PERCEPTIONS OF ESL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS BY

MAINSTREAM TEACHERS: A DESCRIPTIVE QUALITATIVE STUDY

by

Ammar Al-Sharafi

Copyright 2015

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership/Curriculum and Instruction

University of Phoenix

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States CodeMicroform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

ProQuest 3742244

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

ProQuest Number: 3742244

iii

ABSTRACT

This descriptive qualitative study explored the viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers in the

state of Ohio about English as a Second Language (ESL) professional development and training

programs implemented in order to teach English Language Learners (ELLs) in mainstream

classrooms. The problem explored in this study is that mainstream teachers who teach ELLs

without professional training in teaching ELLs may produce a lower academic achievement level

than teachers who have had professional training in teaching ELLs. Mainstream teachers who

teach ELLs but do not have the professional training required for teaching ELLs may face

numerous challenges that hinder their ability to close the achievement gaps between ELLs and

their native English language-speaking peers. The purpose of this study was to explore and

examine the viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers about the ESL professional development

and training programs implemented for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream

classrooms. A descriptive qualitative approach was used in this study that involved 15

participants who responded to open-ended interview questions to describe their experiences with

wide range of ESL professional development programs that they have participated in. An

analysis of the participants’ responses yielded three themes: (A) teacher engagement, (B)

relevant communication, and (C) the efficiency and relevance of technology. These three themes

and the findings of this study can help educational leaders make research based decisions to

overcome the barriers involved in trying to cater for the needs of ELLs by improving the quality

of ESL professional training programs.

iv

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my parents who inspired me and encouraged me to continue

my higher education and strive for the impossible. I dedicate this work to my loving wife,

Kristen Al-Sharafi, who has stuck with me since the beginning of my doctoral journey. Her

support and patience made it possible for me to keep going and reach my academic goals.

Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to my beloved son, Amjad, whose existence gave me the

energy and the power to push my boundaries and complete this difficult journey. I hope to

become an inspiration for him as he grows and help him develop a love for learning and dare his

dreams.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge and thank my committee chair, Dr. Patricia Penn, for her

guidance throughout the research and dissertation process. She was always willing to help and

provide the best suggestions that helped me overcome many of the challenges and barriers that I

faced throughout this journey. Without her guidance and persistent help, this dissertation would

not have been possible. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Patricia Talbert

and Dr. Gale Cossette for the countless hours they spent reviewing my work and offering advice

and encouragement.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... xi

Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

Background of the Problem .................................................................................... 3

ESL Support Programs in Ohio .............................................................................. 5

Bilingual instruction.................................................................................... 5

The immersion approach............................................................................. 5

Pullout ESL classes ..................................................................................... 6

In-class or inclusion instruction .................................................................. 6

Individual tutoring ...................................................................................... 7

Problem Statement .................................................................................................. 7

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 8

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................... 10

Significance of the Study for Educational Leadership ......................................... 11

Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................... 11

Nature of the Study ............................................................................................... 13

Qualitative approach. ................................................................................ 13

Descriptive design. .................................................................................... 14

Research Questions ............................................................................................... 16

Definition of Terms............................................................................................... 16

vii

Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 18

Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................... 18

Summary ............................................................................................................... 19

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature .................................................................................. 21

Historical Overview .............................................................................................. 23

National ELL statistics .............................................................................. 25

Ohio ELL statistics ................................................................................... 25

Meeting the Needs of Ohio’s ELLs ...................................................................... 28

Second Language Acquisition .............................................................................. 28

Social Constructivist Theory................................................................................. 31

Social Constructivist Pedagogy ............................................................................ 32

ELLs’ Challenges.................................................................................................. 33

Mainstream Teachers as ESL Educators............................................................... 34

The Need for Professional Development .............................................................. 35

Effective Training ................................................................................................. 37

Obstacles and Teachers Struggle .......................................................................... 39

Training Mainstream Teachers to Teach ELLs .................................................... 40

Vision for Teacher Preparation ............................................................................. 41

Summary ............................................................................................................... 44

Chapter 3: Research Method ............................................................................................. 46

Research Method Appropriateness ....................................................................... 47

Research Design Appropriateness ........................................................................ 49

viii

Descriptive design. .................................................................................... 49

Research ................................................................................................................ 50

Population ............................................................................................................. 50

Sample................................................................................................................... 51

Recruitment ........................................................................................................... 52

Consent Letters and Confidentiality ..................................................................... 52

Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 53

Field interview. ......................................................................................... 54

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 54

Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................... 56

Summary ............................................................................................................... 57

Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................. 59

Sample Characteristics .......................................................................................... 60

Themes in the Study.............................................................................................. 71

Theme 1: Teacher Engagement ............................................................................ 71

Theme 2: Relevant Communication ..................................................................... 73

Theme 3: The Efficiency and Relevance of Technology ...................................... 75

Synthesis of Research Questions .......................................................................... 77

Research Question 1 ............................................................................................. 77

Research Question 2 ............................................................................................. 80

Answer to Main Research Question ..................................................................... 83

Summary ............................................................................................................... 83

ix

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................... 85

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 85

Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 88

Theme 1: teacher engagement. ................................................................. 89

Theme 2: relevant communication. ........................................................... 91

Theme 3: the efficiency and relevance of technology. ............................. 92

Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 94

Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................... 95

Implications for Education Leaders ...................................................................... 96

Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................ 97

Summary ............................................................................................................... 98

References ....................................................................................................................... 101

Appendix A: Informed Consent ...................................................................................... 116

Appendix B: Non-Disclosure Agreement ....................................................................... 118

Appendix C: Confidentiality Statement .......................................................................... 122

Appendix D: Interview Questions .................................................................................. 123

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Participant Characteristics .............................................................................................. 61

Table 2: Data for Interview Question 1 ........................................................................................ 63

Table 3: Data for Interview Question 2 ........................................................................................ 64

Table 4: Data for Interview Question 3 ........................................................................................ 65

Table 5: Data for Interview Question 4 ........................................................................................ 66

Table 6: Data for Interview Question 5 ........................................................................................ 67

Table 7: Data for Interview Question 6 ........................................................................................ 68

Table 8: Data for Interview Question 7 ........................................................................................ 69

Table 9: Data for Interview Question 8 ........................................................................................ 70

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Average reading scores of 4th-grade students, by (ELL) status: Selected years, 2002-

11. Scale ranges from 0 to 500. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational

Statistics 2013. .............................................................................................................................. 22

Figure 2: Average reading scores of 8th-grade students, by (ELL) status: Selected years, 2002-

11. Scale ranges from 0 to 500. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational

Statistics 2013. .............................................................................................................................. 22

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

English language learners (ELLs) in American schools face tremendous challenges that

hinder their academic achievement. Language barriers prevent ELLs from getting equal

educational opportunities, making the learning process unpleasant, and negatively affecting their

learning outcomes. These challenges increase when ELLs sit with their native English-speaking

classmates in mainstream classrooms. Many teachers are not trained to teach ELLs who are

having communication difficulties and challenges adjusting to the new environment. The

responsibilities those teachers have go beyond merely teaching content-area curriculum, as they

need to provide adequate support to help ELLs improve their English language skills and help

them adjust to a new environment (Shore, 2013). As a result, mainstream teachers may find it

difficult to help this category of students achieve academically on the same level as native

English-speaking students. Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2010) explained that ELLs face the

double task of having to learn content at the same time as they are learning English. In many

cases, ELLs do not have the luxury of waiting for content instruction until they are fluent in the

second language, which makes the achievement gap between ELLs and their English-speaking

peers grow wider, as the latter would make progress while the former would remain isolated

from content while learning language (Anderson, 2009).

This descriptive qualitative study explored the views of K-12 mainstream teachers about

the inclusive training programs in English as a second language (ESL) education that are

available to them and whether they believed such programs prepared them with the knowledge

that they needed to teach ELLs effectively. Many schools have inclusive ESL training programs

2

for mainstream teachers. The goal of such training programs is to help close the achievement

gap between the ELLs and their native English-speaking peers. The state of Ohio, where this

study took place, does not require training in ESL education for mainstream teachers who teach

ELLs. However, many schools in Ohio with a sizeable population of ELLs promote

collaboration between ESL teachers and mainstream teachers and provide special ESL training

programs for mainstream teachers. The state of Ohio, as well as Arkansas, Montana, New

Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, and Wyoming, have vague requirements for

mainstream teachers who have ELLs in their classrooms. These requirements include effective

teaching strategies and appreciation of diversity, but such requirements also apply to all teachers

whether they serve ELLs or not. The requirements make no explicit reference to ELLs or ELL

pedagogy (State Board of Education & Ohio Department of Education, 2009 National

Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2008b). In addition, even though the number

of ELLs sitting in K-12 mainstream classrooms is growing rapidly, most of the available

research focuses on ESL teachers or ESL learning theories.

Arkoudis (2006) argued that a need exists for more studies that involve mainstream

teachers and the collaboration between them and the ESL teachers. Arkoudis (2006) also

indicated that such studies might help improve the views of mainstream teachers as well as the

ESL teachers about the challenges that ELLs face in mainstream classes. These challenges

require an effective collaboration between mainstream teachers and ESL teachers in order to

develop an understanding of how to meet the language and learning needs of ELLs in

mainstream classes.

3

Chapter 1 of this study consists of a brief description of the background of the problem,

the problem statement, the purpose of the study, and the significance of the study for educational

leadership. An explanation of the research takes a good portion of chapter one as it includes

information about the theoretical framework, the research design and methodology, research

questions, definition of terms, and the limitations and delimitations. Chapter 2 provides a

comprehensive overview of the existing literature regarding the challenges faced by ELLs and

mainstream teachers, ESL education, as well as the professional development programs for

teachers. Chapter 3 focuses on the research methodology and describes the design

appropriateness. Additionally, the chapter addresses the procedures chosen to accomplish this

study.

Background of the Problem

The levels of English language proficiency differ among ELLs who come from many

different backgrounds. Some ELLs have prior schooling and some others do not, especially

those who come from refugee camps. Additionally, ELLs face many barriers developing

academically in the American school system, which results in an achievement gap between ELLs

and mainstream students (Walqui, 2000). The academic achievement gap between ELLs in

American schools and their native English-speaking classmates is an ongoing issue that teachers

and educational leaders continue to address. Educational researchers have conducted several

studies in an effort to help improve the academic achievement of ELLs. However, the current

educational system emphasizes standardized tests, which causes ELLs to fall under the at-risk

students’ category. Mays (2008) argued that ELLs as well as minority children are the victims of

standardized tests because they end up in the at-risk groups most of the time. Mays suggested

4

that differences in language usage in schools and ELLs’ homes could create barriers to academic

achievement for ELLs. Mays criticized the slow progress in educational reform. This slow

progress does not correspond to the growth in the minority population in the United States,

which is a major concern for educational leaders nationwide as they see an increasing number of

ELL students being left behind (Mays, 2008).

A major concern for educational leaders who are familiar with ELLs issues comes from

the low expectations mainstream teachers hold for ELLs. For instance, some mainstream

teachers tend to over-simplify content instead of providing additional support for ELLs to help

them improve their language skills. This reductive approach may widen the achievement gap

between ELLs and their mainstream classmates (Koelsch, n.d). Another concern that

educational leaders have is that the efforts to improve the academic achievement of ELLs have

not always been successful, even though the majority of schools with an ELL population have

intervention programs such as special ESL classes. Harper and De Jong (2009) explained that

many ELLs who exit from ESL support programs are not prepared enough in order to meet the

language demands of mainstream content classrooms.

This study contributes to the existing ESL literature by focusing on mainstream teachers

who are not specialized in English as a second language. Most of the available literature

concerning English language learners focuses on specialized ESL teachers, ESL learning

theories, and the general problems of ELLs. The role of mainstream teachers in helping ELLs to

improve academically is mostly forgotten, or not properly addressed, in the available literature.

As Hutchinson and Hadjioannou (2011) warned, the need to prepare mainstream teachers to

teach linguistically diverse students is very critical and educational leaders must act immediately

5

to address this growing problem. Hutchinson and Hadjioannou (2011) argued the reason for this

urgency is that most of the current discussion relating to teacher preparation has been centered

around social issues such as diversity, which is not enough to address the real needs of ELLs.

ESL Support Programs in Ohio

In the State of Ohio, where this study took place, school districts can choose any of the

recommended ESL support programs by the Ohio Department of Education. The following is a

list of ESL support programs that the Ohio Department of Education recommends:

Bilingual instruction. Bilingual instruction could be useful for school districts that have

large numbers of ELLs who speak the same language. Many urban school districts in Ohio use

the bilingual instruction approach. The effectiveness of this approach is under ongoing

evaluation but supporters of bilingual instruction believe in two fundamental concepts. First, if

students can understand what their teachers are saying they can learn anything, including

English. Second, the achievement gap between ELLs and their native English-speaking peers

will not exit if ELLs are taught in their native languages (Ohio Department of Education, 2012a).

The immersion approach. Another approach to help ELLs acquire the English skills

that they need in order to be successful in school is the immersion approach. This alternative

approach could be useful for those districts where a large number of ELLs reside, but there are

not enough of one or more language groups to justify the establishment of bilingual education

classrooms (Ohio Department of Education, 2012a).

Students who sit in immersion classrooms are all ELLs. Teachers mainly teach content

with a little focus on teaching English but they make several adjustments to help ELLs

understand content and learn English at the same time. Teachers use English as the language of

6

instruction. They, also, use visual aids, dictionaries, and other techniques to simplify and make

content and English easy to understand for ELLs. The argument of the immersion approach

supporters is that while ELLs are learning content they can learn oral and written language skills

at the same time, which will help them progress academically like everyone else (Ohio

Department of Education, 2012a).

Pullout ESL classes. The focus of ESL classes is to teach English language skills such

as reading, writing, speaking, and listening that will help ELLs succeed in school. Some school

districts that use the pullout ESL classes provide bilingual support to ELLs who speak little or no

English. Bilingual teacher assistants sit in the ESL classroom to help teachers and sometimes

come to the ELLs’ mainstream classrooms to provide additional support. Some school districts

employ bilingual teacher assistants to work with the mainstream teacher throughout the entire

school year.

In a typical ESL classroom, students learn English through a variety of activities

including games. Although the activities are purposeful and focused on teaching grammar,

reading, and writing, they can be very flexible. For instance, ESL teachers can use free

conversations and discussions in a variety of topics to help students learn communication skills.

All activities and instruction have to be in English (Ohio Department of Education, 2012a).

In-class or inclusion instruction. In this approach, ELLs sit in mainstream classrooms

with everyone else, but bilingual teacher assistant has to be in the classroom to help them

understand content. ELLs gain self-confidence when a bilingual teacher assistant is available to

help them participate in the classroom activities or group projects. Additionally, the bilingual

7

teacher assistant can provide tutoring and help ELLs with their individual assignments (Ohio

Department of Education, 2012a).

Individual tutoring. School districts in Ohio use this approach when the numbers of

ELLs enrolled are very small. ELLs receive tutoring services either individually or in small

groups. Tutors are mostly volunteers who are bilingual and work under the supervision of

trained ESL specialists or mainstream teachers. Sometime the school districts hire tutors when

they do not have enough volunteers. The purpose of tutoring is to improve the communication

skills of ELLs by teaching them grammar, speaking, reading, and writing (Ohio Department of

Education, 2012a).

Problem Statement

The problem is that mainstream teachers who teach ELLs without professional training in

teaching ELLs may produce a lower academic achievement level than teachers who have had

professional training in teaching ELLs. Hite and Evan (2006) stated that ELLs present a great

challenge for mainstream teachers who have little or no training in ESL education. The teachers

who have no professional training to teach ELLs may feel unsure as to how to meet the unique

academic and social needs of this group of students. This may cause the ELLs to struggle

academically when they sit in mainstream classrooms. In extreme cases, ELLs drop out of

school completely, because they do not receive the support that they need (Ohio State University,

2012). Schools temporarily place the ELLs in English as a second language (ESL) classes that

serve as supplemental English learning methods to help this group of students overcome

language barriers. When the ELLs sit in mainstream classes, they continue to struggle because

mainstream teachers do not give them the same kind of attention that they usually receive when

8

they sit in ESL classes. Good, Masewicz, and Vogal (2010) explained that ELLs need more time

than native English-speaking students to comprehend content. Therefore, mainstream teachers

who have had no professional training in ESL should slow down the instruction in a way that

will give ELLs enough time to process the information and integrate knowledge.

To explain the challenges of mainstream teachers who have ELLs in their classes, Hite

and Evans (2006) described the status quo as a high-stakes act, especially in this age of

standardized and high-stakes testing. Therefore, mainstream teachers need to expend extra effort

to provide effective instruction to their ELL students. Some mainstream teachers with no ESL

professional training may not recognize the language barriers that the ELLs suffer from; and if

they do, they do not have the solutions to help them overcome these barriers. According to Good

et al. (2010), “Teachers lack preparation in three critical areas: multiculturalism, language

acquisition, and ELL instructional strategies” (p. 331). This study explored the viewpoints of

mainstream teachers who teach ELLs about the effectiveness of the ESL professional

development programs that they have experienced. The findings may help future researchers and

educational leaders to develop a systematic ESL professional development model for mainstream

teachers that will improve the academic achievement of ELLs.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this descriptive qualitative study was to explore and examine the

viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers about the ESL professional development and training

programs implemented for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms.

Effective inclusive ESL teacher-education training programs can provide mainstream teachers

with the skills they need in order to help ELLs improve their academic achievement. Such skills

9

can also change the personal perspectives and beliefs of mainstream teachers about ELLs. As

Thompson, Warren, and Carter (2004) explained, teachers’ beliefs and attitudes can manifest

themselves through low expectations toward ELLs. These expectations are communicated

during daily interactions. Thompson et al. (2004) also noted that beliefs and attitudes toward

ELLs could determine how teachers address instruction, how much they are willing to modify

lessons and to include ESL strategies in the lesson, and how much they feel that the achievement

of ELLs is a responsibility of mainstream teachers instead of the exclusive responsibility of the

ESL teacher. Therefore, the professional development for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs

through ESL teacher-education training programs will provide mainstream teachers with the

same set of skills that the ESL teachers have. According to Palaroan (2009), English as a second

language certified teachers learn ways to convey information to help Limited English Proficient

students (LEP) comprehend subjects effectively and have a positive effect on their achievement

scores.

