• Teacher A: Children who do not speak/read/communicate English should not be put into regular science courses until they achieve a degree of language competency. It was not fair to the children. We should not be lowering standards to accommodate non-English [learners]. We should not be assessing on a different standard. Are we restructuring our educational program for illegal immigration?

  • Teacher B: I have been extremely impressed with [student’s name] effort to do well in my class in spite of any language difficulty and lack of previous knowledge. She has consistently come to me for extra help when needed and has never missed an assignment.

  • Teacher C: My problem with ESL [English as a Second Language] students is their lack of any education in their country.

  • Teacher D: My ESL students often lead the class-I know I get the best of the group by the time they get to my class and they always do [work] above the class average.

The above excerpts, from four high school science teachers who participated in this study, illustrate the multiple views science teachers hold of English language learning (ELL) students and their perceptions of the needs of their ELL students. While teacher A expressed his/her frustration regarding mainstreaming of ELL students into regular science classes, teacher B realized that teaching ELL students is very rewarding. As teachers C’s and D’s contradictory comments indicated, ELL students are a diverse group such that some ELL students perform above average in science, while some ELL students enter US school systems with below average competencies. Teacher C’s view also points to misconceptions many teachers may hold about ELL students. ELL students’ lack of appropriate schooling experience in their home countries can be a more of hurdle than their lack of English language skills per se. These varying needs of ELL students and high school science teachers’ corresponding frustrations have been complicated by illegal immigration issues and magnified by the accountability movement.

With the passage of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (No Child Left Behind [NCLB] 2001), academic success is increasingly being measured by standardized exams in a variety of content areas, such as math, social studies, and science (Darling-Hammond 2004). In many states, these high-stakes tests play a crucial role in making decisions about promotion, graduation, and placement. As of 2007, 25 states required exit exams in at least English and mathematics for high school graduation (National Center for Education Statistics 2008). For instance, in Virginia, the high school diploma is awarded to students who pass a minimum of six state-mandated standardized tests. This policy is a barrier for many low-achieving students including ELL students when they seek employment and postsecondary education.

It is reported that public schools in central Virginia have experienced increases in their ELL student population that range from 300 to 600% (Virginia Department of Education 2007). Current immigrant populations tend to settle in nontraditional immigration areas due to the increase of employment opportunities requiring low-skills and education (e.g., meat processing, carpet manufacturing, and farming). As such, Hispanic population growth has been burgeoning in the South and Midwest where there was limited immigration history in the past decade (United States Department of Agriculture 2008). For this reason, it is less likely that these nontraditional immigration areas would have established supportive infrastructure for immigrant children’s educational needs. Central Virginia, where this study took place, faces a similar issue in that public schools and teachers are not prepared to accommodate this fast growing ELL student population appropriately. Thus, in this article we report findings of a study on how high school science teachers in this region work with ELL students and the challenges and needs they face in regard to teaching ELL students in inclusive settings.

English Language Learning Students in High Schools

Current policies such as NCLB (2001) dictate that ELL students demonstrate language and academic proficiency in content areas such as math, science, social studies, and English within a short period of time after their attendance in US school systems (e.g., 1 year in Virginia). These policies are contradictory because the Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research strongly suggests that it takes 5–7 years or even longer for average ability ELL students to achieve standard grade-level performance (Collier 1987; Cummins 1981, 1986, 1996). Unfortunately, many schools respond to this gap by placing ELL students in low academic tracks (see Fu 1995; Fu and Graff 2008; Harklau 1994, 1999). Academic tracking, as opposed to its well-intended meaning, has been reported to result in more disparity between high-academic achieving and low-academic achieving students. Tracking tends to contribute to a lower quality of education for students of color, English language learners, and students of low socio-economic status. Further, decreased expectations of administrators and teachers as well as students’ low self-esteem as a result of being in lower level classes exacerbate students’ already low academic status (Lewis 2007; Oakes 2005). On the other hand, it was reported that ELL students who were mainstreamed felt marginalized within the classroom (Fu and Graff 2008; Harklau 1994; Sharkey and Layzer 2000). Either way, these students are neither exposed to a grade-level academic curriculum nor are they given the special assistance that they need to achieve grade-level academic proficiency. Accountability policies, which largely ignore SLA research, call on all teachers and administrators to academically prepare this culturally and linguistically diverse group of students. Yet little is known regarding how high school teachers work with ELL students in science classrooms to ensure their academic success.

