Pre and in Service Teachers Beliefs About Ells in Content Area Classes A Case For Inclusion Responsibility and Instructional Support

Teaching Education
ISSN: 1047-6210 (Print) 1470-1286 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20
Pre- and in-service teachers beliefs about ELLs

in content area classes: a case for inclusion,
responsibility, and instructional support
Nihat Polat & Laura Mahalingappa
To cite this article: Nihat Polat & Laura Mahalingappa (2013) Pre- and in-service teachers
beliefs about ELLs in content area classes: a case for inclusion, responsibility, and instructional
support, Teaching Education, 24:1, 58-83, DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2012.713930
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2012.713930
Published online: 06 Feb 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 694
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cted20
Download by: [Texas State University, San Marcos]
Date: 02 August 2016, At: 10:00
Teaching Education, 2013

Vol. 24, No. 1, 5883, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2012.713930
Pre- and in-service teachers beliefs about ELLs in content area

classes: a case for inclusion, responsibility, and instructional
support
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016
Nihat Polat* and Laura Mahalingappa

Department of Instruction and Leadership in Education, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh,
PA, USA
(Received 13 January 2012; nal version received 13 May 2012)
This study documents differences between pre- and in-service content area
teachers beliefs about: whether English language learners (ELLs) should be
included in content area classes, the kind of instructional support (IS) they
should receive, and responsibility for ELLs language and academic achievement. Questionnaire data were collected from 94 in-service and 101 pre-service
content area teachers. Although several signicant differences were found in
pre- and in-service and female and male teachers beliefs about responsibility
for ELLs language and academic development, both service and gender groups
appeared to hold similar beliefs about ELLs inclusion in mainstream classes.
Results also revealed that some beliefs held by female teachers about IS for
ELLs signicantly differed from those of males; however, the effects of service
and gender on certain beliefs may be contingent upon a number of background
factors. The article concludes with pedagogical implications for teacher education for classrooms with linguistically and culturally diverse learners.
Keywords: teacher thinking and knowledge; teacher professionalism; teacher
education policy
Introduction
Sustained high-quality education that advances learning outcomes for all students,
including the dramatically increasing linguistically and culturally diverse populations, is a goal for all multicultural nations. Despite the statistics that the number of
English language learners (ELLs) within PK-12 settings increased by 51% between
the years 1997 and 2009 in the USA (The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2011), a gradually widening achievement gap between ELLs
and native English speakers seems to prevail, indicating that ELLs are three times
more likely to become low academic achievers (Freeman, Freeman, & Ramirez,
2008). As this trend continues, the public school system must ensure that the quality of education provided to ELLs matches the quality provided to English speaking
students. For too long, ELLs academic achievement went unacknowledged since
the self-contained pullout program was more commonly adopted by school districts
over more effective instructional models such as bilingual and immersion programs
due to political, logistic, and nancial reasons (Crawford, 2004). In order for ELLs
*Corresponding author. Email: polatn@duq.edu
2013 Taylor & Francis
Teaching Education
59
to participate in classroom activities and achieve academically, content area teachers

