Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
Public school districts in the U.S. implement a variety of content-based instructional
approaches, commonly including push-in and pull-out models of instruction. Teachers
working in these programs frequently note the implementation issues, but these
uninvestigated, unsummarized and unpublished challenges frequently are not
channeled into or proactively addressed when planning. This study sought to determine
which of these two models teachers’ thought were most effective and what evidence
they had to support their belief sets.
This research gained new insights to many aspects of Push-In and Pull-out language
models including: administrative support, staffing, scheduling, shared understanding
affecting teachers’ perceptions of model efficacy, environmental effects on model
efficacy, and time considerations impacting model efficacy.
U.S. Public schools grapple with providing English language instruction to non-
native English speakers with continually shrinking resources (Hull, 2010). And, “With the
based on No Child Left Behind (2001), ensuring that all students meet accountability
districts are left to their best judgment as to which instructional model(s) to employ
(Cortez & Villarreal, 2009) resulting in a patchwork effect for English language
instruction.
currently provided to English language learners (ELLs) varies extensively across the
country, individual states and districts, and even within the same school. They indicated
that ELL programs include numerous instructional “models” ranging from structured
ESL. “Program variants include sheltered instruction in the major content areas that
among some ELLs placed in regular content area classes (Cortex & Villarreal, 2009,
p.10).
Ortega (2009) mentioned the issue of effective instruction with language students
and stated “Language teachers across institutions all over the world hotly debate
vocabulary in order to get the basic building blocks of a language first, or whether it is
CBI Model Effectiveness 4
better to somehow approximate in their classroom the richness of natural language
by its dual commitment to language and content-learning objectives,” and “has been
translated into practice in diverse ways to meet the needs of second and foreign
language student populations” (p.10). CBI, as defined by Curtain & Pesola (1994) is
“curriculum concepts being taught through the foreign language ….appropriate to the
Education and Cognitive Psychology (Brinton & Snow, 1997) support the use of CBI for
meeting the needs of ELLs in academic programs, indicating ELLs are better served by
level and need. “When planned thoughtfully, content-based activities have the possibility
of leading to "flow experiences," i.e., optimal experiences then emerge when personal
skills are matched by high challenge “ according to the works of Csikszentmihalyi, 1997,
Grabe & Stoller, 1997 and Stoller, 2002 (as cited in Center for Advanced Research on
grade-level content, there are many methodological and programmatic realizations that
have been developed, ranging from the most content-driven in the immersion model,
partial immersion, sheltered content courses, adjunct model, to the opposite end of the
oriented classes which frequently use content for language practice (Met, 1999). Within
CBI Model Effectiveness 5
this continuum, nearer the most-content driven end, there are two program models,
Push-In (PI) and Pull-Out (PO), which were the subject of this research study.
when one enquires into the ability of the program model to demonstrate second
language acquisition progress and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) on states’ Annual
of Public Instruction (2012), Title III of the NCLB Act (2001) requires school districts to
Washington, Texas and Maryland use a variety of language program models to attend
to the surging enrollment, and dropout rate of English language learners. Kent
their ELLs. “The 2008-2009 results show the Kent district met all three AMAOs, which
and meeting annual yearly progress targets in reading and math on the state’s
Measurements of Student Progress and the High School Proficiency exam tests. The
2009-2010 school year results show the district met two of the three AMAOs, missing
CBI Model Effectiveness 6
attaining English proficiency by less than one percent” (Pascopella, 2011, Success
Measurable Achievement Objectives. The AMAO target in the spring of 2010 was to
have 16 percent of the students exit the ELL program, and they instead had 21 percent
exit, Moore says. And 76 percent of ELLs grew 15 points or more in proficiency in
English, when the state Department of Education’s AMAO target for the district was only
Tucson (Arizona) Unified School District approaches the needs of their ELLs
one assessment. In language proficiency that year, at least 30 percent of ELLs rose two
used the inclusion/ co-teaching model to meet their ELL’s academic and language
needs. The first grade ELLs “advanced an average of 2.0 levels between the marking
average of 2.7 levels” (Fearon, 2008, p. 35). This shows progress but there is still an
obvious gap between ELLs and their native English speaking peers.
CBI Model Effectiveness 7
The end results were that the second grade ELL students advanced “an average
of 1.1 reading levels between the two marking periods, 2007-2008, and non-ELLs
ELLs and non-ELLs is evident, only two ELLS are reading below grade level.” (Fearon,
2008, p.41) Fearon (2008) emphasized the need for collaboration between ESL and
general educators to identify learners’ abilities and weaknesses and design strategies to
In St. Paul Public Schools (SPSS) in Minnesota, the district put great efforts into
addressing the needs of their ELL students. Valeria Silva, Director of the SPSS ELL
Department, said that the school needed to look at a completely different way of
With a few exceptions, that’s [sic] meant abandoning traditional pull-out programs
several times a week to work in small groups with specially trained ELL teachers.
Instead, ELL services are delivered through a collaborative model in which ELL
and mainstream teachers team teach. The goal: to teach language through —not
This reorganization and refocus on ELLs’ linguistic and academic needs yielded
quantifiable results. Pardini (2006) noted, “Between 2003 and 2005, the gap in reading
achievement between the district’s ELL and non-ELL students fell from 13 to 6
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment. In math, the gap fell from 6.7 to 2.7 percentage
CBI Model Effectiveness 8
points” (p. 21). This progress earned the SPPS District kudos in the Council of the Great
City Schools Beating the Odds VI report (2006), the “SPPS stands out as having made
the most progress of any large school district in the U.S. in closing the achievement gap
Duke and Mabbott (2000) described how several schools in Minnesota use
various language models to address their ELL students’ academic and language needs
ranging from PI, to self-contained courses. Duke and Mabbott, 2000, focused on Frost
Lake School, of St. Paul, MN, who chose a different path and decided to design their
own language model called the TESOL Inclusion Program (TIP), which is a combination
of PI and PO program models. “The ESL teacher worked with students at three times:
reading, language and math. The educational assistant helped with reading and math
lessons [inside the homeroom class], and provided individual tutoring, home
communications and other classroom support throughout the day” (Duke & Mabbott,
2000, p.17). Duke and Mabbott further explained, “reading is taught [outside of the
(2000, p.17). Students could get the help they needed without standing out as being
different. “Since all students were changing classrooms, and were working with different
teachers, TIP students were not distinguished from other students.” (Duke & Mabbott,
2000, p.17). ELL students received one PO session each day for 30 minutes to develop
oral and written language skills through interactional activities (Duke & Mabbott, 2000).
The ESL students were fully integrated into mainstream classes, teachers were able to
work collaboratively where they were unable to in the past, and TIP students were able
to speak more standard English, and less pidgin-like English, due to their exposure to
CBI Model Effectiveness 9
mainstream role models (Duke & Mabbott, 2000). According to Duke and Mabbott
(2000) not only did test results show that the Frost Lake TIP students made greater
academic and linguistic gains than traditional, isolated ESL classes. The participating
In the Push-In program model, the ELL is placed into mainstream classes for the
majority of their school day. The PI model has two variants: 1) co-teaching—a content
expert with an ESL specialist collaborate on all aspects of instruction and assessment
and take equal responsibility for instructional delivery and all children. According to
Duke and Mabbott (2000), “The ESL teacher goes into the mainstream class and team
teaches with the mainstream teachers” (p. 13) A well thought-out PI model that
facilitates the co-teaching format utilizes the content teacher as an academic expert in
their field and the ESL teacher being the expert in language acquisition and pedagogy
(DelliCarpini, 2009).
The other variant of the PI model is when the ESL teacher following the ELL(s)
into the mainstream classroom to assist the learner by providing extra language support
to ELLs (New York Collective of Radical Educators, n.d.). In this variant, there is no
collaboration, co-planning or lesson delivery between the general educator and ESL
explanation and elaboration while the mainstream teacher is teaching. This approach to
PI does not embrace an in-depth level of shared responsibility through co-teaching both
content and language by both the ESL teacher and content area teacher.
CBI Model Effectiveness 10
When co-teaching is included in the model, there is a continuum of
collaborative partnership between ESL and general educators that involves sharing of
teaching and assessing responsibilities and results in dismissing the views of “my
students” and “your students” and becomes one of “our students.” Dove & Honigsfeld
1) Two teachers teaching one class with one lead teacher and the other teaching
with purpose,
2) Two teachers teaching the same content to one class, collaborating on content
3) One teacher teaching the class and the other circulates the room assessing
students,
4) Both teachers teaching the same lesson but with differentiated learning
strategies,
5) One teacher pre-teaching a group in the class, to bridge the gap of missing
alternative information,
One of the most important benefits of the PI model is that ELLs have more
that the [Push-In] model can facilitate the acquisition of academic skills by providing
LEP [Limited English Proficiency] students with a more understandable and relevant
context for their mainstream curriculum” (p. 24). Another benefit, also discussed by
Mabbott and Strohl (1992), was that ELLs stay academically on track with their
mainstream peers resulting in a less fragmented education. “The strongest argument for
the Pull-in [Push-in] model is that, when properly implemented, it does the most to
integrate LEP students into the mainstream while still giving them the support they
the ESL and general educators must support the other’s role. Unfortunately, support
and respect for each teacher, including clarity of their roles, responsibilities, and
expertise, is not always evident. McClure and Cahnmann-Taylor (2010) reported “ESOL
teachers [in the Push-In] portray themselves as often being treated like glorified
The Pull-Out model, present in every level of K-12, exists when the ESL teacher
withdraws the ELLs from mainstream classes, to a separate location, for a portion of the
needs” and “provides an environment away from the native English-speaking children,
CBI Model Effectiveness 12
where ESL students can feel comfortable taking risks with their new language and
This model, however, has disadvantages that do not occur in the Push-In model.
Cornell (1995), a limited amount of language can be learned in 30-45 minutes, even
with the most adept language specialist or learner. Cornell also elucidated one of the
most significant issues with PO sessions, which is they are often viewed by ELLs and
scheduling ESL instruction so that ELLs do not miss essential core content lessons.
ESL teachers are discouraged from withdrawing ELLs from special subjects, such as
art, music, etc., as these subjects are perceived as venues in which the learners can
excel without complex or extensive language usage. In short, “they can participate more
equally with their limited English.”(Mabbott & Strohl, 1992, p. 22). The absence of
careful collaboration with general education teachers can result in ESL teachers being
coordinate the mainstream schedules with the ESL schedule so that students do not
It is paramount that the language model chosen provides sufficient input, output,
acquisition because of the opportunity to negotiate for meaning (Ortega, 2009). Without
school must demonstrate AYP by ELLs in content and language in order to comply with
Considering the vast usage of these program models (Duke & Mabbott, 2000;
Mabbott & Strohl, 1992; McClure & Cahnmann-Taylor, 2010) it is imperative that the
field understand better whether these models of ESL instruction yield Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) on AMAOs and provide sufficient input, output, and interactions for the
thought that PI and PO models are effective or ineffective, what evidence they could
offer to support their beliefs, and whether the teachers’ perceptions differed by the size
staff members, and teaching peers to consider successes and address challenges in
order to better serve our ELLs. Identifying any differences in model efficacy, as it relates
to size and location of districts, may assist administrators in choosing the language
model that will best serve its ELL population. What works well in an urban district may
not work in rural school district and vice versa. This may be due to districts’ financial
Methodology
For 14 weeks in Fall 2011, we distributed a mixed methods survey to USA k-12
public school ESL educators through personal emails, on Facebook and on professional
listservs (i.e., purposeful sampling). All colleagues were asked to share it with their
networks (i.e., snowball sampling). We also submitted the survey to several ESL
CBI Model Effectiveness 14
newsletters for teaching professional who published our request and electronic link. The
electronic survey was created on Qualtrics survey software and consisted of close-
ended, Likert scale questions and open-ended questions (see Appendix A).
A total of 192 participants elected to take the survey, of which 98 completed it.
Since we did not force answers on the survey, the number of responses varied by
question. Of those volunteering to take the survey, all were from the US. 43%
200,000; 14% with 1-5000; 13% with 5,000-80,000). 34% of participants reported their
district served 1-100 ELLs (22% served 101-300; 11% served 301-500). Participants
grade levels of instruction (those they taught most of the time) were: 31% worked in
grades 1-3, 25% in 4-6, 20% 7-8, and 22% in 9-12. The participants were highly
experienced with 52% who reported 10 years +, 24% 6-9 years, and 14% 3-5 years of
experience.
Utilizing Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), data were first analyzed
for patterns through content-analysis. Content analysis allowed us to study, sort and
categorize concepts and themes common among participants. Then the qualitative data
were coded using open and axial coding techniques by two coders (Strauss and Corbin,
1990). Examples of codes are PO: Student Teacher Ratio; PI: Cooperation Mainstream
and ESL; PO: Marginalization of Students, etc. Once the quantitative data were
software.
Findings
strongly on how the models are managed by administrators and how much support the
teachers receive. Staffing was a crucial fulcrum upon which the effectiveness of the
model hinged. More often than not, teachers’ reported, staffing was spread too thin in
terms of number of students, classes and/or school sites. One teacher expressed her
disappointment with an unwieldy PO staffing situation: “We are not able to service all
those who need servicing, however, because of lack of ESL staff -- only two full-time
teachers for 131 students.” The same issue applied to the Push-In model; one teacher
that can impact the programs’ efficacy. For PO and PI models, the ESL and mainstream
instructional practices and the content expectations for the ELLs; although the type of
teachers share the necessary information openly giving it the same importance. One
issue mentioned repeatedly in the data was the difficulty of scheduling sessions to work
with the learners, which caused the learners to miss work in the general education
class. Many teachers reported conflicts between the teachers that arose when ELLs
Another issue in the PO model with scheduling is the ELLs’ various, conflicting
class schedules. The ESL teacher needs to have the time to work with the learners.
vocabulary and concepts as well the time to thoroughly engage the four language skills,
CBI Model Effectiveness 16
etc. When classes are scheduled thoughtfully, there will be fewer conflicts for the ESL
teacher in terms of time management and there would be an appropriate amount of time
set aside to address the learners’ needs appropriately. However, in practice teachers
find scheduling of sessions is not planned to support the language learning process or
with time efficiency in mind. One teacher working in the PO model commented that it is
“difficult to schedule” and that the “groupings of kids can sometimes not always work out
One teacher working in the PI model notes that collaboration between teachers “takes a
lot of time, [and is] not feasible if you work in multiple buildings with multiple teachers.”
She explained her frustration with her time being wasted while using the PI model,
“when you only have 1/2 hour scheduled with a class, and you go to 'push in,' but the
teacher is behind, so they are still presenting a whole class lesson, while you sit in the
back of the room.” Another Push-In teacher noted a similar sentiment, “... [I am] not able
to reach all the LEP learners [because] they are spread out in too many classrooms.”
The shared understandings, between ESL and general educators about the role
ESL teachers’ play in PI and PO classes and their disciple knowledge and practices,
model. The perceptions of ESL teachers' roles among administrators and general
acquisition and ESL instructional practices, ESL practitioners indicated higher degrees
CBI Model Effectiveness 17
of model effectiveness. When the ESL noted the two groups did not share these
ESL teachers indicated that general educators did not always recognize the
which would often result in conflict and territorial issues. A teacher working in the PO
model says that weaknesses include “the lack of understanding about what it is we do,
Three different teachers working in the PI model illustrated the issues with
○ “If the regular education teacher is not open to sharing their space, it can
ESL teachers can have their attention split by having to work with students
○ “Too often the ESL teacher is relegated to standing around because the
classroom teachers don’t know now to utilize the help and in all honesty
ELLs social, language, and content learning. The ELL teacher is there just
like an aide.”
professional role of the ESL teacher. The last quote exemplified the worst-case
CBI Model Effectiveness 18
implementation of the PI model; the ESL teachers’ are qualified to work with all the
children including the ELLs, but do not have the freedom to do so due to lack of shared
assessment practices between both groups. In ideal scenarios, both groups would
reach out to learn more about the others’ perspective in the absence of shared teacher
preparation background. “The vast majority of the mainstream teachers who have ELLs
in their classroom have not received any training in how to teach ELLs. And those that
have received some training, do not seem to implement this training in the classroom.
The principal in my school has zero involvement in the ESL program. What does that
say to the teaching staff about the importance of educating our ELLs?”, one teacher
bemoaned.
ESL instruction or the school administrators work with ESL teachers to spread
awareness, the ELL students and the school as a whole would benefit.
expectations and modifications as well as the research behind them. They expressed
wide ranging concerns about the lack of shared understandings and collaboration on
topics ranging from how to effectively support ELLs by including interactive activities
teachers collaborate with the ESL teacher.” They noted the need for common planning
time between the ESL teacher and the general educators to discuss instructional
strategies, set performance expectations, address learners’ needs, and learn from each
other.
One ESL teacher voiced his personal experiences with the Push-In model due to
“Push-in ESL classes are ONLY effective if both teachers work well together and
have the same objectives. I have work [sic] with many teachers who either leave
when the ESL teacher walks in… or sit back and watch. After many years of
teaching, I have not had good experiences with this model. In theory, it sounds
properly trained.”
…many ESL teachers feel very isolated and misunderstood; principals and
mainstream staff must take ownership for their ELLs and not expect ESL
included in grade level team meetings (the isolation issue I mentioned earlier!);
mainstream teachers should be supportive of the ESL program and the need for
CBI Model Effectiveness 20
ESL pull-out (it is very difficult when mainstream teachers insist that their ELL(s)
background in ESL. A teacher stated, “Teachers’ ability to draw from students schemata
and scaffold the tasks makes or breaks the class. If there's no scaffolding, my ELL's
Another teacher, working with the PI model, echoed that sentiment and
training.”
Whereas a different PI ESL teacher took a more positive tract explaining that
although it may be hard to find time, that the collaboration is essential for understanding
goals and expectations, " ...the [Push-In] ESL teacher can experience what the student
experiences, and have a better understanding of the classroom teacher's goals and
expectations.” This teacher clearly indicated that the PI models provided a touchstone
educators’ and ESL teachers’ shared understandings. First, one issue when teachers
with their lessons, work on language objectives to support the lessons, creating
alternative assessments, and delivering them is very helpful all the way around.
The only completely useless situation that I find is when we are asked to support
learning targets and assessments and deliver this, we need to be focused on one
classroom.”
● Another teacher said, “[PO] Removes [the] student from the general classroom
setting. [This] causes all students to question what happens when the ELL leaves
the room, which leads itself to spreading rumors and misunderstandings. Less
cooperative grouping which provide the ELL with valuable peer support and
interaction. ELL misses content; the general educator is often confused about
what to expect the ELL to make up when he/she is with the ESL teacher.”
A second issue when teachers did not share understandings was ways to
address missed content work when the student was working on their English skills
either during PI, in-class small group work, or in PO lessons. For example,
CBI Model Effectiveness 22
● PO: One respondent noted, “Marginalization of students being required to leave
their classrooms; also, the need for classroom teachers to understand that work
● PO: Another teacher explained the issue this way, “Sometimes classroom
teachers see ELL time as the ONLY time of day in which the child needs
additional support. Oh, Joey got his ELL support today, now I don't need to
differentiate the rest of the day. Depending on when students are pulled, they
classroom teachers could be assigning what they missed for homework, which
leads to additional work for the child in the long-run, and more difficult work
but I know that in some schools it can happen that way, and this issue can
arise.)”
These comments emphasize the need for a shared basis of understanding and
assessment. Often, the shared understandings vital to adequately meeting the ELLs
needs’ are not present and must be accommodated for within the limited time teachers
have for collaboration or during class sessions. Therefore, in both PI and PO, teachers
spend time learning from each other about their fields, so their joint efforts fall short of
the mark. In the absence of shared understandings, teachers struggle with the best way
language focus, organizing time for practice, working with students of diverse age and
proficiency levels, scheduling sessions or class times appropriately, and offering time
for planning and collaboration. Many teachers struggle with finding a balance between
teaching content and the English language; one PO teacher explained, “the greatest
On the other hand, a PI teacher stated, "the ELL teacher is able to intervene to
support a student immediately and doesn't have to wait for the classroom teacher to
constant communication between the ELL teacher and the classroom teacher.” This can
benefit the students because they may be able to receive help rapidly within the same
class session. The student would then not fall behind nor will they be missing a major
piece of information. However, this is only true when the ESL teacher is empowered to
act in the PI context and when there is opportunity to do so. When the ESL teacher is
not able to promptly address the concern, the student may fall further behind.
A PI teacher explained the hardship of working in the PI model: "I believe the
challenge is in meeting the needs of individual learners. Once the students are placed in
a large class of mainstream students, there is little time within the constraints of the
class and the curriculum, to meet the wide range of language and content needs.” The
students often begin to blend into the general education class, but are still academically
far behind their peers. While it is perhaps somewhat easier in PO, those working in this
CBI Model Effectiveness 24
model agree that one of the major difficulties is catering to the needs of the specific
student. One PO teacher explained that she had to work with such a wide range of
students. She stated that "...it would be great to group students according to level and
language, but this cannot usually happen with such a small population of ELLs."
Finding 4: Environment
The environment in which the models take place contributed to the effectiveness
of these models. The environment could influence the ESL models with many factors:
the opportunities for peer interaction and socialization, the language interaction for ELLs
with native and non-native speaking peers, the resources of linguistic support from the
ESL teachers, the degree of stigmatization due to receiving ESL support, and the depth
One positive of PO was that students received the opportunity to work in a small
group setting with other students who also speak English as a second language. One
PO teacher said, “students... tell me that the ESL classes built their confidence and
supported their academic learning. The safety of being in a small group allowed them to
try language structures and ask questions about content that would have never been
tried in the mainstream classroom." Another PO teacher pointed out that a significant
negative is the stigmatization of learners receiving ESL support, “...some ELL's feel 'less
intelligent' for being taken out of their regular classrooms which hurts their motivation.”
A benefit of the PI model, according to one teacher, was that “students are able
to learn both content and language simultaneously. It is real life application of language
in meaningful situations. ELLs are also able to learn from native speaking classmates in
group activities/projects.” One teacher noted a positive for PI as “the children don’t miss
CBI Model Effectiveness 25
the universal curriculum.” Another teacher wrote, “ELLs do not feel segregated from
English speaking peers” as one of the strengths for PI model. Besides all the above,
“students are more connected to the community [of the classroom] because they always
are a part of it and are not singled out.” Yet, PI model is not without flaws. Different
teachers reported the PI model weaknesses, such as “lower comfort level with
students,” “ELL students feel different from the rest of the class,” “classroom
interruptions (snacks, bathroom [breaks], etc.)”, “distractions from other students,” “lack
of space,” and “[lack of] privacy for concentration and practicing English.”
acquisition needs by allowing enough depth and time for language development. Both
environments come with their advantages and disadvantages, each meeting a solving a
problem that was a weakness in the other model. Neither model was a perfect solution.
Teachers were asked to support for their assertions about the models. They were
teachers did attempt to support their assertions, they frequently offered only anecdotal
comments. The few teachers who noted progress on standardized content or language
proficiency tests frequently did not cite the test, the percentage of learners making
progress, measurements of language progress, or the period of time during which the
learning had occurred. Typical comments were, “I can tell they are doing well in this
because of “better results with ACCESS scores, student achievement, speed of exit
from program”, “significant language, reading and writing growth in the ESL classes that
CBI Model Effectiveness 26
I teach,” and “students move through the different ESL levels gaining skills and
eventually go into all mainstream classes. They pass classes, meet standards, and
graduate.” Adequate yearly progress (AYP) was not mentioned by any teacher who took
the survey.
When teachers were asked which programs worked best and which they would
suggest, they had strong opinions that ranged widely. 18 teachers said “it depends” and
delineated factors that would cause them to opt for one model or another. For example,
who speak 20+ different languages - and a gross lack of ESL teachers (3 district
wide), plus the lack of training in ESL and sheltered instruction techniques of
students for ESL. Also, the beginner student in my school desperately needs a
teaching approach between ESL and mainstream teachers. For me, it is not so
our ELLs.”
specifically to our population…I also believe that a program at all levels should
framework for our non-Spanish speaking ESL students, with content level
area teachers that work with ELLs should have knowledge of the SIOP model so
that they are teaching content objectives and language objectives in every
designed for students who are SIFE (interrupted formal education) and that come
● “I would want to have a separate course for language. I would want all
mainstream teachers to use the SIOP model in their classrooms with a heavy
focus on writing and vocabulary usage. I would want enough ESL teachers
covering each school that teachers would have the opportunity to tap ESL
● “At the secondary level, which is my focus, where there are sufficient numbers of
students to offer a range of discrete levels of ESL to target and develop the
language at the needed levels that students bring to our schools. Also, there
level that allows students to learn both the language and the academic content
and fundamental concepts they need to both progress in their language skills and
CBI Model Effectiveness 28
to earn credits that allow them to really learn the basics of the curriculum at the
same time.”
One might view these seemingly conflicting comments and conclude that there is
no answer or ideal model; rather, the data showed that ESL teachers understood
several key variables in choosing program models for instruction, including learner
contextual variables of district size and location, staffing, practicality, and resources.
One teacher said it best, “[Recommending an effective program model] depends on the
student, the language, the educational background, the classroom environment, the
family and other factors. You fit the program to the learner.”
Discussion
The findings of teachers’ perceptions of model effectiveness and the potential for
the model to yield AYP were surprising as they represented opposite sides of the same
coin. For all the positives of PI, which fixed certain negatives of PO, there were
negatives apparent, and vice versa. There were positives with the PO model, which
remedied negatives in the PI model. When all the points mentioned above were at their
optimal implementation, there were still flaws, and sometimes significant hindrances,
which prevented ELLs from reaching their proximal level of language and content
learning.
the proper amount of time for implementation as essential to being able to work with
ELLs. Time for instruction, focus on language objectives and collaboration was the one
key factor that seemed to impact all the programming negatively. The time issue was
CBI Model Effectiveness 29
exacerbated by the lack of cogent and thoughtful planning with administrators to
schedule classes and meetings. This concern is supported in literature. McClure (2010)
(p.107)
adequate time, space, and teachers for the ESL classes. Finding a time to take students
out of their content classes can be difficult, and, without collaboration and
understanding amongst all teachers and administrators, content teachers can become
frustrated with trying to monitor their students and assignments. According to Mabbott
and Strohl (1992), “there is “difficulty in scheduling ESL instruction so that ELLs do not
miss crucial core content lessons” (p.23), and “ A corollary of the scheduling problem is
that ESL instructors in [PO] programs often do not have time to coordinate their lessons
with those of the mainstream teacher” (p.22). These content teachers do not always see
(2010) found ”...ESOL teachers portray themselves as often being treated like glorified
mainstream class environment. These ELL students prefer working in small groups with
environment away from the native English-speaking children, where ESL students can
feel comfortable taking risks with their new language and asking questions.” (p.22)
CBI Model Effectiveness 30
With assignments of multiple classrooms at multiple grades in multiple schools,
points of the content, to pre-teach the students before the class, and to collaboratively
plan with the general educators. The PI model would be more effective if administrators
understand the ESL teachers’ value and support their job functions. McClure and
legitimate, socially sanctioned knowledge of the content area curriculum, [ESL] teachers
are frequently seen as delivering generic support and facilitation for the cultural,
Mabbott and Strohl (1992) “the model [PI] can facilitate the acquisition of academic
skills by providing LEP students with a more understandable and relevant context for
their mainstream curriculum” (p.24).; however, it has drawbacks such as lower comfort
level, classroom interruptions, lack of space and privacy, etc. Duke and Mabbott (2000)
are quick to point out “The major disadvantage [of PI] is that ESL students are not
provided a safe environment away from native-speaking peers where they can practice
language and ask questions that they may not ask in the mainstream class” (p.13).
communication between professionals, yet, only when both groups are empowered.
With shared ownership of classrooms, said Duke and Mabbott (2000), comes the need
for significant collaboration between teachers to plan team teaching lessons together.
Limitations
CBI Model Effectiveness 31
Part of the study design was to gather evidence through documentation from
teachers, districts, and educational entities about the effectiveness of these models to
yield adequate yearly progress. Unfortunately, when reporting the teachers rarely cited
empirical evidence to support their assertions. They also did not choose to share or they
had no access to data to support their beliefs. When we approached the districts and
education support agencies), administrators claimed to have no data on AYP for the
various models, because information for districts was aggregated across various
their statements. For example, because the teacher worked in a specific model, and
they liked the format, they felt that it was effective. It seemed as though they perceived
it as an indictment of their own instructional abilities if they felt the format was
ineffective.
The findings imply that both models are fundamentally flawed. A model that
blends the two would solve the inherent problems in each. Another implication is that
preparation for both sets of educators. Another solution is to prepare all general
education teachers dually in their subject area and how to teach English language
know some basics of second language acquisition. It would be good for them to
CBI Model Effectiveness 32
understand what ELLs are going through in their acquisition of a second language and
which programs learners spend their instructional time. If reporting were more specific
and clear, there would be much less aggregated data and we would be able to
determine which types of programming work with which learners and when. It was
outside the scope of this study to address whether or not teachers had access to data
on the progress of their learners. It was usual that no one noted specific progress on a
empirical data to support our assertions in order to garner credibility and be perceived
as professionals.
CBI Model Effectiveness 33
References
Alford, B., & Nino, M. C. (2011). Leading academic achievement for English language
learners: A guide for principals. . (p. 3). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.
http://books.google.com/books?id=cyPxT29gVNAC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=Alfor
d,+Leading+Academic+Achievement+for+English+Language+Learners+Intro.&s
ource=bl&ots=N1R1jEw8dA&sig=o9VkzS81erb5k4CoZCzROeiS4_c&hl=en&sa=
X&ei=Ra0dUPTYFon69QSX_YCYBw&ved=0CGgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Alfo
rd%2C%20Leading%20Academic%20Achievement%20for%20English%20Lang
uage%20Learners%20Intro.&f=false
Brinton, D., Snow, M. (1997). The content-based classroom. White Plains, NY: Addison
Cahnmann-Taylor, M., & McClure, G. (2010). Pushing back against push-in: ESOL
101-129.
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA). (2012, April 26).
Content-based second language instruction: What is it?. Retrieved July 26, 2012,
from http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/cbi.html
Christian, D., & Genesee, F. (2008). Programs for teaching English language learners.
CBI Model Effectiveness 34
In Ann S. Rosebery & Beth Warren (Eds.),Teaching Science to English
Cornell, C. (1995). Reducing failure of LEP students in the mainstream classroom and
Cortez, A., & Villarreal, A. (2009). Education of English language learners in U.S. and
Texas schools – where we are, what we have learned and where we need to go
http://alex.state.al.us/ell/sites/alex.state.al.us.ell/ell_files/IDRA_ELL_Policy_Upda
te_2009.pdf
Curtain, H., & Pesola, C. A. B. (1994). Language and children: Making the match.
Foreign language instruction for an early start, grades K-8. (p.35). (2nd ed.) New
York: Longman.
http://cie.asu.edu/volume11/number2/
Duke, K., & Mabbott, A. (2000). An Alternative Model for Novice-Level Elementary ESL
Dove, M., & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). ESL coteaching and collaboration: Opportunities to
CBI Model Effectiveness 35
develop teacher leadership and enhance learning. TESOL Journal,1(1), 3-22.
njbe.org/handouts10/DoveHonigsfeld_Article.pdf
http://gradworks.umi.com/1456437.pdf
A guide for educators of English language learners. New York Collective of Radical
content/uploads/NYCORE-ELLteacher_handbook.pdf
Hull, J. (2010, October 07). Examples of state and district funding cuts . Retrieved on
education/Cutting-to-the-bone-At-a-glance/Examples-of-state-and-district-
funding-cuts.html
Mabbott, A., & Strohl, J. (1992) Pull-In Programs - A New Trend in ESL Education?.
http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/principles/decisions.html
Education.
Pardini, P. (2006). In one voice. Journal of Staff Development, 27(4), 21, 22. Retrieved
http://www.districtadministration.com/article/successful-strategies-english-
language-learners
Reynolds, K.M., Nolin-Smith, K. & Groshek, K. (2012). Which CBI Model Yields the Best
Short, D. (1999). Integrating language and content for effective sheltered instruction
bilingualism, and ESL in the secondary school (pp. 105-137). New York:
http://dpi.wi.gov/oea/ellamao.html
Zehr, M.A. (2006). Team-Teaching Helps Close Language Gap. Education Week,
26(14): 26-29.
CBI Model Effectiveness 37
Appendix A: Survey Questions
1. What is the size of your community?
2. Please estimate about how many English language learners (ELLs) are currently
being served in your school district?
3. Please indicate in which of these models of ESL instruction you currently work.
(Please refer to the 2010-2011 academic year, if you do not know in which capacity you
will work during 2011-2012. If you know what 2011-2012 will look like, please refer to
that program model).
4. Please indicate your familiarity with these models of ESL instruction.
5. What makes these program models effective or ineffective?
6. What evidence can you offer that supports your opinions of the effectiveness of these
program models?
7. If you were to choose a program model for the learners in your school district, which
model would you choose and why?
8. In your opinion, what are the STRENGTHS of PULL-OUT ESL programs? Please
share any evidence that you might have to support your opinion.
9. Please indicate your OPINION of the EFFECTIVENESS of each of these models of
ESL instruction in providing what the learners need to develop their language skills and
learn grade-level content.
10. In your opinion, what are the WEAKNESSES of PULL-OUT ESL programs? Please
share any evidence that you might have to support your opinion.
11. In your opinion, what are the CHALLENGES in making PULL-OUT ESL programs
HIGHLY EFFECTIVE in terms of ELLs' language and content learning? Please share
any evidence that you might have to support your opinion.
12. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about working in an ESL pull-out
program in terms of students' learning, collaboration, teaching, etc.?
13. In your opinion, what are the STRENGTHS of PUSH-IN ESL programs? Please
share any evidence that you might have to support your opinion.
14. In your opinion, what are the WEAKNESSES of PUSH-IN ESL programs? Please
share any evidence that you might have to support your opinion.
15. In your opinion, what are the CHALLENGES in making PUSH-IN ESL programs
HIGHLY EFFECTIVE in terms of ELLs' language and content learning? Please share
any evidence that you might have to support your opinion.
16. What grades levels do you teach?
17. If you work in a pull-out ESL model, please describe the kinds of topics, skills, etc.
you work on with the learners. Do you do more tutorial work, pre-teaching or teaching of
language or content topics during pull-out sessions?
18. Including only in-service teaching, how many years of experience do you have?
19. In which country do you live and work?
20. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about working in an ESL PUSH-IN
program in terms of students' learning, collaboration, teaching, etc.?
21. If you work in either a push-in ESL program or a pull-out ESL program, would you
be willing to be interviewed and/or observed?
22. What subjects do you teach most of the time?