Examination of Current Curriculum Frameworks for English Language Learners in Reading

This capstone project examines the current curriculum framework and instructional practices for English Language Learners in the content area of reading. It addresses the need for practices that focus on increasing populations of ELLs and learners who have learned English in foreign countries.

EXAMINATION OF CURRENT CURRIULUM FRAMEWORKS UTILIZED IN THE
FIELD TO MEET THE LANGUAGE LEARNING NEEDS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNERS IN THE CONTENT AREA OF READING
By
Reem Barada
DR. CHRIS STABILE, EdD, Faculty Mentor and Chair
DR. LAURA TRURJILLO-JENKS, EdD, Committee Member
DR. MICHAEL JAZZAR, EdD, Committee Member
Curtis R. Brant, PhD, Interim Dean, School of Education
A Doctoral Capstone Project Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
Capella University

© Reem Barada, 2018

Abstract
The capstone project is an examination and evaluation of the current curriculum framework and
instructional practices at a local public-school academy and whether it meets the language
learning challenges of English Language Learners in the content area of reading. The project
addresses the need for the development of practices that contain a systematic and organized body
of knowledge that focuses on the increasing populations of English Language Learners and
learners who have learned English in foreign countries. Many curriculums do not incorporate the
multiple dimensions of social-cultural language, culture and tradition, and value systems into
instructional practices. The topic addresses weaknesses in current program design and delivery
of instructional practices required of classroom teachers to meet the specific learning needs of
the English Language Learner (ELL) student populations in current classrooms. The deliverable
for the Capstone Project is a paper that describes the Evaluation Study and its intention to
improve program implementation and educational outcomes for English Language Learners
(ELL) specifically in the content area of reading. It will identify and provide clarification of
declining academic achievement specifically in the content area of reading; appropriate actions,
nurture new patterns of thinking, practices delivery, strategies and interventions that will bridge
existing gaps in program implementation and future educational outcomes for English Language
Learners. The learning environment remains a viable learning environment, yet it must learn
from its errors, redetermine long-range goals; make improvements to internal processes;
reestablish the Multicultural Framework for Learning and the Motivational Framework for
Responsive Teaching and begin meeting the learning challenges of language learners in the
community. The findings from the study have resulted in a positive impact on the school and its
teachers. They have begun to look internally for answers to solve the school’s problems. All staff

have begun to adopt and support the mission and the vision in their daily encounters with each
other and the community. All staff has been rallying together to reconfirm the school’s purpose
within the community and the community. This action has resulted in a waiting list for the
upcoming school year, a condition that the school has not seen for the last two years.

Dedication
Mo and Hadeel, I dedicate my life and work to you. You have encouraged me, stood with
me and behind me to allow me to keep traveling forward on this educational journey. Having
your voices in my head and in my heart kept me focused and dedicated toward my goal. As you
have loved me, you are also loved.
iii

Acknowledgments
Over the years, I have had the support and encouragement of many who have assisted me
throughout my educational career. I would like to humbly extend my appreciation to Dr.
Christopher Stabile, my mentor on the Doctoral journey and the Doctoral Committee members,
Dr. Laura Trujillo and Dr. Michael Jazzar. I have only simple words to express for their patience,
guidance, understanding, and encouragement as I traveled along this Doctoral journey. I remain
grateful and thankful to you all.
“Let us be grateful to the people who make us happy; they are the charming gardeners who make
our souls blossom.” -Marcel Proust
iv

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments iv
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND
Overview of Doctoral Capstone Project 1
Alignment to the Specialization 6
Problem Statement and Purpose of the Deliverable 9
Evidence/Data Used to Establish Rationale for Deliverable 12
Historical Background of the Problem 13
Organizational Context 19
Theoretical Framework 20
Other Scholarly Literature 24
Ethical Considerations 25
SECTION 2. PROCESS
Introduction 32
Project Design/Method 33
Project Outcomes 39
Development Process 43
Evaluation Plan 46
SECTION 3. APPLICATION
Introduction 57
v

Problem Statement and Purpose of the Deliverable 58
Relevant Outcomes and Findings 59
Application and Benefits 69
Target Audience 69
Institution/Setting 70
Beyond the Local Setting 72
Implications for the Professional Specialization 73
Recommendations 75
Conclusion 82
REFERENCES 84
vi

List of Tables
Table 1. Number of Immigrants in U.S. 1980-2014 [2]
Table 2. Public Elementary and Secondary School enrollment Fall 2014 [3]
Table 3: Estimation of ELL Enrollment [5]
Table 4: Percentage of public K–12 students who were English language learners, [8]
by grade level: Fall 2015
vii

List of Figures
Figure 1. Components of Stufflebeam’s (2003) CIPP Model [33]
viii

SECTION 1. BACKGROUND
Overview of Doctoral Capstone Project
The effects of globalization have been far-reaching and have changed the face of local
communities, the national economy and traditional white classrooms throughout the United
States. Advances in technology have made it possible for individuals to move with ease about the
world, for a multitude of reasons and settle into communities that were once unavailable to them.
Herrera (2012) stated that across the world more than 200 million people reside in a country
different from their birth country and are assimilating. The effects of globalization pose vast
challenges for local governments, communities, schools and for classroom teachers.
Globalization also brings about the movement of ideas across local contexts (Paine,
Syahril & Ayadarova, 2017; Castelli, 2016). Historically, the United States has been a world
leader as a receiving country for unprecedented numbers of people migrating from
underdeveloped countries to the developing world. This alone dramatically influences the course
of curriculum and instructional practices in schools and classrooms. Globalization is not only the
result of the movement of materials and people from one place to another, but it is also the
exchange of ideas and the growth of international, transnational and global perspectives on
education and teaching (Paine, Syahril & Ayadarova, 2017; Castelli, 2016).
The geographical spread of immigrants across the U.S. implies an increasingly diffuse
grouping of English Language Learners in classrooms. Immigrants in America have moved out
and beyond historical gateways in major cities into traditionally white suburban and rural areas
1

resulting in more than half of Public Schools that serve English Language Learners are not in
major urban cities (NECLA, 2016).
Table 1: Number Immigrants in U. S. 1980-2014
Sourced: Data from U.S. Census Bureau 2006, 2010, and 2014. American Community Surveys (ACS), and Campbell J. Gibson and Kay Jung.
“Historical Statistics on the Foreign-Born population of the United States. 1850-2000. (Working Paper no. 81 U.S. Census Bureau Washington,
D.C. February 2006.
Due to this freedom of mobility, families are settling into and reviving communities that
were once thought to be dying and enrolling students into all classroom levels of the American
educational system. These students are bringing with them a multitude of learning needs and
cultural perspectives. Nesbit (2013) argued that individuals from differing parts of the world
bring with them alternative perspectives on social structures, philosophies as well as educational
expectations (Viega et al., 2000).
In 2012-2013, English Language Learners comprised nearly 10%, or 4.85 million of the
total enrollments in U.S. public schools (Ruiz- Soto et al., 2015; NCELA, 2011). The National
Center on Education Statistics (NCES, 2018) reports that in the 2014-2015 school year an
estimated that 4.6 million English Language Learners (ELL) were actively enrolled in U.S.
schools. The numbers have increased slowly over the past years with an estimated 4.3 million
students or 9.1 % of total public-school enrollment in the 2004–05 school year; and 4.5 million
2

or 9.3 % of total enrollment in the 2013–14 school year (NCES, 2017). It is estimated that the
number of English Language Learners (ELL) enrolled in U.S. schools will increase to 18.4
million in the school year 2026. The 2014-2015 school year introduced a significant cultural
shift: it was the first time that most students in American public schools were not White (NCES,
2018).
Table 2: Public Elementary and Secondary school enrollment, Fall 2014
Source: National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), 2016 Tables and Figures
As public-school enrollment of non-native English speakers increases, it is estimated that
the enrollment of native English speakers will progressively decline with each successive year
(NCES, 2017). English Language Learners (ELL) are reported to be the most rapidly growing
student population in American school systems (i.e. race/ethnicity, male/female; special
education, and other such factors) and are dominating public school classrooms (NCELA, 2011).
Enrollment is increasing at a rate of 60%, as compared to the 7% growth of the total general
student population over the past decade (Katz, 2013; Grantmakers for Education, 2013). From
the school year 1990-1991 to the 2000-2001 school year, English Language Learner enrollment
3

grew more than 105 % reflecting over 1 million immigrants enrolled in U.S. schools compared to
only 12% growth of total enrollment during the same period (NEA, n.d.).
This change in the face of American classrooms holds significant implications for schools
and the role of teacher effectiveness and quality instruction plays in improving positive
educational outcomes. Classroom teachers are finding they need clarification on such terms as
emigrants, expatriates, refugees, or immigrants (Hollo et al., 2015). Cruz (2014) noted that many
educators find themselves ill-prepared or lacking in knowledge and skills to successfully address
diversity and culture.
What is also significant is nationwide, merely 2.5 % of teachers that provide instruction
to English Language Learners (ELL) in their classrooms possess a degree in ESL or bilingual
education experience (NCES, 2018). In California, Colorado, and Texas, where English
Language Learner where populations are the highest in the nation, teachers are under certified,
lacking in sufficient preparation to meet the learning challenges of this student population
(NCELA, 2011). Tamer (2014) opined that one in four students in U.S. classrooms is an
immigrant or U.S. born child of immigrants. In the coming school years, nearly every classroom
teacher can anticipate there being more than one English Language Learner in their classrooms.
They must be professionally prepared to support ELL students gain equal access to the curricula
with specialized knowledge and skill. In 2000, the U.S, Census Bureau (2000) reports that 43%
of secondary educators teach English Language Learners.
English Language Learner (ELLs) are the most rapidly growing category of student
populations and increased by 70% between 1992 and 2002 in grades 7-12 alone. English
Language Learners comprise 10.5% of the total U.S. K-12 enrollment, an increase from 5% in
1990 (Hoffman & Sable, 2006) and is expected to comprise 91% of the enrollment in the year
4

2026. English Language Learners have many facets to them and are not easily slotted into
simplified categories. They comprise a very diverse group of learners with multiple
characteristics and identifiers. The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) report that
57% of the total English Language Learner (ELL) population was born in the United States
while 43% were born elsewhere; have varying levels of language proficiency; socioeconomic
standing; academic expectations; foundational and background knowledge and immigration
status (Batalova et al., 2005). Fifty years ago, large concentrations of English Language Learners
could be found in just a few U.S. states, but today almost all fifty states have populations of
English Language Learners (ELL).
Table 3: Estimation of ELL Enrollment
English Language Learners (ELL) characterize a school population segment that has
numerous languages, cultures, ethnicities, nationalities, and socioeconomic backgrounds, and in
many situations come from homes where parents and grandparents continue to speak a native
first language and actively practice cultural traditions (NCELA, 2011; Mather, 2009). In that
schools and their teachers are encountering a diverse range of learners in specialized as well as
general classrooms, a range of skill, breadth, and depth of knowledge, specialized curriculum,
and instructional practices must be examined. ELL students, as well as those who are struggling
5

with language development, require quality curriculum and effective instruction. Yet, with this
professional reflection in mind, instructional approaches toward teaching non-native English
speakers have remained virtually the same as it has been for decades. Current research has
demonstrated that ELL/ESL programming implemented by schools are devised to meet the
learning needs of small groups of learners of the same or similar languages and not large,
disaggregated, multiple language groups as seen in current general education classrooms.
Many specialized curriculums do not incorporate the multiple dimensions of social-
cultural language, culture and value systems into instructional practices. The capstone project
addresses the need for the development of instructional delivery practices that contain a
systematic and organized body of knowledge that focuses on the increasing populations of
English Language Learners, learners who have learned English in foreign countries and learners
that are in varying stages of language development. The study addresses the gaps and
weaknesses in current program design and instructional practices required of classroom teachers
to meet the specific academic challenges of this student population in general education
classrooms.
The study examined and evaluated the current curriculum framework and delivery of
instructional practices at a local public-school academy and whether it meets the language
learning needs of English Language Learners in the content area of reading.
Alignment to the Specialization
The project corresponds with the specialization of Curriculum and Instruction in that it
analyzes the challenges and opportunities for integration of research-based theory, use of data
and literature to improve curricular implementation and effective educator practice thus
6

promoting positive learning outcomes in the content area of reading for the English Language
Learner population. The study also highlights interdisciplinary perspectives, methodologies, and
issues related to contemporary issues on the development of culturally responsive pedagogies,
curriculum design, and policy to have significant potential in resulting in substantial benefits for
future educators and student populations of English Language Learners.
Aydin, Ozfidan and Carothers (2017) argue that the factors such as policy changes;
emerging technologies; globalization; refugee and immigration issues as directly influencing and
challenging current curriculum design and implementation in American schools. Extending
further than curriculum and instruction, Ellerbrock et al. (2014) disputes successful educator’s
achievements in acclimating to the challenges that English Language Learners present in the
classroom may determine the future quality of life in our communities. This draws upon the
supposition that the future of our society is directly affected by how well American students are
prepared and educated. Many of the nation's future workers, military, scientists, doctors, and
political leaders are drawn from the students that are educated in American schools and there
should be intense focus quality curriculum and making those schools effective (Saunders,
Goldenberg & Marceletti, 2013).
The project addresses the need for the development of practices that contain a systematic
and organized body of knowledge that focuses on the increasing populations of English
Language Learners and learners who have learned English in foreign countries (EFF).
Notwithstanding the increasing degrees and levels of learner difference, over the last decade,
there has been a national movement emphasizing all students achieve the same academic goals
no matter the circumstances. Many researchers have expressed that learning standards have been
set too low for many student populations including English Language Learners. According to
7

Ortiz-Marrero and Sumaryono (2010), it is an inequity that ELL students are placed into English
speaking classrooms with idealistic expectations of positive academic performance and as well
as comparative performance on high-stakes standardized tests. A fundamental perception among
some educators has led to the idea that uniform standards should be set for all student population
segments with special attention given to historically underperforming groups, such as English
Language Learners. Educators have this change in the perspective challenging, in that
underperforming groups lack most of the foundational skills to meet proposed learning targets
and defined content standards.
Table 4: Percentage of public K–12 students who were English Language Learners,
by grade level: Fall 2015
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; State Non-fiscal Survey of Public Elementary and
Secondary Education, 2015–16.
Many curriculums do not incorporate the multiple dimensions of social-cultural language,
culture and tradition, and value systems into instructional practices. School year 2014-2015
introduced a degree of realism between educators and students in that most public-school
enrollees were not White (NCES, 2018), causing a historically white teaching force to struggle
with educating students that are non-white, culturally and ethnically diverse, from backgrounds
of poverty and are not native English speakers (Aydin et al.,2017). English Language Learners
come to the classroom at various levels of competence, language, school experience, varying
levels of motivation for academics, social skills and acceptable maturity (Ruiz-Soto et al., 2015;
8

Florin & Hall, 2008). The progressive decline in white student enrollment continues to challenge
and widen the cultural disparity between educator and student. The National Center for
Educational Statistics expects that 54.7% of U.S. students enrolled in public schools will be
members of minority groups by 2022 (NCES, 2018).
Some professional educators state that traditional curricula and instructional practices are
ineffectual with the current diversity in the classroom (Aydin et al.,2017; Ruiz-Soto et al., 2015;
Florin & Hall, 2008). Curriculum should reflect the specific learning needs of current English
Language Learners populations, inclusive of differentiation and comprehensive programming
components that address cultural, social and emotional needs, that will follow learners
throughout their academic career, accentuate academic language development as well as enhance
conversational language development (Aydin et al.,2017; Ruiz et al., 2015; Florin & Hall, 2008).
The topic addresses weaknesses in current program design and delivery of instruction required of
classroom teachers to meet the challenges and learning needs of the English Language Learner
(ELL) student population in current classrooms.
Problem Statement and Purpose of the Deliverable
The educational site was established to meet the educational need of a community of
immigrants and non-native English speakers. The community school system was large,
traditional and unresponsive to their needs. The community felt this large district did not
understand them, their cultures, nor provided their children's specific language and learning
needs (Viega et al., 2000). They felt the district was resistant to understanding the challenges of
English Language Learners and would not provide their students' equal access to education.
Students in the community felt disconnected, were unable to maintain their motivation for
9

learning or an interest in going to school daily. Consideration was also given to political biases
that were prevalent at the time as possibly contributing to the large school district's resistance to
middle eastern populations and placement of many students in Special Education classes without
appropriate testing.
The research site established an operational vision for their school and its learners
(Castelli, 2016). A Multicultural Framework for school culture and standards-based inclusion
philosophy was implemented around effective processes for interaction, cultural understanding
and traditions, diversity and motivation and the specific learning needs of English Language
Learners. The research site added a component to the Multicultural Framework to address
motivation and diversity.
The Motivational Framework for Culturally Responsive Teaching prescribes respect of
individual cultures and functions at the same time to create a common culture in the learning
environment that diverse individuals are able to accept and function in (Wlodkowski &
Ginsberg, 2009; Wlodkowski, 2008; Wlodkowski, 1999). The principle of the framework’s
concepts are in the establishment of inclusion to create an atmosphere of respect and a
connection to others; developing a favorable disposition toward learning through personal
relevance and choice; enhancing meaning through challenges, thoughtful learning experiences
that include the learner's perspective and value system; stimulating competence and development
of an understanding that all learners are effective if they are learning something they value
(Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 2009; Wlodkowski, 2008; Wlodkowski, 1999).
Yet over time, changes in the community created new challenges for teachers in that
English Language Learners (ELL) often outnumber the native English speakers in the general
education classroom. Many of the educators that initially established the mission and school
10

culture began to leave for other positions. Their leaving changed the school's direction.
Educational outcomes began to decline with many students suffering greatly from the continuous
staff turnover (Hanna & Lucie, 2011; Martinez, 2004). In the span of 3 years, the school lost its
A+ state grade and English Language Learners who were taking state high stakes assessments
along with Native English speakers and ranking in the higher percentiles, began falling within
the lowest ranks.
Staffs were gaining in expertise and experience and were leaving the school to seek
employment elsewhere. Replacement teachers were being recruited that had little experience
with globalization and/or diversity contexts (Santoro, 2009). Newly hired staff lacked experience
working with racially and ethnically diverse learners and expressed they received little
preparation if any during teacher training. The administration began having difficulty finding
teachers that matched the original teaching staff and had a desire to teach in this community. The
difficulty was in finding educators that understood the importance of cultural pedagogies and
also mirrored the student population. Positive student learning outcomes began to suffer as
enrollment began to decline. Within three years, a school that had been busting out at the seams
and seeking funding for expansion was placing expansion on hold and releasing unessential staff.
The research site's administration observed the shift in student performance early and
began to mandate professional development for all staff; scrutinized its hiring criteria as it sought
the diverse teaching force it greatly needed (Lindsey et al., 2017; Ozfidan et al., 2016; Senge et
al., 2012). Despite the concentration on improving the skill set of the teaching staff, re-
emphasizing the multicultural framework for education, positive learning outcomes continued to
decline in all content areas. The school continued to exhibit difficulties meeting the challenges
11

