M a r i s a d e l C a m p oM a r y E . Ya k i m o w s k i U n i v e r s i t y o f C o n n e c ti c u t , N e a g S c h o o l o f E d u c a ti o n

A LOOK THROUGH THE EYES OF PRE-SERVICE EDUCATORS AND IN-SERVICE

EDUCATORS ON TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

American Educational Research AssociationAnnual MeetingVancouver, B.C.April 15, 2012 Office of Assessment

OVERVIEW

PurposeReview of Literature

MethodologyResults

Implications of Results Future Avenues

PURPOSE

To examine the presence of positive affective characteristics for working with ELL students across and within three groups of educators

More specifically, to examine the presence of educators’ perceived knowledge, self efficacy and attitudes about inclusion as related to ELLs across pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, pre-service administrators; and to investigate how their development may be related to several factors within each group (i.e., non-English proficiency, field placement, school setting, # ELL’s taught)

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Changing Demographics• Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008; NCELA, 2007; NCES,

2010

Preparation of Mainstream Teachers• Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005; Reeves, 2006;

Yakimowski et al., 2011

Achievement Gap and NCLB • Fry, 2008; USDOE, 2002; NAEP, 2009

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1986) Beliefs (attitudes) are critical to the decisions people make

Ex) Teacher beliefs about language development (Byrnes, Kiger, and Manning, 1997; Clair, 1995; Karathanos, 2009; Kelly, 1988) and degree to which they implement research-based strategies to support L1 in classroom (August & Shanahan, 2006; Goldenberg, 2008)

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1986) Beliefs (attitudes) are critical to the decisions people make

• Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1986) Belief in one’s own ability to perform particular activities successfully or effectively

• Teaching Self-Efficacy (TSE)• Job satisfaction and burnout (Ware & Kitsantas, 2007)• Achievement and motivation (Caprara, Barbarelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006)• Teaching ELL students (Karabenick, Clemens, and Noda ; Paneque &

Barbetta )

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

There is a need to develop an understanding of factors that influence the development of positive affective characteristics in educators who work with ELLs.

This study examines the presence of perceived knowledge, attitudes, and self efficacy across 3 groups of educators, and investigates how their presence may be related to multiple factors within each group.

METHODOLOGY: SUBJECTS

Pre-service teachers• Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s (IB/M) program at the University of

Connecticut’s Neag School of Education

In-service teachers• Teachers partnering with IB/M students for clinical experiences

Pre-service administrators• University of Connecticut Administrator Preparation Program (UCAPP), Neag

School of Education

Respondents –292 • 122 Pre-service teachers• 143 In-service teachers• 27 Pre-service administrators

METHODS: INSTRUMENTATION

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Self-Efficacy toward ELLs (KASELL)

• 19 items rated on a 5 point Likert scale• Developed by Durgonoglo & Hughes (2010), modeled on

previous survey of general teacher efficacy (Darling-Hammond, Chung, and Frelow, 2002).

• Reliability/Validity • Durgonoglo & Hughes’ (2010) revealed four factors:

Perceived preparation (α=0.81) Self-efficacy (α=0.83) Attitudes toward ELLs in the classroom (α=0.79) Attitudes toward ELL parents (α=0.68)

METHODS: RESEARCH QS

Are there differences among the groups (pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, and pre-service administrators) with respect to their KASELL (global or factor)

scores?

METHODS: RESEARCH QS

Within each group…

Are there differences between those proficient in a non-English

language and those not proficient with respect to the KASELL global

and factor scores?

METHODS: RESEARCH QS

Within pre-service teachers…

Are there differences among Juniors, Seniors, and/or 5th year students with

respect to the KASELL global and factor scores?

METHODS: RESEARCH QS

Within in-service teachers…

Do teachers working in distinct settings (urban, suburban, or rural) and/or teaching varying

numbers of ELL students (0, 1-6, 7 or more) show differences with respect to their KASELL global

and factor scores?

METHODS: RESEARCH QS

Among pre-service administrators…

Are there differences between administrator candidates in various field placements

(elementary, secondary) show differences with respect to their KASELL global and factor

scores?

METHODS: ANALYSES

Overall Descriptive Statistics Respondent background

Factor Scores in the affective domain Perceived preparation Self-efficacy Attitudes toward ELLs in the classroom Attitudes toward ELL parents

METHODS: ANALYSES

ANOVA (All Groups) We wish to determine if the 3 groups differ with respect to their global

KASELL scores, and to find whether educators with proficiency in a language other than English score significantly higher than those without

IV’s:1. 3 groups – pre-service and in-service teachers, and pre-service

administrators2. Participants’ self-rating of proficiency in a language other than English

DV:Global KASELL score as an aggregate of all 4

factor means

METHODS: ANALYSES

MANOVA (All Groups) Do the 3 groups of educators’ scores significantly differ in the affective area of:

knowledge? self efficacy? attitudes towards classroom inclusion? attitudes towards ELL parents?

Do scores of those with other language proficiencies differ from those without in any of these four areas?

IVs:1. 3 groups – pre-service and in-service teachers, and pre-service

administrators2. Participants’ self-rating of proficiency in a language other than English

DVs: (4) KASELL score in each of the four factors

METHODS: ANALYSESPre-service teachers

IV’s: 1) proficiency in a non- English language2) year in pre-service program (Jr, Sr, 5th year)

Two-Way ANOVAD.V.: Global KASELL Score

Two-Way MANOVAD.V.’s: KASELL score in each of the four factors

1) Knowledge (perceived)2) Self-efficacy3) Attitude toward inclusion of ELLs in classroom4) Attitude toward parents of ELL students

METHODS: ANALYSES

In-service teachers

IV’s: 1) proficiency in a non- English language2) Number of ELL’s taught in the classroom (0, 1-6, 7 or more)3) School setting (urban, suburban, rural)

Three-Way ANOVAD.V.: Global KASELL Score

Three-Way MANOVAD.V.’s: KASELL score in each of the four factors

METHODS: ANALYSES

Pre-service administrators

IV’s: 1) proficiency in a non- English language2) Field placement (elementary, secondary)

Two-Way ANOVAD.V.: Global KASELL Score

Two-Way MANOVAD.V.’s: KASELL score in each of the four factors

Overall Pre-Service

In-Service

Affective Factors M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

Knowledge 3.58(.89)

3.36(.63)

3.67(.96)

Self-efficacy 3.57(.74)

3.38(.60)

3.65(.77)

Attitude Toward ELLs -Classroom 3.84(1.01)

3.82(.91)

3.85(1.05)

Attitude Toward Parents 3.65 (.90)

3.69(.95)

3.65(.89)

Total 3.61 (.69)

3.45(.49)

3.67(.74)

RESULTS

RESULTS: Background Characteristics

In-Service

N %

Gender: Female 115 80.4Race/Ethnicity

White 117 81.8Hispanic/Latino 12 8.4

Can Speak another Language 68 47.5School Setting

Rural 24 17.0Suburban 54 38.3Urban 63 44.7

In-Service

Grade Level Taught N %K-6 68 48.27-12 73 51.8

Number of ELL Students in Class 0 28 19.9 1-3 41 29.1 4-6 32 22.7 7 or more 40 28.4

RESULTS: Background Characteristics

Factor 1--Knowledge Overall

Pre-Servic

e

In-Servic

eI am prepared to tailor instructional and other services to the needs to ELL students.

3.36 3.29 3.61

I possess a clear understanding of the language demands of the content area that I will teach.

3.81 3.68 4.05

I am knowledgeable of teaching strategies and instructional practices for ELL students that are developmentally appropriate.

3.25 3.00 3.48

I am knowledgeable of alternate ways of giving feedback. 3.71 3.71 3.84

I am knowledgeable of teaching practices that are attuned to students’ language proficiencies and cognitive levels.

3.43 3.22 3.72

I am knowledgeable of teaching practices that are culturally supportive and relevant.

3.62 3.29 3.90

ANOVA RESULTS f (All groups)

Effect SS Df MS F

Group 7.987 2 3.993 10.013Non-English Proficiency 2.455 1 2.455 6.157Gender* .404 1 .404 1.013

Race/Ethnicity*

1.202 1 1.202 3.015

Reject Ho

Significant Effect for Group (F= 10.013; p<.01)

Significant Effect for Non-English Language Proficiency (F= 6.157; p<.05)

Global KASELL scores of pre-service administrators and in-service teachers were significantly higher than those of pre-service teachers

Global scores of those proficient in another language were significantly higher than those not proficient

MANOVA RESULTS f (All groups)

SourceDependent Variable SS DF MS F

NEProf F1 – knowledge 4.876 1 4.876 6.876

F2 – self-efficacy 3.094 1 3.094 6.508

F3 .004 1 .004 .005

F4 .097 1 .097 .127

Group F1 – knowledge 18.537 2 9.269 13.071

F2 – self-efficacy 6.501 2 3.250 6.838

F3 1.862 2 .931 1.013

F4 1.409 2 .705 .923

For “non-English proficiency”, and for “Group”, significant effects are found in factors 1 & 2 only, perceived knowledge and self-efficacy

p< .01

p<.05

p< .01

p<.01

Source

Dependent Variable SS DF MS F

Gender Knowledge .368 1 .368 .520

Self efficacy .036 1 .036 .076

Attitudes toward ELLs - classroom 6.243 1 6.243 6.792

Attitudes- ELL parents .722 1 .722 .946

Gender effects for Factor 3: Attitudes towards ELLs in the regular classroom (F= 6.792; p=.01)

MANOVA RESULTS f (All groups)

RESULTS: Additional Findings

Among pre-service teachers Year in the program yielded no significant effect in global scores or factor scores

Among in-service teachers Factor 3, “attitudes toward inclusion of ELLs in the classroom” significant

differences found by the number of ELLs the in the classroom Teachers reporting 1 – 6 ELLs: most favorable attitudes towards inclusion. Teachers with no ELLs: lowest average score on factor 3.

Factor 2, “self-efficacy” higher in those reporting proficiency in another language

Among pre-service administrators Factor 3 Pre-service administrators at the elementary level reported more

positive attitudes towards inclusion than those in other placements

IMPLICATIONS of RESULTS Pre-service teachers lower in KASELL than other groups, specifically in “perceived knowledge” and

“self-efficacy”. Possible variation due to greater levels of experience, or past success working with ELLs Teacher education programs can explore ways to develop candidates’ self-efficacy with ELLs while

professional identities are early in the process of formation. Proficiency in language other than English related to knowledge and self-efficacy to work with ELLs.

Given evidence indicating ELLs benefit when L1 is supported (e.g., August & Shanahan, 2006) teacher education might seek to recruit more bilingual teachers

Curricula might explicitly target and develop this competency (native-language support) in candidates who are not bilingual, providing multiple opportunities for practice through coursework and clinic experiences

• Number of ELLs taught appeared related to attitudes toward inclusion; those without ELLs in the class had the least positive attitudes Teacher education programs can work to ensure that candidates gain experiences in culturally and

linguistically diverse settings, where ELL students are receiving quality instruction Female respondents more positive about inclusion of ELLs in general education classroom

Possibility of response bias Gender may be a factor related to how individuals respond affectively to the challenge of teaching ELLs Benefits of tailoring higher education courses and learning to respond to individual differences

FUTURE AVENUES

Do affective perceptions about teaching ELLs change over students’ time in the teacher education program?

Obtain measures from the same cohort of pre-service teachers at program entry and exit points

What aspects of preparation help to facilitate increases in these affective perceptions?

Examine a sample of pre-service teachers who exhibit the greatest growth in affective domain

How do affective perceptions about teaching ELL students relate to ELL student outcomes?

Use measures of student outcomes to determine if teachers scoring highly in affective perceptions demonstrate positive impacts on student learning

FUTURE AVENUES

Do affective perceptions about teaching ELLs change over students’ time in the teacher education program?

Obtain measures from the same cohort of pre-service teachers at program entry and exit points

What aspects of preparation help to facilitate increases in these affective perceptions?

Examine a sample of pre-service teachers who exhibit the greatest growth in affective domain

How do affective perceptions about teaching ELL students relate to ELL student outcomes?

Use measures of student outcomes to determine if teachers scoring highly in affective perceptions demonstrate positive impacts on student learning

M a r i s a d e l C a m p oM a r y E . Ya k i m o w s k i U n i v e r s i t y o f C o n n e c ti c u t , N e a g S c h o o l o f E d u c a ti o n

A LOOK THROUGH THE EYES OF PRE-SERVICE EDUCATORS AND IN-SERVICE

TEACHERS ON TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

American Educational Research AssociationAnnual MeetingVancouver, B.C.April 15, 2012