”

Michelle N. Abrams-Terry 2014

All Rights Reserved
ACADEMICALLY RESILIENT ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS: A FOCUS
GROUP STUDY EXPLORING RISK FACTORS AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy at Virginia Commonwealth University.

by

Michelle Nicole Abrams-Terry

B.A., The College of William and Mary, 1994
M.A., The Pennsylvania State University, 1997

Director: Cheryl C. Magill, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership
School of Education

Virginia Commonwealth University

Richmond, Virginia
April, 2014
 UMI Number: 3620047

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3620047
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 ii

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my daughter, Abby, and my mom, Grace. The

time spent completing this dissertation would have been so much more difficult had it not

been for your love, understanding, prayers, support, and encouragement. I am truly

thankful and blessed to have both of you in my life.

 iii

Acknowledgments

I owe a special thanks to my chair, Dr. Cheri Magill, for her professional

guidance, patience, time, and support through this process during the years that it took to

complete. Her invaluable insight, advice, and constructive feedback were appreciated.

I also would like to thank Drs. Micah McCreary, Marie Shoffner, and Genevieve

Siegel-Hawley for their valuable contributions and support as members of my

dissertation committee. I truly am grateful that they were on my committee.

 iv

Table of Contents

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ viii
I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1
A Growing Population ..................................................................................................... 2
English Language Learners Count ................................................................................... 7
Statement of Problem ..................................................................................................... 12
Rationale for Study of Problem ..................................................................................... 12
Literature Background ................................................................................................... 12
Statement of Purpose ..................................................................................................... 16
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 17
Methodology .................................................................................................................. 17
Brief Summary of Findings and Conclusions ................................................................ 18
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................ 19
Description of Dissertation Chapters ............................................................................. 21
II. Review of Literature..................................................................................................... 23
The Agentic Model of Academic Resilience ................................................................. 23
Risk Factors ................................................................................................................... 25
Protective Factors........................................................................................................... 32
Academic Resilience ...................................................................................................... 33
Resilient versus Non-resilient English Language Learners ........................................... 38
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 43
III. Methodology ............................................................................................................... 44
Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 44
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 45
Design ............................................................................................................................ 45
 v

Procedures ...................................................................................................................... 49
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 53
Trustworthiness of Results............................................................................................. 56
Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 58
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 59
IV. Findings ...................................................................................................................... 60
Student Participant Profiles............................................................................................ 60
Summary of Group Characteristics ................................................................................ 63
Thematic Analysis ......................................................................................................... 63
Risk Factors ................................................................................................................... 65
Protective Factors........................................................................................................... 68
Emerging Themes .......................................................................................................... 77
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 79
V. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 80
Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................................... 80
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 80
Discussions of Findings and Research ........................................................................... 81
Recommendations for Practice ...................................................................................... 89
Recommendations for Research .................................................................................... 91
Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 92
List of References ............................................................................................................. 94
Appendix A: Parental/Guardian Permission Form ......................................................... 103
Appendix B: Youth Participant Assent Form ................................................................. 106
Appendix C: Student Questionnaire ............................................................................... 108
Appendix D: Interview Question Guide ......................................................................... 110
Vita.................................................................................................................................. 117
 vi

List of Tables

Table 1. The Growing Numbers of English Learners in U.S. Public Schools .................... 3

Table 2. Summary Federal and State Accountability of English Language Learners ...... 10

Table 3. ELL Risk Factors ................................................................................................ 31

Table 4. ELL Protective Factors ....................................................................................... 33

Table 5. Various Definitions of Resilience and Key Authors .......................................... 36

Table 6. Corresponding Research and Focus Group Question Guide .............................. 51

 vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. ELL Enrollment in Virginia Public Schools (1996-2013) .................................. 4

Figure 2. Number of ELLs in Virginia and the U.S. Public Schools (2009-2010)............. 5

Figure 3. Growth of ELLs in the Study School Division (1996-2013) .............................. 6

Figure 4. Abrams-Terry’s Agentic Cycle of Academic Resilience. ................................. 83

 Abstract

ACADEMICALLY RESILIENT ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS: A FOCUS

GROUP STUDY EXPLORING RISK FACTORS AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS

By Michelle Nicole Abrams-Terry, Ph.D.

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Virginia Commonwealth University, 2014.

Director: Cheryl C. Magill, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership
School of Education

In this study, the researcher explored high school English language learners’

perceptions of risk factors and protective factors present in their academic and social

lives. The researcher also explored how these students negotiated risk factors and used

protective factors to be academically resilient. Therefore, the study was designed to

examine academic resilience from the students’ perspectives, allowing them to share their

story about their success in high school. The following research questions guided this

study:

1. What risk factors are present in high school English language learners’

academic and social lives?

 2. Which protective factors do high school English language learners use to be

academically resilient?

The researcher collected and analyzed qualitative data using key characteristics of focus

group analysis. Nine students voluntarily participated in three different semi-structured

focus group meetings.

The findings revealed that risk factors such as lack of English language ability,

low expectations of teachers, inability to form new relationships, stress, and

inattentiveness prevented students from being successful. In addition, the students

discussed how several protective factors like learning English, establishing and

maintaining positive relationships, establishing and implementing good study habits, and

possessing certain inner qualities helped them be academically resilient. Two themes that

emerged were students (1) choosing to be academically resilient and (2) actively seeking

sources of help.

Based on this study, suggestions for educators are as follows: (1) consider

providing more language support for newcomers; (2) include and build upon parent-

school and teacher-student relationships; (3) encourage and provide ways for students to

form relationships with others through school-based programs; (4) foster and continue to

support the growth of the students’ academic skills; (5) find ways for students to become

more involved with community-based services and programs; and (6) stress the

importance of holding all students to high standards, regardless of students’ English

language proficiency levels.

 Keywords: academic resilience, English as a second language, English language

learner, protective factors, risk factors

 I. Introduction

Overview

Successfully educating an increasingly ethnically diverse population of students

in public schools is an on-going challenge for public school systems and their boards.

Since the mid-1990s, school systems have experienced major increases in students who

speak a language other than English at home. While there has been extensive research on

academic resilience in English-speaking students, few studies have focused on academic

resilience in English language learners (ELLs). However, with the growing population of

ELLs, there is a need to explore the risk factors that they experience as well as the

protective factors that help them be academically resilient.

It is important to note that the term “limited English proficient” is the legal term

used in federal and state legislation to describe students who speak a language other than

English as their native language. When referring to these groups of students, the term

“English language learner” or “English learner” generally is preferred in scholarly circles.

Those two before mentioned terms are used throughout the literature as they take a

positivistic approach to how these students acquire English language skills. Regarding

this study, “English language learner” or “ELL” were the preferred terms to use when

referring to students that were labeled as limited English proficient (LEP) in the

legislation.

1
 2

A Growing Population

There has been a sharp increase in the number of ELLs enrolled in public schools

over the latter part of the 21st century. As a result, many public schools expanded the

types of services that they provide to meet the variety of needs of this rising population of

students. Exploring the risk factors and protective factors involved in promoting

academic resilience in ELLs helps schools to facilitate resilience in a growing population

of linguistically diverse students.

The number of school-age children who speak a language other than English at

home continues to grow. Between 1980 and 2009, the number of school-age children

(i.e., children ages 5-17) who speak a language other than English at home increased to

11.2 million (21% of the of school-age children) from 4.7 million (10%) (Aud et al.,

2011). Similarly, U.S. Census data from 2006 to 2010 show that 20.1% of people ages 5

and older in the United States speak a language other than English at home. In Virginia,

16.1% of people ages 5 and older speak a language other than English at home (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2009).

The rising number of school-age children who speak a language other than

English at home has directly impacted the increased number of ELLs enrolled in public

schools and the need for more language services. From 1995 to 2005, the number of

ELLs enrolled in public K-12 schools increased by 57%. From 1997 to 2009, the number

of ELLs grew from 3.5 million to 5.3 million (National Clearinghouse for English

Language Acquisition, 2011). Table 1 depicts the increased growth in the number of

ELLs in the United States from 1994 to 2010.

 3

Table 1

The Growing Numbers of English Learners in U.S. Public Schools

PK-12 PK-12 Growth EL EL Growth

Year Enrollment Since 1994-95 Enrollment Since 1994-95
(%) (%)
1994-95 47,745,835 0.0 2,184,696 0.0

1999-00 47,356,089 -0.8 4,416,580 38.7

2000-01 47,665,483 -0.2 4,584,947 44.0

2001-02 48,296,777 1.2 4,750,920 49.2

2002-03 49,478,583 3.6 5,044,361 58.4

2003-04 49,618,529 3.9 5,013,539 57.4

2004-05 48,982,898 2.6 5,119,561 60.8

2005-06 49,324,849 3.3 5,074,572 59.3

2006-07 49,792,462 4.3 5,218,800 63.9

2007-08 49,838,122 4.4 5,297,935 66.4

2008-09 49,487,174 3.7 5,346,673 67.9

2009-10 49,866,700 4.4 5,208,247 63.5

Note. Adapted from “The Growing Numbers of English Learner Students” by National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2011.

From 1999 to 2010, the population growth of ELLs increased from 38.7% to 63.5%

within a 10-year period. Based on these data illustrating a marked increase in the

enrollment of over 2 million ELLs by 2010, many U.S. public schools have needed to

adjust their ways of educating these students to accommodate their language and

academic needs.
 4

The increase in the ELL student population nationwide is mirrored across several

states and in Virginia. In fact, the number of ELLs more than doubled in 20 states from

1995 to 2005. Virginia was one of thirteen states that saw a growth in ELL enrollment of

over 200% (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2007). As

indicated in Figure 1, the ELL enrollment in public schools steadily increased in Virginia

over the past 15 years.

100,000
Number of Students

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

Years

Figure 1. ELL Enrollment in Virginia Public Schools (1996-2013). Adapted from

“Limited English Proficient Students (LEP) Enrollment” by Virginia Department of
Education, 2013.

As shown in Figure 1, there were 23,128 ELLs enrolled in Virginia in 1996. By 2002, the

number of ELLs in Virginia more than doubled to 49,840. In 2005, the number of ELLs

in Virginia more than tripled to 72,380. In 2013, the number of ELLs in Virginia was at

an all-time high of 93,746. The growth in ELLs evidenced in Virginia was just under the

national average from 2009 to 2010. Figure 2 compares the number of ELLs in Virginia

with that of the U.S. during that time period.

 5

94,000
93,000
92,000
Number of Students
91,000
90,000
89,000
88,000
87,000
86,000
85,000
84,000
83,000
Virginia U.S. (average)

Figure 2. Number of ELLs in Virginia and U.S. Public Schools (2009-2010). Adapted
from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2012,
Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,”
2009-10 Version 1a; and “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2009-10, Version
1a; and “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education,” 2009-10,
Version 1a.

Figure 2 also illustrates that the number of ELLs enrolled in Virginia public schools was

slightly less at 86,751 than the national average of 92,626.

Similar to the national and state growth trends, the overall ELL population in

central Virginia has increased. In the suburban central Virginia school division selected

for this study, the total number of ELLs has more than tripled from 1996 to 2013. Figure

3 illustrates the increased enrollment of ELLs in the division.

 6

3,000

2,500
Number of ELLs

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

Years

Figure 3. Growth of ELLs in the Study School Division (1996-2013). Adapted from
“Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students Enrollment,” by Virginia Department of
Education, 2013.

There were 688 ELLs in the study school division in 1996. In 2004, the number of ELLs

more than doubled with 1,980 enrolled in the division. In 2009 and 2010, the number of

ELLs declined to 2,253 and 2,268, respectively. By 2012, the number of ELLs increased

to an all-time high of 2,703. In 2013, the total number of ELLs slightly decreased to

2,681.

Given the increasing numbers of ELLs enrolled in public schools in the country,

state, and division used for this study, it is becoming increasingly more important for

schools to find ways to meet the needs of diverse populations of students. In order to

meet the needs of this growing population of students, it is important to explore the risk

factors that ELLs experience. In addition, studying the protective factors that they use to

be academically resilient would be advantageous to educators who want to help ELLs be

more successful in school.

 7

English Language Learners Count

Since the late 1960s, federal legislative efforts have been made to include rights

for ELLs in public education. Starting with an amendment to the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1968, Title VII or the Bilingual Education Act

(BEA) of 1968 is noted as the first official federal recognition of the needs of ELLs

(Stewner-Manzanares, 1988). The essential goal of the BEA (1968) was to provide

federal funding for education programs, teacher training, development of instructional

materials, and promotion of parent involvement to help ELLs. The statute was

reauthorized in 1974, 1978, 1984, and 1988. However, its central goal of whether to

increase students’ transition to English or to promote bilingualism was left undecided

(Stewner-Manzanares, 1988).

The first U.S. Supreme Court case regarding the education of ELLs was Lau v.

Nichols (1974). In Lau v. Nichols (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that San

Francisco’s school district violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which

protects people from discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or

activities that receive federal financial assistance. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling stated

that the San Francisco Unified School District failed to provide English language

instruction for ELLs.

Shortly after the Lau v. Nichols (1974) decision, Congress passed the Equal

Educational Opportunities Act (1974). The Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA)

of 1974 mandates that no state can deny equal educational opportunities to any

individual. More specifically, the EEOA (1974) requires public schools to provide
 8

instruction to ELLs to help them overcome language barriers that may prevent them from

equal participation in education programs.

During the 1980s and 1990s , a time when the population of ELLs was increasing

significantly, there was much debate about bilingual education (Crawford, 2000).

Subsequently, the foci of English-only movements were ensuring that ELLs were taught

in non-bilingual settings and making English the official language of several states and

the federal government (Crawford, 2000). In 1998, California was one of the first states

to pass an English-only education law with the approval of Proposition 227. Proposition

227 allowed ELLs to receive one year of “sheltered English instruction” or a class where

“nearly all the instruction is in English.” Thereafter, they were to be placed in “English

language mainstream classrooms” where all instruction was English-only (Cal. Ed. Code

§ 1010, 300-340, 1998). Similarly in 2000 and 2002, Arizona and Massachusetts

respectively passed English-only instruction initiatives for ELLs.

Currently, the ESEA (2001) includes ELLs under Title III Part A or the English

Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act of

2001. The main purpose of this statute is to increase states’ accountability regarding the

academic achievement of ELLs in core academic classes as well as the development and

increased proficiency in English language skills. Additionally, these students are included

as one of the subgroups used for determining states’ and school districts’ adequate yearly

progress toward the goal of 100 percent proficiency in mathematics and reading or

language arts by 2014 (ESEA, 2001).

 9

In Virginia, the General Assembly enacted House Bill 2589 during the 2009

legislative session as mandated by the ESEA (2001). The statute states that local school

divisions in the Commonwealth “shall administer a limited English proficiency

assessment that may be locally developed or selected and has been approved by the

Virginia Board of Education in accordance with federal requirements for the 2009-2010

school year” (Virg. Leg. Code ch. 488, § 1.1, 2009). During the 2010 Virginia legislative

session, Senate Bill 354 was passed without inclusions of year limits (Virg. Leg. Code ch.

254, § 1.1, 2010).

ELLs also are included in the Regulations for Establishing Standards for

Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia under student achievement expectations. These

regulations state that ELLs “shall participate in the Virginia assessment program and

have a school-based LEP committee determine LEP student participation” (Virg. Admin.

Code 8 VAC 20-131-30). In addition, the code allows ELLs in grades kindergarten

through eight to receive one-time exemptions from the Standards of Learning tests in

writing, science, and history and social science.

Additionally, ELLs are included in the Code of Virginia - Standards of Quality

under Standards 1 and 2. Standard 1 states that these students should be enrolled in

“appropriate instructional programs” (Virg. Leg. Code ch. 714, § 22.1-253.13:1, 2003).

This standard also provides flexibility for school divisions to use state and local funds to

employ additional teachers qualified to provide instruction to ELLs. Standard 2 states

“each local school board shall provide a program of high-quality professional

development” (Virg. Leg. Code ch. 714, § 22.1-253.13:2, 2003) to assist teachers and
 10

principals with acquiring the skills needed to work with ELLs to increase student

achievement and expand the knowledge and skills students require to meet the standards

for academic performance set by the Virginia Board of Education. Table 2 summarizes

the federal and state statutes and state regulations that are considered landmarks in

providing rights for and meeting the educational needs of ELLs.

Table 2

Summary Federal and State Accountability of English Language Learners

Statute/ Regulation Other Names Purpose Significance

Bilingual Education Title VII of To provide federal The first official

Act (1968) Elementary and funding for federal recognition
Secondary education programs, of the needs of
Education Act teacher training, ELLs
(1968) development of
instructional
materials, and
promotion of parent
involvement to help
LEP children.

Civil Rights Act Title VI To protect people The U.S. Supreme

(1964) from discrimination Court ruled that the
based on race, color San Francisco
or national origin in public school
programs or system violated
activities that ELLs’ rights by not
receive federal providing them with
financial assistance. English language
assistance in Lau v.
Nichols (1974)

Equal Educational EEOA (1974) To provide equal Required public

Opportunities Act educational schools to provide
(1974) opportunities to all instruction to ELLs
individuals. to help them
overcome language
 11

barriers that may

prevent them from
equally participating
in education
programs

English Language Title III Part A of To increase states’ Replaced Title VII
Acquisition, the Elementary and accountability and provided a
Language Secondary regarding the formula-grant
Enhancement, and Education Act academic program to states to
Academic (2001) achievement of LEP help ELLs meet
Achievement Act students in their content standards
(2001) core academic and promote
classes and English language
development and acquisition
increased
proficiency in their
English language
skills.

Regulations for Virginia Standards To provide an Includes ELLs in

Establishing of Accreditation essential foundation the assessment
Standards for of educational program, makes
Accrediting Public programs for all provisions for
Schools in Virginia students and raise ELLs’ participation
student in assessments, and
achievement. holds local school
divisions
accountable for
ELLs’ performance
on the assessments

Code of Virginia - Virginia Standards To ensure that ELLs Grants school

Virginia Standards of Quality are enrolled in an divisions flexibility
of Quality appropriate to spend funds to
instructional support ELLs
program and
personnel receive
staff development to
increase student
academic
performance.
 12

Statement of Problem

Much is known about the factors that predict academic failure and attrition or

early school exit; however, not as much is known about the factors that promote

academic resilience in ELLs. Risk factors like limited or no schooling, having limited

English proficiency, and exhibiting internal or external stress may help identify students

that need services (Reyes & Jason, 1993; Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Torodova,

2008; and Perez et al., 2009). However, those risk factors provide little information about

the protective factors that promote academic resilience in ELLs. Also, the risk factors do

not explain individual differences or why some ELLs who are at-risk educationally do

not drop out of school, but rather, excel academically. A second aim of this study was to

examine the protective factors that academically resilient students use to be successful in

school as not much is known about what protective factors ELLs use.

Rationale for Study of Problem

This study looked at and examined factors that promote academic resilience in a

select group of ELLs. Understanding the factors that promote academic resilience may

prove beneficial to designing more effective prevention and intervention educational

programs that build on the existing strengths of ELLs’ academic success. Therefore, the

study took a strength model perspective as opposed to a deficit model perspective.

Literature Background

Based on the purpose of the study, it was necessary to understand risk factors and

protective factors as they relate to academic resilience. Therefore, the two sections of the

literature background were organized around the two main research questions. The first
 13

section summarizes research on academic risk factors. The second section focuses on

research on protective factors.

Academic Risk Factors and English Language Learners

The literature on the influence of risk factors on the academic success of high

school students suggested that combinations of risk factors contribute to poor academic

performance (Durlak, 1998). Furthermore, research has indicated that risk factors related

to lack of academic success can be internal and external or a mixture of both. Therefore,

researchers suggest that both external and internal risk factors influence students’

academic performance.

In the literature on risk factors, resilient or academically successful (low-risk)

students were often compared to non-resilient or academically unsuccessful (high-risk)

students by looking at family and individual background characteristics and classroom

practices that purportedly foster resiliency. Few studies have looked specifically at

potential risk factors for English language learners. Of those few studies, Hispanic

students tend to be the population of students studied.

For example, Reyes and Jason’s (1993) study concluded that high-risk and low-

risk students shared many similarities with respect to socioeconomic status and family

structure and found that the students’ responses were based in Hispanic culture. Reyes

and Jason (1993) concluded that low-risk students were more satisfied with their school

and criticized teachers for their put-downs of students who “have a harder time” in school

(p. 67). They also suggested that the successful students were better able to conform to
 14

the school’s rules and procedures, which facilitated a greater sense of satisfaction with

their school.

In another study, Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, and Torodova (2008)

investigated the experiences of immigrants over time, including students’ academic

performance in school. Their data suggest that behavioral engagement, English-language

proficiency, having two parental figures in the home, maternal education, and the father’s

employment are positively correlated to grades. The students’ English language

proficiency levels and behavioral engagement were the greatest predictors of grade point

average (GPA). Further, these researchers found that students who possessed stronger

English skills were more likely to earn better grades. Also, students’ scores on the

Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests were strongly predictive of their academic achievement.

Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, and Torodova (2008) also reported that two-thirds of the

participants experienced a decline in their academic performance based on their grade

point averages during the five years. They also found that the high achievers maintained

an average GPA of 3.5 across the five years of the study.

Perez et al.’s study (2009) explored the influence of social, educational, and

psychological experiences on 110 undocumented Latino college students. The researchers

concluded that three factors were evident based on the results of the study. Those factors

are (1) academic success or resilience was related to both personal and environmental

resources; (2) academic performance was generally positive when various resources were

available; and (3) high-risk and resilient groups suffered significantly higher levels of

adversity. Additionally, they found that psychosocial stressors such as undocumented

 15

status, socioeconomic hardship, and low parental education represented significant

challenges for the undocumented students.

Protective Factors and English Language Learners

Most of the studies on protective factors can be placed into three categories. First,

there are studies that focused on external factors and the role these factors played in the

academic success of students. Second, there are studies that focused on the role of

internal factors. The third category includes studies that focused on the interplay of

external and internal protective factors. There are very few studies that examine the

protective factors that relate to academic resiliency in ELLs, particularly in the United

States. Of those studies, most focus on comparing resilient versus non-resilient students.

For example, Alva (1991) conducted a comparative quantitative study to examine

the possible reasons as to why some Hispanic students, who shared a similar sociocultural

background, were academically successful and others were not. The researcher found that

protective factors contributed to students’ academic achievement and were more

important than the potentially detrimental effects of sociocultural risk factors on students’

academic performance. She concluded that academically successful students were more

likely to feel encouraged and prepared to attend college, enjoy attending school and being

involved in school activities, experience fewer conflicts and difficulties in their

interpersonal relationships with other students, and experience fewer family conflicts and

difficulties.

Likewise, Gonzalez and Padilla (1997) conducted a quantitative study to examine

the protective factors that contribute to Mexican-American high school students’

 16

academic resilience and achievement. The researchers found that resilient students have

significantly higher perceptions of family and peer support, teacher feedback, positive

ties to school, value placed on school, peer belonging, and familism than non-resilient

students.

As a result, Gonzalez and Padilla (1997) suggested that family and peer support

along with value placed on school were consistent predictors of academic resilience. The

researchers also found that a supportive academic environment and sense of belonging

were significant predictors of resilience. They added that cultural influences may

contribute to resilient outcomes.

In summary, most of the literature on resilient and non-resilient culturally diverse

students focuses on Latino or Hispanic students. There are few studies that explicitly

focus on examining academic risk factors encountered by ELLs as a diverse group of

students. There is even less research on the protective factors involved in ELLs’

academic resilience.

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore high school English language learners’

perceptions of risk factors and protective factors in their academic and social lives. It also

discovered how these students negotiated risk factors and used protective factors to be

academically resilient.
 17

Research Questions

Two research questions guided this study. The questions are as follows:

1. What risk factors are present in high school English language learners’

academic and social lives?

2. Which protective factors do high school English language learners use to be

academically resilient?

Methodology

The study was qualitative in nature. It was a focus group study that explored the

risk factors that high school ELLs experience as well as the protective factors that the

ELLs use to be academically resilient. The researcher served as the focus group

moderator and used a semi-structured interview guide to guide the focus group

discussions. Questions were designed to gather data based on the secondary ELLs’

discussion of factors identified in the review of literature regarding risk factors,

protective factors, and those factors’ role in academic resilience. As recommended by

qualitative research methodologies, a digital voice recorder was used to record the focus

group discussion (Barbour, 2007; Krueger, 1993; Krueger & Casey, 2000; Stewart,

Shamdasani, & Rook, 2007).

The researcher identified emergent themes by listening to the transcripts of the

focus group interviews, using field notes, and reviewing post-focus group notes. The

researcher applied the constant comparative method to examine the views and

experiences of the participants. Using the constant comparative method allowed subtle

but potentially important differences to be illuminated (Barbour, 2001). Also, the

 18

researcher analyzed the discussions for inconsistencies and contradictions to identify the

opinions, ideas, or feelings that repeat.

Purposeful sampling was used to select the student participants for the study. The

study participants met the following criteria: were enrolled in a public high school, had

completed a minimum of one year of high school in the United States, were identified as

an ELL enrolled in an English as a second language (ESL) program, had a World-class

Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA® ) English language proficiency level of

two or higher in speaking based on their spring 2013 WIDA® Assessing Comprehension

and Communication in English State-to-State for (ACCESS) for ELLs® (Center for

Applied Linguistics, 2014) language proficiency test results, spoke Spanish, Arabic,

Vietnamese, or Nepali as their first language (i.e., the most commonly spoken languages

in Virginia and the study division) (Virginia Department of Education, 2013), and

successfully completed four or more classes taken during the 2012-2013 school year with

grades of “A,” “B,” or “C.”

Brief Summary of Findings and Conclusions

The student participants in the focus group meetings discussed several risk factors

that prevented them from being successful in the past. They primarily discussed their lack

of English language ability and low expectations of teachers. However, they mentioned

other possible risk factors (e.g., the inability to form new relationships, stress, and their

inattentiveness) less often.

In addition, these students shared several protective factors that help them be

academically resilient. A great deal of their discussions focused on their need to learn
 19

English and the importance of establishing and maintaining positive relationships. To a

lesser extent, they discussed how establishing and implementing good study habits and

possessing certain inner qualities helped them be academically resilient.

Based on analyses of the data, two themes emerged. First, students chose to be

more academically resilient in school. Regardless of what caused their past failure, the

students discussed taking ownership of their shortcomings (e.g., lack of English language

skills, not taking the initiative to form relationships with their teachers and other students,

etc.) and did not blame others for their failure. Second, students actively sought help from

various sources. They repeatedly acknowledged that they needed help and could not be

successful alone or without the help of others. Clearly, these students possessed the

ability to know when they needed help and to ask for it. Teachers, parents, relatives,

friends, and other students were those from whom they oftentimes sought help.

Definition of Terms

The terms and associated definitions used in this study are listed below:

Academic resilience: a student’s ability to effectively deal with setbacks,

challenges, adversity, and pressure in the academic setting.

English language learner (ELL): a person who is in the process of acquiring

English language skills and speaks a first language other than English.

English language proficiency (ELP) level: a measurement of a person’s English

language ability in listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

Limited English proficient (LEP): Limited English Proficient means an

individual—
 20

(A) who is aged 3 through 21;

(B) who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary

school;

(C) (i) who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a

language other than English;

(ii) (I) who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the

outlying areas; and (II) who comes from an environment where a language

other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of

English proficiency; or

(iii) who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than

English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than

English is dominant; and

(D) whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English

language may be sufficient to deny the individual any of the following:

(i) the ability to meet the State's proficient level of achievement on State

assessments described in section 1111(b)(3);

(ii) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of

instruction is English; or

(iii) the opportunity to participate fully in society (ESEA, §9101(25), 2001).

Protective factor: characteristic of the individual, family, school, and community

that can change a negative outcome and foster resilience.

 21

Positive adaptation: the ability to adjust, maintain, or regain mental health, despite

experiencing adversity.

Risk factor: a variable that increases the probability of a future negative outcome.

Description of Dissertation Chapters

The researcher organized this dissertation into five chapters. Chapter 1,

Introduction, includes the development of the study’s context by providing background

information, the explicit statement of the problem addressed, and a summary of the state

of existing research on the topic of interest. The researcher also addresses the purpose of

the study and states the research questions. In addition, this chapter includes an overview

of the components of this study, a brief summary of the findings and conclusions, and a

description of terms.

In Chapter 2, Review of Literature, the researcher organizes it into three sections.

In the first section, the researcher describes the theoretical framework that guided this

study. The researcher organized the other two main sections around the research

questions. The first section deals with research on academic risk factors. The second

section summarizes research on protective factors and academic resilience. Collectively,

this information aided in providing the context in which this study was conceptualized. A

review of relevant literature in each of those areas was analyzed critically to permit

inclusion of only that information which directly related to this study.

In Chapter 3, Methodology, the researcher describes in detail the methods and

procedures that comprised the research protocol utilized for this study. The researcher

also introduces and describes the overall research design protocol. The protocol
 22

addressed sampling procedures, participant selection, data collection, and analysis

procedures. In addition, the researcher specifies issues related to the credibility,

transferability, dependability, and confirmability of the results as well as limitations of

the findings.

Chapter 4, Findings, consisted of two main sections. First, participant profiles

were created to introduce the participants who shared their ideas and aided in this study.

Also, a summary of group characteristics was included. In the second section, the

researcher presents themes as they emerged from the data analysis of participants’

responses to the key research questions. In the last part of this chapter, emerging themes

that the researcher observed are discussed. Particular attention is given to the discussion

of the findings in an effort to establish the trustworthiness of conclusions.

The final chapter of this dissertation, Chapter 5, Conclusions and

Recommendations, is dedicated to discussion of the findings as they pertained to the

research. A summary of the purpose of the study is included. In addition, attention is

given to addressing the implications of this study as well as providing recommendations

for future research of the topic of interest in this study.

 II. Review of Literature

It is necessary to understand risk factors and protective factors as they relate to

academic resilience. Therefore, the theoretical framework that guided this study and a

summary and synthesis of the research that motivated this study are included in this

chapter. There are two main sections of the literature review that are organized around

the research questions. The first section deals with research on academic risk factors. The

second section summarizes research on protective factors.

The Agentic Model of Academic Resilience

Several theories related to resilience were found throughout the literature. These

theories provide explanations for how students exposed to risk factors use protective

factors to influence positive academic outcomes. However, Giddens (1979) Agentic

Model was selected for this study.

The Concept of Agency and the Agentic Model

The concept of agency as described by Giddens (1979) involves “intervention in a

potentially malleable object world” (p. 56) and refers to a “continuous flow of conduct”

(p. 55) as opposed to separate actions or a series of separate actions. More specifically,

Giddens explained the role of what he termed the acting subject involved in action or

23
 24

agency. According to him, “an adequate account of human agency must first be

connected to a theory of acting subject; and second, must situate action in time and space

as a continuous flow of conduct” (p. 2).

Giddens further expounded on the concept of the acting subject by explaining the

choice of the agent at any point in time to decide between available courses of action,

which he termed foundational agency. His theory also posits the idea of the intentionality

feature of human behavior. The intentionality feature of human behavior means that the

acting subject consciously has definite goals in mind during the course of action. It also

implies that intentional monitoring of action follows rather than precedes the action and

motivation to act or what he termed the reflexive monitoring of action. He states that the

ability to reflexively monitor action occurs due to the “capabilities of human agents to

explain why they act as they do by giving reasons for their conduct” (p. 57).

In short, a person always has agency and has the ability to act in one way as

opposed to another way. However, the degree of one’s ability varies based on the

situation within which the agentic ability operates. Gidden’s theoretical concept of

agency supports the notion of an active agentic role in human action or the presence of

choice to act otherwise at any point and time in the process of events that are taking

place. Therefore, the idea of an intentionally acting subject achieving intended results is

given several levels of dimension.

Based on Gidden’s (1979) notion of the “acting subject” possessing foundational

agency as a “continuous flow of conduct” (p. 2), the Agentic Model as described above is

the theoretical framework that guided this study. The model takes into account the
 25

agency presented to the students within discursive situations created by school and home.

The discursive situations of the students in the study were discussed in the form of

support structures (e.g., family, friends, etc.) based on protective factors that students use

to be academically resilient.

Risk Factors

Risk factors, as defined in the study, are any variables that increase the probability

of a future negative outcome. Researchers agree that English language learners (ELLs)

encounter several risk factors. They also agree that no individual risk factor can be

considered in isolation as causing a negative outcome.

High school students in the United States face a multitude of risk factors in their

social and academic lives. ELLs experience similar risk factors as their native-English-

speaking counterparts as well as other risk factors that are relevant only to ELLs.

The term risk factor is multifaceted and has multiple definitions. However,

researchers generally agree with the definition of a risk factor as a variable that increases

the probability of a future negative outcome (Durlak, 1998). Masten, Herbers, Cutuli, and

Lafavor (2008) simply define a risk factor as “any measurable predictor of an undesirable

outcome” (p. 78). Risk factors can be demographic or social indicators such as low

socioeconomic status or peer rejection, behavior like aggression, or characteristics of

institutions and communities such as high quality schools (Durlak, 1998).

The literature on the influence of risk factors on the academic success of high

school students suggests that combinations of risk factors contribute to poor academic

performance (Durlak, 1998). These findings are important, as research has indicated that
 26

risk factors related to lack of academic success can be internal and external or a mixture

of both. Therefore, it has been suggested that both external and internal risk factors

influence students’ academic performance.

In an extensive review of 1,200 prevention outcome studies in six areas of

research, including academic problems, Durlak (1998) identified several risk factors that

often are associated with major negative outcomes, including school failure. The risk

factors were characterized into the following six groups: community, school, peer,

family, individual, and other. Across the studies that Durlak (1998) reviewed, he

highlighted that no negative outcome was associated with risk factors in just one group.

Therefore, Durlak’s (1998) extensive review adds credence to this researcher’s belief that

no individual risk factor should be viewed in isolation as causing a negative outcome.

Risk Factors Specific to English Language Learners

Literature on academic risk factors often compares resilient or academically

successful (low-risk) to non-resilient or academically unsuccessful (high-risk) students by

looking at family and individual background characteristics and classroom practices that

purportedly foster resiliency. Few studies have looked specifically at potential risk factors

for English language learners. Of those few studies, Hispanic students tend to be the

population of students studied.

For example, Reyes and Jason (1993) conducted interviews using 52 questions

designed to explore family background, family support, overall school satisfaction, and

gang pressures. The participants in Reyes and Jason’s (1993) study were 48 Hispanic

students in tenth grade. Reyes and Jason (1993) hypothesized that least at-risk students
 27

would perceive higher overall family support, experience greater satisfaction with school,

maintain a predominantly gang-free social group, and have more positive self-esteem

compared to the most at-risk students.

Reyes and Jason (1993) used a mixed-method comparative approach, gathering

their data from structured interviews and scores on the Pier-Harris Children’s Self-

Concept Scale. Data were reported in charts using means and percentages. No quotations

from participants were reported in the results, and only one quotation from a participant

was used in their conclusions.

Reyes and Jason (1993) concluded that high-risk and low-risk students shared

many similarities with respect to socioeconomic status and family structure. The

participants came from low-income and single-parent families with the average parent

education level being below fifth grade. The participants also were similar with regard to

their perceptions of parental concern and parental supervision. They also found that the

students’ responses were influenced by their Hispanic culture.

Additionally, Reyes and Jason (1993) reported some differences. They concluded

that high-risk students were more critical of their school and complained about their

teachers, the school principal, and unfair treatment by the teachers and principal. The

low-risk students were more satisfied with their school and criticized teachers for their

put-downs of students who “have a harder time” in school (p. 67). The researchers

suggested that the successful students were better able to conform to the school’s rules

and procedures, which facilitated a greater sense of satisfaction with their school.
 28

Reyes and Jason’s (1993) research adds credence to this researcher’s belief that

risk factors have a multilevel influence as well as individual, social, and contextual

factors on students’ academic performance. However, their study did not include social

and environmental factors, which have an impact on students’ lives and academic

success. This study explored the social and environmental factors in addition to the

family factors that contribute to ELLs’ academic success.

Although some research has addressed academic risk factors across diverse racial

groups, less is known about risk factors specifically related to ELLs. However, research

has identified being an ELL as a demographic risk factor for academic success (Gleason

& Dynarski, 2002; Rumberger, 2007).

Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, and Torodova’s (2008) conducted a five-year

longitudinal interdisciplinary and comparative immigrant adaptation study that used a

mixed-method approach. While not stating a specific hypothesis, the researchers

proposed to understand and explain the experiences of immigrants over time, including

students’ academic performance in school.

The participants in Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, and Torodova’s (2008) study

were born abroad in Central America, China, Dominican Republic, Haiti, or Mexico, had

parents who were born in the same country, and spoke a native language other than

English upon arrival to the United States. At the beginning of their study, 407 students

between the ages of nine- and fourteen-years-old were included from 51 schools in seven

school districts. During the first year of the study, ethnographic participant observations

and participant interviews were conducted. During the second year of the study, further
 29

ethnographic participant observations were conducted. At the conclusion of their study,

309 students remained in the study.

Data were reported in charts as percentages. Quotations from participants,

parents, and teachers were used throughout the results and conclusions reported. Suárez-

Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, and Torodova’s (2008) data showed that the role of behavioral

engagement, English language proficiency, having two parental figures in the home,

maternal education, and whether the father is employed are positively correlated to

grades. English language proficiency levels and behavioral engagement were the most

robust predictors of grade point average (GPA). They found that students who possessed

stronger English skills were more likely to earn better grades and have higher GPAs.

Also, students’ scores on the Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests were strongly predictive of

their academic achievement.

Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, and Torodova (2008) also reported that two-

thirds of the participants experienced a decline in their academic performance based on

their grade point averages during the five years. As a result of their data analysis, five

performance pathways emerged. The students were characterized as “consistently high

performers (high achievers); consistently low performers (low achievers); students whose

GPA slowly drifts downward across time (slow decliners); those whose grades fall off

precipitously (precipitous decliners); and students whose grades improve over time

(improvers)” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Torodova, 2008, p. 35). The high

achievers or 22.5% of the students) maintained an average GPA of 3.5 across the five
 30

years of the study. The researchers also found that girls were significantly more likely to

be high achievers than boys.

Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, and Torodova’s (2008) study adds credence to

this researcher’s belief that those learning English have an additional risk factor that

influences students’ academic performance, particularly in high school. Their study,

however, did not gather and analyze the data in relation to students’ perceptions on

learning English as this study did.

Other researchers have suggested that a student’s immigration status is a risk

factor. For example, Perez et al. (2009) conducted a variable-focused and person-focused

study to explore the influence of social, educational, and psychological experiences on

110 undocumented Latino college students.

Perez et al. (2009) used the following four measures of risk factors: working more

than 20 hours per week, peer rejection due to undocumented status, low parental

educational attainment, and large family size were risks. The researchers also measured

students' personal and environmental factors as well as their academic outcomes.

They concluded that 1) academic success or resilience was related to both

personal and environmental resources, 2) academic performance was generally positive

when various resources were available; and 3) high-risk and resilient groups suffered

significantly higher levels of adversity compared to the protected group. Additionally,

they found that psychosocial stressors such as undocumented status, socioeconomic

hardship, and low parental education represented significant challenges for the

undocumented students.
 31

Perez et al.’s (2009) study contributes to this researcher’s belief that those who

have undocumented status have an additional risk factor that influences students’

academic performance. Their study, however, did not gather and analyze the data in

relation to students’ immigration statuses other than undocumented as this study planned

to.

Table 3

ELL Risk Factors

External Internal
limited or no schooling stress

community limited English proficiency

family

peers

stress

immigration status

Note. Adapted from Reyes & Jason,1993; Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Torodova,
2008; and Perez et al., 2009.

In summary, several researchers focused on risk factors in Latino and Hispanic

students. There were no studies that identified risk factors in ELLs as a group comprised

of several cultures and multiple ethnic identities. The study explored the possible risk

factors that ELLs encounter with consideration given to the external and internal factors

listed in Table 3.
 32

Protective Factors

Protective factors, as defined in the study, are characteristics of the individual,

family, school, and community that can change a negative outcome and foster resilience.

Researchers agree that resilient students use several protective factors to be resilient.

They also agree that protective factors play a key role in an individual's resilience.

Garmezy (1985, 1991) was one of the first to identify protective factors which

may be operative in stressful life situations. He identified three variables as follows:

modification of stressors brought about by temperament (e.g., reflectiveness in facing

new situations, cognitive skills, and positive responsiveness to others), warmth, cohesion,

and the presence of some caring adult (e.g., a grandparent), and the presence of a source

of external support (e.g., teacher, caring agency, or church).

In addition, Werner (1995) stated that protective factors appear to transcend

ethnic, social-class, and geographic barriers. She further noted that protective factors

appear to make a more profound impact on those individuals who grow up in adversity

than specific risk factors or stressful life events. Werner referenced the Kauai

Longitudinal Study in which she studied the impact of a variety of biological and

psychosocial risk factors, stressful life events, and protective factors on the development

of 698 multiethnic children born in 1955. The researcher concluded that children with

good coping abilities have temperamental characteristics that elicit positive responses

from a wide range of caregivers.

Further, Werner noted the cross-cultural similarities of students' ability to

correctly appraise stressful life events and figure out strategies as evidenced in replicated
 33

studies of Asian-American, Caucasian, and African-American students. She further

described the importance of the resilient individual's ties to members of the extended

family and role models that encourage trust, autonomy, and initiative.

In general, studies on protective factors can be placed into three categories. First,

there are studies that focused on the external factors and the role that these factors played

in the academic success of students. Second, there are studies that focused on the internal

factors and the role that these factors played. Then, there are studies that focused on the

interplay of external and internal protective factors. Table 4 summarizes the main

protective factors that are mentioned in the literature as they were explored in the study.

Table 4

ELL Protective Factors

External Internal
teachers high self-efficacy

community strong interpersonal skills

family maintain healthy expectations

peers/friends internal locus of control

School high self-esteem

Note. Adapted from Benard, 1991; Benard, 1995; Durlak, 1998; and Wang, Haertel, &
Walberg, 1994.

Academic Resilience

Academic resilience, as defined in this study, is a student’s ability to effectively

deal with setbacks, challenges, adversity, and pressure in the academic setting.
 34

Researchers agree that the presence of high risk or trauma and the demonstration of

positive outcomes through adaptation must exist for an individual to be resilient. They

also agree that positive adaptation plays a key role in an individual's resilience.

Academic resilience refers to a students' ability to effectively deal with setbacks,

challenges, adversity, and pressure in the academic setting (Martin & Marsh, 2006). A

widely used definition of academic resilience is the increased likelihood of success in

school and other life accomplishments in spite of environmental adversities brought

about by early traits, conditions, and experiences (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1994).

Waxman, Gray, and Padrón (2003) noted that definitions that focus on the broader

educational community are often based on the positive experiences associated with

positive adaptation. These experiences include forming and maintaining significant

relationships, positive school perceptions, and increased school involvement.

There is some ambiguity with the term. For example, Bosworth and Earthman

(2002) interviewed 10 school administrators to find out their views on resiliency. They

reported that most of the administrators' definition of resiliency contained both individual

and contextual factors. However, they concluded that the concept of resiliency was vague

to school administrators. Furthermore, the researchers noted that how the concept is

defined often dictates how that concept will be acted upon and explained how the

imprecise understanding of resilience as being student-centered can thwart school-based

efforts to promote resiliency.

There are various definitions of resilience. However, the variation in definitions

of resilience is often grounded in the specific approach or context in which resilience is

 35

being studied (Waxman, Gray, & Padrón, 2003). For example, Waxman, Gray, and

Padrón (2003) noted that "high-risk" groups were defined by a label determined by things

such as poverty, family background, or abuse. They further explained that definitions that

focused on the broader educational community were based in the positive experiences

associated with individual adaptation such as significant relationships, school

perceptions, and school involvement (Waxman, Gray, & Padrón, 2003).

Although various definitions of resilience exist in the literature; researchers

generally agree that the presence of high risk or trauma and the demonstration of positive

outcomes through adaptation must exist for an individual to be resilient (Garmezy, 1990;

Luthar, 2003; Luthar & Zigler, 1991; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990; Masten &

Coatsworth, 1998; Rutter, 1990; Werner & Smith, 1982 & 1992). In this study, academic

resilience is a students' ability to effectively deal with setbacks, challenges, adversity, and

pressure in the academic setting with consideration given to the various cultures

represented by the ELLs. In Table 5, key authors are correlated with the varying

definitions of resilience.
 36

Table 5

Various Definitions of Resilience and Key Authors

Definition Key Authors

The demonstration of positive outcomes Garmezy (1990); Luthar (2003); Luthar &
through adaptation in the presence of high Zigler (1991); Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker
risk or trauma. (2000); Masten, Best & Garmezy (1990);
Masten & Coatsworth (1998); Rutter
(1990); Werner & Smith (1982, 1992)

The process that includes individual's Howard & Johnson (2000); Johnson &
responses over time to challenges through Wiechelt (2004); Luthar, Cicchetti, &
positive adaptation. Becker (2000); Masten (1994)
Oswald, Johnson, & Howard (2003)

The process that includes individual's Olsson, Bond, Burns, Vella-Brodrick, &
responses through positive adaptation and Sawyer (2003); Oswald, Johnson, &
use of protective factors. Howard (2003); Masten (1994)

The process that includes individual’s Arrington & Wilson (2000)

responses through positive adaptation and
use of protective factors while considering
cultural and diverse elements of resilience.

Positive Adaptation

Many definitions of resilience refer to positive adaptation. Positive adaptation is

the ability to adjust, maintain, or regain mental health, despite experiencing adversity

(Herrman, Stewart, Diaz-Granados, Berger, Jackson, & Yuen, 2011). In this study,

positive adaptation is a student’s ability to adjust, maintain, or regain mental health to be

academically resilient, despite experiencing adversity.

Some researchers refer to resilience as a process that includes individual's

responses over time to challenges through positive adaptation (Howard & Johnson, 2000;

Johnson & Wiechlt, 2004; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Masten, 1994; Oswald,
 37

Johnson, & Howard, 2003). For instance, Howard and Johnson (2000) defined resilience

as the process of, capacity for, or outcome of positive adaptation despite challenging or

threatening circumstances. Likewise, Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker (2000) described

resilience as a process that includes positive adaptation within the context of significant

adversity. Johnson and Wiechelt (2004) also wrote that resilience is the positive

adaptation of individuals despite risk and adversity or unexpected achievement of

individuals despite stress. However, Masten (1994) recommended that the term resilience

be used exclusively when referring to the maintenance of positive adaptation under

challenging life conditions.

Olsson, Bond, Burns, Vella-Brodrick, and Sawyer (2003) described resilience as a

dynamic process that involves an interaction between both risk and protective factors,

internal and external to the individual, that act to modify the effects of an adverse life

event. Likewise, Arrington and Wilson (2000) wrote that resilience is an interactional

process that consists of individual characteristics and the environment and results when

an individual reacts to risk factors, or vulnerabilities, that are present in their

environment. They noted that resilience can be fostered by correlates or protective

processes.

Moreover, Arrington and Wilson (2000) concluded that resilience has not been

defined within the contextual biographies of ethnically diverse youth. This study took a

closer look at academic resilience as it relates to a specific ethnically diverse population

of ELLs.
 38

Resilient versus Non-resilient English Language Learners

There are very few studies that focused on protective factors in ELLs, particularly

in the United States, and how the students use them to be academically resilient. Of those

few studies, most focus on the dichotomy of resilient versus non-resilient students.

For example, Alva (1991) conducted a comparative quantitative study to examine

the possible reasons as to why some Hispanic students, who shared a similar sociocultural

background, were academically successful and others were not. While not stating a

specific hypothesis, Alva (1991) proposed that there were several protective resources

that served to buffer at-risk students from the negative effects of sociocultural events that

place students at risk of academic failure.

Alva (1991) administered a paper and pencil survey to 384 Hispanic students in

the tenth grade. The researcher used a modified version of Hollingshead’s Two Factor

Index of Social Position, the Intellectual and School Status subscale of the Piers-Harris

Self-Concept Inventory, Clifford’s Academic Achievement Accountability Scale, and the

Hispanic Children’s Stress Inventory to construct the survey. These inventories measured

sociocultural risk factors, occupational status of the students’ parents, personal resources,

academic self-esteem, personal responsibility for academic performance, and the degree

of stressfulness of life events (e.g., family concerns, intergroup relations, and conflicts

involving language issues). None of the students was enrolled in an English as a second

language (ESL) program.

The construct validity of the measures was verified using a factor analysis. Alva

(1991) used incremental regression analyses to test the proportion of variance explained
 39

by sociocultural risk factors and protective factors on students’ Comprehensive Test of

Basic Skills (CTBS) performance and high school grades. The data were reported in

charts as percentages. She (1991) also used stepwise discriminant analyses to determine

which variables best differentiated the high- and low-achieving students. Data were

reported in charts as percentages.

Based on the results of the incremental regression analyses, Alva (1991)

concluded that protective factors contributed to students’ academic achievement and were

more important than the potentially detrimental effects of sociocultural risk factors on

students’ academic performance. She concluded that academically successful students

were more likely to feel encouraged and prepared to attend college, enjoy attending

school and being involved in school activities, experience fewer conflicts and difficulties

in their interpersonal relationships with other students, and experience fewer family

conflicts and difficulties.

Alva’s (1991) work adds credibility to the researcher’s belief that students’ use of

protective factors plays a positive role in students’ academic performance. However, her

study did not include students who were actively enrolled in an ESL program as this

study did.

Similarly, Gonzalez and Padilla (1997) conducted a quantitative study to examine

the protective factors that contribute to students’ academic resilience and achievement.

