This investigation addresses the general question: Are there differences between middle school mainstream teachers and English Language Learner (ELL) teachers’ beliefs about second language learning? Research literature suggests teachers’ perceptions and judgments come from their beliefs systems, so it is imperative that we investigate the beliefs of mainstream and ELL teachers who interact with newcomers to our educational landscape. The analysis reveals several useful facts regarding impact of college coursework and staff development experiences on teacher’s perceptions and beliefs about second language learners.
The education of language minority students arouses strong emot ions and evokes conflicting views of American identity, ethnic pluralism, immigrat ion policy, and government spending for social programs. The changing student demographics are altering the image of the American classroom. Many language minority students will be identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP) or as an English Language Learner (ELL). These students may have recently immigrated to the United States and are faced with the challenge of learning English. Because of the increase in school aged ELLs, administrative structures, instruct ional procedures, curricula, and assessment practices are being analyzed and modified.
While immigrat ion is not the only source of language diversity (Wiley & Lukes, 1996), continued immigrat ion remains a significant source of the language minority populat ion in the U.S. New immigrants increased dramatically from 1990-2000 growing from 8,663,627 in the preceding decade (1980-1990) to approximately 13,285,452 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Elementary and secondary students who require language assistance include over 4,000,000 in the United States today.
This trend is expected to continue into the twenty-first century in that by 2050, minority students will collectively account for nearly 57 percent of the student populat ion with much of the growth attributed to Latinos and Asians (Lucas, 2000). By 2010, Latinos will make up the largest minority group in U.S. schools, and by 2050, they will constitute more than 30 percent of school-age populat ion (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996).
Demographics have become vitally important to educat ion policy makers at all levels. Suburban areas have seen a major increase in student diversity, which includes more minorities, more immigrants, more students learning English as an addit ional language, and more students from lower socioeconomic levels of our communities (Hodgkinson, 2001). Policy makers and administrators are faced with the challenge of ensuring that all educators in the school have the opportunity to develop the knowledge base to teach culturally and linguistically diverse student populat ions (Cummins, 2001).
The changing demographics among learners create a different student profile with regards to their cultural, linguistic, and social background. This also affects the role of the teacher and how he or she adapts instruct ion in order to address the needs of the culturally and linguistically diverse students. Teacher-student interact ions can affirm students’ cultural, linguistic, and personal identities in order to create classroom condit ions for maximum identity investment in the learning process. Cummins (2001) states that English language learners will be reluctant to invest their identities in the learning process if they feel their teachers do no like them, respect them, and appreciate their experiences and talents, as do most all students regardless of cultural background.
U.S. Language Policy for English Language Learners: Immigrat ion, Educat ion, and Legislat ion
During the 1970’s and 1980’s U.S. school policies for serving culturally and linguistically diverse students focused on separate school programs to address English proficiency and academic achievement. Teachers who were considered ELL specialists pulled students from mainstream classes for a limited time period to receive services and extra help with English, similar to the approach taken with special educat ion (Crawford, 1999).
In the 1990’s, academic tracking practices of language minority or LEP students began to present problems in that most of these students were placed into vocat ional or non-college preparatory career tracks. However, elementary and middle schools were restructuring to meet the needs of heterogeneous classes and to eliminate practices that segregated students into what became permanent tracks (Ovando & Collier, 1998). Schools began to move toward a more school-based management approach that encouraged shared decis ion making among the principals, teachers, and parents. But, these reforms did not adequately address linguistically and culturally diverse students. Therefore, ELL and bilingual educators were petit ioned to collaborate actively in the transformat ion of school policies in order to create a deeper change needed to create equitable, safe, and meaningful environments for learning for all students.
The Bilingual Educat ion Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-247) became Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Educat ion Act, which embodied a consensus that the “sink-or swim” approach to teaching English was both an educat ional failure and a denial of equal opportunity for language minority students (Crawford, 1999). With the Hispanic dropout rate approaching 75 percent, there was an eagerness among educat ional systems and government to find a way to best implement this new law. The goals of the Bilingual Educat ion Act were unclear and vague in that the intent was solely to promote a transit ion to English proficiency or also to maintain and develop the students’ native language.
The discontentment with bilingual educat ion and the U.S. language policy was affirmed by Senator S.I. Hayakawa (R-CA) who argued that the nat ion was sending confusing signals to immigrants by requiring them to learn English as a part of naturalizat ion but inviting them to vote and attend school partially in their native language. Senator Hayakawa proposed a constitut ional amendment declaring English the official language of the United States (Dunn, 1987). He helped to found an advocacy group to lobby for Official English and against bilingualism in public life; thus began the English Only movement. Although Congress did not act on the English Language Amendment at the federal level, 21 states have adopted such legislat ion. Throughout U.S. history, there have been various events of language-based discriminat ion and coercive assimilat ion, yet rarely have language conflicts assumed nat ional proport ions.
