Weighing the Social and the Academic: By Kevin O’Leary · 2015. 5. 8. · English-speaking classroom influences and is influenced by academic success. I therefore concluded that

Weighing the Social and the Academic O’Leary 1

Weighing the Social and the Academic:

The Effectiveness of the ESL Program in Reference to the High School Social Sphere

By

Kevin O’Leary

A research paper submitted in conformity with the requirements

For the degree of Master of Teaching

Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto

Copyright by Kevin O’Leary April 2015


Abstract

This study seeks to analyse how English Language Learners (ELLs) are socially integrated into the main

student body in Ontario high schools, and whether those strategies are effective in their promotion of academic and social ELL success. Two former high school ELLs who have experienced teacher training

were interviewed and asked how their respective ESL programs were structured and whether they felt

they were effective. It was found that while the interviewees differed in how they perceive the value of

physically isolated ESL classrooms, both supported the notion that ELL social success in the mainstream English-speaking classroom influences and is influenced by academic success. I therefore concluded that

there must be a greater focus on social integration in ESL classrooms, so as to match the pre-existing

focus on academic factors.

Key Words: ESL, ELL, English Language Learner, English as a Second Language, Social Success


Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my two interviewees, who not only sacrificed their time but also

shared their personal beliefs and experiences with me. Without their willingness to candidly

explore their feelings, this paper would not have been possible. I would also like to thank Rob

Simon, my research supervisor, who was incredibly helpful, flexible, and understanding during

this process, and who granted me freedom but was always available to provide feedback. Any

successes within this paper can likely be traced back to him.

I would also like to thank my dog, Max, for sitting beside me during my writing sessions,

providing me with both warmth and company.


Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6

The Research Question ................................................................................................................................... 6

Motivating Factors .......................................................................................................................................... 7

My Own Personal Stake ................................................................................................................................. 9

The Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 11

CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 14

The Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................................... 14

The Academic ................................................................................................................................................ 15

What teachers ought to know. .................................................................................................................. 15

Incorrect assumptions about success. ...................................................................................................... 16

Teacher perspectives. ................................................................................................................................ 18

The Social ...................................................................................................................................................... 19

Teacher perspectives revisited: a social outlook. .................................................................................... 19

A positive approach to ELL social justice. .............................................................................................. 20

Literature as a tool for social inclusion.................................................................................................... 21

A familial approach................................................................................................................................... 22

Articles that Synthesize the Academic and the Social ................................................................................ 23

Common Threads .......................................................................................................................................... 24

CHAPTER THREE: Methodology .............................................................................................................. 26

Research Design and Rationale .................................................................................................................... 26

Risk/Reward .................................................................................................................................................. 27

Interview Questions ...................................................................................................................................... 27

Data Collection .............................................................................................................................................. 27

Organization .................................................................................................................................................. 28

Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................................................. 29

CHAPTER FOUR: Findings ......................................................................................................................... 30

John. ........................................................................................................................................................... 31

Sal............................................................................................................................................................... 32

In-depth Analysis of Themes ........................................................................................................................ 33

Theme One: The ELL Program as Socially Isolating ................................................................................. 33

John. ........................................................................................................................................................... 34


Sal............................................................................................................................................................... 35

Theme Two: Social Integration and Mobility as Possible individually but not Encouraged ................... 37

John. ........................................................................................................................................................... 37

Sal............................................................................................................................................................... 38

Theme Three: How to “Fix” the ESL Program: Schools as Active Promoters of Interaction ................. 40

John. ........................................................................................................................................................... 40

Sal............................................................................................................................................................... 41

Surprising Data: What was Missing and what I Expected to Find ................................................................. 43

The Missing ................................................................................................................................................... 43

The Unexpected. ............................................................................................................................................ 43

CHAPTER FIVE: Initial Assumptions versus Actual Findings .............................................................. 45

ESL Programs as Complex Social Ecosystems ........................................................................................... 45

The Literature Review versus Findings ....................................................................................................... 47

Findings Made Explicit ................................................................................................................................. 49

Initial Expectations versus Reality ............................................................................................................... 49

Implications for me as an Educator .............................................................................................................. 50

Implications for me as a Researcher ............................................................................................................ 51

Influence on me as a Person/Thinker ........................................................................................................... 52

Broader Administrative Implications and Recommendations .................................................................... 53

Qualifications and Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 54

Questions and Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 55

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 56

References .......................................................................................................................................................... 57

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................. 59

Appendix A: Interview Questions ................................................................................................................ 59

Appendix B: Letter of consent ..................................................................................................................... 60

Appendix C: Consent Form .......................................................................................................................... 61


CHAPTER ONE: Introduction

The Research Question

In Canada, the presence of immigrant groups is seen, by many, through a positive lens.

Yet while Canada’s mosaic culture is a laudable feat, there are certain issues that arise as a result.

This article seeks to tackle one such issue occurring in the academic realm: English Language

Learners (ELLs) and their social positioning within Canadian high schools. Are the strategies

used to socialize ELLs in high schools enough? Do such strategies even exist?

Specifically, this paper’s research question can be formulated as such: how are ELLs

integrated socially into the non-ELL community in Canadian high schools, and are such methods

effective? The term “effective” here will be explored from two perspectives: it will take an

“outsider” form, referring to how effective ESL teachers think the strategies they use to integrate

ELLs into their classrooms are, as well as how much they believe the students in their care have

integrated into the main student body; and it will take an “insider” or internal form, analyzing

how former ELL high school students view the strategies put in place to help them assimilate or

integrate into main classroom and school-wide social groups. This will be achieved through the

conducting of interviews. Note that “ELL” and “ESL” will both be used extensively in this paper,

with ESL usually referring to the teachers and the overarching program, and ELL the students

themselves, as that is the trend in modern literature.

Of note is the fact that the research question leaves open the possibility that there are

indeed effective methods in place encouraging ELL inclusion into the main student body, and

that this is not quite as troubling an issue as first thought. An important facet this paper explores

in greater depth later is the idea that there is a general lack of focus on ELLs as a social group;


thus, the very fact that this paper analyses and give another voice to that group renders it useful

and worthwhile.

Motivating Factors

The research question above has its beginnings in my own interactions, or lack thereof,

with ELLs in my high school, John Cabot Catholic Secondary. In this school there were very few

cliques; the school was small enough (with approximately one thousand students) that each grade

was essentially one large social group. The segregation said to be present in larger schools was

arguably not there, allowing for a social environment that did not encourage the isolation of

certain ethnic and social groups. The result was a school where bullying was scarce, and there

was an atmosphere of healthy social interaction. The cafeteria was divided not by clique but by

grade.

One group did not fall in to this pattern of social cohesion, however—the (as they were

known then) English as a Second Language students. They were segregated both in the cafeteria,

sitting at a specific table near the main entrance, and within the classrooms, either spending most

of the day in the ESL room or sitting in complete silence in the main classrooms. These

individuals were not harassed or singled out for ridicule. In fact, the result was quite the

opposite—they were largely ignored.

I remember taking an interest in this group in grade eleven. One ELL student had been

placed in my art class. I did not hear him speak once, and did not know his name. I remember

asking other students in my grade if they knew who he was. None of them did, and many showed

confusion when I attempted to describe him. This individual—whose name I know now but will

not publish—had been at the school for three years, and yet nobody knew who he was, and


nobody seemed to care. This fascinated me, and through further observation I found that this

trend extended to the other ELLs. For most, it seemed, they were Other. To students in many of

the mainstream social groups, they did not exist.

The above description, limited greatly by my own perception and biases, is an attempt to

make concrete the motivations at the core of this paper—the desire to find out whether my own

observations as a high school student regarding ELLs hold true in a general sense. If that is the

case, I find it quite troubling, as it is my understanding that all high schools students deserve the

option to integrate or recede from the mainstream social sphere. The opportunity for social

flexibility should be there; it seems both rational and intuitive to say that the conscious or

unconscious barring of individuals from that mainstream sphere is detrimental to both those

individuals, and to the general social landscape both within and without the school setting.

Further, there appears to be a marked lack of research on this specific subject. The

research conducted on ELLs in relation to community and inclusion seems to be centred on the

promoting of inclusion within those ELL groups rather than within the community at large, or

focus on ELLs outside of Canada; however, the limitations of the literature will be fully explored

in chapter three of this paper. Suffice it to say that, as in the high schools themselves, I do not

believe that ELLs have been given appropriate attention on the subject of mainstream inclusion

in the academic sphere.

The story told above was a simplistic one, presenting a series of generalizations, and it

should qualified with the statement that all “facts” presented above are from the perspective of a

white student who had little issue navigating the social space. The implications of this are

explored in the sub-section below exploring the limitations of this study.


A piece of evidence that complicates the simplistic presentation above of John Cabot

Catholic Secondary issue exists in the form of a specific individual who branched out of that

ELL group and joined the “main” group, and who remains a friend of mine. This may seem

insignificant, in that no group’s members are all the same, but it presents an interesting set of

questions: why did this individual integrate himself into the non-ELL group, while the others did

not? What was the primary motivation, and did it originate from within that ELL group or from

without? An interview will be conducted with this individual parsing out his reasoning and

interpretation of events, an especially worthwhile endeavour in that he inhabited both groups

(ELL and non-ELL) during his time in high school.

My Own Personal Stake

It should be made explicit, if it is not already, that my motivations are somewhat personal.

Many of the individuals in my social group are immigrants who experienced many struggles in

their attempts to integrate into Canadian culture. Yet all of them, by high school, had largely

overcome those struggles and successfully navigated the mainstream social space (aside from the

individual in the aforementioned paragraph). I simply find it troubling that there are those who

remain on the fringe throughout all of adolescence; it may be that they desire this distance, but

many of my friends have told me, in the past, that during their time as “ELLs” there was an

intense sense of disconnect and alienation. To be trapped in that disconnected space with no way

to navigate one’s way out of it is enough motivation to warrant me exploring it as a topic of my

research paper.


Who will Benefit?

The benefits to conducting this study are varied. I have already touched upon the intrinsic

benefit inherent in the very conducting of the study: in analyzing and critically thinking about

ELLs’ social place, this article is exploring another facet of a group I argue to be

underrepresented. Thus, regardless of this article’s findings, it is valuable in its very existence.

More obviously, and in less abstract terms, this study will be beneficial to individuals

interested in teaching ESL; it will emphasise the need to take overarching socialization into

account, rather than focusing purely on how specific concepts and subjects can be taught. It will

also prompt those individuals to think critically about certain methods used to socialize ELLs,

such as the pull-out strategy (pulling ELLs out of the primary classrooms and teaching them in

separate areas) that are perhaps taken for granted. Even if such persons disagree with the points

made in this paper, they will be forced to examine preconceived notions and truly think about

why they work or do not work. In a similar way, it will be useful to policy makers, who have the

potential to change the norms of ESL teaching on a much wider scale.

Lastly, it will benefit individuals at all interested in Canada’s proposed role as a diverse

mosaic, and those who wish to improve or cement that role. The implications of this study are

not narrow, but relate to Canadian society as a whole; it will be shown that the micro issues

present in high schools relating to ELL can be seen on a macro level in Canadian society in

general. As such, individuals existing outside of the academic sphere, without any input

regarding what concepts are taught to ELLs, will still benefit from thinking critically about how

immigrants effectively enter the mainstream social realm in Canadian society.


My Background

I have little experience within the field of proper qualitative research. I am, rather, a

student of Humanities with experience in the History, English, and Philosophy fields; my

expertise thus lies in the examination of stories and the abstract interpretation of those stories—

the parsing out of arguments or themes in stories or papers where perhaps those things are

obscured. My academic background is thereby more likely to inform how I will structure this

paper rather than its content; that is, it will often attempt to parse out abstract ideas and

arguments from the specific stories and facts told. The primary danger there is finding patterns

where there are none. I must simply acknowledge, and make clear, whenever I am extrapolating

on the evidence in a way that may be considered subjective. That said, many would argue that

coding data is, in general, a subjective task.

This article takes for granted the view that immigration in Canada is a positive and

promoting integration is necessary. Therefore there will obviously be no exploration of the view

that the segregation of ELLs is a necessary or good thing for reasons specifically related to

ethnicity. Somewhat related are my experiences with ELLs, explored in detail above—many of

my personal friends are former ELLs, though most of them transitioned from ELL classes to

non-ELL classes before high school. It is difficult to tell how relevant those relationships will be

in reference to this article, and whether they will affect my opinions or arguments, but it is

something to be conscious of in the reading (and, for myself, the writing) of this piece.

The Limitations of the Study

One of the primary limitations of this study is my own role as an “outsider looking in”. I

am a white male living in Canada. I am a part of the majority, without any significant experience


regarding feelings of cultural alienation. There are no powerful stories I can tell regarding my

own struggles with this issue that perhaps an individual with an ELL background might be able

to recite. There is a troubling disconnect there; this is yet another article written by a white male

about a group with which he has relatively little contact. I will call this the limitation of

heightened perspective. Not “heightened” in the sense that it is superior, but heightened in that

there is relatively little grounding me to the subject I am exploring.

To illustrate the above paragraph, simply look at the story told in the Motivating Factors

sub-section of this chapter; it is presented from the perspective of a distant observer, from

somebody who does not know the inner workings of the group he is describing. It is marred by

bias and my own limited perspective. How much more effective would that story be if told by an

individual within that group? And yet there is arguably value in an outsider’s perspective; it

allows for the exploration of an “othered” group by a member of the group contributing (even

implicitly) to the othering taking place. Such critical self-evaluation is arguably necessary and,

despite any inherent flaws, ultimately positive for all groups involved. Regardless, my own

positioning within Canada’s complicated cultural mosaic is an issue interwoven within this study,

for better or worse, and should always be kept in mind even when not explicitly referenced. And

although the focus of the paper is not on the inner workings of the ELL community as a group,

but rather on how the schools implement certain strategies, I will nonetheless act as a filter

between the voices of the ELLs being interviewed and the reader of this study, so it is important

that I make clear my place (or lack thereof) on this complex sociocultural map.

The other main limitation is more practical, and relates to the limited number of

interviewees present in the case study; due to limitations of time and resources, only two

individuals will be interviewed: a former ESL teacher, and a former ELL student. Having only


two interviews will make it difficult to parse out general ideas. The ideas presented in those

interviews will have to be supplemented by other resources, such as academic articles and books,

as limited as they may be.

Another issue is that of labelling. This study has thus far used the term “ELLs”

extensively. In doing so, it arguably Others the group being analyzed. Unfortunately, this term is

necessary in both its brevity and its ability to differentiate non-ELLs from students in the ESL

program. Where it would be much more acceptable to label them “students in the ESL program”

so as to put their role as students first, it is too awkward a term to implement effectively and

universally. There will have to be an implicit understanding that the terms utilized are utilitarian

in nature.

Lastly is a problem mentioned earlier: the idea that this paper views this othering in a

negative light, where an ELL student may desire or actively promote this othering and distancing

for a variety of reasons. To clarify, this paper does not argue that all ELLs wish to enter the

mainstream social realm—it simply posits that such social flexibility should be an option. That it

takes the view that social flexibility is a positive for granted may itself be an issue to some, but

generally speaking it is uncontroversial to state that ELLs should have the opportunity to

integrate socially into non-ELL social cultures.


CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review

The Theoretical Framework

This chapter will be dedicated to the analysing and structuring of academic works that

relate to this paper’s proposed research question. Before those works are discussed, however, it

is worth describing the theoretical framework this paper will utilize, as it will not only affect my

own research, but will have an implicit role in my critically assessing the pre-existing research

on this subject. This paper will draw upon critical theory in its structure and purpose; it seeks to

review the social and systematic elements constraining the social freedom of ELL students, and

promotes the overcoming of such constraints. “Promotes” here is taken to mean the suggesting of

alternative modes of thinking and structuring learning environments, although the majority of the

paper will be spent analysing and illuminating the pre-existing structures.

Of note is this paper’s eschewing of “critical race theory” as a singular focus in favour of

a more general approach. While race may play a large role, I do not want to presuppose that race

is the only relevant factor; so while this paper acknowledges the importance of race and ethnicity

in the discussion, and borrows many elements from critical race theory, it is not truly abiding by

critical race theory in its willingness to deviate from race as its central theme.

The Pre-Existing Literature

This next section delves into pre-existing literature on the subject of ELL learners and

their place in the classrooms and schools. It splits up into two categories: the academic, and the

social. “The academic” is a list of studies that relate to academic ELL inclusion, while “the social”

are studies relating to ELL social inclusion. By utilizing this structure it will hopefully be evident

that taking an academic approach to ELL inclusion is not enough—that the articles appearing in


that section are more helpful to teachers than they are to students, and often have problematic or

troubling implications. Hopefully it is clear that a focus on the social is more rewarding for all

involved, in that academic success is a natural consequence of social and cultural inclusion.

The Academic

What teachers ought to know.

Mary J. Drucker (2003), in “What Reading Teachers Should Know about ESL Learners”,

presents an example of an article focused on the academic rather than the social. Drucker lists

specific strategies teachers may use to help ELL learners attain proficiency with academic, as

opposed to conversational, English, such as the use of rhetorical questions or choral reading

(Drucker, 2003, pp. 23-24). The focus on academic English is interesting in that it represents the

focus on the academic over the socially beneficial—that is, where conversational English would

be much more useful for ELL students in the social sphere, academic English, which will benefit

them in their formal learning, is promoted.

The article acts as a useful resource for teachers, but its title is troubling in that it appears

to presume that the knowledge being bestowed by Drucker is all-encompassing and well-rounded,

when in fact it fails to adequately address the social sphere. The title also implies that the

complexities surrounding ELL learners can be distilled into a very simple set of guidelines,

which is obviously not the case. The article has little else to offer in terms of content, but is an

apt representation of the assumption that teachers must be aware only of how to teach

information effectively, without a real focus on the integration of their students into the school

body (in this case, through conversation). This conflation of general success and academic

success is embodied in the article discussed below.


Incorrect assumptions about success.

The article by Kelleen Toohey and Tracy M. Derwing (2008) called “Hidden Losses:

How Demographics Can Encourage Incorrect Assumptions about ESL High School Students'

Success” is an examination of ELL student success rates. The article questions the idea that, in

British Columbia, ELL students graduate at a higher rate than non-ELL students. It is ultimately

found that, while this is true, ELL students in BC are less apt to take classes that involve

examinations that make post-secondary education possible, and are also more likely to take

classes that do not require any substantial understanding of English (Toohey and Derwing, 2008,

pp. 188).

The above findings are obviously important, and underscore troubling trends

academically for ELL students, but what is interesting and troubling in equal measure is the

article’s definition of “success”. What does it mean for an ELL student to be successful in his/her

school? Toohey and Derwing seem to take the Government of British Columbia’s ESL policy at

face value, which states that the goal of the ELL program “is to assist students to become

proficient in English, to develop intellectually and as citizens and to enable them to achieve the

expected learning outcomes of the provincial curriculum” (Toohey and Derwing, 2008, pp. 179).

The article takes this definition and labels it a “successful outcome” (Toohey and Derwing, 2008,

pp. 179). But is this all success is for ELL students? The definition refers, almost entirely, to

proficiency, intellect, and learning; the only non-academic goal is the development of students as

“citizens”, which seems a vague side-note, and is unsurprisingly ignored by Toohey and

Derwing, who use graduation rates and literacy as the primary indicators of success.


Thus, for the purposes of this paper, this article represents the troubling trend of defining

success in an academic context. Can you truly quantify ELL success? One can look at graduation

and course statistics, but there is no chart or datasheet displaying social success—by which I

mean a student’s level of comfort interacting with others in English. Indeed, it seems reasonable

to state that success for students learning English is far more complex, entering both the

academic and social spheres, and that this social aspect requires a qualitative approach. This idea

that ELL success is purely academic has also (disconcertingly) been adopted by teachers, as will

be shown below the Teacher Perspectives section.

The article “The Impact of High School Exit Exams on ESL Learners in British

Columbia” by Dennis Murphy Odo (2012) adds to this idea that ELL success should be more

than their quantifiable academic scores. Odo notes that ELL students often have issues with exit

exams in British Columbia due to the tests not adequately accounting for lower language

proficiency or cultural understand (Odo, 2012, pp. 4). In solving this dilemma, Odo promotes a

variety of solutions, all of which take on a decidedly academic character—he suggests altering

the tests, the use of accommodations (dictionaries, extra time), and dual-language assessment

(Odo 6). Yet like Toohey and Derwing, Odo would benefit from a social perspective—why not

alter ELL exams in such a way to incorporate social knowledge, such as an oral portion? The

result would be a formal recognition of the importance of social learning for ELL students, and

would essentially force teachers to place a greater emphasis on ELL social learning. How,

exactly, that social element would be evaluated is difficult to figure out, but it is an idea worth

exploring.


Teacher perspectives.

“New Immigrants, New Challenges: High School Social Studies Teachers and English

Language Learner Instruction” by Seonhee Cho and Gabriel A. Reich (2010) is an article

discussing the findings of a study that asked high school social studies teacher what their needs

are in relation to ELL students. This reading is especially useful in its analysis of the teacher

perspective—of what teachers believe ELL students require of them. It is found that ELL

teachers are willing to differentiate their instruction only when “they do not take too much of a

teacher’s time or require considerable extra effort” (Cho and Reich, 2010, pp. 238). And the

strategies the teachers do use in helped ELL students are focused on the superficially academic—

on enunciation, slower speech, and extra time (Cho and Reich, 2010, pp. 238).

While the above article has been placed in “The Academic” section of this chapter, it has

implications for the social development of ELL students; as will be shown below, in an article by

George Theoharis and Joanne O’Toole, the social inclusivity for immigrant and ELL students

takes effort, time and resources. Thus, if teachers, as Cho and Reich show, are not only putting in

minimal effort but also limiting that effort to the academic sphere, then it stands to reason that

enacting any sort of change will be a difficult process. Cho and Reich thus display the self-

centred approach many teachers take to ELL students. This mindset indicates an othering of ELL

students—if it seems that helping an ELL student might take too much time or effort, they are,

by virtue of that “ELL” label, given up on and sent elsewhere. Since ELL-specific programs

exist outside of the primary classroom, they are seen, evidently, as expendable. Notably, Cho and

Reich’s solutions for these teachers rest upon an academic foundation as well; they promote

breaking down information, breaking down oral and written tasks, and the like (Cho and Reich,

2010, pp. 239). Of special note is their suggestion to “think like an outsider” (Cho and Reich,


2010, pp. 239). This wording is interesting, as well as troubling—there is the implicit acceptance

here that ELL students are indeed outsiders. Would it not be better advice to have teachers

eliminate that outsider mindset among those students?

The Social

Teacher perspectives revisited: a social outlook.

Where, in the last section, Cho and Reich discuss the perspectives of teachers in regard to

ELL learners from an academic standpoint, Bogum Yoon discusses the effect of teachers’

perspectives on ELL learners from a social standpoint. In her article entitled “Uninvited Guests:

The Influence of Teachers' Roles and Pedagogies on the Positioning of English Language

Learners in the Regular Classroom”, Yoon notes that how teachers see ELL students directly

influences their level of participation. Do they self-identify as teachers for all students? As

teachers for “regular education” students? Or as teachers for a single subject (Yoon, 2008, 515)?

The latter two types of teachers, represented in Yoon’s study as Mr. Brown and Mrs. Tayler

respectively, have a narrow focus (either on what their students require, or what they should be

teaching) and ignore the social and cultural needs of their ELL students (Yoon, 2008, pp. 504).

Teachers who believe themselves teachers for all students, as embodied by Mrs. Young,

recognize the diverse needs of ELL students, and are aware of their social and cultural needs

(Yoon, 2008, pp. 504). The methods by which ELL students might be included focus primarily

on the sharing of cultural information and perspectives; the students are prompted not to

assimilate, but to share their different cultural practices, while the non-ELL students are

encouraged to appreciate those differences (Yoon, 2008, pp. 504-505).


Here we see an active attempt to eliminate the aforementioned “outsider” mindset—to

take differences that define that label and turn them into something empowering. This article not

only elaborates on (in a much more socialization-centric way) the idea of teacher perspectives

affecting ELL students, but also provides a strategy to eliminate the “outsider” role, rather than

merely suggesting that teachers try to view things from the outsider perspective.

A positive approach to ELL social justice.

The article “Leading Inclusive ELL: Social Justice Leadership for English Language

Learners” by George Theoharis and Joanne O’Toole (2011) dicusses social justice for ELL

students, and strategies that could be used to better integrate them into the school communities. It

is, perhaps, the article most similar to my own subject. It does, however, utilize a much more

“positive” approach, focusing not on how schools are failing to meet this need, but on strategies

schools can use, and are using, to meet and exceed it. For example, Theoharis and O’Toole decry

the use of both “pullout” (the pulling out of ELL students to separate classrooms) and

“immersion” (the placing of ELL students into the general student population without any

support); they instead recommend placing the ELL students into the classrooms, wherein they

receive differentiated instruction and home language support from various individuals, including

bilingual staff (Theoharis and O’Toole, 2011, pp. 654).

The key point the article promotes is the use of differentiated, specialized instruction that

is not obvious, so as not to segregate the ELL students from the general populace; in doing so,

the ELL students receive the benefit of interaction with their English speaking peers, while not

suffering academically. The entire paper goes through various strategies similar to this one—that

is, strategies which promote inclusion, and make viable the elimination of separate ELL


programs altogether. Ultimately the paper promotes various methods by which schools and

teachers may meet the needs of ELL students and their families (Theoharis and O’Toole, 2011,

pp. 682). However, as noted, the paper does not go into detail regarding how the average school

is failing to meet these social needs, but simply analyses schools that already have these

progressive strategies in place; this is obviously pragmatic and useful, but I believe that by

illuminating how schools have failed, or are failing, further solutions will become obvious.

Literature as a tool for social inclusion.

“Language, Literature, and Learning in the ESL Classroom” by Mary Kooy and Annette

Chiu takes an interesting approach to ELL social and cultural inclusion; the article promotes the

idea that literature can be used to help students integrate into the classroom. Note that

“integration” here in no way relates to “assimilation”; Kooy and Chiu promote classes wherein

ELL students “become ‘one of us’ without necessarily becoming ‘like us’” (Kooy and Chiu,

1998, pp. 80). “Us” here obviously means the majority. This is an interesting approach in that it

does not contradict Yoon’s ideas above, which promote the sharing and appreciation of different

cultures as a means to help the ELL students “belong”. It takes a “have your cake and eat it too”

approach to cultural acceptance, in that it promotes both acceptance and the keeping of one’s

cultural identity, rather than pure assimilation and the obliteration of that cultural self.

Kooy and Chiu’s approach is also interesting in its melding of the academic and the

social—that is, the use of a typically academic tool as a social lubricant. According to the article,

literature is useful in its role as a tool where language and meaning meet, and as a source of

encouragement for the ELL learner—a beacon showing what is possible once they attain a

greater understanding of the English language and truly attain their own English voice (Kooy and


Chiu, 1998, pp. 79). The argument could be made that the ideas presented in the article are very

narrow—that is, it presents only one solution for a very complex issue—but it is valuable in its

novelty and as a resource to draw upon in addition to the other, more recent articles on ELL

social inclusivity. Regardless, this idea of ELL students having a voice in classrooms without

necessarily mimicking the voice of the majority is, in my opinion, an incredibly important one;

the goal of inclusivity is not to strip them of their Othered identity, but to change the landscape

so that that different identity is accepted.

A familial approach.

“Urban Principals’ Facilitation of English Language Learning in Public Schools” by

Derry Stufft and Rebecca Brogadir (2011) is an attempt to list the strategies being used by

principals in schools to facilitate ELL learning, as well as strategies they deem most effective. It

functions as a sort of guiding document for teachers and principals, and lays out what I believe to

be a very balanced approach to ELL teaching; Stufft and Brogadir not only emphasise catered

instruction (Stufft and Brogadir, 2011, pp. 565), but also the importance of collaboration

between ELL students and teachers, and ELL students and other, non-ELL students (Stufft and

Brogadir, 2011, pp. 566). Yet this interaction between the social and academic is not the article’s

only strength—Stufft and Brogadir also place importance on involvement from parents of ELL

students (Stufft and Brogadir, 2011, pp. 568).

This focus on family life is a novel one, unseen in the other articles appearing in this

chapter. Yet it seems obvious, upon reflection, that family life is an important and worthwhile

focus for schools, especially in reference to ELL students. As the article notes, “family

connections are central to one’s sense of identity and responsibility”, which relates to the idea


promoted by Yoon, Chui, and Kooy, that schools must not destroy that sense of identity when

attempting to integrate ELL students (Stufft and Brogadir, 2011, pp. 568). By breaking down this

barrier between family and school life, perhaps schools will feel less alien and segregated from

the cultural practices and norms recognized by ELL students’ families.

Articles that Synthesize the Academic and the Social

Some researchers do take both the social and academic into account; in “The Intersection

of Cognitive and Sociocultural Factors”, Jim Cummins (2012) argues that the social has a direct

and observable effect on an ELLs ability to engage academically with his or her course work.

Cummins (2012) states, “…students from communities whose identities have been devalued in

the wider society will benefit from instruction that affirms their identities within the context of

the school” (p. 1975). Cummins indicates a clear link between where a student exists or

perceives herself to exist on the social hierarchy (within both society and the school), and how

that affects a student’s academic performance. Cummins frames an ELLs cultural background

and home language as “social capital” to be exchanged and negotiated between student and

teacher (Cummins, 2012, pp. 1983). It is the article’s focus on this intertwining of the social and

academic that I find especially noteworthy. Cummins does not take a binary approach but views

the social and academic as intertwined, with one affecting the other and vice versa. In this article,

teachers who somehow incorporate or advocate for a student’s sociocultural concept of self are

(in essence) rewarded with a greater level of focus and engagement from that student. The reality

of this concept will become evident in the fifth chapter of this study.

Norma Gonzalez, Luis C. Moll, Martha Floyd, Tenery Anna Rivera, Patricia Rendon,

Raquel Gonzales, and Cathy Amanti (1995) analysed a concept created by Moll known as “funds

of knowledge” in a study entitled “Funds of Knowledge for Teaching in Latino Households”.

http://uex.sagepub.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/search?author1=Norma+Gonzalez&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

http://uex.sagepub.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/search?author1=Luis+C.+Moll&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

http://uex.sagepub.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/search?author1=Martha+Floyd+Tenery&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

http://uex.sagepub.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/search?author1=Anna+Rivera&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

http://uex.sagepub.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/search?author1=Patricia+Rendon&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

http://uex.sagepub.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/search?author1=Raquel+Gonzales&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

http://uex.sagepub.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/search?author1=Cathy+Amanti&sortspec=date&submit=Submit


The article observed teachers entering the households of Latino students and functioning not as

arbiters of knowledge, but as learners absorbing the cultural and social knowledge present in

their Latino students’ home lives (Gonzalez et al., 1995, pp. 444). This “funds of knowledge”

concept can, and has been, applied to several different immigrant cultures and families. Here too

we see the combining of the social and academic in the acknowledgement that a student’s social

place in the home and their local community can have a direct impact on their learning, and by

acknowledging and considering this social reality teachers can better accommodate those

students. Once again the effect of the social on the academic is acknowledged and illuminated;

and the date of the article (1995) indicates that this is not new or particularly novel information.

Common Threads

There are a variety of common threads running through all of these works. Hopefully the

point has been made that focusing purely on the academic is not enough—that a foray into the

ELL social environment is a much more worthwhile endeavour, in that (as many researchers

have shown) academic success often follows social success, as it promotes engagement with the

material, as well as participation through the promotion of the ELL “voice”. That is not to say

that the researchers who focus on the academic have “failed” in any way, or that their findings

are not useful—they certainly are; this chapter merely seeks to reinforce the idea that an

academic focus should be built on a strong social foundation. Where the minutia of ELL

academia is the roof, the social environment are the walls and foundation—the walls must be

sturdy before the roof can even be considered, with the walls being the deciding factor in the

shape, size, and overall aesthetic of the roof; so too does academia follow social practice in the

ELL realm.


Looking at the articles present in the social section of this chapter, it appears that the

subject has been exhausted—that this paper’s foray into that realm is largely unnecessary. This I

do not agree with; the social thinkers referenced in the paper all present an impressive array of

solutions and strategies, but relatively little attention is paid to the reality that these strategies are

not utilized. Most were abstract explorations of ideal methods of teaching. This paper takes on a

grittier, more realistic tone—it seeks to explore the reality of ELL teaching in Ontario, with a

focus on its failures, after which it will explore, in brief, possible solutions. I believe that it is

incredibly important to recognize and exhume the existing social and institutional structures

constraining ELL students before you can adequately approach novel ways to make their

situation better; this is where I feel the social thinkers failed. Broken systems ought to be put on

display before their replacements are installed, if only as a form of consolation for those that

system has touched (albeit a hollow prize when one’s social life has been so negatively affected).

Further, none of the researchers appeared to explore this subject from an explicit critical theory

lens, so looking at the subject from that mindset will prompt some novel ideas and concepts.

Ultimately I believe that the articles that attempt to synthesize the social and academic –

Cummins (2012) and Ganzalez et al. (1995)—are the most useful and the most realistic; to focus

purely on just the academic or just the social is to deny the reality that both concepts are closely

intertwined. It would be more accurate to state, in fact, that ELLs are influenced by a

“socioacademic” amalgamation—a claim which will be elaborated upon as I reveal my findings.

Indeed, when I propose a more socially-oriented focus, I do not propose that educators or

academics ignore the academic aspect of ESL teaching and learning, as such a move would be

impossible given the irreversible symbiosis between the social and academic.


CHAPTER THREE: Methodology

Research Design and Rationale

This study is interested in exploring the issue of “voice”—of voices that are heard, and

voices that are silenced. This study does not make any grand or sweeping claims about ELLs

being silenced, but it does acknowledge that more attention needs to be paid to the ESL program

in the academic sphere, with a more pronounced focus on the opinions of English Language

Learners. As such, it is only fitting that the primary source of data collection be interviews

focused on the experiences of former English Language Learners.

Participants

There are two interviewees; both interviewees are former ELL students who are now in

the teaching profession or TESOL trained. Both interviewees are of Korean descent, and were

chosen because they were/are in a teaching program that involved learning about or directly

teaching current ELLs (John was in a full-fledged concurrent teaching program and Sal received

TESOL training). Note that while John intends to teach full-time, Sal has decided that he does

not want to pursue an ESL teaching career despite having the credentials necessary to teach

English in Korea; he did not state why. Both interviewees were recruited via email. I wanted to

get the perspective of both the teachers and the students, but did not have the adequate

permissions to interview a current student; I believe my solution is a balanced approach

nonetheless.


Risk/Reward

The risk for Sal and John is minimal; however, my questions do concern themselves with

the issue of neglect in relation to ethnic identity, which may prove an emotional subject for some,

especially if they have experienced significant discrimination in the past. I have touched upon

the reward in previous sections—the very exploration of this alleged discrimination in schools

and the promotion of the ELL-centric voice is a reward in and of itself. I further posit that there

are benefits for the interviewees; the former ELLs get their voices heard and have their

experiences recorded, while the ESL teachers perhaps have an opportunity to reflect on their own

teaching strategies, and the strategies utilized by those in the ELL program generally, and have

their voices heard as well.

Interview Questions

The interview questions, appearing in Appendix A, place a focus on personal experience

and subjective perception—focusing both on what the subjects think of the ELL program in a

theoretical sense, as well as on their experiences and the specific beliefs resulting from those

experiences. How social were ELL students? How social did the ESL teachers believe their

students to be? Why—what experience or experiences lead them to believe this? From these

viewpoints I seek to tease out more general beliefs about the effectiveness of the program as a

whole in that setting.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with two participants. One

interview was conducted in an OISE library study room, and another via Skype (the only option


given that the interviewee no longer resides in Canada). In terms of atmosphere, the interviews

were structured and professional, but relaxed and candid enough to parse out genuine opinions.

Data was analysed via the pinpointing of statements relating to either social or academic

ELL success in both interview transcripts, resulting in the creation of two very general categories

for each participant. This was followed by my comparing each category; for example, I would

look at John’s “social” category, and the statements therein, and compare it to Sal’s “social”

category, finding similarities and differences. From this I created specific themes that reflected

the recurring motifs within each interview, both in terms of what John and Sal agreed on and

what they disagreed on. These more specific categories were used to structure my fourth chapter,

with each sub-heading representing a different theme.

Organization

The interview answers were recorded with my phone, and then transcribed verbatim

(albeit with any “ums” and “uhs” omitted). One major issue I had with the literature on ELLs is

this proclivity for the quashing the voices of ELLs in research reports, even though the authors

sought to improve the ELL program or, ironically, create measures by which the ELL

perspective is better heard. In many of the articles I read, interviewees would often be

paraphrased and bunched together into a unified whole, with their collective views summed up in

a single sentence. For this reason, I chose to include many of my interviewees’ answers in full,

followed by my analysis. And as stated, the fourth chapter is divided according to the theme that

those interview excerpts support.


Ethical Considerations

A letter of informed consent was sent to all parties involved, and appears in Appendix B.

I verbally reiterated the information on the consent form during the actual interview, and made

clear that it is not a binding contract (that is, that they are not obligated in any way to participate).

I also made it clear that they may refuse to answer any questions, can withdraw from the study at

any time, and may also review the final transcript to look for any errors.

Limitations

There are pitfalls to the approach outlined above. Since the amount of interviewees is

limited, so too is my ability to apply their stories in any universal or near-universal manner, even

with the addition of my personal reflections. But that is not what this paper seeks to do; I do not

seek to create a unified theory decrying the ELL system in Ontario or Canada. I merely hope to

prove that, in certain schools, ELL students are not receiving the support they require socially,

and even if this is not some overarching problem occurring in all schools, the fact that it is

happening at all is troubling and worth exploring. The dissatisfaction of the few should not be

drowned out by the satisfaction of the many, if in fact that majority of ELL students receive the

necessary social support.


CHAPTER FOUR: Findings

This chapter presents the data gleaned from my conversations with participants. I

interviewed two individuals who had experience with the ELL program and are now trained as

ELL teachers themselves. My questions were primarily intended to gather information regarding

whether, from their perspectives, the ELL program is doing enough currently to promote social

integration, although I was also concerned with the link, if any, between academic and social

success, and how the program could change.

Unexpectedly, the second participant, Sal, indicated that his ELL environment was much

different than the environment seen in public Ontario schools (how it was different will be

discussed later); as such, his questions had to be altered and improvised mid-interview, resulting

in a slightly incongruent relationship between the questions asked of each participant. The

themes, however, mirror each other and are organized thusly. While surprising, I believe this was

actually a positive thing in that it allows me to compare two drastically different approaches to

the ELL teaching environment and how those environments foster or deter social inclusion.

Note that locations and names of specific schools and school boards have been redacted,

and participants’ names changed to keep their identities anonymous. Many of the questions I

asked prompted criticism of the administration and the way things are currently run in schools

and teaching programs; the first participant, “John”, was especially candid in his criticism of the

ELL program and the teaching program in general. For these reasons, anonymity was and is of

vital importance.


Summary of each Participant’s Experiences and Background

John.

John is about to graduate and obtain his teaching certificate, although his motivations for

doing so do not relate to ESL—he believes that math is being taught in an obtuse way by most

teachers and wishes to teach in a more accessible way. John arrived in Canada in 2005 and ended

up in a Catholic high school, where he spent one year as a student in the ELL program. His

program was structured so that ELL students would attend mainstream classes, and occasionally

be removed and placed in specialized ELL classes. John believed that these ELL classes were not

helpful, and instead stated that it was his friends that taught him English through simple

conversation about topics he was interested in, such as philosophy and television shows. He

posited that the ELL teachers were incapable of speaking in-depth about these subjects, focusing

purely on the clinical side of teaching—grammar, vocabulary, etc—and thus what they taught

was often uninteresting and ineffectual.

John also stated that most students in the ELL program were not being socially integrated

or encouraged to socially integrate into the main student body, and instead generally opted to

bunch together in groups. This may have negatively impacted their academic success, since they

were not interacting with Canadian students. Further, John believed that ELL teachers did not

know how to properly judge and categorize ELL students, and as such ELL students with low

abilities were being placed in the same group as though with higher abilities, resulting in

academic stagnation. Interestingly, John posited that he did not believe the ELL program to be

socially harmful, and that ELL students can interact with and become friends with “Canadian”

students if they so choose—it is simply that many of them do not make the effort and resolve to

band together with others from their country. The onus, to John, is on the student—that is to say


if students want to be socially successful, they can be, but must self-advocate and make friends.

The bulk of his criticisms fall primarily in the academic sphere, on teachers and administrators,

believing ELL teachers to be negligent in every sense of the word (socially, academically, etc),

and wants the government to focus more on the ELL program in an effort to improve teacher

performance.

Sal.

Sal arrived in Canada when he was fifteen and entered a school that differed from John’s

in its approach to ELLs. It was a private academy, and instead of pulling ELLs out of the main

classrooms periodically there was an entirely separate “institute” where they would learn

independent of the other students. ELLs would spend all day in the academy learning only

English, and would interact with other mainstream students during the lunch period. Once an

ELL became “good enough” at speaking and writing English, he or she would be transferred to

the main high school, although according to Sal most students opted to go to a different school in

a different area (perhaps due to the private school’s status as a “Christian” institute).

Sal spent one year in the institute and did not interact with any of the “Canadian” students

during lunch. Both groups were completely segregated and there was no attempt by

administration to merge both groups. Sal left that school after one year and specifically sought

out a school that had no ELL program, feeling that the ELL program was holding him back

academically and would make it more difficult to graduate. He had no trouble interacting with

the Canadian students at his new school and believed that his one year of intensive English study

was necessary in that it provided a buffer between his entering Canada with limited English

knowledge, and his interacting with native English speakers.


Sal seemed to look at that one year of isolated English study as a positive—granted it was

followed up with integration into the main student body. It provided a comfortable zone where

those who were uncertain about their English abilities could interact, with the comfort coming

not from any shared language but a shared inability to speak English with fluency. However,

according to Sal, if taken too far such a program could backfire and result in groups of students

banding together and speaking only their native tongue, leaving them unprepared for University

and life in Canada. This, Sal posited, is not an issue with the ELL program specifically, but a

matter of course considering the high number of East Asians in Canadian and the ease with

which students can find a group that caters to their specific linguistic needs.

Like John, Sal emphasized the role of the individual. He stated that social movement is

possible, but it depends on the personality of the individual—for example, he left the isolating

ELL program and took it upon himself to enter an environment where such isolation was

impossible.

In-depth Analysis of Themes

In this section I look at four themes and discuss how each participant expressed ideas

related to that theme. In each instance John will be discussed, followed by Sal.

Theme One: The ELL Program as Socially Isolating

Both John and Sal state that the ELL program is socially stifling in certain ways, but they

appear to disagree on whether such imposed isolation has any value or is necessary either

socially or academically. John believes it hinders one’s academics and, possibly, one’s social

standing. Sal seems to view the one year of social isolation and academic focus as a positive

thing leading to social integration.


John.

I asked John whether enough was being done to promote social success among ELLs—

whether the program was encouraging or enabling learners to socialize with native English

speakers. John responded:

Not necessarily. I've seen this case where all these ESL kids hang out with ESL

kids. Then their level of English is going to be staying that same, you know,

among their group, which, there's no improvement. While I hang out with whole

bunch of Canadian kids […] I picked up English and learned words right away.

There appears to be a transparent link here between social and academic success—between

natural conversation and a more natural acquisition of language.

When asked about whether the ELL program does enough to promote academic success,

the answer was similar, with John replying:

I just asked my friends help, 'cause they also speak English too, right? And then

my friends were actually great teacher, because they know the material and then

they know what type of writing they have to write. But ESL students [he later

corrected this and said he meant to say “ESL tutors” or “ESL teachers”], they

don't know the material, so if I take philosophy and we're talking about maybe

some philosopher... My friends would know what they're talking about. They will

know... what topic we have to go over and what type of words we have to put it in

to satisfy those rubric. […] So [ESL teachers] can only make--fix grammatical

error, but friends, they can actually help you with the contents, and the

grammatical error, and words and vocabularies and so on.”

An interesting point is being made here about ESL Teachers and their lack of knowledge, or their

unwillingness to speak on deeper issues. Again this harkens back to the idea espoused by

academics like James Cummins (2012) that natural language studies, ie. candid social


communication and negotiation, is more valuable academically than more clinical or isolated

studies in grammatical structure.

I believe that how students are seated in a cafeteria is an excellent indicator of social

norms in that environment. When asked where ELL students generally sat during lunch, John

replied, “I still noticed that [groups bunched together]... Like, for example, a lot of Spanish kids,

they hang out with themselves, they would actually meet in cafeteria with Spanish people and

they talk Spanish and hang out.” This stands in contrast to John’s less insular approach.

Sal.

Sal spoke about the interaction between ELLs and mainstream students, stating:

So like mostly I know that public schools, they go to actual classes with other

people but then they still take ESL courses together but mine was like, um, just

like whole ESL class, like you don't get to see other people except on lunch hours,

but it was in separate buildings, but then just like learning English not like other

subjects but English.

In his school the ESL structure was novel, in that they were placed in an entirely different

building where the only subject taught and learned was English.

I asked him whether it was full immersion, and whether any non-English, mainstream

classes were offered:

No, it was all English. Listening and vocab and things. But yeah mostly people, if

they are qualified--there are three different levels--if they are qualified after all

they get to go to actual classes. But then like mostly, I did too, they just change to

either public school or private school later on.

He discussed whether he viewed the total segregation of the ELL school populace in a

positive light.


Yeah, somewhat, because usually… Well, I didn't get a chance to go other ESL

classes like the ones in public school, but then I felt you know it's just mostly

they're FOBs [fresh off the boats], and then if you're just totally separated than to

what people... You are just not much nervous and then maybe you will be still

able to have some conversation in your own language, like, mother tongue

language, right? But still you were learning English in English. Because teachers

only speak English and they teach you grammar and everything in English, right?

So still you get to learn it and you don't get too nervous compared to the ones who

go to public school--they don't speak much English but still have to go to regular

classes learning other subjects.

Sal views this isolation as a necessary period of transition for ELLs, wherein they are given a

year where they are learning English but do not have to speak it to Canadian students, helping to

ease their nerves. It also grants these students the skills they need to converse naturally in later

years. This is, of course, is in direct contrast to John’s (and Cummins’) points about ESL-based

social isolation leading to linguistic stagnation.

I asked the same question I asked of John—about the makeup of student in the cafeteria

and the placement and whether ELLs could/wanted to interact with non-ELLs.

Well, you could, but then it's just we are sharing one big cafeteria. Well yeah, I

think they could, but at least I didn't. […] But mostly I--from what I remember--

hardly they have any other conversation. Except a few.

We see a direct conflict here between approaches to ELL socialization. John experienced

gradual integration and partial isolation, whereas Sal went from one extreme to the other after a

single year—pure isolation to assimilation and sociocultural mainstream immersion. There is a

difference here regarding the perceived value of isolation in the ELL socialization process; John

does not seem to view it as a necessary part of the process, but Sal presents it as a sort of

necessary evil.


Theme Two: Social Integration and Mobility as Possible individually but not Encouraged

My participants each reiterated the idea that, individually, movement among the

mainstream student body was very much possible if certain steps were taken by ELL students,

but not necessarily encouraged by ESL teachers or the program. John explicitly addressed this

idea in his responses. By contrast, Sal was more abstract in his responses, though he still

emphasized individual qualities and choice that allow one to overcome the pressure to simply

stay within your own ethnic group, and the choices he made personally that allowed him to move

among different social groups.

John.

I asked John what ELL students generally did when placed in a classroom full of non-

ELL students, to which he replied:

I didn't really look for Koreans, I just looked for my friends who were in, like, my

Canadian friends from elementary school, maybe, right? So I wasn't really

looking for Korean people. But I've seen, for example, one Iraqi--one of my Iraqi

friends, he sat with another Iraqi friend. They were both in these classes, so they

kind of... cultural, they met together, they sat down together.

Note that he responds here not as a teacher but from the perspective of a former English

Language Learner; I did not specify which role I wanted him to embody. I responded by asking,

“[…] you [could] interact with just the main students if you wanted to?” to which John

responded, “It really depends on the person's personality”.

Here, then, we see John contrasting himself with an Iraqi ELL. He says that he wanted to

speak with his Canadian friends, and was able to achieve that goal, but that the Iraqi student did

not venture outside of his social comfort zone.


John gave a similar answer when asked whether the ELL program provides adequate

preparation for University life:

I don't think so. But it also goes down to personal aspect. Cause if the person

wants help for actual Canadians, then he will, but sometimes there are a lot of--a

lot of immigrants who intend to meet their own country-people. Which they start

only speaking their own language, so they don't improve English.

This was itself followed up with a question asking, “[…] so it's up to the individual in the ESL

program. It doesn't necessarily force you to interact socially with anyone?” to which John

responded in the affirmative. Here we have this theme made very concrete; the ESL program can

prepare ELLs socially for University, but that requires some desire on the part of the student,

some self-advocacy. The “default” seems to be culturally segregation, with ELLs who exercise

social mobility having some added quality that the others maybe do not have.

Sal.

This theme was less obvious in Sal’s answers, but is still, I believe, present in an answer I

have already eluded to, about ELL behaviours in the cafeteria.

Well, you could, but then, um, it's just we are sharing one big cafeteria. Well yeah,

I think they could, but at least I didn't. But then the way it works was people were

qualified--if they think one is good enough to go to actual regular class, you know,

they send--they're able to go to actual class and attend. Like, quitting ESL classes

and go to that actual class. And also there are some of them already there. Like,

you know, there's like Korean or any other Asian people were actually attending

regular class in that school. So, um, yeah, like, through them just maybe cause

they will know some of the people there too. But mostly I--from what I

remember--hardly they have any other conversation. Except a few.

Again there is this notion of choice; Sal could have spoken to other students at lunch, and

some of his peers did, but he did not feel compelled to. And the ones that did were


seemingly in the minority. It appears that self-advocacy dwindles in settings where ELLs

are overtly segregated from non-ELLs. Though ELLs have agency they are perhaps

influenced by the overt message being sent by the administration that the two groups

should not yet mingle.

Sal went into the qualities necessary for one to feel “Canadian”. His response delved into

the qualities necessary for certain immigrants to truly feel integrated:

Usually it depends on people but then some people, even if they live in Canada

for long time, they don't feel like they are assimilated. But then like for me I

always try to adapt to new things and then try to discover something new and then

try to get along with them. So yeah, for me it's just like, you know, yeah, I would

consider myself as being Canadian later on. For even now, too.

The “For even now, too” refers to his still feeling Canadian, despite his leaving the country. This

contrasts the previous answer in that Sal, evidently, does feel compelled to integrate himself into

Canadian culture at this point in time, a change that occurred, it seems, in spite of the ESL

program in which he was enrolled.

Sal described why ELLs were unable to interact with non-ELLs:

[…] all the people have different language ability, right? I was the most good

speaking level, but mostly, if they just are not good enough to speak much in

English, you know, still after they go to regular class for like even starting from

that other public school, they are somewhat nervous to speak English, and then

not even trying to speak to them. So it really depends but then, another reason

would be [that in] Canada, there are so many Koreans--Asians, especially

[redacted city name], you know, the population of Asians is so high. So even if

you don't talk to other--try to get along with other people, you know, to white

people, or any other Canadian, but then they don't even try, but then still people

finish school with only having their own ethnic people, right?


There are two important points here. First, Sal states that one’s language level influences one’s

willingness to interact socially with Canadians (made more interesting by John’s belief that

social interaction leads to a higher language level). Secondly, he states that it is incredibly easy

for those insecure about their English skills to bunch together into ethnic groups—a feat made

easy in Canada’s multicultural cities. This is a complicated issue, as multicultural cities are

intuitively a good thing. And yet, as Sal indicates, they seem to foster an insular attitude among

some immigrants, hindering social and linguistic growth.

Theme Three: How to “Fix” the ESL Program: Schools as Active Promoters of Interaction

I believe that exposing which steps the participants believe should be taken to “fix” the

ESL program is necessary in its illumination of current issues in the program. Ultimately both

John and Sal appear to promote schools “pushing” ELL students to interact with non-ELL

students through various means—John promotes a buddy system (while implying that this will

not completely solve the issue since the Ministry of Education simply pays too little attention to

the ESL program), and Sal promotes not only a specific teaching style for ESL teachers, but also

appears, from my perspective, to promote a method of socialization similar to his own

experiences (one year of isolated study followed by placement in a non-ESL environment).

John.

John believes that ESL programs need to improve. He elaborated with the following:

I would say, you add a—maybe buddy system. Like a Canadian kids become

friend with ESL students so that they, you know, hang out together after school,

or even in school together. You know? So that they can actually speak more, and


maybe that buddy can bring his friends, and then you know, become… So that

ESL student can make more friends and he can learn even better English, right?

Seeking clarification, I asked, “…[that’s] the social, right, but it leads to academic success?” He

responded in the affirmative but offered no further clarification. Regardless, it is clear that this

directly related to John’s earlier belief that social success is intrinsically linked with academic

success.

It must be noted that John states that the ESL program could improve if the Ministry of

Education simply paid more attention to it, and cared more. To him it is not a matter of ignorance

or a lack of understanding, but a lack of empathy and care. When asked if the Ministry is

concerned enough with the well-being of ELL Students, John stated, “I don't think they are

[concerned about ESL students]. I don't think, generally, the Ministry of Education–I don't think

they care about the education system.” This statement is simple but striking, and perhaps

indicates a feeling of disenfranchisement on John’s part. Whether this disenfranchisement is the

result of his experiences in the ESL program is pure speculation, but given his previous

comments and his negative attitude towards the program it would not be entirely surprising. It is

interesting that, despite feeling that the ministry does not care about ELLs or the education of

students, John decided to become a teacher himself.

Sal.

Sal’s solution was two-fold, and also less explicit. I asked what strategies he would

utilize if he were to teach an ESL class. He responded:

It really depends. It depends on the age, pretty much. If I were to teach like my

age when I was in ESL class, like teenagers, I don't know. Hm. I think I will mix

half and half [half activity-based and half lecture-based teaching]. I felt like kind

of boring there, cause, you know, you don't do any activity, but you just get a


grammar book and we just go over together and then, you know, and then vocabs

you have to just--there's like a little elementary school level of books and then

you get to just, you know, practice the handwriting, you know, you have to do the

handwriting and just memorize the vocabs and thing. I think all that matters is the

age.

The above quotation appears to concern teaching style rather than socialization. It is a

valuable answer, however, in that it displays his willingness to incorporate and his perceived

value of methods of teaching that John would likely decry (lecture-based studies of grammar).

Sal’s idea of how ELL students ought to navigate socially within the program appeared

later, after I asked whether his one year of isolated ELL study hurt him socially.

Usually I would work so it was like, for me, if you just go to public school and

you don't speak much English, and the other white people there are not even

going to try to have any conversation with you. Because, you know, you'll be the

one who doesn't speak English and they don't even want to start any conversation.

So that would be more isolated because you don't know anybody and trying to

only get along with Asian people in regular high school, but I was in the other

ESL-only based class for a year and then, um, for that way I just managed to have

made other Asian friends there only anyways, right? But then still, you know,

since I came, like, just came to Canada and then I didn't go that nervous and then I

still get to have many other friends and then after a year, after I changed the new

school, still I was somewhat okay to speak English. And then, since there weren't

many other Asian people there and then people were still nice in my school too. It

wasn't much of a big deal to just have talk and have some friends.

Thus Sal’s proposal for how the ESL program could change socially appears more implicitly in

his description of his own socialization process and the effect that one year had on him as an

immigrant still coming to terms with the English language. He seems to value his transition-

based approach and supports the idea of the temporary isolation of ELLs from Canadian students,

followed by the placing of those students in situations where those cultural support structures are


no longer viable. Note that I am extrapolating from his points and attitude and he at no point

states that all students ought to be subject to this same form of social integration.

Surprising Data: What was Missing and what I Expected to Find

The Missing

As a researcher I attempted to be as unbiased as possible; that said, I still went into these

interviews with certain expectations. One thing I wholly expected to find was explicit statements

by both participants that their ESL programs were actively socially stifling. Sal did say that his

one year of intensive study was socially isolating, but then emphasized that it was necessary to

allow for social freedom in later years, and that most students simply chose to leave the program.

John, again being more explicit, simply stated that the program was not socially harmful, but

academically harmful, and also emphasized that it was the choice of the student to isolate him or

herself socially, with many taking that route.

This unexpected data reveals my naivety when speaking about ELL students; in assuming

that they are constantly being acted upon or subjugated, I have downplayed their agency and

failed to give them the credit they deserve. Lacking full access to English does not make one

incapable of choice and movement in an English dominated climate. This does not derail my

paper, however, in that while the ESL program does not seem to actively stop ELL students from

navigating socially, it also does not seem to be doing enough to promote this movement. This is

an idea that will be explored in greater depth in Chapter Five.

The Unexpected.

One major surprise for me in carrying out these interviews was the amount of

disenfranchisement John seemed to feel—not just toward the ESL program but his teaching


program in general. He seemed to feel that the Ministry simply does not care about students and

the issues they face. He also placed great emphasis on this concept of obscured teaching

methods—that is, teachers were not being as clear as they should be, and were abstracting

relatively simple concepts in their teaching. I found this fascinating but could not delve too

deeply into these concepts as his answers were veering away from ESL and into the math realm.

Another unexpected event occurred when Sal revealed the unorthodox structure of his

ESL program, as well as his relative lack of interest in teaching (he explained that he entered the

TESOL training program because he wanted a backup career available to him when he re-entered

Korea). I did not anticipate these two shifts and thus had to reconfigure my questions mid-

interview—I not only had to remove or alter questions that assumed the participant was placed in

a traditional high school setting, but also had to reconfigure questions that were too teacher-

centric. This is readily apparent in the interview transcript, as I seemed to struggle slightly to

come up with appropriate questions at the beginning of the interview.


CHAPTER FIVE: Initial Assumptions versus Actual Findings

ESL Programs as Complex Social Ecosystems

This study was concerned with methods of social inclusion for English Language

Learners in the Ontario high school setting; it sought to analyse what was being done to include

ELLs and whether these methods were effective. “Effective” here meant it gave ELLs ample

opportunity to integrate into the main student body if they so chose. I decided to conduct

interviews with two individuals who were not only ELLs but also received TESOL or general

teacher training—individuals who could provide a dual perspective in their ability to recount

experiences not only as students learning English, but also had insight into how ESL is currently

taught. Ultimately it seemed that both individuals spoke more as students than as teachers, with

most answers drawing upon their experiences as ELLs or former ELLs in the high school setting.

The findings were somewhat complex in that John and Sal’s answers differed in many

respects, but nonetheless touched upon similar themes. I found that certain forms of the ESL

program were not necessarily socially stifling at all, as John’s case illustrates. The program did

allow for mingling between students, with the ESL class as something an ELL did in addition to

his or her mainstream classes. John further emphasized that whether one integrates into the

mainstream Canadian school population is up to personal preference; he contrasted his own

desire to speak to Canadian students with that of an Iraqi student who would only seek out other

students with an Iraqi background.

Sal’s private program looked significantly different, however, with his program utilizing

a segregated approach. Sal spent his first year in Canada in an English-only institute separate

physically from the main school. Students interacted only at lunch, and even then very few ELLs

chose to speak to Canadian students, and vice-versa. Nonetheless there was, again, a focus on


personal choice and one’s own priorities, with Sal claiming that many ELLs simply chose to

leave the program once they felt ready, or were graduated from the program, and entered

different schools where (presumably) there was more ELL-mainstream interaction. This is

slightly more complex than John’s situation, what I would regard as a socially stifling program,

with its segregated structure—and yet Sal indicated that this one year of intensive and isolated

study allowed him to comfortably transition into the mainstream environment.

While both programs allow for current or eventual social movement, it is important to

note that they also allow for social stagnation. Both participants took advantage of opportunities

to implant themselves into environments where English was the dominant language, gravitating

towards more multi-ethnic groups, which is the only reason I ended up interacting with them in

the first place. But what of the students mentioned in their interviews that did not feel compelled

or confident enough to engage in this movement? Both interviewees contrast themselves

occasionally with students who did not take the same social route, and who either became

comfortable with isolation or who receded into small, ELL-only groupings.

From the above, then, it is clear that while the ESL program in Ontario is not actively

quashing the social movement of students in as absolute a way as I perhaps insinuated earlier, it

nonetheless fails to promote or more explicitly allow for the social inclusion of language learners.

And while earlier I indicated that having ESL programs give ELLs the opportunity to socially

integrate into the primary student body would “be enough”, I believe there are systematic,

cultural, and psychological barriers that keep these students from self-advocating and taking

advantage of this social freedom. Without forcing the students to make friends if they do not

want to, ESL programs must nonetheless do more to expose ELLs to other social groups. John


indicated as much when he proposed a “buddy system” approach, and Sal himself voiced

concern over the insular nature of many groups, especially in a multicultural Canadian context.

Perhaps the most confusing finding related to the academic importance of socialization.

John appeared to wholeheartedly believe that his social interactions as a student provided the

richest learning opportunities, with ESL classrooms far too intellectually dry and lacking in deep

content. Speaking in English about interesting concepts, rather than speaking about childish

concepts or about English itself, was what lead to a greater learning experience for him. Sal,

however, appeared to view social isolation as a prerequisite for true learning. There should be a

period, he seemed to state, wherein one is involved in intensive English study and is not

concerned with English-based social matters; this will result in the quickest academic

achievement. While both participants seem to disagree with one another, their arguments are

more similar than one might initially think. Although Sal posits that non-social frontal loading is

a necessity, both arguably agree that socialization is a hugely influential factor in

thedevelopment of a student’s English abilities. For John this is quite obvious; he makes this

clear in his placing all-English interactions as the ultimate goal for any student studying in a

segregated ESL-only environment. It is still a necessity for students wishing to achieve a well-

rounded understanding of English.

The Literature Review versus Findings

In chapter 2 I analysed and critically engaged with literature that already exists on this

topic. I placed the articles into two macro-sections: papers that focused on the academic, and

papers that focused on the social. Within those sections were micro-sections breaking down the


themes of each article. There was also a small third section discussing studies that combined the

social and academic.

In chapter 2 I stated that many articles focused purely on the academic when discussing

ELL success; Mary Drucker (2003), for example, spoke only about academic achievement and

framed her suggestions as all-encompassing. Toohey and Derwing (2008) framed ELL success

as purely academic. And yet there was existing research on the importance of the social, with

Bogum Yoon (2008) working to eliminate this “social outsider” mindset among teachers, and

George Theoharis and Joanne O’Toole (2011) discussing very concrete and practical ways to

incorporate more socialization opportunities for ELLs in schools. There were other articles, but I

will not speak to them individually; rather, I intend to speak on the themes I parsed from the

articles as a whole.

What this research has emphasized for me is the need to view the ESL program not as

either in need of social or academic attention; there needs to be, rather, a greater synthesis of

those two concepts in the literature, as the work of Cummins (2012) and Gonzalez et al. (1995)

illustrates. For the ESL program, the academic and social cannot be separated into separate

categories, but are two sides of the same coin. John stated that the social leads directly to

academic achievement, whereas Sal appeared to state that academic achievement will lead to

greater social achievement, which will in turn lead to increased academic achievement. Both

concepts flow into one another, are inseparable from one another, and compliment one another.

This is not to say that I believe all academics are making this mistake, or even that most

are—only that this is what I have perceived in the majority of the literature discussed in this

paper, and indeed was a mistaken assumption that I held unconsciously while creating the

structure of my second chapter. These categories merely warrant more scrutiny and explicit


engagement, and need to have a greater presence in publications. That said, I do acknowledge

that sociocultural/academic synthesis is well-established as a concept; it merely needs to be

given more of a focus.

Findings Made Explicit

To make my findings clear, then: while ESL programs do not actively stifle English

Language Learners, they also do not grant enough opportunities for ELLs to venture outside of

their comfort zones and socially interact with those outside of their respective ethnic or social

contexts. Administrators need to implement something like the buddy system, or even just make

it more explicit that social growth will lead to academic growth—an idea posited and supported

by both interview participants. The specifics of this new program fall outside the scope of this

paper, but it is nevertheless clear that social intermingling between ESL classrooms and

mainstream classrooms needs to be given some attention, and the benefits of this intermingling

need to be made overt to English Language Learners.

Initial Expectations versus Reality

I must admit that the findings of my research painted a much more complex picture than I

anticipated. I had created a very neat theoretical binary (social vs. academic) and because this

theory coincided with my own subjective understandings, believed that my interviews would

more or less support that binary. And yet reality is often much muddier and opaque than theory,

and I was left with interview responses that presented a much more subjective and complicated

picture, and fell more in line with the Cummins’ (2012) view of sociocultural ESL contexts.


John presented an understanding of the ESL program that very much fell in line with my

observations. He was explicit and candid in his answers, and was very much entrenched in the

viewpoint he presented. Sal, however, presented answers that were more layered and obscured—

which is not to say that I believe his answers were worse. From my understanding his stance on

ESL was merely less defined, resulting in answers that saw him grappling with certain concepts

that he did not necessarily consider before; this is all, of course, my subjective assumptions.

Nonetheless his answers had to be parsed more carefully and with a greater eye for detail.

I believe, however, that this complicated narrative resulted in a superior study; my

findings are layered and complicated, and would likely be interpreted in a different way had they

been encountered by a different researcher. And this is okay—good, even—as the research will

not be confined to my own dichotomized understandings of the ESL program but will have value

to others who perhaps interpret certain details in different ways.

What this muddiness meant for my “neat theoretical dichotomy”, however, related to

what I stated earlier about the academic and social influencing and flowing into one another.

Simply, it has become obvious that there is no black or white, but several shades of grey; in other

words, one teacher’s strategy will never be purely focused on the academic or social, but rather a

mix of both, with each one influencing the other in both positive and negative ways.

Implications for me as an Educator

While ELLs were already a focus for me by virtue of my wanting to teach the subject,

this research has nonetheless influenced me greatly as a teacher. I plan to take the knowledge I

have gained—namely, the knowledge that the social and academic are intertwined, and that

greater attention must be paid to the social not only for the sake of the ELLs academics but for


their wellbeing in general—and try to make real, positive changes in the classroom. No longer

will I merely pinpoint an ELL in the classroom and create various accommodations for him or

her, as well as provide one-to-one help for him or her, but I will also consider what I can do to

promote social movement.

Take, for example, a student who I met in one of my early practicum schools. A girl in

grade ten, she was in the ESL program. She did not speak to any other students and often sat

alone. At the time I made an effort to speak with her during work periods and ensure that she

understood what needed to be done; however, with this new appreciation of the social, I feel I

may have failed her in some small way. Now I would make an effort, perhaps, to have more

group work with assigned and randomized groups. In so doing she would be given the

opportunity to interact with her fellow students, without being forced to extend that interaction

passed the purely academic. There were, of course, group assignments, but they often were not

random and could have benefitted from my explicitly considering the student’s isolated social

position.

This research has also emphasized the need for me to advocate for these students,

however. I mentioned in the first chapter how, as a student, I noticed that ELLs were isolated and

often forgotten; in doing this research I have become aware that this is still largely the case. I

believe it is only right that I shift the focus to ELLs whenever appropriate, not just in an effort to

promote the idea that they need to be given social agency, but just in general.

Implications for me as a Researcher

This study has promoted the idea for me that theories are often far too neat and clean to

apply to the real world. Even the findings I present in this chapter, after I have completed my


interviews and revised my understandings in light of this new information, I present an argument

that is far too simplistic to apply in many situations. Reality is inherently subjective, and will not

wholly conform to any hypothesis, no matter how logical or backed by evidence. This is

heightened by the reality of teaching, wherein there are several variables in play, such as the

board you are in, the school, the makeup of one’s classroom.

Thus, it is important not to take one’s research-based understandings of a situation and

attempt to apply them wholesale to reality, as one of two things will happen, both problematic:

you will find yourself doing the wrong thing at the wrong time, or you will warp your own

interpretations to fit into the neat theoretical package you have created for yourself.

I have also learned to become suspicious of myself and my biases; though qualitative

research (and indeed all research) will always have biased elements, there are ways to make

these biases less pronounced. I am constantly questioning whether my biases are affecting my

research questions, and how I interpret this research. Indeed, I even wonder whether I was

displaying non-verbal (or verbal) hints during my interviews that indicated what kind of answer I

wanted to receive. Ultimately I believe this self-reflective skepticism is healthy, as it leads to the

eventual quashing of such problematic questions and interpretations, and so I welcome the

uncertainty it heralds.

Influence on me as a Person/Thinker

Broadly, this research has reinforced the idea that there are insidious and less obvious

forms of exclusion that go largely unchecked by those in privileged positions of power. The

teacher does not mean to ignore the ELL, but it happens—thus neglecting that student of certain

social and academic needs, resulting in exclusion and inequity. This extends outside of the


academic realm into every context. Some individuals are simply forgotten or not given the

attention that they require to thrive.

This paper will not attempt to find a solution for all of society’s socio-cultural ills.

Nonetheless this research has resulted in me paying greater attention to those who may not be

actively subjugated, but who are nonetheless forgotten and not given the attention they need to

achieve their potential, both within schools and without.

Broader Administrative Implications and Recommendations

There are several implications residing in the policy and pre-service realm; though school

administrators ought to play a reactive role and implement strategies to promote social ELL

integration, it is arguably more imperative that ESL programs not only change but that language

education is a greater focus in teacher education programs like OISE. Doing so would represent a

more proactive approach—meaning teachers do not have to be trained during the school year but

will enter schools with the knowledge they need.

Based on my own experiences, the OISE Masters of Teaching program did not focus on

the ESL program or offer a class focused purely on ESL. This changed recently (2015), with

ESL being given the focus it deserves moving forward. Rightly so, as I believe this lack of focus

could have been contributing to the systematized ignoring of ELLs as an educational priority. It

has yet to been seen how effective these new programs are, but that ESL is being made a focus at

all is a very positive step.

For teachers looking to improve this situation, I recommend looking up strategies that

allow for ELL social movement. Mentioned in the literature review, “Language, Literature, and

Learning in the ESL Classroom” by Mary Kooy and Annette Chiu uses literature to promote


social inclusion. This is just one example—the point is to collect and adapt various activities and

strategies that bring ELLs into the classroom socially, and emphasize how important that process

is in mastering English, without necessarily forcing those students to assimilate. Obviously this

is a more complicated process than I describe here, but simply trying is a step in the right

direction.

Qualifications and Limitations of the Study

Most of this study’s limitations have been mentioned and elaborated upon in previous

sections, but will be collected here for the sake of clarity. First, the study may be coloured by my

biases, both in how I have crafted and how I have interpreted my research question/interview

question, which is something I view as largely unavoidable. Second, I present here a neat

theoretical framework that likely does not entirely remain stable when compared to a variable-

filled, subjective reality.

What has not been mentioned in detail is the problematic nature of my role as a white

man. I speak from a place of great societal privilege in this study about a group I claim is

subjugated, which is an issue for two reasons: one, because I do not have full access to their

perspectives outside of the interviews I have conducted, and two, because this research paper

may be interpreted as me “speaking on their behalf”, which I cannot do as a result of my lack of

access and my privileged societal standing. All I can do to remedy this is emphasize that I speak

on nobody’s behalf, and that my perceptions are coloured by my own biases and reflect only the

reality that I inhabit.

I also limited myself by recording only two interviews, although this was a practical

decision born out of time limitations and other logistical factors. Nonetheless I do not intend for


this study to represent any universal truth, and have made this clear in my discussion of bias and

theoretical limitations, so this is largely a non-issue.

Questions and Next Steps

Related to the section above, I question how universal my findings are. Limited as I am

by time, I focused only on southern Ontario and was limited to interviewing two individuals. I

wonder, then, if these findings may have application to north, west, and eastern Ontario, and

indeed to all of Canada. What does the ESL program look like in Quebec? Vancouver? Nunavut?

Even beyond that, how might my findings apply to the United States? Certainly some of the

literature I read was based on American data or were influenced by American research. If I

interviewed two ELLs from New York, or Ohio, or Florida, would I receive the same or similar

results?

Of course, one natural progression for future research would be to explore other countries.

This is interesting in that it can take two forms: you can ask how the native language of, for

example, Korean is taught to foreign learners, and also how English is taught to native Korean

learners. How does it compare? Do students face the same challenges?

Indeed, for next steps I will be conducted research in Korea. I will be spending a year in

Korea teaching English at a private academy, and will, through simple informal observation, be

paying attention to my own English lessons and prescribed teaching styles, as well as how I am

taught Korean as a foreign learner, as I will be taking courses to further my understanding of

한국말—the Korean language. Hopefully this abrupt change of perspective will give me some

much needed insight not only into how ESL is handled abroad, but also what it is like to be the

learner in a situation similar to those of adult ELLs in Canada. I will have to negotiate the

balance I myself strike between the social and academic.


Conclusion

This study has attempted to parse out the intricacies of the ESL program in the context of

social inclusion, finding that there truly is no distinction between academic and social success—

one will inevitably lead to the other. Whether the results of a study interviewing two individuals

can be made universal is debateable, but I nonetheless feel that the knowledge obtained through

this research is valuable in its merely discussing problem of ELL exclusion, as I believe it is a

subject that does not get the attention it deserves. All I can ask as a researcher and educator is

that the reader considers what has been written in this study and attempts to come up with his or

her own solutions.


References

Cummins, J. (2012). The Intersection of Cognitive and Sociocultural Factors in the Development

of Reading Comprehension Among Immigrant Students. Reading and Writing, 25(8),

1973-1990.

Drucker, Mary J. (2003). What reading teachers should know about ESL learners. The Reading

Teacher, 57(1), 22-29.

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, R., & Amanti, C. (1995).

Funds of Knowledge for Teaching in Latino Households. Urban Education, 29(4), 443-

470.

Kooy, M., & Chiu, A. (1998). Language, literature, and learning in the ESL classroom. A

Classroom Kaleidoscope, 88(2), 78-84.

Odo, D. M. (2012). The impact of high school exit exams on ESL learners in British Columbia.

English Language Teaching, 5(9), 1-8.

Seonhee, C., & Reich, G. (2008). New immigrants, new challenges: high school social studies

teachers and English language learner instruction. The Social Studies, 99(6), 235-242

Stufft, D., & Brogadir, R. (2011). Urban principals’ facilitation of english language learning in

public schools. Education and Urban Society, 43(5), 560-575.

Theoharis, G., & O’Toole, J. (2011). Leading inclusive ELL: Social justice leadership for

English language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(4), 646-688.

Toohey, K., & Derwing, T. M. (2008). Hidden losses: How demographics can encourage

incorrect assumptions about ESL high school students' success. Alberta Journal of

Educational Research, 54(2), 178-193.

Yoon, B. (2008). Uninvited guests: The influence of teachers’ roles and pedagogies on the


positioning of English language learners in the regular classroom. American Educational

Research Journal, 45(2), 495-522.


APPENDICES

Appendix A: Interview Questions

1. In what way(s) have you been involved in the ELL/ESL program?

2. How was the program you were involved with run—were the ELLs taught in a separate

classroom, were they integrated into the primary classrooms, or was another method

used?

3. Was the method you described above effective, from your perspective? In what ways was

it effective? In what ways was it ineffective?

4. Were the ELLs in your program isolated from the main student body? If so, in what

way(s) were they isolated? If not, can you describe what this integration looked like?

5. Do you feel that enough was/is done to promote academic success among ELLs?

6. Do you feel that enough was/is done to promote social success among ELLs?

7. Do you feel that the ELL program needs to improve? If so, in which ways?

8. Does the ELL program have a responsibility to promote both academic and social

improvement among ELL students? If so, should there be an equal focus, or does the

scale skew in a certain direction? If not, why?

9. Do you believe that the ELL voice and perspective is well represented and listened to on

an administrative level?

10. Did you, or do you, see evidence of the ELL program improving over time? If so, how is

it improving?

11. Does the ELL program adequately prepare students for social challenges they will face

after graduation?

12. Do ELL students generally emerge from the program after graduation “fully formed”, or

is there usually a need for additional academic, linguistic, or social support?

13. Where do ELLs see themselves in relation to Canadian culture?

14. What do/did the ELL students do during lunch period? Do they eat together, disperse, or

do something else? Paint a general picture.

15. How do ELL students behave in a classroom of non-ELL students? Did you ever see that

happen?

16. Does gender play a role at all in the success of ELL students? Is there a disparity at all?


Appendix B: Letter of consent

Date:

Dear __________________,

This is a formal letter inviting you to participate in a voluntary research study on ELL social

integration in high schools. I am an Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) Masters of

Teaching Graduate Student, and am conducting research on this topic for my final research

project. My course instructor guiding this process is ____________, and my research supervisor

is ________________.

The purpose of this study is to analyse the amount of academic and social support ELL students

are receiving in high schools, with a focus on social integration into the wider student body. As a

researcher I will benefit directly from your contribution, as your experiences and perspectives

will provide insight for both the readers of my research and for myself as I develop my paper.

I am requesting a maximum one and a half-hour interview at a place that suits you. The interview

can be conducted in a place of your choosing, or I can arrange a space in the OISE library.

Compensation for public transit will be offered if required. I also request that you make yourself

available for further email consultation if needed.

The findings of my report will be published on a UofT website (“T-Space”) and will also be

presented to my peers at a research conference. No identifying names will be used; your identity

will be confidential. The only individuals privy to this information will be my course instructor

and supervisor, ________ and __________ respectively. There is minimal risk for you as a

participant.

This is not a binding contract, and you may withdraw your contributions at any point, and

request the audio recording be deleted. Further, you may refuse to answer any questions, and

may request to look over the transcript to ensure accuracy or omit any pieces of information.

Lastly, I will not be taking notes during the interview process; I will record only your voice.

Please sign the attached form if you agree to the above process.

Thank you,

Kevin O’Leary

Phone:

Email:


(Instructor)

Phone:

Email:

(Supervisor)

Phone:

Email:

Appendix C: Consent Form

I acknowledge that I have read the letter of consent and agree to the terms laid out therein. I am

aware of my rights as a participant and have addressed any questions or concerns to Kevin

O’Leary, and will continue to do so. By signing below I agree to participate in this study.

Signature: ________________________________________

Name (printed): ___________________________________

Date: ______________________

Documents

Weighing the Social and the Academic: By Kevin O’Leary · 2015. 5. 8. · English-speaking classroom influences and is influenced by academic success. I therefore concluded that