









































Research Article 
 

Alisa Leckie, Assistant Dean for Partnerships and Outreach, College of Education; Professor, Middle 
Grades and Secondary Education, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA; email 
aleckie@georgiasouthern.edu 

Amanda Wall, Professor, Middle Grades and Secondary Education, Georgia Southern University, 
Statesboro, GA; email awall@georgiasouthern.edu 
 
Acknowledgement: This project was supported by a seed grant from Georgia Southern University. 
 

 
 

What if There are Only a Few? 
Supporting English Learners in 
Rural Contexts 
 

GATESOL Journal 
2025, Vol. 34(1), pp. 4–16 
doi:10.52242/gatesol.202 

ISSN: 2331-6845 
 

Alisa Leckie 
Amanda Wall 
Georgia Southern University 
 
 

Abstract 
This paper describes the efforts of two teacher educators and four elementary school teachers 
to identify pragmatic approaches for educating newcomer English learners (ELs) in a rural 
context with a very small but rapidly growing EL population. We used a formative experiment 
methodological approach (Reinking & Bradley, 2004, 2008) consisting of iterative cycles of 
goal setting, observations and instructional supports, and adjustments to capitalize on 
teachers’ experiences and expertise to identify four relevant, meaningful, and practicable 
approaches to instruction and assessment to benefit newcomer ELs. The four ways are: (1) 
finding ways to use students’ home languages, (2) incorporating visual supports, (3) focusing 
on vocabulary development, and (4) fostering culturally sustaining positive learning 
environments. While these approaches have been used in other settings, this study is 
innovative in its focus on how teachers can leverage these supports in general educational 
settings to respond to demographic changes in the region. Our findings indicate that 
collaboration with experienced teachers led to the development of pragmatic approaches and 
policy clarifications that the school system has been able to apply in multiple contexts. These 
approaches, in turn, supported the ELs’ English language development and overall academic 
progress. 
 
Keywords 
English learners, elementary education, emergent English learners, rural schools, rural ESOL 
 

 
Introduction 
Georgia is part of the New Destination South, where there have been increasing Hispanic and Asian 
communities in recent decades (Census Brief, 2001, 2002, 2011, 2012; comparable briefs for the 
2020 census were not located; Marrow, 2011). Census QuickFacts (2024) estimated that the state 
population in 2024 included 11.1% Hispanic people and 4.3% Asian people. Such patterns mirror 
increasing numbers of public school students who are English learners (ELs). In the 2023-2024 

mailto:aleckie@georgiasouthern.edu
mailto:awall@georgiasouthern.edu


Leckie & Wall  
 

5 

school year, according to data on the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement (n.d.) Report 
Card, there were approximately 1,868,000 students in grades P-12 in Georgia; of these, 19.24% of 
students were Hispanic and 4.97% of students were Asian American Pacific Islander. 
Approximately 12% of students were Els, with Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Arabic being 
the most common languages spoken. 

While 12% of students in the state are ELs, some districts have as many as 28% of their 
student population learning English as an additional language while other systems do not have any 
ELs. As such, the resources and expertise supporting effective instruction for ELs tend to be 
focused in school systems with higher numbers of English learners. Federal Title III funds and 
FTE dollars are allocated based on the number of students served, which provides districts with 
higher numbers of ELs additional dollars to provide instructional services for students and 
professional development for teachers. For example, while urban districts in Georgia and across 
the nation may have newcomer schools and special classes to meet the needs of newcomers, most 
school systems do not have the resources to offer specialized programs or classes specifically for 
newcomer students. In rural schools, which often lack capacity for special programs and classes, 
many teachers may not have worked with ELs, much less newcomer students, throughout their 
entire careers; when they are confronted with meeting the academic and social needs of ELs, they 
often feel ill-equipped. 

Even for experienced, effective teachers, it can be a challenge to modify instructional 
practices to make content concepts clear and to support ELs’ developing English proficiency. 
Research indicates that there is still a struggle to prepare new teachers (e.g., Chesley & Jordan, 
2012) and to provide professional development for practicing educators (Choi & Morrison, 2014) 
to effectively teach ELs. This is particularly true in rural contexts with low incidences of English 
learners (Coady et al., 2019).  

In the district where this study took place, only 2% of the students were ELs (Governor’s 
Office of Student Achievement Report Card, n. d.). About 88% of students and teachers in the 
district were white. According to an annual report on the district site, more than 30 languages were 
spoken by ELs, with Spanish being most common. Given the low number of ELs, most ESOL 
teachers were itinerant, meaning they travelled between schools to provide support, thereby 
limiting opportunities to provide ongoing, sustained support for individual teachers or schools.  
One school in the district, Loblolly Pine Elementary (a pseudonym), for the first time, had four 
students who were new immigrants to the country and had minimal English skills. The four 
teachers in this study were experienced educators at Loblolly Pine Elementary who wanted to 
support the newcomer ELs in their classrooms but felt ill-equipped to do so. The purpose of this 
study was to collaborate with general education teachers to enhance their instructional practices 
for teaching newcomer ELs.  
 
Relevant Literature 
For this study, Alisa Leckie, one of the university researchers, worked with four elementary school 
teachers, each of whom had one or two emergent ELs in their classes. This was a new experience 
for each educator, despite their many years of teaching experience. One teacher, speaking with 
Alisa midway through the year, reflected on the new-to-her experience of teaching an emergent 
EL student, noting that, “I’m someone with 30 years of experience… I had no experience with it.” 
This impression connects to two main areas in the literature: effective practices for ELs and our 
rural context. 
  



 GATESOL Journal 34(1)  
 

6 

Effective Practices for ELs 
Effective practices for teaching English learners include using students’ home languages (Krashen, 
1985; Sayer, 2013), incorporating visual support (Gersten & Baker, 2000; Vardell et al., 2006), 
and focusing on vocabulary development (Carlo et al., 2004). According to Templeton et al. 
(2015), “[e]very teacher is a teacher of language” (p. 3), meaning that these practices are also 
appropriate across content areas. Integrating these practices results in target outcomes for ELs, 
including oral and written language proficiency and content mastery (Piñón et al., 2022).  

However, research does not tend to specify differential practices for ELs with minimal, if 
any, English language proficiency compared to more English-proficient peers. Although guidance 
documents such as the WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (WIDA, 2020) provide support to 
educators in explaining what ELs of varying proficiencies can do in instructional contexts, they 
provide little guidance for how to integrate these practices into their instruction. The majority of 
research on ELs focuses on schools and systems with high numbers of ELs. Only a small portion 
of this research focuses on newcomers, or emergent ELs, with minimal levels of English language 
proficiency.   
 
Rural Context 
Another key perspective that frames this work is the rural context of our college and partner school. 
Research has identified common themes across rural contexts while acknowledging that these 
contexts vary widely (Moffa & McHenry-Sorber, 2018). This rural context, as noted, is historically 
and predominantly white while rapidly changing; the school, like many rural schools, is central to 
the community (Rural Schools Collaborative, n.d.). Recognizing this context allowed us to 
approach the study through an asset-based perspective, avoiding the commonly used deficit 
perspective in rural research (cf. White & Kline, 2012). Burton et al. (2013) noted that many 
studies draw on a “one-dimensional characterization” of rural teachers (p. 8). To counter this view, 
we highlight that this study focused on experienced, effective teachers facing a new situation: 
emergent ELs in their rural classrooms. Alisa was familiar with the school through previous 
partnership efforts, and the teachers approached her for assistance with emergent ELs. These 
teachers wanted to ensure success for all students, but in the words of one teacher, they “had no 
experience” with ELs. In this way, the teachers self-selected for the study. 
 
Conceptual Framework 
Two perspectives informed this work: linguistically responsive teaching (Lucas et al., 2008) and 
culturally relevant pedagogy/culturally sustaining pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris, 2012). 
Lucas et al. (2008) explained six understandings about second language acquisition that teachers 
need to consider:  

● Academic language proficiency differs from conversational language proficiency and 
takes longer to develop. 

● Second-language learners need input just beyond their current levels of competence and 
numerous opportunities with academic and conversational language. 

● Social interactions between ELs and English-speaking peers assist academic and social 
language development. 

● ELs with solid literacy skills in their first language are more likely to achieve parity with 
English-speaking peers. 

● A welcoming, positive learning environment with minimal anxiety about performing in a 
second language is essential for student learning. 



Leckie & Wall  
 

7 

● Explicit instruction in language function and form is essential to second-language learning.  
These principles informed our work with the teachers and our approach to analysis.  

We also drew on culturally relevant/culturally sustaining pedagogies (Ladson-Billings, 
1995; Paris, 2012). Three components of culturally relevant pedagogy are a focus on student 
learning, cultural competence, and critical consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Culturally 
sustaining pedagogies seek to foster, or sustain, “linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism” (Paris, 
2012, p. 93). Together, these approaches aligned with our goals. One goal was to support teachers 
in sustaining cultural and linguistic pluralism and funds of knowledge (cf. Gonzalez et al., 2005) 
in their changing rural community; thus, we scaffolded teachers’ own cultural competence and 
recognition of the cultural and linguistic assets ELs brought to the classroom as a way to diminish 
a tendency to lean toward assimilation.  

The following questions guided this study: (1) How does the integration of vocabulary 
development, students’ home language, and visual support facilitate the academic achievement of 
emergent ELs in a rural context? (2) How does modeling how to integrate vocabulary development, 
students’ home languages, and visual support followed by instructional support result in shifts in 
educational practice among elementary teachers working with emergent ELs?  
 
