QUALTITATIVE STUDY OF BARRIERS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO ENGLISH

LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ ACADEMIC UNDERPERFORMANCE IN MIDDLE

SCHOOL GRADES 6-8

Marcus Holbert

A Dissertation presented to the faculty of Arkansas State University in partial fulfillment

of the requires for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY

December, 2024

Approved by
Dr. Jacques Singleton, Dissertation Faculty Chair
Dr. Karen Buchanan, Dissertation Mentor
Dr. Karen Norwood, Dissertation Committee Member
 ©2024
Marcus Holbert
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii
 ABSTRACT

Marcus Holbert

QUALITATIVE STUDY OF BARRIERS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO ENGLISH

LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ ACADEMIC UNDERPERFORMANCE IN MIDDLE
SCHOOL GRADES 6-8

The academic underperformance of English Language Learners (ELL) in middle

schools remains a critical issue within the U.S. educational system. ELL students face a

variety of obstacles that impact their academic achievement, such as language barriers

and a lack of adequate support. This qualitative phenomenological study aimed to explore

the barriers contributing to the academic struggles of ELL students in grades 6-8 in

central Mississippi, focusing on the lived experiences of core subject teachers. The study

sought to understand how these barriers affect instructional practices and student

outcomes, particularly within the context of middle school education. The research was

guided by the conceptual frameworks of Linguistically Responsive Teaching (LRT) and

Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT), which emphasize the importance of adapting

instruction to meet the linguistic and cultural needs of students.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six middle school teachers who work

with ELL students. Thematic analysis was used to identify several significant barriers to

ELL success. These barriers included inadequate teacher preparation, insufficient

professional development related to culturally and linguistically responsive teaching

methods, and the social emotional challenges experienced by ELL students, such as

feelings of isolation and disengagement. Teachers also reported difficulties in

iii
communicating effectively with students and their families due to language barriers,

which further hindered academic progress.

The study's findings highlight the need for comprehensive teacher training

programs that incorporate LRT and CRT approaches to better support ELL students.

Additionally, schools should develop support systems that address the academic and

emotional needs of ELL students. Future research should focus on expanding these

interventions across diverse educational contexts and evaluating their long-term impact

on ELL achievement and teacher efficacy.

Keywords: English Language Learners, teacher preparation, Linguistically Responsive

Teaching, Culturally Responsive Teaching, teacher efficacy

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to those who have supported and

guided me throughout this journey of obtaining my doctorate degree. First and foremost,

I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Jacques Singleton, whose unwavering

support, guidance, and expertise have been invaluable throughout this process. Your

insightful feedback and encouragement have significantly contributed to the completion

of this dissertation.

Next, I extend my heartfelt thanks to my dissertation mentor, Dr. Karen

Buchanan, for your mentorship, wisdom, and relentless constant encouragement. Your

guidance has been instrumental in shaping this work and my development as a scholar. I

will be forever grateful for your commitment to seeing me accomplish this milestone.

Your perseverance towards me finishing this ambitious task will never be forgotten.

There was never a time when I needed your expertise, and you did not deliver.

Finally, I would also like to acknowledge and thank the participants of the study.

Without your willingness to participate there would be no study. I am grateful that you

took the time to be a part of this journey.

v
 DEDICATION

“I can do all things through Christ who strengths me,” Philippians 4:13.

First and foremost, I would like to thank God, without him this would not have

been possible. Through this challenging journey, God opened closed doors in order for

this dream of mine to become a reality. I pray this work bless someone the way God has

blessed my life.

To my parents, Stewart and Armer Moore, your love, patience, and

encouragement have been my foundation. Thank you for instilling in me the value of

education, more importantly dedication. I know this undertaking has weighed on your

thoughts and emotions as I endured the commitment to this three-year assignment that

seemed as if it would never end. Thank you for your inspiration throughout this journey.

To my wife and my girls, thank you for accepting the sacrifices made by our

family so that I can accomplish the mission of earning my doctorate. Nora, thank you for

patiently understanding what this work meant to me. You supported this decision from

inception to completion. Mia and Maleah, I hope this accomplishment will teach you that

through perseverance and hard work your future and life goals can be accomplished too.

To my brother and sisters, this accomplishment is our accomplishment. To my

nieces, nephews, and younger cousins, never let excuses be a reason for you not to chase

and live your dreams. This dissertation is dedicated to my entire family.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x

CHAPTER I .........................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

Problem Statement ...............................................................................................................4

Purpose Statement ................................................................................................................5

Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................6

Research Methodology and Design Overview ....................................................................8

Research Questions ............................................................................................................10

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................11

Delimitations ......................................................................................................................12

Limitations .........................................................................................................................12

Definition of Key Terms ....................................................................................................13

Summary ............................................................................................................................15

CHAPTER II ......................................................................................................................16

LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................16

Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................18

Linguistically Responsive Teaching ...........................................................................18

Culturally Responsive Teaching .................................................................................22

Culturally Responsive Pedagogy .......................................................................................25

Teachers’ Perception of Culturally Responsive Teaching .................................................26

Identification of English Language Learner Students .......................................................28

vii
History of English Language Learners ..............................................................................29

Teacher Perception of Teaching ELLs ..............................................................................31

Educator Training .......................................................................................................34

Social Emotion Issues ........................................................................................................35

Teachers’ Self-efficacy ......................................................................................................36

ELL Interventions ..............................................................................................................37

ELL Pedagogy Practices ....................................................................................................40

Parental Involvement .........................................................................................................41

Summary ............................................................................................................................42

CHAPTER III ....................................................................................................................44

RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................44

Research Questions ............................................................................................................45

Research Design.................................................................................................................45

Population and Sample ...............................................................................................48

Instrumentation ...........................................................................................................53

Data Collection ...........................................................................................................55

Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................58

Assumptions .......................................................................................................................60

Ethical Assurances ......................................................................................................61

Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................63

CHAPTER IV ....................................................................................................................65

FINDINGS .........................................................................................................................65

Trustworthiness ..................................................................................................................66

Creditability .......................................................................................................................66

Transferability ....................................................................................................................67
viii
Dependability .....................................................................................................................69

Confirmability ....................................................................................................................70

Demographics ....................................................................................................................72

Results ................................................................................................................................74

Research Question 1 Results ......................................................................................74

Research Question 2 Results ......................................................................................81

Summary ............................................................................................................................87

CHAPTER V .....................................................................................................................89

EVALUATION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS .89

Evaluation of the Findings .................................................................................................90

Discussion ...................................................................................................................95

Implications........................................................................................................................98

Recommendations for Practice and/or Policy ..................................................................104

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................109

APPENDIX A DISTRICT APPROVAL SAMPLE LETTER ......................................111

APPENDIX B: DISTRICT APPROVAL LETTER .......................................................113

APPENDIX C: PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT EMAIL .........................................114

APPENDIX D: CONSENT FORMS ..............................................................................115

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW #1 PROTOCOL ..............................................................118

APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW #2 PROTOCOL ..............................................................120

APPENDIX G: INSITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ............................122

APPENDIX H: COLLABORATIVE TRAINING INITIATIVE (CITI) .......................123

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................124

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Demographics of the Study................................................................................. 73

Table 2. Emergent Themes That Align with Research Question 1................................... 75

Table 3. Emergent Themes That Align with Research Question 2................................... 81

x
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Every student deserves the opportunity to acquire an adequate education through

quality instructional opportunities and practices. As trends in education evolve, it is

critical for educators to continue research to understand the trends, why the trend is

occurring, and develop instructional plans to satisfy competent education for students. In

K12 education, middle schools contain the greatest potential for academic

underperformance. According to Augustine et al., (2004), middle schools were blamed

for the increase in student behavior problems and cited as the cause of teens' alienation,

disengagement from school, and low achievement. The middle school level of K-12

education system is pivotal as it prepares students to transition to high school to graduate.

Research showed that in general, students suffer significant declines in academic

achievement in the transition from elementary school to middle or junior high school

(Schielack & Seeley, 2010). In Mississippi, for the 2021-2022 school year there were 246

schools that received an A letter grade and only 19 were middle schools, 239 schools

earned a B letter grade and only 45 were middle schools, 36 percent of schools that were

labeled at a D or F letter grade were middle schools.

Research has shown a trend of decline in achievement for middle school students,

yet there is limited research identifying exclusive influences of low academic

performance specifically for demographic group of English Language Learners.

1
 According to Lubrears and Rupley (2019), there was an increase in the number of

ELL students coming to sixth grade unprepared for rigorous classroom work. There is a

need to understand the nuances of the experiences surrounding middle school English

Language Learners. English language acquisition is not being obtained, and EL students

are falling further behind academically (Brieseth, 2020). Within the United States,

English Language Learners generally are outperformed on large-scale assessments by

non-ELLs (Shin, 2019).

English Language Learner students are defined as students who come from non-

native English-speaking homes and are acquiring academic English proficiency (Hwang

et al., 2019). According to Hallock (2018), approximately 44 million immigrants resided

in the United States in 2016, and nearly 4.8 million of that number were English

Language Learner students and attended our public schools. Currently, Mississippi is

home to over 12,000 ELL students.

The majority of instructional design approaches in public schools in the US were

intended for children who speak English as their first language. Although the Mississippi

Department of Education recognized ELL students as a subgroup, characteristically there

are more resources and training for mainstream native students. Consequently, as the

ELL population expands, it is imperative that research emerges to combat the

achievement gaps for ELL students. Therefore, school districts have to invest in teacher

professional training with an emphasis on the English Language Learner.

Learners not proficient in English and attended US public schools needed

language support and services so they can succeed (Dort, 2019). The chronic lack of

academic performance of ELLs correlated to English-only instructions, eventually

2
affecting schools, teachers, and the students (Curan, 2016). According to Nevárez-La

Torre (2012), there was an achievement gap that exists for this sub-group of students.

The increased diversity of the student body population in public schools has

expanded the number of students identified as English Language Learners. There has

been a 28 percent increase in English Language Learners across 43 states in the United

States (Mitchell, 2020). As the population of ELLs expands, the academic gaps within

public schools will increase, developing a need for analyzation as to why this occurrence

is happening.

Lumbrears and Rupley (2017) revealed that the fastest growing school

populations in America are ELLs. The ELL population has increased by 65 percent since

1993, with approximately 70 percent of those ELLs speaking Spanish (Lumbrears &

Rupley, 2017). The influx of immigrants in public schools has fostered challenges for

educators regarding preparation and providing satisfactory academic accommodations

and resources to support the shift in student demographics. These students under-perform

academically, while the achievement goals are the same as native students.

Historically, mainstream teachers in the USA have received little to no

preparation for teaching English Language Learners (Stairs-Davenport, 2021). The

research by Stairs-Davenport indicated that the majority of teacher training and

interventions are for traditional American English-speaking students. Students that are

English Language Learners are often put into the mainstream classrooms and expected to

perform at same the proficiency level as native students without differentiation and

specific learning strategies. Preceding research by Karvonen et al. (2021), implied that

schools with students with significant cognitive disabilities who are ELLs should not only

3
identify these students but also understand the unique characteristics that influence how

they learn and demonstrate what they know and can do.

Teachers play a crucial role in the success of English Language Learners students,

and their effectiveness can be influenced by various factors. Exploring teachers’ voice

holds promise to uncover understandings that could potentially inform the field and drive

instructional change that could positively impact ELL student achievement. This type of

exploration is timely because the ELL population in the United States continues to grow.

Problem Statement

The problem addressed in this study was the academic underperformance of

students who are identified as English Language Learners within Mississippi middle

schools. Students not native to Mississippi schools who acquired English as a second

language are impacted by the problem of the study. It is known that ELL students

struggled to perform academically compared to their native speaking counterparts.

However, the potential negative consequences of this problem if not addressed is a

greater achievement gap between ELL and mainstream native students and constant

ongoing academic underperformance for ELLs.

According to Robinson (2018), historically, ELLs scored lower in reading and

language acquisition than any other student population. This evidence holds true in

Mississippi. According to the data reported by the Mississippi Succeeds Report Card

(2022), only18 percent of ELL students scored at proficiency on the English state

assessment and only 27 percent scored proficiency on math state assessment. As a result

of low proficiency scores, ELL students in Mississippi are underperforming on

standardized tests, therefore creating a challenging path for these students to graduate.

4
The academic underperformance impacts school districts accountability rating, ELLs

individual grades, and the responsibility of teacher’s role in educating ELL students.

Data reported by Mitchell (2020), articulated that English-learner enrollment in

public K-12 schools increased by more than one million students, rising from 8.1 % of

total enrollment to 9.6 %. The consequences of the ELL population growing in schools

have led to questions and dialogue concerning effective instructional methods. Schools

across the United States often provide substandard instruction and social-emotional

support to the nation’s English-language learners—and fail to properly train the educators

who teach them (Mitchell, 2017).

The underperformance of ELL students on the Mississippi Report Card (2018)

revealed that only 17% ELL students performed at proficient level prompted in-depth

research to addresses the problem. According to Mitchell (2019), many general education

teachers were not equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to meet the needs of

English learners or students with disabilities. The study unpacked barriers that addressed

the problem of academic underperformance for English Language Learners. The potential

negative consequence of this problem included declining ELL graduation rates, increased

learning gaps, continued dropout rate, and continued undesirable state assessment results.

Pre-existing research by Okhremtchuk and Sellu (2019), concluded that the dropout rate

for ELLs continues to rise, and the academic gap between ELLs and their English-

speaking peers has not changed due to the disadvantages associated with unqualified

personnel supporting their academic needs and development.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore teachers’

5
perceptions on contributing factors of ELL students’ academic underperformance. The

purpose was connected to addressing the problem of academic under-performance of

ELL students. A qualitative phenomenological method was appropriate because this

research method allowed researchers to engage in flexible activities that can describe and

help to understand complex phenomena (Alhazmi & Kaufmann, 2022). The low

percentage rate of ELL students passing the state accountability exams and low

proficiency results in English and Math on state assessments for ELL students prompted

the need for in-depth research to identify barriers that impede success. The study sought

to gather insight from teachers’ perceptions of factors that impede ELL students’

academic performance.

The study was designed to explore teacher’s experiences teaching ELL students

and to identify the academic barriers that connects to academic underperformance to their

ELL students. Understanding the contributing barriers based on teachers’ lived

experiences provided background context to inform other educators and be instrumental

in building capacity to enhance student achievement for ELLs. By delving into teachers'

perspectives, this study uncovered practical strategies and interventions that can be

implemented to address identified barriers and improve overall learning outcomes for

ELLs.

Conceptual Framework

Today’s US classrooms reflect students of diverse backgrounds that include

culture, ethnicity, language, and socioeconomic status. The study was developed through

the lens of two critical conceptual frameworks that provide a foundation for effective

teaching of English Language Learners. A conceptual framework provides a

6
comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon or phenomena (Jabareen, 2009). The

conceptual idea for the study was guided by Linguistic Responsive Teaching (LRT) and

Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT).

Linguistically Responsive Teaching suggested three orientations, conceived as

tendencies towards ideas or actions informed by beliefs, and four types of language-

related knowledge and skills that all teachers must possess to effectively teach ELLs

(Stairs-Davenport, 2021). The focus of the study addressed the academic

underperformance of ELL students, which the belief is LRT connects to the

underperformance through the optics of language as an academic barrier. LRT concepts

applied principles of second language acquisition to promote ELL learning. This

conceptual theory offered researchers a lens through which to explore the academic

underperformance of ELL students.

Culturally Responsive Teaching is defined as using the cultural knowledge, prior

experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to

make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them (Gay, 2010). CRT is

centering student voices and learning styles in all lessons and classroom experiences. The

concept of Culturally Responsive Teaching is intertwined with teacher experiences and

perceptions of what it is like teaching English Language Learners.

LRT aligned to the research problem due to most ELL possess non-native

language, which poses uphill battles for teachers as they navigate instructional practices

for these students. CRT aligned to the study through teachers’ perspectives of

understanding culture and background knowledge of ELL students and how it may affect

student achievement. Teachers' lack of preparation can negatively affect multilingual or

7
English learners’ educational trajectories (Master et al., 2016). Authors Alisaari and

Heikkola (2020), suggested that the better teachers understand additional language

learning and linguistic support, the better they can pedagogically justify their practices

and support students’ learning. LRT and CRT acknowledge the importance of engaging

students both through language and culture. The Linguistically Responsive Teaching

framework was appropriate for this study because the intent was for mainstream content

teachers who are monolingual to understand language and cultural hurdles for ELL

students. Educators who enhance their attention to Culturally Responsive Teaching by

articulating a corresponding vision of Linguistically Responsive Teaching may structure

learning realistically (Stairs-Davenport, 2021). Teachers’ perspectives guided the research

findings to address the problem and connect to ELL’s academic underperformance.

Research Methodology and Design Overview

A qualitative research methodology was employed for the study. According to

the American Psychological Association journal, qualitative research is the iterative

process of evolving findings—typically viewing this process as driven by induction and

viewing subjective descriptions of experiences as legitimate data for analyses (Creswell

et al., 2018). This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings,

attempting to understand or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to

them (Mcleod, 2019). A qualitative method of research was the best fit to examine lived

experiences of teachers; hearing their voices as they describe their experiences teaching

ELL students and identifying the barriers they perceive through interviews.

The phenomenological design as used to understand the perspective of the

participants to recognize the phenomenon being researched. The phenomenology is

8
 described as the science of studying perceptions, awareness, and experiences

(Moustakas, 1994). The phenomenological approach focused on the lived experiences

and aspects of the research topic. Phenomenology was an appropriate design for studying

a small number of participants as well as it stresses that only those that have experienced

the phenomena can communicate them to the outside world (Mapp, 2008). Thereupon it

provided insight into the experience from those who have lived it. The methodology

aligned with the research questions exploring experiences of core content teachers to

identifying barriers that contribute to academic underperformance for ELLs.

The interview research questions that aligned with the research served as a guide to

collect descriptive information from semi-structured interviews. The purpose of the

interviews was to solicit conversation through probing questions to gather information.

The interviews were valuable for the research because the responses provided an

overview of real-life lived experiences of ELL students’ teachers. A semi-structured

interview allowed the researcher to ask predetermined questions and follow up questions

based on participants’ responses. The interviews consisted of 10 questions developed

from the two research questions. However, other useful information outside the

structured interview questions was discovered, this method allowed the researcher to ask

more in-depth questions outside the standard questions.

The population for this research were teachers who teach English Language

students in central Mississippi middle schools. In order for a participant to qualify for the

research; they must teach English, Math, Science, or Social Studies in a school that met

the criteria set by Mississippi Department of Education for a sub-group identified as ELL.

Each eligible teacher at the approved schools was invited to participate in the study.

9
However, the study sample consisted of 6 participants. The researcher conducted two

interviews with each participant. The second interview allowed the researcher to reflect

on the first interview analysis and inquire more in-depth descriptions of the lived

experiences of the participant. Each interview lasted between 45-60 minutes length of

time.

The analysis of data incorporated a thematic approach. Thematic analysis (TA) is a

method for identifying, analyzing, and interpreting patterns of meaning (‘themes’) within

qualitative data (Clarke & Braun, 2016). Upon completion of each recorded interview,

the audio version was transcribed into a text document. The utilization of the coding

approach was used to analyze data. Coding allowed the researcher to gain a condensed

overview of the main points and common meanings that recur throughout the data

analysis.

Research Questions

The proposed study will attempt to answer the following research questions:

RQ1

How do middle school core content teachers describe their experiences teaching

their ELL students?

RQ2

What barriers to ELL academic success do middle school core content teachers

perceive?

10
 Significance of the Study

This study was significant in discovering core content teachers’ experiences and

their perceived barriers to the academic performance of their ELL students. According to

Tellez and Manthey (2015), ELL achievement has been largely ignored, even the

collection of national and state data by language. Data collection of lived experiences,

and perceptions of ELL teachers through interviews provided data that was analyzed to

identify common codes to identify themes to formulate conclusions. The study results

uncovered information that will help educators shift their practice in an effort to develop

effective strategies for instructing ELL students. This study can contribute additional

information to assist teachers and administrators in improving the overall school

performance specifically for ELL students. The benefits of addressing ELLs’ academic

underperformance will potentially improve student outcomes and provide information to

devise strategies and planned intervention programs. The data collected offers insight as

to why low performance on mandated state assessments for ELLs exist.

The conceptual frameworks that undergirded this study will advance the literature

pertaining to linguistic responsive teaching and culturally responsive teaching connected

to English language learners. According to Flint et al. (2018), language barriers were

often present between teachers and newcomers, posing seemingly insurmountable

obstacles to developing rapport that can support students in their learning. The

information gained from this research using the frameworks of LRT and CRT included

insight and understanding, skills, and pedagogical content to improve classroom

instructional practices for ELLs. The study specifically focused on the needs of ELL

students to support their academic success and decrease learning gaps.

11
 Delimitations

Delimitations are parameters set intentionally by the researcher; these are

considered the confines of the study (Ellis & Levy, 2009). This research was delimited to

only core content teachers in grades six through eight who teach ELL students. Middle

school core content teachers were selected to address the academic underperformance of

ELL students. High School graduation and the state’s accountability model is predicated

on core content academic achievement. This research is also delimited to two middle

schools within one school district in central Mississippi that serve ELL students. These

intentional parameters ensure a targeted examination of the academic challenges faced by

ELL students within the specified educational context.

Limitations

Limitations of any research include possible weaknesses or potential issues with

the study (Ellis & Levy, 2009). The topic of academic underperformance for ELLs in

middle school grades has limited research. The study served to improve the professional

field by revealing the findings by connecting conceptual frameworks to addressing the

problem of academic underperformance for ELL students. The first limitation of the

study was that research was limited to ELL core content middle school teachers’

perspectives of ELL students’ academic success. By omitting earlier grades and non-core

teachers, this limited perceptions of lived experience teachers in teaching ELL students in

a holistic lens. Methodologically this posed a weakness due to the lived experiences are

boxed into three grades of core content teachers. The design overlooked the experiences

of elective teachers that teach ELL students. Thus, questioning if the selected population

provide an accurate account of all teachers’ experiences with ELL students. In addition,

12
each school’s resources may vary depending on ELL’s literacy levels and the school’s

overall academic goals. To mitigate the limitation, the principal investigator collaborated

with the school gatekeeper to develop a list of teachers that would best fit the study to

accurately reflect true teacher perceptions.

The second limitation of the study was that Mississippi’s ELL population is

growing at a slower rate than the United States as a whole. There is a small number of

school districts within a 100-mile radius that have an ELL subgroup identified by the

Mississippi Department of Education. The population selected is pointedly to

Central Mississippi. This particular limitation connects to principles of qualitative

phenomenological research as it relates to population and sample size specifics.

Mississippi has one school district that has 40% of its population is ELL and the rest of

the state has smaller numbers reported as an ELL sub-group. However, to mitigate the

limitation, an invitation to participate was sent to all middle schools in Central

Mississippi that have ELLs as a subgroup. Every effort was made to obtain valid, quality,

and trustworthy data.

Definition of Key Terms

The definition of key terms section defined important terminologies presented

throughout the dissertation. The key terms of the study are designed to provide a

description of major components of the research topic. Each term was significant and

gave meaning to accomplishing identification of the problem and the establishment of the

purpose.

Culturally Responsive Teaching

13
 Culturally Responsive Teaching is defined as a pedagogy that uses students’

customs, characteristics, experiences, and perspectives as tools for better classroom

instruction (Will & Najarro, 2023).

English Language Learner

English Language Learner students are defined as students who come from non-

native English-speaking homes and are acquiring academic English proficiency (Hwang

et al., 2019).

English Language Proficiency

English language proficiency is the capability to listen, speak, read, and write the

English language with proficiency (Rachmaway et al., 2018).

English for Speakers of Other Languages

English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) is the program in the

school district for English language instruction for students whose native language is not

English (Maryland State Department of Education, 2020).

Linguistic

Linguistic is defined as the scientific study of language (Jimoh, 2008).

Mainstream Classroom Teacher

The mainstream classroom teacher is defined as English-only, monolingual

learning environments (Jong, 2013).

Teacher Efficacy

Teacher efficacy is defined teacher as teachers’ beliefs about their own capacities

as teacher (Jimenez-Silva et al., 2012).

14
 Summary
Identifying barriers that impede ELL students’ success is necessary to ensure that

these students are receiving equitable, quality, and inclusive education. This research was

conducive for combating the problem that exists with academic performance for ELLs.

Chapter one introduced the problem, purpose, and theoretical framework. The problem

addressed in this study is the academic underperformance for students who are identified

as ELL. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore ELL teachers’ experiences

and perceptions regarding the academic underperformance of their ELL students.

Linguistic Responsive Teaching (Lucas &Villegas, 2010) and Culturally Responsive

Teaching (Gay, 2013) conceptual frameworks guided the development of this study and

provide a lens through which the data will be explored. Chapter two included the

literature review that is connected to the stud

15
 CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This qualitative case study addresses the academic underperformance of today’s

English language learners. According to Robinson (2018), historically ELLs score lower

in reading and language acquisition than any other population. At a time when school

districts across the country. United States are experiencing fast-growing enrollments of

English language learners, many K-12 educators are asking what they can do to meet

those students' needs (Russell & Von Esch, 2018). Most regular education teachers lack

proper training to work with ELLs efficiently (Goodson, 2020). As a result of insufficient

training and understanding of the phenomenon, general education classrooms that are

becoming more diverse, both ethnically and racially, are failing to meet the needs of ELL

students. The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore teachers’

perceptions on contributing factors of ELL students’ academic underperformance.

Chapter two includes a focus on a literature connected to linguistic relevance and

culture in teaching students that are acquiring English as a second language. Linguistic

responsive teaching (LRT) history is relevant to theories aligned to understanding

principles of second-language learning, strategies for learning about students'

backgrounds, identifying content-specific language demands and strategies for

scaffolding instruction (Solano-Campos et al., 2018). Culturally Responsive Teaching

(CRT) refers to using students’ customs, characteristics, experience, and perspectives as

16
tools for better classroom instruction. Chapter two connects LRT ad CRT research to the

teaching and learning process for English language learners through language and

cultural barriers associated with their academic success. Research for this chapter relates

to literature pertaining to instruction responsive to ELL students’ culturally and

linguistically. Understanding LRT and CRT can foster success for these students. The

objective is to discover the barriers or inadequate supports that contribute to

underperformance for immigrant and ELL students, to provide knowledge, preparedness,

and teacher efficacy for those who teach these students. The goal was to offer evidence

and research about why ELL students academically underperform and develop strategies

from the research that can make both the ELL student and the teacher successful in the

teaching and learning atmosphere.

Chapter two consists of a synthesis of the existing research directly relating to

English language learners in the middle school educational setting in central Mississippi.

The achievement gap for immigrant students acquiring English as a second language has

been documented with limited research that provides findings that relate to why the gaps

have existed for years. Chapter two applies a key theoretical principle through the

theoretical framework lens of linguistically responsive teaching (LRT). According to

Smolcic and Arends (2017), when teachers use knowledge about students' cultural,

social, and linguistic backgrounds in planning and implementing instruction, students'

academic achievement is strengthened. This framework provides a structure for what to

look for in the data and how to connect the data pieces; this also clarifies findings in light

of existing theories. (Kivunja,2018). To be linguistically responsive, teachers need to

have language-related experiences, language-related dispositions, language-related

17
knowledge, and language-related pedagogical skills (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). The

linguistically responsive teaching framework was applicable for this study because it

connects a theory to students who are acquiring English as a second language. The

significance of the research is to provide a resource to mainstream teachers who only

speak one language that are responsible for educating students that are identified as ELL.

The literature review of LRT and CRT elaborates on the current research on

teacher perceptions of ELL students, linguistically responsive teaching, bilingual

education, and culturally responsive teaching. The research that supported this study was

sourced from various sources including Arkansas State University’s digital library and

Education Resources Information Center, [Link], Google Scholar, JSTOR, and

ProQuest. The search involved scholarly peer-reviewed articles, and book or book

chapters published in 2016 or later. Although the search was restricted by publication

date, additional sources outside of the aforementioned time frame were searched if they

provided information that was not found in later publications. The specific words and

phrases used in the search were: English Language Learners, Linguistic, Culturally

Responsive Teaching, and Linguistic Responsive Teaching.

Conceptual Framework

Linguistically Responsive Teaching

Research suggested that it takes many years to develop expertise in the complex

set of knowledge, skills, and orientations needed to teach culturally and linguistically

diverse (CLD) students well (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). The goal of Linguistically

Responsive Teaching, which was created by Tamara Lucas and Ana María Villegas, is to

provide educators with the abilities and understanding required to successfully teach

18
children from varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds, especially those who are

English Language Learners. Lucas and Villegas teamed up to collaborate in advocating

for a comprehension approach to teacher preparation that addresses both cultural and

linguistic responsiveness. Which refers to the language and cultural background of

students. Their collective efforts have led to influential publications that guide teacher

educators in preparing future teachers to meet the challenges of linguistically diverse

classrooms.

Linguistically responsive teaching provides an added resource for students that

face language barriers associated with teaching and learning. Teachers’ pedagogical

understandings are crucial in delivering instruction, improving students’ learning

outcomes, and developing students’ proficiency in the language of instruction (Little &

Kirman, 2018). Teachers who are able to adapt their teaching style according to students’

needs, positively affect students' learning progress for those who speak a one language at

home and another at school (Heikkola et al., 2022). Ultimately, the desired outcome is to

equip teachers with resources that will combat the academic underperformance of ELL

students.

For educators of immigrant students navigating multiple languages, research and

practice can be framed through the lens of linguistically responsive teaching. According

to LRT, educators of bilingual and multilingual children should possess specialized

knowledge and skills in order to effectively educate their students (Pizzo, 2016).

Specifically, LRT centers that teachers need a broad range of knowledge and skills,

including deep content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of how

children and adolescents learn in a variety of settings, and skills for creating a classroom

19
community supportive of learning for diverse students (Lucas et al., 2008). Those skills

include incorporating multicultural lessons that include student’s native language to

improve understanding and broaden content knowledge to obtain academic success. LRT

also requires integrating knowledge of second-language acquisition with familiarity with

students' linguistic and academic backgrounds, an understanding of the language

demands in the learning tasks they are presented, and skills for using appropriate

scaffolding (Lucas et al., 2008).

Throughout the United States, classroom teachers are seeing an increase in

English language learners in their classrooms. In US schools, the number of English

learners has grown to nearly 10% of the school-age population (Ruiz Soto et al., 2015).

Within LRT, structure is critical; structure gives direction to combat inadequacies and

difficulties connected with language obstacles and address the issue related to social and

academic underperformance for English as a second language learner. According to the

Mississippi Department of Education (n.d.), for the 2022-2023 school year, Mississippi's

schools is home to 12,100 English language learners. Central Mississippi middle schools

are the target choice of research for this study. Research by Rockoff and Lockwood

(2010), found that students transitioning to middle school experience significant declines

in standardized test scores in both math and English. Middle school grade level has the

highest number of students to take state mandated assessments.

Pedagogical practices are considered high quality when they facilitate the learning

and well-being of both students and teachers; to be able to respond to learners' individual

needs, teachers must continuously develop their skills and adapt their teaching style

(Ahonen et al., 2014). This idea focuses on building a relationship between the teacher

20
and student. This approach stresses the academic importance of students’ prior

knowledge and experiences, which strengthens relationships between home and school

by making the students’ (and their caregivers’) languages and cultures visible in the

classroom and legitimizing students’ existing knowledge (Gay, 2013).

Prior research shows correlations between vocabulary and language as a key

barrier to literacy development for many English Language Learners. For instance, Kim

et al. (2018) found that vocabulary knowledge directly impacts reading and writing

performance, emphasizing the intertwined nature of these skills in literacy development.

A component of literacy and learning English is grammar development. Research by Van

Rijt et al., (2019) contended that meta concepts from theoretical linguistics should be

used to pedagogically and to conceptually enrich traditional grammar teaching, which

generates more opportunities for conceptual understanding. The language barrier scenario

contributes to why the LRT framework is appropriate for this study.

According to Hoover and Soltero-Gonzalez (2018), a recurring challenge in the

education of English learners is the delivery of instruction responsive to students’ cultural

and linguistic strengths, particularly when using curricula assessments designed with

fluent English speakers. Tandon et al. (2017), suggested that teacher programs lack

multilingual training; however, veteran teachers lack the understanding and training for

the diverse population of students in the United States. The expectation is that students

reach proficiency levels accelerated when they can relate to daily instruction as a result of

language or cultural awareness is embedded in the planning.

The demographic discrepancy between students and teachers in the United States

continues to grow. According to the Mississippi Department of Education (2022), the

21
teacher demographics in Mississippi consist of 70% White, 29% Black, and 2% Hispanic.

Which does not match Mississippi’s public school’s student demographics that consist of

47% Black, 42% White, and 5% Hispanic. This mismatch has increased the call to recruit

more culturally and linguistically diverse teachers into the K-12 profession (Martin &

Strom, 2016). Theoretically, the notion is that linguistically responsive educators orient

toward an understanding that language, culture, and identity are deeply interconnected

(Lindahl et al., 2021). Gathering and construing a teacher’s aptitude to incorporate

linguistically responsive practices will allow the researcher to identify barriers that

impede ELL student academic underperformance from a teacher’s narrative. DuBois

(2017) found through extensive interviewing of a small group of special education

teachers that they lacked resources and strategies to deliver effective instruction,

assessment, and referrals of ELs citing the lack of contemporary professional

development (PD) as a critical concern. These particular research findings provide

creditable evidence that a diverse group of teachers has a need to understand how to

support English Language Learners and their academic and social aspects of education.

Linguistically responsive teachers who understand the centrality of language in the

meaning-making process recognize multilingual learners need language-rich learning

environments in which they have opportunities to engage with oral and written texts for

meaningful, academic purposes (Symons, 2022).

Culturally Responsive Teaching

Culturally Responsive Teaching is the second conceptual framework guiding this

research. The debate around diversity currently is a salient and permanent aspect of

educational discourse, as learning and teaching in multicultural classrooms have brought

22
major challenges to both teachers and students (Abacioglu et al., 2019). According to

Ashbrook (2021), in order for children to grow as science learners and doers and develop

their identity, teachers must understand the cultural dimensions of science learning how

people make sense of the natural world in relation to the communities of which they are

members. Culture is a part of daily life, and the experiences of children's backgrounds are

injected into their learning and thinking progressions. Knowing children and their

families well enough to become familiar with students' daily life is a beginning step into

culturally responsive teaching.

Culturally responsive teaching (CRT) is a set of practices designed to build on

students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds as teaching and learning occur (Cruz et al.,

2019). The concept of CRT teaches to and through the strengths of ethnically diverse

students, and which uses the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference,

and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning outcomes more

relevant and effective (Gay, 2013). This ideology recognizes that not all schools are

homogenous, but rather serve diverse cultures and backgrounds. Earlier research by Gay

(2000) suggested that the basic framework for CRT is characterized through five

characteristics. The characteristics are acknowledgment of different cultures, bridging the

gap between home and school, variety of teaching and learning, embracing and praising

each other’s cultural heritage, and incorporate multicultural information, resources,

teaching and learning material cross all subjects.

Research suggests that teachers in school districts are generally underprepared to

teach ELLs. Research findings by Stairs-Davenport (2021), found that teachers expressed

many wonderings and dilemmas of practice in their questions that focused on

23
differentiating curriculum, assessment, and instruction, but many teachers also wrote

questions related to building community, discerning language differences from language

disabilities, and most striking, simply where to start in working with ELLs. This analysis

provides an opportunity for the relevance of culturally responsive teaching to be a

function of teaching English as second language students.

Teachers generally do not view disabilities and language related needs as separate

and that approaches to instruction tend to follow those perceptions (Karvonen et al.,

2021). This general assumption is the idea that language barriers are the sole

characteristic that impede academic success for English language learners. There is a

need to equip prospective teachers with effective teaching strategies and build cultural

and linguistic awareness in order to ensure that teachers meet the needs of all students

(Hollie & Allen, 2018). While many teacher preparation programs have attempted to

attain these goals by implementing well designed curricula encouraging teachers to

practice responsive teaching with a more critical, social reconstructionist framework, still

few teachers enter classrooms prepared to meet the needs of diverse students (Acquash &

Szelei, 2018). This means that approaches and adequate research is needed in teacher

education and professional development at the school level to help both prospective and

current teachers embed such new strategies into teaching practices with in schools.

According to Mette et al. (2016), when we are responsive, we feel an obligation, a

sense of urgency, to address a need so that stunts experience success. Culturally

responsive pedagogy refers to effective teaching in culturally diverse classrooms (Irvine,

2009). It is the premise that learning can be different depending on the background and

culture of the student(s). Culturally responsive teaching and culturally responsive

24
pedagogy aid teachers in learning and developing strategies to teach students from

diverse backgrounds. Within sufficient culturally responsive classrooms, both the student

and teacher develop relationships that foster effective strategies and relationships that are

instrumental in student success. Through culturally responsive pedagogy students are

supported with student centered instruction, cultural knowledge, and strengthen the

opportunity for student achievement.

According to Cruz et al. (2019), national studies have consistently shown that

culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students score below non-Hispanic White

students in math and reading, experience lower graduation rates, are underrepresented in

advanced placement and honors classes, and are often overrepresented in exclusionary

school discipline practices. Studies indicate that race/ethnicity and linguistic differences

can differentially affect the probability of being labeled as having a disability and placed

in special education (Kincaid & Sullivan, 2016). If teachers have the capacity to

understand how culturally responsive teaching and how it benefits teaching immigrant

and non-English speaking students, teacher efficacy is created as well as an inclusive

environment for all students will be produced.

Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

As more and more students from different backgrounds populate 21st Century

classrooms and efforts mount to identify effective methods to teach these students, the

need for pedagogical approaches that are culturally responsive intensifies (Richards et al.,

2007). According to Richards et al., (2007), cultural responsive teaching is three

dimensional—it is institutional, persona, and instructional to facilitate and support

achievement for all students. The daily struggles that many Indigenous students face in

25
negotiating dual contexts of language, culture, and epistemology is amplified in

classrooms (O’Keeffe et al., 2018). The way content is taught through pedagogical

practices is influential to the success of ELL students. Pedagogy is described as the art or

science of teaching children (Shah, 2021). A lack of congruence between the culture of

the school and that of the student is well associated with Indigenous students’ limited

success in school (Boon & Lewthwaite, 2015).

Culturally responsive pedagogy was central to Vygotsky’s theory. Vygotsky

(1978) stressed the fundamental role of social interaction in the development of

cognition, as he believed strongly that community played a central role in the process of

making meaning. According to Boon and Lewthwait (2015), ideas and propositions are

intrinsically linked to cultural identity, in collaborative learning wherein the teacher or

more knowledgeable other is a facilitator of the learning process. Gay (2010) defined it

as teaching ‘to and through students’ personal and cultural strengths, their intellectual

capabilities, and their prior accomplishments and as premised on ‘close interactions

among ethnic identity, cultural background, and student achievement (Boon &

Lewthwaite, 2015).

Teachers’ Perception of Culturally Responsive Teaching

The increasing number of diverse populations represented in U.S. schools,

including migrant, refugee, and immigrant children, presents a necessity for teachers to

learn new ways to deliver quality instruction to meet all learners’ needs (Coppersmith et

al., 2019). The rich variety of students’ cultural knowledge should be used as a source for

learning, and teachers should tailor their teaching to take advantage of students’

backgrounds (Gay, 2013). Previous studies have suggested that a well-structured CRT

26
curriculum can facilitate a teacher’s understanding of the ways in which cultural

backgrounds and experiences can be used to enhance students’ learning achievements

(Chou et al., 2018). In the United States, student learning and exposure is based on

background and cultural experiences of their family dynamics and understanding. Banks

(2021) suggested that skin color, time of arrival in the United States, language use, level

of education, family dynamics, place of residents, and many other differences within

groups may influence how one interprets or “lives” culture.

Culturally responsive teaching values students’ identities, backgrounds, and

cultural references as key tools for building meaningful learning environments (McKoy

et al., 2016). Teachers’ knowledge of attitude and efficacy toward cultural diversity can

significantly impact students’ learning outcomes and learning opportunities, especially in

the case of culturally different for non-English speaking students. According to Yang et

al. (2014), teachers need to equip themselves with professional competencies to create

learning environments that meet the needs and experiences of all students, including

those with diverse cultural backgrounds.

Teachers require immediate support and training to become linguistically and

culturally responsive content educators to meet the learning needs of the increasing

number of immigrant and refugee students from diverse cultures (Coppersmith et al.,

2019). Today’s classrooms are increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse, yet there

is a large body of literature documenting the significance of the disparity in academic

achievement between Black and Latino students and White students (Dawson, 2019). As

student demographics continue to diversify, white teachers perceive themselves as ill-

equipped to serve students of color in their classrooms (Hammond, 2015). To maximize

27
learning opportunities, teachers should gain knowledge of the cultures represented in

their classrooms and adapt lessons so that they reflect ways of communicating and

learning that are familiar to the students. (Banks, 2015). Students learn in different ways,

such as tier one instruction, small groups, and from their peers in class. Students from

some cultural groups prefer to learn in cooperation with others, while the learning style of

others is to work independently (Scriven, 2019). Research by Scriven (2019), found that

teachers acknowledged that there is a need for them to listen to students’ issues and help

them to overcome the issues to be effective in their classroom assignments.

Identification of English Language Learner Students

English language learner or ELL is defined as an individual whose language

background was not English and the level of English language proficiency effects his or

her ability to succeed academically (Valle et al., 2013). Introduction and adoption of the

term English language learner and English learner came from Charlene Rivera and Mark

La Celle-Peterson’s 1994 study (Linse, 2013). Reported by the Intercultural Development

Research Association (2018), since 1872, an English-only instruction law had been in

place in the United States. It was not until 1967 that legislation was overturned by SB53,

a policy that allowed California public schools to allow other languages in instruction.

ELL students possess distinctive educational needs because of the barriers created

by language and culture. Students who speak as their first language do not automatically

identify as English language learners. In order for student to be identified as an English

language learner, he or she must take a screener. According to Zacarian (2016), the home

language survey is by far one of the most common tools to determine if the student is an

28
English learner (EL). The home language survey is a requirement for registration for all

students in Mississippi.

According to U.S. Department of Education (2018), the home language survey

(HLS) is a questionnaire given to parents or guardians that help schools and Local

Education Agencies (LEA) identify which students are potential ELLs and who will

require assessment of their English language proficiency (ELP) to determine whether

they are eligible for language assistance services. Research by Bailey and Kelly (2010),

illustrate that there is a great deal of variation in HLS instruments across the United

States. Home language surveys include background historical questions about the student

languages spoken, how the student understands language, uses, and language heard at

home.

History of English Language Learners

According to Benson (1994), the work of Harold E. Palmer, the individual

responsible for consolidating the ideas of the nineteenth-century reform movement into

what became known as the Direct Method of second language teaching. Palmer

constructed an idea that language should be taught, therefore he developed techniques

and strategies for listening and oral skills. Today’s reform in the United States regarding

linguistics in education is referred to as English language learners. Students who are

gaining English as a second language are referred to as English as a second language

(ESL), English learner (EL), limited English proficiency (LEP), English as a foreign

language (EFL), and English speaker to other language (ESOL). The most commonly

used acronyms in the United States K-12 environments are ELL and ESL.

29
 Both ELL and ESL acronym identifications were attached to students who

immigrated to the United States’s public schools. The phrase foreign born and immigrant

are often interchangeable, referring to people who do not possess U.S. citizenship at birth

(Zong & Batalova, 2015). According to the United Nations Department of Economic and

Social Affairs International Migration report (2020), 51 million immigrants were living in

the United States. This is nearly one-fifth of the total number of immigrants globally and

the United States has the most immigrants of any nation. The growing population of

immigrants to U.S. has contributed to the increase of ELL students across the country.

As a result of immigration blooming, in 2001 President Bush enacted No Child

Left Behind Act (NCLB). Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act requires that all

English language learners receive quality instruction for learning both English and grade-

level academic content (Colorin Colorado, 2015). The identified English language

subgroup is significant now for overall performance of a school district. As a result of

increased mobility and migration globally, language teacher education has been tasked

with responding to economic and cultural pressure for students to be adept in multilingual

communication, especially in English (Stairs-Davenport, 2021).

As of 2018 there were 70,860 immigrants (foreign-born individuals) that

comprise two percent of the population in Mississippi (American Immigration Council,

2020). These family move to the United States to pursue better economic opportunities.

The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) (2021) reported that 45% of Mississippi’s

immigrants were Latino or Hispanic. The most common used language for immigrants of

Mississippi is Spanish. Although there is data to track immigrants, there are still huge

percent of immigrants that are undocumented. MPI estimates that there are more than 11

30
million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States; further it is estimated that

25,000 of undocumented immigrants currently live in Mississippi.

Teacher Perception of Teaching ELLs

School districts across the United States are being faced with urgency to diverse

needs of students in school including overcoming language barriers and cultural

differences while increasing literacy and acquiring a certain letter grade for the school

report card. Migrating and immigrant students are placed in mainstream classrooms with

teachers who are unequipped or have limited resources with the expectations for all

students to learn with the goal of graduating from high school. Synthesizing teachers’

perspectives provides insight and a resource as to how to better serve students that

possess disadvantages due to linguistic and cultural obstacles.

According to Garcia et al., (2019), a study found evidence that teachers viewed

boys, African Americans, and students with limited English proficiency as having worse

Executive Functions (EFs) than girls, white students, and English dominant students,

respectively, beyond what would be expected based on a direct assessment of their EFs.

Executive Functions are higher order cognitive skills that support planning, problem

solving, and goal directed behaviors (Diamond, 2013). Teachers and administration alike

that are experiencing the drastically changes in demographics and non-English speaking

student are not equipped to provide these students the high order cognitive skills needed

to be academically competitive or successful. The development of cognitive skills is

significant in regard to students becoming successful on state mandated assessments,

graduating and high school and future endeavors post-graduation. It is imperative that the

teacher’s perception of these students are aligned to training development of efficacy and

31
understanding of best practices to ensure ELL students can become included and

successful.

Research has suggested that a positive relationship between instructional

effectiveness and self-efficacy exists when teachers feel confident about their craft and

offer their behaviors to benefit student learning (Goddard et al., 2004). In order for

students who are immigrants or identified as English Language Learner students to be

successful teachers must possess a broad range of knowledge and understand the barriers

that affect the learning for these students. Due to the growing diversity in mainstream

classrooms with the expectation of students learning English and content simultaneously,

they need teachers who are prepared and equipped with knowledge to adequately teach

the ELL students.

It is important to understand the relationship between teacher capacity and

perceptions as it relates to the impact on academic achievement for ELL students.

Researchers argue that teacher capacity is the ability to assist students in learning and is

dependent on teachers’ own knowledge, which includes knowledge of the subject matter,

knowledge of curriculum, knowledge about students, and knowledge about general and

subject-specific pedagogy; second, they point to skills, arguing that while knowledge

interacts with skills, there is a considerable gap between what teachers believe they

should be doing in the classroom and their ability to teach in the desired ways (Zhang &

Stephens, 2013). Knowledge about the student is critical when observing how to build

relationships and developing strategies to ensure learning happens for a multicultural

classroom setting.

32
 There is a significant number of studies that support effective instructional

practices for English Language Learners. However, there is limited research that

investigates or explores teachers’ confidence and efficacy of teaching ELL students. For

example, a study by Figueroa (2023) explored teachers' self-efficacy in teaching ELLs

with disabilities using culturally relevant pedagogy in which the findings included the

need for targeted professional development to improve teachers' confidence and

effectiveness in working with this diverse student group. English language learners are a

growing population in U.S. schools. ELL students are expected to meet the same learning

standards as their native English-speaking peers. The progress of ELL students has been

poor, and evidence suggests that teachers are not prepared to help these students

(Winstead, 2020).

Research by Hramiek (2015) revealed that researchers reported that educators feel

ill-prepared to work with ELL students, and this led to educators being less adaptive to

the demands of an inclusive classroom. This is a result of teachers’ efficacy and their

perception of how to teach ELL students. Lack of understanding of how these students

learn directly impacts the educational process for those students that speak English as a

second language. The research by Rizzuto (2017), which included participants in K-8

concluded that teachers within regular classroom settings did not feel comfortable with

the responsibility of teaching EL students.

Due to the increase of diversity in the United States classrooms, the number of

qualified teachers able to meet the needs of students has decreased. According to Wong

et al. (2016) research indicated that teachers who do not share knowledge of culture or

backgrounds with their students could not close these gaps in understanding through

33
purposeful preservice training or coursework certifications. There is an overwhelming

need to provide training and professional development to increase teacher capacity in

order to maximize the academic potential of students that are immigrants or identified as

English language learners.

Educator Training

As a country with an increasing influx of immigrants from all over the world, the

United States has expressed a paramount need for the proportionately rising number of

well-trained English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers (Nguyen, 2018). According to

mainstream classroom teachers still remain inadequately prepared to teach diverse

students and lack the knowledge base and skills to teach English language learners. The

researchers suggested that inclination has profound implications, particularly in the

Southeast, where the rate of school-aged Latino immigrants has grown significantly.

All teachers should have the capacity create an environment where ELL students feel

welcomed and valued. Unfortunately, many teachers of ELL students do not receive

training in second-language acquisition and do not have a toolbox full of research-based

strategies to help their students who are at various levels of language proficiency (Hynes,

2021).

According to Nguyen (2018), in the teacher education program, besides content

domain, teachers-to-be were trained in pedagogical methods, class management, and

moral character development. This trend is consistent with research by de Jong et al.,

(2013) which noted a meteoric increase in ELL student population combined with

increasingly watered-down ESL teacher education policies has left many states struggling

to fill K-12 ESL vacancies with qualified and effective teachers. This could lead to the

34
perception that training and availability of teachers for ESL students lead to academic

underperformance in the classroom.

Social Emotion Issues

Considering social and emotional competence in learning, emotion awareness

aims to detect the emotions that students show during their learning interactions and

make these emotions explicit to them (Arguedas et al., 2016). Students who migrate to

America embark on new educational systems with different language and culture can

contribute to social emotional issues for these students. Research by Cha et al., (2017),

found that relevant to ELL students social emotional needs they felt less connected to

their schools compared to non-immigrant students. According to Shi and Watkinson

(2019) ELL students encounter challenges such as learning a new language, forming peer

relationships which contribute to social and academic problems.

Peer interactions for students is beneficial, however for students who are non-

native language speakers, students peer interaction present trials. Peer interaction can be

defined as any communitive activities carried out between learners, where there is

minimal or no participation from the teacher (Phillips et al., 2014). When learners engage

in conversational interactions in which they share ideas that matter to them, learning is

more likely to occur because this type of interaction engages learners more meaningful

(Tavares, 2019). Conversely, non-English speaking students lack peer interaction and

class participation because of linguistic struggles, thus creating silence. Tavares (2019)

conveys silence reasons and factors are in part to cultural, linguistic, and psychological

aspects of isolation.

35
 All learning is a complex, multifaceted mixture of behaviors, cognition, social

engagements, physical and emotional responses, and connected to knowledge. Even with

great instruction, success in the classroom will become that much more difficult to

achieve if the social and emotional needs of a student are not met (Lawrence, 2023). This

critique by Lawrence included that this assumption is especially true in middle and high

school students because of responsibilities at home.

English language learners’ experiences can bring a rich diversity of perspective to

the classroom. The opportunity to learn from those perspectives can be lost if ELLs aren't

encouraged to share their ideas as part of a respectful class community (Lbreiseth, 2023).

Previous research by Shi and Watkinson (2019), found that students who arrived in

America reported a feeling that of “it is hard for people like me to be accepted” and

“teachers are here are not interested in people like me”. These social issues experienced

by ELL students all participate in components of academic underperformance for

students acquiring English speaking proficiency.

Teachers’ Self-efficacy

Teachers should understand how to support ELLs in their classrooms. This relates

to teacher efficacy or lack thereof and how it yields academic results for ELL students.

According to Jimenez-Silva et al. (2012), teacher efficacy is defined teacher as teachers’

beliefs about their own capacities as teacher. Research shows the changing demographics

of K-12 settings is the stark contrast between the backgrounds of learners found in the

classroom settings and their educators (Torres & Tackett, 2016). This reference is parallel

to research that supports most teachers share the backgrounds of mainstream students.

36
 Over half the states preparation to work ELLs did not require training for general

classroom training (Education Commission of States, 2014). This is problematic because

ELL students are now required to adhere to mandated state assessments and graduation

rates as mainstream students. Although the frequency in which teachers are educating

ELLs has increased, Stairs-Davenport (2021) research concluded that teachers

communicated that they didn’t know where to start. English Language Learners call for

developed specialized interventions to meet their specific needs, which makes teaching

this population much more challenging. Teachers encounter culture, and dialect

linguistical challenges when teaching ELL.

The challenges associated with teaching ELL or ESOL students for teachers create

shortcomings in instructional practices. This is evidence of why teacher efficacy is

attached to barriers that connect to underperformance for ELL students. The achievement

gap between non-ELLs and ELLs is steadily expanding in the areas of both mathematics

and reading (Polat et al., 2016). The heterogeneity of ELLs makes it challenging to

formulate instructional strategies and provide adequate education for them.

ELL Interventions

Students who are identified as ELL have the same right to a Free Appropriate

Public Education (FAPE) as non-ELL students. This means that it is the responsibility of

the school district to provide educational resources and opportunities they need to

become successful academically. In Lau v. Nichols (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that

the school district needed to provide ELLs with the same learning opportunities as non-

ELLs in the case. This action by the court is evidence that support is needed to combat

ELLs academic underperformance. As a result, it's crucial to look into the instructional

37
strategies that general education teachers are using to meet ELLs' academic and linguistic

demands as well as their perceptions of their own teaching abilities.

According to Gil and Bardack (2010), the question of how to best educate ELLs

has been marked by speculation, uncertainty, and lack of consensus around defining,

teaching, and learning English. According to proponents of a supported language learning

process, there is a discrepancy between how long it takes ELLs to reach

conversational/communicative language proficiency versus how long it takes them to

reach academic language proficiency; some research finds that communicative

proficiency takes anywhere between one and a half to five years to develop and academic

proficiency takes anywhere between four and seven years (Hakuta, et al., 1999). For this

reason, educators must understand the challenges in order to prescribe practices that

guide academic performance.

The growing number of ELL students has become a challenge to public schools

because this subgroup of students continues to perform poorly academically as measured

by standardized assessments (Polat, 2016). ELLs enroll in public schools with various

academic and language backgrounds that affect their speaking, reading, and writing.

Cultural and vocabulary shortfalls also present academic opposition more so than non-

ELL students. Consequently, general education teachers need to have training to

understand how to implement effective intervention and instructional strategies to

develop skills in a way that ELL students can learn.

Student intervention is a part of the daily routine for K-12 schools. Intervention

plans are designed to develop skills and close achievement gaps for students with

academic deficiencies. In particular, ELL students possess a different set of academic

38
barriers than mainstream students. Therefore, it is a major factor for thorough

intervention plans to be implemented to counter the academic underperformance for ELL

students. Dellicarpini (2018) suggested that the need for researchers to examine ESL and

content teachers’ multiple and complex roles because these roles ultimately influence

how teachers engage in collaboration. The call to teach both content and language to

English as a second language students generates opportunities for ESL and content

teachers’ collaboration in content classrooms throughout the United States. This ideology

delivers the idea that collaboration of teachers gives ESL or ELL students an opportunity

for success in the classroom (Kibler et al., 2014).

Research by Marsh (2018) found that Programmatic Design Elements such as

culturally relevant teaching, relevant pedagogy, Sheltered English immersion, ESL, and

Newcomer programs are necessary to promote effective English language learning.

Marsh (2018) also emphasized the strategic hiring of staff who were former English

language learners themselves with their own multicultural histories, as well as recruiting

those who are dually certified in ESL and general education/or a subject area are

particularly effective in the design of schools that have been successful in ELLs’

achievement and graduation rates. This is achieved by fostering strategies and

implementations that promote student achievement for English Language Learners that

rectifies academic performance.

According Walqui and Heritage (2020) teachers must create a trusting classroom

culture in which students feel that regardless of their understanding of reading, writing,

and speaking English, their contributions will be valued by both teachers and peers and

will never be subject to ridicule, sanctions, or negative comparisons. This ideology

39
connects English language learners to productively engaging in classroom discourse and

express their thinking related to content learning goals. Teachers are also encouraged to

be attentive to word choice students use and consider the types of sentences students

produce and judiciously highlight how they may be combined and expanded to produce

more complex language. Student engagement through interaction is a component of the

effective teaching and learning process for students.

ELL Pedagogy Practices

The experiences of children of immigrants are being emphasized in pedagogical

practices in a lot of educational research, sometimes to maintain cultural and linguistic

identity and other times to improve academic achievement. Public schools in the U.S.

have become more diverse, and educators are becoming more aware of the unique

requirements of children from varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Pedagogy is

indispensable to the progression of students who are inheriting English as a second

language. For an example, Paris’s (2012) updated vision of culturally responsive

pedagogy, culturally sustaining pedagogies (CSPs), calls on educators to push their

practices beyond those that allow them to acknowledge their students’ diverse

backgrounds and their experiences of systemic oppressions to those that explicitly

celebrate, and support said diversity and actively counter systemic injustice. This idea

was cultivated by Moll et al., (1992), to create greater connections to broad/mainstream

perceptions of (marginalized) culture, moving away from the “ample cultural and

cognitive resource[s]” found in children’s homes.

Many U.S. K-12 teachers in ethnolinguistically homogenous, rural areas are not

adequately prepared to meet the needs of their English language learner students

40
(Guerrettaz et al., 2020). For (ELLs), the need to achieve English literacy is exacerbated

and can have a direct negative impact on their education and future livelihood (Comber,

2015). Inadequate pedagogical practices share the responsibility along with linguistic and

culturally implementation that adversely affect English Language Learners academic

execution.

Parental Involvement

Parent involvement in a child's education is consistently found to be positively

associated with a child's academic performance (Topor et al., 2010). The belief is that

teachers across the United States rely on parents to be an extension of the classroom at

home. According to Grossman (2001), parent-child interactions, specifically stimulating

and responsive parenting practices, are important influences on a child's academic

development. However, this logical scenario as a resource is not always prevalent in

immigrant households that have children identified as ELL.

It has been reported that many ELLs have difficulty acquiring content knowledge,

which is often presented in English (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). The

speculation for this described academic flaw is their brain has been wired to understand

their primary language, yet the students are expected to understand curricular content

while their English skills are still developing. This principle is also evident in the parents

of immigrant and ELL parents. Previous research continually finds that ELL parents,

generally speaking, place a high value on their children's education, many immigrant,

refugee, and ELL parents experience their relationships with their children's schools very

differently from mainstream English-speaking families (Tarasawa & Waggoner, 2015).

Thus, eliminates the parents as a resource or extension of the classroom at home.

41
 Communities with large ELL populations face challenges of communicating with

parents, who may have limited fluency in English and relatively low levels of literacy in

their native languages. Schools frequently struggle to meet the unique instructional and

linguistic needs of these students. Often the reality is that immigrants who have fled

poverty, war, or other adverse circumstances may lack of formal education in their native

language (Newcomer et al., 2020). More specifically, research by Wassell et al. (2015),

findings that family involvement barriers included difference between home language

and the dominant home language, intimidation of or lack of trust in the school, and lack

of education.

Parental involvement is aligned to the study because of the connection of

student’s academic success with involved parents. When identifying barriers that

contribute to ELL academic underperformance, literature supports that language is also a

barrier associated with parents. As reported by Wassell et al. (2015), teachers conveyed

that when the students leave me there is no one they can go home to someone who can

explain the work in English. Which is evidence that the function of a parent at home as a

resource is absent and creates a barrier.

Summary

Chapter II of this dissertation provides a comprehensive review of the literature

addressing the academic underperformance of English Language Learners in middle

schools, focusing on central Mississippi. The chapter delves into two frameworks and

research findings related to Linguistically Responsive Teaching and Culturally

Responsive Teaching, emphasizing their importance in mitigating the unique challenges

faced by ELL students. Developed by Tamara Lucas and Ana María Villegas, LRT

42
equips educators with the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively teach culturally

and linguistically diverse students by integrating their linguistic and cultural backgrounds

into the teaching process. This approach enhances academic achievement by requiring

teachers to possess language-related experiences, dispositions, knowledge, and

pedagogical skills. Similarly, CRT utilizes students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds

to improve classroom instruction, aiming to bridge the gap between home and school

cultures and create an inclusive learning environment.

The literature indicates a significant gap in mainstream teachers' preparation to

effectively educate ELL students. Moreover, ELL students often face socio-emotional

challenges, including feelings of isolation and limited peer interaction, which negatively

impact their engagement and achievement. Parental involvement is another critical factor

in ELL students' academic success, yet language barriers and cultural differences often

hinder effective communication between schools and immigrant families. The literature

also emphasizes the importance of implementing targeted interventions and support

strategies to address ELL students' academic needs, such as developing specialized

instructional plans and fostering collaboration between ELL and content teachers.

In conclusion, Chapter II synthesizes existing research on the educational challenges and

barriers faced by ELL students in middle schools. By examining the principles of LRT

and CRT, the chapter offers a comprehensive understanding of the strategies needed to

enhance ELL students' academic performance. The findings highlight the importance of

culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices, targeted professional

development, and supportive classroom environments in addressing ELL students' unique

needs and promoting their academic success.

43
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODS

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore teachers’

perceptions on contributing factors of ELL students’ academic underperformance. A

qualitative method of study was deemed the most appropriate in exploring perceptions of

this subject matter. The literature review identified challenges such as culture responsive

teaching, teacher efficacy, and under preparedness as an educator of ELL students. In

addition to previously mentioned challenges, language issues clearly present challenges

and barriers for these students in school systems (Blaise, 2018). The academic

underperformance for English Language Learners was the problem to be addressed in the

phenomenological research.

According to Pappamihiel (2007), many mainstream teachers will have English

language learners in their classroom, but there was a high need for all teachers to be

prepared to educate this population of students. According to Snyder et al., (2016)

English language learners were a group of students with unique needs because of their

culture and linguistic differences; they learned grade level content while acquiring the

language used for instruction. Previous research by Stairs-Davenport (2021), suggested

that most teachers worked with ELLs, but are underprepared to teach them. For many

years, ELL achievement has been largely ignored; even the collection of national and

44
state data by language status has been sparse (Tellez & Manthey, 2015). Researchers

Sadeghi and Izadpanah (2018), believe that the topic of effective instructional tactics

have not been adequately investigated or that they have no conclusive findings or replies

on the topic.

Within this chapter the desired methodological approach will be discussed along

with key parts of a research study. These key parts included the design, research

questions, data collection, and data analysis. It is significant that reliability and validity

are components of the study. The chapter will also detail instrumentation as well as

procedures regarding protection of the participants by the assurance of ethical treatment.

Research Questions
In an effort to explore content teachers’ experiences teaching ELL

students and to understand potential barriers to students’ underachievement, two

questions guided this inquiry. The two questions were:

Research Question 1: How do middle school core content teachers describe their

experiences teaching their ELL students?

Research Question 2: What barriers to ELL academic success do middle school

core teachers perceive?

Research Design
A qualitative research approach was implemented for this study. Aspers and

Cortec (2021), defined qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved

understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant

distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. The qualitative

method of research, specifically phenomenological research, was particularly well-suited

for exploring and understanding meaning and lived experiences (Frechette et al., 2020).
45
Phenomenological research involved gathering insight into a person’s lived experiences

as they recall the experiences; specifically, this methodological approach gives meaning

to everyday experiences (Groenewald, 2004).

Phenomenological researchers seek to “understand the social and psychological

phenomena from the perspectives of the people involved” (Welman & Kruger, 1999, p.

189). To obtain a more profound comprehension of teachers’ perceptions on contributing

factors of English Language Learners students’ academic underperformance, the

researcher deemed the phenomenological approach most appropriate for the research

purpose (Groenewald, 2004). The data gathered from this approach included descriptions

and perspectives of middle school teachers teaching ELL students. The study purpose

directly linked to Aspers and Cortec’s (2021) description of qualitative method by getting

closer to the phenomenon through the exploration of teacher experiences.

The utilization of interviewing participants is an element of qualitative data

collection. The semi-structured interviews gained perspectives that align to addressing

the problem of academic underperformance for ELL students. When attempting to

comprehend the context, viewpoints, and intricacies around a specific phenomenon, a

qualitative approach is appropriate to address the research problem. Qualitative research

considers the essential character or nature of something, not necessarily the quantity

(Roberts & Hyatt, 2019). The structure of a qualitative method provides a naturalistic

inquiry by capturing the perspectives and voices of the participants in their natural

setting. The approach sometimes is called naturalistic inquiry because the research

involves real word issues and settings (Roberts & Hyatt, 2019). Understanding why

middle school ELL students underperformed academically is a real-world issue that

46
needs examination as to why and the teachers teaching these students have rich data and

insight into this issue.

The phenomenological design was inserted into the study to understand the

perspective of the participants to recognize the phenomenon being researched. The

phenomenology approach was described as the science of studying perceptions,

awareness, and experiences (Moustakas, 1994). Most often, phenomenology was used for

studies that are focused on understanding the essence of a particular group of people’s

lived experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The research study is narrowed down to

English Language Learners is how and why phenomenological design is incorporated in

the study. The phenomenological approach offered rich and comprehensive insight into

how people see and understand the phenomenon, helping to extract the core of lived

experiences. The aim of phenomenological research is to capture lived experience in all

its ambiguity, urgency and immediacy (Finlay, 2009). The research goal was to explore

core content teachers’ perception of teaching ELLs and discern contributing barriers of

academic underperformance. The phenomenological design aligned to the research as it

allowed the researcher to discover human lived experiences that foster teacher

perceptions to discover a holistic understanding of why the phenomenon of ELL students

academically underperforming occurs.

In phenomenological research, eliciting detailed, thorough descriptions of

people's lived experiences is usually the main method of data collecting. The important

findings derived from phenomenology are an understanding of a phenomenon as seen

through the eyes of those who have experienced it. Examining the substance and

significance of those experiences is the aim. Qualitative phenomenological method

47
practice calls for the study of a small number of participants to explore the core of their

lived experiences through multiple interviews. The expectation of data gathering through

multiple interviews is to answer the research questions.

Qualitative inquiry and analysis fit this study purpose by permitting for a more in-

depth discovery of perceptions more so than a quantitative methodology can divulge.

Qualitative research is a multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic

approach to its subject matter (Mcleod, 2019). This means that qualitative researchers

study things in their natural settings, attempting to understand or interpret phenomena in

terms of the meanings people bring to them. Quantitative method of research is an

inquiry into a social or human problem, based on testing a theory composed of variables,

measured with numbers, and analyzed with statistical procedures, in order to determine

whether the predictive generalizations of the theory hold true (Creswell, 2014).

Measurable data are the foundation of quantitative research, while qualitative provides

insight and exploration into reality. The purpose of this study was to explore teacher’s

perceptions of teaching ELLs; therefore, it is determined that quantitative research is a

less relevant methodology to use for this research.

Population and Sample

The number of ELL students in the United States is steadily increasing (O’Neal et

al., 2008; Turgut & Sahin, 2016). While teacher prep programs worked to ensure that

teachers understand the course content, there may be little to cultivate a culturally

responsive teacher that understands, values, and embraces the diversity in the classroom

(O’Neal et al., 2008). A study conducted by Lewis et al. (1999) discovered that out of

the 54% of teachers that taught ELL students, less than half felt underprepared in

48
teaching them. It is estimated that by 2030, more than 40% of elementary, middle, and

high school students’ native language won’t be English. This means that nearly all

teachers will have the responsibility of teaching ELL students in the classroom at some

point during their career. The majority of teachers are accustomed to teaching native

speaking English students and may not be prepared to meet the needs of non-native

speaking students (Pappamihiel, 2007). Additional research showed that ELL students

and their families typically lived in rural areas and had additional barriers including little

cultural support in their geographical areas, limited use and understanding of the native

language, and frequent absenteeism (O’Neal et al., 2008) which can lead to decreased

academic achievement in the classroom.

The focus geographic area for the population were middle schools in Central

Mississippi in Scott, Leake, and Rankin counties. The population consisted of middle

school teachers licensed in the state of Mississippi that teach one of the following core

subjects: Math, English, Science, and/or Social Studies. The participant had an ELL

subgroup and administer the English Language Proficiency Test (ELPT) as required by

Mississippi state law.

Like other qualitative traditions, phenomenology utilizes a limited number of

participants. Creswell (2007) suggests that phenomenological research data collection

consist of in-depth multiple interviews with participants. For this research, six to eight

participants were included in the study as a sample size to collect descriptive information

and data. The prevailing concept for sample size in the qualitative study is guided by

Information Power. Information power concept indicates that the more information the

sample holds relevant for the actual study, the lower number of participants is needed

49
(Frechette et al., 2020; Malterud et al., 2016). The typical number for phenomenological

research is 10 when comparing phenomenological research to other qualitative

approaches as well as quantitative research (Frechette et al., 2020). The sample size was

appropriate given that a qualitative phenomenological study focusses on in-depth analysis

of the individual relevant subjective experiences aligned to the study. Phenomenological

research is not about generalizability but focuses on the lived experiences and the

environment of the participants (Frechette et al., 2020). The research purpose was to

explore teachers’ perceptions on contributing factors of ELL students’ academic

underperformance. The aim of small sample size of a qualitative phenomenological study

is to petition emphasis on depth rather than breadth.

To help with participant selection, a more focused purposive sampling technique

was used. Purposeful sampling is often used in phenomenon-based qualitative research

(Stratton, 2023). Purposive sampling techniques allowed the researcher to intentionally

select participants with specific characteristics or unique experiences related to the

research topic Frechette et al., 2020; Statton, 2023). The researcher purposefully selected

participants that possess the capability to deliver quality discussion about compatible

experiences that correlate to the study topic.

Purposive sampling encompasses the ability to improve the quality and accuracy

of data collected by selecting participants most relevant to the research (Rai & Thapa,

2015; Frechette et al., 2020). The criterion for participant recruitment was linked to

purposive sampling technique. Purposive sampling techniques was selected for the

research as it aligned to the research by selecting a particular group, which were ELL

50
teachers. Purposely selecting ELL teachers promoted the discovery of rich content as to

why the problem of ELL students underperform academically.

More specifically homogeneous type of purposive sampling was infused to

specifically identify participants. Homogeneous sampling is a purposive sampling

technique that aims to achieve a homogeneous sample that is often chosen when the

research question that is being address is specific to the characteristics of the particular

group of interest, which is subsequently examined in detail (Rai & Thapa, 2015).

The homogenous sampling recruitment details that participants taught a core class

of Math, English, Science, or Social Studies. In addition to teaching a core class, the

participant class rosters contained students who are identified as English Language

Learners, and the said school administered the English Language Proficiency Test

(ELPT) required by the Mississippi Department of Education. In the event that the

number of agreed participants was greater than eight, the participants were filtered down

to Math and English teachers only because Science and Social Studies have fewer state

assessments.

Participant recruitment was initiated via school email after the principal

investigator obtained permission from the district superintendent to utilize their staff to

conduct the research. Each superintendent was sent an email requesting to uses their

middle schools for the study (see Appendix A). After approval from district

superintendent (see Appendix B), the principal investigator established a gatekeeper at

each school for the study. Cresswell and Poth (2018) defined gatekeeper as a person who

is knowledgeable about the topic being studied and can assist the researcher in gaining

access to potential volunteers who match the set criteria. Once the principal investigator

51
and gatekeeper identified eligible participants in accordance with purposive sampling

technique criteria, participants were recruited.

When the list of eligible participants was attained from the school gatekeeper,

teachers were recruited by email (see Appendix C). The recruitment email was sent

individually to each eligible teacher via their school-issued email. An eligible teacher was

someone who has a current MS Educator license with a classroom roster of ELL students.

They were employed at school teaching course content including Math, English, Science,

and Social Studies. If more than eight teachers expressed interest, preference was given

to teachers that teach Math and English because they are state tested more frequently than

other subject. The email thoroughly explained the study, participation requirements,

provided assurance that partaking in the study is completely voluntary, explained the time

commitment and explain the risks. The researcher followed up with teachers who were

interested in participating in this research study. Consent forms (see Appendix D) and a

follow up phone call was provided to participants selected and who agree to participate in

the study. Through documentation and oral explanation, all participants fully understood

their responsibility as a participant. Following receiving completed consent forms, the

principal investigator will schedule a two-part interview. Interviews will only be

conducted with teachers at schools who have been approved by the district or school

gatekeeper. Interviews occurred in person or virtually. In person interviews occurred at

the school district where the participant worked in a private location. Virtual interviews

were conducted via Zoom.

52
Instrumentation

In qualitative research, various instruments and methods can be used to collect

and analyze non-numerical data, with the aim of gaining insights into the complexities of

human behavior and experiences. The selected instrument used for the study was

qualitative semi-structured interview questions via two interviews. “Semi structured

interviews are the preferred data collection method when the researcher’s goal is to better

understand the participant’s unique perspective rather than a generalized understanding of

the phenomenon,” (Adeoye-Olatunde & Olenik, 2021, p. 1360). The interviews focused

on why an event, experience, or phenomenon occurred, how it unfolded, what it was like,

and/or what it meant (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The interview question development aligns

closely to the research questions of the study.

The data collection instrument design consists of a two-part interview process to

engage the participant to procure teachers’ perceptions of ELL barriers that influence

ELL students to underperform academically. Each participant engaged in two separate

interviews either in person or virtually via Zoom. Interview one consisted of 10 questions

(see Appendix E) that focus on teacher experiences of teaching ELL students. The goal of

the second interview of 10 questions (see Appendix F) was to identify barriers that

contribute to academic underperformance for ELL students. The time investment for each

interview was between 45 and 60 minutes.

The semi-structured interview questions were formulated with the research goals

and objectives in consideration, ensuring that they effectively gather the required data for

the research. The initial or main questions used within a qualitative interview should be

broad, allowing the subject to answer freely and convey the aspects of the experience that

53
they feel are important to them (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006; Rubin & Rubin,

2012; Seidman, 2013). For each interview, the questions initially started broad

progressing towards the focus of the interview. However, follow up responses were

determined by participant responses to the structured questions asked by the researcher.

This method allowed the researcher to ask for more in-depth questions outside the

standard pre-determined questions.

The purpose of the interviews was to solicit conversation through probing

questions to gather information. According to Ngozwana (2017), this process also

allowed for interaction between the researcher and the participants to develop a better

relationship and trust. The interviews along with the analyzing the participant’s school

data and demographics contributed to the validity of the study. The semi-structured

questions were constructed using academic language and/ or context.

Creating interview questions for qualitative research involved careful

consideration and planning to ensure that the questions are relevant, open-ended, and

capable of eliciting in-depth detailed responses (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015). First, the

structure of the interview questions depended upon the researcher’s expertise and prior

knowledge about the subject matter (Roberts, 2020). In addition to being aligned closely

with the research question, the interview questions must be aligned with the purpose of

the study (Brinkman & Kvale, 2015). According to Roberts (2020), questions should be

free of assumptions, allow for complex answers, and convey that the researcher is open to

all aspects of the experience; both positive and negative.

A set of interview questions served as a guide to collect descriptive information

from semi-structured interviews. The researcher used semi-structured questions as an

54
instrument to collect data. Open-ended, semi-structured, in person interviews were

developed to obtain perceptions of teachers’ experiences teaching ELL students and their

perceptions of barriers that contribute to ELL students’ academic underperformance.

Semi-structured interviews were the most common form of collecting data when the

researcher's objective is to gain a deeper understanding of the participant's distinctive

perspective as opposed to a broad awareness of the phenomenon in question (Adeoye-

Olatunde & Olenik, 2021).

Data Collection

According to Creswell (2013), qualitative research involves a location and

acquiring permission to study at the site; it allows for easy collection of data. In addition

to the approval from participating school districts to solicit participants, permission to use

the learning space was included. An information document about the study and consent

form was sent in the invitation email to participants, with a follow-up phone call.

Data collection was an essential component to conducting research (Monday,

2020). The first step was to gain permission from district leaders to utilize their staff to

conduct the research. Upon district approval, and approval from the Arkansas State

University IRB (see Appendix G), teachers were recruited via email (see Appendix C).

Each participant received an Informed Consent Form (see Appendix D) and an Interview

Protocol Form (see Appendix E & F). Interviews were only conducted with teachers at

schools who have been approved by the district administration and that meet the

eligibility requirement of the study.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted following an interview guide

developed by the researcher based on relevant existing literature concerning ELLs. In

55
order to answer the two research questions, interviews include open-ended questions to

capture participants’ meaning of their experiences in teaching and providing interventions

for students who are identified as ELL. Through documentation and oral explanation, all

participants fully understood that participating in the study was completely voluntary.

Data collection occurred in one school district, which included two middle

schools located in Central Mississippi. Each participant was a Mississippi licensed

teacher, had ELL as a subgroup and administered the ELPT state assessment. Data was

obtained from interviews with qualified participants. The interviews were conducted via

Zoom virtual online meeting platform. Each interview lasted between 45-60 minutes.

Each interview was recorded and then transcribed into a written document for accuracy

and thematic coding.

As an interview is influenced by the mode of bracketing, prior to each of the

interviews it was necessary to elicit the participant’s experience separately from any

comparison with one’s own. Bracketing refers to the efforts that should be made to be

open to listening to and observing the described phenomenon with an attempt to put aside

any prejudgments (Alhazmi & Kaufmann, 2022). According to Moustakas (1994)

adopting a bracketing status allows that whatever or whoever appears in our

consciousness is approached with an openness. The multiple interviews and bracketing

mode created the opportunity for deeper exploration into the phenomenon.

The first interview with each participant was a semi-structured interview. All the

participants elected to meet virtually via Zoom. The researcher first introduced the

research to the participant and shared that the interviews will be recorded. The researcher

then reviewed the informed consent. The researcher also shared a copy of the informed

56
consent form with each participant before the process began. The researcher reminded the

participant they could stop the interview at any time and that the participant can decline

to continue interview at any time. The focal point of the initial interview was to delve

into experiences as a teacher of ELL students. The participant then started to respond to

the interview questions and as the participants responded, the researcher asked to follow

up questions as appropriate. At the end of the interview, the participants were thanked for

their response and contribution to the study. Before concluding each interview, the

researcher scheduled the second interview. The second interview was scheduled based on

the participants’ availability. The researcher also reminded the participants that they

could email the researcher if they wanted to add or correct anything from their interview.

After each interview, the researcher stored the interview in a secure location on a secure

drive that only the researcher could access.

The second interview dove into deeper discussion about the middle school content

teachers’ perspective of barriers that contributed academic underperformance for ELL

students. The participants were informed that the second interview would also be

recorded. The second interview allowed the researcher to reflect and expound on

experiences, dive deeper into elaboration of the phenomenon after analyzing the first

interview. The researcher used the first part of the second interview as a member check to

explore the validity of what the participant previously shared in their first interview.

Member checking adds credibility and accuracy as the researcher engages in the research

process (Birt et al., 2016). The researcher then asked the interview questions for the

second interview. The researcher asked follow up questions based on the responses given.

Once the interview concluded, the researcher thanked the participants for their

57
participation. The researcher also asked them if they can be contacted if more information

is needed. The researcher also reminded each participant that a copy of the transcribed

interview will be emailed to them for member checking. Recorded files and transcripts of

each interview were kept in a secure location in the home of the researcher.

Data Analysis

The qualitative phenomenological study is designed to answer the research

questions developed for this study. Two research questions that stemmed from the

purpose and problem of the study was used as guides for the interview questions. Basic

functions of a qualitative design utilize interviews to capture a detailed description of a

participant’s experiences. The interviews served as a data source for the analysis of the

study. The research questions were designed to understand teachers’ perceptions of

teaching ELLs and understand contributing barriers of ELL under performance.

According to Hoffding and Martiny (2016), it is important to point out that the interviews

are designed in such a way to encourage discursive answers rather than affirmative or

negative answers.

A thematic approach was used in the data analysis. Thematic analysis is a

technique for finding, examining, and interpreting meaning patterns or themes in

qualitative data (Clarke & Braun, 2016). According to Rice and Ezzy (1999), thematic

analysis process involved the identification of themes through careful reading and re-

reading of the data. Utilizing thematic analysis produced a thorough and profound

understanding of participant’s experiences connected to the phenomenon. Thematic

analysis seeks to chronicle and categorize data. Researchers identify and select methods

based on a specific purpose and characteristics of their study; thematic analysis proved to

58
be a compatible choice for this phenomenological investigation as thematic analysis will

assist the research in assigning meaning to the constructs that arise (Braun & Clarke,

2006). When analyzing the data, the researcher used Braun and Clarke (2006) six steps to

analyze data. The steps included transcribing data, generating initial codes, searching for

themes, defining and naming themes, and finally producing the report.

Every interview was recorded and had its audio version transcribed into a text

document after it was finished. A fundamental function of a qualitative study was

transcription of the recorded interviews. Following each interview, the voice recorded

interview was uploaded and transcribed to text using Microsoft office product. The

principal investigator listened to each interview and made necessary edits to ensure the

accuracy of the transcription. Once the interview was transcribed, member checking was

initiated with participants. This process involved the researcher providing the transcript to

the participant to verify if the text reflects what was said and if ascertain if any edits were

needed. The text format of the interview is a compelling procedure of a qualitative data

analysis.

Upon completion of member checking, the researcher applied the coding

technique of thematic analysis. Coding is a qualitative data analysis strategy in which

some aspect of the data is assigned a descriptive label that allows the researcher to

identify related content across the data. Codes identified a feature of the data (semantic

content of laten) that appeared interesting to the analyst, and refer to the most basic

segment, or element, of the raw data or information that can be assessed in a meaningful

way regarding the phenomenon (Boyatzis, 1998). The investigator utilized coding

procedure to color code data. Color coding in research is a visual method used to

59
organize and categorize information, making it easier to analyze and interpret data. The

foundation of the color coding specifically for this research is for creating categories and

subcategories. All common categories were manually color coded using highlighted

colors. As codes and themes emerged, the objective was to create categories and

subcategories based on similarities within the data. The principal investigator manually

used line-by-line, open coding for all the interview responses.

The researcher examined the core data to determine which data sets supplied the

most information relating to the research questions. The codes and coding process

developed themes. Common themes for each research question are detailed in the

research findings in chapter four. According to Braun and Clarke (2006) themes arrive

from sorting the different codes into potential themes. Once the researcher has reviewed

the themes and has a satisfactory thematic map, the themes will be defined and named

aligned to the research questions.

The data analysis will yield research findings and strive to answer the research

questions through thorough analysis of each interview. After the transcription and

member checking was complete, codes generated, themes defined and named, the final

step was to produce the report. The report will tell a complicated story of the data in a

way which convinces the reader of the merit and validity of the analysis. All discovered

themes are detailed in chapter IV.

Assumptions

Within qualitative research, assumptions are integral detail of the

methodological design. Research assumptions are basic premises that are accepted on

faith or assumed to be true, without scientific proof or verification (Polit & Hungler,

60
1997). Assumptions guided the researcher's approach and perspective throughout the

research process. There were two assumptions associated with this study. The first

assumption was the belief that participants understood the impact of teachers of students

who are identified as English Language Learners. During the interviews the teacher

participants reflected on their experiences relating to teaching students who are acquiring

English as a second language. According to McWayne et al., (2012), researchers have

only recently begun to explore how practicing teachers' perceptions of English Language

Learners impact the literacy instruction ELL students receive.

The second assumption of the research was that language is a barrier for learning

of English Language Learners. Assuming that language proficiency significantly

influences academic achievement, it was presumed that the language barrier experienced

by English Language Learners poses a substantial challenge to their overall learning

outcomes, hindering their ability to comprehend, engage, and excel in educational

activities conducted in a language other than their native language.

Ethical Assurances

Data collection is the basis of qualitative research, however there are permissions

and training that must be acquired before canvassing participants. Ahead of data

collection, the researcher confirmed receipt of Arkansas State University Institutional

Review Board approval to conduct the research. According to Balon et al., (2019), IRB

has two critical goals: ensuring the adequate protection of volunteers in human studies

(“do no harm”) and enabling a scientific process by which new knowledge may be

rigorously acquired, bringing potential benefit to the public and society broadly (“help

others”). Prior to IRB submission, the researcher obtained permission from the

61
dissertation committee to apply to receive approval. Institutional Review Boards or

research ethics committees provide a core protection for human research participants

through advance and periodic independent review of the ethical acceptability of proposals

for human research (Balon et al., 2019). In addition to IRB approval, the investigator

completed the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) training (see

Appendix H) to ensure protections of human participants principles of ethics and federal

regulations are considered.

Qualitative researchers must conduct research ethically by protecting the

participants of their study. Creswell and Poth (2018) stated that all ethical issues in

qualitative research need to be examined by the researcher throughout all phases of the

research process. Ethical assurance in research allowed the researchers to be assured that

the research does not harm or has the potential to harm participants throughout the

research. According to Hardicre (2014), ethical research is fundamental, and risks should

be minimized and do not compromise the dignity, rights, safety, and well-being of the

people who consent to take part in the study. There were minimal risks in the study, data

collection was kept secured and annihilated after seven years. The protection included

assuring that there were no personal, professional, or financial conflicts identified within

the study. The participants in the study were guaranteed that the data and information

discovered from the interviews will remain confidential, and the identification of the

participants will not be available during or after the study.

Upon approval from Arkansas State University IRB, included approval from

district leaders to solicit participation from those teachers that qualify for the study

(Grady, 2015). The principal investigator met with the school district designated

62
personnel to acquire a list of eligible participants. Once the list was compiled, the

identified eligible invitees received an invitation via email to participate in the study.

Each teacher invited to share in the research comprehended that participation was

completely voluntary. The information in the invitation email included the topic of the

research, purpose of the research, and the problem to be addressed in the study. Once

individual participants opted to partake in the research study, the investigator furnished

them with a consent form document.

The role of the researcher was to provide transparency to the participant to build

trust throughout the data collecting process. It was the responsibility of the principal

investigator to encourage the participants to provide trustworthy information that

supports the dynamics of the study. The participants were provided with the relevance of

the research to the investigator’s professional experiences of the topic, purpose, problem

statement, and biases of the qualitative study. The use of thematic coding prevented

biases and experiences from influencing analysis and findings in Chapter IV.

Chapter Summary

In summary, this chapter set the stage for a qualitative phenomenological study

aimed at understanding the factors contributing to the academic underperformance of

ELLs. It outlined the research questions, design, population, and data collection,

providing a comprehensive overview of the planned study. Chapter III provided an

overview of the background and rationale for conducting a qualitative phenomenological

study on the academic underperformance of English Language Learners. Implementing

thematic coding into the data analysis process allowed for repetitive codes to emerge to

be categorized, then establish themes. The selected population is designed to specifically

63
address the proposed research questions. The interview questions that were developed

from the research questions guided data collection on identifying barriers for ELL

students. Chapter IV contains data analysis and the research findings.

64
 CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore teachers’

perceptions on contributing factors of ELL students’ academic underperformance. A

qualitative research method design was chosen as the most appropriate way to examine

perceptions related to the phenomenon. The qualitative phenomenological design was

implemented by conducting two semi-structured interviews with six teacher participants

that teach grades six through eight. The focus grade level to ascertain information was

middle school or Junior High Schools in Mississippi. The study was guided by the

following research questions:

Research Question 1: How do middle school core content teachers describe their

experiences teaching their ELL students?

Research Question 2: What barriers to ELL academic success do middle school core

content teachers perceive?

The research questions were addressed by in-depth dialogue through interview

questions designed to capture the lived experience of teachers who teach English

Language Learners. The intent of the study was to investigate how teachers interact with

English Language Learners and to pinpoint the academic obstacles that lead to ELL

students' academic underperformance. Building the capacity to improve ELL students'

academic performance requires an understanding of the contributing barriers based on

65
teachers' real-world experiences. This study aims to identify workable techniques and

treatments that can be used to overcome identified hurdles and enhance ELL’s overall

learning results by exploring instructors' points of view.

In this chapter, the research findings will be conveyed. The chapter launches with

a discussion of trustworthiness of the data collected through the study, followed by

disaggregated results of the two developed research questions. The experience of each

participant is then captured along with the themes that emerged based on the analysis.

Direct quotes from the participants are utilized to provide evidence for comprehensible

themes exposed from the thematic analysis process. Lastly, the chapter will close with a

summary of the findings of the research.

Trustworthiness

According to Anney (2014), the qualitative method of research creditability is

debated when referring to qualitative findings. Therefore, it is imperative that

trustworthiness is established within a qualitative phenomenological method of study. To

establish trustworthiness for the study, Lincoln and Gouba’s (1985) evaluative criteria to

create trustworthiness was utilized. The evaluative criteria include creditability,

transferability, dependability, and confirmability to persuade trustworthiness.

Creditability

Creditability in research is referred to the truth of the data or the participant views

and the interpretation and representation of them by the researcher (Polit & Beck, 2012).

According to Cope (2014), credibility is enhanced by the researcher describing his or her

experiences as a researcher and verifying the research findings with the participants.

Member checking was incorporated into the data collection to strengthen the creditability

66
of the research. Member checking, also known as participant or respondent validation, is

a technique for exploring the credibility of results (Birt et al., 2016). After each interview,

the participants were sent the transcribed transcripts of the zoom interview to verify

accuracy of responses and to make edits deemed necessary. In particular for this research,

the member checking process after the first interviews allowed participants to reflect on

their responses and start the thought process for the second interview. For example,

Libby stated at the beginning of the second interview “I wish I had added an occurrence

that happened in my class as an experience for the first interview”. At that point Libby

was able to add that significant experience.

Transferability

Transferability is a concept that refers to the degree to which the results of

qualitative research can be transferred to other contexts or settings, and conducted among

other respondents (Tuval-Mashiach, 2021). Purposive sampling was initiated when

selecting participants that represent diverse perspectives or experiences of the

phenomenon. By including teachers from different core subjects (English, Math, Science,

and Social Studies), the study captured diverse insights into ELL students’ academic

underperformance, increasing the relevance of the findings to a variety of instructional

contexts. This sampling method permits for a more comprehensive understanding and

potential applicability to other contexts.

In addition to purposive sampling, thick description was utilized to enhance

transferability. Detailed descriptions of the context, participants, and the teaching

environment were provided to enable other researchers and practitioners to assess the

degree to which the study’s findings might be applicable to their own settings. This

67
includes information about the specific challenges faced by middle school teachers in

central Mississippi and the cultural dynamics that affect ELL student performance.

The research included the creation of a reflective journal to allow the researcher

to reflect on the data collection process and document impactful contingencies. As the

researcher, a journal was maintained throughout data collection to document any

contingencies, observations, or biases that could have impacted the study. This reflective

practice helped ensure that the analysis remained focused on the participants' perspectives

rather than being overly influenced by the researcher's assumptions, thus preserving the

credibility and potential applicability of the findings to other educational settings.

Moreover, the transparency in data collection and analysis methods provides other

researchers with a clear framework that can be duplicated in different settings. The use of

semi-structured interviews, thematic analysis, and the coding process are all described in

detail, allowing future researchers to replicate or adapt the study design in similar

educational environments.

Finally, the unique socio-cultural context of central Mississippi was a focal point.

The emergent themes such as language challenges, teacher preparedness and teacher

efficacy, and parent involvement and support, and social emotional challenges of ELL

students are challenges that have been identified in other regions as well, which

strengthens the potential for the study’s findings to be relevant in broader educational

contexts. By implementing these strategies, the study ensures that its findings could

inform practices in other settings where teachers face similar challenges with ELL

students, thereby enhancing its transferability. The results of this study can be transferred

to other contexts as well duplicated by other researchers.

68
 Dependability

To ensure dependability, this study employed a rigorous and systematic approach

that can be replicated by other researchers. The research design followed a qualitative

phenomenological methodology, which focused on understanding the lived experiences

of middle school teachers instructing English Language Learners (ELLs) in grades 6-8.

Purposive sampling was utilized to recruit six participants who met specific population

criteria, ensuring that the sample included teachers from core subjects (English, Math,

Science, and Social Studies) who had direct experience with ELL students in central

Mississippi. Each participant completed two semi-structured interviews, each lasting

approximately 45 minutes and conducted via Zoom. These interviews allowed for in-

depth exploration of teachers' perceptions and the barriers they encounter in teaching

ELLs.

The interviews were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim using

the Microsoft Office 365 transcribe feature. This transcription process ensured accuracy

in capturing the participants' responses for analysis. The researcher employed Braun and

Clarke’s (2006) six-phase thematic analysis, a well-established method for qualitative

data analysis, to systematically code and identify patterns within the data. The six phases

included: (1) familiarization with the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for

themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) producing the

final report. These steps were rigorously followed to ensure a transparent and replicable

analysis process.

To further enhance dependability, detailed records were kept throughout the

study, including notes on the coding process and reflective notes on the research

69
decisions. This approach aligns with Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) criteria for ensuring that

the research process is traceable and consistent. The emerging themes derived from the

data are presented in the research findings, offering insight into the key barriers faced by

ELL students as perceived by their teachers. By documenting each stage of the

methodology and providing detailed descriptions, this study offers a clear pathway for

future researchers to replicate and validate the findings in similar educational settings.

Confirmability

Confirmability in qualitative research refers to the extent to which the data and

findings represent the participants’ responses rather than the researcher’s biases or

preconceptions (Polit & Beck, 2012). To ensure confirmability, the researcher took

several steps to maintain objectivity and uphold the integrity of the participants'

perspectives. Although the researcher had personal and professional experiences related

to the topic, these were consciously bracketed to minimize their influence on data

collection and analysis. Reflexivity was a key aspect of this process, requiring the

researcher to consistently reflect on and acknowledge any potential biases that might

stem from their background in education. Early in the study, during the first two

interviews, the researcher recognized the possibility of bias linked to experiences within

the researcher’s current school district. To mitigate this, the researcher refrained from

offering any personal commentary, ensuring that participants' responses were not

influenced by external input.

The researcher ensured transparency during data collection by allowing

participants to fully express their experiences without interjection or guidance. The semi-

structured interviews were designed to provide participants with the opportunity to

70
elaborate on their responses, fostering an environment in which they could authentically

convey their perceptions of the barriers impacting English Language Learners’ academic

underperformance. This approach minimized the risk of researcher bias influencing the

participants' responses and ensured that their lived experiences were captured without

interference.

To further support confirmability, member checking was incorporated into the

research process. After the interviews were transcribed, participants were given the

opportunity to review their responses and provide any necessary clarifications or

additions. This step allowed participants to reflect on their responses and ensured that

their views were accurately represented in the study. The member-checking process also

contributed to the authenticity of the data, as participants had the chance to confirm or

refine their statements based on their reflections.

The data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase thematic analysis

process, which included familiarizing oneself with the data, generating initial codes,

identifying themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the

final report. This rigorous approach to thematic analysis ensured that the findings were

rooted in the data provided by the participants. Additionally, the researcher maintained an

audit trail throughout the research process, documenting decisions related to coding,

theme development, and data interpretation. This audit trail allowed for a clear record of

how the findings emerged from the data, further enhancing the confirmability of the

study.

By implementing these strategies, including reflexivity, member checking, and a

structured approach to thematic analysis, the researcher ensured that the findings

71
reflected the participants’ true experiences and perspectives. These measures minimized

the influence of researcher bias, thereby reinforcing the confirmability and

trustworthiness of the study's conclusions. The combination of these steps provided a

clear and transparent process, allowing future researchers to trace the path of the data

analysis and confirm the credibility of the findings. Ultimately, the rigorous approach

taken throughout the study solidified the reliability and objectivity of the data, ensuring

that the results remain grounded in the participants' lived experiences.

Demographics

The participants in this study are all certified teachers in central Mississippi

school districts. The participants in the study teach one of the core content subjects of

Math, English, Science, or Social Studies in middle school grades six through eight. The

teachers all have English Language Learners on their class roster. The grade levels

selected for the research is six through eight. The criterion study did not require specific

experience. Both novice and veteran teachers were able to participate in the study. The

participants were given pseudonyms to protect their identity. Table 1 provides the

demographic information for each participant in the study.

72
Table 1

Demographics of the Study

Pseudonym Race Gender Highest Number Content

Degree of Years
Teaching
Charlotte Black Female Masters 10 English

Mary White Female Bachelors 1 ELA

Brandy Black Female Bachelors 4 Math

Libby White Female Bachelors 7 Social

Studies

Felecia Black Female Masters 22 English

Debra Black Female Masters 8 Math

After member checking was completed, the researcher began the data analysis

process. The researcher organized the participant interviews into two documents,

interview one and interview two. Interview one questions were designed to capture the

essence of the lived experience of English Language Learner Teachers. Interview two

focused on barriers that contribute to ELLs academic underperformance.

Using Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-step thematic analysis approach, the data

from the interviews was analyzed to identify common themes related to the experiences

of middle school teachers working with English Language Learners. After all interviews

were transcribed, codes were generated. For each interview, codes were developed and

then sorted. During this phase, significant portions of the text were highlighted and

assigned initial codes. These codes represented the key elements and recurring ideas
73
within the data, such as language barriers, teaching strategies, emotional responses,

efficacy, and parent involvement.

Next, the initial codes were then grouped into potential themes. Researchers

Braun and Clark (2006), suggest sorting codes into potential themes and collating all the

relevant coded data extracts within the identified theme. This involved organizing related

codes into broader categories that captured the essence of the teachers' experiences. The

themes were identified based on the frequency and significance of the codes across the

interviews. The potential themes were reviewed to ensure they accurately reflected the

data. This involved refining the themes and ensuring they were distinct and coherent.

Any overlapping or redundant themes were merged or redefined. Each theme was then

defined and named to clearly convey its core meaning. This step involved writing

detailed descriptions for each theme, ensuring they provided meaningful insights into the

teachers' experiences with ELLs. The last step is the detailed analysis for each theme,

supported by direct quotes from the interviewees. The following sections present the

themes identified in the data analysis.

Results

Research Question 1 Results

Research Question 1: How do middle school core content teachers describe their

experiences teaching their ELL students?

Research Question one was designed to interpret lived experiences of teachers

who teach English Language Learners. Table 2 showcases themes that emerged in the

analysis of the data. The detailed exploration of these themes in the following sections

74
will provide a deeper understanding of the experiences of middle school core content

teachers in teaching English Language Learners

Table 2

Emergent Themes That Align with Research Question 1

Research Question Emerging Themes

Theme 1. Perception of Emotional Impact

How do middle school core content Theme 2. Support Challenges

teachers describe their experiences
teaching their ELL students?
Theme 3. Language Challenges

Theme I: Perception of Emotional Impact. This theme captures the profound

and multifaceted emotional experiences of teachers working with English Language

Learners. Teachers reported a spectrum of emotions, ranging from frustration and

inadequacy to fulfillment and joy. The emotional toll of teaching ELLs is significant,

marked by challenges such as the need for adequate preparation, the pressures of

accountability systems, and the complexities of accommodating diverse learners. Despite

these obstacles, teachers also experienced a deep sense of reward and satisfaction,

particularly when witnessing their students' progress and success.

The perception of emotional impact included the emotion of frustration. Every

participant expressed the feeling of frustration as it relates to providing for their ELL

Students. For example, Brandy stated, “I feel like that I am not equipped enough to

provide my ELLs with what they need academically”. Charlotte recalled, “I remember the

emotion of frustration and feeling bad after my ELL students scored miserably on a

75
common assessment.” Charlotte added, “Teaching in a tested area adds to the roller

coaster of emotions and stress of teaching ELL students”.

This emotional impact was evident all teachers regardless of their years of

experiences as teachers. Mary felt overwhelmed, she stated, “As a first-year teacher, it’s

hard to comprehend what it takes to provide for diverse learners and adding ELL

students to the mix is even harder.” Felecia, who has twenty-two years of teaching

experience in different demographic areas of teaching said, “I had to dive into research to

have a better understanding how to teach her ELL students, I was tired of the frustrated

feeling and emotions seized from my ELL students lack of academic performance.”

Felecia’s emotional roller-coaster of lived experiences also included

accommodation struggles. She stated, “I had two transfers from Cuba, one spoke close to

no English at all, and the other she picked up bits and pieces, it was frustrating and a

struggle for me to figure out how to properly accommodate them”. Most of the

participants voiced that their experience included making provisions for their ELL

students even though it was emotionally taxing.

ELL students present various challenges that impact teacher emotions. The

emotional impact of teaching ELL students has moments of highs and lows. While all

teacher participants expressed experiencing negative emotions, they also shared the

experience of positive emotions associated in their work with ELL students. Debra

reflected on how first year students to the country had to be immersed into the United

States culture and education system. Debra shared "Watching them be immersed in a new

environment, and then be able to interact with their peers, that part is rewarding for me

76
as an educator.” She explained how it was difficult to get her ELL students to the point

that they felt comfortable interacting with their native peers.

Libby and Brandy also shared positive emotions, a feeling of reward and

fulfillment, when seeing ELL students grow in language and/or academics. Libby stated,

“It's challenging, but also incredibly rewarding to see them grow and improve.” Brandy

noted that her previous school district did not have English Language learner students,

and that having ELLs were a challenge. She stated, “It can be frustrating at times, but

seeing their progress makes it all worthwhile." Helen added that “When they finally start

to understand and participate, it's a great feeling." This underscores the satisfaction

teachers feel when their efforts result in student comprehension and participation. The

data illustrates the emotional highs and lows teachers experience in their work with ELL

students. The emotional impact of teachers’ perceptions emerged as they consistently

shared their responses to the challenges and successes encountered while teaching ELLs.

This theme highlights the personal investment and emotional labor involved in their

work. Ultimately, understanding these emotional dynamics is crucial for developing

strategies that support teachers and enhance the learning environment for ELL students.

Theme 2: Support and Resource Challenges. The second emerging theme grasps

the intellectual lived experiences and perceptions of teachers regarding support and

resource challenges in teaching ELL students. Participants reported that in recent years,

the central Mississippi region has witnessed a significant increase in the enrollment of

English Language Learner students. According to the majority of the participants, despite

this demographic shift, the support provided to ELL teachers has been inconsistent and

often inadequate.

77
 The increase in ELL students presents unique challenges that require robust

institutional support and effective resource allocation. However, as participants revealed

through their interviews, the reality of the support landscape is often riddled with gaps

and inconsistencies. Institutional support and resources emerged as a critical theme due to

the frequent mention of the support structures available to teachers of English Language

Learners. Felecia, who has the most experience with ELL students, said, “When

communicating with the ELL parents, they want their kids to learn.” She also stated, “In

most cases the parents are not a resource due to their language barrier and level of

education.” Charlotte, who has been at her school for more than five years stated, “The

institutional support varies, but when it's there, it makes a huge difference."

When it came to experiences with ELL students, essentially Mary and Helen

shared the same thinking even though they are in two different schools. However, Helen

has more overall teaching experience than Mary. Helen, who came from another school

with no ELL students noted in the interview, “The school provides some resources, but

more support is definitely needed.” Helen and Libby detailed in their interview that their

support system was the utilization of students that could speak English and that was very

limited. Helen vocalized, “My main resource is using the students that had acquired

enough English to assist.” Libby made the comment “I need more resources or more

specific technology to help her communicate with her ELL students that didn’t speak

much English”. Mary added, “While the utilization of students to help translate in class is

a good resource, I feared that my student helpers would fall behind academically.”

In Libby’s school, the scheduling allowed for tutorial for English Language

Learners. However, she said that the support system provided accommodation for the

78
student, but not for the teacher. Libby stated, “Having access to bilingual aides along

with tutors can be very helpful.” Debra added that in her class and school, they get

students who never had school before, so even though they are 15-16 years old, they have

very little knowledge. She said, “In my school there is no system in place to help those

students or the teachers.” Debra also added, “In my experience most of the growth for

those ELL students is through peer help and by just being at school routinely.” Debra and

Mary shared similarities summarizing that in some cases teachers have little to no part in

language growth for the ELL students.

The participants’ comments illustrate how resources can significantly impact their

ability to effectively teach and provide ELL students with what they need to be

successful. This theme, therefore, sheds light on the pressing need for enhanced school

level support and resources, and practices that prioritize the educational success of both

ELL students and their educators.

Theme 3: Language Challenges Impact. This theme was prominent due to the

universal difficulties experienced by all participants in teaching English Language

Learners. This theme captures the widespread communication struggles that teacher s

face, deeply impacting their instructional practices and interactions with students. The

consistent mention of these challenges by every interviewee highlights the significance of

their experience in the teaching process for ELLs.

The participants expressed that communication is a powerful tool when it comes

to student success in the classroom. Libby said during her interview, “I sometimes have

students to come in and they don't speak a word of English and I have to figure out how

to communicate effectively with them.” This reflection of student and the deficiency of

79
speaking English was a shared experience throughout all the themes discovered. Helen

shared a similar experience during her interview. She stated, “The biggest challenge is

the language barrier.” Outright all the participants reference that students often come

with very little English, and it is hard to get them to understand even the basic

instructions.

The analysis interpreted that reading, writing, and verbal communication are basic

functions of teaching and learning progression. Charlotte provided specific details

concerning communication with her ELL students. She stated, “Communicating with

students who speak little to no English is challenging, especially when trying to explain

new concepts.” All but one participant teaches in a tested area. Tested area subjects in

middle school grades 6-8 are English, Math, and Science. However, each candidate stated

the language challenges greatly impacts Mississippi’s mandated testing.

Teachers shared numerous instances where language challenges led to

misunderstandings, delays in learning, and additional time devoted to basic

communication tasks. These obstacles hindered not only the effective delivery of lessons

but also the accurate assessment of students' understanding and progress. The theme of

language challenges highlights the critical and pervasive issues that the teacher

participants face when instructing English Language Learners. The communication issues

experienced by the participants not only complicate the teaching of new and abstract

concepts but also hinder the accurate assessment of students' understanding and progress.

The data underscore the communication gap with students as a lived experience of

teachers who teach English Language Learner Students.

80
Research Question 2 Results

The second research question in this study was:

Research Question 2: What barriers to ELL academic success do middle school core

content teachers perceive?

The analysis of question two of the research presents the thematic analysis of

qualitative data collected through interviews with teachers regarding their experiences

and perceptions of teaching ELL students in middle school settings. The results are

derived from the interviews with the participants who shared their perspectives on

academic barriers for ELL students. The data was coded and analyzed guided by Braun

and Clark to identify recurring themes and patterns that illustrate the challenges and

barriers faced by ELL students and their teachers. During the coding process four themes

emerged as contributing factors to academic underperformance for English Language

Learners.

Table 3

Emergent Themes That Align with Research Question 2

Research Question Emerging Themes

What barriers to ELL Theme 4. Teacher Preparedness and Efficacy

academic success do middle Theme 5. Student Confidence, Engagement, and
school core content teachers Transition
perceive? Theme 6. Cultural and Linguistic Fairness in
Assessments
Theme 7. Parental Involvement and Support
Theme 4: Teacher Preparedness and Efficacy. This emerged through the

frequent comments by participants of feeling unprepared to educate ELL students. All

participants in this research study indicated a deep-rooted feeling about preparedness to

81
teach ELL students. For example, Charlotte said, “I don’t think we are prepared

enough…we rise to the challenge, but there’s a need for more training especially if you

don’t speak Spanish.” Consequently, participants articulated that communication

strategies were not a tool that was initially a part of all the participants tool kit.

Debra added, "Experience prepares you, however most teachers walk in and just

don't know what to do when teaching ELL students." This statement provides context to

the consensus of all participants that not only do they feel ill-equipped, but their

colleague peers initially felt that way as well. The participants conveyed that they relied

on trial and error to develop effective teaching strategies. Similarly, Helen reflected on

the systemic issues, stating that "Most teachers are not prepared to address academic

needs for these students." Moreover, another participant, Debra, mentioned, "I believe

that teacher training programs need to include more practical strategies for dealing with

language barriers.” Felecia added “It's not enough to just understand the theory; we

need actionable steps we can take in the classroom." The recurring theme of inadequate

preparation and teacher lack of efficacy was found to be a barrier when by all participants

as it relates to ELL student achievement.

Theme 5: Student Confidence, Engagement and Transition. This theme was

consistent among participants as many divulged that student confidence and their sense of

belonging in the classroom are critical factors influencing their engagement, performance

and transition. The lived experience of the participant teachers in relation to spoken

language and comprehension is an element of student confidence according interview

responses. The participants elaborated on negative and positive engagement as well as

ELL student transition during the interviews.

82
 Charlotte shared, "Some of them just don't have the drive to want to do it because

they can't speak English or they don't understand it, so they give up on themselves before

they even try." Felecia made a similar observation as Charlotte by stating, “Especially in

English more so than math because its numbers, my ability not to speak English causes

frustration for students, and sometimes contribute to absenteeism for ELL students.”

Felecia went on to say, “We found out that the older students would give up faster and

start to work because of the lack of comprehension and student achievement for ELL

students”. Mary added. “It’s tough to overcome students feeling as if they don’t belong

culturally, leading to them avoiding engagement and interaction in class.”

Theme #5 also highlights favorable student confidence as well as engagement.

For example, Debra shared the impact of small successes on student confidence, stating,

"If they get a part of the question correct, and you tell them good job, it gives them the

confidence to build more." In addition to Debra’s example, Libby added, “Small

achievements when recognized boost confidence and encourage student engagement for

ELL students.”

A hundred percent of the participants recalled using students as peer support in

one or both interviews. It was found through the interviews that this approach not only

provides linguistic support but also fosters a sense of community and belonging among

ELL students. For example, Helen stated, “Peer translation help students by making them

feel involved and that it’s ok to try.” Libby shared a time she asked her principal to

change students’ schedule so that she could have student translators. She stated, “When I

have student translators my class is greatly impacted because my ELL students feel a part

83
of the class.” She added, “It doesn’t fix all the problems, but it helps with social and

language development.”

Relating to confidence and engagement, the transition process for students is

significantly influenced by these factors. The data reveals that transitioning between

educational levels posed additional challenges for ELL students, particularly when they

have limited prior education in their native language or English. For instance, Charlott

stated, "It's hard for students who just moved here to adjust, especially when they have to

skip foundational years of learning English."

Felecia and Debra highlight the broader student decisions regarding whether to

stay in school or try and enter the work force. Feleicia shared, "Many of our students

struggle with deciding between continuing education or dropping out to work and

supporting their families." Debra further elaborated, "The mindset of having to choose

between education and supporting their family is a significant barrier for many ELL

students pertaining to their ability to graduate.” Libby also emphasized "The transition is

particularly tough for those who come in at a higher grade with minimal English skills.”

She also added, “They miss out on foundational learning and are expected to catch up

quickly, which is often unrealistic." The majority of participants concede that complex

socio-economic factors influence ELL students' educational experiences and decisions.