The ELL teaching profess ion began to grow in response to the increasing number of immigrant and refugee children entering the United States during the 1960s. In addit ion, there was an increase in the number of internat ional students attending U.S. universities. Profess ional organizat ions began, product ion of ELL textbooks increased, and courses in linguistics and ELL methodology were increasingly demanded. The 1968 Bilingual Educat ion Act was reauthorized in 1974 and placed increasing emphasis on the importance of developing English-language skills for the purposes of promoting higher academic standards and academic success for university enrolled internat ional students and English Language Learners in secondary schools ( Lyons, 1990).
Debates in Congress continued on minority language issues, and over the past few decades, federal policy for the protect ion of the educat ional rights of language minority students has gradually evolved through court decis ions. One landmark court decis ion that has had the most significant impact in defining legal responsibilities of schools serving LEP students is the U.S. Supreme Court decis ionLau v.Nichols (1974). This decis ion ruled on the grounds of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that approximately 3,000 Chinese students in San Francisco were not being provided an equal educat ional opportunity as compared with their English-speaking peers.
The Supreme Court decis ion did not dictate the remedy but suggested bilingual educat ion and English language support as possible solut ions. Addit ional mandates for school districts to implement programs for language minority students came from the U.S. Office of Civil Rights (OCR), which issued the Lau Remedies. OCR became aware that many school districts made little or no provis ion for the educat ion of students who were identified as LEP. On May 25, 1970, the former Department of Health, Educat ion and Welfare issued a memorandum to clarify Title VI requirements concerning the responsibility of school districts to provide equal educat ional opportunities to language minority students. This memorandum explained that Title VI is violated if programs for ELLs. Also, parents whose English is limited should receive notices and other important informat ion from the school in a language they can understand.
Other Supreme Court and Federal Court decis ions that have affected the implementat ion of language programs for LEP students include Plyer v. Doe (1982) which ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying a free public educat ion to undocumented immigrant children and Castaneda v. Pickard (1981) which formulated a method to determine school district compliance with the Equal Educat ion Opportunities Act (1974).
Educat ional policy change for language minority students has been a response to the educat ional practices of the past several decades that have not been effective in promoting academic achievement of bilingual/bicultural students. School systems have been required by Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act to create a learning environment where LEP students can achieve academic success by establishing pograms that meet the linguistic and cognitive needs and help them make the transit ion to mainstream classrooms (Georgia Department of Educat ion, 2003). The purpose of improving language instruction in educational programs is outlined in Part B of the No Child Left Behind Act as stated as follows:
“To help ensure that limited English proficient children master English and meet the same rigorous standards for academic achievement as all children are expected to meet, including meeting challenging State academic content and student academic achievement by (1) promoting systemic improvement and reform of, and developing accountability systems for, educat ional programs serving limited English proficient children; (2) developing the English proficiency of limited English proficient children and, to the extent possible, the native language skills of such children; (3) developing programs that strengthen and improve the profess ional training of educat ional personnel who work with limited English proficient children” (No Child Left Behind Act, SEC. 3202, 2001).
No Child Left Behind provided $664 mill ion in 2002 to help English Language Learners acquire English language skills. This is a 49 percent increase over 2001 and includes $100 mill ion to prepare teachers of English language learners (http://www.NoChildLeftBehind.gov). This act does not dictate a particular method of instruct ion, but gives each state the freedom to choose the most appropriate delivery model of instruct ion for ELLs, one that is clearly biased against tradit ional bilingual educat ion approaches. This act also requires states to establish English proficiency standards and provide quality instruct ion, based on scientific research for English language acquisit ion.
As an initial response to NCLB, most educat ional assistance programs for limited English proficiency students rely on pull-out programs where students are taken from the mainstream classroom for a certain time period per day to work with a certified or trained ELL teacher in order to support their acquisit ion of the English language. The ELL classes focus on building the students English proficiency to the point that they are able to participate and succeed in mainstream courses with native English-speaking peers without the support of the ELL program.
English Language Learning and Educat ion: Attitudes, Beliefs, and Percept ions of Teachers
As noted previously, the ELL student populat ion has increased dramatically over the years, and some school systems have been faced with problems of overcrowded ELL classes with too few trained ELL teachers. Thus, school systems have tried to restructure the ELL program to better meet the needs of newcomers to the United States. A newcomer is defined in this study as a student who has been in the United States less than a year (Schnur, 1999). Such English language programs include language academies where students spend one full year with intensive English instruct ion before moving into pull-out ELL classes. The purpose of this type of program is to provide an environment where students can adapt to new experiences, expectat ions, customs, and assumpt ions with like peers who are all new to the educat ional surrounding.
Cummins (2001) states that relat ionships between teachers and students are at the heart of student learning and the percept ion of students’ academic ability and teachers’ attitudes toward language minority students affect the classroom interact ion between the student and teacher, which ultimately affects achievement. One research study indicates that the attitudes and percept ions of the mainstream populat ion that are reflected in the classroom toward minority populat ion can negatively or positively affect the academic performance of language minority students as they internalize these percept ions (Lumsden, 1997).