and changing needs of the student population with each new school year and has been unable to
recover previous accomplishments.
Site records indicate current staff have received ongoing professional development (PD)
on specific topics such as inclusion, multicultural framework, diversity and motivation and best
practices for instructing this population While the professional development is ongoing and
records indicate highly monitored, gaps and weaknesses continue to exist in program continuity
that has resulted in ineffective delivery of instruction, lack of transference of learning by the
English Language Learner (ELL) population thus not meeting common core standards for
reading and overall poor academic outcomes.
The purpose of the capstone project is to analyze and evaluate the research site's English
Language Learner (ELL) programming through qualitative research, program instructional goals,
and instructional practices. The study will identify and analyze existing gaps and weaknesses of
current programming (Mueller & File, 2015; Pereira & Gentry, 2013); provide clarification of
declining academic achievement specifically in the content area of reading; nurture new patterns
of thinking (Marshal et al., 2010; Bouton, 2008) and make recommendations for improvements.
Evidence/Data Used to Establish Rationale for Deliverable
From the day the educational site opened its doors, language development and academic
growth were exhibited at every grade level. Parents were sharing with other parents their
pleasure with the site and eagerly wanted to enroll their students. To address the needs of the
community, the site adopted The Multicultural Framework for Learning to address the growing
cultural diversity of the local and surrounding communities, made many attempts to hire a
12

diverse instructional and support staff and recreate an atmosphere of respect and appreciation for
world cultures and languages.
In some culture's motivation and appreciation for an education are viewed differently than
it is in others and the site knew that they would have to address this concern. The site set out to
change that view by adding a component to its learning framework, a Motivational Framework
for Culturally Responsive Teaching which respects different individual cultures and works at the
same time to create a common culture in the learning environment that diverse individuals are
able to accept.
After thriving for nearly a decade, in the span of 3 years the site lost its diverse
instructional staff, academic scores began to decline, and language development appeared to
remain in the limited or emergent stages. Many students who were making progress in
expressive language development began to enter the "silent" stage of language learning making
them appear unresponsive to learning and interaction. The sites well-deserved A+ state grade fell
due to the decline in academic growth and low high stakes test score rankings. In that high stakes
testing is associated with site budgets, this situation affected all funding sources and plans for
expansion. For state accountability, the site had to include the concern in its school improvement
plan for the last 3 years and has had limited success in resolving the issue.
Historical Background of the Problem
America's history is linked to the waves of immigrants arriving at its teeming shores from
countries around the world. Yet the appropriate language of the country and public education has
been heavily debated since the 17th century. The debate over one language, bilingual education
and separate but equal models for the instruction of non-native English-speaking students can be
13

rooted in America's colonial past. Prior to colonization, immigrant groups co-existed on North
American soil clustered in specific areas. English was the language of instruction in where public
schools were established, but other languages were used exclusively in private schools that
served a specific immigrant population.
Long before North America was colonized by immigrants it was abundant with
indigenous languages and cultures. It is estimated that from 250 to 1, 000 Native Indian
languages were spoken at the time initial contact was made with the first Europeans (Sherzer,
1992; Kloss, 1988; Grosjean, 1982). Prior to the twentieth century, the U.S. Government
imposed English only thought upon communities of Native Americans and immigrants that
inhabited the incorporated territories of the West and Southwest. (Crawford, 2004; Ridgeway &
Pewewardy, 2004; Kloss, 1988). This insured that territories were inhabited by English speaking
settlers.
Similar sanctions were being imposed on the states in the East where immigrants from
European countries were flooding U.S. ports every day. The government began impressing on
new immigrants that English was a requisite for living in America and for becoming a citizen.
States were passing laws to enforce rules that allowed immigrants to only attend night school and
only males could enroll (Handlin, 2012). This mindset continued through the presidency of
Theodore Roosevelt who emphasized the speaking of English demonstrated loyalty to the U.S.
(Crawford, 2004; Ridgeway & Pewewardy, 2004). The Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting
schools to teach in a language other than English violates the U.S. Constitution (Ridgeway &
Pewewardy, 2004). Wiley (2009) opined that languages from Europe were more readily accepted
and tolerated. Native American, African, and the Hispanic languages were looked at negatively
and were considered inferior.
14

According to Crawford (2008), Ohio was the first state to accept and mandate bilingual
education. Kloss (1988) argued that when Ohio entered the Union in 1802, it was the home to a
large and politically influential population of German immigrants. The German community was
well represented in the state government (Handlin, 2012; Kloss, 1988), laws were routinely
published in German and English. In 1839, Ohio became the first state to adopt a bilingual
education law, requiring instruction in both German and English after the community largely
petitioned for it. Louisiana passed the same law in 1847, substituting French for German
(Handlin, 2012).
German was the leading language alternative to English and in the 1800’s more than 600,
000 students in North America were receiving their instruction in the German language (Kloss,
2998). This was comparatively a larger percentage than the total number of students receiving
instruction in Spanish a century later (U.S. Dept of Ed., 2016). By the turn of the 20th century,
about a dozen states and territories had statutes authorizing bilingual education in their public
schools. Such instruction was often provided informally with or without state sanction or support
(U.S. Dept. of Ed., 2016; Higham, 1992). In the early 1900’s, schools in across the country were
teaching students in languages as diverse as Norwegian, Czech, and Cherokee.
The pendulum has always swung both ways concerning bilingual education. Proponents
suggested bilingual education helps to facilitate a bilingual student’s academic success as well as
the development of the second language. Opponents suggested that dual language slows down
the social competence and the process of assimilation into American culture. This view was
considered essential to the economic and cultural success of a newly arrived immigrant. Wagner
(2007) indicated that the process of assimilation for any immigrant was neither painless or
15

embraced by other ethnic groups just as some languages were not widely accepted as were
European languages and groups (Wiley, 2009).
By the turn of the 20th century, nearly a dozen states and territories had statutes on the
books authorizing bilingual schools, although non-public schools were already implementing
alternative language programming without state sanctioning or funding (Kloss, 1998). The First
World War ushered in a wave of anti-German sentiment and temporarily ended the expansion of
non-English or bilingual education nationwide. By 1923, thirty-four states had passed "English-
Only" laws mandating the exclusive use of the English language in public school instruction.
Some states went so far as to ban the study of foreign languages entirely (U.S. Dept. of Ed.,
2016) before the child had successfully passed the eighth grade.
By 1923, the Supreme Court had begun to constrain the scope of such laws, as in the case
of Meyer v. Nebraska where it intervened in the 1919 Nebraska law that prohibiting the teaching
of foreign languages to school children before high school. Meyer v. Nebraska involved a
Catholic school teaching the Bible in German to a young boy. The Court decided that teaching in
English only did not justify restricting a parents' right to choose instruction for their children or a
teacher's right to teach.
After World War II, a resurgence for bilingual education occurred and continued to post
the Cuban Rebellion of 1959 when the U.S. took in many immigrants from Cuba. Many
refugees settled in Florida where they were generously assisted by the federal and state
governments. Some of the governmental assistance came in the form of ESL (English as a
Second Language) education and a "Spanish for Spanish speakers" program (McKinney, 2016).
The case of Brown v Board of Education of Topeka of 1954 (Brown v. Board of Ed, 2014) a
16

cornerstone of the civil rights movement and helped establish the precedent that "separate-but-
equal" education and other support services were found not to be equal at all.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, did not specifically address bilingual education, but it
expanded recognition of the increasing ethnolinguistic minorities in America in the early 1960's.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 brought attention to the lack of access to meaningful education and
social mobility for many minorities to the attention of Congress who later passed the Bilingual
Education Act of 1968 (or Title VII of the Elementary & Secondary School Act of 1968). This
Act was considered the most important law to recognize linguistic minority (or non-English
speaker) rights and specifically prohibited discrimination based on race, color, or national origin
in any programs or activities that received federal financial assistance. Although it did not force
school districts to offer bilingual education, it established federal policy for bilingual education
programming and encouraged and provided funding to districts to experiment and implement
innovative pedagogical approaches (Crawford, 2004).
The landmark case of Lau v Nichols in which a Chinese student who was failing in
school because he could not understand instruction that was given only in English and was not
given additional support, filed suit along with 1800 other Chinese families against the San
Francisco school system. The U.S. Supreme Court's 1974 decision required public schools to
adopt permanent strategies and practices to meet the educational needs of their non-English
speaking students. The Court’s response led to many states following by adopting bilingual
education laws.
The case of Brown v Board of Education of Topeka of 1954, the Civil Rights Act of
1964, and the pronounced increase of ethnolinguistic minorities in the early 1960's brought their
lack of access to meaningful education and social mobility to the attention of Congress who later
17

passed the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 (or Title VII of the Elementary & Secondary School
Act of 1968). The Act was considered the most important law of its time that recognized
linguistic minority rights. The Bilingual Education Act was later replaced with the No Child Left
Behind Act which clarified that acquiring the English language should be the primary objective
of any bilingual education program as it supports the learner using the first or native language.
Prior to 1994, most bilingual education programs in the U.S. were designed to encourage
an early exit into mainstream (instruction in the English language) classrooms, while only a
small fraction of programs was designed to maintain the first languages of students. Currently,
many bilingual programs continue to deliver a substantial portion of the curriculum via English
language instruction based on the abilities of ESL teachers. According to Wiley (2002), various
educators that disapprove of bilingual education consider it responsible for retarding the
acquisition of English language development in many learners.
Bilingual education or dual language programming, as it is also called continues to meet
with opposition. In 1998, a California millionaire, fueled by a climate of anti-immigration,
funded Proposition 227 (Anderson, 2015) an initiative to abolish bilingual education and provide
instruction to language minority students in English only. Aside from the frustration of
acceptance as an immigrant's attempts to mingle in American society are the feelings of
frustration immigrant children feel when they are often forced to abandon their first language.
There is also the turmoil at home with extended family members that may not have direct access
to mainstream society outside of their local community (Urban & Wagoner, 2003). The feeling
of denial of culture and first language leaves an imprint on the ambivalence towards one's own
cultural background and one's own value (Bartolome, 2009; McCarty, 2000) which goes against
many ethnic traditions.
18

Organizational Context
The educational site is a pre-K to the 8th-grade school located within the boundaries of a
community that is heavily populated with Middle Eastern, Eastern European Immigrants and
first-generation Americans (MPI, 2016). There is an established and traditional school district
within the community that was found to not serve this group well in respect to addressing their
individual challenges or providing an educational climate where they felt they could be safe and
where they felt like they belonged (OECD, 2018).
The site also draws its enrollment from several nearby cities, communities and school
districts which has increased its enrollment of migrant worker, Hispanic, Latino, and other ethnic
immigrant groups. Despite the differences in ethnic and cultural backgrounds parents were
attracted to the school as they were looking for a place to educate their students that respected
cultural traditions; respected cultural differences; promoted English Language development;
American societal competence and where their children would be safe. The nearby cities can be
difficult for non-English speaking individuals to navigate safely (MDHS, 2018).
The site adopted a mission and vision that encompassed the ongoing needs of the
community. The site also established a multicultural framework as the approach for learning
where cultural relevant components and awareness are integrated into learning activities and
interactions. Many of the practitioners who championed the mission and vision have moved on
to other positions or out of the organization altogether. Leaving openings that have been filled
with staff that are inexperienced or unfamiliar with the learning approach, not passionate
regarding the school's mission and vision, or not professionally prepared to effectively instruct
this population. School leadership has been addressing this concern and has provided staff with
19

many professional development opportunities to learn and become proficient in the learning
approach (DeSimone, 1998). The school has also lost some of its staff because they could not
effectively work with the population. The site has been strengthening its hiring criteria to attract
a more highly qualified and diverse candidate pool (Lindsey, Bloom & Tilsen, 2017; Ozfidan &
Burbow, 2016; Lawler & Stilltoe, 2013).
The target audience for the study is educational practitioners that are involved in the
administrative decision-making processes, curricular determination decisions and curriculum
instructional processes in schools where learners of various cultures and first languages are
enrolled. In addition to this professional audience are English Language Learner parents and
laypersons who are seeking effective educational avenues for ELL/ESL and EFL learners. A
challenge that exists for today's schools is in providing equity and equality for all students.
Providing equal access to the curriculum is problematic when different segments of the
population are using different portions of curriculums, receive insufficient instruction, yet are
being held to the same content standards.
Theoretical Framework
Senge et al. (2012) stated that a learning institution can be designed and ran by "adopting a
learning orientation" (p.5). The educational site has adopted a widely acceptable learning
orientation in the Multicultural Framework for Learning. To achieve a mindset oriented to
learning, Senge et al. (2012) further opined a learning organization that is continually enhancing
and expanding their capabilities, nurturing new patterns of thinking, influenced by collective
aspiration, and desire to work productively toward long-term educational goals will succeed
(Senge et al., 1999; Senge et al., 2012). According to Senge (2006), the following are to be
considered as rationale: for learning organizations that are in a constant state of rapid change,
20

only those that are flexible, adaptive and productive will change effectively. In order for this
action to occur, such organizations need to "discover how to tap into people's commitment and
capacity to learn at all levels" (Senge 2006, p. 4).
The application of systems thinking to learning organizations embodies the principle of
action research in that they both are founded in the interdependency between the individual and
the organization (Rosenkränzer et al., 2017; Senge, 2006). Systems' thinking principles involve a
persistent commitment to learning and action science principles which are based on the thinking
and actions of individuals. Implementing Systems' thinking principles to the program evaluation
process at this site will involve building on a shared vision by designing, inventing, production
and evaluation of actions that will sustain ongoing change that will benefit organizational
improvement.
Employing the principles of systems' thinking and action science to the organizational
dynamics of the research site, close examination elicits obvious systemic limitations although it
has proven to excel repeatedly in prior years. It is comprised of many individuals that
demonstrate the abilities, beliefs, and values, yet their behavior demonstrates organizational
defensive routines (Argyris, 1995). According to Argyris (1995), this success is only temporary
and will lead to organizational failure. He states their behavior is counter-productive in that their
behaviors do not affect organizational change. The site has been employing single loop learning
principles and making changes in single processes which have resulted in inequalities in other
areas. Continuous attempts to correct single loop errors have not improved the overall system,
causing achievement growth to decline for English Language Learners over the past five years.
When examining other processes at the educational site, there is definite evidence of
collaboration among individuals; sharing common goals for the organization and its individual
21

members; and employing knowledge and learning to develop and design improvements and
practices. These double loop practices have created consistent improvements across the
organization in other areas yet have not "penetrated the multiple layers of leadership" (Senge,
2012, p.323).
De Simone and Harris (1968) state that organizational learning means that members at all
levels are actively engaged in identifying problems and solving problems that allow the
organization to "continuously increase its capacity" (p.465). According to Lawler and Stilltoe
(2013), there are various levels of shared ownership and commitment to organizational
outcomes. The shared sense of ownership by multi-leveled members contributes to the
development of the organization's culture of learning. Organizational culture is a shared system
of norms, values, and perceptions, representing an interrelated understanding that is shaped by
each member's expectations (Veiga et al., 2000). This organization was built on a vision of
promoting culture and has developed a learning culture built on the Multicultural Framework for
Learning. Yet, the original premise has been failing the individuals it has chosen to serve, the
non-native English speaking population. Small tweaks in the processes have not corrected the
organizational problem of English Language Learners not being able to transfer learning from
intervention sessions into core subject classrooms. It has been discussed that a closer look is
required of the governing variables in intercultural situations such as those that exist at this
educational site. This includes culture, belief systems, and conceptual frameworks to help
explain the continued negative outcomes. If these variables are not addressed the result will
consistently be unsuccessful. By closely examining the values and beliefs of the English
Language Learners at the school will inform how they perceive the learning environment and
22

how their cultural backgrounds affect their interactions with the school, teachers and their
learning.
The evaluation study will create a focus on identifying the gaps in curricular
programming and instructional practices that are presently in place for English Language
Learners (ELL) at the research site. As the researcher and stakeholders begin to examine the
issues and variables behind the problematic processes, individuals will begin to take what is
being learned to improve itself, beginning a process of single loop learning (Peeters & Robinson,
2015). As the research site begins to learn how it should improve its processes, it will begin to
identify what would happen if the concerns are not changed. The research site will begin to
identify other variables that may lead to additional problematic issues or may cause dysfunction
within the organization and begins to change them. When the research site achieves this level,
double loop learning begins as well as improvement. The research site and its members will also
begin to openly inquire regarding posing concerns and how to transform concerns into areas of
improvement.
According to Senge (2006), "learning organizations are those organizations where people
continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive
patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are
continually learning to see the whole together " (p.3). What is most useful regarding theories of
organizational change in educational systems is that the central concept of change theory
involves learning. Educational institutions are surrounded by theories of learning and it is
sensible that for the institution itself to maintain growth and sustain itself it too must learn.
Employing Senge's Five Learning Disciplines (2012), one can easily envision a learning
institution grasping the change theory concept to evolve, self-organize and sustain itself and set
23

the groundwork for achieving change. They have created the vision for themselves but have not
mastered the process of achieving it. Educational institutions are filled with individuals who
share similar passions but do not share similar organizational visions. Educational institutions
have incorporated reflective practices but have not included the organization in this action.
Educational institutions have developed collaborative practice and professional learning.
Educational institutions incorporate comprehensive operational concepts in as separate elements
but fall short of the using them to benefit the organization.
Senge et al. (2012) state a learning organization provide a potential mechanism for
change as it fosters continuous improvement. The learning organization has the capacity to
enhance itself through the processes of the organization, alter basic values and to respond
proactively to external as well as internal changes (Argyris & Schon, 1996). The unifying
processes of continuous improvement efforts will cement the organization's efforts to ensure that
all learners, including English language learners, benefit from instruction, have equal access to
the curriculum and multiple opportunities to succeed.
Other Scholarly Literature
Early research focused on bilingualism and IQ and considered bilingualism to have a
negative effect on intelligence (Baker, 1988). Scottish educator Simon Somerville Laurie (1890)
opined, "if it were possible for a child to live in two languages at once equally well, so much the
worse. His intellectual and spiritual growth would not thereby be doubled but halved. Unity of
mind and character would have great difficulty in asserting itself " (p. 15). It was not until the
research of Peal and Lambert (1962) and Darcy (1963) that noted the many deficiencies in early
research methodologies specifically controlling variables among participants and that the results
24

