This article was downloaded by: [Ams/Girona*barri Lib]On: 28 October 2014, At: 07:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Research in Childhood EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20

English Language Learners' Perceptions of SchoolEnvironmentDiane Rodriguez a , Marjorie Ringler a , Debbie O'Neal a & Kelley Bunn aa East Carolina UniversityPublished online: 03 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Diane Rodriguez , Marjorie Ringler , Debbie O'Neal & Kelley Bunn (2009) English LanguageLearners' Perceptions of School Environment, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23:4, 513-526, DOI:10.1080/02568540909594678

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568540909594678

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Research in Childhood Education2009, Vol. 23, No. 4

Copyright 2009 by the Association forChildhood Education International

0256-8543/09

513

Abstract. The number of students who speak languages other than English con-tinues to grow in both rural and urban public schools in the United States. This study investigated the perceptions of 123 students (57 monolingual and 66 English language learners [ELLs]) from a rural public elementary school in North Carolina with respect to school climate, curriculum and instruction, extracurricular activi-ties, self-efficacy, and self-esteem. All of these indicators contribute to an overall perception of schools and affect learning experiences of monolingual students and ELLs. Results indicate that the perceptions of monolingual learners and ELLs in this particular elementary school are similar.

Diane RodriguezMarjorie RinglerDebbie O’NealKelley BunnEast Carolina University

English Language Learners’Perceptions of School Environment

One of the primary concerns of educators and researchers in the United States is that there has been a large increase in the num-ber of students entering the public school system who are English language learners (ELLs). Indeed, North Carolina’s public schools have been deeply shocked by the rapid increase of ELLs in the state. English language learners are enrolled in schools and receive additional services in English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. The education of ELLs continues to pose unique social, political, and educational problems for schools in the United States. Social and educational opportunities are typically hindered by frequent moves, poverty, gaps in previous schooling, and language and cultural barriers. These factors may reduce

teacher expectations of ELLs. As teacher expectations of ELLs diminish, so do their prospects for knowledge gains, because there is a clear consensus among educators that teachers’ expectations contribute to ELLs’ academic success (Obiako, 1999). With respect to teacher preparation, Smith-Davis (2004) argued that teachers are not adequately prepared to help ELLs reach their maximum academic potential. Indeed, very few states require content area teachers to have any professional develop-ment for teaching ELL students. According to the National Center for Education Sta-tistics (1997), only 29.5 percent of teachers of ELLs have formal training in strategies for ELLs. ESL certification is not required of teachers in North Carolina, while it is in Texas, California, and New York. To obtain an add-on ESL license in North Carolina, teachers merely complete a Praxis II test, which can be done without ever taking any courses related to second language acquisi-tion or cross-cultural understanding. Lack

Note: Diane Rodriguez is an Associate Profes-sor, Marjorie Ringler is an Assistant Professor, Debbie O’Neal is an Instructor, and Kelley Bunn is a Graduate Assistant, College of Education, East Carolina University.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:03

28

Oct

ober

201

4

RodRIGuEz, RINGlER, o’NEAl, ANd BuNN

514

of formal teacher training that would help ELLs specifically is particularly problem-atic, because most ELLs “spend the majority of their school day in grade-level classrooms [in which most teachers] have little or no training in the differential learning and developmental needs of this group” (Herrera & Murry, 2005, p. 6). The consequences of this on ELLs are noteworthy for multiple reasons. First, teachers have considerable influence on the achievement of all students, especially low-income, culturally and lin-guistically diverse students (Tucker et al., 2005). Second, teachers contribute to the formation of a student’s cultural identity (Unger-Palmer, 2006). Third, teachers help students cope with complex administrative procedures in schools and school systems (Unger-Palmer, 2006). In the fall of 2007, there were approximate-ly 143,000 ELLs in North Carolina’s public schools. Two-thirds of these students indi-cate Spanish as their native language. The other one-third of these students speak one of 150 different languages (Public Schools of North Carolina, 2008). Students’ percep-tions of school environment can be a power-ful predictor of student outcomes (Johnson, 2006). Unlike typical school environment research, this case study seeks to determine whether student perceptions of school envi-ronment vary by linguistic diversity. In par-ticular, this study compares the perceptions of ELLs (Latinos) to monolingual (white) learners. Unlike typical studies comparing those student groups, this work compares students who attended an elementary school in the southeast region of the United States, a region with only a recent history of Latino presence. Consequently, the school selected for this case study provides a stark contrast to studies in which data were collected from students attending schools where Latinos have resided for many decades (e.g., Texas, California, Arizona, and New Mexico). As noted by Bohon, Macpherson, and Atiles (2005), schools in the southeast typically have fewer instructors and instructional materials for teaching ESL. Specifically, this study investigated stu-

dent perceptions of: 1) school climate, 2) cur-riculum and instruction, 3) extracurricular activities, 4) student self-efficacy, and 5) student self-esteem. All of these indicators contribute to an overall perception of the school and affect learning. The first section of this article reviews literature on each of the indicators investigated in this study. The review on school climate establishes a theoretical rationale of underlying indica-tors that make up a successful school. The second section of this paper describes the methodology of this case study. The third section discusses the analyses of the data.

