ASSESSING MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SUCCESSFUL PRACTICES WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS by Karanvir Gill Bachelor of Education, University of British Columbia, 2017 Bachelor of Science, University of the Fraser Valley, 2016 MAJOR PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION (EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND MENTORSHIP) In the Teacher Education Department © Karanvir Gill 2023 UNIVERSITY OF THE FRASER VALLEY 2023 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. ii Approval Name: Karanvir Gill Degree: Master of Education (Educational Leadership and Mentorship) Title: Middle School Teachers’ Perceptions of Successful Practices with English Language Learners Examining Committee: Name: Dr. Joanne Robertson MEd Chair or Designate, Teacher Education Department ____________________________________________________________ Name: Dr. Chris Campbell Senior Supervisor Associate Professor and Head, Department of Adult Education ____________________________________________________________ Name: Dr. Sheryl MacMath Second Reader Professor and Head, Teacher Education Department ____________________________________________________________ Date Defended/Approved: June 6, 2023 ______ iii Abstract This phenomenological study inquired into middle school teachers’ perceptions of successful practices with English language learners (ELLs). The purpose was to better understand successful practices with ELL students. In order to accomplish this, four middle school (grades 6 – 8) teachers, including ELL teachers, with at least two years of experience working with ELL students were interviewed. Qualitative data analysis of interview transcripts revealed three themes. The first theme reported on participants’ perceptions of ELL students in relation to the diversity amongst ELL students, the stories of refugee students, and the sense of belonging of ELL students at school. The second theme reported on successful and unsuccessful practices with ELL students regarding push-in vs. pull-out model; peer support as a teaching practice; and the importance of being flexible, reflective, and collaborative. Finally, the last theme reported on the systemic supports and barriers experienced by participants when supporting ELL students. Findings provided a teacher-eye view of potential best practices when supporting ELL teachers in the B.C. context. The study was limited in scope to only four interviewees in three contexts, which affected the generalizability of the findings. Nonetheless, the study yielded three main recommendations: teachers should take a holistic approach with ELLs that honors their home discourse, teachers should recognize the need to foster growth mindsets in ELLs to support language development, and teachers should take a flexible and collaborative approach to meet the needs of ELLs in their particular context. Keywords: English Language Learners, teacher perceptions, teaching practices iv Table of Contents Abstract......................................................................................................................................... iii Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Context........................................................................................................................................ 2 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 3 Scholarly Significance ............................................................................................................... 3 Literature Review ......................................................................................................................... 4 Teaching Practice ...................................................................................................................... 7 Holistic Approach ................................................................................................................... 7 Collaborative Approaches ....................................................................................................... 8 Systemic Barriers .................................................................................................................... 9 Key Takeaways from the Literature ...................................................................................... 10 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 11 Method ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Data Collection......................................................................................................................... 12 Bracketing ............................................................................................................................. 12 Data Sources.......................................................................................................................... 13 Data Tools ............................................................................................................................. 15 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 17 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Teachers’ Perceptions of ELLs .............................................................................................. 21 Diversity ................................................................................................................................ 22 Stories.................................................................................................................................... 24 v Belonging .............................................................................................................................. 25 Systemic Supports and Barriers ............................................................................................. 26 Barriers .................................................................................................................................. 26 Supports................................................................................................................................. 28 Practices with ELLs................................................................................................................. 30 Methods ................................................................................................................................. 30 Approaches............................................................................................................................ 32 Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 35 Teachers’ Perceptions of ELLs .............................................................................................. 36 Practices with ELLs................................................................................................................. 39 Systemic Supports and Barriers ............................................................................................. 41 Limitations................................................................................................................................... 43 Implications and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 43 Further Questions ....................................................................................................................... 44 References .................................................................................................................................... 46 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 49 Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 50 vi Glossary i. Push-in Model: In this study, the push-in model describes a teaching practice where a support teacher provides a group of students, on their caseload, support in students’ classroom. ii. Pull-Out Model: In this study, the pull-out model describes a teaching practice where a support teacher provides a group of students, on their caseload, support by taking/pulling them out of the classroom. vii Acronyms i. ELL: English Language Learners 1 Introduction When I was about to graduate from high school, I had no idea what I wanted to do for my undergraduate degree. My personal identity at that time played a big role in decision-making around my future. Throughout high school, I was an English Language Learner (ELL) student. I never connected with this label as part of my identity. I perceived being an ELL student as a reminder of a deficiency within myself, that I was lacking an important skill to be successful at school. Ironically, the label that was supposed to help me, pushed me away from subjects that had anything to do with language arts. I felt I belonged more in math and science classrooms, and yet when it came to choosing a career, I did not see an undergraduate degree in math or science leading me to a desirable career option. Nevertheless, I felt that a degree in math or science was my only option, because of my perceived incompetence in the English language. When it was time to choose, I ended up doing what was most comfortable to me. I enrolled in a Bachelor of Science program. Throughout my undergraduate degree, I pictured myself in various careers including pharmacy, optometry, physiotherapy, engineering, etc. I did not consider teaching to be a serious career option until I started volunteering with the youth in my community. The interpersonal aspect of working with youth gave me a sense of purpose and freed me from the boundaries of identity that I had constructed for myself. Purpose Having taught for six years, I was feeling settled in my role as a middle school teacher. Working with a very diverse community of students, there was a reasonably large population of ELL students at my school. Having been an ELL student myself, I felt very privileged to now bring an ELL student perspective and a teacher’s perspective together to support my ELL students. 2 Within my context, I noticed that ELL students experienced significant challenges around language barriers, being marginalized, and overall, not being understood by their school community. Despite such challenges, I was always surprised and delighted at the resilience of ELLs. For the purpose of this study, I was curious about other educators’ experiences with ELL students, and I was wondering if their experiences would match, or differ, from mine. I was also curious to learn the teaching practices other educators had tried with ELL students and what practices, in their perceptions, were successful or unsuccessful with ELLs. Since teaching is a collective effort, I also wanted to know of any systemic supports and barriers educators experienced when supporting ELL students. The intention of this qualitative study was not to find the right answers. Instead, it was to have a deeper understanding of teachers’ emotions and experiences in relation to this phenomenon. Therefore, this study might very well result in even more questions that needed to be answered. Context This inquiry took place in the context of a middle school (grades 6 - 8) in one district with teachers that had at least two years of experience teaching ELL students. The school district in which the study took place was located in the Lower Mainland area of British Columbia (B.C.), Canada. The Lower Mainland area of B.C. had one of the largest urban centers in Canada where a lot of immigrants moved to the country to build their lives. Therefore, it was a culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse place. Stats Canada estimated that immigrants made up 26.1% of the population in the school district's catchment area (Government of Canada, Statistics Canada, 2022). Within my own context, I had met students from many different cultural backgrounds. Along with a high population of refugee ELL students, we had students from different parts of 3 the world bringing with them their unique languages and cultures. Personally, I loved the diverse population of our school community. I appreciated the learning opportunities that I got to be a part of, either because of my students or directly with my students. From a teaching perspective, however, the diversity of our school and the school district added a layer of complexity and therefore, complicated the challenge of meeting the needs of all students. Research Questions My inquiry was guided by the research question: What are Middle School Teachers’ Perceptions of Successful Practices with English Language Learners? This main research question was built on the three inquiry questions below: ▪ How do teachers experience ELL students? ▪ Are there systemic barriers or supports that teachers experienced when supporting ELLs? ▪ What practices have teachers found to be successful or unsuccessful with ELLs? This qualitative study employed a constructivist perspective in understanding the answers to the above questions. In particular, a phenomenological approach to data collection enabled access to participants’ perceptions, experiences, and feelings in relation the phenomenon. Scholarly Significance The literature review conducted for this study revealed the extensive research available on the topic of successful practices with ELL students. However, most of the studies were found to be in the United States with very few in Canada. Therefore, gaps in the literature were found in terms of very little Canadian perspective available on the topic. Within Canada, most of the studies in the literature review were found to be in Ontario. This research contributed by examining the topic of successful practices with ELLs from the perspective of B.C. 4 Literature Review This study investigated middle school teachers’ perceptions of successful practices with ELL students. As such, it was important to first understand ELLs’ experiences in a new school, within a new culture that often differed significantly from their past experiences. Only through understanding ELL students and their experiences could one hope to determine students’ needs, which are considered an important factor for successful practices. Therefore, the following literature summary begins with ELLs’ experiences, particularly in relation to their identity challenges, educators’ perceptions of them at school, and the challenges of learning a new language. Several successful practices with ELL students are then summarized before discussing systemic barriers that teachers have experienced when supporting ELL students. ELL Students’ Experiences The literature reviewed reports that ELLs experience an identity crisis at school as the identities instilled at home are different from those at school. Schools need to do a better job at recognizing these identities to better understand ELL students, as often ELLs’ identities at school get reduced or sidelined due to their lack of English proficiency. The literature review also reveals that ELLs’ learning mindsets are important for their growth in English language. Identity Crisis ELLs can experience an identity crisis at school as the discourse at school is different from the discourse at home. Research on ELL school identity suggests that all humans are born into their initial discourse or home identity, which can be described as a “way of belonging to the family and community in a culturally accepted way” (Lumbrears & Rupley, 2017, 28). Lumbrears and Rupley (2017), in their study, discuss how initial discourse can be important for their ELL participants. The ELLs’ initial discourse determines how they perceive themselves not 5 only as people, but also as students in schools. For ELL students, usually, their home identity or initial discourse is challenged by the expectations of school. Therefore, they often must make a choice and decide which parts of their home identity they must sacrifice to fulfill their secondary discourse, a discourse that occurs at school. As an example, Lumbrears and Rupley (2017) report that a common sacrifice that ELL students must make at school is to abandon or limit the use of their native language and acquire proficiency in English. Since language is “based upon the culture and heritage one is born into,” by doing this, ELLs are restricted in sharing their home identity at school (Lumbrears & Rupley, 2017, p. 28). Shahbazi et al. (2020) share that ELL participants are in a conundrum. They report that ELL students, in their study, have a strong desire to maintain their native language. However, the students are frustrated with not being able to communicate and connect well with their teachers. For ELLs, on one hand the fear of losing their native language is very real, but they also must learn English to fulfil the secondary discourse present at school. Another study conducted by Iddings and Katz (2007) identify practices that constrain favorable conditions for ELLs to bring in their home identities to school. One of these practices involve ELLs not being able to use their native language at school. Allowing students to communicate in their language with peers helps in expressing themselves more authentically and in words that are associated with their families and communities (Iddings & Katz, 2007). Lumbrears and Rupley (2017) recommend that schools need to recognize the struggle of identity in ELLs. Not only should students adapt to the school’s discourse, but the school must also adapt to and value the students’ discourse. Unrecognized Brilliance In addition to the identity crisis, literature reports that when ELLs must follow their school discourse at school, their home discourse goes unnoticed. Therefore, they are often 6 viewed by educators as underdeveloped or having no background knowledge. However, in reality, ELLs simply have a different knowledge or a different discourse than the teachers at school (Lumbrears & Rupley, 2017). This is echoed by Szymanski and Lynch (2020) who find that most educators hold a deficit mindset towards ELL students. For instance, ELLs’ native language, being part of their initial discourse, is often not recognized as an asset at school. Teachers, viewing ELLs from the lens of secondary discourse at school, only see them as lacking proficiency in English language. Furthermore, ELLs’ gifted characteristics tend to go unnoticed when their initial discourse is not recognized. This can lead to profound negative impacts for ELLs’ learning. Szymanski and Lynch (2020) report that ELLs are often not considered for gifted programs because of the deficit mindsets held towards them by many educators. ELLs’ Learning Mindsets Literature also reports that ELLs’ mindsets and well-being are important for their development in English language. ELL students’ desire to express themselves in English language and be socially accepted by their peers is overwhelming. This desire can either motivate them to work hard towards English language acquisition or isolate them (Lumbrears & Rupley, 2017; Shahbazi et al., 2020). Therefore, it is important to understand what it is that motivates ELL students’ learning or what hinders it. Lou and Noels (2020) argue that students’ own perceptions about their ability to learn a new language are important. Students who perceive themselves as capable of learning a new language, or having a growth mindset, are more likely to experience success with language acquisition when compared to students with fixed mindsets. Growth mindset students are more likely to see that they can improve and overcome learning setbacks. Therefore, they feel more confident and less anxious about learning a new language. In contrast, fixed mindsets can lead students to believe that they cannot progress in a new language. 7 Therefore, they feel less confident and more anxious (Teimouri et al., 2019). Students with low perceived language proficiency “experience a vicious cycle of language anxiety, such that they avoid using the target language” leading to little improvement in proficiency overtime (Lou & Noels, 2020, p. 752). Teaching Practice ELLs’ challenging experiences at school beg the question: What does the literature say about educators’ approaches to supporting their academic, social, emotional, and cultural needs? Holistic Approach Literature suggests that to have success with ELL students, teachers must recognize their diverse needs and abilities, hence taking more of a holistic approach that not only supports ELLs’ academic needs, but also their social, emotional, and cultural needs (Kerekes et al., 2021; Lumbrears & Rupley, 2017). A holistic approach requires teachers to recognize and understand the different cultures or different discourses present in their classrooms (Lumbrears & Rupley, 2017). ELLs in Canada come from very different backgrounds with very different socioemotional needs. Refugee ELLs, for instance, often have the added challenge of having experienced trauma. In some cases, ELL students are local. For example, some Indigenous ELL students may have challenges that are a lot different from ELLs arriving from outside of Canada and, therefore, have their own needs (Kerekes et al., 2021). As discussed before, often ELLs’ personalities and capabilities at school get reduced to their level of English proficiency, making them feel that their identities at school do not matter (Kerekes et al., 2021; Szymanski & Lynch, 2020). As such, Kerekes et al. (2021) suggest that schools should try to harness ELLs’ multiple assets and funds of knowledge, including other languages, life experiences, and background knowledge outside of what the school expects. For 8 instance, by including multilingual and multicultural materials such as library books, schools could bring in the perspectives of their ELL students assuring them that their experiences are welcomed in the school. In turn, the rest of the school, including both students and staff, get an opportunity to learn about the experiences of ELLs (Kerekes et al., 2021). Another way to bring in ELLs’ perspectives is through translanguaging. Translanguaging is “an approach to language pedagogy that affirms and leverages students’ diverse and dynamic language practices in teaching and learning” (Vogel & Garcia, 2017, p. 1). Kerekes et al. (2021) recommend achieving this by including ELLs’ home language in classroom activities and assignments. Collaborative Approaches The literature review also suggests that collaboration among teachers is critical for building the long-term capacity of language learners (Hawkins & Norton, 2009). Collaborative approaches to teaching, in the form of co-teaching or co-planning, has shown to be a successful practice with ELL students (Barr, et al., 2007). Co-teaching can be particularly useful as it enables teachers to effectively target their instruction for ELL students. Co-teaching involves teachers running small group instruction while making sure that there is a shared knowledge about the subject between the ELL students and the whole class (Barr et al., 2007). With the common teaching experiences resulting from co-teaching, teachers are usually able to authentically reflect upon those experiences together and collaborate on modifying instruction as needed (Barr et al., 2007). Furthermore, collaborative planning or co-planning has also been a positive instructional practice with ELLs. Martin-Beltrán and Peercy (2014) report in their study that when teachers co-plan or co-create lesson plans, they are able to externalize their understanding of successful practices with ELLs and are able to have a dialogue with their teaching partners. This dialogue enables teachers to re-conceptualize their understandings related 9 to their own teaching practice. Providing teachers with an opportunity to collaborate and plan together can enable insightful instructional conversations and a shared knowledge of students, hence improving teacher practice (Barr et al., 2007). Systemic Barriers This literature review reveals several systemic barriers reported by teachers with respect to teaching ELLs. Teachers report an inability to connect and communicate with parents of ELL students due to language barriers. Current practices at most districts and schools are not inclusive enough to include families that, culturally and linguistically, fall on the margins. More resources and personnel are needed to aid communication between school and parents (Gándara et al., 2005; Good et al., 2010). Some schools, however, have been successful at involving parents in their children’s learning by implementing special programs that support parental cooperation with schools and teachers (Kerkes et al., 2021). Educators have also reported frustrations regarding a lack of communication between system level actors and teachers (Kerkes et al., 2021). Overall, challenges to communication between stakeholders is identified as a systemic barrier in the literature. Inadequate funding and resources continue to be a setback to quality ELL programming. Despite teachers rallying support for more resources and funding, this continues to be an issue (Gándara et al., 2005; Kerkes et al., 2021). Therefore, more funds and resources should be allocated and distributed equitably in a way that does not put certain subgroups of ELLs at a disadvantage (Kerkes et al., 2021). Another barrier to success in teaching ELLs, reported by Gándara et al. (2005), is the lack of collaboration time provided to teachers. As previously stated, collaboration among teachers is crucial for the success of ELL students. 10 In addition to a lack of funding and collaboration time, there is also a scarcity of teachers with ELL specialization. This has resulted in discrepancies in the quality of ELL programming between different schools (Kerkes et al., 2021). Kerkes et al. recommend that, in addition to hiring more qualified teachers, schools should also make use of their ELL specialists to provide training for mainstream teachers as well. Gándara et al. (2005) and Good et al. (2010) also suggest more and better professional development opportunities for teachers already working in the field. Well-prepared teachers are an important piece to successful practices with ELL students. Key Takeaways from the Literature The literature review reported on the identity crisis that the ELL students experience in trying to fulfill the school discourse. Literature suggests that it is important for educators to consider this struggle while working with ELLs and not reduce their school identities to merely someone who lacks English proficiency. Keeping this in mind, several successful practices emerged from the literature review. These included a holistic approach to teaching that takes into consideration not only the academic needs of ELLs, but also their social, emotional, and cultural needs. A collaborative teaching approach is also positively represented in the literature. Finally, several barriers are reported that need to be addressed at the systemic level. It is evident from the literature review that there is extensive research available in the United States on the topic of successful practices with ELL students. However, with the exception of Ontario, very little Canadian perspective is represented, and no study was found from the Lower Mainland area of British Columbia. 11 Methodology This study employed a constructivist theoretical perspective to frame and understand how ELL teachers experienced and perceived ELLs and the teaching practices that would help them. The constructivist paradigm views ontology, the nature of reality, as having multiple realities arising from multiple individuals. People’s understandings are shaped by social interactions with others and their own personal histories. Therefore, depending on one’s understanding of a single phenomenon, diverse worldviews can arise (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). My ontological perspective aligned with that of the constructivist paradigm. My research assumed that teachers in my district had diverse understandings of successful practices with ELL students. I aimed to study these diverse realities or understandings to get an overall sense of the perceptions that teachers held regarding ELL students and how these perceptions impacted their practices. From the perspective of epistemology, the relationship between the researcher and participants, researching from a constructivist paradigm requires the researcher to be close to the participants. (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). As such, I create space for each of my participants where they can be vulnerable and open about their realities and understandings of the phenomenon. As in all qualitative research, researchers are called on to recognize and mitigate their own biases throughout the research process. The axiology of the constructivist worldview acknowledges the presence of values and that researchers come with their own biases and interpretations (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). For my inquiry, I also had biases that I included and explained. For instance, having been an ELL student myself, and as an educator, I had my own biases around best practices to use with ELL students. When conducting research, I needed to acknowledge that my version of best practices with ELL students was subjective. They were the result of my own understanding of reality. Within a constructivist worldview, where multiple 12 realities are possible, I named and tried to be aware of my biases during my inquiry, while honoring the experiences of my participants to gain a deeper understanding of this phenomenon. Method Through my research, I aimed to inquire into a phenomenon which had different realities for different people. I aimed to explain the complexity of peoples’ perspectives in order to gain a better understanding of this phenomenon. This required a qualitative approach to research that enabled me to “describe and understand the phenomenon studied by capturing and communicating participants’ experiences in their own words” (Yilmaz, 2013, p. 313). The method that best suited my research question was a phenomenological study. Phenomenological research focuses on a concept, or a phenomenon, experienced by the participants involved. The goal of the research is to interpret participants’ feelings, perceptions, and beliefs to gain a better understanding of the overall situation (Creswell & Poth, 2017). For my research, I worked with participants that had a minimum of two years experience teaching ELL students at the middle school level. In this case, the phenomenon shared by my participants was having experience with ELL students. Data Collection For this phenomenological research with an aim to study teachers’ perception of successful practices with ELLs, I conducted open-ended interviews with participants. I bracketed myself out to focus solely on participants’ feelings, perceptions, and beliefs. Bracketing In order to ensure validity of this study, I bracketed myself out of the study as much as possible by discussing personal experiences with the phenomenon. According to Creswell and Poth (2017), bracketing does not take the researcher completely out of the study. Instead, it 13 serves to identify the researcher’s personal experiences with the phenomenon so that those experiences can be set aside during the study. This allows the focus of the study to remain the experiences of participants. Having been an ELL student myself, I had a strong belief that teachers played a vital role in the success of ELLs at school. My past experiences led me to believe that ELL students, who were usually immigrants, relied on teachers to build a sense of belonging in their new schools. In my role as a middle school teacher, I recognized the challenges that teachers faced when supporting ELL students. I believed that a lack of support, in terms of resources and educational experts, was a barrier for classroom teachers in supporting ELL students with their academic needs. Furthermore, our classrooms’ dynamics had changed over the years and had become increasingly diverse in terms of student needs. There could be multiple ELL students in a classroom who were at different levels in terms of their English language proficiency. This presented a challenge for teachers who had to adapt to the different needs in their classrooms. I understood that my feelings and values were shaped by my own past experiences as an ELL student and as a middle school teacher. I also acknowledged that others might not have had the same experiences as me; therefore, their values and feelings could be different from mine. Hence, only through speaking freely about my experiences could I put my assumptions aside and focus on the experiences of participants. Data Sources The teachers participating in this study had been teaching at the middle school level; in this particular district middle school encompassed grades six to eight. The school district, where the research had been conducted, was located in an urban setting in the lower mainland area of B.C. The school district had a total of five middle schools with a high population of ELL 14 students. Therefore, it was not surprising to have a few ELL students in every classroom of a school. ELL students in the district came from diverse backgrounds and spoke many languages. The schools where the study was conducted had a high population of Arabic, Korean, and Punjabi speaking students. The high number of ELL students made it relatively easy to find teachers willing to participate in the study. In addition to classroom teachers working with ELL students, each middle school also had an ELL teacher there to support ELLs in their English Language acquisition. ELL teachers also collaborated with the classroom teachers to design adaptations to help ELL students reach content standards. Four teachers from three different middle schools were interviewed. This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Board at the University of the Fraser Valley (see Appendix A). Consent from the school district was also obtained. Recruitment of participants started after acquiring consent from the university and the district. These participants were recruited using purposeful convenient sampling (Creswell & Poth, 2017). The strategy of convenient sampling allowed me to select participants with whom I already had a professional educational relationship. The closeness to my participants allowed them to be at ease throughout the process of interviews. Participants found it easier to open up and speak about their experiences in relation to the phenomenon due to our existing relationship. Another reason for using purposeful convenient sampling was due to the limited amount of time available for recruiting participants. This added to the strength of the study. Participants were recruited based on the following criteria: (a) classroom teacher or ELL teacher at a middle school level and (b) had at least two years of experience teaching ELL students. Learning support services teachers and school counselors were excluded from the study as they did not directly work with the ELL students. 15 After participants agreed to be part of the study, I set up an initial meeting to review the letter of consent with each of the participants. They were informed of all the details in the letter, including their right to withdraw at any time before reviewing the transcript. I made an additional list of participants in case someone chose to withdraw from the study. During our initial meeting, we established the date, time, and location of the interview. Participants were also asked to choose a pseudonym for themselves. Due to the sample size being small, full confidentiality could not be guaranteed for participants. As part of managing this risk, participants were able to interview at a location of their choosing (including an online interview on zoom). After confirming the date, time, and location of the interview, each participant was sent the list of interview questions (Appendix B). Because of the open-ended nature of the questions, I wanted participants to be able to think about their responses ahead of time. I also hoped that sharing questions before the interview would relieve pressure from the participants and contribute to a trusting and open relationship between us. At the beginning of our meeting for the interview, I reminded participants of their right to opt-out of certain questions or details if they did not feel comfortable sharing them. I also reminded them that they were free to withdraw from the study anytime during or after the interview, until they had reviewed and approved the transcript. The interviews lasted from 45 to 120 minutes. At the end of our interview, I went over the timeline for reviewing the transcripts. Data Tools The purpose of a phenomenology is to understand the world from the perspective of others, or to understand the meaning of someone else’s experience (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018). Therefore, a semi-structured interview is perhaps one of the most suitable approaches for this type of research. Brinkmann and Kvale (2018) describe semi-structured interviews as seeking to 16 learn about the experiences of the interviewees with respect to the phenomenon being studied. Semi-structured interviews utilize open-ended questions. There is flexibility in terms of the researcher asking follow-up questions. The interview questions for this study were designed such that they would enable the participants to speak of their experiences openly (Appendix B). While designing the questions, I kept in mind the ‘why’ or the purpose for this study to not steer away from the phenomenon being researched. I prepared follow-up questions that included: “what did you learn from this?”, “can you give me an example?”, and “tell me more about this.” During the interviews, I practiced “listening to” the participants rather than “listening through” (Nishimura & Sharpe, 2017). I wanted to be in the moment with participants providing them space to speak of their experiences. I asked follow-up or clarifying questions; however, I refrained from adding my own thoughts to what participants were saying. The interviews were either in person, at a location chosen by participants, or they were online on zoom. In person interviews were recorded using an otter voice transcription on my personal cell phone. Online interviews were recorded on zoom. After the interview, I generated transcripts of my conversations with each of my participants. Each transcript was cleaned and checked for accuracy, where I fixed grammar errors and removed filler words. Transcripts were anonymized from the beginning using the pseudonym chosen by, or approved by, participants. After cleaning the transcript, the otter and zoom recordings were permanently deleted. During this stage of the study, I kept a double-entry research data journal. In this journal I recorded my wonderings, thoughts, notes, assumptions, and questions that arose before, during, or after the interviews. I also recorded any important thoughts and questions in this journal as I handled the transcripts. Essentially, the double-entry data journal was used for anything important that I needed to remember for later and was useful during the analysis stage of the 17 study. I brought my journal to the interviews as well. Participants were informed that I might be recording my thoughts in the journal. To make sure that the participants were at ease during the interview, I shared the notes that I entered into my journal with participants at the end of each interview. Transcripts were sent to the participants within two weeks of the interview. Participants were asked to review the transcript and send it back within one week of receiving it. They were encouraged to read through the transcripts and to add, remove, or edit anything they wished. I wanted to make sure that the transcripts had accurately depicted each participants’ thoughts, feelings, and experiences just as they intended to communicate them in the interview. I also wanted participants to have an opportunity to change or add to their responses in case they missed details in the interview. The goal of the interview process, including the transcription, was to enable participants to communicate their experiences as fully and as accurately as possible. During the review process, participants were reminded of their right to withdraw from the study. Once the reviewed transcripts were returned to me, their participation in the study was finalized and they were no longer able to withdraw. In a case where a reviewed transcript was not returned, it was assumed that the participant accepted the transcript and it could be used tin the study. Data Analysis The data analysis spiral presented by Creswell and Poth (2017), provides a good framework for the process of data analysis for a qualitative study. Creswell and Poth recommend starting the analysis with organizing the data. This is indeed how the analysis was started for this study. I made sure that all transcripts were anonymized, approved, and reviewed by the participants. The transcript files were stored on my personal computer and password protected 18 for safety. In order to prepare for coding, I created an Excel spreadsheet. I planned to record codes, themes, and quotes in the spreadsheet. Once I had an organized system for analysis, I started reading and memoing the interview transcripts and notes from my double-entry research journal. This represented the next stage of the data analysis spiral (Creswell & Poth, 2017). I read each transcript several times to build a close relationship with the data. I read through my research journal and added notes to it when ideas emerged from my reading and re-reading of the transcripts. It enabled me to better understand the experiences of participants and make sure that I was ready to portray those experiences accurately in this study. The next step in the data analysis spiral, as described by Creswell and Poth (2017), is to describe, classify, and interpret data into codes and themes. During this stage of data analysis, detailed descriptions of the participants’ experiences and views were developed and organized into themes. The process of coding typically begins with aggregating the data into small categories and assigning codes, usually in the form of a word or a short phrase, to these categories. The codes attached to the data “function as a way of patterning, classifying, and later reorganizing each datum into emerging categories for further analysis” (Saldana, 2011, p. 95). Typically, the coding process starts broad, where many codes are generated; this is called the first level coding. In the second level of coding, these codes are narrowed down and combined into five or six themes that guided the researcher(s) in writing a narrative for their qualitative study (Creswell & Poth, 2017). I used two types of first level coding. I first used descriptive coding to make meaning of the transcripts. Descriptive codes are usually nouns that summarize the data (Saldana, 2011). For each transcript, I highlighted quotes from the participants that stood out to me. Each of the 19 highlighted quotes was given a noun or a descriptor. This was done in the excel spreadsheet that I created at the beginning of the data analysis. The descriptive codes helped to narrow the participants’ thoughts, feelings, and experiences in the data. Within the first level coding, I then proceeded to use emotion coding to further analyze the transcripts. I employed emotions coding because, “emotions are a universal human experience, our acknowledgement of them in our research provides deep insights into participants’ perspectives, worldviews, and life conditions” (Saldana, 2011, p. 160). Through emotions coding, I was able to capture participants’ emotions such as when they expressed feeling frustrated, joyful, or proud. I felt that emotions coding, combined with descriptive coding, provided a powerful insight into not only participants’ perceptions, but also their feelings and experiences with respect to the phenomenon. Once I finished with first level coding, I then proceeded to second level coding. Second level coding involves generating themes from the codes developed in first level coding. Creswell and Poth (2017) describe themes to be “broad units of information that consist of several codes aggregated to form a common idea” (p. 186). Generally, a single study can have five to seven themes that serve to write the narrative at the end of the study. During first level coding, I organized codes with their respective quotations from the transcript into an excel spreadsheet. In second level coding, I worked with those codes and quotations combining them into broad themes. The themes that emerged from second level coding represented the essence of the study. They represented the meaning of the participants’ experiences in relation to the phenomenon. Managing Bias As mentioned earlier, I kept a double-entry journal throughout the study. I used this journal to not only record important information and reflection, but also to manage my bias 20 throughout the study. I recorded my biases and assumptions throughout the process of data collection in this journal. This way I identified my personal biases and discussed them in the study. Furthermore, bias was managed by having participants review the transcripts. A supervisor and a second reader were also utilized to check my interpretation of codes and themes. Outliers and extreme cases that did not fit into the rest of the themes in the study were discussed openly. I was open and honest in my intentions when interacting with participants. The letter of consent was clear, and I openly discussed all elements of it with the participants. I was honest about my research topic with the participants. Strength of Study To ensure the strength and legitimization of this study, I used the triple crisis of representation, legitimization, and praxis as described by Denzin and Lincoln (2000). The crisis of representation argues that the lived experiences of participants cannot be accurately captured in a qualitative study. Therefore, to overcome this crisis, the researcher must find ways not to objectify participants. The crisis of legitimization questions the trustworthiness of the research. Do readers believe the information presented in the research? Finally, the crisis of praxis questions the usability of the research in the real world. Crisis of representation. To ensure that participants contributing to this research were represented accurately, I fostered a close relationship with them by spending time together. It was helpful to have participants with whom I had a professional relationship with already. The nature of the open-ended interview questions also enabled participants to share their experiences and feelings. This created room for participants’ personalities to come through that helped me personalize the participants in my descriptions. 21 Crisis of legitimization. The trustworthiness of the research was strengthened by being open and honest about the research process. Researcher biases were openly discussed in this report; the interview protocol, including questions and process, was openly discussed; the definitions were defined in this report as they were interpreted by the researcher; and the limitations of the study were openly shared. Crisis of praxis. As mentioned earlier, the literature review revealed a lack of local research on this phenomenon. This study provided a local perspective to a topic that was extensively studied elsewhere. Through making meaning of the experiences of teachers, new revelations with regards to the phenomenon could impact policies and practices surrounding ELL students. I now focus on the results that emerged from participant interviews. Results This phenomenological study examined the research question: What are middle school teachers’ perceptions of successful practices with ELL students? Three themes emerged from the interviews conducted with four middle school teachers. The first theme reports on participants’ perceptions of ELL students. The second theme reports on participants’ perceptions of successful practices with ELL students. Finally, the third theme reports on systemic supports and barriers that participants experienced when supporting ELL students. Teachers’ Perceptions of ELLs Within the theme of teachers’ perceptions of ELLs, participants reported on the ELL students’ diversity in terms of their capabilities and engagement levels. Participants were moved by the stories of refugee ELL students. Finally, they expressed the importance of ELLs’ sense of belonging at school. 22 Diversity Diverse Abilities. All participants perceived ELLs as having diverse capabilities and therefore diverse academic, language, and socioemotional needs. ELL students in the same classroom or the same grade could have a range of academic abilities as well as a range of abilities in English language proficiency. Drew shared that, “between the language barriers, the academic barriers, and intellectual barriers there were significant struggles” in their classroom. Within Jamie’s context, they “worked with a group in grade seven” that had “a range of abilities.” Charlie noticed a “discrepancy between refugee students and students who weren’t refugees.” Taylor also noticed their refugee students as “having very low language levels.” Participants also pointed out that the abilities and needs of students varied from subject to subject. “In classes like language arts and social studies, the students needed the extra help” (Jamie). Therefore, they would benefit from having an extra body in the classroom for those subjects. Jamie also shared that new ELL students “struggle across the board” when it comes to English language proficiency. They struggled “in reading, writing, and speaking.” One particular thing that emerged from all interviews was that ELL students, especially new ELLs, lack confidence when it came to speaking. Jamie described a situation when they were challenged by a student who “spoke next to nothing […] because they were so shy.” Taylor also described a similar situation when a student did not see herself as a reader, because she “struggled and suffered a bit because of a […] lack of confidence with her reading.” Charlie also expressed a lot of emotion about the ELLs’ unrecognized brilliance. They stated, “that's two things that weigh on my heart is how resilient they are and actually how smart they are.” Charlie shared the following example of a student: 23 I just was speaking about one student today and that student speaks four languages, you know, which is really incredible! This student who has a lot of struggles and a lot of people might look at that student and think like… they're going to have a hard time. They’re just going to have a hard time, you know, but really, that student has a lot of brilliance! Due to such varying abilities of ELL students Jamie expressed that they “would use different adaptations depending on [student’s] language level, because [they] had students that couldn't speak any English, all the way up to that point that were fairly proficient but just needed some help.” Diverse Engagement with Learning. Another characteristic of ELLs that emerged from the interviews was that they, perhaps like all students, came with a varying level of interest in learning. However, the reasons for their engagement or disengagement were different. Charlie stated that they felt “the disengagement with some students” when “they’ll say, I don’t need to learn this.” Participants questioned whether some ELL students, raised outside of western culture, could have different expectations from their education than students identifying with the western culture. Participants expressed a feeling of unease encountering those cultural differences and having their biases challenged. Charlie shared their experience of working through these frustrations and stated: “Who am I to say that they should have my American dreams or that they do need this. I guess their lives are different than what I understand, but that's a frustration I've had.” Participants also stated that sometimes ELLs’ lack of confidence could be portrayed as an unwillingness to learn by the ELLs. Jamie described an experience where they noticed one of their students “weren’t willing to try” when it came to speaking the English 24 language. Jamie anticipated that this student “maybe found it embarrassing” to speak in English and noticed that “because they didn’t want to try, there was no progress.” Participants, in some instances, also observed students who were extremely engaged in their learning. Charlie found that when working with students in small groups they “overwhelmingly want to do well.” Charlie expressed, “they want to learn when I’m teaching them, they’re engaged, they are happy, and fun to work with.” Drew was also moved by one of their students who made it “her life's mission to get as educated as she could so she could return to her country and be a doctor there to help the people in need.” Stories Participants who had the opportunity to work with refugee students were moved by their stories of unimaginable trauma. Charlie expressed, “the most emotion that was brought out for me was hearing some of my students’ refugee stories.” Taylor stated, “it was very shocking for me the first time to hear of some of those experiences and of course, as an adult, you have to moderate your reaction.” Despite having had traumatic experiences, Taylor noticed “the delight that students would show when talking about their home country, and in some cases, how it used to be.” Drew was impacted by the refugee students’ struggles after moving to Canada. They expressed, “I mean they've only been in Canada for a few months, they lived in hotels for a good chunk of that time, and some are still trying to find housing.” Participants were amazed at the strength of refugee students and their families despite having gone through traumatic experiences. For Taylor, students’ stories were “a window into the strength and resilience of these families.” Charlie expressed: “But what’s amazing is how resilient they are! They are here and they’re functioning, and they’re dressed, and their parents are sending them to school! How brave is that! Do you know what I mean? How brave is that!” 25 Drew was also moved by one of their students who wanted to return to their country to help. They stated, “it helps to open your eyes, because sometimes I think we, who come from such a safe environment… we see these refugees come to us and feel like they don't want to return home.” Charlie also pointed out that refugee students faced additional challenges academically. They noticed, in their context, that new refugees “weren’t emotionally ready to receive what was being taught” due to trauma. The stories of ELL students, especially refugees, brought out emotions for all participants. Belonging Participants spoke briefly about ELL students’ sense of belonging. In Jamie’s context, one of their students struggled with building connections at school because, “they didn’t have anybody to speak their own language with.” Students also struggled to build a connection with adults due to language barriers. Jamie had difficulty connecting with a student who found it “intimidating speaking [in a new language] with an adult in a new building.” For a lot of new ELL students, it could be the first adult connections that make them feel safe and welcomed at school. Taylor described a situation where they “developed a really close relationship with [new refugee] students and [they] felt a bit like a [parent] to them.” Taylor continued and stated, “they would gather in my room at lunch, and you know, we had special activities that we would do together.” For Taylor, this experience “was very touching.” Charlie also expressed the importance of building a relationship with new ELLs and stated, “it's just such a privilege to welcome them here and to make a connection with them and, you know, to show them that they're safe here, that we're happy to have them here.” Charlie expressed that they “feel very privileged” as a teacher to be one of the first connections for ELLs. Jamie also brought up that students flourished academically when they felt safe and connected to their teacher. Jamie 26 stated, “I have that strong relationship with them, they produce good stuff. And it's all about being flexible and understanding that everybody has a different situation.” From Jamie’s perspective, “you're only going to get so far with your students unless… if you have a strong relationship in place.” Participants also expressed joy at the fact that “the schooling has changed so much that it felt good to know that we are focusing less just strictly on reading. We are trying to even bring back cultural experiences for these kids” (Jamie). Taylor also appreciated that “schools are doing more and more in recognizing languages and special events in students’ cultures and trying to help them feel like they've got something to bring to the class.” Systemic Supports and Barriers Participants described various systemic barriers and supports that they experienced in their roles when teaching ELLs. For barriers, participants perceived inequitable access to information, exhausted ELL funding, student needs beyond English language support, and a general sense of a lack of support. For supports, participants reported feeling listened to by their school district and that there was funding available in some cases where needed. Barriers All participants brought up existing systemic barriers within their unique situations that got in the way of ELL’s success at school. Charlie expressed a frustration with ELL families not having access to the same information as other families due to language barriers. For instance, Charlie pointed out that the forms being sent home are not always translated into the family’s language. They stated, “it still baffles my mind that those forms aren't translated automatically for my students.” To overcome this barrier, Charlie opted to “personally go on Google Translate and translate each of the forms, because [they] want the parents to know what they're signing.” Charlie also expressed a frustration with not always having a translator when communicating 27 with parents. They stated, “even parent teacher interviews, some parents don't necessarily have access to that portal” due to language barriers. From Charlie’s perspective, “there’s an equity piece at play here that needs to be addressed and all families should have the same access to information.” Charlie and Jamie also expressed that some students who were coming out of the fiveyear ELL funding continued to face language challenges. Participants reported that there was not a lot of support available for students who were exhausted in funding, but continued to require ELL support. Since “there is no requirement to do any paperwork around these students because they no longer receive funding, they're often just files that never get touched” (Jamie). Charlie also gave an example when they noticed a particular group of “students who had exhausted funding, and were pretty much non-readers, non-writers, and out of ministry funding.” In Charlie’s case, they reached out to their district ELL department and were successful in securing support for their students. However, there was not a system in place to continue servicing students who had exhausted their funding yet continue to require help. Another systemic barrier that emerged from interviews was the lack of resources in place for testing ELL students demonstrating barriers beyond language. For instance, Jamie worked with a student that was experiencing significant challenges academically. The support team at school saw “the same concerns” and believed “there is more to this student than just a language barrier.” The team noticed that the student struggled “even in his own language.” The “learning [wasn’t] sticking in English or in his own language.” Noticing such significant barriers in the student, the school asked the district for help only to confirm that there was no “means of testing ELL students in their home language.” They found that “unless [the ELLs] have exhausted funding they will not be tested.” For Jamie, this was frustrating to hear, and they expressed that a 28 student could be struggling academically because of “many different factors including a learning disability” and “it’s not the student’s fault.” All participants expressed feeling being overwhelmed and a general sense of inadequate support as another barrier to success for ELLs. Drew mentioned having limited support, both in terms of staffing and resources, for ELL students in the classroom. Drew stated that the “onus is on the teacher to find the time to scour the internet and search for resources or invent resources […] and figure it all out while still taking care of every other kid in their class.” Also, from Jamie’s perspective as an ELL teacher, they felt overwhelmed with “a fairly large caseload for one teacher.” Jamie described a situation where they felt “stuck” and could not support all students on their caseload. Jamie stated, “unfortunately, there’s only so many blocks in the day and I had to try to make sure I could satisfy everybody.” Therefore, what ended up happening was that the “higher level ELL students, even if they’re funded, typically receive very limited support, if none, directly from the ELL teacher” (Jamie). Jamie’s experience was in line with that of Drew’s. Taylor also stated that “sometimes [the ELL teachers] just have an understanding with the classroom teacher that because your students are higher level or because you only have one or two, you know, [they] can’t get into your room.” The following was expressed by Taylor with a lot of emotion: “I think the downside is just simply that you never feel like you’re doing as much as you could do for all the students, and it’s just sort of physical and system restraints.” This comment speaks to the challenges associated with teaching ELLs and the need for systemic support. Supports Participants, in their interviews, also mentioned various supports that helped them feel successful when working with ELL students. Charlie gave an example when their school district 29 ELL department noticed, or was made aware of, students that had significant gaps in their literacy skills. These students were approaching the end of their five-year funding and would not be receiving any support from the school ELL teacher. Charlie described that the students might have “arrived in grades where they missed […] the early literacy teachings of the classroom and that’s not really picked up in later grades.” When the district was made aware of this, they came up with an intervention. Charlie states, “I was very impressed with the success at the end of it.” This experience left Charlie feeling inspired and they expressed, “I guess I learned that change can be affected, you know, like it’s possible.” For Charlie, part of what made this experience so powerful was because they felt listened to by their colleagues in the district. They expressed, “I feel like these are people I can go to, and they’re equipped to address any concerns that I have, and they listen. Throughout my career, I haven’t always felt listened to.” The interviews also revealed that “ELL students just don’t have the same learning tools that their counterparts have” (Charlie). Jamie pointed out that, “it’s nice that there is funding for ELL students that goes towards [them] outside of our classroom funds” such as school supplies or field trip costs. From Jamie’s perspective, “it was positive in terms of receiving supports for things the students needed.” Charlie also gave an example when their school took note of the fact that a lot of ELL students did not have access to technology during the pandemic. Given that having access to technology was essential for online learning, the school “was quick to address it” and provided students with laptops. Another support that Jamie appreciated in their role was the available collaboration time between the ELL and classroom teachers. Jamie expressed, “our principal chose to run collaboration and that was a support that helped create a positive learning environment for students and I’m glad that they were willing to take that risk.” Taylor also pointed out that “the curriculum team that we have here provides really great support. There are 30 pro-d opportunities to help train teachers, and there has been as much as possible support recently going through the COVID period.” A sentiment shared by participants was gratitude for the support that was provided to ELL students by administrator and district decisions. Practices with ELLs The interviews also revealed patterns in the methods and approaches that the participants found to be successful with ELLs. Participants discussed the pros and cons of push-in (ELL teacher supports students in the classroom) vs. pull-out (ELL teacher pulls students out of the classroom for individual or small-group instruction). Participants perceived that grouping students with a common language together was a a successful method. More broadly, participants discussed being flexible, reflective, and collaborative with other teachers as successful approaches to teaching ELLs. Methods Push-In vs. Pull-Out. Participants expressed having preferences for different teaching approaches with ELLs depending on their school context. Charlie showed preference for small group instruction and stated that when they worked with a larger group of students at once, they “felt like it was really generic” and not as impactful. With small groups, however, Charlie felt that they were “with every kid” and expressed, “maybe that’s why I feel I see the gains that I do.” For Charlie, the feeling of success with targeted and small group instruction was “amazing.” They added, “I can get to every single kid, and I can give them whatever they need in the moment.” On the contrary, Jamie preferred the push-in model due to the high number of ELL students at their school. They stated, “when you’re taking students out of the classroom, how many can you realistically pull-out when there are so many ELL students?” Jamie also brought 31 up that, in their experience, the push-in model enabled the ELL teacher to “work collaboratively with the classroom teacher.” Additionally, having students in the classroom rather than having the ELL teacher pulling them out for support allowed for more “peer support amongst themselves.” Jamie also pointed out that when the students were pulled out for support, they ran into other issues. For instance, the students were unable to leave their classroom because, “maybe there was something else that was going on in the classroom” that could not be missed. The push-in model, in Jamie’s case, where the ELL student population was high,” also made it easier for the ELL teacher to “build a connection with all those kids.” Participants also expressed that “there isn’t one model that fits all” (Jamie). In Jamie’s case, the ELL teacher did not always push-in. Instead, the ELL teacher did “what the classroom teacher needed the most” and would sometimes “do a pull-out” with a group of students. Therefore, adapting their teaching approach to the students’ needs was what made Jamie feel successful. Charlie, with a relatively lower population of ELL students, felt successful with a more targeted approach of working with small groups. Peer support. Interestingly, all participants stated that they found success when pairing ELL students who had a common language. Jamie gave an example of two students when, “one of them would often struggle a little bit more and would always ask the other student for help for translations or how to phrase things.” Drew also gave an incredible example when a student “started recording herself in Arabic, giving the instructions” to her classmate who was experiencing significant language barriers. Charlie expressed that they were always mindful when pairing students for working in small groups. They intentionally grouped students together who worked well together and helped each other. In Jamie’s case, a student was struggling to make progress with the English language due to lack of confidence. Jamie stated, “they spoke 32 next to nothing, they wouldn’t speak, because they were so shy.” However, when another student, who spoke this student’s language, joined their class, the student’s confidence in speaking increased. Jamie noticed that “them being able to speak with each other” really helped with their language development. “Instead of being isolated they could rely on each other and follow along in the class more.” Jamie also pointed out that “even communicating with friends became a little bit easier” for them. These examples show that all participants found pairing students with a common language together was an effective method to improving ELL student success at school. Participants also described being flexible, reflective, and collaborative as effective approaches to teaching ELLs. Approaches Flexible Approach. All participants were challenged by the diverse and unique needs of ELL students in their teaching practice. The interviews revealed that, to overcome these challenges, participants needed to be flexible and open-minded. Taylor was challenged by a student who was not confident in their ability to read, and therefore, was not making significant progress. What worked for Taylor was being persistent “and working with them on almost a daily basis, sitting down one on one or in a small group and just doing it.” Taylor also stated, “I really focused on building their confidence that year.” Taylor found success in adapting to the unique needs of this student and expressed, “it was so exciting to see that by the end of the year, even though she was still very beginner level as a reader, you could see her mentality had changed and she was seeing herself as a reader.” Drew was also challenged by a student who had significant language barriers. They expressed: 33 The first little bit was a big challenge, because I didn’t know how to reach this child. She couldn’t work independently. Her native language is very oral based, so I couldn’t even do written translations and get the instructions translated. Drew had to adapt their teaching practice in different ways to reach this student. They paired them up with another student who was able to translate instruction. Drew also found that they “could get away with just doing math pictorially. [They] could get into it a little more symbolically, and she was starting to understand it a little bit better.” Again, Drew found success with this particular student by being flexible in their teaching practice. Jamie was also challenged by the varying levels of language proficiencies amongst ELLs. Jamie stated, “we would just have to have different expectations” for ELL students and “you have to make sure you’re flexible.” Jamie, in their teaching practice, had to be mindful of the fact that “the kids that are still learning the language aren’t going to be able to produce the same amount of quality answers or projects that somebody that has been speaking in English their whole life.” Again, this emphasized the importance of flexibility when working with ELLs. Reflective Approach. Participants also conveyed the importance of being reflective in their practice when working with ELLs. Charlie stated, “I try to be very reflective in my practice. I try to make it a priority for me because there’s so much at stake! I try and constantly ask myself… is this the best way to do this?” Within Charlie’s context, they were challenged by a group of students that were, from Charlie’s perspective, disengaged in their learning. Charlie stated: Some of these American dreams or Canadian dreams that I’ve grown up with. Hey, I can be a doctor, I can be a dentist, I could be a nurse you know! I don’t know that they want that for themselves. 34 Charlie learned that “sometimes you just have to let things sit”. Charlie added, “I’ve also learned that what I want doesn’t have to be what other people want! I mean, I’m not the boss of someone else’s life.” Drew also had an experience when they had to be reflective in communicating with their students. Drew stated, “their gestures are also slightly different than ours, so I have to be very careful of my mannerisms, so that I don’t insult them. For instance, thumbs up for them is giving the middle finger, right.” Being reflective was important for all aspects of teaching; however, Drew and Charlie’s experiences demonstrated that it was especially needed for cultural sensitivity with ELLs. Collaborative Approach. The interviews also revealed that participants saw effective teacher collaboration to be vital for succeeding with ELLs. Charlie appreciated that their school had provided collaboration time to foster communication between the ELL and classroom teachers. For Charlie, the collaboration time “is super effective.” They expressed, “more often than not, I leave a collaborative process […] thinking that was great […] that it’s made a difference for the students in the classroom.” Perhaps what makes the collaboration time so valuable for Charlie was that they made an effort to add some structure to their time. Charlie stated, “because it’s such a short amount of time that we’re given, and you don’t really have time to go down rabbit holes.” For Jamie, collaboration time was an opportunity for the ELL and classroom teachers to brainstorm possible adaptations for students. They stated, “during collaboration, we would use our time to create adaptations we needed for the low-level kids.” The ELL and the classroom teacher working together, “kind of helped bring in just another side to the lesson or another idea” (Jamie). All participants expressed value in communication and collaboration. Although collaboration time was provided for teachers, participants still felt that “the opportunity to collab 35 is minimal” (Drew). Taylor expressed, “I think we had one structured collab session per term, okay, which is next to nothing! So, the collab was on the move, basically, I find that you become efficient at exchanging information at the photocopying machine.” Similarly for Jamie, collaboration sometimes involved “just meeting in the hallway as [they’re] passing by” their colleagues. For participants, teacher collaboration was not just important, but necessary for succeeding with ELLs. Therefore, even with very limited collaboration time, they were willing to find time elsewhere to make it work. Overall, the themes that emerged from interviews were teachers’ perceptions of ELL students, systemic supports and barriers, and practices with ELLs. Teachers shared the experience of extreme diversity amongst ELLs in terms of academic and English language abilities. They described successful methods and approaches, including using peer support, and remaining flexible, reflective, and collaborative. Finally, while participants identified some systemic supports such as providing collaboration time, they pointed to many systemic challenges including exhausted funding, inequitable access to information, and support with students with needs extending beyond English language. These thoughts are consistent with some themes found in the literature, as well as my own experiences teaching ELLs. Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine middle school teachers’ perceptions of successful practices with ELL students. The three main themes that emerged were teachers’ perceptions of ELL students, successful practices with ELL students, and systemic barriers and supports that teachers have experienced in supporting ELL students. The findings of this study are consistent with the literature, furthering the extensive research available on the topic. 36 Teachers’ Perceptions of ELLs ELL students come with an unrecognized brilliance to K-12 classrooms. Participants in this study reported that ELLs, who usually came from a different culture than the school’s, were often not fully able to express themselves due to language barriers. As a result, their knowledge was often not seen or recognized by the school. This is consistent with the work done by Lambrears and Rupley (2017) who report ELLs as having a different discourse, meaning a way of belonging to the family and community, than that of the school. The expectation of fulfilling the school discourse at school can lead to ELLs hiding their home discourse or home identity (Lambrears and Rupley, 2017). Therefore, the educators at school may get a personality that is filtered through the expectation of fulfilling the school discourse from ELL students. This can often lead teachers to believe ELLs to be underdeveloped or to have limited background knowledge. However, in reality, ELLs simply have a different knowledge than their teachers (Lambrears and Rupley, 2017). This can also lead educators, who only see ELLs’ lack of English language proficiency, to view them from a deficit perspective and not recognize their diversity in language as an asset (Szymanski & Lynch, 2020). These findings resonated with my experience as an ELL student and a K-12 teacher. The idea of living two identities, one at school and one at home, was very real for me. As a student, I tried my best to fulfill the discourse of my school to fit in with the dominant school culture. I did not have opportunities to express my home discourse at school beyond a small group of close friends. However, as a teacher I noticed that schools were beginning to recognize the importance of belonging for all students and were focusing more on creating avenues for students to express their identities at school. This study recommends, therefore, that schools and teachers intentionally take a growth-based approach 37 rather than a deficit-based approach with ELLs that recognizes their home discourse and does not reduce their identities to merely lacking English Language proficiency. Participants also shared that their ELL students overwhelmingly wanted to do well at school and wanted to improve their proficiency in English. Shahbazi et al. (2020) agree with this statement when they report social acceptance as a primary motivator for ELLs to improve their English language skills. Despite their drive to succeed, teachers in this study reported on students’ struggles in learning a new language. Teachers emphasized the potential impact of students’ lack of confidence and anxiety as a hindrance to their English language development. This is echoed in the literature review describing mindsets as an important factor to their learning (Lou & Noels, 2020; Lumbrears & Rupley, 2017; Shahbazi et al., 2020; Teimouri et al., 2019). Lou and Noels (2020) discuss the importance of students’ own perceptions about learning a new language. Students perceiving themselves as capable of learning a new language are more likely to succeed compared to students who hold negative perceptions about their capability of learning a new language. Similarly, Teimouri et al. (2019) report the importance of growth mindsets for ELL students, especially newcomers, that are trying to learn a new language. Growth mindset students can appear to more easily overcome learning setbacks compared to students with a fixed mindset. The fixed mindsets of students may be related to their anxiety and overall well-being at school. Lou and Noels (2020) argue that these students can experience a vicious cycle of anxiety when they are too anxious to use the target language and, in turn, see little improvement in their language development, despite wanting to do well. My experiences teaching ELLs also align with the findings in the literature and in this study. I have observed ELLs wanting to learn English language in order to fit in with the dominant school culture. I have also noticed the 38 cyclical relationship between ELLs’ confidence and their development in English language. In my experience, students who were confident were more likely to practice their language skills in a social setting compared to students who lacked confidence and were more anxious. It is recommended through the findings of this inquiry that schools recognize the social and emotional aspect of language learning. As such, educators should recognize the need to support students’ development of growth mindsets in learning a new language. This study revealed that participants saw ELLs’ sense of belonging at school to be important for their learning mindsets and their overall success at school. Participants showed this by honoring the stories of ELLs. Teachers were particularly moved by the stories of refugee students. They shared that by giving students the space to fully express their identities, they were able to build stronger teacher-student relationships. This could be seen in participants’ ability to empathize with their ELL students’ experiences or home discourses. They tried to see them as whole people rather than seeing them only through the deficit mindset of lacking English language proficiency as described by Shahbazi et al. (2020). Participants with limited experiences with refugee students also emphasized the importance of building strong relationships with ELL students. For a lot of ELLs, their teachers are often the first connections at their new schools in a new country. Therefore, it is important for teachers to take a holistic approach with ELLs that not only takes into consideration the academics, but also their social, emotional, and cultural needs (Kerekes et al., 2021; Lumbrears & Rupley, 2017; Shahbazi et al., 2020). Shahbazi et al. (2020) state that, as part of this holistic approach, teachers should focus on developing healthy teacher-student relationships, requiring teachers to acknowledge students’ experiences. 39 ELLs bring experiences from other countries and contexts that are unimaginable to teachers with limited experience outside of their school system, city, province, or country. As such, ELLs challenge teachers’ assumptions that students come with a uniformity of experience. Acknowledging what ELLs bring to the table by being receptive, curious, and welcoming is important. These are essential dispositions for teachers to assume to foster ELLs’ sense of belonging at school. Within my own practice, I noticed the importance of building relationships with students, especially ELL students. One way I have developed relationships with ELL students was through learning about their home discourses, letting them know that I cared about that part of their life. Building relationships with students can help them feel comfortable in class, helping their overall well-being, and supporting their academic success. The experiences of teachers in this study, the literature review, and my own personal experiences allude to the importance of teachers viewing ELLs as whole people. Teachers should be aware that ELLs may have a home discourse that is different than that of the school. Intentionally creating a classroom culture that makes space for and celebrates students’ cultures and home discourses will help ELLs and all students feel a sense of belonging at school. When students’ home discourse is welcome in the classroom, teachers are less likely to view ELLs through a deficit lens. Practices with ELLs As stated earlier, a holistic approach in teaching can be important for ELL students to support their diverse academic, social, emotional, and cultural needs (Kerekes et al., 2021; Lumbrears & Rupley, 2017; Shahbazi et al., 2020). Participants in this study also demonstrated this through their flexibility and willingness to find ways to support the overall well-being of ELL students at school. Participants found peer support to be an effective practice with ELLs to 40 not only support them academically, but also to connect them with other students socially. Teachers reported that it was particularly beneficial for ELLs to work with peers who shared their native language. This enabled students to translate classroom instruction to each other and help each other in communication. Shahbazi et al. (2020) report that ELL students, in their study, experienced feelings of social isolation due to language barriers. Therefore, ELL students’ need to be socially supported may be higher than their English-speaking counterparts. Participants in this study also recognized this need and mentioned attempts at purposefully fostering peer connections amongst students. Interestingly, the examples provided by participants demonstrated that when ELLs’ social needs were fulfilled, they were more confident in using the English language, leading to a positive impact on their overall English language proficiency. This aligns with the arguments presented by Teimouri et al. (2019) who state that ELLs’ socioemotional well-being is important for their mindset, which can be important for their development in English language. Peer support in an ELL classroom is achievable in many ways. Placing new students in shared first language groups or pairs with experienced students allows them to increase their sense of belonging, get socialized into the class, and use their native language as a resource for academic study. It is also helpful for teachers to experiment with other peer structures such as pairing ELL students with different native languages or pairing ELL students with non-ELL students. From the interviews conducted, it was evident that participants found collaboration to be essential for their teaching practice with ELLs. Participants mentioned being involved in both coplanning and co-teaching as collaborative approaches. Co-planning between the ELL teacher and the classroom teacher was particularly helpful for participants when brainstorming curricular adaptations for ELLs. This is consistent with Martin-Beltrán and Peercy (2014) who report that 41 co-planning can allow teachers to generate a dialogue amongst themselves that can be helpful to re-conceptualize their understandings about successful practices with ELL students. Participants’ experiences with co-teaching also emerged, in the form of the push-in model, from interviews. The push-in model allowed for co-teaching opportunities between the ELL teacher and the classroom teacher. Participants found this model to be particularly helpful in situations where the ELL caseload was high. Barr et al. (2007) argue that co-teaching, or the push-in model can also have the benefit of allowing students to stay in the classroom