calmed the fears that bilingual education would produce retarded or poorly educated individuals
without direct affiliation to either ethnolinguistic group and would be incapable of functioning in
either language (Tucker & d'Anglejan, 1971). Since that time, researchers have been attempting
to shift research focus from bilingualism and intelligence to specific areas of cognitive
development.
According to Adescope et al. (2013), the process of learning two or more languages and
having to simultaneously manage those languages allows bilinguals and multilingual to develop
independent skills that can be transferred into other areas of learning. Peal & Lambert (1963)
argue the position that bilingual students may have higher intelligence due to enhanced mental
flexibility. This mental flexibility allows individuals the ability to think abstractly and
independent of visual words, creating an enriched cultural environment and positive transfer
between two languages (Ianco-Worral, 1972). The research of Bialystok, Craik and Luk, (2008)
and Bialystok, Barac, Blaye and Poulin-Dubois, (2010) extends this research to the topic of
differing cognitive strengths of bilinguals and monolinguals. Their research findings indicate the
development of two language systems promotes the continued development of control processes
thus improving the development of general cognitive functioning (De Bruin et al., 2015;
Gathercole et al., 2014; Kroll, 2013; Prior et al., 2010).
Ethical Considerations
Ethical consideration is not a contemporary concept. Johnstone (2009), states that ethics
can be found in early Greek philosophical inquiry serving as a system of principles that guided
decision making and critically changed thought regarding making choices. Since Richard Peter's
wrote Ethics in Education (1966) a birth of ethical theories and codes have been accepted and
25

incorporated into every professional field in education and further. Action research is a
contemporary concept first employed in the 1940s to characterize group research activities that
resulted in improvements in community activities (Gajda, 2006) and it was found to be cyclical
in nature. Action research has a series of recurring research stages and steps that move the
organization toward more efficient and effective processes. It also involves many participants
working together to bring about growth and improvement in policy and practice (Whitty, 2007).
Ethical codes or principles are a demonstration of a society's behavior and are linked to
cultural values at a specific time in history. These values change and evolve over time making
what was normal half a century ago, considered insensitive today. Ethical consideration in
research of any kind is overshadowed by historically inhumane treatment of participants, the
omission of outcomes and the slanting of findings to support personal agendas (Resnik, 2015).
Ethical guidelines for human subject research developed out of a constant abuse of power
and unethical studies, where noteworthy harm was caused to individuals, most involuntary and
without consent. There are many historical shadows of research that disregarded any protection
of human subjects in research. Examples of research experiments that were conducted on non-
consenting subjects were the Nazi era abuses, the Milgram Experiment, the Tuskegee Syphilis
Study, the Zimbardo Prison Study, the San Antonio Contraception Study and the Tearoom Trade
Study. Prior to the passing of the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906, there were no regulations
regarding the ethical use of human subjects in research.
Individuals conducting research understand the purpose of their work is to gain a greater
understanding of a question, problem or issue (Stringer, 2014), but the researcher should also
understand that their behavior can play an actively contributes to improving conditions under
which these conditions exist (McKernan, 2013). In that some research where the researcher and
26

the customer are the same, guidelines that direct the research often collapse (Zeni, 2005). Due to
this kind of research behavior, ethical principles and guidelines are essential to the processes of
conducting reliable action research. Rowley (2013) stated that research in education is a
collaborative process that involves solving a concern by connecting the researcher and the
customer thus creating a change and generating new knowledge. The researcher must be
responsible for their own actions as well as the aim of change or improvement via the action
research. Researchers must understand their efforts should contribute to the development of a
society's knowledge base (Strike, 2006), therefore it must be valid, reliable, and of the highest
quality. When research fails to meet these conditions, the result is a waste of valuable time and
resources and the possibility of causing undue harm to the participants (Busher & James, 2007).
Therefore, the researcher must consider their own actions as they become tools within the
research, enmeshed in the activity, the institution, and its implementation. Due to these factors, it
is imperative that ethical guidelines direct the research process. A researcher's responsibilities are
significantly complicated as the requirement is to become proficient in comprehending the
importance of the moral principles and their ethical obligations as they undertake research
(Stockley & Balkwill, 02013; Wellington, 2000).
The researcher has an ethical responsibility as it pertains to human subjects. This implies
that the research and those conducting the research will not intentionally harm participants or the
environments where participants live/learn (BERA, 2011; Busher & James, 2007). The
development of ethical guidelines for human subject research resulted from the abuse of power
and unscrupulous studies where significant harm was caused to individuals without informed
consent. Any form of research must conform to the ethical principles set forth in 45 CFR 46 to
benefit human participants that are more greatly affected (Hhs.gov, n.d.). In relating ethical
27

principles to human participants, the safety of research participants is imperative, and the
researcher must ensure that the design and implementation of the research minimize any
potential risks to participants. The U.S. Congress appointed a Commission for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and developed The Belmont Report
(1974), a statement of ethical principles governing research using human participants.
The first ethical principle, respect for persons, concerns protecting human research
subjects by providing subjects the ability to voluntarily choose to participate in a study (Hhs.gov,
n.d; BERA, 2011). All participants in the Capstone study were given the option to decline
participation. Those who choose to participate will be provided with data specific to their
participation only as well as pre and post survey information. Any unique identifiers and
participant specific information will remain anonymous and confidential (Stringer, 2014). Sites
make decisions regarding permission to participate in educational research based on respecting
autonomy, valuing competence, protecting privacy, keeping promises and outcomes and
consequences (Brevik, 2013). The study will not disrupt normal daily school functioning, require
funding or additional resources which are positives for the site
The second principle, beneficence, refers to the intention not to do harm to participants
and to maximize the benefits to all participants (Hhs.gov, n.d.; BERA, 2011). The concept of
beneficence is complicated and can be highly involved. The researcher has designed a Capstone
study that minimizes the risk of potential harm and protects the welfare of participants involved.
The benefit of any research must justify any risks or discomfort the participants may experience
and whether that benefit is to the participants, the wider community, or to both (Hammersly,
2015; Tobin, 2008) The researcher must understand that any potential risk to participants must
be lower than ethically acceptable. In the event the risk to participants cannot be justified by the
28

potential benefits of the research, the research should be suspended immediately, and its purpose
extensively reviewed (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).
The risk for all participants in the study is zero to minimal. All participants will be
involved in normal daily activities in an environment where they regularly work and there will
not be a control group (Tobin, 2008). Any risks for participants are exactly those that would be
present any typical workday. By conducting the research during regularly scheduled working
hours, in regular work environments and during regularly scheduled instruction time,
participation will increase in that participants are not required to perform any additional tasks or
work beyond normal hours. There will also be no risk of damaging information or data results.
All participant information will remain anonymous and will be reported out as a total group. No
individual names or identifiers will be maintained or made public (Sklar, 2018; Siegle, 2017).
Prior to consenting to become a participant in the Capstone study, individuals were informed of
the measures that would be employed to protect their privacy throughout the study (Hhs.gov, n.d;
Siegle, 2017; Stringer, 2014).
The third principle, justice, must be considered for all human participants (Hhs.gov, n.d;
BERA, 2011). This principle refers to no bias or withholding of any benefit to a participant and
the assurance of equitable treatment for all participants during the duration of the study. Justice
considers the scope and objective of the research; the fairness of the participant selection
process; no unfair burden of participation, or exploitation or distribution of benefits for
participants and that there is timely and equitable access to the benefits of the research. The
Capstone study will offer equal distribution of opportunities and recommendations for all
participants. By conducting the study on regular school days, during regular hours and planned
learning activities, participation will be extensive, and no participant will be excluded under
29

normal circumstances (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Biomedical/ Behavioral Research, 1979).
The Capstone study has been discussed with the educational site several times as a
resolution to its current concern of low academic achievement for the actively enrolled English
Language Learner population. This topic has been included in the site's annual school
improvement plan for the last five years due to the progressive decline in academic growth of the
ESL group. The site has made changes over the last 5 years to deter or stop the academic decline,
but they have not resulted from prolonged improvements. The site is accountable for providing
quality educational services to the community and must submit an annual report for
improvement to the district. The site's budget is tied to its academic achievement which means
the site will lose substantial funding and possibly personnel if improvement is not demonstrated
within the school year. By improving instructional processes, the site will enrich the educational
services it provides to the community; produce a better-prepared student; merit appropriate levels
of funding as well as qualify for other forms of funding. The site will be able to request an
increase in budget line items for professional development opportunities, educational materials,
and resources as well as maintaining or increasing personnel levels. The researcher, the
participants nor the completion of the study will receive financial compensation of any kind.
With any type of research, there is the potential for risk in the areas of bias and conflict of
interest. The researcher must determine and address potential conflicts and competing interests
prior to beginning any research activities. Any competing interests have the potential to impact
the researcher's judgments, personal boas' and/or investment in collecting or reporting specific
findings (Capella, 2017). There may be a possible conflict if the researcher gains financially
from the outcome of the research (Sklar, 2018). This researcher will not benefit financially from
30

the study and the results. The study site may benefit from improved educational outcomes that
will afford future opportunities to make grant applications. Also, as future data is reported out for
accountability purposes, monetary allocations from the district and governmental agencies could
be reinstated and possibly enhanced.
The researcher has worked with many of the participants in a professional capacity and
maintains a social relationship with some participants which creates the possibility of conflict.
This situation will not prove to be a problem in that the researcher has conducted several action
research projects in the past with these individuals, which have resulted in zero conflictions and
positive educational outcomes. There may be circumspect that the researcher will gain personally
through the acquisition of a degree from the completion of the research study. Full disclosure of
the project has been provided to the site and the participants on several occasions prior to
initiating the project in the hopes of maintaining transparency.
The topic of bias is similar to the topic of conflict of interest and must be explicitly
addressed as a condition for quality and effective research prior to initiating the study. Bias can
be evident in many forms inclusive of race, gender and socio-cultural bias (Capella, 2017). Bias
may also appear in research as systemic errors where a research finding deviates from a true
finding (Aqr.org.uk., n.d.) or is omitted entirely due to selection or specific criteria. When
studies omit findings on significant measures, using systematic errors, the research is biased, and
interpretations of the research will be incomplete. Bias is a problematic concept in research in
that the researcher becomes an instrument of research as they conduct studies. Bias is not a
dichotomous variable and its interpretation cannot be limited to a simple question of its presence.
It is understood a minute degree of bias is always present in any study, the researcher must
31

consider bias prevention by ensuring study design and implementation are ethically sound
(Pannucci & Williams, 2010).
Participants in the study are a group of individuals of the same profession who the
researcher has collaborated with professionally and is aware of their individual personalities and
specific attributes. The researcher does not expect any potential risk based on gender, racial or
cultural concerns. To decrease the possibility of potential bias, data will be gathered
quantitatively through surveys and careful consideration has been given to the design of the
surveys to be used. Consideration will be given to question survey design, wording, structure,
styling and coloring and filtering to reduce researcher preconceptions (Spaulding, 2014).
Researchers have a responsibility to create a research instrument that eliminates or reduces
variables that will skew outcomes based on bias and/or conflict of interest. Researchers have a
responsibility to design a research instrument that regulates internal and external validity in order
to demonstrate confidence to the consumer that the findings will represent true outcomes and
those outcomes will be beneficial to practitioners and will expand the knowledge within the
specialization.
SECTION 2. PROCESS
Introduction
As a requirement of the Capstone Project, the researcher must select a type of deliverable
to complement the research paper. The researcher has selected an evaluation plan as the
deliverable. An evaluation as defined by Yarborough et al. (2011) “is a systematic investigation
of the value, importance and significance of something or someone along define dimensions”
(p.287) that clarifies steps needed to assess actions, practices, and outcomes of a program. A
32

program evaluation was chosen for the project in that it will meet the project requirements as
well as identify appropriate practices, new patterns of thinking and assist in determining long-
range goals that will improve educational outcomes for the research site. According to
Stufflebeam (2017) it is inconceivable that professionals in any field would conduct their work
without evaluating essential elements. The evaluation process determined to be most appropriate
for this project was Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model (2007; 2003.).
Project Design/Method
The research topic, an Examination of Current Curriculum Frameworks Utilized in the
Field to Meet the Language Learning Needs of English Language Learners in the Content Area
of Reading was addressed by conducting an evaluation of programming and instructional
practices. Likert-scale surveys and observations were utilized to determine how teachers were
prepared to serve populations of English Language Learners (ELL); how instructors were
implementing the designated curriculum and supplementary Multicultural Framework for
Learning and Motivational Framework for Responsive Teaching; and what instructional
practices were implemented to improve learning outcomes. The analysis will provide the site
with a perspective of how the curriculum and instructional practices are or are not serving the
ELL population in the community.
The CIPP Model was developed in the 1960’s by Daniel L. Stufflebeam and his
colleagues as an alternative point of view regarding evaluations at that time. The current
perspective on evaluations at the time was oriented on objectives, testing, and experimental
designs. The CIPP model came out of an Inner-City Reform project as part of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESA), which provided large dollar funding to schools for
33

improving the current state of education and improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged
students. A requirement of the funding was that grantees were to design and evaluate their
programs for the purpose of accountability. The CIPP model’s goals are to improve
accountability in educational programming through a “learning by doing” approach (Zhang,
2011 p. 58).
The CIPP evaluation model (figure 1) is a framework for guiding evaluations of
educational programs and a variety of systems and processes (Stufflebeam, 2003). The CIPP
evaluation model is based on a complexity theory (Geyer et al., 2007) or a decision focused
approach that creates a link between evaluation and rational, analytic decision making.
Boulmetis and Dutwin (2005) determined the CIPP evaluation model as the best for making
decisions and determining barriers. The model bases decision making on planning, structuring,
implementing, reviewing and revising decisions. CIPP is an acronym for the components that
will be evaluated, and decisions made upon in the evaluation: context, input, process, and
products (Robinson, 2002). This makes decision making directly relevant to the specific needs of
stakeholders and programming. The model systematically guides evaluators through conception,
design, implementation and provides a medium for feedback (Robinson, 2002).
The CIPP model uses four evaluations in which to evaluate and make decisions.
34

Figure 1: Components of Stufflebeam’s 2003 CIPP Model.
I. Context Evaluation- What needs to be done? or What should we do? This stage creates the
big picture of where the program and evaluation fit together (Mertens & Wilson, 2012) This
stage involves collecting and analyzing data to determine goals, priorities, and objectives.
According to Mertens and Wilson (2012), this stage identifies the political climate that could
possibly influence the success of the program. Key stakeholders are identified and interviewed at
this stage. The researcher compiles and assesses background information, program goals, and
resources. Data collecting can take multiple formats including formative and summative
assessments, documents analysis, program profiling, case studies, and stakeholder interviews.
The research must maintain a continual dialogue with the client (Mertens & Wilson, 2012).
A. Objective:
 To determine the operating context
 To identify and assess unmet needs and unused opportunities
 To diagnose problems preventing the meeting of needs and opportunities
B. Method:
 By comparing the actual and the intended inputs and outputs
35

C. Relation to decision making:
 For deciding upon setting to be served
 For changes needed in planning
II. Input Evaluation- How should it be done? This stage serves to structure decision making by
projecting and analyzing alternatives. This stage’s purpose is to assess the program’s goals using
diverse approaches (Frye & Hemmer, 2012), weigh all possible options (Stufflebeam, 2003) and
to select an optimal and appropriate strategy to implement in order to solve program problems
(Fitzpatrick et al., 2011). The researcher collects information concerning the mission, goals, and
program plans, program plans (Mertens & Wilson, 2012) program materials, schedules and
budgets (Zhang et al., 2011).
A. Objective:
 To identify and assess system capabilities
 To identify available input strategies
 To identify designs for implementing the strategies
B. Method:
 Analyzing resources
 Solution strategies
 Procedural designs for structural change activities.
III. Process Evaluation- Is it being done? In this stage, the program quality is investigated
which is vital to the CIPP Model. At this stage program activities are monitored, documented
and assessed (Fitzpatrick et al., 2011; Mertens & Wilson, 2012). The CIPP evaluation model is
sensitive to feedback which is essential at this stage in that it provides needed information
regarding how planned activities are carried out, guides staff on how to modify and improve the
36

program plan and assess the degree to which participants can carry out their roles (Stufflebeam,
2003). Zhang et al. (2011) opined that program evaluations are dynamic in nature, therefore
adjustments can be made can be made anytime during the implementation of the evaluation.
A. Objectives
 To identify process defects in the procedural design or implementation
B. Method
 By monitoring the procedural barriers and remaining alert to unanticipated
ones and describing the actual process
C. Relation to decision making
 For implanting and refining the program's design and procedure for
effective process control
IV. Product Evaluation- Did the project succeed? This stage serves to recycle and revisit
decisions by determining the degree to which objectives have been achieved and by determining
the effects of the obtained results. The final component of the CIPP evaluation model assesses
the positive and negative consequences (Frye & Hemmer, 2012); the intended and unintended
outcomes (Stufflebeam, 2003); and the impact the program had on the target audience (Mertens
& Wilson, 2012). Long and short-term outcomes are examined, judgments of stakeholders are
analyzed and the outcomes that impact the groups, subgroups, and individuals (Mertens &
Wilson, 2012; Stufflebeam, 2003). If results suggest that the program did not meet specified
outcomes, or is not transferable, the product evaluation provides insight into needed adjustments
that will make the program more effective. Methods appropriate to product evaluations stage
include document retrieval and analysis, logs, diaries, results from comparable programs, and
participant interviews (Zhang et al., 2011).
37

A. Objectives
 To relate outcome information to objectives and to context and process
information
B. Method
 Measurement vs. Standards
 Interpreting the outcome
C. Relation to decision making
 For deciding to continue, terminate, modify, build or refocus a change of
activity.
(Stufflebeam, 1971)
The model had been under constant revision by Stufflebeam and his colleagues since
inception and the assumption is that it will continue to be improved post-Stufflebeam’s death
(which occurred in 2017). It has been widely used by professionals in a variety of fields and is
considered user-friendly. The model boasts many strengths such as including formative
evaluation and was not designed with any specific program in mind. The model can be applied to
multiple evaluation situations and its comprehensive approach can be applied from program
planning to program outcomes. All components ensure no part of the program is overlooked
during the evaluation; the format is clear for all stakeholder to follow; feedback is a component
at all stages, and the model is well established and has a long history of applicability.
Limitations to the model are found in its strengths such as it requires careful planning,
which can take considerable time if the project is large and needs comparison over time. If not
planned carefully, the evaluation will be unsuccessful. Multiple data sets are needed which must
be addressed according to the evaluation questions being asked. The model can be said to blur
38

the lines between evaluation and other investigative processes; and overvalues efficiency and
undervalues student goals. The CIPP model is not as widely applied in the performance
improvement field as other models. Some researchers tend to consider the CIPP model as
blurring the line between evaluations and other investigative processes such as a needs
assessment.
Although the CIPP model has gained in popularity over the last 40 years with many
researchers, others tend to prefer other models for program evaluations. Preferred models by
researchers are the logic model; objectives-based evaluation; curriculum evaluation model;
formative and process evaluation model; or the participatory oriented evaluation. Stufflebeam
and Shrinkfield (2007) state that the basic purpose of decision and accountability- oriented
studies, such as in the CIPP model, is to not to prove there are problems, but to improve
processes. The CIPP models guides and directs one towards sound decisions and being
accountable for those decisions that result in developing, delivering with the most effective use
of services and resources. The CIPP model guides the researcher through using the four
components context, inputs, process and product to ask questions and guide the researcher
through the stages of the evaluation.
Project Outcomes
The purpose of this Capstone project was to conduct a program evaluation to determine if
designated programming for English Language Learners (ELL) and an examination of
instructional practices and teacher preparedness. Due to the time frame for conducting the
project, the researcher examined data for 4th grade English Language Learners only and
observed and interviewed teachers and interventionist that instruct this group. The research will
39

analyze the gaps and weaknesses in programming, teacher preparation and examine instructional
goals and practices and make recommendations for improvement. These were the evaluation
questions that guided the project:
1. Is the designated curriculum meeting the learning needs of English Language
Learners in the content area of reading?
2. Are teachers implementing research-based instructional practices that are effective
with this student population?
3. Are teachers at the site prepared to instruct in a multicultural learning environment?
These three questions were specifically designed to reflect precisely what the researcher
wanted to discover from the program evaluation. The researcher gathered data from academic
databases for the purpose of collecting data on achievement and academic growth (specific to the
English Language Learner population); school-sponsored professional development
opportunities; and professional development transcripts (PD sought by teachers outside of the
school and must be maintained as a requisite for highly qualified teacher status in state). The
researcher gathered qualitative data from surveys and from academic databases, interviews,
surveys, and observations. According to Stringer (2014) interviews are essential to research in
that it provides participants with opportunities to contribute to the situation in their own terms
through perceptions, viewpoints, and observations. Interviews provide the researcher with the
ability to develop an understanding of the scope of operation from a stakeholder’s perspective.
Evaluation question 1: Is the designated curriculum meeting the learning needs of
English Language Learners in the content area of reading? This question was designed to
examine when the decline in academic growth began and to discover contributing factors. The
question uncovered whether language development occurred at normal rates and was transferring
40

into other content areas. The researcher was able to collect this data from the site and the districts
databases. The research also examined how 4th graders performed in Reading compared to other
4th grades English Language Learners that used the same curriculums. The question also took a
crucial look at the curriculum and its resources to determine if the curriculum met the language
learning needs of English Language Learners (ELL), as well as the diversity of the teaching staff.
Evaluation question 2: Are teachers implementing research-based instructional practices
that are effective with this student population? This question was designed to examine to what
extent teachers understood and accepted the schools’ mission and vision, the framework for
learning and the pedagogy for teaching non-native speaking children and were implementing
those strategies along with best practices for this population in the classroom. The question was
also designed to examine if teachers were effectively implementing the curriculum that was put
in place by the district or using other forms of instruction. The researcher gathered data regarding
if collaboration occurred between teachers and interventionists; if strategies were transferred into
the classroom and if teachers were reinforcing them; and if curriculum coaches or lead teachers
were supporting teachers and following up if there were concerns.
The researcher used an observation tool for collecting data that included best practice
strategies for instructing English Language Learners in general education classrooms. The
researcher used this tool also to observe classroom climate and organization; instructional
graphic organizers and learning centers; strategies in the design of activities; best practices such
as scaffolding or differentiated instructional strategies were implemented, and other research-
based instructional strategies that are effective in teaching English Language Learners.
Evaluation question 3: Are teachers at the site prepared to instruct in a multicultural
learning environment? The researcher examined academic databases that provided information
41

regarding experience in multicultural settings or teaching English Language Learners; teacher
preparation; professional development opportunities, and documentation on mentoring,
collaborative groups, professional learning communities, staff meetings.
The researcher held interviews with 4th grade core subject teachers, social studies and
science teachers, interventionists, instructional aides, tutors and other staff (administrator, lead
teachers, Special Education Teachers, technology teacher, curriculum leaders, counselors, and
social worker) to gather data on central themes; get in-depth experiences and to probe and ask
follow-up questions. The data from this group was maintained separately from the interview data
from 4th-grade teachers. Interviews were held after all surveys had been returned and the
researcher was able to gather data to discover trends in responses.
For the purpose of this Capstone project, the researcher compiled and assessed
background information; conferred with leaders; examined the designated curriculum and its
related and supplemental resources; examined state language standards for grade level and state
standards for English Language Learner language development; professional development
opportunities offered by the school/district to support ELL; teacher perceptions and views; the
school’s frameworks for learning and teaching; academic data over time; and instructional
practices in the classroom that were aimed to support ELL. The researcher will be examining
several sources of qualitative data-academic databases; surveys; observations; and interviews.
The target audience for this project is educational practitioners who are involved in the
decision-making processes, curricular determination decisions and curriculum instructional
processes and grade level content instructors in schools where learners of various cultures and
first languages are enrolled. The target audience is accountable for academic performance on
high stakes testing as well as for performance growth in individual classrooms. Teachers are
42

accountable for the learning and performance outcomes of their students which transfers into
salaries increases and merit raises.
In addition to this professional audience are English language learner parents and
laypersons who are seeking effective educational avenues for English Language Learners (ELL),
English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language Learners (EFL)
learners. A challenge that exists for today’s schools is in providing equity and equality for all
students. Providing equal access to the curriculum is problematic when different segments of the
population are using different curriculums yet are being held to the same learning standards and
often the same instruction. From the data gathered, the researcher has created a written report,
inclusive of results from surveys, interviews, observations, and research findings. The report will
be presented to the target audience along with recommendations for improvement.
Development Process
The three evaluation questions for this project is the designated curriculum meeting the
learning needs of the English language Learners in the content area of reading; are teachers
implementing research-based instructional practices which are effective with this population; are
teachers at this site prepared to instruct in a multicultural learning environment. The following
are the procedures used to collect data and information needed to formulate answers to the
evaluation questions.
All school staff within the educational setting initially consented to participate in the
research. The study had been discussed with the staff for more than a year due to the site’s
identification of the need for improving the educational outcomes for English Language Learners
as critical to the research site’s sustainability. Initially, the project was to include full staff
43

including administration, but due to time constraints, it was determined that study would center
around the 4th grade. This reduced the participant number to twenty-five. Due to the three
participants withdrawing, the participant number reduced to twenty -two.
Each participant was provided an informed consent form which explained the reason for
the program evaluation; how data was going to be obtained through databases, observations,
interviews, and surveys; the length of research study; the benefits of the research for the school,
researcher and English Language Learners. Once the consent forms were signed and returned to
the researcher, the schedule of interview dates and observations were made available to the
participants.
Surveys were also distributed to participants. The pre-survey asked the participants
twenty questions that were designed specifically for this study. The surveys included Likert scale
responses that allowed participants to provide a range of responses via a numeric response
(Survey scale: 1-Strongly Disagree 2-Disagree 3- Neutral 4- Agree 5 Strongly Agree).
Surveys of this type are considered one of the most reliable ways to measure opinions,
perceptions, and views as well as provide granular feedback.
Surveys were hand-delivered to all participants by the researcher. The survey was
delivered with explicit instructions to return the survey to a designated secure place. The secure
place was a locked drawer that had a slot in it in a temporary office that the researcher was
occupying. The researcher was the only one with the key. Participants were informed that each
participant received the same survey and there were no identifiers to maintain anonymity.
Twenty-two surveys were distributed, and twenty-two surveys were returned.
The interview schedule was posted, and participants were asked to select preferred
interview times as well as an alternate time. During the interviews, the researcher asked twelve
44

questions that were designed specifically for the study. The questions varied in type to include
simple response questions to open-ended questions. The participants were allowed to answer
freely as the researcher recorded each response. When all interviews were completed the
researcher posted the observation schedule. Participants were not able to select observation
times. This was due to the limited times when 4th graders were in classes and the researcher
wanted to observe all reading classes as they occurred.
The researcher used an observation protocol adapted from the Teaching Dimensions
Observation Protocol (TDOP) designed specifically for this study. The Teaching Dimensions
Observation Protocol (TDOP) is a descriptive classroom observation protocol that provides
vigorous and distinctive depictions of instructional behavior (Hora & Ferrare, 2014). The TDOP
protocol is designed to provide descriptions of teaching practice rather than an evaluative
judgment of the quality of teaching. It afforded the researcher the ability to look at the
dimensions of the instructional practice. The researcher was able to adapt observation codes to
match requirements for the study. From the protocols, the researcher was able to determine how
to aggregate results, provided a comprehensive snapshot of the target aspects of instruction, and
specific study information was obtained.
All data from the surveys, interviews, and observations were analyzed. The researcher
used simple frequency counts, averages and percentages to ensure the accuracy of participant
contribution. Frequency counts were used for survey and interview questions as well. The
researcher also looked for themes and patterns in responses, instructional behaviors, and
perceptions. The researcher matched surveys, interview questions and portions of the
observations. The researcher was able to identify relevant study information and code it for
relevancy.
45

Categories were created that matched the study questions: instructors were prepared to
serve English Language Learners (ELL) and instructors were not prepared to serve English
language Learners (ELL). Other categories were identified such as programming concerns,
issues, outcome indicators, strengths, and recommendations. Themes emerged from analyzing
the data: teachers were over-loaded with curricular responsibilities; adding additional
instructional supports for English Language Learners was not needed due to the time they spent
in intervention; many general education teachers were not aware of the specialized pedagogy and
did not favor the multicultural framework; most teachers were not prepared to teach non-native
speakers in teacher preparation or after.
Sharing evidence-based findings from the qualitative data provides for cooperative
evaluation of instructional practices and is highly beneficial for educators to grow intellectually
as well as professionally (Gajda, 2006). The data gathered from this evaluation study provides a
means for the individuals to have a direct impact on the issues that affect the forward progression
of their learning community and its sustainability (Stringer, 2014). Cooperative research gives a
voice to individuals who have previously been silent research participants. Their voice is found
through systematic inquiry conducted by school personnel with a vested interest in the teaching
and learning processes, for the purpose of gathering data about how their particular schools
operate and are sustained, how they teach, and how their students learn and grow (Nasrollahi,
2015).
Evaluation Plan
The purpose of this Capstone project was to conduct an evaluation of designated
programming for English Language Learners (ELL) and an examination of instructional
46

practices as contributing factors in the decline of English Language Learners academic growth in
the content area of reading. A specific curriculum was adopted to supplement the general
curriculum to assist the language development of English Language Learners. The purpose of the
program evaluation is to conduct an evaluation to determine if the curriculum was effective in
meeting the needs of the English Language Learner population and implementing effective best
instructional practices in the general education classroom. These were the evaluation questions
that guided the project:
1. Is the designated curriculum meeting the learning needs of English Language
Learners in the content area of reading?
2. Are teachers implementing research-based instructional practices that are effective
with this student population?
3. Are teachers at the site prepared to instruct in a multicultural learning environment?
The key stakeholders for this project were educational practitioners who are involved in
the decision-making processes, curricular determination and curriculum instructional processes
and grade level content instructors in schools where learners of various cultures and first
languages are enrolled. The programming evaluated was adopted by the school district in efforts
to support their growing enrollments of English Language Learners meet content standards and
also English Language development. The mission of the school states it will respect and promote
the values, beliefs, traditions and cultural differences of its students and adopted a multicultural
framework for learning that is to permeate the all-inclusive school environment. The
multicultural learning environment promotes diversity and motivation, a diverse teaching staff of
multiple backgrounds and experiences to provide increased creativity and innovation in problem-
solving and meeting the needs of the student population.
47

The 4th grade was targeted due to the decline in English Language transference into other
content areas and the continual decline in academic growth over the last five years. It is from 3rd
to 4th grade when many ELL learners who have been in school and progressing toward English
Language competency are determined they no longer need the ongoing support. Many young
English Language Learners do not use English outside of the learning environment and do not
progress according to state standards and remain in a “silent stage” or pre-production stage
where the learner takes in the new language but does not speak it. The learner may remain at this
stage for an extended period of time (Krashen, 2016). English Language Learners (ELL), English
as a Second Language learners (ESL) and learners who learned English in Foreign countries
(EFF) is a growing demographic and the school has been unable to continuously and effectively
support.
The evaluation model that was used and determined to be most appropriate for this
project was Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model (2014; 2007; 2003). This model was selected because it
was developed out of a need for educator accountability and focused on the connection between
evaluation, rational, decision making and determining barriers (Geyer, 2007; Boulmetis &
Dutwin, 2005). The model bases decision making on planning, structuring, implementing,
reviewing and revision decisions as well as providing a vehicle for continual feedback
(Robinson, 2002). The steps and stages in the evaluation are as follows:
I. Context Evaluation-What needs to be done?
A. Objective:
 To determine the operating context
 To identify and assess unmet needs and unused opportunities
 To diagnose problems preventing the meeting of needs and opportunities
48

B. Method:
 By comparing the actual and the intended inputs and outputs
C. Relation to decision making:
 For deciding upon setting to be served
 For changes needed in planning
II. Input Evaluation- How should it be done? -serves to structure decisions by
projecting and analyzing alternatives
A. Objective:
 To identify and assess system capabilities
 To identify available input strategies
 To identify designs for implementing the strategies
B. Method:
 Analyzing resources
 Solution strategies
 Procedural designs for structural change activities.
III. Process Evaluation-Is it being done? - serves implement decisions by monitoring
project operations
A. Objectives
 To identify process defects in the procedural design or implementation
B. Method
 By monitoring the procedural barriers and remaining alert to unanticipated
ones and describing the actual process
C. Relation to decision making
49

 For implanting and refining the program's design and procedure for
effective process control
IV. Product Evaluation- did the project succeed? -serves to recycle decisions by
determining the degree to which objectives have been achieved and by determining the
cause of the obtained results
A. Objectives
 To relate outcome information to objectives and to context and process
information
B. Method
 Measurement vs. Standards
 Interpreting the outcome
C. Relation to decision making
 For deciding to continue, terminate, modify, build or refocus a change of
activity.
The goal of the CIPP model is to improve and attain accountability in educational
programming through a “learning by doing” approach (Zhang, 2011 p. 58). The CIPP evaluation
model serves as a framework for guiding evaluations of programs, projects, personnel, products,
institutions, and evaluation systems (Stufflebeam, 2003).
The first stage of the evaluation was determining what needed to be done. The purpose of
the evaluation was to determine the defining factors for the decline in academic growth of
English Language Learners and to determine if teachers were implementing the designated
curriculum effectively and with fidelity. For the purposes of this study, the effectiveness of the
50

implementation of the program is measured by significant improvements in learning,
perceptions, and proficiencies of program participants (Boulmetis & Dutwin, 2014). The
program will be considered effective if it is being implemented as it was intended.
The school adopted the Multicultural Framework for Learning and a supplementary ESL
curriculum supplement the contents standards curriculum as a response to the needs of the
community. The purpose is to maximize potential in addressing language objectives combined
with effective instructional strategies that target English Language Learner academic
performance. Educators in the research environment have been trained and in-serviced on the
designated curriculum, multicultural framework for learning and ESL pedagogy. Additional
training occurs during staff meetings, mentoring and collaborative sessions and during
professional learning communities. The research mandated that the program be implemented,
and the cultural aspects of learning are promoted daily. The entire school should be
implementing the designated programming and implementing best practices instructional
strategies.
Development of the manner in which the evaluation would occur is the second stage of
CIPP. The research determined that a diverse set of approaches would best suit this learning
environment. Due to some cultural considerations where individuals are uncomfortable speaking
out or completing documents, the researcher determined a variety of sources would best suit the
data collection needs (Stufflebeam, 2003; Frye & Hemmer, 2012).
The identification of the evaluation questions is the third stage of the CIPP model. The
evaluation questions that were selected for the study is as follows:
1. Is the designated curriculum meeting the learning needs of English Language
Learners in the content area of reading?
51

2. Are teachers implementing research-based instructional practices that are effective
with this student population?
3. Are teachers at the site prepared to instruct in a multicultural learning environment?
These questions were considered appropriate in that they provided the answers that will
guide the research site in making future decisions. The questions were derived from a
professional learning community that the educational site formulated to find answers to the
decline in achievement. The questions were viable, but the decisions made were not sufficient to
make substantive corrections in the process. From current research, the answers to the questions
based on data from academic databases indicated that only 20% of the ELL population was
meeting their language needs in the content area of reading. Data derived from local academic
databases, electronic student information systems, and assessment systems possess potential flaw
due to human error. The research site is in the process of building their data system capacity in
order to analyze and benchmark assessment data, warehouse historical data as well as various
other aspects of district functioning (Wayman & Cho, 2007) Due to the decline in academic
achievement, certain funding sources have been depleted, leaving no resources to extend their
capacity. The researcher used multiple data sources to arrive at accurate data.
Data from surveys, interviews, and observations indicated only 55% of teachers were
implementing programming with fidelity and implementing best practices for ELL learners; and
data from surveys, interviews, and observations indicated only 20% of the teachers were
prepared to instruct in a multicultural learning environment prior to being employed by the
research site. Qualitative interviews provided the researcher with a holistic understanding of the
interviewee’s point of view and to explore interesting areas for possible further investigation.
Observations proved to be the most straightforward method of determining whether the teachers
52

implemented best practices for English Language Learners (ELL) in the classroom. The
researcher was most interested in how Science and Social Studies and non-content classroom
teachers implemented these strategies. Observations indicated that 0% of the non-content area
teachers implemented best practices for ELL learners or were prepared to work in a multicultural
learning environment.
The observations were designed to gather detailed information on what was occurring in
each research participants classroom. Teachers were notified of their observation dates and
provided an opportunity to select an alternative date. Participants were also given reminders the
day before the scheduled observation. The observation tool was customized from the Teaching
Dimensions Observation Protocol (TDOP) which afforded the researcher the ability to look at
the dimensions of each instructional practice in lieu of making an evaluative judgment of the
quality of teaching. The researcher was able to adapt observation codes to specifically match
requirements for the study.
By completing the observations, the researcher was able to make connections between
survey, and interview responses. Twenty-two classroom observations were completed using the
observation tool. The observation tool was designed to identify teachers effectively using best
practice strategies for English Language Learners, if clear and explicit instructions were given,
how vocabulary, background knowledge were utilized, and the teacher provided immediate
instructional feedback to learners (Optiz et al., 2011). These strategies relate to best practices for
English Language Learners and follow the extensive research-based practices and principles for
teaching English Language Learners (Chi & Inberman, 2013). Findings from the questions led to
the recommendations reflected in the CIPP model stage IV. It is here that the researcher made
53

recommendations, intended and unintended outcomes (Stufflebeam, 2003), the impact the study
had on the target audience.
The data gathered in this study is reliant on the active participation of participants and
their commitment to making changes in a system that they are able to exert control over. Kasl
and Yorks (2002) note that cooperative and collaborative inquiry is appropriate because its
purpose affords participants the opportunity to make changes in their behavior for the purpose of
improving a system. Another rationale is through mutual involvement in decision-making based
on respect for individual contributions, recognizing the potential for empowerment, including the
idea of stakeholders voluntarily cooperating, aids in making improvements to programs they are
actively involved in (Roberts & Dick, 2003; Fetterman, 1996). All modes of data collection that
involved participants were conducted without display in order to reduce possible hesitation and
promote active participation.
The review process took the form of a thorough inspection of databases to determine
factors that affected the decline of academic growth within this population. The researcher
examined high stakes testing results to make a connection between the factors and the
performance of this testing. The research examined the professional development and staffing
changes. The review process next involved making a connection between the surveys,
interviews, and observations. Connecting these sources of information permitted the researcher
to organize data in a manner that would assist in identifying relevant data for the study. Themes
emerged from the analysis were, most staff do not participate in the multicultural aspects of the
school, the curriculum is not implemented with fidelity, most teachers are not aware of the best
practices nor pedagogy for instructing English Language Learners and some teachers need
continued support to learn and implement practices and strategies.
54

SECTION 3. APPLICATION
Introduction
The study addressed the need for the development of practices that contain a systematic
and organized body of knowledge that focuses on the increasing populations of English
Language Learners and learners who have learned English in foreign countries. Notwithstanding
the increasing degrees and levels of learner difference. Over the last decade, there has been a
national movement emphasizing all students must achieve the same academic goals. Many
researchers have expressed that the learning targets have been set too low for many student
populations including English Language Learners. According to Ortiz-Marrero and Sumaryono
(2010), it is an inequity that ELL students are placed into English speaking classrooms with
idealistic expectations that they should perform well academically and as well on high-stake-
standardized tests. A prevailing perception has led to the idea that content standards should be set
uniformly for all student population categories with particular attention given to historically
underperforming groups. This shift in thinking has been a challenge for educators. In that
underperforming groups lack most of the foundational skills to meet learning targets and content
standards.
Many curriculums do not incorporate the multiple dimensions of social-cultural language,
culture and tradition, and value systems into instructional practices. School year 2014-2015
introduced an observation regarding educators and students in that majority of public-school
enrollees were not White (NCES, 2018), causing a historically white teaching force to struggle
with educating students that are non-white, culturally and ethnically diverse, have a low socio-
economic base or a background of poverty and who are not native English speakers (Aydin et
al.,2017). The progressive decline in white student enrollment continues to challenge and widen
55

the cultural disparity between educator and student. The National Center for Educational
Statistics has projected this trend to continue and expects that 54.7% of U.S. students will be
members of minority groups by the year 2022 (NCES, 2018). English Language Learners come
to the classroom with various levels of competence, language, academic preparation, degrees of
motivation, social skills and acceptable maturity (Ruiz et al., 2015; Florin & Hall, 2008).
Traditional curricula and instructional practices are ineffectual with the current diversity in the
classroom (Aydin et al.,2017; Ruiz et al., 2015; Florin & Hall, 2008). Curriculum should reflect
the specific learning needs of current English Language Learners populations, inclusive of
differentiation and comprehensive programming components that address cultural, social and
emotional needs, that will follow learners throughout their academic career, accentuate academic
language development as well as enhance conversational language development (Aydin et
al.,2017; Ruiz et al., 2015; Florin & Hall, 2008).
Problem Statement and Purpose of the Deliverable
The educational site was established to meet the educational need of a community of
immigrants and non-native English speakers. The school system that was established in the
community were placing English language Learners in Special Education classes because they
did not know how to meet the challenging needs of this group of learners. The research site has
been serving the community for nearly two decades, producing global citizens and learners
prepared for higher education.
The purpose of the study is to analyze and evaluate, using qualitative data collection
methods, the research sites ESL programming for gaps and weaknesses and instructional
practices for implementation of research-based best practices for English language Learners.
56

The research will analyze the gaps and weaknesses in the programming and practice and make
recommendations on how the programming can be improved.
Traditional curricula and instructional practices are ineffectual with the language and
cultural diversity found in current classrooms (Aydin et al.,2017; Ruiz et al., 2015; Florin &
Hall, 2008). Curriculum should reflect the specific learning needs of current English Language
Learners populations, inclusive of differentiation and comprehensive programming components
that address cultural, social and emotional needs, that will follow learners throughout their
academic career, accentuate academic language development as well as enhance conversational
language development (Aydin et al.,2017; Ruiz et al., 2015; Florin & Hall, 2008).
The school made a substantive attempt to meet the challenging learning needs of the
population by adopting a research-based curriculum that would address meeting state content
standards, a Multicultural Framework for Learning, and a Motivational Framework for
Responsive Teaching to provide a holistically and culturally responsive way to create, plan and
refine learning activities and assessment practices (Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 2009; 2008). Dr.
Margery B. Ginsberg states that in any cultural group, all students are motivated, even when they
are not motivated to learn what a teacher has to offer (Ginsberg, 2004).
Relevant Outcomes and Findings
The study addressed and provided clarification of the declining overall academic
outcomes for English Language Learners, but specifically addressed the decline for this
population in the content area of reading. The goal of the study was to focus on identifying the
gaps and weaknesses in designated programming and instruction (Mueller & File, 2015; Pereira
57

& Gentry, 2013), nurture new patterns of thinking (Marshal et al., 2010; Bouton, 2008) and
provide recommendations for improvement. The study questions are listed: The study addressed
and provided clarification of the declining overall academic outcomes for English Language
Learners, but specifically addressed the decline for this population in the content area of reading.
The goal of the study was to focus on identifying the gaps and weaknesses in designated
programming and instruction (Mueller & File, 2015; Pereira & Gentry, 2013), nurture new
patterns of thinking (Marshal et al., 2010; Bouton, 2008) and provide recommendations for
improvement. The study questions are listed:
1. Is the designated curriculum meeting the learning needs of English Language
Learners in the content area of reading?
2. Are teachers implementing research-based instructional practices that are effective
with this student population?
3. Are teachers at the site prepared to instruct in a multicultural learning environment?
The research topic Examination of Current Curriculum Frameworks Utilized in the field
to meet the Language Learning Needs of English language Learners in the Content Area of
Reading was addressed by conducting an evaluation. An examination of the designated
curriculum and its resources, interviews, and observations of instructional staff were conducted
to determine if teachers were implementing the curriculum with fidelity, implementing
researched based best practices for English language Learners (ELL) and cognizant of the
pedagogy of English Language Learners (ELL). Interviews, surveys, and observations were used
to determine areas where instructional staff may require support.
The research questions are teachers implementing research-based instructional practices
that are effective with this student population and are teachers at the site prepared to instruct in a
58

multicultural learning environment will be presented to the stakeholders. The methods of data
collection were surveys, interviews, and observation where specific questions and instructional
behaviors were observed. Occurrences, comparisons, and themes were also considered during
data collection.
All (100%) of the participants were 4th-grade teachers, interventionists or general
education teachers that teach 4th graders in a core and a non-core subject area. 4th grade was
determined as the research base because this is the grade when English Language Learners’
academic language acquisition begins to transition or begins to plateau. The learner remains in
this “slump” or stage when English Language Learners (ELL) are not able to use the learned
language to read to learn (Chall, 1983). Chall (1983) argued the learners begin within stages 1, 2
or 3 when they are “learning to read” using familiar texts and the acquire the alphabetic
principles to read. In stages 3, 4 and 5 learners are “reading to learn” as text becomes more
varied, complex and linguistically and cognitively challenging.
In grade 4, reading becomes a tool for extended learning, as text begins to connect new
words and ideas that are beyond the learner’s own language and possibly their knowledge base.
The reader must be fluent in recognizing words, have the capacity to expand their vocabulary,
build upon background knowledge as well as building critical thinking skills. It is in grade 4 that
the study examines the curriculum and instructional practices (Chall & Jacobs, 2003; Chall,
1983).
Data acquired in survey questions 1 through 3, along with information from the research
site’s databases provided data for research question #1. Data indicated that an average of 97% of
the participants considered they understood the school’s mission and implemented it as
prescribed and with fidelity. Survey questions #10, 15 & 16 provided data regarding the teachers
59

understanding of the Multicultural Framework for Learning and the Motivational Framework for
Responsive Teaching which are both components of the curriculum and instructional practice.
Data provided indicated 53% of the participants consider they instruct within both frameworks.
Survey questions #4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13 & 20 all provided data for question 3-are teachers
implementing research-based instructional practices that are effective with this student
population provided data to answer this question. Data indicated an average of 89% of the
participants consider themselves providing effective quality instruction to this population.
Questions #8 & 14 indicated that 54% of the participants considered they had sufficient
skill and experience to instruct English Language Learners which references research question 3.
Diaz, (2015) stated that despite being new to the teaching profession almost all novice teachers
perform as well as veteran teachers in their respective schools.
The remaining questions provided data to other aspects of the study. Questions #11 & 17
indicated that 59% of the participants had some reservations about culture. Questions #18 & 19
indicated that 68% of the participants seek assistance from the curriculum coach or a colleague
when they are having instructional issues with English Language Learners in the classroom.
Information was obtained from the school’s database regarding professional development. The
research site has had consistent in-services on curricular changes on a quarterly basis, but
attendance has not been mandatory and averaged only 40% of the instructional staff.
Interview questions were held to only ten to ensure time was used effectively. Research
question #1 pertained to the curriculum, the understanding of the Multicultural Framework for
Learning and the Motivational Framework for Responsive Teaching which are both components
of the curriculum and instructional practice. Interview questions #1 and #2 responses indicated
that 45% of the participants were familiar with the curriculum and the supplementary
60

frameworks. One participant's response “could never remember the mission statement and I have
it posted in my room”. Another participant’s response was “I am rushed with one curriculum, so
I don’t always use the other”. In response to knowledge of the frameworks, a participant’s
response was “Oh, yeah, we celebrate all cultures”, while another participants response was “we
have cultural celebrations”.
Research question #2 pertained to instructional practices and English Language Learner
pedagogy. Interview questions #4 and #6 responses ranged from “introduce the vocabulary
before you begin the activity”; “ask the interventionist for work to do in class”; and “repeat as
much as possible”. Other responses were “I sit the worst ones in front” and “I speak slowly”
were found to be less favorable. From the interview responses, the research determined only 32%
of the participants were familiar with instructional practices for English Language Learners It
was critical that observations should be completed by the researcher to actually see what learning
strategies were in place in the 4th-grade classrooms.
Research question #3 references a teacher’s skill and experience teaching English
Language Learners (ELL). Interview questions #9 and #10 responses ranged from “I learned
from my student teaching”; “I didn’t see a diverse staff, so I thought it didn’t matter”; and “my
first year of teaching was in a school in Texas near the border”.
Interview question #3 asked about respecting culture. The responses ranged from “every
last child in the building is an ESL”. Interview question #5 asked about professional
development. Responses ranged from “none this year” and “I don’t go to anything I have to pay
for”.
Despite the researcher providing anonymity to participants regarding the surveys,
participants provided more realistic and confident answers to interview questions, possibly due
61

to the collegial relationship the researcher had with them. Participant responses are vital to the
study and making improvements in instructional practices in the research site. A participant’s
response to #10 which asked about experience with English Language Learners prior to hiring “I
needed the job, so I told them I had experience”. Another said “no, a friend told me what to say
and they hired me.
Observations were held during an instructional time selected by the teacher. The
researcher has been in these classrooms on many occasions, so their presence did not disturb the
flow of instruction. All observation data was recorded on the observation tool adapted by the
researcher from the TDOP observation tool. The observation tool was modified to meet the
specific needs of the study and to assess instructor practice.
Findings
The findings will be provided based on each evaluation question. The following is the
actual report given to the site and key stakeholders.
The purpose of the capstone project is to analyze and evaluate research site’s English
Language Learner programming through qualitative research, program instructional goals, and
instructional practices. The study will identify and analyze existing gaps and weaknesses of
current programming, provide clarification of declining academic achievement specifically in the
content area of reading; nurture new patterns of thinking and make recommendations for
improvements.
Three evaluation questions were created to guide the research:
1. Is the designated curriculum meeting the learning needs of English Language
Learners in the content area of reading?
62

2. Are teachers implementing research-based instructional practices that are effective
with this student population?
3. Are teachers at the site prepared to instruct in a multicultural learning environment?
The participants in the study were twenty-two 4th-grade teachers and interventionists.
The researcher completed surveys, interview, and observations with the participants from
January to May 2018. Data was finalized in June 2018. The final report was written in June and
July 2018 in preparation for the presentation to the site and its key stakeholders.
Evaluation Question #1: Is the designated curriculum meeting the learning needs of
English Language Learners in the content area of reading? Focuses on how teachers are
implementing the designated curriculum for English Language Learners and its supplementary
components the Multicultural Framework for Learning and Motivational Framework for
Responsive Teaching. It was discovered that many teachers had a firm understanding of the
curriculum as well as the additional frameworks. However, there is a small group of teachers that
feel they are overworked, pressed for time and cannot implement both curriculums with
integrity, therefore they make in-class decisions regarding what the learning goals and targets
should be. Teacher report that in the last three years, class size has increased; teaching and
intervention staff have been reduced and classrooms have had to absorb additional students often
time making the ratio 38:1 or more especially in science and social studies classes. More students
in their classes mean they have less time to work with more challenging students, be creative in
their instruction and resort to more in seat type of activities.
Teachers report it is difficult to maintain high expectations when they must accomplish
multiple concepts in one class period. Many students need ongoing assistance prior to beginning
63

the instruction on the concept. The interventionist staff has been reduced and some students do
not receive support for a week and often it is not an individual or small group.
Teachers were found to work collaboratively among themselves to share activities that
have been successful or unsuccessful; share methods to achieve learning targets and concepts
without following the curriculum. They report that concepts to achieve the standards are being
taught, just not according to the designated curriculums.
Teachers report that often culture interferes in providing appropriate assistance to some
students. Teachers should be aware of the cultural background of students and they are in the
classroom for a long period of time before teachers are given information or have an opportunity
to meet families to gather personal information to assist in meeting that student’s needs.
Teachers report that they are very supported by the Curriculum and Instruction team and
are provided with additional resources to meet the requirements of content standards. Teachers
report that often they do not receive enough, they are only in English. It is reported that the
teachers and students would be more productive if they had educational technology that
supported the curriculum. Some students would be able to spend more time getting assistance
without leaving the classroom and teachers would have a better handle on where students were
functioning.
Evaluation question #2-Are teachers implementing research-based instructional practices
that are effective with this student population? This question focuses on a specific pedagogy for
English Language Learners. Goldberg and Coleman (2010) state the main challenge most
English Language Learners (ELL) face is to learn academic content while simultaneously
developing and improving English proficiency. Teachers must find a way of unifying language
learning and content learning. Teachers are not implementing best practices for English
64

Language Learners (ELL) with fidelity. Responses and observations indicate 45% do not know
what best practices are, despite records indicating their attendance at a professional development
that addressed the method.
Teachers were asking questions such as “how to teach English Language Learners grade
level vocabulary when their vocabulary knowledge is far behind that of their English speaking
peers”. Teachers were asking “how to teach reading comprehension in English when students
haven’t begun comprehending the English language.” From these responses, it can be determined
that teachers are not fully cognizant of the pedagogy of language learners. In some
circumstances, even experienced teachers need additional preparation to be effective in providing
quality instructing English Language Learners (ELL), promoting English language development
and assisting them in achieving educational success. Teachers need to become less passive and
more active in the learning of their students (Estis, 2017).
The principles of effective English Language Learner pedagogy are:
1. Implement a challenging curriculum with high expectations
2. Make content more accessible
3. Offer clear, relevant and explicit instruction
4. Support metacognitive and specific learning strategies
5. Use first language strategically with difficult concepts’
6. Teach vocabulary within multiple contexts
7. Build reading comprehension ability with strategies
8. Provide good language use models for students to follow
9. Integrate reading, writing, speaking and listening skills
65

10. Clear goals and objectives
11. Informative Feedback
12. Established classroom routines and instructional routines
13. Opportunities for practice
14. Opportunities to transfer new learning to new contexts
15. Structured focused interactions with native English speaking peers
16. Frequent assessments with re-teaching if necessary
Evaluation question #3-Are teachers at the site prepared to instruct in a multicultural
learning environment? This question asks if teachers had prior experience working with English
language learners or learners of other cultures. 55% of teachers indicated that they had neither
the experience or the preparation to work in a multicultural setting. 45% of teachers indicated
they had experiences that ranged from student teaching experiences to taking a single class.
The researchers chose to conduct observations using the researched based tool Teaching
Dimensions Observation Protocol. Its objective is to provide “vigorous and distinctive
depictions of the behavioral dynamics that unfold among teachers and students” (Hora & Ferrare,
2015) in the classroom in real time. The tool was originally adapted from a tool developed in
2009 by the University of Wisconsin Center for Educational Research. The 2014 version affords
the researcher the opportunity to select the dimensions of teaching and codes. The researcher
selected Pedagogy Strategies as the dimension and a variety of practices (codes) to be observed
based on the English Language Learner Pedagogy.
Principles of English Language Learner Pedagogy are listed on page 67. From these
principles, codes were developed and were observed in twelve 4th grade classrooms and eight
66

intervention sessions. Based upon these codes the findings indicate that 45% of all 4th-grade
teachers implement at least one component of the ELL pedagogy, with 9 out of 22 incorporating
all 22 of the principles that were measured. Results indicated that 41% or 16 out of 22 teachers
implemented a “high expectation activity and 50% differentiated it to accommodate ELL
learners and 41% or 9 out of 12 teachers implemented a scaffolded activity which builds
background knowledge a skill essential for reading comprehension.
The researchers noted that 55% or 12 out of 22 teachers provided a teacher to student
feedback but only 27% or 6 out of 22 teachers asked students to give them immediate feedback,
this concept is an effective way of checking for comprehension, if re-teaching is needed and if
students are attending. The research indicated that 55% or 12 out of 22 teachers used simplified
language as part of their instructions, while 41% or 9 out of 22 teachers used a “dumbed down”
vocabulary technique to provide instructions to ELL students.
The Multicultural Framework for Learning states cultural components should be included
in the classroom and in daily activities. 100% of the classrooms had cultural identifiers around
the classroom. The researcher examined the information and noted that the information was not
regarding current students but has been posted in the room for a substantial time. Results
indicated that 41% or 9 out of 22 teachers were implementing the ELL curriculum during the
observation; 18% or 4 out of 22 teachers included a cultural reference in the activity; 18% or 4
out of 22 teachers called upon an ELL student during the observation period; and 36% or 8 out of
22 teachers responded to a question an ELL student raised. Observations indicated that teachers
may be aware of best practices but did not attempt to implement them consistently in their
classrooms.
67

Application and Benefits
Target Audience
The target audience for the Capstone project consisted of school board members, school
administrators, educational practitioners; district and school administrators who are involved in
educational decision-making processes, curricular determination decisions and curriculum
instructional processes in schools where learners of various cultures and first languages are
enrolled. These groups of educational practitioners are accountable for the academic
achievement of all students, but especially for these populations of learners in that, they have
historically performed poorly on high stakes testing (Walker, 2014; Coltrane, 2002) and 4th-
grade teachers at the research site.
The benefit of this data to the target audience is that they will be able to closely examine
the designated curriculum and the instructional practices employed in the classrooms. They will
be able to determine if the school is meeting the challenges of the community and they are
meeting the expectations of their mission statement. The data will also serve to assist in decision-
making purposes required to make necessary changes to meet conditions of school improvement
plan and Quality Schools Initiative.
An additional benefit to the study is that it was a cooperative study. Not only the
participants specific to the study, but all instructional staff was impacted. They will receive the
benefit of being able to more readily identify concerns and issues within their own practices and
be able to seek resolution in a timely, meaningful and effective manner.
Institution/Setting
English Language Learners that receive instruction in an English instructional environment will
68

require additional supports to ensure that the instruction is meaningful and productive. An
evaluation of the teacher awareness of English Language Learners pedagogy and best
instructional practices is a topic that is of great concern to the learning environment where this
research occurred. Ongoing research agrees that the perceptions and expectations of teachers
transfer to the academic achievement of their students. This statement corroborates the important
decisions made in the classroom have on student’s perceptions about their own learning.
A growing body of educational research suggests that the expectations a teacher sets for an
individual student or a group of students can significantly affect academic performance. Often,
teacher expectations are simply based upon their own biases or misconceptions. These emotions
can be based on a student’s characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and may cause the teacher to
differentiate their own behavior towards individual students. Teacher behaviors repeated every
day can over time negatively impact student performance and result in poor educational
outcomes (Goldenberg, 2013).
The educational site draws from the local community as well as other surrounding
communities. The site adopted a multicultural framework for learning more than a decade ago to
meet the demands of the local communities. It has since adopted the Motivational Framework for
Responsive Teaching to address diversity and motivation. An evaluation of the designated
curriculum, instructional practices and the skills and preparation of its instructional staff are
essential to its sustainability in the community.
Over the last twenty years, the school has lost many of the original educational
practitioners who championed the mission and the vision of the school and were the catalyst and
cohesion to the success of the programming. A few staff that have remained report the loss of
staff has adversely affected the progression of language development for some students. Losing
69

certain staff such as the Reading Specialist and the ESL coordinator was detrimental to certain
components of the programming.
The Reading Specialist developed a family reading program, created classroom libraries
as well as a school library that was filled with books in many languages. These books were made
available to families to assist in the language development of the family. Current staffing has not
been able to support these initiatives and the library is not used and students do not get essential
reading intervention. The ESL coordinator championed many additions to the original
programming and ensured that students and family needs, as well as language development
needs, were met. Current staffing in this position has not been as effective. The school has not
been effective in hiring quality, diverse staffing for the site. The managing district decided seven
years ago to take hiring out of the hands of individual schools and began contracting with a
staffing agency that places educators. The school has been receiving a small pool of applicants
that have not met the specific needs of the school.
The benefit of this information for the local setting is that it relates an ongoing saga of
decline that could have been avoided. The research study examined the daily occurrences in
twenty-two 4th- grade instructional participants classrooms to evaluate their awareness and
implementation of research-based instructional practices for the English Language Learner. The
data gathered will be used to guide the decision-making process toward improvements in the
programming. This data can also be used to develop guidelines for hiring diverse, quality staff.
Beyond the Local Setting
Schools are the central hub of most communities and often many adjustments have to be
made to render it effective as social conditions change. Dewy states that if a change is not taken
70

seriously, the children will suffer. He states that to ill prepare a child through ineffective and
inadequate education is a waste of human life (Popkewitz, 2005).
Advances in technology, immigration and globalization are changing the face of
communities and classrooms around the country. Globalization has promoted the integration and
the removal not only of cultural barriers but the acquisition of dimensions of new culture. There
is a critical need for teachers that are skillful in the classroom and schools to produce individuals
who are critical thinkers, contributors to the economy and their society and possess the ability to
solve problems and collaborate with other individuals from around the world.
Just as any other population of learners with academic difficulties, struggling English
Language Learners require effective instructional practices and interventions that will prevent
further difficulties and promote their language and academic development. A considerable
amount of research suggests that appropriate practices such as early intervention, ongoing
progress monitoring. and effective classroom instruction is associated with improved educational
outcomes for early reading and language development (Burns et al., 2007). Children that have
poor English development skills are less likely to succeed in school and beyond (Barrow &
Markham-Pithers, 2016) yet; they should receive a quality education.
Implications for Professional Specialization
The topic of this program study will expand the knowledge base and inform practice
within the specialization of Curriculum and Instruction by demonstrating the benefits of
implementing best instructional practices to improve a student population’s educational
outcomes. By not implementing a curriculum with fidelity, a school is in crisis, English
Language Learners are failing to develop the English language and are failing to meet content
expectations in the area of Reading.
71

A curriculum is broadly defined as a learner’s experiences that occur in the process of
education (Kelley, 2009; Dewey, 1902). A curriculum is also defined as a planned sequence of
instruction or a view of a student’s experiences or a planned interaction. It is known to contain
instructional content, supplementary materials, processes for evaluating the attainment of
educational objectives (Adams, 2003). Instruction is the mode in which those learning
experiences are conveyed. Without appropriate instruction, positive academic outcomes will not
be achieved.
Current research has demonstrated that ESL programming implemented by learning
organizations are designed to meet the needs of small groups of English Language Learners of
the same or similar languages and not a disaggregated group as seen in current classrooms. Many
curriculums do not incorporate the multiple dimensions of social-cultural language, culture and
value systems into instructional practices. The topic addresses the need for the development of
practices that contain a systematic and organized body of knowledge that focuses on the
increasing populations of English Language Learners and learners who have learned English in
foreign countries.
According to Barrow and Markam-Pithers (2016), there exists an additional uncertainty
in regard to English Language Learners. U.S. education has focused largely on serving Spanish
speaking learners in that 75% of English Language Learners in public school’s report Spanish as
their home language. Current U.S. immigration patterns have shifted in recent years with the
majority of immigrants coming from Asia and Middle Eastern countries. Existing research may
not apply to a growing population of English Language Learners from Asian countries and fewer
from Spanish speaking countries (Vigdor, 2013). Other researchers argue that greater attention
needs to be given to the quality of education rather than the language of instruction (Chi et al.,
72

2013). The authors further state that if schools cannot implement bilingual programming with a
bilingual teacher, it is better off working to improve classroom and teacher quality.
The topic of this study will develop the knowledge base and inform practice within the
specialization of Curriculum and Instruction by stimulating encouraging academic achievement.
The deliverable has determined that teachers are aware of the need for the supplemental
curriculum for English language Learners as well as the instructional best practices. The
evaluation results demonstrate that an understanding of the pedagogy of English Language
Learners, the implementation of the specialized curriculum, the implementation of appropriate
instructional best practices improves educator practice as well as positive academic outcomes for
learners. Sharing evidence-based findings from the qualitative data provides for cooperative
evaluation of instructional practices and is highly beneficial for educators to grow intellectually
as well as professionally (Gajda, 2006). This capstone project contributes to the profession of
Curriculum and Instruction because it defends and advances the body of knowledge that exists
and was accomplished through scholarly inquiry and research analysis.
Recommendations
The final stage of the CIPP evaluation model is product evaluation. Which assesses the
positive and negative consequences and its impact it has had on the target audience and relates
outcome information. It is also to provide feedback and recommendations for program
improvement.
1. The curriculum team should create a monitoring/accountability system to ensure
teachers are implementing the curriculum with fidelity. There is a monitoring
schedule in place, but it appears to be ineffective. The C & I Team should hold
73

individual/small group coaching sessions with certain teachers to ensure they
comprehend how to differentiate, scaffold activities and implement best practices for
the ELL population in the school. Team Teaching approaches could be a choice.
2. Professional staff development should be mandatory and not arbitrary. The
administration should refresh the cultural feeling of the school by returning to the
original premise adopted at its inception. New PD on the multicultural framework for
learning and the motivational framework for responsive teaching. A closer look at the
governing variables in intercultural situations-cultures, belief systems, values and
traditions such as exists at this educational site could possibly help explain the
continued negative outcomes.
3. Professional development opportunities can be shared with other schools as well as
the local ISD. Designate an administrator to be in charge of locating PD opportunities
for staff to attend and a requirement should be that they must share what was learned
at a staff meeting. The research site’s staff are mostly novice educators and have not
benefited from ongoing PD. The administration needs to develop a method of
ensuring staff development moves through the stages of PD: orientation-real world
application training opportunities; integration-teachers receive assistance as they
apply previous learning in the classrooms; refinement-teachers move from basic
competence to expertise (Glickman et al., 2017).
4. Professional Learning Communities- reinstate PLC’s s teachers can engage in group
inquiry/learn from each other and provide mutual support. Select a topic, theme or
concept to be studied and presented to staff monthly. Studying the English Language
pedagogy and instructional best practices would be a starting point.
74

5. Teacher Centers-Teachers can meet in a central location to engage in professional
dialogue, develop skills, share innovations, create and share teaching materials
6. Instructional staff must “buy in” to the foundational concepts.
Cultural responsiveness requires teachers to acknowledge and understand their own
cultural values and become aware of how it impacts their own teaching practice.
7. The administration should take back the responsibility for hiring staff. It is important
that the staff is highly qualified as well as effective in teaching English Language
Learners, free of biases and responsive to many cultures, values, beliefs, and
traditions. It is also important to hire a diverse staff.
8. Libraries- the school must hire a reading specialist or encourage staff to share the
responsibility of maintaining the main library and the classroom libraries. The
libraries hold a wealth of knowledge in many languages and lending books again will
encourage language development in the home.
9. Instructional Feedback-feedback is information about how learners are doing in our
efforts to reach learning targets and goals. (Marzano et al., 2017). It is an excellent
method of quickly checking in with students, clarify misunderstandings and other
such discrepancies. Keeps learns motivated, engaged and acknowledged for their
efforts.
10. Response to Intervention- if the school had this model in place, as academic
achievement began to decline it would have been detected and a process began to
intervene. The school should adopt the RTI model.
READING
75

11. Internal vs. External Motivation-. Learners must be intrinsically motivated to read.
Using high-interest texts and the learner’s level. Readers who consistently read for
their own pleasure usually become better readers. Internal motivators (interest) are
positively correlated with reading achievement and external motivators (pressure,
requirements, rules) are not correlated with reading achievement (Guthrie &
Coddington, 2009). Ensure that materials are readable for that specific learner.
12. Phonemic Awareness- is difficult for English Language Learners (ELL) many do not
have the experience with the language to distinguish between sounds that differ from
those of their native language. ELL’s cannot develop phonological awareness in
English until they are familiar with the sound of English.
a. They require expensive experiences through songs, poems, chants and read-
aloud to hear sounds and sound patterns.
b. If ELL’s are literate in their native or first language, it will transfer to learning
English.
13. Fluency- ELL’s cannot achieve fluency in ready until they have achieved it in
speaking
a. ELL’s require many opportunities to speak and converse with native English
speakers.
b. ELL’s are reading texts they are familiar with to avoid unfamiliar words and
sentence structures.
c. Read-alouds, experience stories and stories they have hear often are good choices.
14. Vocabulary-A 4th grade ELL has a fraction of the vocabulary of what it is for a native
English speaking 4th grader.
76

a. ELL’s require more vocabulary instruction and in different vocabulary than
native speakers. Many words are basic words to native speakers, so
teaching the vocabulary suggested in the reading materials will not be
sufficient. A Kindergartener comes to school learning 5000 words; an
ELL with no exposure to English comes knowing none.
b. Words that need to be explicitly taught:
-words that are crucial for understanding
-words that are encountered in a wide variety of contexts
-frequently used words that contain word parts (roots, prefixes, suffixes) that
can help learners analyze unknown words
-words with multiple meanings, whether spelled differently (homophones to,
two, too) or spelled the same (dining table or multiplication table)
-figurative language and idiomatic expressions
-academic language that indicates the relationship among other words
(became, therefore, since) indicate cause and effect and instructional
words such as circle, draw a line, check a box, and other such matterss.
15. Comprehension-ELL’s are more likely to lack background knowledge and prior
knowledge
a. may have experienced substandard or interrupted educational experiences.
b. cultural differences and culturally based assumptions can result in a lack of
background knowledge
77

c. before giving a text to an ELL to read, the teacher should identity the
information that is a prerequisite for understanding the text, evaluate the
learner’s prior knowledge and fill in any gaps.
d. the teacher should consider the language level of the text to the learner’s
language proficiency level
e. provide as much non-verbal support as possible, including pictures, diagrams,
real objects, gestures, acting and graphic organizers
f. Explicitly teach comprehension strategies using generalized questions
summarizing and monitoring comprehension.
g. increase opportunities around reading and interpreting texts, sharing ideas,
comparing perspectives, forming agreement or disagreement
h. contextualizing-place text within a certain context. Ask questions such as the
main character go through something you can relate to? Or you have
done?
I. visualizing-some students who are visual learners need to see the information.
This also means organizing information using graphic organizers
15. Interaction-ELL’s can learn about reading by talking about it with peers. Every
opportunity they get to listen or talk with a peer is an opportunity to develop language
skills.
a. Book groups with guided questions
b. Exposure to the culture of reading
-expose ELL’s to a wide variety of genres at their reading level.
-reading more increases fluency and vocabulary
78

-learn to read for pleasure
-show learners how to use electronic devices as tools for reading
c. Teach learners how to read for gist, or the overall meaning. A text can provide
learners with clues that will help them detect what the book is about;
Visual, word arrangement; skimming the text for words. Gist is not an
English language concept. Learners could treat an English text the same
way they would a text in their native language
17. Activate schematic or background knowledge
-through vocabulary
-using visuals
-sharing stories
General ways to help ELL’s in the general education classroom
1. Make it visual-sometimes ELL’s have a hard time processing spoken
language, so write the directions on the board whenever possible
2. Model the steps or process in an activity and show learners what a finished
product looks like
3. Build more group work into the classwork. This increases motivation active
participation, language exposure and social interaction.
4. Communicate with colleagues-talk to the ESL teacher or the interventionists,
tell them what you will be doing in class, so they can support classroom
efforts, through introducing vocabulary, processes, concepts, and other
such matters.
79

5. “Honor the silent period”- This is a normal stage in language acquisition.
Many ELL’s speak very little. Many, due to cultural ideations, want to be
perfect when they speak so the teacher must respect that.
6. Allow some scaffolding of the native or first language. This sometimes afford
the learner some comfort and reduces anxiety.
7. Look for culturally unique vocabulary
-use visuals or videos to explain
8. Pre-teach whenever possible
9. Use sentence frames to give learners practice with academic language: “I agree
with what _______ said because….. shows learners how to structure language in a
formal way
10. Learn about the cultural background of your learner tell the learner that you
respect them enough to take time to learn about where they came from.
11. Scaffold and Differentiate activities
12. Make learning enjoyable.
Conclusion
The English Language Learner is dually challenged in the American classroom. They
must learn academic content as well as develop English proficiency. Historically, teaching
language to English learners has been a process of word learning which has left the learner
unprepared to meet the expectations of complex texts and academic language that is needed to
engage in content area practices. This affects the learner across all content areas in solving word
80

problems in math, deconstructing an author’s reasoning in English language arts and
understanding lab directions in Science. The Common Core Standards and the Next Generation
Science Standards require English Language Learners to master a vast amount of academic
language.
Most English Language Learners are not ready by grade 4 to read the academic language
in 4th-grade texts. Most are still in the emergent or intermediate stage of language proficiency
and the challenge of academic language forces many into the “silent stage” where they maintain
a vocabulary of words for receptive language, but it is minimal if any expressive language. This
usually occurs between the 3rd and 4th grades. Others remain in the “silent period” due to
cultural reasons, such as a need to speak perfectly. But general education teachers may not be
aware of this and see this as a defiant trait.
The topic of the capstone project was to Examine Current Curriculum Frameworks
Utilized in the Field to Meet the Language Learning Needs of English Language Learners in the
Content Area of Reading. As a result of this study, it is imperative that teachers have a
knowledge base of the English Language Learner pedagogy and comprehend how essential it is
to incorporate best practices into daily instruction and activities. 21st-century classrooms no
longer tolerate the teacher standing in front of the class regurgitating information. Today’s
learners require a facilitator, who does not practice under the traditional concepts of a teacher but
guides and assists students in owning their learning. Yet, a teacher who has English Language
Learners in their classrooms must be more than a teacher, a facilitator, they must be a skilled
practitioner, knowledgeable, compassionate and dedicated. A school must be diligent in its quest
to hire and maintain high- quality instructional staff to ensure that it is authentically meeting its
commitment to the community it serves.
81

The curriculum was found to be researched based and appropriate for the learning
environment and its consumers, but it was ineffectively implemented. The original premise for
learning was based on concepts and frameworks that support the whole learner and specifically
learners who are not native born. The school also formulated a staff that effectively nurtured and
cultivated the mission and vision and created the optimum learning environment for an English
Language Learner (ELL) and the community. But as all things do, there occurred change.
Change in personnel, change in methods and processes and therefore a change in results. In this
case, a three-year decline in academic growth just in the area of reading. In order to transform
the school back into an environment that enhances learning for English Language Learners, the
school must provide teachers with the opportunities to learn more about the craft of teaching
specialized population and create an accountability system to ensure that English Language
Learners are supported emotionally as well as academically in all content areas.
.
82

References
Adams, K. & Adams, D. (2003). The urban Educator: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA:
ABC CLIO.
Adesope, O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-
analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research,
80(2), 207-245.
Alderson, P. (2004). Ethics: Doing research with children and young people. London: Sage
Publications.
Anderson, M. (2015). The costs of English-only education. Atlantic Magazine.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational learning: theory, method, and practice.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Argyris, C. (1995). Action science and organizational learning. Journal of Managerial
Psychology. 10(6).
Aydin, H., Ozfidan, B., & Carothers, D (2017). Meeting the Challenges of Curriculum and
Instruction in School Settings in the United States. Journal of Social Studies Education
(JSSR).8 (3),76-92 76.
Association for Qualitative Research (AQR) (n.d.). Educational research methods: Examining
bias. Retrieved from https://www.aqr.org.uk/glossary/bias.
Baker, C. (1988). Key issues in bilingualism and bilingual education. Multilingual Matters, 35.
Barrow, L. & Markham-Pithers, L. (2016). Supporting young English learners in the United
States. Future of Children., 26(2).
Bartoleme, L. (2008). Understanding policy for equity in teaching and learning: A critical
historical Lens. Language Arts, 86(5). 376-381.
Batalova, J., Fix, M., & Murray, J. (2005). English language learner adolescents: Demographics
and literacy achievements: Report to the Center for Applied Linguistics. Washington,
D.C. Migration Policy Institute.
Bialystok, E., Barac, R., Blaye, A., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2010). Word mapping and executive
functioning in young monolingual and bilingual children. Journal of Cognition and
Development, 11(4), 485-508.
83

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and
older bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition,
34(4), 859.
Bilingual Education Act (BEA) (81 Stat. 816), Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Amendments of 1967 (Pub. L. 90–247), approved by the 90th United States
Congress on January 2, 1968.
Boulmetis, J., & Dutwin, P. (2005). The ABC’s of evaluation: Timeless techniques for program
and project managers. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bouton, D. T. (2008). Thinking critically about critical thinking in the community college
classroom: An examination of the beliefs of exemplary instructors
http://library.capella.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.proquest.com
%2Fdocview%2F304534443%3Faccountid%3D27965.
Brevik, M. (2013). Research ethics: An investigation into why school leaders agree or refuse to
participate in educational research. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, (527)20.
British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2011). Ethical guidelines for educational
research. https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/wera.siteym.com/resource/resmgr/a_general/bera.pdf
Brown v. Board of Education. (2014). The Civil Rights Movement: Volume I (Salem Press).
Burns, M., Griffith, A., Parsons, L., Tilly., W. & VanDerHayden, A. (2007). Response to
intervention: Research for practice. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State
Directors of Special Education.
Busher, H. & James, N. (2007). Ethics of research in education: Research methods in
educational leadership and management. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Capella University. (2017, January). A guide to the milestones for EdD capstone learners.
Retrieved from EdD Doctoral Capstone Resources:
https://assets.capella.edu/campus/doctoral-programs/EdDMilestoneGuide.pdf
Castelli, P. A. (2016). Reflective leadership review: A framework for improving organizational
performance. The Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217-236. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1767544220?accountid=27965.
Chall, J.S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). Poor children’s fourth-grade slump, American Educator, 27,
114–115.
Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
84

Coltrane, B. (2002). English Language Learners and High-Stakes Tests: An Overview of the Chi,
A., Meltem-Daytral, N. & Imberman, S. (2013). Impact of bilingual education programs
on limited English proficient student and their peers: Regression discontinuity evidence
from Texas. Journal of Public Economics-Elsevier,107(C), 63-78.
Crawford, J. (2008). FAQ about Official English. Institute for Language and Education Policy.
Issues. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Crawford, J. 2004. Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom. Los
Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services.
Cruz, B. (2015). The problem we still live with. Educational Leadership, 72(6), 15-20.
Darcy, N.T. (1963). Bilingualism and the measurement of intelligence: Review of a decade of
research. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 103(2), 259-282.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research, Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
DeSimone, R.L. & Harris, D.M. (1998). Human resource development. (2nd ed.). Oak Brook,
IL: The Dryden Press.
De Bruin, A., Trecanni, B., & Della Sala, S. (2015). Cognitive advantage in bilingualism: An
example of publication bias? Psychological Science, 26(1), 99-107.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
DeSimone, R.L. & Harris, D.M. (1998). Human resource development. (2nd ed.). Oak Brook,
IL: The Dryden Press.
Dewey, J. (1902). The school as the social center. The Elementary School Teacher, 3(2), 73-86.
Diaz, R. (2015). Teaching performance of novice teachers: It’s relationship with academic
achievement and teacher testing. Online Journal of Quality Higher Education, 2(3).
Estis, J. (2017). Changing culture through active learning. In R. Styron, & J. Styron (eds.),
Comprehensive problem solving and skill development for next-generation leader’s,
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Fetterman, D.M. (1996). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment
and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fitzpatrick, J.L., Saunders, J.R., & Worthen, B.R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternatives
approaches and practical guidelines. Boston: Pearson.
85

Florin, L. & Hall, T. (2008). Change Issues in Curriculum and Instruction/Reform Proposals.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Change_Issues_in_Curriculum_and_Instruction/Reform
_Proposals.
Frye, A. W., & Hemmer, P. A. (2012). Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE
guide. no. 67. Medical Teacher, 34(5), 288-299.
Gajda, R. (2006). Action research. In F. W. English (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational
leadership and administration, 1.p. 19–20. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Gathercole, V. Thomas, E. Kennedy, I, Prys, C., Young, N., Gunsch, N., Roberts, E.J., Hughes,
E.K. & Jones, L. (2014). Does language dominance affect cognitive performance in
bilinguals? Lifespan evidence from preschoolers through older adults on card sorting,
Simon, metalinguistic tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(11),11.
Geyer, R., Mackintosh, A., & Lehmann, K. 92005). What is complexity theory? Integrating UK
and European social policy: The complexity of Europeanisation. Abington, UK:
Radcliffe Publishing.
Ginsberg, M. B. (2004). Motivation matters: A workbook for school change. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Ginsberg, M. B., & Wlodkowski, R. J. (2000). Creating highly motivating classrooms: Powerful
teaching for diverse learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2017). Supervision and instructional leadership:
A developmental approach. New York, NY: Pearson.
Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know and don’t
know about effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2). 4-11.
Goldenberg, C. & Coleman, R. (2010). Promoting academic achievement among English
learners: A guide to the research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Grantmakers for Education. (2013). Educating English Language Learners: Grantmaking
Strategies for Closing America’s Other Achievement Gap. Retrieved from
https://edfunders.org/sites/default/files/Educating%20English%20Language%20Learners
April%202013.pdf.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Guthrie, J. & Coddington, C. (2009). Reading motivation. In K. Wentzel & A. Winfield
Handbook of Motivation at School. New York: Routledge, 505-525.
86

Hammersley, M. (2015). Research ethics and the concept of children's rights. Children &
Society, 29(6), 569-582.
Hana, U & Lucie, L. (2011). Staff turnover as a possible threat to knowledge loss. Journal of
Competitiveness. 8(3). P 84-93.
Handlin, O. (2012). Education and the European immigrant 1820-1920. In D. J. Weiss (ed.)
American education and the European immigrant. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Herrera, S. (2012). Globalization: Current constraints and promising perspectives. Journal of
Curriculum and Instruction, 6(1), 1-10.
Higham, J. (1992). Crusade for Americanization. In J. Crawford (Ed.). Language loyalties: A
Source Book on the Official English Controversy (pp. 72–85). Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Hoffman, L., & Sable, J. (2006). Public elementary and secondary students and school districts:
School year 2003 and 2004. Washington, D.C. National Center for Educational Statistics.
Hollo, D, Lazar, I & Szestay M. (2015). A global issue in the classroom: Migration: Hungary
Conference. International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language.
Hora, M., & Ferrare, J. (2014). The Teaching Dimensions Observation Protocol (TDOP) 2.0.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education
Research.
Ianco-Worral, A.D. (1972). Bilingualism and cognitive development. Child Development, 13,
1390-1400.
Johnstone M. (2009). Bioethics. A nursing perspective. 5th ed. London, England: Churchill
Livingstone Elsevier.
Kasl, E., & Yorks, L. (2002). Collaborative inquiry for adult learning. New directions for adult
and continuing education, 2002(94), 3-12.
Katz, S. R. (2013). Over tested: how high-stakes accountability fails English language learners.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(2), 209-211.
Kelly, A.V. (2009). The curriculum and the study of the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kloss, H. (1988). The American bilingual tradition. Washington DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Krashen, S. (2016). Do libraries and teacher librarians have the solution to the long-term English
language learner problem. California Library Association Journal, 41(2).
87

Kroll, J. & Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding the consequences of bilingualism for language
processing and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 497-514.
Laurie, S. (1890). Lectures on language and linguistic methods. Cambridge, UK: University
Press.
Lawler, A. & Stilltoe, J. (2015). Facilitating organizational learning in a learning institution.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 35 (5), 495–500.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2013.825415.
Lindsey, C., Bloom, E. & Tilsey, A. (2017). Diversifying the classroom: Examining the teacher
pipeline. Urban Institute. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/features/diversifying-
classroom-examining-teacher-pipeline.
Marshall, S. P. (2010). Re-imagining specialized STEM academies: Igniting and nurturing
decidedly different minds, by design. Roeper Review, 32(1), 48-60. Retrieved from
http://library.capella.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.proquest.com
%2Fdocview%2F206714679%3Faccountid%3D27965.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-
based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Garcia, C. M., Slate, J. R., & Delgado, C. T. (2009). Salary and Ranking and Teacher Turnover:
A Statewide Study. International Journal of Education policy and leadership, 4(7), 1-8.
Mather, M. (2009). Report on America: Children in immigrant families chart new path.
Washington Population Bureau. Retrieved from prb.org/pdf09/immigrantchildren.pdf.
McCarty, T.L. (2002). Between possibility and constraint: Indigenous language education,
planning and policy in the U.S. In Tollefson, J.W. (Ed.) (2002) Language Policies in
Education: Critical Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McKinney, E. (2016). Language ideologies and bilingual realities: The case of Coral Way. In
Hornsberger, N, (Ed.). Honoring Richard Ruiz and his Work on Language Planning and
Bilingual Education. EBSCO Publishing.
McKernan, J. (2013). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the
reflective practitioner. London, England: Kogan Page.
Mertens, D. & Wilson, A. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive
guide. New York: Guilford Press.
88

Michigan Department of Health & Human Services (MDHS). (2018). Pathways to Potential
Works with the Detroit Youth Violence Prevention Initiative to Increase Safety and
Improve Attendance. Retrieved from /www.michigan.gov/mdhhs.
Migration Policy Institute. (MPI) (2018). Frequently requested statistics on immigrations and
immigration in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org.
Migration Policy Institute. (2016). South American immigrants in the United States. Retrieved
from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/south-american-immigrants-united-
states#English%20Proficiency.
Mueller, J. J., & File, N. K. (2015). Teacher preparation in changing times: One program’s
journey toward re-vision and revision. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education,
36(2), 175-192. doi:10.1080/10901027.2015.1030521.
National Education Association (NEA). (n.d.). Talking Points on English Language Learners.
Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/13598.htm
Nasrollahi, M.A. (2015). A closer look at Stringer’s action research model on improving student
learning. International Journal of Current Research, 7(7),18663-18668.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedical and Behavioral
Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines
for the protection of human subjects. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare.
Nesbitt, Richard. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think
differently…and why. New York: NY: Free Press. ISBN 978-0743255356.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Helping immigrant
students to succeed at school and beyond. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/education/Helping-immigrant-students-to-succeed-at-school-.
Optiz, B., Ferdinand, N., & Mecklinger, A. (2011). Timing matters: The impact of immediate
feedback and delayed feedback on artificial language learning. Human Neuroscience,
5(8).
Ortiz-Marrero, F. & Sumaryono, K, (2010). Success with ELL’s. English Journal, 99(6), 93-
96.
Osthoff, E., Clune, W., Ferrare, J. Kretchner, K. & White, P. (2009). Implementing immersion:
Design, professional development, classroom enactment and learning effects of an
extended science inquiry in an urban district. University of Wisconsin. Madison,
Wisconsin. Center for Educational Research.
89

Ozfidan, B., & Burlbaw, L. M. (2016). Perceptions of Bilingual Education Model in Spain: How
to Implement a Bilingual Education Model in Turkey. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural
Studies, 3(1), 49-58.
Paine, L., Syahril, I. & Ayadarova, E. (2017). Globalization and teacher education. In the Joan
Crandinin, J. and Hussu, J. (Eds.). 2017. Handbook of Research on Teacher Education.
Pannucci, C. J., & Wilkins, E. G. (2010). Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plastic and
Reconstructive Surgery, 126(2), 619–625. http://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181de24bc
Peal, E. & Lambert, W. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence, Psychological
Monographs: General and Applied, 76(27), 1-23.
Peeters, A. & Robinson, V. (2015). A Teacher Educator Learns How to Learn from
Mistakes: Single and Double-Loop Learning for Facilitators of In-Service Teacher
Education. Studying Teacher Education, 11 (3), 213-227.
Peters, R.S. (1966). Ethics in education. London: Allen & Unwin.
Pereira, N., & Gentry, M. (2013). A qualitative inquiry into the experiences of high-potential
Hispanic English language learners in midwestern schools. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 24(3), 164-194. doi:10.1177/1932202X13494204.
Popkewitz, T.S. (2005). Inventing the modern self and John Dewey: Modernities and the
travelling pragmatism in education. New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.
Prior, A., & Mac Whinney, B. (2010). A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 13(2), 253-262.
Research and Economic Development. (2018). IRB: Historical incidents related to human
subject protection. University of Kansas. Retrieved from umkc.edu/research-compliance-
(iacuc- ibc-irb-rsc)/institutional-review-board-(irb)/history-of-research-ethics.
Resnik, D. B. (2015. What is Ethics in research & why is it important? National Institute for
Environmental Health Sciences.
Ridgeway, M., & Pewewardy, C. (2004). Linguistic imperialism in the United States: The
historical eradication of American Indian languages and the English only movement.
Multicultural Review.
Roberts, G., & Dick, B. 2003. Emancipatory design choices for action research practitioners.
Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 486–95.
Robinson, B. (2002). The CIPP approach to evaluation. COLLIT Project.
90

Rosenkränzer, F., Hörsch, C., Schuler, S., & Riess, W. (2017). Student teachers’ pedagogical
content knowledge for teaching systems thinking: effects of different
interventions. International Journal of Science Education, 39(14), 1932-1951.
Rowley, J. (2013). Action research: An approach to student work-based learning. Education &
Training 45, (2)3, 131-139.
Ruiz-Soto, Ariel G., Hooker, S. & Batalova, J. (2015). States and Districts with the Highest
Number and Share of English Language Learners. Washington, DC: Migration Policy
Institute. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/states-and-districts-
highest-number-and-share-english-language-learners.
Samson, J. & Collins, B. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English Language
Learners: Applying research to policy and practice for teacher effectiveness. Center for
American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/.
Santoro, N. (2009). Teaching in culturally diverse contexts: What knowledge about ‘self’ and
‘others’ do teachers need? Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(1), 33-45.
Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Marcelletti, D. (2013). English language development:
Guidelines for instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 13-25.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2012).
Schools that learn: A fifth discipline field book for educators, parents, and everyone who
cares about education (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Random House/Crown Business.
ISBN: 9780385518222.
Sherzer, J. (1992). A richness of voices. In A. M. Josephy, Jr. (Ed.), America in 1492: The world
of the Indian peoples before the arrival of Columbus (pp. 251–275). New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Siegle, D. (2017). Educational research basics. University of Connecticut. Retrieved from
https://researchbasics.education.uconn.edu/ethics-and-informed-consent/#.
Sklar, David P. (2018). Protecting subjects, preserving trust, promoting progress I: Policy and
guidelines for the oversight of individual financial interests in human subjects
Research. Academic Medicine, 78(2), 225-236.
Spaulding, D. (2014). Program evaluation in practice core concepts & examples for discussion
and analysis. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Stockley, D. & Balkwill, L. (2013). Raising awareness of research ethics in SoTL: The role of
educational developers. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning,
4(1), 1-8.
Stringer, E.T. (2014). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
91

Strike, K. A. (2006). Ethics in educational research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stufflebeam, D.L. & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP model: How to evaluate for improvement and
accountability. New York: Guilford Press.
Stufflebeam, D, Shinkfield A. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, & applications. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey Bass/John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Stufflebeam, D.L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. In D.L. Stufflebeam & T. Kellaghan,
(Eds.). The International handbook of educational evaluation. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Stufflebeam, D.L. (1971). The use of experimental design in educational evaluations. Journal of
Educational Measurement. 8(4), 267-274.
Tamer, M. (2014). The education of immigrant children. Retrieved from
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/14/12/education-immigrant-children.
The Council of State Governments (CSG-M). Midwest. (2016). Policy and Research. Retrieved
fromhttps://www.csgmidwest.org/policyresearch/0416-FW-bilingual-education.aspx.
The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA). (2016). The Growing
Numbers of English Learner Students, 1998/99-2008/09. Retrieved from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/9/growingLEP_0809.pdf.
Tobin, K. (2008). Discussion of key issues in generalizing in educational research generalizing
from educational research. Ericksan, K. & Roth, W.-M., Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Tucker, G. & d’Anglejan, A. (1971). Some thoughts concerning bilingual education
programs. Modern Language Journal,55, 491-493.
Urban, W. & Wagoner, J. (2009). American Education: A History. Boston: McGraw Hill.
U. S. Census. (2000). People who spoke a language other than English at home. Washington,
D.C. Census Bureau. Retrieved from www.factfinder.census.gov.
U. S. Department of Education. Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965. (ESA).
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/nonpublic/eseareauth.pdf.
U. S. Department of Education. National Center on Education Statistics (NCES). (2018). Fast
Facts. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96.
U.S. Department of Education. National Center on Education Statistics (NCES). (2017). The
Condition of Education 2017-English Language Learners in Public Schools. p 144.
92

U. S. Department of Health & Human Services. (HHS) (n.d.). Office of Human Research
Protections, Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45-Public Welfare; Part 46: Protection of
Human Subjects. Retrieved from www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-
policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.htm.
U. S. Department of Health & Human Services. National Commission for the of Subjects in
Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (NCSBBR) (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical
principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects. Washington, DC:
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Veiga, J., Lubatkin, M., Calori, R. &Very, P. (2000). Measuring organizational culture clashes:
A two-nation post-hoc analysis of a cultural compatibility index. Human Relations, 53(4),
539-57.
Vigdor, J.L. (2013). Measuring immigrant assimilation in post-recession America. Manhattan
Institute Civic Report no.76. www.manhattaninsitute.org
Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. R., & Schupp, J. (2007). The German Socio-Economic Panel Study
(SOEP)–Scope, Evolution and Enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch: Journal of Applied
Social Science Studies/Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Sozialwissenschaften, 127(1), 139-
169.
Wayman, J. C. & Cho, V. (2009). Preparing educators to effectively use student data systems. In
Handbook of databased decision making in education, ed. T. J. Kowalski and T.J. Lesley
II, 89-104. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.
Wellington, J. (2000). Educational research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches.
London: Continuum.
Whitty, G. (2007). Educational research and education policy-making: Is conflict inevitable?
Educational Research and Policy Making. Saunders, L., Taylor & Francis e-
Library.
Wiley, T. (2008). What happens after English is declared the official language of the United
States? In Kibbee, D.A. (Ed.) 2008. Language Legislations and Linguistic Rights:
Selected Proceedings of the Language Legislation and Linguistic Rights Conference. The
University of Illinois-Urbana at Champaign. March 1996. Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamin Publishing Co.
Wiley, T. (2002). Assessing language rights in education: A brief history on the U.S. context. In
Tollefson, J.W. (Ed.). (2002). Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
93

Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. (2009). Diversity & motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (2008). Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn, 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (1999). Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive Guide for
Teaching All Adults. (rev. ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K. & Caruthers, F. A. (2011). The Program
Evaluation Standards: A Guide for Evaluators and Evaluation Users (Joint Committee
on Standards for Educational Evaluation) (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Zeni, J. (2005). A guide to ethical issues and action research. In Kieron Sheehy, et al., (Eds.)
2005. Ethics and Research in Inclusive Education: Values into Practice. London:
Routledge-Falmer.
Zhang, G., Zeller, N., Griffith, R., Metcalf, D., Williams, J., Shea, C. & Misulis, K. (2011).
Using the context, input, process, and product evaluation model (CIPP) as a
comprehensive framework to guide the planning, implementation, and assessment of
service-learning programs. Journal of Higher Education and Outreach-Engagement
15(4), 57 – 83.
94

APPENDIX A
PRE SURVEY QUESTIONS
CIRCLE THE NUMERIC RESPONSE TO EACH QUESTION:
Survey scale: 1-Strongly Disagree 2-Disagree 3- Neutral 4- Agree 5 Strongly Agree
1. I follow the school’s vision and mission as I 1 2 3 4 5
provide instruction to all students.
2. I am familiar with the ESL curriculum used by 1 2 3 4 5
the school.
3. I use the ESL curriculum on a daily basis. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I use intervention strategies with my daily instruction. 1 2 3 4 5
5. My instruction is effective with student learning. 1 2 3 4 5
6. When my ELL students have problems, I take 1 2 3 4 5
time to provide additional instruction support.
7. I use individual instructional feedback with 1 2 3 4 5
ESL students.
8. I was prepared to teach ESL students when I took 1 2 3 4 5
this job.
9. When I have instructional concerns, I ask the 1 2 3 4 5
the curriculum leader for assistance.
10. ELL students have a difficult time learning 1 2 3 4 5
In my classroom.
11. I have attended PD’s on changes to the 1 2 3 4 5
ESL curriculum.
12. ESL students should be taught is separate 1 2 3 4 5
classrooms
13. I implement new strategies in my instruction 1 2 3 4 5
to meet the changing needs of ESL students.
14. I was prepared to instruct ESL learners before 1 2 3 4 5
95

I took this job.
15. I find myself omitting concepts or learning targets that 1 2 3 4 5
are too difficult for ELL students to understand
16. I take additional time to ensure that 1 2 3 4 5
the ESL students in my classroom
understand every learning standard
17. I need more training on teaching ESL students. 1 2 3 4 5
18. I collaborate with my peers on ESL students that 1 2 3 4 5
are having problems in my classroom.
19. When I am having problems with ESL instruction, 1 2 3 4 5
I communicate it to the curriculum leader.
20. I continue to learn new strategies to teach ESL 1 2 3 4 5
Students.
96

APPENDIX B
PRE-SURVEY RESULTS
1-Strongly Disagree 2-Disagree 3- Neutral 4- Agree 5 Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
I follow the school’s vision and mission as I provide instruction to all students
0 0 2 / 9% 11 / 50% 9 / 41%
I am familiar with the ESL curriculum used by the school
0 0 0 0 22 100%
I use the ESL curriculum on a daily basis
0 0 0 12 / 55% 10 45%
I use intervention strategies with my daily instruction
0 2 / 9% 0 8 / 36% 11 55%
My instruction is effective in student learning
0 0 0 0 22 100%
When my ESL students have problems, I take time to provide additional instructional
Support
0 0 1 / 5% 6 / 27% 15 / 65%
I use individual instructional feedback with my ESL students
0 0 2 / 9% 4 / 18% 16 73%
I was prepared to teach ESL students when I took this job
0 12 / 55% 0 6 / 27% 4 / 18%
When I have instructional concerns, I ask the curriculum leader for assistance
0 5 / 23% 5 / 23% 4 / 18% 8 / 36%
ESL students have a difficult time learning in my classroom
0 13 / 59% 0 7 / 32% 2 / 9%
97

I have attended PD on changes to the ESL curriculum
0 4 / 18% 0 8 / 36% 9 45%
ESL students should be taught in separate classrooms
9 / 47% 0 0 5 / 23% 8 / 36%
I implement new strategies in my instruction to meet the changing needs of ESL students.
0 0 0 0 22 100%
I was prepared to instruct ESL before I took this job
0 5 / 23% 3 / 14% 10 / 45% 3 / 18%
I find myself omitting concepts or learning targets that are too difficult for ELL students
to understand
0 5 / 23% 3 / 14% 5 / 23% 9 / 40%
I take time to ensure that ELL’s in my classroom understand every learning standard
0 6 / 27% 4 / 18% 7 / 32% 4 / 23%
I need more training on teaching ESL learning standards
3 / 14% 3 / 14% 0 0 16 72%
I collaborate with my peers on ELL students in my classrooms that are having problems
3 / 14% 3 / 14% 0 0 16 72%
When I am having problems with ESL instruction, I communicate it to the curriculum
coach
0 6 / 27% 2 / 9% 7 / 32% 7 / 32%
I continue to learn new strategies to teach ESL students.
98

APPENDIX C
PRE-SURVEY RESULTS
99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

APPENDIX D
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Write code for behavior observed every 2 minute interval; take detailed notes about aspects of the class that is of particular
interest. Use 4 sheets per 40 minute observation.
Interval #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
MIN 0-1:59 2:00-3:39 4:00-5:59 6:00-7:59 8:00-9:59
Instructional
Practices
Teacher focused
Instructional
Practices
Student Focused
Notes:
Student
teacher
109

Interaction
Teacher -led
Student Teacher
Interaction
Student-led
Notes:
Instructional
Technology
Notes:
Interval #6 #7 #8 #9 #10
MIN 10:00-11:59 12:00-13:59 14:00-15:59 16:00-17:59 18:00-19:59
Instructional
Practices
Teacher focused
Instructional
Practices
Student focused
Notes:
Student Teacher
interactions
Teacher led
Student Teacher
110

Interactions
Student led
Notes:
Adapted from The Teaching Dimensions Protocol Hora, M., & Ferrare, J. (2014). The Teaching Dimensions
Observation Protocol (TDOP) 2.0. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for
Education Research. www.tdop.org
OBSERVATION CODES
BK Use of Background
Knowledge
LC Learning Centers SP Standard/Obj Posted
BKS DID ELL’s have own Books LRE Language Rich
Environment
STG Where were ELL’s
seated
BM Behavior Management LTP Language Targets Posted SWR Students Walked Room
CEI Clear & Explicit
Instruction
LTS Were Language targets same TR Teacher Response to
ELL
CI Cultural Identifiers ML Modeled Language TS Teacher Sat
CK Constructive Chaos MLB Multi-Language Books TWR Teacher Walked Room
CLB Classroom Library MM Motivation/Motivators VCB Vocabulary
DD Dumbed Down NK Draw on New Knowledge VPT Vocabulary Pre-Taught
ELLA ELL Called On OR Oral Reading WD Wall Decor
GW Group Work PW Picture Walks/Visuals SCF Scaffolding
111

HEA High Expectation
Activity
RO Room Organizers GO Graphic Organizers
IF Instructional Feedback SL Simplified Language DFF Differentiated Inst.
SDL Self-directed Learning
Adapted from The Teaching Dimensions Protocol Hora, M., & Ferrare, J. (2014). The Teaching
Dimensions Observation Protocol (TDOP) 2.0. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Wisconsin Center for Education Research. www.tdop.org
OBSERVATION RESULTS
BK Use of Background
Knowledge
4 / 18%
LC Learning Centers
22 / 100%
SP Standard/Obj Posted
22 / 100%
BKS DID ELL’s have own
Books
10 / 48%
LRE Language Rich Environment
20 / 91%
STG Where were ELL’s seated
Front 5 / 23%
Scattered 10 / 48%
Back 4 / 18%
Separated 12 / 55%
BM Behavior Management
22 / 100%
LTP Language Targets Posted
20 / 91%
SWR Students Walked Room
6 / 27%
CEI Clear & Explicit
Instruction
6 / 27%
LTS Were Language targets same
7 / 32%
TR Teacher Response to ELL
8 / 36%
CI Cultural Identifiers
22/ 100%
ML Modeled Language
8 / 36%
TS Teacher Sat
2 / 9%
CK Constructive Chaos
4 / 18%
MLB Multi-Language Books
12 /55%
TWR Teacher Walked Room
14 / 64%
CLB Classroom Library
22/100%
MM Motivation/Motivators
18 / 81%
VCB Vocabulary
15 / 68%
DD Dumbed Down
9 / 41%
NK Draw on New Knowledge
12 / 55%
VPT Vocabulary Pre-Taught
12 / 55%
ELLA ELL Called On
4 / 18%
OR Oral Reading/ Read alouds
6 / 27%
WD Wall Décor
13 / 59%
GW Group Work
8 / 36%
PW Picture Walks/Visuals
11 / 50%
SCF Scaffolding
9 / 41%
HEA High Expectation Activity RO Room Organized GO Graphic Organizers
112

16 / 72% 20 / 91% 6 / 27%
IF Instructional Feedback
T to S 12 / 55%
S to T 6 / 27%
SL Simplified Language
12 / 55%
DFF Differentiated Inst.
11 / 50%
SDL Self-directed Learning
2 / 9 %
ELLC ELL Curriculum
9/41%
CR Cultural References
4 / 18%
ELL Pedagogy
APPENDIX E
OBSERVATION RESULTS
113

114

APPENDIX F
Interview Questions
Questions Responses
1. Do you understand the school’s vision
and mission?
Can you tell me any of it?
2. Do you understand the Multicultural
Framework for Learning?
Can you tell me some of its tenets?
3. How many non-native English
speakers do you have in your
classroom?
4. What do you do differently for non-
115

native English speakers, so they meet
learning targets in your classroom?
5. What professional development have
you attended since being here at the
school?
6. What learning strategy do you use
most in your classroom?
7. When a student is having problems
grasping a concept in my classroom
I_____________.
8. How stressed are you to meet learning
targets and standards in your goals?
9. Where did you learn to teach non-
native English speakers?
10.Were you asked about your experience
with ESL or ELL learners before you
were hired?
APPENDIX G
INTERVIEW RESULTS
116

117

118

119

120

121

122

APPENDIX H
POST SURVEY QUESTIONS
CIRCLE THE NUMERIC RESPONSE TO EACH QUESTION:
Survey scale: 1-Strongly Disagree 2-Disagree 3- Neutral 4- Agree 5 Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagre
e
Disagre
e
Neutra
l
Agree Strongl
y Agree
1 I share in the school’s vision and
mission as I provide instruction to all
students.
1 2 3 4 5
2 I implement the ESL curriculum with
fidelity.
1 2 3 4 5
3 Since participating in the research
study, I better understand the needs
of the ESL students
1 2 3 4 5
4 I have learned new instructional
strategies to add to my practice.
1 2 3 4 5
5 I have new resources to use in
my instruction of ESL learners.
1 2 3 4 5
6 I see ESL students as individuals. 1 2 3 4 5
7 I take time to provide ESL
students that are having
difficulties with specialized
instruction.
1 2 3 4 5
8 Since participating in the
research study, I have learned
more about meeting the needs of
ESL learners.
1 2 3 4 5
9 I have attended PD to learn new
research based strategies to use
in my practice.
1 2 3 4 5
10 I anticipate improvement in the
educational outcomes for ESL
students in my classroom.
1 2 3 4 5
11 I contributed to the changes
made to instructing ESL students
1 2 3 4 5
12 I am satisfied that I will be
effectively instructing ESL
students
1 2 3 4 5
123

Strongly
Disagre
e
Disagre
e
Neutra
l
Agree Strongl
y Agree
APPENDIX I
POST SURVEY RESULTS
124

125

126

127

128

129

130

PUBLISHING AGREEMENT
This Agreement is between the author (Author) and Capella University. Under this Agreement,
in consideration for the opportunity to have his/her capstone project published on a Capella website,
Author grants Capella certain rights to preserve, archive and publish the Author’s doctoral
capstone (the Work), abstract, and index terms.
License for Inclusion in Capella Websites and Publications
Grant of Rights. Author hereby grants to Capella the non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable
worldwide right to reproduce, distribute, display and transmit the Work (in whole or in part)
in such tangible and electronic formats as may be in existence now or developed in the
future. Such forms include, but are not limited to, Capella University websites, where the
Work may be made available for free download. Author further grants to Capella the right to
include the abstract, bibliography and other metadata in Capella University’s doctoral
capstone repository and any successor or related index and/or finding products or services.
The rights granted by Author automatically include (1) the right to allow for distribution of
the Work, in whole or in part, by agents and distributors, and (2) the right to make the
Abstract, bibliographic data and any meta data associated with the Work available to search
engines.
Removal of Work from the Program. Capella may elect not to distribute the Work if it
believes that all necessary rights of third parties have not been secured. In addition, if
Author's degree is rescinded or found to be in violation of Capella University’s Research
Misconduct Policy or other University policies, Capella may expunge the Work from
publication. Capella may also elect not to distribute the work in a manner supported by other
Capella University policies.
Rights Verification. Author represents and warrants that Author is the copyright holder of
the Work and has obtained all necessary rights to permit Capella to reproduce and distribute
third party materials contained in any part of the Work, including all necessary licenses for
any non-public, third party software necessary to access, display, and run or print the Work.
Author is solely responsible and will indemnify and defend Capella for any third party claims
related to the Work as submitted for publication, including but not limited to claims alleging
the Work violates a third party’s intellectual property rights.
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORK
Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy (3.01.01) holds learners accountable for the
integrity of work they submit, which includes but is not limited to discussion postings,
assignments, comprehensive exams, and the dissertation or capstone project.
Established in the Policy are the expectations for original work, rationale for the policy,
definition of terms that pertain to academic honesty and original work, and disciplinary
131

consequences of academic dishonesty. Also stated in the Policy is the expectation that learners
will follow APA rules for citing another person’s ideas or works.
The following standards for original work and definition of plagiarism are discussed in the
Policy:
Learners are expected to be the sole authors of their work and to acknowledge the
authorship of others’ work through proper citation and reference. Use of another person’s
ideas, including another learner’s, without proper reference or citation constitutes
plagiarism and academic dishonesty and is prohibited conduct. (p. 1)
Plagiarism is one example of academic dishonesty. Plagiarism is presenting someone
else’s ideas or work as your own. Plagiarism also includes copying verbatim or
rephrasing ideas without properly acknowledging the source by author, date, and
publication medium. (p. 2)
Capella University’s Research Misconduct Policy (3.03.06) holds learners accountable for research
integrity. What constitutes research misconduct is discussed in the Policy:
Research misconduct includes but is not limited to falsification, fabrication, plagiarism,
misappropriation, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly
accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reviewing
research, or in reporting research results. (p. 1)
Learners failing to abide by these policies are subject to consequences, including but not limited to
dismissal or revocation of the degree.
Acknowledgments:
I have read, understand and agree to this Capella Publishing Agreement, including all rights and
restrictions included within the publishing option chosen by me as indicated above.
I have read, understood, and abided by Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy (3.01.01)
and Research Misconduct Policy (3.03.06), including Policy Statements, Rationale, and
Definitions.
I attest that this dissertation or capstone project is my own work. Where I have used the ideas or
words of others, I have paraphrased, summarized, or used direct quotes following the guidelines
set forth in the APA Publication Manual.
(Print Name)
REQUIRED Author's signature Date
132