View
216
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
M a r i s a d e l C a m p oM a r y E . Ya k i m o w s k i U n i v e r s i t y o f C o n n e c ti c u t , N e a g S c h o o l o f E d u c a ti o n
A LOOK THROUGH THE EYES OF PRE-SERVICE EDUCATORS AND IN-SERVICE
EDUCATORS ON TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
American Educational Research AssociationAnnual MeetingVancouver, B.C.April 15, 2012 Office of Assessment
OVERVIEW
PurposeReview of Literature
MethodologyResults
Implications of Results Future Avenues
PURPOSE
To examine the presence of positive affective characteristics for working with ELL students across and within three groups of educators
More specifically, to examine the presence of educators’ perceived knowledge, self efficacy and attitudes about inclusion as related to ELLs across pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, pre-service administrators; and to investigate how their development may be related to several factors within each group (i.e., non-English proficiency, field placement, school setting, # ELL’s taught)
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Changing Demographics• Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008; NCELA, 2007; NCES,
2010
Preparation of Mainstream Teachers• Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005; Reeves, 2006;
Yakimowski et al., 2011
Achievement Gap and NCLB • Fry, 2008; USDOE, 2002; NAEP, 2009
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1986) Beliefs (attitudes) are critical to the decisions people make
Ex) Teacher beliefs about language development (Byrnes, Kiger, and Manning, 1997; Clair, 1995; Karathanos, 2009; Kelly, 1988) and degree to which they implement research-based strategies to support L1 in classroom (August & Shanahan, 2006; Goldenberg, 2008)
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1986) Beliefs (attitudes) are critical to the decisions people make
• Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1986) Belief in one’s own ability to perform particular activities successfully or effectively
• Teaching Self-Efficacy (TSE)• Job satisfaction and burnout (Ware & Kitsantas, 2007)• Achievement and motivation (Caprara, Barbarelli, Steca, & Malone,
2006)• Teaching ELL students (Karabenick, Clemens, and Noda ; Paneque &
Barbetta )
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
There is a need to develop an understanding of factors that influence the development of positive affective characteristics in educators who work with ELLs.
This study examines the presence of perceived knowledge, attitudes, and self efficacy across 3 groups of educators, and investigates how their presence may be related to multiple factors within each group.
METHODOLOGY: SUBJECTS
Pre-service teachers• Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s (IB/M) program at the University of
Connecticut’s Neag School of Education
In-service teachers• Teachers partnering with IB/M students for clinical experiences
Pre-service administrators• University of Connecticut Administrator Preparation Program (UCAPP),
Neag School of Education
Respondents –292 • 122 Pre-service teachers• 143 In-service teachers• 27 Pre-service administrators
METHODS: INSTRUMENTATION
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Self-Efficacy toward ELLs (KASELL)
• 19 items rated on a 5 point Likert scale• Developed by Durgonoglo & Hughes (2010), modeled on
previous survey of general teacher efficacy (Darling-Hammond, Chung, and Frelow, 2002).
• Reliability/Validity • Durgonoglo & Hughes’ (2010) revealed four factors:
Perceived preparation (α=0.81) Self-efficacy (α=0.83) Attitudes toward ELLs in the classroom (α=0.79) Attitudes toward ELL parents (α=0.68)
METHODS: RESEARCH QS
Are there differences among the groups (pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, and pre-service
administrators) with respect to their KASELL (global or factor)
scores?
METHODS: RESEARCH QS
Within each group…
Are there differences between those proficient in a non-English
language and those not proficient with respect to the KASELL global
and factor scores?
METHODS: RESEARCH QS
Within pre-service teachers…
Are there differences among Juniors, Seniors, and/or 5th year students with
respect to the KASELL global and factor scores?
METHODS: RESEARCH QS
Within in-service teachers…
Do teachers working in distinct settings (urban, suburban, or rural) and/or teaching varying
numbers of ELL students (0, 1-6, 7 or more) show differences with respect to their KASELL global
and factor scores?
METHODS: RESEARCH QS
Among pre-service administrators…
Are there differences between administrator candidates in various field placements
(elementary, secondary) show differences with respect to their KASELL global and factor
scores?
METHODS: ANALYSES
Overall Descriptive Statistics Respondent background
Factor Scores in the affective domain Perceived preparation Self-efficacy Attitudes toward ELLs in the classroom Attitudes toward ELL parents
METHODS: ANALYSES
ANOVA (All Groups) We wish to determine if the 3 groups differ with respect to their global
KASELL scores, and to find whether educators with proficiency in a language other than English score significantly higher than those without
IV’s:1. 3 groups – pre-service and in-service teachers, and pre-service
administrators2. Participants’ self-rating of proficiency in a language other than English
DV:Global KASELL score as an aggregate of all 4
factor means
METHODS: ANALYSES
MANOVA (All Groups) Do the 3 groups of educators’ scores significantly differ in the affective area of:
knowledge? self efficacy? attitudes towards classroom inclusion? attitudes towards ELL parents?
Do scores of those with other language proficiencies differ from those without in any of these four areas?
IVs:1. 3 groups – pre-service and in-service teachers, and pre-service
administrators2. Participants’ self-rating of proficiency in a language other than English
DVs: (4) KASELL score in each of the four factors
METHODS: ANALYSES
Pre-service teachers
IV’s: 1) proficiency in a non- English language2) year in pre-service program (Jr, Sr, 5th year)
Two-Way ANOVAD.V.: Global KASELL Score
Two-Way MANOVAD.V.’s: KASELL score in each of the four factors
1) Knowledge (perceived)2) Self-efficacy3) Attitude toward inclusion of ELLs in classroom4) Attitude toward parents of ELL students
METHODS: ANALYSES
In-service teachers
IV’s: 1) proficiency in a non- English language2) Number of ELL’s taught in the classroom (0, 1-6, 7 or more)3) School setting (urban, suburban, rural)
Three-Way ANOVAD.V.: Global KASELL Score
Three-Way MANOVAD.V.’s: KASELL score in each of the four factors
METHODS: ANALYSES
Pre-service administrators
IV’s: 1) proficiency in a non- English language2) Field placement (elementary, secondary)
Two-Way ANOVAD.V.: Global KASELL Score
Two-Way MANOVAD.V.’s: KASELL score in each of the four factors
OverallPre-
ServiceIn-
Service
Affective Factors M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Knowledge 3.58(.89)
3.36(.63)
3.67(.96)
Self-efficacy 3.57(.74)
3.38(.60)
3.65(.77)
Attitude Toward ELLs -Classroom 3.84(1.01)
3.82(.91)
3.85(1.05)
Attitude Toward Parents 3.65 (.90)
3.69(.95)
3.65(.89)
Total 3.61 (.69)
3.45(.49)
3.67(.74)
RESULTS
RESULTS: Background Characteristics
In-Service
N %
Gender: Female 115 80.4Race/Ethnicity
White 117 81.8Hispanic/Latino 12 8.4
Can Speak another Language 68 47.5
School Setting
Rural 24 17.0Suburban 54 38.3Urban 63 44.7
In-Service
Grade Level Taught N %K-6 68 48.27-12 73 51.8
Number of ELL Students in Class 0 28 19.9 1-3 41 29.1 4-6 32 22.7 7 or more 40 28.4
RESULTS: Background Characteristics
Factor 1--KnowledgeOverall
Pre-Servic
e
In-Servic
e
I am prepared to tailor instructional and other services to the needs to ELL students.
3.36 3.29 3.61
I possess a clear understanding of the language demands of the content area that I will teach.
3.81 3.68 4.05
I am knowledgeable of teaching strategies and instructional practices for ELL students that are developmentally appropriate.
3.25 3.00 3.48
I am knowledgeable of alternate ways of giving feedback. 3.71 3.71 3.84
I am knowledgeable of teaching practices that are attuned to students’ language proficiencies and cognitive levels.
3.43 3.22 3.72
I am knowledgeable of teaching practices that are culturally supportive and relevant.
3.62 3.29 3.90
ANOVA RESULTS f (All groups)
Effect SS Df MS F
Group 7.987 2 3.993 10.013Non-English Proficiency 2.455 1 2.455 6.157Gender* .404 1 .404 1.013
Race/Ethnicity*
1.202 1 1.202 3.015
Reject Ho
Significant Effect for Group (F= 10.013; p<.01)
Significant Effect for Non-English Language Proficiency (F= 6.157; p<.05)
Global KASELL scores of pre-service administrators and in-service teachers were significantly higher than those of pre-service teachers
Global scores of those proficient in another language were significantly higher than those not proficient
MANOVA RESULTS f (All groups)
SourceDependent Variable SS DF MS F
NEProf F1 – knowledge 4.876 1 4.876 6.876
F2 – self-efficacy 3.094 1 3.094 6.508
F3 .004 1 .004 .005
F4 .097 1 .097 .127
Group F1 – knowledge 18.537 2 9.269 13.071
F2 – self-efficacy 6.501 2 3.250 6.838
F3 1.862 2 .931 1.013
F4 1.409 2 .705 .923
For “non-English proficiency”, and for “Group”, significant effects are found in factors 1 & 2 only, perceived knowledge and self-efficacy
p< .01
p<.05
p< .01
p<.01
Source
Dependent Variable SS DF MS F
Gender Knowledge .368 1 .368 .520
Self efficacy .036 1 .036 .076
Attitudes toward ELLs - classroom
6.243 1 6.243 6.792
Attitudes- ELL parents .722 1 .722 .946
Gender effects for Factor 3: Attitudes towards ELLs in the regular classroom (F= 6.792; p=.01)
MANOVA RESULTS f (All groups)
RESULTS: Additional Findings
Among pre-service teachers Year in the program yielded no significant effect in global scores or factor scores
Among in-service teachers Factor 3, “attitudes toward inclusion of ELLs in the classroom” significant
differences found by the number of ELLs the in the classroom Teachers reporting 1 – 6 ELLs: most favorable attitudes towards inclusion. Teachers with no ELLs: lowest average score on factor 3.
Factor 2, “self-efficacy” higher in those reporting proficiency in another language
Among pre-service administrators Factor 3 Pre-service administrators at the elementary level reported more
positive attitudes towards inclusion than those in other placements
IMPLICATIONS of RESULTS
Pre-service teachers lower in KASELL than other groups, specifically in “perceived knowledge” and
“self-efficacy”. Possible variation due to greater levels of experience, or past success working with ELLs Teacher education programs can explore ways to develop candidates’ self-efficacy with ELLs while
professional identities are early in the process of formation. Proficiency in language other than English related to knowledge and self-efficacy to work with ELLs.
Given evidence indicating ELLs benefit when L1 is supported (e.g., August & Shanahan, 2006) teacher education might seek to recruit more bilingual teachers
Curricula might explicitly target and develop this competency (native-language support) in candidates who are not bilingual, providing multiple opportunities for practice through coursework and clinic experiences
• Number of ELLs taught appeared related to attitudes toward inclusion; those without ELLs in the class had the least positive attitudes Teacher education programs can work to ensure that candidates gain experiences in culturally and
linguistically diverse settings, where ELL students are receiving quality instruction Female respondents more positive about inclusion of ELLs in general education classroom
Possibility of response bias Gender may be a factor related to how individuals respond affectively to the challenge of teaching
ELLs Benefits of tailoring higher education courses and learning to respond to individual differences
FUTURE AVENUES
Do affective perceptions about teaching ELLs change over students’ time in the teacher education program?
Obtain measures from the same cohort of pre-service teachers at program entry and exit points
What aspects of preparation help to facilitate increases in these affective perceptions?
Examine a sample of pre-service teachers who exhibit the greatest growth in affective domain
How do affective perceptions about teaching ELL students relate to ELL student outcomes?
Use measures of student outcomes to determine if teachers scoring highly in affective perceptions demonstrate positive impacts on student learning
FUTURE AVENUES
Do affective perceptions about teaching ELLs change over students’ time in the teacher education program?
Obtain measures from the same cohort of pre-service teachers at program entry and exit points
What aspects of preparation help to facilitate increases in these affective perceptions?
Examine a sample of pre-service teachers who exhibit the greatest growth in affective domain
How do affective perceptions about teaching ELL students relate to ELL student outcomes?
Use measures of student outcomes to determine if teachers scoring highly in affective perceptions demonstrate positive impacts on student learning
M a r i s a d e l C a m p oM a r y E . Ya k i m o w s k i U n i v e r s i t y o f C o n n e c ti c u t , N e a g S c h o o l o f E d u c a ti o n
A LOOK THROUGH THE EYES OF PRE-SERVICE EDUCATORS AND IN-SERVICE
TEACHERS ON TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
American Educational Research AssociationAnnual MeetingVancouver, B.C.April 15, 2012
Recommended