Article Critique
Brown, K.E. & Medway, F.J. (2007). School climate and teacher beliefs in a school effectively serving
poor South Carolina (USA) African-American students: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education,
23, 529-540.
Summary of article
Introduction
Low income and ethnic minority students in American schools are more likely to have lower
achievement and aptitude test scores, more likely to be placed in special education, and more likely to
drop out of school. Possible factors for these discrepancies include inequitable access to health care, the
difficulty of the family in supplementing education at home, a lower quality of teaching in these schools,
and an environment that does not stress the importance of education. Research has been conducted in an
effort to identify the elements found in effective schools that are serving these traditionally
underperforming populations, and this study is an attempt to build on that body of knowledge.
Assumption
The key assumption of the article is that certain factors are integral in successfully working with
low income and ethnic minority students, and that these factors can be identified and then applied to
other school settings.
Subjects
An elementary school in South Carolina was chosen for this study because of its recent national
recognition two years in a row for academic school achievements. The population of the school is over
70% African-American and most students are of low socioeconomic status. The school’s recent
successes were based on a 5-year improvement plan that focused on high student expectations. A total of
13 teachers (3rd, 4th, and 5th grade levels) were contacted; nine (eight female, one male) of them
consented. These nine nominated six teachers as being exemplary, and then these six were asked to
participate in the qualitative portion of the study. All teachers were certified to teach at their grade levels
and four of them held a master’s degree. Part of the study also included video tapings of their
classrooms.
Instruments
Two survey instruments were used for the quantitative portion of this study. The first,
Organizational Health Inventory (OHI) measured teacher’s opinions on school climate. Five factors
were assessed: institutional integrity, community leadership, resource influence, teacher affiliation, and
emphasis on academics. Teachers responded to 37 statements on a 4-point scale (rarely occurs;
sometimes occurs; often occurs; very frequently occurs). The second instrument, Primary Teacher
Questionnaire (PTQ), assessed practices most commonly utilized in the classrooms. Teachers responded
to 39 statements reporting their own beliefs towards teaching. The scale for the PTQ ranged from
“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”
In addition to the inventory and questionnaire, teacher interviews comprised of 17 questions
drawn from Ladson-Billings work were asked from the six exemplary teachers. Class videotapes were
finally conducted to determine if the recurring themes from the interviews could be identified.
Classrooms belonging to the exemplary teachers were videotaped twice.
Hypothesis
Rather than hypotheses, the researchers posed three research questions for the study. First, they
were interested in describing the climate of a school that is effectively teaching economically
disadvantaged minority students. Second, they were looking to determine teachers’ beliefs about
effective instructional methods, and third, they were interested in exploring the relationship between
teachers’ expectations and their instructional methods.
Procedure
Nine teachers were asked to nominate six of their colleagues whom they considered to be
exemplary according to a definition provided by the researchers. Once nominations were submitted two
teachers from each grade level (3rd, 4th, and 5th) were asked to participate in the qualitative portion of
their study. Permissions from the district, teachers and classrooms (for videotaping) were requested and
granted. The first nine teachers completed the OHI; through this inventory their responses indicated the
degree to which each statement described their school. They then answered statements on the PTQ on
which they reported their own perceptions on teaching practices; according to these researchers such
perceptions are often linked with real practices.
Following the inventory and questionnaire was a qualitative method that included teacher
interviews and classroom video tapings. The six exemplary teachers interviewed were asked 17
questions ranging from their own student expectations to their teaching strategies for that population.
They were not aware of the questions prior to the interviews nor did they know what others responded.
After transcribing these interviews, the authors picked out frequently recurring themes in regards to
school practices. They then tried to identify these themes via classroom video tapings. Observations
from these recordings and information extracted from the school’s website were used to support themes.
Analysis
By examining teacher’s believes and strategies through interviews and videotaped classroom
instruction, it was possible to determine that the variables in question had indeed created a positive
effect on the learning environment of the school. By studying several teachers, validity improved and
strengthened the argument that expectations and teaching practices had a positive effect on student
performance.
Results
Collectively teacher’s views on academic education are high based on their OHI scores. Based
on their PTQ scores teachers also endorse developmentally appropriate and traditional instruction
methods.
From the interviews and videotapes, seven themes were identified as being of great importance
and having a lasting effect on students. The themes were: sense of collegial cohesiveness, hands on
approach to curriculum, teaching philosophy that all students can learn, communicating that all students
will be successful, high expectations for all students, parents playing a vital role in student success, and
teacher education does not prepare educators to work with diverse student populations.
The videotapes were used to see what lessons were put into practice by the teachers. The videos
showed that teachers focused on essential understanding and skills rather than memorization of facts.
Teachers encouraged students to do better and gained their attention by creating a lesson that was
interesting and meaningful to the student while still following the state mandated learning. Students
were encouraged to work as a group and think analytically. Teachers also included parents in the
students’ education. They called parents on the progress of their child and asked for the parents help in
ensuring that homework got done.
The five year plan implemented by the school and carried out by these teachers resulted in the
student’s achievement at the 95th percentile despite what was expected due to the poverty index and
minority population.
Conclusions
The study shows that teachers who had a collaborative approach and were open to flexible
teaching styles did have a positive effect on student performance. Although the techniques seem to be
common sense, the teachers at this school site had a plan and followed through with it every step of the
way. They included parents in the education process, they held high expectations for their students,
changed the student’s way of thinking, included cultural learning into their process, and they focused on
how the student learned better, not on how they preferred to teach. These changes challenged the
students while still supporting the idea that each student can learn. The outcome was that the school
tested in the 95th percentile for two years in a row despite being a school that faced its own unique
challenges, such as serving mostly minorities from a low socioeconomic background.
Critique of article
Problem
The research problem is clearly outlined in the beginning of the article where the authors discuss
the “particular academic challenges faced by low income and ethnic minority students in American
schools,” including their lower test scores and graduation rates. It is clear that this topic has significance
for American educators, and the authors even extend the article’s significance to an international level,
discussing the connection between illiteracy and poverty in such places as South America, the
Caribbean, and Australia. However, although interesting, this connection seems somewhat tenuous as
issues in American schools are connected to very different cultural and political influences than in other
areas of the world. The researchers’ suggestion that their work has implications for these other regions
of the world could lead to threats of external validity, particularly in regard to the interaction of setting
and treatment.
The authors did provide a sufficient amount of background information on the problem,
reviewing the characteristics of successful schools as well as the problems and possible causes faced by
low income minority students. Their attempts to identify and define such issues as school climate,
teachers’ expectations, and instructional methods do appear to be “researchable” issues from a
qualitative standpoint. As a qualitative research study, there are no variables present, but instead the
article is focused on the central phenomenon of key factors in a successful school serving low income
minority students.
Review of Literature
The strengths of this section lie in the researchers’ thorough selection of relevant articles. The
literature included spans more than a thirty year period and covers several topics. First, an overview of
research on successful schools is presented, dating as far back as the 1970s. This is followed by a
summary of research done on low income schools and schools with a predominately African-American
population, focusing on a wide range of topics such as teacher preparation and school climate.
Two areas of critique for the literature review involve the lack of critical analysis and an
ineffective discussion of how the current research will add to or enhance the existing body of
knowledge. The studies reviewed are not compared or contrasted with one another; rather, they are
presented, one after another, as a chain of complimentary ideas. There are no in-depth connections
made between them, nor are any alternative contrasting studies presented. In addition, the researchers
might have done more to indicate the ways in which their work would enhance or extend the research
that has already been performed. The only link between this study and the previous research comes near
the end of the literature review when the authors state, “The present research draws on the American
literature on effective schools, school climate, and teacher expectations in order to study one public
elementary school in South Carolina…” Rather than simply “drawing on” the research, the authors
could have been clearer about their desire to test previous findings or expand them in a particular way.
Hypotheses
The three research questions proposed are presented at the end of the Introduction section of the
article. The first two are clear, with one focused on school climate and the other on teachers’ beliefs
about instructional methods. The focus in question three is on exemplary teachers and covers the
communication of school climate to the students as well as teacher expectations and instructional
methods. The third question lumps together several ideas and could perhaps be split into several
different questions for the sake of focus and clarity.
