Marisa del Campo Mary E. Yakimowski University of Connecticut, Neag School of Education

1. A Look Through the Eyes of Pre-Service Educators and In-Service Educators on Teaching English Language Learners American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting Vancouver, B.C. April 15, 2012 Marisa del Campo Mary E. Yakimowski University of Connecticut, Neag School of Education Office of Assessment

2. Overview Purpose Review of Literature Methodology Results Implications of Results Future Avenues

3. Purpose To examine the presence of positive affective characteristics for working with ELL students across and within three groups of educators More specifically, to examine the presence of educators’ perceived knowledge, self efficacy and attitudes about inclusion as related to ELLs across pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, pre-service administrators; and to investigate how their development may be related to several factors within each group (i.e., non-English proficiency, field placement, school setting, # ELL’s taught)

4. Review of Literature Changing Demographics • Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008; NCELA, 2007; NCES, 2010 Preparation of Mainstream Teachers • Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005; Reeves, 2006; Yakimowski et al., 2011 Achievement Gap and NCLB • Fry, 2008; USDOE, 2002; NAEP, 2009

5. Theoretical Foundation Social Learning Theory(Bandura, 1986) Beliefs (attitudes) are critical to the decisions people make Ex) Teacher beliefs about language development (Byrnes, Kiger, and Manning, 1997; Clair, 1995; Karathanos, 2009; Kelly, 1988) and degree to which they implement research-based strategies to support L1 in classroom (August & Shanahan, 2006; Goldenberg, 2008)

6. Theoretical Foundation Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1986) Beliefs (attitudes) are critical to the decisions people make • Self-Efficacy(Bandura, 1986) Belief in one’s own ability to perform particular activities successfully or effectively • Teaching Self-Efficacy (TSE) • Job satisfaction and burnout (Ware & Kitsantas, 2007) • Achievement and motivation (Caprara, Barbarelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006) • Teaching ELL students (Karabenick, Clemens, and Noda ; Paneque & Barbetta )

7. Statement of Problem There is a need to develop an understanding of factors that influence the development of positive affective characteristics in educators who work with ELLs. This study examines the presence of perceived knowledge, attitudes, and self efficacy across 3 groups of educators, and investigates how their presence may be related to multiple factors within each group.

8. Methodology: Subjects Pre-service teachers • Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s (IB/M) program at the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education In-service teachers • Teachers partnering with IB/M students for clinical experiences Pre-service administrators • University of Connecticut Administrator Preparation Program (UCAPP), Neag School of Education Respondents –292 • 122 Pre-service teachers • 143 In-service teachers • 27 Pre-service administrators

9. Methods: Instrumentation Knowledge, Attitudes, and Self-Efficacy toward ELLs (KASELL) • 19 items rated on a 5 point Likert scale • Developed by Durgonoglo & Hughes (2010), modeled on previous survey of general teacher efficacy (Darling-Hammond, Chung, and Frelow, 2002). • Reliability/Validity • Durgonoglo & Hughes’ (2010) revealed four factors: • Perceived preparation (α=0.81) • Self-efficacy (α=0.83) • Attitudes toward ELLs in the classroom (α=0.79) • Attitudes toward ELL parents (α=0.68)

10. Methods: Research Qs Are there differences among the groups (pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, and pre-service administrators)with respect to their KASELL (global or factor) scores?

11. Methods: Research Qs Within each group… Are there differences between those proficient in a non-English language and those not proficient with respect to the KASELL global and factor scores?

12. Methods: Research Qs Within pre-service teachers… Are there differences among Juniors, Seniors, and/or 5th year students with respect to the KASELL global and factor scores?

13. Methods: Research Qs Within in-service teachers… Do teachers working in distinct settings (urban, suburban, or rural) and/or teaching varying numbers of ELL students (0, 1-6, 7 or more) show differences with respect to their KASELL global and factor scores?

14. Methods: Research Qs Among pre-service administrators… Are there differences between administrator candidates in various field placements (elementary, secondary) show differences with respect to their KASELL global and factor scores?

15. Methods: Analyses Overall Descriptive Statistics • Respondent background • Factor Scores in the affective domain • Perceived preparation • Self-efficacy • Attitudes toward ELLs in the classroom • Attitudes toward ELL parents

16. Methods: Analyses ANOVA (All Groups) • We wish to determine if the 3 groups differ with respect to their global KASELL scores, and to find whether educators with proficiency in a language other than English score significantly higher than those without IV’s: 1. 3 groups – pre-service and in-service teachers, and pre-service administrators 2. Participants’ self-rating of proficiency in a language other than English DV: Global KASELL score as an aggregate of all 4 factor means

17. Methods: Analyses MANOVA (All Groups) • Do the 3 groups of educators’ scores significantly differ in the affective area of: knowledge? self efficacy? attitudes towards classroom inclusion? attitudes towards ELL parents? • Do scores of those with other language proficiencies differ from those without in any of these four areas? IVs: 1. 3 groups – pre-service and in-service teachers, and pre-service administrators 2. Participants’ self-rating of proficiency in a language other than English DVs: (4) KASELL score in each of the four factors

18. Methods: Analyses Pre-service teachers IV’s: 1) proficiency in a non- English language 2) year in pre-service program (Jr, Sr, 5th year) Two-Way ANOVA D.V.: Global KASELL Score Two-Way MANOVA D.V.’s: KASELL score in each of the four factors 1) Knowledge (perceived) 2) Self-efficacy 3) Attitude toward inclusion of ELLs in classroom 4) Attitude toward parents of ELL students

19. Methods: Analyses In-service teachers IV’s: 1) proficiency in a non- English language 2) Number of ELL’s taught in the classroom (0, 1-6, 7 or more) 3) School setting (urban, suburban, rural) Three-Way ANOVA D.V.: Global KASELL Score Three-Way MANOVA D.V.’s: KASELL score in each of the four factors

20. Methods: Analyses Pre-service administrators IV’s: 1) proficiency in a non- English language 2) Field placement (elementary, secondary) Two-Way ANOVA D.V.: Global KASELL Score Two-Way MANOVA D.V.’s: KASELL score in each of the four factors

21. RESULTS

22. RESULTS: Background Characteristics

23. RESULTS: Background Characteristics

25. ANOVA RESULTS f (All groups) Significant Effect for Group (F= 10.013; p<.01) Significant Effect for Non-English Language Proficiency (F= 6.157; p<.05) Reject Ho Global KASELL scores of pre-service administrators and in-service teachers were significantly higher than those of pre-service teachers Global scores of those proficient in another language were significantly higher than those not proficient

26. MANOVA RESULTS f (All groups) p< .01 p<.05 p< .01 p<.01 For “non-English proficiency”, and for “Group”, significant effects are found in factors 1 & 2 only, perceived knowledge and self-efficacy

27. MANOVA RESULTS f (All groups) Gender effects for Factor 3: Attitudes towards ELLs in the regular classroom (F= 6.792; p=.01)

28. RESULTS: Additional Findings • Among pre-service teachers • Year in the program yielded no significant effect in global scores or factor scores • Among in-service teachers • Factor 3, “attitudes toward inclusion of ELLs in the classroom” significant differences found by the number of ELLs the in the classroom • Teachers reporting 1 – 6 ELLs: most favorable attitudes towards inclusion. • Teachers with no ELLs: lowest average score on factor 3. • Factor 2, “self-efficacy” higher in those reporting proficiency in another language • Among pre-service administrators • Factor 3  Pre-service administrators at the elementary level reported more positive attitudes towards inclusion than those in other placements

29. IMPLICATIONS of RESULTS • Pre-service teachers lower in KASELL than other groups, specifically in “perceived knowledge” and “self-efficacy”. • Possible variation due to greater levels of experience, or past success working with ELLs • Teacher education programs can explore ways to develop candidates’ self-efficacy with ELLs while professional identities are early in the process of formation. • Proficiency in language other than English related to knowledge and self-efficacy to work with ELLs. • Given evidence indicating ELLs benefit when L1 is supported (e.g., August & Shanahan, 2006) teacher education might seek to recruit more bilingual teachers • Curricula might explicitly target and develop this competency (native-language support) in candidates who are not bilingual, providing multiple opportunities for practice through coursework and clinic experiences • Number of ELLs taught appeared related to attitudes toward inclusion;those without ELLs in the class had the least positive attitudes • Teacher education programs can work to ensure that candidates gain experiences in culturally and linguistically diverse settings, where ELL students are receiving quality instruction • Female respondents more positive about inclusion of ELLs in general education classroom • Possibility of response bias • Gender may be a factor related to how individuals respond affectively to the challenge of teaching ELLs • Benefits of tailoring higher education courses and learning to respond to individual differences

30. FUTURE AVENUES Do affective perceptions about teaching ELLs change over students’ time in the teacher education program? • Obtain measures from the same cohort of pre-service teachers at program entry and exit points What aspects of preparation help to facilitate increases in these affective perceptions? • Examine a sample of pre-service teachers who exhibit the greatest growth in affective domain How do affective perceptions about teaching ELL students relate to ELL student outcomes? • Use measures of student outcomes to determine if teachers scoring highly in affective perceptions demonstrate positive impacts on student learning

31. FUTURE AVENUES Do affective perceptions about teaching ELLs change over students’ time in the teacher education program? • Obtain measures from the same cohort of pre-service teachers at program entry and exit points What aspects of preparation help to facilitate increases in these affective perceptions? • Examine a sample of pre-service teachers who exhibit the greatest growth in affective domain How do affective perceptions about teaching ELL students relate to ELL student outcomes? • Use measures of student outcomes to determine if teachers scoring highly in affective perceptions demonstrate positive impacts on student learning

32. A Look Through the Eyes of Pre-Service Educators and In-Service Teachers on Teaching English Language Learners American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting Vancouver, B.C. April 15, 2012 Marisa del Campo Mary E. Yakimowski University of Connecticut, Neag School of Education