Vol 16 No 8 - August 2017

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:1694-2493
e-ISSN:1694-2116IJLTER.ORG
Vol.16 No.8

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 16 NUMBER 8 August 2017
Table of Contents
Learning from each other: Dialogical Argumentation in an Online Environment ........................................................ 1
Anita Chadha and Renée B. Van Vechten
A Qualitative Examination of Factors for Success in a Content-Based English Language Learner Classroom ....... 18
Janet Delgado, Ed.D and Lorraine T. Benuto , Ph.D.
Radio Wave Errors: Students Mistaking Radio Transverse Electromagnetic Light Waves as Longitudinal Sound
Waves ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
A. E. Tabor-Morris, Ph.D., T. M. Briles, Ed.D. and R. Schiele, B.S.
Impact of Teaching Attitudes and Behaviors for Learning on the Reading Achievement of Students Falling
Behind .................................................................................................................................................................................... 51
Michael E. Bernard
Balancing Reflection and Validity in Health Profession Students‘ Self-Assessment ................................................... 65
Sherri Melrose
Innovative Teaching with Use of an Art Work................................................................................................................. 77
Marios Koutsoukos and Iosif Fragoulis

1
© 2017 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 1-17, August 2017
Learning from each other: Dialogical
Argumentation in an Online Environment
Anita Chadha
University of Houston
Downtown, Houston, Texas, U.S.
Renée B. Van Vechten
University of Redlands
Redlands, California, U.S.
Abstract. This research builds upon past work exploring how an online
academic website can provide a learning environment in which students
engage in dialogic argumentation by voicing their diverse perspectives,
challenging their peers through counterarguments, and articulating
their positional differences. Drawing from two semesters of data from
an academic website populated by three classes, we analyze 375 peer-to-
peer responses for their argumentative interactions. Using a mixed
methods approach, we find statistically significant evidence that
argumentative interactions lead to deeper engagement across the classes.
This study concludes that online discussions—a form of computer
mediated communication (CMC)—are an innovative means to advance
e-learning, a concern for educators across disciplines.
Keywords: Argumentation; Online deliberation; Online teaching;
Dialogic argumentation; Computer-mediated communication
Introduction: Learning from each other: Dialogical Argumentation in
an Online Environment
Online learning environments now proliferate in our digital age and researchers
have observed that in online, networked environments, learning can occur
through an egalitarian process in which participants generate, challenge, reflect
upon, and defend ideas, thereby constructing meaning through a social process
(Rowntree, 1995; see also Chu et al., 2017; Cooper, 2001; Gordon & Connor, 2001;
Wilson 2001). Also known as computer-mediated communication (CMC), web-
based, interactive technologies are particularly well-suited to creative
collaboration among active participants (Lee & McLoughlin, 2007). The CMC
environment influences interaction due in part to visual anonymity and the
absence of nonverbal cues. As Herring (1993) argues ―they provide for the
possibility that individuals can participate on the same terms as others, that is,
more or less anonymously, with the emphasis being on the content, rather than
on the form of the message or the identity of the sender‖ (p. 1). With greater
focus on the written message produced through asynchronous means, students

2
can participate in discussions on the same terms as others, without respect to
geographic distances (Lane, 1994) or due to personal disabilities (Collins, 2014;
Lane, 1994). Relative anonymity can also encourage users to be more expressive
and form relationships with others rapidly (Schouten et al., 2009).
Researchers have demonstrated that learning through CMC transpires through
an individual process of critical reflection, a process of testing one’s ideas while
being challenged, reconsidering one’s experiences and ideas in light of new
information, and then reconciling differences. The argumentative process also
involves synthesizing information and anticipating and responding to
opposition, all of which are particularly conducive to learning (Jacoby, 2009;
Blount, 2006; Bloom et al., 1956). In short, communicators learn through arguing
with each other (Dehler & Porras-Hernandez, 1998), and dialoguing in ways that
contains elements of argumentation also represents an opportunity to learn
actively (Bender, 2003). As Socrates might have asserted, active argumentation
channels learning.
In this paper, we investigate online discussion forums created for and by
undergraduate students enrolled in American Politics courses from three
campuses, assessing their interactions for patterns of dialogical argumentation.
In the experiment, students were given a weekly prompt about a contemporary
issue in American politics, and participants created individual statements that,
inevitably, reflected various levels of intellectual engagement with the material.
From generalizations to fairly thoughtful and well-constructed essay-like
answers that evidence deep, critical reflection, the content of those discussion
posts provided the data for our study. First we identify various forms of
interaction, and present a model for analyzing the content of those website
discussion posts, testing whether students engage the learning process when
they argue with each other in online discussion forums.
Literature Review
Argumentation, according to Toulmin (1958), is a process whereby an individual
or group, wanting to be taken seriously, tries to convince the others that the
assertions being made are acceptable, meritorious, or valid, and there is
abundant evidence that this argumentative process has great worth as a learning
tool (Clark & Sampson 2008; Schwarz & DeGroot, 2007; Clark & Sampson 2007).
Through it, students’ understanding of challenging concepts can increase
(Andriessen et al., 2013) and their ability to reason productively also can
improve (Kuhn et al., 1997; Kuhn & Udell, 2003; Bell, 2004).
Argumentation sets the scene for changes in people’s views because of the
knowledge building and transformation of ideas that can occur through this
process, leading to learning. This is a process of critical reasoning, and at its core
is the idea of change in thinking. Change occurs because the arguer convinces, or
a respondent critically reflects upon an idea and updates or refines an existing
concept or belief. In any case, argumentation involves opposition, a process that
some have characterized as occurring within a dialectic, whereby a position
statement is made and justification is given, a counterargument is made and claims
are questioned or examined, and a reply or rebuttal to the counterargument is
supplied the dispute may ultimately be resolved into a conclusion (Toulmin 1958;
Clark & Sampson 2007; 2008).

3
Arguments include supports such as warrants, backing, and qualifiers. In an
online setting where students confront a discussion question and puzzle through
its implications, the process generally parallels basic argumentative phases
described by Toulmin (1958): online, they might might raise questions, challenge
a premise, add new information, and/or anticipate responses. In essence,
through dialoguing with each other via e-collaboration, students have the
opportunity to engage in a process of argumentation that enables learning.
In dialogical argumentation, these being arguments carried out through written
or verbal dialogue, participants negotiate their divergences and reconstruct their
perspectives in a social context. In other words, arguments by participants are
sensitive, as Leitão (2000) argues, ―to specific demands of argumentative
situations‖ (p. 336). In this way, ―macro‖ meets ―micro,‖ as macro-level factors
influence what is essentially a micro-level process of decision making. Hakkinen
(2013) points out this interactive relationship: ―these processes are
intertwined…in a way that is not reducible to one level only‖ (p. 550). For
example, a person might respond in a certain way because of how s/he has
internalized shared norms about proper conduct, or the collective understanding
about the purposes of an argument (Resnick et al., 1993). Likewise, personal
attitudes such as openness to change or expectations about compromise (Coirier
& Golder, 1993), as well as personal characteristics such as race, can influence
how arguments unfold. Measurable change, therefore, takes place at the
individual level as well as the social or group level. These changes might be of
any magnitude; wholesale change is not required for an argument to be
successful. As Leitão (2000) points out, in a discussion in which opposing views
are justified and recognized, shifts in perspective occur across a continuum,
ranging from subtle (qualifying a position) to complete reversal in stance.
Much research on online argumentation draws on Toulmin’s initial work on
argumentation (1958). For example, Clark & Sampson (2007) note that ―analytic
frameworks focus on many different aspects of argumentation including
argument structure, epistemic types of reasoning, conceptual normativity,
quality of warrants, number of warrants, logical coherence of claims with
warrants, argumentation sequences, patterns of participation, conceptual
trajectories, and the process of consensus building which can be applied across
disciplines.‖ (p. 275).1 They examine how students engage six major components
of arguments: claims (assertions about what exists or what values people hold);
data (facts or statements used as evidence to support the claim); warrants
(statements that explain the relationship of the data to the claim); qualifiers
(special conditions under which the claim holds true); backings (underlying
assumptions); and rebuttals (exceptional conditions capable of defeating or
rebutting the warranted conclusion. The context, combined with the type of
project, often determine which components are necessary for a successful
argument.
1 As Clark et al. point out that the pedagogical goal of an online project, class, or environment
determine it use “for students to learn from argumentation (e.g., develop a more in-depth
understanding of the content that is being discussed),” whereas the hierarchical analytic
framework is better suited for analyzing online environments where students are learning “how to
engage in argumentation (e.g., proposing, justifying, challenging ideas)” (2007: 352).

4
Several scholars argue that these components can be combined into more
parsimonious models with fewer categories (Stegmann et al., 2012; Kollar et al.,
2007; Means & Voss, 1996; Stegmann et al, 2007). Thus, the quality of each
component depends on the validity and content of the argumentative claims, but
how they are ultimately judged is discipline- or domain-specific. In order to test
how students are in fact engaging in academic argumentation for the purposes
of learning in online discussion forums, we turn to Clark & Sampson (2007) and
(Erduran et al., 2004), who incorporate Toulmin’s framework to evaluate the
presence, type, and quality of each element within online group dialogue.
As Clark and Sampson (2007) explain, ―argumentative phrases are categorized
based on their operational purpose: (a) opposing a claim, (b) elaborating on a
claim, (c) reinforcing a claim with additional data and/or warrants, (d)
advancing claims, and (e) adding qualifications‖ (p. 255). In our study, we
combine and then organize these categories into progressively complex
combinations in order to create a rubric by which to the judge the quality of an
argument, whereby ―quality‖ refers to the structure rather than the normative
content of the argument. This approach allows coded phrases to be aggregated
and evaluated for their argumentative strength, and we adapt this method in the
first part of our analysis.
We also turn to scholars who have developed a variety of analytical approaches,
tools, and frameworks for evaluating qualitative argumentative dialogues
generated in pursuit of different educational goals in different subjects (physics,
mathematics, linguistics, social sciences), and through various modalities (face-
to-face, online chatting). These methods for analyzing online dialogues include
qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Likewise, we use a
mixed methods approach for our analysis, first by coding the discussion forums
and then testing the content analysis quantitatively. These methods have been
used successfully in past research (Chadha, 2017a; Chadha, 2017b; Chadha,
2017c; Van Vechten and Chadha 2013). Before we elaborate upon this model,
however, we first describe the nature and source of our data: a website designed
around discussion threads.
The Collaborative Website Overview
Data are drawn from a collaborative, cross-campus website project that involved
students enrolled during the two spring semesters of 2012 and 2013 as shown in
Table 1. In spring 2012, students from two campuses participated in the website,
for a total of 79 students. In spring 2013, a total of 81 students from three
campuses participated, including 21 from an upper level class, and 60 from two
introductory American Politics courses on other campuses. Except for the upper
level course, courses contained mostly freshmen and sophomores, and virtually
all were unfamiliar with the use of online courses requiring argumentation.

5
Table 1
Courses and Participants
Spring 2012 Spring 2013
Total # of
peer-to-
peer
responses
Campus A B C D E
N=375
entries
Course
Title
American
Politics
American
Politics
Political
Science
Capstone
American
Politics
American
Politics
Number
of
Students
48 31 21 34 26
% of
Course
Grade
15% 13% 15% 13% 10%
Methods
The collaborative website was organized around asynchronous discussion
forums that students developed through their online participation. Our research
focused on the discussion forum entries recorded by the 160 students during the
two spring semesters, and also questions that our students answered on pre- and
post- surveys. Our approach included both qualitative and quantitative elements.
First, we performed a content analysis of the 375 postings produced by the
students, and then tested the data through linear regression.
Comparability across classes. To minimize differences among courses, the
professors agreed to three syllabi requirements that were distributed to all
students. First, the students were required to respond to a minimum of eight
instructor-posed questions and respond to their peers a minimum of eight times,
for a total of 16 posted responses over the course of the semester. Second, they
were required to use a minimum of 75 words in each response. Third, each
professor assigned a grade for these activities that represented between 10 to 15
percent of the course grade for this collaborative activity. Participation was
voluntary, and students could opt for an alternative assignment.
During each semester a total of 14 weekly discussion questions were posed,
covering variety of contemporary and enduring issues in American Politics. The
number of responses varied with the type of question, whereby ―hot button,‖
controversial issues received the most attention. For this analysis, we selected
discussion questions to represent a cross-section of the type of questions asked,
as shown in Table 2. With the exception of laying the ground rules for civil
discourse in the general guidelines that were distributed by each professor at the
start of the semester, it should be noted that the professors did not intervene in
the forums. Typically the students had one week to think about and post their
replies.
Data collection. Our data collection began with the selection of discussion
question forums for analysis. In the past nine years of work in this area we have
found that controversial civil rights subjects with a moral dimension often elicit
the strongest responses and provoke the liveliest arguments; whether to site a
Muslim mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan or to allow a fundamentalist
Christian group to protest against gay rights at a soldier’s funeral were two that

6
elicited heavy back-and-forth dialogue, for example. Questions that contain links
to articles also seem to draw more thoughtful responses. Alternatively, when
students are asked to consider slightly more abstract or theoretical issues, or are
asked to supply a personal judgment to questions such as, ―What is presidential
greatness?‖ they offer assertions but rarely engage in vigorous debate or
challenge each other. Students seem more unwilling to challenge each other
when opinions prevail over argumentative elements (most seem to assume a
―judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged‖ position). Peer-to-peer interaction is also biased in
favor of agreement (Chadha, 2017b; Chadha, 2017c; Van Vechten & Chadha
2013; Van Vechten, 2013).
We chose discussion question forums (DQs) from two semesters that would
represent different types of queries, both controversial and theoretical, and
include high numbers of posts. For the sake of comparison, we also included one
question that was nearly identical in both semesters (gay marriage). The selected
topics are included in Table 2 where the ―Responses‖ constitute peer-to-peer
responses and the ―Posts‖ refers to responses to the discussion question.
Table 2: Discussion Question Forums Selected for Analysis
Spring 2012 and Spring 2013
Semester Week
Posted
Discussion Questions Peer
Responses /
Posts*
Spring
2012, n=79
2 Relevance of a presidential candidate’s personal
life 44/ 100
3 Federal government support for colleges &
universities
30/ 76
4 Free speech and right to privacy 34/ 79
5 Gay marriage 58/ 119
7 Right to lie 39/ 91
Spring
2013, n=81
2 Gun control 26/ 76
4 Government’s role 34/ 72
10 Regulating food 37/ 88
11 Political representation 32/ 69
12 Gay marriage 41/ 91
TOTAL: 375/ 861
As Table 2 shows, there were a total of 375 responses and 861 posts during the
spring semesters of 2012 and 2013. It is important to note that not every student
is represented in a given forum; because students are required to respond to a
question plus post a reply to another student, the total number of replies reflects
about two posts per student. A typical discussion forum includes responses
from roughly two-thirds of the website’s student population. To ensure
consistency and reliability of interpretation, only one author coded the data.
Operationalizing the variables with the framework. The analytic framework
that Clark and Sampson (2007, 2008) developed to evaluate dialogic interactions
in the hard sciences forms the basis for our analysis of argumentative quality, as
shown in Table 3. We focus on the type of interaction, not content, to determine

7
―quality.‖ Clark and Sampson’s model depicts six levels that represent
progressively more sophisticated forms of argumentation typically presented in
the ―hard‖ sciences. In their model, each higher step represents higher-level
reasoning that involves more intellectually demanding components of the
process, such as providing backing for claims in rebuttals. At bottom is an
absence of argumentation, and at the highest level are extended arguments that
include at least one rebuttal.
Our analysis focuses on interactive argumentative dialogue in the social sciences
rather than on factual claim/counterclaim exchanges that typify hard sciences
discourse. In our adaptation, we propose that the quality of the dialogue should
be judged on the range, type, nature, and frequency of argumentative elements
contained in peer-to-peer responses, as shown in Table 3. For our model we
created a more parsimonious hierarchy of four types (instead of six), whereby
each type represents progressively more sophisticated levels of argumentation
as shown alongside the Clark & Sampson model. Coding each phrase within a
posting for argumentative elements, or variables, within each online response
allowed us to distinguish four levels of dialogical argumentation. It should be
noted that a complete statement or posting could contain any number of these
different elements.
Table 3
Dialogical Argumentation Typology
Clark & Sampson (2007)  Our (2013) Model
Levels Characteristics of
Argumentation
Type Characteristics/elements of dialogical
argumentation
5 Rebuttals and at least
one rebuttal that
challenges the grounds
used to support a claim
3 Rebuttals that Challenge and Dispute peers’
claims on the grounds used to support
those claims, using warrants, claims and
counterclaims
4 Rebuttals that
challenge the thesis of a
claim but does not
include a rebuttal that
challenges the grounds
used to support a claim
2
Rebuttals that Correct and Clarify a Position
with peers on the grounds used to support
a claim, using qualifiers, claims, or
counterclaims
3 Claims or counter-
claims with grounds
but only a single
rebuttal that challenges
the claim
2 Claims or counter-
claims with grounds
but no rebuttals
1 Agreement/Disagreement With and/or
Repetition of peer’s argument, but Adds to
Argument by providing more information,
such as facts or backing of claims; no
grounds or rebuttals
1 Simple claim versus
counter-claim with no
grounds or rebuttals
0 Non-oppositional 0 Contains unsupported generalizations
In our model, Type 0 would include a response consisting mainly of
unsupported generalizations: sweeping statements or opinions offered without any

8
supporting logic. Virtually no substantive or meaningful information was
offered. Type 1 responses mostly contained echoes or repetition of a peer’s
claims, but the argument was advanced minimally through the inclusion of a
new perspective, angle, or information. We coded for whether they added new,
non-normative information that expanded the discussion (as opposed to
providing emotionally-charged, normative, ―should‖ directives or claims),
entries that also might have taken the form of ―teaching‖ a new angle or offering
a new perspective. We also looked at whether a student simply agreed with a
peer, disagreed (a more challenging position), or did both in their responses. Type
2 responses encompassed clarifications, meaning that positions were clarified
through qualifiers and/or counterclaims are rebutted. The arguer may have
offered an analogy, considered new angles, sharpened the position, and so forth;
in essence, the aim was to rebut a counterclaim by adding new information or
adding qualifiers. In Type 2 responses the author might also have corrected a
peer by adding new information, or pressed a peer to reconsider a claim.
However, no direct challenges to opposing claims were offered. At the highest
level of argumentation, Type 3, the arguer offered direct rebuttals or challenges to
peers that included warrants or qualifiers intended to push deeper thinking
about a point that was made. There was also an attempt to dispute or argue, by
disputing a claim and questioning its validity or veracity. Each of these levels
evidences progression of thought that promotes learning. Descriptive measures
for these interactive components are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Elements of Dialogic Argumentation (Spring 2012 and Spring 2013) N= 375
Combin
-ations
AGREED
and/or
DISAGREE
D
CORRECT ADD
INFO
CLARIFY CHAL-
LENGE
DISPUTE
No 39.5% 22.4% 47.7% 52.3% 23.5% 25.6%
Yes 60.5% 77.6% 52.3 % 47.7 % 76.5 % 74.4 %
Table 4 shows that over half (60.5%) of peer-to-peer responses contained direct
engagement with a peer, which took the form of agreement and/or
disagreement. Well over half of the posts (77.6%) included corrections, meaning
that they provided factual information in an attempt to clear up a misconception.
Another 52.3% added or provided additional information to support their
responses, and 47.7% clarified their responses with specific information or by
articulating a different perspective. A similarly high percentage (76.5%)
challenged each other, and another 74.4% disputed (or directly argued) by
supplying supporting evidence or reasoning for their claims.
We were also interested in measuring whether students could use these different
elements in combination, which would be a sign that students were more deeply
engaged and on the path to actually learning through their interactions. In our
view, generalized replies that required little thought, expressed emotional
reactions, contained unsupported generalizations, and contributed nothing new
to the discussion could be distinguished from those in which students were
pushing themselves to consider new angles and reconsider their own issue
stances.

9
To measure depth of academic engagement, we created an index based on five
elements. First, we scored student entries for assertions that were reflective,
deliberative or critical (reflective), the functional equivalent of claims, and/or
qualifiers, and/or rebuttals. Second, we coded for whether the post included an
honest question that created further deliberation among students (rather than a
rhetorical one), such as when a student asked a peer to think about another
aspect of an issue (honestq). Third, we looked ―backings to claims‖ that took
shape in two forms: in references to authorities, such as an assigned text or the
professor’s teachings (classtext); or in links or references to outside media or
sources such as an article, video clip, or other online materials supporting any
assertions the student is making (media). Fifth, we coded for length (short,
medium, or long based on the number of words), as a proxy for effort to
articulate an argument. Students who wrote virtual essays, for example, clearly
achieved a different level of critical thought than those who merely offered an
opinion that was expressed in a few lines.
Our composite variable, ―depth of academic engagement‖ (or more simply,
depth of engagement) represents a sum of the scores for these five elements.
Therefore, a post that evidences deep engagement would incorporate all five
elements: reflective + honestq + class text + media materials + length. These
results are presented below.
Research Questions and Hypotheses. We were interested in how seriously
students engage with each other in online discussions, and whether they argued
with each other and wrestled with the material in gently provocative ways that
could change a person’s mind or produce a new position. More specifically, we
wanted to know whether the computer-mediated communication process of
dialogical argumentation could foster academic learning. Building on Clark and
Sampson’s work (2007; 2008), we hypothesized (H1) that the most sophisticated
levels of argumentation would be least common, in that students would
challenge and dispute each other (Type 3 responses) less often than they would
correct and clarify their positions to each other (Type 2), and that the majority of
students would reach a basic level of engagement by agreeing and/or disagreeing
with each other (Type 1). We also hypothesized (H2) that Type 0 responses
would be less prevalent than Type 1 responses, given our clear guidelines about
length of posts and our expectations that they would reflect on their answers
before recording their thoughts. Thus, we expected the greatest number of posts
to be Type 1, representing ―entry-level‖ engagement with the learning process.
Furthermore, we hypothesized that students who ―dove deeply‖ into the
process by incorporating links to other materials or producing lengthy posts
would also be more likely to argue at higher levels of sophistication.
Findings and Discussion
Type of Arguments. Noting first that a student’s post could contain different
argumentative elements of argument, we mined the responses for progressively
more sophisticated combinations that would allow us to categorize them by type.
We found that almost one-third (30.1%) of posts included the most advanced
―Type 3‖ combination of arguments: these incorporated challenges and
disputations, and pushed ahead the discussion with new, engaging points or
questions. A larger percentage (56.5%) included Type 2 combinations, which

10
encompassed corrections and clarifications. The largest percentage (68.5%)
included Type 1 interactions where the students agreed and/or disagreed with
each other, or added a new point or information. A much larger portion, 77.4%,
contained unsupported generalizations, as reported in Table 5.
Table 5
Dialogical Argumentation Types: Spring 2012 & Spring 2013 (N=375)
Percent of Interactive
Posts
Combined Elements of
Argumentation
Type 3 30.1% Challenge + Dispute
Type 2 56.5% Correct + Clarify
Type 1 68.5% Agreement/Disagreement + Offer
Info
Type 0 77.4% Information + Unsupported
generalizations
The results in Table 5 support our main hypothesis (H1), such that fewer than a
third of all peer-to-peer responses contained the most sophisticated arguments,
while non-oppositional statements of opinion were among the most common
types found among the responses. More difficult arguments were indeed less
common. Contrary to our expectations (H2), however, Type 0 responses were
more common than Type 1, which provides some evidence that students were
contributing to the discussions without investing much thought.
At the lowest level of engagement, Type 0, students typically made sweeping
claims or generalizations lodged in ―common wisdom,‖ yet remained civil. This
example of a Type 0 response comes from a spring 2013 dialogue about the
utility of banning sugary drinks and taxing fatty foods:
“I do think it’s a nice thought however ultimately I just feel that people should
just do a better job of taking care of themselves and be better role models for the
youth. If you set good examples kids will look up to you and what you do.”
In this example, the student backs her opinion by a broad generalization. This
exmplifies Type 0 responses in which information relevant to the thread might
be included, but unsupported generalizations render it unhelpful for advancing an
argument from which students can learn, either through practice or the act of
considering their peers’ arguments.
In Type 1 interactions, students disagree at least mildly with their peers (often
they combine disagreement with agreement), and they continue to advance an
argument by offering a new perspective, angle, or information, even if only
briefly. No direct challenges are made. In the following excerpt from a
discussion forum about government regulation of food from the Spring 2013
semester, Student Y responds to Student X by not only repeating X’s claim, but
also by supplying his own reasoning, which effectively adds a new point
(childhood diseases) to the dialogue:
Student X initial post: Bloomberg's attempt to ban the large sugary drink is a
good idea because most of America is unhealthy and obese. Banning the large
sugary drink is a good health decision. Now the question, Is it really a debate?
No, this should not be a debate and the large sugary drink should not be banned.
Banning the large drink will not stop people from drinking large amount of soda,
it will only have them purchase two drinks instead of one which will equal to or

11
more to the size of one large drink. People should be allowed to purchase their
own size of drink. If customers are interested in their health, restaurants have
posters up on the wall which has the amount of calories on items sold
Student Y’s response to Student X: I agree because these days we now have
children with diabetes and obesity. The educational system has already
attempted to help the obesity problem by offering healthier food options. Maybe
allowing the government to help with the obesity problem will aid the obesity
and diabetes issue that we have present.
Here, Student Y adds to the discussion with this concise point about
government’s responses to childhood obesity, but does so without challenging
his peer directly and without providing data or qualifiers for the assertion about
obesity. Type 1 responses thus contribute in some small way to the general
argument, and over two-thirds, 68.5%, did so.
Over half the interactions (56.5%) were of Type 2: a student would clarify his or
her position, and/or rebut a counterclaim, sometimes correcting a peer by adding
new information. Warrants and backings in the form of reasoning and examples
were common, indicating that the author was engaging the learning process in a
more rigorous way. Type 2 is exemplified by this thoughtful reply to another
student’s post, which the author does not question:
Even though i am proud of Bloomberg for trying to help make New York's
citizen's healthier, i do not think potentially banning soda size is the main health
problem. There are many reason why. For example, just banning the soda size
alone will not stop people from drinking more soda. In fact, this will have the
complete opposite reaction. Once people hear their soda size is being cut down, it
will only make them want to buy more soda to make up for the loss in size,
meaning they will buy more cans or bottles of sodas until they are satisfied. I
agree with [Margo] that restaurants should make the public more aware of the
ingredients rather than the calorie count of food items. If people know about
what is in their food, then they will have a better idea of how to control what
they eat, making healthier food choices. Let us take the fast food chain "Subway"
for example. They give healthy food choices and make their customers aware of
the calorie and sugar content which helps us all to make better food choices.
When it comes to decisions about food, at the end of the day each person is
responsible for their own choices and will have to bear the consequences or gain
the benefits according to how they choose.
Type 2 posts, therefore, include a correction or counterclaim (information that
corrects a peer’s claim) and a clarification of one’s own position, usually through
additional data, warrants, or qualifiers. We interpret this type of post as
moderate engagement of the learning process.
Type 3 responses include a direct challenge to a peer’s statement or premise, and
key parts of a dispute are present as real dialogical argumentation unfolds. Again,
30.1% fell into this category, as they combined elements of argumentation
(warrants, claims, counterclaims) that enabled the author to clarify, challenge,
and argue thoughtfully. This kind of argument is demonstrated here:
I don't think that you managed to capture the entirety of my argument. All you
managed to do was call me bigoted; and you support your argument by saying
that the beliefs of many don't mean anything (as in your case for Religion) when
your opinion on gay marriage is at its foundation just a belief. The phrase of
separate but equal was meant to be in respect to the Church and State. I'll admit

12
that it was a poor choice of words given the civil rights history of the U.S. I
respect your point of view here, but you completely overlooked mine.
We regard this type of response as paving the way for others to reconsider their
views, including the target of the post, as well as other students who might read
the exchange. Students at this level are fully engaged in argument, trying to
convince others that his claims are meritorious and valid.
Depth of Engagement. We also assessed depth of academic engagement
quantitatively. First we created an index for depth of engagement by scoring the
responses for the presence of five various elements (as described in the methods
section): overall reflectiveness, asking honest questions, including references to
the class or textbook, inserting links to outside media or materials, and length
(scored one to three)2. A response containing none of these elements would be
scored zero; a response reflecting deep engagement would incorporate all five
elements. Actual scores ranged from zero to five, and most of the 375 responses
clustered around the mid-range—what we might call ―moderately engaged,‖ as
Table 6 shows.
Table 6
Frequency and Percent of Academic Engagement Scores
Score Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
0 <1 .03% .03%
1 43 11.47% 11.5%
2 145 38.7% 50.2%
3 98 26.1% 76.3%
4 66 17.6% 93.9%
5 23 6.1% 100%
N 375 100%
According to Table 6, about one out of ten responses demonstrated
engagement at the lowest level; it’s unlikely that the author learned anything
new or that peers gleaned meaningful information from these posts. Over two-
thirds (64.8%) were moderately engaged, having scored at least a two or a three
on our scale. At levels four and five, students are now invested in the learning
process, sharing materials and new ideas, prodding each other to question
further, or providing links to interesting articles that could shed further light on
the issue at hand. Almost a quarter (23.7%) appeared to be deeply engaged.
Finally, we wanted to know if a student’s use of argumentative elements could
predict how ―reflective‖ his or her response was. We scored each response for
overall reflectiveness: did the student generally seem to be thoughtful, or was
the response a knee-jerk, ―let’s-get-this-over-with‖ response? Using a dummy
2 Considered as a single variable (it is otherwise included in the “depth” score), length is another
indicator of students’ engagement through discussions with each other leading to in dialogical
argumentation. Students were required to post at least 75 words, and found that posts on average
exceeded the minimum at a mean of 96 words, but with a rather large standard deviation (56
words). Viewed another way, in both semesters most students (73%) posted what we coded as
“medium” length posts, meaning 50-150 words. At the lower end, 15% of all students posted far
less than the required minimum (0-50 words), and the remainder (11.5%) far exceeded the
minimum by posting at least double what was required (151+ words).

13
variable for ―reflective,‖ we analyzed the data through a series of simple linear
regressions to estimate the relative weight of each element of argumentation.
Interestingly, each term was found to be statistically significant (p<.001). A
summary of results is displayed in Table 7.
Table 7
Summary of Regression Analyses
This finding tells us that students who employ argumentative elements also
tend to be more reflective in their answers; they invest more in their learning
when they argue. Overall, the regression analysis confirms what we found
through our content analysis, providing further evidence that dialogical
argumentation occurs across three different types of argument—that is, Types 1
to 3. This is the strongest evidence that websites designed for academic purposes
can produce virtual learning environments.
Related Variables
While we found statistically significant evidence that students engage each other
in the process of argumentation, we continued to explore other questions that
formed during this process. Would a question about gay marriage that was
posed a year apart produce noticeable differences in argumentation? We found
this not to be the case. The student populations from two semesters took similar
approaches to answering questions, a conclusion confirmed by the ―depth of
engagement‖ patterns, which were roughly parallel across two semesters as
shown in Figure 1.
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.603 .108
Correct -.226 .130 -.085*
Clarify my position .819 .098 .367*
Challenge views .214 .159 .082*
Dispute .002 .157 .001*
Adding information .716 .108 .321*
Agreeing and
disagreeing
.194 .067 .154*
*p< .001.

14
Figure 1: Depth of Engagement Scores for Discussion Questions about Gay Marriage
In Spring 2012 and Spring 2013
We also explored whether the wording of the discussion question was correlated
with the sophistication of argumentation. We found that question prompts that
attract the most replies are current-events-oriented and contain links to outside
materials such as news articles. Theoretical questions attract the fewest
responses (even when they are required), as well as the most limited branching
among students; there is plenty of room for students to think critically and post
reflective statements, but they argue less with each other over definitions or
applications of abstract concepts when these are the actual topic of discussion. In
spring 2012 and spring 2013 the discussion questions that attracted the fewest
replies were about government’s role (n=72) and the nature of political
representation (n=69), compared to 119 and 91 replies about gay marriage.
A final note concerns the way that students interacted asynchronously to
create ―back-and-forth‖ dialogues. Most of the peer-to-peer responses (84%)
involved one single reply rather than a sustained series of responses; 11.5%
extended to two responses; 4.5% involved three or more responses. However,
some of those exchanges involved several persons, and branching was common.
The spring 2012 forum on gay marriage provides good examples of this. Almost
half (47%) of the posts in this forum were actual interchanges between or among
students. Similarly, a spring 2012 forum that asked students to weigh privacy
against the government’s need to collect private information attracted 79 replies,
44% of which were ―branches‖ that included three or more people. Clearly
students are engaging each other through this format, though just under half are
participating in actual ―dialogues‖ involving more than two people.
Conclusions
The purpose of our shared academic website was to provide a space for
undergraduate students from different campuses to interact and to promote
thoughtful discussion and learning through asynchronous discussion-based
forums. We hoped our students would learn about the issues and their own
positions through dialogical argumentation. This inquiry into the nature of
online student dialogue uncovered statistically significant evidence that students
did just that: they engaged the learning process through arguing with each other,
asynchronously through discussion forums, in the spring 2012 and 2013
semesters. Concrete elements of argumentation were visible in students’
0 10 20 30 40
Gay Marriage (2012)
Gay Marriage (2013)
Percent
L-5 L-4 L-3 L-2 L-1

15
responses to each other, namely in the way that they countered each other’s
claims, clarified their own positions, offered new perspectives and information,
questioned each other, and challenged one other to account for their views. It
should be noted that the process does not encompass all students equally; not
everyone argued, and not every student was invested in the site. However,
based on the totality of evidence, we conclude that the process was a valuable
learning tool for those who did engage.
Students are more likely to engage in activities when they feel their contribution
is valued by others. As students reported in open-ended survey responses at the
end of the semester, the iterative nature of the online exchanges tended to foster
an online community (59% in spring 2012 agreed that the website made them
―feel as if they were part of a larger political community‖), which begins with
following basic rules for civil discourse. The overwhelming majority (84%) also
felt that the discussion on the site increased their interest in political issues and
prompted them (84%) to find more information about these issues. Specifically
designed educational portals such as ours can simultaneously promote engaged
e-learning and a sense of community. Definitively, CMC is an effective means to
engage students in meaningful academic exchanges, regardless of discipline.
In using a digital portal designed to support interactive e-learning and by
concentrating on students’ interaction, we have shown that argumentation
involving students across geographic boundaries can lead to productive
―conversations‖ that prod students into thinking reflectively in an environment
conditioned by academic instruction. It’s clear that online educational portals
possess great potential to encourage critical thinking and learning. The
ingredients for knowledge construction and cognitive development are threaded
into discussion forums, and when enlivened through argumentation, learning
can take place.
References
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2013). Arguing to learn:
Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning
environments. Springer Science & Business Media 1. 33-56.
Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative
debate in the science classroom. Internet environments for science education,
3. 115-143.
Bender, T. (2012). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning:
Theory, practice and assessment. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain.
Blount, A. G. (2006). Critical reflection for public life: How reflective practice
helps students become politically engaged. Journal of Political Science
Education, 2(3), 271-283.
Chadha, A. (2017a). Learning to Learn: Lessons from a Collaboration. Journal of
the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 17(3), 34-47.
Chadha, A. (2017b). E-Learning Opens Doors to the Online Community: Lessons
from a Longitudinal Study. National social science association, 45.