and work on the tasks that the rest of the class is working on. On the contrary, participants also found that small-group instruction or the pull-out model could be beneficial with ELL students. This approach was stated to be particularly helpful with new ELL students or students with very low English language proficiency. Participants expressed that there was no one perfect model that worked best with all ELL students. Therefore teachers, through collaboration, should adapt to the needs presented by students. My experience with collaboration mostly involved co-planning with the ELL teacher. I looked to the ELL teacher as the expert in the building for designing adaptations specific to ELLs’ needs. I found this collaboration to be essential for success in supporting ELL students. This highlights the importance of collaboration between teachers and the value in districts supporting this by providing time for teachers to collaborate. The participants and the literature point to the importance of flexibility when working with ELLs. Teachers should be able to adapt to the needs of ELL students in their specific context. Collaboration between the ELL teacher and the classroom teacher can help uncover how to best support ELLs in a given context. Systemic Supports and Barriers 42 Participants made it clear that system level support was essential for successful practices with ELL students. Participants reported several systemic supports and barriers in this study. For supports, teachers reported the benefits of having their district level colleagues listening and finding solutions to their struggles with ELL students. Although participants expressed that the time to collaborate was very limited, they appreciated the opportunities they did receive to collaborate. Collaboration between the ELL teacher and the classroom teacher might not be possible without district support. Participants also expressed several systemic barriers when supporting ELL students. There was a sense of frustration amongst teachers due to not being able to communicate with the parents of ELL students. Gándara et al. (2005) report that current practices in school districts are not inclusive enough to include the families that culturally and linguistically fall on the margins. Therefore, more systemic support may be needed to overcome the language barriers between the ELL families and schools. Furthermore, participants identified that currently there was no avenue to test ELL students, who present challenges beyond English language proficiency, for other designations. These teachers also expressed frustration with a lack of support in the form of resources and personnel. This is consistent with Kerkes et al. (2021) who report that inadequate funding and resources continue to be a setback to quality ELL programming in Canada. Finally, participants in this study and Kerkes et al. (2021) both reported a lack of ELL qualified teachers in schools. Teaching students is a collective effort, involving work by teachers, staff, administrators, school districts, and parents. Since the school staff works closest with the students, it is important for school districts to listen to teachers and involve them in making decisions pertaining to student learning. For instance, this study identified the importance of collaboration among 43 teachers in supporting ELLs and the value of district support of this collaboration. School districts also play an important role in involving parents in their children’s education. Because parents of ELLs have additional language barriers, there would be value in district support in providing equitable access to school information through translations and translators for wider range of languages. Limitations There were several factors to note that impacted the generalization of this study. First, the small sample size of only four participants presents a barrier to generalization. Furthermore, the selection of participants through purposeful convenient sampling also begs the question of whether participants’ experiences with the phenomenon being studied are transferrable to others in the district. Moreover, the context of the study also limits its generalization. The study was conducted in a middle school setting (grades 6-8) in one school district. Depending on the context, the experiences of teachers outside of a middle school setting, or in a different district, may be different. Finally, limited local literature is present on the phenomenon further impacting the generalization of the study. Implications and Recommendations The guiding question for this inquiry was: what were middle school teachers’ perceptions of successful practices with ELL students? The findings of this study, conducted in the lower mainland area of B.C. add to the extensive research available on the topic in North America. Following recommendations have emerged from this study: • Educators should take a holistic approach that takes into consideration the social, emotional, and cultural needs of ELLs through learning about their home discourse. This 44 may enable educators to see ELLs as whole people and not view them from the deficit lens of lacking English language proficiency. • Teachers, in their practice with ELLs, should be mindful of the social and emotional components of language learning. They should take care to support ELLs in adopting a growth mindset to build confidence. • Teachers should adopt a collaborative approach to planning and teaching when supporting ELLs. Collaboratively teaching and planning can help teachers to make decisions to best support ELLs in their particular contexts. This study also recommends that districts support teachers in collaboration by providing adequate collaboration time. • Districts should provide support in improving communication with ELLs’ families by providing translators or translating documents being sent home so that ELLs’ families have equitable access to information compared to families that speak English at home. • More ELL qualified teachers are needed to support ELL students and their classroom teachers. • Provide service to students who present challenges beyond English language proficiency. An avenue for testing for additional designations to ELL is required for complex cases of ELL students. Further Questions After conducting this inquiry, I reflected upon the diversity amongst ELL students in our schools and the diverse challenges they presented to teachers. For instance, participants in this study were particularly moved by the experiences of refugee students. As a further inquiry, I wonder about the specific challenges that refugee students face in schools. What teaching practices specific to refugee ELL students are appropriate? Through this study, teacher 45 perceptions of ELL students emerged. As another inquiry, it would be interesting to learn if teacher’s perceptions of ELL students are consistent with the experiences of ELL students. Therefore, a local study that reports directly on ELL students’ experiences would be appropriate. Personally, I was moved by these teachers’ willingness to contribute their time and share their experiences with this phenomenon. This inquiry was reflective of my own practice as a teacher. For me, it reinforced the importance of building positive relationships with ELL students and taking a holistic approach to ensure their overall well-being at school. I also learned the importance of building connections to ELL students’ families. As a teacher, I have an important role to play in initiating those connections and making the families, who are culturally and linguistically marginalized, feel included in their child’s education. 46 References Blanchard, S., & Muller, C. (2015). Gatekeepers of the American dream: How teachers’ perceptions shape the academic outcomes of immigrant and language-minority students. Social Science Research, 51, 262–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.10.003 Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2018). Planning an interview study. SAGE Publications Ltd, https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781529716665 Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications. Da Silva Iddings, A. C., & Katz, L. (2007). Integrating home and school identities of recentimmigrant Hispanic English language learners through classroom practices. Journal of Language Identity and Education, 6(4), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348450701542306 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed., 1-42. Sage. Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional development needs. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. http://erinselavkamathematics.weebly.com/uploads/5/6/9/0/56901359/website_article_2.p df 47 Good, M. L., Masewicz, S., & Vogel, L. R. (2010). Latino English Language Learners: Bridging Achievement and Cultural Gaps Between Schools and Families. Journal of Latinos and Education, 9(4), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2010.491048 Government of Canada, Statistics Canada. (2022, October 26). The Daily — Immigrants make up the largest share of the population in over 150 years and continue to shape who we are as Canadians. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026aeng.htm Hawkins, M., & Norton, B. (2009). Critical language teacher education. Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139042710.006 Kerekes, J., Rajendram, S., Adjetey-Nii Owoo, M., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Teachers’ takes on supporting multilingual learners in K–12 Classrooms in Ontario. TESL Canada Journal, 38(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v38i1.1365 Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2020). Mindsets matter for linguistic minority students: Growth mindsets foster greater perceived proficiency, especially for newcomers. The Modern Language Journal, 104(4), 739–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12669 Lumbrears, R., & Rupley, W. H. (2017). Educational experiences of ell educators: Searching for instructional insights to promote ell students’ learning. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 18(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-017-9225-z Martin-Beltrán, M., & Peercy, M. M. (2014). Collaboration to teach English language learners: opportunities for shared teacher learning. Teachers and Teaching, 20(6), 721–737. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.885704 Saldana, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford University Press. 48 Shahbazi, S., Palazzolo, A., & Salinitri, G. (2020). Breaking silence: The voices of Syrian refugee children in the Canadian classroom. Journal of Global Education and Research, 4(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.5038/2577-509x.4.1.1025 Szymanski, A. T., & Lynch, M. (2020). Educator perceptions of English language learners. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(4), 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x20917141 Teimouri, Y., Goetze, J., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 363–387. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263118000311 Vogel, S., & García, O. (2017). Translanguaging. In G. Noblit & L. Moll (Eds.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ acrefore/9780190264093.013.181 Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 311–325. York-Barr, J., Ghere, G., & Sommerness, J. (2007). Collaborative teaching to increase ELL student learning: A three-year urban elementary case study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3), 301–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660701601290 49 Appendix A Ethics Approval 50 Appendix B Interview Protocol 1. Tell me about some of your experiences with ELL students. 2. Tell me about a time when working with ELL students brought out a lot of emotion for you. Follow up: What did you learn from this? 3. Describe a time where you felt success working with ELL student(s). Why? Follow up: What did you learn from this? 4. Tell me about a time when you felt frustrated working with ELL student(s). Why? Follow up: What did you learn from this? 5. What institutional supports and barriers have you experienced in trying to help ELL students? Follow up: Could you describe one of those experiences? 6. Anything else that you wish to share?