Preparing General Education Teachers to Work with English Language Learner Students in United States Schools by Carrie Melton A proposal submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah July 19, 2024 Approved David Byrd David Byrd (Jul 26, 2024 17:06 MDT) David Byrd, Ph.D. DeeDee Mower, Ph.D. Katarina Pantic, Ph.D. PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 2 Abstract Teachers in the United States are unprepared to meet the language and academic needs of the increasing number of English Language Learning (ELL) students in their classrooms. Research suggests that with appropriate training, practicing teachers and preservice teachers can gain the skills and confidence needed to work effectively with ELL students. This study evaluates the perceived benefits practicing teachers felt they received from participating in an outreach program provided through the UELEVATE grant and Weber State University and addresses the following questions: 1) Did the participants perceive that the PD presentations helped improve the educational experience for ELLs? 2) Did the participants perceive the PD presentations improved teacher confidence with working with ELLs? 3) Did the participants feel the presentations were beneficial? The research involved using a survey to collect and evaluate participant responses. The participants in the outreach group teach at the same rural elementary school in Utah. All participants in the group were invited to fill out the survey. The study found that the professional development presentations provided to the partner elementary school are effective at helping mainstream teachers gain the confidence and skills necessary to work with ELL students. This suggests that professional development for practicing teachers is beneficial for teachers working with ELL students as it increases their abilities and their confidence. This in turn benefits ELL students. We propose that school districts seek out quality professional development for all teachers to prepare them to work with ELL students. PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 3 Contents Preparing General Education Teachers to Work with English Language Learner Students in United States Schools. ................................................................................................................. 5 Changing Demographics Across the United States ................................................................ 5 Changing Demographics in United States Schools ................................................................ 7 Meeting the Challenge of Teaching ELL students in US classrooms ..................................... 8 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 9 Preparing Mainstream Teachers to Work with ELL Students ................................................. 9 Teacher Confidence as a Factor for Working with ELL Students......................................... 12 Key Principles for Teachers to Understand When Teaching ELL Students.......................... 13 Misconceptions about teaching ELL students ...................................................................... 15 Implications for Teaching Theories ...................................................................................... 16 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Survey quantitative analysis ................................................................................................. 20 Survey qualitative analysis ................................................................................................... 22 Quantitative Analysis Results ................................................................................................... 24 Qualitative Analysis Results...................................................................................................... 27 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 29 Limitations and Future Direction ............................................................................................. 34 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 34 PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 4 References ................................................................................................................................. 36 Tables and Figures Figure 1: Numeric code for Likert scale answers ......................................................................... 21 Figure 2: Mode range correlation to levels of agreement ............................................................. 22 Figure 3: Codes Per Research Question........................................................................................ 23 Table 1: Group Response to Survey Questions............................................................................. 26 Table 2: Group Response to Research Questions ......................................................................... 27 Table 3: Codebook for Research Question 1 ................................................................................ 28 Table 4: Codebook for Research Question 2 ................................................................................ 28 Table 5: Codebook for Research Question 3 ................................................................................ 29 PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 5 Preparing General Education Teachers to Work with English Language Learner Students in United States Schools. Teaching is a challenging career. Teachers in K-12 schools are tasked with teaching the academic standards, managing behavior, engaging with families, and accommodating students’ needs identified in IEPs and 504 plans. In addition to this, there is an ever-increasing population of students in the United States who do not speak English. The population of non-English speaking students is growing and expanding in areas that have previously not had non-English speaking students (Mitchell, 2020). As the demographics in districts across the United States change, more and more teachers are finding themselves teaching ELL students for the first time and feel unprepared to do so (Calderón et. al, 2011; Hilliker & Lalatina, 2018; Hopkins et at. 2019). What used to be a localized issue is now becoming a national issue (Mitchell, 2020). These students are sometimes called English Language Learners (ELs), Multilingual Learners (MLs) or English Language Learning Students (ELLs). Students for whom English is not their first language are identified in this paper as ELL students. Changing Demographics Across the United States Immigration is and always has been part of the history of the United States and North America. United States Immigration policies have evolved over time. One such policy was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which put a ten-year ban on Chinese labor immigrants. This ban was extended in 1892 with the Geary Act. Chinese exclusion acts remained in force in various forms until 1943. Beginning in the late 1800s and through the end of World War I the demographics of immigration to the United States changed with increased immigration from eastern and southern Europe (Cavanaugh, 1996; National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.). Congress acted with The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 6 Act. This act set quotas for immigration from foreign countries which were based on the 1890 census. National origin remained the guiding principle of immigration until the Immigration Act of 1965 took effect in 1968, which provided for immigrants to come to the United States from nations previously excluded (National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.). Legal immigration to the United States is categorized into three areas: employment, family reunification, and humanitarian protection (Lee, 2015). Although the focus of the Immigration Act of 1965 was the change of focus of immigration from national origin to family reunification, it also established that 20% of visas should be reserved for individuals with education and skills that qualify them for work or unskilled laborers who would work in areas lacking sufficient workforce (Lee, 2015). Lee (2015) examined changes to immigration since the implementation of the Hart-Cellar Act. The Immigration and Nationality (Hart-Celler) Act of 1965 set the preference for allowable immigration at 290,000 with a per country limit of 20,000. However, the immigration of immediate family members (spouses, children, and parents) of U.S. citizens was not counted toward per country limits. Family preference visas make up 74% of total preferences. Over time, family reunification has changed the makeup of immigration to the United States. In the 1970s, family reunification accounted for 25% of legal immigration. In the 1980s, this increased to 40%, and then again to 55% in the 1990s. The decade between 2001 and 2010 saw family reunification