16
Chadha, A. (2017c). Comparing Student Reflectiveness in Online Discussion
Forums across Modes of Instruction and Levels of Courses. Journal of
educators online 14 (2), 1-19.
Chu, H. C., Chen, J. M., & Tsai, C. L. (2017). Effects of an online formative peer-
tutoring approach on students’ learning behaviors, performance and
cognitive load in mathematics. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(2),
203–219. doi:10.1080/10494820.2016.1276085
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally‐ seeded discussions to scaffold
online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-
277.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in
online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45: 293-321.
Coirier, P., & Golder, C. (1993). Writing argumentative text: A developmental
study of the acquisition of supporting structures. European journal of
psychology of education, 8(2), 169-181.
Collins, L. (2014). How online learning enables personalized learning. Getting Smart.
Retrieved fromhttp://gettingsmart.com/2014/03/online-learning-
enables-personalized-learninginterview-dr-lisa-collins/
Cooper, J. (2001). Peer learning in law: using a group journal. In D. Boud., R.
Cohen, & J. Sampson (Eds.), Peer learning in higher education: Learning from
& with each other (pp. 115–127). London, UK: Stylus Publishing Inc.
Dehler, C., & Porras-Hernandez, L. H. (1998). Using Computer Mediated
Communication (CMC) to Promote Experiential Learning in Graduate
Studies. Educational Technology, 38(3), 52-55.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation:
Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for
studying science discourse. Science education, 88(6), 915-933.
Gordon, R. & Connor, R. (2011). Team based learning in management education.
In D. Boud, R. Cohen. R., J. & Sampson (Eds.), Peer learning in higher
education: Learning from & with each other (pp. 85–98). London, UK: Stylus
Publishing Inc.
Hakkinen, P. (2013). Multiphase method for analyzing online discussions.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 547-555.
Herring, Susan. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated
communication. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3(2), 3–31.
doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-415040-9.50121-4
Jacoby, B. (2009). Civic engagement in higher education. Concepts and practices.
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in
computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and
Instruction, 17(6), 708-721.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on
argumentative reasoning. Cognition and instruction, 15(3), 287-315.

17
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child
development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
Lane, D. R. (1994). Computer-mediated communication in the classroom: Asset
or liability. In Workshop presented.
Lee, M. J., & McLoughlin, C. (2007). Teaching and learning in the Web 2.0 era:
Empowering students through learner-generated content. International
journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 4(10), 21-34.
Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human
development, 43(6), 332-360.
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal
reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge
levels. Cognition and instruction, 14(2), 139-178.
Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993).
Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and instruction, 11(3-4), 347-364.
Rowntree, D. (1995). Teaching and learning online: a correspondence education
for the 21st century? British Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 205-
215.
Schouten, A. P., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009). An experimental test of
processes underlying self-disclosure in computer-mediated
communication. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on
Cyberspace, 3(2).
Schwarz, B. B., & De Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 297-
313.
Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative
knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts.
International journal of computer-supported collaborative learning, 2(4), 421-
447
Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative
argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported
collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297-323.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Vechten, R. B. (2013). He Said/She Said: Tracking Gender Differences in
Online Academic Discussions. Paper presented at the APSA teaching and
learning conference.
Van Vechten, R. B. and Chadha, A. (2013). How students talk to each other:
Findings from an academic social networking project. Teaching civic
engagement: From student to active citizen, 167-188.
Wilson, J. T. (2001) Project management teams: A model of best practice in
design. In D. Boud., R. Cohen, & J. Sampson (Eds.), Peer learning in higher
education: Learning from & with each other (pp. 99–114). London, UK: Stylus
Publishing Inc.

18
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 18-36, August 2017
A Qualitative Examination of Factors for Success
in a Content-Based English Language
Learner Classroom
Janet Delgado, Ed.D.
The School District of the City of York
Lorraine T. Benuto , Ph.D.
University of Nevada, Reno
Department of Psychology
Abstract. The dramatic increase of English Language Learners (ELLs)
created a sense of urgency across school districts who struggle with
efficiently educating students in a manner that facilitates the acquisition
of English for ELLs and ensures that testing standards across content
areas are met. Content-based sheltered instruction can provide quality
education while maintaining the integrity of effective English language
practices to a large number of ELLs simultaneously. The purpose of this
qualitative multiple-case study was to identify and understand the
essential attributes and relationships that contribute to the
successfulness of content-based sheltered instruction elementary
classrooms for English learners in an urban school district in southern
Pennsylvania (this school has successfully and effectively accelerated
their ELLs' levels of second language acquisition). Utilizing an
Appreciative Inquiry Approach, the attributes that maximize the
instruction of ELLs across four content-based, sheltered instruction ELL
classrooms within one K-8 school were identified. Results revealed that
these classrooms were successful when strong interrelationships were
evident between language and content learning, efficient organizational
structures, as well as a focus on the celebration of culture.
Introduction
Many public school districts across the country require additional
resources to educate students who arrive daily from other U.S. cities and
countries around the world (Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly & Rumberger, 2008). The
vast differences that exist between students across socioeconomic, cultural, and
linguistic dynamics contribute to students' levels of knowledge upon entering
school (Fayden, 2011). These factors create a sense of urgency to accelerate
English mastery so as to narrow the achievement gap, meet testing standards
(Cosentino de Cohen & Chu Clewell, 2007), and avoid the ramifications of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).

19
Unfortunately, this exacerbates an already impoverished learning environment
for many (Fayden, 2011).
Culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD), or English language learners
(ELLs), are among the largest and most disadvantaged subgroups in many
school districts (Fortuny, Capps, Simms & Chaudry, 2009). Approximately 17
million culturally and linguistically diverse children live in the U.S. (Migration
Policy Institute, 2012). These learners come from home environments where a
language other than English is spoken and they are acquiring language and
literacy skills in English, regardless of their birth origin (Herrera, 2010).
Studying language proficiency is important although other factors (e.g.,
socioeconomic circumstances) can impact how students perform on high-stakes
testing (Fortuny et al., 2009). It is common for members of school organizations
to select pedagogical approaches that can directly affect change within students'
rate of second language acquisition (Ramos & Krashen, 2011; Starnes, 2010).
Unfortunately many ELLs receive content instruction from educators who are
not prepared to address their second language development needs (Echevarría,
Short & Powers, 2008; Gándara, et al., 2008). Content-based, sheltered
classrooms can provide a superior alternative to traditional English-only
methods (Thomas & Collier, 2002) as these classrooms are led by dually certified
ELL and content educators who deliver grade-level material and focus on
English acquisition simultaneously (Genzuk, 2011). In most cases, they
incorporate the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model
(Echevarría, Vogt & Short, 2017) as they demonstrate cultural responsiveness
and allow native language and English dialogue in a low-anxiety language
environment (Herrera, 2010; Taylor, 2010). This pedogogical design was
influenced by Thomas and Collier's seminal work, known as the Prism Model
(1997), which facilitates the simultaneous development in the academic,
cognitive, linguistic and sociocultural domains of ELLs in their native and target
languages within their academic environments.
Thomas and Collier (1997) created the Prism model for language
acquisition from a large-scale study and the prism model considers multiple
areas of linguistic, academic, cognitive and sociocultural development (Thomas
& Collier, 1997; 2002). When fostered simultaneously, these areas can determine
the academic success for English language learners. In particular, facilitators
within schools must encourage the development of language and culture in both
the English learners’ native and target languages to provide supportive
sociocultural environments for students (Thomas & Collier, 1997). Once all the
learners' domains are addressed within the school, second language acquisition
and acculturation can take place and students can prosper academically (Jang &
Jimenez, 2011). Thomas and Collier (2002) were able to reaffirm their positive
longitudinal results several years later, supporting the importance of developing
the domains presented in the Prism Model for language acquisition within
schools.
Although Thomas and Collier (1997; 2002) stressed the importance of
bilingual education, they proposed models of language instruction in English
only that correlated closely to the areas of the Prism Model of second language
acquisition. Specifically content-based ESL programs, featuring sheltered
instruction, proved to be the most effective alternative to bilingual education

20
(Clark, 2009) when compared to other forms of subtractive schooling (Garza &
Crawford, 2005), such as English immersion and/or pull-out services. Content-
based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms operate through an instructional
delivery approach that is focused on teaching English through content via
explicit and scaffolded language experiences to assist students in reaching
grade-level content expectations in English (Echevarría, Richards-Tutor, Canges
& Francis, 2011).
Many school districts experience rapid increases in the enrollment of
English learners and are required to implement English-only instructional
practices to educate them (Calderón, Slavin & Sanchez, 2011). However, school
districts must offer English language instruction that amalgamates the learners’
academic needs with appropriate personnel and resources without
compromising the second language development of English language learners in
the school setting (Herrera, 2016; Thomas & Collier, 1997). One such means by
which school districts can achieve this is via the implementation of content-
based sheltered instruction ELL classrooms (Short, Fidelman & Louguit, 2012).
Content-based sheltered instruction classrooms provide learning environments
that allow learners to acquire English as they benefit from grade-level content
and language instruction designed specifically for ELLs. Not only do they
accelerate the learners’ rate of English acquisition, they make it possible for
educators to differentiate their instruction as their goal is to narrow the
achievement gap between English language learners and their monolingual
peers within their school districts as quickly as possible (Genzuk, 2011).
However, this sheltered instruction ELL classroom model is underutilized
because of the negative perceptions that allude to the segregation of students
(Gándara & Orfield, 2010), as well as the perceived overwhelming concentration
on English language skills in these classrooms (Clark, 2009). Thus the problem
addressed in this study was that the increasing need for educating large
populations of ELLs efficiently continues to be a national challenge (García,
Jensen & Scribner, 2009) and while content-based sheltered instruction was
effective, it was unclear what factors contribute to the successfulness of content-
based sheltered instruction elementary classrooms for English The purpose of
this qualitative multiple-case study was to identify the essential attributes and
relationships (Yin, 2014) that contributed to the successfulness of content-based,
sheltered instruction elementary classrooms for English language learners in an
urban school district in southern Pennsylvania. Because data was collected from
multiple sources in multiple forms (and for the purpose of organization and
clarity), the information about the materials and participants is consolidated
here under this section.
Methodology
Research tools
Individual Interviews. Semi-structured individual interviews were
conducted with administrators. The interview questions were pilot tested with
one administrator and one district support personnel. The interview questions
were revised based on the feedback provided. Participants in the individual
interview portion of this study consisted of three administrators, including one