Subjects
Due to the fact that this is a qualitative study, the focus on six teachers in one particular school is
appropriate. The researchers clearly outline their use of surveys to select the 6 individuals out of a pool
of the 13 teachers in grades 3, 4, and 5. One detail not clearly defined is if the initial 13 teachers
contacted are all of the teachers at these particular grade levels, or just certain ones pre-selected for some
unspecified reason. The methods used did not result in a representative, unbiased sample; however, as
an extreme case study, the researchers’ goal is to locate and study the most exemplary teachers, so they
cannot be faulted in this regard. However, because state-wide test scores are being used to determine
the school’s success, perhaps the researchers could have selected those teachers whose classes
performed the best in previous years, rather than teachers who are perceived to be exemplary by their
colleagues.
All participants consented to be included in the study. The sample size was stated, yet their
certifications were not too clear. We would have liked to know the type of certifications each teacher
had; knowing this could possibly provide some connection to the student’s successes. We would have
also liked to know the number of years each teacher had been teaching for. Did they all take part in the
5-year plan to improve student academic success implemented by the school?
Instruments
The researcher did a good job in providing the purpose and content of each measurement. They
provided the questions used in the interviews. Detailed rationale behind instrument selection would have
been preferred. The reasoning behind teacher interviews and classroom video tapings was that by doing
so, repeating themes would be extracted and compared to real teaching practices. Not much rationale
was provided for using the OHI and PTQ.
Hardly any evidence was available suggesting effectiveness of instruments towards this
particular study. There were comparisons with other countries, regarding the reasoning for this research.
Yet the researcher did not mention if those instruments had previously shown effectiveness.
This article used preexisting methods, yet it was not clear if all had been used the same. They used a
questionnaire, inventory, interviews, and video recordings all in this one study. Furthermore, internal
validity is briefly mentioned in terms of the number of teachers included in this study. The problem with
this is that the groups answering both the OHI and PTQ were different than those being interviewed.
Though there might have been some overlap with the participants, portraying two groups makes it feel
inconsistent. The reliability coefficients were .87 to .95 but no validity coefficients were presented.
Design and Procedure
We felt that the design and procedures were appropriate for answering the questions being raised
in this study. They helped gather perceptions and beliefs of those responsible for teaching the students
being affected. The procedures were sufficiently described, as we mentioned earlier the questions used
in the interview are available at the end of the article, in such a way that others could possibly imitate
such research.
Results
A major part of this paper was qualitative. Most of the data was driven from surveys and
videotapes. The surveys were taken by teachers who were thought of as being exemplary. We question
why they only surveyed those teachers. Why not take a random sample of the teachers in the whole as
they all played a part in making the change? Also, the videotaped classrooms were headed by exemplary
teachers. Why not videotape random teachers? This seems like the smallest population of teachers were
used to represent all the teachers.
On the videotapes, the researcher did not indicate whether or not the teachers knew when they
were going to be videotaped. If the teachers knew when and where this was going to happen, it seems as
though they could have simply been exhibiting good behavior to satisfy the research.
On the results for the PTQ and OHI test, the means and standard deviations were given, however
the study did not address what the average was. They simply stated that the numbers were within the
average. Why not provide the average of teacher’s thoughts on affiliation, institutional integrity,
collegial leadership, resource influence, and academic emphasis. This would allow the reader to confirm
or deny the statements made by the researcher. Also, this information has little to do with the actual
study. The research is claiming that teachers are flexible with their teaching styles and the test only
shows that the teachers are comfortable with both traditional teaching and development appropriate
ones, still preferring traditional.
Discussion (recommendations and conclusions)
The authors concluded that teachers’ willingness to change did in fact help students. They also
concluded from the survey that teachers are ill prepared to deal with diverse and disadvantaged students.
Teachers in this study are seen as exemplary, we have to ask why? They are simply recognizing
that not all people learn the same way. They are modifying traditional teaching styles in order to better
fit their students’ needs. These teachers are saying that their schooling does not prepare them to teach
diverse students. Now we have classes that are specific to cultural awareness. Also, the surveys that
were given were about teachers’ feelings toward the dynamics of the school; did these thoughts change
over night, or did the teachers always think the same? If so, why did the school along with the teachers
implement the changes sooner? This research did not indicate whether or not new education was
introduced to the teachers in order to prepare them to teach their students.
This research was different in that there was no comparison group. This school was isolated and
looked at due to the advances in their test scores. Also there is no indication of how the classroom
setting was before the implementation of the new plan. Therefore, it is difficult isolate variables that
might have caused change. That being said the videos in the study were very helpful in persuading the
reader into believing that these teachers were creating a positive environment that fostered growth
within the child. However, we believe that in order to really understand the effects of the change, this
should be done at another school site, which would also help validate the study by helping control any
external variables.
Project Paper
Critique of Research Articles
The goal of this project is to give you an opportunity to apply whatever you learned in this
course in evaluating research papers. You might have done some article summaries or even
critical evaluation of some resources. However, this project is unique because you evaluate
research articles from a methodology perspective.
For this project, you summarize and evaluate 3 research articles on the topic of your choice.
This assignment could be done individually. In the summary section, you should write a
brief summary of the articles in your own words. In the critique section, you evaluate the
articles using the following grading criteria.
Grading criteria for research critique
• Your paper must be in APA style.
• Your critique should be longer than your summary.
• There is no page limit; your grade on this project will be based on how well you
covered.
Here are some questions to guide your paper:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What is (are) the research problem(s)?
What is (are) the research question(s) (or hypothesis)?
Is the research important? Why?
In your own words, what methods and procedures were used? Evaluate the methods and
procedures.
Describe the sample used in this study.
Describe the reliability and validity of all the instruments used.
What type of research is this? Explain.
How was the data analyzed?
What is (are) the major finding(s)? are these findings important?
What do you suggest to improve this research?
You may also look at the chart below:
Criteria
Significance and contribution to the field
Methodology or approach (this usually
applies to more formal, research-based
texts)
Argument and use of
evidence
Writing style and text structure
Possible focus questions
• What is the author's aim?
• To what extent has this aim been
achieved?
• What does this text add to the body of
knowledge? (This could be in terms
of theory, data and/or practical
application)
• What relationship does it bear to other
works in the field?
• What is missing/not stated?
Is this a problem?
• What approach was used for the research?
(eg; quantitative or qualitative,
analysis/review of theory or current
practice, comparative, case study,
personal reflection etc...)
• How objective/biased is the approach?
• Are the results valid and reliable?
• What analytical framework is used to
discuss the results?
• Is there a clear problem, statement or
hypothesis?
• What claims are made?
• Is the argument consistent?
• What kinds of evidence does the text rely
on?
• How valid and reliable is the evidence?
• How effective is the evidence in
supporting the argument?
• What conclusions are drawn?
Are these conclusions justified?
• Does the writing style suit the intended
audience? (eg; expert/non-expert,
academic/non-academic)
•
What is the organising principle of
the text? Could it be better
organised?
Project Presentation
Students are to record their presentation either orally using PPTs or using a
video.
For your presentation, you are to discuss summary of your articles and your
critique in 5-10min.
1. Post your presentation by clicking reply under this thread.
2. Provide comments on your classmates' presentations.
Running head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE
1
Article Critique
CSULB
October 28, 2009
Article Critique
Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J., Penfield, R.D., LeRoy, K. & Secada, W.G. (2008). Science
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
2
achievement of English language learners in urban elementary schools: Results of a first
year professional development intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45,
31-52. doi:10.1002/tea.20209
Summary
Introduction
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 expects all students to achieve proficient levels of
knowledge in core subject areas. Teachers of English language learners (ELL) face the added
challenge of providing meaningful and accessible curricula while integrating English language
and literacy development. This research study addresses ELL students’ low science achievement
in the context of national standards and accountability in the 2006-2007 school year.
Several studies have examined the influence of professional development interventions
on students’ science achievement. Research suggests that hands-on and inquiry-based science
lessons develop literacy as well as content knowledge. Research also indicates that students’
science achievement is positively correlated with the amount of teacher professional
development. This study builds upon existing research by using a quasi-experimental design to
assess students’ science achievement after the first-year implementation of a professional
development intervention that focused on science achievement, literacy, and math skills.
Specifically, the study addresses three research questions: (1) whether treatment group students
show gains in science achievement, (2) whether gaps in science achievement change for ELL
and low-literacy (retained) students in the treatment group, and (3) whether treatment group
students perform differently compared with non-treatment group students on a statewide
mathematics test, particularly on the measurement strand that is emphasized in the intervention.
