Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 1e9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Science teacher attitudes towards English learners

Margarita Huerta a, *, Tiberio Garza a, Julie K. Jackson b, Manognya Murukutla a
a
The University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 S. Maryland Parkway MS 3001, Las Vegas, NV, 89154-3001, USA
b
Texas State University, Round Rock Campus, 1555 University Blvd, Round Rock, TX, 78665-9017, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

Bi/multilingual teachers had more positive attitudes towards ELs than monolingual English speaking teachers.

PreK-elementary teachers had more positive attitudes towards ELs than secondary teachers.

Training to work with ELs in science resulted in more positive attitudes towards ELs.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Access to science education is important given scientific understanding is foundational for individuals to
Received 8 June 2018 deal with demands of increasingly technological societies. Unfortunately, English Learners (ELs) often
Received in revised form struggle with achievement in science education. For teachers, implementing effective pedagogy for ELs is
11 September 2018
not easy, and teacher educators and researchers would benefit from understanding teacher attitudes
Accepted 17 September 2018
related to practice in this field. We analyzed 553 PreK-12 teachers' attitudes toward ELs in the context of
science education accounting for demographic, contextual, and educational variables. Results indicated
above average attitudinal scores for the sample with specific variables showing statistically significant
Keywords:
English learners
effects on participants’ scores.
Science education © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Teacher attitudes

1. Introduction subject and science assessments rely heavily on academic language

Science position papers worldwide discuss the importance of
science education being accessible to all students (International
Council for Science [ICSU], 2011; NGSS Lead States, 2013). Access to
science education is important given how foundational scientific
understanding is for individuals to deal with the complex demands
of increasingly technological societies (ICSU, 2011). Unfortunately,
English Learners (ELs) often struggle with achievement in science
education, scoring below average on national test scores. This is
concerning given there are currently 4.5 million ELs attending
public schools in the United States alone (National Center for Ed-
ucation Statistics [NCES], 2017).
The challenges for ELs to achieve in science has been attributed
to different though inter-related reasons. On the one hand, ELs
struggle with science achievement because both science as a
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: margarita.huerta@unlv.edu (M. Huerta), tiberio.garza@unlv.
edu (T. Garza), julie_jackson@txstate.edu (J.K. Jackson), murukutl@unlv.nevada.
edu (M. Murukutla).
structures (Fang, 2006; Kieffer, Lesaux, Rivera, & Francis, 2009). On
the other hand, ELs' success in the science classroom is tightly
connected with practice: when teachers effectively integrate aca-
demic language and science content in their classroom to maximize
learning, ELs' achievement increases (Lara-Alecio, Tong, Irby,
Guerrero, Huerta, & Fan, 2012; Lee, Deaktro, Hart, Cuevas, &
Enders, 2005; Lee, Maerten-Rivera, Penfield, LeRoy, & Secada,
2008; Llosa et al., 2016; Maerten-Rivera, Ahn, Lanier, Diaz, & Lee,
2016).
1.1. Challenges to teacher training in science education
Training teachers to implement effective integrated academic
language and science content instruction, however, requires in-
tensity, time, and attention to teacher development. For example,
researchers concerned with EL science achievement report pro-
fessional development for teachers within intervention studies
ranging from an intensity of 2e5 full-day workshops throughout
the year and/or summer (e.g., Hart & Lee, 2003; Lee et al., 2016; Lee
& Maerten-Rivera, 2012) to additional bi-weekly meetings
throughout the school year (e.g., Lara-Alecio et al., 2012). Teachers