21
ELL reading specialist. They were selected because of their administrative roles,
expertise and support (Lauckner, Patterson & Krupa, 2012) at the onset of the
school’s implementation of sheltered ELL classrooms for a duration of at least
five years. Additional study participants included seven educators certified in
both elementary education and ELL. A variety of viewpoints based on teaching
experiences were represented as three of the seven educators had taught as ELL
pull-out teachers, as well as grade-level content teachers.
Research tools for Observations. Four classroom observations were
conducted and data was collected using the Danielson’s A Framework for Teaching
protocol (2007) and the SIOP Protocol (Echevarría, Vogt, et al., 2017). See Table 1
for information about participants.
Table 1
Classroom Observation Characteristics
Classrooms Grade Content
Area
Group ELL Service ELLs in
Class
Classroom 1 6th math full class integrated 57%
Classroom 2 3rd science full class integrated 68%
Classroom 3 1st language
arts
full class integrated 63%
Classroom 4 3rd language
arts
full class integrated 68%
A Framework for Teaching protocol (Danielson, 2007). The classroom
environment scale from the Danielson’s A Framework for Teaching protocol (2007)
is a professional practice performance scale utilized by administrators to
evaluate teachers' performance. It was used to examine sociocultural attributes
within each of the ELL classrooms to provide a context for the observations.
Specifically, Doman 2 focused on classroom culture and climate, procedures and
physical environment.
SIOP Protocol (Echevarría, Vogt, et al., 2017). The instructional content
of each classroom was observed and data was measured accessing a tool
specifically created for ELL sheltered instruction (Short, Echevarría, et al., 2011).
The SIOP protocol evaluates the categories of lesson preparation, building
background, comprehensible input, learning strategies, interaction
opportunities, application experiences and assessment options (Echevarría,
Vogt, et al., 2017) within sheltered instruction lessons. The SIOP observation
tool (Echevarría, Vogt, et al., 2017) provided rich data that was already present
during content instruction within each elementary ELL classroom. The
observation tool was utilized during English language arts or a specific content
area lesson of the classroom teachers’ choice as it increased the opportunity for
the educators to demonstrate a variety of practices implemented across content
areas. This valid and reliable instrument was organized as a 5-point Likert scale
(Trochim & Donnelly, 2008) and demonstrated the degree to which educators
followed the lesson preparation and delivery protocol with fidelity. At the

22
conclusion of each observation, a brief post-observation interview with the
teacher was conducted to clarify and/or extend conversation regarding what
was observed during the session.
Focus Groups. Six students from grades three or six were also included
via focus groups (see Table 2 for demographic details), so that the data collected
represented varied perspectives (Yin, 2014) of content-based, sheltered
instruction ELL classrooms (see Table 3 for a breakdown of demographics). At
the outset of the focus group interview, the purpose and protocol was
introduced after initial questions about educator experiences were discussed in a
whole group session format. The protocol established the procedures for
creating a visual representation of their group's conversations, an Affinity
diagram. The Affinity diagram is created by members of a group (Abilla, 2010),
and provides a visual structure that organizes a large amount of data into
themes based on their connections and relationships (National School Reform
Faculty, 2012).
Table 2
Student Focus Group Demographics
Student Sex Grade Yrs. at
School
Home
Language(s)
Family
Origin
Student 1 male three 2 Spanish Puerto Rico/
Dominican
Republic
Student 2 female three 3 Spanish/English Puerto Rico
Student 3 male three 3 Khmer/English Cambodia
Student 4 female three 3 Spanish Puerto Rico
Student 5 male six 6 Spanish/English Puerto Rico
Student 6 male six 3 Spanish Puerto Rico
Data Collection
An Appreciative Inquiry (AI) approach is a method of inquiry that
focuses on the positive attributes of an organization (Gaddis & Williams, 2009).
The main components included in an AI approach are discovery, dream, design
and delivery/destiny (Bushe, 2011) and these provided a procedural focus for
this study inquiry (Bushe, 2011; Cantore & Cooperrider, 2013; Stevenson, 2011).
Data Processing and Analysis
A case study database was necessary to capture large amounts of
language data across multiple settings that visually represented commonalities
in the data and assisted in the compilation of each case record (Patton, 2002)
utilizing Atlas.ti7. Adhering to an inductive process (Schutt, 2012); code
identification, revision, as well as data reduction (Johnson, Christensen &
Turner, 2014) was necessary to focus a large amount of language data into
manageable components (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2013). To determine
elements of significance and relationships across the multiple sources of data,

23
additional analysis led to the identification of the context of each assigned code
frequency (Miles et al., 2013). Table 3 demonstrates the distribution of the
frequency of codes by data source and was utilized as the first layer of analysis
(Friese, 2012) as to arrive at themes that exemplify the successfulness of content-
based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms at Wilson K-8 School.
Table 3
Code Families by Data Source
Code Family Individual
Interviews
Classroom
Observations
Focus
Groups
Total
Academic Language 26 90 7 123
Class Community 19 46 24 89
School Characteristics 43 15 33 91
School Culture and Climate 36 17 30 83
School Supports and Resources 32 9 25 66
Student Achievement 23 6 5 34
Instructional Practices 76 27 212 315
Teacher Behavior and Beliefs 41 16 25 82
Totals 296 411 176 883
Results
RQ1. The first research question was: How are content-based, sheltered
instruction classrooms maximizing the instruction of ELLs in an elementary setting
with large populations of ELLs? . The data from the four content-based,
sheltered classroom observations revealed that multiple explicit instructional
practices within positive and engaging classroom communities, in conjunction,
maximized the instruction of ELLs. These classrooms consistently provided safe
and supportive conditions for learning by all students, including English
language learners, so as to accelerate their progress academically and
linguistically (Jang & Jimenez, 2011). Evidence of successful student talk and
active engagement were described within each classroom observation.
Academic/language instruction was infused within all of the described grade-
level content lessons. However, additional data was needed to identify specific
practices and strategies as evident within the lessons, as well as from the
perspectives of the students themselves. The following two sub-questions led to
more precise information as the triangulation of the data (Shutt, 2012; Yin, 2014)
from multiple sources i.e., the SIOP observation protocol (Echevarría, Vogt, et
al., 2017) and the student focus group interviews.
SQ1. The first sub-question derived from research question 1 was: What
instructional practices take place in content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classroom
that makes them effective for English language learners? Two current and retired
administrators were asked what positive attributes were evident, relating to
instructional practices, when they entered and/or observed content-based,

24
sheltered instruction ELL classrooms on a regular basis. Although a minimum
of eight specific examples were provided by each participant, they discussed
topics and referred to examples of instructional practices throughout the
interviews. When the language data was compiled from the individual
interviews, the overarching categories of instructional practices most identified
are displayed in Table 4.
Table 4
Categories of Instructional Practices Witnessed in ELL Classrooms
Instructional Practices Frequency
Explicit academic/language instruction 23
Bilingual support 12
Differentiated instruction and participation 23
Levels of support throughout lessons 14
Multisensory teaching and learning 13
Explicit academic/language instruction, bilingual support, differentiated
instruction and participation, levels of support throughout lessons and
multisensory teaching and learning were the instructional practices identified as
effective for the English language learners in the ELL classrooms. These
observation teaching behaviors were documented on the SIOP to indicate the
elements of effective sheltered instruction for each observed classroom and were
reported. Although all categories were identified within each lesson, the
following, in particular supported the instructional practices mentioned above:
comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice/application and delivery.
These categories measured the effectiveness in content delivery, the variety of
multisensory experiences, explicit strategies, as well as student/peer
engagement and support and were noted on the Likert scale (1-not evident to 4-
highly evident) as “3-evident or 4-highly evident” within each lesson observed
at Wilson K-8 School. The data triangulated, or analyzed from multiple sources,
was necessary to ensure validity of the results (Yin, 2014) throughout the
qualitative study. Particularly to respond to this sub-question, it was
accomplished via the classroom observations and the results from the SIOP
protocol. The results support the effective practices of explicit
academic/language instruction, bilingual support, differentiated instruction and
participation, levels of support throughout lessons and multisensory teaching
and learning as essential to the success of content-based, sheltered instruction
ELL classrooms.
SQ2. From the perspectives of learners, what strategies increase their
learning and their use of academic language?
The English language learner participants at Wilson K-8 identified
several practices that increase their learning and use of academic language
within content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms (see Tables 5 and 6
for details). Students confirmed that working collaboratively within peer
configurations (partners or groups) naturally elevates the levels of student

