USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Teaching inclusivity

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Teaching inclusivity preservice teachers' perceptions of their knowledge, skills and attitudes toward working with English language learners in mainstream classrooms
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Smith, Philip C
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Online
Survey
Instrument
ELL
ESL
ESOL
Dissertations, Academic -- Secondary Education -- Doctoral -- USF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: This study investigated the effect of one semester of ESOL education on preservice teachers by examining their perceived knowledge and skill in working with English Language Learner (ELL) students, their attitude toward having ELL students in their mainstream classrooms, and what classroom methods they perceive as effective in their ESOL preservice education courses. Data for this study were collected from pre- and post-course attitudinal surveys during one semester of course work, from participants at two specific points in their educational experience; participants in the (1) introductory and (2) final TESOL course. There were 293 participants who took the pre-, and 273 who took the post-course survey, from a total of 513 preservice teachers. This represents approximately a 57% participation rate on the pre- and 53% on the post-course survey. Little is known about the effect that ESOL preservice education has on preservice teachers' attitudes toward ELL students, and no studies known to the investigator have examined the methods of an ESOL preservice program to see preservice teachers' perceptions of the effect of these methods. The effect of the following independent variables were used: (a) course (initial and final ESOL course), and (b) time (pre- and post-course). A new survey instrument was developed that identified the following factors which were used as dependent variables: (a) perception of ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS), (b) attitude toward inclusion (ATI), and (c) perceived effectiveness of instructional methods (PEIM). Significant differences were found regarding: (1) PEKS by course and time, and (2) PEIM by course. No differences were found for the variable ATI.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Philip C. Smith.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 163 pages.
General Note:
Incudes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001911263
oclc - 173685156
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001222
usfldc handle - e14.1222
System ID:
SFS0025543:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Teaching Inclusivity: Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions Of Their Knowledge, Skills And Attitudes Toward Wo rking With English Language Learners In Mainstream Classrooms By Philip C. Smith A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Secondary Education College of Education and Department of World Languages Education Colleges of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Joyce Nutta, Ph.D. Lou Carey, Ph.D. Carine Feyten, Ph.D. William Kealy, Ph.D. Date of Approval: April 1, 2005 Keywords: on-line, survey, in strument, ell, esl, esol Copyright 2005, Philip C. Smith

PAGE 2

Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest appreci ation to my major professor, Dr. Joyce Nutta. She is a skillful mentor and exampl e of leadership. Her knowledge in the ESOL field has laid a strong foundation for my studies. She is such an example in the field of TESOL education, and I owe so much to the foundation that she has laid for the ESOL program in this university, and the ripple effect it has had throughout the state of Florida. Her innovations in helping systematize the whole process of revisions of drafts were also very helpful. My profound appreciation also to the committee of scholars who helped me though this process. I have benefited trem endously from the advice of Dr. Lou Carey. She has helped me beyond words can tell in her generous and kind help in editing, design and implementation of the survey instrument, and advice in statistical measurement. She is truly an inspiration to all who wish to beco me professors that coach. Dr. Carine Feyten has demonstrated real leader ship, vision, and inspiration, not only in this dissertation process, but throughout the years in the doctora l program. Her insights have always been helpful. Dr. William Kealy has likewise contributed in his areas of expertise to this study. I have benefited from his guidance in design and implementation of the on-line survey instrument. Added to my committee, I also must menti on my appreciation to Dr. John Angell, who was one of my original committee memb ers, and whose contributions were so

PAGE 3

valuable in helping me get started. He read countless drafts of the proposal, and provided much encouragement and inspiration. I would also like to express my thanks to the ESOL instructors in the Fall of 2004, who allowed me to survey th eir students. Without their support I would not have had such an over-whelming response to the survey request. A special thank-you to all the preservice teachers who participat ed in this study. Their cont ributions were the source of the research. Finally, I am thankful to my wife, ch ildren, and parents for their unconditional love and encouragement throughout the course of my dissertation program. Without each one of them, this would not have been possible. To all of these, and to God, my deepest gratitude!

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................. ..viii List of Figures................................................................................................................ ....ix Abstract....................................................................................................................... .........x Chapter One Introduction....................................................................................................1 History of ESOL in Florida......................................................................................2 Course Methods Examined......................................................................................3 Classroom Cases..........................................................................................4 ESOL Field Experiences..............................................................................5 Reflective Teaching/ Learning.....................................................................7 Integration of Courses a nd Professional Portfolio.......................................8 ESOL Infused Courses.................................................................................8 Importance of this Study..........................................................................................9 Statement of Purpose ............................................................................................11 Research Questions................................................................................................11 Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................12 Reliability and Validity of Instrument...................................................................14 Definition of Terms................................................................................................15 Conclusion ........................................................................................................17

PAGE 5

ii Chapter Two Review of Literature....................................................................................19 Special Education Inclusion Studies......................................................................21 Importance of Students’ Attitudes.........................................................................22 Effect of Teachers’ Attitudes on Students.............................................................24 Effect of Education on Teachers’ Attitudes...........................................................24 Best Teaching Practices’ Effect on Attitudes........................................................27 Effect of Reflective Assignments..............................................................28 Effect of Classroom Cases and Case Studies.............................................28 Effect of Field Experiences........................................................................30 Effect of Integration of Courses and Portfolio Development....................30 Effectiveness of ESOL Education Courses............................................................31 Teachers’ Attitudes toward ELLs..........................................................................33 Other Factors ........................................................................................................35 Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes by Program of Study................................36 Exposure to Cultural/ Ethnic Dive rsity as an Attitudinal Factor...............37 Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes about Inclusion by Level of Students’ Proficiency..............................................................................40 Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Attitudes: Benefit and Support..........41 Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Knowledge and Skill..........................42 Conclusion.............................................................................................................43 Chapter Three Method.......................................................................................................44 Sample....................................................................................................................45

PAGE 6

iii Instrument..............................................................................................................46 Development of the Instrument.................................................................47 Design of the Instrument............................................................................48 Procedure...............................................................................................................49 Survey Instrument Factor Analysis........................................................................50 Hypothesis One Tests ...........................................................................................51 Independent Variables...............................................................................51 Course............................................................................................51 Time...............................................................................................52 Major..............................................................................................52 Dependent Variables..................................................................................52 PEKS as a Factor...........................................................................52 ATI as a Factor...............................................................................52 PEIM as a Factor............................................................................53 ELLs Language Level....................................................................53 Statistical Tests for Hypothesis One..........................................................54 Description of Conten t of the ESOL Courses............................................54 Hypothesis Two Tests............................................................................................55 Hypothesis Three Tests..........................................................................................56 Statistical Tests for Hypothesis Three.......................................................56 Description of Instructiona l Methods in ESOL Courses...........................56 Assumptions...........................................................................................................57

PAGE 7

iv Independence Assumption.........................................................................57 Multivariate Normality Assumption..........................................................57 Homogeneity of Covariance Assumption..................................................58 Instrument Validity and Reliability.......................................................................58 Chapter Four Results..........................................................................................................6 0 Participants.............................................................................................................60 Common Factor Analysis of the EASI..................................................................61 Descriptive Data.....................................................................................................67 Instrument Characteristics.........................................................................67 Reliability.......................................................................................67 Normality.......................................................................................67 Homogeneity of covariance...........................................................69 Effect Size..................................................................................................69 Hypothesis One Results.........................................................................................69 Over-all Effect between Courses...............................................................70 ESOL Knowledge and Skill (PEKS) Differences by Course....................71 Attitude toward Inclusion (ATI) Differences by Course...........................73 Hypothesis Two Results........................................................................................75 Overall Effect within Courses....................................................................76 ESOL Knowledge and Skill (PEK ) Differences within Courses...............77 Attitudes toward Inclusion (ATI) Differences within Courses..................78 Hypothesis Three Results......................................................................................79

PAGE 8

v Differences on PEIM Factor......................................................................80 Other Instructional Methods Perceived as Effective.................................82 Chapter Five Discussion....................................................................................................83 Primary Question...................................................................................................83 Survey Instrument..................................................................................................83 Reliability and Validity..............................................................................84 PEKS Factor...............................................................................................84 ATI Factor..................................................................................................85 PEIM Factor...............................................................................................86 Hypothesis One: Differences by Course................................................................86 Differences by Perception of ESOL Knowledge and Skill........................87 Differences by Attitude toward Inclusion (ATI).......................................88 Hypothesis Two: Differences from Preto Post-EASI within Group...................89 Discussion of Knowledge a nd Skill (PEKS) within Group.......................89 Discussion of Attitudes toward Inclusion (ATI) within Group.................90 Hypothesis Three: Effectiveness of Methods in ESOL Education........................91 Discussion of PEIM Differences between Courses...................................91 Readings and reflective assignments.............................................92 Field experiences...........................................................................93 Limitations to this Study........................................................................................94 Survey Instrument Recommendation.....................................................................95 Further Studies.......................................................................................................95

PAGE 9

vi Final Thoughts.......................................................................................................96 References..................................................................................................................... .....97 Appendices..................................................................................................................... ..110 Appendix A: Initial ESOL Course Syllabus....................................................................111 Appendix B: Final ESOL Course Syllabus......................................................................116 Appendix C: ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument – Pre-Course Survey......................123 Appendix D: ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument – Post-Course Survey.....................129 Appendix E: Florida ESOL Performance Standards.......................................................134 Appendix F: ESOL Infusion Letter..................................................................................136 Appendix G: Factor Structure of Instrument...................................................................141 Appendix H: Initial ESOL Course Calendar...................................................................142 Appendix I: Final ESOL Course Calendar......................................................................143 Appendix J: Pre-Course Letter to Instructors and Students.............................................144 Appendix K: Post-Course Letter to Instructors and Students..........................................146 Appendix L: Informed Consent for Survey Participants.................................................147 Appendix M: Pre-Course Knowledge Survey Items.......................................................149 Appendix N: Post-Course Knowledge Survey Items.......................................................150 Appendix O: Pre-Course Skill Survey Items...................................................................151 Appendix P: Post-Course Skill Survey Items..................................................................152 Appendix Q: Pre-Course Attitude Survey Items.............................................................153 Appendix R: Post-Course Attitude Survey Items............................................................154 Appendix S: Pre-Course Instruct ional Methods Survey Items........................................155

PAGE 10

vii Appendix T: Post-Course Instruct ional Methods Survey Items......................................156 Appendix U: Table – PEKS and ATI by Major and Course............................................157 Appendix V: Description of the Content of the ESOL Courses......................................158 Appendix W: Description of Instruc tional Methods in ESOL Courses...........................161 About the Author ............................................................................................End Page

PAGE 11

viii List of Tables Table 1. Major Differences on Pilot from Preto Post......................................................32 Table 2. Factor Analysis Resu lts for Preand Post-EASI.................................................62 Table 3. Factor Structure of Instrument.............................................................................64 Table 4. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Items within Factors on the Post-EASI................................................................................................................... ....66 Table 5. Descriptive Data for Preand Post-EASI by Factor............................................68 Table 6. Means of PEKS Item s by Course on Pre-EASI ..................................................72 Table 7. Means of PEKS Items by Course on Post-EASI ................................................73 Table 8. Means of ATI Items by Course on Post-EASI....................................................74 Table 9. Descriptive Data for Preto Post-EASI Differences by Factor...........................76 Table 10. Differences from Preto Po st-EASI by Course for PEKS Items......................78 Table 11. Differences from Preto Post-EASI by Course for ATI Items..........................79 Table 12. Post-EASI Means on In structional Methods Items............................................81

PAGE 12

ix List of Figures Figure 1. Scree Plot of Eigenvalu es on Preand Post-EASI.............................................63

PAGE 13

x Teaching Inclusivity: Preservice Teachers’ Pe rceptions of their Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes toward Working with English Langua ge Learners in Mainstream Classrooms Philip C. Smith ABSTRACT This study investigated the effect of one semester of ESOL education on preservice teachers by examining their perc eived knowledge and skill in working with English Language Learner (ELL) students, th eir attitude toward having ELL students in their mainstream classrooms, and what classr oom methods they perceive as effective in their ESOL preservice education courses. Data for this study were collected from preand post-course attitudinal surveys during one semester of course work, from pa rticipants at two specific points in their educational experience; particip ants in the (1) introductory an d (2) final TESOL course. There were 293 participants who took th e pre-, and 273 who took the post-course survey, from a total of 513 preservice teacher s. This represents approximately a 57% participation rate on the preand 53% on the post-course survey. Little is known about the effect that ESOL preservice education has on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward ELL students, and no studies known to the investigator have

PAGE 14

xi examined the methods of an ESOL preser vice program to see preservice teachers’ perceptions of the effect of these methods. The effect of the following independent va riables were used: (a) course (initial and final ESOL course), and (b) time (preand post-course). A new survey instrument was developed that identified the followi ng factors which were used as dependent variables: (a) perception of ESOL knowle dge and skill (PEKS), (b) attitude toward inclusion (ATI), and (c) perceived effectiv eness of instructiona l methods (PEIM). Significant differences were found regarding: (1) PEKS by course and time, and (2) PEIM by course. No differences were found for the variable ATI.

PAGE 15

1 Chapter One Introduction Present demographic trends in the Unite d States indicate that by the year 2026 one in every four children in our public schools will be an ELL – English Language Learner (Garcia, 1999). Elev en percent of the current K-12 student population in the public schools in Florida is classified as ELL (OMSLE – Office of Multicultural Student Language Education report, 2000/2001). Th e majority of the ELL students, even students who do not yet speak English, are sp ending the greater part of the day being taught in mainstream classrooms. These students are receivi ng a limited amount of ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) instruction. Given this present situation, what are preservice teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their ESOL education cour ses in preparing them with the necessary knowledge and skills for meeting the need s of ELL students in the mainstream classrooms, and what are their attitudes towa rd having ELL students in their mainstream classrooms? The effect of ESOL education on the future teachers’ attitudes is not very clear. ESOL training has been shown to have an impact on attitudes, but what aspects of this training, or what particular ki nd of training is unknown (Youngs & Youngs, 2001). ESOL education impacts the lives and futures of approximately 290,000 K-12th grade Floridians who are ELL students, as well as their families. The teacher’s attitude plays an important part in the over-all learning process (Bloom, 1976; Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002; Garcia, 1999; and Krashen, 1981). Teacher educators must consider how

PAGE 16

2 ESOL education is affecting teachers’ attitudes, as well as how it is providing teachers with knowledge and skills in the basic ESOL competencies. History of ESOL in Florida In August 1990, a consent decree was signed between META (Multicultural Education and Training Advocacy), and the Fl orida State Board of Education (SBE). Popularly known in Florida as the META Co nsent Decree, LULAC et al. v. State Board of Education Consent Decree provides a structure for compliance to ensure ELL children’s rights to equal educat ion opportunities. Each schoo l district in the state of Florida is required to hold an approved plan that ensures the protection of the constitutional rights of ELL students. The META Consent Decree has impacted the jobs of administrators by the adde d documentation process required to prove compliance. Teachers are directly impacted by the META Consent Decree training requirements at the time an identified ELL student is placed in to their classrooms. Elementary school teachers, secondary language arts teachers, and special education classroom teachers are required to take 300 in-service hours of ESOL training, or 15 college credits of ESOL education courses. The subjects required are: (a) methods of teaching English to speakers of other languages (ESOL), (b) ESOL curri culum and materials development, (c) crosscultural communication and understanding, (d) te sting and evaluation of ESOL, and (e) applied linguistics. Secondary content area teach ers are required to take 60 in-service hours of ESOL training, or three college credits of ESOL education courses. This is an overview course that introduces the five subject area id entified in the META Consent Decree.

PAGE 17

3 The implementation process of the Consent Decree in Florida, as documented in a comprehensive study by Mary Elizabeth Wils on-Patton, has had a profound effect on the attitudes of university pers onnel, school administrators, teachers, and the public in general (Wilson-Patton, 2000). These changes in educational requirements have deeply impacted how colleges of education in Florida prepare future teachers. In response to the Florida ESOL traini ng mandate, universitie s in Florida have adopted an “infusion” model for the ESOL education of its preservice teachers. It combines specific ESOL education courses, ESOL methods infused in other teacher education courses, an early and a late fiel d experience, and the completion of an ESOL portfolio by each preservice teacher. The comb ination of these components satisfies the Department of Education’s requirement of 300 hours of ESOL education for preservice teachers in the Elementary (ELE), Early Childhood (ECE), English (ENG), Special (ESE), and Foreign Language (FLE) educat ion degree programs in order to earn an ESOL endorsement. Course Methods Examined Methods that have been shown in resear ch to have an impact on preservice teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge, skills and attitudes include programs that are help students become more reflective le arners, or develop constructivist notions (Richardson, 1996). They include the follo wing instructional me thods: (a) reflective teaching/learning (Bailey,1998), (b) classroom cases (Kagan, 1993), (c) field experiences (Agnello & Mittag, 1999; Linek et al., 1999; Mason, 1999; Shade & Stewart, 2001; and Wiggins & Follo, 1999), (d) integration, cont inuity among courses (Byrnes et al., 1996) and (e) portfolio development (Bailey et al., 1998 & Wenzlaff, 1998).

PAGE 18

4 This section examines each of these cour se methods: classroom cases, ESOL field experiences, reflective teaching/learning, a nd ESOL infusion in other courses. A description is given of how these methods ar e used in this univ ersity in the ESOL education courses (Appendices A and B are the syllabi for the target courses). Classroom Cases A classroom case is “a realistic classroom s ituation that incorpor ates all the facts needed to clarify and solve a target probl em” (Kagan, 1993). Bailey defines reflections as an account of a teaching/ learning experience that is documented first-person in a personal journal, and then analyzed (Ba iley, 1992). The university ESOL education program gives the preservice teachers opportuni ties to engage in a cycle of selfobservation and self-evaluation in order to better understand themselves and their experiences. Florez (2001) wrote that these practices develop both skills and attitudes that become a regular part of good teaching. In this university, classroom cases an d reflections are an important element throughout the ESOL education program. In th e introductory course, preservice teachers are required to reflect on their own home a nd school culture, re flect on their field experience, and reflect on a classroom case. The classroom case used in the introductory course is realistic, but not a real case. The case study stude nt, Eliana Gonzales, was taken from the ‘Empowering ESOL Teachers’ Handbook (Willig & Le, 1996). The preservice teachers read the case as a jigsaw activity in cl ass, or online, then share information with their cooperative groups, come up with an instru ctional plan for the person in the case, and finally write an individual reflection on this activity.

PAGE 19

5 In the final ESOL course, the preservice t eachers are required to collect data on an real ELL student. They gather ethnographic, linguistic and academic data, then analyze and reflect on their findings. They develop an individual instructional plan for that student, and write a unit plan th at includes adaptations for th e needs of that particular student. Participants in these courses genera lly report an increased confidence in their ability after working on the clas sroom case in the initial cour se, and the case study in the final course. In other ESOL-infused courses, preser vice teachers are engaged in work involving classroom cases that include ELL stude nts. One example of this is in the Educational Measurement course. Preservice teachers are required to build assessment instruments that include adaptations to m eet the needs of spec ific classroom case ELL students described to them. This gives them valuable hands-on experience with something they will be doing on a daily ba sis when they are out in the schools. Cases are typically used in instruction in three ways: (a) as instructional materials, (b) as raw data in research, and (c) as a cat alyst that can promote change (Kagan, 1993). Both of these courses use cases as instructional materials. This study will explore their perceptions of the effectiven ess of these cases in changi ng their knowledge, skill and attitude toward working with ELL students in the mainstream classroom. Cases, however, are not substitutes for field experien ces, but can serve to enhance the practical experience (Wilson, 1989). ESOL Field Experiences Preservice teachers engage in ESOL-sp ecific field experiences, but many also encounter ELL students in their regular intern ships. Reflections of preservice teachers

PAGE 20

6 have reported that they have become much more aware of the number of ELL students that were present in classrooms that went largely unnoticed before doing their volunteer hours in the initial ESOL course. The specific field experiences directly rela ted to ESOL education are: (a) an early and a (c) late field experience. The course instructor helps the preservice teachers find an early field experience placement while enro lled in their introductory ESOL course. They complete a series of structured a ssignments including six volunteer tutoring or observing hours with one or more ELL students. In certain cases, the preservice teachers work with the ELL student’s family as well. The ESOL late field experience takes place toward the end of the preservice teachers’ degree program. Participants ar e required to plan, implement, and assess instruction for one or more ELL students over a series of weeks. The preservice teachers are given the ESOL Late Field Experience Form toward the end of their introductory ESOL course. Studies related to the effect of field e xperiences on attitude s and beliefs have reported changes in teachers’ attitudes as a result of educational experiences (Agnello & Mittag, 1999; Linek et al., 1999; Mason, 1999; Shade & Stewart, 2001; and Wiggins & Follo, 1999). Mason (1999) found that attitudes can change through well-conceived field experiences. He cited Malone’s meta-analysis of the effects of early field experiences on preservice teachers’ attitudes that pointed to the most profound differences were found in students who were placed in low SES schools (p aper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associ ation, Chicago, Illinois, 1985). In a study

PAGE 21

7 about preservice teachers’ beli efs about literacy, Linek’s (1 999) cross-case analysis compared three studies and found that fiel d experience is an important influence on preservice teachers’ beliefs. Reflective Teaching/ Learning Reflective journals provide teacher educator s with evidence of the dispositions of their students. In these journals, students who previously seemed unaffected, begin to display surprise, frustration, and sometimes a nger at past or current K-12 school practices that represent the challenges faced by Englis h language learners in American schools. Major and Brock describe students who show evidence of beginning to adopt a questioning and critiquing stance in their journals. They cont rast this sort of behavior with students who display shallow reflection a nd lack depth and a re al effort to think carefully and critically a bout their own work and beliefs (Major & Brock, 2003). The ESOL education courses give the pr eservice teachers many opportunities to reflect on their practice: cultural self-analysis, field expe rience reflection, over-all course reflection, and case study reflection. Reflecti ons cause them to st ate and explain their thoughts and by doing this, extend and reframe th e ways in which they look at their own practices and beliefs (Bailey et al., 1 998). Bailey and coll eagues reported their experiences investigating refl ective teaching in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes in Hong Kong. Reading Bailey’s journa l convinced her colleagues in the field of second language acquisition of the value of keep ing a journal. Reading the journal itself was much more effective in convincing them of the value than simply reading about it from textbooks (Bailey et al., 1998).

PAGE 22

8 Integration of Courses and Professional Portfolios The integration of courses and the developm ent of a portfolio are also believed to have a connection to dispositions. It causes the preservice teachers to engage in personal exploration, experimentation, and reflection (Bailey et al ., 1998; Richert, 1990; Van Hook, 2002; and Wenzlaff, 1998). ESOL educat ion requirements include the integration of ESOL competencies in many of the other education courses, and the compilation of an ESOL portfolio to document the completi on of all the required ESOL performance standards. The ESOL portfolio collects a ll assignments or ESOL performance check-off sheets from the ESOL infused courses. The stru cture of this portfolio is explained in the introductory ESOL course a nd varies by program area. ESOL Infused Courses As preservice teachers complete each ESOL infused course in their program of study, they place the course syllabus and the ch ecklists in their portf olio. In addition, they write a short reflection for each course noting how ESOL was addressed in their coursework and what performance standards th ey met in each of the assignments in that particular course (s ee rationale and details in Appendix F). The ESOL-infused courses play a critical ro le in the ESOL endorsement process. They take the place of six or nine credits of ESOL education course work. It has an effect of making ESOL present in all courses, rather than just the specific ESOL courses. This reflects the reality of mainstream classr ooms in most parts of Florida. There is the possibility that there will be ELL students in every classroom the ne w teacher is hired to teach.

PAGE 23

9 Importance of this Study Attitudes are beliefs and feelings about particular social objects. Specifically, in this case: beliefs and fee lings about having ELL students in mainstream classrooms, and their perception of their ability to effectiv ely teach them. Verbalized attitudes have powerful effects on courses of social action. Th is means that even if people have some hidden feelings or personal reservations about a particular social ob ject, but yet verbalize positive feelings toward the object, this w ill likely cause social action to take place (Nunnally, 1978). The importance of collecting data on pres ervice teachers’ knowledge and skill in content areas is well established. The inclus ion of dispositions into the NCATE (2001) performance standards reflects the growing awareness of the importance of attitudes and beliefs for beginning teachers (Abernathy, 2002) Dispositions are defined as “The values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence behavi ors toward students… and are guided by beliefs and at titudes related to values such as caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility, and social just ice” (NCATE, 2001). According to this definition, beliefs and attitudes guide the values, commitments, and professional ethics that make up an individual’s general dispositions toward excellence in teaching. Teacher education courses need to pay attention to the affective dimensions of teacher education, as there is a need to document the dispositions of th e preservice teachers and graduates of this college of education. This is one of the co mponents in the college accreditation process. Added to this reason, school administra tors highly value teachers with these characteristics when seeking new hi res (Kennedy & Parks, 2000).

PAGE 24

10 The Los Angeles Unified School District f ound that in spite of being technically proficient in all areas of working with ELL students, teachers would not be successful if they did not have the proper at titude. As a result of this, “teacher attitude” was added to their instructional model as an over-arching component (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002). Studies have been conducted regarding preservice teachers’ expectations for ELLs (Terrill & Mark, 2000), attitudes towa rd diversity (Agnello & Boger, 1999), attitude toward urban schools (Mason, 1999), and zone of concern and comfort with multiculturalism (Montecinos et al., 1999). These studies have informed the understanding of how preservice teachers hold different expectations for ELLs in their classrooms, and there are a wide range of belie fs about students from other cultures. Little is known about the effect th at ESOL preservice programs have on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward ELL students, and no studies known to the investigator have examined the methods of an ESOL preservice program to see preservice teachers’ perceptions of the effect of these met hods. In addition to this, attitudes are not addressed sp ecifically in the 25 Florida ESOL Performance Standards that are set forth as outcomes of the ESOL education (Appendix E). The ESOL performance standards relate to competencies in each of the six ESOL content areas included on the survey: (a) methods of teach ing English to speakers of other languages (ESOL), (b) ESOL curriculum and materi als development, (c) cross-cultural communication and understanding, (d) testi ng and evaluation of ESOL, (e) applied linguistics, and (f) LEP policies and practices.

PAGE 25

11 Statement of Purpose This study examines the perception of preservice teachers’ knowledge and skills in specific ESOL competencies, and the evolut ion of their attitudes toward the inclusion of ELL students in mainstream classrooms. A survey was conducted with preservice teachers at two stages in the ESOL education process; (a) a preand post-course survey of preservice teachers in the introductory ES OL course, and (b) a preand post-course survey of preservice teachers in the fina l ESOL course. The survey used a new instrument that was first developed for a pilot study on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward ESL students (Smith, 2004), and was modified for this study. The effect of the following factors were also examined: (a) educational major of the preservice teachers (Elementary, Ea rly Childhood, English, Special and Foreign Language Education majors), and (b) the degr ee of English language proficiency of the ELL students (pre-production, early producti on, speech emergent, and intermediate fluency) as defined by the Natural A pproach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). The purpose of this study was to examine the effect ESOL education in a Florida university has on the perceptions reported by preservice teachers of their knowledge and skill in specific ESOL competencies and study the evolution of their attitudes toward the inclusion of ELL students in mainstream classrooms. Research Questions The primary research question is: “What perceptions do preservice teachers have of the effectiveness of their ESOL educa tion courses in preparing them with the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitude s regarding having ELL students in their mainstream classrooms?” The follo wing null hypotheses are considered.

PAGE 26

12 1. Hypothesis one states there are no significant differences in preservice teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and skill and their attitudes toward inclusion between students by: program of study (major), course (initial or final), or English Language Learners’ language proficiency level. 2. Hypothesis two states there are no signi ficant differences from preto posttest surveys within the groups (introductory ESOL course and final ESOL course) 3. Hypothesis three states there are no significant differences in the preservice teachers’ perception of the effectiveness of the specific methods in their ESOL education and ESOL infused courses: (a) reflective assignments, (b) fiel d experiences, (c) classroom cases, (d) activities/ discussions, and (e) readings. Limitations and Delimitations This study tested a new instrument, th e ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument (EASI). The pre-EASI and post-EASI are in cluded in full (Appendices C and D). The limitations that attitudinal studies typically f ace are: (a) determining what the scale really means to the participants, and (b) determining whether the pa rticipants’ responses reflect their true beliefs. The survey instrument contains statements with three or four clear choices for responses. Participants were as ked to find a response closest to what they believe. It requests them to not e their feelings about a direct object. It does not contain specific ESOL content questions. It asks participants to ev aluate their perceptions of their knowledge and skill of ESOL content, a nd their attitudes toward ELL students in the mainstream classroom. Self-reported surveys are fu rther limited by what the in terviewee knows, and what she/he is willing to relate. The survey in strument employed the direct approach, which

PAGE 27

13 is: asking the person for the information that you want in the most di rect way possible. This instrument tells the interviewee what information is desired, and then asks the questions directly. The direct approach is believed to be the most valid approach available (Nunnally, 1978). An attempt was made to ensure that pa rticipants’ responses would reflect their true beliefs, rather than how they think th ey felt they were exp ected to respond. The survey asks them to find a response that be st describes their fee lings and perceptions. Anonymity of responses can influe nce frankness (Nunnally, 1978). The participants were assured that the results of the survey would be aggregated by the class and not by the individual’s responses. The id entifier that they chos e was significant to them, but not identifiable in any way to the researcher. The treatment of the participants may be considered a limitation, as there were various instructors teaching the ESOL courses. The instructors used the same syllabus, text, assignments, quizzes and exams. This helped to provide the condition for similar material to be covered in each section of the course. Each semester, a number of instructors teach these courses, making this se mester no different than any other semester. There is typically a mixture of levels of experience among the instructors. Data were collected on each participant’s age, gender, instructor’s name, mode of instruction, preference of mode of instruction, and contact with diversity information. Investigative tests can determine if there are any confounding factors if there appear to be any problems with the data. This study limits itself to looking at pr eservice teachers who obtain the ESOL endorsement through infusion (Appendix F). Th ese are the preservice teachers in the

PAGE 28

14 Elementary (ELE), Early Childhood (ECE), E nglish (ENG), Special (ESE), and Foreign Language (FLE) Education programs. All ot her programs of study in this college of education only require one ESOL educa tion course, and do not offer an ESOL endorsement. Reliability and Validit y of the Instrument The survey instrument used for this study is called the “ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument (EASI)”. It was developed from th e survey instrument used in the pilot study on preservice teachers’ perceptions toward ESL students (Smith, 2004). A full copy of the pre-EASI and post-EASI can be found in the appendices (Appendices C and D). Two concerns regarding the reliability of the instrument are: (a) internal consistency of the items, and (b ) stability of measurements. Internal consistency of the items will be verified by how the scores of the items relate to one another. The test of internal consistency, Cronbach Alpha for th e pilot test (Smith, 2004) was .75 for the pretest (n=153), and .76 for the posttest (n= 161). Stability of the instrument was strengthened by the reliability coefficients of the test-retest, which yielded such similar results from preto postte st (Gardner & Smythe, 1981). Validity of the instrument was established by (a) predictive validity, (b) content validity, and (c) construct validity. To es tablish predictive vali dity, a pilot study was conducted that collected open-ended attitudinal data from 221 preservice teachers in an introductory ESOL course. Twenty-five descri ptive statements were extracted from that and classified into seven identifiable areas and 153 preservice teachers participated in preand post-course surveys using this pilot instrument (Smith, 2004). Previous research in the area of teachers and preservice teach ers’ attitudes toward inclusion and ESL

PAGE 29

15 students was also considered, along with ot her possible factors that can influence attitudes toward inclusion. A strong correlation of the fact ors on the instrument with the individual items on the survey instrument (EAS I), and the results of the replication of the study on the post-EASI further streng then the predictive validity. Content validity was established by (a) th e representative collection of items, and (b) the sensible method of test construction (Nunnally, 1978). Each of the constructs was clearly defined and supported by previous re search. These constr ucts were further identified by the various elements included in that construct, and the items included were representative of that construct. Experts in test ite m construction, and on-line survey design were consulted in th e design and implementation of the EASI. The course methods were aligned to the required com ponents of ESOL education as determined by the META consent decree. This is the cont ent that is assessed for accreditation purposes documenting the preservice teachers’ know ledge, skills, and dispositions. Construct validity assures that the test can be shown to access the constructs it was intended to measure. A factor anal ysis confirmed the f actors included on the instrument. Definition of Terms ELL – English Language Learner, also known as Limited English Proficient (LEP), as defined by the Florida Consent Decree is: “An individual who was not born in the U.S. and whose native language is not English; OR who comes from home environments where a language other than English is spoken; OR who comes from an environment where a language othe r than English has a significant impact on their level of English language profic iency; AND who for the above reasons,

PAGE 30

16 has difficulty listening, speaking, reading, or writing in English, to the extent that he/she is unable to learn successfully in classrooms where E nglish is the language of instruction” ESL – English as a Second Language. Typically this is the term us ed in post-secondary settings. ESOL – English for Speakers of Other Languages. This is the term used in K-12 and some adult education programs. Florida ESOL Consent Decree – LULAC et al. v. State Board of Education Consent Decree (1990), The State of Florida’s fr amework for compliance with Federal and State Law and jurisprudence regarding the education of limited English proficient (LEP) students. LEP – Limited English Proficient. This is the term used by the federal government to describe English Language Learners. OMSLE – The Office of Multicultural Student Language Education, which assists school districts in Florida with the implemen tation of the LULAC v. State Board of Education Consent Decree (1990), and mon itors school districts for compliance. ESOL – Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages Operational Definition of: Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes (Head, Hand and Heart) – 1. Knowledge is self-reported confidence in personal knowledge regarding policies and practices for ELL students, cultural awareness, second language acquisition theory, content adaptation for ELL student s, and alternative assessment for ELL students, and the needs of ELL students at each of the four language proficiency levels.

PAGE 31

17 2. Skill is self-reported competency and confid ence in personal ability to instruct ELLs. This includes being able to inte grate their knowledge at the classroom level of: policies and practices for ELL students, cultural awareness, second language acquisition theory, content adap tation for ELL students, and alternative assessment for ELL students at each of the four language proficiency levels. 3. Attitudes are defined in this study as be liefs and feelings regarding having ELL students in their future classroom. Two attitudes are identified as important for the purposes of this study; (a) benefit and (b ) support. Benefit is a confidence that ELLs can succeed in a regular classroom and that inclusion is beneficial to all students, not just the ELLs. (Fueyo & B echtol, 1999; and Rockhill & Tomic, 1995). Benefit can be defined as a valuation and appreciation for bilingualism: not as a liability, but as an asset. Bili ngual children are blessed with bilingual brains, bi/cultures, and a special kno wledge and understanding of oppression (Rockhill & Tomic, 1995). Support is a beli ef that all teachers should have ESOL training, a willingness and desi re to have ELLs in their regular classrooms, and a belief that mainstreaming is the best way to educate ELL students (Byrnes & Kiger, 1994). Conclusion This chapter gave an introduction and rationale for this study. It also presented a brief historical background to ESOL in Fl orida, and an overview of the setting and purpose for this study. The following section will give a brief background of the legal issues involved with ESOL education in Flor ida. It will also review the relevant

PAGE 32

18 literature that will serve to inform this study about testing preservice teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and attitudes about inclusion. Finally, it will examine factors that may serve as predictors of preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of ELL students in mainstream classrooms.

PAGE 33

19 Chapter Two Review of Literature In 1989, the Florida State Board of Edu cation (SBE) became the target of a class action suit by a coalition of eight groups represented by Multicultural Education, Training, and Advocacy, Inc. (META) and Florid a legal services attorneys regarding the identification and provision of services to st udents whose native la nguage is other than English. In August 1990, rather than further litigation, a Consent Decree was signed by a judge of the United States Distri ct of Florida. The plainti ff organizations involved in the case were: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), ASPIRA of Florida (An Investment in Latino Youth), The Farmworkers’ Association of Cent ral Florida, Florida State Conference of NAACP Branches, Hait ian Refugee Center, Spanish American League Against Discrimination (SALAD), Ameri can Hispanic Educator s’ Association of Dade (AHEAD), and Haitian Educators’ Association. Known as the Florida ESOL Consent Decr ee, this document addresses the civil rights of ELL students, including, the right to equal acc ess to all education programs. In addressing these rights the Consent Decree prov ides a structure that ensures the delivery of comprehensible instruction, to which ELL st udents are entitled. In implementing these sweeping changes, it caused a great deal of upheaval in the state educational system (Wilson-Patton, 2000). Among the many provisions of the Cons ent Decree was the far-reaching and controversial mandate that all language arts teachers who instruct one or more English

PAGE 34

20 language learners must obtain the Englis h for Speakers of Other Languages(ESOL) endorsement, an add-on certificate requiring 15 graduate credits or 300 in-service hours in teaching English to speaker s of other languages (TESOL). In order for teachers to meet the requirem ents of this Consent Decree, they were required to take weekend, evening, and summer in-service training, or return to college and take five graduate level courses. This requirement impacted teachers and administration alike, and created statew ide resentments toward ESOL training. Each school district was scra mbling to put an in-service ESOL training into place as quickly as possible for their Elementar y, English, and Special Education teachers. Meanwhile, universities in Florida continued to graduate teachers that were not trained in ESOL education. Nutta (2000) reports on the transition from in-service ESOL training for teachers already in the classrooms across Florida to pre-service ESOL education for preservice teachers in Florida’s university. Florida A tlantic and Florida Inte rnational Universities proposed an “infused” approach to offering the ESOL endorsement to its Elementary Education majors in 1996. That same year, the University of Sout h Florida (USF) proposed an infused ESOL endorsement in all five programs of study for majors who could one day teach language arts to ELL students. In 1999, it received a pproval by the Florida DOE (Department of Education), becoming the first university to offer a fully infused ESOL education program to five majors. These were; El ementary, Early Childhood, English, Special, and Foreign Language Education programs.

PAGE 35

21 The infusion approach adopted by Florid a universities substitutes the required 300 hours of in-service ESOL training points, or the 15 credits of ESOL courses, with 6-9 credits of ESOL education courses, and the remaining ESOL training and content infused into various methods courses in each program of study, early and late field experiences, and a comprehensive ESOL-content exam. F aculty who teach ESOL-infused courses are required to take the equivalent of 60 hours of TESOL training or a 3 credit course in ESOL. The Florida Department of Educati on determined that all Colleges offering teacher preparation degrees must infuse ESOL by the Fall 2004 semester (Nutta, 2000). Special Education Inclusion Studies Studies in the field of special educati on have contributed to what is known about teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Alt hough being an ELL student is not a disability, they have a need for special accommodati ons and there are similarities between legislation regarding both ESOL and ESE programs. An equally sweeping consent decree (PARC v. Pennsylvania) was signed in 1972 in Pennsylvania over the rights of the mentally handicapped to have access to a ppropriate public education opportunities. Many articles have been written about teac hers’ attitudes toward inclusion of special needs children in mainstream classrooms. Wilson-Patton writes: Both cases require the redress of in equities toward special student subpopulations on a state-wide scale. In the implementation of their consent decrees, both cases caused a great de al of upheaval and change in their respective state educatio nal systems (2000, p. 196). In a study on preservice teachers’ belief s about inclusive education, responses indicated a general positive att itude. However, nearly half of the respondents believed

PAGE 36

22 the special education classroom to be the optimum place to educate students with even mild disabilities (Garriott et al., 2003). Th is would indicate that there was a difference between the benefit they see for inclus ion and their support for it in practice. Importance of Students’ Attitudes The importance of students’ attitudes towa rd studying and learni ng is addressed in Bloom’s seminal work on what he calls “affect ive entry characteristic s,” or one’s attitude starting an activity. Bloom s upports the notion that preced ing educational experiences influence the experiences to follow. In his book Human characteristics and school learning Bloom (1976) contends that these affec tive characteristics account for at least twenty-five percent of the effect of a students’ total le arning in school. He attributes the same effect to “attitudes” as to “method of instruction” as factor s predicting students’ success. In other words; the method of instru ction that a teacher us es doesn’t have more effect on the students’ learning than the student’s attitude about learning. Bloom’s research is releva nt to education in genera l, and there is an added dimension for the language learner. Litera ture on second language acquisition (SLA) points to the importance of providing a good a ffective learning environment for all ELL students, which will facilita te their acquisition of the English Language. Students who study the language in an environment that produces low anxiety, high motivation, and high self-esteem are more apt to acquire the target language (Garcia, 1999; and Krashen, 1981). There appears to be a correlation between attitudes, motivation, and achievement. Many studies have examined the relationshi p between attitudes toward languages and

PAGE 37

23 proficiency (Gardner & Smythe, 1981; Masgor et & Gardner, 2003; and Oller et. al., 1977). A meta-analysis was conducted that included 75 studies conducted by Gardner and associates, using his Attitude/Motiva tion Test Battery (AMTB) to study the relationship between attitudes, motivation, and achievement in foreign language learning. The findings of this meta-analysis indicate that attitudes toward the learning situation are related to achievement in th e second language with an indirect effect, acting through motivation. In terms of Cohen’ s classification, “att itude toward learni ng situation” had an effect size of .17 to .26, with relation to “achievement”, which would be considered “less than medium” (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). Attitude toward the learning situation, according to Masgoret & Gardner, is defined as the “individual’s r eactions to anything associated with the immediate context in which the subject (in this case, the second language) is taught” ( 2003). In the studies included in the meta-analysis, attitudes were relati ve to the attitudes of others in the class. The differences among classes were eliminated from the correlations. The investigators determined that much of the variation in at titudes toward the learning situation would be captured if attention were directed to assess ing the individual’s eval uation of the course and teacher” (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). The attitude of the teacher in the clas sroom will affect the atmosphere in the classroom and whether it is conducive for learning for this at-risk population. The following section deals with the importance and effect of the teacher’s attitude.

PAGE 38

24 Effect of Teachers’ Attitudes on Students It is important to understand teachers’ beliefs about their students, and what influence these attitudes have on their studen ts. The impact of teachers’ attitudes on the performance of their students across disciplines is well esta blished (Case, 1996; Garcia, 1999; Jussim, 1989; Krashen, 1981; Van Re usen, Shoho, & Barker, 2001; Van Hook, 2002; and Youngs & Youngs, 2001 ). Beliefs influence how teachers teach. Their beliefs influence their perceptions, and ultimately, filter down to their behaviors (Van Hook, 2002). Teachers’ attitudes and expectatio ns toward their students frequently lead to expected behavior, even when teachers are not aware of communicating different expectations to different st udents (Youngs & Youngs, 2001). A longitudinal study on the effects of se lf-fulfilling propheci es surveyed 27 teachers and 580 students. The study assessed teachers’ judgment of students’ talent, effort and performance in Math. Teachers’ e xpectations created self -fulfilling prophecies and biases in the teachers’ evaluations of students (Jussim, 1 989). Likewise, study by Garcia with Korean students and compared th eir performance in schools in Japan and the United States. He showed that student s who were looked down upon by their teachers did not do as well in their academics as stude nts who were held in high regard by their teachers (1999). Effect of Education on Teachers’ Attitudes Little attention has been paid by research ers to the impact of ESOL education on preservice teachers’ attitude s regarding ELL students looking at studies specific to ESOL. The professional literature and research on the effects of education on teachers’ attitudes in general can provide insights, however outcomes are mixed. Some studies

PAGE 39

25 show changes in teachers’ attitudes, whereas ot hers attribute educati on as having little or no effect on attitudes. In Richardson’s article summ arizing research on the role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach, she conclude d that changes in beliefs and practice were easier to take place with in-service teacher staff development than at the pre-service level (Richardson, 1996). She writes: Except for the student-teaching elemen t, preservice teacher education seems a weak intervention. It is sandwiched between two powerful forcesprevious life history, particular ly that related to being a student, and classroom experience as a student teacher and teacher. Experience as a student is important in setting im ages of teaching that drive initial classroom practice, and experience as a teacher is the only way to develop the practical knowledge that eventua lly makes routine at least some aspects of classroom practice and pr ovides alternative approaches when faced with dilemmas (Richardson, 1996, p. 113). A number of studies have not shown a ny significant changes in preservice teachers’ attitudes as a result of courses taken (Agnello & Mittag, 1999; Boger & Boger, 2000; and Jordan, 1995). For example, Jordan suggests that preser vice teacher education programs do not alter students’ attitudes and be liefs that have been developed during 18 to 20 years of formative experience student s have prior to post-secondary education (Jordan, 1995). Likewise, Kagan conducted a re view of forty learning-to-teach studies published or presented between 1987 and 1991. She didn’t find evidence of significant changes in beliefs of the participants. She said the following in her article.

PAGE 40

26 Personal beliefs that are brought wi th them into education programs usually remain inflexible. Candi dates tend to use the information provided in course work to confirm ra ther than to conf ront and correct their preexisting belie fs. Thus, a candidate’s pe rsonal beliefs and images determine how much knowledge the ca ndidate acquires from a preservice program and how it is interpreted (Kagan, 1992, p. 154). This is consistent with findings by Boge r and Boger (2000) through observations of preservice teachers. They found that sixty-six percent of the preservice teachers did not respond to situations in the clas sroom consistent with the trai ning they had received. In a study of preservice teachers’ beliefs versus practice rega rding ELL literacy instruction, Knudson (1998) conducted a beliefs inventor y on 106 student teachers from various majors, concluding that student teachers do not usually change their dominant theoretical orientation. In another survey of teache rs’ attitudes toward diversity, 31 graduate students participated in a preand post-course questionnaire and there was no significant change (Schick, 1995). In the field of special education, Shade’ s study on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion concluded that “a single c ourse can significantly change preservice teachers’ attitudes toward incl usion of students with mild di sabilities into the general classroom” (Shade & Stewart, 2001). A study was conduced by Kirk on the li nk between coursewo rk and attitudes toward special needs students. The findings did not show more willingness regarding inclusion, but participants were more aware and realistic (19 98). Van Reusen et al. (2001) studied high school teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Positive atti tudes appear related

PAGE 41

27 to training, knowledge, and experience. These results are consistent with other studies about preservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion (Jobe et al., 1996, and Monahan et al., 1996) that indicate a heightened awarene ss but no significant changes in attitudes. Best Teaching Practices’ Effect on Attitudes In contrast to the studies that show li ttle or no differences in attitudes, other studies have shown that the following best teaching practices may have an effect on preservice teachers’ attitudes: (a) reflectiv e teaching/learning (Bailey et al.,1998; Lee, 2004; and Leistyna, 2004), (b) case studies (Kagan, 1993; and Montecinos et al., 1999), (c) field experiences (Agnello & Mittag, 1999; Linek et al., 1999; Mason, 1999; Shade & Stewart, 2001; and Wiggins & Follo, 1999), (d ) Integration, conti nuity among courses (Byrnes et al., 1996) and (e) portfolio development (Baile y et al., & Wenzlaff, 1998). The ESOL education by infusion offere d to preservice teachers in Florida universities incorporates all these best teach ing practices into the teacher candidates’ educational experience. Th e ESOL education courses include reflective assignments such as a cultural self-analysis, reflec tions on experiences with ELL students, and reflections on case studies. Teacher candidate s are also required to write reflections on their ESOL-infused courses to put in their ESOL portfolio s (Appendix F). Case studies are also a big part of the teacher preparati on ESOL education. Case studies are major assignments in all the ESOL courses, and in some of the ESOL-infused courses, such as the Educational Measurement course, where participants are given case study students and required to adapt assessment instruments th at are appropriate to ELL students in their mainstream classrooms. Teachers in prepar ation are required to do two ESOL related field experiences, and many of them have ELL st udents in their other internships.

PAGE 42

28 Effect of Reflective Assignments In the article “The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach”, many of the studies that Richardson (1996) found to change preservice teac hers’ beliefs and attitudes involved courses and programs that helped pres ervice teachers to become more reflective and/or they involved devel oping constructivist methods. Reflective assignments are commonly used in preservice education course s. There is evidence in literature that indicate that reflective assignments are an im portant part of the learning process (Bailey et al., 1998; Dong, 2004; Lee, 2004; and Leistyna, 2004) In Paulo Freire’s interview with Leityna, he stressed the importance of reflection to gain critical cons ciousness, or as he calls it “conscientization” (concientizaco in Portuguese). He explained it as continuously moving from ‘action to reflect ion and from reflection upon action to new action’ (Leistyna, 2004, p. 18). Lee used dialogue journals in her class of preservice teachers as a tool for promoting reflection in teacher education. She found that this enhanced participants’ understanding of English language teaching, an d saw evidence that it helped to combat the culture of passive learning that she obs erved in Hong Kong among her students (Lee, 2004). Effect of Classroom Cases and Case studies Classroom cases and case studies are wide ly used in teacher education programs. Kagan defines classroom cases as “realistic cl assroom situations that incorporate all the facts needed to clarify and solve a target pr oblem.” She identifies the three ways that

PAGE 43

29 classroom cases are typically used in instructi on: (a) as instructional materials, (b) as raw data in research, and (c) as a cataly st that can promot e change (1993). Case studies can bring more realistic situ ations into the educational experience, and help teach the subject matter (Kaga n, 1993; Montecinos et al., 1999; and Wilson, 1989). Montecinos and colleagues (Montecinos et al., 1999) gave 79 pr eservice teachers six short vignettes on a paper and pencil questio nnaire and through these cases, were able to better understand the students’ beliefs regarding multicultural education and their particular zone of comfor t with that subject. Classroom cases are not a substitute fo r field experiences, but serve as an enhancer of the practical experience, as is i llustrated in a qualitative study of the use of cases to teach subject matter (Wilson, 1989). Suzanne Wilson documented the reactions of a student to a particular case study. The classroom case c onsisted of the reflections of student teacher named George. It was about his experience in a paid internship teaching senior electives in composition and creative wr iting. Wilson used George’s reflections as a classroom case for teaching other preservi ce teachers. She reported that student teachers in the program hated the activity of examining the case, and despised George. One student that was especially vocal in his feelings against this case, but when involved in student teaching himself, one day despaired when he realized that he “was George”. At that point he was able to relate his teach ing experience to George’s and apply what he had learned in a situation where there is a gap between knowing something and being able to help your students devel op that understanding (Wilson, 1989).

PAGE 44

30 Effect of Field Experiences Some studies measuring the effect of fi eld experiences on attitudes and beliefs have reported changes in teachers’ attit udes as a result of e ducational experiences (Agnello & Mittag, 1999; Linek et al., 1999; Mason, 1999; Roos et al., 1995; Sears et al., 2004; Shade & Stewart, 2001; and Wiggins & Fo llo, 1999). Quality field experiences in special education teacher preparation have been found to develop personal commitment and self-awareness, and understand indivi dualization practices (Sears et al., 2004). Mason (1999) found that attitudes can change through well-conceived field experiences. He cited Malone ’s (1985) meta-analysis of the effects of early field experiences on preservice teachers’ attit udes that pointed to the most profound differences were found in students who were pl aced in low SES schools. In a study about preservice teachers’ beliefs about literac y, Linek’s (1999) crosscase analysis that compared three studies, found that field experience is an important influence on preservice teachers’ beliefs. In a study that investigated the effect of an early field experience on the attitudes of preservice teachers toward education, R oos et al. found that preservice teachers had generally positive attitudes toward teaching prior to the field experience, and had even more positive attitudes toward t eaching after this experience (1995). Effect of Integration of Courses and Portfolio Development Portfolios are another part of many inst ructional experiences The development of a teaching portfolio goes further than si mply being a collection of artifacts. The process of reviewing, selec ting, and explaining the items that the preservice teacher includes in her/his portfolio can be a valuab le professional development experience. Due

PAGE 45

31 to its reflective nature, it enlarges the pr eservice teacher’s view of what teaching is (Bailey et al., 1998). The integration of cour ses and the development of a portfolio are believed to have a connection to dispositions This is due to causing the preservice teachers to engage in personal exploration, ex perimentation, and reflection (Bailey et al.; Richert, 1990; and Wenzlaff, 1998). Wenzlaff believes that the process of development of a teaching portfolio will help preservice teachers rec ognize and realize dispositions for teaching as it brings together past and present educational experiences (1998). Effectiveness of ESOL Education Courses How effective are ESOL education cour ses? A pilot study was conducted with preservice teachers using a preand post-c ourse survey of attitudes (using The ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument – EASI) in an introductory ESOL class in a major university in Florida (Smith, 2004) Estimates of internal co nsistency (coefficient alpha) were .75 for the pretest (n=153) and .76 for the posttest (n=161). The survey contained 25 statements that covered the following seven topics: (a) understanding of ELL students, (b) knowledge and confidence in th eir ability to help ELL students, (c) experience with ELL students, (d) awareness of ELL students in schools, (e) positive attitudes regarding inclusion of ELL students in regular clas srooms, (f) stereotypes regarding ELL students, and (g ) awareness of best teaching practices for ELL students. The item topics and a comparison of the means of the pre-test conducted on the first day of class, and the means of the pos ttest conducted on the last day of class are displayed in Table 1. The re sults indicate that the larges t changes during the semester were reported in the preservice teachers’ knowledge and experience, and the least amount of change were reported of their attitudes and notions of best practi ces. The participants

PAGE 46

32 also reported significant growth in awarene ss of ESOL students in the classrooms and a feeling that they had a better understanding of them (Smith, 2004). Table 1 Major Differences on Pilot from Preto Post Sub-group topic Difference in mean from preto posttest Understanding of ELL students 26.8% Knowledge and confidence in their ability to help ELL students 46% Experience with ELL students 47% Aware of ELL students in schools 25.5% Positive attitudes regard ing inclusion of ELL students in regular classrooms 8.6% Stereotypes regarding ELL students 15% Awareness of best teaching practices for ELL students 9.8% The 25 statements were classified into seven themes, however when a common factor analysis was conducted, the items loaded into three factors with a cumulative eigenvalue of .77 on the pre-test and .79 on the posttest. The communality estimate average was .41 on the pre-test and .44 on th e posttest. Four of the items did not correlate with any of the factors. The thr ee factors could broadly be described as: (a) attitudes toward ELL learners in the mainstream classroom (b) knowledge and skill in working with ELL learners in the mainst ream classroom, and (c) beliefs about ELL students (who should teach them a nd how they should be taught).

