Fall 2022, Volume 15, Issue 1
Features:
Links to Practice Regular Sections Advocacy Book Reviews
Sunshine State TESOL Journal
FLORIDA
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.3 p.2
Florida Sunshine State TESOL Journal Summer, 2019
Manuscript Guidelines The manuscript should appeal to the instructional, administrative, or research interests of educators at various levels, such as adult education, K-12 issues, or teacher education issues. • The manuscript should be substantive and present new ideas or new applications of information related to current trends in the field. • The manuscript should be well written, clearly organized, and carefully proofed. • A complete reference list should be supplied at the end of the manuscript, and the entire manuscript should be formatted according to guidelines in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th Ed. (2001) or later. • Manuscripts should generally be no longer than 15-20 double-spaced pages. • An abstract of 150 words or less should accompany each manuscript. • A biographical statement of 50 words or less should be included for each author. Information should include current job or title, institution, degrees held, professional experience, and any other relevant information. • Please include a cover letter with the name, postal and e-mail address, and phone number of the first author (or other contact person) clearly noted. • Manuscripts must be submitted in electronic format as an e-mail attachment. Manuscripts must be submitted in Microsoft Word). Camera-ready figures and tables are requested. • Manuscripts are accepted throughout the year and sent out for review. Reviews may take up to three months. Revisions are usually expected within one month (30 days) after receiving the initial review. Book Review Guidelines • Materials reviewed must have been published within the last three years. • Reviews should be a maximum of three pages. (double spaced). • Each review must provide complete bibliographic information, a description of the book/material, the audience for whom it is designed and how well it accomplshes its purpose. • A cover letter should provide the author's name, email address, telephone number and a brief (25 word) bibliographic statement. • Reviews should be sent as an email attachment.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.2 p.2
Manuscripts Manuscripts may be submitted via the Sunshine State TESOL www site: https://sunshinestatetesol. wildapricot.org/page-1075471 or send to Tony Erben at terben@ut.edu Manuscript Reviewer Interested in being a manuscript reviewer? Please contact Keya Mukherjee at keya.mukherjee@saintleo.edu and detail your area(s) of expertise, a brief bibliography, and if relevant, select publications from the past five years. Advertising Interested in advertising? Submit an inquiry through the Sunshine State TESOL www site or email Keya Mukherjee at keya.mukherjee@saintleo.edu Affiliation Florida Sunshine State TESOL Association is an affiliate of TESOL International Association. Sunshine State TESOL 4801 Riverside Dr. Yankeetown, FL, 34496
Front cover image: Petitioners are sworn in as new citizens in front of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights during a naturalization ceremony at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., June 18, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson) https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/06/18/first-lady-welcomes-50-new-americans-national-archives
Editor Tony Erben, Ph.D. University of Tampa Assistant-Editor Keya Mukherjee, Ph.D. Saint Leo University Copy-Editor Cristiane Vicentini, Ph.d. University of Miami Editorial Review Board Laura Ballard, Ph.D. Florida State University Maria R. Coady, Ph.D. University of Florida Katya Goussakova, Ph.D. Seminole State College Xuan Jiang, Ph.D. St. Thomas University Jennifer Killam Broward College Michelle Kroskey University of Central Florida John I. Liontas, Ph.D. University of South Florida Terri Mossgrove WIDA Jaddy Brigitte Nielsen Nino, Ph.D. South Grade Elementary School Robyn Percy-Socha, Ph.D. Full Sail University Cheryl A. Shamon, Ph.D. Saint Leo University Caroline Webb Broward College Ally Zhou, Ph.D. Florida Gulf Coast University
About Sunshine State TESOL Journal The Sunshine State TESOL Journal is a refereed journal published annually by the Sunshine State Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. The main purpose of the Journal is to provide a forum for TESOL professionals to share ideas and research on second language teaching and learning. The Journal welcomes submissions of manuscripts based on research projects, classroom practices, conference presentations, and other professional activities of substance and interest to the general membership. A double-blind review process is used in which submitted manuscripts are distributed by the editor to two-three reviewers with expertise in the areas addressed in each manuscript. Written comments by reviewers and a recommendation on acceptance are returned to the editor, who then communicates the comments and decision on acceptance to the authors.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.5 p.2
Editor's Commentary It always fills my professional heart with pride to read how vibrant our ESOL professional community is here in Florida. Next year, SSTESOL Press will publish our second publication, "Surviving the Pandemic; Inspirational Stories of Resilience, Passion, Growth and Success of the Florida ESOL Teaching Community". This edited book highlghts dozens of vignettes of how our ESOL community worked through the ups and downs of covid. The stories are uplifting and refreshing written by teachers, ELLs, parents and administrators. If you want to be revitalized, this will be a book for you. Keep those submissions coming! We have a wonderful editorial board and each reviewer provides great feedback to each author. If your submission is not immediately accepted, read through the feedback and make those revisions with an eye to resubmit at a latter date. If you are interested in becoming an editorial reviewer for the SSTESOL Journal, please send me an email with C.V. at terben@ut.edu. Our SSETESOL members want to read about your research, your practice and/or your work in ESOL! If you have never submitted to a journal, we invite new research, manuscripts that describe classroom practice or thought pieces on advocacy or theory in ESOL. If you are a K-12 ESOL teacher, you probably do things in your classroom that other ESOL teachers across Florida would love to read about or see. Did I write "see"? Since the SSTESOL Journal is an e-publication, you can also send in annotated videos of your classroom practice! The videos don't have to be long. They can describe an activity that works well for you when working with pre-production ELLs, with Elementary ELLs or with adults. If you are unsure, send me an email and let me help you. In this Fall 2022 issue of the SSTESOL Journal we have an array of articles and reviews. The focus of the three research articles are on perceptions of teachers and preservice-teachers. Lugo & Wood investigate educational policy and self-efficacy, Shamon, Carver & Mukherjee look at teachers' views on distance learning and Harrison & Willliams focus on preservice teachers' views on teaching multilingual learners. In our Praxis section, an article by Sousa and Huling provides insights into ELLs in the Science classroom. In addition to articles, the Fall issue of SSTESOL Journal offers Links to Practice from our 2022 annual conference. I hope you enjoy them. We had an acceptance rate of 50%. Sincerely, Tony Erben, Ph.D. SSTESOL Editor
President's Corner In a past issue, my 2018-2020 presidential predecessor Dr. Michelle Ploetz wrote, "As you know reading is more than a passive activity, it’s a dialogue between author/s and reader. We hope that you find insight and inspiration from the words written on these pages and that you are moved to speak, comment, question, challenge, reflect, and respond to the contents herein. An engaged audience helps us realize our goal “to highlight and facilitate vibrant professional dialogue about research- and theory-based practices as well as practice-oriented theorizing and research in Florida.” These words remain true now, as much as ever. Over the past year, Florida has been the center of controversial culture wars and as such, with so much happening in education in Florida, we as a professional community need to remain ever vigilant about how discrimination affects peoples' lives. As public scholars, teachers are in a unique position to advocate for and support ELLs and their families. Our best tools, as it were, is education and to continue to inform ourslves so we can continue to advocate for ourselves and those we serve. I call upon all our members to become more involved in SSTESOL and to join the many chapters that we have throughout Florida. By doing so, you beecome a part of a network of professionals and professional meetings to help you to continue to grow. Encourage your colleagues to join SSTESOL and attend our professional meetings as well! Sending out this issue of the SSTESOL Journal will be my last function as 2022 SSTESOLL President. I happily hand over the baton to my colleague Dr. Andrea Lypka who will take over the reins as 2023 president. I wish her all the best as she works with the Board and the 2024 incoming President Carla Huck in preparing for International TESOL which will have its convention in Tampa, Florida in March 2024. Sunny salutations, Sincerely, Tony Erben, Ph.D. 2017-2018 & 2022 President
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.4
Introduction Educators who teach English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) have been challenged to advocate for resources and supports that promote academic achievement of English language learners (ELLs; Ortiz & Fránquiz 2017; Poteau & Winkle, 2021; Staehr Fenner, 2013). Advocacy for social and linguistic justice for students who speak languages other than English at home is now a required practice in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL; Poteau & Winkle, 2022). TESOL educators are now frequently called to advocate for positive school cultures, appropriate instructional practices, increased parent involvement, family and community supports, and equitable resources (Ortiz & Fránquiz 2017). Despite the recognized importance of advocacy for students who receive ESOL services, the advocacy practices of TESOL educators and their perceived self-efficacy have been relatively understudied. Education policy advocacy is an activity by an individual or group that aims to influence decisions within the education system and includes activities that influence education policy, laws, and budgets by using facts, relationships, the media, and messaging to educate government officials and the public (Beacham & Shambaugh, 2007). Advocacy occurs in classrooms, schools, and across various levels of local, state, and federal government. Four types of advocacy have been identified in the literature: client (or student), cause, legislative, and administrative (Schneider & Lester, 2001). These types of advocacy are subdomains of policy advocacy, or efforts to change policies or practices on behalf of or with specific persons or groups (Ezell, 2001), and embrace different approaches and tactics (Mosely, 2013). For the purpose of the current study, the term advocacy is used interchangeably with policy advocacy as TESOL educators may engage in all four types of advocacy. Addressing complex challenges in TESOL may require targeted advocacy as most education policies are developed at district and state levels (U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], n.d.). Advocacy opportunities exist for pre-service and in-service educators through networks and communities (e.g., Center for Teaching Quality), national and international professional organizations for specific content areas and interests (e.g., TESOL International Association), and teachers’ unions (e.g., Florida Education Association; Cuthbertson, 2014). Understandingperceived issues in education and barriers to advocacy in TESOL is critical to facilitate positive student outcomes and aid with personnel retention efforts. Public schools in the U.S. are currently struggling with severe personnel shortages (American Association for Employment in Education, 2020).This gap in supply and demand, coupled with a high turnover rate attributable to workplace dissatisfaction (Robinson et al., 2019), provides additional justification for the need to study advocacy and self-efficacy in TESOL. Self-Efficacy as an Influencing Factor There are numerous factors that are likely to influence the extent to which TESOL educators engage in advocacy. For the purposes of the current investigation, we focus on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to one’s belief in their ability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific task in a particular context (Bandura, 1977; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Self-efficacy is one of the best-documented attributes of effective teachers (Henson et al., 2001) and is positively related to high-quality teaching practices and student achievement, including significant gains in language and literacy development (e.g., Guo et al., 2010; Guo et al., 2014). Likewise, self-efficacy is a well-established multifaceted construct (Bobbio & Manganelli, 2009) and has strong relations with work-related coping skills (Troesch & Bauer, 2017), job satisfaction (Song & Yang, 2016), and confidence with job-related tasks (Pasupathy & Bogschutz, 2013). Thus, we hypothesize that self-efficacy may influence the extent to which TESOL educators engage in advocacy. Existing Literature on Advocacy in Education There is a dearth of studies investigating educators’ advocacy and self-efficacy in TESOL (e.g., Linville, 2020). However,a small body of research has explored two perspectives of advocacy development for teachers: teacher advocacy (e.g., teacher activism beyond the school) and teacher leadership (e.g., educational leadership within the school; Bradley-Levine, 2018). Few studies (e.g., Bond, 2016; Lyons et al., 2015; Massengale et al., 2014) examined advocacy pedagogies in pre-service training programs and revealed significant positive correlations between advocacy experiences and beliefs. The literature also highlights the importance of professional development opportunities for both new and experienced teachers to provide information about updates in educational policies, laws, and teacher-related responsibilities (Derrington & Anderson, 2020; Hunzicker, 2011). Ultimately, existing research suggests that advocacy experiences increase involvement and improve self-efficacy (e.g., Linville, 2020; Lyons et al., 2015). Barriers to advocacy, like lack of awareness of education policy issues, limited resources and training opportunities, and accessibility to state officials, inhibit engagement in advocacy (Heinowitz et al., 2012). Despite the recognized importance of advocacy related self-efficacy, persistent gaps in training and personnel preparation have been reported (Strassfeld, 2019). Additional research is needed to understand what factors influence advocacy and self-efficacy for TESOL educators in public schools. Research Questions Towards addressing gaps and contributing to the knowledge base of advocacy, the current study aimed to address the following research questions: 1.To what extent do TESOL educators in Florida engage in advocacy? 2.Are there significant differences in self-efficacy or communication preferences with education stakeholders between TESOL educators who differ in advocacy experiences? 3.What are perceived issues in TESOL requiring advocacy and barriers to advocacy for TESOL educators? Methods Data for this study were gathered as part of a larger online survey study of education policy advocacy and self-efficacy distributed widely across educational personnel in the state of Florida. The project was approved by the university human subjects committee (#00002054).Utilizing Qualtrics (Qualtrics, 2020), investigators invited educators currently employed in Florida’s public schools (pre-K to grade 12) to participate in the study. The larger study included 8,809 consented educational personnel, including general educators, coaches, paraprofessionals, and speech-language pathologists. The current study focused on respondents who self-identified as TESOL educators (n= 95).The survey was open and available to participants for a total of three months from March 2021 to June 2021. Participants Participants were recruited using district-level public records requests and an external research data request from the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) to obtain instructional staff emails. A total number of 95 TESOL educators opened the link and began the survey; 72 (76%) completed the survey in its entirety. A precise response rate could not be calculated as some invitations failed to reach intended recipients due to technological barriers.Respondents were determined to be TESOL educators based on their selection of “Other” followed by a TESOL-related open-text entry (e.g., TESOL, ESOL, ELL) when asked to specify their subject area taught in the demographic subsection of the survey. Demographic data for participants are displayed in Table 1. Most participants self-identified as white females with an average age of 46.3 years (SD= 11.5). Participants reported that they had worked in the schools for 16.8 years (SD= 10.9) with an average of 6.5 years (SD= 6.5) taking place in their current position. The majority of participants (78%) held a bachelor’s or master’s degree. Participants reported working primarily with students in the elementary grades (54%) with smaller percentages serving students in middle (19%) or high school (27%). Due to adjustments in instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic, participants were also asked to indicate their primary method of service delivery for the 2020-2021 school year. Many participants provided hybrid instruction (in person and virtual instruction simultaneously; 49%) compared to traditional in-person (38%) or virtual (9%) instruction. Survey Instrument A 75-item survey instrument used in a previous study of advocacy and self-efficacy (Authors & --, 2022) was utilized in the current study to explore the perceptions and practices of education policy advocacy for TESOL educators. Final survey items were informed by empirical reports of influencing factors and challenges to advocacy competence (e.g.,Gartin et al., 2002;Heinowitz et al., 2012) and adopted and modified from existing surveys (e.g., Ratts & Ford, 2010). The survey consisted of the following six subsections: demographic questions, training history, event history, self-identification, stakeholder engagement, and self-efficacy. See Supplemental Materials for full survey. Demographic Questions.Twelve items were included to solicit information about the characteristics of participants. These included questions about biological sex, age, race and ethnicity, highest level of education, certifications, years of practice, years served in current position, current school district, grade levels taught, and primary method of instructional delivery during the 2020-2021 school year. Training History.Six items examined participants’ training history in advocacy. Training in advocacy was defined for participants as any formal or informal learning opportunities related to advocacy in education, such as coursework or professional development. First, participants were asked to indicate if their school and school district provide advocacy training. Participants were then asked if they have participated in advocacy training. Participants who had received training were probed to share where they received advocacy training. Finally, questions regarding how many cumulative advocacy trainings participants had attended were presented with an open-text numeric value entry. Event History.Six items measured participation in advocacy events and activities. Advocacy events and activities were defined for participants as any gatherings related to advocacy in education, such as advocacy workshops, fundraisers, marches, or meetings with state and U.S. representatives. Initially, participants were asked if they participated in advocacy events. Participants who had participated in events were asked where they participated in advocacy events. The number of cumulative advocacy events attended was then measured with an open-text numeric value entry. Two final questions allowed participants to specify the types of events they participated in during the two time periods. Self-Identification.Nine items explored participants’ advocacy identity. Perceived importance and readiness as an advocate in education were measured with two questions: “How do you view your current or potential role as an advocate in education” and “How well-equipped do you feel to be an effective advocate.” Response options were presented on a 1-5 scale for both questions (e.g.,extremely importanttonot at all important;extremely welltonot well at all,respectively). Five items, including three open-ended questions, elicited perceived issues in education and challenges to advocacy engagement. Finally, two items provided lists allowing participants to select prospective advocacy activities and resources of interest to aid in future advocacy efforts. Stakeholder Engagement.Twelve items gauged participants’ engagement and perceptions of support from education stakeholders. For the purpose of this study, the termstakeholderreferred to administrators, policymakers, teachers, parents, and students. Stakeholders were presented on a spectrum based on perceived distance, from the local and district levels to the state and federal levels. Six items asked participants to indicate how likely they were to communicate with education stakeholders when advocating for key issues or topics in education (a= .83). Response options were presented on a 1-5 scale of likeliness. Participants were then asked to rate their perceived sense of support across stakeholder groups on a sliding scale from 0 (e.g., unsupported) to 10 (e.g., highly supported) (a= .86). Self-Efficacy.Thirty items were adopted and modified from theAdvocacy Competencies Self-Assessment (ACSA) Survey(Ratts & Ford, 2010). These items assessed to what extent participants assessed their own competence and effectiveness as an advocate in education using a 1-5 scale (Always, Most of the time, About half the time, Sometimes, Never).Self-efficacy items were representative of six advocacy domains: Stakeholder empowerment, community collaboration, public information, stakeholder advocacy, systems advocacy, and social/political advocacy. Domain scores had a possible range between 5 and 25, and total score had a possible range between 30 and 150, with high scores indicating positive self-perception of advocacy competence and effectiveness. Cronbach’s alpha for the 30 self-efficacy items was .94. Analyses To address the first research question, descriptive statistics were used to describe the extent to which TESOL educators engaged in advocacy, as well as their perceptions and self-efficacy of advocacy. To examine the second research question, a series of independent samplest-tests were conducted to explore potential group differences in self-efficacy, communication preferences, and perceived level of support from education stakeholders between those who have engaged in advocacy and those who have not. For our third research question,we conducted a content and natural-language processing analysis of open-ended responses to identify the major themes inperceived issues in TESOL education and barriers to advocacynominated by respondents. Free-text comments containing participants’ responses were analyzed using Leximancer v4.5, a natural language software tool (Leximancer, 2020). Results Advocacy Engagement.To answer the first research question, we report descriptive statistics of the extent to which TESOL educators engage in advocacy. When asked about the availability of advocacy training at their school, most respondents (77%) did not have access to advocacy training, demonstrated by 38% indicating that no training was offered and 39% responding that they were unaware of training opportunities. Similarly, 73% of respondents reported no offerings or knowledge of training opportunities in their district. Of the 95 respondents, only 27% reported that they had received training in advocacy. For those who had received training, the average number of trainings attended was 3.96 (SD= 3.48). Reported trainings were received at professional development courses (41%) or through self-study (23%). In addition, few respondents (27%) reported that they had participated in an advocacy event. The average number of events attended was 5.84 (SD= 6.49). Signing a petition or open letter to a state or U.S. representative (20%), encouraging others in network to be involved in advocacy (18%), and communicating advocacy messages through social media (13%) were among the most popular advocacy activities reported by respondents. Finally, respondents highlighted educational sessions on specific advocacy topics or strategies, online petitions, and materials to share with colleagues about advocacy topics of interest as potential tools that would help support future advocacy efforts. Next, we examined teachers’ responses to questions of their perceptions of importance, readiness, and self-efficacy of advocacy. When asked how important they viewed their current or potential role as an advocate in education, many respondents (63%) indicated that they viewed their role as “extremely important” or “very important”; 30% of respondents viewed their advocacy role as “moderately” or “slightly important”, and only 7% of respondents reported that their role as an advocate was “not at all important”. When asked how well-equipped they were to be an effective advocate, 31% felt “very well” to “extremely well” equipped; 35% reported being “moderately well” equipped while 34% felt “slightly well” to “not well at all” equipped. Responses related to self-efficacy show moderate perceived competence and effectiveness in the stakeholder advocacy domain (M= 16.92,SD= 4.04). Respondents expressed numerically lower self-efficacy in their ability to build local alliances and collaborate with the community (community collaboration domain;M= 14.72,SD= 4.93) and assist in the identification of barriers to advocacy (stakeholder empowerment domain;M= 14.03,SD= 2.79). Further, respondents perceived themselves to be least efficacious in their ability to assess systems advocacy (systems advocacy domain;M= 13.68,SD= 4.68), engage in legislative advocacy with policymakers (social/political advocacy domain;M= 12.68,SD= 4.56), and communicate information to the media and the public (public information domain;M= 12.59,SD= 3.85). Overall, respondents rated themselves to be moderately efficacious advocates (M= 84.63,SD= 21.31). For specific item and domain level distributions of responses, see Supplemental Materials. To describe responses related to stakeholder engagement, means and standard deviations are reported in Table 2. When advocating for key issues in education, respondents indicated that they were more likely to communicate with fellow teachers, parents, and school administrators than district administrators, state and U.S. representatives, or the Florida Department of Education. Similarly, respondents reported feeling the most supported by stakeholders in their school (M= 6.42,SD= 2.61) compared to those outside of their school (M= 3.91,SD= 2.54; see Figure 1). Group Differences.A series of independent samplest-tests were conducted to explore the impact of participation in advocacy experiences on levels of self-efficacy, likeliness of communication across the education stakeholder spectrum, and perceived level of support from education stakeholders. Participants were divided into two groups according to their advocacy experiences (Group 1: no history of training or event participation; and Group 2: received training OR participated in an event). There was a statistically significant difference in ratings of self-efficacy, as measured by 30 items, for the two groups,t(70) = -2.01,p= .048. The effect size, calculated using Cohen’sd, was .49 indicating a small-medium effect size. The mean self-efficacy score for respondents without advocacy experiences (M= 80.68,SD= 22.83) was significantly lower than respondents with advocacy experiences (M= 90.82,SD= 17.30). There was no significant difference in communication preferences across the stakeholder spectrum between respondents with prior experiences (M= 19.97,SD= 5.33) and those without (M= 20.69,SD= 5.57),t(74) = 0.57,p= .572. Similarly, perceived level of support from education stakeholders appeared numerically higher for respondents with advocacy experiences but did not reach significance,t(73) = -0.19,p= .844. Content and Natural-Language Processing Analysis.As visually represented in Figure 2, comments regarding the most important issues or topics requiring advocacy revealed two overarching themes ofStudentsandEducational Environment.The majority of comments were strongly associated with theStudentstheme and addressed an amalgamation of issues relevant to the success of students and resources required for teachers to improve their efforts in the classroom, e.g., “ESOL students, student-centered learning, teacher pay, ESE [Exceptional Student Education] support and procedures, teacher professionalism and pedagogy, quality instruction” and “Teacher pay and benefits for teachers working more than 20 years, less testing.” Similarly, comments in theEducational Environmenttheme were closely related to comments in theStudentstheme but focused primarily on curricula, e.g., “ESE and ESOL accountability at the district and state levels, quality curriculum for low performers” and “Teaching students about the inequalities different races are facing and promote how we all need to unite with kindness, love, and be understanding towards one another,” and environmental issues, like “COVID safety” and “Mental health” supports. Three overarching themes emerged from comments regarding the most significant barriers to advocacy:Time Constraints, Lack of Knowledge, andFear of Retaliation(see Figure 2).Overall,Time Constraintswere the most significant challenge to advocacy in TESOL. A general lack of advocacy knowledge represented most comments in theLack of Knowledgetheme, e.g., “Lack of knowledge/awareness on how to engage.” Finally, comments in theFear of Retaliationtheme cited a fear of retaliation from administrators at the school and district levels as a substantial or reoccurring hinderance to advocacy engagement, e.g., “Fear of retaliation from administration, implicit biases that make people unaware of the injustices, the idea that that's not my job.” Discussion The current study aimed to investigate education policy advocacy and self-efficacy of TESOL educators and their perceptions of key issues in education and barriers to advocacy. Limited opportunities for advocacy training at the school and district levels were reported. Most respondents viewed their role as an advocate to be important despite low engagement and perceived readiness. When advocating, respondents reported a preference for communicating to stakeholders in their school rather than those outside of their school. Overall, respondents rated themselves to be most efficacious when advocating on behalf of students, parents, and fellow teachers, but least efficacious in sharing information with the public and engaging in legislative advocacy. On average, self-efficacy scores were highest for teachers with advocacy experiences. Lastly, frequently cited issues in TESOL requiring targeted advocacy efforts included lack of resources and supports for ESE and ESOL, a need for increased teacher pay, and reduction in standardized testing. Common barriers to advocacy were time constraints, lack of knowledge, and fear of retaliation. The State of Advocacy in TESOL.The finding that a majority of respondents reported no knowledge of training opportunities at their schools or in their districts substantiates the need for additional avenues of advocacy training. Although there was broad consensus regarding the importance of advocacy, respondents reported low levels of engagement in trainings and events. The fact that most respondents received advocacy training through professional development courses or self-study suggests that training opportunities during pre-service training are not widely available or are underutilized. Given that one-third of respondents reported feeling unprepared to advocate, findings suggest early preparation for the role of advocate may serve as a potential remedy. The current findings also point to the need for more research to identify the frequency, dosage, and type of training that is most impactful for bolstering perceived readiness and self-efficacy. However, as many teachers acknowledged the importance of advocacy, the current findings may provide cursory evidence that supports existing research that highlights the effectiveness of recent efforts by professional organizations to cultivate advocacy competence in students and new professionals (e.g., Bond, 2016). The finding that respondents were more likely to communicate with local stakeholders compared to those at district, state, and federal levels is considered a key finding and substantiates existing evidence in the literature (e.g., Authors & --, 2022; Derrington & Anderson, 2020). This finding may also be indicative of preferred sources of supports (i.e., local level contacts as reliable alliances). On the other hand, these findings may highlight a misalignment in educational values and current communication practices since most policies that affect public school teachers are created at the district and state levels. These communication preferences could also be influenced by a lack of awareness of additional options of support or insufficient availability of resources at the state and national level. The current findings suggest further investigation is needed to identify ways of improving access to advocacy opportunities, resources, and supports, and highlighting causes of disconnect between teachers and advocacy. Due to the descriptive design of this study, causal inferences cannot be derived, but open-ended responses support existing evidence that time constraints, lack of knowledge, and fear of retaliation from administration may be potential causes (e.g., Authors & --, 2022). The Role of Self-Efficacy on Advocacy.Of the six self-efficacy domains, respondents reported low scores in public information, systems advocacy, and social/political advocacy. This finding may be due to a fear of retaliation and perceived low levels of support from education stakeholders at the district, state, and federal levels. Logically, if TESOL educators are fearful of possible backlash from administrative leadership, it makes sense that low levels of self-efficacy related to publicly sharing information or leading potentially partisan or oppositional efforts, may dissuade advocacy engagement. The finding that teachers with advocacy experiences perceived themselves to be more efficacious advocates than those without prior experiences is considered a key finding and is consistent with previous studies reporting a positive relationship between advocacy beliefs and experiences and self-efficacy (e.g., Authors & --, 2022; Massengale et al., 2014). Similarly, these findings reiterate the important, potentially empowering role of training and engagement in events on perceptions of self-efficacy. Although causal relations cannot be ascertained in the current design, the significant group differences found in the study point to the need for further research on the impact of event participation and training on future advocacy practices. Issues in Education and Barriers to Advocacy.Central to this study were findings related to pressing issues in TESOL and barriers to advocacy. Responses affirm that the most significant issues in TESOL are complex and intertwined. The emergent themes suggest more resources and supports are desired by TESOL educators to best serve their students and maintain a high level of instruction. In addition to calls for an increase in pay, resources to mitigate COVID-19 and mental health crises, and a reduction in testing, these issues are consistent with reported factors that contribute to job-related stress (e.g., Bottiani et al., 2019; Gonzalez et al., 2017; Pressley, 2021). Unique to the current study, findings also support existing evidence that illuminate the need for educators’ voices in education policymaking (e.g., Good, 2019). Although previous literature has not examined time constraints on advocacy, the current findings align with empirical reports that time constraints related to high workloads are among the most reported barriers to job-related responsibilities (e.g., Geiger & Pivovarova, 2018). The finding that teachers may avoid advocating due to a fear of retaliation is troubling and requires further investigation. Additional research is needed to determine the extent to which these barriers hinder participation in advocacy activities. It is plausible that innovative tools to improve dissemination of advocacy-related materials (e.g., advocacy alerts) or more efficient modes of professional development delivery (e.g., micro-credentialing) may offer potential or partial solutions to these challenges. Limitations and Future Directions.Findings should be interpreted with caution in light of recognized limitations and constraints considering the design of the current study. Because the larger study was designed to survey educators broadly across the state of Florida, the descriptive demographic questions did not focus extensively on TESOL experiences. Given the limited specificity of data elements regarding TESOL, it cannot be assumed that the current findings would generalize to all TESOL educators. Further, the current study included a relatively small sample size. The length of the survey may have contributed to this limitation. Thus, our findings may not provide a comprehensive picture of the state of advocacy and self-efficacy for TESOL educators in Florida. Finally,the limited range of rating scales should be considered when interpreting findings related to perceived advocacy importance, readiness, and self-efficacy. As advocacy and self-efficacy are multifaceted in nature, there are likely several unmeasured factors that contribute to variability, such as motivation, access to resources, and local policy environments. Collectively, the findings compel the need for more extensive empirical study of the potential effects of professional development and pre-service training on ratings of advocacy readiness and self-efficacy in TESOL. Additionally, our findings point to the need for causal research examining the effects of professional development on self-efficacy and engagement in advocacy by TESOL educators. More specifically, novel forms of professional development dosage and delivery, such as guide-by-your-side coaching or virtual communities of practice, warrant exploration. Although it is beyond the scope of the current design to conclusively identify mechanisms to improve advocacy and self-efficacy, it is plausible that not all educators have sufficient exposure to advocacy training during their pre-service preparation. Further, although not empirically tested, additional training may result in increased appreciation for advocacy, a marked improvement in self-efficacy over time, and a surge in motivation to advocate. The current findings lend support for the need for more empirical research to develop and test innovative approaches to reduce barriers and improve advocacy and self-efficacy in TESOL. References Authors & --, 2022 American Association for Employment in Education. (2020).Educator supply and demand report 2019-20.American Association for Employment in Education. https://aaee.org/sites/default/files/content-files/AAEE%20Report2019_2020.pdf Bandura, A. (1997).Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.New York: W. H. Freeman. Beacham, C. V., & Shambaugh, N. (2007). Advocacy as a problem-based learning (PBL) teaching strategy.International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,19, 315–324. https://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE240.pdf Bobbio, A., & Manganelli, A. M. (2009). Leadership self-efficacy scale: A new multidimensional instrument.TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology,16(1), 3-24. http://www.tpmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/16.1.1.pdf Bond, N. (2016). Preservice teacher leaders learn to advocate legislatively through professional organizations.Journal of Curriculum and Teaching,5(2), 25-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/jct.v5n2p25 Bottiani, J. H., Duran, C. A., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2019). Teacher stress and burnout inurban middle schools: Associations with job demands, resources, and effective classroompractices.Journal of School Psychology,77, 36-51. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.10.002 Bradley-Levine, J. (2018). Advocacy as a practice of critical teacher leadership.International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 9(1), 47–62. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ1182705.pdf Cuthbertson, J. (2014, November 25).How to become a teacher advocate. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-how-to-become-a-teacher-advocate/2014/11 Derrington, M. L. & Anderson, L. S. (2020). Expanding the role of teacher leaders: Professionallearning for policy advocacy.Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(68).https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4850 Dillman, D. (2000).Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method(2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Ezell, M. (2001).Advocacy in the human services.San Francisco, CA: Cengage Learning. Gartin, B. C., Murdick, N. L., Thompson, J. R., & Dyches, T. T. (2002). Issues and challenges facing educators who advocate for students with disabilities.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 3–13. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/23879578 Geiger, T., & Pivovarova, M. (2018). The effects of working conditions on teacher retention.Teachers and Teaching,24(6), 604-625. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1457524 Gonzalez, A., Peters, M. L., Orange, A., & Grigsby, B. (2017). The influence of high-stakes testing on teacher self-efficacy and job-related stress.Cambridge Journal of Education,47(4), 513-531. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1214237 Good, A. G. (2018).Teachers at the table: Voice, agency, and advocacy in educational policymaking. Lanham & London: Rowman & Littlefield. Guo, Y., Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2010). Relations among preschool teachers' self-efficacy, classroom quality, and children's language and literacy gains.Teaching and Teacher Education,26(4), 1094-1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.005 Guo, Y., Dynia, J. M., Pelatti, C. Y., & Justice, L. M. (2014). Self-efficacy of early childhood special education teachers: Links to classroom quality and children's learning for children with language impairment.Teaching and Teacher Education,39, 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.005 Harwood, I. A., Gapp, R., & Stewart, H. (2015). Cross-check for completeness: Exploring a novel use of Leximancer in a grounded theory study.The Qualitative Report,20(7), 1029-1045. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2191 Heinowitz, A. E., Brown, K. R., Langsam, L. C., Arcidiacono, S. J., Baker, P. L., Badaan, N. H., . . . Cash, R. E. (2012). Identifying perceived personal barriers to public policy advocacy within psychology.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43, 372–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029161 Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study of the teacher efficacy scale and related instruments.Educational and Psychological Measurement,61(3), 404-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971284 Hunzicker, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: A checklist.Professional Development in Education,37(2), 177-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2010.523955 Leximancer. (2020). Leximancer. https://www.leximancer.com Linville, H. A. (2020). A closer look at ESOL teacher advocacy: What we do and why.TESOL Journal,11(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.508 Lyons, J. C., Webster, S. R., Friedman, B. L., Schiavoni, S. P., Lit, K. R., & Cash, R. E. (2015). A preliminary study exploring the efficacy of advocacy training.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 46, 409–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pro0000044 Massengale, K. E. C., Childers-McKee, C., & Benavides, A. (2014). Exploration of undergraduate preservice teachers’ experiences learning advocacy: A mixed-methods study.Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,14(3), 75-93.https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v14i3.5071 Mosely, J. (2013). Recognizing new opportunities: Reconceptualizing policy advocacy in everyday organizational practice.Social Work, 58, 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swt020 Ortiz, A. A., & Fránquiz, M. E. (2017). Co-editors’ introduction: The central role of advocacy inensuring excellence in education for English learners,Bilingual ResearchJournal, 40(3), 241-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1361896 Poteau, C. E., & Winkle, C. A. (2021).Advocacy for social and linguistic justice in TESOL: Nurturing inclusivity, equity, and social responsibility in English language teaching. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003202356 Pasupathy, R., & Bogschutz, R. J. (2013). An investigation of graduate speech-language pathology students' SLP clinical self-efficacy.Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders,40, 151-159. https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_40_F_151 Pressley, T. (2021). Factors contributing to teacher burnout during COVID-19.Educational Researcher, 50(5), 325–327. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211004138 Ratts, M. J., & Ford, A. (2010). Advocacy competencies self-assessment survey: A tool for measuring advocacy competence. In M. J. Ratts, R. L. Toporek, & J. A. Lewis (Eds.),ACA advocacy competencies: A social justice framework for counselors(pp. 21-26). American Counseling Association. Robinson, O. P., Bridges, S. A., Rollins, L. H., & Schumacker, R. E. (2019). A study of the relation between special education burnout and job satisfaction.Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,19(4), 295-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12448 Schneider, R. L., & Lester, L. (2001).Social work advocacy: A new framework for action. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole. Song, M., & Yang, N. (2016). Impact on self-efficacy, self-directed learning, clinical competence on satisfaction of clinical practice among nursing students.Advanced Science and Technology Letters,132, 124-129. https://doi.org/10.14257/ASTL.2016.132.22 Staehr Fenner, D. (2013).Advocating for English learners: A guide for educators. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications. Strassfeld, N. M. (2019). Preparing pre-service special education teachers to facilitate parent involvement, knowledge, and advocacy: Considerations for curriculum.Teacher Education and Special Education,42(4), 283-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406418806643 Troesch, L. M., & Bauer, C. E. (2017). Second career teachers: Job satisfaction, job stress, and the role of self-efficacy.Teaching and Teacher Education,67, 389-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.006 Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure.Review of Educational Research,68(2), 202-248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.).The federal role in education.U.S. Department ofEducation. https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.7 p.2
President’s Corner 4 Editor’s Commentary 5 Research Victor Lugo Policy Advocacy in TESOL: Perceptions and Practices of Carla Wood Teachers in Florida 7 Cheryl Shamon Teachers’ Perceptions of ELLs’ Learning in Remote Lynn Carver Digital Environments 17 Keya Mukherjee Jamie Harrison Preservice Teacher Perceptions of Multilingual Learner Training Gwendolyn Williams 25 Praxis Tony De Souza Science and the ELL Milt Huling 35 Links To Practice Georgina Rivera-Singletary Language or Disability? Strategies to Engage Dual-identified Renee Sedlack Students in Classroom 44 Carlo Campodonico The Effects of Self-assessment in Speaking on C1 level Multicultural Rossana Ramírez Students: A Case Study 45 Jane Govoni Opportunities to Engage in Hands-On, Practical Activities Cindy Lovell for TESOL Courses 46 Christine Kassover Yellow Brick Road Tutoring: Qualitative Assessment to Eliminate 47 Affective Barriers
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.6 p.2
Research Education Policy Advocacy in TESOL: Perceptions and Practices of Teachers in Florida Victor A. Lugo and Carla Wood Florida State University ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate education policy advocacy and self-efficacy of TESOL educators in Florida public schools. Using a novel 75-item survey, we solicited advocacy related information from 95 educators. The survey included subsections on advocacy engagement, identity, self-efficacy, and perceived issues and barriers. Results demonstrated relatively low engagement in advocacy and perceived readiness among educators. Self-efficacy was significantly higher for respondents with prior advocacy experiences. Frequently cited issues in TESOL requiring advocacy includedlack of resources and supports for Exceptional Student Education and English for Speakers of Other Languages, teacher pay, and reduction in standardized testing. Common barriers to advocacy were time constraints, lack of knowledge, and fear of retaliation.These findings substantiate the need to identify and implement supports that bolster educators’ engagement in advocacy and enhance the degree to which they perceive themselves to be effective advocates.
Florida Sunshine State TESOL Journal Contents Contents
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.9 p.2
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.8 p.2
focused on respondents who self-identified as TESOL educators (n= 95).The survey was open and available to participants for a total of three months from March 2021 to June 2021. Participants Participants were recruited using district-level public records requests and an external research data request from the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) to obtain instructional staff emails. A total number of 95 TESOL educators opened the link and began the survey; 72 (76%) completed the survey in its entirety. A precise response rate could not be calculated as some invitations failed to reach intended recipients due to technological barriers.Respondents were determined to be TESOL educators based on their selection of “Other” followed by a TESOL-related open-text entry (e.g., TESOL, ESOL, ELL) when asked to specify their subject area taught in the demographic subsection of the survey. Demographic data for participants are displayed in Table 1. Most participants self-identified as white females with an average age of 46.3 years (SD= 11.5). Participants reported that they had worked in the schools for 16.8 years (SD= 10.9) with an average of 6.5 years (SD= 6.5) taking place in their current position. The majority of participants (78%) held a bachelor’s or master’s degree. Participants reported working primarily with students in the elementary grades (54%) with smaller percentages serving students in middle (19%) or high school (27%). Due to adjustments in instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic, participants were also asked to indicate their primary method of service delivery for the 2020-2021 school year. Many participants provided hybrid instruction (in person and virtual instruction simultaneously; 49%) compared to traditional in-person (38%) or virtual (9%) instruction. Survey Instrument A 75-item survey instrument used in a previous study of advocacy and self-efficacy was utilized in the current study to explore the perceptions and practices of education policy advocacy for TESOL educators. Final survey items were informed by empirical reports of influencing factors and challenges to advocacy competence (e.g.,Gartin et al., 2002;Heinowitz et al., 2012) and adopted and modified from existing surveys (e.g., Ratts & Ford, 2010). The survey consisted of the Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample of TESOL Educators(n= 95) Note.Total number of responses for grade levels served exceeds total number of sample participants because many teachers indicated serving multiple grade levels. following six subsections: demographic questions, training history, event history, self-identification, stakeholder engagement, and self-efficacy. See Supplemental Materials for full survey. Demographic Questions. Twelve items were included to solicit information about the characteristics of participants. These included questions about biological sex, age, race and ethnicity, highest level of education, certifications, years of practice, years served in current position, current school district, grade levels taught, and primary method of instructional delivery during the 2020-2021 school year. Training History. Six items examined participants’ training history in advocacy. Training in advocacy was defined for participants as any formal or informal learning opportunities related to advocacy in education, such as coursework or professional development. First, participants were asked to indicate if their school and school district provide advocacy training. Participants were then asked if they have participated in advocacy training. Participants who had received training were probed to share where they received advocacy training. Finally, questions regarding how many cumulative advocacy trainings participants had attended were presented with an open-text numeric value entry. Event History. Six items measured participation in advocacy events and activities. Advocacy events and activities were defined for participants as any gatherings related to advocacy in education, such as advocacy workshops, fundraisers, marches, or meetings with state and U.S. representatives. Initially, participants were asked if they participated in advocacy events. Participants who had participated in events were asked where they participated in advocacy events. The number of cumulative advocacy events attended was then measured with an open-text numeric value entry. Two final questions allowed participants to specify the types of events they participated in during the two time periods. Self-Identification. Nine items explored participants’ advocacy identity. Perceived importance and readiness as an advocate in education were measured with two questions: “How do you view your current or potential role as an advocate in education” and “How well-equipped do you feel to be an effective advocate.” Response options were presented on a 1-5 scale for both questions (e.g.,extremely importanttonot at all important;extremely welltonot well at all,respectively). Five items, including three open-ended questions, elicited perceived issues in education and challenges to advocacy engagement. Finally, two items provided lists allowing participants to select prospective advocacy activities and resources of interest to aid in future advocacy efforts. Stakeholder Engagement. Twelve items gauged participants’ engagement and perceptions of support from education stakeholders. For the purpose of this study, the termstakeholderreferred to administrators, policymakers, teachers, parents, and students. Stakeholders were presented on a spectrum based on perceived distance, from the local and district levels to the state and federal levels. Six items asked participants to indicate how likely they were to communicate with education stakeholders when advocating for key issues or topics in education (a= .83). Response options were presented on a 1-5 scale of likeliness. Participants were then asked to rate their perceived sense of support across stakeholder groups on a sliding scale from 0 (e.g., unsupported) to 10 (e.g., highly supported) (a= .86). Self-Efficacy. Thirty items were adopted and modified from theAdvocacy Competencies Self-Assessment (ACSA) Survey(Ratts & Ford, 2010). These items assessed to what extent participants assessed their own competence and effectiveness as an advocate in education using a 1-5 scale (Always, Most of the time, About half the time, Sometimes, Never).Self-efficacy items were representative of six advocacy domains: Stakeholder empowerment, community collaboration, public information, stakeholder advocacy, systems advocacy, and social/political advocacy. Domain scores had a possible range between 5 and 25, and total score had a possible range between 30 and 150, with high scores indicating positive self-perception of advocacy competence and effectiveness. Cronbach’s alpha for the 30 self-efficacy items was .94. Analyses To address the first research question, descriptive statistics were used to describe the extent to which TESOL educators engaged in advocacy, as well as their perceptions and self-efficacy of advocacy. To examine the second research question, a series of independent samplest-tests were conducted to explore potential group differences in self-efficacy, communication preferences, and perceived level of support from education stakeholders between those who have engaged in advocacy and those who have not. For our third research question,we conducted a content and natural-language processing analysis of open-ended responses to identify the major themes inperceived issues in TESOL education and barriers to advocacynominated by respondents. Free-text comments containing participants’ responses were analyzed using Leximancer v4.5, a natural language software tool (Leximancer, 2020). Results Advocacy Engagement. To answer the first research question, we report descriptive statistics of the extent to which TESOL educators engage in advocacy. When asked about the availability of advocacy training at their school, most respondents (77%) did not have access to advocacy training, demonstrated by 38% indicating that no training was offered and 39% responding that they were unaware of training opportunities. Similarly, 73% of respondents reported no offerings or knowledge of training opportunities in their district. Of the 95 respondents, only 27% reported that they had received training in advocacy. For those who had received training, the average number of trainings attended was 3.96 (SD= 3.48). Reported trainings were received at professional development courses (41%) or through self-study (23%). In addition, few respondents (27%) reported that they had participated in an advocacy event. The average number of events attended was 5.84 (SD= 6.49). Signing a petition or open letter to a state or U.S. representative (20%), encouraging others in network to be involved in advocacy (18%), and communicating advocacy messages through social media (13%) were among the most popular advocacy activities reported by respondents. Finally, respondents highlighted educational sessions on specific advocacy topics or strategies, online petitions, and materials to share with colleagues about advocacy topics of interest as potential tools that would help support future advocacy efforts. Next, we examined teachers’ responses to questions of their perceptions of importance, readiness, and self-efficacy of advocacy. When asked how important they viewed their current or potential role as an advocate in education, many respondents (63%) indicated that they viewed their role as “extremely important” or “very important”; 30% of respondents viewed their advocacy role as “moderately” or “slightly important”, and only 7% of respondents reported that their role as an advocate was “not at all important”. When asked how well-equipped they were to be an effective advocate, 31% felt “very well” to “extremely well” equipped; 35% reported being “moderately well” equipped while 34% felt “slightly well” to “not well at all” equipped. Responses related to self-efficacy show moderate perceived competence and effectiveness in the stakeholder advocacy domain (M= 16.92,SD= 4.04). Respondents expressed numerically lower self-efficacy in their ability to build local alliances and collaborate with the community (community collaboration domain;M= 14.72,SD= 4.93) and assist in the identification of barriers to advocacy (stakeholder empowerment domain;M= 14.03,SD= 2.79). Further, respondents perceived themselves to be least efficacious in their ability to assess systems advocacy (systems advocacy domain;M= 13.68,SD= 4.68), engage in legislative advocacy with policymakers (social/political advocacy domain;M= 12.68,SD= 4.56), and communicate information to the media and the public (public information domain;M= 12.59,SD= 3.85). Overall, respondents rated themselves to be moderately efficacious advocates (M= 84.63,SD= 21.31). For specific item and domain level distributions of responses, see Supplemental Materials. Table 2 Distribution of Responses on Items Related to Stakeholder Engagement Figure 1 TESOL Educators’ Perceived Level of Support from Education Stakeholders To describe responses related to stakeholder engagement, means and standard deviations are reported in Table 2. When advocating for key issues in education, respondents indicated that they were more likely to communicate with fellow teachers, parents, and school administrators than district administrators, state and U.S. representatives, or the Florida Department of Education. Similarly, respondents reported feeling the most supported by stakeholders in their school (M= 6.42,SD= 2.61) compared to those outside of their school (M= 3.91,SD= 2.54; see Figure 1). Group Differences. A series of independent samplest-tests were conducted to explore the impact of participation in advocacy experiences on levels of self-efficacy, likeliness of communication across the education stakeholder spectrum, and perceived level of support from education stakeholders. Participants were divided into two groups according to their advocacy experiences (Group 1: no history of training or event participation; and Group 2: received training OR participated in an event). There was a statistically significant difference in ratings of self-efficacy, as measured by 30 items, for the two groups,t(70) = -2.01,p= .048. The effect size, calculated using Cohen’sd, was .49 indicating a small-medium effect size. The mean self-efficacy score for respondents without advocacy experiences (M= 80.68,SD= 22.83) was significantly lower than respondents with advocacy experiences (M= 90.82,SD= 17.30). There was no significant difference in communication preferences across the stakeholder spectrum between respondents with prior experiences (M= 19.97,SD= 5.33) and those without (M= 20.69,SD= 5.57),t(74) = 0.57,p= .572. Similarly, perceived level of support from education stakeholders appeared numerically higher for respondents with advocacy experiences but did not reach significance,t(73) = -0.19,p= .844. Content and Natural-Language Processing Analysis. As visually represented in Figure 2, comments regarding the most important issues or topics requiring advocacy revealed two overarching themes of Students and Educational Environment.The majority of comments were strongly associated with the Students theme and addressed an amalgamation of issues relevant to the success of students and resources required for teachers to improve their efforts in the classroom, e.g., “ESOL students, student-centered learning, teacher pay, ESE [Exceptional Student Education] support and procedures, teacher professionalism and pedagogy, quality instruction” and “Teacher pay and benefits for teachers working more than 20 years, less testing.” Similarly, comments in theEducational Environment theme were closely related to comments in the Students theme but focused primarily on curricula, e.g., “ESE and ESOL accountability at the district and state levels, quality curriculum for low performers” and “Teaching students about the inequalities different races are facing and promote how we all need to unite with kindness, love, and be understanding towards one another,” and environmental issues, like “COVID safety” and “Mental health” supports. Figure 2 Thematic Analysis of Free-Text Responses Note. The circles depict themes in responses related to issues in education requiring advocacy (left) and barriers to advocacy (right). Each word, depicted alongside a shaded circle, indicates a word that frequently occurred in free-text responses. The size of the circle reflects the frequency of occurrence with larger circles indicating more frequently occurring words or concepts than smaller circles. Three overarching themes emerged from comments regarding the most significant barriers to advocacy:Time Constraints, Lack of Knowledge, and Fear of Retaliation (see Figure 2).Overall,Time Constraints were the most significant challenge to advocacy in TESOL. A general lack of advocacy knowledge represented most comments in theLack of Knowledgetheme, e.g., “Lack of knowledge/awareness on how to engage.” Finally, comments in the Fear of Retaliation theme cited a fear of retaliation from administrators at the school and district levels as a substantial or reoccurring hinderance to advocacy engagement, e.g., “Fear of retaliation from administration, implicit biases that make people unaware of the injustices, the idea that that's not my job.” Discussion The current study aimed to investigate education policy advocacy and self-efficacy of TESOL educators and their perceptions of key issues in education and barriers to advocacy. Limited opportunities for advocacy training at the school and district levels were reported. Most respondents viewed their role as an advocate to be important despite low engagement and perceived readiness. When advocating, respondents reported a preference for communicating to stakeholders in their school rather than those outside of their school. Overall, respondents rated themselves to be most efficacious when advocating on behalf of students, parents, and fellow teachers, but least efficacious in sharing information with the public and engaging in legislative advocacy. On average, self-efficacy scores were highest for teachers with advocacy experiences. Lastly, frequently cited issues in TESOL requiring targeted advocacy efforts included lack of resources and supports for ESE and ESOL, a need for increased teacher pay, and reduction in standardized testing. Common barriers to advocacy were time constraints, lack of knowledge, and fear of retaliation. The State of Advocacy in TESOL. The finding that a majority of respondents reported no knowledge of training opportunities at their schools or in their districts substantiates the need for additional avenues of advocacy training. Although there was broad consensus regarding the importance of advocacy, respondents reported low levels of engagement in trainings and events. The fact that most respondents received advocacy training through professional development courses or self-study suggests that training opportunities during pre-service training are not widely available or are underutilized. Given that one-third of respondents reported feeling unprepared to advocate, findings suggest early preparation for the role of advocate may serve as a potential remedy. The current findings also point to the need for more research to identify the frequency, dosage, and type of training that is most impactful for bolstering perceived readiness and self-efficacy. However, as many teachers acknowledged the importance of advocacy, the current findings may provide cursory evidence that supports existing research that highlights the effectiveness of recent efforts by professional organizations to cultivate advocacy competence in students and new professionals (e.g., Bond, 2016). The finding that respondents were more likely to communicate with local stakeholders compared to those at district, state, and federal levels is considered a key finding and substantiates existing evidence in the literature (e.g., Derrington & Anderson, 2020). This finding may also be indicative of preferred sources of supports (i.e., local level contacts as reliable alliances). On the other hand, these findings may highlight a misalignment in educational values and current communication practices since most policies that affect public school teachers are created at the district and state levels. These communication preferences could also be influenced by a lack of awareness of additional options of support or insufficient availability of resources at the state and national level. The current findings suggest further investigation is needed to identify ways of improving access to advocacy opportunities, resources, and supports, and highlighting causes of disconnect between teachers and advocacy. Due to the descriptive design of this study, causal inferences cannot be derived, but open-ended responses support existing evidence that time constraints, lack of knowledge, and fear of retaliation from administration may be potential causes. The Role of Self-Efficacy on Advocacy. Of the six self-efficacy domains, respondents reported low scores in public information, systems advocacy, and social/political advocacy. This finding may be due to a fear of retaliation and perceived low levels of support from education stakeholders at the district, state, and federal levels. Logically, if TESOL educators are fearful of possible backlash from administrative leadership, it makes sense that low levels of self-efficacy related to publicly sharing information or leading potentially partisan or oppositional efforts, may dissuade advocacy engagement. The finding that teachers with advocacy experiences perceived themselves to be more efficacious advocates than those without prior experiences is considered a key finding and is consistent with previous studies reporting a positive relationship between advocacy beliefs and experiences and self-efficacy (e.g., Massengale et al., 2014). Similarly, these findings reiterate the important, potentially empowering role of training and engagement in events on perceptions of self-efficacy. Although causal relations cannot be ascertained in the current design, the significant group differences found in the study point to the need for further research on the impact of event participation and training on future advocacy practices. Issues in Education and Barriers to Advocacy. Central to this study were findings related to pressing issues in TESOL and barriers to advocacy. Responses affirm that the most significant issues in TESOL are complex and intertwined. The emergent themes suggest more resources and supports are desired by TESOL educators to best serve their students and maintain a high level of instruction. In addition to calls for an increase in pay, resources to mitigate COVID-19 and mental health crises, and a reduction in testing, these issues are consistent with reported factors that contribute to job-related stress (e.g., Bottiani et al., 2019; Gonzalez et al., 2017; Pressley, 2021). Unique to the current study, findings also support existing evidence that illuminate the need for educators’ voices in education policymaking (e.g., Good, 2019). Although previous literature has not examined time constraints on advocacy, the current findings align with empirical reports that time constraints related to high workloads are among the most reported barriers to job-related responsibilities (e.g., Geiger & Pivovarova, 2018). The finding that teachers may avoid advocating due to a fear of retaliation is troubling and requires further investigation. Additional research is needed to determine the extent to which these barriers hinder participation in advocacy activities. It is plausible that innovative tools to improve dissemination of advocacy-related materials (e.g., advocacy alerts) or more efficient modes of professional development delivery (e.g., micro-credentialing) may offer potential or partial solutions to these challenges. Limitations and Future Directions. Findings should be interpreted with caution in light of recognized limitations and constraints considering the design of the current study. Because the larger study was designed to survey educators broadly across the state of Florida, the descriptive demographic questions did not focus extensively on TESOL experiences. Given the limited specificity of data elements regarding TESOL, it cannot be assumed that the current findings would generalize to all TESOL educators. Further, the current study included a relatively small sample size. The length of the survey may have contributed to this limitation. Thus, our findings may not provide a comprehensive picture of the state of advocacy and self-efficacy for TESOL educators in Florida. Finally,the limited range of rating scales should be considered when interpreting findings related to perceived advocacy importance, readiness, and self-efficacy. As advocacy and self-efficacy are multifaceted in nature, there are likely several unmeasured factors that contribute to variability, such as motivation, access to resources, and local policy environments. Collectively, the findings compel the need for more extensive empirical study of the potential effects of professional development and pre-service training on ratings of advocacy readiness and self-efficacy in TESOL. Additionally, our findings point to the need for causal research examining the effects of professional development on self-efficacy and engagement in advocacy by TESOL educators. More specifically, novel forms of professional development dosage and delivery, such as guide-by-your-side coaching or virtual communities of practice, warrant exploration. Although it is beyond the scope of the current design to conclusively identify mechanisms to improve advocacy and self-efficacy, it is plausible that not all educators have sufficient exposure to advocacy training during their pre-service preparation. Further, although not empirically tested, additional training may result in increased appreciation for advocacy, a marked improvement in self-efficacy over time, and a surge in motivation to advocate. The current findings lend support for the need for more empirical research to develop and test innovative approaches to reduce barriers and improve advocacy and self-efficacy in TESOL. References American Association for Employment in Education. (2020).Educator supply and demand report 2019-20. American Association for Employment in Education. https://aaee.org/sites/default/files/content-files/ AAEE%20Report2019_2020.pdf Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Beacham, C. V., & Shambaugh, N. (2007). Advocacy as a problem-based learning (PBL) teaching strategy. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,19, 315–324. https://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE240.pdf Bobbio, A., & Manganelli, A. M. (2009). Leadership self-efficacy scale: A new multidimensional instrument.TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 16(1), 3-24. http://www.tpmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/ 11/16.1.1.pdf Bond, N. (2016). Preservice teacher leaders learn to advocate legislatively through professional organizations.Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 5(2), 25-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/jct.v5n2p25 Bottiani, J. H., Duran, C. A., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2019). Teacher stress and burnout in urban middle schools: Associations with job demands, resources, and effective classroompractices. Journal of School Psychology, 77, 36-51. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.10.002 Bradley-Levine, J. (2018). Advocacy as a practice of critical teacher leadership. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 9(1), 47–62. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ1182705.pdf Cuthbertson, J. (2014, November 25).How to become a teacher advocate. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/ opinion-how-to-become-a-teacher-advocate/2014/11 Derrington, M. L. & Anderson, L. S. (2020). Expanding the role of teacher leaders: Professional learning for policy advocacy.Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(68). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4850 Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method(2nd ed.). New York. NY: John Wiley & Sons. Ezell, M. (2001). Advocacy in the human services.San Francisco, CA: Cengage Learning. Gartin, B. C., Murdick, N. L., Thompson, J. R., & Dyches, T. T. (2002). Issues and challenges facing educators who advocate for students with disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 3–13. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/23879578 Geiger, T., & Pivovarova, M. (2018). The effects of working conditions on teacher retention. Teachers and Teaching, 24(6), 604-625. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1457524 Gonzalez, A., Peters, M. L., Orange, A., & Grigsby, B. (2017). The influence of high-stakes testing on teacher self-efficacy and job-related stress. Cambridge Journal of Education, 47(4), 513-531. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1214237 Good, A. G. (2018). Teachers at the table: Voice, agency, and advocacy in educational policymaking. Lanham & London: Rowman & Littlefield. Guo, Y., Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2010). Relations among preschool teachers' self-efficacy, classroom quality, and children's language and literacy gains. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1094-1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.005 Guo, Y., Dynia, J. M., Pelatti, C. Y., & Justice, L. M. (2014). Self-efficacy of early childhood special education teachers: Links to classroom quality and children's learning for children with language impairment. Teaching and Teacher Education,39, 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.005 Harwood, I. A., Gapp, R., & Stewart, H. (2015). Cross-check for completeness: Exploring a novel use of Leximancer in a grounded theory study. The Qualitative Report, 20(7), 1029-1045. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2191 Heinowitz, A. E., Brown, K. R., Langsam, L. C., Arcidiacono, S. J., Baker, P. L., Badaan, N. H., .Cash, R. E. (2012). Identifying perceived personal barriers to public policy advocacy within psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43, 372–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029161 Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study of the teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement,61(3), 404-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971284 Hunzicker, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: A checklist. Professional Development in Education, 37(2), 177-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2010.523955 Leximancer. (2020). Leximancer. https://www.leximancer.com Linville, H. A. (2020). A closer look at ESOL teacher advocacy: What we do and why. TESOL Journal,11(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.508 Lyons, J. C., Webster, S. R., Friedman, B. L., Schiavoni, S. P., Lit, K. R., & Cash, R. E. (2015). A preliminary study exploring the efficacy of advocacy training. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 46, 409–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pro0000044 Massengale, K. E. C., Childers-McKee, C., & Benavides, A. (2014). Exploration of undergraduate preservice teachers’ experiences learning advocacy: A mixed-methods study. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,14(3), 75-93. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v14i3.5071 Mosely, J. (2013). Recognizing new opportunities: Reconceptualizing policy advocacy in everyday organizational practice. Social Work, 58, 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swt020 Ortiz, A. A., & Fránquiz, M. E. (2017). Co-editors’ introduction: The central role of advocacy inensuring excellence in education for English learners, Bilingual Research Journal, 40(3), 241-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1361896 Poteau, C. E., & Winkle, C. A. (2021). Advocacy for social and linguistic justice in TESOL: Nurturing inclusivity, equity, and social responsibility in English language teaching. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003202356 Pasupathy, R., & Bogschutz, R. J. (2013). An investigation of graduate speech-language pathology students' SLP clinical self-efficacy. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders,40, 151-159. https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_40_F_151 Pressley, T. (2021). Factors contributing to teacher burnout during COVID-19. Educational Researcher, 50(5), 325–327. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211004138 Ratts, M. J., & Ford, A. (2010). Advocacy competencies self-assessment survey: A tool for measuring advocacy competence. In M. J. Ratts, R. L. Toporek, & J. A. Lewis (Eds.), ACA advocacy competencies: A social justice framework for counselors (pp. 21-26). American Counseling Association. Robinson, O. P., Bridges, S. A., Rollins, L. H., & Schumacker, R. E. (2019). A study of the relation between special education burnout and job satisfaction. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 19(4), 295-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12448 Schneider, R. L., & Lester, L. (2001). Social work advocacy: A new framework for action. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole. Song, M., & Yang, N. (2016). Impact on self-efficacy, self-directed learning, clinical competence on satisfaction of clinical practice among nursing students. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 132, 124-129. https://doi.org/10.14257/ASTL.2016.132.22 Staehr Fenner, D. (2013). Advocating for English learners: A guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Strassfeld, N. M. (2019). Preparing pre-service special education teachers to facilitate parent involvement, knowledge, and advocacy: Considerations for curriculum. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(4), 283-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406418806643 Troesch, L. M., & Bauer, C. E. (2017). Second career teachers: Job satisfaction, job stress, and the role of self-efficacy.Teaching and Teacher Education,67, 389-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.006 Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). The federal role in education. U.S. Department ofEducation. https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html Suppleemental Materials 1. Advocacy Engagement and Self-Efficacy Survey Items 2. Distribution of Responses on Questions Related to Self-Efficacy
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.11 p.2
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.10 p.2
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.13 p.2
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p. 12 p.2
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.14 p.2
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.15
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.16
Research Teachers’ Perceptions of ELLs’ Learning in Remote Digital Environments Cheryl Shamon, Lynn Carver, Keya Mukherjee Saint Leo University ABSTRACT The onset of the COVID 19 pandemic brought on unprecedented challenges for school administrators, faculty, and staff when school districts across the country rapidly shifted to remote learning during 2019-2020. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore K-5 educators’ perceptions related to providing virtual instruction to English Language Learners (ELLs) through a digital medium in one particular school district in central Florida. The 2 research questions that framed this exploratory study were: how is your school supporting ELLs in remote digital learning environments? and what types of teaching strategies do teachers in grades 1-5 perceive to be most effective for supporting ELLs’ language development in remote digital learning environments? An anonymous survey was sent out to teachers in grades 1-4 to asking them about the challenges they faced in providing instructional support to ELLs. The themes that emerged from the qualitative inquiry highlighted issues related to technology and lack of language support in the home environment; however, student engagement during remote learning was not reported as a significant concern.
Intoduction The onset of the COVID 19 pandemic brought on unprecedented challenges for school administrators, faculty, and staff when school districts across the country rapidly shifted to remote learning during 2019-2020 to meet the instructional needs of students. Multiple factors, such as lack of digital access at homes and schools, including internet services, need for specialized equipment, such as computers, shortened school hours, and complex delivery systems challenged the familiar teaching modality for teachers, particularly for English language learners and students with exceptionalities who receive instructional and programmatic support at their schools. The purpose of this study was to explore K-5 educators’ perceptions related to providing virtual instruction to ELLs through a digital medium. This qualitative case study explores instructional challenges in the virtual setting from the perceptions of elementary educators. Although virtual learning existed in some school districts across the United States long before the pandemic, COVID-19 was instrumental in pushing traditional classroom teachers into an online platform. Many school districts did not have the means to quickly switch from face-to-face to virtual instruction. Thus, teachers may have been unprepared to facilitate instruction in a virtual classroom particularly to those students who were faced with the challenge of learning a new language at the same time that they were attempting to master the grade-level academic content (Song et al., 2020). The impact of the unprecedented change to online instruction, taught the educational world an important lesson, that preparedness is everything (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 2020). Research Questions Two research questions were used to guide this study. The research questions included: 1.How is your school supporting ELLs inremote digital learningenvironments? 2.What types of teaching strategies do teachers in grades 1-5 perceive to be most effective for supporting ELLs’ language development in remote digital learning environments? Virtual and Hybrid Instructionof ELLs Teaching and learning in remote and hybrid learning environments has increasingly gained popularity as a method for educating students and its use was accelerated by the COVID 19 pandemic. Research on remote and hybrid teaching instruction is still emerging as school districts, state agencies and researchers continue to collect and evaluate the data.According to Garcia and Franchino (2020), approximately 4.8 million ELLs were impacted by school closures due to the COVID 19 pandemic.Teachers, administrators and school personnel were suddenly confronted with the reality that they were inadequately trained and had insufficient transition time to confront the challenges presented by online platforms and remote learning (Marshall et al., 2020). Prior to the pandemic, ELLs were already considered at higher risk than mainstream students, for dropping out of school and historically experienced learning loss during the summer vacation. Estimated academic and language slide for ELLs due to the pandemic is projected to widen this gap(Sugarman & Lazarin, 2020). Language Development and Support Oral language development is an essential determinant of ELLs’ academic success. It plays a pivotal role in the development of literacy and is relative to success in reading and writing (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2009; Lesaux et al., 2008). A “language rich” classroompromotes literacy through instruction that develops phonological awareness, grammatical knowledge, fluency, vocabulary, native language supports, and opportunities for listening and speaking(August & Shanahan, 2006;Castro et al., 2011). Language learning is best supported when instruction includesbest practices such as: (a) targeted instruction; (b) methods that support language development; (c) native language support; and (d) small group learning (Castro et al., 2011). ELLs often live in households or communities where English is not spoken, and often the school provides the only opportunity to practice and speak the language with their peers or other native English speakers. Without the face-to-face classroom interactions amidst the pandemic, ELLs had limited opportunities to develop both formal and informal English language competencies with their peers, teachers, and other English speakers at their school (Lazarin, 2022, Sugarman & Lazarin, 2020; Williams, 2020). Helping their ELLs todevelop oral languagepresented exceptional challenges for teachers who relied heavily on curriculum and instruction designed specifically for in-person and small group instruction, as opposed to online platforms (Stavely, 2020). Oral language development also occurs at home and in communities. Communitiesprovide ELLs and their families with opportunities to speak, practice, and hear spoken English (Castro et al., 2013). The impact of social isolation during the pandemic decreased interactions for students and their families with outside community members and friends. As a result, there were fewer opportunities to develop and practice language skills in both formal and informal environments Challenges and Support for Teachers Emerging research is shedding light on the challenges faced by classroom teachers as they struggled to support language and content learning for ELLs throughout the pandemic.Nationwide, when school districts offered the option for in-person instruction, many families of ELLs selected remote or hybrid instruction for their children, despite their limited capacity to help their children at home (Lazarin, 2022).Issues related to technology, language support, home-school variables, and lack of professional development were just some of the challenges faced by educators digitally supporting their ELLs(Sugarman & Lazarin, 2020). As the pandemic progressed, school districts were suddenly mandated to close and provide remote learning to students. Teachers and support staff were expected to use new technologies and adapt teaching materials that were not designed specifically for ELLs, such as Jamboard, Padlet, Kahoot and Flipgrid (Skelton, & Breiseth, 2020). This unexpected change left teachers without adequate transition time to plan and receive well developed professional development specific to digital platforms. Prior to the pandemic, teachers reported that most of their professional development in technology was designed specifically for mainstream students. While some of the technology integrated specific language supports for ELLs, teachers received little training on technology designed specifically for ELLs (United States Department of Education, 2019). In addition, teachers often used technology to increase language skills, rather than to develop higher order thinking skills (Altavilla, 2020). Research on teacher beliefs post pandemic confirmed similar findings. Cardullo et al. (2020) foundthat insufficient resources and lack of formal technological training specific to ELLs negatively impacted teachers’ abilities to teach ELLs. Teachers also reported that many parents of ELLs were not digitally competent which limited their abilities to successfully use teaching platforms as a means of communication and instruction (Workie et al., 2022). With a lack of professional development on how to use or adapt technology for ELLs and inadequate time to transition, it is not surprising that teachers did not feel prepared to use educational technology with their ELLs. Language support specialists in the school district or school site are integral for supporting both the classroom teachers and ELLs. Many classroom teachers do not speak the native language of their ELLs, which makes it difficult to effectively communicate and understand the specific language needs of their students. Most teachers rely on language specialists to communicate with students and their families (Castro et al., 2013). During the pandemic many teachers did not receive the support of language specialists to the same degree as prior to the pandemic. Instead, many language specialists performed other schoolwide tasks, such as: (a) addressing financial issues; (b) health and wellness; (c) translating materials and resources; and (d) resolving technology issues for students (Cushing-Leubner et al., 2021; Workie et al., 2022). When teachers have language barriers and do not have language support, it is difficult to effectively communicate with parents, students, and members of the community(Catalano et al., 2021;Sugarman & Lazarin, 2020). Assessment of ELLs is multifaceted and involves the integration of both language and content area knowledge. Pre-pandemic, a variety of formal and informal assessments were used by classroom teachers to inform curriculum and instruction. School districts and statewide agencies relied on standardized testing data to determine accountability and funding. Language assessment tools, such as the WIDA ACCESS, were used by many states to evaluate ELLs’ language growth.Inconsistencies in testing during the pandemic made it more difficult to interpret data reliability and validity accurately at the local and statewide levels. During the pandemic, remote and hybrid learning challenges, testing inconsistencies, and data issues made it difficult for teachers and school districts to properly evaluate ELLs’ language abilities and content area knowledge (Lazarin, 2022). As new research is published, best practices have emerged to prepare school districts and support teachers teaching remotely or in hybrid learning classrooms. It is imperative for districts to provide comprehensive professional development on how to use synchronous and asynchronous teaching platforms and materials specific to ELLs. States and districts are encouraged to coordinate and share resources, specific curriculums, and materials that address the unique language needs of ELLs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). Continuous support systems need to be in place for teachers working with ELLs that are data driven and specifically targeted for ELLs (Cardullo et al., 2021; West, 2021) Challenges and Support for Families During the pandemic, teachers and school districts depended on parents or caregivers to take on a more active role in their child’s education, which presented a multitude of challenges for parents of ELLs and migrant students. Remote learning necessitated parents or caregivers to have knowledge of, as well as access to digital technologies such as laptops, tablets and the internet.This expectation proved challenging for many families who did not have the economic resources or computer skills to help their children learn in remote learning environments (Workie et al., 2022). According to the 2018 census, 30% of students in the United States did not have access to devices or high-speed internet, and a disproportionate number of these students were from low-income families and were students of color (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2020). This large demographic divide created significant inequities in digital access and learning for ELLs compared to mainstream students (Altavilla, 2020;Catalanoet al., 2021;Lavadenz et al.,2021). Regular school attendance is a predictor of academic success. Prior to the pandemic, elementary aged ELLs typically had low levels of absenteeism and attended school more regularly than students from other low-income groups (Attendance Works & Everyone Graduates Center, 2021). Results from a survey conducted by the Attendance Works and Everyone Graduates Center (2021), indicated that ELLs experienced significant increases in absenteeism during the pandemic due to a paucity of accessible technology and connectivity. Health and safety concerns also affected attendance for ELLs. Although families of ELLs were encouraged to attend school in-person, many ELLs attended school remotely or through hybrid models citing concerns of spreading illness to multigenerational family members living in the same home (Lazarin, 2022). Many parents of ELLs work in the service industry, many of whom were designated as essential workers during the pandemic. While parents with professional employment were able to work at home during the pandemic, many essential workers did not have that option (Stavely, 2020). As a result, parents of ELLs often relied on older siblings, extended family members, or grandparents to act as caregivers when other caregiving options were not available (Sugarman & Lazarin, 2020, Stavely, 2020). Many of these caregivers were not competent English speakers, and older siblings were unreliable in assisting other family members with their schoolwork (Stavely, 2020).This created a disparity in home learning gains for ELLs compared to other mainstream students. While language and cultural barriers can present challenges, schools typically engage parents and provide opportunities for them to volunteer and participate in their child’s education (Calderon et al., 2011). School closures and remote learning made it difficult for many schools to effectively engage parents and communities. Many parents and caregivers are not literate in English and depend on school communications to be translated into their native language. Post-pandemic survey data indicated that 25% of public-school parents in California did not receive translated materials from teachers or schools during the pandemic (West, 2021). Other factors, such as a paucity of language specialists, contributed to a notable decrease in communications between teachers and parents (Cushing-Leubner et al., 2021; Williams, 2020). If parents and caregivers are expected to actively participate in school functions, and help their children with school related work, then all communications must be provided in a language that they understand. Methodology Using aqualitative approach researcher were able to gain an understanding about the specific phenomenon (Mertler, 2019) and it was beneficial for exploring participants’ perceptions about the issue of online instruction for ELLs (Creswell, 2009). The qualitative design is particularly important to this research because it permits teachers to provide personal insights and perspectives based on experiences they encountered during virtual instruction. In a case study, each point of view provides a significant asset in the research. As compared to other approaches,the intent of a case study is to study individuals, events, or processes of a bounded system and to understand a phenomenon for which at that particular time there is no in-depth understanding (Creswell, 2009). Data Collection Data was collected through responses to an online anonymous survey, similar to methods employed in Abu-Tineh et al. (2011) and Kundu and Bei’s (2021) studies. Surveys provide a way to collect data by capturing characteristics of a particular population (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019). This method was chosen because itallowed for efficient, anonymous data collection and provided information about a variety of personal experiences and responses from the participant elementary teachers about providing online instruction for ELLs. A little over 1,000 elementary teachers from a single district that covered urban, suburban, and rural setting in a southeastern state were contacted by email and asked to complete an anonymous survey about their experience providing online instruction to English Language Learners. Survey participants were selected based on convenience. The survey was adapted from a survey developed by Californians Together (2020). Permission to adapt the survey was granted via email from the organization and approval to collect data from the Institutional Review Board were obtained.Additionally, IRB clearance was obtained from the district and the email to the participants included a copy of the district approval. The email was sent to the participants’ school email accounts to invite them to participate; however, because of difficulty getting emails through the district’s firewalls, only 39 teachers responded. By completing the anonymous survey, participants indicated their voluntary completion of the survey. Data Analyses The participants responses indicated, 82% of the educators were classroom elementary teachers, 6% were resource teachers, and 12% were support specialists or coaches. Of these responses, 6% reported they were male, 92% reported they were female, and 2% did not report their gender. In this particular district, teachers were providing a combination of online and face to face instruction. Eighty-six percent reported that up to 25% of their ELL students attended virtually, 6% indicated that 50 to 75% were virtual, and 8% reported that more than 75% of their ELLs were receiving virtual instruction. The participants reported a range of years of teaching experiences. Twenty-one percent had taught between 0 and 3 years, 33% taught between 4 and 10 years, and 46% had taught for more than 10 years. The number of years providing instruction for ELLs was not as high. Twenty-six percent had taught ELLs between 0 and 3 years, 38% taught ELLs between 4 and 10 years, and 36% had taught this population for more than 10 years. Because preparation for providing instruction for ELLs is important, the researchers also wanted to gain a better understanding of the participants’ educational preparation. Twenty-four percent reported gaining ESOL training through university course work, 45% reported receiving ESOL training through the district, and 31% reported receiving training through neither venue. Most participants taught in suburban settings (54%), while 10% were from urban settings, and 36% taught in rural setting. Representation from each of the grade levels, first through fifth, were relatively consistent ranging from 15 to 25 percent depending on the grade level (see Table 1). Table 1 Distribution of Teachers by Grade Level Teachers indicated that they provided instruction in multiple subject areas. They also identified the percentage of instruction they provided in each of four content areas: reading, language arts, math, social studies, and science. This instruction was relatively evenly distributed (see Table 2). Table 2 Distribution of Content Area Instruction Participants indicated many resources that were effectively implemented during online instruction. These were closely divided between district provided (55%) and teacher develop resources (45%). Imagine Learning was the most frequently used district resource. Other resources identified were Eureka, Zeam, Brain Pop, Discovery Education, and Smarty Ants. The teacher developed resources included instructional strategies (43%) such as Think-Pair-Share, Closed Sentence Notes, and graphic organizes, physical resources (35%) such as home language dictionaries, picture cards, and document cameras, and digital resources (22%) such as online visuals, virtual whiteboards, screen readers, and google translate. Outreach to families was another area of concern. Digital tools were the resource used more regularly than any other means. Communication initiated by the teacher directly to the home was used only 14% of the time. Home language support was incorporated even less frequently at 7%, However, digital resources were used 78% of the time. These included Bloomz, Zoom, Remind, Classtag, Class Dojo, Padlet, and text translation on cell phones. Participants were asked to identify issues or challenges they faced when providing virtual instruction to ELLs. Issues related to technology (38%) were the major concern. These included spotty or not reliable internet, difficulty with Zoom, parents lack of knowledge about the programs being used, and difficulty understanding the students’ responses. Lack of instruction support (20%) was evidenced by responses relating to difficulty getting an interpreter, limited visuals, and lack of a consistent schedule for support. The home learning environment was the next most frequent concern (18%). Limited parental support and numerous environmental distractions were identified. Difficulties with instructional practices (5%) were not as major a concern but were evident in what was described as poor or engaging materials. Student engagement was not a significant concern and was only mentioned by 2% of the participants. When asked how instruction could be provided more effectively five areas were identified by participants. Providing learners and their families with more extensive language support (33%) was a frequent suggestion, which is expected. However, the importance of providing additional digital resources to families (33%) was equally important. The other three themes of enhancing parental skills, increasing instructional strategies, and increasing instructional materials were each only identified in 13% of the responses. Discussion First, we must acknowledge the limitations of our study. Although 1,000 grades 1-4 teachers were identified in the district for the survey, the small number of responses (39) might imply that our understanding of the phenomenon could be limited. While the researchers believe that a larger response rate could have provided more insights into the phenomenon of interest, the nature of the qualitative design of the study allows for 39 sample responses to be suitable enough to understand howtheschool in the district supported ELLs in remote digital learning environments and what teaching strategies were most effective during this time. Another limitation of the study, as always, with surveys is the self-reporting nature of the data from the candidates which include sampling bias from those who responded, interpreting the questions, and understanding the rating scales. Additionally, the survey instrument was modified to the fit the needs of the research question and the research context; however, the researchers independently assessed the modified version to perform well. Analysis of the data in the research identified the commonly used digital tools, instructional strategies, and challenges faced by the teachers and the need for establishing stronger home-school connection both for digital access and instructional effort, an area that seemed to not be discussed by the participants was the level of ELLs’ language development during this period of reduced support and complicated learning delivery systems.Results from quantitative district quantitative data might provide more light on this particular issue. Overall, the researchers learned that remote learning during COVID 19 school closures in the school district brought many real challenges in providing services to English learners during remote instruction and concluded that while the challenges affected instruction for most students, it may have affected these particular groups of learners who were already experiencing achievement gaps, even more significantly. References Abu-Tineh, A. M., Khasawneh, S. A., & Khalaileh, H. A. (2011). Teacher self-efficacy and classroom management styles in Jordanian schools.Management in Education, 25(4), 175-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020611420597 Altavilla, J. (2020). How technology affects instruction for English learners. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(1), 18–23. Attendance Works and Everyone Graduates Center. (2021, February). Using chronic absence to map interrupted schooling, instructional loss, and educational inequity: Insights from school year 2017-18 Data. Attendance Works. https://www.attendanceworks.org/ August, D. and Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Center for Applied Linguistics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Breiseth, L. & Roberstson, K. (n.d.). Engaging ell families: Tips for school leaders - Colorín Colorado. A Guide for Engaging ELL Families: Twenty Strategies for School Leaders. https://www.colorincolorado.org/sites/ default/files/Engaging_ELL_Families_FINAL.pdf Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. Future of Children, 21(1), 103–127. Californians Together. (2020, June 24). Communities of practice: Participant survey results. https://www.californianstogether.org/ communities-of-practice-participant-survey-results Cardullo, V., Wang, C., Burton, M., & Dong, J. (2021). K-12 teachers’ remote teaching self-efficacy during the pandemic. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 14(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2020-0055 Castro, D. C., García, E. E., & Markos, A. M. (2013). Dual language learners: Research informing policy.Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, Center for Early Care and Education—Dual Language Learners. Castro, D. C., Páez, M. M., Dickinson, D. K., & Frede, E. (2011). Promoting language and literacy in Young Dual Language Learners: Research, practice, and policy. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00142.x Catalano, A. J., Torff, B., & Anderson, K. S. (2021). Transitioning to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: differences in access and participation among students in disadvantaged school districts. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 38(2), 258-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-06-2020-0111 Coleman, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). What does research say about effective practices for English learners? Introduction and part I: Oral language proficiency. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(1), 10–16. Creswell, J. W. (2009).Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Cushing-Leubner, J., Morita-Mullaney, T., Greene, M. C. S., Stolpestad, A., & Benegas, M. (2021). The (im)possibilities of equitable education of multilingual emergent bilinguals in remote teaching: a survey of English language teachers in the Great Lakes region. Planning and Changing,50(3-4), 139–164. Darling-Hammond, L., Schachner, A., & Edgerton, A. K., Badrinarayan, A., Cardichon, J., Cookson, P. W., Griffith, M., Klevan, S., Maier, A., Martinez, M., Melnick, H., Truong, N., & Wojcikiewicz, S.). (2020). Restarting and reinventing school: Learning in the time of COVID and beyond. Learning Policy Institute. Garcia, A. & Franchino, E. (2020, March). Digital resources for EL students. https://www.newamerica.org/education- policy/edcentral/digital-resources-el-students/ Kundu, A. & Bej, T. (2021). COVID 19 response: An analysis of teachers’ perception on pedagogical successes and challenges of digital teaching practice during new normal. Education and Information Technologies,1-24.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639- 021-10503-5 Lavadenz, M., Kaminski, L. R. G., Armas, E. G., & López, G. V. (2021). Equity leadership for English learners during covid-19: Early lessons. Frontiers in Education,6, 636281. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.636281 Lazarin, M. (2022). (rep.). English Learner Testing During the Pandemic (pp. 1–26). Migration Policy Institute. Leedy, P. D. & Ormrod, J. E. (2019). Practical research: Planning and design (12thed.). Pearson Education. Lesaux, N. K., Geva, E., Koda, K., Siegel, L., & Shanahan, T. (2008). Development of literacy in second language learners. In D.August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing reading and writing in second-language learners (pp. 27–60). Routledge. Marshall, D. T., Shannon, D. M., & Love, S. M. (2020). How teachers experienced the covid-19 transition to remote instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(3), 46–50. Mertler, C. A. (2019). Introduction to educational research (2nded.). SAGE Publications. Mitchell, C. (2020, June 17). How will schools measure English learners’ ‘covid slide’ learning loss. Education Week. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the- language/2020/06/learning_loss_english_learners_ native_language_assessments.html Skelton, B., & Breiseth, L. (2020, November 16).Teaching ELLs online: How to develop students’ language skills. Colorin Colorado. https://www.colorincolorado.org/ells-language-online Song, H., Wu, J., & Zhi, T. (2020). Online teaching for elementary and secondary schools during COVID-19. ECNU Review of Education, 3(4), 745-754. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120930021 Stavely, Z. (2020, June 11). California teachers worry gap widening for English learners during school closures. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/california- teachers-worry-gap-widening-for-english-learners- during-school-closures/633395 Sugarman, J., & Lazarin, M., Educating English Learners During the COVID 19 Pandemic (Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2020), www.migrationpolicy.org/research/english- learners-covid-19-pandemic-policy-ideas. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2020). Distance learning strategies in response to COVID-19 school closures. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000373305/PDF/373305eng. pdf.multi United States Department of Education. (2019). Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-iii/ 180414.pdf West, E. T. (2021, September 20). Education equity in crisis: Dual language learners and English learners - the education trust. West. https://west.edtrust.org/education-equity-in-crisis- dual-language-learners-and-english-learners/ Williams, C. P. (2020, September). School closure and English Learners: A review of COVID-19 operations written reports. Californians Together. https://californianstogether.app.box.com/ s/bktwfcbv8kj4bqqjn3gdflpcumau18um Workie, E., Hinkle, L., deDufour, A., & Lacarte, V. (2022). Advancing Digital Equity among Immigrant-Origin Youth. Migration Policy Institute.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.17
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.18
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.19
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.21
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.20
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.22
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.23
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.25
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.24
Introduction There are nearly 5 million multilingual learners (MLs)1enrolled in U.S. public schools (United States Department of Education, 2020) and this number has grown 28.1% between the 2000-2001 school year and 2016-2017 school year (United States Department of Education, 2020). Current reports show that ML numbers increased in 43 states (United States Department of Education, 2020) while some more traditional locations of large numbers of MLs such as California, Arizona, and New Mexico report a decrease in ML population (United States Department of Education, 2020). MLs are more broadly distributed across a larger number of states and are enrolled in urban, rural, and suburban districts (United States Department of Education, 2020). One in ten students now enrolled in U.S. public schools are classified as MLs (United States Department of Education, 2020). However, the surge in the number of MLs in the classroom has not been met with an increase in the number of educators who are trained to teach this population (Samson & Collins, 2012). Instead, while two percent of public schoolteachers are designated as ESL teachers, 65 percent of public schoolteachers had at least one ML in their classroom (United States Department of Education, 2019). Given these statistics, it is widely understood that teachers entering the teaching profession will have MLs in their classrooms and will need teacher preparation in ML education to teach these students (Samson & Collins, 2012). Meanwhile, teacher preparation programs across the United States are inconsistent in their application of training to meet the needs of MLs in mainstream classrooms as each state has its own standards and requirements for teacher certification. According to Lopez, Scanlan, and Gundrum (2013), state policy is a key driver in teacher preparation program standards and curriculum. Thirty-two out of the fifty states do not require any ESOL training for general classroom teachers, although some of those states offer optional coursework (Rafa, Erwin, Brixey, McCann & Perez, 2020). Some states have no preparation requirements, while some mandate training for specialists only, and others have varied requirements for general education teacher preparation to work with MLs (Rafa et al., 2020). States which include certification requirements for ESL teacher specialists and an at least one course requirement for teaching MLs for general education teacher preparation showed a gain of 3.86 points for MLs on NAEP 4thgrade assessment (Lopez et al., 2013). In light of these improved student outcomes, principals and school leadership increasingly request professional development for in-service teachers (Baecher, Knoll & Patti, 2016) suggesting that the teacher workforce as currently trained is not adequately prepared to meet the needs of the growing ML population in general education classrooms. Lopez et al. (2013) recommend that states should require specialist certification and intentional ML course requirements for general education teacher preparation. However, varying state policies and lack of consensus at the university level about what constitutes best practices for MLs collude to create a state of imbalance for adequate training at the pre-service level. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate pre-service teachers’ (PST) perceptions of preparation and interest in obtaining necessary knowledge and skills for working with MLs in mainstream K12 classrooms. Literature Review Teacher preparation Given the increase in the population of MLs in today’s K-12 classroom, recent research has indicated that the teacher preparation has not changed to meet this shifting demographic (DelliCarpini & Alonso, 2014). In response to this call, more attention has been paid to examining preservice teachers’ level of preparedness to teach this population (Kolano & King, 2015: Meineke & DeVasto, 2020; Pavlak & Cavendar, 2019). The feeling of readiness is significant because teachers who have greater self-efficacy experience more positive outcomes in their teaching and exhibit more determination and resilience when addressing situations in the classroom (Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010; Jimenez-Silvia, Olson, & Jimenez-Hernandez, 2012). On the other hand, lack of confidence in interacting with MLs can lead to higher rates of teacher burnout and attrition (Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010). Furthermore, teachers’ lack of ESOL training and confidence also affects the learning experience of MLs in the classroom because the ML students exhibit limited participation, receive incomprehensible feedback, and miss the opportunity for language growth (DelliCarpini & Alonso, 2015; Polat, Mahalingappa, Hughes, & Karayigit et al, 2019). These negative outcomes are exacerbated by the finding that many PSTs thought that ML students were not the mainstream teachers’ responsibility, instead being referred to a special education teacher (Mieneke & DeVasto, 2020; Polat et al., 2019). From this erroneous assumption, many PSTs may not realize the extent of training that is needed to competently address the strengths and needs that the MLs bring to the classroom. This lack of knowledge is reinforced when preservice teachers do not receive ESOL instruction or modeling of the practices that meet the needs of MLs (Daniel, 2014). Yough (2019) argued that PST education can redress this gap in training through coursework and fieldwork. Therefore, the following section will describe the knowledge, skills and dispositions that PST need in order to be effective educators of ML students (Kolano & King, 2015; Turgut, Sahin & Huerta, 2016), before moving on to explore the research on PST readiness to teach MLs. Knowledge base for working with MLs The knowledge base of English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) teachers cannot be characterized as a dichotomy of linguistic theory and pedagogical expertise, but instead incorporates knowledge from a variety of fields and pedagogical experiences (Baecher et al., 2016; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzales, 2008; Nichols & Soe, 2013; Ramirez, Gonzales-Galindo, & Roy, 2016; Reeves, 2009). To start with, PSTs need to understand the process of first language acquisition and the influence of the first language on the new language of ML students (Kelly, 2018). Furthermore, Lucas and her colleagues (2008) argue that teachers should be cognizant of the fact that a strong native proficiency can facilitate MLs’ mastery of their new language, so PST need to have a working knowledge of first language acquisition in order to appropriately meet the needs of MLs in the classroom (Turgut et al. 2019). In addition, many studies have documented the importance of PSTs being schooled in the principles of second language acquisition (Mills et al, 2020; Okremtchouk & Salla, 2019; Ramirez et al, 2016). Nichols and Soe’s (2013) study about ninety PST who participated in a literacy tutoring program for MLs indicated that those individuals who had a basic knowledge of second language acquisition were more prepared to teach MLs. A major tenet that PST need to understand the importance of creating opportunities for MLs to interact with fluent users of the target language (Lucas & Villegas, 2010). Previous research has shown that when MLs are placed in classroom where teachers do not have adequate training to work with MLs, there is a lack of meaningful interaction for MLs (DelliCarpini & Alonso, 2014). Another general area that the PSTs need to be exposed to is that reading teachers need to be trained on the reading development traits of MLs in order to provide meaningful instruction to them (Burgess-Brigham, Eslami, & Esteki, 2020). While theoretical foundations are essential to PST education, Jones et al (2017) found that just understanding the factual knowledge was not enough to prepare PST for classroom teaching. Beyond the factual knowledge of how languages are learned, research has indicated that PST need to have an understanding of the challenges of learning a second language in order to develop the dispositional knowledge needed to teach MLs (Ramos, 2017). Having a firm command of the language learning process is essential for PSTs because mainstream teachers often do not realize the length of time it takes to master a new language (Kelly, 2018). For instance, Reeves’ (2009) study showed that the PSTs’ personal language learning experiences affected how they delivered instruction to MLs. Such an emphasis is even more critical since Burgess-Brigham et al., (2020) found that many PST are monolingual speakers who are unfamiliar with the challenges of learning a language. This focus on language learning remains a critical part of PST knowledge since language remains the primary medium through which content is learned and assessed in the classroom (Lucas & Villegas, 2010). The role of language in instruction In addition to the theoretical knowledge about language acquisition, much research has documented the importance of preservice teachers understanding the role of language in K-12 content area instruction (Baecher et al., 2016; Bunch, Aguirre, & Tellez, 2015; Ramos, 2017). Specifically, PST need to recognize the language demands that are required in order to complete tasks in content area instruction (Baecher et al., 2016; Ramos, 2017). As a foundation, previous research has documented that PSTs need to master the structure and usage of language (Mills, Villegas & Cochran-Smith, 2020; Okhremtchouk & Salla, 2019). Previous research has found that many PST do not realize that academic language, or the language required in classroom learning, is more than content area vocabulary and also includes language functions, discourse patterns, and syntax (Lim, Moseley, Son, & Seelke, 2014). With the importance of academic language, PST need to understand how to provide opportunities for MLs to cultivate both their social and academic language skills within the mainstream classroom (Ramirez et al., 2016). This awareness of the language demands in content area instruction is critical because teacher education programs must prepare PST to address both the language and content knowledge of ML students (DelliCarpini & Alonso, 2014). In response to such a need in PST education Kolano and King (2015) have advocated training PSTs in the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) (Vogt, Echevarria, & Short, 2016) which provides a framework for content area teachers to simultaneously address academic content and the language demands that MLs encounter in the classroom. Diversity and culture training Other research has shown the importance of providing cultural training for PSTs (Jones, Mixon, Henry & Butcher, 2017; Polat et al, 2019). Due to a mismatch between the lived experiences of the PSTs and the culturally and linguistically diverse students that they teach (Jones et al., 2017; Scott & Scott, 2015), cultural competence is a vital component of PST education. This need is underscored with findings that teacher education programs are not sufficiently training PSTs because they tend to rely on deficit perspectives of ML students which result in lowered expectations of MLs’ academic performance (Hare Landa, Odona-Holm, & Shi, 2017; Ramirez et al., 2016). To counter this point with PSTs, many teacher preparation programs provide multicultural coursework for teacher candidates to gain exposure to cultural issues (Meineke & DeVasto, 2020). However, often cultural diversity courses do not provide PSTs with language related skills needed to address both the cultural and linguistic needs of MLs in the classroom (Turgut et al., 2016). In a previous study that addressed both areas of language and culture, PSTs indicated that documentaries and biographies were instrumental in providing a greater understanding of the cultural and linguistic challenges that MLs face (Kolano & King, 2015). While Kolano and King’s study (2015) indicated that PSTs wanted implementable classroom strategies to use with MLs instead of cultural information, Jones et al (2017) discovered that PSTs requested a cross-cultural framework to facilitate their interactions with MLs and their families. Specifically, PST requested a three-part system to help them become more culturally competent with ML students: cultural awareness of the specifics of a given culture, sensitivity to the cultural and academic characteristics of their learners, and intercultural receptivity through self-reflection (Jones et al, 2017). In this same vein, Yough’s (2019) study revealed that cultural information alone is not enough to prepare PST for teaching MLs; actual experience with MLs is needed to build PSTs’ teaching competence with this population. Some studies have shown that when teacher education programs incorporate a cross-cultural immersion experience where PSTs spend time teaching English, the PSTs became more cognizant of their cultural perspectives, developed deeper understanding of the experiences of MLs, and cultivated more expertise in intercultural communication (Mills et al., 2020). Through a deeper understanding of culture and its impact on the lives and learning experiences of MLs, PST are more able to make connections between the classroom culture and the MLs’ culture (Jones et al., 2017). The preparedness of PST to teach MLs The readiness of PST to meet the needs of MLs has been a focus in several recent research studies. Nichols and Soe (2013) found that PST lacked the background, knowledge, and training needed to work with MLs, and that this lack of preparedness was a major source of dissatisfaction for these students. Other studies of PST readiness indicated that the PST wanted more field experience with ML populations because they did not have enough competence in working with them (Okremtchouk & Salla, 2019; Pavlak & Cavendar, 2019). Turgutt et al. (2016) found that PST were unprepared to work with MLs because they felt that they did not have the right dispositional skills of patience or creativity to be an effective educator for these students. Due to this negative outlook about the efficacy of teaching MLs, Kolano and King (2015) argue that teacher preparation programs must empower their PST to gain dispositions of tenacity, confidence, and influence. Meineke and DeVasto (2020) noted that PST confidence in teaching MLs is a primary catalyst in improving instruction for them. Several different studies have shown that interaction with MLs is a pivotal experience to increase PST feelings of confidence so that they can test the theories that they have learned through university instruction (Jimenez-Silva et al., 2012; Okremtchouk & Salla, 2019; Pavlak & Cavendar, 2019; Polat et al., 2019). The degree of confidence can apply to particular aspects of teaching ELs instead of a global overall confidence, as PST hone various skills and dispositions needed for classroom instruction of MLs. For instance, in one research study, PSTs were most confident in assessing MLs’ reading ability (Burgess-Brigham et al., 2020). On the other hand, Okremtchouk and Salla (2019) found that PSTs reported that they felt that cultural awareness was their greatest strength. Given the variety of different teacher education programs, it follows that PST would develop various skills, knowledge and dispositions based on their experiences throughout the teacher preparation process. Research questions The purpose of this study was to better understand preservice teacher perception of their current level of knowledge and skill in teaching multilingual students and their perception of interest or need for ESOL training.The study is situated in a college of education at a medium sized R1 university in the Southeast region of the United States. The study focused on the following research questions: 1. To what extent are preservice teachers interested in training to teach English as a Second or Foreign Language? 2. What are preservice teachers’ perceptions of efficacy in different areas of ESOL knowledge and preparedness to teach multilingual students in their future educational settings? Methodology and Methods Context This study was conducted at a medium-sized R1 institution in the southeast part of the United States with a strong teacher education program. Institutional Review Board permission was granted prior to any data collection. The researchers are graduate faculty in the teacher education program, so there was no direct influence on the PSTs beliefs from the researchers. The impetus for the study was an organic need to better understand the potential for developing undergraduate options that would build the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of teacher candidates to work with MLs in their future classrooms. Participants A total of 61 preservice teachers enrolled in the College of Education at a medium-sized R1 institution in the southeast part of the United States fully responded to the Qualtrics electronic questionnaire sent to them. Of the 61 respondents, 4 were freshmen, 7 were sophomores, 11 were juniors, and 39 were seniors. 46% of the respondents were Elementary Education majors, with a total of 11 different majors reported. Table 1 summarizes participant majors. Table 1 Participants' Majors Research instrument The data for this study was generated using an online questionnaire within Qualtrics XM software of the Qualtrics Research Suite (http://qualtrics.com). Participants were informed of the study via email and all consent documentation was provided online within the Qualtrics platform. Recipients of the email were informed of the purpose of the study and their right to withdraw at any time, assured of the voluntary nature of the study and its protection of confidentiality, and those who selected Agree, were then directed to the online questionnaire. In addition to demographic information, the questionnaire included three general questions related to perceived preparation to work with ELs, attitude toward further training, and expectations about future potential student population in classroom setting. Follow up questions related to specific knowledge and skills related to teaching MLs were also asked, and a complete set of the questions can be found in Appendix A. Finally, pre-service teacher participants were asked to estimate the total number of courses they had taken at the undergraduate level in various topics related to English language teaching and learning. Data analysis We used SPSS software (IBM [International Business Machines Corporation], 2020) version 27 to analyze the data. Simple descriptive statistics (frequencies) were computed to gather a general composite understanding of participants. Once all incomplete responses were deleted, a total of 61 responses were used in the analysis. Results The purpose of this study was to explore pre-service teacher perceptions of and interest in training for working with multilingual students in K-12 classrooms. Interest in training The first research question sought to investigate pre-service teachers’ interest in further training to work with MLs in their future classrooms and wasaddressed with one question on the survey. Participants were provided with brief definitions of terms related to TESOL and potential degree or certificate options (TESOL minor, TESOL certificate) were explained. They were then asked to choose the statement or statements that described their current attitude toward training. Options included: a.I am interested in getting the training necessary to work with multilingual students in the educational settings for which I am preparing. b.I don’t think specific training for teaching multilingual students would be beneficial to me at this time. c.I would be interested in getting a minor in TESOL d.I would be interested in getting a TESOL certificate e.I would only be able to pursue a minor or certificate option if financial support were offered. Participant responses (86.9%) indicated a strong interest in receiving further training with only 3 respondents expressing no interest in receiving training. It is noted that the numbers do not add up to 100% since participants were allowed to select more than one response option. Table 2 summarizes the responses. Other recent studies have documented PST interest in more field experiences with MLs (Okremtchouk & Salla, 2019; Pavlak & Cavendar, 2019). In order to better contextualize these responses, we also asked participants about their expectation of having MLs in their future classrooms. 100% of respondents indicated they expect to have MLs in their classroom in the future. Table 2 Participant interest in receiving further training Perceptions of preparation Our second question was primarily addressed with one question: On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = neutral; 4 = adequately; 5 = exceptionally), how prepared do you perceive yourself to be in working with multilingual students in the educational settings for which you are preparing?Over half of respondents claimed they had been trained to work with MLs “not at all” or “somewhat”. Nearly a quarter of respondents indicated they were “neutral” in their opinion of said training, and less than 25% of respondents indicated “adequate” or “exceptional” training. Table 3 presents the percentage of responses for each item of the scale.This aligns with current research that found PSTs lacking in background, knowledge, and skills for working with MLs (Nichols & Soe, 2013). In order to gain perspective about this perception, it is helpful to consider that there is no dedicated minor or certificate option at the undergraduate level for preservice teachers at this institution. The program requirements do include one course that combines issues of ESOL with literacy instruction at the preservice teacher level, so it is understandable that few participants felt they had been “adequately” or “exceptionally” trained. For some students this survey may have been administered before they had taken that course in their curriculum. Besides this one course requirement, any other instruction related to ML in content area classrooms is left up to the discretion of the content area specialists in teacher education at this institution. Data analysis of 18 follow up questions (see Appendix A) related to specific skills and knowledge provides further illumination of participants’ perceptions of their knowledge and skills. The 18 questions were categorized according to their connection to linguistic knowledge, content area instruction, and student diversity and culture. Participants were given the opportunity to rank their knowledge and ability on a scale of 1 to 4 with one being not well prepared and 4 being very well prepared. 10 questions referred to linguistic knowledge. 60.8% of participants responded with “not well prepared” or “somewhat prepared” to statements related to linguistic knowledge. On the other hand, only 39% responded to statements with “well prepared” or “very well prepared”. Within this category, the questions that received the highest level of confidence were the ability to group students to promote language growth and the skills of being able to involve parents in the language development of their child. Two questions referred to content area instruction. 76% of respondents indicated “not well prepared” or “somewhat prepared” to statements related to content area instruction, and only 24% of respondents indicated “well prepared” or “very well prepared” in the same category. This category had the weakest response of confidence and the question that showed the highest level of assurance was the ability to integrate language with the content area standards. Six questions referred to knowledge and skills related to student diversity and culture. A little more than half of the respondents (52%) indicated they felt “not well prepared” or “somewhat prepared” to items related to student diversity and culture, with 47% responding more positively with “well prepared” or “very well prepared” to the same items. In this category, the questions that garnered the highest level of efficacy were the ability to teach students from a variety of cultural backgrounds and the teaching of students with diverse abilities and learning styles. Table 3 Perceptions of training Limitations Several limitations have an impact upon the conclusions that can be drawn from this study. First, the data was collected from a small sample at one university and cannot be generalized to the entire pre-service teacher population. Another limitation to this study is the fact that survey research does not always have a strong response rate (Gay, Mills, Airasian, 2012). This study had only 61 total respondents. Furthermore, those who participated may be ones already interested in the topic which could have made them more likely to complete the survey. Finally, this study is limited in that it contains only descriptive statistics and does not delve deeply into factor analysis or correlation. Conclusion and Implications In spite of these stated limitations, the findings of this study are fruitful for gaining a better perspective of pre-service teachers’ perceptions of and interest in training specifically designed for teaching MLs. While this study is just an examination of PST beliefs, the beliefs of PST are important because these attitudes will affect the way that they approach MLs in their future classrooms and could lead to adverse circumstances for ML students (Lucas, Villegas & Martin, 2015). In this particular study, it is clear that participants felt they had not received adequate training in an aspect of their future teaching that they also deemed important. 100% of the respondents expect to have MLs in their classrooms, yet less than one quarter of them felt they had been adequately or exceptionally trained in this area. This aligns with other research that indicates teacher preparation programs have not made the requisite adaptations to meet the needs of this population of students (DelliCarpini & Alonso, 2015). The fact that principals and school leadership continue to request professional development for in-service teachers (Baecher et al., 2016) further corroborates the implication that schools are receiving newly trained teachers who do not have this foundational knowledge. Nevertheless, this study illuminates the growing awareness that preservice teachers have about this population of students that they will encounter in their teaching career. While other studies (Mieneke & DeVasto, 2020; Polat et al., 2019) suggest that PSTs don’t acknowledge their responsibility in teaching MLs, 86.9% of respondents in this study expressed interest in further training which indicates their awareness of the prospect of teaching MLs in their future classrooms. This is encouraging and helps build the case for more intentional instruction in undergraduate preservice teacher coursework. Unfortunately, most preservice teacher curricula have no available space for new courses to be added. This puts the onus for this foundational training on the preservice teachers themselves by asking them to enroll in and pay for additional coursework beyond their degree requirements. Approximately one half of respondents expressed interest in taking courses to complete a minor or certificate in TESOL. Institutions of higher education engaged in the important work of training future teachers should be made aware of the disconnect between the theory of providing high quality teacher education and the practical reality of serving the needs of schools which have a growing number of MLs in many diverse contexts. Given the increasing prevalence of MLs in K-12 classrooms, teacher education programs should make deliberate efforts to find various ways to prepare their teacher candidates to meet the needs of MLs at all grade levels and in all content areas. Areas for further research More research is warranted to better understand preservice teacher’s perceptions of their training to work with multilingual students. A larger sample including preservice teachers from different regions in the United States would yield more impactful results that could inform teacher preparation programs about the current state of knowledge and skills. Furthermore, a pre and post intervention study as documented in some previous research (Kolano & King, 2015; Ramos, 2017; Turgut et al., 2016) could more closely examine the impact of various curricular components in a teacher education program that could bring about long-term dispositional change in PST candidates as they are trained to provide linguistic, cultural, and content area instruction to ML students in their future classrooms. Appendix A Survey Questions Q1: What year are you? (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior) Q2: Are you enrolled in courses in the College of Education? (yes, no) Q3: If you have declared a major within the College of Education, to which program do you belong? Q4: Choose the statement(s) that best describe your current attitude (you may choose as many as you feel are appropriate): ·I am interested in getting the training necessary to work with multilingual students in the educational settings for which I am preparing. ·I don’t think specific training for teaching multilingual students would be beneficial to me at this time. ·If it were available, I would be interested in getting a minor in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. I understand that this would not lead to certification, but adds value to my current degree in future teaching positions I will have. ·If it were available, I would be interested in getting a TESL/TEFL certificate. I understand that this would not lead to certification, but adds value to my current degree in future teaching positions I will have. ·I would only be able to pursue a minor or certificate option if financial support were available. Q5: I expect to work with ELLs in the classroom setting. (yes, no) Q6: For the following items, please indicate how well prepared you are to (on a scale of 1 – 4): a.Group students in specific ways in order to support their language development. b.Provide instruction to multilingual students that meets state academic standards. c.Adapt your speech to students’ English language proficiency level. d.Review new language structures and vocabulary. e.Teach classes for students with diverse abilities and learning styles. f.Teach students from a variety of cultural backgrounds. g.Teach ELLs with cognitive and physical disabilities. h.Organize and manage student behavior with cultural and linguistic differences in mind. i.Integrate the academic language development of ELLs with the different content areas. j.Connect instruction to ELLs’ cultural background and personal experience. k.Involve parents in the English language acquisition of their children. l.Define language objectives for ELLs. m.Summarize new content knowledge at various levels of English proficiency. n.Provide learning strategies to support language development. o.Work with ELLs with behavioral problems. p.Support ELLs’ literacy development needs in English. q.Use first language to support second language acquisition. r.Contextualize new vocabulary. Footnotes 1The authors recognize the wide variety of terms and acronyms used in the literature to discuss the population of students under discussion for this paper. Among these terms are English language learner (ELL), limited English proficient student (LEP), Emergent bilingual (EB), culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) student, non-native English speaker (NNES). Terms can vary according to geographical location, contextualized field of study, and sociopolitical nuances. The authors are using multilingual learners (ML) throughout this paper to situate the multilingual status of the students as an asset. References Baecher, L., Knoll, M., & Patti, J. (2016). Targeted observation of ELL instruction as a tool in the preparation of school leaders. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(3), 201-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1185910 Bunch, G. C., Aguirre, J. M., & Téllez, K. (2015). Integrating a focus on academic language, English learners, and mathematics: Teacher candidates’ responses on the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). The New Educator,11(1), 79-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2015.989796 Burgess-Brigham, R., Eslami, Z., & Esteki, K. (2020). Pre-service ESL teachers’ self-reported knowledge of English language learners’(ELLs) reading assessments. Language Related Research, 11(5), 31-57.http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-47168-fa.html Daniel, S. M. (2014). Learning to educate English language learners in pre-service elementary practicums. Teacher Education Quarterly, 41(2), 5-28. DelliCarpini, M. E., & Alonso, O. B. (2014). Teacher education that works: Preparing secondary-level math and science teachers for success with English language learners through content-based instruction. Global Education Review, 1(4), 153-178. Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Hughes, T. (2010). How prepared are the U. S. pre-service teachers to teach English language learners? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(1), 32-41. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications.Pearson. Hare Landa, M., Odòna-Holm, J., & Shi, L. (2017). Education abroad and domestic cultural immersion: A comparative study of cultural competence among teacher candidates. The Teacher Educator,52(3), 250-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2017.1313922 Jimenez-Silvia, M., Olson, K., & Jimenez Hernandez, N. (2012). The confidence to teach English language learners: Exploring coursework’s role in developing preservice teachers’ efficacy. The Teacher Educator, 47, 9-28. Jones, K., Mixon, J. R., Henry, L., & Butcher, J. (2017). Response to cultures continuum and the development of intercultural responsiveness (IR). Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 4, 1-16. Kelly, L. B. (2018). Preservice teachers’ developing conceptions of teaching English learners. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 110-136. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.375 Kolano, L. Q., & King, E. T. (2015). Preservice teachers' perceived beliefs towards English language learners: Can a single course change attitudes?. Issues in Teacher Education, 24(2), 3-21. Lim, W., Moseley, L. J., Son, J. W., & Seelke, J. (2014). A snapshot of teacher candidates' readiness for incorporating academic language in lesson plans. Current Issues in Middle Level Education,19(2), 1-8. López, F., Scanlan, M., & Gundrum, B. (2013). Preparing teachers of English language learners: Empirical evidence and policy implications. Education Policy Analysis Archives,21, 20. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2010). The missing piece in teacher education: The preparation of linguistically responsive teachers. National Society for the Study of Education,109(2), 297-318. Lucas, T., Villegas, A.M. & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361-373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108322110 Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Martin, A. D. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs about English language learners. In H. Fives & M. Gregoire Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 453–475). Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Meineke, H., & DeVasto, D. (2020). The subject of subjectivity: Preparing teachers with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for empowering emergent bilingual students. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 9(1), 61-82. Mills, T., Villegas, A. M., & Cochran-Smith, M. (2020). Research on preparing preservice mainstream teachers for linguistically diverse classrooms.Teacher Education Quarterly, 47(4), 33-55. Okhremtchouk, I. S., & Sellu, G. S. (2019). Teacher readiness to work with English language learners: Arizona context. The Teacher Educator, 54(2), 125-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2018.153305 Pavlak, C. M., & Cavender, M. (2019). When words do not work: Exploring preservice teachers' confidence in teaching reading to English learners. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 21(2), 4. Polat, N., Mahalingappa, L., Hughes, E., & Karayigit, C. (2019). Change in preservice teacher beliefs about inclusion, responsibility, and culturally responsive pedagogy for English learners. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(4), 222-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1597607 Rafa, A., Erwin, B., Brixey, E., McCann, M., & Perez, E. Jr. (2020). 50 state comparison: English learner policies:What EL training or ongoing professional development is required of general classroom teachers? Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from https://reports.ecs.org/comparisons/50-state- comparison-english-learner-policies-10 Ramirez, P. C., Gonzales-Galindo, D., & Roy, B. (2016). Preparing pre-service secondary teachers in Arizona: Using culturally responsive approaches to learn from diverse secondary English learners. Multicultural Education, 23(2), 22-30. Ramos, K. (2017). Tackling a tough task: Teaching today's teachers to teach English Learners. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(3), 471-489. Reeves, J. (2009). A sociocultural perspective on ESOL teachers’ linguistic knowledge for teaching. Linguistics and Education, 20(2), 109-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2008.11.001 Samson, J. F. & Collins, B. A. (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. Scott, J., & Scott, B. (2015). They "really" don't speak English: Helping preservice teachers experience cultural and linguistic diversity. AILACTE Journal, 12(1), 17-34. Turgut, R., Sahin, E. A., & Huerta, M. (2016). Changes in preservice teachers’ perception of preparedness to teach English language learners (ELLs) in mainstream classrooms. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 10(4) 291-305. U.S. Department of Education. (2019). Percentage of public school teachers who teach English Language Learner (ELL) students and students with disabilities and percentage with selected qualifications or coursework, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 2017–18. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/ dt19_209.42.asp U.S. Department of Education (2020). National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2018–19. See Digest of Education Statistics 2020, table 204.20. Vogt, M., Echevarria, J. J., & Short, D. J. (2016). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model(5th ed.). Pearson Yough, M. (2019). Tapping the sources of self-efficacy: Promoting preservice teachers’ sense of efficacy for instructing English language learners. The Teacher Educator, 54(3), 206-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2018.1534031
Research Preservice Teacher Perceptions of Multilingual Learner Training Jamie Harrison, and Gwendolyn Williams Auburn University ABSTRACT This quantitative study examines preservice teachers’ perceptions about their current level of knowledge and skill in teaching multilingual students and their interest in ESOL training.61 participants enrolled in eleven College of Education undergraduate programs at a medium-sized land grant university in the Southeast completed the survey. Data analysis indicates that while participants see the value in having the knowledge and skills necessary for effective teaching of multilingual learners (MLs) in K-12 classrooms, they do not feel equipped to do so in their future school settings.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.26
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.27
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.29
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.28
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.30
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.31
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.33
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.32
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.34
Praxis Science and the English Language Learner Tony De Souza and Milt Huling Polk State College
Often many classroom teachers perceive second language acquisition as problematic to their ELL students’ academic learning at K-12 schools in both the United States and Canada (Huang, Cunningham & Finn, 2010). In much the same way as a native English speaker may encounter challenges in a foreign academic classroom where a different language is spoken, an ELL struggles when they enter an English-speaking classroom. How would these students succeed in such an environment, as well as demonstrate their knowledge given the language and cultural barriers? To make matters worse, it could be assumed that they know little about the content being taught. This is exactly the situation so many ELL students are placed into every day. Second language acquisition studies show that ELL students experience considerable struggles in their academics due to their limited English proficiency (Barr, Eslami & Joshi, 2012; Jacobson, Hund & Soto-Mas, 2016; Lakin & Young, 2013; Spilt et al. (2012).As student achievement ranks high on the accountability list in public education (Spilt et al., 2012; Weingarten, 2014), local school districts are encouraged to develop academic values in each State that would promote reforms to help increase student academic performance in schools (Master, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2017; Plecki, Elfers, & Nakamura, 2012).Currently, in the U.S., there are over 5 million ELL students in public schools, with the majority being Spanish speaking [77.5%] (NCES, 2020). While English Language Learners may be defined differently by individual State statutes, ELLs can more broadly be defined as students with different spoken languages, academic, and social-emotional needs. A misconception of many is that all ELLs are from other countries, but this may not necessarily be the case. An ELL may not have been born in the United States, but it can also be students whose native language is a language other than English (NCES, 2005). Some of these students will be in local classrooms, so how will teachers make them feel valued, and help them learn both, a language and content, at the same time? It is an interesting paradox; the more that discoveries are made about how language development differs from individual to individual and situation to situation, the more these discoveries reflect how it is similar for all. The specific differences shed light on and help identify the deep general and unifying principles that operate across those specific differences of individual learners and situations. In as much, it can take as many as 5-7 years for an ELL to become proficient in English to a point where their language skills are on par with their peers. This is primarily because all children effortlessly and naturally learn their native tongue, and many learn at least one additional language, as well. (Flack & Horst, 2018; Marshall & Hobsbaum, 2015). Furthermore, Louwerse and Ventura (2005) argued that the human mind does not contain a module for language acquisition, instead young children absorb the meaning of words through a set of cognitive abilities that includes the ability to infer intentions. It remains obvious that science teachers cannot wait for the development of language before instruction in science begins and reject the belief that students need to be proficient in literacy and numeracy before science can be learned (Lee & Luykx, 2005). There is also evidence to support the notion that second language acquisition is improved via a context/content-dependent approach (TESOL 2006). Though language development continues throughout life, it is most dramatic in the earlier years before the child comes to school. Much of a teacher’s decisions about how instruction will be scaffolded depend on which level a student is at. For example, a Level 1 student on the TESOL scale should be expected to label a simple diagram of a plant (e.g., stem, leaves, roots, leaves). In contrast, a Level 5 student should be expected to explain the relationship between the parts in terms of reproduction and food production (TESOL 2006). With the knowledge of a student’s level of English language proficiency, teachers can make decisions as to when and how to modify instruction, make accommodations, and adapt assessments accordingly. While adjusting instruction and assessments, it is important to remember that only the language is being modified, to make it more comprehensible and attainable to the student. In essence, no one is more concerned than the science teacher with the “what is there?” in the child’s learning environment and with supporting the use of what the child makes of it. This is simply due to the business of being a teacher (Falk, Frisoli & Varni, 2021; Fan, 2022). However, content expectations remain the same for ELLs as their English-speaking peers, regardless of the student’s level of language proficiency (Castenada & Bautista, 2011). Figure 1 Proficiency Levels. (Adapted from TESOL 2006) The chart above outlines a proficiency-based educational system and helps teachers working with ELLs that will allow them to progress at their own pace and create the needed time and space to progress through the language acquisition phases. This proficiency chart also helps teachers create sufficient time that will help their ELLs complete assignments and meet learning targets starting with reading comprehension—the foundation students will need to process text and understand its meaning. The successful development of reading comprehension is considered paramount for achieving academic success in literacy skills among elementary grade students (Frey & Fisher, 2012: Kennedy & McLoughlin, 2022). Therefore, besides content, science teachers must also support their ELL students in their proficiency in the English language, such as reading, writing, speaking, and listening. For these proficiencies to occur in children, emergent literacy skills require development at an early age because it places students on a trajectory for later overall academic success (Arnold et al., 2012). Therefore, reading, writing, speaking, and listening must also become part of the instruction within the science classroom (TESOL, 2006). Castaneda and Bautista (2011)described the skills of listening and reading as receptive skills and as such, require the learners to be actively engaged in the learning process. In contrast, the skills of speaking and writing are productive skills that require extensive practice in oral and written communications. For a student to reach a point where they are considered truly proficient, proficiency in all four domains (i.e., listening, reading, speaking & writing) must be demonstrated. The question then becomes, how can a science teacher integrate these skills into instruction to not only help students better acquire content knowledge but also help students gain proficiency in the English language? Inquiry-Based Instruction One of the many strengths of an inquiry approach to learning for an ELL is that it enables the students to learn by doing (Herr, 2008). Inquiry-based learning allows students in the classroom to learn concepts by limiting the barrier of language. This is especially applicable for students with special needs because they respond to scientific inquiry with greater focus, more positive interactions, and a sustained interest (Schmidt et al., 2002). For example, science teachers may create a lesson unit entitledInsects in Our School Garden, allowing children to explore (a) types of insects found in the school’s environment, (b) the life cycles of a butterfly, and (c) the impact of insects on our everyday lives. To preface this inquiry-based assignment, science teachers could first expose their students to a book on bugs (insects) such as John Canty’sHeads and Tails: Insects, Angela DiTerlizzi’sSome Bugs, or Caroline Lawton’sBugs A to Z. Instead of simply filling in a practice worksheet, children could be provided with a blank piece of paper to record their observations and then asked to study and draw their own replications in their science journals. At the same time, these inquiry-based lessons enable students to practice language skills collaboratively with their peers in English or even their native languages. This is especially important given the content-specific language students need to learn and use (Deussen, et al., 2008). Within the process of inquiry, students are exposed to all the required domains ELL students must practice and eventually demonstrate. Additionally, using inquiry, ELLs do not only learn about the content and domain-specific vocabulary, but also the practice of science (Amaral, Garrison, & Klentschy, 2002; Fradd & Lee, 1999; Vanosdall et al., 2007; Warren & Rosebery, 2008) which is a critical aspect of scientific literacy. Writing It should be no surprise to anyone that to become a better writer, one must write. One such way to do this within a science classroom is by using a science journal. While there are many ways to set up such a journal, the important purpose of the journal is that it provides the students with a place to record essential information, either gained from the teacher during instruction or from their own thoughts. These ideas can be recorded as pictures and drawings, phrases, and important vocabulary terms. A student may also be asked to keep classwork within the journal, which may include labeling diagrams, and writing one-sentence definitions, or for the more advanced students, it may include examples of Claims, Evidence, and Reasoning.While the ELL student may initially struggle with writing, the reciprocal nature of writing and speaking cannot be ignored (Worth et al., 2009). Further support for providing ELLs opportunities to write stems from a longitudinal study that followed ELLs during research on a curriculum emphasizing writing and inquiry. After 5 years in the program, ELLs were able to outperform their native English-speaking peers (Amaral, Garrison & Klentschy, 2002). Writing can help students collect their thoughts before they write. Likewise, students that are engaged in discussion before they write can gain valuable information about how they will frame their own writing. Butler and Scharmann (2015) added that journal writing to assess student learning and acceptance of evolutionary science helps them remain engaged in explicit and reflective writing. As a result, it provides teachers of science with opportunities to share meaningful feedback on the work produced by students. For an ELL, it also allows them to respond to prompts where teachers can observe and evaluate the learning plus assess their ongoing proficiency levels in their language acquisition journey. Furthermore, in today’s cloud-based options for journaling and note-taking in education, ELLs may also benefit from the use of multimedia (Smith & Mader, 2014). Digital journaling helps students store their work and allows them to build upon their entries in the years ahead. Teachers would also be spared the significant handicap of not being able to access students’ prior knowledge/work as so often becomes the case with the loss or displacement of physical journals from previous years when the school year ends. Speaking Just as writing requires opportunities to practice, so does speaking. ELLs must be provided with opportunities to speak, which could be done in their native language with peers whenever possible. These discussions in a native language aid in the development of a better understanding of content, just as they would for English-speaking students. There are decades of research based on the work of Lev Vygotsky (1962) to support the idea that learning is a product of social interactions within the classroom (Schreiber & Valle, 2013). It then becomes the teacher's role to facilitate such discussions as a natural part of classroom activities (Powell & Kalina, 2009). Fortunately, within a science classroom, small group or dyad discussion becomes commonplace within the hopefully common inquiry-based activities and without much need for artificial inducement. Domke and Cárdenas Curiel (2021) advocated that allowing students to engage in discussions of texts featuring diverse expressions of bilingualism is essentially important for younger learners at the elementary level because it moves away from empirical conceptions of language proficiency education. When teachers use a student’s multilingual linguistic ability instead of placing a narrow focus on a single language, translanguaging occurs in the classroom (García & Li, 2014; Martínez-Roldán & Malavé, 2004). Changing this focus will help teachers embrace a translanguaging view and place the emphasis on linguistic practices instead. Science teachers may include activities that empower the ELL to choose the language of choice when journaling. For example, when taking notes students could create their own notes from a text or graphic organizers in their first language (L1), English (L2), or a combination of both languages. Therefore, to successfully create this environment in the classroom, understanding the complexities of bilingualism is important. A great place to start is by selecting books that reflect the ELL because it also serves as a segue for the teacher to learn more about the child’s language practices. As part of deciding on grouping students, there are important considerations to make regarding pairings. It is often beneficial to pair a student with a lower level of proficiency with a peer who shares their native language. This pairing can work if the work is done as a dyad or just as part of a large lab group of 3-4 students. This pairing can also ease the flow of conversation about the science content being learned. In contrast, ELLs with a higher level of proficiency should be paired with proficient English speakers to enhance their proficiency growth (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy 2008). These small group settings used in inquiry-based learning can provide a more relaxed atmosphere for students to ask questions and seek explanations (Castaneda & Bautista, 2011), which they may otherwise fear doing in a larger group. Reading Research on second language acquisition and reading acquisition suggests that students may transfer some language skills from their home language (Bialystok & Craik, 2010; Palacios & Kibler, 2016). This is made possible due to the high frequency (60%) of English words having either Greek or Latin roots (Freeman & Freeman, 2014). In a 2011 study entitled,“The Latin-Greek Connection”, the authors made a case for teaching vocabulary with a focus on implementing the morphological structure of words in elementary schools with emphasis on English words that have roots and affixes in Latin and Greek (Rasinski et al., 2011). Vocabulary is central to becoming a successful reader because numerous research has shown that the size and depth attained by students (especially at the elementary school level) are correlated with proficiency in reading comprehension (Barr et al., 2012;Flack & Horst, 2018; Frey & Fisher, 2012; Kennedy & McLoughlin, 2022; Louwerse & Ventura, 2005;Palacios & Kibler, 2016). In the science classroom, the development of morphological awareness in younger children is integral when it pertains to learning new scientific vocabulary words because “Children learn morphemes as they learn language” (Carlisle, 2010, p. 465). For example, the wordscienceoriginated from the Latin wordScientiawhich means knowledge. Other Latin root examples includeacidmeaning acidic, sour;lunmeaning moon,saxmeaning rock, andterrmeaning Earth, etc. The ancient Greek root word for knowledge wasepisteme;astermeans star;biomeans life, etc. Understandably, none of these Latin and Greek terms exactly carry the same meaning as today’s modern words in English, however many science vocabulary words utilize Greek and Latin roots that can help students figure out what a word means even if they may not have heard it before. When working with ELLs, teachers should lower language barriers in the reading process so that the instruction may focus on the science content instead of only placing the emphasis on English language proficiency. Therefore, as students progress forward, they will continue to encounter more and more new vocabulary in the classroom as the complexity of new words taught expands. Morphology with root words in Latin and Greek can help a student unlock the meaning of additional English words. This practice also demonstrates efficacy when teachers help students expand vocabulary through root-word instruction.Readability is another consideration to make when choosing a text for ELLs. It would be considered too much to ask a teacher to rewrite a reading passage every week to make it accessible to a student’s needs. Research suggests using more complex text accompanied by strategic support is more beneficial for the learner’s outcome (Gibbons, 