freeman, y 882/educ_88… · web viewresearch has concluded that students achieve oral...

The Challenge of Long-Term English Language Learners:

Getting to Know Them First

Constanza Loriz

George Mason University

EDUC 882

Fall 2005

Meeting the Needs of Long-term English Language Learners

The Hispanic population is the most rapidly growing minority in the United

States. Currently there are approximately 3.5 million English language learners in the

country (Miller & Endo, 2004). Educating this group of students is an increasing

challenge. For those arriving during their middle and high school years their greatest

need is to learn the language so that they may catch up academically with their American

peers if they are to graduate from high school and meet the learning objectives required

by state standards (SOLs) and the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandate. This

group of students receives language teaching through a myriad of programs: ESOL pull-

out, ESOL self-contained, bilingual, two-way bilingual, immersion, to name a few. A

second group of Hispanic students who are struggling in today’s classrooms are those

who arrived at a young age, or perhaps were even born in the United States. Having

received most of their education in our schools, many of these students may go unnoticed

because they are not receiving language services through ESOL programs, yet they are

struggling in their classes. But regardless of their language proficiency, all these students

not only face many academic stresses, they must also find ways to adapt to a new culture

and find acceptance among their peers and society. Acculturation may result in changes

in basic psychological factors such as attitudes and behavior. And since language is so

closely related to acculturation, learners may have difficulty progressing beyond the early

stages in language development if they have negative feelings towards the target

language and integrative motivation is lacking (Miranda & Umhoefer, 1998).

Nature of the Problem

Research has concluded that students achieve oral proficiency in 1 to 3 years

Academic language proficiency, on the other hand, takes much longer, perhaps 5 to 7 or

2


even 10 years depending on the strength of their first language (Collier, 1999; Cummins,

1981; Hakuta, 2000). ESOL programs usually satisfy the needs of students recently

arrived, providing them with many opportunities to develop their oral language. After a

few years, though, in spite of what research has indicated, students are placed into

mainstream classes where they no longer receive ESOL services (Miller & Endo, 2004).

Many of these students struggle in their classes. Across the nation educators are faced

with the challenge of reaching those students identified as long-term English language

learners (LTELLs). Freeman and Freeman (2002) describe these students as having been

in the United States for seven or more years, are below grade level in reading and writing,

have a false perception of academic achievement, may have adequate grades but low test

scores and may have received (or may still be receiving) ESOL or bilingual instruction.

The No Child Left Behind mandate ensures that all students receive a quality

education and that all students meet the minimum requirements established by the law.

This new accountability includes English language learners (ELLs) as well, whether

newly arrived or long-term learners. In order to help these students find success a better

understanding of their learning situations needs to be obtained. Why is it that some ELLs

are academically successful while others struggle throughout their entire school career?

What services have they received throughout their schooling? What services, if any, do

they still require? What role does acculturation have on their language proficiency and/or

success in school?

Answers to these questions are of utmost importance, especially when we

consider the number of students being placed in special ed classrooms. Students are

sometimes shuffled back and forth between classes and services because teachers do not

3


always know what to do with them (Jimenez, 2003). Dr. Jimenez urges for the

development of more accurate assessments. “It wasn’t always clear to me that a child

had a learning disability.” He further states that, as a result, students are often misplaced.

While there is an abundance of research on different ESOL programs and services

available for English language learners, and there is research on a variety of factors that

may affect language acquisition, such as SES, previous schooling, and family support, a

review of the literature will reveal that there is little research devoted specifically to long-

term English language learners.

How long is long enough?

In their study, Hakuta, Goto Butler and Witt (2000) confirmed the amount of time

previously reported as being necessary for language acquisition. The researchers

reported on data from four different school districts to draw conclusions on how long it

takes students to develop oral and academic English language proficiency. Two of the

data sets are from school districts in the San Francisco Bar area. The other two were

from reports by researchers in Canada. The authors indicate that a longitudinal study

following immigrants from date of entry to the time when they reach academic

proficiency would be ideal but that instead these data sets provide a cross-sectional

sampling instead. The students in the San Francisco Bay area data sets were in

elementary school; whereas, students in the two Canadian data sets were in secondary

school. The researchers concluded that oral proficiency takes 3 to 5 years to attain and

academic English proficiency takes 4 to 7 years. They state that policies, such as

Proposition 227 which assume rapid acquisition, are “wildly unrealistic”. They suggest

that a balanced curriculum is required; one that takes care of, not only English

4


acquisition, but also the full array of the students’ academic needs. In addition, the

researchers found that students from lower socioeconomic status (SES) are the ones who,

for the most part, are learning English more slowly and therefore would benefit from

more time allotted for English language acquisition. This issue is compounded by the

fact that half of school-age children of immigrants and two-thirds of English language

learners come from low income families. (Capps, Fix, Murray, Ost, Passel &

Herwantoro,2005).