immigration swell to account for nearly two-thirds of legal immigration (Lee, 2015). The third category of legal immigrants are refugees. The Immigration Act of 1965 allotted 6% of immigration visas to refugees from the eastern hemisphere. The 1980 Refugee Act changed how refugees are admitted, and it removed them from the preference system set up in PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 7 the 1965 Immigration Act (Lee, 2015). The United States accepts more refugees than any other country in the world. Between 1980 and 2015 the United States accepted about 3 million refugees (Pew Research Center, Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021). Unlike other immigrants, refugees do not have to wait until they naturalize and become citizens to bring family members to the United States. Refugees can immediately request immigration assistance for family members who also meet the criteria to be classified as refugees. Once a refugee arrives there is a time limit of five years on extending refugee assistance to family members (The UN Refugee Agency). Illegal immigration is also increasing. Customs and Border Control (CBP) track encounters with immigrants. During fiscal year 2017, there were 310,531 total CBP encounters. Border encounters increased each of the next five years and reached an all-time high during fiscal year 2022 when there were 2,214,652 CBP encounters (US Customs and Border Protection, 2023). Current estimates suggest that there are 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States (Migration Policy Institute). Changing Demographics in United States Schools The number of non-English speaking students is increasing in schools in the United States. Children of immigrants are the fastest-growing student population in United States schools (Calderón et al., 2011). Half of these children lack sufficient English proficiency and are labeled Multilingual Learners, English Learners or English Language Learning students (Calderón et al., 2011). According to the Center for Professional Development and Services, the number of English Language Learning (ELL) students in the United States doubled during the 90s from 2.2 million to 4.4 million (Penke, 2018). In 2016, nearly three in four American classrooms included at least one ELL student while a total of 10% of students in the United PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 8 States were ELL students (Sparks, 2016). In 2020, there were an estimated 4.9 million ELL students in United States schools (Mitchell, 2020). In 2021, there were 5.3 million ELL students in United States Schools (Migration Policy Institute, 2022). Many ELL students arrive as immigrants; however, eighty percent are born in the United States and begin their education in U.S. schools (Mitchell, 2020; Sparks, 2016). An increasing number of schools and school districts across the country that are not accustomed to educating ELL students are enrolling non-English speaking students (Hopkins et al., 2019; Lucas et al., 2008) and are tasked with providing these students English language instruction or English as a Second Language (ESL) along with their regular education (Penke, 2018). Non-English-speaking students have been in United States schools since the founding of the nation. Throughout the 1800s immigrants tended to settle in ethnic clusters. These settlements created their own schools and taught the curriculum in the dominant native language. Following the Civil War there were various legislative attempts to regulate education in languages other than English (Cavanaugh, 1996; Leibowitz, 1971). In the last part of the nineteenth century and into the beginning of the twentieth century the issue of what language should be taught in American schools played out in the political arena. Some cities and schools allowed teaching to happen in as many as seven different languages (Cavanaugh, 1996). As schools transitioned to English only models, non-English-speaking students were immersed into English only classrooms (Cavenaugh, 1996). Meeting the Challenge of Teaching ELL students in US classrooms As the demographics of US classrooms continue to change, teacher preparation programs also need to change to meet the challenge of teaching the increasing number of ELL students. Jimenez-Silva et al. (2012) cited the National Center for Education Information which found that PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 9 “87.5% of the teaching force has little or no training in teaching linguistically diverse students” (p. 13). Téllez & Manthey (2015) found that teachers do not have confidence to teach ELL students even when they receive professional development to improve English language development (ELD) and their instructional capacities. They further found that school-wide collective efficacy is more important than individual teacher efficacy in improving instruction for ELL students. Pavlak & Cavender (2019) found that it is imperative that all teacher candidates be prepared to work with ELL students even if they are being prepared to be mainstream classroom teachers. The services provided to ELL students vary across districts. While many mainstream teachers feel that responsibility for teaching ELL students falls on ESL teachers (Yough et al., 2022), in the end, accountability for teaching ELL students comes back to the mainstream teachers. Literature Review Preparing Mainstream Teachers to Work with ELL Students There are federal guidelines for education of ELL students (Penke, 2018). Lau v. Nichols (1974) “determined that it is illegal to place a child in a mainstream English class before he or she can ‘participate meaningfully’” (Rennie Center for Education research and policy, 2007 as quoted by Penke, 2018). According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 native speakers and language minority students should not receive the same education (Penke, 2018; Crothers, 2008), yet all students are required to meet the same academic standards regardless of English proficiency (Penke, 2018). School districts have varied models they can use as they provide ESL education. The pullout/push-in model is used most often for ELL students with some English proficiency (Sparks, 2016). Sheltered English Instruction is used mostly for ELL students with low English proficiency. These ELL students spend part of the day in classes grouped by English proficiency PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 10 where they receive direct language instruction and then return to their regular classes for the remainder of the day (Sparks, 2016). Another model is bilingual education. There are many ways in which bilingual instruction takes place. Bilingual Education is a model where students receive instruction for both language and subject matter in both English and their native language (Sparks, 2016). In many situations ELL students are placed in mainstream classrooms with minimal ESL support. This method results in a sink or swim situation where students do not receive sufficient English language support to be successful in learning English or in classroom learning activities. Pavlak and Cavender (2019) conducted a research project with preservice teachers who engaged in a clinical experience at an urban pre-K-8th grade school. Results from their study show that lectures and textbooks are insufficient to prepare preservice teachers to work with ELL students; preservice teachers need practical real-life experiences with ELL students. Through these types of experiences, they come to understand that successful teaching for ELL students is more than a set of good instructional tools. Pavlak & Cavender (2019) found that this type of clinical experience benefited the preservice teachers by helping them develop an assets-based approach to working with ELL students. Results from their study highlight the need to prepare all teacher candidates to work with ELL students and led to the creation of a course entitled “Teaching English Learners in the Mainstream Classroom” which is now required of all teacher candidates in their teacher preparation program. Teacher attitudes, beliefs, and experiences with ELL students influence their decisions to seek training to teach ELL students (Ardasheva & Brown, 2011). They found that some contentarea teachers do not want to receive preparation to work with ELL students, fail to collaborate with language specialists, or doubt that ELL-specific strategies are appropriate for their content. PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 11 Their study concluded that teachers who seek training to teach ELL students have similar attitudes about good teaching for all, recognize lack of formal ELL pedagogy knowledge, and self-evaluate as having low self-efficacy with working with ELL students. Even teachers with positive attitudes about working with ELL students expressed concerns about including students with limited or