Collier (1987) identified several major variables that affect ELL students’ academic success in K-12 schools. These variables are the students’ age of arrival, length of residence in the United States, grade of entry into US schools, first literacy skills, formal education background, family’s educational and socio-economic background, and students’ former exposure to Western/urban life styles. Specifically, ELL students’ prior schooling experiences in their home countries turned out to be the most significant factor in their academic success in the US (Thomas and Collier 2002). ELL students are strikingly diverse, displaying a wide array of competencies in English language and content knowledge. Among these diverse ELL student groups, high school students are a particularly vulnerable population for several reasons. Second language acquisition, in general, becomes more difficult as students get older (Lenneberg 1967; Scovel 1988). In addition, the science curriculum includes a large amount of content-specific vocabulary, and assumes extensive background knowledge. Collier’s (1987) comparison of the standardized test scores of different age groups of ELL students showed that arrivals at ages 12–15 experienced the greatest difficulty compared to their counterparts aged 8–11 and 5–7, respectively. The data from Virginia’s Standards of Learning (SOL) exams supports Collier’s findings. For our population of students, ELL students’ SOL passing rate in secondary schools averaged 20% lower compared to all students tested.Footnote 1 Given these findings, high school ELL students need specialized support specific to each content area while they are learning English.

Science and English Language Learner Instruction

Second language acquisition research consistently confirms that ELL students should have access to quality academic content simultaneously while they are learning English (Chamot and O’Malley 1994; Echevarria et al. 2004; Gibbons 2002). ELL students can learn the language more effectively when English instruction is combined with content knowledge than they can in language-only classes (Chamot and O’Malley 1994; Echevarria et al. 2004) because content-area classrooms present the English language in a more meaningful and authentic context (Chamot and O’Malley 1994; Gibbons 2002). In particular, science was recognized as a subject that ELL students can learn more successfully within a short period of time compared to the other subjects such as English and social studies. English and social studies contain more culturally specific knowledge and abstract ideas than science. Sophisticated reading and writing skills are also demanded in English and social studies (Becker 2002; Echevarria et al. 2004). Science, on the other hand, is considered relatively easier for ELL students for the following reason: “…many concepts in science are concrete, require little prior cultural knowledge, and can be taught using a hands-on approach (through lab experiments and demonstration)” (Becker 2002, p. 74). Additionally, collaborative and small group lab work or inquiry-based tasks provide students more opportunities to communicate in various ways that promote academic English language proficiency (Lee 2005). Many science terms are rooted in Latin or Greek. Latin-rooted words can benefit native Spanish-speaking ELL students (Hampton and Rodriguez 2001). Some of the examples are carnivore (carn-flesh), aquarium (aqua-water), dormant (dorm-to sleep), tactile (tact-to touch), and nocturnal (noct-night).

Despite the claims that ELL students may be somewhat at an advantage in science classrooms as addressed above, science education is not a culturally neutral practice because the underlying practices assume socialization in the culture of Western science (Lee 2005). Lee (2005) further postulated:

Research on culturally congruent instruction suggests that when students are not from the “culture of power” of the dominant society (e.g., Western science), teachers need to make that culture’s rules and norms explicit and visible, so that students learn to cross cultural borders between their home and school (p. 506).

Thus, science instruction should be adjusted to the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students.

Making science accessible to all students regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity should be the foundation for all science education. Current science education standards documents such as the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council 1996) and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (Rutherford and Ahlgren 1990) advocate the use of scientific inquiry as a strategy for making science more accessible. The use of inquiry-based instruction has been shown to support student’s language learning as well as critical thinking skills (Valadez and Freve 2002). Despite its seeming positive aspects, the inquiry process may frustrate students with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds because of their lack of language skills and unfamiliarity of asking questions, investigating, and reporting results using science language (Fradd et al. 2001; Lee 2005). Further, students in some cultures are not encouraged to raise questions and they tend to defer to teachers on knowledge and skills. Therefore, Lee (2005) suggests, “Teachers may move progressively along the teacher-explicit to student-exploratory continuum, to help students learn to take the initiative and assume responsibility for their own learning” (p. 506).

Instructing students in the process of inquiry is a progressive endeavor requiring teachers to increase students’ autonomy over time. Inquiry-based instruction should be designed based on students’ needs and their level of skill with the inquiry process (Eick et al. 2005; National Research Council 1996). It is suggested that teachers begin with structured inquiry activities and move students to open inquiry. According to the National Academy of Sciences (2000), inquiry teaching and learning have five essential features: (1) engaging in scientifically oriented questions, (2) giving priority to evidence in responding to questions, (3) formulating explanations from evidence, (4) connecting explanations to scientific knowledge, and (5) communicating and justifying explanations (p. 50). For instance, ELL students can be given templates for creating questions, and formulating explanations. In doing so, teachers facilitate students’ acquisition of English language skills and academic knowledge.

The reality of teacher-ELL student verbal interactions, however, can be quite different according to Verplaetse’s (1998) study. Her analysis of teacher talk in secondary science classes showed that teachers tended to interact differently with ELL students compared to native English-speaking students. The teachers in the study tended to tell the ELL students what they were supposed to do rather than to ask questions. They also used simpler yes-no questions than high-level thinking questions. For example, ELL students were asked: “Are you going to glue that here?” or “Do you understand what I’m talking about up there?” while native English-speaking students were asked: “Give me an example in science when a hybrid was created?” or “What is this evidence of?” (Verplaetse 1998, p. 27). The teachers in Verplaetse’s (1998) study were concerned that it might be taking too much time to elicit ELL students’ responses and/or did not want to embarrass ELL students with challenging questions. As a result, ELL students were provided very limited opportunities to engage in science discourse thus decreasing the opportunity to co-construct knowledge.

Chamot and O’Malley (1994) identified common language skills that are considered as process skills in science such as describing, making predictions, reporting, explaining, and summarizing both in oral and written forms. Multiple modes of communication such as drawings, charts, tables, graphs, and models are also recommended for use in science classes. The level of vocabulary and structure of sentences are more complex as the grade level increases. Aside from specialized vocabulary, the structure of scientific prose often consists of a long subject with a passive voice like the following: “Growing a new plant from a part of another plant is called vegetative propagation.” This may cause difficulty in comprehending science text for those ELL students who are used to narrative text and active prose. In order to discern readability of science text, we additionally conducted a brief analysis of a secondary biology text authored by Johnson and Raven (1996) using Microsoft Word tools. The result evidenced that the level of readability does not match the stated grade level. The readability of the biology text was 12.0, indicating 12th-grade reading level although biology is usually taught in 9th or 10th grades. It is probable that the highly specialized vocabulary, above-grade readability level, and unfamiliar inquiry-based science instruction challenge ELL students as mentioned earlier. A logical approach to this challenge for ELL students is to integrate science with literacy instruction to enhance their English language skills along with academic knowledge. This can be done by carefully designing instruction with attention to ELL students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Amaral et al. 2002).

In order to promote science literacy skills and science learning regardless of students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds, teachers’ awareness, implementation of hands-on activities and discovery learning, and creation of science environment is crucial (Fradd and Lee 1995). However, Fradd and Lee (1995) discovered that there is a discrepancy between urban schoolteachers and suburban schoolteachers in their knowledge and skills of promoting “science for all” largely caused by different availability of and access to equipment, consumable materials, and field trips. Since ELL students tend to be concentrated in urban and rural schools, this lack of resources for science may be a negative contributing factor in their learning.

Another critical aspect to promote ELL students’ science learning is teacher professional development. Well-designed professional development programs could serve to increase teachers’ skills in instructing ELL students but there is limited research specific to science at the secondary-level in this area. Teacher education intervention programs such as science literacy training programs assisted in changing teachers’ perceptions and practices regarding ELL instruction (Hart and Lee 2003). However, the authors argue, “Although teachers expressed more elaborate and coherent conceptions of literacy in science and provided more effective linguistic scaffolding in the spring as compared to the fall, they require continuing support to actually implement reform-oriented practices” (p. 494).

Notably, most research on ELL student literacy in science was conducted at elementary schools (see Lee 2005). Little research has been documented at high school levels, particularly concerning ELL students’ science education. Thus, the following study focused on high school science teachers in a region where specifically designed content-area ESL instruction is virtually nonexistent.

