An Examination of English As Second Language Teachers Integrating Their District's Curriculum

AN EXAMINATION OF ENGLISH AS SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHERS
INTEGRATING THEIR DISTRICT’S CURRICULUM
by
Patricia A. Alvara
© Patricia Alvara, 2004

Abstract
Cognitive and linguistic research provides promising links to what English as second language
(ESL) teachers may do to engage their limited English proficient (LEP) students in learning in
English. Through this action research study, the researcher and four ESL participant teachers
strategically collaborated, discussed, selected, implemented, adapted, analyzed, and reflected
upon thematic integration in their sheltered English immersion (SEI) classrooms. The goal of this
study was to foster LEP students’ English language and academic development so that they
would be able to participate and transition into English mainstreamed classrooms. To accomplish
this task, participants implemented three thematic instructional approaches: (a) interdisciplinary
curriculum, (b) curriculum integration, and (c) cross-curricular thematic instruction. The results
of this study determined which approaches were the most effective models to employ in their SEI
classrooms in order to maximize student involvement and learning. By uncovering particular
obstacles ESL teachers and students encountered, these ESL teachers will be able to address
more effectively those barriers and further enhance their LEP students’ learning opportunities in
the future.
Dedication
This study is dedicated to my family and students who continuously inspire me to strive
to seek better ways to teach and reach new heights in education.
iii
Acknowledgements
First, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank several people who
have dedicated an insurmountable amount of their time, effort, and emotional support to me
during my program of study, without them, I would not have been able to complete this study;
they are: Kathleen A. Newkirk, Julie L. Pfeffer, Herbert P. Ricardo, and Jose Valles. Second, I
would like to extend my sincere gratitude and thanks to everyone who made this study possible:
my study team, the participants, the School, the District, and most importantly our students,
whose names shall remain and will continue to remain anonymous as promised. Third, I would
like to acknowledge my dissertation team from Capella University; they are: Dr. Kim Spoor, Dr.
David Balch, Dr. Kate Green, Dr. Carl Beekman, Dr. Carol Thompson, and Clarisa Harper.
Finally, I would like to express my ultimate gratitude to my family: Elyse Hobson, Brian Alvara,
my parents, Carol and Roland Seneff, my 6 siblings, and my 14 nieces and nephews.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction to the Problem 1
Background of the Study 5
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of the Study 8
Rationale 8
Research Questions 13
Significance of the Study 14
Assumptions and Limitations 14
Nature of the Study 15
Definition of Terms 16
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 17
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 19
Brain Research 19
Interdisciplinary Curriculum 42
Curriculum Integration 44
Cross-Curricular Thematic Instruction 45
Conclusion 51
v
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 52
Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies 52
Action Research 55
Research Design 58
Problem Formulation 59
Data Collection 60
Unit One: Interdisciplinary Curriculum 65
Unit Two: Curriculum Integration 66
Unit Three: Cross-Curricular Thematic Instruction 67
Validity and Reliability 68
Summary 70
CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 71
Participants' Demographics 72
Data Analysis 72
Statistical Methods 73
Reliability and Validity 74
Discussion of Data: Question 1 75
Findings 75
Findings 82
Findings 86
vi
Findings 93
Summary Findings 102
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 104
Summary and Discussion 104
Question 1 106
Question 2 108
Question 3 110
Question 4 111
Conclusion 113
Limitations of the Study 115
Challenges 116
Recommendations 116
Final Thoughts and Comments 120
REFERENCES 122
APPENDICES 136
Appendix A Unit One: Interdisciplinary Curriculum 136
Appendix B Unit Two: Curriculum Integration 149
Appendix C Unit Three: Cross Curricular Thematic Instruction 159

Planning Process
Appendix D LEP Students’ Language Levels Defined 171
vii
List of Tables
Table 1: General Rules for Interpretations 73
Table 2: Identified Themes/Trends Obtained from Reflective Journals 78
Table 3: Breakdown of Identified Themes/Trends by Participants 80
Table 4: LEP Students’ Preferred Instructional Activities 85
Table 5: Side-by-Side Unit Comparison of LEP Students Overall Performances 94

Satisfactory or Higher
Table 6: Side-by-Side Unit Comparison Gender Differences and Overall 96

Performances
Table 7: Side-by-Side Unit Comparison of DPI Language Levels and 98

Overall Performances
Table 8: Side-by-Side Unit Comparison of Teacher Groups and Overall Performances 101
viii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
“Most school districts in the United States have multiple languages represented within
their schools” (ELLKBase, 2004, p. 1). With the ever-increasing immigration from non-English
speaking nations and the proliferation of non-English speaking households, more limited English
proficient (LEP) students enter U. S. public school systems each day (ELLKBase, 2004;
Freeman, 1998; Krashen 1981, 1985; Tolerance Education, 2004). “English as a second language
(ESL) teachers continue striving to successfully guide and facilitate their LEP students’ learning
while at the same time meeting the rigorous demands of their individual states and school
districts” (Tolerance Education, 2004, p. 1). ESL teachers are seeking alternative instructional
approaches to foster their LEP students’ English language and academic development
(ELLKBase, 2004; Freeman, 1998; Krashen 1981, 1985; Tolerance Education, 2004).
“There are over 8.6 million immigrant children in the U. S. public school system and
nearly 40% require some sort of language assistance, totaling 3.2 million LEP students
nationwide”(Hakuta, 2001, p. 1). This statistic continues to escalate daily. “Over the past two
decades, America’s classrooms have undergone an unmistakable metamorphosis” (Friedlander,
1991, p. 1). In the last decade alone, the enrollment of LEP students in the nation's public school
system has increased by 105% (ELLKBase, 2004, p. 1). “There is seldom a school district,
whether rural or urban, that has not been affected by this influx of LEP students” (Short, 1998, p.
1). Over half of the language assistance programs (LAPs) nationwide enroll students from four
or more different native language backgrounds (Short, 1998).

Integration of the Curriculum for
ESL 2
Large states, such as California, Florida, Texas, and New York, have historically absorbed
the brunt of the immigration expansion (Brown, 2000; Crawford, 1997; Duignan, 2001; Garcia,
1991; Hakuta, 2001; Hernandez, 2002; Midwest Equity Assistance Center, 1997). “Less
populous states, such as North Carolina and Wisconsin, are also experiencing tremendous
growth” (Pabst, 2001, p. 1). As of March 2003, “Wisconsin public schools provided an education
for over 34,000 LEP students in 170 different school districts, 85 different home languages with
Spanish and Hmong speakers accounting for the largest number of new students” (Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction, 2004, p. 1). Milwaukee Public Schools, the largest school
district in the state, has had an increase of LEP students, while their monolingual student
population decreased overall (Pabst, 2001). The school district in this study, “The District” had
“over 1,300 LEP students enrolled in its language assistance programs (LAPs) in the 2002-2003
school year. That same year, the SEI K-5 program in this study had a multilingual LEP student
population that represented over 25 languages” (The District, 2003, p. 1).
When dealing with this influx of LEP students, school districts, administrators, and
teachers (including the District and its SEI program in this study) are facing a multitude of
barriers as they struggle to meet their student population’s unique educational needs (Brown,
2000; Crawford, 1997; Duignan, 2001; Garcia, 1991; Hakuta, 2001; Hernandez, 2002; Short,
1998; The District, 2003). The barriers the District has experienced include but are not limited to
the following: “program inconsistencies, lack of standards and/or curriculum guidelines,
inadequate and/or unequipped classrooms, lack of resources (financial and/or materials), and/or
have limited supplies” (The District, 2003, p. 1). In addition, the District’s schools are also facing
rigorous reforms and educational accountability mandates due to pressure from various segments
of society (The District, 2003). These reforms have mandated that states, school districts, and
ESL 3
schools adopt challenging academic content standards, develop assessments, and align the
assessments with their standards (ELLKBase, 2004; OCR, 2000).
Research studies indicate that LEP students have a higher rate of dropping out of school
(Brown, 2000; Crawford, 1997; Duignan, 2001; Garcia, 1991; Hakuta, 2001; Hernandez, 2002;
Short, 1998; OCR, 2000; The District, 2003). “Seldom do older LEP students with deficient
academic preparation ever successfully transition to fluent English proficiency; they most often
remain several years below normal grade levels, and/or drop out of school” (Johnston & Viadero,
2002, p1). Their achievement gaps are so pronounced that in 1996, “several national tests found
12th grade Hispanic students scoring at roughly the same levels in reading and math as Caucasian
eighth grade students” (Johnston & Viadero, 2002, p. 1). For most LEP students, acquiring
English proficiency necessary to succeed academically is an arduous process. Collier and
Thomas (1989), Cummins (1981), and Hakuta (2001) asserted that it would take an average of
five to seven years of specialized English instruction for many LEP students to reach academic
fluency.
“The blame for student drop out is often placed upon the students; the action of the
school is seldom cited as a cause” (Garcia, 1991, p. 1). Garcia (1991) found that one of the major
contributors to LEP dropout is that the students felt alienated from the curriculum. “Alienation
may result when beliefs expressed in the mainstream curriculum differ from those held by
minority students” (p. 2). In most cases, the “traditional” curriculum was seen as irrelevant to
LEP students’ immediate needs. This disconnect ultimately blocked the students' involvement in
school (Garcia, 1991). According to Garcia (1991), “alienated students cannot visualize being in
a scenario which would demand skills such as those used in math or science” (p. 2). An excellent
example of how LEP students “overcome alienation of the curriculum” can be seen in the story
ESL 4
and teachings of Jaime Escalante, an East Los Angeles math teacher in the popular movie called,
“Stand and Deliver” (Escalante, 2003, p. 1). Mr. Escalante was successful in stimulating his
Hispanic students to identify with the subject of calculus (Garcia, 1991). He successfully
prepared his students to succeed on the Advanced Placement Examination Calculus exam,
“which is one of the most difficult examinations administered nationally to secondary school
students” (Escalante, 2003, p. 1). According to Escalante (2003), “less than 2% of high school
seniors nationally even sit for the exam. Of all the Hispanics attempting the test nationwide, 25-
30% originate from my program” (Escalante, 2003, p. 1). Research data conducted by Collier
and Thomas (1989), Garcia (1991), and Hakuta (2001) on instructional strategies that work with
linguistically and culturally diverse students have found that thematic instruction is one of the
most effective instructional approaches language teachers can implement in their classrooms as it
helps eliminate students’ feelings of alienation.
“For education to be effective, students must make meaningful connections within their
own minds. These connections are explicit, interdisciplinary, and integrated” (Caine & Caine,
1997, p. 37). To be meaningful, students must be able to relate the content to their own
experiences, their previous learning, their personal lives, and to the world around them. “Without
connections, learning is merely a fragmented and irrelevant acquisition of isolated facts”
(Lipson, 1993, p. 1). According to Beane (1997) and Jacobs (1989), a teacher can choose to
assist directly each student in this process by providing them with a cohesive curriculum that is
enriched with meaningful learning activities. Research on the brain provides promising links to
what language teachers may do to engage their students in learning. With the findings of brain-
based research, ESL teachers are now more effectively enabled to design classroom instruction
that coincides with how their students learn. ESL teachers must continually accumulate,
ESL 5
investigate, evaluate, and apply the contributions of cognitive research to effectively instruct,
present materials, and contribute to the cognitive development of their LEP students (Collier &
Thomas, 2001; ELLKBase, 2004; Fogarty, 1991b; Freeman & Freeman, 1998; Garcia, 1991;
Krashen, 1981, 1985; Short, 1998; Wolfe, 2001).
This study explored “thematic instruction” (or “integration of the curriculum”) as a
“viable method” for ESL teachers to foster their LEP students’ English language and academic
development in their SEI classrooms (Collier & Thomas, 2001, p. 1). Thematic instructional
approaches used in this study were divided into the following three types: (a) interdisciplinary
curriculum, (b) curriculum integration, and (c) cross-curricular thematic instruction (Beane,
1997; Jacobs, 1989, 1997; Vogt, 1997). This study closely followed five ESL elementary teachers
as they strategically collaborated, discussed, reflected, analyzed, selected, implemented, and
adapted these three methods of thematic integration into their SEI classrooms.
Background of the Study
The decision on how to “best educate” the LEP student population has been left in the
hands of the individual school districts and most often with the teachers themselves (Hernandez,
2002, p. 1). The District used in this study has left this decision of how to “best educate” its LEP
student population primarily with its LAP teachers (The District, 2003, p. 1). Some school
districts have elected to adopt instructional reform models to ensure that their teachers comply
with the new educational legislation (Hernandez, 2002). “Still other school districts have opted
to adopt reform models that revert to teaching just the basics” (Hernandez, 2002, p. 1). The latter
method affects “what” and “how” LEP students acquire knowledge; it may cause a narrowing of
the curriculum and may not be an effective way to educate LEP students (Garcia, 1991;
ESL 6
Henderson & Landesman, 1992; Hernandez, 2002). This type of instruction emphasizes “skill
and drill” and is often a mere fragmentation of the curriculum (Beane, 1997; Fogarty, 1991b;
Garcia, 1991; Henderson & Landesman, 1992; Hernandez, 2002; Jacobs, 1989, 1997). “By
narrowing the curriculum, teachers are limiting their language minority students’ equal
educational opportunities” (Garcia, 1991, p. 3). Teachers are obligated to help LEP students gain
the knowledge and skills that are expected of all students. This obligation includes providing
meaningful learning opportunities for LEP students to acquire the academic knowledge and skills
covered by tests required for graduation or other educational benefits (Henderson & Landesman,
1992; Hernandez, 2002; NCLB, 2001). Some language teachers in other districts are forced to
adhere to strict or rigid traditional methods of teaching language that can be defined as grammar-
based (Henderson & Landesman, 1992). These methods of teaching do not allow these teachers
to focus on integration of skills and high-order thinking skills (Henderson & Landesman, 1992).
Alternately, some schools, including the SEI program in this study, are electing to adopt
effective instructional reform models that are research-based (Henderson & Landesman, 1992;
Hernandez, 2002; The District, 2003). Some top performing language assistance programs
(LAPs) use linguistic research as well as cognitive research for the basis of their programs.
Linguistic researchers such as Garcia (1991), Collier and Thomas (1997a), and the Freemans
(1992, 2002), have all documented effective instructional strategies for teachers to adopt in their
classrooms when working with LEP students. Their research coincides with cognitive
educational researchers such as the Caines (1994, 1997), Jensen (1998b) and Wolfe (2001).
Research data across all LAP types have indicated that LEP students have a higher rate of
success when their language teachers implemented the following: (a) socially structured
classrooms; (b) thematic instruction; (c) balanced literacy; (d) writing across the curriculum; and
ESL 7
(e) problem solving and critical thinking strategies (Collier & Thomas, 1997a; Freeman &
Freeman, 2002; Garcia, 1991; Henderson & Landesman, 1992).
Statement of the Problem
The District and its SEI program continued to face unprecedented challenges when
dealing with the decision on how to “best educate” its increasingly large linguistically diverse
student body (The District, 2003, p. 1). For many LEP students enrolled in the District’s LAPs,
both equality and excellence in education remained out of reach (The District, 2003). As is true
nationwide, if the District cannot effectively educated its LEP students, these students may
ultimately drop out of school and may fail to contribute fully to their surrounding communities
and to society as a whole (Garcia, 1991). The reality was that the District’s language assistance
programs were not meeting the academic needs of all of their LEP students enrolled, including
many of the LEP students enrolled in the District’s SEI K-5 program (The District, 2003).
In order to be successful, the ESL teachers in this study prescribed to a unified
curriculum that would fully prepare their LEP students to transition into the mainstreamed
English-only classrooms. Second, these ESL teachers fostered their LEP students’ second
language acquisition and critical reasoning skills, which involved adopting new pedagogical
methods and developmental theories. This required these ESL teachers to re-examine “what” and
“how” they were teaching in their SEI classrooms. The participant ESL teachers in this study
kept in mind the diverse needs of their highly heterogeneous student population as they re-
examined how their LEP students learned and acquired new language. Thus, participants
continually constructed and applied the three learning methodologies based on linguistic and
ESL 8
cognitive best practices, which were built upon their LEP students’ language abilities, reasoning,
and problem-solving skills.
Purpose of the Study
There were several purposes of this action research study. The researcher planned to help
ESL teachers strategically collaborate, discuss, select, implement, adapt, analyze, and reflect
upon thematic integration in their SEI classrooms. The goal was to foster their LEPs students’
English language and academic development so that they were ready to be able to participate
successfully and transition into English mainstreamed classrooms. To accomplish this task, the
participant teachers utilized three thematic instructional approaches: (a) interdisciplinary
curriculum, (b) curriculum integration, and (c) cross-curricular thematic instruction. The results
of this study determined which approach(es) were the most effective models to employ in their
SEI classrooms in order to maximize student involvement and learning. More specifically, the
researcher discovered the implications of thematic instruction had on developing LEP students’
language and academic skills. The researcher uncovered particular obstacles these ESL teachers
encountered as they implemented these instructional strategies into their SEI classrooms. Finally,
the study examined themes and identified patterns that hindered the learning process of some
LEP students.
Rationale
The multiplicity of cultures and languages in the District presents many challenges not
only for its LEP student population, but also for all parties involved (The District, 2003;
Tolerance Education, 2004). School districts, administrators, and teachers are not effectively
ESL 9
prepared or equipped to handle the unique needs of their LEP students (ESL Mini Conference,
2002; Friedlander, 1991; Igoa, 1995; Midwest Equity Assistance Center, 1997; Short & Boyson,
2002; Short, 1998). More specifically, these school districts, administrators, and teachers are not
adequately trained in how to address or meet all of their LEP students’ unique language,
academic, and cultural needs (Midwest Equity Assistance Center, 1997; Tolerance Education,
2004). Therefore, school districts, administrators, and teachers are desperately investigating
alternative instructional methodologies to educate their LEP students more effectively (ESL Mini
Conference, 2002; Friedlander, 1991; Igoa, 1995; Short & Boyson, 2002; Short, 1998; Wolfe,
2001).
Scientific research on the brain has transformed and enhanced how language instruction
is delivered in classrooms across the globe (Bueno, 1999; Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe, 2001).
According to the Caines (1997), Jensen (1998b), and Wolfe (2001), the brain is the only organ in
the body that sculpts itself based upon outside experiences. In a sense, experience becomes
biology. People used to think that genetics predetermined brain function. However, neuroscience
has determined that learning experiences change and reorganize the brain’s structure and
physiology. “Learning is a matter of making connections between cells and the brains of students
are shaped by their experiences” (Wolfe, 2001, p. 1). Obviously, students do learn from reading
and conceptualizing, but the strongest connections made are through concrete experiences (Caine
& Caine, 1997; Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe, 2001). Jensen (1998b) stated, “The brain is hard-wired to
remember those experiences with an emotional component” (p. 14). Because our strongest neural
networks formed are from actual experience, teachers should involve students in solving
authentic problem solving activities based on school or their community (Caine & Caine, 1997).
ESL 10
Figuring out the area of the playground is a more effective approach to measurement than a
simple pencil and paper mathematical problem (Wolfe, 2001).
Yvonne and David Freeman (2002) outlined three characteristics of a successful LAP: (a)
teachers should use a theme-based curriculum; (b) teachers should build on students’ prior
knowledge; and (c) teachers should implement collaborative activities. Thematic learning
involves introducing a topic thematically and combining two or more subjects to render the
connections to learning more meaningful (Freeman & Freeman, 2002). Research studies on
effective instructional strategies for educating LEP students (Collier & Thomas, 1997a, Freeman
& Freeman, 2002, and Garcia, 1991), have suggested that when learning is orchestrated
throughout the curriculum, students become fully engaged; in return, they enjoy learning and
take ownership of it. The research results have further indicated that LEP students across all
program types have a higher rate of success when participating in thematic instruction (Collier &
Thomas, 1997a; Garcia, 1991; Freeman & Freeman, 2002). Therefore, implementing integrated-
thematic instruction is an effective way to engage LEP students. Students are taught to link
content and language learning in a meaningful way, which helps them to develop critical
thinking skills. The use of these skills is necessary for all content subjects, so that thematic
instruction may improve performance “across the board” (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997;
D’Arcangelo, 2000). “This type of instruction allows students to exchange information,
knowledge, and experience; in return, they will make neural connections between the content
and the language” (Caine & Caine 1997, p. 38). To enhance language acquisition, teachers
should provide their LEP students with appropriate meaningful experiences and then capitalize
on those experiences. These activities will help to build their oral language development and
increase vocabulary needed to build comprehension (Bower, 1998; Bueno, 1999; Garvin, 1996;
ESL 11
Hancock, 1994; Krashen, 1981, 1985; McLaughlin, 1995; Peterson, 2002; Snow, Met, &
Genesee, 1989).
Research on the brain indicates that the brain plays the pivotal role in language
acquisition; hence, activities building LEP students’ language should be based upon brain
functioning and research (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; Jensen, 1998b; Krashen 1981, 1985). The
best way to teach a new language is to provide ample amounts of opportunities to practice the
new skills; it is also vital that students interact meaningfully with each other (Bueno, 1999;
Garvin, 1996; Hancock, 1994; Krashen, 1981, 1985; McLaughlin, 1995; Peterson, 2002; Snow et
al., 1989). Research has indicated that language acquisition may be facilitated by providing the
following elements into the LAP classroom: (a) comprehensible input in the target language, (b)
interactive learning, (c) opportunities for learners to negotiate meaning in the target language
with the teacher’s assistance, (d) ample opportunities for learners to communicate with one
another in the target language, (e) conversations and tasks that are purposeful and meaningful to
the learner, and (f) a non-threatening environment that encourage self expression (Bueno, 1999;
Garvin, 1996; Hancock, 1994; Krashen, 1981, 1985; McLaughlin, 1995; Peterson, 2002; Snow et
al., 1989). Second language is learned most effectively when it is used as a medium to convey
informational content of interest and relevance to the learner (Krashen, 1981, 1985; Snow et al.,
1989).
“Most limited English proficient students arrive in their classrooms already distressed
and/or even threatened psychologically. They often feel threatened because of the seemingly
insurmountable language barriers due to ‘emotional baggage’ from previous experiences”
(Tolerance Education, 2004, p. 5). When a person is threatened, “the short-term impact includes
impaired spatial-episodic memory, weakened ability to prioritize, and the greater likelihood of
ESL 12
repeated behaviors” (Jensen, 1998b, p. 15). Evidence from neuroscience indicates that learning
requires the formation of complex, multilayered neural networks; neural connections are formed
when experiences are novel and coherent. If experiences are familiar and repetitive, the existing
connections may be strengthened (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe, 2001). If
experiences are incoherent or fragmented, the result may be loss of learning (Caine & Caine,
1994, 1997; Fogarty, 1991b; Jensen, 1998b; Krashen, 1981, 1985; Wolfe, 2001).
Curriculum integration may be the key to increasing LEP student’s linguistic and
academic success (Garcia, 1991). By implementing a high quality, complex integrated
curriculum, language teachers open up more learning opportunities for their “at-risk” LEP
students who are not traditionally well served (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; Fogarty, 1991b;
Garcia, 1991). With LEP students, traditional instruction has been proven to be an ineffective
mode of education (Fogarty, 1991b; Garcia, 1991; Jacobs, 1989, 1997; Lipson, 1993; Shoemaker,
1989). The education that LEP students receive in schools is for the most part fragmented
because the connections to the academic and content materials are unclear (Beane, 1997;
Fogarty, 1991b; Freeman & Freeman, 2002; Garcia, 1991; Jacobs, 1989, 1997; Lipson, 1993;
Shoemaker, 1989). This type of education results in lack of empowerment for the students
(Beane, 1997; Fogarty, 1991b; Freeman & Freeman, 2002; Garcia, 1991; Jacobs, 1989, 1997;
Lipson, 1993; Shoemaker, 1989). Integration of the curriculum builds bridges between content
areas, by using physical and concrete means, such as musical and artistic activities (Beane, 1997;
Jacobs, 1989, 1997). According to Shoemaker (1989) when the curriculum is integrated
…education is organized in such a way that it cuts across subject-matter lines,

bringing together various aspects of the curriculum into meaningful association to
focus upon broad areas of study. It views learning and teaching in a holistic way
and reflects the real world, which is interactive. (p. 5)
ESL 13
Students are able to make a connection to learning a new language as meaningful and a
representation of the language in the real world (Freeman & Freeman, 2002). This research
project attempted to show that when ESL teachers provided a challenging and engaging
curriculum by using instructional approaches such as thematic instruction, their LEP students
were able to lessen and/or close the achievement gap and succeed academically.
Research Questions
Through this action research study, the researcher aimed to answer the following research
questions:
1. How do ESL teachers strategically collaborate and discuss pertinent issues that arise
when dealing with their LEP students and the SEI curriculum?
2. How do ESL teachers reflect, analyze, and select materials to be used in their SEI
classrooms?
3. How do ESL teachers implement and adapt thematic instruction in their SEI
classrooms as a viable means to foster their LEPs students’ English language and academic
development?
4. Which thematic instructional approach: (a) interdisciplinary curriculum, (b)
curriculum integration, or (c) cross-curricular thematic instruction generates LEP students’
language and academic success?

ESL 14
Significance of the Study
This research explored the use of thematic teaching as a successful instructional
methodology for fostering LEP students’ English language and academic development. The
research study provided the participant ESL teachers with three avenues on how to instruct their
LEP students and at the same time endeavor to eliminate or at least lessen the academic
achievement gap. The ESL teachers were able to design lessons where all of their LEP students
were able to participate and learn, regardless of their language ability or academic background.
Furthermore, this study aimed to demonstrate the importance of these ESL teachers working
collaboratively, as teachers met to discuss and reflect upon the three instructional approaches.
Assumptions and Limitations
The assumptions in this study were: (a) the U. S. public school systems' primary function
is to provide a "free" education for all students residing in the U. S.; an education, which does
not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or primary language spoken; (b)
English is the functioning language taught in the mainstream classrooms throughout the U.S.,
and it is the primary language used in SEI classrooms; (c) ESL teachers have had specialized
training in meeting the needs of their LEP students in SEI, possess an ESL teaching credential,
and/or were in training; (d) the primary goal of the SEI is to successfully develop LEP students’
English language skills so that these students can succeed in English mainstream classrooms; (e)
the development of oral language is not a sufficient indicator of English proficiency; (f) LEP
students must develop the cognitive-academic language proficiency (CALP) required for
scholastic success; and (g) language teachers must use multiple instructional approaches and be
ESL 15
able to differentiate from the traditional curriculum to meet the diverse needs of their student
population.
There were “natural” linguistic and educational limitations of this study. They were: (a)
the group being studied consists of ESL teachers and LEP students within a specific SEI
program, and the experiences and meanings obtained from this study could be generalized to
other programs; (b) the number of participants used in this study is low; (c) the participants used
in this study are not representative of the entire ESL or SEI teaching and LEP student population;
and (d) the attrition rate of the LEP student population was relatively high and represented a
problem for the continuity of this study.
Nature of the Study
The study was conducted within the parameters of five Sheltered English Immersion
classrooms (K-2, 4-5). The Sheltered English Immersion program in this study was a K-5
program. The design of this study took place in the realm of action research. Action research is a
powerful qualitative research tool most often utilized in education (Johnson, 1993; Knezevik,
2003). Action implies the need for change and research implies a need to clarify or increase
understanding (Burnaford, Fischer & Hobson, 2001; Carr & Kremmis 1986; Johnson, 1993;
Knezevik, 2003; Smith, 2002). Researchers who conduct action research often use various
qualitative and quantitative data to determine the usefulness of the innovation or method under
study (Smith, 2002). Researchers who use this method of research observe carefully and reflect
systematically. Most often, researchers will generate potential solutions to original problems,
implement a chosen intervention, assess the outcomes, and/or modify the solution(s) (Burnaford,
Fischer & Hobson, 2001). Many researchers are drawn to action research because it is firmly
ESL 16
located in the realm of the practitioner, often tied to self-reflection. The practitioner is actively
involved in the cause for which the research is conducted (Burnaford, Fischer & Hobson, 2001;
Carr & Kremmis, 1986; Johnson, 1993; Knezevik, 2003; Smith, 2002).
Definition of Terms
Cognitive academic language proficiency, otherwise known as CALP, is the degree of
language proficiency necessary for academic achievement.
Comprehensible input was defined by Stephen Krashen (1981) in his Monitor Model of
Second Language Acquisition. Language learners acquire second language through exposure to
language samples that contain mostly familiar forms and a few novel expressions. The familiar
forms resemble "motherese" forms, which is a special form of language that caregivers use with
their children as they develop language. In school, language teachers speak at a slower rate, use
clear articulation, longer pauses, paraphrases, and gestures; they also use objects or pictures
frequently.
English language learner (ELL) is a student who is limited-English-proficient (LEP). See
definition of LEP.
English as a Second Language (ESL) is a program specially designed to teach LEP
students English language skills that includes listening, speaking, reading, writing, study skills,
content vocabulary, and cultural orientation.
Fluent (or fully) English proficient (FEP). A student who has full command of the
English language, for both social and academic purposes.
L1: First language or native language
L2: Second Language or less familiar language.

ESL 17
Language Assistance Programs (LAPs) are programs offered within the District that
provide specialized learning environment for non-English speakers.
Limited-English-proficient (LEP) is the legal term used to identify students, who were not
born in the United States, or whose native language is not English, and those students who
cannot participate effectively in regular classrooms because they lack fluency in spoken and
written English.
Low affective filter, a term coined by Stephen Krashen (1981), refers to how emotions,
such as motivation, self-confidence, self-image, and anxiety, influence learning. Students learn
more effectively when they are motivated, their confidence and self-image are strong, and their
anxiety remains low.
Non-English-proficient (NEP) is used to identify students who are recent arrivals
(immigrant-status) from non-English speaking countries.
Structured English Immersion is a language program in which LEP students’ English
language skills are developed so that they can succeed in English-only mainstream classrooms.
All instruction in aligned with immersion strategies and classes are conducted in English. SEI
teachers have specialized training in meeting the needs their LEP students.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Chapter Two discusses the relevant literature related to the aforementioned research
problem. The review of the literature focused on the following areas: (a) brain-based research,
(b) thematic instruction, (c) interdisciplinary curriculum, (d) curriculum integration, and (e)
cross-curricular thematic instruction. The literature review served as a foundation for
understanding the role of brain-based research in second language acquisitioning and showed the
ESL 18
connectedness and importance of thematic instruction in SEI education. Chapter Three describes
and discusses methodological and design issues. The nature of action research is discussed as
well as the reasoning behind using a collaborative approach to this study. Methods of data
collection and analysis are discussed, including the role of the researcher and data collection
procedures. Chapter Four presents and analyzes the data collected in methods. Chapter Five is a
summary of conclusions; final thoughts were drawn from the data analysis and recommendations
for further research.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Brain-based research is confirming what experienced language teachers already know
about how people learn and acquire language. “What the research adds, at this point, is a partial
understanding of why certain procedures or strategies work” (Wolfe, 2001, p. V). The research
provides promising links to what language teachers may do to enhance the active learning
process that occurs in the brain naturally. This literature review explores brain research as it
relates to SEI. First, new knowledge about how the brain processes language is reviewed.
Second, the researcher explores how classroom instruction relates to language acquisition. Third,
the educational models that have emerged from the study of cognition, including
interdisciplinary curriculum, curriculum integration, and cross-curricular thematic instruction,
are examined closely. These approaches are each examined for use with LEP students, in order to
help these students succeed academically. However, research on cognition can be applied to any
student population.
Brain Research
Scholars have been studying the anatomy of the brain for thousands of years (Jensen,
1998b; Wolfe, 2001). For over a century, neuroscientists have tried to understand how the human
brain learns, stores, and process all information, including language. This task has been rather
difficult because there are no animals that have symbol systems as rich as human's spoken
language (Jensen, 1998b). For a long time, information about how the brain processed language
ESL 20
came only from the studying effects of brain disease, known as neurological disease (Jensen,
1998b; Wolfe, 2001). Scientists dissected and studied the brains of people who had suffered and
died from a neurological disorder (Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe, 2001). The adult brain weighs about
three pounds; it is made up of predominately water (78%); the remaining weight is fat (10%);
protein (8%), and other materials (4%) (Jensen, 1998b). The brain is about 2% of an adult’s body
weight but uses about 20% of the energy of the body. It contains about 100 billion nerve cells (or
neurons) and about 1 trillion supporting cells, known as glia (Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe, 2001). These
neurons are the only cells in the body that process and store information (Christison, 1999a). The
nerve cells of the brain make about one thousand trillion synaptic contact points with each other
(Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe, 2001). These neurons pass information at a speed of up to 200 miles an
hour (Jensen, 1998b). “A single neuron can receive thousands of signals from other neuronal
sources although they do not make physical contact with one another. The neurons send and
receive chemical messages over the synaptic space” (Jensen, 1998b, p. 10). Neurons are
constantly firing electrical and chemical messages, gaining strength through usage (Christison,
1999a; Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe, 2001). With a few exceptions, new neurons do not grow, however
new connections between neurons are always forming. It is these connections in the brain that
constitute learning and memory (Christison, 1999a).
Neuroscientists have indicated that the human brain has developed all the neurons it will
ever have at birth (Christison, 1999a; Jensen, 1998b; Sousa, 1998; Wolfe, 2001). However,
neural connections continue to form (Wolfe, 2001).
A newborn's brain makes connections at an incredible pace as the child absorbs its
environment. The richer the environment, the greater the number of
interconnections that are made, and learning takes place faster and with greater
meaning. As the child grows, the brain selectively strengthens and prunes
connections based on experience. Although this process continues throughout our
ESL 21
lives, it seems to be most pronounced between the ages of 2 and 11, as different
development areas emerge and taper off. (Sousa, 1998, p. 1)
Therefore, newborn neural connections result from experiences that greet them and will continue
to form throughout their lives (Christison, 1999a).
In the past decade, exciting new evidence on brain imaging techniques has allowed
researchers to view the brains of live people. Using positron emission tomography (PET),
functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetoencephalography, and special analyses of
electroencephalograms (EEG), researchers can now view the brain in real time (Jensen, 1998b;
Wolfe, 2001). Linguists and neuroscientists use these imaging techniques to view the brains of
people while they process language. The researcher instructs the human subjects to do a language
task while these technological advances borrowed from the field of are imaging their brains
medicine (Christison, 1999a; Romig, 1997; Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe, 2001).
Neuroscientists long ago mapped the brain, and sophisticated imaging has increased
knowledge of how each section of brain operates. The brain is composed of four areas, called
lobes, and each has specific functions (Christison, 1999a; Romig, 1997). Neuroscientists agree
that the frontal lobe, located behind the forehead, is involved in the most sophisticated,
integrated brain functions (Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe 2001). According to Davies (1996), the primary
responsibilities of the frontal lobe include the following: thinking, judgment, creativity,
conceptualizing, and problem solving, and planning skills. The parietal lobe is in the top back of
the brain; sensory and language functions are found there. The occipital lobe is located in the
middle back of the brain and is responsible for vision. The temporal lobes are located on the left
and right sides of the brain; these areas are responsible for hearing, memory, meaning, and
language (Christison, 1999a; Romig, 1997). Experts, D’Arcangelo (1998), Davies (1996), and
ESL 22
Jensen, 1998b), believe that there is some functional overlap in the lobes. Usually, several
different areas of the brain are simultaneously engaged in an activity. For example, thirty areas of
the outer surface of the brain are involved in vision alone (Romig, 1997; D’Arcangelo, 1998;
Davies, 1996; Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe, 2001).
The brain has two nearly identical halves: the left and the right hemispheres.
Neuroscientists have discovered that there are small differences in the sizes of some regions in
the two hemispheres. “The hemispheres connect via nerve fibers in a structure called the corpus
callosum. The hemisphercity theory attributes particular preferences and learning styles to one
side of the brain” (Davies, 1996, p. 1). Davies (1996) indicated that this information comes from
adults and children that suffered brain injuries due to catastrophic events. Language is typically a
left hemisphere activity whereas art and music are typically located in the right hemisphere. The
left hemisphere appears to be responsible for both sign language and spoken language. The left-
brain is involved with processing words, numerals, lists, and providing logic, analyses and order;
the right brain is involved with rhythm, color, daydreaming, imagination, space, and the ability to
move objects through dimensions (Davies, 1996). By studying the different times and areas of
brain activity, language teachers can have a better understanding of how language is developed.
They can then tailor the academic content, and develop their students’ skills to enhance the
curriculum. Finally, by using this information, they can provide an enriched, “brain-friendly
classroom environment” (Christison, 1999d, p. 1).This researcher postulates that thematic
instruction is effective because it incorporates activities from each side of the brain.
The Brain and Language Acquisition
The brain plays the primary role in learning a language. “Learning is a process that
establishes new connections among networks and the new skills or knowledge that are learned"
ESL 23
(Genesee, 2000, p. 3). How the brain works has a significant impact on what kinds of learning
activities are most effective. Neuroscientists have long believed the regions of the brain
developed according to genetic codes that were predetermined at birth (D’Arcangelo, 1998;
Davies, 1996; Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe, 2001). Some neuroscientists believe the brain begins to
form its learning patterns, such as learning a language at birth. Today, scientists believe the brain
is much more malleable than ever thought before (Jensen, 1998b). They now believe that the
regions of the brain are not fixed at birth, but are shaped by experiences and learning (Genesee,
2000; Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe, 2001). As the individual responds and adapts to their environment,
the brain also adapts itself to the learning environment (Jensen, 1998b). Scientific research
indicates that early in a child's life, neural connections form as he/she learns. At what age these
circuits are completed is uncertain (Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe, 2001).
Neurosurgeons discovered that language processing is not located solely in the left
hemisphere of the human brain. In the normal brain, in fact, the two hemispheres work together
during speech (Christison, 1999a; Romig, 1997; Genesee, 2000). When people had their brain
midline severed, through the corpus callosum, they stopped communicating. The language
system connects intellectual and motor systems, as well as mechanisms required for speech;
these areas of the brain require motivation to become aroused and activated. Neurological
imaging studies provide strong evidence that the frontal lobes and structures deep in the brain
become active during many language tasks (Romig, 1997). Written language connects to the
areas of the brain that are part of the visual cortex, and sign language may recruit the areas of the
brain that are related to spatial ability; spatial ability allows the brain to locate objects in space
(Christison, 1999d; Romig, 1997; Genesee, 2000; Wolfe, 2001).

ESL 24
Language acquisition and learning are two separate processes (Krashen, 1981). Language
acquisition is a developmental type of learning processed in the auditory-temporal cortex located
in the left hemisphere. Language acquisition is the unconscious process that occurs when the
infant or novice hears real conversation; learning is the act of acquiring formal knowledge about
the language (Krashen, 1981). According to linguist Stephen Krashen (1981):
Language acquisition is very similar to the process children use in acquiring first
and second languages. It requires meaningful interactions in the target language --
natural communication -- in which speakers are concerned not with the form of
their utterances but with the messages, they are conveying and understanding. It
has been hypothesized that there is a fairly stable order of acquisition of structures
in language acquisition, that is, one can see clear similarities across acquirers as to
which structures tend to be acquired early and which tend to be acquired late.
(pp. 1-2)
Language acquisition, Krashen (1981) indicated, “is a complex process that consists of a special
kind of code (or a set of symbols) that are connected to words and phrases and is a natural
phenomenon that occurs without any interventions” (p. 2). The language pattern formed in an
infant's brain will continue to remain for a lifetime unless something intervenes to change that
pattern (Jensen, 1998b). Experts believe that children discover the system of language from a
small, unsystematic amount of data and do not require instruction in how to acquire language
(Krashen, 1981, 1985).
Linguistic research is divisible into first and second language learning (Krashen, 1981,
1985). A student’s primary language (L1) is the language one has developed from birth and the
language that was intertwined closely with the development of cognition. Learning a second
language (L2) is a lengthy, highly idiosyncratic, and difficult process which language acquisition
theorists suggest can take up to seven or more years for a student to develop proficiency,
depending on his/her age at onset (Collier & Thomas 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Krashen, 1981,1985).
ESL 25
The best time to master a new language is when one is younger; their neural
connections are strong and not completely filled. If a person waited until they are
18 or 30, learning a new language is possible, but it becomes more difficult
because the system governing this have been used for something else.
(D’Arcangelo, 1998, p. 4)
A child has twice as many neurons as adults; therefore, the ideal time for learning a second
language is during the first eight to ten years of development because it is during that period that
neural growth is so high (D’Arcangelo, 1998; Krashen, 1981, 1985; Sousa, 1998). After that,
neural branches (dendrites) that have not connected will eventually die off. A newborn's neural
cortex grows at a rapid rate, then reaches a peak during adolescence, and then slowly declines
D’Arcangelo, 1998; Sousa, 1998).
These so-called "windows of opportunity" represent critical periods when the

brain demands certain types of input to create or consolidate neural networks,
especially for acquiring language, emotional control, and learning to play music.
Certainly, one can learn new information and skills at any age. But what the child
learned during that window period will strongly influence what is learned after
the window closes. (Sousa, 1998, p. 1)
When a person is learning, the neurons in the brain communicate using chemicals called
neurotransmitters. These connections occur when children are stimulated through meaningful
experiences such as learning a new language; thus, a solid educational experience during this
period of life is more critical than ever thought before. “It is believed the brain interacts together
as a whole brain, and that learning begins when connections are made within the brain and
between the brain and the outside world” (Romig, 1997, p. 1). As we age, the development of
neural connections can modify our capacity to learn new information, such as a new language
(Romig, 1997).
“Once, researchers believed that only young brains were plastic” (Romig, 1997, p. 1).
They thought that the dendrites developed in the first few years of childhood and were fixed and
ESL 26
difficult to change (D’Arcangelo, 1998; Sousa, 1998). An enormous amount of animal and
human research in the past two decades, however, confirms that the brain retains some of its
plasticity throughout life. Neuroscientist Marian Diamond stated in an interview, “If we continue
to learn and enrich our minds, we continue to grow dendrites, and if we stop we lose them with
age" (D’Arcangelo, 1998, p. 4). Evidence has shown that older brains can adapt in order to
overcome a number of barriers, such as suffering a stroke. Language processing and motor
function can return after this type of event (D’Arcangelo, 1998).
By examining research data from the field of neuroscience and linguistics, language
teachers can have a better understanding of how language is developed. The longer continuous
meaningful learning occurs in life, the longer the brain will make the neural connections
necessary for growth (Genesee, 2000). Therefore, research on the brain and language indicates
that during the early years it is critical for teachers to help establish meaningful associations
between their students and learning opportunities. The ESL teacher may tailor the academic
content to help develop their student's skills most efficiently. Through curriculum enhancement,
they may provide an enriched, brain-friendly classroom environment.
Classroom Instruction and Second Language Acquisition
Instructional models have transitioned from the authoritative teacher-centered
environment of the first half of the twentieth century to the “humanistic” classroom and learner-
centered mode of instruction that predominated the 1960s (Bueno, 1999, p. 1). In the 1970s and
1980s, language classrooms transformed again with the implementation of new approaches and
techniques to assist with learning English as a Second Language (Bueno, 1999; Garvin, 1996;
Hancock, 1994; McLaughlin, 1992). In the 1990s, classroom instruction transformed again with
ESL 27
the findings of Dr. Howard Gardner, a cognitive psychologist who developed a theory of
Multiple Intelligences (MI) (1983, 1993, & 1995).
Gardner theorized that human cognitive competence was pluralistic, rather than unitary,
in design. Human beings, according to Gardner, possess multiple intelligences in varying
amounts and each individual has a unique intellectual composition. These intelligences are
located in different areas of the brain and can work either independently or together. Gardner
proposed a schema of eight types of intelligence. A summary of Gardner's eight types of
intelligence follows:
1. Linguistic intelligence is the ability to use language effectively and includes

both oral and written components.
2. Logical/mathematical intelligence is the ability to use numbers effectively

and reason well.
3. Visual/spatial intelligence is the ability to recognize form, space, color,

lines, and shapes to represent graphically, visually and/or spatially.
4. Bodily/kinesthetic intelligence is the ability to use the body to express

ideas, feelings, and to solve problems.
5. Musical intelligence is the ability to recognize rhythm, pitch, and melody.
6. Naturalist intelligence is the ability to recognize and classify.
7. Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand another person's

feelings, motivations, and intentions and to respond effectively.
8. Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to know and understand oneself and

recognize one's similarities and differences when compared to others.
(Gardner, 1983, 1993, 1995)
To succeed academically in traditional classrooms, students must have strong linguistic and
mathematical skills. Students of teachers who implement Gardner’s principles of MI into their
classrooms may experience more success; this is because other intelligences are tapped. In other
ESL 28
words, LEP students who come from cultures where other intelligences, such as interpersonal or
musical, are highly valued, may find the MI classroom a productive learning environment
(Christison, 1998).
Today, the theory of Multiple Intelligences continues to be widely accepted by educators,
and it is affecting instructional delivery throughout the world (Christison, 1998; Tomlinson,
1991). Since the inception of Gardner’s MI theory, teachers have become more receptive of
differentiated learning. “In a differentiated classroom, teachers begin where students are, not the
front of a curriculum guide. They accept and build upon the premise that learners differ in
important ways” (Tomlinson, 1999, p. 1). In addition, teachers are better equipped to work with
their students, for they bring with them an appreciation for individual strengths, unique learning
styles, and different learning potentials (Christison, 1998, 1999b, 1999c; Tomlinson, 1999).
Caine and Caine (1994, 1997) have also studied the brain-based research and arrived at
twelve principles of brain-based learning that are based on the notion that all people are driven to
search for meaning in life. These principles were derived from an exploration of many
disciplines and are viewed as a pedagogical framework for teaching (ESL students). The 12
principles are:
1. The brain is a complex adaptive system.
2. The brain is a social brain.
3. The search for meaning is innate.
4. The search for meaning occurs through patterning.
5. Emotions are critical to patterning.
6. Every brain simultaneously perceives and creates parts and wholes.
7. Learning involves both focused attention and peripheral attention.

ESL 29
8. Learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes.
9. We have at least two ways of organizing memory.
10. Learning is developmental.
11. Complex learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat.
12. Every brain is uniquely organized. (Caine & Caine, 1997, p. 28)
Caine and Caine (1997) believed that each of the aforementioned principles represent an aspect
of learning based upon brain-based research. Teachers who have used their principles in
instruction no longer see their students as a “blank slate, and have a new appreciation of the fact
that the body, brain, and mind are a dynamic unity” (p. 27). These 12 principles were designed to
enhance the educational environment.
According to Caine and Caine (1997), teachers tend to fall into one of three categories.
The first is the traditional, old school, teacher-centered, or “stand and deliver” approach (p. 27).
The second approach is the middle ground, where the teacher is in charge but creates a rich
learning environment, with more complex learning experiences, for their students. The third
approach involves a complex, interactive, student-centered classroom environment. It is in this
student-centered environment that second language learners tend to flourish and to develop and
retain their new language most readily. In an interactive student-centered classroom, the teacher
has removed classroom threats and allowed the student's mind to be calm yet attentive (Caine &
Caine, 1997; Krashen 1981, 1985). Social interaction appears key for LEP students. Caine and
Caine (1997) identified three conditions for complex learning to occur:
1. An optimal state of mind that is called relaxed alertness, consisting of a low

threat and high challenge.
ESL 30
2. The orchestrated immersion of the learner in multiple, complex, authentic

experience.
3. The regular active processing experience as the basis for the making meaning.
(p. 32)
These three conditions are applicable for all students regardless of age and linguistic abilities
(Caine & Caine, 1997).
Emotions and Second Language Acquisition
Limited English proficient students must have a brain-compatible environment, free from
threat, in which they learn. Negative emotions may impede students’ learning whereas positive
emotions may enhance learning (Caine & Caine, 1997; Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe, 2001). Knowledge
of the role of both positive and negative emotions is vital for teachers of LEP students.
Neuroscientists believe emotions are mediated through a complex mix of thoughts, perceptions,
feelings, and reasoning; these aspects are interwoven and may affect how a student learns (Caine
& Caine, 1997; Jensen, 1998b; Krashen, 1981, 1985; Wolfe, 2001). When people are exposed to
constant threat or early trauma, high levels of the neurotransmitters serotonin and noradrenalin
are released (Jensen, 1998b). If fear or stress is constant, the brain’s normal circuits may be
altered. Therefore, a person’s physical and emotional well-being is linked closely to the ability to
think and to learn effectively (Jensen, 1998b; Krashen, 1981, 1985; Wolfe, 2001). According to
Krashen (1985), the affective filter is a screen of emotion that blocks language acquisition or
learning as it causes the users to be too self-conscious or too embarrassed to take risks. He
further stressed that optimal input or learning occurs when the affective filter is low. When the
classroom atmosphere exhibits threatening or high tones, students will shut down and not be
ESL 31
willing to take risks (Jensen, 1998b; Krashen 1985). It is only when the atmosphere is “threat”
free or (at least) low in threat that students begin to take risks (Bueno, 1999; Jensen, 1998b;
Krashen, 1981, 1985).
Teachers may use the understanding how students’ emotions play a critical role in their
learning to drive the curriculum. According to Christison (1999d), it is most important to realize
that emotions can be a hindrance or can be an aide to learning, depending on how the teacher
uses them. If students experience a negative emotion when under threat, the research indicates
that the brain will downshift or (at least) slow down. “When threatened, the second language
learner becomes less flexible and will revert back to a more routine behavior and will have
difficulty processing new information” (Christison, 1999c, p. 1). When teachers’ instruction
captivates students’ positive emotions, such as love, excitement, enthusiasm, and joy, it enhances
the ability of the cerebral cortex to process information and create meaningful connections
(Jensen, 1998b). Their emotions interact with reason to support or inhibit learning. Students, for
example, must feel physically safe and emotionally secure in their schools and classrooms before
they can focus on the curriculum. Eric Jensen (1998b) emphasized the importance of teachers
building an emotionally secure environment. “Teachers must provide outlets for their students'
emotions through discussions, singing, sharing, writing, music, or even drawing” (Jensen, 1998b,
p. 1). Teachers should do whatever it takes to get their students' emotions out in the open so they
do not suppress them (Jensen, 1998b). Depending upon how students "feel" about a learning
situation determines the amount of attention they will devote to it. When teachers promote
emotional security in their classroom, they are establishing a positive climate that encourages
students to take appropriate risks that enhance the learning experience (Jensen, 1998b).
Social Interaction and Second Language Acquisition

ESL 32
Students’ learning is influenced not only by their emotions but also through social
interactions because the brain is social by nature. There is a human need to build realistic,
intimate relationships with others in the environment (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997). This need has
evolved over thousands of years (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; Krashen 1981, 1985). Social
interaction is also emotionally stimulating and supports the learning process. According to Caine
and Caine (1997), teachers must immerse learners in complex, interactive experiences that are
both rich and real. An excellent example is illustrated when the students are immersed in a
foreign language (English) and culture (American) in order to help them learn.
Through research, teachers are discovering how the brain makes new neural connections
when it gets actively involved in interesting and challenging situations. Classrooms should be
busy, interactive environments where students and their teachers are learning from one another
(Edelman, 1992). In an interactive classroom, teachers do not hesitate to have their students
physically stand up, move around, and have peer interactions. An interactive, task-centered
classroom is critical to students’ learning process because it helps maintain students’ focus while
enhancing their sense of meaning (Caine & Caine, 1997; Edelman, 1992). This effective model
of instruction can be often found in most elementary classrooms; however, in many secondary
and college classrooms, students sit passively for long periods with little sensory stimulation,
listening primarily to their teachers lecture (Caine & Caine, 1997; Edelman, 1992).
One of the least effective forms of instructional delivery for students, especially for LEP
students, is traditional lecturing (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; Davies, 1996; Jensen, 1998). When
teachers lecture, most often their students left-brains begin to send sabotaging messages such as
“How is this relevant to my life?” “How will I ever use this information?” and/or “Does this
teacher know what he/she is doing?” For many LEP students, their critical left-brains may be
ESL 33
telling them to ignore their teacher because their brains have not been coded for the new
language. In other words, their brains may be telling them that there is no such language as the
one the teacher is using (Davies, 1996). Often, to LEP students, it sounds like their teacher is
speaking like the teacher from Charlie Brown, “Blah, blah, blah.” After all, the teacher is the
only person in the room who is trying to challenge what the student knows to be true. Therefore,
in the students’ brains, whatever data the teacher is presenting is irrelevant to the learner; as a
result, students' brains fail to store the information in their long-term memories and will be
unable to retrieve the data for later use. “Our marvelous brain remembers everything; the
problem we have is ineffective recall" (Davies, 1996, p. 5). That is why after extended periods of
instruction and practice, students later return to their class and act as if they have never heard the
material before (Davies, 1996).
Patterns and Second Language Acquisition
Caine and Caine (1994; 1997) connected neuro-psychological and educational
methodologies and found that the search for meaning and patterns is a basic process in the
human brain. In fact, the brain may resist learning fragmented facts presented in isolation
(Beane, 1997; Jacobs, 1989, 1997). Learning is believed to occur faster and more thoroughly
when it is presented in meaningful contexts, with an experiential component; hence, the notion
that every brain, or every student, is unique (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997). While the search for
patterns and context may be universal, every learner has his/her own learning style (Gardner,
1983, 1993; Tomlinson, 1999). To meet these diverse needs means providing choices for students
(Edelman, 1992; Vygotsky and Social Cognition, n.d.).
Researchers, such as the Caines, recommend a relaxed learning environment that offers
numerous options for individual learning. In the student-centered classroom, the teacher is the
ESL 34
facilitator of learning, who guides their students learning by design. Teachers create thematic
lessons and then engage their students through an array of student-centered, versatile activities.
These activities speak to their students’ interests, thus creating an interest in learning (Caine &
Caine, 1994; Jensen, 1998; Vygotsky and Social Cognition, n.d.; Wolfe, 2001). According to
Gerald Edelman (1992), chairperson of the Department of Neurobiology at Scripps Research
Institute, students learn best when they interact continuously in an environment that provides
many sensory, cultural, and problem layers. His ideas suggest that students have a natural
inclination to learn, understand, and grow. Surround the students with a variety of instructional
opportunities and they will make the connections required for learning.
Culture and Second Language Acquisition
Both the Caines and Edelman’s learning theories follow the model of Vygotsky’s social
cognition learning model. Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, an educational theorist and behaviorist
(1896-1934) suggested that culture is the primary determinant of individual development.
Through culture, children learn language and acquire much of the content of their thinking. The
familial culture of LEP students dictated what and how they thought within their native
homeland, but now they must learn to adjust to their new surroundings and culture (Vygotsky and
Social Cognition, n.d.). Through communication with their peers, students learn a rich body of
knowledge that exists in the culture (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; D’Arcangelo, 2000). The social
cognition-learning model has heavily influenced education today. The teacher becomes a
facilitator of their students’ learning. The teacher sets up scenarios that students perform with
others. The students accomplish and perform complex tasks they may never have completed on
their own (Vygotsky and Social Cognition, n.d.).

ESL 35
Research indicates that the best way to help LEP students’ transition from one culture to
another (e.g. the mainstreamed classroom) is through peer interaction in cooperative student
learning centers (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; ELLKBase, 2004). These cooperative centers
involve LEP students in a variety of activities involving groups of students creating and solving
specific tasks together. Activities may include role-playing, cooperative learning, and/or story
telling (Edelman, 1992). The lessons require students to be focused for short periods allowing
them to input the information, reflect upon it, and then process the new information learned.
These centers need to be hands-on and allow the students to investigate new concepts and
dialogue with each other; the LEP students will gain new knowledge and have immediate
feedback from their peers (Vygotsky and Social Cognition, n.d.). The students are provided
options and must learn to take responsibility and prioritize (Edelman, 1992). By using
cooperative learning and center-based activities, teachers can address the various learning styles
and the English language development of their LEP students (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997;
D’Arcangelo, 2000; Edelman, 1992). Limited English proficient students can learn to excel in a
variety of ways when the classroom teacher offers an ample number of learning opportunities.
Meaningfulness and Second Language Acquisition
Students must have a personal and meaningful challenge to gain new knowledge. Such
challenges stimulate a student's mind to the desired state of alertness. In order for a student to
gain insight into a problem, there must be intensive analysis of the different ways to approach it.
This is what is known as the “active processing of experience” (Jensen, 1998b, p. 14). Student
learning can be enhanced when teachers realize that how they deliver instruction can impede or
improve their students’ learning (Edelman, 1992). It is imperative that teachers examine how
they deliver instruction because LEP students process and retain information differently. They
ESL 36
must determine whether they will require students to memorize facts and listen to lectures or
engage their students in exercises that are more meaningful (Christison, 1999c; Jacobs, 1989;
1997).
Teachers must also question whether the information being presented is meaningful to the
student (Caine &Caine, 1994, 1997; Christison, 1999c; Edelman, 1992). When LEP students are
asked to merely memorize facts, it will not lead to constructive learning. They will just be
regurgitating information and not make a meaningful connection. Evidence from neuroscience
has shown that when students are asked to learn facts and skills in isolation, the brain cannot
make the necessary connections (Edelman, 1992). “If lessons are meaningful, students will learn
more rapidly and retain information longer” (Christison, 1999c, p. 1). Meaning has a tremendous
impact on what information and/or skills will be learned and stored. If students do not develop a
profound connection by the end of a learning episode, there is little likelihood that much
information will be recalled (Edelman, 1992). To help students find meaning, today's curriculum
must contain connections to their experiences, not just their teachers.
Memory and Second Language Acquisition
The research has indicated that students’ memory and experiences may influence new
learning (Jensen, 1998b). Memory acts like a filter that helps students to focus on those things
that have relevant meaning and discard irrelevant thoughts. An example of how memory
functions is evident when LEP students learn their new language. The sounds (phonemes) are
unfamiliar to their brains and therefore their brains are not able to register the connections to
words. If the brain hears an unfamiliar sound or word, it will search other avenues such as
auditory, visual, spatial, or motor sources to aid in the detection for meaning. It registers as “an
undifferentiated neural activity” and the learner must “retrain” their brain to recognize these
ESL 37
sounds (Genesee, 2000, p. 2). If not all sources recognize the sound or the word, the input will
not be comprehensible and the sounds or words to be deciphered become useless noise or jargon,
and therefore meaningless (Krashen, 1981, 1985; Talukder, 2000).
Only through continual exposure over time does the brain begin to make sense of the
sounds and words (Talukder, 2000). Language teachers successfully aid in this process by
extending phonemes and exaggerating them until their students are able to make the neural
connections and learn the new sounds (Talukder, 2000). By doing so, the teacher is naturally
exercising their students’ neural activity. After this continual exposure to the new sounds, the
brain will be able to decipher among the new sounds. By working together to form connections,
the neurons form a type of network, which will allow one to comprehend the sounds, the words,
and the phrases (Talukder, 2000). An analogy for this process is one of a Polaroid photo: when
the film first comes out of the camera, it is rather fuzzy and unclear; when it is fully developed, it
has greater definition and clarity.
Eric Jensen (1998b) indicated that knowledge of the manner, in which the brain processes
and stores memory may assist teachers with their lesson planning and their presentations. There
are four types of memory: procedural, episodic, semantic, and sensory. Procedural memory
occurs after repeated action; it typically deals with routine activities, such as brushing teeth.
Episodic memory is charged emotionally either positively or negatively. Teachers may use
positive episodic memory to aid their students in recalling important information, building on
their prior knowledge, and acting upon it (Davies, 1996; Jensen, 1998b; Wolfe, 2001).
Semantic memory, or rote memory, is used often in the classroom to recall facts. The
right side of the brain is thought to be virtually non-verbal or mute, and non-critical; however, it
is pattern seeking. Although this side of the brain is mute, and does not allow for spoken
ESL 38
language, it will try to communicate by whispering softly and using body language such as
gestures. When the pattern-seeking part of the brain finds cause-and-effect relationships, they are
likely to be stored in the long-term memory. The implication for teaching is that assertions by the
instructor are not enough; the student's brain will insist that each assertion must be proved
through repeated patterning which taps in to the long-term memory (Davies, 1996; Jensen,
1998b).
Sensory memory, which is in the right part of the brain, is automatic. This allows one to
process short-term and long-term memory. Because every person has a neural history, teachers
draw from past experiences to grab students’ attention and build understanding. If a personal
connection is made to the learning experience, it will stimulate a response, which can generate a
new real life experience. According to Davies (1996), “We often remember information when it
is characterized by: sensory associations, emotional context, intense associations, and necessities
for survival, personal importance, or repetition” (p. 5). Bringing two sources of stimuli together,
such as using of pictures and music, increases the overall amount of brain activity and creates
more neural connections; this ultimately assists with learning and language acquisition. When
these neural connections are formed, memories are created. If a teacher increases the number,
and the variety of the connections, there is an increased chance of retention and later recall
(Davies, 1996; Jensen, 1998b; Sprenger, 1999; Wolfe, 2001).
Recall is also greater for information that is presented first or last in a succession; this is
known as the “primacy effect” and the “recency effect” (Sprenger, 1999, p. 1). In order to retain
the information necessary, the brain needs to rehearse the information using a variety of
repetitive actions such as learning through rhyming, poetry, music, and movement. A teacher can
also use word chunking to convey the information. This process allows students to make
ESL 39
connections to concepts of which they are already familiar (Christison, 1999c; Davies, 1996;
Jensen, 1998b; Sprenger, 1999).
Schemas and Second Language Acquisition
Schemas are interpretive “memory” frames that teachers use to help their students make
sense of information by relating it to previous experiences (Sprenger, 1999). By providing
students with a simple graphic organizer or a visual aid that displays the chunks of information to
be learned, the students will have a framework, which they can use to approach the information.
They also help to clarify instructional goals and to clear up any misconceptions. A story map is
one example of a graphic organizer that breaks down the elements of a narrative into chunks of
texts, so that the students can organize and comprehend the events therein. It also illustrates what
the students are responsible for learning. Using a story map for the study of literature helps to
make the learning interesting and increases later recall (Sprenger, 1999).
Music and Second Language Acquisition
To inspire effective learning, a teacher should also include music. Music is linked often to
emotions in the brain, and playing it in the classroom can trigger pleasurable memories. “The
reason music is so important to the learning environment is that is actually corresponds to and
affects our physiological conditions” (Davies, 1996, p. 3). With music, students develop spatial
reasoning which they can use for mathematical skills (Christison, 1999c; Davies, 1996). It is
probably the most inexpensive adaptation that can be easily applied in the classroom
environment. Teachers can use classical music, which is universal and has no lyrics to confuse
LEP students. Music may be employed during “quiet time,” in which students quietly read a
book or relax without talking to each other. This quiet period allows time for neural connections
that were made during learning to be processed (Davies, 1996; Edelman, 1992; Jensen, 1998b).
ESL 40
Thematic Instruction and Second Language Acquisition
Thematic instruction incorporates emotional content, social interaction, patterns, cultural
recognition, meaningfulness, and information about memory into its curriculum (Jacobs, 1989).
This is why it is called “Integration of the Curriculum.” James Beane (1997) has traced the roots
of curriculum integration back to 1895. As early as 1918, Kilpatrick discussed the "project
method" of instruction that shifted the focus to the interests of students (Beane, 1997; Jacobs,
1989, 1997). Lipson (1993) and Beane (1997) traced the idea of curriculum integration to
reforms of the 1930s, specifically to John Dewey's 1933 discussion of meaningful learning.
Today, integration of the curriculum is considered a synthesis of the following modalities:
brain research (e.g., how students learn), teaching/instructional strategies, and curriculum
development, and/or enhancement (Kovalik, 1994). The three approaches explored in this
research project are (a) interdisciplinary curriculum, (b) curriculum integration, and (c) cross-
curricular integration. A review of the literature supports the view that these types of instruction
are educational approaches that prepare students for lifelong learning (Beane, 1997; Jacobs,
1989, 1997; Vogt, 1997). There is a strong belief among those who support curriculum
integration that education is a process for developing abilities required by life in the twenty-first
century, rather than discrete, departmentalized subject matter (Beane, 1997). In general, all three
approaches combine subjects, emphasize projects, require additional sources that go beyond
textbooks, and build upon student and teacher relationships and the relationship among and
between concepts (Beane, 1997; Jacobs, 1989, 1997; Vars, 2001; Vogt, 1997).
Brain-based research confirms the fact that the learning environment needs to provide a
setting that incorporates stability and familiarity. It should be able to satisfy the mind’s enormous
curiosity and hunger for learning for discovery, challenge, and novelty (Beane, 1989; Jacobs,
ESL 41
1989; Shoemaker, 1989). Creating an opportunity to challenge LEP students to call on their
collective experiences, or prior knowledge, is essential. Through this process, teachers transition
their LEP students from memorizing unconnected factual information to more meaningful and
lasting learning. The students begin the journey of connecting learning events rather than
remembering bits and pieces. Prior knowledge is an essential element in this quest for making
learning relevant to students’ lives (Shoemaker, 1989). The brain organizes new knowledge on
the basis of previous experiences and the meaning that has developed from those experiences.
The brain processes many things at the same time, and holistic experiences are recalled more
quickly and easily. "The human brain," writes Shoemaker (1989), "actively seeks patterns and
searches for meaning through these patterns" (p. 13). Put to use in the classroom, brain research
points toward integration of the curriculum (also termed thematic teaching).
Thematic teaching is an integration of the disciplines, which focuses on building
concepts, topics, or categories (Jacobs, 1989). It provides a narrow focus of an area over a short
timeframe. Often subjects taught are subordinate to the theme, allowing for the typical separation
between disciplines or subjects to be eliminated. Thematic instruction provides LEP students
opportunities to learn through more contextualized learning experiences. In return, thematic
instruction allows teachers the opportunity to reach a broader range of students. Students make
connections within themselves, with the content, and with the new language. These connections
help build language and academic development alike (Bower, 1998).
When learning is orchestrated throughout the curriculum, students become fully engaged,
and in return, they enjoy and take ownership of learning (Beane, 1997; Jacobs, 1989, 1997;
Shoemaker, 1989; Vars, 2001; Vogt, 1997). Implementing thematic learning is also an effective
way to engage students (Jacobs, 1989). Students are taught to link content and language learning
ESL 42
in a meaningful way, which helps them to develop critical thinking skills. By working
cooperatively in small heterogeneous groups on a specific task, LEP students can negotiate the
means to construct an outcome. This activity allows students to exchange information,
knowledge, and experience.
Interdisciplinary Curriculum
In the traditional mode of teaching, content subjects are taught separately as the
curriculum has been divided into separate disciplines such as language arts, math, science, social
studies, and the arts. Each subject is taught in isolation from the others; this isolation of teaching
facts and skills artificially compartmentalizes subjects into separate schemata files (Jacobs, 1989,
1997). Connections between the curriculum areas have not been provided, and will often leave
students without the skills needed to integrate the information they have learned or to understand
how the subject areas relate to each other and to real life.
Interdisciplinary curriculum is used often synonymously with integrated curriculum; it
addresses some of the recurring problems in education, fragmentation, and isolated skill
instruction, by supporting goals such as transferring knowledge to learning. This occurs when
students are taught to think and reason, and are provided a relevant curriculum. Interdisciplinary
curriculum was defined by Jacobs (1989) as "a knowledge view and curricular approach that
consciously applies methodology and language from more than one discipline to examine a
central theme, issue, problem, topic, or experience" (p. 8). According to Jacobs (1989, 1997), the
interdisciplinary units are designed by the teacher, but shaped by the students’ quest for more or
less knowledge about a subject. The units are aligned with the school districts’ grade-levels’
ESL 43
scope and sequence, incorporate a cognitive taxonomy that encourages higher-order critical
thinking skills, have behavioral indicators of attitudinal changes, and have a solid evaluation
scheme. Through interdisciplinary curriculum, boundaries may, or may not, be eliminated
between the subjects. These units must also incorporate the core discipline subjects and
interdisciplinary experiences for students into the curriculum (Jacobs, 1989, 1997). Lake (1994)
described interdisciplinary curriculum as a combination of several school subjects into one theme
where knowledge gained is demonstrated in a final project. In real life, multiple subjects are
combined often into one activity, so this prepares students for the real world (Lake, 1994).
According to Jacobs (1989, 1997), teachers who use interdisciplinary curriculum refocus
the students’ learning. Teachers introduce the core subjects in a relevant context by presenting
information to students in a thematic, holistic manner. Interdisciplinary curriculum incorporates
Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, which is that level that is just above the students’
language abilities, into classroom instruction. Teachers introduce the unit of study, then weave
and align the core disciplines into the theme. The teachers guide and “scaffold” their students’
learning during the early portion of the unit (Vygotsky and Social Cognition, n.d., p. 1). At a
predetermined point, the teacher’s role shifts and becomes the primary facilitator of their
students’ learning, as the teacher sets up scenarios that students perform together. By
cooperating, the students perform complex tasks they may never have completed on their own
(Vygotsky and Social Cognition, n.d.). Teachers using interdisciplinary curriculum are “active
curriculum designers” (Jacobs, 1989, p. 9).Teachers are “empowered to work as a designer to
shape and to edit the curriculum according to the students’ needs” (p. 10). It empowers students
to see connections, generalize, and transfer knowledge to a variety of situations in their lives
(Jacobs, 1989, 1997; Lake, 1994).

ESL 44
Implementing interdisciplinary learning (thematic) is an effective way to engage students.
These students are taught to link content and language learning in a meaningful way, which helps
to develop their critical thinking skills (Jacobs, 1989, 1997; Lake, 1994). By working
cooperatively on a specific task, LEP students negotiate the means to construct an outcome. This
activity allows students to exchange information, knowledge, and experience. In return, they will
make connections themselves with the content and the language. Educators need to help students
have appropriate experiences and capitalize on those experiences. These activities will help to
build oral language development as well as increase the vocabulary needed to build
comprehension (Bower, 1998).
Curriculum Integration
According to James Beane (1997), curriculum integration radically differs fundamentally
from interdisciplinary and cross-curricular approaches. When teachers place curriculum
integration within a collection of interdisciplinary approaches, they are implying there is a
continuum. When teachers depart from instruction in separate subject areas, they move toward
connecting integration across disciplines. According to Beane (1997), disciplinary boundaries
should be downplayed. Beane designed a method of integration (termed curriculum integration)
that closely weaves students’ personal and social concerns into the curriculum without regard for
the traditional content areas. In Beane's model, there are no boundaries between the subjects; the
barriers are eliminated. Students’ knowledge is gained through the context of their problem-
solving questions. The scope and sequence for learning is formulated by students’ questions.
Beane’s methodology was originally termed “core curriculum” by educators who developed it
ESL 45
early in the twentieth century; Beane revived it and termed it “curriculum integration” (Vars,
2001, p. 2).
In curriculum integration, themes are drawn from life as it is being lived and/or
experienced by the students and driven by the standards and/or the scope and sequence of the
district. Teachers using these types of themes open avenues of inquiry and action through a
democratic process (Jacobs, 1989). Students and teachers collaborate as they plan the curriculum
(Beane, 1997). Beane (1997) stated, “Curriculum units are formed by asking students two simple
questions: “What questions or concerns do you have about yourself? What questions or concerns
do you have about the world?” (p. 51). Themes are then identified from students’ questions. This
focus on the curriculum compels teachers to work with students in ways that empowers them as
they provide a powerful voice in curriculum planning. According to Beane (1997), “Bringing
democracy into the classroom assures that students have a genuine say in their curriculum and
that their opinions count for something” (p. 49). This approach to learning is vastly different
when compared to the “traditional” mode of planning instruction, which is subject specific, and
much less democratic (Jacobs, 1989).
Beane’s type of instruction provides a framework for learning that is knowledge-rich.
“Knowledge and skills are derived out of the abstract subject categories and in the context of
thematic units. Curriculum integration presents an authentic integration of affect and cognition”
(Beane, 1992, p. 3). Beane’s concept has constructivist roots and follows the philosophy that
meanings are created by students rather than imposed by adults. Students use their knowledge,
skills, and prior experience to search for answers to their questions rather than concentrating on
passing exams (Beane, 1992, 1997).

ESL 46
Cross-Curricular Thematic Instruction
Cross-curricular thematic instruction is a combination of the aforementioned
methodologies of instruction that integrate themes around content subjects. Cross-curricular
thematic instruction adapts components of interdisciplinary instruction as the organizational
structure, which is called a theme, thematic unit, or unit (Jacobs, 1989; Vogt, 1997). However,
this methodology is linked to a framework (standards) that have specific goals and/or outcomes
that specify what students are expected to learn as a result of the experiences and lessons in each
part of the unit. Cross-curricular thematic units use a component of curriculum integration
because students contemplate problems and situations that reflect the world, as they know it; this
allows students to interrelate pieces of information that are connected (Jacobs, 1989; Vogt,
1997). When permitted to study topics in which they have an interest and genuine curiosity,
students are more personally invested in gaining the knowledge and skills involved. The primary
difference that sets this approach apart is that information is obtained and primarily linked
through literature and other subject matter contents that students use to learn about the world
(Beane, 1997; Meinbach, Rothlein, & Fredericks, 1995; Jacobs, 1989, 1997; Vogt, 1997).
Within its framework, there are varied levels of integration, where teachers develop
cross-curricular sub-objectives provided by a curriculum guide or the standards (Meinbach,
Rothlein, & Fredericks, 1995; Vogt, 1997). For teachers and students alike, exploration and
discovery become paramount; the teacher as the dispenser of knowledge is secondary. Lessons
developed include cross-curricular activities and assessments. The activities are primarily ones of
enrichment and/or or enhancement with a cross-curricular focus. Motivation, organization, and
assessments become the driving force and natural extensions of the students' interest and are not
imposed externally by the teacher (Erickson, 2002; Meinbach et al., 1995; Vogt, 1997).
ESL 47
This instructional methodology attempts to address some of the recurring problems in
education, such as fragmentation and isolated skill instruction by supporting goals such as
transferring knowledge to learning (Vogt, 1997). This occurs when students are taught to think
and reason, and are provided a relevant curriculum. Teachers using cross-curricular thematic
instruction make a conscious effort to apply knowledge, principles, and/or values of more than
one content area or academic discipline simultaneously (Vogt, 1997). Subject matter content is
taught by intertwining a central theme, issue, problem, process, topic, or experience (Jacobs,
1989).
With cross-curricular thematic instruction, students are encouraged to explore core
subject matter topics, problems, and questions (Jacobs, 1989). Students become engaged through
various reading and writing activities. It presents opportunities for teachers to build upon themes
that students want to know more about. These themes will increase students’ confidence,
improve their reading and writing, expand their content knowledge, build upon their background
knowledge, and increase their motivation and attitudes about academics (Erickson, 2002;
Meinbach et al., 1995; Jacobs, 1989; Vogt, 1997). Focusing on integrating content knowledge
through language arts helps to foster students in developing their reading, writing, and thinking
skills (Jacobs, 1989; Vogt, 1989). Many of the important concepts, strategies, and skills taught in
the language arts transfer readily to other content areas. Various learning strategies can be related
to reading material in any content area (Vogt, 1997). “Teachers can readily locate cause-and-
effect relationships that exist in content areas such as in literature, science, and social studies;
cross-curricular thematic teaching supports and promotes this transfer of knowledge” (Meinbach
et al., 1995, p. 1). Teachers are easily able to apply principles of critical thinking across any
content subject or area of discipline (Meinbach et al., 1995).

ESL 48
According to Mary Ellen Vogt (1997), “Teachers who use cross-curricular themes create
active readers and writers by engaging students in authentic literacy tasks that emerge naturally
from interesting and worthwhile topics and ideas” (p. 1). Vogt suggests teachers use authentic
tasks that are defined as "ones in which reading and writing serve a function for children" and
which "involve children in the immediate use of literacy for enjoyment and communication" (p.
1). Vogt also indicated that teachers should focus on students’ choice and ownership, which will
extend students knowledge-based beyond their classroom walls.
Vogt’s research (1997) on cross-curricular thematic instruction and reading indicated:
Good readers connect and utilize ideas and information from a variety of previous
life and literacy experiences (Anderson et al., 1985). Sustained reading of
interesting texts improves reading comprehension and enhances enjoyment
(Fielding & Pearson, 1994; Reutzel & Cooter, 1991). Over time, the effect is that
comprehension improves as students read more (Hartman & Hartman, 1993).
Therefore, to increase understanding, students should have experience reading a
variety of texts, including narrative and expository literature, as well as "real
world" materials such as brochures, magazine articles, maps, and informational
signs. (p. 1)
Through a variety of learning experiences, students will build a strong foundation that prepares
them for "real world" tasks. “Because our lives require us to integrate what we have learned in an
interdisciplinary manner, teaching children through merged disciplines better prepares them for
applying new knowledge and understandings” (Vogt, 1997, p. 1). In the end, students will have a
more personal connection to learning; one that is relevant to their lives and in return they will be
more motivated to learn and have a greater chance to succeed (Vogt, 1997).
Positive Results
Data obtained through various studies have found that students who were enrolled in
integrated programs do as well as, and most often do better, than students in traditional
programs. Lawton (1994) discussed the “Eight-Year Study” conducted during the 1930s, in
ESL 49
which students who received the “fused” curricular design displayed more intellectual curiosity,
a better attitude toward learning, and higher achievement in college than students in a traditional
college-prep program (p. 1). Lawton (1994) surveyed core curricula in middle schools from the
1950s to the present. In his study of 15,000 Maine eighth-graders, Lawton found that students in
interdisciplinary courses outscored their peers in single-discipline subjects by 58 points on
standardized tests (Meinbach et al., 1995; Lake, 1994; Lawton, 1994; Vars, 2001; Weilbacher,
2001).
A report by Weilbacher (2001) discussed how teachers from Georgia, Indiana, Maine,
Florida, Virginia, and Texas used curriculum integration in their classrooms. This study
demonstrated quantitatively that Beane’s instruction method increased students’ standardized
tests scores. Weilbacher’s research also reported that at Auburn High and Middle School in
Riner, Virginia students increased their Iowa test of Basic Skills. Data gathered in 1999 at Doe
Creek Middle School in New Palestine, Indiana demonstrated that 82% of its eighth graders met
the state standards in math and that 90% of its same students met the state’s standards in
Language Arts (p. 26).
Lake’s research (1994) indicated that students were not the only ones who responded
favorably to the learning experiences of an integrated curriculum.
In a study of an integrated mathematics curriculum, Edgerton (1990) found that

after one year 83 percent of the teachers involved preferred to continue with the
integrated program rather than return to the traditional curriculum. MacIver
(1990) found that teachers appreciate the social support of working together and
feel that they are able to teach more effectively when they integrate across
subjects and courses. They discover new interests and teaching techniques that
revitalize their teaching. (Lake, 1994, p. 1)
ESL 50
There have been more than 200 studies conducted over the years that assess the
effectiveness of the various forms of integrative curriculum and instruction (Vars, 2001). The
overall findings of this body of research were overwhelmingly supportive on the positive effects
of interdisciplinary integration, curriculum integration, and cross-curricular thematic instruction.
The studies cited the following explanation for the success of these approaches: (a) integrated
curriculum helps students obtain and apply learned skills; (b) it leads to faster retrieval of
information; (c) it encourages depth and breadth in learning; and (d) it increases motivation and
promotes positive attitudes in students (Beane, 1997; Meinbach et al., 1995; Jacobs, 1989, 1997;
Lake, 1994; Vars, 2001; Vogt, 1997; Weilbacher, 2001).
According to Jacobs (1989), “there is no right or wrong choice for integration, only a
range of options with distinct advantages and disadvantages” (p. 24). Most importantly, teachers
who implement thematics instruction do a better job of teaching their LEP students English.
Jacobs advocated action research as a way for teachers to “diagnose the needs and possibilities of
your school and prescribe the combination that will best serve your students” (p. 24). To be
successful, Jacobs (1989) identified four steps that play an integral role. Teachers should
“conduct action research to learn about current resources and best practices, develop a proposal
for integration, implement and monitor the pilot program, and conduct and adopt continual
assessments of their students and program” (p. 27).
In Vars (2001) study, integration of the curriculum was defined as a complex approach to
learning that involves both curriculum and instruction modifications.
Educators must hold fast to the ideal of developmentally-appropriate middle level

education even if they have to make some accommodations to the realities of their
situation. Above all, they must not retreat to long-discredited drill-and-test
practices in the mistaken notion that helping students cram in order to raise their
ESL 51
test scores is the way to better quality education. Indeed, the opposite is true.
(Vars, 2001, p. 14)
Although students’ scores may increase, it is important to bear in mind that there are more
important benefits of this type of learning such as increasing students’ love of learning, concerns
for other people, as well as fostering students’ critical thinking and self-confidence (Meinbach et
al., 1995; Vars, 2001).
Conclusion
The literature continues to mount supporting thematic instruction as a favorable
alternative to traditional instructional approaches. Based upon research of the brain and how
students learn, these approaches are gaining popularity among ESL teachers as effective ways to
reach LEP learners. The first method, interdisciplinary curriculum incorporates a process in
which the teacher introduces the subject matter and then weaves the core disciplines into the unit
(Jacobs, 1989). During curriculum integration, the teacher queries the students for topics that
interest them the most; then these aspects are included in the unit instruction to raise student
interest and participation (Beane, 1997). Finally, cross-curricular thematic instruction used the
aforementioned methodologies but also incorporate specific goals and/or outcomes that are
predetermined (Vogt, 1997).
Combined, these approaches represent an exciting development in the field of ESL
education. New English learners face many challenges, not the least of which is learning about a
language and culture from someone who may be unfamiliar with their native language and
ESL 52
culture. These methodologies include the use of neuroscience, music, social interaction,
recognizable patterns, culture, meaningful challenges, schemas, and techniques that complement
knowledge about short and long-term memory in humans. These thematic approaches promise to
reach LEP students, who face greater challenges and the looming threat of failure, and set them
on a path of lifelong learning. It is due to the great promise, demonstrated by a thorough review
of the relevant literature that thematic instructional approaches were chosen for this research
project. The next chapter reviews the methodology of this research project.
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies
Qualitative research incorporates a variety of methodologies that are often combined
and/or overlapped, such as in action research. Qualitative research is contrasted often with
quantitative research. The focus of qualitative research is not on numbers but on words and may
include observations, stories, visual portrayals, meaningful characterizations, interpretations,
interviews, and other expressive descriptions (Zikmund, 2000).
Qualitative analysis is a process that is often the precursor to quantitative,

statistical work; a process to make the tacit underpinnings of an issue explicit; a
process you can use to deepen your understanding of complex social and human
factors that cannot be understood with numbers; a process that helps you figure
out what to count and what to measure. (Kerlin, 1999, p. 1)
Alternately, the purpose of quantitative research is to determine the quantity or extent of some
phenomenon in the form of numbers (Burnaford et al., 2001; Gall, Borg, Walter, & Gall, 1996;
Kerlin, 1999; Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Qualitative research uses a combination of strategies to collect data: field observations,
focus groups, intensive interviews, and case studies. In a qualitative study, “the researcher
conducts studies in the field, in natural surroundings, and tries to capture the normal flow of
events without trying to control extraneous variables” (Zikmund, 2000, p. 1). Theories emerge as
part of the research process, evolving from the data as they are collected (Burnaford et al., 2001;
Gall et al., 1996; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The design of a study evolves during the research
and can often be adjusted or changed as it progresses such as in action research, which is not a
ESL 54
characteristic of quantitative research (Burnaford et al., 2001). It may be an exploratory research
study or a quantitative descriptive study. A descriptive study seeks to answer those “what is?” or
“what are?” questions, and data are collected through numbers, words or both (Zikmund, 2000).
In quantitative research, researchers conduct experiments, classify data, and construct
more complex statistical analysis in an attempt to explain what was discovered; although, a
researcher may conduct non-controlled quantitative studies such as descriptive, correlational, ex
post facto, and evaluation (Burnaford et al., 2001). Findings are generalized to a larger
population, and direct comparisons are made. This is one of the main disadvantages of using
qualitative research; the results are not often extended to wider populations with the same degree
of certainty as in quantitative analyses. The results of the research are not usually tested to
determine if they are statistically significant or due to chance (Burnaford et al., 2001; Gall et al.,
1996; Kerlin, 1999; Miles & Huberman, 1994).
It could be argued that the quantitative researcher is more precise, but the
response would be that with people, it is not possible to be so precise, people
change and the social situation is too complex for numerical description…
Quantitative research has a tendency to clarify where clarification is not
appropriate. (McBride & Schostak, 2000, pp. 1-2)
Hence, quantitative data can determine when students have achieved or failed a task, and they
can provide national ranking, percentiles, and allow researchers to conduct comparison analyses;
but they cannot provide the “total” picture of why a particular student has either succeeded or
failed. Alternatively, qualitative research has a phenomenological focus, which can provide an
enriched and detailed description of the participants’ actions and viewpoints (Veronesi, 1997).
Qualitative research tends to incorporate a more humanistic approach. When conducting
qualitative research, one is often interested in determining the ‘whole’ picture; he/she is in search
ESL 55
of answering the “why” questions (Burnaford et al., 2001; Gall et al., 1996; Kerlin, 1999;
McBride & Schostak, 2000; Meloy, 2002).
The role of the researcher is also different when comparing qualitative and quantitative
research. In quantitative research, the researcher neither participates in nor influences what is
being studied; thus, he/she examines the circumstances objectively. In qualitative research, the
researcher seeks to minimize the impact of his/her study and/or interventions. Most often
qualitative researchers endeavor to “build theory” from the ground of experience or practice
(McBride & Schostak, 2000, p. 1). In some qualitative research, the researcher may play a more
subjective role and participate by being immersed in his/her research. That is, the observer may
be the teacher or the facilitator. This role is often the case when action research is used in
educational research.
Therefore, both qualitative and quantitative research studies are valuable in the field of
education. Both may be utilized to understand the effectiveness of the various programs in place.
In education, researchers may select a multi-method or mixed methods methodology by
collecting quantitative and qualitative data to be better able to identify the “total” picture of the
research problem (McBride & Schostak, 2000, p. 1). In most research cases involving action
research, multiple assessment measures are needed. The type of data (quantitative, qualitative, or
both) to be gathered will often depend upon the problem. In an action research study, the
researcher may use qualitative observational tools as he/she observes teachers in action as they
implement changes such as current teaching practices, assessment practices, altering existing
school and classroom policies, and creating new mechanisms for studying problems or issues
within a school. On the other hand, a quantitative survey may be used to survey teachers and
their students to gather their thoughts on the effectiveness of implemented changes. When data
ESL 56
are obtained and used by the state and/or central school districts, they are more likely to be
quantitative. Most often, data collection can be as simplistic as counting students or as complex
as a multiple year case study (Burnaford et al., 2001; McBride & Schostak, 2000). For the
purpose of this research study, action research will be the preferred type of methodology and will
be furthered examined.
Action Research
Action research is a powerful qualitative research tool most often utilized in education
(Johnson, 1993; Knezevik, 2003). Action “implies the need for change and research implies a
need to clarify or increase understanding. “Action research is simply a form of self-reflective
enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and
justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which
the practices are carried out” (Carr & Kremmis, 1986, p. 162). Researchers often conducting
action research will use various qualitative and quantitative data to determine the 'success',
“usefulness,” or “value” of the innovation (Smith, 2002, p. 1). Researchers who use this method
of research observe carefully and reflect systematically. Most often, the researcher will generate
potential solutions to original problems, implement a chosen intervention, assess the outcomes,
and/or modify the solution(s). Many researchers are drawn to action research because it is firmly
located in the realm of the practitioner -- it is tied to self-reflection. The practitioner is typically
actively involved in the cause for which the research is conducted (Burnaford et al., 2001; Carr
& Kremmis 1986; Johnson, 1993; Knezevik, 2003; Smith, 2002).
Action research, in general, can be generally credited to Kurt Lewin dating back to the
1940s. His approach involved a spiral of steps, “each of which is composed of a circle of
ESL 57
planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action” (Smith, 2002, p. 1). The first
step of the cycle is to examine the idea carefully, finding as much data regarding the situation as
possible. “If this first period of planning is successful, two items emerge: namely, ‘an overall
plan’ of how to reach the objective and secondly, a decision in regard to the first step of action”
(Smith, 2002, p. 1). The next step is “composed of a circle of planning, executing, and
reconnaissance or fact finding for the purpose of evaluating the results of the second step, and
preparing the rational basis for planning the third step, and for perhaps modifying again the
overall plan” (Smith, 2002, p. 1).
Action research is a problem-solving approach in social settings, and one that parallels
Dewey’s 1920s conception of learning from experience (Johnson, 1993; Knezevik, 2003; Smith,
2002). Not until 1949, was action research widely accepted as a form of educational research,
when Stephen Corey and others from the Teachers College of Columbia University introduced
the term “action research” (Johnson, 1993, p. 1). Corey later defined action research as “the
process through which practitioners study their own practice to solve their personal practical
problems” (Johnson, 1993, p. 1). In education, teachers conducting action research will design,
conduct, and implement the research themselves to improve teaching in their own classrooms in
which they often establish expertise in the area of curriculum development and reflective
teaching (Johnson, 1993). The teacher’s primary role is an inquirer. In an educational setting,
“the approach is naturalistic, using participant-observation techniques of ethnographic research,
is generally collaborative, and includes characteristics of case study methodology” (Johnson,
1993, p. 1). It is often used as an evaluative tool that assists teachers and districts in a self-
evaluation and modification (Johnson, 1993; Knezevik, 2003). “Engaging in collaborative action
research [also] helps eliminate the isolation that has long characterized teaching, as it promotes
ESL 58
professional dialogue and thus, creates a more professional culture in schools” (Johnson, 1993, p.
1). By collaborating, the team members provide each other support by sharing questions,
concerns, results and advising each other and commenting on each other’s progress (Knezevik,
2003).
According to Jacobs (1989), teachers should conduct action research in their school when
considering implementing new instructional approaches in order to “diagnose the needs and
possibilities of your school and prescribe the combination that will best serve your students”
(p. 24). To be successful, Jacobs identified four steps that play an integral role. Teachers should
“conduct action research to learn about current resources and best practices, develop a proposal
for integration, implement and monitor the pilot program, and conduct and adopt continual
assessments of their students and program” (p. 27).
In 1999, Ernie Stringer introduced action research in education as a process that
encompassed three stages: looking, thinking, and acting. By looking, one is building a case and
collecting information. Through this process, the researcher is evaluating, defining, and
describing the problem being investigated, the context in which it is set, and the participants.
During the thinking stage, the researcher is interpreting and explaining. Through evaluations, the
researcher is forced to analyze and interpret situations. The researcher will then reflect on what
participants have been doing as well as look at areas of success and any deficiencies, issues, and/
or problems. The final stage is the act phase. The researcher actively is trying to resolve issues
and problems. Through this stage, the researcher is evaluating the worth, effectiveness,
appropriateness, and outcomes of those activities and formulating solutions to any problems
(Stringer, 1999).
ESL 59
Smith (2002) stated, “Today, action research has gained a significant foothold both within
the realm of community-based, and participatory action research; and as a form of practice
oriented to the improvement of educative encounters” (p. 1). Action research continues to play a
vital role in the restructuring and accountability movement in schools. Schools today have site-
based management and shared decision-making. With all the acquired autonomy, all parties
involved have new responsibilities. States, school districts, administrators, and teachers are now
held accountable to all stakeholders for the policies, programs, and practices they implement
(Johnson, 1993; Smith, 2002). Teachers can no longer afford to make merely unfounded
decisions; they are now called upon to make informed decisions that are data and research driven
(Johnson, 1993).
Research Design
This action research study used an iterative and collaborative research process; the
researcher and participant teachers wished to experiment with new instructional methodologies
in their SEI classrooms. The research study methodology was adapted with permission from the
framework created by Richard Sagor, and described in his book entitled, How to Conduct
Collaborative Action Research (1992). Sagor provided a step-by step guide to teachers on how to
collaboratively conduct action research. The five steps used in the study were: (a) formulating
the problem, (b) data collecting, (c) data analyzing, (d) reporting the results, and (e) “taking”
action. In Chapter 1, formulating the problem was discussed. Chapter 2 presented the literature
review. Data collecting and data analyzing are discussed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 discusses and
reports the results, and Chapter 5 discusses “taking” actions. The first three steps are discussed
next.
ESL 60
Problem Formulation
In the initial stage, the problem formulation stage, the researcher identifies the research
problem. The research problem, previously identified in Chapter 1, indicated that the District’s
language assistance programs were not meeting the academic needs of all of their LEP students
enrolled, including some of the LEP students enrolled in the District’s SEI K-5 program. To be
successful, the research suggested that participants SEI teachers prescribe to a curriculum that
would fully prepare their LEP students to transition into the mainstreamed English-only
classrooms. Second, the participant teachers needed to foster their LEP students’ second
language acquisition and critical reasoning skills, which involved adopting new pedagogical
methods and developmental theories. This required the participant teachers to re-examine “what”
and “how” they were teaching in their SEI classrooms. The participant teachers in this study kept
in mind the diverse needs of their highly heterogeneous student population as they reexamined
how their LEP students learned and acquired new language. Thus, participant teachers
continually constructed and applied learning methodologies that were based on linguistic and
cognitive best practices, which were built upon their LEP students’ language abilities, reasoning,
and problem-solving skills. Finally, they presented information that was meaningful and relevant
to the context of their students’ lives.
Through this action research study, the researcher aimed to discover the implications of
thematic instruction on developing LEP students’ language and academic skills. The researcher
discovered particular obstacles these teachers and their students encountered as they implement
ESL 61
these instructional strategies into their classrooms. Finally, the study examined themes and
identified patterns that hindered some LEP students’ learning process. This action research
provided the researcher as well as the participant teachers an avenue to reflect upon what was
working within the SEI classrooms; they used this data to implement immediate changes in order
to meet the needs of their LEP students.
Data Collection
In Sagor’s second stage, the data collection, the researcher determines the following: (a)
site location, (b) sample population(s), (c) the scope and length of the data collection, (d) the
various types of data that will be needed to complete the study successfully, and (e) address
issues of validity and reliability.
Site Background
The study was conducted within the parameters of five Sheltered English Immersion
classrooms. The SEI program serviced grades K-5. It was a language assistance program in
which LEP students acquired English language skills so that they could succeed in mainstream
English-only classrooms. All instruction was aligned with standard immersion strategies and
classes were conducted only in English. The SEI program functioned as a school within a school.
The school was built in 1962 and was a neighborhood school located in a middle class
community. On site, there were a variety of educational resources and programs including the
following: special education, occupation and physical therapy (OT/PT), and speech therapy.
There were also early childhood (EC) and EC special education programs. The site also housed a
school nurse, social worker, school psychologist, and a guidance counselor. There was a strong
parent education component and an Adult ESL program for LEP parents.
ESL 62
Study Participants
The participants for this research study included five elementary ESL teachers (which
included the researcher) at “the School.” All participating teachers had some specialized training
in meeting the needs their LEP students, possessed an ESL teaching credential, and/or were
working towards their certification. All five of the participating teachers were attending graduate
school, either at the master’s or at doctoral level.
In the research study, participant teachers gathered information from their LEP students
from five of the designated elementary classrooms (K-2, 4-5) at the School. Each participant
teacher was responsible for an average of 6-23 LEP students for a total of approximately 60-80
LEP students. The actual number of students who participated in the study was 69. All LEP
students were placed into the program based upon the District’s predetermined qualifications. All
students were identified as a limited English proficient student according to district, state, and
Federal mandates; they all participated in SEI program and the study with parental permission.
The identities of the individual students were kept confidential for the purpose of this study;
students were identified by a number or pseudonym assigned to them. Only the student's teacher
knew their identity.
The assessment used to identify LEP students for placement in the SEI program was:
IDEA-Tests section IPT, Oral, Reading and Writing. All students enrolled in the SEI program
were identified as having a language proficiency level of 1-3. There were three students who
were identified as a level 4. The scale ranged from 1 to 6, with 6 being designated as full fluency.
For further information regarding student language levels, refer to LEP Students’ Language
Levels Defined in Appendix D.
Scope and Length of Data Collection Effort

ESL 63
The study was conducted for a period of 12 weeks. The timeframe solely depended upon
the unique situations and/or changes that arose during the study. To accomplish these tasks, the
participant teachers met weekly to strategically discuss, analyze, select, and adapt integrated
instructional approaches and materials to use their classrooms. Participants met a total of 20
times throughout the duration of 12 weeks. They also reflected on a daily basis. Together with
the researcher, they met to devise a general plan of action needed to implement, collect, and
analyze data. The researcher continued to monitor the steps throughout the process. By
collaborating, teachers were able to identify the critical areas that needed addressing; this
allowed them to create, implement, and monitor a plan of action. Because the research design
was cyclical in nature, the researcher modified parts of the research design or process as needed.
The research design presented in this body of research was flexible enough to change directions.
The researcher also planned to predict future research that would more fully addressed the needs
of the teachers and their LEP student population in the SEI program.
Various Types of Data
The most reliable and valid results were obtained when the researcher gathered a
minimum of three sets of data for each research question posed to triangulate the findings. Sagor
(1992) referred to this stage as "the guiding principle" (p. 28). The researcher collected sufficient
evidence that was “compelling enough to convince any skeptic” (p. 28). Data collected in this
action research study was flexible and was generated from a variety of methods that included: a)
existing sources from students’ work, b) archival evidence, c) tools that capture everyday life of
participants (journals, logs, videotapes of lessons, photographs, and shadowing of research
subjects), and d) tools that might be used for questioning subjects (interviews, written surveys,
tests and quizzes, and focus groups). In this research study, the participant teachers maintained
ESL 64
their own anecdotal records of success, educational journals, as well as observed each other and
provided students’ work samples. Through the action research collaborative process, the
researcher and participant teachers determined the data collection techniques that best
demonstrated students’ learning.
Some archival data collected was obtained by the District’s LAP database and its
students’ records and portfolios. Reflective journaling played a critical role in the data collection
process because this process allowed teachers time to reflect upon what was or was not working
and allowed them to look at themselves more objectively. It provided teachers the “necessary
means to take a fresh look at the world they are immersed in” (Sagor, 1992, p. 34). Journaling
was used by participant teachers on a daily basis for a minimum of ten minutes and was termed
“personal reflection time” (Sagor, 1992, p. 34).
Additional evidence was gathered from videotaping and photography; although they were
considered to be rather subjective, they provided the researcher a way to capture the reality of the
situation and/or daily life. “Well-chosen photos and videos can portray the textures and realities
of schools and classrooms in a vivid light” (Sagor, 1992, p. 34). Another method of data
collection used in this study was shadowing. Shadowing was an effective evaluative tool that
helped the researcher to portray people and circumstances as they were in reality. It provided the
researcher and participants the opportunity to experience a situation in the most naturalistic way.
With school-based action research, the shadowing process involved following selected students
for a specified period of time to collect a picture of a typical day in their life (Sagor, 1992). The
researcher and teacher participants chose to shadow a Level 1 LEP student in their classroom
throughout the research project.

ESL 65
The researcher and participant teachers chose to use checklists and rating scales, which
provided rich data for analysis (Sagor, 1992). Some questions were ranked in order or degree
using Likert scales; while others were simple “yes” or “no” responses. These questions generated
quantitative and qualitative data. Although interviews were far more time consuming and labor
intensive, they were used for gathering data when information was not be communicated through
a questionnaire technique; this included body language, facial expressions, and gestures and
verbal intonations. The interviews were used to probe for details and clarifications, and gain
insights that rarely emerged from a questionnaire.
The researcher utilized three thematic instructional approaches: interdisciplinary
curriculum, curriculum integration, and cross-curricular thematic instruction. The study
determined which approach was the most effective model to employ in SEI classrooms for
maximum student involvement. The units of study were: (a) space, (b) dinosaurs, and (c) the
farm. The participant teachers worked together to design the units themselves; student input also
played a key role. Participant teachers were free to locate and use any sources of information that
they felt were of value during the units. Teachers understood that the unit period could fluctuate
depending upon their preferences and action team responses and/or concerns (Knezevik, 2003).
During the implementation stage, the action research plan went into effect. Participants
adhered to the intended timetable (as much as possible). The separate activities constituted the
change or innovation implemented and data were collected. Through continual monitoring, the
researcher and participants were able to collect pertinent data; this involved the collection of
records of various activities. As teachers collaboratively planned all three units, discussions
arose, and these discussions played a critical element in the action research. Ideas followed
naturally in this phase. These ideas for action emerged at different stages, allowing the researcher
ESL 66
to modify the course of the research project. This was the flexible nature of action research. The
researcher documented and analyzed each step and/or modification. The three units are outlined
next.
Unit One: Interdisciplinary Curriculum
One week before the initial meeting, the researcher provided each participant with a
binder and journal notebook paper that was used as his or her journal. All participants agreed to
reflect for a minimum of ten minutes per day. These journals were delivered to the participant
teachers’ classrooms and/or homes. In the first journal exercise, teachers were asked to state and
reflect upon their teaching philosophies. The next exercise asked the participants to reflect on the
following question: “What three things would you like to learn or gain from participating in this
study?”
After the participant teachers had adequate time to reflect in their journals, an initial
meeting was set; the meeting was set for four weeks prior to the implementation of the first unit,
an interdisciplinary curriculum unit on space. The date and time for this meeting was determined
by the participant teachers’ schedules. The participant teachers were asked to bring their notes
and journals to the initial meeting.
The Initial Meeting
The planning meetings took place on various days, but mostly on Wednesdays during the
school wide planning time or after school. The team determined the meeting place and times.
During the initial meeting, the researcher reviewed and discussed brain-based theory, introduced
the three methodologies, and the design of this project. The researcher addressed participants’
questions and concerns. The researcher and participant teachers sketched out the preliminary
ESL 67
schedule for the first unit of study, which utilized Jacobs’ (1989) interdisciplinary curriculum
approach.
The Second Meeting
During this planning meeting, the participant teachers collaboratively planned how they
would enact the first interdisciplinary curriculum unit on space (See Appendix A). The researcher
provided information and resources to the participant teachers to assist in the planning of their
unit. Each unit was implemented across the grade-levels; the units were adjusted to meet the
linguistic and academic levels of the participating LEP students. During this timeframe, the team
decided on the best type of research data to be collected as evidence of the results of the
instructional approach. The timeframe for this meeting was determined by the participant
teachers’ schedules and was 12 weeks. After the meeting, the teachers provided the researcher
with a copy of their lesson plans and a copy of the activities to be used in the classroom.
The Follow-up Meeting
Through these additional meetings, participant teachers collaborated, and identified the
critical areas that needed to be addressed in order to create, implement, and monitor their next
plan of action.
Unit Two: Curriculum Integration
The First Meeting
During this planning meeting, the participant teachers collaboratively planned the unit
utilizing curriculum integration; the subject of this unit was dinosaurs (See Appendix B). The
ESL 68
researcher provided information and various resources to the participant teachers to further assist
them with their planning of the second unit. Every unit was implemented across the grade-levels;
they were adjusted to meet the linguistic and academic levels of the participating LEP students.
During this timeframe, the team decided on the best type of research data needed to be collected
as evidence of success of the unit. The date and time for this meeting was determined by the
participant teachers’ schedules. Afterwards, teachers provided the researcher with a copy of their
lesson plans and a copy of the activities to be used in the classroom.
Through additional weekly meetings, the participant teachers collaborated and identified
the critical areas that need to be addressed in order to create, implement, and monitor their next
plan of action.
Unit Three: Cross-Curricular Thematic Instruction
The First Meeting
During this planning meeting, the participant teachers collaboratively planned the unit
using cross-curricular thematic instruction; the topic of this unit was the farm (See Appendix C).
The researcher provided information and various resources to assist in the planning of the unit.
Every unit was implemented across the grade-levels; they were adjusted to meet the linguistic
and academic levels of the participating LEP students. During this timeframe, the team decided
on the best type of research data needed to be collected as evidence of success of the unit. The
date and time for this meeting was determined by the participant teachers’ schedules. After the
meeting, teachers provided the researcher will a copy of their lesson plans and a copy of the
activities to be used in the classroom.

ESL 69
Through additional follow-up meetings, participant teachers collaborated and identified
the critical areas that need to be addressed in order to create, implement, and monitor their next
plan of action.
Validity and Reliability
Three issues the researcher needed to consider when designing her research were:
generalizability, validity, and reliability (Sagor, 1992). Validity in this action research was
assured when the researcher measured what she set out to investigate and related the reliability to
whether the measuring was done accurately. Using multiple sources to gather data (triangulation)
allowed for compensation for the imperfections of data-gathering instruments, and it might have
increased the confidence in the results (Sagor, 1992). The researcher addressed issues of validity
and reliability through an extensive data collection. The researcher checked for the validity of the
information, and determined whether the information gathered was transferable to the general
population, or if it was limited to the practices studied (its external reliability). In addition to
external reliability, the researcher examined the internal consistency of the methodology to
ensure that the research was free from bias and was ethical in nature.
Data Analysis
In Sagor’s third stage, the data analysis stage, the researcher compiled the data and
analyzed the data by searching for patterns, trends, significance, and correlations. In this stage,
conclusions were drawn, and suggestions were made based upon careful analysis. It was in this
stage, according to Sagor (1992) that the process yielded meaningful information on how to
improve practice, or resolve a problem that was uncovered.

ESL 70
In this action research study, matrices were created to help the researcher identify themes
that emerged. Each unit of study had a matrix created. Research questions were placed in the
matrix. Data collected were charted and placed in one of the three independent windows. Once
data were collected, they were analyzed and coded for themes to be identified. Sagor indicated
that even if a theme did not come up frequently, the researcher might still feel that it was
noteworthy. Because this was an action research study, the data matrices were adapted to meet
the needs of the teachers and their LEP students (Sagor, 1992).
Simple analysis procedures were sufficient for most of the responses to the questionnaire
items. Analysis of closed-form items required a tally of the number of respondents selected each
option for a given item, and then converted the frequencies into percentages that were reported in
table form. For variables that were multiple choices but had no quantitative meaning, the analysis
was limited to a simple frequency count. For multiple-choice responses with quantitative value,
simple correlations were conducted to identify themes. For analyzing responses to open-form
items, the goal was to find meaningful categories that most of the responses fell into, and
assigned a value to the category levels that demonstrated some meaning in terms of response to
the research question (Sagor, 1992). For interviews with open-form questions, the steps in
preparing were the same as for the open-form items of the questionnaire. Categories were
defined to accommodate the various categories; the categories were assigned values. The
analysis itself employed the same statistical procedures used to analyze the questionnaire data.
Due to the nature of action research, the researcher reserved the right to adapt, modify, conduct,
and adopt continual assessments of the research if the need arose.
All quantitative data analyses were carried out using SPSS (2004) for Windows. Both
descriptive and inferential statistical methods were employed. All testing was based on
ESL 71
determining statistical significance at a two-sided alpha level of 0. 05. The study sample was
described using measures of central tendency (mean and median) and dispersion (standard
deviation and range) for continuous variables, frequency, and percentage for categorical
variables. Mann-Whitney tests compared the distribution of ordinal-scaled variables between two
categories of categorical variables such as gender, DPI levels, and teacher groupings. Spearman’s
correlation statistic evaluated the linear association between continuous/ordinal scaled variables,
such as gender, DPI levels, and teacher groupings, and the various observational behavior survey
questions.
Summary
This action research study involved documenting the process of ESL teachers as they
strategically collaborated, discussed, selected, implemented, reflected, analyzed, and adapted
thematic integration in their SEI classrooms as a viable means to foster their LEPs students’
English language and academic development. The use of existing sources such as student work
samples were analyzed, as were new data taken from the following sources: direct observation,
journals entries, videos, photographs, shadowing, logs, teacher-generated assessments,
questionnaires, and student documentation.
In this action research project, participant teachers met weekly in order to reflect upon
these instructional approaches into their classrooms. This study examined the results to
determine the impact of thematic instruction on developing LEP students’ language and
academic skills. Furthermore, throughout this study, the researcher documented the particular
obstacles the participant teachers and their students encountered as they implemented these
ESL 72
instructional strategies in their classrooms. Finally, the study identified confounding variables
that may have affected the outcome of student learning and the research study.
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
This action research study followed Sagor’s (1992) iterative and collaborative action
research model. There were several purposes of this action research study. The researcher helped
SEI teachers strategically collaborate, discuss, select, implement, adapt, analyze, and reflect
upon thematic integration in their SEI classrooms. The goal was to foster their LEPs students’
English language and academic development for successful participation and transition into the
School’s English mainstreamed classrooms. To accomplish this task, participants implemented
three thematic instructional approaches: (a) interdisciplinary curriculum, (b) curriculum
integration, and (c) cross-curricular thematic instruction. By thoroughly examining the results of
the data, the researcher was able to determine which approach was the most effective model to
employ in the School’s SEI classrooms, and affirm which approach (or approaches) would
maximize student involvement and learning. More specifically, the researcher aimed to discover
the implications of thematic instruction on developing LEP students’ language and academic
skills by uncovering particular obstacles participants encountered during the implementation
phase of the study that hindered the learning process of some LEP students.
The questions that guided this investigation were:
1. How do ESL teachers strategically collaborate and discuss pertinent issues that arise
2. How do ESL teachers reflect, analyze, and select materials used in their SEI
classrooms?
ESL 74
3. How do ESL teachers implement and adapt thematic instruction in their SEI
development?
4. Which thematic instructional approach: (a) interdisciplinary curriculum, (b)
curriculum integration, or (c) cross-curricular thematic instruction fosters LEP students’ language
and academic success? The study sample is discussed next.
Participants' Demographics
Five ESL teachers participated in this study. The number of years participants taught in
an ESL setting ranged between 1- 14. Furthermore, 69 LEP students, from five SEI designated
elementary classrooms at the School (grades K-2, 4-5), participated in the study. All LEP
students were enrolled in the program based upon the District’s predetermined qualifications.
The students were all limited English proficient according to district, state, and Federal
mandates; they participated in SEI program and this research study with parental permission.
Data Analysis
In this action research study, the researcher gathered both qualitative data and
quantitative data. Primary data sources included participants’ reflective journals, transcriptions of
collaborative meetings, end of unit rubrics, matrices, reflective question surveys, lesson plans,
thematic planning sheets, teacher-teacher observations, and observational behavior surveys.
Additional data were extracted from participant teachers’ shadowing of 5 LEP students, students’
work samples, emails, photographs, video-recordings, follow-up journals, and/or conversations

ESL 75
of participant teachers. The collected data were the placed into a matrix, analyzed, and coded for
overriding themes/ trends.
Statistical Methods
The researcher used SPSS (2004) for Windows to conduct both descriptive and inferential
statistics on the quantitative data. The study sample was described using measures of central
tendency (mean and median) and dispersion (standard deviation and range) for continuous
variables and frequency; percentage was used for categorical variables. Mann-Whitney tests
compared the distribution of ordinal-scaled variables between two types of categorical variables
such as gender, DPI levels, and teacher groupings. The Spearman’s correlation statistic evaluated
the linear association between continuous/ordinal scaled variables, such as gender, DPI levels,
and teacher groupings, and the various observational behavior survey questions. Table 1
represents the general rules used for interpreting the strength of linear association measured by
the Spearman’s rho statistic.
Table 1 General Rules for Interpretation
+- 0.01 to +- 0.30 = Weak

+- 0.31 to +- 0.70 = Moderate
+- 0.71 to +- 0.99 = Strong
+- 1 = Perfect linear relationship
0 = No linear relationship
ESL 76
Reliability and Validity
Trustworthiness of the Study
The triangulation of various data sources in this action research study contributed to the
overall trustworthiness and authenticity of this action research study. Triangulation of multiple
data sources involved comparing the divergent perspectives, including the participant teachers,
their students, and the researcher. Participants in the study were asked to review findings and
give feedback during the course of the study in an effort to validate the accuracy of the
information and determine whether it matched their “reality.” Numerous member checks were
conducted throughout the study through face-to-face conversations, telephone conversations, and
e-mail correspondences, in order to clarify any conflicting statements and/or confusing data.
The researcher established an audit trail; each participant was responsible for maintaining
his or her own records. In addition, the researcher created a checks and balance matrix for
returning data. The researcher and participants conformed to the audit trail classifications and
attempted to provide trustworthy data in a timely manner in order to enhance the study’s
reliability. The participants collected raw data and delivered this information to the researcher.
Participants provided the researcher with data sufficient for reduction and analysis. Data
restoration and synthesis established hierarchies of concepts and categories. Process notes were
maintained; intentions and outlooks were recorded. The audit trail included all the pertinent data
previously discussed.
ESL 77
Discussion of Data: Research Question 1
Question 1: How do ESL teachers strategically collaborate and discuss pertinent issues that arise
Findings
Collaborative Meetings
Participants met in person over the duration of 12 weeks, from December 2003 to February
2004. There were 20 meetings ranging from 30 minutes to five hours. Fifteen of the meetings
were tape-recorded for referencing purpose. The average attendance rate of the collaborative
meetings was 94%. During the collaborative meetings, questions and concerns were addressed
regarding the processes of the study. These meetings allowed participants time to re-examine
“what” and “how” they were teaching in their SEI classrooms. By collaborating, teachers were
able to identify the critical areas that needed addressing. These areas were classified as follows:
(a) environmental, (b) interpersonal, and (c) intrapersonal stressors.
Environmental Stressors
Data indicated that participants’ environmental stressors ranged in complexity. When
participants experienced environmental stress, the cause for their stress was external; these
environmental stressors were in relation to outside decisions or factors that affected participants’
SEI classrooms’ environments or the SEI program that were made from the District or the
administrators. Furthermore, environmental stressors were not in the participants’ power to
change. Some environmental stressors that affected participants and/or their classrooms were:
increased attrition rates, increased class sizes, divergent linguistic and/or cultural barriers, threats
of severe budget cuts, and top-down program restructuring.