Based on the insights shared by the participants, it is evident that student

confidence, and engagement play a crucial role in the academic experience of ELL

students. The participants consistently emphasized the importance of addressing language

comprehension and fostering a sense of belonging to enhance student engagement and

performance. Negative experiences, such as frustration, absenteeism due to language

84
barriers, and social decision making highlight the challenges faced by ELL students.

However, positive reinforcement, small successes, and peer support significantly

contribute to building confidence and encouraging active participation in the classroom.

Theme 6: Cultural and Linguistic Fairness in Assessments. This theme emerged

in response to participants discussion of the state mandated assessments. The mandated

assessments were frequently cited as not being culturally and linguistically fair,

contributing to the academic barriers faced by ELL students. For example, Mary stated,

“Our standardized testing is not fair, culturally or linguistically.” She added,

“Standardized assessments test kids all the same way in English, which isn’t fair to

students who are learning English as second language." Felecia stated, “Other states

allow ELL students to take exams in their native language up to a certain grade, but in

Mississippi, everything is English only, which poses a significant barrier for ELL

students.” This sentiment was shared by all the participants on a broader issue of one-

size-fits-all testing approaches that do not account for the diverse backgrounds and

language challenges for ELL students.

According to the majority of the participants, assessment challenges are not just

on state mandated assessments but also on daily and unit assessments. Libby noted,

“Assignments and tests are not translated into Spanish, and navigating what ELL

students know through assessments is a challenge." Helen shared, “The lack of

appropriate assessment tools hinder ELL students' ability to demonstrate their true

capabilities and knowledge.” Participants unanimously agreed that mandated state

assessments and common assessments with no accommodation or differentiated

assessments presents barriers for ELL students. The vividly expressed characterization of

85
one-size-fits-all approach, systematically disadvantage ELL students. As articulated by

Mary, the standardized testing framework fails to account for the linguistic diversity of

English Language Learner students, thereby the participants share an inequitable

academic burden of mandated test. This theme of cultural and linguistic unfairness

highlights a significant barrier in the academic journey for ELL students and teachers.

Theme 7: Parental Involvement and Support. Parental involvement was

identified as a significant factor affecting ELL students' academic success by the

participants. Participants reported that language barriers also extend to communication

with parents, limiting their ability to support their children's educational development.

For example, Charlotte’s stated, "Our parents that don’t speak English can’t help.” The

entire participant field noted that they have translation systems, but communication and

support is still a challenge." For example, Mary stated, “Our teachers use google

translate but we are unsure if what we are saying is accurately translated.” Felecia and

Mary both shared similar responses concerning the importance of communication with

parents. Felecia stated, “Communication between schools and ELL parents is crucial for

student success, yet it remains a significant obstacle.”

The participants also mentioned using students as translators when

communicating with parents. Debra shared, "I've had kids translate for their parents

during school meetings, which isn't always reliable." Libby who has been at her school

for several years added, “Reliance on students to mediate communication can lead to

misunderstandings and incomplete information being conveyed to parents.” Helen added,

"When parents don't understand the language, they can't fully support their child's

86
education, which impacts the child's performance." Helen’s comments reflect her

observations that the vocabulary level of her students impacts that communication.

The participants' reflections emphasize parental involvement has unique challenges when

working with ELL students, teachers, and families. The consistent mentioning of

language barriers is a systemic issue that hinders parental support. Despite existing

translation systems, the gap in effective communication remains a significant obstacle, as

highlighted by participants.

Summary

The analysis of this qualitative phenomenological data provides insight into the

lived experiences of middle school teachers instructing English Language Learners in

central Mississippi, addressing both the research questions posed. In response to the first

research question, which aimed to explore the perceptions of the lived experiences of

ELL teachers, the findings reveal a deeply emotional journey characterized by both

challenges and rewards. Teachers reported a range of emotional responses, from

frustration and inadequacy due to a lack of adequate resources and preparation to

fulfillment and joy when observing student progress. The support provided to these

teachers was often inconsistent. Moreover, the pervasive language barriers profoundly

impacted their ability to deliver effective instruction and accurately assess student

progress.

Addressing the second research question, which sought to identify the barriers

associated with teaching ELL students, the study's findings point to several critical

obstacles. Teacher preparedness and efficacy were recurrent concerns, with participants

expressing a need for more practical training and actionable strategies to effectively teach

87
ELL students. Additionally, issues of cultural and linguistic fairness in assessments were

prominent, with current standardized testing practices failing to accommodate the

linguistic diversity of ELL students. This presents a significant barrier to their academic

success. Furthermore, parental involvement emerged as a crucial yet challenging factor,

with language barriers often limiting effective communication and support. Chapter five

discusses the findings reported here and offers recommendations for the profession and

future research.

88
 CHAPTER V

EVALUATION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore middle

school teachers’ perceptions of the barriers contributing to the academic

underperformance of English Language Learners in grades 6-8 in central Mississippi.

Through the examination of teachers' lived experiences and insights, this study sought to

uncover the specific challenges or barriers that hinder ELL students' academic success

and to develop a deeper understanding of how these barriers impact their learning

outcomes. The findings offer lived experienced insights into the specific factors that

hamper ELL students’ academic success and provide practical recommendations for

improving their educational experiences. This chapter interprets the findings in

comparison to existing research and conceptual frameworks, discusses implications for

educational practice and policy, provides recommendations for future research, and

concludes with a summary of the study’s significance.

This chapter is organized into several sections. First, it begins with an evaluation

of the findings, organized by the study's research questions. Organizing by the research

questions provided a clear understanding of how the results align with the conceptual

frameworks of Linguistically Responsive Teaching and Culturally Responsive Teaching.

Next, the discussion section presents the overall conclusions drawn from the study,

emphasizing their significance in the context of existing research and educational

practices. The chapter then explores the implications of these findings, addressing the

89
broader impacts on various stakeholders in the education system, including students,

teachers, administrators, and policymakers. Following this, the chapter outlines specific

recommendations for practice and policy, offering concrete steps that can be taken to

address the identified barriers to ELL success. Recommendations for future research are

also provided, highlighting areas where further investigation is needed to build upon the

findings of this study. The chapter concludes with a summary that encapsulates the key

points and underscores the importance of ongoing efforts to support ELL students in

achieving their full academic potential.

Evaluation of the Findings

The findings from this study are evaluated through the lens of the conceptual

frameworks of Linguistically Responsive Teaching and Culturally Responsive Teaching,

both of which are essential for understanding how teachers’ perceptions and instructional

practices can either support or impede the academic success of ELL students.

Research Question 1: How do middle school core content teachers describe their

experiences teaching their ELL students?

The experiences shared by the teachers in this study highlighted a pervasive sense

of under preparedness and challenges in addressing the linguistic needs of ELL students.

For example, Charlotte shared, “We were never taught how to help students who don’t

speak English, especially not in terms of the specific challenges they face with

language.” Many teachers expressed difficulties in effectively communicating with ELL

students and in adapting their teaching methods to meet these students' diverse linguistic

needs. This finding is consistent with existing literature, such as the work of Stairs-

Davenport (2021), which highlights that mainstream teachers often lack sufficient

90
training in ELL instructional strategies. The lack of preparation often resulted in

frustration and inadequacy among the participant teachers. The frustration in inadequacy

hindered their ability to support ELL students effectively.

Linguistically Responsive Teaching (LRT) is a framework that emphasizes the

importance of understanding and addressing the specific linguistic needs of students in

the classroom. LRT involves strategies that enable teachers to recognize the language

demands of their subjects and adapt their teaching methods to support ELL students

effectively (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). This framework is crucial because it helps teachers

develop the skills necessary to create an inclusive classroom environment where all

students can succeed, regardless of their linguistic backgrounds. The findings of this

study alluded to the importance of LRT, revealing that many teachers have not received

adequate training in language acquisition, which limits their ability to implement these

strategies effectively. Without proper training in LRT as the participating teachers were

not, likely caused the teachers to struggle with supporting their ELL students. As a result,

the teachers are not fully prepared to address the specific linguistic challenges the English

Language Learner students face.

Culturally Responsive Teaching goes beyond linguistic adaptation to include

acknowledging and valuing students' cultural backgrounds as a fundamental part of the

learning process. CRT involves using students' cultural knowledge, experiences, and

perspectives as assets in teaching (Ladson-Billings, 2021). This approach requires

teachers to create a classroom environment that respects and values diversity, promoting

student engagement through a sense of belonging. In the context of this study, CRT is

crucial because it highlights the need for teachers to be not only linguistically responsive

91
but also culturally aware and inclusive. The findings suggest that teachers' lack of

preparation in CRT contributes to a disconnect between the curriculum and the students'

cultural contexts, further hindering ELL students' academic success. For example, Mary

stated, "It’s tough to overcome students feeling as if they don’t belong culturally, leading

to them avoiding engagement and interaction in class."

Recent literature supports the ongoing need for CRT and LRT in contemporary

classrooms. For instance, Paris and Alim (2017) argue that culturally sustaining

pedagogies, which are built on the principles of CRT, are necessary to support the

identities and cultural practices of diverse student populations. These pedagogies go

beyond inclusion to actively sustain the cultural and linguistic practices of students,

promoting a more holistic and inclusive approach to education. This aligns with the

findings of this study, which indicate that without training in CRT and LRT, teachers

may inadvertently contribute to the continued academic underperformance of ELL

students.

Research Question 2: What barriers to ELL academic success do middle school core

content teachers perceive?

The teachers identified several key barriers that they perceived as contributing to

the academic underperformance of ELL students. These barriers included inadequate

teacher preparation, a lack of culturally and linguistically responsive instructional

practices, and socio-emotional challenges faced by ELL students. The issue of inadequate

teacher preparation was a prominent theme, with teachers highlighting the need for more

targeted training and professional development in ELL education. For instance, Charlotte

emphasized, “I don’t feel like we are prepared enough, especially if you don’t speak

92
Spanish. We do our best, but we need more training.” This sentiment was echoed by

several participants, underscoring the widespread concern regarding teacher readiness.

These findings align with research by Gay (2010) and Lucas and Villegas (2013), which

emphasize the need for teacher preparation to include culturally and linguistically

responsive teaching practices.

The lack of culturally responsive teaching practices in classrooms was another

significant barrier. Teachers reported that they struggled to incorporate students' cultural

backgrounds into their lessons. According to Gay (2010), Culturally Responsive Teaching

involves utilizing students' cultural knowledge, experiences, and backgrounds as tools for

more effective teaching. However, as several participants in the study indicated, many

teachers were not equipped to implement CRT practices effectively, leading to a

disconnect between curriculum and students' cultural contexts. For example, Debra noted

that while they tried to make learning relevant, they lacked the training to consistently

integrate cultural elements into their lessons. This gap in CRT practices not only hindered

engagement but also negatively impacted ELL students' academic performance, as they

often felt disconnected from the content. This finding reinforces the literature that stresses

the importance of culturally responsive teaching as a bridge between home and school

cultures (Gay, 2010).

Social-emotional challenges also emerged as critical factors influencing ELL

students' academic success. Teachers described feelings of isolation and limited peer

interaction as significant issues. For example, during the second set of interviews, one of

the participants recalled a moment when a student was reluctant to participate in

classroom activities due to language barriers and a lack of confidence. These social-

93
emotional issues align with findings from Shi and Watkinson (2019), who argue that

emotional well-being is crucial to student engagement and achievement. Addressing these

challenges requires a more holistic approach to education, one that considers both

academic and emotional support systems for ELL students. Several teachers in the study

emphasized the importance of creating inclusive environments where ELL students feel

valued and supported, both academically and emotionally.

In terms of connecting these findings to the study problem, the barriers identified

by teachers directly address the academic underperformance of ELL students in

Mississippi middle schools, as outlined in Chapter 1. The lack of teacher preparation and

inadequate CRT practices suggest systemic issues that, if left unaddressed, will continue

to hinder ELL students' success. The findings also contribute to the broader literature on

teacher efficacy and preparedness, as well as culturally responsive pedagogy. These

themes highlight the critical need for professional development that equips teachers with

the necessary tools to support ELL students effectively. Furthermore, the socio-emotional

challenges discussed align with existing research, demonstrating that emotional support is

as vital as academic instruction in promoting ELL student success.

Finally, several factors could have influenced the interpretation of these results.

Teachers' perceptions may have been shaped by their own experiences and levels of

preparedness, which varied across participants. Additionally, the specific school contexts

in central Mississippi, where resources for ELL students are limited, may have amplified

the teachers' concerns. It is also important to consider the potential bias introduced by the

limited sample size of six teachers, which may not capture the full spectrum of

experiences in different educational settings. Nevertheless, the themes identified in this

94
study provide valuable insights into the barriers that ELL students face, and they offer a

foundation for further exploration and intervention.

Discussion

The findings of this study emphasize the urgent need for the integration of

Linguistically Responsive Teaching and Culturally Responsive Teaching in middle

school classrooms to address the academic underperformance of English Language

Learners. This study identifies key barriers such as inadequate teacher preparation, the

lack of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices, and social emotional

challenges and links them to the existing literature in Chapter 2.

One of the central take-home messages of this study is that ELL students require

more than conventional instructional approaches to succeed academically. The research

of Lucas and Villegas (2013), discussed in Chapter 2, highlights the importance of

linguistic scaffolding in helping ELL students navigate language-related challenges. The

teachers in this study expressed feelings of being underprepared, which they unequipped

to effectively scaffold both content and language, aligning with the broader literature that

calls for more comprehensive teacher training in linguistic responsiveness. This training

is essential not only for content delivery but also for language acquisition, which remains

a significant challenge in diverse classrooms.

Further, the study affirms the importance of Culturally Responsive Teaching as

discussed by Gay (2010), whose work emphasizes using students' cultural backgrounds

as assets in the learning process. The findings of this study, where teachers noted a

struggle in connecting the curriculum with ELL students' cultural contexts, mirror the

existing research that highlights the disconnect between culturally diverse students and

95
mainstream curricula. In particular, teachers in this study reported that their inability to

incorporate students' cultural backgrounds into lessons resulted in a lack of student

engagement and motivation, further impacting their academic performance.

Chapter 2 also underscores the significance of addressing social emotional

challenges. Jones et al. (2017) pointed out that social emotional well-being is

foundational to student success, a response repeated by the teachers in this study who

observed that feelings of separation and alienation were common among their ELL

students. These emotional factors not only affected students’ confidence but also their

willingness to participate in class. Thus, the study confirms that addressing social

emotional needs is just as crucial as providing linguistic and academic support.

The findings of this study have significant implications for both educational

practice and policy. The need for professional development that emphasizes both LRT

and CRT frameworks is evident. Teachers must be trained to scaffold language and

content simultaneously, ensuring that ELL students can engage with the curriculum while

building their language proficiency. Chapter 2 detailed the frameworks of Lucas and

Villegas (2013), which highlight how scaffolding and responsive language instruction are

critical to ELL success. Without proper training, teachers remain ill-equipped to meet the

needs of ELL students, as reflected in this study’s findings. According to García et al.,

(2017), educators who adopt these frameworks are better positioned to meet the diverse

needs of ELL students, thus promoting improved academic and social emotional

outcomes.

Specifically, the principles of LRT provide a clear framework for aligning

teaching practices with the linguistic needs of students. For example, the fourth principle

96
of LRT states that teachers should scaffold language and content instruction to ensure

that ELL students can access the curriculum while simultaneously developing their

language skills (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). This principle aligns with the finding from the

study that teachers need more training and support to effectively scaffold instruction for

ELL students. Teachers reported feeling underprepared to modify their teaching methods

to meet the diverse linguistic needs of their students, which suggests a need for

professional development that emphasizes the integration of language and content

instruction.

Similarly, CRT principles align closely with the study’s findings regarding the

importance of cultural responsiveness in the classroom. CRT emphasizes that teachers

should draw on students' cultural backgrounds and experiences as assets in the learning

process (Ladson-Billings, 2021). This aligns with the study’s finding that many teachers

struggled to connect the curriculum with the cultural contexts of their ELL students,

expounding on the lack of motivation. Incorporating CRT principles, teachers can create

a more inclusive classroom environment that respects and values the cultural diversity of

their students, thereby promoting greater engagement and academic success. By

explicitly connecting these theoretical principles with the findings of the study, it

becomes evident that LRT and CRT are essential frameworks for addressing the

challenges faced by ELL students. These frameworks provide practical strategies that

teachers can use to support the linguistic and cultural needs of their students, thereby

creating a more inclusive and effective learning environment.

Policy reforms are necessary to institutionalize culturally and linguistically

responsive practices within teacher training programs. This study's findings align with

97
Gay's (2010) call for CRT to be integrated into teacher preparation programs. As

observed in Chapter 2, a lack of CRT practices can lead to disengagement and academic

underperformance among culturally diverse students. Policies that mandate ongoing

professional development in CRT and LRT could bridge this gap, equipping teachers to

better meet the needs of diverse student populations.

In conclusion, the key take-home message of this study is that a holistic,

responsive approach—one that integrates LRT and CRT while addressing social

emotional need is essential for improving the academic performance of ELL students.

The barriers identified in this research are not isolated to the classroom but are systemic,

underscoring the need for comprehensive changes in teacher preparation, professional

development, and educational policy. By grounding these findings in the research

discussed in Chapter 2, it is evident that only through responsive and inclusive practices

can educators effectively support the linguistic, cultural, and emotional needs of ELL

students, ultimately fostering a more equitable learning environment.

Implications

The findings from this study have significant implications for educational

practice, policy, and research, particularly for supporting English Language Learners in

middle school. The implications are organized around each of the two research questions

and reflect the impact on various stakeholders, including teachers, students, school

administrators, parents, and policymakers.

Research Question 1: How do middle school core content teachers describe their

experiences teaching their ELL students?

98
This question aimed to explore the lived experiences of core content teachers working

with ELL students. The study uncovered several themes that highlight the challenges and

opportunities for improving teacher efficacy and student outcomes.

Teachers in the study reported feeling underprepared to meet the diverse linguistic

and cultural needs of their ELL students. This aligns with existing research by Lucas and

Villegas (2013), which emphasized that teachers often lack adequate training in both

Linguistically Responsive Teaching (LRT) and Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT).

The implication is that teachers need ongoing, targeted professional development in LRT

and CRT, which would allow them to better address the diverse needs of their students.

Additionally, this study suggests that teachers require more resources, such as culturally

relevant materials and opportunities for peer collaboration, to effectively implement these

practices.

The findings also highlight the emotional impact on teachers who feel

overwhelmed by the demands of teaching students with language barriers. Teachers

expressed frustration with the lack of time and support to modify lessons for ELLs. These

challenges reflect the broader issue identified by Stairs-Davenport (2021), who argued

that mainstream teachers frequently face difficulties when working with linguistically

diverse students due to insufficient preparation. Addressing this gap through professional

development and support systems will be essential for improving teacher confidence and

efficacy.

From the teachers' perspective, the lack of culturally and linguistically responsive

instruction has significant implications for ELL students' engagement and achievement.

The study's findings suggest that when teachers lack the skills to effectively communicate

99
with ELLs, students experience feelings of isolation and disengagement. This is

consistent with the literature, particularly Gay's (2013) work on Culturally Responsive

Teaching, which shows that students are more likely to succeed academically when they

feel that their cultural and linguistic backgrounds are respected and integrated into the

curriculum.

In terms of instructional practices, teachers who adopt LRT and CRT strategies

can help students feel more included, leading to increased participation and academic

performance. ELL students need an environment where they can take risks, ask

questions, and receive support that is aligned with their linguistic needs (Heikkola et al.,

2022). Therefore, ensuring that teachers have the tools to create such environments is

critical to improving ELL academic outcomes.

Research Question 2: What barriers to ELL academic success do middle school core

teachers perceive?

This research question focused on identifying the specific barriers to ELL

students' academic performance as perceived by middle school core content teachers. The

study's findings revealed several key barriers, including inadequate teacher preparation,

social emotional challenges for students, and a lack of institutional support.

The teachers in this study identified insufficient training in language acquisition

as a critical barrier to ELL success. This echoes findings from Karvonen et al. (2021),

who noted that many teachers are not equipped with the skills necessary to support ELL

students in language development. The implication is that schools need to provide more

robust professional development programs that focus on building teachers' capacity to

address both academic and socio-emotional challenges in ELL students.

100
 Moreover, the teachers emphasized the need for a more structured approach to

supporting ELL students, such as creating dedicated time for language instruction and

collaboration between mainstream and ELL teachers. This collaboration would allow

teachers to share strategies and create a more cohesive approach to language learning, as

supported by Dellicarpini (2018). By fostering ongoing communication and teamwork,

educators can ensure that ELL students receive consistent and effective support across

different subjects, leading to better academic outcomes.

From the findings, it is clear that social emotional barriers, including feelings of

isolation and lack of peer interaction, play a major role in ELL students'

underperformance. These barriers were exacerbated by the limited use of culturally

responsive pedagogy, which could have helped ELL students feel more included in the

classroom community. As noted by Tavares (2019), fostering peer interactions and

building a sense of belonging are critical for ELL students to engage fully in their

learning.

The implications for students are that schools need to prioritize both academic and

emotional support systems. Implementing social emotional learning programs that

specifically address the needs of ELL students could help mitigate feelings of isolation.

Additionally, schools must ensure that language support is integrated into all aspects of

the curriculum, not just in isolated programs, to foster greater inclusion and engagement

for ELL students (Hoover & Soltero-Gonzalez, 2018).

Administrators play a pivotal role in removing institutional barriers that impede ELL

success. The study found that inadequate resource allocation and limited support for

teachers were major challenges faced by schools. Administrators must prioritize funding

101
for professional development in LRT and CRT and create school-wide policies that

promote the inclusion of ELL students. This includes ensuring that culturally and

linguistically responsive practices are implemented consistently across all classrooms and

not just in isolated ELL programs.

Additionally, administrators should establish a culture of collaboration, where

teachers are encouraged to share best practices and work together to support ELL

students. This aligns with research by Symons (2022), who highlighted the importance of

collaborative learning environments in improving teacher efficacy and student outcomes.

By fostering a supportive and collaborative school culture, administrators can help ensure

that teachers have the resources and guidance necessary to address the diverse needs of

ELL students effectively.

The study revealed that parental involvement was a significant barrier for many

ELL students. Teachers noted that language barriers between parents and schools limited

the ability of parents to engage in their children's education effectively. This is consistent

with Wassell et al. (2015), who found that ELL parents often feel disconnected from the

school community due to language differences.

Schools must create more inclusive environments for parents by offering

translation services, hosting culturally relevant events, and providing resources that help

parents support their children's education at home. Building reciprocal relationships

between schools and ELL families, as suggested by Buchanan and Buchanan (2017), can

create a stronger support network for students and improve their academic performance.

By actively engaging parents and valuing their contributions, schools can foster a more

collaborative and culturally responsive educational community.

102
 The findings of this study also have implications for educational policy.

Policymakers must recognize the importance of investing in professional development

programs that focus on both LRT and CRT. The study’s findings suggest that without

adequate training, teachers struggle to meet the needs of their ELL students, which

perpetuates academic underperformance.

Policymakers should also consider revising standardized testing requirements to

accommodate the needs of ELL students, as current assessments often do not accurately

reflect their academic abilities. As highlighted by Gay (2010), more equitable assessment

tools are needed to evaluate the progress of ELL students and provide a fair

representation of their learning outcomes. By addressing both the academic and

emotional needs of ELL students, such reforms can help create a more supportive

learning environment that fosters student success and well-being.

Lastly, educational reforms must prioritize funding for social emotional support

programs that specifically target the challenges faced by ELL students. This could

include policies that mandate the integration of culturally responsive practices in all

schools, not just those with high populations of ELL students, to promote equity and

inclusion. Additionally, providing training for educators on how to identify and address

the social emotional needs of ELL students will ensure that schools can offer

comprehensive support. By fostering a more inclusive environment, educational reforms

can help mitigate the negative effects of socio-emotional barriers on ELL academic

achievement and overall well-being.

In summary, the findings from this study provide valuable insights into the

barriers to ELL students' academic success and the lived experiences of middle school

103
teachers. By addressing these barriers through targeted professional development,

improved collaboration, and policy changes, schools can create more inclusive

environments that support the academic and social emotional well-being of ELL students.

The implications outlined above contribute to the existing literature on LRT and CRT and

offer practical recommendations for educators, administrators, and policymakers to

improve ELL student outcomes.

Recommendations for Practice and/or Policy

Based on the findings of this study, several recommendations can be made to

improve the educational experience of ELL students. These recommendations are

intended to provide actionable steps that educators, administrators, and policymakers can

take to address the barriers to ELL success and create a more inclusive and supportive

educational environment.

Recommendation 1: Implement Comprehensive Teacher Training Programs

Connected to LRT and CRT. The study found that inadequate teacher preparation is a

significant barrier to ELL academic success. Teachers lack the necessary skills and

understanding of Linguistically Responsive Teaching and Culturally Responsive

Teaching, which are critical for addressing ELL students' unique challenges. It is

recommended that school districts develop comprehensive teacher training programs

focused on LRT and CRT, as supported by the research of Lucas & Villegas (2013). The

implementation would specifically address language and non-native cultural backgrounds

as the United States become a more diverse society. These programs should provide

teachers with technological tools, and practical strategies for integrating language and

cultural responsiveness into their instruction.

104
 Additionally, robust strategies are needed to create inclusive classrooms that are

responsive to help non-native students to become language and academic proficient.

Training should include practical examples of how to integrate these approaches into

daily teaching practices, as well as opportunities for teachers to reflect on their own

cultural biases and how those biases might impact their capacity to teach. Continuous

professional development should be incorporated to ensure that teachers stay updated on

best practices, particularly as the diversity of the student body continues to increase.

Recommendation 2: Prioritize Culturally Relevant Curriculum Practices

Aligned with Teacher Efficacy. The study’s findings also highlight the need for

curricula that reflect the diverse cultural backgrounds of students, which directly impacts

teacher efficacy and student engagement. Incorporating culturally relevant materials and

activities can help bridge the gap between ELL students and the content they are expected

to learn (Gay, 2010). Curriculum developers should work closely with educators to

ensure that teaching materials and assessments are culturally inclusive, which can

positively impact not only ELL students but also their native peers. By incorporating

texts, examples, and activities that are relevant to the students’ cultural experiences,

educators can make learning more engaging for all students. This recommendation aligns

with Gay's framework of Culturally Responsive Teaching, which emphasizes the

importance of connecting learning to students' cultural backgrounds to foster engagement

and achievement.

Recommendation 3: Support Ongoing Professional Development that

Addresses Teacher Perceptions and Cultural Bias. This study uncovered that many

teachers feel underprepared to address the linguistic and cultural needs of their ELL

105
students, often due to implicit biases or lack of experience. Ongoing professional

development workshops focused on addressing these gaps are essential. As suggested by

the literature (Tandon et al., 2017), policies should encourage schools to provide

opportunities for teachers to reflect on their own cultural biases and how these biases

might impact their teaching efficacy. This reflection should be part of a broader

professional learning community where teachers can collaborate and share best practices.

Policies that allocate resources for hiring ELL specialists to support classroom teachers

will further strengthen these efforts.

Recommendation 4: Implement Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) Programs

with a Focus on ELL Students. One of the key findings from this study is the social-

emotional challenges that ELL students face, such as isolation and lack of peer

interaction. To address these issues, schools should implement Social-Emotional

Learning programs that specifically target ELL students' needs. As argued by Shi &

Watkinson (2019), social and emotional support is critical for academic engagement.

These programs should include peer mentoring initiatives, extracurricular activities, and

counseling services to foster a sense of belonging among ELL students. Administrators

and policymakers must allocate resources to ensure that SEL programs are adequately

funded and available to all ELL students.

Recommendation 5: Engage Parents and Families Through Culturally

Appropriate Communication and Support. The study revealed that one of the barriers

to ELL success is the lack of engagement between schools and parents, often due to

language and cultural differences. Schools should implement communication strategies

that are linguistically and culturally appropriate to better engage ELL families (Wassell et

106
al., 2015). This could include offering workshops for parents on how to support their

children’s learning at home, as well as creating opportunities for meaningful involvement

in school activities. School districts should develop policies that promote ongoing

partnerships between schools, families, and community organizations to support the

overall well-being and academic success of ELL students.

Recommendation 6: Advocate for Policy Changes to Ensure Equitable

Assessment and Support for ELL Students. Policymakers must take into account the

unique needs of ELL students when designing educational policies. As noted in this

study, standardized assessments often do not accurately reflect the academic abilities of

ELL students due to linguistic challenges (Karvonen et al., 2021). Policymakers should

consider alternative assessment methods, such as native language assessments or

modified standardized tests, to provide a fairer evaluation of ELL students’ academic

progress. Additionally, policies should ensure that adequate funding is allocated to

support both ELL students and the professional development of teachers who work with

them.

While this study provides valuable insights into the barriers that contribute to the

academic underperformance of ELL students, there are several areas where future

research is needed. First, future studies could explore similar issues in different

geographic regions or educational settings to provide a more comprehensive

understanding of ELL challenges. This would help to identify whether the barriers

identified in this study are unique to central Mississippi or are more widely applicable.

Second, longitudinal studies could be conducted to track the long-term effects of

specific interventions on ELL student outcomes. By examining how changes in

107
instructional practices and teacher training impact ELL students over time, researchers

can gain a deeper understanding of what works and what does not in ELL education.

Additionally, research could explore the experiences of ELL students themselves to gain

insights from their perspectives. This would provide a more holistic view of the

challenges that ELL students face and could expound upon the development of

interventions that are more closely aligned with their needs.

Third, future research could examine the impact of social emotional support

programs on ELL students' academic performance. Given the significant role that social

emotional challenges play in ELL students' academic success, it is important to explore

how targeted support programs can help address these issues and improve outcomes.

Research could also investigate the effectiveness of different types of support, such as

peer mentoring, counseling services, and family engagement initiatives, in enhancing

ELL students' academic and emotional well-being.

Fourth, studies could explore the role of family and community engagement in

supporting ELL students' academic success. By examining how families and

communities can be involved in the educational process, researchers can identify

strategies to strengthen the support network for ELL students and promote their success

both inside and outside the classroom. The investigation into the role of family and

community findings can be beneficial when developing school level plans.

Fifth, future research could explore the impact of technology on ELL education.

With the increasing use of technology in classrooms, it is important to understand how

digital tools and resources can be used to support the learning of ELL students. Research

could investigate the effectiveness of different types of technology, such as language

108
learning apps, online tutoring programs, and digital storytelling tools, in enhancing the

language skills and academic performance of ELL students.

Finally, research could examine the impact of teacher-student relationships on the

academic success of ELL students. By exploring how strong relationships between

teachers and students can support academic achievement, researchers can identify

strategies to help educators build positive relationships with ELL students. This research

could provide valuable insights into the importance of teacher-student relationships in

fostering a supportive and inclusive learning environment.

Conclusion

This study provides valuable insights into the barriers that contribute to the

academic underperformance of ELL students in middle school. By highlighting the

importance of LRT and CRT, the study accentuates the need for educational practices

that are responsive to the linguistic and cultural needs of all students. The findings

emphasize the critical role of teacher preparation and support in fostering an inclusive

learning environment that enables ELL students to succeed academically. The study

contributes to the ongoing conversation about how best to support ELL students in

achieving their full academic potential. It calls for systemic changes in teacher training

and curriculum development, to ensure that all students, regardless of their linguistic and

cultural backgrounds, have the opportunity to succeed.

In conclusion, this study reaffirms the importance of encompassing linguistically

responsive practices, including social aspects of the uniqueness of ELL students. By

implementing the recommendations outlined in this chapter, educators and policymakers

can help create a more inclusive and equitable educational system that supports the

109
success of all students. The study highlights the need for ongoing research to continue

exploring the challenges and opportunities in ELL education, ensuring that all students

are given the support they need to thrive. The findings of this study have significant

implications for educators, policymakers, and researchers, and point out the importance

of continued efforts to improve the educational experiences and outcomes of ELL

students.

As we look to the future of ELL education, it is essential that we continue to

prioritize the needs of ELL students and work towards creating an educational system

that is truly inclusive and supportive of all students and their teachers. The ability to

embrace diversity, valuing cultural and linguistic differences, and providing the support

and resources needed to help all students succeed, we can create a brighter future for ELL

students and for our society as a whole.

110
 APPENDIX A

DISTRICT APPROVAL SAMPLE LETTER

Date: 00/00/22023

Dear School District,

My name is Marcus Holbert, a graduate student currently working on my doctoral

dissertation at Arkansas State University, in the Department of Educational Leadership. I
am under the supervision of Dr. Jacques Singleton (Chair) and Dr. Karen Buchanan
(Mentor). My research is a study of barriers that impede English Language Learners
academic success.

I am requesting permission to conduct a study during the 2023-2024 school year in order
to meet the requirements of my educational doctorate program. The purpose of this study
is to explore the perceptions of teachers for English Language Learners who are
academically underperforming within middle schools located in Central Mississippi. The
study is composed to gather insight from teachers’ perceptions of barriers that impede
ELL students’ academic performance. In doing so, I will gather lived experience through
interviews and analyze data concerning the underperformance of English language
learners. This study has the potential to improve educational practices for ELL students.

The documents included will be used for participants to provide consent and/or assent
and gather information related to English language learners as well as basic demographic
information. Any information inadvertently collected during this study will be kept
confidential. The use of students or students’ data will not be included in the study. There
are no known risks for participation in this study. All responses are confidential. The
researcher will not share your districts nor participant name or any personally identifiable
information with anyone other than the dissertation committee members. Only
pseudonyms will be used when quoting from the transcribed text. Participation in this
study is completely voluntary. There is no compensation for participating in this study.
Nor are there any immediate or direct benefits of participating in the study, however, the
results of the study will be available in the dissertation and may be helpful information to
you and your school district. Upon completion of data compilation and analysis, all
instruments and data collected will be destroyed.

Each interview is expected to last about 45-60 minutes. Participants have to sign consent
form before the interview can take place.

For questions about this study, please contact Marcus Holbert at

[Link]@[Link] or 601-934-8074.
Thank you for our consideration,

111
I hereby grant permission for the researcher to conduct the study described above.

Signature of District Representative Date

_______________________________________ __________________

112
 APPENDIX B

DISTRICT APPROVAL LETTER

113
 APPENDIX C

PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT EMAIL

Dear [intended participant/s],

I am emailing you to invite you to be part of my research project about English Language
Learners. The purpose of the research is to explore teachers’ perceptions on contributing
factors of ELL students’ academic underperformance. If you participate in my project,
you will partake in two semi-structured interviews about lived experiences of teaching
English Language Learner students. Each interview will take approximately 45-60
minutes of dialogue of you sharing your experiences and perceptions of teaching English
Language Students. The research is connected to the Department of Educational
Leadership at Arkansas State University-Jonesboro. The research is for my dissertation
for my doctorate degree. You are an eligible participant because you teach ELL students,
core content subjects, and a hold a valid Mississippi Teaching License.
There are no known risks for you as a participant associated with the study. There are no
direct benefits to research participation, however; the information gained from this study
may provide valuable literature regarding ELLs as well as an opportunity for you to
discover additional barriers identified from other educator’s perspective. The goal for the
research is to understand and identify barriers that contribute ELLs academic
underperformance through the lens of lived experiences of English Language Learners
teachers. The comprehension of the barriers that contribute to the academic under-
performance of ELL students can impact academic achievement as well as society.

Participation is voluntary, but I hope you will choose to be part of this project!
For more information, or to sign up, please contact me at (601)934-8074 or by email at
[Link]@[Link] .

Thanks,

Marcus Holbert

114
 APPENDIX D

CONSENT FORMS
Institutional Review Board
Dean B. Ellis Library, Suite 613
Office Phone: 870.680.4267
Informed Consent for Research Participation
Study Title: Qualitative Study of Barriers That Contribute to English Language
Learners Academic Underperformance in Middle School Grades 6-8

You are being asked to participate in a research Study. The following information is
provided to inform you of the research project that will be conducted by Marcus Holbert
of Arkansas State University in the Department of Educational Leadership. Marcus
Holbert is being guided by Jacques Singleton Chair and Karen Buchanan Faculty
Advisor. If you volunteer, you will be one of about 15 people to do so.
Purpose of the Study: The purpose is to explore teachers’ perceptions on contributing
factors of ELL students’ academic underperformance. You are being invited to
participate because you teach English Language Learner Students in core content, grades
6-8, and hold a Mississippi Educators Teaching License
Procedures and Duration: If you agree to participate you will be asked to partake in two
in-person or virtual semi-structured interviews. The research will be conducted at your
school facility or via zoom. The interview should take about 45-60 minutes to complete.
Risk: There are no known risks or discomfort for the participant associated with the
research.
Benefits: There are no direct benefits to research participation, however; the information
gained from this study may provide valuable literature regarding English Language
Learner and the potential barriers that contribute to the academic under-performance of
these students.
Confidentiality: Any information obtained from you within this study will be kept
confidential. Only the research team on this study will see the information about you. No
reports or publications will use information that can identify you in any way. We will
make every effort to keep the information collected from you private. We will protect the
confidentiality of your research records by password protecting documentation.

Future Use: Data collected as part of this research will not be used in future research
without additional consent.

115
Alternative Procedures: Participation is voluntary, and the only alternative is to not
participate.
Your Rights as a Volunteer: By agreeing to participate in the study, you do not waive
any rights that you may have regarding access to and disclosure of your records. Your
participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you choose to participate, your
responses will be held in confidence. You are free to withdraw at any time without
penalty. If the results of this study were to be written for publication, no identifying
information will be used.
Contact Information: If you have questions about this study, you can contact the
researcher(s) below:
Principal Investigator Faculty Advisor (if PI is a student)
Marcus Holbert (Karen Buchanan
Department of Educational Leadership Department of Educational
/Arkansas State University-Jonesboro Leadership /Arkansas State
University-Jonesboro
P.O. Box 2760 P.O. Box 2760
State University, Arkansas 72467 State University, Arkansas 72467
(870)-680-4116 (870)-680-4116
[Link]@[Link] kbuchanan@[Link]

This study has been reviewed and approved by Arkansas State University’s Institutional
Review Board (IRB). The IRB has determined that this study meets the ethical
obligations required by federal law and University policies. If you have questions or
concerns regarding this study, please contact the Investigator or Advisor. If you have any
questions regarding your rights as a research subject, please contact the Director of
Research Compliance at 870-972-2694.
STATEMENT OF CONSENT:

___ I have had the opportunity to consider the information in this document. I have asked
any questions needed for me to decide about my participation. I understand that I can ask
additional questions throughout the study.

___ By signing below, I volunteer to participate in this research. I understand that I am

not waiving any legal rights. I have been given a copy of this consent document. I
116
understand that if my ability to consent for myself changes, my legal representative or I
may be asked to consent again prior to my continued participation.
___ I certify that I am 18 years of age or older.
___ As described above, you will be audio/ video recorded while performing the
activities described above. Audio/video recording will be used for described intended
use. I agree to the use of audio/video recording.

Name of Adult Participant Signature of Adult Participant Date

Phone number

Researcher Signature (To be completed at the time of Informed Consent)

I explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this consent and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Research Team Signature of Research Team Date

Member Member

117
 APPENDIX E

INTERVIEW #1 PROTOCOL
Interview Protocol Form Interview #1
Institution: Arkansas State University
Interviewee:
Interviewer: Marcus Holbert Date:
Location:
Part I:
Introductory Protocol
You have been selected to speak with me today because you have been identified as
someone who has a great deal to share about English Language Learner (ELL) students.
My research project focuses on the perceptions of teachers regarding English Language
Learners within the middle schools in Central Mississippi. Through this study, we hope
to gain insight into barriers that contribute to academic underperformance for ELLs. The
goal is for us to identify ways in which we can improve academic performance and
improve instructional strategies for ELLs.
To meet our human subjects’ requirements at the university, you must sign the form I
have with me (provide the form). Essentially, this document states that: (1) all
information will be held confidential, (2) your participation is voluntary, and you may
stop at any time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3) we do not intend to inflict any harm
(allow time to review the form). Do you have any questions about the interview process
or this form? I would also like to remind you that this Zoom interview is being recorded.
Upon entering the Zoom meeting, you were asked to agree to being recorded by clicking
on the “accept” icon. If you do not agree to the recording of this interview, please let me
know now. Additionally, I have a consent form related to this as well (provide the form).
All responses are confidential. I will only use your pseudonym when quoting from the
transcribed text. You have already reviewed the consent form; however, I have brought a
second copy so that you can review the form before we begin. Do you have any other
questions about the process at this time? Do you agree to sign the consent form? Thank
you.

Part II: Interviewee Background (5 minutes)

Objective: To establish rapport and obtain the story of the participant’s general
knowledge of the research topic. This section should be brief, as it is not the focus of the
study.
118
What is your perception about performance levels of middle school students in your
classroom?
What is your perception or understanding of English Language Learner students?
Can you share a story that encapsulates the essence of your experience in teaching
English Language Learner students? What does that story reveal about your role and
impact as a teacher?
Can you describe a specific experience that stands out to you in your teaching career
when working with English Language Learner students? What made that experience
memorable?
In your opinion, what aspects of the school environment, curriculum, or teaching
methods have a significant impact on the experiences of English Language Learner
students in your classroom?
What emotions or feelings arise for you when you think about the successes and
challenges of teaching English Language Learner students? How do these emotions
influence your teaching practices?
Describe any changes or shifts in your perspectives and approaches to teaching English
Language Learner students over the course of your career. What influenced these
changes?
How do you reflect on your teaching experiences with ELL students?
Can you recall a moment when you felt a sense of accomplishment or pride in facilitating
the language development of an English Language Learner student? What contributed to
that success?
Is there any other lived experience that you would like to expound upon that was not
directly asked.

Conclusion of interview
I would like to take one last moment to thank you for your willingness and openness to
share your perceptions on the topic of English Learners. Do you have any questions for
me?

119
 APPENDIX F

INTERVIEW #2 PROTOCOL

Institution: Arkansas State University

Interviewee:
Interviewer: Marcus Holbert Date:
Location:
Part I:
Introductory Protocol
You have been selected to speak with me today because you have been identified as
someone who has a great deal to share about English Language Learner (ELL) students.
My research project focuses on the perceptions of teachers regarding English Language
Learners within the middle schools in Central Mississippi. Through this study, we hope
to gain insight into barriers that contribute to academic underperformance for ELLs. The
goal is for us to identify ways in which we can improve academic performance and
improve instructional strategies for ELLs.
To meet our human subjects’ requirements at the university, you have already signed the
consent form. Essentially, this document states that: (1) all information will be held
confidential, (2) your participation is voluntary, and you may stop at any time if you feel
uncomfortable, and (3) we do not intend to inflict any harm (allow time to review the
form). Do you have any questions about the interview process or this form? I would also
like to remind you that this Zoom interview is being recorded. Upon entering the Zoom
meeting, you were asked to agree to being recorded by clicking on the “accept” icon. If
you do not agree to the recording of this interview, please let me know now.
(Remainder) All responses are confidential. I will only use your pseudonym when
quoting from the transcribed text. Do you have any other questions about the process at
this time?
Part II: Interview 1 Reflection (5 minutes)
Objective: To establish rapport and obtain the story of the participant’s general
knowledge of the research topic. This section should be brief, as it is not the focus of the
study.
In your opinion, what are the key challenges faced by ELL students in academic settings,
and how do these challenges manifest in your teaching environment?

120
What are some challenges you've encountered while teaching ELL students, and how
have you navigated them?
How do you perceive the language acquisition process for ELL students, and how does it
inform your teaching strategies?
What challenges do ELLs face during transitions between different education levels (e.g.,
elementary to middle school, middle school to high school)??
To what extent do teachers feel prepared to address the academic needs of ELLs in their
classrooms?
Based on your experience with teaching ELLs, how did your prior teacher training
prepare you to teach ELLs? Do you consider lack training a barrier that contributes to
underperformance for these students, if so, why?
Based on your lived experience, how does teacher efficacy play a role in the academic
performance for those who teach ELL students?
Why do you believe that ELL students underperform in comparison to their native
counterparts?)
Are standardized assessments culturally and linguistically fair for ELLs, or do they
contribute to academic barriers?
How do educational policies at the local, state, and national levels influence the academic
experiences of ELLs?
Are there any other general barriers that you would like to share based on your lived
experience?
Conclusion of interview
I would like to take one last moment to thank you for your willingness and openness to
share your perceptions on the topic of English Learners. Do you have any questions for
me?
I want to thank you again for taking the time to speak with me today. As stated at the
beginning of this interview, your answers and participation in this research will be
confidential, with no identifying information published or revealed at any time. I will be
in touch with you when I have the transcript from this interview, and I will provide the
opportunity for you to review the transcript if you wish to do so.
Again, thank you for your time and willingness to participate in the research study.

121
 APPENDIX G

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

122
 APPENDIX H

COLLABORATIVE TRAINING INITIATIVE(CITI)

123
 REFERENCES

Abacioglu, C.S., Volman, M., & Fischer, A.H. (2019). Teachers multicultural attitudes
and perspectives on culturally responsive education: A qualitative study in a
Dutch school., Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 148–158.
[Link]

Adeoye-Olatunde, O.A. & Olenik, N.L. (2021). Research and scholarly methods: Semi-
structured interview. Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 4,
1358–1367. [Link]

Ahonen, E., Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2014). Teachers’ professional beliefs
about their roles and the pupils’ roles in the school. Teacher Development, 18(2),
177–197. [Link]

Alhazmi, A. A., & Kaufmann, A. (2022). Phenomenological qualitative methods applied

to the analysis of cross-cultural experience in novel educational social contexts.
Frontiers in Psychology, 13. [Link]

Arguedas, M., Daradoumis, T., & Xhafa, F. (2016). Analyzing how emotion awareness
influences students' motivation, engagement, self-regulation and learning
Outcome. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 87–103.

Acquah, E. O., & Szelei, N. (2018). The potential of modelling culturally responsive
teaching: Pre-service teachers’ learning experiences. Teaching in Higher
Education, 25(2), 157–173. [Link]

Adeoye-Olatunde, O.A. & Olenik, N.L. (2021). Research and scholarly methods: Semi-
structured interview. Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 4,
1358–1367. [Link]

Ashbrook, P. (2021). Culturally Responsive Teaching[1]. Science and Children, 58(4),

14-15.

Aspers, P. and Corte, U. (2019). What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative

Sociology 42(2), 139–160.

Augustine, C., Juvonen, J., Le, V.-N., Kaganoff, T., & Constant, L. (2004). Problems and
Promise of the American Middle School. [Link]

Banks, J. A. (2021). Transforming multicultural education policy and practice:

Expanding educational opportunity. Teachers College Press.

Benson, V. A. (1994, November 30). Harold E. Palmer: A pioneer of English language

124
 teaching. ERIC.
[Link]
,Harold%20E.,Pioneer%20of%20English%20Language%20Teaching.

Birt, L., Scott S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., &Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A
tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health
Research, 26(13),1802-1811. [Link]

Blaise, J. G. (2018). The effects of high-stakes accountability measures on students

with limited English proficiency. Urban Education, 53(9), 1154–1181.
[Link]

Boon, H. J., & Lewthwaite, B. (2015). Development of an instrument to measure a facet

of quality teaching: Culturally responsive pedagogy. International Journal of
Educational Research, 72, 38–58. [Link]

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Quality

Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Buchanan, K.S., & Buchanan, T.D. (2017). Relationships with families: Have educators
overlooked a critical piece of the puzzle? Improving Schools, 20(3), 236–246.

Cha, J., Baek, J., & Byun, S. (2017). Peer interaction and school belonging of English
language learners: Perspectives of students and teachers. Educational
Psychology, 37(2), 151–170.

Chou, P.-I., Su, M.-H., & Wang, Y.-T. (2018). Transforming teacher preparation for
culturally responsive teaching in Taiwan. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75,
116–127. [Link]

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2016a). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
12(3), 297–298. [Link]

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2016b). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
12(3), 297–298. [Link]

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2016c). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
12(3), 297–298. [Link]

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2016d). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
12(3), 297–298. [Link]

COE - Racial/Ethnic enrollment in public schools. (n.d.)

Comber, B. (2015). Literacy, place, and pedagogies of possibility. Routledge.

125
Coppersmith, S. A., Song, K. H., & Kim, S. (2019). In-service and pre-service teachers’
perceptions of transformation and observed classroom teaching practices to
become linguistically and culturally responsive content teachers: Quality teachers
for English learners. Journal of Transformative Learning, 6(2), 7–26.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W., Levitt, H. M., Josselson, R., Bamberg, M., Frost, D. M., & Suárez-
Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary,
qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA
publications and communications board task force report. American Psychology,
73(1). 26–46.

Cruz R. A., Manchanda, S., Firestone, A. R., & Rodl, J. E. (2019). An examination of
teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 43(3), 197-214. [Link]

Curran, F.C. (2016). Estimating the effort of state zero tolerance laws on exclusionary
discipline, racial discipline gaps, and student behavior. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 38(4), 647–668. [Link]

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M.E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher

professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
[Link]
development-report

Dawson, B.O. (2019). Students of color deserve a chance, too! A single-topic case study
of White female teachers and their perceptions of culturally responsive teaching
practices (Order No. 27836273) [Doctoral Dissertation, Concordia University].
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Dellicarpini, M. (2018). Administrative issues in collaborative teaching. The TESOL

Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1–9.
[Link]

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135–168.

[Link]

De Jong, E. J., Harper, C. A., & Coady, M. R. (2013). Enhanced knowledge and skills for
elementary mainstream teachers of English language learners. Theory Into
Practice, 52(2), 89–97. [Link]

Dort, R. (2019). English language learners: Students reflect on their high school
monolingual experiences [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Northeastern
University.
126
DuBois, E. A. (2017). The voices of special educators: How do special educators teach
English language learners who are receiving special education services? (Paper
3638) [Doctoral dissertation, Portland State University]. PDX Scholar.
[Link]

Figueroa, V. (2023). Educators’ perceptions of their self-efficacy in teaching English

language learners with disabilities and their use of culturally relevant pedagogy
[Doctoral dissiertation, St. John’s University]. St. John’s Scholar.
[Link]
swers%20research%20questions%20on%20teachers%20perceptions%20and%20e
xpereinces

Flint, P., Dollar, T., & Stewart, M. A. (2018). Hurdling over language barriers: Building
relationships with adolescent newcomers through literacy advancement. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(5), 509–519. [Link]

Frechette, J., Bitzas, V., Aubry, M., Kilpatrick, K., & Lavoie-Tremblay, M. (2020).
Capturing lived experience: Methodological considerations for interpretive
phenomenological inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19.
[Link]/10.1177/1609406920907254

Education Commission of the States. (2020, May). What ELL training, if any, is
required of general classroom teachers?
[Link]

Garcia, E. B., Sulik, M. J., & Obradović, J. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions of students’
executive functions: Disparities by gender, ethnicity, and ell status. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 111(5), 918–931. [Link]

Garcia, O., Johnson, S.I., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom:
Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Cason.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and Practice.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.).
Teachers College Press.

Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1),
48–70. [Link]

Gil, L., & Bardack, S. (2010). Common assumptions vs. the evidence: English language
learners in the United States: A reference guide. American Institutes for
Research. [Link]
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. [Link]
127
Goodson, H. A. (2020). Perceptions and self-efficacy of kindergarten through grade four
teachers on their readiness to provide instruction to English language learner
children of northeastern Arkansas rural schools (Publication No. 27831666)
[Doctoral Dissertation, Arkansas State University]. ACM Digital Library.

Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International

Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 42–
55. [Link]

Grossman, L. S. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Journal of

Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 22(6), 441–442.
[Link]

Guerrettaz, A. M., Zahler, T., Sotirovska, V., & Boyd, A. S. (2020). ‘We acted like ells’:
A pedagogy of embodiment in preservice teacher education. Language Teaching
Research, 26(6), 1274–1298. [Link]

Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (1999, December 31). How long does it take
English learners to attain proficiency?. The Spencer Foundation.
[Link]

Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic
engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Corwin Press.

Heikkola, L. M., Alisaari, J., Vigren, H., & Commins, N. (2022). Linguistically
responsive teaching: A requirement for Finnish primary school teachers.
Linguistics and Education, 69, 1–11.
[Link]

Høffding, S., & Martiny, K. (2015). Framing a phenomenological interview: What, why
and how. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 15(4), 539–564.
[Link]

Hollie, S., & Allen, B. (2018). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and
learning: Classroom practices for student success. Shell Education.

Hoover, J. J., & Soltero-González, L. (2018). Educator preparation for developing

culturally and linguistically responsive MTSS in rural community elementary
schools. Teacher Education and Special Education, 41(3), 188-202.
[Link]

Hwang, J. K., Mancilla-Martinez, J., McClain, J. B., Oh, M. H., & Flores, I. (2019).

128
 Spanish-speaking English learners’ English language and literacy skills: The
predictive role of conceptually scored vocabulary. Applied Psycholinguistics,
41(1), 1–24. [Link]

Hramiak, A. (2015). Applying the framework for culturally responsive teaching to

explore the adaptations that teach first beginning teachers use to meet the needs of
their pupils in school. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1–14.
[Link]

Hynes, G. (2021). Social-emotional learning strategies for English language learners.

Educational Research and Reviews, 16(9), 421-432.
[Link]

Irvine, J. J. (2009). Relevant beyond the basics. Teaching tolerance, 36, 41–44.

Jones, S. M., Bailey, R., Brush, K., & Kahn, J. (2017). Preparing for effective SEL
implementation. Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Jimenez-Silva, M., Olson, K., & Jimenez Hernandez, N. (2012). The confidence to
teach English language learners: Exploring coursework’s role in developing
preservice teachers’ efficacy. The Teacher Educator, 47(1), 9–28.
[Link]

Karvonen, M., Clark, A. K., Carlson, C., Wells Moreaux, S., & Burnes, J. (2021).
Approaches to identification and instruction for students with significant
cognitive disabilities who are English learners. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 46(4), 223–239.
[Link]

Kibler, A. K., Walqui, A., & Bunch, G. C. (2014). Transformational opportunities:

Language and literacy instruction for English language learners in the common
core era in the United States. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 9–35.
[Link]

Kim, Y. S. G., Petscher, Y., Wanzek, J., & Otaiba, A. S. (2018). Relations between
reading and writing: A longitudinal examination from grades 3 to 6. Reading and
Writing, 31(7), 1591–1618. [Link]

Kincaid, A. P., & Sullivan, A. L. (2016). Parsing the relations of race and socioeconomic
status in special education disproportionality. Remedial and Special Education,
38(3), 159–170. [Link]

Kivunja, C. (2018). Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and

conceptual framework: A systematic review of lessons from the Field.
International Journal of Higher Education, 7(6), 44.
[Link]
129
Ladson-Billings, G., (2021). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Asking a different question.
Theory into Practice, 59(4), 296–303.
[Link]

Lawrence, M. (2023, January 25). How to support the social and emotional health of
Middle/High School Ells. Colorín Colorado.
[Link]
high-school-ells

Lbreiseth, L. (2023, February 17). SEL for English language learners: What educators
need to know. Colorín Colorado. [Link]
english-language-learners-what-educators-need-
know#:~:text=ELLs%20bring%20a%20rich%20diversity,classroom%20communi
cation%20is%20working%20well.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Lindahl, K., Fallas‐Escobar, C., & Henderson, K. I. (2021). Linguistically responsive

instruction for Latinx teacher candidates: Surfacing language ideological
dilemmas. TESOL Quarterly, 55(4), 1190–1220. [Link]

Linse, C. (2013). English Language Learner a Term That Warrants Scrutiny. The Journal
of Educational Thought (JET) / Revue de La Pensée Éducative, 46(2), 107–122.
[Link]

Little, A. & Kirman, L. (2018). Linguistically responsive teaching: Framework and

classroom applications. Journal of Educational Research, 111(5), 500–515.
[Link]

Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2010). The importance of focusing on English language
learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(4), 361-370.
[Link]

Lucas, T. & Villegas, A.M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying
the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 98–
109. [Link]

Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive

teacher education: preparing classroom teachers to teach English language
learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361+.
[Link]

Marsh, J.A. (2018). Observing classroom practice: Measuring educators’

implementation of culturally responsible teaching. Educational Policy, 32(7),
923-951. [Link]
130
Martin, A.D. & Strom, K.J. (2016). Toward a linguistically responsive teacher identity:
An empirical review of the literature. International Multilingual Research
Journal, 10(4), 239–253. [Link]

McKoy, C. L., MacLeod, R. B., Walter, J. S., & Nolker, D. B. (2016). The impact of an
in-service workshop on cooperating teachers’ perceptions of culturally responsive
teaching. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 26(2), 50–63.
[Link]

Mcleod, S. (2019, December 18). What's the difference between qualitative and
quantitative research? Qualitative vs quantitative Research. Simply Psychology.
[Link]

Mette, I. M., Nieuwenhuizen, L., & Hvidston, D. J. (2016). Teachers' perceptions of

culturally responsive pedagogy and the impact on leadership preparation: Lessons
for future reform efforts. International Journal of Educational Leadership
Preparation, 11(1), 1–20.

Mississippi Department of Education. (2022). Public reporting: Statewide student

enrollment data. Mississippi Department of Education.
[Link]

Mitchell, C. (2017, November 19). Schools often fail to educate, support English-
language learners. Education Week. [Link]
learning/schools-often-fail-to-educate-support-english-language-learners/2017/02

Mitchell, C. (2020, February 18). The nation's English-learner population has surged: 3
things to know. Education Week. [Link]
nations-english-learner-population-has-surged-3-things-to-know/2020/02

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage Publications.

Mississippi Department of Education (2018). Mississippi succeeds report card.

[Link]
000&SchoolYear=2018&Component=GR.

Mississippi Migration Policy (2023). State immigration data profiles.

[Link]

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for
teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory
Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. [Link]

National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Fast facts: English language learners.
[Link]
131
Nevárez-La Torre, A. A. (2012). Transiency in urban schools. Education and Urban
Society, 44(1), 3–34. [Link]

Newcomer, S. N., Ardasheva, Y., Morrison, J. A., Ernst-Slavit, G., Morrison, S. J.,
Carbonneau, K. J., & Lightner, L. K. (2020). “Whoa… welcome to America!”:
Supporting refugee background students’ socioemotional well-being, English
language development, and content area learning. Journal of Research in
Childhood Education, 35(3), 417–437.
[Link]

Nguyen, H. (2018). Teacher preparation programs in the United States. International

Journal of Progressive Education, 14(3), 76–92.
[Link]

OECD (2016). Low-performing students: Why they fall behind and how to help them
succeed. OECD Publishing. [Link]

O’Keeffe, L., Paige, K., & Osborne, S. (2018). Getting started: Exploring pre-service
teachers’ confidence and knowledge of culturally responsive pedagogy in
teaching mathematics and science. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
47(2), 152–175. [Link]

Okhremtchouk, I. S., & Sellu, G. S. (2019). Teacher readiness to work with English
language learners: Arizona context. The Teacher Educator, 54(2), 125–144.
[Link]

O’Neal, D.D., Ringler, M., & Rodriguez, D. (2008). Teachers perceptions of their
preparation for teaching linguistically and culturally diverse learners in rural
eastern North Carolina. The Rural Educator, 30(1), 5–13.

Pappamihiel, E. (2007). Helping preservice content-area teachers relate to English

language learners: An investigation of attitudes and beliefs. Teaching English as
a Second Language Canada Journal, 24(2).
[Link]

Paris, D. & Alim, H.S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning
for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.

Paris, D., (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: A needed change in stance,

terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.
[Link]

Pizzo, L. (2016). D/Deaf and hard of hearing multilingual learners: The development of
communication and language. American Annals of the Deaf, 161(1), 17–32.

132
Phillips, C., Fadjo, R., & Jackson, S. (2014). Classroom participation and peer
interaction: Fostering inclusive learning environments for ELL students. Journal
of Multilingual Education, 8(3), 258–277.
[Link]

Polat, N., Zarecky-Hodge, A., & Schreiber, J. B. (2016). Academic growth

trajectories of ells in NAEP data: The case of fourth- and eighth-grade ells and
non-ells on mathematics and reading tests. The Journal of Educational Research,
109(5), 541–553. [Link]

Richards, H.V., Brown, A.F., & Forde, T.B. (2007). Addressing diversity in schools:
Culturally responsive pedagogy. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(1), 49–64.

Rizzuto, K. C. (2017). Teachers' perceptions of ell students: Do their attitudes shape their
instruction? The Teacher Educator, 52(3), 182–202.
[Link]

Robinson, J. (2018). Evaluation of teaching methods to improve reading performance of

English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 44(2), 25–33.

Rockoff, J.E., & Lockwood, B.B. (2010). Stuck in the middle: Impacts of grade
configuration in public schools. Journal of Public Economics, 94(11-12), 1051–
1061. [Link]

Ruiz Soto, A.G., HOooker, S., & Batalova, J. (2015). Top languages spoken by English
language learners nationally and by state. Migration Policy Institute.
[Link]

Russell, F. A., & Von Esch, K. S. (2018). Teacher leadership to support English language
learners: To improve instruction and services for all English language learners,
teachers are stepping into leadership roles. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(7),52.
[Link]

Schielack, J., & Seeley, C. L. (2010). Transitions from elementary to middle school math.
Teaching Children Mathematics, 16(6), 358–362.
[Link]
Scriven, B. W. (2019). Teacher perception of culturally responsive teaching strategies
that have the greatest impact on the engagement of African American male
students (Publication No. 2294062380) [Doctoral Dissertation, Northeastern
University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Şeref, I. & Varisoglu, B. (2020). The investigation into prospective teachers’ Turkish
metalinguistic awareness. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(2),
959–977. [Link]

133
Shah, R. K. (2021, February). Conceptualizing and defining pedagogy - IOSR Journal of
Research and Method in Education, 11(1), 6–29.

Shi, Q., & Watkinson, J. (2019). English language learners and school belonging:
Implications for school counselor practice. Professional School Counseling,
22(1b), 1 [Link]

Shin, N. (2019). Stuck in the middle: Examination of long-term English learners.

International Multilingual Research Journal, 14(3), 181–205.
[Link]

Sleeter, C.E. (2018). Preparing teachers for culturally sustaining pedagogy. In Paris, D.,
& Alim, H.S. (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for
justice in a changing world. (pp. 145162). Teachers College Press.

Smolcic, E., & Arends, J. (2017). Building teacher interculturality: Student partnerships
in university classrooms. Teacher Education Quarterly, 44(4), 51–73.

Solano-Campos, A., Hopkins, M., & Quaynor, L. (2020). Linguistically responsive

teaching in preservice teacher education: A review of the literature through the
lens of cultural-historical activity theory. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(2),
203+. [Link]

Stairs-Davenport, A. (2021). Where do I start? Inquiry into k-12 mainstream teachers’

knowledge about differentiating instruction for ELLs in one U.S. school district,
Education Inquiry 14(1), 163–177.
[Link]

Stairs-Davenport, E. (2021). Challenges in mainstream teachers’ preparedness for ELL

instruction. Journal of Multicultural Education, 15(3), 213–226.
[Link]

Stratton, S. J. (2023). Population sampling: Probability and non-probability techniques.

Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 38(2), 147–148.
[Link]

Symons, C. (2022). Using SFL in linguistically responsive instruction with multilingual

youth: A self-study. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 4(2), 91–107.
[Link]

Tandon, M., Viesca, K. M., Hueston, C., & Milbourn, T. (2017). Perceptions of
linguistically responsive teaching in teacher candidates/novice teachers. Bilingual
Research Journal, 40(2), 154–168.
[Link]

Tarasawa, B., & Waggoner, J. (2015). Increasing parental involvement of English

134
 language learner families: What the research says. Journal of Children and
Poverty, 21(2), 129–134. [Link]

Tavares, R. (2019). The power of peer interaction in English language learning: A

classroom study. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(1), 120–137.
[Link]

Téllez, K., & Manthey, G. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of effective school-wide

programs and strategies for English language learners. Learning Environments
Research, 18(1), 111–127. [Link]

Topor, D. R., Keane, S. P., Shelton, T. L., & Calkins, S. D. (2010). Parent
involvement and student academic performance: A multiple mediational analysis.
Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 38(3), 183–197.
[Link]

Torres, K. M., & Tackett, S. (2016, July 1). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about teaching
ESOL students in mainstream classrooms, International Online Journal of
Education and Teaching, 3(3), 186–200.
[Link]

US Department of Education. (2018). English learner tool kit (OELA).

[Link]

Valle, M. S., Waxman, H. C., Diaz, Z., & Padrón, Y. N. (2013). Classroom instruction
and the mathematics achievement of Non-English learners and English learners.
The Journal of Educational Research, 106(3), 173–182.
[Link]

Van Rijt, J., De Swart, R., & Coppen, P.A. (2019). The value of grammar in secondary
education: Linguistic theory and students’ metalinguistic awareness. Journal of
Linguistics and Education, 55, 100–112.
[Link]

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Harvard University Press.

Walqui Aída, & Lier, L. van. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent
English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. WestEd.

Wassell, B. A., Hawrylak, M. F., & Scantlebury, K. (2015). Barriers, resources,

frustrations, and empathy: Teachers’ expectations for family involvement for
Latino/a ell students in urban stem classrooms. Urban Education, 52(10), 1233–
1254. [Link]

Welman, J.C., & Kruger, S.J. (1999). Research methodology for the business and
135
 administrative sciences. International Thompson.

Will, M., & Najarro, I. (2023, March 24). What is culturally responsive teaching?.
Education Week. [Link]
responsive-teaching-culturally-responsive-
pedagogy/2022/04#:~:text=culturally%20responsive%20teaching%3A%20a%20p
edagogy,as%20belonging%20in%20academic%20spaces.

Winstead, A. A. (2020). Physical education for language acquisition in middle school

ELLs (Publication No 2448415136)[Doctoral Dissertation, University of North
Carolina at Greenboro]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

Wong, C.-Y., Indiatsi, J., & Wong, G. K. W. (2016). ESL teacher candidates' perceptions
of strengths and inadequacies of instructing culturally and linguistically diverse
students: Post clinical experience. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 23(2), 57–64.
[Link]

Yang, S.-L., Hsiao, Y.-J., & Hsiao, H.-C. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching with
new Taiwanese children: Interviews with class teachers in elementary schools.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(3), 288–304.
[Link]

Zhang, Q., & Stephens, M. (2013). Utilising a construct of teacher capacity to examine
national curriculum reform in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 25(4), 481–502. [Link]

Zong, J. & Batalova, J. (2015). The limited English proficient population in the United
States. Migration Policy Institute. [Link]

136
 ProQuest Number: 31632107

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by
ProQuest LLC a part of Clarivate ( 2025 ).
Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
Ann Arbor, MI 48108 USA