The Study

The purpose of the study was to explore high school content-area teachers’ challenges and needs specific to their growing ELL student population. The six ESL-center high schools in which this study focused were located in a central Virginia metropolitan area. This metropolitan area included urban and suburban communities. As earlier noted, immigrant influx is relatively recent in this area and therefore, the public school system has little experience with ELL students. Although some schools have infrastructures to support elementary ELL students, little to none exist at the secondary level. While the increase of ELL population is steep ranging from 300 to 600%Footnote 2 in the past 10 years, the numbers in each school are still relatively low. The total number of ELL student population in the six school districts as of 2007 was 5,172, which is 3.45% of the total student population. Due to constraints of resources, schools with less than 5% of ELL student population have difficulty in offering sheltered ESL-content classes such as ESL-science in which ELL students receive special assistance with English language while learning science (Becker 2002). As a result, regular classroom teachers who have not been specifically trained to instruct ELL students are now required to provide instruction.

To explore these issues, this study employed a quantitative survey research design. Surveys are usually the preferred mode of data collection when gathering information about a specific sample population (McMillan and Schumacher 1997). The questionnaire contained 13 Likert-scale questions and one open-ended question (see “Appendix”). The questionnaire focused on (1) strategies used by science teachers to accommodate ELL students’ special needs, (2) challenges they experienced, and (3) support and training necessary for effective ELL instruction. Individual questions were developed based on research in ESL education (Becker 2002; Gibbons 2002; Echevarria et al. 2004; Fu 2004; Penfield 1987; Sharkey and Layzer 2000; Youngs and Youngs 2001). The choices for types of challenges and accommodations in the survey questionnaire stemmed from Reeves’ (2004) classifications of curricular, instructional, and procedural accommodations. These previous studies which were basically qualitative designs, guided developing the survey questions of this study. Thus, this survey study is technically exploratory rather than aiming to test hypotheses or to discover correlations.

The survey was administered at the six ESL-center high schools in the spring of 2006. The entire teaching staff at the faculty meetings of each school was solicited to participate in the survey. We collected the questionnaires either at the end of faculty meetings and/or the following day. The returned questionnaires totaled 211, which included teachers of other subjects (e.g., 42 math teachers, 34 social studies, 50 language arts/English teachers, and 50 other teachers). Thirty-three science teachers from that population chose to participate in the study.

Background Information of the Science Teachers

Among the 33 science teachers, 29 held a primary licensure in a science content area, two of them had licensure in math, and two of them did not indicate their primary licensure. One teacher had an endorsement in ESL and two teachers in special education. The years of teaching experience varied, ranging from less than 1 year to more than 25 years. However, a majority of the respondents had less than 10 years of teaching experiences (72.7%). While 39.4% of the science teachers were English monolingual, about 9.1% of the teachers indicated that they were bilingual. Half of the respondents (51.5%) had learned a foreign language previously but were not proficient enough to communicate effectively in that language.

Results

Analysis of the data revealed the specific challenges the teachers encountered, accommodations made, and the support necessary when instructing ELL students. In this section, we will discuss the results of this study in comparison of previously published studies.

In terms of challenges, teachers indicated that the most significant issue was ELL students’ language barriers followed by their lack of foundational content knowledge. Regarding ELL students’ lack of foundational knowledge, it has been reported that ELL students’ prior content knowledge varied depending on their exposure to science content through their formal schooling experience in their home countries, which affects ELL students’ science literacy skills in their second language (Collier 1987, 1989; Thomas and Collier 2002). The teachers’ response in this study suggested that a majority of the ELL students they worked with had not held grade-level science knowledge. As a result, teachers were further challenged in dealing with lack of science content knowledge in addition to language issues of ELL students.