2002; Walqui, 2006; Walqui & Van Lier, 2010; Billings & Walqui, 2017). There are many different strategies to help ELLs with text, such as those listed below: Figure 2 Reading Strategies for ELLs Technology now provides tools to determine a text’s difficulty level so a selection can be made more pragmatically. Within Microsoft Word, there is the Flesch-Kinkaid Readability tool that can be used to determine the grade level of the text being considered, taking only seconds. There are also online tools such as Lexile.com that can do a similar function to better align the text to a reader’s ability. Depending on the school district, whether it is supportive of a dual language approach, or one solely focused on English only, online translation tools and even the ability to read the text to the student are options that can be considered. Reading using technology can also make it possible to highlight text or copy and paste text when appropriate to answer TDQs. Web 2.0 Tools in the Classroom Web 2.0 tools are becoming more common in schools because teachers have the ability when working with ELLs during the early stages of language acquisition. In particular, these tools are helpful as they allow an ELL to be in control by giving them the opportunity to produce meaningful work and assignments in a controlled setting. Web 2.0 utilizes the“guide on the side”approach rather than incorporating a top-down method because of its ability to dynamically change or edit content instead of just reading text verbatim to students. The different strategies outlined in Figure 2 could be used with ELLs because unlike other websites that are mostly read-only concepts, Web 2.0 tools have a wider platform for user interaction. The following are a few examples on the web: Cloze Reading: https://mrnussbaum.com/mars-cloze-reading-online Digital Storytelling: https://sites.google.com/site/21stcentteachinglearning /digital-storytelling/web-20-digital-storytelling-tools Student Publishing: https://go.fan.school/kidblog Storybird: https://storybird.com VoiceThread (Student Collaboration): https://voicethread.com/products/k12/ Wordle (Word Cloud): https://www.wordle.net Vocabulary Builder: https://www.vocabulary.com;https://www. visualthesaurus.com/vocabgrabber/ Gloss Vocabulary: https://ludwig.guru/ Figure 3 Additional Web 2.0 Resources Listening Reading is a fundamental skill for children in early literacy development as it is an imperative stage for knowledge acquisition (Farah et al., 2019; Kuhl, 2011). Listening is a critical skill for all students because it is linked to reading and writing, particularly for ELLs as they are acquiring both content and a new language. This is especially true for those still in the silent stage who are not yet capable of producing speech in English. This stage must be respected and approached in a non-threatening manner, but that does not mean they are not participating in other instructional activities. For example, hands-on learning exposes the student to an environment where they can learn the content, but also experience hearing ideas from their peers. The groups they are placed in may include speakers of their native language, but not exclusively as they may limit their exposure to hearing English as a second language (Tsang, 2021). Before children are ready to speak, they should be encouraged to point, identify, act out, and illustrate their knowledge to demonstrate their comprehension. Other ways to help students that are still developing speaking skills due to limited English proficiency may also include choral readings, echo reading, shared reading, writing, and singing. It may also be beneficial to not always place ELLs together in the same group to provide greater exposure to proficient English speakers. When students can start language production in English, at least for a portion of the lesson, ELL students should be placed in groups with only native English speakers so that they are motivated to use their new language (Weimer, 2001). Figure 4 Language Acquisition Tool Kit (Adapted from Herr 2008) Conclusions Content area teachers must take initiative and seek knowledge and resources for teaching ELLs in their classrooms. Additionally, acquiring English as a second language for ELLs in K-12 classrooms requires teachers to show that they are valued. This will help these students learn both, a language and content at the same time. For many ELLs, it may take 5-7 years for English language proficiency to transpire, and teachers of science cannot wait for the development of this proficiency to reach maturity before instruction in science is given. Scaffolding lessons is a great way to help teachers make decisions on when to modify their lessons for ELLs and make accommodations and adaptations appropriately. This will make science instruction more comprehensible and attainable for the learner. Furthermore, the successful development of reading comprehension in science education is paramount for an ELL to achieve academic success as this makes the needed connection between content and literacy skills. Science education is also naturally conducive for ELLs to use an inquiry approach to learning as it enables students to learn by doing. This process fosters concept learning by limiting the language barrier. Reading, writing, speaking, and listening are fundamental skills for all children in early literacy development and are an imperative stage for an English language learner to acquire language proficiency skills in school. References Amaral, O. M., Garrison, L., and Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners increase achievement through inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal 26(2): 213–239. Arnold., D. H., Kupersmidt, J. B., Voegler-Lee, M. E., & Marshall, N. A. (2012). The association between preschool children’s social functioning and their emergent academic skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 376-386. Ballantyne, K.G., Sanderman, A.R., and Levy, L. (2008).Educating English language learners: Building teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Barr, S., Eslami, Z., & Joshi, R. (2012). Core strategies to support English language learners. Education Forum, 76(1), 105-117. Bialystok, E., & Craik, F. I. M. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic processing in the bilingual mind. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 19-23. Billings, E. & Walqui, A. (2017). Topic brief 5: Dispelling the myth of “English only”: understanding the importance of the first language in second language learning. New York State Education Department. Retrieved from http://www.nysed.gov/bilingualed/topic-brief-5- dispelling-myth-english-only-understanding- importance-first-language Butler Jr., W., & Scharmann, L. C. (2015). The use of journaling to assess student learning and acceptance of evolutionary science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(1), 16-21. Carlisle, J. (2010). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12(3), 169-190. Castaneda, M. & Bautista, N. (2011). Teaching Science to ELLs: Part II. The Science Teacher. 78. 40-44. Deussen, T., Autio, E., Miller, B., Turnbaugh-Lockwood, A., and Stewart, V. (2008).What Teachers Should Know About Instruction for English Language Learners. Center for Research, Evaluation, and Assessment. Education Northwest. Portland, OR. Domke, L. M., & Cárdenas Curiel, L. (2021). There’s no one way to be bilingual: Knowing students’ language practices. Reading Teacher, 74(4), 451-455. Falk, D., Frisoli, P., & Varni, E. (2021). The importance of teacher well-being for student mental health and resilient education systems. Forced Migration Review, 66,17-21. Fan, S. -C. (2022). An important-performance analysis (IPA) of teachers’ core competencies for implementing maker education in primary and secondary schools.I nternational Journal of Technology & Design Education, 32(2), 943-969. Farah, R., Meri, R., Kadis, D. S., Hutton, J., DeWitt, T., & Horowitz-Kraus, T. (2019). Hyperconnectivity during screen-based stories listening is associated with lower narrative comprehension in preschool children exposed to screens vs dialogic reading: An EEG study. PLoS ONE, 14(11), 1-16. Flack, Z. M., & Horst, J. S. (2018). Two sides to every story: Children learn words better from one storybook page at a time. Infant & Child Development, 27(1), 1. Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2012). Reading in every classroom, every day. Principal Leadership, 12(6). 58-60. Fradd, S. H., & Lee, O. (1999). Teachers’ roles in promoting science inquiry with students from diverse language backgrounds. Educational Researcher28 (6): 4–20, 42. Freeman, D. E. & Freeman, Y. S. (2014). Essential linguistics. Heinemann. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging:Language, bilingualism and education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Gibbons, P. (2002).Learning language, learning through language, and learning about language: Developing an integrated curriculum. In Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language, Learners in the Mainstream Classroom.pp 118-138. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Herr, N. (2008). The sourcebook for teaching science, grades 6-12: strategies, activities, and Resources. Josey Bass, San Francisco, CA. Huang, J., Cunningham, J., & Finn, A. (2010). Teacher perceptions of ESOL students’ greatest challenges in academic English skills: A K-12 perspective. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 8(1), 68-80. Jacobson, H. E., Hund, L., & Soto-Mas, F. (2016). Predictors of English health literacy among U.S. hispanic immigrants: The importance of language, bilingualism and sociolinguistic environment. Literacy & Numeracy Studies, 24(1), 43-65. Kennedy, C., & McLoughlin, A. (2022). Developing the emergent literacy skills of English language learners through dialogic reading: A systematic review. Early Childhood Education Journal,1-6. Kuhl, P. (2011). Early language learning and literacy: Neuroscience implications for education. Mind Brain and Education, 5(3), 42-128. Lakin, J. M., & Young, J. W. (2013). Evaluating growth for ELL students: Implications for accountability policies. Issues & Practice, 32(3), 11-26. Lee, O., and Luykx, A. (2005).Dilemmas in scaling up educational innovations with nonmainstream students in elementary school science. American Educational Research Journal43: 411–438. Louwerse, M. M., & Ventura, M. (2005). How children learn the meaning of words and how LSA does it (too). Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 301-309. Marshall, C. R., & Hobsbaum, A. (2015). Sign-supported English: Is it effective at teaching vocabulary to young children with English as an additional language? International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 50(5), 616-628. Martínez-Roldán, C. M., & Malavé, G. (2004). Language ideologies mediating literacy and identity in bilingual contexts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4(2), 155-180. Master, B., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2017). More than content: The persistent cross-subject effects of English language arts teachers’ instruction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3), 429-447. National Center for Education Statistics (2020).State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary and Secondary Education, 2018–19.Washington. D.C. U.S. Department of Education. retrieved December 8, 2021 @ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/ dt20_204.27.asp? National Center for Educational Statistics (2005). Characteristics of the 100 largest public elementary and secondary school districts 2001-2002.Washington. D.C. U.S. Department of Education. Palacios, N., & Kibler, A. (2016). Oral English language proficiency and reading mastery: The role of home language and school support. Journal of Educational Research, 109(2). 122-136. Plecki, M. L., Elfers, A. M., & Nakamura, Y. (2012). Using evidence for teacher education program improvement and accountability: An illustrative case of the role of value-added measures. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 318-334. doi:10.1177/0022487112447110 Powell, K., & Kalina, K., (2009).Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education 130(2). Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N., Newton, J., & Newton, E. (2011). The Latin-Greek connection. Reading Teacher, 65(2), 133-141. Schmidt, P. R., Gillen, S., Zollo, T.C., & Stone, R. (2002). Literacy learning and scientific inquiry: Children respond. Reading Teacher, 55(6), 534. Schreiber, L. M., & Valle, B. E. (2013). Social constructivist teaching strategies in the small group classroom. Small Group Research,44(4), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496413488422 Smith, B., & ader, J. (2014). Journaling in the information age. Science Teacher, 81(8), 8. Spilt, J. L., Hughes, J. N., Wu, J., & Kwok, O. (2012). Dynamics of teacher-student relationships: stability and change across elementary school and the influence on children's academic success. Child Development, 83(4), 1180-1195. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01761.x Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages [TESOL] (2006). TESOL revises preK–12 English language proficiency standards. www.tesol.org/s_TESOL/sec_document.asp?CID= 1445&DID=5349#levels Tsang, A. (2021). The road not taken: Greater emphasis needed on “sounds”, “actual listening”, and “spoken input.” RELC Journal,1. Vanosdall, R., Klentschy, M., Hedges, L.V., and Weisbaum, K.S. (2007). A randomized study of the effects of scaffolded guided-inquiry instruction on student achievement in science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press (original work published in 1934). Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework.I nternational Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180, doi: 10.1080/13670050608668639 Walqui, A., and van Lier, L. (2010).A Pedagogy of Promise. Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. San Francisco: WestEd. Retrieved from: http://www.WestEd.org/scaffoldingacademicsuccess Warren, B., and Rosebery, A. (2008). Using everyday experience to teach science. In Teaching science to English language learners, eds. A. Rosebery and B. Warren, 39–50. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Weingarten, R. (2014). International education comparisons: How American education reform is the new status quo. New England Journal of Public Policy,26(1), 1-10. Weiner, (2001).Preparing for Success: Meeting the Language and Learning Needs of Young Children from Poverty Homes. ECL Publications. Youngtown, AZ. WIDA (2012). 2012 Amplifications of English Language Development Standards. Kindergarten -Grade 12. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. Worth, K., Winokuer, J., Crisman, S., Heller-Winokur, M., & Davis, M. (2009).The Essentials of Science and Literacy: A Guide for Teachers.Heine-mann, London.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.35
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.36
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.37
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.38
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.39
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.40
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.41
Submission Deadline for the Fall 2023 Issue of SSTESOL Journal is September 1st, 2023
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.42
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.43
LINKS TO PRACTICE Language or Disability? Strategies to Engage Dual-identified Students in Classroom Instruction Dr. Georgina Rivera-Singletary and Dr. Renee Sedlack Saint Leo University 1) Presentation Overview English learners (ELL) identified with disabilities is statistically significant in Florida as student enrollment increases Language acquisition and disability characteristics can be subtle. Teachers may have challenges determining the difference between the two. This presentation provided data on ELLs, ELLs with disabilities, characteristics of each group focusing on subtleties, and strategies to engage all students in the classroom infusing strategies that can address both language acquisition and disability. A specific focus on the use of tiered vocabulary is provided along with strategies to infuse them in classroom instruction. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical suggestions for instructors? Classroom teachers and co teachers working with dual-identified ELLs with disabilities (teachers, co-teachers, instructional assistants, and other classroom support staff). There are also data slides that are useful for establishing a foundation for establishing the importance of understanding language and disability and the intersection of both. Slides with the characteristic and strategies tables are key for understanding and incorporating classroom supports for dual-identified ELLs. The key takeaway from this presentation is the importance of understanding the subtle differences of ELLs and students with disabilities to ensure quality instruction based on the unique needs of ELLs who may be dual identified with disabilities to provide effective classroom instruction. Links to practice are data, characteristics, and strategies/tools for both online and on ground classes. Teachers can use the informative tables to gauge their understanding of language and disability challenges. Strategies used to align with instruction in the classroom will help teachers plan effective approaches to differentiate instruction for their classrooms especially dual-identified ELLs. The slides on tiered vocabulary use provide teachers ideas for vocabulary development with the use of cognates and how teachers can use these to infuse vocabulary practice into classroom instruction in all content, especially literacy. The various tools used to engage the audience during the presentation are tools (i.e., Padlet, MentiMeter, and Kahoot) for K12 classroom implementation to motivate students to engage in the instruction as a community and to build inclusive practices. Presenters demonstrated and discussed the online tools with the audience using examples for ideas of implementing the tools in the classroom. Two-way communication and reflection were used during the demonstration to allow teachers to verbalize their ideas and thoughts. A slide with extensive resources and access information is provided for teachers.
LINKS TO PRACTICE The Effects of Self-assessment in Speaking on C1 level Multicultural Students: A Case Study Carlo Campodonico and Rossana Ramírez Universidad Casa Grande, Guayaquil, Ecuador 1) Presentation Overview This presentation aims to understand the way advanced English speakers from a multicultural background improve their speaking skills due to the use of self-assessment. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical suggestions for instructors? The primary beneficiaries are multicultural students across the world who would like to improve their speaking skills by using self-assessment. Students from multicultural backgrounds may find handy to realize how important it is to measure their progress and to practice self-assessment periodically with a rubric.Educators may find it also handy that planning their teaching through backward design principles can increase motivation in students’ participation during asynchronous hours in online learning. I encourage TESOL members to implement self-assessment in their teaching practice; specifically, with students from multicultural backgrounds. I encourage students from multicultural backgrounds to participate in the global village through video recording to help preserve the oral traditions from their traditional multicultural backgrounds while at the same time they learn English as a Foreign Language.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.44
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.45
LINKS TO PRACTICE Opportunities to Engage in Hands-On, Practical Activities for TESOL Courses Jane Govoni and Cindy Lovell University of South Florida 1) Presentation Overview We introduced several engaging activities to use in TESOL courses (e.g., college, endorsement classes) to introduce/review key concepts. These activities allow students to apply what they are learning, thus reinforcing a deeper understanding. Our students express stronger engagement and demonstrate stronger skills when we use activities. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical suggestions for instructors? Pre-service/current educators, administrators, and school counselors. We’ve created 200+ activities to benefit undergraduate and graduate students and workshop participants. Anyone teaching TESOL courses can make use of these activities. Instructors can immediately use these activities in class to engage students with key TESOL concepts. Activities can be used as homework, classwork, and test reviews, especially certification exams. Click for Handout
LINKS TO PRACTICE Yellow Brick Road Tutoring: Qualitative Assessment to Eliminate Affective Barriers Christine Kassover Palm Beach State College 1) Presentation Overview ESL students often require additional help with second language learning and general curriculum courses through tutoring. Sometimes this can be an unpleasant experience for a variety of reasons ranging from student anxiety to feelings of intimidation to apathy; students can lack engagement leading to hindered instruction or solely tutor-driven lessons. The Yellow Brick Road Approach to tutoring guides educators through a series of best practices to identify and remove affective ESL barriers, creating an appropriate learning atmosphere built on trust through qualitative assessment and tailormade experiences. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical suggestions for instructors? The primary beneficiaries of the Yellow Brick Road Approach are teachers, learning specialists, tutor, and any other educational staff who work one-on-one with students to provided individual supportive lessons and instruction outside of the classroom. This practice-oriented session introduces participants to three main affective barriers students can experience in the tutoring environment and key methods to overcome these obstacles. Intertwining the American classic filmThe Wizard of Ozwith tutoring, this session was presented through the lens of Dorothy along the Yellow Brick Road as she meets three characters, who symbolize the top categories of students that educators meet in their own journeys. First is the Scarecrow, who seeks knowledge, and symbolizes students who want to better understand a subject. Next, participants learned to recognize The Tin Man, who seeks a heart and represents students who often lack motivation to embrace a challenge or meet deadlines. Finally, there is the Cowardly Lion, who seeks courage, and represents students with low self-assurance in need of a boost in confidence. Participants were introduced to a targeted qualitative assessment strategy rich in questions and dialogue to identify individualized key information related to desired student learning outcomes, level of prior knowledge, and primary focus of tutoring sessions. The journey down the Yellow Brick Road begins with key steps to position tutors and instructors as friendly mentors supportive of students’ success – scarecrows, tin men, and cowardly lions alike. While “there’s no place like home,” session participants learned how to eliminate affective barriers and provide tailored study strategies to create a welcoming, non-judgmental learning environment for ESL students making them feel more “at home.” The Yellow Brick Road Approach to Tutoring can be used across a range of levels of learners seeking help not only in English but other core curricula courses. Tech-friendly, the approach is deliverable over multiple settings, including in-person tutoring and Google Meet and Zoom sessions. In addition, participants received scaffolded trainer-the-trainer workshop ideas to share with co-workers.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.46
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.47
NOTES
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.48
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 15 Number 1, FALL, 2022 p.49
Fall 2022
SUNSHINE TESOL JOURNAL