Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Open Issue ©2014 Volume 8, Issue 2 5 Equitable Instruction for Secondary Latino English Learners: Examining Critical Principles of Differentiation in Lesson Design Anne René Elsbree Ana M. Hernández Annette Daoud California State University San Marcos Abstract The research emphasizes the need for educators to take more ownership of Latino English Learners (ELs) and identify effective lesson differentiation through subject area content (instruction), process (activities), and products (assessments). Based on the literature review, school achievement improves when practices address students’ culture, experiences and learning styles in ways that are differentiated in academics. This study examined lesson plans from 35 teacher candidates (86% white, 14% Latino) in a Single Subject Credential Program in southern California. Candidates conducted clinical practice in districts that served up to 70% ELs, with the majority identified as Long-term English Learners (LTEL). Lessons analyzed a five-part differentiation plan: 1) student information, 2) differentiation, 3) appropriateness of differentiation, 4) assessment criteria, and 5) monitoring and adaptations. Results indicated 94% (33/35) of the candidates provided data on ELs’ proficiency levels. All (35) lessons included at least one differentiation. About 26% provided a rationale for lesson differentiation, monitoring or adaption; however, only 9% described assessment criteria. Educating LTELs is more than just providing access to the curriculum or sheltering instruction. Lessons must draw from critical theory/pedagogy for effective LTEL practices. Teacher educators need to be more strategic in how they teach differentiation to candidates. Acknowledgements: This research was funded by a grant from the Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) in the U.S. Department of Education. Introduction At the secondary level, the majority of English learners (ELs) can be characterized as “long-term English learners.” While there are variations in the definitions provided by researchers, common characteristics of long-term English learners or LTELs are: they have been enrolled in U.S. schools for approximately 6 years or more; they generally have grade point averages of below a 2.0; and they have not attained a proficiency level in reading and writing skills needed for academic success in content area classes (Olsen, 2010). LTELs perform at much lower academic levels than immigrant students who come to U.S. schools with a range of prior schooling experiences from their home countries (Callahan, 2005). One challenge facing secondary ELs is placement— the classes in which they are placed are often not those which are required for future attendance in four-year colleges. Secondary English learners often take multiple English as Second Language (ESL) or English Language Development (ELD) classes, thus limiting their access to “mainstream” content classes (Barron & Sanchez, 2007; Callahan, 2005; Rumberger & Gndara, 2004). Unfortunately, it is often the case that the curriculum in ESL or ELD classes is not challenging enough or aligned to college-track classes for LTELs to transfer the information learned and be successful in their content area classes. Additionally, the academic demands for secondary ELs in content area classes are much more complex than those needed for success in elementary schools. At the secondary level, content in textbooks and that presented in content area classes are done so through an increasingly complex level of academic language or the specialized level of vocabulary, grammar and skills of secondary content area classes. For secondary Equitable Instruction for Secondary Latino English Learners Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Open Issue ©2014 Volume 8, Issue 2 6 English learners, particularly long-term ELs, attaining and practicing a level of academic English is required for any level of success in content area classes. Secondary ELs come to content area classes with a wide range of backgrounds and experiences in school that require a varied level of scaffolding to access the content. To help ELs be academically successful, content area teachers should understand their students’ literacy and content knowledge, previous academic experience in U.S. schools, and their knowledge of the English language (Dutro & Kinsella, 2010). Preparing Teachers to Teach Secondary English Learners The educational experiences of LTELs underscore the importance for teacher education programs to prepare teachers to equitably teach students from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds. In a survey of California teachers, Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, and Driscoll (2005) report on challenges that secondary teachers identify in teaching ELs. The most commonly cited challenge for secondary teachers is the language and cultural barriers between themselves and their EL students. The secondary teachers who participated in the survey stated that the most beneficial professional development trainings are those that focus on understanding the cultural characteristics and learning profiles of ELs they need to effectively teach them. The more knowledge teachers have about their EL students, the better able they are to provide equitable educational opportunities to them. It is therefore imperative that secondary teacher credential programs and professional development trainings prepare secondary teachers to provide ELs in their content areas classrooms access to the core curriculum in ways that are both comprehensible and academically rigorous. It is also essential that teacher credential and professional development programs explicitly draw from the tenets of multicultural education, social justice and equity to prepare teachers to provide equitable educational experiences for all of their future students. Common Core Standards—New Standards, New Opportunities As teachers begin to incorporate rigorous Common Core standards and complex demands of using texts from various content registers, there is fear that ELs will continue to trail behind or further decline in academic achievement, since ELs lack understanding of knowledge and skills in disciplines that require high functioning levels of English proficiency (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012). In addition, according to WestEd (Walki, et al., 2010), “In order to succeed academically, all ELs must overcome a ‘double gap,’ first to equal the achievement of their native-speaking counterparts, and then to reach a level of achievement that is considered grade-level proficient (p. 3).” However, Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the new ELD Standards can offer a window of optimism to reconstruct the manner in which teachers instruct ELs with deeper understandings of content and language. It offers a fresh start to equip linguistically and culturally diverse students who have been denied the right to interact with rigorous content, opportunities to engage in effective communication skills, and ways to apply new knowledge of their English language skills in meaningful ways. For secondary ELs, this could signify a new dawn for their right to an equitable education and journey into college and career readiness. The purpose of this article is to emphasize the need for educators to take more ownership for EL students’ mastery of English and to identify the parts of an effective content, process, and product differentiation in a lesson. The research questions for the study include: 1) In what ways are teacher candidates addressing differentiation? 2) How do teacher candidates articulate their differentiation plan? Literature Review This inquiry draws from the theoretical foundations of critical theory/pedagogy to develop consciousness of instructional practices in traditional education. To address the educational issues facing secondary ELs, faculty in the teacher education program highlighted in this inquiry frame our practice in critical multicultural education, Equitable Instruction for Secondary Latino English Learners Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Open Issue ©2014 Volume 8, Issue 2 7 use a social justice/critical pedagogy approach to design and deliver our program, and teach our candidates how to use effective practices for ELs in their instruction. Multicultural Education Based on the notion that all students learn when the curriculum is meaningful, comprehensible, and relevant to students’ lives, the lesson planning process outlined in this article draws from the theoretical foundations of multicultural education and critical pedagogy to provide teacher candidates with the tools needed to motivate English learners, along with all students, to learn. Improving educational experiences through understanding and respect of all students is one of the foundations of the theories and practices of multicultural education (Banks, 2003; Gallavan, 2011; Nieto & Bode, 2008; Sleeter, 2005). School achievement improves when instructional practices address students’ culture, experiences, and learning styles in ways that are differentiated to meet each student’s individual academic needs (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2001). Peer interactions and collaborative activities that are rooted in critical pedagogy are paramount in educating second language learners, particularly in states like California, where approximately 25% of students in public schools (K-12) are classified as ELs, either immigrants or the sons and daughters of immigrants living in poverty or below poverty level (California Department of Education, 2013). Educators need to understand that educating ELs is more than just providing access to the curriculum or sheltering instruction for comprehension of content. New standards call for students to be actively engaged in content learning through peer interactions, understand how to conduct research, provide evidence while reading and writing, analyze complex texts, and apply advanced levels of academic language skills to any subject area. Therefore, a reconstruction and transformation of the manner in which teachers/teacher candidates design lessons will be the new guiding principles for equitable instructional practices for English learners. Social Justice Approach Teacher education programs which are explicitly rooted in tenets of social justice and equity see teaching as the act of enhancing students’ learning and their expanding opportunities both in and beyond school (for example, Cochran-Smith, et. al, 2009; Darling-Hammond, French, & Garcia-Lopez, 2002). Social justice teacher education programs highlight inequities that exist in schools and guide teacher candidates in understanding theories and practices that will help them provide equitable educational opportunities for all their future students. In this study, the steps needed to create a differentiation plan approximates social justice from a framework similar to the one described by Chubbuck (2010) on conceptualizing and implementing socially just teaching. Teacher candidates reflect upon and design their individual socially just and equitable pedagogy to address student learning difficulties using both individual and structural orientations (Chubbuck, 2010). To create a differentiation plan, teacher candidates first identify their EL students’ proficiency levels, learning profiles and interests, then reflect upon how to choose differentiation strategies that lead to more equitable educational outcomes. In a study of a teacher education program explicitly centered on social justice and equity, Cochran-Smith, et.al, (2009) found that teacher candidates’ definitions of social justice and equity are placed into four categories: pupil learning, relationships and respect, teacher as activist, and recognizing inequities. Across the categories, the teacher candidates define and enact social justice through their own individual actions rather than through policy change or political actions (Cochran-Smith, et.al, 2009). In a study of two teacher education programs in California to examine how each program implements social justice and equity across