Participants
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
3
The study was conducted during the 2004-2005 school year in a large urban district in the
southeastern United States. Schools were selected for participation based on high percentages of
ELL and low socioeconomic status students and low state accountability school grades. Thirtythree schools met these criteria. Of the thirty-three, seventeen volunteered and fifteen eventually
participated.
Participants included 1,134 third-grade students at seven treatment schools and 966 thirdgrade students at eight comparison schools. Numbers of males and females were equal. The
comparison group included a slightly lower percentage of Hispanic students and a higher
percentage of African-American students than the treatment group.
Procedure
A professional development intervention was implemented at the treatment schools. It
consisted of curriculum units and five full-day teacher workshops. Three curriculum units were
implemented: measurements, states of matter, and water cycle and weather. Each contained
strategies to promote understanding of science concepts through inquiry and guides for
incorporating mathematics and literacy skills. Two measures were used to obtain data: a science
test created by the project team and a statewide mathematics test. The science test was given to
the students in the treatment group at the beginning and at the end of the intervention.
Instruments
The science test developed by the project team assessed student achievement based on
the intervention materials. Tests were given in English with accommodations for students with
limited literacy skills. The test format included multiple-choice, extended response, and short
answer questions. Students used data to construct graphs and tables, suggest explanations, and
form conclusions. A scoring rubric assessed accuracy and completeness. District staff scored
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
4
student responses on the pretest and posttest with an inter-rater agreement of 90%. Internal
consistency reliability estimates were .60 for the pretest and .71 for the posttest. The reliability
estimate for the pretest fell below the range generally considered acceptable, while the reliability
estimates for the posttest were within acceptable range.
The statewide mathematics test assessed five strands, including measurement, the strand
emphasized in the intervention. The test consisted of multiple-choice, extended response, and
short answer questions.
Data Analysis
To examine the effectiveness of the intervention, the treatment group was tested for
science achievement. The original sample size was 1,134 students. However, only 818 students
received both the pretest and posttest. Descriptive statistics provided a general idea of student
gains from pretest to posttest. To analyze gaps in science achievement due to language and
literacy levels, a hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analysis was used to provide two levels of
models for analysis, one of which is the mean-as-outcome model, using gender, ethnicity,
exceptional student education (ESE), English to speakers of other languages (ESOL), and
retention (low literacy) as independent variables.
To compare the treatment and comparison groups, results from the statewide mathematics
test were analyzed. Results were obtained from the school district database for 942 students in
the treatment group and 966 students in the comparison group. Descriptive statistics provided
the overall picture, and an HLM analysis examined whether differences between the groups were
attributable to the treatment.
Results and Conclusions
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
5
Descriptive statistics for the treatment group show a mean pretest score of 7.40 (SD =
3.36) and a mean posttest score of 14.34 (SD = 4.30). Mean scores for ESOL were lower than
for non-ESOL at both pretest and posttest. Similarly, mean scores for retained were lower than
for never retained at both pretest and posttest.
Inferential statistics are presented, including variable, coefficient, standard error, tstatistic, degrees of freedom, and p-value. They specify an alpha of p < .01. For the science test,
the overall mean gain score equaled 8.65 (p = .000). They use the p-value to conclude that the
overall gain differed significantly. When analyzing the subgroups, they conclude that overall
gains for ESOL and retention were not statistically significant (p = .329 for ESOL and p = .295
for retention). For the math test, results for the treatment group differed significantly from zero
(p = .003). The coefficient differed significantly for ESOL (p = .004). The study did not find a
significant difference between retained and never retained students.
They identify three findings: (1) the treatment group showed a significant increase in
science achievement, (2) there was no significant difference between ESOL and non-ESOL
students, and there was no significant difference between retained and never retained students,
and (3) the treatment group showed significantly higher scores on the math test than the
comparison group, particularly in the measurement strand emphasized in the intervention. The
researchers conclude that the intervention focusing on science inquiry was effective, particularly
on the measurement strand of the math test. They offer implications of their study—the need for
continued longitudinal research and more efforts to improve science learning simultaneously
with English language and literacy development.