(math, social studies, science, etc.) in mainstream classrooms need to claim more
responsibility for the inclusion and education of this disenfranchised population
(Nieto, 2005; Yoon, 2008).
The increasing calls for content area teachers to meet the needs of the growing
ELL population in US schools necessitates notable changes in current teacher education programs (Crawford, 2004) while also demanding the implementation of
developmentally appropriate instructional practices by in-service teachers because
instructional quality is, in fact, related to improved learning outcomes (DarlingHammond & Branson, 2005). Traditionally, in the US context, most teacher education programs across the nation, including those in states with historically higher
numbers of ELLs (e.g. California, Texas, Florida), have offered pre-service content
area teachers very little preparation when it comes to supporting ELLs in mainstream classes (Nieto, 2005; Rumberger & Gndara, 2005; Walker, Shafer, & Iiams,
2004; Waxman & Padrn, 2002). As a result of such demands being made on content area teachers and the accountability mandates of No Child Left Behind
(NCLB), pre-service teachers are now being offered more education about supporting ELLs in mainstream classrooms while in-service teachers in all content areas
are increasingly being required to attend professional development (PD) activities to
develop competencies in integrating language skills with content instruction
(Crawford, 2004; Gitlin, Buendia, Crosland, & Doumbia, 2003; Ovando, Collier,
Combs, & Cummins, 2003; Tllez & Waxman, 2006; Verplaetse, 2008).
Although current pre- and in-service teachers are receiving more preparation or
PD regarding these competencies, research suggests that in order for teachers to
accept the responsibility and provide the special instructional support (IS) necessary
for linguistically and culturally diverse learners, they need to hold pedagogical
beliefs that are consistent with, and promote, equitable practice (Barcelos, 2003;
Gay, 2010; Johnson, 1992; Ladson-Billings, 2005; Nespor, 1987; Nieto, 2005;
Walker et al., 2004). While there may be some inconsistencies between teachers
beliefs and their practices (Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis, 2004), the notion that teacher beliefs are somewhat related to their instructional practices is widely acknowledged in educational research (Borg, 2003; Faltis & Hudelson, 1994; Fang, 1996;
Farrell & Kun, 2008; Johnson, 1992; Pajares, 1992; Polat, 2009). However, a question remains as to what factors may affect teachers beliefs about the language
development and academic achievement of ELLs in mainstream classrooms. Among
others, possible factors include personal background factors, including gender and
sociocultural experience (Polat, 2009; Youngs & Youngs, 2001; Zeichner, 2003),
teacher education, and in-service experience (Stuart & Thurlow, 2000).
Research shows that pre-service teachers join the teacher force with somewhat
established pedagogical beliefs systems and attitudes shaped by long-lived selfreections, pedagogical knowledge, apprenticeship of observation, (Lortie, 1975;
Richardson, 2003) and sociopolitical and contextual factors (Barcelos, 2003; Polat,
2009; Raths, 2001). Pre-service teachers undergo years of state-mandated course
and eld work to attain the competencies required for their areas of expertise. Thus,
teacher education programs constitute the main avenues for pre-service teachers to
reect on and re-examine the kinds of belief systems that lead to effective instruction (Gay, 2010). Some scholars have argued that teacher education programs can
inuence pre-service teachers to react to ethnic and cultural differences in certain
ways (Brand & Glasson, 2004; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000). These programs can
60
N. Polat and L. Mahalingappa
engage pre-service teachers in tasks, activities, and experiences that would help
them internalize the implications of linguistic, ethnic, cultural, and racial diversity
in teaching practices (Jennings, 2007) through culturally responsive curricula that
would help them reect on their Eurocentric pedagogical beliefs and improve their
concept of self and claim responsibility for the education of disenfranchised students instead of blaming parental negligence or lack of student motivation for failure (Brown, 2004; Nieto, 2005). Once pre-service teachers enter their classrooms as
in-service teachers, their beliefs may be inuenced additionally by PD activities,
teaching experience, and school environment (Flores & Smith, 2008; Lortie, 1975;
Pajares, 1992; Peacock, 2001). Indeed, as Gay (2010) has argued, many teachers
may not realize that some very strong beliefs about cultural diversity can be conveyed through the examples habitually used in teaching. These can be both positive
and negative (p. 147).
The different personal experiences women and men may have can lead to
different pedagogical belief systems as well. While research on gender effect on
differences in belief systems is markedly meager, women and men may experience
and demonstrate differences in learning and teaching experiences (for a review see
Skelton, Francis, & Smulyan, 2006) and socialization patterns and identities (Eckert
& McConnell-Ginet, 2003; Norton & Toohey, 2004; Ochs, 1993), which might be
related to some differences in their belief systems or attitudes (Byrnes, Kiger, &
Manning, 1997; Gitlin et al., 2003; Ottavi, Pope-Davis, & Dings, 1994; Reeves,
2006; Youngs & Youngs, 2001) and instructional practices as well. While essentialist claims that include generalizations of homogeneity within a particular race, ethnicity, or gender cannot be wholly empirically substantiated, current literature on
postcolonial feminism and critical race and Whiteness theories (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2001; Mohanty, 1988) point to certain social categories that index
unequal representations of power, perhaps explaining in part why it might be
reasonable to expect gender differences in teachers beliefs.
Notwithstanding some variation in the intensity and form of dominance and
oppression, based on this literature, we can argue that women everywhere have historically suffered from unequal power relations, also known as patriarchal hegemonies, in every social and educational site (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Mohanty,
1988). Hence, belief systems of a subordinated and marginalized population may be
different from those of the dominant group, and these differences may be manifested in their professional identities. In fact, differences in beliefs between men
and women may be even greater when it comes to another marginalized population,
the children of immigrants who have suffered from decades of marginalization,
assimilation, and negligence (Nieto, 2005; Yoon, 2008). Indeed, similar to critical
pedagogues (Freire, 2009), feminist pedagogues (Luke & Gore, 1992) seek social
justice and equity for the marginalized and are sensitive to difference (Weiler,
1991, p. 463).
Considering the importance of establishing what may affect content area teachers beliefs about the education of ELLs, it is essential to examine if any signicant
differences exist between the pedagogical beliefs of pre- and in-service (service
effect) teachers of different gender groups. This study addresses differences in
female and male and pre- and in-service content area teachers beliefs about the
inclusion of and responsibility for ELLs language development and academic
achievement in mainstream classes. It also explores the effect of service (pre-service
vs. in-service) and gender on differences in teacher beliefs about the nature of IS
Teaching Education
61
for ELLs in mainstream classes while also examining the role of certain inuencing
background factors, including exposure to diversity, exposure to ELLs, number of
English as a second language (ESL) courses taken, and number of foreign languages spoken. If there are, in fact, signicant differences between the beliefs of
pre- and in-service content area teachers, then we need to revisit current approaches
to the preparation of pre-service teachers and the PD of in-service teachers.
Why examine content area teacher beliefs about ELLs education?
According to the TESOL K-12 standards, which are built upon the presumed
benets of accommodated mainstream education, one of the main goals for ELLs is
the ability to use language as a tool to achieve academically in content area subjects
(Crawford, 2004; Schecter & Cummins, 2003). In fact, ELLs academic achievement seems to be linked to their academic language prociency (Cummins &
Corson, 1997; Garcia, 1988; Verplaetse, 2008). Therefore, content area teacher
beliefs about ELLs education can have critical consequences. Although some laws
like the NCLB act in the USA hold all teachers accountable for ELLs language
development and academic achievement, studies have shown that some mainstream
teachers do not readily assume this responsibility, either leaving the responsibility
to the ESL teachers or unwittingly referring ELLs to special education teachers for
identication, confusing deciency in second language (L2) prociency with special
needs (Commins & Miramontes, 2005; Yoon, 2008).
Current research has suggested that many content area teachers are not
adequately prepared to help ELLs in mainstream classes and hold erroneous
pedagogical beliefs about ELLs education (Dolly, 2007; Gibbons, 2002; Gitlin
et al., 2003; Platt, Harper, & Mendoza, 2003; Rumberger & Gndara, 2005; Walker
et al., 2004; Yoon, 2008; Youngs & Youngs, 1999, 2001). Such beliefs may
include, for instance, that the education of ELLs is the ESL teachers responsibility
and that ELLs should not be integrated into mainstream classrooms, especially if
they have not attained high levels of English prociency rst or, once there, that
they should be assigned less-demanding coursework. These beliefs may lead to
unjust and unequal access to rigorous education offered to their English-speaking
peers (Harklau, 2000; Nieto, 2005; Reeves, 2006; Valdes, 2001). In fact, the
recently adopted laws that made one ESL course mandatory for all education
majors in some states in the USA (e.g. Pennsylvania) address this very problem, a
concern which is shared by many multicultural countries around the world. However, previous research on mainstream teacher beliefs about ELLs has either been
limited to studies with small sample sizes or those that have studied only pre- or
in-service teachers (For a review see Lee & Luykx, 2006). A fairly large-scale
study that brings together the beliefs of in-service teachers, who have rsthand
experience teaching ELLs, and the pre-service teachers who are still in preparation
can provide important pedagogical implications for current teacher education.
Previous research on teacher beliefs and ELLs
Teachers pedagogical decision-making regarding curricular frameworks, instructional practices, and interactions with and support for students may be affected by
their beliefs. Previous research has provided ample evidence regarding the vital role
beliefs played in teachers instructional practices and student achievement (Borg,
62
2003; Fang, 1996; Farrell & Kun, 2008; Horwitz, 1988; Peacock, 2001; Raths,
2001). While Burns (1992) used the verb motivate, Johnson (1992) used a more
powerful construct, shape, to describe the possible effect of beliefs on teachers
instructional practices. For example, Stipek, Givvin, Salmon, and MacGyvers
(2001) reported a considerable amount of consistency between teachers beliefs and
instructional practices. Similarly, Grossman (1990) has argued that teacher beliefs
about pedagogical content knowledge may affect their classroom practices. However, these beliefs can sometimes be counterproductive to student achievement, particularly to special populations like ELLs (Flores & Smith, 2008; Garcia, 1988;
Joram & Gabriele, 1998; Walker et al., 2004) because, as Nieto (2005, p. 217)
argues, some teachers have negative perceptions, biases, and racist attitudes about
the students they teach.
Although the nature and role of teacher beliefs have been researched from
multiple perspectives in various areas of expertise in education (Barcelos, 2003;
Grossman, 1990; Lee & Luykx, 2006; Pajares, 1992), research on teacher beliefs
about supporting ELLs language development and academic achievement in content area classes is rather limited (Polat, 2010; Reeves, 2006). Studies have suggested that the quality of teachers instructional decision-making can be affected by
the critical beliefs that they construct and adhere to throughout their educational
experience (Barcelos, 2003; Peacock, 2001). Previous research has also revealed
that mainstream teachers can have different beliefs about and expectations for ELLs
in their classes (Clair, 1995; Polat, 2010) which are manifested in their teaching
practices (Faltis & Hudelson, 1994; Polat, 2009; Richardson, 2003), thereby affecting ELLs achievement. For example, Karabenick and Noda (2004) and Nieto
(2005) have suggested that many mainstream teachers tend to hold implicitly biased
beliefs and engage in practices that are not conducive to ELLs achievement. Some
of these implicitly biased beliefs about diverse populations have permeated in the
form of statements that allude to Asian Americans being high achievers, AfricanAmerican children not being motivated to learn, and Latino families not caring
about education (Brown, 2004; Gay, 2010; Nieto, 2005).
Several studies reported that mainstream teachers raised concerns about the
inclusion of ELLs in mainstream classes (Reeves, 2004). As reported in these studies, among the most salient reasons behind teachers concerns about the inclusion
of ELLs in mainstream classes included generating educational inequity (Platt et al.,
2003) and extra work for teachers due to accommodations (Gibbons, 2002; Reeves,
2004; Walker et al., 2004; Youngs & Youngs, 1999) as well as teachers lack of
preparation time (Gitlin et al., 2003) and readiness (Verplaetse, 1998). Other concerns were reported to stem from beliefs about sociocultural backgrounds (Harklau,
2000; Valdes, 2001) and processes of second language acquisition (SLA) (Reeves,
2004; Walqui, 2000).
The most sizable body of research on teacher beliefs about ELLs comes from
science education (for a review see, Lee & Luykx, 2006). Some studies in this area
have suggested that many in-service teachers believe that modifying their teaching
for diverse learners is not a part of their professional responsibility (Bryan &
Atwater, 2002). Studies have also found that in-service teachers have different
beliefs about various aspects of ELLs education. For example, Allen (1991) has
suggested that mainstream teachers expectations for ELLs relate to both linguistic
and cognitive demands, and that these demands are consistently lower than the
demands for native speakers. Relatedly, while some teachers reported believing that
Teaching Education
63
ELLs are less capable, others reported that ELLs must acquire English before
beginning to learn content areas (Garcia, 1988; Lee & Luykx, 2006; Walker et al.,
2004).
In addressing service (pre- and in-service) and gender effects on content area
teacher beliefs, some background factors that had been reported to be signicant
predictors of teacher attitudes and beliefs are also examined in this study. A few
studies that have explored mainstream teachers attitudes towards ELLs have
reported that international experience, exposure to ELLs, ESL coursework, and
gender are associated with teachers attitudes towards ELLs in mainstream classes
(Byrnes et al., 1997; Youngs, 1999; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). For example,
Barrows et al. (1981) have reported a positive correlation between international travel experience and positive beliefs about linguistic and cultural diversity and the
inclusion of ELLs.
There is a lack of research on gender effect on teacher beliefs, particularly about
the education of ELLs (Pettit, 2011). A few studies that addressed gender effect
pointed to a stronger female sensitivity to issues of multiculturalism and higher levels positive attitudes towards interacting with and helping ELLs (Byrnes et al.,
1997; Gitlin et al., 2003; Ottavi et al., 1994; Reeves, 2006; Youngs & Youngs,
2001). Hence, given the current conceptualizations of gender as a sociocultural construct that entails different power relations and socialization patterns for men and
women (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003; Norton & Toohey, 2004; Ochs, 1993;
Polat, 2009), an examination of gender effect on beliefs is also crucial.
Including ELLs in mainstream classrooms and supporting them with developmentally appropriate instruction could offer numerous linguistic, cultural, and academic benets (Faltis & Coulter, 2008; Ovando et al., 2003; Verplaetse, 2008;
Walker et al., 2004). Nevertheless, it is documented that having ELLs in mainstream classrooms generates a myriad of complexities because the interaction of
language, culture, content area, and socioeducational experiences can pose numerous tensions and learning opportunities (Commins & Miramontes, 2005; Crawford,
2004; Gutierrez et al., 2002). Based on current research we can, then, assume that
teachers beliefs about their responsibilities in mainstream classes may inuence
how they will help ELLs, affecting ELLs language development and academic
achievement (Freeman et al., 2008; Pettit, 2011).
Method
The current study addresses differences between female and male and pre- and inservice content area teachers beliefs about several issues related to the inclusion of
ELLs in content area classes, including the nature of IS for ELLs in mainstream
classes and responsibility for ELLs language development and academic achievement. The study also examines the role of several background factors including
exposure to diversity (international travel experience, interethnic and interracial lifestyle), exposure to ELLs (as classmates or teachers), number of ESL courses taken,
and number of foreign languages spoken in mediating differences in teacher beliefs.
Participants
In line with the research questions, a stratied random sampling technique (Warner,
2008) was utilized in participant selection. Initially, 117 pre-service and 121
64
in-service teachers in a large city in the Eastern USA had agreed to participate in
the study; however, most of these individuals completed only one or two of the
questionnaires, leaving only 195 participants who completed all three questionnaires
(82% response rate). These participants included 94 (48%) in-service teachers
(mean age: 36 years) and 101 (52%) pre-service (mean age: 21 years) content area
teachers. The in-service teachers (mean teaching experience: 4.3), who held teaching positions in 11 different school districts in the city, were pursuing an additional
teacher certication or a Masters degree in education, primarily early childhood or
secondary education. The pre-service content area teachers included juniors and
seniors pursuing various education majors at two different Eastern universities. Both
universities, one private and one public, have over 30 initial teacher certication
and Masters programs across many content and grade-levels and in numerous areas
of teacher education. Most participants self-reported as White nonHispanic (74%),
followed by Black nonHispanic (4%), Asian/Pacic Islander (1%), and Hispanic
(1%). Around 20% of participants either did not report or reported their ethnicity as
other. Because of the studys focus on the beliefs of content area teachers, certied in-service ESL teachers were excluded. Participants included more female than
male participants; 52 of the in-service teachers were female and 42 were male and
56 of the pre-service teachers were female and 45 were male.
Analyses of participants demographics revealed that the majority of both pre(n = 57) and in-service (n = 45) teachers specialized in early childhood (PK-4
grades), followed by middle level (47 grades) (pre-service = 17, in-service = 28).
Respectively, the other participants specialized in biology, math, and English language arts education (secondary: 712 grades). Nine pre-service and six in-service
teachers did not report their areas of study/teaching. Participants completed three
questionnaires during their regular education classes regarding their background,
responsibility for ELLs language development and academic achievement, and IS
to help ELLs education in mainstream classes (Lee & Luykx, 2006; Pettit, 2011;
Reeves, 2006). All three questionnaires were distributed to participants in groups of
7 to 23 on university premises.
Research questions
(1) Do pre- and in-service and male and female content area teachers differ in
their beliefs about the inclusion of ELLs in content area classes?
their beliefs about IS for ELLs in mainstream classes?
their beliefs about who should be responsible for ELLs language development and academic achievement?
(4) Do content area teachers beliefs about ELLs differ based on other personal
(exposure to linguistic and cultural diversity) or educational factors (number
of ESL courses taken and number of foreign languages spoken)?
Data collection and instrumentation
Three questionnaires were used in this study. The Background Information Questionnaire (BIQ) was partially based on Youngs (1999) and Youngs and Youngs
Teaching Education
65
(2001). In addition to eliciting gender, area of study or teaching, number of ESL

courses taken, and whether or not they spoke a foreign language, participants used
a Likert scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 4 (A lot) to rate their previous exposure
to diversity (international travel experience and interethnic lifestyle) as well as their
amount of contact with ELLs (as classmates or teachers).
Based on previous research (Commins & Miramontes, 2005; Lee & Luykx,
2006; Valdes, 2001; Yoon, 2008), the Beliefs about Responsibility for ELLs Questionnaire (BRQ) included six items regarding their feelings about the appropriate
allocation of responsibility for ELLs language development and academic achievement in mainstream classes. More specically, in response to the question Who do
you think is responsible for ELLs (1) language development and (2) academic
achievement? they reported Content area teachers are responsible for ELLs language development/academic development, ESL teachers are responsible for
ELLs language development/academic achievement, and ELLs are responsible
for their own language development/academic achievement.
The Beliefs about Instructional Support Questionnaire (BISQ) had two parts; the
rst part consisted of three items related to what the inclusion of ELLs might offer
both to the ELLs and their native-speaker peers in a mainstream classroom. These
items were developed or adapted based on previous surveys (Reeves, 2004; Youngs
& Youngs, 1999) and research (Gibbons, 2002; Gitlin et al., 2003; Harklau, 2000;
Nieto, 2005; Platt et al., 2003; Walker et al., 2004; Valdes, 2001). The second part
addressed participants beliefs about the proper nature of instruction in mainstream
classes for ELLs. This part comprised of 10 items about various types of IS for
ELLs, including ELLs should not be included in mainstream classrooms until they
have attained a minimum English prociency to ELLs should avoid using their
native language while in my classroom. Both questionnaires used a 7-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree or not important at all) to 7 (strongly agree
or very important). Questionnaire items are presented in Tables 14. For validity
and reliability purposes, the internal consistency of both the BRQ and BISQ were
measured, and both instruments were piloted twice before they were used in this
study. The pilot versions of the instruments were completed by two groups of 20
pre- and in-service teachers, and Cronbachs (1951) alpha analysis, a statistical
model that determines the internal consistency of items assumed to measure
the same construct (Stemler, 2004), was conducted. Then, the instruments were
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for service and gender effects on beliefs about inclusion.
Items
(1) The inclusion of ELLs in my content area classroom
creates a positive educational atmosphere
(2) The inclusion of ELLs in content area classrooms
benets all students
(3) I would welcome the inclusion of ELLs in my content
area class
Notes: G = Gender; S = Service; PreS = Pre-service; InS = In-service.
Scale: Completely disagree = 1; Completely agree = 7.
S
PreS
F
M
T
InS
F
M
T
Total F
M
T
M
5.50
4.59
5.10
5.02
4.75
4.90
5.27
4.67
5.00
SD
1.16
56
1.22
45
1.26 101
1.40
52
.918 42
1.21
94
1.30 108
1.08
87
1.24 195
66
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of signicant variables: service and gender effects on beliefs
about IS.
Items
IS2: ELLs should avoid using their native
language while in my classroom
SD
PreS
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
3.48
3.77
3.61
3.09
4.35
3.65
3.29
4.05
3.63
4.37
4.11
4.25
3.53
4.69
4.05
3.97
4.39
4.15
3.35
3.57
3.45
3.82
4.64
4.19
3.58
4.09
3.81
3.03
3.46
3.22
3.57
3.88
3.71
3.29
3.66
3.46
4.01
4.48
4.22
3.48
3.88
3.65
3.75
4.19
3.95
3.42
3.40
3.41
3.69
4.47
4.04
3.55
3.91
3.71
1.84
1.67
1.77
1.86
1.63
1.86
1.85
1.67
1.81
1.43
1.51
1.46
1.85
1.27
1.71
1.69
1.42
1.58
1.63
1.27
1.48
1.55
1.69
1.66
1.60
1.57
1.60
1.59
1.70
1.64
1.64
1.88
1.75
1.63
1.79
1.71
1.66
1.21
1.49
1.83
1.50
1.69
1.76
1.38
1.61
1.82
1.37
1.63
1.87
1.59
1.78
1.84
1.57
1.73
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
InS
Total
IS3: ELLs should be able to acquire English
within two years of enrolling in US schools
PreS
InS
Total
IS4: Content area teachers do not have

enough time to deal with the needs of ELL students
PreS
InS
Total
IS6: It is a good idea to assign less coursework to ELLs
PreS
InS
Total
IS9: The modication of coursework for ELLs

would be difcult to justify to English-speaking students
PreS
InS
Total
IS10: Until students have learned to speak English,

I shouldnt expect too much from them in my class
PreS
InS
Total
Notes: IS = Instructional Support; G = Gender; S = Service; PreS = Pre-service; InS = In-service.

Scale: Completely disagree = 1; Completely agree = 7.
Teaching Education
67
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for service and gender effects on beliefs about responsibility.
Items
Content area teachers are responsible
for ELLs language development
SD
PreS
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
5.00
5.28
5.12
4.40
4.64
4.51
4.71
4.97
4.83
5.25
4.86
5.07
5.71
5.66
5.69
5.47
5.25
5.37
5.22
5.23
5.22
5.32
4.47
4.94
5.27
4.86
5.09
5.41
5.31
5.36
4.86
4.00
4.47
5.14
4.67
4.93
5.50
5.13
5.33
5.17
4.88
5.04
5.34
5.01
5.19
5.23
5.02
5.13
5.36
5.11
5.25
5.29
5.06
5.19
1.51
1.42
1.47
1.48
1.72
1.59
1.52
1.59
1.55
1.45
1.57
1.51
1.16
1.22
1.18
1.33
1.46
1.39
1.36
1.40
1.37
1.51
1.62
1.61
1.43
1.55
1.49
1.55
1.37
1.47
1.60
1.72
1.70
1.59
1.68
1.64
1.62
1.50
1.57
1.60
1.23
1.45
1.61
1.37
1.52
1.41
1.48
1.44
1.71
1.34
1.55
1.56
1.41
1.49
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
InS
Total
ESL teachers are responsible for
ELLs language development
PreS
InS
Total
ELLs are responsible for their own

language development
PreS
InS
Total
Content area teachers are responsible

for ELLs academic achievement
PreS
InS
Total
ESL teachers are responsible for

ELLs academic achievement
PreS
InS
Total
ELLs are responsible for their own

academic achievement
PreS
InS
Total

Scale: Not responsible at all = 1; Very responsible = 7.
68
calibrated and the nal versions that yielded acceptable alpha levels (BRQ: = .83,
Item Range: = .74 = .82; BISQ: = .81, and Item Range: = .73 = .79) were
adopted for this study.
Analytic design
The research goals of this study are twofold: (1) examine differences in beliefs
between female and male and pre- and in-service teachers regarding several dependent variables and (2) determine if these differences are moderated by certain background factors. Accordingly, a 2 2 between-subjects factorial ANOVA and two
multivariate general linear models, specically multivariate analysis of variance and
covariance (MANOVA/MANCOVA), were employed in data analyses due to three
reasons: (1) multiple categorical and interval variables with various levels were
examined, (2) both main and interaction effects were measured, and (3) a control
procedure that would isolate the effect of covariates was needed to determine if the
obtained signicant differences and the magnitude of effects were independent of
the background factors. In the rst model (MANOVA), service, gender, and interaction effects on beliefs about inclusion, IS, and responsibility were measured,
whereas in the second model (MANCOVA) four covariates were added to determine if these service and gender effects on beliefs were mitigated by the covariates.
In both models, service and gender were dummy-coded as independent variables
and participants responses to the survey items were used as the dependent variables. Due to the multivariate nature of the design that involves several dependent
and independent variables, effect sizes have been reported as partial eta squared, a
rather conservative measure of practical signicance (Cohen, 1994). Due to space
limitations, descriptive ndings (Tables 14) are presented only for signicant
variables.
Results
Inclusion
To address the rst research question, summative measures of the participants
responses to the three belief items about ELLs inclusion in regular classes were
inserted into a 2 2 (ServiceGender) factorial ANOVA model as dependent variables with service and gender dummy categories as independent variables. No signicant main effect was obtained for service, F(1,191) = .881, p > .05. Table 1
shows that pre-service teachers beliefs about ELLs inclusion in content area classes were not signicantly different from those of in-service teachers. In other words,
both groups seemed to perceive the inclusion of ELLs as positively (M = 5.00, SD:
1.2) contributing to the educational atmosphere, beneting all students. Interestingly,
however, there was a signicant main effect for gender, F(1,191) = 11.56, p < .01,
partial 2 = .06. Female teachers had more positive beliefs about the inclusion of
ELLs in regular classes than the male teachers. No interaction effect between service and gender, F(1,191) = 3.33, p > .05, was obtained.
Instructional support
The means of the 10 items concerning IS for ELLs as dependent and dummy categories for service and gender as independent variables were entered into a MANOVA
Teaching Education
69
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for background factors.

Items
Exposure to diversity
SD
PreS
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
F
M
T
1.40
1.66
1.52
1.93
1.63
1.80
1.66
1.65
1.65
.84
.80
.82
1.40
1.42
1.41
1.11
1.10
1.11
1.10
.88
1.00
1.13
.97
1.06
1.12
.93
1.03
.16
.04
.10
.69
.66
.68
.41
.34
.38
.63
.64
.64
.62
.68
.66
.67
.65
.66
.57
.52
.54
.87
.86
.86
.78
.77
.77
.49
.38
.45
.62
.46
.56
.55
.42
.51
.41
.20
.34
.64
.61
.62
.59
.54
.57
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
56
45
101
52
42
94
108
87
195
InS
Total
Exposure to ELLs
PreS
InS
Total
Number of languages spoken
PreS
InS
Total
Number of ESL classes taken
PreS
InS
Total

Diversity Scale: A lot = 4; not at all = 0.
model. Results revealed four signicant main effects for service, three main effects
for gender, and one signicant interaction effect for service and gender regarding IS
for ELLs in mainstream classes, with the differences being moderate (Table 2).
A signicant main effect found for service was on beliefs about IS4, F(1,191)
= 11.79, p < .01, partial 2 = .06, indicating that in-service teachers believed more
strongly in the statement that Content area teachers do not have enough time to
deal with the needs of ELLs than the pre-service teachers. A second service-related
main effect was found for beliefs about IS6, F(1,191) = 3.80, p < .05, partial
2 = .02, showing that in-service teachers supported Assigning less coursework for
ELLs more strongly than the pre-service teachers. A third signicant main effect
of service was on beliefs about IS9, F(1,191) = 6.25, p < .01, partial 2 = .03. This
70
result revealed that pre-service teachers believed more strongly that The modication of coursework for ELLs would be difcult to justify to English-speaking students than the in-service teachers. The nal service-related main effect was found
on beliefs about IS10, i>(1191)=/i>(1191)=7.50, p < .01, partial 2 = .04, indicating
that in-service teachers believed more strongly that Until students have learned to
speak English, they shouldnt be expected to do much in regular classes than the
pre-service teachers.
Of the two gender effects, one was on beliefs about IS2, F(1,191) = 9.31,
p < .01, partial 2 = .05, indicating that males were more strongly against the use of
native language in regular classes than females. Another gender effect on beliefs
was obtained about IS4, F(1,191) = 5.38, p < .05, partial 2 = .03, which suggested
that males, more strongly than females, believed that teachers do not have enough
time to address the needs of ELLs in regular classes. The last gender effect was on
beliefs about IS3, F(1,191) = 3.98, p < .05, partial 2 = .02, suggesting that males,
more strongly than females, believed that ELLs should be able to learn English
within two years in US schools. Nevertheless, following the statistical rule of thumb
the interaction overrides the main effect (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991, p. 197), this
result has to be interpreted with caution, since the service seems to be moderating
the gender effect for this item F(1,191) = 10.11, p < .01, partial 2 = .05. Hence, this
result suggests that male in-service teachers appear to agree more than both female
in-service teachers and male and female pre-service teachers that ELLs should be
able to learn English within two years in US schools.
Responsibility for ELLs education
Participants means for the three items about responsibility for ELLs language
development and for the three items about ELLs academic achievement as dependent variables, and the dummy categories for service and gender as independent
variables, were entered into a MANOVA model. With the signicance levels being
moderate, three main effects were found for service; two were about responsibility
for ELLs language and one was about ELLs academic achievement. Also, one
main effect for gender and one interaction effect for service and gender were found
in regard to ELLs language development (Table 3).
Regarding participants reported beliefs in response to the prompt State who
you think is responsible for ELLs language development, results revealed two signicant main effects for service. Findings suggested that pre-service teachers more
strongly held content area teachers responsible for ELLs language development
than in-service teachers, F(1,191) = 7.85, p < .01, partial 2 = .04. In contrast, ndings indicated that in-service teachers, more strongly than the pre-service teachers,
believed that ESL teachers are responsible for ELLs language development,
F(1,191) = 10.28, p < .01, partial 2 = .05. Concerning beliefs about responsibility for
ELLs academic achievement, results suggested that pre-service teachers, more
strongly than in-service teachers, held content area teachers responsible, F(1,191)
= 11.47, p < .01, partial 2 = .06.
A gender effect was obtained for the statement that ELLs are responsible for
their own language development, suggesting that females held ELLs responsible
for their own language development more strongly than males. Yet, an interaction
effect was also found, indicating that the gender effect on beliefs was moderated by
service, F(1,191) = 4.10, p < .05, partial 2 = .02. Therefore, since interaction effects
Teaching Education
71
supersede main effects (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991), this result suggests that male
in-service teachers appeared to hold ELLs signicantly less accountable for their
language development than both female in-service teachers and male and female
pre-service teachers.
Background factors
Instructional support for ELLs
The next sets of analyses aimed to determine if these service and gender effects
were moderated by certain background factors. Therefore, after controlling for the
four background factors (exposure to diversity, exposure to ELLs, number of ESL
courses taken, and number of foreign languages spoken), possible changes in service and gender effects on beliefs were explored. A MANCOVA was run with participants means on the 10 items (IS) serving as the dependent variables, service
and gender as independent variables, and the background factors as covariates
(Table 4).
The MANCOVA results suggested that the effect of service on variation in
beliefs still remained signicant for IS4 F(1,191) = 12.82, p < .01, partial 2 = .06,
IS6 F(1,191) = 8.60, p < .01, partial 2 = .04, and IS10 F(1,191) = 10.32, p < .01, partial 2 = .05, even after controlling for the background factors. Nevertheless, after
the variation due to the background factors was removed, the effect of service on
IS9 became nonsignicant, F(1,191) = 2.16, p < .05, suggesting that these background factors might have mediated the effect of service on participants beliefs
about justifying the modication of coursework for ELLs to English-speaking students. In fact, results indicated that the signicant covariate that mediated this effect
was exposure to linguistic and cultural diversity F(1,191) = 6.75, p < .01, partial
2 = .04.
As for the mediation of the background factors in gender effects on beliefs,
MANCOVA results revealed that the signicant gender effect on differences in
beliefs concerning IS2 F(1,191) = 9.99, p < .01, partial 2 = .05, IS3 F(1,191) = 5.30,
p < .05, partial 2 = .03, and IS4, F(1,191) = 5.32, p < .05, partial 2 = .03, as well as
the interaction effect for gender and service on beliefs about IS3, F(1,191) = 10.69,
p < .01, partial 2 = .05, remained unchanged with a few slight to moderate changes
in effect sizes. Nonetheless, note that although MANOVA results yielded no signicant gender effect on other beliefs about IS for ELLs, once the variation due to the
background factors was removed, the effect of gender IS5 F(1,191) = 3.88, p < .05,
partial 2 = .02, became signicant. Regarding the gender effect on beliefs about
IS5, results revealed that the signicant covariate that seemed to mediate this effect
was exposure to diversity F(1,191) = 4.51, p < .05, partial 2 = .02.
Finally, MANCOVA results revealed that after controlling for these background
factors, three interaction effects between gender and service on beliefs became signicant: IS2, F(1,191) = 5.61, p < .05, partial 2 = .03, IS3, F(1,191) = 10.6, p < .01,
partial 2 = .05, and IS5, F(1,191) = 4.52, p < .05, partial 2 = .02. These results indicate that the effect of service and gender on beliefs might have been mediated by
some of these background factors. Hence, regarding IS2 and IS3, after controlling
for the effect of the covariates, Table 4 demonstrates that male in-service teachers
seemed to oppose the use of native language in regular classes and agreed with the
statement that ELLs should be able to acquire English within two years of enroll-
72
ing in US schools more strongly than both female in-service teachers and male
and female pre-service teachers. Similarly, concerning IS5, results suggest that male
in-service teachers seemed to hold stronger beliefs about It is a good idea to simplify coursework for ELLs than both female in-service teachers and male and
female pre-service teachers.
Responsibility for ELLs education
To address service and gender effects on beliefs about responsibility for ELLs education after controlling for the background factors (Table 4), participants means of
the six responsibility items serving as the dependent variable, service and gender as
independent variables, and the four background factors as covariates were entered
into a MANCOVA model. Results revealed that, notwithstanding a few slight to
moderate changes in effect sizes, the effect of service on the variance in beliefs
about responsibility for ELLs language development and academic achievement
still remained signicant for Content area teachers are responsible for ELLs language development, F(1,191) = 7.83, p < .01, partial 2 = .04, ESL teachers are
responsible for ELLs language development, F(1,191) = 4.49, p < .05, partial
2 = .02, and Content area teachers are responsible for ELLs academic achievement, F(1,191) = 12.99, p < .01, partial 2 = .07, even after controlling for the
background factors. These results suggest that the differences between pre- and inservice teachers beliefs about these items were independent of the background
factors. As for gender, results revealed that the signicant gender effect on variance
in beliefs regarding ELLs are responsible for their own language development
still remained unchanged, F(1,191) = 3.74, p < .05, partial 2 = .02, even after the
variation due to the removal of covariates. Yet, after controlling for the variation
due to the covariates, a signicant gender effect on beliefs was obtained for
Content area teachers are responsible for ELLs academic achievement, F(1,191)
= 5.60, p < .05, partial 2 = .03, indicating that the effect of background factors was
mediated by gender.
Finally, the MANCOVA results suggested some interesting interactions between
service and gender after adjusting for the effect of the covariates. Results revealed
that regarding ELLs are responsible for their own language development, the
interaction effect still remained signicant, F(1,191) = 3.91, p < .05, partial 2 = .02,
with a slight decrease in the effect size even after controlling for the effect of these
covariates. Nevertheless, the removal of variation due to these covariates seemed to
mediate a slight but signicant interaction effect between service and gender on
beliefs about Content area teachers are responsible for ELLs academic achievement, F(1,191) = 3.84, p < .05, partial 2 = .02, suggesting that male in-service
teachers appeared to hold content area teachers less accountable for ELLs academic
achievement than both female in-service teachers and male and female pre-service
teachers. Note that the multivariate nature of the design makes it impossible to
determine the adjustment of which background factor(s) mediated which interactions for which language and academic responsibility variables.
Discussion
Obtained signicant values in inferential statistics are affected by several factors.
Therefore, in order to put the ndings of this study in perspective and interpret
Teaching Education
73
them more accurately in light of current research, effect size measures (estimates of
the magnitude of effects) have been reported as partial eta squared, a rather conservative measure that is resistant to the inuence of sample size (Cohen, 1994).
Although there is no consensus on what effect size indices and level constitute practical signicance of a result, as commonly used in educational research, a partial eta
squared of .02 is considered small whereas a .04 is considered moderate, and a .06
is considered a strong effect size (Cohen, 1988). Note that the effect sizes, the practical signicance of the results in this study, varied from small (.02) to strong (.07).
Results of this study have revealed several signicant differences in participants
beliefs about responsibility for ELLs language development and academic achievement; however, both service and gender groups appear to hold similarly favorable
beliefs about ELLs inclusion in mainstream classes. Findings have also suggested
that some beliefs of female teachers about IS for ELLs are signicantly different
from those of males. Nevertheless, some differences in the beliefs of pre- and inservice and female and male teachers about responsibility and IS for ELLs education seem to be contingent upon certain background factors. Although these results
can be unique to the particulars of the setting of this study, they may offer some
generalizability potential in indicating service and gender effects on differences in
teachers beliefs about the education of diverse learners. While situating this study
within the existing research, its results should be interpreted with an important
caveat, because most previous studies of this kind were qualitative with small samples, with few exceptions (e.g. Reeves, 2006; Youngs & Youngs, 2001), and examined only pre- or in-service teacher beliefs, but not both.
Service effect on beliefs about inclusion, responsibility, and IS
The pre- and in-service teachers in this study seemed to hold similar beliefs about
the inclusion of ELLs in content area classes, with the reported beliefs of both
groups averaging slightly positive and welcoming. A few previous quantitative
studies explored beliefs, only those of in-service teachers, about inclusion, using
single-item analyses (Reeves, 2006; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). In this study, however, participants scores regarding inclusion were summative measures of three
items (Table 1) based on Reeves (2006) scale (Items 1, 2, and 3). Hence, although
an item-to-item comparison of this result with the ndings of previous studies
(Reeves, 2006; Youngs & Youngs, 2001) is not possible, a comparison of the
summative measures used in this study to the results of these two studies is still
possible, especially since this studys results suggest no signicant difference
between pre- and in-service teacher beliefs about inclusion. Like participants in
Reeves (2006) and Youngs and Youngs (2001) studies, participants in this study,
regardless of their service status, also reported slightly positive beliefs toward the
inclusion of ELLs in content area classes.
As for the IS for ELLs, pre- and in-service teachers reported to believe (slightly
positive) that ELLs should be included in mainstream classes; however, they disagreed regarding the nature and kind of IS for ELLs in such classes. More specically, for example, in-service teachers reported stronger beliefs than the pre-service
teachers, indicating that content area teachers do not have enough time to deal with
the needs of ELLs in mainstream classes, that ELLs should be assigned less coursework, and that ELLs should not be expected to do much in regular classes until
they have learned to speak English. In contrast, results revealed that pre-service
74
teachers agreed more strongly with the statement that the modication of coursework for ELLs would be difcult to justify to English-speaking students than the
in-service teachers (Table 2: IS4, IS6, IS10, IS9).
Several reasons could explain these differences between pre- and in-service teacher beliefs, despite their similar beliefs about ELLs inclusion in content area classes. These differences in beliefs could be triggered by the fact that in-service
teachers have more rsthand experience regarding time constraints (Gitlin et al.,
2003; Reeves, 2006), extra work (Youngs & Youngs, 2001), and pedagogical readiness required to support ELLs in mainstream classes (Verplaetse, 1998). In fact,
given the previous research on in-service teachers concerns about the adaptations
and modications needed to help ELLs in mainstream classes (Gibbons, 2002; Pettit, 2011), these results are not surprising. It could, as well, be because pre-service
teachers lack classroom experience and are, therefore, unrealistically optimistic
(Weinstein, 1988), and/or pre-service teachers envision teaching ELLs as a mechanical transfer of information (Richardson, 2003).
Regarding responsibility for ELLs language development and academic
achievement in mainstream classes, ndings revealed signicant differences between
pre- and in-service teachers beliefs. While pre-service teachers, more strongly than
in-service teachers, held content area teachers responsible, in-service teachers held
ESL teachers responsible for ELLs language development more strongly than preservice teachers. These results are not unexpected, because previous research has
provided some evidence that some in-service teachers tend to refrain from the
responsibility to modify their teaching for diverse learners (Bryan & Atwater, 2002;
Commins & Miramontes, 2005; Lee & Luykx, 2006; Valdes, 2001; Yoon, 2008).
The implications of these results for ELLs education are of great importance since,
unfortunately, ESL pullout programs are still the most common option for ELLs in
K-12 settings in the USA (Crawford, 2004; Freeman et al., 2008), and as a result,
most ELLs spend most of their school day with content area teachers (Harper & de
Jong, 2004). In fact, some researchers have presented academic language prociency as a prerequisite to content area learning (Collier, 1989; Cummins & Corson,
1997; Verplaetse, 2008). As for responsibility for ELLs academic achievement,
quite interestingly, pre-service teachers, more strongly than in-service teachers, held
content area teachers accountable. It could be due to pre-service teachers lack of
classroom experience (Weinstein, 1988) or observation opportunities with cooperating teachers who have ELLs in their classrooms. It could also be due to in-service
teachers lack of readiness for ELLs education (Valdes, 2001). Given the increasing
legal demands in the USA, it is also possible that in-service teachers hold such
beliefs as a defense mechanism because they do not want ELLs lack of achievement to affect their annual performance appraisals.
Our background factor analyses revealed that the effect of service on variation
in beliefs still remained signicant for IS4, IS6, and IS10, even after controlling for
these factors. Nevertheless, after controlling for these covariates, differences
between pre- and in-service teachers beliefs about justifying the modications for
ELLs to English-speaking students (IS9) seemed to be mediated by exposure to
linguistic and cultural diversity and the number of foreign languages participants
spoke. This could indicate that the foreign language learning experience (Peacock,
2001) and a high degree of exposure to diversity might lead to the construction of
more favorable beliefs about modifying instruction for ELLs (Barrows et al., 1981;
Gibbons, 2002; Reeves, 2004).
Teaching Education
75
Gender effect on beliefs about inclusion, responsibility, and IS

In addition, regarding the inclusion of ELLs in mainstream classrooms, results suggested that the beliefs of female teachers were signicantly more positive than those
of males. While this result corroborates previous research on the notion of female
sensitivity to issues related to multiculturalism (Byrnes et al., 1997; Ottavi et al.,
1994; Weiler, 1991; Youngs & Youngs, 2001), the question begs for more explanations as to why the female teachers would, more strongly than the male ones,
believe that the inclusion of ELLs creates a positive educational atmosphere and
benets all students. In light of postcolonial feminist theory, one can argue that
female teachers have constructed different forms of belief systems because historically, women have been subjected to different life conditions, including varying
degrees of insubordination and unequal power relations in social life and educational contexts (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Mohanty, 1988). The situation of ELLs
in the US context, particularly the growing achievement gap, is somewhat indicative
of a similar trend of marginalization, assimilation, and negligence (Nieto, 2005;
Yoon, 2008). Thus, it is possible that female teachers hold more favorable beliefs
about ELLs because they are more sensitive to differences (Weiler, 1991, p. 463),
can relate to their situations, and interpret these belief statements as advocacy
opportunities for ELLs education.
As for IS, results suggested that males, more strongly than females, reported that
they were opposed to the use of the native language in regular classes and believed
that teachers do not have enough time to address the needs of ELLs in regular classes (Table 2: IS2, IS4). These results are in line with previous research that found
gender to be somewhat associated with in-service teachers beliefs about, and attitudes towards, ELLs in mainstream classes (Byrnes et al., 1997; Gitlin et al., 2003;
Ottavi et al., 1994; Reeves, 2006; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). While these studies
did not explain why one could speculate that female teachers in this study, more
strongly than male ones, disagreed with the belief statement that mainstream teachers do not have enough time to help ELLs in regular classes because they identied the diversity elements with the understanding that with diversity comes need
for differentiated instruction. It could also be that they interpreted the statement as a
social justice issue, demonstrating feminist activism against otherness and local
structures of domination (Grewal & Kaplan, 1994, p. 17; Kubota, 2001).
Note that an interaction effect was also found, revealing that male in-service
teachers appeared to agree more strongly that ELLs should be able to learn English
within two years in US schools than both female in-service teachers and male and
female pre-service teachers, showing higher expectations. This interaction seemed
to conrm previous research regarding in-service and female teacher beliefs about
ELLs (Gibbons, 2002; Gitlin et al., 2003; Verplaetse, 1998; Youngs & Youngs,
2001). In other words, based on these results we could speculate that in-service
teachers experience with ELLs in mainstream classes generates concerns about lack
of time and readiness and extra work in helping ELLs. The question is why would
these concerns be further aggravated for males, compared to females? Indeed, it is
difcult and dangerous to make speculations about interaction effects, especially
when gender is one of the variables. In our case, it is even harder because gender
has only been a subject of incidental examination in previous beliefs research and
gendered roles, identities, power relations, and interactional patterns cannot be separated from belief systems (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003; Norton & Toohey,
76
2004; Ochs, 1993; Polat, 2009); it is more possible that such discrepancies occurred
due to the interaction of multiple variables that are latently intertwined. For example, if men are not as sensitive as women towards differences, why would male inservice teachers be even less sensitive? Considering sources of beliefs (Richardson,
2003), we could attribute this difference to male in-service teachers experience
with ELLs. Female pre-service teachers had the most favorable beliefs (M = 4.37/7)
towards this belief, which could be attributed to their lack of experience with ELLs
and their knowledge about SLA (Barcelos, 2003).
Findings also revealed that the removal of effects due to the background factors
led to several main and interaction effects. Taken together, these results might
reect the similar ndings in previous research concerning the role of background
factors in variance in teacher beliefs (Byrnes et al., 1997; Reeves, 2004; Youngs &
Youngs, 2001). These ndings are of vital importance because exposure to ELLs
and the number of languages spoken seemed to signicantly mediate differences in
female and male teacher beliefs about the minimum language prociency requirement for ELLs inclusion in mainstream classes. Furthermore, exposure to linguistic
and cultural diversity seemed to be associated with the differences in beliefs of
males and females about simplifying coursework for ELLs. This is an interesting
nding. Why would the differences between female and male teachers beliefs
about modifying class work for ELLs be signicantly related to exposure to linguistic and cultural diversity? Is it possible that since men and women may demonstrate
different socialization patterns, they may also utilize exposure opportunities differently? Once again, it is possible that female teachers more strongly favored instructional modications for ELLs because, in line with Weilers (1991) and others
(Luke & Gore, 1992) arguments on the intersection of critical pedagogy and feminism, female teachers holding more critical pedagogy-oriented beliefs about ELLs
education can be interpreted as an act of advocacy in the face of the dominant
group that may purposefully refrain from acknowledging the existence of
otherness because, by implication, acknowledging need requires differentiated
instruction.
The differences between pre- and in-service teachers beliefs about responsibility
for ELLs education seemed to be independent of background factors. Results imply
that claiming responsibility for ELLs language development and academic achievement seems to be related to participants teaching experience and not particularly to
their international travel experience, exposure to multicultural lifestyle, or even
second language learning experience. This could reinforce the ndings concerning
pre-service teachers lack of classroom experience with ELLs (Richardson, 2003;
Weinstein, 1988) and/or in-service teachers lack of readiness and competence
(Bryan & Atwater, 2002; Polat, 2010; Valdes, 2001) in helping ELLs in content
area classes. Furthermore, these results corroborate the ndings of Yoon (2008),
which emphasized that mainstream teachers need to be prepared to help ELLs
whose identities and participation patterns can be affected by the nature of instructional practices.
Nonetheless, quite interestingly, these background factors seemed to interfere
with the effect of gender on beliefs about responsibility for ELLs academic
achievement. In other words, male in-service teachers appeared to hold content area
teachers less accountable for ELLs academic achievement than both female in-service teachers and male and female pre-service teachers. Based on previous research,
we could speculate that, by experience, in-service teachers know that accepting
Teaching Education
77
responsibility for ELLs academic achievement has professional accountability and

possibly legal consequences (Gitlin et al., 2003; Reeves, 2006). Thus, it is convenient to blame ELLs and ESL teachers for the achievement gap. Yet, why is there a
signicant difference for the male in-service teachers? It is also possible that female
teachers took this statement as an opportunity to challenge the current status of
power relations that obscures, on one hand, gender inequality and, on the other
hand, social injustice and disparity in ELLs education (Nieto, 2005). Such differences could have also occurred due to gendered socialization patterns during exposure to multicultural interactions (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003; Norton &
Toohey, 2004; Ochs, 1993; Polat, 2009). In addition, similar to the women in Frankenbergs (1993) study who purposefully avoided making references to race, ethnicity, and other forms of diversity, these female teachers may have wanted to
potentially avoid becoming complicit in the diversity-blind status quo (Larson &
Ovando, 2001) that implicitly denies the implications of linguistic and cultural
diversity and subsequent social inequalities in public education for ELLs. Finally, it
could be indicative of a self-assigned feminist critical pedagogue role to advocate
for access to just and equitable education for a marginalized population (Luke &
Gore, 1992).
Implication
The implications of this study concern both pre- and in-service teachers. First, inservice teachers in this study seem to hold certain beliefs that can be detrimental
to ELLs language development and academic achievement. They, more strongly
than the pre-service teachers, believe that they do not have enough time to help
ELLs, that ELLs can be given less coursework, and that ELLs should not be
expected to do much in regular classes until attaining a high prociency level in
English. These beliefs may lead to lack of instructional modications and denial
of access to equitable and rigorous education. Therefore, well-structured PD efforts
(Darling-Hammond & Branson, 2005) that target biased beliefs, teach against the
grain (Cochran-Smith, 2004, p. xii), and engage teachers in deep self-reections
about diversity (Gay, 2010) need be designed for all teachers so that they will provide developmentally appropriate IS for diverse learners in mainstream classes.
Given current research on change in teacher beliefs (Pajares, 1992; Peacock, 2001;
Polat, 2011), in addition to institution-wide diversity enrichment efforts in PD, a
more in-depth mandatory ESL course would not only help in-service teachers
internalize better the principles of equitable and just education for all students
(Nieto, 2005) but also immerse them in basic ESL competencies ranging from
SLA research to methods of helping ELLs in mainstream classrooms and L2
assessment.
Second, pre-service teachers beliefs about responsibility for ELLs language
development and academic achievement appeared to be more in line with current
trends in foreign/second language education. For example, pre-service teachers in
this study, more strongly than the in-service teachers, held content area teachers
responsible for both language development and academic achievement of ELLs
because they spend most of the school day with ELLs. In contrast, in-service
teachers, more strongly than the pre-service teachers, reported to believe that ESL
teachers are responsible for ELLs language development. Hence, in-service teachers seem to believe that they do not have time to help ELLs, and that ELLs
78
language development is the ESL teachers responsibility, not theirs. Therefore,

states continuing education credits and PD requirements for in-service teachers
should also include the kind of education that would specically target such beliefs.
In addition, results also reveal that some personal and educational background
factors, particularly gender and exposure to ELLs and linguistic and cultural diversity, moderated some of the variance in participants beliefs about IS and responsibility for ELLs education. Therefore, pre-service content area teacher education
programs should incorporate eld experiences in classrooms with ELLs and studyabroad opportunities that enhance exposure to diversity. Given the gender effects
found in this study and others, potential differences between male and female teachers also need serious consideration in teacher education. Indeed, ndings of this
study suggest that teachers pedagogical belief systems about ELLs are rooted in
gendered professional identities, and, by implication, sites of educational practice
with additional layers of diversity are imbued with continued acts of linguistic, cultural, and ethnic othering (Luke, 2004), which might explain some portion of the
achievement gap between ELLs and native-speaking students in the USA (Nieto,
2005). As described in intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1991), when the numbers
of social categories of value attributes (potential sources of oppression) interact, the
dynamics and distribution of power relations can work to the advantage or disadvantage of one group at very high rates and costs (Mohanty, 1988). Thus, in preparing teachers and conducting PD activities, teacher education programs and school
districts should be aware that ELLs may suffer from multiple forms of otherness
such as linguistic (e.g. their funny accent) and ethnic stereotypes and insubordination (Kubota, 2001). Finally, these results imply that differences in belief systems
between female and male teachers demand a re-evaluation of all elements of educational planning, policy, and practice in teacher preparation. Otherwise, the new generation may be subjected to gender-biased and difference-blind educational policies
and practices anchored in the value systems of the patriarchal hegemony.
Limitations and future research
In light of current debates on essentialism, representation, cultural relativism, generalizability, and intersectionality in educational research and gender studies, we caution
the readers to consider the situatedness and multivariate interactions of potential
intervening variables within the US context as they interpret our ndings. Despite
careful efforts to minimize the effect of possible intervening factors in the research
design, some limitations may still restrict the generalizability of the study ndings.
One limitation of this study relates to the question of sampling. The pre-service
teachers in this study came from several different teacher education programs housed
in one institution, and the in-service teachers were pursuing additional formal training; hence, they may not be representative of all pre- and in-service teachers in other
settings. Moreover, the majority of participants were from early childhood education;
therefore, the ndings of this study may be less generalizable to content area teachers
of other grade levels. Furthermore, as is often the case in quantitative studies, the
desirability effect, the tendency to provide the socially favored response, may have
also affected the data. Relatedly, the survey items were piloted and modied several
times for clarity, and the instruments reliability was measured; however, by nature,
in such studies, the preset items force participants to overreport certain responses.
Therefore, results should be interpreted with caution (Barcelos, 2003).
Teaching Education
79
Future studies should, therefore, expand the number of participants via a

