Boston College Lynch School of Education

BOSTON COLLEGE
Lynch School of Education
Department of
Education and Higher Education
Program
Educational Administration
THE IMPACT OF A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ON

TEACHERS’ WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Dissertation
by
JOHN C. HARUTUNIAN
submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May, 2007
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
UMI N um ber: 3 2 6 2 8 0 9
C opyright 2 0 0 7 by
H arutunian, J o h n C.
All rights re s e rv e d .
INFORMATION TO U S E R S
T h e quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t up on t h e quality of th e copy

subm itted. B roken or indistinct print, colored or p o o r quality illustrations a n d
p h o to g ra p h s , print b leed -throu gh , s u b s t a n d a r d m argins, a n d im proper
alignm ent c a n a d v e rs e ly affect reproduction.
In th e unlikely e v e n t th a t th e a u th o r did not s e n d a c o m p le te m a n u scrip t
a n d th e r e a r e m issing p a g e s , t h e s e will b e noted. Also, if u nau th o riz ed
copyright m aterial h a d to b e re m o v e d , a n o te will indicate th e deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3 2 6 2 8 0 9
Copyright 2 0 0 7 by P r o Q u e s t Information a n d Learning C o m p an y .
All rights re s e rv e d . This microform edition is p ro te c te d a g a in s t
u n au th o riz ed copying u n d e r Title 17, United S t a t e s C od e.
P r o Q u e s t Information a n d Learning C o m p a n y
3 0 0 North Z e e b R o ad
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6
© Copyright by John Harutunian
2007
BOSTON COLLEGE
Lynch Graduate School of Education
The dissertation of
John Harutunian
titled
T h e I m p a c t o f a P r o f e s s io n a l D e v e l o p m e n t P r o g r a m o n
T e a c h e r s ' W o r k w it h E n g l is h La n g u a g e L e a r n e r s
submitted to the Lynch School of Education in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the deg ree of:
D o c to r of E d u c a t io n
h a s been read and approved by the Committee;
Date March 13, 2 0 0 7
ABSTRACT
THE IMPACT OF A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ON

TEACHERS’ WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
by
John C. Harutunian
Dissertation Director: Dr. Irwin Blumer, Ed.D.
The number of English language learners in schools in the United States has
dramatically increased in the last thirty years; today there are over 4.7 million English
language learners (Fix & Passel, 2003). Researchers and theorists cite a range of skills
and knowledge that all teachers should have in order to create optimum classroom
conditions for English language learners (Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006; Echevarria
et. al. (2004); Montecel & Cortez, 2002; Fillmore & Snow, 2002; Brisk et al., 2002;
Nieto, 2000; Gonzalez & Darling-Hammond, 1997; Delpit, 1995; Chamot & O'Malley,
1994; Cummins, 1981). Despite the dramatic increase of English language learners, only
a small proportion of K-12 teachers have received any type of professional development
targeted for these students (National Center of Educational Statistics, 2002).
This qualitative case study examined how the development of a teacher
professional development program called the English Language Learner Study Group
affected teachers’ understanding of the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of
English language learners and impacted the teacher’s perceptions of their instructional
practice. Eight volunteer teachers and one program leader engaged in three dimensions of
professional development: formal classroom courses, monthly study group meetings and
participation in a mentoring program targeting English language learners.
Data instruments included teacher interviews and questionnaires and researcher
field notes. The principal findings from the study showed: 1) the professional
development program dramatically improved the teachers’ understanding of the
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners; 2) the
teachers’ perceptions of their instructional practice improved as a result of the program;
3) the lack of time emerged as an important factor in constraining teachers’ professional
growth; 4) panel discussions involving high school English language learners who shared
their personal histories and school experiences enriched the teachers’ understanding of
the challenges that many English language learners face in schools.
Findings from this study are consistent with current research literature on
effective teacher professional development for English language learners.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Boston College and the Massachusetts Elementary School
Principals’ Association for this special doctoral program. This program has transformed
me into a more thoughtful and poised leader and has helped me find my own voice as an
advocate for equity in academic opportunities for all children in public schools.
I thank especially Dr. Irwin Blumer, Dr. Robert J. Starratt and Dr. Diane Pullin
for the readings, class discussions and projects that elevated my thinking and
understanding o f the critical issues tied to educational leadership. I am grateful for Dr.
James Marini’s constant support and suggestions throughout every step of the process for
writing this dissertation.
I also feel indebted to my cohort and especially all the members of my cluster:
Michelle Gomes, Irene Hawley, Victor Mercurio and Melissa Peterson. Your experiences
and perspectives on educational issues helped transform me into a more thoughtful
leader; I will always treasure the laughter and companionship that we shared as a team.
To Joanne Lewis, my trusted colleague and dear friend, I thank you for helping me
maintain a healthy balance between the job, the program, and my family.
I thank the volunteer teachers in this study for their flexibility and commitment to
the English Language Learner Study Group. I am humbled by the energy and heart that
each of you gave of yourselves to make this project a success. I thank Dawn P.
Mendelsohn for the resources she provided for the study group and Sybil Schlesinger for
her assistance in designing the mentoring program. Also, I want to express my gratitude
for the support from my colleagues Megan Quinlan, Dr. Susan McGilvray-Rivet, Juan
Rodriguez, Bill Paquette and Barbara Rappaport. Finally, I wish to thank Esta Montano
and Dr. Sara Hamerla for the hours of time that they committed to this study; their expert
suggestions and constant moral support helped me immeasurably during the entirety of
the project. Thank you!
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my family who supported me through the entirety of
this doctoral program. To Juan and Ximena, thank you for your help caring for my family
while I worked on the project. To Ximena Viteri, your assistance with the transcriptions
will never be forgotten. To my sister, Robin, thank you for giving me the confidence and
the love to pursue graduate school. To my father, Harold, for the loving generosity
demonstrated by the hours you spent by my side helping me clarify my ideas for the
study. Thank you Dad. And to my mom and brother, Katherine and Peter, thank you for
your love and support.
Most importantly, to my wife, Mona. I could not have survived this program
without your encouragement. Thank you for always believing in me even when I doubted
myself. jMi Vidita - te quiero tanto!
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
DEDICATION ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of the Study 8
Research Questions 9
Theoretical Rationale 9
Significance of the Study 13
Research Design 13
Limitations of the Study 15
Definitions of Terms 17
Overview of the Study 19
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction 21
Background and Rationale for Designing Teacher Professional
Development Programs 21
Recommended Areas for Professional Development of Mainstream

Teachers to Address Sociocultural, Linguistic and Instructional Needs
of English Language Learners 29
Sociocultural Needs 29
Linguistic Needs 35
Instructional Needs 43
IV
Effective Professional Development Designs, Study Groups and

Mentoring Programs 52
Effective Professional Development Designs 52

Study Groups 61
Mentoring Programs 63
Conclusion 73
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN

Introduction 76
Research Design and Rationale 76
Research Questions 81
Research Hypothesis 81
Variables 81
Sample Description 82
Data Gathering Procedures 85
Instruments 87
Researcher Field Notes 87
Interviews 88
Questionnaires 88
Research Methodology 89
Data Collection 90
Interviews 91
Questionnaires 92
Expert Review of Interviews and Survey Protocols 92
Data Analysis 93
Interviews 94
Questionnaires 98
V
Reporting the Data 98

Limitations 99
Conclusion 101
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Introduction 102
The Site 103
English Language Learner Study Group 109
Part I: Formal Classroom Training 109
Introduction to Second Language Learning and 109
Teaching

Linguistic Needs 111
Instructional Needs 112
Understanding of the Sociocultural, Linguistic
and Instructional Needs 112
Instructional Practice 113
Summary Of Major Findings From Introduction
to Second Language and Teaching 114
Assessment Of Speaking and Listening 114
Informed Instructional Practice 116
Miscellaneous Findings 118
Part II: Study Group Meetings 119

Part III: Mentoring Program 135
vi
Part IV: Analysis of Teacher Growth From Formal Classroom

Training, Study Group Meetings and Mentoring Program 143
Teachers’ Understanding O f Sociocultural, Linguistic

and Instructional Needs 143
Teachers’ Self-Selected Perceptions O f Their Professional

Growth 159
Teachers’ Perceptions Of Their Instructional Practice

And Instructional Needs Of English Language Learners 163
Summary of the Findings 172

Part I: Dimensions of The English Language Learner Study Group
Professional Development Program 174
Formal Classroom Training 174

Monthly Study Group Meetings 175
Mentoring Program 176
Part II: Teacher Professional Growth from Participation on
Part III: Other Significant Findings 179

Issue of Time 179
The Power Of Student Voice In Influencing Teacher

Understanding 180
Conclusion 181
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, DISCUSSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

Introduction 182
Summary of Findings 183
Part I: Dimensions of The English Language Learner Study Group
Professional Development Program 184
v ii

Part II: Teacher Professional Growth from Participation on
Part III: Other Significant Findings 189

Issue of Time 189
The Power O f Student Voice In Influencing Teacher

Understanding 190
Discussion of Findings 191

Instructional Needs and Instructional Practice 194
Effective Professional Development Designs 198
Study Group 200
Implications for Practice, Policy and Further Research 203
Implications for Practice and Policy 203
Suggested Steps for Initiating an English Language
Learner Study Group 203
Suggested Training for Pre-Service Teachers 206
Time 212
Implications for Further Research 213

Limitations 214
Implications for Leadership 216
Conclusion and Recommendations 221
REFERENCES 228
APPENDICES
A Informed Consent Form 246

B ELL Study Group Teacher Survey 248
C Interview Protocol - December 250
D Interview Protocol - June 255
E Researcher Field Notes from English language learnerStudy Group
Meeting 257
F Pre-Assessment Open-Ended Questionnaire 259

G Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching
THINK-BACK Activity 261
H Questionnaire for January meeting, “Challenges growing up in a

bilingual cultural world 262
I Final Questionnaire using www.surveymonkey.com 263

J ELL Study Group Activities 264
K After School Survey 269
L Massachusetts English Language Assessment - Oral 270
M Teacher Interview of an English Language Learner 271
N Smoothed Casual Network of Training Activities and
Teacher Professional Growth 274
1
Chapter One
Statement of the Problem
INTRODUCTION
The United States has been in the midst of unprecedented immigration growth.
Fix & Passel (2003) reported that the number of immigrants has tripled from 10 million
in 1970 to over 31 million in 2000. As the foreign bom population surges, public schools
in the United States are witnessing a tremendous increase in the numbers of English
language learners. According to Fix & Passel (2003), 10.5 million children of
immigrants comprise 19% of all school children in K-12 education and projections
suggest that children of immigrants will make up 30% of the total school population by
2015. In 2001-2002, more than 4.7 million school-age children were considered Limited
English Proficient (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004). A student designated as Limited
English Proficient is also referred to as an English language learner. An English language
learner, commonly abbreviated as Ell, is defined as a “student whose first language is a
language other than English and who is unable to perform ordinary classroom work in
English” (M.G.L. 71 c. 71A).
While these students are labeled and identified in one group as “English language
learners” or “Limited English Proficient” these students do not share the same profile.
Many differences exist between them in terms of their national origin, language spoken,
years of previous education, literacy in their native language, and education of parents.
Some English language learners have parents who are college educated in their native
countries and work in professional positions in the United States. Other English language
learners’ parents come from rural villages with little or no formal education. They work
multiple jobs to raise their families in the United States (Echevarria et al., 2004). Some
students arrive to schools in the United States as adolescents after years of rigorous
education in their native country while others enter U.S. schools having had only
interrupted schooling. In addition, there are students who speak Latin-based languages
that help them recognize English words while others students come from countries that
use sharply different written forms like Arabic and don’t have the benefits of a familiarity
to English.
According to Zehler et al. (2003), in a national survey o f Limited English
Proficient students, Spanish is the home language spoken by 79% of all English language
learners. Also, 50% of English language learners were bom in the United States and 30%
were bom in Mexico. As part of the study, Zehler et al. (2003) found that 14% of all
English language learners have little or no English, 24% have very limited English
proficiency and 61% have limited English proficiency which means some difficulty in
English.
Prior to the enactment of Title VI in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there were no
defined legal requirements for public schools to educate children who could not “perform
ordinary classroom work in English.” However, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act,
the law stated clearly that “no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race,
color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
3
assistance” (Pub. L. 88-352, Title VI, § 601, July 2, 1965, 78 Stat. 252). Because the
public schools received federal assistance, the enactment of Title VI drastically changed
the school districts’ legal responsibilities towards English language learners.
In the landmark case, Lau v. Nichols in 1974, a group of 1,800 non-English-
speaking Chinese students brought a class suit against the San Francisco Unified School
District and sought relief against unequal educational opportunities. After being denied
relief at the district court level and again at the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court
decided based “solely on 601 [Title VI] of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... to reverse the
Court of Appeals” (Alexander & Alexander, 2005, p.360). The decision was based on
Justice William Douglass’ declaration that there is “no equality of treatment merely by
providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum, for
students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful
education” (Alexander & Alexander, 2005, p.360). He also added, “Basic English skills
are at the very core of what these public schools teach. Imposition of a requirement that,
before a child can effectively participate in the educational program, he must already
have acquired those basic skills is to make a mockery of public education” (Alexander &
Alexander, 2005, p.360).
However, despite the enactment of the Lau Remedies in public school districts
across the U.S., there are still several persisting inequities in the education for English
language learners. Beykont (2002) describes several systemic factors that negatively
impact the educational experience of English language learners. First, English language
learners frequently attend underfunded, urban schools that lack adequate educational
4
resources (National Center for Education Statistics, 1997; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000).
English language learners discover that their home cultures and languages are viewed
negatively by the schools. Many students are sent to low-track or special education and/or
denied access to challenging courses for college preparation (Beykont, 2000; Mehan,
Villanueva, Hubbard, & Lintz, 1994). The curriculum is not connected to the daily
experiences of many of these students nor builds on their prior, culturally based
knowledge (Berriz, 2000; Nielsen & Beykont, 1997). Furthermore, students are expected
to learn to understand the kind of thinking that is expected of them in the U.S. system of
education as well as figure out how to balance the differences in their home culture and
family beliefs with what they learn at school (Mehan, 1979; Tharp & Galimore, 1988).
Further complicating matters for English language learners is that with the passage of
English Only laws in several states such as Arizona, California, and Massachusetts, many
educational programs and services designed to address the English language learners’
linguistic and academic needs have been eliminated (Beykont, 2002).
As a result of these systemic obstacles, English language learners have been
placed into mainstream classrooms without support and with teachers who lack
certification or relevant training in working with English language learners. According to
the National Center for Education Statistics (2002), only 13 percent of teachers have
received any professional development targeted for English language learners. Without
adequate training, the instructional practices of teachers remain mainly based on the
techniques and strategies that are used for teaching native English speakers (Macias,
1998; Menken & Antunez, 2001).
5
As a consequence of these inequities and systemic obstacles English language
learners are “falling behind” native English speakers. There are several indicators that
demonstrate that English language learners are underperforming academically as
compared to native English speakers. English language learners perform lower on state
and national standardized assessments and experience much higher school dropout rates
(Snow and Biancarosa, 2003). Fry (2003) found in his study that Hispanic students aged
sixteen to nineteen who judged themselves as not speaking English well were four times
more likely to drop out of high school than were their peers who spoke English well.
Albus, Thurlow, and Liu (2002) found that in Massachusetts, according to state reporting
data from the 1999-2000 Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment Scales (MCAS),
only 10% of English language learners met the math proficiency level in math in fourth
grade, 8% in eighth grade and 10% in tenth grade. The MCAS results among English
language learners in science and technology was similarly low - only 5% of eighth
graders reached proficiency and a mere 3% in tenth grade (Albus et al., 2002). In a more
recent report, Sullivan et. al (2005) found that the cumulative pass rate of English
language learners in Massachusetts was 18 percentage points lower than all other students
as a whole according to 2003-2004 test data. Besides the cumulative pass rate data,
Massachusetts’ English language learners’ initial pass rate on exit exams in mathematics
was 24 percentage points lower than all students and 41 percentage points lower than all
students in the English Language Arts exam that includes both reading and writing.
This lower student achievement threatens the strength and future competitiveness
of the United States in the growing knowledge-based global economy. According to the
National Center for Education Statistics (2001), one of the conclusions was that adults
who are not fluent and literate in English are “less likely to be employed and when they
are employed they earn lower wages than individuals who are fluent and literate in
English” (p. 120).
Also, Sum, Urin, Khati Wada, and Ansel (2005), concluded that “the link
between a person’s ability to speak English and their ability to succeed in the
Massachusetts economy is clear and indisputable” (p. 10). The report identified three
specific skills needed to succeed in the knowledge economy: 1) at least a high school
diploma, 2) the ability to speak at an English proficiency level, and 3) strong literacy and
numeracy skills including the ability to complete tasks such as calculating the interest
owed on a hypothetical loan. The report concluded that 467,147 or 71 percent of
Massachusetts’s adult immigrants do not possess at least one of these three skills and are
therefore not prepared to participate in the knowledge economy. The report also
identified the economic importance of immigrants receiving a strong education. The
report cites that the average annual earnings of immigrants holding a college degree is
$40,179 compared with only $14,687 for immigrant high school dropouts. The number of
high-paying jobs for high school dropouts and high school graduates without post
secondary education is declining considerably in the new economy.
At the national level, during an address to Congress in 2005, Alan Greenspan, the
former Federal Reserve Bank Chairman warned that it is essential to strengthen
elementary and secondary schooling across the United States to “reduce the relative
excess of lesser-skilled workers and enhance the number of skilled workers by expediting
7
the acquisition of skills by all students” (p.6). He explained that if schools don’t help
close the achievement gap between those with higher skills and others with low skills a
wage gap could grow and the resentment that could result from this gap could threaten
the stability and social harmony in the society.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Public schools exist to educate all students and help them develop their higher-
level thinking skills to become productive members of the society. Unfortunately, the
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners are not being
adequately addressed in the current model of U.S. schools (Beykont, 2002; Nieto, 2000;
Fillmore & Snow, 2002). Today, a majority of mainstream teachers - untrained,
inexperienced and uncertified are working with a growing population of English
language learners that make up just under one out of every five students in public schools
(Reeves, 2006). Unfortunately, there are several indicators that demonstrate that this lack
of teacher training and professional development regarding the sociocultural, linguistic
and instructional needs of English language learners is one of the explanations for
English language learners’ low achievement on standardized exams and higher high
school drop-out rate as compared to European American and native English speakers
(Beykont, 2002; Echevarria et al., 2004).
8
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study assessed the effectiveness of one school’s attempt to implement a
professional development program training mainstream teachers to better address the
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners. The focus
of this professional development program called the English Language Learner Study
Group was centered on three forms of teacher training: Massachusetts Department of
Education sponsored formal classroom trainings, monthly English language learner study
group meetings and participation in an English language learner mentoring program.
Specifically, the study sought to determine whether these three forms of training
informed the teachers’ understanding of the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional
needs of English language learners, and whether the teachers developed a perception of
an increased use of instructional strategies to address the needs of English language
learners.
In this study, English language learner is the term that was used to refer to a
“student whose first language is a language other than English and who is unable to
perform ordinary classroom work in English.” (Massachusetts Department of Education,
2003).
9
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research for this project will be guided by the following research questions:
1. What impact will a three-dimensional professional development experience

consisting of formal classroom training, mentoring and participation in English
language learner study group meetings have on the teachers’ understanding of the
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners?

language learner study group meetings have on the teachers’ perceptions of their
instruction?
THEORETICAL RATIONALE
This research focused on the design of a professional development program for
training mainstream teachers on strategies for addressing the sociocultural, linguistic and
instructional needs of English language learners. According to the Council o f Chief State
School Officers ’ Immigrant students and secondary school reform: Compendium o f best
practices, adolescent English language learners can be successful when educators are
able to create an academically challenging multicultural and multilingual classroom
environment (Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen, 2004).
Elmore (2003) explained that the characteristics of effective professional
development designs include training that is collaborative, directed at large-scale
improvement, committed for long-term growth, takes place in close proximity to the
work itself, and is evaluated on improvement of student achievement over time. Elmore
emphasized the importance of teachers being engaged in work that is “rewarding in some
immediate, personal way, but that also encourages collaborative work around the shared
purposes of the organization” (Elmore, 2003, p. 22). Darling-Hammond (1997) identified
10
teacher expertise as one of the most important factors for improving schools and
describes how innovations succeed when teachers believe in it and they are given the
training and knowledge to implement it.
The research focused on three central premises. First, teachers need to understand
the research-based principles of second language acquisition development as part of
English language learners’ linguistics needs (Cummins, 2000; Thomas & Collier, 2002;
Fillmore & Snow, 2002; Spaulding et al., 2004). Cummins (1984) proposed that
“language proficiency” be broken down into two parts: basic everyday conversational
language and academic language. The BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills)
are the skills required to participate in social, everyday conversation while the CALPS
(Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) are the language skills required to
understand increased, distinct vocabulary used especially in written English without
auditory and non-verbal cues as well as language with little or no context. These
represent the two different dimensions of language proficiency. While it is common for
English language learners to acquire basic interpersonal communication skills in one to
two years, research has shown that it takes most learners five to seven years before they
approach grade norms in their second language in terms of academic skills (Cummins,
2005). Therefore, teachers must have an understanding of how language plays a role in
academic content learning and the importance of providing students the instructional
support and attention to acquire the structures for it (Cummins, 1981; Thomas & Collier,
2002). Furthermore, Fillmore & Snow (2002, p.9) urge that a “thorough grounding in
educational linguistics would support teachers’ undertakings overall” and would help
them teach literacy skills with English language learners.
The second major premise was that teachers must acquire an understanding of
English language learners’ sociocultural needs. Teachers must be shown how to learn
about their students’ cultures, family background and native language and how to
incorporate this into their instruction (Cazden & Mehan, 1990; Trueba, 1989; Garcia,
1993; Brisk et. al., 2002; Gonzalez & Hammond, 2000). Zeichner (2003) explained that
teachers must utilize scaffolding between the cultures of the school and the home to make
curriculum and instruction more responsive and relevant to what is important in students’
home cultures. Furthermore, teachers must learn how to incorporate culture and
language-sensitive practices so that all students feel respect for their cultural backgrounds
(Zeichner, 2003; Gay, 2000; Nieto, 2002). As part of this process for understanding the
cultures of their own students, teachers need a clear understanding of their own ethnic
and cultural identities and their own cultural biases as those may influence their
expectations and judgments about student performance (King, 1991, Zeichner, 2003).
The third premise was that teachers be equipped with instructional strategies that
are appropriate and effective for improving English language learners’ achievement. One
area o f research showed that incorporating a language-development component into
content instruction resulted in better curriculum access and higher achievement between
English language learners (Berman, Minicucci, McLaughlin, Nelson, & Woodworth,
1995; Echevarria et al., 2004; Minicucci, 1996). Also, promotion of positive interactions
between teachers and students have been found to be an important instructional objective
12
in producing high-level academic outcomes with English language learners (Strong,
1983). Fillmore (1991) and Lindholm-Leary & Borsato (2006) identified that one of the
main conditions that contribute to children being successful learning English in school
was that they must interact directly and frequently with other students and adults who
know English well enough to demonstrate how it is used correctly. High quality
exchanges between teachers and students also gave English language learners better
access to the curriculum. (Berman et al., 1995; Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, Tharp, 2003;
Montecel and Cortez, 2002; Tikunoff, 1985). Furthermore, an instructional approach
utilizing cooperative learning groups helped English language learners reach higher
levels of achievement (Calderon, Hertz-Lazarowitz, and Slavin, 1998; Calderon,
Tinajero, and Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1992) and was a characteristic of effective programs for
English language learners (Berman et al., 1995; Doherty et al., 2003; Montecel and
Cortez, 2002).
Research-based instructional models for increasing academic achievement of
English language learners emphasize the integration of language, content and learning
strategy instruction. These models emphasize the importance of instruction based on
building on students’ prior conceptual and linguistic knowledge, teacher modeling and
scaffolding, teacher-student dialogue on thinking and learning strategies and quality
interactions between English language learners and English only students in the form of
cooperative grouping (Chamot, O'Malley, & Ktipper, 1992; Echevarria et. al., 2004).
13
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study sought to discover the impact of a three dimensional professional
development program on the teachers’ understanding of sociocultural, linguistic and
instructional needs of English language learners and the impact on the teachers’
perceptions of their instruction.
Findings from the study provided a means to evaluate the impact of a professional
development program, which included two Department of Education formal classroom
trainings, the mentoring of one English language learner and participation in monthly
study meetings. Findings on the individual participant’s understanding, behavior or
actions provided insight and essential information to determine how the professional
development program could be modified for future implementation in other middle
school settings.
RESEARCH DESIGN
This research was designed as a qualitative case study to determine the impact
that a professional development program had on eight middle school teachers’
understanding of the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language
learners, and the impact of the teachers’ perceptions of their instruction at Nations Middle
School.
A qualitative methodology was chosen for its strengths in gathering information
and data in context, “The decision to focus on qualitative case studies stems from the fact
14
that this design is chosen precisely because researchers are interested in insight,
discovery, and interpretation rather than hypothesis testing” (Merriam, 1998, p.29).
Each of the eight teachers was considered a case. The researcher constructed each
case by documenting where the teachers were at the beginning of the study, what was
going on during the study and how they felt at the end of the study in terms of their
learners in terms of the teachers’ perception of their instruction. The researcher collected
this data through the use of pre and post interviews, questionnaires that were given
numerous times during the study, and by researcher field notes that documented formal
discussion with the teachers during study group meetings and informal individual
conversations with teachers throughout the study.
The researcher then conducted a cross-case analysis by comparing the similarities
and differences among the eight teachers on a few of the most relevant themes that
emerged from this analysis.
The research design that was used for the study was a semistructured case study
approach. According to Yin (1989), a case study is:
an empirical study that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-

life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not
clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used (p.23).
Through a variety of data sources including researcher field notes, interviews, and
questionnaires the researcher as participant and as observer sought to discover the
changes in teachers’ understanding, and changes in teachers’ perceptions of their
instructional practice as a result of their participation in the professional development
15
program. The stimulus for teachers’ learning was the development and implementation of
a professional development program that was centered on training teachers to better
address the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners.
The outcomes were the changes in the teachers’ understanding of sociocultural, linguistic
and instructional needs of English language learners measured by researcher field notes,
questionnaires and interviews and the changes in the teachers’ perception of their
instructional practice for English language learners measured by researcher field notes,
questionnaires and interviews.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
There were several limitations and threats to internal validity in this study. First,
the size of the sample, eight teachers from one school inhibits the potential for making
the findings of the study generalizable beyond how the study might help improve the
professional development at this one school. Second, while the selection process for
choosing the teachers was completely voluntary, the researcher deliberately recruited
teachers who demonstrated a sincere interest and enthusiasm in the learning needs of
English language learners and represented a variety of content areas.
There were other limitations to this study. The researcher recognized that the
participating teachers were aware of their role as active participants in the research.
Consequently, there is a possibility that participants responded or behaved in inauthentic
ways according to the “Hawthorne effect” (Suter, 1998). Therefore, it is possible that the
attitudes and opinions that were recorded, reviewed and analyzed may not have exactly
16
reflected all of the authentic thoughts of each of the participants. The researcher
attempted to minimize this limitation by emphasizing repeatedly to the participants that
the study’s credibility depended on the participants’ consistent honest and sincere
feedback about the professional development program.
The researcher also acknowledges the possibility for his own bias towards
highlighting the positive responses from the teachers regarding the beneficial effects of
the English Language Learners Study Group and downplaying the negative aspects since
the researcher was also the originator and leader of the study group. Efforts were made to
minimize this through the use of neutral individuals unaffiliated with the study to review
the questionnaires, interviews and field notes. There were also other individuals who
helped review the data.
Another limitation is that the researcher was the principal collector of the data. As
the Department Head of ESL/Bilingual Programs and member of the school’s leadership
team, there may have been a perception among the participants that the researcher had
institutional authority over them. As a result of this perception, there is the possibility that
the participants may have responded in inauthentic ways. Also, the researcher is mindful
that participants may have felt hesitant or preoccupied that their participation in the study
could have affected their evaluation despite the researcher’s assurances that participation
would have no effect on their evaluation.
A final limitation is that most of the data instruments including the questionnaires
and interviews were researcher designed. As a result, there may have been threats to
internal validity and reliability. To emphasize consistency, dependability and validity, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
use of triangulation was utilized to enhance internal validity. Triangulation is the process
of using “multiple investigators, multiple sources of data, or multiple methods to confirm
the emerging findings” (Merriam, p.204).
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Academic language - Language used in formal contexts for academic subjects. The
aspect of language connected with literacy and academic achievement. This includes
technical and academic terms.
English language learner - A student who is in the process of acquiring English and
whose native language is not English or who comes from a background where a language
other than English is spoken. These students may also be identified as Limited English
Proficient (LEP). The Massachusetts General Laws 71 c 71A defines an English language
learner as “a national origin minority student who is limited English proficient”
(Massachusetts Department of Education [DOE], 2004).
Sheltered English Instruction - An instructional approach used to make academic

instruction in English understandable to English language learners. In the sheltered
classroom, teachers use physical activities, visual aids, and the environment to teach
vocabulary for concept development in mathematics, science, social studies, and other
subject (Massachusetts G.L. 71 c 71A).
Graphic Organizers - Visual non-linguistic representations (such as T-charts, Venn

diagrams, story maps) that help students organize information into specific patterns (such
as description, time-sequence, cause-effect).
Prior knowledge - The student’s experience or academic background that relates to new
knowledge or skills. Knowledge of the student’s prior experience can assist the teacher
and the learner in planning instruction and applying learning strategies.
Rubric - Statements that describe indicators of performance, which include scoring

criteria, on a continuum; may be described as “developmental” (e.g., emergent,
beginning, developing, proficient) or “evaluative” (e.g., exceptional, thorough, adequate,
inadequate).
Scaffolding - Adult (e.g., teacher) support for learning and student performance of the
tasks through instruction, modeling, questioning, feedback and graphic organizers. These
supports are gradually withdrawn, thus transferring more and more autonomy to the
18
child. Scaffolding activities provide support for learning that can be removed as learners
are able to demonstrate strategic behaviors in their own learning activities.
Language proficiency - An individual’s competence in using a language for basic

communication and for academic purposes. May be categorized as stages of language
acquisition.
Massachusetts English Language Assessment-Oral (MELA-O) - This scale or rubric

helps teachers assess their students’ comprehension production of English. It is to be
used as part of an overall assessment of an English language learner’s reading, writing,
speaking and listening abilities in English. (Please see Appendix L).
Vocabulary - Small units in the meaning system of a language, also known as lexical
items, which can be distinguished from other similar units. Some are words, some are
groups of words, some are idioms (MELA-0 handbook).
Sociocultural needs - English language learners learn a new culture when they enter
American schools (Reiss, 2005). The instructors of English language learners must be
aware of the potential for cross-cultural misunderstandings between teacher and student.
By developing an awareness of culture as a determinant of a student’s response,
instructors will be more prepared to overcome misunderstood areas of communication.
Linguistic needs - English language learners require numerous opportunities to practice

and utilize listening, speaking, writing and reading skills to become proficient in English
(Echevarria, et. al., 2004). The instructors of these students must understand fundamental
second language theory including the difference between the Basic Interpersonal
Communication Skills (BICS) and the English required to do academic work. The
English required to do academic work is referred to as the Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency skills (CALPS).
Instructional needs - Specific instructional strategies are recommended for all teachers of
English language learners. These instructional strategies include the following:
• Building academic English and content vocabulary
• Integrating scaffolding techniques to assist English language learners with long
term projects including the use of graphic organizers, visuals and teacher “think
alouds.”
• Incorporating strategies for activating the prior knowledge that English language
learners have on a topic before beginning the lesson.
• Utilizing specific classroom grouping strategies and cooperative learning to
promote more active learning.
19
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The dissertation study was divided into five major chapters that presented the
research designed to investigate the implications of developing and implementing a
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of their English language learners.
Chapter One provided an introduction for the study as well as research questions, a brief
theoretical rationale, significance of the study, a research design, limitations of the study
and definitions of terms relevant to the study.
Chapter Two provided a review of related literature that built the theoretical
rationale for the study. The review of literature began with a background and rationale for
designing teacher professional development programs, which target the needs of English
language learners. Next, the review provided an examination of the recommended areas
for professional development of mainstream teachers to address the sociocultural,
linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners. Lastly, the review
examined the effective practices for professional development which included
components of effective professional development designs, effective practices of study
groups and the characteristics of effective mentoring programs.
Chapter Three described the qualitative methodology of this study and rationale
for utilizing qualitative methods best suited to the areas being studied. References to
literature on qualitative research design provided a theoretical framework for
understanding qualitative methods. The sample selection and methods of data collection
20
were also explained. The chapter ended with a discussion of possible limitations of the
study and how the research design addressed these threats to validity.
Chapter Four presented the data and findings from the study indicating the results
from the interviews, questionnaires, and researcher field notes.
Chapter Five included a summary of the study’s findings, implications for the
development and implementation of future professional development in this school, and
insights regarding the role of the leader in facilitating this leadership project.
21
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
INTRODUCTION
A review o f the relevant educational literature provides a framework for this case
study of effective professional development for mainstream teachers of English language
learners. The following major themes that guide the study are presented in this chapter:
I. Background and rationale for designing teacher professional development

programs, which target the needs of English language learners.
II. Recommended areas for professional development of mainstream teachers to

address the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English
language learners.
III. Effective professional development designs, study groups and mentoring

programs.
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR DESIGNING TEACHER

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The United States has been in the midst of unprecedented immigration growth.
Fix & Passel (2003) reported that the number of immigrants has tripled from 10 million
in 1970 to over 31 million in 2000. As the foreign bom population surges, public schools
in the United States are witnessing a tremendous increase in the numbers of English
language learners. According to Fix & Passel (2003), 10.5 million children of
immigrants comprise 19% of all school children in K-12 education and projections
suggest that children of immigrants will make up 30% of the total school population by
2015. In 2001-2002, more than 4.7 million school-age children were considered Limited
22
English Proficient (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004). A student designated as Limited
English Proficient is also referred to as an English language learner. An English language
learner, commonly abbreviated as Ell, is defined as a “student whose first language is a
language other than English and who is unable to perform ordinary classroom work in
English” (M.G.L. 71 c. 71 A).
As a result of this dramatic increase in the number of English language learners in
U.S. public school classrooms, teachers face the challenge of educating students with
different cultural and linguistic backgrounds from their own (Beykont, 2002). For
example, the huge majority of teachers remain monolingual English speakers of
European American heritage (Maxwell-Jolly & Gandara, 2002). According to the
National Center for Education Statistics (2006), 83.1% of all public school teachers are
White and only 16.9% are minority. According to Gomez’s study (as cited in Bartolome,
2002), the population of preservice teachers remain overwhelmingly White, female, and
middle-class. Furthermore, social class differences continue to widen between minority
students and teachers (Bartolome, 2002). For example, Zimpher’s study (as cited in
Bartolome, 2002) describes that while 44% of African American children and 36% of
Latino children live in poverty, most teachers come from lower-middle to middle-class
homes in rural and suburban communities.
Another challenge facing teachers in the mainstream are that most are mainly
untrained to work with this growing student population. According to the National Center
for Education Statistics (2002), only 12.5% of U.S. teachers have received eight or more
hours of recent training to teach English language learners.
English language learners have performed lower on state and national
standardized assessments and there are much higher school dropout rates (Snow &
Biancarosa, 2003). Also, Fry (2003) found in his study that Hispanic students aged 16 to
19 who judged themselves as not speaking English well were four times more likely to
drop out of high school than were their peers who spoke English well. According to a
report Latinos in Education: Early childhood, elementary, undergraduate, graduate
(1999) published by the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic
Americans, the drop-out rates for Hispanics far exceeded those of blacks and whites -
30% of all Hispanics aged sixteen to twenty-four dropped out of school and among
immigrant Hispanics the dropout rate was 44% in 1998. In the latest School and Staffing
survey, the National Center for Education Statistics (2006), reported that the drop-out rate
of Hispanics was 23.8% as compared to only 6.8% of Whites.
While immigrant students are labeled and identified in one group as “English
language learners” or “Limited English Proficient” these students do not share the same
profile. Many differences exist between them in terms of their national origin, language
spoken, years of previous education, literacy in their native language, and education of
parents among others. For example, some English language learners have parents who
are college educated, professionals from the middle class in their native countries and
now working in professional positions in the United States. While other English language
learners’ parents come from remote villages with little or no formal education and low
literacy in their native language and are working multiple jobs to raise their families in
the United States (Echevarria et al., 2004). Other students speak Latin-based languages
24
that help them recognize English words while others students come from countries that
use sharply different written forms like Arabic and don’t have the benefits of a familiarity
to English. Also, there are language minority students who are bom in the United States,
but despite appearing to be fluent in English, they do not do well in school and drop out
at higher rates than their other foreign bom students (Echevarria et al., 2004).
Freeman, Freeman & Mercuri (2002) summarize the characteristics of three most
common types of middle and high school English language learners. The first group of
students is “newly arrived with adequate schooling” (Freeman et al., 2002, p.4). They
have arrived to the United States within the last five years and regularly attended school
in their native country. Their strong academic language and solid skills in their native
language will be transferable to their studies in content areas in English. These students
perform well in their course work, but they struggle to compete with native English
speakers on standardized tests.
The second group of older students is “newly arrived with limited formal
schooling” (Freeman et al., 2002, p.4). Many of these students come from varied
backgrounds with few school facilities. There are students from small rural communities
and others from refugee camps that might not have any schools. Also, there are students
who arrive from war-torn areas while others have home life situations where they move
frequently from one place to another. Partly because of this interrupted schooling, these
students either struggle with reading and writing in their native language or do not have
literacy skills at all. They come without basic concepts in key subject areas and can be
two years behind grade level in math. These students are faced with the challenge of
25
learning conversational English to survive in school at the same time of developing
academic skills and knowledge to complete course work and take standardized tests.
Many of these students struggle because of the lack of academic knowledge and skills
and because of their lack of understanding of the school culture and how they are
expected to act in school.
A third group of middle and high school English language learners are those
students considered to be “long-term English learners” (Freeman et al., 2002, p.4). These
students have been in U.S. schools for seven years or more including high school students
who attended kindergarten in the U.S. Many of these students have been in and out of
ESL or bilingual programs and have often missed school for extended periods of time.
Their reading, writing and math skills are below grade level, but many still receive
passing grades when they turn in their work. Most of these students score low on
standardized tests and lack the academic English skills to compete with native English
speakers.
This lack of student achievement threatens the strength and future
competitiveness of the United States in the growing knowledge-based global economy.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2001) adults who are not
fluent and literate in English are “less likely to be employed and when they are employed
they earn lower wages than individuals who are fluent and literate in English” (p. 120).
According to Sum, Uvin, Khatiwada and Ansel (2005) “the link between a person’s
ability to speak English and their ability to succeed in the Massachusetts economy is clear
and indisputable” (p. 10). The report explains that three specific skills are needed to
26
succeed in the knowledge economy: 1) at least a high school diploma, 2) the ability to
speak English proficiently, and 3) strong literacy and numeracy skills including the
ability to complete tasks such as calculating the interest owed on a hypothetical loan. The
report concluded that 467,147 or 71 percent of Massachusetts’s adult immigrants do not
possess at least one of these three skills and are therefore not prepared to participate in
the knowledge economy. The report also identified the economic importance of
immigrants receiving a strong education. The report cites that the average annual
earnings of immigrants holding a college degree is $40,179 compared with only $14,687
for immigrant high school dropouts and that the number of high-paying for high school
dropouts and high school graduates without post-secondary education are declining
considerably in the new economy.
At the national level, during an address to Congress in 2005, Alan Greenspan, the
former Federal Reserve Bank Chairman warned that it is essential to strengthen
elementary and secondary schooling across the United States to “reduce the relative
excess of lesser-skilled workers and enhance the number of skilled workers by expediting
the acquisition of skills by all students” (p.6). He explained that if schools don’t help
close the achievement gap between those with higher skills and others with low skills a
wage gap could grow and the resentment that could result from this gap could threaten
the stability and social harmony in the society.
There are several reasons that are attributed to the continued achievement gap
between English language learners and English only students. McDonnell & Hill (1993)
and Zelasko (1995) found that there is a shortage of teachers who are qualified to teach
27
English language learners, there are limited resources due to weak economies for
bilingual programs and there is lower federal funding from the U.S. federal government.
Extensive research has been conducted on the characteristics of effective schools
and programs serving English language learners (e.g., Battistich, Soloman, Watson, &
Schaps, 1997; Berman, Minicucci, McLaughlin, Nelson, & Woodworth, 1995; Montecel
& Cortez, 2002; Slavin & Calderon, 2001; Tikunoff, 1985). Lindholm-Leary and Borsato
(2006) analyzed eleven studies that examined program factors associated with effective
programs for English language learners (e.g. Battistich et al.; Berman et al., 1995;
Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, Tharp, 2003; Fulton-Scott & Calvin, 1983; Lucas, Henze, &
Donato, 1990; Mehan, Hubbard, Lintz & Villanueva, 1994; Montecel & Cortez, 2002;
Ramirez, 1992; Tellez, 1998; Tikunoff, 1985 (as cited in Lindholm-Leary & Borsato,
2006).
• The educational staff believed that “all children can learn” (Lucas et al., 1990,
Tikunoff, 1985).
• A positive school environment existed that was characterized as orderly and safe,
promoted a warm and caring community and assisted student learning (Battistich
et al., 1997, Berman et al., 1995; Montecel & Cortez, 2002).
• The curriculum was meaningful, academically challenging and promoted higher-

order thinking (Berman et al., 1995; Doherty et al., 2003; Montecel & Cortez,
2002; Ramirez, 1992; Tikunoff, 1985)
• The curriculum was thematically integrated (Montecel & Cortez, 2002) and was
aligned with standards and assessments (Doherty et al., 2003; Montecel & Cortez,
2002)
• The program utilized an instructional model based on sound theory and best
practices (Montecel & Cortez, 2002) and was sustained over time (Ramirez,
1992).
28
• Teachers in high quality bilingual programs understood theories about

bilingualism and second-language development, as well as the goals and rationale
for the program model that they followed in their teaching (Berman et al., 1995;
Montecel & Cortez, 2002).
Research findings on effective programs for English language learners are
consistent with research of effective schools for mainstream populations. In both
circumstances, students attain higher academic achievement when they attend schools
that provide positive learning environments that integrate students and include
challenging curriculum for all students (Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006). Furthermore,
English language learners have been found to be more academically successful when
teachers understand the research-based principles of second language development
(Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006) and when they are well equipped with a wide range
of instructional strategies to socialize English language learners to mainstream culture,
teach them academic skills and develop culturally responsive classrooms that help
students connect what they need to know with their previous background knowledge
(Beykont, 2002, Delpit, 1995, Fillmore & Snow, 2000; Garcia, 1996; Gonzalez &
Darling-Hammond, 1997; Moll, 1992; Zeichner, 1996). Also, English language learners
attain greater academic achievement when they are placed in a consistent and sustained
program (Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006).
Furthermore, because of the ever increasing number of students whose home
languages and native cultures are different from the mainstream culture valued in school,
a knowledge base of these home languages and cultures must be a core component of
teacher-preparation programs and on-going professional development (Beykont, 2002).
29
RECOMMENDED AREAS FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF

MAINSTREAM TEACHERS TO ADDRESS SOCIOCULTURAL, LINGUISTIC
AND INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS.
Having described the background and rationale for creating teacher professional
development which target the needs of English language learners, this next section
reviews the specific areas of professional development that are recommended for
mainstream teachers to effectively address the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional
needs of English language learners.
SOCIOCULTURAL NEEDS
A second area o f professional development is to help teachers address the
sociocultural needs of English language learners. A review of the current literature
describes several sociocultural needs of English language learners. These needs are based
on several factors including years and types of prior schooling, family literacy practices,
length of residence in the United States, the level of native language (LI) proficiency and
the impact that it has on learning English (L2). Furthermore, there is the factor of the
relationship that social economic status has on achievement. In response to these
sociocultural needs o f English language learners, the teacher must have knowledge and
understanding regarding culturally responsive teaching, the students’ cultural
backgrounds and home cultures, and a sense of their own ethnic and cultural identity as
well as an understanding of their own ideological orientation towards education.
Many English language learners come to U.S. schools with little formal
schooling. Many of these socially economic poor learners from Latin America come from
school systems where the emphasis is placed on educating the elite (Garcia, 1999).
30
Schooling for these children focuses mainly on functional literacy and numeracy and very
little on cognitive tasks or advanced inquiry work (Garcia, 1999). These students are
challenged by their lack of understanding of their roles, responsibilities and expected
behavior of students and teachers. These students seem to experience less with reading,
but more with writing (Garcia, 1999).
Bartolome (2002) explains that due to changing student demographics, it is the
responsibility of all teachers to be prepared and skilled at teaching language minority
students (Gebhard, Austin, Nieto, & Willett, 2002; Maxwell-Jolly & Gandara, 2002;
Nieto, 2000).
Fillmore and Snow (2002) note that teachers must understand “children of
immigrants and native-born American children from nonmajority backgrounds may
encounter a stark disjunction between their cultural understandings and those of the
school” (p.56). Therefore, they urge teachers to act as “agents of socialization” by
learning to respect their students’ home languages and cultures, and learn to help their
students make the transition to U.S. schooling without undercutting the parents and
families’ role at home.
Zeichner (2003) adds that teachers also must have knowledge of and respect for
cultural traditions. As part of this knowledge, teachers need to understand general
sociocultural knowledge about child and adolescent development; factors of second
language acquisition (Carrasquillo & Rodriguez, 1996); the manner that socioeconomic
status, language and culture influence school performance (Cazden & Mehan, 1990;
Comer, 1988). In addition, it is important to show teachers how to learn about their
31
students’ cultures, family background and native language and then incorporate this into
their instruction. (Cazden & Mehan, 1990; Trueba, 1989). Furthermore, teachers need a
sense of their own ethnic and cultural identity in order to understand their students
(Zeichner, 2003). Garcia (1993) describes that teachers must have equal respect for the
values and norms of the home and community cultures as those of the school culture.
Bartolome (2002, p. 167) states, “in addition to pedagogical techniques that are
responsive to the needs of language minority students, teachers need to gain both political
clarity and ideological clarity in order to increase the chances of academic success for
their language minority students and subordinated minority students.” Also, according to
Bartolome (1998), educators who do not identify and reflect on their own negative, racist
and classist ideological orientations tend to reproduce the current social order and can
easily corrupt their own work because of unacknowledged racism. Darling-Hammond
(1997) concluded that teachers need to continually consider the purpose of schooling,
relationships between teachers and learners and attitudes and beliefs about language,
culture and race. According to Freire (1998), teachers need to have a thorough
understanding of how to have the courage to address inequities that keep down certain
populations of students and develop educational environments that are safe and effective
for all learners.
Another element that enables all students to attain high academic achievement is
through teachers’ cultural responsiveness in instruction (Zeichner, 2003; Gay, 2000).
Culturally responsive instruction is the:
incorporation of aspects of students’ languages, cultures, and daily experiences

into the academic and social context of schooling; and second the explicit
32
teaching of the school’s codes and customs so that students will be able to
participate fully in the social dynamic of the classroom (Zeichner, 2003, p. 101).
Teachers must utilize scaffolding between the cultures of the school and the home
to make curriculum and instruction responsive and relevant to what is important in their
students’ home cultures. These teachers understand their students’ cultural backgrounds
and adapt curriculum and instruction based on what’s important to the students in their
family backgrounds. Examples of classroom practices that support culturally responsive
instruction includes using peer learning centers and turn-taking in reading groups (Tharp
& Gallimore, 1988) and including community-related themes into classroom writing
projects (Moll & Diaz, 1987).
A second component of culturally responsiveness in instruction is the explicit
teaching of the school’s codes and customs including the culture of the classroom so that
students may participate fully in the mainstream or “culture of power” (Zeichner, 2003;
Delpit, 1988). There are several key components for accomplishing this teaching of
school codes and customs. First, the school must form a bridge between the culture of the
school and the student’s home culture. As part of this instruction, teachers can
incorporate culture and language-sensitive practices so that all students feel respect for
their cultural backgrounds (Zeichner, 2003; Gay, 2000; Nieto, 2002). Also, according to
Ovando and Collier (1998), teachers need an understanding of cultural difference theory.
This theory explains how the difference in the socio-cultural and linguistic patterns in the
home and school is a reason for English language learner underachievement. Therefore, it
is the responsibility to take this theory into consideration when planning for classroom
situations.
33
Delpit explains that students have to be educated about the culture of power and
taught the codes and discourses necessary to acquire power. Delpit (1988, p.282)
summarizes the five aspects of power as the following: 1. Issues of power are enacted in
classrooms; 2. There are school codes and customs for participating in power; 3. The
rules of the culture of power are a reflection of the rules of the culture of those who have
power; 4. Acquiring power is easier for those students who are explicitly explained the
rules of the culture; 5. Those with power are frequently least aware of—or least willing to
acknowledge—its existence. Those with less power are often most aware of its existence.
Delpit (1998) suggests that:
their language and cultural style is unique and wonderful but that there is a
political power game that is also being played, and if they want to be in on that
game there are certain games that they too must play (p.292).
Brisk et al. (2002) concluded from their study of teaching bilingual students in
mainstream classrooms that teachers can more effectively educate bilingual learners
when they get to know the students’ educational and cultural backgrounds and language
abilities. Empowered with this knowledge, teachers can choose teaching approaches and
instructional strategies that take advantage of students’ strengths while aiming to improve
their weaknesses.
Brisk and Harrington (2000) also address the importance of connecting the
content of the curriculum to the students’ own life experiences. They describe how when
the reading content and writing topics are familiar to the students, the students are more
successful in both reading and writing. Furthermore, to promote more student
participation in the second language, Brisk and Harrington (2000) recommend that
34
teachers provide students opportunities to choose familiar topics that connect to their own
experiences.
Gonzalez & Darling-Hammond (2000) recommend that teachers learn how to use
the cultural and linguistic knowledge that English language learners possess and use this
knowledge as the basis for acquiring new knowledge.
Another important consideration for improving English language learners’
academic achievement is the teachers’ attitudes towards their students. Nieto (1999)
argues that teachers need to learn about their students. Also, Nieto describes that teachers
need to develop classroom environments where teachers learn with their students along
with students learning about themselves and one another. Teachers also need a clear
understanding o f their own ethnic and cultural identities to help them understand the
cultures of their students as well as their own cultural biases that may influence their
expectations and judgments about student performance (Zeichner, 2003).
Jordan Irvine (1990) explains in his theory of cultural synchronization that
learning can be improved if there is a positive interpersonal context between students and
teachers. An environment of cultural synchronization is characterized by humility and
integrity and a determination from the teacher to learn what can help the students learn
and then make the necessary changes to their teaching.
Cummins (1996) argues that the only way to reduce long-term discrimination of
teachers against students requires “personal redefinitions of the ways in which the
individual educators interact with the students and communities they serve” (p. 136). In
his research of programs that included student empowerment as a goal, Cummins found
35
that the students who were encouraged to develop a positive cultural identity through
interactions with their teachers developed the confidence and motivation to achieve
academic success.
LINGUISTIC NEEDS
An effective professional development program also targets the linguistic needs of
English language learners. The professional development includes improving
collaboration between mainstream teachers and ESL teachers, and increasing teachers’
knowledge about second language development, bilingualism, educational linguistics,
oral language, written language, and vocabulary development.
Clair and Adger (1999) found that teachers need to learn the basics of
bilingualism and second language development, the importance of first language and
culture and the challenges that English language learners face in mainstream education.
Gonzalez and Darling-Hammond (1997) found that it is essential that professional
development in culturally diverse schools bring mainstream content teachers together
with English language learner teachers and bilingual teachers to share knowledge, learn
from each other and work together to address the needs of the students. “On the one hand,
ESL and bilingual teachers often experience isolation and alienation from their
mainstream classroom peers. On the other hand, mainstream classroom teachers who
have potentially English proficient students in their classroom are at a loss as to how to
reach those students,” (Hamayan, 1990, p.64).
Another area of professional development that targets the needs of English
language learners is through developing familiarity with the various standards for
teachers of English language learners. By reviewing the standards, teachers become
more knowledgeable about the features of English language learners including “language
proficiency in two languages, an understanding of the impact of students’ culture on their
learning, and how to aid students in the development of their language abilities” (Menken
& Antunez, 2001, p.7).
Fillmore and Snow (2002) argue that teachers need a thorough understanding of
the role that language plays in education and how for these reasons they must receive
intensive preparation in “educational linguistics.” They explain that preparation in
educational linguistics would support teachers’ ability to teach literacy skills and to
improve their overall understanding to work with English Language Learners.
Fillmore and Snow (2002) describe the multiple roles of the teacher as a
communicator, educator, evaluator, educated human being and agent of socialization. As
a communicator, the teacher must have an understanding of how English language
learners’ language use might differ from that of native European-American English. As
an educator, “teachers need to know which language problems will resolve themselves
with time and which need attention and intervention” (p. 12). Teachers can help students
learn to use language required for academic discourse in various content subject areas. As
an evaluator, teachers must understand that children may arrive to school with an
inventory of skills and abilities that differ widely, but that these differences should not
imply deficiencies in ability. As educated human beings, teachers should have an
37
understanding about the history and structure of English and a basic understanding of the
process of second language learning. This understanding would help them engage in
more informed discussions about addressing the language and literacy needs of English
language learners.
Teachers should have an understanding of oral language, oral language required
in formal and academic areas, and written language (Fillmore and Snow, 2002).
Morphemes are the smallest unit of oral language that expresses a specific meaning.
Examples of morphemes include “jump” or “dog”. Prefixes, suffixes, plural - s or
possessive adverbs or nouns can be added to modify or added to morphemes to change its
meaning such as “jumped”, “jumping”, “dogs” or “dogs’”. Teachers need to understand
that morphemes, words and phrases work differently across languages. Furthermore,
teachers need to understand that larger units of language use-sentence and discourse
structure are fundamental to understand the unique features of academic language. For
example, teachers should be aware of rhetorical structures that make up classroom
discourse. They should be responsible for helping children to understand the expectations
associated with school English.
Fillmore and Snow (2002) also outline several areas of knowledge that teachers
should have regarding written language. They argue that teachers should understand
about the rules of English spelling, why some children have more difficulty than others
developing literacy skills and structuring narrative and expository writing. In addition,
Fillmore and Snow (2002) believe that educators should understand about the structural
38
features of written language and how to use this knowledge to discuss and explicitly
teach English language learners how to write effectively.
Teachers should also have knowledge about how lexicon vocabulary is acquired
and structured. According to George Miller’s work, children growing up in English-
speaking families achieve a vocabulary of up to 80,000 words by age 17 (as cited by
Fillmore and Snow). Fillmore and Snow (2002) suggest that teachers of second language
learners should teach new vocabulary in related groups since words are more meaningful
when they are understood in connection with others.
McLaughlin et al. (2000) evaluated the effectiveness of a vocabulary-enriched
curriculum that included “direct instruction in vocabulary to deepen word knowledge of
high frequency, grade appropriate words; instruction in strategies such as how to infer
meaning from text, using cognates and recognize root words; and activities outside the
classroom to extend and deepen students’ understanding of word meanings” (p. 134).
McLaughlin found that after two years of this instructional treatment, English language
learners performed higher than the control group on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
in the areas of target vocabulary, polysemy, morphology, and semantic associations.
Another finding from this study of explicit teaching of vocabulary was that the gap in
reading comprehension between English language learners and the English only students
was reduced by 45 percent in two years.
English language learners also benefit from explicit teaching of cognates.
According to Corson (1995) about 60 percent of the words used in English texts originate
from Greek and Latin sources. As for Spanish cognates Freeman and Freeman (2002)
39
recommend the following: “Since Spanish derives from Latin, many common words in
Spanish are scientific words in English. Teachers can help Spanish speakers develop
academic language by making connections between everyday Spanish terms and English
academic vocabulary” (p.87). Rodriguez (2001) advocates the use of specific lessons to
increase students’ awareness of cognates. For example, he recommends that after
students read a brief passage, they are asked to work in pairs to identify the English-
Spanish cognates in the reading. Freeman and Freeman (2002) explain that by focusing
students’ attention on language features like cognates, these learners can utilize these
strategies to increase their reading comprehension of more complicated academic texts in
English.
It is the teacher’s responsibility to help students move from where they are
intellectually to a higher level of understanding. Vygotsky (1997) describes the important
concept of zone of proximal development as the “discrepancy between a child’s mental
age and the level he reaches in solving problems with assistance” (p. 187). Teachers of
English language learners can provide assistance by creating classroom environments
where students’ language learning is increased through social interaction and
contextualized conversation (Vygotsky, 1978).
Teachers should also have an understanding of fundamental second language
acquisition development. Cummins (2000) explains that English language learners can
transfer concepts from the native language to the second language. This ability that
students develop is called “Common Underlying Proficiency” Cummins (1981)
described this concepts transfer as the interdependence hypothesis. The hypothesis
40
implies that if students are instructed in their native language, the proficiency they
develop in that language will transfer to a second language if the students are motivated
to learn it.
Cummins (1984) proposes that “language proficiency” be broken down into two
parts: basic everyday conversational language and academic language. The BICS (Basic
Interpersonal Communication Skills) are the skills required to participate in social,
everyday conversation while the CALPS (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency)
are the language skills required to understand increased, distinct vocabulary used
especially in written English without auditory and non-verbal cues as well as language
with little or no context. Cummins’ model suggests that English language learners’ lack
of achievement in school is due to the lack of academic-oriented language and literacy in
their homes, and a lack of context and background knowledge to decipher and analyze
decontextualized and cognitively demanding work.
Cummins’ two-dimensional conception of language proficiency can be most
easily thought of along two different continuums. First there is a continuum of
communication that ranges from context embedded to context reduced. The second
continuum distinguishes tasks that range between cognitively undemanding to
cognitively demanding. An important application of this framework relates to English
language teaching. Cummins argues that one of the principal reasons why English
language learners have failed to develop academic skills is because their initial
instruction has emphasized context-reduced communication or instruction that is
unrelated to the students’ prior background experiences.
41
Research from Cummins (1981) and Thomas & Collier (2002) has shown that
students take from four to ten years before they become proficient in academic English.
Teachers also must have knowledge about academic English. Cummins (1981, 1984) has
described academic language as cognitively demanding, its most obvious feature being
that it is relatively decontextualized. It relies on broad knowledge of words, phraseology,
grammar, discourse structure, and pragmatic conventions for expression, understanding,
and interpretation. Academic English is principally learned at school from teachers and
textbooks. Teachers must have an understanding of how language plays a role in
academic content learning and that students need instructional support and attention to
acquire the structure for it.
A second explanation of the development of academic language comes from the
language-socialization mismatch model (Faltis & Wolfe, 1999). This model explains that
student success in school depends on the extent to which the academic discourse in
school is similar to or differs from the students’ discourse used for getting things done at
home. This model comes from the work of Mehan (1979). Mehan found that most
classroom discourse followed a unique structure of Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE).
The teacher initiates the interaction (I), the student responds (R) and the teacher evaluates
(E) the correctness of the response. Based on Mehan’s work, Heath (1983) and Phillips
(1983) found that the participant structures that the teacher used for classroom
interactions were qualitatively different from those used or found in the home.
Subsequent studies by Au, Cazden, Macias, Mohatt & Erickson and Trueba & Delgado-
42
Gaitlan (as cited by Faltis & Wolfe, 1999) have shown that language-socialization
mismatches negatively influences English language learners’ academic success.
Teachers should also know how to cultivate interactions between English
language learners and native English speakers or English proficient students. Fillmore
(1991) identified that one of the main conditions that contribute to children being
successful learning English in school is that they must interact directly and frequently
with other students and adults who know English well enough to demonstrate how it is
used correctly. Fillmore warns that the acquisition process slows down when English
language learners greatly outnumber the people who know the language well enough to
model correct usage o f the language.
Strong (1983) built on Fillmore’s hypothesis and argued further that the most
successful English language learners are capable of both initiating interactions and
responding to English-only students’ initiations. Strong (1983) also explained that
exposure to English speakers is probably not as important as the quality of the
interactions between English language learners and English only students. Jacob et al.
(1996) found that there were few instances of language learning opportunities for English
language learners in a study of cooperative learning groups in a sixth grade classroom of
English language learners and native English speakers. The research attributed this lack
of language learning opportunities to the lack of training given to the participants in the
cooperative learning groups. Furthermore, Fillmore and Snow (2002) argue that
“educators must know enough about language learning and language itself to evaluate the
43
appropriateness of various methods, materials, and approaches for helping students make
progress in learning English” (p.33).
INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS
An effective professional development program which prepares teachers to
address English language learners’ instructional needs includes an introduction to
incorporating a language development component into content teaching. Also, there is an
emphasis on teachers keeping high expectations for all students. Also the professional
development should help teachers to learn how to utilize challenging theme-based
curriculum that draws on students’ previous and current knowledge. In addition teachers
should know how to organize a group of activities that are scaffolded so all students have
access to the content. Furthermore, the group of activities should be designed to promote
high quality student-to-student interactions.
While numerous studies have been conducted on literacy instruction, only five
major studies have examined content area instruction for English language learners
(Berman et al., 1995; Echevarria, Short, and Powers, 2003; Minicucci, 1996; Montecel
and Cortez, 2002; and Tikunoff, 1985). As with research on mainstream classrooms,
good instruction for English language learners is associated with higher achievement.
Identifying good instruction for English language learners is complicated because of
diverse students’ academic and language needs, levels of language proficiency, different
languages and diverse cultural backgrounds, therefore it is necessary to use a variety of
instructional strategies that respond to the students’ different learning styles (Berman et
al., 1995; Doherty et al., 2003; Montecel & Cortez, 2002).
44
One area of research examined how incorporating a language-development
component into content instruction resulted in better curriculum access and higher
achievement for English language learners (Berman et al., 1995; Echevarria, Short, &
Powers, 2003; Minicucci, 1996). Minicucci’s study found that exemplary schools
coordinated math and science instruction with language development and this
combination therefore provided English language learners with better opportunities to
learn and practice science discourse and writing (as cited by Lindholm-Leary & Borsato,
2006).
Echevarria et al. (2004) found that students who received sheltered instruction
from trained teachers of the SIOP model (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol),
scored significantly higher in all areas of writing over students in sheltered classes whose
teachers were not familiar with the SIOP model. The SIOP model’s key theoretical
assumption is that language acquisition is enhanced through meaningful use and
interaction. By studying academic content, students work with meaningful material in
English. Because the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing are developed
interdependently, SIOP lessons include activities that require students to incorporate all
of these four skills.
Homberger (1996) in her ethnographic study of Cambodian children’s second
language literacy development conducted numerous observations of a fourth-grade
mainstream elementary school teacher. She attributed four key classroom factors to the
Cambodian children’s success: motivation, purpose, text and interaction. The teacher
built motivation by establishing bonds with the students based on shared classroom-based
45
experiences and holding both her and the students accountable to all of their classroom
responsibilities. She established meaningful purposes for her students’ work. Also, she
utilized a variety of texts and provided a diverse range of genres from which she allowed
the students to choose from and from which she read aloud on a daily basis to stimulate
the students’ love for reading. Classroom interaction was characterized by a variety of
classroom grouping structures including small-group interaction where students received
feedback on their writing. The teacher also emphasized precision in her students’ analysis
of text including inferencing and predicting.
There are several elements supported by educational research that illustrate the
kind of instruction, curriculum, and classroom environment that enables all students to
attain academic achievement. The first element is that teachers have high expectations
that all their students can achieve and that they communicate this expectation regularly to
their students (Delpit, 1988; Gay, 2000). These teachers make a commitment and believe
they can make a difference in their students’ achievement (Ladson-Billings, 1994).
Teachers with high expectations translate their beliefs in their students’ abilities to attain
success by utilizing a more academically demanding curriculum (Zeichner, 2003).
Freeman and Freeman (2002) summarize that the four key ideas that help teachers
work with older English language learners includes “engage students in challenging,
theme-based curriculum to develop academic concepts; draw on students’ background -
their experiences, cultures and languages; organize collaborative activities and scaffold
instruction to build students’ academic English proficiency; create confident students
who value school and value themselves as learners.”
46
Thomas and Collier (1997) found in their study of over 700,000 English language
learners in five large urban and suburban districts that there existed three predictors of
academic success. These predictors included: 1) using cognitively challenging academic
instruction in both the students’ first languages and in the target language of English; 2)
using effective, contemporary approaches to teaching like cooperative learning groups
being used to teach the academic curriculum through two languages; 3) improving the
school’s sociocultural contexts to value students’ languages and cultures and to create a
safe and supportive learning environment.
The promotion of positive interactions between teachers and students has been
found to be an important instructional objective in producing high-level academic
outcomes with English language learners (Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006). Two
studies by the California State Department of Education and Doherty et al. showed that
when teachers used positive social and instructional interactions equally between English
language learners and English proficient students, both groups performed better
academically (as cited by Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006). Research studies from
Doherty et al. (2003) and Tikunoff (1985) also suggest that a reciprocal interaction model
of teaching is more beneficial to students than a teacher-centered model of instruction
because it encourages the development of higher-order cognitive skills rather than just
factual recall. In this approach, teachers engage in authentic dialogue with students and
they facilitate rather than control student learning (as cited by Lindholm-Leary &
Borsato, 2006).
47
High quality exchanges between teachers and students also give English language
learners better access to the curriculum (Berman et al., 1995; Doherty et al., 2003;
Montecel and Cortez, 2002; Tikunoff, 1985). In a study o f exemplary math and science
programs in California, Minicucci (1996) found that teachers were trained in second
language acquisition or were proficient in the students’ native language.
Despite this research on the promotion of positive interactions and high quality
exchanges between teachers and students, studies by Ramirez (1992) and Lindholm-
Leary (2001) found that teachers used mostly factual recall questions and few higher-
order thinking cognitive questions with English language learners.
Several studies have shown that the instructional strategy of cooperative learning
has increased student achievement and higher-level thinking. Johnson and Johnson
(1999) explained that cooperative learning includes five defining elements including
positive independence; face-to-face promotive interaction; individual and group
accountability; interpersonal and small group skills; and group processing. Cooperative
learning represents “a broad range of instructional methods in which students work
together to learn academic content” (Slavin & Calderon, 2001, p. 18). In cooperative
learning, students develop knowledge by working on task-based projects that demand
participation and interaction by all group members. McGroarty (1992) found that because
cooperative learning requires the teacher to carefully restructure learning tasks and
consider appropriate group configurations of the classroom, it offers many potential
benefits for language development.
48
Lampe, Rooze & Tallent-Runnels (1996) conducted a study on the effectiveness
of cooperative learning towards achievement and student self-esteem on a group of
mainly Hispanic English language learners in a fourth grade social studies class. They
found that the students who utilized a variety of cooperative structures like jigsaws and
group investigations learned more, but there was no difference in terms of self-esteem.
Klingner and Vaughn (2000) conducted an evaluation of a cooperative learning
strategy called Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) applied during science instruction
in a fifth-grade classroom serving mainly Hispanic students. CSR combines effective
reading comprehension strategies with cooperative learning groups. The goal of CSR is
to improve students’ reading comprehension, increase students’ engagement and help all
students to be successful in heterogeneous classrooms. They found that students benefited
from this reading instruction and transferred the strategies to the reading of other texts.
Furthermore, they found that the students who utilized Collaborative Strategic Reading
and operated in the collaborative groups spent a considerable amount of time engaged in
academic-related strategic discussion like comprehension checks and sharing feedback to
each other, which helped the students’ language development. Furthermore, the
collaborative groups helped students understand the content vocabulary and relate the
content material to their current and previous knowledge.
Klinger and Vaughn’s research is consistent with other research showing that
cooperative-leaming groups help English language learners reach higher levels of
achievement (Calderon and Carreon, 1994; Calderon, Hertz-Lazarowitz, and Slavin,
1998; Calderon, Tinajero, and Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1992). Furthermore, cooperative
49
learning is a characteristic of effective programs for English language learners (Berman
et al., 1995; Doherty et al., 2003; Montecel and Cortez, 2002).
The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) in their report Immigrant
Students and Secondary School Reform: Compendium o f Best Practices (2004)
recommend that professional development programs prepare all teachers - including
mainstream content teachers to develop a basic understanding of language acquisition as
well as be familiar with sound teaching strategies to facilitate the development of reading,
writing, speaking and listening skills. Echevarria et al. (2004) explain and demonstrate in
the development of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) that teachers
can be trained to incorporate graphic organizers, visuals, demonstrations, vocabulary
strategies, and tap into students’ prior knowledge to teach content area material more
effectively.
One instructional model developed to help English language learners increase
academic achievement across the content areas is the Cognitive Academic Language
Learning Approach (CALLA) developed by Chamot and O’Malley (1992, 1994). The
CALLA model fosters students’ academic language and cognitive development by
integrating content, language and learning strategy instruction. Characteristics of the
instmctional practices utilized in the CALLA model include 1) extensive use of students’
prior conceptual and linguistic knowledge, 2) cooperative learning, teacher modeling and
scaffolding and 3) teacher-student dialogue on thinking and learning strategies.
The CALLA model emphasizes that ESL teachers need to be informed about
required content standards and how to collaborate effectively with content teachers. Also,
50
the model encourages teachers to design lessons that provide conceptually demanding
learning activities that are scaffolded, contextualized, and assisted with learning
strategies. Teachers across the curriculum should help students develop an awareness of
how language is used to achieve different purposes. A third major component of the
CALLA model identifies the explicit teaching of learning strategies that English language
learners apply to language and content tasks. These learning strategies are organized into
metacognitive strategies (developing students’ awareness of one’s own thinking and
learning processes) and task-based strategies that help English language learners use
background knowledge, make inferences and predictions, use organizational skills like
graphic organizers and take advantage of a variety of resources like dictionaries, Internet
and other students in the classroom to accomplish complex cognitive tasks. The CALLA
model encourages teachers to teach these strategies by modeling how to use them by
thinking aloud each step required to accomplish the task.
The Center for Research on Education, Diversity and & Excellence (CREDE) is a
federally funded research and development program focused on improving the education
o f students whose ability to reach their potential is challenged by language or cultural
barriers, race, geographic location, or poverty. This organization sponsored a series of 31
research projects around the United States from 1996 to 2001. These research projects
tested curriculum models in a variety of urban and suburban settings with diverse student
populations. These research projects propose curriculum and instruction based on “Five
Standards for Effective Pedagogy” (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, and Yamauchi, 2000). These
Five Standards include:
51
Standard I — Teachers and Students Producing Together

Facilitate learning through joint productive activity among teacher and students.
Standard II — Developing Language and Literacy Across the Curriculum

Develop competence in the language and literacy of instruction across the
curriculum.
Standard III — Making Meaning; Connecting School to Students’ Lives

Contextualize teaching and curriculum in the experiences and skills of students’
homes and communities.
Standard IV — Teaching Complex Thinking

Challenge students toward cognitive complexity.
Standard V — Teaching Through Conversation

Engage students through dialogue, especially the Instructional Conversation.
Another instructional model that has been documented as an effective method for
increasing the achievement of English language learners is the Sheltered Instruction
Observation Protocol (Echevarria et al., 2004). Sheltered instruction is an approach for
teaching content to English language learners in a way that makes the content material
more comprehensible while promoting students’ English language development. Center
for Research on Education, Diversity and & Excellence (CREDE) studies on the effects
of sheltered instruction found that English language learners in middle school classes of
teachers trained in sheltered instruction out-performed control students on overall gains
in expository writing, and made significant improvement in all areas measured by a
writing rubric of the Illinois Measure of Annual Growth in English (IMAGE) Test
(Guarino et al., 2001).
52
EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGNS, STUDY GROUPS

AND MENTORING PROGRAMS
EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGNS
The next part of this literature review concerns effective practices for the design
and implementation of professional development. Sparks and Hirsh (1997) argue that
research and experience have taught us that widespread, sustained implementation

of new practices in classrooms, principal’s offices, and central offices requires a
new form of professional development. This staff development not only must
affect the knowledge, attitudes and practices of individual teachers,
administrators, and other school employees, but it also must alter the cultures and
structures of the organization” (pp. 1-2).
Darling-Hammond (1997) argues that improving teaching and learning depends on
sustained, high-quality professional development.
Several extensive studies have documented the characteristics of effective
professional development. Elmore (2003) concluded that effective professional
development is collaborative and directed at large-scale improvement. It should support
the school’s long-term growth and improvement and take place close to the work done by
the participating educators. Professional development should also be evaluated on the
improvement of student achievement and requires focus, knowledge, persistence and
consistency over time. Finally, this professional development should focus on building
teacher content knowledge, general pedagogical skills and knowledge and expertise
towards teaching and learning the content specific material. Cohen & Hill (1998) also
concluded that professional development should be anchored towards teachers focused on
learning and teaching academic content overlapped with a focus on curriculum and
assessments.
53
Marzano (2003) reviewed several studies of effective professional development
and concluded that professional development that addresses teacher subject-matter
knowledge is helpful to a point, but that developing teachers’ pedagogical knowledge is
much more consistently linked to improving student achievement. Darling-Hammond
(2000) concludes that:
It may be that positive effects of subject matter knowledge are augmented or

offset by knowledge of how to teach the subject to various kinds of students. That
is, the degree of pedagogical skill may interact with subject matter knowledge to
bolster or reduce teacher performance (p. 6).
Other studies by Brown, Smith, & Stein, 1995; Byrne, 1983; Cohen & Hill, 1997; and
Wiley & Yoon, 1995 have also asserted a linkage between professional development that
emphasizes pedagogical knowledge and student achievement.
One of the more recent landmark studies conducted by Garet, Porter, Desmone,
Birman, and Yoon (2001) found that professional development which “focuses on
academic subject matter (content), gives teachers opportunities for “hands-on” work
(active learning), and is integrated into the daily life of school (coherence), is more likely
to produce enhanced knowledge and skills” (p.935).
The National Staff Development Council (NSDC) provides standards for
professional development, which are organized into three categories: content, process,
and context. The content addresses the skills and knowledge that educators need to
acquire. The process is how the educators will acquire the skills and knowledge, and the
context is the organization or culture that promotes the professional development.
The United States Department of Education (1995) also has identified standards
o f effective practice for professional development. The mission of professional
54
development is to “help all students achieve at high standards of learning and
development. Successful professional development:
• Focuses on teachers as central to student learning; yet includes all other

members of the school community.
• Focuses on individual, collegial and organizational improvement.
• Respects and nurtures the intellectual and leadership capacity of teachers,

principals, and others in the school community.
• Reflects best available research and practice in teaching, learning, and

leadership.
• Enables teachers to develop further expertise in subject content, teaching

strategies, uses of technologies, and other essential elements in teaching to
high standards.
• Promotes continuous inquiry and improvement embedded in the daily life of
the schools.
• Is planned collaboratively by those who will participate to facilitate the

development.
• Requires substantial time and other resources.
• Is driven by a long-term plan.
• Is evaluated ultimately on the basis of its impact on teacher effectiveness and

student learning; and this assessment guides subsequent professional
development efforts.
The National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (NFIE) identifies the
following characteristics o f an effective professional development program:
• H a s th e g o a l o f im p r o v in g stu d en t lea r n in g at the heart o f e v e r y s c h o o l

endeavor.
• Fosters a deepening of subject matter knowledge, a greater understanding of

learning, and a greater appreciation of students’ needs.
55
• Helps teachers and other staff meet the needs of students who learn in
different ways and who come from diverse cultural, linguistic, and
socioeconomic backgrounds.
• Provides adequate time for inquiry, reflection, and mentoring, and is an

important part of the normal working day.
• Is rigorous, sustained, and adequate to the long-term change of practice.
• Is directed toward teachers’ intellectual development and leadership.
• Is teacher designed and directed, incorporates the best principles of adult

learning, and involves shared decisions designed to improve the school.
• Balances individual priorities with school and district needs.
• Makes the best use of technologies.
• Is site-based and supportive of a clearly articulated vision for students.
DuFour and Eaker (1998) argue that schools must be committed to results-driven
education. As part of this focus, they explain that the purpose of school’s professional
development programs is to improve the skills and knowledge of educators to help all
students achieve the results of the school. Sparks and Hirsh (1997) also argue the
importance of tying professional development to student achievement. They write that
“staff development’s success will be judged not by how many teachers and administrators
participate in staff development programs or how they perceive its value, but by whether
it alters instructional behavior in a way that benefits students” (p. 5).
DuFour and Eaker (1998) outline a set of recommendations towards design and
implementation of staff development programs. The content of staff development is
based on research and best practices. There should be convincing evidence that the
56
innovation improves teacher effectiveness and student success. There should be a dual
focus on generic and discipline-specific teaching skills and include opportunities for
assisting educators in transferring general concepts to their particular teaching
assignments. Furthermore, staff development content should expand the teachers’
repertoires for meeting the needs of students who learn in different ways.
DuFour and Eaker (1998) describe that the process of staff development is based
on the characteristics of good teaching. It provides the necessary coaching for the mastery
of new skills. The training includes a combination of “presentation and explanation of the
theory behind the practice, demonstration, opportunities for initial guided practice,
prompt feedback about their efforts, sustained coaching” (p.265). This process should
promote teacher reflection and dialogue and be sustained over a long period of time. The
impact of the training should be assessed at several different levels in order to accurately
measure its affect on the entire organization.
Furthermore, DuFour and Eaker (1998) outline that the context of staff
development focuses on the school level and is supported by the central office and that
professional development should be job-embedded. Senge explains that because
“learning always occurs in the context of where you are taking action.. .we need to find
ways to get teachers working together; we need to create an environment where they can
continually reflect on what they are doing and learn more and more what it takes to work
as a team” (O’Neil, 1995, p.20). Sparks and Hirsh (1997) explain that it is most effective
when the professional development involves the entire staff in an effort to achieve
57
improvements related to a set of common objectives over a three to five-year period of
time.
Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, and Hewson (2003) describe five general
concepts that summarize the knowledge base about learners and learning that reflect how
people learn so that adult learners are supported in a sustained and in-depth way. While
these concepts are tailored for professional development design in mathematics and
science, they are also applicable to other forms of professional development.
• What learners already know influences their learning.
• Learners acquire new knowledge by constructing it for themselves.
• The construction of knowledge is a process of change that includes, addition,

creation, modification, refinement, restructuring, and rejection.
• Learning happens through diverse experiences.
• All students regardless of race, culture, and gender are capable of

understanding and doing science and mathematics.
Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003) also describe the critical features of effective
professional development that is based on a constructivist theory of learning. This theory
describes learning as a process and that adult learners construct their knowledge by
modifying or rejecting existing ideas. In other words, learners are not considered “empty
vessels” to be filled up by the knowledge from others. Instead, the learners have their
own ideas about how to make sense of the world and the professional development helps
them make connections between their existing ideas and the new ones that they are
acquiring during the professional development. Furthermore, to help learners make these
connections, the professional development provides opportunities for collaboration and
interaction discussions between learners as they help each make sense of the new
concepts (Jonassen, 1994). Sparks and Hirsh (1997) explains that staff development must
model constructivist practices for teachers if the purpose of the training is to convince the
teachers of the importance of this approach to learning as well as to help them understand
it well enough to begin to integrate it into their regular classroom practices. Brooks and
Brooks (1993) warn that “Unless teachers are given ample opportunities to learn in
constructivist settings and construct for themselves educational visions through which
they can reflect on educational practices, the instructional programs will be trivialized
into cookbook approaches” (pp. 121-122).
Another aspect of professional development based on a constructivist theory is
that learning is very person specific (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003). For example, learning
is directly influenced by the process of personal reflection. Learners who acquire the
most from professional development are those who “monitor their own ideas, and thought
processes, compare and contrast them with those of others, and provide reasons why they
accept one point of view over another” (p.35). Also, learning is affected by the culture in
which the learners are surrounded in; the culture influences how learners interact and
share with each other. This interaction allows learners to acquire the norms, expectations
and values that influence what they learn (Silver, Kilpatrick, & Schlesinger, 1990).
According to Schifter (1996), these two concepts of personal reflection and learning
mediated by culture challenge the belief that learners acquire concepts by receiving and
memorizing information from other people who know more than they do. On the
59
contrary, teachers need opportunities to focus on their practice by engaging with other
teachers to learn what works under different circumstances.
Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) believe that professional development
must prepare teachers “to see complex subject matter from the perspectives of diverse
students” (p.597) and should encourage teachers to reflect on their current practice,
content, pedagogy and learners.
Sparks and Hirsh (1997) describe several major shifts in the nature of staff
development that are essential if all students are to achieve at high levels. One important
shift is from training conducted away from the job to a variety of job-embedded learning
opportunities. Sparks and Hirsh (1997) explain that critics have found that staff
development structured in such a way that educators “sit and get” information by
attending one-time workshops has produced little sustainable change in the classroom.
However, job-embedded learning connects learning to current, real-life problems faced
by teachers and administrators. Sparks and Hirsh (1997) describe that the design of job-
embedded professional development can take many forms including well-designed
training programs followed by coaching, educators conducting action research,
participation in study groups, observing peers, planning sessions with colleagues and
journal writing.
Elmore (1997) described how Community School District #2 in New York City
utilized a group o f organizing principles about how to institute systemic change and the
role of professional development in the process of producing this systemic change. The
organizing principles included a major focus on instruction; viewing instructional change
60
as a long, multi-stage process; sharing expertise to drive instructional change;
emphasizing system-wide improvement; working together to generate good ideas; setting
clear expectations and then decentralizing; promoting collegiality, caring and respect.
Elmore (1997) described that all of the administrators viewed professional
development as an overall management strategy not as a distinct or separate function.
Administrators were given the responsibility for driving instructional improvement and
professional development was the major tool to achieve that goal of instructional
improvement. Elmore describes how this school district utilized a diverse set of
professional development models to address the goal of instructional improvement. These
models included a professional development laboratory, instructional consulting services,
intervisitation and peer networks, off-site training, oversight and principal site visits.
Elmore concludes that local school districts need to develop a specific strategy
focused on instructional improvement. This belief of sustained improvement of teaching
practice must have as its goal the sustained improvement of teaching practice that
permeates the entire district. It is the central purpose and rationale for the central
district’s role. To reach a systemic scale, a school district has to stay focused on a few
content areas with an evolving set of staff development activities for an extended period
of time.
Gonzalez and Darling-Hammond (2002) describe two teacher professional
development programs that help prepare teachers to work effectively with English
language learners. The aim of the Cross-Cultural Languages and Academic Development
(CLAD) program at San Diego State University aims to develop future teachers’
61
knowledge in five main key areas: cultural awareness of the issues of cultural diversity,
educational equity, socioeconomic status and academic achievement; theoretical
knowledge and understanding of language acquisition, the structure and role of language
in social settings, and the effects of attitude and motivation in learning; content
knowledge; knowledge of pedagogical methods; and fieldwork including teaching,
classroom observations and reflection with work with English language learners. A
professional development program at the International High School in New York City is
built on the philosophy that there is an institutionalized collaboration among teachers and
administrators. This collaboration led to the shared creation of a staff development
process that emphasizes helping teachers learn how to improve their instructional
planning and delivery by practicing three key “rules of thumb.” First, there is “start at the
beginning”; teachers should not assume background or student prior knowledge like with
a native-born student from the United States. Instead teachers should help students
become familiar with important tools in order to complete the work. Also, there is “break
down the task” where projects should be broken down into smaller assignments which is
accompanied with an example that the students can model after. The third rule of thumb
is “use models.” Teachers should model examples of finished projects and assignments
and the process of completing them.
STUDY GROUPS
The use of study groups is reviewed in the literature as a professional
development strategy for helping to build communities of professional practice (Roberts
62
& Pruitt, 2003). A study group is a “gathering of people who meet on a regularly
scheduled basis to address issues that the group members have agreed to study” (Roberts
& Pruitt, 2003, p. 92). Murphy and Lick (2001) describe that study groups involve “a
small number of individuals joining together to increase their capacities through new
learning for the benefit of students” (p. 4). Study groups are known as one job-embedded
approach for teacher professional development. The learning that takes place from
participation in the study group is embedded in the daily work of teachers as they
implement strategies into their classrooms. Furthermore, the study group strategy
provides teachers the opportunity to make decisions about what the group is going to
study as well as learn about each other and how to work together (Roberts & Pruitt,
2003).
Teacher study groups can take many forms. In schools where there is a need for
major reform, participation in study groups can be voluntary and provide teachers with
the opportunity to find solutions to persistent problems that slow down or block student
improvement. There are also online study groups, whole-faculty study groups, and book
study groups.
There are many benefits of study groups for a community of learners. Teachers
can learn new instructional techniques, investigate more deeply a topic relevant to the
students’ needs of the school, and address and resolve problems in school. By acquiring
more knowledge about teaching and learning, teachers in study groups feel more
empowered to do their jobs (Birchak et al., 1998). Also, study groups provide teachers a
structured environment to address an issue relevant to their daily work and find
encouragement and support from others in the group as they work on investigating the
critical issue. Furthermore, this collaboration in the study group helps reduce teacher
isolation. Other benefits of study groups include that they can address district and school
based initiatives that focus on improving student learning. They also can help sustain a
school’s mission, vision and shared values.
There are several strategies for organizing and conducting study group meetings.
Murphy and Lick (2001) recommend that study groups establish norms, expectations and
routines for meetings. Furthermore, study group meetings should be designed to address
both the individual participant needs as well as the group’s needs.
MENTORING PROGRAMS
This section of the literature review briefly describes the history, context and
concept of mentoring. Then, it identifies the aims and objectives of mentoring and
describes some of the different mentoring program models designed for assisting “at risk”
students. Finally, this review describes the role of mentors and the recommended training
models for implementing effective mentoring programs which target a population of “at
risk” students.
The mentoring movement within the United States has grown tremendously since
the early 1990s. Marc Freedman (1992) attributes the growth of mentoring to three main
factors. First, the media has drawn people’s attention to the increasing numbers of young
people who are isolated from adult attention. Second, there has been a trend of
volunteerism and charitable giving from the socially concerned middle class and out of a
64
concern for a widening gulf between rich and poor. Third, psychologists have identified
the needs of middle-aged adults to want to share their knowledge to young people
(Goleman, 1990). Freedman (1992) summarizes the role of mentoring as a means for
“matching spirit with need” (p.33).
The term “mentor” originates in Homer’s Odyssey. In this Greek myth, Odysseus
entrusts his friend, Mentor to take care of his son Telemachus while he prepares to fight
in the Trojan War. Mentor was placed responsible for assisting all the aspects of
Odysseus’ son’s development.
Miller (2002) identifies that there are two types of mentoring. Natural mentoring
is something that “occurs incidentally in a variety of life settings through friendship,
teaching, coaching, and counseling” (p.23). Whereas, planned mentoring “involves
structured programmes with clear objectives, where mentors and mentees are matched
using formal processes ” (p.23).
Roberts (2000) in his review of the mentoring literature defines mentoring as “A
formalized process whereby a more knowledgeable and experienced person actuates a
supportive role of overseeing and encouraging reflection and learning within a less
experienced and knowledgeable person, so as to facilitate that person’s career and
personal development” (p. 162). He argues that people will continue to experience
mentoring in different ways and therefore the definition of mentoring will continue to
evolve and be debated.
There are several different approaches and definitions of planned mentoring.
Miller (2002) summarizes the United Kingdom’s Home Office definition of mentoring as
65
“A one-to-one, non-judgmental relationship in which an individual mentor voluntarily
gives time to support and encourage another. This relationship is typically developed at a
time in the mentee’s life, and lasts for a significant and sustained period of time” (Carrad,
2002, p.26). In a “popular consensus” approach of mentoring, Peer Resources, a
Canadian Web-based network describes characteristics of mentorships (as cited by
Miller, 2002).
• It is a deliberate, conscious, voluntary relationship.
• The relationship may or may not have a specific time limit.
• It is sanctioned or supported by the organization.
• It occurs between an experienced, employed or retired person and one or more

other persons.
• There is generally no direct, hierarchical or supervisory chain of command.
• The outcomes are expected to benefit all parties for personal growth, career
development, lifestyle enhancement, spiritual fulfillment, goal achievement, and
other mutually designated areas.
• It has a benefit to the community in which it takes place.
• It takes place through one-to-one relationships or small groups, and by electronic

or telecommunication means.
• It typically focuses on interpersonal support, guidance, mutual exchange, sharing

of wisdom, coaching and role modeling.
A “c o n tin u u m ” a p p ro a ch d e fin e s m e n to rin g as “a co n tin u u m o f h e lp in g b e h a v io r s
from which the mentor chooses based on the needs of the mentee. According to Gay
(2000), the mentor’s role is to “tug the sleeve” of the mentee and utilize behaviors from
“exploring”; “revealing”; “guiding”; “advising”; “teaching”; “training”; to “directing”.
66
A “Key Characteristics” approach combines key characteristics of mentoring with
a continuum of mentor behaviors (Miller, 2002). Anderson and Shannon (1995) describe
that mentoring under the “key characteristics” approach involves five elements: the
process of nurturing; the mentor as role model; the five functions of teaching, sponsoring,
encouraging, counseling, and befriending; a focus on personal and/or professional
development, an on-going relationship. Anderson and Shannon (1995) describe that the
five key actions of mentors include: teaching; sponsoring; encouraging; counseling; and
befriending.
Miller (2002) describes in more detail the four key helping behaviors of mentors
in an attempt to resolve some of the confusion over the definition of mentoring. These
behaviors include befriending, counseling, coaching and tutoring.
“Befriending” is providing emotional and social support for someone else to help
with a range of needs including loneliness, suicide, and life-threatening illnesses. This
relationship involves “getting alongside” the person to help him.
“Counseling” involves highly trained, experienced mentors who utilize a diverse
set of skills like active listening, identifying problems and encouraging the mentee to
“own” the solution in order to help the mentee to develop and grow (Miller, 2002). The
mentor differs from the counselor in that to help earn the trust of the mentee, the mentor
sometimes has to engage in self-disclosure.
“Coaching” in educational contexts is generally applied to teaching skills within a
sporting context (Miller, 2002). Some mentoring programs involve coaching mentees to
develop skills and to help them personally grow.
67
“Tutoring” can be distinguished from mentoring. Goodlad (1995) describes that
tutoring focuses on subject learning, takes place in the classroom, involves groups of
tutees and lasts for a few weeks. Miller (2002) explains that while mentoring may utilize
tutoring skills, its focus is more on “life skills”, occurs outside the classroom, is one-to-
one and lasts for several months or years.
Miller’s (2002) review of the literature summarizes three key objectives of
student mentoring programs. First, “the “development” aim focuses on the personal and
social development of the student, and may involve changing attitudes” (p.33).
Sometimes referred to as “psychosocial function of mentoring”, there is an interplay
between the mentor and mentee engaged in a personal dialogue and the inner dialogue of
the mentee. The second objective is the “work-related learning” aim that concerns the
students’ career choices, knowledge of the world of work and the skills necessary for
employment. The third objective is the “subject” aim of helping mentees improve their
achievement in their subject course work and includes basic skills support and teaching
study skills.
Miller (2002) categorizes the aims of student mentoring programs for mentees
into three groups. He explains that there are developmental aims that may involve social
skills, attitudinal change, self-esteem, feelings about self and others, and motivation.
Work-related mentoring includes employability, work-related skills, career aspirations
and future goals. Subject mentoring relates to knowledge acquisition, content-specific
skills and study skills. Miller (2002) explains that often times mentoring programs have a
dual or multi-focus to interactions between mentors and mentees. For example,
68
mentoring programs that target subject achievement might overlap with teaching or
tutoring.
Miller (2002) also describes the aims of student mentoring programs for mentors.
One of the important aims for mentors is that learning is an important goal. Mentoring
provides mentors with the opportunity to practice and demonstrate emotional-intelligence
skills such as interpersonal skills, intrapersonal capabilities like emotional self-awareness
and the ability to maintain hope under challenging or adverse situations.
The Hay McBer model is the Emotional Intelligence (El) approach that is most
closely associated with Daniel Goldman (1995). This model divides “El into personal
competence-how we manage ourselves and social competence-how we manage
relationships” (Miller, 2002, p. 193). The most effective mentors are likely to be those
who have strong emotional intelligence - strong self-management and social skills and
keen social awareness and self-awareness. In a review of the literature (Miller, 2002;
Dondero, 1997; Farmer, 1999; Songsthagen and Lee, 1996) there are several desirable
characteristics of effective mentors. Mentors should see the mentee as a special
individual and be comfortable with cultural or socio-economic distance. Mentors should
set high standards and instill confidence in the mentee to aim high, respect the mentee’s
ability to make their own decisions, be flexible, open and able to accept to other values,
cultures and viewpoints as well as show interest, respect, affection and enthusiasm for the
subjects, areas and moral issues raised by the mentee. Also, “Ten attributes of good
mentors” is summarized in below identified by Miller (2002, p. 190).
Miller (2002) explains that mentoring programs have been classified in four ways:
69
1. the aims and characteristics of the program;
2. the main characteristics of the mentee target group;
3. the main characteristics of the mentors;
4. the main characteristics of the program
One of the more common approaches is to classify the program based on the main
characteristics of the mentee target group. For example, in an at-risk mentoring program,
mentees may range from students who are under achieving at school to teenagers
involved in crime, drug or alcohol abuse (Miller, 2002).
Besides the aims and characteristics of a student mentoring program, there are
different philosophies of mentoring that influence the training program and expected
behavior for mentors and the preparation for the mentees (Miller, 2002). One philosophy
of mentoring is a school-led mentoring program. In this model, there is a manager or
leader who provides structure and objectives for mentor meetings. Mentors are proactive
in monitoring students’ academic performance, classroom work, attendance, and other
possible targets. Another possible characteristic of this philosophy is that mentors agree
on a list of behaviors and routines that they will conduct with their mentees. This model
comes closest to the design that was utilized in this study.
Another philosophy is based on mentor-led mentoring programs where the
mentors are left on their own to determine how they will interact and work with their
mentees. Miller (2002) explains that this is the least common philosophy because it is
possible to have misunderstandings on the part of the mentor and the mentee on the
70
purpose of the mentoring. A third philosophy is a student/mentee-led program. In this
model, the mentors respond to the students’ needs.
Miller (2002) recommends that the minimum criteria for establishing a mentoring
program should include the following below (p.47). The study design described in
chapter three incorporated these three criteria.
1. A prime goal of mentoring relationships is the personal development of the

mentee. The mentorships seek to shape, change and examine attitudes and
values.. .the focus is not exclusively or largely upon developing the knowledge
and skills of the mentee.
2. The mentorships involve a one-to-one relationship between mentor and mentee

based on trust and an attempt to establish a non-hierarchical, equal relationship.
This would preclude small-group work and situations where there was an obvious
power relationship that is invoked, as if often the case with teachers acting as
mentors students.
3. The programme involves mentors who are more experienced than the mentee,
who use a range of interpersonal skills or helping behaviours, and who are also
seeking to learn from the experience. This would preclude situations where one
skill, such as coaching or tutoring, is used or where the mentor was an expert with
no personal learning agenda.
Another underlying principle of a student mentoring program is the learning
model used to promote young people’s learning. Miller (2002) recommends the social
constructivist theory of Vygotsky (1994) that emphasizes the culture and social context in
learning or cognitive development. One of the key concepts of Vygotsky’s social
constructivist theory is the “zone of proximal development.” This concept suggests that
students/mentees with the support of mentors can understand ideas that they would not
ordinarily be able to understand on their own.
71
Vygotsky’s work has been expanded and applied to the design o f situated learning
environments (Brown, Collins and Duguid, 1989). The mentor’s role is to provide the
scaffolding for the mentee to engage in more advanced cognitive thinking. This
scaffolding helps the mentee learn how to make sense of a topic by applying it to relevant
personal experiences or contemporary contexts (Miller, 2002). “Mentors provide
authentic, experiential learning opportunities as well as an intense interpersonal
relationship through which social learning takes place” (Kerka, 1998, p. 194). Planned
student mentoring programs share several of the characteristics of situated learning
environments. Some of these characteristics include:
• Mentees are encouraged to experiment and experience between mentoring

meetings.
• Mentors and mentees discuss work-related contexts for learning and development
and mentors pass on the lessons of their own experiences.
• Knowledge is created through the collaborative construction of knowledge

between mentor and mentee.
• Mentoring provides scaffolding that can aid mentees’ learning.
• In mentoring meetings, mentees are encouraged to engage in systematic reflection

of their experiences and discussion about what has been learned than can be
applied in new situations.
• Mentors ask questions to encourage mentees to make tacit competencies.
Miller (2002) describes recommended content of mentor training and possible
training processes associated with each content area. Golden and Sims (1999) explain
that three aims should be addressed in a mentor training program:
72
• Explain the objectives and context of the mentoring program and describe the
students’ needs.
• Establish the program’s ground rules and procedures.
• Develop mentoring skills of the mentors.
Miller (2002) explains that “rather than an overkill amount of training at the
outset, some programme managers prefer to offer on-going top-up training as and when
particular training needs arise” (p.202).
In addition to the training content, the style of training is important because
mentoring is about one-to-one interactions. Miller (1998) recommends that training
should be informal and interactive. Lauland (1998) describes the importance of utilizing
experienced mentors as trainers, creating a mentor panel to share experiences, and
designing a variety of training methods such as role play, case studies, video to keep the
mentors’ interest throughout the program.
Piper and Piper (2000) cautions that there can be major differences between
mentoring programs for at-risk students. They explain that there can be mentorships
where the mentee agrees voluntarily to follow a mentor’s role model and together the
mentor and mentee agree on shared values and goals. And, in other cases, a mentorship
can be forced on to a mentee because of a court or school order and the mentorship can
become a behavior modification program.
There are several different models of “at-risk” mentoring programs. The Dalston
Youth Project (DYP) operates in London and focuses on after-school literacy and
numeracy for 30 students 11-14 years old. One of the core elements of DYP is its
73
mentoring program. The mentoring program’s aims included: improving self-esteem &
mentee’s attitudes towards school and anger management. Schools use referral forms that
inform DYP about potential mentee’s school behavior and family situation. Mentors
were volunteers and received three weekends of training. Female mentees were matched
with female mentors only. At the start of the program, a weekend of team building
between mentors and mentees helped straighten out the mentor and mentee matches.
During the year-long project, mentors and mentees met twice each week for three hours
Another model is the Juvenile Mentoring Program in the United States often
referred to as JUMP. This program provides one-to-one mentoring for children at risk of
delinquency, gang involvement, educational failure or dropping out of school (Novotney,
Mertinko, Lange, and Baker, 2000). The mentoring program’s aims are to address school
problems such as behavior, grades and truancy, social and family problems such as
delinquency, fighting, and gang activity and substance abuse with alcohol, drugs or
tobacco. Novotney et al. (2000) found in an analysis of the national data collected about
JUMP that male mentees matched with male mentors reported better results in avoiding
drugs and gangs than when matched with female mentors. Mentors paired with mentees
of their own race reported that they understood their mentees more than did mentors
paired with mentees across different races.
CONCLUSION
The rationale behind the professional development program’s design was based
on the documented evidence of the underachievement and high drop-out rate of English
language learners in K-12 public schools. In the review of the literature, there are three
74
major areas that teachers of English language learners need to develop in terms of core
competencies and knowledge in order to more effectively improve their English language
learners’ achievement and learning. These three areas were summarized, as the
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners.
Next, the review of the literature examined the different components for designing
and implementing an effective professional development program. Effective professional
development programs depend on sustained, high-quality professional development
which is collaborative and directed at large-scale improvement (Darling-Hammond,
1997; Elmore, 2003). Also, the professional development should focus on improving
teacher’s content knowledge, pedagogical skills and knowledge and expertise toward
teaching and learning content specific material (Elmore, 2003; Garet et al., 2001).
Furthermore, the content of professional development should be based on research and
best practices and there should be evidence that the innovation improves teacher
effectiveness and student success (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Sparks & Hirsch, 1997). In
addition, the delivery of professional development should be based on the characteristics
of good teaching, provide the necessary coaching for the mastery of new skills,
encourage teacher reflection and dialogue over an extended period of time and it should
be job-embedded to get teachers working together (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; O’Neil,
1995).
The design and implementation of effective professional development also is
based on a constructivist theory o f learning. This form of learning is characterized by
75
adult learners constructing knowledge by modifying or rejecting existing ideas
(Vygotsky, 1978; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003).
Utilizing this framework for the design and implementation of effective
professional development, a study group is a job-embedded approach for teacher
professional development. The study group provides teachers the opportunity to learn
more deeply a topic relevant to the students’ sociocultural, linguistic and instructional
needs in a school and provides teachers a structured environment to find encouragement
and support from others in the group as they work on these critical issues. As part of the
involvement in a study group, one method for providing teachers the opportunity to
develop their own interpersonal and intrapersonal skills is through mentoring a young
person (Miller, 2002). The mentorship is based on mentors who seek to learn from the
situation and involve a one-to-one relationship between mentor and mentee based on trust
and a non-hierarchical, equal relationship (Miller, 2002).
Working from this theoretical framework, this comparative case study was
designed to examine how a professional development program contributed to the
teachers’ understanding of the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English
language learners and altered the perceptions of their instruction through participation in
formal classroom trainings, monthly study groups and mentoring an English language
learner.
76
Chapter 3
Research Design
INTRODUCTION
The research design for the study was a qualitative case study involving a cross
case analysis of eight middle school teachers. These eight teachers were involved in a
professional development program consisting of formal classroom training, one-to-one
teacher mentoring of an English language learner and monthly English Language Learner
Study Group meetings.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND RATIONALE
A qualitative methodology was chosen for its strengths in gathering information
and data in context, “The decision to focus on qualitative case studies stems from the fact
that this design is chosen precisely because researchers are interested in insight,
discovery, and interpretation rather than hypothesis testing” (Merriam, 1998, p.29).
The semistructured case study approach was appropriate to address the
investigation’s two research questions. First, the study focused on the “why” questions
(Yin, 1994, p.9) that were involved in investigating the impact that professional
development had on this bounded system of eight participating teachers. The study
so u g h t to u n c o v e r th e e f fe c t that a th r e e -d im e n sio n a l p r o fe ssio n a l d e v e lo p m e n t p rogram
had on the teachers’ understanding of English language learners’ sociocultural, linguistic
and instructional needs and how it altered the teachers’ perceptions of their instructional
practice.
77
A second reason for the semistructured case study approach was because
Lieberman (1995) found that “Getting closer to school people who are changing their
practices presents greater opportunities for understanding the change process - closeness
allows for greater depth of understanding of practice, particularly if the researcher is there
over time” (p. 3). This is particularly important while examining and describing the
complexities of the change in teachers’ understanding and perceptions of their instruction
with English language learners.
Thirdly, a case study was an appropriate design for the study of organizations and
their complex processes. According to Reichardt and Cook, one meaning of process is
“causal explanation: discovering or confirming the process by which the treatment had
the effect that it did” (as cited by Merriam, 1998, p.33). This latter study conducted by a
researcher who had worked within the organization for several years and understood the
inner workings of the school allowed for a more detailed and in-depth investigation into
the extent of the effectiveness of the professional development program in enriching
teacher understanding about the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of
English language learners.
Fourth, a case study was an appropriate design when the objective of an
evaluation was “to develop a better understanding of the dynamics of a program ... and
convey a holistic and dynamically rich account of an educational program” (Kenny and
Grotelueschen, 1980, p.5). This research study used a research-based framework to
improve professional development targeted for job-embedded training of non-ESL
teachers.
78
Quantitative methods could have been used to measure the change in the teachers’
understanding of the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs, but numerical data
would not help describe and provide the “thick description” that most aptly describes the
process that teachers undergo and the understandings that they acquire as they
participated in the professional development program (Merriam, 1998, p.29). On the
other hand, qualitative research provided a means for a more extensive study of this
targeted small group of teachers within the natural context of their school. As Miles and
Huberman (1994) describe qualitative research methods zero in on:
naturally occurring, ordinary events in natural settings, so that we have a strong

handle on what “real life” is like. That confidence is buttressed by local
groundedness, the fact that the data were collected in close proximity to a specific
situation... (p. 10)
Another benefit of qualitative research was that the researcher, as a participant
and observer, was given the unique opportunity to study the effectiveness of the
professional development from a more personal and intimate perspective by working
closely with the eight teachers throughout the entire study. The researcher utilized field
transcripts of interviews from audiotapes, questionnaires and researcher field notes to
describe the implications of a professional development program on the teacher’s
understanding and instructional practices with English language learners.
Although there are many benefits to case study research, there were also certain
limitations. First, the researcher recognized that the final product may be “too detailed,
or too involved for busy policy makers and educators to read and use” (Merriam, 1998
p.42). Also, according to Guba and Lincoln (1981, p.377), another limitation of case
79
study research, is that case studies may “oversimplify or exaggerate a situation, leading
the reader to erroneous conclusions about the actual state of affairs.” Also, readers of
case study research need to remember that the research was “a slice of life” and not
accounts of a whole that can be easily generalizable to situations outside this case study.
A third major limitation of case study qualitative research is the potential for bias and
lack of integrity by the researcher who is the primary person responsible for data
collection and analysis. Furthermore, Guba and Lincoln (1981, p.378) warn that case
study research is susceptible to the “unusual problems of ethics.” Merriam (1998)
explains that readers of case study research and the researcher/author of the study should
recognize the possible biases that may affect the final written product.
In spite of these limitations, a case study method remained as the preferred
approach to answer the two major research questions of this study.
Each of the eight teachers was considered as a case. The researcher constructed
each case by documenting where each teacher was at the beginning of the study, what
was going on during the study and how each teacher felt at the end of the study in terms
of their understanding of the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English
language learners and the perceptions of their instruction. The researcher collected this
data through the use o f pre and post interviews, questionnaires that were given numerous
times during the study, and by researcher field notes that documented both formal
discussion with the teachers during study group meetings and informal individual
conversations with teachers throughout the study.
80
The researcher then conducted a cross-case analysis by comparing the similarities
and differences among the eight teachers on a few of the most relevant themes that
emerged from this analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994, pp. 205-206).
The research design that was used for the study was a semistructured case study
approach. According to Yin (1989), a case study is:
an empirical study that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within

its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and
context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence
are used (p.23).
The cross case analysis approach highlighted the numerous factors that
contributed to the entire study. One of the characteristics of a case study is that it is a
bounded system (Stake, 1995, p. 60). Case study is an appropriate research strategy for
closely examining a bounded system according to Adelman, Jenkins, and Kemmis (1983)
when “the boundaries have a common sense obviousness, e.g. an individual teacher, a
single school, or perhaps an innovatory programme” (p.3). As described in Merriam
(1998), the case is seen as “a thing, a single entity, a unit around which there are
boundaries” (p.27). In this study, the system was a group of eight teachers in a public
middle school. This study attempted to examine in-depth a professional development
program’s effect on teachers’ understanding of English language learners’ sociocultural,
linguistic and instructional needs and the teachers’ perceptions of their instruction.
This chapter presents the overall research approach to the study. It begins by
explaining the research design and the rationale for why particular research methods were
utilized. Next, the chapter provides an overview of the context in which the study
occurred. Also, the sample of teachers used is identified and the criteria for their selection
81
in the study are explained. A description of data gathering procedures is outlined and the
pilot testing details are described. The chapter concludes with a plan for reporting the
data, the study’s limitations and a framework for discussing the findings in chapter four.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The questions that this study investigated are as follows:


instruction?
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
The research proposed that for teachers who participated in a professional
development program centered on English language learners, there would be an impact
on the middle school teachers’ professional practice in the following ways:
1. Teachers would broaden their understanding of sociocultural, linguistic and

instructional needs of English language learners.
2. Teachers would report an increased use of effective instructional strategies for

VARIABLES
The independent variable for this research study was the development and
implementation of a professional development program, which was centered on training
82
teachers to better address the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English
language learners.
The dependent variables under analysis included the following:
1. The change in the teachers’ understanding of sociocultural, linguistic and

instructional needs of English language learners as measured by questionnaires,
interviews and researcher field notes.
2. The change in the teachers’ perceptions of their instructional practice for English
language learners as measured by questionnaires, interviews and researcher field
notes.
While, the nature and level of change varied from teacher to teacher, most
important were both the process of change itself, and the events that may have
contributed to the change in the teachers’ professional practice.
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Eight teachers were selected through purposive sampling for the study. The
researcher’s criteria for selecting participants included choosing mainstream teachers
who worked with English language learners in their classrooms, had not received
previous training with English language learners and demonstrated a personal inclination
and enthusiasm towards participating in the professional development program.
Consideration was given primarily to standard curriculum teachers. As a result, the
sample consisted of six standard curriculum content teachers. Of these six standard
curriculum teachers, two participants taught math, two teachers taught language arts, one
taught science and one taught social studies. There was one special educator assistant
teacher who assisted special education students in eighth grade standard curriculum
83
classrooms. The researcher also chose one ESL instructor who taught a seventh grade
advanced ESL and ESL social studies classes. The researcher deliberately chose to have
only one ESL teacher participant because the purpose of the study was to investigate the
effectiveness of a professional development program for teachers with little or no prior
training with English language learners. The researcher invited the ESL teacher to
participate because of her expertise and knowledge which she could share with the other
participants during the monthly study group meetings and formal classroom trainings. No
consideration was given to the age, gender, or years of teaching experience. The teaching
experience ranged from one to fifteen years.
Seven of the eight participants were classroom teachers. Their classrooms were
heterogeneously grouped and included students of varying abilities. Individual classroom
size ranged from six to twenty-eight and contained a range of four to ten English
language learners in each class at the same time. An eighth participant was a special
educator assistant who worked as an inclusion teacher beside a standard curriculum
teacher. All classes were located within the same building having a student population of
approximately 650 students.
While the sample of eight teachers was small, it allowed the researcher the time to
acquire a rich in-depth understanding of the teachers. Background information is
provided in Tables 1, 2 and 3 regarding the participants’ years of teaching experience,
educational preparation, and years of previous teaching experience with English language
learners. This background information was provided to explain any impact that the
84
participants’ histories could have made on their experiences with the professional
development program.
Table 1 displays the teaching experience of the participant teachers in the school
involved in the study and in the teaching field in general. There is a fairly wide range of
experience. While the teachers had taught an average of 6.6 years, only 2.2 years of that
experience was gained from teaching at other schools, with the average value of four
years having been spent at the current school.
Table 1
Years of Teaching Experience
Mean Range Median
Total Experience 6.6 1-15 3.5
Total Years at school 4 1-11 2

involved in the study
The research from Table 1 and the evidence from Table 2 regarding the teachers’
degree status indicate that this staff was made up of highly educated professionals. Six
out of eight teachers earned at least a Master’s degrees and five out of eight teachers had
earned greater than Master’s + fifteen.
85
Table 2
Degree Status
Degree #of
staff
Bachelor’s 2
Master’s 1
Master’s + 15 2
graduate credits
Master’s + 30 3
graduate credits
Table 3 breaks down teaching experience by the number of years on average
working with English language learners in their classroom teaching. The mean total
experience of the participant teachers was 6.6 years (see Table 1) and the mean number
of years spent teaching a minimum of English language learners in each of their
classrooms at the same time is six years.
Table 3
Years of Previous Teaching Experience with English language learners
Mean Range Median
Teachers 6 1-15 3.5
DATA GATHERING PROCEDURES

Eight educators were selected for study through purposive sampling. The
researcher’s criteria for selecting participants included choosing mainstream teachers
86
who worked with English language learners in their classrooms, had not received
previous training with English language learners and demonstrated a personal inclination
and enthusiasm towards participating in the professional development program. Prior to
the first interview, the volunteers were asked to consider participating in the study. For
the teachers who elected to participate in the study, the researcher carefully explained the
requirements and expectations that would be expected of the participants. The researcher
outlined that participants would be required to attend monthly study group meetings, to
agree to a year-long commitment mentoring an English language learner, answer
questionnaires, and participate in tape-recorded interviews.
The researcher emphasized during three different study group meetings that none
of the teachers were obligated to participate in the study and that if they wished to opt-out
of the study, they could do so at anytime in the process. Furthermore, the researcher
informed the teachers that their participation in the study would not be used in any
manner as part of the teacher’s annual evaluation. Lastly, the researcher distributed the
“Informed Consent Form” at a study group meeting (Appendix A). All participants read
the document silently and then the researcher reviewed paragraph by paragraph the
content of the form to ensure clarity. Then, the participants were asked to sign the
document if they agreed to all of its provisions.
An interview protocol was developed and used in December (Appendix C) and
June (Appendix D) to uncover changes in the participants’ understanding of the
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners and their
perceptions of use of effective instructional strategies designed for English language
learners. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for coding the results and analyzing
the data within them. There were researcher field notes, which documented observations
of participants at monthly study group meetings, meetings between the teachers and their
English language learner mentee as well as recorded conversations with participants that
were outside of study group meetings. There were four questionnaires that were
developed and used to uncover changes in the participants’ understanding of the
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners, and their
learners. These three data sources were triangulated for gathering the most
comprehensive, valid findings. Specific logistical details involving each instrument are
included in the following sections.
INSTRUMENTS
The instruments used to collect the data were varied to determine the
effectiveness of the professional development. Three different instruments were used to
collect data. They included researcher field notes, interviews, and questionnaires.
RESEARCHER FIELD NOTES

The field notes were taken by the researcher at monthly study group meetings to
record th e p a r tic ip a n ts’ fe e lin g s and u n d ersta n d in g s. T h e m o n th ly stu d y grou p m e e tin g s ’
agenda followed a routine schedule. The meeting leader allowed for meeting participants
to share about the progress each was making with their mentee as well as the challenges
and questions they had with dealing with specific issues with their mentees. After this
88
small and whole group share, the leader introduced the main topic for discussion.
Meeting topics included “Introduction to Mentoring II”, “Getting to Know Your
Mentee”, “Assessing Oral Language”, “Challenges growing up in a bilingual cultural
world, “Challenges growing up in a bilingual cultural world. Part II - High School
Students talk to middle school mentees”, and “Expanding the Fuller Mentoring Program”
in 2006-2007. As part of the follow up from the main discussion an article(s) were
distributed to meeting participants to read on their own and reflect on their work in their
classrooms.
INTERVIEWS
Interviews were conducted to explore in more depth about the teachers’
understanding of the needs of English language learners and their perceptions of the
instructional strategies that they used with English language learners (Appendix C and
D).
QUESTIONNAIRES
Questionnaires were researcher designed. Two questionnaires were designed with
open-ended questions to measure the change in the participants’ understanding of the
sociocultural and linguistic needs of English language learners from the two formal
classroom trainings: Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching and
Assessment of Speaking and Listening (Appendix F & G). A second series of
questionnaires were tailored to the topics discussed during particular monthly study
group meetings and given at the end of each meeting (Appendices H). A final
89
questionnaire was used to uncover the changes in the participants’ understanding of the
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners, and their
learners (Appendix I).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Due to the multiple factors of human interaction coupled with the structures of
scheduling and competing needs, reliability of this qualitative case study focused more on
being consistent and dependable rather than being replicable (Merriam, 1998). To
emphasize consistency, dependability and validity, the use of triangulation was utilized to
enhance internal validity. Triangulation is the process of using “multiple investigators,
multiple sources of data, or multiple methods to confirm the emerging findings”
(Merriam, 1998, p.204). The purpose of the triangulation was to gather multiple
perspectives so as to gain a more complete understanding of the phenomena being
studied.
Data was generated via numerous methodologies. The instruments used to collect
the data included researcher field notes, audio-recorded interviews, and questionnaires.
Because the researcher was the primary data collector in the study, the researcher
had unintentional bias that must be considered. To limit this bias, the researcher
requested input from other experts in the field of English language acquisition to check
and review the data periodically. Another concern about the researcher’s role as the
primary data gatherer was the possible impact that it might have on the participants’
90
responses in questionnaires and interviews. Because these teachers recognized that the
researcher is also the Department Chair of ESL/Bilingual Programs and an advocate for
English language learners, it was possible that the attitudes and opinions that the
participants shared with the researcher may not have exactly reflected all of their
authentic thoughts.
The interview process also was planned to ensure authentic participant responses.
The interview times were developed ahead of time to give participants an opportunity to
plan for the interview. The interviews were conducted in the researcher’s office - a
comfortable, private and non-threatening questioning environment. The interview
questions were not given ahead of time to the participants, so the researcher took into
account that their responses may have be slightly different if they had more time to
prepare their thoughts prior to the interview. To account for this potential factor, the
researcher provided participants ample response time.
The researcher was responsible for collecting the data and for developing the
written documentation. In addition to this effort for the triangulation of evidence, the
researcher utilized strategies to ensure internal validity including the following. The
researcher asked colleagues in the field of English language acquisition to serve as peer
examiners to comment on the findings as they developed during the study.
DATA COLLECTION
The instruments listed below were used for data collection.
91

Field notes were maintained on a computer and recorded important notes,
insights and summaries of informal conversations with the participants. The notes were
expanded and updated to include descriptions, observations, and personal reflections
when the researcher returned to his home office (Appendix E is an example).
INTERVIEWS
Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview protocol (Merriam,
1998). The questions were written to relate to the major research questions. Interviews
allowed for more detailed responses through clarifying questions and follow-up responses
that might not have been sufficiently addressed in the questionnaires and field notes.
The researcher utilized a set of prepared interview questions, but also asked
participants to clarify or elaborate on questions that required more clarity using flexible
questioning. During each interview, the researcher utilized collegial checking when
clarification of participant’s responses was necessary. The researcher restated
participants’ responses by asking, “So, I heard you say ... is that what you meant?” The
interviews were conducted in the researcher’s office. The order of the interviews was
arranged based on the availability of the teacher’s schedule. The interviews were tape-
recorded and transcribed by the researcher. Then, the transcripts were coded. A list of the
applied codes is included.
Individuals not involved in the study piloted the interview questions. Then, the
interviews were conducted in December and June for all eight participants involved in the
92
professional development. (Appendix C was the interview protocol used in December
and Appendix D was the interview protocol used in June.)
QUESTIONNAIRES
A variety of questionnaires were given to the participants throughout the research
study. The first questionnaire was given at the conclusion of the Department of Education
Workshop entitled Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching (Appendix
F). The second questionnaire was administered following the Department of Education
Workshop entitled Assessment of Speaking and Listening (Appendix G). The third
questionnaire was given to participants following the January study group meeting
entitled Challenges growing up in a bilingual cultural world (Appendix H). The fourth
questionnaire was administered in June as part of collecting data about their participation
in the program (Appendix I).
These four questionnaires were completed by the participants, and then collected
and analyzed by the researcher. Each questionnaire focused on gathering information
from the teachers about their understanding of the sociocultural, linguistic and
instructional needs o f English language learners.
EXPERT REVIEW OF INTERVIEWS AND SURVEY PROTOCOLS
Interviews were informed by Merriam’s guidelines for different levels of
questioning in interviews (1998) and based on information researched in the preparation
of the literature review. The interview questions were reviewed by Dr. Sara Hamerla, the
93
district Assistant Director of ESL/Bilingual Programs and Esta Montano, the Director of
Equity and Achievement to ensure clarity.
The questionnaire for the Department of Education workshop entitled Assessment
of Speaking and Listening was piloted with colleagues in the field of English language
acquisition to ensure clarity and relevance to the study’s major research questions. Also
the fourth and final questionnaire used to assess the effectiveness of the professional
development program was piloted with one teacher outside the study, Dr. Sara Hamerla
and Esta Montano to ensure clarity.
The colleagues were requested to offer input and additional suggestions or
recommendations for refining existing questions or adding new ones in order to gather
necessary data from the teachers.
DATA ANALYSIS

The researcher reviewed and coded the field notes based on the underlying themes
of the research study including the change in the participant’s understanding of the
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners, and the
change in the participants’ perceptions in their use of instructional strategies for English
language learners.
94
INTERVIEWS
The interviews were audio recorded and then transcribed by the researcher. The
interview transcripts were reviewed by the researcher. The results of the interview
transcriptions were saved on the computer and on hard copy.
Interview responses were initially coded using categories of analysis that are
designed by the researcher. The coding system was developed to discover emerging
trends and themes related to the change in the participants’ understanding of the
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners, and the
change in the participant’s perceptions in their use of instructional strategies for English
language learners. As additional trends emerged, additional coding were added for the
analysis.
There were two main sets of coding categories used for analyzing the data. The
complete list is written in chart form below in Table 4. First, there was one set of codes
related to analyzing the first research question that focused on the change in the teachers’
understanding of the “instructional needs” (I), “sociocultural needs” (S), and “linguistic
needs” (L) of the students. Under this first set of major coding categories, there were sub
categories that further defined examples of instructional, sociocultural and linguistic
needs. Under instructional needs there was a set of sub-categories including:
“scaffolding” (SF), “chunking” (CH), “activating prior knowledge” (APK), “graphic
organizers” (GO), “grouping strategies” (GS), “culturally responsive instruction” (CRI)
and “visuals” (V). Under the major category of sociocultural needs, there were a set of
sub-categories including: “culture” (C), “home life” (HL), “family” (F), and “school
95
codes & customs” (SCC). Regarding the third major category of linguistic needs there
were a set of sub-categories including: “second language acquisition” (SLA),
“conversational language” (BICS), “academic language” (CALPS), “vocabulary”
(VOCAB), and “cognates” (COG).
The second major set of codes related to the second research question that
analyzed the change in the teachers’ perceptions of their “instructional practice” (P).
Under this major category, there was a set of sub-categories which included the
following: “scaffolding” (P-SF), “chunking” (P-CH), “activating prior knowledge” (P-
APK), “graphic organizers” (P-GO), “grouping strategies” (P-GS), “culturally responsive
instruction” (P-CRI) and “visuals” (P-V).
96
Table 4
Coding System

Instructional needs (I)
Sub-categories
Scaffolding (SF)
Chunking (CH)
Activating Prior Knowledge (APK)
Graphic Organizers (GO)
Grouping Strategies (GS)
Culturally Responsive Instruction (CRI)
Visuals (V)
Sociocultural needs (S)
Sub-categories
Culture (C)
Home-Life (HL)
Family (F)
School Codes and Customs (SCC)
97
Linguistic Needs (L)
Sub-categories
Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
Conversational Language (BICS)
Academic Language (CALPS)
Vocabulary (VOCAB)
Cognates (COG)

instruction?
Instructional Practice (IP)
Sub-categories
Scaffolding (P-SF)
Chunking (P-CH)
Activating Prior Knowledge (P-APK)
Graphic Organizers (P-GO)
Grouping Strategies (P-GS)
Culturally Responsive Instruction (P-CRI)
Visuals (P-V)
98
QUESTIONNAIRES
Questionnaires were administered for the participants at the conclusion of the two
Department of Education workshops in August and November, at the end of the January
study group meeting and at the conclusion of the research project in June. These four
questionnaires were designed primarily of open-response questions tailored to the topics
that were discussed during the Department of Education workshops, the January study
group meeting and the end-of-year project evaluation in June. Each questionnaire focused
on gathering data on how the content of the workshop or the study group meeting
informed their understanding of the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of
English language learners, and impacted their thinking about appropriate instructional
strategies for English language learners.
The researcher transcribed each questionnaire. All transcriptions were saved on
the computer and in hard copy. Questionnaire responses were initially coded using
categories of analysis that were designed by the researcher. As additional trends
emerged, additional coding was added for the analysis.
REPORTING THE DATA
As reported earlier in chapter three, this study investigated and described how the
aspects of the formal classroom training, the teachers’ work as mentors of English
language learners and the teachers’ participation in monthly English language learner
study group meetings informed the teachers’ understanding of English language learners’
99
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs, and informed the teachers’ perceptions of
use of effective instructional strategies for English language learners.
According to Miles and Huberman (1994), “Words, especially organized into
incidents or stories, have a concrete, vivid, meaningful flavor that often proves far more
convincing to a reader...than pages of summarized numbers” (p.l). The results of the
interviews were explained briefly as individual cases, and then general themes and
patterns were explained analyzing all of the cases as a whole. Relevant patterns and
themes from the researcher field notes and questionnaires were also explained.
The results of the study gained greater consistency, dependability and validity due
to the use of triangulation between the three major data sources of researcher field notes,
interviews and questionnaires. Triangulation is the process of using “multiple
investigators, multiple sources of data, or multiple methods to confirm the emerging
findings” (Merriam, 1998, p.204).
LIMITATIONS
the Department Head o f ESL/Bilingual Programs and member of the school’s leadership
101
the emerging findings” (Merriam, 1998, p.204).
CONCLUSION
This study utilized a cross-case study research design to describe a professional
development program that prepared teachers with limited prior training with English
language learners to understand the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of
English language learners. Qualitative data was collected in a variety of manners
including researcher field notes, semi-structured interviews, and questionnaires. These
methods provided a rich, descriptive picture of the study and in this case the changes that
took place in teachers’ understanding, and use of instructional strategies dealing with
English language learners. The following chapter describes the findings that resulted
from the qualitative case study presented in this chapter. Themes and discoveries made
from the different data sources are explained in detail while general conclusions and
analysis are presented in Chapter Five.
102
Chapter 4
Analysis of Data and Findings
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to present the data obtained in the study. The
chapter commences with an introduction to the case study and provides an overview of
the research project and a description of the school site and the teacher participants.
Following the introduction, the findings have been broken out in each of the three areas
of the professional development utilized by the English Language Learner Study Group:
the formal classroom trainings, the monthly study group meetings and the mentoring
program. Within the presentation of the findings for each of these areas of professional
development, there is a description of what the professional development consisted of,
and the reporting of the findings from each of the data sources including questionnaires,
interviews, and researcher’s observations of meetings and field notes.
After the presentation of the findings in each of the specific areas of professional
development, there is a presentation of the findings of the teachers’ professional growth
with respect to their understanding of the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs
of English language learners and to their perceptions of the changes to their instruction
that resulted from participation in the English Language Learner Study Group. There is a
dual purpose of this format. First, it is to evaluate the effectiveness of each area of
professional development for altering the teachers’ understanding of the needs of English
language learners. Second, it is to evaluate the effectiveness of the formation of the
English Language Learner Study Group as a whole in promoting teacher professional
103
growth. The distinct nature of the findings for each area of professional development
lends itself to this organization and provides the reader with a path to follow. Following
the findings regarding the analysis of professional growth, there is a third part of findings
that is identified as “Other significant findings.” This part describes two unexpected
findings from the case study that were not directly related to the research questions
guiding the study.
THE SITE
Nations Middle School is located within a suburban town of 60,000 residents in
New England approximately twenty miles outside of a major city. This is one of three
middle schools in the district and educates approximately 650 students in grades six
through eight. At the time of the study, students came from four of the district’s eight
elementary schools. This diverse group of English language learners made up about 30%
of the school’s population at the time of the study. These students as a group came from
over twenty countries and spoke more than twenty different languages other than English
at home.
Nations Middle School’s student population was approximately 64% Caucasian/
Non-Hispanic (native Brazilian students are included in this subgroup), 24% Hispanic,
7% African-American and 5% Asian at the time of the study. Over 30% of the school’s
population was classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP). The teaching staff at the
time of the study was 85% native-English speakers and 15% non-native English speakers,
and 95% Caucasian, 3.3% Hispanic and 1.7% African-American.
104
The district was committed to a district goal of “Closing the Achievement Gap”
and in accordance with this district goal, the Nations Middle School had offered a school-
wide professional development day, which targeted English language learners. This
professional day was entitled, “Meeting the Needs of All Learners: An Introduction to
Second Language Learners.” In addition to this training, the school’s induction program
for new teachers included one afternoon meeting about an overview of the school’s
ESL/Bilingual/Sheltered English program and a brief review of instructional strategies
geared for improving the learning for second language learners. Also, the district offered
professional development courses for college graduate credit every semester and during
certain weeks during the summer since 2002. Some of the courses included Enriching
Content Classes for Secondary English Speakers Of Other Languages, Reading &
Writing in Secondary Sheltered Content Classrooms, Enhancing English Language
Learning in Elementary Classrooms, Introduction to Second Language Learning and
Teaching, and Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP). These courses
introduced second language acquisition theory, the impact of culture on student learning
and the study of effective instructional strategies for English language learners.
While these professional development initiatives were established, English
language learners at the Nations Middle School still were floundering relative to other
native English speakers. The researcher, working with the school’s guidance counselors,
used report card data and attendance data to show that English language learners missed
more school due to absenteeism and made up a much larger percentage of the failing list
as compared to the subgroup of white, native speakers (non Special Education). In partly
105
as a response to this student data, the researcher designed the English Language Learner
Study Group to create a method of professional development that was job-embedded and
provided teachers with opportunities for on-going, consistent, collaborative professional
development. This professional development was designed into three major components:
formal classroom training, monthly study group meetings and teacher participation in the
Nations Middle School mentoring program. There were two formal classroom training:
Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching was offered in August and the
second course, Assessment of Speaking and Listening took place in November. The
monthly study group meetings took place during the months of September, October,
November, January, April, May and June. The December monthly meeting was
substituted by 45-minute one-on-one interviews between the researcher and each teacher.
The February and March meetings did not convene because of conflicts with preparing
for MCAS and Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment testing. The mentoring
program began at the end of August and continued through June.
This case study sought to discover how participation in the English Language
Learner Study Group informed the teachers’ understanding of the needs of English
language learners and how it informed their instructional practice. The researcher’s
criteria for selecting all but one of the teachers included choosing teachers who worked
with English language learners in their classrooms, had not received previous training
with English language learners and demonstrated a personal inclination and enthusiasm
towards participating in the professional development program. In addition, the
106
researcher deliberately sought to choose a trained ESL teacher to provide expertise and
experience to the study group.
The sample for the study consisted of six standard curriculum content teachers. Of
these six standard curriculum teachers, Lois taught eighth grade math and Karen, seventh
grade math. There were also two language arts teachers - Joan in eighth grade and
Barbara in seventh grade. There was a seventh grade science teacher named Lila and a
seventh grade social studies named Harry. Also, Lori was the one special educator
assistant teacher who assisted special education students in eighth grade standard
curriculum classrooms. Finally, the researcher selected Jackie, a second-year seventh
grade ESL instructor. The researcher deliberately invited Jackie to participate in the
study as an ESL teacher because he hoped that she would provide expertise and
knowledge to the other participants during the monthly study group meetings and formal
classroom trainings. There was no bias in selecting the teachers with respect to age,
gender, or years of teaching experience. The teaching experience ranged from one to
fifteen years. Seven o f the eight participants were classroom teachers.
Table 5 below describes the characteristics of the teacher participants that were
discussed in Chapter Three.
107
Table 5
Characteristics of Teacher Participants
Teacher Grade Content Area Years of

Name Level Teaching
Experience
Harry 7 Social Studies Student teaching
Lori 8 Special Education 15
Jackie 7 ESL 2
Lila 7 Science 3
Barbara 7 Language Arts 2
Karen 7 Mathematics 2
Lois 8 Mathematics 4
Joan 8 Language Arts 13
Table 5 displays the teaching experience of the participant teachers in the school
involved in the study and in the teaching field in general. There is a fairly wide range of
experience with the teachers. While teachers have taught an average of 6.6 years, only 2.2
years of that experience was gained teaching at other schools, with the average value of
four years having been spent at the current school.
108
Table 1
Years of Teaching Experience
Mean Range Median
Total Experience 6.6 1-15 3.5
Total Years at school 4 1-11 2

involved in the study
The research from Table 1 and the evidence from Table 2 regarding the teachers’
degree status indicate that this staff was made up of highly educated professionals. Six
out of eight teachers earned at least a Master’s degrees and five out of eight teachers had
earned greater than Master’s + fifteen.
Table 2
Degree Status
Degree #of
staff
Bachelor’s 2
Master’s 1
Master’s +15 2
graduate credits
Master’s + 30 3
graduate credits
Table 3 breaks down teaching experience by the number of years on average
working with English language learners in their classroom teaching. The mean total
experience o f the participant teachers was 6.6 years (see Table 1) and the mean number
109
of years spent teaching a minimum of English language learners in each of their
classrooms at the same time is six years.
Table 3
Years o f Previous Teaching Experience with English language learners
Mean Range Median
Teachers 6 1-15 3.5
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER STUDY GROUP
PART I: FORMAL CLASSROOM TRAINING
All of the teachers except the ESL teacher participated in two formal classroom
trainings described below. The first was Introduction to Second Language Learning and
Teaching and the second was Assessment of Speaking and Listening Skills of English
Language Learners.
INTRODUCTION TO SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
The first formal classroom workshop training was the course entitled:
Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching. This ten-hour course was co
taught by Dr. Carol Bearse and Nataly Reed. Both instructors were certified Department
of Education course trainers. Dr. Bearse is an expert on second language acquisition
development and literacy and Nataly Reed is a veteran high school ESL teacher. Six of
the eight teachers participated in this course. Barbara took the course during the spring of
2005 and Jackie took a similar course during her ESL graduate program.
110
The course involved key factors affecting second language acquisition;
implications of the factors on classroom organization and instruction; implications of
cultural differences for classroom organization and instruction; and organization, content,
and performance levels in the Massachusetts English Language Proficiency Benchmarks
and Outcomes.
Immediately following the workshop all of the six teachers evaluated the
effectiveness of the course with a questionnaire entitled Introduction to Second Language
Learning and Teaching: Think-Back Activity (Appendix G). The teachers were asked to
identify two ideas or concepts that they learned during the workshop and then summarize,
explain and relate the idea or concept to how it may or may not impact their instruction.
One of the findings indicated that four of the teachers identified that the training
helped increase their awareness of the students’ struggle in understanding the curriculum
content. Harry and Joan’s words supported this finding:
• This experience was very valuable. It put me as close to being in the students’ shoes as I
possibly could be. After this activity, I took greater care in making sure all
instructions/words were clearly understood. (Harry)
• This has increased my awareness of delivery of content. I will look at words through a
new lens. I also will think more about scripts or previewing ideas before I ask students to
discuss. (Joan)
SOCIOCULTURAL NEEDS
During the interviews conducted in December, the teachers were asked how this
formal classroom training informed their instructional practice of English language
learners. Seven of the eight teachers responded to this question. (The ESL teacher did not
Ill
attend the Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching course and therefore
did not assess the course.) Four of the seven teachers’ responses indicated that they
gained a deeper understanding of the sociocultural needs of the students. Harry, Lila, and
Joan’s responses illustrated this improved understanding of the students’ needs:
• What I really liked is we didn’t just talk about the academic side we learned about the
cultural side too and social norms.... That’s a lot of what happened in that class, real
world experiences, real world settings, scenarios that you can tie into different
cultures and look at it through a different set of eyes basically. (Harry)
• And I guess the training has allowed me to see a lot more of their background and
their personal life of what’s going on outside of school and taking that into
consideration with some of them whether it be supplies that they get or the time that
they have available. (Lila)
• The training helped me learn about Natalia’s [Joan’s mentee] priorities in her family.
She mentioned that getting her green card was one of the most important things right
now. It was a priority and she gave me monthly updates about it.. .1 have a lot of
empathy and I guess I wasn’t aware of these kinds of things prior to the training.
(Joan)
LINGUISTIC NEEDS
All seven of the teachers identified how the training made them more aware of the
linguistic needs of these students. Two teachers, Karen and Lois, explained how the
training helped them see the importance of allowing students to use their native language
in the classroom:
• It opened my eyes to some aspects that I hadn’t thought about yet in terms of the
length o f time the students need to translate in their minds. Knowing that they might
need somebody of the same language to sort of bounce ideas off of in their native
language and then produce something in English. That was helpful. (Karen)
• I allow opportunities for students to speak in their own language in the class. Not that
I ever say they couldn’t when they are talking among each other to help each other
they should use whatever language best facilitates sharing their ideas. But also if we
112
are reporting out and explaining the process for doing the math somebody may
explain in English, somebody in Spanish, or in Portuguese or whatever language.
(Lois)
INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS
Two of the seven teachers described how the training helped them better address
the instructional needs of English language learners with the use of visuals and a variety
of grouping strategies to promote more speaking opportunities for the English language
learners. Lila and Joan described their attentiveness to these needs:
• They need to have a lot of visuals and do a lot of hands-on things just like with the
Special Education students and I guess I sort of group them all in one category both
Special Ed. and Ell. Because they do not have the same previous experiences, they
might need slower learning styles or more visuals and things like that. (Lila)
• I also learned a lot about how to communicate with these kids, some different
strategies on how to get them to feel more part of the classroom community and less
part of being in their own little group because they tend to sort of congregate together
in the classroom. There are times when they speak their native language within my
classroom and I don’t know what are they talking about and maybe prior to the
training I might have said, “You have to speak in English when you are here.” But I
think having taken the training and understanding that that’s their comfort and that
they want to express their identity and their culture so I’m less sort of stringent on
you can’t speak your language in here. (Joan)
UNDERSTANDING OF THE SOCIOCULTURAL, LINGUISTIC AND

INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS
Five teachers elaborated on how the training increased their understanding of the
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of the students. For example, Barbara
described the following regarding the students’ sociocultural needs:
• The training opened my mind to a world of learners I knew nothing about. Their
home lives and learning abilities/styles are drastically different from mainstream
(native English speakers) and much about the educational approach cannot be taken
for granted. (Barbara)
113
There were four teachers’ responses that centered on the linguistic needs of
English language learners and second language acquisition theory as an area that has
informed their instructional practice. Lori explained the following:
• I was especially surprised to discover just how limited students are in their grasp of
academic English as opposed to their ability to converse appropriately with their
peers in social interaction.
In the final June interview, one of the teachers, Lois, highlighted the
meaningfulness of the Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching training
in terms of her understanding of the students’ sociocultural needs.
• The first training helped lay out for me what it would be like if I were one of the
students and coming into their situation. Students are already here or they come here
with their parents and they enter into a world of English and they have to learn it in
order to be part of the world whereas their parents might be able to get by without it
and their grandparents might not even try. So over time, they might lose the ability to
communicate between each other and that’s a just an unbelievable tragedy. It can stop
the culture within the family and that was particularly powerful for me. (Lois)
INFORMED INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE
During the final questionnaire conducted in June, the teachers were asked to
explain how the Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching training
informed their instructional practice of English language learners.
Two of the seven teachers, Lila and Lois, identified specific examples of how the
training informed their instructional practice.
• I was aware of the need to re-explain things and use more visual aids. (Lila)
• Speaking slowly. Pairing students so they can help each other. When taking quizzes
and tests, monitoring students so they get the correct interpretation of questions. The
importance of continuing instruction in native language while learning English. (Lois)
114
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS FROM INTRODUCTION TO SECOND

LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
The findings from this formal classroom training suggest that the workshop raised
the general level of understanding of the seven teachers in four major areas:
• It improved their knowledge about second language acquisition.
• It described the impact that culture has on English language learners’ school
experience.
• It introduced two instructional strategies effective for English language learners

including the use o f visuals and the utilization of a variety of grouping strategies that
promote greater interaction and speaking opportunities for English language learners.
• It helped the teachers acquire a richer understanding of how the students’ home lives
affects their academic performance in school.
ASSESSMENT OF SPEAKING AND LISTENING
The second formal classroom training was entitled Assessment of Speaking and
Listening Skills of English language learners. Dr. Carol Bearse, a certified Department of
Education trainer and an expert on second language acquisition development and literacy,
taught this ten-hour course. All of the teachers except the ESL teacher participated in this
course as one cohort. The ESL teacher took this course the school year before as part of
her orientation as an ESL teacher in the district ESL/bilingual program.
The course content involved the teachers reviewing a specially designed rubric
called the Massachusetts English Language Assessment-Oral or MELA-O. Heidi
Goodrich (2005), a rubrics expert, defines a rubric as "a scoring tool that lists the criteria
for a piece of work”. In this case, the MELA-0 rubric is designed for trained teachers to
assess an English language learner’s comprehension and production (speaking) of
115
English in the natural setting of the classroom (Appendix L). After the teachers became
familiar with the different criteria in the rubric, they watched several video clips of
different English language learners participating in classroom activities and discussions.
Then they practiced using the rubric to assess the students’ English comprehension and
production abilities within an acceptable range. Finally, the teachers took a MELA-0
calibration test that required each teacher to score ten different English language learners’
comprehension and production abilities.
Immediately following the course, the seven teachers evaluated the effectiveness
of the course with a questionnaire and then two weeks later were asked specific questions
regarding the effectiveness of the training as part of the December interviews conducted
by the researcher.
LINGUISTIC NEEDS
Two central questions were utilized to elicit the teachers’ learning from this
formal classroom training. One of the questions asked the teachers to describe how the
Massachusetts English Language Proficiency-Oral assessment informed their
understanding of the linguistic needs of English language learners. Six of the seven
teachers identified that they gained a greater awareness of the students’ challenges for
comprehension of classroom dialogue and discussion. Lori and Lila’s words illustrate this
keener awareness of students’ struggle with comprehension of classroom content:
• I am more aware of the chance that a student does not truly comprehend what is being
asked of him despite his outward appearance of understanding. I am more apt to take
the time to ask clarifying questions as a result of the training. (Lori)
116
• I guess I just automatically assumed that if they don’t understand something they are
going to come to me and ask me, but they might not even understand that they don’t
understand it.. .Because I know that when I get in front of the classroom and I’m
talking and giving a lesson, I assume they know the meaning of the words that I’m
saying with the same context I’m thinking it to mean but they may not. So that’s
definitely a good challenge for me to take into consideration that there are different
words and they might mean different things to these students. (Lila)
Also, three of the seven teachers described how they began to listen more
carefully to the English language learners’ speaking and pronunciation. In the words of
Harry and Karen:
• It certainly made me look at things differently. I use the pronunciation example again.
I began to watch for things from the students that I wouldn’t normally watch for, and
I began to listen to them for pronunciation, and as a social studies teacher before I
was more worried about the content, but it was important for me to see where their
pronunciation was.. .Now I was listening to their voice, because I wanted to hear how
they were pronouncing things and not just what they were saying. (Harry)
• Now I pay closer attention and they sort of have intonations with their native
language and I hear a little bit of an accent between the “b” instead of the “v” from
the Spanish speakers. (Karen)
INFORMED INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE
The second question that teachers were asked was to explain how this workshop
informed their instructional practice of English language learners. All seven teachers
indicated that they became more aware of the challenge of comprehension for English
language learners and are utilizing different strategies to make sure that these students
are able to follow classroom discussions. Joan and Harry explained the instructional
strategies they began implementing as a result of the learnings from the workshop:
• I do a lot more dip sticking along the way, where as before I may not have done that.
(Joan)
117
• I used to give notes and I would think I needed to go slower but still the students
couldn’t keep up. But now I have notes as fill in the blanks; it is like a formatted
structure where I have filled in a good chunk of the notes. My words in the notes
make up about 60% and they only have to fill in 40%, so they don’t have to listen to
struggle to copy everything that I am saying like before. So it allows them to catch
up. (Harry)
Five of the seven teachers also identified a greater awareness of the language they
used as part of their classroom teacher talk and keener attention to the speech of the
English language learners in their classrooms in terms of questioning, vocabulary and
pronunciation. Barbara and Lori’s words below summarize the attention that the teachers
began to place on student speech:
• I have since been more aware of the questions I give and the answers I accept.
Because there is such a distinction between standard social responses and an answer
that shows comprehension, I have been looking to ask questions that really require a
specific answer. This has also led me to be more specific with my mainstream
students as well. (Barbara)
• I am looking at their whole response.. .and looking at the student as a whole and
listening to the student to see are they using the correct words for the answer. (Lori)
Three teachers, Lois, Harry and Joan expressed some lack of clarity with the use
of the MELA-0 rubric taught in the course.
• I went through the MELA-0 and all that but I don’t know, you don’t until you
actually listen to a lot o f people and rate them and evaluate them and see one person
over time with the MELA-O. It must take a long time to become proficient in using
that tool. (Lois)
• I really struggled with the wording (on the rubric). What is the difference between
nearly all and most? I like that there is a guideline.. .but I found it difficult to use the
rubric itself. (Harry)
118
• [During the training] I always thought that the student was lower functioning than
what was on the rubric and I tended to miss score them so I am not sure exactly how
much of that sort of translates into my teaching. I know what I do will help them
linguistically in terms of my differentiated instruction that involves pre-assessing of
what they know before every unit, using anticipation guides, using KWL guides [a
graphic organizer that helps the teacher clarify with students what they know about a
subject, what they would like to know and what they have learned at the end of a
lesson], in creating word walls, and pre-teaching vocabulary. I do all of that anyway
because it is part of my teaching. (Joan)
MISCELLANEOUS FINDINGS
There were also other miscellaneous findings from the MELA-0 training
workshop. First, four teachers indicated that they found it helpful to learn about the
English language proficiency benchmarks and standards and the rubric for assessing
speaking and listening. Lila explained:
• I can see how you can thrive in one area (of the MELA-0 assessment) but be so
deficient in another and how that can impact the other levels of language acquisition.
You can say all these students talk fine to me; we have great conversations with them.
But when they are trying to use a vocabulary acquired through a textbook or through
various lessons, they can’t pull out the words they can use, you can see there’s such a
difference between true understanding and the kind of prepackaged phrases like “that
kind of thing” or “sort o f ’ that they use because they don’t have complete
understanding of how to use the words. If I understand what level they are on I can
better understand what they are internalizing and what they are learning. Which I
honestly can say that I have not always taken this into account; it is something that I
definitely need to work on or improve in my teaching style.
Another teacher, Lois, explained that the training was helpful for her to gain a
richer understanding of the challenges faced by English language learners when they are
first learning English.
• What was most helpful... was watching the tapes and watching the children and their
facial expressions and how they struggled for words or just had a complete blank face
and didn’t have a clue; it was really powerful to see that.
PART II: STUDY GROUP MEETINGS
The teachers participated in seven monthly study group meetings during the
following months: September, October, November, January, April, May, June. These
one-hour long meetings were conducted on the second Monday of each month. These
meetings were chaired by the ESL/Bilingual department head who was also the
researcher of the case study.
The study group meetings were designed to address a different topic relevant to
addressing the needs of English language learners and also provide time for the teachers
to strategize on how to best assist their English language learner mentee. The meetings’
group leader who was also the researcher attended all the meetings and took notes.
Immediately following each meeting, the researcher returned to his office and wrote the
minutes, a summary of his field notes and a reflection of the new insights and discoveries
from the meeting. The teachers in the English Language Learner Study Group were
aware of the dual role held by the researcher.
For the purposes of this section, English language learner study group meeting
will be referred to as only the meeting. Also, teachers and mentors will be used
interchangeably because all eight teachers were also mentors. In addition, students and
mentees will also be used interchangeably. The eight students were also mentees. The
narrative that emerges from the data is supported by the meeting minutes, the researcher’s
field notes and quotations from the teachers themselves as revealed by the researcher’s
field notes and through selected questionnaires that were administered following the
October and January meetings.
120
Six of the eight teachers attended six or seven of the meetings. The two math
teachers were unable to attend these meetings because of commitments to attend
mandatory after-school math curriculum meetings. However, the researcher conducted
before-school meetings with these two teachers on the day after the afternoon study
group gathering in order to update the teachers on the issues discussed as well as gain
their feedback towards the progress with their work as a mentor.
September
In September, the agenda was designed to introduce the challenges that bicultural
students face in a U.S. school. The department head invited the school’s psychologist, Dr.
Glazier, a native Brazilian and bicultural member of the school community. Dr. Glazier
described the importance of teachers as cultural builders and she provided an introduction
to the bicultural conflict that English language learners often face in school. Most of the
teachers were relatively quiet throughout the meeting while Dr. Glazier conducted her
presentation. However, during the question and answer period, Harry asked, “It seems
that one of my students calls out all the time and he told me it is because that’s how it
was in school in Brazil. I have talked to him outside of class about it and I think he
understands it is something he has to work on. Am I doing the right thing?” Another
teacher, Lori, asked what Brazilian parents think about homework.
After the brief presentation, the researcher reviewed with the teachers the process
that was going to be used to match each teacher with an English language learner mentee.
121
The researcher explained that a master list of fifteen students was devised with help from
the guidance office based on the students’ grade level, final grades and attendance
records from the previous school year. The team deliberately screened out students who
were already receiving in school or outside counseling support. These fifteen students
were interviewed by Dr. Glazier and Jean Nolan, a school guidance counselor. As part of
the interview, each student answered a brief questionnaire describing their personal
interests, hobbies, dreams and academic and personal goals. The teachers read over the
student questionnaires and identified their first and second choices for working with
students. During this process, Jackie and Joan, asked if it was recommended that they
work with one of their own students in class. The researcher explained that the most
important part in forming a successful match between mentor and mentee is if both
parties are motivated to work together. Esta Montano, the Director of Equity and
Achievement, and advisor to the researcher and regular attendee of the meetings, also
added that it is important that the mentor be prepared to set up a regular meeting schedule
with the mentee, “it takes time to get to know someone.”
Data from the meeting indicated that the teachers were excited by the prospect of
working with a mentee as evidenced by how all eight read carefully the student
questionnaires and asked more specific questions about different students to the
researcher and between each other. For example, in the words of Joan, she shared, “I
would like to work with Natalia; she is a nice girl and she wrote that she wants to be a
chef. My sister is a French pastry chef - maybe I can help her learn more about the
profession!”
122
October
The October meeting centered on formalizing the mentor-mentee relationship and
providing the eight teachers mentoring strategies for working with their mentees. The
researcher adapted previously created materials from the Mazie Mentoring Guide used at
the town’s high school and from the Nations Middle School’s study skills curriculum
binder. The researcher explained that that it is important to use the mentor goal setting
strategies guide and the student goal setting packet to establish a non-academic goal and
one academic goal. Esta Montano described that it is valuable to have conversations
about a non-academic goal first because it is important to not overwhelm the students
with a focus solely on academics. However, several teachers challenged this assertion.
Joan, Nancy and Lila all explained that they wanted to establish an academic goal right
from the start to send a strong message about the importance of academics. Lila said,
“From my experience working with Luis last year and from the course we took in the
summer, he has to make an academic goal and then I will try to help support it so he
doesn’t feel the weight of the goal all on his own shoulders.” Joan added, “I want Natalia
to start off on the right foot.” Esta Montano recommended in the end that the most
important part of the relationship is that in the beginning it is essential that the mentor
spend quality one-on-one time with the mentee to establish trust and build a friendship.
Dr. Bearse, the ESL/Bilingual Curriculum Resource Specialist also solicited
feedback from the teachers about their experiences with the interview of an English
language learner (See Appendix M). Joan shared, “Natalia has a mature outlook on
school and her responsibilities.” Harry explained, “I was surprised at how Leonardo had
123
to learn and adjust to a new set of classroom norms (regarding classroom participation)
when he came to U.S. schools.”
After sharing responses to the English language learner interviews, the meeting
addressed the teachers expressed concerns to Esta Montano and the researcher about the
process initiating meetings with the mentees. One teacher, Barbara, asked, “What are the
norms about meeting with the mentee?” Five teachers expressed concerns about how
often they were supposed to meet with the mentee. Esta Montano and the researcher
repeated that the norms would largely depend on the relationship and the time that both
the mentor and mentee invested into the relationship. Esta Montano emphasized that in
order to develop a substantive relationship, mentors and mentees should meet for a
minimum of two to three hours per month. In the days that immediately followed this
meeting, five of the eight teachers expressed concerns about meeting the time
commitment. Karen’s words summarized the feelings shared by the other four teachers:
• I have school meetings on Mondays and I have kids after school on Tuesday,
Wednesday and Thursday. I am not sure how I am going to have personal time just
with Ronaldo.
Data from this meeting indicated that the teachers were beginning to identify and
connect some of the sociocultural and instructional needs of the mentees learned from the
Introduction to Second Language Acquisition training and apply it to the work with the
mentees. Another important finding that emerged from this meeting was the teachers’
concern about the time commitment involved as a mentor and member o f the English
language learner study group.
124
November
There was one mentor-mentee after-school team building kick-off party that took
place during the middle o f November. The researcher and Dr. Glazier, designed a team
building game activity that involved mentors and mentees working together to knock
down Styrofoam bowling pins with nerf sponge balls. Following the game, a high school
English language learner spoke briefly to the mentees about the importance of goal
setting and how the strategy has helped her on a path to achieve her dream of being the
first in the family to attend college. Then, all the mentors and mentees worked together in
pairs to decide on an academic and non-academic goal while they enjoyed eating pizza.
There was also one meeting in November. The researcher distributed a student
survey (Appendix K) to all of the mentors to determine why the eight mentees were
uninterested in joining the formal after-school program entitled Reason Analyze and Plan
(RAP). The researcher also distributed a graphic organizer named “Goal Flower” for the
mentors to work with the mentees in goal setting and provided a list of possible ideas for
mentor-mentee meetings to take place after school such as going to the public library,
Dunkin’ Donuts, the Dansforth Museum, a walk around the neighborhood etc. After this
portion of the meeting, the researcher asked each mentor to update the group about the
progress with their mentee.
The data from the team-building activity and the study group meeting showed that
six of the eight teachers indicated that they had conducted at least one personal meeting
with their mentee. During these initial meetings there was evidence that the teachers
began to learn about their mentee’s family lives and how sometimes these home
125
situations complicate their students’ ability to be successful in school. Joan’s and Lori’s
words provide some examples of this learning:
• Natalia wants to be a chef. Her parents want her to be able to get a good job and make
money and she feels this pressure. (Joan)
• Lori, explained that she began to learn about the daily challenge that her mentee,
Rayanne, faces everyday without parental supervision. I haven’t been able to catch up
with the parents yet; they don’t seem to have a phone number that they answer and
they work until about 8 or 9pm. Renata stays at a cousin’s house. She told me that her
parents don’t get home until late two nights a week because they take adult ESL
classes.
The data indicated that some of the teachers began to report the development of
trust in the building of the relationship with their mentee. Barbara explained, “Jocelyn is
an honest girl, but she needs help. When she is with me she seems to be able to drop her
defensive shield. She seems to have a glow when she meets with me and has my
attention.”
Additionally the data indicated that the teachers began to recognize the
importance of utilizing specific strategies for helping their mentee achieve more
academic success. Barbara expressed, “Jocelyn is putting more effort into school and
especially her homework. We have reviewed techniques on different strategies to help
her like use her friends to partner with to do homework. Last week, she came to review
for her science test.” Harry echoed Barbara’s comments and added, “I have learned that
Bruno loves to impress that he can do well. His goal was to finish his homework
completely and since the kick-off party last week, he has been doing it.”
Data illustrated that four of the teachers expressed a continuing concern for the
challenge of finding the time to meet with their mentees. Karen explained, “I am feeling
126
guilty because I haven’t met with Ronaldo in my classroom and I am not sure what to do.
I promised to help him work out a schedule, but it hasn’t happened yet.” Jackie repeated
Karen’s concern by adding, “Ten of my sixteen students have been placed on student
success plans so I don’t have the energy after teaching almost an extra hour each day to
meet with her individually after school. She seeks me out and often asks, “Can I have
lunch with you today?”
December
During the month of December, the researcher conducted 45-minute mid-point
interviews with all eight teachers instead of holding a study group meeting. During the
interviews, seven of the eight teachers expressed a preference to learn more deeply about
the bicultural / bilingual world of older English language learners. Harry summarized the
feelings of the teachers:
• I’d like to leam more about the students themselves.. .because I think that once you
get to know them, then you can figure out the best way to approach teaching them.
• I’d like to have more understanding of cultures of these students. We’ve seemed to be
talking about Spanish speakers and Portuguese speakers, but that’s not my whole
exposure. I work with kids from India, Pakistan and others and I don’t know whether
we are going to be able to ever cover every culture that we represent here at Nations
Middle School, but the predominant cultures I think we should have some training on
that.
In response to the teachers’ interest, the researcher and Esta Montano collaborated in
organizing a student panel discussion of high school English language learners as the
main topic of the agenda for the January meeting.
127
January
The January study group meeting was entitled, “Challenges growing up in a
bilingual cultural world.” Three high school English language learners described some of
the challenges they have faced during middle school and high school and the ways that
they have worked to overcome these challenges attain their goals. Two of the high school
students were eighteen year-old seniors - Maria, a young woman from El Salvador and
Jose, a young man from Costa Rica. The third student, Carmen, was a young woman bom
and raised in Mexico; she was a sixteen-year old junior. The three students spoke in the
structure of a panel discussion for approximately 45 minutes to this audience of teachers.
In a questionnaire that followed the panel discussion, the teachers were asked to
assess how the discussion helped augment their own understanding about students’
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs. The responses from the teachers’
questionnaires and the researcher’s field notes illustrated that the study group meeting
proved effective in assisting the teachers to recognize the sociocultural needs of English
language learners.
The data showed that all eight teachers described how much the students’
discussion gave them richer insight into the students’ complicated home lives and
numerous family responsibilities and gave them greater respect to the demands on the
lives of these students. In the words of Harry, Lois and Jackie:
• The family situations of these students may be much different from an average
American student. An English language learner may have many more responsibilities
at home, which are vital to the well being of the entire family. These extra pressures
impact the ability of these students to complete schoolwork and actively participate in
activities after-school. (Harry)
128
• Even the panel seems like they have made adjustments in figuring out what makes
their balancing act work. They shared the frustration of having to grow up too fast
because of family demands and responsibilities. Each one spoke about a role model or
a family member that has inspired them, and each student has high expectations for
themselves. (Lois)
• School can feel safe and comfortable and supportive even from the position as a
teacher that you infrequently visit the world outside of school and consider how
opposite these things it can be. (Jackie)
Data from this study group meeting was that five teachers identified that they had
more understanding for the cultural conflict that some English language learners struggle
with between the values and codes of school and the values at home. Joan summarized
the feelings of three other teachers:
• It engages us as teachers to be mindful of the student experience/reality and to seek

ways to remove obstacles for Ell students who find roadblocks between their two
worlds of existence - school and home demands.
Additional data from the outcome of this high school student panel discussion
showed that the teachers found the discussion informed their instructional practice. All
eight teachers identified that they gained insight into the pressures these students face at
home and the challenges of meeting the expectations of completing school work at home.
In the words of Lois during two different follow-up conversations:
• I may be more understanding about deadlines and demands on the Ell learners.
Especially the ones with little support at home.
• I really enjoyed when the other students came in from the high school and spoke
about their personal experiences because then it wasn’t just hearing a b ou t fic titio u s
characters or seeing videos of students that I’m not dealing with. It is much better to
hear from students who are growing up here in this town with very similar situations
as our students. I would definitely like to involve the mentees more with those
students so that they can see it’s not just us blowing smoke; it’s real life and real
students and they made it so you can make it too. I think it would be a lot more
meaningful for the mentees to see how these high school students respond to real life
situations like the ones they described to us.
129
As part of the follow-up conversations with the teachers about the success of the
January meeting, the researcher and Esta Montano invited the three high school students
back to meet with both the teachers and their mentees for the April meeting.
April
The April study group meeting entitled, “Challenges growing up in a bilingual
cultural world Part II: High School Students Talking to Mentees” involved the three high
school English language learners, Maria, Carmen & Jose who spoke to the teachers
during the January meeting. These three students spoke in the form of a roundtable
discussion to seven teachers and five of the mentees (all eight mentees were invited, but
three choose not to attend the meeting despite the urging of their mentors.)
The data from this study group meeting indicated that the discussion prompted
more discussion between the teachers and their mentees around the theme of goal setting.
Lois and Joan’s words characterized the feelings of five of the seven teachers:
• Jessica was more receptive to talking about what she would like to do after middle
school. She told me that she wants to go to college in Brazil. (Lois)
• Natalia originally was focused only on attending the vocational high school because
she thought she couldn’t do the work at the high school. But after listening to these
high school students, she says she is not as afraid of the high school. (Joan)
May and June
The two final study group meetings were held in May and June. The purpose of
these two meetings was to review what was learned from the previous study group
130
meetings and identify suggestions for improving the mentor program in the 2006-2007
school year.
During the May meeting, the researcher met with Jackie, Barbara and Lila. These
three teachers recommended that the high school students return to speak to both the
mentors and mentees and that a greater focus be placed on understanding more about the
students’ cultures.
• Invite high school students back from both high schools [there is the traditional high
school and a vocational high school in this town] and guest speakers on biculturalism
and bilingualism. (Jackie)
• I have a unique perspective as an ESL teacher who feels exposed to ELL trainings
almost too regularly, and so they can become tedious. However, as an idea to "pitch"
the need for understanding about biculturalism—what might be interesting is to get
different cultural group leaders/parents to speak to us about their cultural world. This
may be logistically difficult, but it would be interesting to hear from different cultural
groups in order to show the differences between a Colombian, or Brazilian or a
Chinese immigrant's home life. I think it's important NOT to just bunch ELLs all
together as having the same issues or having parents who all value the same thing.
Similar to Americans, families can have very different values and the same day to day
realities. (Jackie)
• The team building at the beginning was fun and the students from the high school
were helpful. (Lila)
• It might be helpful to have a more interactive meetings or conversations of sharing of

experiences among mentors. (Barbara)
During the June meeting, the researcher met with seven of the eight teachers and
five new teachers interested in participating in the English language learner study group
during the 2006-2007 school year. This celebratory meeting offered the eight teachers the
chance to share with the five interested teachers about the strengths of the mentoring
program.
131
Table 6 below compares what was originally scheduled as the Meeting Agenda
(Column #2) during the monthly study group meetings with a summary of the Meeting
Minutes of what was actually discussed (Column #3). Column #4 highlights what major
themes were discussed during the meetings and what was omitted. As the table describes,
the teachers’ interest in learning more about the students’ lives, home cultures, family
responsibilities consumed the majority of the time in the monthly meetings. While the
researcher had planned to introduce strategies for culturally relevant teaching and
sheltered instructional strategies, these discussions did not take place due to the limited
time in the one-hour after school meeting.
132
Table 6
Monthly Study Group Meeting Analysis
Study Group M eeting Agenda M eeting Minutes Discussion centered on

Meeting (W hat was originally (W hat was discussed the following themes:
planned for discussion) and accomplished)
September • Consider culture and • Dr. Glazier spoke to • Role o f family
it’s influence on the group for 30 • Role o f culture
Culture and teaching and learning: minutes and addressed • Role o f first language
Learning: They Dr. Glazier speaks on questions for 15 on acquiring second
go together the role o f culture in minutes. language.
academic achievement.
• Dr. Bearse debriefs • Dr. Bearse spoke with No discussion on

with group regarding group for ten minutes instructional needs or
major learnings from about suggestions for instructional strategies.
Introduction to Second conducting an
Language Learning interview with an
and Teaching formal English language
classroom training and learner.
provides suggestions
for conducting a
successful student
interview.
• Role-playing o f • N o time for role-

student interview. playing interview
October • Defining roles for the • Reviewed suggestions • Students’ home lives,
mentoring program: from Mentoring 101 attitudes towards
Mentoring 101: Considering more from Mazie Mentoring school, reading and
Part I - Getting carefully the role o f Guide learning.
to Know your the mentor and the
Mentee mentee. • Discussed the role o f • Students’ past
& the mentor and the academic performance
Culturally • Discuss selected mentee. and instructional needs
Responsive readings from Geneva
Teaching G ay’s Culturally
responsive teaching: • Read student • Student ESL level and
Theory, research, and questionnaires strengths and
best practice. detailing their weaknesses in terms o f
academic strengths, English acquisition.
weaknesses, interests,
and hobbies and No discussion of
reviewed students’ instructional strategies or
previous academic readings from Geneva
report card and Gay’s Culturally
attendance records. responsive teaching:
Theory, research, and
best practice.
133
Study Group M eeting Agenda Meeting Minutes Discussion centered on

November • Discuss importance o f • Introduced “Goal • Challenges o f finding
academic goal setting. Flower” . time meeting with the
M entoring 101: Introduce graphic mentees.
Part II - Goal organizer “Goal • D ebrief o f team
Setting Flower” for the building activity; • Challenges o f serving
and mentors to work with update on progress in dual role as both
Utilizing the mentees in goal from mentor-mentee. mentor and as
effective setting. classroom teacher.
grouping
strategies • D ebrief o f November • Discussion about lack
team-building activity. o f homework from
mentees.
• Preparation for
MELA-O training.
No discussion on
• Introduce utilizing instructional strategies
grouping strategies for except for brief
promoting more conversation around use
student interaction. o f native language in
classroom.
December • Introduce Sheltered NO STUDY GROUP

Instruction MEETING!
Improving Observation Protocol
instruction for and address promoting Teachers asked to post
English student interaction pone December meeting
language about content. due to lack o f time to
learners: Basics fulfill normal teaching
o f sheltering responsibilities before
content winter break.
Mid-Point Interviews
conducted.
134
Study Group M eeting Agenda M eeting Minutes Discussion centered on

January • Three English • Three English • Importance o f teacher
language learners language learners role in supporting and
“Challenges describe their describe their understanding
growing up in a experiences growing experiences growing students’ home and
bilingual up in bicultural and up in bi-cultural and work responsibilities.
cultural world.” bilingual worlds. bilingual world.
- Part I • Critical role o f the
teacher in supporting
student academic
success.
• Role o f native culture

and first language on
acquiring second
language.
No discussion about
instructional strategies.
April • Three English • Three English • Importance o f teacher

language learners language learners role in supporting and
“Challenges describe their described what it takes understanding
growing up in a experiences growing to succeed in school students’ home and
bilingual up in bicultural and and why it is important work responsibilities.
cultural world” bilingual world and to succeed in high
- Part II direct discussion to school. • Critical role o f the
middle school teacher in supporting
mentees. student academic
success.
• The importance o f
setting goals and
seeking support from
teachers, friends and
family.
No discussion about
instructional strategies.
135
May • D ebrief major • D ebrief o f what • Issue o f teacher’s time

learnings from the worked and what constraints on
What was work with between didn’t work in terms o f mentoring students.
learned from the mentor and mentee. the mentoring
mentoring program. Discussion • Issue o f integrating
program. • D ebrief miscellaneous centered on specific guardians into the
feedback on mentor and mentee program.
participation in all issues.
three areas o f the study • Interest in basing
group including the • Discussion regarding monthly study group
formal classroom the methods for meetings around the
trainings, monthly improving the English theme o f learning
study group meetings language learner study about one culture each
and mentoring group in 2006-2007. month.
program.
• Discuss strategies for No discussion on

content vocabulary instructional strategies.
instruction.
June • Celebrate major • Reviewed m entee’s • Impact o f mentor on

learnings from the responses to year-end mentee’s academic and
What was participation in all questionnaires and emotional growth.
learned from the three areas o f the mentee report card
mentoring English language data.
program. learner study group. No discussion on
• Addressed questions instructional strategies.
• Study group members from interested new
discuss the benefits members about time
and challenges o f commitment and
participating in the responsibilities in the
program with program.
interested new
members.
PART III: MENTORING PROGRAM
A third component of the English language learner study group involved each
te a c h e r se r v in g a s a m e n to r o f o n e E n g lis h la n g u a g e learner d u rin g th e s c h o o l year. In the
final questionnaire administered in June, the teachers addressed the mentoring program
logistics and the effectiveness of the program in terms of their own professional
development.
136
The teachers were asked to assess the logistics associated with the design of the
mentoring program. The researcher wanted to understand the frequency of mentor-
mentee meetings, the duration of these meetings and when these meetings took place
throughout the school year. The quantitative data lends itself to be more easily
represented through a series of data charts and a brief corresponding narrative.
Table 7
How often did you meet with your mentee?
Number of meetings #of Response

Respondents %
About once a week in a one to one meeting. 1 12.5
About once every two weeks in a one to one meeting. 1 12.5
About once or twice each week for 2 to 5 minute 1 12.5

check-in conversation.
About once or twice a week after-school while 1 12.5

servicing other students for after-school help.
Other: Met often but not regularly scheduled and at 4 50

different times.
Table 7 breaks down the frequency of meetings that took place between the
teachers and their mentees. Half of the teachers met often with their mentees but
meetings took place on an irregular basis. The words of one teacher below are helpful in
understanding this data:
• She loved to talk about her family and what was going on at home. When she had
something to talk about she asked if she could come to have lunch with me or meet
me after-school. I liked this approach because I knew that when she scheduled the
meeting we were going to talk about something that mattered to her. (Joan)
137
Table 8
The meetings with your mentee lasted between________ minutes.
# of minutes #of Response %

Respondents
1-5 minutes 0 0
6-15 minutes 3 37.5
16-30 minutes 5 62.5
More than 30 0 0
minutes
Table 8 describes how the duration of all of the mentor-mentee meetings lasted
between 6 and 30 minutes. The teachers explained that the meetings took place in two
different forms. The shorter meetings of 6-15 minutes consisted of the mentors checking
in with their mentee regarding personal life issues, a school behavior problem or
checking in about the schoolwork that the student was responsible for. In the words of
one teacher:
• If it is a behavior thing, I’ll call him out to the hall and have a conversation with him
or I will take him aside during lunch or I will try to get him after school ... just to
have a couple of words and be like, this is what happened I know you’re capable of
better things than this. When I give him that, that’s when he does rise to the occasion
because I don’t knock him down for it. Instead I say that you are better than that and I
know you are capable. It is that positive stuff that keeps him going. (Harry)
138
Table 9
When did you meet with your mentee?
Time of the Day #of Response

Respondents %
During prep time (teacher’s classroom preparation 1 12.5

period)
During lunch 1 12.5
During and after school 5 62.5
Homeroom, during class 1 12.5
Table 10
Did your meetings ever take place outside of the classroom? (Check all that apply)
Meeting Places #of Response %

Respondents
No 4 50
Pulled mentee out of other academic class 1 12.5
Lunch 1 12.5
Restaurant or Shopping 3 37.5
Ice cream shop 1 12.5
Car (Drove mentee home) 1 12.5
Tables 9 and 10 show that the teachers met with their mentees primarily in the
school building during or after school hours. Only two teachers met with their mentees
139
outside of school. One teacher’s comments reflected the general concern from six of the
eight teachers who did not meet with their mentees outside of school:
• I felt hesitant to set up meetings or activities outside of the school setting - it was
unclear what the boundaries/expectations would be. Also, it was easier to meet at
school. (Lois)
Table 11
How would you describe the content of the conversations with your mentee? (Check all
that apply?)
Content of conversations #of Response

Respondents %
Academic goals/grades 8 100
Non-academic goals 8 100
Personal life/Friends/Family 8 100
Adolescent issues 6 75
Studying for tests & quizzes 8 100

and/or projects
Table 11 shows all that eight teachers identified academic goals/grades, non-
academic goals, personal life/friends/family and studying for tests and quizzes and/or
projects as the center of the content of the conversations with their mentees from the final
questionnaire given in June. In a follow-up question that asked the teachers what they
most learned from the conversations with their mentee and in the researcher’s field notes,
six of the eight teachers emphasized repeatedly that the conversations with their mentees
helped them learn about their mentee’s family and/or native culture. During the final
study group meeting in June, all eight teachers agreed that the majority of conversation
that they engaged in with their mentee centered on their student’s personal
140
life/friends/family. Karen and Jackie’s words illustrate examples of the types of
conversations that took place between mentors and mentees:
• Family is Ronaldo’s number one priority. He feels absolutely committed to his family
and all the responsibilities that go along with it. I have never met his mother, but from
what I hear, she is equally devoted to her family (both her parents and her kids). She
has a goal to buy a house and at the mention of this, Ronaldo’s eyes lit up! (Karen)
• I think I best assisted my mentee by simply "being there" —I can't say that I saw
distinct changes in all areas of her academic life, but I did feel that the mentee always
knew I was behind her if she needed extra assistance or simply wanted to share why
she felt she couldn't "do school" based on personal problems. (Jackie)
Data was also culled from a questionnaire of the mentees. All eight mentees
identified that academic goals/grades & personal life/friends/family were the two main
subjects of conversation with their mentors and were the areas that they found the most
helpful with the time spend with their mentor. These words from two different mentees
reflects the opinions of the others:
• Most of the time we would talk about my personal life and what I do after school and
when I do my homework. And why sometimes my grades were a little bad and then
she would talk about if what makes [my grades] a little bit bad in school and I would
tell her that I would babysit my brother who was like 12. And I have my schedule to
go to Copeira [Brazilian dance form] Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. (Ronaldo)
• Well, she tried helping in my personal life and she helped me keep up with my
homework. And everything that was talked about during the meeting stayed there.
(Rayanne)
Additional data was based on the mentee’s responses to how they would describe
the mentoring program to other students. All eight mentees’ responses centered on two
key areas: the mentors helped them address their personal problems and do better in
school by achieving their goals. Jessica, an eighth grade mentee, described how she
perceived the support of the mentoring program:
141
• The mentoring program involves students who sometimes need some help with
school, and teachers who are able to help them. In the mentoring program, we have
meetings with our mentors and we talk about our grades, our goals for school, our
goals for the future and what's going on in our lives today that we want to share with
them.
A third finding based on the teachers’ and mentees’ feedback on the mentoring
program was that the perceptions of the relationship that was established between the
teacher and mentee was consistent in all eight of the mentor-mentee responses. The
words of two pairs of a mentor/mentee reflect this consistency between responses:
Harry (teacher) and Leonardo (mentee)
• I think I best helped Leonardo by being involved with guidance, Mr. Evans, Mr.
Rodriguez and Leonardo’s parents. There were weeks that Leonardo was great, very
well behaved, and a good student. Unfortunately this didn't happen all that often.
There were a few times where I also acted as a go between for Leonardo and other
teachers or administrators. (Harry)
• Sometimes I felt like I let him down because I didn’t do everything we had planned
on doing. But he was a great mentor he always understood me and tried to help. We
had a very good relationship. (Leonardo)
Karen and Ronaldo
• I was able to advocate for Ronaldo. He is a student with HUGE home responsibilities
and I worked with his other teachers to devise a plan that would enable him to get
more of his work done in school. This benefited him in more than one way. The
pressure of completing homework at home was alleviated and he was able to ask
questions and gain confirmation that he was doing the assignment correctly. (Karen)
• Most of the time we would talk about my personal life and what I do after school and
when I do my homework. And why sometimes my grades were a little bad and then
she would talk about if what makes [my grades] a little bit bad in school and I would
tell her that I would babysit my brother who was like 12. And I have my schedule to
go to Copeira [Brazilian dance form] Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. (Ronaldo)
One finding from the data culled from the interviews, questionnaires and
researcher field notes was that all eight teachers strongly endorsed participation in the
142
English Language Learner Study Group. Lois, Barbara and Lori’s words support this
finding:
• Worth trying! Eventually, you will click with a student. And, even if you don't or
don't know that you do, you have to have faith that at some point the student will
benefit from your time with them. (Lois)
• An extremely worthwhile endeavor that truly allows you to "see" some of our most
wonderful students that are simply hindered by their individual situations. They need
the guidance of an adult even if it doesn't seem like it or they don't ask for it.
(Barbara)
• I took the opportunity to become involved with an at risk student with special needs
because I felt competent to deal with such a student. I had realistic goals for myself. I
specifically demonstrated concern by spending time and having comfortable
discussions. Just showing admiration and appreciation to my mentee, sent her a very
positive message of her worth. (Lori)
The teachers were also asked in the June questionnaire to make suggestions for
improving the mentoring program in the following year. Two teachers, Karen and Lila,
wished that there were more guidelines from the beginning of the mentoring program:
• The beginning was a little rough. There were times when I wasn’t sure what exactly I
was supposed to be doing. What was I suppose to talk about? How would I create this
personal connection with a student? (Karen)
• Clear expectations are still in progress but the relationship you build with your
mentee is a nice one. (Lila)
143
PART IV: ANALYSIS OF TEACHER GROWTH FROM FORMAL

CLASSROOM TRAINING, STUDY GROUP MEETINGS AND MENTORING
PROGRAM
TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SOCIOCULTURAL, LINGUISTIC AND

INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS
This last major section will address the findings related to the teachers’
professional growth from participation in the English Language Learner Study Group.
The three forms of professional development were formal classroom trainings, monthly
study group meetings and participation in the mentoring program. Table 5 below
summarizes the names of the teachers, their subject areas, grade level and years of
teaching experience.
Table 5
Characteristics of Teacher Participants
Teacher Grade Content Area Years of

Name Level Teaching
Experience
Harry 7 Social Studies Student teaching
Lori 8 Special Education 15
Jackie 7 ESL 2
Lila 7 Science 3
Barbara 7 Language Arts 2
Karen 7 Mathematics 2
Lois 8 Mathematics 4
Joan 8 Language Arts 13
144
The professional growth of the teachers was analyzed by recording their
learners and of their perceptions of their classroom instructional strategies at three points
during the study:
1. BEGINNING - Prior to initiating the English language learner study group

professional development program in September.
2. MID-POINT - During the teacher interviews in December.
3. CONCLUSION - During the final teacher interviews and questionnaires in June.
The data show that all eight of the teachers found participation in the study group
substantially contributed to their professional growth.
BEGINNING:
All of the teachers were asked during the December interview the following
question: Before your participation in the study group, describe your approach to
addressing the needs of the English language learners in your classroom. The findings
from this question demonstrate the following:
• Five of the eight teachers either utilized no approach for addressing English language
learners or had never thought about the English language learners that populated their
classrooms. Those teachers included Harry, Lori, Barbara, Karen and Lois.
• Two of the teachers, Lila and Joan, identified using visuals, manipulatives and
effective content vocabulary strategies for addressing the instructional needs of
145
• Jackie, the ESL teacher, shared examples of how she integrates language objectives
along with content objectives to develop language abilities of her students. Jackie also
identified a variety of instructional strategies such as graphic organizers, visuals,
think-alouds and teaching grammar in context with the material as part of her diverse
strategy for addressing the students’ instructional needs. Both Joan and Jackie
explained numerous strategies they utilized to integrate their students’ culture into
their curriculum.
As a group, the data show that prior to the initiation of the English language
learner study group, five of the teachers did not consider any of the family, cultural or
personal issues of their English language learners. Furthermore, they did not have any
knowledge or approach for addressing their students’ linguistic needs as second language
learners and therefore focused solely on teaching the curriculum content without regard
to developing the language of their students. Also, they did not know how to help
develop their students’ language abilities in terms of comprehension of academic
concepts, or promoting more opportunities for their students to use English in terms of
interacting with their classmates or writing responses to essays.
MID-POINT:
The teachers were asked during the December interview the following question:
How would you assess your own professional growth with English language learners thus
far? The data show the following:
• Seven of the eight teachers described an example or multiple examples of an

awareness of some of the family, cultural or personal issues of English language
learners.
• Eight of eight teachers identified an awareness of these students’ struggle with the
comprehension of academic language.
146
• One of eight teachers, Lois, described a heightened awareness for the importance of
using strategies to address her students’ learning needs.
As a group, the data show that seven of the teachers developed a much richer
awareness of English language learners’ family and cultural issues. Harry, Lori, Barbara,
Karen and Lois’s awareness of these issues grew from “never thinking about it” or not
being able to mention examples about family, cultural or linguistic issues before the
program began to sharing insights into their students’ struggle in adapting to a school
culture that differs from their own. Lila summarized the feelings of the group:
• I guess the training has allowed me to see a lot more of their background and their
personal life of what’s going on outside of school and taking that into consideration
with some of them whether it be supplies that they get or the time that they have
available.
Other teachers also described an awareness of the importance of getting to know
the students’ culture and language in order to be able to better connect with their students
on a more personal level. Karen’s words illustrate the group’s feelings:
• The challenge for me is not being able to understand their language. I took a few
years of Spanish, but it wasn’t the same Spanish that’s spoken by my students. I know
zero Portuguese so I wish that I knew a little bit more of both of those languages - at
least conversational so that I would be able to, not necessarily talk to them, but
understand what it is that they are talking about so I can learn about their interests
outside of school and address those rather than just the math side.
Furthermore, all of the teachers began to demonstrate how they could see more
about the English language learners’ situation in terms of their linguistic needs. The
teachers identified how they now saw how their students struggled with the
comprehension of academic language and understanding of key academic concepts.
147
Karen explained the following:
• I hope I’ve accomplished or I’m starting to realize that it is not always a content
problem or content confusion. If the students are having trouble, it might very well be
that they don’t understand the language of the problem or the language of the
teaching or something along those lines.
CONCLUSION:
The teachers were asked during the final interviews and questionnaires in June the
following question: How have you grown professionally through participation in the
English Language Learner Study Group? The table shows that all eight of the teachers
described different examples of the sociocultural needs of English language learners.
They described a heightened awareness of students’ personal issues that some English
language learners face in terms of family responsibilities that extend well beyond home,
and how these family responsibilities affect their school performance. Barbara’s words
describe the learning from the study group:
• When the students were speaking to the fact of how their families view the
importance of academics whether it is important or whether it is not important at all,
and the whole idea that the family needs you [the ELL student] to attend to [many
responsibilities] after school or that you need to contribute to family earnings and
take care of siblings. This is the population in our school and ... many teachers in this
building have no idea their kids have to go through this.
The study group also recognized how the collaboration between the members of
the study group helped improve their instruction and address the English language
learners’ needs. Lila’s words summarize the opinion of all of the teachers of the group:
• Accessing help from other teachers and the input and different strategies from other
teachers - it’s definitely been a big thing for me this year.
148
In support of the data presented above regarding the professional growth from the
beginning of the program to the mid-point and then to the conclusion, this section
summarizes the changes in the teacher’s thought and understanding of the needs of
English language learners during the year.
Harry
Beginning • I didn’t have an approach. It was kind of feeling my way through
it. I would repeat things like what I would do basically for any of
my students. I would speak the material, write the material, and
read the material so that I knew they were at least hearing it.
• I was only worried about the content.
Mid-Point • I have taken a lot out of this group so far through the classes I
have been taking... and through actually teaching the students,
because I had a zero percent experience before.
• Even though they [the Brazilian students] are now in the U.S. they
still practice their Brazilian beliefs... we would never want to take
that away from them. It is like they are living two lives: one in
school and one out of school for some of these kids.
• I was always in those higher-level classes. I don’t know if I could
have been in those classes doing this higher level thinking in a
language that isn’t my native language.
• Now I was listening to their voices, because I wanted to hear how
they were pronouncing things and not just what they were saying.
149
Harry
Conclusion • If I hadn’t participated in this study group and a student had come
to me and said that I didn’t get my homework done because of a,
b, c then I would have seen it as an excuse. But, having gone
through this and listening to the high school students who came
down I have a different spin on it; I would ask why didn’t you do
it before you went to church. I would cut them more slack - 1
didn’t live that life. You really do have these huge commitments
after school and you are 13 or 14 and you are delivering papers for
hours because you need to help your family to make some money
or you baby-sit all night and take care of a one-year old because
your older sister and your parents are working and all the money is
pooled and that is the way it is; I wouldn’t have seen that before.
Before I would have said, “So you had to baby-sit too bad.” But it
is different for these kids, it really is different and I have come to
respect that.
• I have learned a lot about their culture. Whereas if a student came

up to me at the beginning of the year and he put his arm around
me I probably would have said, okay, this is weird, but here it is
different, you come to acknowledge it. For them there is personal
space but it is a little smaller and now that I know that it is okay
but certainly it would have bothered me if I didn’t know about it.
Lori
Beginning • I think that I have always been sympathetic or sensitive to a
student who did not speak English clearly or well, but again I’m
going to say that I probably over estimated their ability to
understand me.
Mid-Point • Now I know I need to be aware that they don’t understand.
• You have to always encourage people in discussions. You have to

encourage individuals to take part and you don’t just ask if
anybody knows the answer and get one quick one-word answers.
You have to get explanations, you are going to elicit more
in fo r m a tio n from an in d iv id u a l stu d en t, p erh a p s . . . y o u h a v e to sit
there and have them describe what it means and why.
150
Lori
Conclusion • She’s been able to understand basic elementary type words for
body parts probably since 3rd or 4th grade, but she doesn’t
[understand] about function or respiration, [they are] academic
words. She knows that lungs help you breathe, but she’s got to
learn the academic language.
Lori explained to the researcher in informal conversations prior to the

formal June interview that she learned how to reach out to other
resources in the school and in the community to help her Portuguese
speaking mentee. This is an excerpt from one quotation that
references this learning in the June interview:
• As I have told you, I feel more empowered to reach but and do

these kind of things because I have this awareness, this insight of
what’s going on with a particular student. But before I didn’t feel
comfortable reaching out to bring in the psychologist (Brazilian)
as an interpreter (for Portuguese). Now I have used two adult ESL
teachers to help me and I stayed at night to find her parents to talk
with them. I wouldn’t have had the confidence to do that without
this program and knowing that it is really my role.
151
Jackie
Beginning • Jackie skipped this question.
Mid-Point • I would say that participating in a study group certainly makes you
focus on a more regular basis on the needs of English language
learners. It is easy to become part of like a bubble when you’re
surrounded by English language learners in your classroom and
you forget. The needs become so obvious to you that when you
speak with other teachers who don’t necessarily have the same
population in the classroom you realize what you have been doing.
It is interesting to compare and to see numerous similarities even
if the student has gone to a standard mainstream classroom.. .or
even if they have grown up in a house where there is a second
language. You realize the problems they face are still relevant;
they still exist.
• It has also brought to my attention the areas where there are gaps
in learning and where the students are particularly in terms of their
level. I struggle to help them understand new concepts and
vocabulary and abstract ideas because they are at that cusp of
transitioning into mainstream environment so a lot of new things
are being thrown their way and understanding how they’re
digesting all of that while being in their first year in the
mainstream classroom setting is challenging.
• I say I learned a lot because of our additional time together. I kind

of begin to look at not just the student’s life but the whole person’s
life, the whole child’s life and what their baggage they’re bringing
to the classroom in any given day. And it could be anything that is
typical to a teenager and it could be something particular to an
English language learner or could be something particular to this
child and her experiences.
Conclusion • I think any time that you have the opportunity to meet with your
colleagues in such a thing as the world of teaching where you have
such little time to do, it is a valuable experience to reflect and to
hear other people’s experiences as they see it. In a simple way it is
m e a n in g fu l b e c a u se w e ra rely h a v e that o p p o rtu n ity.
152
Lila
Beginning • I guess before being in this I did a lot of the same techniques
(visuals, manipulatives, activating background knowledge) but I
might have not been as patient with a lot of the students. Because I
see so many students I tend to give them a chance at the beginning
and then when they turned off totally after I tried to reach out to
them, I use to tend to say (to myself), they just don’t want to do it.
Mid-Point • And I guess the training has allowed me to see a lot more of their
background and their personal life of what’s going on outside of
school and taking that into consideration with some of them
whether it be supplies that they get or the time that they have
available.
• So that’s definitely a good challenge for me to take into

consideration that there are different words and they might mean
different things to these students.
Conclusion • I definitely use more strategies for each unit and learning concept.
It is not just the visuals, but putting them into pair groups and
having them have time to meet as pair groups in order to discuss
and process the information.
• Accessing help from other teachers and input from other teachers
and different strategies from other teachers it’s definitely been a
big thing for me this year.
Barbara
Beginning • I really didn’t have a strategy. I was new to a school that’s so
diversified. I didn’t have ELL students in my class because I had
the ones that were out of the levels of ESL. It was my
understanding that if they were out of that [ESL program], then
they were good to go ... and so I never thought there would still be
a thing that they wouldn’t understand or not comprehend.
153
Barbara
Mid-Point • I needed to work with them [English language learners] right away
and ask a lot of help from Jackie [ESL teacher]. I checked in with
her because we shared the same students.
• It was only at the point from the pressure with all the courses,
[that] I realized there can still be gaps in understanding, gaps in
learning and things might not be acquired as quickfly]. It is quite
an eye opening experience because last year going through this, I
was, why would I need to know this, I don’t have these students,
but it’s really being a part of the school where you have such
diverse learners in all the classrooms. It has helped me incredibly
in understanding each of my students.
• I’ve learned I pointed out everything I needed to relate to the
student to understand to make sure that their needs were being met
in my classroom.
• I always love the diversity so much better than being kind of a
cookie cutter class. I thought, here is diversity in my classroom,
this is what I like, so I really embraced all the aspects of it but I
don’t settle for things so easily so I started to see there is plenty
that I have to learn.
154
Barbara
Conclusion • When the students were speaking to the fact of how their families
view the importance of academics whether it is important or
whether it is not important at all, and the whole idea that the
family needs you [the ELL student] to attend to [many
responsibilities] after school or that you need to contribute to
family earnings and take care of siblings. This is the population in
our school and ... many teachers in this building have no idea their
kids have to go through this.
• You don’t like to think about the bad home lives you like to think
of kids who go home and mom has a snack on the table for them.
So going to the students I have who have these home lives, when
they get home they are expected to take care of their siblings or
their cousins and they’re expected to go to doctor appointments
during the day with their mother whether it is just to translate. It is
just an amazing responsibility they have and then to have to come
the next day and listen to their teachers talk very fast and throw
out these unbelievablely difficult vocabulary words and hold the
same expectations as the kid who goes home and absolutely loves
to eat the science book every night. Or [the kid who] has a parent
who is a biologist, [and] the kid has a leg up on everyone else so
they [Ell students] have to compete with these kids and they are
held to the same expectations. It’s unbelievable the stress that they
must feel coming into this classroom environment.. .In that respect
I will say that my teaching strategies have certainly changed as
I’ve learned more about what it is like for them to be in a
classroom.
• And being with a more diverse classroom ... not taking any
knowledge for granted, and I think that’s for the benefit of
everyone in the classroom because they are getting all of it and not
getting pieces of it, a lot of previewing information, setting up so
we can all start on the same page. Probably one student is going to
know more because maybe he goes home and reads all sorts of
things every night but we all start from the same jumping point. So
it’s a lot of previewing information, previewing vocabulary, let’s
look at our agenda now, today we are doing this, tomorrow we’re
going to hope to be here, let’s all try to get to that point and I
remind them all the time, stop me please if you have any
questions... so there’s no much hesitation when it comes to raising
their hands and saying I don’t get it. So making sure that everyone
is there kind of traveling together is important.
155
Karen
Beginning • Before my participation, I don’t know if I ever really thought
specifically about it, so I wasn’t really doing anything specific. I
kind of worked with them as if they were all understanding the
material, which was probably a misunderstanding on my part...
Mid-Point • I’m starting to realize that it is not always a content problem or
content confusion. If the students are having trouble, it might very
well be that they don’t understand the language of the problem or
the language of the teaching or something along those lines.
• My tests are not very wordy; there are word problems but there are
not unnecessary sentences and run-on type paragraphs that they
need to sort through in order to figure out what it is testing them
on. I’m very careful with that; I think that it is important that the
students are tested at least in math on their math and not
necessarily on their English reading ability.
• One challenge for me is not understanding their language - their

native language. I took a few years of Spanish but it wasn’t the
same Spanish that is spoken by my students. I know zero
Portuguese so I wish that I knew a little bit more of both of those
languages - at least conversational so that I would be able to, not
necessarily talk to them, but understand what it is that they are
talking about so I can learn about their interests outside of school
and address those rather than just the math side of them.
Conclusion • I am definitely more aware of the responsibilities that face these
students, not only that the students face or have not only at school
but at home. And I think back when I was in middle school - 1 had
a younger brother, but I wasn’t responsible for feeding him or
dressing him or changing him or watching him to the extent of
Ronaldo is.
• A different student came to me and she was very concerned about

her grades and couldn’t fail. Her parents were going through a
divorce right now so things are very rough at home. She wanted to
g e t the work d o n e , but d id n ’t r e a lly k n o w w h e r e to start. So I
approached my team and said can we put together a plan for her
and pick the most critical assignments for her to get done so that
she passes 7th grade with decent grades.. .and so we sort of
minimized the number of assignments but picked the most
important, so it would be a reasonable goal.
156
Lois
Beginning • I don’t know if I did anything in particular. Unless I was prompted
by a student, in other words I was so ignorant to what it would be
like if you were sitting in that desk and didn’t know what the
teacher was talking about. I really didn’t know how to modify what
I was doing.
Mid-Point • I would characterize it as being more aware. I’m highly aware, but I
would not say I’m highly effective yet. I think I’m a long way from
that. I think the most important thing is that 95% of the problem is
solved by that I know I have a problem and now I need to really
learn the strategies and start practicing and using strategies to close
the gap.
• Linguistically responsive might be in trying to recognize and
explain any idioms that get used and I think the trick there is to
even recognize that you’re using them or saying them because they
are so much a part of the way you think that you don’t even
sometimes realize that you are using them.
Conclusion • I think it is awareness. I wish it was more than that but ... I’ve been
given some ideas and things to do and I’ve used some of them but
they are not really part of what I do every day. I definitely have the
awareness and I have some ideas and I’ve started to use a few
things, but it’s not part of what I do everyday.
Joan
Beginning • The way I would bring in culture is through my literature units and
I tend to try, at the very beginning of the year, to get a sense of
where every student is coming from and their back rounds. It’s
called the Culture Gram and it’s almost like, tell me about your
stuff, about your background in that way I can get a sense of
where kids are coming from, and from what countries outside of
the U.S.
• I think it is very important that kids feel that they are coming to a
safe environment. That their culture and their background is
important, that they have something to share so they are not seen
as the outsider in the classroom because they may not be coming
fro m th e sa m e p e r sp e c tiv e as o th er kids cu ltu ra lly .
157
Joan
Mid-Point • These ESL fives [advanced English language learners] - these
kids have been here for a little bit and they do have a pretty good
grasp in the language but the idioms, their background knowledge
and experiences are limited.. .it was just telling linguistically
where they are at because I’11 say something to the kids and I
assume everybody knows that because it is ... a popular culture
reference but it will get lost.
• So learning where these kids are coming from and I think that one
thing that really informs me was just learning about some of the
struggles and challenges these kids go through in a daily basis.
Their status in this country. For some people it is so uncertain, so
they don’t feel that they are invested in this country because this
country hasn’t invested in them. So they feel like they are one foot
out the door whether it be on their own conditions or whether
someone is going to tell them that they are going to have to leave
this country forever. It makes it very challenging for them.
Conclusion • I’m very flexible with grouping and I let kids choose their own
partners and it seems all the ESL kids tend to group up with each
other but there are times when I would mix kids up because I think
it’s powerful that ESL kids not always be together that they be
with other mainstream kids and just break through that
uncomfortableness. I tell them you’re not always going to be with
kids that you don’t tend to want to work with and this is another
way to learn from other people and ... that’s been really
successful.
• I’ve been a little more flexible, a little more lenient in terms of the
kind of pacing I expect when I assign projects I don’t always have
that kid who can get it done in two days in mind anymore. My
assessments are differentiated enough so every child can still get
an “A” depending on what it is they produce as long as they can
master the outcomes.
• I would say just getting together with other people in the building
who are also mentoring (has been helpful). It’s a nice atmosphere
where we all talk about our successes, and some of the frustrations
and so forth.. .Growing professionally I think it is more about sort
of changing some of the teaching strategies to accommodate some
of the language barriers just to compensate for the language
barriers by doing more vocabulary enrichment, building
background information, bringing guest speakers, using visuals-
things like that.
158
The previous table of quotations from the eight teachers clearly demonstrates a
noticeable change in the teachers’ understanding of the family, personal and cultural
issues that influence English language learners. For example, all of the teachers described
how they understand how some English language learners have many family
responsibilities that may interfere with their homework and performance in school. Also,
there are numerous examples of how the teachers have developed a deeper understanding
of some of the linguistic issues for their learners; the teachers understand the students’
challenge o f comprehending academic language and content vocabulary. The teachers
also recognized the presence of learning gaps that result as partly a consequence of
students’ different cultural backgrounds and varying general background knowledge.
The teachers also demonstrated an improved awareness for the instructional needs of the
students; they explained how they try to speak slower and emphasize key concepts using
different instructional strategies such as visuals, and graphic organizers to present new
information. Also, they utilize strategies such as activate background knowledge and
preview vocabulary before they begin a new lesson or a new unit. Furthermore, the
teachers described the importance of trying to integrate the students’ culture into their
teaching.
159
TEACHERS’ SELF-SELECTED PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL

GROWTH
Another set of findings was based on data collected from the teacher’s self
selected experience level teaching English language learners. The teachers were asked the
following question below and then the teachers were asked the same question again
during the final interview in June. The findings are presented in the form of a narrative
and supported with Table 12 and corresponding bar graph in Figure 1.
Before your participation in the study group began, describe your experience level
teaching English language learners. Use this scale to help frame your response.
4 3 2 1
I am very I am experienced I have some I have little or no
experienced teaching teaching English experience teaching experience teaching
English language language learners; I English language English language
learners; I have a rich have a fair learners. I have a learners. I am not
understanding o f understanding o f basic understanding aware o f specific
their linguistic and their linguistic and o f their linguistic and linguistic and
instructional needs instructional needs instructional needs instructional needs
and I frequently use a and I sometimes use and I once in a while and I am not aware
repertoire o f strategies to address use strategies that o f the strategies that
strategies to address their learning needs. address their learning address their learning
their learning needs. needs. needs.
The data from this question include the following:
• All seven of the teachers (excluding the ESL teacher) choose in the “2” range at the
start of the English language learner study group:
“I have some experience teaching English language learners.

I have a basic understanding of their linguistic and instructional needs, and
I once in a while use strategies that address their learning needs.”
• All seven of the teachers (excluding the ESL teacher) choose between the “mid 2” to
the “low 3” at the end of the study group in June:
“I am experienced teaching English language learners.

I have a fair understanding of their linguistic and instructional needs, and
I sometimes use strategies that address their learning needs.”
160
Table 12
Teachers’ self-selected experience level teaching English language learners
Teacher Name September June Net Gain (Loss)

Harry 2.00 “ 3.20 1.20
Lori 2.00 3.00 1.00
Jackie 4.00 4.00 0.00
Lila 2.50 3.00 0.50
Barbara 2.00 2.50 0.50
Karen 2.20 2.80 0.60
Lois 2.00 2.50 0.30
Joan 2.00 3.00 1.00
All 8 teachers: 2.36 3.00 0.66
Figure 1
English Language Learner Study Group: Teacher Professional

Growth September to June
4.00 r*
3.50 j-i
3.00 i
2.50 'j
Experience Level 2.00 A.
■ Teacher Experience Level with
Ells - September
1 .50 r* : i
1.00 f ■ Teacher Experience Level with

0.50 k E lls -J u n e
o.oo
Teachers
The information from Table 12 and the corresponding bar graph in Figure 1
indicate that three of the seven teachers increased their experience level by at least one
unit on the scale during the program. The four other teachers increased by at least one
161
half of one unit. This increase in experience level can be characterized as professional
growth.
To connect the raw numbers from the data table to the individual participants
thought process for self-selecting a particular experience level, the following presents the
thinking of each of the teachers regarding this question about professional growth.
At the start o f the program, Harry, Barbara, and Lisa indicated that they had little
experience with English language learners, but that they had learned introductory
information about linguistic and instructional needs through previous course work in
college or in graduate school. In the words of Harry:
• I really haven’t had much experience teaching English language learners, but I have a
basic understanding of linguistic and instructional needs that I learned taking classes
on different things throughout my education. Just different strategies and stuff that
showed me or taught me how to teach different learners and I think you can
categorize the second language learners in that category.
Lori, Lila, Lois and Joan all indicated they had lot of experience teaching English
language learners, but they had a basic understanding of linguistic and instructional
needs. Lois explained the following:
• I think I’m a two but a very low two. I certainly have experience teaching English
language learners - even in North Carolina I got them, but there was no support at all
with regard to how to approach a student, no classroom support, no outside support,
and the students had very little support also. So I didn’t learn anything or grow there.
Here I would say that just listening to other teachers even before I was in this
program I got a sense for what you need to do and especially talking even casually
with some of the Ell teachers I got an idea of how best to work with students, not that
it was sort of a program but I just got ideas.
At the end of the study group in June, all the teachers were asked again the same
question. Barbara explained the following:
162
• I think I am between a 2 and a 3 and I have some experience I do know after a year.
And I know a year is enough to say that I am experienced because in this one year I
have learned more information than I thought there was on the topic of English
language learners and I find language acquisition absolutely fascinating so I have
learned a lot but it’s those situations where I keep learning more then I look back as I
learn more and say that the year was nothing in comparison to what’s possible. Over
the year, I have learned an extensive amount, but not as much as I’m sure that’s out
there.
Lori shared:
• Maybe a 3, I’m using strategies, but I don’t think that I have a vast repertoire of
strategies at hand yet.
While Karen added:

• I’ll say probably a 3. I don’t think I have a rich understanding of linguistic and
instructional needs. I think I’m getting there in terms of understanding but translating
that into the classroom has been the challenge for me. I try to be accommodating
whether it’s speaking slowly or extending a deadline or paying attention to their body
language in the classroom.. .so definitely a 3.
However, Joan and Lois were less sure of the final assessment of their own professional
growth as indicated by their scores and responses. Joan explained:
• I would probably say that I’m somewhere in the 3 area, but sometimes I feel like I’m
in the 2 area because I feel I have a good grasp on how these kids learn and what’s
going to make them successful, but sometimes I beat myself up for the fact that if
that’s the case and I’m doing a good job why aren’t they successful? Why aren’t they
getting A’s? Why don’t they care? Why aren’t they motivated? Why aren’t they
working hard? So I get frustrated. Is it me or is it something I’m not doing right? If I
change my ways will they be more successful? So I tend to doubt myself and the way
I teach but I have to understand there are other motivating factors, and sometimes it’s
out o f my control.
Lois shared:
• I think it is awareness. I wish it was more than that b u t... I’ve been given some ideas
and things to do and I’ve used some of them but they are not really part of what I do
every day. I definitely have the awareness and I have some ideas and I’ve started to
use a few things, but it’s not part of what I do everyday.
16 3
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE AND

INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Another set of data analyzed the change in the teachers’ perceptions of their
instructional practice from having participated in the English Language Learner Study
Group. The teachers were asked a series of questions during the December interviews.
• How would you describe a classroom that is culturally and linguistically responsive to
the needs o f students?
• What are the strategies or actions that a teacher can take to lead to English language
learners taking more responsibility for their own learning and academic achievement?
• What instructional strategies would you advise a new teacher to consider if they were
going to take over your classroom with English language learners for an extended
period of time?
• A summary of the research for raising the academic achievement for English
language learners recommends several instructional strategies. If you use one or more
of these strategies (listed below), could you describe with an example(s) how you
utilize it and describe how it helps increase the student’s academic achievement?
a) Activating prior knowledge that students have about a topic, lesson or unit
before teaching the new material and building the students’ background
knowledge.
b) Utilizing strategies for teaching content vocabulary and academic language.
c) Making concepts more easily understood for the learner with real objects,
manipulatives, visuals, and graphic organizers.
d) Utilizing specific grouping strategies for organizing planned opportunities for
interactions between all individuals in the classroom.
e) Helping students perceive the relationship of the content material from parts
to wholes, providing the tools to help them make explicit connections between
subject areas and between school life and home life. (Knapp, Shields, &
Turnbull, 1995)
164
The data showed the following:
• Six of the eight teachers indicated that they use visuals in a classroom with English
language learners.
• Five of the eight teachers described the importance of speaking slower, rephrasing,
and repeating important words and concepts in order to increase the comprehension
for English language learners.
• Six of the eight teachers indicated that they activate prior knowledge that students
have about a topic, lesson or unit before teaching the new material and they build the
students’ background knowledge.
• Six of the eight teachers indicated they were accustomed utilizing strategies for
teaching content vocabulary and academic language. Joan, the thirteen-year veteran
language arts teacher and Jackie, the ESL teacher gave examples of effective
vocabulary instruction. The other four teachers explained more traditional methods
for teaching vocabulary.
• Seven of the eight teachers indicated that they make concepts more easily understood
for the learner with real objects, manipulatives, visuals, and graphic organizers.
• Five of the eight teachers indicated that they utilize specific grouping strategies for
organizing planned opportunities for interactions between all individuals in the
classroom. All five of these teachers described that they pair students up to improve
the students’ learning.
In the words of Harry:
• I think it is important to teach differently for every student. Like using big visuals if
you are going to do notes; do notes out loud and do them on the overhead and use
pictures that can go with the notes because we have different types of learners and
English language learners might be able to put a picture together better than they can
put the words together.
Jackie, the ESL teacher explained:
• I don’t mean to say you slow things down to a point you’re delaying learning and
students are ready to go on, but to be aware of how fast you are going because they
need to synthesize material.. .literally they are translating with their mind and
understanding concepts that perhaps they already understand but learning them in a
165
new language or being able to explain in a new language will take that extra stuff. So
being aware of how fast you’re going and being aware that sometimes it’s ok to slow
down, to spend more time on something because.. .getting the bigger idea is more
important than I say focusing so much on detail. Because at the end of the day,
whether the student is an English language learner or not, most people can hang on to
the big idea as compared to the details.
Also, Lila, a science teacher added:
• I use a lot of visuals and it is definitely (important) to use a lot of rephrasing of

examples most especially for these students because the more repetitive you are, the
more they are going to understand things that you are talking about and saying. So
teaching a lot of different ways, whether its hands-on, visuals or just lecturing - have
them read it.
Karen, a math teacher described a couple of examples for activating background

knowledge:
• In terms of activating a student’s prior knowledge I do a couple of things, almost

every day we’ll do a warm-up problem which will be a very simple but a
comprehensive review of what they did the day before, the week before, last year -
whatever the case in order to get them going, get the gears turning and get them ready
to work on the new concept.
• The students were working with probability and finding the chances of something
happening and a student came up to me and she said she couldn’t do the section of the
packet because she didn’t know the American deck of cards. She said that she only
knew the Spanish deck o f cards. So I said, “Ok, well I don’t know anything about the
Spanish deck of cards.” So we actually had a five minute minilesson on the American
deck of cards... It was fascinating because never in my dreams would I have imagined
that, that would be the issue behind this very bright student, not being able to
complete these questions.
Lois, another math teacher added the following about activating prior knowledge:
• So if a student has been here at Nations Middle School and I know how the subject
was previously introduced and taught I try to use that again, maybe not exclusively
but I bring that out so they can say, “I know what you’re talking.”
Jackie shared:
• I might create a KWL chart [a graphic organizer that helps the teacher clarify with
students what they know about a subject, what they would like to know and what they
166
have learned at the end of a lesson], or do a pre reading or pre-unit assessment, where
the students are given certain statements and they must make an assessment of
something that is true or false based on their prior knowledge and at the end of the
unit we return to that same check list to see how much was actually correct and how
much was not. And we have a discussion surrounding what they may have learned to
be true...And going back to the KWL chart, just listing anything, any kind of
vocabulary word, any kind of experience, any kind of idea that they had or thought or
program they’ve watched that has to do with the subject. For example, we did that
with Australia where they actually went though and wrote down anything that they
could think related to Australia and I think we had over 60 or 70 things beginning the
unit for 7th graders.
Joan shared an example involving the pre-teaching she does when she introduces
the Lord of the Flies:
• I tend to do a lot of pre-teaching, a lot of pre-teaching concepts and vocabulary, I give

them a historical and geographical background on World War II and the geography of
where these kids come from in England and where they might be going, where this
island is.
Joan explained the following in her instruction:
• I teach an entire unit around word-solving strategies. We review and learn Latin root
words, prefixes, suffixes, synonyms and antonyms and then use these tools
throughout the year in building our vocabulary as we read novels and tackle new
words.
Jackie described:
• I try to help the students make relationships between words. We define words and
connect them to synonyms and antonyms. It is much easier for kids to hang on to
words with these strategies.
Harry described some of the techniques he uses for vocabulary instruction.
• We do a ton of vocab in social studies. Anything from looking the words up on the
back of the book and writing them on the board, to having kids do flash cards, to I
will put an overhead up, to a whole bunch of various ways of doing vocab; there is so
much to it that you need to do what you can when you can because if you use the
same routine it will get old and boring after a while.
167
Lori, the Special Education teacher described how she tries to make concepts more easily
understood for the learner with graphic organizers:
• We definitely [use] graphic organizers when we are trying to do language arts. We

need to go over all the time because of the order of words and sentence structure are
different from their native language. I noticed that with a Portuguese speaker
yesterday, she had to do two or three paragraphs and we put it into a graphic
organizer form. And we told her this is where you put the topic statement and not add
extra thoughts all in one sentence.
One teacher, Lila, described how she utilizes group strategies to improve learning
and to integrate English language learners with other students in the class.
• And most of those (activities) are done with pair groupings so that they can better
understand things. They can learn from their pairs. I do try to split up a lot the English
language learners so that they are with learners of their same age, but from a different
background or different level of learning, so that they can learn from each other. I
find that a lot of the English Language Learners tend to navigate towards each other
and then have difficulty making friendships outside of their immediate group so by
pairing them into different groups they meet new people and they find out they have
things in common with other people.
A summary o f the data from the December interviews indicate that over half of
the teachers were able to describe how they activate students’ prior knowledge before
teaching a lesson or a unit and make concepts more easily understood for their students
using manipulatives, visuals, and/or graphic organizers. However, only two of the
teachers - Joan, the experienced language arts teacher and Jackie, the ESL teachers were
able to identify and describe the strategies for teaching content vocabulary. None of the
teachers described strategies or examples in their practice for teaching academic language
except Jackie.
During the final interview and final questionnaire in June the researcher analyzed
the teachers’ responses to describe how the English Language Learner Study Group
168
professional development program informed the teachers’ instructional practice as
compared to their responses in the December interviews. The researcher found that each
teacher’s instructional practice was uniquely informed by participation in the professional
development. Table 13 summarizes the findings by teacher in the table below.
The data indicated that all eight teachers’ perceptions in their instructional
practice were informed by participation in the English Language Learner Study Group.
However, these instructional changes were not what the researcher had intended at the
start of the professional development program. The researcher had hoped to introduce a
set of effective instructional strategies targeting English language learners that included
the following:
• Activating prior knowledge and building students’ background knowledge

before teaching a lesson or unit.
• Utilizing effective strategies for teaching content vocabulary and academic

language.
• Making concepts more easily understood for the learner with real objects,
• Utilizing specific grouping strategies and cooperative learning for

organizing planned opportunities for interactions between all individuals
in the classroom and Helping students perceive the relationship of the
content material from parts to wholes, providing the tools to help them
make explicit connections between subject areas and between school life
and home life.
However, these instructional strategies were not discussed during the formal classroom
trainings nor during the monthly study group meetings, and as a result, there was limited
data collected regarding the teachers’ use of these strategies.
169
Table 13
The extent to which participation in the English Language Learner Study Group informed
the teachers’ perceptions of their instructional practice
Teacher New Learning(s) for Evidence of New Learning(s) for Instructional

Instructional Practice
Practice
Harry • Allow students to • I wasn’t sure if I should allow students to
use native speak Spanish or Portuguese in the beginning,
language and but now if a student doesn’t know a word in
assist each other. English, I will ask if he knows it Spanish and
I will allow it as a response. Because it shows
that the student understands the concept even
if he does not have the word in English.
Lori • Revised • Elicits more information from students by

questioning giving students more time to develop their
strategies. answer and helping students extend their
answer beyond one-word replies.
Jackie • Developed more • Utilizes different strategies for helping

acute students understand new concepts, abstract
understanding of ideas and vocabulary necessary to be
learning gaps that successful in mainstream content classes.
English language
learners face in
mainstream
content classes.
170
Teacher New Learning(s) for Evidence of New Learning(s) for Instructional

Practice
Lila • Practice more • Lila explained that she used to try to help
patience with students and if they “turned o ff’ then she
students would stop reaching out and rationalize that
they just didn’t want to do the work. As a
result of the training, she has more patience
and understanding and tries to use different
strategies to try to help them make
connections and not give up.
• Use of different • I definitely use more strategies for each unit.

grouping It is not just the visuals, but putting them into
strategies to pair groups and having them have time to
promote more meet as pair groups in order to discuss and
classroom process the information.
discussion.
• Also, I am accessing help from other teachers
• Collaborating and input from other teachers and different
with other strategies from other teachers. It’s definitely
teachers. been a big thing for me this year. For
example, whether it is asking Jackie about
things that she might have taught so that this
way I can sort of make a connection for them
or asking her to come up with little concept
games and things like that to help the
students to learn, to make it a little more fun.
So I think hopefully that’s going to make me
a better teacher in the future.
Barbara • Previewing • By the end of the professional development,

vocabulary and Barbara explained that she now previews
previewing vocabulary and content material before she
content. begins a new lesson or a new unit.
• Slow down • I remind them all the time, stop me please if

teacher talk, use you have any questions.. .so there’s no
of rephrasing and hesitation when it comes to raising their hands
questioning to and saying I don’t get it. So making sure that
increase student everyone is ... traveling together.
comprehension.
171
T eacher New Learning(s) for Evidence of New Learning(s) for Instructional

Practice
Karen • More flexible • In the classroom, I try to be sensitive of that
with projects and and work with them to get their work done
homework but maybe a day or two late in a timely
deadlines manner though. And talking with my
teammates they’ve been also very
accommodating of a few of these students.
• Revised • I changed my homework grading criteria or
homework policy. Once I started collecting homework I
strategy saw a lot more effort going into the
homework. So it’s something definitely I’m
going to keep up for next year.
• Karen explained that when she writes her

• Revised tests, she makes sure that “there are not
language and unnecessary sentences and run-on type
sentence paragraphs that they (the students) need to
complexity for sort through in order to figure out what it is
tests. [that I am] testing them on.”
Lois • Incorporates • I try to formulate examples and write

students’ culture problems with their culture in mind.
into class
activities.
• Considers • With regards to assessments, I’m always

possible student looking on how an English language learner
confusion due to may interpret a problem. I’m not saying I’m
language or good at it yet and that I catch all of the
culture when misinterpretations because I think I don’t yet.
writing But, what I do anyway is when they are
assessments. taking assessments and working alone I try to
stop by and look over the shoulder and see if
I can catch a misinterpretation and
specifically ask is there anything I can
explain and of course I’m more than happy
when they ask me to explain.
172
Lois • Allows students • And in the classroom I’m very open to allow
to use native them to interpret for each other, to help each
language and other, in English or in their own language
assist each other. whatever that is fine. They are very
comfortable doing that.
• Recognizes that • I think I’m a long way from that [using

she needs to effective strategies].. .1 need to really learn
learn, practice the strategies and start practicing and using
and eventually strategies to close the gap.
utilize effective
strategies for
teaching English
language
learners.
Joan • Encourage more • There are some times when I’m very flexible
flexible with grouping and I let kids choose their own
groupings partners... I think it’s powerful that ESL kids
between English not always be together that they be with other
language learners mainstream kids and just break through that
and other uncomfortableness....so that’s been really
students. successful.
• Slow down • I think in terms of assessments too I’ve been

pacing; more a little more flexible a little more lenient in
time given for terms of the kind of pacing I expect when I
students to assign projects. I don’t always have that kid
complete who can get it (the project) done in two days
projects. in mind anymore.
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
This case study focused on the development of a teacher professional
development program called the English Language Learner Study Group. The
professional development was comprised of formal classroom training, monthly study
group meetings and a mentoring program for English language learners. This professional
development program was designed specifically to improve teachers’ understanding of
1 73
the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners and
positively impact the teachers’ perceptions of their instructional practice for English
language learners. The findings that emerged from the data collected through the teacher
interviews, teacher questionnaires and researcher field notes suggest that the professional
development dramatically improved the teachers’ understanding of the needs of English
language learners and contributed to the teachers’ professional growth as educators. This
section will discuss the findings as they relate to each of the research questions.


instruction?
The findings are broken into three major parts. Part I includes the summary of
findings that analyze individually each dimension of the professional development. Part
II includes the summary of findings that analyzes the three-dimensional professional
development as one entity - the English Language Learner Study Group and its effect on
promoting teacher professional growth. Part III includes two other findings that emerged
as a result of the study. The first was “time” and how it played a major factor in
constraining the effectiveness of the professional development program. The second
finding was the power of students’ voices in influencing teacher understanding of the
174
PART I: DIMENSIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER STUDY

GROUP PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
FORMAL CLASSROOM TRAINING
Formal classroom training was divided into two courses. The findings from the
first course entitled Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching suggest that
the workshop improved all seven teachers’ general level of understanding of the
sociocultural and linguistic needs. Regarding the linguistic needs, the course improved
the teachers’ knowledge about second language acquisition and helped them see the
importance of allowing students to use their native language in the classroom. With
respect to the sociocultural needs, the teachers gained an understanding of some of the
students’ cultures, home lives, social norms and family backgrounds. However, the
course minimally changed the teachers’ understanding of the students’ instructional
needs. With respect to the second research question, this first course minimally
influenced the teachers’ perceptions of their instructional practice. Only two teachers
reported specific examples of how the training influenced their instructional practice.
The second course was entitled Assessment of Speaking and Listening Skills of
English Language Learners. The findings show that this workshop improved the
teachers’ understanding of the linguistic needs of English language learners. The
teachers indicated a keener awareness of the students’ struggle with comprehension and
helped them pay closer attention to their students’ speaking and pronunciation. There
was very little data that showed that this course altered the teachers’ understanding of
the students’ instructional or sociocultural needs. Regarding the second research
question, this course dramatically informed the teachers’ perceptions of their
175
instructional practice. The teachers reported a greater awareness of the language they
used as part of their teacher talk including the questions, vocabulary, use of idioms and
pronunciation that they utilized in class as a result of the learnings from this course.
They also demonstrated a deeper understanding of English language learners’ struggle
with comprehension of readings and class discussions in mainstream classrooms.
MONTHLY STUDY GROUP MEETINGS
A second dimension to the professional development program was the monthly
study group meetings. The findings from these one-hour meetings suggest the following:
The teachers’ interest in learning more about the students’ sociocultural needs - their
lives, home cultures and family responsibilities dominated the study group discussion in
the monthly meetings. However, there was very little data that showed that the teachers
acquired a deeper understanding of the linguistic or instructional needs of students.
Another finding from the study group meetings was that these meetings evolved
into a support mechanism for the mentoring program - the third dimension of the
professional development program. The September and October meetings introduced the
mentoring program, organized matches between mentors and mentees and provided
strategies to help the teacher mentors work with their mentees. Portions of the November,
January and April meetings provided the teachers opportunities to report on their progress
with their mentee and ask for support from the other teachers and group leader for
suggestions on how to overcome roadblocks or challenges with their mentoring
relationship. With respect to the second research question, the study group meetings did
176
not appear to influence or alter the teachers’ perceptions of their instructional practice.
While the researcher had planned to introduce topics around pedagogy for culturally
relevant teaching, sheltered instruction and vocabulary instruction, these discussions did
not take place due to the limited time of the one-hour after school meetings.
MENTORING PROGRAM
The third dimension of the professional development program was the mentoring
program. Each teacher served as a mentor for one of the English language learners during
the school year. The findings suggest that all teachers developed an increased
understanding of the sociocultural needs of the students. The teachers and mentees both
described how the main subject of conversation between them centered on the mentee’s
progress towards academic and non-academic goals, grades, and personal life, friends and
family issues. Through these conversations, the teachers learned about the mentee’s life,
family and family culture. There was little data that showed that the mentoring program
helped the teachers acquire a richer understanding of the instructional or linguistic needs
of English language learners. Regarding the second research question, there was little
data that illustrated how the participation in the mentoring program improved or changed
the teachers’ perceptions of their instructional practice.
Aside from the data that addressed the two research questions, there was
substantial data that supported two other important findings regarding the mentoring
program. The first finding was that the mentors and mentees developed trusting
177
relationships and the mentees believed that they could depend on their mentor to help
them not only as a teacher, but also as an advocate.
A second finding was that all of the mentors strongly recommended participation
in the mentoring program to other teachers because of the learning and increased
understanding of the students’ personal, family and home lives.
PART II: PROFESSIONAL GROWTH OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER

STUDY GROUP
The findings show that all of the teachers developed a much richer awareness of
English language learners’ sociocultural needs - their students’ family and cultural
issues, linguistic needs and instructional needs. As a group, the data show that prior to the
initiation of the English Language Learner Study Group, five of the teachers did not
consider any of the family, cultural or personal issues of their English language learners.
Through participation in the English Language Learner Study Group, the teachers learned
the importance of becoming more familiar with the students’ cultures and native language
as a means to better connect with these students. Furthermore, the teachers gained a more
heightened awareness of how some English language learner’s family responsibilities
such as earning money, translating for their parents at doctors appointments and caring
for younger siblings at home affect students’ school performance.
Another finding was that the teachers described a deeper understanding of the
students’ linguistic and instructional needs. Before the English Language Learner study
group began, five of the eight teachers reported that they did not have any knowledge or
approach for addressing their students’ linguistic needs as second language learners and
178
they focused solely on teaching the curriculum content without regard to developing the
language of their students. Participation in the study group helped these teachers
understand the students’ challenges with the comprehension of academic language and
academic concepts. Regarding the instructional needs, the teachers shared how
participating in the study group helped them decide to extend project deadlines or accept
late homework based on individual students’ circumstances and family responsibilities.
Also, the teachers explained how they learned that many English language learners need
projects or assignments broken down into smaller chunks to make them more manageable
and more easily understood to complete.
The researcher had hoped to introduce a set of effective instructional strategies for
English language learners that included the following:


language.

organizing planned opportunities for interactions between all individuals in
the classroom.
• Helping students perceive the relationship of the content material from

parts to wholes, providing the tools to help them make explicit connections
between subject areas and between school life and home life.
However, these instructional strategies were not discussed during the formal class
training nor during the monthly study group meetings for two reasons. First, the two
workshops were introductory classes and while they both connected instruction with the
179
topics in each course, neither class’s purpose was to focus squarely on effective
instructional strategies for enriching curriculum content. The second reason was that most
of the time available during the one-hour study group meetings was spent discussing the
teachers’ issues related to the mentoring program and their individual mentees.
PART III: OTHER SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS
There were two other significant findings from the case study. Both of these
findings were unexpected and are discussed below.
ISSUE OF TIME
One unexpected finding that did not specifically relate to the two research
questions was the issue of time and how it emerged as an important factor in constraining
the effectiveness of the professional development program. The monthly study group
meetings were originally designed to support the mentoring program by providing the
teachers opportunities to share about the progress with their mentees. The monthly study
group meetings also were planned with the intention of introducing modules of the
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) to inform teachers about specific
instructional strategies designed to increase the academic achievement and language
abilities of English language learners. However, the one-hour meeting never was long
enough to provide the time to engage in this discussion about instruction.
As the researcher reviewed his field notes it was apparent that the teachers
repeatedly cited that time was a major constraint. They explained that there was not
enough time to meet with other mentors to discuss instructional strategies or to complete
180
the required work for the professional development courses. Also, the teachers’ numerous
after school responsibilities made it difficult for them to develop sound relationships with
their mentees; five of the eight mentors were unable to meet the three hours a month of
mentor-mentee meeting time that was recommended at the start of the program.
Finally, the formal classroom training courses were also affected by time. Both
courses required follow-up assignments designed to encourage teachers to apply the skills
and knowledge they had learned in the courses into their actual classroom practice. While
all of the teachers did complete the assignments, there was no built in time to debrief and
reflect as a group about the learning that took place from the course project work.
THE POWER OF STUDENT VOICE IN INFLUENCING TEACHER

UNDERSTANDING
The second unexpected finding was how panel discussions involving high school
English language learners dramatically enriched the teachers’ understanding of the
challenges that many English language learners face in schools. Three Nations High
School students shared their personal histories and school experiences with all of the
teachers in the January meeting and with both the teachers and the mentees during the
April meeting. The data from these two meetings showed how all eight teachers gained
an appreciation for the challenges that some English language learners face in terms of
their family responsibilities, challenges in comprehending academic content and learning
how to figure out the system of United States schooling. In addition to the data collected
immediately following these two meetings, the teachers referred to the learning in these
two meetings also at the end of the study during the final interviews and final
181
questionnaires. The researcher concluded that there was something so powerful, authentic
and honest about the high school students’ words that the learning and reflection from
these two meetings seemed to be ingrained in the teachers’ minds and continue to
influence their instruction and how they perceive English language learners.
CONCLUSION
The data presented in this chapter will be used to address the research questions of
this study. The following chapter will present a more thorough summary of the data, with
a discussion of the research literature from Chapter Two. In addition, implications on the
researcher’s leadership practice and suggestions for future study will be discussed.
182
Chapter 5
Summary, Discussion, and Implications
INTRODUCTION
This final chapter is divided into six major sections that analyze and extend the
findings presented in Chapter Four. The findings are discussed in relation to relevant
research literature from Chapter Two. The discussion leads into suggested implications
for practice and recommendations for further research. The following sections form the
organization of this chapter:
1. Summary of the findings: This section provides a review of the major issues
identified in Chapter Four.
2. Discussion of the findings: This section discusses the relationship between the
findings and the research questions of the case study as they relate to the relevant
research literature discussed in Chapter Two.
3. Implications for practice, policy and further research: This section addresses
the findings in regard to their potential impact on practice, policy and further
research. Questions will be framed to address how the findings could impact
practice, policy or further research.
4. Limitations of the study: This section addresses the nature and extent of the
limitations that impact validity and reliability, as well as the obstacles
encountered in the study.
5. Implications for the researcher’s leadership and leadership in general: This

section discusses the researcher’s reflections and the lessons learned on his
leadership during the planning, implementation and assessment of this leadership
project.
6. Conclusion and Recommendations: This section completes the case study and
presents the researcher’s personal statement on the value gained from conducting
the study and provides meaningful information in the form of teacher perceptions
and implications for policy and practice for educators considering organizing
teacher professional development for English language learners.
183
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
This case study focused on the development of a teacher professional
development program called the English Language Learner Study Group. The
professional development was comprised of formal classroom training, monthly study
group meetings and a mentoring program for English language learners. This professional
development program was designed specifically to improve teachers’ understanding of
the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners and
positively impact the teachers’ perceptions of their instructional practice for English
language learners. The findings that emerged from the data collected through the teacher
interviews, teacher questionnaires and researcher field notes suggest that the professional
development dramatically improved the teachers’ understanding of the needs of English
language learners and contributed to the teachers’ professional growth as educators. This
section will discuss the findings as they relate to each of the research questions.

consisting o f formal classroom training, mentoring and participation in English

instruction?
The findings are broken into three major parts. Part I includes the summary of
findings that analyze individually each dimension of the professional development. Part
II includes the summary of findings that analyzes the three-dimensional professional
development as one entity - the English Language Learner Study Group and its effect on
184
promoting teacher professional growth. Part III includes two other findings that emerged
as a result of the study. The first was “time” and how it played a major factor in
constraining the effectiveness of the professional development program. The second
finding was the power of students’ voices in influencing teacher understanding of the
PART I: DIMENSIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER STUDY

GROUP PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Formal classroom training was divided into two courses. The findings from the
first course entitled Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching suggest that
the workshop improved all seven teachers’ general level of understanding of the
sociocultural and linguistic needs. Regarding the linguistic needs, the course improved
the teachers’ knowledge about second language acquisition and helped them see the
importance of allowing students to use their native language in the classroom. With
respect to the sociocultural needs, the teachers gained an understanding of some of the
students’ cultures, home lives, social norms and family backgrounds. However, the
course minimally changed the teachers’ understanding of the students’ instructional
needs. With respect to the second research question, this first course minimally
influenced the teachers’ perceptions of their instructional practice. Only two teachers
reported specific examples of how the training influenced their instructional practice.
The second course was entitled Assessment of Speaking and Listening Skills of
English Language Learners. The findings show that this workshop improved the
185
teachers’ understanding of the linguistic needs of English language learners. The
teachers indicated a keener awareness of the students’ struggle with comprehension and
helped them pay closer attention to their students’ speaking and pronunciation. There
was very little data that showed that this course altered the teachers’ understanding of
the students’ instructional or sociocultural needs. Regarding the second research
question, this course dramatically informed the teachers’ perceptions of their
instructional practice. The teachers reported a greater awareness of the language they
used as part of their teacher talk including the questions, vocabulary, use of idioms and
pronunciation that they utilized in class as a result of the learnings from this course.
They also demonstrated a deeper understanding of English language learners’ struggle
with comprehension of readings and class discussions in mainstream classrooms.
A second dimension to the professional development program was the monthly
study group meetings. The findings from these one-hour meetings suggest the following:
The teachers’ interest in learning more about the students’ sociocultural needs - their
lives, home cultures and family responsibilities dominated the study group discussion in
the monthly meetings. However, there was very little data that showed that the teachers
acquired a deeper understanding of the linguistic or instructional needs of students.
Another finding from the study group meetings was that these meetings evolved
into a support mechanism for the mentoring program - the third dimension of the
professional development program. The September and October meetings introduced the
186
mentoring program, organized matches between mentors and mentees and provided
strategies to help the teacher mentors work with their mentees. Portions of the November,
January and April meetings provided the teachers opportunities to report on their progress
with their mentee and ask for support from the other teachers and group leader for
suggestions on how to overcome roadblocks or challenges with their mentoring
relationship. With respect to the second research question, the study group meetings did
not appear to influence or alter the teachers’ perceptions of their instructional practice.
While the researcher had planned to introduce topics around pedagogy for culturally
relevant teaching, sheltered instruction and vocabulary instruction, these discussions did
not take place due to the limited time of the one-hour after school meetings.
MENTORING PROGRAM
The third dimension of the professional development program was the mentoring
program. Each teacher served as a mentor for one of the English language learners during
the school year. The findings suggest that all teachers developed an increased
understanding of the sociocultural needs of the students. The teachers and mentees both
described how the main subject of conversation between them centered on the mentee’s
progress towards academic and non-academic goals, grades, and personal life, friends and
family issues. Through these conversations, the teachers learned about the mentee’s life,
family and family culture. There was little data that showed that the mentoring program
helped the teachers acquire a richer understanding of the instructional or linguistic needs
of English language learners. Regarding the second research question, there was little
187
data that illustrated how the participation in the mentoring program improved or changed
the teachers’ perceptions of their instructional practice.
Aside from the data that addressed the two research questions, there was
substantial data that supported two other important findings regarding the mentoring
program. The first finding was that the mentors and mentees developed trusting
relationships and the mentees believed that they could depend on their mentor to help
them not only as a teacher, but also as an advocate.
A second finding was that all of the mentors strongly recommended participation
in the mentoring program to other teachers because of the learning and increased
understanding of the students’ personal, family and home lives.
PART II: PROFESSIONAL GROWTH OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER

STUDY GROUP
The findings show that all of the teachers developed a much richer awareness of
English language learners’ sociocultural needs - their students’ family and cultural
issues, linguistic needs and instructional needs. As a group, the data show that prior to the
initiation of the English Language Learner Study Group, five of the teachers did not
consider any of the family, cultural or personal issues of their English language learners.
Through participation in the English Language Learner Study Group, the teachers learned
the importance o f becoming more familiar with the students’ cultures and native language
as a means to better connect with these students. Furthermore, the teachers gained a more
heightened awareness of how some English language learner’s family responsibilities
188
such as earning money, translating for their parents at doctors appointments and caring
for younger siblings at home affect students’ school performance.
Another finding was that the teachers described a deeper understanding of the
students’ linguistic and instructional needs. Before the English Language Learner study
group began, five of the eight teachers reported that they did not have any knowledge or
approach for addressing their students’ linguistic needs as second language learners and
they focused solely on teaching the curriculum content without regard to developing the
language of their students. Participation in the study group helped these teachers
understand the students’ challenges with the comprehension of academic language and
academic concepts. Regarding the instructional needs, the teachers shared how
participating in the study group helped them decide to extend project deadlines or accept
late homework based on individual students’ circumstances and family responsibilities.
Also, the teachers explained how they learned that many English language learners need
projects or assignments broken down into smaller chunks to make them more manageable
and more easily understood to complete.
The researcher had hoped to introduce a set of effective instructional strategies for
English language learners that included the following:


language.
189

organizing planned opportunities for interactions between all individuals
in the classroom.
• Helping students perceive the relationship of the content material from

parts to wholes, providing the tools to help them make explicit
connections between subject areas and between school life and home life.
However, these instructional strategies were not discussed during the formal class
training nor during the monthly study group meetings for two reasons. First, the two
workshops were introductory classes and while they both connected instruction with the
topics in each course, neither class’s purpose was to focus squarely on effective
instructional strategies for enriching curriculum content. The second reason was that most
of the time available during the one-hour study group meetings was spent discussing the
teachers’ issues related to the mentoring program and their individual mentees.
PART III: OTHER SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS
There were two other significant findings from the case study. Both of these
findings were unexpected and are discussed below.
ISSUE OF TIME
One unexpected finding that did not specifically relate to the two research
questions was the issue of time and how it emerged as an important factor in constraining
the effectiveness of the professional development program. The monthly study group
meetings were originally designed to support the mentoring program by providing the
teachers opportunities to share about the progress with their mentees. The monthly study
group meetings also were planned with the intention of introducing modules of the
190
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) to inform teachers about specific
instructional strategies designed to increase the academic achievement and language
abilities of English language learners. However, the one-hour meeting never was long
enough to provide the time to engage in this discussion about instruction.
As the researcher reviewed his field notes it was apparent that the teachers
repeatedly cited that time was a major constraint. They explained that there was not
enough time to meet with other mentors to discuss instructional strategies or to complete
the required work for the professional development courses. Also, the teachers’ numerous
after school responsibilities made it difficult for them to develop sound relationships with
their mentees; five of the eight mentors were unable to meet the three hours a month of
mentor-mentee meeting time that was recommended at the start of the program.
Finally, the formal classroom training courses were also affected by time. Both
courses required follow-up assignments designed to encourage teachers to apply the skills
and knowledge they had learned in the courses into their actual classroom practice. While
all of the teachers did complete the assignments, there was no built in time to debrief and
reflect as a group about the learning that took place from the course project work.
THE POWER OF STUDENT VOICE IN INFLUENCING TEACHER

UNDERSTANDING
The second unexpected finding was how panel discussions involving high school
English language learners dramatically enriched the teachers’ understanding of the
challenges that many English language learners face in schools. Three Nations High
School students shared their personal histories and school experiences with all of the
191
teachers in the January meeting and with both the teachers and the mentees during the
April meeting. The data from these two meetings showed how all eight teachers gained
an appreciation for the challenges that some English language learners face in terms of
their family responsibilities, challenges in comprehending academic content and learning
how to figure out the system of United States schooling. In addition to the data collected
immediately following these two meetings, the teachers referred to the learning in these
two meetings also at the end of the study during the final interviews and final
questionnaires. The researcher concluded that there was something so powerful, authentic
and honest about the high school students’ words that the learning and reflection from
these two meetings seemed to be ingrained in the teachers’ minds and continue to
influence their instruction and how they perceive English language learners.
PART II: DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
The findings o f this case study relate to educational research that described the
areas o f recommended professional development for teachers of English language
learners and the recommended elements of effective professional development programs.
SOCIOCULTURAL NEEDS:
The educational research recommends that teachers expand their knowledge base
of the home languages and cultural backgrounds of their students (Beykont, 2000;
Fillmore and Snow, 2002; Zeichner, 2003; Brisk et al., 2002). One influential study of
700,000 English language learners in five urban and suburban districts showed that one
192
the key predictors of academic success of English language learners is based on the
school’s value towards the students’ languages and cultures (Thomas and Collier, 1997).
Brisk et al. (2002) found that teachers can more effectively educate bilingual
learners when they get to know the students’ educational and cultural backgrounds and
language abilities. Also, schools must form a bridge between the culture of the school and
the student’s home culture; by utilizing culturally responsive instruction teachers can
incorporate culture and language-sensitive practices so that all students feel respected for
their cultural backgrounds (Zeichner, 2003; Gay, 2000; Nieto 2002). Fillmore and Snow
(2002) note that teachers must understand that “children of immigrants and native-born
American children from nonmajority backgrounds may encounter a stark disjunction
between their cultural understandings and those of the school” (p.56). Therefore, they
urge teachers to act as “agents of socialization” by learning to respect their students’
home languages and cultures, and learn to help their students make the transition to U.S.
schooling without undercutting the parents’ and families’ role at home.
The teachers in this case study acquired a rich understanding of the students’
cultural backgrounds, personal lives and family responsibilities. During the formal
classroom training, Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching, the
teachers were exposed to how school can look and feel different for students from
different cultural backgrounds. From the teachers’ participation in the mentoring program
and the monthly study group meetings, the teachers shared a deep appreciation for their
mentees’ challenging personal lives and family responsibilities. For instance, all eight
teachers described different examples of their increased understanding of the students’
1 93
sociocultural needs as a result of their involvement in the English Language Learner
Study Group. Furthermore, there was significant evidence that demonstrated examples of
how the teachers became “agents of socialization” - helping their students learn the
United States school system, but at the same time showing respect and sharing admiration
for the students’ families.
LINGUISTIC NEEDS:
The educational research recommends that teachers learn the basics of
bilingualism, second language development and the challenges that English language
learners face in mainstream education (Clair & Adger, 1999; Clair, 1998; Fillmore and
Snow, 2002; Menken and Antunez, 2001). Furthermore, English language learners have
been found to be more academically successful when teachers understand the research-
based principles of second language development (Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006).
Teachers of English language learners also should become familiar with the curriculum
standards for English language learners so they become more knowledgeable about how
to aid students in the development of their language abilities” (Menken & Antunez, 2001,
p.7). Also, the research emphasizes the importance of teachers understanding oral
language required in formal and academic areas, oral language used in conversation and
academic language or academic English (Fillmore and Snow, 2002; Cummins, 2000).
Cummins (1981) and Thomas and Collier (2002) recommend that because academic
English is principally learned in school, teachers must have an understanding of how
language plays a role in academic content learning.
194
The teachers involved in this case study during the first formal classroom training
of Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching learned about second
language acquisition theory, bilingualism, Cummins’ (1981) Common Underlying
Proficiency theory and Cummins’ (1984) explanation of the differences between the
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and the Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency (CALP). During the second formal classroom training- Assessment of
Speaking and Listening, the teachers reviewed the basics of oral language -speaking and
listening. Also they learned how to use an assessment tool to measure an English
language learner’s English speaking and listening development (Appendix L). From the
teachers’ participation in these two courses, the data showed that the teachers developed
an understanding of the challenge that English language learners have comprehending
academic language used in classroom discussions and in textbooks. The teachers also
began to listen more carefully to their students’ speaking and pronunciation of words
instead of only listening for the correctness of students’ responses to the academic
content. The teachers also reported how these courses helped them gain an understanding
of the English language proficiency benchmarks and standards for reading, writing,
speaking and listening.
INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS AND INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE:
The educational research also emphasizes how teachers of English language
learners be well trained with a wide range of instructional strategies to socialize English
language learners to mainstream culture, teach them academic skills and develop
culturally responsive classrooms that help students connect what they need to know with
195
their previous background knowledge (Beykont, 2002, Delpit, 1995, Fillmore & Snow,
2000; Garcia, 1996; Gonzalez & Darling-Hammond, 1997; Moll, 1992; Zeichner, 1996).
Freeman and Freeman (2002) recommend that teachers of older English language
learners should engage students in challenging curriculum that build on students’
background knowledge, native language and culture; teachers should organize group
activities and scaffold instruction to improve students’ academic English and build their
confidence so the students value the importance of school and value themselves as
learners.
Teachers should also have knowledge about how lexicon vocabulary is acquired
and structured. According to George Miller’s work, children growing up in English-
speaking families achieve a vocabulary of up to 80,000 words by age 17 (as cited by
Fillmore & Snow, 2002). Fillmore and Snow (2002) suggest that teachers of second
language learners should teach new vocabulary in related groups since words are more
meaningful when they are understood in connection with others.
Research o f good instruction for English language learners has examined how
incorporating a language-development component into content instructions results in
better curriculum access and higher achievement (Berman et al., 1995; Echevarria, Short,
& Powers, 2003; Minicucci, 1996). Two instructional models developed to help English
language learners increase academic achievement across the content areas are the
Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) developed by Chamot and
O’Malley (1994) and the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) developed
by Echevarria et al. (2004). The CALLA model “fosters academic language and cognitive
196
development by integrating content, language and learning strategy instruction” (Chamot
and O’Malley, 1994, p.88). Characteristics of the instructional practices utilized in the
CALLA model include “ 1) extensive use of students’ prior conceptual and linguistic
knowledge, 2) cooperative learning, teacher modeling and scaffolding and 3) teacher-
student dialogue on thinking and learning strategies” (1994, p.90). SIOP recommends
that teachers can be trained in how to incorporate graphic organizers, visuals,
demonstrations, vocabulary strategies, and reaching out to students’ prior knowledge to
teach content area material more effectively (Echevarria et al., 2004).
The promotion of positive interactions between teachers and students has also
been found to be an important instructional objective in producing high-level academic
outcomes with English language learners (Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006). Two
studies by the California State Department of Education (1982) and Doherty et al. (2003)
showed that when teachers used positive social and instructional interactions equally
between English language learners and English proficient students, both groups
performed better academically (as cited by Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006).
Several studies have shown that the instructional strategy of cooperative learning
has increased student achievement and higher-level thinking. In cooperative learning,
students develop knowledge by working on task-based projects that demand participation
and interaction by all group members. Johnson and Johnson (1999) explain that
cooperative learning includes five defining elements including positive independence:
face-to-face promotive interaction; individual and group accountability; interpersonal and
small group skills; and group processing. Cooperative learning represents “a broad range
197
of instructional methods in which students work together to learn academic content”
(Slavin & Calderon, 2001, p. 18). Research has shown that cooperative-learning groups
help English language learners attain higher levels of achievement (Calderon and
Carreon, 1994; Calderon, Hertz-Lazarowitz, and Slavin, 1998; Calderon, Tinajero, and
Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1992). Furthermore, cooperative learning is a characteristic of
effective programs for English language learners (Berman et al., 1995; Doherty et al.,
2003; Montecel and Cortez, 2002).
The teachers in this case study increased their understanding of the instructional
needs of their English language learners and made some limited changes to their
instructional practice. There was evidence that the teachers utilized visuals and initiated
grouping strategies to promote greater interactions between English language learners
and the native English-speaking students. Also, the teachers described how they
integrated more frequent clarifying questions into their classroom discussions in order to
more carefully ensure that English language learners comprehended the academic
content. The teachers also began to use more scaffolding techniques such as sharing
prepared typed lecture notes to English language learners who demonstrated difficulties
with keeping up with classroom discussion. There was also significant evidence that the
teachers became more aware of their teacher talk and began to speak slower and rephrase
more frequently to help the English language learners improve their comprehension of
teacher-directed instruction. The teachers also indicated that their participation in the
study group allowed English language learners to utilize their native language in class to
help translate and assist other English language learners.
198
EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGNS
The educational research cites several guidelines for the design and
implementation of effective professional development. DuFour and Eaker (1998) and
Sparks and Hirsh (1997) recommend that professional development be tied to student
i
achievement and how it changes instructional behavior to benefit student learning. Also
the professional development must be based on characteristics of good teaching, it should
expand the teachers’ repertoires for meeting the diverse needs of students, and be based
at the school level and supported by the central office.
Furthermore, the professional development should be job-embedded to connect
learning to current, real-life problems faced by teachers and administrators (DuFour and
Eaker, 1998; Sparks and Hirsh, 1997). Job-embedded professional development can take
many forms including well-designed training programs followed by coaching, educators
conducting action research, participation in study groups, observing peers, planning
sessions with colleagues and journal writing.
Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) believe that professional development
must prepare teachers “to see complex subject matter from the perspectives of diverse
students” (p.597) and should encourage teachers to reflect on their current practice,
content, pedagogy and learners.
Staff development should provide the necessary coaching for the mastery of new
skills. The training includes a combination of “presentation and explanation of the theory
behind the practice, demonstration, opportunities for initial guided practice, prompt
feedback about their efforts, sustained coaching” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p.265). This
199
process should promote teacher reflection and dialogue and be sustained over a long
period of time. The impact of the training should be assessed at several different levels in
order to accurately measure its affect on the entire organization.
Another critical feature of effective professional development is that it is based on
a constructivist theory of learning (Brooks and Brooks, 1993; Sparks and Hirsh, 1997;
Loucks-Horsley, 2005). This theory describes learning as a process and that adult learners
construct their knowledge by modifying or rejecting existing ideas. In other words,
learners are not considered “empty vessels” to be filled up by the knowledge from others.
Instead, the learners have their own ideas about how to make sense of the world and the
professional development helps them make connections between their existing ideas and
the new ones that they are acquiring during the professional development. Furthermore,
to help learners make these connections; the professional development provides
opportunities for collaboration and interaction discussions between learners as they help
each make sense of the new concepts (Jonassen, 1994).
The evidence of the teachers’ increased understanding of the sociocultural,
instructional and linguistic needs of English language learners from the professional
development in this case study supported the direction promulgated by educational
research about effective professional development. The professional development
supported a constructivist theory of learning that was job-embedded. The teachers
increased their understanding of the needs of English language learners from their
participation in the formal courses that required the teachers to engage in discussion,
complete assignments that included interviewing and assessing English language learners
200
and collaborate between each other and the ESL experts that were invited to share
knowledge and support the teachers throughout the program. As a result of this
professional development implementation, one of the findings that confirmed the
research is that the teachers reported increased collaboration and learning between
themselves and the ESL teachers in the school.
STUDY GROUPS
One form of an effective professional development design is the incorporation of
study groups (Roberts & Pruitt, 2003). The study group strategy provides teachers the
opportunity to make decisions about what the group is going to study as well as learn
about each other and how to work together (Roberts & Pruitt, 2003). There was
significant evidence that demonstrated how the formation of the English Language
Learner Study Group gave the participants the control to make decisions about the
direction and agenda of the monthly study group meetings. For instance, the researcher
discovered during the December one-on-one interviews with the teachers, that seven of
the eight teachers indicated that they would like to learn more deeply about the bicultural
/ bilingual world of older English language learners. As a response to this expressed
interest, the researcher collaborated with Esta Montano, the Director of Equity and
Achievement, to organize a student panel discussion of high school English language
learners during the January and April study group meetings.
The educational research also suggests that by acquiring more knowledge about
teaching and learning, teachers in study groups feel more empowered to do their jobs
(Birchak et al., 1998). There was significant evidence that demonstrated how the
201
teachers’ understanding improved regarding the students’ challenges with comprehension
of academic language and academic concepts.
MENTORING PROGRAM
The educational research describes that mentoring provides mentors with the
opportunity to practice and demonstrate emotional-intelligence skills such as
interpersonal skills, intrapersonal capabilities like emotional self-awareness and the
ability to maintain hope under challenging or adverse situations (Miller, 2002). There was
significant evidence from the research in the case study, that the teachers had numerous
opportunities to practice both interpersonal and intrapersonal skills during their
participation as a mentor and a member of the English Language Learner Study Group.
For example, all eight of the teachers’ mentees stated that their mentors helped them
address personal problems and achieve their goals in school. Also, as participants in the
study group the teachers completed four questionnaires, two interviews and participated
in seven study group meetings that all focused on providing the teachers opportunities to
share their thinking and reflect on the challenges that were presented from working one-
to-one with an English language learner as a mentee during the school year.
The research literature also suggests several desirable characteristics of effective
mentors (Miller, 2002; Dondero, 1997; Farmer, 1999; Songsthagen and Lee, 1996).
Mentors should see the mentee as a special individual and be comfortable with cultural or
socio-economic distance. Mentors should set high standards and instill confidence in the
mentee to aim high, respect the mentee’s ability to make their own decisions, be flexible,
open and able to accept to other values, cultures and viewpoints as well as show interest,
202
respect, affection and enthusiasm for the subjects, areas and moral issues raised by the
mentee. The evidence from the case study indicates that all eight mentors were strongly
endorsed by their mentees and the mentees were appreciative of the relationship that they
developed with their mentor during the year. Another finding was that seven of the eight
mentees increased their grade point average by a half-point over the previous year and all
seven of the mentees attributed this academic improvement partly to the help of their
mentors. In the final analysis, all eight teachers reported a much deeper understanding of
students’ personal lives and the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional challenges that
these students face in achieving academic success.
203
PART III: IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE, POLICY AND FURTHER

RESEARCH
The findings of this case study suggest several implications for policy, practice
and further research.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND POLICY
The implications for policy and practice are broken into the following sub-categories:
• Suggested steps for initiating an English Language Learner Study Group

• Formal classroom training
• Suggested training for pre-service teachers
• Monthly study group meetings
• Mentoring program
• Time
SUGGESTED STEPS FOR INITIATING AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER

STUDY GROUP
Throughout the discussion of the implications for this professional development,
please refer to Appendix N at the end of this chapter. Appendix N is a smooth causal
network diagram that summarizes one effective design for a teacher professional
development program targeting the needs of English language learners.
There are four primary ingredients that are necessary in order to launch a
comprehensive teacher professional development program for English language learners.
First, the school must have a defined goal(s) related to improving academic achievement
for students or English language learners, or as is commonly described as “closing the
achievement gap.” Second, there needs to be a combination of job-embedded in-school
and after school time that is appropriated for a cohort of teachers to participate in formal
204
classroom training, mentor an English language learner, and participate in monthly study
group meetings and outings with all of the mentors and mentees during the school year.
Third, the school or district must dedicate a reasonable amount of resources in the form
of release time for teacher in-service time, a budget for purchasing materials, and a small
“thank-you” teacher stipend for the personal time they will dedicate to their mentee at the
expense of their own planning time to participate in the mentoring program. Fourth the
superintendent and building principals must endorse the importance of this training for all
teachers. As the first cohort progresses through the training and begins to develop a
richer understanding of the needs of the learners as well as make modifications to their
instruction, the school’s leadership team has to develop planned opportunities for this
cohort of teachers to share their new understandings and instructional gains with the rest
of the faculty during curriculum and faculty meetings. It is essential that the leadership
team work with the faculty in making the connection between the importance of this
professional development and working towards advancing the learning opportunities for
all students.
The target population for this professional development is primarily mainstream
and special educators who have not received previous training with English language
learners. However, the case study showed that recruiting at least one ESL teacher to
participate as part of the cohort helped raise the level of discussion in the study group
meetings and assisted with supporting the needs of the other members of the cohort other
than the group leader.
205
It is important that a cohort model is utilized in this professional development
because there is a level of trust that needs to be cultivated between all of the members of
the study group. This cohort will work together for two years so it is necessary that the
group leader arrange an understanding between all of the members about the importance
of confidentiality and trust. The teachers share sensitive information about their
instruction and about the lives of their mentees. By creating a trusting cohort, the study
group members can develop a team of people that they can depend on in the building for
both emotional and pedagogical support.
The classroom training - Introduction to Second Language Learning and
Teaching and Assessment of Speaking and Listening were worthwhile introductory
workshops; the findings showed how teachers increased their understanding of the
sociocultural, instructional and linguistic needs of English language learners. However, it
is also essential that teachers deal with issues of race in order to help reflect and clarify in
their minds their own political orientations and unacknowledged racism. Bartolome
(1998) explained that educators who do not identify and reflect on their own negative,
racist and classist ideological orientations tend to reproduce the current social order and
can easily corrupt their own work because of unacknowledged racism. Freire (1998)
recommended that teachers need to have the courage to address inequities that keep down
certain populations of students and develop educational environments that are safe and
effective for all learners. Therefore, the researcher recommends that a third course be
added to help teachers address these issues or additional modules are added to the
206
curriculum of the Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching course. As
part of the follow-up from this course, the study group leader should work carefully to
provide opportunities for the teachers to continue reflecting and discussing these issues
regarding race, culture and language as they continue their work in the mentoring
program and participate in the study group meetings. It is critical that through this
process of reflection, discussion and readings that teachers develop a firm understanding
of their ideology of education. Teachers have to figure out what it means to educate all
students and support their students’ right to enjoy learning, achieve academic success,
acquire the necessary skills and knowledge and develop the confidence to prosper in the
society.
Another important implication for practice regarding the formal classroom
training is that in order to address specific instructional strategies recommended for
effective instruction of English language learners with mainstream teachers, it is essential
that the teachers take a course entitled Enriching Content Curriculum for Secondary
English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) or the Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocol (SIOP) model. These courses teach in a series of discrete modules instructional
strategies that are good for all learners, but essential for English language learners.
SUGGESTED TRAINING FOR PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS
There are several implications for policy to systematize teacher training for
English language learners. First, pre-service teachers should be required to take at least
one course dealing with second language development and linguistics. In addition,
207
embedded in the teaching method course(s) that every pre-service teacher takes in an
education program, there should be a portion of the curriculum that specializes in
effective instruction for promoting academic language development for English language
learners. For pre-service teachers who wish to work in urban school districts and will
encounter large percentages of English language learners in the school, education
programs should require a teaching methods course that is based on learning the
pedagogy based on the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol m odel.
Monthly study group meetings are an effective format for professional
development in two major areas. First, the meetings provide the teachers time to share
their mentoring experiences. Each month, mentors can seek support with one another and
the group leader in addressing individual challenges with their mentee. In addition, the
monthly meeting provides the group a chance to get together, celebrate successes and
renew one’s spirit and focus on the challenge of working with a mentee and addressing
the diverse needs of English language learners in their classrooms.
Monthly study group meetings also are effective in conducting panel discussions
with guest speakers sharing information about English language learners. There were two
types of panel discussions. One panel discussion involves the use of experts in the ESL
field to share information and materials regarding second language development, the
influence of culture on student learning, and general information about biculturalism and
bilingualism. The second type of panel discussion involves the invitation of high school
208
and college English language learners to share their school, work and family experiences
as middle school English language learners. One of the strongest findings in this case
study was that all eight teachers found that the two most beneficial monthly study group
meetings were those lead by the high school English language learners. The eight
teachers demonstrated a much greater understanding of some of the challenges that some
English language learners face in terms of the family responsibilities, comprehending
academic content, and figuring out the system of United States schooling. The researcher
concluded that there was something so powerful, authentic and honest about the students’
words from these two panel discussions that the learning and reflection seemed to be
ingrained in the teachers’ minds and will continue to influence their instruction and how
they perceive English language learners in their classrooms. Furthermore, the information
about biculturalism, bilingualism and knowledge about the students’ cultures is what all
eight teachers indicated would be most relevant in future monthly study group meetings.
Another implication for practice regarding the use of study group meetings is that
the leader must be attentive to adjusting the agenda and direction of the meetings based
on the preferences of the participants. During the case study, seven of the eight teachers
indicated during the December mid-point interviews that they would like to learn more
about the cultures of English language learners and the researcher in collaboration with
Esta Montano were able to move the focus of the meetings directly to this theme with the
help of the high school students’ panel discussions in January and April.
The monthly study group meetings are not the appropriate forums for teaching
instructional strategies for several reasons. First, introducing instructional strategies and
209
then giving teachers the time to “unpack” the strategy, consider how to integrate it into
their own practice, pilot the strategy and then debrief with others about the strategy is
very challenging if not impossible to do in one or two monthly one-hour meetings.
Furthermore, teachers need to be in a certain mindset and bring a level of energy and
eagerness in order to be ready for learning and then experimenting with an instructional
strategy. In addition, there has to be on-going classroom coaching and support. For these
reasons, an environment such as a graduate course or a series of school in-service
meetings is a more appropriate vehicle for serious discussion and integration of effective
instructional strategies for English language learners.
Monthly study group meetings should be something that teachers look forward to
and are relevant to their own professional development because they are voluntary and
they consume valuable after school time. Therefore, in addition to choosing a meeting
agenda that is relevant and purposeful for each teacher, the leader should try to offer
amenities such as a comfortable meeting environment and snacks to acknowledge and
thank the participants for volunteering to participate and invest the energy and the time
into an initiative.
MENTORING PROGRAM
The establishment of a mentoring program between one teacher and one English
language learner can provide both the student and teacher powerful learning
opportunities. The teacher will experience through the eyes of the student many of the
personal, family and cultural issues that some English language learners face during the
210
program. By putting a face to the issues that are discussed in the study group meetings
and formal classroom training, the teacher has a learner to help understand more deeply
the sociocultural issues facing English language learners. The student also benefits from
this arrangement. The student is matched with one trusting and invested adult in the
school building. This adult is dedicated to helping him or her succeed academically and
serve as an advocate to speak to parents and refer the student to other professionals such
as guidance counselors, psychologists, or social workers when this extra support might
better address the student’s needs.
Initiating a successful mentoring program requires several components. First, the
leader(s) of the program must carefully work with the school’s administration and
guidance counselors to identify a group of English language learners that need academic
support. Some of these learners might have some emotional or personal needs too, but it
is important to choose learners whose emotional needs do not exceed the ability of the
teacher to connect and develop a meaningful relationship with the student. After
developing a list of students who fit these criteria, the mentor leader should interview
each student candidate and find out if the student and the student’s parents or guardians
are interested in joining the program. If the student agrees to join, then it is necessary to
capture as much information as possible about the interests, goals and background of the
student; this information then can be shared with the pool of teacher mentors so they have
information in which to try to choose a learner that they believe they can work with.
Taking this upfront time to establish good matches between mentor and mentee is
essential in launching a successful program.
Another important factor in establishing an effective mentoring program is that
there have to be carefully defined and understood expectations for both the mentor and
the mentee (and the mentee’s family). The researcher found in this case study that several
mentors expressed a lack of clarity in what they were expected to do with the mentee.
The researcher realized this was due to a lack of initial training and more concrete
guidelines and expectations that should have been more clearly delineated at the
beginning of the program. Another finding from the case study that has implications for
the mentoring program is that the mentors need to have a forum to share their concerns
and gain feedback and support from other mentors. In this case study, the researcher
utilized a large portion of the monthly study group meetings to provide the mentors with
opportunities to share and to learn from each other regarding the challenges and
successes with their mentee.
Finally, another essential component to making the mentor-mentee relationship a
successful one is to build in sufficient time for the mentor and mentee to meet during and
after the school day. In a middle school environment where there is common team
planning time, it would be beneficial to program on a regular basis a portion of time to
pull-out the student from a World Language or Unified Arts class to meet with the
mentor. Furthermore, the administration could coordinate with the mentors in reducing an
after school duty or meeting so the teacher has at least one afternoon each week to meet
one-on-one with their mentee.
Another finding from the case study is that the mentees and mentors enjoyed a
team-building group activity in November that involved all mentors and mentees. It
212
would be beneficial to design into the school calendar a series of group activities that
could be used as rewards or incentives for the mentees to accomplish their academic
goals and at the same time provide more team bonding time for all mentors and mentees.
TIME
Providing sufficient job-embedded time for teachers to engage in professional
development is a necessary condition to launch a successful study group. The formal
classroom training which focus on important introductory concepts relating to second
language development, culture and the benchmarks and standards for English language
learners would be enhanced if there was more time built in as follow-up professional
development during teacher common planning time. Some suggestions for extending
these courses into teachers’ regular instructional practice would be to set goals with the
teachers to use the English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes (ELPBO)
document as part of on-going lesson and unit planning. Also, teachers could be expected
to utilize the assessment tool for speaking and listening for the English language learners
in their classrooms (see Appendix L). The teachers could be given time to compare their
assessments with the assessments from the team’s ESL teacher; this academic
conversation around the students’ progress in speaking and listening using this common
scoring rubric could then lead to both the mainstream and ESL teachers to strategize how
to modify their instruction to help students improve their speaking and listening skills.
In addition to time being carefully appropriated to help reinforce the learning
from the formal classroom training and promote more on-going collaboration between
mainstream and ESL teachers, the school’s administration could work with the cohort of
213
teachers to provide in-school time for each of them to work with their mentees in a
regularly scheduled “pull-out” scenario. The evidence from the case study clearly
demonstrated that the teacher’s after school responsibilities that include faculty meetings,
curriculum meetings, communication with parents or guardians and providing after
school help sessions for their own students leaves the teacher little time and emotional
energy to meet with their mentee on a one-to-one basis after school. This time is essential
for making the mentoring program more successful.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The findings of this case study also suggest several implications for further
research. This research project carefully studied the impact that the professional
development program made on the teachers’ understanding of the needs of English
language learners and informed their instructional practice. It would be interesting to
determine the effect of how this professional development program translated into
student academic gain over time. To pursue this research path, a cohort of teachers could
be selected to participate in the program. Then, a group of entering sixth graders could be
carefully selected, matched with the mentors with the expectation that they would
participate in this program through the end of middle school in eighth grade. Students’
progress from sixth to eighth grade could be measured and compared with a group of
students who were not matched with mentors involved in the study group.
A second area for further research could be a more careful examination of the
effectiveness for improving teacher understanding of the needs and issues facing English
214
language learners through the use of students’ voices as a component of a teacher
professional development program. The power of the student voice in this case study was
so strong in influencing the teachers’ learning that it would be helpful to analyze how
organizing a panel discussion made up of English language learners, the parents of
English language learners and leaders of immigrant advocacy groups could be used to
increase teachers’ understanding of the issues facing their school’s English language
learners.
A third area for further research could be a study based more tightly around
improving teacher instruction of English language learners using recommended effective
instructional strategies. If there were multiple grade level teams of students, one grade-
level team could take a graduate-level course entitled, Enriching Content Curriculum for
Secondary English Speakers of Other Languages and then participate in on-going, job-
embedded coaching from the course trainers to integrate the strategies into their
instructional practice. Then, this team’s instruction could be compared to a grade level
team who did not receive this training in order to determine the effect that the
participation in the course had on the teachers’ instruction and on student academic
achievement.
LIMITATIONS
215
the Department Head o f ESL/Bilingual Programs and member of the school’s leadership
216
the emerging findings” (Merriam, 1998, p.204).
IMPLICATIONS FOR LEADERSHIP
The project leader who was also the researcher learned much about his own
leadership skills during the planning, implementation and assessment of the English
Language Learner Study Group project. There were five key themes that were relevant
in this self-analysis o f leadership. These themes included building trust, being attentive to
the participants’ needs, sharing praise, emphasizing the importance of collaboration and
teamwork, and being prepared for managing the emotional highs and lows of a leadership
project.
217
Building trust between all of the members of the study group was one of the
primary concerns from the beginning of this project. As the researcher recruited
interested teachers to participate in the study group, he emphasized the importance of
how the work would require a high level of trust and respect for one another. Sergiovanni
(2005) sees that relationships between organizations and people be based on trust; “trust
is the tie that binds roles and allows for the creation of role sets that embody reciprocal
obligations” (p.l 19). During the first few meetings the study group established a set of
informal norms and expectations that were mutually agreed on to govern the behavior
throughout the professional development program. One essential expectation was that
there was a code of confidentiality between the study group members during the monthly
meetings; this confidentiality extended to the researcher and the invited guests. The
researcher also stated from the beginning and reminded the participants throughout the
program that the work done in the study group would not be included as any part of the
formal supervision and evaluation process.
The second theme that emerged from this reflection on leadership practice was the
importance of attending to the needs of the study group participants and providing
encouragement and moral support throughout the program. As Starratt (2003) explains
the ethics of care is “grounded in the belief that the integrity of human relationships
should be sacred and that the school as an organization should hold the good of human
beings within it as sacred” (p. 145). There were several examples that demonstrated how
the researcher led with this ethic of care. First, there were a few times during the school
year when the teachers felt great duress from several work responsibilities converging at
218
the same time around the final preparations for the MCAS testing. In response to this
work overload, he decided to postpone the February and March study group meetings and
instead met with each teacher privately to make sure they were receiving support and
attention.
Related to attending to the teachers’ needs was how the researcher’s leadership
was influenced by the concept of presence. Starratt (2004) explains that presence is being
wide-awake to what’s in front of you; a leader who lives the virtue of presence is aware
that how and what he communicates to others through spoken language, body language,
and facial expressions reveals his authentic self. When the researcher met with the
teachers individually and as a group, he tried to give them all of his attention and focus.
By paying close attention to the teachers’ words and body language, he was able to pick
up on more subtle areas of frustration, confusion or concern and think about how to
address them. Through this ethic of presence, the researcher believed he earned the
respect o f the teachers; they knew that he was concerned and listening to them and that
his priority was to make sure they felt supported throughout the entire program.
A third theme that emerged was the importance of praise as a leadership habit to
initiate and sustain a leadership project. Blase and Blase (2002) describe that praise is one
of the most essential habits for promoting teacher growth. To maintain the teachers’ focus
and motivation as they struggled with the challenge of working with a mentee and
acquiring new information about second language development and integrating the
benchmarks and standards for English language learners, the researcher continually
praised the teachers and reminded them with one of these familiar phrases such as “This
219
is important work you are doing for kids” or “I appreciate all the work you are doing is
there something that I can help you with to lighten the load?” As the year progressed and
he was able to establish more trusting relationships with the teachers, they began to share
their successes and their challenges. The researcher distinctly remembered one encounter
with one teacher who shared an anecdote from her language arts class. She explained
how the monthly study group discussion around using multicultural texts helped her
consider choosing the class novel of Esperanza Rising. The teacher proudly explained
how her mentee and other native Spanish-speaking students were so engaged into the
book because they could explain the Spanish words written in italics in the novel and
personally relate to the diverse themes in the novel. There were also many other
circumstances where the researcher used thank you cards and wrote notes of
encouragement to follow-up teachers’ successes. In summary, conducting this study
proved conclusively that a leader can never bestow enough praise to support teachers
who are willing to take risks and reflect and consider altering their instructional practice
based on what is best for students. Heifetz (1994) explains that one of the reasons why
people fail to address adaptive problems is because of the “distress provoked by the
problem and the changes it demands” (p.37). As a result, the person’s patterned response
is a “work avoidance mechanism” where they deny the problem which helps them feel
less stressful than facing and taking responsibility for a complex challenge (p.37) The use
of continual praise and being attentive to the teachers’ needs were strategies that helped
ensure that the teachers did not avoid the work and relinquish their participation in the
study group.
220
The fourth theme that emerged from this leadership project was the importance of
teamwork and collaboration in organizing and sustaining a leadership project. One
essential resource was Esta Montano, the Director of Equity and Achievement. Her
experience leading professional development around issues of race, culture and language
was instrumental in co-planning the study group meetings. She also attended the
meetings and helped the researcher debrief the salient issues discussed during the
meetings. Her experience with organizing student affinity groups also was important in
assisting with recruiting three high school students to speak to the teachers. Dr. Sara
Hamerla, Assistant Director of the ESL/Bilingual/Sheltered English program and Esta
Montano both helped the researcher with reviewing and piloting the questions utilized in
teacher questionnaires and interviews. Juan Rodriguez, the school principal, Dr. Susan
McGilvray-Rivet, the Director of the ESL/Bilingual/Sheltered English program, Nancy
Sprague, Director of Curriculum and Instruction and Dawn P. Mendelsohn, Director of
Community Resource Development, also supported the professional development
program by listening to the researcher’s ideas and providing support with school and
district resources. Furthermore, the teachers in the study group also contributed to the
direction and sustainability of the program; the teachers’ feedback during the December
interviews to refocus the direction of the monthly meetings was just one example of how
they took shared ownership of the study group.
The last theme was the importance of utilizing different personal coping
strategies to manage the emotional and mental challenge of leading a professional
development project. There were numerous times during the project when the researcher
221
became frustrated about particular aspects of the program. There were moments when the
teachers in the study group complained about the quantity of work required in the
program and expressed concerns about the lack of meeting time with their mentees.
Sometimes this criticism would sting the researcher for a day or two. He learned to avoid
retreating to his office. Instead, he visited sixth grade classrooms and worked with
students. The enthusiasm and excitement for learning demonstrated by the sixth graders
re-energized the researcher and gave him the strength to continue on. He also learned to
resist the natural instinct to avoid a couple of the more critical members of the study
group. His mentor, Dr. James Marini, taught him the importance of “rolling up your
sleeves and taking on the heat.” The researcher would go to check in with these teachers
more frequently and try to recognize with praise and support the work they were doing
and at the same time listen to their daily concerns. He tried his best to speak back their
concerns and he took an approach that challenged teachers to work together to come up
with solutions. He tried not to take these rebuffs personally. However, when the
researcher got “bruised” from certain conversations he took extra time to eat a quiet
lunch, or left work early to enjoy his family. These routines helped reinvigorate the
researcher to go back to the work with renewed energy and confidence the next day.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The number of English language learners as a percentage of students in U.S.
public schools continues to rise at a staggering rate. According to Fix & Passel (2003),
10.5 million children of immigrants comprise 19% of all school children in K-12
222
education and projections suggest that children of immigrants will make up 30% of the
total school population by 2015. In 2001-2002, more than 4.7 million school-age
children were considered Limited English Proficient (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004).
Despite this dramatic increase in the number of English language learners, there is only a
very small proportion of K-12 teachers who have received any type of professional
development targeted for English language learners. And consequently, these teachers’
instructional practices for English language learners are largely the same that they use
for teaching native English speakers (Macias, 1998; Menken & Antunez, 2001).
The problem is that English language learners require instruction that not only
improves their content knowledge as is required for a native English speaker, but also
receive instruction that provides opportunities for them to develop their academic
language abilities for reading, writing, speaking and listening. This development of
language is critical for these students to be able to experience success with the academic
rigors required in high school, college and beyond in the professional work world. For
example, Sum et al. (2005) concluded, “the link between a person’s ability to speak
English and their ability to succeed in the Massachusetts economy is clear and
indisputable” (p. 10). Also, according to the National Center for Education Statistics
(2001) one of the conclusions was that adults who are not fluent and literate in English
are “less likely to be employed and when they are employed they earn lower wages than
individuals who are fluent and literate in English” (p. 120).
Unfortunately, the data from state and national standardized assessments clearly
show that English language learners are not experiencing academic success. They
223
perform lower on state and national standardized assessments, and experience much
higher school dropout rates (Snow and Biancarosa, 2003). In a more recent report,
Sullivan et. al (2005) found that the cumulative pass rate of English language learners in
Massachusetts was 18 percentage points lower than all other students as a whole
according to 2003-2004 test data. Another way to describe this situation is that there is a
lack of equity in the U.S. public education system: there is one system that is designed to
benefit the needs of native-English speakers, but the English language learners who have
other sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs are being “left behind” and are not
receiving the appropriate education that should be afforded them in U.S. public schools.
The researcher concludes that English language learners’ opportunity to learn in
K-12 schools and later their opportunity to flourish and partake in the benefits of the
global-knowledge economy of today’s professional world has been severely impeded
because of the lack of trained teachers who have a limited or no understanding of the
needs of English language learners and who do not utilize effective instructional
strategies that are geared towards improving English language learners’ content
knowledge and academic language development.
This case study assessed the effectiveness of one school’s attempt to implement a
sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners. The
professional development program called the English Language Learner Study Group
centered on three dimensions of training: formal classroom training, monthly study group
meetings and participation in an English language learner mentoring program. The
224
evidence from the case study showed that the program deeply enriched the teachers’
learners, and improved in a limited degree the teachers’ perceptions of their use of
effective instructional strategies for English language learners. The mentoring meetings
were important in the lives of the teachers and their students; the participants became
better teachers because they developed a deeper respect for the needs of the students and
this respect translated into a sharper focus in their teaching. In addition, the mainstream
teachers explained that because of their improved understanding of the students, they felt
they were able to develop stronger relationships and these relationships helped them
become better teachers.
Also, while the researcher acknowledges that one must be cautious about drawing
conclusions about student achievement in a one-year study, part of the findings showed
that seven of the eight mentees achieved higher grade point averages (as compared to the
year before without the mentor) and all eight mentees self reported that they benefited
from the relationships from their mentors and they would recommend participation in the
program to other students.
The educational research clearly shows that there needs to be more mainstream
teachers who receive professional development targeting the needs of English language
learners if school districts are serious about “closing the achievement gap” between
English language learners and native English speakers. One out of every five students in
U.S. public school classrooms is an English language learner and in urban schools, the
proportion of English language learners is even higher (Fix & Passel, 2003). Because of
225
this rising population of students, it is the responsibility of every teacher in public school
from kindergarten through twelfth grade to participate in some level of training to
understand the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language
learners and be introduced to instructional strategies shown to be effective with
increasing the academic achievement and academic language development of English
language learners.
Also, federal and state policy makers must dedicate the resources to assist districts
with offering effective professional development training courses that target English
language learners. For instance, the Massachusetts Department of Education has initiated
a Sheltered Content Instruction Professional Development program that is comprised of
training that encompasses four categories of skills and knowledge of sheltered instruction
and second language development for English language learners. The Department of
Education offers workshops so school districts can send a few key people to learn the
strategies and return to the district to train others. This model makes it easier for districts
so they don’t have to develop the professional development on their own. State boards of
education in the states where there exist large English language learner populations
should consider replicating this Massachusetts model. Furthermore, because English
language learners are now attending schools all over the United States, state boards of
education across the country should offer professional development opportunities so that
teachers who may have only a small number of English language learners still have
access to essential training.
226
At the district and school levels, it is critical that the superintendent endorse the
importance of professional development targeting the needs of English language learners
as one of the specific action steps for pursuing a district goal of “closing the achievement
gap.” The superintendent working closely with the principals should make sure that over
a defined period of time all of the teachers in the district participate in formal classroom
training and can demonstrate the skills and knowledge in utilizing effective instructional
strategies for improving the academic achievement of English language learners.
At the school level, it is important that the principal and the school leadership
team send a strong message to the school’s faculty and staff about the importance of
training by planning a team of teachers and members of the leadership team to participate
jointly in professional development training and then strategize together on how to share
the training experience with the rest of the school staff. Also, the school’s leadership
team should use on-going job-embedded professional development time for providing
opportunities of planned collaboration between the school’s ESL teachers and the
mainstream teachers so both groups of teachers share materials and establish on-going
conversations around teaching and learning of English language learners.
In conclusion, there is no excuse for local districts or schools to ignore the
importance of increasing teachers’ skills and knowledge of educating English language
learners. The stakes are too high for the students who drop-out of school or don’t
graduate with the necessary skills to participate and prosper in today’s global knowledge
economy. The findings from this case study show how a teacher professional
development program dramatically improved teachers’ understanding of the needs of
227
English language learners and improved their instruction. The challenge for policy
makers and educational leaders is to find ways to support and encourage all teachers to
become more knowledgeable about the needs of English language learners by adopting
educational policies that encourage consistent and thorough job-embedded professional
development.
228
REFERENCES
Adger, C, Snow, C.E., & Christian, D. (2002). What teachers need to know about
language. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems
Company, Inc.
Adelman, C., Jenkins, D., & Kemmis, S. (1983). “Rethinking Case Study: Notes form the
Second Cambridge Conference.” In Case Study: An Overview. Case Study
Methods 1 (Series). Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Albus, D., Thurlow, M., & Liu, K. (2002). 1999-2000 participation and performance o f
English language learners reported in public state documents and web sites (LEP
Projects Report 3). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center
on Educational Outcomes.
Alexander, K & Alexander, M.D. (2005). American Public School Law. (6th. Ed).
Belmont, CA: Thomson West.
American Association of School Administrators (n.d.). AASA 'S Statement o f Ethics for
School Administrators. Retrieved January 28, 2005, from
http://www.aasa.org/about/ethics.htm
Anderson, E.M. & Shannon, A.L. (1995). Toward a conceptualization of mentoring. In T.

Kerry, & A.S. Mayes (Eds.), Issues in mentoring (pp.25-34). London and New
York: Routledge.
Anstrom, K. (1997). “Academic achievement for secondary language minority students:

standards, measures and promising practices.” Washington DC: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved February 1, 2005, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/reports/acadach.htm
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling fo r language-minority

children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bartolome, L.I. (2002). Creating an equal playing field: Teachers as advocates, border
crossers, and cultural brokers. In Z. F. Beykont (Ed.), The power o f culture:
Teaching across language difference (pp. 167-192). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Publishing Group.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school
communities. Educational Psychology 32, 137-51.
229
Berman, P., Minicucci, C., McLaughlin, B., Nelson, B., & Woodworth, K. (1995). School
reform and student diversity: Case studies o f exemplary practices fo r English
language learner students. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on
Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning, and B.W. Associates.
Berriz, B.R. (2000). Raising children’s cultural voices: Strategies for developing literacy
in two languages. In Z. F. Beykont (Ed.), Lifting every voice: Politics and
pedagogy o f bilingualism (pp.71-94). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Publishing Group.
Beykont, Z.F. Introduction. In Z.F. Beykont (Ed.), The power o f culture: Teaching
across language difference (pp. vii-xxxvi). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Publishing Group.
Birchak, B., Connor, C., Crawford, M., Kahn, L., Kaser, S., Turner, S., & Short, K.G.
(1998). Teacher study groups: Building community through dialogue and
reflection. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1998). Handbook o f instructional leadership: How really good
principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Brisk, M. E., Dawson, M., Hartgering, M., MacDonald, E., & Zehr, L. (2002). Teaching
bilingual students in mainstream classrooms. In Z. F. Beykont (Ed.), The power o f
culture: Teaching across language difference (pp. 89-120). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Publishing Group.
Brisk, M. E., & Harrington, M. M. (2000). Literacy and bilingualism: A handbook for all
teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). The case far constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and. Curriculum Development
Brown, C. A., Smith, M.S & Stein, M.K. (1995, April). Linking teacher support to
enhanced classroom instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning, Educational Researcher, 18(1), pp.34-41.
Bryne, C.J. (1983). Teacher knowledge and teacher effectiveness: A literature review,
theoretical analysis and discussion o f research strategy. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Northwestern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY.
230
Calderon, M. & Carreon, A. (1994), Educators and Students use Cooperative learning to
become biliterate and bicultural. Cooperative Learning Magazine, 4, 6-9.
Calderon, M., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Slavin, R. (1998). Effects of bilingual cooperative
integrated reading and composition on students making the transition from
Spanish to English reading. The Elementary School Journal 99(2), 153-65.
Calderon, M., Tinajero, J., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1992). Adaptive cooperative

integrated reading and composition on students making the transition from
Spanish to English. Journal o f Educational Issues o f Language Minority Students
10, 79-106.
California State Department of Education. (1982). Basic Principles fo r the Education o f

Language Minority Students, An Overview. Sacramento: Office of Bilingual
Bicultural Education.
Carey, K.(2004). The real value of teachers: Using new information about teacher
effectiveness to close the achievement gap. The Education Trust, 8, 3-42.
Carrad, L. (2002). Policy developments in mentoring and volunteering, in Mentoring,

Citizenship and the Community: Report of the third annual conference of the
London Mentoring Network, (ed) A.D. London: Millar, Learning Skills council.
Carrasquillo, A. L. & Rodriguez, V. (1996). Language minority students in the

mainstream classroom. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Cazden, C., & Mehan, H. (1990). Principles from sociology and anthropology: Context,
code, classroom, and culture. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base fo r the
beginning teacher (pp. 47-57). Washington, DC: American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education.
Chamot, A. U., O'Malley, J. M., & Kiipper, L. (1992). Building bridges: Content and
learning strategies fo r ESL students, Books 1, 2, and 3. Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.
Chamot, A. U., and J. M. O'Malley (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the
cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Clair, N., Adger, C. T., Short, D., & Millen, E. (1998). “Implementing standards with
English language learners: Initial findings from four middle schools.” Providence,
RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University.
Retrieved April 15, 2005, from
http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/implementing/imp-std.pdf
231
Clair, N. & Adger, C.T. (1999, October) Professional Development for Teachers in
Culturally Diverse Schools October [Electronic version]. Center for Applied
Linguistics, Article EDO-FL-99-08. Retrieved July 20,2006 from
http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/profdvpt.html
Cohen, D.K., and H. Hill (1997, April). Instructional policy and classroom performance:
the mathematics reform in California. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Cohen, D.K., and H. Hill (1998, January). “State Policy and Classroom Performance:
Mathematics Reform in California.” Retrieved February 20, 2005, from
http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rb23.pdf
Comer, J. (1988). Educating poor minority children. Scientific American, 259 (5), 42-48.
Corson, D. (1995). Using English words. New York: Kluwer.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational

success for language minority students, (pp. 3-49) In Office of Bilingual
Bicultural Education, Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical
framework. Sacramento: State Department of Education.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and

pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education fo r empowerment in a diverse

society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2005). Welcome to Dr. Cummins ’ ESL and Second Language Learning
Web! Retrieved February 1, 2005, from
http://www.iteachileam.com/cummins/index.htm
Dale, T., & Cuevas, G. J. (1992). Integrating mathematics and language learning. In P. A.
Richard-Amato & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for
content-area teachers (pp. 9-51). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: investing in quality

teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
232
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Standard setting in teaching: Changes in licensing,

certification, and assessment. Handbook o f research on teaching, V. Richardson
(ed.) 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association
(pages 751-776).
Darling-Hammond, L., and M. W. McLaughlin. (1995). "Policies That Support

Professional Development in an Era of Reform." Phi Delta Kappan 76, 8: 597-604.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other’s people children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York:
New Press.
Doherty, R.W., Hilberg, R.S., Pinal, A., & Tharp, R.G. (2003). Five standards and
student achievement. NABE Journal o f Research and Practice 1(1), 1-24.
Dondero, G.M. (1997). Mentor: beacon of hope. Adolescence, 32, 881-886.
DuFour, R., & Eaker. R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices fo r enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible fo r

English learners: The SIOP Model. 2nd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Pearson/Allyn
and Bacon.
Echevarria, J., Short, D., Powers, K. (2002). Using sheltered instruction to improve the
achievement o f English language learners. Manuscript in preparation.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., Short, D. (2000). Making content comprehensible fo r English
language learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Elmore, R.F. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional
improvement at Community School District #2, NYC. [Electronic Version].
National College fo r Leadership
Elmore, R.F. (1997). The challenge of school variability: Improving instruction in New
York City’s Community District #2 [Electronic Version]. Consortium fo r Policy
Research in Education, 1-4.
Elmore, R.F. (2002). “Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education.” Retrieved February 20,
2005, from http://www.ashankerinst.org/Downloads/Bridging Gap.pdf
233
Elmore, R.F. (2003) Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and
performance based accountability. Washington DC: NGA for Best Practices.
Elmore, R.F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, Winter 2005 (69),
138.
Faltis, C.J. & Wolfe, P. (1999). Gender and ideology in secondary ESL and bilingual
classrooms. In C.J. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents,
Bilingualism & ESL in the secondary school (pp. 83-104). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Farmer, D. (1999). Mentoring: Meeting the needs o f gifted students in regular classrooms
(video/booklet).
Fillmore, L.W. (1991). Second language learning in children: A model of language

learning in social context. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing by
bilingual children (pp. 49-69). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, L.W. & Snow, C., (2002). What teachers need to know about language. In C.
Adger, C.E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about
language (pp. 7-54). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta
Systems Company, Inc.
Fix, M., & Passel, J. (2003, January). U.S. immigration: Trends & implications for
schools. Paper presented at the meeting of the NCLB Implementation Institute,
New Orleans, LA.
Freedman, M. (1992). The kindness o f strangers: Reflections on the mentoring movement,

Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
Freeman, Y., Freeman, D. & Mercuri, S. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: How to
reach limited-formal-schooling and long-term English learners. New York:
Heinemann.
Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Fry, R. (2003). Hispanic youth dropping out o f U.S. schools: Measuring the challenge.
Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Fulton-Scott, M.J., & Calvin, A.D. (1983). Bilingual multicultural education vs.
integrated and non-integrated ESL instruction. NABE Journal fo r the National
Association fo r Bilingual Education 7(3), 1-12.
234
Garcia, O. (1999). Educating Latino high school students with little formal schooling. In
C.J. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents, Bilingualism & ESL in
the secondary school (pp. 61-82). New York: Teachers College Press.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What
makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4), 915-945. Retrieved
April 15, 2005, from http://aztla.asu.edu/ProfDevl .pdf
Gay, B. (2000). Keynote address to mentoring matters conference. National Mentoring

Network for the Home Office.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and best practice.
Multicultural series. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gebhard, M., Austin, T., Nieto, S., & Willett, J. (2002). “You can’t step on someone
else’s words: Preparing all teachers to teach language minority students. In Z.F.
Beykont (Ed.), The power o f culture: Teaching across language difference (pp.
219-244). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
Genesee, F. & Riches, C. (2006). Literacy: Instructional Issues. In F. Genesee, K.

Lindholm-Leary, W.M. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English
language learners: A synthesis o f research evidence (pp. 109-175). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Gibbons, P. (2003). "Mediating Language Learning: Teacher Interactions with ESL

Students in a Content-Based Classroom." TESOL, 37(2): 247-273.
Golden, S. & Sims, D. (1997). Review o f Industrial Mentoring in Schools, National

Foundation for Educational Research, Slough.
Goleman (1990) Compassion and comfort in middle age: new research finds a flowering
of lives marked by generosity and deeper relationship, New York Times, 6
February.
Goleman, Daniel. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Gomez, R. Parker, R., & Lara-Alecio, R. (1996). Process versus product writing limited
English proficient students. The Bilingual Research Journal 20(2), 209-33.
Gonzalez, J.M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). New concepts fo r new challenges:

Professional development fo r teachers o f immigrant youth. McHenry, IL: Delta
Systems and CAL.
235
Gonzalez, J.M. & Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, December). Programs that prepare

teachers to work effectively with student learning English. ERIC Digest.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No.. EDO-FL-00-09)
Goodlad, S (1995) Students as Tutors and Mentors. Kogan Page: London, England.
Goodrich, Heidi. Just what is a rubric? Retrieved January 16, 2007, from
http ://www.middle web. com/C SLB2rubric .html
Greenspan, A. (February 2005) “Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan.” Retrieved

March 10, 2005, from
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/2005/februarv/testimony.htm
Guarino, A.J., Echevarria, J., Short, D., Schick, J.E., Forbes, S., & Rueda, R. (2001). The
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol. Journal o f Research in Education, 11,
(1), 138-140.
Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1981). Effective Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hamayan, E. V. (1990) Helping language minority students after they exit from
bilingual/ESL programs: a handbook fo r teachers. Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.
Hickok, E. (2002). No Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Retrieved April 15, 2005, from
http://www.cenmi.org/uploaded%5C2003%5CMAY%5C20118002736 NCLBref
.pdf
Hilberg, R. S., Tharp, R. G., & DeGeest, L. (2000). The efficacy of CREDE’s standards-
based instruction in American Indian mathematics classes. Equity and Excellence
in Education, 33(2), 32-39.
Homberger, N.H. (1996). “Remember I Said”: Cambodian students’ second language

literacy development in a mainstream classroom. In Z.F. Beykont (Ed.), The
power o f culture: Teaching across language difference (pp. 73-88). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
236
Lampe, J.R., Rooze, G.E., & Tallent-Runnels, M. (1996) Effects of cooperative among
Hispanic students in elementary social studies. Journal o f Educational Research,
8, 187-191
Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1995). The work o f restructuring schools. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Jonassen, D.H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model.

Educational Technology 34(4), 34-37.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Building Community through Cooperative
Learning. Theory into Practice. 38(2), 67-73.
Kenny, W.R., & Grotelueschen, A.D. (1980). Making the case fo r case study. Urbana, IL:
Office for the Study of continuing Professional Education, College of Education
University of Illinois, Urbanc-Champaign.
Lampe, J.R., Rooze, G.E., & Tallent-Runnels, M. (1996) Effects of cooperative among
Hispanic students in elementary social studies. Journal o f Educational Research,
8, 187-191
Lapkoff, S. & Li, R.M. (2007). Five trends for schools. Educational Leadership, 64(6),
8-15.
Latinos in education: Early childhood, elementary, undergraduate, graduate. (1999).

Washington DC: White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic
Americans. Retrieved on June 20, 2002 from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OHA/Hispanic/n7ech.html.
Lauland, A. (1998). Yes, You Can: A guide fo r establishing mentoring programs to

prepare youth fo r college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lindholm-Leary, K. & Borsato, G. (2006). Academic Achievement. In F. Genesee, K.

Lindholm-Leary, W.M. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English
language learners: A synthesis o f research evidence (pp. 176-222). New York:
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S.E., & Hewson, P.W. (2003).
Designing professional development fo r teachers o f science and mathematics (2nd
ed.). New York: Corwin Press.
237
Lucas, T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990). Promoting the success of Latino language
minority students: An exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard Educational
Review 60(3), 315-40.
Macias, R. F. (1998). Summary report o f the survey o f the states’ limited English
proficient students and available educational programs and services, 1996-1997.
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Macias, R. F. (2000). The flowering of America: Linguistic diversity in the United States.
In S.L. McKay & S. C. Wong (Eds.), New immigrants in the United States:
Readings fo r second language educators (pp. 11-57). Cambridge, Eng.:
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J. & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that

works : Research-based strategies fo r increasing student achievement. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools translating research into action.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2004). Coordinated Program Review

Procedures School District Information Package: M.G.L. Chapter 71A English
Learner Education (ELE) in Public Schools, 2004-2005.
Massachusetts Department of Education (2003). English Language Learners Attachment

#1- Description o f MADOE SEI Professional Development Opportunities for
2005-2006. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/sei/attachl.html
Massachusetts Department of Education (2003). English Language Proficiency

Requirements fo r Teachers under Question 2 .English Language Education in
Public Schools, 2003.. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/0327profreq.html
Massachusetts Department of Education (June 2003). English language proficiency

benchmarks and outcomes. Retrieved March 10, 2005, from
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/benchmark.pdf
Massachusetts Department of Education (August 2003). Questions and Answers

Regarding Chapter 71A: English Language Education in Public Schools.
Retrieved March 10, 2005, from
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/news03/FAQ drft.pdf
238
Massachusetts Department of Education (August 2003). M.G.L. c. 71A: School District

Program Waivers fo r English Learners, Requirements and Procedures. Retrieved
March 10, 2005, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/news03/waiverfrm drft.pdf
Maxwell-Jolly, J. & Gandara, P. (2002). A quest for quality: Providing qualified teachers
for California’s English learners. In Z. F. Beykont (Ed.), The power o f culture:
Teaching across language difference (pp. 43-70). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Publishing Group.
McLeod, B. (Ed.). (1994). Language and learning: Educating linguistically diverse

students. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
McDonnell, L.M. & Hill, P. (1993). Newcomers in American schools: Meeting the
educational needs o f immigrant youth. Santa Monica: Rand.
McGroarty, M. (1992). Cooperative Learning: The Benefits for Content-Area Teaching.
In P.A. Richard-Amato & M.A. Snow. The Multicultural Classroom. White
Plains, New York: Longman.
McLaughlin, B., August, D., Snow, C.E., Carlo, M., Dressier, C., White, C., Lively, T., &
Lippan, D. (2000). Vocabulary improvement and reading in English language
learners: An intervention study. Proceedings
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mehan, H., Hubbard, L., Lintz, A., & Villanueva, I. (1994). Tracking untracking: The
consequences o f placing low track students in high track classes. (Research
Report No. 10). Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural
Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Menken, K. and Antunez, B. (2001, June). An overview o f the preparation and

certification teachers working with limited English proficient (LEP) students:
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Merriam, S. B. (Ed.). (2001). The New Update on Adult Learning Theory. New
Directions fo r Adult and Continuing Education, No. 89. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook (Second Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
239
Miller, A. D. (1998). Business and community mentoring in schools (Research Report no

43) Sheffield, England: DFEE.
Miller, A. D. (2002). Mentoring students and young people: a handbook o f effective

practice. London, England: Kogan Page.
Minicucci, C. (1996). Learning science and English: How school reform advances
scientific learning fo r limited English proficient middle school students
(Educational Practice Report No. 17). Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for
Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Moll, L.C. (1992). Bilingual classrooms studies and community analysis: Some recent
trends. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 20-24.
Moll, L.C. & Diaz, R. (1987). Teaching writing as communication: The use of
ethnographic findings in classroom practice. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and
schooling (pp. 55-65). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Montecel, M.R., & Cortez, J.D. (2002). Successful bilingual education programs:
Development and the dissemination of criteria to identify promising and
exemplary practices in bilingual education at the national level. Bilingual
Research Journal 26, 1-22.
Murphy, C. & Lick, D. (2001). Whole-faculty study groups: Creating student-based

professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1995). Schools and staffing survey, 1993-94:
Overview o f the data fo r public, private, public charter and Bureau o f Indian
Affairs elementary and secondary schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). A profile ofpolicies and practices for\
limited English proficient students: Screening methods, program support, and
teacher training, 1993-94. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (2001). English Literacy and Language
Minorities in the United States. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001 /2001464 2.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2002). Schools and staffing survey, 1999-2000:
Overview o f the data fo r public, private, public charter, and Bureau o f Indian
Affairs elementary and secondary schools. (NCES 2002-313). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
240
National Center for Education Statistics (2006). Schools and staffing survey, 2003-2004:
Overview o f the data fo r public, private, public charter, and Bureau o f Indian
Affairs elementary and secondary schools. (NCES 2006-313). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most:
Teaching fo r America’s future. New York: National Commission.
National Education Association (n.d.). Code o f Ethics o f the Education Profession.

Retrieved January 29, 2005, from
http ://ospiti web.indire.it/adi/CodeEtic/codenea.htm
NCLB. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2005, from

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/guide/guide pg 12.html#history.
Nieto, S. (1999). Light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Nieto, S. (2000). Bringing bilingual education out of the basement, and other imperatives
for teacher education. In Z. F. Beykont (Ed.), Lifting every voice: Pedagogy and
politics o f bilingualism (pp. 187-208). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Publishing Group.
Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture and teaching: Critical perspectives fo r a new

century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Novotney, L.C, Mertinko, E., Lange, J. & Baker, T.K. (2000). Juvenile mentoring
program: A progress review. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
O’Neil, J. (1995). On schools as learning organizations: A conversation with Peter Senge.

Educational Leadership, 52(7), 20-23.
Ovando, C. and Collier, V. (1998). Bilingual and ESL Classrooms: Teaching in

Multicultural Contexts. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Padron, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1999). Classroom observations of the Five Standards
of Effective Teaching in urban classrooms with English language learners.
Teaching and Change, 7(1), 79-100.
Philips, S. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on

the Warm Springs Indian reservations. Prospect Heights, NJ: Waveland.
241
Piper, H. & Piper, J. (2000). Disaffected young people as the problem. Mentoring as the
solution. Education and work as the goal. Journal o f Education and Work, 13(1),
77-94.
Ramirez, J.D. (1992). Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-
exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority
children (Executive Summary). Bilingual Research Journal 16(1-2), 1-62.
Reeves, J. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language

learners in mainstream classrooms. Journal o f Educational Research, 99(3), 131-
143.
Reiss, J. (2005). Teaching content to English language learners: Strategies fo r secondary

school success. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Renyi, J. (1996). “Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professional

development for student success.” New York: National Foundation for the
Improvement of Education. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from
http://www.nfie.org/publications/takecharge full.htm
Research base underlying Collaborative Strategic Reading. Retrieved June 20, 2006,
from http://www.state.ia.us/educate/ecese/tqt/tc/prodev/reading/research col-
strat-rdg.doc
Roberts, A. (2000). “Mentoring revisited: a phenomenological reading of the literature.”

Mentoring and Tutoring, 8 (2).
Roberts, S. & Pruitt, E. (2003). Schools as professional learning communities

Collaborative activities and strategies fo r professional development. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rodriguez, T.A. (2001). From the Known to the Unknown: Using Cognates to Teach
English and Spanish-Speaking Literates. Reading Teacher. 54 n8, 744-46.
Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S.
secondary schools. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Sanders, W.L. & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects o f teachers on
future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee.
242
Saunders, W., O’Brien, G., Lennon, D., & McLean, J. (1998). Making the transition to
English literacy successful: Effective strategies for studying literature with
transition students. In R. Gersten & R. Jimenez (Eds.), Promoting learning for
culturally and linguistically diverse students. Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole
Publishers.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics

perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Retrieved from: periodic newsletter for TESOL members
http://www.tesol.Org//s tesol/article.asp?vid=163&DID=6753&sid=l&cid=736&
iid=671 6&nid=3077 on August 15, 2006.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice o f the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. (2005). The Educational Forum, Winter 2005 (69).
Schifter, D. (1996). What's Happening in the Mathematics Classroom: Issues o f Practice

in Teacher Narratives from the Mathematics Reform Movement (Vol. 1). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Short, D. (1998). “Secondary newcomer programs: Helping recent immigrants prepare

for school success.” Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and
Linguistics. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from
http://repositories.cdlib.org/crede/occrpts/eric 98 03 newcomer/
Short, D. (1999). Integrating language and content for effective sheltered instruction
programs. In C.J. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents,
Bilingualism & ESL in the secondary school (pp. 105-138). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Short, D. & Echevarria, J. (2004). Teacher skills to support English language

learners. Educational Leadership, 62, 5-9.
Silver, E. A., Kilpatrick, J., & Schlesinger, B. (1990). Thinking through mathematics.
New York: The College Entrance Examination Board.
Slavin, R.E., & Calderon, M. (2001). Effective programs fo r Latino students. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Snow, C. & Biancarosa, G. (2003) Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap: What do
we know and where do we go from here? Adolescent Literacy Funders Meeting
Report, Carnegie Corporation of New York.
243
Songsthagen, L.L. & Lee, S. (1996). America’s most needed: real life heroes and
heroines. Schools in the Middle, February/March, 37-42.
Spaulding, S., Carolino, B., & Amen, K.A. (2004). Immigrants students and secondary
school reform: Compendium o f best practices. Boston: Council of Chief State
School Officers.
Sparks, D. & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision fo r staff development. Oxford, OH: National
Staff Development Council and Alexandria, YA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Spaulding, S., Barbara Carolino and Kali-Ahset Amen (January 2004). “Immigrant
Students and Secondary School Reform: Compendium of Best Practices.”
Washington DC: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Retrieved
March 10, 2005, from
http:/Avww.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationsID=230
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art o f case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Starratt, R.J. (2003). Centering educational administration: Cultivating meaning,

community,responsibility. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Starratt, R.J. (2004). Ethical Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Strong, M. (1983). Social styles and the second language acquisition of Spanish-speaking
kindergartens. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 241-258.
Sullivan, P., Yeager, M., Chudowsky, N., Kober, N., O’Brien, E., & Gaylor, K. (2005).
State high school exit exams: States try harder but gaps persist. Washington, DC:
Center on Education Policy.
Suter, W.N. (1998). Primer o f educational research. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
The Massachusetts Institute For a New Commonwealth. (2005, June). The changing face
o f Massachusetts. Boston: Sum, A.M, Uvin, J., Khatiwada, I., & Ansel, D.
Tellez, K. (1998). Class placement of elementary school emerging bilingual students.

Bilingual Research Journal 22(2-4), 279-95.
Tharp, R. G. (1982). The effective instruction of comprehension: Results and description

of the Kamehameha Early Education Program. Reading Research Quarterly,
17(4), 503-527.
244
Tharp, R. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching learning and
schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University.
Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed:
Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder: Westview Press.
Thomas, W.P. & Collier, V.P. (1997). School effectiveness fo r language minority
students. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE) Resource
Collection Series, No. 9, December, 1997.
Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for
language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz and
Washington, DC: Center on Research, Diversity & Excellence.
The road to a college diploma: The complex reality o f raising educational achievement
fo r Hispanics in the United States. (2002). Washington DC: White House
Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. Retrieved on July
10, 2006 from http://www.vesican.gov/paceea/finalinterim.pdf.
Tikunoff, W. (1985). Applying significant bilingual instructional features in the

classroom. Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338106).
Title III: Language Instruction fo r Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students.
(n.d.)., Retrieved March 10, 2005, from
http://www.ed.gov/policv/elsec/leg/esea02/pg39.html
Title VI o f the 1964 Civil Rights Act (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2005, from
http://www.usdoi.gov/crt/cor/coord/titlevistat.htm
Trueba, H. (1989). Raising silent voices: Educating the linguistic minorities fo r the 21st
century. New York: Newbury.
Van Hook, Jennifer and Michael Fix.(2000). “A Profile of Immigrant Children in U.S.
Schools.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Villegas, A. M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent

approach. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development o f higher psychological

process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
245
Vygotsky, L.S. (1994). The development of academic concepts in school aged children.
In R v d Veer and J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader. Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1997) Educational psychology (R. Silverman, Trans.) Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press. (Original work published in 1926)
Wiley, D., & Yoon, B. (1995). Teacher reports of opportunity to learn: Analyses of the
1993 California learning assessment system. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 17(3), 355-370.
Yin, R.K. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Method. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research. Design and methods, Second Ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson, T. G., Pendzick, M., &
Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study o f services to LEP students and LEP students
with disabilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic
Achievement of Limited English Proficient Students.
Zeichner, K. (1996). Educating teachers for cultural diversity. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick,

& M.L. Gomez (Eds.), Current reform in preservice teacher education (pp.133-
175). New York: Teachers College Press.
Zeichner, K. (2003). Pedagogy, Knowledge, and Teacher Preparation. In B. Williams

(Ed.), Closing the achievement gap: A vision fo r changing beliefs, and practices
(Second Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
246
A P P E N D IX A
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
To: English Language Learner (ELL) Study Group Member

From: John Harutunian
Re: Dissertation Project
As a member of the English Language Learner Study Group, you are being invited to
participate in a research project conducted by me under the supervision of Dr. Irwin
Blumer, chairperson of the Lynch School of Education at Boston College. This study
will provide data for my dissertation titled “A Case Study of the Impact of a Professional
Development Training Program on Teachers’ Understanding and Instructional Practices
Towards English Language Learners.” By participating in on-going professional
development targeting the needs of English Language Learners our school can collect and
assess some important data about the effectiveness of this professional development
program for future implementations at Nations Middle School and other public schools.
You are being invited to participate because, as middle school teachers, you are integrally
involved in the teaching and learning of English Language Learners. Additionally, you
represent a cross-section of our middle school faculty and have significant insights and
opinions regarding the effectiveness of a professional development program. Your
dedication, experience, and honesty contribute to the reality base of this research.
I , _____________________________________________________ , agree to participate in

the above titled study by consenting to complete a year-long teacher written journals,
questionnaires on components of the professional development sessions, and two
interviews conducted by the researcher. Each interview session will take approximately
45 minutes to complete. The interview will be conducted at a mutually agreeable time
and setting. I understand that the interview will be audio taped and transcribed by an
outside educational transcription service and that all comments will be kept confidential.
These tapes will be kept under lock and key in the researcher’s home office when not
being used by the researcher and will be erased after transcription and review. My name
or any features that could be used to identify me will not be used at any time in any
written materials the researcher maintains. In addition, if the researcher were to use any
material from this study in future publications or presentations, my identity will be
protected.
247
A P P E N D IX A
I understand that my participation is voluntary and I may choose to withdraw at any time
and/or refuse to answer any question to which I do not wish to respond. Likewise, I may
choose to ask any question during or after my participation.
I understand that risk is involved to myself in participation in this research study in the
way of potential psychological discomfort when being interviewed and audio taped. I do,
however, recognize that my participation may assist the researcher to better understand
how the effectiveness of a professional development program assists teachers better
target the cultural, academic and linguistic needs of English Language Learners. This
research may provide our school and others with suggestions for organizing future
professional development and school improvement initiatives.
I further understand that observations of my class will be recorded using a field note
format. Again, anonymity will be protected by the use of a coding system. No reference
will be made to the identity of individuals in the presentation of written materials
connected with this research.
I also understand that documents including teacher written journals will be collected and
analyzed. Participant identities will again be protected in any presentation of these
materials. I understand that the researcher will make a copy of the findings and
conclusions available at the completion of the study.
If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in a research study, please
call the Boston College Office for Human Research Participant Protection: 617-552-
4778. If you would like to contact to either Dr. Irwin Blumer or I, please refer to the
following contact information below:
Dr. Irwin Blumer, Boston College John Harutunian, Boston College Principal
Faculty Advisor Researcher
Office Phone: 617-552-1956
Email: blumer (olbc.edu
Boston College Lynch School of
Education, Campion Hall 205A,
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
Signature of Participant Researcher - John Harutunian
Date Date
248
A P P E N D IX B
ELL Study Group Teacher Survey

T eacher Name: Dalte:
1. Years of teaching experience in total?
2. Years o f experience at Nations Middle

School?
3. Teaching Status: Please identify if you

are a professional or non-professional
status teacher. If you are non
professional, identify which year you
are for non-professional.
Example:
Harry is a non-professional status teacher in
year one.
4. Identify the name of your college, title College name:
of degree and name of major for your
Bachelor’s degree
Example: Degree title:
- University of Massachusetts,
- Bachelor’s of Business Administration
- Marketing Major:
5. Do you hold a Master’s degree? If so, College name:
please identify the name of your college,
title of degree and name of major for
your Master’s degree Degree title:
Example:
- University of Alabama
- Master of Arts in Education Major:
- Education
6. Please identify the step that applies:
Bachelor’s degree only
Master’s degree only
Master’s + 15 credits
Ph.D. or CAGS
7. Years of experience teaching classes of
one or more English language learners
in a class at the same time?
249
A P P E N D IX B
ELL Study Group Teacher Survey
8. Did you speak a language other

than English in your home
growing up? (If so, please
identify home language.)
9. Have you studied a second

language? If so, which one?
10. Describe the years that you

studied this second language (#
in high school, # in college if
any)
11. Have you participated in a

language immersion or in a
language semester abroad
program in college?
12. Have you received any training

for teaching ELL students
outside of the professional
development at Nations Middle
School? (ex. Classes at college,
graduate school, professional
workshops), if so, please indicate
briefly about it.
13. Please describe any outside

experiences that you have
taught, coached or mentored
English language learners
outside a school context and
include the length of time you
participated in this experience.
cs for taking a few minutes to fill this out! t will be used as part of the data
collection process for this English Language Learner Study Group program.
Sincerely, John
250
A P P E N D IX C
Interview Protocol - December

Interview pilot week of 12.12 and Interviews conducted week of 12.19
Research Study Title:

A Case Study of the Impact of a Professional Development Training Program on
Teachers’ Understanding and Instructional Practices Toward English Language Learners
Major Research Questions:

instructional, sociocultural, and linguistic needs of English language learners?
instruction?
Introduction to be read to each participant prior to the interview:

“I am conducting this interview to study the effectiveness of the professional
development incorporated as part of your participation in the English language learner
study group. This interview will have no affect on your evaluation and is completely
voluntary. Your name will not be identified. So, if someone was reading this they would
not be able to decipher who gave what responses.
By conducting this interview, I will be able to augment my own knowledge about what
you and the other study group participants’ perceptions of the implementation of the
professional development, the needs of English language learners and experiences with
English language learners as well as the instructional strategies that you utilize in regular
teaching practice. Remember that this is not an evaluation and your responses will be
kept strictly confidential. The purpose of this interview is to understand more deeply
about the effectiveness of the professional development and to try to refine it based on
the data that is collected from each of you through this interview and other reflections
that you share during the year. Therefore it is essential that your responses remain as
authentic and as forthright as possible.”
251
A P P E N D IX C
Cultural Background and Sociocultural needs:
1. How would you describe a classroom that is culturally and linguistically

responsive to the needs of students?
2. Based on the content area that you teach, describe how a student’s cultural
background relates to your classroom and teaching?
3. What strategies would you advise a new teacher to utilize to acknowledge a

student’s cultural background?
4. What are the strategies or actions that a teacher can take to lead to English
language learners taking more responsibility for their own learning and academic
achievement?
Linguistic Needs:
5. What are the strategies that you use to see if students understand reading content?
Instructional Strategies and Instructional Needs:
6. What do you see as the role of the teacher of English language learners outside
the classroom?
7. What instructional strategies would you advise a new teacher to consider if they
were going to take over your classroom with English language learners for an
extended period of time?
252
A P P E N D IX C
8. A summary of the research for raising the academic achievement for English
language learners recommends several instructional strategies including:
a) Activating prior knowledge that students have about a topic, lesson or
unit before teaching the new material and building the students’
background knowledge.
b) Utilizing strategies for teaching content vocabulary and academic
language.
c) Making concepts more easily understood for the learner with real
objects, manipulatives, visuals, and graphic organizers.
d) Utilizing specific grouping strategies for organizing planned
opportunities for interactions between all individuals in the classroom.
e) Helping students perceive the relationship of the content material from
parts to wholes, providing the tools to help them make explicit
connections between subject areas and between school life and home
life. (Knapp, M.S., P.M. Shields, and B.J. Turnbull. (June 1995).
“Academic Challenge in High Poverty Classrooms.” Phi Delta Kappan
76(10), pp. 770-776. - Teaching for Meaning)
If you use one or more of these strategies, could you describe with an example(s) how
you utilize it and describe how it helps increase the student’s academic achievement?
Teacher Empowerment:
9. Before your participation in the study group, describe your approach to addressing
the needs of the English language learners in your classroom?
10. Compare the similarities and differences of your expectations for the academic
achievement towards native English speakers and English language learners?
11. Describe the top two challenges you face as the teacher of English language
learners.
253
A P P E N D IX C
12. Before your participation in the study group began, describe your experience level
4 3 2 1
I am very I am experienced I have some I have little
experienced teaching teaching English experience teaching experience or no
English Language language learners; I English language teaching English
learners; I have a rich have a fair learners. I have basic language learners. I
understanding of understanding of understanding of am not aware o f
their linguistic and their linguistic and their linguistic and specific linguistic
instructional needs instructional needs instructional needs and instructional
and I frequently use a and I sometimes use and I once in a while needs and I am not
repertoire of strategies to address use strategies that aware of the
strategies to address their learning needs. address their learning strategies that
their learning needs. needs. address their learning
needs.
13. How would you assess your own professional growth with English language
learners thus far?
14. What information would you like to learn more about that would increase your
confidence in teaching English language learners during the upcoming study
group meetings?
Evaluation of professional development so far:
254
A P P E N D IX C
Mentoring:
15. Now that you have mentored an English language learner for at least one month,
describe what you have learned regarding the factors that influence this student’s
academic achievement?
16. Describe what actions you have taken thus far to assist this student and assess its
impact.
DOE: Category I training: Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching
17. Explain how this training has informed your instructional practice of English
language learners.
DOE: Category III training: Assessment of Speaking and Listening
18. What are the advantages and challenges of using the Massachusetts English
Language Assessment-Oral?
19. Describe how this assessment informs your understanding of the linguistic needs
of English language learners.
20. Explain how this training has informed your instructional practice of English
language learners.
Monthly Study Group Meetings in September. October, and November and Study Group
in general
21. Describe what is one valuable aspect of the study group.
255
A P P E N D IX D
Interview Protocol - June
Instructional Strategies and Instructional Needs:
1. Please describe at least two of the mentee’s academic weaknesses.
2. Explain with at least two examples what strategies or actions you took to help
your mentee improve in those skill areas and assess its effectiveness in improving
the mentee’s academic achievement.
3. Explain at least two strategies that you use to improve students’ understanding of
non-fiction reading content?
4. Please describe with a specific example one of the instructional strategies below
that you integrate into your instruction:
• Activating prior knowledge that students have about a topic, lesson or unit
before teaching the new material and building the students’ background
knowledge.
• Utilizing strategies for teaching content vocabulary and academic language.
• Utilizing specific grouping strategies for organizing planned opportunities
for interactions between all individuals in the classroom.
• Helping students perceive the relationship of the content material from parts
to wholes, providing the tools to help them make explicit connections
between subject areas and between school life and home life. (Knapp, M.S.,
P.M. Shields, and B.J. Turnbull. (June 1995). “Academic Challenge in High
Poverty Classrooms.” Phi Delta Kappan 76(10), pp. 770-776. - Teaching for
Meaning)
256
A P P E N D IX D
Interview Protocol - June
Cultural Background and Sociocultural Needs:
5. Having spent the school year with your mentee, please describe the following:
a) Personal challenges of your mentee.
b) Linguistic strengths and weaknesses.
c) Please give at least one example of how you have tried to address
these needs.
Teacher Empowerment:
6. How has your role as the mentor affected you as a teacher of English language
learners?
(If the respondent struggles ask follow-up questions:
Describe how your instructional practice has been affected. Classroom delivery,
homework, assessment strategies)
7. Now that you have participated in the study group, describe your experience level
1
I am very I am experienced I have some experience I have little
experienced teaching English teaching English experience or no
teaching English language learners; I language learners. I teaching English
Language have a fair have basic language learners. I
learners; I have a understanding o f their understanding o f their am not aware o f
rich linguistic and linguistic and specific linguistic
understanding o f instructional needs and instructional needs and and instructional
their linguistic I sometimes use I once in a while use needs and I am not
and instructional strategies to address strategies that address aware o f the
needs and I their learning needs. their learning needs. strategies that
frequently use a address their
repertoire o f learning needs.
strategies to
address their
learning needs.
8 . How have you grown professionally through participation in the ELL Study group
and as a mentor in the mentoring program?
9. Is there anything else that has not been addressed in this interview that you would
like to comment on regarding the study group, the mentoring program and/or
other feedback from this year?
257
A P P E N D IX E
Researcher Field Notes from English language learner Study Group Meeting
November 21, 2005
Important Reminder:
"This Tuesday, November 29, we all meet at the school, Room 16 at 8:00am for the M E L A -0 training. If
you are going to be late or if you get lost, please call ...
Meeting Participants:
Attended: Jackie, Harry, Lila, Lori, Barbara, Joan, Esta M., Carol B., John H.,
Absent: Lois, Karen
Make-up Meeting: 11/23/05 - Lois & Karen
Discussion:
John distributed the following information to assist mentors to continue meetings with their mentees
including:
a) RAP Survey for mentees - Please use the survey (it is on this email in case you lost it) to collect
from your mentee about why they are not participating in RAP and what it would take to get them
signed up for next term.
b) "“Goal Flower - All mentors noted down hat necessary steps need to take place in order for the
Mentee to achieve their goal. All mentors should work with their mentees in their next meeting to
use this template to talk about goals.
c) Human Subjects Consent Form - Study group members signed this form acknowledging their
wish to participate in the study.
d) Although the group didn’t have time to talk about the types o f activities that they are doing in their
meetings with their mentees, if you are stuck on creative ideas to do outside o f school, there is a
list below o f ideas at the end o f the minutes.
Issues Discussed:
Check-in with each mentor about their progress with their mentees.
Jackie - Many other students after school; extra demands. 10 o f 16 students have been placed on student
success plans so I don’t have the energy after teaching almost an extra hour each day to meet with her
individually after school. She seeks me out and often asks, “Can I have lunch with you today?”
Barbara - She is putting more effort into school and especially her homework. We have reviewed
techniques on different strategies to help her with her homework like use her friends to partner with to do
homework. Last week, she came to review for her science test. ... She is an honest girl, but she needs help.
When she is with me she seems to be able to drop her defensive shield. She seems to have a glow when she
meets with me and has my attention.
(Mentioned in hall on W eds-11.16 - “She seems to be like a Jeckel and Hyde personality. She wants so
badly to impress me and keep me happy. Today, she came up to me and said, “Look I finished everything!”
Until yesterday’s party (She skipped the party), she hadn’t forgotten an appointment. However, I found out
that after meeting with me one day, she went out and got in trouble for spreading graffiti in the back o f the
school.
258
A P P E N D IX E
Researcher Field Notes from English language learner Study Group Meeting
November 21, 2005
Harry - I have learned that he loves to impress that he can do well. His goal was to finish his homework
completely and since the kick-off party last week, he has been doing it.
Joan - 1 met with her and she is not on a student success plan, but close to one. We met and reviewed how
she is doing in trimester 1; she seems to know how she is doing. We are going to meet to talk about the
essential questions that she wants to find out about her project.
Lori - I haven’t been able to catch up with the parents yet; they don’t seem to have a phone number that
they answer and they work until about 8 or 9pm. She stays with at a cousin’s house. She told me they don’t
get home until late two nights a week because they take adult ESL classes.. .Esta suggested Lori try to meet
with them at night and she agreed. As a result o f our meeting, Lori spoke to an adult ESL coordinator to
find out the classes that her parents attended and then returned at 6:30pm to find the parents and meet with
them. She found out many interesting pieces o f information about her and her home life.
Karen - I am feeling guilty because I haven’t met with Ronaldo and I am not sure what to do. I promised to
help her work out schedule with James during SSR to work on it.
Lois - I met with her for 45 minutes before the kick-off meeting, but I haven’t with her since. I need to
work on how to check in with her.
Activity Ideas for M entor and Mentee:

• Get an exercise video/DVD out o f the library work out after school.
• Participate in a volunteer activity with mentee.
• Find out about career interest o f mentee and help them investigate it.
• Have lunch during school.
• Use SSR time to have time to talk.
• Go for a walk after school.
• Go to the gym or wellness center.
• Read a book together; go to the public library together.
• Create email and/or phone contact with the mentee - consider a check-in phone callor email from
time to time.
ELL Study Group Issues in Process

a) Create M entor Bulleting board.
b) Print out color Kinko’s photos, collect Goal Flowers.
c) Develop web link which outlines activities for study group.
d) Arrange Parent-Student-M entor meetings during week o f 12/12 to 12/16.
e) Share day to day form from the teacher to measure more carefully the m entees’ progress towards
their academic goal.
f) Schedule mentor interview schedule from Wednesday, Dec 7 to Weds, Dec 21.
Organize Personal Culture Inventory Journal: Exploring Our Classroom Practices in preparation for first
mini-course during December study group meeting.
259
APPENDIX F
Pre-Assessment Open-Ended Questionnaire
Massachusetts English Language Assessment-Oral
1. Describe the benefits of participant observation in assessing students’ oral language

skills.
2. Explain the method(s) that you use now to assess the oral English language skills of an
English Language Learner?
3. Describe at least three classroom activities that might give you the best opportunities to
observe students’ oral production and interaction.
4. How do you think an English Language Oral Assessment will help you improve your
classroom practice to increase student oral interaction?
260
APPENDIX F
Post-Assessment Open-Ended Questionnaire
Massachusetts English Language Assessment-Oral
1. Describe the benefits of participant observation in assessing students’ oral language

skills.
2. Explain the method(s) that you use now to assess the oral English language skills of an
English Language Learner?
3. Describe at least three classroom activities that might give you the best opportunities to
observe students’ oral production and interaction.
4. How do you think an English Language Oral Assessment will help you improve your
classroom practice to increase student oral interaction?
5. Describe what you have learned from this course that will help you use classroom
strategies to build your students’ oral proficiency?
261
A P P E N D IX G
Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching

THINK-BACK Activity
Date:_________________________________
Identify two ideas or concepts that you reviewed during the Introduction to Second
Language Learning and Teaching course from the Department of Education. For each
idea or concept please consider the following:
a) Briefly summarize the idea, concept or activity (one or two sentences)
b) Explain why it is important or how it has influenced your thinking, (one

paragraph)
c) Describe how the idea, concept or activity may (or may not) impact your
instruction, (one paragraph)
Idea 1:
Idea 2:
Please continue Idea #1 & 2 on back of this page if necessary.
262
A P P E N D IX H
Questionnaire for January meeting, “Challenges growing up in a bilingual

cultural world”
1. Describe how this discussion helped you augment your own understanding about
students’ instructional, cultural and/or linguistic needs.
2. Describe how this discussion will help you in your own confidence with dealing
with the English language learners in your classes and as a teacher mentor.
3. Describe how this discussion might help you think about and change your
instructional practice.
4. Please share any other ideas and/or insights that you gained from this discussion.
APPENDIX I
Below is an example of the questionnaire developed and distributed to participants
electronically using the software program, www. survevmonkev.com.
Survey Summary Page 1 (
■ B , ■ M a s ts ® . W KM
SurveyMonkey.com
\ \gj0i? because knowledge fs everything
Home ! New Survey . Lh List M anagem ent ; My Account Help Cen

T h u rsd ay , M arch 2 9 , 2C
R e S llltS S u m m a ry [ 2. W hen did you m e e t w ith y o u r m e n te e? | Export...
Filter Results S hare R esults

To analyze a su b set of your d ata, Your results can be shared with others,
you can create one or m ore filters. w ithout giving access to your account.
B M M Total: 11 C onfigure.. S ta tu s: Enabled

V isible: 11 R eports: S um m ary and Detail
2. Mentoring Program Logistics
2. When did you meet with your mentee?

Response Response
Percent Total
During p rep tim e 9 .1 % 1
During lunch 9 .1 % 1
A fter school 3 6 .4 % 4
B efore school 0% 0
Other (please specify) 45.5% 5
TotalRespondents 11
(skipped th is q u estio n ) 0
S u rveyM on k ev is Hiring! | Privacy S ta te m e n t | Contact Us | Logout

Copyright © 1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 6 S urveyM onkey.com . All R ights R eserv ed .
No portion Of this Site m a y be copied w ith o u t th e e x p re ss w ritten c o n s e n t o f S u rv e y M o n k e y .c o m .
264
A P P E N D IX J
ELL Study Group Activities
Date/Session # Topics Teacher Follow-

Through
Activities/Homework
August 23 & 24 Department of Education Workshop: 1. Adapted
Introduction to Second Language Lesson Plan
Learning and Teaching for English
language
• Questionnaire #1: Feedback learners.
from Introduction to Second 2. Summary of
Language Learning and Class readings
Teaching
265
APPENDIX J
August 25 Mentoring Workshop Participants come to

• Conduct initial survey. the mentoring
• Think-back activity to workshop having
Introduction to Second read:
Language Learning and
Teaching 1) Who are our
• Discussion of two summer students? by Aida
readings: Walqui
• Teacher Self-Reflection - Reading Reflection
discussion Question:
• Getting to know a child How do the stories of
• First-hand stories and some of the children
experiences of mentoring profiled in this
(Guest Speakers: Sybil chapter compare to a
Schlesinger and Juan student(s) on your
Rodriguez) team?
• Student goal-setting - How to
2) The Children o f
choose a goal and stick by it!
Immigration in
• Characteristics of a healthy
School by Suarez-
mentoring relationship
Orozco and Suarez-
• Anticipating potential
Orozco.
obstacles for a successful
mentoring relationship and
developing a support plan
• Criteria for choosing the right
student
• A mentor’s legal
responsibilities - What to
report and not to report and the
ethics of a mentor/student
relationship.
• View video: Educating
Linguistically and Culturally
______ Diverse Students by ASCD
266
A P P E N D IX J
September Culture and Learning: They go Participants bring to

September session a list of
together two or three names of
• Considering culture and it’s students that they are
influence on teaching and considering to mentor and
personal survey data from
learning each of the students.
• Guest speaker will be invited
from Nations Middle School
guidance department to discuss
role of culture in academic
achievement.
• Suggestions for conducting a
successful student interview.
• Role-playing of student
interview
October Introduction to Mentoring II Read the Mentoring 101
background information.
• Defining roles - Considering
more carefully the role of the
mentor and the mentee.
November Connecting with the family Participants come to
November session having
• Preparing for mentor-mentee read Working with Parents -
Third Monday team building event. Cultural and Linguistic
of the month MELA-0 Training in November (1 & Considerations by M. Lee
Manning and Guang-Lee.
Vi days)
• Prepare for the training on the
Massachusetts English
Language Assessment - (Oral)
• Questionnaire #2: “Challenges
growing up in a bilingual
cultural world.”
267
A P P E N D IX J
December Improving Instruction for English Participants bring to

December session a self
Language Learners: Emphasis on Oral reflection sheet about their
Third Monday Interaction oral instruction practices.
of the month • Discuss the basics of sheltering
content.
• Managing interaction about
content
January Guest Visitors - Session I -
“Challenges growing up in a bilingual
cultural world.” Three English
language learners describe their
experiences growing up bilingual.
• Consider sociocultural needs
of the high school students and
how it applies to your students.
• Questionnaire #3 -
Questionnaire for lessons
learned from “Challenges
growing up in a bilingual
cultural world.”
February Parental Involvement-
• Understanding parental
Third Monday realities
of the month • Strategies that work and are
being done by current Nations
Middle School teachers.
• Strategies for engaging
immigrant families
March School-wide MCAS Preparation - No

ELL Study group meeting.
268
A P P E N D IX J
April Follow-ut) Visit
Third Monday Guest Visitors - Session II

of the month
Three English language learners
describe their experiences growing up
bilingual.
- Consider sociocultural needs of the

high school students and how it
applies to your students.
May Year-end Reflection on how to
improve program: A RoundTable
discussion.
June Looking to Next Year
• Celebrating the work between
mentors and mentees.
• Presentation to the Nations
Middle School faculty about
impact of professional
development for mentors and
mentees.
• Mentor interviews & mentee
interviews.
• Discussion about final
assessments
• How can this model be adapted
for expansion into the other
middle schools?
• Questionnaire #4 - Conduct
end-of-year questionnaire.
269
A P P E N D IX K
After School Survey
Date:__________________________________________
Mentor Name:_________________________________
Mentee Name:_________________________________
Directions for both teachers and students:

In a continuing effort to provide after school clubs and support systems for students,
the RAP program would like to ask you to take a few minutes to share what YOU -
the student needs to meet their needs after school.
1. Have you joined the RAP program? If you have joined RAP, what do you like about it
that you would tell other friends?
2. If you don’t belong to RAP or you don’t want to join, please explain why...
Check all that apply:

______ 1 .1 would like to sign up, but I don’t know how to and I need someone to
explain it to me.
2 . 1 am not interested in the RAP clubs that are being offered this fall:
3 .1 am tired after school and I don’t like to stay until 5pm 3 days a week:
4 . 1 prefer to do my homework alone and by myself at home:
5 .1 have to take care of someone or I have a job after school so I must go home
at 2:30pm.
______ 6 . 1 need some help with long-term projects; if someone could help me with these
projects, I would stay after school.
7 .1 don’t have a computer or a computer printer that works at home and I wish I
could stay with someone in the A27 computer lab to do my work if there was a
teacher to help.
8. My friends don’t stay after school, so I don’t want to stay after school either.
9 .1 don’t really know what the clubs are like and my friends don’t either.
_10. Please explain if there is another reason why you wouldn’t like to stay after
school for RAP that isn’t listed above
A P P E N D IX L
Massachusetts English Language Assessment - Oral
Massachusetts English Language Assessment - Oral (MELA-O)

Final Version September 1994
T he M E L A -0 is an o b se rv a tio n scale w h ich facilitates th e assessm ent o f E nglish lan g u ag e proficiency o f E nglish lan g u ag e learn ers in grades
K -1 2 . The M E L A -O is a 6 -p o in t scale to be used as p a r t o f a c o m p reh en siv e E nglish lan g u ag e assessm ent system . Placem en t a n d p ro g ra m m in g
decisions sh o u ld be b ased o n results o f b o th th e M E L A -O a n d assessm en t in o th e r lan g u a g e m o d alities (i.e., w ritin g a n d read in g ).
DIRECTIONS:
For each o f the domains and subdomains below, m ark an " X ” across the bo x th at best describes a student’s abilities.
Use black ink for the (all observation of MELA-O and red ink for the spring observation.
Use the Student Information Summary form on the reverse side to report the results of each observation.
C O M P R E H E N S IO N
N o d e m o n strate d R ecognizes sim p le qu estio n s U n d ersta n d s inte rp erso n al U n d ersta n d s/is c ap a b le of U n dersta nd n early all U n d ersta n d s inte rp erso n al
proficiency a n d c o m m an d s ; re sp o n d s to c o n v ersatio n w h en sp o k e n resp o n d in g to m o st inte r inte rpersonal a n d c o n v ersatio n s and
m o re co m p lex u tte ran c es t o slow ly a n d w ith fte q u e n t pe rso n a l a n d c lassro o m c lassro o m discussions, classro o m discussions
w ith in a p p ro p ria te o r repe titio n s; a cknow ledge disc ussions a n d inte rac tio n a lth o u g h occasional
in au d ib le resp o n ses m e n t m a y be non-verbal, w h e n fre quent repetitions m a y be
in the n a tiv e language o r c larifica tio n s a re given necessary
ta rg e t la nguage
N o d e m o n strate d Speech is lim ited to -an Uses fam ilia r sentences Begins to c r a te m ore novd Speech in inte rpersonal Speech in interpersonal con
exch an g e o f fix ed verbal w ith re a so n ab le ease; long
F lu e n c y
proficiency sentences; speech t i interper a n d classroom m a n sio n s is versation and in, classroom
fo rm u lae {e.g. co m m on ly pau ses o r silence a te com sonal and classroom (fisae- generally fluent, with discussions b approxim ately
used se n ten c es a n d phrases) m o n a n d ge stu res a re o ften sions is frequently tntenupted occasional b p e s while the stu th a t o f a native speaker of
o r single w o rd u tte ran c es used to illu stra te m eaning by a search (or the c o n e d dent searches for the correct the sa m e age
m anner o r exp re ssio n m a n n a of Depression
N o d e m o n stra te d H as lim ited co m m an d H as c o m m an d o f w o rd s (or H a s a d e q u a te v o cabulary Flow o f speech is rarely Use o f vocab u la ry a n d
proficiency o f iso late d v o c ab u la ry (or com m o n objectives/ activ i to p e rm it s o m e w h a t interrupted by inadequate idiom s a p p ro x im a te s th a t
V o c a b u la ry
co m m o n o b je cts a n d tie s bu t c h o ic e o f w o rd s is lim ite d disc ussion o f vocabulary, is capab le o f o f a n a tiv e spe ak e r o f the
activities b u t o ften in a p p ro p ria te fo r th e in te rp erso n al a n d rephrasing ideas and sam e age
z c o m p reh en sib ility is o ften ; situ atio n /co n tex t; c la ss ro o m to p ic s; usually thoughts to express m eaning
o .
difficult c o m preh en sibility rem a in s c om p re h en sib le
G
D
difficult
Q
Ot
a.
P r o n u n c ia tio n
N o d e m o n strate d Seldom intelligible a n d is Som etim es intelligible a nd U sually sp e ak s intelligibly Always intelligible with P ro n u n c iatio n a n d in to n a
proficiency strongly influenced by the is freq u en tly influenced by th o u g h w ith so m e sounds occasional napptopnate into tio n a p p ro x im a te s th a t o f
prim ary language, including th e p rim a ry language and still influenced by th e p ri nation patterns; slight influ a n a tiv e spe ake r o f th e
m to n atio n and w o rd stress; m u st re p e a t u tte ran c es to m a ry la n guage; frequently ence of die primary language sam e age
m ust repe at to b e u n derstood b e u n d e rsto o d ' ' use s n o n -n ativ e in to n a tio n may m il be observed
p a tte rn s
N o d e m o n strate d C ati p ro d u c e o nly O ften use s basic g ram m ar Uses basic g ra m m a r M ay m ake g ram m atica l G ra m m a tic al usage
G ra m m a r
proficiency m e m o rize d g ra m m a r an d pattern s correc tly for c o rrec tly ; uses c o m p le x ' erro rs; h o w ev e r they do a p p ro x im a te s th a t o f a
w o rd o r d e r form s sim ple fa m ilia r p hrases lang u ag e stru c tu re s th a t n o t obsc u re m eaoing n ative sp e ak e r of th e
an d se ntences a re o ften inc o rre ct Same age
T he M ELA -O is the result o f a co llab o rativ e effo rt betw een the E v aluation A ssistance C enter (EAC) E ast a t the G eorge W ashington U niversity and the M assachusetts Assessment A dvisory G ro u p (MA AG I.
triintetu is based o n the A m erican C o un cil (o t th e le a c h in g o f Foreign L anguages (AC TFL) G uidelines and m odeled on th e S tudent O ra l Language O bservation M atrix (SO L O M I developed by th e San
Jose (CA) Unified School D istrict (1985) a n d. the . .S tudent
. O ra l. -rto fieie
.• n cy -R ating (SOPR) designed by D evelopm ent A ssociates (1987). J u n e 2 0 0 3 M a s s a c h u s e tts D e p a r t m e n t o f E dduucc a tio
■’ n
271
APPENDIX M
Introduction to Second Language Learning and Teaching Mentor-Mentee Interview
Interview with NNN

8th Grade- ESL V
I sat down with NNN after school on Wednesday, October 11, 2005 to conduct
the interview. It was my pleasure to talk with NNN. I found her to be a very bright,
mature, young lady who was honest and open about her life. I learned many new things
about her and found that we have a lot in common.
Family
NNN came to this country four years and then months ago from Brazil. She was
nine at the time and entered into the third grade at NNN School in the bilingual program.
She spoke very little English at the time, but learned very quickly and moved through the
ESL program. She came to this town with her mother, father and brother because they
were seeking better educational opportunities.
Her uncle, her dad’s brother, was living in this town two years prior to NNN’s
arrival. He and his family helped to get NNN and her family settled. Her father came
over first from Brazil to get a job and find housing. Once that was completed, NNN and
her mother and brother soon followed. In Brazil, NNN’s mother worked as a culinary
teacher in a technical school. NNN has aspirations to follow in her mother’s footsteps and
would like to be a famous chef in Italy some day.
Now, both NNN’s parents work for a company called, Terumo Cardiovascular
Systems. Her eighteen year-old brother who graduated from MMMM High School last
272
APPENDIX M
year is taking a year off to work at Babies-R-Us before entering into college. When
NNN gets home from school at 3:30, she is by herself until her parents get home from
work at 4:30. She is responsible for doing her homework, cleaning the dishes, and
vacuuming occasionally. When all of her chores are done, NNN is allowed to go on the
computer. Her hobbies consist of swimming, basketball and watching the food network
with her mother.
Education
NNN was very candid about her family’s challenges, dreams and future goals.
She said that obtaining their green card was the biggest obstacle, but now they have it,
which allows them to travel freely back to Brazil. This December, NNN is going back to
visit family for the first time since she arrived four years ago. She is very excited.
Education is highly valued in her family; it is one of the main reasons why they
moved to the United States. NNN goal for the future is to go to a four-year culinary
college and be a chef in Italy. She plans to attend MMM school next fall to start her
training as a chef. NNN parents didn’t have an opportunity to attend college, but have a
strong desire to see NNN and her brother both college educated.
NNN grew up in the downtown area of Brasilia, the capital city of Brazil, where
the educational system was not very strong. All the schools were public and offered no
after-school enrichment programs, athletic clubs, or academic tutoring. In elementary
school, all academic subjects were taught by one teacher. The children received one
273
APPENDIX M
period of gym, art, music, etc. The academic day was split into two sessions: 7-12am or
3-8 pm. NNN opted to attend school from 3-8, which allowed her to be with her mother
during the day and at school when her mother worked in the evening. NNN recalled a
favorite teacher in third grade who helped her and took an interest in her life.
The principal of the school was the disciplinarian and the elementary schools
consisted of approximately 500 students ranging from grade 1-8. NNN recalls her school
day being somewhat easy. No homework was expected and she had recess for about an
hour each day. When she came to U.S.A and entered into MMM, she found the
educational system to be much different. The work was harder, and she was expected to
study and do homework. It took her a while to adjust to the expectations, but she did it.
Even though there have been times in NNN’s educational career that she has
suffer occasional setbacks, she is a strong-willed, mature young lady who has goals and
aspirations for the future. I know she’ll succeed in whatever she sets her mind to doing.
It was a great pleasure talking to NNN. I look forward to a productive, meaningful
relationship with her this year.
274
APPENDIX N
Smoothed Causal Network: The Variables and Relationships Linking Training Activities and
Teacher Professional Growth with English language learners
R e so u r c e s Collegial Support
T im e
Year 1:
Connection to Study Teacher
school goals group Understanding
Mentoring meetings of Sociocultural,
»
Superintendent Program Linguistic, &
& Principal TA Instructional
support Formal Needs of Ells.
Classroom
Workshops
k
Year 2:
Cohort
participates in
Chart Explanation: Initiating an English Language formal classroom
Learner Study Group involves four ingredients: training:
resources, time, connection to school goals and Enriching
superintendent and principal support. The resources Content
include a group leader with ESL expertise, enthusiastic Curriculum for
teachers interested in increasing their understanding of Secondary
English language learners’ needs and improving their English Speakers
instructional practice. Time is necessary to support o f Other
formal classroom trainings, after school study group
Languages
meetings and the work between teachers and mentees in
the mentoring program. The professional development
of the formal classroom trainings, study group meetings
and mentoring program all depend on each other.
Collegial support must be a centerpiece of this program;
there must be trust and strong relationships cultivated
between the teachers and between the teachers and their
mentees. This study found that in year one the teachers
developed an understanding of the sociocultural,
linguistic and instructional needs of English language
learners. The researcher believes that in year two, a
formal classroom training that addresses effective

Boston College Lynch School of Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boston College Lynch School of Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BOSTON COLLEGE

Lynch School of Education

THE IMPACT OF A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ON

submitted in partial fulfillment

T h e quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t up on t h e quality of th e copy

Copyright 2 0 0 7 by P r o Q u e s t Information a n d Learning C o m p an y .

All rights re s e rv e d . This microform edition is p ro te c te d a g a in s t

u n au th o riz ed copying u n d e r Title 17, United S t a t e s C od e.

submitted to the Lynch School of Education in partial

h a s been read and approved by the Committee;

Date March 13, 2 0 0 7

THE IMPACT OF A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ON

Dissertation Director: Dr. Irwin Blumer, Ed.D.

targeted for these students (National Center of Educational Statistics, 2002).

This qualitative case study examined how the development of a teacher

affected teachers’ understanding of the sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of

participation in a mentoring program targeting English language learners.

Data instruments included teacher interviews and questionnaires and researcher

development program dramatically improved the teachers’ understanding of the

sociocultural, linguistic and instructional needs of English language learners; 2) the

teachers’ perceptions of their instructional practice improved as a result of the program;

3) the lack of time emerged as an important factor in constraining teachers’ professional

the challenges that many English language learners face in schools.

effective teacher professional development for English language learners.

writing this dissertation.

and perspectives on educational issues helped transform me into a more thoughtful

the project. Thank you!

I dedicate this dissertation to my family who supported me through the entirety of

your love and support.

myself. jMi Vidita - te quiero tanto!

CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Recommended Areas for Professional Development of Mainstream

Effective Professional Development Designs, Study Groups and

Effective Professional Development Designs 52

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN

Reporting the Data 98

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Sociocultural Needs 110

Assessment Of Speaking and Listening 114

Linguistic Needs 115

Informed Instructional Practice 116

Miscellaneous Findings 118

Part II: Study Group Meetings 119

Part IV: Analysis of Teacher Growth From Formal Classroom

Teachers’ Understanding O f Sociocultural, Linguistic

Teachers’ Self-Selected Perceptions O f Their Professional

Teachers’ Perceptions Of Their Instructional Practice

Summary of the Findings 172

Formal Classroom Training 174

Part III: Other Significant Findings 179

The Power Of Student Voice In Influencing Teacher

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, DISCUSSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

Formal Classroom Training 184

Part III: Other Significant Findings 189

The Power O f Student Voice In Influencing Teacher

Discussion of Findings 191

Formal Classroom Training 205

Suggested Training for Pre-Service Teachers 206

Monthly Study Group Meetings 207

Mentoring Program 209

Implications for Further Research 213

Conclusion and Recommendations 221