PAGE 47

33 Teachers’ Attitudes toward ELLs What feelings do teachers have toward ELL students? Several studies and articles have been written about teachers’ attitude s toward ELLs (Byrnes & Kiger, 1994; Byrnes et al., 1996; Clair, 1995; Layzer, 2000; Ma rkham et al., 1996; Rockhill & Tomic, 1995; Terrill & Mark, 2000; and Youngs & Youngs 2001). Youngs and Youngs (2001) found that teachers reported generally neutral, or slightly positive attitudes toward ESL students. Does knowledge about ESOL influence te achers’ attitudes? A lack of ESOL training may negatively impact teachers’ attit udes. In a 1-year qua litative study of three teachers with no ESL traini ng, Clair (1995) found that pa rticipating teachers had no desire to have professional development, but preferred quick-fix materials, commonly known as a “bag of tricks” to deal with ELL st udents. In other words, they would prefer to have some ready-made materials to us e, rather than become qualified to adapt materials themselves. Clair concludes that ESL workshops are not the answer, rather, there needs to be ongoing teacher study groups that comprise critical reflection and problem posing. This will “provide an in-dep th opportunity to explore complex issues and may serve as a catalyst for individual empowerment and social transformation” (p. 195). Pre-service ESOL education courses can incorporate case st udies and reflective assignments in order to better prepare th e preservice teachers for what they will encounter. A study measuring preservice teachers’ expe ctations for schools with children of color and second-language learners indicated that they held signi ficantly different

PAGE 48

34 expectations for learners in different school settings and from different racial backgrounds (Terrill & Mark, 2000). Some of the expectations reflected negative stereotyping. For example, pa rticipants expected: higher leve ls of discipline problems, lower levels of parental suppor t, higher levels of child abuse, and fewer gifted and talented students for groups of students of color and second language learners. In addition, they felt lower levels of comfort with these learners and lower levels of safety in conducting home visits. In an article called “Teac hing language-minority student s: Using research to inform practice”, Vivian Fueyo (1997) conc luded by identifying best practices for ELL students that she had gathered from her study. These best practices were identified as (a) teachers’ knowledge of effective instructi on, (b) second language acquisition, (c) crosscultural communication, and (d) approaches th at sustain language learning. Teachers need to have the knowledge, skills, and dispos itions necessary to achieve this type of excellence in teaching. What actions and attitudes can be identif ied toward ELL students? In a study of 33 mainstream teachers, Layzer (2000) identif ied the teacher stance of low expectations as a “benevolent conspiracy”. This is wher e the teacher is very nice to the student, but does not expect excellence from them. In c ontrast to this, Vivian Fueyo and Stephanie Bechtol describe the successful teacher as “culturally compet ent,” which they define as follows: More than simply holding high expe ctations for their students, these teachers of diverse learners actively re ject the notion of student failure. They share a belief in common about the educability of the students. They

PAGE 49

35 reject the notions that blame the children for their failure to learn, or attribute student failure to economic racial, or linguistic background of families. Instead, successful t eachers of diverse students accept responsibility for teaching their stude nts and for providing them with the information and skills they need. They hold their students accountable for their own learning. These culturally competent teachers represent the desirable qualities in any teacher for m eeting the needs of diverse learners (Fueyo & Bechtol, 1999, p. 29). Three models of cross-cultural compet ency and multicultural teacher education were examined in an article by McAllister and Irvine (2000). The researchers observed that definitions of multicultural experiences differed between studies. They describe cultural competence as a process that takes a person from a selfcentered (ethnocentric) state, to personal growth to a level wher e they view the larg er global community. McAllister and Irvine found evidence that higher personal levels of growth were positively associated with multicultural competency (p. 19). Among their recommendations, they suggest “providing oppo rtunities for students to interact with individuals from other ethnic backgrounds in authentic cultural settings” (McAllister & Irvine, 2000, p. 20). Other Factors What other factors can influence teacher s’ attitudes toward ELL learners in mainstream classrooms? Preservice teachers’ (a) attitudes by program of study, (b) prior exposure to ethnic/ cult ural diversity, and (c) level of proficiency of the ELL students are

PAGE 50

36 possible influences on preservice teachers ’ attitudes toward ELL students in their mainstream classrooms. Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes by Program of Study Does the course of study (major) affect preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion? Inclusion is a we ll-known topic to preservice teac hers in the special education program. Studies have been done regarding th e inclusion of special needs students into mainstream classes (Daniel, 1997; Jobe et al., 1996; Monahan, 1996; and Van Reusen et al., 2000). A study conducted to determine high sc hool teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of special needs st udents in mainstream classroom s found that teachers with the least amount of special edu cation training, knowledge, or ex perience in teaching students with disabilities had the most negative att itudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities (Van Reusen et al ., 2000). In this particular study, no significant relation was found between teacher attitude and c ontent or subject area taught. Likewise, Jobe and colleagues found no si gnificant difference between practicing teachers’ major in college and attitude towa rd inclusion. This study was conducted with 162 teachers participating from 44 states, us ing a 25 item attitudinal scale in which participants reacted usin g a 6-point scale with four factor s; (a) benefits of inclusion, (b) inclusion classroom management, (c) perceived ability to teach students with disabilities, and (d) special vs. inclusion genera l education (Jobe et al., 1996). No studies have been found that have compared preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion by the program of study, but a study of general education and special education preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of special needs students with a

PAGE 51

37 preand post-course survey of students en rolled in an introduct ory special education course, found that both groups’ results reveal ed statistically signi ficant differences overall. The researchers found that scores on five out of eight subscales were statistically significant and the other three we re higher, but not significantly (Shade & Stewart, 2001). A study on preservice teachers’ attitudes to ward integration looked at program of study as a factor. In this longitudinal study on the effects of teacher education on elementary and secondary preservice teachers’ beliefs about integration, participants were asked to respond to 22 statements that poten tially impact perceptions of integration: disposition, knowledge, support, resources, a nd time. In comparing the difference between the elementary and secondary preservi ce teachers, the means for the elementary teachers’ responses were higher for all the stat ements, and were statistically significant at the .01 level (Reinke & Moseley, 2002). Exposure to Cultural/Ethnic Diver sity as an Attitudinal Factor There is evidence that “exposure to cultura l diversity” impacts students’ attitudes toward diversity. Decades of social science research has found that racially diverse classrooms improve student experi ences: enhanced learning, higher academic achievement for minorities, higher educational and occupational aspirations, increased civic engagement, a greater desire to live, work, and go to school in multiracial settings and positive, increased social interaction among members of differe nt racial and ethnic backgrounds. Significantly, these benefits affect both white and minority students (Orfield & Frankenberg, 2004, p. 2).

PAGE 52

38 Racial classifications are unscientific, as they are both unreliable and unstable. Racial classifications are very cultural in nature. As the cu lture in the United States has changed over the years, so have the racial categories used by the U.S. Census Bureau. “Race is not biologically real, but is a hi storical, social, and cultural creation” (Mukhopadhyay & Henze, 2003, p 96). The concep t of race is a part of our cultural perceptions that are deeply ingrained, but artificially cr eated. They are so deeply embedded that these classifications seem totally natural to us. H. Ned Seelye declares that “any correlation between ‘race’ and cultu re is coincidental, not causal… physical anthropologists have not disc overed any gene present in one race or ethnic group that is not found in other races or ethnic groups” (Seelye, 1997, p. 244). The majority group in the United States sel dom thinks of itself as ethnic. They reserve that term for others. Everyone is et hnic, whether they think so or not. “There is a tremendous diversity of ethnic backgrounds am ong Whites and this is lost if race is used as the only identifier” (Nieto, 2000, p. 26). The differences go beyond what is apparent, “less obvious individual differences ar e always present, even in settings where everyone seems to come from the same background” (Gonzalez-Mena, 2001, p. 5). Youngs and Youngs examined the following 5 predictors of te achers’ attitudes toward ESL students: (a) General educationa l experiences, (b) ESL training, (c) Contact with diverse cultures, (d) Prior contact with ESL students, and (e) Pe rsonality. Of these 5 predictors, only “ESL training” and “Contact with diverse cultures” were found to be significant. In this case, e xposure to cultural diversity appe ars to enhance appreciation for cultural diversity (2001).

PAGE 53

39 In a cross-cultural immersion experience, twenty-five white, mostly middle class preservice teachers spent two weeks with Latino families in a predominantly Latino setting in southeastern United States. Pa rticipant-observer res earchers found that the preservice teachers developed more positive at titudes toward diversity issues and grew more aware of inequality, however, they failed to acknow ledge the underlying issue of White privilege, and looked at the students and their parents as the source of academic problems (Ference & Bell, 2004). Byrnes (1996) studied 191 classroom t eachers from Utah, Virginia, and Arizona, and found that teachers from Arizona, wher e there is a higher percentage of ELL students, were more positive in their attit udes toward diversity, concluding that more contact with multicultural students may contribute to more positive attitudes. In the pilot study “Preservice teachers’ attitudes regarding ESL students,” a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for the relationship between the item “previous experience with ESL students” and the other items on the post-course survey. Seven items showed a significant correlati on. A strong positive relation (p=.01) was found for “higher awareness of ESL student.” A significa nt negative relation was found between “previous experience with ESL student s” and “fear of having them in his/her class.” There appears to be a relation between experience with ESL students and confidence in being able to help them, and a reduction in fear of having them as students in their mainstream classrooms (Smith, 2004).

PAGE 54

40 Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes about Inclus ion by Level of Students’ Proficiency The stages of language development th at all learners progress through, as described by the Natural Approach to ESL teaching are: (a) preproduction, (b) early production, (c) speech emergence, and (d) in termediate fluency (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Students in all these st ages are classified as ELLs, how ever they represent a wide range of abilities, from the preproduction stag e which is characterized by being a silent period, to the intermediate fluency stage, wh ere students sound fluent in English due to their grasp of social English, but are not ye t at the level where they are performing in academic English at the level that their na tive English counterparts are achieving on standardized test scores. With such a wi de range of abilities represented by this population of students, it is not possible to have a “one size fits all” approach to teaching them. The ESOL education courses require th e preservice teachers to adapt the lessons they plan to all levels of ELL students. No studies have been found that have measured teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of ELL students in their mainstr eam classrooms relative to their language learning level. In the field of special e ducation, studies such as Grier’s (2001), have examined teachers’ attitudes toward having specific degrees of physical and mental challenges. This study was unique in that it assessed the atti tudes of teachers regarding the inclusion of students with a variety of di sabilities, including se vere ones. Grier found that teachers’ attitudes were relative to th e type of disabilities of the students.

PAGE 55

41 Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Attitudes: Benefit and Support “Benefit” in the context of this study is defined as “a valuation and appreciation of bilingualism” (Rockhill & Tomic, 1995, p. 214). Rockhill and Tomic identified benefit further as viewing bili ngualism as: (a) an asset, a nd not a liability, (b) being blessed with a bilingual brain, (c) being bles sed with bicultures, and (d) being blessed with a special knowledge and understanding of oppression (1995). Both benefit and support have been major factors found in similar studies. Byrnes and Kiger (1994) developed a “language attitudes of teachers s cale” (LATS). The LATS identified the following three factors in its 13-point scale: (a) language politics, (b) LEP intolerance, and (b) language support. It assigned a si ngle score based on teachers’ responses to 13 Likert-type items. They reported a .62 corre lation between the LATS and the statement on the survey instrument that that summarized the question they wish ed to investigate, which was: “In general, how do you feel a bout having children in your classroom who speak little or no English?” The TIAQ – Teacher Integration Attitude Qu estionnaire, is a similar instrument used in special education to measure teachers’ at titudes toward integration. It consists of 12 items with four factors: (a ) skill, (b) benefits, (c) accep tance, and (d) support. Its responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale with an internal consistency of .81. This instrument has been used in studies of attitudes toward inclusion of students with a variety of disabilities, Grier found that teache rs had the most favorable attitudes toward inclusion of students with mild er disabilities, and least fa vorable attitudes towards the inclusion of students identif ied with more severe disa bilities (Grier, 2001).

PAGE 56

42 Youngs & Youngs (2001) used two similar que stions in their survey on predictors of attitudes toward ESL students: 1. If you were told that you could expect two or three ESL students in one of your classes next year how would you describe your reaction? (a) very pleased, (b) moderately pleased, (c) neut ral, (d) moderately di spleased, or (e) very displeased? 1. How would you describe your over-all reaction to working with ESL students in your classroom: (a) greatly like, (b) moderately like, (c) neutral, (d) moderately dislike, or (e) greatly dislike? Findings in a study on preservice teachers ’ beliefs about inclusive education for students with mild disabilitie s revealed a positive attitude toward inclusive education, however, nearly half of the pa rticipants believed that the special education classroom was the best place for these students to be educat ed (Garriott et al., 2004). This seems to indicate that there is a mismatch between th ese participants’ percep tion of the benefit of inclusion and their level of support and willingness to do it. Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Knowledge and Skill Knowledge is defined in the literature as “the informa tion you need to perform the skill”, and skill is defined as the “ability to carry out a pa rticular activity” (BECTA, 2004, p. 1). Perceptions of competency can help to influence personal growth plans (Ingersul & Kinman, 2002). This can be very beneficial a nd lead to a strong sens e of self efficacy. Self efficacy is defined as “the belief that one has the necessary sk ills and abilities to bring about student learni ng’ (Walker, 1992, p.10). Self-perception of ability tends to ri se during preservice training (Hoy, 2000). Errors in self-appraisal tend to be on the pos itive side. Bandura st ates that there is a tendency to over-estimate one’s competency when one self-appraises, but there is a

PAGE 57

43 positive benefit to this with normal people tending to believe that they can accomplish more. This has a positive effect on what th ey are able to actually accomplish. People who do not have a positive view of their comp etency will tend to avoid difficult tasks and not hold to commitments as well (Bandura, 1994). Conclusion Research and practical experience ha ve shown the importance of teachers’ attitudes towards their learners and how these attitudes affect the students they work with. Studies were found to show that education ha s an impact on preservice teachers, and that it is possible that field experience and reflect ive portfolios in particular may have an influence on what they bring out of their educational experience. Further, it has been seen that course of study, mode of instruction, exposure to cultural diversity, and stage of language development may be factors that can be used as predictors of preservice teacher s’ attitudes toward ELLs and the inclusion of them into mainstream classrooms. The following chapter will describe the method of study in detail, by describing the setting, participants, survey instruments, and the statistical analysis that were employed.

PAGE 58

44 Chapter Three Method This study investigated the effect of one semester of ESOL education on preservice teachers by examini ng their perceived knowledge a nd skills in working with English Language Learner (ELL) students, th eir attitudes toward having ELL students in their mainstream classrooms, and what classr oom methods they perceive as effective in their ESOL preservice education courses at the beginning and the end of one regular semester of university course work. Data for this study were collected during one semester, from preand post-course attitudinal surveys, using the ESOL Aware ness Survey Instrument – EASI (Appendix C is the pre-EASI and Appendix D is the post-EA SI). Participants were at two specific points in their educational experience; (a) pa rticipants in the introductory ESOL course (this will be called course one), and (b) participants in the fina l ESOL course (this will be called course two). Typically these course s occur in preservice teachers’ first and penultimate semesters of study in the College of Education. This college of education is typical of ot hers in Florida in adopting an “infusion” model for the ESOL education of its preservi ce teachers. It comb ines specific ESOL education courses, ESOL methods infused in other teacher education courses, an early and a late field experience, and the completi on of an ESOL portfolio by each preservice teacher. The combination of these component s satisfies the Department of Education’s requirement of 300 hours of ESOL educati on for preservice teachers who are being

PAGE 59

45 prepared to be the primary language arts teacher to any group of students that may include ESOL students. Sample The participants were volunteers at two distinct points in their studies in the college of education: (a) preservice teachers in their introductory ESOL course, (n=163), and (b) preservice teachers in their fina l ESOL course (n=100). These two groups included preservice teachers from all five program areas where teachers obtain the ESOL endorsement through infusion (elementary (ELE), early childhood (ECE), English (ENG), special (ESE), and foreign langua ge (FLE) education programs). The following data were collected in section one of the pre-course ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument (pre-EASI): (a) cour se enrolled in, (b) gender, (c) age, (d) educational major, (e) home language, (f) bi lingual/ monolingual, (g) course delivery mode (distance or classroom-based), (h) cour se delivery mode preference, (i) diversity contact questions, (j) prior experience with ESOL students, and (k) perception of course effectiveness. Questions 2-6, and 9-10 were excluded from the post-EASI. Section two and three on th e EASI asked the participants to reflect on their perception of their knowledge (questions 1-6) and skill of ESOL content (questions 1116): (a) policies and rights of ELL student s, (b) cultural awareness, (c) SLA (second language acquisition) theory, (d) Methods of teaching ELL st udents, (e) adaptation of content instruction for ELL students, and (f) alternative assessment for ELL students. These specific questions a ddress the knowledge in the c ontent areas identified as important for ESOL education by the META Co nsent Decree (LULAC v. BOE, 1990).

PAGE 60

46 The EASI also included a set of questions in each of these sections that asked the participants to give an ove r-all perception of their knowledge (questions 7-10) and skill (questions 17-20) toward meeting the educat ional needs of ELL students at the four basic levels of language proficiency as described by the Natural Approach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983): (a) pre-production, (b) ea rly production, (c) speech emergent, and (d) intermediate fluency. Section four asked the participants about their feelings toward ESOL inclusion, or mainstreaming all ELL students in regular cl assrooms (questions 21-30): (a) whether there is a benefit to ESOL in clusion, (b) whether she/he supp orts ESOL inclusion, and (c) whether it is the best way to educate ELL students at each of the four language proficiency levels. The final section on the EASI (questions 31-40) asked participants to rate the effectiveness of specific met hods/classroom-based activities of their ESOL courses and of ESOL-infused courses that she/he has taken, rating the effect each of the course methods has in influencing her/his attitudes and feelings about ESOL education. The following course methods were listed: (a) refl ective assignments, (b) field experience, (c) case studies, (d) class activities/ lectures and (e) readings. A space for ‘other’ was included to give participants the opportunity to include a method or activity they though was particularly effective and was not included on the original list. Instrument This study used an on-line attitudinal su rvey instrument, the ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument (EASI). The pre-EA SI and post-EASI are included in full

PAGE 61

47 (Appendices C and D). The purpose of the EASI was to explore participants’ perceived knowledge, skills, and attitudes toward ha ving ELL students in their mainstream classrooms, and what methods and classroom activities in their ESOL education and ESOL infused courses they perceived as effective. Development of the Instrument The development of the survey instrument was a multi-step process that began with a compilation of actual statements made by preservice teachers. An open ended question was asked to 221 participants co mpleting their initial ESOL course. The question was: “How have your perceptions regarding ESOL students changed this semester, and what has contributed to that change?” The responses were read and classified into groups of similar themes. From these responses, 25 statements were chosen that be st typified their answers. A paper-pencil questionnaire was written with those statemen ts. Participants were asked to respond to the statements using a five-point Likert-type scale. This survey instrument was used in the pilot study, “Preservic e teachers’ attitudes toward ESL students” (Smith, 2004). One hundr ed and fifty-three of the 172 present in two sections of the introductory ESL course participated (n=1 53). Likewise, at the end of the semester, the same students were aske d to fill out the survey once again. One hundred, sixty-one out of the 172 enrolled in the ta rget ESOL course sections participated (n=161). One hundred and six of the particip ants filled out an additional section rating the effect of various classroom activities and assignments (n=106). The survey also contained a section labeled “comments” wher e participants were free to write any

PAGE 62

48 additional information they wished to give. Of the 106 participants who filled out the second part to the post-course survey, thir ty-three wrote additional comments (n=33). The 25 statements could be divided into seven themes, however when a common factor analysis was conducted, the items loaded into three factors with a cumulative eigenvalue of .77 on the pre-test and .79 on the posttest. The communality estimate average was .41 on the pre-test and .44 on th e posttest. Four of the items did not correlate with any of the factors. The thr ee factors could broadly be described as: (a) attitudes toward ELL learners in the mainstream classroom (b) knowledge and skill in working with ELL learners in the mainst ream classroom, and (c) beliefs about ELL students (who should teach them a nd how they should be taught). The items from this pilot study, and th e studies referenced in Chapter Two Review of Literature, helped to determin e what clusters would be surveyed: (a) knowledge, (b) skills, (c) attitu des – “benefit” and “support” of inclusion, and (d) methods. It also helped determine the re search questions that should be addressed. Design of the Instrument The design of this instrument was determ ined by the help of experts in several fields. First of all, a measurement expert who works extensively with survey instruments helped with wording to ensure that the surv ey instrument told the participants exactly what it would be asking, and then asked the questions clearly. S econdly, an expert in instructional technology who ha s vast experience with visu al design of instruments assisted in the organization of the items to give them a visual effect and minimize the appearance of having a lengthy survey. Finall y, an expert in on-lin e surveys inspected the survey instrument and gave advice on how to make it more effective.

PAGE 63

49 Procedure The study was conducted in one regular semest er at a public univers ity in Florida. All participants in the introduc tory and final ESOL courses we re invited to participate. The survey was presented twice in the semest er: pre-course data were collected in the first two weeks of classes, a nd the post-course data were co llected in the last two weeks of the semester prior to the final exams. A letter was given to each instructor of target ESOL courses (initial and final ESOL courses at a large urban univers ity in Florida). As a follow-up, the letter was also sent as an em ail so that instructors could cut and paste part of it to send to their students if they c hose to ask them to participate (see Appendices J and K). All instructors who consented to particip ate sent a letter to their students and posted a copy of the letter and a link to th e survey on the announcement page of their course website. The university uses Blackboard (2005), a program for on-line communication and instructional support for al l courses. All stude nts enrolled in these courses must go to their course website for quizzes and course work, therefore they all had easy access to the survey if they wished to participate. The survey was only offered online, but all participants ha d easy access to it. Their res ponses loaded into an online database that was easily loaded into the st atistical program for analysis. The same process was repeated for collecti on of the post-course data. When preservice teachers clicked on the li nk on their Blackboard (2005) site, they were directed to the letter of informed consent to participate in human participant research letter (Appendix L). At the bottom of the informed consent letter, there was a

PAGE 64

50 link to take the survey. Preservice teachers enrolled in the target ESOL courses had the opportunity to participate in both or either of the surveys. Data were summarized incl uding the number of particip ants by course, number of participants by major, the range, mean, and me dian age of participants, and the diversity level of participants. The following is a lis t of this study’s primary question, the three null-hypotheses, and the method of analysis used. The primary research question is: “What perceptions do preservice teachers have of the effectiveness of their ESOL educa tion courses in preparing them with the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitude s regarding having ELL students in their mainstream classrooms?” The followi ng null hypotheses were considered. 1. Hypothesis one states there are no significant differences in preservice teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and skill and their attitudes toward inclusion between students by: program of study (major), course (initial or final), or English Language Learners’ language proficiency level. 2. Hypothesis two states there are no signi ficant differences from preto posttest surveys within the groups (introductory ESOL course and final ESOL course) 3. Hypothesis three states there are no significant differences in the preservice teachers’ perception of the effectiveness of the specific methods in their ESOL education and ESOL infused courses: (a) reflective assignments, (b) fiel d experiences, (c) classroom cases, (d) activities/ discussions, and (e) readings. Survey Instrument Factor Analysis A common factor anal ysis was run using an oblique rotation, since it was believed that the factors may be correla ted. Items included in the f actor analysis were: (a) ten

PAGE 65

51 perception of ESOL knowledge questions, (b ) ten perception of ESOL skills questions, (c) three questions on support of ESOL education, (d) three que stions on their perception of the benefit of ESOL education, (e) four ge neral questions on the willingness to work with ELL students at each language level in the mainstream classroom, and (f) ten ESOL instructional methods questions (total of 40 items). Descriptive statistics for items included the means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis. Descriptive statistics for fact ors were the means, standard deviations, and an internal consistency reliability test (Cronbach alpha). A composite score was calculated for each of the new factors, and a correlation was run between the new factors and the items that each factor represents. Th e result of this correlation was reported, with means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis for each of the new factors. Hypothesis One Tests Hypothesis one states there are no significant differences in preservice teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and skill and their attitudes toward inclusion between students enrolled in the initial ESOL course a nd in the final ESOL course for either a precourse measure or a post-course measure. The following independent and dependent variables were examined. Independent Variables Course. The two target ESOL courses are calle d “course one and course two” for the purposes of this study. Course one is an over-view introductory ESOL course preservice teachers take at the beginning of their teacher education program. Course two is the final, or capstone ESOL course that preservice teachers take near the end of their program, either in the semester prior to thei r final internship, or concurrent with their

PAGE 66

52 internship. A complete description of th e courses including syllabi are located in Appendices A and B. Time. Within each course the EASI ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument was administered during the first tw o weeks of the course and ag ain during the last two weeks of the course (preand post-EASI). Major. Although initially planned as an i ndependent variable, the number of students within each major area was too di sparate for interpretable analyses. For example, Elementary Education was by far the largest group (n=210), the next largest group was English Education (n=22), and the smallest group was Foreign Language (n=6). According to common guidelines, the maximum difference from largest to smallest group for a MANOVA should be 1:.5 (Stevens, 2002). In this case, the next largest group was only about te n percent of the size of the largest group (1:.1 ratio). Means by major are reported for participan ts’ perception of their ESOL knowledge and skills (PEKS) and their attit udes toward infusion (ATI) fo r both preand post-EASI in Appendix U. Dependent Variables PEKS as a factor. The participants’ indi vidual means for the survey items that loaded with factor one were the ten knowledge items (items 1-10) and the ten skill items (items 11-20) on the ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument EASI (See Appendices C and D). These means were added together and di vided by 20 to obtain this general mean for each participant’s individual Perception of ESOL Knowledge and Skill (PEKS) score. ATI as a factor The participants’ individual means for the survey items that loaded with factor two were the ten attitude toward inclusion items (items 21-30) on the

PAGE 67

53 ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument EASI (Appendices C and D). These ten individual means for each part icipant were added together and divided by ten to obtain a general mean for each participant’s individua l reported Attitude toward Inclusion (ATI) of ESOL students in their mainstream classrooms. PEIM as a factor. The participants’ indi vidual means for the survey items that loaded with factor three on the pre-EASI we re nine items (items 31, 33-40), and on the post-EASI were ten items (items 31-40) on perceived effectivene ss of instructional methods on the ESOL Awareness Survey In strument EASI (Appendices C and D). These nine individual means on the pre-EASI and ten individual means on the post-EASI for each participant were added together and divided by nine or ten to obtain a general mean for each participant’s individual reported Perceived Effectiveness score for Instructional Methods (PEIM) they encount er in ESOL specific and ESOL-infused courses. ELLs’ language level. Although in the original plan of study, this was intended as a separate dependent variable, due to the resu lts obtained by the factor analysis it was not possible to separate it for indi vidual statistical tests. Th e participants’ individual means for perception of their knowledge and skill in working with each ELL language level are part of factor one (PEKS), and their attitude toward working with ELL’s at each of the language levels is a part of factor two (ATI). It is not possible to use those scores separately in statistical anal ysis, but descriptive statistics can be looked at for these scores. The perception of ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS) means were reported and descriptive information was provided to compar e the means of participants’ perception of their knowledge and skill in working with ELL students at each of the four levels of

PAGE 68

54 proficiency. The individual scores of the participants’ general attitude toward mainstreaming ELL students at each of the four language levels were reported for the individual attitude toward inclusion (ATI) item means. Statistical Tests for Hypothesis One In order to check for any interaction between preservice teachers’ course (dependent variable) and their perception of their (a) knowledge, (b) skills, and (c) general attitudes regarding in clusion (independent variables), MANOVA was run to examine any interaction between preservice teachers’ course a nd the factors that represent the data of partic ipants’ perceptions of their ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS) and attitudes toward inclusion (ATI). M eans of individual item s from statistically significant factors (PEKS and AT I) were reported for descriptive purposes. Results were reported for the preand post-EASI. The structure of the design of the statistica l tests was influenced by the results of the factor analysis. The means and standard devi ations were reported for each of the items within the factors. Skewness and kurtosis we re reported for each of the means where the population did not have a normal distribution. The Wilkes Lambda, F and P values were reported for each main effect, as well as the P values for each of the dependent variables. Description of Content of the ESOL Courses The content of the target ESOL courses was examined to identify where and to what extent they covered each of the six ESOL content areas included on the EASI. The following questions were answered: “Do both of these courses address the six content areas included in this stu dy?” and, “How much emphasis ar e these topics given?” The

PAGE 69

55 course syllabi and calendar were used, along with personal experien ce with these courses in order to collect this descriptive information. In summary, course one is an overview of all six ESOL content areas, but the focus is most heavily on cultural awareness, ESOL methods, and content adaptation for ESOL students. Course two, which serves as a capstone to the ES OL education, touches on all the topics as well, but concentrates on applied linguistics (as it is related to SLA) and content adaptation for ESOL students. Th e content that receive s the least amount of emphasis is: policies and assessment (See Appendix V for a fuller description). Hypothesis Two Tests Hypothesis two states that th ere are no significant differenc es from preto posttest surveys within the groups (course one and two) A multivariate repeated measures design was used to test for differences within th e two groups (from preto post-EASI), The independent variables were; (a) course (1 and 2) and (b) tim e (preand post-). The dependent variables were: factors that de scribe participants’ perceptions of their ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS), and attitude toward working with ELL students in their mainstream classrooms (ATI). The main effect for the preto post-course results was examined and the statistics were reported. For factors where a signifi cant interaction was found, the means of the individual survey items result s were reported and described.

PAGE 70

56 Hypothesis Three Tests Hypothesis three states that there are no si gnificant differences in the preservice teachers’ perception of the effectiveness of the methods used in their ESOL education courses. A pilot study asked preservice teachers to reflect on how their perceptions had changed regarding having ELL students in th eir mainstream classrooms and what they felt had contributed most to those changes in perception. The data collected from those reflections, and observations from ESOL portf olios were used to formulate the methods questions on the survey instrument (Smith, 2004). Statistical Tests for Hypothesis Three MANOVA was conducted for the factor de scribing perceived effectiveness of instructional methods (PEIM) by time and course. The pre-EASI asked participants to predict the effectivene ss of these methods, whereas in th e post-EASI they were asked to report their actual perceptions of the effectiv eness of each of these methods. Descriptive statistics for the factor PEIM included mean s, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis by course one and two for the preand post-course measures. Description of Instructional Methods in ESOL Courses A review was made of the target ESOL courses to describe their use of the following instructional methods: (a) reflective assignments, (b) field experiences, (c) case studies, (d) classroom activities, and (e) readin gs. The course syllabi and calendar were used, along with personal experience with these courses in order to collect this descriptive information (Appendix W is a descri ption of the instructional methods used in the ESOL education courses).

PAGE 71

57 Assumptions Independence Assumption Independence of observations assumes th at each score comes from a different individual and that the each score represents one partic ipant’s work only. Each participant completed the survey on a comput er, on his or her own time, making each set of scores independent. Only one participant can take the survey at a time on a particular computer, whether it was done at home or in a computer lab at the university. Each participant entered an identification code base d on a combination of their initials and the final three digits of their social security number to enable matching preand post-course measures. The vector of scores for each pa rticipant is independent from the vector of scores of other participants. Multivariate Normality Assumption Multivariate normality assumes that the distribution of scores for each variable is normal. If sample sizes are small, test s may not behave, but MANOVAS are generally robust to problems in multivariate normality for studies with adequate sample sizes (Stevens, 2002). Irregularities were identified by looking at the stem-and-leaf displays, and whether the marginal distributions were normal or not. The means and standard deviations were reported, and skewness and kurtosis were addressed if appropriate. Skewness and kurtosis have only a slight effect on level of significance or power. The reason for this is that “the sum of inde pendent observations having any distribution whatsoever approaches a normal distribution as the number of observations increases.” This is called the Central Limit Theorem (Stevens, 2002, p. 262).

PAGE 72

58 Homogeneity of Covariance Assumption Homogeneity of covariance assumes that the population covariance matrices are equal. A test of homogeneity of within c ovariance matrices was run and the p-value of the Chi-Square were reported. As long as populations are approxima tely equal (largest to smallest 1: .5), the F is robust against va riances (Stevens, 2002). Care was taken to ensure that the populations were similar in size. Instrument Validity and Reliability Two concerns regarding the reliability of the instrument are: (a) internal consistency of the items, and (b ) stability of measurements. Internal consistency of the items was verified by how the scores of the ite ms relate to one another. The test of internal consistency, Cronbach Alpha for th e pilot test (Smith, 2004) was .75 for the pretest (n=153), and .76 for the posttest (n= 161). Stability of the instrument was strengthened by the reliability coefficients of the test-retest, which yielded such similar results from preto postte st (Gardner & Smythe, 1981). Validity of the instrument was established by (a) predictive validity, (b) content validity, and (c) construct validity. To es tablish predictive vali dity, a pilot study was conducted that collected open-ended attitudinal data from 221 preservice teachers in two separate introductory ESOL courses. Th e data were organized by themes and 25 statements were chosen that best represented the themes. These 25 statements were the basis for the pilot survey instrument that was administered to 153 preservice teachers. (Smith, 2004). Previous research in the area of teachers and preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and ESL students was also co nsidered, along with other possible factors that can influence attitudes toward inclusi on. A high correlation of the factors on the

PAGE 73

59 instrument with the items on the survey in strument (EASI), and the results of the replication on the post-EASI furthe r strengthen the predictive validity. Content validity was established by (a) th e representative collection of items, and (b) the sensible method of test construction (Nunnally, 1978). Each of the constructs was clearly defined and supported by previous re search. These constr ucts were further identified by the various elements included in that construct, and the items included were representative of that construct. Experts in test ite m construction, and on-line survey design were consulted in th e design and implementation of the EASI. The course methods were aligned to the required com ponents of ESOL education as determined by the META consent decree. This was also th e content that is assessed for accreditation purposes documenting the preservice teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Construct validity assures that the test can be shown to access the constructs it was intended to measure. A factor analysis confirmed the three factors included on the instrument. This chapter has detailed the setting of this study, the participants, and the methods that were employed in researchi ng the primary resear ch question and nullhypotheses. The development of the instrument has been described, and its validity and reliability have been discussed. The following chapter will give the results that were found, and will detail the follow-up tests that were run and the results obtained.

PAGE 74

60 Chapter Four Results Chapter four includes the results of the research, which will be presented based on the order of the questions and hypotheses. It begins with a description of the sample and then describes the results for the tests for reliability, the assumptions, and effect size. This is followed by statistical te sts and analytical descriptions of the data related to each hypothesis. Participants There were 513 students enrolled in the two ESOL courses (course one and two) during the fall semester 2004. Of these, 293 st udents volunteered to take the EASI precourse survey (57% of those enrolled), and 273 volunteered to take the EASI post-course survey (53% of those enrolled). Some pres ervice teachers who participated in the precourse survey did not partic ipate in the post-course survey, and the opposite was also true. The course one participan ts were from six course sectio ns with three instructors and the course two participants were from eight different course sect ions, taught by four different instructors. Participants reported their major as: (a ) elementary education (n=218), early childhood education (n=14), speci al education (n=23), Englis h education (n=11), foreign language education (n=6), and other (n=18). Approximately 75% of the participants were elementary education majors. Their ag es varied from 19 to 63, with a median age of 22 and an average age of 25. There were 272 females and 21 males. Two hundred

PAGE 75

61 seventy-three participants re ported that English was thei r home language, and 21 (about 8%) identified themselves as having English as their second language. Thirty-nine of the preservice teachers (approximately 14%) descri bed themselves as being bilingual. Two hundred and fifty-seven partic ipants were enrolled in oncampus sections and 36 were enrolled in distance-learning sections. Seve nteen participants expr essed that the mode they were taking was not thei r preference (twelve of these were enrolled in on-campus sections and five were in distance-learning sections. Data from the EASI were examined for completeness and other response problems, and observations with missing values were omitted. The final sample for the factor analysis included 219 observations on the pre-EASI and 229 on the post-EASI. Analysis for hypothesis 1 included 474 obser vations, and the analysis for hypothesis 2 included 110 observations. The sample wa s reduced for hypothesis 2 to include only those students who had both pre-EASI and pos t-EASI scores. Hypot hesis 3 included 431 observations (see the individual number of course one and course two participants in the related tables). Common Factor Analysis of the EASI A common factor analysis wa s run with all 40 items fo r the preand post-EASI using an oblique rotation since it was belie ved that the factors may be correlated. Similar factor results were obtained for bot h administrations. Based on the data three factors were obtained, and they were st able across the two administrations. Table 2 contains a comparison of the pr e-EASI and post-EASI results for the factor analysis. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for intern al consistency reliability was .93 on the pre-EASI and .96 on the post-EASI. The average communality estimate for all the

PAGE 76

62 items was .77 on the pre-EASI and .70 on the post-EASI. Conservative positions consider scores of .7 and above as ‘reasona bly high’ (Stevens, 2002, p. 410). Table 2. Factor Analysis Results for Preand Post-EASI Pre-EASI Post-EASI N 219 229 Cronbach Alpha .93 .96 Communality Estimate .79 .70 Total Eigenvalue 30.68 28.24 Factor 1 Eigenvalue 13.15 14.69 Factor 2 Eigenvalue 7.46 4.19 Factor 3 Eigenvalue 2.23 2.44 Figure 1 contains a comparison of the Sc ree plots for the preand post-EASI factor analyses. Three factors were retain ed and these factors accounted for 74% of the variability on the pre-EASI and 75% on the po st-EASI. The addition of other factors did not add significantly, and inte rpretability was very clear for these three factors. Table 3 includes the Eigenvalues for each of the items and the factors with which they loaded. In the table, all eigenvalu es were multiplied by 100 and rounded to the nearest integer. Values gr eater than .430295, or those cons idered clearly loading on one factor, were flagged by an asterisk (*). The standardized regression coefficient scores of the preand post-course fact or analysis are shown using the Promax rotation method, which is an oblique rotation. The reference structure for the rotate d factor pattern had

PAGE 77

63 clear results. The items were not complex, meaning that each item loaded with one and only one factor. Figure 1. Scree Plot of Eigenvalues of Factors on Preand Post-EASI 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 123456 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 123456 Similar results were obtained on both pr eand post-EASI factor analyses. The same items loaded on the same factors for both administrations with the exception of only one item. On the preand post-EASI, the 20 knowledge and skills items loaded on one factor which was named Perceptions of ESOL Knowledge and Skills (PEKS). Factor two loaded with the ten items on reported attit ude toward inclusion of ELL students in the mainstream classroom on both of the survey s and was named Attitudes toward Inclusion (ATI). On the post-EASI all ten of the clas sroom methods items loaded clearly on Factor 3, and it was named Perceived Effectiveness of Instructional Met hods (PEIM). For the pre-EASI, nine classroom methods loaded w ith factor PEIM. The item “ESOL course field experience” had an eigenvalue that was equal for factor two and three, and it was not greater than .430295, which was the valu e set for this factor analysis.

PAGE 78

64 Table 3. Factor Structure of Instrument Item PEKS Factor 1 Pre Post ATI Factor 2 Pre Post PEIM Factor 3 Pre Post Knowledge L3 90* 81* 4 4 -8 3 Skill L3 90* 93* 0 -13 -4 2 Knowledge L2 89* 78* 6 -8 -5 2 Skill L2 89* 90* 0 -15 1 1 Skill L4 88* 86* -5 -10 1 -2 Knowledge Adapt. Content 88* 65* 3 22 -10 -10 Knowledge L4 87* 77* 3 4 -6 2 Knowledge L1 86* 71* 5 9 -3 7 Skill L1 85* 86* 1 -11 4 2 Knowledge ESOL Methods 85* 66* -4 13 -3 5 Knowledge ESOL Assessment 84* 64* -3 20 -1 -1 Skill Adapt. Content 79* 66* -4 8 16 12 Skill Policies 78* 65* 6 -3 -4 8 Skill ESOL Assessment 78* 72* -3 -5 8 10 Skill ESOL Methods 77* 67* -3 -4 2 -3 Knowledge Policies 73* 56* 4 10 -6 -2 Knowledge SLA 70* 50* 2 27 5 -17 Skill Culture 59* 61* -2 12 17 -6 Skill SLA 51* 61* -10 3 28 7 Knowledge Culture 48* 46* 12 27 5 -17

PAGE 79

65 Table 3 (Continued). Factor Structure of Instrument Item PEKS Factor 1 Pre Post ATI Factor 2 Pre Post PEIM Factor 3 Pre Post Attitude toward mainstreaming L2 learners 3 -11 85* 48* -6 31 Attitude toward mainstreaming L3 learners 14 11 83* 73* -12 -5 Attitude toward mainstreaming L1 learners -6 -17 77* 42* -7 34 Attitude support mainstreaming -1 -10 69* 71* 9 7 Attitude benefit mainstreaming 4 2 63* 71* 6 2 Attitude toward mainstreaming L4 learners 19 20 59* 52* -5 -11 Attitude support ESOL education -7 4 58* 76* 23 4 Attitude support ESOL teacher training -3 0 55* 76* 23 5 Attitude benefit ESOL teacher training -17 11 53* 64* 20 6 Attitude benefit of being bilingual 3 11 50* 58* 18 -4 ESOL infused readings 3 4 -6 -13 84* 84* ESOL infused activities/ discussions 14 25 -11 -1 82* 64* ESOL infused case studies 1 8 -3 -6 79* 80* ESOL infused reflective assignments 11 4 6 -1 73* 80* ESOL course reflective assignments 5 -7 18 15 63* 73* ESOL infused field experience 11 9 1 3 62* 70* ESOL course readings -16 -2 18 -1 55* 72* ESOL course case studies -25 -8 17 14 50* 66* ESOL course activities/ discussions 3 13 24 22 50* 48* ESOL course field experience 3 13 30 25 30 48*

PAGE 80

66 To establish the relationship further be tween the 40 items on the EASI and the factors, Pearson correlations were run between the three ne w factors and the items on the survey (see Table 4 for the results for the post-EASI factor corre lation). The group of items that loaded on each of the factors was used to create a variable by computing the average scores for these items. On the pos t-EASI, the twenty items for participants’ perception of their ESOL knowledge and ski ll had a correlation of .99 with factor 1 (PEKS). The ten items for participants’ att itudes toward inclusion had a correlation of .97 with factor 2 (ATI). The ten items on th e participants’ percepti on of effectiveness of ESOL instructional methods had a corre lation of .99 with factor 3 (PEIM). Table 4 Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Items within Factors on the Post-EASI FACTOR NAME FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 Perceived ESOL Knowledge and Skill (PEKS) 0.99426 p = <.0001 Attitudes toward Inclusion (ATI) 0.97169 p = <.0001 Perceived Effectiveness of Instructional Methods (PEIM) 0.98913 p = <.0001

PAGE 81

67 Descriptive Data Table 5 contains the descript ive data for the preand post-EASI by factor. These data include the means, standard deviations Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients, skewness, and kurtosis for all four measures. The following section contains the results of the tests for reliability and assumptions for MANOVAS. Instrument Characteristics Reliability. Cronbach coefficient alphas were calculated for the items included in the three factors for both course one and two, for both the preand the post-EASI results. Reliability indices observed on all occasi ons were between .87 and .96 (Table 5). Reliability indices of .70 (Byrnes and Kiger, 1994) are considered adequate for similar perceptual measures, Normality. The skewness and kurtosis indices are included in Table 5 for the three factors for both course one and two, for both the preand the post-course measures. The distributions for the participants’ per ception of ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS) are varied. Course one precourse PEKS is positively sk ewed, while post-course PEKS appears to be more normally distributed. The distributions for the preand post PEKS for course two are similar in that both are s lightly negatively skewed and relatively flat. The distributions for participants’ attit ude toward inclusion (ATI) share some similar characteristics. They are all ne gatively skewed and reasonably flat. The distributions for participants ’ perception of ESOL instru ctional methods (PEIM) are again negatively skewed and relatively fl at. Since the deviation from a normal distribution is not large, a nd the distributions are relativ ely similar, MANOVA should be robust to the observed distribu tion variations (Stevens, 2002).

PAGE 82

68 Table 5. Descriptive Data for Preand Post-EASI by Factor ESOL Knowledge and Skills (PEKS) Attitude toward Inclusion (ATI) Instructional Methods (PEIM) Mean 1.49 3.19 2.81 SD .43 .59 .64 Course One Pre.94 .88 .87 (n=163) S 1.35 -.54 -.13 K 1.71 -.21 -.38 Mean 3.03 3.38 2.86 SD .52 .49 .61 Course One Post.95 .87 .88 (n=125) S -.28 -.88 -.16 K -.46 .60 -.49 Mean 2.65 3.20 2.64 SD .52 .60 .62 Course Two Pre.95 .90 .89 (n=100) S -.27 -.94 -.08 K .12 .77 -.29 Mean 3.26 3.37 2.67 SD .52 .57 .79 Course Two Post.96 .90 .93 (n=95) S -.59 -.95 -.19 K -.20 .79 -.71 Note: Means are on a four-point scale that ranges from 1 to 4.

PAGE 83

69 Homogeneity of covariance. The homogeneity of covariance was assessed using Box’s M test. The significant p-values for both the pre-EASI (p=.0021) and the postEASI (p=.0011) indicate that th e homogeneity of covariance assumption was violated. The number of participants in course one and two is balanced, however, and MANOVA is robust to violations of this magnitude wh en there are similar numbers in the two groups compared (Stevens, 2002). Added to the similar size of both groups, the amount of covariance between course one and two particip ants was very similar. On the pre-EASI, course one had a covariance value of -3.79 a nd course two had a covariance of -4.07. On the post-EASI, course one had a covarian ce value of -4.26 and course two had a covariance of -4.18. Effect Size To get a sense of the effect size for the set of tests, Mahalanobis distance was calculated. The value for the distance between the two courses (cour se one and two) was d = 1.101. The value for the distance between the two times (from preto post-EASI) was d = 3.53. The values obtained indicate a large difference between the mean vectors since a value over 1 is considered a large effect (Stevens, 2002). Hypothesis One Results Null hypothesis one states there are no significa nt differences in preservice teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and skill and their attitudes toward inclusion between students enrolled in ESOL course one and ESOL course two for either a precourse measure or a post-course measure.

PAGE 84

70 Over-all Effect between Courses Table 5 contains the means and standard deviations for the pre-EASI and postEASI in both courses (course one and tw o). The MANOVA for a main effect for differences between the groups by course and time was statistically significant ( = .68, F (2,470) = 112.27, p = <0001. Since there was an over-all significant effect for the variable course, differences across courses were examined for the preand the postcourse measures. To control for a type 1 e rror for the two sets of tests, the modified Bonferroni approach was adopted. In orde r to be significant, the p must be <.025. There was a significant difference for the pre-course measure for the effect between course one and two ( = .39, F(2,257) 192.99, p= <.0001, < = .025). Participants in course two rated their ES OL knowledge and skills (PEKS) significantly higher than participants in c ourse one, F(1,258) = 376.32, p=<.0001 < = .025. On the other hand, participants in course two did not have significantly more positive attitudes toward inclusion (ATI) on the pre-course measure then participants in course one, F(1,258) = .01, p=.9279 > = .025. Results for the post-course measure by course were similar. There was a significant difference between course one and course two ( = .93, F(2,211) 7.24, p= .0009, < = .025). Participants in course two had significantly highe r ratings of their ESOL knowledge and skills (PEKS) than part icipants in course one, F(1,212) = 10.38, p=.0015. Similar to the pre-course measure, participants in course two did not have significantly more positive at titudes about inclusion (AT I), F(1,212) = .011, p=.7387 than participants in course one.

PAGE 85

71 ESOL Knowledge and Skills (PEK S) Differences by Course For descriptive purposes, Table 6 contains the means for the items within the knowledge and skill (PEKS) factor for the pr e-course EASI. Participants’ responses within each of the ten cont ent areas for the related knowledge and skill items were averaged resulting in ten total items rather than ten knowledge items and ten skill items. For example, in the content area “ESOL polic ies and practices”, the knowledge item for ESOL policies and practices and the skill item for ESOL policies and practices were averaged, resulting in a mean fo r that content area. On the pre-course measure, course one participants’ percepti ons of their ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS) were very low, with the lowest rating being 1.19 on a 4point scale for working with level two langua ge ESOL students. No rating was above 2.25, which was observed for perception of knowle dge and skill in relating to culturally diverse students. Course two participants’ ratings of th eir ESOL knowledge and skill were close to the midpoint on the scale of 2.5 in all content areas, with the excep tion of “relating to culturally diverse students”, which had a mean of 3.04. The highest means for both groups of participants related to their per ception of their knowledge and skill in relating to culturally diverse students (Table 6).

PAGE 86

72 Table 6 Means of PEKS Items by Course on Pre-EASI ESOL Subject matter Knowledge and Skill Perception in working with ESOL students in the mainstream classroom… Course One n=163 Mean SD Course Two n=100 Mean SD Applying ESOL Policies and Practices 1.49 .55 2.61 .60 Relating to Culturally Diverse Students 2.25 .75 3.04 .58 Teaching English as a Second Language along with the content 1.79 .58 2.60 .63 Using ESOL Methods 1.59 .65 2.82 .63 Adapting Content for ESOL Students 1.45 .57 2.68 .59 Assessing ESOL Students 1.41 .56 2.52 .66 Working with Level 1 Language ELL students 1.21 .43 2.40 .68 Working with Level 2 Language ELL students 1.19 .42 2.46 .63 Working with Level 3 Language ELL students 1.21 .46 2.60 .63 Working with Level 4 Language ELL students 1.25 .52 2.70 .63 Note: Mean values are an average of the individu al knowledge and skill items for each content area. Table 7 includes the average of the knowledge and skill means from the postEASI results (see discussion in previous sect ion for method of computing this average). For course one, participants’ ratings of their ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS) across content areas shifted to the posit ive side of the scale, with all mean scores near 3.0 on the 4.0 scale. For course two ratings of thei r ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS) on the postEASI were more positive yet, with scores near 3.20. Again both groups were most positive about their perception of their knowle dge and skill in relating to culturally diverse students. The amount of variance, as described by the sta ndard deviations, is

PAGE 87

73 more similar between the two groups than on the pre-EASI. Additional information about responses from participants on know ledge and skill individual items is also provided in Appendices M, N, O, and P. Table 7 Means of PEKS Items by Course on Post-EASI ESOL Subject matter Knowledge and Skill Perception in working with ESOL students in the mainstream classroom… Course One n=125 Mean SD Course Two n=95 Mean SD Applying ESOL Policies and Practices 2.95 .58 3.12 .62 Relating to Culturally Diverse Students 3.31 .56 3.44 .56 Teaching English as a Second Language along with the content 3.03 .54 3.16 .56 Using ESOL Methods 3.17 .58 3.43 .54 Adapting Content for ESOL Students 3.11 .58 3.22 .59 Assessing ESOL Students 3.02 .60 3.17 .62 Working with Level 1 Language ELL students 2.92 .64 3.18 .68 Working with Level 2 Language ELL students 2.93 .68 3.23 .64 Working with Level 3 Language ELL students 2.96 .71 3.28 .59 Working with Level 4 Language ELL students 3.00 .74 3.33 .59 Note: Mean values are an average of the individu al knowledge and skill items for each content area. Attitude toward Inclusion (A TI) Differences by Course Table 8 includes the means on the postte st of the individual items for the participants in course one and two for their attitude toward in clusion (ATI) factor. There were no significant differences between part icipants’ attitudes be tween course one and

PAGE 88

74 course two, and one can see the similarities between attitude item means across the two groups. Students were positive in their at titudes about inclusi on since all item means were on the positive side of the scale in both courses. The participants’ least positive attitude ratings were related to the more complex area of having the lower levels of language proficiency students in the mainstre am classroom. The more proficient in English that the ELL student is, the more w illing the participants are to say that the student should be in the mainstream clas sroom. Appendices Q and R have additional information about the percentage of responses for each option within each item. Table 8 Means of ATI items by Course on Post-EASI ESOL Attitude toward working with ESOL students in the mainstream classroom… Course One n=125 Mean SD Course Two n=95 Mean SD Benefit of ESOL Education to my teaching 3.60 .64 3.43 .81 Knowing a Second language is more of a benefit than a problem for ESOL students 3.60 .64 3.61 .70 All Students Benefit from having ESOL students in the mainstream classroom 3.42 .70 3.44 .74 All teachers should have ESOL training 3.69 .62 3.48 .82 I support having ESOL students in all mainstream classrooms 3.37 .79 3.33 .84 ESOL education is important to me. 3.58 .61 3.40 .84 Mainstreaming is best for ELL Level 1 students 2.64 1.00 2.66 1.04 Mainstreaming is best for ELL Level 2 students 2.88 .88 3.05 .86 Mainstreaming is best for ELL Level 3 students 3.36 .67 3.54 .62 Mainstreaming is best for ELL Level 4 students 3.65 .58 3.73 .51

PAGE 89

75 Hypothesis Two Results Null hypothesis two states there are no si gnificant differences in preservice teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and skill and their attitudes toward inclusion within ESOL course one and ESOL course two, from the preto the post-course measures. Assumptions Only a subset of the sample (n=102) vol unteered to complete both the preand post-EASI; therefore, the distributions for only this subgroup were examined. Table 9 contains the descriptive data including mean differences be tween preand post-course tests (posttest scores – pretest scores), sta ndard deviations, skewne ss, and kurtosis. The mean differences from preto post-course EASI results were positive for both courses. The distributions for the differences for pe rception of ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS) were similar in that they were slightly negatively skewed and relatively flat for both courses. There were similarities across cour ses in the distributions for attitudes toward inclusion. Both groups’ distributions were positively skewed and mound-shaped. Since the groups are similar in size, a multivariate re peated measures analysis should be robust to the observed distribution variat ions (Stevens, 2002).

PAGE 90

76 Table 9. Descriptive Data for Preto Post-EASI Differences by Factor ESOL Knowledge and Skills (PEKS) Attitude toward Inclusion (ATI) M diff. 1.46 .26 Course One SD .57 .61 (n=56) S -.22 .66 K -.74 .51 M diff. .74 .27 Course Two SD .52 .60 (n=50) S .33 1.25 K -.41 2.64 Note: Mean difference from preto posttest are from a four-point scale that ranges from 1 to 4. Over-all Effect within Courses A multivariate repeated measure anal ysis was conducted to compare the differences from preto post-EASI, within ea ch course. The over-all effect from preto post-course measure was significant ( = .75, F (1,100) = 32.29, p = <.0001). Since there was an over-all significant effect for the variable time, differen ces for perception of ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS) factor and att itude toward inclusion (ATI) factor were examined. To control for a type 1 error for th e two sets of tests, the modified Bonferroni approach was adopted. In order to be si gnificant, the p must be smaller than < .025. There was a significant difference in the means from preto post-EASI for participants’ perception of their ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS), F(1,100) = 41.49,

PAGE 91

77 p=<.0001 < = .025. The differences for PEKS we re significant both for course one participants F (1,52) = 125.52, p = < .0001, and course two participants, F (1, 48) = 47.39, p = < .0001. ESOL Knowledge and Skill (PEKS) Differences within Group Table l0 includes the means and standard deviations for the differences from preto post-EASI for the content area items within the knowledge and skill (PEKS) factor for course one and two. These scores represent th e amount of growth for participants in each of the ESOL content areas. Mean differenc es within each of the content areas were positive for both groups of participants. Course one participants’ difference m eans range from .92 to 1.75. The lowest difference was for “relating to culturally diverse students”, which was the content item with the highest rating on both the preand post-course measures. The highest difference means were for the items related to working with the various language levels of ELL students in the mainstream classroom, which ra nged from 1.67 to 1.75. Most of the score differences represented an increase from pr eto posttest above 1.5 points on a 4-point scale, which represents a substantial growth. Course two participants’ difference m eans range from .47 to .86. Similar to course one results, the lowest difference mean was for “relating to culturally diverse students”, which was also the content item with the highest mean on both the preand post-course measures. Most of the other differences were close to .65 with exception of the difference ratings for items related to wo rking with the various language levels of ELL students with language levels 1 – 3, whic h ranged from .82 to .86. Although not as

PAGE 92

78 large as Course one differences, they were also significant as demonstrated by the MANOVA results. Table 10 Differences from Preto Post-EASI by Course for PEKS items ESOL Subject matter Knowledge and Skill Perception in working with ESOL students in the mainstream classroom… Course One n=56 Diff Mean SD Course Two n=50 Diff Mean SD Applying ESOL Policies and Practices 1.40 .75 .62 .67 Relating to Culturally Diverse Students .92 .86 .47 .63 Teaching English as a Second Language along with the content 1.11 .73 .68 .71 Using ESOL Methods 1.49 .69 .64 .66 Adapting Content for ESOL Students 1.64 .77 .64 .67 Assessing ESOL Students 1.66 .71 .75 .74 Working with Level 1 Language ELL students 1.67 .68 .84 .73 Working with Level 2 Language ELL students 1.70 .68 .86 .68 Working with Level 3 Language ELL students 1.72 .76 .82 .71 Working with Level 4 Language ELL students 1.75 .82 .67 .69 Note: Mean differences are posttest – pretes t, and SD are for the difference scores. Attitudes toward Inclusion (ATI ) Differences within Courses There were no significant differences between preand post-EASI means for participants’ attitude toward incl usion (ATI), F(1,100) = 0.06, p=.8066, > = .025. The preand post-EASI means for both classes are illustrated in Table 11. Most of the means were on the positive side of the scale to be gin with, and they continued on the positive

PAGE 93

79 side at the end of the course. The larges t preto post-course differences were in participants’ attitude toward working with students at the lower language levels in the mainstream classroom. Appendices Q and R include details about the results of the individual items included in the Attit udes toward Inclusion (ATI) factor. Table 11 Differences from Preto Post-EASI by Course for ATI items ESOL Attitude toward working with ESOL students in the mainstream classroom… Course One n=56 Mean SD Course Two n=50 Mean SD Benefit of ESOL Education to my teaching 0 .82 .38 1.08 Knowing a Second language is more of a benefit than a problem for ESOL students .19 .75 .21 .74 All Students Benefit from having ESOL students in the mainstream classroom .45 .77 .26 .97 All teachers should have ESOL training .09 .80 -.05 1.04 I support having ESOL students in all mainstream classrooms .24 .86 .16 .83 ESOL education is important to me. -.19 .93 .04 .88 Mainstreaming is best for ELL Level 1 students .25 1.32 .62 1.06 Mainstreaming is best for ELL Level 2 students .26 1.15 .62 .95 Mainstreaming is best for ELL Level 3 students .63 1.05 .42 .81 Mainstreaming is best for ELL Level 4 students .71 1.01 .20 .73 Hypothesis Three Results Hypothesis three states that there are no significant differences in preservice teachers’ perception of the effectiveness of the specific instructional methods in their ESOL education courses. These methods incl ude: (a) reflective assignments, (b) field

PAGE 94

80 experiences, (c) classroom cases, (d) activitie s/ discussions, and (e ) readings. Items on the survey instrument included these instruct ional methods in the ESOL courses and also in the ESOL-infused courses (see descrip tion of ESOL-infused courses and ESOL infusion in chapter one). MANOVA was run with the i ndependent variable course (course one and course two) for the post-course measure only because this was the measure of their course experience. The dependent measure was the perceived effectivene ss of instructional methods (PEIM) factor from the EASI ESOL Awareness Surv ey Instrument. The factor and its loadings were described previously in the common factor anal ysis section. Table 5 contains the descriptive statistics for the PEIM factor including the means, standard deviations, Cronbach alpha coefficient, skewne ss, and kurtosis for course one and two. Differences on PEIM Factor There were significant differences between the courses on per ceived effectiveness of instructional methods (PEIM), = .98, F(1,215) 4.11, p = .0437. Participants in the ESOL course one and participants in ESOL c ourse two view the effectiveness of some of the instructional methods differently. Table 12 includes the means and standard deviations for the individual teaching methods within the perception of ESOL instru ctional methods (PEIM) factor for course one and two. The instructional methods rate d highest and lowest by the groups were the same for both courses. Ratings were higher fo r all methods by participants in course one, and all of the means are on the positive side of the 4-point scale with the exception of “ESOL-infused readings” (2.44) and “ESO L readings” (2.47). The means for participants in course two were all above the midpoint ( 2.50) with the exception of

PAGE 95

81 “ESOL readings” (2.05) and “ESOL-infuse d readings” (2.09). There was more variability in the ratings of the participants in the final course. Table 12 Post-EASI Means on Instru ctional Methods Items By Course Course One Mean Course One SD Course Two Mean Course Two SD ESOL Reflective Assignments 2.97 .80 2.61 1.20 ESOL Field Experience 3.35 .84 3.25 .99 ESOL Case Study Work 3.01 .76 2.69 1.02 ESOL Classroom activities/ discussions 3.09 .76 2.99 .98 ESOL Readings 2.47 .92 2.05 .98 ESOL-Infused Reflective Assignments 2.75 .86 2.62 1.02 ESOL-Infused Field Experience 2.89 1.09 2.95 1.13 ESOL-Infused Case Study Work 2.64 .97 2.49 .99 ESOL-Infused Classroom activities/ discussions 2.96 .86 2.86 .98 ESOL-Infused Readings 2.44 .92 2.09 .95 Note: These data include all participants from MANOVA (Table 5) Appendices S and T have additional data on individual items for instructional methods (PEIM). Appendix S contains percen tages of responses in each category for each item on the pre-EASI. Appendix T c ontains percentages of responses in each category for each item on the post-EASI.

PAGE 96

82 Other Instructiona l Methods Perceived as Effective Participants were asked on the post-EASI to name other course components that had influenced their attitudes and feeli ngs about ESOL education and 51 students responded. The responses cited 16 different classroom activities or methods including lesson planning (n=15), exams and quizzes (n=6), LEP Analysis (n=5), methods demonstrations (n=4), personal experience (n =3), on-line activitie s (n=3), group work (n=2), videos (n=2), observations (n=2), inte rviews with LEP students (n=2), and class work (n=2). Others that were mentioned only once were; lectures, interning with ESOL students in a classroom, debates, cl ass review, and being in class.

PAGE 97

83 Chapter Five Discussion The purpose of this chapter is to disc uss the findings from chapter four and compare the findings with results from past research. The implications will be described for preservice teachers’ programs in general. This section contains first the primary research question, then each of the three null hypotheses. Fi nally, it includes a discussion of how these findings can impact ESOL educatio n at this college of education as well as areas still needing further study. Primary Question The primary research question was: “ What perceptions do preservice teachers have of the effectiveness of their ESOL education courses in preparing them with the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitude s regarding having ELL students in their mainstream classrooms?” Teachers’ attitudes are important and can affect the learning that takes place in their future classrooms for this at-risk population. The impact of teachers’ attitudes on the pe rformance of their students across disciplines is well established (Case, 1996; Garcia, 1999; Ju ssim, 1989; Krashen, 1981; Van Reusen, Shoho, & Barker, 2001; Van Hook, 2002, and Youngs & Youngs, 2001). Survey Instrument The survey developed for this study (E ASI) helped to measure how preservice teachers in this college of education perceive their ESOL education and their ability to

PAGE 98

84 teach ELL students effectively in their main stream classrooms. This section will compare these preservice teachers’ perceptions to what is reported in related research. Reliability and Validity of the EASI The preand post-EASI yiel ded reliability indices of .93 and .96 respectively. The observed reliability coefficients were higher than those obtained on other similar survey instruments. For example, the La nguage Attitudes Scale (L ATS), a survey that has been widely accepted and used in many a ttitudinal studies over the past 10 years had a reported Cronbach alpha index of .72 (Byrne s & Kiger, 1994). A nother study assessed students’ attitudes using the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI) and reported a Cronbach alpha index of .56 (Milner 2003), which is considered very low for attitudinal measures. All items on the EASI loaded very clearly on one of three factors on both the preand post-course surveys. The interpretability of the three factors is very good. The items are very easy to describe, and they do not overlap with one another. PEKS Factor The first factor can be explained by a ll the items that were identified on the survey instrument as perception of “knowle dge and skill”. Per ception of knowledge and skill are closely related and sometimes hard to distinguish. These findings show that in the minds of these participants, the two constructs were clus tered together. The loading of knowledge and skills is cons istent with literatu re that shows the connection between the two constructs and de fines skill as the “ab ility to carry out a particular activity” and knowledge as “the information you need to perform the skill”. The combination of these two perceptions re sults in a feeling of competency (BECTA,

PAGE 99

85 2004, p. 1). Perceptions of competency can help to influence personal growth plans (Ingersul & Kinman, 2002), can be very benefi cial personally, and can lead to a strong sense of self efficacy. The preservice teach ers’ perception of their knowledge and skill (PEKS) possibly resembles a teachers’ self-effica cy, which is defined as “the belief that one has the necessary skills a nd abilities to bring about st udent learning’ (Walker, 1992, p.10). ATI Factor The second factor can be explained by all the items that were identified on the survey instrument as “support” and “benef it” of ESOL education and inclusion. Participants in this study did not differentiate significantly between the support and benefit items, and the factor analysis showed that the benefit and support items were measuring the same thing in this study. This finding is in contrast to a study that showed a clear distinction between support and benefit by its participants. Garri ott et al. looked at preservice teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education. The particip ants were very positive about inclusion, but stated that the special education classroom was the best place to educate even students with mild disabilities. The researchers concluded that participants saw a benefit in inclusion, but were not as willing to support it (Garriott et al., 2003). Other studies have found that participants’ level of support for in clusion differed according to the severity of the disability (Grier, 2001; and Shade & Steward, 2001). Participants’ ratings for attitudes toward inclusion (ATI) were encouraging to see. These ratings were already hi gh at the beginning of the firs t course, and ranged in the mid-threes on a four-point scale. Most of these already high scores improved slightly

PAGE 100

86 over time. Research has shown that teachers’ attitudes toward diversity have improved over the past ten years (Milner et al., 2003): They are generally positive and exposure to diversity enhances appreciati on (Youngs & Youngs, 2001). As this university is located in a very diverse state, it could be a factor in explaining the generally positive attitudes of the preservice teachers toward ESOL student s because teachers from states with more diverse populations have been found to be more positive (Byrnes, 1996). Follow-up studies in this university should examine the relationship between contact with diversity specifically and the attitude to ward inclusion (ATI) factor. PEIM Factor The third factor can be explained by the items identified on the survey instrument as “Perceived Effectiveness of Instructi onal Methods” (PEIM). The factor analysis showed that to the participants in this study, all the ESOL instructional methods and ESOL-infused instructional methods were within the same factor. The following instructional methods have been found to have an effect on preservice teachers’ attitudes: (a) reflective teaching/learning (Bailey et al.,1998; Lee, 2004; and Leistyna, 2004), (b) case studies (Kagan, 1993; and Montecinos et al., 1999), (c) field experiences (Agnello & Mittag, 1999; Linek et al., 1999; Mason, 1999; Shade & Stewart, 2001; and Wiggins & Follo, 1999), (d) Integration, continuity among courses (B yrnes et al., 1996) and (e) portfolio development (Bailey et al., & Wenzlaff, 1998). Hypothesis One: Differences by Course The first hypothesis states there are no significant differences in preservice teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge a nd skill (PEKS) and their attitudes toward inclusion (ATI) between students enrolled in the initial ESOL course and in the final

PAGE 101

87 ESOL course for either a pre-course measur e or a post-course measure. This question compared participants near th e beginning of their course of study to participants near the end of their course of study. Significance was found for differences in the perception of ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS) factor but not for the attitude toward inclusion (ATI) factor. Differences by Perception of ESOL Knowledge and Skill (PEKS) There is a difference between the perceptions of participants in these two courses as it relates to their ESOL knowledge and sk ill (PEKS). More confidence in their knowledge and skill is indicated as preservice teachers in this program near the completion of their ESOL education. The othe r experiences they have in their lives and teacher education certainly have an e ffect on these differences as well. Hoy (2002) concluded that self-percep tion of ability tends to rise during preservice training and then fall a bit during th eir first year of teaching. Walker (1992) believes that student-teachers may have an overly-optimistic view of their ability, and Bandura (1994) proposed that errors in self-a ppraisal tend to be on the positive side, and may include over-estimating one’s abilities, but this is indicative of a normal selfperception, and it has a positive effect on accomplishments. The results of this survey reflect positively on the education program at this university, as participants in this program reported their skills gradually increasing and ending at a very high level at the end of the final course. While these results could be overly optimistic, this optimism might also ca rry them through the initial teaching stages where they can practice the sk ills through experience.

PAGE 102

88 Differences by Attitude toward Inclusion (ATI) There were no significant differences between the groups on their attitude toward inclusion (ATI). Participants’ attitudes towa rd inclusion are not re ally different whether they are in the initial ESOL course that is taken near the beginni ng of their program of study, or their final ESOL course that is ta ken near the end of th eir program of study. Little attention has been given to th e impact of ESOL education on preservice teachers’ attitudes, and most research has focused on looking at the effect of one course rather than the longer-term effect of a program of studies on pre-service teachers’ attitudes. Most general pr eservice education studies ha ve not found differences in preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs as a result of their program of studies. Richardson’s (1996) summary of research on the role of atti tudes and beliefs in learning to teach stated that change was more likely to take place in in-service training rather than pre-service programs. Jordan’s (1995) findi ngs agree with this, and he suggests that preservice teacher education programs do not generally alter stude nts’ attitudes and beliefs that they have developed during 18 to 20 years of formative experiences. Kagan (1992) also found that persona l beliefs that were brought into educational programs generally remained inflexible. While possibly inflexible, similar to these studies, the preservice teachers observed in this study were very positive throughout their educational experience. The preservice teachers did not enc ounter anything in their program s that altered their already positive attitudes toward inclusion of ELL students in the mainstream classroom.

PAGE 103

89 Hypothesis Two: Differences from Preto Post-EASI within Group Null hypothesis two states there are no signi ficant differences from preto postcourse surveys measuring preservice teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and attitudes toward having ELL st udents in their mainstream classrooms. This question examined growth and changes participants exhi bited (from preto post-EASI) in a single course. Significance was found for differences in the perception of ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS) factor but not in the att itude toward inclusion (ATI) factor. Discussion of ESOL Knowledge and Skill (PEKS) within Group On perception of participants’ ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS), both groups had significant gains in scores from preto post-course scor es. The gains were higher for the initial course participants than for the final course participants, but this is to be expected as the means in the final course we re higher to start with and ended higher as well. The learning curve is higher at th e beginning of a program. These results are similar to findings from the pilot test wh ere there was a 46% difference in initial participants’ percepti on of their knowledge and ability to work with ELL students from the preto post-course survey (Smith, 2004). These are the results that are encourag ing to see in methods courses where practical skills are acquired. It is good to see course participants improve in their perception of knowledge and skill in the cour se subject areas signi ficantly, and a course is judged as effective if this is achieved. This study does not provi de empirical evidence of participants’ competence, but it proposed to explore differences in their perception of their knowledge and skill during one semester of course work. The participants affirm clearly that they perceive th eir knowledge and skill to have improved significantly. In

PAGE 104

90 the case of this study, a single course significantly changed participants’ perceptions of their ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS). Discussion of Attitudes toward Inclusion (ATI) within Group ATI scores were stable and similar for both groups and only slightly higher for both the initial and final cour se participants on the post-course survey. These findings are consistent with studies that have not shown any significant ch anges in preservice teachers’ attitudes as a result of courses taken (Agnello & Mittag, 1999; Boger & Boger, 2000; Kagan, 1992; Knudson, 1998; and Schick 1995). In a study of preservice teachers’ beliefs versus practice regard ing ELL literacy instruction, Knudson (1998) conducted a beliefs inventory on 106 student teachers from various majors, concluding that student teachers do not us ually change their dominant theoretical orientation. In another survey of teachers’ attitudes toward diversity, 31 graduate students participated in a preand post-course questionnaire and ther e was no significant change (Schick, 1995). The individual item means within the ATI factor were already on the positive side of the scale at the beginning of the course, so from a practical point of view, there wasn’t much room for improvement with exception to their attitudes toward inclusion of the ELL students with lower language levels These started out much lower and ended comparable to the other attitudinal scores. This differentiation of ELL students by la nguage level is similar to what was found in a study of general and special educa tion pre-service teachers’ attitude toward inclusion. The results of that study seemed to indicate that a singl e course (Survey of Special Education) could significantly change preservice teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities into the general classroom (Shade & Stewart,

PAGE 105

91 2001). Shade and Stewart administered a 48-item inclusion in ventory to general education (n=122) and special education (n =72) majors preand posta showed significance in five out of th e eight sub-scales for both groups. ELL students are not considered disabled, but special accommodations must be made to the lesson delivery in the mainstream classroom in order to a ssist the language lear ner with language development, and at the same time, ensure that the ELL students are learning the same content as the rest of the class. Hypothesis Three: Effectiveness of Methods in ESOL Education Null hypothesis three states that there are no significant differences in the preservice teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of th e specific methods in their ESOL courses. Significance was found for diffe rences in participan ts’ perception of the effectiveness of the specific methods. No studies were found that examined partic ipants’ perception of the effectiveness of specific methods of inst ruction in ESOL education courses. Youngs and Youngs found that ESL training had an over-all impact on participants’ attitudes, but they were unable to identify the most su ccessful type of ESL traini ng (2001). In a review of educational studies on attitudes, Richardson ( 1996) found that most of the studies that reported a change in preservice teachers’ at titudes employed the elements of reflective teaching and/or constructivist approaches, th erefore affirming that instructional methods appear to make a difference. Discussion of PEIM Differences between Courses Although the means were higher for part icipants in course one than for participants in course two regarding the pe rception of the effectiveness of each of the

PAGE 106

92 instructional methods, both courses ranked the individual instructiona l methods similarly, and most of the means were on the positive side of the scale with the exception of readings. Participants in both courses rated the effectiveness of field experience in their ESOL Education highest, readings as the lowe st on the effectiveness scale, and reflective assignments somewhere in the middle. Readings and reflect ive assignments. It is not surprising th at participants express a preference for activities that do not involve reading and writing. The findings in this study are similar to those found by Weisma n and Garza (2002) while looking at preservice teacher attitudes toward diversity on a preand postcourse survey linked to a multicultural education course. They said, Significantly, the activities that were id entified as being least helpful to their growth were often those that re quired more critical examination of their own beliefs and assumptions. For example, journal writing, the supplementary readings, and the film activity were often referred to as redundant and ineffective (p. 32). Milner et al (2003) reco mmended that all teacher education programs should center on reflective assignments. They felt that reflection would lead preservice teachers to self-realization, which in turn would resu lt in serious improvements in their teaching. Research that examined preservice teachers’ reflective writing assignments while taking a university course, concluded that students ’ reflective assignments produced empathy toward English language learners, and the empa thy led to their increased awareness of the ELL students’ classroom presence. In the st udy titled ‘Preparing secondary subject area teachers to teach linguistically and culturally diverse students’, Dong (2004) examined

PAGE 107

93 the reflective work of 26 graduate students enrolled in her Language, Literacy, and Culture in Education course. Through cour se readings, 25 hours of field observation, class discussions, and writing reflections, she concluded that the st udents’ empathy grew toward English language learners in the clas sroom. Dong saw evidence of this growth through her students’ reflective writing. Thes e findings show that although preservice teachers do not perceive readi ng and reflective writing assignments as influential, they may help sustain the positive perceptions toward inclusion. Field experiences. Likewise, it is consistent w ith educational literature that participants ranked field experience the highe st. Research conducted on the effects of field experience has shown its importance in the preservice teachers’ educational experience. Mason (1999), f ound that attitudes can change through well-conceived field experiences. Likewise, Malone conducted a me ta-analysis of the effects of early field experiences on preservice teachers’ attitudes. It pointed to evidence that the most profound differences were found in students w ho were placed in low SES schools (cited by Mason, 1999). In a similar study comparing urban to suburban schools, based on the findings from their study on preservice teachers’ aw areness of multicultu ralism and diversity, Milner et al. (2003) recommend that teach er education programs increase preservice teachers’ opportunities to interact with dive rse groups of students and be exposed to a variety of teaching contexts early in their pr ograms. Florida has the optimal conditions in its diverse population of students to accomp lish this in its K-12 school settings (OMSLE, 2002 LEP Student Statistics).

PAGE 108

94 No conclusions can be made from these resu lts other than that the participants in their initial course ge nerally perceived the methods used as more effective than the participants in their final course. Since thei r attitudes toward thes e instructional methods did not change as a result of the course ( no differences from preto post-EASI), what causes the initial course participants to perceive that these instructional methods have a greater effect on their attitudes toward ES OL education? Do courses taken at the beginning of one’s program of study have a stro nger effect? Future studies can be made on these differences by asking participants in the final course to compare the present course effectiveness with other ones they have taken. Limitations to this Study There are certain limitations to the findi ngs in this study. First, data were collected from only one teacher education colle ge in Florida. The sample population was very diverse, but the findings from this study may not be generalizable to teacher education programs in other parts of the count ry. It may be valuable to compare these data with data collected in other parts of the country. Secondly, these findings are limited to one semester in the experience in the university. This cannot be gene ralized to other semesters wi thout comparing data over a longer period of time. Future studies can follow these particip ants through their educational experiences and compare them with other groups of participants. Thirdly, the experiences of pa rticipants in thei r initial course cannot be directly compared with participants in their final course. These results are limited to understanding better this pa rticular group of particip ants’ perceptions.

PAGE 109

95 Survey Instrument Recommendations The survey instrument was effectiv e in helping to better understand the perceptions of the preservice teachers regard ing the ESOL education program in this college of education. The following changes are recommended to th e survey instrument (EASI): (a) the identification code for each participant coul d be computer-generated based on a few of the questions. This would make it easier to collect descriptive da ta on the post-course survey and compare it by semester, and (b) the section that surveys pe rceptions of course methods can also be expanded to include specific classroom ac tivities that were suggested by participants in this study. Further Studies Data on preservice teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and attitudes should be collected on a continuing basis. Th is is good practice, and this information will be useful for accreditation review purposes. Added to this, the group that was in the initial course should be surveyed again in thei r final course. The results of the two final groups can then be compared for differences. Several other topics for further study have emerged from the results of this study. A qualitative study by major, content analysis of ESOL infusion portfolios of preservice teachers, and a further study of perceptions of course effectiveness would be useful follow-ups to this study. Since no conclusions could be made about differences by major in this study, it would be interesting to conduc t a qualitative examination of differences in perceptions by program of study. A qualitative study would not be impacted by the imbalanced number

PAGE 110

96 of participants in each of the majors. An investigation of differences by program of study could impact how curriculum is further develo ped. Curriculum could be better fitted to each program’s needs. Perceptions of course effectiveness c ould be studied by conducting surveys of student expectations for their ESOL course s. A better understanding of participants’ expectations, and a better understanding on th eir part of the rational and scope of the course could help avoid any mismatch of expectations. An understanding of the quality of preservi ce teachers’ work could be useful to compare with the information about their per ceptions of their skill that was collected in this study. A content analysis of students’ ESOL portfolio would add more information about the quality of the work they are doing and how that matches their perceptions of their ESOL skill and knowledge. Based on research found on influences to preservice teachers’ attitudes, a study can also be conducted using the information on contact with diversity that participants completed with the demographi cal section of the EASI. St atistical tests could explore differences between participants by am ount of contact with diversity. Final Thoughts This study investigated th e perceptions of preservice teachers’ knowledge, skills and attitudes toward working with English language learners in mainstream classrooms during one semester. The results have been revealing and have given tools toward continuing to monitor the educational pr ogram in search of improving preservice teachers’ perceptions toward working with this critical population of students that cannot and should not be left behind as we bold ly step into the twenty-first century.

PAGE 111

97 References Abernathy, T. V. (2002). Using a storybook pr ompt to uncover inservice and preservice teachers’ disposition toward struggling students. The Teacher Educator 38 (2), 78-98. Agnello, M. F., & Mittag, K. C. (1999). Comparing preservice teachers’ attitudes toward diversity: Internship and student teaching experiences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest E ducational Research Association, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED430970). Ariza, E. N., Morales-Jones, C. A., Ya hya, N., & Zainuddin, H. (2002). Why TESOL?: Theories and issues in teaching English as a second language with a K-12 focus, Dubuque, IO: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Bailey, K. M., (1992). The use of diary studi es in teacher education programs. In Richards, J. C., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). Second language and teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 215-226. Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (1998) Undeniable insights: The collaboarative use of three professional development practices. ESOL Quarterly 32 (3), 546556. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-Efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior 4, 71-81. Retrieved March 30, 2005, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/BanEncy.html

PAGE 112

98 BECTA (2004). British Educational Co mmunications and Technology Agency. Retrieved March 30, 2005, from http://www.becta.org.uk/ntss/ ntss.cfm?section=1&id=3381 Blackboard Learning System TM (release 6, 200 5) [Computer software]. United States. Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characterist ics and school learning. New York: McGrawHill Book Company. Boger, C. C., & Boger, D. (2000). Preservi ce teachers’ explanations of their teaching behavior. Journal of Instructional Psychology 27 (4), 217-223. Byrnes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (1994). Langua ge attitudes of teach ers scale (LATS). Educational and Psychological Measurement 54 (2), 227-231. Byrnes, D. A., Kiger, G., & Manning, L. (1996). Social psychological correlates of teachers’ language attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26 (5), 455467. Case, R. (1996). Promoting “global” attitudes. Canadian Social Studies 30 174-177. Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology 2 (1), 22-34. Clair, N. (1995). Mainstream cl assroom teachers and ESL students. ESOL Quarterly 29 189-196. Daniel, L. G., & King, D. A. (1997). Imp act of inclusion ed ucation on academic achievement, student behavior and self-esteem, and parental attitudes. The Journal of Educational Research 91 (2), 67-80.

PAGE 113

99 Derwing, T. M., DeCorby, E., & Ichekawa, J. (1999). Some factors that affect the success of ESL high school students. Canadian Modern Language Review 55 (4), 532-47. Diaz-Rico, L.T., & Weed, K. Z. (2002). The crosscultural, language, and academic development handbook: A complete K-12 re ference guide (2nd Edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Dong, Y. R. (2004). Preparing secondary subjec t area teachers to teach linguistically and culturally diverse students. The Clearing House, 77(5), 202-6. Ellis, R. (1997). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ference, R. A., & Bell, S. (2004). A crosscultural immersion in the U. S.: Changing preservice teacher attitudes to ward latino ESOL students. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37 343-350. Ferreira, M. M. (2000). Ca ring teachers: Adolescents’ perspectives. Wayne State University. (ERIC Document Re production Service No. ED441682). Florez, M. C., (2001). Reflective teaching practice in adult ESL settings. National Center for ESL Literacy Education. ERIC Digest. Retrieved January 30, 2004, from http://www.cal.org/ncle/digests/reflect.htm Florida Department of Educa tion. (1990). ESOL Agreement. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. Retrieve d from http://www.firn.edu/doe/bin00011/. Fueyo, V. (1997). Teaching language-minority students: Using research to inform practice. Equity & Excellence in Education 30 (1), 16-26.

PAGE 114

100 Fueyo, V. with Bechtol, S. (1999, Summe r). Those who can, teach: Reflections on teaching diverse populations. Teacher Education Quarterly Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. London: Longman. Garcia, Eugene. (1999). Stude nt Cultural Diversity: U nderstanding and Meeting the Challenge (2nd Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C., (1981). On the development of the attitude/motivation test battery. Canadian Modern Language Review 37 510-525. Garriott, P. P., Miller, M., & Snyder, L. (2003, Spring). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education: What should teacher educators know? Action in Teacher Education, 25 (1), 48-54. Gonzalez-Mena, J. (2001). Multic ultural issues in child care, (3rd Ed.). London: Mayfield Publishing Company. Grier, J. E. C. (2001). The relationship between teachers’ problem-solving skills and their attitudes towards school inclusion. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International A62/10, 3292. Hoy, A. W. (2000, April). Changes in teacher efficacy dur ing early years of teaching Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Hulstijn, J. H. (2000). The us e of computer technology in e xperimental studies of second language acquisition: A survey of some techniques and some ongoing studies, 3 (2), 32-43.

PAGE 115

101 IHEP – The Institute for Higher Education Po licy. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 3, 2005, from http://www.ihep.org/Pubs/PDF/Difference.pdf Ingersoll, G. M. & Kinman, D. (Winter 2002). Development of a teacher candidate performance self-assess ment instrument. Action in Teacher Education 23(4), 49. Jobe, D., Rust, J. O., & Brissie, J. S. ( 1996). Teacher attitudes toward inclusion of students with disabilities in to regular classrooms. Education 117 148-153. Jordan, M. L. R. (1995). Reflections on the ch allenges, possibilities, and perplexities of preparing preservice teachers for culturally diverse classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education 46 (5), 369-374. Jussim, L. (1989). Teacher expectations: Self -fulfilling prophecies, perceptual biases, and accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (3), 469-480. Kagan, D. M. (1992, Summer). Professiona l growth among pres ervice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research 62(2), 129-169. Kagan, D. M. (1993). Contexts for the use of classroom cases. American Educational Research Journal 30 (4), 703-723. Kennedy, H.L., & Parks, J. (2000). Asse ssing preservice teachers’: developing and implementing a model. Contemporary Education 71 (2), 42-50. Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

PAGE 116

102 Kirk, R. (Mar. 1998). The link between unive rsity course work a nd preservice teachers’ attitudes toward students with special learning needs. College Student Journal 32 (1), 153-160. Knudson, R. E. (1998). The relationship be tween preservice teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy in struction for non-native speakers of English. California State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED418074). Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisiti on and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. D., Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: langua ge acquisition in the classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Alemany Press. Layzer, C. (2000). Who’s afraid of bilingual le arners? The role of teachers’ attitudes and beliefs. Paper presented at the Annual Spring Conference of the National Council of Teachers of English. New York. (ERI C Document Reproduction Service No. ED440386). Lee, I. (2004, summer). Using dialogue journals as a multi-purpose tool for preservice teacher preparation: How effective is it? Teacher Education Quarterly 31 (3), 7397. Leistyna, P. (2004, winter). Presence of mind in the pro cess of learning and knowing: A dialogue with Paulo Freire. Teacher Education Quarterly 31 (1), 17-29. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Natu ralistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

PAGE 117

103 Linek, W. M., Nelson, O. C., & Sampson, M. B. (1999). Developing beliefs about literacy instruction: a cross-case analysis of preservice teachers in traditional and field based settings. Reading Research and Instruction 30 (4), 371-86. Lowell Dansby, V.A. (2000). An assessment of preservice physical education majors’ attitudes toward movement education. The Physical Educator 57 (2), 99-105. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. SSLA 19 37-66. Major, E. M., & Brock, C. H. (2003). Fost ering positive dispositions toward diversity: Dialogical explorations of a moral dilemma. Teacher Education Quarterly 30 (4), 7-26. Markham, P. L., Green, S. B., & Ross, M. E. (1996). Identification of stressors and coping strategies of ESL/bilingual, sp ecial education, and regular education teachers. The Modern Language Journal 80 141-50. Masgoret, A. –M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003) Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning 53 (1), 123-63. Mason, T. C. (1999). Prospective teachers’ at titudes toward urban schools: can they be changed? Multicultural Education 6 (4), 9-13. McAlister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2000, Spring). Cross Cultural Competency and Multicultural Teacher Education. Review of Education Research 3-25. Meeks, G. B. (1992). Receptivity to globa l education instrument. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED352290).

PAGE 118

104 Milner, H. R., Flowers, L. A., Moore Jr., E., Moore III, J. L., & Flowers, T. A., (2003). Preservice teachers’ awareness of Multiculturalism and diversity. The High School Journal 87(1), 63-70. Minor, J. (2003). Incorporating servi ce learning into ESOL programs. ESOL Journal 11(4), 10-14. Monahan, R. G., Mariano, S. B., & Miller, R. (1996). Teacher attitudes toward inclusion: implications for teach er education in schools 2000. Education 117 316-320. Montecinos, C. & Rios, F. A. (1999). Asse ssing preservice teachers’ zones of concern and comfort with multicultural education. Teacher Education Quarterly Summer, 7-22. Mukhopadhyay, C. & Henze, R. C. (May 2003). How real is race? in Schultz, Fred, Ed. (2004). Annual Editions, Multicultural Education 04/05 Eleventh ed., Gilford, CT: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 669-78. NCATE (2001). Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education, National C ouncil for Accreditation of Teacher Education, University of Virginia Retrieved April 5, 2005, from http://www.ncate.org/2000/2000stds.pdf Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education, (3rd Ed.). New York: Longman. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theo ry. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Nutta, J. (March 2000). Preparing Florida teachers to work with limited English proficient students: ESOL generic folio. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.

PAGE 119

105 Oller, J. W., Baca, L., & Vigil, F. (1977). Attitudes and attained proficiency in ESL: A sociolinguistic study of Mexican Americans in the Southwest. ESOL Quarterly 11 173-83. OMSLE – Office of Multicultural Student La nguage Education (2002). Annual status report on the implementation of the consent decree in the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), et al. v. St ate Board of Education: State Synopsis, Retrieved February 13, 2004, from http://www.firn.edu/doe/omsle/ 0001esol/files/0001esolstate.pdf Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2004, Spri ng). Brown v. board: Where are we now? Teaching Tolerance Magazine 25 retrieved February 13, 2004, from http://www.tolerance.org/teach/expa nd/mag/features.jsp?p=0&is=34&ar=489 Oxford, R. L., Rivera-Castillo, Y., Feyten, C ., & Nutta, J. (1998). Computers and more: Creative uses of technology for learning a second or foreign language. INSA de Lyon, Retrieved March 3, 1998, from http://www.insa-lyon.fr/Depart ements/CDRL/computers.html Rademacher, J.A., Wilhelm, R.W., & Hildre th, B.L. (1998). A study of preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. The Educational Forum 62 ,154-63. Reinke, K. & Moseley, C. (2002). The effect s of teacher education on elementary and secondary preservice teachers’ beliefs a bout integration: a longitudinal study. Action in Teacher Education 24 (1), 31-9. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in le arning to teach. Sikula, J. editor. Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd Edition). New York: Macmillan.

PAGE 120

106 Richert, A. E. (1990). Teaching teachers to reflect: a consideration of programme structure. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22 (6), 509-527. Rockhill, K., & Tomic, P. (1995). Situating ESL between speech and silence. In Gaskell, J., & Willinsky, J. (Ed.), Gender in/forms curriculum: From enrichment to transformation (pp. 209-229). New York: Teachers College Press. Roos, M., Kocel, K., & Islam, C. (1995). Th e influence of early field experiences on the attitudes of preservice teachers. Pa per presented at: Thirty-ninth Annual Conference of the College of Readi ng Association, Clearwater, Florida, November 3, 1995. Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant di fference phenomenon. Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina State University. Ryan, J. (2003). Leading diverse schools. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Salend, S. J. (2001). Creating in clusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices, 4th Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Merrill Prentice Hall. Sankaran, S. R., Sankaran, D., & Bui, T. X. (2000) Effect of student attitude to course format on learning performance: An empirical study in web vs. lecture instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology 27 (1), 66-73. Schick, J., & Boothe, D. (1995). Survey of teachers’ attitudes toward diversity: A pilot study. (ERIC Document Reproduc tion Service No. ED381515). Schmidt, P. R. (1998). The ABC’s of Cultural Understanding and Communication. Equity & Excellence in Education 31 (2) 28-38. Sears, S., Cavallaro, C., & Hall, S. (2004) Quality early field experiences for undergraduates. Teacher Education and Special Education 27 (1), 75-79.

PAGE 121

107 Seelye, H. N. (1997). Teaching culture: stra tegies for intercultural communication. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Shade, R.A. & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure 46 (1), 37-41. Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. S. C. (1989) The Oxford English Dictionary, (Second Edition). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Smith, P.C. (2004). Preservice teache rs’ attitudes toward ESL students. Academic Exchange Quarterly Spring, 8 (1). Solorzano, R. W., & Solorzano, D. G. ( 1999, Summer). Beginning teacher standards: Impact on second-language learners and im plications for teacher preparation. Teacher Educational Quarterly 37-70. Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivari ate statistics for the social sciences, (4th Ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Terrill, M. M., & Mark, D. L. H. (2000). Preservice Teachers’ Expectations for Schools With Children of Color and Second-Language Learners. Journal of Teacher Education 51 (2), 149-155. University of South Florida. Educator Accomplished Practices Retrieved February 13, 2005, from http://www.coedu.usf.edu/ap/12.htm Van Hook, C.W. (2002). Preservi ce teachers’ perceived barriers to the implementation of a multicultural curriculum. Journal of Instructional Psychology 29 (4), 254-64. Van Reusen, A. K., Shoho, A. R., & Barker K. S. (2000/2001). High school teacher attitudes toward inclusion. The High School Journal 84 (2), 7-20.

PAGE 122

108 Walker, L. (1992, November). Perceptions of preservice teacher efficacy Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Knoxville, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED354230). Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Comput ers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71. Weisman, E. M., and Garza, L. A. (2002). Pr eservice teacher attitude s toward diversity: Can one class make a difference? Equity & Excellence in Education 35 (1), 2834. Wenzlaff, T. L. (1998). Dispos itions and portfolio developm ent: Is there a connection? Education, 118 (4), 564-72. Wiggins, R. A., & Follo, E. J. (1999). De velopment of knowledge, attitudes, and commitment to teach di verse student populations, Journal of Teacher Education 50 (2), 94-105. Willig, A. C. & Le, C. eds. (1996). Empower ing ESOL Teachers: An overview, Volume II, (Revised Edition). Developed by the Florida Atlantic University Multifunctional Resource Center, For the Florida Department of Education. Wilson-Patton, M.E. (2000). A legal study of the Floridan ESOLConsent Decree: From initiation through fifth year implementati on, Volume 1. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International A61 1719. Wilson, S. (1989). A case concerning content: Using case studies to teach subject matter. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San Francisco, March 1989.

PAGE 123

109 Xu, H. (2000). Preservice Teachers Integrate Understandings of Diversity Into Literacy Instruction: An Adaptation of the ABC’s Model. Journal of Teacher Education 51 (2), 135-142. Youngs, C. S., & Youngs G. A., Jr. (2001). Pred ictors of mainstream teachers’ attitudes toward ESL students. ESOL Quarterly 35 (1), 97-120.

PAGE 124

110 Appendices

PAGE 125

111 Appendix A: Initial ESOL Course Syllabus COLLEGE OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENTAL COURSE SYLLABUS Required elements of the departmental syllabus: 1. Course Prefix and Number : FLE 4362 2. Course Title : ESOL 1 – Curriculum and Pedagogy of ESOL 3. Course Coordinator(s): Phil Smith 4. Course Prerequisites (if any) : None 5. Course Description : This course is designed to prepare preprofessional (pre-service) teachers to provide linguistically and culturally appropriate instruction, learning opportunities and assessment for English Language Learners (ELLs) in grades K12. 6. Course Goals and Objectives : This course presents an overview of English Language Learners’ rights and policies, and the five subject areas pertinent to teaching English Language Learners:, Cross-Cultural Communica tion and Understanding, Applied Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, Methods in Teaching English as a Second Language, Curriculum Development and Adaptation, and Language Assessment. These five subject areas, whic h are the focus of the course modules, promote the understanding of first and second language acquisition processes, facilitate the development of cultur ally and linguistically appropriate instructional and assessment skills, and present effective means for modifying curricula. More detailed goals and object ives for each of these subject areas are given below. 1.0 Develop an understanding for the need for training to work with LEP students, i.e. the demographic, sociocultural, legal and pedagogical reasons

PAGE 126

112 Appendix A: (Continued) 2.0 Develop cultural awareness in order to understand better the influences of various aspects of culture on teaching and learning and understand the influence that home, school, and communi ty relationships have on academic achievement and school adjustment of LEP students 3.0 Synthesize and articulate how principl es of second language acquisition research in bilingual education fram e and support inclusive instructional practices 4.0 Understand and implement methods of English language development to use with all levels of En glish language learners. 5.0 Develop instructional strategies that integrate language and curricular content learning 6.0 Understand the role, function and types of assessment in the education of LEP students 7. Content Outline : Providing Equal Education Opportunity for the LEP Student: National and State Efforts 1.1 Demographic changes into the 21st century and their implications 1.2 Rationale for providing services to the LEP student 1.3 International efforts in providing equi table education for minority second language populations 1.4 National efforts in providing equal ed ucation opportunities for LEP students 1.5 Florida’s efforts in providing equal ed ucation opportunities for LEP students 1.6 Examples of programs designed to meet the needs of LEP students (national and state) as they are situated within social and political contexts of language policy 1.7 Examples of national and state or ganizations, which support ESOL Developing Cultural Awareness in order to Bridge Home/Community/School Gap 2.1 Stages of cultural adjustment 2.2 Stereotypes and other preconceived ideas concerning cultures and cultural characteristics 2.3 Factors that influence LEP pare nt involvement in the school

PAGE 127

113 Appendix A: (Continued) 2.4 Strategies and activities that promote pa rent, school and community relationships in the classroom 2.5 Culturally responsive pedagogy Second Language Acquisition Issues 3.1 Approaches to Language Acquisition 3.2 Literacy processing and schema building 3.3 Literacy levels and multiple literacies 3.4 Proficiency scales and assessment 3.5 Communicative Competence & Literacy 3.6 BICS & CALP and Cummins’ Quadrants 3.7 Technology assisted second language acquisition Methods of English Language Development 4.1 Historical methods of English language development Instruction 4.2 ESL goals and standards 4.3 ESL strategies in content areas 4.4 Whole language techniques 4.5 Cooperative learning strategies 4.6 English language devel opment through technology Content Area Instruction 6.1 Promoting literacy in the classroom 6.2 The SDAIE Model 6.3 Teaching learning strategies 6.4 Approaches to teaching multicultural content 6.5 Integrating higher order thinking sk ills for English language learners 6.6 Content area application 6.7 Technology in the classroom

PAGE 128

114 Appendix A: (Continued) Assessing LEP Students and M onitoring Student Progress 5.1 Cultural nature of assessment 5.2 Types of assessment and assessment characteristics 5.3 Alternative approaches to assessment 5.4 Monitoring student progress 5.5 Assessment of LEP oral language output using SOLOM (Student Oral Language Observation Matrix) 8. Evaluation of Student Outcomes : All modules of this course include evaluati on activities to support th e application of the knowledge and skills needed for effec tive teaching of LEP students. Campus Class LFAD Class The evaluation/assessment activities are: (a) Quizzes/Reading Checks on assigned readings (b) Performance tests (c) Case study and other assigned activities -Cultural awareness tasks -SOLOM -Language Learning Interview (d) Lesson Planning Modification -Methods Demonstration (e) Resource portfolio -field experience -reflection of overall field experience The evaluation/assessment activities: (a) Reaction Papers to Assigned Readings and Performance Checks (b) Performance Tests (c) Case study and other assigned activities -Cultural awareness tasks -SOLOM -Language Learning Interview (d) Lesson Planning -Methods Demonstration (e) Resource portfolio -field experience -reflection of overall field experience

PAGE 129

115 Appendix A: (Continued) 9. Grading Criteria : Campus Classes LFAD Class The final grade will be based on the following categories and weights: a. Quizzes on assigned readings 10% b. Field experience and related Assignments 30% c. ESOL Comprehensive Exam 20% d. Case study 10% e. Lesson planning and methods 25% f. Resource portfolio 5% Grades will be assigned using the following standard: A= 90 or better B = 80-89 C = 7079 D = 60 – 69 F = 59 or lower The final grade will be based on the following categories and weights: a. Quizzes on assigned readings 10% b. Field experience and related Assignments 30% c. ESOL Comprehensive Exam 20% d. Case study 10% e. Lesson planning and methods 25% f. Resource portfolio 5% Grades will be assigned using the following standard: A= 90 or better B = 80-89 C = 7079 D = 60 – 69 F = 59 or lower 10. Textbook(s) and Readings : A. Campus class – Diaz-Rico and Weed. (2 002). “The Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Development Handbook” 2nd Edition. B. LFAD class – Diaz-Rico and Weed. (2002). “The Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Development Handbook” 2nd Edition.

PAGE 130

116 Appendix B: Final ESOL Course Syllabus COLLEGE OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENTAL COURSE SYLLABUS Required elements of the departmental syllabus: 1. Course Prefix and Number : FLE 4364 2. Course Title : ESOL 3 – Applying Linguistics to ESOL Teaching and Testing 3. Regular Instructor(s) : Michelle Macy 4. Course Prerequisites (if any) : ESOL 1 & 2 5. Course Description : This course provides an overview of the compone nts of language, linking them to methods and techniques of providing comprehensible instruc tion to English Language Learners (ELLs). Designed for preservice and inservice teachers, this course supports the development of professional literacy skills geared toward appropria te pedagogical practices for the instruction of ELL students in the United States. 6. Course Goals and Objectives : 1. Students will demonstrate comprehension of the subfields of Linguistics by defining, describing and applying to social and classroom contexts the disciplines of: Phonetics Phonology Morphology Semantics Syntax Discourse and Text Analysis Pragmatics 2. Students will apply their comprehension of the subfields of Linguistics through: Analyzing authentic oral and written language of LEP students (from videotaped and/or audiotaped oral samples and samples of student writing) in class Developing a case study describing an LEP student's linguistic competence

PAGE 131

117 Appendix B: (Continued) Students will apply their knowledge of Lingui stics to developing, implementing, and evaluating appropriate instruction through: Developing lesson plans and assessment measures for a variety of topics with appropriate instructional modifications for LEP students Developing a case study describing an LEP st udent's English language and literacy development, and American cultural competency 7. Content Outline : Sociolinguistics Language use across America Language as a social, economic and political tool Code switching and transfer Language Components Phonology What is phonology? The sounds of American English Sociolinguistics and phonology Learned pronunciations Chosen pronunciations LEP phonological characteristics and samples Non-L1 factors that impact phonological production Implications for oral production and assessment thereof Implications for written production and assessment thereof Teaching Direct instruction Lesson planning Morphology What is morphology? The morpheme types in English Sociolinguistics and morphemes Learned usage Chosen usage LEP morphological usage, knowledge, avoidance and samples L1 & L2 morpheme acquisition order studies Implications for oral production and assessment thereof Implications for written production and assessment thereof

PAGE 132

118 Appendix B: (Continued) Teaching Direct instruction Lesson planning Semantics What is semantics? English words – denotations & connotations Sociolinguistics and semantics Regional/dialectical variations in use LEP semantic usage, knowledge, avoidance and samples Nuance issues L1 transfer issues (inappropr iate matching & false cognates) Phrasal verbs and othe r English difficulties Implications for oral production and assessment thereof Implications for written production and assessment thereof Teaching Direct instruction Lesson planning Syntax What is syntax? Word order in English Sociolinguistics and syntax Learned orders Chosen orders LEP syntactic characteristics and samples L1 factors that impact syntactic production Implications for oral production and assessment thereof Implications for written production and assessment thereof Teaching Direct instruction Lesson planning Oral & Written Discourse What is oral discourse? What is written discourse? Features of U.S. English discourse. Sociolinguistics and discourse LEP discourse features and samples

PAGE 133

119 Appendix B: (Continued) L1 factors that impact discourse production Implications for oral production and assessment thereof Implications for written production and assessment thereof Teaching Direct instruction Lesson planning Pragmatics What is pragmatics? Native-like pragmatics in American cultural contexts Sociolinguistics and pragmatics Learned pragmatics x context Chosen pragmatics x context LEP pragmatic characteristics and samples L1 cultural factors that impact pragmatic proficiency Implications for stereotyping and prejudice Implications for oral production and assessment thereof Implications for written production and assessment thereof Teaching Direct instruction Lesson planning Differences & Exceptionalities Native Speaker Production Errors Production Errors Anticipations Preservations Metathesis Additions and omissions Malpropisms Perception Errors Native Speaker Differences Accent regional Usage

PAGE 134

120 Appendix B: (Continued) Native Speaker Atypical Language Development Hearing impairments Visual impairments Other physical impairments Dyslexia/Dysphasia Aphasias Additional complications Stutters Autism/ linguistic savants Non-Native Speaker Production Errors Mistakes Errors Proficiency level, Deve lopment & Interlanguage Non-Native Speaker Differences Accent international Usage Non-Native Speaker Atypical Language Development Distinguishing speaker differences fro m physical and psycho/neurological exceptionalities Procedures for assessment Procedures for IEPs ESOL methods/strategie s and exceptionalities 3. Application Language knowledge as a tool in the classroom Identifying native and non-native elements of LEP student language production Evaluating native and non-native el ements of LEP student language production Developing appropriate instructional interventions Developing appropriate instructional tools Developing appropriate instructional plans Developing appropriate instructional assessments

PAGE 135

121 Appendix B: (Continued) 8. Evaluation of Student Outcomes : All readings, activities, and a ssignments of this course are filled with numerous varied evaluation activities to support mastery of the knowledge and skills needed for effective teaching of LEP students. Campus Class Distance Learning Class The evaluation/assessment activities are: (a) Profile and Analysis of LEP students’ linguistic development Student profile and introduction Phonetic description and phonological patterns Morphological and semantic description Syntax and discourse Pragmatic and sociocultural competence Literacy development AP 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11; COECF 1, 2, 4, 5, 6; ESOL 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 (b) Weekly Quizzes (c) Tests (d) Professional Resource Folder (e) ESOL Lesson Plans for a minimum of one week of instruction (lesson plans for the mainstream class with ESOL appropriate modifications) & Rationale for Approach, Methods, and Techniques Used AP 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10; COECF 1, 2, 4, 5, 6; ESOL 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24 The evaluation/assessment activities are: (a) Profile and Analysis of LEP students’ linguistic development Student profile and introduction Phonetic description and phonological patterns Morphological and semantic description Syntax and discourse Pragmatic and sociocultural competence Literacy development AP 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11; COECF 1, 2, 4, 5, 6; ESOL 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 (b) Weekly Quizzes (c) Tests (d) Professional Resource Folder (e) ESOL Lesson Plans for a minimum of one week of instruction (lesson plans for the mainstream class with ESOL appropriate modifications) & Rationale for Approach, Methods, and Techniques Used AP 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10; COECF 1, 2, 4, 5, 6; ESOL 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24

PAGE 136

122 Appendix B: (Continued) 9. Grading Criteria : Campus Classes Distance Learning Class The final grade will be based on the following categories and weights: (a) Profile & Analysis of an LEP student's linguistic development--25% (b) Weekly Quizzes--10% (c) Tests-30% (d) ESOL Folder—5% (e) ESOL Lesson Plans & Rationale for Approach, Methods, and Techniques Used--30% Grades will be assigned using the following standard: A= 90 or better B = 80-89 C = 7079 D = 60 –69 F = 59 or lower The final grade will be based on the following categories and weights: (a) Profile & Analysis of an LEP student's linguistic development--25% (b) Weekly Quizzes--5% (c) Tests-30% (d) ESOL Folder—5% (e) ESOL Lesson Plans & Rationale for Approach, Methods, and Techniques Used--30% (f) On-line participation-5% Grades will be assigned using the following standard: A= 90 or better B = 80-89 C = 7079 D = 60 –69 F = 59 or lower 10. Textbook(s) and Readings : Ariza, E. N.; Morales-Jones, C. A.; Yahya, N., & Zainuddin, H. (2002). Why ESOL? Theories and issues in teaching English as a second language. 2nd Edition. ESOL 3 Course Packet containing blank rubrics (ProCopy)

PAGE 137

123 Appendix C: ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument – Pre-Course Survey EASI ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument 1. What course are you presently enrolled in? FLE 4315 FLE 4316 ESOL 1 ESOL 3 N/A 6. Educational Major: Elementary Ed. Early Childhood Ed. Special Ed. English Ed. For. Lang. Ed. Other 7. Is English your home language? yes no 8. Are you bilingual? yes no 9. Course delivery mode: On Campus Distance learning 10. Was this your preference? Yes No

PAGE 138

124 Appendix C: (Continued) 12. Approximately how many hours have you spent wo rking directly with ESOL students prior to this course? .......... ESOL Content Knowledge In this set of questions, please reflect on your knowledge about the following ESOL content (not your skill): I know hardly anything about... I know a little about... I know generally about... I know a lot about...

PAGE 139

125 Appendix C: (Continued) 1 Policies and rights of ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 2 Cultural awareness. 1 2 3 4 3 Second language acquisition. 1 2 3 4 4 Methods of teaching ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 5 Adaptation of content instruction for ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 6 Alternative assessment for ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 Meeting the educational needs of: I know hardly anything about... I know a little about... I know generally about... I know a lot about... 7 ..... Pre-production (level 1) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 8 ..... Early-production (level 2) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 9 ..... Speech-emergent (level 3) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 10 ..... Intermediate-fluency (level 4) ESOL students 1 2 3 4 .......... ESOL Skills: In this set of questions, please ref lect on your ESOL skills, (ability to work with ESOL students). Please rate your level of skill in the following ESOL content areas: .......... I have hardly any skill in... I have a little skill in... I am generally skilled in... I have a lot of skill in...

PAGE 140

126 Appendix C: (Continued) 14 Using a variety of methods to teach content classes. 1 2 3 4 15 Setting language objectives in my content classes. 1 2 3 4 12 Responding appropriately to culturally diverse learners. 1 2 3 4 13 Working with people who do not speak English very well. 1 2 3 4 16 Assessing what ESOL students can do in my content classes, taking language demands into consideration. 1 2 3 4 11 Complying with the state policies and practices for teaching ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 Meeting the language, cultural, and content matter needs of the ESOL students at the following levels of language proficiency: I have hardly any skill in... I have a little skill in... I am generally skilled in... I have a lot of skill in... 17 .....Pre-production (level 1) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 18 .....Early-production (level 2) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 19 .....Speech-emergent (level 3) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 20 .....Intermediate-fluency (level 4) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 .......... Please answer how much you ag ree with the following statements about your feelings toward ESOL inclusion, that is: mainstreaming all ESOL students in regular classrooms. ......... These statements relate to the de g ree to which you feel there is a benefit to ESOL inclusion. I hardly or don't agree I agree a little I somewhat agree I mostly agree

PAGE 141

127 Appendix C: (Continued) 21 I think ESOL education will benefit my over-all teaching. 1 2 3 4 22 Knowing a second language is more of a benefit for ESOL students than a problem. 1 2 3 4 23 All students benefit from having ESOL students in their mainstream classrooms. 1 2 3 4 These statements relate to the de g ree to which you feel support for ESOL inclusion. I hardly or don't agree I agree a little I somewhat agree I mostly agree 24 I think all teachers should have ESOL training. 1 2 3 4 25 I support having ESOL students in all mainstream classes. 1 2 3 4 26 ESOL education is important to me. 1 2 3 4 Mainstreaming is the best way to educate ESOL students at the various langugage production levels: I hardly or don't agree I agree a little I somewhat agree I mostly agree 27 .....Pre-production (level 1) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 28 .....Early-production (level 2) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 29 .....Speech-emergent (level 3) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 30 .....Intermediate-fluency (level 4) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 ......... Please rate what you predict the effectiveness of specific components of this course will be in influencing your attitudes and feelings about ESOL education: ......... Minimally Somewhat Quite Extremely

PAGE 142

128 Appendix C: (Continued) Please rate how you feel each of the following course components will influence your attitudes and feelings about ESOL education: influential. influential influential influential 31 reflective assignments 1 2 3 4 32 field experience 1 2 3 4 33 case study work 1 2 3 4 34 activities/ discussions 1 2 3 4 35 Readings 1 2 3 4 41 other 1 2 3 4 ......... Approximately how many non-ESOL courses have you taken in your program that have included ESOL content? .......... Please rate how each of the following course components of ESOL-infused courses have influenced your attitudes and feelings about ESOL education: Minimally influential. Somewhat influential Quite influentia Extremely influential 36 reflective assignments 1 2 3 4 37 field experience 1 2 3 4 38 case study work 1 2 3 4 39 activities/ discussions 1 2 3 4 40 Readings 1 2 3 4 42 other 1 2 3 4

PAGE 143

129 Appendix D: ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument – Post-Course Survey EASI ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument General Questions: .......... ESOL Content Knowledge In this set of questions, please reflect on your knowledge about the following ESOL content (not your skill): I know hardly anything about... I know a little about... I know generally about... I know a lot about... 1 Policies and rights of ESOL students. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 144

130 Appendix D: (Continued) 2 Cultural awareness. 1 2 3 4 3 Second language acquisition. 1 2 3 4 4 Methods of teaching ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 5 Adaptation of content instruction for ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 6 Alternative assessment for ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 Meeting the educational needs of: I know hardly anything about... I know a little about... I know generally about... I know a lot about... 7 ..... Pre-production (level 1) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 8 ..... Early-production (level 2) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 9 ..... Speech-emergent (level 3) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 10 ..... Intermediate-fluency (level 4) ESOL students 1 2 3 4 .......... ESOL Skills: In this set of questions, please reflect on your ESOL skills, (ability to work with ESOL students). Please rate your leve l of skill in the following ESOL content areas: .......... I have hardly any skill in... I have a little skill in... I am generally skilled in... I have a lot of skill in... 14 Using a variety of methods to teach content classes. 1 2 3 4 15 Setting language objectives in my content classes. 1 2 3 4 12 Responding appropriately to culturally diverse learners. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 145

131 Appendix D: (Continued) 13 Working with people who do not speak English very well. 1 2 3 4 16 Assessing what ESOL students can do in my content classes, taking language demands into consideration. 1 2 3 4 11 Complying with the state policies and practices for teaching ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 Meeting the language, cultural, and content matter needs of the ESOL students at the following levels of language proficiency: I have hardly any skill in... I have a little skill in... I am generally skilled in... I have a lot of skill in... 17 ..... Pre-production (level 1) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 18 ..... Early-production (level 2) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 19 ..... Speech-emergent (level 3) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 20 ..... Intermediate-fluency (level 4) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 .......... Please answer how much you agree with the following statements about your feelings toward ESOL inclusion, that is: mainstream ing all ESOL students in regular classrooms. .......... These statements relate to the degree to which you feel there is a benefit to ESOL inclusion. I hardly or don't agreeI agree a little I somewhat agree I mostly agree21 I think ESOL education will benefit my over-all teaching. 1 2 3 4 22 Knowing a second language is more of a benefit for ESOL students than a problem. 1 2 3 4 23 All students benefit from having ESOL students in their mainstream classrooms. 1 2 3 4 These statements relate to the de g ree to which y ou feel support for ESOL inclusion. I hardly or don't agreeI agree a little I somewhat agree I mostly agree

PAGE 146

132 Appendix D: (Continued) 24 I think all teachers should have ESOL training. 1 2 3 4 25 I support having ESOL students in all mainstream classes. 1 2 3 4 26 ESOL education is important to me. 1 2 3 4 Mainstreaming is the best way to educate ESOL students at the various language production levels: I hardly or don't agreeI agree a little I somewhat agree I mostly agree27 ..... Pre-production (level 1) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 28 ..... Early-production (level 2) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 29 ..... Speech-emergent (level 3) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 30 ..... Intermediate-fluency (level 4) ESOL students. 1 2 3 4 .......... Please rate the effectiveness of specific comp onents of this course in influencing your attitudes and feelings about ESOL education: .......... Please rate how you feel each of the following course components has influenced your attitudes and feelings about ESOL education: Minimally influential. Somewhat influential Quite influential Extremely influential 31 reflective assignments 1 2 3 4 32 field experience 1 2 3 4 33 case study work 1 2 3 4 34 activities/ discussions 1 2 3 4

PAGE 147

133 Appendix D: (Continued) 35 Readings 1 2 3 4 41 other 1 2 3 4 .......... ESOL-Infused Courses: Approximately how many other courses have you taken, other than your ESOL courses, that have included ESOL content ? .......... Please rate how each of the following course components of the ESOL-infused course has influenced your attitudes and feelings about ESOL education: Minimally influential. Somewhat influential Quite influential Extremely influential 36 reflective assignments 1 2 3 4 37 field experience 1 2 3 4 38 case study work 1 2 3 4 39 activities/ discussions 1 2 3 4 40 Readings 1 2 3 4 42 other 1 2 3 4

PAGE 148

134 Appendix E Florida ESOL Performance Standards Standard 1: Conduct ESOL programs within the parameters, goals, and stipulations of the Florida Consent Decree. Standard 2: Recognize the major differences and similarities between the different cultural groups in the United States Standard 3: Identify, expose, and reexamine cu ltural stereotypes relating to LEP and non-LEP students Standard 4: Use knowledge of th e cultural characteristics of Flor ida’s LEP population to enhance instruction Standard 5: Determine and use appropriate instructional methods and strategies for individuals and groups, using knowledge of first and second language acquisition processes Standard 6: Apply current and effective ESOL teaching methodologies in planning and delivering instruction to LEP students Standard 7: Locate and acquire relevant resources in ESOL methodologies. Standard 8: Select and develo p appropriate ESOL content acco rding to student levels of proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, taking in to account: (1) basi c interpersonal communication skills (BICS), and (2) cognitive acad emic language proficiency (CALP) as they apply to the ESOL curriculum. Standard 9: Develop experiential and interactive literacy activities for LEP students, using current information on linguistics and cognitive processes Standard 10: Analyze student language and determine appropriate instructional strategies, using knowledge of phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and discourse. Standard 11: Apply essential strategies for develo ping and integrating the four language skills of listening comprehension, oral communication, reading, and writing Standard 12: Apply content-based ESOL approaches to instruction Standard 13: Evaluate, design, and employ instructional methods and techniques appropriate to learners’ socialization and comm unication needs, based on knowledge of language as a social phenomenon Standard 14: Plan and evaluate instructional outcomes, recognizing the effects of race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and religion on the results Standard 15: Evaluate, select, and employ appropriate instructional materials, media, and technology for ESOL at the elementary, middle, and high school levels Standard 16: Design and implement effective unit plans and daily lesson plans, which meet the needs of ESOL students within th e context of the regular classroom

PAGE 149

135 Appendix E: (Continued) Standard 17: Evaluate, adapt, and employ appr opriate instructional materials, media, and technology for ESOL in the content areas at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Standard 18: Create a positive cla ssroom environment to accommodate the various learning styles and cultural backgrounds of students Standard 19: Consider current trends and issues related to the testing of linguistic and culturally diverse students when using testing instruments and techniques Standard 20: Administer tests and interpret test results, applying basic measurement concepts Standard 21: Use formal and alternative methods of assessment/evaluation of LEP students, including measurement of language, liter acy and academic content metacognition. Standard 22: Develop and implement strategies for using school, neighborhood, and home resources in the ESOL curriculum Standard 23: Identify major attitudes of local target groups toward school, teachers, discipline, and education in general that may lead to misinterpretation by school personnel; reduce cross-cultural barriers between students, parents, and the school setting. Standard 24: Develop, implement, and evaluate instructional programs in ESOL, based on current trends in research and practice. Standard 25: Recognize indicators of learning disabilities, especially hearing and language impairment, and limited English proficiency.

PAGE 150

136 Appendix F: ESOL Infusion Letter ESOL Requirements Information Undergraduate Early Childhood and Elementary Education Students Admitted Fall 2002 or Later The administration, faculty, and staff are co mmitted to preparing College of Education (COE) students to excel in teaching children fr om all cultural and linguistic backgrounds. In Florida there are hundreds of thousands of K-12 students who are in English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) progr ams, and the Florida Department of Education (FL DOE) requires that every grad uate of a teacher certification program complete coursework and other requirements to prepare them for teaching ESOL students. The requirements are as follows: ESOL Endorsement Required Language Arts Teachers—5 Areas: NO ESOL ENDORSEMENT REQUIRED Other Teachers: Early Childhood Math Elementary Science English Social Studies Foreign Language Physical Education Special Education Computer Education Art Music Theater Reading Business Education Future teachers of subjects other than Langua ge Arts take one course, FLE 4365, to meet the state requirements. Future Language Ar ts teachers are require d to obtain the ESOL Endorsement (a form of an add-on certific ate) and have two op tions to meet this requirement: 1) they may take 5 courses (15 credits) in ESOL Education (see http://www.coedu.usf.edu/esol for information on this option); OR 2) they may complete the requirements for the ESOL Endorsement Through Infusion option. Special Note: Undergraduate Elementary and Early Childhood students who were admitted to their programs prior to Fall 2002 follow the same requirements as the undergraduate Special Education students. Th ese students may elect to take ESOL II in lieu of the ESOL binder requirement.

PAGE 151

137 Appendix F: (Continued) ESOL ENDORSEMENT THROUGH INFUSION—3 Course Model The following information applies only to unde rgraduate students in Early Childhood and Elementary Education who entered the program fall 2002 or later. The ESOL Endorsement Through Infusion optio n is a special program approved by the Florida Department of Educati on that allows students to ta ke 9 credits of ESOL courses (currently all courses have a temporar y number—EDG 4909, with the title ESOL 1, ESOL 2, and ESOL 3) and complete other ESOL requirements that ta ke the place of the remaining 6 credits of coursework. USF is proud to be the first ESOL Endorsement through Infusion program in the state of Florid a that has received approval for all 5 areas that can obtain the ESOL Endorsement. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OF ESOL ENDORSEMENT THROUGH INFUSION When students in any of the 5 Language Arts areas obtain their degree, they are eligible for certification in their area (e.g., Elementa ry Education) as well as the ESOL Endorsement. Because the ESOL Endorsement through Infusion option waives 6 credits of coursework, the Florida Department of Education requires documentation proving that each student has met the same standards as if s/he completed the 5 ESOL Education courses. In addition to completing ESOL I, ESOL II, and ESOL III, each student is expected to complete the following: 1) An ESOL folder that includes assignment s from the three ESOL courses and signoff sheets for ESOL-related assignments in most of the courses taken as part of the major; 2) An early field experience with ESOL students; 3) A late field experience (or inte rnship) with ESOL students; 4) A comprehensive ESOL Education examina tion. This is broken up into three parts, given as the final exams of ESOL 1, ESOL 2, and ESOL 3. Items 1-4 take the place of 6 credits of ESOL Education coursework and are required, in addition to ESOL 1, ESOL 2, and ESOL 3, to graduate. Methods of the ESOL Endorse ment Through Infusion Program ESOL Education Course Sequence (ESOL 1, ESOL 2, and ESOL 3)

PAGE 152

138 Appendix F: (Continued) Students must enroll in ESOL 1 during their fi rst semester in the College of Education. This means that when these students reach junior status and are first admitted to the College of Education, and/or when students take the first course in the College of Education (other than the 3 pr erequisite education courses necessary for admission to the College of Education), they must enroll in ESOL 1. ESOL 1 is offered in the fall, spring, and summer semesters. ESOL 1 is a prerequisite for ESOL 2. ES OL 2 can be taken any time between ESOL 1 and 3, and it is the only course that does not have an associated field experience, so it is offered during fall, spring, and summer. ESOL 2 is a prerequisite for ESOL 3, and ESOL 3 is taken for 3 credits the semester prior to graduation and together with the next to last intern ship. ESOL 3 is only offered during the fall and spring semesters. ESOL 1, ESOL 2, and ESOL 3 are offere d on campus as well as through distance learning. For information on requirements for en rolling in the distance learning courses, please see http://www.coedu.usf.edu/esol/distancelearning The number of distance learning courses is limited and they tend to fill up quickly, so please plan accordingly. ESOL Folder The ESOL Folder collects all assignments a nd test results from ESOL 1, ESOL 2, and ESOL 3 as well as check off sheets from the ESOL infused courses. The structure of the folder is explained in ESOL 1. As they complete each ESOL infused course on the list, students place the course syllabus and the ch ecklists in their folder In addition, they write and include a short reflection for each course, noting how they addressed ESOL. In ESOL 3, the ESOL office administrator co mpletes a preliminary review of students’ folders, listing which areas require additional work. During the final internship, the ESOL office administrator completes the fi nal folder review after the student has completed any necessary additional work. ESOL Early Field Experience Students complete a 20-hour early field experi ence with an adult ESOL student in ESOL 1. The course instructor helps students find a field experience placement at an adult education center or community-based organi zation, and students complete a series of structured assignments including 6 voluntee r tutoring hours with one or more students learning English for Speakers of Other Language s. In certain cases, students work with the ESOL student’s family as well. Students in ESOL 1 are released from approximately 2 class meetings to compensate for a portion of the 20 field experience hours.

PAGE 153

139 Appendix F: (Continued) ESOL Late Field Experience Toward the end of students’ degree program, they are required to plan, implement, and evaluate lessons for one or more ESOL student s over a series of weeks. Students will be given the ESOL Late Field Experience Form toward the end of their introductory ESOL course (ESOL 1). This form will be used by each student to document the completion of the minimum performance standards required in this late field experience. This form may be completed at any time after ESOL 1, and up through their final internship, and must be submitted to the ESOL office admini strator for a final sign-off upon completion. In ideal late field experience/internship situat ions, students will be placed in a classroom with an ESOL-endorsed teacher and one or more ESOL students. If this is not possible, students may be placed with a teacher who is in the process of obtaining the ESOL Endorsement, and an ESOL resource teacher will be consulted to help supervise the student’s internship. Early Childhood, Elem entary, and Special Education students are placed in a classroom with the appropri ate ESOL conditions by their internship supervisor. If placements do not meet these requirements, students must inform the person or office that placed them as well as the ESOL office admini strator immediately. Special arrangements may need to be made in cases where students are placed in classes without ESOL students—a minimum two-week re-assignment to an appropriate class may be necessary in some cases. ESOL Comprehensive Examination Students must pass a comprehensive ESOL Educ ation examination in order to receive the ESOL endorsement. This exam covers the content of the 3 ESOL Education courses as well as the ESOL information that was “infused ” into the program courses. The exam is divided into three parts, taken as the fina l exams of ESOL 1, ESOL 2, and the mid-term exam of ESOL 3. If students do not pass the ex am, with a 70% or better, they may retake it during the same semester, or they may re schedule to retake the exam in the ESOL office the following semester. Frequently Asked Questions About ESOL Endorsement Through Infusion Where can I find information on the ESOL folder requirements? The ESOL Education website, at http://www.coedu.usf.edu/esol includes detailed information on the folder requirements as well as the folder checklists for each program.

PAGE 154

140 Appendix F: (Continued) What if I transferred course s from another institution? You must take your three ESOL education c ourses on this campus, along with the three corresponding parts to the ESOL comprehensive exam. What if I took College of Education courses prior to the date that the ESOL Endorsement through Infusion program was approved, and do not have the necessary ESOL performance standards ch eck-off form for a particular course? Students who began taking ESOL-infused College of Education courses prior to certain dates (Spring 1999 for Early Childhood and Elementary, Fall 1999 for Special, and Fall 2000 for Foreign Language and English Education) may be required to complete alternate activities that address ESOL Performance St andards that are now addressed in those courses. You will find guidance on how to se lect appropriate alternate activities to compensate for the courses taken prior to when they became ESOL-infused from the ESOL office. How do I prepare for the ESOL Comprehensive Exam? You will receive guidance in each of the three ESOL classes. How do I know when to en roll in the right courses? Your Student Academic Services (SAS) repor t indicates which courses you need each semester. Please consult with your advisor on a regular ba sis to be sure that your schedule is appropriate. Why do some programs require 2 courses and a binder? Due to curricular differences, some underg raduate programs require 2 courses and a comprehensive binder. This is due to the number of courses in the program that can document the addition of ESOL competencies.

PAGE 155

141 Appendix G – Table: Factor Structure of Instrument Item Factor 1 Pre Post Factor 2 Pre Post Factor 3 Pre Post Knowledge L3 90* 81* 4 4 -8 3 Skill L3 90* 93* 0 -13 -4 2 Knowledge L2 89* 78* 6 -8 -5 2 Skill L2 89* 90* 0 -15 1 1 Skill L4 88* 86* -5 -10 1 -2 Knowledge Adapt. Content 88* 65* 3 22 -10 -10 Knowledge L4 87* 77* 3 4 -6 2 Knowledge L1 86* 71* 5 9 -3 7 Skill L1 85* 86* 1 -11 4 2 Knowledge ESOL Methods 85* 66* -4 13 -3 5 Knowledge ESOL Assessment 84* 64* -3 20 -1 -1 Skill Adapt. Content 79* 66* -4 8 16 12 Skill Policies 78* 65* 6 -3 -4 8 Skill ESOL Assessment 78* 72* -3 -5 8 10 Skill ESOL Methods 77* 67* -3 -4 2 -3 Knowledge Policies 73* 56* 4 10 -6 -2 Knowledge SLA 70* 50* 2 27 5 -17 Skill Culture 59* 61* -2 12 17 -6 Skill SLA 51* 61* -10 3 28 7 Knowledge Culture 48* 46* 12 27 5 -17 Disposition L2 3 -11 85* 48* -6 31 Disposition L3 14 11 83* 73* -12 -5 Disposition L1 -6 -17 77* 42* -7 34 Disposition support mainstreaming -1 -10 69* 71* 9 7 Disposition benefit mainstreaming 4 2 63* 71* 6 2 Disposition L4 19 20 59* 52* -5 -11 Disposition support ESOL education -7 4 58* 76* 23 4 Disposition support ESOL teacher training -3 0 55* 76* 23 5 Disposition benefit ESOL teach er training -17 11 53* 64* 20 6 Disposition benefit of being bilingual 3 11 50* 58* 18 -4 ESOL infused readings 3 4 -6 -13 84* 84* ESOL infused activities/ discussions 14 25 -11 -1 82* 64* ESOL infused case studies 1 8 -3 -6 79* 80* ESOL infused reflective assignments 11 4 6 -1 73* 80* ESOL course reflective assignments 5 -7 18 15 63* 73* ESOL infused field experience 11 9 1 3 62* 70* ESOL course readings -16 -2 18 -1 55* 72* ESOL course case studies -25 -8 17 14 50* 66* ESOL course activities/ discussions 3 13 24 22 50* 48* ESOL course field experience 3 13 30 25 30 48*

PAGE 156

142 Appendix H – Initial ESOL Course Calendar 1. 1/11 Course Introduction Section 1 LEP Policies and Practices 2. 1/18 Section 1 – LEP Policies and Practices Web-based Assignment/ Quiz Due 3. 1/25 Section 2 Cultural Awareness On-line Quiz Ch. 8-10 4. 2/1 FIELD EXPERIENCE RELEASE TIME – NO CLASS 5. 2/8 Section 2 – Cultural Awareness Due: Cultural Self-Analysis 6. 2/15 Section 3 Second Language Acquisition On-line Quiz Ch. 1-2 7. 2/22 Section 3 – Second Language Acquisition Due: Cultural Interview 8. 3/1 FIELD EXPERIENCE RELEASE TIME – NO CLASS 9. 3/8 Section 4 Methods of Teaching ESOL On-line Quiz : Ch. 3-4 Due: ESOL Binder 10. 3/22 Section 4 – Methods of Teaching ESOL Due: SOLOM 11. 3/29 Section 5 Content Adaptation Due: Language Learning interview On-line Quiz Ch. 5 12. 4/5 Web-based Instruction – Draft of Lesson Plan Due 13. 4/12 Section 5 – Content Adaptation 14. 4/19 Section 6 Alternative Assessment Due: Final Draft of Lesson Plan On-line Quiz Ch. 7 15. 4/26 Case Study 16. 5/3 Final Exam (1-3 PM ) Due: Field Exp. Log and Reflection

PAGE 157

143 Appendix I: Final ESOL Course Calendar 01/17-01/30 Section 1 Lesson Planning, ESOL folder and LEP analysis Due: Lesson Plan 1 Posting on Discussion Board Quiz 1 01/31-02/13 Section 2 Phonology and Morphology (P 49-69) Due: Quiz 2 and posting on Discussion Board 02/14-02/27 Section 3 – Syntax & Semantics (P 70-89) Due: Quiz 3 and posting on Discussion Board 02/28-03/13 Section 4 Discourse and Pragmatics (P 90-117) Due: Quiz 4 and Posting on Discussion Board LEP analysis part I 03/14-03/20 USF Spring Break 03/21-04/03 Section 5 Literacy Due: Unit plan due Posting on Discussion Board 04/04-04/17 Section 6 – First and Second Language Acquisition (P 146-226) Due: Quiz 5 and posting on Discussion Board LEP Analysis (part I and II) 04/18-05/01 Section 7 – Assessment (P 236-268) Due: Take-home final exam or final project Posting on Discussion Board 03/26-04/03 Mid-te rm Exam (guide provide d) available online

PAGE 158

144 Appendix J: Pre-Course Letter to ESOL Instructors and Students :

PAGE 159

145 Appendix J: (Continued)

PAGE 160

146 Appendix K: Post-Course Letter to ESOL Instructors and Students Dear Colleagues, Thank you so much for helping with the precourse survey at the beginning of the semester. The response rate was ve ry good. Here is a sample letter to FLE 4315, 4316, 4362 and 4364 students informing them about the post-course survey and requesting their participation. I am posting this on the announcement page of my Blackboard course site and sending it as an email to all my students through the communication link on Blackboard. The survey is open from November 22 to December 3, and on December 4th, I will be sending you a list of all your students who participated, specifyi ng whether they participated in one or both of the surveys. I wil l give my students who participated in both surveys 5 points of extra credit on t he final, and I’ll give 2 points to students who participate in only one of the surveys. Thank you once again! Appendix K: (Continued) Sample Letter:

PAGE 161

147 Appendix L: Informed Consent for Survey Participants ESOL Awareness Survey Instrument Pre-Course Survey Informed Consent to Participate in Human Participant Research The following information is being presented to help you decide whether or not you want to be a part of a mi nimal risk research study. Please read carefully. If you do not understand someth ing, you can call (813) 974-1113, or email your questions to Phil Smith, pcsmith@tempest.coedu.usf.edu Title of Study: Teaching Inclusivity: Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes Towa rd Working with ELL Students in Mainstream Classrooms. Principle Investigator: Philip C. Smith Department / College : Department of Secondary Education – College of Education You are being asked to participate in a st udy of preservice teachers’ perceptions of their knowl edge, skills and attitudes toward working with English Language Learners (ELL students) in mainst ream classrooms. There will be a preand post-course questionnaire. T he purpose of these questionnaires are to help us understand your perceptions of this course, and other ESOL courses you have taken in the program. The questi onnaires should take about 15 mi nutes each to complete. By taking part in this research (the preand post-course surveys) you will get some extra credit points in your ESOL course Other than that, you will not benefit from participating in this research, but your responses may help us understand your perceptions of this course and how well prepared you f eel to help English language learners in your mainstream classrooms. There are no known risks. Your priv acy and research records will be k ept confidential to the extent of the law. Authorized re search personnel, employees of the Department of Health and Human Services and the USF Inst itutional Review Bo ard, its staff, and others acting on behalf of USF, may ins pect the records from this research project.

PAGE 162

148 Appendix L: (Continued) The results of this study may be p ublished. However, the data obtained from you will be combined with data from other people in the publication. The published results will not include your name or any other information that would personally identify you. Your decision to participate in this st udy is completely voluntary. You are free to participate in this study or to withdraw at any time. Your decision to participate will in no way a ffect your student status. If you have any questions after completing this study or would like to review the results of the study upon co mpletion, please contact: Phil Smith – (813) 974-1113. If you have questions regarding your ri ghts as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may contact a member of the Divis ion of Research Compliance of the University of South Florida at 813-974-5638. Thank you for your time and efforts! Take Survey

PAGE 163

149 Appendix M: Pre-Course Knowledge Survey Items Percentage of the Responses by Course I know hardly anything about I know a little about I know generally about I know a lot about By Course Initial final Initial final Initial final Initial final Policies and rights of ESOL students 51% 1% 38% 36% 10% 56% 1% 8% Cultural awareness 11% 0% 33% 10% 44% 53% 11% 37% Second language acquisition 43% 3% 43% 23% 11% 65% 2% 10% Methods of teaching ESOL students 58% 3% 30% 21% 10% 57% 1% 19% Adaptation of content instruction for ESOL students 63% 2% 27% 20% 7% 57% 2% 21% Alternative assessment for ESOL students 69% 6% 22% 32% 7% 47% 1% 14% Meeting the educational needs of.. Level 1 ELL students 80% 10% 15% 33% 3% 50% 0% 7% Level 2 ELL students 82% 7% 14% 33% 3% 53% 0% 7% Level 3 ELL students 80% 5% 13% 25% 4% 62% 0% 7% Level 4 ELL students 80% 4% 13% 21% 5% 63% 1% 11%

PAGE 164

150 Appendix N: Post-Course Knowledge Survey Items Percentage of the Responses by Course I know hardly anything about I know a little about I know generally about I know a lot about By Course Initial final Initial final Initial final Initial final Policies and rights of ESOL students 1% 0% 16% 16% 65% 57% 18% 27% Cultural awareness 0% 0% 7% 8% 45% 31% 48% 60% Second language acquisition 0% 0% 13% 11% 62% 52% 25% 37% Methods of teaching ESOL students 0% 0% 11% 8% 45% 34% 44% 58% Adaptation of content instruction for ESOL students 0% 0% 9% 8% 52% 39% 39% 53% Alternative assessment for ESOL students 1% 2% 15% 11% 57% 46% 28% 42% Meeting the educational needs of.. Level 1 ELL students 1% 2% 18% 13% 52% 41% 28% 45% Level 2 ELL students 3% 0% 18% 12% 51% 42% 28% 46% Level 3 ELL students 3% 0% 17% 9% 50% 43% 30% 49% Level 4 ELL students 4% 1% 15% 6% 47% 42% 33% 50%

PAGE 165

151 Appendix O: Pre-Course Skill Survey Items Percentage of the Responses by Course I have hardly any skill I have a little skill I am generally skilled I have a lot of skill By Course Initial final Initial final Initial final Initial final Complying with state policies and practices 71% 9% 20% 37% 7% 46% 1% 8% Responding appropriately to culturally diverse learners 40% 3% 31% 32% 24% 46% 5% 20% Working with people who do not speak English well 35% 12% 44% 46% 18% 34% 2% 9% Using a variety of methods to teach content classes 53% 5% 29% 33% 16% 48% 1% 14% Setting language objectives in my content classes 64% 8% 29% 49% 6% 40% 0% 3% Assessing what ESOL students can do in my content classes 66% 12% 26% 49% 6% 34% 1% 6% Meeting the language, cultural and content matter needs of ESOL students Level 1 – ELL students 81% 14% 15% 48% 2% 35% 0% 3% Level 2 – ELL students 83% 10% 13% 50% 2% 37% 0% 3% Level 3 – ELL students 80% 10% 14% 38% 2% 46% 1% 5% Level 4 – ELL students 79% 6% 15% 37% 4% 9% 1% 9%

PAGE 166

152 Appendix P: Post-Course Skill Survey Items Skill Items I have hardly any skill I have a little skill I am generally skilled I have a lot of skill By Course Initial final Initial final Initial final Initial final Complying with state policies and practices 3% 3% 24% 15% 52% 49% 20% 33% Responding appropriately to culturally diverse learners 1% 1% 12% 7% 52% 47% 35% 44% Working with people who do not speak English well 2% 1% 25% 18% 50% 54% 23% 26% Using a variety of methods to teach content classes 3% 0% 16% 7% 58% 51% 23% 42% Setting language objectives in my content classes 3% 0% 22% 26% 54% 49% 21% 24% Assessing what ESOL students can do in my content classes 2% 1% 24% 17% 52% 53% 22% 26% Meeting the language, cultural and content matter needs of ESOL students Level 1 – ELL students 5% 1% 25% 18% 58% 52% 12% 28% Level 2 – ELL students 5% 1% 25% 16% 55% 53% 15% 30% Level 3 – ELL students 5% 0% 22% 14% 57% 54% 16% 31% Level 4 – ELL students 5% 0% 20% 12% 55% 54% 21% 34%

PAGE 167

153 Appendix Q: Pre-Course Attitude Survey Items Percentage of the Responses by Course I hardly or don’t agree I agree a little I somewhat agree I mostly agree By Course Initial final Initial final Initial final Initial final ESOL education will benefit my over-all teaching 1% 6% 7% 16% 20% 32% 71% 46% Knowing a second language is more of a benefit for ESOL students than a problem. 2% 2% 8% 12% 32% 29% 58% 57% All students benefit from having ESOL students in their mainstream classrooms 3% 4% 16% 18% 33% 35% 46% 42% I think all teachers should have ESOL training 1% 3% 6% 8% 19% 14% 73% 75% I support having ESOL students in all mainstream classes. 4% 3% 16% 12% 31% 34% 47% 52% ESOL education is important to me 1% 2% 6% 9% 22% 25% 70% 64% Mainstreaming is the best way to educate ESOL students at the various language production levels Level 1 – ELL students 28% 31% 24% 24% 28% 31% 19% 13% Level 2 – ELL students 15% 11% 29% 28% 34% 41% 20% 20% Level 3 – ELL students 9% 4% 20% 13% 40% 40% 31% 43% Level 4 – ELL students 7% 1% 14% 10% 31% 22% 47% 67%

PAGE 168

154 Appendix R: Post-Course Attitude Survey Items Percentage of the Responses by Course I hardly or don’t agree I agree a little I somewhat agree I mostly agree By Course Initial final Initial final Initial final Initial final ESOL education will benefit my over-all teaching 2% 3% 4% 12% 28% 24% 67% 60% Knowing a second language is more of a benefit for ESOL students than a problem. 2% 1% 4% 10% 28% 16% 66% 72% All students benefit from having ESOL students in their mainstream classrooms 1% 2% 10% 9% 35% 32% 53% 56% I think all teachers should have ESOL training 1% 2% 6% 15% 15% 16% 76% 66% I support having ESOL students in all mainstream classes. 2% 3% 12% 15% 30% 28% 54% 53% ESOL education is important to me 0% 2% 6% 16% 28% 20% 63% 59% Mainstreaming is the best way to educate ESOL students at the various language production levels Level 1 – ELL students 16% 18% 25% 20% 37% 37% 22% 24% Level 2 – ELL students 7% 3% 24% 25% 42% 36% 26% 36% Level 3 – ELL students 1% 1% 8% 4% 44% 35% 46% 60% Level 4 – ELL students 1% 1% 3% 0% 26% 24% 68% 75%

PAGE 169

155 Appendix S: Pre-Course Instru ctional Methods Survey Items Percentage of the Responses by Course Minimally influential Somewhat influential Quite influential Extremely influential By Course Initial final Initial final Initial final Initial final ESOL Reflective Assignments 5% 9% 26% 39% 47% 37% 20% 14% ESOL Field Experience 1% 3% 6% 6% 30% 25% 61% 65% ESOL Case Study Work 3% 11% 15% 37% 43% 35% 37% 16% ESOL Classroom activities/ discussions 1% 5% 14% 20% 48% 40% 36% 34% ESOL Readings 7% 27% 33% 44% 40% 16% 17% 11% ESOL-Infused Reflective Assignments 14% 16% 21% 39% 25% 36% 10% 7% ESOL-Infused Field Experience 13% 10% 9% 23% 20% 28% 28% 37% ESOL-Infused Case Study Work 14% 20% 17% 38% 28% 27% 11% 12% ESOL-Infused Classroom activities/ discussions 11% 8% 14% 26% 25% 43% 18% 20% ESOL-Infused Readings 17% 23% 24% 47% 18% 20% 9% 7%

PAGE 170

156 Appendix T: Post-Course Instru ctional Methods Survey Items Percentage of the Responses by Course Minimally influential Somewhat influential Quite influential Extremely influential By Course Initial final Initial final Initial final Initial final ESOL Reflective Assignments 2% 17% 26% 26% 42% 34% 28% 22% ESOL Field Experience 4% 8% 12% 16% 29% 20% 55% 56% ESOL Case Study Work 4% 16% 16% 23% 54% 35% 25% 25% ESOL Classroom activities/ discussions 1% 11% 22% 16% 44% 36% 33% 37% ESOL Readings 15% 34% 38% 37% 32% 18% 15% 11% ESOL-Infused Reflective Assignments 7% 15% 27% 32% 42% 27% 19% 24% ESOL-Infused Field Experience 15% 16% 15% 16% 28% 22% 36% 43% ESOL-Infused Case Study Work 14% 16% 23% 35% 38% 28% 18% 18% ESOL-Infused Classroom activities/ discussions 5% 10% 20% 26% 42% 32% 27% 31% ESOL-Infused Readings 16% 31% 32% 39% 36% 19% 12% 25%

PAGE 171

157 Appendix U: Table PEKS and ATI by Major and Course Major Time Course N PEKS SD ATI SD Elementary Pre Initial 122 1.47 .43 3.20 .59 Elementary Post Initial 42 3.05 .55 3.36 .60 Elementary Pre Final 88 2.61 .52 3.17 .57 Elementary Post Final 47 3.33 .52 3.38 .59 Early Ch. Pre Initial 13 1.37 .29 3.30 .57 Early Ch. Post Initial 7 2.42 .33 3.33 .56 Early Ch. Pre Final 1 1.40 1.00 Early Ch. Post Final 1 1.90 1.30 English Pre Initial 17 1.50 .30 3.04 .67 English Post Initial 10 3.02 .42 3.43 .31 English Pre Final 6 3.02 .33 3.66 .26 English Post Final 3 3.50 .32 3.85 .24 Special Pre Initial 7 1.62 .46 3.16 .65 Special Post Initial 3 3.33 .30 3.30 .70 Special Pre Final 4 2.81 .28 3.47 .26 Special Post Final 2 3.42 .18 3.30 .92 For. Lang. Pre Initial 3 1.50 .23 3.36 .55 For. Lang. Post Initial 2 3.47 .53 3.45 .78 For. Lang. Pre Final 3 2.75 .10 3.27 .87 For. Lang. Post Final

PAGE 172

158 Appendix V: Description of the Content of the ESOL Courses The six ESOL content areas examined were: (a) ESOL policies, (b) cultural awareness, (c) second language acquisition (S LA), (d) ESOL methods, (e) ESOL content adaptation, and (f) assessment of ESOL students. Course syllabi and calendars were examined to see how much time is allotted in each course for the various content areas (see Appendices A and B for course syllabi and H and I for course calendars ). Policies and practices. The initial course gives an over-view of policies and practices and students are invol ved in a web-based assignmen t where they explore sites related to the Florid a Consent Decree (1990), and sites that give statistics about ELL students. The final course does not overtly te ach this as a topic, but it is constantly discussed. The first chapter in the textbook used in the final ESOL course is titled ‘Legal rights of LEP students in the U. S.: An Historical Overview’ (Ariza et al., 2002), however this chapter is not required reading. Cultural awareness. The initial course spends a couple of weeks on cultural awareness content, and several of its main assignments are related to culture (cultural self-analysis and cultural interv iew). Students are ta ught to put cultural objectives in all their lesson plans in order to connect the home and school cultures. The final course takes culture to the next level by teaching about the cu ltural aspects of language: discourse, pragmatics, non-verbal communi cation, and cross-cultural communication. Instructors ask students to continue to make connections with culture in their lesson plans and use the knowledge about culture from the initial ESOL course.

PAGE 173

159 Appendix V: (Continued) Second language acquisition (SLA). The initial course incl udes a section on SLA (second language acquisition) theory. It comp ares and contrasts le arning a first language to learning a second language. It presents current findings about language learning and introduces students to the ELL language levels based on the Natural Approach to learning a language (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). The fi nal course textbook also includes a chapter on ‘A knowledge base for language theories and applications’. The final course spends approximately a third of the semester on applie d linguistics topics that are directly related to the LEP Analysis. ESOL methods. The initial course introduces pr eservice teachers to whole language and communicative ESOL methods. One of the assignments in this course is to present a mini-methods demonstration to the cl ass that is comprehensible to level one (pre-production) ELL students. The final co urse does not have a special section on ESOL methods, but these methods are seen in a video that is s hown, and participants’ previous knowledge is refreshed. Content adaptation for ESOL. Content adaptation for ESOL is introduced in the initial ESOL course and one of the main assi gnments in that course is to adapt a lesson plan for all four levels of ELL students. In the final ESOL course participants are required to write a fully ESOL-adapted unit pl an that consists of approximately eight lesson plans. These are major assignments in both of these courses (Appendices A and B are course syllabi and Appendices H and I are course calendars).

PAGE 174

160 Appendix V: (Continued) Assessment of ESOL students. Assessment of ESOL student s is also taught in both courses, and students are requi red to add appropriate assessm ent instruments to all their adapted lesson plans. This is complement ed by what is taught in the “Educational Measurements” course, which is ESOL-infused. In summary, the initial ESOL course is an overview of all six ESOL content areas, but the focus is most heavily on cultu ral awareness, ESOL methods, and content adaptation for ESOL students. The final ESOL course touches on all the topics as well, but concentrates on applied linguistics (as it is related to SLA) a nd content adaptation for ESOL students. The content that receives the least amount of emphasis is: policies and assessment.

PAGE 175

161 Appendix W: Description of Instru ctional Methods in ESOL Courses Instructional Methods in the Initial ESOL Course The initial ESOL course requires that participants complete assignments that include all five of the methods / activities incl uded on the survey. Reflective assignments include a cultural self-analysis, where it is re quired to reflectively answer 20 self-study questions (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002, p. 255). Th e answers to those questions must be accompanied with a reflection on what the participant learned from doing this activity. Other reflective assignments include a reflection on his/her over-all field experience, and a reflection on the process of pa rticipating in a classroom case. The ESOL field experience in the initial ESOL course involves a minimum of six hours of volunteering with ESOL students. This can be done through having a conversation partner, tutoring an ESOL student individually, helping in an ESOL class, or assisting ESOL students in a regular classroom. Added to the volunteer hours, several interviews need to be conducted, and finally, an analysis of a language learner’s oral language ability needs to be completed. The focus of the volunteer time and the interviews with ESOL students is for the pa rticipant to have one-on-one experience with ESOL students. A classroom case is conducted in class in cooperative groups. The classroom case is realistic but not a real situ ation. It was originally develo ped as part of the Empowering ESOL Teachers: An Overview, by Florida Atlantic University for the Florida Department of Education (Willig & Le, 1996). Students writ e an instructional pl an in their ‘LEP Committee’ and then individually reflect on the process of participating in this activity.

PAGE 176

162 Appendix W: (Continued) Classroom activities include taking part in discussions, group work, watching films (on culture, methods, and content adapta tion). Participants also present methods demonstrations to the class as a group projec t and evaluate each ot her’s presentation. Readings are connected to each course section and students are required to read approximately 300 pages during the semester. There are quizzes for every section in order to encourage them to k eep up on the reading (Appendix H). Instructional methods in the final ESOL course. Reflective assignments are a part of several requirements in the final ESOL course as well. Students are expected to post reflective discussions on the electronic discussi on board for each topic. The LEP analysis requires reflective writing on a case study student. There is not a regular ESOL field experi ence as a direct part of the final ESOL course, but the LEP analysis assignment requ ires one-on-one contac t with an ELL student for an extended period of time. The pr eservice teacher condu cts interviews and observations of an ELL student. This one-onone contact is similar to some of the assignments in the initial ESOL course, but on a much higher level. The preservice teacher interviews the ELL student, conducts an in-depth analysis of his/her language ability, and prescribes linguistic help for this student. The ESOL late field experience is not a pa rt of one of the ESOL courses, but it may be done at any time after completion of the initial ESOL course, when the preservice teacher has any ESOL students in one of his/her internships. As a result of this, some of the participants in the final ESOL course may have more ESOL field experience than others. At this point, most participants ar e involved in regular in ternships through their

PAGE 177

163 Appendix W: (Continued) programs of study and many of them have ESOL students in their mainstream classrooms. The LEP analysis is a case study that the par ticipant creates on a real ELL student. This is in contrast to the clas sroom case used in the initial co urse. In the initial course the case is already there and all th ey have to do is create an instructional plan from the information provided. In the final ESOL course, they create the information and the instructional plan. Classroom activities in the final ESOL course involve discussions, films, and group work. These are similar to the types of activities included in the initial ESOL course. Required readings are approximat ely 370 pages, plus many on-line resources. Quizzes are given in order to encourage the students to keep up on their reading (Appendices A and B are course syllabi and A ppendices H and I are course calendars).

PAGE 178

About the Author: Philip C. Smith holds a Bachelor’s degr ee in Religious Education, a Master of Science in Christian School Education, and The University of Cambridge’s Advanced Diploma in English Language Teaching Management. He spent five years teaching English, a nd then thirteen year s directing English language institutes in Brazil. He was founder and director of the British Culture Center (Cultura Inglesa) in Aracaju, Brazil. He then directed a British Culture Center in Piedade, a suburb of Recife’s Greater Metropo litan Area, in the No rth-east of Brazil. Since his return to the United States, he has been involved in ESOL training for public school teachers in Fl orida, and was administrato r of a K-12 private school. He is presently a full-time instructor at the University of South Florida, Tampa, and is coordinator of the ESOL program in the College of Education. He has published an article on administration in foreign language programs, and also th e results of the pilot study for this dissertation.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001911263
003 fts
005 20071005112021.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 071005s2005 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001222
040
FHM
c FHM
035
(OCoLC)173685156
049
FHMM
090
LB1601 (ONLINE)
1 100
Smith, Philip C.
0 245
Teaching inclusivity :
b preservice teachers' perceptions of their knowledge, skills and attitudes toward working with English language learners in mainstream classrooms
h [electronic resource] /
by Philip C. Smith.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2005.
3 520
ABSTRACT: This study investigated the effect of one semester of ESOL education on preservice teachers by examining their perceived knowledge and skill in working with English Language Learner (ELL) students, their attitude toward having ELL students in their mainstream classrooms, and what classroom methods they perceive as effective in their ESOL preservice education courses. Data for this study were collected from pre- and post-course attitudinal surveys during one semester of course work, from participants at two specific points in their educational experience; participants in the (1) introductory and (2) final TESOL course. There were 293 participants who took the pre-, and 273 who took the post-course survey, from a total of 513 preservice teachers. This represents approximately a 57% participation rate on the pre- and 53% on the post-course survey. Little is known about the effect that ESOL preservice education has on preservice teachers' attitudes toward ELL students, and no studies known to the investigator have examined the methods of an ESOL preservice program to see preservice teachers' perceptions of the effect of these methods. The effect of the following independent variables were used: (a) course (initial and final ESOL course), and (b) time (pre- and post-course). A new survey instrument was developed that identified the following factors which were used as dependent variables: (a) perception of ESOL knowledge and skill (PEKS), (b) attitude toward inclusion (ATI), and (c) perceived effectiveness of instructional methods (PEIM). Significant differences were found regarding: (1) PEKS by course and time, and (2) PEIM by course. No differences were found for the variable ATI.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 163 pages.
Incudes vita.
590
Adviser: Joyce Nutta, Ph.D.
653
Online.
Survey.
Instrument.
ELL.
ESL.
ESOL.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Secondary Education
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1222