Similar studies have noted teachers’ percept ion of academic capability of ELLs who are being placed into mainstream classes with native-English-speaking peers (Porter, 2000; Quezada, Wiley & Ramirez, 2000; Gersten, 1999). In addit ion, these researchers and their studies have explored the teachers’ perspective in regards to working with ELLs, however, a need for more in-depth examinat ions of the beliefs, attitudes, and/or percept ions of the subject area teachers would be insightful for planning effective programs for ELLs.
Investigating Teachers’ Beliefs
There is increasing recognit ion that individuals’ beliefs are often good indicators of the decis ion they make Bandura (1986). The growing literature suggests that teachers’ beliefs affect both their percept ions and judgments and that these in turn affect their classroom behavior (Fang, 1996; Hativa & Goodyear, 2002; Williams, Whitehead, & Miller, 1972). Beliefs are not directly observable and must be inferred. Like all cognitive processes, belief systems are inferred from behavior. The literature suggests that teachers’ beliefs about second language learning and teaching could have an important effect on their classroom behavior and practices (Hativa & Goodyear, 2002), and that these beliefs affect both their percept ions and judgments which, in turn, affect teachers’ classroom instruct ional behavior (Rueda & Garcia, 1996).
Fang (1996) states that teachers’ thought processes are categorized into three primary types: (1) teacher planning, (2) teachers’ interactive thoughts and decis ions, and (3) teachers’ beliefs and theories. Fang continues to state that theories and beliefs comprise an important part of teachers’ general knowledge through which teachers perceive, process, and act upon informat ion in the classroom and are shaped by many factors such as: (1) the influence of discipline subculture, (2) the quality of preservice experience in the classroom, and (3) the opportunity for reflect ion on preservice experience. Research form Fang’s study shows that teachers’ expectat ions can have considerable impacts on students’ behavior and academic performance, while teachers’ theories (beliefs) about the nature of knowledge acquisit ion can affect his/her own behavior and his/her students’ learning. This is supported by Flores’ (2001) study that states that most teachers’ implicit theories, which are equated with belief systems (see definit ion of terms), influence their approaches to teaching.
There has been a paucity of research findings on teachers’ attitudes toward linguistic-minority students who are new immigrants and not enrolled in bilingual classrooms (Byrnes, Kiger & Manning, 1997). Several studies highlight various points of how teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about second language and minority students’ language use influence teaching practice (Williams, Whitehead, & Miller, 1972; Kelly, 1988; Claire, 1995). These studies noted three major points about language learning attitudes as it relates to student achievement and language learning:
Byrnes, Kiger & Manning (1997) conducted a study with 191 regular classroom teachers regarding their attitudes toward language diversity and linguistically diverse students. The research study focused on the following factors that possibly influence teachers’ language attitudes which include the following:
The previous study found that language attitudes differ significantly with experience and across the reg ion, with most positive attitudes expressed by teachers from the southwest reg ion of the United States. Byrnes et al (1997) theorized that, in a positive way, teachers’ attitudes can facilitate second language learning, or in a negative way, teachers’ attitudes can be an insurmountable obstacle to learning English for students who have little or no English language proficiency. The results also suggested that formal training and earning a graduate degree is associated with positive language attitudes. There were clear implicat ions from this study for teacher-educat ion programs to prepare regular classroom teachers to work more effectively with language minority children. Byrnes et al (1997) suggested:
If teachers are going to be effective working with limited-English-proficient (LEP) children, then they must have proper training, assistance, and positive attitudes about language diversity. Language learning is facilitated when teachers have positive attitudes about language diversity and show and interest in cultural sharing. (p. 227)
This study showed that without having sufficient knowledge of second-language learning, teachers with even the best intent ions may provide inadequate instruct ional methods or inappropriate instruct ional procedures for LEP students or ELLs; therefore, they may do unintent ional harm to those students who have language diverse backgrounds (Byrnes, 2001). As a result, in order for teachers to provide adequate and appropriate instruct ional methods, formal training was strongly recommended.
Griego (2002) states that most (K-12) teacher preparat ion programs do not address the knowledge base or theoretical background in language acquisit ion and methodology that all pre-service teachers need in order to teach second language learners. In addit ion to the knowledge base and theoretical background, Griego’s study also establishes the importance of identifying and modifying pre-service teachers’ beliefs about minority children as a part of teacher preparat ion. His study included a survey of 91 pre-service teachers enrolled in a teacher preparat ion program at a large university asking each to state prior experiences in working with non-English speaking children and to describe any such experiences. The responses (Griego, 2002) were analyzed and clustered into the following categories of beliefs:
The themes that emerged from the pre-service teachers’ descript ions of prior experiences dealt with the following:
The implicat ions from the previous study showed that the majority of pre-service teachers were open to developing children’s native languages even when the language is not English, regardless of whether they had prior experiences with second language learners. A common misconcept ion or misunderstanding among the participants was about the time it takes to become proficient in a second language and about the level of proficiency needed to be successful academically, in that there was no agreement on how long it takes to acquire English proficiency. ELLs typically require at least 5 years to catch up academically in their second language (Cummins, 2000).
