Vol 11 No 3 - May 2015

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:1694-2493
e-ISSN:1694-2116IJLTER.ORG
Vol.11 No.3

PUBLISHER
London Consulting Ltd
District of Flacq
Republic of Mauritius
www.ijlter.org
Chief Editor
Dr. Antonio Silva Sprock, Universidad Central de
Venezuela, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Editorial Board
Prof. Cecilia Junio Sabio
Prof. Judith Serah K. Achoka
Prof. Mojeed Kolawole Akinsola
Dr Jonathan Glazzard
Dr Marius Costel Esi
Dr Katarzyna Peoples
Dr Christopher David Thompson
Dr Arif Sikander
Dr Jelena Zascerinska
Dr Gabor Kiss
Dr Trish Julie Rooney
Dr Esteban Vázquez-Cano
Dr Barry Chametzky
Dr Giorgio Poletti
Dr Chi Man Tsui
Dr Alexander Franco
Dr Habil Beata Stachowiak
Dr Afsaneh Sharif
Dr Ronel Callaghan
Dr Haim Shaked
Dr Edith Uzoma Umeh
Dr Amel Thafer Alshehry
Dr Gail Dianna Caruth
Dr Menelaos Emmanouel Sarris
Dr Anabelie Villa Valdez
Dr Özcan Özyurt
Assistant Professor Dr Selma Kara
Associate Professor Dr Habila Elisha Zuya
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research
The International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research is an open-access
journal which has been established for the dis-
semination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
field of education, learning and teaching. IJLTER
welcomes research articles from academics, ed-
ucators, teachers, trainers and other practition-
ers on all aspects of education to publish high
quality peer-reviewed papers. Papers for publi-
cation in the International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research are selected
through precise peer-review to ensure quality,
originality, appropriateness, significance and
readability. Authors are solicited to contribute
to this journal by submitting articles that illus-
trate research results, projects, original surveys
and case studies that describe significant ad-
vances in the fields of education, training, e-
learning, etc. Authors are invited to submit pa-
pers to this journal through the ONLINE submis-
sion system. Submissions must be original and
should not have been published previously or
be under consideration for publication while
being evaluated by IJLTER.

VOLUME 11 NUMBER 3 May 2015
Table of Contents
English-Medium Content Courses: Student Approaches and Strategies to Increase Comprehension Levels ..........1
Darrell Wilkinson
The Realities of Reconstitution: A High School‟s Tale ...................................................................................................17
Todd Cherner
Introducing Productive Pedagogies to Nigerian Mathematics Classroom through Collaborative Action Research
Using a Community of Practice Approach........................................................................................................................ 41
Dr. Iliya Joseph Bature, James Jonah Jackson, Aramide Kemi, Danladi Remkyes Shol and Nengak Sabo
Blended VS On-Campus Learning: A Study of Exam Results in the Bachelor Degree in Nursing............................ 59
Bjørg F. Oftedal, Kristin H. Urstad, Venche Hvidsten and Brynjar Foss
Dealing with Mixed-language Abilities in an English-Medium University Content Course ....................................69
Natalie Close
Supporting Cooperative Learning with Technological Tools......................................................................................... 78
Asst. Prof. Dr. Ayşe Derya IŞIK and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gizem SAYGILI
Video Annotation for Effective Feedback and Reflection on Micro-Lessons in a Collaborative Blended Learning
Environment to Promote SelfDirected Learning Skills....................................................................................................88
C.P. van der Westhuizen
Application of Contextual Learning to Improve Critical Thinking Ability of Students in Biology Teaching and
Learning Strategies Class .................................................................................................................................................. 109
Hasruddin, Muhammad Yusuf Nasution and Salwa Rezeqi

1
© 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 1-16, May 2015
English-Medium Content Courses: Student
Approaches and Strategies to Increase
Comprehension Levels
Darrell Wilkinson
Soka University
Tokyo, Japan
Abstract. Taking English-medium content courses is very challenging
for speakers of English as a foreign language, and various factors
contribute to the difficulty including the rate of speech that the lectures
are delivered at, the technical vocabulary used, and the fact that the
content itself is often difficult to comprehend in the native language let
alone in a foreign language. This research investigates first-year
Japanese university students‘ perceptions of one such course delivered
at a private university in Tokyo. The strategies and approaches that
students use in order to successfully understand and take part in an
English-medium economics course are also examined. Qualitative
research methods including observations, interviews, surveys and
document checking were used to investigate the research questions.
Data analysis showed that students found it difficult to understand the
course content, especially the spoken component of the lectures, but
used a number of strategies and approaches to increase comprehension.
However, the participants showed a preference for the use of pre-
prepared outlines, and pre and post-class peer discussions to better
understand the course content. The results can serve as a guide for
anyone involved in foreign language-medium content course design,
especially teachers who wish to offer specific support to students
enrolled on such courses.
Keywords: content-based instruction; student strategies; English-
medium instruction; language integrated learning
Introduction
In recent years there has been an increasing trend amongst universities
worldwide to offer content courses in a second language (Dale, 2012; Miichi,
2010; Pinner, 2013; Yamano, 2013). This teaching approach was first defined by
Krahnke (1987) as content and language integrated learning (CLIL), which he
describes ―as the teaching of content in the target language with little or no
explicit effort to separately teach the language itself.‖ (p. 2). This trend has also
gained significant popularity in the Japanese university context recently, with
over 190 Japanese universities offering English-medium content courses in 2008

2
(Miichi, 2010). The number of these types of courses further increased as a result
of Japanese Education Ministry initiated programs such as the Global 30 project
implemented in 2009, which resulted in an additional 150 courses being offered
nationwide, and the Top Global University Project from 2014 (Wilkinson, 2015).
The research project discussed in this paper came from an interest born out of a
number of years of involvement with one such course in a private Japanese
university in Tokyo. In the faculty of economics at the above mentioned
university, students enrolled on a specific program receive a great deal of
English skills training in order to not only improve their general English
proficiency, but also to help them successfully take a number of English-medium
economics content (CLIL) courses. All students are expected to come prepared,
actively contribute to the course, and pass tests designed around the content.
Preparation for the courses includes reading the chapters to be covered in the
lecture a number of times, producing outlines of the chapters, and discussing the
content with their peers in adjunct academic English classes. During the lectures,
students are expected to take part in group discussions as well as occasionally
providing answers to the lecturer‘s questions to the whole class. These English-
medium content courses not only offer students an interesting learning
environment, but also provide an effective method of consolidating and
improving both their economics knowledge and English proficiency. In addition,
the program aims to provide learners with the skills needed to study abroad or
work in international contexts (Aloiau, 2008). Based on experience, it seemed
clear that while understanding university-level content in English was very
challenging for the students, they did a very admirable job. Therefore, this paper
aims to shed light on the students‘ perceptions of (a) the English-medium
content courses in general, (b) the materials and activities adopted to improve
comprehension of the lectures, and (c) to discover the strategies that they used to
successfully understand the lectures and complete the course requirements.
Content and Language Integrated Learning: A brief Overview
As this teaching approach has been gaining popularity, especially in recent
years, there are a lot of guidelines available for CLIL teachers regarding
curriculum and materials design, for example, using visual aids, clearly
organizing the content, and providing chances for peer support (Coyle, 2008;
Dale and Tanner, 2012; European Commission, 2012). There is also a growing
body of empirical research in support of CLIL, with many researchers citing
evidence that a CLIL approach is effective in teaching both the content and
target language (Coyle, 2008 and 2006; European Commision, 2012; Johnson &
Swain, 1997; Lasagabaster, 2008; Richards and Rodgers, 2001; Snow, Met and
Genessee, 1989; Yamano, 2013). However, as Marsh (2002) and many of the
authors mentioned above point out, the cognitive burden involved in trying to
understand course content in an second language (L2) can cause significant
challenges to students in CLIL courses. Gaining sufficient levels of
comprehension is seen as major hurdle for learners studying content in an L2,
with issues such as vocabulary, speed of speech, and text difficulty being
common challenges faced by students. Therefore, while there seems to be well
documented benefits of adopting a CLIL approach, it also clear that such an

3
approach is challenging for learners, and they are therefore likely to need
specific skills training and support if they are to be successful.
Skills and Strategies used with CLIL
Although there has been vast amounts of research on listening in a second
language, and some research carried out regarding the difficulties students
experience with L2 medium content lectures, there is still a need for further,
research. With regard to L2 lectures, research to date has largely focussed on the
common features that exist in lectures such as naturally paced, lengthy, and
complex spoken texts (Coulthard & Montgomery, 1981; DeCarrico & Nattinger,
1988; Montgomery, 1977; Murphy & Candlin, 1979; Olsen & Huckin, 1990;
Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). Some studies have examined what strategies
students use to help increase comprehension and overall success, with note-
taking, vocabulary study, and revision of content materials being common
approaches (Benson, 1989; Flowerdew & Miller, 1992, 1995; O‘Malley, Chamot
and Kupper, 1989). The authors above have suggested that by structuring
content lectures in a consistent way, and by providing learners with clear visual
materials, lecturers can put learners at ease, and improve comprehension.
However, the skills required in CLIL courses are very different to those needed
in the language classroom, and some characteristics of CLIL courses which
present specific challenges include issues such as the content rich nature,
extended discourse, technical vocabulary, the speed of speech, and the large
student numbers (Coyle, 2008; Dale & Tanner, 2012). Furthermore, while more
and more language teachers are adopting an increasingly student-centred
approach, CLIL courses by nature, are much more teacher-centred or led. In
addition, common features often seen in language classes such as simplification
of language and materials, reduced speech rates, and controlling the length of
texts and spoken passages (Nation & Macalister, 2009; O'Malley, 1989;
Widdowson, 2010) are traditionally not features of content courses. In traditional
teacher-fronted lectures, content information is delivered at more natural speech
rates, and discourse blocks are quite long; often lasting for several minutes at
least. Therefore, the skills and strategy training that students need for success in
taking CLIL courses may be very different than those commonly offered in
language courses.
Gaps in the Literature
As mentioned, much of the research has been aimed at providing content
teaching professionals with guidelines on which instructional materials can be
designed, for example, by choosing texts carefully, simplifying or annotating
texts, utilizing visual materials, structuring classes and content clearly, and
offering cooperative learning activities (Coyle, 2008; Dale and Tanner, 2012;
European Commission, 2012). However, while some of the literature deals with
specific activities or materials used by students in CLIL courses (Davidson, 2005;
Loranc-Paszylk, 2009; Reiss, 2005; Wolf, 2005), there is surprisingly little
qualitative data available on the topic. In addition, how learners perceive the
activities which feature in this study, for example, outlining of content chapters
used in the lectures, and using peers as a resource are not given specific focus.

