Bridging the Gap: Preservice Teachers and Their Knowledge of Working With English Language Learners

Feature Articles

Bridging the Gap: PreserviceTeachers and Their Knowledge

of Working With EnglishLanguage Learners

MARY HUTCHINSONPenn State University

A good deal of attention has been focused on the need to pre-pare teachers to work with the increasing number of Englishlanguage learners (ELLs) in today’s classrooms. Many wouldargue that this preparation should be provided at the preservicelevel so that new teachers are ready to meet the demands of alllearners, but in particular ELLs. However, teacher educationprograms are challenged to incorporate this kind of preparationinto the existing curriculum, which is heavily laden with othercore certification requirements. This study explores the impactof a three-credit foundations course for teaching English lan-guage learners and its corresponding field experience compo-nent of observing ELLs offered as part of the requirements for abaccalaureate degree program in elementary education. Datawas collected from a pre- and post-Language Attitudes of Tea-chers Scale survey (Byrnes & Kiger, 1994) and from the preser-vice teachers’ classroom observation reports. The findings fromthis study show an increase in tolerance and knowledge of ELLsand support for them in the schools. The results present a com-pelling case to integrate these kinds of experiences into existingteacher preparation programs.doi: 10.1002/tesj.51

Immersing teachers in the understanding and practice ofworking with English language learners (ELLs) has recentlyreceived a good deal of attention in the literature (Ballantyne,Sanderman, & Levy, 2008; Godley, Sweetland, Wheeler, Minnici, &Carpenter, 2006; McGraner & Saenz, 2009; Shope, 2006; Working

TESOL Journal 4.1, March 2013 25� 2012 TESOL International Association

Group on ELL Policy, 2009). The reason for this interest is obviousas more and more schools in the United States are faced withgrowing numbers of students whose primary language is notEnglish and who are often limited in their academic proficiency inthis language. According to the National Clearinghouse forEnglish Language Acquisition (NCELA, 2008), between 1989–1990and 2005–2006, ELL enrollment in schools more than doubled. Asthe growth of ELLs in mainstream classrooms continues to rise, allteachers, not just English as a second language (ESL) educators,must be prepared to meet the needs of this distinct population.Professional preparation programs for teachers, in particular, havebeen called upon to help bridge the gap that currently exists inmeeting the academic needs of these diverse learners because “newteachers and teachers in the process of receiving their credentialthrough intern or residency programs are placed disproportionatelyin schools and classrooms with large numbers of ELLs” (WorkingGroup on ELL Policy, 2009, p. 12). The call for change in the way alleducators are prepared to work with all learners, including thosewith limited English proficiency, is loud and clear.

Indeed, the report by the Working Group on ELL Policy (2009)focuses on the ways in which the American Recovery andReinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus package could “moreeffectively address the needs of a large, growing, and criticallyunderserved population of the nation’s children: English languagelearners” (p. 1). Although the ARRA was designed to stimulateeconomic recovery as well as “improve the educational outcomesof all children” (p. 1), the Working Group on ELL Policy calls forthese stimulus funds to be centered on ELLs, “the least educatedportion of the school-age population” (p. 4). The Working Groupoutlines seven specific reasons for focusing on these learners:

1. rapid growth in the ELL population2. inadequate attention to the unique needs and resources ELLs bring to school3. substantial and continuing achievement gap between ELLs and non-ELLs4. inadequate progress in Title 15. disproportionate representation in special education and a need for better

tracking of progress6. need for robust research to strengthen practice7. negative consequences for failing to address these students’ needs (pp. 1–4)

26 TESOL Journal

Although the Working Group on ELL Policy (2009) focuses onspecific recommendations for addressing these problems, one areathat could make a substantial difference in the overall quality ofeducation for ELLs is having educators well versed in knowledgeand skills for working with these learners. Unfortunately, “manyteachers are not equipped with adequate knowledge of ELLs andwhat constitutes effective instruction for this population ofstudents” (Cartiera, 2006, p. 27). Ballantyne et al. (2008), althoughacknowledging the “rapid” increase in ELLs in U.S. classrooms,state that “teacher education and professional development hasnot yet caught up with the demographic shift” (p. 10). TheWorking Group on ELL Policy also discovered an “enormousvariability in what counts as sufficient preparation to take on thechallenge of teaching ELL[s]” (p. 13).

The impact of this lack of preparation is felt by everyone—teachers, administrators, and parents—but particularly by theELLs who often exhibit a lack of academic progress. And theseELLs are not primarily students who are arriving in public schoolsfrom other countries; a majority of them were born in the UnitedStates and are in some cases second- and third-generation,suggesting “that many children of natives who were LEP [limitedEnglish proficient] when they began school remain LEP throughsecondary school” (Capps et al., 2005, pp. 17–18). This lack ofimprovement among LEP students is notable. Findings from theNational Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2009)published in The Nation’s Report Card cite a “significant difference”between the number of non-ELLs and the number of ELLs at theeighth-grade level who were performing below basic proficiencylevels in reading: 74% in 2009 compared to 70% in 2007. Theaverage reading score for fourth-grade ELLs was higher in 2009than in 1998, but not significantly different from the score in 2007(NAEP, 2009). There is a similar trend in math and science.Overall, according to an annual report on state education policiesand outcomes, “nationally one-quarter of ELLs were deemed notmaking progress” (Editors, Education Week, 2009, p. 7).

The expansion of the number of ELLs in schools and the lackof academic progress and achievement among this populationplaces increasing demands on schools to support and nurture their

Preservice Teachers and ELLs 27

educational growth. Batt (2008) found that one of the greatestchallenges affecting the education of ELLs was the qualifications ofthe mainstream teachers who worked with them. In the study, ESLeducators, who worked closely with these teachers, “perceivedthat not all educators who work with ELLs in their schools werequalified to do work with linguistic minority students . . . [andmany] indicated that their colleagues lacked an understanding ofdiversity or multicultural education” (p. 40).