What is the impact of SES on language acquisition?

Rubinstein-Avila (2003) also reported on the impact of socioeconomic status

(SES) on the development of academic English language. Looking at three middle

school students, Rubinstein-Avila provides a glimpse of this issue. Radika is a 7th grader

who after only one year in the U.S. has successfully integrated into a mainstream class.

Her parents are highly educated and Radika herself has a strong educational background

from her own country, India. Her family moved into a higher income neighborhood

which surrounded Radika with native English speakers. She was also encouraged to

participate in extra-curricular activities. On the other hand, Stefani was a seventh grader

born in the United States to working class Mexican parents. Stefani had been in US

schools since kindergarten and was currently enrolled in a bilingual class. Her

interactions with native English speakers were limited as a result of classroom isolation

from mainstream classes and by living in an immigrant neighborhood. Stefani’s parents

were unable to help her with assignments and, because of the ill conditions of her

neighborhood, she was not permitted to visit friends. She was also responsible for caring

for her younger siblings. Although Stefani wanted to attend college, she was not being

5


provided access to the college-bound curricula. The third student was Caco, an 8th grade

student with interrupted previous schooling. His academic literacy skills in English and

Spanish were limited. He was not turning in assignments and was failing most of his

content classes. He had “fallen between the cracks” and had failed to learn the academic

English necessary to complete high school. Rubinstein-Avila concludes that middle

schoolers are denied access to challenging, grade appropriate curriculum because of their

perceived linguistic handicap. She states that we cannot ignore the academic needs of

such a large segment of our population and that teachers need to be prepared to teach in

diverse classrooms and provide all students with the necessary tools to become

successful.

What about the skills students bring with them?

According to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of data from the 2000 U.S. census,

foreign born teens contribute significantly to the drop-out population in the United States.

By analyzing a large, nationally representative sample of foreign-born teens from the

2000 Decennial U.S. Census, the Center examined the dropout behaviors of teens aged

15-17 from over 40 different countries. Dropout was defined as a teen who was not

currently enrolled in school and who had not completed a high school education. While

only eight percent of the nation’s teens are foreign born, nearly 25 percent of school

dropouts were born outside the United States. Almost 40 percent of these students who

drop out are recent arrivals who were already behind in school before they left their

countries. The dropout rate for teens with school problems before arrival in the U.S. is

greater than 70 percent, in comparison with 8 percent for those foreign-born without prior

school problems. On the other hand, foreign-born teens who have received most or all of

6


their schooling in the U.S. are much more likely to remain in school. Their dropout rate

of five percent is comparable with the native-born dropout rate of 3.3 percent, regardless

of their country of origin.

Cota (1997) studied the role of students’ previous educational experiences on

their current academic achievement and second language proficiency. Participants were

103 middle school students enrolled in high English transition classes where they

received specially-designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE) and mainstream

academic English instruction. The students were interviewed, their school records were

reviewed and they were assigned a score based on the Student Oral Language

Observation Matrix. 94% said that learning English was important. They reported that

over 80% of their parents believed learning English as a second language is important but

in most cases their parents do not have plans for them after high school. The students

reported that 59% of their fathers and 71% of their mothers do not speak English. The

majority of students reported that they did not participate in extra-curricular activities.

The students had all received Spanish instruction. Several important correlations were

discovered. First, the more absences a student had, the greater the negative correlation

with language proficiency. Second, the more years of English instruction an Ell received

the more likely the student performed better on the standardized tests. Of the

implications the researchers mention, several are of importance in this paper. First,

adequate Spanish language arts instruction, as well as daily consistent ESOL instruction,

needs to be implemented in bilingual classrooms. Second, efforts should be made to

encourage students to participate in extra-curricular activities, thus providing them

opportunities to develop leadership skills in addition to practicing their English language

7


skills in social settings. Third, recognition should be given to students who show regular

attendance. Finally, educators of ELL students need to provide students with

opportunities to “fine-tune” their English skills, help them in developing note-taking

skills, and provide them with college preparation and career choice information.

In another study Garcia-Vazquez, Vazquez and Lopez (1997) examined the

strength of the relation among proficiency in English and Spanish and academic

achievement. The participants were 100 Hispanic students in grades six through twelve

in a Midwestern school district. English and Spanish proficiency were measured using

three measures: Woodcock Language Proficiency Batteries in English and Spanish, Iowa

tests of Basic Skills and Iowa tests of Educational Development. Several grade point

averages (GPA) were computed: overall language, math and non-language (PE, art,

drama). The results showed that there exists a stronger relationship between English

proficiency and standardized tests than with GPA. The results also suggest that reading

skills in Spanish seem to influence performance on standardized achievement tests in

English. The researchers suggest this could be a result of language interdependence as

suggested by Cummins (1981). Finally, the researchers support Collier’s findings (1995)

that show that continued development of first language skills enhances scores in high

school.

Hardin (2001) examined how 50 fourth grade Hispanic students use cognitive

reading strategies to enhance comprehension of expository texts in Spanish and transfer

strategic reading behaviors to English reading. The measures used included an eight

question interview, a think aloud task, and a structured interview on strategies. Overall,

the results show that strategizing in the first language provides a foundation for strategic

8


reading behaviors in the second language. The researchers recommend that reading

instruction for second language learners should integrate reading comprehension with

linguistic elements rather than developing oral skills in the second language first and

delaying comprehension instruction.

What role does the family play?

In a study of ten Black urban families in Chicago, Clark (1983) concluded that the

most important indicators of academic success are embedded in the family culture. After

gathering data from each family (through interviews, observations and questionnaires)

over six months, Clark classified the students as high-achievers and low-achievers (based

on grades) and then compared them. He found that the quality of home life, family habits

and interactions affect a student’s school success more importantly than working

mothers, broken homes, poverty, racial or ethnic background. He went on to identify

seventeen patterns that serve to distinguish a family’s success orientation. Among those

are parental contacts with school, parental expectations regarding post-secondary

training, parental support and nurturance, amount of conflict between family members.

Psychosocial patterns have a greater educational impact on achievement than race or

social class (Clark, 1983). What implications does this have for English language

learners?

What about the high drop-out rates?

One factor that research links to students’ decisions to dropout from high school

is grade retention ( Ruebel et al., 2002; White & Holmes, 2001). In a study conducted by

White and Holmes (2001), students who had failed two grades in K-6 before the 93-94

school year were given a “Fresh Start”. These students agreed to attend summer school,

9


behave appropriately, participate in school and inform parents or guardians of school

meetings. Parents or guardians had to sign a contract stating that they would encourage

their child to follow the guidelines. Once students were accepted into the program, they

skipped seventh grade and were placed in eighth grade. Teachers were to bring these

students to grade level by the end of the year. The following year the students went on to

high school. This group of students who participated in the Fresh Start program passed a

statistically significant greater number of courses in high school than did the control

group of students who had not skipped seventh grade. Ninety percent of the control

group dropped out of high school compared to 30% of the Fresh Start group (White &

Holmes, 2001).

Hispanic students have the highest drop out rate in the country (Miranda &

Umhoefer, 1998). When we compare these to the drop out rates for the state of Virginia,

the trend was similar for the 1999-2000 school year. In Virginia the total drop out rate

was 3.9%: Whites, 3.1%; African-Americans, 5.3%; Hispanics 7.7% (U.S. Department of

Education, September 2002). Research has determined that school dropouts face severe

consequences: low-paying jobs, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, drug use, crime,

unemployment, depression (Ruebel, Ruebel, & O'Laughlin, 2002, Rumberger, 1983).

The question educators should pose to themselves should be, “What can be done to

change these statistics?” The needs of all students must be met so that all students can

become more successful in school. Perhaps then the cycle might be broken.

Purpose of this study

In order to explore the attitudes and perceptions long-term English language

learners have towards school, their teachers, their language(s) and their acculturation, a

10


student focus group was engaged. This is a pilot study for future research. The research

questions to be investigated included the following:

What perceptions do LTELLs have of their academic achievement,

teachers and schooling?