their programs, McDonald (2005) found that translating these definitions into actions can be challenging for teacher candidates. Drawing from these studies, one can establish that teacher education programs should: present social justice in ways that the candidates are open to learning; teach candidates to define social justice on an individual level; and help candidates translate their definitions into concrete actions in their future classrooms. The steps that comprise the differentiation plan provide very specific “doable” actions that teachers and teacher candidates can integrate into their teaching practices which directly impact the equitable educational opportunities for secondary English Equitable Instruction for Secondary Latino English Learners Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Open Issue ©2014 Volume 8, Issue 2 8 Equitable Instruction for Secondary Latino English Learners learners. Students of impoverished communities, who are linguistically and culturally diverse, need to connect knowledge to power and freedom of oppression in order to achieve social reconstruction (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1988). It is important for teachers to view educational opportunities for students who have been historically disenfranchised by inequitable systems. Teachers can transform students into thinkers for social change and active learners in their communities. Structures that allow a one-size-fits-all instructional program create a “culture of silence and oppression” for groups of students who are perceived as subordinates in educational stratifications, particularly English learners. This theory permits teachers to re-examine and reconstruct lesson development as a critical process for transformation, rather than to continue a status-quo approach in the classroom. Effective Strategies for Teaching Secondary English Learners Effective instructional planning is a necessity for meeting the needs in today’s diverse classrooms, especially with English learners. Three instructional design practices that lend themselves to English language development include: Universal Design for Learning (Rose & Gravel, 2010; Rose & Meyer, 2002 ); Understanding by Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005); and Differentiated Instruction (Tomlinson, 2001). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a pedagogical approach based on the universal design movement in architecture, where buildings provide accessible options for entry and use from the initial design, not as an afterthought that requires retrofitting. UDL addresses three networks: recognition, strategic, and affective (Rose & Gravel, 2010). UDL requires that each lesson provide multiple means of representation, action/expression, and engagement (Rose & Meyer, 2002). While it is critical that educators provide instruction in universally accessible ways, English learners often need further differentiation to guarantee that the access fits their proficiency levels. Understanding by Design (Wiggins & Grant, 2005) is a backward planning process, where educators identify the learning outcomes of a unit first and then choose learning activities and materials that would support the identified learning objectives. The benefit of this instructional design is that it focuses on planning the learning tasks and evidence of the students’ understanding. Educators can design the tasks with English learners in mind with set criteria to demonstrate language development as well as content understanding. Tomlinson’s (2001) differentiated instruction adds to both of these instructional plans by focusing attention on the three main areas of instruction: content (subject objectives, concepts and materials), process (student activities), and product (assessments). Each of the three areas can be adapted or modified based on the learner’s readiness level—English proficiency level, learning profile, and interests. Tomlinson provides a framework for differentiating based on the specific information of a student. So this instructional design allows for more refined instruction, dependent on the needs of the learners. Research findings on effective strategies for teaching secondary English learners provide the foundation for following the steps of designing differentiation plans. Teaching methods such as sheltered instruction or Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) provide secondary teachers with the pedagogy, methodology, and strategies to effectively teach English learners. In sheltered or SDAIE classrooms, language and content objectives are threaded throughout the curriculum so that English learners are able to learn content while improving English literacy skills (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2014). Research shows that incorporating language and content objectives based on state standards is an effective competency that teachers of secondary English learners use in their lesson planning (Faltis, Arias, & Ramirez-Marin, 2010). Using the standards and objectives as a guide, sheltered or SDAIE lessons include multiple strategies, methods, and assessments that help make academically rigorous content accessible to English learners at various language proficiency levels, and in multiple contexts including “mainstream” content classrooms (i.e., Diaz-Rico, 2013; Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2014; Faltis, Arias, & Ramirez-Marin, 2010). Supporting academic language development is particularly paramount for secondary English learners who need academic language to be successful across all their content area classes. Effective strategies for supporting English learners’ academic language development include explicit teaching of language forms and metacognitive strategies, building background knowledge, and providing opportunities to practice academic language across Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Open Issue ©2014 Volume 8, Issue 2 9 Equitable Instruction for Secondary Latino English Learners multiple contexts (Bowers, et. al, 2010). Additionally, ELs need content presented through explicit scaffolding so that they can perform the academic task required (De Jong & Harper, 2005). The amount of scaffolding needed is based on the English learners’ language proficiency levels as well as their background knowledge (language, content and culture). Building upon students’ background knowledge is an effective strategy to develop language and content mastery as well as to make curriculum culturally and socially relevant to students’ lives (De Jong & Harper, 2005; Faltis, Arias & Ramirez-Marin, 2010). Methodology This study uses qualitative methods to facilitate the collection and analysis of data using a “naturalistic” approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The study is an analysis of lesson plans from 35 teacher candidates. The candidates were enrolled in a two-semester fifth-year Single Subject Secondary Credential Program in Southern California. The program has been in existence for over fifteen years and offers single subject credentials in the following subjects: English Language Arts, Mathematics, Physical Education, Science, Social Sciences and World Languages (Spanish). The program philosophy centers on social justice, as well as clinical practice and teaching digital-age learners. To prepare teacher candidates to be effective teachers in our service area of southern California, it is essential that we focus on issues of social justice, specifically meeting the needs of diverse students from low socioeconomic statuses, English language learners, and other students traditionally underserved. Participants All of the candidates had a bachelor’s degree and had passed the California Subject Examination for Teachers. In the fall semester, each candidate was enrolled in the following: three core methodology courses (Teaching and Learning, Literacy, and Multilingual Education), one subject-specific methodology course, and full-time clinical practice at a public middle or high school that serves English learners. Some of the districts served up to 70% English learners, with the majority of them identified as long-term English learners (Olsen, 2010). The demographics for teacher candidates (see Table 1) is as follows: 49% women (17) and 51% (18) men; 86% white (30) and 14% Latino (5). The candidates’ subject areas were: 14% English (5), 20% Math (7), 5.71% Physical Education (2), 8.57% Science (3), 28.57% Social Studies (10), and 22.87% Spanish (8), earning a Spanish/ English Bilingual Authorization. It is important to note that of the eight Spanish teacher candidates, three were white, four were Latinos (three from Mexico and one from Honduras), and one was Latino/Hawaiian with roots from Mexico. In terms of language, almost 23% of the candidates were bilingual (Spanish/English) and 77% predominantly spoke English only. In addition 14% (5) of the candidates self-identified as English learners, with two of them experiencing high school education in California during Proposition 227—an anti-bilingual education initiative that passed in 1998. They have shared their experiences with their colleagues in terms of how their education changed under the reform. Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Open Issue ©2014 Volume 8, Issue 2 10 Equitable Instruction for Secondary Latino English Learners Table 1. Candidate demographic information by content area (N=35) Content Area Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Latino Bilingual (English / Spanish) English Language Arts 2 3 5 0 0 Mathematics 0 7 7 0 0 Physical Education 1 1 2 0 0 Science 2 1 3 0 0 Social Sciences 9 1 10 0 0 World Languages (Spanish) 4 4 4 4 8 NOTE: Candidates in this study only represented the two ethic groups listed above Data Collection The candidates were enrolled in Multilingual Education, which focuses on the goals of multilingual and multicultural education, specifically why and how to support English learners. The assignment for this research study was to design a lesson plan that included differentiation for English learners. The program provided a lesson template that was used across courses and in clinical practice. Each lesson included: standards, objectives, assessment, enduring understanding, essential questions, instructional steps, student information, differentiation, and materials. Prior to this class assignment, candidates were instructed on how to create a universally designed lesson (Rose & Gravel, 2010) using backward planning (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) with specific differentiation for content, process, or product (Tomlinson, 2001) based on their class profile. First, the candidates created a personal learning profile for themselves, where they identified their strengths, their readiness levels for different content, their learning preferences, their collaboration and leadership styles, and their interests. Based on their learning profile, the candidates identified learning activities where they would thrive. The purpose of this activity was to help the candidates understand how this information could inform instruction. Second, the candidates were instructed on how to locate student information at their clinical practice sites, such as English proficiency levels and individual education plans. Currently the data available for English learners is the California English Language Development Test (CELDT). The CELDT scores identify the English learners’ ability to listen, speak, read, and write in English. The candidates learned how to match a student’s CELDT score to an appropriate level English Language Development Standard: emerging, expanding, and bridging. Third, the candidates created and conducted a survey with their middle and high school students to identify their interests and learning profiles. Fourth, the candidates were asked to analyze the class profile to identify similarities in their students’ learning profiles, identify students that needed differentiation, and to learn how to choose effective differentiation strategies based on the profiles. Data Analysis The analysis of the lesson plans focused specifically on the differentiation strategies for English learners. During the analysis, common themes (differentiation strategies) were identified through an open coding process and revisited until patterns emerged (areas of differentiation), allowing us to move from a broad analysis to the specific question of “how” teacher candidates were addressing differentiation (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995). We categorized the differentiation strategies into three areas: content differentiation for subject objectives, concepts, or materials; process differentiation for the student activities; and product differentiation for the assessments (Tomlinson, 2001). For each strategy we identified if the candidate articulated the five parts of the differentiation plan: Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Open Issue ©2014 Volume 8, Issue 2 11 Equitable Instruction for Secondary Latino English Learners 1) Identification of English learner’s proficiency level, learning profile, and/or interests (Tomlinson, 2001); 2) Alignment of the differentiation to the English learner’s proficiency level, learning profile, and/or interests; 3) Explanation of why the differentiation is appropriate for the English learner’s proficiency level, learning profile, and/or interests (Tomlinson, 2001); 4) Description of the criteria for assessing the English learner’s progress based on proficiency level; 5) Plan for monitoring and adapting strategy to support English learner’s progress. The research focused only on the lesson plan design and not the implementation, so there was no reflection analyzed to identify the effectiveness of the differentiation plan. Limitations There are at least two methodological limitations in this study: 1) only one lesson to represent all that each of the candidates learned, and 2) the fact that the data only covers lesson designs. The lessons were merely a snapshot in the candidates’ understanding of differentiation in the first half of the credential program. More lessons over the entire program would make this study richer and more reliable. In addition, the data collected were only lesson designs—no lesson was taught, observed, or had a post-reflection. Results The research findings covered two areas: the types of differentiation and the plan for the differentiation. The intention of the original analysis was to identify what types of strategies the candidates designed, but we also were curious how the candidates articulated their differentiation plan—which parts were included in their differentiation plan and which parts the candidates needed more guidance and practice for designing socially just and equitable instruction. Types of Differentiation Process differentiation was the most common with 89% of the lessons (31/35); content was the second most common with 80% (28/35); and product was the least common differentiation with 57% of the lessons containing assessment differentiation (20/35). Of the 35 lessons, 20% (7) of the lessons contained only one type of differentiation with two that included content differentiation and the other five included process differentiation; 34% (12) of the lessons contained two types of differentiation (with seven that included content and process differentiation, two with content and product, and one that included process and product differentiation) and 46% (16) of the lessons contained all three types of differentiation. Content. The content differentiation consisted of content accommodations with no substantial content modifications. Content accommodations were minor differentiations that did not substantially change the instructional level, subject content, or assessment criteria for the EL, but addressed the delivery method, such as multisensory presentation (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) and vocabulary development supports. An example of a lesson that included content differentiation focused on vocabulary. The differentiation plan began with information about the EL. The candidate described an English learner with a CELDT score of 3, an intermediate level with strong English reading skills, but poor English speaking articulation. In addition he noted that the student enjoys playing soccer and consistently makes an effort to complete his class work. The differentiation plan described how the teacher candidate will directly teach the vocabulary word, “imperialism.” The candidate described projecting the word and its definition on a SMART Board in bold black font and having the English learner copy the word and definition on a graphic organizer and describing the word verbally. Although the candidate did not explain why the differentiation was appropriate based on the student’s information, the candidate did describe how he would check for the EL’s understanding by checking what he wrote on the graphic Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Open Issue ©2014 Volume 8, Issue 2 12 Equitable Instruction for Secondary Latino English Learners organizer and listening to the student’s verbal definition and make any needed clarifications immediately to make sure that the English learner comprehended the correct definition. The other content differentiations, 78.5% (22/28), merely described the student and named a differentiation with no specifications as to why the differentiation was chosen, how a plan would assess the effectiveness of the strategy, or how they would adapt the strategy if needed. Process. The process differentiations included flexible grouping, graphic organizers, multisensory activities, and tiered lessons. The flexible grouping describes the different ways students can be grouped to maximize learning. The lessons that included graphic organizers were designed to help the student visually process the content. The multisensory activities included visual, auditory, and kinesthetic dimensions. The tiered lessons provided different participation roles for the ELs based on their proficiency levels. In one of the lessons that included process differentiation, the candidate not only described the English learner’s proficiency level at a CELDT 3 score—with visual and interpersonal learning