Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Teachers’ perceptions of effective school-wide programs and strategies for English language learners

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Learning Environments Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Data suggest that teachers lack confidence in teaching English language learners (ELLs). Teachers’ perceived shortcomings have been identified but little is known about why these perceptions exist or how they might be associated with broader measures of efficacy. We surveyed 578 Californian teachers of ELLs to explore the relations among teachers’ perceptions of ELL strategies and school programs, teachers’ ratings of collective efficacy in meeting all students’ needs, and the general school climate. Descriptive data and two multiple regression analyses suggest two primary findings: teachers’ perceived collective efficacy for English language development (ELD) instruction was higher than their individual efficacy (relative to previous studies), and measures of general school-wide collective efficacy when associated with perceived strength of ELD practices and programs. These results suggest that school-wide reforms designed to improve ELL instruction might yield greater collective efficacy. Policies that could enhance teachers’ perceived ELD efficacy are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Goddard (2001) and Ross et al. (2004) demonstrated that prior student achievement can predict collective efficacy. Goddard found that two-thirds of the variation in collective efficacy could be explained by reading test scores. Ross et al. (2004) confirmed their hypothesis “that scores from a mandated assessment would influence teacher perceptions of their effectiveness as a staff” (p. 177).

  2. The minimum school return rate for inclusion in the study was 25 %. The mean return rate was 75 %.

  3. Fifty-one percent of students at reporting schools qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. This figure matches closely the overall SES level of elementary schools in the state (54 % free or reduced-price lunch). The mean enrollment figure for participating schools was 595, slightly larger than the statewide average of 506 (California Department of Education 2013).

  4. We chose a 10 % cutoff because it reflected a number of ELLs in a classroom that probably would have an impact on a teacher’s instruction. With an average of 25 students in Californian elementary school classrooms, 10 % of ELLs per classroom would translate to approximately two ELLs per class. Teachers with fewer than two ELLs in their class, we argue, probably would not be required to alter their overall instruction to accommodate ELLs. We recognise there is no set percentage of ELLs per class that would cause a teacher to reorient instruction. We acknowledge our cutoff is somewhat arbitrary but our direct experience in working with hundreds of teachers to enhance their ELD instruction suggests that one or two ELLs in a classroom does not typically have an impact on whole-class instruction.

  5. We did not solicit other identifying demographic information on the premise that we agreed to share our data with school principals, which, especially in smaller schools, could identify which teachers completed the survey.

  6. Because this study provided the first time when this survey was used in a research setting, we conducted a factor analysis for these items comprising the Culture, Focus and Affirmation subscales. Results from an unrotated, principal components analysis revealed three factors that accounted for 69 % of the variance. The first factor extracted in the model was clearly the most efficacious, accounting for 52 % of the variance. The Focus subscale was most associated with the first factor with item loadings all over 0.69. The second factor accounted for the Culture subscale (loadings all over 0.55). The Affirmation subscale was associated with the third and final factor with each item loading over 0.49. Readers interested in a full component matrix can e-mail the lead author.

  7. Likert scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, and 4 = Strongly Agree.

  8. We did not ask teachers to rate their own skill as ELD teachers. After much consideration, we decided that the question simply was out of place within the overall survey. Furthermore, the teachers would logically include their own teaching in a school-wide rating; therefore, an assessment of the school would include an assessment of their individual skills.

  9. Each of these variables was measured with a single question, a strategy in contrast to the measurement of other constructs in the study. In measuring collective efficacy and school climate variables, we attempted to assess a latent variable—a construct, in other words—that required several questions. The questions regarding ELD effectiveness were straightforward questions about teaching practice. Perhaps we would have gained more detail with additional questions, but we had to keep the survey short enough to be completed during an otherwise busy staff meeting. Finally, these single items are similar to those used by other researchers when studying the confidence of teachers regarding their ELLs (Alexander et al. 1999; Gándara et al. 2005).

  10. A random sample of teachers across all schools was selected for interviews. This sample offered a good representative subset of the overall teachers in our study, with a mean class EL of 42 % (compared to the overall figure of 46 %).

