Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The effectiveness of the cycle of inquiry on middle school English-learners in English-language arts
(USC Thesis Other)
The effectiveness of the cycle of inquiry on middle school English-learners in English-language arts
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CYCLE OF INQUIRY ON MIDDLE
SCHOOL ENGLISH-LEARNERS IN ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTS
by
Leticia Cruz
________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2008
Copyright 2008 Leticia Cruz
ii
DEDICACIÓN
Para mis padres que me dejaron soñar y llegaron a este país para darme
educación. Esto es para ustedes. Gracias por creer en mi y por su apoyo durante
toda mi carera de educación.
Para mi esposo, Kenny Ramirez, que tuvo paciencia ilimitada y
mucho cariño.
Para mis hermanas y hermano, Graciela, Joel, y Nancy, que han sido
mi inspiración y me recuerdan a sonreír.
DEDICATION
To my parents, Jose and Maria, who allowed me to dream and who
immigrated to this country to provide me with a great education. This is for
you! Thank you for believing in me and supporting my education.
To my husband and best friend, Kenny Ramirez, who had unlimited
patience, love, and support.
To my siblings, Graciela, Joel, and Nancy, who have been my role models
and reminded me to smile.
To my new family, the Ramirez's, who have supported and cared for me.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Dennis Hocevar. I have unending gratitude
for your inspiration, guidance, and support from the first phase to the last phase
of my study. Dr. Rodney Goodyear, thank you for your inspiration and support
during the various phases of the dissertation. Dr. Magaly Lavadenz, thank you
for being my inspiration, mentor, and friend. I would also give a special thanks
to my colleagues that supported me throughout the school year both as great
educators and leaders in our community.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................ vii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................1
Federal Level ........................................................................................2
District Level ........................................................................................3
Contextual Background of Study..........................................................6
Problem.................................................................................................8
Problem Analysis and Interpretation ..................................................11
Framework..............................................................................11
School-Level Factors ..............................................................13
Teacher-Level Factors ............................................................18
Student-Level Factors.............................................................20
Problem/Solution ................................................................................21
Purpose, Design, and Utility...............................................................24
Purpose ...................................................................................24
Design .....................................................................................25
Utility......................................................................................29
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................32
No Child Left Behind Act, State Accountability Measures,
and English Learners .......................................................................35
English Learners, Academic Proficiency, and
Language Acquisition......................................................................41
Teacher and School Level Factors Affecting English Learner
Achievement .......................................................................................44
Local Interventions and English Learners ..............................46
Conclusions.........................................................................................50
v
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................53
Design Summary ................................................................................53
Participant and Setting........................................................................54
Intervention Description .....................................................................55
Quantitative Instrumentation ..............................................................56
Qualitative Instrumentation ...............................................................59
Procedural Timeline............................................................................60
Quantitative Analysis..........................................................................60
Qualitative Analysis............................................................................61
Limitations of the Study .....................................................................61
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS...............................................................................63
Non-equivalent Comparison Group Design .......................................64
Pre/Post Independent Groups’ Results ...............................................65
Comparison School Results................................................................72
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................77
Purpose and Method ...........................................................................77
Summary of Findings, Hope Middle School ......................................79
Statistical Significance........................................................................81
Practical Significance .........................................................................82
Summary of Findings: Hope Middle School and
Alianza Middle School ....................................................................86
Implications ........................................................................................88
Site-Based Recommendations ............................................................91
Conclusions.........................................................................................91
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................93
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA Performance Band
Differences: Statistical Findings ......................................................65
Table 2. Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST English-Language Arts
Performance Band Differences: Practical Significance
Mean Statistics by Grade Level ........................................................67
Table 3. Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA Percent Basic
and Above .........................................................................................69
Table 4. Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA Percent
Proficient and Above.........................................................................69
Table 5. CELDT Assessment Results—Overall Performance Levels,
2006 and 2007, Experimental School ...............................................71
Table 6. API Subgroups Comparison, 2006 and 2007, Experimental and
Comparison School ...........................................................................74
Table 7. API School-Wide Comparison, 2006 and 2007, Experimental
and Comparison School ....................................................................74
Table 8. AYP English-Language Arts for the Experimental and
Comparison Schools, 2007................................................................74
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The District, K-12, 2005-2006 ..........................................................5
Figure 2. District’s 2005-2006 ELL CST Performance in English
Language Arts...................................................................................8
Figure 3. CELD Assessment 2005-2006 ........................................................10
Figure 4. Statewide Number of English earners.............................................33
Figure 5. Number of English Learners in Sonoma County ............................33
Figure 6. English-Language Arts....................................................................38
Figure 7. Decision Guide: Reclassifying a Student From English-
Learner to Fluent English Proficient...............................................40
viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this pre/post evaluation study was to examine the
effectiveness of the Cycle of Inquiry and its effectiveness on English-Language
Learners in Middle School. The study specifically determined if there was a
relationship between the implementation of Hope Middle School’s Cycle of
Inquiry to English Learner Achievement as measured by the California
Standards Test (CST) and the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT) assessments and to identify ways to improve the Cycle of Inquiry
process.
The population included two middle schools, Hope Middle School
(experimental school) and Alianza Middle School (control school). The study
compared the CST and CELDT scores in 2006 and 2007 using a pre and post
summative evaluation design. In addition, some formative evaluations were
used in this study including informal and open-ended interviews.
Results of the study found significant gains made in four out of seven
subgroups. Significant gains were made in 8
th
Grade (+11%), Hispanic/Latino
(14%), Socio-Economically Disadvantaged (14%), and English-Language
Learner (32%) subgroups. The most significant gains were made in the English-
Learner subgroup, 32% gain, however the pre-test performance band scores
remain low. Although the percentage changes demonstrate practical
significance, the large gains need to be interpreted in light of those low pre-test
ix
scores.
The results of the findings demonstrated an overall positive impact of the
Cycle of Inquiry on the achievement on English learners at Hope Middle
School. The qualitative findings demonstrated a commitment of the staff and
school district to continued focus on raising the achievement of all students,
particularly English Learners. Further research is still needed to enhance the
accuracy of school-level achievement data and to determine additional factors
that may influence the improvement of English Learner performance in the CST
and CELDT standardized assessments.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Throughout the history of American public education there has been a
vital need to serve culturally diverse student populations. During the 20
th
century, various reform efforts such as Mendez vs. Westminster (1947), Brown
vs. Board of Education (1954), and the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act—ESEA (1965) (Bennett, 2001) have tried to better serve diverse students’
needs. The most recent reform effort is the federal No Child Left Behind Act
(United States Department of Education, 2002a). As stated by the United States
Department of Education (2007a), the NCLB “embodies the four principles of
President George W. Bush's education reform plan: stronger accountability for
results, expanded flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and
an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work” (p. 1).
However, underprivileged student’ academic performance remains a challenge
and, therefore, educational reform efforts continue to arise at the federal, state,
and local levels.
This longitudinal study focuses on the relationship between current
reform efforts established by the district and English-Language Learner middle
school student achievement in English-Language Arts.
2
Federal Level
As stated by Garfield, Garfield , and Willardson (2003) until 1867 the
United States did not have a strong federal role in education. Under the
leadership of President Jimmy Carter, efforts by the National Education
Association, and various other political groups, the U.S. Department of
Education became established on September 27, 1980. However, after the
establishment of the U.S. Department of Education, education controversy
continued to exist. As the role of education increased within the executive
branch, apprehension arose because of the concern that educational issues may
be used for political support. As stated by Cross (2004), President Lyndon B.
Johnson was “a former teacher, was a passionate believer in equity and in the
power of education to help pull people out of poverty” (p. 27). The Elementary
Education Act (ESEA) became federal law in 1965 and President Johnson
stated, “we bridge the gap between helplessness and hope for more than five
million educationally deprived children in America” (Cross, 2004, p. 28). For
the next 36 years, ESEA guided public education in the United States. The
National Education Association renamed ESEA the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 which “established laudable goals—high standards and accountability
for the learning of all children, regardless of their background or ability” (United
States Department of Education, 2002a, p.1). The NCLB launched these
3
“laudable goals,” however, who will be accountable for making sure these goals
will be reached?
Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) describe the NCLB as a “series of
accountability relationships, beginning at the federal level” (p. 17). In
education, there are five accountability relationships that will assist in achieving
the NCLB goals—Congress/U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of
Education/States, States/District, District/School Districts, and School
Districts/Principals. As stated by Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004), the five
accountability relationships have a role at the director level, where the director
assures objectives will be carried out by the provider. The challenge of the
NCLB is the large focus on standards-based accountability which can also create
challenges with various relationships. For example, either the director is
unaware of the provider’s abilities or the providers begin to establish their
personal goals that may be unaligned with the NCLB goals. In this study, the
accountability relationship between school districts and principals are analyzed.
District Level
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a series of annual academic
performance goals set for each school, local educational agency (LEA),
and the state as a whole. AYP is required under Title I of the federal No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. Title I, a program under the
NCLB that provides funding to help educate low income children,
provides local education agencies with aide to help achieve the goals of
the NCLB. The primary goal of Title I is for all students to be proficient
in English-Language Arts and Mathematics, as determined by state
4
assessments, by 2014. (United States Department of Education, 2002a, p.
23).
In order to meet AYP, schools and the LEA must meet four requirements:
Participation Rate, Percent Proficient (Annual Measurable Objectives), API as
Additional Indicator, and Graduation Rate.
As stated by the California Department of Education (2006a), the
California Standards Tests (CST) show how well students are doing in relation
to the state content standards. CST student scores are used to measure the AYP
of school districts or the LEA. The five performance levels are: Advanced
(exceeds state standards), Proficient (meets state standards), Basic (approaching
state standards), Below Basic (below state standards), and Far Below Basic
(well below state standards). The CDE (2007) website illustrates the district had
met 23 of 26 AYP criteria, but was unable to meet proficiency in English-
Language Arts (Hispanic or Latino, English Learners, and Students with
Disabilities) subgroups. In 2005 API was 719 and the 2006 API was 732, a
growth of 13 points.
Sunny Unified School District’s CST data, as reported by the California
Department of Education (2007f, p. 1), displays the following ELL performance
in English-Language Arts for the year 2005-2006 (Figure 1).
5
CST Performance (ELL and EO)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Advanced Proficient Basic Below
Basic
Far Below
Basic
CST performance levels
Percentage of Students
ELL
EO
Figure 1: The District, K-12, 2005-2006
For the academic school year 2005-2006, Sunny Unified School District
(SUSD) English-language learner (ELL) in (2
nd
-11
th)
achieving Proficient or
Advanced level in the CST, was an average of 9%, compared to English Only
(EO) students performing an average of 50%, creating an achievement gap of
41%. In addition, both ELL and EO students performing at the Basic level of
the CST English-Language Arts is equal, 26%. The number of ELL students
performing Below Basic and Far Below Basic is 65% compared to 23% EO
students, and is an achievement gap of 42%. It is apparent that ELL students
6
tested in the CST at the district are lacking proficiency in English-Language
Arts throughout the school district. On the contrary, 50% of the English Only
student subgroup achieved proficiency and above in the English-Language Arts’
portion of the CST.
Contextual Background of Study
As an elementary school principal, I analyzed ELL student achievement
in English-Language Arts using CST and CELDT data from Hope Middle
School, part of the district. The district is located in a Northern Californian
suburban area. The California Department of Education (2006b) has disclosed
the following LEA demographic characteristics per the California Basic
Educational Data System (CBEDS) and the 2006 Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) Program. The district’s total student enrollment was 4,194.
Student ethnic/racial composition was as follows: African-American (not of
Hispanic origin) 1%, Asian 1%, Filipino 1%, Hispanic or Latino 42%, and white
(not of Hispanic origin) 54%. The total numbers of students included in the
2006 API were 3,429. Students participating in the Free or Reduced-Price
Lunch were 37%. The level of parent education was an average of 2.77 where
“1” represents “Not a high school graduate,” “2” represents “High school
graduate,” “3” represents “Some college,” “4” represents “College graduate,”
and “5” represents “Graduate school.” In addition, 31% of students were
7
English-Language Learners. Furthermore, 98% of the district’s teachers were
fully credentialed. The district’s suburban community consists of various
owners of prosperous and world renowned wineries, vineyards, estates, and
restaurants. However, the unincorporated cities around the district, which
include an elementary school, consist of various apartments, migrant families,
and socio-economically disadvantaged families.
As stated by the Ed-Data website (2007), for the academic school year
2005-2006, the district was made up of seven elementary schools with a total
ELL enrollment of 1,467, with 121 full-time teachers, and a pupil/teacher ratio
of 19 to 1. One elementary school was a charter school and another elementary
school was transitioning into a full dual-immersion school (Spanish/English).
There were two middle schools with a total student enrollment of 985, with 45
full-time teachers, and a pupil/teacher ratio of 22 to 1. The district had one
high-school with student enrollment of 1,541, with 67 full-time teachers, and a
pupil/teacher ratio of 23 to 1. There was one continuation school with student
enrollment of 63, with 3 full time teachers, and pupil/teacher ratio of 21 to 1.
There was one community day school with student enrollment of 17, and one
and one-half teachers, with a pupil/teacher ratio of ten and a half (Figure 2).
8
SUSD 2005-2006 ELL CST Performance in
English Language Arts
0
10
20
30
40
50
2nd-5th 6th-8th 9th-11th
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Below Basic
Far Below Basic
Problem
Figure 2: District’s 2005-2006 ELL CST Performance in English
Language Arts
CST data for the year 2005-2006 indicated a significant gap in ELL
student achievement in English-Language Arts 2
nd
grade through 11
th
. In
addition, after comparison of student CST Language Arts scores separated by
elementary school, middle school, and high school, there was a larger drop in
ELL student performance at the high school levels of grades 9
th
-11
th
. It was
evident there was significant decrease in ELL student performance in the middle
school level. Comparing ELL and EO middle school student achievement in the
English-Language Arts portion of the 2005-2006 CST, the English-Language
9
Arts achievement gap for ELL students was as follows: -22% Advanced, -25%
Proficient, -10% Basic, -24% Far Below Basic, and -22% Below Basic.
In addition to the CST, English learners are also assessed through the
California English Learner Language Development Test (CELDT). Both
Alianza and Hope Middle School have students performing at the intermediate
level or above. However, an achievement gap in English language acquisitions
continued to affect ELL student performance in the English-Language Arts
portion of the CST. As stated by the California Department of Education,
CELDT assistant packet for schools and districts (2007a),
The CELDT (instituted by Education Code sections 313 and 60810[d])
has three purposes: (1) to identify students who are limited English
proficient; (2) to determine the level of English-language proficiency of
students who are limited English proficient; and (3) to assess the
progress of limited-English-proficient students in acquiring the skills of
listening, reading, speaking, and writing in English. (p. II-1)
English-Language Learners are assessed in four areas: listening,
speaking, reading, and writing. Students in grades kindergarten and grade one
are assessed in listening and speaking and students in grades 2 through 12 in all
four skill areas. Students are assigned a proficiency level in each area tested.
There are five proficiency levels: Beginning, Early Intermediate, Intermediate,
Early Advanced, and Advanced.
Similar to ELL performance scores in the district, the majority of ELL
students are performing below proficiency levels on the CST and CELDT state
assessments at Hope and Alianza Middle Schools. The CELDT scores for 6
th
,
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Hope MS Alianza MS
Beginning
Early Intermediate
Intermediate
Early Advanced
Advanced
7
th
, and 8
th
grade ELL students in the experimental school Hope Middle School,
and the comparison school, Alianza Middle School, during the 2005-2006
academic school year were as follows:
Figure 3. CELDT Assessment 2005-2006
As stated by the California Department of Education CELDT assistant
packet for schools and districts (2007a), “School districts are to use annual
CELDT results as one of four criteria for considering the reclassification of
English learners to fluent English proficient. Additional criteria include
performance in basic skills, teacher evaluation, and parent opinion and
consultation” (p. II-11). As stated by the CDE, according to Education Code
11
Section 306 an English learner is “a child who does not speak English or whose
native language is not English and who is not currently able to perform ordinary
classroom work in English” (p. V-1). The reclassification process is the
procedure where ELL students are reclassified to Fluent English Proficient
(RFEP) after they have demonstrated English proficiency. After a student meets
the RFEP criteria, including CELDT scores, they are able to successfully and
effectively compete with English-speaking peers in mainstream English classes.
Until ELL students are reclassified to FEP, ELL students must participate in the
annual CELDT assessment.
As stated the California Department of Education (2007b), the vision for
“all California students of the 21st century is that they will attain the highest
level of academic knowledge, applied learning, and performance skills to ensure
fulfilling personal lives and careers and contribute to civic and economic
progress in our diverse and changing democratic society” (p.1). However, the
district had been unable to meet adequate yearly progress on the criteria of ELL
student achievement in English-Language Arts.
Problem Analysis and Interpretation
Framework
As stated by Marzano (2003), various reform efforts have been
implemented to improve K-12 schooling in the past century, however, evidence
12
of ineffective schools and criticism on public education continues to exist. In
any organization, it is important to conduct a thorough gap analysis in order to
improve levels of performance. The first step in determining the performance
gap is to generate “concrete, challenging, and current” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p.
26) performance goals that are clearly aligned with an organization’s business
and global goals. Second, the gap between current and desired performance
must be analyzed to determine the causes of the gaps. According to Clark and
Estes (2002) there are three critical elements that affect work performance in
any organization: knowledge, motivation, and the organizational/cultural
environment. Knowledge and skill gaps are due to a lack of conceptual and
procedural knowledge. Another possible cause to a performance gap is
attributed to three motivational processes: a person’s active choice, persistence,
and mental effort. An additional cause of a performance gap might be due to the
impact organizational culture has on performance levels.
After analysis of the CST and CELDT data, there was an apparent ELL
student knowledge gap in the area English-Language-Arts. A thorough
assessment of the CST and CELDT Language Arts scores was conducted to
determine the causes of the knowledge gap. As a teacher representative of the
District English Language Advisory Committee for the academic school year of
2006-2007, it was evident that both teachers and parents throughout the district
13
felt organizational culture may impact teacher motivation towards addressing
ELL needs.
In addition, Marzano’s (2003) three factors were used as guidance for the
analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the district as well as for comparison
of a similar school implementing best practices and providing ELL students with
an opportunity to achieve academically. To determine the possible causes of
performance gaps and design proper interventions to close the gaps, various
types of information gathering techniques were be used.
School-Level Factors
Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum. Marzano’s (2003) school-level
factors that influence student achievement include five categories. The first
category, “a guaranteed and viable curriculum,” (p. 22) has the most impact on
student achievement. As stated by Marzano (2003), “a guaranteed and viable
curriculum is primarily a combination of two factors, “opportunity to learn” and
“time” (p. 22). As described by Marzano (2003), three curriculums are required
in order to provide students the “opportunity to learn”: intended, implemented,
and attained.
During the past 2 years, the district used district-wide language-arts
benchmarks and aligned the benchmarks with both the language arts curriculum
and state standards. The benchmarks subsections are as follows: decoding/word
14
recognition, vocabulary/concepts development, reading comprehension, writing
strategies, writing application, language conventions, and listening/speaking..
The district clearly had knowledge of the state’s intended curriculum and had
established a tri-annual assessment using the district-wide benchmarks. After a
district-wide grade-level meeting focusing on language arts benchmarks,
teachers discussed both the implemented and attained curriculum. As stated by
Marzano (2003) “studies . . . indicate that even when highly structured textbooks
are used as the basis for a curriculum, teachers commonly make independent
and idiosyncratic decisions regarding what should be covered and to what
extent” (p. 23). After informal discussions with teachers at various grade levels,
the implemented curriculum varied by teacher and grade levels.
Although English Language Development (ELD) is taught 150 minutes
per week, the district does not have an established English Language
Development curriculum. As stated by the California Department of Education
(2007c), ELD curriculum is aligned to three domains: listening and speaking,
reading, and writing. According to the English Language Development
Standards for California Public Schools-Kindergarten to Grade Twelve (1999),
the English-language development (ELD) standards are designed to
supplement the English-Language Arts content standards to ensure that
limited-English proficient (LEP) students (now called English learners in
California) develop proficiency in both the English language and the
concepts and skills contained in the English-Language Arts content
standards. (p. 11)
15
Although the district language arts benchmark assessment had
established a yearly continuum describing the content needed to be covered on a
month-to-month basis, individual teachers made daily decisions regarding what
would be covered and to what extend the curriculum should be covered. In
addition to discrepancies with providing ELL students the opportunity to learn,
teachers felt there was not sufficient time to cover the necessary curriculum
needs for ELL-student achievement in language-arts. Although the district had
implemented district-wide benchmarks to improve student performance in
language arts and the school curriculum was guaranteed, it was not viable
enough to significantly increase student scores.
Challenging goals and effective feedback is the second school-level
category. As described by Marzano (2003) challenging goals and effective
feedback “is primarily a combination of what other researchers have referred to
as ‘high expectations’ and ‘pressure to achieve’” (p. 35). Academic goals not
only impact student achievement but also influence teachers and administrators
by providing a common vision in achieving student performance. The district
had has established district-wide language arts benchmarks aligned with a
language arts monthly continuum that had established challenging goals district-
wide. However, how do we know if these goals are met? Effective feedback is
needed in order to measure if the goals were reached. The district provided a tri-
yearly benchmark assessment that provided teachers with immediate feedback
16
using Edusoft Assessment Management System. As stated by Riverside
Publishing, a Houghton Mifflin Company (2007) “the Edusoft Assessment
Management System is a standards-based assessment solution that makes it easy
for districts to collect, analyze, and act on student performance data to improve
classroom instruction and performance” (p.1).
Parent and community involvement. Marzano (2003) describes parent
and community involvement as the third school-level category measuring the
degree to which parents and the communities are involved within a school. As
required by the California State Board of Education, a District English Language
Advisory Committee (DELAC) is required for a school site serving 21 or more
English learners. All 10 K-12 schools had an established ELAC and because of
this, the district had established a District English Learner Advisory Committee
made up of at least one teacher and parent representative from each school site,
as well as local community members and occasional participation of school
board members. DELAC meetings were held once a month to advise the
governing board on the master plan for English learner education and to set
district goals for English learner education.
Safe and orderly environment. The fourth school-level category involves
providing all district stakeholders a safe and orderly environment. Teachers
need a safe and orderly environment to provide effective instruction and
students need a safe environment to attain the intended language arts curriculum.
17
As stated by Bolman and Deal (2003), psychologist Abraham Maslow argues
“basic needs for physiological well-being and safety are ‘proponent,’ they have
to be satisfied first. Once lower needs are satisfied, individuals are motivated by
higher needs of belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization” (Bolman & Deal,
2003, p. 117).
Collegiality and professionalism. Marzano (2003) describes the last
school-level category as collegiality and professionalism which “deals with the
manner in which staff members in the school interact and the extent to which
they approach their work as professionals” (p. 60). Collegiality cannot be forced
upon teachers by requiring grade-level planning; instead teachers need to
authentically interact with each other by sharing successes and failures,
respecting each other, and providing constructive criticisms. The majority of
district teachers had shown both professionalism and collegiality in providing all
students an opportunity to learn through their willingness to share teaching
materials, teachings strategies, and offer support. However, side conversations
in the staff room indicated elements that may destroy work motivation. Clark
and Estes (2002) describe dishonesty, hypocrisy, and unfairness as one of five
factors that may influence a person’s motivation at work.
18
Teacher-Level Factors
Marzano (2003) describes teacher level factors as “decisions made by
individual teachers, including instructional strategies, classroom management,
and classroom curriculum design” (p. 71). Teacher instructional strategies
directly affect individual students in the classroom and are the most self-evident.
Effective teachers use more effective instructional strategies.
The need for an intervention, such as a thorough analysis of data, would
help district teachers with sharing effective instructional strategies. In addition,
through the use of peer-teacher observation, both effective instructional and
classroom management strategies could be observed and later implemented
within a school. Marzano (2003) describes the last teacher-level factor,
classroom curriculum design, as the least addressed but as important as the other
teacher-level factors because of the strong research base that can be applied to
practical instruction. Classroom curriculum design is also important because
“many breakdowns in student learning may be a function of poor classroom
curriculum design” (Marzano, 2003, p. 106).
After informal interviews, the motivation of district teachers could be
affected by various reasons. Clark and Estes (2002) describe three motivational
indexes that affect an individual’s motivation: active choice, persistence, and
mental effort. Clark and Estes (2002) find “the root motive influencing all
human behavior is a desire to be effective in our live . . . . [People] choose,
19
persist, and place a greater effort only on those activities that appear to have the
most impact” (p. 83). However, people from various cultural backgrounds have
different ideas of what work situations make them effective. Administrators at
the district need to be aware of the different cultural needs of teachers. As
described by Clark and Estes (2002, p. 84), there are two different cultural
groups “I” and “We” cultures. Individuals from “I” cultures tend to be self-
motivated by working independently because they see independence as a prize
and feel group setting are less interesting. People from “We” cultures value
collective efforts and view individuals who prefer to work independently as
secluded and at times pathetic. Within a school setting, an independent teacher
may be criticized from “We” culture teachers causing an ineffective
environment for the teacher.
Teacher self-efficacy towards teaching English-Language Arts to ELL
students may also influence student learning. As stated by Grendler (2005)
“teacher efficacy refers to the extent that the teacher believes he or she has the
capabilities to affect student performance” (p. 366). Several studies disclosed
that teacher self-efficacy is related to student gains. For instance, teachers
working at a school with low student achievement have lower self-efficacy
compared to teachers working at a school with high student achievement. The
actions influenced by teacher efficacy are the goals they set, the level of
aspiration, and effort invested in teaching. Teachers with high self-efficacy are
20
open to new ides, demonstrate more enthusiasm towards teaching, and are
willing to implement new methods of teaching.
In addition, student self-efficacy may be a contributing factor to the gap
of ELL student achievement in English-Language Arts. As stated by Ormrod
(2006), over time children’s self-efficacy for various tasks and subject areas
contribute to their overall self-concept. It is critical for students to acquire high
self-efficacy in order to increase their motivation to learn.