Theoretical FrameworkSchool ClimateAccording to Brookover, Erickson, and McEvoy (1997), “school climate” refers to the attitudes, beliefs, values, and norms that underlie the instructional practices, the level of academic achievement, and the operation of a school. Howard, Howell, and Brainard (1987) defined school climate as follows:

A school’s climate is its atmosphere for learning. It includes the feeling people have about school and whether it is a place where learning can oc-cur. A positive climate makes a school a place where both staff and students want to spend a substantial portion of their time; it is a good place to be. (p. 5)

In light of attitudinal data collected in multiple studies, Cohen, Shapiro, and Fisher (2006) identified 10 essential dimensions of school climate: environment, structure, safety, teaching and learning, relationships, sense of school community, morale, peer norms, school-home-community partner-ships, and learning community. Butler and Gutierrez (2003) investigated “learning climates” among 4th-grade students in an English-only school district in California. They defined a student’s learning climate as a learner’s perceptions of his or her own abili-ties and behaviors, as well as the learner’s perceptions of others’ beliefs about his or her abilities and behaviors. Although school environment researchers have considered

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:03

28

Oct

ober

201

4

ENGlISh lANGuAGE lEARNERS’ pERCEptIoNS oF SChool ENVIRoNmENt

515

school climate from diverse perspectives, the common theme throughout all of those studies is the subjective expression about being in the school, whether identified as a feeling, perception, opinion, or attitude. With respect to the importance of school climate, research has shown that improved school climate contributes to greater student achievement, higher morale, and a better relationship with the community (Howard, 2002; Johnson, 2006; Wong, 1993). For instance, school environment research has demonstrated that a positive school climate can increase achievement levels and reduce maladaptive behaviors (McEvoy & Walker, 2000). Further, according to Wainer (2004), the “importance of school climate should not be underestimated when considering ELLs” (p. 32). In addition, the Learning First Alli-ance (2001) acknowledges that many studies of students’ subjective experiences in school indicate that positive school climates have a significant effect on student learning and development.

Curriculum and InstructionELLs face many challenges in school, including the curriculum and teachers’ in-structional methods. From the standpoint of Herrera and Murry (2005), “Curriculum and instruction is one of the most contem-porary, harmful, and emergent academic challenges for ELLs and the trend is toward increasingly reductionistic curricula driven by a strict focus on high stakes assessments at the national, state, or local levels” (p. 47). Since most ELLs have underdeveloped lit-eracy skills in English, these demands put ELLs at a great disadvantage (Brown, 2005). There are, however, many effective program models for ELLs that include a variety of bilingual programs (i.e., dual language, transitional, or maintenance), sheltered English instruction, or ESL classes. As an example, mathematics is an important component of the curriculum for all stu-dents. Brown (2005) reports findings from a study that investigated math achievement differences between ELLs and fully English proficient (FEP) students on a literacy-based

performance assessment. Interestingly, her analyses revealed that socioeconomic status (SES) had a significant impact on all students, but the impact was larger on FEP students than on ELLs. She concluded that literacy-based performance assessments, together with the current assessment-driven accountability system, seriously undermine equal treatment for ELLs. On the other hand, Meltzer and Hamann (2006) describe classroom practices that increase student motivation and engagement, generic literacy and learning practices, and content-specific literacy practices, and offer comments about how to specifically adapt each one to better meet the needs of ELLs who attend main-stream content-area classes. Wainer (2004) asserts that educators in North Carolina are not prepared to address the changes in their student population. Granted, some teachers and principals have creatively adapted the curriculum and their instructional methods to better suit their ELLs, but Wainer (2004) concludes that schools, overall, have not reacted effectively.

Extracurricular ActivitiesExtracurricular activities are important components of students’ activities at school. After-school programs can be one means of providing more structured, better super-vised, and more productive use of free time, and thus may improve students’ academic performance (Shelton & Hopkins, 2008). Witt and Baker (1997) outlined strategies for after-school programs. These strategies include having high-quality contact time and highlighting the linkage between fun and learning. In terms of extracurricular activi-ties, numerous programs faced challenges in six areas: 1) development of a systematic cur-riculum for sport, recreation, and fitness; 2) selection of appropriate activities for the tar-geted population; 3) adequate programming to address obesity and physical inactivity; 4) enhancement of programming structure and quality; 5) lack of qualified staff; and 6) lack of fitness assessment (Zhang & Byrd, 2006). Furthermore, Broh (2002) linked extracurricular programming to academic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:03

28

Oct

ober

201

4

RodRIGuEz, RINGlER, o’NEAl, ANd BuNN

516

achievement. His results demonstrated that participation in extracurricular activities improves academic achievement. However, that claim is not widely supported. Sheldon and Hopkins (2008) stated that there is little conclusive research on how after-school programs can be best positioned to impact academic achievement. They stated that children typically stay in most after-school programs for relatively short periods of time. In addition, the programs do not have a history of supporting academics, and thus are not in a position to achieve the academic outcomes that are increasingly expected of them.

Student Self-EfficacySocial science researchers have conducted numerous studies on self-efficacy. As noted by Jinks and Morgan (1999), “Social learn-ing theorists define perceived self-efficacy as a sense of confidence regarding the performance of specific tasks” (p. 224). For ELLs and other learners, this confidence (or the lack of it) influences learning across all areas of the curriculum. Indeed, learners may not even engage in instruction when the learner’s self-efficacy is low. Bandura’s (1986, 1997) work in this area is highly re-garded. Bandura’s social cognitive theory forms the basis for social learning theory and contributes to our understanding of the personal consequences of low and high self-efficacy. Since self-efficacy is a per-sonal perception, researchers collect data concerning self-efficacy by asking learners

for their opinions about their abilities to learn specific content or skills.

Student Self-EsteemResearch findings from several academic domains have demonstrated that students’ perceptions of their own academic capabili-ties influence their self-esteem (Goldsmith, 2004; Mills, Pajares, & Herron, 2006; Wicker, Turner, Reed, McCann, & Lee, 2004). Freeman and Freeman (1999) proposed a formula for high expectations of ELLs. They suggest that effective ap-proaches to reading and effective bilingual programs implement a set of practices for teaching academic achievement. An example of one such practice is ensur-ing that equal status of both languages is affirmed to a large extent. This is an example of teachers’ perceptions of low expectations of ELLs instead of high ex-pectations. Garrett and Holcomb (2005) discussed some of the struggles that im-migrant students encounter in adapting to the American school system, as well as the pedagogical strategies that have enhanced the educational performance of ELLs and how this greater educational performance improves relations between the school and community.

MethodsSettings and ParticipantsThis research was conducted at one par-ticular elementary school in rural eastern North Carolina. Of the 884 students in

Table 1 Characteristics of Participants

Grade Level Number of Participants ELLs Monolingual

Kindergarten 22 10 12

First 14 7 7

Second 23 11 12

Third 29 20 9

Fourth 16 9 7

Fifth 19 9 10

Total 123 66 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:03

28

Oct

ober

201

4

ENGlISh lANGuAGE lEARNERS’ pERCEptIoNS oF SChool ENVIRoNmENt

517

the school, 123 of them participated in this study. The school enjoys an annual attendance rate of 96%. Table 1 identifies the number of participants by grade level and language descriptor (i.e., monolingual or bilingual). According to criteria estab-lished by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, the school did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), even though the school met 24 out of 25 AYP targets. Table 2 illustrates the perfor-mance of student groups that passed both the reading and mathematics tests.

ProceduresThe researchers visited the school 16 times over a six-month period in order to collect the data. During the interviews with the bilingual and monolingual students, the researchers followed a modified version of

the questionnaire protocol titled “Measur-ing success in ESL programs,” which was originally authored by Carrasquillo and Rodriguez (1998). This questionnaire pro-tocol was modified by the researchers with permission from the original authors. The actual questionnaire appears in Appendix A. To ensure confidentiality, all data col-lected were analyzed and reported without the use of names or personal information. The duration of each interview was ap-proximately 20 minutes. The questionnaire was administered in the student’s preferred language (e.g., English, Spanish). Simpli-fied language modifications were made for children in kindergarten and 1st grade. In addition, pictures were presented for some items when appropriate. In order to enhance the reliability of this study, the interview protocol contained two

Table 2 School Demographics: Performance of Each Student Group

That Passed Both the Reading and Math Tests

Male Female White Black Hispanic Multi Racial

E.D. N.E.D. L.E.P. Disability

School 61.9 63.2 69.7 52.9 58.9 66.7 58.2 71.3 42.4 23.5

E.D. = Economically DisadvantagedN.E.D. = Not Economically Disadvantaged L.E.P. = Limited English Proficient

Table 3 Student Perceptions by Grade and Linguistic Learner Type

Kinder Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Mono ELL Mono ELL Mono ELL Mono ELL Mono ELL Mono ELLSchoolClimate 2.1 1.5 2.0 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.1

Instruction 2.1 1.6 2.3 1.7 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.9

Extra-curricular 4.8 2.6 3.3 4.1 3.3 2.5 2.0 2.9 2.1 2.8 3.1 4.1

Self-efficacy 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.7 2.1 1.4

Self-esteem 3.2 1.9 2.8 2.3 2.7 2.1 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.2 3.4 2.1

Each value is the mean for all learners in the grade and learner type.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:03

28

Oct

ober

201

4

RodRIGuEz, RINGlER, o’NEAl, ANd BuNN

518

parts that required different data collec-tion methods. In the first part, students were asked to respond to structured Likert items. In response to each of the 24 items in Part I, each participant responded by stating either: (1) Always; (2) Usually; (3) Sometimes; (4) Rarely; or (5) Never. The data generated from the Likert items were collated for statistical analyses. In the sec-ond part of the interview, the participants responded to two open-ended questions. Specifically, the researchers asked these questions: 1) How do you feel about being a student in this school? 2) Do you consider yourself a “good student” in the following areas? (i) Reading in English; (ii) Reading in another language (e.g., Spanish); (iii) Writing in English; (iv) Writing in another language; (v) Ability to speak and learn in two languages (bilingualism).

Research QuestionsThe researchers sought to gain insights into the following questions:

Do monolingual and ELL students perceive the school climate differently?

Do monolingual and ELL students perceive the instruction differently?

Do monolingual and ELL students perceive the extracurricular activities differently?

Do monolingual and ELL students differ in self-efficacy?

Do monolingual and ELL students differ in self-esteem?

FindingsFirst, this section considers the five re-search questions in light of the Likert data collected from the participants. Those re-sults are summarized in Table 3. Second, this section discusses the results of the open-ended questions.

Research Question 1:Do monolingual and ELL studentsperceive the school climate differently?As discussed in the School Climate section, researchers in studies concerning school environment or school climate seek funda-mentally to ascertain subjective opinions about what it feels like to be a member of a particular school. Accordingly, this study asked participants the following questions in order to ascertain a sense of the school’s climate: 1) Is the school a safe and secure place to learn? 2) Is the school clean and in good repair? 3) Are all students respected? 4) Are you proud of your school? 5) Do stu-dents work together on school/classroom activities? 6) Does the school reward excellence in achievement? and 7) Do you feel that the school provides an enriching environment where your first language is respected? Data in Table 3 reveal virtually no dif-ference in school climate among ELLs and monolingual learners. This is true across all grade levels. Accordingly, all of the students attending the school feel safe and secure in a clean learning environment. All

Table 4 Percentages of Students Who Expressed Feelings About Being a Student in the School

Positive Feelings Somewhat Positive Negative No opinion

Kindergarten 100 0 0 0

First Grade 93 7 0 0

Second Grade 100 0 0 0

Third Grade 97 0 3 0

Fourth Grade 88 0 12 0

Fifth Grade 69 21 5 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:03

28

Oct

ober

201

4

ENGlISh lANGuAGE lEARNERS’ pERCEptIoNS oF SChool ENVIRoNmENt

519

of the students feel respected and welcomed. Both ELLs and monolingual students are proud of the school. Students work har-moniously in school activities. Curiously, although the data reveal essentially no differences in school climate, during the interview, several students reported that they were punished if they spoke in their native language.

Research Question 2:Do monolingual and ELL studentsperceive the instruction differently?Due to the importance of the curriculum and instruction for learning, students in Grades 3, 4, and 5 were asked the follow-ing items: 1) Does the teacher inform you about what you are studying? 2) Are class content and activities neither too hard nor too easy? 3) Does the curriculum vary and is it challenging? 4) Are the classes flexible? and 5) Are there different ways of teaching the class? Students in K-2 were asked the first three of those five questions; items 4) and 5) were not asked of these primary school students. The data in Table 3 reveal very minor dif-ferences in perceptions of curriculum and instruction among ELLs and monolingual students in kindergarten and grade 1. The data reveal no difference in perceptions of curriculum and instruction across all of the grades. Overall, students are aware of the instructional goals, find the content to be neither too easy nor too difficult, and find that learning activities vary.

Research Question 3:Do monolingual and ELL students perceive the extracurricular activities differently?Researchers asked participants whether the school encourages participation in school/community activities and whether they have been or are currently participat-ing in any plays, sports, or teams at school. The results in Table 3 suggest that ELLs and monolingual students in each grade differ with respect to the perception of extracurricular activities. However, since the school does not provide extracurricular

activities for students, some students have naïve or unrealistic views of extracurricu-lar activities. Apparently, some students believe that watching a community soccer team (not made up of students attending the school) play on their school field is an extracurricular activity.

Research Question 4:Do monolingual and ELL studentsdiffer in self-efficacy?To assess self-efficacy, students were asked to respond to the following items: 1) I feel proud of who I am; 2) I feel proud of being in this school; 3) I am motivated to learn; 4) I enjoy coming to school; 5) I feel that the teacher is part of my life; and 6) I work very hard to complete schoolwork. Although the data in Table 3 reveal a small difference in self-efficacy for Grade 5 monolingual learn-ers and ELLs, the data show no difference for all other grades.

Research Question 5:Do monolingual and ELL studentsdiffer in self-esteem?For self-esteem, students were asked to re-spond to the following items: 1) Are you able to learn in two languages?; 2) Are you able to read and write in both languages?; 3) Do you do well in all of your classes, especially in mathematics?; 4) Do you know science and social studies concepts and skills?; and 5) Is your work displayed in school in both languages? Kindergarten students were not asked item 4), which considers science and social studies concepts and skills. The data in Table 3 indicate that differences in self-esteem among monolingual learners and ELLs were evident in kindergarten and grade 5.

Results for Open-ended QuestionsIn the second part of the protocol, which was semi-structured, the participants re-sponded to these two open-ended questions: How do you feel about being a student in this school? and Do you consider yourself a “good student” in the following areas?: (i) Reading in English; (ii) Reading in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:03

28

Oct

ober

201

4

RodRIGuEz, RINGlER, o’NEAl, ANd BuNN

520

other language (i.e., Spanish); (iii) Writing in English; (iv) Writing in the other lan-guage; (v) Ability to speak and learn in two languages (bilingualism); and (vi) What do you want to be when you grow up? Table 4 indicates how ELLs and mono-lingual students feel about attending the school. Overall, there is a positive feeling about the elementary school. Specifically, the participants in kindergarten expressed 100% satisfaction; 1st grade—93%; 2nd grade—100%; 3rd grade—97%; 4th grade—88%; and 5th grade has the lowest positive feeling at 69%. Students’ perceptions of the school, as expressed in this single item, are quite limited in what they tell us, and especially what they do not tell us, about significant issues facing them. Perhaps given the fact that 5th-graders are more perceptive than the other students, the findings for 5th-graders indicate the lowest positive feeling. Table 5 indicates the percentages of par-ticipants who consider themselves a “good student” in the following areas: reading in English, reading in other languages, writing in English, writing in other lan-guages, and speaking and learning in two languages. Results demonstrate that both ELLs and monolingual students consider

themselves highly confident in reading and writing English. Participants have a mixed consideration in reading and writ-ing in other languages. In general, ELLs considered themselves capable of speaking and learning in two languages, but some ELLs expressed diminishing confidence in their ability to read and write in their family’s native language. Positive percep-tions toward bilingualism were observed by both students who read English well and by ELLs.

Discussion This study examined students’ perceptions of factors commonly associated with school climate. This study also examined student self-efficacy and self-esteem. After inter-viewing a total of 123 students in kinder-garten through Grade 5, the main finding of this study is that the perceptions of elemen-tary ELLs and monolingual learners in a particular rural school in North Carolina were strikingly similar. (Fortunately for the school, the perceptions of the students were also generally positive.) The researchers were somewhat surprised by the similarity of the results. Although the researchers fo-cused on data collection while in the school, some time was available to meet informally

Table 5 Percentages of Students Who Consider Themselves a “Good Student”

Reading in English

Reading in OtherLanguages

Writing in English

Writing inOtherLanguages

Speaking and Learning in 2 Languages

H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L

K 92 0 8 8 0 92 100 0 0 8 0 92 42 0 58

1 100 0 0 14 7 79 93 0 7 21 7 71 50 0 50

2 91 9 0 13 26 61 83 17 0 13 17 70 35 17 48

3 90 10 0 34 34 32 97 0 3 17 28 55 58 14 28

4 69 18 13 37 44 19 81 19 0 31 44 25 37 50 13

5 76 6 18 31 38 31 70 18 12 35 35 30 59 35 6

H = HighM = ModerateL = Low

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:03

28

Oct

ober

201

4

ENGlISh lANGuAGE lEARNERS’ pERCEptIoNS oF SChool ENVIRoNmENt

521

with teachers and administrators. Based on these informal discussions, it is appar-ent that the ELLs in this school are learn-ing English for academic purposes without receiving primary language support. Al-though research indicates that recogni-tion of, and support for, students’ primary language promotes learning, the results of this study suggest that students do not perceive of this shortcoming as detrimental. Actually, when differences are discernable between the monolingual learners and the ELLs, the monolingual students have less favorable perceptions than the ELLs. This is evident in the results comparing the Grade 5 students on self-efficacy. In addition, the monolingual students in all grades also have less self-esteem than the ELLs at all levels, kindergarten through grade 5.

ImplicationsAny implications of the results of this study for 21st century educators must be perceived in light of the current state of education for ELLs in North Carolina and in recognition of the steadily increasing ELL enrollment in the region. One important indicator of the current state of education for ELLs in North Carolina is the Latino high school graduation rate, which stands at 51.8%. From 2000 to 2006, the Latino population in North Caro-lina increased 54.9%. The number of Latino students in North Carolina’s K-12 public schools has increased dramatically, and in the fall of 2008 was 145,274, or about 10% of the state’s nearly 1.5 million K-12 public school students (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2008). Although the ELLs in this study enjoyed attending their rural school, it is evident that support for ELLs could be improved. Indeed, improved support for ELLs across all grades would in-crease the Latino high school graduate rate. Since teachers have an enormous impact on student learning and students’ percep-tions, instructing teachers on techniques for teaching ELLs may be the best method for improving support for ELLs. Even though the number of ELLs enrolled in the pubic school system in North Carolina