Sherry Marx (2000) conducted a qualitative study that explored the percept ions of a group of 9 White (people of Anglo-European descent) and 5 Hispanic pre-service teachers toward the English language learners they tutored over the course of a semester. Marx suggests that “a teacher from an all-White suburban or rural school may not know how to adjust her expectat ions and beliefs when she is placed in a school district where the cultural, racial, economic, and language contexts of the students are quite different from those she experienced growing up” (p. 4). Marx states the above with the understanding or belief that 90 % of teachers are White and nearly 50% of their students are not White which can pose problems for many classroom teachers who are not prepared to educate and meet the needs of language minority students, including ELLs. This particular study found that Hispanic pre-service teachers held the following:
Also, the same study found that following about White pre-service teachers:
Although the current study does not focus in on the “white female” percept ion of English language learners, the results of Marx’s study allows one to see how percept ions and beliefs affect one’s expectat ions of student achievement, which can ultimately affect the academic success of students. The importance of the study to the present study is that the results indicated that subjects had limited interact ions/experiences with people who had diverse backgrounds.
Youngs and Youngs (2001) conducted research on the predictors of mainstream teachers’ attitudes toward ELL students. Her research involved a survey of 143 junior high/middle school mainstream teachers in a community of approximately 80,000 in the Great Plains reg ion of the United States. The average teacher had 15.5 years of teaching experience and had worked with 11.2 ELL students from 3.2 distinct reg ions of the world over the previous six years. The research revealed five predictors of mainstream teachers’ attitudes toward ELL students. They predictors include:
The results of this study showed that mainstream teachers were generally neutral to slightly positive in their attitudes toward teaching ELL students. The results also suggest that mainstream teachers are more likely to have positive attitudes toward ELL students if they are female and have had:
Penfield (1987) conducted a similar study of mainstream teachers’ percept ions of LEP students and ELL teachers. She administered an open-ended quest ionnaire to 162 New Jersey mainstream teachers who had LEP students in their classrooms but had no training in ELL. The study revealed five areas of concern that included the following:
The study suggested that greater attent ion in preparing the mainstream classroom teacher for ELL students is needed in teacher training programs for school districts. This study found two attitudes or mainstream teachers: (1) they defined their job as strictly an academic one to teach a content area; and (2) they emphasized the importance of a positive social setting for academic achievement and second language learning. Penfield’s study is important to the present study because it revealed that regular classroom teachers encountered difficulties in integrating LEP students socially and academically into the regular classroom setting.
Over the past two decades, demographics have become vitally important to educat ion policy makers at all levels. The suburban areas of cities will see a major increase in student diversity, which includes more minorities, more immigrants, more students learning English and more students from poverty (Hodgkinson, 2001). Policy makers and administrators are faced with the challenge of ensuring that all educators in the school have the opportunity to develop the knowledge base to teach culturally and linguistically diverse student populat ions (Cummins, 2001).
Even with the changing demographics among learners and a growing heterogeneous populat ion, there remains a disparity between the demographic profiles of teacher and students in that white females continue to dominate the teaching profess ion (Latham, 1999). It is natural for teachers to filter the curriculum through their own cultural experiences and to teach in the same way they were taught, which results in the mismatch between the racial and ethnic profiles of students and teachers (Feistritzer, 1996). This proposed mismatch reduces the likelihood that teachers will connect learning to all their students in a meaningful way (Latham, 1999).
The changing demographics among learners create a different student descriptive with regards to cultural, linguistic, and social background of the learner. In addit ion, the role of the teacher changes or adapts and the instruct ion reorients in order to address the needs of the culturally and linguistically diverse student. Teacher-student interact ions can affirm students’ cultural, linguistic, and personal identities in order to create classroom condit ions for maximum identity investment in the learning process (Glenn, 1996). Cummins (2001) states that ELLs will be reluctant to invest their identities in the learning process if they feel their teachers do no like them, respect them, and appreciate their experiences and talents, as do most all students regardless of cultural background.