Almost half of the teachers reported that lack of time and resources also challenged them. Although science instructional materials and experiments play a critical role in making science content more accessible for all students including ELL students (Echevarria et al. 2004), not all schools provided sufficient science instructional materials (see Fradd and Lee 1995). Because of standardized curricula and high-stakes tests, teachers also often expressed that there was little time left for scientific experiments because of the amount of content they need to address within limited class time. In a survey study conducted by Belden Russonello & Stewart Research and Communications (2000), the majority of science teachers felt that students were learning less because of state-mandated academic standards. This finding may be related to the teachers’ perception that more time spent on test preparation meant less time devoted to laboratory experiences. A decrease of laboratory experiments particularly for ELL students may lead to less comprehensibility to science concepts. As addressed earlier, the reason that science content can be more accessible to ELL students lies in abundance of hands-on activities and demonstrations, which typically can be manifested through laboratory experiments.

Interestingly, teachers responded “cultural differences” as least challenging with only 9.1%. Yet, Lee’s (2005) meta-analysis demonstrates that teachers and schools have different communication and interaction patterns than those of minority students. This discrepancy between teachers’ perceptions in this study contradicts the Lee’s meta-analysis in regard to the significance of cultural differences in the science classrooms. This may indicate the low level of awareness by the teachers of the role that culture plays in classroom interactions. Specifically, expectations of school and teachers, conventions of asking questions and providing answers, asking for help, participating in discussions, and group activities may vary from culture to culture. While cultural practices in schools can have a critical impact on ELL students’ academic engagement and adjustment, culture is often overlooked by pressing linguistic and academic needs of ELL students. The teachers’ low response rate to this specific question may reflect this (Table 1).

Table 1 Three biggest challenges experienced with instructing ELLs
Full size table

The teachers indicated that they made various accommodations for their ELL students (see Table 2). The most prevalent accommodation made by the teachers was allowing ESL students additional time to complete tasks. About 56.3% of science teachers indicated that they “always” or “often” allowed ELL students to have extra time in completing tasks. Adjusting speech rate to aid ELL students understanding is the second most frequently adopted strategy. Grouping ELL students to help each other was the third strategy that many teachers used either “sometimes” or “often”. Thus, allowing extra time, adjusting speech rate, and grouping/paring ELL students were most frequently used strategies among teachers.

Table 2 Practices used when working with ELLs
Full size table

In contrast, providing different tasks and assignments, different instructional materials, and grading/assessing differently were the least adopted accommodations. Teachers “never” or “rarely” provided different tasks/assignments. It is possible that allowing ELL students extra time and adjusting speech rate do not require much effort or increase workload on the teachers’ part. It is, however, the other types of accommodations such as providing different instructional tasks and assignments that may place greater demand on teachers who already have a host of instructional and non-instructional duties. Providing supplementary instructional materials to assist ELL students to comprehend science concepts better has a close connection to the availability of school resources, which teachers in this study may not have. Another reason for teachers’ lack of accommodation in these areas is that teachers may not know how to adjust instruction, instructional materials, assignments and tasks for ELL students. Teachers also reported that they “never” or “rarely” graded ELL students differently. The proposition of assigning different grades or assessing ELL students differently may cause some controversy, making teachers feel uncomfortable or even confused (see Reeves 2004). Grading reflects teacher’s philosophy and their sense of autonomy. For these reasons, we do not specifically delve into grading issues in this paper. Reiss (2005), however, makes practical suggestions that secondary content-area teachers can employ for ELL students especially in constructing classroom-based tests and assignments. Another strategy that teachers could employ but rarely do is consulting with ESL teachers. Almost half of the respondents in this study “never” or “rarely” consulted with ESL teachers. It is quite surprising that communication with ESL teachers, who are their in-house experts for instruction of ELL students, had occurred very little. In general, teachers’ use of very limited accommodations indicates that there is a need for targeted professional development.

When the science teachers were asked what type of support they would like to receive (see Table 3), a majority of the respondents indicated “bilingual instructional materials” as “important” or “very important.” A number of studies suggest using students’ first language to assist their comprehensibility of complex academic content knowledge (Becker 2002; Echevarria et al. 2004; Echevarria and Graves 2007). The underlying rationale behind making the most of students’ first language is that students should not lose opportunities to learn science concepts at the expense of English language learning. In this regard, the teachers’ wish to provide bilingual instructional materials resonates with the suggestions of prior SLA research. The second most important support that teachers indicated turned out to be professional development training. Existing research (Reeves 2004; Penfield 1987) reported that content-area teachers had little to no training for working with ELL students. However, a number of studies (Hargreaves 2003; Lieberman and Miller 1999) suggest professional development programs connected to teachers’ interests, needs, and prior knowledge instead of “one-shot”, top–down workshops and seminars. There is, however, very little in the literature about what types of professional development training content-area teachers would like to receive or need specific to ESL instruction. Thus, the following analysis discusses teachers’ specific needs related to ESL training program.

