The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Secondary Teachers and English Language Learners (ELLs): Attitudes, Preparation and Implications
Abstract
The education of language-minority students is a constitutional right. Throughout this article, the authors synthesize recent literature addressing two main questions: (1) What are secondary teachers’ attitudes toward English language learners (ELLs)? and (2) To what extent are secondary teachers being prepared to teach content effectively to this student population? Secondary teachers’ attitudes about ELLs vary, but are generally positive. The lack of teacher preparation—especially at the secondary level—to teach ELLs effectively is widespread. Thus, it is not surprising that secondary teachers feel ill-prepared to scaffold or differentiate instruction to meet these students’ language and academic needs. Since attitudes, preparation, and practice are interrelated, the authors also provide numerous implications for future practice at various levels: teacher-preparation programs, school district support, and classroom teaching.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- August D., 2006, Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth
- Berg H., 2012, American Secondary Education, 40, 34
- 10.3200/TCHS.77.5.202-208 · DOI
- Gándara P., 2009, The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies, 10.4159/9780674056367 · DOI
- Lopes-Murphy S., 2012, The Clearing House, 85, 226, 10.1080/00098655.2012.693549 · DOI
- 10.3200/TCHS.80.1.29-32 · DOI
- 10.1080/00405841003641535 · DOI
- 10.3200/JOER.99.3.131-143 · DOI
- Rubinstein-Ávila, E. 2003. English Education 35 (2): 122–36. · DOI
- Rubinstein-Ávila, E. 2006. Educational Leadership 63 (5): 38–43.
- Rubinstein-Avila, E. 2013. Voices from the Middle (NCTE Journal) 20 (4): 28–33. · DOI
- Rubinstein-Avila E., 2014, Best practices for adolescent literacy instruction, 2nd ed
- Rubinstein-Avila E., Journal of Urban Education
- 10.1598/JAAL.53.1.4 · DOI
- 10.1080/13670050408667804 · DOI
- Walker A., 2004, Journal of Research and Practice, 2, 130
- 10.1598/RT.61.3.2 · DOI
- Yoon B., 2010, Teacher Education and Practice, 23, 31
Cited by
Min, M., Whitehead, A., Wells, C., & Akerson, V. (2023) · International Journal of Research in Education and Science · doi:10.46328/ijres.3068 · Cited by 1
“Many in-service teachers feel ill-prepared to work with ELLs due to their limited interactions with and opportunities to learn about teaching the population (Grabe & Zhang, 2013; Lucas, 2011; Rubinstein-Avila & Lee, 2014).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Rubinstein-Avila, E., & Lee, E. H.
- Venue
- The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-07-24
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 187-191
- ISSN
- 0009-8655 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-912X
- OpenAlex
- W2044733403
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7
- FWCI
- 60.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Clearing House A Journal of Educational Strategies Issues and Ideas (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Second Language Learning and Teaching
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Keywords
- English language learners, secondary school teachers, teacher attitudes, teacher preparation, CLIL, instructional scaffolding, differentiated instruction, language minority students, teacher education curriculum, school district support
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review