4
With regard to outlining, this is a widely recommended activity or strategy to
increase comprehension of reading materials, and while there have been some
positive results reported in studies examining the effects of outlining on
listening comprehension, most studies focused on outlining in the L1, and used
teacher-prepared outlines (Tsubaki & Nakayama, n.d.). However, the process
involved in outlining; reading the texts numerous times, looking up unknown
vocabulary, identifying and organizing main points and supporting details, and
then producing an outline which can serve as a guide during the lectures seems
likely to be very beneficial, if not simply as a result of the time-on-task involved.
However, as stated, little empirical research-based support is currently available,
and students‘ perceptions of outlines as a means to gaining higher
comprehension levels of lecture content delivered in an L2 remains unexamined.
Also, while the benefits of peer support have been noted by many, for example,
Adapa (2015); Hattie (2009) and Topping (1996), student perceptions of peer
support in a CLIL specific domain remain unexamined. Therefore, how often
learners seek out peer support, and how they perceive its importance for
successfully taking English-medium content courses is another area for which
more empirical data is needed.
In summary, there is little qualitative data providing insights into (a) how
materials such as those mentioned above are perceived by learners, (b) the extent
to which students use peers for support, or (c) what specific actions students
take to improve their comprehension in CLIL courses.
Aims of the Study
This study aims, through observation, interviews, surveys, and artefact
checking, to identify which types of materials and strategies students find most
beneficial, and why students make the choices they make. While there is some
qualitative data available examining what learners think about CLIL courses (see
Coyle, 2006, for a review of case studies), no studies examining the strategies
that students utilize, or materials that they prefer to use in order to overcome the
challenges of understanding university-level content in a foreign language could
be found. Therefore, this paper aims to offer some relevant and new insights into
Japanese learners‘ experiences and choices regarding content courses delivered
in a foreign target language. It is hoped that the data gathered as part of this
research will help highlight the type of skills training, both language and non-
language related, that students find beneficial, as well as identifying what
materials and strategies students find useful. It is felt that the insights gained
from this research will be of benefit to anyone involved in designing or teaching
CLIL courses, especially at the university level.
Research Questions
1. What aspects of CLIL courses do students perceive as most challenging?
(vocabulary, speed of speech, content complexity etc.)
2. Which materials and strategies do students adopt to overcome these
challenges?

5
3. What are the students‘ views of the effectiveness of these materials in
comprehending the lecture content?
Research Context
The International Program (IP) is offered to economics majors at private
university located in western Tokyo. According to Aloiau (2008), ―The IP is an
intensive English-medium economics program that provides academic
preparation for undergraduate and graduate study-abroad, and preparation for
students‘ future employment in international contexts.‖ (p. 108). The program
first develops student‘s English and study skills through academic English
language classes offered in the first semester, then continues this in the
subsequent three semesters while students also take economics content classes in
English. In this way, the program aims to systematically build the students
English writing, listening, reading, speaking, note-taking, and other skills which
they need to achieve their short-term and long term goals. These goals include
successfully studying economics in English in their current context, and then
studying abroad for one semester or academic year in their third or fourth years,
followed by working in international contexts (Aloiau, 2008).
In the adjunct English language classes, all students are given substantial
instruction and practice in making materials and using strategies that can help
improve their comprehension levels during the English-medium lectures. As a
result, all students come to the lecture having pre-read the chapter to be covered
a number of times, highlighting key points, and having drafted a detailed
outline of the chapter. These outlines are a mandatory part of the content
courses, and in the early stages students are required to make a number of
drafts. However, in the later stages, the number of required outlines is reduced,
and students are given more freedom in deciding on how many drafts to do. The
outlines, like the chapters themselves, are written in English, and while they are
drafted outside of class, students are given time to discuss them with their peers
in the English language classes. Students have also been instructed on, and given
practice at discussing challenging content with their peers.
Participants
The sample comprised of approximately 120 first-year Japanese university
students majoring in economics, who were also enrolled on the second semester
of the IP. The sample was made up of approximately equal proportions of
female and male students. At the start of the research, students had completed
one and a half semesters of intensive English training, but had taken only half a
semester of English-medium content courses. All students had a minimum
TOEFL ITP score of 440, and can be described as highly motivated.
Data Collection
Observations. The researcher set out to observe the students in a ‗real world‘
lecture environment. It was felt that observations were needed, because simply
giving students a survey, or carrying out interviews or focus groups alone
would not produce accurate, detailed or holistic information. The observations
took place in the main lecture theatre during the course of the content classes.

6
There was approximately 120 students in each of the lectures observed. Audio
recordings using a smart phone were taken and proved to be an invaluable asset
when analysing the data. As Hatch (2002) and Spradley (1980) both observe, the
level of participation, or participant positionality, is a key factor to think about
when planning observations. In this research context the researcher can be
classified as non-participant observer as he was neither a student nor teacher of
the class.
Interviews. It was felt that the data gathered from interviews would not only
triangulate the observation data, but would add further insights in the students
own words (see appendix 1 for the basic interview questions). Although it
would have been ideal to interview a large number students, only three students
volunteered. The interviews took place in a private office in the same building
where the lectures were held. This location was chosen by the participants who
were given a choice of the researchers‘ office, the library, or an on-campus
meeting room. The participants were used to this setting as they often came to
see their instructors in the same kind of office space and location.
Of the various types of interviews discussed by Hatch (2002) and Spradley
(1979), what has been termed as semi-structured interviews were chosen.
Although the researcher came to the interview with a number of guiding
questions, it was expected that new or extra information would come up which
would require asking unplanned follow up questions, or indeed to even follow a
whole new line of inquiry altogether. This actually turned out to be the case as
all of the participants provided information that had not been considered, and
the interviews went in somewhat unplanned, yet extremely interesting and
informative directions.
Surveys. A survey was administered to a convenience sample made up of the
students enrolled on the researchers EAP course, and consisted of 12 male and 9
female students. The survey (see appendix 2) aimed to add more data and
triangulate the information gained from the interviews.
Artefact Checking. Data was further triangulated by examining student-
produced materials such as outlines, lesson notes, and annotations of course
texts. The materials of all the students enrolled in the EAP class were collected
and analyzed repeatedly over the course of the semester. Students also brought
these materials to the interviews. This data enabled the researcher to see actual
strategies and approaches used, and to correlate this with the observation and
interview data. During the observation, it was possible to observe the students
using their annotated chapters, outlines, and teacher handouts. Then, during the
interviews, as participants referred to their use of such materials, the researcher
was able to have them produce these materials to show what they had just
described.
Data Analysis
Although the data analysis carried out in this study used inductive and
interpretive methods, the methodology probably best fits into what Hatch (2002)
describes as ―Typological Analysis‖, and involved ―dividing the overall data

7
into categories or groups based on predetermined typologies or headings‖ (pp.
152-161). These headings came not only from the relevant literature, but also
from contextual knowledge regarding the types of materials students had
available, the types of skills training they had been given, and an understanding
of some of the difficulties they faced based on previous casual conversations.
The basic steps carried out were based on the advice given by Hatch (2002,) and
can be described as follows:
1. Identifying typologies for analysis.
2. Transcribing the data, and then reading it while highlighting entries
relating to my typologies.
3. Looking for patterns, relationships and themes.
4. Rereading the data and coding it.
5. Deciding if patterns are supported by the data.
6. Writing patterns out in simple, sentence-level generalizations.
7. Selecting data excerpts that support my generalizations.
Findings
The interview excerpts and interpretations below do not represent all of the data
or findings gained from this research, but are concerned with some of the major
issues that were discovered relating to the research focus stated earlier.
1. Perceived difficulties
During the interviews and as part of the surveys, I first asked participants how
they felt about the course in general. All participants interviewed stated that the
course was difficult but also useful and enjoyable, something which was
mirrored in the survey responses. I then asked what in particular they found
difficult, and there were two clear commonalties in terms of their responses:
speaking speed, and answering questions. Some excerpts from the interviews
which show the participants‘ reference to this can be seen below. P1, P2 and P3
refer to the participant number and the three periods (…) represent a break in
the conversation such as pauses over two seconds, or comments not connected
to the area being discussed in this paper.
A. Professor’s speaking speed. All participants mentioned that they found the
lectures difficult; especially in terms of understanding the professor‘s spoken
content. These findings seem to correlate with much of the literature concerning
the difficulties in CLIL lectures.
P1: Understanding professor‘s speech difficult, is a little bit fast for me, it is
difficult.
I was really surprized because of high speed … In beginning I
understand only 40 to 50%.
P2: Her speaking speed is very fast! I sometimes don‘t understand. … maybe
understand 50% at beginning
P3: (teacher‘s name) speaks very quick, …, it is hard to hear, …, hard to
understand, … so quick.
According to the survey results, 80% of the students stated that the speed of
speech in the lecture was very quick and difficult to catch. Based on the

8
observations, the professor did not speak overly fast, and actually actively tried
to slow speech during difficult concepts or content. However, the speech was
delivered at a much more natural speed than many students may experience
with their peers or English teacher, and I also wonder if it is more connected
with the length of discourse blocks rather than solely speed of delivery.
B. Answering questions. Another area of perceived difficulty expressed by two
participants was concerned with answering questions in class.
P1: Professor asks some students questions about lecture or topic … it is
difficult for me … we must answer … Sometimes we must answer
quickly … content is difficult ... what to say, sometimes I am not
confident …many students in class so I get nervous.
P3: Answering questions to Professor is also very difficult for me. … It is so
nervous for me, so sometimes I cannot answer the questions, so, uh,
difficult …must think and answer in English quickly.
Before the observation, this was not initially one of my areas of focus as I was
unaware that students had to respond to teacher questions in front of the whole
class. It was also not an initial focus of the interviews, but after the first two
interviews I became interested in this issue and specifically asked the third
interviewee whether she had answered questions during the course. In response,
she stated that she had not been called upon, but was nervous about having to
do so in the future.
Again, the survey data correlates with the interviews; approximately 80% of
students stated that they found it very difficult to answer questions in class.
Many students mentioned the fact that they felt nervous answering questions in
English in front of the many students present in the content course. During the
observations, I was able to see students answering questions, and although they
did seem nervous, they were generally able to provide clear and thoughtful
answers to the questions posed, although the answers were more limited than
one would expect from participants doing the same in their native language.
2. Strategy Use
A. Use of pre-prepared materials. Before beginning this research, I was aware
that the students have a variety of pre-prepared materials to use in the class such
as outlines, highlighted and annotated text chapters, and teacher handouts.
However, to what extent, and how the students use these was unknown. The
specific questions asked included the following:
1. What do you do/use to help make it easier to understand the lectures?
How do you prepare for the lecture?
2. Which materials are most useful and why?
3. When do you use/refer to these materials?
4. Do you add notes/questions to your outlines/chapters etc.? If so, when,
where and why? In what language?

9
Although the participants did mention the use of textbooks and teacher
handouts, there was frequent reference from all participants to the use of
outlines, some of which can be seen below.
P1: I uh, usually look at outline, and try to find the answer, or connect
information there to allow me to give answer.
I make the outline, I uh, write 3 or 4 drafts.
I follow professor‘s speech on outline.
I write questions on outline about points that I don‘t understand.
I use outlines a lot for group discussions, I uh, I think many students do
same.
P2: I often look at outlines in class.
I use them (outlines) in lecture … and in group discussions.
Outlines help to follow lecture … outline points and professor‘s talk is
very similar … same order.
P3: The outline is good to understand the class.
I follow the class and make notes and questions on outline. … This is
good for me.
The fact that participants seem to value outlines highly, while not completely
surprising, is encouraging in my role as a teacher because students devote a
considerable amount of time to the drafting of outlines. Additionally,
participants also commented on how they use these outlines, and common
techniques such as making notes in the margins and writing questions about
areas they do not understand were mentioned. Due to space constraints, not all
of these excerpts have been included here. Again, observation and survey data
supports the interview data as during the observations I was able to see students
writing on their outlines, and just over 70% of students mentioned outlines in an
open question (what materials do you use to help understand the lecture?) on
the survey.
B. Use of peer Support. A surprising finding was the fact that students appear
to strongly appreciate, and actively seek, peer support. The reason this was
surprising was due to the fact that in my experience as an EAP teacher, students
have voiced a dissatisfaction, or lack of perceived value in peer activities such as
peer editing of writing, or oral feedback on presentations, something which has
been noted by authors such as Mangelsdorf (1992). The original questions posed
were ―What do you do/use to help make it easier to understand the lectures?‖
and ―Which materials or activities are most useful and why?‖. The interview
excerpts below highlight how participants appear to view peer support both in
and out of the classroom.
In class
P1: Group discussion is good. … I can ask the question to my friends. They
can help me if they know, uh, understand more than me
Speaking about economics in English with group member help me
understand what (professor) talked about
Everyone have different understand points, or not understand points, so
we can get different ... view points.

10
P2: I like group talking time … because I can get answers from other
students.
I can test my ideas … if my idea is OK or not, other student tell me.
P3: In group discussion time, we try to find … answer … together. … we talk
about main points
We have chance to discuss what she mention in class so far. … we talk
about main points, ask questions each other … it is good. Sometimes my
friends understand better than me so I can learn (from them).
It appears that participants‘ value the group discussion time as a valuable way
of gaining better comprehension of what they have just heard. It seems that the
participants understand that each student has differing levels of understanding
about the various points raised in the lecture, and that through discussion they
can improve their understanding by negotiating meaning together. These type
of issues are noted in a detailed meta-analysis carried out by Hattie (2009) and
the work carried out by Mangelsdorf (1992) amongst others. Based on the
observations, students seem to regularly refer to their outlines or notes during
discussions. The average results of a Likert scale survey question show that
overall students rate in-class discussions as very useful (4.2 out of 5).
Out of class
As can be seen from the interview excerpts below, the data seems to indicate that
students highly value and actively seek peer support outside of the class.
P1: Talking with friends in Japanese about content … talking about
economics with friends after class help me understand better.
We talk together before and after class, … review is good.
P2: I always talk with friends out of class.
When I do this (talk with friends outside of class) I always understand
I prefer talk to other students before talking to professor.
P3: Talk with friends after class is very good … I always try to do.
If have time, (I talk with friends) after class every time. … can get many
sides … many opinions. We have different understand points so (it) is
good. … I like talking with friends about class.
I speak to friends first. (before speaking to professor) They help me. It is
best, better for me. … After talk with friends I understand, almost all.
As mentioned above, this point was quite surprising to me as it seems to directly
conflict with students‘ feelings toward peer support, especially feedback in their
EAP courses. It can also be seen above that the participants indicated that they
prefer talking with classmates than to the professor, again this is different to my
own experience as an EAP instructor where many students talk to me after class,
or come to my office for advice. Due to the nature of the interaction above
(outside of class), I was unable to observe this in practice, but all students stated
on the survey that they regularly talk with other students in Japanese about the
course content. However, they also indicated that they rarely use English
outside of class to discuss the content, something that is a little disappointing as
their English teacher.

11
3. Which materials or strategies do participants most value?
The excerpts below show some of the participants‘ comments which indicate
that they seem to value outlines and peer support/cooperative learning as the
most useful tools or strategies to help them gain better comprehension and
success in their content course. Again, although the use of textbook, with
annotations, was mentioned as being helpful, there were fewer comments, and it
did not seem to rank so highly. Students also mentioned that they appreciated
being given a printout of the lecture slides, but based on the interviews and
observations, they did not appear to do an awful lot with these. In addition,
none of the participants mentioned any listening strategies that they use to help
gain better comprehension. Again, the observation and survey data previously
mentioned supports the interview data below.
A. Outlines
1: Very useful, uh most useful! After reading textbook, I understand maybe
50%, but after uh making outline, and discussing with classmates, I
understand much better, maybe 70-80%.
one time I was absent for 2 (EAP classes), so I only make one draft of outline,
uh, then in lecture I really, uh, really could not understand so much …so I
think outline is very useful.
P2. Outlines are best for me to follow professors‘ lecture points.
With outline, I can understand easily … Without outlines, I don‘t think I
could understand, uh success in class, uh, or test
P3: Outlining is very good. Uh, uh, after reading I understand, but um, not so
well. But after outlining and discussing with classmates I understand better.
I think without outlines, maybe I cannot follow class content. Outlines show
me main points … and make me read … and think many times … and think
about main …important points.
Although pleasing from an EAP teacher point of view, these finding are not
hugely surprising. This is because it stands to reason that if students spend
considerable time reading the textbook in order to write multiple outline drafts,
they should gain a good level of comprehension due to the time-on-task and
skills integration principles (Nation and Macalister, 2009; Romero and Barbera,
2001). However, based on the interviews and observations, it seems that outlines
not only help students to gain good comprehension of the content, but also serve
as a point of reference in the class. The outlines provide students with a basic
agenda, or a clear list of the main points that are being discussed in the lecture,
and being able to read, follow and annotate the outlines while listening to the
lecture seems to help the participants significantly.
B. Peer Support (Cooperative Learning )
P1: Without friends I cannot pass … friends help me with all … outlines and
questions.
P2: It (group discussion) is useful. … speaking about economics in English
with group member help me understand what (professor) talked about.
Everyone have different understand points, or not understand points, so
we can get different ... view points.

12
I can ask the question to my friends. They can help me if they know, uh,
understand more than me.
When I do this (talk with friends outside of class) I always understand.
P2: (talking with friends) is very useful …We have chance to discuss what
she mention in class so far. … we talk about main points, ask questions
each other … it is good. Sometimes my friends understand better than
me so I can learn (from them).
If have time, (I talk with friends) after class every time. … can get many
sides … many opinions. We have different understand points so (it) is
good. … I like talking with friends about class.
I speak to friends first. (before speaking to professor) They help me. It is
best, better for me. … After talk with friends I understand, almost all.
Then, I also ask friends about these points, uh, things I do not
understand, I can ask them.
Again, although the participants mentioned the benefit of textbooks, outlines,
and teacher handouts, when asked which activities, materials or strategies were
most helpful, cooperative learning or peer support was repeatedly referred to in
a positive light in both the interviews and surveys.
Discussion
The data collected so far, although limited in terms of sample size, has
highlighted a number of areas of interest, and has provided significant insights
into the challenges students face during English-medium content lectures within
the limited context discussed in this paper.
First, the findings that learners perceive the speed of the spoken lecture content
as one of the largest challenges is in line with previous literature concerning
both listening in a foreign language in general (Ghada, 2012; Griffiths, 1991;
McBride, 2011; Nation & Macalister, 2009), and in CLIL courses specifically
(Benson, 1989; Flowerdew & Miller, 1992; Reiss, 2005; Tsubaki & Nakayama,
n.d.). Even though it was clear from the observations that the professor had
purposely slowed down her rate of speech significantly, all of the participants
interviewed, and 80% of those who submitted the surveys, mentioned listening
as a major challenge.
Second, in this context, while small group discussions were incorporated into
the content courses, the students were sometimes required to answer questions
posed by the professor in front of the whole class. The students mentioned that
they felt pressured to answer quickly, presumably as they felt everyone is
waiting for them, and they intimated that talking in front of a large group was
very nerve racking. This highlights some of the challenges that may be posed by
the differences between content classes and language classes. While content
classes often contain a relatively large number of learners, and are relatively
teacher-centred (Flowerdew & Miller, 1992; Met, 1999) language classes usually
contain far fewer students and are more student-centred, with many activities
being based around pair or small group work (Nation & Macalister, 2009).

13
In terms of which strategies and materials students find most useful to help
them, students repeatedly cited the perceived effectiveness of self-created
outlines. The use of outlines was identified many times in the space of the
interviews, and open ended survey responses also highlighted the positive view
of outlines as a tool for gaining a better understanding English-medium content.
In addition, students‘ use of outlines was observed during the observations, and
after examining the participants‘ actual outlines, it was evident that they were
using them effectively during the classes. Tsubaki & Nakayama (n.d) reported
positive quantitative listening comprehension gains in a CLIL course as a result
of outline usage, and the qualitative data provided in the current study offers
further support for outlines as an effective method of increasing comprehension
in CLIL environments. It appears that the cyclical nature of the drafting process,
the skills integration (reading, writing, speaking and listening), and the
considerable time-on-task are important factors (Romero and Barbera, 2001;
Loranc-Paszylk, 2009; Nation and Macalister, 2009). While outlines were clearly
perceived positively, it also appears that the participants see the benefit of
having multiple sources of information including textbooks, teacher hand-outs,
and lecture slides as discussed by Dale and Tanner (2012), Flowerdew and Miller
(1992), and Guerrini (2009).
Another point which was raised a number of times by the participants was the
value placed on peer support or collaborative learning. It appears that the
participants very much value their peers as resources, which is to say that they
feel their peers can help them gain much better comprehension levels and a
deeper understanding of the content. Again, this is in line with previous
research discussed by Hattie (2009) and the work carried out by Mangelsdorf
(1992) and Topping (1996).
Limitations and Future Directions
As mentioned, the data collected is very limited, therefore, while this study has
unearthed some interesting data and findings, a much larger number of
observations, interviews and artefact collection and analysis is needed. Future
observations, interviews and surveys, preferably carried out in a variety of
English-medium content course contexts, would offer much more data
regarding how students perceive such courses, and what materials and
strategies they find most useful for success in content courses delivered in a non-
native language. Within the current context, by carrying out a larger
longitudinal study, tracking students as they move through the various courses
over a three to four year period, much more detailed and holistic data could be
collected regarding perceptions and strategy use.
Conclusion
As seen above, some interesting initial findings have been generated concerning
CLIL courses. The participants in this study confirmed that listening to content
lectures in a second language is difficult, especially due to the rate of speech.
They also showed strong preferences and positive attitudes for the use of self-
prepared materials, namely outlines, and seeking out peer support in order to
overcome the challenges they faced during the courses. However, in order to get

14
a more detailed, holistic, and clearer picture of what is going on in this particular
context, more observations, interviews, surveys, and artefact analysis needs to
be carried out. In addition, in order to fill a gap in the literature, more qualitative
research in the field of CLIL is needed to shed more light on students‘
perceptions and strategy use in a wide array of contexts.
References
Adapa, S. (2015). Integrating Teaching Resources and Assessment Tasks to Enhance
Student Experience. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research, 10(4), 28–39.
Aloiau, E. K. W. (2008). The Design of the International Program English Curriculum.
The Soka Economic Studies. 37, March 2008. 107-127.
Benson, M.J. (1989) The academic listening task: a case study. TESOL Quarterly,
23/3:421-445.
Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL—A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In
Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1200-1214). Springer US.
Coyle, D. (2006). Content and language integrated learning: Motivating learners and
teachers. Retrieved from http://blocs.xtec.cat/clilpractiques1/files/2008/11/
slrcoyle.pdf on May 14, 2015.
Coulthard, M. and Montgomery, M. (1981) The structure of monologue. In M. Coulthard
and M. Montgomery (eds.) Studies in Discourse Analysis pp. 31-39.
Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL Activities with CD-ROM: A Resource for Subject and
Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Davidson, C. (2005). Learning your lines: Negotiating language and content in subject
English. Linguistics and Education, 16(2), 219-237.
DeCarrico, J. and Nattinger, J.R. (1988) Lexical phrases and the comprehension of
academic lectures. English for Specific Purposes 7:91-102.
European Commission (2012). Content and language integrated learning. European
Commission for Languages, Retrieved 18 May, 2015 from
http://ec.europa.eu/languages/language-teaching/content-and-language-
integrated-learning_en.htm
Flowerdew, J. and Miller, L. (1992) Student perceptions, problems and strategies in
second language lecture comprehension. Regional English Language Centre
Journal, 23(2), 60-80.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1995). On the notion of culture in L2 lectures. TESOL
Quarterly
29 (2), 345-373.
Ghada Abdulmoneim Ibrahim, G. A. (2012). The impact of speech rate reduction
techniques on the listening comprehension performance of Egyptian high school students.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The American University in Cairo, Cairo,
Egypt.
Grabe, W. and Stoller, F.L. (1997). Content-based instruction: research foundations. In
M.A. Snow & D.M. Brinton (eds.), The content-based classroom. White Plains,
NY: Longman. 5-21.
Griffiths, R. (1991). Speech rate and listening comprehension: Further evidence of the
relationship. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 385-395.
Guerrini, M. (2009). CLIL materials as scaffolds to learning. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D.
Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. Frigols-Martin, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.),
CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 74-84). University of Jyväskylä.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. London: Routlege

15
Johnson, R. K., & Swain, M. (1997). Immersion Education: International Perspectives.
Cambridge University Press.
Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teaching.
New York: Prentice Hall.
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign Language competence in content and language
integrated courses. The Open Applied Lingustics Journal, 1, 31-42.
Loranc-Paszylk, B. (2009). Integrating reading and writing into the context of CLIL
classroom: Some practical solutions. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 47-
53.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the
students think?. ELT journal, 46(3), 274-284.
Marsh, D. (2002). Content and Language Integrated Learning. The European
Dimension. Jyväskyla:University of Jyväskyla Press.
McBride, K. (2011). The effect of rate of speech and distributed practice on the
development of listening comprehension. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24,
131-154.
Met, M. (1999). Content-based Instruction: Defining Terms, Making Decisions.
National Foreign Language Center, Washingon D.C
Miichi, K. (2010, 7, 17). More colleges offer courses taught in English. The Asahi
Shimbun. Retrieved October, 25, 2010, from
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201007160463.html
Montgomery, M. (1977) Some aspects of discourse structure and cohesion in selected
science lectures. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Birmingham.
Murphy, D.F. and Candlin, C.N. (1979) Engineering lecture discourse and listening
comprehension. Practical papers in Language Education 2:1-79. Lancaster:
University of Lancaster.
Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2009). Language curriculum design. Routledge.
Olsen, L.A. and Huckin, T.N. (1990) Point-driven understanding in Engineering lecture
comprehension. English for Specific Purposes 9:33-47.
O'Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U. and Kupper, L. (1989) Listening comprehension strategies
in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 10/4:418-437.
Pinner, R. (2013). Authenticity of Purpose: CLIL as a way to bring meaning and
motivation into EFL contexts. In Robertson, P. and Adamson, J (Eds). The Asian
EFL Journal Special Edition: CLIL in Asian Contexts: Emerging Trends, 15 (4), 8-35.
December 2013.
Reiss, J. (2005). Teaching content to English language learners. Strategies for secondary
school success. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Romero, M., & Barberà, E. (2011). Quality of e-learners‘ time and learning performance
beyond quantitative time-on-task. The International Review of Research In Open
And Distance Learning, 12(5), 122-135.
Sinclair, J. McH and Coulthard, R.M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse: the
English used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Topping, K.J. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education:
A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education, 32 (3), 321-345.
Tsubaki, M. and Nakayama, K. (n.d.). The Effect of Using Outlines as an Advance
Organizer on EFL Students‘ Listening Comprehension of a Lecture. TUJ
Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 14. Accessed on May 20 from
http://www.tuj.ac.jp/tesol/publications/working-papers/vol-
14/tsubakietal.html
Widdowson, H.G. (2010). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford

16
University Press.
Wilkinson, D. (2015). Educational Reforms and Development in Japan: Language and
Culture Education for Global Competitiveness. International Journal of Higher
Education Management (IJHEM), 1 (2), 1-11. February 2015.
Wolff, D. (2005). Approaching CLIL, in Project D3 - CLIL Matrix - Central workshop
report 6/2005, Graz, Austria: European Centre for Modern Languages, 10-25.
Yamano, Y. (2013). Utilizing the CLIL Approach in a Japanese Primary School:
A Comparative Study of CLIL and EFL Lessons. In Robertson, P. and Adamson,
J (Eds). The Asian EFL Journal Special Edition: CLIL in Asian Contexts: Emerging
Trends, 15 (4), 8-35. December 2013.
Appendices
Initial Interview Questions
1. What are you overall impressions/feelings about your lectures?
2. What is the most difficult part of the lectures?
3. What do you do/use to help make it easier? How do you prepare for the lecture?
4. Which materials are most useful and why?
5. Do you add notes/questions to your outlines/chapters etc.? If so, when, where
and why? In what language?
6. How do you feel about the discussions?
7. How do you feel about reporting to your professor (in front of whole class)?
8. Do you use the materials during these times?
9. Do you ever ask questions to the teacher?
10. What other things do you do to help you better understand the lecture content?
Survey Items
1. What are your overall impressions of the class?
2. What do you find most difficult in the lectures?
3. What do you do/use to help make it easier? How do you prepare for the lecture?
4. How do you feel about answering questions in front of the whole lecture class?
5. Which materials or activities are most useful and why?
6. How useful do you find the in-class discussions in helping you better
understand the course content?
Not at all useful Very useful
1 2 3 4 5
7. How often do you discuss the lecture content with other students outside of
class in English?
Never Sometimes Every Week
1 2 3 4 5
8. How often do you discuss the lecture content with other students outside of
class in Japanese?
Never Sometimes Every Week
1 2 3 4 5

17
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 17-40, May 2015
The Realities of Reconstitution:
A High School‟s Tale
Todd Cherner
Coastal Carolina University
Conway, South Carolina, United States
Abstract. During the first decade of the 21st century, the number of US
schools required to restructure according to the policies of the No Child
Left Behind Act increased annually. In response, educational researchers
worked to identify best practices for school restructuring; however, they
were unable to find a single set of effective strategies. Instead, they
recommended that strong school leadership and sustained school
improvement reforms are used. To illustrate the multitude of challenges
restructuring schools face, this article uses narrative to chronicle Tyson
Douglas High School‟s experience. The narrative takes readers through
the school‟s first year of restructuring and provides them with test score
data for the following two years to show the effectiveness of its
restructuring. Because Tyson Douglas High School‟s restructuring did
not increase student achievement significantly, the author concludes by
presenting a research-based alternative strategy for school restructuring.
Keywords: School Restructuring; Education Reform; English Teachers;
Education Policy; Reconstitution
Introduction
There were 3,558 U.S. schools required to restructure during the 2009-2010
school year because of low student achievement on high stakes accountability
tests (Hassel et al., 2010; US Dept. of Commerce, 2011). Two years later, that
number more than doubled to 7,643 schools required to restructure (US Dept. of
Education, 2012). Were it not for the federal government issuing state waivers
from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act‟s (ESEA) accountability
system (US Dept. of Education, 2013), that number would have continued to
grow annually (Alexander, 2006; Hess & Gift, 2009).
During the accountability era of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) that
preceded the issuing of accountability waivers from ESEA, a school that posted
low student achievement marks on high stakes accountability tests for five or
more consecutive years was required to restructure, and researchers have spent
a considerable amount of energy working to identify best practices for school

18
restructuring (Center for Comprehensive School Improvement and Reform,
2009). Though time, effort, and money have been used to analyze best practices,
researchers are yet to identify a specific set of strategies that will guarantee a
school successfully restructures (Brady, 2003; Newman & Wehlage, 1995; Scott,
2006). Rather, they have identified that using multiple, sustained reforms to
restructure a school will likely be more effective to improve student achievement
quickly and significantly than employing a single, comprehensive strategy, so
long as there is strong leadership to guide the restructuring (Arkin & Kowal,
2005; Brady, 2003; Hess & Petrilli, 2007; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Steiner, 2005).
However, the education policy proposed in the Blueprint for Education Reform
(BER) and supported by President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education
Arne Duncan through their Race to the Top competitive grant program and
issuing of accountability waivers from ESEA does not reflect these findings (US
Dept. of Education, 2011). Instead, the BER continues to support NCLB-era
school restructuring strategies (Cherner, 2011), and one of these strategies
educational stakeholders oppose is the school “turnaround” model. In what
follows, I first explain the process of school turnaround and offer critiques of it.
Next, I present a case study of school turnaround to exemplify why it is such a
layered, complicated, and overall ineffective school restructuring strategy. I then
close by offering an alternative school restructuring strategy.
Background: The Process and Critiques of School Turnaround
The concept that a low performing school can be “turned around” to improve
student performance is not a new idea (Hess, 1991; Newman & Wehlage, 1995),
and Brady (2003) outlined four common steps schools take as part of a
turnaround process. First, a school must be identified as underperforming based
on its student achievement as documented by students‟ high stakes test scores.
Second, decision makers at the state and district levels select the school
turnaround strategy and grant permission to begin reconstitution.
“Reconstitution is the term generally used for the school restructuring approach
that features the removal of incumbent administrators and teachers (or large
percentages of them) and… [replaces them] with educators who presumably are
more capable of improving school performance” (McKeon, 2009, p. 2). As
reconstitution starts, the entire school‟s staff – including teachers,
administrators, and support personnel – is given notification that they no longer
have jobs at the school once the school year ends. However, if they would like to
remain working at the school, they are invited to reapply for their jobs. Third,
the school‟s leadership team is usually replaced, and new school leadership is
recruited. Finally, once in place, the new leadership team begins selecting the
teachers and other staff members they want to return to the school and hires
replacements for those who were not asked to return. At this point, the school‟s
new leadership team begins implementing other school reforms – such as
revising the curriculum, overhauling the school‟s governance structure, and
providing professional development (PD) to teachers among other possible
reforms – with the goal of increasing student achievement. Notable school
turnaround attempts during the last decades of the 20th century that informed
NCLB‟s school restructuring policies include the experiences of Chicago Public
Schools, New York City Department of Education, and San Francisco Unified

19
District Schools (Kowal & Ayscue, 2005; Mintrop & Papazian, 2003; Rudo, 2001).
However, in each of these instances, there is little consensus about the
effectiveness of using the strategy, and much criticism of it exists.
From a legal standpoint, Spitser (2007) critiqued NCLB‟s school turnaround
policy because its wording is not exact. “The language of NCLB itself leaves a
great deal of room for interpretation – for example, while schools may replace
staff „relevant to the failure‟ of the school… the Act contains no definition of or
standards for defining „relevant.‟” (p. 1342). In his argument, Spitser cites the
lack of definitive language in NCLB as problematic because it does not define a
method for evaluating teachers or prescribe a method for administrators to
evaluate a teacher‟s contributions to their school‟s achievement. Should an
administrative team solely use test scores to evaluate a teacher‟s worth, or
would it be fairer to incorporate classroom observations and consider the
professional service a teacher provides to the school as well? Spitser stated “it is
unclear what evidence a school district would be able to muster to show that the
teacher was relevant to the failure of the school” (p. 1353). Because of these
ambiguities, NCLB did not provide clear guidelines about how teacher
evaluations should be conducted when a school reconstitutes its staff.
Additionally, hiring released teachers‟ replacements is cumbersome. NCLB
required that schools hire only highly qualified teachers. Highly qualified
essentially means teachers have earned a bachelor‟s degree and passed a
rigorous state test in their field (Steffan, 2004). Therefore, requiring
administrators to hire released teachers‟ replacements is challenging because a
ready supply of highly-qualified teachers waiting to be hired by a school going
through restructuring is seldom available (Bardy, 2003; Spitser, 2007; Rice &
Malen, 2010). Subsequently, administrators struggle to make all their needed
new hires by the start of the academic year (Levin & Quinn, 2003), which results
in them hiring inexperienced teachers who are unprepared to teach in
challenging schools. These teachers spend their first years in the classroom
“surviving” and not contributing to reforming the school (Mac Iver, et al., 2003).
Next, the use of standardized test scores to evaluate teachers working in low-
performing schools is problematic because of possible cultural biases (Kohn,
2000; Menken, 2008; Visone, 2009). Standardized tests are written from the
perspective of White, middle class Americans who are native English speakers
(Spitser, 2007; Kincheloe, 2003). As such, schools identified for restructuring are
typically urban schools that enroll significantly higher percentages of minority
and low-income students than suburban schools (Center on Education Policy,
2008). These elements combine to disadvantage teachers in lower performing
urban schools because the schools where they teach are predominantly
populated with minority students and non-native English speakers who
traditionally score lower than their peers in suburban schools on high stakes
assessments (Anyon, 2005; National Center for Policy Analysis [NCPA], 2004).
When comparisons between suburban and urban schools are made, teachers in
urban schools are more likely to lose their jobs because of reconstitution.

20
Fourth, because NCLB required schools to achieve adequate test scores for two
years before being released from its restructuring policies, teachers in
restructuring schools are pressured to narrow their curriculum to tested content
(Anagnostopoulos & Rutledge, 2007; Crocco & Costigan, 2007; Mac Iver, et al.,
2003). This instructional practice is not developing 21st century skills students
need to be ready for college or a career (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2007). Instead,
students are largely learning only how to pass high stakes accountability tests.
Therefore, as long as a maximum is put on test scores, it is likely teachers will
continue to narrow their curriculum, and school turnaround reinforces this cycle
(Mintrop & Trujilio, 2005; Zena, 2001).
After being federal law for over a decade, researchers oppose and express severe
caution when employing the turnaround strategy to restructure a school. In their
review of school reconstitution literature, Rice and Malen (2010) stated
“evidence to date suggests that school reconstitution is a risky strategy... [and]
calls for restraint in the deployment of this strategy until we have a stronger
theoretical and empirical understanding and justification of this reform” (p. 9).
Brady (2003) stated school turnaround “can work and has worked in some
instances, but its success rate is limited” (p. 29), and Stuit (2010) concluded “it is
easier to close a low-performing school than to turn one around” (p. 10).
To illustrate the challenges that concern researchers about school turnaround, I
will present a case study of the strategy in action. This case study of Tyson
Douglas High School‟s (TD) restructuring experiences will help fill the void
created by a dearth of qualitative narratives about the experiences of school
structuring. Through this case study, I illustrate the multiple reform strategies
and challenges a school faces when using the turnaround strategy to restructure.
Methodology
I used qualitative research methods for this project because it allowed me to use
my participants‟ words, emotions, and perspectives to study their lived
experiences (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Marshall & Rossman, 2011). As I analyzed
TD‟s restructuring, I found that it affected teachers in multiple ways, and it was
important I used their words to describe their experiences. Central to my work,
then, is that humans live “storied” lives, meaning humans use stories to share
their lived experiences (Bell, 2002; Carr, 1986; Reissman, 2001). For example,
when people are asked how their day was, they are likely to tell a story about
their experience and not just respond with a simple “good” or “okay.” In this
way, the stories humans tell become a phenomenon that can be studied, and
stories can be used to deconstruct a person‟s experience with a specific
phenomenon (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). In my work, the phenomenon I
studied was teachers‟ experiences with school restructuring as chronicled by my
participants‟ stories.
Data Collection and Analysis
To collect and triangulate data, I conducted in depth interviews with five
participants, studied historical documents about TD, and analyzed TD‟s test

21
scores and student demographics (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Glense, 1996,
Merriam, 2009).
Interviews. I conducted interviews with each of my participants that lasted 60-90
minutes each and centered on my participants‟ experiences working at TD while
it restructured. Due to the political nature of my study, it was challenging to
recruit participants to be interviewed. Many teachers I asked to be part of my
study told me that they did not want to make their story public for fear of
potentially losing their job. However, because I had spent considerable time in
TD supervising English interns from a local university who were completing a
teacher licensure program, I was able to use the relationships I built mentoring
pre-service teachers to recruit participants. The participants who agreed to be
interviewed individually included three English teachers who taught at TD
(there were seven in the English department), TD‟s assistant principal, and a
teacher who was released due to the reconstitution. (The other released teachers
I contacted were either not geographically accessible or they would not allow me
to interview them.) I conducted the interviews with TD‟s three English teachers
in their classrooms, and I interviewed the assistant principal in her office. The
teacher who was released by TD was interviewed in her home. Because TD was
on the 4x4 block schedule, each teacher taught three 90-minute periods a day,
had a 90-minute planning period plus a 30-minute lunch break. Their average
class roster was between 15-20 students. Understanding who my participants
were at the time of their interview is essential to understanding their experience
with TD‟s restructuring.
Carmen was the administrator who the county made responsible for planning
and implementing TD‟s school restructuring. Carmen is a White, middle-aged
woman with over 15 years of experience in public education. Carmen was a high
school English teacher during the 1990s in a high performing Southern high
school before being promoted to assistant principal. For personal reasons,
Carmen moved out of state in 2004 and was hired as an administrator at a school
in the same school district as TD before being transferred to TD in 2006. In her
interview, Carmen disclosed that she was personally recruited by the county‟s
superintendent and director of curriculum to lead TD‟s restructuring and
welcomed the professional challenge.
Pat, a White woman in her sixties, had over thirty years of experience in
education, and she came to TD in 2001. Pat holds advanced degrees in
education, but she did not want me to provide a detailed description of her to
protect her identity. Pat taught senior English at TD, and she said “I specifically
wanted to work with seniors to prepare them for college level English.” I
included Pat because she lost her job due to TD‟s reconstitution, and she
explained she was still confused about it even three years after it happened.
Floyd, a White male in his forties, was included because he worked at TD before
and during its restructuring. Floyd served a dual role for the school, teaching
junior English half of the day and serving as a Lead Teacher for the other half.
As a Lead Teacher, Floyd was responsible for mentoring early career teachers
and tracking student achievement data. To mentor teachers, Floyd would wait

22
until a teacher approached him for help and he would meet with the teacher
individually to identify his/her strengths and weaknesses in the classroom.
Next, Floyd would observe the teacher‟s instruction for at least two classes
before providing feedback about strategies he thought could increase that
teacher‟s effectiveness in the classroom. To track student data, Floyd made
detailed spreadsheets of students‟ performance on practice assessments modeled
after high stakes accountability tests. Floyd would analyze student performance
and then report to teachers where they should focus their instruction
Marie and Gwen were both White females in their mid-twenties. Both women
had just earned their graduate degree in English education from a large
university in the spring of 2008 and were hired by TD the following summer to
replace teachers who lost their jobs because of TD‟s reconstitution. Marie taught
junior English classes and Gwen taught sophomore English classes. At the time
of their interviews, Marie and Gwen were close friends and were both
completing their second year teaching at TD.
To guide my interviews, I used a protocol that featured three open-ended
questions to ensure I addressed the same topics with each participant (Glense,
2006). The questions from my interview protocol included:
1. What are you beliefs about school restructuring?
2. How have you been impacted by TD‟s restructuring?
3. What reforms did TD use to restructure and how effective were those
reforms?
Interviews were digitally recorded and I took extensive notes during them
(Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). After each interview, I transcribed the recording and
emailed it to participants for member checking purposes (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Additionally, I included any clarifying questions based on my notes and
interview transcription (Glense, 1996). After each participant reviewed my
transcription and answered any clarifying questions, I began my data analysis
procedures.
To code the data, I used three layers. My first layer involved reading each
transcript to identify in vivo codes, which were significant words and/or
phrases my participants said about their experiences (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996).
Next, I applied my own sociologically constructed codes to label my
understanding of the interviews (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). Because analyzing
interview data is an interpretive act, my own experiences as a high school
English teacher, as a researcher who studies school restructuring, and as a
mentor of student teachers in TD influenced my conceptualization of my
participants‟ comments (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). Therefore, when a
participant referenced, for example, having to “sit through” a PD session,” I
thought of my own experiences with PD sessions and how I found myself
enduring them opposed to learning from them. In this way, these connections
and conceptualizations framed how I moved from in vivo codes to sociologically
constructed codes. For my third layer of coding, I grouped the in vivo codes
with the sociologically constructed codes into categories that included (1)
Reconstituting TD, (2) Providing Effective Classroom Instruction, (3) Fallout from

23
School Reconstitution, (4) Adding Rigor to the Curriculum, and (5) Structural
Reorganization. These categories became my narrative‟s themes.
Historical Documents. Because I sought to understand what happened to result in
TD being required to restructure, I needed to put together a historical context of
the school since it was founded in the late 1800s (Miller & Dingwall, 1997). To do
so, I gathered newspaper articles, visited local libraries, searched the internet,
and explored TD‟s storehouse where it keeps its memorabilia from yesteryear.
Overall, I found hundreds of newspaper articles about TD starting in the 1920s
and continuing through modern day. The topics of the newspaper articles
reported on TD‟s athletic teams, parent nights, club activities, racial tensions,
school reforms, parent and community involvement, and academic achievement.
The local libraries had indexed reports on TD‟s academic achievement and
minutes from the school board meetings. Additionally, the libraries had books
that chronicled historical happenings in the local community, which included
information about TD. Using search terms such as “history of TD,” “community
of TD,” and “legacy of TD,” I was able to find three websites that described what
it was like attending TD throughout the 20th century and information about how
TD was founded. One of the websites was created by a TD alumnus, and the
other two websites listed encyclopedic information about TD. Finally,
investigating TD‟s storehouse where TD houses memorabilia it no longer has
room to display, I was able to touch trophies that TD‟s past athletic and
academic teams had won, read graduation announcements, and peruse decades
old yearbooks. Visiting the storehouse allowed me to physically interact with
TD‟s past and I gained a sense of the pride its graduates felt.
Student Demographic and Test Score Data. I used the Tennessee Department of
Education‟s (2013) website to analyze TD‟s test score and student demographic
data from 2005-2012. Data provided demographic information about students
who attended TD, student performance on the high stakes math and
reading/writing tests, and graduation rates. Evaluating test score data allowed
me to see trends in student achievement that warranted TD having to
restructure and assess if TD‟s restructuring resulted in any increases of student
performance on high stakes tests. The student demographic data allowed me to
make comparisons between students who attended TD, its county, and
Tennessee using students‟ race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, English
language proficiency, and special education status.
Ensuring Validity
I used three different data sources – interviews, historical documents, and test
score and student demographic data – to methodologically triangulate my data
(Guion et al., 2011). Having diverse data sets allowed me multiple lenses to
study TD‟s restructuring (Chenail, 1997; Denzin, 1978). To build interview
validity, I used member checking (Glense, 2006). After conducting and
transcribing each interview, I sent it along with any clarifying questions back to
the corresponding participant. Once my participant confirmed I correctly
transcribed the interview and answered any clarifying questions I had, I
analyzed the interview data using the previously described process. Once the
interview was analyzed, I then weaved together the data from the interviews,

