ART AS A LANGUAGE: EXPLORING THE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER SUPPORT IN ELEMENTARY ART CLASSROOMS By Alicia Butler July, 2025 Director of Thesis: Robert D. Quinn Major Department: School of Art & Design ABSTRACT Art education provides a powerful and unique platform for supporting English Language Learner (ELL) students in developing language skills through creative and engaging instruction. The visual, experiential, and collaborative nature of art offers significant opportunities to facilitate vocabulary acquisition and comprehension. However, elementary art teachers often face substantial challenges in maximizing this potential due to gaps in professional development (PD) and systemic barriers that hinder their ability to meet ELL students’ needs effectively. This study investigates these challenges by examining the PD opportunities available to elementary art teachers, the systemic obstacles they encounter, and the resources they require to better support ELL students in their classrooms. Using a mixed-methods approach, data were collected through surveys and interviews with elementary art teachers across North Carolina, providing a comprehensive analysis of their experiences, perceptions, and strategies. Results reveal a critical lack of targeted PD that equips art educators with the tools to implement language acquisition strategies. Additional systemic barriers, such as limited access to resources, insufficient collaboration time with ESL specialists, and inadequate institutional support, further compound these challenges. Despite these obstacles, findings underscore the immense potential of art instruction to enhance language learning through its inherently visual and interactive processes. Keywords: English Language Learners, art education, professional development, vocabulary acquisition, systemic barriers, elementary education Art as a Language: Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities for English Language Learner Support in Elementary Art Classrooms A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the School of Art & Design East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Education in Art Education By Alicia Butler July, 2025 Director of Thesis: Robert D. Quinn, Ph.D. Thesis Committee Members: Borim Song, Ed.D. Nanyoung Kim, Ed.D. © Alicia Butler, 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1 The Purpose of the Study ............................................................................. 1 Research Questions ..................................................................................... 2 Problem Statement ....................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................... 6 Introduction to the Literature ........................................................................ 6 Overview of Key Themes .................................................................. 6 Scope of Review ............................................................................... 8 The Role of Art Education in Language Acquisition ..................................... 8 Art as a Tool for Vocabulary Development ........................................ 9 Multimodal Learning in ELL Instruction ............................................. 12 Challenges Faced by Elementary Art Teachers ............................................ 14 Lack of Targeted PD .......................................................................... 15 Limited Collaboration with ESL Specialists ....................................... 17 Institutional Constraints Limiting Resources and Support .................. 22 Best Practices in Supporting ELL Students through Art ............................... 21 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 26 Setting and Participants ................................................................................ 26 Data Collection .............................................................................................. 28 Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 28 Survey ................................................................................................ 28 Interviews ........................................................................................... 32 Qualitative Coding Methodology ........................................................ 35 Ethical Considerations .................................................................................. 35 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ......................................................................................... 36 Data Analysis Framework ............................................................................ 36 Descriptive Findings From Quantitative Data ............................................. 37 Language and Communication Barriers ............................................. 44 Cultural Differences and Unmet Needs .............................................. 45 Class Size and Diversity of Proficiency Levels .................................. 45 Emotional and Behavioral Barriers ..................................................... 45 Lack of PD and Instructional Resources ............................................ 46 Need for Art-Specific PD and ESL Collaboration ............................... 47 Gaps in Resources and Visual Supports ............................................ 48 Limited Collaboration with ESL Specialists ........................................ 48 Emotional and Language Expression Challenges ............................. 49 Technology Use and Training Gaps ................................................... 49 Administrative Supports and Systemic Prioritization .......................... 50 Reflection on Interview Findings ........................................................ 51 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ................................................. 52 Discussion of Findings ................................................................................... 52 Limited PD and Confidence in ELL Support ....................................... 53 Barriers to Collaboration with ESL Specialists ................................... 54 Time Constraints and Instructional Limitations ................................... 54 Emotional and Expressive Challenges for ELL Students ................... 54 Lack of Cultural Responsiveness at the District Level ....................... 55 Implications for Art Education and ELL Support ................................. 55 Recommenda1ons and Future Direc1ons ..................................................... 56 Areas for Further Research ................................................................ 58 REFERENCES ...... ................................................................................................. 61 APPENDIX A: IRB DOCUMENTATION ................................................................. 65 APPENDIX B: SURVEY .......................................................................................... 66 APPENDIX C: SURVEY ANSWERS ...................................................................... 68 APPENDIX D: EMERGENT THEMES FROM SURVEY RESPONSES ................ 78 APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND SCRIPT ....................................... 79 APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS ......................................................... 81 APPENDIX G: EMERGENT THEMES FROM INTERVIEW DATA ........................ 115 APPENDIX H: DESCRIPTIVE CODES USED IN QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS ........ 117 LIST OF TABLES 1. Survey Question Categories .............................................................................. 30 2. Interview Question Categories ........................................................................... 33 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Survey Question: Experience ............................................................................. 31 2. Data Collection Process ..................................................................................... 34 3. Survey Question: Targeted PD ........................................................................... 38 4. Survey Question: Confidence ............................................................................. 39 5. Survey Question: Types of ELL PD .................................................................... 40 6. Survey Question: Resources .............................................................................. 41 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The increasing linguistic diversity in U.S. public schools presents both opportunities and challenges for educators seeking to support English Language Learner (ELL) students. While much attention has been given to integrating language acquisition strategies in core subjects like English Language Arts and Mathematics, art education remains an underutilized yet powerful avenue for fostering language development. The visual and creative nature of art instruction offers unique opportunities for ELL students to build vocabulary, enhance comprehension, and develop communication skills in a multimodal learning environment. However, elementary art teachers often lack the necessary professional development (PD) and institutional support to integrate language acquisition strategies into their classrooms. The Purpose of the Study This study explores how elementary art teachers perceive and respond to the challenges and opportunities of supporting ELL students in the art classroom. Art education offers a unique, multimodal learning environment that supports vocabulary acquisition and language development through visual, experiential, and creative processes. However, many art educators face limitations due to inadequate PD, systemic barriers, and insufficient institutional support. By centering teacher perspectives, this study seeks to identify specific gaps in PD, instructional resources, and collaborative opportunities that hinder teachers’ ability to integrate language acquisition strategies into visual art instruction. Additionally, it 2 highlights effective tools and practices already in use, with the goal of fostering more inclusive and linguistically responsive art classrooms. Research Questions This study is guided by three research questions designed to illuminate the key challenges and strengths at the intersection of art instruction and ELL support: 1. How do elementary art teachers perceive PD gaps in supporting ELL students? In this context, perceived PD gaps refer to teachers’ recognition of areas where existing PD is missing, insufficient, or irrelevant to their instructional context. These gaps may include a lack of training in language acquisition strategies, minimal attention to the needs of ELL students within visual art instruction, or the absence of collaboration with ESL specialists. By exploring these perceptions, this study aims to identify how current PD falls short and how it could be improved to better support linguistically diverse learners. 2. What systemic barriers hinder art teachers’ ability to integrate language acquisition strategies into their classrooms? Previous research highlights structural challenges, including rigid scheduling, limited access to appropriate instructional materials, and inadequate collaboration time between art educators and English as a Second Language (ESL) staff (American University School of Education, 2023). This question examines how systemic constraints affect art teachers’ ability to implement language-supportive strategies. 3 3. What strategies and tools do art teachers find most effective in fostering vocabulary acquisition for ELL students? Multimodal learning strategies, which integrate visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modalities, have been proven beneficial for language development (Guo, 2023). This question seeks to identify which specific methods, tools, or classroom practices elementary art teachers use to support ELLs and how they adapt instruction to be both artistically and linguistically inclusive. By addressing these questions, the study contributes to a growing body of research that advocates for equitable, cross-disciplinary approaches to education. Findings aim to inform the development of more targeted PD programs, improve school- level support systems, and promote systemic reforms that position the arts as a central and impactful space for supporting multilingual learners. Problem Statement The integration of ELLs in U.S. public schools has become increasingly urgent as the number of students from diverse linguistic backgrounds continues to rise. Between fall 2011 and fall 2021, the proportion of students identified as ELLs increased from 9.4% (approximately 4.6 million) to 10.6% (about 5.3 million), signaling a clear need for instructional strategies and support structures that effectively meet the needs of linguistically diverse learners (National Center for Education Statistics, 2024). While significant efforts have been made to support ELLs in core academic subjects such as English language arts and mathematics, visual art education has often been excluded from these initiatives (García & Kleifgen, 2018). 4 Art education offers a uniquely effective platform for supporting language acquisition through nonverbal communication, visual storytelling, and collaborative creation. Unlike traditional academic subjects, art instruction offers multiple entry points for ELL students to develop vocabulary, express complex ideas, and increase confidence while learning a new language (Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005). Multimodal instructional strategies, those that integrate visual, auditory, and kinesthetic elements, are particularly beneficial for ELLs, enabling more accessible and engaging language learning experiences (Guo, 2023). Through these approaches, art instruction has the potential to lower affective filters, support cultural identity, and foster meaningful peer interaction (Wilkey, 2018). Art classrooms also offer unique opportunities to affirm students' identities, especially for those navigating cultural and linguistic shifts. Culturally responsive instruction in the arts enables students to share their personal stories while connecting with peers across differences. Wei and Mosley (2023) highlighted this in their study of a preservice teacher program, where art lessons centered on resilience and identity formation for students in Title I schools. The authors described how students created flags to represent their backgrounds, stories, and values, providing both a visual and emotional platform for self-expression. As they observed, “Art educators could contribute to cultivating resilience in children by validating their emotional needs and lived experiences, nurturing a positive self-image, building social connections, and offering a safe space to explore critical issues within a given school community” (Wei & Mosley, 2023, p. 15). These practices demonstrate the power of art education to support 5 emotional growth and community-building, particularly among ELLs and other marginalized learners. Despite this potential, art educators face significant challenges in supporting ELL students. PD opportunities remain disproportionately centered on core subjects, often excluding art teachers or failing to provide subject-specific strategies for integrating language support (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Many art educators report feeling underprepared to address their students’ linguistic needs, particularly when serving students who speak less commonly supported languages or have limited English proficiency. Institutional barriers, including limited planning time, a lack of collaboration with ESL specialists, and the continued marginalization of the arts, further limit teachers' ability to implement inclusive, language-supportive instruction. This underexplored intersection of art education and ELL support presents a critical equity concern. Without access to targeted training, integrated support systems, or linguistically responsive materials, art educators are left to navigate the complexities of ELL instruction in isolation. Consequently, opportunities for language development, cultural affirmation, and emotional expression through the arts are inconsistently applied or overlooked entirely. Addressing these issues requires systemic change, including the expansion of interdisciplinary PD, dedicated collaboration time, and the prioritization of visual arts as a meaningful site for language acquisition. This study responds to that need by investigating how elementary art educators perceive and navigate the challenges of supporting ELL students in their classrooms CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction of the Literature In recent years, art education has garnered increasing attention for its potential to support language acquisition among elementary ELL students. As educators seek innovative methods to address the diverse needs of ELLs, the integration of visual arts into language instruction has emerged as a promising tool for fostering both cognitive and emotional growth. This chapter reviews the literature on art education's role in language acquisition, highlighting key themes such as multimodal learning, vocabulary development, and the cultural relevance of art instruction. Through this review, it becomes evident that art education provides a unique avenue for language development that transcends traditional linguistic approaches, offering a holistic and inclusive framework for ELLs. Overview of Key Themes The research literature on art education and language acquisition reveals several core themes that underscore the value of the visual arts in supporting ELLs. Central to this discussion is the idea of multimodal learning, which suggests language learning can be enhanced through the integration of various sensory and cognitive processes. Art activities, such as drawing, painting, and collage, enable students to express abstract ideas before achieving full linguistic proficiency, thereby helping to develop early literacy and verbal skills (Guo, 2023). Alongside cognitive benefits, art education serves as a powerful tool for vocabulary development by embedding language learning within hands-on, creative contexts. Art education provides opportunities for cultural expression, enabling ELLs to connect their linguistic development to their personal and 7 cultural identities (Wilkey, 2018). As Aghasafari et al. (2022) note, “arts integration empowered learners to explore, express, and develop their identities in new and affirming ways that went beyond the limits of verbal language” (p. 36), illustrating the dual role of art as both an expressive and linguistic support tool for multilingual learners. However, research also points to the challenges faced by art teachers in effectively supporting ELLs. Among these challenges are PD gaps, which hinder educators' ability to incorporate language acquisition strategies into art instruction. Further, systematic barriers to collaboration with ESL specialists can limit the potential for integrated teaching practices that combine language and visual arts (Olds et al., 2021). This chapter explores these barriers in depth, highlighting how institutional and PD gaps impact the success of art-based language instruction. In addition to foundational studies in multimodal instruction, vocabulary development, and ESL collaboration, this review also draws on findings from the Supporting Multilingual Learners (SML) Study by Leider et al. (2024). This recent pilot study surveyed 26 art teachers across various educational settings to investigate their beliefs, confidence levels, and instructional practices in supporting multilingual learners. While limited in sample size, the SML Study offers timely insight into how art teachers engage in culturally and linguistically responsive teaching. Their findings highlight wide variation in teacher confidence and PD access and suggest that factors such as bilingualism, teaching experience, and SEI (Sheltered English Immersion) training influence how well art educators support multilingual learners (Leider et al., 2024). As such, this study complements the broader literature by reinforcing the importance of targeted, discipline-specific training for art teachers working with ELLs. 8 Scope of Review This review synthesizes existing studies on the intersection of art education and language acquisition, focusing on research conducted in elementary school settings. It draws from a range of academic disciplines, including education, psychology, and linguistics, to provide a comprehensive overview of the role that visual arts play in fostering language development among ELLs. The methodology behind the review includes an analysis of both qualitative and quantitative studies, as well as a focus on best practices for integrating art and language instruction. By examining these diverse perspectives, the literature provides a well-rounded understanding of how art education can serve as a catalyst for improving linguistic outcomes in ELL students. As this review demonstrates, the integration of art education into language instruction not only supports vocabulary acquisition but also promotes cognitive development, lowers affective filters, and fosters cultural relevance. The following sections delve deeper into each of these themes, exploring how art education functions as a dynamic tool for both language acquisition and emotional growth in elementary ELL classrooms. The Role of Art Education in Language Acquisition Art education provides a unique and effective avenue for language acquisition, offering multimodal opportunities for communication, vocabulary development, and cultural expression. Research indicates that the integration of visual arts into language instruction supports both cognitive and affective dimensions of language learning by 9 fostering engagement, lowering affective filters, and promoting meaningful language use (Tyler & Likova, 2012). As Tyler and Likova (2012) explain, “art may serve as a unique cognitive pathway to enhance both verbal and nonverbal learning processes, particularly in children acquiring a second language” (p. 2). Through artistic creation, ELLs engage with new vocabulary in authentic and contextualized ways, thereby enhancing retention and application. This embodied, hands-on engagement provides learners with “immediate, lived experiences with content that allow for language to develop in more intuitive, sensory-informed ways” (Latta & Chan, 2010, p. 55). By their very nature, visual arts support language exploration as students connect images with words, improving comprehension and retention (Latta & Chan, 2010; Sousa, 2011). This review examines how these dynamic interactions between language and art provide foundational support for ELLs, ensuring that they have not only the vocabulary but also the cognitive and cultural tools needed for successful language acquisition. By situating art education at the center of the language learning process, this research highlights the significant contributions of art teachers in shaping the linguistic and academic growth of ELL students. Art as a Tool for Vocabulary Development Art education is an effective tool for vocabulary development, particularly for elementary ELLs. Engaging students in hands-on artistic experiences allows them to encounter and use new vocabulary in authentic and meaningful contexts. This multimodal approach enhances the retention and recall of words by associating them 10 with visual elements, promoting a deeper understanding of linguistic concepts (Zhang & Jia, 2022). As students engage in creating and discussing artwork, they naturally incorporate language related to materials, techniques, and thematic content, strengthening their language skills through both visual and verbal expression (Wilkey, 2018). A key benefit of art education is its ability to provide students with opportunities to explore new vocabulary in a creative, non-threatening environment. For example, when students describe the colors, shapes, and textures used in their artwork, they engage in rich language interactions that reinforce descriptive and comparative language skills (Gonzalez, 2017). These language-rich experiences allow students to build a stronger foundation in both basic and academic vocabulary. Additionally, research suggests that art-based activities, such as storytelling and labeling, further support vocabulary development by providing students with additional opportunities to contextualize new words and make connections to their everyday experiences (Eubanks, 2002). Museum-based art education offers another promising avenue for vocabulary acquisition. Lesk (2007) describes a weeklong museum program with underserved middle school students that promoted vocabulary growth through experiential, inquiry- based learning. During one sculpture activity, students generated dynamic vocabulary while exploring movement and design. As Lesk (2007) recalls, “I cannot record the responses quickly enough—revolving sculpture, rotating sculpture, floating, soaring, gliding… whirling, spinning sculpture” (p. 7). These responses reflected not only engagement but also the students’ evolving language capacity. Notably, Lesk (2007) observed that even those considered low-performing became “surprised by their own 11 vocabulary and their ability to think critically” (p. 8). These findings support the idea that hands-on, inquiry-rich art experiences create opportunities for spontaneous and meaningful language use, especially for students with limited prior exposure to academic vocabulary. Art education fosters collaborative discussion and peer interaction, both of which are essential for language development in ELLs. Through group projects and critiques, students practice describing and analyzing their work, which encourages the use of academic and discipline-specific vocabulary (Echevarría et al., 2017). These discussions provide meaningful opportunities for ELLs to articulate their thoughts, refine their language skills, and develop confidence in expressing complex ideas. Additionally, written reflections on their artwork allow students to apply new vocabulary in personal and relevant contexts, reinforcing language acquisition in a way that feels authentic and engaging (Sousa, 2011). Beyond language development, integrating art into ELL instruction enhances student engagement by combining visual and verbal communication. The intersection of art and language learning supports multimodal literacy, enabling students to make connections between images and words, which aids in vocabulary retention and comprehension (Casteel & Ballantyne, 2010). Furthermore, by incorporating culturally responsive teaching strategies, art educators can create inclusive environments where ELLs feel valued and encouraged to share their cultural perspectives (Greer, 2011). This approach not only strengthens language development but also nurtures students' identities and sense of belonging within the classroom. 12 Lesk (2007) also highlights the importance of accessibility and exposure in language-rich art experiences. Many of her students had never visited an art museum before, yet quickly learned to use academic and visual arts vocabulary to describe texture, symbolism, and abstraction. She emphasizes that structured art viewing and discussion “positively affected students’ ability to decipher works of art” (p. 9) and improved their interpretive reading of other texts. These museum experiences illustrate how real-world art instruction can promote both critical thinking and vocabulary transfer, two vital elements for ELLs developing academic language in classroom settings. As the decline of arts education continues to pose challenges in public schools, it is crucial to recognize the role of art in supporting ELLs' academic success (Azcuy, 2023). School leaders and administrators play a vital role in advocating for arts integration and ensuring that teachers receive adequate PD to support diverse learners (Elia, 2024). By prioritizing instructional strategies that merge art and language learning, educators can create dynamic, inclusive classrooms that empower ELLs to thrive both linguistically and artistically. Multimodal Learning in ELL Instruction Incorporating visual arts into language instruction aligns with theories of multimodal learning, which emphasize integrating multiple sensory and cognitive processes to enhance comprehension and retention (Aden & Theodotou, 2019). Art activities such as drawing, painting, and collage provide ELLs with alternative modes of expression, allowing them to communicate complex ideas before fully developing linguistic proficiency. This process fosters early literacy and verbal skills by creating 13 meaningful connections between visual representation and language (Lee, 2014). Additionally, engaging in artistic creation enhances cognitive functions such as pattern recognition, memory retention, and critical thinking, which are foundational for language development (Sousa, 2011). The Reggio Emilia and similar arts-based approaches emphasize the role of multimodal learning in fostering more profound understanding, particularly for young learners developing language skills (Aden & Theodotou, 2019). By integrating visual arts into language instruction, educators provide ELL students with a richer, more immersive learning experience that supports linguistic and cognitive growth. Recent research highlights the value of digital media as a means of empowering multilingual learners through multimodal expression. In a high school communication course, Aghasafari et al. (2023) implemented a Photoshop-based collage project that helped ELLs visualize and articulate their evolving identities. Students explored the concept of identity collaboratively, then developed digital collages using personal images, symbolic objects, and text. According to the authors, this art integration approach enabled students “to not only construct their own definition and self- conception of ‘identity,’ but also present their identities visually” (p. 36). The project fostered both confidence and linguistic risk-taking, reinforcing the importance of using visual media to amplify student voice. By prioritizing visual storytelling, teachers offered an accessible and affirming pathway to language development and cultural expression. The intersection of trauma-informed teaching and multimodal learning in the art room is especially impactful for ELLs. Wei and Mosley (2023) observed that “students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds seemed more likely to experience some 14 form of learning loss, including atypical unfamiliarity with art tools, skills and techniques, and an overall lack of self-confidence and social connection” (p. 10). By framing resilience as an instructional goal and leveraging multiple modes of engagement, the art classroom becomes a site of recovery and empowerment. This is particularly important for ELLs, many of whom navigate challenges beyond academics and benefit from instructional practices that support social-emotional learning, language acquisition, and self-expression. Art education also affirms identity and emotional expression, especially for ELLs with lived experiences of displacement or interrupted formal education. Brown and Bousalis (2017) explain that “creative expression deepens understanding and honors diverse ways of knowing and is therefore a human right” (p. 49). For refugee- background students and multilingual learners navigating trauma or transition, the art classroom can become a safe space to “discover, be heard, and tell about their experiences” (p. 50). One Hmong artist, for example, preserved her life story on cloth to pass it on to future generations, an act of visual storytelling that strengthened cultural identity and family connection (Brown & Bousalis, 2017). These multimodal practices allow students to communicate deeply personal narratives while simultaneously building language and confidence. Challenges Faced by Elementary Art Teachers The increasing population of ELLs in the United States presents both challenges and opportunities for educators. This is especially true in art education, where teachers must navigate the complexities of language acquisition while fostering creative 15 expression. Art, as a visual and experiential medium, holds the potential to bridge linguistic barriers, yet art educators frequently encounter systemic obstacles that hinder their ability to support ELLs effectively. These challenges often fall into three interconnected categories: insufficient PD that fails to address the linguistic needs of ELLs in the art classroom, limited collaboration with ESL specialists due to scheduling or institutional barriers, and broader systemic constraints that restrict access to resources and support. Each of these issues contributes to the difficulty art teachers face in delivering instruction that is both inclusive and effective for multilingual learners. The following sections examine each of these categories in more depth, highlighting how they impact practice and what changes are needed to better support ELLs through visual arts instruction. Lack of Targeted PD A key factor in overcoming these challenges is targeted PD, which equips art educators with strategies for supporting language acquisition in the art classroom. However, many art teachers report feeling unprepared to address their ELL students' linguistic needs due to a lack of relevant training. Without structured PD that integrates language instruction with artistic pedagogy, art educators are left to develop their own strategies, often without sufficient guidance or resources (Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005). Recent research conducted by Leider et al. (2024), known as the Supporting Multilingual Learners (SML) Study, further highlights this issue through a pilot survey of 26 art teachers. Their findings revealed “wide variation in art teachers’ beliefs about the necessity of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices” (Leider et al., 16 2024, p. 200), underscoring the inconsistent training and preparedness among art educators. The SML Study also raised important questions about whether this variation stems from differences in years of experience, bilingual status, or professional preparation. For example, the researchers found that “bilingual teachers were more supportive of MLs and more confident in their ability to serve them” (Leider et al., 2024, p. 200), suggesting that teacher background may play a critical role in shaping instructional practices and beliefs. They also noted an unexpected trend: teachers who had received SEI endorsements reported lower confidence, possibly due to an increased awareness of instructional complexities and gaps in their training. These findings call for more nuanced research into how teacher education, language background, and PD structures interact to influence the support of multilingual learners in art classrooms. Effective PD programs should address the specific needs of ELL students by providing training in scaffolding techniques, visual literacy, and language-supportive instructional methods. When art teachers receive PD focused on integrating language acquisition strategies into their instruction, they feel more confident and effective. Glickman et al. (2024) emphasize that PD opportunities focusing on art instruction and language development help teachers build the skills needed to support ELLs effectively. Such programs should not be limited to theoretical discussions but should incorporate hands-on, practical applications that teachers can immediately implement in their classrooms. Furthermore, collaboration between art educators and ESL specialists during PD sessions can significantly enhance instructional effectiveness. Art teachers often work in 17 isolation, separate from language specialists, which limits their ability to align art lessons with the language needs of ELL students. Azcuy (2023) highlights that collaboration between art teachers and ESL specialists fosters a shared understanding of how visual and verbal literacy intersect, leading to more effective teaching strategies for ELLs. Despite the proven benefits of cross-disciplinary collaboration, most PD programs remain siloed, preventing the integration of art education with language support strategies. The growing demographic shift in U.S. schools necessitates continuous, rather than one-time, professional development. As Thomas (2017) argues, PD must be viewed as a long-term investment in teachers' abilities to support their students' academic and linguistic growth. Schools and districts must prioritize ongoing PD initiatives that address ELL students' evolving needs and art educators' pedagogical development. Limited Collaboration with ESL Specialists Effective collaboration between art educators and ESL specialists is essential for supporting ELL students holistically and inclusively. However, systemic barriers often hinder this collaboration, preventing seamless integration of their efforts. These obstacles arise from institutional constraints such as limited planning time, rigid scheduling, and a lack of shared PD opportunities. Additionally, logistical challenges and a persistent divide in understanding the roles of art teachers and ESL specialists further complicate collaborative efforts. 18 A primary challenge is the lack of designated time for collaboration. Schools operate on tightly structured schedules, leaving little opportunity for cross-disciplinary planning. As Loewus (2016) reports, “English-learner supports are added retroactively” (para. 23) to instructional materials, making it difficult for specialists to integrate support effectively across subjects. Without dedicated time for collaboration, art educators may be unaware of specific language strategies that could enhance their instruction, while ESL specialists may not recognize the role of art in reinforcing language acquisition. The professional divide between art educators and ESL specialists often leads to a lack of mutual understanding and missed opportunities for interdisciplinary learning. Art educators typically focus on artistic techniques and creative expression, while ESL specialists are trained to support language acquisition. As Azcuy (2023) explains, this can “create a disconnect in understanding the overlap between art education and language learning” (para. 4). Without structured collaboration, both groups may struggle to recognize the complementary nature of their roles. Azcuy (2023) emphasizes, “instead of treating the arts as separate from other classroom endeavors, it’s time to embrace the value for the integration of music, painting, dancing, drawing, and singing into traditional subjects like science, math, and language” (para. 6). PD that fosters cross-disciplinary collaboration can help bridge this divide. Glickman et al. (2024) advocate for PD that brings together subject-area specialists and ESL experts to create a more cohesive and integrated approach to supporting ELLs. Unfortunately, most schools fail to provide such opportunities, reinforcing the isolation of art educators and ESL specialists within their respective fields. 19 Institutional barriers further complicate collaboration. ESL specialists often manage large caseloads, limiting their availability to support individual teachers. Azcuy (2023) notes that ESL specialists often have more students than they can manage, which means they cannot dedicate as much time to each individual teacher's needs. As a result, art educators frequently lack access to language-support resources or strategies tailored to their students. This lack of alignment between instructional goals and the resources available for ELLs further exacerbates the problem. As Loewus (2016) notes, many materials marketed for ELLs are either too simplified or designed as an afterthought, making them ill-suited to build the background knowledge and academic vocabulary that students need to access grade-level content. ELL supports are often added retroactively, which limits their effectiveness and leaves educators scrambling to create or adapt materials that support both content and language acquisition. These piecemeal solutions create a disconnect in understanding the overlap between art education and language learning because the foundational materials themselves fail to reflect an integrated approach to instruction. Despite these challenges, fostering collaboration between art educators and ESL specialists is crucial for creating inclusive and effective learning environments for ELL students. Schools must address these barriers by restructuring schedules to allow for planning time, providing integrated PD, and fostering a culture that values interdisciplinary cooperation. 20 Institutional Constraints Limiting Resources and Support Institutional constraints play a significant role in limiting the effectiveness of art education for ELL students. These constraints, stemming from district policies and broader educational systems, impact resource availability, PD, and the integration of language support into the art curriculum. One major challenge is the lack of resources specifically designed to support ELL students in art education. While schools often provide language support materials for core subjects, art classrooms are frequently overlooked in resource allocation. Glickman et al. (2024) observe that when districts do not prioritize funding for art resources or materials specifically designed for ELLs, it places a strain on art educators who are already juggling the challenges of integrating language support into their lessons. Without bilingual visual aids, culturally relevant materials, and adaptive lesson plans, art teachers are left with limited means to support their ELL students effectively. Another constraint arises from the fragmented nature of PD. Many schools separate subject-specific training from ELL-focused training, leaving art educators without the necessary skills to incorporate language development into their curriculum. Thomas (2017) argues that PD is often siloed, meaning that art educators may attend training specific to their subject area, while ESL specialists receive separate training focused on language acquisition. This division prevents teachers from gaining interdisciplinary strategies that could improve ELL student outcomes. The way schools prioritize instructional time often limits the role of art in language development. Art classes are frequently treated as ancillary rather than integral to academic achievement. This marginalization means that administrators may not 21 recognize the potential of art education as a vehicle for language acquisition. Research by Thomas (2017) suggests that schools that do not prioritize collaboration across disciplines often fail to create an environment where educators from different fields can work together to address the needs of ELL students. Without institutional support, art teachers struggle to implement language-focused strategies effectively. Addressing these constraints requires systemic change. Schools and districts must allocate funding for ELL-specific art resources, integrate cross-disciplinary PD, and acknowledge the critical role of art education in language acquisition. By addressing these institutional barriers, educators can create a more inclusive and supportive learning environment for ELL students in the art classroom. Best Practices for Supporting ELL Students Through Art Best practices in art education for ELLs emphasize the integration of language acquisition with artistic expression in an inclusive and culturally responsive environment. According to Latta and Chan (2010), "successful art education for ELLs requires an approach that combines cultural relevance, visual literacy, and language development in a way that students can both understand and express themselves" (p. 48). Similarly, Latta and Chan (2010) argue that this integrated approach not only enhances comprehension but also allows students to communicate meaningfully across verbal and non-verbal domains. These foundational principles establish the art classroom as a unique environment where language learning is supported through hands-on, student- centered experiences. 22 A key best practice is the adaptation of the curriculum to reflect and honor students’ cultural and linguistic identities. Incorporating culturally relevant themes into art-making helps bridge the gap between students’ home cultures and the school environment, promoting a sense of belonging and reinforcing personal identity. Visual art offers ELLs a medium for non-verbal communication, providing them with tools to express complex ideas and emotions even when language is limited (Eubanks, 2002; Latta & Chan, 2010; Olds et al., 2021). When students engage in projects that reflect their cultural heritage, they not only develop artistic skills but also affirm their identities within the school context, fostering emotional safety and academic engagement. However, cultivating truly inclusive classrooms requires more than celebrating diversity. It requires educators to critically reflect on their own positionality and the systemic barriers embedded within curriculum and instruction. Link and Black (2024) share their journey toward antiracist art education, revealing how even well-intentioned teachers may unknowingly reinforce white normativity and marginalize students of color. They note that many preservice programs and in-service PD fail to prepare art teachers to critically engage with issues of race, power, and identity, stating, “Despite our best intentions, our curriculum failed to be meaningfully inclusive, and was actually harmful” (p. 1). This underscores the importance of PD that goes beyond technical skills or isolated lessons on cultural content. Instead, teachers must be supported in unlearning deficit perspectives and engaging in community-based reflection and collaboration. As this thesis argues, PD for art educators working with ELLs must include not only strategies for language development but also the tools to develop racial literacy and culturally sustaining pedagogy. 23 This work aligns with critical pedagogy frameworks that position students as co- constructors of knowledge. Aghasafari et al. (2023) described their project as “an example of how art integration and instruction can be combined to create a learning experience that allowed students to invoke their own voices, identities, self-worth, and opinions” (p. 36). Rather than presenting identity as a fixed or teacher-defined concept, the educators collaborated with students to define the term and select visual materials that reflected their lived experiences. This participatory approach emphasizes the importance of allowing students to take an active role in shaping their learning experiences. When students are encouraged to contribute their voices, cultures, and perspectives, the classroom becomes a more inclusive and empowering space. For ELLs in particular, this validation of personal identity helps foster a sense of belonging, linguistic confidence, and emotional safety. By honoring students’ lived experiences and encouraging meaningful expression through art, educators can create learning environments where all students feel seen, heard, and valued. In addition to cultural responsiveness, visual literacy strategies play a critical role in supporting ELLs' language development. Teaching students to interpret and create visual imagery promotes a multimodal learning experience that supports both comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. Olds et al. (2021) assert that "the integration of visual arts and language learning helps ELL students connect with content and use their native language to support the acquisition of academic language" (p. 22). They further emphasize that "by utilizing visuals and hands-on experiences, teachers can support students' academic language development, which, in turn, enhances retention and comprehension" (p. 23). These strategies enable ELLs to use both visual 24 and verbal modalities to construct meaning and participate more fully in classroom discourse. Beyond linguistic scaffolding, artmaking can also serve as an act of cultural affirmation and emotional processing. Brown and Bousalis (2017) describe how refugee and immigrant students, when invited to express their experiences through art, often create deeply meaningful pieces that preserve personal and cultural history. They note, “Art can offer these children the opportunity to discover, be heard, and tell about their experiences” (p. 50), helping them rebuild identity in safe, affirming classroom spaces. Such practices support not only multimodal communication but also social-emotional development, particularly when artmaking reflects students’ heritage and lived realities. Instructional scaffolding is another essential strategy that supports both artistic and linguistic development for ELLs. This includes providing vocabulary lists paired with images, breaking down complex instructions into manageable steps, and demonstrating techniques visually. Such approaches make abstract concepts more accessible while reinforcing academic language through contextualized, visual supports. As Loewus (2016) explains, “It’s not just about giving English-learners access to the same texts as their peers, but about making sure those materials are accessible and comprehensible” (para. 7). Scaffolding allows ELLs to progress at a developmentally appropriate pace, building confidence as they navigate both art content and language demands. Peer collaboration also supports ELLs by creating opportunities for authentic, social use of language. When students work together on shared artistic tasks, they engage in meaningful conversations that promote both expressive and receptive language skills. Echevarría et al. (2017) emphasize that collaborative learning 25 environments provide opportunities for both social and academic language acquisition, particularly when interactions are structured around creative, student-driven activities. These peer interactions also help foster a sense of community in the classroom, contributing to emotional well-being and increasing students' willingness to take academic risks. Technology and multimedia tools further enhance instruction by offering multimodal entry points into both language and art content. Tools such as video demonstrations, digital art platforms, and visual step-by-step tutorials can support ELLs by reinforcing verbal instructions with visual and auditory cues. These resources allow students to revisit information as needed and offer differentiated access to content. As Wilkey (2023) observes, "arts integration can help lower kids' affective filters and boost their confidence" (para. 6), which is especially important for ELLs navigating the dual challenges of language and academic content acquisition. Integrating technology meaningfully ensures that diverse learners have equitable opportunities to succeed. Taken together, these best practices, culturally responsive curriculum design, visual literacy integration, targeted scaffolding, peer collaboration, and multimedia tools position the art classroom as a dynamic and inclusive space that advances both language development and personal expression for ELLs. When art educators thoughtfully implement these strategies, they not only meet students’ linguistic and academic needs but also nurture a sense of belonging and identity. The art room becomes more than just a creative outlet; it becomes a space where ELLs are empowered to grow, connect, and thrive. . CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY To investigate how elementary art teachers perceive, navigate, and address the challenges of supporting ELL students, this study employed a mixed-methods approach that captured their lived experiences within increasingly linguistically diverse classrooms. The intersection of art education and language acquisition warrants deeper exploration, particularly given the limited PD many art teachers receive. Grounded in qualitative and quantitative approaches, this mixed-methods study seeks to identify systemic barriers, examine current instructional strategies, and highlight areas for growth in professional support structures. The design and methods presented in this chapter aim to capture a nuanced understanding of art educators’ lived experiences and inform future practices that promote equity and inclusivity in arts instruction for ELL students. This research was reviewed and certified as exempt by the ECU IRB under category 1, 2b (see Appendix A). Setting and Participants The population for this study consisted of 30 elementary art teachers from across North Carolina, representing a diverse range of school settings and student demographics, including those with varying linguistic and cultural backgrounds, such as ELLs. North Carolina was selected due to its rapidly growing multilingual student population and its status as a national leader in public school language immersion and dual-language programs, making it a relevant and meaningful site for examining how art educators support ELLs. 27 The participants were recruited through email and social media platforms commonly used by art educators, including professional groups and forums where teachers regularly engage with one another. This recruitment strategy ensured that the study captured a broad spectrum of perspectives on supporting ELL students in the art classroom, reflecting the varied contexts in which these educators teach. The teachers who participated in the survey represented a range of teaching experience levels, providing valuable insights into how PD opportunities and the challenges of supporting ELL students vary across career stages. Of the 30 survey participants, 40% (n = 12) had more than 10 years of teaching experience, while 13.3% (n = 4) had 7-10 years of experience. Additionally, 23.3% (n=7) had 4 to 6 years of experience, 13.3% (n=4) had 1 to 3 years, and 10% (n=3) had less than one year of teaching experience. This diversity in experience enabled a comprehensive understanding of the varying needs and perspectives of art teachers at different career stages. Twelve of the 30 educators volunteered to participate in follow-up interviews. These interviewees were selected to further explore the themes raised in the survey, providing qualitative perspectives that enriched the quantitative findings. The interviews allowed for a deeper exploration of the challenges these educators face in supporting ELL students and the PD opportunities they have encountered throughout their careers. The combination of survey data and interview insights offers a well-rounded view of the current support for ELL students in elementary art education across the state. 28 Data Collection This study employed a mixed-methods approach to investigate the PD experiences and resource challenges of elementary art teachers who support ELL students. Using quantitative and qualitative interviews, the findings provide a comprehensive understanding of the systemic barriers and instructional needs educators face. The survey offers broad statistical insights into teachers' confidence, access to PD, and perceived challenges, while the interviews allowed for a deeper exploration of individual experiences and institutional constraints. Together, these methods contribute to a robust analysis of the support structures available for art teachers working with ELL students. Data Analysis This study used a mixed-methods design to examine both broad patterns and individual perspectives. Quantitative data were collected through structured survey items, while qualitative data were gathered from open-ended survey responses and semi-structured interviews. This combination enabled a layered analysis, as survey statistics provided insights into confidence levels, PD access, and perceived barriers, while qualitative responses revealed nuanced themes and personal experiences. Survey A structured, anonymous survey was developed to gather quantitative data on the PD experiences and resource challenges of elementary art teachers supporting ELLs. The survey included: 29 • Likert-scale items, such as "How confident are you in supporting ELL students' language development in your art classroom?" • Multiple-choice questions, such as "What professional development opportunities have you received for ELL instruction?" • Open-ended responses providing participants an opportunity to elaborate on systemic barriers and unmet needs. The survey was disseminated via email and social media, targeting art educators across the state. Participants could indicate their interest in participating in a follow-up interview by providing their contact information. Survey questions are detailed in Appendix B, and the results are presented in Appendix C. Responses were analyzed descriptively, informing the development of themes. The emergent qualitative themes from the open-ended survey questions are presented in Appendix D. Table 1 summarizes the key categories of the survey questions. 30 Table 1 Survey Question Categories Category Description Demographics and Background Questions about years of teaching experience and prior ELL-focused professional development. Professional Development Access Items measuring the types and availability of PD for ELL instruction. Confidence and Resource Gaps Questions assessing teachers' confidence in supporting ELLs and identifying missing resources. Challenges and Barriers Open-ended responses exploring difficulties in teaching ELLs. Interest in Follow-Up Interview Option for participants to provide contact details for further discussion. The quantitative findings are based on a Google Form survey completed by 30 elementary art educators. The survey explored respondents’ professional backgrounds, experiences with ELL training, and their perceived needs for better support of ELL students in visual art classrooms. The data offer insight into the current preparedness of art educators and highlight systemic gaps in resources and training. As shown in Figure 1, the participants represented a range of experience levels, with 40% (n=12) having more than a decade of experience. Meanwhile, 36.6% (n=11) reported having 6 years or fewer of teaching experience. This diversity allows for 31 insights from both veteran and newer teachers, revealing how training and confidence in teaching ELLs may vary with experience. Figure 1 Survey Question: Experience In the qualitative analysis of survey responses, 30 elementary art educators responded anonymously to a set of open-ended questions. These responses were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach, which allowed patterns and categories to emerge directly from participants’ words rather than being influenced by pre-existing assumptions. The process began with a close reading of all open-ended responses, followed by initial open coding to identify key concepts, recurring phrases, and emergent topics. Each survey response was broken down into thematic units, which were then coded line by line using descriptive labels. As codes accumulated, they were grouped into broader categories through a process of constant comparison and refinement. Tally marks were used to track the frequency of each theme across all 32 participants, enabling a clearer understanding of which concerns and ideas were most widely shared. Interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 volunteer participants to gain richer, more detailed insight into their lived experiences. Interviewees were greeted with an overview of the study’s purpose and consent procedures. With verbal permission, interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Pseudonyms were assigned to preserve confidentiality. Interview questions are outlined in Appendix E, and transcripts are compiled in Appendix F. Thematic coding was used to identify patterns and recurring ideas. The analysis of the twelve teacher interviews reveals consistent and compelling themes that reflect both the challenges and the underutilized potential in supporting ELL students through visual art education. To protect confidentiality, pseudonyms were assigned to all participants. Through iterative rounds of open and focused coding, six major themes were developed, which are presented in Appendix G. Table 2 summarizes the interview question categories. 