ESL 78
Interpersonal Stressors
Interpersonal stressors were in relationship to participants’ concerns or their relationships
established between “self” and other people (e.g. family members, colleagues, students, and
parents). Some interpersonal stressors participants faced were in relation to participants seeking a
balance between home and work. All participants were attending graduate school during the time
of the study. Sixty percent had obtained provisional teaching licenses, and these participants
often expressed their frustrations regarding the bureaucratic process of obtaining their
credentials.
Intrapersonal Stressors
Intrapersonal stressors participants faced were in relation to internal or emotional
pressures participants placed on themselves. This type of stress had a profound effect on the
energy participants brought to the study, the curriculum, and/or their SEI classroom. All
participants expressed their concerns regarding the District’s administration; they felt the District
neglected to address environmental stressors or issues such as high truancy rates, attrition rates,
increased class sizes, lack of adequate materials and resources, lack of training when dealing
with divergent linguistic and/or cultural barriers, and inexperience of newly hired ESL teachers.
All participants were besieged with feelings of isolation; they all experienced a “lack of
motivation,” and were often “emotionally” and “physically” drained of their energy. These
compounded stressors led participants to feel “inadequate” as a teacher. Some of the stressors
experienced by participants were perceived as being “demoralizing.” Evidence indicated all
participants experienced a sense of “powerlessness,” because of the identified intrapersonal
stressors: internal and external, physical, emotional, and social pressures. All felt these
intrapersonal stressors compounded daily would either “make” or “break” them as an ESL
ESL 79
teacher. Sixty percent of participants (3) indicated they were contemplating leaving the teaching
profession, largely due to the intrapersonal pressures they faced. Outcomes of the reflection
process led the researcher to segregate data to determine if there were a correlation between
student performances/experiences and the teachers’ experience with ESL instruction. Two groups
were determined: Teacher group 1 (Teacher 1 and the researcher) and teacher group 2 (Teacher 2,
3, and 4).
Reflective Journals
Descriptive data from participants’ narrative accounts yielded critical information
pertaining to participants’ perceptions of the implementation phase(s) of the three instructional
units. All participants recorded 60 or more entries in their journals, and/or journaled for a
minimum of 600 minutes or more throughout the duration of the 12 weeks of the study.
Reflective journals were used to contemplate the following: the collaborative discussions, the
various aspects of the thematic process, the events, and/or circumstances that materialized with
their LEP students, the SEI program, and/or their own self-perceptions. There was no specific
directive given on the required length of each entry; therefore, the amount of time participants
spent reflecting and length of their reflections varied. The researcher read the journals six times
in order to get a holistic representation of how participants perceived each thematic unit. The
researcher's intention through this process was not to use predetermined categories but to review
participants' reflective journals until broad themes emerged. Table 2 is a frequency chart that
shows the themes/trends identified from narrative accounts.

ESL 80
Table 2 Identified Themes/Trends Obtained from Reflective Journals
Valid Frequenc Percent

y
Academic/Language Development 193 23.0

Student Behavior 104 13.0
Teacher Attitudes 82 9.7
General Planning 82 9.7
Time-lack of 59 6.9
Language and Cultural Barriers 58 6.8
Prep-periods 42 4.9
Collaboration 41 4.8
Traditional vs. Thematic 41 4.8
Outside/ Familial Responsibilities 32 3.7
Attrition 22 2.6
Overwhelmed 21 2.4
Organization-lack of 19 2.2
Other School Related 19 2.2
Materials and Resources-lack of 18 2.1
*Other 10 1.2
Total N=843 100.0
Maximum 193
Minimum 10
Academic and/or Language Development
Of the 193 times participants discussed academic performances, data revealed
participants objectively (93 %) documented their LEP students’ academic and language progress.
Seven percent of the 193 reflections were negative in nature; when participants reflected
negatively, they would overwhelmingly search for meaning. Participants always reflected on
why they felt a particular student was not achieving success or had a behavioral ‘outburst.’
Seldom, did participants’ students fail to meet their expectations; however, when they did,
teachers overwhelmingly felt a personal connection and placed blame on themselves. Their
comments were more of being disappointed not with their students, but with themselves. When
this happened, most questioned their abilities as an effective teacher.

ESL 81
Further analysis of the results indicated that 80% of participants (4 of 5 teachers) were
concerned with their females’ students’ performances, particularly their Muslim female students.
They indicated some of their female students were reluctant to participate when having to work
in groups with the opposite gender and/or other ethnicities. Outcomes of the reflection process
led the researcher to segregate data to determine if there was a correlation between student
performances and gender.
Students’ Behaviors
Comments on students’ behaviors constituted 13% of reflections; of these 104 entries, 77%
were reflections on students’ negative behaviors. These negative behaviors were the participants’
primary concerns and represented major obstacles to students’ learning opportunities. Table 3
contains the breakdown of the themes/trends identified by participants (T1, T2, T3, T4, and R1).
As indicated in Table 3, participants’ reflections on students’ behavior varied by SEI classroom.
They cited students’ age, maturation level, language and/or cultural barriers, the amount of time
being in the United States as causes for their students’ behavioral concerns. Other documented
concerns were in regards to the following: new arrivals, misidentification of students, and/or
inappropriate placement of students in the SEI program. All participants experienced a “more
than usual” increased frustration level when dealing with these multiple behavioral concerns.
ESL 82
Table 3 Breakdown of Identified Themes/Trends by Participants
Valid Frequenc Individual Response Rates

y
Percent
T1 T2 T3 T4 R1
Academic/Language Development 193 22.0 1 20.0 1 34.0
4.0 0.0
Student Behavior 104 30.0 1 9.0 2 23.0
6.0 0.0
Teacher Attitudes 82 28.0 11.0 13.0 2 26.0
2.0
General Planning 82 20.0 1 4.8 1 51.2
2.0 2.0
Time-lack of 59 44.0 11.8 15.2 1 19.0
0.0
Language and Culture 58 44.8 1 15.9 1 17.0
2.0 0.3
Prep-periods 42 17.0 1 19.0 1 31.0
9.0 4.0
Collaboration 41 37.0 1 17.0 1 17.0
7.0 2.0
Traditional vs. Thematic 41 37.0 1 17.0 1 17.0
7.0 2.0
Outside / Familial Responsibilities 32 0.0 2 6.2 6 3.0
1.8 9.0
Attrition 22 4.5 3 13.6 2 22.7
2.0 7.2
Overwhelmed 21 15.0 1 19.5 20 26.5
9.0
Organization-lack of 19 31.0 1 10.6 2 15.7
5.7 7.0
Other School Related 19 5.2 3 0.0 1 47.3
7.0 0.5
Materials and Resources-lack of 18 55.5 3 0.0 0.0 11.2
3.3
*Other 10 20.0 2 20.0 2 20.0
0.0 0.0
Total N=843 100.
0
Language/Culture Barriers
ESL 83
Documented barriers associated with students’ languages/cultures were noted in 7% of
reflections or 58 times. New arrivals were from China, Macedonia, Jordan, Japan, Palestine,
Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Barriers included new arrivals that experienced a difficult time
adjusting, were from war torn countries, and/or displayed emotional trauma; some had
flashbacks on more than one occasion. While other new arrivals had experienced interrupted
education, and/or had little to no support at home. Participants indicated a large percent of their
LEP students (90%) lived with non-English speaking family members, not necessarily their
parent(s).
Data indicated the new arrivals were finding a balance between their expected behaviors
that served them well in their homelands and/or previous schools versus those behaviors that are
more acceptable in the U.S. or within the SEI program. Most new arrivals had to confront the
following: (a) acclimating to their new culture and school; (b) finding a balance between
homeland educational and cultural ways; and (c) learning how to function within their new
environments at home and at school. Some new arrivals from Muslim countries struggled with
the concept of being a participant in an all-inclusive collaborative educational environment,
particularly when having to work with the opposite gender, other ethnicities, and/or other faiths.
Most of the new arrivals came from more “rigid” teacher centered learning environments; they
demonstrated difficulty in adjusting to thematic instruction. They demonstrated their frustrations
through refusal to work, inappropriate behavioral outbursts, and/or physical or verbal
aggressions.
Other documented behavioral concerns related to the 60% (3 of 5) of participants who
had a high attrition rate, which was noted in 3% of reflections. The classrooms with the highest
attrition rate experienced and recorded the most minor behavioral issues (69 %).Teacher 1 (30%),
ESL 84
Teacher 2 (16%), and the researcher (23%) experienced the most dramatic increase and/or
decrease of LEP students within a short period. Teacher 3, who had a relatively low attrition rate,
had the least number of recorded behavioral incidents (9%). Teacher 4 had absolutely no
movement or intake of new arrivals prior to nor during the study. He had the most stable
enrollment of all participants from the beginning of the year; yet, he had the most severe
documented behavioral cases (20%) in the study. Therefore, those classrooms that had a high
attrition rate experienced an increase of student behavior due to a lack of consistency or
disruptive routines in their SEI classrooms. Once routines returned, students’ behavior decreased.
Of the 104 times participants recorded reflections on students’ behaviors, 27 reflections
indicated positive changes in their student behaviors towards the end of the study. Eighty percent
of participants (4 of the 5) indicated improvement of students’ behavior as students transitioned
through the units. In addition, 80% of participants (4 of 5) indicated students’ behavior improved
once they established and reinforced rules, routines, and limited the amount of classroom
disruptions. Only one participant (20%) documented negative behaviors at the end of the study.
Outcomes of the reflection process led the researcher to segregate data to determine if there was
a correlation between student performances and their DPI language levels.
Question 2: How do ESL teachers reflect, analyze, and select materials to be used in their SEI
classrooms?
Findings
ESL 85
During the 20 collaborative meetings, participants reflected, analyzed, and selected
materials and resources implemented in the thematic processes. Participants selected materials
and resources for their SEI classroom that would enable their LEP students to interact in English
using meaningful materials that were relevant to the subject matter content. In order to make the
English language more comprehensible, all participants selected the necessary materials and
resources by adapting or modifying the subject matter contents.
Participants selected a beginning point of learning based on their LEP students’ prior
knowledge, experience, and linguistic and cultural needs which were derived from student-
generated questions, aligned with the students’ grade-level standards and benchmarks, and their
language levels. In addition, participants further identified specific problems their LEP students
may have with the material in advance in order to eliminate educational barriers related to
language or culture. These barriers do not result solely from the complexity of the context
passages in readings, but from other factors such as basic skills needed to complete
accompanying activities. They identified key concepts and the necessary language needed which
encoded those concepts. Participants also chose alternate versions of textbooks or modified texts
to present subject matter content more clearly to their LEP students and adapted materials and
resources to suit the language proficiency level of their students. For example, participants made
or modified materials to be more comprehensible to their LEP students by creating visuals, lists
and charts, and/or paraphrase salient points when appropriate.
Reflective Journals
Data from participants’ reflective journals indicated participants were not able to use their
general textbooks (like their mainstream colleagues) because their students could not read nor
comprehend the texts due to their English language abilities. Therefore, participants became
ESL 86
subject matter experts. All had to conduct additional research on the unit’s topic. “I was forced to
become the expert in the topic, and I could not simply fake it,” stated Teacher 1. Sixty percent of
participants (3 of the 5) were able to use their prep-periods to plan or locate materials and
resources. The other 40% of participants would have liked to use their prep-periods to prepare,
but often were called away during their prep-periods to handle other school and/or student
related issues.
Emails
As previously indicated, all participants had access to a computer at work and/or at home;
therefore, all participants used email as a tool to share additional materials and resources. Forty
percent (2 of 5) of participants incorporated the use of emails as a cross curricular learning tool.
Teacher 1 and students wrote emails to an Army soldier (SGT) in Iraq. Teacher 1 indicated that
SGT responded by providing valuable websites and researchable information.
Student Work Samples
With parental permission, participants collected students’ assignments and/or assessments
from representative samples of students work (e.g., some below average, some average, and
some above average). Their teachers graded all students individually according to their
developmental age, grade level, linguistic, and academic abilities. Because of evaluating
students’ work, participants were able to select appropriate materials and resources to meet their
students’ individual needs.
Student Interviews
The participants in the study reflected upon, analyzed, and selected materials and
resources based upon information obtained from students interviews. Data were collected from
this measurement were both quantitative and/or qualitative in nature. In the quantitative section,
ESL 87
the researcher coded the frequency of students’ survey responses; qualitative information came
from the recorded responses of student interviews. Data came from approximately 200
interviews, which took place at the end of each instructional unit.
Results from the following interview questions were tallied and coded: a) Tell me about
your favorite activity for this theme; b) Which piece of literature did you enjoy most; c) What
was the most important thing you learned; and d) What piece of work was your best work (See
Appendix A-C, Figures A6, B5, and C5). Students’ comments were relatively easy to code. There
were 28 themes/trends identified as preferred instructional strategies from student interviews
(See Table 4). Participants were immediately able to use the information obtained from their
students’ interviews as a starting point for future planning of activities and selection of
appropriate materials for the remaining thematical units.
Table 4 LEP Students’ Preferred Instructional Activities

Valid Freq Percent
(f)
Authentic Projects 127 23.0
Informational (Non-Fiction) Texts 72 13.0
Writing 66 12.0
Homework with Parents/Home Projects 42 8.0
Collaborative Space Event (K-5)* 41 7.3
Authentic Activites 41 7.3
Literary (Fiction) Texts 30 5.3
Authentic Math 25 4.4
Student Made-Book 24 4.2
Movies 17 3.0
Ready-made Worksheets 13 2.4
Undecided Activities 7 1.2
Reading 7 1.2
Reading Self-Selected Books 6 1.0
Class Discussions 6 1.0
Research on Internet 5 0.8
Field Trips 5 0.8
Undecided Stories Read 4 0.7
Lectures 4 0.7
ESL 88
Clay/Play dough Models 4 0.7

Documentation with Photography 3 0.5
Read Student Made Books 3 0.5
Movie Book Combination 2 0.3
Spelling, Vocabulary, Dictionary Skills 2 0.3
Playing 1 0.1
Poetry 1 0.1
Note taking 1 0.1
Teamwork 1 0.1
Total N=560 560 100.0
Maximum=127 127
Minimum= 1 1
ESL 89
Question 3: How do ESL teachers implement and adapt thematic instruction in their SEI
development?
Findings
Thematic Curriculum Units Requirements
Data collected revealed all participants created, implemented, and conducted the three
thematic units that were required and outlined in the study: a) interdisciplinary curriculum, b)
curriculum intergration, and c) cross-curricular units. Each unit had a theme: a) space, b)
dinosaurs, and c) farms. Units were aligned to meet specific unit requirements outlined in
Chapter 3. During the planning and implementation stages, participants were instructed to adhere
strictly to the detailed systematic procedures outlined. The researcher created a check off matrix;
as each participant submitted the units’ requirements, the researcher checked off the data in the
unit matrix.
Data revealed participants held discussions on implementation, adaptation, and
modification practices based on various Sheltered English (SE) techniques as a viable means to
foster their LEP student’ English language and academic development. These SE techniques
were created and aligned with Sheltered English models of instruction and were grounded in
second language acquisitioning and enhanced through meaningful use and interaction of
authentic learning activities throughout the units of study. To accomplish this, participants
ESL 90
selected appropriate learning activites and aligned them to the subject matter themes that were
implemented in their SEI classrooms. Some SE instructional strategies used to make subject
matter comprehensible involved creating and implementing the following components as visuals
links to key concepts and vocabulary: (a) use of manipulatives, (b) models, (c) illustrations, (d)
realia, (e) graphs, and (f) demonstrations. Participants selected a beginning point of learning
based on their LEP students’ prior knowledge, experience, and linguistic and cultural needs
which were derived from student-generated questions, and aligned with the students’ grade-level
standards and benchmarks, and their language levels.
In addition, participants further identified specific problems their LEP students may have
with the lesson in advance in order to eliminate educational barriers related to language or
culture. These barriers do not result solely from the complexity of the context passages in
readings, but from other factors such as basic skills needed to complete accompanying activities.
They identified key concepts and the necessary language needed which was encoded in the three
unit concepts. Participants also modified, aligned, and created alternate versions of lessons or
activites in order to present subject matter content more clearly and to meet their linguistic
proficiency levels of their students. For example, if a lesson objective was to present new subject
matter content information to their LEP students, participants created and modified lessons or
activites to make the contents more comprehensible to their LEP students. To do so, participants
selected linguistically and academically appropriate sequential activities that were aligned to
their LEP students' academic and linguistic abilities.
Furthermore, participants discussed and/or offered each other helpful ways on the
following SE learning strategies: (a) communicating content objectives clearly; (b) using
students' background knowledge; (c) using visuals, realia, manipulatives, graphic organizers,
ESL 91
media and other sources to explain subject matter concepts; (d) using gestures, mime and/or
acting as a means to enhance understanding; (e) negotiating and clarify meaning of lessons; and
(f) questioning techniques such as using wait-time and comprehension checks. All discussed,
created, and utilized a variety of materials and resources that contextualizes subject matter
concepts and enhanced their students’ comprehension. Additionally, participants created and
incorporated a variety of assessments to monitor and verify students' comprehension and
demonstration of completion of content area objectives.
Students’ Open-ended Interviews
To explore further additional findings pertaining to how ESL teacher implemented and
adapted thematic instruction in their SEI classroom as a viable means to foster their LEP
students’ English and academic development, data was obtained from open-ended student
interviews. Student comments were immediately useful to participants in planning activities for
the remaining thematic units. The data obtained in student surveys aided participants as they
created and implemented students preferred instructional activities. The students’ desired
pursuits ranged from progressive-constructivist stylistic activities (space walk) to those that are
more traditional (note taking). In addition, based on the outcomes of the student interviews,
participants significantly varied their instructional activities presented in their SEI classrooms in
order to increase and/or maintain their students’ interest.
Creating a Curriculum Unit: Participants’ Thematic Unit Rubrics
Once each participant completed their unit, they were instructed to complete the end of
unit thematic rubric. This rubric was an evaluative tool designed to help participants design high
quality instructional units that thoroughly integrated learning. All participants found these unit
rubrics useful when identifying one’s own strengths and weaknesses in planning and
ESL 92
implementing a thematic instruction. All 15 end of unit rubrics were completed and returned to
the researcher. The rubrics were quantitative and were based a scale of 1-4 for beginner (1),
developing (2), accomplished (3), and exemplary performance (4), respectively. Participants
were instructed to rate themselves on the following 6 categories: a) theme, b) concept questions,
c) instructional objectives, d) materials and resources, e) activites, and f) evaluation. The
researcher summarized the quantified scores. The results provided the researcher with insight to
the participants’ perceptions of the thematic unit.
All participants ranked themselves being as accomplished and/or exemplary in being able
to create and implement the three themes- space, dinosaurs, and farms. Additionally, all ranked
themselves as accomplished or exemplary in the following instructional design areas: 1) able to
create and implement instructional objectives; 2) able to use a variety of materials and resources;
3) able to create and implement a variety of activities that included using Bloom’s taxonomy,
multiple intelligences, and/or were authentic in nature. However, in the farm unit, 60% of
participants (3) ranked themselves as accomplished and/or exemplary in being able to create and
implement the theme instructional objectives. Across the units, these same 60% of participants
(3) ranked themselves as accomplished or exemplary in creating assessments. Those participants
who did not rank themselves as accomplished or exemplary, ranked themselves as developing in
those areas; these participants were the most experienced ESL teachers and have had previous
experience in thematics.
Instructional Reflection Questions for Teacher
Participants completed a self-evaluation rubric at the end of every thematic unit as
instructed. The rubric used was an evaluative tool designed to help participants identify their
strengths and weaknesses in thematic instruction, implementation, and practice. The five
ESL 93
participants completed the end of unit ‘Reflective Questions’ at the completion of each unit, for a
total of 15 rubrics. The reflection questions required a “yes” or “no” response (See Appendix A-
C, Figures A5, B4, and C5). The researcher summarized the quantified scores. The results
provided the researcher with insight to the participants’ perceptions of the thematic unit and of
“how” they felt they “best” implemented and adapted thematic instruction in their SEI
development.
All participants reported in all three units, their lessons were congruent with students’
interests, level of development, and learning styles. In addition, all reported creating lessons that
addressed the following: (a) students’ comprehension of key concepts; (b) critical and high order
skills across content areas; (c) school objectives; (d) the facilitation role of the teacher; (e)
opportunities for authentic assessments and evaluations; and (f) activities were justified in the
context of standards and outcomes. Additionally, participants created lessons that: (a) were
congruent with students’ interests and level of development; (b) included key concepts related to
topics across content areas; (c) addressed school curriculum; (d) provided opportunities for
authentic assessments and evaluations; (e) were aligned with the context of standards and
outcomes of the school; and (f) promoted discovery, exploration, and integration of technology.
Sixty percent (3) stated their lessons were congruent with their students’ needs and cultural
backgrounds. The two participants that indicated their lessons were not congruent to their
students’ needs and cultural background were both inexperienced ESL teachers.
Observations
The primary purpose of the classroom observations was for participants to focus upon
various ways colleagues were implementing the three units into their SEI classrooms. This type
ESL 94
of analysis was the most informal data collection used in this study, and the most inconsistent
data collection source used by participants. Participants were to observe their colleagues during
their scheduled prep periods or lunch breaks and record any notes or insights. There were no
predetermined observational requirements. Only 40% (2 of the 5) of participants recorded their
field notes on collegial observations. Sixty percent of the participants mentioned in their
reflective journals concerns for not being able to observe other colleagues. These participants
overwhelmingly implied this was a critical aspect missing from the study. All indicated that
classroom issues often took precedence when they had scheduled or planned to observe a
colleague’s classroom. All stated that time was the most significant factor in not being able to
observe officially their colleagues. Observational data were obtained from the researcher’s field
notes on 3 teacher observations. The other participant’s field notes only reflected upon when the
researcher observed his/her classroom and did not reflect upon when he/she observed other
participants. Therefore, this section reflects upon the additional strategies the researcher obtained
through observations as a viable way to improve upon her own implementation practices.
The Researcher’s Field Notes
The researcher was able to observe three of the four remaining participants in their
classrooms as they implemented the thematic curricular units. Overwhelmingly, these three
participants focused on their students’ learning through a variety of projects and/or centers. The
instructional activities observed primarily focused on building students’ language, literacy,
and/or academic skills. The researcher noted that Teachers 1 and 3 incorporated the use of
research centers, while Teacher 2 used cross-curricular centers to encourage students to explore
further thematic topics. Data revealed that engaged students completed authentic tasks and/or
continuous assessment tasks, such as making the space uniforms.

ESL 95
After observing Teacher 1 over the course of the study, the researcher observed that her
students did not demonstrate much enthusiasm during the first unit. This lack of enthusiasm was
evident when the researcher cross-referenced the participant’s reflective journal. Teacher 1’s
students were diligently working, but seemed to lack enthusiasm for their work. As the
researcher walked around Teacher 1’s classroom, the researcher further assessed the situation
from an affective standpoint; the energy levels among the students were low. All of the students
were engaged and working individually in centers and/or on independent work. After a few
minutes, the researcher noticed a student smiled, and then happened to hear some other students
in a nearby group discussing stars. In a short while, two boys began discussing satellites in the
solar system and contemplating how to build one. Her students were beginning to work
interdependently. Later when the researcher reflected upon her observations of Teacher 1’s
classroom, she decided that her own students needed to begin to transition to work more
independently and implemented more independent center work. Successes were immediately
noted. The researcher’s students began to take more ownership of their work; they also
demonstrated more enthusiasm for their activities. The researcher’s students began to rely on
each other for help, and the energy level in the groups became much more alive and/or ‘perkier.’
The quietness in Teacher 1’s classroom caused the researcher to reflect upon the shyness and
reticence of some of her students. After further reflection and observations, it was noted the
shyness of some of the researcher’s students did not occur when the class came together as a
group, conducted discussions (peer-to-peer or with their cooperative groups), or during outside
play. Therefore, the interdependent nature/group interaction involved with thematic instruction
led previously shy students to vocalize and connect with their peers. This interaction enriched the
learning environment and fostered greater language development and academic success.
ESL 96
Question 4: Which thematic instructional approach: (a) interdisciplinary curriculum, (b)
curriculum integration, or (c) cross-curricular thematic instruction fosters LEP students’ language
and academic success?
Findings
Observational Behavior Surveys
Participants conducted their students’ observational behavioral surveys in conjunction
with their student surveys. There were 68 observational behavioral questionnaires returned from
the five participants at the end of each unit a total of 200 (+/- 5) questionnaires. Participants
responded to the questionnaires after they completed each thematic unit. Participants answered
10 questions regarding each of their students’ progress; they rated their students and measured
their students’ overall academic success in each unit of study. Students were rated on a Likert
scale of 1-5. Students received a score of 1, if their performances were considered to be
developing throughout the unit. Other students received a score of 3, if they performed at a
satisfactory level, and a score of 5 if their performance was exceptional throughout the unit. The
10 questions were based on students’: (a) attitude toward theme; (b) understanding of thematic
concepts; (c) attainment of learning objectives; (d) strategy development and application, d)
independence in learning; (e) participation in activities; (f) participation in discussions; (g)
readings completed by student; (h) writing completed by student; and (i) activities completed by
student. The researcher summarized the quantified scores.
These observational behavior surveys helped to determine which thematic instructional
approach: (a) interdisciplinary curriculum, (b) curriculum integration, or (c) cross-curricular
thematic instruction generated LEP students’ language and academic success. The Null
ESL 97
Hypothesis is that there is no difference between the three instructional units. Additionally, these
questionnaires determined if students’ met their teacher’s expectations for the unit of study.
Based on data generated, the researcher investigated any correlations between students’ academic
performance and gender, DPI language level and number of years teachers had taught ESL.
Furthermore, participants wanted to have some degree of certainty to determine if their students:
(a) performed at or above grade-level using the standards; ( b) understood the thematic process;
(c) attained knowledge; and (d) participated in discussions. They wanted to be able to identify
students’ strengths and weaknesses in order to plan accordingly. Some were curious to know if
there were any discrepancies in the core subject matter areas such as in reading and writing.
Table 5 illustrates a side-by side unit comparison of the LEP students’ overall performances. LEP
students’ total average scores for units 1 and 3 performed satisfactory or higher at the 89
percentile, whereas in unit 2, 87% of students performed satisfactory or higher.
Table 5 Side-by-Side Unit Comparison

of LEP Students Overall Performances
Satisfactory or Higher
Percenta
Questions ges
Unit Unit 2 Unit 3
1
Space Dinosaurs Farms
Q1 97.0 97.0 94.0
Q2 92.0 94.0 97.0
Q3 94.0 85.0 94.0
Q4. 92.0 90.0 90.0
Q5 82.0 81.0 79.0
Q6 94.0 85.0 95.0
Q7. 89.0 84.0 90.0
Q8 88.0 81.0 90.0
Q9 80.0 78.0 75.0
Q10 88.0 90.0 85.0
Average 89.0 87.0 89.0
%
ESL 98
In units 1-3, similar percentages of students were performing at the developing stage. In
units 1 and 2, 97% of LEP students demonstrated a positive attitude towards the themes, whereas
in unit 3, scores declined slightly to 94%, but this difference is not statistically significant.
Although the scores fluctuated slightly for each variable across the units, the differences were not
found to be statistically significant. On average, LEP students’ at least satisfactorily completed
their reading assignments, writing assignments, and unit activities. There was certainly sufficient
information obtained to accept the Null Hypothesis and to declare that there is no difference
between the three units averages and students overall performances. In addition, the plethora of
satisfactory or higher scores indicates that each instructional unit was very effective.
Mann-Whitney Tests between Females and Males
During the course of the action research, the participants noted a sex difference in the
active participation of female students. Therefore, Mann-Whitney tests were conducted to
compare the distribution of scores of LEP students on the 10 questions from Observational
Behavior Surveys between females and males. The Null Hypothesis is that there is no difference
in females and males’ scores in all units (P< .05). Table 6 illustrates a side-by side unit
comparison of gender differences by question and by unit (P = correlation coefficient).

ESL 99

of Gender Differences and Overall Performances
Questions
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
Q1 No No No
P= .39 .38 .46
Q2 No No No
P= .83 .35 .55
Q3 No No No
P= .82 .72 .21
Q4 No No No
P= .43 .55 .40
Q5 No No No
P= .196 .116 .207
Q6 No No No
P= .56 .35 .44
Q7 No No No
P= .45 .96 .27
Q8 No No No
P= .22 .41 .22
Q9 No No No
P= .61 .26 .23
Q10 No No No
P= .80 .14 .10
The results were obtained from participant reported results from Observational Behavior
Surveys and were based on their observations of each of their LEP student’s performance. These
results indicated there were no significant differences between female and male performances.
The Null Hypothesis was accepted meaning there was no significant difference found between
females and males in the following areas: 1) attitude towards the themes; 2) understanding of
thematic concepts; 3) attainment of learning objectives; 4) strategy development and application;
5) independence in learning; 6) participation in activities; 7) participation in discussions on
theme; 8) reading assignments completed; 9) writing assignments completed; and 10) activites
completed.
ESL 100
Spearman’s Correlation Statistics (rho)
Data obtained from various sources indicated participants wanted information segregated
to determine if there were differences between LEP students’ DPI language levels and their
performances across the units. The results were obtained from participant reported results from
Observational Behavior Surveys and were based on their observations of each of their LEP
student’s performance. Therefore, Spearman’s correlation statistics (rho) were used to evaluate
the linear association between LEP students’ DPI language levels and their scores obtained from
Student’s Observational Behavior Surveys. Table 1 illustrates the general rules for Spearman’s
rho interpretation. Table 7 shows a side-by side comparison of LEP students’ DPI levels and their
distribution of scores on the 10 questions from ‘Observational Behavior Surveys.’ Correlation
was determined to be significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed t test).

ESL 101
Table 7 Side-by-Side Unit Comparison of

DPI Language Levels and Overall Performances
Questions Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

Q1
Co.C -0.028 -0.189 -.203
Sig.(2) 0.08 .134 0.11
Q2
Co.C 0.18 0.031 0.171
Sig.(2) 0.15 0.81 0.18
Q3
Co.C 0.098 -0.008 -0.225
Sig.(2) 0.44 0.95 0.08
Q4
Co.C 0.171 -0.227 -0.038
9
Sig.(2) 0.17 0.08 0.77
Q5
Co.C 0.058 -0.082 -0.141
Sig.(2) 0.64 0.52 0.27
Q6
Co.C -0.017 -0.056 -0.184
Sig.(2) 0.90 0.66 0.15
Q7
Co.C 0.28 -0.008 -0.147
Sig.(2) 0.82 0.95 0.25
Q8
Co.C 0.145 -0.089 -0.058
Sig.(2) 0.25 0.48 0.65
Q9
Co.C 0.063 - 0.104 -0.058
Sig.(2) 0.61 0.42 0.65
Q10
Co.C 0.132 0.08 -0.11
Sig.(2) 0.29 0.53 0.39
Results by Questions
Question 1. The evidence of a linear association between LEP students’ DPI levels and
their attitudes toward the themes in all three units was weak in all three units.
ESL 102
Question 2. In unit 2, the evidence of a linear association between LEP students’ DPI
levels and their understanding of the thematic unit’s concepts on dinosaurs was strong; however,
in the other 2 units, the evidence was weak.
Question 3. In unit 1, there was moderate evidence. In unit 2, there was strong evidence
of a linear association; yet, in unit 3, there was weak evidence of a linear association between
LEP students’ DPI levels and their attainment of the learning objectives.
Question 4. In unit 2 there was strong evidence of a linear association between LEP
students’ DPI levels and their strategic development and application of skills, whereas, the other
2 units it was weak.
Question 5. In unit 1 and unit 2 there was moderate evidence, whereas, in unit 3, there
was weak evidence of a linear association between LEP students’ DPI levels and their
independence in learning.
Question 6. In unit 1, there was strong evidence. In unit 2, there was moderate evidence
of a linear association; however, in unit 3, the evidence of a linear association between LEP
students’ DPI levels and their participation in activities was weak.
Question 7. In unit 1 and 2, the evidence was strong; however, in unit 3, the evidence of
a linear association between LEP students’ DPI levels and their participation in discussions on
farms was weak.
Question 8. In unit 2 and 3, the evidence was moderate; however, in unit 1, the evidence
of a linear association between LEP students’ DPI levels and their reading assignments
completed was weak.

ESL 103
Question 9. In unit 1 and 3, the evidence of a linear association was moderate; yet, in
unit 2, the evidence of a linear association between LEP students’ DPI levels and their writing
assignments completed was strong.
Question 10. In unit 2 and 3, the evidence was moderate evidence of a linear association
between LEP students’ DPI levels and their activities completed; yet in unit 1, it was weak.
Mann-Whitney Tests between Teacher Groups (T1+R1) versus (T2, T3, and T4)
Data was segregated to determine if there were associations between the level of teachers’
ESL experience and the LEP students’ performance. The results were obtained from participant
reported results from Observational Behavior Surveys and were based on their observations of
each of their LEP student’s performance. Mann-Whitney tests were performed to compare the
distribution of overall performance between students in two teacher groups: (T1 + R1) versus
(T2, T3, T4). T1 and R1 averaged 14 years of ESL teaching experience, whereas T2, T3, and T4
averaged 5 of ESL experience. Table 8 illustrates a side-by side unit comparison of the
correlation between LEP students’ scores from the 10 questions on the ‘Observational Behavior
Surveys’ and the teacher groups; each Question is broken down by instructional unit. The Null
Hypothesis is that there is no difference between the student scores for each unit between the two
teacher groups (P<.05).

ESL 104

of Teacher Groups and Overall Performances
Questions
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
Q1 Yes Yes Yes
P= .006 .002 .006
Q2 Yes Yes Yes
P= .001 .000 .000
Q3 Yes Yes Yes
P= .003 .000 .000
Q4 Yes Yes Yes
P= .001 .000 .000
Q5 Yes Yes Yes
P= .004 .004 .000
Q6 No No Yes
P= .072 .072 .000
Q7 Yes Yes Yes
P= .02 .02 .000
Q8 No No Yes
P= .95 .95 .000
Q9 No No Yes
P= .11 .11 .000
Q10 No No Yes
P= .47 .47 .000
Results by Questions
Question 1. There was a difference found between the two teacher groups and their
students’ attitude towards the themes.
students’ understanding of thematic concepts taught.
students’ attainment of learning objectives.
ESL 105
students’ strategy development and application.
students’ independence in learning.
Question 6. There was no difference found between the two teacher groups and their
students’ participation in activities in units 1 and 2. However, in unit 3, there was a difference
found between the two teacher groups and their students’ participation in activities.
students’ participation in discussions.
Question 8. There was no difference found between the two teacher groups and their
students’ readings completed in unit 1 and 2. However, in unit 3, there was a difference found
between the two teacher groups and their students’ completion of reading assignments in unit 3.
Question 9. There was no difference between the two teacher groups and their students’
writings completed in units 1 and 2. Yet, in unit 3, there was a difference found between the two
teacher groups and their students’ completion of their writing assignments.
Question 10. There was no difference found between the two teacher groups and
students’ activities completed in units 1 and 2. However, in unit 3, there was a difference found
between the two teacher groups and their students’ activities completed.
Summary Findings
In this action research study, both qualitative and quantitative data were obtained from
various sources. The researcher followed Sagor’s (1992) suggested methodology including data
analysis that includes searching for patterns, trends, significance, and/or correlations. Throughout
the study, the researcher examined participants’ perceptions of their LEP students as they
ESL 106
implemented the three thematic units in their SEI classrooms. In addition, participants completed
student observations and observational behavior surveys that promoted further understanding of
their students’ skills and attitudes towards the thematic learning process. Further assessment
included thoroughly examining the following: transcriptions from collaborative meetings,
reflective journals, students’ work samples, photographs, video recordings, participant’s
reflection questions, and end of unit rubrics, lesson plans, thematic planning sheets, teacher-
teacher and teacher-student observations, emails, and open-ended parental surveys. Recurring
themes and patterns clearly emerged from the various data gathered which related to the research
questions that guided this study. The effect of using of thematic instruction approaches in SEI
classrooms to foster LEP students’ language and academic development in English was
examined throughout this chapter. Special emphasis was placed on self-reflection and self-
assessment within the framework of thematic instruction. These findings provided data to
support the discussion that follows in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary and Discussion
The School utilized in this action research study resembled most public schools within
the United States that have a multitude of languages spoken by the students enrolled. With its
ever-increasing LEP student population immigrating from non-English speaking nations, and the
proliferation of non-English speaking households, the School and its 5 ESL teachers faced
unprecedented challenges when dealing with the decision on how to “best educate” their
increasingly large linguistically diverse student body. For many of its LEP students, both equality
and excellence in education remain out of reach.
There were several purposes of this action research study. The researcher helped the SEI
program’s ESL teachers to strategically collaborate, discuss, select, implement, adapt, analyze,
and reflect upon thematic integration in their SEI classrooms. The goal was to foster their LEPs
students’ English language and academic development so that they were ready to be able to
participate successfully and transition into English mainstreamed classrooms. To accomplish this
task, teachers utilized three thematic instructional approaches: (a) interdisciplinary curriculum,
(b) curriculum integration, and (c) cross-curricular thematic instruction. The results of this study
determined which approaches were the most effective models to employ in the School’s SEI
classrooms in order to maximize student involvement and learning. By uncovering various
particular obstacles teachers and LEP students encountered, as the instructional strategies were
implemented, these ESL teachers will be better able to address those barriers and further enhance
LEP students’ learning opportunities in the future. The information obtained from this action
ESL 108
research was meant to serve as a catalyst for change that not only addresses the SEI’s LEP
students’ linguistic and academic needs, but the concerns of its ESL teachers.
In order to gain a thorough understanding of how LEP students’ best learn and acquire
English, information was obtained from a review of literature that focused on top performing
language assistance programs who adopted linguistic research as well as cognitive research as
the basis of their programs. The review uncovered linguistic research by Garcia (1991), Collier
and Thomas (1997a, 1997b), and the Freemans (1992, 2002), who have all documented effective
instructional strategies for ESL teachers to adopt in their classrooms when working with LEP
students. Their research coincides with cognitive educational researchers, also presented in the
literature review, including the Caines (1994, 1997), Jensen (1998b), and Wolfe (2001).
One of the purposes of this study was to achieve a synthesis or a consensus when
possible, of pertinent issues being faced by the SEI program teachers and students, to expose
these concerns, and to create an agenda for these participants to take some type of action to
eliminate those concerns. There were two additional purposes underlying the fundamental
framework behind this study, including: (a) requiring these five participant classrooms to work
together by helping them build a united purpose (implementing three instructional approaches to
foster their LEP students’ academic and linguistic success), and (b) providing them with an
opportunity to demonstrate the integrity needed to resolve their problems.
This research study used both qualitative and quantitative methods to obtain and analyze
the data gathered. An audit trail was established and maintained to establish levels of
dependability and confirm ability of this study. Hierarchical code structures contributed to
further understanding of participants’ perceptions and were used to determine the effectiveness
of each instructional approach implemented.

ESL 109
There were four key questions, for which greater understanding was sought in this
collaborative action research; they were: 1) How do ESL teachers strategically collaborate and
discuss pertinent issues that arise when dealing with their LEP students and the SEI curriculum?
2) How do ESL teachers reflect, analyze, and select materials to be used in their SEI classrooms?
3) How do ESL teachers implement and adapt thematic instruction in their SEI classrooms as a
viable means to foster their LEPs students’ English language and academic development?; and 4)
which thematic instructional approach: (a) interdisciplinary curriculum, (b) curriculum
integration, or (c) cross-curricular thematic instruction generates LEP students’ language and
academic success? The research approach used in this study was the action research
methodology design and data analysis presented by Richard Sagor (1992).
Question 1
Common themes extracted within the study represented the essence of how ESL teachers
strategically collaborate and discuss pertinent issues that arise when dealing with their LEP
students and the SEI curriculum. Through collaboration, observation, and reflection, participants
were inspired not only to reflect upon their own professional and personal needs, but most
importantly their students’ academic, cultural, and linguistic needs. These processes allowed
participants teachers to: a) further enhance their pedagogical skills by carefully examining their
students' language and academic progress, b) put forth a concerted effort to understand their
students’ learning and behavioral difficulties, and c) provide a degree of feedback on their
progress in relation to “self” and their students. Sub-categorical themes were identified; however,
for the sake of brevity, they were reclassified and placed under the following three domains: (a)
environmental, (b) interpersonal, and (c) intrapersonal stressors.

ESL 110
In relation to the first theme, some environmental stressors participants encountered
were: (a) the behavioral ‘outbursts’ of some LEP students; (b) the heavy demands placed on
participants’ already busy schedules; (c) the lack of previous experience with some teachers
teaching LEP students; (d) the lack of time to prepare within the school day; (e) overcrowded
classrooms due to unforeseen increased enrollment; (f) lack of adequate materials and resources;
(g) linguistic, cultural, morals, and/or values of a diversified LEP student population; (h) threats
of severe budget cuts; and (i) top-down program reforms. The causes of behavioral ‘outbursts’
cited were: students’ age, maturation level, language and/or cultural barriers, the amount of time
living in the United States (with new arrivals being the most susceptible), and the
misidentification and/or inappropriate placement of LEP students in the SEI program.
With respect to the second theme, interpersonal stressors, all participants were concerned
with finding a balance between work and familial responsibilities. All indicated the need to
balance their lives, and finding time to implement fully thematics instruction into their classroom
was a difficult process.
In regard to the third theme, intrapersonal stressors profoundly affected the amount of
energy participants brought into their SEI classrooms. All of these stressors were perceived as
demoralizing to participants, as they felt these added stresses could either ‘make’ or ‘break’ them
as an educator. All participants’ morale tended to take precedence and was of the utmost concern
to the researcher. As a result of the issues identified, the researcher decided to segregate data to
determine if participants’ experiences affected students’ performance.
There was evidence obtained of a difference in how participants were able to handle these
factors of change; they were between the two teacher groups: (T1+R1) and (T2, T3, + T4). The
first group, considered the most experienced group of the five ESL teachers, tended to struggle
ESL 111
with increased class sizes, maintaining classroom discipline, and obtaining adequate materials.
While the second group, the inexperienced teachers, struggled with implementing the three
integrative instructional approaches, putting in long hours preparing and modifying materials,
difficulty with increased or decreased class sizes, classroom discipline, interpreting curriculum
and trying to balance their linguistically and culturally diversified students’ needs.
Question 2
Through collaboration, ESL teachers strategically adapted, analyzed, planned, developed,
critiqued, reflected, and selected the materials and resources to be used in their SEI classrooms.
Participants worked together to select, create and/or modify appropriate materials and resources
based on the following: (a) students’ linguistic and academic needs, (b) alignment of the unit
theme’s content with grade-level standards and benchmarks, and (c) identified, created and/or
modified linguistic and instructional strategies, authentic activities, and assessments.
In relation to the first theme, participants selected materials and resources that related to
their students’ experiences. The complexity of cultures represented in the study made it difficult
for participants to select materials and resources. When appropriate, participants needed to adjust
materials selected to be commensurate with their students’ needs and/or abilities. Most tried out
different materials and/or modifications strategies until they were satisfied with their students’
effort and success.
In regard to the second theme, materials and resources were reviewed and aligned with
grade-level standards and benchmarks to establish and build cohesiveness within the SEI
program. This process determined which attributes, knowledge, and skills students needed to
acquire.
ESL 112
In the third theme, participants adapted, created, planned, and/or selected materials and
resources by thoroughly analyzing the 28 preferred instructional/learning activites identified by
LEP students’ student surveys and information generated from KWLH charts. Students’ preferred
activities varied and ranged from progressive-constructivist stylistic activities to traditional
activities. Some preferred instructional/learning activities identified were: creating authentic
projects, reading informational text, self-selection of reading materials, writing, creating project-
based homework, working on school-wide projects, completing authentic math activities, making
student-made books, watching ‘research’ movies, watching a movie after reading the book,
researching on the Internet, taking field trips, working and creating objects with clay/play dough,
playing, and working within teams. More ‘traditional’ instructional types of activities were:
completing ready-made or teacher generated-worksheets, spelling, vocabulary and dictionary
work, listening to their teachers’ lectures, reading and writing poetry, and note-taking.
In addition, KWLH charts provided participants with background information concerning
their LEP students’ knowledge. These charts offered participants a plethora of educational
opportunities for selecting appropriate material to be implemented which captured their students’
interests for learning. Furthermore, participants selected and modified materials, resources, and
text by conducting ongoing formal and non-formal assessments of student learning through their
planned interactions between students. Whether students worked independently and/or in groups,
they assisted each other and/or held discussions; but most often, they shared their mutual
excitement of acquired knowledge of the subject matter content and/or activites.
Question 3
ESL 113
Evidence gleaned from the study provided a framework on how to implement and adapt
thematic instruction in SEI classrooms as a viable means to foster LEP students’ English
language and academic development. Participants implemented and adapted a multitude of
learning opportunities and choices for their LEP students to foster their English language and
academic skills. The evidence obtained from this study support the Caines’ (1991) assertion that,
every brain - every student - is unique, and each has his or her own learning preference or style.
Data gleaned provided participants with an opportunity to (a) further understand their students’
linguistic and academic needs; (b) examine students’ attitudes towards particular activities,
materials and resources implemented in a unit, and (c) examine how their students’ perceived the
lessons. Based on this information, participants modified their teaching practices; for example, it
was found that traditional-style activites were only effective for those LEP students who already
had a good understanding of basic concepts and perform well, regardless of the circumstances.
In relationship to the first theme, participants readily modified and aligned thematic
instruction content to meet their students’ linguistic and academic needs. DPI level 1 students
produced very little written work of any kind due to language difficulties usually associated with
their level of English. When participants failed to modify individually instructional activities,
materials and resources to meet the immediate linguistic and academic needs of their students,
their students habitually failed.
With respect to the second theme, when participants examined students’ attitudes towards
particular activities, materials and resources implemented in a unit, they noticed students doing
the following: (a) actively participating; (b) becoming more engaged; (c) increasing their
motivation; and (d) taking ownership of learning.

ESL 114
In regard to the third theme, when participants provided activities or instructional
strategies that assisted in building upon their LEP students’ prior knowledge in a variety of
realms, their LEP students were able to learn from texts and materials; this allowed students to
have access to information and make meaningful connections. When participants presented text
with graphic organizers, it helped employ hierarchical conceptual mapping of the context
presented, and they noted their students were more apt to learn new information because it was
presented and integrated in a familiar format. Additional strategies employed by participants
were: peer models, completing first draft with students, using hand signals, using various
material levels, repeating instructions, standing close to student, speaking clearly and facing
students, modifying tone of voice and pace, writing instructions on board or on post-it paper,
asking students to repeat instructions, demonstrating/modeling, acting out instructions,
simplifying instructions, using pictures, using concrete materials and videos, using colored
pens/highlighters for key points, chunking information into 5-7 steps, giving a structured
overview, using closing activites, providing additional time to preview materials, completing
tasks, taking tests, providing additional copies of activites and/or information, involving students
in presentation, team-teaching, and using webbing techniques and multi-sensory information.
Question 4
Data revealed there to be no significant difference between the three instructional
approaches: (a) interdisciplinary curriculum, (b) curriculum integration, or (c) cross-curricular
thematic instruction when used to generate LEP students’ language and academic success. In
units 1 and 3, LEP students performed on average at the 89 percentile, and in unit 2, they
performed at the 87 percentile. There were no differences determined between students’ overall
ESL 115
performance and their gender. This finding suggests that each of these methods is a valuable tool
for improving students’ rate of success, when properly implemented and monitored. In addition,
males and females perform equally when thematic instructional methods are employed.
However, when data were separated by DPI language levels, there were discrepancies
noted in students’ performances. Correlations were weak between DPI language levels and
students’ attitudes and/or motivation across the units. Yet, in all other areas, students’ overall
performances were affected by their DPI language levels. At the end of the units, there was only
a weak to moderate correlation. Students’ language level affected their understanding of thematic
concepts, attainment of learning objectives, strategy development and application, participation
in discussions, and completion of writing activites in unit 2; this was to be expected due to the
level of difficulty in context and the transitional role of the participant from teacher to facilitator.
Data results illustrated correlations between levels of students’ performance and teacher
experience. They were divided into two groups by experience in ESL and time in classroom;
these teacher groups were: teacher group (T1 and R1) and teacher group (T2, T3, and T4). When
teacher groups were segregated, discrepancies were noted in student performances. There was a
significant amount of evidence that suggested students’ attitudes and motivational levels,
understanding of unit concepts (space, dinosaurs and farms), attainment of unit objectives,
strategies developed and applied, independence in learning, and participation in discussions were
affected by the amount of ESL training, and teaching experience a participant brought to the
study. However, participants’ experience did not affect students’ performance in the following:
participation of activites, and completion of reading, writing, and other academic activities in the
first two units.

ESL 116
Conclusion
The research results support integration, which is a universal approach to teaching LEP
students in which ESL educators can readily avoid teaching fragmented, isolated facts by
orchestrating the curriculum into constructive learning strategies; this study demonstrates that
integration is useful for all students, regardless of their linguistic ability (Lipson et al., 1993).
Participants in this study displayed what Jacobs (1989) described as synergistic teaching. They
were able to weave the curriculum in such a manner that divisions of core subjects were almost
nonexistent. They were able to witness their LEP students making a learning connection and/or a
lasting memory, as they were able to perceive relationships between what they were learning and
the curriculum subject matter presented. For the LEP student, the learning experience became
relevant to their life; they no longer saw skill based work as a chore; therefore, their skill
definition and recognition increased markedly.
The identified trends represented a more holistic approach to learning and integrated
curriculum. Support for these types of instructional approaches has been documented since the
1930s (Vars, 2001). After experiencing the various instructional approaches, participants
indicated that teaching this way made the curriculum more manageable and relevant for
themselves and their students. Participants stated they experienced joyfulness as they witnessed
their students searching for meaning or making connections as they compared new information
to their prior real life experiences.
As a result of this action research study, these ESL educators became united, empowered,
and more knowledgeable about their LEP students’ learning. They investigated the “how’s” and
“why’s” of effectively implementing researched-based instructional models that were firmly
grounded in theory (brain research and multiple intelligences). Through this study, participants
ESL 117
were better able to understand how their LEP students learned, constructed, and applied
meaning. By incorporating a variety of data collection techniques into the study, participants
learned to recognize, appreciate, and comprehend the following: (a) their colleagues’ and
students’ individual differences and learning styles; (b) how to modify and/or make adjustments;
(c) establish effective learning environments; and (d) incorporate assessment strategies for
instructional and/or educational issues. In addition, participants learned how to face and embrace
the various challenges of working in a diversified environment and to address LEP student
and/or teacher effectiveness.
Overall, data indicated participants in this study provided their LEP students with a high
quality, complex curriculum with ample amounts of learning opportunities. Their LEP students
made connections between the disciplines; they were provided with authentic, hands-on, real
world experiences that intensified their understanding and which were built upon their individual
strengths. These three approaches were grounded in the District’s grade level standards and
benchmarks and used student achievement statistics in order to improve the SEI curriculum,
instruction, and professional development; this improvement was accomplished by incorporating
research-supported instructional approaches into daily ELD instructional practices within the SEI
program. These teachers encouraged and fostered students’ independence levels, responsibility,
and increased their confidence. Grade-level standards and benchmarks were incorporated within
the three units to provide a broader description of what LEP students should know and be able to
do within their grade levels; in addition, they provided specific performance indicators.
Participants utilized the researcher’s planning guide to illustrate the various steps for continuous
SEI program improvement based on promoting and increasing student achievement levels.
ESL 118
Limitations of the Study
There were “natural” linguistic and educational limitations of this study. They were: (a)
the group being studied consists of ESL teachers and LEP students within a specific SEI
program, and the experiences and meanings obtained from this study cannot be generalized to
other programs; (b) the number of participants used in this study tended to be low; (c) the
participants used in this study were not representative of the entire ESL/SEI teaching and LEP
student population; and (d) the attrition rate of the LEP student population was relatively high
and represented a problem for the continuity of this study.
This study is a collaborative action research study in which the researchers and
participants carefully identified, observed, and reflected systematically in order to generate
potential solutions to their pertinent issues that arose during the study. They implemented
interventions, assessed the outcomes, and modified the solution(s). The researcher was actively
involved in the cause for which the research was conducted. In addition, it was difficult to
determine all of the variables that came into play when examining the students’ attainment and
achievement in English; perhaps, it may be more of an intrinsic reward, which tends to be
difficult to measure.
The emergent findings should be regarded as only provisional findings, rather than
unambiguous conclusions. This provision is due to the multitude of issues that came into play,
particularly related to the unique dynamics of LEP students and the SEI program in this study.
This study does set a foundation for future interested researchers to build upon. The researcher
leaves this study fully acknowledging the unique of limitations of any study, and that researchers
can learn from another’s errors and/or omissions to further strengthen the foundation of future
study.
ESL 119
Challenges
The researcher faced several challenges while conducting this study. The first challenge
was to develop a collaborative working environment in which five individuals with five very
divergent backgrounds, perceptions, and interpretations would come together as a united team to
reflect and formulate various solutions to their unique problems. The second challenge was to
provide a nurturing environment for participants as they discussed and described their
perceptions as they worked develop effective practices, and to establish policies for the future of
the SEI program for years to come.
Another challenge presented in this study was the enormous amounts of data collected
which were overwhelming for one person to sort and analyze. The researcher literally sorted and
analyzed hundreds of pieces of evidence. This challenge made developing narratives and
selecting themes a difficult task; furthermore, it became a complex process when deciding what
should be excluded. It seemed that all of the participants and their students’ experiences were
important. After several readings, discussions with the team, and rewrites, the researcher was
able to illustrate a synopsis of what it was like to be an ESL teacher and a LEP student within the
SEI program during the study. The methodology provided a great deal of detailed analysis and
information for ESL educators everywhere who aspired to obtain a greater understanding about
planning integrative thematic instructional units into their SEI classrooms.
Recommendations
This action research study offers suggestions and possibilities for awareness, insight, and
action that are inherent in this type of research. With this learning in mind, implications for both
further research and education have been made.

ESL 120
Implications for Future Research
With the high turnover rates and increased stress levels of ESL teachers, a follow-up
study would be beneficial to monitor how ESL teachers overcome challenges they face as they
become more experienced in the field of ESL. Stressful working conditions and their coping
behaviors should be documented. The study should examine the relationship between ESL
teachers’ chronic job related stresses to ESL teacher burnout. Future studies could investigate the
affects of ESL work related pressures and working conditions to determine if there are a set of
coping mechanisms that will allow them to take more control and balance their professional and
personal lives. In addition, it would be necessary to document any personal transformations that
lead to renewal of opportunities and new ingenuities; the alternative is simply coping or leaving
the profession.
There is a need to conduct future research on evaluating the type of resiliency skills
and/or leadership skills LEP students need to overcome a multitude of educational, linguistic,
and cultural barriers to be successful in life. Other suggestions include conducting a longitudinal
study of LEP students in order to gauge their progress.
If participants, administrators, and LEP parents express an interest in the results of this
study, the researcher will provide them with a copy of the report. The researcher will also take
appropriate action to disseminate the results and findings of this research at appropriate
professional seminars, workshops, and conferences.
Implications for Education
Pedagogical change is the outgrowth of the implementation of thematics into the
curriculum through collaboration, observation, and reflection. This integration provided active
participation in the learning process that encompassed participants and their LEP students in the
ESL 121
process of change. By collaborating, implementing, and modeling, the participants of this study
affected pedagogical changes and set precedence for the future of LEP students. This will affect
“what” and “how” LEP students acquire the necessary integration skills, which were identified as
critical to their success. As a result of this research model, participants’ enthusiasm infected the
entire school; collaborations were witnessed in other content areas such as art, physical
education, music, and media specialists. Changes may be slow and/or difficult; however, this
study provided the catalyst for change. The statistical and anecdotal framework required to set
the stage for change was created through the enthusiastic participation of the teachers and
students in this study.
The teachers and administrators should be more consistent in establishing and enforcing
expectations, routines, and rules. Furthermore, ESL teachers should clearly articulate their
expectations to their LEP students early on so their students understand what is expected of
them. This study has shown that LEP students are fully capable of achieving expectations as long
as they are communicated early in the educational process. The logic for these expectations is
clear: anything that imposes changes on LEP students' lives demands additional time and energy
from the ESL teachers, administrators, and LEP students themselves. Nevertheless, along with
the extra energy expended come huge rewards, in the form of teacher/student enthusiasm and
academic success.
In addition, all the ESL teachers should receive continual training in recognizing the
academic, cultural, and linguistic needs of their current LEP student population. Implicit in this
recommendation is the perception that distinguishes between an accomplished ESL teacher and a
mediocre ESL teacher. An accomplished ESL teacher knows their LEP students, inside and out.
This means not only learning their names, but also knowing their backgrounds, and using this
ESL 122
information to tailor and/or create individualized instruction. A mediocre ESL teacher will fail to
take this extra step; this omission produces and perpetuates increased environmental,
inter/intrapersonal stressors faced by ESL teachers and their students. These stressors contribute
to the students’ behavioral ‘outbursts’ and further alienation from the curriculum.
The study’s findings overwhelmingly support the right of every ESL teacher to determine
the best instructional approach to implement in their classroom to meet the needs of their LEP
student population. However, it is imperative that these ESL educators realize there may be times
when implementing thematic instructional approaches might not be the most appropriate
instructional approach to learning. Only through a careful examination of the research and
various SEI programs will ESL educators be able to determine to what extent of integration
should be implemented in their SEI programs.
Participants in this study indicated they no longer felt obligated to use traditional
instructional approaches, but were comfortable using developmentally and linguistically
appropriate ELD instructional approaches that allowed them to teach in such a way that
embraced their LEP students holistically, developmentally, intellectually, culturally,
linguistically, and socially. As a result, their rewards were viewed as intrinsically intertwined. In
other words, each participant sees the educational world differently; this difference determined
what each participant would do next. Each anticipates being able to select and adopt the thematic
approach that best suits the individual needs of their students. The participants related that they
expected to continue to adapt what they have learned during the study as the SEI continued to
enroll new students and restructure the framework of the program. All participants
communicated their desire to continue thematic teaching, and they will continue to explore
themes within their SEI classrooms. Most felt they made tremendous growth as independent
ESL 123
learners and agreed that participating within the collaborative process ignited their thinking and
quest to learn more.
Results of this study documented numerous instances where LEP students’ performances
were affected by not having certified and experienced ESL teachers. The results further indicate
that school districts should hire highly qualified ESL teachers who work well in a collaborative
setting that focuses on data-driven accountability. The study results documented the need for the
District to address its shortage of ESL educators as a result of teachers leaving the profession due
to job related stressors. Therefore, to maintain their qualified ESL staff, the District and the
School should refocus their attention on the retention and recruitment of ESL teachers.
Due to the positive results of this study, it is recommended that the District administrators
adopt a reform model and implement thematic integration in the SEI program. Furthermore, it is
recommended that participants continue to be progressive in their thinking and adopt the vision
of this action research study. In addition, it is recommended that the teachers continue to work
collaboratively to end the negative rhetoric concerning their LEP student population. These
students are as capable as their fluent English-speaking peers of accomplishing great things and
succeeding socially and academically.
Final Thoughts and Comments
Today, with the stringent requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, all
schools and school districts are held accountable for students’ learning. In the future, ESL
teachers should succumb and conform to these new standards and high stakes state testing. Their
class sizes will not dwindle, but instead will increase. They will be expected to “do more with
less” regardless of the environmental and interpersonal stressors that may influence their
ESL 124
professional and personal lives. To be successful, these ESL teachers should continue to adapt
and modify their curriculum to continue to needs of their LEP students. They will need to
implement integrative instructional approaches as universal remedies to having to teach in such a
multifaceted spectrum. By teaching thematically, they will be able to bridge the educational and
linguistic gap faced by their LEP students in the future.
Future ESL teachers will need to understand what orchestrating the curriculum will mean
to their LEP students’ learning. By implementing these instructional approaches, ESL teachers
will open up a myriad of learning opportunities for their LEP students (Garcia, 1991; Freeman &
Freeman, 1998). LEP students will see themselves as artists, readers, writers, speakers,
mathematicians, scientists, musicians, geographers, and researchers, who are able to understand
the purpose of their learning tasks. More importantly, these students will come to understand
how more universal applications can be made from their applied efforts. LEP students will not
only be taught the necessary skills and strategies for completing authentic tasks, but they will be
able to: (a) develop an understanding of how they could apply their new knowledge and skills;
(b) focus; (c) understand why they are doing and what they are doing; (d) demonstrate and
rationalize meaningful connections made among disciplines that allow a transfer of learning from
one context to another; (e) grasp the relationship of content to process; and (f) acquire an
integrated knowledge base. As a result of this educational experience, they will develop
confidence in their ability to manage these new skills and abilities in the future.
REFERENCES
Akkari, A. (1998, Fall). Bilingual education: beyond linguistic instrumentalization. Bilingual

Research Journal, 22(2-4). Retrieved October 25, 2002, from http://brj.asu.edu/v22234/
articles/ar2.html
American Policy Organization. (n.d.) The "Delphi technique" and how it robs parents of control
over their child's education. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from http://www.
americanpolicy.org/educ/thedelphi.htm
Amrein, A. & Pena, R. (2000). Asymmetry in dual language practice: Assessing imbalance in a
program promoting equality. Retrieved April 4, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/
epaa/v8n8.html
Amselle, J. & Chavez, L. (1997, February). Bilingual education theory: Its effectiveness and
parental opinions. NASSP Bulletin, 81(586).
Atwell, N. (1998). In the Middle. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Barron, M. (n.d.). Surprising truths: The implications of brain research. Retrieved February 23,
2003, from http://www.nauticom.net/www/cokids/brain.html
Beals, R., & Pedalino P. R. (2000, August). Bilingual students and the MCAS: Some bright spots
in the gloom. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from http://www.ceousa.org/html/mcas.html
Beane, J. A. (1992). Integrated curriculum in the middle school. Retrieved July 1, 2003, from
http://sarasota.k12.fl.us/integrcurrmiddlescheric.htm
Beane, J. A. (1993). Problems and possibilities for an integrative curriculum. Middle School
Journal, 25(1), 18-23.
Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan,
76(8), 616-622.
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Biondo, S., Gavelek, J., & Raphael, T. (2000). Mapping the possibilities of integrated literacy
instruction. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from http://www.readingonline.org/research/biondo/
biondo.html
Bower, B. (1998). The brain is tuned to grammar as music is tuned to lyrics. Retrieved February
23, 2003, from http://www.brainconnection.com
ESL 126
Brain-Based Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2003, from http://www.

funderstanding.com
Brinton, D., Snow, M., & Wesche, M. (1989). Content-based second language instruction.
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Brooks, J. G., & Martin G. B. (1993). The Case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Brown, K. (2000). Newcomers learn English: Education News for an Educated Public.
Education Update Online. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from
http://www.educationupdate.com/may00/Newcomers.html
Bruer, J. (1999). In search of brain based learning. Retrieved February 23, 2003, from
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kappan.htm
Bueno, K. (1999). Glossary. Retrieved April 28, 2003, from http://www.siue.edu/

~kbueno/fl486/gloss.html
Burkart, G., & Sheppard, K. (n.d.). A descriptive study of content -- ESL practices volume III:
Training packet material. Retrieved April 14, 2003, from http://www.ncela.
gwu.edu/miscpubs/cal/contentesl/index.htm#contents
Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (Eds.). (2001). Teachers doing research: A power of
action through inquiry. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1994). Mindshift. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997). Unleashing the power of perceptual change. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Capella University (2002, July). Summer Sessions Handouts. July Colloquia Presentations.
Available on CD. Falmer.
Carr, W., & Kremmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research.
Philadelphia, PA: Lewes
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The Learning Strategies
Handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman.
ESL 127
Christison, M. A. (1996). Multiple intelligences in the second language classroom. TESOL

Journal. Alexandria, VA: TESOL
Christison, M. A. (1998, April-June). Applying multiple intelligences theory in preservice and

inservice TEFL education programs (English Teaching Forum). TESOL Matters, 36(2).
Retrieved February 24, 2003, from http://www.tesol.org
Christison, M. A. (1999a, April/May). Applications of brain based research to second language

teaching and learning: Part 1. TESOL Matters, 9(2). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.tesol.org
Christison, M. A. (1999b, April/May). Applying mind-brain principles to L2 teaching. TESOL

Matters, 9(2). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from http://www.tesol.org
Christison, M. A. (1999c, June/July). Applications of brain based research to second language

teaching and learning: Part 2. TESOL Matters, 9(3). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.tesol.org
Christison, M. A. (1999d, Dec). Classroom compass: How can research on the brain inform
education? Multiple Intelligences: Theory and practice in adult ESL. Retrieved February
24, 2003, from http://www.cal.org/ncle/digests/MI.htm
Collier, V., & Thomas, W. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in school
English? The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, (5)26-38.
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1997a, Dec). School effectiveness for language minority
students. NCBE Resource Collection Series, 9. Retrieved July 17, 2003, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/resource/effectiveness/
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1997b). Improving schooling for language minority children: A
research agenda. The National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved July 5, 2003 from
http://nap.edu/openbook/o309054974/html/74.html
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2001). A national study of school effectiveness for language
minority students' long-term academic achievement. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from
http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research
Cornell, J. (1993, Oct). Factors contributing to Hispanic students' tendency to drop out of school.
MIDTESOL Regional Conference, Lincoln, NE.
Cotton, K. (1995). Effective schooling practices: A Research Synthesis. Retrieved on July 2,

2003, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/esp/esp95toc.html
ESL 128
Crandall, J., Jaramillo, A., Olsen, L., & Kreeft Peyton, J. (2002, Oct). Using Cognitive Strategies
to Develop English Language and Literacy. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0205crandall.html
Crawford, J. (1997). Best evidence: Research foundations of the Bilingual Education Act.
Retrieved October 25, 2002, from http://www.ncborgwu.edu
Crawford, J. (1998, Winter). Rethinking schools-does bilingual education work? Rethinking

Schools Online Journal, 13(2). Retrieved October 25, 2002, from http://www.
rethinkingschools.org/Archieves/13-02/biside.html
Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A
reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2, 132-149.
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard

Education Review, 56.
Cummins, J., & Genzuk, M. (1991, March). Analysis of final report longitudinal study of
structured English immersion strategy, early exit and late-exit transitional bilingual
education programs for language-minority children. The California Association for
Bilingual Education Newsletter.
Cummins, J. (1999, February 22). Research, ethics and public discourse: The debate on bilingual
education. Paper presented at the National Conference of the American Association of
Higher Education.
Cummins, J. (n.d.). Educational research in bilingual education: Educational research thoughts.

Abstract retrieved October 25, 2002, from http:audiotap.addr.com/cummins/
educationalresearch.html.
Curtain, H. (1995). Foreign Language and Content Instruction in Grades K-8. Retrieved
February 24, 2003, from http://www.unccedu/~medomoto/4201/handouts/
tpr%20and%20other%20strategies/calla.html
D’ Arcangelo, M. (1998, Nov). How the brain learns: The brains behind the brains. Educational
Leadership, 56(3). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/
edlead/9811/darcangelo.html
D’ Arcangelo, M. (2000, June). Wake-up call about brain research. Education Update, 42(4).
Retrieved February 24, 2003, from http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edupdate/2000/
june00/02jun00.html
Davies, C. (1996). Creatology: Brain science for the 21st century. Retrieved February 24, 2003,
from http://www.nexus.edu.au/teachstud/gat/davies.htm
Development & Dissemination Schools Initiative. (n.d.) Identifying effective practices for
ESL 129
English language learners (ELLs) in D&D schools. In Effective practices for ELLs.
Retrieved October 23, 2002, from http:www. alliance. brown. edu/dnd/ep-for_ells. shtml.
The District five-year long range committee (2003). Unpublished paper presented to the School
District Board (name of city and state kept confidential).
Dressel, P. (1958). The meaning and significance of integration. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), The
Integration of Educational Experiences, 57th Yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education (pp. 3-25). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Duignan, P. (2001) Hoover Essay. Bilingual Education: A Critique. Retrieved February 24, 2003,
from http://www.hooverstandfordedu./publications/he/22/22d.html
Edelman, G. M. (1992). Bright air, brilliant fire: On the matter of the mind. New York, NY:
Basic.
Effective instructional practices for language minority students MAEC. (n.d.). Retrieved July 29,
2002, from http://www.maec.org/instprac.htlm
Ellis, R. (1999). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[ELLKBase] The English Language Learner Knowledgebase (2004). A framework for alternative
language programs [Data file]. Region VII Comprehensive Center. Retrieved September
6, 2003, from http://www.helpforschools.com/ELLKBase/practitionerstips/
FrameworkALP.shtml
Erickson, L. (2002). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond the facts.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Escalante, J. (2003). The Jaime Escalante math program. Retrieved October 13, 2003, from
http://www.thefutureschannel.com/escalante_math_program.htm#4curriculm
ESL Mini Conference Building Inclusive Elementary School Communities for ELLs. (n.d.). New
Jersey's HELP Program Wins "Best Practices" Award. Retrieved September 4, 2002
from http://www.eslminiconf.net/june/story24.html.
Fogarty, R. (1991 a). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2).
Fogarty, R. (1991b). The mindful school: How to integrate the curricula. Palatine: IRI/Skylight
Training and Publishing.
Freeman, D. & Freeman, Y. (1992). Whole language for second language learners. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
ESL 130
Freeman, D. & Freeman, Y. (1998). ESL/EFL teaching: Principles for success. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2002). Closing the achievement gap. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Freeman, D. & Freeman, Y. (n.d.). Sheltered English instruction. Retrieved June 29, 2002, from
ERIC Digest: http://www. ed. gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed301070. html
Freeman, R. D. (1996). Dual-language planning at Oyster Bilingual School: It’s much more than
language. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 557-582.
Friedlander, M. (1991, Fall). The newcomers program: Helping immigrant students succeed in
U. S. schools. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, 8. Retrieved November 1, 2002,
from http://ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/pigs/pig8.htm and http://www.helpforschools.
com/ELLKBase/refernces/NEWCOMERPROGRAMTableCo
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed).
White Plains, NY: Longman.
Garcia, D. (2002). Family English Literacy Program. Department of Foundations and

Professional Studies, Florida International University. Retrieved November 2, 2002, from
http://www.cgcs.org/promise/whatworks/parental/part07.html
Garcia, E. E. (1983). Early childhood bilingualism: With special reference to the Mexican
American child. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Garcia, E. E. (1988a). Attributes of effective schools for language minority students. Education
and Urban Society, (2).
Garcia, E. E. (1988b). Effective schooling for language minority students: New Focus (No. 1).
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Garcia, E. E. (1990). An analysis of literacy enhancement for middle school Hispanic students
through curriculum integration. Working Papers of the Bilingual Research Group, 90-01.
Santa Cruz: University of California.
Garcia, E. E. (1991). The education of linguistically and culturally diverse students: Effective
instructional practices (Educational Practice Report No. 1). Santa Cruz, CA and
Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second
Language Learning. Retrieved July 28, 2003, from http://www.ncela.gwu/miscpubs/
ncrcdsll/epr1/index.htm
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
ESL 131
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1995). Are There Additional Intelligences? The Case for the Naturalist Intelligence.
Howard Project Zero. Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Howard College.
Garvin, I. (1996). Authentic-Alternative Assessment. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from

http://iteachnet.org
Genesee, F. (1999-2001). Bilingual Acquisition. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from

http://earlychildhood.com/Articles/index
Genesee, F. (2000). Brain research: Implications for second language learning. Retrieved
February 24, 2003, from Eric Digest: http://cal.org./oricall/digest/ooo12brain.html
Gersten, R., Taylor, R., Woodward, J., & Wite, W. (1997, Summer). Structured English
immersion for Hispanic students in the U. S.: Findings from the fourteen-year evaluation
of the Uvalde Texas program. Retrieved October 10, 2002, from http://www.adihome.
org/esp/v16n3/struct_imm_tex.pdf
Gonzalez, G., & Maez, L. F. (1995, Fall). Advances in research in bilingual education.
Directions in language & education, 1(5). Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/directions/05.htm
Hackett, R., Morrison, J. L., & Teddlie, C. E. (1982). Developing public education policy
through policy impact analysis: The role of the educational planner. Retrieved October
24, 2002, from http://horizon.unc.edu/bios/morrison/papers/2.html
Hardin, V. (2001, Fall). Transfer and variation in cognitive reading strategies of Latino fourth-
grade students in a Late-Exit bilingual program. Bilingual research journal, 25(4).
Retrieved September 25, 2002, from http://brj.asu/edu/v254/articles/art7.html
Hakuta, K., & August, D. (1997). Improving education for all children: meeting the needs of
language minority children. Retrieved August 6, 2002, from http:www.standford.edu
/~hakuta/Aspen.html
Hakuta, K. (2001, April 13). The education of language minority students. Paper presented at
United States Commission on Civil Rights. Retrieved September 22, 2002, from
http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/Docs/CivilRightsCommision.htm
Hakuta, K. (2002a, August 22). Points on SAT-9 performance and Proposition 227. Retrieved
September 8, 2002, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/
Hakuta, K. (2002b, August 29). What can we learn about the impact of Proposition 227 from
SAT-9 Scores. Retrieved September 8, 2002, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/
ESL 132
Hancock, C. R. (1994). Alternative assessment and second language study: What and why?
Retrieved June 29, 2003, from Eric Digest: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/
Hart, L. (1995, January 25). Human brain and human learning: Your child’s mind. Time
Magazine.
Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Free
Spirit Publishing, Inc.
Henderson, R., & Landesman, E. (1992). Mathematics and middle school students of Mexican
descent: The effects of thematically integrated instruction. Retrieved June 3, 2003, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/miscpubs/ncrcdsll/rr5.htm
Hernandez, A. (2002, Spring). Stanford Educator. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from http://ed.
stanford.edu/suse/educator/fall2002/pages/forum-fall02.html
Hill, K. (2000). Beyond the numbers: A case study of the 1990 census promotion program and
the implications for census 2000. Retrieved April 2, 2003, from http://www.asu.edu/
cronkite/thesis/kimhill/index.html
How the brain learns: The key to student achievement. (n.d.). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.brainconnection.com
How the brain “hears” language (n.d.). Retrieved August 22, 2002, from http:// www.
brainconnection.com.
Humphreys, A., Post, T., & Ellis, A. (1981). Interdisciplinary Methods: A Thematic Approach.
Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company.
[IPT] Idea Proficiency Tests – IPT Testing (2000). Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
http://www.ballard-tighe.com/catalog/ipt03.htm
Jacobs, H. (2004). Curriculum designers. Retrieved June 23, 2004, from http://www.
curriculumdesigners.com/index_bkgnd.htm
Jacobs, H. (1997). Mapping the Big Picture: Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Jacobs, H. (1989). Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation. Alexandria,

Virginia: ASCD
Jensen, E. (1998a, November). How the brain learns: How Julie’s brain learns. Educational
Leadership, 56(2). Retrieved September 6, 2002, from http://www.ascd.org/
readingroom/edlead/9811/darcangelo.html
ESL 133
Jensen, E. (1998b). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Johnson, B. (1993). Teacher as a researcher. Retrieved on July 23, 2003, from http://www.
ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed355205.html
Johnston, R. C., & Viadero, D. (2002, March, 15). Unmet promise: Raising minority
achievement. Education week, 19(27), 1-19.
Katz, A., Genesee, F., Gottlieb, M., & Malone, M. (2001). Scenarios for ESL standards-based
assessment. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Kerlin, B. (1999). Qualitative research: Analysis without numbers. Retrieved April 2, 2003, from
http://kerlins.net/bobbi/research/myresearch/chifoo/
Knezevik, B. (2003). Teacher as classroom action researcher. TESOL Program Presentations.

TESOL 37 Annual Convention and Exhibit. Baltimore, MD.
Kovalik, S., & Olsen, K. (1994). ITI: The model. Integrated thematic instruction (3rd ed.). Kent,
WA: Books for Educators.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in American schools. New York, NY: Perennial.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. First Internet
edition December 2002. Retrieved January 3, 2003, from http://www.sdkrashen.
com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning/index.html
Krashen, S. (1985). Insights and inquires. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
Krashen, S. (1997). Why bilingual education? Retrieved August 6, 2002, from http://ourworld.
compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/bil-new.html
Krashen, S. (1999). Structured immersion falls short of expectations: An analysis of Clark

[Special issue] NABE.
Krashen, S. (2002, August 26). Focus on the library, not the playground [Letter to the editor].
Arizona Republic.
Igoa, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria,

VA. ASCD.
Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment K-12.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
ESL 134
Jacobs, H. H. (2004). Curriculum designers. Retrieved June 23, 2004, from http://www.
curriculumdesigners.com/index_bkgnd.htm
Lake, K. (1994). Integrated Curriculum: Close up # 16. School improvement series (SIRS).
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory [NWREL]. Retrieved September 2, 2002
from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/8/c016.html
Lawton, E. (1994, November). Integrating curriculum: A slow but positive process. Schools in
the Middle, 4(2).
Lipson, M., Valencia, S., Wixson, K., & Peters, C. (1993). Integration and thematic teaching:
Integration to improve teaching and learning. Language Arts, 70(4), 252-263.
Littlejohn, J. (1998, November). Federal control out of control: The Office for Civil Rights'
hidden policies on bilingual education. Retrieved October 12, 2002, from http://www.
ceousa.org/READ/ocr3.html
Marcos, K., & Rennie, J. (2001). The effectiveness of bilingual education. [CAL] Center for
Applied Linguistics. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from http://www.cal.org
/resources/ericreview.pdf
McAllister, E., Hildebrand, J., & Ericson, J. (1998). Language arts theme units: Cross-curricular
activities for primary grades. Bloomington, IN: The Family Learning Association.
McBride, R., & Schostak, J. (2000). Action research. Retrieved June 15, 2002, from
http://webserver1.uea.ac.uk/care/elu/Issues/Research/Res1Cont.html
McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: What every
teacher needs to unlearn. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from http://cdrc4info.org/dl/myths.
pdf.
Meinbach, A. M., Rothlein, L., & Fredericks, A. D. (1995). The complete guide to thematic
units: Creating the integrated curriculum. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon
Publishing.
Meloy, J. M. (2002). Writing the qualitative dissertation: Understanding by doing. London:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meyers, M. M., & Feinberg, S. E. (1992). The case for bilingual education strategies. Retrieved
October, 2003, from http://www.ulib.org/webRoot/Books/
National_Academy_Press_Books/bilingual_education/bilingual.htm
Midwest Equity Assistance Center. (1997). Variety of programs helps newcomers adjust to U.S.
Schools. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from MEAC: http://mdac.educ.ksu.edu?MDAC
/resource/horizons/AugSept97/articles/newcomers/html
ESL 135
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
[NCLB] No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Title I sec. 1111(b)(3)(C)(x).
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory -- NWREL. (2001). Six traits + 1. Retrieved May
22, 2004, from http://www.nwrel.org/assessment/GettingStarted.asp?odelay=2&d=1
Nunan, D. (2001). English as a global language. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4).
[OCR] Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights (1999). Retrieved October 22, 2002
from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/ELL/index.html
Pabst, G. (2001, March 9). Hispanics find that state has a winning formula good economy, jobs,
family ties help lure many Latinos here. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved
November 26, 2002, from http://www.jsonline.com/news/census2000/mar01/
latino030901gx.asp#top.
Pate, E., Homestead, E., & McGinnis, K. (1997). Making integrated curriculum work. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Pearson, P. D. (1994). Integrated language arts: Sources of controversy and seeds of consensus.
In L. M. Morrow, J. K. Smith, & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Integrated language arts:
Controversy to consensus (pp. 11-31). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Peterson, B. (n.d.). The Evolution of Language. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from http://www.
brainconnection.com.
Peterson, K. (n.d.). Authentic assessment and school wide projects. Retrieved February 24, 2003,
from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ccvi/pubs/publication/archive/newsletter/
Winter1997_WeavingAuthenticAssessment/AuthAssessment_SchoolwideProj.htm
The qualitative versus quantitative analysis (2003). Retrieved April 5, 2003, from http://www.
ling.lancs.ac.uk/monkey/ihe/linguistics/corpus3/3qual.htm
The qualitative versus quantitative debate (2003). Retrieved March 20, 2003, from
http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/gentrans/pop2f.cfm
Reese, D. (1997, March). The controversy over bilingual education. Parent News. Retrieved
October 25, 2002, from http://npin.org/pnews/1997/pnew397/pnew397h.html
Richard-Amato, P., & Snow, M. (1992). The multicultural classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley Publishing.
Ritter, N. (1999). Teaching interdisciplinary thematic units in language arts. ERIC Digests.
ESL 136
ED436003. Retrieved April 3, 2003 from, http://www.ed.gov/databases/

ERIC_Digests/ed436003.html
Robb, L. (2003). Teaching reading, in social studies, science and math. New York, NY:
Scholastic Professional Books.
Rohac, R. (2000, May). SDAIE -- Specially designed academic instruction in English. Retrieved
January 3, 2003, from http://rohac.com/sdaieinfo.htm
Romig, J. (1997). COGITO: The cognitive paradigm. Des Moines, IA: Drake University.
Retrieved: May 2002, from http://www.educ.drake.edu/romig/cogito/
cognitive_paradigm.html
Rossell, C. H. (n.d.). Mystery on the bilingual express: A critique of the Thomas and Collier
study. The READ Institute. Retrieved October 12, 2002, from http://lmri.ucsb.
edu/resdiss/2/researchreports.htm
Rossell, C. H. (2000, June). Different questions, different answers: A critique of the Hakuta,
Butler, and Witt report, "How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency?"
The READ Institute. Retrieved October 19, 2002, from http://lmri.ucsb.edu/resdiss/2/
researchreports.htm
Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Schmidt, W. (1983). Curriculum Integration: Its Use in Language Arts Instruction. Research
Series Number 140. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, 1983.
Schmoker, M. (2001). The results fieldbook. Practical strategies from dramatically improved
schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Schubert, M., & Melnick, S. (1997). The arts in curriculum integration. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association (Hilton Head, SC).
Shoemaker, B. J. (1989, October). Integrative Education: A Curriculum for the Twenty-First

Century. OSSC Bulletin, 33(2). Eugene, Oregon: Oregon School Study Council.
Short, D. (1998). Secondary Newcomers programs: Helping recent immigrants prepare for
school success. ERIC Digest (ED#411703). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Languages and Linguistics. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from http://www.cal.org/crede/
newcomer.htm
Short, D. J. (2002). Newcomers programs: An educational alternative for secondary immigrant

students. Education and Urban Society, 34(2), 173-198. Retrieved July 29, 2002, from
ESL 137
http://www.cal.org/crede/newcomer.htm
Short, D., & Boyson, B. (2000). Center for research on education, diversity & excellence
(CREDE). Summary of data in secondary newcomer directory. Center for Applied
Linguistics. Retrieved July 29, 2002, from http://www.cal.org/crede/newsummary.htm
Short, D., & Boyson, B. (2002) Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence
(CREDE). Newcomers: Language and academic programs for recent immigrants. Center
for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved July 29, 2002, from http://www.cal.org/crede/
newsummary.htm
Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. (2002). Effects of success for all on the achievement of English
language learners. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from http://www.successforall.net/
resource/research/englanlearn.htm
Smith, M. (2002). Action research: A guide to reading. Retrieved August 2, 2003, from
http://www.infed.org/research/b-actres.htm
Snow, M., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A Conceptual framework for the integration of
language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2),
201-217.
Sousa, D. (1998). Is the fuss about brain research justified? Retrieved May 12, 2003, from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/16sousa.h18
Sprenger, M. (1999). Learning and Memory: The Brain in Action. Retrieved February 24, 2003,
from http://www.ascd.org/pubs/cl/2nov98.html
SPSS 12.0. (2004). Software from SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.
Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action research: A handbook for practitioners, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sylwester, R. (1996). Celebrating neurons. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.
Talukder, G. (2000). How the brain makes way for a second language. Retrieved February 23,
2003, from http://www.brainconnection.com
Tolerance Education (2004). One child at a time. Retrieved December 2, 2003, from
http://scjven.puertasdebabel.org/ell/index.htm
Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom. Responding to the needs of all learners. The
ESL 138
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved March 15, 2003,
from http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/books/tomlin99book.html#chap1
Tucker, G. (1999, August). A global perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education. ERIC
Digest. Retrieved October 18, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERICDigests/
ed435168.html
Vars, G. (2001, November). Can curriculum integration survive in an era of high-stake testing?
Middle School Journal, 33(2).
Viadero, D. (2000, May). Bridging the gap. Teacher Magazine, 11(8).
Vogt, M. (1997). Cross-curricular thematic instruction. Retrieved May 5, 2003, from

http://www.eduplace.com/rdg/res/vogt.html
Vygotsky and Social Cognition. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2003, from http://www.
funderstanding.com
Weilbacher, G. (2001, November). Is Curriculum integration an endangered species? Middle

School Journal, 33(2).
The Wisconsin [DPI] Department of Public Instruction (2002a): Legal responsibilities when
serving limited-English-proficient (LEP) students in K-12 public schools. Retrieved
September 5, 2002, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us
The Wisconsin [DPI] Department of Public Instruction (2002b): Best practices considerations
when serving limited-English Proficient (LEP) students in K-12 public schools. Retrieved
September 5, 2002, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.usl
The Wisconsin [DPI] Department of Public Instruction (2002c): Alternative assessment.

Retrieved September 5, 2002, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/html
The Wisconsin [DPI] Department of Public Instruction (2004). Retrieved October 12, 2004, from
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/ell/
Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Yorks, P., & Follo, E. (1993). Engagement rates during thematic and traditional instruction.
ERIC Document Reproduction Service [ED 363 412].
Zikmund, W. G. (2000). Business Research Methods (6th ed). New York, NY: Harcourt.
APPENDIX A
UNIT ONE:
INTERDISCIPLINARY CURRICULUM
Note. From Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation, by H. H. Jacobs, 1989,

Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD. Copyright 1989 by Heidi Hayes Jacobs. Adapted with permission.
Duration: Two Weeks

Theme: Changes - Past, Present, Future
Concept: Outer Space
Grade Level:
Language Proficiency Level: 1-3
Role of the Teacher: The teacher’s role will vary depending upon type of instruction. Teachers
will be facilitators, provide explicit instruction, and act as a resource depending on the activity,
skills, and concepts taught.
Additional Notes: It is critical to remember that additional support maybe needed for LEP
students who have a low English proficiency. It is imperative that teachers keep students’
linguistic levels in mind when planning this unit. Remember that LEP students may lack the
background knowledge to understand a selection’s vocabulary and key concepts. Teachers must
be able to provide this background information and pre-teach potentially troublesome words or
concepts. Teachers should also use additional learning strategies such as idioms, multiple-
meaning words, textual clues, realia, pictures, and various grouping, modeling, demonstrations,
and scaffolding, and various reading materials for the different levels of reading.
Steps:
1. Teachers select a main topic and/or theme. This concept should be broad enough to
encompass various subject areas. It should apply as integrally as possible to the subject areas
to be covered.
2. Teachers brainstorm ideas using a web/wheel matrix to assure associations and/or
connections are made between the disciplines. This preliminary step will ensure that group
effort is proactive. Then, present and document student ideas and information using the
KWLH chart to your students. Once a few ideas are generated, the teacher’s role is to sift
ESL 140
through them and eliminate on some aspects. This is the purpose of an organizing wheel (See
Figures A1 and A2). The best organizing themes are ones that promote a natural integration
of disparate subject matter areas.
3. Make a list of student questions as a framework for lessons around the organizing center.
Jacobs (1989) suggests grouping questions to and aligning them with the established scope
and sequence for the entire unit. In this stage, it is decided what to include and what to
exclude (See Figure A2).
4. Proceed to map out the order in which this material will be presented (See Figures A3 and
A4). Design activities reflecting the questions listed in Step 3. It is critical that language
teachers should pay attention to the linguistic needs of their students when creating and
discussing these activities. The teachers need to pay particular attention to applying best
practice second language learning strategies when planning lesson activities. Teachers should
apply any learning strategy, which will make the content clearer without overwhelming LEP
students, including, but not limited to the following: Small-large group dynamics, pair work,
word lists, graphic organizers, and semantic webs.
5. Teachers will identify a range of appropriate resources to be utilized in the unit of study (See
Figure A4). Teachers should list names of books, narrative and expository literature, real
world texts, and poetry to assure they are added in order to give students diverse reading
experiences. Real world texts such as magazines, brochures, and maps, are valuable
resources. During this stage of planning, teachers should contact district or school specialists,
public library resources, and expert guest speakers. In addition, the teacher should schedule
appropriate field trips.

ESL 141
6. During this phase, teachers develop a schedule that includes a selected timeframe for each
activity. Schedule planning and time-line is also important at this point. In this study, the
timeframe is a two-week period; however, a theme may take a day, week, or month. When
the teacher selects a period, it is imperative they keep in mind several factors: students'
interests, attention spans, the availability of resources and reading materials, and curriculum
guidelines. They should be prepared to monitor students’ interests and modify accordingly
(See Figures A4 and A5).
7. Develop activities.
8. Develop evaluation techniques.
9. Implement theme and activities. Monitor students’ progress and understanding. Schedule
activities, teach lessons, and facilitate learning. Journals are kept; stories, articles, and poems
are discussed; projects are created. Engaging students in reading and writing and by
discussing and researching challenge minds. Help the students to create and generate their
own ideas.
10. Check for understanding by completing KWLH chart (See Figure A2).
11. Evaluate appropriately (See Figure A6).
12. Reflect upon your unit (See Figures A5 and A7).

ESL 142
Figure A1
Interdisciplinary Curriculum Concept Model
Mathematics
Language
The Arts
Arts
Theme
(Concepts)
Social
Studies Science

Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD. Copyright 1989 by Heidi Hayes Jacobs. Adapted with
permission.
ESL 143
Figure A2
Brainstorming KWLH Chart
K W L H
How We Find the
What We Know What We Want to Learn What We Learned Information to Learn
ESL 144
Figure A3
Suggested Activity Planning Sheet
Unit Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluate

Questions
Define, Classify, describe, Apply, Analyze, Arrange, Appraise,
duplicate, discuss, explain, choose, appraise, assemble, argue, assess,
label, list, express, identify, demonstrate, calculate, collect, attach,
memorize, indicate, locate, dramatize, categorize, compose, choose,
name, order, recognize, report, employ, compare, construct, compare,
place, restate, review, illustrate, contrast, create, defend
recognize, select, translate interpret, criticize, design, estimate,
relate, recall, operate, differentiate, develop, judge, predict,
repeat, practice, discriminate, formulate, rate, core,
reproduce, schedule, distinguish manage, select,
state sketch, examine, organize, support,
solve, use, experiment, plan, prepare, value,
write question, propose, set evaluate
test up, write
Unit Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluate

Questions

ESL 145
Figure A4
Unit Planning Sample Guide
Name: Date:
Theme: Concept(s):
Rationale: Why is the topic important?
How does it relate to education?
Does it promote lifelong learning?
Grade Level
and English
Levels
Unit Goals: What are the broad goals for the unit?
What do you expect, in general terms, to accomplish?
What are the goals for content?
What are the goals for skill development?
What are the goals for affective learning?
Concept Maps: Which "web" will you use?
Why?
Resource List: List of Books:
Support Materials:
Evaluation: Types of assessments
Anecdotal records
Observations with written documentation
Writing samples
Art projects
Drawings
Cooperative learning records
Digital pictures
Video
Journals
Other
Standards: The focus of the thematic unit should be a relevant topic. All content areas
must be seamlessly worked into the topic. The activities should be in
ESL 146
accordance with state and local standards.

1.
2.
Curriculum 1.
Objectives: 2.
Introducing
Activity:
Daily Plans:
Supporting
Documents:
Culminating
Activity:
ESL 147
Figure A5
Name _________________________ Date ______________________________
Creating an Interdisciplinary Curriculum Unit

Thematic Unit Sample Rubric
Use this thematic unit rubric as you create an interdisciplinary thematic unit. This was designed to help
you to produce quality instructional units designed to thoroughly integrate learning and meet the needs of
your linguistically diverse students.
Title of Unit
Beginning Developing Accomplished Exemplary

Score
1 2 3 4
Theme • No theme • Some • Theme is • Theme is
evident attempt at a evident clear
• Purpose is theme is • Most • Purpose of
unclear evident bust disciplines unit is clear
mostly are included
unclear
• Various
discipline
connections
are weak
Concept • No focus • Focus • Focus • Focus
Questions question question is question is question is
too specific broad but broad, global
• Focus not • Focus
question necessarily question
oriented to real-world encourages
one oriented exploration
discipline • Focus
question
applies to
real-world
issues
Instructional • No goals or • Goals and • Goals and • Objectives
Objectives objectives objectives objectives integrate all
listed lack inter- based on disciplines
• Unit not age disciplinary standards • Objectives
appropriate approach • Objectives encourage
• Activities written in higher order
are age measurable thinking
appropriate terms skills
Materials & • Textbooks • A variety of • Inclusion of • Students are
Resources serve as sole print sources non-print encouraged
resource are made resources is to locate
ESL 148
available to encouraged resources

students • Coordinatio indepen-
n among dently
team • Use of web
members resources is
• Allocates appropriate
resources and effective
effectively
• Activities • Activities • Activities • Activities
Activities are not focus on are project provide for
clearly knowledge oriented multiple
defined level of • Activities intelligences
• Students are Bloom’s draw upon • Activities
required to Taxonomy several encourage
simply • Students are disciplines creative
restate facts not provided expression
a choice in and problem
activities solving
• Activities
can be
student
originated
Evaluation • No evidence • Assessment • Assessment • Students are
of is conducted is a encouraged
evaluation only at the continuous to self-assess
for students culmination processes their
or for the of the unit throughout participation
unit • Assessment the unit and
focuses on • Assessment performance
student criteria are • Peer
performance developed assessment is
with student utilized with
input group
• Assessment activities
correlates • Team
with unit members
objectives share
perceptions
throughout
the unit and
modify as
necessary
Additional Comments:
ESL 149
Figure A6
Student Interdisciplinary Curriculum Unit Sample Evaluation

Note. From “Cross-curricular thematic instruction,” by M. E. Vogt, 1997. Retrieved May 5,
2003, from http://www.eduplace.com/rdg/res/vogt.html. Copyright 1997 by Mary Ellen Vogt.
Adapted with permission.
Name: ____________________________ Date: ________________________
Grade: ____________________________ Language Level: _______________
Theme: ____________________________ Concept(s): ___________________
Type of Thematic Approach: __________________________________________
Student-Teacher Conference
1. Tell me about your favorite activity for this theme?
2. Which piece of literature did you enjoy most?
3. What was the most important thing you learned?
4. What piece of work was your best work?
Observation of Students Behaviors in Thematic Instructions

(May be completed during or following theme)
Rating Scale: 1 (Developing) 3 (Satisfactory) 5 (Exceptional)
1. Attitude toward theme 12345

2. Understanding of thematic concepts 12345
3. Attainment of learning objectives 12345
4. Strategy development and application 12345
5. Independence in learning 12345
6. Participation in activities 12345
7. Participation in discussions 12345
Reading completed by student:
Writing completed by student:
Activities completed by student:
ESL 150
Figure A7
Interdisciplinary Instructional Reflection Sample Questions for Teachers
Reflection Questions Yes No Comments
Is the activity congruent with the students’ needs?

Is the activity congruent with the students' interests?
Is the activity congruent with the students' levels of
development?
Is the activity congruent with the student's learning
styles?
Is the activity congruent with the students' cultural
backgrounds?
Does the activity promote an understanding of key
concepts related to the topic?
Does the activity promote critical thinking and higher
order thinking skills?
Does the activity include several content areas?
Does the activity address objectives included in the
school curriculum?
Does the activity promote discovery, exploration, and
integration of technology?
Does the activity encourage the facilitation role of the
teacher?
Does the activity provide opportunities for authentic
assessment and evaluation?
Throughout the action research process, reflection questions may change.
Additional Questions Generated from Action Research Y N Comments

Have the students before explored the topic before? When? Where? How?
Was the activity justifiable, given the context of standards and outcomes?
.
ESL 151
Figure A8
Data Collection Matrix
Research Questions Data Data Data Other
Source #1 Source #2 Source #3

Did all teachers participate in the collaboration process?
Does activity measure language development?
Does activity measure academic development?
Did teachers reflect on this methodology?
What do you want to learn from this research?
What did you like or not like?
Was the activity practical?
Did students actively participate in the activity?
Did students participate in discussions?
Did students’ motivation change?
Were students absent?
Did parents participate in activities?
Did students complete assignments at school?
Did students complete assignments at home?
APPENDIX B
UNIT TWO:
CURRICULUM INTEGRATION
Note. From Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education, by J. A. Beane,
1997, New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Copyright 1997 by James A. Beane. Adapted with
permission.
Duration: Two Weeks

Theme: Changes - Past, Present, and Future
Concept: Dinosaurs
Grade Level:
skills, and concepts being taught.
linguistic levels in mind when planning this unit. Remember, LEP students may lack the
meaning words, textual clues, realia, pictures, and various grouping, modeling, demonstrations,
and scaffolding, and various reading materials for the different levels of reading.
Steps:
1. Collaborate planning with students. Ask students these two questions: What questions or
concerns do you have about yourself? What questions or concerns do you have about the
world? Record on chart paper (See Figure B1).
2. Once students have generated their questions or concerns, group concerns into organized
centers or themes for both self and world questions. Ask questions such as, "Why did the
space shuttle explode?” "Are dinosaurs real?" and "Why don't dinosaurs live anymore?" (See
Figure B2).
ESL 153
3. Students vote on what activity is taught first.
4. Plan the unit by creating the lessons that address students’ questions and concerns that were
generated in step 2. See Figures B3 and B4.
5. Teachers then develop a flexible schedule that includes a selected period. Schedule planning
and time-lines are also important aspects. In this study, the time frame is a two week period.
When the teacher selects a period, it is imperative they keep in mind the following factors:
students' interests, attention spans, the availability of resources, and reading materials, and
curriculum guidelines. They should be prepared to monitor students’ interest levels and
modify accordingly.
6. Implement theme and activities. Monitor students' progress and understanding; schedule,
teach lessons and facilitate. Journals are kept; stories, articles, poems, are discussed; projects
are created.
7. Check for understanding; evaluate using authentic means (See Figure B5 and Figure B6).
8. Reflect upon your unit (See Figure B7).

ESL 154
Figure B1
Student Generated Sample Planning Worksheet
Self Questions World Questions
Note. From Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education, by J. A.

Beane, 1997, New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Copyright 1997 by James A. Beane.
ESL 155
Figure B2
Curriculum Integration Lesson Sample Organization Chart
permission.
Student Questions Activities (Align with Standards and Benchmarks)
Materials Needed:
Comments:
ESL 156
Figure B3
2.
Knowledge
Self Social
1. Theme 3.
Democracy
4.
Note. From Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education, by J. A.

Beane, 1997, New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Copyright 1997 by James A. Beane.
1. Personal knowledge: addressing self-concerns and ways of knowing

about self.
2. Social knowledge: addressing social and world issues, from peer to
global relationships, and ways of critically examining them;
3. Explanatory knowledge- content that names, describes, explains, and
interprets, including that involved in the disciplines of knowledge as well
as commonsense or popular knowledge.
4. Technical knowledge- ways of investigating, communicating, analyzing
and expressing, including many of the skills already promoted in schools.
(Beane, 1997, 49-50)
ESL 157
Figure B4
Name _________________________ Date ______________________________
Creating an Curriculum Integration Unit

Use this thematic unit rubric as you create a curriculum integration unit. This was designed to help you to
produce quality instructional units designed to thoroughly integrate learning and meet the needs of your
linguistically diverse students.
Title of Unit

Score
1 2 3 4
Theme • No theme • Some • Theme is • Theme is clear
evident attempt at a evident • Purpose of unit
• Purpose is theme is • Most is clear
unclear evident bust disciplines
mostly are included
unclear
• Various
discipline
connections
are weak
Concept • No focus • Focus • Focus • Focus question
Questions question question is question is is broad,
too specific broad but global
• Focus not • Focus question
question necessarily encourages
oriented to real-world exploration
one oriented • Focus question
discipline applies to real-
world issues
Objectives objectives objectives objectives integrate all
listed lack inter- based on disciplines
• Unit not age disciplinary standards • Objectives
appropriate approach • Objectives encourage
• Activities written in higher order
are age measurable thinking skills
appropriate terms
Materials & • Textbooks • A variety of • Inclusion of • Students are
Resources serve as sole print sources non-print encouraged to
resource are made resources is locate
available to encouraged resources
students • Coordinatio independently
n among • Use of web
ESL 158
team resources is
members appropriate
• Allocates and effective
resources
effectively
• Activities • Activities • Activities • Activities
Activities are not focus on are project provide for
clearly knowledge oriented multiple
defined level of • Activities intelligences
• Students are Bloom’s draw upon • Activities
required to Taxonomy several encourage
simply • Students are disciplines creative
restate facts not provided expression and
a choice in problem
activities solving
• Activities can
be student
originated
Evaluation • No evidence • Assessment • Assessment • Students are
of is conducted is a encouraged to
evaluation only at the continuous self-assess
for students culmination processes their
or for the of the unit throughout participation
unit • Assessment the unit and
focuses on • Assessment performance
student criteria are • Peer
performance developed assessment is
with student utilized with
input group
• Assessment activities
correlates • Team
with unit members share
objectives perceptions
throughout the
unit and
modify as
necessary
ESL 159
Figure B5
Student Curriculum Integration Unit Sample Evaluation
Name: ____________________________ Date: ________________________
Theme: ____________________________ Concept(s): ___________________


ESL 160
Figure B6
Curriculum Integration Instruction Sample Reflection Questions for Teachers

development?
styles?
backgrounds?
school curriculum?
teacher?

ESL 161
Figure B7
Data Collection Sample Matrix
Curriculum Integration Unit

permission.

Does activity measure academic development?
APPENDIX C
UNIT THREE:
CROSS-CURRICULAR THEMATIC INSTRUCTION PLANNING PROCESS
Duration: Two Weeks

Theme: Changes- Past, Present, Future
Concept: The Farm
Grade Level:
skills, and concepts being taught.
linguistic levels in mind when planning this unit. Remember, LEP students may lack the
meaning words, textual clues, realia, pictures, various grouping, modeling, demonstrations, and
scaffolding. All concepts should be considered for the various reading materils aimed at the
different reading levels.
Steps:
1. The teacher selects an overall theme relevant to their students’ interests. The theme may
be selected from the District’s standards. This selection affirms the theme will be relevant
to, interesting to students, while also being meaningful and substantial. The theme must
be able to make connections with content areas and language arts (See Figure C1).
2. Teacher then chooses key concept(s) that will guide instruction around theme. These
concept(s) can be found in grade-level specific standards. Once themes are determined,
the goal is to select tasks that encourage students to investigate, speculate, and problem-
ESL 163
solve, asking questions that enable them to explore other topics more fully. Key concepts
for a theme should provide a clear focus for all instruction and learning. The key concept
will guide all activities and lessons, and the reading selections will emerge naturally from
it. It is expected that by the end of the theme that all students will begin to internalize,
build upon, and transfer this key concept to their own lives (See Figure C1).
3. Create a large KWLH chart, complete and post in classroom (See Figure C2).
4. From questions generated from the KWLH chart (See Figure C2). Teachers next identify
skills and strategies to be taught (See Figure C1). This is a critical step within cross-
curricular instruction in which the skills and strategies become the means for developing
reading and writing abilities, rather than the end result of the thematic study. Specific
skills, such as comparing and contrasting, can be taught through structured and carefully
planned mini-lessons or through more interactive lessons for those students requiring in-
depth teaching. Skills will be taught within the context of a story and theme, not in
isolation.
5. Teachers will identify a range of appropriate resources to be used in the unit of study (See
Figure C3). This should be done by completing a web for planning the unit. During this
time, cross-curricular connections will be determined and a variety of reading materials
and contextually embedded activities are identified. Teachers should list names of books,
narrative and expository literature, real world texts, and poetry to assure they are included
in order to give students diverse reading experiences. Narrative and expository literature
anchor the theme, both for student reading and teacher read-aloud. Real world texts such
as magazines, brochures, and maps are valuable resources. During this stage of planning,
teachers should contact district or school specialists, public library resources, expert --
ESL 164
guest speakers; they may also schedule relevant field trips. Other reading materials
include thematic related books which are not textbooks, but from the popular press.
6. Teachers then develop a schedule that includes a selected timeframe. Schedule planning
and time-line is also important. In this study, the timeframe is a two-week period.
However, themes may take a day, week, or month in which all subjects of the curriculum
revolve around the theme. When the teacher selects a period, it is imperative they keep in
mind several factors: students' interests; attention spans; the availability of resources and
reading materials; and curriculum guidelines. They should be prepared to monitor
students’ interests and modify the instruction accordingly.
7. Develop activities.
8. Develop appropriate evaluation techniques.
9. Implement theme and activities. Monitor the following: students’ progress and
understanding; the schedule. The teacher implements the lessons, and facilitates learning.
Journals are kept; stories, articles, and poems are discussed; projects are created. Minds
are challenged by engaging students in reading and writing, in discussing and
researching, in creating and generating their own ideas.
10. Check for understanding by completing KWLH chart (See Figure C2).
11. Evaluate (See Figure C4 and Figure C5).
12. Reflect upon your unit (See Figure C6 and Figure C7).
ESL 165
Figure C1
Cross-Curricular Thematic Instruction Planning
Writing
ELD
Activity:
Activity:
Literature Math
Activity: Activity:
Theme: Change
Past, Present, and Future
Concept: Farm
Art, Music
Science
P.E.
Activity:
Activity:
Social
Studies:
Activity:
ESL 166
Note. From “Cross-curricular thematic instruction,” by M. E. Vogt, 1997, Retrieved May 5,

ESL 167
Figure C2
Cross-Curricular Thematic Instruction
Brainstorming KWLH Chart
K W L H
What We Know What We Want to Learn What We Learned How We Find the
Information to Learn
ESL 168
Figure C3
Teacher Check List Planning for Cross-Curricular Thematic Instruction

1. Examine, Brainstorm, and Select Themes

Make lists of possible themes, using:
Curriculum guides
Internet Sites
Textbooks
Interest inventories from students and community
Other teachers
Other sources
2. Identify the Most Important Content Area Concepts

Brainstorm ideas for themes
Discuss themes
Elaborate on topics and subtopics
Eliminate some topics as less useful, less important, less interesting
Divide into subtopics
Develop subtopics
Evaluate subtopics
3. Identify the Skills to be Emphasized

Write objectives
According to grade/age level
According to content area
Language/literacy proficiency
Technology use
Other identified needs
Incorporate content into thematic unit
Examine State, Local, and National Standards & Curriculum
Examine curriculum guides and textbooks
Examine scope and sequence charts/lists
Basic skills and language skills
Other sources
Develop a hierarchy of concepts and skills to be covered
Prioritize objectives
Examine review procedures for previous and subsequent units
4. Identify Teaching Strategies & Activities

Select teaching strategies appropriate for
Grade/age level
ESL 169
Content
Language and cognitive development
Cultural and ethnic background
5. Gather Materials
Brainstorm/Determine materials which best exemplify concepts
Select from a wide range of materials
Textbooks
Internet Resources
Library books (at a variety of levels)
Magazines and newspapers
Audiovisual materials (Video Clips and Cassette Tapes)
Guest speakers
Field Trips
Other sources
Purchase thematic pre-made materials only as a last resort!
Develop a system to share materials such as creating a web site
6. Write Lesson Plans/Unit Plan

Develop plans that incorporate the:
Concepts
Skills
Various materials
Informal and formal assessment activities
Apply taxonomy of instructional questions/structures (e. g. Bloom, Hunter)
Develop lesson-cycle structures such as
Theme
Focus & Goal of Unit
Day & Discipline
Teaching Objective(s)
Materials
Other Sources
Student Expectations/Goals
Presentation Strategies & Activities
Guided Practice Activities
Independent Practice Activities
Self-selected Activities
Enrichment Activities
Review/Pre-teach Activities
Assessment/Evaluation
Comments:
ESL 170
Figure C4
Creating a Cross-Curricular Thematic Instruction Unit

Use this thematic unit rubric as you create a cross-curricular thematic unit. This was designed to help you
to produce quality instructional units designed to thoroughly integrate learning and meet the needs of your
linguistically diverse students
Title of Unit

Score
1 2 3 4
Theme • No theme • Some attempt at • Theme is evident • Theme is
evident a theme is • Most disciplines clear;
• Purpose is evident bust are included • Purpose of
unclear mostly unclear unit is
• Various clear
discipline
connections are
weak
Concept • No focus • Focus question is • Focus question is • Focus
Questions question too specific broad but not question is
• Focus question necessarily real- broad,
oriented to one world oriented global
discipline • Focus
question
encourages
exploration
• Focus
question
applies to
real-world
issues
Objectives objectives objectives lack objectives based on integrate
listed inter-discipline standards all
• Unit not age approach • Objectives written disciplines
appropriate • Activities are age in measurable • Objectives
appropriate terms encourage
higher
order
thinking
skills
Materials & • Textbooks • A variety of print • Inclusion of non- • Students
Resources serve as sole sources are made print resources is are
resource available to encouraged encouraged
ESL 171
students • Coordination to locate

among team resources
members allocates independen
resources tly
effectively • Use of web
resources
is
appropriate
and
effective
Activities • Activities • Activities focus • Activities are • Activities
are not on knowledge project oriented provide for
clearly level of Bloom’s • Activities draw multiple
defined Taxonomy upon several intelli-
• Students are • Students are not disciplines gences
required to provided a choice • Activities
simply in activities encourage
restate facts creative
expression and
problem solving
• Activities
can be
student
originated
Evaluation • No evidence • Assessment is • Assessment is a • Students
of evaluation conducted only at continuous are
for students the culmination processes encouraged
or for the of the unit throughout the unit to self-
unit • Assessment • Assessment criteria assess their
focuses on developed with participatio
student student input n and
performance • Assessment performanc
correlates with unit e in the
objectives unit
• Peer
assessment
is utilized
with group
activities
• Team
members
share
perceptions
throughout
the unit
and modify
as
necessary
ESL 172
Figure C5
Student Cross-Curricular Thematic Instruction Unit Sample Evaluation
Name: ____________________________ Date: ________________________
Theme: ____________________________ Concept(s): ___________________


ESL 173
Figure C6
Cross-Curricular Thematic Instruction Sample Reflection Questions for Teachers

development?
styles?
backgrounds?
school curriculum?
teacher?

ESL 174
Figure C7
Data Collection Sample Matrix
Cross-Curricular Thematic Instruction Unit

Does activity measure academic Development?
APPENDIX D
LEP STUDENTS’ LANGUAGE LEVELS DEFINED
A Level 1 student, or DPI Level 1, is the pre-productive stage. The student will often use
their home language to communicate. When people around these students speak a different
language than the students, many respond by ceasing to speak entirely, due to frustration.
Students go through this period of not talking, which may be brief or it can last up to a year.
Though they are not speaking in English at this time, they are absorbing the language; they will
attempt to communicate through non-verbal gestures or mimes. At some point, students quit
speaking in their native language because no one will respond to them in their first language.
These students should not be subjected to standardized assessments due to their limited English
ability. If testing is required, these students should have accommodations and/or perhaps should
use alternative (authentic) assessments to determine their academic progress (IPT, 2000;
Wisconsin DPI, 2002a, 2002c).
A Level 2 student, or DPI Level 2, is in the early-productive stage. In this stage, students
are basically nonverbal. Their speech is still not fluent but telegraphic. Students in this stage use
simple sentences in English, such as isolated words and expressions. They use short phrases like
“Go bathroom!” and “Drink water!” This is the period in which students begin to “crack the
code” of their second language. During this stage, LEP students are at an emergent level of
reading and writing in English. During this stage, LEP students should not be administered
standardized assessments without accommodations. The use of alternative assessments to
determine their academic progress is appropriate (IPT, 2000; Wisconsin DPI, 2002a, 2002c).
ESL 176
A Level 3 student, or DPI 3, is in the speech-emergence stage. The students have
“playground” language (or speech). People will hear Level 3 students speaking English on the
playground and think they are fluent English speakers, but they are not fluent. Non-ESL teachers
will also question why students are placed in the SEI program when they are apparently speaking
English well. This is the first form of English that LEP students learn, and it is classified as
“survival” English. These students know enough language to get by with their peers, yet they
may not have the full capabilities to understand academic language, which is formally tested.
Students at this level are considered post-emergent as they develop reading comprehension and
writing skills in English. Their English literacy skills allow them to demonstrate academic
knowledge in content areas as long as they have the assistance to do so. It is in this stage of
language development that the use of standardized assessment becomes controversial. Some
States have declared students ready for standardized assessments with or without
accommodations at Level 3. To increase students’ success, students at this stage should be
allowed accommodations (IPT, 2000; Wisconsin DPI, 2002a, 2002c). At Level 4-5, students are
transitioned out of the SEI classroom into the English mainstreamed classrooms. Therefore, there
are no Level 4, 5, or 6 students in this research study.

An Examination of English As Second Language Teachers Integrating Their District's Curriculum

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Examination of English As Second Language Teachers Integrating Their District's Curriculum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN EXAMINATION OF ENGLISH AS SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHERS

INTEGRATING THEIR DISTRICT’S CURRICULUM

© Patricia Alvara, 2004

strategically collaborated, discussed, selected, implemented, adapted, analyzed, and reflected

classrooms in order to maximize student involvement and learning. By uncovering particular

to seek better ways to teach and reach new heights in education.

List of Tables vii

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 5

Statement of the Problem 7

Purpose of the Study 8

Significance of the Study 14

Assumptions and Limitations 14

Nature of the Study 15

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 17

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 19

Cross-Curricular Thematic Instruction 45

Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies 52

Unit One: Interdisciplinary Curriculum 65

Unit Two: Curriculum Integration 66

Unit Three: Cross-Curricular Thematic Instruction 67

Validity and Reliability 68

CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 71

Reliability and Validity 74

Discussion of Data: Question 1 75

Discussion of Data: Question 2 82

Discussion of Data: Question 3 86

Summary Findings 102

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 104

Summary and Discussion 104

Limitations of the Study 115

Final Thoughts and Comments 120

Appendix A Unit One: Interdisciplinary Curriculum 136

Appendix B Unit Two: Curriculum Integration 149

Appendix C Unit Three: Cross Curricular Thematic Instruction 159

Appendix D LEP Students’ Language Levels Defined 171

Table 1: General Rules for Interpretations 73

Table 2: Identified Themes/Trends Obtained from Reflective Journals 78

Table 3: Breakdown of Identified Themes/Trends by Participants 80

Table 4: LEP Students’ Preferred Instructional Activities 85

Table 5: Side-by-Side Unit Comparison of LEP Students Overall Performances 94

Table 6: Side-by-Side Unit Comparison Gender Differences and Overall 96

Table 7: Side-by-Side Unit Comparison of DPI Language Levels and 98

Introduction to the Problem

decades, America’s classrooms have undergone an unmistakable metamorphosis” (Friedlander,

or more different native language backgrounds (Short, 1998).

population that represented over 25 languages” (The District, 2003, p. 1).

the following: “program inconsistencies, lack of standards and/or curriculum guidelines,

assessments with their standards (ELLKBase, 2004; OCR, 2000).

English proficiency necessary to succeed academically is an arduous process. Collier and

helps eliminate students’ feelings of alienation.

connections, learning is merely a fragmented and irrelevant acquisition of isolated facts”

Krashen, 1981, 1985; Short, 1998; Wolfe, 2001).

This study explored “thematic instruction” (or “integration of the curriculum”) as a

as they strategically collaborated, discussed, reflected, analyzed, selected, implemented, and

Background of the Study

Freeman, 2002; Garcia, 1991; Henderson & Landesman, 1992).

Statement of the Problem

In order to be successful, the ESL teachers in this study prescribed to a unified

and problem-solving skills.

Purpose of the Study

participant teachers utilized three thematic instructional approaches: (a) interdisciplinary

simple pencil and paper mathematical problem (Wolfe, 2001).