Shope (2006), in a review of teacher training, ELLs, and the NoChild Left Behind Act (NCLB), states that what is needed inschools are “thoroughly trained” educators: “Academicachievement is vital to the lives of all students, no matter theircultural or linguistic backgrounds. . . . They need teachers welltrained in the specific needs of language acquisition and strategiesfor active learning” (p. 23). Although NCLB is often cited as theimpetus for having sufficiently prepared teachers, this legislationdoes not require teachers of ELLs to be certified in ESL, nor dothey have “to meet the ‘highly qualified’ requirements under thefederal law” (Honawar, 2009, p. 28). Although there is movementto address this situation and to prepare all teachers to work withELLs, “only three states—Arizona, Florida, and New York—havelaws requiring that all teachers receive training in working withEnglish-learners” (Honawar, 2009, p. 28). And although there hasbeen some progress to develop curriculum in teacher programsthat would prepare educators for working with ELLs, “the effortsare at best spotty” (p. 28).

A CURRICULUM FOR CHANGEIt is obvious that what is essential is a shift in the way we preparepreservice teachers for the realities and complexities of diverseclassrooms “in order to close the achievement gap betweenlinguistic minority students and their native English speakingpeers” (Ballantyne et al., 2008, p. 10). Otherwise, the cycle ofunpreparedness will continue, and the schools and theiradministrators will be “left with the costly and logistically difficultrecourse of providing professional development to overcomedeficiency in skills needs by inservice educators to help ELLssucceed academically” (Batt, 2008, p. 41). The challenge is to

28 TESOL Journal

provide this kind of extensive education and training in apreservice curriculum that is already heavily laden with corecertification requirements. Nevertheless, it is obvious that thisrestructuring must take place. At the very least, this preparationneeds to provide critical knowledge and skills, but it should alsoprovide a “dialogue between professionals in schools and inteacher education programs [as] a necessary first step towardnarrowing the gap between the skill set that teacher educationcurrently imparts to teachers and the skills educators need intoday’s schools” (Batt, 2008, p. 41). Gonzalez and Darling-Hammond (2000), in an article on preparing teachers to workeffectively with LEP students, acknowledge that what is needed isan innovative method for preparing teachers:

New approaches to teacher education are based on the beliefthat English language learners’ access to challenging contentcan be enhanced through teaching strategies that provide multi-ple pathways to the understanding of language and content.Because students must use language to acquire academic con-tent in mainstream classes, second language teaching must beintegrated with the social, cultural, and political contexts of lan-guage use. (para. 1)

In 2009, the National Comprehensive Center for TeacherQuality issued a paper that established six core competenciesnecessary for preparing preservice teachers:

• sociocultural and political foundations for teaching ELLs

• foundations in second language acquisition

• knowledge for teaching academic content

• effective instructional practices

• assessment and accommodation practices

• professional engagement and collaboration (McGraner & Saenz, 2009, p. 5)

In order to prepare preservice teachers for this reality, theunderlying assumptions that they bring with them, such as “Iprobably will not be working with ELLs” or “The ESL specialistwill be responsible for these learners,” need to be addressed (seeGriego Jones, 2002). This awakening begins with their ownengagement in the schools and communities that are dealing withsignificant numbers of ELLs and their direct participation inworking with these learners as well as the teachers who support


them. As Brown (2008) states, “Teachers’ relationships with theirstudents define literacy and determine the types of activities thatoccur in the classrooms of our K–12 schools. Therefore, pre-serviceteachers’ attitudes about linguistic diversity are vitally important(p. 3).

Researchers believe that improving the educational outcomesfor children, and in particular ELLs, will “contribute to thenation’s long-term health by building the human capital necessaryfor continued growth and democratic participation” (WorkingGroup on ELL Policy, 2009, p. 1). It therefore becomes imperativethat teacher education programs prepare preservice teachers byproviding the kinds of knowledge and experiences that will allowthem to confront the feelings and assumptions they hold aboutELLs and to develop effective teaching strategies so that they feelconfident in working in today’s multicultural, multilingualclassrooms.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDYRecently passed legislation in Pennsylvania now requires that allteacher preparations programs include three credits or 90 hours inthe curriculum for addressing the competencies and skills neededto equip teachers to assist ELLs (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,2012). This case study sought to explore the impact of a three-credit foundations course for teaching ELLs offered as part of therequirements for a baccalaureate degree program in elementaryeducation. The preservice teachers in the program have beeninvolved in the schools in some capacity (observing, tutoring)prior to enrolling in the course, but the majority of them have hadlimited exposure to working with ELLs.

The foundations course is designed to give preservice teachersa critical understanding of basic concepts and principles in secondlanguage acquisition and teaching by

• introducing second language acquisition theories;

• presenting an overview of the basics of curriculum design, teaching meth-odology, and assessment;

• identifying various strategies for supporting language acquisition (listening,speaking, reading, writing, and grammar skills) in different stages ofdevelopment;

30 TESOL Journal

• inquiring about and analyzing learning and ways to adapt classroominstruction to maximize learning; and

• providing a variety of opportunities to understand the process of first andsecond language acquisition and literacy development for ELLs by engagingwith them and ESL support teachers in the schools.

As part of the course requirements, preservice teachers spend3 days observing ESL support classrooms over a 10-week period,collect data from this observation, and write a research paperbased on this experience. In line with the core competenciespromoted by the National Comprehensive Center for TeacherQuality (McGraner & Saenz, 2009), preservice teachers are exposedto all six areas in this course. What follows is an examination ofthe impact of this course on preservice teachers through their ownresponses and reflections. In particular, two research questionswere explored:

1. How did the preservice teachers’ attitudes toward ELLs in general andtoward working with ELLs evolve through their participation in this course?

2. How did preservice teachers’ knowledge of working with these studentsevolve through their participation in this course?

METHODOLOGY

ParticipantsThis research study focused on junior-level preservice teachersenrolled in the foundations course in teaching ELLs. The course isa requirement for the baccalaureate degree in elementaryeducation, which provides K–6 certification, and studentsnormally take this course prior to their student teachingexperience in their senior year. The site of the degree program is asmall regional campus of a large research university; the campusitself is located in a large metropolitan area and encompassesrural, suburban, and urban school districts.

The 25 preservice teachers in the study were predominatelyfemale (n = 20; 80%) and a mix of traditional age (18–22 years old;n = 16; 64%) and nontraditional age (older than 23 years of age;n = 9; 36%). One fifth of the preservice teachers (n = 5; 20%) werefrom minority backgrounds.


Research InstrumentsTo effectively and systematically investigate the impact of thecourse on the preservice teachers, data were gathered from thefollowing sources:

• Pre- and postcourse surveys. The Language Attitude of Teachers Scale(LATS) was given before and after the course to determine preservice teach-ers’ attitudes toward linguistic diversity and ELLs. According to Byrnes andKiger (1994), the researchers who developed LATS, “language learning isfacilitated when teachers have positive attitudes about language diversityand have an interest in cultural sharing” (p. 227). The survey consists of 13statements with a Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree);“the higher the scale score, the less tolerant the subject was about linguisticdiversity” (p. 228). Validity for the instrument was established “through thestraightforward content of the scale’s items” (p. 228), which were developedfrom a rich array of resources, including interviews with teachers, a reviewof research literature about language attitudes of both parents and teachersas well as “English-only movement literature,” and “attitude measures fromthe race and ethnicity literature” (p. 228). Reliability for this instrument wasestablished in the authors’ original study, which included “tests of internalconsistency among items [the alpha reliability coefficient was .81] and test-retest analyses [the correlation coefficient was .72]” (p. 229). Using a princi-pal components analysis, three sets of factor loadings were determined:Language Politics (1, 3, 7, and 12), LEP Intolerance (6, 8, 10, 11, and 13), andLanguage Support (2, 4, 5, and 9).

• Classroom observation data. Preservice teachers conducted classroomobservations of ELLs in elementary and secondary schools and presentedthese findings in a research paper at the end of the course. Classroom obser-vations “provide indications of current practice or reliable samples of dis-trict practice . . . to raise questions about current practice and the conditionsunder which it occurs” (Annenberg Institute for School Reform, 2004, p. 1).The preservice teachers were trained to conduct observations as part of theirfield service experiences in the program. For this particular assignment,they were in ESL support classrooms several times over a 10-week period.

At the beginning of the course, the preservice teachers weregiven the LATS to gather baseline data. During the semester, theykept notes during their visits to the classrooms and presentedthese findings in a research paper. The LATS was given to themagain at the end of the course. This diverse and varied datacollection provided a rich source of information from which toglean the preservice teachers’ initial attitudes toward andassumptions about working with ELLs as well as their growing

32 TESOL Journal

awareness and understanding of the importance of supportingthese learners in their future classrooms.

Data AnalysisThe pre- and post-LATS data from the preservice teachers wascompared using a one-sample t-test to determine criticalsignificant differences for each of the statements. This comparisonhelped to determine the participants’ change in attitudes aboutlinguistic diversity and working with ELLs from the beginning ofthe course until the end.

Qualitative analysis was used to examine the preserviceteachers’ classroom observation data. These reflective writingswere examined through the lens of the research questions andwere organized to identify statements related to the three coreareas of the LATS survey (Language Politics, LEP Intolerance, andLanguage Support).

PRINCIPAL FINDINGSThe preservice teachers were asked to complete the LATS at thebeginning and end of the course. The results from the survey wereused to determine their growth in each of the three categoriesestablished by Byrnes and Kiger (1994): Language Politics, LEPIntolerance, and Language Support. The data from the survey andclassroom observations will be examined under these threeheadings.

Language PoliticsThere has been a long and contentious debate over the best way toeducate ELLs, and these discussions do not take place in isolatedclassrooms and schools. They are intertwined with the politics andsociocultural issues in the environment. One example of thisinterconnection is bilingual education. Although a number ofresearch studies support the value of bilingual education over theyears (e.g., Cummins, 2000; Krashen, 1996; Slavin, Madden,Calderon, Chamberlain, & Hennessy, 2010), these kinds of supportprograms for ELLs have been curtailed or eliminated in manyschools because of the political climate surrounding issues ofimmigration and assimilation (for an overview of this history, see


Purcell, 2002). California Proposition 227, a statewide ballotinitiative that required “all children be taught English by beingtaught in English,” which in essence “outlawed bilingualeducation in California” (Purcell, 2002, p. 2), was instituted in1998, and Arizona followed with Proposition 203 in 2000. Thecontroversy continues as organizations such as English First andothers work diligently to establish programs that “eliminate costlyand ineffective multilingual policies” (English First, 2009, para. 1).

As Leek (2000) notes, “different approaches will be espoused,and political and demographic realities will drive differingphilosophies and opinions” (p. 3). Teachers need to be aware ofthis reality because “as members of the communities they live in,teachers cannot help but be influenced by dominant societalattitudes” (Walker, Shafer, & Iiams, 2004, p. 130). The onus foraddressing these issues in many ways falls on teacher preparationprograms that “will be required to prepare future teachers tounderstand the issues and work for the success of students withdiverse linguistic and cultural orientation” (Leek, 2000, p. 3), sothat they do not “internalize dominant societal messages [and]bring them directly into their schools and classrooms” (Walker etal., 2004, p. 130). A good place to begin is to help preserviceteachers become cognizant of their own views on the issues andthe assumptions they hold around language politics.

LATS survey data. The Language Politics part of LATSmeasured the preservice teachers’ beliefs about speaking Englishand requiring it in public settings (Table 1). There were fourspecific LATS statements related to this theme:

1. To be considered American, one should speak English 3. Par-ents of non- or limited-English-proficient students should becounseled to speak English with their children whenever possi-ble. 7. Local and state governments should require that all gov-ernment business (including voting) be conducted only inEnglish. 12. English should be the official language of the Uni-ted States.

The preservice teachers were asked to respond to thesestatements on a 5-point Likert scale of (1) strongly disagree (SD), (2)disagree (D), (3) uncertain (U), (4) agree (A), and (5) strongly agree(SA). “The higher the scale score, the less tolerant the subject was

34 TESOL Journal

TABLE1.

Lan

guag

eAttitudeofTeach

ersScale

Survey

Responses:Lan

guag

ePolitics

Factor:Lan

guag

ePolitics

Precoursesu

rvey

(N=25)

Postcoursesu

rvey

(N=25)

Statemen

t:SD

DU

ASA

MEAN

SD

DU

ASA

MEAN

pvalue

1.Tobeconsidered

American

,onesh

ould

speak

English

.2

65

112

3.12

27

49

33.16

.839

3.Paren

tsofnon-orlimited

-English

-proficien

tstuden

tssh

ould

becounseledto

speakEnglish

withtheirch

ildrenwhen

ever

possible.

11

413

63.88

01

514

53.92

.879

7.Localan

dstategovernmen

tssh

ould

requirethat

allgovernmen

tbusiness(includingvoting)be

conducted

only

inEnglish

.

012

66

12.84

17

78

23.12

.147

12.English

should

betheofficial

languag

eof

theUS.

02

313

74.00

01

516

33.84

.212


about linguistic diversity” (Byrnes & Kiger, 1994, p. 228). The pre-and postcourse data were then compared using a one-samplet-test, which revealed no significant differences at the .01 criticalalpha level. However, three statements (1, 3, and 7) had a higheroverall mean from the pretest to the posttest.

When looking at the individual scores for statement 1 (To beconsidered American, one should speak English), 8 of the 25preservice teachers (32%) scored this statement higher in theposttest, which indicates a move toward general agreement withthis statement. In contrast, 6 preservice teachers (24%) had adecrease in their scores from the pretest to the posttest, indicatinga trend toward disagreement. As a group, however, there wasshift in the responses from the beginning of the course until theend. At the beginning, 9 of the 25 preservice teachers (36%) agreedthat one should speak English to be considered an American; bythe end of the course, almost one half of the preservice teachers(n = 12; 48%) agreed with this statement.

Statement 3 (Parents of non- or limited-English-proficientstudents should be counseled to speak English with theirchildren whenever possible) also had a higher overall mean scorefrom the pretest to the posttest. Almost one third of thepreservice teachers (n = 8; 32%) had a higher mean in theposttest compared with the pretest, which indicates a trendtoward agreement with the statement. In contrast, a little morethan one third of the preservice teachers (n = 9; 36%) had lowermean scores from the pretext to the posttest, but the majority ofthis trend was from a position of strongly agree to agree, or fromagree to uncertain.

Statement 7 (Local and state governments should requirethat all government business [including voting] be conductedonly in English) also had a higher overall mean score in theposttest. Of the 25 preservice teachers, more than one third(n = 9; 36%) exhibited an increase in the trend towardagreement with this statement. As a group, however, there wasonly a slight shift in the responses from the beginning of thecourse until the end. At the beginning, 9 preservice teachers(36%) agreed that government business should be conducted in

36 TESOL Journal

English; by the end of the course, 10 (40%) agreed with thisstatement.

Overall, the survey data from the Language Politics categoryreveal a slight increase in agreement about speaking English andrequiring it in public settings as measured by the overall meanscores, but there was no statistically significant difference amongthe individual scores.

Classroom observation data. As part of the foundationscourse, the preservice teachers spent 3 days over the course of10 weeks observing ESL support classrooms and collecting dataabout various aspects of teaching and learning. At the end of thecourse, they submitted a research paper about this experience andwhat they learned through the observation process. At thebeginning of the course, almost all of the preservice teachersindicated that they were not aware of how ELLs were identified,assessed, and supported. (One preservice teacher was familiarwith the process because she had been an ELL herself.)

Many of the preservice teachers were in ESL supportclassrooms that were somewhat homogeneous, and thepredominant native language of the ELLs was Spanish. In theseclassrooms, many of the ESL support teachers spoke Spanish aswell and often used it to scaffold instructions and assignmentsthat were written or spoken in English. As part of thefoundations course, we discussed the ongoing debate aboutbilingual education and both sides of the issue of whether to usea student’s native language to assist his or her Englishdevelopment. More often than not, the preservice teachers feltthat it was advantageous to have a teacher who could speak thenative language of the students, and the ESL support teachersfelt the same way, even though some of the districts had anEnglish-only policy. When one of the preservice teachers askedabout this policy, she was told that the teachers try to uphold itas much as possible, but one of the observed ESL teachers toldher, “Sometimes, it’s just easier to use Spanish. . . . There aresome words that you just can’t draw or act out. Like, how am Isupposed to draw a picture to show them what the word ‘guess’means?”


On the other hand, there were preservice teachers whoexpressed concern about the use of the ELLs’ native languagebecoming a crutch. One preservice teacher lamented how one ELL“still uses a translator,” which she believed interfered with thestudent’s ability and interest in communicating with others.Another preservice teacher stated that he felt ELLs were notimproving their English when they depend on first languagesupport:

There are many similarities among languages that help with theacquisition of a second language and [the teacher] made sure tocompare [the ELLs’] native language and English pronunciationoften. The problem with this was the student became too com-fortable and started going off track. Not only that, but the stu-dent also began to rely on the pronunciation of her nativetongue too much. . . . The faster the student can learn [English],the sooner academic language will be able to improve.

Some preservice teachers also expressed the concern that“when these students go home some of their parents only speakSpanish.” They felt that this was a disadvantage to the ELLsbecause they were not having English reinforced at home.

The data from the classroom observations reveal that themajority of preservice teachers were exposed to ESL support inwhich native language instruction was used to scaffold learning,and many of them commented on the benefits of this support inclassrooms where there was only one native language present.However, several of them expressed concern that the use of nativelanguage may actually be hindering the ELLs’ acquisition ofEnglish.

LEP IntoleranceWalker et al. (2004) state that “societal attitudes about Englishlanguage learners and the educational programs that serve themhave become increasingly negative in the US over the past decade”(p. 131). Preservice teachers are not sheltered from these attitudes.Research supports the notion that “teachers, like their students,have prior learning experiences and bring different conceptual andsocial resources that are influenced by their cultural heritages tothe learning experience” (Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008, p. 340).

38 TESOL Journal

Therefore, they can sometimes bring unexamined attitudes aboutELLs with them into the classroom “that in turn result in inferioreducational services” (Walker et al., 2004, p. 135).

LATS survey data. The LEP Intolerance part of the LATSsurvey measured the preservice teachers’ beliefs about howEnglish should be acquired and their attitudes toward ELLs in theschools (Table 2). There were five specific statements related tothis theme:

6. The rapid learning of English should be a priority for non-English-proficient or limited-English-proficient students even ifit means they lose the ability to speak their native language.8. Having a non- or limited-English-proficient student in theclassroom is detrimental to the learning of the other students.(p = .001) 10. Most non- and limited-English-proficient childrenare not motivated to learn English. 11. At school, the learning ofthe English language by non- or limited-English-proficientchildren should take precedence over learning subject matter.13. Non- and limited-English-proficient students often useunjustified claims of discrimination as an excuse for not doingwell in school. (p = .05)

The preservice teachers responded to these statements usingthe same 5-point Likert scale. All four statements had lower meanscores from the pretest to the posttest, indicating an increasedtolerance overall for this area. The one-sample t-test revealedsignificant differences for statements 8 and 13.

The overall means scores in Statement 8 (Having a non- orlimited-English-proficient student in the classroom is detrimentalto the learning of the other students) exhibited a shift away fromuncertainty at the beginning of the course to a strongerdisagreement with the statement. Almost one third of thepreservice teachers (n = 8; 32%) at the beginning of the courseeither agreed with or were uncertain about this statement. By theend of the course, only 8% (n = 2) expressed uncertainty; theremainder (n = 23; 92%) disagreed or strongly disagreed. The one-sample t-test revealed significant differences at the .01 critical areafor this statement.

The overall mean scores for statement 13 (Non- and limited-English-proficient students often use unjustified claims of


TABLE2.

Lan

guag

eAttitudeofTeach

ersScale

Survey

Responses:LEPTolerance

Factor:LEPIntolerance

Precoursesu

rvey

(N=25)

Postcoursesu

rvey

(N=25)

Statemen

t:SD

DU

ASA

MEAN

SD

DU

ASA

MEAN

pvalue

6.Therapid

learningofEnglish

should

be

apriority

fornon-orlimited

-English

-proficien

tstuden

tsev

enifitmeans

they

lose

theab

ilityto

speaktheirnative

languag

e.

015

82

02.48

115

63

02.44

.746

8.Hav

inganon-orlimited

-English

-proficien

tstuden

tin

theclassroom

isdetrimen

talto

the

learningoftheother

studen

ts.

314

62

02.28

815

20

01.76

.001

10.Most

non-an

dlimited

-English

-proficien

tch

ildrenarenotmotivated

tolearnEnglish

.2

138

02

2.48

318

12

12.20

.069

11.Atschool,thelearningoftheEnglish

languag

ebynon-orlimited

-English

-proficien

tch

ildrensh

ould

takepreceden

ceover

learningsu

bject

matter.

110

77

02.80

212

83

02.48

.187

13.Non-an

dlimited

-English

-proficien

tstuden

tsoften

use

unjustified

claimsofdiscrim

ination

asan

excu

sefornotdoingwellin

school.

04

145

23.20

013

64

22.80

.038

40 TESOL Journal

discrimination as an excuse for not doing well in school) exhibiteda similar shift. At the beginning of the course, only 16% (n = 4) ofthe preservice teachers disagreed with this statement; more thanhalf (n = 14; 56%) were uncertain. By the end of the course, only24% (n = 6) were uncertain; the majority (n = 13; 52%) disagreedthat ELLs used discrimination as an excuse for not doing well inschool. The one-sample t-test revealed significant differences at the.05 level for this statement.

Overall, the data from the LEP Intolerance category reveal anincreased tolerance in the preservice teachers’ beliefs about havingELLs in the classroom and that ELLs do not use unjustified claimsof discrimination as an excuse for not doing well in school.

Classroom observation data. The preservice teachers’experience in ESL classrooms was informative, because many ofthem had known little about how ELLs were identified, supported,or assessed. As one preservice teacher stated, “The experiencedemystified the ESL classroom for me and was an eye-openingview into what teachers deal with on a daily basis.” Severalpreservice teachers expressed that they not only grew inknowledge and understanding of how to work with ELLs in orderto help them learn, but also grew personally from the experiencebecause they had to confront some of the assumptions they heldabout these students.

I do believe that I grew as a person from this experiencebecause I was honestly biased about a lot of stuff regardingEnglish language learners when I first began my studies. I havelearned that these learners are people who are just as motivatedas anyone to learn.

Some of the preservice teachers connected what they saw in theESL support classroom to the foundations course content, inparticular the need for differentiated instruction, oral languagedevelopment, and alternative assessment. They observed a varietyof instructional methods and strategies for contextualizinginstruction and scaffolding academic content so that it iscomprehensible to the ELLs:

Initially when I thought about learning a second language, Ithought about learning French in high school. I remember the


basic phrases and vocabulary but I really do not understand thelanguage. Being able to observe in a classroom where studentswere learning English as a second language really opened myeyes to how teaching a second language should be done. Itmade me aware of how important regular assessment is andhow critical it is for students to really comprehend what theyare reading, hearing, saying, and writing.

A few of the preservice teachers expressed apprehension aboutsome of the curriculum materials that were used in the ESLclassroom. Two schools in an inner-city school district wereobserved by four of the preservice teachers. The ESL educators atboth locations were piloting a new reading program that theyimplemented 2 months into the new school year. As onepreservice teacher stated, “The ESL teacher didn’t have any specialphilosophy or approach to teaching ELLs—she just basicallytaught what the series required her to do.” However, this was anunusual case, because most of the preservice teachers reportedthat the ESL teachers were free to determine what materials theywould use in the classroom. The surprising thing for many of thepreservice teachers was how little connection there was to themainstream classroom curriculum and how some of the ESLteachers “did not talk with classroom teachers unless it wasnecessary.”

In addition, the preservice teachers noticed that the ESLclassroom was often an oasis for the ELLs when they were pulledfrom their mainstream classroom settings. Although this pull-outprocess had the potential to create a sense of isolation for theELLs, several of the preservice teachers commented on it in apositive way. As one stated, “The ESL teacher provides a verywelcoming environment for her students, and her students knowthat if they make a mistake, she will help them to fix it.” The ideaof the ESL support teacher as a nurturing, accepting individual tothe ELLs was prevalent in all of these observations. The words safeand friendly were used often to describe the interaction in the ESLclassrooms as well as the interactions between the students andteachers. In some cases, preservice teachers expressed empathy forthe difficulty these students faced not only in school, but in theirpersonal lives as well:

42 TESOL Journal

They were under pressure inside and outside of school. Oneyoung lady was explaining that she babysits for her mother, heraunt, and her best friend every night 5 p.m. until 2 a.m., andthen goes to school exhausted every day. Some had full-timejobs, no homes, and lived in poverty. Some explained that it issometimes embarrassing when they have to translate at the gro-cery stores, doctor appointments, or at the school for theirguardian.

Despite these conditions, many of the preservice teacherscommented on the need to treat these students like any otherstudents. As one preservice teacher asserted, “ELLs, like alllearners, need to be challenged. Teachers cannot expect ELLs tomake progress if they set low standards for them.”

Language SupportAs stated earlier, many teachers are not prepared to deal with thelinguistic diversity evident in today’s classrooms (Batt, 2008).“Teachers who have not received specialized training inlinguistics are like other members of their community and oftenhave misunderstandings about linguistic diversity” (Leek, 2000,p. 22). In addition, many teachers do not understand the arduousprocess of learning another language and many are notknowledgeable about second language acquisition theory thatwould help them support ELLs and their literacy development.As Leek (2000) states, “Examining pre-service teachers’ attitudesconcerning linguistic diversity will illuminate the challenges,opportunities, and constraints of preparing future teachers toaddress student literacy development, language studies,Languages Other than English (LOTE) learning, and thedevelopment of cultural understanding” (p. 8). This not only hasthe “potential to enlighten teacher education” by “strengthen[ing]the link between language studies and teacher educationcurriculum,” but it also “could show the need to increaseawareness of language and literacy needs of all children,especially linguistic minorities” (p. 9).

LATS survey data. The Language Support area of the LATSmeasured how the preservice teachers felt about how ELLs can


and should be supported in schools (Table 3). There were fourspecific statements related to this theme:

2. I would support the government spending additional moneyto provide better programs for linguistic minority students inthe public schools. (p = .05) 4. It is important that people in theUS learn a language in addition to English. 5. It is unreasonableto expect a regular classroom to teach a child who does notspeak English. (p = .006) 9. Regular classroom teachers shouldbe required to receive preservice or in-service training to be pre-pared to meet the needs of linguistic minorities. (p = .05)

The preservice teachers responded to these statements usingthe same 5-point Likert scale. Three of the statements (4, 5, and 9)had lower mean scores from the pretest to the posttest, indicatingan increased agreement with these constructs; the remainingstatement (2) had a higher mean score, indicating an increaseddisagreement. The one-sample t-test revealed significantdifferences at the .01 critical area for Statement 5 and at the .05level for Statements 2 and 9.

The overall mean scores for Statement 5 exhibited an increasein the number of preservice teachers who disagreed or stronglydisagreed that it is unreasonable to expect a regular classroom toteach ELLs: 56% (n = 14) disagreed at the beginning of thecourse, and 64% (n = 16) disagreed at the end. The overall meanscores for Statement 2 exhibited a slight increase in agreementthat the preservice teachers would support the governmentspending more money on ELLs. However, despite this subtleshift, no preservice teachers disagreed with this statement. Theoverall mean scores for Statement 9 were lower from the pretestto the posttest, exhibiting more uncertainty about whetherclassroom teachers should be required to receive training to beprepared to meet the needs of ELLs. Whereas 32% (n = 8) hadstrongly agreed with this statement at the beginning of thecourse, only 24% (n = 6) felt that way at the end. Nevertheless,more than three quarters of the preservice teachers (n = 19; 76%)agreed or strongly agreed that teachers should be required toparticipate in this training.

Overall, the data from the Language Support category revealan increased tolerance in how the preservice teachers felt about

44 TESOL Journal

TABLE3.

Lan

guag

eAttitudeofTeach

ersScale

Survey

Responses:Lan

guag

eSupport

Factor:Lan

guag

eSupport

Precoursesu

rvey

(N=25)

Postcoursesu

rvey

(N=25)

Statemen

t:SD

DU

ASA

MEAN

SD

DU

ASA

MEAN

pvalue

2.Iwould

support

thegovernmen

tsp

ending

additional

money

toprovidebetterprograms

forlinguistic-minority

studen

tsin

the

publicschools.

01

515

43.88

00

314

84.20

.057

4.Itis

importan

tthat

peo

ple

intheUSlearna

languag

ein

additionto

English

.0

43

153

3.68

03

713

23.56

.502

5.Itis

unreasonable

toexpectaregularclassroom

toteachach

ildwhodoes

notsp

eakEnglish

.1

97

80

2.88

610

63

02.24

.006

9.Reg

ularclassroom

teacherssh

ould

berequired

toreceivepreserviceorin-servicetrainingto

be

prepared

tomeettheneedsoflinguistic

minorities.

00

216

74.2

00

613

64.00

.056


how ELLs can and should be supported in schools. Inparticular, they believed that the government should providemore monetary support for better programs for ELLs, thatpeople in the United States should learn another language inaddition to English, and that mainstream classroom teachersshould be required to receive training to prepare them to meetthe needs of ELLs.

Classroom observations. One of the more widespreadcomments about this experience had to do with the nature of theESL program. Preservice teachers observed that the majority ofELLs are pulled out of their mainstream classroom and brought toan ESL support classroom for instruction in English. Many of thepreservice teachers were surprised at the lack of facilities andprogram materials for these learners. As one preservice teacherstated, “[The ESL teacher] expressed her negative feelings abouther room on more than one occasion. I cannot blame her because Iam almost certain that her room used to be a utility closet.” Otherpreservice teachers also commented on how many of the ESLteachers seemed to get by on what they were given and make thebest of what little they had.

What bothered me about this classroom was that [the teacher]does not have an abundance of materials for her students. [She]has many books but that seems to be it; she doesn’t have a sto-ryboard, picture cutouts or any visual props to help the stu-dents. . . . I found out that since there are so few ESL students,she does not have much of any funding to help support them.

In addition, many of the preservice teachers remarked on howmuch they came to respect the ESL teachers and the job they do tohelp ELLs learn English. The preservice teachers also started torealize what they themselves would need to do once they hadtheir own classrooms, as one of them shared:

As a teacher, I must be ready to change lesson plans if all thestudents are not on the same level, take notice of my students’strengths and weaknesses in order to work on what needs to beimproved, and be able to incorporate learning from many dif-ferent aspects. I must be flexible to my students’ capabilities,not the other way around.

46 TESOL Journal

The sense of responsibility was palpable for many of thepreservice teachers, as they came to the realization that supportinglearners who are not proficient in English can be a daunting jobfor a mainstream classroom teacher. But with that realization wasthe overwhelming sense that it could be done, as one preserviceteacher stated:

I also realize that it is easy to become overwhelmed with theresponsibility of 20 to 30 students, state standards, and districtstandards. To add ESL students and possibly children with dis-abilities, the responsibility can be insurmountable, but it is sovery important to keep in mind that even in the smallest tasks achild can learn so much more than we thought.