33 Table 2 Interview Question Categories Category Description Background Information Teaching experience and interaction with ELL students. Professional Development Types and effectiveness of PD received. Systemic Barriers Challenges in supporting ELLs and institutional constraints. Perceptions and Needs Ideal PD support and school/district improvements. Open-Ended Reflections Additional insights from participants To illustrate the sequential steps of data collection, Figure 2 presents an overview of the methodology. 34 Figure 2 Data Collection Process 35 Qualitative Coding Methodology Across both open-ended survey responses and interview transcripts, an inductive thematic approach was used. This involved repeated close readings of the data to identify initial codes and emergent patterns. Descriptive codes were applied to highlight key phrases, challenges, and instructional practices, which were then grouped into broader categories. Frequencies were tallied to determine which themes were most common among participants. The coding scheme used for both data sets is provided in Appendix H. This appendix outlines each code label, a brief definition, and example quotes or paraphrases that exemplify its usage. The coding process ensured that themes reflected the authentic experiences of participants rather than pre-imposed frameworks. Ethical Considerations Before accessing the survey, participants provided informed consent electronically. For those who participated in interviews, additional verbal consent was obtained before recording. To protect participant confidentiality, all identifiable information was either anonymized or replaced with pseudonyms during transcription. Data were securely stored in password-protected digital files and locked physical storage. Any identifying details were permanently deleted within six months of transcription. De-identified data will be retained for three years following the study’s completion for potential future analysis or audit purposes. CHAPTER 4: RESULTS The findings from the mixed-methods research, which explore the experiences, perceptions, and needs of elementary art educators working with ELL students, are presented below. Drawing from quantitative survey data and qualitative open-ended responses, the analysis highlights patterns in PD access, teacher confidence, and the availability of instructional resources. It also highlights broader systemic issues that affect the ability of art teachers to support language development through effective visual arts instruction. By examining numerical trends alongside the lived experiences of educators, this chapter provides a multidimensional view of the challenges faced and support structures needed in the field. The data are organized to first address the quantitative findings, followed by qualitative insights that deepen and contextualize the statistical patterns. Data Analysis Framework A comprehensive approach was used to analyze this study's quantitative and qualitative data. The analysis aimed to identify trends in PD access, teacher confidence, and resource availability while exploring systemic barriers and instructional challenges faced by art educators supporting ELL students. The quantitative survey data were examined using descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and standard deviations, to summarize patterns in participant responses. Likert-scale data were aggregated to investigate trends in self-efficacy and institutional support. Open-ended survey responses were analyzed inductively, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase thematic coding process. Codes were not predetermined, but 37 emerged naturally from the data, allowing participants’ voices to guide the direction of the analysis. This method ensured an authentic representation of the educators' perspectives and aligned with best practices in qualitative research. Such integration of quantitative and qualitative methods mirrors recommendations from Casteel and Ballantyne (2010), who stress that mixed-methods studies enhance contextual understanding, particularly when investigating how teachers adapt to support multilingual learners. Descriptive Findings from Quantitative Data Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics to identify patterns in access to PD, teacher confidence, and instructional resource availability. Frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for key Likert-scale items, providing insight into teachers’ preparedness and the extent of institutional support for ELL instruction in the arts. This foundational quantitative analysis provides a broader understanding of trends, which are later contextualized through qualitative findings. To deepen the analysis, open-ended responses within the survey were thematically coded using an inductive approach. These responses allowed the emergence of patterns not constrained by predetermined categories, enabling the data to speak for itself. According to Casteel and Ballantyne (2010), combining statistical summaries with participant-generated narratives can provide a more comprehensive understanding of professional learning environments for educators working with ELLs. 38 This approach also aligns with Darling-Hammond et al.’s (2017) model of effective PD, which emphasizes the importance of context-specific inquiry and iterative feedback. By integrating educator voice into both quantitative and qualitative strands, this study ensures that the findings reflect not only systemic issues but also lived professional experiences, highlighting where supports are working and where gaps persist. As shown in Figure 3, 66.7% (n=20) of participants indicated they had received some form of PD related to ELL instruction. However, a notable 33.4% (n=10) reported either no training or uncertainty, pointing to inconsistencies in how ELL focused PD is delivered or labeled, particularly for specialists in the arts. Figure 3 Survey Question: Targeted PD As shown in Figure 4, even though 66.7% (n=20) had received some form of ELL training, only 10% (n=3) of respondents felt “very confident” supporting ELLs' language development through art. Half of all participants identified themselves as “somewhat confident,” and 40% (n=12) expressed neutrality or a lack of confidence. This suggests 39 that even when training is provided, it may not translate into perceived preparedness, especially within the unique context of the art classroom. These findings are echoed in the SML Study, which noted that even teachers with specialized credentials, such as SEI endorsements, reported lower confidence levels than those without such training. As Leider et al. (2024) noted, “Teachers who have an SEI endorsement were less confident in their ability to teach MLs” (p. 200), speculating that deeper awareness of pedagogical gaps may actually lower self-efficacy. Figure 4 Survey Question: Confidence As illustrated in Figure 5, the most common formats of PD were school or district in-service training (n=18) and collaboration with ESL teachers (n=13), resources typically accessible through institutional frameworks. Far fewer respondents cited external or formal training opportunities such as workshops (n=3) or graduate coursework (n=1). This suggests that while PD is occurring, it is often generalized and not specific to visual arts education. The minimal representation of discipline-specific 40 PD points to a systemic gap in professional learning targeted at art educators working with ELLs. Figure 5 Survey Question: Types of ELL PD A striking finding is that collaboration time (n=21) and PD (n=21) were tied as the most commonly identified missing supports, suggesting that both structural and instructional barriers hinder ELL support in art classrooms. The responses also emphasize a shortage of appropriate materials (n=17) and technology (n=11) that could aid language development and access to the curriculum. As seen in Figure 6, only two respondents cited a lack of art-specific resources, but this may indicate that such resources are not widely known or recognized, rather than unnecessary. Notably, one respondent called attention to a larger systemic issue, a lack of district-wide cultural and linguistic awareness that affects communication, 41 documentation, and outreach to multilingual families. This points to a broader equity concern that extends beyond classroom instruction. Figure 6 Survey Question: Resources To address the challenges that art educators face in teaching ELL students, two open-ended questions were included in the anonymous survey. Responses were collected without identifying information, and pseudonyms have been assigned to each teacher (e.g., Carmen, Aisha, Matthew) to improve readability. One key question asked, "What challenges have you encountered in teaching ELL students in your art classroom?" Responses revealed significant barriers related to language and communication, as well as a lack of support and PD. Approximately 45% of respondents (n=13) highlighted language and communication as primary obstacles. Many teachers reported relying on bilingual peers to facilitate communication, with Carmen stating, “I rely on students who speak their language” (Carmen, anonymous 42 survey, 2025). However, this reliance highlights several concerns, particularly the potential for privacy issues or miscommunication when students are tasked with translating information, especially when personal or sensitive details need to be explained. Additionally, this practice creates challenges for students who speak languages not represented in the classroom, as it excludes them from the support they need. Even when translating simple directions, it is not appropriate to expect students to assume this responsibility, as it can lead to misunderstandings and increased stress. The inability to communicate directly with students often resulted in confusion about art concepts, as Matthew shared: “It’s hard to explain concepts and history to them a lot of the time. Explaining the why of the artwork is where they sometimes get lost” (Matthew, anonymous survey, 2025, emphasis added). Language barriers hinder the ability to explain complex art concepts, making it harder for students to grasp the “why” behind the artwork, which diminishes their understanding of the material. Despite these communication difficulties, 40% (n=12) of respondents noted that visual learning in the art room helped ELL students succeed, despite language barriers. As Nicole explained, "Art offers a lot of visual communication, which allows some ELL students to thrive" (Nicole, anonymous survey, 2025). Visual communication through modeling, gestures, and the use of translated materials was cited as an effective way to help students understand instructions and content. Several teachers reported using digital tools, such as Google Translate, to bridge the communication gap. Nicole also stated, "I frequently use Google Translate to explain what we’re learning, the artists we’re studying, and the techniques we’re exploring" (Nicole, anonymous survey, 2025). While these tools support language acquisition, they cannot entirely replace the need 43 for a deeper understanding of art concepts, especially when students struggle to express their thoughts verbally. The challenges associated with these language barriers are compounded by the fact that 30% (n=9) of respondents indicated that the diversity of languages spoken in their classrooms created additional difficulties. As Kiara noted, "One of the biggest challenges I face...is the wide range of languages spoken - many of which are not supported by translation tools like Google Translate" (Kiara, anonymous survey, 2025). This is particularly true when ELL students speak less commonly spoken languages, such as Swahili or Kinyarwanda, which are not easily supported by common translation tools. The absence of appropriate resources to help these students adds another layer of complexity in supporting their needs effectively. Further complicating the situation is that 37% (n=11) of respondents pointed to the lack of adequate bilingual support and PD for art teachers. As Kiara explained, "I often feel like I’m reinventing the wheel to meet students’ needs" (Kiara, anonymous survey, 2025). Many respondents reported a lack of collaboration with ESL specialists and felt that art teachers were often excluded from PD opportunities related to ELL education. Teachers expressed the need for more training on supporting ELL students, particularly those speaking languages not commonly addressed in district resources. Another prominent challenge identified by 27% (n=8) of respondents was the time constraints inherent in the art classroom. With many teachers only seeing their students once a week for 45 minutes, it becomes increasingly difficult to build trust and understanding, especially when language is a barrier. As Tiana shared, "I only see my students once a week, and when language is a barrier, it takes even longer to build trust 44 and understanding" (Tiana, anonymous survey, 2025). These time limitations further impede the development of language skills and hinder the ability to assess students' understanding of both the art concepts and their ability to communicate about them. Overall, the responses reflect the need for tailored PD that equips art teachers with the tools, strategies, and resources necessary to support ELL students effectively. As Emily stated, “Professional development that’s art-specific and includes collaboration with ESL teachers would be incredibly helpful” (Emily, anonymous survey,2025). Such PD would help bridge the gap between visual arts instruction and the language acquisition needs of ELL students, ultimately fostering a more inclusive and supportive learning environment. Language and Communication Barriers Many teachers identified language barriers as the primary challenge. Several other teachers (n=8) echoed the difficulty of communication, particularly when no bilingual student is available for translation. Carmen noted, "If a student translator is not available, there may be a challenge with communication" (Carmen, anonymous survey, 2025), highlighting the dependency on others for successful interaction. Elena explained that “The beauty of the art room is that students see step by step what they need to do,” yet the inability to communicate verbally remains a significant hurdle (Elena, anonymous survey, 2025). 45 Cultural Differences and Unmet Needs Cultural differences were another significant concern.Several teachers noted that different art traditions and histories across cultures present challenges in making art concepts relatable. Similarly, Kiara mentioned the lack of support for less common languages, such as Swahili or Arabic, making communication with non-Spanish- speaking students especially difficult. Kiara expressed, “I rely heavily on visuals, modeling, and gestures... but these strategies can only go so far when students don’t yet have the language to express their needs or understand expectations" (Kiara, anonymous survey, 2025). Class Size and Diversity of Proficiency Levels Teachers also acknowledged the challenges posed by large class sizes and the diversity of English proficiency levels. Aisha described the high student-to-teacher ratio as a major issue, while Isaiah noted the difficulty in managing multiple languages, such as Spanish and Farsi, simultaneously. Yolanda further underscored the difficulty of communicating with students who have no English proficiency, while Julia highlighted the lack of communication between educators and administrators regarding students' language skills. She suggested that clearer communication about language abilities would allow for better preparation and support for ELL students in the art classroom. Emotional and Behavioral Barriers Behavioral challenges were another common theme, with teachers, like Brianna, reporting that students’ lack of understanding often led to behavior problems. Nicole 46 pointed out that, “Without any foundational knowledge of English, students often shut themselves off from learning or simply mimic what others are doing” (Nicole, anonymous survey, 2025). This behavior was attributed to frustration with communication, which further complicated the process of active learning. Brian also noted that ELL students often have difficulty participating in classroom discussions or critiques, leading to disengagement and frustration: “They often have ideas but lack the vocabulary to share them” (Brian, anonymous survey, 2025). Lack of PD and Instructional Resources In terms of PD, teachers identified several areas where additional support would be beneficial. A common theme among the responses was the need for more resources and training in communication tools and strategies to support ELL students. Monique advocated for translation technology as a crucial tool, while Andre expressed a desire to learn “basic Spanish” and have more resources to communicate with Spanish-speaking people. Kiara called for PD that integrates language acquisition strategies in visual arts instruction, emphasizing the need for tools like multilingual resources and strategies for building communication bridges for students who speak less-common languages. Brian suggested training focused on creating sentence stems and visual prompts for better discussions and reflections, while Jasmine called for PD on how to differentiate expectations for language learners without sacrificing academic rigor. 47 Need for Art-Specific PD and ESL Collaboration Overall, the responses reflect the need for tailored PD that equips art teachers with the tools, strategies, and resources necessary to support ELL students effectively. As Emily stated, “Professional development that’s art-specific and includes collaboration with ESL teachers would be incredibly helpful” (Emily, anonymous survey, 2025). Such PD would help bridge the gap between visual arts instruction and the language acquisition needs of ELL students, ultimately fostering a more inclusive and supportive learning environment. An urgent need for PD that specifically addresses the unique needs of ELLs in the art classroom was also a dominant theme across all twelve interviews. Participants frequently mentioned that while they had attended general PD sessions, few, if any, offered strategies applicable to their visual arts instruction. Grace (personal communication, March 15, 2025) expressed: “It’s like we’re expected to figure it out on our own. I’ve had PD on ELLs, but nothing that actually applied to art.” Sophia (personal communication, March 8, 2025) emphasized the disconnect: “I understand language objectives, but I don’t know how to embed them into an art lesson on perspective drawing or color theory.” This concern echoes Echevarría et al.’s (2017) call for scaffolded instruction that is contextualized within the content area and supported by visual and interactive methods. It also supports Anderson and Milbrandt’s (2005) argument that authentic, subject-specific instruction must be prioritized in professional learning communities. 48 Gaps in Resources and Visual Supports Nearly all teachers described having to create visual aids, translated materials, or pictorial guides themselves to help ELL students navigate art instruction. While these efforts demonstrate creative problem-solving, they also highlight systemic gaps in resource allocation. Brianna (personal communication, March 15, 2025) explained, “I keep a folder of visuals I’ve made over the years. But it’s patchwork. There’s no centralized support.” Carmen similarly noted the time-consuming nature of crafting visuals for each unit. This aligns with Olds et al. (2021), who assert that visual literacy tools are central to helping ELL students engage in both meaning-making and language development. The absence of institutional support forces teachers to rely on fragmented and inconsistent strategies, which often vary by classroom and school. Limited Collaboration with ESL Specialists Several teachers reported rare or informal collaboration with ESL staff. While they valued the expertise ESL specialists offered, systemic constraints such as lack of time, scheduling conflicts, or departmental silos, made consistent collaboration difficult. Matthew (personal communication, March 24, 2025) noted: “We work in the same building, but I have no idea what the ESL teachers are doing. I’d love to plan something together, but there’s just no space for that in our schedules.” These responses reinforce Greer’s (2011) findings on the need for school leadership to institutionalize collaboration between content and language educators. 49 Without designated co-planning time or shared goals, ELL support remains uneven, particularly in non-tested subject areas, such as art. Emotional and Language Expression Challenges Teachers consistently observed that ELL students sometimes struggled to express emotions or ideas through artwork, not because of a lack of creativity, but due to their limited English vocabulary. Jasmine noted, “I see them wanting to share their ideas, but they get stuck. It’s like the idea is there, but the words aren't” (personal communication, March 3, 2025). Elena added that ELL students were often hesitant to share in group critiques or discussions, fearing mispronunciation or misunderstanding. This emotional filter can inhibit creative risk-taking, a concept supported by Wilkey (2023), who argues that lowering affective filters through the arts builds confidence and enhances language acquisition. The tension between expressive intent and linguistic ability underscores the importance of integrating multimodal communication strategies in the art room (Guo, 2023). Technology Use and Training Gaps While some teachers utilized tools such as Google Translate, digital portfolios, or visual search engines to support ELL students, many reported a lack of training in effectively using these tools. Grace (personal communication, March 15, 2025) said, “I know there are tech tools out there, but nobody’s shown me how to use them in art specifically. So I stick with what I know.” Andre emphasized the trial-and-error nature of 50 implementing digital supports: “It helps sometimes, but I don’t always know if it’s accurate or useful” (personal communication, February 17, 2025). This inconsistency highlights a missed opportunity to provide PD that equips art educators with the skills to utilize digital and multilingual tools to support ELL engagement. While such tools have the potential to increase accessibility and enhance language acquisition through multimodal means, their effectiveness depends largely on teacher preparedness. As Olds et al. (2021) and Guo (2023) advocate, the integration of technology can significantly support ELLs’ access to content, particularly when visual, auditory, and interactive elements are combined. Without targeted PD, however, the promise of these tools remains underutilized, and ELLs are less likely to benefit from the full range of instructional supports available. Administrative Support and Systemic Prioritization Several teachers described having supportive relationships with their administrators but noted that their needs as art educators working with ELLs were often overlooked in broader school planning. Sophia shared, “I have a great principal who values the arts, but PD around ELLs still goes to the classroom teachers first” (personal communication, March 8, 2025). Nicole said, “They assume we don’t need that kind of training because we don’t give grades or tests” (personal communication, February 25, 2025). This perception, that art educators are exempt from the academic rigor expected in core subjects, reflects systemic assumptions that devalue the role of the arts in language development. As a result, art teachers are frequently excluded from targeted PD that supports ELLs. Anderson and Milbrandt (2005) challenge this misconception by 51 framing art education as a legitimate vehicle for academic and social development. When schools fail to integrate the arts into their ELL strategies, they miss opportunities for engagement, emotional support, and alternative communication pathways. Reflection on Interview Findings The interviews provide a compelling narrative of passionate and resourceful art educators working at the margins of institutional support. Their stories reinforce the scholarly literature that calls for discipline-specific PD (Echevarría et al., 2017; Latta & Chan, 2010), multimodal instruction (Guo, 2023), and the need for administrative structures that support equity across all content areas, including the arts. The recurring themes of emotional expression, resource gaps, and missed collaboration signal that ELL support must be reimagined as a whole-school effort in which the arts are not optional, but essential. CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Understanding the experiences of elementary art educators working with ELL students requires reflection on the collected data and the broader systems that shape instructional practices. The findings reveal an environment in which dedicated teachers strive to meet the needs of linguistically diverse learners, often without sufficient support or training. Several key themes illustrate persistent challenges and promising opportunities at the intersection of visual arts and language development. The following discussion explores these findings in depth, offering insight into how art educators can more effectively support ELL students and what systemic changes are needed to make that support sustainable and equitable. Discussion of Findings Before examining each theme in detail, it is important to acknowledge that many of the challenges teachers described are interconnected, shaped by both school-level limitations and broader systemic issues. The voices of art educators reveal not only the instructional gaps they face but also the emotional labor involved in striving to support students with limited, consistent resources. While some strategies, such as visual scaffolding or peer translation, emerged repeatedly, their application was often improvised rather than institutionally supported. The discussion that follows is organized around five key themes that surfaced across survey responses and interviews, demonstrating both the consistency and complexity of the challenges teachers face. 53 Limited PD and Confidence in ELL Support The findings confirm that while elementary art teachers are deeply committed to supporting ELL students, they are often left without the tools, training, or institutional support necessary to do so effectively. A clear gap exists between the PD art educators receive and their perceived confidence in applying language acquisition strategies within the art classroom. Despite 66.7% (n=20) of respondents indicating some exposure to ELL-related PD, only 10% (n=3) felt "very confident" in their ability to support language development through art, suggesting a disconnect between generalized training and practical application in visual arts settings. This gap aligns with Echevarría et al. (2017), who emphasized the importance of explicit, discipline-specific instructional support, and is reinforced by Anderson and Milbrandt (2005), who advocate for authentic instruction grounded in the unique dynamics of art education. These findings are further supported by the SML Study. The study examined teachers’ confidence levels, instructional beliefs, and engagement with culturally and linguistically responsive practices. Although the sample was limited, the researchers observed a striking range of beliefs and practices, suggesting systemic inconsistencies in training and preparedness. As they explain, “descriptive statistics suggest there is a wide range of beliefs and confidence among art teachers regarding working with MLs (Multilingual Learners)” (Leider et al., 2024, p. 203). This variation aligns with the gaps identified in this study’s survey and interviews, reinforcing the idea that ELL students’ access to support in the art room can vary significantly based on their teacher’s training, experience, or language background. 54 Barriers to Collaboration with ESL Specialists Participants also noted a lack of collaborative opportunities, particularly with ESL specialists, as a significant barrier. Informal or infrequent communication with ESL staff left many art teachers improvising or relying on their resourcefulness. This lack of structured collaboration aligns with Greer’s (2011) argument that school leadership often fails to institutionalize effective collaboration between content and ESL educators. Teachers often cited their reliance on bilingual peers, translation apps, and visual aids strategies that, while helpful, were frequently insufficient when working with students from diverse linguistic backgrounds or when trying to explain abstract art concepts. Time Constraints and Instructional Limitations Teachers expressed concern about the limited time they have with students (often once a week for 45 minutes), which exacerbates challenges in building trust and supporting language development. This constraint reflects broader systemic limitations within the structure of specials classes and reinforces the importance of maximizing impact through targeted instructional strategies, a concern echoed by Latta and Chan (2010), who argue for stronger systemic supports for non-core educators. Emotional and Expressive Challenges for ELL Students The qualitative data, particularly from interviews, revealed an emotional dimension to these challenges. Teachers observed that ELL students sometimes struggled to express themselves in artwork due to language limitations, which could diminish the emotional and expressive power of art education. This theme supports the 55 argument by Wilkey (2023) that arts integration lowers affective filters and fosters confidence, aligning with Olds et al. (2021), who highlight how the visual arts can serve as a bridge between verbal and nonverbal communication for language learners. Lack of Cultural Responsiveness at the District Level Several teachers highlighted the lack of district-level awareness regarding their students' cultural and linguistic diversity, contributing to inconsistent or inadequate support across schools. This finding aligns with Latta and Chan's (2010) advocacy for arts-based education that is both culturally and linguistically responsive. The absence of district strategies that reflect the full diversity of ELL learners, particularly those who speak languages less commonly supported by mainstream translation tools, leads to inequities that diminish access and engagement. Ultimately, this study underscores that PD must go beyond broad strategies and be discipline-specific, culturally responsive, and rooted in practical, visual arts-based approaches. It confirms the claims made by researchers such as Guo (2023), who stresses the importance of multimodal and emotionally resonant instructional strategies in language acquisition. Implications for Art Education and ELL Support The implications of this study underscore the urgent need to reevaluate the intersection of art education and ELL support. It affirms that art classrooms are powerful, multimodal spaces where language learning can thrive, but only if art educators are empowered with the proper training and resources. Without dedicated PD 56 that bridges art education and language acquisition, teachers are left to navigate this complex intersection without guidance. This finding directly aligns with the calls by Echevarría et al. (2017) and Guo (2023) for the creation of sustained, contextualized, and scaffolded support for language learners. The findings also suggest that collaboration is not optional but essential. Art educators must be included in broader school efforts to support ELLs, including collaborative planning with ESL staff, access to student language data, and the development of culturally and linguistically responsive curricula. These practices not only align with the collaborative framework supported by Greer (2011) but also reflect Latta and Chan’s (2010) argument that cross-disciplinary integration enhances language outcomes. When art teachers are excluded from these conversations, it reinforces the misconception that language development is irrelevant in the arts. Finally, systemic inequities in prioritizing arts education impact the level of support ELL students receive. When "specials" teachers are excluded from targeted ELL initiatives, a significant opportunity is lost to support language development through visual, hands-on learning. This supports the conclusions of Anderson and Milbrandt (2005), who argue that authentic art instruction can promote broader educational goals, and Wilkey (2023), who identifies the arts as uniquely equipped to build identity and confidence in ELL students. Recommendations and Future Directions To effectively support ELLs in the art classroom, school districts and educational agencies must prioritize developing and implementing discipline-specific PD. 57 Professional learning opportunities should be tailored to the unique needs of visual arts educators and include practical strategies for visual scaffolding, vocabulary instruction, formative assessment for language learners, and lesson modifications that accommodate varying levels of English proficiency. This directly addresses the literature’s call for contextualized, content-based language instruction (Echevarría et al., 2017; Latta & Chan, 2010). In addition to PD, schools must institutionalize protected collaboration time between art teachers and ESL staff. Regular co-planning sessions enable shared insights into student needs, coordinated instruction, and consistent support for students, particularly newcomers or those with limited English proficiency. Without structured time for collaboration, many art educators are left to navigate language barriers on their own. Another critical recommendation is the development and distribution of ELL- specific toolkits for art teachers. These toolkits should include multilingual vocabulary cards, translated materials, visual prompts, and sample modified lessons. Materials must be adaptable and culturally responsive to reflect the linguistic and cultural backgrounds of the student population. By making these resources readily available, schools empower art educators to create more inclusive and accessible learning environments. Districts must also adopt arts education policies that explicitly incorporate support for ELL students, ensuring that their unique needs are addressed across all content areas, including the arts. This means embedding ELL strategies not only in district-wide PD sessions but also in the processes used to select instructional materials and evaluate teacher effectiveness.