What effect does culture have on their perceptions and behaviors?

Do LTELLs feel there is a conflict between their two cultures?

What role does language have on their success/lack of success in school?

How supportive are the families?

Method

Participants

Participants were five Hispanic students in an 8th grade advanced ESOL class in a

northern Virginia urban middle school were selected to participate. Two boys, Carlos

and Jose, and three girls, Maria, Carmen and Patricia, formed the group and openly

discussed the obstacles and difficulties they have encountered in their schooling: family

support, acculturation, teacher attitude, language difficulties. (See Appendix A for the

guiding questions.) Of the five students two of the girls, Carmen and Maria, arrived in the

United States during third grade, the other three students, Carlos, Jose and Patricia, were

born here. Carlos had been in a Spanish immersion program during elementary school.

Two adult interviewers were present during the focus group meeting: the author

and the Special Projects Specialist for the school district. The five students have all had a

personal relationship with the author since they began sixth grade in the middle school, as

a result of having been placed briefly in her classroom. The second adult was unknown

to the students but they did not seem distracted by her presence.

11


Instruments

Morgan-Jinks Student Efficacy Scale (Jinks & Morgan, 1999)- The MJSES is used to

measure children’s perceptions of their own self-efficacy regarding academic

performance. Validity and reliability for the scale was ensured by using DeVellis’s

(1991) Scale Development Theory and Application for guidance. Likert-style items ask

students to rate their responses using a four-interval scale of really agree, kind of agree,

kind of disagree and really disagree. Items fall into three subscales: Talent items (I am

one of the best students in my class; I am smart; It’s not hard for me to get good grades in

school.), Context items (I would get better grades if my teacher liked me better; When I

am old enough I will go to college; No one cares if I do well in school; I will quit school

as soon as I can.) and Effort items (I work hard in school; I always get good grades when

I try hard; Most of my classmates work harder on their homework than I do.) (Appendix

B)

Procedure

Students met with the interviewers in a conference room. After introductions,

students were given the MJSES. When all the students had completed the survey the

interview began. The discussion was audio-taped and lasted approximately one hour.

Results

The Self-Efficacy Scale

When students’ scores on the MJSES are compared with their reported GPA,

except for Carmen, there exists a mismatch. Carmen’s high perception of self-efficacy

(83%) matches her reported grades. She is also the strongest student in the group, with a

GPA of 2.5. Carlos and Jose appear to have higher perceptions of their efficacy than

12


what their actual GPAs reflect, 66% to .75 and 87% to 1.5, respectively. Maria’s low

self-efficacy of 50% matches her low GPA of 1. Patricia received a very low score on

the self-efficacy scale (43%) when compared to Jose (87%) yet their GPA is the same

(1.5). Table 1 shows the self-efficacy scores compared to the students’ reported GPAs.

The Focus Group

The first questions asked were intended to put the students at ease and to get

them to begin speaking freely. Their preferences for free-time activities were similar to

what other students in middle school like to do with their friends: listen to music, chat on

line, watch movies, go to the shopping mall, talk on the phone, and play computer games.

Overall, they agreed that the language spoken with their friends and family was English

and that they only speak Spanish as a response to a Spanish utterance from a family

member. Surprisingly, except for the two students born outside the United States, the

students said their first language was English.

The students did not feel that language was a problem for them, either in school or

with their families. Carlos mentioned that while enrolled in the immersion program in

elementary school he had experienced confusion with Spanish and English. “I was

confused”, he said. But when asked to explain, he was unable to give examples. When

asked about their “thoughts”, the students stated that they “think” in English and use

English easily to express their feelings and thoughts, regardless of the situation and

emotions involved. Again they reiterated that they always speak in English.

Of interest was the students’ definition of a good student. They stated that a

student is defined by his or her grades; a good student having all As and Bs and a bad

student having Ds and Es. When the interviewers “pushed”, though, the students added

13


some qualities such as honest, respectful, and “don’t talk back”. While they considered

themselves neither good students nor bad students, they did agree that they do talk back

to the teacher. Carlos added that good students are teachers’ pets.

The students had difficulty generalizing the idea of a good teacher and thus their

responses were in reference to specific teachers for this school year. From their

responses, it can be summarized that, for them, a good teacher is one who is “straight

up”, making clear what the expectations are, strict yet “nice”, having a sense of humor

and who tries to make class fun. A good teacher is patient and willing to explain things

over and over again “without getting tired”. Only one student, Jose, could not remember

ever having had a favorite teacher. With regards to their classes, they felt that most

classes are too boring and need more activities and that good classes were interesting.

They all agreed that more computers are needed in their classrooms.

When asked what the hardest part of being in school was, their responses were

varied. Carmen’s immediate response was, “Coming to school.” But she would not

elaborate. The group then chimed in that it was the teachers. “Some are a pain.” Asked

to explain, Carlos added that sometimes teachers react to him when he says or does

something. Patricia added that sometimes teachers misinterpret what the students say.

They also feel pressure from the teachers to do things they don’t want to do, like write on

the chalkboard (Maria and Patricia) or staying after school (Carmen, Patricia and Carlos).

The students were adamant on one issue: they did not like when teachers, seemingly

made an offer for after school help, allowing students to have a false sense of choice,

when in reality the students were being forced to comply by staying. Patricia offered that

sometimes the parents do not want the students to stay after school, and that sometimes

14


the parents are then asked to come to school to meet with the teacher and an administrator

and as a result the students will then be required to stay after school. None of the

students believed they needed to stay since they were not failing, although earlier they

had indicated that their grades were mostly Cs; Jose and Patricia to D’s and Maria and

Carlos acknowledged Ds and E’s. This false sense of achievement was interesting to

note.

Homework completion was also a problem. The students said that sometimes

they forget to do it, or it is too hard. Other times they do not have enough time to do all

their homework, either because one teacher assigned too much in one class and there

wasn’t sufficient time for the assignments from other classes or because one assignment

is so hard they can’t get to the other assignments. Sometimes, though, their parents have

other things for them to do and they cannot find enough time for the school assignments.

They also complained that sometimes teachers lose their assignments and they then

refuse to redo the lost assignments. They felt this was especially the case with substitute

teachers to whom they sometimes turned in assignments.

When the issue of culture was brought up, the students all agreed they were

American but their culture was Hispanic. They did not feel a clash between their

American culture and their Hispanic culture nor did they feel their “Americanization”

created conflicts with their parents. Their definition of culture was mostly limited to their

language. They did not see music as part of their culture. “I’m not Puerto Rican” stated

Carmen adamantly; an admission that she listens to and likes music by Puerto Rican

artists. But she did not view this music as part of her Hispanic culture rather it was the

culture of a different sub-group, Puerto Ricans. Overall, the group did not feel there was

15


anything different between their life here in the United States and life back in their

parents’ country of origin.

Discussion

The five students in this study actively participated in the group’s discussion and

offered valuable information. Three of the students were born in the United States and

have received all their schooling in U.S. schools. The other two students have been in

U.S. schools for over five years. Although their previous schooling experiences and/or

achievements were not investigated in this study, only three of the five had received

formal instruction in their first language, Spanish. They all indicated that the language of

choice, in and out of the home, is English which could be a sign of subtractive

bilingualism. Bilingualism, per se, was not discussed in the group, although attempts

were made to get the students to discuss fluency and ease with both languages. But

instead, they repeatedly insisted that they spoke English. This leads one to question the

students’ attitude towards their culture and bilingualism.

Their ideas of what is a good student and their beliefs about themselves are in

conflict for they did not see themselves as good students but neither did they see

themselves as bad students. Yet, based on their definition of what makes a bad student,

except for Carmen who has a GPA of 2.5, the remaining four students are in fact poor

students with GPAs ranging from 1.75 to .75. Maria and Patricia have realistic

perceptions of self-efficacy when compared to their GPA. (See Figures 1 and 2)

When talking about the reasons they do not complete their homework, the

students mentioned that sometimes their parents have other “things” for them to do which

raises the question of family support in the home. In addition, none of the students

16


indicated either that their parents felt it was important for them to receive after school

study help. To what extent do these students feel that their families support a good

education?

Both Marcela and Patricia indicated that they would quit school as soon as they

could and they would not graduate from high school. This is cause for concern. With the

high Hispanic dropout rate in the country, we must find a way to keep students like

Marcela and Patricia in school. We must offer them choices they will willingly accept.

Much more research is needed to help educators, schools and policy makers

understand the needs of the long term English language learners. In the meantime, we

can attempt to help these students become more successful in school.

Limitations and future research

Since only five Hispanic students from one middle school were involved in this

study, findings are not generalizable to other districts or even to other ethnic groups.

Because the students are still young and only in middle school, they may not necessarily

understand, or be aware of, the issues involving culture and the complexities of language.

Therefore, the results are only intended to shed light on a complex situation in order to

provide a better understanding of what might be some of the issues LTELLs are bringing

to the classroom.

Future research should explore more closely at students’ perceptions of self-

efficacy and how it affects their academic achievement. It should also look at LTELLs

involvement in and attitudes towards school. Of interest also, might be research

regarding the support students receive at home, parents’ attitudes toward school success

and goals for their child’s educational future. Also, more research is needed to

17


investigate the effect of SES on English language acquisition and maintenance of the first

language which this study did not address. Future research might also look at the

attitudes LTELLs have towards bilingualism. Finally, research should investigate

programs that support LTELLs development of their first language.

In the meantime what should educators do?

Researchers agree that students must be taught the academic language they will

need for success in school. Whether students are newly-arrived immigrants or long-term

learners, our responsibility is to help them achieve language proficiency and prepare

them for academic success (Bielenberg & Wong Fillmore, 2005; Freeman & Freeman,

2002; Short & Echevarria, 2005; Sturtevant, 1998). Some recommendations from these

researchers are summarized below.

Educators must understand the linguistic needs of these students and provide

rich, meaningful lessons that support language growth (Chamness & Endo, 2004). They

should encourage ELLs to interact with their peers through class discussions and projects.

Short and Echevarria (2005) developed a model for lessons they call the Sheltered

Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model. While there are yet neither definite

answers nor solutions, sheltered instruction has several components supported by other

researchers that, when implemented, may help ELLs develop the academic English they

need in order to achieve academic success. 1) Identify language demands – What

aspects of English do the students need to know and apply? 2) Plan language objectives

– What is the key vocabulary students need to learn? What reading/writing skills should

they develop? What listening/speaking tasks should they complete? Pre- and post-

18


reading and writing strategies should be explicitly taught (Zwiers, 2005). 3)

Development of academic vocabulary – Students should be taught more than just the

highlighted words in the text (Bielenberg & Wong Fillmore, 2005; Short & Echevarria,

2005). They should learn technical terms and expressions; i.e., in comparison, as a result.

4) Teachers should draw on students’ background knowledge – Information should be

comprehensible for students (Freeman & Freeman, 2002); materials should be adapted.

5) Oral interaction and extended academic talk – Students should be encouraged to

participate in classroom discussions (Zwiers, 2005). They should be asked to paraphrase.

6) Review vocabulary and content concepts – Educators should allow time before end of

class to point out key concepts and associated academic vocabulary (Bielenberg & Wong

Fillmore, 2005; Short & Echevarria, 2005). They should make connections to lesson

objectives and state standards. This will help ELLs know what to study. 7) Provide

students feedback on language use. – Teachers should talk EXPLICITLY about word

choice, ways to compare information and techniques for explaining solutions (Short &

Echevarria, 2005).

Until research provides more answers and a clearer direction for schools,

educators, and policy makers, we must all work together to help all English language

learners succeed in school. Students like Marcela, Patricia, Carmen, Carlos and Jose

have not been successful in school; yet they deserve a chance to learn and succeed. We

must do something now. We cannot wait for research to catch up because for these five

students, and others like them, research may come too late.

19


References

Bielenberg, B. & Wong Fillmore, L. (2005). The English they need for the test.

Educational Leadership, 62(4), 45-49.

Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J.S., Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new

democracy of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved on 10/10/05 from

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=311230

Chamness Miller, P. & Endo, H. (2004). Understanding and meeting the needs of ESL

students. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(10), 786-792

Clark, R. M. (1983). Family Life and School Achievement: Why Poor Black Children

Succeed or Fail. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Collier, V.P. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority

student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1&2),

187-212.

Cota, I.C. (1997). The role of previous educational learning experiences on current

academic performance and second language proficiency of intermediate school

limited English proficient students. Bilingual Research Journal, 1(2&3).

Cummins, J. (1981). Immigrant second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 132-

149.

Freeman, Y.S., Freeman, D.E. & Mercuri, S. (2002). Closing the Achievement Gap: How

to Reach Limited-Formal-Schooling and Long-Term English Learners. New

Hampshire: Heinemann.

20

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=311230


Fry, R. (2005). The higher drop-out rate of foreign-born teens: The role of schooling

abroad. Pew Hispanic Center, 11/01/05. Retrieved on 11/28/05 from

http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/55.pdf

Garcia-Vazquez, E., Vazquez, L., & Lopez, I.C. (1997). Language proficiency and

academia success: Relationships between proficiency in two languages and

achievement among Mexican American students. Bilingual Research Journal,

21(4), 334-347.

Hakuta, K., Goto Butler, Y., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to

attain proficiency? Policy Report 2000-1, The University of California Linguistic

Minority Research Institute. Retrieved from

http://caselinks.education.ucsb.edu-casetrainer-CLADContent-CladLanguage-

node7-theory-HowLong.pdf

Hardin, V.B. (2001). Transfer and variation in cognitive reading strategies of

latino fourth grade students in a late-exit bilingual program. Bilingual Research

Journal, 25(4), 417-439.

Jimenez, R. (2003). The path to latino literacy: Special needs kids in the linguistic vortex.

Family Center on Technology and Disability News and Notes, 20.

Karabenick, S.A. & Clemens Noda, P.A. (2004). Professional development implications

of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward English language learners. Bilingual

Research Journal, 28(1), 55-75

MacSwain, J., Rolstad, K., & Glass, G.V. (2002). Do some school-age children have no

language? Some problems of construct validity in the pre-LAS español. Bilingual

Research Journal, 26(2), 213-238.

21

http://caselinks.education.ucsb.edu-casetrainer-CLADContent-CladLanguage-node7-theory-HowLong.pdf/

http://caselinks.education.ucsb.edu-casetrainer-CLADContent-CladLanguage-node7-theory-HowLong.pdf/

http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/55.pdf


McBrien, J.L. (2005). Educational needs and barriers for refugee students in the United

States: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 329-

364.

Miller, P.C. & Endo, Hidehiro. (2004). Understanding and meeting the needs of ESL

students. Phi Delta Kappan, 85 (10), 786-792.

Miranda, A. O., & Umhoefer, D.L. (1998). Acculturation, language use, and

demographic variables as predictors of the career self-efficacy of latino career

counseling clients. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 26(1),

39-51.

Reyes, P., Scribner, J.D., & Paredes Scribner, A. (Eds.). (1999). Lessons from high-

performing Hispanic schools: Creating learning communities. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Rubenstein-Avila, E. (2003). Facing reality: English language learners in middle school

classes. English Education, 35 (2), 122 - 135.

Ruebel, J. B., Ruebel, K. K., & O'Laughlin, E. M. (2002). Attrition in alternative school

programs: How well do traditional risk factors predict drop out from alternative

schools? Contemporary Education, 72(1), 58-62.

Rumberger, R. W. (1983). Dropping out of high school: The influence of race, sex, and

family background. American Educational Research Journal, 20(2), 199-220.

Short, D. & Echevarria, J. (2005). Teacher skills to support English language learners.

Educational Leadership, 62(3), 8-13

Slavin, R.E. & Calderon, M. (2001). Effective Programs for Latino Students. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

22


Sturtevant, E. (1998). What middle and high school educators need to know about

language minority students. NASSPBulletin, Oct., 73-77.

U.S. Department of Education, N. C. f. E. S. (September 2002, September 2002).

Common Core of Data Survey. Retrieved July 25, 2003, from

http://nces.ed.gov.pubs2003/2003060.pdf

Viadero, D. (2001). Learning gap linked to LEP instruction. Education Week, April 25,

2001.

Watts-Taffe, S. & Trescott, D.M. (2000). Focus on research: Using what we know about

language and literacy development for ESL students in the mainstream classroom.

Language Arts, 77(3), 258-265

White, M., & Holmes, C. T. (2001). Retention in grade and dropping out or a fresh start.

Retrieved 7/16/03, from

www.coe.uga.edu/leadership/faculty/holmes/retention.pdf

Zehr, M.A. (2002). Born in the USA. Education Week, 22 (1).