has increased dramatically over the past two decades, public school teachers are not required to take any courses or participate in even a single professional development experience of any kind (e.g., face-to-face workshop; online training) pertaining to the teaching of ELLs or culturally and lin-guistically diverse students. In contrast, all public school teachers in Florida must earn an ELL endorsement through the completion of five undergraduate or graduate courses. Without a doubt, a lack of teachers knowl-edgeable about culturally and linguistically diverse students has significant negative consequences for ELLs. One need only look at the dismal graduate rate described above to validate this. Fortunately, some teachers in North Carolina have voluntarily opted to engage in training pertaining to ELLs. The Department of Public Instruction in North Carolina has adopted the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model as part of the professional develop-ment training for teachers. SIOP training helps teachers plan and deliver lessons for ELLs. SIOP training includes course preparation (content objectives and language objectives); building background (concept explicitly linked, links explicitly made, and key vocabulary); comprehensible input (speech, explanation of academic task, and techniques); strategies (scaffolding, interac-tion, grouping configurations); practice and application (hands-on, apply content and language knowledge); effectiveness of les-son delivery (content objectives, students’ engagement, and pacing); and lesson re-view/evaluation (review of key vocabulary, review of key content concepts, feedback, and assessment). While such professional development training does offer some useful insights into the teaching of ELLs, it is only a single approach. Tucker et al. (2005) conducted a study in which teachers attended a workshop about effective instructional methods and strate-gies for teaching culturally and linguisti-cally diverse students. This teacher training intervention was based on self-empowerment theory. The workshop focused on ways that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:03

28

Oct

ober

201

4

RodRIGuEz, RINGlER, o’NEAl, ANd BuNN

522

teachers and other school personnel can ef-fectively empower their students to achieve against all odds, by preparing the students to use self-instruction-based learning, moti-vation, and adaptive skills. The researchers concluded that by developing an understand-ing of the many external factors (e.g., social, cultural, political, economic, school, family, parental) that affect the academic and so-cial lives of children, teachers will come to appreciate that each child must be taught to achieve under whatever circumstances exists. While SIOP training and other workshops concerning the teaching of ELLs are helpful, the brevity of the training limits what teachers can reasonably be expected to learn and accomplish afterward. To offer more extensive instruction con-cerning the teaching of ELLs, teacher prepa-ration programs in North Carolina could design and offer multiple courses designed to prepare educators for effective ELL instruc-tion. Extensive teacher preparation for ELL instruction, in combination with administra-tor preparation, would enable more schools to offer English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. North Carolina suffers from a lack of academically rich programs for ELLs that integrate basic skill instruction with the teaching of higher order skills across multiple content areas. The delivery of ESL programs varies greatly in each and every school system, yet the purpose is the same for all programs, which is to ensure that ELLs learn the English language and also fully participate in learning the curriculum at their current grade level (Gitomer, Andal, & Davison, 2005). ESL programs provide learners with a variety of resources, includ-ing textbooks and other instructional ma-terials, a curriculum appropriate for ELLs, and teachers and staff with specific training intended to help ELLs. Unger-Palmer (2006) noted that administrators and teachers do welcome ELLs, but when they implement ESL programs, students flourish academi-cally and socially. Teachers, including those in ESL programs, play an important role in constructing a student’s cultural identity. Extensive instruction for teaching ELLs

would also alter teacher expectations. Obiako (1999) noted that minority learners, especially ELLs, confront multidimensional problems in schools and communities. He states that one such problem is the issue of teacher expectation. Obiako argues that “with demographic changes and predicted shift in powers and paradigms, general and special educators must confront the critical issue of teacher expectations as they explore innovative ways to maximize the perfor-mance of minority learners and enhance their self confidence” (p. 40). There is a clear consensus by educators that teachers’ expectations contribute to ELL academic success. Public school educators must have high expectations of ELLs. High expecta-tions can be difficult for students in the short term, but very advantageous in the long term, as Carrasquillo and Rodriguez (1998) recognized when quoting a student whom they interviewed in an earlier study: “I cried so much but the bilingual program and the teachers inspired me to continue to strive for my future. There is a good future out there for me being bilingual” (p. 17). In addition to altering teacher expectations, training in the teaching of ELLs would lead teachers to-ward understanding the strength and value of the student’s native language instead of viewing it as an inability to learn a second language. When students have mastered their first language, they can transition to learning the second language, but that takes time. In North Carolina (and elsewhere), additional K-12 teachers are needed for teaching ELLs, second language acquisi-tion, bilingualism and context of language, and cross-cultural understanding. School districts could offer incentives to teachers to increase their knowledge regarding the teaching of ELLs, and state departments of education could mandate such training. As discussed, this study has implications for how to prepare future educators to work with ELLs. The challenges and demands on teachers are numerous, yet there is an urgent and critical need in North Carolina for additional teacher training in the area of cultural and linguistic diversity in order