One of the advantages of using a qualitative research approach is that the qualitative

research can point out limitations of existing theories and beliefs. Well-done qualitative research

is limited in its scope, but very rich in depth (Hopper, 2011). As this study sought to evaluate the

ESL training programs by exploring the viewpoints of mainstream teachers themselves, this

chapter explains that the implementation of the study’s findings and the transferability of the

study would be limited to the ESL training programs that have similar characteristics to the ones

that are examined in this study.

10

Significance of the Study

The number of students who speak languages other than English is increasing rapidly. At

the national level, there has been a significant increase in the number of ELLs during the first

decade of the 21st century. Many schools have had to implement special English as a second

language classes to meet the needs of this group of students. According to the National

Clearinghouse of English Language Acquisition (2011), the number of ELLs in American

schools has increased by 51% during the first decade of the 21st century. In Ohio, the 2011-

2012 enrollment of ELLs in the public elementary and secondary schools exceeded 39,800

students, which makes an increase of 38% when compared to the number reported five years

prior and 199% over the number reported 10 years earlier (Ohio Department of Education,

2012b). ELLs come from different backgrounds. Some of them are immigrant students who

have just arrived in the U.S. and speak little or no English. Some students had limited, if any,

formal schooling in their home countries (Ohio State University, 2012).

Most teachers have taken courses that address the methods of teaching in their specific

content area like math, science, or social studies. They may have also taken courses in

classroom management, technology, special education, and multiculturalism. However, few

teachers have ever taken courses that address English language learners (Ohio Department of

Education, 2012b).

The teachers who have had no professional training to teach ELLs may feel unsure as to

how to meet the unique academic and social needs of this group of students. This causes the

ELLs to struggle academically when they sit in mainstream classrooms. In extreme cases, ELLs

drop out of school completely, because they do not receive the support that they need (Ohio State

11

University, 2012). This study addressed the beliefs and perceptions of K-12 mainstream teachers

about their preparedness to help ELLs improve their academic achievement.

Significance of the Study for Educational Leadership

The number of ELLs is increasing rapidly, not only in urban schools but also in rural

regions. School districts in predominantly rural regions do not always have enough sources or

trained ESL teachers to cope with the challenges that result from this rapid and sometimes

sudden increase of students who are ELLs. These challenges cause real concern for educational

leaders who must lead the efforts to help ELLs succeed and improve their academic achievement

(Flynn & Hill, 2005). This qualitative study presented the viewpoints of mainstream teachers

about the ESL professional development programs that they have experienced. The findings of

this study should allow educational leaders to make research-based decisions to improve the

quality of future ESL professional development programs. The perceptions of mainstream

teachers may provide guidelines for educational leaders who are working to improve the quality

of education for ELLs through training programs for mainstream teachers. Improving ELLs’

academic performance is possible only with the implementation of high quality and consistent

sheltered instruction steered by research (Short & Echevarria, 2005). To ensure a quality of

education for ELLs that is equal to the quality of education the native English-speaking students

receive, ELLs must have access to the full resources available for regular mainstream students.

Theoretical Framework

The learning theories and hypotheses that have had the greatest impact on the field of

second language acquisition are behaviorism, acculturation, social constructivist, the universal

grammar hypothesis, the comprehension hypothesis, the interaction hypothesis, the input

12

hypothesis, the output hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, the socio-cultural theory, and

connectionism (Myles, 2010). Each one of these theories has its own significance in the field of

second language acquisition but the choice between these theories has to be based on the needs

of learners. Mainstream teachers mostly start working with ELLs after they exit from special

ESL programs but that is not always the case. Many schools use the immersion approach or the

inclusion approach where ELLs sit in mainstream classes for academic as well as language

instruction. Both of these two approaches fit with social-cultural theories and the constructivist

notion of learning that suggest that students construct meaning and knowledge through

interactions with the surrounding environment (Genesee, 1999). ELLs learn by observing others

in social settings (Menezes, 2013). Therefore, mainstream teachers need to build a learning

environment in which ELLs interact with everyone in the classroom through different means.

Building such learning environment starts from lesson planning that includes cooperation and

collaboration between learners, sharing knowledge through social interaction, and providing

stimuli for constructive knowledge. This kind of learning environment allows learners to share

knowledge and make association with their prior knowledge as well (Menezes, 2013).

The social constructivist perspective of second language acquisition emphasizes the

dynamic interaction between learners, their peers, and their teachers. Culture has a significant

role in forming understanding according to social constructivism. Learning occurs through

social interaction as learners experience knowledge collectively rather than individually. Social

constructivism may not emphasize the structure of learning as much as it emphasizes meaning.

The point is to make meaning from social activities in a free environment (Menezes, n.d).

13

Mainstream teachers may not have enough time to teach ELLs the proper use of grammar

rules while teaching content, but they can convey such grammar rules through a guided and

purposeful social interaction inside the classroom. Vygotsky, a leading educational psychologist,

argued that social interaction is the basis for learning (Vygotsky, 1978). The social interaction is

not limited by any means; therefore, learners may interact with each other, with their teachers, or

even with texts and books (Wilson, 1999). Consequently, learners make meaning from their

social interaction experience (Vygotsky, 1978). The idea that learning is interactive means more

than the concept of exchanging ideas and thoughts between learners in a social environment.

Learners do not only receive information, but they reshape the information they receive and

share it through dialogue and interaction (Yang & Wilson, 2006). Thus learners, through their

interactions with teachers, may be able to acquire more knowledge and improve their English

language skills. They may also benefit from learners who are English native speakers, especially

in the cultural and contextual aspects of language.

Nature of the Study

Qualitative approach. This study used qualitative research design. Research topic does

not determine the nature of the research method. However, factors related to the topic may lead

to one research method or another. The choice between different research methods should

depend upon what the researcher is trying to find out (Silverman, 2004).

According to Marshall (1996), the research questions should determine the choice

between quantitative and qualitative research method regardless of the preference of the

researcher. The purpose of this study and its research questions were behind the choice of the

qualitative research methodology. This study relied mainly on the participants’ responses that

14

were guided by semi-structured interviews. Participants responded to open-ended interview

questions and had the opportunity to elaborate and clarify their points of view. The study

explored the viewpoints of mainstream teachers about the ESL professional development

programs that they have experienced.

Participants in this study work with native English language speaking students and ELLs

in the same classroom settings. Hence, the open-ended questions of the interviews were

designed only to address this group of teachers to ensure accurate, valid, and reliable results.

Leedy and Ormrod (2010) explained that interviews in qualitative studies usually employ open-

ended questions that focus on one or multiple central issues but could go in different directions

according to participants.

The data analysis process in this study involved in depth analysis to the viewpoints of

mainstream teachers who described their experiences with the ESL professional development

training by responding to the interview questions. Qualitative research allows researchers to

employ their critical thinking skills in order to make sense of the information that they gather and

simplify them for readers. One of the advantages of using a qualitative research is that it can

point out the limitations of the existing theories and beliefs. Well-done qualitative research is

limited in its scope, but very rich in depth. It can help the researcher see how many different

causes and actions lead to specific outcomes (Hopper, 2011).

Descriptive design. Qualitative research is descriptive in nature as researchers who use

it focus on describing and understanding phenomena. Participants in qualitative research

describe in detail their views, activities, and the process of a given experience (Moen, 1998).

15

The descriptive qualitative design is most suitable for the nature of this study, which

addressed the experience of mainstream teachers during and after the ESL professional

development training programs. K-12 Mainstream teachers who deal with ELLs in mainstream

classrooms described their experiences when they responded to the open-ended interview

questions. According to Magilvy and Thomas (2009), participants’ descriptions to their

experiences make useful data for researchers who seek to understand the participants’ point of

views. In qualitative research, participants present their views and perceptions about an

identified problem through discussions or interviews (Lester, 1999). According to Welman and

Kruger (1999), qualitative researchers seek to understand the social and psychological

experience from the participants’ perspectives. Participants described their experience in simple

terms by using every day language to presented their views about the ESL professional training

programs that they have experienced. The interview questions in this study allowed participants

to provide a thorough description of the experience that included the social, psychological, and

academic aspects of the experience.

This descriptive qualitative study relied on a sample of 15 mainstream teachers who teach

ELLs and have a prior experience with ESL professional training. The sample size of

participants in qualitative research could be as small as five or as many as 25 participants

because sampling in qualitative research is purposeful in nature (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010).

Participants in a descriptive qualitative study must have experience with the problem being

studied and must be able to describe their experience to the researcher (Magilvy & Thomas,

2009).

16

The data collection process in qualitative research includes interviewing of participants

who will respond to open-ended questions, which is the data collection method used in this

study. The interview questions in this study addressed the purpose of the study. Participants’

responses were carefully analyzed. The analysis of data generated patterns and themes that led

to rich description and understanding of the issue understudy (Magilvy & Thomas, 2009).

The participants’ experience with ESL professional training could be useful in

determining whether such professional training programs are helpful for mainstream teachers

who teach ELLs in mainstream classroom settings. The aim was to understand the very nature of

the experience by reducing the experiences of participants with a concise description that could

be accomplished through a descriptive qualitative design (Tavallaei & Abu Talib, 2010).

Research Questions

This study sought to answer the following central research question: How do mainstream

teachers describe their experiences with ESL professional development programs? The

researcher used the following sub-questions to examine any direct or indirect factors related to

the central question that could explain the varied perspectives of participants (Creswell, 2014):

RQ1: How do mainstream teachers perceive the ESL training programs that they have

experienced?

RQ2: What are the critical barriers and challenges that mainstream teachers continue

to face concerning ESL professional development?

Definition of Terms

Bilingual instruction. The term refers to instruction in two languages. In the United

States bilingual instruction or bilingual education refers to a range of instructional programs for

17

students whose native language is not English, given in the native language of the student and in

English (Garcia, 2009).

Constructivism. Crotty (2003) defined constructivism as “the view that all knowledge,

and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human practices, being

constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and develop and

transmitted within an essentially social context” (p. 42).

English as a second language (ESL). A term that refers to students whose first language

is not English. At the same time, it refers to the intensive instructional approach in English

language for students who have limited English proficient or nonnative English-speaking

students (American Institutes for Research, 2010).

English language learners (ELLs). The term, “refers to students who are not yet

proficient in English and who require instructional support in order to fully access academic

content in their classes” (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2008a, p. 2).

Immersion. Refers to the full-time placement of ELLs in mainstream classes in which

English is the primary language of instruction. The linguistic needs of ELLs are addressed

during instruction to ensure achievement of content knowledge (American Institutes for

Research, 2010).

Limited English proficient (LEP). The term, “refers to language minority students who

have difficulty understanding, speaking, reading, or writing the English language at levels

appropriate to their age and grade in school” (Lapp & Flood, 1994, p. 261).

Mainstream – The term refers to regular school classes or regular schools

(Dictionary.com, 2013). In this study, the term is used for all non-ESL teachers.

18

Pullout ESL. A program in which students who are English language learners leave their

mainstream classrooms in order to receive individualized instruction in English as a second

language (American Institutes for Research, 2010).

Sheltered instruction. Sheltered instruction is a teaching model in which a content area

specialist teaches a content course using specific accommodations and strategies for ELLs

(Snow, 2005).

Assumptions

Several assumptions contributed the foundation of this descriptive qualitative study. The

first assumption was that participants were willing to respond to the interview questions

honestly. Participants were aware that they have the option to decline or participate voluntarily

in this study. The informed consent that participants signed explained the participants’ rights

thoroughly (see Appendix A).

The second assumption was that the study sample of 15 mainstream teachers would be

representative of the general population of mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in the State of

Ohio. The third assumption was that participants in the study had participated in one or several

ESL professional development programs and they had the ability to recall information and

describe their experience.

Limitations and Delimitations

The delimitations of the study included the following. First, even though this study

addressed the ESL training programs, no ESL teacher participated in the study. The viewpoints

of the ESL teachers were not examined or considered. Second, the participants included 15

mainstream teachers who work and teach in Ohio, which means that the viewpoints of the

19

participants were representative of those mainstream teachers who work in the State of Ohio and

any mainstream teachers who deal with ELLs in similar circumstances.

The limitations of the study included the following. First, the implementation of the

study’s findings and the transferability of the study is limited to the ESL training programs that

have similar characteristics to the ones examined in this study. Second, since participants did not

know or had any contact with the researcher prior to this study, they might not have provided all

the needed information for this study. However, the researcher asked the participants to

elaborate and asked them follow-up questions as needed to give them the opportunity to

elaborate and engage in further discussions. Participants were urged to provide as much

information as possible in their responses. Third, the selection process of participants was based

on the recommendations of two educational leaders who were familiar with the participants. The

researcher did not meet any of the participants before they agreed to participate in the study.

Since the choice of samples in qualitative studies is usually purposeful (Jones, Torres, &

Arminio, 2006), knowing the participants could make the study findings more reliable than the

findings from a qualitative study that uses random sampling. To help improve the choice of the

sample in this study, the researcher consulted with two educational leaders who knew the

participants and helped arrange individual meetings with each participant to discuss the purpose

and nature of the study before conducting the interviews.

Summary

Even though the number of ELLs in the American schools is increasing rapidly, Harper

and De Jong (2009) warned that many ELLs continue to struggle in mainstream content

classrooms after being exited from ESL support programs. In addition to the inability of ELLs to

20

meet the language demand of mainstream classes, mainstream teachers lack the professional

development that could allow them to teach ELLs more effectively, learn ways to convey

information to help ELLs comprehend subjects effectively, and have a positive effect on their

achievement scores (Palaroan, 2009). In the state of Ohio, where this study was conducted,

some schools and school districts provide ESL training programs for mainstream teachers. The

purpose of this study was to explore and examine the viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers

about the ESL professional development and training programs implemented for mainstream

teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms.

In addition to explaining the purpose of the study, this introductory chapter included a

discussion about the theoretical framework, the research methodology, and the limitations and

delimitations of this study.

The following chapter provides review and analysis of the relevant literature. It includes

a historical overview of the ESL education and second language acquisition theories. Then, it

addresses the efforts of educational leaders and researchers to address the challenges that ELLs

face as well as the different programs that many schools use to meet the needs of an increasing

population of ELLs. The end of the following chapter contains a discussion about the

importance of ESL professional development programs for mainstream teachers and examines

the ongoing research to improve such training programs.

21

Chapter 2

Review of the Literature

Many educators and psychologists have put forward several second language acquisition

theories. It would be impossible and irrelevant to list every single theory in this study.

Therefore, within the literature review chapter the study listed some of the most popular theories

of second language acquisition and explained which one of these theories is relevant to the

purpose of this study, focusing on the role of mainstream teachers who teach ELLs.

The number of ELLs in American public schools is increasing rapidly because of the

growing number of immigrants to the United States. The population with the greatest rate of

increase among students in American schools is that of the children of immigrants. Half of these

children do not have a fluent command of the English language. In the 2007-08 school-year, 10.6

percent of the K-12 public school enrolment in the United States comprised ELLs. The total

number reaches 5.3 million students, representing a twofold increase in 15 years prior

(Calderson, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011). Moreover, the number of students who are ELL is

expected to double once more by 2015 (National Education Association, 2012).

ELLs struggle in the mainstream classroom settings because ELLs are not proficient

enough in English to understand everything the teachers say during instruction. Researchers

consistently find wide and persistent achievement gaps between ELLs and native English-

speaking students. An example of this achievement gap is apparent in the 2011 and all the

previous reading assessment years since 2002 according to the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP). As the figures below show, the scores for ELL fourth- and-eighth

22

graders were lower than their non-ELL peers’ scores (National Center for Educational Statistics,

2013).

Figure 1. Average reading scores of 4th-grade students, by (ELL) status: Selected years,

2002-11. Scale ranges from 0 to 500. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Educational Statistics 2013.

Figure 2. Average reading scores of 8th-grade students, by (ELL) status: Selected years,

2002-11. Scale ranges from 0 to 500. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Educational Statistics 2013.

23

Closing these achievement gaps means, in part, closing similar gaps in ESL education

within teacher preparation programs and ongoing professional development agendas. Today

ELLs spend more time in regular classrooms with mainstream teachers who know that they are

not fully equipped to teach ELLs (Calderson et al., 2011).

Historical Overview

The teaching of English as a second language is an American educational problem.

Throughout the history of the country, educators have grappled with the conundrum of how to

teach those who do not speak the common language; they have even wrestled with the question

of what the common language should be. The problem of a multilingual citizenry is inherent in a

multinational society (Cavanaugh, 1996). The United States is a multinational society, and

according to Cho and Reich (2008), new opportunities are opened for those who immigrate to it.

This has made the United States an attractive destination for immigrants worldwide. In

particular, a strong role has been played by public education institutions in integrating immigrant

children into the larger society while educating them. Those who immigrate to the U.S. today,

however, face challenges that earlier immigrants, up until the end of the 20th century, did not

face. These challenges spring from particular situations inherent to modern society that were not

previously present. Namely, one such challenge is the current nature of the economy as a post-

industrial work pool in which a middle-class, or even a stable working-class job, depends for the

most part on education. Immigrants have been an essential workforce that contributes to the

economy of United States, but in the 21st century the immigration system and policies need to

change, as the economy becomes more knowledge-based (Migration Policy Institute, 2006).

24

Such is the importance of ELLs, that from the 1960s onward, many U.S. education

policies—in the local, state and federal levels and in all the three branches of government—have

been focused on ELLs (Garcia, Kleifgen, & Falchi, 2008). The Supreme Court ruling in the

Brown v. Board of Education case that declared segregated schools as unconstitutional opened

the doors for many educational reform acts that provide equal opportunities for minority and

linguistically diverse students. In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act that prohibits

discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, which contributed in protecting the

educational rights of ELLs in schools across the country (Crawford, 2004; National

Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational

Programs, 2006).

The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 made helping ELLs acquire English language

proficiency more quickly a federal goal, but it gave less emphasis on bilingual education.

However, Congress made funds available for school districts that created bilingual education

programs because of the large populations of certain language minority students (Garcia et al.,

2008). The same Act was revised in 1974 and 1978 to include students who had limited English

speaking ability (LESA), as well as limited English proficient students (LEP). However, those

two revisions did not dictate any type of instructional programs and left it to teachers to choose

their instructional methods. According to Garcia et al. (2008), the tone and focus of the federal

Bilingual Education Act started to shift in the 1980s to English-only programs. The 1984 and

1988 reauthorization of the federal Bilingual Education Act expanded funding for non-bilingual

programs and imposed a three-year limit on participation in transitional bilingual education

25

programs. The Act was reauthorized in 1994 yet again, but this time to lift the quotas for

English-only programs and increase the funding for bilingual-education programs.