no English skills in their classrooms including “time constraints, increased workload, impacts on other students, and instructional and curricular modifications (Ardasheva & Brown, 2011, p. 16). Durgunoglu and Hughes (2010) conducted a study of preservice teachers who had completed their coursework and were in their student teaching experience to determine preparation to work with ELL students in high school classrooms. They found that the participants in the study were not well prepared and that their student teaching experience was also not preparing them to work with ELL students. Their findings were a little grim and showed areas of needed improvement. Their first finding is that student teachers in this study tended to treat isolated ELL students with neglect. The student teachers interpreted ELL lack of participation as cultural and did not attempt to include these students in discussions. Second, they found that mentor teachers were not much better at working with ELL students. The mentor teachers did not model any behaviors for the student teachers, nor did they interact with the ELL students. This shows that veteran teachers also need support learning how to work with ELL students which will in turn help them better mentor preservice teachers. Third, only one classroom involved in the study had any support for ELL students and in this case, it was a tutor. ESL services that were provided on a pullout basis were not coordinated with classroom content. Durgunoglu & Hughes (2010) note that there should be a coordinated effort between ESL and classroom teachers to integrate language instruction with classroom content instruction. PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 12 Teacher Confidence as a Factor for Working with ELL Students Teachers in districts experiencing linguistic demographics change need additional training through professional development that would enable them to effectively teach nonEnglish speaking students (Hopkins et al., 2019; Lucas et al., 2008). Jimenez-Silva et al. (2012) examined the training required of preservice teachers and found that only three states required all preservice teachers, not just those seeking endorsement to work with ELL students, to have minimal training in working with ELL students. They further found that “providing teachers with the foundational knowledge through the use of meaningful and engaging pedagogical practices, (p. 9) resulted in an increase in preservice teachers’ efficacy and beliefs about instructing ELL students which in turn provided them with the confidence to do so. Teachers’ lack of confidence for teaching ELL students could be explained by the fact that most teachers differ linguistically and ethnically from ELL students (Téllez & Manthey, 2015). This double dose of unfamiliarity could be responsible for challenging teacher self-confidence. Téllez and Manthey (2015) found that teachers felt more confident when considering themselves as part of a collective. Pavlak’s & Cavender’s (2019) research showed that preservice teachers’ confidence for working with ELL students needed to be considered in teacher preparation courses. Mainstream classroom teachers felt unprepared to teach ELL students in their classrooms (Calderón et al., 2011; Hilliker & Lalatina, 2018; Hopkins et at. 2019). According to the National Center for Education Statistics in 2002 41% of teachers had ELL students in their classrooms, even though only 12.5% of teachers had received a minimum of eight hours training to work with ELL students (Drucker, 2003). Batt (2008) conducted a study of in-service teachers in Idaho to determine the areas of frustration for teachers working with ELL students and found that teachers PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 13 were not sufficiently prepared in their teacher preparation programs to work with ELL students. Yough et al. (2022) found that mainstream classroom teachers felt that the responsibility for teaching ELL students fell to the ESL teachers, and ESL teachers felt powerless to teach ELL students. He et al. (2009) found that collaboration between ESL and mainstream teachers was needed for student success. The new insights into English as a Second Language (ESL) education that are emerging through continued research are included in teacher preparation programs for ESL teachers, but they are not made accessible to mainstream preservice teachers (Calderón et al., 2011). ELL students spend the majority of their academic day in mainstream classrooms and need teachers who are trained to help them acquire English language and content knowledge (Calderón et al., 2011; Harper & de Jong, 2004). As the demographics in U.S. classrooms continue to change and include increasing populations of ELL students, teacher preparation programs must adapt and include training for all teachers to work with ELL students (Lucas et al., 2008). The idea that ESL teaching methods are Just Good Teaching is insufficient (de Jong & Harper, 2005; He et al., 2009; Jimenez-Silva et al., 2012). Calderón et al. (2011) conducted a review of studies and found that in order for teachers in United States schools to improve the education experience of ELL students the nation’s schools must provide the necessary structure and support. “Without better support for teachers, we cannot expect better student outcomes” (Calderón et al., 2011, p. 119). Key Principles for Teachers to Understand When Teaching ELL Students Mainstream teachers would benefit from increased understanding of the differences between first language (L1) acquisition and second language (L2) acquisition (de Jong & Harper, 2005; Harper & de Jong, 2004). While there are a lot of similarities, understanding the differences can make a huge impact for teachers. Teachers can make wrong assumptions about PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 14 students when applying principles of first language acquisition to students who are acquiring a second language, such as academic disabilities being indicated by a lack of verbal expression (de Jong & Harper, 2005). Unnecessary and inappropriate referrals for special education services for ELL students can be reduced by training classroom teachers in second language (L2) acquisition. Harper and de Jong (2004) explain that too often the similarities of L1 and L2 acquisition are emphasized, and the differences are diminished. They explain that teachers need to have a greater understanding of the differences in L1 and L2 acquisition in order to understand the learning process and needs of their ELL students. Language is broken into two categories, Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). BICS fluency develops through social interactions and can be learned through listening and observing; CALP must be taught explicitly (de Jong & Harper, 2005). While teachers need to understand the difference between BICS and CALP for all students, it is especially imperative that they are aware of the difference for ELL students. Teachers may feel frustrated that a student can speak with peers and navigate the school environment yet be unable to perform academic tasks. While ELL students need about two years to develop peer-appropriate conversational skills, it takes between five to seven years for most ELL students to have academic language equal to their native-English speaking peers (Drucker, 2003, Molle, 2013). The different type of language being used in these settings explains why a student who appears fluent in English struggles with learning (de Jong & Harper, 2005). Harper & de Jong (2004) explore the phenomenon of ELL students who are literate in their first language becoming academically proficient in English before they are socially proficient. This happens because their L1 literacy skills help them engage with written English and they subsequently gain academic proficiency. PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 15 Relevance has been identified as an important factor in student engagement with learning. This applies to ELL students as well (Coady et. al, 2016; de Jong & Harper, 2005; Harper & de Jong; 2004; Noguerón-Liu, 2020). Noguerón-Liu (2020) examined ways that teachers can increase cultural relevance for ELL students including increasing family-school connections, teachers becoming familiar with student cultures, and inclusion of words and phrases from students’ first languages. While Noguerón-Liu focused on Spanish speaking ELL students, the findings are relevant to all ELL students, no matter what their L1 language background may be. It may be intimidating for mainstream classroom teachers to approach the families of ELL students; however, the benefits are worth the effort. Misconceptions about teaching ELL students Harper and de Jong (2004) identify and clarify four main misconceptions about teaching ELL students. The first misconception is “Exposure and interactions will result in Englishlanguage