Zwiers, J. (2005). The third language of academic English. Educational Leadership,

62(4), 60-63.

23

http://www.coe.uga.edu/leadership/faculty/holmes/retention.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov.pubs2003/2003060.pdf


Appendix A

Guiding Questions for Focus Group

What do you like to do?

What do you like about your friends?

What language do you speak at home? With your friends?

Do you feel more comfortable with either language?

Do you think you are a good student?

What has been the hardest part of being in school?

What do you feel you need the most help with at school?

What do you feel you are good at in school?

Do you feel language has been an issue?

Do you feel accepted by your classmates?

Do you feel accepted by your teachers?

What would make school more meaningful for you?

Do you think you have a dominant culture? If so, which one?

Do you feel you feel comfortable with both cultures?

Do you ever feel your ideas clash with those of your family? If so, in what ways?

24


Appendix B:

Morgan-Jinks Student Efficacy Scale (MJSES)

Legend for the chart:

1 - Really agree2 - Kind of agree3- Kind of disagree4 - Really disagree

Statement

1. I work hard in school. 1 2 3 4

2. I could get the best grades in class 1 2 3 4if I tried enough.

3. Most of my classmates like to do 1 2 3 4math because it is easy.

4. I would get better grades if my 1 2 3 4teacher liked me better.

5. Most of my classmates work harder 1 2 3 4on their homework than I do.

6. I am a good science student. 1 2 3 4

7. I will graduate from high school. 1 2 3 4

8. I go to a good school. 1 2 3 4

9. I always get good grades when I 1 2 3 4try hard.

10. Sometimes I think an assignment is easy 1 2 3 4

25

http://web16.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ua=sd+Clearing++House+bo+S_DE+lst+Condition++of++Education++1999++Overview+db+tfhjnh+fst+Clearing++House+shn+1+dt+clearing++house+bt+clearing++house+do+S_DE+B3BE&_ug=sid+F13CDDC0-F7A8-4BA5-91FE-68D3A6FF5193@sessionmgr3+dbs+tfh+cp+1+2B91&_us=fcl+Aut+hs+False+or+Date+ss+SO+sm+KS+sl+-1+dstb+KS+ri+KAAACBYB00036961+95B4&_uh=btn+Y+md+B+EEBF&_uso=hd+False+tg%5B0+-+st%5B0+-JN++%22Clearing++House%22++and++DT++19990301+db%5B0+-tfh+op%5B0+-+3918&cf=1&fn=1&rn=10#toc%23toc


when the other kids in class think it is hard.

11.I am a good social studies student. 1 2 3 4

12. Adults who have good jobs probably 1 2 3 4were good students when they were kids.

13. When I am old enough, I will go to college. 1 2 3 4

14. I am one of the best students in my class. 1 2 3 4

15. No one cares if I do well in school. 1 2 3 4

16. My teachers think I am smart. 1 2 3 4

17. It is important to go to high school. 1 2 3 4

18. I am a good math student. 1 2 3 4

19. My classmates usually get better 1 2 3 4grades than I do.

20. What I learn in school is not important. 1 2 3 4

21. I usually understand my homework 1 2 3 4assignments.

22. I usually do not get good grades in 1 2 3 4

math because it is too hard.

23. It does not matter if I do well in school. 1 2 3 4

24. Kids who get better grades than I do get 1 2 3 4

more help from the teacher than I do.

26


25. I am a good reading student. 1 2 3 4

26. It is not hard for me to get good 1 2 3 4

grades in school.

27. I am smart. 1 2 3 4

28. I will quit school as soon as I can. 1 2 3 4

29. Teachers like kids even if they do 1 2 3 4

not always make good grades.

30. When the teacher asks a question I usually 1 2 3 4know the answer even if the other kids don’t.

Table 1: Self-efficacy vs. GPA

Self-efficacy vs. GPA

Student Self-efficacy score

Reported GPA

Carlos 66% .75

Carmen 83% 2.5

Jose 87% 1.75

Maria 50% 1.00

Patricia 43% 1.75

27


Figure 1 Students’ Self-Efficacy Score

28


Figure 2 Students’ Self-Reported GPA

29

freeman, y 882/educ_88… · web viewresearch has concluded that students achieve oral...

Documents