stratied random sample to include equal numbers of teachers from different
grade levels and content areas to explore if, for instance, being a secondary teacher or a math vs. a social studies teacher has an effect on teacher beliefs
about ELLs in mainstream classes. Future research should also address what
particular service and gender-related factors produce such differences in teacher
beliefs and what such differences might mean for teacher education, using interpretative longitudinal designs. For example, researchers may study why in-service content area teachers do not claim responsibility for ELLs language
development and academic achievement. They may also look at if school
administrations acknowledge content area teachers responsibility for ELLs
achievement and ask the teachers to allot time for them when assigning workload and duties. Similarly, triangulating the results with interpretive approaches,
future research should also investigate why, for instance, pre-service teachers
hold content area teachers responsible for ELLs language development and academic achievement as well as how they come to construct such beliefs about
ELLs education.
Conclusion
Research on teacher beliefs about ELLs in content area classes is still meager. Even
more markedly rare are fairly large-scale studies that examine differences between
pre- and in-service and female and male teachers beliefs about numerous aspects
related to ELLs education. The ndings of this study reveal signicant main and
interaction effects for service and gender on participants beliefs about inclusion,
responsibility, and IS to enhance ELLs language development and academic
achievement in mainstream classes. However, results also suggest that the effects of
service and gender on some beliefs seem to be contingent upon certain personal
background and educational factors. By nature of the research design, this kind of
research offers a great deal of potential to encompass the big picture by bringing
together the results and implications of the multivariate examination of the beliefs
of teachers who are currently in the classroom and of those who are getting ready
for such classrooms with exponentially growing numbers of ELLs. Given the fact
that most ELLs spend most of their instructional day with mainstream teachers
(Crawford, 2004; Freeman et al., 2008; Harper & de Jong, 2004), preparing both
pre- and in-service content area teachers to support ELLs basic and academic language development, sociocultural integration, and academic achievement is warranted. More research is needed, however, as to why such differences in beliefs
exist and what subsequent changes should be implemented in pre-service teacher
education programs.
References
Allen, V.G. (1991). Teaching bilingual and ESL children. In J. Flood, J.M. Jensen, D. Lapp,
& J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook on research on teaching the English language arts (pp.
356364). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Barcelos, A.M.F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In P. Kalaja &
A.M.F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 733). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
80
Barrows, T.S., Ager, S.M., Bennett, M.F., Braun, H.I., Clark, J.L.D., Harris, L.G., & Klein,
S.F. (1981). College students knowledge and beliefs: A survey of global understanding.
New Rochelle, NY: Change Magazine Press.
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers stated beliefs about incidental
focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25, 243272.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language teaching, 36, 81109.
Brand, B.R., & Glasson, G.E. (2004). Crossing cultural borders into science teaching: Early
life experiences, racial and ethnic identities, and beliefs about diversity. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 41, 119141.
Brown, E.L. (2004). The relationship of self-concept to changes in cultural diversity awareness: Implications for urban teacher educators. Urban Education, 36, 119145.
Bryan, L.A., & Atwater, M.M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for
science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86, 821839.
Burns, A. (1992). Teacher beliefs and their inuence on classroom practices. Prospect, 7,
5666.
Byrnes, D.A., Kiger, G., & Manning, M.L. (1997). Teachers attitudes about language diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 637644.
Clair, N. (1995). Mainstream classroom teachers and ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 29,
189196.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher
education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1994). The Earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 9971003.
Collier, V.P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 509531.
Commins, L.N., & Miramontes, O.B. (2005). Linguistic diversity and teaching. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom. Los
Angeles, CA: Bilingual Education Services.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 12411279.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefcient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16, 297334.
Cummins, J., & Corson, D. (1997). Bilingual education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academics.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Branson, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing
world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York: New
York University Press.
Dolly, M. (2007). Constructing differences: A qualitative analysis of teachers perspectives
on linguistic and cultural diversity. Linguistics and Education, 18, 142166.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Faltis, C.J., & Coulter, C.A. (2008). Teaching English learners and immigrant students in
secondary schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Faltis, C., & Hudelson, S. (1994). Learning English as an additional language in K-12
schools. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 457468.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational
Research, 38, 4765.
Farrell, T.S.C., & Kun, S.T.K. (2008). Language policy, language teachers beliefs, and
classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 29, 381403.
Flores, B.B., & Smith, H.L. (2008). Teachers characteristics and attitudinal beliefs about linguistic and cultural diversity. Bilingual Research Journal, 31(12), 135.
Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Teaching Education
81
Freeman, Y.S., Freeman, D.E., & Ramirez, R. (2008). Diverse learners in the mainstream
classroom: Strategies for supporting ALL students across content areas: English language learners, students with disabilities, gifted/talented students. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Freire, P. (2009). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Garcia, E.E. (1988). Attributes of effective schools for language minority students. Urban
Education Review, 2, 387398.
Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 6, 143152.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language
learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Grewal, I., & Kaplan, C. (Eds.). (1994). Scattered hegemonies. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Gitlin, A., Buendia, E., Crosland, K., & Doumbia, F. (2003). The production of margin and
center: Welcoming-unwelcoming of immigrant students. American Educational Research
Journal, 40, 91122.
Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gutierrez, K.D., Asato, J., Pacheco, M., Moll, L.C., Olson, K., Horng, E.L., McCarty, T.L.
(2002). Sounding American: The consequences of new reforms on ELLs. Reading
Research Quarterly, 37, 328343.
Harklau, L. (2000). From the good kids to the worst: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 3567.
Harper, J., & de Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English language learners.
Journal of Adolescence and Adult Literacy, 48, 152162.
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied
linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Horwitz, E.K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign
language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 283294.
Jennings, T. (2007). Addressing diversity in U.S. teacher preparation programs: A survey of
elementary and secondary programs, priorities, and challenges from across the U.S. of
America. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 12581271.
Johnson, K.E. (1992). The relationship between teachers beliefs and practices during literacy
instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 83108.
Joram, E., & Gabriele, A. (1998). Preservice teachers prior beliefs: Transforming obstacles
into opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2, 175191.
Karabenick, S.A., & Noda, P.A.C. (2004). Professional development implications for teachers beliefs and attitudes toward English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal,
28, 5576.
Kubota, R. (2001). Discursive construction of the images of U.S. classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 938.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2005). Reading, writing, and race: Literacy practices of teachers in
diverse classrooms. In T.L. McCarty (Ed.), Language, literacy, and power in schooling
(pp. 133150). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Larson, C.L., & Ovando, C.J. (2001). The color of bureaucracy: The politics of equity in
multicultural school communities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2006). Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and
research agenda. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Luke, C., & Gore, J. (Eds.). (1992). Introduction. Feminisms and critical pedagogy. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Luke, A. (2004). Two takes on the critical. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 2129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mohanty, C.T. (1988). Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses.
Feminist Review, 30, 6188.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice teaching. Curriculum Studies, 19, 317328.
82
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (Eds.). (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nieto, S. (Ed.). (2005). Why we teach. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. Research
on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 287306.
Ottavi, T.M., Pope-Davis, D.B., & Dings, J.G. (1994). Relationship between white racial
identity attitudes and self-reported multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 41, 149154.
Ovando, C.J., Collier, V.P., Combs, M.C., & Cummins, J. (2003). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 3, 307332.
Peacock, M. (2001). Preservice ESL teachers beliefs about second language learning: A longitudinal study. System, 29, 177195.
Pettit, S.K. (2011). Teachers beliefs about English Language Learners in mainstream classrooms: A Review of the literature. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5, 123147.
Platt, E., Harper, C., & Mendoza, M.B. (2003). Dueling philosophies: Inclusion or separation
for Floridas ELLs. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 105133.
Polat, N. (2009). Matches in beliefs between teachers and students, and success in L2 attainment: The Georgian example. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 229249.
Polat, N. (2010). A comparative analysis of pre-and in-service teacher beliefs about readiness
and self-competency: Revisiting teacher education for ELLs. System, 38, 228244.
Polat, N. (2011). Pedagogical treatment and change in preservice teacher beliefs: An experimental study. International Journal of Educational Research, 49, 195209.
Raths, J. (2001). Teachers beliefs and teaching beliefs. Early Childhood Research & Practice,
3(1), 111.
Reeves, J. (2004). Like everybody else: Equalizing educational opportunity for English
language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 4366.
Reeves, J. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English language learners in
mainstream classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 131142.
Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers beliefs. In J. Rath & A.C. McAninch (Eds.),
Advances in teacher education series 6 (pp. 122). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Rumberger, R.W., & Gndara, P. (2005). Seeking equity in the education of Californias
English learners. Teachers College Record, 106, 20322056.
Schecter, S.R., & Cummins, J. (Eds.). (2003). Multilingual education in practice: Using
diversity as a resource. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Skelton, C., Francis, B., & Smulyan, L. (Eds.). (2006). The SAGE handbook of gender and
education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stemler, S.E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to
estimating inter-rater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 9(4), 119.
Stipek, D., Givvin, K.B., Salmon, J.M., & MacGyvers, V.L. (2001). Teachers beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213226.
Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it their own: Preservice teachers experiences,
beliefs, and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 113121.
Tllez, K., & Waxman, H. (Eds.). (2006). Preparing quality educators for English language
learners: Research, policy, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2011). The growing numbers of English learner students: 1998/99-2008/09. Available: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/
les/uploads/9/growingLEP_0809.pdf.
Valdes, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Verplaetse, L.S. (1998). How content teachers interact with English language learners.
TESOL Journal, 7, 2428.
Verplaetse, L.S. (2008). Developing academic language through an abundance of interaction.
In L.S. Verplaetse & N. Migliacci (Eds.), Inclusive pedagogy for English language
learners: A handbook of research-informed practices (pp. 167180). New York, NY:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Teaching Education
83
Walker, A., Shafer, J., & Iiams, M. (2004). Not in my classroom: Teacher attitudes
towards English language learners in the mainstream classroom. Journal of Research
and Practice, 2, 130160.
Walqui, A. (2000). Access and engagement: Program design and instructional approaches for
immigrant students in secondary schools. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Warner, R.M. (2008). Applied statistics: From bivariate to multivariate techniques. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Waxman, H.C., & Padrn, Y.N. (2002). Research-based teaching practices that improve the
education of English language learners. In L. Minaya-Rowe (Ed.), Teacher training and
effective pedagogy in the context of student diversity (pp. 338). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Weiler, K. (1991). Freire and a feminist pedagogy of difference. Harvard Educational
Review, 61, 449474.
Weinstein, C. (1988). Preservice teachers expectation about the rst year of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 3141.
Yoon, B. (2008). Uninvited guests: The inuence of teachers roles and pedagogies on the
positioning of English language learners in regular classrooms. American Educational
Research Journal, 45, 495522.
Youngs, C.S. (1999). Mainstreaming the marginalized: Secondary mainstream teachers perceptions of ESL students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Grand Forks: University of
North Dakota.
Youngs, G.A., & Youngs, C.S. (1999). Mainstream teachers perceptions of the advantages and
disadvantages of teaching ESL students. MinneTESOL/WITESOL Journal, 16, 1529.
Youngs, C.S., & Youngs, G.A. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers attitudes toward
ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 97120.
Zeichner, K. (2003). The adequacies and inadequacies of three current strategies to recruit, prepare, and retain the best teachers for all students. Teachers College Record, 105, 490515.

Pre and in Service Teachers Beliefs About Ells in Content Area Classes A Case For Inclusion Responsibility and Instructional Support

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Pre and in Service Teachers Beliefs About Ells in Content Area Classes A Case For Inclusion Responsibility and Instructional Support

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Teaching Education

ISSN: 1047-6210 (Print) 1470-1286 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20

Pre- and in-service teachers beliefs about ELLs

Published online: 06 Feb 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 694

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Date: 02 August 2016, At: 10:00

Teaching Education, 2013

Pre- and in-service teachers beliefs about ELLs in content area

Nihat Polat* and Laura Mahalingappa

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

to participate in classroom activities and achieve academically, content area teachers

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

N. Polat and L. Mahalingappa

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

N. Polat and L. Mahalingappa

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

N. Polat and L. Mahalingappa

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

(2001). In addition to eliciting gender, area of study or teaching, number of ESL

N. Polat and L. Mahalingappa

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

IS4: Content area teachers do not have

IS6: It is a good idea to assign less coursework to ELLs

IS9: The modication of coursework for ELLs

IS10: Until students have learned to speak English,

Notes: IS = Instructional Support; G = Gender; S = Service; PreS = Pre-service; InS = In-service.

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

ELLs are responsible for their own

Content area teachers are responsible

ESL teachers are responsible for

ELLs are responsible for their own

Notes: G = Gender; S = Service; PreS = Pre-service; InS = In-service.

N. Polat and L. Mahalingappa

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for background factors.

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

Number of languages spoken

Number of ESL classes taken

Notes: G = Gender; S = Service; PreS = Pre-service; InS = In-service.

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

N. Polat and L. Mahalingappa

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

N. Polat and L. Mahalingappa

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

N. Polat and L. Mahalingappa

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

Gender effect on beliefs about inclusion, responsibility, and IS

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

N. Polat and L. Mahalingappa

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

responsibility for ELLs academic achievement has professional accountability and

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016

N. Polat and L. Mahalingappa

language development is the ESL teachers responsibility, not theirs. Therefore,

Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 10:00 02 August 2016