learning” (p. 153). Harper and de Jong (2004) explain that the interactions ELL students have with native speaking students are insufficient for language development. They point out that learning English requires explicit instruction in grammar, morphology, and phonological aspects of English. The second misconception is “all ELLs learn English in the same way and at the same rate” (p. 154). Harper and de Jong (2004) explain that ELL student age, prior education, first language, and culture all influence the process of learning English. Teachers cannot expect all ELL students to learn English in the same way or at the same rate. Calderón et al. (2011) also discussed the fallacy of grouping all ELL students into one group and point out various other groupings that should be used for grouping ELL students. The third misconception is “good teaching for native speakers in good teaching for ELLs (p. 156). Harper and de Jong (2004) point out that district, state, and national standards are designed for diverse PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 16 native-English speakers and are designed based on the assumption that students have the language skills needed to continue learning at the grade level to which the student is assigned. These standards do not take the language needs of ELL students into account. Teachers must therefore be prepared to make linguistic and cultural modifications for their ELL students. Crafting education experiences for ELL students goes beyond good teaching for native speakers. The last misconception is that “effective instruction means nonverbal support” (p. 157). Harper and de Jong (2004) explain that when nonverbal supports are used to reduce language demands on ELL students instead of supporting language development, they limit language development. Non-verbal language scaffolds and supports do not assist in language development unless they are used as tools for language development. Teachers in content classes must integrate language instruction with their content instruction. Implications for Teaching Theories Noguerón-Liu (2020) examined the research on the “Science of Reading” (SOR) and its relevance to ESL instruction. She found that the principles of SOR are effective for ELL students when used in conjunction with translanguaging. Translanguaging is the process of using the language skills of two or more languages in the process of communicating. Noguerón-Liu (2020) explains how allowing students to work bilingually increases their academic progress as well as their English acquisition. Jimenez-Silva et al. (2012) point out that teachers are failing to serve their ELL students well when they do not acknowledge the student’s native language as an appropriate scaffold. Systematic functional linguistics (SFL) instruction includes explicit teaching of the connection between language and meaning. Santiago Schwarz and Hamman-Ortiz (2020) studied the benefits of using SFL for ELL students and found that when used properly SFL-informed PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 17 pedagogies had the potential to improve writing outcomes for ELL students in elementary school. Purpose The changing demographics across the United States, especially in schools, is expected to continue. The need for mainstream teachers to know how to work with ELL students will only increase. Hilliker and Lalatina (2018) found that professional development programs are successful in helping teachers who are working with ELL students both through changing their beliefs and their classroom practice. In this thesis I evaluate one such outreach program offered by Weber State University to a rural elementary school in Utah that provided professional development for teachers who are working with ELL students. This school will be referred to as the partner elementary school in this paper. The outreach program provided a series of professional development presentations to a portion of the teachers at the partner elementary school who were working with ELL students. Weber State University worked with the partner elementary school because it was experiencing an increase in ELL students. The partner elementary school had a dual immersion program for teaching English dominant students Spanish. Because the ELL students were from South America and spoke Spanish, the partner elementary school made the decision to place the ELL students in the dual immersion classes as much as possible. The teachers at the partner elementary chose topics that addressed their areas of need. Faculty members at Weber State University then prepared and provided presentations on the topics. The partner elementary school had monthly morning meetings where different learning opportunities were available. Weber State faculty gave the presentations in alternating months during this thirty-minute morning meeting. The group met a total of four times for presentations. The principal asked nine dual PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 18 immersion teachers to attend the presentations; one additional teacher chose to participate in the group. This outreach program was funded through the Utah English Learner Empowerment via Advanced Teacher Education (U Elevate) grant. This outreach program was a small component of the grant. In this thesis I evaluated the perceived effectiveness of the outreach program. I completed the thesis project by collecting data through a survey to evaluate the perceived effectiveness of the professional development presentations given to the teachers participating in the outreach program. Through the study I addressed the following questions: 1) Did the participants perceive that the professional development presentations helped improve the educational experience for ELLs? 2) Did the participants perceive the professional development presentations improved teacher confidence with working with ELLs? 3) Did the participants feel the presentations were beneficial? Methods Surveys are all around us. Their ubiquitous presence in everyday life from television game shows to internet searches belie how important a tool they really are for researchers to help gather data. In fact, Leavy (2017) identified surveys as the most common data gathering tool used by social scientists. Surveys may appear casual, when in reality, serious thought goes into each question. Survey questions are carefully written; they must be clear and easy to understand as poorly written questions can lead to misleading data (Bakla, 2013; Leavy, 2017; Pribyl, 1994). The questions are crafted and targeted to find specific data trends within a population (Leavy, 2017). Digital technology has helped researchers increase the efficiency of surveys and has helped make surveys a more cost-effective way of collecting data (Bakla, 2013). PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 19 Some survey questions can be answered simply with a yes or a no. Sometimes surveys pose statements and ask participants to which degree they agree or disagree with the statement. This form of survey response is known as the Likert Scale. Likert scales provide a range of degrees of agreement and disagreement and may have a neutral neither agree nor disagree option in the middle of the range. It is common for Likert scale answer options to range between five and nine options. Some variations of Likert scales eliminate the neutral option, and participants are required to choose an option from either the agree or disagree end of the spectrum (Allen & Seaman, 2007). I created the survey used in this study in cooperation with the faculty conducting the professional development presentations. As part of the development process, I also consulted working teachers from a different elementary school to check for clarity and avoid redundancy in the questions. I attended the fourth presentation. At this time, I explained the purposes of the survey (graduate research and fulfill requirements for the grant) to the teachers participating in the presentations. Following this presentation. I sent an email that included a direct link to the survey to all ten teachers who had participated at any point during the presentation series. The next week I sent a reminder email that also contained a direct link to the survey. Because I distributed the survey at the end of the presentation series, I used the survey as a summative tool to gauge how well the participants perceived that the whole series of professional development presentations collectively helped them as they implemented what they learned. Survey questions can be found in Appendix A. Five of the ten participating teachers responded to the survey resulting in a fifty percent participation rate. Nulty (2008) examined the response rates of teacher surveys, both paper-based and online based, at the university level to determine what level of participation is needed for PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 20 surveys to be considered valid. Nulty (2008) found that a response rate of fifty percent is adequate. Nulty (2008) also found that when open ended questions are part of the survey, if the comments given by the participants provide relevant information, then it should be considered valid no matter what the percentage of responses. I created and distributed the survey using Qualtrics. After collecting the data from the survey, I analyzed the data using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. I used the quantitative analysis method of descriptive statistics for the nine questions that had Likert scale responses. Researchers use descriptive statistics to identify patterns in data through brief descriptions and summaries (Conner & Johnson, 2017). Descriptive statistics commonly use central tendencies such as mean, median, and mode to identify trends within data (Conner & Johnson, 2017). I used the mode. Because I did not collect demographics, I analyzed the group as a whole with no variance considerations. Survey quantitative analysis For the quantitative analysis I assigned a numeric score for each response on the Likert scale and then found the mode score to represent the group answer to each question. The first nine questions were answered using a Likert scale where a statement was given, and respondents had five options for their response. The responses ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree and included the following options: Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree; Neither Agree nor Disagree; Somewhat Disagree; to Strongly Disagree. I assigned the responses on the survey a number representation. Strong agreement received a score of four, somewhat agree a score of three, neither agree nor disagree a score of two, somewhat disagree a score of one, and strongly disagree a score of zero. PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 21 Figure 1 Numeric code for Likert scale answers 0 1 2 3 4 Numeric code Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree To find the trend of agreement within each group, I scored each statement by finding the numeric mode for responses given. Mode scores between 0 and < 1 represent strongly disagree. Mode score between 1 and < 2 represent somewhat disagree. Mode scores equal to 2 represent Neither Agree nor Disagree. Mode scores between > 2 and 3 represent somewhat agree. Mode scores between > 3 and 4 represent Strongly Agree. PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 22 Figure 2 Mode range correlation to levels of agreement 0 - <1 1 - <2 2 >2 – 3 >3 – 4 Mode Range Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree At this point I grouped the survey questions to the research question they addressed. (See Appendix B.) Survey questions 4, 5, and 6 relate to research question 1. Survey questions 7, and 8 relate to research question 2. Survey questions 1, 2, 3, and 9 relate to research question 3. I evaluated the survey questions in isolation and by research question group. When analyzing survey questions as a group to address research questions I used the numeric scores for every response in the group to find the mode. I used the same mode range to determine the degree of agreement. Survey qualitative analysis Survey questions 10 and 11 are open ended and responses can correspond to any of the research questions. I used the qualitative approach of thematic analysis to analyze these two open response questions. I used this type of analysis to allow the small number of participants to provide greater meaning to the quantitative data from the survey. Thematic analysis is the process of identifying, analyzing, and reporting the patterns that are in the data (Vaismoradi et PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 23 al., 2013). The first phase of thematic analysis is open coding (Williams & Moser, 2019). In this step I took each utterance or text sample provided by survey participants and broke it down into complete thoughts. Each complete thought constitutes a piece of code. I then evaluated the pieces of code to determine which research question they addressed. The nature of the open-ended questions allowed answers that could address more than one research question. In the cases that pieces of code answered more than one research question, I duplicated the code and grouped it with each research question it answered. I found eighteen pieces of code. I sorted the code to the research questions and found that four codes addressed research question 1; four codes addressed research question 2; and ten codes addressed research question 3. Having grouped the pieces of code together by research question I was ready for the second phase of analysis. Figure 3 Codes Per Research Question PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 24 The second phase of the analysis was the Axiel coding (Williams & Moser, 2019). In this phase of analysis, I analyzed the code one research question at a time to find themes within the responses. I was at the fourth presentation and was able to talk with the participants as well as observe the participants talk with each other. This provided me with insight to understand the open response answers that the participants provided on the survey. Using the four codes that correlate to research question 1, I found two themes. The first theme is Dual immersion teachers face challenge when working with ELL students as their target language in class is not English. The second theme is in order to help ELL students, teachers need more guidance in language development. Using the four codes that correlate to research question 2, I found one theme. The theme is teachers’ confidence for working with ELL students increased as demonstrated by the statements saying teachers felt confident using the resources and ideas that were shared immediately as well as one comment explicitly saying the participant felt “much more confident.” Through the analysis of the ten codes that correspond to research question 3 I found two themes. The first theme I found is the teachers were grateful for the ideas and resources included in the presentation series. The Second theme I found is that the teachers felt like the presentations could be improved by including more interesting resources and having activities for teachers. Quantitative Analysis Results The group responses to each question were as follows. Survey question 1: The information presented throughout the presentation series was clear and easy to understand. The mode score of 3.5 placed this response in the Strongly Agree range. Survey question 2: Instructors shared resources in the presentation series that directly applied to working with ELL students in my classroom. The mode score of 4 placed this in the Strongly Agree range. Survey PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 25 question 3: The resources provided in the presentation series align with the Utah Core standards. The mode score of 4 placed this in the Strongly Agree range. All respondents strongly agreed with this statement. Survey question 4: My ELL students showed academic improvement as I implemented the strategies and resources I learned about through my participation in the presentation series. The mode score of 3 placed this statement in the Somewhat Agree range. Survey question 5: My ELL students appeared more comfortable speaking English as I implemented the strategies and resources I learned about through my participation in the presentation series. The mode score of 3 placed this statement in the Somewhat Agree range. Survey question 6: The insights and solutions provided by instructors in the presentation series have helped me increase my ability to identify potential academic challenges faced by ELL students. The mode score of 3 placed this statement in the Somewhat Agree range. Survey question 7: As a result of my participation in the presentation series I feel more confident in my ability to solve problems related to the needs of my ELL students. The mode score of 3 placed this statement in the Somewhat Agree range. Survey question 8: I feel more confident in my ability to teach ELL students than I did before the presentation series. The mode score of 4 placed this statement in the Strongly Agree range. Survey question 9: I would recommend this presentation series to other teachers working with ELL students. The mode score of 4 placed this statement in the Strongly Agree range. PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 26 Table 1 Group Response to Survey Questions Survey Question SQ1 SQ2 SQ3 SQ4 SQ5 SQ6 SQ7 SQ8 SQ9 Answer Scores 0, 3, 3, 4, 4 3, 4, 4, 4, 4 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 1, 2, 3, 3, 3 0, 2, 3, 3, 3 2, 3, 3, 3, 4 1, 3, 3, 3, 4 1, 3, 4, 4, 4 3, 3, 4, 4, 4 Mode Score 3.5 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 Group Response Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree I next analyzed the research question groups. I used survey questions 4, 5, and 6 to address Research Question 1: Did the participants perceive that the professional development presentations helped improve the educational experience for ELLs? The mode score of 3 placed the group response in the Somewhat Agree range. I used survey questions 7 and 8 to address research question 2: Did the participants perceive the professional development presentations improved teacher confidence with working with ELLs? The mode score of 3.5 placed the group response in the Strongly Agree range. I used survey questions 1, 2, 3, and 9 to address Research Question 3: Did the participants feel the presentations were beneficial? The mode score of 4 placed the group response in the Strongly Agree range. PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 27 Table 2 Group Response to Research Questions Research Questions RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 Survey Questions SQ4, SQ5, SQ6 SQ7, SQ8 0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4 SQ1, SQ2, SQ3, SQ9 0, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 Answer Scores Mode Score 3 3.5 4 Group Response Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Qualitative Analysis Results In the process of thematic analysis, I found the following themes for each research question. For research question 1 to research question 1, I found two themes. The first theme is Dual immersion teachers face challenge when working with ELL students as their target language in class is not English. The second theme is in order to help ELL students, teachers need to have a better understanding of language development. See codebook below in Table 3. PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 28 Table 3 Codebook for Research Question 1 Code Challenges for dual immersion teachers Teachers need to understand language development Description Dual immersion teachers face challenges when working with ELL students because the target language in their class is not English. In order to help ELL students, teachers need to have a better understanding of language development. Examples “I encourage my students to speak in Spanish” “…Show sample work of ELL students so regular teachers have a better understanding of how language develops and expectations.” I found one theme for research question 2. The theme is teachers’ confidence for working with ELL students increased as demonstrated by the statements saying teachers felt confident using the resources and ideas that were shared immediately as well as one comment explicitly saying the participant felt “much more confident.” See codebook below in Table 4. Table 4 Codebook for Research Question 2 Code Teachers’ confidence increased Description Teachers demonstrated confidence by using the resources and ideas immediately as well as one teacher expressing an increase in confidence. Examples I feel “much more confident.” I was “able to immediately use things I learned the next day.” After analyzing the ten codes that address research question 3, I identified two themes. The first theme I found is the teachers were grateful for the ideas and resources included in the presentation series. The Second theme I found is that the teachers felt like the presentations PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 29 could be improved by including more interesting resources and having activities for teachers. See codebook below in Table 5. Table 5 Codebook for Research Question 3 Code Gratitude Presentations can be improved Description The participants were grateful for the ideas and resources included in the presentation series. The presentations could be improved by including more interesting resources and having activities for teachers. Examples “Thank you for all the ideas that are easy to implement.” “I appreciate the ideas that were shared with us.” “Use more interesting resources to teach teachers.” “If the presentation have activity can be nice.” Discussion In this project, I evaluated the perceived effectiveness and success of the Weber State University Outreach program that was provided to the partner elementary school in partnership with the Utah ELEVATE grant. The university faculty worked with the faculty at the partner elementary school to tailor the presentations to the needs at the school. The faculty at the partner elementary school identified topics of interest and need and then the university faculty prepared and delivered presentations to address the topics. The partner elementary requested presentations on the following topics: 1) “Let them talk while they write,” 2) mindmaps, 3) vocabulary, and 4) How to teach students to read fluently and then to comprehend what they read. The first research question was: Did the participants perceive that the PD presentations helped improve the educational experience for ELLs? The quantitative data showed that the PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 30 group somewhat agrees with the statements that address this research question. The mode score for each of these survey questions was 3. Only one other survey question on the survey had a mode score of 3. This showed that the area of improving educational experience for ELL students was perceived as the least successful for this project. The qualitative analysis gave some insight into why this could have been. The comments mentioned the resources and ideas that were provided in the presentations. The participants commented that the ideas were “easy to use” and could be “used the next day.” There were no comments about student achievement; therefore, considering why the participants provided this score will/can be only speculation on my part. Another comment from a teacher gave a needed perspective on the group. This teacher said, “I'm a Spanish teacher, so I encourage my students to speak in Spanish, that is why some of the questions don't apply for me.” Nine out of the ten teachers in this group taught dual language immersion with the target language of Spanish. The majority of the ELL students at the partner elementary school had Spanish as a first language. The ELL students were placed in dual immersion classes when space allowed. This model placed students in classes with a teacher who spoke both their first language and English. At the same time the purpose of the classes continued to be to teach students Spanish. Although this group of teachers was unique because so many of the participants were dual language immersion teachers, the need for increased training for mainstream teachers to prepare them to work with ELL students is supported by the literature. Research dating from 2011 – 2019 shows that mainstream teachers do not feel prepared to work with ELL students (Calderón et. al, 2011; Hilliker & Lalatina, 2018; Hopkins et at. 2019). Data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (2002) showed that only 12.5 percent of teachers had received a minimum of eight hours of training targeted toward working with ELL students. The presentation series included four sessions that lasted thirty PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 31 minutes each for a total of 2 hours. This comparatively small amount of time limited the amount of information that could be included in the presentations. Perhaps another reason that the participants somewhat agree that participation in the presentation series improved educational outcomes for their ELL students could have been that the topics the teachers asked for were not the right topics. Although the teachers felt that the topics they requested were the areas where their students needed help, their lack of understanding of ESL instruction may have left them unprepared for the deeper topics and they may have benefited from instruction in the foundations of second language acquisition before delving into the deeper topics they requested. This is shown by the request from one participant to “show sample work of ELL students so regular teachers have a better understanding of how language develops and expectations.” I only attended one presentation and did not see the materials for the other three presentations. The presentation I attended was “How to teach students to read fluently and then to comprehend what they read.” The information provided was solid academically for students who speak the language of instruction. There was limited information provided on helping ELL students understand what they are reading. Students need to be taught the grammar of English as well as the phonology and the morphology (Harper & de Jong, 2004). These skills are necessary for reading comprehension and were not included in the presentation. The second research question was: Did the participants perceive the PD presentations improved teacher confidence with working with ELLs? Survey questions seven and eight addressed this question. Question seven dealt with teacher confidence to