This belief that all students can succeed was expressed bymany of the preservice teachers who felt empowered by theexperience to be the kind of teacher that encouraged andsupported every student in their classroom. As one preserviceteacher stated, “Their success may be my reward.”

DISCUSSIONTwo critical issues emerged from the literature review in thisstudy. First is the need to provide the kinds of experiences inteacher preparation programs that will allow preservice teachers toconfront and understand their attitudes and assumptions aboutworking with culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Manyof these preservice teachers had limited exposure to working withthese students but developed opinions about them nonetheless.These underlying attitudes, particularly if they are negative, canimpact the way they work with diverse learners and support themin their academic progress.

Second is the need to provide mainstream classroom teacherswith adequate preparation for working with ELLs, includingknowledge about second language acquisition and strategies fordifferentiating instruction. Although there has been someprogress in this area, there are still a significant number ofteachers who have had little background and experience inworking with ELLs. Teacher education programs are being calledupon to help bridge this preparation gap, which is significant


given the fact that many new teachers are placed in multicultural,multilingual classrooms.

This study sought to examine the impact of a foundationscourse in teaching ELLs and its corresponding field serviceexperience on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward these learnersand their knowledge and understanding of working with them inthe future. The findings from the pre- and post-LATS survey andthe data from classroom observations suggest that the course hada positive impact and illustrates the shifts in attitudes among thispreservice teacher population.

Preservice Teachers’ AttitudesAs Byrnes and Kiger (1994) state, “to the extent that teachers’attitudes can facilitate or be a barrier to learning English for LEPchildren, it is important to understand the structure of teachers’attitudes to work toward constructive change” (p. 231). Accordingto Griego Jones (2002), the perceptions and attitudes that teachersbring to the classroom can impact teaching and learning, and thisimpact is particularly important to ELLs:

Therefore, in order to begin preparing teachers for the linguisticdiversity found in today’s schools, it is important to know whatpre-service teachers believe about goals for the schooling of chil-dren from non-English backgrounds, what they believe about theprocess of learning a second language, and how they feel aboutlanguages other than English being used for instruction. (p. 11)

Through the foundations course, the preservice teachers hadthe opportunity to confront their own assumptions about workingwith ELLs and what they, as future teachers, will need to do tosupport the personal and academic development of these learners.

One of the positive significant findings from the study is thepreservice teachers’ shift in attitude about ELLs generally and inthe ways they can and should be supported in schools. At thebeginning of the course, the preservice teachers held morenegative beliefs about ELLs, particularly that these students maynegatively impact the other students in the classroom and thatthey would use discrimination as an excuse to explain their lack ofprogress. Gay (2010) states that these “negative beliefs” may

48 TESOL Journal

impact teachers’ ability to “relate to them positively in personaland instructional interactions” and that this “incongruity may helpexplain why generation after generation of reforms targetingethnically and culturally diverse students have not madesignificant and sustained improvements in their achievementtrends” (p. 150).

The negative assumptions and attitudes of the preserviceteachers in this study could have been carried with them into theclassroom had they not been confronted and addressed. Gay(2010) states that “teacher education programs need to do a muchbetter job than they currently are in helping their studentsexamine the causes and character of the different attitudes andbeliefs they hold toward specific ethnic groups and cultures”(p. 144). As a result of this course and field experience, the preserviceteachers developed an appreciation and understanding of the needto support ELLs and the challenges inherent in this process.

Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge BaseThe foundations course in teaching ELLs introduced the preserviceteachers to the basic theoretical underpinnings and instructionalstrategies educators need in order to support the language andliteracy development of LEP students. Through the course, thepreservice teachers showed considerable gains in knowledge andunderstanding about English language learning and ways tosupport the academic growth of LEP students; however, the fieldexperience involving classroom observations of ESL teachers shedlight on how the needs of these children are addressed in schools.

The preservice teachers in this study were exposed to ESLeducators dedicated to working with culturally and linguisticallydiverse learners. It was this exposure that introduced them to anumber of different strategies for scaffolding learning for ELLsand for developing and implementing appropriate assessments todetermine progress. Knowledge of how to differentiate instruction“enhances learning experience for all students” but it is “even morecritical with the increasing population of students with diversecultural and linguistic backgrounds” (Buteau & True, 2009, p. 23).

In addition, the experience provided the preservice teacherswith the opportunity to understand what goes on in ESL support


classrooms and the need to have mainstream classroom teachersand ESL teachers work together to support ELLs. This knowledgeis crucial, because often ELLs (as was the case in this study) arepulled from their mainstream classrooms for periods at a time toconcentrate on learning English. As Genesee, Lindholm-Leary,Saunders, and Christian (2006) state, educators need to be sensitiveto the “diversity of backgrounds, resources, and challenges [ELLs]bring to the learning environment” (p. 227); by working directlywith ESL teachers, mainstream classroom teachers can develop thesensitivity they need to support the personal and academic growthof these learners.

RecommendationsOverall, the study provides insight into what teacher preparationprograms need to do to create the conditions for this kind oflearning and experience for their preservice teachers. Thispreparation is crucial, because many of these future teachers arethe ones placed disproportionately in classrooms with largenumbers of ELLs (Working Group on ELL Policy, 2009). First andforemost, teacher preparation programs need to provideopportunities for preservice teachers to work directly with ELLsand the teachers who support them. Merely providing a course orknowledge about how to work with ELLs is not enough.Preservice teachers need hands-on experiences and opportunitiesto engage in best practices for supporting these diverse learners.For programs that are challenged to add these experiences into thecurrent teacher preparation curriculum, this field work can beincorporated into existing methodology courses.

Second, preservice teachers need opportunities for identifyingtheir underlying assumptions for working with diverse learners.Although the LATS survey provides one mechanism fordetermining these initial attitudes, the curriculum needs to beshaped and developed in such a way that preservice teachers canreflect on and discuss their thoughts and feelings about teachingand supporting ELLs. Byrnes, Kiger, and Manning (1997) state thatthis preparation should “focus on attitudes necessary tounderstand and appreciate language development and culturaldiversity” (p. 642) so that preservice teachers, such as the ones in

50 TESOL Journal

this study, come to recognize the challenge of learning anotherlanguage and the strengths and benefits that ELLs bring to theclassroom.

CONCLUSIONThe time to develop the understanding and knowledge forworking with ELLs is during teacher preparation programs.McGraner and Saenz (2009) call for preservice teachers “to engagetrained ELL professionals and actively seek opportunities forcollaboration and the deepening of knowledge for teachingacademic content to ELL[s]” (p. 11). Brown (2008), in her study ofpreservice teachers’ attitudes toward language diversity, states “acloser look at pre-service teachers’ attitudes about linguisticdiversity has the potential to illuminate the direction and focus ofteacher education programs” (p. 1). This study provides evidencethat this formal training is necessary and important if teachereducation programs are to prepare preservice teachers “tounderstand the issues and work for the success of students withdiverse linguistic and cultural orientations” (Leek, 2000, p. 3).

Although teacher education programs are already laden with anumber of core certification requirements, the need to preparepreservice teachers for working with diverse learners should be apriority. At the very least, this preparation should address theunderlying assumptions and attitudes preservice teachers haveabout ELLs, as well as knowledge and understanding of how tosupport these learners in mainstream classrooms. The data fromthis study may be one more step toward putting a spotlight on theneed to provide future educators with the kinds of experiencesthat will help them become effective and competent teachers intoday’s multicultural, multilingual classroom environments.

THE AUTHORMary Hutchinson is an associate professor in ESL education atPennsylvania State University, Lehigh Valley Campus, who haspublished and presented as an outreach scholar. Her researchexplores issues surrounding sociocultural diversity and civicengagement. She is currently the faculty advisor for the minor incivic and community engagement.


REFERENCESAnnenberg Institute for School Reform. (2004). Protocol for

classroom observations. Retrieved from http://www.annenberginstitute.org/pdf/class_obs.pdf

Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & Levy, J. (2008). EducatingEnglish language learners: Building teacher capacity, roundtablereport. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for EnglishLanguage Acquisition. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/EducatingELLsBuildingTeacherCapacityVol1.pdf

Batt, E. G. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of ELL education:Potential solutions to overcome the greatest challenges.Multicultural Education, 15(3), 39–43.

Brown, L. L. (2008). Understanding pre-service teachers’ attitudestoward language diversity: Developing a holistic English asa second language curriculum that meets the needs of thepre-service teacher and the learner (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). Robert Morris University, Pittsburgh, PA.

Buteau, G., & True, M. (2009). Differentiating instructionalstrategies to support English language learners. New EnglandReading Association Journal, 44(2), 23–25.

Byrnes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (1994). Language attitudes of teachersscale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 227–231.doi:10.1177/0013164494054001029

Byrnes, D. A., Kiger, G., & Manning, M. L. (1997). Teachers’attitudes about language diversity. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 13, 637–644. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(97)80006-6

Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S.(2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration andthe No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/Publications/311230.html

Cartiera, M. R. (2006). Addressing the literacy underachievementof adolescent English language learners: A call for teacherpreparation and proficiency reform. New England ReadingAssociation Journal, 42(1), 26–34.

52 TESOL Journal

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (2012). Chapter 49-2 final formregulations. Retrieved from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/chapter_49/8627/chapter_49-2_final_form_regulations/506814

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual childrenin the crossfire. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Editors, EducationWeek. (2009). 50-State report card: Amid nationalpolitical turnover and financial worries, states remain on the frontline in the push for school improvement. EducationWeek, 28(17), 7.

English First. (2011). About English First. Retrieved from http://englishfirst.org/about

Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for culturaldiversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 143–152. doi:10.1177/0022487109347320

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. M., & Christian,D. (2006). Conclusions and future directions. In F. Genesee,K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.),Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence(pp. 223–235). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Godley, A. J., Sweetland, J., Wheeler, R. S., Minnici, A., &Carpenter, B. D. (2006). Preparing teachers for dialectallydiverse classrooms. Educational Researcher, 35(30), 30–37.doi:10.3102/0013189X035008030

Gonzalez, J. M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Programs thatprepare teachers to work effectively with students learning English.Center for Applied Linguistics Digest. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/0009programs.html

Griego Jones, T. (2002, February). Preparing all teachers forlinguistic diversity in K–12 schools. Paper presented at themeeting of the American Association of Colleges for TeacherEducation, New York, NY. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED463264)

Honawar, V. (2009). Teacher gap: Training gets boost: Faced with ashortage of teachers specializing in English as a secondlanguage, states and districts move to grow their own.Education Week, 28(17), 28–29.

Krashen, S. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education.Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates.


Leek, P. A. (2000). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward languagediversity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University ofNorth Texas: Denton, Texas.

McGraner, K. L., & Saenz, L. (2009). Preparing teachers of Englishlanguage learners. Washington, DC: National ComprehensiveCenter for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.tqsource.org/pdfs/PreparingTeachersofELLsprelim ed.pdf

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2009). Thenation’s report card: Grade 4 national results. Washington, DC:National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2009/nat_g4.asp?subtab_id=Tab_7&tab_id=tab1#tabsContainer

National Clearinghouse for English LanguageAcquisition (NCELA).(2008). HowHas the English language learner (ELL) populationchanged in recent years? Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/rcd/BE021773/How_Has_The_Limited_English.pdf

Purcell, J. (2002). The foundations and current impact ofCalifornia’s Proposition 227. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED465302)

Shope, S. (2006). Teacher training, English learners and NCLB. TheHispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 17(1), 21–23.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N., Calderon, M., Chamberlain, A., &Hennessy, M. (2010). Reading and language outcomes of a five-yearrandomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Baltimore,MD: Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved from http://www.bestevidence.org/word/bilingual_education_Apr_22_2010.pdf

Timperley, H., & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing teacherprofessional learning: An alternative policy approach tostrengthening valued outcomes for diverse learners. Review ofResearch in Education, 32, 328–369. doi:10.3102/0091732X07308968

Walker, A., Shafer, J., & Iiams, M. (2004). “Not in my classroom”:Teacher attitudes towards English language learners. NABEJournal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 130–160.

Working Group on ELL Policy. (2009). The American Recoveryand Reinvestment Act: Recommendations for addressing theneeds of English language learners. Retrieved from http://ellpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ELL-Stimulus-Recommendations.pdf

54 TESOL Journal

Documents

Bridging the Gap: Preservice Teachers and Their Knowledge of Working With English Language Learners