Finally, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) came to emphasize accountability

and push for standardized testing. NCLB mandated that all school districts must help improve

their students’ performance to meet their state annual targets, known as adequate yearly progress

or AYP. The emphasis of NCLB was on math, reading, and science (Garcia et al., 2008). NCLB

also required schools and districts to track ELLs’ AYP in terms of academic and English

language proficiency (Capps et al., 2005).

National ELL statistics. In 2011 the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) released a report showing a dramatic increase of ELLs across the

country because of the increasing population of new immigrants in the United States. According

to the NCES (2011), the number of K-12 students whose native language is not English

increased from 4.7 to 11.2 million between 1980 and 2009. In percentile, this represents an

increase from 10% to 21% among K-12 student population. However, the numbers did not

change from 2006 to 2009. Considering the differences by age, the percentage of five to nine

year olds who did not speak English at home and spoke English with difficulty (seven percent)

was greater than the percentages of 10- to 13-year- olds and 14- to17-year-olds who did so (four

percent each). These patterns by age held across most demographic and socioeconomic

characteristics (NCES, 2011).

Ohio ELL statistics. According to the latest data available to the Ohio Department of

Education (2012b), the 2011-2012 enrollment of ELLs in the public elementary and secondary

schools exceeded 39,800 students, which makes an increase of 38% when compared to the

26

number reported five years prior and 199% over the number reported 10 years earlier. The Ohio

Department of Education uses both terms Limited English Proficient (LEP) and English

Language Learners (ELLs) to describe K-12 students whose mother-tongue is not English and

who face difficulties communicating in English that they are unable to learn and engage

effectively in classroom’s activities.

Ohio’s ELLs represent more than 110 different native or home languages. The top 10

language groups include Spanish, Somali, Arabic, Japanese, Pennsylvania Dutch (a dialect of

German used by the Amish), Russian, Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Serbo-Croatian and Korean (Ohio

Department of Education, 2012b).

A large number of ELLs in Ohio are children of recent immigrants who are new in the

United States. In March and April of 2007, the Ohio Department of Education surveyed 129

Ohio school districts and the results of those surveys indicated that these school districts were

serving 11,356 ELLs who have been in the country only for three years or less (Ohio Department

of Education, 2011). In addition, the most recent data indicate that during the school year of

2011-2012, the same school districts reported serving 11,881 ELLs who have been in the country

only for three years or less (Ohio Department of Education, 2012b).

Most of the recent immigrants in Ohio are refugees from countries like Somalia and Iraq

but many other immigrants come to this country for a variety of reasons. Some immigrants have

little or no education, especially those coming from war-torn regions, but some others are well

educated who come to this country to seek better life opportunities. Reports from the Ohio

Department of Job and Family Services' Refugee Services Office indicate that the State of Ohio

hosted 13,802 new refugees between 2003 and 2011. Although most of the refugees came from

27

Somalia, many other refugees came from countries like Russia, Burma, Ukraine, Uzbekistan,

Ethiopia, Sudan, Iran, and Cuba. Moreover and during the same period, the state of Ohio

became the home of many immigrants who moved from other States. The city of Columbus

alone is now home to more than 40,000 newly arrived Somali refugees (Ohio Department of

Education, 2012b).

Not all ELLs are recent immigrants to the United States. Many ELLs come from families

that have lived in the United States for several years. Some of them were also born in the United

States. Those ELLs usually speak another language at home. For instance, children of Mexican-

American and Puerto Rican families learn Spanish as their first language. Spanish-speaking

migrants in Ohio work in the agricultural industry. Many of them reside in rural school districts,

which add to the complication of the situation since rural school districts do not have large

enough numbers of ELLs to justify spending on special ESL programs. Elementary and

secondary schools from all over Ohio enrolled about 1,180 Spanish-speaking migrant children

during the school year 2010-2011. In addition, Ohio has many Amish communities in rural

school districts. Children of the Amish families living in Northeastern Ohio learn German

language, also known as Pennsylvania Dutch, as their first language. Wayne and Holmes

Counties’ schools enrolled about 1,200 Amish ELLs during the school year 2010-2011(Ohio

Department of Education, 2012b).

Ohio’s ELLs come from different backgrounds and have different levels of education.

Some of them have little or no prior education and some others are well educated and literate in

their native language. Such differences require a wide range of ESL programs in order to meet

the needs of each ELL student (Ohio Department of Education, 2012b).

28

Meeting the Needs of Ohio’s ELLs

Currently in Ohio, school districts have the flexibility to decide on the education

approach that best meets the needs of their ELLs. Therefore, school districts in Ohio use a

combination of various programs. The commonly used approaches are bilingual instruction, the

immersion approach, pullout English as a second language classes, in-class or inclusion

instruction, and individual tutoring (Ohio Department of Education, 2012a).

Second Language Acquisition

According to Myles (2010), until the end of the 1960s educators did not deal with second

language learning as an independent field. Instead, they examined it through the lens of

language teaching methodology, which was based on behaviorism—the pre-eminent theory of

education in psychology then. The focus was on pairing the first and second language, rather

than what the students do with the information they receive. However, this changed in the

second half of the 1960s, when researchers found that the differences and similarities between

the first and second languages do not always affect the difficulty of learning the second language

(Myles, 2010).

In 1945, Fries had developed a pedagogy of language based on behaviorism in which he

claimed that repetition and practice lead to accurate and fluent foreign language habits. Fries

also claimed that teaching must be based on the comparison between the first and the second

languages of the learner so teachers can focus on what is different and perhaps difficult in the

second language (Fries, 1945). Skinner (1957) added to the behaviorist learning theory the

stimulus-response reinforcement as a helpful method for language learning, which applies to any

other learning (Myles, 2010). Chomsky (1959) criticized Skinner fiercely, arguing that children

29

have an innate faculty guiding them in their acquisition of language. Although Chomsky did not

address second language acquisition, his ideas have had a major effect on the field of English as

a second language and its subsequent abandonment of behaviorism as an explanation of second

language acquisition (Myles, 2010).

After Chomsky, a number of researchers argued against behaviorism. Walt (1992)

argued, in contrast to the behaviorist thinking, that teachers should let the learning process take

its course in the classroom rather than try to shape it as in behaviorist methods such as

audiolingualism. Corder (1967) drew attention to studying learners’ errors, arguing that a

significant number of errors do not come from the first language of the learners. Dulay and Burt

(1973) argued that only 3% of errors English learners make may result from the first language.

Hence, if English learners receive rich input, syntax will take care of itself. Bailey, Madde, and

Krashen (2006) pointed out that morpheme studies are highly important because they show that

learning the second language may not be different from learning the first language, as they are

both driven by the learners’ internal mechanism rather than behaviorist principles. English

learners who are closer to the English language community are likely to make the most progress

in learning the language, which explains the concept of acculturation advocated by Schumann

(1978).

Long (1980) provided a new foundation for later work that represented a departure from

the initial focus on contrastive analysis to a focus on the input learners receive and how they

engage with it (Myles, 2010). Krashen (1981) developed the influential monitor model, which

claims that learning and acquisition are different processes. Acquisition is a subconscious

process whereby the learner constructs the grammar of the second language consciously. This

30

particular model supports the idea that not only ESL teachers can help ELLs learn English and

become fluent speakers. Mainstream teachers also play a significant role in the learning process.

Swain (1985) gave valuable input into the field of ESL education and the academic

achievement of ELLs, arguing that learners do not need only comprehensible language input.

They also need to produce output to develop their communicative abilities in English. This

assertion followed research on immersion students in Canada who are taught their academic

subjects in French, which is the students’ second language. Those students became close to

native-like in comprehension, but their productive abilities lagged behind and remained short of

native-like competence.

Some researchers believe that the first language has an impact on the learning of ELLs.

Cook (1991) declared that the bilingual mind is not merely two monolingual minds added

together. Not only does the first language impact the second, but the second also has an impact

on the first. This has major implications regarding the learners’ academic performance.

Computer-modeling for language learning started in 1992 (Myles, 2010). With the

advancement of technology during the last two decades, computers have become a truly useful

tool for English language learning and testing. The development of second language phonology

was started by Archibald in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Myles, 2010).

Carroll (2000) proposed an ambitious model outlining the role of processing mechanisms

and interaction in student language acquisition. This autonomous induction theory is the first

complex model linking language representation, processing and learning (Myles, 2010). The

new sophisticated technologies allowed researchers to investigate the neurological foundations of

language in the brain. Paradis (2004) reviewed new studies of the multilingual brains and

31

proposed a linguistic theory of bilingualism, integrating a neurofunctional model and a set of

hypotheses about language processing.

Social Constructivist Theory

Learning theories embracing constructivist epistemology include the cognitive

constructivism, social constructivism and transformative learning theories (Xiao, 2008). The

theoretical approach in this study is based on the social constructivist learning theory. The

following section will address the significance of this theory for the effective instruction and

teaching of ELLs.

Understanding the social constructivist theory of learning requires an understanding of

the meaning of constructivism. According to Crotty (2003), constructivism posits that human

actions—with all aspects of the environment—are the sole builders of all knowledge, and

therefore determine the perception of reality and meanings. Meanings are then developed and

transmitted by means of a social network, which provides a context. Constructivism is a theory

about knowledge and learning that is based on findings from psychology, philosophy, science,

and biology (Fosnot, 2005). Its principles describe knowledge as emergent, developmental,

nonobjective, viable, constructing explanations by humans engaged in meaning-making in

cultural and social communities of discourse. In constructivism, individuals create meaning

through the interaction with the world and its objects. Individuals construct knowledge by

relating new information to personal experiences and through active engagement in the learning

process (Brooks & Brooks, 1999).

Social constructivism is a theory of learning derived from the constructivist paradigm that

is used in psychology and education. According to Schallert and Martin (2003), social

32

constructivist learning means that learners construct interpretations of the ongoing events they

experience and actively make sense of language and life according to their experiences in these

events. Mainstream teachers, with this understanding of learning, can help ELLs make sense of

what they see and hear inside the classroom, regardless of their English language proficiency. In

fact, mainstream teachers can help ELLs construct meaning and develop their English language

proficiency through what Von Glasersfeld (1987) called the human engagement, which plays the

major role in the development of knowledge. The human engagement that Von Glaserfeld

referred to is the simple interaction between individuals with each other, or between learners and

teachers.

In social constructivist theory, collaborative learning represents a form of human

engagement. Cobb (2005) highlighted the major principles of social constructivist theory. Cobb

maintained that knowledge of language that has yet to be learned is not objective—it is not out

there, waiting to be discovered. Complete models of linguistic knowledge cannot be poured into

students who are perceived as passive containers. Knowledge is constructed, and its construction

is a collaborative effort; knowledge that has been constructed is difficult to test because learners

will have individualized constructions of any taught content.

Social Constructivist Pedagogy

Isaacson (2004) explained that constructivist beliefs are built upon numerous concepts,

such as hands-on experiences, problem-solving, decision-making, thinking at a higher level,

probing questions, and understanding the students’ background and their prior knowledge. An

example of proven social constructivist teaching methods is the research of Duffy et al. (1986),

which determined that the value of engaging teachers in public modeling via loud thinking and

33

the use of reading strategies such as using context for the purpose of figuring out the meaning of

an unknown word. Duffy et al. noted that the third- and fifth-grade students of teachers who

were skilled in modeling mental processing when there was difficulty understanding the text

recalled more from the lessons and indicated a greater awareness of why they were learning

particular strategies.

The employment of technology in instruction is significant for social constructivist

pedagogy. Cobb (2005) argued that educators call for the use of technology in ESL education

but the theoretical framework is often missing. He noted that it is frequently pointed out that the

use of information technology is being implemented blindly and without much in the way of

theoretical background or planning. Cobb went on to suggest that treating a second language

learner as a linguist in a variation of the constructivism theory might be the answer to the lack of

theoretical basis and might provide what has been missing in past strategies such as the inductive

discovery and constructivist frames—the means learners require to induce, discover, and

construct.

ELLs’ Challenges

ELLs face a complex range of challenges that start with the difficulty in acquiring the

language orally and academically and continue when they attempt to learn content and keep pace

with native English-speaking peers. Researchers have not found agreement on which method of

learning can be most effective for teaching ELLs. The debate seems to be centered on the

development of bilingual programs and structured English language immersion (Gil & Bardack,

2010). The challenges that ELLs face go beyond this debate. Findings from multiple research

34

studies have shown that language oral proficiency can take at least three years to develop.

Academic English proficiency may take up to seven years to attain (Gil & Bardack, 2010).

Helping ELLs to succeed academically is much more challenging than what many

educators think. Even in the most successful school districts in educating ELLs, attaining oral

proficiency could take three to five years and attaining academic proficiency could take four to

seven years (Cook, Boals, & Lundberg, 2011). The short-term programs that most schools apply

to assist ELLs in acquiring language proficiency become nonrealistic under these circumstances.

What ELLs need is not a short-term remediation but a curriculum that supports their academic

and linguistic needs over a sustained period of time and helps eliminate the achievement gap

between them and their native English-speaking peers (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000).

Mainstream Teachers as ESL Educators

Teachers encounter increasing numbers of students who are not proficient enough in

English to completely understand and utilize material presented in conventional academic

settings. This is a direct result of the shifts in the demographic composition of the United States.

(National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2008a). The increasing numbers of

ELLs pose major challenges to mainstream teachers. Hite and Evans (2006) suggested that, with

so much emphasis placed on testing and scores, working with ELLs turns into a merciless duty

with little room for mistakes.

Some important research findings in ESL education indicate that mainstream teachers

play a significant role, equal to that of ESL teachers, in the language acquisition of ELLs.

Teachers must have effective pedagogical content knowledge to better assist students. For

teachers who instruct ELLs, this knowledge means knowing how to concurrently teach content

35

and language (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2008b). In other

words, mainstream teachers can facilitate the second language acquisition for ELLs while they

are teaching content and not so much when trying to directly teach second language acquisition

(Hite & Evans, 2006).

Focusing on mainstream teachers, Gibbons (2002) described how good teaching for ELLs

includes providing students with opportunities to learn and employ conversational language

while simultaneously learning academic concepts and language. Placing ELLs in mainstream

classes ensures that students learn linguistically while also acquiring the same content that their

peers, who are proficient in English, learn (Hite & Evans, 2006). Research has shown that

creating an environment where ELLs can interact and participate with their English language

proficient peers in mainstream classrooms allows them to learn English and improve on their

academic performance at the same time (Leavitt, 2013). According to Baik and Greig (2009),

the idea of learning through involvement in the classroom makes use of the development of

identities originating in a particular community. To that end, it is more important to learn actual

practices than it is to learn the language.

The Need for Professional Development

Many teachers find themselves teaching learners from growingly diverse cultural and

linguistic backgrounds. Yet these teachers are not prepared or have not received enough

professional development preparation specially linked to ELLs (Spinelli, 2008). The lack of

preparedness of teachers is a serious problem since the opportunities for ELL to succeed

academically is reliant on teachers’ knowledge to effectively teach in the mainstream classroom.

Thus, the need for professional development is to help teachers work with both the ELLs and

36

Native English speaking students. Teachers cannot be fully prepared or equipped with the

necessary knowledge without quality ongoing professional development. In fact, quality

teaching calls for teacher-focused quality professional development. Thus, experienced and new

teachers require a kind of professional development that enables them to examine their beliefs

regarding their students and improve their repertoire of culturally and linguistically relevant

pedagogy (Spinelli, 2008).

In Ohio, many teachers accept that they seldom take part in professional development

focusing on instruction for ELLs, making many unprepared to address the needs of ELLs

(Spinelli, 2008). Mainstream teachers particularly are aware that they do not only lack training

and knowledge to work with ELLs, but also lack a coherent framework of second language

acquisition for integrating content instruction and language. Moreover, there is limited

professional development literature for mainstream teachers who work with ELLs.

ESL professional development programs for mainstream teachers who teach English

Language Learners is crucial for meeting the needs of the growing ELLs population. The

considerable achievement gap between language majority and language minority students,

together with the educational climate encouraging inclusionary practices, make it essential that

teacher preparation programs look into the depositions, skills and knowledge that mainstream

teachers require to develop to work effectively with ELLs (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2010).

Teachers require developing skills and knowledge in the field of ESL because it will help

teachers who teach ELLs make the academic content more reachable to all students.

Like any practitioners, teachers need ongoing honing of skills and knowledge so that they

become more competent at their work. As literature shows, however, very few mainstream

37

teachers have been trained and prepared to tackle the cultural and linguistic differences and

challenges of ELLs. Youngs and Youngs (2001) noted that mainstream teachers frequently fall

short of the necessary knowledge to help the ELLs, but discover their in-service ELL training

unattainable or insufficient.

Effective Training

With the demands of No Child Left Behind, professional development remains a major

driving force and agent within schools to increase student outcomes (Li & Edwards, 2010).

Researchers and practitioners have commenced to analyze the best ways to carry out this

specialized training in order to realize positive outcomes for student learning. In spite of heavier

financial input in training professional development remains to be intellectually superficial,

fragmented, and fails to consider what teachers learn. A wealth body of literature winds up that

effective training should be sustained, collaborative, and be content-focused to bring about

change in teacher practice in ways that enhance student learning (Li & Edwards, 2010). For

effective professional development to be effective, its content and structure must center on

specific classroom strategies and engage teachers in active learning (Li & Edwards, 2010).

Professional developments affect teaching practices when the content involves specific

pedagogical practices, specific content areas, and instructional inquiry (Li & Edwards, 2010). A

focus on a particular pedagogical strategy or content area allows teachers to transfer this new

skill from professional development and incorporate it into classroom practice. Professional

developments activities that attach great importance to content or are better connected to teachers

are more likely to yield improved skills and knowledge. The professional development literature

supports certain essential priorities in training and preparing mainstream teachers to effective

38

work with students. According to Dong (2003), ESL professional development should be able to

build an appreciation of ELL’s cultural and language differences, adapt instruction and

curriculum, and know how to incorporate content, as well as discipline-specific literacy and

language skills into instruction. August and Shanahan (2006) suggested that effective

professional development is the one that produces changes in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, in

their classroom practices, and in learners’ learning outcomes. Effective professional

development approach must integrate research and theory with demonstration of commendable

strategies, whilst giving time for practice and feedback. Gallimore, Ermeling, Saunders, and

Goldenberg (2009) carried out research on school-based professional development in which

teachers labored collaboratively over time and found a considerable effect in whole-school

improvement.