Student-Level Factors
After analysis of different research-based lists of student-level factors,
Marzano (2003) combined all the factors into three student level factors: Home
environment, learned intelligence and background knowledge, and motivation.
Marzano also described a strong correlation between socio-economic status and
student achievement. After analysis of various research studies, Marzano
distinguishes between intelligence as knowledge (crystallized) and intelligence
as a cognitive process (fluid intelligence). After examining the relationship
between subject matter test scores and fluid versus crystallized intelligence,
there is a stronger relationship between academic knowledge and crystallized
intelligence. English learners arrive at schools with an abundance of knowledge
that can used to access academic curriculum, but sources of the poverty gap can
21
be attributed to differences in home background, learned intelligence,
background knowledge, and motivation.
Problem/Solution
The district was under new superintendent leadership that would
continue establishment of a district-wide plan to improve student achievement
through the use of a Cycle of Inquiry reform. As stated by Tognery and
Anderson (2003), in order to improve student achievement, a system-wide
approach needs to be implemented through the cooperation of board members,
district leaders, central offices’ staff, and principals to increase teacher
effectiveness. In a study reported by Tognery and Anderson, a group of leaders
from Learning First Alliance observed and interviewed various stakeholders in
five high-poverty districts making changes towards improving student
achievement. After close analysis of each district, seven factors emerged as
essential to improvement. These factors included acknowledging poor
performance and seeking solutions, using a system-wide approach to improve
instruction, and making decisions based on data, not instinct.
Stein, Hubbard, and Mehan (2004) argue that districts need to take a
more proactive approach towards implementing their own reform policies. The
district recognized the needs of teachers and students in the classrooms, in
particular the schools within the district unable to meet API and AYP
22
requirements. The district had established a district-wide Cycle of Inquiry
within each school’s professional learning community to determine student
achievement gaps in English-Language Arts. As stated by Cushman (1999), “In
a true learning community, inquiry becomes everybody's work. Teaching,
learning, community involvement, leadership, organizational management and
change, professional growth—all take place in a continual dynamic of asking
good questions and finding evidence that can guide a school's actions” (p. 1).
The Cycle of Inquiry starts when someone poses a question about the
work in relation to the school's vision of teaching and learning, and then
identifies possible sources of information that might help answer it. The
next step involves gathering the relevant data and breaking it into parts
that make possible comparison, reflection, and analysis. Finally, that
analysis yields new action, which, in turn, suggests new inquiry into the
results; and the cycle begins again. (Cushman, 1999, p. 84)
At the district, there are many teachers who are driven and provide
students with the best education possible. Teacher collaboration groups are
critical, as stated by Cushman (1999), “in such groups, teachers commonly focus
their work using two main techniques: examining student work together, and
observing each other in the classroom” (p. 2). As a third grade teacher, student
CST data was examined within each grade level, however peer/teacher
observation had not occurred. Peer/teacher observation can ease anxiety of
observation as compared to a formal observation.
The implementation of the Cycle of Inquiry provided a team of grade-
level teachers with a common goal towards improving student achievement
23
through the inquiry process. Even though the Cycle of Inquiry was not focused
on ELL student achievement, the district analyzed student achievement using
CST language arts data. Cushman (1999) also described a school-to-school
inquiry as a strength of the inquiry process. Five Massachusetts Essential
middle schools participated in a cross-school inquiry process. Middle school
English teachers attended a 3-day summer institute and 2-day follow-up
meetings in the fall and spring. The district had not implemented a school-to-
school Cycle of Inquiry; however, the Cycle of Inquiry was implemented within
grade-level teams at each school site.
In addition, the entire faculty, including teachers and principals, must be
given the assistance of professional learning. Tognery and Anderson (2003)
described two K-12 school districts, San Diego District and District #2, where
principals were expected to nurture communities of learning within their schools
and instructional leaders were expected to provide the same learning
communities to the principals in the district. The district continued to provide
various professional development opportunities for all the teachers within the
district; however, daily learning communities within each school must become
established in order to provide opportunity for teachers to share ideas, successful
strategies, and resources. For example, principals at the district often outsource
professional development opportunities spending money and teacher instruction
time. The district can now use the Cycle of Inquiry as professional
24
development. District teachers can be given time to observe other grade-level
teachers as well as time to debrief a lesson. As Cushman (1999) states “instead
of receiving the wisdom of outside ‘experts,’ teachers draw on their own
experience to construct new knowledge on the job. They might call on research
of others to enlarge and enrich their inquiry, but the messy work of discovery is
in their hands” (p. 3).
It is vital for principals to stay close to the various activities that occur
inside the classroom. Once district teachers transform and begin to embrace
the habit of asking questions. . . it changes everyone's role into that of a
learner and a researcher. Students, teachers, parents, and administrators
all become responsible for checking out whether the evidence supports
what the school says its vision is. (Cushman, 1999, p.4)
Purpose, Design, and Utility
Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation study was to determine if there is a
relationship between the implementation Hope Middle School’s Cycle of
Inquiry to English learner student achievement in English-Language Arts as
measured by the CST and CELDT assessments, and to identify ways to improve
the Cycle of Inquiry process as it applies to English learners.
25
Design
The following evaluation study used a mixed-methods approach to data
collection. A pre/post evaluation was used to evaluate if there was a significant
relationship between the Cycle of Inquiry reform to an increase of English-
Language Learners’ achievement in English-Language Arts. The researcher
used formative evaluation methods to determine the effectiveness of the Cycle
of Inquiry to English-Language Learners and to make suggestions for
improvement.
Summative evaluation methods were used using English learner pre-test
CST and CELDT data for the years 2006-2007 school year. Hope Middle
School is the experimental middle school implementing the Cycle of Inquiry.
Formative evaluation was also used. Informal interviews and open-ended
surveys were conducted with a variety of district stakeholders; superintendents,
principals, teachers, students, parents, and community members. In order to
determine the strengths and weakness of the implementation of the Cycle of
Inquiry and its effect on CST language arts standardized assessments, surveys,
and group and individual interviews were conducted with teachers,
administrators, and students at the district. In addition, site observations, low-
profile interviews, and document analysis was used at the district and school
sites.
26
The first complete year of the implementation of the Cycle of Inquiry
was the 2006-2007 academic school year. Three full academic school years
were used to compare the measured 2005-2006 and 20026-2007 achievement
scores. Explicit boundaries were the 111 English-Language Learners out of the
458 student population in Hope Middle School. The focus of this evaluation
study determined whether the Cycle of Inquiry at the district significantly
improved English learners’ achievement in English-Language Arts. The
research question that guided the summative process was: Does inquiry base
Language Arts intervention have a significant positive effect on English-
Language Learner academic achievement as measured by the CST and CELDT
scores?
Additional research questions guided the formative evaluation process.
The following research questions were used to research teacher/student
motivation gaps, organization/cultural gaps, school-level factors, teacher-level
factors, and student-level factors affecting the Cycle of Inquiry district
implementation. Teacher Questions:
! How are teachers guided through the Cycle of Inquiry steps?
! How is the Cycle of Inquiry implemented at Hope Middle School?
! What are the strengths of the Cycle of Inquiry?
! What are the weaknesses of Cycle of Inquiry?
! Does the Cycle of Inquiry affect students’ motivation for learning?
27
! Does the Cycle of Inquiry affect teacher expectations for student
achievement?
! How do you think that the Cycle of Inquiry is addressing the needs of
intermediate students at Hope Middle School?
! Administration Questions:
! How did teachers react to the interventions?
! Did teachers’ self-efficacy and attitude change as a result of the
interventions?
! How did teacher behavior in the classroom change as a result of the
interventions?
Evaluation of effectiveness. Champion (2002) describes Kirkpatrick's four-
level model of evaluation: (a) reaction, (b) learning, (c) behavior, and (d)
results, respectively. The evaluation process of the Springboard Cycle of
Inquiry included all four phases. The emphasis for levels 1-3 was on qualitative
data and the emphasis on level four was on CST and CELDT results.
Level 1: Satisfaction data:
1. Following the implementation of the Cycle of Inquiry for the 2006-
2007, baseline data was collected through an initial survey given to
administrators in each school sight. It determined attitudes and the
perceived value of using the Cycle of Inquiry. Surveys were also
administered to a randomly selected group of district middle school
28
teachers. Anecdotal data was collected from a random selection of
middle school teachers following Cycle of Inquiry meetings given by
the administration and the School Leadership Team. After the
administration of the CST assessments, a second survey was given to
determine the teachers’ view of their efficacy perceived and
usefulness of the strategies.
Level 2: Teacher Learning:
1 Meeting notes checked for progress towards intermediate goals as set
forth in the beginning of implementation of the Cycle of Inquiry.
2. Content analysis of grade-level Instructional Design worksheets,
phase 3 of the Cycle of Inquiry, determined teaching strategies
chosen by middle school teachers, and thus assessed teacher
knowledge of Cycle of Inquiry strategies.
Level 3: Classroom Behavior:
1. Principal reports were used to measure the implementation of the
Cycle of Inquiry in the classroom as perceived by principal
observation.
2. Informal interviews were used to measure the teachers’ self-reported
descriptions of their implementation experiences in support groups.
Level 4: Results Data:
29
1. The CST and CELDT English and Language Arts portion of the
2007 California STAR testing was used to determine if the Cycle of
Inquiry was able to close the ELL student achievement gap of middle
school students in the district. The effect of the Cycle of Inquiry was
determined once STAR assessment results were distributed to
California Schools.
The progress of the district middle school ELL students was compared
using a pre/post evaluation. In addition, the district student performance was
compared to a similar school.
Utility
The California Department of Education displays English Learners’
enrollment from 1996 (1.3 million English learners) to 2006 (1.6 million English
learners)—a growth of approximately 16%. As stated by Garcia (2002) “there is
no doubt that the historical pattern of education for culturally diverse
populations in the United States is one of underachievement” (p.1). The state of
California will soon need to implement additional reform efforts to meet the
needs of English learners. As displayed earlier, there is a larger English learner
achievement gap at the high school level as compared to the middle school and
elementary school levels.
First- and second-generation immigrant children are the fastest growing
segment of the U.S. population under age 15 . . . with more than 90% of
30
recent immigrants coming form non-English-speaking countries, schools
are increasingly receiving students who don’t speak English at home and
who have little or no proficiency in English. (Garcia, 2002, p. 14)
It is vital for the state of California to establish reform efforts that will
ultimately provide teachers with the tools necessary to provide effective
English-language instruction to English learners. Regrettably, the California
Department of Education currently approves English Language Development
curriculum at a slower rate than English-Language Arts. For English Learners,
it is important to first develop the English language before full exposure to
English-Language Arts. As stated by the California Department of Education
(2006c), there is
no clear roadmap that provides teachers with direct link English-
language development and English-Language Arts content standards to
ensure fully integrated lessons based on the level of a student’s English
language proficiency. The ELA standards are not designed to follow the
progression of second-language acquisition, but rather grade level
content whereas, the ELD standards follow English-language proficiency
levels that have been aligned by grade level by the matrices developed
by the California Department of Education. (p. 1).
The most important reason for researching English Learner student
achievement in English-Language Arts is to provide students with the
opportunity to be successful in all academic areas. English language instruction
is vital to the academic success of students. If the Cycle of Inquiry significantly
closes the gaps, the opportunities for ELL students will open. A new approach
to professional development at the district with a focus on teacher leadership
31
using the Cycle of Inquiry can save the district funding, improve school
environment, build a common district vision, and increase student achievement.
32
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
An increase in the number of English Learners being served by
American public education has obliged leaders at the federal and state levels to
review current education policy. It is imperative for linguistically and culturally
diverse states, such as California, to implement reform efforts that will improve
the academic performance of English-Language Learners. Public Law 107, also
known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, ensures “that all children have
a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and
reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement
standards and state academic assessments” (United States Department of
Education, 2002a, p. 1439) through an accountability system involving federal
and state leaders, LEA leaders, teachers, and parents.
According to the CDE, in California there has been an increase of 24%
of English Learners between the years of 1995 to 2007. Currently in California,
85.3% of English Learners have Spanish as their
primary language and account for 34.05% of the California student population
(Figures 3-4).
33
Figure 4. Statewide Number of English Learners
Figure 5. Number of English Learners in Sonoma County
34
The CDE website (2007) displays demographic information regarding
Sonoma County as an astounding increase of 153% of English Learners between
the years of 1995 to 2007. Compared to California, there is more significant
numbers of EL students in Sonoma County. Currently, English Learners in
Hope Middle School is 38.43%, of which 97% of the students have Spanish as
their primary language.
The California Department of Education website defines an English
Learner (EL) student
as those students for whom there is a report of a primary language other
than English on the state-approved Home Language Survey and who, on
the basis of the state-approved oral language (grades K-12) assessment
procedures and including literacy (grades 3-12 only), have been
determined to lack the clearly defined English language skills of
listening comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing necessary to
succeed in the school's regular instructional programs. (California
Department of Education, 2007e)
It is evident there is an urgent need for reform efforts to help close the
achievement gap between English Learners and English Only students.
This chapter provides four perspectives on the current literature
pertaining to ELL and their academic performance. First, the effect of NCLB
and state accountability measures for ELLs is examined. The second
perspective focuses on ELLs’ academic achievement, and language acquisition.
The third area focuses on teacher and school-level factors affecting ELL
achievement. Lastly, the impact of local intervention efforts on ELL academic
achievement is analyzed.
35
No Child Left Behind Act, State Accountability Measures,
and English Learners
As described earlier, in 2001 the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act affecting students in
grades Kindergarten through 12
th
grade. United States Department of Education
(2007b) described the four principles that encompass NCLB is built on four
principles: accountability for results, more choices for parents, greater local
control and flexibility, and an emphasis on doing what works based on scientific
research.
The first principle, accountability for results, involves a series of systems
based on Mathematics and Language Arts statewide assessments that measure
student progress towards academic proficiency. As stated by the United States
Department of Education (2007a), NCLB also requires state progress broken
down by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to
ensure that no child is left behind. Another accountability measure used by
NCLB is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). United States Department of
Education (2007a), explains schools that are able to meet AYP will be eligible
for State Academic Achievement Awards, otherwise schools failing to meet
AYP goals will be “subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring
measures aimed at getting them back on course to meet State standards” (p. 1).
36
Another accountability measure is the Academic Performance Index (API).
According to the California Department of Education,
The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of
California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). The
purpose of the API is to measure the academic performance and growth
of schools. It is a numeric index (or scale) that ranges from a low of 200
to a high of 1000. A school's score on the API is an indicator of a
school's performance level. The statewide API performance target for all
schools is 800. A school's growth is measured by how well it is moving
toward or past that goal. A school's API Base is subtracted from its API
Growth to determine how much the school improved in a year.
(California Department of Education, 2007d, p. 1)
In the state of California, the objective of the STAR program is to
measure academic aptitude of students in grades 2
nd
through 11
th
towards the
California State Standards and provide data to meet federal and state regulations.
According to the STAR post-test guide (California Department of Education,
2006b), there are four main purposes of the STAR program. The first function
is to establish standard communication format to parents of student’s progress
towards California State Standards. A second purpose is to provide information
to teachers and administrators in order to help students achieve proficiency. The
next purpose is to facilitate the evaluation of instructional programs. Lastly, in
order to meet NCLB requirements, the STAR program will provide data to state
and federal accountability programs which will calculate both a school’s and
districts API and AYP scores.
The STAR program consists of four components: California Standards
Tests (CST), California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA), California
37
Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition (CAT/6 Survey), and Aprenda 3. The CST
assessment is used to calculate each Local Education Agency (LEA), district,
and school’s Adequate Yearly Progress.
In order to be in compliance with NCLB, all schools are expected to
meet AYP requirements by 2014 to ensure all children, particularly English
Learners, meet academic proficiency in Language Arts (Figure 5). As set by
NCLB, in the 2005-2006 school year 24.7% of all students and subgroups must
meet proficiency or above. According to the AYP information guide 2005-
2006, a numerically significant subgroup is classified “has at least 100 students
enrolled on the first day of testing and/or at least 100 valid test scores”
(California Department of Education, 2007d, p. 31). It is important to note the
expected percentage of proficiency would increase to 35.2% during the 2006-
2007 school year and would continue to increase until 100% of all students meet
proficiency by 2014. Intensive reform must be implemented throughout
California LEA’s, in order to provide English Learners an opportunity to
succeed. As stated by Kane and Staiger (2002) subgroups can be effective if
they oblige schools to focus on academic achievement gaps.
38
Figure 6. English-Language Arts
Source: California Department of Education, AYP Guide 2005-2006, p.27.
In addition to being part of a significant subgroup, another factor used to
compare English-Learner achievement is their progress towards the
reclassification from Limited-English Proficient to Fluent-English Proficient
(RFEP). California Department of Education CELDT Assistant Packet-Section
V states the following,
Education Code Section 306 defines “English learner” as “a child who
does not speak English or whose native language is not English and
who is not currently able to perform ordinary classroom work in
English…” Reclassification is the process by which students who have
been identified as English learners are reclassified to fluent English
proficient (FEP) when they have demonstrated that they are able to
compete effectively with English-speaking peers in mainstream classes.
Under current law, identified English learners must participate in the
39
annual administration of the CELDT until they are reclassified.
(California Department of Education, 2007a, Section V, p.2)
California Department of Education CELDT Assistant Packet-Section
V describes a four step process to reclassify an English Learner (EL) student.
The first step is to review the annual California English Language
Development Test (CELDT) results for English-Language proficiency. The
CELDT assesses students on listening, speaking, reading and writing, and
provides an overall score in each area using the following proficiency bands:
Beginning (B), Early Intermediate (EI), Intermediate (I), Early Advanced (EA),
or Advanced (A). If the EL meets the criteria, the student will move on to the
next step. If not, they will remain an English Learner. The second step is to
compare an EL basic skill performance focused on the English-Language Arts
portion of the CST. If the student does not meet the criteria, they will remain
an English Learner. Teacher evaluation of an English Learner’s academic
performance is the third step. The evaluation could include a school district’s
academic benchmark or a preset policy for classifying an English Learner’s
academic performance. If the student does not meet academic performance
indicators, they will remain an English Learner. Lastly, if an English Learner
has met all the criteria, parents will be consulted and involved in the
reclassification process (Figure 6). Once an EL student becomes reclassified
from LEP to FEP, the RFEP student will no longer be part of the EL subgroup
but instead will become an RFEP student.
40
Figure 7. Decision Guide: Reclassifying a Student From English
Learner to Fluent-English Proficient
41
English Learners, Academic Proficiency,
and Language Acquisition
The definition of an English Learner is as diverse as cultures throughout
the world. As stated by Garcia (2002) “at one end of the continuum are general
definitions such as “students who come from homes in which a language other
than English is spoken.” At the other end are such highly operationalized
definitions as “students who scored in the first quartile on a standardized test of
English-Language proficiency” (p. 40). Various reform efforts at both federal
and state levels have been implemented to improve the academic achievement of
English Learners. For instance, a major reform effort at the federal level is the
transformation of ESEA to NCLB focusing on academic achievement of
significant subgroups. In California, state initiatives include a detailed
reclassification process using the California English Language Development
Test (CELDT).
Doherty, Hilberg, Epaloose, and Tharp (2002) conducted a study
focusing on the relationship between pedagogy, classroom organization, and
student achievement gains. The participants of this study were a total of 23
teachers and 394 students, mostly low-income English Learners in grades third
through fifth, attending two public elementary schools located in central
California. Both quantitative and qualitative data was used, including API
scores, the English-Language Arts portion of the CST, interviews, and
42
observations. There were two main findings in this study. The first finding
pertained to direct correlation between a teacher’s use of the standards for
effective pedagogy and performance on comprehension, reading, spelling, and
vocabulary on yearly standardized tests. The second finding was significant
student achievement gains in classrooms where teachers widely used standards
and “organized their classrooms into multiple, simultaneous, diversified activity
settings” (Doherty, Hilberg, Epaloose, & Tharp, 2002, p.1). In conclusion, two
effects are clearly evident. First, teachers with high self-efficacy of English-
Language Arts standards and effective pedagogical skills will help provide all
students with appropriate support in English-Language Arts. In addition,
teachers aware of the importance to classroom organization are able to
differentiate instruction through diversification of learning activities. It is
evident that all students, including low-English-proficient students, made
positive academic gains in English-Language Arts.
Throughout the years, various hypotheses have developed regarding
second-language acquisition. As stated by Crawford (2004) in the 1960s
“Chomsky hypothesizes, human beings have an innate cognitive capacity for
language” (p. 187). Every person is able to formulate sounds from words heard.
Shortly after Chomsky’s hypothesis, other researchers conducted studies
determining another language acquisition theory focused on “a natural order for
children’s mastery of grammatical structures in both first and second languages,
43
with certain forms acquired later than others” (Crawford, 2004, p. 187).
However, as stated by Crawford (2004), “theory is essential to developing,
testing, and improving an educational treatment, argues Krashen . . . without
theory we cannot distinguish the crucial or distinctive features from the
noncrucial or nondistinctive features” (p. 188). The basic theory distinguishes
between language acquisition and language learning. Fluency, knowledge of
grammar, and vocabulary rules cannot be learned. In addition, language
acquisition is essentially acquired in the same as a person’s first language.
As stated by Crawford (2004), an educational psychologist by the name
of Cummins hypothesized two different types of second-language proficiency:
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic
Language Proficiency (CALP). BICS and CALP are on opposite ends of the
spectrum, BICS being more of a social language and CALP a formal language.
BICS
relies heavily on nonlinguistic cues and context-gestures, intonations,
shared knowledge, etc., to facilitate communication . . . . At the other
end of the continuum is CALP . . . . This is the kind of proficiency
required for abstract, analytical thinking and the expression of complex
meaning, with limited support from external context. (pp. 195-196)
Current literature continuously has strong implications of the effect
second-language acquisition has on an English learner’s academic proficiency.
Aside from federal and state laws, standardized assessments, various language
acquisition hypothesis, and many other accountability measures set forth by
44
NCLB, an English Learner’s academic success can most directly be affected by
a school and classroom environment.
Teacher and School Level Factors Affecting
English Learner Achievement
There are various factors that affect English Learner achievement such as
home environment, parent education level, and socio-economic status; however,
teacher- and school-level factors continue to be the most influential in helping to
close the academic achievement gap. Current research on successful schools
demonstrates the great influence teachers have on student learning. Although
people may disagree, many high-performing schools are those schools that may
not yet have met AYP goals, but have made the most significant improvement in
the least amount of time. As stated by Darling-Hammond (2002) “there is a
tendency to dismiss high-performing schools—especially those that succeed
with poor and minority students—as the anomalous results of charismatic
leaders or bands of unusual teachers” (p. 150).
Darling-Hammond (2002) describes studies conducted at Columbia
University (Teachers College) by the National Center for Restructuring
Education, Schools, and Teaching (NCREST). These success stories began in
the 1980s in New York City where the Center for Collaborative Education
(CCE) began “a network that sponsors cooperative work on school renewal,
45
professional development, and community education” (Darling-Hammond,
2002, p. 152) using a collaboration network between schools. New and
established public schools began a restructuring process centered on student
learning. CCE provided teachers and principals opportunities to reshape their
vision for education, problem solve the causes of student academic gaps, and
both moral and financial support to implement reform in an urban setting.
The fundamental factor leading to school success is an empowering
school vision that establishes core beliefs and a clear purpose. Bramburg (1994)
explains “one of the most challenging issues in schools is the lack of clarity
about what is important in the school” (p.14). As stated by Julius, Baldridge,
and Pfeffer (1999) “a new vision cannot be successfully implemented unless the
individual (you) motivating other to change is perceived to have the highest of
values; e.g., integrity, sensitivity, selflessness, and striving for the good of the
organization” (p. 117). School leadership is another essential factor that leads to
educational reform. Together with a shared vision, a network of educational
leaders, and both principals and teachers, the CCE network continued to grow.
By 1992, the CCE network was comprised of 30 schools and continued
to grow by helping at-risk schools restructure their current setting. One specific
CCE school success example is Urban Academy serving approximately 100 at-
risk students who have either left school or dropped out. Urban Academy
implemented fluid structures that facilitated frequent team teaching, teaching
46
visits, ongoing professional learning, and opportunities to design curriculum as a
team. Although labeled at-risk, 90% of Urban Academy graduates were
accepted to college.
Challenging goals and effective feedback, as described by Marzano
(2003), “is primarily a combination of what other researchers have referred to as
“high expectations” and “pressure to achieve” (p. 35). English learners are
significantly impacted by the goals set forth by schools and positive feedback
given to both English Learners and their families regarding progress towards
these goals. “In addition to its impact on achievement, Schmoker (1999) notes
that setting academic goals for the school as whole, has a powerful, coalescing
affect on teacher and administrators” (Schmoker, 1999).
Local Interventions and English Learners
Springboard Schools, a nonprofit network of educators, is currently
working at Hope Middle School providing leaders, both at the district and
school site, “with knowledge, skills, and tools to create school systems in which
good teaching is the norm in every classroom for every student” (Springboard
Schools, 2007, p.1). Springboard Schools provides Hope Middle School with
access to current research, professional development services, coaching for
school administrators, and access to tools and resources. In addition,
47
Springboard Schools network provides Hope Middle School with guidance and
coaching of the Cycle of Inquiry to help close the student achievement gap.
Professional Learning Communities, as defined by, Dufour, Dufour,
Eaker, and Thomas (2006), encompasses six efforts.
1. A Focus on Learning
2. A Collaborative Culture Wit a Focus on Learning for All
3. Collective Inquiry Into Best Practice and Current Reality
4. Action Orientation: Learning by Doing
5. A Commitment to Continuous Improvement
6. Results Orientation
The basis of Professional Learning Communities (PLC) is a commitment
to the learning of each student. As stated by Dufour, et. al. (2006), “members
work together to clarify exactly what each student must learn, monitor each
student on a timely basis, provide systematic interventions that ensure student
receive additional time and support for learning when they struggle, and extend
and enrich learning when students have already mastered the intended
outcomes” (p. 3). As stated earlier, the ultimate goal of the PLC is to close the
achievement gap of English Learners in English-Language Arts. Professional
Learning Communities at Hope Middle School use the Cycle of Inquiry to focus
on high priority student achievement concerns, pose questions that may cause
the achievement gaps, implement interventions that will help close the gaps, and
48
analyze data to determine if the intervention was effective. Clark and Estes
(2002) discuss the need for every organization “to develop and communicate
clear business goals that are translated into concrete, challenging, and current
individual and team performance goals” (p. 38).