24
historical documents, test scores, and student demographics to tell the story of
TD‟s restructuring. To member check at this stage, I emailed the completed
narrative to each participant, and pseudonyms were used in the narrative to add
a layer of confidentially for my participants and to my work. At this point, my
participants confirmed that I accurately represented their experience.
Context of Tyson Douglas High School
TD is an urban high school located in the southern city of Henley (pseudonym)
that was required to restructure beginning in the 2007-2008 school year.
Originally, TD was two separate schools: Tyson High School and Douglas High
School. Tyson High School served predominantly African-American students
since the late 1800s and was an active member of its local community, and
Douglas High School served predominantly White children since the 1950s and
was founded by the county because of a population boom following World War
II. To be in compliance with federal school integration laws, the two schools
merged in 1968. After the integration, TD served predominantly Black students
because the White students chose to transfer to other county schools, and by the
1980s TD was labeled a low-performing school. The county responded in the
mid-1990s by spending millions of dollars to renovate TD‟s buildings and
established it as the county‟s performing arts magnet school for dance, music,
and theatre. However, even with the new buildings and magnet program, TD
did not attract a significant amount of new students and the school continued
posting low student achievement. There are no records to suggest that new
teachers were recruited to TD or that its current teachers received PD to support
them effectively teaching in a magnet school. As such, these renovations seem to
be cosmetic and not programmatic.
In the spring of 2007, NCLB required TD to restructure after not posting
adequate test scores for five consecutive years. Table 1 displays TD‟s 2006 and
2007 test score data in math and reading/writing and its graduation rates.
Table 1. Comparing TD‟s 2006 and 2007 Student Achievement Data in Math and
Reading/English Language and Graduation Rates by Student Subgroup against
State Target and Average Scores*
Criteria 2006
Math
2007
Math
2006
Reading/
Writing
2007
Reading /
Writing
2006
Graduation
Rate
2007
Graduation
Rate
State
Target
75% 75% 90% 90% 90% 90%
State
Average
83% 85% 91% 91% - -
TD
Average
72% 79% 85% 76% 68.7% 67.8%
African-
American
71% 77% 84% 76% - -

25
White 81% 86% 84% 84% - -
Low SES 71% 75% 84% 74% - -
Special
Education
32% 66% 46% 42% - -
* Data retrieved from Tennessee Department of Education
(http://tn.gov/education/)
The data in Table 1 displays that as an entire school TD did earn the test scores
needed to satisfy NCLB‟s test score requirements in math but not in
reading/writing in 2007. Moreover, because NCLB required that all student
subgroups demonstrate proficiency on tests, the low test scores in math made by
TD‟s special education student population prohibited TD from meeting NCLB‟s
testing requirement. Additionally, written into NCLB is a “Safe Harbor” clause
that allowed for schools to bypass some of NCLB‟s testing requirements if
certain criteria are met:
A school that falls short of the… [test score requirement] for a subgroup
of students will avoid being identified for improvement under the safe
harbor provision if (a) the percentage of students who score below the
proficient level [on one assessment] has decreased by at least 10% from
the year before, and (b) there is improvement for the subgroup on other
indicators [other indicators includes metrics such as graduation and
attendance rates] (Linn, 2003, p. 17).
TD‟s students did not earn the scores necessary for the school to qualify for safe
harbor when comparing TD‟s student achievement data from 2006 to 2007. No
student subgroup experienced the necessary gains on the math or
reading/writing exams to qualify for safe harbor. When comparing TD‟s student
achievement and graduation rates from 2006 to 2007, student test scores in
reading/writing and graduation rates dropped in every category. Therefore, TD
did not post the student achievement scores required to meet NCLB‟s testing
requirements or safe harbor provision and subsequently had to restructure.
As compared to its county and state, TD has a significantly larger African-
American and low socioeconomic (SES) student populations and a significantly
smaller White student population than its county and state, and Table 2 displays
the TD‟s student demographic in the year it was officially required to
restructure.
Table 2. The Demographics of TD‟s Students for 2007 as Compared to its County
and State*
Student Subgroup TD County State
African-American 90.6% 14.7% 24.8%
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.2% 1.9% 1.6%
Hispanic 0.7% 2.8% 4.6%
White 8.4% 80.3% 68.8%

26
Low SES 90.4% 41.2% 54.7%
*Data retrieved from Tennessee Department of Education
(http://tn.gov/education/)
These statistics reflect the migration of White students away from TD that
occurred following the 1968 integration of Tyson High School and Douglas High
School. TD‟s demographics also reflect that schools with large populations of
minority students are more likely to be required to restructure than schools with
large majority student populations (Anyon, 2005; Center on Education Policy,
2008; NCPA, 2004; US Department of Education, 2012). As such, TD began its
process of school restructuring following the 2006-2007 school year.
The Story of Tyson Douglas High School’s Restructuring
When NCLB required a school to restructure, the school had to select and
implement one of NCLB‟s outlined strategies. However, education researchers
strongly suggest schools use multiple reforms because there is no “one-size-fits-
all” silver bullet for school restructuring (Brady, 2003; Newmann & Wehlage,
1995), and TD implemented multiple school restructuring strategies. The
restructuring strategies TD selected included NCLB‟s school turnaround option
combined with replacing TD‟s principal and administrative team, providing
teachers with PD, realigning course offerings, and overhauling the school‟s
structural organization. The following is a story of how TD implemented these
restructuring strategies and how TD‟s English teachers reacted to them.
Over the summer of 2007, county officials decided TD would implement school
turnaround. The literature about school restructuring strongly supports
changing school leadership to ensure a dynamic and innovative principal and
administrative team are in place to effectively lead the school through the
reconstitution and restructuring processes (Hassel, et al., 2010), and the county
changed TD‟s leadership during the 2007-2008 school year. To make the
leadership change, the county‟s superintendent and director of curriculum first
recruited Carmen to be TD‟s curriculum principal charged with planning and
leading the restructuring effort in the fall of 2007, and the county replaced TD‟s
then head principal with Principal King in the spring of 2008. During these
leadership changes, Carmen explained TD‟s teachers had “no idea what we are
doing [about restructuring the school]... there was a lot of anxiety, a lot of
anxiety.” Carmen commented that the teachers were not informed about the
county‟s plan to change TD‟s leadership; rather, the county just made the
changes. Carmen said, “On a Friday he [the former principal] was removed and
on the Monday Mr. King was here.” However, once TD‟s leadership was
changed, Carmen and King began working to reconstitute TD‟s faculty and staff.
Reconstituting TD: The First Layer of School Turnaround
NCLB‟s description of school turnaround does not give any specific guidelines
or procedures about how to reconstitute a staff. Therefore, Carmen and King
had to develop their own process, which Carmen described.

27
We had to give letters to everyone on the staff... that they were being let
go eventually, but that they had the opportunity to reapply for their job.
There was no guarantee that they would get it, but they could certainly
reapply. So, at that point, it was the first of May, the middle of May, Mr.
King and I started interviewing, and we interviewed 100, approximately
100, people within a three-week period of time. It was just boom, boom,
boom.
According to the teachers, the rush to reconstitute the school, and to interview
the staff, affected their interview experiences. Pat, an English teacher not asked
to return, said it was “one of the most bizarre interviews I‟ve ever had. I showed
up on time, the people who were interviewing [me] were not present... when
they finally showed up, they brought their lunches and they ate lunch while
they talked to me.” Floyd, another English teacher who was asked to return,
said, “It [the interview process] was strange. Um, you know, just because
everyone knew what was going on, and everyone had their interviews
scheduled, and you‟d go down, and it, it just had a weird, uh, feeling to it.”
According to Pat and Floyd, when the reconstitution process was implemented,
it did not feel respectful or genuine. Rather, it felt awkward and rushed, likely
because of the hurry Carmen and King were under to reconstitute the school. In
fact, Carmen questioned how effective she and King were in evaluating teachers
when she said, “I knew nothing of the existing teachers other than test scores.”
In no way could Carmen and King acquire a realistic estimation of a teacher‟s
worth based on a quick interview and a glimpse of his or her students‟ test
scores, especially since both Carmen and King had been at TD for less than one
year. However, to help her better assess each candidate she interviewed, Carmen
asked each interviewee to define term rigor as it related to teaching. In response,
Carmen made determinations about the teacher. Carmen said:
„To give more work,‟ [or] „To give extra homework,‟ most of the people
that gave that response didn‟t get rehired. Then there was some who
said, „It doesn‟t mean to give more work, it means to go deeper. It means
to create more critical thinking opportunities.” You know, people who
clearly knew what rigor was.
From Carmen‟s perspective, teachers‟ conceptualization of rigor was the key
point if they would or would not be rehired. Carmen felt this way because her
belief was that the academic rigor across the entire school had to be raised if
student achievement on the high stakes accountability tests was to increase.
Following the interviews, Carmen and King had the responsibility to inform
teachers if they were rehired or released, and Carmen described that process. “I
think, [it was] the second to the last day of school, and they [human resource
personnel from the district] gave them all [TD‟s faculty and staff who had
reapplied for their job] envelopes, manila envelopes in the [school‟s] library that
said „you‟ve been rehired‟ or „you‟ve not been rehired‟.” About how the released
teachers responded to finding out they no longer had a job, Carmen said, “some
people were pretty upset. Uh, some people had nasty things to say. Others were
like, „Great, I didn‟t want to come back here anyway.‟” Pat, who was released,