References

  • Alexander, D., Heaviside, S., Farris, E., & Burns, S. (1999). Status of education reform in public elementary and secondary schools: Teachers’ perspectives. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

  • Ancess, J. (2003). Beating the odds: High schools as communities of commitment. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aud, S., Fox, M. A., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups (NCES No. 2010015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, P. K., & Wisenbaker, J. M. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 301–318. doi:10.3102/00028312015002301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • California Department of Education. (2013). CalWORKS data files (2003 and prior). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sh/cw/filesafdc.asp

  • Counts, G. S. (2010). The selective character of American secondary education. Charleston, SC: BiblioLife. (Original work published in 1922).

    Google Scholar 

  • Croninger, R. G., Rice, J. K., Rathbun, A., & Nishio, M. (2007). Teacher qualifications and early learning: Effects of certification, degree, and experience on first-grade student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 26, 312–324. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.05.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, D. L., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P., & Rupert, D. J. (2007). Merging qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research: How to and why not. Ecological and Environmental Anthropology, 3, 19–28. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmeea/18/

  • Flinders, D. J. (1988). Teacher isolation and the new reform. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4(1), 17–29. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/jcs/

  • Fraser, B. J. (1991). Two decades of classroom environment research. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents, and consequences (pp. 3–28). London: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of California teachers. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B. (2001). Me and us: Differential relationships among goal-setting training, efficacy and effectiveness at the individual and team level. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 789–808. doi:10.1002/job.114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 467–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, R. D. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 97–110. doi:10.1177/0013164402062001007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479–507. doi:10.3102/00028312037002479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X033003003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 102, 3–17. doi:10.1086/499690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, Y., Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2010). Relations among preschool teachers’ self-efficacy, classroom quality, and children’s language and literacy gains. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1094–1103. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, J. E., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve the science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 475–501. doi:10.1080/15235882.2003.10162604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemphill, F.C., & Vanneman, A. (2011). Achievement gaps: How hispanic and white students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the national assessment of educational progress (NCES 2011-459). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

  • Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 77–93. doi:10.1177/0013161X02381004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 184–208. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database.

  • Kurz, T. B., & Knight, S. L. (2004). An exploration of the relationship among teacher efficacy, collective teacher efficacy, and goal consensus. Learning Environments Research, 7, 111–128. doi:10.1023/B:LERI.0000037198.37750.0e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. R. (2003). Inside the National Writing Project: Connecting network learning and classroom teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • López, G. R., Scribner, J. D., & Mahitivanichcha, K. (2001). Redefining parental involvement: Lessons from high-performing migrant-impacted schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 253–288. doi:10.3102/00028312038002253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maden, M. (Ed.). (2001). Success against the odds—Five years on: Revisiting effective schools in damaged areas. London: Routledge/Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minicucci, C., Berman, P., McLaughlin, B., McLeod, B., Nelson, B., & Woodworth, K. (1995). School reform and student diversity. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 77–80. Retrieved from http://www.kappanmagazine.org

  • Miramontes, O. B., Nadeau, A., & Commins, N. L. (1997). Restructuring schools for linguistic diversity: Linking decision making to effective programs. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mora, J. K. (2000). Policy shifts in language-minority education: A mismatch between politics and pedagogy. The Educational Forum, 64, 204–214. doi:10.1080/00131720008984756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, T., Merickel, A., Pérez, M., Linquanti, R., Socias, M., Spain, A., & Delancey, D. (2006). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12: Findings from a five-year evaluation. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 61–94. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0201_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Gray, P. (2004). Prior student achievement, collaborative school processes, and collective teacher efficacy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3, 163–188. doi:10.1080/15700760490503689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumberger, R. W., & Gándara, P. (2004). Seeking equity in the education of California’s English learners. Teachers College Record, 106, 2032–2056. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/

  • Talbert, J. E. (2009). Professional learning communities at the crossroads: How systems hinder or engender change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (Vol. 23, pp. 555–571). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Téllez, K. (2004). Preparing teachers for Latino children and youth: Policies and practice. The High School Journal, 88(2), 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Téllez, K. (2010). Teaching English learners: Foster language and the democratic experience. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Téllez, K., & Waxman, H. (2006). Preparing quality educators for English language learners: Research, policy, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washburn, T. E. (2006). Teachers’ collective efficacy beliefs and student achievement in Virginia elementary schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Teachers-collective-efficacy-beliefs-student-68122.html

  • Waxman, H. C. (1992). Reversing the cycle of educational failure for students in at-risk school environments. In H. C. Waxman, J. W. de Felix, J. Anderson, & H. P. Baptiste Jr (Eds.), Students at risk in at-risk schools: Improving environments for learning (pp. 1–9). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waxman, H. C., Padrón, Y. N., & Gray, J. (Eds.). (2004). Educational resiliency: Student, teacher, and school perspectives. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, T., Hakuta, K., Haertel, E., & Levin, J. (2007). Similar English learner students, different results: Why do some schools do better? A follow-up analysis, based on a large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income and EL students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our colleague, Eduardo Mosqueda, for helpful suggestions on the data analyses. The anonymous reviewers also improved the clarity of our argument. Nancy Rosenbaum’s skillful editing was greatly appreciated. Remaining errors are ours alone.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, University of California-Santa Cruz, 1156 High St., Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA

    Kip Téllez

  2. Association of California School Administrators, 1029 J St., Sacramento, CA, 95814, USA

    George Manthey

Authors
  1. Kip Téllez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George Manthey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kip Téllez.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Collective Efficacy Scale survey items

  • Teachers in this school are able to get through to difficult students (GC).

  • Teachers here are confident they will be able to motivate their students (GC).

  • Teachers in this school really believe every child can learn (GC).

  • If a child doesn’t want to learn, teachers here give up (GC).

  • Teachers here don’t have the skills needed to produce meaningful student learning (GC).

  • Students at this school come to school ready to learn (TA).

  • Home life provides so many advantages, the students here are bound to learn (TA).

  • Students here just aren’t motivated to learn (TA).

  • The opportunities in this community help ensure that students will learn (TA).

  • Learning is more difficult at this school because students are worried about their safety (TA).

  • Drug and alcohol abuse in the community make learning difficult for students here (TA).

  • Teachers in this school do not have the skills to deal with student disciplinary problems (GC).

Adapted from Goddard (2002), A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective efficacy: The development of a short form, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, Copyright 2002 by Sage Publications.

Appendix 2: interview protocol

  1. 1.

    If you were to take me on a tour of your school, what are the things you’d most want me to see and notice?

  2. 2.

    Tell me why you picked those items to share.

  3. 3.

    In this study, I’m particularly wanting to learn about the ways that teachers work together. In what ways do you work collaboratively with other teachers? With all teachers? How is this different from other schools in which you’ve worked?

  4. 4.

    What has your principal done that influences the ways teachers are able to work together? What approaches to working more closely together have been tried but just didn’t seem to work?

  5. 5.

    In general, what goals do you have for your students? What helps you to stay focused on those goals?

  6. 6.

    What kinds of discussions do you have at school about current theories and promising educational practices? Who starts those discussions?

  7. 7.

    If you wanted the staff to start thinking about a new idea how would you get that to happen?

  8. 8.

    What values or outlooks do you think are shared by all the teachers in this school?

  9. 9.

    How are those values communicated to teachers who are new to this school?

  10. 10.

    Tell me about a time that you were able to accomplish more than what you thought you could. What inspired you to do that? Who helped you to do that?

  11. 11.

    In what ways are the accomplishments of students, faculty, and the school as a whole acknowledged? Who makes sure that happens?

  12. 12.

    What else would you like to tell me about your school?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Téllez, K., Manthey, G. Teachers’ perceptions of effective school-wide programs and strategies for English language learners. Learning Environ Res 18, 111–127 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9173-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9173-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation