different

strategies to integrate into their classrooms.

Scholarship, Project Development, and Leadership and Change

For this project study, I submerged myself in organizing my study, conducted the

literature review, collected, and analyzed data from each interview, and developed the

PDW. As a researcher, I strove to listen without forming any bias and learned to value

each participant’s perspective. I learned to connect with individuals I did not know and

reinforced my passion for education. A takeaway, and an area where I grew immensely,

was the entire process of analyzing the data, from transcribing the interviews, to the first

cycle of coding, to the second cycle, and finally to findings and conclusions.

The most significant takeaway from this study was gaining an understanding of

the many different benefits of being exposed to a second language. Another insight was

coming to understand how integrating language into content really forces students to

work hard in learning not only a different language but also in learning new content.

Learning from the different educators throughout this process enriched my own learning.

Positive social changes that potentially could be linked with this project study

relate to the data collected and the development of the PDW. The PDW was designed to

create opportunities for sharing different strategies with educators so they may better help

DLI students. By participating in the PDW, educators can collaborate, problem solve, and

reflect as they learn more about CLIL in DLI programs, and this gives them the tools and

opportunity to bring their learning to their schools and share with other educators and

families.

This project was important for me and my personal growth; I work with bilingual

education each day. I have learned why it is important to teach students to be bilingual,

and I have also learned the importance of integrating content as part of learning a new

language. I can coach other teachers and staff as I am now an expert in this topic. I will

continue to improve my learning and help those around me be well informed. I will also

continue to use the presentation created for this study to help other teachers and

administrators.

Reflection on the Importance of the Work

One of the biggest takeaways came from my interviews, where I could suspend

my bias or any opportunity of forming bias and, instead, try to think objectively as I

listened and learned about another’s perspectives. One of the areas that helped me grow

was diving into all the different articles as I read the literature and learned new details on

a topic, I am passionate about. It was inspiring to learn how many benefits researchers

have found and how many different parts of the brain come together to create new

learning styles. I also learned a lot from analyzing the data, even though it was not easy.

When I started to develop the project, I wanted to help address the problem of a need for

more DLI programs in primary schools. The project study was created with the idea of

helping stakeholders understand how CLIL benefits DLI students. I was able to design a

research-based professional plan that has the potential to offer educators a framework

they can use to further support bilingual students.

Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research

This study’s findings suggest that educators learn, through different activities,

how and why they can use CLIL in their classrooms and how this process has an impact

on DLI programs. DLI programs have so many benefits and researchers have not fully

addressed the barriers to offering them. Educators could also benefit from other studies

that support strategies for CLIL in DLI programs, such as Wilson’s (2021)

recommendation of surveys to determine resources needed to provide excellent education

for emergent bilingual students and increased funding for emergent bilingual studies.

The data collected from the interview—based project study provided ample

insights on the interviewees’ perspectives on the benefits of primary DLI programs. The

PDW was designed based on that data and may offer educators a model to use in further

supporting bilingual students. Furthermore, the study will contribute to the literature on

the benefits of primary—grade DLI programs grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)

ecological systems theory.

Methodological, Theoretical, and Empirical Implications

This project study was limited by its necessary focus on a particular county in the

southeastern part of the United States. In conducting the study, I was conscious of some

of the important methodological, theoretical, and empirical implications of such a

limitation. But doing interviews and having direct conversations with teachers and

administrators validated my choice of methodology, and the insights gained through the

interviews were valuable and useful in designing the workshop project. The qualitative

study design, using open—ended questions and prompts, allowed participants to freely

express their ideas and reveal their perceptions on the benefits of DLI programs in their

schools. The conceptual framework that guided this qualitative study, a combination of

ecological systems theory by Bronfenbrenner (Bronfenbrenner et al., 2007) and the

language acquisition theory by Krashen (1981), led to implications from the study that

suggest that meaningful interactions are necessary to support student’s learning and

development. Lastly, the empirical implications of this study suggest that teachers and

administrators are aware that DLI programs have some benefits to students’ learning.

Teachers and administrators also agree that there are many strategies and programs set up

that can be useful to assist with students’ learning, and help families have a better

understanding the benefits of DLI programs.

Recommendations for Future Research

A recommendation for future research includes exploring the educational

perspectives on the benefits of DLI programs in the upper primary grades. Another

recommendation for future study could include a study on students who have graduated

after being in DLI programs all during their school years, to learn more about students’

perspectives on that experience.

Conclusion

This basic qualitative study was conducted to explore the perceptions of educators

on the benefits of primary grade DLI programs. Conducting this research with teachers

and administrators allowed for deeper understanding from each stakeholder’s perspective.

The findings from this study could have a potential positive social impact when

addressing the benefits of DLI programs with the implementation of the PDW on how

CLIL is integrated with content. It was anticipated that this project would have a positive

impact on educators by improving their confidence and ability to support DLI students

and, also, by improving their understanding of CLIL in order to collaborate in providing a

more successful DLI experience for students. It is hoped that educators and all other

stakeholders within the DLI sector will benefit from the findings of the study and use the

results to facilitate PDW activities for DLI teachers and families.

Students also viewed