28
said the whole process and news was “simply demoralizing.” In fact, Carmen
concurred with Pat and expressed remorse about how the teachers were
informed. “If I knew then what I know now, I would have never allowed that
kind of process to happen in a building I was in. I felt like it was very
impersonal, very, um, it didn‟t sit well with me.” Overall, Carmen reported that
she and King released 40% of TD‟s staff, and she said the reason they did not
release everyone was because “no one is going to know the nuances of this
school, the culture of this school.” In this instance, Carmen paid respect to the
history of TD and its culture, but her decision to retain 60% of TD‟s original staff
caused her and TD‟s new staff problems. In retrospect, Carmen said, “If I knew
then what I know now, I would have reversed that. I would have kept 40% and
hired 60% new.”
During the summer of 2007, Carmen and King recruited replacements for the
released teachers. Gwen, an English teacher who was hired at this time, said,
“They didn‟t tell me a lot about that [TD being restructured]. They told me they
were hiring a lot of new teachers and that they were more interested in hiring
the new teachers because they knew they could shape them to become what they
needed.” According to Gwen, Carmen and King withheld important details
about TD and its restructuring process. The only details Gwen reported
receiving was that Carmen and King were interested in new teachers because
the new teachers would come into TD without any experience, which would
allow Carmen and King to form them into any type of teacher they wanted, and
Carmen corroborated that in her interview by explaining new teachers would
give TD what she “wanted, a fresh start.”
Providing Effective Classroom Instruction: Training TD’s Teachers
Following the summer, King and Carmen opened the first year of TD‟s
restructuring by having its teachers attend 10 days of mandatory PD. This PD
required TD‟s teachers report back to school 10 days before teachers in any other
school in TD‟s county reported back. The reason King and Carmen could make
this PD mandatory was because the reconstitution required all of TD‟s teacher to
sign new contracts containing an extended time clause that added 15 more
working days to their school calendar. (Teachers were monetarily compensated
for their additional work.) This entire time was reserved for PD. During the
2007-2008 school year, teachers spent 10 of those days in PD sessions before the
year began, and they spent five additional days in PD sessions during the school
year. Carmen explained that the county outsourced the PD to an educational
management organization (EMO). Teachers did not provide input about the
PD‟s topics, but the PD focused on instructional techniques aligned to the work
of Marzano‟s (2004) Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for
Increasing Student Achievement. Carmen said it was a “huge relief” to have the
EMO responsible for the PD because “there needed to be a tremendous amount
of PD done here.” Plus, Carmen explained that she and King still “had to learn
the culture of the school” and did not have the time to facilitate the PD, and
Floyd made very positive comments about the PD.
It [the PD] made me even more excited and from that standpoint I left...
really fired up because they were teaching the whole staff new

29
strategies... [including] gallery walks, gosh, all of Marzano‟s strategies, I
mean, we just started tearing them up. They modeled for us at PD and
then we talked about how we can apply it to our classroom.
However, Floyd‟s excitement was not reflected by the newly hired teachers.
Gwen said the PD facilitator “just had a few methods that were just how to get
kids engaged, or how to encourage kids to think about what they are learning, to
communicate or share what they are learning... he acted like think-pair-share
was the newest and hottest thing.” Marie, another new English teacher, said:
It [the PD] really was, a flashback to grad school, so everything that the
other teachers were learning for the very first time, I had just finished in
graduate school. So, I, I was trying to walk on eggshells and not seem
bored because I was trying to not give the impression that I was not
above this or anything.
Even though Gwen and Marie had a negative impression of the PD, Floyd said
“I saw immediately a difference in the students because [when] they came into
class, first of all, they would know how to do the strategies already because they
had done them in three or four classes, so they knew the process and the
protocol.” However, as the school year progressed, teachers stopped using what
they learned in the PD sessions. After having spoken highly about the quality of
the PD and the effect it was having on TD‟s students, Floyd lamented that a
walk-through initiative begun by TD‟s administrators to ensure teachers were
using the strategies taught in the PD session was not sustained. About the walk-
through initiative, Floyd said:
They just walked through [our classrooms] and looked at what strategies
we were doing. We were hanging our lesson plans on the door, we had
to put which Marzano strategies we were going to use those days, and
they would come and look and check, and I mean, it was amazing. I was
like „yes, this is the change, this is it‟ ... um, but, there was just enormous
backslide after the first few months.
One reason for “the backslide” may have been the pressure Carmen and King
were under to improve TD‟s student performance. Although Carmen said no
specific deadline was put on them, they “were expected to really transform this
school quickly,” and that required them to attend multiple meetings with the
superintendent, plan how the school would be reorganized into small learning
communities (SLCs), and monitor students‟ assessment scores. As such, these
tasks took time away from TD‟s administrators being able to monitor teachers.
Additionally, they had the obstacle of mending together a staff that had been
torn apart by the reconstitution. Moreover, this division was a challenge that TD
never conquered during its first year of restructuring, and it affected TD‟s new
teachers and school reforms.
A Divided Staff: Fallout from School Reconstitution
As all of TD‟s teachers returned for the open of the 2007-2008 school year, my
participants reported there was an obvious staff divide. Gwen said, “There was
certainly an old staff-new staff kind of thing... it was kind of apparent that we all

30
[the newly hired teachers] had something to prove I guess. You know, we were
supposed to come in and save the school, and that we are supposed to save it
from them [the teachers who survived the reconstitution].” The idea that the
new teachers were hired to “save the school” likely developed from the
perspective that the old staff‟s incompetence resulted in TD having to
restructure, and it was the new staff‟s responsibility to ensure that did not
happen again. Marie said about the staff divide, “It‟s older [teachers] against
younger [teachers]. It‟s „new to the building‟ against „been in the building a long
time‟... I mean, it‟s a very clear, clear divide.” To further explain, Marie made a
verbal comparison of TD‟s Old and New teachers in her interview as
represented in Table 3.
Table 3. A Comparison of Old and New TD
Characteristic TD’s Old Teachers TD’s New Teachers
Motto “We get by and no one
bothers us”
“They are going to do whatever
is thrown at them, and they are
going to try to make the school
successful however they can”
Race “African-American” “The majority of us are White”
Age “45-50” “Younger, under 35 for the most
part”
Teaching
Experience
“Most have over 10 years
experience”
“Relatively new to teaching, with
five or less years experience”
Education “Do not have master‟s
degrees and have not
been through a
[traditional] teacher
education program”
“Everyone that was hired after
the reconstruction had to have a
master‟s degree”
Route to
Certification
“Certified through an
alternative license
program”
“Came in through a traditional
college of education teacher
program”
Emphasis “Athletics” “Academics”
According to Carmen, having a divided staff resulted in Old TD teachers being
“very resistant” to implementing school reforms, including her decision to
“collapse the tracks.”
Adding Rigor to the Curriculum: Reforming the Academic Tracks
“Collapsing the Tracks” is a term Carmen used to mean TD went from offering
fundamental, regular, college-placement (CP), and honors courses to only
offering CP classes. Carmen explained that it was not because the kids in the

31
lower-tiered tracks were less intelligent; they were just unmotivated because
“they just had never been expected to do anything. So we eliminated all
fundamental classes.” By collapsing the tracks, it was an attempt to increase
TD‟s academic rigor. No longer could a student attend classes with low
expectations. Rather, the idea behind collapsing the tracks was that students
would be required to take classes with higher expectations that would better
prepare them for academic success, college, and the workforce. However, new
and old teachers responded negatively to this change.
Collapsing the tracks affected teachers differently based on their experience. For
example, Floyd explained that once teachers get “promoted” because of
seniority, they get “rewarded” by teaching mostly juniors and seniors. Because
TD was struggling with student dropout rates, the quality of students increased
as they got to 11th and 12th grade because the students who were not
academically successful typically dropped out of TD by this time. Floyd saw this
practice as unfair because it hurt TD‟s newly hired teachers, who mostly taught
younger students,
In regards to the challenges that resulted from collapsing the tracks, Gwen said
she was told she could “meet all their [her students] needs through
differentiation. Whatever that meant... To differentiate instruction was
something I‟ve always heard about, and, you know, loosely attempted in my
internship... [but] no one tells you or prepares for how to differentiate for every
student in your classroom.” Marie added:
I was really, really, really shocked by the fact that I was teaching a class
that was totally mixed in ability, and it was a CP class, but that some of
the students were soooo low. They were elementary level in their
reading, and then I had students, my higher students, were struggling
with even grade-level [texts], and I was really confused about how I was
supposed to meet all their needs... I was told to just „differentiate‟ for
them, and I am still trying to figure out what that means. Some people
have large print, some people have different assignments, some people
have different tests, some people are only required to do part of their
work, or some people are required to do something else. So every class
day is kind of like a smathering of what‟s going on. So, I‟ve got better in
that, but I had no idea.
Because TD‟s more experienced teachers were given older, higher achieving
students to teach even after the school reconstituted, the burden fell to TD‟s less
experienced teachers to teach the more challenging classes and lower achieving
students. When they voiced their concerns about meeting the needs of their
students, Gwen and Marie were told to differentiate their instruction; however,
because they were new teachers, Gwen and Marie were still learning how to
effectively differentiate their instruction and the PD they received during the
previous summer did not offer them any methods for differentiating instruction.
In this way, Carmen‟s decision to collapse TD‟s academic tracks may have
actually hurt TD‟s newly hired teachers and the instruction their students

Vol 11 No 3 - May 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Vol 11 No 3 - May 2015

Similar to Vol 11 No 3 - May 2015 (20)

More from ijlterorg

More from ijlterorg (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Vol 11 No 3 - May 2015