As Casteel and Ballantyne (2010) reported, professionals and researchers often support

and encourage the utility of models that employ collaboration, mentoring, and partnerships for

professional development preparation. Research has emphasized on collaborative learning via

learning communities in professional development programs. Effective professional

development focuses on addressing individual needs and giving opportunities for teachers to

congregate in learning communities and to engage in professional activities like curricular

development planning, action research groups, lesson study, and study groups (Li & Edwards,

2010). In doing so, teachers may congregate to tackle issues of concern, as well as discuss the

likely solutions to these issues.

For professional development to be effective, it must be continuous and ongoing. Studies

have found that one-shot seminars are not as effective as compared to sustained professional

39

development when advancing teachers’ knowledge. Time span or duration of professional

development is critical when it comes to the effectiveness of professional development (Li &

Edwards, 2010).

Obstacles and Teachers Struggle

The major obstacle hampering effective professional development is the lack of

opportunities for professional development. Although professional development supported by

external agencies is vital, for effective ESL training in the mainstream the most important is that

which is built into the school itself, as part of a normal cycle of school evaluation and renewal

(Leung, Davidson, & Mohan, 2013). Teachers need to be encouraged and motivated to observe

colleagues, consult with colleagues, exchange feedback with colleagues, and plan together

(Leung et al., 2013). Supportive and friendly professional relationships contribute to teacher

satisfaction and institutional climate as well. Therefore, mainstream teachers who teach ELLs

require access to leaders and mentors in the areas who they can count on for support and

guidance.

Another factor hindering professional development is time. Inadequate resources and

time for on-going professional development is still a major challenge. Many studies show that it

takes a long period of time to develop new skills and knowledge and to integrate new skills into

practice. According to Leung et al. (2013), development programs and training that necessitate

changes in practice that totally differs with those of the current could take a significant period of

time, which is always a problem for teachers who are overwhelmed with busy schedule.

Bringing the benefits of professional development programs of mainstream teachers to

the mainstream classroom require reduction of numerous obstacles such as lack of human

40

resources and teaching materials, as well as lack of management support, overburdened with

administrative tasks, poor quality relationships between teachers, discouraging behaviors of

students (Borko, 2004). In addition to organization, there are individual obstacles. Effective

teacher learning demands willingness to change their beliefs and to develop own teaching

(Borko, 2004).

Training Mainstream Teachers to Teach ELLs

Teachers face sizable difficulties in improving students’ performance in literary and

content-based subjects—even when English is the first language of the students. These

difficulties are even greater where language-minority students with varying levels of language

proficiency are concerned (Hite & Evans, 2006). Such greater difficulties faced by mainstream

teachers require adequate training for those mainstream teachers who teach ELLs. As Calderon,

Slavin, and Sanchez (2011) indicated, mainstream teachers are feeling the need to learn how to

teach ELLs as larger numbers of English learners enroll into America’s K–12 schools.

Research in ESL education has improved throughout the years and schools around the

country now implement many different ESL professional training programs. However, even

with the existence of a large number of ESL professional training programs, mainstream teachers

who deal with ELLs still lack the professional-level preparation and the basic training and

resources to teach ELLs (Henrichsen, 2010). Schools must improve the skills of all educators

through a comprehensive professional training. Training all mainstream teachers to teach ELLs

is an ambitious goal but it is a necessity that requires appropriate research, preparation, and

funding. Educational researchers always find constant achievement gap between ELLs and their

native English-speaking peers. This achievement gap signals an urgent need for a real reform

41

that allows teachers as well as staff to acquire new skills and be prepared to deal with ELLs more

effectively. The entire school community and parents have to collaborate and work together as a

team to address the needs of ELLs but without a strong commitment for school leaders such

collaboration will be unreachable (Calderon et al., 2011).

The need for teacher and staff preparation becomes extremely high in schools that use the

inclusion method to improve the ELLs’ English language proficiency. In such cases, ELLs do

not sit in special ESL classes prior to their attendance in mainstream classes. Instead, they are

placed directly into a mainstream classroom. The inclusion method results all too often in a one-

size-fits-all attitude; this is despite the fact that ELLs are incredibly diverse, and differ from

each other in their ages, their place of origin, and their educational, cultural, linguistic and

economic background (Harper & De Jong, 2009). Including ELLs in mainstream classrooms

without adequate training for teachers can lead to unwanted consequences. Harper and De Jong

(2009) mentioned that studies conclusively show that doing so results in the ostracizing of ELLs

by their peers. It also leads to less participation in class by ELLs, less interaction with

classmates and teachers, and less chance of advancement and growth in either language or

academic content.

Vision for Teacher Preparation

The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition has proposed certain

criteria for ESL professional development programs in order to help mainstream teachers gain a

better understanding of the needs of students from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Any ESL

professional development program, according to the National Clearinghouse for English

Language Acquisition (2008a), should continue throughout the career of an educator in an

42

integrated fashion. This development program needs to be effectual and pertinent along a

spectrum of different forms of teacher education within a higher-education setting. In addition, it

needs to involve disciplinary standards and content learning goals, go hand-in-hand with active

learning, evolve with research and new data and evaluation, be multi-faceted with diversity,

promote cross-cultural education, and produce tangibly improved results with regards to

students, thus narrowing the achievement gap between ELLs and English-proficient students.

School districts around the country can use this vision to build teachers’ proficiency

through ESL professional development programs. In Ohio, teachers who feel the need for ESL

professional development programs usually enroll in additional ESL classes and programs such

as the ESL Content Teachers Collaborative (ECTC) program offered by Ohio State University.

According to the ECTC program director Samimy (2012), 140 teachers from 20 school districts

in Ohio enrolled in the program during the past five years. Some teachers enrolled for personal

reasons and through self-motivation, and some were fielded by their school districts. Teachers

who enrolled in the ECTC learned new teaching strategies and how to collaborate with ESL

teachers in order to improve instruction for ELLs (Zhang, 2012). Wisnor (2012) reported

positive changes in the teachers who have participated in the ECTC program. Those teachers

have become more knowledgeable about ELLs and on how to provide them with effective

content and language instruction. In addition, the teachers’ own beliefs regarding how languages

are acquired and taught have shown positive improvement overtime.

Mainstream teachers are actively seeking professional development opportunities to

improve their skills and teaching practices as they experience increasing numbers of student with

limited English language proficiency in their classrooms. Ye, Prater, and Steed (2011)

43

conducted a need assessment study in August of 2007 that included 75 teachers. Eighty-nine

percent of the participants reported their interest in participating in ESL professional

development programs. Even though 46% of the participants reported having some training in

Sheltered Instruction, eight had additional ESL certification, and five attended graduate level

courses in language acquisition, those teachers felt the need for more ESL professional

development programs. Mainstream teachers are aware of the challenges that ELLs face and

want to find ways to better serve the ELLs and help close the achievement gap between the ELLs

and their native English-speaking peers.

Ye et al. (2011) conducted a study to evaluate a yearlong ESL professional development

program for mainstream teachers, which was part of the TESOL for ALL project supported by

the Department of Education. The Department of Education was the sponsor of TESOL for ALL

project. The project consisted of five years long professional development programs that address

the needs of ELLs and the persistent achievement gap between them and their native English-

speaking students. The programs were designed specifically for educational leaders and

mainstream teachers (Ye et al., 2011). The study involved 22 teachers, including nine ESL and

13 mainstream teachers. The findings of the study indicated that every teacher that deals with

ELLs must be prepared with knowledge, not only in languages and diversity; but also in

leadership skills, self reflection, and collaboration. This will help involve all educators in

changing schools for the better (Ye et al., 2011).

As the awareness of the need for ESL professional development for teachers continues to

grow, more colleges and universities offer graduate level programs in ESL education. These

programs entail a range of spotlights and stress academic content, teaching techniques, or both

44

(National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2008a). The effectiveness of such

programs is still a good subject for research. As long as the number of ELLs continues to rise,

along with the need for qualified teachers who can deliver high quality education for all,

education researchers will continue to evaluate programs and suggest more recommendations.

Training programs at both the higher education level and the school professional stage continue

to bring forth productive theories, practical applications and effective teaching methods. These

make prime examples for teachers educating ESL students (Ye et al., 2011). However, ESL

professional development programs for mainstream teachers need to go beyond teaching

techniques and good practices, because issues such as coordination between mainstream teachers

and ESL teachers are highly important and must be part of any professional development

program (De Jong & Harper, 2005).

Summary

The statistics presented throughout the literature review indicate that ELLs represent one

of the fastest growing populations in the American public school system. This is also the case in

the state of Ohio. According to the NCES (2012), a dramatic increase of ELLs has occurred

across the country because of the increasing population of new immigrants in the United States.

According to the latest data available to the Ohio Department of Education (2012b), more than

39,800 ELLs enrolled in elementary and secondary public schools across Ohio during the 2010-

2011 school year. Researchers in the field of education have conducted many studies and they

continue to try different approaches to help this growing segment of the school population. One

of the approaches needed to improve outcomes for ELLs and other language minority students is

45

to reform the entire school, and provide innovative approaches to curriculum, instruction,

assessment, and professional development (Calderon et al., 2011).

To understand the theoretical framework of the study, chapter 2 contained a review of the

literature relevant to the field of second language acquisition, highlighting the significance of the

social constructivist theory in teaching ELLs that emphasizes the importance of social interaction

inside mainstream classrooms. Constructivism is a theory about knowledge and learning that is

based on findings from psychology, philosophy, science, and biology (Fosnot, 2005). According

to constructivism, individuals create meaning through the interaction with the world and its

objects. Individuals construct knowledge by relating new information to personal experiences

and through active engagement in the learning process (Brooks & Brooks 1999). The end of the

chapter provided a discussion about ESL professional development programs for mainstream

teachers, indicating the need for more research regarding mainstream teachers and ELLs.

The following chapter discusses the research method used in this study and the

appropriateness of the research design. The chapter also provides an explanation of the study

population, the data collection and analysis process, and the validity and reliability of the study.

It ends with a brief clarification summary.

46

Chapter 3

Research Method

The purpose of this study was to explore and examine the viewpoints of K-12 mainstream

teachers about the ESL professional development and training programs implemented for

mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms. Effective and inclusive ESL

teacher-education training programs can provide mainstream teachers with the skills they need in

order to help ELLs improve their academic achievement. Such skills can also change the

personal perspectives and beliefs of mainstream teachers about ELLs. As Thompson et al.

(2004) explained, teachers’ beliefs and attitudes can manifest themselves through low

expectations toward ELLs and these expectations are communicated during daily interactions.

This descriptive qualitative study could unveil the standing of mainstream teachers in the issue of

ELL’s academic achievement gaps.

Marshall (1996) emphasized the importance of selecting an accurate representative

sample for research. To study an entire population, the choice of the study sample should be

practical, efficient, and ethical. This descriptive qualitative study involved a group of 15

mainstream teachers who participated in open-ended questions interviews. The open-ended

questions gave the participants the chance to elaborate and express their ideas openly. The

participants in this study were mainstream teachers who teach ELLs and have had the

opportunity to participate in one or more ESL professional development programs.

The selection process of participants who meet the above qualifications was purposeful.

After the selection of participants was completed, participants were informed of the purpose of

the study and asked to participate in preliminary meetings that were conducted before the actual

47

interviews. The preliminary meetings allowed participants to ask and allowed the researcher to

explain and clarify the purpose of the study furthermore. The semi-structured interviews were

conducted in a public place that was convenient for each participant.

Research Method Appropriateness

This descriptive qualitative study examined the experience of mainstream teachers with

the inclusive ESL training programs. McCleland (2005) said that qualitative research is most

effective when exploring actual personal knowledge of participants through socially constructed

and open-ended questions. Qualitative research is most suited for studies that explore the

experiences of participants (Creswell, 2008). The main goal of this descriptive qualitative study

was to explore the perceptions of mainstream teachers toward ESL professional development

programs. The open-ended interview questions focused on the knowledge gained from such

programs, the decision-making process of mainstream teachers to participate or not participate in

these programs, and the skills that mainstream teachers believed are necessary to teach ELLs

effectively.

The study participants shared their knowledge of the ESL training programs by

answering the interview questions. Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) stated that the socially

constructed view of science suggests that, “knowledge cannot be known separately from the

knower, because the content of knowledge is influenced by social practices and interactions, and

because the determination of what ideas count as knowledge is a meaning-making activity

enacted in particular communities” (p. 1025). According to Moustakas (1994), the

commonalities of qualitative research include the following:

48

Qualitative research value is in the human experience that cannot be measured in

quantities

Qualitative research designs in general focus on the entire human experience rather

than the parts and pieces of events

The wholeness of human experience include personal behavior and knowledge

Qualitative researchers seek to understand the meanings and value of experience

The methods of qualitative research may include formal or informal interviews where

participants describe their experience verbally or in writing

Human behavior and individual opinions are important sources of data that qualitative

researchers use to make their findings

Qualitative researchers form problems and questions in relation to their knowledge

and commitment to the research.

The commonalities of qualitative research that Moustakas (1994) highlighted are relevant

to the nature of this study. The human experience that participants have had and the value of

such experience are at the center of this study. Therefore, this study looked into addressing these

commonalities and ensuring that the intended objectives were achieved.

Three main factors made the qualitative method the most appropriate method for this

study as opposed to quantitative or mixed methods. First, the focus of this qualitative study was

on the wholeness of the experience of mainstream teachers with the ESL professional training.

Second, the study was not experimental and did not include control groups, which are usually

common in quantitative studies. Third, the purpose was to develop ideas about a human

49

experience, therefore the data was descriptive and non-quantitative (Pacifica Graduate Institute,

2012).

Research Design Appropriateness

Descriptive design. This study examined the experiences of mainstream teachers in ESL

training programs. Because the examination of qualitative data provides an in depth

understanding of how individuals perceive experiences (Van Manen, 2010), this study used the

descriptive qualitative design. In descriptive qualitative research, participants describe their own

experiences with phenomena in simple terms to allow a clear description of the phenomena from

the perspective of participants (Magilvy & Thomas, 2009). Thus, this study did not use a

theoretical approach that was mostly used in phenomenological and hermeneutical studies

(Neergaard, Olesen, Andersen, & Sondergaard, 2009). According to Lambert and Lambert

(2012), what makes descriptive qualitative research design unique is that it is the least theoretical

design among all the other qualitative designs. This makes descriptive research applicable to any

disciplinary, which is in contrast to the phenomenological, grounded theory, and ethnographical

research, for instance, that follow limited frameworks associated with specific factors and

traditions (Lambert & Lambert, 2012).

Descriptive qualitative research allows and encourages participants to describe their

experiences in detail and reflect on their own views on such experiences (Wong & Ng, 2008).

Participants in this study had the opportunity to describe their unique experiences in detail and

provide as much information as possible about their own perceptions, beliefs, and practices in

relation to the ESL professional development programs. Descriptive research is appropriate for

studies that examine experience of participants and do not involve cause and effect type of

50

relationships (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). The participants’ responses to the interview questions

provided an insight to the mainstream teachers’ practices and efforts that affected the educational

outcomes of ELLs sitting in mainstream classrooms.

Research

The purpose of this study was to explore and examine the viewpoints of K-12 mainstream

teachers about the ESL professional development and training programs implemented for mainstream

teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms. Based on the purpose of the study, the

researcher sought to find answers to the following central question: How do mainstream

teachers describe their experiences with ESL professional development programs? The

researcher used the following sub-questions to examine any direct or indirect factors related to

the central question that could explain the varied perspectives of participants (Creswell, 2014):

RQ1: How do mainstream teachers perceive the ESL training programs that they have

experienced?

RQ2: What are the critical barriers and challenges that mainstream teachers continue

to face concerning ESL professional development?

Population

The population of the study was the mainstream teachers in the state of Ohio who teach

ELLs. The exact number of mainstream teachers in Ohio teaching ELLs is unknown, but

according to the latest data available to the Ohio Department of Education (2012b), more than

39,800 limited English proficient (LEP) students enrolled in the state’s elementary and

secondary public schools during the 2010-2011 school year. Ohio does not prescribe a specific

type of intervention program to help ELLs but school districts must provide effective programs

51

that meet the educational needs of language minority students. In some cases, the ELLs do not

sit in special classes before sitting in mainstream classrooms because many school districts in

Ohio use the immersion approach or in-class inclusion as a way of helping ELLs improve their

English proficiency (Ohio Department of Education, 2012a). The most important consideration

about the study population was that it represented the characteristics and behavior of the larger

population (Creswell, 2014).

Sample

Sampling in qualitative research has to be purposeful, unlike the random sampling in

quantitative research (Jones et al., 2006). Participants in any research could have different

opinions on every issue. Mason (2010) noted that the sample size in qualitative research has to

be large enough to explore the different opinions but it cannot be too large that it produces

repetitive data. He warned that excessive data could lead to problems in developing conclusions.

The typical sample sizes in qualitative research vary from five to 25 individuals and all

participants must have a direct experience with the issue being studied (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010).

The purpose is to collect meaningful data from participants and ensure saturation (Lane &

Arnold, 2011). Saturation occurs when data collected from participants becomes redundant and

bringing new participants will add nothing new (Marshall, Cardon, Poddar, & Fontenot, 2013).

The sampling process in this study focused on the quality of participants who have shown

an understanding of the issue understudy (Jones et al., 2006). The participants in this study had

to meet a specific set of criteria because of the nature of this study that required this kind of

purposeful sampling strategy (Schumacher & McMillian, 1993). Keeping the issue of data

saturation in mind, the sample in this descriptive qualitative study included 15 mainstream

52

teachers from different school districts in the State of Ohio who were familiar with the struggle

of ELLs and have had previous experience with the ESL training programs that were aimed for

professional development of mainstream teachers. After interviewing the 15 participants, data

saturation occurred; therefore, there was no need to recruit more participants.

Recruitment

The recruitment of participants was done with the help of two educational leaders in the

state of Ohio who oversaw or implemented the ESL professional development programs in their

school districts. The educational leaders provided recommendations during the selection process

of participants according to the sampling criteria. The recruitment and collection of participants

took place immediately after the researcher received the approval from the university to conduct

the study.

Consent Letters and Confidentiality

In compliance with the criteria set forth by the Protection of Human Research Subjects

standards, research study recruiters completed a non-disclosure agreement and each participant

signed a consent form before proceeding with the study. The consent form indicated that the

participants understand the nature of the study and that their identity would remain confidential.

Salkind (2008) noted that researchers could easily ensure anonymity if the records and data

collected are not linked with names and maintain confidentiality when anything that is learned

about the participant is held in the strictest confidence.

Prior to initiating the face-to-face interviews, participants were assigned identification

codes to insure anonymity and confidentiality. The digital recordings did not include the names

of participants. Instead, each participant was identified with his or her identification code.

53

Those identification codes were used throughout the transcribing and data analysis processes.

The digital recordings and documents will remain in the possession of the researcher for three

years in a secure location at the researcher’s residence. After that, the digital recordings will be

deleted and the documents will be burned and destroyed.

The interview questions that participants responded to did not ask for any private

information. Instead, they focused on issues related to the nature of this study. Participants were

encouraged to share their views honestly, and because their participation was voluntary, the

option to withdraw from the study remained available to participants at all times during the

interviews and throughout the data collection process without any fear of penalty. The inform

consent stated that the results of the study could be published but the participants’ identities

would remain confidential and the names of participants would not be disclosed to any outside

party.

Data Collection

The purpose of data gathering in qualitative research is to provide evidence for the

experience it is investigating. The data required to study experience need to derive from an

intensive exploration with the participants (Polkinghorne, 2005). The data needed for this study

were collected through face-to-face interviews using open-ended questions. A preliminary

meeting with each participant was held to establish trust, explain the purpose of the study, and

respond to participants’ concerns. Participants had the convenience of choosing the place of the

preliminary meeting as well as the interview location. Participants then responded to the

interview questions in a semi-structured setting that allowed the participants to elaborate and the

researcher to ask follow-up questions.

54

The face-to-face semi-structured interviews were recorded in an electronic device.

Participants were given plenty of time to respond to each of the interview questions and the

follow-up questions. The timeframe for each interview was 45 to 90 minutes. The researcher

went through the recorded responses given by each participant and transcribed them into written

documents to conduct the data analysis. Polkinghorne (2005) explained that analyzing written

language data is a complicated process that is not limited to merely combining words into

sentences and sentences into discourses, but it requires analytic tools that are designed

specifically to work with language data.

Field interview. The purpose of the field interview was to validate the interview

questions and to ensure clarity and rationality. The field interview was conducted with a

participant who volunteered to respond and provide feedback. The participant answered the

interview questions and shared her thoughts about the interview process. The participant

indicated that the interview questions were clear and was able to respond to every question. The

participant suggested adding a question about the obstacles that prevent many teachers from

participating in ESL professional development programs. This participant was not eligible to

participate in the full research study.

Data Analysis

The transcribed data analysis included a systematic process that generated codes and

themes with the aid of NVivo software. In this data analysis process, the transcribed interviews

were reassessed repeatedly to obtain meaningful data and ensure consistency (Creswell, 2008).

According to Leedy and Ormrod (2010), the central focus of the researcher during

qualitative data analysis should be to find common themes in people’s descriptions of their

55

experiences. The process of identifying common themes went through many steps. The

researcher had to identify statements that were related to the research topic and then grouped

statements into meaningful units. Doing so made it easier for the researcher to identify divergent

perspectives and construct a composite (Creswell, 1998).

The researcher recorded reflective notes when significant ideas emerged from the data.

After completing a review of the data, the researcher identified the relevant information and then

broke it into small segments of phrases and sentences that represented certain thoughts. With the

help of NVivo software the thoughts were grouped into various categories and the researcher

created codes for each category. According to Elo and Kyngas (2008), the categorization of data

provides meaningful text units that can be condensed to formulate supporting descriptions for

each category. This data analysis process enabled identification of similarities and differences

between each category (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). The researcher identified the differences

between the participants’ experiences using structural and textual descriptions. The final step of

data analysis included the combining of the textual descriptions to explain the essence or the

ultimate meaning of the experience as provided by participants (Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell,

2004).

In short, the data analysis took three steps:

Horizontalization: All data were reviewed, re-read, and prepared for analysis, both in

transcript (Microsoft Word) format and when exported to NVivo for further analysis.

Thematization: The raw data were associated with themes on the basis of both keyword

identification and narrative analysis, both of which were facilitated by NVivo

56

Synthesis: The themes were further analyzed and combined to generate answers to the

research questions

The computer programs used during this qualitative study data analysis included

Microsoft Word and NVivo. Microsoft Word facilitated the transcribing of recorded data,

writing notes, and developing tables, charts, and reports and NVivo software was the tool for

coding, grouping, and organizing the emerging categories.

Validity and Reliability

Validity is a methodological element of both the qualitative and the quantitative studies

(1994). Qualitative researchers addressed the issues of validity and reliability in many different

ways. Leedy and Ormrod (2010) asserted that researchers have the freedom to use a wide

variety of approaches to support the validity of their findings. The choice of which approach to

use should be dependent on the situation of the research, the nature of the data, and the

methodology used. For instance, to ensure the validity of the interviews, some qualitative

researchers use the technique of respondent or participant validation, in which the researcher

gives the respondents a copy of the interview or observation. For purposes of this study the

respondent validation technique was used to address the issue of validity. Leedy and Ormrod

(2010) explained that the researcher who uses the respondent validation techniques takes his or

her conclusions back to the participants in the study and asks them if they agree with the

conclusions or not. The researcher in this study validated the responses with each participant to

ensure clarity and validity.

Shank (2006) recommended several methods for demonstrating reliability in qualitative

research such as asking for clarification and following-up when unsure of certain facts. The

57

researcher in this study asked for clarification from participants when their statements were not

clearly understood. These extra steps taken for adding reliability to data gathering seemed not

only relevant but also critical. When a qualitative researcher can ensure reliability in his or her

work, the work is credible, authentic and rich with facts (Shank, 2006).

Reducing researcher bias is an important part of ensuring the validity and reliability of

this study. The process of selecting participants in this study helped in the reduction of

researcher bias. Two educational leaders who were familiar with the participants recruited

participants in this study, but the researcher did not know any of the participants and did not have

any contact with any one of them prior to this study. The field interview study provided internal

validation of the interview questions. The participant in the field interview provided feedback

about the clarity and the appropriateness of the interview questions, which could reduce the

threat of researcher bias (Salkind, 2008). Additionally, the respondent validation technique was

part of the data analysis process in this study, which increased the trustworthiness and reliability

of its results.

Summary

The purpose of this descriptive qualitative study was to explore and examine the

viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers about the ESL professional development and training

programs implemented for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms.

In descriptive qualitative research, participants describe their experiences in simple terms.

They have the opportunity to provide as much details as they want. Sampling in qualitative

research has to be purposeful and not random in nature (Jones et al., 2006). This descriptive

qualitative study involved 15 mainstream teachers who teach ELLs and have participated in ESL

58

professional development programs. The selection of the sample (participants) in this study was

based on the recommendations of two educational leaders who worked with the participants and

were familiar with the training programs in which they have participated.

Confidentiality was a crucial part of this study. Therefore, the identities of participants

in the study remained anonymous and will be so at all times and the interview questions did not

ask for any personal information.

Chapter 3 contained information about the data collection and data analysis process. The

chapter concluded with an overview of the study’s validity and reliability, which included the

participants’ validation techniques. Leedy and Ormrod (2010) explained that the researcher who

uses the respondent validation techniques takes his or her conclusions back to the participants in

the study and asks them if they agree with the conclusions or not. Chapter 4 addresses the data

analysis process in greater detail.

59

Chapter 4

Results

Chapter 3 provided an overview of the methodology and research design of the study. In

this chapter, the results associated with the study are presented in detail with a focus on the main

research question: how do mainstream teachers describe their experiences with ESL professional

development programs? and the two sub-questions:

RQ1: How do mainstream teachers perceive the ESL training programs that they have

experienced?

RQ2: What are the critical barriers and challenges that mainstream teachers continue to

face concerning ESL professional development?

The following three-step process provided a means of answering the main research

question and the sub research questions.

Horizontalization: All data for the study were reviewed, re-read, and otherwise prepared

for analysis, both in transcript (Microsoft Word) format and when data were exported to

NVivo for further analysis.

Thematization: The raw data were associated with themes on the basis of both keyword

identification and narrative analysis, both of which were facilitated by NVivo

Synthesis: The themes were further analyzed and combined to generate answers to the

research questions

With the larger goal of answering the research questions in mind, the results have been

organized as follows. First, the characteristics of the sample will be provided and discussed.

60

Second, the process of horizontalization will be explained in detail. Third, the themes of the

study will be presented and discussed. Fourth, the themes will be synthesized to yield answers to

the research questions of the study. Fifth, the quality of the study—in terms such as credibility

and trustworthiness—will be discussed. To ensure confidentiality, identification codes were

assigned to each participant (MT1, MT2, MT3… etc), MT stands for mainstream teacher. These

identification codes are used throughout the data analysis.

Sample Characteristics

Fifteen participants were included in this study. Data from all participants were

incorporated in the results. Each participant was a mainstream teacher who worked with ELLs

and who had attended at least one English as a second language (ESL) professional development

program. Each of the participants was from a school district in Ohio. The characteristics of the

sample are presented in Table 1.

61

Table 1

Participant Characteristics

Participant Experience (Years) Gender Type of School

MT1 5 M Public

MT 2 4 F Public

MT 3 2 F Private

MT 4 2 F Private

MT 5 8 M Public

MT 6 11 F Public MT 7 10 F Public MT 8 9 F Public

MT 9 9 F Public MT 10 8 M Public MT 11 9 M Public MT 12 12 F Public

MT 13 2 F Public MT 14 1 F Public

MT 15 2 M Public

Table 1 shows that participants have different levels of teaching experience. Six of the

participants had nine or more years of experience while five were novices with one or two years

of teaching experience. Two of the participants hailed from private schools and the remainder

from public schools. Collectively, the teachers worked with many different kinds of students in

many different settings. Despite this diversity, there were many common themes that arose from

the participants’ narratives, themes that will be presented and synthesized in the remainder of

this chapter.

Horizontalization

In terms of data horizontalization, the following two steps were taken. First, all the

recorded interviews were transcribed into Microsoft Word. Second, all the data of the study

were removed from the Microsoft Word transcript of the interviews and posted to NVivo. Third,

62

the data were tabulated in answer format, so that all of the data associated with the eight

interview questions became easily visible. The tabulation of the data made it possible to apply

keyword analysis and conceptual coding techniques to identify themes.

The first interview question was as follows: What kind of professional development and

support does your school district provide for mainstream teachers who work with ELLs? The

raw data for this question are presented in Table 2.

63

Table 2

Data for Interview Question 1

Participant Response Data

MT1 Seminars and workshops promoting specific (unnamed) skills

MT2 Population-specific strategies including more repetition and visual components

MT3 One-on-one tutoring

MT4 None (teacher works at private school, not district)

MT5 Seminars and workshops promoting specific (listening and speaking) skills

MT6 Seminars and workshops promoting specific (unnamed) skills

MT7 Seminars and workshops promoting specific (unnamed) skills

MT8 Seminars and workshops promoting specific (unnamed) skills plus mentoring

MT9 3 professional development days a year

MT10 Workshops promoting specific (unnamed) skills plus mentoring

MT11 Training and group discussions; skills unspecified

MT12 No formal professional development; ad hoc only

MT13 One-on-one tutoring, mentoring

MT14 Professional development training, ad hoc mentoring

MT15 Seminars and workshops promoting specific (unnamed) skills

The second interview question was as follows: How many times have you participated in

any ESL professional development training (pre-service or in-service)? The raw data for this

question are presented in Table 3.

64

Table 3

Data for Interview Question 2

Participant Response Data

MT1 5

MT2 5

MT3 0

MT4 0

MT5 6

MT6 3 (per year)

MT7 6

MT8 2

MT9 33

MT10 4

MT11 1

MT12 14

MT13 5

MT14 1

MT15 6

The fact that one teacher (MT6) noted that she attended development thrice a year but did

not quantify how many total development events she had attended rendered data comparability in

interview Question 2 somewhat difficult. On the other hand, participant MT9 noted that, as she

was exposed to three sessions a year and had been a teacher for 11 years, she had been in 33 total

professional development training events. Participant MT6’s response raises the possibility that

some of the teachers might have been thinking of annual sessions and others of total sessions.

The discussion of themes includes an evaluation of the difficulties created by these potential

disparities in the raw data.

The third interview question was as follows: How would you describe the effectiveness

of such professional development programs in preparing you to teach ELLs? The raw data for

this question are presented in Table 4.

65

Table 4

Data for Interview Question 3

Participant Response Data

MT1 Better instructor (generic); patience

MT2 Good ideas, good execution of strategies

MT3 Good theory

MT4 Good theory, good hands-on experience

MT5 Good ideas, good execution of strategies

MT6 Good hands-on experience

MT7 Good materials for classroom utilization

MT8 Good theory

MT9 Good theory, good techniques for classroom utilization

MT10 Good materials

MT11 Good techniques for classroom utilization (specifically, communication)

MT12 Good case studies of success

MT13 ‘Okay’ effectiveness (generic)

MT14 Generation of awareness (specifically, linguistic and cultural diversity)

MT15 Good techniques for classroom utilization (specifically, communication

and student pairing)

Overall, the data generated by the fourth interview question were more comparable to

each other than the data generated by the second interview section. As with the other research

questions, however, varying levels of data quality were apparent in the responses to this

interview question, with some teachers providing more detailed, and others more laconic,

responses. Variations in data quality did not impede the generation of themes, because even

low-quality responses were fairly clear in terms of what participants liked about professional

development training.

The fourth interview question was as follows: How can the effectiveness of such

programs, in addressing the needs of mainstream teaches and ELLs, be improved? The raw data

for this question are presented in Table 5 below.

66

Table 5

Data for Interview Question 4

Participant Response Data

MT1 Build on what ELL teachers know, do better in engaging teachers,

add practicum experience, add evaluation (of both teachers and

students)

MT2 Better strategies, integrate parents

MT3 More training, more hands-on experience in practicum settings

MT4 Provide insight into linguistic structures of native languages spoken

by ELLs

MT5 Integrate technology

MT6 Provide more and better materials, integrate technology

MT7 Provide more and better materials

MT8 More training, integrate technology, ensure that ideas are practical,

provide materials

MT9 Increase classroom peer observations

MT10 More activities, more materials, more focus on overcoming

communication challenges

MT11 More training, newer and more engaging methods

MT12 Improve trainer quality in terms of (a) experience and (b) knowledge

of theory; incorporate scaffolding; strengthen and include parent

relationships in training context

MT13 Increase training, incorporate trainers with more classroom

experience

MT14 Meet more regularly, more follow-up discussions with trainers

MT15 Integrate technology more

More voluminous and rich data were collected for the fourth interview question than for

the previous three research questions. Teachers contributed many different ideas about

improving the effectiveness of training programs, but also a level of recurrence in the data

suggested saturation. Overall, these data provided a strong foundation from which to generate

and synthesize themes.

67

The fifth interview question was as follows: How relevant were these programs (that is,

the training programs invoked in the third and fourth research questions) to the teaching of ELLs

in your classroom? The raw data for this question are presented in Table 6.

Table 6

Data for Interview Question 5

Participant Response Data

MT1 Extremely relevant

MT2 Somewhat relevant; reinforcers

MT3 Relevant

MT4 Relevant

MT5 Extremely relevant

MT6 Extremely relevant

MT7 Somewhat relevant; reinforcers

MT8 Extremely relevant

MT9 Extremely relevant

MT10 Somewhat relevant

MT11 Somewhat relevant

MT12 Relevant

MT13 Somewhat relevant

MT14 Somewhat relevant

MT15 Extremely relevant

For the fifth interview question, three levels of relevance were discerned, as presented in

Table 6; the recurrence of these codes was evidence of data saturation for this interview question.

The coding of these data was therefore relatively straightforward. As with the other interview

questions, some participants went into more detail, whereas others were laconic. A few of the

responses to this question were worded counterfactually or in an otherwise indirect way,

requiring interpretative decisions. However, these interpretations were not difficult to extract

from the data.

68

The sixth interview question was as follows: What are the main obstacles that prevent

you and other mainstream teachers that you know from participating in ESL professional

development programs? The raw data for this question are presented in Table7.

Table 7

Data for Interview Question 6

Participant Response Data

MT1 Time, lack of incentive to pursue formal offerings

MT2 Time

MT3 Time, lack of incentive to pursue formal offerings

MT4 Lack of formal offerings

MT5 Time, lack of incentive to pursue formal offerings

MT6 Time, lack of incentive to pursue formal offerings

MT7 Lack of technology

MT8 Time, lack of incentive to pursue formal offerings

MT9 Time

MT10 Time, lack of incentive to pursue formal offerings

MT11 Lack of formal offerings, lack of institutional support

MT12 Lack of formal offerings, lack of incentive to pursue informal

training

MT13 Time, funding

MT14 Time, funding, lack of ongoing training

MT15 No obstacle; mandatory participation

As with the data for the fifth interview question, the data for the sixth interview question

were relatively straightforward to extract and code. In addition, because of the recurrence of

words, phrases, and concepts, these data gave clear evidence of saturation; there were only a

handful of reasons, frequently cited by the participants, for non-participation in ESL professional

development programs.

The seventh interview question was as follows: What do you expect from future ESL

professional development training programs? The raw data for this question are presented in

Table 8.

69

Table 8

Data for Interview Question 7

Participant Response Data

MT1 Tie to student outcomes, customize to teacher needs, help make

teachers self-sufficient

MT2 Make groups smaller, teach more strategies, integrate technology

MT3 Ensure that training is relevant to the classroom

MT4 Teach more strategies, cover broader range of issues faced by ELLs

MT5 Integrate technology

MT6 Be more motivating

MT7 Teach more strategies and styles

MT8 Integrate technology, provide more useful materials, ensure that

training is relevant to the classroom

MT9 Use more practical sources, incorporate more engaged trainers, orient

training towards more practical needs

MT10 Integrate technology and provide more practical solutions / creative

ideas for overcoming language barrier

MT11 More frequent programs, address more issues pertaining to ELLs’

learning gaps

MT12 Expand programs, ensure that methods and research-based and

implementable

MT13 Include trainers with more classroom experience

MT14 Integrate technology and more contemporary research / materials

MT15 Integrate technology, provide more incentives for participation

The eighth interview question was as follows: On a final note, will you participate in any

future ESL professional development training program if it becomes available? Why or why

not? The raw data for this question are presented in Table 9 below, which is the final

horizontalization table of the study.

70

Table 9

Data for Interview Question 8

Participant Response Data

MT1 Yes, because (a) wants to improve as a teacher and (b) help

students

MT2 Yes, because (a) required and (b) wants to learn something

new

MT3 Yes, because wants to improve as a teacher

MT4 Yes, because wants to help students

MT5 Yes, no reason given

MT6 Yes, because wants to improve as a teacher

MT7 Yes, because required

MT8 Yes, because (a) wants to improve as a teacher and (b) help

students

MT9 Yes, because (a) wants to improve as a teacher and (b) help

students

MT10 Yes, because wants to (a) improve as a teacher and (b) help

other teachers

MT11 Yes, because wants to help students

MT12 Yes, because wants to help students

MT13 Yes, because ELLs / ESL students are owed teachers with a

high degree of competence in addressing their needs

MT14 Yes, because (a) wants to improve as a teacher and (b) help

students

MT15 Yes, because (a) generally useful and (b) a boon to career

development

Tables 2-9 constituted the end results of horizontalization for the study. Every

participants’ answer was transcribed, read, re-read, and re-transcribed into NVivo, and the results

were provided in tabular format. In the next section of the chapter, these horizontalization

results were used as bases from which to detect themes in the data, an important intermediate

step in being able to answer the research questions of the study.

71

Themes in the Study

Analysis identified themes without regard to their immediate relevance to the research

questions, with the expectations that (a) discrepant or novel themes could be discussed in their

own right and (b) relevant themes could be mixed and matched in order to achieve synthesis and

answer the research questions of the study. A theme was defined as an explanatory trope that (a)

cut across more than one of the interview questions, thus parsimoniously explaining raw data;

and (b) served as an intermediate stage between the data and the research questions. The

following themes were identified in the study:

Theme 1: Teacher Engagement

Teacher engagement began to appear as a theme with the answers to the third interview

question (How would you describe the effectiveness of such professional development programs

in preparing you to teach ELLs?). In the context of the answers to that interview question,

teacher engagement was a construct that explained how teachers fared in ESL training and

development programs. Teachers (for example, participants MT1, MT2, MT3, MT14, and

MT15) noted that characteristics of the trainers, the training curriculum, and / or training

exercises were more or less engaging based on the following kinds of factors:

The relevance of training focus areas to classroom contexts

The relevance of training theories to the classroom experience of ELLs and mainstream

teachers of ELLs

The sufficiency of materials that could be taken back to, and implemented in, classrooms

The relevance of materials that could be taken back to, and implemented in, classrooms

72

The relevance of trainers’ expertise to the kinds of classroom experiences of mainstream

teachers who teach ELLs

These factors were invoked in the answers to both the third and fourth interview

questions of the study and seem conceptually suited to the construct of engagement. The

participants (again, for example, participants MT1, MT2, MT3, MT14, and MT15) reported

being more or less attentive, animated, and motivated on the basis of the fit between their own

needs (reflecting not only the abstract pedagogical needs of teachers but also the concrete needs

of ELLs) and what was presented in training. Engagement seemed an appropriate classificatory

variable for the kinds of responses teachers gave to training that was perceived to be congruent

or not congruent with what they sought to get out of training. These responses had the net effect

of either bringing the teachers closer to, or further away from, both the content and context of the

training.

Participant MT1, who gave some of the richest responses to the interview questions,

presented an entire theory of engagement, beginning from the foundations of the training

program and extended to post-training outcome measurements. Participant MT1’s comments on

this topic are quoted at length below, not only because they help to illuminate a theory of

engagement from within participant experience, but also because they provide a comprehensive

explanatory framework from which to assess the entire lifecycle of training programs designed

for mainstream teachers of ELLs.

Unfortunately, not all professional development programs are effective, and there is a

need to improve the currently existing ones for them to fully address the needs of

mainstream teachers teaching in ELLs in the mainstream classrooms. For the

73

programs to be effective, they must be based on a set of key principles whose primary

aim is to attain better education programs and higher student outcomes. The professional

development programs must build on the current foundation of basic knowledge, area of

expertise and skills of the teachers involved. By building on what mainstream teachers of

ELLs know, the programs will be able to extend the thinking of these teachers, and they

will, therefore, be effective. In addition, these programs need to engage participants who

are the mainstream teachers as learners. They should also offer these participants

opportunities for real practice accompanied by feedback and follow up on their

performance. Simply put, these programs should be accompanied by effective evaluation

processes that include measurements of changes in teacher’s skills and knowledge, as

well as changes in student performance (Participant MT1).

Based on the Participant MT1’s comments, teacher engagement is not a random function

of the teacher-trainer interaction, but rather a planned result of appropriately designed training

programs that are relevant to the mainstream teacher of ELLs and that are closely intertwined

with the apparatus of performance measurement. Thus, the theme of teacher engagement proved

to be highly relevant in the process of interpretative synthesis whereby the research questions of

the study were answered.

Theme 2: Relevant Communication

Communication is a theme that, like teacher engagement, reverberated across many of the

interview questions. The theme of relevant communication was prominent in the answers to the

seventh interview question. Participants (such as participants MT2, MT8, MT9, MT10, MT11,

and MT12 in their response to the seventh interview question) all suggested, in slightly different

74

ways, the importance of communication between various stakeholders, including in particular

teacher-ELL student and trainer-teacher communication. Both of these headings of

communication can be understood under relevance, with relevance meaning a practical fit

between the needs of both parties. In several comments teachers complained, or at least noted,

that trainers’ communication—in terms of both theory and best practices—was not relevant to

their own experiences or needs or was not frequent enough to be of use. See, for example, the

responses of participants MT1, MT8, MT10, and MT12 to the fourth interview question.

Relevant communication was also cited as an explanatory theme in parsing the

relationships between mainstream teachers and their students who are ELLs. In his response to

the third interview question, participant MT10 noted, somewhat poignantly that “I find it hard to

communicate when my students cannot understand most of what I say.” For participant MT10,

this communication gap was the most important consideration in his classroom practice, and he

tied the gap back to training in his response to the fourth interview question:

We need more hands-on activities, more materials, and we need to be taught how to

overcome the language barriers with our ELLs. This is the most frustrating problem for

me as a teacher and for my students. I feel bad for my ELLs because I cannot explain

what I want to them or to their parents. (Participant MT10).

Participant MT10 went on to note that, while training was somewhat relevant in terms of the

provision of general theories and ideas, it was not specific enough to address the teacher-student

(and, for that matter, the teacher-parent) communication gap. This point was somewhat related

to participant MT1’s comment, quoted at length under theme one, about how training had to be

rooted in the experiences and needs of mainstream teachers of ELLs. The danger of an abstract,

75

non-teacher-driven training approach was illustrated in participant MT10’s comments about the

irrelevance of so much training content.

Both trainer-teacher and teacher-student communication relevance can be understood as

manifestations of the same phenomenon, that of teacher-driven training. For example,

participant MT11 had a different experience than participant MT10; participant MT11 noted that

training was “effective in teaching me how to present things to our ELLs in a way that will make

them easier to understand”. Participant MT2, in her response to the first interview question,

noted that training was relevant in terms of emphasizing repetition and visual learning with

ELLs. In some settings, then, training communication is relevant because it addresses the

challenges that teachers themselves perceive to be the most important (as with participants MT2

and MT11). On the other hand, as expressed by participant MT10, there are also training

scenarios in which the content and context of the communication are not aligned with the needs

of the teachers. The only inference supported by the analysis of the raw data in this study is that

there were some cases in which trainer communication was not driven by the needs of at least

some of the mainstream teachers present in the training sessions.

Theme 3: The Efficiency and Relevance of Technology

Technology was mentioned several times by participants. Technology was described in

two basic ways: First, as a means of bringing efficiency to the process of training; and, second,

as a means of improving the content of training. These two advantages of technology were

portrayed in somewhat distinct terms.

The first mention of technology arose in the answers to the fourth interview question.

Technology was mentioned as a means of improving training by several participants (participants

76

MT5, MT6, MT8, and MT15). Some of the comments were generic recommendations to

integrate technology. However, some participants were more specific in identifying the

relevance of technology to improve training for mainstream teachers. According to participant

MT5, training could improve “with new and different technologies to engage all children of all

cultures, because this is one thing they all have in common.” While this comment ventured

beyond the context of training to include classroom practice, it touched on a point that was also

raised by other participants (including participants MT6 and MT10), namely that there were

numerous effective means of teaching ELLs via technological means, and that was therefore a

need for training to integrate technology. Participant MT6, for example, referenced a program

named Angel that allowed ELLs to practice pronunciation. Participant MT10 stated, “We also

need to integrate technology in ESL instruction to facilitate learning.” Some participants were

therefore aware of the pedagogical usefulness of technology in teaching ELLs in mainstream

classrooms and faulted training for not taking such technology into account.

Participant MT8 made a link between the use (or, more accurately, non-use) of

technology in training settings and the efficiency and relevance of the training process itself.

Participant MT8 discussed technology in light of impractical ideas in training, implying that

technology could furnish a means of allowing teachers to view and access ideas and materials

that were more relevant to their contexts. Such an approach, which would leverage the ability of

technology to customize learning, was latent in participant MT6’s response.

77

Synthesis of Research Questions

One main research question and two sub-research questions were posed in this study.

The main research question of the study was: How do mainstream teachers describe their

experiences with ESL professional development programs? The sub research questions were:

RQ1: How do mainstream teachers perceive the ESL training programs that they have

experienced?

RQ2: What are the critical barriers and challenges that mainstream teachers continue to

face concerning ESL professional development?

In this section, the two sub-questions will be answered through a synthesis of the themes

presented and discussed in the previous section of the chapter. The main research question will

be addressed separately at the end of this section.

Research Question 1

This research question could have been answered in numerous ways. One approach

would have been to comb through the raw data to identify every narrative having to do with

participants’ experiences of training. However, such an approach would have been

fundamentally unfocused; generating a list of disconnected experiences would not have helped to

identify larger phenomena related to training. Instead, the analytical approach taken was to

relate teacher experiences of training to the three main themes identified in the study, namely

teacher engagement, relevant communication, and the efficiency and relevance of technology.

These three themes served as conceptual frameworks through which the data pertaining to

teacher experience of training programs could be sorted and understood.

78

The short answer to the first research question was as follows: Teachers experienced the

training programs they experienced through the lens of applicability. In other words,

applicability is the explanatory synthesis of the three themes of teacher engagement, relevant

communication, and the efficiency and relevance of technology. The remainder of this section is

dedicated to explaining how applicability was synthesized from the three themes of the study

when applied to the first research question.

A review of the data indicated that teachers’ experiences of training programs was

influenced by how they felt about the training. Some participants felt more connected to the

training than did others, and the experience of connectedness—, which can also be described as

engagement—was itself driven by the fit between the training and the needs of the teachers. In

this sense, the first and second themes of the study dovetailed conveniently when it came to

answering the first research question. Teachers came to the training sessions looking for specific

content, materials, theories, guidance, support, and other factors relevant to improving their

ability to teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms. When such factors were not communicated to

teachers in training, they felt disengaged. This synthesis of engagement and communication was

made explicit in participant MT1’s description of the links between training relevance, teacher-

driven experiences, and outcome measurement, which was quoted at length earlier in the chapter.

The third theme, that of technology, was of only marginal account in answering the first

research question, but it was still somewhat related. Participant MT8 made an implicit

suggestion that technology could have been used to make the context and context of training

more relevant to teachers. There was also a consensus (participants MT5, MT6, MT8, and

MT15) that one of the specific reasons that training failed to connect as well as it might have was

79

the lack of integration of technology as part of the pedagogical engagement between a

mainstream teachers and ELLs. As such, technology likely played a role in the breakdown of

training applicability, but the main culprit was the lack of situation-specific content of training.

In trying to answer this research question, it was necessary to look beyond the teachers’

pro forma comments that training was relevant. None of the teachers overtly denigrated training

as being irrelevant; they were judicious in their choice of language. Nonetheless, teachers’

deeper attitudes to training could be inferred from the kinds of responses they gave to the third

and fourth interview questions, which asked, respectively, how training programs were beneficial

and how they could be improved. In their answers to the fourth interview question, numerous

participants made comments that disparaged the quality of training in a manner not evinced when

they were asked directly about the relevance of training. For example, two participants

(participants MT12 and MT13) directly impugned the quality of the trainers in terms of a lack of

practical experience. Participant MT15 noted that trainers were not available for follow-up

discussions. Participants MT6 and MT7 emphasized the lack of takeaway materials ready for

classroom implementation. Participants MT1 and MT11 reported that trainers used techniques

that did not engage teachers. Additionally, in their answers to the sixth interview question, 10 of

the 15 participants stated there was not enough time for training.

Individually and cumulatively, these comments pointed to the overall inapplicability of

numerous aspects of training. Training was, in the words of the participants, often inapplicable

to:

Individual classrooms

Specific populations of ELLs

80

Teachers’ needs for more training

Teachers’ engagement with training content and format

Teachers’ need for materials

The single concept of inapplicability thus overlaps with all three of the identified themes of the

study and furnishes a parsimonious, convincing, and data-driven answer to the question of how

teachers experienced training. Simply put, they experienced a fair portion of what took place in

training as being inapplicable to their needs and circumstances.

Research Question 2

The second research question was answered through the same kind of approach applied

to the first research question. The second research question was: What are the critical barriers

and challenges that mainstream teachers continue to face concerning ESL professional

development? The first research question, which was designed to build knowledge around how

teachers experienced training programs, showed the second research question, as an important

component of teachers’ experience was indeed the critical barriers and challenges invoked in

the second research question.

A simple approach to answering the second research question, one that acknowledges the

complementary relationship between the two research questions of the study as well as the

importance of the three identified themes, was to determine whether the themes could be

synthesized into a single explanatory factor, as was done in answering the first research question.

Initially, the synthesized factor of inapplicability seemed to be a suitable answer to the

second as well as the first research questions of the study. However, inapplicability was

understood as an experiential phenomenon than a barrier. What the teachers experienced—in

81

terms of their engagement, the content and context of communication with the trainers, and

technology—was the inapplicability of training. Barriers and challenges were more logically

understood as the factors that explained why, from so many perspectives, the training was

inapplicable.

The short answer to the second research question was that the critical barriers and

challenges in the professional development programs could be resulting from the absence of a

teacher-driven model. Because professional development was not driven by actual teacher

needs, it often failed to be responsive to what teachers hope to accomplish from participating in

such programs. Participant MT11 stated that, “I don’t feel I am prepared enough to teach ELLs,

yet I have many of them in my class. Luckily, we have an ESL teacher who always helps us

whenever we need her.” This comment epitomized the problem of the absence of a teacher-

driven model.

Numerous participants noted that their actual needs vis-à-vis ELLs education were not

the basis of the training. Participant MT1 noted the absence of the teacher-driven model in a

long and rich response to the first interview question; and other participants (including

participant MT9, MT11, MT12, and MT14) noted that they had to fill the gaps in training with

ad hoc means, such as asking other teachers, seeking informal mentoring, or even drawing on

college materials or experiences. Again, the relevance of these data could easily have been

missed without horizontalization. Not just one comment solidified the conclusion that training

was not teacher-driven. Rather, it was the steady accumulation of insights obtained from

comments about gaps, ad hoc measures, and other deficiencies in training that led to a

cumulative conclusion about the absence of a teacher-driven approach. Even participants who

82

did not overly critique training and other structured development noted that such opportunities

were rare, and, it seems, pro forma events (for example, participants MT5, MT14, and MT15).

Participants acknowledged the substantial and undeniable demand for training and

professional development. All 15 of the participants indicated their willingness to participate in

training, and all 15 of the participants were able to cite the benefits of such training. Still, 10

cited time problems, and 7 cited the absence of incentives; moreover, as discussed throughout

this chapter, there were specific as well as general ways in which training failed to address the

needs of many participants, thus perhaps preventing them from able to obtain as much from the

experience as they might have done otherwise. Taken in conjunction with the data on ad hoc

means, these data solidify the impression that training, whatever its other, occasional benefits, is

not fundamentally structured in such a way to be of use to teachers, and the reason for this

shortcoming is that teachers themselves are not consulted as the drivers of training. It seems,

from the discussion of training as occasional and pro forma (participants MT5, MT14, and

MT15) that training a box that the district or the school has to check off, but that no substantive

effort is being put into the endeavor. Teachers, meanwhile, are using their own ad hoc means to

get around the deficits of training and development (participants MT9, MT11, MT12, and

MT14). Under these circumstances, teachers might be passive; they consume what is available

to them, apply it when they can, and lament what is not applicable. Particularly insightful

teachers, such as participant MT1, note that the model of training is not teacher-driven, but

teachers would rather continue to participate in training whenever they can for the sake of

professional development.

83

Answer to Main Research Question

The main research question of the study was how do mainstream teachers describe their

experiences with ESL professional development programs? The answer to this question, based

on the analyses of the sub-research questions, is that mainstream teachers described their

experiences with ESL professional development programs as only partially relevant to the actual

challenges reported in classrooms. The partial relevance of ESL professional development

programs is a function of the following factors:

A lack of practical, usable material

Limited experience among trainers

Lack of sufficient follow-up

Lack of incentive to attend

Few development opportunities

Limited time

Summary

The 15 participants in this study contributed numerous data by responding to the

interview questions. The participants shared their views about the ESL professional

development programs that they have experienced. An analysis of the data yielded three themes.

The three themes identified in this chapter are teacher engagement, relevant communication, and

the efficiency and relevance of technology. In chapter 5, these three themes will be discussed in

details and the implications of the findings, particularly in light of their relation to past empirical

studies and to theory, will be presented. Additionally, the limitations of the methodology used to

84

generate the findings will be acknowledged and suggestions for additional research will be

presented.

85

Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

The main research question in this study was, “How do mainstream teachers describe

their experience with ESL professional development programs?” To answer this main research

question and its sub-questions, the perceptions of K-12 mainstream teachers who teach ELLs

were explored through face-to-face interviews that included 15 participants. The data analysis

presented in Chapter 4 revealed common themes that emerged from the participants’ responses.

These themes described the perceptions of mainstream teachers who teach ELLs about the ESL

professional training that they have experienced. All of this information will be useful in

determining recommendations for educational leaders who oversee ESL professional

development programs, as well as future recommendations for further studies. Chapter 5

contains an overview of findings, the relation of findings to the past empirical studies and

theories, recommendations for educational leaders, recommendations for future studies, and an

acknowledgement of the limitations of the study.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this descriptive qualitative study was to explore and examine the

viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers about the ESL professional development and training

programs implemented for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms. The

development of effective inclusive ESL teacher-education training programs can provide

mainstream teachers with the skills that they need to help ELLs improve their academic

achievement. Currently, ELLs in the State of Ohio are taught via several methods, some school

districts are using bilingual classes, others are using pullout classes with ESL teachers, and some

86

are using the full immersion approach with mainstream teachers (Ohio Department of Education,

2012a). The findings of this study could help educational leaders determine the efficacy of ESL

training for mainstream teachers. Improving ELLs’ academic performance is possible with the

implementation of high quality and consistent sheltered instruction steered by research (Short &

Echevarria, 2005). To ensure a quality of education for ELLs that is equal to the quality of

education the native English-speaking students receive, it is paramount that ELLs benefit from

the same full resources available for regular mainstream students.

One key aspect of assessing ESL training for mainstream teachers is the knowledge that,

once they attain necessary skills in this area, mainstream teachers may change their personal

perspectives and beliefs about ELLs, which is of significance in an era where mainstream

teachers often are the only educators with whom ELLs will interact. As Thompson et al. (2004)

explained, teachers’ beliefs and attitudes may foster low expectations toward ELLs. Thus, this

descriptive qualitative study focused on mainstream teachers who have attended ESL training. If

ESL training for mainstream teachers can assist teachers in being more comfortable working

with ELLs and provide tools and strategies to facilitate such work, the training could enhance the

instructional process for the teachers and improve the educational efficacy for the ELLs (Locas,

Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008). Knowing what is effective in ESL training can have

broad implications, therefore, for senior educators who design such courses, as well as those who

select the courses that they send faculty to attend.

This study used a descriptive qualitative research approach based on interviews that

uncovered limitations of existing ESL professional development programs. It involved 15

participants who have experienced the problem being studied and were able to describe their

87

experiences (Magilvy & Thomas, 2009). In this study, the data were gathered from a sample

group of 15 Ohio mainstream teachers, which falls within the suggested number or participants

for appropriate qualitative narrative research of five to 25 directly experienced individuals

(Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). These teachers were selected due to their experience with ESL

training, and conducted through a series of interview questions that were broadly constructed to

allow for a wide variety of non-directed responses that reveal the ultimate meaning of their

experiences (Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004). It revealed their perceptions as to ESL

training’s relevance, benefits, and deficiencies. These narratives, produced via face-to-face

interviews and recorded to avoid the complications from deciphering written language data

(Polkinghorne, 2005), were validated and subjected to follow-up inquiries in order to ensure

reliability and reduce the chance of researcher bias (Salkind, 2008).

The analysis in this study was conducted through horizontalization, which is a means to

detect oft-repeated phrases or words; thematization, whereby consistent present of similar

concepts uncovered by horizontalization develops specific themes; and synthesis, a process of

analyzing and putting together these themes to conclude reliable answers to the research

questions and the hierarchy of their occurrence. NVivo software was used to code, group, and

horizontalize the data, again reducing researcher bias by eliminating human discretion in the

categorization process. Thus, an appropriate method of descriptive interviews, falling within the

realm of qualitative research, was used on purposefully-selected sample, with data gathered and

analyzed using means to ensure validity, reliability, and reduce researcher bias.

While undertaking the purpose of this study, which was to explore and examine the

viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers about the ESL professional development and training

88

programs implemented for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms, data

was accumulated and processed. The processing of this data retrieved via horizontalization

produced emerging themes which then directed the analysis. Three themes emerged as a result

of this process, based on consistently-mentioned topics and phrases identified. The three themes

were teacher engagement, relevant communication, and the efficiency and relevance of

technology. Teachers expressed the need to be engaged by trainers and to receive relevant

communication that could optimize their own communication with ELLs. They also emphasized

the need for better use of technology in training as well as in the classroom. These three themes

can assist those who develop future ESL professional development programs, educators who

determine whether or not to send their faculty to such programs in the future, and what to expect

when making such decisions.

Summary of Findings

A sample of 15 mainstream teachers who work with ELLs and have attended ESL

professional development training participated in this descriptive qualitative study. The

participants described their experience with the ESL professional development training through

face-to-face interviews. The analysis of the data collected during these interviews revealed three

themes:

1. Teacher engagement

2. Relevant communication

3. The efficiency and relevance of technology.

89

These three themes were compared to the social constructivist theory of learning to reach

meaningful conclusions and practical recommendations for educational leaders and future

research.

Theme 1: teacher engagement. A major part of the answer of the main research

question, description of ESL training by mainstream teachers, involved teacher engagement.

The concept of teacher engagement affected their reactions to questions that asked about the

obstacles and the expectations for future training programs. In essence, for ESL training to be

effective, it must catch the interest of, or engage, its participants. This concept is derived from

the social constructivist theory of learning, that of human engagement (Von Glasersfeld, 1987),

i.e. that knowledge will be developed by interaction between individuals. According to leading

educational psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1978), social interaction is the basis for learning.

Remove the interaction and learning is less likely to occur. This need for engagement was a

dominant theme culled from the data analysis and logically flows from the consideration of any

educational experience. If the experience does not interest the participants or seem relevant to

their situations, its usefulness will decrease significantly (Cobb, 2005).

In addition to relevancy (in terms of both classroom content and experience with ELLs),

other areas impacting engagement were sufficiency of materials available for future classroom

use, the relevance of those materials, and the trainers’ expertise relating to classroom experiences

of mainstream teachers with ELLs. The teachers’ comments parallel the social constructivist

theory, that learning is a collaborative form of human engagement (Cobb, 2005). In addition, the

individual background of the teachers and their own needs directed to some extent their feelings

of engagement, which is consistent with social constructivism (Isaacson, 2004). In response to

90

interview question one, it is apparent that the type of learning programs supported by different

school districts varies considerably, from seminars and workshops of a general nature

(promoting specific, unnamed skills) to one-on-one tutoring and mentoring.

It seems imperative for teachers to be engaged and exposed to content, curricula,

materials, training styles, and measured outcomes that are both locally relevant in the context of

the teacher’s classroom experience (Isaacson, 2004); and be globally supported in terms of

theories and best practices that apply more generally to teaching ELLs in mainstream

environments (Duffy, et al., 1986). Based on this framework, the theme of teacher engagement

proved to be highly relevant in the process of interpretative synthesis whereby the research

questions of the study were answered.

In the responses to interview question four (“how can the effectiveness of such programs,

in addressing the needs of mainstream teachers and ELLs, be improved?”), the need for

engagement was singled out by two teachers. In addition, interview question three asked

teachers to describe the effectiveness of training programs they had attended. Good use of case

studies was mentioned once, whereas good theory as a contributor to efficacy appeared in four

answers. Good hands-on techniques (both in the training and to take back to the classroom)

appeared in five responses, and the quality of the instructor was noted once. All of these answers

support the need for content and approaches that will engage the teachers during training. They

also corroborate the efficacy of the social constructivist method of developing knowledge, which

was discussed in the literature review in terms of classroom application, but is equally applicable

to teacher training. Individuals construct knowledge by relating new information to their own

experiences and through active engagement in the learning process (Brooks & Brooks, 1999).

91

Theme 2: relevant communication. The main research question regarding description

of ESL training by mainstream teachers could also be considered in terms of relevant

communication, which also influences the teachers’ perceptions of the training, and whether or

not the training leaves present the idea of more barriers, challenges or deficiencies with such

training. The theme of relevant communication emerged often, and in two distinct contexts. The

first aspect involved relevance of the trainers’ experiences as they relate to the teachers attending

training sessions. If the situations described by the trainers did not resonate with the

circumstances of the teachers present, it follows that the communication lacked relevance.

Second was relevance in terms of the teachers’ own communication with ELLs. It was

suggested that some training was abstract and did not address ways in which teachers might

actually communicate more effectively with ELLs, thus enhancing their own instruction

techniques.

Interview Question 4 (regarding improving effectiveness of ESL training) presented a

number of suggestions as to how the training communication could be made more relevant.

Building on what teachers already know (which would involve content connectivity) was

mentioned once, and relates to Isaacson’s explanation regarding the social constructivist

pedagogy, that part of its success depends on prior knowledge (2004). Use of better materials,

which would enhance communication during the sessions and perhaps be amenable to use in the

classroom, was mentioned four times., again reinforcing Isaacson’s inclusion of hands-on

experiences and problem-solving that is part of the social constructivist conceptualization of

learning (2004). The relevance of ESL training in general seemed acknowledged through the

responses to interview question five (asking about relevance of ESL programs) where every

92

participant indicated at least some relevance to the teaching of ELLs in their classrooms (six said

extremely relevant, three relevant, and six somewhat relevant). Along the lines of

communication relevance, two respondents to interview question four mentioned the concept of

including parents in the teaching process, which would facilitate communication with the

students.

The consensus that may be drawn from the comments is that training, to be effective,

should be teacher-driven—serve the specific needs of the teachers. If training assists teachers to

learn ways to present information to ELLs in more understandable terms, it demonstrates

effective and relevant training communication that will assist in teacher-student communication.

Such teacher-student communication is in consonance with the social constructivist theory of

learning, whereby, in the ESL context, mainstream teachers help ELLs construct meaning by

interpreting what they experience via communication and collaboration (Schallert & Martin,

2003). Further research regarding this area would be beneficial, to identify why some instances

of teacher-training communication were so well-aligned while others were not.

Theme 3: the efficiency and relevance of technology. Finally, a factor often noted in

the description of ESL training by mainstream teachers involved use of technology. Its presence

or absence affected their perceptions of specific training and was seen as a means by which

future training could be improved. Thus, effective use of technology could help alleviate barriers

and challenges that mainstream teachers face in terms of ESL professional development.

As with communication relevancy discussed previously, the theme regarding efficiency

and relevance of technology emerged in bifurcated form from analysis of the data. First,

technology utilization during the training classes themselves was a concern: whether there were

93

opportunities to use technology more effectively during the sessions. Second, possible

enhancement of technology usage in the classrooms was noted. Teachers are amenable to

suggestions for utilizations of technologies of various sorts that might engage students from

different backgrounds, cultural and linguistic, because technological tools are often universally

understood. Training programs within universities and as part of continuing education should

focus on practical applications and new teaching methods, often involving technology.

According to Ye et al. (2011), these programs are highly applicable for teachers educating ESL

students. Cobb (2005) aligned the use of technology with the goals of social constructivism as

well, in that it clearly can enhance the experiences of students and increase development of

knowledge in ways more traditional educational techniques cannot.

In terms of answers to specific questions, the idea of technology as an aid (either in the

training or in the classroom) was mentioned in response to interview question four (improving

ESL training) three times, and interview question seven (“what do you expect from future ESL

professional development training programs?”) a total of six times. One responder mentioned

technology alongside other means of overcoming language barriers. Technology is familiar to

many students regardless of their cultural or linguistic background. Particularly, it has been

shown that young children and teens in general are more comfortable with using tools such as

computers than their older counterparts (Sedghi, 2014), making them especially useful in today’s

classrooms. Resources for instruction of ELLs, including technology tools, is lacking

nationwide (Henrichsen, 2010), but this would be an invaluable investment, according to the

input from the teachers in this study.

94

In addition, the use of technology could enhance time usage. An overwhelming obstacle

teachers noted (ten respondents) in interview Question 6 (“what are the main obstacles that

prevent you and other mainstream teachers that you know from participating in ESL professional

development programs?”) was the lack of time that prevent them from attending ESL

professional development programs. If technology could be introduced at trainings that helped

make classroom learning more efficient and speedy, it might have the unintended result of

helping free up teachers to attend more training sessions. Interview question eight revealed a

unanimous desire to attend further ESL professional development training programs, to help the

teachers improve as instructors, to assist the students, and in one case because the school district

required it.

Conclusions

The richest data for the study came from some of the questions (such as interview

questions three and four) that asked for an evaluation and critique of training programs. These

kinds of data were emphasized in the interpretations performed in Chapter 4, as this data

reflected a deeper level of participant engagement with training programs. The focus here is to

generate conclusions.

The following are conclusions reached from the analysis of results. First, it was

concluded that teachers experienced numerous aspects of training as being inapplicable to their

needs and circumstances. Second, it was concluded that ESL training and professional

development programs suffer from the absence of a teacher-driven model.

The limitations and delimitations of this study, the implications of the study findings,

particularly in light of their relation to past empirical studies and to theory will be discussed

95

throughout this section. In addition, the findings will be used as a basis from which to make

recommendations to future scholars and to academic stakeholders.

Limitations and Delimitations

The primary delimitations concerning this study involve the participants. Even though

the topic at issue is ESL professional development, the study only involved mainstream teachers

with ELLs in their classrooms. Hence, the perceptions of ESL instructors regarding ESL

professional development training are not included. Additionally, all of the 15 participants come

from different school districts in the State of Ohio, and while the number of participants falls

within the appropriate range for such a descriptive qualitative study, according to researchers

such as Leedy and Ormrod (2010), the results of this study may have limited generalization to

ESL professional development programs implemented for mainstream teachers in the State of

Ohio.

The primary limitation of this study is related to the concern that participants share a

homogenous experience because they all teach ELL students in Ohio. This limitation was

addressed through the selection process to ensure diversity, with both public (13) and private (2)

schools represented, a mixture of male (5) and female (10) teachers, and experience levels

ranging from one year to twelve years (Table 1, participant characteristics). Additionally, since

sample groups in qualitative studies is usually purposeful (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2006),

hence knowing the subjects allows for better question design and impartation of more

information with increased reliability than through random sampling. To avert these concerns,

two measures were taken. The sample was constructed with advice of two senior educators

familiar with the participants, who also helped arrange meetings in order to discuss the purpose

96

and nature of the study prior to the interviews. Moreover, participants were allowed to elaborate

through follow-up questions and discussions during the interviews to ensure clarification of

points and avoid misunderstandings.

Implications for Education Leaders

For those educational leaders who make decisions regarding use of resources and funding

for schools, this study could be a source of information regarding the efficacy of ESL training for

mainstream teachers of ELLs. It provides raw data as well as an analysis of what factors are

desirable in the ESL training sessions, what should be included in future sessions by those

designing them, and the factors limiting teachers from participating in such trainings. It has been

well-documented that the number of ELLs is increasing nationwide, and that many school

districts, both urban and especially those in rural areas, have limited funds to assist them in the

classroom, and in providing trained teachers. In particular, there are too few ESL-certified

teachers to meet the demand (Flynn & Hill, 2005). Much of the time, the task of teaching ELLs

will be on mainstream teachers. Although they are encouraged to coordinate with ESL teachers

as much as possible (De Jong & Harper, 2005), any knowledge that these teachers may have

gained first-hand will be invaluable.

Educational leaders could use the findings of this study to enhance the quality of ESL

professional development programs. For instance, 100% of participants indicated their need for

some form of training to better manage ELL students in mainstream classrooms. However, 10

participants (Participants MT1, MT2, MT3, MT5, MT6, MT8, MT9, MT10, MT13, and MT14)

also indicated time pressures as an obstacle to training. This finding should alert relevant

97

educational leaders to the necessity of creating more professional training and development time

for teachers. If teachers are expected to attend professional development and training programs,

some special accommodation should be made to ensure that they do so without time pressures

from their schools. Educational leaders ought to treat professional development and training

time as vital for their organizations and ought to take the necessary actions to relieve teachers of

time pressure.

Based on the findings of this study the future ESL training sessions implemented for

mainstream teachers should include practical materials that deal with day-to-day practices inside

the mainstream classrooms. Trainers need have current and up-to date classroom experience and

should have an ongoing follow up and communication with mainstream teachers. Mainstream

teachers need to be encouraged to attend ESL training programs with extra incentives that make

them willing to devote the time and effort for such training.

Knowing the importance of ESL training, what to look for in a training session, or what

to emphasize when designing such sessions, are all pieces of information that can inform

educational leaders in the future to enhance the learning environment for ELLs. Thus, this study

has implications for education leaders in decision-making positions, as well as those who are

trainers.

Recommendations for Future Research

This type of study could be replicated in different settings with varied participants. The

fact that all the teachers involved teach in the same state makes it logical that to undertake

similar studies in areas with different socio-cultural and linguistic make-ups than Ohio would

provide information as to the reliability of this study, as well as augment it with new

98

perspectives. Additionally, an area that was identified through the analysis of teacher interviews

where more research would also be beneficial regards the structure and effectiveness of the

training sessions themselves. While some teachers responded, for example, that communication

was relevant in the context of teacher-training, in other cases it was not. This bespeaks a need

for further studies to assess individual ESL trainings, with focus on what makes them effective or

accessible to mainstream teacher. It would follow from the comments analyzed herein that

studies of content-specific ESL training would be useful, to see if such training promoted

engagement or relevant communication.

In addition, studies focusing on the presenters or trainers and their styles and course

content might yield fruitful information. Moreover, follow-up studies that concentrate on what

happens after a teacher has attended ESL training could add to the literature gap in this area, and

provide insight for educational leaders, both those who design training and those who send

teachers to receive training.

Summary

This descriptive qualitative study explored the viewpoints of 15 mainstream teachers

about the ESL training that they have experienced. Participants responded to open-ended

questions and provided rich data that guided the data analysis in this study. With the number of

ELLs on the rise nationwide (Calderson, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011), it is imperative upon

educators to ascertain optimal methods and techniques to help ELLs learn, both content area

knowledge as well as basic English reading, writing and speaking skills. Resources and funding

is tight in most educational settings (Henrichsen, 2010), which has an impact on the availability

of services for ELLs. The task of teaching non-native English speakers often falls on

99

mainstream teachers who are proficient in their own content areas but lack specific training that

takes into account non-English speakers in the classroom. Therefore, implementing and

promoting effective ESL professional development training is very critical. This study provided

information regarding the experiences of a sample of 15 mainstream teachers from different

backgrounds, teaching within the state of Ohio, regarding their expectations and experiences in

ESL training. The information that they provided during this study could help educational

leaders make research based decisions on what mainstream teaches look for in ESL professional

development programs and how to enhance the effectiveness and the relevance of such programs

to mainstream classrooms.

The findings of this study revealed three themes that emerged during the data analysis.

These three themes are teacher engagement, relevant communication, and the efficiency and

relevance of technology. The discussion of these themes in Chapter 5 was based on the

theoretical perspective of the social constructivist theory. This theory of learning that was

discussed thoroughly in the literature review chapter can be applied to each of these three themes

toward teacher training, just as it can be toward student learning in classrooms. Teacher

involvement and teacher engagement in training, for example, align with the social

constructivism claim that learning occurs a process of shared experiential knowledge that

develops constructs of learning (Von Glasersfeld, 1987). It is dependent upon many factors,

including hands-on experiences, problem-solving, decision-making, thinking at a higher level,

probing questions, and understanding the students’ background and their prior knowledge

(Isaacson, 2004), each of which impact the three themes to differing extents.

100

In conclusion, the results of the study can provide administrators, teachers, and trainers

with information to consider in relationship to mainstream teachers and ESL training. The

exploration of the lived experiences and views of the participants in this study may encourage

other educators to examine current or prospective positions regarding the value of such training

and the content necessary in it to ensure its success and improve its effectiveness. This study

also opens the door for future research that can add the study findings. Ultimately, the aim is to

use information from mainstream teachers who have experienced ESL training, to assist

educators to explore the need and potential benefits of creating, implementing, supporting or

attending ESL programs that will carry over to the classroom in terms of improved ELLs’

academic attainment.

101

References

American Institutes for Research. (2010). Common ELL terms and definitions. Retrieved from

http://www.air.org/files/NEW_-_Common_ELL_TERMS_AND_DEFINITIONS_6_

22_10.pdf

Anderson, E. M. (2009). Intervention on middle school mainstream teachers of English language

learners (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

database. (UMI No. 3399389)

Arkoudis, S. (2006). Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers. The

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 415–419. doi:10.2167/

beb337.0

August, D., & Shanahan, T., eds. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners:

Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baik, C., & Greig, J. (2009). Improving the academic outcomes of undergraduate ESL students:

the case for discipline-based academic skills programs. Higher Education Research and

Development, 28, 401–415. doi:10.1080/07294360903067005

Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (2006). Is there a natural sequence in adult second

language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235–243. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

1770.1974.tb00505.x

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.

Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15. doi: 10.3102/0013189x033008003

102

Brooks, M., & Brooks, J. (1999). The courage to be a constructivist. Educational Leadership,

57(3), 18-24. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-

leadership/nov99/vol57/num03/The-Courage-to-Be-Constructivist.aspx

Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The

Future of Children, 21(1), 103–127. Retrieved from http://futureofchildren.org/

futureofchildren/publications/docs/21_01_05.pdf

Casteel, C. J., & Ballantyne, K. G. (Eds.). (2010). Professional development in action:

Improving teaching for English learners. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for

English Language Acquisition. Retrieved from

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/PD_in_Action.pdf

Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new

demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Cho, S., & Reich, G. A. (2008). New immigrants, new challenges: High school social studies

teachers and English language learner instruction. Social Studies, 99, 235-242. doi:

10.3200/TSSS.99060235-242

Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s verbal behavior. Language, 35(1), 26–58.

Retrieved from http://cogprints.org/1148/1/chomsky.htm

Cobb, T. (2005). Foundations of linguistics approaches and concepts: Constructivism, applied

linguistics, and language education. Retrieved from http://www.lextutor.ca/cv/

constructivism_entry.htm

103

Cook, H. G., Boals, T., & Lundberg, T. (2011, November). Academic achievement for English

learners: What can we reasonably expect? Retrieved from www.wida.us/get.aspx?id=485

Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second

Language Research, 7(2), 103–117. doi: 10.1177/026765839100700203

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied

Linguistics, 5(4), 161–169. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED019903.pdf

Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed).

Los Angeles, CVA: Bilingual Educational Services.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc

Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research

process. London, UK: Sage.

De Jong, E., & Harper, C. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English language learners:

Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101-124.

Retrieved from http://www.teqjournal.org/backvols/2005/32_2/13dejong&harper.pdf

Dictionary.com. (2013). Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mainstream

Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Book, C., Putnam, J., & Wesselman, R.

(1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading skill

104

instruction and student awareness and achievement: A study of reading teacher effects.

Reading Research Quarterly, 21(3), 347–368. doi: 10.2307/747707

Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23(2),

245–258. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.x

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2010). Making content comprehensible for English

learners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a second language. Ann Arbor, MI,

University of Michigan Press.

Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B., Saunders, W. & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the learning of

teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry

teams. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537-553. Retrieved from

https://people.stanford.edu/claudeg/sites/default/files/ESJ2009Gallimoreetalproofs.pdf

Garcia, G. (2009). Bilingual education. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/

article/bilingual-education/

Garcia, O., Kleifgen, J. A., & Falchi, L. (2008). Equity matters: Research review No. 1. From

English language learners to emergent bilinguals. A Research Initiative of the Campaign

for Education Equity, New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

105

Genesee, F. (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students. Retrieved from

http://people.ucsc.edu/~ktellez/epr1.html

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language

learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH. Heineman.

Gil, L., & Bardack, S. (2010, May). Common assumptions vs. the evidence: English language

learners in the United States. A Reference Guide. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/

files/ELL_Assumptions_and_Evidence.pdf

Good, M. E., Masewicz, S., & Vogel, L. (2010). Latino English language learners: Bridging

achievement and cultural gaps between schools and families. Journal of Latinos and

Education, 9, 321-339. doi:10.1080/15348431.2010.491048.

Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research:

Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today,

24, 105-112. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain

proficiency? Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Publications/(2000)%20-

%20HOW%20LONG%20DOES%20IT%20TAKE%20ENGLISH%20LEARNERS%20

TO%20ATTAIN%20PR.pdf

Harper, C. A., & De Jong, E. J. (2009). English language teacher expertise: The elephant in the

room. Language and Education, 23(2), 137–151. doi: 10.1080/09500780802152788

Henrichsen, L. (2010). Basic training and resource connections for novice ESL teachers. Journal

of Adult Education, 39(2), 11–24. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ930242.pdf

106

Hite, C. E., & Evans, L. S. (2006). Mainstream first-grade teachers’ understanding of strategies

for accommodating the needs of English language learners. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 33(2), 89–110. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795209.pdf

Hopper, J. (2011). Why do qualitative research? Retrieved from http://methodlogical.wordpress

.com/2011/02/16/why-do-qualitative-research/

Hutchinson, M., & Hadjioannou, X. (2011). Better serving the needs of limited English

proficient (LEP) students in the mainstream classroom: Examining the impact of an

inquiry-based hybrid professional development program. Teachers and Teaching: Theory

and Practice. 17(1), 91-113. doi:10.1080/13540602.2011.538499

Isaacson, L. S. (2004). Teachers’ perception of constructivism as an organizational change

model: A case study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses database. (UMI No. AAT0388366)

Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative

research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Koelsch, N. (n.d.). Improving literacy outcomes for English language learners in high school:

Considerations for states and districts in developing a coherent policy framework.

Retrieved from National High School Center website: http://www.betterhighschools.org/

docs/NHSC_Adolescents_110806.pdf

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK:

Pergamon.

107

Lambert, V. A., & Lambert, C. E. (2012). Qualitative descriptive research: An acceptable

Design. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, 16(4), 255-256.

Retrieved from http://www.tnc.or.th/files/2014/03/tnc_journal-

7642/pacific_rim_vol_16_no_4_pdf_15802.pdf

Lane, S., & Arnold, E. (2011, June). Qualitative research: A valuable tool for transfusion

medicine. Transfusion, 51(6), 1150-1153. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03112.x

Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (1994). Are we communicating? Effective instruction for students who are

acquiring English as a second language. Reading Teacher, 48(3), 260–264.

Leavitt, A. (2013). Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom: The

methods teachers use. The Researcher, 25(1), 79-93. Retrieved from

http://www.nrmera.org/PDF/Researcher/Researcherv25n1Leavitt.pdf

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research. Taurton, UK, Stan Lester

Development. Retrieved from http://www.sld.demon.co.uk/resmethy.pdf

Leung, C., Davison, C. & Mohan, B. (2013). English as a Second Language in the Mainstream:

Teaching, Learning and Identity (2nd Ed). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Li, G., & Edwards, P. A. (Eds). (2010). Best practices in ELL instruction. New York: The

Guilford Press.

Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring

intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of

Management Journal, 40(5), 1023–1062. doi: 10.2307/256926

108

Magilvy, J. K., & Thomas, E. (2009, October). A first qualitative project: Qualitative descriptive

design for novice researchers. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 14(4), 298-

300. doi: 10.1111/j.1777-6155.2009.00212.x

Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in

qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of

Computer Information Systems. Retrieved from http://iacis.org/jcis/articles/JCIS54-2.pdf

Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13, 522–525.

Retrieved from http://spa.hust.edu.cn/2008/uploadfile/2009-9/20090916221539453.pdf

Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interview. Forum

Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3). Retrieved from

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3027

Mays, L. (2008). The cultural divide of discourse: Understanding how English-language

learners’ primary discourse influences acquisition of literacy. Reading Teacher, 16(5),

415–418. doi: 10.1598/RT.61.5.6

McCleland, R. C. (2005). The executive coach’s experience: A qualitative phenomenological

exploration. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.

3188229)

Menezes, V. (2013). Second language acquisition: Reconciling theories. Open Journal of

Applied Science, 3(7), 404-412. doi: 10.4236/ojapps.2013.37050

Menezes, V. (n.d). Second language acquisition: From main theories to complexity. Retrieved

from http://www.veramenezes.com/slatheory.pdf

109

Migration Policy Institute. (2006). Immigration and America’s Future: A new Chapter.

Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/task_force/new_chapter_summary.pdf

Moen, W., E. (1998). The development of ANSI/NISO Z39.50: A case study in standards

evolution. Retrieved from http://www.unt.edu/wmoen/dissertation/ch3.pdf

Moerer-Urdahl, T., & Creswell, J. (2004). Using transcendental phenomenology to explore the

“ripple effect” in a leadership mentoring program. International Journal of Qualitative

Methods, 3(2). Retrieved from

http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_2/pdf/moerercreswell.pdf

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.

Myles, F. (2010). The development of theories of second language acquisition. Language

Teaching, 43, 320–332. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000078

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). English language learners. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2008a). Educating English language

learners: Building teacher capacity (Roundtable report; vol. 1). Retrieved from

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/EducatingELLsBuildingTeacherCapacityVol1.

pdf

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2008b). Educating English language

learners: Building teacher capacity (Roundtable report; vol. 3). Retrieved from

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/EducatingELLsBuildingTeacherCapacityVol3.

pdf

110

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2008). The growing number of

English language learner students. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/

uploads/9/growingLEP_0809.pdf

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational

Programs. (2006). How many school-aged English language learners (ELLs) are there in

the U.S.? Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/01leps.html

National Education Association. (2012). Meet the needs of English language learner students.

Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/29914.htm

Neergaard, M. A., Olesen, F., Andersen, R. S., & Sondergaard, J. (2009). Qualitative

description- the poor cousin of health research? BMC Medical Research Methodology.

doi: 10.1186/147-2288-9-52

Ohio Department of Education. (2011, June 24). Profile of Ohio’s LEP students. Retrieved

from

http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRel

ationID=499&ContentID=1809&Content=107338

Ohio Department of Education. (2012a). Characteristics of programs serving LEP students in

Ohio. Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/

ODEDetail.aspx?Page=3&TopicRelationID=501&Content=119000

Ohio Department of Education. (2012b). Profile of Ohio’s LEP students. Retrieved from

http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail

.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=499&ContentID=1809&Content=107338

111

Ohio State University. (2012). ESL–content teachers collaborative. Retrieved from

http://ehe.osu.edu/edtl/ectc/faq/

Pacifica Graduate Institute. (2012). Counseling psychology thesis handbook for 2012

matriculates. Retrieved from

http://www.pacifica.edu/uploadedFiles/Graduate_Degree_Programs/MA_Program_in_Co

unseling_Psychology/Thesis_Handbook_for_2012_Matriculates(2).pdf

Palaroan, M. (2009). Effect of teacher specialization training on limited English speaking

students’ assessment outcomes: Quantitative study. Dissertation Abstracts International:

University of Phoenix Dissertations and Theses Database.

Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John

Benjamins.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137–145. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.137

Salkind, N. J. (2008). Exploring research (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Practice Hall.

Samimy, K. K. (2012). Letter from the director. ESL Content Teachers Collaborative, 5(1).

Retrieved from https://ehe.osu.edu/edtl/ectc/downloads/ectc-newsletter-wi12.pdf

Schallert, D., & Martin, D. (2003). A psychological analysis of what teachers and students do in

the language arts classroom. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.),

Handbook of research on teaching in the English language arts (pp. 31–45). New York,

NY: Macmillan.

Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginisation process: a model for second language acquisition.

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

112

Schumacher, S., & McMillian, J. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (3rd

ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Sedghi, A. (2014). Six-year-olds outstrip adults in digital understanding but teens lead the way.

The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/six-year-olds-outstrip-

adults-in-digital-understand-but-teenagers-lead-the-way

Shank, G. D. (2006). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson.

Shore, K. (2013). Success for ESL students: 12 practical tips to help second-language learners.

Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/success-esl-students

Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2005). Teacher skills to support English language learners. Best of

Educational Leadership 2004-2005, 62, 8–13. Retrieved from http://www.kckps.org/

teach_learn/pdf/group2/t_l9_teacher.pdf

Silverman, D. (2004). Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice. London, UK. Sage.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Croft.

Snow, M. (2005). A model of academic literacy for integrated language and content instruction.

In E. Hinkle (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.

693-712). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Spinelli, C. G. (2008). Addressing the issue of cultural and linguistic diversity and assessment:

Informal evaluation measures for English language learners. Reading & Writing

Quarterly, 24(1), 101-118. doi: 10.108/10573560701753195

113

State Board of Education & Ohio Department of Education. (2005). Standards for Ohio

educators. Retrieved from http://esb.ode.state.oh.us/PDF/Standards_OhioEducators.pdf

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and

comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in

second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Tavallaei, M., & Abu Talib, M. (2010). A general perspective on role of theory in qualitative

research. The Journal of International Social Research, 3(11), 570-577. Retrieved from

http://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/cilt3/sayi11pdf/tavallaei_abutalib.pdf

Thompson, G. L., Warren, S., & Carter, L. (2004). It’s not my fault: Predicting high school

teachers who blame parents and students for students’ low achievement. High School

Journal, 87(3), 5–14. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The condition of

education 2011. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011033.pdf

Van Manen, M. (2010). Researching the experience of pedagogy. Education Canada, 42(4), 24–

27. Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/sites/cea-ace.ca/files/EdCan-2002-v42-n4-

Van-Manen.pdf

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of

representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

114

Walqui, A. (2000). Access and engagement: Program design and instructional approaches for

immigrant students in secondary schools. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems for the Center of

Applied Linguistics.

Walt, J. L. (1992). Linguistics and second language teaching: An assessment. Stellenbosch

Papers in Linguistics. 25, 169-182. doi: 10.5774/25-0-80.

Welman, J. C., & Kruger, S. J. (1999). Research methodology for the business and

administrative sciences. Johannesburg, South Africa: International Thompson.

Wilson, K. (1999). Note-taking in the academic writing process of non-native speaker students:

Is it important as a process or a product? Journal of College Reading and Learning,

29(2), 166–179. doi: 10.1080/10790195.1999.10850077

Wisnor, S. (2012). Changes. ESL Content Teacher Collaborative, 5(1). Retrieved from

http://ectc.ehe.osu.edu/files/2012/10/ectc-newsletter-wi12.pdf

Wong, S. S., & Ng, V. (2008). A qualitative and quantitative study of psychotherapists’

congruence in Singapore. Psychotherapy Research, 18(1), 58-76. Doi:

10.1080/10503300-701324654

Xiao, Y. (2008). Building formal schemata with ESL student writers: Linking schema theory to

contrastive rhetoric. Asian EFL Journal, 32(2). Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-

journal.com/pta_November_08.pdf

Yang, L., & Wilson, K. (2006). Second language classroom reading: A social constructivist

approach. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 6, 364–372. Retrieved from

http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/yang_wilson/article.pdf

115

Ye, H., Prater, K., & Steed, T. (2011). Moving beyond just got teaching: ESL professional

development for all teachers. Professional Development in Education, 37(1), 7-18. doi:

10.1080/19415250903467199

Youngs, C. S. & Youngs G. A. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers' attitudes toward ESL

students. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 97-120. doi: 10.2307/3587861

Zhang, Y. (2012). Collaboration and co-teaching: Strategies for English learners, by A

Honigsfeld & M G Dove. ESL Content Teacher Collaborative, 5(1). Retrieved from

http://ectc.ehe.osu.edu/files/2012/10/ectc-newsletter-wi12.pdf

116

Appendix A

Informed Consent

Dear Participant,

My name is Ammar Al-Sharafi, and I am a student at the University of Phoenix working

on a Doctor of Education degree. I am conducting a research study titled Perceptions of ESL

Professional Development Programs by Mainstream Teachers: A Descriptive Qualitative

Study. The purpose of this descriptive qualitative study is to explore and examine the

viewpoints of K-12 mainstream teachers about the ESL professional development and training

programs implemented for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms.

This is a qualitative study collecting data through interviews.

Your participation will involve answering interview questions focusing on English

language learners and ESL professional development programs for mainstream teachers. Your

valuable participation is voluntary, and you can withdraw from this study at any time without

penalty or loss of benefits to yourself. The results of the study maybe published, but your

identity will remain confidential and your name will not be disclosed to any outside party. There

will be no foreseeable risks because of your participation in this study.

If you have any question about the research study, please feel free to call me at any time

at 904-294-1899 or send me an email at amarjax@yahoo.com. For questions about your rights

as a study participant, or any concerns or complaints, please contact the University of Phoenix

Institutional Review Board via email at IRB@phoenix.edu.

As a participant in this study, you should understand the following:

117

1. You may decline to participate or withdraw from participation at any time

without consequences.

2. Your identity will be kept confidential.

3. Ammar Al-Sharafi, the researcher, has thoroughly explained the

parameters of the research study and all of your questions and concerns

have been addressed.

4. If Interviews are recorded, must give permission for the researcher,

Ammar Al-Sharafi, to record the interviews. You understand that the

information from the recorded interviews may be transcribed. The

researcher will develop a way to code the data to assure that your name is

protected.

5. Data will be stored in a secure and locked area. The data will be held for a

period of three years, and then destroyed.

6. The research results may be used for publication.

“By signing this form you acknowledge that you understand the nature of the study, the

potential risks to you as a participant, and the means by which your identity will be kept

confidential. Your signature on this form also indicates that you are 18 years old or older and

that you give your permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described.”

Signature of the interviewee _____________________________ Date _____________

Signature of the researcher ______________________________ Date _____________

118

Appendix B

Non-Disclosure Agreement

119

120

121

122

Appendix C

Confidentiality Statement

123

Appendix D

Interview Questions

1. What kind of professional development and support does your school district provide for

mainstream teachers who work with ELLs?

2. How many times have you participated in any ESL professional development training

(pre-service or in-service)?

3. How would you describe the effectiveness of such professional development programs in

preparing you to teach ELLs?

4. How can the effectiveness of such programs, in addressing the needs of mainstream

teaches and ELLs, be improved?

5. How relevant were these programs to the teaching of ELLs in your classroom?

6. What are the main obstacles that prevent you and other mainstream teachers that you

know from participating in ESL professional development program?

7. What do you expect from future ESL professional development training programs?

8. On a final note, will you participate in any future ESL professional development training

program if it becomes available? Why or why not?