25
engagement and support during explicit content and strategy instruction.
Additionally, the classroom observation data supports the ELLs' statements and
expanded on the examples of academic language techniques used in the
classroom, such as cognate instruction and teacher elaboration of vocabulary
and student responses. In fact, within the classroom observation data, the
instructional practices and academic language code families displayed two
strongest occurrences: teacher practices and academic language. Table 6
indicates the specific codes within the academic language family displayed
during the four non-participatory classroom observations of the ELL classrooms.
The trend was reaffirmed that in order to increase content learning, as well as
academic language, intentional opportunities for student engagement,
experimentation and discussion among peers were essential in the successful
operation of content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms.
Table 5
Instructional Practices that Increase Learning and Academic Language
Instructional Practices Student
Response
Frequency
Collaborative peer groups (partners included) 9
Explicit content and strategy instruction 6
Multisensory teaching and learning 6
Student engagement in lessons 4
Students receive sufficient support 4
Table 6
Academic Language Code List
Components of Academic Language Frequency within
Classroom
Observations
Explicit academic and language Instruction (cognates
included)
11
English language practice and experimentation 52
Teacher elaboration of vocabulary and student
responses
37
Vocabulary instruction 34
Q2. How are successful content-based, sheltered instruction ELL
classrooms supported within their school? Data, specific to this question, was
analyzed from two sources within the multiple-case study. Data was collected
from individual interviews and the teacher focus group interview. Both sources
were necessary as to reveal the evidence derived from multifaceted perspectives
through triangulation (Lauckner et al., 2012). Within the individual interviews,

26
as well as the teacher focus groups, the participants were asked to reflect on the
unique attributes of the school and in what ways are the ELL classrooms
supported from the school/district level. Ultimately, they both affirmed the
necessity of support available of varying degrees within the school structure.
The individual interview participants who consisted of past and current
personnel within administrative positions at Wilson K-8 School, as well as the
teachers involved in the teacher focus group interview, presented similar
elements considered as essential academic support systems within the school.
Flexibility within scheduling and curriculum allows for additional personnel to
assist with small group and/or explicit instruction based on the students'
individual needs, as well as the administration encouraging teacher discretion
on the depth and breadth of content/language delivery necessary for each
classroom within a flexible schedule and curriculum. Both sources reported that
the self-contained student configuration created an entire system of support
within content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms. Although the
specific school's climate and climate was mentioned as a support system that
overlapped the essential components, this area will be discussed in greater detail
within its corresponding sub-question.
SQ3. How are educators maintaining a culturally sensitive
environment that promotes the efforts of ELLs? The language data compiled
from interviews, classroom observations and focus groups offered insight on
how educators maintain an environment that facilitates the development of their
ELLs among their peers within content-based, sheltered instruction classrooms.
The triangulation of the data (Yin, 2014) indicated that the grade-level ELL
teachers and their students consistently work on ensuring a positive, classroom
community as to encourage all learners to feel they are part of a unit and that
they are capable of excelling in academics similar to their peers. Although the
code frequencies across the language data were mostly found in the classroom
community and teacher’s behaviors and beliefs code families, instructional
considerations also contributed to their successful environments.
Data collected from classroom observations and from their teachers, in
particular, indicated that a sense of community was created when the students
realized that collaborative peer groups were expected. Encouragement and the
respect of differences in individuals’ cultures, personality traits and language
skill sets were essential to build the class environment. “We are a family.
Helping out comes naturally to many of our students.”
From the evidence analyzed from the language data from the multiple
sources, as well as from the Danielson's classroom observation tool (2007),
educators maintain a culturally sensitive environment that promotes the efforts
of ELLs within content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms. They
achieve this by delivering sound, effective instructional opportunities that
intentionally demonstrate to the English language learners that they are capable
of academic achievement similar to that of their peers. These opportunities must
also be provided within the context of positive classroom environments for all
students.
SQ4. In what ways can school climate and culture support content-
based, sheltered instruction classrooms? The school’s climate and culture is

27
categorized as caring, supportive and knowledgeable, according to the
individual interview participants. Although 10 out of the 21 faculty members
worked at the school for at least seven years, the current administrator observed
the school’s unique qualities within her first year working at the school. “We
have a nurturing culture here at Wilson K-8. Teachers here go above and
beyond the four walls to support our students. I would say it is way more than
what I have seen at other buildings that I have worked in. Teachers support the
students who have language needs. The teachers are experienced in reading
students where they are and move them forward. There is compassion for what
students are going through in their everyday lives.” Table 7 demonstrates the
holistic distribution of occurrences within the school culture family code across
the three sources of data. One interview participant noted that as a result of the
school community, the relationships between teachers, students and their
families were why many ELL families request building transfers to remain or to
enter this school specifically from within the school district.
Table 7
Components of the School Community
School Culture Primary Codes Overall
Frequency
Community among staff 9
Described as family 9
Parent participation and events 8
School community 33
Teacher and student academic advancement 20
The belief that all individuals can learn and work toward academic
advancement among students and teachers contributed to the successful climate
and culture of Wilson K-8. Not only was bilingualism viewed as a positive
attribute within students to accelerate students along academically, the teachers
at Wilson K-8, were also viewed as professional learners. The teachers were
knowledgeable as over 50% were ELL certified, as well as within their content
area. However, the teachers were learning effective strategies from each other.
One administrator explained professional development opportunities that
occurred among colleagues. “The ELL classrooms often, many of them, became
models I could refer teachers to go visit. If they wanted to see how a particular
teaching/learning strategy was used, I could send them to observe a
classroom….We had a lot of strong teaching models, and teachers were learners.
They didn’t stop learning. They learned from each other in professional learning
communities (PLCs). In their PLCs, they could learn from each other, they could
observe each other, and that was one of the strongest benefits that I think we had
in our building because there was such a wealth of good teaching in that
building and people were willing to try new things.”
Data from this multiple-case study provides the manners in which school
climate and culture support content-based, sheltered instruction ELL

28
classrooms. As a result of their close professional relationships, the teachers and
other personnel at the school assist each other so that they can support the
academic advancement of their students. Because they are knowledgeable and
compassionate about the students' family and cultural biographies, they
problem-solve together to provide what ELLs and their families need to achieve
personally and academically.
Inductive reasoning and analysis was conducted to identify the themes
present across the various sources of data within the multiple-case study. Six
themes emerged through memo-ing and examining the frequency and
correlations between codes and within code families. These themes were
identified below (see Table 8) and are presented as equally vital to the success of
content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms. Although the following
themes are representative and validated throughout all of the questions posed
during the multiple-case study, the themes are discussed in order of the main
research questions and their corresponding sub-questions. The overarching
concepts all relate to the members of the organization understanding their
population and addressing their students’ needs within their academic,
linguistic and sociocultural development as suggested by Thomas & Collier
(1997; 2002).
Table 8
Emerging Themes
Classroom configurations in language and learning
Explicit instruction by knowledgeable personnel
Student engagement for students of all language levels
Academic and structural flexibility
Celebration of culture, language, and learning
Functionality of its members as a support unit
Discussion
This descriptive multiple-case study was an analysis of factors present in
successful content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms within an urban
K-8 school educating high populations of English language learners at the
elementary level. Data collected from individual interviews, classroom
observations and focus groups addressed the research questions. The findings
contribute to the affirmations presented within the theoretical framework of the
Prism model of language acquisition within schools (Thomas & Collier, 1997;
2002). Although the selected school did not demonstrate effective bilingual
education practices as recommended in the Prism model; the content-based,
sheltered instruction ELL classrooms were established in efforts to move
students academically within similar language communities. They exhibit
components that support students academically, linguistically and cognitively
within socioculturally supportive environments (Herrera, 2016; Thomas &
Collier, 1997; 2002). The implications from the findings of this study are
discussed below.

29
Classroom configurations in language and learning. The results form
this study support the notion that content-based, sheltered instruction ELL
classrooms maximize instruction by creating specially designed classroom
environments in which educators can provide explicit instructional practices
that unify academic and language objectives throughout all grade appropriate
content delivery necessary for English language learners (Clark, 2009; Short &
Echevarría, 2016; Genzuk, 2011). They address the importance of solid core
instruction within Tier 1 of the Response to Intervention (RTI) framework
(Echevarría & Hasbrouck, 2009) through the implementation of explicit
instruction utilizing the SIOP protocol designed specifically for these learners
(Echevarría, Vogt, et al., 2017). Findings from this study indicate that classroom
configurations within content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms may
reduce the amount of ELLs in need of intervention at a more intense level as
their core instruction is designed specifically for their learner populations and
not of the traditional structure intended for the majority culture. These findings
are consistent with the extant research (Chang, 2008; Gándara et al., 2008).
Explicit instruction by knowledgeable personnel. Explicit
academic/language instruction, bilingual support, differentiated instruction and
participation, levels of support throughout lessons (Echevarría, Frey & Fisher,
2015) and multisensory teaching and learning were identified as the effective
instructional practices provided by ELL certified grade-level teachers across
content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms (Chang, 2008) observed
during the study. Administrators stated there was a specific advantage to the
high number of certified grade-level ELL teachers with these skills so as to
provide consistency of effective instruction from year to year from kindergarten
to sixth grade within one school. Multiple years within the program was viewed
as vital to accelerating students academically and linguistically (Cosentino de
Cohen & Chu Clewell, 2007) as language proficiency is multi-directional and
unique for each student (Herrera, 2016).
Student engagement for students of all language levels. From the
learners' perspectives, students confirmed that working with partners and/or
groups engages and provides natural support during explicit content, strategy,
and/or language instruction (Swain, 2000). Regardless of English language
levels, all students benefit from additional time to negotiate for meaning (Short,
Echevarría, et al., 2011), experimenting with language within their own zones of
learning (Min, 2006), as well as working through new academic content with
others. By facilitating total student participation within lessons (which is
recommended by Herrera [2016] and Himmele and Himmele [2012]) ELLs feel
empowered and a sense of belonging within their learning communities
(Washburn, 2008).
Academic and structural flexibility. Flexibility within the school
organization became the overarching theme for how the classrooms in the
current study operate successfully within their school communities. Successful
content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms are supported within the
school organization by facilitating academic and structural flexibility within all
aspects so as to tailor their instruction to the specific needs of their ELLs. Not
only is there educational autonomy with regards to essential content and
scheduling, educators make decisions to create appropriate matches between the

30
ELL service types available and the linguistic, academic and acculturation
experiences of the students. Echevarría and Hasbrouck (2009) placed a high
priority on the ability for schools to be able to make decisions based on their
ELLs’ individual cultural biographies (Herrera, 2016) within the core structure of
the school.
Celebration of culture, language, and learning. The student
participants embraced their sense of home within their content-based, sheltered
instruction ELL classrooms and among the school. In order to achieve this,
educators must maintain culturally sensitive environments that promote the
efforts of ELLs by facilitating instructional opportunities that reassure ELLs that
they can see themselves in their learning (Taylor, 2010). Particularly within the
contexts of positive classroom environments, English language learners’ levels of
language proficiency in L1 and L2 and their own life experiences (Dong, 2013)
are showcased and utilized intentionally throughout content lessons. Although
sociocultural theory remains prevalent within this theme, Cummin’s contextual
interaction theory (1996) justified the connection between the relationships of
successful language input, a supportive affective environment, as well as the
status associated within culture and language among peers and teachers
(Lavadenz, 2011). Content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms become
a center for individual motivation through the celebration of culture, language
and learning.
Functionality of its members as a support unit. The school climate and
culture at Wilson K-8 supports the success within content-based, sheltered
instruction ELL classrooms by establishing a cohesiveness that is understood
and accepted by all (Rodriguez, Ringler, O’Neal & Bunn, 2009). A high level of
support was noted as one of the key elements of success for these classrooms as
the strong-knit relationships between among administrators, teachers, students
and their families maintain a positive learning environment that flexes and
problem-solves to understand their learners (Washburn, 2008)). Social capital
theory substantiates the benefits of human relationships and the power to
achieve more through collective actions (Bourdieu, 1985). Essentially, the
functionality of the schools' members as a support unit provides the context and
conditions for excellence among elementary level English language learners at
this school.
Future Directions
The first recommendation for educational application is for schools to
expand on the variety of ELL service options available within a school within
increasing student populations of ELLs. This is necessary so that
knowledgeable, certified educators can appropriately match students of
different cultural biographies with optimal instructional and school climate
conditions specific to their needs (Pray & Monhardt, 2009). Content-based,
sheltered instruction self-contained and ELL integrated classrooms can provide
classroom environments that balance the academic, linguistic and sociocultural
needs of specific students as supported by the Prism model (Thomas & Collier
1997; 2002). Many of the administrators and teachers who participated in this
study stated the importance of placing elementary students in classrooms that

31
allow for explicit instruction and classroom engagement experiences that match
the specific academic, language and sociocultural needs of the students (Jang &
Jimenez, 2011; Murry, 2012). However, continuous professional development
opportunities that include the most recent research-based strategies within
explicit instruction, second language acquisition and instruction and the SIOP
model (Echevarría, Short, et al., 2008 must remain at the forefront as schools in
need must establish an effective educational framework for the influx of English
language learners (Genzuk, 2011; Reeves, 2009; Taylor, 2010 ).
The second recommendation is that a team, consisting of a school
administrator and ELL personnel could be assembled within the schools. Their
focus would be to assist with the academic, structural and sociocultural
flexibility necessary to appropriately screen and monitor the large populations
of ELLs (Brown & Sanford, 2011) through collaboration, instructional planning,
and/or direct student support in efforts to continue to make measurable gains in
English language proficiency (Anderson & Dufford-Melendez, 2011).
Ultimately, the ELL support team could work alongside a school's RTI team
(Brown & Sanford, 2011; Calderón, Slavin & Sanchez, 2011; Echevarría &
Hasbrouck, 2009) to maintain solid core instruction while increasing the
sociocultural experiences by way of strong interrelationships between teachers,
students and their families (Good et al., 2011).
Recommendations for further research. Future studies could be
performed to expand on the factors for success within content-based, sheltered
instruction ELL classrooms. The first recommendation could be to replicate this
study, but data from observations could be collected throughout a longer period
of time during one school year as it would provide longitudinal data that could
represent a more accurate depiction (Cozby, 2014) of the effective instructional
practices and classroom environments of each classroom. Additionally, an
increase in the number of ELL classrooms observed could also contribute data in
the same manner within the multiple-case study.
The second recommendation for further research could add an additional
student focus group interview session of current students who have participated
in content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms, but have provisionally
exited out of ELL services as they have accomplished academic and linguistic
proficiency at their grade-level. This could increase the depth into the students'
perspectives of their experiences (regarding instructional practices and their
classroom environments within their previous content-based, sheltered
instruction ELL classrooms at Wilson K-8 School). Most importantly, they could
offer additional insight into the program's success overall as the students
participated since the beginning of their journey towards English language
proficiency within content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms within
the schoolwide model (Kang, 2010; Rodriguez et al., 2009).
Finally, the last recommendation could examine the difference between
the mission of this school's content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classroom
model and their classroom configurations to include integrated and self-
contained and establish clear definitions of the expectations and achievements
when comparing the existing English-only models. Further research analysis of
existing ELL classrooms to the classrooms highlighted within this study may

32
lead to additional contributing factors for success that may have been
overlooked in this study.
Conclusions
A qualitative multiple-case study was conducted to identify the essential
attributes and relationships (Yin, 2014) that contributed to the successfulness of
content-based, sheltered instruction elementary classrooms. Minimal research
exists of ELL classroom models with similar characteristics addressing the needs
of large populations of ELLs efficiently and utilizing English as the language of
instruction within one school. In addition to the urging pressures of upcoming
achievement standards (Alberti, 2013; Schmidt & Burroughs, 2013) and new
teacher evaluation tools (Danielson, 2012; Marzano, 2012), school districts across
the nation struggle to identify effective solutions to educate new, large
populations of ELLs (Guccione, 2011) effectively in the quickest amount of time
without providing bilingual education. The findings of this study establish
attributes of successful content-based, sheltered instruction ELL classrooms that
can serve as a viable method for many school districts in need of solutions.
Six themes emerged from the triangulation of the data collected from
interviews, observations and focus groups which answered the research
questions: 1) classroom configurations in language and learning; 2) explicit
instruction by knowledgeable personnel; 3) student engagement for students of
all language levels; 4) academic and structural flexibility; 5) celebration of
culture, language and learning; and 6) functionality of its members as a support
unit. The implications were organized and presented by the themes that arose
from the findings of the multiple-case study. However, these relationships
indicated within the study mirror the areas of development necessary for
English language proficiency in schools as indicated by Thomas and Collier
(1997; 2002). Thus, the fundamental implication of this qualitative, multiple-case
study is that all attributes and relationships must interact and depend on each
other so as to create successful content-based, sheltered instruction ELL
classrooms for its students.
The two recommendations for application based on the findings of the
study have been discussed through the perspective of improving the quality of
services English language learners receive in school districts with rising ELL
populations, in particular. School districts must develop their ELL programs so
several models are available within each school with a large population of ELLs
in the elementary grades. Because ELLs obtain their own unique cultural
biographies (Murry, 2012) that include academic experiences in their native
language, the type of instructional service and classroom environment must also
vary so as to meet these learners' needs efficiently. An ELL team of
professionals within each building can assist with these student cases and offer
professional development, instructional strategies, as well as hands-on support
in the classroom.
Further investigation of successful content-based, sheltered instruction
ELL classrooms is suggested to increase the validity and reliability of the results
of this study. It is recommended that the study be conducted on a larger scale to
include classroom observation within content-based, sheltered instruction ELL

Vol 16 No 8 - August 2017

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Vol 16 No 8 - August 2017

Similar to Vol 16 No 8 - August 2017 (20)

More from ijlterorg

More from ijlterorg (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Vol 16 No 8 - August 2017