From a population of 2,169 Mexican-American high school students, they identified

resilient students as students who reported that they had "mostly A's." The non-resilient

students were those students who reported that their grades were "mostly D's" or "mostly
 40

below D's." Their study included 133 resilient and 81 non-resilient Mexican-American

high school students.

Gonzalez and Padilla (1997) found that resilient students have significantly higher

perceptions of family and peer support, teacher feedback, positive ties to school, value

placed on school, peer belonging, and familism than non-resilient students. As a result,

the researchers stated that family and peer support along with value placed on school

were consistent predictors of academic resilience. They also found that a supportive

academic environment and sense of belonging were significant predictors of resilience.

The researchers concluded that cultural influences may contribute to resilient outcomes.

The study by Gonzalez and Padilla (1997) lends support to this researcher’s belief

that academically resilient English language learners utilize external protective factors as

well as internal protective factors to be academically successful. However, the

researchers did not explore reasons why the students utilized the protector factors that

they used to be academically successful as is this study did.

Academically Resilient English Language Learners

Generally, researchers agree that resilient students have stable relationships with

peers; possess well developed problem-solving skills; consider realistic future plans; have

a positive sense of being able to achieve and deal effectively with tasks; experience

success in one or more areas of their lives; are able to communicate effectively;

possessing a strong attachment with at least one adults; and accept responsibility for

themselves and their behavior (Benard,1993; Clarke & Clarke, 1984; Garmezy, 1985;

Werner & Smith, 1982). However, very few studies have actually examined academic
 41

resiliency in ELLs. Most of the resilience studies done with ELLs focused specifically on

Latino or Hispanic students.

For example, Plunkett, Henry, Houltberg, Sands, and Abarca-Mortensen (2008)

conducted a study of culturally diverse high school students. The researchers examined

indicators of academic success that included the students’ academic motivation, academic

satisfaction, and grade point average, subjective elements of student experiences, and

teachers’ reports of students’ grades. Their study focused on the students' perceptions of

academic support from significant others like their mothers, fathers, teachers, and friends

in relation to aspects of academic success.

The researchers selected 216 students of Mexican origin from a required ninth

grade course. Plunkett, Henry, Houltberg, Sands, and Abarca-Mortensen evaluated the

perspectives of male (43% of participants) and female (57% of participants) students

separately due to possible gender differences. They also examined nativity as a potential

control variable in their study due to the conflicting findings of other studies. The

majority at 65.3% of the students were born in the United States. The majority of the

participants’ parents were born in Mexico (i.e., 95.8% of their mothers and 99% of their

fathers).

Plunkett, Henry, Houltberg, Sands, and Abarca-Mortensen (2008) analyzed data

from self-report questionnaires and teachers’ reports of grades. A table showing the

mean, standard deviation, range, and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) for

each measure using the data was included.

 42

The researchers found that a student's perceptions of academic support from the

opposite-sex parent contributed significantly to a positive change in each of the academic

indicators measured. They found that academic support from friends was significantly

correlated to students' academic motivation and academic satisfaction. Plunkett, Henry,

Houltberg, Sands, and Abarca-Mortensen concluded that teachers' academic support was

the most salient predictor of academic satisfaction and grade point average for the

resilient students.

Plunkett, Henry, Houltberg, Sands, and Abarca-Mortensen’s (2008) research adds

credence to this researcher’s belief that protective factors like supportive parents and

teachers play a role in students’ academic performance. However, Plunkett, Henry,

Houltberg, Sands, and Abarca-Mortensen’s study focused primary on Latino students of

Mexican origin. This study explored protective factors from a heterogeneous group of

ELLs with consideration given to their individual ethnic identities.

In another study, Hersi (2011) conducted an in-depth cultural multiple case

qualitative study of six African immigrant high school students. The primary aim of this

study was to explore the factors that contribute to the resiliency of a select group of

students.

The researcher's primary data sources included three 40- to 45-minute semi-

structured interviews, field notes from participant observations, and shadowing each

student for a day. He analyzed the data through an emergent and iterative process that

involved multiple readings, organizing codes and themes into higher levels of categories

within and across the interviews and observations. Furthermore, Hersi (2011) analyzed
 43

the codes and themes to identify data related to key concepts in the research question,

theoretical framework, and current research and used concept charting to identify issues

requiring further attention and alternative explanations of the phenomenon studied.

He concluded that there were four factors that contributed to the resiliency of the

students. Those factors were migration history, family context, educational background,

and supportive school context (i.e., caring and responsive teachers).

Hersi’s (2011) study adds credence to this researcher’s belief that there are

multiple internal and external factors that help English language learners be academically

resilient. However, his study did not explore the internal protective factors as this study

did.

Summary

Most studies have compared resilient and non-resilient students by looking at

their family and individual background characteristics and key classroom processes (e.g.,

perceived learning environment and observed classroom behavior) that help foster

resiliency. Some researchers have found stark differences between resilient and non-

resilient students based on a variety of characteristics and personal attributes (e.g.,

motivation and future aspirations). However, even fewer studies have explored academic

resilience qualitatively in ELLs as a diverse population of students as this study did.

 III. Methodology

In this chapter, the researcher provides a statement on the purpose of the study

and the research questions that guided the study. The chapter is organized into several

sections that provide a framework within which the researcher describes the research

plan. The chapter also includes a detailed description of the research methodology that

the researcher utilized in the study. In addition, the researcher presents data collection

and analysis procedures, the trustworthiness of results, and limitations for this study.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, the researcher identified the risk

factors in high school English language learners’ (ELLs’) academic and social lives and

investigated ELL students’ perceptions of identified risk factors. Second, the researcher

investigated protective factors that may help high school ELLs be academically

successful in school. In addition, the researcher explored high school ELLs’ perceptions

of these identified protective factors. Based on the key research questions, the researcher

explored the ways in which students negotiate the identified risk factors and use these

identified protective factors to succeed academically. As a result, the participants made

meaning of the factors that they identified as those factors center around the key research

questions.

44
 45

Research Questions

There were two research questions that guided this study. They are as follows:

1. What risk factors were present in high school English language learners’

academic and social lives?

2. Which protective factors did high school English language learners use to be

academically resilient?

Design

The researcher used a qualitative research design for the study. The qualitative

research design best suited this type of study as the researcher intended to gain insight

while concentrating on the participants’ words and actions as they responded to the

interviewer’s questions. More specifically, the researcher used focus group methodology.

Focus groups rely on three fundamental strengths of qualitative methods: 1) exploration

and discovery, 2) context and depth; and 3) interpretation (Morgan, 1998).

General Description

The researcher used a focus group rather than individual one-on-one interviews to

increase participants’ comfort level and provide group cohesion (Fern, 2001). In addition,

the researcher held separate male and female focus group meetings to provide group

cohesion. Group cohesion, the sense of closeness and common purpose among the

participants, provided a level of comfort to encourage the focus group participants to

freely participate in the discussions (Fern, 2001). In addition, holding focus groups

meetings allowed the researcher to gather data on specific topics and created concentrated

conversations on those topics (Morgan, 1998).

 46

Focus group methodology provides an opportunity for participants to respond to

semi-structured interview questions and participate in further discussions amongst

themselves. Therefore, the use of focus groups allowed the responses to be naturalistic

and allowed the researcher to understand how people feel or think about an issue or idea

(Krueger & Casey, 2000). In addition, by using focus groups, the researcher was able to

explore the meaning behind the students’ responses and gained insight into the students’

perceived risk and protective factors. The development of insight is a major advantage of

focus group method (Grudens-Schuck, Allen, & Larson, 2004; Krueger & Casey, 2000).

Sample Selection

The researcher used purposeful sampling to select the student participants for the

study. Using purposeful sampling allows the data to be interrogated purposefully so that

systematic comparisons can be made (Barbour, 2001). Therefore, the participants needed

to possess certain characteristics in order to take part in the focus group meetings.

This decision to control the group composition to match chosen categories of

participants is called segmentation. The study participants met the following criteria: (a)

were enrolled in a public high school, had completed a minimum of one year of high

school in the United States, (b) were identified as an ELL enrolled in an English as a

second language (ESL) program, (c) had a World-class Instructional Design and

Assessment (WIDA® ) English language proficiency level of two or higher in speaking

based on their spring 2013 WIDA® ACCESS for ELLs® (Center for Applied

Linguistics, 2014) language proficiency test results, (d) spoke Spanish, Arabic,

Vietnamese, or Nepali as their first language, and (e) successfully completed four or
 47

more classes that they took during the 2012-2013 school year with grades of “A,” “B,” or

“C.”

In addition, the division’s education specialist was asked to identify students for

the study to ensure that all potential participants had been identified. With the permission

of the principal, the students’ ESL teachers or the gatekeepers were instrumental with

organizing and helping the researcher share information about this study with potential

student participants. Barbour (2008) states gatekeepers play a particularly important role

with regard to recruiting participants in focus group studies. The ESL teachers at the

schools were gatekeepers and had an established rapport with the students. In addition,

they willingly agreed to assist the researcher with recruiting participants for this study.

Focus groups participants. The three focus group meetings were held, and a

total of 9 students participated. Two groups consisted of female students, and one group

had male students. When doing focus group research, it is important that group members

share at least one important characteristic since the group will be the main unit of

analysis (Barbour, 2008). Also, the researcher intended for the focus groups to be

homogeneous in terms of background (i.e., all were non-native English speakers) and not

attitudes (Morgan, 1998). The three characteristics that the focus group participants

shared were their sex, status as ELLs, and academic success.

Site selection. The researcher conducted the study in two suburban high schools

located in central Virginia. The sites were selected based on the large population of ELLs

enrolled in the schools. The selected schools have the highest enrollment of ELLs in the

school division. In addition, the ELL population at the selected high schools mirrored that
 48

of the ELL population of Virginia (Virginia Department of Education, 2014). There also

were several prospective student participants who spoke the most common languages in

Virginia (i.e., Spanish, Arabic, and Vietnamese) (Virginia Department of Education,

2013).

Environment. The researcher created a non-judgmental environment for the

students in the focus group. A permissive environment allows students to share their

perceptions and points of views without feeling pressured to answer in a certain way

(Krueger & Casey, 2000). Moreover, the focus group interviews were conducted at the

students’ high schools in one of the ESL classrooms or a conference room.

Data Collection Strategies and Data Management

The researcher used questionnaires to collect demographic data prior to the focus

group. The questionnaire (see Appendix C) asked questions regarding their native

country, first language spoken, years of schooling in their native country and in the

United States. It also contained questions about their family background (e.g., family

makeup and parents’/guardians’ educational levels).

The researcher served as the focus group moderator and used a semi-structured

interview guide to conduct the focus group discussions. The researcher gave all student

participants an opportunity for equal participation in the focus group discussions. The

researcher also used a field journal to record notes throughout the study.

A digital voice recorder was used to record the focus group discussions. The

researcher transcribed the digital voice recordings within 24 hours of the end of the focus
 49

group meeting. Using the transcriptions, the researcher used a spreadsheet to code the

transcribed conversations with themes.

Tools and Equipment

The researcher used a digital voice recorder to record the discussions. During

certain parts of the focus group meetings, the researcher used flip charts to record the

participants’ responses. The chart allowed participants to see what was being recorded

and gave them a chance to change or verify those comments.

After the focus groups, the researcher used the flip charts to retrieve key points.

At the conclusion of the focus groups, the researcher recorded final statements,

summarized comments or critical points that were discussed earlier by participants. The

researcher reviewed the information on the questionnaires that the participants completed

prior to the focus groups. This information was helpful to understand comments and

opinions shared during the focus group. The researcher used a computer to type

transcripts. In addition, the computer was used for coding the transcript.

Procedures

The researcher completed an application and went through the approval process to

conduct the focus group study in the selected school division. After gaining permission

from the local school division, the researcher contacted the educational specialist for ESL

and each school’s principal to decide the best time to conduct the study. The researcher

also met with prospective participants and discussed the parent/guardian consent form

(see Appendix A). Once a date and time was agreed upon, the researcher conducted the
 50

study. Those participants who received permission were asked to read and sign the youth

participant assent form (see Appendix B) before participating in the study.

Field notes. The researcher visited the rooms where the focus group discussions

were to take place ahead of time and took notes of posters, materials, or anything that

could influence the content of discussion or cause offense to the participants (Barbour,

2008).

Pilot testing of questions. The researcher pilot tested the questions with the ESL

teachers who are the gatekeepers and know the students. In addition, the researcher pilot

tested the questions with ELLs who meet the specifications for being in the focus groups.

With all groups, the researcher asked the questions conversationally to check the ease

with which questions could be asked and responses could be given. They were asked for

their feedback on the questions.

The researcher drew diagrams of the seating arrangements to help recall names of

participants. The diagram also assisted the researcher in preparing complete transcripts

with names of speakers.

During the focus group interview. The researcher served as the moderator and

used a semi-structured interview guide (see Appendix D) to lead the focus group

discussion. Table 6 shows the corresponding research and interview guide questions.
 51

Table 6

Corresponding Research and Focus Group Question Guide

Research Questions Focus Group Questions

What risk factors are present in high school Q4-Think back to your first year of high
English language learners’ academic and school in the United States. What kinds of
social lives? changes have you made since then to be
more successful in school?

Q5-On the paper in front of you, write what

helped you to make these changes. When
you’re finished, we’ll share these with each
other.

Q9-Now, think about the times when you

were not successful in school. What caused
you not to be successful in school?

Which protective factors do high school Q2-Describe a successful high school

English language learners use to be student.
academically resilient?
Q3-When you think about being successful
in high school, what comes to mind?

Q6-What role do others have in your

success in school?

Q7-What role do you play in your own

success in school?

Q8-Of all the things that we discussed,

which one was most important to your
success in school?

Q10-I am trying to find out what helps ESL

students be successful in high school. What
suggestions do you have for other ESL
students who want to be more successful in
school?
 52

The entire discussions were digitally recorded. In addition, participants were

provided with paper to allow them a few minutes to reflect before they offered an answer

and recorded their individual lists to be shared with the group. The researcher used a flip

chart to record participants’ responses. Using a listing process helped to identify

duplicate items and allowed the participants some time to reflect before answering the

questions (Krueger, 1998).

Focus group meetings. During the first meeting with possible participants, the

researcher introduced the study and distributed parental/guardian consent forms (see

Appendix A) to those who were interested. The researcher held three focus group

meetings. Before the focus group interview, the participants were asked to read and sign

the assent form and complete the questionnaire (see Appendix C). Also, the participants

chose their own names or pseudonyms for the focus group discussion. During the focus

group interview, the researcher used the semi-structured interview guide to explore the

students’ ideas on risk factors and protective factors as they relate to their academic

success.

After the focus group meetings. The researcher used the time immediately

following the focus group meetings to check the digital voice recordings. Also, the

researcher reflected on the following questions:

1. What were the most important themes or ideas discussed?

2. How did these differ from what I expected?

3. How did these differ from what occurred in earlier focus groups?

4. What points needed to be included in the report?

 53

5. What quotes should be remembered?

6. Were there any unexpected or unanticipated findings?

7. Should I do anything different for the next focus group? (Krueger, 1998, p. 50)

All items (e.g., field notes, and other materials) from the discussions were labeled and

filed. Following the completion of this study, the researcher destroyed all digital voice

recordings, transcripts, and other study materials.

The researcher pilot tested the questions to ensure that participants would

understand them. The researcher attempted to provide conditions needed for free and

open sharing. The researcher listened carefully to participants, observed how they

answered, and sought clarification on areas of ambiguity. At the end of the focus group

discussions, the researcher asked participants to verify the summary of comments.

Data Analysis

The researcher analyzed the qualitative data using some of the key characteristics

of focus group analysis. Those characteristics included a disciplined process, systematic

steps, a defined protocol, verifiable results, and multiple feedback loops (Krueger, 1998).

When using focus group interviews, analysis begins with the first focus group and

continues after the focus group ends (Krueger, 1998). Therefore, analysis occurred

simultaneously with data collection, and the research plan guided and focused the

analysis.

Systematic Analysis

First, the researcher designed the sequence of the interview guide questions to

allow for maximum insight. Therefore, participants were allowed to become more
 54

familiar with the topic, given an opportunity to recollect personal opinions, and listen to

others’ opinions. The researcher asked key questions that related to the core topic of

interest. A final summary question for each participant followed those key questions.

Second, the researcher collected and handled the data in a systematic way. The researcher

also recorded the focus group interviews and kept field notes to be able to reconstruct

crucial parts of the focus group discussions. Third, once data were collected, the

researcher coded them. After multiple readings of the transcripts, the researcher labeled

ideas or themes each time they emerged or appeared. A spreadsheet was used to code and

store the transcribed data in themes. Use of axial coding allowed the researcher to

selectively retrieve and review the information based on codes and combinations of

codes, and reassemble it differently from the original version (Krueger, 1998). Fourth, the

researcher verified key points with the participants to ensure that the intent of each

participant was adequately understood. This participant verification was done by giving

the participants a chance to respond to the moderator’s summary of key points while still

in the focus group meeting. Last, the researcher debriefed immediately following the

focus group interviews and captured the first impressions and highlights of the meeting.

Verifiable

The data analysis of the study was verifiable through the trail of evidence

(Krueger, 1998). The evidence comprised of field notes, recordings of the focus group

interviews, oral summaries of key points during the focus group meetings, the debriefing

after the interviews, and the interview transcripts.

 55

Considerations

Words, context, and internal consistency. The researcher analyzed the

similarity between the words and their meanings using the symbolic interactionist

approach, which emphasizes the active construction of meaning (Barbour, 2001). Also,

the researcher paid attention to the tone and intensity of the discussion (i.e., not just the

transcribed words). In addition, the researcher analyzed group interaction and individual

voices within discussions as each focus group participant can be described with reference

to many related characteristics (e.g., varying ages, social classes, prior educational levels,

etc.) (Barbour, 2008). The researcher paid close attention to whether or not participants’

changed their opinions during the interviews and found out what was influencing the

change.

Comments. Participants’ comments were viewed in light of frequency,

extensiveness, intensity, and specificity. Also, the researcher considered what participants

did not say. Frequency of comments refers to the number of times that a concept or topic

surfaces in the discussion (Krueger, 1998). Extensiveness of comments is measured by

how many participants talked about a particular issue (Krueger, 1998). Intensity can

mean the passion or depth of feeling used by a participant talking about a topic as noted

by a noticeable change in speaking patterns (Krueger, 1998). Specificity refers to the

participants’ sharing of first-hand experiences.

Transcript-Based Analysis

The researcher identified emergent themes by listening to the transcripts of the

focus group interviews, using field notes, and reviewing post-focus group notes. The
 56

researcher applied the constant comparative method to compare the views and

experiences of the participants. Using the constant comparative method allowed subtle

but potentially important differences to be illuminated (Barbour, 2001). Also, the

researcher analyzed the discussions for inconsistencies and contradictions to identify the

opinions, ideas, or feelings that repeat.

Trustworthiness of Results

While quantitative research relies on measures of reliability and validity to

evaluate the utility of a study, qualitative research is evaluated by its “trustworthiness.”

The researcher did several things to ensure that the results are trustworthy. In seminal

work in the 1980s, Guba and Lincoln substituted reliability and validity with the parallel

concept of “trustworthiness,” containing four aspects: (1) credibility, (2) transferability,

(3) dependability, and (4) confirmability. Specific methodological strategies for

demonstrating qualitative rigor, such as the audit trail, member checks when coding,

categorizing, or confirming results with participants, peer debriefing, negative case

analysis, structural corroboration, and referential material adequacy were within those

four aspects (Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Guba & Lincoln, 1982; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Credibility

Truth-value or credibility of conclusions in a qualitative study is analogous to the

concept of internal validity in quantitative research. According to Lincoln and Guba

(1985) and Miles and Huberman (1994), research results should be scrutinized according

to the following basic questions: (1) Do the conclusions make sense? (2) Do the

conclusions adequately describe the study participants’ perspectives? and (3) Do the
 57

conclusions authentically represent the phenomena under study? The researcher relied on

student participant checks to enhance credibility. I also relied on triangulation to enhance

credibility. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), triangulation is the corroboration of

results with alternative sources of data. I also obtained data from documents to provide a

background. The researcher examined these documents to help verify particular details

that participants supplied to enhance the credibility of this study’s results (Shenton,

2004).

Transferability

Transferability in qualitative studies is similar to the concept of external validity

in quantitative studies. It seeks to determine if the results can be transferred or related to

other contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The researcher sought

to enhance transferability by providing a thick, rich description of the contexts,

perspectives, and findings that encapsulated the student participants’ experiences. By

providing such detail (i.e., with the help of a detailed field log and journal) to draw a

well-defined context, the researcher affords readers the opportunity to decide whether or

not the results are transferable to other circumstances.

Dependability and Confirmability

Dependability in qualitative research is similar to the concept of reliability in

quantitative research. It refers to whether or not the results of a study are consistent over

time and across researchers (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Confirmability in qualitative research is similar to the concept of objectivity (Shenton,

2004). According to Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Shenton (2004), confirmability is the
 58

process of attesting that the data is supported and coherent. It assumes that the findings

are reflective of the participants’ perspectives based on the data, as opposed to being a

reflection of my own perceptions or bias.

To enhance the dependability and confirmability of this study, the researcher had

an inquiry audit conducted. The auditor examined documentation and a running account

of the process of this study. This person also examined the process of the inquiry and

determined its acceptability. In addition, the auditor examined the data, findings,

interpretations, and recommendations. Furthermore, the auditor attested that it is

supported by data and is internally coherent.

Limitations

As with any study, the data that were provided in this study need to be interpreted

within the context of certain limitations. The researched identified two limitations. First,

conducting the focus group meetings in English is one limitation in this study.

Participants in this study were non-native speakers of English. It was possible, because

English was not their first language, they experienced difficulty with sharing and

expressing their ideas in English that they would not have if the focus group meetings

were conducted in their native languages.

Second, another limitation is the setting for the focus group meetings. There is no

such thing as a “neutral” setting for a focus group. It is possible that the school setting

had an effect on the content of the data generated. Two focus group meetings took place

in a familiar ESL teacher’s large classroom, and the other meeting took place in an
 59

unfamiliar, small conference room. Factors such as the size of the room can affect the

focus group discussion (Fern, 2001).

Summary

In this chapter, the researcher described the methods and procedures that

comprised the research protocol utilized for this study. This chapter introduced and

described the overall research design protocol. The protocol addressed sampling

procedures, participant selection, data collection, and analysis procedures. In addition, the

researcher specified issues related to the trustworthiness of results and a limitation of the

findings.
 IV. Findings

This chapter presents the findings from the focus group meetings as they relate to

the following two research questions that guided this study:

1. What risk factors are present in high school English language learners’

academic and social lives?

2. Which protective factors do high school English language learners use to be

academically resilient?

The chapter consists of two main sections. First, participant profiles were created to

introduce the participants who shared their ideas and aided in this study. Also, a summary

of group characteristics is included. The second section presents themes as they emerged

from the data analysis of participants’ responses to the key research questions. In the last

part, emerging themes that the researcher observed are discussed.

Student Participant Profiles

As a result of the in-depth focus group meetings, document analyses, and the use

of a field journal, the following student participant profiles emerged. The profiles

represent a brief introduction to the English language learners who are successful in

school and provide a brief background picture of who they are. All participants selected

their own names to use during the focus group meetings. Some names had sentimental

60
 61

value to the participants, and others were spur-of-the-moment choices. Many of the

names that they selected were similar to their real names, which would make it easy to

identify them. In order to protect the identity of each participant, the researcher has

created fictitious names to replace the participants’ focus group meeting names.

1. Ammon, an assertive 15-year-old sophomore, is an Arabic-speaking level 4 student.

He started school when he was 6 years old and attended school in his home country of

Egypt for 4 years before coming to the United States. During the focus group

meeting, he often tried to aid other member’s with conveying their thoughts and

tended to try to dominate the conversation.

2. Arturo, a reflective 17-year-old junior, is a Spanish-speaking level 4 student. He

started school when he was 5 years old and attended school in his home country of El

Salvador for 8 years before coming to the United States. He maintained a laid back

demeanor during the entire focus group meeting and often appeared to think before he

spoke.

3. Faiza, a genial 16-year-old sophomore, is an Arabic-speaking level 1 student with a

speaking proficiency of level 2. She started school when she was 7 years old and

attended school in Egypt and in her home country of Sudan, where she attended

school for only a year. During the focus group meeting, she was attentive and eager to

share her ideas, even though she sometimes had difficulty expressing them in English.

4. Jahi, an affable 16-year-old junior, is an Arabic-speaking level 3 student who also

speaks some French. He started school when he was 4 years old and attended school

in his home country of Egypt for 11 years before coming to the United States. He was
 62

quite reflective and at times was truly passionate sharing his ideas during the focus

group meeting.

5. Miaya, a reserved 16-year-old sophomore, is a Nepali-speaking level 3 student. She

started school when she was 6 years old and could not recall how many years she

went to school in her home country of Nepal. At the beginning of the focus group

meeting, she discussed her ideas freely and with ease, but near the end of the meeting

she had difficulty conveying her ideas in English and her participation seemed to

wane.

6. Nabeeha, a down-to-earth 17-year-old sophomore, is an Arabic-speaking level 4

student. She started school when she was 5 years old and attended school in her home

country of Iraq for 6 years before coming to the United States. She was an active and

eager participant in the focus group meeting and noticeably uses the African

American Vernacular English dialect when speaking.

7. Thanh, a hesitant 15-year-old freshman, is a Vietnamese-speaking level 2 student.

She started school when she was 6 years old and attended school in her home country

of Vietnam for 9 years before coming to the United States. During the focus group

meeting, she was somewhat quiet and seemed distracted by my note-taking.

8. Valentina, a bubbly 16-year-old junior, is a Spanish-speaking level 3 student. She

started school when she was 4 years old and attended school in her home country of

Colombia for 12 years before coming to the United States. During the focus group

meeting, she conversed freely and seemed to really enjoy the opportunity to share her

ideas and listen to other group members’ ideas.

 63

9. Wafiq, an enthusiastic 15-year old sophomore, is an Arabic-speaking level 4 student.

He started school when he was 6 years old and attended school in Jordan for 6 years

before coming to the United States. He seemed to enjoy participating in the meeting

and was quite attentive to what other group members shared during the focus group

meeting.

Summary of Group Characteristics

This section presents more details regarding the characteristics of the participants

in this study. High school transcripts and student questionnaires (see Appendix C)

provided more background information and were used to aid the analysis of the data

gathered.

The student participants (a) were enrolled in a public high school, (b) had

completed a minimum of one year of high school in the United States, (c) were enrolled

in an ESL program, (d) had a World-class Instructional Design and Assessment

(WIDA® ) English language proficiency level of two or higher in speaking, (e) spoke

Spanish, Arabic, Vietnamese, or Nepali as their first language, and (f) successfully

completed four or more of their classes that they took during the 2012-2013 school year

with grades of “A,” “B,” or “C.”

Thematic Analysis

Data analysis procedures commenced once the interview data were converted

from digital voice recordings to transcribed texts. Data reduction began with the reading

and re-reading of the transcribed data. The themes began to emerge with the initial

reading of each transcript. Next, an open coding procedure was used to identify emergent
 64

themes. The four emergent themes developed as follows: 1) importance of learning

English, 2) maintaining and/or establishing positive relationships with parents, friends,

and teachers, 3) implementing good study habits, and 4) possessing inner qualities, such

as hope and resilience to be successful in school.

In addition to those themes, the data suggested the existence of patterns and

categories. These patterns and categories indicated that the students’ perceptions were

often two-fold: the perception of being successful required certain actions on their part as

well as the perception that they were unsuccessful in the past due to their own inaction.

These perceptions were obvious in their focus group discussions. The development of

themes as described by the participants provides thick descriptions of their perceptions of

protective factors that helped them be academically successful in high school along with

the risk factors that academically hindered them in the past.

The student participants used many resources to overcome their at-risk status of

being English language learners (ELLs) to be academically resilient. Throughout the

focus group meetings, the participants consistently shared that they often relied on

external protective factors (e.g., parents/relatives, teachers, and friends) as well as

internal protective factors (e.g., good study habits, will to learn English, and inner

qualities like being resilient). The pages that follow present perceptions expressed by the

participants and are the major findings and themes that emerged accordingly with each

research question.
 65

The participants’ quotes are written as they were spoken to capture their authentic

voices as English language learners. The quotes are presented in this fashion to afford the

reader an opportunity to draw on the reflection of thought given to each participant’s

responses.

Risk Factors

Focus group members reported that several risk factors were present in their

academic and social lives. Primarily, they discussed their lack of English language ability

and low expectations of teachers. They less often mentioned other possible risk factors

(e.g., the inability to form new relationships, stress, and their inattentiveness) that made

them academically unsuccessful in the past and caused them to implement changes.

Lack of English Language Skills

When asked about their first year in school in the United States, Ammon vividly

remembers learning a “new language.” Likewise, Arturo explained, “When I come to this

country, it was horrible, because I did not understand what other people say, and now, I

understand, and I can spoke another language.” He further elaborated that he spent his

first year and half of his second year really focusing on learning English. Valentina also

expressed having difficulty in her first year of school in the United States due to her lack

of English language skills. She stated the following:

Uh, well my first day was really horrible. I was really shy like to speak

English, but now I have changed, like now I can do it. So, I think that
 66

helped me ‘cause I try to study not just in the school—in my house or with

my friends….

When asked what prevented their success in class, Ammon immediately

answered, “um, the language.” Jahi promptly stated, “I agree with him.” Ammon further

expounded the necessity for ELLs to learn English, “because if you don’t know the

language, how will you know how to speak and how would you understand?” According

to Ammon, not knowing English and failing in school were interrelated. He matter-of-

factly reiterated, “Yeah, like if you don’t know the language, then you won’t try ‘cause

you won’t understand it.”

Similarly, Valentina shared her ideas about being unsuccessful in school by

saying that speaking English in front of others (i.e., oral presentations) was difficult. She

also mentioned the need to “try to be…expressive.” Valentina mentioned that she had

difficulty due to her shyness and said, “Yeah, ‘cause I’m shy...so if I’m talking in front of

the people, like many people, I used to freeze.” Nabeeha also shared her difficulty with

speaking English in front of her English-speaking peers: “Uh the first

presentation…yeah, it’s like the um it’s just so hard to present in front of all these people.

It’s like you going to get horror at times like it’s just so hard.” When asked to further

explain her fear of public speaking, she did not wholly attribute her fear to her lack of

English skills. She replied,

Not for me it’s not really (due to the language alone) maybe for some

people, because they be afraid that they laugh at them, but not for me. It

just that I’m scared. I don’t know. I’m just scared.

 67

Low Teacher Expectations

One focus group meeting revealed how teachers’ low expectations of students

who do not speak English very well may be a cause for their past failures. Ammon stated,

“Like if you’re new, then they don’t expect you to work hard.” Jahi agreed with

Ammon’s statement about teachers and stated, “They did not expect much. “ Ammon

went on to elaborate that with changes (e.g., improved English language skills, writing or

speaking better in English) teachers’ attitudes changed. He said, “Like when you stopped

writing mistake that made them happy.”

Other Risk Factors

The student participants mentioned several risk factors that were discussed during

their individual focus group meetings. However, these risk factors did not emerge across

the groups nor were they discussed in each of the groups. These themes include the

following: the inability to form positive relationships, stress, and inattentiveness.

The inability to form new relationships. Wafiq called attention to his inability

to form relationships with others as a possible hindrance to his past academic success. He

said that “not trying…to meet new people.” He felt that lack of motivation directly

contributed to his past failures.

Stress. Faiza also mentioned being stressed and having to take a quiz or test and

not doing well as a factor in past failures. She shared the following:

I feeling bad like I have something wrong in my life like this, and it scare

me, and I take a test or a quiz, and I get a zero. I scared to show my
 68

mother…my father; maybe, they will tell me, “Why you don’t understand?

Why you don’t do that?

Another member in the group nodded in agreement with Faiza’s previous statement.

Inattentiveness. “When you don’t pay attention to the teacher” is what Faiza

explained as a contributing factor that resulted in her past failure. Faiza was the only

focus group member to mention inattentiveness as a factor to her past failure.

Protective Factors

The high school ELLs in the focus groups used several protective factors to be

academically resilient. Their protective factors include the following: learning English,

establishing and maintaining positive relationships, establishing and implementing good

study habits, and possessing certain inner qualities.

Learning English

Members of all of the focus groups discussed the importance of learning English

and how it is essential to their academic success, particularly in their content area classes.

Thanh noted with both Faiza and Miaya firmly agreeing with her, “We need to learn

more English. It’s like every subject is English.” When asked about the changes that they

made to increase their English language skills, some participants mentioned speaking

with native English-speaking people and not speaking their native language as much.

More specifically, Valentina said, “Em, speaking with American people, and eh, try to

speak like frequently English not too much my own language.” She also laughingly

mentioned, “Eh, do not be shy speaking English.” Nabeeha agreed with the need to learn

and use more English and stated the following: “Uh, I be like talking and don’t be afraid.
 69

And I be playing with friends so that I can learn and know about them and try to learn

English.” Miaya also stated that “to learn English…” was one of the things that she

changed to be more successful in school.

Establishing and Maintaining Positive Relationships

Students in all three focus groups discussed the important role that others play in

their success in school. Several themes emerged from the analyses of the discussions. The

main themes that emerged from the discussion centered on their positive relationships

with their parents or relatives, teachers, friends, and other people.

Parents, relatives, and other people. In every focus group meeting, the

participants discussed the importance of the role that their parents, relatives, and other

people play in their success in school. Wafiq shared how he gets assistance from his

parents. He said, “I ask them for help.” Jahi explained that his father is the reason why

tries to succeed in school. He said, “My father was successful in school. So, I’ve got to

do what he did.” Jahi also said, “My father just says, you know what you have to do.” He

explained that his father encourages him to do well in school. Miaya shared that her

mother inspires her to do well. She stated that “she challenge me to do to make a future.

She wants to make me nurse.”

When Valentina first arrived, she stated that her parents helped to increase her

English language proficiency by exposing her to more English instead of her native

language. She explained, “...they try to show me just like more listen English and music.

They don’t let me like to speak Spanish like just for the first year.” She also expressed
 70

how she has a cousin who helps her with English. She said, “My cousin...yeah she lived

here for many years like 18 years, uh, she helped me a lot to speak English.”

Nabeeha mentioned multiple people who have helped her be successful in school.

She shared that her parents also encourage her to do well in school. As she explained,

“…they push me forward ‘cause they say um you can do it, because I really believed I

couldn’t do [sic]. So, they told me that I could do it.” She also stated that a family friend

inspired her to do well, too. “And my dad’s friend, he’s American. He’s like the first

person we know. So, he pushed me forward. He’s like if you go to school, you’ve got to

make friends, and you can do it.” Her older brother was a great help to her as well. She

expressed that her brother knew English and encouraged her when he told her “we’re

going to learn English together.”

Thanh shared that her family has future goals of being better off economically and

encourages her to do better in school. She said, “…when we come here, we have no

money, no place, so I want my family is going better.” She shared her father’s advice for

her by stating the following:

My dad say that I need to be like my aunt and uncle. They have a good

job. I want to, because I want to my family don’t want to be like that. My

family is have some like is not good now.

Faiza also discussed how her parents encourage her to do well and plan for her future.

She said the following:

My mother, they will say to me like work very hard in school, like they

want me to do a good future in my life and something like that. Be maybe

 71

a doctor. They say to me study hard and do the work something like that.

My sisters, my brother, my aunt and my uncle...they say to me also.

Faiza shared how praise from people in general helps her do better. She stated,

“It’s like you feel so happy or something like that. If someone say to you that you

are doing well in school, like you feeling happy and you gonna do the best and the

best.” Thanh agreed by saying, “It’s like people feel like it make me happy and

then it make me feel I do my best in my subject.”

Teachers. Participants in two of the focus group meetings discussed the role that

their teachers played in their success; however, students in one focus group did not

mention their teachers at all. Jahi described his first day of going to school in the United

States as “horrible.” However, he elaborates on “the second day, I get closer to my my

teachers and friends and that helped me.” He also shared how his teachers treated him

was important to his success. He described his English as a second language (ESL)

teacher as “very kind.” Jahi said, “He can talk to new students. Other teachers, they think

that I’m stupid.”

Valentina mentioned her ESL teacher. She explained, “She was my ESL 1

teacher, and she helped me a lot. Like reading books.” Nabeeha excitedly talked about

her former teachers and how they helped her feel more comfortable doing oral

presentations. “Well, my seventh-grade teacher. She like...she really want me like to

present, because I was really afraid to go out and present.” Nabeeha shared that her

teacher taught English and math and gave them assignments that helped improve their

English language skills. She stated, “Uh, she just um like, she always give us homework
 72

and to do it and give us like always she give us an essay to go write it and go out to

present it. Nabeeha also mentioned her ESL teacher from last year. She shared, “She

like...she really teached me stuff.”

Wafiq also spoke highly of his teachers and shared that they were most important

to his success in school. He said that “teachers...especially ESL teachers” were

particularly helpful. He acknowledged that “they know that we don’t speak English very

well.” Arturo agreed by saying, “And they can help us. They help us a lot because they

know that uh English is not our first language. That’s what I think.” Ammon agreed with

the others about the importance of teachers, but he noted that friends were important, too.

Nabeeha expressed the same opinion as Ammon. She shared that her first day went well.

My day was like really good ‘cause all my friends was like I don’t really

know them, but they just helped me, the teacher helped me to get through

it. Like she teached me how to speak English really good. So, it was good.

Friends. The importance of having friends was discussed in each of the focus

group meetings. According to Ammon, teachers along “good friends” were most

important to his success. He explained that “good friends” were “smart and intelligent.”

When asked about changes that they made to be more successful in school, Wafiq

gladly volunteered that he “made new friends that speaks English.” Wafiq also stated that

he “makes friends that know the same language, but they know English, too, so that they

can help.” Ammon added to the discussion by saying, “I got close to new friends, and

they taught me English. He further explained that his friends “learned English” like him

(i.e., his friends were also ELLs).

 73

Valentina also mentioned how her friends play a role in her academic success and

noted a difference between her American and Spanish friends. She shared, “Like, I have

Spanish friends and American people, but my Spanish friends; they they try like to study

with me.” Likewise, Thanh communicated the need to make friends and explained that

she sometimes seeks assistance from her Vietnamese-speaking friends. She stated, “I just

like want to find some friends. Uh, it’s like same my age, same like, uh, my country.

When I have some problems, I can ask for [sic]. She will say in Vietnamese for me so I

can [sic].” Furthermore, Faiza discussed making friends with ELLs. She said “to have the

best grade, you have to make friends or help you something like that...I have friends that

speak Arabic like me. And I have a friend that speaks Spanish, Nepali, and English.” She

also noted how friends could be helpful in her content area classes. She said, “I will say

that I want to make friends to help me, but I uh like help in the hard class like World

History, like Algebra….”

Establishing and Implementing Good Study Habits

The importance of establishing and implementing good study habits was

discussed in all of the focus group meetings. When asked to describe a successful student,

the participants immediately described people who possess good study habits (e.g.,

studying, being organized, paying attention, performing well on assignments, etc.).

Ammon provided the following description: “Someone uh studying really hard, doing

their work and studying before for getting a quiz or a test.” Later on during the

discussion, he reiterated the necessity of reviewing notes and described what he does, “I

get all my notebooks in every class and go over them.”

 74

Arturo simply describe someone who is academically successful as “paying

attention in the classes and that’s all.” Likewise, Thanh said, “Pay attention. Try to do my

homework and classwork very well.” After reflecting during the focus group meeting,

Arturo added that a successful student has to “be the best…with good grades.” He

continued, “You have to say, uh, all the answer...like the right answer and you have to

study hard....” Valentina shared similar ideas about a successful student and said, “Try to

be the best student. Uh, study hard like getting good grades.” Furthermore, Nabeeha

agreed with Valentina’s ideas. She stated, “I go with her idea...it’s like a person who like

really smart and try their hard to get like out of high school to go to college.”

Nabeeha described what she does to be successful, “Like I work hard and study

after school and try to work with other people who is from other countries.” She further

explained how to reach goals and be successful. She said, “Work hard. Um, if you want

to succeed, you need to work hard so that you can get to your goal. So it is like the key to

success is to like work hard to get to your dream.” Ammon, Valentina, Thanh, and Miaya

also agreed that “working hard” was essential to their success.

Possessing Certain Inner or External Qualities

All focus groups shared and attributed their academic success to inner qualities

unique to themselves as individuals. The most commonly mentioned internal protector

factor was their strong interpersonal skills. Internal factors like internal locus of control

and strong self-efficacy skills were less commonly discussed qualities. A few student

participants mentioned other factors, such as good luck (i.e., an external factor) and

innate characteristics like being talented, intelligent, or clever.

 75

Strong interpersonal skills. Student participants in all three focus group

meetings discussed the importance of having strong interpersonal skills or skills they

used to interact with other people to help them build school-based relationships. In order

to get to know others and form positive relationships, Arturo said that “your personality”

should be “a good one.”

Thanh, Faiza, and Valentina mentioned the benefits of possessing a collectivistic

personality and being friendly and kind to other students. Thanh expressed, “It’s like I

need to be friendly, share things, and like [sic] ask them to help me in English and that’s

it.” Faiza shared how she approaches other students who she would like to get to know,

“Like first thing…I asked them about their name. They asked me, and where are they

from, something like that.” Valentina described how her friendliness to others helps her

individually. She explained why one needed to “be friendly ‘cause if you are friendly

with other people, people will help you.”

Nabeeha expressed that she enjoyed working collaboratively. She explained her

reasoning below:

Uh, my personality, it just make me like I don’t like when the teacher tell

me to work by myself. I really don’t like it. I like to work with different

people so I can like get the idea, so I can get it.

Valentina agreed with Nabeeha and expounded that she likes to share and work with

others as follows:

Yeah, it’s like the same thing, ‘cause I like to share so I think that it help

me ‘cause I wanted to speak with people in English and also the same
 76

thing that I’m hard with myself like I want to do the right thing like if I

want to learn English I do it so that helps me.

Strong self-efficacy skills. Valentina and Jahi shared their beliefs in their own

abilities to be successful in school or self-efficacy. Jahi described a successful student’s

attitude by sharing, “He has to say he can…Yeah, like uh Thomas Edison when he failed

many times like after 99 times; finally, he succeeded.” Valentina discussed the pressure

that she places on herself to be successful in school. She said,

Eh, I try to be hard with myself ‘cause like when I have a goal in my mind

I try to like do it right. So I like to do the right things and I like to just live

like that now. I try to be hard with myself like study...yeah.

Internal locus of control. Jahi was the only student who mentioned

determination and hope or described an internal locus of control (i.e., the belief that life

events can be influenced by one’s attitude, preparation, or attitude) to be successful in

school. He further explained why “hope” was important to helping him make changes.

He said, “Hope. I always say hope. I always say that because sometimes I will not find

my teachers again in my life. So, I have to have hope.” For him, hope is something that

aids him with his “determination to be good to get to the top….”

Other protective factors. Arturo expressed that a successful student “has to say

his opinion or something like that.” Jahi also shared his thoughts of a successful student.

He said, “…he has to good luck in school.” In addition, Miaya described a successful

student as someone who is “talented,” “cleaver,” and “intelligent.”

 77

Emerging Themes

Choosing to Be Academically Resilient

It was clear that students in all of the focus groups experienced both success and

failure while enrolled in U.S. high school and chose to be more academically resilient in

school. Regardless of what caused their past failure, the students took ownership of their

shortcomings (e.g., lack of English language skills, not taking the initiative to form

relationships with their teachers and other students, etc.) and did not blame others for

their failure. Therefore, they consciously decided on a course of action to change their

behavior to be more successful, especially after reflecting (i.e., albeit unconsciously or

consciously) and finding out some of the root causes of their failures.

Based on the findings, a student’s choice of resilience to promote his or her own

success was apparent. According to Jahi, a successful student has to “say he can.” He

went on to explain how a person should never give up, “Yeah, like uh, Thomas Edison

when he failed many times. Like after 99 times finally he succeeded.” Nabeeha

mentioned that a successful student is “really smart and try their hard to get like out of

high school to go to college.” Thanh and Faiza mentioned the need to “work hard.”

Ammon discussed how his parents set an example that he wanted to follow to be

successful. He said, “My father was successful in school. So, I’ve got to do what he did.”

Valentina echoed the same sentiments and shared that a successful student “should try to

be the best.” Jahi’s statement best summarizes this theme with his description of a

successful student’s “hope.” He described what “hope” means to him, “I have the

determination to be good to get to the top.”

 78

Actively Seeking Sources of Help

During all focus group meetings, the student participants acknowledged that they

needed help and could not be successful alone or without the help of others. As a result,

they actively sought others who could help them be more successful. The students

possessed the ability to know when they needed help and to ask for it. Teachers, parents,

relatives, friends, and other students were those from whom they oftentimes sought help.

Also, it did not matter if the people were native and nonnative English speakers. The

students were resourceful in seeking help from anyone that they felt would be able to

help them. In addition, many students mentioned that it was a collectivistic relationship in

which they shared information and garnered information from the people who helped

them, especially their friends and other students.

The findings revealed that students sought help from multiple sources. Faiza

mentioned how she made friends with the specific purpose of getting help with difficult

classes. “I want to make friends to help me, but I uh like help in the hard class like World

History, like Algebra….” Thanh reiterated her idea of forming friends for the explicit

purpose of getting help, too. She said the following:

I just like want to find some friends, uh, it’s like same my age, same like, uh, my

country. When I have some problems, I can ask for and she will say in

Vietnamese for me so I can understand….

Faiza also mentioned seeking help from her teachers, “If you don’t understand something

in class, ask a teacher.” Wafiq stated that “teachers…especially ESL teachers” were

resourceful. He explained, “They know that we don’t speak English very well.” Arturo
 79

agreed and further explained, “They help us a lot, because they know that, uh, English is

not our first language. That’s what I think.” “My teachers, my friends, my parents,” is

how Jahi summarized who he seeks help from to be successful in school.

Summary

This chapter included data analysis procedures as well as student participant

profiles to allow readers a characterization of the participants who took part in this study.

It also included a presentation of findings that were drawn from the analysis of data.

Those findings revealed that several risk factors such as lack of English language ability,

low expectations of teachers, inability to form new relationships, stress, and

inattentiveness prevented students from being successful. In addition, the students

discussed how several protective factors like learning English, establishing and

maintaining positive relationships, establishing and implementing good study habits, and

possessing certain inner qualities helped them be academically resilient. Last, two themes

emerged from the findings. They were students (1) choosing to be academically resilient

and (2) actively seeking sources of help.

 V. Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter begins with a restatement of the purpose of this study and the key

research questions. Next, a discussion of the significant findings their relationship to the

agentic theory and the literature is presented. Also, implications and recommendations

for practice, especially for secondary educators, are suggested. Last, recommendations

for future research are included.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore the risk factors that English language

learners (ELLs) experience in high school and discover which protective factors those

ELLs use to be academically resilient. Based on the key research questions, the

researcher considered how the students negotiate the identified risk factors and use the

identified protective factors to succeed academically. To achieve this purpose, focus

group meetings were held with academically resilient students who were English

language learners in high school. The focus group guide questions were designed to

answer the essential questions that guided this qualitative study.

Research Questions

Two essential research questions guided this study. Those questions are as follows:

1. What risk factors are present in high school English language learners’

academic and social lives?

80
 81

2. Which protective factors do high school English language learners use to be

academically resilient?

Discussions of Findings and Research

The review of literature for this study consisted of three sections as follows: the

agentic model and concept of agency, risk factors, and protective factors as they relate to

academic resilience. These discussions relate the findings of the study to each of the

areas. This section is organized around the literature, study findings, and new information

not found in the literature.

The Concept of Agency and the Agentic Model

Based on Gidden’s (1979) notion of the “acting subject” possessing foundational

agency as a “continuous flow of conduct” (p. 2), the Agentic Model was the theoretical

framework that guided this study. The concept of agency as described by Giddens (1979)

involves “intervention in a potentially malleable object world” (p. 56) and refers to a

“continuous flow of conduct” (p. 55) as opposed to separate actions or a series of separate

actions. More specifically, Giddens explained the role of what he termed the acting

subject involved in action or agency or the choice of the agent at any point in time to

decide between available courses of action called foundational agency.

His theory also posits the idea of the intentionality feature of human behavior,

which means that the acting subject consciously has definite goals in mind during the

course of action. It also implies that intentional monitoring of action follows rather than

precedes the action and motivation to act or what he termed the reflexive monitoring of

action. He states that the ability to reflexively monitor action occurs due to the
 82

“capabilities of human agents to explain why they act as they do by giving reasons for

their conduct” (p. 57).

The data from this study revealed that the student participants demonstrated

foundational agency as evidenced by their focus group discussions that centered on how

they made choices or actively decided to change their habits to be more successful in

school. Students did not describe separate actions as helping them become more

successful in school. Instead, they mentioned several external as well as internal

protective factors. They also shared that certain behaviors or risk factors negatively

impacted their academic success and described how they made changes to get positive

results. In addition, when the students discussed their goal to be more successful in

school, it was clear that they demonstrated reflexive monitoring of action. The students

were able to articulate as ELLs and give reasons that explained why they changed their

behavior to be more successful in school.

Based on the findings of this study, the researcher created Figure 4 to depict the

cyclical nature of agency as it relates to academic resilience. As noted in Figure 4, agency

or the student’s ability to make a choice regarding failing or being resilient and

succumbing to risk factors or using protective factors is central to the agentic cycle of

academic resilience. A student who employs agency uses protective factors to be

academically resilient as evidenced in the findings of this study. Figure 4 also shows that

a student may be faced with risk factors that could result in failure or the use of protective

factors through one’s agency. Based on the findings of this study, students discussed their

constant negotiation between assessing their situations (e.g., risk factors or failure) and
 83

implementing a plan of action via the use of protective factors to avoid failure or

overcome it to be academically resilient.

Figure 4. Abrams-Terry’s Agentic Cycle of Academic Resilience.

The agentic model also takes into account the agency presented to the students

within discursive situations created by school and home. The data revealed that the

discursive situations of the students in the study were discussed in the form of support

structures. The support structures mentioned by the students include family, friends, and

teachers and were the external protective factors that students use to be academically

resilient. However, the student participants did not discuss protective factors such as

community and religious organizations and employment that are mentioned in the

literature (Garmezy; 1985, 1991).

 84

The ELLs in the focus groups were quite aware of their academic standing and

took many actions to rectify or maintain their success. They were able to gauge when

something was not working and figured out what they needed to do to try to make it

work. All the while, they may not have been able to articulate this process in English very

well, but they were aware.

Risk Factors

The student participants in this study identified and shared their ideas about

several risk factors (e.g., not possessing good study habits, strong oral presentation skills,

lack of English language skills, etc.) that were included in the literature. During the focus

group meetings, the students failed to discuss some risk factors (e.g., community and peer

risk factors) that are found throughout the literature. On the other hand, the findings

revealed that teachers’ low expectations were a risk factors; one not discussed in the

literature on ELLs and academic resilience.

Reyes and Jason (1993) suggested that the successful students were better able to

conform to the school’s rules and procedures, which facilitated a greater sense of

satisfaction with their school. The findings from this study show how students were able

to conform to the school’s procedures. Based on the focus group discussions, students

mentioned the need for improving their study habits, reviewing their notes, and

organizing their notebooks to be more successful, particularly in their content area

classes.

According to Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, and Torodova’s (2008) study,

English language proficiency levels and behavioral engagement were the greatest
 85

predictors of grade point average (GPA). They found that students who possessed

stronger English skills were more likely to earn better grades. This study included

students who had one year of high school which made it impossible to track their GPA

over several years. However, the findings of this study revealed that the students’ lack of

English skills was the most discussed risk factor in all of the focus group meetings. The

students definitely realized that increasing their English skills was essential to their

academic success.

Perez et al. (2009) concluded that academic success or resilience was related to

both personal and environmental resources. They also found that academic performance

was generally positive when various resources were available. The students in this study

attributed their success to personal and environmental resources. The findings suggested

that they preferred to seek help from people like their teachers, parents, and friends.

Based on the focus group discussion, the students oftentimes sought the resources on

their own.

Durlak (1998) identified several risk factors that often are associated with major

negative outcomes, including school failure. The risk factors were characterized into the

following six groups: community, school, peer, family, individual, and other. Based on

findings from this study, the students mentioned most of the risk factors as having

contributed to their past academic failure. However, even after probing, the risk factors of

community, family, and peer never emerged as possible causes of failure for the students

in this study.
 86

An additional risk factor not explicitly addressed by literature on ELLs and

resilience that emerged from the findings of this study is teachers’ low expectations. Two

student participants discussed how teachers did not expect much of them academically

when they first arrived in the U.S. One student stated when comparing his understanding

ESL teacher with other teachers, “Other teachers they think that I’m stupid.” Another

member in the same focus group shared at a later time in the discussion that he felt that

teachers do not expect much from newcomers. He said, “Like if you’re new then they

don’t expect you to work hard.” These students’ statements further iterate how teachers

who have low expectations or do not think ELLs can perform in their classes can possibly

negatively impact these students’ academic success.

Trauma and ELLs

Although trauma was not specifically addressed as one of the risk factors that

ELLs encountered in this study, the researcher feels that it is important to note. Some

ELLs, who represent all levels of the literacy spectrum, have experienced significant

trauma (e.g., wars, natural disasters, dramatic poverty, or other major impacting stressors)

in their lives (Zacharian & Hayes, 2012). Zacarian and Haynes (2012) note that “trauma

is an integral part of their lives and deeply affects their capacity to learn and develop

socially and emotionally in the way that students do when they have not experienced

these disruptions.” Therefore, their traumatic experiences may add to the increased

complexity of them being academically resilient in school.

 87

Protective Factors

The student participants in this study identified and discussed their ideas about

several protective factors (e.g., increasing their English language proficiency, reaching

out to others like teachers, parents, and students, etc.) that were included in the literature.

During the focus group meetings, the students failed to discuss some protective factors

(e.g., religious and community organizations) that are found throughout the literature.

However, the fact that the participants primary focus on protective factors revealed the

value and importance to their academic success in high school.

Garmezy (1985 & 1991) identified protective factors which may be operative in

stressful life situations, the presence of some caring adult, and the presence of a source of

external support. Based on the findings of this study, the students discussed how they

reacted to new situations that included being in a U.S. school, unable to speak English

well, and not having many friends. They also primarily discussed how they modified the

stressor of lack of English language skills, sought the assistance of a caring adult (e.g., a

parent or relative), and received external support from teachers, especially their ESL

teachers.

Waxman, Gray, and Padrón (2003) noted that definitions of academic resilience

as they relate to the broader educational community are often based on the positive

experiences associated with positive adaptation. These experiences include forming and

maintaining significant relationships, holding positive school perceptions, and increased

school involvement. The student participants discussed the importance of establishing

and maintaining positive relationships with their teachers, held positive perceptions about
 88

school despite past failures and low expectations from some teachers. However, the

students in the focus groups did not discuss their involvement in school activities like

sports or clubs. However, they consistently reported that they were attentive, focused, and

worked hard on being engaged during school.

Olsson, Bond, Burns, Vella-Brodrick, and Sawyer (2003) described resilience as a

dynamic process that involves an interaction between both risk and protective factors,

internal and external to the individual, that act to modify the effects of an adverse life

event. Based on the findings of this study, this dynamic process of risk and protective

factors interacting is confirmed. The students in all of the focus group meetings identified

and discussed how lacking English language skills was a risk factor. They also stated that

increasing their English language skills was a protective factor that they used to be

successful in school. In addition, their discussion about not forming relationships (i.e.,

risk factor) and the need to form relationships (i.e., protective factor) demonstrated this

dynamic process.

Alva (1991) concluded that protective factors contributed to students’ academic

achievement and were more important than the potentially detrimental effects of

sociocultural risk factors on students’ academic performance. She stated that

academically successful students were more likely to feel encouraged and prepared to

attend college, enjoy attending school and being involved in school activities, experience

fewer conflicts and difficulties in their interpersonal relationships with other students, and

experience fewer family conflicts and difficulties. Based on the findings, the students in

all of the focus groups named their positive relationships with parents, teachers, and
 89

friends as the most important to their success. Due to their positive feelings about school

and their academic success, some students even mentioned their future career plans and

goals of furthering their education after high school during the focus group meetings.

Similarly, Gonzalez and Padilla (1997) found that resilient students have

significantly higher perceptions of family and peer support, teacher feedback, positive

ties to school, value placed on school, peer belonging, and familism than non-resilient

students. The findings from this study reiterated their findings. The students were quite

receptive to their teachers' and parents' feedback and expectations as well as other

students’ thoughts (i.e., both positive and negative).

To this group of student participants, people (e.g., parents, teachers, friends, and

relatives) as well as themselves as individuals played the most important role to their

success in school. They were able to reflect on their academic and social lives. They also

were able to navigate the educational system in a limited way (i.e., they knew with whom

they needed to form relationships and what they needed to do in a basic sense) to be

academically resilient.

Recommendations for Practice

In an effort to address the contributions of this study, the findings give needed

background information to secondary educators of ELLs. Results based on this study

indicate several important recommendations for ways in which educators can better meet

the academic and social needs of ELLs.

Based on the findings of this study as they relate to the theoretical framework,

educators should respect and value students' assessments of their own academic and
 90

social needs. Their actions would include allowing students to discover their learning

styles and openly share their academic concerns as well as helping students with goal

setting, self-reflection activities, etc. It also would mean that educators would need to

provide opportunities to support or guide students once the students determine what

changes they need to make to be more successful in school.

Another recommendation is based on the students’ central discussion of not

knowing enough English as a risk factor to being academically resilient. Some ELLs may

need more language support than what they currently receive, especially as newcomers to

the United States. In all of the focus groups, the students mentioned their lack of English

language skills as a major cause of their past failure. As a result, educators could consider

providing more language support for newcomers by providing quality ESL programs,

writing centers to help with their English literacy skills, and tutoring, regardless of their

English language proficiency level.

Due to the findings regarding the multiple protective factors that the students

discussed, there are many recommendations that could be made. First, educators could

seek to include and build upon parent-school and teacher-student relationships by

implementing more inclusive parent involvement opportunities for ESL families and

establishing effective teacher-student mentoring programs. Likewise, they could

encourage and provide ways for students to form relationships with others through

school-based programs (e.g., clubs and peer helper programs to help students develop

themselves academically and socially).

 91

Second, educators could foster and continue to support the growth of the students’

academic skills by providing students with additional opportunities to hone their study

skills, get in touch with or meet other students (i.e., both ELLs and native speakers).

Also, based on the findings, it may be advantageous to find ways for students to become

more involved with community-based services and programs (e.g., religious

organizations and community sports leagues).

Last, educators should stress the importance of holding all students to high

standards, regardless of the students’ English language proficiency levels. The students in

this study were quite aware of those teachers who had little to no expectations of them

because of their low English language proficiency.

Recommendations for Research

Based on the agency theory, one area to research would involve how to make

students more aware of their agency and ability to exact change in their academic and

social lives. Also, it may prove fruitful to explore effective ways to motivate students to

make changes to be more successful after facing academic failure.

For the students in this study, lack of English skills was discussed as a primary

risk factor that prevented them from being academically resilient. Further research should

be done to find out what type of on-going language support ELLs would benefit most

from, particularly if they already have a higher proficiency level of English. In addition,

it would be advantageous to conduct focus group studies which explore the risk factor of

trauma as it specifically relates to ELLs. Furthermore, it would be useful to explore the

 92

risk factors and protective factors experienced by groups of students who experienced

trauma and compare them to students who did not.

Based on the findings regarding protective factors, it would be beneficial to

explore how ELLs select and use their personal resources to be successful as another

possible area to research. The students had rich discussions about the external and

internal protective factors that were instrumental to ensuring their success in high school.

Conclusions

The use of qualitative methodology was beneficial to exploring the perceptions of

the student participants’ experience with failure due to risk factors and success via

protective factors. Focus group meetings were conducted with the student participants of

the study, and a semi-structured discussion guide was used to encourage the students to

explore their perceptions of academic failure and success as it relates to them as

individuals.

The thoughtful and rich discussions of the students produced an increased

awareness of how they became more successful in high school, even as English language

learners. They describe times when they failed and provided honest, thoughtful, and

introspective reasons for their failure. They also happily discussed their success and

shared their ideas on how they were able to overcome their past failures.

In an effort to understand how some ELLs overcome failure to be academically

resilient in high school, it is important to appropriately assess and see the value that

protective factors hold for individual students, particularly as it relates to their academic

and social lives. The conclusions of this study resulted in a deeper, more comprehensive
 93

understanding of what some ELLs want and need to be successful in school. The findings

may help to explore instructional and programmatic practices that encourage excellence

in academics for all students regardless of their English language abilities.

 94

List of References

Alva, S. A. (1991). Academic invulnerability among Mexican-American students: The

importance of protective resources and appraisals. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

Sciences, 13(1), 18-34.

Arrington, E. G., & Wilson, M. N. (2000). A re-examination of risk and resilience during

adolescence: Incorporating culture and diversity. Journal of Child and Family

Studies, 9(2), 221-230.

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., et al. (2011). The

Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of

the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 322(7294), 1115-1117.

Barbour, R. S. (2007). Doing focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barbour, R. S. (2008). Introducing qualitative research: A student’s guide to the craft of

doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Benard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school,

and community. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research

and Development. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 335781).

 95

Benard, B. (1993). Fostering resiliency in kids. Educational Leadership, 51(3), 44-48.

Benard, B. (1995). Fostering resilience in children. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on

Elementary and Early Childhood Education. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED

386327).

Bilingual Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. (1968).

Bosworth, K., & Earthman, E. (2002). From theory to practice: School leaders’

perspectives on resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(3), 299-306.

Cal. Ed. Code § 1010, 300-340. (1998).

Center for Applied Linguistics. (2014). Assessing comprehension and communication in

English state-to-state (ACCESS) for English language learners. Retrieved from

http://www.cal.org/wida/projects/index.html#accessells

Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1964).

Clarke, A. D. B., & Clarke, A. M. (1984). Constancy and change in the growth of human

characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25, 191-210.

Code of Virginia - Virginia Standards of Quality. Virg. Leg. Code ch. 714, § 22.1-

253.13:1-2. 19 March 2003. Retrieved from http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-

bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+TOC22010000013000020000000

Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety.

Clevedon, Great Britain: Multilingual Matters.

Durlak, J. A. (1998). Common risk and protective factors in successful prevention

programs. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(4), 512-520.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2001).

 96

Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 20 USC § 1701 et seq. (1974).

Fern, E. F. (2001). Advanced focus group research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress-resistant children: The search for protective factors. In J. E.

Stevenson (Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychopathology (pp. 213-

233). New York: Pergamon.

Garmezy, N. (1990). A closing note: Reflections on the future. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten,

D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective

factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 527-534). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes

associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34(4), 416-430.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and

contradiction in social analysis. Los Angeles: University of California.

Gleason, P., & Dynarski, M. (2002). Do we know whom to serve? Issues in using risk

factors to identify dropouts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,

7(1), 25-41.

Gonzalez, R., & Padilla, A. M. (1997). The academic resilience of Mexican American

high school students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19(3), 301-317.

Grudens-Schuck, N., Allen, B. L., & Larson, K. (2004). Focus group fundamentals

(Methodology Brief No. PM 1969B). Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University

Extension.
 97

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of

evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of

naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30(4),

233-252.

Herrman, H., Stewart, D. E., Diaz-Granados, N., Berger, E. L., Jackson, B., & Yuen, T.

(2011). What is resilience? The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56(5), 258-265.

Hersi, A. A. (2011). Immigration and resiliency: Unpacking the experiences of high

school students from Cape Verde and Ethiopia. Intercultural Education, 22(3),

189-202.

Howard, S., & Johnson, B. (2000). What makes a difference? Children and teachers talk

about resilient outcomes for children ‘at risk’. Educational Studies, 26(3), 321-

337.

Johnson, J. L., & Wiechelt, S. A. (2004). Introduction to the special issue on resilience.

Substance Use & Misuse, 39(5), 657-670.

Krueger, R. A. (1993). Quality control in focus group research. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.).

Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 65-85). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Krueger, R. A. (1998). Developing questions for focus groups (Focus Group Kit, Book

3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 98

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied

research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Luthar, S. S. (Ed.). (2003). Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of

childhood adversities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical

evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543-562.

Luthar, S. S., & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review of research on

resilience in childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(1), 6-22.

Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and

educational correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in Schools,

43(3), 267-281.

Masten, A. S. (1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation

despite risk and adversity. In M. Wang & E. Gordon (Eds.), Risk and resilience in

inner city America: Challenges and prospects (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erbaum.

Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development:

Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development

and Psychopathology, 2(4), 425-444.

Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth , J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable

and unfavorable environments. American Psychologist, 53(2), 205-220.

 99

Masten, A. S., Herbers, J. E., Cutuli, J. J., & Lafavor, T. L. (2008). Promoting

competence and resilience in the school context. Professional School Counseling,

12(2), 76-84.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morgan, D. L. (1998). The focus group guidebook (Focus Group Kit, Book 1). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2007). ELL demographics by

state. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of English

Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2011). The growing numbers

of English learner students. Retrieved from

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/publications

Olsson, C. A., Bond, L., Burns, J. M., Vella-Brodrick, D. A., & Sawyer, S. M. (2003).

Adolescent resilience: A concept analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 26(1), 1-11.

Oswald, M., Johnson, B., & Howard, S. (2003). Quantifying and evaluating resilience-

promoting factors: Teachers’ beliefs and perceived roles. Research in Education,

70, 50-64.

Perez, W., Espinoza, R., Ramos, K., Coronado, H. M., & Cortes, R. (2009). Academic

resilience among undocumented Latino students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

Sciences. 31(2), 148-181.

 100

Plunkett, S. W., Henry, C. S., Houltberg, B. J., Sands, T., & Abarca-Mortensen, S.

(2008). Academic support by significant others and educational resilience in

Mexican-origin ninth grade students from intact families. The Journal of Early

Adolescence, 28(3), 333-355.

Regulations for Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia. Virg.

Admin. Code 8 VAC 20-131-30(g). Retrieved from http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-

bin/legp604.exe?000+reg+8VAC20-131-30

Reyes, O., & Jason, L. A. (1993). Pilot study examining factors associated with academic

success for Hispanic high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,

22(1), 57–71.

Rumberger, R. W., (2007). Early predictors of high school graduation and dropout

(Statistical Brief 3). Santa Barbara, CA: California Dropout Research Project,

University of California, Santa Barbara. Retrieved from

http://www.cdrp.ucsb.edu/pubs_statbriefs.htm

Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In J. Rolf, A. S.

Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and

protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 184-214). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75.

Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus groups: Theory and

practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 101

Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1988). Bilingual Education Act: Twenty years later. Retrieved

from http://www.ncela.us/files/rcd/BE021037/Fall88_6.pdf

Suárez-Orozco, C., Suárez-Orozco, M. M., & Torodova, I. (2008). Learning a new land:

Immigrant students in American society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Children who speak another language other than English at

home by region. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/education.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). National Center for Education Statistics, Common

Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey”,

2009-10 Version 1a; and “Local Education Agency Universe Survey”, 2009-10,

Version 1a; and “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary

Education”, 2009-10, Version 1a. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/index.asp

Virginia Department of Education. (2012). English as a second language (ESL): Data

and reports. Retrieved from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/esl/data_reports/index.shtml

Virginia Department of Education. (2013). Limited English proficient (LEP) students

enrollment. Retrieved from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/title3/index.shtml

Virginia Department of Education. (2013). LEP population by language. Retrieved from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/title3/toolkit/population_by_l

anguage.pdf
 102

Virginia Department of Education. (2014). Limited English proficient population by

language by division. Retrieved from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/title3/toolkit/enrollment_lep.p

df

Virg. Leg. Code ch. 254, §1.1. 8 April 2010. Retrieved from http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-

bin/legp604.exe?101+ful+CHAP0254

Virg. Leg. Code ch. 488, §1.1. 27 March 2009. Retrieved from http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-

bin/legp604.exe?091+ful+CHAP0488

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). Synthesis of research: What helps

students learn? Educational Leadership, 51(4), 74-79.

Waxman, H. C., Gray, J. P., & Padrón, Y. N. (2003). Review of research on educational

resilience (Research Report No. 11). Berkeley, CA: Center for Research on

Education, Diversity and Excellence. Retrieved from

http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/7x695885

Werner, E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 4(3), 81-85.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of

resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from

birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Zacarian, D., & Haynes, J. (2012). The essential guide for educating beginning English

learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

 103

Appendix A

Parental/Guardian Permission Form

TITLE: Academically Resilient English Language Learners: A Focus Group Study

Exploring Risk Factors and Protective Factors

VCU IRB NO.:

If any information contained in this permission form is not clear, please ask the study
contact under “Questions” to explain any information that you do not fully understand.
You may think about or discuss this consent form with family or friends before making
your decision.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this research study is to find out what helps English language learners be
successful in high school.

You are being asked to give permission for your child to participate in a discussion group
for a research study because he/she is an English language learner who attends the
selected school for this study.

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AND YOUR CHILD’S INVOLVEMENT

In this study, your child will be asked to complete a brief questionnaire about his/her
native language, and previous education before coming to the United States. The
questionnaire should take less than 15 minutes. Your child will attend one group meeting
that will last about one hour. He/she will be in a group of 4 to 6 other teenagers. In this
meeting your child will be asked to talk about things like school and activities outside of
school as well as his/her friends, teachers, and family. The meetings will be digitally
recorded to get everyone’s ideas. Names will not be recorded digitally.

If you decide to allow your child to be in this research study, you will be asked to sign
this permission form. Do not sign the form until you have all your questions answered.

RISKS
Sometimes people become uncomfortable talking in front of a group and fear what others
think. This may cause limited amounts of stress and anxiety. For this reason, the meeting
 104

will start off with activities to help your child feel comfortable with the other participants
and the moderator. There also will be a few basic rules for the group that will promote
respect between all of the participants. He/she does not have to talk about anything he/she
does not want to talk about. He/she also can leave the group at any time.

BENEFITS TO YOU AND OTHERS

Your child may not get any direct benefit from this study, but the information that I learn
from this study may help adults find ways to help English language learners do better in
school.

COSTS
There are no costs for participating in this study other than the time your child will spend
in the group and filling out a questionnaire.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Potentially identifiable information about your child will consist of a questionnaire,
meeting notes, and a digital recording of the meeting. Data is being collected only for
research purposes. Your child’s data will be identified by pseudonyms, not real names.
Data or summarized results will not be released in any way that could identify your child.
The group sessions will be digitally recorded, but no names will be recorded. At the
beginning of the session, all members will be asked to use initials only so that no names
are recorded. After the digitally recorded discussions have been transcribed and there is
no longer a need for the audio recordings, all the digital voice recordings will be
destroyed. The questionnaires and meeting notes will be kept in a locked file cabinet for
six months after the study ends and will be destroyed at that time. No data will be kept
indefinitely. Access to all data will be limited to study personnel.

I will not tell anyone the answers your child gives me; however, information from the
study and the parental/guardian consent form signed by you may be looked at or copied
for research or legal purposes by Virginia Commonwealth University.

What I find from this study may be presented at meetings or published in papers, but your
child’s name will not ever be used in these presentations or papers.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

Your child does not have to participate in this study. If you allow him/her to participate,
she/he may stop at any time without any penalty. He/she may also choose not to answer
particular questions that are asked in the study.

QUESTIONS
If you have any questions, complaints, or concerns about your child’s participation in this
research study, contact:

Researcher: Michelle Abrams-Terry

 105

Phone Number: (XXX) XXX-XXXX

E-mail: [email protected]
and/or
Research Director: Dr. Cheri Magill
Phone Number: (804) 828-9805
E-mail: [email protected]
The researcher named above is the best person(s) to call for questions about your child’s
participation in this study.
If you have any general questions about your rights as a participant in this or any other
research, you may contact:

Office of Research
Virginia Commonwealth University
800 East Leigh Street, Suite 3000
P.O. Box 980568
Richmond, VA 23298
Telephone: (804) 827-2157

Contact this number for general questions, concerns or complaints about research. You
may also call this number if you cannot reach the research team or if you wish to talk
with someone else. General information about participation in research studies can also
be found at http://www.research.vcu.edu/irb/volunteers.htm.

PERMISSION
I have been given the chance to read this consent form. I understand the information
about this study. Questions that I wanted to ask about the study have been answered. My
signature says that I am willing for my child to participate in this study. I will receive a
copy of the consent form once I have agreed to allow him/her to participate.

______________________________________________
Name of Child

_______________________________________________
Name of Parent or Legal Guardian
(Printed)

_______________________________________________ ________________
Parent or Legal Guardian Signature Date

________________________________________________ ________________
Principal Investigator Signature (if different from above) Date
 106

Appendix B

Youth Participant Assent Form

TITLE: Academically Resilient English Language Learners: A Focus Group Study

Exploring Risk Factors and Protective Factors

VCU IRB NO.:

This form may have some words that you do not know. Please ask someone to explain
any words that you do not know. You may take home a copy of this form to think about
and talk to your parents/guardians about before you decide if you want to be in this study.

What is this study about?

The purpose of this study is to find out what helps English language learners be
successful in high school. The study will also try to find out what things may prevent
English language learners from being successful in high school. The study may help
adults find ways to help English language learners do better in school.

What will happen to me if I choose to be in this study?

In this study, you will be asked to complete a brief questionnaire about yourself, native
language, and previous education before coming to the United States. The questionnaire
should take less than 15 minutes. You will attend one group meeting that will last about
one hour. You will be in a group of 4 to 6 other teenagers. In this meeting you will be
asked to talk about things like school and activities outside of school as well as your
friends, teachers, and family. The meetings will be digitally recorded to get everyone’s
ideas. Names will not be recorded digitally.

If you decide to be in this research study, you will be asked to sign this form. Do not sign
the form until you have all your questions answered and understand what will happen to
you.

What might happen if I am in this study?

Sometimes people become uncomfortable talking in front of a group and fear what others
think. This may cause limited amounts of stress and anxiety. For this reason, the meeting
will start off with activities to help you feel comfortable with one another and the
 107

moderator. You do not have to talk about anything you do not want to talk about. You
also can leave the group at any time.

Will you tell anyone what I say?

I will not tell anyone the answers you give us. I will not share your answers with your
teachers or parents/guardians or friends. However, other members of your group will
know what you say. If I talk about this study in speeches or in writing, I will never use
your name.

Do I have to be in this study?

You do not have to be in this study. If you choose to be in the study you may stop at any
time. No one will blame you or criticize if you drop out of the study.

Questions
If you have questions about being in this study, you can talk to the following person or
you can have your parent/guardian or another adult call:

Michelle Abrams-Terry at (XXX) XXX-XXXX

Do not sign this form if you have any questions. Be sure someone answers your
questions.

Assent:
I have read this form. I understand the information about this study. I am willing to be in
this study.

Participant verbally agrees to participate in this study.

Participant verbally disagrees to participate in this study.

______________________________________________
Printed Name of Person Conducting Informed Assent Discussion/Witness

_______________________________________________ ________________
Signature of Person Conducting Informed Assent Discussion/Witness Date

_______________________________________________ ________________
Principal Investigator Signature Date
 108

Appendix C

Student Questionnaire

Focus Group Name (Not Your Real or Nickname):

Please answer the following questions:

1. What languages do you speak?

2. What language did you first learn to speak?
3. What is your home country?
a. Were you born in your home country?
i. If you were not born in your home country, where were you born?
4. Did you live in any other countries before coming to the U.S.?
a. If so, where?
5. Did you attend school in your native country?
a. Did you go to school in any other countries before coming to the U.S.?
i. If so, where?
b. Did you go to school in any other states before coming to Virginia?
i. If so, which state?
6. How old were you when you started school?
7. How many years did you go to school in your home country?
8. Do you live with your parents?
a. If yes, do you live with both your mother and father or just one parent?
9. What is the highest level of education completed by your parents (circle only one
under each)?
a. Mother
i. Grade school
 109

ii. High school

iii. College
b. Father
i. Grade school
ii. High school
iii. College
10. What kind of jobs do your parents have or do for a living?
a. Mother:
b. Father:
11. Do you have any brothers and/or sisters?
a. If yes, how many?
i. Are you the youngest, oldest, or middle child?
 110

Appendix D

Interview Question Guide

Hi, and welcome to our group. Thank you for taking the time to talk to me about
success in school. My name is Michelle Abrams-Terry, and I am a graduate student at
VCU. I want to know how ESL students become successful in school. I’ve invited
students to share their thoughts and ideas. You were selected because you are all students
who are successful in school. I am interested in what you have to say because you are
ESL students who do well in school.
Today we’ll be discussing your thoughts and ideas about success in school. I
basically want to know what you do to be successful in school and what has prevented
you from being successful in school. There are no wrong answers. Please feel free to
share your ideas even if they are different from what others have said. Keep in mind that I
am interested in all the things that you have to say.
Before we begin, let me suggest some things that will make our discussion more
productive. Please speak up—only one person should talk at a time. I’m digitally
recording the session because I don’t want to miss any of your comments. I’ll be on a
first-name basis, and in our later reports there will not be any names attached to
comments. You may be assured of confidentiality.
My role here is to ask questions and listen. I won’t be participating in the
conversation, but I want you to feel free to talk with one another. We’ll be discussing 12
questions, and I’ll be moving the discussion from one question to the next. There is a
tendency in these discussions for some people to talk a lot and some people not to say
much. But it is important for us to hear from each of you because you have different
experiences. So if one of you is sharing a lot, I may ask you to let others talk. And if you
aren’t saying much, I may ask for your opinion. I’ve placed name cards on the table in
front of you to help us remember each other’s names. Let’s begin. Let’s find out some
more about each other by going around the table.

Date of Focus Group

Location of Focus Group
Number and Description of Participants
Moderator Name

Interview Question Guide

Opening Question
 111

Q1. Tell us your name and your favorite memory of last summer.

Brief Summary/Key Points Notable Quotes

Comments/Observations

Introductory Question
Q2. Describe a successful high school student.

Brief Summary/Key Points Notable Quotes

Comments/Observations

Transition Questions
Q3. When you think about being successful in school, what comes to mind?

Brief Summary/Key Points Notable Quotes

Comments/Observations
 112

Q4. Think back to your first year of school in the United States. What kinds of changes
have you made since then to be more successful in school?

Brief Summary/Key Points Notable Quotes

Comments/Observations

Key Questions
Q5. On the paper in front of you, write what helped you to make these changes. When
you’re finished, we’ll share these with each other.
AFTER A SHORT DELAY, SAY:
Let’s go around the table, and I will make a list of these changes.

Brief Summary/Key Points Notable Quotes

Comments/Observations

AFTER THE LIST HAS BEEN WRITTEN ON THE FLIP CHART, ASK:

Q6. What role do others have in your success in school?

 113

LISTEN FOR:
x friends, family members, parent involvement, parents’ education
x teachers, teacher expectations
x religious organizations, extracurricular activities, part-time job
PROBE IF NECESSARY

Brief Summary/Key Points Notable Quotes

Comments/Observations

Q7. What role do you play in your own success in school?

LISTEN FOR:
x your personal goals, plans for college/future, expectations, ability to get along
with others
PROBE IF NECESSARY

Brief Summary/Key Points Notable Quotes

Comments/Observations

Q8. Of all the things that we discussed, which one is most important to your success in
school?

FOLLOW-UP:
x What makes them most important?
 114

Brief Summary/Key Points Notable Quotes

Comments/Observations

Q9. Now, think about times when you were not successful in school. What caused you
not to be successful in school?
FOLLOW-UP:
x What did you do to overcome those things that interfered with your success in
school?
PROBE IF NECESSARY

Brief Summary/Key Points Notable Quotes

Comments/Observations

Ending Questions

Q10. I am trying to find out what helps ESL students be successful in high school. What
suggestions do you have for other ESL students who want to be more successful in
school?

Brief Summary/Key Points Notable Quotes

 115

Comments/Observations

Q11. Let me summarize the key points of our discussion.

GIVE A BRIEF TWO-MINUTE SUMMARY.

Brief Summary/Key Points Notable Quotes

Comments/Observations

Q12. Does this summary sound complete? Do I need to make any changes?

Brief Summary/Key Points Notable Quotes

Comments/Observations
 116

Probe Questions (use them sparingly and always consider potential usefulness of
information): Would you explain further?/Can you give me an example?/Would you say
more?/Is there anything else?/Please describe what you mean./I don’t understand.
 117

Vita

MICHELLE N. ABRAMS-TERRY

Birthplace
Richmond, Virginia

Education
Virginia Commonwealth University—Richmond, VA
Ph. D. —2014 Major: Education

The Pennsylvania State University—University Park, PA

Master of Arts—1997 Major: German

The College of William and Mary—Williamsburg, VA

Bachelor of Arts—1994 Major: German

The University of Mary Washington—Fredericksburg, VA

Postgraduate Professional Certificate—2004
Concentration: Teaching English as a Second Language

Universität Flensburg—Flensburg, Germany

Penn State Education Abroad Program—1995-1996
Concentration: German and Teaching English as a Foreign Language

Licensure
Commonwealth of Virginia Postgraduate Professional (PreK-12):
Administration and Supervision, English, English as a Second Language, & German

Professional Experience

Higher Education

George Mason University—Fairfax, VA

College of Education and Human Development: FAST TRAIN Programs
2004-2012 Adjunct Instructor

The George Washington University—Washington, DC

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational
Programs (NCELA)
2009 Senior Research Associate
 118

University of Mary Washington—Fredericksburg, VA

College of Graduate and Professional Studies
2008-2009 Adjunct Instructor

Virginia Commonwealth University—Richmond, VA

School of World Studies
1997-2002 Adjunct Instructor

K-12 Public Schools

1997-present Classroom Teacher

Henrico County Public Schools, Henrico, VA

2005-2008 Henrico County Public Schools Staff Development Presenter

Department of Staff Development, Henrico County, VA

Ph.D. Externship
Summer 2007 Virginia Department of Education
Office of Program Accountability and Administration

Publication
Abrams, M. N. (2009, Winter). The Nation’s English Language Learners Count: Highlights of
Quality Counts 2009. AccELLerate, 1(2), 9-10.

Conference Presentation
Summer 2006 Leadership Academy Conference Presenter
Henrico County Public Schools

Professional Development

Service

Fall 2006 Member of Plain English Math Test Form Review Committee
Virginia Department of Education

Spring 2006 Member of English Language Proficiency Standards Committee

Virginia Department of Education

Fall 2004 Member of Reading Committee

Henrico County Public Schools

Summer 1999-2003 ESL and German Curriculum Writer

Henrico County Public Schools