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.007
0742-051X/© 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2 M. Huerta et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 1e9
in these interventions do not always reach the level of reform-
oriented practices (i.e., including attention to academic language
alongside content) needed to promote EL achievement based on
U.S. national content area standards. For example, Lee and col-
leagues concluded teachers were not able to engage students in
inquiry and argumentation e processes requiring written and oral
language production and key features of the U.S. based Next Gen-
eration Science Standards (Lee, Lewis, Adamson, Maerten-Rivera, &
Secada, 2008; NGSS Lead States, 2013; Santau, Secada, Maerten-
Rivera, & Lee, 2010). Researchers proposed teachers did not reach
the ideal level of reform-oriented practice in these studies because
(a) teachers needed more time to adopt and understand the prac-
tices (Lee et al., 2008; Santau, Secada, Maerten-Rivera, Cone, & Lee,
2010) and (b) the possibility that, because the intervention was a
school district-wide initiative, non-volunteer teachers may not
have been open to improving education for ELs (Santau et al., 2010)
e that is, some teachers may have had negative attitudes towards
ELs and/or negative attitudes about the pedagogical practices they
were being asked to implement in their classrooms.
1.2. Teacher attitudes and beliefs related to ELs
Teacher attitudes and beliefs about students and instruction
affect teacher practice (Borg, 2003; Fang, 1996; Farell & Kun, 2008;
Pajares, 1992; Pettit, 2011b). When working with ELs, teacher be-
liefs about their students can affect what ELs learn in the classroom
(Peregoy & Boyle, 1997), ELs' academic achievement and overall
learning (Mantero & McVicker, 2006; Peregoy & Boyle, 1997), and
what teachers' see as productive pedagogy in working with ELs
(Shim, 2014). For example, researchers have noted mainstream
teachers, without training or proper school supports for working
with ELs, can harbor negative and misinformed attitudes about
their students such as believing ELs should not be in their content
classrooms, the idea that it is not their responsibility to modify
coursework for ELs, and ideas that it is not their responsibility to
value or support ELs’ native language (Choe & McDonnough, 2009;
Flores & Smith, 2009; Karathanos, 2009; Lee & Oxelson, 2006;
Reeves, 2006; Song & Samimy, 2015; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). On a
positive note, the same researchers recommended and/or demon-
strated the positive impact proper training can have on teacher
attitudes and beliefs towards ELs. Here it is worth noting that be-
liefs/attitudes and practices are two sides of the same coin: beliefs/
attitudes can influence the degree to which teachers are receptive
to professional development (Karabenick & Noda, 2004) and pro-
fessional development can also change teacher beliefs/attitudes
(Lee & Oxelson, 2006; Petitt, 2011a).
1.3. Teacher attitudes in science education
Within science education studies concerned with ELs, re-
searchers have briefly explored teacher beliefs related to practice
with small samples (Hart & Lee, 2003; Lee, 2004). For example, Hart
and Lee (2003) reported 53 teachers' beliefs to show positive
change after a professional intervention, and Lee's (2004) qualita-
tive study found six Hispanic teachers' beliefs and practices with
ELs in the science classroom also changed over time, with extensive
training, support, and time for teacher reflection. More recent
studies in science education have focused on self-reported teacher
science content knowledge, perceptions about school resources,
and (some observed) teaching practice (Lee et al., 2016; Lee &
Maerten-Rivera, 2012). All the studies report overall positive out-
comes as a result of grant-funded interventions (i.e., higher teacher
science content knowledge; better perceptions about school re-
sources; improved teaching practices).
While these studies are insightful regarding the impact of
professional interventions on teacher knowledge and practice
when working with ELs in science, they have not attended to
teacher attitudes as a construct (see “Untangling Teacher Beliefs
and Attitudes” below) nor with larger samples. As noted, teacher
attitudes can influence teacher practice (e.g., Borg, 2003; Fang,
1996; Farell & Kun, 2008; Pajares, 1992) and can also influence
how receptive teachers are to training (Karabenick & Noda, 2004;
Santau et al., 2010). Renewed attention to teacher attitudes when
working with ELs in science would lend insight into research and
practice benefiting both teachers and students most at risk in sci-
ence education.
1.4. Purpose
In this study, we measured and analyzed PreK-12 teachers' at-
titudes toward ELs in the context of science education. In doing so,
we sought to contribute to the existing literature regarding teacher
attitudes in science education as well as to inform future and cur-
rent teacher research, education, and policy. This information is
important for researchers and educators wishing to refine their
teacher training courses or professional development in a way
which addresses teachers’ attitudes towards ELs in science educa-
tion as a way to lead to more effective teaching and student
learning.
2. Review of the literature
2.1. Untangling teacher beliefs and attitudes
The constructs of beliefs and attitudes related to teacher practice
is admittedly messy but important in educational research (Pajares,
1992). As Flores and Smith (2009) discussed, the idea of teacher
beliefs has been given many “analogous phrases” including “views”,
“perceptions”, “perspectives”, and “attitudes” (p. 325). In their
study, Flores and Smith (2009) chose to use the term “attitudinal
beliefs” as their main construct of interest (p. 325). Though we
acknowledge beliefs and attitudes are intertwined, a clearer defi-
nition is needed for the purpose of analysis and discussion.
In this study, we operationally define teacher beliefs as a
construct composed of cognitive (i.e., knowledge), affective (i.e.,
can arouse emotion), and behavioral (i.e., action may be required)
components as proposed by Rokeach (1968). Concretely, teacher
beliefs can be inferred from responses to phrases preceded by “I
believe that …” (p. 113). These belief statements can include
knowledge based on theory and research about working with ELs
(e.g., “I believe a student should be allowed to use his/her first
language to clarify their understanding); statements arousing
emotion (e.g., “I believe to be a citizen of my country a person
should speak English”); or statements eliciting behavior (e.g., “I
believe adapting my assessments for ELs is good for their learning
progression”). A cluster of these beliefs, can then be defined as an
attitudinal construct. As Pajares (1992) explains, attitudes can be
“… clusters of beliefs … organized around an object or situation
and predisposed to action …” (p. 113). Concretely, then, teacher
attitudes about ELs can be comprised of a series belief phrases.
2.2. Teacher attitudes related to ELs: attitudes about what?
In discussing the studies below, we wish to make the reader
aware of two things. The first is the use of different terms in the
literature to describe ELs including non-English-proficient, limited-
English proficient, ESL student, and ELLs. These terms have different
connotations (For readers interested in these discussions see, for
example: García, 2009; Pettit, 2011b). In this article, we chose to
use the term EL because it is currently the term used by the
 M. Huerta et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 1e9
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA).
Though the term EL is not perfect because of its focus on English
learning (vs. bilingual learning), the term is clearer for a survey
distributed to a broader audience of teachers likely working in
different settings (e.g., bilingual or mainstream classrooms) and
having received different levels of training for working with ELs.
The second point we wish to make readers aware of is that in our
discussion below we first consider what the studies are measuring
and then consider the main findings of these studies.
2.2.1. Attitudes towards linguistic diversity and ELs
Some researchers have focused on measuring teachers’ general
attitudes about linguistic diversity and ELs in the classroom (Byrnes
& Kiger, 1994; Byrnes, Kiger, & Manning, 1997; Flores & Smith,
2009; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). For example, Byrnes and Kiger
(1994) gauged 191 K-12 regular classroom teacher attitudes to-
wards linguistic diversity with belief items such as “English should
be the official language of the United States” and “The rapid
learning of English should be a priority for non-English-proficient
or limited-English proficient students even if it means they lose
the ability to speak their native language” (p. 230). Youngs and
Youngs (2001) directly asked 143 middle and high school main-
stream teachers to rate how much they would dislike or like
knowing they would “… expect two or three ESL students in one of
[their] classes next year” (p. 109).
2.2.2. Attitudes in the context of content-area pedagogy for ELs
Other researchers have focused on measuring teachers' atti-
tudes in the context of content-area pedagogy for ELs (Karathanos,
2009; Pettit, 2011a; Polat & Mahalingappa, 2013; Reeves, 2006;
Song & Samimy, 2015). For example, Polat and Mahalingappa
(2013) gaged 101 pre- and 94 in-service teacher attitudes about
ELs in content area classrooms. Their attitudinal scale included
belief items such as “The inclusion of ELLs in content area class-
rooms benefits all students,” and “The modification of coursework
of ELLs would be difficult to justify to English-speaking students”
(Polat & Mahalingappa, 2013, pp. 65e66). Song and Samimy (2015)
focused on 31 in-service secondary content area teachers’ attitudes
about language learning and teaching. Their scale included belief
items such as “Most of the mistakes that second language learners
make are due to interference from their first language” (Song &
Samimy, 2015, p. 9). Within science education, researchers have
qualitatively analyzed pedagogical attitudes towards simultaneous
language and content instruction by asking elementary teachers
open ended questions such as, “What is the role of literacy in sci-
ence instruction?” (Hart & Lee, 2003, p. 485).
2.3. Teacher background variables: study findings
Within the aforementioned studies, most researchers have
examined teacher background variables related to teacher atti-
tudes. These variables can be grouped into three categories: de-
mographic, contextual, and educational.
2.3.1. Demographic variables
Researchers have found demographic variables such as gender,
language, and race to relate to teacher attitudes. For example, re-
searchers found female teachers have more positive attitudes about
teaching ELs in the content areas (Pettit, 2011a; Polat &
Mahalingappa, 2013) and towards ELs in general (Youngs &
Youngs, 2001). Researchers have also found bilingualism to result
in more positive attitudes towards ELs (Flores & Smith, 2009;
Rader-Brown & Howley, 2014). Race, on the other hand, has been
related to positive attitudes towards linguistic diversity in only one
study (Flores & Smith, 2009), but the variable was not significant
3
when factors of diversity preparation were present within their
analysis. Similarly, Polat and Mahalingappa (2013) found gender
differences to not be significant in light of other variables such as
teachers’ exposure to diverse populations. All of these researchers
emphasized how important it is for teachers e regardless of their
race or gender – to receive training on diversity and second-
language teaching to facilitate more positive teacher attitudes to-
wards ELs.
2.3.2. Contextual variables
Researchers have noted certain contextual variables play a role
in teachers’ attitudes (e.g., experience working with ELs, contact
with diverse populations, grade levels taught). For example,
exposure to diverse populations has been associated with more
positive attitudes towards linguistic diversity and towards teaching
ELs in the content areas (Byrnes et al., 1997; Polat & Mahalingappa,
2013; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). More experience working with ELs
has also been associated with more positive attitudes towards
linguistic diversity (Byrnes et al., 1997; Youngs & Youngs, 2001).
Grade level taught has had mixed results in terms of teacher atti-
tudes towards ELs and/or teaching ELs in the content areas. Some
researchers report no differences between elementary and sec-
ondary teacher attitudes towards linguistic diversity (Byrnes et al.,
1997) while other researchers have noted elementary level teach-
ers to have more positive attitudes regarding allowing ELs to use
their first language in content area instruction than did secondary
teachers (Karakathanos, 2009).
2.3.3. Educational variables
Across the studies, educational variables seemed to be the most
critical in terms of teachers' attitudes related to ELs. For example,
teachers' attainment of a graduate degree was related to more
positive attitudes toward linguistic diversity (Byrnes et al., 1997) as
was whether teachers had received professional/formal training to
work with ELs in general (Byrnes et al., 1997; Karathanos, 2009;
Pettit, 2011a; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). Positive attitudes towards
linguistic diversity were related to whether teachers had
completed multicultural and language learning courses (Flores &
Smith, 2009), had formal training in a second language (Byrnes
et al., 1997), and whether they had experience abroad (Youngs &
Youngs, 2001). Positive attitudes toward teaching ELs in the con-
tent areas were specifically related to teacher training (Pettit,
2011a; Polat & Mahalingappa, 2013; Song & Samimy, 2015).
Regardless of teachers’ demographic or contextual variables, the
studies overall emphasized the importance of teachers receiving
diversity and ESL/second-language courses and training to work
with ELs.
2.3.4. Science education studies
As previously noted, within science education studies con-
cerned with ELs, researchers have briefly explored teacher beliefs
related to practice with small samples (Hart & Lee, 2003; Lee,
2004). Findings include positive changes in teacher beliefs and
practices as a result of intense professional development.
2.4. Research questions
In this study, we specifically asked:
1. What are the characteristics of teachers who choose to take a
survey gaging their attitudes towards linguistic diversity and
their attitudes towards research-based pedagogy related to
science instruction for ELs?
2. Do demographic, contextual, and educational variables result in
statistically significant differences in teachers' attitudes towards
4 M. Huerta et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 1e9
ELs in the context of science education? If so, do demographic,
contextual, and educational variables result in statistically sig-
nificant differences in terms of teachers' Attitudes Towards Lin-
guistic Diversity and Attitudes towards Research-Based Practices
for Teaching Academic Content and Language to ELs in Science?
3. Method
3.1. Sampling and procedures
Educators participating in science education professional
development workshops in the Southwestern United States from
November 2017 to May 2018 were recruited. Workshops focused on
strategies for integrating science and language to help all students
succeed. The workshops were advertised and open to educators at
any grade level, and attendance was optional. The trainer placed
flyers at the back of the room and on tables where attendees sat for
interested participants to collect. The flyers included a brief project
description and a QR code with a link to the survey. In addition, the
survey link was posted on the professional development trainer's
website teachers could refer other teachers to in order to take the
survey. Participation was voluntary and responses were anony-
mous. The university's Institutional Review Board approved the
study and data collection protocols.
3.1.1. Sample analysis
Our sample size included 756 responses between November
2017 and May 2018. Of those responses, 151 responses included
more than 50% missing-at-random data or no data because the
participants started but did not complete the study. These re-
sponses were eliminated, leaving 605 responses. Of those, we
eliminated 44 responses in which the participants indicated they
were administrators, university faculty, or did not respond to what
their role was in the school. We did this because for this particular
study, we wanted to include only educators working closely with
students in terms of instruction (i.e., classroom teachers and
instructional coaches). This left us with a sample of 561 teacher
participant responses. Prior to running any of our analysis, outliers
in the quantitative data were identified using casewise diagnostics
in SPSS output. Eight cases were identified as outliers, with the sum
scores for either attitudinal measure falling more than three stan-
dard deviations above or below the mean. This left us with a final
sample size of 553 participants.
3.2. Instrument and measures
The online survey instrument consisted of 62 questions and
took approximately 10 min to complete. We included questions
based on previous literature regarding teacher attitudes and ELs.
For example, we asked demographic questions such as age, gender,
race, and a series of questions about the participants’ language (i.e.,
to determine bilingualism). We also asked participants about
contextual factors (i.e., if they had regular contact with diverse
populations, if they had experience working with ELs, whether they
taught PK-elementary or secondary grades). Because our sample
came from national and school-based professional development
workshops open to different levels of educators, we asked partici-
pants what their role was in the school (i.e., classroom teacher,
school interventionist, administrator) or if they were university
instructors. Last, we asked participants about their educational/
professional training (i.e., highest educational level, whether they
had received professional development to work with ELs in general
and/or in science).
3.2.1. Face validity
Prior to making the survey available during the workshops, we
established face validity (i.e., ease and feasibility of use in terms of
its intended purpose and measures). We sent the survey to another
researcher specializing in the field of science instruction with
diverse students. We revised our questions based on the re-
searcher's recommendations, which included changing the display
of certain questions to ensure ease of access on multiple devices
(such as tablets and cellphones). In terms of content, no changes
were requested, possibly because the questions were grounded in
synthesized research-based literature and fairly straightforward
(see discussion below for each scale). After changing the display of
certain items for clarity among devices, we sent the survey to pre-
service and in-service teachers enrolled in university courses to
ensure that there were no issues affecting understanding of the
questions of the survey, the administration of the survey, or any
other unanticipated technical difficulties in running the survey. The
pre and in-service teachers did not request changes, but noted the
survey was clear and easy to complete.
3.3. Attitudes towards linguistic diversity
To measure teachers' attitudes toward ELs, we used Byrnes and
Kiger's (1994) Language Attitudes of Teachers Scale (LATS). The
scale includes 13 Likert-type items (responses on a 5-point scale,
5 ¼ strongly agree and 1 ¼ strongly disagree), with higher scale
scores indicating more tolerance towards ELs and linguistic di-
versity (based on how we reverse-scored negatively worded items).
The items comprise a series of statements such as “English should
be the official language of the United States,” “At school, the
learning of the English language by non- or limited-English profi-
cient children should take precedence over learning subject mat-
ter,” and “Regular-classroom teachers should be required to receive
pre-service or in-service training to be prepared to meet the needs
of linguistic minorities” (Note: Negatively worded items were
reverse-scored). The LATS has been used and adapted in other
studies related to teacher attitudes and beliefs about working with
diverse students (e.g., Byrnes et al., 1997; Flores & Smith, 2009;
Rader-Brown & Howley, 2014).
3.3.1. Adaptation and reliability
Because the scale was developed more than two decades ago, it
uses terminology no longer appropriate to the field, such as “lin-
guistic minority” and “non- or limited English proficient students”.
We adapted the language to our current context and replaced these
terms with “English learner (EL)”, the term used by the National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (see terminology
discussion under “Teacher Attitudes Related to ELs: Attitudes about
What?” above). We also replaced overly negative phrases such as,
“… detrimental to the learning …” with softer language such as, “…
inhibits the learning …”. Byrnes and Kiger (1994) reported an in-
ternal consistency of 0.81 for the scale. The internal consistency for
our sample was .812 (Cronbach's alpha).
3.3.2. Principle components analysis
To analyze the adapted scale's content validity (i.e., whether the
scale was measuring what it intended to measure) with this study's
sample, we ran principal components analysis (PCA) with an obli-
min rotation on the LATS 13-item scale. Prior to performing PCA,
the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of
the correlation matrix showed coefficients of 0.3 and above, the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was 0.853, above the recommended
value of 0.6 (Kaiser, 1974), and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (Barlett,
1954) reached statistical significance, supporting factorability of
the correlations matrix. The analysis revealed the presence of three
 M. Huerta et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 1e9 5

components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 30.90%,
9.43%, and 9.18% of the variance respectively. In inspecting the
screeplot, we noticed three two distinct breaks and decided to keep
the three-factor solution. For this solution, three of the 13 items
loaded onto more than one factor. The decision to assign the item to
a particular factor was decided by higher factor loadings alongside
what made intuitive sense. See: Table 1.
Based on the question items, we labeled the three factors: (1)
Beliefs about ELs and Learning (2) Beliefs about External Supports
for ELs and (3) Beliefs about Other Language Value in Home
Country. Beliefs about ELs and Learning had six items (Items 5, 6, 8,
10, 11, and 13), with a mean of 23.57 (SD ¼ 4.36) and an alpha
reliability coefficient of 0.694. Beliefs about External Supports for
ELs had three items (Items 2, 4, and 9), with a mean of 12.84
(SD ¼ 2.02) and an alpha reliability coefficient of 0.516. Beliefs about
Language Value in Home Country had four items (Items 1, 3, 7, and
12), with a mean of 11.85 (SD ¼ 4.06) and an alpha reliability co-
efficient of 0.733.
Enders, 2005; Quinn, Lee, & Valde s, 2013). We asked questions
regarding (a) allowing ELs to use their first language to clarify their
thinking in the classroom and (b) using ELs’ home culture in the
science classroom as ways to facilitate learning.
3.4.1. Reliability
The final scale included 13 Likert-type items. The items asked
educators the extent to which they believe pedagogical questions
to be true (responses on a 5-point scale, 5 ¼ yes, all of the time and
1 ¼ no), with higher scale scores indicating more positive attitudes
about teaching ELs in science (we reverse scored negatively worded
items). The items comprised of a series of statements belief state-
ments such as, “Does providing regular, structured opportunities
for English Learners (ELs) to develop written language skills help
them learn during science instruction?” We also asked participants
the extent to which they believed it was feasible to carry out each
pedagogical recommendation. The internal consistency for our
sample was .825 (Cronbach's alpha).