Table 3 Type of support preferred to effectively teach ELLs
Full size table

The data in Table 4 shows science teachers perceptions of the type of professional development that would be most effective to increase ELL students’ academic achievement. The majority of the teachers indicated that training in ESL instructional strategies as “very important” or “important.” This result had the least variability in terms of importance as indicated by the low standard deviation score. More than half of the teachers also rated training in second language development and learner variables “very important” to “critical” range followed by how to assess or grade ELL students and cultural understanding. The mean scores in these three areas displayed very little differences, indicating teachers value all of them almost equally. While language training was perceived as least important among the choices, the larger standard deviation (1.126) points to widely varying opinions among the group regarding language training.

Table 4 Professional training desired for working with ELLs
Full size table

It is noteworthy that there is a discrepancy between what teachers perceived to be challenging (see Table 1) and what they perceived to be important training (see Table 4) with regard to culture. As noted earlier, teachers indicated cultural difference as least challenging (9.1%). To the contrary, the response rate (mean = 2.52) in cultural understanding as a professional development training component indicates teachers’ somewhat ambivalent attitudes toward the role of culture in working with ELL students. On another note, awareness of cultural differences in instructional settings is necessary because, education itself is a cultural practice, which may not favor students with diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Educational practices such as learning strategies, participation in classroom discussions, interactions between teachers and students, and parental involvements can vary depending on ELL students’ cultural backgrounds (Cummins 1986; Reid 1998; Valdés 1998). Given the professional development needs indicated by the science teachers, it is necessary to develop inservice training that include ELL instructional strategies, understanding second language development, learner variables, and cultural differences.

Conclusions

This study explored the challenges that high school science teachers experience, instructional accommodations they make for ELL students, and needs they have in working with ELL students in their classrooms. Ideally, ELL students should have full access to appropriate curricula taught by qualified teachers using suitable instructional resources that match each student’s language and grade level to ensure academic success. However, it is an unfortunate reality that many schools cannot provide such support (e.g., bilingual instructional materials, sufficient time, and specific guidelines). Further, a very limited number of teachers received pre or inservice training related to teaching ELL students. As the results of the study showed, teachers were challenged due to ELL students’ limited language and lack of foundational content. Yet, they did not know how to accommodate the special needs of ELL students other than providing extra time. Similarly, previous studies imply that teachers’ frustrations often originate from their feelings of helplessness and doubt about ELL students’ ability to catch up with grade-level content (Penfield 1987; Reeves 2004). The results of this study also indicate the importance of instructional strategy training that would help teachers meet ELLs’ needs more effectively. Finally, we argue that serving the needs of this growing population and helping them to be academically successful is the shared professional responsibility of all teachers. It is not a just theory for researchers, but must be a classroom-level practice by all teachers.

Limitations of the Study

While this study provides a general understanding of challenges, practices, and needs of high school science teachers in working with ELL students, this study has several limitations. The results of the survey provide limited in-depth understanding of teachers, school contexts, and ELL students due to the limited survey question items and options. Thus, some speculations were made based on the literature rather than on empirical evidence in interpreting the data. The number of participants in this study was too low for one to make generalizations to the larger secondary science teacher population. Furthermore, the contexts of ESL education vary in different regions, depending on state policies for ESL education, immigrant communities, and ELL student population of individual schools (Becker 2002). As the immigrant population in the region of the study evolves, needs of the content-area teachers will change accordingly.

Another limitation of this study is the lack of differentiation in the science subjects and levels of science classes. Science teachers may experience different challenges and needs based on specific subjects such as biology, earth science, physics, and chemistry. Within each science-specific subject, teachers must also navigate the challenges inherent when instructing students with differing abilities. Additionally, teachers may have ELL students with varying English language proficiency and content knowledge, resulting in different challenges and needs. Nonetheless, this study sheds light on the issues relevant to high school science teachers and ELL student instruction. Further, the implications of this study for inservice science teacher professional development are of great importance.