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:03

28

Oct

ober

201

4

ENGlISh lANGuAGE lEARNERS’ pERCEptIoNS oF SChool ENVIRoNmENt

523

to meet the needs of the growing number of ELLs in public schools. Beyond teacher training, this work has implications on school climate. Since posi-tive school climate contributes to academic success in such a wide variety of ways, its importance should not be understated. Positive school climate promotes effective learning, in part by improving students’ at-titudes about learning; makes a school safer; reduces dropout rates; and helps recruit more parents to assist with school events. A wide range of research and best practices inform the development of positive school climates. Rubin (2004) provides a tool for exploring important factors that underlie safe and effective schools. He developed a rubric for a comprehensive discipline system and for strengthening school climate. Butler and Gutierrez believe that understanding learning climates would give teachers “ad-ditional information of individual difference in performance and better help each student” (p. 223). Schools must provide a safe, orderly place to learn, implement a well-planned curriculum designed for the students being served, and strive for academic excellence. Hence, the perceptions of students on school climate affords opportunities to gain insights into the desirability of school operations. Lastly, with respect to services for ELLs, implementation efforts should be informed by the analyses of Cohen, Deterding, and Chu (2005), which reveal that limited English proficient (LEP) elementary school students are largely “concentrated in a small number of schools: nearly 70 percent of the nation’s LEP students are enrolled in 10 percent of its schools” (p. 3). The implication of their finding is that such segregation has both advantages and disadvantages for these students. On the favorable side, “The density of ELL enrollment makes the provision of specialized services more cost-effective and a higher priority, which enhances the likeli-hood that such services will be offered” (p. 16). On the other hand, “The segregation of ELLs results in their isolation from the educational mainstream and the attendant loss of the benefits of interacting with Eng-

lish-speaking classmates” (p. 16) Policymak-ers should ensure that quality education is available for all students, including ELLs. Researchers need to conduct further inves-tigations in the academic performance and social adaptation of ELLs.

(submitted 9/9/08; accepted 11/4/08)

ReferencesBandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thoughts

and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bohon, S. A., Macpherson, H., & Atiles, J. H. (2005). Educational barriers for new Latinos in Georgia. Journal of Latinos and Education, 4(1), 43-58.

Broh, B. A. (2002). Linking extracurricular program-ming to academic achievement: Who benefits and why? Sociology of Education, 75(1), 69-95.

Brookover, W. B., Erickson, F. J., & McEvoy, A. W. (1997). Creating effective schools: An in-service program for enhancing school learning climate and achievement. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications.

Brown, C. L. (2005). Equity of literacy-based math performance assessments for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(2), 337-365.

Butler, Y. G., & Gutierrez, M. B. (2003). Learning climates for English language learners: A case of fourth grade students in California. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(2), 207-224.

Carrasquillo, A., & Rodriguez, J. (1998). Measur-ing success in bilingual education programs: Case studies of exemplary bilingual practices. New York: Engaging Latino Communities for Education.

Cohen, C. C., Deterding, N., & Chu, B. (2005). Who’s left behind? Immigrant children in high and low LEP schools. Program for Evaluation and Equity Research. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Cohen, J., Shapiro, L., & Fisher, M. (2006). Find-ing the heart of your school. Principal Leader-ship, 7(4), 26-32.

Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. S. (1999). The Cali-fornia reading initiative: A formula for failure for bilingual students? Language Arts, 76(3),

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:03

28

Oct

ober

201

4

RodRIGuEz, RINGlER, o’NEAl, ANd BuNN

524

Curriculum and Instruction

Indicators Always1

Usually2

Sometimes3

Rarely4

Never5

8. Does the teacher inform you about what you are studying? Do you understand what the class is about every day?

9. Are class content and activities neither too hard nor too easy? Is the class easy or difficult?

10. Does the curriculum vary and is it challenging? Do you sing, play, read, and write in class?

11. The classes are flexible. (NOT for K-1-2)

12. There are different ways of teaching the class. (NOT for K-1-2)

241-249.Garrett, J. E., & Holcomb, S. (2005). Meeting

the needs of immigrant students with limited English ability. International Education, 35(1), 49-65.

Gitomer, D. H., Andal, J., & Davison, D. (2005). Using data to understand the academic perfor-mance of English language learners. Policy Issues, 21, 1-17.

Goldsmith, P. A. (2004). Schools’ racial mix, students’ optimism, and the black-white and Latino-white achievement gaps. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 121-148.

Herrera, S. G., & Murry, K. G. (2005). Mastering ESL and bilingual methods. Boston: Pearson Education.

Howard, E., Howell, B., & Brainard, E. (1987). Handbook for conducting school climate improve-ment projects. Bloomington, IN: The Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Howard, T. C. (2002). Hearing footsteps in the dark: African-American students’ descriptions of effective teachers. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7, 425-428.

Jinks, J., & Morgan, J. (1999). Children’s perceived academic self-efficacy: An inventory scale. The Clearing House, 72(4), 224-230.

Johnson, L. M. (2006). Elementary school stu-dents’ learning preferences and the classroom learning environment: Implications for educa-tional practice and policy. The Journal of Negro Education, 75(3), 506-518.

Learning First Alliance. (2001). Every child learn-ing: Safe and supportive schools. Washington, DC: Author.

McEnvoy, A., & Walker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate. A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorder, 8(3), 130-140.

Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E. T. (2006). Double-duty literacy training. Principal Leadership, 6(6), 22-28.

Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2006). A re-evaluation of the role of anxiety: Self-efficacy, anxiety, and their relation to reading and lis-tening proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 39(2), 276-296.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Schools and staffing survey: A profile of policies

and practices for limited English proficient stu-dents: Screening methods, program support, and teacher training. Washington, DC: Author.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2008). Facts and figures. Raleigh, NC: Author.

Obiako, F. E. (1999). Teacher expectations of minority exceptional learners: Impact on “ac-curacy” of self-concepts. Exceptional Children, 66(1), 39-54.

Public Schools of North Carolina. (2008). Cur-riculum and school reform. Retrieved from the Public Schools of North Carolina, Department of Public Instruction on October 15, 2008, from www.ncpublicschools.org.

Rubin, R. (2004). Building a comprehensive discipline system and strengthening school climate. Reclaim-ing Children and Youth, 13(3), 162-168.

Sheldon, J., & Hopkins, L. (2008). Supporting success: Why and how to improve quality in after-school programs. San Francisco: James Irvine Foundation.

Smith-Davis, J. (2004). The new immigrant students need more than ESL. The Education Digest, 69(8), 21-26.

Tucker, C.M ., Porter, T., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., Ivery, P. D., Mack, C. E., & Jackson, E. S. (2005). Promoting teacher efficacy for working with culturally diverse students. Preventing School Failure, 50(1), 29-35.

Unger-Palmer, M. T. (2006). Latino youth in North Carolina. NC Crossroads, 10(2), 3-8.

Wainer, A. (2004). The new Latino south and the challenge to public education. Los Angeles: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute.

Wicker, F. W., Turner, J. E., Reed, J. H., McCann, E. J., & Lee, S. (2004). Motivation when opti-mism declines: Data on temporal dynamics. The Journal of Psychology, 38(5), 421-433.

Witt, W., & Baker, D. (1997). Developing af-ter-school programs for youth in high risk environments. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68(9), 18-21.

Wong, N. Y. (1993). Psychosocial environments in the Hong Kong mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 303-309.

Zhang, J. J., & Byrd, C. E. (2006). Successful after-school programs: The 21st century community learning centers. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 77(8), 3-8.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:03

28

Oct

ober

201

4

ENGlISh lANGuAGE lEARNERS’ pERCEptIoNS oF SChool ENVIRoNmENt

525

Curriculum and Instruction

Indicators Always1

Usually2

Sometimes3

Rarely4

Never5

8. Does the teacher inform you about what you are studying? Do you understand what the class is about every day?

9. Are class content and activities neither too hard nor too easy? Is the class easy or difficult?

10. Does the curriculum vary and is it challenging? Do you sing, play, read, and write in class?

11. The classes are flexible. (NOT for K-1-2)

12. There are different ways of teaching the class. (NOT for K-1-2)

Appendix A

Response Indicators1. Always 2. Usually 3. Sometimes 4. Rarely 5. Never

Indicators Always1

Usually2

Sometimes3

Rarely4

Never5

School Climate

1. Is school a safe and secure place to learn?

2. Is school clean and in good repair?

3. Are all students respected?

4. Are you proud of your school?

5. Do students work together on school/classroom activities?

6. Does the school reward excel-lence in achievement?Do you get stickers or happy faces when you do a good job?

7. Do you feel that the school provides an enriching environment where your first language is respected?Can you speak Spanish in school?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:03

28

Oct

ober

201

4

RodRIGuEz, RINGlER, o’NEAl, ANd BuNN

526

Appendix A (cont’d)

Extracurricular, Co-Curricular Activities

Indicators Always1

Usually2

Sometimes3

Rarely4

Never5

13. The school encourages partici-pation in school/community activities. Have you been in any plays at school, or on any sports teams?

Student Self-Efficacy

Indicators Always1

Usually2

Sometimes3

Rarely4

Never5

14. I feel proud of who I am.

15. I feel proud of being in this school.

16. I am motivated to learn.

17. I enjoy coming to school.

18. I feel that the teacher is part of my life.

19. I work very hard in com-pleting school work.

Student Self-Esteem

Indicators Always1

Usually2

Sometimes3

Rarely4

Never5

20. Are you able to learn in two languages?

21. Are you able to read and write in both languages? Kindergarten: Do you know your ABCs in English and in Spanish?

22. Do you do well in all of your classes, especially in mathematics?

23. Do you know science and social studies concepts and skills? (Not for kindergarten)

24. Is your work on display in school in both languages? Do you see your work on the walls at school?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:03

28

Oct

ober

201

4