The Present Study : Setting and Methods
Teachers’ expectat ions, percept ions, the patterns of interact ion between instructors and students, and the subjective climate of schools play a major role in the educat ional experiences of students (Alva, 1991). Lumsden (1997) suggests that the following affects student performance in the classroom: Teachers’ expectat ions of academic performance; Teachers’ beliefs about the student in general, which translates into differential behavior toward the student; and, Students’ attitudes toward the percept ions of teachers’ expectat ions and beliefs
The teachers involved in this study taught ELLs who completed a year’s study of intensive English language the previous school year or who qualify for ELL services and are enrolled in mainstream classrooms. The teachers who are participants in this study may also have taught or are currently teaching ELLs who may not have had any previous formal educat ion in their native country, which appears to be a growing number among ELLs in the geographic area of the current study. The school district involved in this study is a citywide district located in the North Atlanta Metropolitan area in Georgia with a student populat ion of approximately 7,500. The percentage of students in this city school system who qualified for ELL services during the 2001-2002 year was 12.8% (Georgia Public Educat ion Report Card, 2002). Because of the increased populat ion of ELLs, the local school system involved in this study altered local school policy in 2002 and created an Academy for all students who had been in the U.S. for less than one year, or scored below the 3 rd percentile on the Language Assessment Battery. The purpose of administering this type of language test is for placement into appropriate instruct ional programs. This test is also used:
Prior to creating the Academy, the school system in this study utilized an ELL pull-out program (ESL teachers remove students from the mainstream classroom for English language support) for all identified ELLs. The Academy was created to give newcomers to the United States educat ional system a year to 18 months of intensive English language study along with instruct ion and evaluat ion in other content area courses. The content area classes taught at the Academy included math, science, social studies, and reading. These content courses were not set up or taught in a bilingual setting. Upon complet ion of one academic year of intensive language study, these students who have been in the United States from 12 to 18 months will go into mainstream content area classrooms (grades 6-12) to receive instruct ion from teachers who may be teaching language minority students for the first time. This may lead to unrealistic expectat ions of language proficiency and academic performance (Hodgkinson, 2001). These expectat ions, whether they are high or low, can differ depending on several factors that this study will survey. These factors include:
The district involved in this study enrolled 899 students who received ELL services during the 2002-2003 school year. Of these 899 ELL students, approximately 200 were enrolled in grades 6 through 8. The school sites selected for the study is a sixth grade academy and a middle school, which collectively comprises the middle school aged students in this district. The school district involved in this study holds the third highest populat ion of ELL students among the city systems in Georgia (Georgia Department of Educat ion, 2003). Also, the participants (Table 1) for this study were chosen according to the school sites in which they worked. All teachers employed at the sixth grade academy and the middle school of this district were given the opportunity to participate in this study by responding to one or more of the surveys administered by the researchers.
Since the purpose of this study was to describe the percept ions of middle school teachers toward English Language Learners in the mainstream classroom, the researchers chose the school sites that enrolled mostly newcomer ELL’s who have completed one year of intensive study at the district’s Academy
The survey used in this study is comprised primarily of statements aimed to directly and indirectly probe respondent’s opin ions and percept ions of the inclus ion of ELL’s into the mainstream classroom. In designing the survey instrument (ELL Students in the Mainstream Classroom: see Appendix), the researchers drew upon previous themes explored through quantitative research on teacher percept ions and ELL students. The survey solicited responses from the participants that showed agreement, disagreement, or neutral posit ions. Respondents also showed their agreement or disagreement with statements in varying degrees by answering “strongly agree” or “strongly disagree”.
The first survey of the quantitative instrument was administered to subject area and ELL teachers regarding percept ions of ELL students in the mainstream classrooms. Participants disclosed informat ion regarding general subject area taught, years of teaching experience, and gender. This survey on ELL students in the mainstream classroom also asked participants to state number of college credit hours and/or staff development hours taken that deal specifically with language minority students. Participants were able to state whether these hours earned were undergraduate or graduate hours. The researchers asked participants to describe their opin ion regarding statements about working with ELL students in the mainstream classroom. Participants reacted to the statements presented in the survey by strongly disagreeing, disagreeing, agreeing, strongly agreeing, or having a neutral posit ion on the issue.
As noted, this survey instrument was modified from a similar study that surveyed high school mainstream teachers’ attitudes and percept ions toward ELL students. This study was conducted at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville (Reeves, 2002) and included a three-page survey of ELL students in mainstream classrooms from a pilot study of high school teachers.
Findings and Discuss ion: Teachers’ Percept ions of ELLs in Mainstream Classroom
The data was obtained by surveying both ELL and mainstream teachers’ percept ions of ELL students in the mainstream classroom. The survey, ELL Students in Mainstream Classrooms, was administered to both groups of teachers and analyzed using independent t-tests and ANOVA statistical analyses.
The survey, ESOL Students in the Mainstream Classroom, incorporates the variable for “years of experience” and was assigned as follows: 1= 0-5 years, 2= 6-10 years, 3= 11=15 years, 4= 16-20 years, 5= 21+ years. The variables for “undergraduate hours” were assigned as follows: 1= 0-3 hours, 2= 3+ semester credit hours. The variables for “graduate hours” were assigned the same values as undergraduate hours, but were analyzed as a separate variable. The variable for “staff development hours were assigned the following values: 1= 0-3, 2= 3+ staff development hours. The SPSS procedure for quantitative analysis using independent t-test, and ANOVA was used on this survey. The variable of agreement was assigned the following values for the category of “responses”: 1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3= neutral; 4=agree; and 5=strongly agree.
For the first general quest ion: Are there differences between middle school mainstream and ELL teachers’ percept ions of ELL students in the mainstream classroom, the t-test results showed a significant difference between the two groups of teachers’ (ELL and mainstream) percept ions toward ELL students in the mainstream classroom. The analysis shows a significant difference between the two groups’ percept ions toward ELL students in the mainstream classroom, with ELL teachers’ having a more positive percept ion (M= 54.54) than mainstream area teachers (M= 37.79). In other words, the ELL teachers’ responses to statements 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13, showed a high degree of agreement to these statements, and revealed a more positive percept ion of the ELL student. Also, the stronger the participant agreed to statements 3, 4, 6, 7, and 11, the more negative the percept ion of the ELL students.
The results for this survey indicated a significant difference between ELL and mainstream teachers’ percept ions of ELL students, with ELL teachers holding a more positive percept ion than mainstream teachers. Results indicated mainstream teachers held a neutral percept ion overall towards ELL students, based on the mean score. This finding aligns with Youngs and Youngs (2001) study that revealed mainstream teachers having a more neutral attitude toward teaching ELL students. It is important to note that teachers’ percept ions of ELL students indicate teacher’s willingness to facilitate second language learning negatively or positively and affect teachers’ classroom instruct ional behavior.
The analysis also provided an answer for research quest ion: Are there differences between teachers’ percept ions of ELL students in the mainstream classroom with regard to years of teaching experience? The findings from the results of years of teaching experience indicated a significant difference between the two groups of teachers’ percept ions of ELL students. Results for each categorical data of years of experience displayed a slightly positive percept ion of ELL students (mean scores ranging from 43.717- 46.907). The most positive percept ion of ELL students came from those teachers who had between 6 and 10 years of teaching experience (46.907). The results show that teachers who have taught between 6-10 years have a more positive percept ion of ELL students while Youngs and Youngs (2001) study surveyed teachers who had an average of 15.5 years of teaching experience, and showed a neutral attitude toward teaching ELLs..
In answer to the research quest ion: Is there a relat ionship between middle school mainstream and ELL teachers’ percept ion of ELL students in the mainstream classroom with regard to credit hours earned in courses that deal specifically with language minority students, ANOVA statistical analysis was applied to find differences with regard to both graduate and undergraduate credit hours earned. ANOVA statistical procedure was applied to look for differences between the two groups of teachers percept ions’ with regard to graduate credit hours completed that dealt specifically with language minority students. A significant difference was found between the two groups of teachers with regard to graduate credit taken and the effect on percept ions. For 0-3 graduate credit hours, ELL teachers had a slightly higher mean (55.24) than mainstream teachers (37.22). For 3 and more graduate credit hours earned, ELL teachers showed a higher mean (54.16) than mainstream teachers (46.43).
For undergraduate hours, ANOVA statistical procedures indicated a significant difference between the two groups of teachers’ percept ions of ELL students in the mainstream classroom. For 0-3 years of undergraduate credit hours, ELL teachers had a slightly higher mean (48.75) than mainstream teachers (37.45). In addit ion, the ELL group displayed a higher mean for 3+ undergraduate hours taken (55.70) over the mainstream group’s mean (41.00).
The results indicate that those teachers from both groups had more positive percept ions of ELL students with more undergraduate credit hours taken. Therefore, there is a relat ionship between ELL teachers and mainstream teachers percept ions of ELL students in mainstream classrooms and the number of undergraduate courses taken. And, for graduate credit hours, the results indicated a significant difference between the two groups of teachers’ percept ions of ELL students, with ELL mainstream teachers having a more positive percept ion. The results also indicated that those mainstream teachers who completed 3 or more graduate credit hours in courses that dealt specifically with language minority students had a more positive percept ion of ELL students. In other words, for mainstream teachers, the results indicated that the more graduate credit hours taken in courses dealing with language minority students, the more positive the percept ion of ELL students. This was not the indicat ion for ELL teachers. In fact, the results indicated that more graduate hours taken in courses that deal with language minority students did not support a more positive percept ion of ELL students; in fact, the results showed no apparent change in percept ion with more graduate hours earned. These results could indicate that ELL teachers have an overall positive percept ion of ELL students perhaps due to the formal training in their undergraduate coursework. This finding supports the conclus ion from Flores’ study (2001): Prior experiences with language minority students can positively influence teachers’ beliefs. Flores’ study also noted that most teachers did not realize how experiences and beliefs influenced their teaching practices. The results indicated that the complet ion of more coursework on the graduate level does not alter the ELL teachers’ percept ion of ELL students in a more positive or negative way. The percept ion is constant, in that it is positive, regardless of graduate coursework completed beyond 3 hours.
According to the results for undergraduate credit hours, a significant difference was found between the two groups of teachers’ percept ions of ELL students, with ELL teachers showing a more positive percept ion than mainstream teachers. The results also indicated that the more credit hours earned, the more positive the percept ion of ELL students. The findings in this study for both graduate and undergraduate courses taken sustain Byrnes et al’s (1997) analysis that shows that formal training and earning a graduate degree is associated with positive percept ions of language minority students and second language learning. It is also noteworthy that Byrnes and Kiger’s study indicated that more positive attitudes and percept ions of language minority students can be found among teachers in the southwest reg ion of the U.S. Our study replicates these results and shows similar results for teachers in the southeastern part of the U.S.
We also looked for differences between ELL and mainstream teachers’ percept ions of ELL students with regard to staff development hours taken. Results for staff development hours taken that deal specifically with language minority students indicated similar findings. A significant difference was found between the two groups of teachers’ percept ions toward ELL students, with ELL teacher having a more positive percept ion as they took part in more staff development. Mainstream teachers showed a neutral to slightly positive percept ion of ELL students in the mainstream classroom given the same amount of staff development. In addit ion, the results showed that the more staff development hours taken, the more positive the percept ion of ELL students for both groups of teachers. It is interesting to note that similar studies in the review of literature state the importance of proper training through staff development (Youngs & Youngs, 2001; Byrnes, Kiger & Manning, 1997).
Conclus ion: Influencing a Realistic Pedagogy
The finding that staff development experiences in ELL affects practicing ELL teachers more than they affect mainstream classroom teachers is a little surprising. More importantly, this investigat ion supports what many language educators have been advocating for many years: Teacher educat ion programs must make room for courses that specifically address the needs of second language learners. Although many colleges are providing such courses, there still remain those that believe that they can adequately address the needs of ELL students in one mini-lecture provided two weeks before new student-teachers begin their school placements and teaching careers. As this study demonstrates, teachers not only become more knowledgeable in these courses, but these courses also have a positive impact on how new and practicing teachers view and interact with ELL students and their families.
Beliefs transform teachers’ pedagogical practices and approaches to teaching. It is possible that the teachers’ performance in relat ion to teaching style creates a social reality in the classroom. This social reality that is created in the classroom by the teacher often has life-long outcomes, especially for language minority students (Cochran-Smith, 2001). As Cochran-Smith stated, the “image of the profess ional teacher is one who constructs pedagogy that is culturally relevant, but also socially re-construct ionist, anti-racist, anti-assimilat ionist, and aimed at social justice” (p. 542)
Changing School Culture
In an effort to place value or take pride in a cultural norm or belief, schools may subconsciously devalue another culture or cultural identity, which is often a reflect ion of society (Suarez-Orozco, 1987). Cummins (1993) states that “schools reflect the values and attitudes of the broader society that supports them and so it is hardly surprising that in the United States students from African-American, Latino, and Native American communities have experienced extensive devaluat ion of their cultures and languages within the school context” (p.31).
Many schools have taken the initiative to develop intensive language programs that will value all cultural backgrounds in hopes to improve the social and educat ional experiences of immigrants. Although there has been an overall increase in the number of ELLs in the past few decades, the majority of immigrants to the United States are from Spanish-speaking countries (Waggoner, 1993). A study was conducted at a southwestern urban high school to gain insight into the everyday lives of Latino immigrants. Barbara Norrid-Lacey and Dee Ann Spencer (1999) conducted a qualitative study of 70 Latino immigrants who were classified as LEP freshmen and placed in the freshman ELL core program. The study produced several key issues relevant to the educat ional experiences of adolescent Latino immigrants: (1) Contentious relat ionships between Chicanos and mejicanos (2) The choice of speaking English or Spanish as a key identifier of the ethnic group with which an individual associated with and (3) Student’s academic tracking and placement was not solely a factor of their academic progress.
The researchers in the previous study also note that the educat ion of ELLs did not appear to be a priority for the administrat ion at this school site. In addit ion, the teachers involved in the previous study expressed attitudes toward immigrants that ranged from fully supportive to blatantly racist. Tamara Lucas (2000) provides six priorities for principals and administrators who seek to facilitate the transit ions for ELLs into, through, and beyond secondary schools that include: (1) Encouraging and supporting teachers and others to learn about students and their communities, (2) Cultivating relat ionships with students and families, (3) Provide informat ion about the U.S. educat ional system,(4) Building collaborative relat ionships with other agencies that serve students, (5) Supporting profess ional development to build knowledge for teaching ELLs, (6) Facilitating and participating in collaborat ion to bring about educat ional change. Lucas also urges educators to consider how English Language Learners can be guided through transit ional experiences to become young adults who are prepared not only for work that is productive and fulfilling for them but also for lifelong learning and active participat ion in their communities. The above studies (Lucas, 2000; Norrid-Lacey & Spencer, 1999) are important in understanding how policy makers are the key to establishing effective programs with effective teachers for ELLs.
In order for all students to receive quality educat ion, teachers’ instruct ional behaviors need to mediate students’ instruct ional needs. Clark and Perez (1995) have identified four attributes of teachers’ instruct ional style that are effective teaching practices for language minority students: language proficiency, linguistic knowledge, cultural knowledge, teacher competencies and attitudes
Prior experiences can positively influence teachers’ beliefs, thereby promote effective teaching practices. Teachers need to recognize the importance of language and culture in the acquisit ion of knowledge. Our profess ional development is not static in that personal experiences may initially influence teachers’ beliefs, but these beliefs are modified or reaffirmed through increased knowledge via specialized experiences and teacher training. Most teachers never realized how experiences and beliefs influenced their teaching practices. Given this, we support teachers’ critical reflective practice in order to challenge and change the status quo.
Alva, S.A. (1991). Academic invulnerability among Mexican American students: The importance of protective resources and appraisals. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 12, 18-34.
Bandura, A. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic funct ioning. Child Development, 67, 1206-1222.
Byrnes, J. P. (2001). Cognitive development and learning in instruct ional contexts (2 nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Byrnes, D.A., Kiger, G. & Manning, M.L. (1997). Teachers’ attitudes about language Diversity. Teacher and teacher educat ion, 13, 637-644.
Claire, N. (1995). Mainstream classroom teachers and ESL students. TELL Quarterly, 29(1), 189-196.
Clark, E. R. & Perez, B. (1995). Preparing teachers for south Texas programs, practices and processes. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educat ional Research Associat ion, San Francisco, CA.
Crawford, J. (1999). Bilingual educat ion: History, politics, theory, and practice (4 th ed). Los Angeles: Bilingual Educat ion Services.
Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Educat ion for empowerment in a diverse society (2 nd ed.). Ontario, CA: California Associat ion for Bilingual Educat ion.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1993). Empowerment through biliteracy. In J.V. Tinajer and A.F. Ada
(Eds.). The power of two languages: Literacy and biliteracy for Spanish-speaking students. New York: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill School Publishing.Dunn, L. (1987). Bilingual Hispanic children on the U.S. mainland: A review of research on their cognitive, linguistic, and scholastic development. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educat ional Research, 38(1), 47-65.
Flores, B. (2001). Bilingual educat ion teachers’ beliefs and their relat ion to self-reported practices. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(3).
Georgia Department of Educat ion (2001,2002,2003). (http://www.doe.ga.us).
Gersten, R. (1999). The double demands of teaching English language learners. Educat ional Leadership, 53(5), 18-22.
Glenn, C. (1996). Educating immigrant children: Schools and language minorities in twelve nat ions. New York: Garland.
Griego,T. (2002). Preparing all teachers for linguistic diversity in K-12 schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Associat ion of Colleges for Teacher Educat ion, New York, NY.
Hativa, N. & Goodyear, P. (2002). Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher educat ion. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Hodgkinson, H. (2001). Educat ional demographics: What teachers should know. Educat ional Leadership, 58(4), 4-11.
Kelly, G. (1988). The schooling of Vietnamese immigrants. In Rotherberg, P. (Ed.). Racism and sexism: An integrated study. New York: St. Martins Press.
Lucas, T. (2000). Facilitating the transit ions of secondary English language learners: Priorities for principals. NASSPBulletin, 84(619), 2-13.
Lumsden, L.(1997). Expectat ions for students. Eugene, OR: Nat ional Clearinghouse on Educat ional Mangement. (ERIC Reproduct ion Service No. ED333622).
Lyons, J.(1990). The past and future direct ions of federal bilingual educat ion policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Marx, S. (2000). An explorat ion of pre-service teacher percept ions of second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American research associat ion. New Orleans, April 24-28.
NCLB (2002). (http://www.NCLB.gov).
Norrid-Lacey, B. & Spencer, D. (1999). Experiences of Latino immigrant students at an urban high school. NASSP Bulletin, 85 (619), 43-54.
Ovando, C.J. & Collier, V.P. (1998). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts (2 nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Peinfield, J. (1987). ESL: The regular classroom teacher’s perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1).
Porter, R. (2000). The benefits of English immers ion. Educat ional Leadership, 57(4), 52-56.
Quezada, M., Wiley, G. & Ramirez, D. (2000). How the reform agenda shortchanges English learners. Educat ional Leaderhsip, 57(1), 57-61.
Reeves, J.(2002). High school teachers attitudes toward ELL students in the mainstream classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertat ion, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Rueda, R. & Garcia, E. (1993). Teachers’ perspectives on literacy assessment and instruct ion with language minority students: A comparative study. The Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 312-332.
Schur, B. (1999). A newcomer’s high school. Educat ional Leadership, 56(7), 50-52.
Suarez-Orozco, M. (1987). Towards a psychological understanding of Hispanic adaptat ion to American schooling. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
U.S. Census Bureau (2001). (http://ed.gov/NCES).
U.S. Department of Commerce (1996). ( http://www.commerce.gov).
Waggoner, D. (1993). Census informat ion on countries of birth of foreign-born populat ion numbers and needs.Ethnic and Linguistic Minorities in the U.S., 3, 1-3.
Wiley, T. & Lukes, M. (1996). English only and standard ideologies in the U.S. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 511-535.S
Williams, F., Whitehead, J. & Miller, L. (1972). Relat ions between language attitudes and teacher expectancy. American Educat ion Research Journal, 9, 266-277.
Youngs, C., & Youngs, G. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers’ attitudes toward ESL students. TELL Quarterly, 35, 97-120.
© Radical Pedagogy