solve problems related to needs of ELL students. The mode score of 3 showed that the group somewhat agreed with this statement. A look at the thematic analysis showed that the teachers felt that having samples of PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 32 student work would be beneficial to teachers to have an idea of what ELL student “so regular teachers have a better understanding of how language develops.” This showed that the teachers felt that there has been insufficient guidance for teachers who work with ELL students to know how a second language is acquired in language learning students. This insight that teachers need to be taught the difference between first and second language acquisition is backed up by the literature (de Jong & Harper, 2005; Harper & de Jong, 2004). While this suggestion showed a desire to have help understanding language development in ELL students, it is also important to remember that ELL students are individuals and have their own path to language development. Harper and de Jong (2004) pointed out the need to recognize that ELL students do not all progress at the same rate or in the same way. Question eight dealt with the issue of teacher confidence for working with ELL students. The mode score of 4 indicated that the teachers strongly agree that the presentation series boosted their confidence. The comments showed that the teachers felt that the resources and information were “easy to use” and “easy to understand.” The perceived easiness of use and understanding for the information and resources shows that the participants felt confident taking them into their classrooms for use. One participant responded by writing “I am much more confident.” The findings in this paragraph support the idea that professional development can be beneficial to boosting confidence for in-service teachers for working with ELL students. One participant made a comment about not understanding the presentations. This also demonstrated an example of the importance of understanding the difference between social language (BICS) and academic language (CALP). It is a situation where the participants all had social language and a lot of academic language; however, the academic language of the presentation was unfamiliar to at least one participant. This example could be used to help PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 33 teachers understand the importance of supporting academic language through vocabulary activities before, during and after learning. This idea is backed up by the SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol) method of instruction for ELL students. In chapter four of their book, Making Content Comprehensible for Elementary English Learners: The SIOP® Model, Echevarría et al. (2012) explain the importance that all teachers know how to make content comprehensible (Lachance, 2013). The third research question was: Did the participants feel the presentations were beneficial? Questions 1, 2, 3 and 9 addressed research question 3. Survey question 1 dealt with ease of understanding and clarity of information in the presentations. The mode score of 3.5 placed the group response in the Strongly Agree range. This was the lowest mode score for survey questions addressing research question 3. All other questions had a mode score of 4. Factoring in the fact that some of the participants were native Spanish speakers provided insight into why some of the participants did not strongly agree that the presentations were easy to understand. The participants strongly agreed that the resources and materials shared in the presentation series applied to working with ELL students in their classroom. They also strongly agreed that they would recommend the presentation series to other teachers working with ELL students. The thematic analysis showed that the participants “appreciate[d] the ideas that were shared.” They expressed that the presentation series was “great for the time spent.” They said that they got “lots of ideas.” I observed the participants express gratitude to the presenter during and after the fourth presentation. I also observed participants talking with each other and being excited about the upcoming presentation. The answers to the survey questions and the openended questions clearly agreed that the participants felt that the presentation series was PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 34 worthwhile. This sentiment from the participants also demonstrates that professional development can be meaningful and helpful to in-service teachers. Limitations and Future Direction This study is limited by the number of participants. The presentations were offered at one school with ten different teachers participating throughout the school year. Of these ten participants, five completed the survey. The comments and suggestions from the participants provide ideas for improving the presentations. As Weber State University continues to work with elementary schools in Utah to help teachers work with ELL students, they can improve the presentations and continue to provide needed support to in-service teachers. Another limitation to the study was that the teachers who participated in the outreach program were mostly dual language immersion teachers whose goal was to teach Spanish. This limitation can be overcome by recognizing that although the teachers may have spoken the ELL students’ first language, the teachers were still being asked to help ELL students learn English, even though the goal of the dual immersion program was to teach students Spanish. Conclusion Some individuals in education minimize the need for training teachers to work with ELL students using the argument that ESL teaching strategies are just good teaching. Language development researchers have shown this argument to be wrong (Harper & de Jong, 2004; He et al., 2009). Teachers working with ELL students need training specific to the needs of language learning students (Calderón et. al, 2011). This training includes foundational skills as well as social and cultural training. Teachers working with ELL students need to teach the grammatical, phonological, and morphological aspects of English. They also need to understand the differences in first and second language acquisition. They need to understand the difference PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 35 between social language (BICS) and academic language (CALP). In addition to academic skills, they also need to know how to make education and learning English relevant to the ELL students and their families (Coady et. al, 2016; de Jong & Harper, 2005; Harper & de Jong, 2004; Molle, 2013; Noguerón-Liu, 2020). Teachers working with ELL students also need to be taught that not all ELL students are the same and do not progress through language development the same way (Harper & de Jong, 2004). Mainstream teachers need support learning how to work with ELL students (Molle, 2013). The presentations offered to the teachers at the partner elementary school were perceived to be effective in improving the education experience for ELL students and in helping teachers feel more confident in working with ELL students. He et al (2009) found that partnerships between universities and schools are an effective way to provide needed professional development to teachers. This study also shows that as the number of ELL students continues to grow in United States schools, professional development opportunities such as the one provided to the partner elementary school are effective at helping mainstream teachers gain the confidence and skills necessary to work with ELL students. PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 36 References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality progress, 40(7), 64-65. Ardasheva, Y., & Brown, S. (2011). Content-area teachers seeking ELL preparation: What motivates them? Career Educator, 1(2), 17-41. Bakla, A., Çekiç, A., & Köksal, O. (2013). Web-based surveys in educational research. International Journal of Academic Research Part B, 5(1), 5-13. DOI: 10.7813/20754124.2013/5-1/B.1 Batt, E. G. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of ELL education: Potential solutions to overcome the greatest challenges. Multicultural Education, 15(3), 39–43. Budiman, A. (2020) Key findings about U.S. immigrants. Pew Research Center August 20, 2020 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/ Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011) Effective instruction for English learners. The Future of Children, 21(1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2011.0007 Cavanaugh, M. P. (1996). History of teaching English as a second language. The English Journal, 85(8), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/820039 Coady, M. R., Harper, C., & de Jong, E. J. (2016). Aiming for equity: Preparing mainstream teachers for inclusion or inclusive classrooms? TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 340368. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.223 de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101124. PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 37 Drucker, M. J., (2003). What reading teachers should know about ESL learners. The Reading Teacher, 57(1), 22-29 Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Hughes, T. (2010). How prepared are the US preservice teachers to teach English language learners? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(1), 32-41. Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2012). Making content comprehensible for elementary English language learner: The SIOP method. (2nd ed.). Pearson. Harper, C. & De Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152-162. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40009164 Hilliker, S. M., & Laletina, A. (2018). What do mainstream teachers think, know, and think they know about English language learners. NYS TESOL Journal, 5(1), 30-50. He, Y., Prater, K., & Steed, T. (2009). Moving beyond ‘just good teaching’: ESL professional development for all teachers. Professional Development in Education, 37(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415250903467199 Jimenez-Silva, 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(1), 9-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2011.632471 Lachance, J. R. (2013). Making content comprehensible for elementary English language learner: The SIOP method. [Review of the book Making content comprehensible for elementary English language learner: The SIOP method]. TESL-EJ, 17(3). 1-5. PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 38 Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. New York: Guilford Press. Lee, C. (2015). Family reunification and the limits of immigration reform: Impact and legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act. Sociological Forum, 30(S1), 528–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12176 Leibowitz, A. H. (March 1971). Educational policy and political acceptance: The imposition of English as the language of instruction in American schools. Center For Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. ERIC clearinghouse for Linguistics 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 Migration Policy Institute tabulation of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2022 American Community Survey (for data on children in immigrant families) and National Center for Education Statistics, "English Learners (ELs) Enrolled in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by State or Jurisdiction: Fall 2011 through Fall 2021," https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_204.20.asp. Mitchell, C. (2020, February 18). The nation’s English learner population has surged: 3 things to know. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/the-nations-english-learnerpopulation-has-surged-3-things-to-know/2020/02 Molle, D. (2013). The pitfalls of focusing on instructional strategies in professional development for teachers of English learners. Teacher Education Quarterly (Claremont, Calif.), 40(1), 101-124. PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 39 National Archives and Records Administration (n.d.). Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusionact#:~:text=It%20was%20the%20first%20significant,immigrating%20to%20the%20Unit ed%20States. Noguerón-Liu, S. (2020). Expanding the knowledge base in literacy instruction and assessment: Biliteracy and translanguaging perspectives from families, communities, and classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S307–S318. https://doiorg.hal.weber.edu/10.1002/rrq.354 Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314. https://doiorg.hal.weber.edu/10.1080/02602930701293231 Pavlak, C. M., & Cavendar, 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. Penke, H. T. (2018) ELL students: Literacy development and language development. Journal of Curriculum, Teaching, Learning and Leadership in Education, 3(1). https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/ctlle/vol3/iss1/11 Pribyl, J. R. (1994). Using surveys and questionnaires. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(3), 195. DOI: 10.1021/ed071p195 Santiago Schwarz, V., & Hamman-Ortiz, L. (2020). Systemic functional linguistics, teacher education, and writing outcomes for U.S. elementary English learners: A review of the literature. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100727 PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 40 Sparks, S. D. (2016, May 11). Teaching English-language learners: What does the research tell us? Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/teaching-english-languagelearners-what-does-the-research-tell-us/2016/05 Téllez, K. & Manthey, G. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of effective school-wide programs and strategies for English language learners. Learning Environments Research, 18, 111-127 The UN Refugee Agency (n.d.) US family reunification. https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/us-familyreunification.html#:~:text=Priority%20Direct%20Access%20Program,for%20their%20i mmediate%20family%20members. U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (2023). CBP Enforcement Statistics Fiscal Year 2023 https://www.cbp.gov/node/380448/printable/print Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405. Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International management review, 15(1), 45-55. Yough, M., Gilmetdinova, A., & Finney, E. (2022). Teaching the English language learner at the elementary school: Sense of responsibility in an ill-defined role. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 21(2), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1791707 PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 41 Appendix A Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree 1. The information presented throughout the presentation series was clear and easy to understand. 2. Instructors shared resources in the presentation series that directly applied to working with ELL students in my classroom. 3. The resources provided in the presentation series align with the Utah Core standards. 4. My ELL students showed academic improvement as I implemented the strategies and resources I learned about through my participation in the presentation series. 5. My ELL students appeared more comfortable speaking English as I implemented the strategies and resources I learned about through my participation in the presentation series. 6. The insights and solutions provided by instructors in the presentation series have helped me increased my ability to identify potential academic challenges faced by ELL students. 7. As a result of my participation in the presentation series I feel more confident in my ability to solve problems related to the needs of my ELL students. 8. I feel more confident in my ability to teach ELL students than I did before the presentation series. 9. I would recommend this presentation series to other teachers working with ELL students. 10. What would you like us to know about your experience participating in the outreach program? 11. What suggestions do you have that would help us improve the outreach program? Strongly Agree Survey questions 4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0 PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 42 Appendix B Survey Questions aligned to research questions RQ1 1. The information presented throughout the presentation series was clear and easy to understand. 2. Instructors shared resources in the presentation series that directly applied to working with ELL students in my classroom. 3. The resources provided in the presentation series align with the Utah Core standards. 4. My ELL students showed academic improvement as I implemented the strategies and resources I learned about through my participation in the presentation series. 5. My ELL students appeared more comfortable speaking English as I implemented the strategies and resources I learned about through my participation in the presentation series. 6. The insights and solutions provided by instructors in the presentation series have helped me increased my ability to identify potential academic challenges faced by ELL students. 7. As a result of my participation in the presentation series I feel more confident in my ability to solve problems related to the needs of my ELL students. 8. I feel more confident in my ability to teach ELL students than I did before the presentation series. 9. I would recommend this presentation series to other teachers working with ELL students. 10. What would you like us to know about your experience participating in the outreach program? 11. What suggestions do you have that would help us improve the outreach program? RQ2 RQ3 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X