Arbeit, et. al. (2007) describe research conducted by Kiley Walsh using
“test scores to identify one group of gap-closing and another group of non-gap-
closing elementary and middle schools” (p. iv). This research focused on two
groups of schools using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
Walsh’s research was used to conduct a three year California statewide study of
high performing middle schools. The findings from schools working with
Springboard using both Cycle of Inquiry and Professional Learning
Communities were as follows:
! The “front line” activities occurring in middle grades schools and how
high-performing school differ from average-performers
! Documented efforts of high-performing schools to engage students and
empower student voice
! Examples of what we call “systems thinking,” which we believe
represents the next wave for middle grades thinking. (Arbeit, et. al.,
2007, p. 5)
The first finding, front line activities, is correlated with standards based
improvement activities. These activities include (a) aligning curriculum to
standards, (b) establishing structures that make high standards real, (c)
intervening for students academically and socially, (d) supporting teachers to
49
ensure high quality instruction, and (e) using data to develop strategies and
improve practice. Although the study included both average and high
performing middle schools, many of the high performing middles schools had
clearly aligned standards and teacher practices. For instance, one school
established a school-wide standard requiring students to use the Cornell Note
taking system in every class. In addition, high performing schools had
coordinated articulation between both feeder elementary schools and the
destination high schools.
A second finding in high-performing Springboard Schools was the
commitment to engage and provide students with various opportunities to
become empowered through learning. For instance, various middle schools
create student contracts with clearly defined goals. For instance, contract can be
created for English Learners and supported by teachers who will provide an
additional class period to focus on English-Language Development. The last
finding involves clearly defines systems, “high performing middle grade schools
are heading toward new territory by assuming what we might call a “systems”
view of their practice” (p. 14). A systems approach involves the broader
connection between K-12 grades. It includes a strong relationship between
schools and the district office to ensure the best resources are available to
teachers and administrators. Arbeit, et. al. (2007), found “higher-performing
middle grades schools are mobilizing the resources of the system as a whole
50
school to support students with special needs, including English Learners” (p.
17). High-performing middle schools “are attempting to bring these activities
together as an integrated program, including systems of interventions and using
data to understand areas of need” (Arbeit, et. al., p. 20).
Conclusions
Reform efforts are inevitable in order to improve the academic
performance of English Learners. The number of linguistically and culturally
diverse students in California will continue to increase and both federal and state
education leaders need to provide LEAs with the resources to serve
linguistically and culturally diverse students. Although NCLB has began an
effort to focus on student subgroups with the use of data, a local school district
can support English Learner success by creating a professional learning to help
educators and administrators improve instruction through analysis of data,
curriculum, and teaching strategies. “Rather than pursuing a loose or
fragmented set of reform activities, the high-performers bring these activities
together in a way that reinforce each other, generating synergy and momentum”
(Arbeit, et. al., p. 20).
In addition to support from the federal and state government, it is crucial
for teachers and administrators to understand current language acquisition
theories and teaching strategies proven to improve English Learner academic
51
achievement. It is important for school district and principals “to ensure that
choices about staffing, schedules, curriculum design, resource allocation and
other key issues are made with an eye to how each decision will affect the others;
and especially how each decision will affect those students most at risk” (Alebit,
et. al., 2007, p. 16). Although the district has significant roles in converting a
school to a professional learning community, a school administrator and
classroom teacher continue to have the most direct impact on students. As
stated by Marzano (2003) “all researchers agree that the impact of decisions
made by individual teachers is far grater than the impact of decisions made at
the school level” (p. 71).
Furthermore, the local intervention efforts on English Learner academic
achievement in Language Arts are an attempt to close the academic achievement
gap at Hope Middle School. This chapter analyzed current literature to provide
an explanation for the role of federal, state, Local Education Agencies,
administrators and teachers in providing support for English Learner and address
the current academic achievement gap in language arts. Although various
literature and research has been conducted on English Learner Achievement,
additional research is needed in specific reform efforts that have proven to close
the achievement gap between English Learners and non-English learners and the
validity of English Learners performance in standardized assessments. This
52
study will provide additional data on educating English Learners through the use
of professional learning communities and the Cycle of Inquiry.
53
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Design Summary
A pre/post design was used to determine if the Cycle of Inquiry reform
significantly closed the English-Language Learner (ELL) student achievement
gap in the 2006-2007 academic school year. The Cycle of Inquiry began in the
fall of 2006. The California CST and CELDT 2006-2007 assessment data was
used to compare ELL student performance in the CST and CELDT to prior
academic school years, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. A summative evaluation
design was used: O pre X O post. Sunny Unified School District (SUSD)
middle-school students in both the pre- and post-intervention varied, therefore,
2005-2006 and 2006-2007 observations were independent.
Pre-test Observation: 2006 California Standards Test
Treatment (X): Springboard Cycle of Inquiry
Post-test Observation: 2007 California Standards Test
The 2006 CST Language Arts scores for the English-Learner subgroup
in SUSD school district was compared to 2007 CST test results for the same
district in order to determine the impact of the Cycle of Inquiry on English
Learner achievement or the achievement gap. The control group was Alianza
Middle School, a similar school within the Sonoma County.
54
In addition to summative evaluation of the Cycle of Inquiry, some
formative evaluations were used in this study: informal interviews and open-
ended interviews with middle-school teachers and principals. Principals and
teachers were interviewed late in the 2006/2007 school year in order to describe
the implementation process of the Cycle of Inquiry at each school site. Open-
ended questions were used regarding curriculum and English Learner
instruction. The purpose of the formative evaluation was to identify strengths
and weaknesses.
Participant and Setting
The setting of this study was two SUSD middle schools. Participants in
this study consisted of about 200 English Learner students participating in the
CST California assessment. Both percentage and mean scaled score data was
analyzed for ELL in 6
th
through 8
th
grades in Hope Middle School using the
subcategories of Far Below Basic, Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and
Advanced. CST data was attained through the California Department of
Education Website, data and statistics section using DataQuest Database Report
Builder (California Department of Education, 2007f).
In addition, participants included two middle-school principals, the
director of curriculum and instruction, one middle-school Foreign Language
Assistance Program grant coordinator, and four middle-school teachers. Low
55
profile interviews included the implementation of the Cycle of Inquiry and
instructional practices pertaining to English Learners. Interview results
provided the SUSD with immediate information that should improve the
implementation of the Cycle of Inquiry and instructional practices affecting
English Learners.
Intervention Description
The Cycle of Inquiry implemented at SUSD begins when
someone poses a question about the work in relation to the school's
vision of teaching and learning, and then identifies possible sources of
information that might help answer it. The next step involves gathering
the relevant data and breaking it into parts that make possible
comparison, reflection, and analysis. Finally, that analysis yields new
action which, in turn, suggests new inquiry into the results; and the cycle
begins again. (Cushman, 1999, p. 2)
SUSD began to implement a continuous improvement reform during the
2006-2007 academic school year. The Cycle of Inquiry is as follows:
1. Administrator and teacher leaders are trained in the implementation
of the Cycle of Inquiry.
2. Teacher leaders guide grade-level teachers through the Cycle of
Inquiry Process. The Cycle of Inquiry process is as follows:
a. Develop vision for teaching and learning.
b. Formulate researchable question.
c. Design Instruction.
56
d. Teach and collect data.
e. Analyze data.
f. Derive implications for changing practice.
3. Administrators and teacher leaders meet with district wide
representatives to report the Cycle of Inquiry results after three steps
of the Cycle of Inquiry:
a. Formulation and Design of Instruction.
b. Teaching, collection, and Analysis of Data.
c. Implication for changing practice.
Quantitative Instrumentation
The California Department of Education Website (California Department
of Education, 2007f) was used to retrieve and analyze the California Standards
Test (CST), which is a part of the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
Program. CST English-Language Arts results were analyzed for English
Learner middle-school student subgroups attending Hope Middle School for the
2006-2007 academic school year. The post-CST data was compared to CST
data from the prior year, 2005-2006. According to EdSource glossary of terms
(EdSource, 2007), the California Standards Tests (CSTs) “are based on the
state’s academic content standards—what teachers are expected to teach and
what students are expected to learn” (p.1). The CSTs are mainly multiple
57
choice; however, fourth and seventh grades were given a writing assessment in
addition to the multiple choice CST questions. Student scores were rated as:
Far Below Basic, Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced with the a state-
wide goal for all students to score Proficient or above. According to the
California Department of Education STAR Program (2007) Understanding Star
Program Test, the CST measures student achievement in English-Language
Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. As stated by the STAR
Program, Understanding Star Program Test, the STAR program for 2007
includes five components:
! The California Standards Tests (CSTs) measure the achievement of state
content standards in English-Language Arts, Mathematics, science, and
history-social science.
! The California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition (CAT/6 Survey) are
nationally norm-referenced tests that measure the achievement of general
academic knowledge in core subject areas and provide national
comparisons (for grades three and seven only).
! The California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) was
developed as an alternate assessment for students who have significant
cognitive disabilities and cannot take the CSTs even with
accommodations or modifications.
58
! The Standards-Based Tests in Spanish (STS) have been developed for
Spanish-speaking English Learners and measure the achievement of state
content standards in reading-language arts and mathematics in Spanish
(for grades two, three, and four in 2007).
! The Aprenda, La prueba de logros en español, Tercera edición (Aprenda
3) is a nationally norm-referenced achievement test of general academic
knowledge in Spanish for Spanish-speaking English Learners (for grades
five through eleven in 2007).
For this study, the CST component of the STAR test was used to assess
the effect of the Cycle of Inquiry and English Learner performance in the
English-Language Arts portion of the assessment. As stated by the STAR Post-
Test Guide (2006) “a scale score is derived from a statistical process. It is not
possible to calculate a scale score by multiplying a student’s percent correct in a
content area by 600” (p. 21). In addition, the ranges of possible scale scores for
the CSTs are from 150-600 for each grade and subject. California and SUSD’s
goal is to have all students perform at Proficient or Advanced.
The goal in California is to have all students perform at Proficient or
advanced. For all CST content areas and grades, the Proficient level is
set at a minimum score of 350, and the Basic level is set at a minimum
scale score of 300. The minimum scale scores for Below Basic and
Advanced differ by content area and grade. (STAR Pre-Test Guide,
2007, p. 21)
59
Qualitative Instrumentation
Informal interviews were used in order to collect qualitative data from
administrators and teachers at SUSD middle schools. Interviews were used to
provide additional information on the implementation process of the Cycle of
Inquiry. The interview was recorded using a note-taking strategy. I conducted
low-profile interviews consisting of the following open-ended questions:
Teacher Questions:
! How are teachers guided through the Cycle of Inquiry steps?
! How is the Cycle of Inquiry implemented at Hope Middle School?
! What are the strengths of the Cycle of Inquiry?
! What are the weaknesses of Cycle of Inquiry?
! Does the Cycle of Inquiry affect students’ motivation for learning?
! Does the Cycle of Inquiry affect teacher expectations for student
achievement?
! How do you think that the Cycle of Inquiry is addressing the needs of
intermediate students at Hope Middle School?
Administration Questions:
! How did teachers react to the interventions?
! Did teachers’ self-efficacy and attitude change as a result of the
interventions?
60
! How did teacher behavior in the classroom change as a result of the
interventions?
Procedural Timeline
This study follows specific time lines in order to complete the study with
limitations. The following timelines were used to collect data:
May 2007 Interviews were scheduled with middle-school teachers, site
administrators, and the director of curriculum and instruction in SUSD.
Quantitative data was analyzed and recorded from the CST English-Language
Arts portion and English Learner student subgroups at SUSC.
September 2007: CST data was collected and analyzed using SPSS
using CST scores. A second set of interviews were scheduled with middle-
school teachers, site administrators, and the director of curriculum and
instruction in SUSD.
December 2007: Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed and
interpreted.
Quantitative Analysis
Using SPSS software, CST data were used to determine if the Cycle of
Inquiry made a statistically significant improvement. Once the CST 2006-2007
test results were released, a pre/post score comparison was used using an
61
independent groups t-test. In addition, Cohen’s d index and the percentage
difference between pre/post data demonstrates the size of the effect.
Qualitative Analysis
As stated by Patton (2002) “the quality of the information obtained
during an interview is largely dependent on the interview” (p. 341). Using
Patton’s (2002) qualitative interview guide, the following steps were used to
conduct interviews:
1. An interview guide was developed to insure the best use of time and
inquiry during an interview.
2. General ideas and specific quotes were transcribed.
3. Information was categorized into themes.
4. Themes were personally interpreted.
Limitations of the Study
As stated by Hocevar (2007), a limitation to a pre/post design is the
weakness of the causal inferences regarding the intervention impact. For
instance, the effect of the Cycle of Inquiry can be influenced by outside factors,
including grants acquired by one SUSD middle school and new administration
for another SUSD middle school. External validity is a second limitation due to
62
the extent to which the study would be difficult to replicate using a similar
setting, population, and intervention.
Qualitative evaluations were used to determine if the Cycle of Inquiry
positively impacted instruction for EL students. Low-profile interviews
provided detailed description of the Cycle of Inquiry implementation process
and possible suggestions for improvement. For the purpose of this study,
pre/post data for the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 academic school years using
CST scores were used for analysis.
63
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The three dependent variables used in this study were: CST English-
Language Arts performance band scores, the percentage of students who scored
“Basic and above” on the CST ELA, and the percentage of students who scored
“Proficient and above” on the CST ELA. The five CST performance bands
were coded as follows: 0 = Far Below Basic, 1 = Below Basic, 2 = Basic,
3 = Proficient, and 4 = Advanced.
For each dependent variable, a pre/post independent groups design was
used to determine if the Cycle of Inquiry improved EL student achievement at
Hope Middle School. In addition, a non-equivalent comparison group design
was used to compare English Learner performance in grades 6
th
through 8
th
at
Hope Middle School (experimental group) and Alianza Middle School
(comparison group).
Pre/post Independent Groups Design
A pre/post independent groups design was used to analyze CST data
from Hope Middle School (experimental school) from the 2005-2006 school
year (pre-intervention) to 2006-2007 school year (post-intervention). The
English-Language Arts portion of the CST was used to generate the
64
performance band scores in order to assess both statistical and practical
significance. The independent groups t-test was used to assess statistical
significance with the criterion p<.15. Practical significance was assessed using
the following statistics: (a) Cohen’s d variable with a criterion of d>.20, (b) raw
change from 2006 to 2007 with a criterion of at least 10% improvement, and (c)
percentage change with a criterion of 10% improvement.
Non-equivalent Comparison Group Design
The non-equivalent comparison group design was used to compare the
experimental group (Hope Middle School) and the comparison group (Alianza
Middle School). Alianza Middle School was selected because of the pre-test
similarities to Hope Middle School which included: free and reduced lunch,
English Learners, AYP performance in the Language Arts portion of the CST,
and comparable student populations. The post-test English-Language Arts data
of the CST was used to compare the experimental school to the comparison
school. The treatment administered to the experimental school was the
implementation of the Cycle of Inquiry through the use of professional learning
communities. A descriptive statistical analysis was used to compare and
contrast the experimental and comparison groups.
65
Pre/Post Independent Groups’ Results
The pre/post statistical test findings (p<.15) for Hope Middle School
grades sixth through eighth grade and the schools’ significant subgroups,
English Learners, Hispanic/Latino, and Socio-economically Disadvantaged, are
demonstrated on Table 1.
Table 1
Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA Performance Band Differences:
Statistical Findings
Grouping
Pre N
2006
Post N
2007
Pre M
2006
Post M
2007
Difference
T-ratio
Observed
Probability
Hope
School
445 449 2.33 2.47 .14 +1.77 .078
6
th
Grade 151 150 2.28 2.33 .05 -.353 .724
7
th
Grade 145 152 2.39 2.5 .11 -.813 .417
8
th
Grade 149 147 2.33 2.59 .26 +1.86 .064
EL 107 98 1.04 1.37 .33 +2.94 .004
H/L 179 170 1.68 1.91 .23 +2.10 .036
SED 182 173 1.60 1.83 .23 +2.15 .032
Note. = p<.150
The overall performance of the experimental school is shown in the first
row of Table 1. The English-Language Arts CST performance bands indicate a
significant increase from 2006 to 2007 in the overall performance of the school,
t (892) = 1.77, p < .150. Statistical significance (p<.150) was also found in four
out of the six experimental school subgroups. For students in 8
th
grade, the
observed gain from 2006 to 2008 was .26, t = -1.86, p = .064. In addition, there
were significant gains in the overall performance of English Learners. The
66
observed gain for English Learners was statistically significant and the highest
growth of all subgroups (.33), t = -2.94, p = .004. There was no significant
growth in the overall performance of 6
th
and 7
th
graders in the English-Language
Arts portion of the CST due to the statistical significance depending highly on
the sample size.
In addition, practical significance level can also be statistically
significant if there are considerable differences. The practical significance can
be assessed using the three measures. The first measure is raw change that can
be calculated by subtracting the post-test score from the pre-test score. The next
measure is the effect size computed using the ratio of the change from 2006 to
2007 to the pre-test standard deviation. The last measure is the assessment of
the percentage change using the ratio of the change from 2006 to 2007 to the
pre-test mean.
The results demonstrated in Table 2 exhibit the statistical significance at
the practical level. In the 2006 school year, 50% of students in the experimental
school performed at the proficient level and above. In 2006, the CST English-
Language Arts performances of all students in the experimental school were as
follows: Far Below Basic (10%), Below Basic (15%), Basic (25%), Proficient
(31%), and Advanced (19%).
67
Table 2
Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST English-Language Arts Performance Band
Differences: Practical Significance
Grouping
Pre M
Pre SD
Pre/Post
Change
Effect
Size
Percentage
Change
School 2.33 1.22 +.14 .11 .06
6
th
Grade 2.28 1.21 +.05 .04 .02
7
th
Grade 2.39 1.17 +.11 .09 .05
8
th
Grade 2.33 1.28 +.26 .20 .11
EL 1.04 0.81 +.33 .41 .32
H/L 1.68 1.05 +.23 .22 .14
SED 1.60 1.06 +.23 .22 .14
Note. Effect size > .20 and percent change > .10.
Table 2 exhibits practical significance of each targeted group examined
in the experimental school.
Raw Change. After close analysis, there was significant improvement
from 2006 to 2007 in four out of the six subgroups. The most improvement can
be seen in the English-Learner subgroup, a pre/post test change of .33.
Improvement in CST English-Language Arts performance can also be seen in 8
th
grade with a pre/post change of .26 and a .23 significant improvement in both
the Hispanic/Latino subgroup and Socio-Economically Disadvantaged
subgroups.
Effect Size. The effect size is calculated from the ratio of the pre/post
change and the pre-standard deviation. The analysis of the effect size
demonstrates three significant sub-groups, effect size > .20 and percent change
68
> .10. The subgroup with the highest effect size was the English Language sub-
groups, effect size = .41. In addition, there was a significant effect size for the
following subgroups: Hispanic/Latino (.22) and Socio-Economically
Disadvantaged (.22).
Percent Change. Practical significance can also be examined using the
preset standard of percent change > 10%. The pre-test (2006) and post-test
(2007) was used to analyze the percentage change of student performance band.
Table 2 exhibits an overall 6% increase from 2006 to 2007 in the experimental
school. The percentage change for the experimental school is not practically
significant. However, there was a percentage change higher than 10% for the
following subgroups: 8
th
Grade, English Learners, Hispanic/Latino, and Socio-
Economically Disadvantaged. Significant gains were made in four subgroups:
8
th
Grade (11%), English Learner (32%), Hispanic/Latino (14% ), and Socio-
Economically Disadvantaged (14% ). Although most significant gains were
made in the English-Learner subgroup, 32% gain, the pre-test performance band
scores remain low.
The pre/post test results are also summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3
demonstrates the percentage change of students scoring basic and above. It is
important to analyze the percent of students performing at the Basic and above
level due to the No Child Left Behind goal of students, including significant
69
subgroups, achieving Basic and above. Table 4 demonstrates the percentage of
students scoring proficient and above.
Table 3
Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA Percent Basic and Above
Grouping
Pre (2006)
Pre (2007)
Pre/Post
Change
Percentage
Change
School .75 .80 .05 .07
6
th
Grade .71 .75 .04 .06
7
th
Grade .78 .83 .05 .06
8
th
Grade .76 .82 .06 .08
EL .31 .48 .17 .55
H/L .53 .67 .14 .26
SED .54 .66 .12 .22
Note. Percent change > .10
Table 4
Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA Percent Proficient and Above
Grouping
Pre (2006)
Pre (2007)
Pre/Post
Change
Percentage
Change
School .50 .53 .03 .06
6
th
Grade .47 .48 .01 .02
7
th
Grade .53 .56 .03 .06
8
th
Grade .49 .56 .07 .14
EL .02 .04 .02 1.00
H/L .21 .26 .05 .24
SED .22 .22 .00 .00
Note. Percent change > .10
70
After close analysis of the pre- versus post-intervention results of the
CST English-Language Arts performance bands, both Table 3 and Table 4
demonstrate similar results to Tables 1 and 2. The most significant growth in
both Tables 3 and 4 can be seen in the English-Learner subgroup, percentage
Basic and above (.55) and percentage Proficient and above (1.00). Practical
significance for students performing Basic and above (Table 3), can also be seen
for the Hispanic/Latino (.26) and Socio-Economically Disadvantaged (.22). In
addition to the English-Learner subgroup, Table 4 displays practical significance
in 8
th
Grade (.14) and Hispanic/Latino (.24) subgroups.
After analysis of Tables 1-4, both statistical significance (p<.15) and
practical significance (percent change >.10) were found for the English Learner
and Hispanic/Latino subgroups. In addition, the least statistical and practical
significance was found in the 6
th
grade subgroup.
As stated by the CELDT (2007) Assistant Packet for School District and
Schools, Federal Guidelines for the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001,
Title III, “require that state educational agencies receiving Title III funds
establish English-language proficiency standards, identify or develop and
implement English-language proficiency assessments, and define annual
measurable achievement objectives for monitoring the progress of English
learners toward attainment of English proficiency” (p. 7). The California
English Language Development Test (CELDT) is the measure used by the
71
California Department of Education in all public schools. The CELDT
assessment is used to measure English-Language Proficiency for English
Learners. English-Language Proficiency of English Learners in grades
kindergarten through twelfth grade are assessed in listening and speaking. In
addition, English learners in grades second through twelfth are also assessed in
reading, writing, and comprehension. There are five CELDT proficiency levels:
beginning, early intermediate, intermediate, early advanced, and advanced.
Overall pre- and post-CELDT performance levels for the experimental school
are displayed in Table 5.
Table 5
CELDT Assessment Results—Overall Performance Levels, 2006 and 2007,
Experimental School
Year
Total
Advanced
Early
Advanced
Intermediate
Early
Intermediate
Beginning
N N % N % N % N % N %
2006 128 31 .24 54 .42 23 .18 9 .07 11 .09
2007 109 11 .10 36 .33 39 .36 12 .11 11 .10
After analysis of the CELDT assessment results for the experimental
school, Table 5 displays a lower percentage of students achieving advanced or
early advanced. Fourteen percent less students performed at an advanced level
and 9% fewer students performed at the early advanced level. However, there
was a higher percentage of English Learners achieving intermediate (+28%),
72
early intermediate (+4%), and beginning (+1%) performance levels in 2007 than
2006. It is also important to observe the decrease of 20 students taking the
CELDT exam in 2007 than 2006.
Statistical significance is not able to be determined due to the use of
CELDT Form F results administered in 2006-07 allowing comparison to
CELDT results from prior years. As stated by the CDE (2007) website,
“Summary Results fro Form F are not to be compared with any CELDT results
of previous years (Forms A-E) including those available on this Web site.”
Comparison School Results
This study also included the comparison of experimental school, Hope
Middle School, to a comparison school, Alianza Middle School. The
comparison school was selected from the California Department of Education
(CDE) website (2007), Ed-Data Education and Partnership based on similar
demographics, including the percent of English learners, Hispanic/Latino, and
socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroups in the 2005-2006 school year. The
English-Learner subgroup was comparable as a cohort group between the
experimental school (116 students) and comparison school (108 students). After
analysis of the experimental school and the comparison school, English learners
in the experimental school achieved only 4% proficiency or above compared to
3% of English Learners in the experimental school on the same assessment. The
73
state target for all students for the 2006-2007 school year was 24.4%, the
experimental school needed 20.4% to reach the state target compared to 21.4%
needed by the comparison school.
The experimental and comparison school was also compared using the
state API accountability measure in both the 2006 and the 2007 school years
(Table 6). The state API index was also compared using the English-Learner,
Hispanic/Latino, and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged subgroups (Table 5).
According to the CDE website (2008) “the purpose of the API is to measure the
academic performance and growth of schools.” The API index ranges from 200
to 1,000 on a numeric scale. The API target for all school is 800 to be reached
by the year 2014.
Comparison of school-wide API between 2006 and 2007 can be
compared between the experimental school and comparison school in Table 7.
Table 7 exhibits a 23 point gain in the experimental school versus a negative
gain of 10 points in the experimental school. Table 6 illustrates significant gains
in the experimental school (38 API points) versus the comparison school (17
API points). Tables 6 and 7 demonstrate the experimental school making
significant API gains between 2006 to 2007, outperforming the comparison
school in all the subgroups. Table 8 shows AYP scores for English-Language
Arts for the Experimental and Comparison Schools, 2007.
74
Table 6
API Subgroups Comparison, 2006 and 2007, Experimental and Comparison
School
Subgroup Experimental School Comparison School
2006 2007 Gain 2006 2007 Gain
English Learner 591 629 +38 569 587 +18
Hispanic/Latino 622 656 +34 602 619 +17
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
619 643 +24 583 610 +27
Table 7
API School Wide Comparison, 2006 and 2007, Experimental and Comparison
School
School API 2006 API 2007 Gain
Experimental School 743 766 +23
Comparison School 720 710 -10
Table 8
AYP English-Language Arts for the Experimental and Comparison Schools,
2007
Groups Experimental Percent at
or Above Proficient
Comparison Percent at
or Above Proficient
School Wide 54% 20%
English Learner 4% 3%
Hispanic/Latino 27% 22%
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
22% 19%
75
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a federal accountability measure
under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (United States Department of
Education, 2002a). According to AYP Information Guide 2006-2007,
“Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a series of annual academic performance
goals established for each school, local educational agency (LEA), and the state
as a whole” (United States Department of Education, 2002a, p. 9). Title I of the
federal NCLB Act, a program that provides funding to help educate low-income
children, requires educational institutes to met AYP goals and ensure all
students are proficient in English-Language Arts and mathematics by the year
2014. Furthermore, per NCLB, in order to make AYP schools are required to
have a 95% participation rate of all students and student subgroups. Schools
that do not meet AYP for 2 consecutive years are identified as Program
Improvement schools.
For the 2007 school year, the AYP target in English-Language Arts is
24.4%. As shown in Table 8, there was a significant difference in the AYP
performance of the experimental school and the comparison school. The
experimental school significantly outperformed the comparison school. The
experimental school achieved the AYP target both school-wide and in the
Hispanic/Latino subgroup compared to the comparison school which did not
meet AYP targets. Although the Hispanic/Latino subgroup met AYP
proficiency (27%), the English-Learner subgroup continued to be significantly
76
below the 24.4% AYP target. Although the experimental school had met AYP
targets (54%), all subgroups, most specifically the English-Learner subgroup,
are far from meeting the 35.2% AYP target for the 2008 school year.
77
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of the preceding chapters was to determine if there was a
correlation between the implementation of Hope Middle School’s Cycle of
Inquiry and its impact on English-Learner student achievement in English-
Language Arts as measured by the California Standard Test and California
English Language Development Test (CELDT) assessments. This last chapter
of this qualitative study provides an in-depth analysis of the qualitative findings,
conclusions drawn from the quantitative portion of this study, recommendations
for Hope Middle School, SUSD, the state department of education, and a
reflection of further study.
Purpose and Method
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact (positive, negative,
and neutral) of an intervention, the Cycle of Inquiry through Professional
Learning Communities, on English-Learner student achievement in English-
language Arts at Hope Middle School. Furthermore, the pre-intervention (2006)
and post-intervention (2007) performance band data from the English-Language
Arts portion of the California Standards Test (CST) were analyzed school-wide,
by grade level and three different subgroups (English Learners, Hispanic/Latino,
78
and Socio-economically Disadvantaged). This study used a mixed-methods
approach to data collection using mainly both qualitative and quantitative
approach to data collection. In addition, formative evaluation methods were
used to determine the effectiveness of the Cycle of Inquiry on English Learners
and to make suggestions for improvement. A collection of summative data was
extracted from the CST and used to determine the effectiveness of the
intervention on three dependent variables: percent proficient and above, percent
basic and above on English-Language Arts, and proficiency band scores on
English-Language Arts.
The participants in this study consisted of the student population (446) in
grades sixth through eighth as well as selected subgroups at Hope Middle
School, including English Learners, Hispanic/Latino, and Socio-economically
Disadvantaged. Hope Middle School is a suburban middle school located in
northern California. Approximately 107 students were identified as English
Learners (EL) and participated in the intervention mentioned above. In addition
to the EL subgroup, the following participants were also included in the
intervention mentioned above: whole school (446 students), Hispanic/Latino
(179 students), Socio-economically Disadvantaged (182), certificated teachers
(21), administrators (1.5), and classified (15). The qualitative portion of this
study also included one middle-school principal, the director of curriculum and
instruction, one middle school Foreign Language Assistance Program grant
79
coordinator, and five middle-school teachers. Low profile interviews included
the implementation of the Cycle of Inquiry and instructional practices pertaining
to English learners. Interviews provided immediate information that will
improve the implementation of the Cycle of Inquiry and instructional practices
affecting English learners. The participants in the qualitative portion of this
study agreed to share their beliefs regarding the effect of the Cycle of Inquiry on
English learners at Hope Middle School. Not all certificated staff members
were interviewed. Adult participants were included in this study to gather
information regarding the implementation and effect of the intervention. The
collection of qualitative data was gathered until the information became similar
and repetitive. A total of five interviews were conducted at Hope Middle
School.
Summary of Findings, Hope Middle School
The following section provides a summary of the findings at Hope
Middle School and answers the proposed research question that guided this
study: Does data-driven English-Language Arts intervention, such as the Cycle
of Inquiry, have an effect on the academic achievement of English learners as
measured by the CST and CELDT scores? The impact of the Cycle of Inquiry
on overall student achievement at Hope Middle School had a slight increase. In
addition, the overall increase in the Academic Performance Index (API) for the
80
entire school was +21, from 743 points in 2005 (pre-intervention) and 766 in
2006 (post-intervention). The intervention provided an overall positive outcome
in terms of the federal API.
The analysis of the grade-level findings for the experimental school,
Hope Middle School, varied in each grade level, sixth through eighth. Although
there was a slight increase in overall student achievement, the changes were not
substantial in size. The reason Hope Middle School achieved its API can be
attributed to the slight increase in the scores of the CST and CELDT
assessments. However, Hope Middle School did not reach its Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) placing the school in their fourth year of Program Improvement
(PI). As stated by the Adequate Yearly Progress Report Information Guide
(2007) “the NCLB Act of 2001 requires that all schools annually meet AYP
criteria” (California Department of Education, 2006, p. 43). Only schools that
receive Title I, Part A, Basic, funds can be identified for Program Improvement
if they are unable to meet AYP, school-wide or any significant subgroups, in the
same content area (English-Language Arts or Mathematics) for 2 consecutive
years. Once a school is identified as a Program Improvement School, the school
is required to implement school-wide interventions and annual state reviews as
required by Title I.
81
Statistical Significance
After analysis of the findings for statistical significance (Table 1) for the
experimental school, Hope Middle School, significant gains were made in five
subgroup categories: (a) school-wide, (b) eighth grade, (c) English Learner, (d)
Hispanic/Latino, and (e) Socio-economically Disadvantaged. The changes in
the means and statistical significant gain in the five categories can be attributed
to the API growth target.
In addition, Table 1 reflects an increase in the English-Language Arts
portion of the CST performance band scores in most of the experimental school
subgroups from the pre-intervention (2006) to post-intervention (2007). Positive
results were found in five of the seven categories (school-wide, eighth grade,
English Learner, Hispanic/Latino, and Socio-economically Disadvantaged). The
disaggregation of data into language classification, ethnicity, and socio-
economic status indicates a positive gain for the Hispanic/Latino, English
Learners, and Socio-economically Disadvantaged subgroups. In addition, Table
1 indicates an insignificant growth in sixth-grade student performance and
decline in the achievement of seventh grade students. The neutral growth in
sixth grade and decline in seventh-grade academic student achievement may be
attributed to the lack of consistency in teacher data analysis, teacher preparation,
planning, and articulation. The sixth and seventh grade teachers may have not
taken advantage of the collaborative structures and support systems in the same
82
way as the eighth-grade teachers. Additionally, outside factors may have
accounted for the neutral growth and decline in student achievement in the
seventh and eighth grades. In addition, Tables 1 through 5 reflect consistent
findings in the positive growth of student achievement in the five subgroups
described above: (a) school-wide, (b) eighth grade, (c) English Learner, (d)
Hispanic/Latino, and (e) Socio-economically Disadvantaged.
Practical Significance
This section provides an analysis for practical significance. The findings
reflect similar results presented in the analysis of data for statistical significance.
The largest mean difference is reflected in the English-Learner subgroup, +.55
which reflects a consistent change in moving English Learners towards the
“proficient” and “advanced” performance bands. There was a decrease in the
percentage of students at the “far below basic” and “below basic.” The findings
for the pre-intervention year (2006) demonstrate 31% of EL scored “far below
basic” compared to 15% of EL in post-intervention year (2007), reflecting a
decrease of 16%. In addition, a 7% decrease is also reflected in the percentage
of EL scoring at the “below basic” performance band from the pre-intervention
year (43%), to the post-intervention year (36%). In addition, the pre/post
intervention comparison demonstrated practical significance with its increase of
students performing in the “basic” and “proficient” levels. The pre-intervention
data determined 31% of students performed at the “basic” level compared to
83
43% of students performing after the post-intervention, an increase of 12% more
students scoring at the “basic” level.
In addition to the significant increase in the analysis of English Learner
performance in the California Summative Test (CST), two other subgroups
demonstrated significant increase: Hispanic/Latino and Socio-economically
Disadvantaged. Overall, the Hispanic/Latino subgroup demonstrated a mean
change of +.26. In comparing the pre-intervention (2006) and post-intervention
data (2007), the Hispanic/Latino subgroup performing at the “far below basic”
level decreased by 14% and the “below basic” level decreased by 7%. The
Hispanic/Latino “basic” subgroup increased by 12% and the “proficient” level
increased by 2%. The third subgroup, Socio-economically Disadvantaged group,
had similar pre/post comparison results demonstrating a mean change of +.22.
After analysis of the pre-intervention (2006) and post-intervention (2007) data,
the Socio-economically Disadvantaged subgroup performing at the “far below
basic” level decreased by 16% and the “below basic” level decreased by 10%.
Furthermore, the Socio-economically Disadvantaged subgroup performing at the
“basic level” increased by 18%. Although the “proficient” subgroup decreased
by 4%, the “advanced” subgroup increased by 3%.
The results of the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT) assessment were also used to determine English-Learner academic
performance. As described earlier, the CELDT is an assessment used in
84
California public schools measuring English-Language proficiency for English
Learners. English Learners are assessed in four areas: (a) listening, (b)
speaking, (c) reading, and (d) writing. The CELDT scores are separated to five
performance levels: (a) beginning, (b) early intermediate, (c) intermediate, (d)
early advanced, and (e) advanced. In kindergarten and first grade, students
receive a score in listening and speaking and in grades 2 through 12, students are
assessed in listening, speaking, reading, writing, and comprehension for
listening and reading. Statistical significance is not able to be determined due to
the inconsistent scale between the 2006 and 2007 school year. However, the
2007 CELDT Form F results administered in the 2006-2007 school year
reported using a new common scale that allows the comparison of future
CELDT test scores.
The 2006 CELDT test results assessed 128 English Learners at the
experimental school, Hope Middle School. The results revealed the following
information: 24% of students scored “advanced,” 42% scored “early advanced,”
18% scored “intermediate,” 7% scored “early intermediate,” and 9% scored
“beginning.” In addition, the number of students assessed using the CELDT test
decreased by 19 students from 128 students tested during the pre-intervention
school year 2006, to 109 students in the post-intervention school year 2007. The
CELDT (2007) results demonstrated the following English Learners’ outcomes
in each proficiency band: 10% scored “advanced,” 33% scored “early
85
advanced,” 36% scored “intermediate,” 11% scored “early intermediate,” and
10% scored “beginning.” It is important to note a difference between the results
from the pre-intervention (2006) and the post-intervention (2007) school years.
In the 2006 school year, the majority of English Learners fell within the
“advanced” and “early advanced” levels. However, in the 2007 school year, the
English learner results fell within the “early advanced” and “intermediate”
proficiency bands. In addition, there was a 14% decrease in students performing
at the advanced level.
In addition to the quantitative findings discussed above, qualitative
findings were also used for the experimental school, Hope Middle School. The
findings provided data in pertaining to the formative research questions:
Teacher Questions:
! How are teachers guided through the Cycle of Inquiry steps?
! How is the Cycle of Inquiry implemented at Hope Middle School?
! What are the strengths of the Cycle of Inquiry—Professional Learning
Community (PLC)?
! What are the weaknesses of Cycle of Inquiry-PLC?
! Does the Cycle of Inquiry-PLC affect students’ motivation for learning?
! Does the Cycle of Inquiry-PLC affect teacher expectations for student
achievement?
86
! How do you think that the Cycle of Inquiry-PLC is addressing the needs
of intermediate students at Hope Middle School?
Administration Questions:
! How did teachers react to the interventions?
! Did teachers’ self-efficacy and attitude change as a result of the
interventions?
! How did teacher behavior in the classroom change as a result of the
interventions?
Summary of Findings: Hope Middle School and
Alianza Middle School
The section of this study provides a summary of the findings,
interactions, effects of the experimental school, Hope Middle School; with the
comparison school, Alianza Middle School, at three levels: (a) school-wide
comparison using the Academic Performance Index, (b) subgroups comparison
for the Academic Performance Index, and (c) subgroups comparison in four
categories (school-wide, English Learner, Hispanic/Latino, and Socio-
economically Disadvantaged) for the Adequate Yearly Progress between the
experimental school and the comparison school.
Both the experimental and the comparison schools demonstrated
different levels of improvement. In regards to API, the experimental school
87
gained +23 points between the 2006 (743 points) and 2007 (766 points) school
years. On the other hand, the API score for the comparison school decreased by
-10 points between the 2007 (720 points) and 2008 (710 points) school years. In
reviewing the API gains between the 2006 and 2007 school years, both the
experimental school and comparison school demonstrated numerically
significant gains in the English Learner, Hispanic/Latino, and Socio-
economically Disadvantaged subgroups.
In regards to the AYP, a federal accountability measure, the
experimental school outperformed the comparison school. For the 2007 school
year, the AYP target in English-Language Arts was 24.4% of students needing
to score at or above proficiency levels. Table 5 exhibits a significant difference
in AYP performance between 2006 and 2007. The experimental school
achieved the AYP target of 24.4% school-wide and in the Hispanic/Latino
subgroup. The experimental school did not meet AYP target in the English
Learner and Socio-economically Disadvantaged subgroups, scoring a 4% AYP
in the English-Learner subgroup and 22% AYP in the Socio-economically
Disadvantaged subgroups. It was apparent the English-Learner subgroup
continued to be significantly below the AYP goal of 24.4% at both the
experimental and comparison schools. After analysis of the AYP scores in the
comparison school, the experimental school did not meet AYP requirements in
the following subgroups: School-wide, English learners, Hispanic/Latino, and
88
Socio-economically Disadvantaged. The English-Learner subgroup had the
largest gap in meeting AYP requirements. In order for the English learners to
meet AYP requirements of 35.2% for the 2008 school year, the experimental
school-would need to gain 31.2% points and the comparison school would need
to gain 32.2%.
Implications
Throughout the course of this study, student academic achievements at
the experimental school (Hope Middle School) were made and noted. Analysis
was conducted of the Pre- versus Post-Intervention CST English-Language Arts
Performance Band Differences for the following subgroups: Eighth Grade,
English Learners, Hispanic/Latino, and Socio-economically Disadvantaged.
Significant gains were made in four subgroups: Eighth Grade (11%), English
Learner (32%), Hispanic/Latino (14% ), and Socio-economically Disadvantaged
(14% ). Although most significant gains were made in the English-Learner
subgroup, 32% gain, the pre-test performance band scores remained low.
Although the percentage changes demonstrate practical significance, the gains
cannot be assessed for statistical significance.
The district administrator and principals were able to observe various
factors that may have contributed to the increase in English-learner student
performance. First, the support of professional learning communities and
89
increased analysis of data allowed teachers the opportunity to analyze, improve,
and create programs that would increase student achievement. As a first-year
administrator in Sunny unified School District, various interventions, including
the Cycle of Inquiry through professional learning communities, have been
implemented from current research that has proven to be effective both at the
district and site levels.
The basis of Professional Learning Community (PLC) is a commitment
by a group of educators and leaders to the learning of all students. Dufour,
Dufour, Eaker, & Thomas (2006) describe a PLC team as a group of members
who clarify the learning goals of students, monitor each student on a timely
basis, provide frequent structured interventions, and provide enrichment of
activities for students that have mastered the desired academic goal. As stated
earlier, the ultimate goal of the PLC is to close the achievement gap for all
students including English learners in English-Language Arts.
The qualitative findings of this study provided relevant information
describing both the district and school views on English-Learner student
performance after the implementation of the Cycle of Inquiry. After
interviewing both district administrators and Hope Middle School teachers, the
affect on teaching strategies, teacher collaboration, teacher motivation, and
student performance was positive.
90
After analysis of the interview responses, two main themes came to the
surface. The first theme was the power of teamwork. In essence, Hope Middle
School was able to work through professional learning communities to build
teacher leaders. Network teams met quarterly at district meetings made up of
site-teacher leaders and administrators. During the Network Meetings, school
sites are given strategies on how to implement the Cycle of Inquiry as well as
support teachers with current research that can serve as an intervention to help
close student learning gaps. Hope Middle School teachers agreed that the first
year of implementing the Cycle of Inquiry was not easy. At the beginning, some
teachers felt the Cycle of Inquiry would be yet another education reform effort
that would soon end to another initiative. However, after two full years of
implementation teachers and administrators have taken into the account the
longevity of the Cycle of Inquiry.
The second theme that emerged was the importance of being accountable
for student learning. The Cycle of Inquiry has provided educators with the
necessary tools to analyze quantitative data. As stated by all Hope Middle
School teachers, teacher attitude regarding data analysis has changed. Teacher
leaders and school principals have been able to develop classroom interventions
that can help increase student performance by closing the student achievement
gap. Teachers are now more comfortable making instructional decisions based
on data analysis.
91
The quantitative and qualitative findings of this study have demonstrated
significant English Learner student performance.
Site-Based Recommendations
The implementation of a PLC provided a focus on classroom
interventions for English learners at Hope Middle School in order to meet the
NCLB accountability requirements. Continued implementation of the Cycle of
Inquiry in a Professional Learning Community setting is recommended to
provide English learners an opportunity to achieve academically.
Conclusions
The use of a data driven interventions using the Cycle of Inquiry through
a Professional Learning Community raised the academic achievement of the
English learners at Hope Middle School. In addition, a focus on student
subgroups and analyzing current classroom interventions raised the academic
achievement of English learners. In addition, educators and administrators were
provided with various professional learning opportunities for improving student
achievement through research-based teaching strategies and teacher
collaboration models. As stated by various SUSD administrators and teacher
leaders, a significant professional development opportunity was through the
Professional Learning Community conference provided by Richard Dufour and
92
Rebecca Dufour (Director of Curriculum and Instruction, personal
communication, November 15, 2007). In addition, on-site professional learning
opportunities were provided to teachers directly related to students engaging in
activities that promote English learner achievement.
The results of the findings demonstrate an overall impact of the Cycle of
Inquiry on the achievement on English learners at Hope Middle School. The
qualitative findings demonstrate a commitment of the staff and school district to
continued focus on raising all student achievement, particularly the achievement
of English learners.
93
REFERENCES
Accountability Progress Reporting System. (2005-2006). Retrieved March 15,
2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/infoguide06.pdf.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2), 171-217.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership (3
rd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bramburg, J.D. (1994). Raising expectations to improve student learning.
Illinois: North Central Regional Educational Library.
California Department of Education. (2006a). STAR Post-Test Guide:
Technical Information for STAR District and Test Site Coordinators and
Research Specialists (2006). Retrieved May 7, 2007 from,
http://www.startest.org/pdfs/STAR.post-test_guide.2006.pdf.
California Department of Education. (2006b). AYP Information Guide 2005-
2006. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/apidescription.asp.
California Department of Education. (2006c). Strengthening the ELD and ELA
instructions components in Proposed Programs #1 and #2 from
Association of California School Administrators. Retrieved August 15,
2007, from
www.cde.ca.gov/BE/ag/ag/yr06/documents/blueapr06item2a3a.doc.
California Department of Education. (2007a). California English Language
Development Test: Assistance Packet for School Districts and Schools.
Retrieved on July 21, 2007, from
www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/documents/celdt07astpkt.doc.
California Department of Education. (2007b). Vision, mission, and goals.
Retrieved June 10, 2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/wn/hm/.
California Department of Education. (2007c). Section V reclassification of
English learners to English proficient. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/documents/section5astpkt.pdf.
94
California Department of Education. (2007d). API description. Retrieved
December 24, 2007, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/apidescription.asp.
California Department of Education. (2007e). Dataquest Glossary. Retrieved
August 1, 2007, fromhttp://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/gls_Learners.asp.
California Department of Education. (2007f). Dataquest Report Builder.
Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2007g). AYP Information Guide 2006-
2007. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/infoguide07.pdf.
Champion, R. (2002). Taking measure: Choose the right data for the job. A
good evaluation measures the same thing from different angles. Journal
of Staff Development, 23, (3).
Clark, R.E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to
selecting the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: LanguagedDiversity in the
classroom (5
th
ed.). Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services, Inc.
Cross, C.T. (2004). Political education, national policy come of age. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Cushman, K. (1999). The cycle of inquiry and action: Essential learning
communities. HORACE, 15 (4), 1-8.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Doherty, R. W., Hilberg, R.S., Epaloose, G., & Tharp, R.G. (2002, September-
October). Standards performance continuum: Development and
validation of a measure of effective pedagogy. The Journal of
Educational Research, 96 (2), 78-89.
Dufour, R., Dufour R., Eaker, R. & Thomas, M. (2006). A handbook for
professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree.
EdSource. (2007). The state’s official measures on school performance.
Retrieved August 19, 2007, from http://www.edsource.org/glo.cfm#C
95
English-Language Development Standards for California Public Schools-
Kindergarten to Grade Twelve. (1999). Retrieved June 23, 2007, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/englangdev-stnd.pdf.
Garcia, G.E. (2002). Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting
the challenge (3
rd
ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Garfield, R.R., Garfield G.J., & Willardson, J.D. (2003). Congress. Policy and
politics in American education. St. Perthelemy Press, LTD.
Grendler, M. (2005). Social cognitive views of learning. In A. Bandura (ed.),
Educational psychology: Developing learners (6
th
ed.), pp. 328-363.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Hentschke, G.C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of
accountability. USC Urban Ed. Los Angeles, CA: University of
Southern California, Rossier School of Education.
Hocevar, D. (2007). Critique of research in education. Module 2 comparing
means Power Point slid`e. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern
California, Rossier School of Education. EDUC 792.
Julius, D., Baldridge, J.V., & Pfeffer, J. (1999). A memo from Machiavelli.
The Journal of Higher Education, 70 (2), 113-133.
Kane, T.J., & Staiger, D.O. (2002). Racial subgroup rules in school
accountability systems. NY: Andrew W Mellon Foundation.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs (3
rd
ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.
Ormrod, J.E. (2006). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners (6
th
ed.).
Upper Saddle River, N.J: Merrill.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual
for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Ann
Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
96
Reed, B., & Railsback, J. (2003). Strategies and resources for mainstream
teachers of English-language learners. Portland, OR: Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory.
Riverside Publishing Website. (2007). Data. Retrieved May 15, 2007, from
http://www.riverpub.com/products/edusoft/index.html.
Springboard Schools (2007). Nonprofit network of educations. Retrieved
December 1, 2007, from
http://www.springboardschools.org/about/index.html.
Stein, M.K., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2004). Reform ideas that travel far
afield: The two cultures of reform in New York City’s District #2 and
San Diego. Journal of Educational Change, 5, 161-197.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S.E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What
districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools.
Washington, D.C.: The Learning First Alliance and the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
United States Department of Education. (2002a). No Child Left Behind Act of
2001. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from
http://www.nclb.gov/next/overview/index.html.
United States Department of Education (2002b). Public Law 107-110.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act adopted January 8, 2002.
Retrieved March 16, 2006, from
www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html#sec101.
United States Department of Education. (2007a). Four Pillars. Retrieved July
9, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html.
United Stated Department of Education (2007b). School NCLB Overview.
Retrieved December 20, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this pre/post evaluation study was to examine the effectiveness of the Cycle of Inquiry and its effectiveness on English-Language Learners in Middle School. The study specifically determined if there was a relationship between the implementation of Hope Middle School 's Cycle of Inquiry to English Learner Achievement as measured by the California Standards Test (CST) and the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) assessments and to identify ways to improve the Cycle of Inquiry process.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Examining the effectiveness of the intervention programs for English learners at MFC intermediate school
PDF
English learners' performance on the California Standards Test at Aviles Elementary
PDF
The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
The effect of site support teams on student achievement in seven northern California schools
PDF
Closing the science achievement gap for ninth grade English learners through standards- and inquiry-based science instruction
PDF
Evaluation of the progress of elementary English learners at Daisyville Unified School District
PDF
The impact of restructuring the language arts intervention program and its effect on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
The impact of professional learning communities and block scheduling on English language learner students at Oak Point Middle School
PDF
An analysis of the impact of the total educational support system direct-instruction model on the California standards test performance of English language learners at experimental elementary school
PDF
English language learners utilizing the accelerated reader program
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of direct instruction intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
The effects of culturally responsive standards based instruction on African American student achievement
PDF
The effects of open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction on the test performance of English language learners (ELLS) and re-designated fluent English proficient students ...
PDF
The role of music in the English language development of Latino prekindergarten English learners
PDF
The block schedule and the English language learners: impact on academic performance and graduation rate at Oxbow High School
PDF
Comparative evaluation of English learner student achievement in inner city urban schools
PDF
MAT@USC and Latino English language learners
PDF
Alternatives for achievement: a mathematics intervention for English learners
PDF
CST performance of English language learners in two neighboring districts from 2002-03 to 2012-13
PDF
The implementation of studio intervention at a medical magnet high school
Asset Metadata
Creator
Cruz, Leticia
(author)
Core Title
The effectiveness of the cycle of inquiry on middle school English-learners in English-language arts
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/21/2008
Defense Date
03/20/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
cycle of inquiry,English learners,middle school,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional learning communities
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Advisor
Hocevar, Dennis (
committee chair
), Goodyear, Rodney K. (
committee member
), Lavadenz, Magaly (
committee member
)
Creator Email
lcruz@sonomavly.k12.ca.us
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1363
Unique identifier
UC171858
Identifier
etd-Cruz-20080721 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-86157 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1363 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Cruz-20080721.pdf
Dmrecord
86157
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Cruz, Leticia
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
cycle of inquiry
English learners
professional learning communities