Method 
We used a formative design approach (Reinking & Bradley, 2004, 2008) for this work with four 
upper elementary teachers as they implemented practices to improve academic achievement for 
emergent ELs. Formative experiments harness innovative instructional interventions to yield 
positive, pragmatic educational change (Reinking & Bradley, 2008). Formative experiments allow 
for the creation of interventions responsive to particular contexts—here, emergent ELs in one rural 
school, Loblolly Pine Elementary. Since the goal of formative experiments is pragmatic 
pedagogical changes, we focused on changes in each teacher’s instructional practices. 
 Alisa met with the teachers at multiple points during the year to discuss student progress, 
representative instructional practices, curricular materials, and modifications. There were three 
main cycles over the course of a school year; each cycle included goal setting, observations and 
instructional support, and reflection and adjustments. Alisa observed the teachers and met with 
them to discuss the topics above and how they were currently implementing best practices in their 
instruction. Teachers would identify ways to enhance their existing instructional practice to better 
benefit the emergent ELs in their classes. Then, teachers would implement ideas and monitor 
student progress. At the conclusion of each cycle, Alisa would meet with teachers for reflection: 
to discuss progress and to revisit and refine goals for the next cycle. At the conclusion of the year, 
Amanda Wall, another university researcher, conducted a focus group interview with the teachers.  
 
Participants and Researcher Roles 
The teachers (all names are pseudonyms) were: Ms. Ash, Ms. Donner, Dr. Allie, and Ms. Hall: 

• Ms. Ash taught fifth grade. She had 20 years of teaching experience. She had earned 
master's and specialist degrees.  

• Ms. Donner taught fifth grade. Together, she and Ms. Ash divided the teaching of ELA, 
Math, Science, and Social Studies. Ms. Donner had 21 years of teaching experience. She 
had earned a gifted endorsement.  

• Dr. Allie taught fourth grade ELA, Math, Science, and Social Studies. She had 12 years of 
teaching experience. She had earned a master’s and a doctorate degree. 



 GATESOL Journal 34(1)  
 

8 

• Ms. Hall taught third grade ELA, Math, Science, and Social Studies. Ms. Hall had 29 years 
of teaching experience. Ms. Hall had a master’s degree.  
Ms. Ash and Ms. Donner were a fifth-grade team; they collaborated closely. Dr. Allie and 

Ms. Hall taught all four academic content areas in self-contained classrooms. As noted above, 
teachers self-selected for this initiative based on their new experience of teaching emergent EL 
students.  

There were four emergent ELs in the upper elementary grades at the time of the study:  
● Lila, fifth grade. Her home language is Thai. Her teachers were Ms. Ash and Ms. Donner. 
● Leon, fourth grade. His home language is French, specifically Haitian French. His teacher 

was Dr. Allie. 
● José, fourth grade. His home language is Spanish. His teacher was Dr. Allie. 
● Marie, third grade. Her home language is French, specifically Haitian French. Her teacher 

was Ms. Hall. Marie and Leon are siblings. 
The small sample size connects to the context of the study and the new experience of 

teaching emergent ELs for these accomplished teachers. Even among this small population of four 
emergent ELs, there were three home languages.  

Both authors were familiar with the district through their roles as university supervisors for 
teacher candidates during clinical experiences. Alisa knows Spanish and has extensive experience 
teaching EL students. Amanda has a background in Romance languages. Both authors are 
committed to strong school-university partnerships. Alisa previously provided ESOL endorsement 
coursework for other teachers in the district and worked with the district ESOL coordinator to 
support teachers working with ELs. This study grew from that work. 
 
Data Collection and Analysis 
Four approaches were identified to focus instructional supports for students. These became the 
framework for data collection and analysis. Consistent with a formative design approach, there 
were three cycles throughout the year during which the study occurred. Data sources included 
regular observation and meeting notes, sample instructional materials, and transcriptions from 
individual interviews and the focus group. Alisa worked with the teachers throughout the school 
year to provide support for emergent ELs. She visited the school bi-weekly, observing and 
conferencing with the teachers. In keeping with a formative approach and our focus on practical 
pedagogical change, there were three goal-setting cycles. These cycles focused on modifying 
instruction for students (e.g., creating vocabulary lists, selecting sentence frames) and discussing 
these materials and student work samples with teachers. Teachers shared and described student 
artifacts during conferences, although we did not include student work as separate data sources. 
Audio recordings of teachers’ meetings included teachers’ interpretations and their assessment of 
evidence of student learning. 

We developed an a priori coding scheme from the promising practices identified through 
previous research, as noted earlier (Carlo et al., 2004; Gersten & Baker, 2000; Krashen, 1985; 
Piñón et al., 2022; Sayer, 2013; Vardell et al., 2006), and aligned with the tenets of linguistically 
responsive teaching (Lucas et al., 2008). The codes were: how teachers integrated students’ home 
languages, visual supports, and vocabulary development for their emergent ELs. Information about 
student progress is based on teachers’ notes and interviews; we did not have access to student 
assessment data. The data sources align with the purpose of the study to focus on instructional 
practices to support emergent ELs in this school. 



Leckie & Wall  
 

9 

We established the beginning coding structure. To reduce bias in interpretation, due to 
Alisa’s close work with teachers, Amanda led data analysis. We initially coded the data separately. 
Data from each cycle informed discussions with teachers for the next cycle, following the 
pragmatic goal of change underlying formative experiments. Emergent themes (Merriam, 2009) 
augmented the original organizational coding scheme (Maxwell, 2005) as the study progressed. 
Categories, themes, and findings evolved iteratively across the cycles. We analyzed data to note 
instructional practices and to note shifts in teachers’ instructional practices. Through discussion 
after the initial analysis, we streamlined themes and resolved discrepancies.  
 
Findings 
Our research questions were: (1) How does the integration of vocabulary development, students’ 
home language, and visual support facilitate the academic achievement of emergent ELs in a rural 
context? (2) How does modeling how to integrate vocabulary development, students’ home 
languages, and visual support followed by instructional support result in shifts in educational 
practice among elementary teachers working with emergent ELs?  We organized findings in four 
areas: 1) finding ways to use students’ home languages, 2) incorporating visual supports, 3) 
focusing on vocabulary development, and 4) fostering positive learning environments.  
 
Finding Ways to Use Students’ Home Languages 
Students’ home languages were used in conjunction with English for some assignments and 
assessments. At the beginning of the year, Alisa spoke with teachers about using Google Translate 
(or a comparable tool) to give assessments to newcomer EL students first in their home language 
to assess their understanding of content, particularly on text-heavy assessments in Language Arts 
and Social Studies. She encouraged teachers both to focus on vocabulary development in Math 
and Science and to provide those assessments in English to see how the newcomer ELs’ language 
skills were developing. Translating all assessments was not feasible in terms of teachers’ time 
constraints, nor would it have allowed them to assess English language development. Teachers 
made intentional decisions about when and why to use translation. 

The use of students’ home languages was also helpful during writing tasks. As an example, 
Ms. Hall provided a writing prompt in French for Marie mid-year. Marie generated ideas in French 
first, then worked to write her response in English. This opportunity to write first in French, her 
home language, allowed Marie to focus on content concepts and to list relevant examples and 
points for her assignment. Then, with the support of a word-to-word bilingual dictionary, her own 
developing knowledge of English, and some peer support, Marie wrote her response in English. 
This sequence allowed her to focus separately on content concepts and language concepts before 
uniting these in her written response.  

The structures of students’ home languages related to patterns teachers observed and the 
supports they provided in students’ use of English. Leon, José, and Marie spoke Romance 
languages with many words and structures in common with English. This promoted their English 
language development when the home language and English language words were paired on 
vocabulary cards. This helped both teachers and students notice the large number of cognates 
among English, Spanish, and French.  

Lila’s home language, however, was Thai, which is structured differently from English. 
Lila’s teachers referred to resources like The Language Gulper (Gutman & Avanzati, 2013) for 
information about the Thai language to better support Lila. For example, verb tenses in Thai are 
structured very differently from English. Instead of conjugating verbs to indicate time, Thai 



 GATESOL Journal 34(1)  
 

10 

linguistic structures use time-related adverbs or word order to express time. This awareness 
allowed Lila’s teachers to notice patterns in her use of English and identify ways to develop her 
understanding of linguistic structures in English.  

In one cycle in February, Lila’s teachers set an ELA goal for her to focus on English verb 
tenses by highlighting examples of different verb tenses in selected passages. While other students 
were evaluated on their responses to comprehension questions, Lila was assessed on her increasing 
knowledge of morphemes indicating verb tense. Although some texts were modified so Lila could 
develop reading comprehension skills, it was not feasible to adapt every text used. By selecting a 
grammar skill or linguistic feature to focus on, when adapted texts were not available, her teachers 
were still able to engage Lila in learning. 
 
Incorporating Visual Supports 
At the focus group in May, teachers noted “visual learning” and “pictures” as strategies they had 
used throughout the year that had worked well for their emergent ELs. We entered the study with 
the idea that visual supports referred to images, videos, and visible text (word/phrase walls and 
text annotations) that would enhance learning for emergent EL students. The primary forms of 
visual support were paper or electronic flashcards and labels. Teachers worked with emergent EL 
students to use flashcards to develop their knowledge of general English terms (e.g., chair, table, 
flower) as well as content concepts (e.g., division, evaporation, character). In early cycles, these 
tended to be teacher-created flashcards. Over time, the students started to create their own 
flashcards. This shift was related to students’ increased understanding and independence.  

As an example, Ms. Hall, Marie’s teacher, further focused on providing visual support for 
Math through labeling; this goal of providing visual support lasted through the first two cycles. 
Ms. Hall would intentionally label the aspects of graphs, shapes, and parts of mathematical 
sentences for Marie. This labeling allowed Marie to connect spoken words to their written 
counterparts in order to make math concepts more comprehensible. Pictures were important 
supports for content concepts. While teachers had included visuals to support their instruction on 
a regular basis prior to working with emergent ELs, they became more intentional and consistent 
about their use over the span of the year. Again, many students gained proficiency in selecting 
visuals themselves to support vocabulary and content knowledge. They also developed skills in 
selecting images to demonstrate their understanding of concepts to successfully complete class 
assignments. Ms. Hall described a presentation Marie gave in class in May. Marie gathered 
pictures to support her presentation about “real kids, real heroes.” Ms. Hall commented that, “You 
could hear a pin drop in this room… everyone wanted to hear what [Marie] had to say.”  
 Text modifications and annotations were another aspect of visual support for students. In 
December, Lila successfully read a text adapted with key ideas and key terms were in bold print. 
Throughout the first two cycles, Ms. Ash and Ms. Donner, her teachers, had increased 
implementation of text adaptations. These adaptations allowed Lila to focus her attention and effort 
on the parts of the text that were most critical for her comprehension. In a mid-year cycle meeting 
in February, Dr. Allie, José’s teacher, mentioned how he marked his copy of the class novel by 
circling different words. Earlier in the year, she had annotated texts for José and Leon, but, over 
time, each student began to annotate his own texts. Dr. Allie mentioned again how José would 
mark texts during the focus group in May, suggesting the continued importance of this practice. 
Both José and Leon had individual copies of the class novel that they could mark and write notes 
in. By providing copies of texts that the two boys could write in and annotate, Dr. Allie supported 
their content learning and English language acquisition.  



Leckie & Wall  
 

11 

Focusing on Vocabulary Development 
There were several ways teachers focused on vocabulary development to support emergent ELs. 
This was a focus across content areas, following the idea that “vocabulary knowledge is content 
knowledge” (Templeton et al., 2015, p. 3, emphasis in original).  
 Alisa worked with Ms. Hall to develop a list of keywords and phrases for Marie to focus 
on in different units of study across content areas. Here are sample keywords and phrases from 
one cycle: 

● ELA: claim, main reason, best meaning of a word, identify the main idea, organize your 
key points  

● Math: how many, number sentence, factor, expression, frequency, line plot 
● Science: temperature, change in temperature, warmer, cooler, thermometer.  

Similar processes took place for other students. For Lila’s fifth-grade study of World War II 
through the Cold War, Ms. Ash and Ms. Donner identified key terms and dates to focus Lila’s 
learning along with her classmates.  
 Text adaptations were another way that vocabulary development was supported. Texts 
were adapted through annotations (as noted under visual supports) and modified content. At the 
end of the first cycle, Dr. Allie explained how she presented José with a simplified version of a 
book the class was reading, Who Was Neil Armstrong? (Edwards, 2008). José had gained “some 
basic English vocabulary,” so he was asked to circle words he did know so that flashcards could 
be developed for important words he hadn’t circled. In February, during the second cycle, Dr. Allie 
reported on Leon’s reading books commonly assigned to first and second graders, although he was 
in fourth grade. These less complex texts had been given to Leon to support his basic English 
vocabulary as well as accuracy, fluency, and rate of reading.  
 
Fostering Positive Learning Environments 
A positive, culturally sustaining, and responsive classroom environment provided a supportive 
atmosphere for each of the emergent ELs. These culturally responsive and sustaining environments 
provided encouragement and a degree of protection for the ELs, helping them to feel part of the 
class and school communities.  

Dr. Allie taught both José and Leon. She noted at one point how she structured a group for 
them to sit next to her and to one another, commenting that, “They have a nice little friendship.” 
Farther along in the conversation, she reflected on the overall classroom environment: “But they 
just feel like part of us, you know?” 
 Ms. Hall noted the positive classroom learning environment at multiple points throughout 
the year. In February, she relayed how “the children just are constantly building her [Marie] up.” 
In May, toward the end of the third cycle, Ms. Hall summarized that Marie “has been embraced 
by boys and girls, and certainly me.” She also specified small groups as a beneficial classroom 
structure.  
 Most of these examples relate to a positive classroom environment on a general level. 
Teachers also worked to include students’ home cultures and knowledge into instruction. One 
specific example of a connection to a student’s home culture was when Ms. Donner noted how 
Lila’s classmates enjoyed seeing examples of Thai money she shared during their unit on decimals 
in Math. When teachers recognized that Lila was struggling with the money-related decimal 
problems because decimals are not used in money exchanges in Thailand, they positioned her as 
an expert and asked her to share her money and commerce experiences from Thailand. Similarly, 
during a unit on trickster tales, Ms. Hall helped Marie identify and retell a trickster tale she knew 



 GATESOL Journal 34(1)  
 

12 

already. This allowed Marie to expand her peers’ literary experiences, as recounting and retelling 
stories were part of their ELA standards. Mrs. Hall was able to intentionally support Marie’s 
development of skills related to that standard and the content of the trickster tale unit. 
 
Using These Approaches Together  
While we highlight each of these four approaches separately, we also note that teachers drew on 
these approaches together to support their newcomer ELs. One example of this integrated approach 
comes from Dr. Allie and how she supported José and Leon during a study of George 
Washington’s Socks (Woodruff, 1993). The two boys had their own copies of the text to mark and 
annotate. They could note unfamiliar words and make flashcards. They also used these annotated 
texts to read aloud to Dr. Allie in small group settings. Through visual support, focus on 
vocabulary, and a positive learning environment, José and Leon showed Dr. Allie growth with 
content concepts and with the English language.  
 In May, Ms. Ash reflected on Lila’s year. She shared an example of when Lila scored 100 
on an assessment and recalled how Lila was both humble and “very aware of what her abilities 
are.” Ms. Ash continued: “She knows she’s very smart; it’s just the language barrier. It’s not any 
kind of intelligence indicator. It’s just the language barrier.” Ms. Ash’s recognition of her student’s 
language challenges highlights how she paid attention to Lila: how Lila was using English, how 
she responded to strategies and adaptations, and how she grew in knowledge and skills with content 
and with English during the year. This reflection connects to the use of Lila’s home language, 
focusing on vocabulary, and providing a culturally sustaining learning environment.  
 
Discussion  
Our research questions explored how expanded instructional practices supported the academic 
achievement of newcomer ELs, and how modeling and instructional support for teachers supported 
these expanded practices. The limitations of the study relate to its context and participants. The 
school where the study took place is a rural elementary school in a partner district with historically 
few EL students. The new situation of four emergent EL students in the classrooms of veteran 
teachers with little to no experience teaching ELs led to Alisa’s collaboration with the teachers and 
the framing of the study.   

While the specific context of this study is a limitation in terms of generalizability, it is also 
a strength in terms of yielding tangible practices and examples for teachers of emergent ELs, 
particularly in rural contexts with very small populations of EL students. We identified four key 
practices teachers implemented over the year in various ways to support emergent ELs and their 
academic achievement through informal assessment, teacher-created formative and summative 
assessments, and district assessments.  

First, teachers came to recognize and support students’ home language and to use 
intentional translation to engage students socially and to foster their academic success. Teachers 
observed some initial school and system administration barriers due to perceptions that allowing 
students to use their home language would be a “crutch” and hinder their acquisition of English. 
In fact, emergent ELs self-selected to limit and eventually discontinue home language support as 
their English proficiency developed. Second, teachers incorporated a range of visual supports, 
some of which the students created. Third, teachers focused on students’ vocabulary development 
through these visual supports and other scaffolds like sentence frames. From providing images for 
key vocabulary terms to using bold text and other means to emphasize words and phrases, teachers 
designed ways to foster access to content concepts and augment their own and students’ overall 



Leckie & Wall  
 

13 

metalinguistic knowledge of English. Fourth, and underlying all of the above, teachers fostered 
positive learning environments by creating inclusive, culturally responsive classrooms. At times, 
their culturally based instructional decisions were intentionally planned through work with Alisa 
and one another, and at times incidental, such as when Lila shared Thai currency. Through their 
individualized attention to these emergent ELs, teachers recognized some culturally incongruent 
aspects of content and instruction; from there, they were able to address and resolve 
inconsistencies.  

The structure of iterative cycles of goal setting, observation and instructional support, and 
reflection allowed teachers to identify the instructional practices they were already using and to 
see how those practices supported newcomer ELs. With increased and intentional use of those 
practices along with a few additional modifications, the teachers were able to notice gains in focus 
areas and to see how their own shifts in practice supported students.  

We highlight the power of a formative experiment methodological approach (Reinking & 
Bradley, 2004, 2008) in creating interventions responsive to a particular group of students in a 
particular context – in this case, emergent English learners in rural contexts. The goal of formative 
experiments is to bring about positive and pragmatic educational change, and this study documents 
pragmatic changes that resulted from the iterative and collaborative cycles that are the foundation 
of this method, as well as the utility of this approach in addressing professional development needs 
in changing contexts of all kinds – demographic and curricular. Additionally, this work informed 
the development of district guidelines for evaluating newcomer ELs’ learning.  

The modeling and coaching supported teachers in noticing, discussing, planning, and 
enacting practices to support emergent ELs within the larger regular class setting. The cycles of 
goal setting, observation and instructional support, and reflection provided teachers with 
opportunities to focus on specific aspects of instruction and learning environment. In February, 
during the second cycle, Dr. Allie recalled how she had been “super overwhelmed” when she first 
started to teach José and Leon. At the focus group in May, Dr. Allie commented, “So these students 
come in straight from another country. It’s very overwhelming and challenging. And just… feeling 
like I’m failing them because I don’t know where to start.” Alisa spent time with teachers in three 
iterative cycles discussing each student’s progress in English proficiency generally and each 
teacher’s curriculum specifically. Each teacher was able to identify focus areas for each emergent 
EL. Subsequently, teachers made instructional modifications like developing vocabulary lists, 
selecting phrases to emphasize, and pairing images with content concepts. Alisa suggested 
additional strategies to support each student. This clear focus on what to emphasize in instruction 
helped teachers’ intentionality. 

Through modeling, Alisa progressed from initiating ideas to discussing teacher-initiated 
strategies and approaches. Over the course of the year, Alisa modeled and discussed practices with 
teachers. She also listened and acted as a sounding board for teachers as they progressed with 
knowledge of their emergent ELs and types of practices; in this way, teachers’ knowledge and 
skills were expanded, and teachers took ownership of their own understanding (Belans, 2020).  

Ms. Hall commented in February that Alisa “showed me how to target words that I didn’t 
have to worry as much about her getting the whole sentence if we could just pull out polygon. Pick 
out the polygon.” In this example, Ms. Hall discussed how she focused on key vocabulary (and 
related content concepts) through modeling and support. In the same meeting, Ms. Hall told Alisa, 
“You made it very tangible…. It just took me back. I had no experience with it.” Ms. Hall repeated 
the idea of her novel experience teaching an EL for the first time after decades in the classroom. 
Ms. Hall came back to the importance of modeling in the focus group, when she said she started 



 GATESOL Journal 34(1)  
 

14 

the partnership was “a cry for help” and came to appreciate how she was able “to understand what 
we are allowed to do with instruction, what we aren’t allowed to do with instruction.” This 
modeling supported teachers in modifying aspects of instruction to support –and challenge– 
emergent EL students while following their standards-based curriculum and district guidelines for 
instruction and assessment.  

This year-long collaboration between university researchers and experienced educators 
through a formative experiment approach was particularly beneficial when addressing novel 
educational circumstances. Teachers’ knowledge of curriculum, communities, resources, the 
school system, and the local community informed the pragmatic implementation of best practices 
and related to the need for policy updates and guidance to capitalize on the expertise of experienced 
educators to develop school-wide capacity in teaching a new student population. 
 
Conclusion 
This research is meaningful in its practical outcomes. This year-long initiative allowed teachers at 
the focal elementary school to develop capacity, and also inspired the teachers, administrators, and 
school system leaders to develop guidelines for assessing and grading the work of emergent ELs 
in ways that provide accurate and meaningful information to students, parents, and administrators, 
largely as a result of this project. Collaboration with the district continued, resulting in the 
development of a newcomer kit with specific supports, like those used with the students in this 
study (cf. Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lucas et al., 2008; Paris, 2012). As the school and district 
continue to welcome emergent ELs, there are more and more teachers educating these students 
who can provide support to one another. The iterative cycles of goal setting, instructional supports, 
and reflection and implementation provide a model for teachers to continue.  

The guidance document was developed through collaboration with these teachers. The 
district can now share this guidance document with other teachers in other schools; the document 
includes ideas for teaching ELs and evaluating their learning. Additionally, the teachers have 
gained the capacity to be teacher leaders to their colleagues who have ELs in their classes in future 
years. This research is also important in the way we frame continuing work with general education 
teachers of ELs in rural schools. While this study focused on elementary teachers, similar 
approaches could be adopted by teachers at the middle and secondary levels with appropriate 
modifications. The rural context is key to this research as we continue to expand practices for 
teaching ELs in schools where there have historically been few ELs and where numbers now call 
on general education teachers to modify their practices. The entire project united school and 
university partners to support students. 
 
References 
 
Burton, M., Brown, K., & Johnson, A. (2013). Storylines about rural teachers in the United States: 

A narrative analysis of the literature. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 28(12), 1–
18. https://jrre.psu.edu/sites/default/files/2019-08/28-12.pdf  

Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., & White, C. 
E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English‐language learners 
in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188–215. 
https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.3  

Census Brief. (2002). The Asian population. Washington, DC: The US Census Bureau. 

https://jrre.psu.edu/sites/default/files/2019-08/28-12.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.3


Leckie & Wall  
 

15 

Census Brief. (2012). The Asian population. Washington, DC: The US Census Bureau. 
Census Brief. (2001). The Hispanic population: Washington, DC: The US Census Bureau. 
Census Brief. (2011). The Hispanic population: Washington, DC: The US Census Bureau. 
Chesley, G. M., & Jordan, J. (2012). What’s missing from teacher prep. Educational Leadership, 

69(8), 41–45. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/whats-missing-from-teacher-prep  
Choi, D. S. Y., & Morrison, P. (2014). Learning to get it right: Understanding change processes in 

professional development for teachers of English learners. Professional Development in 
Education, 40(3), 416–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.806948  

Coady, M. R., Lopez, M. P., Marichal, N., & Heffington, D. (2019). Preparing teacher leaders for 
English language learners in rural settings. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 9(1), 
44–60. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2019.v9n1p44-60 

Edwards, R. (2008). Who was Neil Armstrong? Penguin.  
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-

language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001440290006600402 

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in 
household, communities, and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. (n.d.). Report card. https://gosa.georgia.gov/
dashboards-data-report-card/report-card  

Gutman, A., & Avanzati, B. (2013). The language gulper. https://languagesgulper.com/
eng/Home.html  

Krashen, S. D. (1985). Inquiries & insights: second language teaching: Immersion & bilingual 
education, literacy. Alemany Press. 

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant 
pedagogy. Theory into Practice 34(3), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00405849509543675  

Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher 
education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of 
Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108322110 

Marrow, H. (2011). New destination dreaming: Immigration, race, and legal status in the rural 
American South. Stanford University Press. 

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Sage. 
Merriam, S. (2009).  Qualitative research:  A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass. 
Moffa, E., & McHenry-Sorber, E. (2018). Learning to be rural: Lessons about being rural in 

teacher education programs. The Rural Educator 39(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.35608/
ruraled.v39i1.213 

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and 
practice. Educational Researcher, 41, 93–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244 

https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/whats-missing-from-teacher-prep
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.806948
https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2019.v9n1p44-60
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006600402
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006600402
https://gosa.georgia.gov/dashboards-data-report-card/report-card
https://gosa.georgia.gov/dashboards-data-report-card/report-card
https://languagesgulper.com/eng/Home.html
https://languagesgulper.com/eng/Home.html
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108322110
https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v39i1.213
https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v39i1.213
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244


 GATESOL Journal 34(1)  
 

16 

Piñón, L., Sulema Carreón-Sánchez, S., & Bishop, S. (2022). Emergent bilingual learner education 
– Literature review. Intercultural Development Research Association.  https://files.eric.ed. 
gov/fulltext/ED629281.pdf  

Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2004). Connecting research and practice using formative and 
design experiments. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research 
methodologies (pp. 114–148). Guilford. 

Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2008). Formative and design experiments:  Approaches to 
language and literacy research. Teachers College Press. 

Rural Schools Collaborative (n.d.). The rural advantage.    
Sayer, P. (2012). Translanguaging, TexMex, and bilingual pedagogy: Emergent bilinguals 

learning through the vernacular. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tesq.53 

Templeton, S., Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Johnston, F., Flanigan, K., Townsend, D. R., Helman, 
L., & Hayes, L. (2015). Vocabulary their way: Word study with middle and secondary 
students (2nd Ed.). Pearson. 

United States Census Bureau. (2024, July). Census QuickFacts: Georgia; United States. 
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/GA,US/PST045224 .  

Vardell, S. M., Hadaway, N. L., & Young, T. A. (2006). Matching books and readers: Selecting 
literature for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 59(8), 734–741. 
https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.8.1 

White, S., & Kline, J. (2012). Developing a rural teacher education curriculum package. The Rural 
Educator 33(2), 36-43. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v33i2.417 

WIDA. (2020). WIDA English language development standards framework, 2020 edition: 
Kindergarten–grade 12. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. 
https://wida.wisc.edu/resources/wida-english-language-development-standards-
framework-2020-edition 

Woodruff, E. (1993). George Washington’s socks: A time travel adventure. Scholastic.  
 
____________________________________________________________________________ 
 

Received: April 12, 2025 | Accepted: July 19, 2025 | Published: October 2025 

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.53
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.53
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/GA,US/PST045224
https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.8.1
https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v33i2.417
https://wida.wisc.edu/resources/wida-english-language-development-standards-framework-2020-edition
https://wida.wisc.edu/resources/wida-english-language-development-standards-framework-2020-edition

	GATESOL Journal2025, Vol. 34(1), pp. 4–16
	What if There are Only a Few? Supporting English Learners in Rural Contexts
	doi:10.52242/gatesol.202
	ISSN: 2331-6845

