UNIVERSIDAD DEL TURABO

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

AN ASSESSMENT OFTHE ALIGNMENT OF THE PUERTO RICO’S ENGLISH

CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK AND CLASSROOM TEACHING

PRACTICES AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL IN THE

METROPOLITAN AREA

By

CARLOS LÓPEZ MARCANO

DISSERTATION

Submitted as a requirement for a doctoral degree in the area of

Education, specialization in Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning Environment

Gurabo, Puerto Rico

May, 2013

UNIVERSIDAD DEL TURABO

CERTIFICACION DE APROBACION DE DISERTACION La disertación Carlos López Marcano fue revisada y aprobada por los miembros del

Comité de Disertación. El formulario de Cumplimiento de Requisitos de disertación con

las firmas de los miembros del comité se encuentra depositado en la oficina de

Registraduría y en el Centro de Estudios Doctorales.

MIEMBROS DEL COMITÉ DE DISERTACION Carlos S. López, Ed.D. Curriculum: Teaching, Curriculum & Learning Environment Dra. Angela Candelario, Universidad del Turabo Presidente Comité de Disertación Dra. Debra-Ann Zumaeta, Universidad del Turabo Miembro del Comité de Disertación Dr. Angel Ojeda, Unversidad del Turabo Miembro del Comité de Disertación

©Copyright, 2013

Carlos S. López Marcano. All Rights Reserved.

iv

AN ASSESSMENT OFTHE ALIGNMENT OF THE PUERTO RICO’S ENGLISH

CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK AND CLASSROOM TEACHING

PRACTICES AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL IN THE

PUERTO RICO METROPOLITAN AREA

By

Carlos S. López Marcano

Dr. Ángela Calendario, Ph. D.

Chairperson, Doctoral Committee

ABSTRACT

This investigation examines the Constructivist learning theory as proposed by the

Puerto Rico’s Department of Education English Curriculum Framework and investigates

if this learning theory is aligned with current ESL teaching practices. The study was

conducted at an educational school region in the Metropolitan area. Teachers who

volunteered to participate in the taught English in grades 10th-12th. The investigator

expected to recruit at least 26 teachers to participate in the investigation. The following

research questions were investigated:

1. How in sync is the Puerto Rico Department of Education’s English curriculum

with constructivist teaching practices?

2. To what degree do ESL teachers support and implement a Constructivist

approach to ESL teaching?

3. What teaching methods do teachers use on a daily basis?

4. To what degree do teachers implement a constructivist approach to ESL

assessment?

v

5. What factors might influence the implementation of a constructivist

learning theory?

The investigator used two data collection tools to collect the data. Teachers who

voluntarily participated in the study completed a questionnaire and scheduled a classroom

demonstration. A pilot study was conducted at a different school setting by the principal

investigator to determine the validity of the data collection instruments. Means and

standard deviations were calculated. In addition, a correlation matrix was developed and

analyzed to determine the relationship among the variables. A classroom observation

checklist was used by the investigator to examine constructivist teaching practices that

are evident in the English classrooms. The investigator will share the findings with all

the stakeholders including teachers and school region administrators. The findings will

benefit the school community at large because it will provide information that can assist

teachers in making curriculum and program implementation decisions. The findings will

also help teachers to reflect on their teaching practices and facilitate English departmental

discussions when planning and preparing for instruction.

vi

CURRICULUM VITAE Address : PO Box 3257 E-mails: clopez112000@yahoo. com Rio Grande, Puerto Rico 00745 Education: 2013 Ed. D. Curriculum, Teaching, & Learning Environment 1993 M. S. Bilingual Leadership, Bank Street College, New York. 1990 M. S. Adult Education and Human Resource Development, Fordham University, New York City. 1983 B. A. Teaching English to Spanish Speakers, University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico. Work Experience 1994- Present Department of Defense School System: ESL teacher, fifteen years at the Middle School and four years at the High School. Responsible for coordinating the testing and program placement for English language learners. Develop and implement instructional programs for language learners in every language proficiency level. Provide instructional support through staff development and collaboration. 1984-1994 New York City's Department of Education: Elementary ESL teacher. Taught all grades from kindergarten to sixth grade. Part-Time Positions: 2010-2011 Ana G. Mendez, English Professor and English Tutor 1992-1994 Hostos Community College, Adjunct Professor: Taught English Writing Courses

1990-1994 Metropolitan Career Institute, Evening Director. Bronx, New York City Professional Awards: 2008 Selected to participate in an ESL Task Force to review ESL Standards,

Virginia 2002 Recipient of the PR TESOL Outstanding ESL Teacher Award. San Juan,

Puerto Rico.

vii

2000, 2001 Selected to participate in a task force to develop an ESL Configuration Map in San Francisco. 1999 Selected to participate on an ESL Materials Review committee in Virginia. 1994 Recipient of the Bilingual Education Fellowship Award. Bank Street College, New York. PRTESOL Workshops: Nov. 16, 2001 PRTESOL Workshop, Title: "Activating Prior Knowledge". San Juan, Puerto Rico. Nov. 15, 1991 PRTESOL Workshop, Title: "Grouping for Success", San Juan, Puerto Rico.

viii

DEDICATION

Indeed, without God the completion of this project would have been impossible.

God provided me with immeasurable patience and persistence to finalize this project.

With sincere appreciation, I also dedicate this dissertation to my wonderful family who

has stood beside me throughout the research process, especially my loving wife, Liz, who

patiently encouraged me whenever I needed comfort and direction. I also dedicate this

investigation to my children who were my driving force: Ivelise, Carlos Jr. , and Carleen.

With heart-felt pride, I also dedicate this project to my mom, Nicolasa Marcano,

who passed away two years into my investigation. Her memories kept me focused even

in the most difficult times. I cannot finalize this dedication without mentioning my

beautiful granddaughter, Ioshamar, who has inspired me to model life-long learning.

Thank you all!

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This educational journey has been filled with many ups and downs. There were

many hurdles and obstacles to overcome, but God always found a way to put the right

people in the right place. With heart-felt enthusiasm, I want to express my sincere thanks

to all those wonderful people who helped me fulfill my dream.

First, I would like to thank my Doctoral Dissertation Committee members. My

sincere admiration and respect goes to Dr. Ángela Candelario who always came through

during difficult times. Her kind words and her support guided my through the entire

dissertation process. I also need to express my gratitude to Dr. Debra-Ann Zumaeta for

accepting to be in my dissertation committee. Thank you for your assistance and

guidance.

Secondly, I want to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Ángel Ojeda who provided

his diligent guidance and unconditional support. He made himself available at all times

and equipped me with the necessary tools to understand and articulate my investigation

findings.

Third, I want to express my deepest appreciation to the twenty-six high school

teachers in the San Juan Education School Region, who participated in the study. I thank

them for sharing their insights and wisdom.

Finally, I want to thank my family members, colleagues, and friends who always

provided me with encouraging words. With heart-felt joy, I thank them for their

emotional support and their endless prayers.

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... xii

LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................................xvi

CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1

Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................ 2

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................... 8

Justification ............................................................................................................... 10

Research Questions- problem questions....................................................................12

Definition of terms .................................................................................................... 13

Significance of the study ........................................................................................... 16

Summary ................................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................... 18

Constructivist Learning Theory ................................................................................ 23

Constructivist and Second Language Acquisition .................................................... 26

The CALLA .............................................................................................................. 35

Constructivist Assessment Practices ........................................................................ .40

Summary ................................................................................................................... 45

CHAPTER III – METHOD AND RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................ 46

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 46

Research Design ........................................................................................................ 46

Population ................................................................................................................. 48

Sample....................................................................................................................... 49

Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 49

Research Methodology ............................................................................................. 50

xi

Validity ..................................................................................................................... 51

Procedures ................................................................................................................. 54

Confidentiality .......................................................................................................... 56

Risks .......................................................................................................................... 56

Study Benefits ........................................................................................................... 56

Limitation of the study .............................................................................................. 56

Summary ................................................................................................................... 57

CHAPTER IV – FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 58

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 58

Summary ................................................................................................................... 84

CHAPTER V- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................. 86

Summary of the Problem and Methodology ............................................................. 86

Limitations .............................................................................................................. 101

Recommendations ................................................................................................... 102

Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 102

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 105

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Distribution of High Schools in the San Juan Educational School Region ........................................................................................................... 48

Table 2: Correlation Matrix Item analysis A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I .......................... 53 Table 3: The Cronbach Alpha average score indicates that the instrument is

reliable and valid. The score of 0. 7695 is a desirable score ........................ 54 Table 4: Regression Analysis: Problem Solving versus Experience, Academic

Degree, Planning Time, and Number of Workshops .................................... 62

Table 5: Regression Analysis: Content Integration versus Experience, Academic Degree ......................................................................................... 64

Table 6: T-test: Paired Two Sample for Means Content Integration ......................... 65 Table 7: Regression Analysis: Problem Solving versus Experience, Academic

Degrees and Number of Workshops ............................................................ 67 Table 8: T-Test: Paired Two Sample Means for Problem Solving ............................. 68 Table 9: Regression Analysis: Peer Collaboration versus Experience, Academic

Degree, Planning Time, and Number of Workshops .................................... 70

Table 10: T-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means of Collaborative Work .................... 72 Table 11: Regression Analysis: Implicit Vocabulary versus Experience,

Academic Degrees, Planning Time, and Number of Workshops ................. 73 Table 12: T-Test Paired Two Sample for Implicit Vocabulary ....................................74 Table 13: Regression Analysis: Guided Reading versus Experience, Degree .............. 75 Table 14: T-Test: Paired Two Samples for Means for Guided Reading ....................... 76 Table 15: Regression Analysis: Natural Communication versus Experience,

Academic Degree, Planning Time, and Number of Workshops ................... 77 Table 16: Two Tail Test Sample Means for Natural Communication .......................... 78

Table 17: Regression Analysis: Implicit grammar Teaching versus Experience,

Academic Degree, planning time, and number of workshops ...................... 80

xiii

Table 18: T-Two Tail-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for Error Free

Grammar Correction ..................................................................................... 81 Table 19: Regression Analysis: Authentic Assess versus Experience, Academic

Degrees, Planning Time, and Number of Workshops .................................. 82 Table 20: T-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means ........................................................ 83 Table 21: First Round of Classroom Visits, teaching practices observed ..................... 97 Table 22: Second Round of Classroom Visits, Teaching Practices Observed .............. 98

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 Number of Schools placed on a School Improvement Plan .......................... 3 Figure 2 CALLA and the Application of the Constructivist Model .......................... 37 Figure 3 Alignment Octagon ..................................................................................... 43 Figure 4 Alignment Chart of the Different Curriculum Areas to be Investigated ..... 48 Figure 5 Cronbach Alpha Test, Participants Response Matrix ................................. .53 Figure 6 Constructivist Teaching Practices observed during the classroom visits .... 60 Figure 7 Participants' perspectives on problem solving, and whether or not problem solving was evident in the classroom visits .................................. 63 Figure 8 Participants' Perspectives on the integration of content, and whether or not this teaching strategy was evident during classroom visits ................... 64 Figure 9 Participants' perspectives on the use of problem solving strategies,

and whether or not these teaching strategies were evident during classroom visits ........................................................................................... 68

Figure 10 Participants Academic Degrees ................................................................... 69 Figure 11 Participants' Years of Teaching Experiences .............................................. 70 Figure 12 Participants' perspectives on the use implicit vocabulary teaching, and

what was observed during classroom visits ................................................. 71 Figure 13 Shows the participants' perspectives on guided reading strategies, and

whether or not this reading strategy was evident in the classroom visits ............................................................................................................. 76

Figure 14 Participants' perspectives on facilitating a natural communication

environment, and whether or not this constructivist practice was evident in the classroom visits ..................................................................... 78

Figure 15 Participants' perspectives on teaching grammar implicitly, and

whether or not this constructivist practice was evident in the classroom visits .......................................................................................... 81

xv

Figure 16: Participants' perspectives on facilitating authentic assessments, and whether or not this constructivist practice was evident in the classroom visits ........................................................................................... 83

xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

Appendix A: English as a Second Language Teaching Practices Survey .................. 116

Appendix B: Teaching Strategies Observation Checklist .......................................... 120

Appendix C: Letter to School Principal ..................................................................... 121

Appendix D: Letter to Teachers ................................................................................. 123

Appendix E: Certification of Data Collection ............................................................ 125

Appendix F: IRB Closure Form ................................................................................. 126

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Although there have been many language policy changes in Puerto Rico, the

current language policy that promotes the teaching of Spanish and English in the public

schools exits since 1949. The emphasis continues to be to create bilingual citizens who

can effectively communicate in both languages. Torres (2002) indicates: “… in 1949

Law # 149, known as the Organic Law of Education, was established to make Spanish

the official language of instruction, and requested the teaching of English as a second

language” (p. 33). Students were then required to take English as an independent subject

from 1st to 12th grade. Since then, English has been taught at all grade levels. Annual

assessments tools and on-going reports show that students in the Puerto Rico’s public

high schools continue to score poorly in area of English learning. From 2007 to 2011, the

Pruebas Puertorriqueñas de Aprovechamiento Académico have shown a steady decrease

in the area of English learning. During that period of time, the English proficiency scores

have decreased from a 55% to a 41% in 2011(Disdier & Marrazzi, 2013, p. 10).

Consequently, many students begin their higher education without having the necessary

skills to succeed. Caratini (1997) conducted an ethnographic study where five adult

college students from the central geographic region of Puerto Rico shared their English

learning experiences. One of the salient themes that surfaced from the investigation was

the teaching approaches that were used by English teachers at the High Schools. The

participants in the study argued that one of the reasons for their lack of English

knowledge was the implementation of outdated teaching practices that did not address

2

their learning needs. They specifically stated that traditional and outdated teaching

methods affected their learning of the English language.

In 2003, the Puerto Rico’s English Department published the ESL Curriculum

Framework which is based on a constructivist teaching model. With this guide, ESL

teaching perspectives and their teaching and assessment practices needed to be aligned

with the Department’s constructivist’s proposals in order to implement a curriculum that

would be meaningful and relevant. This document established public policy regarding

the goals of the English program and the development of a curriculum geared towards

reaching those goals. This investigation sets out to investigate the different teaching and

learning processes that are occurring in today’s ESL classrooms, and to explore the

alignment between these practices and the constructivist learning theory as proposed by

the Puerto Rico’s English Department.

Statement of the problem

The teaching of English in Puerto Rico’s public school system is one of the

critical curriculum areas that have consistently shown no progress over the years. The

mission and goals of the Puerto Rico’s English Department are based on Law # 149 of

July 1999, known as the Puerto Rico’s Organic Law of Education. The mission of this

law is to develop communicatively competent students in both languages, Spanish and

English. Yet, students continue to struggle, and they are scoring below the national

average in the area of English achievement. According to Rivera (2009), 34% of the

students who took the Pruebas Puertorriqueñas, Puerto Rico’s national assessment tool,

scored as proficient. This score did not represent any academic gain from the previous

school year, 2008-2009, when 34% of students assessed were classified as proficient. In

3

2011, 11th grade students in the public schools of Puerto Rico scored a 41% in the area of

English ( Disdier & Marazzi, 2013, p. 9). Pousada (2000) affirms that “in Puerto Rico,

despite the fact that official educational policy mandates English-as-a second language

instruction in grades 1-12, many students enter the university lacking sufficient

proficiency in English to carry out basic communicative functions” (p. 104). English

reading and written communication are critical areas where Puerto Rico public schools

have failed to demonstrate adequate yearly progress. Rivera (2009) analyzed the 2009

annual assessments through the Puerto Rico Board of Education’s Pruebas

Puertorriqueñas. He found that 85% of public schools in Puerto Rico failed to gain

adequate yearly progress, and that 1, 277 out of 1, 500 schools were placed in a

structured improvement plan as mandated by The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

The number of schools and percentage of public schools on an improvement plan in the

2008-2011periods is outlined in figure 1. English, Spanish, and math are academic

subject areas that schools have failed to show improvement. Rivera calls for a sense of

urgency when he affirms that 83. 13% of the schools in Puerto Rico are performing

below the national standards (Rivera, 2009).

Figure 1: Number of schools placed on a School Improvement Plan.

4

In 2000, the Department of Education revised its English as a Second Language

curriculum, and proposed a curriculum based on the constructivist learning theory. The

Department of Education has proposed a constructivist teaching philosophy focused on

active learning. In a constructivist learning environment, students should be active

participants in problem solving pertinent issues that affect their lives. An active

constructivist learning environment includes the following dimensions:

1. Assessment through performance, using a wide range of assessment methods.

2. Curricula that emphasize big ideas, depth over breadth, and interdisciplinary.

3. The teacher as guide/facilitator/coach and the student as worker/independent

thinker.

4. Interaction, with value placed on teacher-and student generated questions, and

consistent use of methods, even within a single class period.

5. Engagement of students in the subject matter, with students becoming

historians, writers, scientists, mathematicians, ECT. (Gablerand & Schroeder,

2003, p. 17)

Students must collectively become problem-solvers as they construct their own

knowledge, using their background knowledge and past experiences. “Learners of any

age make sense of new experiences by relating them to their own previous experiences”

(Gabler & Schroeder, 2003, p. 16). It is therefore essential to make to make ideas

understandable from the learner’s point of view. There are certain elements that

exemplify a Constructivist learning design. A Constructivist learning environment:

1. Designs a situation that describes the purpose, determines a topic, and decides

an assessment for student learning.

5

2. Organizes groups of students, materials, and furniture to facilitate meaning

making.

3. Builds a bridge between what students already know and what they are

expected to learn.

4. Crafts a task for students to accomplish that anticipates questions from

students as they engage in tasks, and has the teacher consider responses to

these questions so t hat students will sustain thinking.

5. Allows students to demonstrate the results of their collaborative thinking by

requiring them to produce artifacts as a result of their learning. (Gagnon &

Collay, 2006, p. 4)

The constructivist curriculum framework proposed by the Puerto Rico

Department of Education’s English Department in 2003 recommends that teachers

provide a meaningful learning environment where students can make connections and

redefine new concepts. The Department has proposed a series of constructivist goals that

establish priorities for instruction and classroom assessments. Instructional goals guide

ESL teachers in establishing curricular priorities. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) assert

that goals allow facilitators to make justifiable decisions about what to teach, what to

leave out, and what to emphasize when planning for teaching and learning processes (p.

59). The Department of Education’s Curricular Framework has outlined the following

constructivist goals:

1. Offer students English language experiences that are based on challenging,

meaningful and pertinent content, and use performance and assessment

standards based on the humanistic constructivist paradigm.

6

2. Prepare all students to reach their potential through the development of their

abilities in the four strands of the English program: oral communication,

written communication, reading comprehension, and literacy appreciation.

3. Empower students to become competent, knowledgeable, independent,

reflective, and self-confident English language learners.

4. Prepare students to access, organize, and evaluate information obtained

through technological or electronic means for the development of listening,

reading, speaking, and writing skills.

5. Develop students’ critical and creative thinking through the process of

English language learning.

6. Reinforce and model students’ ethical and moral values, awareness, and

cultural repertoire through exposure to a variety of literatures in English.

7. Encourage all students to become informed and responsible citizens in a

democratic society.

8. Provide opportunities for student participation in a variety of social and

interactive scenarios (p. 13).

These goals support a constructivist teaching philosophy in which students

assume ownership of their own learning. Webb (1997) cites: “better aligned goals and

measures of attainment of these goals will increase the likelihood that multiple

components of any district or state education system are working towards the same ends”

(p. 2). In addition, Marlowe and Page (2005) explain that “students in a constructivist

classroom uncover, discover, and reflect on content and their conceptions of such through

inquiry, investigation, research, and analysis in the context of a problem, critical

7

question, issue, or theme " (p. 8). Constructivist goals are aimed at helping students

become independent active learners. Educational approaches in second language learning

has undergone a radical shift from behaviorist-structural methods or passive learning of

the 1960’s toward a more dynamic interactive instructional approaches in which the

student is an intrinsic part of instruction (Dalton, 1998). Adelman and Vallone (2008)

cite: “Constructivist practice for English language learners resonates with language

development approaches that are focused on using language for meaningful purposes as

opposed to more traditional methods of language learning that focus on grammar,

language drills, and direct instruction” (p. 4). Marlowe and Page (2005) indicate that “In

a constructivist classroom the teacher does not stand and deliver most or even much of

the content material. Rather, students uncover, discover, and reflect on content and their

conceptions of such inquiry, investigation, research, and analysis in the context of a

problem, critical question, issue, or theme” (p. 8). Teachers must facilitate learning

experiences where second language learners can communicate using the target language

in natural settings. According to Miramontes, Nadeau and Commins (1997), “A

successful second language teacher purposefully plans for different linguistic and

cognitive settings with the aim of creating independent learners who can function in the

disembedded, cognitively demanding environment that characterizes high-level academic

work’’(p. 125). In addition, teachers need to create a nurturing and supportive

environment that encourages students to make mistakes and take risks. The lack of

motivation and the feeling of uncertainty can hinder the language acquisition. Krashen

(1982) explains that these psychological factors activate the affective filter and allows the

blocking of input depending on the learner’s attitude, motivation, and experience.

8

Teachers should develop educational activities that help students understand content.

Krashen affirmed that students acquire a language when they receive comprehensible

input. They develop literacy by understanding messages, not by consciously learning

about language and not by deliberate memorization of rules of grammar and vocabulary

(Krashen, 1981, 2003). The constructivist classroom is filled with learning opportunities

that allow students to question, interpret, and analyze information. Students use

information or concepts to develop, build or redefine concepts. Facilitators foster an

educational environment that promotes collaboration and group decision-making.

The curriculum proposed by the Department of Education has not met the

expectations of the community at large. It is important to explore and analyze the existing

relationship between the English Department’s curriculum, and its implementation, and

how it translates to students’ success. With this knowledge, generalization can be made

and possible trends can be identified in order to make sense of the different teaching

processes, and their impact on standardized testing. The findings of this proposed

research would help the school community at large to reflect on the different teaching and

learning processes that take place in the ESL classrooms. The Department of Education’s

philosophy towards teaching English as a second language at the high school level will be

explored and matched with the teacher’s classroom teaching practices to discover if there

is any alignment.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine the relationship between the

Puerto Rico’s Department of Education’s English Curriculum Framework, classroom

teaching practices, and their congruency with principles of second language learning.

9

The curriculum recommended by the Department of Education will be analyzed to see if

the ESL teaching practices match the proposed English curriculum. Second language

learners’ success may comprise a multiplicity of aspects related to their learning

experiences such as opinions about instructors, judgment on classroom activities and

pedagogical approaches, and manifestations with their progress in language learning

(Tse, 2000). The study sets out to examine the different program elements that shape the

students’ social and individual learning experiences within the context of the high school

setting. It is imperative to analyze the different processes that take place in Puerto Rico’s

classrooms, how the teachers perceive the department’s vision and expectation, and how

they correlate to students’ success. Making the necessary connections to issues regarding

program design and program delivery will facilitate an understanding of the different

teaching and learning processes, and facilitate a better understanding of standardized tests

results. The research will be conducted in the Northeast region of Puerto Rico.

This study sets out to investigate if there is any congruence between the

curriculum proposed by the Puerto Rico’s Department of Education, and the daily

processes that take place in the classroom. The findings of this research will help provide

insights as it relate to curriculum design and implementation. Curriculum plays a major

role in addressing the needs of not only English learners, but all learners as well. Chamot

(1994) explains that curriculum alignment is a vital component in addressing the needs

language learners. Miramontes, Nadeau and Commins (1997) affirm that “Poor

congruence between theory and practice is expressed through contradictions regarding

what is espoused to be good educational practice and the policies and instruction

surrounding linguistically diverse students”(p. 10). The contradiction between theory and

10

practice can have a devastating effect in program implementation and students’

achievement. The English Department’s curriculum framework proposed by the Puerto

Rico’s Department of Education calls for the alignment of the mission and vision

statement with the different curriculum processes that involve content standards, teaching

methods, assessments, and the different teaching and learning processes that evolve from

the constructivist teaching model.

Justification

Studies that have examined the English Curriculum Framework in Puerto Rico

reveal that there are critical issues that need to be further explored. In a similar study

conducted in the Humacao Region in Puerto Rico revealed that although the teachers'

teaching philosophy were aligned with the English Curriculum Framework, the teaching

methodologies that were assessed need closer alignment with the constructivist leaning

theory (Lugo, 2007). The investigation used questionnaires and reflection entries as data

collection tools and twenty teachers participated in the study. The results concluded that

further study is needed to identify the degree in which the disparity between the PR ESL

curriculum and the teaching practices occur.

In an effort to examine the English Curriculum Framework effectiveness, an

investigation was conducted in the southwestern part of Puerto Rico. Thirty teachers

participated in the investigation. The investigator used interviews and questionnaires as

data collection tools. The finding concluded that supervision and training, outdated

textbooks and materials, and teacher evidence of teacher burnout proved to affect the way

in which the English Curriculum Framework was implemented and accepted in the

southwestern school region. An ethnographic study was conducted in with five first year

11

college students to explore their experiences with learning English as a second language

at the high school level. The participants stated that their learning experiences were

inadequate and the teaching approaches used by the English teachers were outdated and

not pertinent to the students’ lives (Cartini, 1997). Indeed the findings show an urgent

need for additional research that can address these specific concerns. This investigation

examined the alignment between the ESL teaching practices and the constructivist

teaching theory as proposed by the English Curriculum Framework, the teaching

philosophies of teachers and do they execute that teaching philosophy in the classroom,

and examine the on-going communication between the Department of Education and all

the stakeholders as it relate to the implementation of the English Curriculum Framework.

Despite the fact that Puerto Rican students in public schools take English as a

Second Language in all grade levels, their level of success has been extremely low. The

standardized tests utilized by the Department of Education, Pruebas Puertorriqueñas de

Competencias Escolares continue to demonstrate limited proficiency in the subject of

English. El Nuevo Día (2010) reported a decrease in basically all the subject areas in the

nation’s standardized test. In the area of English, students scored at the 40thpercentile.

The article called for drastic actions that might include: remediation courses, policy

changes, massive reinforcement efforts, and possibly extending the term of service of the

Secretary of Education to eight years instead of four years. Most Puerto Ricans on the

island do not consider themselves bilingual in spite of 12 years of continuous English

instruction (Jimenez, 1993). The Department of Education has not experienced great

success when it comes to English language learning. After 12 years of English learning,

most Puerto Rican students attending public schools have not attained minimum

12

proficiency in English and therefore cannot communicate in the target language (Lladó-

Torres, 1984). Students have not been able to develop English fluency. The U. S. Census

Bureau (2000) reported that 83% of English language learners in the Puerto Rican public

are not able to classify themselves as bilinguals. This information continues to

demonstrate that students are performing below expectations.

The Department of Education sent out a circular letter in the 2008-2009 school

year requiring teachers to plan instructional activities that facilitate intellectual

development and the construction of knowledge. Teachers were requested to facilitate

learning strategies, methods of teaching and use teaching techniques that support the

constructivist approach in their daily lesson plans.

There is a need to find a reason for the on-going failure of the English as a Second

Language population in the public schools of Puerto Rico. Is the curriculum appropriate?

Is the curriculum implemented as outlined by the Department of Education? The results

of this study should provide information that can be used to take appropriate actions. The

findings will add more information regarding the curriculum, ESL teaching practices,

assessment practices, and the teaching philosophy. The study will add insights, and

provide additional information that will help high schools analyze their current

curriculum design and its implementation as it relates to the teaching of English as a

second language.

Research questions - problem questions

This study will seek to answer the following questions:

1. How in sync is the Puerto Rico Department of Education’s curriculum with

constructivist teaching practices?

13

2. To what degree do ESL teachers support and implement a Constructivist

approach to ESL teaching?

3. What teaching methods do teachers use on a daily basis?

4. To what degree do teachers implement a constructivist approach to ESL

assessment?

Definitions of terms

1. Affective filter: An emotional barrier to language learning that must be

overcome or set at a lower level so that the learner can progress from the input to the

output stage of second language development (Reyes & Vallone, 2008).

2. Alignment: An agreement or a match between two categories (Squires, 2005,

p. 4).

3. Authentic assessment: Process orientated material such as observations, long-

term projects, portfolios of students’ work, videotapes of students’ performance, and

writing samples (Costa, 1989, p. 2).

3. Basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS): the language of the everyday

activities: the way we communicate with others in a social environment (Reiss, 2005, p.

10).

4. CALLA (Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach) is an

instructional model designed to meet the academic the academic needs of English

language learners in elementary and secondary schools (Chamot, 2009, p. 5).

5. Cognitive Academic Language proficiency (CALP): The language skills

needed for successful participation in the content classrooms. These skills are much

slower to develop than the social interactive language skills (Chamot, 2009).

14

6. Comprehensible input: The continuous modification of speech to facilitate the

development of students’ second language (Reyes & Vallone, 2008).

7. Cooperative learning: “Small groups of learners working together as a team to

solve a problem, complete a task, or accomplish a common goal” (Artz & Newman,

1990, p. 448).

8. Context-embedded instruction: Instruction that takes place within an

environment that offers concrete, real life examples of what is being taught, such as

teaching about life cycle of frogs by raising tadpoles (Reyes & Vallone, 2008).

9. Constructivism: An approach or orientation to teaching and learning where

knowledge is not only transmitted to learners from teachers or books, but also that both

meaning and knowledge can be created collectively by learners or by learners and

teachers (Celce-Murcia 2001, p. 179).

10. Curriculum: “Curriculum is a plan that focuses and guides classroom

instruction and assessment” (Squires 2005, p. 4).

11. Curriculum alignment: “The degree to which expectations and assessments

are in agreement and serve in with one another to guide the system toward students

learning what they are expected to know and do” (Martone & Sereci (2009).

12. ELL: English Language Learners.

13. English as a second language (ESL) programs: ESL programs are

implemented within a school to provide on-going linguistic and academic support. These

programs are created to promote academic success and supplement educational material

from classes that contain English speaking students (Center for Applied Linguistics,

2005a).

15

14. English Emersion Programs: Immersion is a method of teaching non-English

speaking children without using the primary language of the child; English is not taught

as a language but it is used as a vehicle of teaching the child in all of his or her subjects.

The taught is that English will be learned during the teaching process incidentally

(Reyhner, Trujillo, Carrasco, & Lockard, 2003).

15. ESL: English as a Second Language.

16. Guided reading: Component of the Balanced-Literacy instructions. It

provides readers with the support they to need to develop reading skills and understand

the reading process (Richardson 2009, p. 6).

17. Language Experience Approach (LEA): The language experience approach is

one in which the teacher is a facilitator, choosing tasks that will help, not frustrate, the

learner. The teacher plans activities that are meaningful and encourages the students to

use English while dictating a story (Dixon & Nessel, 1983).

18. Language Policy: Refers to language-planning decisions made at the political

level intended to enhance or diminish the status or function of a language. These

decisions include the use of particular language in instruction and government

(Hoffmann, 1991, pp. 207-210).

19. Natural Approach: A teaching approach developed by Krashen and Terrell

that viewed communication as the primary function of language (Duly, Burt, & Krashen,

1982, p. 24).

20. Scaffolding: “Providing contextual supports for meaning for meaning through

the use of simplified language, teacher modeling, visuals and graphics, cooperative

learning, and hands-on experiences” (Ovando, Collier, & Combs, 2003. p. 345).

16

21. Second Language Acquisition: The process of developing a second language

naturally, in the same manner as the first, without substantive formal instruction (Reyes

& Vallone, 2008).

22. Second Language Acquisition: The process of developing a second language

naturally, in the same manner as the first, without substantive formal instruction (Reyes

& Vallone, 2008).

23. Zone of proximal development: “Students in the zone of proximal

development must struggle appropriately with content, because if it is too easy or too

difficult, they will lack the context in which new cognitive structures can be formed”

(Adelman & Lynn, 2008. P. 37).

Significance of the study

The findings of this investigation provide relevant information that could be used

by teachers to reflect on their teaching practices, and make adjustments if needed to

provide in order to provide a meaningful and productive learning environment. It also

provides teachers with additional resources for future investigations in the area of English

teaching. The results of this study can be used by administrators and program directors to

conduct in-service workshops in the area of teaching and learning.

Summary

The implementation of an English Curriculum Framework in 2003 outlined the

Department’s instructional goals and expectations. At the same time, the English

Department introduced a Constructivist learning theory that would be implemented

across all grades. Specific constructivist teaching methods and teaching practices are

recommended in order to provide an effective alignment. Puerto Rico’s instructional

17

leaders continue to voice concerns regarding the achievement levels in the area of

English language learning. The research questions presented in this chapter addressed

these concerns. Cohen (as in Biggs 2003, p. 350) explains that alignment becomes useful

when curriculum and assessments methods are aligned, the results of instruction is

massively improved. Subsequently, this study attempted to align Constructivist teaching

principles with teaching and assessment practices. The following chapter revises

literature related to Constructivist principles, and examines the different teaching and

assessment processes that are sync with this learning theory.

 

18

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter presents a review of literature and research that leads to build a base

in order to understand the constructivist learning theory as it applies to second language

learning (SLL). It compares the constructivist approach to the teaching of English as

second language with more traditional teaching approaches such as behaviorist teaching

approaches, with emphasis on the effectiveness of each kind of approach on students’

second language achievement. This study also reviews literature on curriculum

alignment, and its impact on effective teaching and learning processes in the English as

second language (ESL) classrooms.

Carter (2007) states “it makes sense that what we teach is congruent with what we

assess. It is equally crucial, however, that our instructional processes, how we teach, are

also congruent” (p. 22). Martone and Sireci (2009) affirm that “alignment research is one

method to demonstrate this consistency of message or to understand what changes need

to be addressed to ensure every student has the opportunity to learn the content on which

they are assessed, and to demonstrate his or her proficiency” (p. 1356). Although there is

very little research on the use of alignment research in the classroom (Roach et al. ,

2008), the results of an alignment can potentially assist educators in making the necessary

adjustments such that curriculum, assessment, and instruction support each other in

addressing the needs of the students. In the 1950s, the Puerto Rico English Department

(PRED) of the then called Public Instruction Department of Puerto Rico proposed a

teaching philosophy based on B. F. Skinner’s Behaviorist learning theory (Maldonado,

2000). Lightbrown and Spada (2006) explain “Behaviorism had a powerful influence on

 

19

second and foreign language teaching, especially in North America, between 1940s and

the 1970s”(p. 34). Teaching practices emphasized the memorization of dialogues and

sentence patterns by oral repetition and constant reinforcements. Today, many teachers

still use behaviorist teaching methods to develop linguistic skills the second language

learning classrooms.

Ellis (1997) affirms that “the dominant methods for teaching second languages in

the 1960s were the grammar-translation methods and the audio-lingual methods, both

methods rested on the belief that language learning was a process of studying and

memorizing vocabulary lists and explicit grammar rules”(p. 1). These methods were

based on the behaviorist learning theory. Teaching practices emphasized mimicry and

memorization. Students were exposed to constant drilling in an effort to memorize

different language patterns. Mitchell and Myles (2004) explain that “the learning of any

skill was seen as the formation of habits, that was, the creation of stimulus-response

pairing, which became stronger with reinforcement” (p. 31).

The Grammar-Translation Approach was one of the most traditional methods

used to teach language. It focuses on learning the rules of grammar and their application

in translation reading passages from one language to another. When this method was

used, the following procedures are implemented:

1. Instructions are given in the native language of the students.

2. There is little use of the target language for communication.

3. Focus is on grammatical parsing, the form and inflection of words.

4. There is early reading of difficult texts.

 

20

5. A typical exercise is to translate sentences from the target language into the

mother tongue or vice versa (Celce-Murcia, 2001p. 6).

Another behaviorist approach that was popular in many SSL classrooms was the

Direct Approach. In this approach, teachers and students work actively on educational

activities that promote the effective use of instructional time. The following principles

outline this behaviorist approach:

1. No use of the mother tongue is permitted.

2. Lessons begin with dialogues and anecdotes in modern conversational style.

3. Grammar is learned inductively.

4. Literary texts are read for pleasure and are not analyzed grammatically.

5. The target culture is also taught inductively.

6. The teacher must be a native speaker or have native like proficiency in the

target language (Celce-Murcia, p. 6).

The Audio-lingual Approach was another behaviorist approach that became

dominant from the 1940s to1960s. In an audio-lingual classroom, the teacher would

introduce a dialogue. Students would be asked to repeat certain words or lines.

Repetition drills would be used to emphasize certain skills, and a series of grammatical

patterns would follow the introduction of the dialogue. By listening, students are

expected to imitate the pronunciation of words and grammatical structures usage. The

Audio-lingual adheres to the following principles:

1. Lessons begin with dialogues.

2. Mimicry and memorization are used, based on the assumption that language is

habit formation.

 

21

3. Grammatical structures are sequenced and rules are taught inductively.

4. Skills are sequenced: listening, speaking, reading, and writing postponed.

5. Pronunciation is stressed from the beginning.

6. Vocabulary was severely limited in initial stages.

7. A great effort was made to prevent learner errors.

8. Language was often manipulated without regard to meaning or context.

9. The teacher must be proficient only in the structures, vocabulary, etc. That he

or she is teaching since learning activities and materials are carefully

controlled (Celce-Murcia, 2006).

The Audio-Lingual Approach has been compared to other teaching approaches

through research. Hee (1982) conducted an experimental study to compare the relative

efficacy of two instructional methods: the Audio-lingual and the Cognitive code. The

study used immigrant students enrolled in a bilingual vocational education program in

California. Hispanic students were taught with the Cognitive Code method, while other

immigrant students were taught with the Audio-Lingual methods. Pre-test and post-test

scores were compared. Pre and post test scores from the Llyin English Placement Test

were used for data collection. The results showed that students gained more when

exposed to the Cognitive Code method. When pretest and posttest scores were

compared, Hispanics showed higher gains when compared to other immigrant groups.

Lightbrown and Spada (1999) explain that “Behaviorism account for learning in

terms of imitation, practice, reinforcement (or feedback on success), and habit formation”

(p. 35). Students receive linguistic input from speakers in their environment, and form

associations between words, objects, and events. When experiences were repeated, the

 

22

associations would become stronger. Casey (1991) conducted a survey to investigate the

different ESL teaching methodologies used in American intensive English programs.

The investigation used the directors of organizations belonging to the American

Association of Intensive English Programs (AAIEP) and the University and College

Intensive English Programs as their sample population. The investigation concluded that

Grammar-Translation; Direct method, Audio-lingual, Cognitive Code, Total Physical

Response, Silent Way, Content Based, Notional-Functional, Community Language

Learning, and the Natural Approach were the most reported. Most of the teaching

methods reported were behaviorist teaching methods.

Yutaka (1995) conducted a similar investigation to find out what were the most

effective English language methods for adult English language learners. The study

concluded that a combination of Total Physical Response, and extensive reading seemed

to be the best. The investigation also concluded that reading activities can guide

communicative discussions.

In 2003, the Department of Education embarked in another curricular paradigm

shift when a new curriculum framework for the English Department was introduced.

This curricular framework proposed a constructivist view of teaching and learning. It

recommends teachers use authentic and learner-centered activities that allow students to

appreciate the target language and culture as well as their native language and culture.

Teachers were encouraged to facilitate meaningful learning opportunities that reflect the

students’ real world. The curriculum framework called teaching practices that serve as

alternatives to the traditional second language learning classroom.

 

23

Constructivist Learning Theory

English language teachers in Puerto Rico are being asked to facilitate a Learning

environment and assessment activities that are in congruency with the constructivist

teaching philosophy as proposed by the Department. Constructivist teachers become

facilitators of knowledge, and students become active participants of their own academic

development. Constructivist teachers must facilitate an active environment that features

the following dimensions:

1. Assessment through performance, using a wide range of assessment methods.

2. Curricula that emphasize big ideas, depth over breadth, and interdisciplinary.

3. Teachers become facilitators, and consistently use methods that promote

student to student interactions.

4. Variety of teaching methods, even within a single class period.

5. Engagement of students in the subject matter, with students becoming

historians, writers scientists, mathematicians, etc. (Gabler & Schroeder, 2003,

p. 17).

Marlow and Page (2005) affirm that “constructivism is about thinking and the

thinking process rather than about the quantity of information a student can memorize

and recite or, in the case of math for example, about answers based on memorized

formulas” (p. 8). Teachers must reevaluate their role when planning and implementing

curriculum. Gagnon and Collay (2006) explain that the constructivist teacher should not

plan to teach a lesson by telling or showing students what they know. Instead, they

should organize for learning by actively engaging students in making meaning to

construct their own knowledge. Students must interpret, analyze, and apply concepts

 

24

already learned to build new knowledge. Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2004) indicate that

“learning is not just a process of taking new information, ideas, and skills, but the new

material is reconstructed by the mind” (P. 13). The knowledge that the students bring to

the classroom becomes relevant as the teachers facilitate pertinent and relevant

information. The native language, the students’ culture, the students’ family experiences,

the community where the students are being raised, all provide a wealth of knowledge

that students need in order to make mental associations and cognitive connections.

Teachers must find ways to build on students’ knowledge. Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun

(2004), indicate that within the constructivist framework, Vygotsky invented the term

zone of proximal development which captures the problem of understanding the students’

level of development and then rearranging the cognitive tasks or the social demands of

the environment to pull the students toward growth( pg. 17). Similar to Yygotsky, Piaget

introduced a framework to understand the different stages of development. Joyce, Weill

and Calhoun affirmed that “Piaget’s framework is used to understand stages of

development and prescribe environments that will enable the students to function

adequately while enabling them to grow without stress (pg. 17). In the constructivist

teaching model, teachers are expected to provide learning environments where students

can negotiate their understanding of concepts to interpret and redefine concepts that are

obtained by mediation and collaboration. Rivera (2007) points out that a Constructivist

teacher facilitates a learning environment that promotes self-discovery, life-long learning,

and problem solving. Rivera adds that constructivist teachers must promote learning

experiences that encourage reflective learning, constant collaboration, and team-decision

making.

 

25

When students use the Constructivist earning theory, they must become active

participants of their learning by discovering, making connections, and applying concepts.

The facilitators must allow students to become problem-solvers and architects or their

own learning. They must challenge students to become agents of change. Students must

collectively solve pertinent problems in brainstorming and researching activities. These

activities must help students to redefine concepts and ideas.

When implementing the following Constructivist teaching theory, the following

principles should be evident:

1. Learning is not the result of development; learning is development. It requires

invention and self-organization on the part of the learner.

2. Disequilibrium facilitates learning; errors need to be perceived as a result of

learners’ conceptions, and therefore not minimized or avoided.

3. Reflective abstraction is the driving force of learning.

4. Dialogue within a community engenders further thinking.

5. Learners rather than the teacher are responsible for defending, proving

justifying, communicating their ideas to the classroom community (Fosnot,

2003, p. 34).

These principles reemphasize the importance of students’ background knowledge

and its value to a Constructivist curriculum design. Knowledge should be actively

created by hypothesizing, predicting, comparing and contrasting, manipulating objects,

and addressing individual and collective concerns. According to Foote, Vermette, and

Battaglia (2001) “Teachers in constructivist classrooms commit to helping students

develop deep understanding of important content, think critically, construct and solve

 

26

problems, express themselves proficiently, and leave school prepared to be responsible

citizens and lifelong learners” (P. 27). Students must see themselves as active

contributors in shaping their society. A Constructivist approach requires students to take

control of their learning. If learning has occurred, students should be able to reshape and

transform concepts and ideals. Ornstein and Hunkins (2004) state “the learner cannot

passively accept information of others. Rather, the learner must engage himself or

herself internalizing and reshaping from the inside, not from an external force (p. 117).

Celce-Murcia indicate that “ a constructivist orientation to teaching and learning is one in

which it is assumed that knowledge is not only transmitted to learners from teachers or

books, but also that both meaning and knowledge can be created collectively by learners

or by learners and teachers” (p. 179). Teachers facilitate collaborative activities where

ideas are born and concepts are redefined.

Constructivist and Second Language Acquisition

A variety of approaches, methods, and techniques may be associated with the

constructivist model as it relates to second language teaching and learning. Some of

these models include whole language approaches, project-based curriculum, and problem

solving strategies. Constructivist learning emphasizes the creation of rich, meaningful

environments where learners can best induce the knowledge to be learned. (Celce-

Murcia, 2007) Learners become active participants of their learning processes. They

become architects of their own learning always trying to solve social issues that are

pertinent and meaningful. Adelman and Vallone (2008) state that “Constructivism draws

from two theoretical perspectives: cognitive constructivism and social Constructivism”

(p. 27). Learners construct knowledge using background knowledge and previous

 

27

experiences to make mental connections. Students must analyze their own learning, and

they must seek strategies that help them reflect on their own learning.

Steven Krashen’s monitor model influenced many of the constructivist teaching

and learning proposals. Lightbrown and Spada (2006) state that “The Monitor model was

described in the early 1970s, at a time when there was growing dissatisfaction with

language teaching methods based on the behaviorism learning theory” (p. 37). Krashen

based his general theory around a set of five basic hypotheses:

1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

2. The Monitor Hypothesis

3. The Natural Order Hypothesis

4. The Input Hypothesis 

5. The Affective Filter hypothesis (Mitchell & Myles, 2004, p. 44)

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis makes a distinction between learning and

acquiring the language. When second language learners learn a language, they focus on

grammar rules, vocabulary, and memorize verb tenses. When students acquire the

language, they unconsciously gain knowledge through meaningful interactions. Krashen

(1985) affirms “acquisition refers to the subconscious process identical in all important

ways to the way children acquire a first language, and learning refers to the conscious

process that results in learning a language” (p. 1).

The Monitor Hypothesis explains that learning functions as a monitor device.

The language that second language learners acquire subconsciously is responsible for

language fluency and the language that ESL students learn consciously acts as an editor

that analyses form and structure. This conscious editor is what Krashen calls the monitor.

 

28

Such monitor occurs when the learner has sufficient time to concentrate on producing the

appropriate linguistics acts. Krashen (1982) advocated for the natural acquisition of

language. He supported the idea that language can be acquired and learned. Language

can be acquired out in the playgrounds and in many informal settings, but language is

learned in the classroom when there is a sequential curriculum and constant corrections

take place. Krashen indicates that students acquire language when they use it for

authentic purposes. Language should be used as a vehicle to address the students’

interests and needs.

Krashen also points out that there is a natural order in learning a language. His

Natural Order Hypothesis postulates that students must first comprehend the language

before they can learn it. Delli Carpini (2008) affirms that “Success is more likely when

the content is meaningful and relevant to the learner, which leads to enhanced motivation,

another necessary component in successful second language acquisition” (p. 99).

Students will make associations and apply concepts when they have been able to

understand the content presented to them. Teachers and students become active

participants in shaping the different learning experiences.

The Natural Order Hypothesis states the grammatical structures should be

presented in a predictable order. Some grammatical structures tend to be acquire dearly

and others at later stages of language development. Krashen (1985) affirms that “the

order does not appear to be determined solely by formal simplicity and there is evidence

that it is independent of the order in which rules are taught in language classes” (p. 1)

Krashen believed that like first language learners, second language learners seem to

 

29

acquire the features of the target language in predictable sequences (Lightbrown &

Spada, (1999).

The Input Hypothesis claims that second language learners move along the

development continuum by receiving comprehensible input. Krashen affirms that one

acquires language in only one way—by exposure to concepts that are understandable.

That will allow students to make connections and apply the concepts being introduced. If

teachers introduce concepts just above the students’ language proficiency level, student

will comprehend, and acquire the language. Teachers should facilitate educational

activities that are based on communication that is understandable.

The Affective Filter Hypothesis states that motivation, confidence, and anxiety

will have a direct impact on second language learning. Krashen indicates that there is an

Affective filter that plays an active role in language acquisition. Ligthbrown and Spada

state “The Affective filter is an imaginary barrier which prevents learners form acquiring

language” (p. 39). A student who is bored or anxious will exit out input, making it

difficult to understand the content being introduced. Armendaris (2009) conducted an

investigation to find out if second language learners experienced writing anxiety in

academic writing courses. Twenty-one students participated in the study. Seventeen of

those students came from different countries and together spoke twelve different

languages. The findings revealed that all participants experienced some form of anxiety

in writing English. The methods that the teachers used in the classroom helped alleviate

the anxiety. When the teachers used realistic goals, and capitalized on students’

background knowledge, students were able to deal with their anxiety more effectively.

Krashen (1984) explained how motivation and attitudes towards a second language can

 

30

affect the second language acquisition process. He affirmed that there is an affective

filter that restricts the desire to seek input if the learner is not motivated. Mental blocks

are caused by affective factors that do not allow students to comprehend a new language.

Students who are not motivated to learn a second language will not become active

participants in the language learning process. According to Tracy Terrell (cited by

Herrell, 2000), instruction of English learners should include classroom activities in

which they can participate at some level of comfort. Anderson (1999) describes

motivation as an effective teaching strategy to teaching second language reading. Second

language teachers must facilitate a learning environment where students make key

decisions on what they read and how they will approach the reading experience. That

will make the reading experience more meaningful, and at the same time, it will increase

the motivation level towards the reading process.

Mitchell and Miles affirm that “Krashen’s ideas have been influential in shaping

many research agendas and projects, and in doing so, considerably advancing our

understanding of second language acquisition. Many of the ESL constructivist teaching

practices share krashen’s proposals on second language learning. Lightbrown and Spada

(2006) indicate that “Krashen’s ideas were very influential during a period when second

language teaching was in transition from approaches that emphasized using language

rules or memorizing dialogues to approaches that emphasized using language with a

focus on meaning”(p. 38).

The language Experience Approach is an approach to reading instruction based on

students’ background knowledge. It is a learner-center activity that validates students’

ideas and interests. Dixon and Nessel (1983) state that “Learning to read a second

 

31

language is best accomplished when the reading materials that are based on real- life

experiences that are meaningful to the learner” (p. 2). It provides predictable and

readable materials given that the students’ natural language is used throughout the

process. Nessel and Jones (1981) outline the usual steps in implementing the Language

Experience Approach:

1. Teacher and students discuss the stimulus, or topic dictation. Observations

and opinions are exchanged. Oral language skills are developed and

reinforced.

2. The student dictates the story several times, with teacher help as needed, until

the story has become quite familiar. Comprehension is assured because the

student is reading material that is self-generated.

3. Individual story words are learned, and other reading skills are reinforced

through teacher-designed activities related to the story.

4. Students move from reading their dictations t reading other-author materials

as they develop confidence and skill with the reading process.

The Language Experience Approach supports constructivist proposals. Reyes and

Vallone (2008) affirm that “The language experience approach is useful when modified

for English language learners” (p. 43). It capitalizes on knowledge that students bring to

the classrooms. According to Kohonen (1992), “in experiential learning, the learner’s

immediate personal experiences are taken as the point of departure for deciding how to

organize the learning process” (p. 5). Many teachers have used this teaching approach to

combine content and the teaching of language. Anderson (1999) indicates that the

“language Experience Approach allows all members of a class to experience an activity

 

32

together; that activity then becomes the basis for language and content instruction” (p.

14). Celce-Murcia (1991) affirms that “experiential learning is more than just providing

natural experiences so that learners acquire language; it deliberately teaches learners, as

whole people, about how to learn” (p. 347). Experiential learning takes into

consideration the academic and social needs of the learners. Celce-Murcia (2002) states

that “teachers wishing to humanize the classroom treat students as individuals, patiently

encourage self-expression, seriously listen to learner response, provide opportunities for

learning by doing, and make learning meaningful to students in the here and now”(p.

334). Dixon and Nessel (1983) affirm that “Language Experience Approach is a natural

way of helping learners acquire oral, aural, reading, and writing skills, one particular

suited to the needs of the students for whom English is a second language” (p. xi). Dorr

(2006) points out that “a lesson that uses the Language Experience approach can entice

children to learn to use language in meaningful ways through an approach that

conceptualizes rather than simply define key vocabulary words” (p. 139).

Cummins’ theoretical framework on second language acquisition has guided

second language teachers to understand the importance of making instruction

comprehensible to students. Cummings explains that there is natural process in learning

a second language. Students need to develop their functioning or social language which

he refers to as BICS, Basic interpersonal communication skills. This is the language of

survival, the language that children use in the playground or in the backyard. It usually

takes two years to acquire these interpersonal communicative skills. When students

develop their social language, they must then learn the academic language. Cummings

(1982) explained that there is a difference between acquiring the language and learning it.

 

33

His framework for developing language proficiency outlined four different quadrants.

Quadrant one and two are indicative of basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS).

Quadrant three is considered a transitional phase where students are challenged, but still

need to be exposed to charts and graphs in order to comprehend text. Quadrant four

represents the students’ cognitive academic language proficiency level (CALP) where

students are involved in cognitively demanding activities that are found in content area

classes. Students should be transitioned from less demanding tasks to cognitively

demanding learning activities. This framework allows educators to concentrate on the

different processes involved in learning a second language and to understand its

complexity. Whole language is grounded on Cummins proposals. These proposals

support the idea that learning cannot simply be transmitted by teachers, instead, students

will learn as they construct their own meaning. Cummins proposes a curriculum that is

filled with many interactions and experiential learning.

Whole Language is a teaching philosophy that also supports the constructivist

teaching theory. It is based on the belief that children learn to read through exposure of

good books while minimizing the teaching skills. Krashen (1982) points out that students

acquire language most easily when they use language for authentic purposes rather than

focusing on language and teaching grammar directly. Students learn and acquire

knowledge as they construct their own knowledge. Whole language education

emphasizes acceptance of learners’ individual interests and backgrounds, flexibility

within the structure of lessons, authentic or practical tasks during which students learn

and practice reading and writing skills, and contextualized assessments based on

individual growth (National Council for Teacher Education, 2008). Students’

 

34

background knowledge is used as a foundation to develop language proficiency. At the

beginning stages, students will be involved in read aloud activities and continuous class

discussions that facilitate oral and written language. Students build new sight words by

repeating familiar books. Teachers and students discuss, read, and write together.

Student-made books become part of the classroom. These books are read over and over

again, and students have the chance to compare and contrast their stories. At later stages,

guided reading is introduced. The teacher facilitates cooperative reading groups based on

student’s language proficiency levels.

The following Whole Language principles are relevant to the constructivist

teaching approach:

1. Learning proceeds from whole to part.

2. Lessons should be learner-centered because learning is the active construction

of knowledge by the student.

3. Lessons should have meaning purpose for students now.

4. Learning takes place as groups engage in meaningful social interaction.

5. In a second language, oral and written languages are acquired simultaneously.

6. Learning should take place in the first language to build concepts and

facilitate the acquisition of English.

7. Learning potential is expanded through faith in the learner. (Freeman &

Freeman, 1992, p. 7).

Gardner and Lambert (1972) outlined the Social-Educational Model, a model that

surfaced after a ten year study. According to the investigators, learner’s attitudes toward

a target language and the culture of the target language speaking community play an

 

35

important role in language learning motivation. There is an instrumental motivation

related to the students desire to learn a language for functional purposes such as going to

school or finding a job. There is also an integrative motivation that is related to the

students desire to acculturate into the target language community. These types of

motivation will impact the students’ perceptions and attitudes towards learning another

language.

ESL teaching approaches that allow students to learn naturally, capitalizing on

their back ground knowledge support the constructivist learning theory. In addition,

teaching strategies that promotes self-discovery, collaborative problem solving, and self

reflections embrace the constructivist learning theory. Adelman and Vallone (2008) state

that “Constructivist practice for English language learners resonates with language

development approaches that are focused on using language for meaningful purposes as

opposed to more traditional methods of language learning that focus on grammar,

language drills, and direct instruction.

The CALLA

Chamot (2009) defines CALLA as an “instructional model designed to meet the

academic needs of English language learners in the elementary and secondary schools”

(p. 1). The teacher’s role when implementing CALLA is to provide a curriculum that

develops content subject knowledge, English proficiency, and literacy.

The CALLA (Cognitively Academic Language Learning Approach) has provided

specific guidelines to combine second language teaching practices and the teaching of

academic content. This instructional model integrates topics from academic subject

areas, the development of academic language, and specific learning strategies to help

 

36

students take control of their own learning. In CALLA, collaboration is identified as an

essential learning strategy that students need to understand. Chamot (2009) explains how

cooperative learning can be implemented in a CALLA lesson:

Cooperative learning activities are essential when implementing CALLA in the

ESL classroom. It can be successfully used during the preparation phase when students

are identifying their prior knowledge of a topic, during the self-evaluation phase when

students assess their own level of learning and during the expansion phase, students apply

new information strategies that what is taught earlier in collaborative academic tasks (p.

15). Cooperative learning is an effective constructivist practice because of the following

reasons:

1. It challenges learners to question their assumptions, reflect on their beliefs,

and assume responsibility for their own learning.

2. It stimulates cognitive disequilibrium for participants thinking and thus

promotes problem solving and analytical thinking.

3. The teacher becomes a facilitator/coach, one who challenges, helps focus, and

provides appropriate ideas when they are needed.

4. It allows students to seek new knowledge, exchange perspectives, and assume

responsibility for their own learning. (Foote, Vermette, & Battaglia, 2001, p.

46)

In addition, students’ background knowledge and personal interests are essential

tools when planning a CALLA lesson. Scaffolding activities are facilitated to help

students understand, decipher, and apply concepts. Some CALLA learning strategies can

be identified as constructivist strategies.

 

37

Figure 2: CALLA and the Application of the Constructivist Model

Facilitators that use the CALLA approach use a variety of learning strategies that

support the constructivist proposals as outlined by the Puerto Rico English Department.

They must carefully plan and integrate curricular concepts that are pertinent and relevant

to the students’ lives. Chamot (2009) indicates that “CALLA teachers not only think

about the ways in which they will deliver instruction, but also think through how

individual students will receive and act upon that instruction” (p. 80). Teachers need to

differentiate instruction to meet the different social and academic needs of second

language learners. Russell and Baker (2000) identified the CALLA teaching approach as

a teaching method that is consistently aligned with theories of second language learning

development.

Teachers who facilitate this learning theory must become facilitators of a self-

discovery process where students become architects of their own learning. Students must

assume ownership of their own learning, and they must become active- participants in

their quest for knowledge. Students must take control of their leaning by making

connections to what they already know and what is being introduced. Ornstein and

Hunkins (2004) explain that in the constructivist model, students’ learning is optimized

when they are aware of the processes that they are structuring. Students try to interpret

 

38

and a redefine concepts as they make associations and comparisons. Joyce, Weil, and

Calhoun (2004) affirm that learning is not just a process of taking in new information,

ideas, and skills, but the new material is reconstructed by the mind. So knowledge must

evolve from personal reflection and constant interpretation of personal values and

interests.

Teachers integrate content areas in order to provide pertinent learning

experiences. Teachers will create thought-provoking activities so students can negotiate

and come up with decisions that impact society at large.

The use of the constructivist learning theory has a direct impact on how second

language learners acquire English knowledge. The following constructivist teaching

practices that can be used in an ESL classroom:

1. Select books to read aloud that reflect the cultures represented in the

classrooms. The familiarity allows students to build upon their backgrounds.

2. Ask students what they already know about topics that arise.

3. Read with inflection, gestures, humor, and drama; act out scenes in the book.

4. Develop vocabulary and understanding within the context or rich and

wonderful stories as teachers facilitate discussion and questions.

5. Guide students in using graphophonic, semantic and syntactic cueing systems

within the context of rich children’s literature (Adelman & Vallone, 2008, p.

43).

The curriculum implemented in the ESL classrooms must support constructivist

approaches and learning strategies. The classroom teacher must facilitate a learner-center

instruction. Joyce, Weil and Calhoun affirm state “Teachers need to actively build

 

39

partnerships required to provide the help needed as the students try to work out their own

problems. ” (p. 32) A constructivist teacher finds ways to organize the classroom

environment so students collaborate and share their prior knowledge. Schurr (1992)

affirm that “it is important that a classroom climate be established which fosters

cooperation, and just competition during instruction” (p. 56). Lightbrown and Spada

(1999) indicate “cooperative activities have been found to increase the self-confidence of

students, including weaker ones, because every participant in a cooperative task has an

important role to play. Collaborative activities facilitate a sense of unity and a genuine

desire to contribute to the groups’ success.

The ESL constructivist classroom is filled with problem-solution situations and

project-based activities where second language learners are empowered to make

decisions based on their prior knowledge and the facts presented. Project-based learning,

as stated by Lou and MacGregor (2004), is an instructional strategy and brain-based

model that incorporates individualistic, cooperative, and competitive instruction, as well

as many of the brain-based strategies that constructivist instructional strategies possess.

Norman (2008) defines problem-based learning as learning that is driven by challenging,

open-ended problems where students work in small groups. Students work

collaboratively to solve real-life issues that are pertinent and meaningful. Project-based

learning involves English language learners in challenging experiences that promote

constant reflection in order to tackle problems.

A constructivist facilitator will ask English learners to solve problems while

providing the necessary learning tools to accomplish the task. Teachers must structure

learning experiences around the big ideas where students explore multiple solutions,

 

40

experiences, and collaborate to solve real-life problems. Students will engage in

research-based activities where different content areas are explored in order to find facts

that will support a point of view or a collaborative decision.

Constructivist Assessment Practices

Assessment plays an invaluable role with the constructivist learning theory as it

applies to the teaching of English as a second or foreign language. It is invaluable tool

when it comes to making key adjustments to a curriculum that is already in place.

Squires (2005) affirm that “curriculum should incorporate teachers’ idea, blended with

the ideas from standards and the content tested on state or standardized tests” (p. 245).

Teaching practices, standards implementation, classroom procedures can be strategically

effective by analyzing assessments and evaluation results. Las Pruebas Puertorriqueñas

is an assessment tool that is given every year during the spring to gather statistical

information regarding students’ yearly performance. These test scores are compared year

after year to check for students progress and students academic gains throughout their

school years. Schools are also evaluated based on these scores.

Ornstein and Hunkins (2004) affirm that “in curriculum evaluation, educators are

interested not only in the quality and value of the curriculum, but also in gathering data to

determine students’ success with the curriculum experienced” (p. 352). The teaching

strategies and the teacher’s perspectives on how students learn will have a direct impact

on how students perform in standardized and alternative assessments. Many schools in

Puerto Rico have developed internal assessments to provide students with on-going

testing experiences, and to follow up on students’ educational development throughout

the school year. The Puerto Rico English Department recommended assessment

 

41

practices based on the different learning and teaching processes that are aligned with the

constructivist proposals. (Circular letter 4-2007-2008) In this letter, the Department

recommends using the following assessment tools to gather and collect assessment data:

1. Anecdotes

2. Informal observations

3. Diagnostic tests

4. Checklist of skills

5. Students’ assessment profiles

6. Self-Evaluation

7. Reflection journals

8. Students’ Portfolios

The Constructivist learning theory calls for an assessment and evaluation model

that involves the students in making reflective decisions, and using their background

knowledge to redefine concepts. For this reason, in a constructivist classroom, second

language learners will be not be totally involved in answering yes or no answers or

memorizing concepts to answer a fill in the blank test. Instead, they will be involved in

alternate assessments where they make key decisions to solve a given problem. Ornstein

and Hunkins (2004) point out that in the constructivist classroom the learners cannot

passively accept information by mimicking the wording or conclusions of others. Rather,

the learner must engage himself or herself in internalizing and reshaping or transforming

information via active consideration” (p. 117).

ESL students in a constructivist classroom are constantly involved in authentic

assessment activities. They are constantly solving problems and interpreting meaningful

 

42

and pertinent events that shape their lives. According to Tanner and Tanner (2007) some

types of authentic assessments might be student-initiated projects requiring systematic

investigation, or through student portfolios, simulations, and various kinds of context-

situated projects. Costa (1989) outlines some authentic assessment activities. Some of

these activities are: direct observations of behavior, portfolios of student work, long-term

projects, logs, and journals, student interviews, videotapes of student performances, and

writing samples. Student must constantly be involved in identifying trends, formulating

questions, drawing inferences, and reaching collaborative conclusions. Teachers’

teaching philosophy, their teaching practices, and their assessment techniques should be

aligned in order to maximize students learning experiences. Marone and Sireci (2009)

clarified that without a means to understand what goes on in the classroom, and way to

compare how students are performing, it is difficult to truly understand if all students are

provided with adequate educational opportunities.

Curriculum alignment becomes imperative when addressing the needs of second

language learners. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation proposes an alignment

between state standards and assessments as a prerequisite to achieving adequate yearly

progress (US Department of Education, 2002). Curriculum alignment in this

investigation refers to the processes involved investigating or evaluating the connection

between testing or assessment, content standards curriculum, and instruction. According

to Martone and Sireci (2009) explained that if these components work together to deliver

a consistent message about what should be taught and assessed, students will have the

opportunity to learn and truly demonstrate what they have achieved. Webb (1997)

indicated that “the alignment of curriculum, instruction, professional development, and

 

43

assessments are key performance indicators of states, districts, and schools’ striving to

meet challenging standards” (p. 1). Alignment research may address potential

assessment or instruction deficiencies by systematically comparing the different pieces of

the educational process. If educational components are not well aligned, the system will

not send a consistent message about what is valued in the educational process (Webb,

1999). Redden, Simon, and Aulls (2007) indicate that “The integration of theoretical and

practical knowledge and the eventual ability to be a reflective practitioner are logical

aims for teacher educational programs” (p. 149). Although there are many curriculum

alignment strategies, this study will use Squires Alignment Octagon. It is an alignment

tool that shows the relationship between all the different teaching and learning processes.

These processes include the alignment of the curriculum, textbooks, and assessments.

Squires (2005) affirm that “the alignment octagon can be used to by districts to chart out

their alignment strategies and question the validity of their assumptions about how

alignment will produce greater achievement” (p. 107).

Figure 3: Alignment Octagon

 

44

The alignment octagon calls for an all alignment of the curricular components.

Squires explains that districts need a plan for integrating curriculum, instruction, and

assessment, so student performance, as defined by standards, increase in demonstrable

ways. An effective curriculum alignment will help teachers understand, teach, and assess

that concepts that students really need to learn. An alignment will help teachers visualize

what needs to improve, and it will give them the tools to make key decisions to address

the different academic needs. Martone and Sereci (2009) affirm that “Without a means to

understand what goes on in the classroom and a way to compare how students are

performing, it is difficult to truly understand if all students are provided with adequate

educational activities”(p. 1332).

Research in the area of ESL teaching in Puerto Rico shows a need to further

investigate the different processes that take place in ESL classrooms. Cartini-Soto (1997)

conducted an ethnographic study that examined the English learning experiences of a

small number of college level students. The participants in the study complained about

their teaching and learning experiences, and identified these experiences as traditional

and inadequate. The participants complained and expressed their dissatisfaction with the

ESL teaching methodologies that were used in the classroom. In a similar study, Carroll

(2005) examined the English curriculum as proposed the Puerto Rico Department of

Education to determine its effectiveness when implemented in high schools located in the

southwestern region of Puerto Rico. The findings of the story showed that there was a

lack of teacher training and supervision. In addition, there were problems with the

teaching materials used in the classroom. Teacher burnout also proved to be detrimental

when implementing an ESL curriculum. Lugo (2007) conducted a study to examine the

 

45

ESL teachers’ philosophies and their preferred ESL teaching methodologies. Twenty

teachers who worked in a northeast educational region were requested to write a personal

statement, respond to a journal entry, and respond to a teaching style questionnaire. The

findings showed that although the majority of teachers followed a constructivist learning

theory, most of them preferred use traditional teaching methods. The study also

concluded that the teachers ESL teaching philosophy was in alignment with the ESL

curriculum, but, teaching practices needed to be closer aligned. Teachers evenly

implemented traditional and constructivist teaching practices. The investigator concluded

that further studies are needed to identify the degree to which the inconsistency between

the Puerto Rico ESL curriculum and the ESL teaching practices affect the learning of a

second language.

Evidently, there are many concerns that emerge when implementing an ESL

curriculum. In Puerto Rico, the investigations that address these concerns are limited,

therefore, the findings of this investigation will add insights and provide information that

will help administrators and teachers address the needs of the English language learning

population.

Summary

This chapter summarized a series of studies in the areas of Constructivist

proposals, ESL teaching methods, and assessment practices. In addition, the investigator

presented an overview of literature related to curriculum alignment. Next chapter will

explain the investigation procedures. In addition, the data collection instruments that

were used in the study will be explained. The investigator will explain how the finding

will be protected and shared with all the stakeholders.

 

46

CHAPTER III

METHOD AND RESEARCH DESIGN

Introduction

Chapter three describes the methodology and procedures that were used to answer

the study’s research questions. Information related to the selection of the subjects, data

collection procedures, the research design, and the data collection tools are presented in

this chapter. In addition, the following chapter outlines the procedures used in conducting

a pilot trial to validate the questionnaire as a data collection tool. This pilot trial was

conducted at a different school district in the metropolitan area. Participants in the pilot

trial met the same participation criteria that were used in the investigation. English

teachers that service second language learners in grades 10th-12th were asked to

participate on a volunteer basis. The investigator requested participants' permission to

conduct a follow-up classroom observation. This study was a two-fold investigation. It

examined different ESL teaching practices, and investigated whether the ESL teaching

practices were aligned with the Puerto Rico’s English Curriculum Framework as

proposed by the Puerto Rico English Department, an office of the Puerto Rico

Department of Education (PRDE).

Research Design

This mixed–method investigation was used an exploratory design with sequential

procedures. The study began with a quantitative research method where theories and

teaching strategies were examined, and continued with a qualitative research method

involving a detail exploration of all the variables. The investigator used a questionnaire,

a quantitative data collection tool, to examine the different dependent variables related to

 

47

the teaching of English as a second language (ESL). In addition, the investigator

conducted a follow up classroom observation to document the teaching practices used in

the English learning classroom. Freankel and Wallen (2008) indicate that “In the

exploratory design, results of the qualitative method, and quantitatively results are used to

validate and extend the qualitative findings” (p. 560).

The classroom observations were used to explore the PRDE English teaching

philosophy, and its alignment with actual ESL teaching practices. This exploratory

design sought to discover the relationships between the all the variables. Mixed

investigations have proven to be effective when analyzing relationships among different

variables. Fraenkel and Wallen (2008) affirm that “a mixed-method research can help

clarify and explain relationships found to exist between variables” (p. 558). According to

Fraenkel and Wallen qualitative variables can be quantified with an instrument such as a

questionnaire that can then be administered to large numbers of individuals. This study

examined the different teaching and learning practices used in the classroom, and

determined whether they are in harmony with the constructivist teaching model as

proposed by the PRDE. Furthermore, the study will investigate if the classroom

materials and assessment tools used in the classrooms reflect the proposed constructivist

teaching methods, and if they are congruent with recent research findings in the area of

second language learning and teaching.

The following chart summarizes the different curriculum elements that were

analyzed in the study. The alignments between the curricular components were assessed

in an effort to contribute and provide research-based recommendations that will

contribute to the field of Teaching English as a Second Language.

 

48

Figure 4: Alignment Chart of the Different Curriculum Areas to be investigated

Population

The study took place in the PRDE San Juan Educational Region which includes

the following school districts: San Juan 1, San Juan 2, Carolina, Trujillo Alto, and San

Juan 3. The region has 38 high schools that serve approximately 10, 496 students.

Twelve schools that service grades 10th-12th participated in this study. Four additional

schools in the Carolina school district were added as alternate schools if the collection of

additional data was necessary. The following table outlines the distributions of the high

schools in the San Juan Education School Region.

Table 1: Distribution of High Schools in the San Juan Educational School Region

San Juan 1 San Juan ll Carolina 1 (If needed)

Carolina ll (If needed )

1. Madame Luchetti 2. Dr. Facundo Bueso 3. Ramón Power y Giralt 4. Centro Eugenio María De Hostos 5. Gabriela Mistral 6. Trina Padilla

1. Republica de Colombia 2. Ramón Vilá Mayo 3. Berwind Superior 4. Albert Einstein 5. Miguel Such (Vocacional)

1. Ángel P. Millán Rohena 2. Lorenzo Vizcarrondo

1. Dr. José M. Lázaro 2. Luz América Calderón

 

49

Sample

The sample was selected randomly, but all participants met certain characteristics.

The participants were high school teachers who are presently teaching English classes in

grades 10th-12th. The investigator expected to recruit a maximum of twenty-nine

teachers to participate in the study, but twenty-six teachers volunteered to participate in

the study. They participated in the investigation on a volunteer basis, and they were all

certified English teachers in the academic area of English teaching.

Data Collection

This mixed-method research study used two data collection tools in an effort to

investigate if there was any significant relationship between the PRDE’s proposed

constructivist curriculum, and constructivist teaching practices. The investigator used a

questionnaire and a teacher observation checklist to investigate the alignment of the

proposed English Curriculum Framework and the teaching and learning processes that

occurred in the classrooms. Both data collection tools were created by the investigator,

and both instruments were validated by an expert. In addition, the investigator conducted

a pilot study in a different school site to validate the questionnaire.

ESL teachers responded to a questionnaire in order to identify their teaching

practice preferences. The questionnaire included two sections: demographic information

and information related to the implementation of eight constructivist teaching practices.

The demographic information requested data on years of experience, Academic

background, number of planning sessions in a month, and number of workshops. The

scale used a range of a five point Lickert scale: (1) Almost never, (2) seldom, (3)

sometimes, (4) frequently, and (5) almost always.

 

50

Once the investigator received the questionnaires, the investigator requested

permission from each participant to conduct one follow-up classroom observation.

Classroom visits were coordinated and scheduled with each participant’s input. The

researcher used classroom observations to gather information regarding the

implementation of eight constructivist teaching practices. According to Wajnryb(1995),

“Being in classroom as an observer opens up a range of experiences and processes which

can become part of the raw material of a teacher’s professional growth “ (p. 1).

Classroom observations guided the investigator in indentifying constructivist teaching

practices, and its alignment with the participants' perspectives on the implementation of

the teaching practices. The investigator used a letter code system to match the participant

with each data collection tool. This letter code system protected the confidentiality of

each participant.

Research Methodology

The questionnaire and the observation checklist list explored the following

constructivist practices that were identified as dependent variables:

1. Natural communication

2. Implicit Vocabulary

3. Implicit Grammar

4. Collaboration and cooperative grouping

5. Guided reading strategies

6. Integration of different academic areas

7. Conflict resolutions/problem solving

8. Authentic assessments

 

51

A regression statistical test examined the relationships between four independent

variables: years experience, academic degrees, planning time, and amount of workshops.

The study explored the impact that these independent variables had on the dependent

variables. To quantify these predictors, the investigator assigned a nominal value to

quantify the responses.

The investigator used spreadsheets to visually show the participants' perspectives

on implementing constructivist practices and to what degree did participants implement

them in the classrooms. The investigator included pie charts to illustrate the alignment

between what the participants believed and what actually occurred in their classrooms.

The investigator also use a t-two tailed statistical test to examine if there was a

significant difference between participants' viewpoints on the implementation of

constructivist practice and what actually happened in the classroom observations. If there

was a p value equal or below 0. 05, there was statistical evidence to show no alignment

between what the participants believed and what was observed in the classrooms.

MINITAB, a statistical software, calculated the datum. This is a computer

software designed to conduct statistical analysis. The software allows investigators to

collect and interpret data.

Validity

Both data collection tools: the questionnaire and the observation checklist were

validated by an expert. In addition, a pilot test was conducted at a different educational

setting using the same investigation procedures. English teachers who taught grades 10th-

12th were selected to participate in the trial study. The participants shared the same

selection criteria with the purpose of maintaining the same investigation environmental

 

52

conditions. The investigator conducted the pilot study in a high school in the

metropolitan area. English teachers volunteered to participate in the pilot program. This

was important because the investigator intended to find out the participants' personal

beliefs on the Constructivist learning theory and its implementation in the English

classrooms. Nine teachers volunteered to participate in the pilot trial. Each participant

answered a set of eighteen questions where they shared information regarding their views

and understanding of the constructivism learning theory.

Cone and Foster (1993) affirmed that “The essential criterion for any instrument,

whether it be in the physical or behavioral sciences, is that it produces data that are

reliable and valid"(pg. 152). To assess reliability, and validate the consistency of the

questionnaire's responses, the investigator used an Alpha Cronbach statistical test. This

test examined the correlation between each item to determine internal consistency. The

test analyzes each item and provides it with a score. After examining each item a score,

an average alpha score was given to the instrument. A passing score on this statistical

analysis indicates that the questionnaires are valid and reliable. "In general, a Cronbach's

alpha value of 0. 8 and above is considered ideal where as a score higher than 0. 7 is

desirable (Siribaddana, 2010). The trial test investigated if there was reliability and

validity on the participants' responses. MINITAB, statistical software was used to

analyze the data. This is a computer program designed to conduct advanced statistical

functions.

 

53

4.5

3.5

2.5

5

3

1

4.5

3.5

2.5

4.5

3.5

2.5

4.5

3.5

2.5

4.5

3.5

2.5

4.5

3.5

2.5

4.53.52.5

5

3

1

4.53.52.5 531 4.53.52.5 4.53.52.5 4.53.52.5 4.53.52.5 4.53.52.5

BC

DE

FG

H

A

I

B C D E F G H

Matrix Plot of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I

Figure 5: Cronbach Alpha Test, Participants Response Matrix Cronbach Alpha test analyzed each item in the questionnaire to determine the

correlation between the participant’s responses. The consistency of each of the

participant's responses was analyzed in the following figure.

Table 2: Correlation matrix Item Analysis of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I

A B C D E F G H I 0. 505 0. 519

0. 746 D 0. 349 0. 320 0. 330

0. 102 0. 140 0. 374 -0. 273

. 500 0. 300 0. 351 -0. 009 0. 290

0. 298 0. 342 0. 593 -0. 043 0. 723 0. 344

0. 126 0. 125 -0. 194 0. 010 -0. 316 -0. 042 -0. 250

0. 369 0. 469 0. 457 0. 109 0. 527 0. 523 0. 599 -0. 029

Cell Contents: Pearson correlation

 

54

Table 3: The Cronbach Alpha average score indicates that the instrument is reliable and valid. The score of 0.7695 is a desirable score.

Variable Count Mean Std. Deviation

A 20 4. 000 1. 026

B 20  3. 750 1. 118

C 20  3. 900 1. 483

D 20  3. 600 0. 883

E 20  3. 800 1. 005

F 20  4. 100 1. 334

G 20  4. 000 1. 376

H 20  3. 650 1. 226

I 20  3. 850 1. 531

Total 20  34. 650 6. 612

Item and Total Statistics: Cronbach's Alpha = 0. 7695

This score also demonstrated that the reliability was consistent. This ensures that

the various items in the questionnaire that measure different constructs delivered

consistent scores (Shuttleworth, 2009).

The Puerto Rico Department of Education, specifically the Office of Planning and

Educational Development approved the pilot study and provided a letter authorizing the

investigator to conduct the investigation in the San Juan Educational School Region.

Each participant received a letter requesting their consent to participate in the study. The

investigator attached the questionnaires to the letters. Then the investigator scheduled

future visits to the different schools to collect the questionnaires and schedule classroom

visits.

Procedures

The investigator coordinated with the Office of Planning and Curriculum

Development, Department of Education to seek permission to visit the schools to conduct

 

55

an investigation in the San Juan Education School District. Research coordinators from

the school district provided letters authorizing the investigator to conduct an

investigation. When visiting the schools, the investigator presented the authorizing

letters to the school administrators at the different research sites. The investigator will

share the authorizing letters with the school principals to inform them about the study.

In addition the investigator provided the participants with consent letter which

outlined research procedures and requested the participants' voluntary participation. A

follow up visit was scheduled with potential participants who volunteered to offer a

follow-up lesson demonstration. Those who expressed a desire to continue supporting

the investigation scheduled future classroom observation. The investigator used a

visitation log to keep track of the scheduled classroom visits.

The investigator coordinated future school visits with school administrators and

the classroom teachers. Some visits were scheduled during team or department meetings

or before or after school hours to avoid the disruption of instructional time.

Participants participated in the investigation on a volunteer basis. The

investigator informed them that they could withdraw from the investigation at any given

time during the research process. A copy of the research project will be donated to the

Office of Planning and Curriculum Development at the PRDE. The findings will be used

to assist teachers in the San Juan Education region to understand their learning and

teaching environment and understand the importance of aligning the constructivist

philosophy to current ESL theories and classroom practices.

 

56

Confidentiality

A letter code system was assigned to each questionnaire and observation checklist

to protect the confidentiality of each participant. This letter code matched participants

with the questionnaires and the observation checklists. The data collected was locked

under key in the investigator's home for a period of five years. After that all data

associated with the study will be retrieved and shredded.

Risks

The risks in the study are minimal. These risks might be related to teachers’

nervousness when being observed. Other minimal risks might be associated to teachers'

tiredness or work-related stress.

Study Benefits

This investigation contributed the field of Teaching English to as a Second

Language. Future investigators may use the findings as a frame of reference for future

studies. In addition, the information collected will help the participants to reflect on their

own teaching practices.

Limitation of the Study

This investigation recruited twenty-nine teachers. Twenty-six English teachers

participated on a volunteer basis and twelve participants allowed the investigator to

conduct a classroom follow-up visit. The number of participants who participated in the

second part of the investigation was limited and generalizations were difficult to make.

In addition, the investigation took place in one specific school region making it difficult

to generalize the findings to other school districts.

 

57

Summary

This chapter described the procedures that the investigator used to conduct this

investigation. The study was conducted in the San Juan Educational School Region and

the participants were high school teachers who teach grades 10th to 12th. Also, this

section provided a description of the data collection instruments that were used to collect

the information needed to answer the investigation questions. This chapter also included

procedures for the collection and interpretation of all the data. Once the study concluded,

a statistical report was generated in order to analyze the findings. The investigator used

these reports to complete the following two chapters. In these chapters, the investigator

will make conclusions and analyze how these findings impacted the different teaching

and learning processes.

 

58

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Introduction

This study sought out to examine the alignment between the Puerto Rico's

Department of Education's English constructivist teaching proposal and classroom ESL

teaching practices. With this research, the investigator attempted to collect snap shots of

the teaching reality of high school teachers in the San Juan Educational School Region,

and examine if this reality aligns with the constructivist teaching practices outlined in the

English Curriculum Framework.

The school region has fourteen high schools that offer English courses in grades

10th-12th. Twenty-six teachers completed a questionnaire and twelve of those

participants agreed to be observed at a later date. The school directors and classroom

teachers were extremely cooperative in letting the investigator collect the data. Teachers

filled out the questionnaires during their preparation periods, and at their convenience a

follow-up classroom observation session was scheduled for those teachers who

volunteered to be observed.

The researcher used two data collection instruments for collecting the data. The

first instrument was a questionnaire. The first section of this instrument requested

information regarding years of experience, training, experience, and planning time. The

second section of the questionnaire had 18 items related to constructivist and behaviorist

teaching practices. The participants identified the teaching practices that they preferred

by checking off a Lickert Scale from 1-5.

 

59

Data was collected from 26 certified English teachers who teach grades 10th-12th

in four different school districts in the Metropolitan Area. In order to keep track of the

observations, the investigator prepared an observation calendar. Participants requested

specific dates and those days were posted on the calendar. At the end, the investigator

visited twelve participants in five different schools. Originally 14 teachers had

volunteered to be observed, but two teachers were not available during their scheduled

appointments.

The second data collection tool used in the investigation was an observation

checklist prepared by the investigator. The instrument listed eight constructivist teaching

variables on a Lickert Scale 1 through 5. The investigator used the observation checklist

to indentify constructivist teaching practices that were evident in the classrooms. A code-

system was used to match the questionnaires and observation checklists with each

participant. The datum collected was used to answer the research questions.

The English Curricular Framework outlines specific constructivist practices that

teachers can use to make curricular decisions. It also provides teachers with a scope and

sequence of activities that can be implemented throughout the school year. All of the

participants that participated in the study indicated that they fully understood and

supported the constructivist teaching theory as proposed by the Department of Education.

However, most of them disagreed in the way they perceived the implementation of

constructivist teaching practices. Participants' perspectives on the use of constructivist

practices differed from participant to participant. It became more evident when

classroom lessons were observed. There was significant difference between the teaching

practices observed and the perceptions that the participants had in the implementation of

 

60

constructivist teaching practices from classroom to classroom. There was, however,

evidence that some constructivist teaching practices were implemented all the

classrooms.

After observing twelve different teachers at eight different school sites, the datum

showed no significant alignment between the curriculum framework proposals and six

out of eight constructivist teaching practices. Implicit vocabulary and facilitating natural

communication were two constructivist teaching practices that predominated in all the

English classrooms that were observed at the different research sites.

Figure 6: Constructivist teaching practices observed during the classrooms visits. A regression statistical analysis was used to estimate the relationships between

constructivist teaching practices and four independent variables: years of experience,

amount of training, educational background, and planning time. Regression statistical

tests can be used to understand and explain relationships among variables. These four

 

61

independent variables were examined to see if they significantly affected the participants'

teaching perspectives to constructivist teaching practices. To quantify these variables a

number code system was used from 1-4. For example, teaching experiences was coded in

the following manner: 1-3 years of experience =1, 4-6 years of experience =2, 7-10 years

of experience =3, and 11 +years = 4.

In addition, an observation checklist was used to identify whether seven

constructivist teaching practices were evident or not in the classroom observations. To

quantify the checklist data, a nominal value of 2 (Evident) or 1 (Not Evident was given

the participants' responses. A two-tailed t-statistical test was used to find out if there was

a significant difference between what the teachers believed and what the investigator

evidenced during the classroom visits. Both data collection tools, questionnaires and

observation checklist, examined the following constructivist practices as dependent

variables:

1. Implicit vocabulary

2. Natural communication

3. Grammar free correction

4. Collaboration and cooperative groupings

5. Guided reading strategies

6. Integration of different academic areas

7. Conflict resolution/Problem solving

8. Authentic assessments

This investigation sought to investigate the participant’s perspectives regarding

the implementation of constructivist practices. Furthermore, the investigator examined

 

62

the implementation of the constructivist these teaching practices in the classrooms to see

if there was any alignment between what the participants believed and how the

participants' teaching practices.

A regression statistical study was used to examine problem solving as a

constructivist teaching practice. The findings showed that the participants' perspectives

on the use of problem solving as a constructivist teaching practice was significantly

influenced by participants' educational background and the amount of team planning

time.

Table 4: Regression Analysis: Problem Solving versus Experience, Academic Degree, Planning Time, and Number of Workshops

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 3. 6844 0. 5535 6. 66 0. 000

Experience -0. 3989 0. 2125 -1. 88 0. 074

Academic Degree 1. 0878 0. 4274 2. 54 0. 019

Planning -0. 4667 0. 2717 -1. 72 0. 101

Workshops 0. 2029 0. 1763 1. 15 0. 263

Participants' educational backgrounds seemed to have a significant impact on the

implementation of constructivist practices. The majority of the participants held

Bachelor's degrees. 67% of the participating teachers held Bachelor's degrees and 37%

of the participating teachers held Master's Degrees. Teachers who held Master degrees

tend to welcome and facilitate activities that involve students in finding solutions to real-

life problems.

Moreover, the amount of time that teachers spent planning together proved to be

important when implementing and planning lessons that involved solving problems.

Fifty percent (50%) of the participants indicated that they did not meet during a specific

 

63

planning time to develop constructivist lesson. Fifteen percent (15%) of the participating

teachers stated that they meet as a team 1 to 3 times a month. Thirty five percent (35%)

of the participants affirmed that they meet 4-6 a month to collaborative plan for lessons

that included constructivist practices and twelve percent (12%) of the participants

indicated that collaboratively met 7 or more times a month to prepare constructivist

lessons.

Additionally, eight-eight percent (88%) of the participants questioned agreed that

implementing problem solving strategies was an essential practice in a constructivist

classroom. When follow-up visits were conducted, the implementations of problem

solving strategies were not evident in any of the classroom visits.

Figure 7: Participants' perspectives on problem solving, and whether or not problem solving was evident in the classroom visits.

When another regression analyses was conducted using content integration as the

dependent variable, the predictors reacted differently. The independent variables did not

seem to influence the use of content integration as a constructivist practice

 

64

Table 5: Regression Analysis: Content Integration versus Experience, Academic Degree

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 4. 2013 0. 2890 14. 54 0. 000

Experience 4. 2013 0. 1109 -0. 47 0. 641

Academic Degree -0. 0526 0. 2231 1. 37 0. 184

Planning -0. 1214 0. 1418 -0. 86 0. 402

Workshops 0. 09249 0. 09205 1. 00 0. 326

S = 0. 518451 R-Sq = 12. 6% R-Sq(adj) = 0. 0%

Twelve point six percent (12. 6 %) of the variation in operating margin is

explained by the four independent variables, while eight seven point four percent (87.

4%) remains unexplained. Variables that could have impacted the use of content

integration as a constructivist practice were not considered in this study. Other variables

must be considered and investigated in future studies.

Eight four percent (84%) of the participating teachers agreed that content

integration is important when implementing constructivist teaching practices. In contrast,

there was no evidence of content integration in any of the classroom observations.

 

Figure 8: Participants' perspectives on the integration of content, and whether or not this teaching strategy was evident during classroom visits.

 

65

Integration of content was another constructivist practice that was not evident in

any of the classroom observations. The majority of the participants affirmed that they

believed it was a good teaching practice to combine academic disciplines and with

language learning activities. However, the integration of content was not evident in any

of the classrooms observed.

Table 6: T-test: Paired Two Sample for Means Content Integration

Variable 1 Variable 2 Mean 4. 25 1

Variance 1. 477272727 0 Observations 12 12

Pearson Correlation #DIV/0! Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 11 t Stat 9. 262828942

P(T<=t) one-tail 7. 90131E-07 t Critical one-tail 1. 795884814 P(T<=t) two-tail 0. 0000015803 t Critical two-tail 2. 200985159

There is sufficient evidence to confirm that there was a significant difference with

what the participants perceived of content integration as a teaching tool to what was

observed in the classrooms. The alignment between participants' perspective and

teaching practice was not evident.

Embedding content area studies in real life experiences is especially important for

language learners, because not only does it develop vocabulary but it also helps bridge

the gap between content and language through comprehensible experiences (Adelman &

Lynn, 2008, p. 55). Teachers who facilitate content integration allow students to make

curricular connections and expand their frame of references so they can easily transfer

knowledge. Participants who participated in the study indicated that it was a good

 

66

constructivist practice to integrate different content areas. Academic integration is an

important constructivist teaching strategy that facilitates collaborative discussions where

students can solve issues that are pertinent and relevant to their lives. The relationship

between literacy proficiency and academic achievement grows stronger as grade level

rise regardless of individual student characteristics (Evecharria, Vogt, & Short, 2010, p.

12). Teachers must facilitate learning experiences where students can develop literacy

skills in different content areas. By integrating different academic disciplines, content

becomes more meaningful and pertinent because students can use their background

knowledge to interpret and redefine academic concepts. Also, students are able to

practice the language functions and skills needed to understand, discuss, read about, and

write about the concepts already developed (Chamot & O'Mally, 1994, p. 26). Language

learning becomes more meaningful when students understand its importance to tackle

academic concepts.

According the datum collected, the implementation of activities where students

solved problems individually or collectively was significantly influenced by two specific

factors: Years of experience and academic degree. Teachers with more year of

experience tend to implement constructivist practices in their daily lessons. Furthermore,

teachers with higher educational degrees tend to use the integration of content as a

constructivist teaching practices on a regular basis.

 

67

Table 7: Regression Analysis: Problem Solving versus Experience, Academic Degrees and Number of Workshops

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 3. 6844 0. 5535 6. 66 0. 000

Experience -0. 3989 0. 2125 -1. 88 0. 074

Academic Degree 1. 0878 0. 4274 2. 54 0. 019

Planning -0. 4667 0. 2717 -1. 72 0. 101

Workshops 0. 2029 0. 1763 1. 15 0. 263

S = 0. 993178 R-Sq = 27. 6% R-Sq(adj) = 13. 8%

The statistical results indicate that implementation of problem solving was not

affected by any the independent variables. Twenty seven percent (27. 6 %) of the

variation in operating margin is explained by the four independent variables, while

seventy two percent (72. 4%) remained unexplained. Other variables might be

considered when analyzing factors that might influence the implementation of problem

solving as a constructivist teaching practice.

Analyzing real-life problems is an important component when implementing

constructivist strategies. Most of our social dilemmas require analysis of complex

systems and movement toward acceptable solutions (Gagnon & Collay, 2001, p. 37).

Our world is filled with problems and today's youth need to be prepared to tackle these

problems if they are to succeed in life. Today's youth must developed survival skills that

will help them tackle problems individually and collectively.

 

68

Figure 9: Participants' perspectives on the use of problem solving strategies, and whether or not these teaching strategies were evident during classroom visits. The majority of the participants agreed that facilitating activities where students

solved problem individually and collectively was important and necessary in a

constructivist classroom. However, the data collected did not evidence significant use of

conflict resolution strategies as constructivist teaching practices in the classroom

observations.

Table 8: T-Test: Paired Two Sample Means for Problem Solving

Variable 1 Variable 2 Mean 4. 25 1

Variance 0. 931818182 0 Observations 12 12

Pearson Correlation #DIV/0! Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 11 t Stat 11. 66294947

P(T<=t) one-tail 7. 79102E-08 t Critical one-tail 1. 795884814 P(T<=t) two-tail 0. 0000001558 t Critical two-tail 2. 200985159

 

69

The datum collected demonstrated that there was no sufficient evidence to show

an alignment between the participants' perspectives on implementing problem solving

and teaching practice. Problem solving is a guiding principle for constructivist

classrooms. In constructivist classrooms, teachers need to challenge students to reflect on

real-life issues and come up with solutions that will help them improve their immediate

environment.

Facilitating group work and collaborative activities was constructivist practice

that was examined in this investigation. The datum evidenced that the teachers'

perspectives on facilitating collaborative activities were significantly affected by the

amount of service years and the amount of team planning time. A regression statistical

analysis showed that the peer collaboration is significantly influenced by participants'

educational background.

Figure 10: Participants Academic Degrees

In addition, the amount of time that participants spent collaborating and planning

for instruction influenced the implementation of collaborative activities. In addition, the

 

70

datum collected from a regression statistical test evidenced that years of experience is an

important predictor when implementing group work as a constructivist teaching practice.

Table 9: Regression Analysis: Peer Collaboration versus Experience, Academic Degree, Planning Time, and Number of Workshops

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 3. 4373 0. 4489 7. 66 0. 000

Experience 0. 4531 0. 1723 2. 63 0. 016

Academic -0. 4711 0. 3466 -1. 36 0. 188

Planning 0. 2204 -2. 69 0. 014

Workshops 0. 1531 0. 1430 1. 07 0. 296

Figure 11: Participants' Years of Teaching Experiences

Participants who had more years of teaching experience were more likely to use

group work and collaborative assigned projects.

Collaborative activities did not predominate in the classroom observations.

Teacher direct instruction was more prevalent. The sitting arrangement, the materials

displayed, and even the classroom processes did not evidenced group work in the

 

71

majority of classroom observed. The activities posted in the classrooms did not evidence

any collaborative problem-solving. Instead, most lessons were taught in whole-class

groupings. Group discussions were not evident; instead teacher-student dialogues more

frequent.

 

Figure 12: Participants' perspectives on the use implicit vocabulary teaching and what was observed during classroom visits (repeated on page 75).

Facilitating group work is an important component of a constructivist classroom.

Cooperative learning is a tool for delivering the Constructivist philosophy (Pelech &

Pieper, 2010, p. 53). When students work in groups, they share their personal ideas and

thought on specific real-life issues. Group discussions allow students to voice their

concerns and use their background knowledge to solve real-life issues. Gagnon Jr.,

Collay (2001) affirmed that "Humans learn in the company of others, and therefore,

designing for constructivist learning must anticipate directly and specifically the role of

humans in the group" (p. 13). Cooperative learning can enhance a constructivist learning

environment.

 

72

Table 10: T-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means of Collaborative Work

Groupings Variable 1 Variable 2 Mean 3. 666667 1. 416667

Variance 1. 333333 1. 356061 Observations 12 12

Pearson Correlation -0. 02254 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 11 t Stat 4. 700097

P(T<=t) one-tail 0. 000325 t Critical one-tail 1. 795885 P(T<=t) two-tail 0. 00065 t Critical two-tail 2. 200985

Teachers need to facilitate well-planned activities where members of a team

understand individual roles, make individual contributions, and reflect on their collective

decision making. In a constructivist learning environment, students work together to

create and modify their own knowledge base by presenting their knowledge in different

formats, blending the knowledge of others with their own knowledge, and working with

others to create solutions to problems (Pelech & Pieper, 2010, p. 61).

Academic background and years of teaching experience proved to influence the

implementation of implicit vocabulary as a constructivist teaching practice. Both

independent variables seem to play an important role when implement implicit

vocabulary as a constructivist teaching practice.

 

73

Table 11: Regression Analysis: Implicit Vocabulary versus Experience, Academic Degrees, Planning time, and Number of Workshops

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 4. 1159 0. 3382 12. 17 0. 000

Experience -0. 2320 0. 1298 -1. 79 0. 088

Academic 0. 5769 0. 2612 2. 21 0. 038

Planning -0. 1797 0. 1660 -1. 08 0. 291

Workshops 0. 0490 0. 1078 0. 45 0. 654

The teaching of vocabulary is an important standard when teaching a second a

language. Students need to develop functional and academic language in order to express

themselves clearly and communicate naturally. Acquiring vocabulary will help second

language learners make curricular connections and collaboratively solve problems to real-

life issues. Words are perceived as the building blocks upon which knowledge of the

second language can be built (Murcia-Celce, 1991, p. 296).

Seventy five percent (75%) of the participating teachers agreed that it was of great

importance to teach vocabulary implicitly when implementing constructivist teaching

practices. Moreover, when classrooms lessons were observed, 100% of the participating

teachers proved to teach vocabulary implicitly.

 

74

Figure 12: Shows the participants' perspectives on the use of implicit vocabulary teaching, and what was observed during classroom visits (repeated on page 71). Table 12: T-Test Paired Two Samples for Implicit Vocabulary

Groupings Variable 1 Variable 2 Mean 3. 916666667 1. 916667

Variance 1. 356060606 0. 083333 Observations 12 12

Pearson Correlation 0. 247896176 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 11 t Stat 6. 141195789

P(T<=t) one-tail 3. 64891E-05 t Critical one-tail 1. 795884814 P(T<=t) two-tail 0. 00007298 t Critical two-tail 2. 200985159

When a t-two tailed statistical test was performed using implicit vocabulary as a

dependent value, it was found that the p value was below 0. 05, therefore there was no

significant difference between the teachers' perspectives in facilitating activities where

students used implicit vocabulary learning and what was observed in the classroom. This

statistical test supports the previous findings on the use of implicit vocabulary.

 

75

The dependent variable of guided reading was also tested against the four

different independent variables. A regression statistical analysis evidenced that the four

predictors did not seem to impact in any way the implementation guided reading as a

constructivist practice. One of the main goals of the English Curriculum Framework is to

prepare students to reach their potential through the development of their four strands of

the English program: oral communication, written communication, reading

comprehension and literacy appreciation (p. 13). Balanced reading approaches is

recommended by the Department of Education to address the literacy of English language

learners.

Table 13: Regression Analysis: Guided Reading versus Experience, Degree

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 3. 9323 0. 5607 7. 01 0. 000

Experience -0. 2263 0. 2152 -1. 05 0. 305

Academic 0. 5459 0. 4330 1. 26 0. 221

Planning -0. 0265 0. 2753 -0. 10 0. 924

Workshops -0. 0388 0. 1786 -0. 22 0. 830

All participants in this study agreed that implementing guided reading strategies

as part of a balanced reading program was necessary for students to succeed in a

constructivist classroom. When classroom were observed, seventeen percent (17%) of

the teachers observed used elements of guided reading. Some of those elements included

the activation of prior knowledge, personal reflections, guided questions, and class

summaries.

 

76

 

Figure 13: Shows the participants' perspectives on guided reading strategies, and whether or not this reading strategy was evident in the classroom visits. 83% of the classes observed did not use guided reading strategies as constructivist

practices. This data shows no alignment between participants' perspectives on the guided

reading strategies, and their teaching practices.

Table 14: T-Test: Paired Two Samples for Means for Guided Reading

   Variable 1  Variable 2 

Mean  4. 333333333 1. 416667

Variance  2. 424242424 1. 356061

Observations  12 12

Pearson Correlation  0. 167131568

Hypothesized Mean Difference  0

df  11

t Stat  5. 670970334

P(T<=t) one‐tail  7. 21286E‐05

t Critical one‐tail  1. 795884814

P(T<=t) two‐tail  0. 0001442572

t Critical two‐tail  2. 200985159   

In a constructivist classroom, students acquire communicative skills in a natural

and non-threatening environment. Teachers allow students to take risks and concentrate

 

77

on communicating effectively. There is limited error correction and the emphasis in

more on meaning and comprehension. In a natural communication environment, there is

little pressure to perform at high levels of accuracy, and there is often greater emphasis

on comprehension than production, especially in the early stages of learning (Spada &

Lightbrown, 2006. p. 113).

According to a regression analyses, facilitating a natural communication

environment as a constructivist practice was not influenced by the four independent

variables: experience, academic degree, planning time, and hours of training. The

analysis indicate that only thirteen point one percent (13. 1% ) of the variation margin

was explained by the independent variables. Eighty six point nine percent (86. 9%)

remains unexplained due to unknown predictors. There are variables that were studied

that could have had a greater impact.

Table 15: Regression Analysis: Natural Communication versus Experience, Academic Degree, Planning Time, and Number of Workshops

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 4. 6812 0. 1848 25. 34 0. 000

Experience -0. 00200 0. 07092 -0. 03 0. 978

Academic 0. 0913 0. 1427 0. 64 0. 529

Planning 0. 04029 0. 09069 0. 44 0. 661

Workshops 0. 03010 0. 05886 0. 51 0. 614

The regression equation is: Natural Communication = 4. 68 - 0. 0020 Experience + 0. 091 Degree + 0. 0403 Planning + 0. 0301 Workshops. S = 0. 331482 R-Sq = 13. 1% R-Sq(adj) = 0. 0%

 

78

Figure 14: Participants' perspectives on facilitating a natural communication environment, and whether or not this constructivist practice was evident in the classroom visits. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the participating teachers agreed the facilitating a

natural communication environment was significant when implementing constructivist

teaching practices. When classrooms were observed, one hundred percent (100%) of the

participants implemented an environment where students communicated freely without

worrying about grammatical or pronunciation mistakes.

Table 16: Two Tail Test Sample Means for Natural Communication

   Variable 1  Variable 2 

Mean 3. 416667 2Variance 1. 537879 0Observations 12 12Pearson Correlation #DIV/0! Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 11 t Stat 3. 957284 P(T<=t) one-tail 0. 001122 t Critical one-tail 1. 795885 P(T<=t) two-tail 0. 002244 t Critical two‐tail  2. 200985    

 

79

To test if there was a significant difference between the participants' perspective

as it related to the implementation of a natural communication environment as a

constructivist practice, and its implementation a t-two tail statistical test was performed.

The results indicated that there was no significant difference between what the teachers

the participants believed and what was observed during the classroom visits. The P

Value was below the 0. 05 value.

Most of the participants agreed that facilitating natural communication is an

important constructivist practice that should prevail in all English classrooms. During

classroom visits, all the participants provided natural environment where students spoke

freely without worrying about making mistakes. During oral presentations or individual

classroom participations, students articulated their responses at different proficiency

levels. Teachers and students assisted each other in communicating ideas. There was a

complete alignment between teachers' perspectives on facilitating a natural

communication environment and its implementation in the classrooms that were

observed. When errors were committed, teachers rephrased the language acts and

modeled the correct language use. Students participated actively in classroom

discussions and sought peer assistance whenever they needed it. Participants used

visuals, manipulatives, short and simple sentences, and high frequency vocabulary to

facilitate a natural communication environment.

This investigation examined the teaching of implicit grammar. In a constructivist

classroom, teachers facilitate learning experiences where learn grammar in a natural and

non-threatening way. Students are exposed to grammar structures in a meaningful and

natural way using the target language as communication tool. When a regression

 

80

statistical test was conducted to examine if any of the independent variables had impact

on its implementation, it was evident the training played an important role. The number

of in-service training previously taken seemed to impact the implementation implicit

grammar teaching as a constructivist teaching practice. In addition Academic

background, and planning times proved to be important predictors when implement

implicit grammar teaching as a constructivist teaching practice.

Table 17: Regression Analysis: Implicit grammar teaching versus Experience, Academic degrees, planning time, and number of workshops

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 1. 8459 0. 4242 4. 35 0. 003

Experience 0. 2395 0. 1133 2. 11 0. 072

Academic Degrees -0. 6462 0. 2525 -2. 56 0. 038

Planning time -0. 0991 0. 1363 -0. 73 0. 491

Number of Workshops 0. 06260 0. 09320 0. 67 0. 523

The regression equation is: Free Grammar Correction = 1. 85 + 0. 239 Experience - 0.46 Academic Degrees: - 0. 099 Planning Time + 0. 0626 Number of Workshops S = 0. 414953 R-Sq = 59. 8% R-Sq(adj) = 36. 9%

The data collected from the questionnaires evidenced that 55% of the participants

agreed that is an effective practice to facilitate activities where students learned grammar

structures implicitly without the constant memorization of grammatical rules. When

lessons were observed, 50% of the participant’s implemented implicit grammar teaching

as a constructivist teaching practice. The participants' perspectives’ regarding the

teaching of grammar was aligned with the classroom practices.

 

81

 

Figure 15: Participants' perspectives on teaching grammar implicitly, and whether or not this constructivist practice was evident in the classroom visits.

Table 18: T-Two tail-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for Error Free Grammar Correction

Variable 1 Variable 2 

Mean 3. 75 1. 5 

Variance 0. 931818182 0. 272727 

Observations 12 12 

Pearson Correlation 0. 27050089 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 11 t Stat 8. 07434963

P(T<=t) one-tail 2. 99077E-06 t Critical one-tail 1. 795884814 P(T<=t) two-tail 0. 0000059815 t Critical two-tail 2. 200985159   

The consistency of the datum was tested with a t-two tail statistical test to

examine if there was significant difference between the participants viewpoints on

implementing an implicit grammar learning environment, and the observed teaching

practices. It was found there was no significant difference. Consequently, the datum

showed that there is an alignment between the participants' perspectives on teaching

 

82

grammar implicitly, and how grammar is taught from 10th to 12th grades in this

particular school region.

Assessment plays an important role in a constructivist classroom. Teachers need

to know students well in order to prepare lessons that are meaningful and pertinent.

Students need to play an active role in the assessment process. They need to understand

how they learn, and what skills they master, and what skills need to be reinforcement.

Assessment should be a continuous process that drives the on-going teaching and

learning processes. When a regression analyses was conducted, it was found that none of

the predictors had a significant influence in the way participant’s implemented authentic

assessments in their classrooms. Twenty seven point eight percent (27. 8%) of the

variation in operating margin was explained by the four independent variables while

seventy two point two percent (72. 2%) remains unexplained due to unknown variables.

Other variables that were not considered could have had a more significant impact.

Table 19: Regression Analysis: Authentic Assess versus Experience, Academic Degrees, Planning Time, and Number of Workshops

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 2. 2228 0. 6942 3. 20 0. 004

Experience 0. 3248 0. 2665 1. 22 0. 236

Academic 0. 5245 0. 5360 0. 98 0. 339

Planning 0. 5043 0. 3407 1. 48 0. 154

Workshops -0. 2904 0. 2211 -1. 31 0. 203

The regression equation is: Authentic Assessment = 2. 22 + 0. 325 Experience + 0. 524 Academic + 0.504 Planning - 0.290 Workshops S = 1. 24546 R-Sq = 27. 8% R-Sq(adj) = 14. 0%

Seventy five percent (75%) of the participating affirmed that facilitating alternate

assessments was imperative in a constructivist classrooms. The analyses of the

questionnaire's responses clearly demonstrated that the majority of participants preferred

 

83

to use authentic and meaningful assessments. The classroom observations, however,

showed quite the opposite. Fifty percent (50%) of the participants observed used some

form of alternate assessment, and fifty percent (50%) of the participants did show any

evident of using authentic assessments as a constructivist teaching practice.

 

Figure 16: Participants' perspectives on facilitating authentic assessments, and whether or not this constructivist practice was evident in the classroom visits. Table 20:T-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Variable 1 Variable 2 Mean 3. 833333333 1. 5 Variance 1. 242424242 0. 272727 Observations 12 12 Pearson Correlation 0. 312347524Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 11t Stat 7. 532386216P(T<=t) one-tail 5. 76335E-06t Critical one-tail 1. 795884814P(T<=t) two-tail 0. 0000115267t Critical two-tail 2. 200985159

The data evidenced that there was a significant difference between the

participants' viewpoints on facilitating authentic assessments, and what was observed in

 

84

the classroom observations. Assessments play an important role when implementing a

constructivist teaching model. Teachers design lessons based on their assessment of

student’s needs, developmental levels, and interests (Gagnon & Collay, 2001, p. 115). A

variety of assessments will help teachers design lessons that are pertinent and

meaningful.

Summary

In summary, this investigation assessed the alignment of the Puerto Rico English

Curriculum Framework constructivist proposal and its alignment to ESL constructivist

teaching practices. Eight constructivist teaching practices were indentified and examined

to understand how these practices were perceived by teachers and to what extend were

these practices implemented in the classrooms. It was evidenced that implicit

vocabulary, implicit grammar teaching, and facilitating a natural communication

environment were constructivist teaching practices that were aligned with how

participants perceived them and how they implemented these teaching practices in the

classrooms. On the contrary, there was no significant evidence to determine alignment

between the participants' perspectives and how they implemented the following

constructivist practices:

1. Cooperative groupings

2. Guided reading strategies

3. Content integration

3. Problem Solving

4. Authentic Assessment

 

85

The findings also concluded that there might be other factors that might influence

the implementation of constructivist teaching practices. When there was no alignment

between what the participant’s perspectives in regards to specific teaching practices and

how they implemented these practices in the classrooms, it became evident that other

factors not considered in the study could have had an impact on how these teaching

strategies were implemented in the different research sites.

There was significant statistical evidence to conclude that years of experience and

educational background influence the degree in which constructivist practices are

implemented in the classrooms. Participants who had more years of experience and

higher educational degrees were more inclined to implement the constructivist learning

theory in their daily lessons.

 

86

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary of the Problem and Methodology

Since 2003, the Puerto Rico's English Department has implemented a curriculum

framework that is based and supported by the constructivist learning theory. The English

Curriculum Framework provides teachers with mission, vision, program goals, course

objectives, and recommend a series of methods that support a constructivist teaching

model. English teachers have received countless training, and support staff has been

assigned to the different schools to provide administrative and technical support.

The teaching of English in Puerto Rico has been challenged by many sectors of

society. English Standardized testing scores continue to show minimum gains. Torres &

Millán (2012) stated that "Experts in the field of Teaching English as a Second Language

assure that the lack of a strategic plan and politics are responsible for the schools' failure

to successfully teach English in Puerto Rico's public schools (p. 4). Yet, the Puerto Rico'

Department of Education has implemented a Curriculum Framework that offers a

strategic plan to implement an English program from grades K-12th. The Curriculum

Framework provides teachers with a scope and sequence of standards, concepts, skills,

and assessment activities throughout a school year.

This investigation sets out to examine if there is any alignment between the

English Curriculum Framework and the daily processes that take place in the English

classrooms, specifically in a school region located in the metropolitan area. Seven

constructivist teaching practices recommended by Puerto Rico's English Department and

 

87

supported the by the research will be examined to see if participants implement them in

their classroom lessons.

The findings were analyzed and interpreted using a MINITAB; a statistical

software. Spreadsheets were used to organize the datum and to create figures that

summarized the questionnaire and observation checklist results. In addition, a regression

statistical analysis was used to test each constructivist practice to see if there was any

predictor that influenced its implementation. Academic degrees, planning time,

educational background, and years of experience were predictors used by the investigator

to examine if there was any correlation to each of the constructivist teaching practice.

The investigator also used two -tailed t-statistical test to examine if there was a

significant difference between the teachers' perspectives on implementing constructivist

practices and to what degree were these teaching practices implemented in the classroom.

This investigation used four research to questions aimed at examining the teachers'

perspectives, and teaching practices as they relate to the Constructivist Learning Theory.

The following analysis will examine the findings.

Research question # 1: How in sync is the Puerto Rico Department of Education’s

curriculum with constructivist teaching practices? The investigator selected eight

constructivist teaching practices that were recommended by the English Curriculum

framework and supported by the research. These teaching practices were the dependent

variables throughout the study: natural communication, implicit vocabulary, implicit

grammar, cooperative groupings, guided reading strategies, integrating content, problem

solving, and authentic assessments. Participants used a questionnaire to share their

perspectives on the implementation of each constructivist teaching practice. Then the

 

88

investigator conducted one follow- up classroom visit to those participants who

volunteered to be observed. The datum collected evidenced that the participants were

fully aware of the constructivist learning theory, but their level of support to implement

all constructivist practice varied from school to school. The datum collected from

classroom visits did not fully evidenced an alignment between what the teachers

perceived of the constructivist teaching practices , and degree in which these the teaching

practices were implemented in the classrooms. Implicit grammar teaching, facilitating a

natural communication environment, and implicit vocabulary teaching were three

constructivist practices that were evident in all observed classes. The statistical analyses

evidenced that these three constructivist teaching were aligned with what the participants

believed, and how they were implemented in the classrooms. In contrast, there was not

sufficient statistical evidence to demonstrate that cooperative grouping, guided reading

strategies, integration of content areas, conflict resolution, and the use of authentic

assessments were aligned with participants' perspectives and their implementation in the

high school English classes.

The English Curriculum Framework supports and recommends English teachers

to implement activities where students work collaboratively solving real-life problems.

Facilitating cooperative activities has proven to be an effective constructivist teaching

practice. However, this constructivist teaching practice was not evident in most of the

classes observed. Research has shown the cooperative learning is essential when

implementing a constructivist teaching methodology. The Constructivist learning theory

takes form during cooperative learning because of the following reasons:

1. Students reflect on their beliefs.

 

89

2. Students ask questions and seek answers.

3. Students assume responsibility for their own learning.

4. Cooperative learning places the teacher in the role of a facilitator or a coach.

5. Teachers challenge students to question their beliefs and assumptions (Foote

& Battaglia, 2001, p. 46).

Cooperative learning can be implemented in many ways, and at different times

during a lesson. However, it is key that teachers follow the following constructivist

principles when facilitating group work:

1. Students should create their own version of knowledge.

2. Students learn by teaching and explaining to others.

3. Students should create products in different modes.

4. Students should classify, predict, and modify knowledge rather than just

repeating it.

5. Students are required to think differently.

6. Students interact with others by comparing and contrasting ideas.

7. Students solutions to problems should impact society (Pelech & Pieper, 2010,

p. 60).

Although many researchers have made a case in favor of cooperative learning as a

Constructivist teaching practice, it was not evident in eighty-percent (83%) of the classes

observed. Teachers who participated in study believed that group work was essential

when implementing Constructivist teaching practices, nevertheless the implementation of

collaborative activities was not consistent in most of the observed classes. When

 

90

implemented, the participants used pair groupings and group tutoring sessions to support

the understanding of concepts.

The implementation of guided reading strategies was another recommended

constructivist practice that was not evident in any of the observed lessons. Even though a

hundred percent (100%) of the participants believed that it was essential to implement

guided reading activities in a constructivist classroom, only sixteen percent (16%) of the

teachers observed facilitated instructional lessons that included some guided reading

strategies. Guided reading activities include constructivist teaching practices that have

proven to be effective. Understanding how the structures and expectation of Guided

Reading align with the constructivist theory and practice reveals how and why it provides

such powerful environment for learning (Phillips, 2008). In guided reading activities,

students work in collaborative reading groups that are formed by reading levels. Students

work independently while teachers coach and facilitates. The teacher who becomes a

coach facilitates activities that address differences in reading performance, interest, and

specific reading needs. Phillip (2008) explained the following:

The theoretical foundations for constructivist education are put into practice in

Guided Reading. Learning is guided by standards and objectives, but based on the

developmental needs of the learners. Assessment is a continuous process that assists the

teacher in pursuing planned or spontaneous interventions. Engaging the students is

essential in motivating them and helping them to establish their own personal connection

to the intended learning. Guided Reading also allow the teachers to employ good

“coaching” skills as they determine how best to guide the learners to understand or apply new

learning. The Exploratory and Discovery Phases are important elements in Guided

Reading and help to drive the enthusiasm and joy of learning to read. (p. 11).

 

91

When guided reading was implemented, the participants used guided questions to

assist students in comprehending written material. Self-correcting and monitoring

activities were facilitated. Participants used graphic organizers to build on prior

knowledge and facilitate individual and group discussions.

The investigation findings also concluded that content integration was not aligned

with what the participants viewpoints and its implementation. Teachers who facilitate

content integration expand students' reference zone. Learning content will help students

expand their content knowledge so they can compare and contrast, analyze, and evaluate

content to tackle real-life issues; a constructive principle identified in research as

essential and necessary. Content area instruction with English learners in their second

language, informed by language acquisition research and constructivist theory, integrates

comprehensible input and social interaction with opportunities for functional, meaningful

communication (Reyes & Vallone, 2008, p. 54).

Although eighty-four percent (84%) of the participants indicated that content

integration was invaluable in a constructivist classroom, none of participants

implemented activities that facilitated content integration strategies. There are four key

principles of instruction for academic success as they relate to content integration:

1. Engage students in challenging, theme-based curriculum to develop academic

concepts.

2. Draw on students' background--their experiences, cultures, and languages.

3. Organize collaborative activities and scaffold instruction to build students'

academic English proficiency.

 

92

4. Create confident students who value school and value themselves as learners.

(Freeman & Freeman, 202, p. 16).

These four principles support the Constructivist teaching model. Marlowe and

Page (2005) indicated that " The difference between a traditional classroom and a

constructivist class in relation to content is not whether content is important or there is

content; it is in the way students interact with, come to learn, and demonstrate their

understanding of the content" (p. 47).

The findings of the research also evidenced that problem solving or conflict

resolution was not aligned with teachers believed and what accrued in the classrooms.

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the participants agreed that activities that facilitated

problem solving were indispensable in a constructivist classroom. However, problem-

solving activities were not evident in any of the observed classrooms. In a constructivist

classroom, teachers often ask students to reflect about questions they would not

ordinarily regard as their own. These guiding questions lead students to individually or

collectively investigate and find solutions. Teachers facilitate inquiry-based learning

where students access their prior knowledge, apply new concepts, and redefine concepts.

Solving real-life problems will help students develop: research, conflict resolutions,

decision-making skills, and character building skills. These skills are consonant with the

Constructivist Learning Theory. Consequently, students need to form their own

interpretation of their own reality. Helping students find their solutions to real-life

problems can be a challenge. The following predictors may guide constructivist teachers

implement problem-solving learning experiences:

1. Constructivist teachers encourage and accept student autonomy and initiative.

 

93

2. Constructivist teachers use raw data and primary sources, along with

manipulatives, interactive, and physical materials.

3. When framing tasks, constructivist teachers use cognitive terminology such as

"classify", "analyze", "predict", and "create".

4. Constructivist teachers allow students responses to drive lessons, shift

instructional strategies, and alter content.

5. Constructivist teachers inquire about students' understandings of concepts

before sharing their own understandings of those concepts.

6. Constructivist teachers encourage students to engage in dialogue, both with

the teacher and with one another.

7. Constructivist teachers encourage student inquiry by asking thoughtful, open-

ended questions and encouraging students to ask questions of each other.

8. Constructivist teachers seek elaboration of students' initial responses.

9. Constructivist teachers engage students in experiences that might engender

contradictions to their initial hypotheses and then encourage discussion.

10. Constructivist teachers allow wait time after posing questions

11. Constructivist teachers provide time for students to construct relationships

and create metaphors (Brooks & Brooks, 1999, p. 103-116).

These practices may guide teachers in understanding the importance of implementing

problem-solving activities in a constructivist classroom.

Research question # 2: To What degree do ESL teachers implement a

Constructivist to ESL teaching? Although the investigator observed multiple forms of

constructivist practices in all the classrooms, however, there was no significant statistical

 

94

evidence to conclude that there is a systemic and systematic implementation of

constructivist teaching from school to school. The research findings demonstrate that the

that the English Curriculum Framework, which is based on the a constructivist learning

theory, is not completely aligned with the way high school teachers teach their lessons in

particular school region. Teachers did not implement constructivist teaching practices

with fidelity throughout the education school region. A significant amount of

participants did not facilitate constructivist teaching practices. It makes sense that what

we teach is congruent with what we asses, however, it is equally important that how we

teach is also congruent (Carter, 2007, p. 22). All the English teachers who participated in

the study demonstrated an understanding and a willingness to implement constructivist

practices, but in reality not many of them put into practice a variety of constructivist

teaching practices.

All together the investigator conducted twelve classroom visits in seven different

schools in a three week period. Every classroom visited turned out to be a different

experience. Lessons varied from classroom to classroom. In some classes, students

viewed a movie, in other classes, students gave oral presentations, and some worked on a

biography. Some students worked on a written task assigned by the classroom teacher.

A variety of constructivist teaching practices were also evident in most of the classrooms

observed.

Participants accessed students' prior knowledge throughout the lessons. They

used graphic organizers, brainstorming activities, and the guided questioning to prompt

the students in sharing their background knowledge. In some classes, participants

 

95

facilitated self-reflections activities where students interpreted and examined events that

affected their immediate environment.

Participants encouraged students to ask questions and request assistance from

their peers whenever it was needed. Students used their peers to clarify concepts, define

key terms, and to translate content from Spanish to English. The investigator observed

participants integrate creative arts activities where students communicated ideas through

drawings and pictorial illustrations. Drama techniques such as role-playing were also

evident in some of the classes observed.

There were two constructivist practices that were evident in all of the observed

classrooms. The teaching of implicit vocabulary and facilitating a natural communication

environment were two indentified constructivist practices that every participant

implemented in unique ways. Participants who facilitated a natural communication

environment allowed student to make mistakes and assisted them in learning from those

mistakes. They would constantly check for comprehension and adapt instruction to every

student's linguistic needs. Although these two constructivist teaching practices were

evident in all the classrooms, a t-two tail statistical analysis proved that there was not

sufficient statistical evidence to show an alignment between the participants' perceptions

on the implementation of these practices and their implementation in the classroom. The

differences in responses as evidenced in the questionnaires proved to impact the

statistical findings.

Questions # 3: What teaching methods do teachers use on a daily basis? The

investigator documented different teaching practices that were observed during the

classroom visits. An effort was made to document the implementation of eight identified

 

96

constructivist practices. The degree in which each teaching practice was implemented

varied from classroom to classroom. Content integration and problem solving strategies

were not evident in any of the classrooms observed.

Peer collaboration or group work was evident in some classrooms. Four out of

twelve participants used some form of cooperative work. That represents thirty three

point three percent (33. 3%) of the participants observed. The investigator observed

peer-tutoring, peer reading, group presentations on biographies chosen by the students.

Two out of twelve participants used guided reading strategies that represents seventeen

percent (17%) of the teachers observed. Students used reflection sheets, graphic

organizers such as Venn diagrams to compare and contrast. Participants elicited students'

background experiences to make content connections and apply concepts across

curriculum areas. Participants also used questioning techniques to facilitate the

comprehension of unknown concepts. Participants used concepts maps to summarize

learned concepts. Participants also facilitated read aloud sessions where students read

together without worrying about making mistakes.

The teaching of implicit grammar also varied from school to school. Seven out

of twelve participants taught grammar implicitly; that represents fifty eight percent (58%)

of the participants observed. These participants did not emphasize the memorization of

grammar rules; instead the focus was on communication. Participants provided a variety

of written samples that helped students figure out error patterns.

 

 

97

Table 21: First Round of Classroom Visits, teaching practices observed

Participants Peer Collaboration

Implicit Vocabulary

Content Integration

Problem Solving

Natural Communication

Guided Reading

Authentic Assessment

Implicit Grammar

Participant 1

Not Evident Evident Not Evident

Not Evident

Evident Evident Not Evident Not Evident Grammar rules

Participant 2

Evident

Evident Not Evident

Not evident

Evident Not Evident Evident Rubric to assess a poster

Evident

Participant 3

Not Evident Whole group viewing of a movie

Evident Not Evident

Not Evident

Evident Not Evident Not Evident Not Evident

Participant 4

Not Evident Evident Not Evident

Not evident

Evident Not Evident Evident Not evident

Participant 5

Not Evident Not EvidentMovie Viewing

Not Evident

Not evident

Evident Not Evident Oral Presentation

Not Evident Evident

Participant 6

Not Evident

Evident Not Evident

Not evident

Evident Not Evident Not Evident Evident

 

 

98

Table 22: Second Round of Classroom Visits, Teaching Practices Observed

Participants Peer Collaboration

Implicit Vocabulary

Content Integration

ProblemSolving

Natural Communication

Guided Reading

Authentic Assessment

Implicit Grammar

Participant 7

Not evident

Evident Not Evident

Not evident

Evident Not Evident

Not Evident Not Evident Repetition

Participant 8

Not evident

Evident Not evident Not evident

Evident Not Evident

Not Evident Evident

Participant 9

Evident

Evident Not evident Not evident

Evident Not Evident

Evident Evident

Participant 10

Evident Evident Not evident Not evident

Evident Evident Evident Evident

Participant 11

Evident

Evident Not evident Not evident

Evident Not Evident

Evident Evident

Participant 12

Not evident Evident Not Evident

Not Evident

Evident Not Evident

Evident Not Evident

99

Question # 4: To what degree do teachers implement a constructivist approach to

ESL assessment? Throughout the classroom visits, participants used alternate forms of

assessments to evaluate comprehension, and individual and class performance.

According to Reyes and Vallone (2008) "In a constructivist classroom, assessments

should be observation based, be continuous over time, and utilize a variety of techniques

to supply the teacher with multiple sources of data on student development"(p. 59).

Different formative assessments were used to guide students into completing assigned

tasks. Some of the participants used group discussions, student interviews, observations,

and questioning techniques to facilitate the understanding of concepts. In some classes,

teachers prompted students with examples and modeled the assigned task. It was evident

that some teachers used alternate forms of assessments in an effort to understand students'

academic progress.

In class discussions, participants corrected students with a yes or no, but little

descriptive feedback was given, and there were not too many attempts to understand the

students' level of understanding. According to Cummins (1984), "The failure of

assessment and instruction to interact effectively is most evident when inappropriate

assessment approaches lead to inaccurate identification, improper program placements,

inadequate monitoring of students progress, and long term failure of instruction (as cited

in O'Malley & Valdez, 1996, p. 3).

Seventy five percent (75%) of the participants indicated that facilitating authentic

assessments in a constructivist classroom was an important teaching practice. In contrast

fifty percent (50%) of the teachers observed implemented some kind of authentic

assessment.

100

The implementation of authentic assessments was evident in many of the

classrooms observed. Six out of twelve which represents fifty percent (50%) of the

participants observed used some form of alternate assessments. Participants used a

variety of alternate assessments to assist students in comprehending the English language.

Participants used nonverbal communication, pictorials illustrations, open-ended

questions, oral presentation, written assignments, and graphic organizers. Checklist and

rubrics were used to assess students' language proficiency levels.

Research Question # 5: What factors influenced the implementation of the

Constructivist Learning Theory? The investigator used a regression statistical analysis to

examine if there were predictors that might influence the implementation of constructivist

teaching practices. Academic background proved to be an important factor when

implementing constructivist practices. Teachers with higher degrees tend to implement

constructivist practices more frequently. Problem solving and implicit vocabulary

teaching were impacted by the academic degrees that participants held. Years of teaching

experience played an important role in implementing constructivist practices as well.

According to the datum collected, teachers with more years of experience tend to

implement constructivist teaching practices in their teaching lessons. Years of experience

influenced the implementation of the following constructivist practices: problem solving,

cooperative groupings, and implicit vocabulary.

Guided reading, natural communication, and authentic assessment were not

impacted by any of the four predictors. It is evident that other factors need to consider

when analyzing the implementation of constructivist teaching practices. Some of these

101

predictors might be classroom materials, technology use, student/teacher ratio, students'

motivation, administration support, or even classroom management.

Given the teaching experience and participants' academic background proved to

influence the implementation of constructivist teaching practices, as evidenced in the

regression statistical analysis, it is imperative that systems put in place to capitalize the

teachers' expertise. It was evident that teachers who had higher teaching degrees and

more years of teaching experience implemented constructivist teaching practices with

more fidelity. These teachers can serve as mentors, staff developers, or department

leaders in order to facilitate collaborative planning sessions where teachers can model the

processes involved in implementing constructivist teaching practices.

Limitations

Although there were twenty-six teachers who participated in the study, only

fourteen teachers volunteered to be observed. Two of those fourteen teachers were not

available when the investigator visited the school, so a total of twelve teachers were

visited and observed. The limited number of participants limited the study because

generalizations cannot be made to other school regions in the public school system in

Puerto Rico.

The unavailability of some school directors made it difficult to schedule

appointments and visit the classrooms. The investigating experience was quite different

from school to school. School principles had different procedures in place for

investigators to follow when conducting an investigation. Consequently, there was no

uniformed procedure so the investigator spent a good amount of research time trying to

schedule appointments. In general participants cooperated and offered their assistance

 

102  

when completing the questionnaires. However recruiting participants for the classroom

visits became a challenging task due to the differences in operating procedures.

Recommendations

The results of this study proved to be significant for further similar studies. First,

the regressions statistical tests showed that there was not a strong relationship among all

the variables. The constructivist teaching practices examined in the study proved to be

insufficient so other variables need to be considered in future studies. Predictors like

classroom management, administration support, appropriate use of instructional

materials, the use of technology, student’s language proficiency levels might also have an

impact in the implementation of constructivist practices, and might be considered in

future similar studies.

Second, future studies should explore the possibility of giving a pre and post

assessments to measure student progress. The datum collected from these assessments

should be examined to see if achievement can be linked to the implementation of

constructivist teaching practices.

As a final point, if would be beneficial to extend the investigation to a two or

three year period. That would provide additional time to observe more than one class per

participant. It will also provide additional time for appointment rescheduling when

dealing with cancelations and the unavailability of administrators or other support staff.

Conclusions

The findings of this research, as evidenced by a regression statistical analysis,

showed that years of experience, academic background, and the amount of planning time

had a direct impact in the way teachers implement constructivist teaching practices in the

 

103  

English classes. Also, a t-two tail statistical analysis evidenced no statistical relationship

between the teachers' perspectives on the implementation of constructivist practices and

the degree in which constructivist practices were implemented in the classroom.

Although all the participants understood and supported the constructivist learning theory,

the implementation of constructivist teaching practices varied significantly as evidenced

through classroom observations. Constructivist teaching practices were not implemented

with fidelity throughout the school region which is located in the metropolitan area. An

alignment between theory and practice was not evident.

The alignment of instructional practices in the classroom requires that teachers

understand and deliver instruction in a manner that includes standards, curriculum, and

assessments in their daily lessons (Carter, 2007, p. 29). Constructivist teachers need to

apply constructivist principles when planning instructional lessons, and assessing

students' performances. Student’s choice, preference, and ability level should play a

major role when implementing a constructivist learning environment.

School administrators should also reexamine their constructivist leadership.

Processes in place should be geared at facilitating a constructivist teaching model.

Teachers should be empowered to make administrative and curricular decisions based on

students' learning needs. Common planning time should be facilitated so teachers can

collaboratively plan and facilitate content integration and cross-curricular assignments.

The findings clearly showed that the amount of planning time had a direct impact on

whether or not teachers implemented constructivist practices. Horizontal and vertical

articulation will assist teachers in planning and organizing school-wide activities that will

guide teachers in making informed decisions regarding teaching and learning.

 

104  

Finally, the findings of this investigation raise serious questions regarding the

teaching preparation programs in Puerto Rico. The fact that teachers advocate and

perceive specific teaching practices as essential in a constructivist classroom, but do not

implement these practices in their daily lessons substantiate a disconnect between theory

and practice. Teaching preparation programs need to reevaluate their supervised

practicum courses to assess the programs' learning objectives and students' performance

expectations. These programs should work hand-in-hand with the Puerto Rico

Department of Education to ensure that constructivist teaching practices are implemented

in a systemic and systematic way.

105

REFERENCES

Adelman, S. & Vallone, L. (2008). Constructivist Strategies for Teaching English

Language Learners. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Anderson, N. (1999). Exploring Second Language Reading. Heile & Heile Publishers:

New York.

Armendaris, F. , Writing Anxiety among English as a second language students enrolled

in Academic English writing classes. Ph. D. dissertation, The Claremont

Graduate University, United States—California. Retrieved October 25, 2010,

from Dissertations &Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3361800).

Artz, A. F. & Newman, C. M. (1990). Cooperative Learning. Mathematics Teacher, 83,

448-449.

Caratini, D. (2005). Learning English as a Second Language in Puerto Rico: The

experiences of small number of college –level adults. Ph. D. dissertation, New

York University, United States –New York. Retrieved February 11l 2011, form

Dissertation, & Theses: Full text (Publication No. AAT 9811713).

Carroll, K. (2005). Teachers speak out on the use of the English curriculum in

southwestern Puerto Rico. M. A. dissertation, University of Puerto Rico, United

States-Puerto Rico. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from Dissertations & Theses: Full

Text. (Publication No. AAT 14527038).

Casey, J. (1991). A survey of ESL teaching methodologies being used in American

intensive English programs. Ed. D. dissertation, University of Southern

California, United States—California. Retrieved October 25, 2010, from

Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 0571221).

 

106  

Cone, J. & Foster, L. (2001). Dissertations And Thesis From Start to Finish. (9th

Edition). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cummings, J. (1986). Empowering Language Minority Students: a framework for

interventions. Harvard Educational Review, 56(1). 18-36.

Gibbons, B. A. (2003). Supporting elementary science education for English learners: A

constructivist evaluation instrument. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(6),

371-380. Retrieved September 4, 2010, From Education Periodicals. (ID:

408584821).

Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. (3rded. ).

Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall Regends.

Brown, H. D. (1995. The Elements of the Language Curriculum: A systematic

Approach to Program Development. Boston, MA: Heile & Heile.

Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (3rd Ed)

Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle

Celce-Murcia, M. (1991. )Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (2nd

Ed.). Boston, MA: Heile & Heile

Chamot, A. & O’Malley, M. (2009). The CALLA Handbook Implementing the

Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. White Plains, NY: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Costa, A. L. (April, 1989). Re-assessing assessment. Educational Leadership.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, p. 2.

Dalton, S. S. (1998). Padagogy Matters: Standards for effective teaching practice. Santa

Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.

 

107  

DelliCarpini, M. (2008). Success with ELLs. English Journal, 98(1), 98-101. Reviewed

September 6, 2010, from Education Periodicals. (Document ID: 1569088221).

Dimitriadis, G. , & Kamberelis, G. (2006). Theory for education. New York: Routledge.

Dorr, R. (2006). Something old is new again: Revising language experience. The

Reading Teacher, 60(2), 138-141, 143-146. Retrieved October 21, 2010, from

Education Periodicals. (Document ID: 1301865581)

Dixon, C. & Nessel, D. (1983). Language Experience Approach to Reading and

Writing. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Echevarria, J. , Vogt, M. , & Short, D. (2010). Making Content Comprehensible for

Secondary English Learners The SIOP MODEL. Boston, MA: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Ellis, R. (2004). SLA Research and Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Fogarty, R. (1995). Best Practices for the Learner-Center Classroom. IRI/Skylight and

Publishing, Inc. : Arlington Height, IL.

Foote, C. , Vermette, P. , & Battaglia, C. (2001). Constructivist Strategies Meeting

Standards and engaging Adolescents. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.

Fraenkel, R. & Wallen, N. (2008). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education.

(7th Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Freeman, Y. & Freeman, D. (1992). Whole Language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gabler, I. & Schroeder, M. (2003). Constructivist Methods for the Secondary

Classroom. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

 

108  

Gagnon, G. , & Collay, M. (2006). Constructivist, Key Questions for Learning, Teaching

to Standards Design. Thousand, Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Gagnon, G. , & Collay, M. (2001). Designing for Learning, Six Elements of

Constructivist Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational Variables in Second Language

Acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272.

Gersten, R. , & Baker, S. . (2000). What we know about effective instructional practice

for English- language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454-470. Retrieved

July 27, 2010, from Education Periodicals. (Document ID: 56591426).

Gibbons, B. A. (2003). Supporting elementary science education for English learners: A

constructivist evaluation instrument. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(6),

371-380. Retrieved September 4, 2010, From Education Periodicals. (ID:

408584821).

Gold, S. (1999). An online workshop for higher education faculty on the practices of

affective online teaching and learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Columbia University.

Hee, C. (1982). Two Instructional Approaches to Teaching English as a Second

Language in Bilingual Vocational Education. Education. D. dissertation,

University of San Francisco, United States—California. Retrieved October 25,

2010, from Dissertation &Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 8215493).

Hill, J. & Flynn K. (2006). Classroom Instruction that Works with English Language

Learners. Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA.

Hoffman, C. (1991). An Introduction to Bilingualism. London: Longman.

 

109  

Instituto de Estadísticas de Puerto. (2011-2012). Perfil Del Sistema Educativo. Estado

Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico. San Juan, P. R. : Government of Puerto Rico.

Keller, G. , & Warrack, B. (2000). Statistics for Management and Economics. (5th

Edition). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Kohonen, V. (1992). Experiential language learning: Second language learning as

cooperative learner education. In D. Nunan (ed. ) Collaborative Language Learning and

Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. (1981). Bilingual Education and second language acquisition theory. In

Schooling the language Minority students: A Theoretical Framework. (p. 51-79).

California State Department of Education.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.

Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipel lectures.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Joyce, B. , Weil, M. & Calhoun, E. (2004). Models of Teaching. White Plains, NY:

Person Education, Inc.

Lightbrown, P. , & Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned. (2nd Edition). New

York: Oxford University Press.

López, Laguerre, M. M. (1989). Bilingüismo en Puerto Rico: Actitudes

Sociolingüísticas del maestro, Rio Piedras: Puerto Rico: Author.

Llado-Torres, N. (1984). Puerto Rican Students’ Attitudes towards English as a Second

Language. Educational Research Quarterly, 8, 92-102.

 

110  

Lopez, S. (1990). A Critical Ethnographic study of a university microcosm of a

university level English as Second language classroom. Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras.

Lou, Y. , & MacGregor, K. (2004). Enhancing project-based learning through on-line

Between group collaboration. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(4), 419-

440. doi: 10. 1080/13803610512331383509

Lugo Colon, N. A study on Secondary English as second language facilitators

emancipation toward a constructivist paradigm ED. D. Dissertation, University of

Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras (Puerto Rico) United States—Retrieved September 22,

2010 from Dissertation &Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3256816).

Maldonado, N. I. (2000). The teaching of English in Puerto Rico: On hundred years of

degrees of bilingualism. Higher Education in Europe, 25(4), 487-497.

Marlow, B. , & Page, M. (2005). Creating and Sustaining the Constructivist Classroom.

(2nd Ed.). Thousand, Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Marone, A. , & Sireci, S. (2009). Evaluating Alignment between Curriculum,

Assessment, and Instruction. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1332-1361.

Retrieved July 21, 2010, from Education Periodicals. (Document ID:

1929119651).

National Council for Teacher Education. (2nd Ed.). Some key principles of a whole

language perspective on learning and teaching. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from

http://www.celtlink. org/index. php?option=content

&View=article7id=47:perspectives7catid=34: fact-sheet & Itemid=57.

 

111  

Norman, G. (2008). Problem-based learning makes a difference. But why? Canadian

Medical Association Journal, 178(1), 61-62. doi: 10. 1503/cmaj. 071590

Periodicals. (Document ID: 1929119651).

O' Malley, M. , Valdez, L. (1996). Authentic Assessment for English language Learners

Practical Approaches for Teachers. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Ornstein, A. , Hunkins, F. (2004). Curriculum Foundations, Principles, and Issues.

White Plains, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.

Ortiz, A. (2007) Diseño Y Evaluación Curricular Edición Revisada y Ampliada. Rio

Piedras, Puerto Rico: Editorial Edil.

Ortiz, J. A. (2000). English language learners developing academic language through

sheltered instruction. Ph. D. dissertation, The University of Connecticut, United

States –Connecticut. Retrieved September 22, 2010, from Dissertations &

Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 9977503).

Ovando, C. Collier, & Combs, V. , & Combs, M. (2003) Bilingual and ESL

Classrooms: teaching muliticultural Contexts (3rd Ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Pelech, J. , Pieper, G. (2010). The Comprehensive Handbook of Constructivist Teaching.

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, INC.

Phillips, D. (2008). Guided Reading: Constructivism in Action. Institute for the

Learning Centered Institute. Retrieved April 5, 2013 from http://www. jpacte.

org/uploads/9/0/0/6/9006355/2008-1-phillips. pdf.

Pousada, A. (2000). The Competent Bilingual in Puerto Rico. International Journal of

the Sociology of Language, 142(3), 103-118

 

112  

Pruebas Puertorriqueñas de aprovechamiento académico (PPAA). (1996-2005). Estado

Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, Departamento de Educación.

Pulliza, S. (`1987). Second Language Acquisition: A Case Study of a Puerto Rican

student Child’s acquisition of English morphemes in a natural setting.

Unpublished master’s thesis, Turabo University, Caguas, Puerto Rico.

Quigley, D. Project-based learning and student achievement. Ed. D. dissertation,

Walden University, United States -- Minnesota. Retrieved September 22, 2010,

from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3412513).

Redden, K. , Simon, R. , & Aulls, M. (2007) Alignment in Constructivist-Orientated

Teacher Education: Identifying Pre-service Teacher Characteristics and

Associated Learning Outcomes. Teacher Education Quarterly. 34 (3), 149-164.

Retrieved July 22, 2010, from Educational Periodicals. (Document ID:

1414446661).

Reiss, J. (2005). Teaching Content to English Language Learners. White Plains, New

York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Reyes, A. , Vallone, T. (2008). Constructivist Strategies for Teaching English Language

Learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwing Press.

Roach, A. T. , Niebling, B. C. , & Kurz, A. (2008). Evaluating the alignment among

curriculum, instruction, and assessments: Implications and applications for

research and practice. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 158-176.

Reyhnor, J. , Truijillo, O. , Carrasco, R. & Lockard, L. (Eds). (2003). Nurturing native

lanuguages. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University.

 

113  

Richardson, J. (2009). The Next Step in Guided Reading Focused Assessments and

Targeted Lessons for Helping Every Student Become a Better Reader. New York,

NY: Scholastic, Inc.

Rivera, A. (2009, August 8). Fracaso en 1, 277 escuelas. EL Nuevo Día, p. 4.

Rivera, Y. (2007). Currículo Enseñanza y Metodología Para Maestros. Rio Piedras,

PR: Publicaciones Puertorriqueñas, Inc.

Saville-Troike, M. (1981). Bilingual children: A resource document. Arlington, VA: The

Center for Applied Linguistics.

Shuttleworth, M. (2009). Internal Consistency Reliability. Retrieved 14 May. 2012

from Experiment Resources:

http://www.experimentresources.com/internalconsistency-reliability html.

Siribaddana, P. (2010). Psychometrics in Education: overview of Cronbach's Alpha.

Pychometrics in Education. pp. 1-2. Abstract retrieved from http:helium.com.

Smith, P. & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional Design. (3rd Ed.). United States: Library of

Congress.

Squires, D. A. (2005). Aligning and Balancing the Standard-Based Curriculum.

Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Tanner, D. & Tanner, L. (2007). Curriculum Development Theory and into Practice.

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Torres, R. , Millán, Y. (2012, November 19). Atrás Enseñanza Del Inglés. El Vocero,

pp. 4-6.

Tse, L. (2000). Student perception of foreign language study: a qualitative analysis of

foreign language autobiographies. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 69-81.

 

114  

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological

processes. M. Cole, V. John-Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds. ). Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Wajnryb, R. (1995). Classroom Observation Tasks A Resource book for language

teachers and trainers. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in

mathematics and science education (Research Monograph No. 6). Washington,

DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments

in four states (Research Monograph No. 18). Washington, DC: Council of Chief

State School Officers.

Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in

mathematics and science education (Research Monograph No. 6). Washington,

DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wishnick, K. T. (1989). Relative effects on achievements scores of SES, gender, teacher

effect and instructional alignment: A study of alignment’s power in the mastery

learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, CA.

Yamagata, Y. (1995). What is the most effective English teaching method for adult

English as a second language (ESL) learners? M. S. dissertation, University of

Southern California, United States—California. Retrieved October 25, 2010,

from Dissertations & theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 1376536). 

115

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

116  

Appendix A

 AN ASSESSMENT OFTHE ALIGNMENT OF THE PUERTO RICO’S ENGLISH

CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK AND CLASSROOM TEACHING PRACTICES AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA

 

English as a Second Language Teaching  Practices Survey  

  Carlos Lopez, Doctoral student 

Part 1: GENERAL INFORMATION PLEASE CHECK (  ) ONLY ONE (1) RESPONSE PER ITEM 

1. GENDER:      (    ) Male      (    ) Female 2. Teaching experience    (    )  1‐3 years      ()  4‐6 years 

(    )  7‐ 10 years    (    ) 11 plus years 3. Teacher certification                (    )  Yes      (    ) No       

                                                     (    ) In progress 4. Educational background          (    ) B. A. /B. S     (    ) M. A. /M. S.  

(    ) Ph. D. /Ed. D.  5. Are you familiar with the content of the curriculum for the English program? 

(      )  YES      (    ) NO 6.  How many hours of in‐service training in ESL teaching do you receive in a school 

year? (   )0                            (    ) 1‐3      (    ) 4‐6 (   )0                           (    ) 7‐10      (    ) 10 or more  

 7. How often do ESL teachers meet to discuss curriculum matters? 

                                   (   )   0            (    ) 1‐3 a week        (    ) 4‐6 a month      (    ) More                       Part 2: CHECK OFF EACH STATEMENT THAT BEST REFLECTS YOUR CURRENT TEACHING  PRACTICE.  

 

Str

ongl

y ag

ree

Agr

ee

Nei

ther

agr

ee o

r di

sagr

ee

Dis

agre

e

Str

ongl

y di

sagr

ee

Statement 5  4  3  2  1 

 

117  

1.  Textbooks  are  the  main  and number  one resource in the classroom.  

         

2.  ESL  teachers  should  allow students  to  interact  in  cooperative group  settings  using  their  native language.  

         

3.  Link  content  areas  thematically units,  combine  different  subject areas.  

         

4.  ESL teachers should integrate  language and content.  

         

5.  ESL students need to be quiet and attentive at all times in order to understand concepts.  

         

6.  ESL teachers should encourage  students to ask their own questions and find their own solutions.  

         

7.  ESL  teachers  should  activate students’  prior  knowledge whenever teaching new concepts.  

         

8.  ESL  students who do not  follow rules,  and  disrupts  the  lessons  are usually  removed  from  the classroom.  

         

 9.  ESL teachers should emphasize  language use rather than form.  

         

10. ESL student’s  grades  are invaluable  when  it  comes  to rewarding  children  for  what  they have learned.  

         

11. ESL students need to learn a specific number of skills, so classroom time should spent in mastering those skills.

   

 

118  

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Neither Agree or

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Statement 5 4 3 2 1

12. A paper pencil test is given at the end of each unit where students demonstrate the skills learned in the lesson or unit.

   

13. ESL students should be corrected immediately in order to avoid the formation of bad linguistic habits

   

14. ESL Students are allowed to make mistakes when speaking, reading, and writing.

   

15. ESL students must constantly repeat unknown sounds until they finally get it.

   

16. Language is habit formation, therefore, mimicry and memorization should be encouraged.

   

 

119  

17. ESL teachers use authentic assessments to customize instruction to individual needs.

   

18. ESL students should find solutions to real-life problems.

   

                        

                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

120  

 

Appendix B

AN ASSESSMENT OFTHE ALIGNMENT OF THE PUERTO RICO’S ENGLISH CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK AND CLASSROOM TEACHING PRACTICES AT

THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA

Teaching Strategies Observation Checklist 

Grade___________________          Date_________________ 

 

Strongly 

Agree

 

Agree

 

Neither 

agree or 

disagree 

Disagree 

Strongly 

disagree 

Teaching strategies 

5  4 3 2 1 Comments 

1. Implicit vocabulary teaching 

 

2. Natural communication 

 

3. Implicit free of Grammar correction 

 

4. Collaboration and cooperative grouping 

 

5. Guided reading activities 

 

6. Integration of different academic areas 

 

7. Conflict resolution/problem solving 

 

8. Authentic and alternate assessments 

 

 

 

 

121  

Appendix C

Letter to School Principal 

January 15th, 2012 

PO Box 3227 Rio Grande, Puerto Rico 00745 Albert Einstein High School Haydee Rexach Villa Palmer  San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901   

Re: Permission to Conduct Research Study  Dear School Principal: 

Presently I am in the final stages of my doctoral studies at the “Universidad del Turabo”.  As a program requirement to obtain my doctoral degree, I am required to conduct an investigation in  curriculum and teaching in the area of English teaching. I wish to conduct my study in the San Juan Educational School region.   With heart‐felt enthusiasm I respectfully request permission to conduct my research project in your school.  The study is titled An Examination of the Puerto Rico’s English Department Curriculum Framework, and Its Alignment to ESL Teaching Practices and Assessments at the High School Level in Puerto Rico’s Metropolitan Area.   I have already received authorization to conduct the investigation in the San Juan Educational School Region by the Office of Planning and Curriculum Development,   Puerto Rico's Department of Education. All the required paper work has been submitted and approved.  I now seek your support to initiate the investigative processes.    English teachers who teach grades 10th ‐12th will be requested to anonymously complete a survey and voluntarily offer a lesson demonstration.  The participants will be informed that their participation will be voluntary and completely confidential.   If teachers agree to participate in the study, they will be asked to complete a questionnaire during their free time. The completion of each survey should take no longer the 20 minutes to complete. The results of the survey will be kept in a safe location and will remain completely confidential and anonymous. The findings of the study will be shared with all the stakeholders once the research is completed.   Your support with this investigation will be greatly appreciated. If you agree, would you kindly provide me with a signed letter of permission on your school letterhead acknowledging your support with this investigation?  Thank you in advance for your cooperation.  

 

122  

 

Sincerely,  

 

Carlos Lopez Doctoral Student Universidad del Turabo  

cc: Dr.  R.  Rodriguez, Research Advisor 

 

 

 

123  

Appendix D

Letter to Teachers To: Secondary English Teachers Department of Education San Juan Educational School Region From: Carlos S. López Marcano Doctoral Student Universidad del Turabo Re: Educational Research Project

Dear Secondary English Teachers:

My name is Carlos S. Lopez, doctoral student at the Universidad del Turabo in

Gurabo , Puerto Rico. With the purpose of meeting with my doctoral requirements, I need

to conduct an investigation in the field of Teaching English as a second language. The

study will be conducted in the San Juan Educational School Region.

My proposal for my doctoral dissertation is titled, An Assessment of the Alignment

of the Puerto Rico’s English Curriculum Framework and Classroom Teaching Practices

at the High School Level in the Metropolitan Area. The main purpose for this

investigation is to explore the current English teaching practices and to see if they are

aligned with the Constructivist teaching approach as proposed by the Department of

Education of Puerto Rico.

For this study I need to identify secondary English teachers that teach English in

grades 10th to 12th in the Department of Education public schools of Puerto Rico.

Certified English teachers who teach English courses in these grades qualify for this

study. A maximum of twenty-nine English teachers will be recruited for this study. If

you are one of these teachers, I would like to include you in this investigation.

This investigation will only be used for educational purposes. The risks of study

are minimal. These risks might be related to teachers' nervousness when being observed.

Other risks might be related to teachers' tiredness or work-related stress. Your

participation in this study will be invaluable to the field of English teaching. The

information obtained by this research will help teachers reflect on their teaching practices

 

124  

and provide data that can be used for future research projects in the area of English

language learning.

My investigation will use two data collection tools, a questionnaire and one

follow up classroom observation. It would be extreme helpful if teachers volunteer to

participate in both procedures. The questionnaire will take approximately 5 to 15

minutes to complete. Communication with classroom teachers and classroom visits will

be arranged and scheduled at the classroom teacher's convenience in order to avoid any

interruption of learning time. The confidentiality of the responses will be guaranteed by

the investigator. A letter code system will be assigned to questionnaire and observation

checklist to match each instrument. Schools will not be identified and participants’

names will not be used in order to safeguard the confidentiality process.

Your participation in the study is voluntary, and you may decide to withdraw

from the investigation at any time without any penalty. I would like to emphasize that

your participation in this investigation is completely voluntary and confidential, the

findings of the investigation will only be used for educational purposes, and your

teaching time will not be affected. The findings of this research project will be shared

with all the participants and the Puerto Rico’s Department of Education.

If you need to contact me to discuss the details of this investigation, you may reach me at

(787) 550-4502 or clopez112000@yahoo. com. I appreciate your collaboration in

assisting me in completing my course requirement as a doctoral student.

Special note:

Se releva al Departamento de Educación de toda responsabilidad por cualquier reclamación que pueda surgir como consecuencia de las actividades del estudio y de la información que se solicite y provee a través de este. El Departamento de Educación no se hace responsable de cualquier daño o reclamación producto del proceso de realización o del resultado de la investigación y la misma es una independiente no auspiciada por el Departamento. El Departamento de Educación no necesariamente se solidariza con los resultados de la investigación". " De acuerdo con la Carta Circular 5-2001-2002 cláusula #6 del DEPR copia del consentimiento y/o asentimiento informado que firma el participante será archivado en la Oficina del Director Escolar o en dependencia del DEPR donde se realizó el estudio". Carlos S. López Marcano, Doctoral student

 

125  

Appendix E

Certification of Data Collection Instrument

 

 

 

 

126  

 

Appendix F

IRB Closure Form

SISTEMA UNIVERSITARIO ANA G MÉNDEZ Vicepresidencia de Planificación y Asuntos Académicos

Vicepresidencia Asociada de Recursos Externos Oficina de Cumplimiento

Junta para la Protección de Seres Humanos en la Investigación (IRB)

Fecha : 9 de mayo de 2013

Investigador principal : Carlos S. López Marcano

Mentor : Dra. Ángela Candelario

Título protocolo : An Assessment of the Alignment of the Puerto Rico's English Curriculum Framework and Classroom Teaching Practices at the High School Level in the Puerto Rico Metropolitan Area

Número de protocolo : 03-358-12

Institución/Escuela : Universidad del Turabo, Escuela de Educación

Tipo de revisión : El protocolo inicial se clasificó Exento

Fecha de revisión : 10 de mayo de 2013

Este estudio/investigación fue recibido en la Oficina de Cumplimiento y fue revisado por la Junta para la Protección de Seres Humanos en la Investigación (IRB). Su estudio/investigación fue aprobado inicialmente por el término del 25 de octubre de 2012 al 24 de octubre de 2013. De acuerdo con su solicitud su estudio/investigación fue evaluado bajo la siguiente acción:

Cierre: Investigación completada

Su solicitud fue revisada en la Oficina de Cumplimiento por la Junta para Protección de Seres Humanos en la Investigación (IRB) y determina que su protocolo/investigación fue completada hoy 10 de mayo de 2013. Para más información, aclarar dudas o notificar algún caso de no cumplimiento debe comunicarse con su Coordinador de Cumplimiento Institucional en: la Universidad Metropolitana la Srta. Carmen Crespo al (787)766-1717 ext. 6366; Universidad del Turabo la Prof. Josefina Melgar al (787)743-7979 ext. 4126; y en la Universidad del Este la Sra. Natalia Torres al (787)257-7373 Ext. 2279; en Administración Central a

 

127  

la Sra. Wanda Vázquez Solá 787 751-0178 ext. 7195, al Sr. José A. Vega Gutiérrez al 787 751-0178 ext. 7197; o puede escribir a:

Oficina de Cumplimiento Vicepresidencia Asociada de Recursos Externos

Vicepresidencia de Planificación y Asuntos Académicos Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez

P. O. Box 21345 San Juan, PR 00928-1345

Tel. 787 751-0178 exts. 7195-7197; Fax 787 751-9517