CBI Model Effectiveness 1

RUNNING HEAD: CBI Model Effectiveness

Teachers’ Perceptions of Push-In or Pull-Out Model Effectiveness and Learning

Outcomes.

Dr. Kate Mastruserio Reynolds, reynolkm@uwec.edu

Ms. Jingjing "Summer" Jiao, jiaojingjinghao@gmail.com
Ms. Kate Nolin-Smith, nolinsk@uwec.edu
Ms. Elizabeth O'Brien, obrienep@uwec.edu
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
 CBI Model Effectiveness 2

Abstract
Public school districts in the U.S. implement a variety of content-based instructional
approaches, commonly including push-in and pull-out models of instruction. Teachers
working in these programs frequently note the implementation issues, but these
uninvestigated, unsummarized and unpublished challenges frequently are not
channeled into or proactively addressed when planning. This study sought to determine
which of these two models teachers’ thought were most effective and what evidence
they had to support their belief sets.

This research gained new insights to many aspects of Push-In and Pull-out language
models including: administrative support, staffing, scheduling, shared understanding
affecting teachers’ perceptions of model efficacy, environmental effects on model
efficacy, and time considerations impacting model efficacy.

Keywords: Content-based instruction; ESL; ELL; ELL; model effectiveness; push-in;

pull-out; teachers’ perceptions.
 CBI Model Effectiveness 3
Overview

U.S. Public schools grapple with providing English language instruction to non-

native English speakers with continually shrinking resources (Hull, 2010). And, “With the

increasing pressures of accountability performance measures and high-stakes testing

based on No Child Left Behind (2001), ensuring that all students meet accountability

standards is increasingly important—and expected.” (Alford & Nino, 2011, p. 3) School

districts are left to their best judgment as to which instructional model(s) to employ

(Cortez & Villarreal, 2009) resulting in a patchwork effect for English language

instruction.

According to Cortez & Villarreal (2009) the types of instructional programs

currently provided to English language learners (ELLs) varies extensively across the

country, individual states and districts, and even within the same school. They indicated

that ELL programs include numerous instructional “models” ranging from structured

immersion to transitional bilingual education programs to dual language instruction or

ESL. “Program variants include sheltered instruction in the major content areas that

involve integration of strategies responsive to the varying levels of English proficiency

among some ELLs placed in regular content area classes (Cortex & Villarreal, 2009,

p.10).

Why Content-Based Instruction?

Ortega (2009) mentioned the issue of effective instruction with language students

and stated “Language teachers across institutions all over the world hotly debate

whether students in their classrooms need to be directly taught grammar and

vocabulary in order to get the basic building blocks of a language first, or whether it is
 CBI Model Effectiveness 4
better to somehow approximate in their classroom the richness of natural language

meaning-making processes” (p.8)

Stoller (2004) described Content-Based Instruction (CBI) as being “distinguished

by its dual commitment to language and content-learning objectives,” and “has been

translated into practice in diverse ways to meet the needs of second and foreign

language student populations” (p.10). CBI, as defined by Curtain & Pesola (1994) is

“curriculum concepts being taught through the foreign language ….appropriate to the

grade level of the student” (p. 35).

Research from Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Training Studies, and

Education and Cognitive Psychology (Brinton & Snow, 1997) support the use of CBI for

meeting the needs of ELLs in academic programs, indicating ELLs are better served by

utilizing a content-based instructional approach depending upon students’ proficiency

level and need. “When planned thoughtfully, content-based activities have the possibility

of leading to "flow experiences," i.e., optimal experiences then emerge when personal

skills are matched by high challenge “ according to the works of Csikszentmihalyi, 1997,

Grabe & Stoller, 1997 and Stoller, 2002 (as cited in Center for Advanced Research on

Language Acquisition, 2012, para. 6).

Since CBI is an instructional approach to teaching both language alongside the

grade-level content, there are many methodological and programmatic realizations that

have been developed, ranging from the most content-driven in the immersion model,

partial immersion, sheltered content courses, adjunct model, to the opposite end of the

continuum, the most language-driven models: theme-based instruction and language-

oriented classes which frequently use content for language practice (Met, 1999). Within
 CBI Model Effectiveness 5
this continuum, nearer the most-content driven end, there are two program models,

Push-In (PI) and Pull-Out (PO), which were the subject of this research study.

Successful Content-Based Instruction (CBI) Program Models

Limited research exists on the effectiveness of specific program models of

content-based ESL instruction (Reynolds, Nolin-Smith and Groshek, 2012), particularly

when one enquires into the ability of the program model to demonstrate second

language acquisition progress and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) on states’ Annual

Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO). According to the Wisconsin Department

of Public Instruction (2012), Title III of the NCLB Act (2001) requires school districts to

determine achievement objectives in English proficiency and content knowledge and

measure ELLs’ progress annually.

Pascopella (2011) described how four different school districts, in Arizona,

Washington, Texas and Maryland use a variety of language program models to attend

to the surging enrollment, and dropout rate of English language learners. Kent

(Washington) School District successfully uses sheltered instruction, specifically SIOP

(Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol) language model to address the needs of

their ELLs. “The 2008-2009 results show the Kent district met all three AMAOs, which

include annual increases in the percentage of students making progress in learning

English; annual increases in the percentage of students attaining English proficiency;

and meeting annual yearly progress targets in reading and math on the state’s

Measurements of Student Progress and the High School Proficiency exam tests. The

2009-2010 school year results show the district met two of the three AMAOs, missing
 CBI Model Effectiveness 6
attaining English proficiency by less than one percent” (Pascopella, 2011, Success

section, para. 1-2).

The Washington County (Maryland) Public Schools successfully utilizes several

language models to accommodate its ELLs, which includes: Structured English

immersion, Sheltered English instruction, Content-based program, and Pull-Out

program. “Washington County schools have been successful in surpassing Annual

Measurable Achievement Objectives. The AMAO target in the spring of 2010 was to

have 16 percent of the students exit the ELL program, and they instead had 21 percent

exit, Moore says. And 76 percent of ELLs grew 15 points or more in proficiency in

English, when the state Department of Education’s AMAO target for the district was only

56 percent” (Pascopella, 2011, Success section, para.1).

Tucson (Arizona) Unified School District approaches the needs of their ELLs

through the use of English language development, dual-language program, and an

individual language learner’s plan. Together, these programs demonstrated success.

“ELLs improved by at least 20 percent in reading in the 2009-2010 year, according to

one assessment. In language proficiency that year, at least 30 percent of ELLs rose two

proficiency levels” (Pascopella, 2011, Success section, para. 1)

Fearon (2008) described how an elementary school in suburban New Jersey

used the inclusion/ co-teaching model to meet their ELL’s academic and language

needs. The first grade ELLs “advanced an average of 2.0 levels between the marking

periods, December/January and March, 2007-2008, while the non-ELLs advanced an

average of 2.7 levels” (Fearon, 2008, p. 35). This shows progress but there is still an

obvious gap between ELLs and their native English speaking peers.
 CBI Model Effectiveness 7
The end results were that the second grade ELL students advanced “an average

of 1.1 reading levels between the two marking periods, 2007-2008, and non-ELLs

advanced an average of 1.8 reading levels. Although an achievement gap between

ELLs and non-ELLs is evident, only two ELLS are reading below grade level.” (Fearon,

2008, p.41) Fearon (2008) emphasized the need for collaboration between ESL and

general educators to identify learners’ abilities and weaknesses and design strategies to

meet their specific needs.

In St. Paul Public Schools (SPSS) in Minnesota, the district put great efforts into

addressing the needs of their ELL students. Valeria Silva, Director of the SPSS ELL

Department, said that the school needed to look at a completely different way of

providing instruction. Pardini (2006) explained,

With a few exceptions, that’s [sic] meant abandoning traditional pull-out programs

in which non-English speaking students are removed from their classrooms

several times a week to work in small groups with specially trained ELL teachers.

Instead, ELL services are delivered through a collaborative model in which ELL

and mainstream teachers team teach. The goal: to teach language through —not

prior to — content. As a result, ELL instruction is closely aligned with and

integrated into the district’s standards-based curriculum (p. 21).

This reorganization and refocus on ELLs’ linguistic and academic needs yielded

quantifiable results. Pardini (2006) noted, “Between 2003 and 2005, the gap in reading

achievement between the district’s ELL and non-ELL students fell from 13 to 6

percentage points, as measured by the percent of students showing proficiency on the

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment. In math, the gap fell from 6.7 to 2.7 percentage
 CBI Model Effectiveness 8
points” (p. 21). This progress earned the SPPS District kudos in the Council of the Great

City Schools Beating the Odds VI report (2006), the “SPPS stands out as having made

the most progress of any large school district in the U.S. in closing the achievement gap

between ELL and non-ELL students” (2006, p. 21).

Duke and Mabbott (2000) described how several schools in Minnesota use

various language models to address their ELL students’ academic and language needs

ranging from PI, to self-contained courses. Duke and Mabbott, 2000, focused on Frost

Lake School, of St. Paul, MN, who chose a different path and decided to design their

own language model called the TESOL Inclusion Program (TIP), which is a combination

of PI and PO program models. “The ESL teacher worked with students at three times:

reading, language and math. The educational assistant helped with reading and math

lessons [inside the homeroom class], and provided individual tutoring, home

communications and other classroom support throughout the day” (Duke & Mabbott,

2000, p.17). Duke and Mabbott further explained, “reading is taught [outside of the

homeroom] in small, instruction-level groups by all classroom and specialist teachers”

(2000, p.17). Students could get the help they needed without standing out as being

different. “Since all students were changing classrooms, and were working with different

teachers, TIP students were not distinguished from other students.” (Duke & Mabbott,

2000, p.17). ELL students received one PO session each day for 30 minutes to develop

oral and written language skills through interactional activities (Duke & Mabbott, 2000).

The ESL students were fully integrated into mainstream classes, teachers were able to

work collaboratively where they were unable to in the past, and TIP students were able

to speak more standard English, and less pidgin-like English, due to their exposure to
 CBI Model Effectiveness 9
mainstream role models (Duke & Mabbott, 2000). According to Duke and Mabbott

(2000) not only did test results show that the Frost Lake TIP students made greater

academic and linguistic gains than traditional, isolated ESL classes. The participating

teachers’ reactions were also extremely positive.

The Push-In Model of ELL Inclusion

In the Push-In program model, the ELL is placed into mainstream classes for the

majority of their school day. The PI model has two variants: 1) co-teaching—a content

expert with an ESL specialist collaborate on all aspects of instruction and assessment

and take equal responsibility for instructional delivery and all children. According to

Duke and Mabbott (2000), “The ESL teacher goes into the mainstream class and team

teaches with the mainstream teachers” (p. 13) A well thought-out PI model that

facilitates the co-teaching format utilizes the content teacher as an academic expert in

their field and the ESL teacher being the expert in language acquisition and pedagogy

(DelliCarpini, 2009).

The other variant of the PI model is when the ESL teacher following the ELL(s)

into the mainstream classroom to assist the learner by providing extra language support

to ELLs (New York Collective of Radical Educators, n.d.). In this variant, there is no

collaboration, co-planning or lesson delivery between the general educator and ESL

teacher. The ESL teacher serves as an educational assistant by offering clarification,

explanation and elaboration while the mainstream teacher is teaching. This approach to

PI does not embrace an in-depth level of shared responsibility through co-teaching both

content and language by both the ESL teacher and content area teacher.
 CBI Model Effectiveness 10
When co-teaching is included in the model, there is a continuum of

implementation options ranging from a full co-teaching role to paraprofessional support

and translation. Co-teaching, as discussed by Dove and Honigsfeld (2010) is a

collaborative partnership between ESL and general educators that involves sharing of

teaching and assessing responsibilities and results in dismissing the views of “my

students” and “your students” and becomes one of “our students.” Dove & Honigsfeld

(2010) described seven models, which can be seen in combinations as well:

1) Two teachers teaching one class with one lead teacher and the other teaching

with purpose,

2) Two teachers teaching the same content to one class, collaborating on content

and language objectives,

3) One teacher teaching the class and the other circulates the room assessing

students,

4) Both teachers teaching the same lesson but with differentiated learning

strategies,

5) One teacher pre-teaching a group in the class, to bridge the gap of missing

information, while the other teacher teaches alternative information,

6) One teacher re-teaching information while the other teacher teaches

alternative information,

7) Multiple groups of students circulating among activity stations, while both

teachers facilitate and monitor students.

One of the most important benefits of the PI model is that ELLs have more

opportunities to interact with native English-speaking peers, which facilitates social

 CBI Model Effectiveness 11
adjustment and language learning. Mabbott & Strohl (1992) write “Also very important is

that the [Push-In] model can facilitate the acquisition of academic skills by providing

LEP [Limited English Proficiency] students with a more understandable and relevant

context for their mainstream curriculum” (p. 24). Another benefit, also discussed by

Mabbott and Strohl (1992), was that ELLs stay academically on track with their

mainstream peers resulting in a less fragmented education. “The strongest argument for

the Pull-in [Push-in] model is that, when properly implemented, it does the most to

integrate LEP students into the mainstream while still giving them the support they

need” (Mabbott & Strohl, 1992, p. 29).

The PI model is not without disadvantages. In order to make it successful, both

the ESL and general educators must support the other’s role. Unfortunately, support

and respect for each teacher, including clarity of their roles, responsibilities, and

expertise, is not always evident. McClure and Cahnmann-Taylor (2010) reported “ESOL

teachers [in the Push-In] portray themselves as often being treated like glorified

teaching assistants, asked to do errands assigned by the grade-level teacher rather

than be treated as a professional peer” (p. 120).

The Pull-Out Model of ELL Inclusion

The Pull-Out model, present in every level of K-12, exists when the ESL teacher

withdraws the ELLs from mainstream classes, to a separate location, for a portion of the

day, and provides specific language instruction on an individual or small-group basis. In

the PO model, “teachers can provide concentrated instruction according to students’

needs” and “provides an environment away from the native English-speaking children,
 CBI Model Effectiveness 12
where ESL students can feel comfortable taking risks with their new language and

asking questions” (Mabbott, & Strohl, 1992, p. 22).

This model, however, has disadvantages that do not occur in the Push-In model.

The duration of PO sessions ranged from 15 to 90 minutes per day. According to

Cornell (1995), a limited amount of language can be learned in 30-45 minutes, even

with the most adept language specialist or learner. Cornell also elucidated one of the

most significant issues with PO sessions, which is they are often viewed by ELLs and

staff as homework time instead of time for focused language instruction.

Another disadvantage, according to Mabbott & Strohl (1992), is difficulty in

scheduling ESL instruction so that ELLs do not miss essential core content lessons.

ESL teachers are discouraged from withdrawing ELLs from special subjects, such as

art, music, etc., as these subjects are perceived as venues in which the learners can

excel without complex or extensive language usage. In short, “they can participate more

equally with their limited English.”(Mabbott & Strohl, 1992, p. 22). The absence of

careful collaboration with general education teachers can result in ESL teachers being

unable to schedule appropriate PO times or to avoid interference with core class

presentations, or concept teachings. Mabbott & Strohl (1992) found, “Trying to

coordinate the mainstream schedules with the ESL schedule so that students do not

miss crucial mainstream lessons can be extremely difficult” (p. 22).

It is paramount that the language model chosen provides sufficient input, output,

and interaction opportunities; interaction is considered a catalyst to second language

acquisition because of the opportunity to negotiate for meaning (Ortega, 2009). Without

these opportunities, language development is stifled. Without progress in language

 CBI Model Effectiveness 13
development, academic development may be delayed. In spite of the model, every

school must demonstrate AYP by ELLs in content and language in order to comply with

by the NCLB Act (2001) or face being labeled a failing school.

Considering the vast usage of these program models (Duke & Mabbott, 2000;

Mabbott & Strohl, 1992; McClure & Cahnmann-Taylor, 2010) it is imperative that the

field understand better whether these models of ESL instruction yield Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP) on AMAOs and provide sufficient input, output, and interactions for the

ELLs’ SLA development. We endeavored to gather information on whether the teachers

thought that PI and PO models are effective or ineffective, what evidence they could

offer to support their beliefs, and whether the teachers’ perceptions differed by the size

or location of the district (i.e., rural/ urban areas).

Highlighting teachers’ perceptions of model effectiveness will help administrators,

staff members, and teaching peers to consider successes and address challenges in

order to better serve our ELLs. Identifying any differences in model efficacy, as it relates

to size and location of districts, may assist administrators in choosing the language

model that will best serve its ELL population. What works well in an urban district may

not work in rural school district and vice versa. This may be due to districts’ financial

resources, availability of qualified staff, or the size of ELL population.

Methodology

For 14 weeks in Fall 2011, we distributed a mixed methods survey to USA k-12

public school ESL educators through personal emails, on Facebook and on professional

listservs (i.e., purposeful sampling). All colleagues were asked to share it with their

networks (i.e., snowball sampling). We also submitted the survey to several ESL
 CBI Model Effectiveness 14
newsletters for teaching professional who published our request and electronic link. The

electronic survey was created on Qualtrics survey software and consisted of close-

ended, Likert scale questions and open-ended questions (see Appendix A).

A total of 192 participants elected to take the survey, of which 98 completed it.

Since we did not force answers on the survey, the number of responses varied by

question. Of those volunteering to take the survey, all were from the US. 43%

participants worked in communities with 10,000-80,000 inhabitants (16% with 80,000-

200,000; 14% with 1-5000; 13% with 5,000-80,000). 34% of participants reported their

district served 1-100 ELLs (22% served 101-300; 11% served 301-500). Participants

grade levels of instruction (those they taught most of the time) were: 31% worked in

grades 1-3, 25% in 4-6, 20% 7-8, and 22% in 9-12. The participants were highly

experienced with 52% who reported 10 years +, 24% 6-9 years, and 14% 3-5 years of

experience.

Utilizing Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), data were first analyzed

for patterns through content-analysis. Content analysis allowed us to study, sort and

categorize concepts and themes common among participants. Then the qualitative data

were coded using open and axial coding techniques by two coders (Strauss and Corbin,

1990). Examples of codes are PO: Student Teacher Ratio; PI: Cooperation Mainstream

and ESL; PO: Marginalization of Students, etc. Once the quantitative data were

compiled, they were compared to the descriptive statistics accumulated in Qualtrics

software.

Findings

Finding 1: Organizational Management and Support

 CBI Model Effectiveness 15
Perhaps unsurprising the efficacy of ESL instruction models PO and PI depends

strongly on how the models are managed by administrators and how much support the

teachers receive. Staffing was a crucial fulcrum upon which the effectiveness of the

model hinged. More often than not, teachers’ reported, staffing was spread too thin in

terms of number of students, classes and/or school sites. One teacher expressed her

disappointment with an unwieldy PO staffing situation: “We are not able to service all

those who need servicing, however, because of lack of ESL staff -- only two full-time

teachers for 131 students.” The same issue applied to the Push-In model; one teacher

noted: “... Understaffed situations make it [PI] next to impossible to be effective.”

Teachers also noted scheduling is another aspect of organizational management

that can impact the programs’ efficacy. For PO and PI models, the ESL and mainstream

teachers should collaborate and communicate well in order to share effective

instructional practices and the content expectations for the ELLs; although the type of

collaboration and information is different in each model. In ideal situations, both

teachers share the necessary information openly giving it the same importance. One

issue mentioned repeatedly in the data was the difficulty of scheduling sessions to work

with the learners, which caused the learners to miss work in the general education

class. Many teachers reported conflicts between the teachers that arose when ELLs

needed to make up classroom work missed during their PO session.

Another issue in the PO model with scheduling is the ELLs’ various, conflicting

class schedules. The ESL teacher needs to have the time to work with the learners.

Typically, PO teachers reported having very limited time to do the pre-teaching of

vocabulary and concepts as well the time to thoroughly engage the four language skills,
 CBI Model Effectiveness 16
etc. When classes are scheduled thoughtfully, there will be fewer conflicts for the ESL

teacher in terms of time management and there would be an appropriate amount of time

set aside to address the learners’ needs appropriately. However, in practice teachers

find scheduling of sessions is not planned to support the language learning process or

with time efficiency in mind. One teacher working in the PO model commented that it is

“difficult to schedule” and that the “groupings of kids can sometimes not always work out

(some students are much higher than others).”

Push-In teachers similarly report scheduling as a problem from a different angle.

One teacher working in the PI model notes that collaboration between teachers “takes a

lot of time, [and is] not feasible if you work in multiple buildings with multiple teachers.”

She explained her frustration with her time being wasted while using the PI model,

“when you only have 1/2 hour scheduled with a class, and you go to 'push in,' but the

teacher is behind, so they are still presenting a whole class lesson, while you sit in the

back of the room.” Another Push-In teacher noted a similar sentiment, “... [I am] not able

to reach all the LEP learners [because] they are spread out in too many classrooms.”

Finding 2: Roles and Shared Understandings

The shared understandings, between ESL and general educators about the role

ESL teachers’ play in PI and PO classes and their disciple knowledge and practices,

were foundational influences on ESL teachers' perceptions of the effectiveness of the

model. The perceptions of ESL teachers' roles among administrators and general

educators was mentioned by 31 survey respondents. If general educators viewed the

ESL teacher as an informed peer, understood some aspects of second language

acquisition and ESL instructional practices, ESL practitioners indicated higher degrees
 CBI Model Effectiveness 17
of model effectiveness. When the ESL noted the two groups did not share these

understandings, then their perceptions of the effectiveness of the model diminished.

ESL teachers indicated that general educators did not always recognize the

professional qualifications of ESL teachers or understand what the ESL teachers do

which would often result in conflict and territorial issues. A teacher working in the PO

model says that weaknesses include “the lack of understanding about what it is we do,

[and the fact that] classroom teachers are sometimes uncooperative.”

Three different teachers working in the PI model illustrated the issues with

teachers’ roles as weaknesses in the model. For example,

○ “If the regular education teacher is not open to sharing their space, it can

be a challenging experience for the ESL teachers and ELLs; by being in

the classroom, ESL teachers can be treated as educational assistants;

ESL teachers can have their attention split by having to work with students

who are not ELLs”.

○ “Too often the ESL teacher is relegated to standing around because the

classroom teachers don’t know now to utilize the help and in all honesty

don’t include ESL teacher in planning to work it out.”

○ “...many schools and school districts define Push-In as merely

mainstreaming, English-only, or even submersion, not really supporting

ELLs social, language, and content learning. The ELL teacher is there just

like an aide.”

These comments illustrated the issue of the lack of understanding of the

professional role of the ESL teacher. The last quote exemplified the worst-case
 CBI Model Effectiveness 18
implementation of the PI model; the ESL teachers’ are qualified to work with all the

children including the ELLs, but do not have the freedom to do so due to lack of shared

understandings. If PI is viewed as submersion, for instance, there would be little or no

collaboration between the ESL teacher and ELLs.

In order to have shared understandings, there needs to be some common

ground in instructional approach(es) and philosophy, expectations, modifications and

assessment practices between both groups. In ideal scenarios, both groups would

reach out to learn more about the others’ perspective in the absence of shared teacher

preparation background. “The vast majority of the mainstream teachers who have ELLs

in their classroom have not received any training in how to teach ELLs. And those that

have received some training, do not seem to implement this training in the classroom.

The principal in my school has zero involvement in the ESL program. What does that

say to the teaching staff about the importance of educating our ELLs?”, one teacher

bemoaned.

If the general educators are trained in collaborative planning, co-teaching, and

ESL instruction or the school administrators work with ESL teachers to spread

awareness, the ELL students and the school as a whole would benefit.

In PI contexts, ESL teachers noted in their comments a distinct lack of

awareness and understandings of their instructional approaches, philosophy,

expectations and modifications as well as the research behind them. They expressed

wide ranging concerns about the lack of shared understandings and collaboration on

topics ranging from how to effectively support ELLs by including interactive activities

that emphasize on language objectives, instructional modifications and strategies and

 CBI Model Effectiveness 19
assessment. For example, “Push-in models can be effective only if mainstream

teachers collaborate with the ESL teacher.” They noted the need for common planning

time between the ESL teacher and the general educators to discuss instructional

strategies, set performance expectations, address learners’ needs, and learn from each

other.

One ESL teacher voiced his personal experiences with the Push-In model due to

poor collaboration and lack of common understandings,

“Push-in ESL classes are ONLY effective if both teachers work well together and

have the same objectives. I have work [sic] with many teachers who either leave

when the ESL teacher walks in… or sit back and watch. After many years of

teaching, I have not had good experiences with this model. In theory, it sounds

perfect. Unfortunately, classroom teachers and administrators have not been

properly trained.”

Another teacher described lack of common understandings as an issue in PO as well,

“ESL and mainstream teacher collaboration needs to be greatly increased;

principals and teachers need to understand what ESL instruction is comprised of

…many ESL teachers feel very isolated and misunderstood; principals and

mainstream staff must take ownership for their ELLs and not expect ESL

teachers to "fix students";…ESL teachers and mainstream colleagues should

meet to discuss student performance and assessment; ESL teachers should be

included in grade level team meetings (the isolation issue I mentioned earlier!);

mainstream teachers should be supportive of the ESL program and the need for
 CBI Model Effectiveness 20
ESL pull-out (it is very difficult when mainstream teachers insist that their ELL(s)

don't need ESL support).”

Teachers detailed why it is important for general educators to have some

background in ESL. A teacher stated, “Teachers’ ability to draw from students schemata

and scaffold the tasks makes or breaks the class. If there's no scaffolding, my ELL's

begin to lose sight of the learning objectives.”

Another teacher, working with the PI model, echoed that sentiment and

highlighted another important obstacle is lack of preparation in co-teaching

collaboratively during teacher preparation. She said, “Effectiveness: content and

language objectives with data-driven curriculum…Ineffectiveness: lack of co-teaching

training.”

Whereas a different PI ESL teacher took a more positive tract explaining that

although it may be hard to find time, that the collaboration is essential for understanding

goals and expectations, " ...the [Push-In] ESL teacher can experience what the student

experiences, and have a better understanding of the classroom teacher's goals and

expectations.” This teacher clearly indicated that the PI models provided a touchstone

for teachers to share their understandings of goals and expectations.

In both PI and PO models, ESL teachers noted concerns about general

educators’ and ESL teachers’ shared understandings. First, one issue when teachers

did not share understandings was classroom-based grading practices/ policies.

● One PI teacher described, “Common beliefs/goals. The co-teachers need to have

a common understanding about instruction, assessment, homework, grading,

 CBI Model Effectiveness 21
etc. Finding time to address all important matters can be demanding/ frustrating.

Conflict-resolution/problem solving is another challenge.”

● Another PI teacher expounded, “...the secondary mainstream teachers do not

have time to come up with language targets or alternative assessments, nor do

they always have the time or facilities to administer alternative assessments

utilizing alternative modalities. Coming up with scaffolded lessons to go along

with their lessons, work on language objectives to support the lessons, creating

alternative assessments, and delivering them is very helpful all the way around.

The only completely useless situation that I find is when we are asked to support

45 different teachers in three different grade levels, whose classrooms we never

enter. In order to effectively support content teachers, develop scaffolded

learning targets and assessments and deliver this, we need to be focused on one

classroom.”

● Another teacher said, “[PO] Removes [the] student from the general classroom

setting. [This] causes all students to question what happens when the ELL leaves

the room, which leads itself to spreading rumors and misunderstandings. Less

cooperative grouping which provide the ELL with valuable peer support and

interaction. ELL misses content; the general educator is often confused about

what to expect the ELL to make up when he/she is with the ESL teacher.”

A second issue when teachers did not share understandings was ways to

address missed content work when the student was working on their English skills

either during PI, in-class small group work, or in PO lessons. For example,
 CBI Model Effectiveness 22
● PO: One respondent noted, “Marginalization of students being required to leave

their classrooms; also, the need for classroom teachers to understand that work

"missed" during pull-out should not have to be made up.”

● PO: Another teacher explained the issue this way, “Sometimes classroom

teachers see ELL time as the ONLY time of day in which the child needs

additional support. Oh, Joey got his ELL support today, now I don't need to

differentiate the rest of the day. Depending on when students are pulled, they

could be missing very important academic content in their classrooms, and

classroom teachers could be assigning what they missed for homework, which

leads to additional work for the child in the long-run, and more difficult work

because they missed instruction. (This is now how I do pull-out in my program,

but I know that in some schools it can happen that way, and this issue can

arise.)”

These comments emphasize the need for a shared basis of understanding and

consistency between the teachers in all aspects of planning, instruction and

assessment. Often, the shared understandings vital to adequately meeting the ELLs

needs’ are not present and must be accommodated for within the limited time teachers

have for collaboration or during class sessions. Therefore, in both PI and PO, teachers

spend time learning from each other about their fields, so their joint efforts fall short of

the mark. In the absence of shared understandings, teachers struggle with the best way

to work with ELLs resulting disadvantages to the ELLs students.

Finding 3: Use of Instructional Time and Other Timing Considerations

 CBI Model Effectiveness 23
The ESL teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the models were affected

by time considerations. Time factors affect the PI and PO models in providing a

language focus, organizing time for practice, working with students of diverse age and

proficiency levels, scheduling sessions or class times appropriately, and offering time

for planning and collaboration. Many teachers struggle with finding a balance between

teaching content and the English language; one PO teacher explained, “the greatest

challenge would be balancing the amount of language instruction and content to be

included in the lesson..."

On the other hand, a PI teacher stated, "the ELL teacher is able to intervene to

support a student immediately and doesn't have to wait for the classroom teacher to

provide information on the student's comprehension or performance. It allows for

constant communication between the ELL teacher and the classroom teacher.” This can

benefit the students because they may be able to receive help rapidly within the same

class session. The student would then not fall behind nor will they be missing a major

piece of information. However, this is only true when the ESL teacher is empowered to

act in the PI context and when there is opportunity to do so. When the ESL teacher is

not able to promptly address the concern, the student may fall further behind.

A PI teacher explained the hardship of working in the PI model: "I believe the

challenge is in meeting the needs of individual learners. Once the students are placed in

a large class of mainstream students, there is little time within the constraints of the

class and the curriculum, to meet the wide range of language and content needs.” The

students often begin to blend into the general education class, but are still academically

far behind their peers. While it is perhaps somewhat easier in PO, those working in this
 CBI Model Effectiveness 24
model agree that one of the major difficulties is catering to the needs of the specific

student. One PO teacher explained that she had to work with such a wide range of

students. She stated that "...it would be great to group students according to level and

language, but this cannot usually happen with such a small population of ELLs."

Finding 4: Environment

The environment in which the models take place contributed to the effectiveness

of these models. The environment could influence the ESL models with many factors:

the opportunities for peer interaction and socialization, the language interaction for ELLs

with native and non-native speaking peers, the resources of linguistic support from the

ESL teachers, the degree of stigmatization due to receiving ESL support, and the depth

and quality of grade-level content knowledge learning.

One positive of PO was that students received the opportunity to work in a small

group setting with other students who also speak English as a second language. One

PO teacher said, “students... tell me that the ESL classes built their confidence and

supported their academic learning. The safety of being in a small group allowed them to

try language structures and ask questions about content that would have never been

tried in the mainstream classroom." Another PO teacher pointed out that a significant

negative is the stigmatization of learners receiving ESL support, “...some ELL's feel 'less

intelligent' for being taken out of their regular classrooms which hurts their motivation.”

A benefit of the PI model, according to one teacher, was that “students are able

to learn both content and language simultaneously. It is real life application of language

in meaningful situations. ELLs are also able to learn from native speaking classmates in

group activities/projects.” One teacher noted a positive for PI as “the children don’t miss
 CBI Model Effectiveness 25
the universal curriculum.” Another teacher wrote, “ELLs do not feel segregated from

English speaking peers” as one of the strengths for PI model. Besides all the above,

“students are more connected to the community [of the classroom] because they always

are a part of it and are not singled out.” Yet, PI model is not without flaws. Different

teachers reported the PI model weaknesses, such as “lower comfort level with

students,” “ELL students feel different from the rest of the class,” “classroom

interruptions (snacks, bathroom [breaks], etc.)”, “distractions from other students,” “lack

of space,” and “[lack of] privacy for concentration and practicing English.”

Neither environment, Pull-Out or Push-In , appear to serve ELLs’ language

acquisition needs by allowing enough depth and time for language development. Both

environments come with their advantages and disadvantages, each meeting a solving a

problem that was a weakness in the other model. Neither model was a perfect solution.

Where is the Proof that the Models are Effective?

Teachers were asked to support for their assertions about the models. They were

asked to provide learner outcomes as evidence of the models’ effectiveness. When

teachers did attempt to support their assertions, they frequently offered only anecdotal

comments. The few teachers who noted progress on standardized content or language

proficiency tests frequently did not cite the test, the percentage of learners making

progress, measurements of language progress, or the period of time during which the

learning had occurred. Typical comments were, “I can tell they are doing well in this

program because of test performance.” Some teachers noted evidence of PO working

because of “better results with ACCESS scores, student achievement, speed of exit

from program”, “significant language, reading and writing growth in the ESL classes that
 CBI Model Effectiveness 26
I teach,” and “students move through the different ESL levels gaining skills and

eventually go into all mainstream classes. They pass classes, meet standards, and

graduate.” Adequate yearly progress (AYP) was not mentioned by any teacher who took

the survey.

What Model Works Best?

When teachers were asked which programs worked best and which they would

suggest, they had strong opinions that ranged widely. 18 teachers said “it depends” and

delineated factors that would cause them to opt for one model or another. For example,

● “Given the population of ELLs in my school district - approximately 75 students

who speak 20+ different languages - and a gross lack of ESL teachers (3 district

wide), plus the lack of training in ESL and sheltered instruction techniques of

general education teachers, I would definitely recommend continuing to pull out

students for ESL. Also, the beginner student in my school desperately needs a

newcomer program of SDAIE. I would also recommend a more collaborative

teaching approach between ESL and mainstream teachers. For me, it is not so

much a question of which particular model to implement in my district, but rather

to utilize a combination models and strategies, properly implemented and

supported, to strengthen both language learning and academic achievement of

our ELLs.”

● “Elementary/Secondary - Dual Language program Secondary - SIOP for content

class instruction with dual certified content/ESL teachers or co-teaching with a

content teacher and an ESL teacher Elementary/Secondary - ESL Language-rich

support in pull-out small group instruction to reinforce language and literacy

 CBI Model Effectiveness 27
development, and provide specific instruction on reading and writing Secondary -

Newcomer SIFE program I believe the program model needs to be tailored

specifically to our population…I also believe that a program at all levels should

incorporate ESL pull-out classes to offer additional support and provide a

framework for our non-Spanish speaking ESL students, with content level

vocabulary development in non-fiction texts. At the secondary level all content

area teachers that work with ELLs should have knowledge of the SIOP model so

that they are teaching content objectives and language objectives in every

lesson. Moreover, at the secondary level, we need a newcomer program

designed for students who are SIFE (interrupted formal education) and that come

to us with little or no literacy skills in their L1.”

● “I would want to have a separate course for language. I would want all

mainstream teachers to use the SIOP model in their classrooms with a heavy

focus on writing and vocabulary usage. I would want enough ESL teachers

covering each school that teachers would have the opportunity to tap ESL

teachers in a coaching role to provide more opportunity for students to be

exposed to comprehensible input.”

● “At the secondary level, which is my focus, where there are sufficient numbers of

students to offer a range of discrete levels of ESL to target and develop the

language at the needed levels that students bring to our schools. Also, there

needs to be sheltered instructional classes and content ESL at the secondary

level that allows students to learn both the language and the academic content

and fundamental concepts they need to both progress in their language skills and
 CBI Model Effectiveness 28
to earn credits that allow them to really learn the basics of the curriculum at the

same time.”

One might view these seemingly conflicting comments and conclude that there is

no answer or ideal model; rather, the data showed that ESL teachers understood

several key variables in choosing program models for instruction, including learner

variables of age(s), subjects, numbers, previous schooling, first language, and

contextual variables of district size and location, staffing, practicality, and resources.

One teacher said it best, “[Recommending an effective program model] depends on the

student, the language, the educational background, the classroom environment, the

family and other factors. You fit the program to the learner.”

Discussion

The findings of teachers’ perceptions of model effectiveness and the potential for

the model to yield AYP were surprising as they represented opposite sides of the same

coin. For all the positives of PI, which fixed certain negatives of PO, there were

negatives apparent, and vice versa. There were positives with the PO model, which

remedied negatives in the PI model. When all the points mentioned above were at their

optimal implementation, there were still flaws, and sometimes significant hindrances,

which prevented ELLs from reaching their proximal level of language and content

learning.

Teachers noted significant degrees of coordination and sharing situated within

the proper amount of time for implementation as essential to being able to work with

ELLs. Time for instruction, focus on language objectives and collaboration was the one

key factor that seemed to impact all the programming negatively. The time issue was
 CBI Model Effectiveness 29
exacerbated by the lack of cogent and thoughtful planning with administrators to

schedule classes and meetings. This concern is supported in literature. McClure (2010)

identified “collaborative planning and reflection among teachers as key factors...”

(p.107)

Collaboration is a necessary key to making both PO effective, as is providing

adequate time, space, and teachers for the ESL classes. Finding a time to take students

out of their content classes can be difficult, and, without collaboration and

understanding amongst all teachers and administrators, content teachers can become

frustrated with trying to monitor their students and assignments. According to Mabbott

and Strohl (1992), “there is “difficulty in scheduling ESL instruction so that ELLs do not

miss crucial core content lessons” (p.23), and “ A corollary of the scheduling problem is

that ESL instructors in [PO] programs often do not have time to coordinate their lessons

with those of the mainstream teacher” (p.22). These content teachers do not always see

the ESL teachers as necessary or even beneficial. McClure and Cahnamm-Taylor

(2010) found ”...ESOL teachers portray themselves as often being treated like glorified

teaching assistants, asked to do errands assigned by the grade-level teacher rather

than be treated as a professional peer” (p.120)

PO can be extremely helpful with students who do not feel comfortable in a

mainstream class environment. These ELL students prefer working in small groups with

other ELL students. As Mabbott and Strohl (1992) mentioned, PO “provides an

environment away from the native English-speaking children, where ESL students can

feel comfortable taking risks with their new language and asking questions.” (p.22)
 CBI Model Effectiveness 30
With assignments of multiple classrooms at multiple grades in multiple schools,

even experienced professionals in PI have trouble finding time to focus on language

points of the content, to pre-teach the students before the class, and to collaboratively

plan with the general educators. The PI model would be more effective if administrators

understand the ESL teachers’ value and support their job functions. McClure and

Cahnmann-Taylor (2010) stated, “Whereas grade-level teachers are connected to

legitimate, socially sanctioned knowledge of the content area curriculum, [ESL] teachers

are frequently seen as delivering generic support and facilitation for the cultural,

linguistic, and ethnic minorities they serve.” (p.110)

PI environment provides content knowledge as a meaningful context of the

language, peer interaction time, and community learning experience, as supported by

Mabbott and Strohl (1992) “the model [PI] can facilitate the acquisition of academic

skills by providing LEP students with a more understandable and relevant context for

their mainstream curriculum” (p.24).; however, it has drawbacks such as lower comfort

level, classroom interruptions, lack of space and privacy, etc. Duke and Mabbott (2000)

are quick to point out “The major disadvantage [of PI] is that ESL students are not

provided a safe environment away from native-speaking peers where they can practice

language and ask questions that they may not ask in the mainstream class” (p.13).

Push-In model allows immediate feedback with context and constant

communication between professionals, yet, only when both groups are empowered.

With shared ownership of classrooms, said Duke and Mabbott (2000), comes the need

for significant collaboration between teachers to plan team teaching lessons together.

Limitations
 CBI Model Effectiveness 31
Part of the study design was to gather evidence through documentation from

teachers, districts, and educational entities about the effectiveness of these models to

yield adequate yearly progress. Unfortunately, when reporting the teachers rarely cited

empirical evidence to support their assertions. They also did not choose to share or they

had no access to data to support their beliefs. When we approached the districts and

other educational entities (i.e., departments of public instruction or cooperative

education support agencies), administrators claimed to have no data on AYP for the

various models, because information for districts was aggregated across various

models and formats.

To some degree, too, the teachers seemed to have a personal investment in

their statements. For example, because the teacher worked in a specific model, and

they liked the format, they felt that it was effective. It seemed as though they perceived

it as an indictment of their own instructional abilities if they felt the format was

ineffective.

Implications and Conclusion

The findings imply that both models are fundamentally flawed. A model that

blends the two would solve the inherent problems in each. Another implication is that

how to co-teach and instructional collaboration needs to be included in teacher

preparation for both sets of educators. Another solution is to prepare all general

education teachers dually in their subject area and how to teach English language

learners. An important implication is that administrators and general educators need to

know some basics of second language acquisition. It would be good for them to
 CBI Model Effectiveness 32
understand what ELLs are going through in their acquisition of a second language and

the learning of the content simultaneously.

Finally, as a field, we need to become specific in our reporting and more

evidence-based in our decision making. We have the technological ability to articulate in

which programs learners spend their instructional time. If reporting were more specific

and clear, there would be much less aggregated data and we would be able to

determine which types of programming work with which learners and when. It was

outside the scope of this study to address whether or not teachers had access to data

on the progress of their learners. It was usual that no one noted specific progress on a

particular measure over a period of time. As a field, we need to be able to articulate

empirical data to support our assertions in order to garner credibility and be perceived

as professionals.
 CBI Model Effectiveness 33

References

Alford, B., & Nino, M. C. (2011). Leading academic achievement for English language

learners: A guide for principals. . (p. 3). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.

Retrieved on August 1, 2012, from

http://books.google.com/books?id=cyPxT29gVNAC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=Alfor

d,+Leading+Academic+Achievement+for+English+Language+Learners+Intro.&s

ource=bl&ots=N1R1jEw8dA&sig=o9VkzS81erb5k4CoZCzROeiS4_c&hl=en&sa=

X&ei=Ra0dUPTYFon69QSX_YCYBw&ved=0CGgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Alfo

rd%2C%20Leading%20Academic%20Achievement%20for%20English%20Lang

uage%20Learners%20Intro.&f=false

Brinton, D., Snow, M. (1997). The content-based classroom. White Plains, NY: Addison

Wesley Longman Publishing Company.

Cahnmann-Taylor, M., & McClure, G. (2010). Pushing back against push-in: ESOL

teacher resistance and the complexities of coteaching. TESOL Journal, 1(1):

101-129.

Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA). (2012, April 26).

Content-based second language instruction: What is it?. Retrieved July 26, 2012,

from http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/cbi.html

Chamot, A. (2009). The CALLA Handbook- Implementing the Cognitive Academic

Language Learning Approach. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Christian, D., & Genesee, F. (2008). Programs for teaching English language learners.
 CBI Model Effectiveness 34
In Ann S. Rosebery & Beth Warren (Eds.),Teaching Science to English

Language Learners: Building on Students' Strength (129-146). Arlington, VA:

National Science Teachers Association.

Cornell, C. (1995). Reducing failure of LEP students in the mainstream classroom and

why it is important. The Journal of Educational Issue of Language Minority

Students, 15(2): 123-146.

Cortez, A., & Villarreal, A. (2009). Education of English language learners in U.S. and

Texas schools – where we are, what we have learned and where we need to go

from here. Intercultural Development Research Association, 9-10. Retrieved July

10, 2012, from

http://alex.state.al.us/ell/sites/alex.state.al.us.ell/ell_files/IDRA_ELL_Policy_Upda

te_2009.pdf

Curtain, H., & Pesola, C. A. B. (1994). Language and children: Making the match.

Foreign language instruction for an early start, grades K-8. (p.35). (2nd ed.) New

York: Longman.

DelliCarpini, M. (2009, May). Dialogues across disciplines: Preparing English

as-a-second-language teachers for interdisciplinary collaboration. Current Issues

in Education [On-line], 11 (2). Retrieved July 26, 2012, from

http://cie.asu.edu/volume11/number2/

Duke, K., & Mabbott, A. (2000). An Alternative Model for Novice-Level Elementary ESL

Education. MinneTESOL/WITESOL Journal, 17, 11-33.

Dove, M., & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). ESL coteaching and collaboration: Opportunities to
 CBI Model Effectiveness 35
develop teacher leadership and enhance learning. TESOL Journal,1(1), 3-22.

Retrieved July 10, 2012, from http://www.njtesol-

njbe.org/handouts10/DoveHonigsfeld_Article.pdf

Fearon, K. (2008). A team teaching approach to ESL: An evaluative case study.

(Master's thesis, Kean University) Retrieved July 6, 2012, from

http://gradworks.umi.com/1456437.pdf

A guide for educators of English language learners. New York Collective of Radical

Educators. Retrieved July 15, 2012, from http://www.nycore.org/newsite/wp-

content/uploads/NYCORE-ELLteacher_handbook.pdf

Hull, J. (2010, October 07). Examples of state and district funding cuts . Retrieved on

July 27, 2012, from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public-

education/Cutting-to-the-bone-At-a-glance/Examples-of-state-and-district-

funding-cuts.html

Mabbott, A., & Strohl, J. (1992) Pull-In Programs - A New Trend in ESL Education?.

MinneTESOL Journal, 10, 21-30.

Met. M. (1999, January). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions.

NFLC Reports. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center.

Retrieved July 27, 2012, from NFLC Reports website:

http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/principles/decisions.html

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. (p.8). London: Hodden

Education.

Pardini, P. (2006). In one voice. Journal of Staff Development, 27(4), 21, 22. Retrieved

July 26, 2012, from http://www.ibrarian.org/pardiniell.pdf

 CBI Model Effectiveness 36
Pascopella, A. (2011, February 1). Successful strategies for English language learners.

District Administration. Retrieved July 26, 2012, from

http://www.districtadministration.com/article/successful-strategies-english-

language-learners

Reynolds, K.M., Nolin-Smith, K. & Groshek, K. (2012). Which CBI Model Yields the Best

Learning Outcomes? Presentation at the 46th Annual Teaching English to

Speakers of Other Languages Conference, Philadelphia, PA.

Short, D. (1999). Integrating language and content for effective sheltered instruction

programs. In C. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents,

bilingualism, and ESL in the secondary school (pp. 105-137). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Stoller, F. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24: 261-283.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2012). Accountability for English Language

Learners (ELLs). Retrieved on July 25, 2012 from

http://dpi.wi.gov/oea/ellamao.html

Zehr, M.A. (2006). Team-Teaching Helps Close Language Gap. Education Week,

26(14): 26-29.
 CBI Model Effectiveness 37
Appendix A: Survey Questions
1. What is the size of your community?
2. Please estimate about how many English language learners (ELLs) are currently
being served in your school district?
3. Please indicate in which of these models of ESL instruction you currently work.
(Please refer to the 2010-2011 academic year, if you do not know in which capacity you
will work during 2011-2012. If you know what 2011-2012 will look like, please refer to
that program model).
4. Please indicate your familiarity with these models of ESL instruction.
5. What makes these program models effective or ineffective?
6. What evidence can you offer that supports your opinions of the effectiveness of these
program models?
7. If you were to choose a program model for the learners in your school district, which
model would you choose and why?
8. In your opinion, what are the STRENGTHS of PULL-OUT ESL programs? Please
share any evidence that you might have to support your opinion.
9. Please indicate your OPINION of the EFFECTIVENESS of each of these models of
ESL instruction in providing what the learners need to develop their language skills and
learn grade-level content.
10. In your opinion, what are the WEAKNESSES of PULL-OUT ESL programs? Please
share any evidence that you might have to support your opinion.
11. In your opinion, what are the CHALLENGES in making PULL-OUT ESL programs
HIGHLY EFFECTIVE in terms of ELLs' language and content learning? Please share
any evidence that you might have to support your opinion.
12. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about working in an ESL pull-out
program in terms of students' learning, collaboration, teaching, etc.?
13. In your opinion, what are the STRENGTHS of PUSH-IN ESL programs? Please
share any evidence that you might have to support your opinion.
14. In your opinion, what are the WEAKNESSES of PUSH-IN ESL programs? Please
share any evidence that you might have to support your opinion.
15. In your opinion, what are the CHALLENGES in making PUSH-IN ESL programs
HIGHLY EFFECTIVE in terms of ELLs' language and content learning? Please share
any evidence that you might have to support your opinion.
16. What grades levels do you teach?
17. If you work in a pull-out ESL model, please describe the kinds of topics, skills, etc.
you work on with the learners. Do you do more tutorial work, pre-teaching or teaching of
language or content topics during pull-out sessions?
18. Including only in-service teaching, how many years of experience do you have?
19. In which country do you live and work?
20. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about working in an ESL PUSH-IN
program in terms of students' learning, collaboration, teaching, etc.?
21. If you work in either a push-in ESL program or a pull-out ESL program, would you
be willing to be interviewed and/or observed?
22. What subjects do you teach most of the time?