style preferences, that enjoys one-on-one instruction—the candidate also described the Latino EL’s interests in computers and video games, specifically, “Guitar Hero.” He was earning a B in the math class and was interested in going to the local community college to pursue engineering. In the lesson, the students are to use their understanding of volume and surface area formulas to design a drink container for another country. In the differentiation plan, the candidate describes how the student would be assigned a group with a reclassified1 Spanish-speaking English learner to assist with any translations as well as high-performing English-Only students to model proper language and math usage. The candidate provided a strong explanation of why the strategy was appropriate for the EL’s proficiency level. Although the candidate neglected to address the criteria that would be used for assessing the EL’s progress or a plan for monitoring the strategy and adapting it if necessary, the other three parts were very strong: information about student, differentiation aligned to student information, and explanation of why the differentiation is appropriate based on the student proficiency level, learning profile, and/or interest. Product. The product differentiations were included in 57% of the (20/35) lessons. Over half of the (11/20) lessons included product differentiations that were minor accommodations— where English learners were expected to learn the same content as the rest of the class. Almost half of the (9/20) lessons that included a differentiated product (modification), used a rubric to communicate the different language development tasks based on the emerging, expanding, and bridging dimensions that refer to the English Language Development standard’s proficiency level descriptors. One lesson was a stellar example of product differentiation for a pickleball2 formation in a physical education class. The candidate provided information on a Spanish-speaking English Learner with a CELDT 3 score, who spoke well in class and understood verbal instructions, but struggled with vocabulary, reading, and writing. In addition, the candidate shared that the EL was athletic, interested in sports, and enjoyed soccer and shooting video games. In the lesson, the students were instructed to create a pro and con list for each formation of pickleball. The teacher candidate described how he would strategically place the learner in a group with other strong readers and one student that was a Spanish-speaking English learner that was recently reclassified as proficient. He explained how this group would provide the necessary language supports for processing the 1. “Reclassified” is a term used by the California Department of Education to identify students who have met reclassification criteria. A district determines whether or not an English learner student has sufficient English proficiency to be reclassified as a fluent English speaker through the following: EC Section 313 (d) specifies multiple measures be used to reclassify ELs, including all four of the following criteria: Assessment of English proficiency Evaluation of performance in basic skills, such as the CST for English-language arts (CST- ELA) or the California Modified Assessment for ELA (CMA-ELA), teacher evaluation, and parental opinion and consultation. Retrieved on March 27, 2014 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/rd/. 2. Pickleball is a game based on a baseball play where a runner is “in a pickle”, in jeopardy of being out when advancing to the next base. The game involves three players—a runner and two base players. The base players toss the ball back and forth until the runner is successfully tagged. When a base player tags the runner, the two exchange places and continue playing. Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Open Issue ©2014 Volume 8, Issue 2 13 Equitable Instruction for Secondary Latino English Learners different pickle formations and to comprehend what the pros and cons would be for each formation. The candidate described how he would monitor the group discussion and ask the EL questions to evaluate his comprehension and to ask him permission if he could be called on during the whole class discussion to share his answers. This not only offered the candidate an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the differentiation, but it would allow him to adapt the instruction to meet the EL’s needs. Differentiation Plan The lesson plans were analyzed for evidence of the five parts of a differentiation plan: 1) Information about student, 2) Differentiation strategy aligned to student information, 3) Explanation of why differentiation was appropriate for student, 4) Criteria for assessing student progress, and 5) Monitor and adaptation plan. For the most part, the candidates were consistent in gathering information about their students’ English proficiency levels, learning profiles and interests, and choosing a differentiation specifically for their identified students (see Table 2) Table 2. Differentiation used by candidates in lesson plans (N=35) Content Area Design activities based on ELs’ proficiency levels Differentiate content based on student learning profiles Differentiate assessments based on student learning profiles English Language Arts 5 of 5 (100%) 2 of 5 (40%) 0 of 5 (0%) Mathematics 6 of 7 (86%) 5 of 7 (71%) 5 of 7 (71%) Physical Education 2 of 2 (100%) 2 of 2 (100%) 1 of 2 (50%) Science 2 of 3 (67%) 3 of 3 (100%) 2 of 3 (67%) Social Sciences 8 of 10 (80%) 8 of 10 (80%) 7 of 10 (70%) World Languages (Spanish) 7 of 8 (88%) 8 of 8 (100%) 5 of 8 (63%) First, ninety-four percent (33/35) of candidates provided descriptive data about their students’ proficiency levels, learning profiles and interests. Second, 100% of the candidates provided at least one differentiation strategy that was aligned to the student, even the two candidates that neglected to provide information about their students included a differentiation for English learners and Students with Special Needs; in fact, one of the lessons provided differentiation for content, process, and product, and the other included content and process differentiation strategies. Third, the differentiation plans broke down from there, with only 26% (9) of the candidates providing a rationale for the differentiation. The candidates often did not explain how the differentiation strategy was appropriate for the specific learner’s proficiency level, learning profile, or interests. Fourth, even less candidates described how they would know if the differentiation was effective. Only nine percent (3) of the candidates described the criteria for assessing the student’s progress. Fifth, the last part of the differentiation plan, monitoring and adaption, was more likely to be described. Twenty-six percent (9) of the candidates described how they would monitor and adapt strategies to support student progress. Two candidates demonstrated a more thorough differentiation plan than other lessons: “Spanish Family Lesson” and “Cylinder Geometry.” These candidates were both white women that are native English speakers, representative of the majority of teacher candidates in our program and across the nation. Ms. Jones, a white, bilingual woman, designed a Spanish Family Lesson with content, process and product differentiation for six English learners (4 Spanish, 1 Vietnamese, and 1 Tagalog speakers). The objective of the lesson is for the students to converse in Spanish about their family. The lesson supports EL’s content by modeling family vocabulary using a family tree for two different families [Modern Family television show and Graciela Repún and Elena Hadida’s (2006) children’s book, Familias, la mía, la tuya, la de los demás]. ELs are supported in Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Open Issue ©2014 Volume 8, Issue 2 14 Equitable Instruction for Secondary Latino English Learners the process by making their own family tree using a graphic organizer. ELs are supported in the assessment by pairing them with a partner that has greater English proficiency as well as providing a script for the conversation and time to practice. This lesson addressed three of the five differentiation steps with a description of the students, aligned differentiation strategy, and an explanation of how the strategy is aligned with the students’ strengths and needs. The second candidate, a white monolingual English-speaking woman, Ms. Smith, designed a Cylinder Geometry lesson with content, process, and product differentiation supports for three Spanish speaking ELs. The lesson objective is for the students to apply their surface area and volume knowledge by designing and justifying a drink can for a Spanish-speaking county. ELs were supported with the content, by verbally and visually reviewing the surface area and volume vocabulary and formulas. Grouping them with Native English speakers and building time for the teacher to monitor and provide any necessary one-on-one instruction supported the EL’s process. The ELs were supported in the design presentation (product) by rearranging all of the desks in a circle so students are seated facing one another to lessen the intimidation of a formal presentation. This lesson was thorough in its differentiation plan with a rich description of each of the ELs, strategies’ alignment with the students’ information, an explanation of how the strategy is a good match for the ELs, and a plan to monitor and adapt the strategies for the process as well as the product. Conclusions and Educational Significance The analysis of the parts of differentiation, helped us as instructors recognize what our students understood and where they needed more guidance and practice for differentiation. The conversations during our collaborative analysis led us to recommit ourselves to ownership of our teacher candidates’ learning. As a result we are redesigning our lesson plan assignments and the learning activities and materials. We are making our rubrics more specific in regards to what evidence looks like for the five distinctive parts of the differentiation plan. We are condensing the lesson plan contents and making the differentiation a heavier weight for the graded assignment. By engaging in this research study, we realized we needed to take our own advice and be more strategic in how we teach the differentiation. We needed to first, start with our students in mind. Second, identify a differentiation that matches their readiness—proficiency level, learning profile, and/or interests. Third, explain the reason why the differentiation is appropriate for each teacher candidate. Fourth, describe what criteria we will use to assess the candidates’ progress, and fifth, have a plan to monitor and adapt to support candidate progress. Returning to the literature reviewed for this study, the differentiation plans created by the candidates allowed them to take definitions of social justice and enact them into individual actions (Cochran-Smith et. al, 2009; McDonald, 2005). The lessons themselves focused on multicultural content that was differentiated to meet each student’s individual academic needs while also addressing their culture, experiences, and learning styles (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2001). Further, each aspect of the candidates’ differentiation plans represents effective instructional practices for English learners; they include language and content objectives, varied assessments, and academically rigorous content presented through accessible and comprehensible instructional strategies (Diaz- Rico, 2013; Echevarria, Vogt & Short, 2014; Faltis, Arias & Ramirez-Marin, 2010). It is important to note that the majority of candidates in the program are white women, as is the case in most teacher education programs nationally. Regardless of their backgrounds, candidates can design socially just and equitable differentiated lessons in their content area classes for their secondary English learners. The importance of this study is that educators of teacher candidates in secondary education must be clear on explanations and monitoring strategies for lessons designed for students who are linguistically, culturally, and educationally diverse. This research advances instructional practices for a transformative education and agency in designing lessons that are in accordance to the proficiency and academic levels of Latino English Learners. More research is needed in the instruction of secondary Latino ELs and long-term ELs, particularly on teacher credential programs in higher education. Teacher candidates in secondary education programs are likely to have long-term English learners enrolled in their content area classes. By teaching candidates how to differentiate by providing targeted strategies that match their English learners’ needs, we are moving one step closer to providing ELs with more equitable educational opportunities. Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Open Issue ©2014 Volume 8, Issue 2 15 Equitable Instruction for Secondary Latino English Learners References Banks, J. (2003). Teaching literacy for social justice and global citizenship. Language Arts, 81(1), 18-19. Barron, R. & Sanchez, F. (2007). Fulfilling the commitment: Excellence for all students. Leadership, 36(3), 8-10. Bowers, E., Fitts, S., Quirk, M. & Woo, J. (2010). Effective strategies for developing academic English: Professional development and teacher practices. Bilingual Research Journal, 33, 95-110. California Department of Education. (2013). Educational demographics unit. Retrieved on February 7, 2013 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/dataquest. Callahan, R. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunities to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42 (2), 305-328. Chubbuck, S. (2010). Individual and structural orientations in socially just teaching: conceptualization, implementation, and collaborative effort. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3), 197-210. Cochran-Smith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C,. Terrell, D., Barnatt, J. & McQuillan, P. (2009). Good and just teaching: The case for social justice in teacher education. American Journal of Education, 115(3), 347-377. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Framework for English language proficiency development standards – Corresponding to the California state standards and the next generation science standards. Retrieved on March 20, 2014 from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2012/ELPD%20Framework%20 Booklet-Final%20for%20web.pdf Darling-Hammond, L., French, J. & Garcia-Lopez, S. (2002). Learning to teach for social justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. De Jong, E. & Harper, C. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, Spring, 101-124. Diaz-Rico, L. (2013). Strategies for teaching English learners. 3rd Ed. Boston, MA: Pearson. Dutro, S. & Kinsella, K. (2010). English language development: issues and implementation at grades six through twelve. In Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education Press. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. & Short, D. (2014). Making content comprehensible for secondary English learners: The SIOP model. 2nd Ed. Boston, MA: Pearson / Allyn & Bacon. Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Faltis, C., Arias, M. B. & Ramirez-Marin, F. (2010). Identifying relevant competencies for secondary teachers of English learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 33. 307-328 Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. NY: Continuum International Publishing Group Inc. Gallavan, N. (2011). Navigating cultural competence in grades 6-12: A compass for teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J. & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners. The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, UCSC. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research & practice. 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Massachusetts: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc. Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McDonald, M. (2005). The integration of social justice in teacher education: dimensions of prospective teachers’ opportunities to learn. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(5), 418-435. Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Nieto, S. & Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (5th ed). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the promise of educational opportunity for California’s long term English learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together Press. Rose, D.H. & Gravel, J.W. (2010). Universal design for learning. In E. Baker, P. Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Open Issue ©2014 Volume 8, Issue 2 16 Equitable Instruction for Secondary Latino English Learners Peterson & B. McGaw (Eds.). International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd Ed. Oxford: Elsevier. Retrieved from National Center on Universal Design for Learning Website http://www.udlcenter.org/ sites/udlcenter.org/files/TechnologyandLearning_1.pdf Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Retrieved from CAST, Universal Design for Learning Website http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/ tes/ Rumberger, R. & Gandara, P. (2004). Seeking equity in the education of California’s English learners. Teachers College Record, 106 (10), 2032-2056. Sleeter, C. (2005). Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability differentiated instruction classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Walqui, A., Koelsch, N., Hamburger, L., et. al. (2010). What are we doing to middle school English learners? Findings and recommendations for change from a study of California EL programs. WestEd. Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design expanded 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pear amae-open-issue-final 5 amae-open-issue-final 6 amae-open-issue-final 7 amae-open-issue-final 8 amae-open-issue-final 9 amae-open-issue-final 10 amae-open-issue-final 11 amae-open-issue-final 12 amae-open-issue-final 13 amae-open-issue-final 14 amae-open-issue-final 15 amae-open-issue-final 16