3.4. Attitudes towards research-based practices for teaching
academic content and language to ELs in science
To measure participants’ attitudes towards research-based
practices for teaching academic content and language to ELs, we
used a scale we developed. We anchored our questions on
evidence-based practices for teaching academic content and liter-
acy to ELs recommended by What Works Clearinghouse (U.S.
Department of Education, 2014):
1. Teach a set of academic vocabulary words intensively across
several days using a variety of instructional activities.
2. Integrate oral and written English language instruction into
content-area teaching.
3. Provide regular, structured opportunities to develop written
language skills.
4. Provide small-group instructional intervention to students
struggling in areas of literacy and English language
development.
In addition, we included questions grounded in science educa-
tion research pertaining to native language use and culture, as
these are important facets of EL learning within the science class-
room (Janzen, 2008; Lee, 2004; Lee, Deaktor, Hart, Cuevas, &
3.4.2. Principle components analysis
To analyze the content validity (i.e., whether the scale was
measuring what it is intended to measure) of the new scale, we ran
principal components analysis (PCA) with an oblimin rotation on
the 13-item scale. Prior to performing PCA, the suitability of data for
factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix
showed coefficients of 0.3 and above, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value
was 0.796, above the recommended value of 0.6 (Kaiser, 1974), and
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (Barlett, 1954) reached statistical sig-
nificance, supporting factorability of the correlations matrix. The
analysis revealed the presence of four components with eigen-
values exceeding 1, explaining 34.46%, 11.81%, 9.75%, and 8.98% of
the variance respectively. In inspecting the screeplot, we noticed a
clear break after the second component, so we decided to retain
two components. The two-component solution explained 46.27% of
the variance, with Component 1 contributing 34.46% and Compo-
nent 2 contributing 11.81%. To aid in the interpretation of the two
components, we performed an oblimin rotation, which resulted in
ten items loading onto one factor and three items loading onto the
second factor. See: Table 2.
Based on the question items, we labeled the two factors: (1)
Beliefs about Integrating Language and Culture into Science In-
struction (Items 4e13) and (2) Beliefs about Allowing ELs to use
their Native Language during Science Instruction (Items 1e3).

Table 1
Attitudes towards linguistic diversity items and corresponding factor loadings obtained from the principle components analysis.

Factor Question Item Component

1 2 3

Beliefs about ELs and Learning 8. Having an EL in the classroom inhibits the learning of the other students. (Reverse-scored) .759
10. Most ELs are not motivated to learn English. (Reverse-scored). .743
5. It is unreasonable to expect a regular-classroom teacher to teach a child who does not speak English. (Reverse- .524
scored)
11. At school, the learning of English should be a priority for ELs and should take precedence over learning subject .506
matter. (Reverse-scored)
13. ELs often use unjustified claims of discrimination as an excuse for not doing well in school. (Reverse-scored) .454 -.318
6. The rapid learning of English should be a priority for ELs, even if it means they lose the ability to speak their native .386 -.358
language. (Reverse-scored)
Beliefs about External Supports for 4. It is important that people learn a language in addition to English. .753
ELs 2. I would support the government spending additional money to provide better programs for ELs. .636
9. Regular-classroom teachers should be required to receive pre-service or in-service training to be prepared to .426
meet the needs of ELs.
Beliefs about Language Value in 1. To be considered a citizen of my country, one should speak English. (Reverse-scored) -.862
Home Country 12. English should be (if it is not) the official language of my country. (Reverse-scored) -.755
7. Local and state-regional governments should require that all government business (including voting) be -.705
conducted only in English. (Reverse-scored)
3. Parents of ELs should be counseled to speak English with their children whenever possible (Reverse-scored) -.303 -.510
6 M. Huerta et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 1e9

Table 2
Attitudes towards research-based practices for teaching academic content and language to ELs in science items and corresponding factor loadings obtained from the principle
components analysis.

Factor Question Item Component

1 2

Beliefs about Integrating Language and Culture
into Science Instruction
Beliefs about Allowing ELs to use their Native
Language during Science Instruction
6. Is it feasible to provide regular, structured opportunities for ELs to develop written language .706
skills during science instruction?
5. Is it feasible to incorporate oral language development strategies help ELs learn during science .684
instruction?
9. Is it feasible to incorporate a set of vocabulary words intensively across several days into .680
science instruction?
13. Is it feasible to provide small group instructional intervention for ELs in science instruction? .659
11. Is it feasible to incorporate students' culture and background into science instruction? .646
7. Does providing regular, structured opportunities for ELs to develop written language skills help .643
them learn during science instruction?
4. Does integrating oral language development strategies help ELs learn during science instruction? .634
10. Does incorporating ELs' culture and background help them learn during science instruction? .620
12. Does providing small group instructional intervention for ELs belong in science instruction? .550
8. Does teaching a set of vocabulary words intensively across several days help ELs learn during .508
science instruction?
3. Does allowing ELs to use their first language to clarify their understanding of English during .711
instruction help their understanding of the content in science?
1. Does allowing ELs to use their first language during instruction help them understand content .699
in science?
2. Does allowing ELs to use their first language during instruction confuse their understanding of .694
content in science? (Reverse-scored)

Beliefs about Integrating Language and Culture into Science In-
struction had ten items, with a mean of 38.53 (SD ¼ 6.20) and an
alpha reliability coefficient of 0.838. Beliefs about Allowing ELs to
use their Native Language during Science Instruction had three
items, with a mean of 12.11 (SD ¼ 2.32) and an alpha reliability
coefficient of 0.615.
3.5. Analysis
We used the software package SPSS Statistics to analyze our
data. Having already reverse-scored the teacher beliefs and teacher
attitudes scores so the high values indicated positive beliefs and
positive attitudes about teaching science to EL students (for the
PCA), we first calculated the sum scores for each of our measures:
Attitudes Towards Linguistic Diversity and Attitudes Towards
Research-Based Practices for Teaching Academic Content and Lan-
guage to ELs. To answer Research Question 1, we ran descriptive
statistics. This analysis informed what variables to compare for
Research Question 2.
To answer Research Question 2, we used multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) to determine whether differences existed on
the two attitudinal measures using teacher characteristics as in-
dependent variables. MANOVA allows for the analysis of multiple
independent and dependent variables while reducing the possi-
bility of Type 1 error (Pallant, 2013). In addition, we examined
partial eta square as a measure of effect, using Cohen's (1988)
guidelines (i.e., 0.2 ¼ small effect; 0.5 ¼ medium effect; 0.8 ¼ large
effect). In our analysis, we first conducted preliminary assumption
testing to check for normality, linearity, univariate and multivariate
outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and multi-
collinearity before running the MANOVA. Finding no serious vio-
lations in the preliminary assumption testing, we ran a factorial
design MANOVA with six independent variables asked of the par-
ticipants in the survey.
The independent variables used in the MANOVA captured par-
ticipants’ responses regarding the following: (1) Whether the
participant considered himself/herself White or not (2) Whether
the participant was bi/multilingual or a monolingual English
speaker (3) Whether the participant taught PK-5 grades (PK-
elementary) or secondary grades (6e12) (4) Whether the
participant had obtained graduate degree or not, and (5) Whether
the participant had received professional development specifically
to work with ELs in science. We did not compare other possible
variables of interest such as gender, exposure to diversity, and
whether participants had received professional development to
work with ELs because more than 90% of participants reported to be
female, to have had exposure to diversity, and to have received
professional development to work with ELs (see Results “Research
Question 1” below).
4. Results
4.1. Research question 1. what are the characteristics of teachers
who choose to take survey gaging their attitudes towards linguistic
diversity and their attitudes towards research-based pedagogy
related to content-area instruction for ELs in the context of the
science classroom?
4.1.1. Demographic variables
From our final sample of 553 participants, we found the
following: Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 70 (M ¼ 40.46;
SD ¼ 9.94), a large percentage of participants were women (93.5%),
and most participants reported being practicing teachers (86.1%) vs.
instructional coaches (13.9%). More than half were White (67.3%)
followed by Hispanic (23.1%), Black (4.4%), Asian (2.0%), American
Indian (0.4%), and other (2.5%). Most indicated they spoke only
English (82.5%).
4.1.2. Contextual variables
Almost all of the participants reported to have worked with ELs
(95.1%) and to have had regular contact with racially/ethnically
diverse populations (also, 95.1%). Most participants reported to
work in PK-elementary (PK-5) grade levels (75.9%).
4.1.3. Educational variables
A little over half of the participants reported having only a
bachelor's degree (57.5%). A large percentage reported having
received professional development to work with ELs (90.1%).
However, less than half reported having received professional
development to work with ELs specifically in science (41.6%).
 M. Huerta et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 1e9
4.1.4. Attitudinal measures
The theoretical midpoint is an artificial parameter demon-
strating how many sample scores fall below or above the mean of
the instruments' scale. The theoretical midpoint therefore allows
readers to gage the score distribution. For Attitudes Towards Lin-
guistic Diversity, participants' mean score was 48.26 (SD ¼ 8.46). For
Attitudes Towards Research-Based Practices for Teaching Academic
Content and Language to ELs, participants' mean score was 50.58
(SD ¼ 7.36). The possible range of scores for both scales is 1
(low ¼ more negative) to 65 (high ¼ more positive); thus, our
sample's mean scores for both scales fell above the scale's theo-
retical midpoint (33).
4.2. Research question 2. do demographic, contextual, and
educational variables result in statistically significant differences in
teachers' attitudes towards ELs in the context of science education?
If so, do demographic, contextual, and educational variables result
in statistically significant differences in terms of teachers’ Attitudes
Towards Linguistic Diversity and Attitudes towards Research-Based
Practices for Teaching Academic Content and Language to ELs in
Science?
The MANOVA analysis resulted in statistically significant dif-
ferences on the combined dependent variables between partici-
pants who were bi/multilingual and those who were not, F (2,
519) ¼ 5.07, p ¼ .007; Wilks' Lambda ¼ 0.981; partial eta
squared ¼ 0.019; between participants who taught PK-elementary
(PK-5) and those who taught secondary (6e12), F (2, 519) ¼ 4.94,
p ¼ .008; Wilks' Lambda ¼ 0.981; partial eta squared ¼ 0.019; and
between participants who had received professional development
specifically to work with ELs in science and those who had not, F (2,
519) ¼ 3.72, p ¼ .025; Wilks’ Lambda ¼ 0.986; partial eta
squared ¼ 0.014. Analysis of the results for the two dependent,
attitudinal variables separately (using a Bonferroni adjusted alpha
level of 0.025), resulted in the following findings.
4.2.1. Demographic variable: language
First, whether participants reported to be bi/multilingual or not,
had statistically significant effects for Attitudes Towards Research-
Based Practices for Teaching Academic Content and Language to ELs
in Science, F (1, 520) ¼ 10.08, p ¼ .002; partial eta squared ¼ 0.019.
Inspection of the mean scores indicated that participants who re-
ported to be bi/multilingual had higher scores for the attitudinal
measure (M ¼ 53.72, SD ¼ 6.64) than participants who reported to
be English monolingual speakers (M ¼ 49.83, SD ¼ 7.35).
4.2.2. Contextual variable: grade level
Second, whether participants taught PK-elementary (PK-5) or
secondary (6e12) grades, had statistically significant effects for
Attitudes Towards Linguistic Diversity, F (1, 520) ¼ 8.35, p ¼ .004;
partial eta squared ¼ 0.016. Inspection of the mean scores indicated
that participants who reported they were PK-elementary (PK-5)
teachers had higher scores for the attitudinal measure (M ¼ 49.25,
SD ¼ 8.87) than participants who reported to be secondary (6e12)
teachers (M ¼ 45.13, SD ¼ 7.70).
4.2.3. Educational variable: professional development
Third, whether participants had received professional develop-
ment specifically to work with ELs in science or not, had statistically
significant effects for Attitudes Towards Research-Based Practices for
Teaching Academic Content and Language to ELs in Science, F (1,
520) ¼ 7.41, p ¼ .007; partial eta squared ¼ 0.014. Inspection of the
mean scores indicated participants who had received professional
development specifically to work with ELs in science had slightly
higher scores for Attitudes Towards Research-Based Practices for
7
Teaching Academic Content and Language to ELs in Science
(M ¼ 49.45, SD ¼ 8.52) than participants who had not received this
type of training (M ¼ 47.41, SD ¼ 8.35).
4.2.4. Interaction effects
Analysis of whether interaction effects existed between vari-
ables (example: bilingual elementary vs. secondary teachers or
bilingual teachers with training in science for ELs vs. monolingual
teachers with no training in science for ELs), resulted in no statis-
tically significant results on the dependent variables.
5. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to measure and analyze PreK-12
teachers' attitudes toward linguistic diversity and their attitudes
towards EL research-based pedagogy in the context of science ed-
ucation. In doing so, we wished to characterize the sample and
compare the samples’ measures on variables of interest with
respect to two dependent variables: Attitudes Towards Linguistic
Diversity and Attitudes Towards Research-Based Practices for Teaching
Academic Content and Language to ELs. Our final sample included
553 participants who took part in a professional development
training focused on integrating science and language to help all
students succeed in the science classroom. The average participant
in our sample was a White mono-lingual English-speaking female,
teaching Pre-K-5th grade, and having received professional devel-
opment to work with ELs. The overall teacher participant had above
average scores on both attitudinal measures.
5.1. Demographic variables
Participants who reported to be bi/multilingual had scores
which were statistically significantly higher on the measure of their
Attitudes Towards Research-Based Practices for Teaching Academic
Content and Language to ELs in Science than participants who re-
ported to be monolingual English speakers. Our results somewhat
align with previous research. On the one hand, the results align
with bilingualism positively impacting teachers' attitudes towards
linguistic diversity in the classroom (Flores & Smith, 2009; Rader-
Brown & Howley, 2014). On the other hand, our results did not
specifically align with the construct Attitudes Towards Linguistic
Diversity. The result is of interest because for this study's group of
participants, being bi/multilingual mattered for the construct more
aligned with specific teaching practices to help students learn in
science than with more general attitudes towards linguistic di-
versity. It is possible most of the teachers had generally positive
attitudes towards linguistic diversity because 90.1% reported hav-
ing received professional development to work with ELs while only
41.6% reported to have received professional development to work
with ELs specifically in science (see “Educational Variables” below).
Further research should explore whether this variable might be
different with different samples of teachers.
Notably, race was not a significant variable in this study. Given
the high level of training these participants reported in terms of
working with ELs, the results are not surprising. As noted, past
work has found race to not be significant in light of participants'
level of educational training related to ELs (Flores & Smith, 2009).
This study confirms past researchers’ comments on the importance
of teacher training over demographic variables (Flores & Smith,
2009; Polat & Mahalingappa, 2013).
5.2. Contextual variable
Participants who taught PK-elementary (PK-5) had scores which
were statistically significantly higher on the measure of their
8 M. Huerta et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 1e9
Attitudes Towards Linguistic Diversity. This result adds to the limited
and mixed results of this variable (Byrnes et al., 1997;
Karakathanos, 2009), aligning with studies in which elementary
level teachers have reported more positive attitudes about teaching
ELs than secondary teachers have reported (Karakathanos, 2009).
However, that secondary teachers had statistically significantly
lower scores on Attitudes Towards Linguistic Diversity but not on
Attitudes Towards Research-Based Practices for Teaching Academic
Content and Language to ELs in Science was surprising. Secondary
content-area teachers have been noted to struggle more with un-
derstanding the role language plays in learning (Karakathanos,
2009). A possible explanation to this result is that the Attitudes
Towards Linguistic Diversity is much more general in the sense of
eliciting political and social beliefs about linguistic diversity;
whereas the other scale is focused on specific pedagogical ideas for
helping students learn content. It is possible secondary teachers
who have been trained on working with ELs understand the
important role language plays in learning content (their main
focus) but have more difficulty with overall valuing ELs’ first lan-
guage. Again, future research could investigate this variable in more
depth.
5.3. Educational variables
Participants who reported to have received professional devel-
opment specifically to work with ELs in science had scores which
were statistically significantly higher on the measure of their Atti-
tudes Towards Research-Based Practices for Teaching Academic Con-
tent and Language to ELs in Science than participants who reported
to not have received this type of training. This result aligns with
previous research noting how professional development training
impacts teachers’ attitudes towards linguistic diversity (Byrnes
et al., 1997; Karathanos, 2009; Youngs & Youngs, 2001) as well as
towards teaching ELs in the content areas (Pettit, 2011a; Polat &
Mahalingappa, 2013; Song & Samimy, 2015).
These results, however, add a new dimension to the research in
that participants attitudes related to teaching science to ELs were
aligned to specific professional development on teaching ELs in
science. This result, on the one hand, is not surprising as it should
make sense that teachers who have received specific training to
work with ELs in science should have more positive attitudes about
teaching ELs in science. On the other hand, the result is important
because less than half of the sample participants (41.6%) e even
though they were attending a specific workshop on science and
literacy e reported to have received specific training to work with
ELs in science. The implications call for the value of specific
content-area training for working with ELs (see “Implications”
below).
Whether participants had a graduate degree or not was not
statistically significant within the analysis. Our results differ from a
previous which have found participants' level of education to
impact attitudinal measures related to ELs (Byrnes et al., 1997).
Within our sample, it is possible graduate degree attainment did
not matter in light of the fact that 90.1% of the participants reported
to have received professional development to work with ELs and
95.1% reported to have had regular contact with racially/ethnically
diverse populations e a critical variable for impacting teachers’
understandings for working with diverse students, including ELs
(Byrnes et al., 1997; Polat & Mahalingappa, 2013; Youngs & Youngs,
2001).
5.4. Note on interaction effects
Last, we did not find interaction effects among our variables.
This could be a result of the nature of our sample which was, as
noted above, had overall received training to work with ELs and had
exposure to racially/ethnically diverse populations. Future studies
with more dichotomized samples may find more differences,
including interaction effects on variables of interest.
5.5. Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, the sample was not
randomized and therefore cannot be generalized to all teachers on
a national level. Not was the sample international e a sample
involving different regions of the United States and of the word,
could add further insights into teachers’ attitudes and needs in
terms of working with diverse students. The present study did,
however, provide a snapshot of the sample of teachers who were
recruited and who selected to take the survey. Therefore, the results
could be generalizable to teachers in the Southwestern United
States who choose to attend professional development workshops
on integrating science and language. Second, participants who
choose to go to these workshops and to take the survey may have
already come with generally positive and open attitudes towards
the idea of integrating language in science teaching, and possibly of
ELs. Again, future studies should consider more randomized sam-
ples of teachers in the schools to eliminate this possible bias. Still, a
point of interest in terms of the study results is that even within this
highly positive sample, certain variables were still significant. The
results therefore provide insight into areas that professional
trainers and researchers should pay attention to such as overall
bilingualism of teachers, grade levels taught, and amount of pro-
fessional development specifically for working with EL students in
science. Last, this survey could be used in future studies such as
mixed-method work to delve into answers regarding why teachers
hold certain attitudes as well as intervention work to provide in-
sights into changes into teacher attitudes.
5.6. Implications
Implications of the study results include the importance of more
teacher research on variables that affect teachers’ attitudes towards
ELs and towards research-based teaching of ELs in science educa-
tion. Research in this area is still in its infancy; though researchers
consistently note how difficult it is to change teacher practice (Lee
et al., 2008; Santau et al., 2010). If attitudes are linked to practice
(Borg, 2003; Fang, 1996; Farell & Kun, 2008; Pajares, 1992), then
considering affective variables alongside measurable outcome
variables (e.g., teacher observations or student scores) is critical.
Implications also point to the need for teacher education to
include diversity training for all teachers in PK-12. In this study's
sample, most participants reported to have exposure to diverse
student, to have received training to work with ELs in general, and
to have worked with ELs. But this is not always the case in
researched samples. As noted, even within a sample reporting high
levels of diversity-related training and exposure, certain de-
mographic, contextual, and educational variables mattered when it
came to their attitudes. While a participant cannot immediately
change whether they are bi/multilingual, teacher training programs
should consider the value of promoting bi/multilingualism among
its teacher candidates as well as to encourage them to promote bi/
multilingualism among their students. It is also important to
maintain diversity training for all teachers, including secondary
teachers who may tend to focus more on content than how lin-
guistic and cultural attitudes may also affect students' learning in
content-area classrooms (e.g., science). Last, teacher training could
do more to promote content-specific training such as how to help
ELs specifically succeed in science, vs. just general EL strategies.
Implications for policy fall closely in line to what has been
 M. Huerta et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 1e9
previously discussed. In essence, in today's landscape where 4.5
million public students are ELs in the U.S. alone, teacher training
programs need to include required language and culture training
courses. At the same time, the value of fostering, recruiting, and
retaining bi/multilingual teachers should not be overlooked. As
noted in this study and other studies, race as a variable in and of
itself is not significant in affecting teachers' attitudes towards ELs in
general. However, variables related to education, such as fostering
bi/multilingual individuals and providing targeted professional
development for working with ELs in science classrooms do matter.
Policy can do much to value these two types of education and to
promote them for the overall well-being of both teachers and the
students they serve in the context of science education and beyond.
References
Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square ap-
proximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 15(Series B), 296e298.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on
what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36,
81e109.
Byrnes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (1994). Language attitudes of teachers scale (LATS).
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 227e231.
Byrnes, D. A., Kiger, G., & Manning, M. L. (1997). Teachers' attitudes about language
diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(6), 637e644.
Choe, S., & McDonnough, J. T. (2009). Meeting the needs of high school science
teachers in English language learner instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Ed-
ucation, 20, 385e402.
Cohen. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hill-
sdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational
Research, 38, 47e65.
Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. Inter-
national Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491e520.
Farrell, T. S. C., & Kun, S. T. K. (2008). Language policy, language teachers' beliefs, and
classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 29, 381e403.
Flores, B. B., & Smith, H. L. (2009). Teachers' characteristics and attitudinal beliefs
about linguistic and cultural diversity. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of
the National Association for Bilingual Education, 31(1e2), 323e358.
García, O. (2009). Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: What's in a name? Tesol Quar-
terly, 43(2), 322e326.
Hart, J. E., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve the sci-
ence and literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research
Journal, 27(3), 475e501.
International Council for Science [ICSU]. (2011). Report of the ICSU Ad-hoc Review
panel on science education. Paris, France: International Council for Science.
Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of
Educational Research, 79(4), 1010e1038.
Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrica, 29, 31-26.
Karabenick, S. A., & Noda, P. A. C. (2004). Professional development implications for
teachers' beliefs and attitudes toward English language learners. Bilingual
Research Journal, 28, 55e76.
Karathanos, K. (2009). Exploring US mainstream teachers' perspective on use of the
native language in instruction with English language learner students. Inter-
national Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(6), 615e633.
Kieffer, M. J., Lesaux, N., Rivera, M., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Accommodations for
English language learners taking large-scale assessments: A meta-analysis on
effectiveness and validity. Review of Educational Research, 29(3), 1168e1201.
Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Guerrero, C., Huerta, M., & Fan, Y. (2012). The effect
of an instructional intervention on middle school learners’ science and English
reading achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 987e1011.
Lee, O. (2004). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy in-
struction with English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
41(1), 65e93.
Lee, O., Deaktor, R. A., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2005). An instructional
intervention's impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and
linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 42(8), 857e887.
Lee, O., Lewis, S., Adamson, K., Maerten-Rivera, J., & Secada, W. G. (2008). Urban
elementary school teachers' knowledge and practices in teaching science to
English language learners. Science Education, 92(4), 733e758.
9
Lee, O., Llosa, L., Jiang, F., Haas, A., O'Connor, C., & Van Booven, C. (2016). Teachers'
science knowledge and practices with English language learners. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 53(4), 579e597.
Lee, O., & Maerten-Rivera, J. (2012). Teacher change in elementary science in-
struction with English language learners: Results of a multiyear professional
development intervention across multiple grades. Teachers College Record,
114(8), 1e42.
Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J., Penfield, R. D., LeRoy, K., & Secada, W. G. (2008). Science
achievement of English language learners in urban elementary schools: Results
of a first-year professional development intervention. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 4(1), 31e52.
Lee, J. S., & Oxelson, E. (2006). “It's not my job”: K-12 teacher attitudes toward
students' heritage language maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal, 20(2),
453e477.
Llosa, L., Lee, O., Jian, F., Haas, A., O'Connor, C., Van Booven, C. D., et al. (2016). Impact
of a large-scale science intervention focused on English language learners.
American Educational Research Journal, 53(2), 395e424.
Maerten-Rivera, J., Ahn, S., Lanier, K., Diaz, J., & Lee, O. (2016). Effect of a multiyear
intervention on science achievement of all students including English language
learners. The Elementary School Journal, 116(4), 600e624. https://doi.org/
10.1086/686250.
Mantero, M., & McVicker, P. (2006). The impact of experience and coursework:
Perceptions of second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Radical
Pedagogy, 8(1).
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). The condition of education 2017
(NCES 2017-144). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.
Washington, D.C: Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners
that collaborated on the NGSS.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a
messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 3, 307e332.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to using SPSS. Berkshire,
England: Open University Press.
Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (1997). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Longman.
Pettit, S. K. (2011a). Factors influencing middle school mathematics teachers' beliefs
about ELLs in mainstream classrooms. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics
Preparation of School Teachers: The Journal, 5. www.k-12prep.math.ttu.edu.
Pettit, S. K. (2011b). Teachers' beliefs about English language learners in mainstream
classrooms: A review of the literature. International Multidisciplinary Research
Journal, 5(2), 123e147.
Polat, N., & Mahalingappa, L. (2013). Pre- and in-service teachers' beliefs about ELLs
in content area classes: A case for inclusion, responsibility, and instructional
support. Teaching Education, 24(1), 58e83.
Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valde s, G. (2013). Language demands and opportunities in
relation to next generation science standards for English-language learners:
What teachers need to know. White paper written for Understanding Language.
Available: http://ell.stanford.edu/publication/language-demands-and-
opportunities-relation-next-generation-science-standards-ells.
Rader-Brown, L., & Howley, A. (2014). Predictors of the instructional strategies that
elementary school teachers use with English language learners. Teachers College
Record, 116(5), 1e34.
Reeves, J. R. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language
learners in mainstream classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(3),
131e143.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Santau, A. O., Secada, W., Maerten-Rivera, J., Cone, N., & Lee, O. (2010). US urban
elementary teachers' knowledge and practices in teaching science to English
language learners: Results from the first year of a professional development
intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 2007e2032.
Shim, J. M. (2014). A Bourdieuian analysis: Teachers' beliefs about English language
learners' academic challenges. International Journal of Multicultural Education,
16(1), 40e55.
Song, S. Y., & Samimy, K. (2015). The beliefs of secondary content teachers of English
language learners regarding language learning and teaching. International
Journal of TESOL and Learning, 4(1), 3e19.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education and Regional Assistance. (2014). What Works Clearinghouse: Teaching
academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school
(NCEE 2014-4012). Retrieved from http://ies.edu.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/
19.
Youngs, C. S., & Youngs, G. A. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers' attitudes
toward ESL students. Tesol Quarterly, 35(1), 97e120.