Critique
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
6
Problem
This research is a quasi-experimental study designed to assess the effectiveness of the
treatment—a professional development intervention. The problem (science achievement of ELL
students) is clearly stated and is researchable by comparing achievement of the treatment group
with a comparison group. The educational significance (high-stakes testing) of this problem is
stated several times. The problem statement includes the variables of interest and suggests a
positive correlation between teacher professional development and students’ science
achievement.
Review of Literature
The review is comprehensive and relevant to the research questions and design of the
intervention. The authors cite previous research, mostly primary sources, to justify the contents
of their intervention. For example, the authors cite a study indicating that hands-on activities are
more effective for ELL students because of a lowered dependency on mastery of formal
academic language. Therefore, the authors developed their intervention to include hands-on
activities. The review concludes with a brief summary of the literature and its implications for
the problem being investigated.
Hypothesis
The authors list three specific research questions. However, rather than being explicitly
stated, the hypothesis is suggested by the extensive literature review indicating that increased
professional development and use of hands-on, inquiry-based science curriculum increased
students’ science achievement. The hypothesis is testable by assessing treatment students’
science achievement both before and after the intervention and in comparison with non-treatment
students.
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
7
Participants
Treatment and non-treatment students were similar in terms of ethnicity, gender, and
socioeconomic status with slight variations in the number of Hispanic and African-American
students. The percentage of retained students was similar for both groups. The demographics of
the teachers implementing the intervention are described. However, the demographics of the
non-treatment teachers were not included.
Although the method of selecting this sample was clearly described and the large sample
size reduces potential error, ultimately, participation in the research was voluntary and therefore
non-random. Although not explicitly stated as such, it appears that the authors used a
convenience sampling method. Therefore, non-random sampling is a limitation of the study.
For example, volunteering schools may have been more willing to implement and support
curriculum change, which may have lead to improvement that cannot be attributed solely to the
intervention.
Instruments
The contents of both instruments used in this study are described in detail. There was no
data available from past uses of the first instrument, a science test. However, the test was
developed using similar questions or actual questions from standardized tests used in science
assessment. Internal consistency reliability estimates were acceptable for the posttest but were
outside of the acceptable range for the pretest. No mention is made of validity. The second
instrument, a statewide mathematics assessment, had no data given regarding its reliability or
validity.
Procedure
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
8
The design is appropriate to answer the questions of the study. First, the pretest and
posttest administered to the treatment group assessed the effectiveness of the intervention. Given
the context of national standards and high-stakes testing, it was appropriate to use a test to
measure students’ science achievement. Second, the treatment and comparison groups were
given the statewide mathematics test once towards the end of the school year. In a quasiexperimental design, it is appropriate to test students once to determine differences between the
treatment and non-treatment groups. One limitation of the study is that pretesting the treatment
group may have affected the internal validity of the results—that is, the improvement in scores
may be due to student familiarity with the instrument.
Data Analysis
There are several strengths in this section. Sample size was adequate, even when broken
down into subcategories of gender, ethnicity, ESE, ESOL and retention. Descriptive analysis
seemed like a proper procedure for comparison of science pretest and posttest for the treatment
group. The HLM analysis was an appropriate program to use since it is a more advanced form of
single linear regression. The HLM allowed researchers to analyze data on multiple levels, such
as the five independent variables, whereas single linear analysis would not have allowed them to
do that. The only issue with using HLM analysis is that it does not appear to be a well-known
program, so confirming the research would be difficult to do and that may raise suspicion.
Another issue is that some of the data was lost due to mortality—in the treatment group, two
teachers failed to administer posttests to their students. However, the mortality rate (28%) is not
unusual for field studies of this nature.
Results and Conclusions
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
9
The results are presented clearly and specifically address each research question. Every
hypothesis was tested. Appropriate descriptive (mean and standard deviation) and inferential
statistics are presented in organized tables and described in the text. The authors set and specify
the probability value before addressing the results of the study. Results are related to the original
hypotheses and other research studies. Generalizations are consistent with results. Possible
uncontrolled or mediating factors, such as teacher practices, are discussed as limitations of the
study. The authors recommend future research based on their statistical as well as practical
findings. For example, they discuss the need to continue their longitudinal study to better
understand curriculum development, teacher professional development, and classroom practices
affecting the achievement of English language learners.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment