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
/
English learners' performance on the California Standards Test at Aviles Elementary
(USC Thesis Other)
English learners' performance on the California Standards Test at Aviles Elementary
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
ENGLISH LEARNERS' PERFORMANCE ON THE CALIFORNIA
STANDARDS TEST AT AVILES ELEMENTARY
by
Mary Linda Alvarez Greeson
________________________________________________
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
May 2008
Copyright 2008 Mary Linda Alvarez Greeson
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge a number of people who were instrumental
in the completion of this dissertation. First and foremost, my heartfelt
appreciation is extended to my parents, Irene González Davis and Jesus Áviles
Álvarez, who as my first teachers instilled and nurtured in me a love of life-long
learning. I also acknowledge my siblings; my daughter, Brigit; and my
companion, Bob, for their encouragement, support and a shared belief in my
accomplishment of this tremendous task.
Second, I would like to acknowledge the staff members at Aviles
Elementary for their unwavering belief, commitment and dedication to the
students’ academic success, and their patience during the course of this study.
In addition, I gratefully acknowledge my dissertation chair, Dr. Dennis
Hocevar, for his guidance, assistance and support throughout the doctoral
program experience. Finally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation
and gratitude to Dr. Kathy Stowe and Dr. Denise Hexom for being a part of the
dissertation committee and providing valuable insight.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................vi
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER 1. PROBLEM, ANALYSIS, AND SOLUTION:
ENGLISH LEARNERS’ PERFORMANCE
ON THE CALIFORNIA STANDARDS TEST 1
Problem Identification .....................................................................2
Problem Analysis and Interpretation ...............................................7
Performance Gaps................................................................7
Problem Solution ...........................................................................14
Implementation of the Core Curriculum for
English-Language Development ..................................15
Instructional Strategies to Access the Core Curriculum....22
Professional Development.................................................25
Purpose, Design, and Utility..........................................................30
Purpose ..............................................................................30
Design ................................................................................30
Utility.................................................................................36
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................38
The Challenge of the No Child Left Behind Act
for English-Language Learners ................................................39
Issues Related to Using Standardized Assessments as a
Measurement of English-Language Learners’ Academic
Achievement .............................................................................43
Factors Influencing Literacy Development in
English-Language Learners ......................................................46
Factors Influencing School Site Effectiveness ..............................50
Research-Based Strategies for Raising the Achievement
of English Learners on Standardized Assessments ..................55
Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback ..................................57
Nonlinguistic Representations.......................................................60
Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers....................................62
Cooperative Learning ....................................................................64
iv
Summarizing and Note Taking......................................................66
Homework and Practice.................................................................69
Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition..............................71
Generating and Testing Hypotheses ..............................................74
Identifying Similarities and Differences........................................76
Summary of the Literature.............................................................78
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................81
Research Design ............................................................................81
Evaluation Design..........................................................................82
Pre/Post Independent Groups Design ................................83
Nonequivalent Comparison Group Design........................83
Formative Evaluation Design ............................................87
Interventions ..................................................................................88
Implementation of the Core Curriculum
for English-Language Learners ...............................................89
Instructional Strategies to Access the Core Curriculum................91
Professional Development.............................................................92
Participants and Setting .................................................................94
Instrumentation: Achievement......................................................96
Procedure ...........................................................................98
Instrumentation: Interviews..........................................................99
Procedure .........................................................................100
Instrumentation: Observations....................................................102
Procedure .........................................................................103
Instrumentation: Document and Materials Analysis ..................103
Procedure .........................................................................104
Formative Analysis......................................................................104
Summative Analysis ....................................................................105
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS........................................................................107
Pre/Post Independent Groups Design ..........................................107
Nonequivalent Comparison Group Design..................................108
Pre/Post Independent Groups Results..........................................109
Comparison School Results.........................................................116
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................121
Overview......................................................................................121
Purpose and Method ....................................................................121
Summary of Findings—Aviles Elementary School ....................123
Statistical Significance.....................................................124
v
Practical Significance ......................................................126
Interviews ........................................................................129
Observations ....................................................................134
Summary of Findings—Aviles Elementary School and
Gonzalez Elementary School...................................................135
Implications .....................................................................137
Implications for Implementation of the Core Curriculum
for English Learners in ELD....................................................139
Implications for Instructional Strategies to Access the
Core Curriculum .......................................................................140
Implications for Professional Development ................................142
Site-based Recommendations......................................................145
Limitations...................................................................................149
Conclusions..................................................................................151
REFERENCES ........................................................................................153
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: AVILES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ...........................159
APPENDIX B: WALK THROUGH OBSERVATION FORM.............160
APPENDIX C: CHARACTERISTICS OF DIRECT
INSTRUCTION............................................................161
APPENDIX D: DIRECT INSTRUCTION CHECKLIST .....................162
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Ethnic Breakdown—Aviles.......................................................4
Table 2: CST-ELA Multi-Grade Results for English Learners,
2002-2006—Percent Proficient and Above...............................5
Table 3: CST-ELA English Learners’ Subgroup.....................................6
Table 4: Selection Criteria for Experimental and Comparison Groups,
2006 School Year ....................................................................84
Table 5: Pre- versus Post-Intervention CST-ELA Performance Band
Differences: Statistical Findings...........................................109
Table 6: Pre- versus Post-Intervention CST-ELA Performance Band
Differences: Practical Significance.......................................111
Table 7: Pre- versus Post-Intervention CST-ELA Percent Basic
and Above..............................................................................113
Table 8: Pre- versus Post-Intervention CST-ELA Percent Proficient
and Above..............................................................................113
Table 9: CELDT Assessment Results – Overall Performance Levels,
2006 and 2007........................................................................115
Table 10: API School Wide Comparison, 2006 and 2007.....................118
Table 11: API Subgroups Comparison, 2006 and 2007 ........................118
Table 12: AYP English-Language Arts for the Experimental and
Comparison Schools, 2007 ....................................................119
vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to describe, analyze
and develop solutions for the performance gap for English-language learners at
Aviles Elementary who had not achieved grade-level proficiency on the English-
Language Arts portion of the California Standards Test (CST). Multiple
interventions were developed and implemented to improve the academic
achievement of all students, especially English-language learners, on the CST-
ELA. The theoretical framework focused on performance improvement
research (Barr & Parrett, 2007; Clark & Estes, 2002; Hill & Flynn, 2006;
Marzano, 2003). At the heart of the research problem was the question: Are the
multiple interventions implemented at Aviles Elementary making a difference in
the achievement of English-language learners?
A mixed-methods approach for data collection was used to provide
evidence for summative and formative evaluation purposes. The summative
evaluation included a pre/post independent groups design using Aviles
Elementary and a comparison group using a higher performing school, Gonzalez
Elementary. The formative evaluation design included unobtrusive interviews,
observational fieldwork through participant and non-participant observations,
and analysis of existing documents utilizing the evaluation model developed by
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006).
viii
The results provided insight into the effectiveness of the multiple
interventions and their impact on student achievement at Aviles Elementary. An
analysis of quantitative data was undertaken to assess statistical and practical
significance. Student performance was measured on the CST-ELA in Spring
2006 and 2007. Performance bands on the CST-ELA were coded on a 0-4 scale
including Far Below Basic (0), Below Basic (1), Basic (2), Proficient (3), and
Advanced (4). Statistical and practically significant improvement was noted at
Aviles Elementary for five categories of students; namely, second, third, and
fourth grades, Hispanic or Latino, and English-Learners subgroups.
The qualitative results demonstrated a renewed sense of urgency for
grade-level teams to participate in collaborative structures for planning,
problem-solving, and decision-making for improving instruction and learning.
The findings illustrated the commitment and determination of the staff to do
whatever it takes to raise the achievement of students resulting in greater
numbers of English learners experiencing academic success.
1
CHAPTER 1
PROBLEM, ANALYSIS, AND SOLUTION: ENGLISH LEARNERS’
PERFORMANCE ON THE CALIFORNIA STANDARDS TEST
According to Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004), the framework of
accountability can be viewed as a series of director/provider relationships
beginning at the federal level with Congress (director), and ending at the local
level with the teacher (provider). Along the way, are intermediate steps or
relationships which also assume the responsibility as directors and providers.
For example, at the site level, the “Principals (director) delegate to teachers
(provider) the responsibility to teach all children to high standards, so that
performance targets across demographic subgroups are met” (Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004, p. 18). As principal at the school site, my responsibilities as
director in the accountability framework include providing instructional
leadership, facilitating professional development, managing program
implementation, and monitoring instructional delivery and student engagement
through active participation. The teacher as provider assumes the responsibility
for teaching all students to high standards so that they can achieve grade-level
proficiency, as well as providing interventions for those students who are
experiencing difficulty in achieving the content standards that are in alignment
with the state standards. This is the current reality for educators and
2
administrators at Aviles Elementary School. Another reality, however, is that an
accountability problem exists that affects English learners’ achievement in
English-Language Arts, particularly English learners at the intermediate grade
levels, fourth through sixth.
This dissertation describes and analyzes the performance gaps for
English learners in the fourth, fifth and sixth grades at Aviles Elementary School
who have not achieved proficiency in English-Language Arts grade-level
standards as determined by two consecutive years (2005 and 2006) of the
California Standards Test (CST).
Problem Identification
At the heart of the accountability problem is the question: What can
teachers do to help English learners achieve grade-level standards in English-
Language Arts? Aviles is a K-6 school-wide Title I elementary school with a
student population of 486 students located in the George Washington Unified
School District (GWUSD). It is a large urban district that includes 57
elementary schools. The Aviles Elementary community includes 13 primary
classrooms (K-3), 6 intermediate classrooms (4-6), one Learning Disability
classroom (4-6), one Emotionally Disturbed classroom (5-6), and two preschool
classrooms (State and Federal programs). The physical location of the school is
3
within the Oak Farms neighborhood adjacent to the Southside Oaks
neighborhood in South Sacramento.
The student population at Aviles is culturally and linguistically diverse
and represents a high percentage of English Learners (58.2%). Seven languages
are spoken by the students including English, Spanish, Hmong, Mien,
Vietnamese, Filipino, and Russian. Spanish-speaking students in kindergarten
through third grades participate in the Alternative Bilingual Program and receive
primary language instruction (Spanish) in the core curriculum by qualified,
credential teachers with Bilingual, Cross-cultural, Language, and Academic
Development (BCLAD) authorizations. In addition, 100% of the students
participate in the “free and reduced” lunch program through the National School
Lunch Program receiving breakfast and lunch.
The teaching staff is comprised of 25 energetic and motivated teachers
and includes 21 K-6 classroom teachers, 2 special-day class teachers at the
intermediate grade levels, and 2 preparation teachers--one for art and one for
physical education. One hundred percent of the classroom teachers are fully
credentialed and meet the highly qualified criteria under the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (Department of Education, 2002).
Data from the October 2005 California Basic Educational Data System
(CBEDS) and the 2006 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program
for Aviles provide information on the parent education level for students in
4
second through sixth grades who participated in the STAR testing. According to
the data source, 70% of the student-answered documents stated the parent
education level information. Of those with a response, 36% indicated the
response of “not a high school graduate,” 37% indicated the response of “high
school graduate,” 18% indicated the response of “some college,” 6% indicated
the response of “college graduate,” and 3% indicated the response of “graduate
school.” In addition, the average parent education level, based on the STAR
student answered documents, was 2.02 where “1” represents “Not a high school
graduate” and “5” represents “Graduate school.”
The ethnic breakdown for 2006 is graphically represented in Table 1.
Table 1
Ethnic Breakdown—Aviles
Ethnicity Percentage
American Indian/Alaska Native 0.8
Asian 14.8
Pacific Islander 0.8
Filipino 0.8
Hispanic/Latino 62.3
African American 12.6
White 6.4
Other/Declined to State 1.4
5
Multi-grade results for English Learners’ achievement at Aviles on the
CST for English-Language Arts for 2002 through 2006 are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
CST-ELA Multi-Grade Results for English Learners, 2002-2006—Percent
Proficient and Above
Year 2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade 6
th
Grade
2002 3% 9% 8% 0% 0%
2003 8% 2% 32% 8% 3%
2004 10% 6% 4% 13% 18%
2005 21% 12% 16% 11% 7%
2006 22% 20% 20% 6% 6%
As the site administrator at Aviles for the past 9 years, I have observed a
trend in the levels of achievement for English Learners on state testing. The
CST-ELA multi-year data obtained from the California Department of
Education website for 2002 through 2006 provide a historical perspective on the
high percentage of English Learners who have not achieved grade-level
proficiency (California Department of Education, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005a, &
2006a). This is depicted in the Table 3, which has resulted in the classification
of Program Improvement Status, Year 3, based on the NCLB guidelines.
6
Although the data exhibit improvement over time, it is not adequate nor
substantial when compared to the number of students assessed each year, and it
highlights the severity of the existing problem.
Table 3
CST-ELA English Learners’ Subgroup
Assessment
Year
Number Tested in
Subgroup
Number
Proficient &
Above
Percent Proficient
& Above
2006 179 34 19
2005 182 32 17.6
2004 186 21 11.2
2003 201 21 10.4
2002 192 8 4
Data for the 2005-2006 school year indicate that 81% of the English
Learner population assessed in Grades 2-6 did not achieve grade-level
proficiency on the STAR-CST assessment for English-Language Arts.
The context of this study was the school accountability problem at
Aviles and focused on the performance gap for English Learners in the fourth,
fifth and sixth grades who had not achieved grade-level proficiency in English-
Language Arts for three consecutive years (2004, 2005, and 2006) as determined
by the CST and required by the state and federal accountability measures.
Improving the achievement of all students, including English Learners, has been
identified as a school-wide goal for Aviles in accordance with the state
7
accountability measure, Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (Public
Schools Accountability Act, 1999), and the federal initiative, No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001.
Problem Analysis and Interpretation
Performance Gaps
In order to understand the nature of the accountability problem that
exists for English Learners in English-Language Arts at the fourth, fifth, and
sixth grade levels, it is important to determine the causes of the problem of the
performance gap for English Learners at Aviles in the fourth, fifth and sixth
grades. An understanding of the performance gap is needed in order to be able
to measure how well the students are performing relative to the state and federal
accountability measures mentioned above. Clark and Estes (2002) provide a
process for analyzing “the cause of the gaps between current and desired
performance” (p. 22) and assert that “The gap between desired and actual
performance must be assessed and closed if organizational goals are to be
achieved” (p. 22). In order to narrow the focus, the causes of the gap for the
fourth, fifth and sixth grade English Learners who have remained within the
same performance band for two consecutive years on the CST English-
Language Arts, 2005 and 2006, are described and discussed in this dissertation.
There are three areas of focus which can be attributed to the performance gap,
8
namely, implementation of the core curriculum for English learners in English-
language development, instructional strategies to access the core curriculum,
and professional development.
Implementation of the Core Curriculum for English Learners in English-
language development. The K-6 English Mainstream Program for English
Learners includes a focus on the English Language Development/English-
Language Arts (ELD/ELA) Standards, 30 minutes of daily ELD instruction with
the district-adopted core content in language arts, mathematics, and social
studies programs provided through differentiated instruction, and primary
language support, if needed (Gilman-Ponce & Rico, 2002, p. 22). The SCUSD
provides all students with the state-adopted curriculum for English-language
arts, which is the Open Court Reading Program. All students at Aviles received
instruction for English-language arts through the state-adopted core curriculum.
Students who participated in the Alternative Bilingual Program, K-3, received
instruction in language arts through the state-adopted program in Spanish, Foro
Abierto 2002 Programa de Lectura. Students in the primary grades, K-3, also
received 30 minutes of daily English-language development through the state-
adopted program, Moving Into English. Intermediate students, Grades 4-6, had
not had an articulated program in English-language development for
approximately 3 years and received state-adopted materials and instruction
beginning in February, 2007.
9
During the initial and subsequent training opportunities for the core
language arts reading program, there were no specific nor explicit guidelines
provided for addressing the needs of English learners at the various levels of
English-language proficiency. At Aviles, the intermediate teachers were using
the ELD Standards in conjunction with the ELA Standards in order to address
the language development needs of English learners. Subsequently, the district
addressed the need for specific and explicit guidelines for meeting the needs of
English learners to the publisher of the core program and the publisher
responded with the development of the English Learner Support Guide in 2005
(Dutro & Adams, 2005a). This new guide provides teachers with daily support
lessons of comprehension and language arts along with an assessment of
students’ comprehension. Each lesson contained within the English Learner
Support Guide is to occur prior to the core language arts lesson contained in the
Open Court Reading Program. The purpose of the lessons in the English
Learner Support Guide is to pre-teach the English learners so that they will be
better prepared to understand the upcoming Open Court reading lesson and
“concentrate on a single targeted comprehension skill or strategy for the week.
Workshop time is an ideal time to provide this instruction and support” (Dutro
& Adams, 2005a, pp. xi-xii).
The situation at Aviles was that the six teachers at the fourth, fifth and
sixth grade levels were inconsistent in utilizing the English Learner Support
10
Guide (Dutro & Adams, 2005b) to pre-teach English learners during the
workshop time of the 90-minute reading instructional time block. There was a
lack of consistency in the use of the weekly grade level planning time to
strategically and explicitly plan instruction for English-language development
during the workshop time which was reflected in the grade-level planning
agendas and notes. Classroom observations were conducted by the principal,
assistant principal, and training specialist. These observations provided insight
into the teacher/student interaction during workshop time which was usually
focused on providing students with additional time for skill or concept
development and was not necessarily focused on addressing the English-
language needs of English learners through the use of the English Learner
Support Guide. Further, classroom observations conducted by the principal,
assistant principal, and training specialist focused on assisting and monitoring
program implementation for English-language arts and mathematics instruction
rather than on English-language development instruction for English learners.
During the 2005-2006 school year, the students in the beginning levels of
English-language proficiency from kindergarten through the third grade levels
were grouped according to their English-language proficiency levels for 30
minutes of daily ELD instruction, while the students in the fourth, fifth and sixth
grades were not grouped by proficiency levels and remained in their assigned
classrooms for ELD instruction. With the adoption and initial training of the
11
state-approved English-language development program for the intermediate
grade levels, teachers should have grouped their students and provided
instruction based on students’ English proficiency levels for 30 minutes of daily
instruction beginning in February 2007. In the 2005-2006 school year, English
learners at the intermediate grades were at various levels of English-language
proficiency, ranging from California English Language Development Test
(CELDT) levels 5 (early intermediate) through 10 (advanced) (Appendix A)
and required differentiated instruction.
Instructional Strategies to Access the Core Curriculum. The SCUSD
Multilingual Department recommended the use of three key strategies that were
research-based for teachers to use in making meaning more explicit for English
learners in developing comprehension. The three strategies are prioritizing
vocabulary, utilizing visuals, and facilitating interactions. The curriculum at the
intermediate grade levels, Open Court Reading (OCR) English Learner Support
Guide (Dutro & Adams, 2005b), supports the use of these three strategies for
developing comprehension. In addition, the guide also provides differentiated
comprehension questions at the beginning/early intermediate, intermediate, and
early advanced/advanced levels of English-language proficiency, for teachers to
use in checking students’ understanding of the reading and for assessing their
comprehension.
12
As a result, in the 2005-2006 school year, teachers were considered
inconsistent in the use of the OCR English Learner Support Guide. Classroom
observations of English-language development instruction, conducted by the
principal, assistant principal, and training specialists, provided information on
teachers’ use of the OCR English Learner Support Guide to support learning and
provide instruction for English learners. The use of this guide ranged from no
use to mechanical, based on the Levels of Use of the Innovation as described by
Hall and Hord (2006). In addition, grade-level planning agendas and teacher
lesson plans did not reflect consistency in the use of the English Learner Support
Guide to address the language needs of English learners and provide instruction
for English-language development.
Professional Development. Professional development is addressed in the
SCUSD Master Plan and Procedural Handbook for English-Learner Programs
(Gilman-Ponce & Rico, 2002) as a state Coordinated Compliance Review item
as “EL 7 the district provides an adequate in-service training program that
results in qualifying existing and future personnel to provide appropriate
instructional services to English learners” (p. 40). A district responsibility
through the Division of Instruction and Learning is to design “a comprehensive
and articulated training plan that responds to program evaluation, compliance
reviews, and specific needs assessments (Gilman-Ponce & Rico, 2002, p. 40).
In addition, the Division of Instruction and Learning “provides targeted
13
professional development for central office and site administrators, teachers,
instructional aides, and others providing services for English learners” (Gilman-
Ponce & Rico, 2002, p. 40). At the school site, the principal and teachers are to
identify areas of need for professional development. The principal is
responsible for informing the school staff of all training opportunities and
monitoring attendance at professional development sessions.
During the 2005-2006 school year, there was little professional
development through the Division of Instruction and Learning which focused on
meeting the needs of English learners at all levels. Within the same time frame,
however, district staff development on frontloading English-language instruction
was provided. The California Reading and Literature Project (CRLP) provides
an instructional blueprint for English learners in developing English-language
proficiency and content knowledge. The CRLP states that the purpose of
frontloading language to support content instruction is to “Provide additional
language instruction prior to the lesson. This instruction makes core content
lessons more comprehensible by equipping English learners with language
structures and vocabulary needed to comprehend, talk, and write about it”
(Dutro & Adams, 2005b, p. 26). This has proven to be quite popular throughout
SCUSD. Frontloading English-language instruction would be beneficial to the
staff at Aviles at all grade levels and particularly for the teachers at the fourth
through sixth grade levels who were experiencing difficulty in addressing the
14
needs of English learners and developing a plan of systematic, explicit, and
deliberate instruction.
Subsequently, in the 2005-2006 school year, for English learners in the
fourth, fifth and sixth grade levels, there was a lack of consistency by the
intermediate teachers in the use of the English Learner Support Guide to support
English learners’ language needs and provide targeted instruction during the
language arts reading time. In addition, English learners did not consistently
receive 30 minutes of daily instruction in English-language development based
on their English proficiency levels. Finally, English learners in the fourth, fifth,
and sixth grades were not grouped for ELD instruction and remained in their
assigned classroom for ELD.
Problem Solution
This section outlines the actions that Aviles Elementary could take in
order to close the gap between the current and desired states for the 40 English
learners in the fourth, fifth and sixth grades in order to improve students’
academic success and achievement on the CST English-Language Arts and
improve progress on the yearly CELDT assessment.
15
Implementation of the Core Curriculum for
English-Language Development
The first intervention was the implementation of the core curriculum for
English-language development based on the district guidelines contained in the
SCUSD Master Plan and Procedural Handbook for English-Learner Programs
(Gilman-Ponce & Rico, 2002). As previously mentioned, the curriculum focus
for English learners was that they “receive instruction that is designed to
promote rapid and effective acquisition of English, meet grade-level content and
performance expectations, or meet grade-level standards in an appropriate length
of time” (Gilman-Ponce & Rico, 2002, p. 9). English learners at the
intermediate through advanced levels of English-language proficiency (CELDT
levels 6-10) were to be placed in an English Language Mainstream Program
(ELM), were to receive ELD appropriate to their English proficiency overall
(EPALL) level by a teacher authorized to teach ELD, and were to receive
additional and appropriate differentiated instruction, which included Specially
Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE), intended to provide access
to the core curricula and grade-level standards (Gilman-Ponce & Rico, 2002).
The English Language Mainstream Model in SCUSD at the K-6 grade levels
included the focus on the ELD/ELA Standards; 30 minutes of daily ELD
instruction with the district-adopted language arts program (including applicable
ELD intervention program); delivery of the district-adopted language arts, math,
16
and social studies programs provided through differentiated instruction; and
primary language support, if needed (Gilman-Ponce & Rico, 2002, p. 22).
District-wide, all K-6 students, received instruction in English-language
arts through the state-adopted curriculum Open Court 2002 Reading Program.
In addition, students who participated in the Alternative Bilingual Program
model received primary language instruction in Spanish through the state-
adopted program, Foro Abierto 2002 Programa de Lectura. All students at
Aviles, K-6, received instruction for English-language arts through the state-
adopted curriculum. The students who participated in the Alternative Bilingual
Program, K-3, received primary language instruction in Spanish through Foro
Abierto.
English learners at Aviles in the primary grades, K-3, also received 30
minutes of daily English-language development instruction through the state-
adopted program, Moving Into English. Intermediate students, Grades 4-6, did
not previously receive language development instruction because the district did
not purchase materials for English learners at the intermediate-grade levels. In
addition, no specific or explicit guidelines were provided for addressing the
needs of English learners at the various levels of English-language proficiency
at the intermediate-grade levels. Without an articulated program, teachers
throughout the district were left to their own devices for meeting the needs of
English learners.
17
During the 2005-2006 school year, intermediate teachers at Aviles were
attempting to meet the needs of English learners at the various levels of English-
language proficiency in a number of ways. First, intermediate students at the
beginning levels of English-language proficiency (EPALL levels 1 through 5)
received instruction through an intervention program, High Point (Schifini,
Short, & Tinajero, 2002), for an additional 30-minutes of daily instruction from
the bilingual resource teacher.
Some of the intermediate teachers used the ELD standards in concert
with the standards-aligned social studies curriculum or the science standards.
They developed lessons for addressing the language development needs of
English learners, specifically students at the intermediate to the advanced levels
of English-language proficiency (EPALL levels 6 through 10). Realizing that
teachers were not curriculum developers and that the instructional quality of
English-language development for intermediate students was lacking, the district
addressed the need for specific and explicit guidelines for meeting the needs of
English learners to the publisher of the core curriculum in English-language arts.
The publisher responded with the development of the English Learner Support
Guide in 2005. The lessons contained within the English Learner Support Guide
were to be provided before the regular Reading/Language Arts lessons and were
intended to be used to pre-teach English learners so that they would be better
prepared to understand the upcoming Open Court reading lesson. It was
18
recommended that the English Learner Support Guide be used by the teacher
during the OCR Workshop portion of language arts. At Aviles, there was a lack
of consistency in the use of the English Learner Support Guide to support
English learners access to the core reading program. This was a contributing
factor to the lack of achievement for a number of English learners who had not
shown improvement or growth (Appendix A) for two consecutive years (2005
and 2006).
For the 2006-2007 school year, the district purchased a state-adopted
English-language development program, Avenues (published by Hampton-
Brown), for fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students at the intermediate levels and
above in English-language proficiency (Schifini, Short, Tinajero, García, García,
Hamayan, & Kratky, 2004). Teachers received a 3-hour professional
development in-service on the use of the materials prior to implementation. The
materials arrived at Aviles in February 2007, and the program was implemented
in mid-March, 2007. Over time, teacher motivation to provide instruction in
English-language development improved because they had a specific curriculum
to use for providing instruction to English learners and did not feel overwhelmed
because they did not have the time, expertise, or resources to develop a
curriculum on their own. Additionally, a program for English-language
development at the intermediate grade levels provided consistency of instruction
and instructional delivery aligned to the language development needs of English
19
learners. Students, as a result, were grouped for instruction based on their
English-language proficiency levels across the fourth, fifth and sixth grade
levels. In addition, the bilingual resource teacher provided instruction to the
language learners at the beginning levels of English-language proficiency, levels
1 through 5, concurrently.
As previously stated, the six teachers at the intermediate grade levels met
the NCLB criteria for High Qualified Teacher. Two of the six teachers were
new to the intermediate teaching staff at Aviles as well as new to the profession
during the 2006-2007 school year. All six teachers participated in the
professional development for the state-adopted core curriculum, Avenues
(Schifini, Short, Tinajero, García, García, Hamayan, & Kratky, 2004), in
English-language development. During the 2005-2006 school year, the
intermediate teachers exhibited inconsistencies in the design and delivery of a
program for English-language development. The knowledge gap was reduced
as teachers acquired new skills, knowledge, and confidence regarding
instruction for English learners through their active participation in program
implementation and continuous district-wide and on-site staff development
opportunities in the 2006-2007 school year and beyond. There were
opportunities for teachers to collaborate with grade-level colleagues to discuss
program implementation, review student progress, and analyze student-
achievement data to drive instructional decision-making for English-language
20
development on a weekly basis through grade-level planning meetings, on a
monthly basis through segment meetings, and on a trimester basis through
release time provided for grade-level teams to participate in academic
conferences with the principal, assistant principal, and training specialist.
One organizational barrier had to do with teachers experiencing
difficulties in consistently using the OCR Workshop time to pre-teach the
previous day’s lesson to English learners, as required by the OCR English
Learner Support Guide (Dutro & Adams, 2005b), due to time constraints. A
second organizational barrier had to do with the lack of consistency by the
principal, assistant principal, and training specialist to conduct classroom
observations focused on the use of the core curriculum with the OCR English
Learner Support Guide. Solutions for these organizational barriers required the
training specialist to collaborate with the intermediate teachers to develop a
pacing schedule, provide needed support for teachers, and plan time to model
the use of the OCR English Learner Support Guide during the OCR Workshop
time to support English learners’ access to the core curriculum. In addition, the
principal and assistant principal needed to work collaboratively to develop a
plan for systematically conducting classroom observations to monitor instruction
in English-language arts and English-language development on a weekly basis.
Finally, the principal and assistant principal needed to meet weekly with the
21
training specialist to debrief and develop next steps for support and/or
improvement.
Program implementation for the new English-language development
program, Avenues, began in mid-March 2007. Grouping students for English-
language development instruction, according to their English-language
proficiency levels, across the fourth, fifth and sixth grades was a new
instructional design that was utilized as part of the program implementation.
This new design incorporated the assistance of the bilingual resource
teacher to provide instruction to English learners at the beginning levels of
English-language proficiency, levels 1 through 5. The principal and assistant
principal provided assistance to the intermediate teachers in developing the
student groupings for ELD instruction. The student groupings remained flexible
and changed based on the periodic review of student-achievement data in
English-language development. The district worked collaboratively with the
publisher of Avenues (Schifini, Short, Tinajero, García, García, Hamayan, &
Kratky, 2004) to develop a pacing schedule that facilitated the delivery of 30
minutes of daily instruction for English learners in English-language
development. The pacing schedule included an assessment cycle for each level
of English-language proficiency. The benchmark was for each student to
demonstrate improvement by at least one level of English-language proficiency
for each year of continuous instruction. As the principal, I was involved in the
22
monitoring of program implementation, along with the assistant principal. In
addition, the assistant principal and I worked to develop a classroom observation
schedule that included weekly observations of instruction for English-language
arts, mathematics, and English-language development. Funds from the NCLB
were used to provide substitutes for grade-level teams to participate in academic
conferences three times during the instructional year, to compensate teachers for
participation in grade-level planning (twice monthly), and to purchase additional
resource materials that support and supplement the core program, and strengthen
teacher instructional practices in order to improve student learning.
Instructional Strategies to Access the Core Curriculum
The second intervention is the use of instructional strategies that would
assist all English learners to access the core curriculum in English-language
instruction. During the 2005-2006 school year, the curriculum for English
learners in the intermediate grade levels included the core curriculum, Open
Court 2002 Reading program, and the OCR English Learner Support Guide.
With the adoption of the Open Court 2002 Reading Program, teachers did not
have adequate materials to provide access to the core curriculum that supported
all English learners in English-Language Arts until 2005 with the development
of the OCR English Learner Support Guide.
23
Intermediate teachers were developing their own lessons for English-
language development by using the science standards and the social studies
curriculum along with the ELD standards to meet the needs of English learners
at the various levels of English-language proficiency based on the CELDT
assessment. As previously mentioned, the Multilingual Department, SCUSD,
outlined the use of three key strategies that were research-based for making
meaning explicit for all English learners, specifically, prioritizing vocabulary,
utilizing visuals or realia, and facilitating interactions. The strategic, explicit
and deliberate use of all three strategies will aid in the students’ comprehension
of the text and also raise the levels of cognition. The performance gaps are
attributed to knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers:
1. The three key strategies for making meaning explicit for English
learners were presented to teachers at the beginning of the 2005-2006 school
year and reviewed again at the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year.
Classroom observations conducted by the training specialist, assistant principal,
and principal revealed inconsistencies regarding the use of the three key
strategies during reading instructional time across all grade levels. A solution
for this knowledge gap was to provide information and education on the three
key strategies along with examples of when and how they should be used to
assist English learners to access the core curriculum. It was my intention, as
principal, to allocate time for two grade level teams (one primary, one
24
intermediate) to report on the use of the three key strategies to make meaning
more explicit for English learners during monthly curriculum meetings
beginning in October 2006, and continue through June 2007. By structuring the
time in this way, it provided at least two opportunities during the school year for
each grade level team to share and learn from each other with regard to the use
of these strategies. Follow-through on the strategic use of the three key
strategies was provided by the principal and assistant principal utilizing the
walk-through observation form for feedback (Appendix B).
2. Teachers were inconsistent in planning for the explicit and deliberate
use of the three key strategies during instructional delivery. Teachers also made
assumptions about English learners’ background knowledge, often assuming
that they possessed the necessary background knowledge to be successful in the
core curriculum. As a result, teachers did not actively seek assistance from the
training specialist. Although the three key strategies were introduced at the
beginning of the 2005-2006 school year and again at the beginning of the 2006-
2007 school year, the majority of the intermediate teachers were not utilizing the
strategies due to the lack of follow-through after the initial training. A solution
for this area of need was to support teachers to strategically and deliberately
plan the use of these three strategies during monthly grade-level planning
meetings and to discuss student progress based on the use of these strategies
during weekly grade-level meetings. The principal, assistant principal, and
25
training specialist facilitated the process through attendance at monthly grade-
level planning and weekly grade-level meetings. Academic conference
meetings were used to discuss strategy use for supporting English learners’
access to the core curriculum. Teachers were compensated for participation in
monthly grade-level planning meetings beginning in September 2006, and
continuing through June 2007, with funds from the NCLB.
3. The predominate organizational barrier related to this intervention
was the lack of consistency on the part of the principal, assistant principal, and
training specialist to conduct classroom observations that focused specifically on
English-language development and access to the core curriculum for English
learners at the intermediate grade levels. A solution for this organizational
barrier was addressed through the development of a systematic classroom
observation schedule by the principal, assistant principal, and training specialist
with feedback to teachers on the utilization of the three key strategies.
Professional Development
The goal of the third intervention, professional development, is to
develop and improve the skill and knowledge base of teachers in order to
improve learning for all students, particularly for English learners in the fourth,
fifth and sixth grades at the various levels of English-language proficiency, in
order to facilitate access to the core curriculum. The core curriculum for
26
English-language arts and the OCR English Learner Support Guide are grade-
level specific. The core curriculum was taught for 90 minutes on a daily basis
during the reading instructional time block. However, teachers were not
utilizing it with consistency for the additional 30-minutes of English-language
development instruction. A number of English learners at the fourth, fifth and
sixth grade levels did not demonstrate improvement on the CST for two
consecutive years (2005 and 2006) in English-language arts and did not improve
by at least one grade level in English-language proficiency based on the CELDT
assessment data (Appendix A). The causes of the performance gap for these
English learners is attributed to motivation, knowledge and organizational
barriers:
1. The majority of the intermediate grade level teachers attempted
to use the ELD standards with the core curriculum for science and social studies
and had not fully utilized nor integrated the OCR English Learner Support
Guide for accessing the English-language arts curriculum. During the 2006-
2007 school year, there were two novice teachers and four veteran teachers at
the intermediate grade levels. The two novice teachers were feeling
overwhelmed with the demands of teaching and the four veteran teachers were
at varying levels of implementation and use of the OCR English Learner
Support Guide to make the curriculum more meaningful and comprehensible to
English learners in their classrooms. This conclusion was based on the
27
observations of English-language development instruction conducted by the
principal and assistant principal. Grade-level planning agendas, teacher lesson
plans, and classroom observations did not reflect consistency on the use of the
English Learner Support Guide to provide instruction for English-language
development. A solution for this accountability problem was addressed during
the 2006-2007 school year whereby teachers would no longer be left to their
own devices to develop lessons and provide instruction for English-language
development. They were to participate in continuous, ongoing professional
development on the new state-adopted English-language development
curriculum, Avenues, for English learners at the fourth, fifth and sixth grade
levels who were at the intermediate through advanced levels of English-
language proficiency based on the CELDT assessment. In addition, the
bilingual resource teacher was to participate in providing English-language
development instruction to the intermediate students (grades 4 through 6) who
were at the beginning levels of English-language proficiency based on the
CELDT assessment. Further, the K-6 staff at Aviles participated in 20 hours of
professional development through the California Reading and Literature Project
(Dutro & Adams, 2005a) in conjunction with the district on a focused approach
to frontloading English-language instruction beginning in August 2006, and
continuing through November 2006. Follow-up training was conducted in
March 2007 by personnel from the Multilingual Department. Teachers were
28
motivated to participate in targeted professional development because they had
struggled for approximately 5 years without a cohesive and comprehensive
program of instruction for English-language development at the intermediate
grade levels. The CST-ELA data for two consecutive years, 2005 and 2006,
indicated that there were 40 English learners in the fourth, fifth and sixth grades
who did not achieve grade-level proficiency. A result of the lack of a consistent
program and instruction for English learners in English-language development
has been a decrease in growth based on the CELDT assessment (Appendix A).
2. Teachers at the fourth, fifth and sixth grade levels exhibit varying
levels of knowledge and skills to fully implement the OCR English Learner
Support Guide. Teachers should develop and deepen their understanding of how
to systematically integrate the English learner support curriculum with the core
curriculum in English-language arts by participating in professional
development provided through a partnership of experts from the Division of
Instruction and Learning and the Multilingual Department. The experts should
meet periodically with the teachers at the intermediate grade levels, conduct
observations and provide feedback. The assistant principal developed a
schedule for the teachers to participate in peer observations during the
instructional day in order to learn from each other. This process was facilitated
with the participation of trainers from Action Learning Systems (ALS) during
the second trimester of the 2006-2007 school year. The principal, assistant
29
principal, and training specialist participated and accompanied the teachers on
their peer observations and included opportunities to debrief with the teacher
being observed. Release time for teachers to participate in peer observations
during the instructional day was provided by the NCLB and Bilingual funds.
3. An organizational barrier for professional development was created
during the 2005-2006 school year due to the lack of focus in providing on-site
professional development to enhance instruction for English learners. The
principal, assistant principal, and training specialist did not consistently conduct
regular classroom observations for the implementation and delivery of English-
language instruction for English learners through the core English-language arts
curriculum materials. A solution to address this accountability problem was to
work collaboratively with Action Learning Systems to develop a schedule for
systematic and ongoing professional development to aide in the use and
integration of the OCR English Learner Support Guide with the core curriculum
from experts in English-language development from ALS, the Division of
Instruction and Learning and the Multilingual Department. In addition, the
principal sought assistance and worked collaboratively with the aforementioned
entities in order to develop a systematic and ongoing on-site professional
development plan to support teachers’ professional development needs and
improvement in student achievement for all students, including English learners.
Finally, the school-based professional development activities were aligned to
30
address strategies for improving student learning through improvement of the
skill and knowledge of educators at the site (Elmore, 2002).
Purpose, Design, and Utility
Purpose
The primary purpose of this dissertation was pre-post quasi-experimental
approach incorporating both formative and summative evaluations. I wanted to
determine whether the interventions that were in place were effectively meeting
the needs of English learners and improving their achievement in English-
language arts at the fourth, fifth and sixth grade levels, and achieving
proficiency as required by the NCLB. The essential question became: What can
teachers do to help English learners achieve proficiency on grade-level standards
in English-Language Arts?
Design
Gonzalez Elementary School in the Rio Bonita Unified School District
was used as the comparison school and it served as the model. This school was
selected after perusing the similar schools’ list from the 2005-2006
Accountability Progress Reporting (APR) for Aviles Elementary from the
California Department of Education’s website, revised February 8, 2007, for
schools with similar demographics (California Department of Education,
31
2006b). Of significance is the fact that Aviles and Gonzalez Elementary shared
similar demographics, namely, Hispanic or Latino, socio-economically
disadvantaged, and English learners. In addition, English learners as a cohort
group were comparable in numbers (Gonzalez had 183 English learners, and
Aviles had 179 English learners in Grades 2 through 6). In comparing the two
schools, at Gonzalez Elementary, 26.8% of English learners achieved grade-
level proficiency on the 2006 CST-ELA, whereas of the English learners at
Aviles only 19.0% achieved grade-level proficiency, falling short of the ELA
target of 24.4% by 5.4%. Aviles and Gonzalez schools both utilized state-
adopted instructional materials for English-Language Arts; namely, the Open
Court 2002 Reading Program at Aviles Elementary, and Houghton Mifflin
Reading 2003 at Gonzalez Elementary.
By using Gonzalez Elementary as the comparison school, it enabled me
to learn about what was making a difference for the students, particularly
English learners. This information allowed me to become more strategic in
planning for research-based interventions that would best meet the needs of our
students, particularly the English-learner student population. Through site
visitations, interviews, and reflective conversations, I was able to identify,
discuss, and plan actions to improve instruction and learning for all of our
students, including English learners. English learners at Gonzalez had
significantly increased their Academic Performance Index (API) by 46 API
32
points from a base in 2005 of 682 to 728 in 2006, whereas English learners at
Aviles increased their API by 29 API points from a base in 2005 of 674 to 703
in 2006. The disaggregation of the achievement data between the two schools
provided school-wide, subgroup, and grade level information that enabled me to
make comparisons and pinpoint opportunity gaps for students who were not
meeting grade-level proficiency on the CST-ELA.
Formative data included face-to-face and telephone interviews with the
Gonzalez principal and teachers regarding the progress they were making as
required by the NCLB. Additionally, data from Aviles of walk-through
observations and notes regarding program implementation; strategy use,
including a direct instruction checklist; the teacher/student interactions and
levels of cognition; as well as teacher, student, and parent surveys results;
School Site Council (SSC); English Learners Advisory Committee (ELAC); on-
site and off-site professional development agendas were also collected and
utilized for the purpose of improving instruction and learning for all students at
Aviles.
Based on the results of the 2005 CST, Aviles was placed on Program
Improvement Status, Year 2, and advanced to Program Improvement Status,
Year 3, based on the 2006 CST results. The goal for 2007 was to maintain the
Year 3 status and exit Program Improvement altogether in 2008. This was a
monumental task and one that had to be undertaken if 100% of the students who
33
were assessed in Grades 2 through 6 were to achieve grade-level proficiency by
the year 2014 as required by the NCLB.
The summative data included CST data for the purpose of comparing the
student achievement results for students in Grades 2 through 6 from the 2005-
2006 school year to the student achievement results for students in Grades 2
through 6 for the 2006-2007 school year. Additional data collection revolved
around the core curriculum, Open Court 2002, Reading Lions Assessments,
Benchmark Assessments from Action Learning Systems, and student work
samples. The purpose of the summative data collection was to determine the
effectiveness of instructional practices and interventions which were in place at
Aviles Elementary. In addition, program and instructional strengths and
weaknesses were used as a springboard for developing supplementary support
structures in the form of interventions for students.
The focus of this dissertation was both quantitative and qualitative in
design. A greater emphasis, though, was placed on the quantitative in the
comparison with Gonzalez Elementary. Of primary interest was the extent to
which the interventions at Aviles conducted during the 2006-2007 school year
had on student achievement. The effects of these interventions are instrumental
in determining their continuance or redesign for the following school year. The
desire was for all students to achieve at high levels, particularly English learners,
and meet or exceed the state benchmarks for CST-ELA in order maintain the
34
Program Improvement Year 3 status for the 2006-2007 school year and graduate
out of program improvement status in the 2007-2008 school year. Critical
questions to consider included: What could be done to improve and strengthen
instructional delivery so that English learners were achieving grade-level
proficiency on the CST-ELA at a higher rate than was currently being done?
Were all students demonstrating measurable improvement as required by the
NCLB? How had student achievement improved from 2006 to 2007? Which
numerically significant subgroups made the greatest gains? What research-
based strategies were successful and to what extent? What would need to be
done differently in the succeeding school year, 2008, to improve instruction and
learning for all students at Aviles?
The boundary of this dissertation focused on 40 English learners at the
fourth, fifth and sixth grade levels who had not achieved grade-level proficiency
of the state standards in English-Language Arts as measured by the California
Standards Test for the past two years of assessment (2005 and 2006), and 6
intermediate grade level teachers at Aviles Elementary School. Inquiry and
research included implementation of the core curriculum in English-language
arts and English-language development, instructional strategies that provided
access to the core curriculum, and professional development. Interventions
provided by school staff and outside providers (Supplemental Educational
Services) to improve student achievement were being delivered and monitored
35
school-wide. The accountability measures utilized were STAR data results for
the CST-ELA and the CELDT. The research timeframe was the 2005-2006
STAR and CELDT data compared to the 2006-2007 STAR and CELDT and the
interventions that were in place during the 2006-2007 school year.
The primary data sources were the STAR results through the California
Department of Education (CDE). Data results from the 2006-2007 Benchmark
Assessments for Language Arts through Action Learning Systems, Reading
Lions Assessments for the 2006 and 2007 school years, and Just for the Kids
were additional sources for quantitative data. These data sources were used for
comparisons between the achievement outcomes for students at Aviles
Elementary with a comparison school, Gonzalez Elementary in Rio Bonita
Unified School District, possessing similar demographics that demonstrated
improved academic achievement for all students, including the English-learner
student population.
Qualitative data included face-to-face and telephone interviews and/or
surveys with Aviles’ assistant principal and teachers and Gonzalez Elementary.
The quantitative analysis was a pre-post comparison of data from the two
schools using the California Standards Tests for 2006 and 2007. The federal
accountability measure Adequate Yearly Progress (No Child Left Behind) and
the state Academic Performance Index (API) were used as the indicators of
progress school-wide and included the numerically significant subgroup data,
36
specifically, Hispanic or Latino, Socio-economically Disadvantaged, and
English Learners.
An additional measure for gauging student growth was the CELDT data
for English learners’ progress from 2006 to 2007. This data provided valuable
information on the differences in student achievement for English learners at the
intermediate grade levels who did not receive English-language development
instruction due to the lack of a core curriculum in 2006, versus the inception of a
state-adopted curriculum for English learners in 2007.
Utility
The utility of this study was for relevance, practicality, and applicability
to my current work site and position. As the principal, I was responsible for
promoting and ensuring the academic success of all students. This study
provided insight into the effectiveness of the interventions in place which
focused on the academic success of all students including English learners.
Through the analysis of the data, we were able to determine the degree of their
effectiveness and whether they should be continued, modified, or removed.
English-language learners are one of the fastest growing groups in the
public schools today and meeting their instructional needs is an enormous
challenge because of their cultural and linguistic diversity (Lachat, 2004).
Lachat also points out that nearly 80% of the English-language learners are
37
concentrated in seven states and about 40% are enrolled in California’s public
schools. Lachat also found that the challenges faced by English learners and
their peers is “the magnitude of learning expected of the former” (p. 29). The
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 established a pattern of adequate yearly
progress targets between 2002 and 2014 for student academic gains in schools
and districts with the expectation that 100% of the students assessed achieve
proficiency by 2014 in English-Language Arts and Mathematics. At Aviles,
with a high percentage of the student population classified as English learners, it
became a moral imperative to focus on research-based strategies and
instructional practices in order to meet the instructional needs of all students,
particularly English learners, so that they may be productive and contributing
members of our society. Small, incremental change, as was the state at Aviles,
was not sufficient enough to prepare the students for social and academic
success.
38
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of the literature related
to English-language learners (ELL), also known as Limited English Proficient
(LEP) students, and the challenges they encounter in acquiring English so that
they can participate fully in an academic setting and meet the proficiency
standards required by the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2002).
Jepsen and de Alth (2005) state that students who speak a language other than
English at home, and who are not yet proficient in English, are known as
English learners. In this chapter, five areas related to English-language learners
and their academic achievement are discussed.
First, the challenges of the No Child Left Behind Act for English-
language learners are reviewed. Second, the validity of using standardized
assessments as a means of measuring E-LanLL students’ academic achievement
is analyzed. Third, factors affecting English-language learners’ achievement in
English-Language Arts are discussed. Fourth, factors influencing school-site
effectiveness are reviewed. Lastly, a discussion of the use of research-based
strategies, namely, implementation of the core curriculum for English-language
learners, instructional strategies to access the core curriculum, and professional
39
development, that became the focus for raising the academic achievement of
English-language learners at Aviles Elementary, are evaluated for effectiveness.
The Challenge of the No Child Left Behind Act
for English-Language Learners
English-language learners represent the fastest growing segment of the
school-age population, the greatest effect of which is currently being felt in the
elementary schools (Hill & Flynn, 2006). Data presented by Hill and Flynn
from Education Market Research Corner Archives (2004) indicate that currently
44% of all English-language learners in U.S. public schools are in grades K-3.
The data are corroborated by similar research conducted by Lachat (2004). In
school, English-language learners have the dual challenges of working towards
English-language proficiency for social and academic purposes as well as the
academic challenges that are faced by other students. In addition, mainstream
classroom teachers are also challenged by the presence of English-language
learners in their classrooms and they need to be prepared to teach ELL as they
progress throughout the educational system. The challenges faced by teachers
include ELL’s native-language proficiency and English-language acquisition.
As Hill and Flynn (2006) point out, some students are born in the United States
and grow up in non-English-speaking households while others arrive in school
with varying amounts of formal education in their native country. Yet others,
40
having received formal schooling in the U.S. for a number of years, find
themselves in the early stages of English-language acquisition. Research by Hill
and Flynn (2006) is supported by earlier research conducted by Freeman,
Freeman, and Mercuri (2002) on the variance in English-language learners.
They identified some of the characteristics and instructional issues of the ELL
subgroups by classifying ELLs into three similar groups, specifically, newly
arrived with adequate schooling, newly arrived with limited-formal schooling,
and long-term English learners (Cobb, 2004). The current state is that now we
find that teaching English-language skills to English-language learners becomes
the responsibility of the entire school staff.
The requirements of the NCLB make schools accountable for the
learning of all students, including English-language learners. The legislation for
No Child Left Behind defines LEP students as:
(a) Being 3 to 21 years of age, (b) enrolled or preparing to enroll in
elementary or secondary school, (c) either not born in the United States
or speaking a language other than English, and (d) owing to difficulty in
speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English, not meeting the
state’s proficient level of achievement to successfully achieve in
English-only classrooms. (Abedi, 2004, p. 5)
Abedi (2004) also points out that the operational definition of English
learners varies considerably across schools, districts, and states. The most
important criteria introduced by the NCLB and states for the classification of
English learners are (a) being a nonnative speaker of English and (b) scoring
low on English-proficiency tests. The goal for all schools is that 100% of the
41
tested student population demonstrate proficiency on the standards-based state
assessments by 2014. Jepsen and de Alth (2005) cite the specific goals
established by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 related to English learners,
namely that “all students, including English learners, will attain ‘proficiency’ in
reading and mathematics by 2014; and all English learners will become
proficient in English” (p. 23).
Lachat (2004) further asserts that:
Part A of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 specifically describes
the purposes of the act, including helping to ensure that “children who
are limited-English proficient, including immigrant children and youth,
attain English proficiency; develop high levels of academic attainment in
English; and meet the same challenging state academic content and
student achievement standards as all children are expected to meet.” (pp.
43-44)
The federal measure Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is part of the
accountability system under No Child Left Behind and is one method for
summarizing test scores for California. AYP focuses on the achievement of
significant subgroups of students within schools whereby the primary measure
of success is that a specific, and gradually increasing, percentage of each
subgroup of students score proficient or advanced on the CSTs in English and
math (EdSource, 2005). Schools are held accountable for testing 95% of the
students in each subgroup resulting in sanctions to schools that fail to do so.
Schools and local-education agencies (LEA) failing to make their AYP for two
consecutive years face specific consequences from providing tutoring services,
42
referred to as Supplemental Educational Services (SES), to shutting the school
down within the overarching process known as Program Improvement
(EdSource, 2005).
A second official measure of school performance in California is the
California Standards Test (CST). The tests are based on the state’s challenging
and rigorous academic content standards which describe what teachers are
expected to teach and what students are expected to learn. Student outcomes are
rated as far below basic, below basic, basic, proficient and advanced. The goal
is for every student assessed to achieve proficient or advanced (EdSource,
2005). From the CST assessments, the state measure known as the Academic
Performance Index (API) is used for summarizing test scores in three significant
ways. First, the API is used to rank schools of the same type (elementary,
middle or high school) into deciles that each represent 10% of the schools. The
decile ranks are assigned from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest) and provide
information on how a particular school compares to all other schools. Second,
schools are compared to the 100 schools most like them based on student
demographics and other factors because of the strong correlation between test
scores and student characteristics (EdSource, 2005). Schools receive a similar-
schools ranking based on their API between 1 and 10. The similar-schools
ranking provides information on how well your school compares to schools with
similar challenges. Third, schools are expected to achieve a target for improving
43
their API score and the state tracks the change from year-to-year. The API
scores range from 200 to 1000 and the state has established as a benchmark for
each school to have an API score of at least 800 (EdSource, 2005).
Issues Related to Using Standardized Assessments as a
Measurement of English-Language Learners’ Academic Achievement
The issues related to AYP and ELL is highlighted in the research of
Abedi (2004) who describes six LEP assessment issues and their relationship to
AYP reporting. First, is the inconsistency of classification criteria for students
with limited English proficiency across the United States which directly affects
the accuracy of AYP reporting for these students. The number of ELL varies
across the nation and in a large number of states and districts the number is not
enough for any meaningful analyses. English learners as a subgroup differ in
level of performance, language proficiency, and family and cultural background
characteristics (Abedi, 2004). The ramifications of this, according to Abedi
(2004), is that it “might skew some states’ accountability and adversely affect
state and federal policy decisions” (p. 4). A third issue arises in the lack of
stability for the ELL as a subgroup. Abedi (2004) describes a school’s ELL
population as a moving target because when a student’s level of English
proficiency improves to the proficient level, the ELL student is moved out of the
subgroup, those who remain within the subgroup are low performing, and new
44
students with varying levels of English proficiency may move into the subgroup.
As a result, Abedi (2004) reasons that even with the best resources, the chances
of improving the AYP indicator over time for ELL is pretty low. A fourth issue
related to AYP for ELL is the measurement quality of AYP instruments for
ELL. According to Abedi:
Students’ yearly progress is measured by their performance on state-
defined academic achievement tests, but studies have shown that
academic achievement tests that are constructed and normed for native
English speakers have lower reliability and validity for LEP populations.
(Abedi, 2003, p. 4)
Subsequently, results for these tests should not be interpreted in the same
manner as they are for non-LEP students. A fifth consideration is that, in
general, schools with larger numbers of English learners will have lower
baseline scores and they will have to spend considerably more time and
resources than schools with higher baseline scores in order to reach the required
level of proficiency by the target year of no later than 2014 (Abedi, 2004).
Finally, a sixth issue focuses on the LEP cutoff points. There are differences in
the accountability requirement between the 1994 reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 known as the Improving
America’s Schools Act (IASA) and the 2001 reauthorization (NCLB). The
IASA is a compensatory model of accountability where higher performance in
one subject area (math) may compensates for lower performance in another
subject area (reading/language arts).
45
The NCLB, on the other hand, is a conjunctive model where scores on
all of the measures required for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) must be above
the criterion point or cut scores (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2002).
The NCLB is stricter in terms of criteria to judge students’ performance,
according to Abedi (2004). Additionally, with the impact of linguistic factors on
assessment, English learners have more difficulty with content areas high in
language demand. Generally, a much larger gap exists between LEP and non-
LEP students in reading than in math. As a result, LEP students are more likely
to remain in the fail category for a longer period of time due to their low scores
in reading (Abedi, 2004, p. 10).
Other factors affecting AYP for English learners is their current capacity
to understand instruction. Due to English-language barriers, English learners
may not benefit from teacher instruction at the same level as their mainstream
English-speaking peers. According to Abedi:
If LEP students require more time and practice to attain mastery in their
language and content studies because of language and/or cultural factors,
then their need for a higher level of opportunity to learn may directly
affect their achievement measure results and reflect poorly on schools
that are actually performing well. (Abedi, 2004, p. 10)
46
Factors Influencing Literacy Development
in English-Language Learners
Literacy development in children continues to be a major issue and focus
in American education. Standards-based reform and results of the annual state
assessments reaffirm the high number of students who struggle with the
language demands of content learning in our schools today. The increased focus
on literacy in education reform may lead to a broader understanding of literacy
issues for English-language learners. As students move through the upper grade
levels in middle- and high-school, they face increasing literacy demands due to
the expectations of the new standards-based curricula. They are required to
develop and apply their reading and writing skills and strategies in solving
problems and in expressing ideas that reflect critical-thinking skills (Lachat,
2004).
English learners’ literacy development in a second language is
influenced by a range of individual factors, including age of arrival in a new
country, educational history, socioeconomic status (SES), and cognitive
capacity. It is important to keep in mind that students who are acquiring a
second language are a highly heterogeneous group and instruction must be
designed to take such differences into account (August & Shanahan, 2006a).
August and Shanahan (2006a) in the synthesis of research on the
education of English-language learners conducted by the National Literacy
47
Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth attest to the importance of the
acquisition of word-level or initial skills (those involved in word reading,
pseudo-word reading, and spelling) and text level (those involved in the
interpretation and communication of meaning) as requisites for literacy
development. In addition, August and Shanahan (2006a) assert that English
learners follow a developmental trajectory, similar to that of native-English-
speaking peers, in the acquisition of literacy, and the trajectory appears to be
similar for children regardless of their language background. There are
differences, however, between language-minority students and their native,
English-speaking peers in the acquisition of literacy. An advantage for English-
language learners is that they can build upon their first-language skills in
acquiring their second language. A word of caution, however, is warranted
because in some cases and for some skills, the rate of second-language
acquisition slows down for English-language learners. August and Shanahan
(2006a) point out that when English-language learners and native speakers are
taught together, they both make gains in vocabulary learning, but the vocabulary
knowledge of the English-language learners have a tendency to remain below
that of their native-speaking peers. The differences, according to August and
Shanahan (2006a), can be attributed, in part, to lower levels of oral English
proficiency.
48
The major research findings from the National Literacy Panel on
Language-Minority Children and Youth (August and Shanahan, 2006a and
2006b) include the following:
1. English-language learners (ELLs) benefit from instruction in the
key components of reading as defined by the National Reading Panel (National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) as phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension.
August and Shanahan point out that:
Becoming literate in a second language depends on the quality of
teaching, which is a function of the content coverage, intensity or
thoroughness of instruction, methods used to support the special
language needs of second-language learners and to build on their
strengths, how well learning is monitored, and teacher preparation.
Teachers can learn how to deliver innovative instruction with effective
professional development. (August & Shanahan, 2006b, p. 3)
2. Instruction is the key component of reading. It is necessary, but
not sufficient, for teaching language-minority students to read and write
proficiently in English. Oral proficiency in English is critical as well, but
student performance suggests that it is often overlooked in instruction.
Instructional approaches found to be successful with native-English
speakers do not have as positive a learning impact on language-minority
students. It is not enough to teach language-minority students reading
skills alone. Extensive oral English development must be incorporated
into successful literacy instruction. The most promising instructional
practices for language-minority students bear out this point: Literacy
programs that provide instructional support of oral language
49
development in English, aligned with high-quality literacy instruction,
are the most successful. (August & Shanahan, 2006b, p. 4)
3. Oral proficiency and literacy in the first language can be used to
facilitate literacy development in English.
August and Shanahan (2006a) point out that language-minority students
who are proficient in their first language are likely to have an advantage in the
acquisition of English literacy. Studies by Huzar (1973), Maldonado (1994) and
Plante (1976) address the impact that language of instruction has on the literacy
learning of language-minority students. These studies as a group, according to
August and Shanahan (2006a), “suggest an intriguing possibility: English-
language learners may learn to read best if taught in both their native language
and English from early in the process of formal schooling” (p. 397).
4. Individual differences contribute significantly to English literacy
development.
English literacy development is a dynamic process and is influenced by
individual differences in general language proficiency, age, English oral
proficiency, cognitive abilities, previous learning, and the similarities
and differences between the first language and English. (August &
Shanahan, 2006b, p. 5)
5. There is surprisingly little evidence for the impact of socio-
cultural variables on literacy achievement or development. However, home-
language experiences can have a positive impact on literacy achievement.
The panel investigated the effects of six socio-cultural factors on literacy
achievement and development, namely: (a) immigration status, (b)
50
discourse/interactional characteristics, (c) other socio-cultural factors, (d) parent
and family influences, (e) district, state and federal policies, and (f) language
status or prestige, and found little evidence for gauging the impact of most of the
aforementioned factors (August & Shanahan, 2006b). Overall, however, the
panel suggests that student performance in literacy is more likely to be the result
of home (and school) language and literacy learning experiences (August &
Shanahan, 2006b).
Factors Influencing School Site Effectiveness
A meta-analysis of 35 years of research conducted by Marzano (2003) is
organized into three general factors that affect student academic achievement:
(a) school-level factors, (b) teacher-level factors, and (c) student-level factors.
According to Marzano (2003), school-level factors are a function of school
policy and school-wide decisions and initiatives such as a guaranteed and viable
curriculum, challenging goals and effective feedback, parent and community
involvement, a safe and orderly environment, and collegiality and
professionalism. The teacher-level factors include those things that are directly
under the control of individual teachers, more specifically, instructional
strategies, classroom management techniques, and classroom curriculum design.
Lastly, the student-level factors are associated with student background, namely,
51
home environment, learned intelligence and background knowledge and
motivation.
Marzano (2003) has condensed 35 years of research on school
effectiveness into five school-level factors, enumerated above, representing the
most current thinking and their impact on student achievement and are listed in
rank order according to their impact on student achievement. Subsequently,
Marzano (2003) concludes that a guaranteed and viable curriculum is the
school-level factor with the most impact on student achievement, followed by
challenging goals and effective feedback, parent and community involvement, a
safe and orderly environment, and collegiality and professionalism. Marzano
(2003) points out that in “constructing my five school-level factors, I have
considered only those that can be addressed without a drastic addition of
resources” (p. 15).
The first school-level factor—a guaranteed and viable curriculum—is a
composite of opportunity to learn and time and is the most prominent factor.
According to Marzano (2003), both have strong correlations with academic
achievement, yet because of their strong interdependent nature, constitute one
factor. Opportunity to learn, identified as having the strongest relationship to
student achievement of all of the school-level factors, made its introduction in
the research literature over 30 years ago by the International Association for
Evaluation of Educational Achievement as a component of the First and Second
52
International Mathematics Study, FIMS and SIMS, respectively and changed the
course of educational research (Marzano, 2003, pp. 22-23). Three types of
curricula were identified in SIMS: (a) the intended curriculum which is the
content specified by the state, district, or school to be addressed in a particular
course or at a particular grade level, (b) the implemented curriculum is the
content which is delivered by the teacher, and, (c) the attained curriculum which
is the content learned by the students. According to research by Marzano
(2003), teachers’ indiscriminate decisions as to what should be covered and to
what extent create a discrepancy between the intended curriculum and the
implemented curriculum and contribute to huge gaps in the continuum of
content. A key point brought forward by Marzano (2003) in his work is a strong
and powerful message: “if students do not have the opportunity to learn the
content expected of them, there is little chance that they will” (p. 24).
Additionally, Marzano (2003) points out that:
Opportunity to learn addresses the extent to which the curriculum in a
school is “guaranteed.” This means that states and districts give clear
guidance to teachers regarding the content to be addressed in specific
courses and at specific grade levels. It also means that individual
teachers do not have the option to disregard or replace assigned content.
(p. 24)
A guaranteed and viable curriculum is unattainable without the benefit of
time. Teachers must have adequate time to address the content which they are
expected to deliver to students within the instructional day. Research by Mid-
continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) (Marzano, 2003)
53
highlights that this is not the case. Of significance is the fact that researchers at
McREL identified approximately 200 standards and 3,093 benchmarks in
national- and state-level documents for 14 different subject areas. Classroom
teachers estimated the amount of time it would take to adequately address the
content in these documents as 15,465 hours. Upon closer examination of the
actual time available in the instructional day, discrepancies become apparent.
Marzano (2003) points out that, in general, K-12 schools in the U.S. have a 180-
day school year with variations ranging from 175 to 184 days for an average of
179 days. The length of the school day varies even more from four to six hours
with a reported average of about 5.6 hours of class time per day. Utilizing the
average of 5.6 hours per day of classroom time and 180 days in school per year,
studies in Marzano (2003) found that K-12 students spend about 13,104 total
hours in class (13 years of instruction x 1,008 hours per year). Subsequently,
teachers have a maximum of 13,104 hours to adequately address the 200
standards and 3,093 benchmarks identified by the McREL researchers
(Marzano, 2003, p. 24).
Other considerations such as classroom disruptions, socializing, informal
breaks, and other noninstructional activities take away from the available
classroom time for instruction. Estimates range from a low of 21% to a high of
69% of time available for classroom instruction. As a result, for the 13,104
hours of available classroom time, only 9,042 hours are actually used for
54
instruction if we use the high estimate of 69%. This totals about 695.5 hours per
year (9,042 hours ÷ 13 years of instruction) or about 3.9 hours per day (695
hours ÷ 180 days). It becomes quite obvious that 15,465 hours of standards
cannot fit into 9,042 hours of actual instructional time. This, ultimately, puts a
new light on the concept of viability. Viability is described by Marzano (2003)
as “ensuring that the articulated curriculum content for a given course or given
grade level can be adequately addressed in the time available…. Enacting this
research-based principle of school reform is one of the most significant
challenges facing U.S. schools” (p. 25).
Marzano (2003) recommends five action steps for the implementation of
a guaranteed and viable curriculum:
Action Step 1. Identify and communicate the content considered
essential for all students versus that considered supplemental or
necessary only for those seeking postsecondary education (p. 25).
Action Step 2. Ensure that the essential content can be addressed in the
amount of time available for instruction (p. 29).
Action Step 3. Sequence and organize the essential content in such a
way that students have ample opportunity to learn it (p. 30).
Action Step 4. Ensure that teachers address the essential content (p. 30).
Action Step 5. Protect the instructional time that is available (p. 31).
55
Research-Based Strategies for Raising the Achievement
of English Learners on Standardized Assessments
The NCLB (Department of Education, 2002) has created a new sense of
urgency for teachers in their quest for new modes of instruction, curriculum, and
forms of assessment that are research-based to address the multiple needs of the
diverse student populations in our schools today. In the past, teachers could rely
on their years of experience and/or their knowledge of best practices to provide
effective instruction (Hill & Flynn, 2006).
Several shifts in educational thinking took place during the latter half of
the 20
th
century. One paradigm shift took place in the late 1990s as researchers
at McREL began viewing teaching as a science rather than an art. Another shift
in educational thinking was taking place as other researchers discovered that the
studies from the 1960s and 1970s, indicating that school quality accounted for
only 10% of differences in students’ academic performance, were not entirely
accurate. Most notably, researchers discovered that individual teachers could
have a powerful effect on students’ academic achievement even if the school
itself was not highly effective in raising student performance. This new line of
research prompted the researchers at McREL to begin looking at studies of
various instructional strategies that could be used by teachers. An instructional
strategy was defined as an alterable behavior on the part of teachers or students
(Hill & Flynn, 2006). Utilizing a meta-analysis, the researchers at McREL
56
analyzed over 100 studies of instructional strategies, spanning more than 30
years, and subsequently identified nine categories of instructional strategies that
were exceptionally effective in improving student performance: (a) setting
objectives and providing feedback, (b) nonlinguistic representations, (c) cues,
questions, and advance organizers, (d) cooperative learning, (e) summarizing
and note taking, (f) homework and practice, (g) reinforcing effort and providing
recognition, (h) generating and testing hypotheses, and (i) identifying
similarities and differences (Hill & Flynn, 2006, p. 6). The results of this
research is documented in Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001). Hill and
Flynn (2006) provide examples of how the instructional strategies identified in
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) can be modified to meet the needs of
English-language learners based on their language acquisition level.
Instructional strategies are teacher-level factors (Marzano, Pickering, &
Pollock, 2001; Marzano, 2003) that affect student achievement. Marzano
(Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001) and his colleagues at McREL worked at
identifying those instructional strategies with a high probability of enhancing
student achievement for all students. Hill and Flynn (2006) adapted the research
of Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) for providing more effective
differentiated instruction for English-language learners.
57
Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback
It is especially important for English learners to have both content
objectives and language objectives simultaneously which will enable them to
learn and navigate through a new language and academic content. As Hill and
Flynn (2006) point out, the NCLB Act requires that English learners show
progress in both academic achievement and English-language proficiency on a
yearly basis. Therefore, it is critical that English learners be provided with
systematic language development so that they can develop a firm foundation in
academic English literacy skills necessary not only to meet the content standards
but also to successfully pass the challenging state assessments.
As the number of English-language learners increases throughout the
United States, educators are challenged by the dual tasks of developing English-
language learners’ language proficiency and delivering content instruction. In
the 1980s, educators utilized sheltered instruction, also known as specially
designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE), to address that challenge.
Hill and Flynn (2006) underscore the fact that sheltered instruction has long
been used as the medium for delivering content knowledge in a way that
promotes both concepts and academic English proficiency. Sheltered instruction
incorporates the use of instructional techniques such as speaking slowly, using
visual aids and manipulatives. It is also avoiding the use of idioms through a
variety of devices and procedures such as body movements and pantomime,
58
facial expressions and gestures, high-frequency vocabulary, and prior content
introduction (preview), to name a few. In the new millennium, the Sheltered
Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) was developed by Echevarria, Vogt,
and Short (2008). This research-based model meets the NCLB requirement for
language instruction. The SIOP model:
Emphasizes both content and language objectives in grade-level
curriculum, helping teachers and schools teach English to ELLs while
also helping students meet challenging state standards…. The SIOP
model makes academic content comprehensible and encourages
language learning by highlighting key features of the English language.
To do this effectively, teachers must set content objectives while also
reviewing which linguistic functions and structures in the lesson students
will need in order to effectively participate. (Hill & Flynn, 2006, pp. 24-
25)
Hill and Flynn (2006) highlight three generalizations from the research
of Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) on setting goals. First, setting goals
for instructions enables students to focus their attention on information that is
specifically related to the goal. Second, once learning goals are established,
students should be encouraged to personalize them to meet their needs. English
learners can do this by the use of sentence starters such as “I want to know . . .”
or “I wonder if . . ” (p. 27). Finally, the goals should not be so specific that they
limit their learning.
The research by Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) presents four
generalizations about feedback. First, feedback should be corrective in nature.
Hill and Flynn (2006) point out that English learners will have grammar and
59
pronunciation errors as they develop their English literacy skills. The best way
to provide corrective feedback for grammar or pronunciation errors is to simply
model the correct English grammar or pronunciation without overwhelming the
student and creating anxiety. Second, feedback should be timely. Third,
feedback should be criterion-referenced. Rubrics are especially helpful for
English learners because they provide students with information on how they are
progressing in learning specific types of knowledge and skills. Hill and Flynn
(2006) recommend the use of rubrics to provide feedback on declarative
knowledge (information) or procedural knowledge (processes and skills). In
addition, when rubrics are tied to student work, the student better understands
the expectations. The use of rubrics allow grading to be more comprehensible to
the student. Last, students can provide their own feedback through self-
evaluation or peer feedback in pairs or small groups. The Word-MES formula
(language stimulation through word selection, modeling English, expanding
knowledge of English, and developing academic English so that students begin
to “sound like a book”) developed by Hill (Hill & Flynn, 2006, p. 34), can be
helpful in matching oral and written corrective feedback to English learners’
stage of language acquisition.
60
Nonlinguistic Representations
The research of Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) provides two
generalizations about nonlinguistic representations. First, a variety of activities
can be helpful to formulate nonlinguistic representations such as the use of
graphic representations, pictures, mental images, physical and technological
models, and kinesthetic activities. Second, students should be encouraged to use
nonlinguistic representations to elaborate on knowledge. Hill and Flynn (2006)
suggest that the use of nonlinguistic representations will be guided by the
English learner’s English-language proficiency level. For example, students at
the pre-production and early production stages of English proficiency will not be
able to provide an explanation in spoken or written language and will need to
construct a physical representation.
Five generalizations for nonlinguistic representations (Marzano,
Pickering, & Pollock, 2001), are made for classroom use. First, the use of
graphic organizers to represent knowledge, which include Venn diagrams,
charts, webs, and timelines, to make complex content more comprehensible to
English-language learners. Hill and Flynn (2006) recommend teachers use
symbolic representations such as pictures, pictographs, maps, and diagrams.
Symbolic representations enable English-language learners to make connections
between what they already know and the new information they are presented in
text. These symbolic representations help them to visualize information,
61
recognize patterns, and remember new content, such as vocabulary, and most
importantly, it can help them bridge the language gap. In addition, teachers
should help students develop mental pictures. Hill and Flynn (2006) point out
that teacher-directed activities that have the students using all five senses can
help the students produce rich mental images. Also, making physical models
provides concrete representations of what is being learned. Manipulative
objects can be used in all content areas and include puzzles, maps, word sorts,
Legos or any three-dimensional form. By having the English learners construct
a physical model, they are able to develop an image of the knowledge without
solely depending on words. Lastly, students should be engaged in kinesthetic
activities to represent knowledge using physical movement. Total Physical
Response, developed by James Asher (1997), uses kinesthetic activities to teach
English. Total Physical Response moves from the simple, easy-to-follow
commands (stand up, sit down, turn around, etc.) to more complex commands
with the students eventually verbalizing the commands to the teacher or
instructor and their classmates. In addition, kinesthetic activities can also be
used to improve content knowledge by acting things out which, in turn, help to
create a mental image of the knowledge in the learner’s mind making the
content more comprehensible.
62
Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers
Cues, questions, and advance organizers share some commonalities with
regard to generalizations identified in the research of Marzano, Pickering, and
Pollock (2001). For example, cues, questions, and advance organizers (a)
should focus on what is important instead of what is unusual, and (b) higher-
level cues, questions, and advance organizers produce deeper learning than
lower-level cues, questions, and advance organizers. With regard to cues,
providing a wait time of at least three seconds before accepting a student
response increases the depth of answers. For English learners, wait time gives
them the opportunity to think about what they are going to say and how they are
going to say it in English. Asking questions prior to a learning experience is
also effective because the questions serve to activate and access prior
knowledge.
The classroom recommendations for cues and questions include the use
of explicit cues to access prior knowledge such as a K-W-L chart. “K”
representing What I Know, “W” representing, “What I Want to Learn” and “L”
representing “What I Learned.” Hill and Flynn (2006, p. 47) point out that
English-dominant students, Speech Emergent, Intermediate and Advance-
Fluency learners can write what they already know in a K-W-L format, while
Preproduction and Early Production students can draw what they know. Next,
ask questions that elicit inferences. English learners at the Intermediate and
63
Advanced Fluency stages of English proficiency can make inferences in
English. Students at the Preproduction stage will benefit from questions that
require them to point or gesture in response. Early Production students will
require questions that enable them to respond to yes/no questions, either/or
questions, or questions requiring a one- or two-word response. Speech
Emergence students will be able to respond to questions with a phrase or a short
sentence. The final recommendation is to use analytic questions. This will pose
a problem for the English learners at the early stages of language acquisition
because of their limited output due to their second-language acquisition. Hill
and Flynn (2006) recommend matching the level of questioning to the stage of
language acquisition. Further, teachers will need to be familiar with and keep in
mind the stages of language acquisition as well as the appropriate teacher
prompts for each stage, Krashen’s i + 1 hypothesis (1983) and Vygotsky’s
(1978) zone of proximal development when posing questions.
The classroom recommendations for advance organizers (Marzano,
Pickering, & Pollock, 2001) include the use of expository advance organizers to
describe the new content that will be introduced. English learners who are
acquiring a second language need more than words to describe new content.
Teachers need to provide explanations through the use of sheltering techniques
which include (a) manipulatives, miniature objects, and realia, (b) visuals
(photos, pictures, and drawings), (c) body movement and pantomime, (d) facial
64
expressions and gestures, (e) clear expression and articulation, (f) shorter,
simpler sentences, (g) eye contact, (h) high-frequency vocabulary, (i) reduction
of idiomatic expressions, (j) personalized language and nouns favored over
pronouns, and (k) synonyms (Hill & Flynn, 2006).
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning strategies can be used as powerful tools for
fostering language acquisition of English-language learners in the classroom.
Cooperative learning offers many advantages for English learners. According to
the research by Zehler (1994) cited in Hill and Flynn (2006), English learners
have more opportunities to speak working in small groups because they “create
opportunities for sustained dialogue and substantive language use” (Hill &
Flynn, 2006, p. 56) as students use language to accomplish their task. The
cooperative learning structure demands speech as each student carries out his
role in the learning process. In addition, Hill and Flynn (2006) underscore the
importance of how group members have to negotiate meaning as they speak. In
other words, the group members must adjust their language so that it is
comprehensible to all members of the group. Hill and Flynn (2006) point out
additional advantages of cooperative learning cited in the work of Kagan (1995).
According to Kagan (1995), “Language acquisition is not ensured unless input is
received repeatedly from a variety of sources” (p. 56). Further, that repetition
65
allows the English learner to move the content heard “from short-term
comprehension to long-term acquisition” (Kagan, 1995, p. 56). However,
students who are recent arrivals to the United States may not be familiar with
group work and team-building activities necessary in reducing anxiety and
creating a supportive classroom environment for them.
The generalizations drawn from cooperative learning in the research by
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) are that: (a) cooperative learning
groups should rarely be organized by ability and are more beneficial,
particularly for English learners, when they are heterogeneous, including
English-dominant students who can model correct English, (b) cooperative
learning groups should be small, and (c) teachers should take care not to overuse
cooperative learning groups because English learners need time for independent
practice of skills and processes they must master.
Four classroom recommendations are reviewed in the research of
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001). The first recommendation involves the
use of a variety of criteria for grouping students. The team composition should
include both English learners and English-dominant students. There may be
times, however, when it may be beneficial to group students according to their
language needs depending on goals and instructional objectives. The second
recommendation illustrates the types of cooperative learning groups that can
assist in varying the composition of the group such as informal groups, formal
66
groups, and base groups, each serving a different academic purpose. Third, the
teacher should maintain a small group size particularly for English learners
because of the opportunity for increased talk time. Lastly, the recommendation
is to combine cooperative learning groups with other types of classroom
instruction in order to provide time for students to practice skills on their own.
Summarizing and Note Taking
Teaching students summarizing and note-taking techniques can improve
their ability to synthesize and organize information in a way that captures the
main ideas and supporting details. In addition, summarizing and note taking
help students process information. Although there has been a great deal of
emphasis on learning strategies, too few English learners receive instruction in
the use of thinking skills necessary for summarizing and note taking. Some
educators mistakenly assume that English learners cannot be taught these
higher-level skills because they have not mastered English, failing to realize that
some English learners may have received instruction in these strategies through
their primary language.
“Summarizing is primarily about distilling information, finding patterns,
filling in the missing parts, and synthesizing the information into a condensed
form” (Hill & Flynn, 2006, p. 9). The research of Marzano, Pickering, and
Pollock (2001) provide three generalizations for summarizing, specifically, (a)
67
to effectively summarize, students must keep, delete, and substitute information;
(b) to effectively keep, delete, and substitute information, students must analyze
the information at a fairly deep level; subsequently (c) being aware of the
explicit structure of information is an aid when summarizing (Hill & Flynn,
2006, p. 63).
The classroom recommendations for incorporating summarization into
the classroom include (a) teach students the rule-based summarizing strategy
through repeated modeling, (b) use the six types of summary frames (narrative,
topic-restriction-illustration, argumentation, problem/solution, conversation, and
definition) and, (c) instruct students in reciprocal teaching as an aid to
understanding expository text. The reciprocal teaching model incorporates four
components: summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting. It is critical
that ELL have each step modeled followed by checking for understanding.
Students can use the four components to monitor their own reading for better
comprehension. Suggestions for adapting the strategies for summarization are
delineated in the research of Hill and Flynn (2006) with an emphasis on the
English-language proficiency level of the ELL.
A close relationship exists between note taking and summarization. In
order to take effective notes, students must decide which information is
important and then synthesize it using their own words (Hill & Flynn, 2006;
Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). English learners will need explicit
68
instruction in the art of note taking as they go about extracting new knowledge
in a new language (Hill & Flynn, 2006).
Hill and Flynn (2006) point out four generalizations from the work of
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) on note taking, specifically that (a)
verbatim note taking is the least effective way to take notes; (b) notes should
always be considered works in progress; (c) notes should be used as study
guides for tests; and (d) the more notes taken, the better (pp. 69-70). Hill and
Flynn (2006) also provide the classroom recommendations from the
aforementioned researchers for developing good note-taking skills in children.
The first recommendation is to provide students with teacher-prepared notes.
This serves as a model for students of what the teacher considers important.
English learners, depending on their English-language acquisition, will benefit
from pictorial representations as well as written form. Second, teach students a
variety of note-taking formats (informal outline, webbing, and combination
notes). Third, combination notes combine linguistic and nonlinguistic formats.
Combination notes are especially helpful to English learners because they
provide them with the ability to represent the information in a visual way
increasing the likelihood that the knowledge will be stored and retained (Hill &
Flynn, 2006).
69
Homework and Practice
Homework and practice are instructional techniques that provide
students with opportunities to “deepen their understanding and skills relative to
content” that has been presented to them by their teachers (Marzano, Pickering,
& Pollock, 2001, p. 60). Homework and practice also enhance students’ ability
to reach the expected level of proficiency for a skill or process (Hill & Flynn,
2006).
Four generalizations have been gleaned from Marzano, Pickering, and
Pollock (2001), on homework:
1. The amount of homework assigned is dependent on the student’s
grade level—less at the lower-grade levels and more as you
progress into the higher-grade levels.
2. Parents can facilitate homework completion by providing a quiet
space for their student to study.
3. Teachers should be specific about the purpose for the homework
assigned—practice of a new skill (review), preparation for new
content (preview), or elaboration on content (practice) that has
been introduced.
4. Feedback is an important requirement for effective homework
and should be provided either by assigning a grade or providing
written comments.
70
The research on homework provides three recommendations including
establishing and communicating a homework policy. It is especially important
to communicate the homework policy to parents of English learners in the
language of the home. The second recommendation is to design homework
assignments that clearly articulate the purpose and outcome. Homework
assignments for English learners will depend on their level of language
proficiency. Finally, feedback should be varied. Effective homework provides
timely feedback and usually the next day. In addition, English learners need to
see examples of other students’ homework and listen to explanations.
Hill and Flynn (2006) recommend adapting homework to the stages of
language acquisition and feel that the Word-MES formula will be a good way to
gauge the appropriateness of homework and feedback for English learners.
Practice is essential to learning new knowledge. According to Hill and
Flynn (2006) “the goal of practice is to develop a skill or process so that it can
be applied fluently with minimal conscious thought . . . when practicing,
students should adapt and shape what they have learned” (pp. 10-11). During
practice, teachers have the opportunity to point out errors and difficulties to
students so that they do not continue to make the same mistakes.
Two generalizations have been brought forth from the research of
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001). First, mastering a skill or a process
entails focused practice. They point out that English-dominant students need to
71
practice a skill or process at least 24 times to obtain 80% proficiency and
English learners will need even more focused practice, some of which can be
assigned for homework (Hill & Flynn, 2006, p. 84). The classroom
recommendations for actualizing this strategy include asking students to chart
their speed and accuracy. This would be applicable to English learners from
Intermediate to the Advanced stages of English-language proficiency. Second,
design practice that focuses on specific elements of a complex skill or process.
English learners will benefit from additional practice on strengthening specific
skills in reading and writing, as an example. Third, students need time to
increase their conceptual understanding of skills or processes. As Hill and
Flynn (2006) point out, “The reasoning behind the skill or process will need to
be made explicit for ELLs” (p. 85) which can be accomplished specifically
through think-alouds.
Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition
Reinforcing effort and providing recognition impact students’ attitudes
and beliefs. Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) describe the research by
Covington (1983) and Harter (1980) on the effects of effort which demonstrates
that, in general, people attribute success at any given task to one of four causes,
namely, ability, effort, other people, and luck. Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock
(2001) point out that the belief in effort is the most important factor in
72
achievement. In addition, with this belief you have a motivational tool that can
apply to any situation.
Hill and Flynn (2006) describe two generalization that can be drawn
from the research on effort: First, students are not aware of the direct effect that
effort has on success. Second, students can learn that “the effort they put into a
task has a direct effect on their success. In addition, a strong belief in effort
increases motivation” (p. 88).
The classroom recommendations for reinforcing effort were obtained
from the research of Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001). The first
recommendation involves explicitly teaching the students the importance of
effort. This involves relating personal stories, examples from well-known
sports, historical or political personalities, and up-close-and personal stories of
athletes’ experiences when effort led to success. English learners can share their
language learning experiences. Second, students can track their effort and
achievement through the use of graphs or charts so that they can “see the
correlation between effort and the progress of their achievement” (Hill & Flynn,
2006, p. 88). Hill and Flynn provide examples of effort and achievement rubrics
that can be used by both English learners and English-dominant students, and
include examples of rubrics that have been adapted for ELL.
Providing recognition is an affective strategy dealing with attitudes and
beliefs. Recognitions involve giving students rewards or praise for
73
accomplishments leading to the attainment of a goal. The research on
recognition is often misunderstood (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001).
Three generalizations were gleaned from the research of Marzano,
Pickering, and Pollock (2001). The first suggests that rewards do not
necessarily have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation. In addition,
rewarding students for achieving specific performance goals can have a positive
effect and enhance intrinsic motivation. Lastly, abstract recognition (such as
verbal praise) is more effective than tangible rewards (such as candy and
stickers, etc.) in improving performance. In order for verbal praise to be
effective, it should specify the particulars of the accomplishment. Verbal praise
can be used in combination with visual cues, gestures, pantomime, or body
movements to convey explanations to English learners at the various stages of
English-language acquisition (Hill & Flynn, 2006).
The classroom recommendations brought forth from the research for
classroom practice involve personalizing recognition following the achievement
of a specific performance goal. Examples of personalizing recognition include
sending letters home to parents (in the language of the home) when performance
targets have been met. Another recommendation is to use the pause-prompt-
praise strategy. This is particularly helpful for ELL students who are
experiencing difficulty with a task. The teacher needs to be a good observer of
students while they are working on a task and provide assistance by having the
74
student “pause” and then talk to the student about the difficulty being
experienced. In the “prompt” stage, the teacher offers the student specific
suggestions for improving performance. Finally, through the pausing and
prompting provided by the teacher the student should experience success leading
to verbal “praise” (Hill & Flynn, 2006, p. 93). The final recommendation offers
suggestions for the use of concrete symbols of recognition which may include
awards, certificates, and coupons. Concrete symbols of recognition, in addition
to verbal praise, should be given to the student for attaining a certain
performance goal and not simply for task completion. It is necessary to keep in
mind the importance of adapting personalized recognition to the stages of
English-language acquisition for English-language learners.
Generating and Testing Hypotheses
The process of generating and testing hypotheses involves the
application of knowledge. Generating and testing hypotheses requires English
learners to access prior knowledge, apply new knowledge, and explain their
conclusions. When we use “if-then” reasoning, we enter the realm of generating
and testing hypotheses (Hill & Flynn, 2006, p. 95).
The research by Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) provides two
generalizations for generating and testing hypotheses. The first generalization
provides that hypothesis generation and testing can be approached in an
75
inductive or deductive manner. As an example, Hill and Flynn (2006) note that
“When ELLs know how to apply the rules of English when writing, they are
using deduction; when they read a passage and figure out the rules of the
English language, they are using inductive reasoning” (p. 96). Second, it is
imperative that teachers encourage their students to explain their hypotheses and
conclusions which provide the English learners with the opportunity to develop
oral and academic language. Hill and Flynn (2006) also elaborate on the
importance for teachers to find the time to facilitate English-language
development through the use of the Word-MES formula when ELLs are
explaining hypotheses and conclusions. Adapting the generating and testing of
hypotheses to the stages of language acquisition is also very important. Students
at each stage of English-language proficiency have differing needs. Teachers
will need to be knowledgeable and strategic in how they support ELLs’
language development through the use of scaffolds, visual representations of
vocabulary, or manipulatives. They need to be models of correct English and
mindful of opportunities for expanding ELLs’ language as well as language
stimulation to help ELLs develop academic language.
The classroom recommendations offered by Marzano, Pickering, and
Pollock (2001) involve teachers using a variety of tasks emphasizing generating
and testing hypotheses, and requiring students to verbalize their hypotheses and
conclusions. English-language learners can participate in generating and testing
76
hypotheses but the language complexity will need to be reduced keeping in mind
the student’s stage of English-language acquisition.
Identifying Similarities and Differences
When students are asked to identify similarities and differences, they
have the opportunity to learn and delve into the content at a deeper level.
English-language learners need the same opportunity. These processes require
students to activate prior knowledge, make connections, construct meaning, and
verbalize their reasoning (Hill & Flynn, 2006). Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock
(2001) also point out that researchers have identified these mental operations as
basic to human thought.
Four generalizations are drawn from the research of Marzano, Pickering,
and Pollock (2001) on identifying similarities and differences. First, teacher-
directed activities deepen understanding for students and increase their ability to
use knowledge. Students are able to better use the knowledge they are learning
because the teacher is providing explicit instruction regarding identifying
similarities and differences through linguistic and nonlinguistic means.
Teaching tips to facilitate English-language learners’ understanding of
identifying similarities and differences include: “(a) represent what you say
with visuals; (b) use short, simple sentences with clear articulation; (c) include
gestures and facial expressions; (d) use high-frequency vocabulary (and
77
remember that nouns are better than pronouns); and (e) reduce idiomatic
expressions” (Marzano, Pickering, Pollock, 2001, p. 102). In addition, Marzano,
Pickering, and Pollock offer this rule of thumb: “When you think you have
modeled it enough, do it one more time!” (p. 102). The second generalization is
that students should independently identify similarities and differences.
Teachers need to keep in mind ELLs stage of language acquisition as they
provide opportunities for independent work. For the third generalization,
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) state that “when students represent
similarities and differences in graphic or symbolic form, it enhances their ability
to identify and understand similarities and differences” (pp. 102-103). Further,
these strategies should accompany both teacher-directed and student-directed
activities. The advantage for students is that they are required to use language to
explain nonlinguistic representations. The fourth and final generalization
provides information on the four different forms of identifying similarities and
differences, namely, comparing, classifying, creating analogies, and creating
metaphors. Considerations for reducing the linguistic complexity for the ELL
student will need to be made depending on the stage of language acquisition.
The classroom recommendations for identifying similarities and
differences require the teacher to
(a) remember to use different methods when asking students to identify
similarities and differences; (b) model each method of identifying
similarities and differences; (c) begin with a familiar topic when
modeling; (d) use graphic organizers to represent the similarities and
78
differences; and (e) guide ELLs through the process of identifying
similarities and differences but lessen the support as you repeat
activities. (Hill & Flynn, 2006, pp. 103-104)
Hill and Flynn (2006) assert that attribute charts have been useful for
English learners to use in identifying similarities and differences to build basic
vocabulary. The starting point for the use of attribute charts is dependent on the
ELL learner’s stage of language acquisition. Hill and Flynn further note that the
attribute chart can be increased in complexity to include more characteristics
such as the composition of items and parts of items. This is also a good
opportunity for the teacher to model the process for making comparisons
through the use of the think-aloud and later posting the steps for students to use
as a reference. Other aids that can be used to facilitate ELLs’ ability to identify
similarities and differences includes the use of the basic Venn Diagram, the
Venn Diagram for Comparing Characteristics, and the Comparison Matrix.
Summary of the Literature
The enactment of the NCLB in 2002 (Department of Education, 2002)
brought unprecedented nation-wide change to public education. According to
Barr and Parrett (2007), the United States achieved primacy in establishing a
national goal that all students achieve proficiency in reading, math and science.
The NCLB has strengthened California’s accountability system and the use of
standards-based assessments and required new standardized measures for
79
determining students who are achieving academic proficiency. Education has
been elevated from being accessible only to a few, to a civil right that is
absolutely essential and has been fueled by two powerful and relatively new
forces: changes in the economic marketplace and the emerging science of
teaching and learning (Barr & Parrett, 2007).
English-language learners are a big part of the educational landscape in
California as well as in other parts of the United States. They are often children
of poverty, labeled at-risk and from diverse backgrounds which creates
challenges to the educational community. The challenges often arise because of
a lack of understanding. The students arrive in school with differences in the
amount of grounding in their native language, and teachers do not have a
thorough understanding of the stages of second-language acquisition. Teachers
require continuous training on how to best meet ELL students’ linguistic and
academic needs so that they can become successful learners.
Barr and Parrett (2007) provide information on a number of major
conclusions that have emerged as a result of the prolific educational research of
the last decade. First, we know that all children will learn and achieve
acceptable standards of academic excellence and school success, including
children who are poor, non-English speaking, and learning disabled. Second,
research has disproved Coleman’s claim that poverty has such a negative,
pervasive impact on children and that schools have little or no positive effect on
80
their education. Today there are thousands of schools where poor and at-risk
students are achieving academic success. Third, researchers agree that the
teacher is the single most influential factor in student achievement (Barr &
Parrett, 2007; Marzano, 2003). Fourth, immediate gains are possible and
research has identified instructional strategies, targeted programs, interventions,
and exemplary models that accelerate the learning and achievement of low-
performing students. Fifth, best practices work for at-risk students. According
to Barr and Parrett (2003) poor and minority students can learn effectively when
research-based best practices are used in schools and classrooms. In addition,
the replacement of the pedagogy of poverty (drills, worksheets, and lectures)
with research-based strategies, yields increased learning especially for the
children of poverty. Lastly, low-performing schools can become high-
performing schools by employing research on effective schools and best
practices, monitoring student performance, building teachers instructional
capacity, and administrators’ leadership capacity.
81
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of multiple
interventions on the achievement of English-language learners in the fourth,
fifth and sixth grades at Aviles Elementary. The multiple interventions that
were the focus of this study included implementation of the core curriculum in
English-language development for English learners, instructional strategies to
access the core curriculum, and professional development. English-language
learners face many challenges in school. According to Lachat (2004), the
greatest difference between English learners and their peers is “the magnitude of
learning expected of the former. For most English-language learners, achieving
educational success is a daunting task” (p. 29). Due to the complexities of
providing instruction for English-language learners, a mixed-methods approach
was utilized to gather information and data for this study. Creswell (2003)
defines the mixed-methods approach as “pragmatic knowledge claims” (p. 21).
He further states that “The researcher bases the inquiry on the assumption that
collecting diverse types of data best provides an understanding of a research
problem” (Creswell, 2003, p. 21).
82
Evaluation Design
A mixed-methods approach to the collection of data was used to provide
evidence for summative and formative purposes. Summative data were
collected to determine the effectiveness of the interventions on three dependent
variables: (a) percent proficient and above on English-Language Arts as
measured by the California Standards Test (CST), (b) percent basic and above
on English-Language Arts as measured by the California Standards Test (CST),
and (c) proficiency band scores on English-Language Arts as measured by the
California Standards Test (CST). For variable (c), the scoring rubric was: 0 =
FBB, 1 = BB, 2 = Basic, 3 = Proficient and 4 = Advanced. The total student
population in Grades 2 through 6, as well as selected subgroups including
English-language learners, were analyzed.
The research question used to guide the summative process was: Do the
interventions in place, specifically, fidelity in the implementation of the core
curriculum in English-language development, instructional strategies to access
the core curriculum, and professional development, have an effect on the
academic achievement of English-language learners as measured by the CST?
The summative evaluation for this study incorporated both an
independent pre-post groups design and a nonequivalent comparison group
design.
83
Pre/Post Independent Groups Design
This design was used to analyze the change at Aviles from 2005-2006
(pre-intervention) to 2006-2007 (post intervention). The following statistics
were used for each dependent variable: (a) an independent groups t-test to
assess the statistical significance of the change (p < .15), (b) Cohen’s d to assess
practical significance (criterion for practical significance (d > .20), and (c)
percentage gain to assess practical significance per the NCLB (10%
improvement).
Nonequivalent Comparison Group Design
This design included an experimental group and one comparison group
that was not randomly assigned. The experimental and comparison groups were
compared on the post-test data. The treatment was administered only to the
experimental group, Aviles Elementary. Aviles Elementary had been utilizing
two different state-adopted English-language development programs, Moving
Into English in Grades K-3, and Avenues in Grades 4-6 (Schifini, Short,
Tinajero, García, García, Hamayan, & Kratky, 2004), and it was compared to
the comparison group school, Gonzalez Elementary. Gonzalez Elementary had
been utilizing Moving Into English in Grades K-6.
The selection of Gonzalez Elementary as the comparison group school
was based on information obtained from the 2005 Similar Schools Report and
84
Academic Performance Index (Base Report) from the CDE (California
Department of Education, 2005b) and the 2006 School Demographic
Characteristics Academic Performance Index (API) Growth Report obtained
from the CDE (California Department of Education, 2006c) to obtain
information on the similarities between the two schools: (a) API scores, (b)
grade levels within the schools, (c) schools within the same geographic region,
(d) percentage of students participating in the free or reduced price lunch
program, and (e) percentage of students classified as English learners and
participating in STAR, as depicted in Table 4.
Table 4
Selection Criteria for Experimental and Comparison Groups, 2006 School Year
School
Name
API
Scores
Grade
Levels
Geographic
Location
% Free or
Reduced
Price
Lunch
(STAR)
% English
Learners
(STAR)
Aviles
(Experimental)
678
(26
points
growth
from
2005)
K-6 Sacramento 100% 56%
Gonzalez
Elementary
(Comparison)
729
(28
points
growth
from
2005)
K-6 Sacramento 88% 64%
85
The two summative evaluation designs used in this study are annotated
in scientific notation as follows:
E 01 X 02
C 02
The scientific notation is defined as follows:
Experimental Group Aviles Elementary Pre (2006) X Post (2007)
Comparison Group Gonzalez Elementary Post (2007)
During the 2005-2006 school year, the pre-intervention observation was
performance on English-Language Arts on the California Standards Test. The
treatment (X) implemented in the experimental group at Aviles Elementary took
the form of multiple interventions; namely (a) implementation of the core
curriculum for English Learners in English-language development, (b)
Instructional Strategies to Access the Core Curriculum, and (c) Professional
Development. The post-intervention observation, conducted during the 2006-
2007 school year was performance on English-Language Arts on the CST. The
2006-2007 results for the CST represent one full year of the intervention.
For the pre-post design, as described above, data outcomes on the 2005-
2006 CST English-Language Arts for the English Learners and other subgroups
at Aviles Elementary were compared to the data outcomes of 2006-2007 CST
86
English-Language Arts. The purpose of this analysis was to assess change at
Aviles Elementary that possibly was caused by the intervention.
For the nonequivalent comparison group design, as described above, data
outcomes on the 2006-2007 CST English-Language Arts for the English
Learners and other subgroups at Aviles Elementary were compared to the data
outcomes of 2006-2007 CST English-Language Arts for the English Learners
and matched subgroups at Gonzalez Elementary. The purpose of this analysis
was comparative. Are the scores at Aviles Elementary in 2006-2007 different
than at Gonzalez Elementary, a matched comparison school?
The evaluation for the multiple interventions of this study is modeled
after Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level model which advocates
evaluating the major points of impact: (a) reaction, (b) learning, (c) use, and (d)
results.
It is important to acknowledge that the findings of this study are limited
to Aviles Elementary School. Of equal importance is the acknowledgment that
because of the limited scope of this study, causation cannot be proven because
random assignment did not occur. This study provided insight into the
effectiveness of the multiple interventions and their impact on the academic
achievement of students, particularly English-language learners, at Aviles
Elementary School.
87
Formative Evaluation Design
Formative research was utilized to determine the areas of the multiple
interventions that had a positive impact for English-language learners, as well as
areas for improvement in utilizing the interventions at Aviles Elementary.
Qualitative data was obtained through unobtrusive interviews and observations,
anonymous teacher questionnaires with open-ended questions, and analysis of
existing documents and materials. The use of these data helped to identify
intervention strengths and weaknesses and suggestions for program and
organizational improvement. Interviews and observations conducted with the
experimental school, Aviles, provided information to site administrators on the
implementation levels of the standards-based core curriculum for English
learners. Analysis of existing documents and materials included school district
guidelines for providing English-language development instruction for English-
language learners, policies, memorandums, and core program and
supplementary instructional manuals. According to Patton (2002):
Multiple sources of information are sought and used because no single
source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive
perspective on the program. By using a combination of observations,
interviewing, and document analysis, the fieldworker is able to use
different data sources to validate and crosscheck findings. (p. 306)
In addition, Patton (2002) also points out that each type of data source
has its strengths and weaknesses. Triangulation (the use of multiple data
sources) increases validity because the strengths of one approach can
88
compensate for the weaknesses of another approach (p. 306). The guiding
questions which served as the basis of the formative research included the
following in the interview guide:
1. How did teachers react to the interventions?
2. Did teachers’ self-efficacy and attitude change as a result of the
interventions?
3. How did teacher behavior in the classroom change as a result of
the interventions?
The overarching purpose of the formative evaluation was to determine the level
of consistency in the structural operation and implementation of the
interventions for program improvement at the experimental school, Aviles
Elementary.
Interventions
During the 2005-2006 school year, 81% of English Learners tested on
the English-Language Arts CST did not achieve the state benchmark of
“proficient” at Aviles Elementary. This represents a large percentage of ELL
students tested in grades 2 through 6 achieving “far below basic,” “below basic,”
and “basic.” School-wide data for the school reveals that 80.1% of the students
tested during 2005-2006 in grades 2 through 6 did not achieve proficiency on
the English-Language Arts portion of the CST at Aviles Elementary. As a
89
result, these statistics reveal a significant opportunity gap not only for ELL
students but for all students at Aviles Elementary.
The apparent opportunity gap has been a recurrent theme and focus for
improvement at Aviles Elementary, particularly in light of the fact that the
English learners in the primary grade levels (grades 2 and 3) outperform the
English learners in the intermediate grade levels (grades 4 through 6) on the
English-Language Arts portion of the CST. Addressing the existing opportunity
gap for English learners and all students at Aviles has been of primary urgency.
In order to address this situation, a three-pronged approach was developed and
implemented; namely (a) implementation of the core curriculum for English-
language learners, (b) strategies to access the core curriculum, and (c)
professional development.
Implementation of the Core Curriculum
for English-Language Learners
For the past five years, 2003-2007, there have been inconsistencies in
providing standards-based instruction in English-language development for
students at the intermediate grade levels (grades 4 through 6) at Aviles, the
experimental school. With the adoption of the Open Court Reading Program
2002, the district recommendation was to utilize the English-learner support
from the teacher’s manual to develop an English-language development
90
program for English learners at the intermediate grade levels. This schema was
inadequate and did not meet the needs of English learners. In 2005, the
publishers of the Open Court Reading Program 2002 developed the English
Learner Support Guide that provided a more systematic approach to providing
instruction to English learners at the intermediate grade levels at various levels
of English-language proficiency based on the CELDT assessment. Finally, with
the adoption in October 2006, of the standards-based program, Avenues, all
elementary schools within the district have consistency in materials that can be
used to provide instruction in English-language development on a daily basis for
a specified amount of time. Avenues is used in conjunction with the National
Geographic Language, Literacy and Vocabulary materials which focus on
expository text at the fourth, fifth and sixth grade levels. All teachers received
training on the systematic use of the materials in December 2006, and January
2007, along with a pacing overview for each grade level to self-monitor progress
and implementation of the program. Implementation district-wide and at Aviles
began in February 2007, upon receipt of the materials. The implementation of
the core curriculum for English learners was compared with the comparison
school, Gonzalez Elementary.
91
Instructional Strategies to
Access the Core Curriculum
There were three areas that were the focus of instructional strategies to
access the core curriculum. Prior to the implementation of a standards-based
core curriculum for English-language development instruction, the district
recommendation was for teachers to utilize the three key strategies that are
research-based for making meaning more explicit for English learners in
developing comprehension. The three key strategies are prioritizing vocabulary,
utilizing visuals, and facilitating interactions. The OCR English Learner
Support Guide supported the use of these three key strategies for developing
comprehension. In addition, differentiated comprehension questions at the
beginning/early intermediate, intermediate and early advanced/advanced levels
of English-language proficiency were also provided for teachers to use for
checking students’ understanding of the reading and for assessing their
comprehension. There was a lack of understanding and inconsistency in the use
of the OCR English Learner Support Guide.
Frontloading English language instruction for English learners was a
strategy that supported and strengthened the use of the three key strategies
mentioned above. In addition, the use of direct instruction as a strategy was
monitored by the site administrators for providing instruction to English learners
92
during English-language development and at other times during the instructional
day.
Finally, interventions provided through the Supplemental Educational
Services providers were made available to students after the instructional day to
support their literacy development. The duration of the program depended on
the cost factors per student by the SES provider.
The instructional strategies used in the experimental school, Aviles, were
compared with the instructional strategies of the comparison school, Gonzalez
Elementary.
Professional Development
The third intervention, professional development, was utilized to develop
and improve the skill and knowledge base of teachers in order to improve
learning for all students and particularly for English learners in the fourth, fifth
and sixth grades at the various levels of English-language proficiency in order to
facilitate their access to the core curriculum. Teachers received professional
development on the new state-adopted English-language development
curriculum, Avenues, for English learners at the fourth, fifth and sixth grade
levels who were at the intermediate through advanced levels of English-
language proficiency based on the CELDT assessment. In addition, the
bilingual resource teacher provided instruction in English-language development
93
to the intermediate students (grades 4 through 6), utilizing the High Point
(Schifini, Short, & Tinajero, 2002) curriculum, who were at the beginning levels
of English-language proficiency based on the CELDT assessment. Further, the
majority of the K-6 staff at Aviles participated in 20 hours of professional
development through the California Reading and Literature Project in
conjunction with the district on a focused approach to frontloading English
language instruction prior to the beginning of the new school year (2006-2007).
Finally, K-6 staff participated in follow-up training provided by personnel from
the Multilingual Department in March 2007.
The student achievement data from the CST for the 2005-2006 school
year indicated that Aviles had not made adequate yearly progress for five years.
As a result, Aviles was designated as Program Improvement, Year 3, status for
the 2006- 2007 school year, identified for corrective action by the district and
appointed an outside expert—a corrective action required by the NCLB. Action
Learning Systems (ALS) was contracted to be the outside expert for the staff at
Aviles and worked closely with the site administrators to develop a professional
development plan that focused on strengthening teacher expertise and skill in
direct instruction. Teachers also observed demonstration lessons developed by
the Action Learning Systems’ (ALS) coaches, one primary and one
intermediate, who worked closely with the grade-level teams modeling direct
instruction lessons in English-Language Arts and English-language
94
development. Finally, teachers received release time during the instructional
day to participate in co-planning, co-teaching. Site administrators along with
the OCR Training Specialist received professional development through an
Accountability Coach from ALS and participated in periodic Implementation
Walks focused on looking for characteristics of direct instruction (Appendix C).
A direct instruction observation checklist (Appendix D) was also developed by
site administrators in conjunction with the Accountability Coach for use in
walk-through observations focused on direct instruction that was shared and
provided to teachers for immediate feedback.
Participants and Setting
The participants in this study consisted of the total student population at
Aviles, a traditional kindergarten through sixth grade elementary school. The
focus of this study included 40 English-language learners at the intermediate
grade levels (grades 4-6) who had not achieved grade-level proficiency on the
English-Language Arts portion of the CST and participated in the multiple
interventions described above to varying degrees. This study measured the
impact of the multiple interventions utilizing the percentage of students
achieving “proficient” and “advanced” on the English-Language Arts portion of
the California Standards Test. The CST scores for the 2006-2007 school year
were used to measure the participants achievement.
95
Another group of participants included the teaching staff at Aviles
Elementary. During this study, there were 21 certificated staff members that
included teachers, support staff, and administrators. This group of participants
contributed to this study by sharing their beliefs regarding the implementation of
the aforementioned interventions and their impact on student academic
achievement at Aviles Elementary. Not all certificated staff members were
interviewed. The purpose of including adult participants in this study was to
gather information regarding implementation and effect. The sampling from the
adult participants ceased when the data gathered became redundant.
The setting for this study was Aviles Elementary School located in the
city of Sacramento and a part of the George Washington Unified School
District. Neighboring cities include Roseville to the north, Rancho Cordova to
the east, West Sacramento to the west, and Elk Grove to the south. Aviles is a
kindergarten through sixth grade traditional elementary school with an
enrollment of 486 students with the following demographic characteristics:
Hispanic or Latino, 60%, Asian, 19%, African American, 14%, White, 7%,
American Indian, 1%, and Pacific Islander, 1%. Of the 486 students enrolled at
Aviles Elementary, 283 students (58.2%) are designated as English learners.
Only 11 students (3%) of the English-learner student population were re-
designated as fluent English proficient in the 2005-2006 school year which
signified that they were able to participate in the regular English language
96
program without the additional services of English-language development. One
hundred percent of the student population at Aviles Elementary participated in
the free and reduced lunch program through the National School Lunch
Program. In addition, 100% of the students also qualified as socio-economically
disadvantaged.
Instrumentation: Achievement
This study utilized public quantitative data collected by the California
Department of Education (CDE) specifically in the area of English-Language
Arts from the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 administrations of the California
Standards Test (CST). In addition, data from the CST results included the
English-learner subgroup performing “at or above proficient” for the
experimental school, Aviles Elementary, and the comparison school, Gonzalez
Elementary.
The California Standards Test is one of the official measures of school
performance. According to EdSource (2005), “These tests are based on the
state’s challenging and rigorous academic content standards – what teachers are
expected to teach and what students are expected to learn” (p. 1). On these
assessments, students’ outcomes are rated as far below basic, below basic, basic,
proficient, and advanced. The goal is for every student assessed to achieve
proficient or above, representing a high level of mastery (EdSource, 2005, p. 1).
97
According to EdSource (2005), “The California Department of Education
cautions that these test scores should never be used as the sole criterion for
important decisions about individual students, such as placement in special
programs and promotion or retention” (p. 1).
Two methods for summarizing test scores have been developed by the
state and federal government for California, namely, the state measure known as
the Academic Performance Index (API) and the federal measure known as
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The API score, the state accountability
measure, is used in California in three different ways. First, the API score is
used to rank schools of the same type (elementary, middle, and high school) into
deciles that each represents 10% of schools. Deciles ranks are assigned from 1
(lowest) to 10 (highest) and provide information on how a school compares to
all other schools. Second, “Schools are compared to the 100 schools most like
them in terms of student background and some other factors because test scores
are strongly correlated with student characteristics” (EdSource, 2005, p. 2).
Schools receive a similar school ranking based on their API between 1 and 10.
The similar-schools ranking provides information on how well a particular
school compares to schools with similar challenges. Third, schools are expected
to achieve a target for improving their API score and the state tracks the change
from year-to-year. The API scores range from 200 (lowest) to 1000 (highest)
98
and every school is expected to have an API score of at least 800 (EdSource,
2005, p. 2).
The federal measure, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), originates from
the accountability system under the NCLB and focuses on the achievement of
significant subgroups of students within schools where “the primary measure of
success is that a specific—and gradually increasing—percentage of each
subgroup of students scores “proficient” or “advanced” on the CSTs in English
and math” (EdSource, 2005, p. 3). Further, schools are held accountable for
testing 95% of students in each subgroup and failure to do so results in
sanctions. Schools and district failing to make their AYP for two consecutive
years “face an escalating set of consequences—from providing tutoring services
to shutting the school down—within a process called Program Improvement”
(EdSource, 2005, p. 3).
Procedure
The protocol used in this study to measure achievement entailed the
compilation of the STAR results for the California Standards Test for the total
student population from the experimental school and the comparison school
including the 2006 and 2007 test administrations. A comparison of the
percentage level of the total student population assessed with the CST
99
performing “at or above proficient” on the English-Language Arts portion of the
test was done between the experimental school and the comparison school.
Instrumentation: Interviews
Interviews were a second source of data collection utilized in this study.
Patton (2002) describes three variations in qualitative interviewing for data
collection; namely, the informal conversational interview, the general interview
guide approach, and the standardized open-ended interview. According to
Patton (2002), the informal conversational interview involves the “spontaneous
generation of questions in the natural flow of an interaction” (p. 342). The
general interview guide approach outlines a set of issues that are to be explored
with each respondent prior to the beginning of the interview. The guide, thus,
becomes a checklist which is used to make certain that all relevant topics are
covered. The standardized open-ended interview “consists of a set of questions
carefully worded and arranged with the intention of taking each respondent
through the same sequence and asking each respondent the same questions with
essentially the same words” (Patton, 2002, p. 342). This approach is used to
minimize variation in the questions posed to the respondents.
The general interview guide approach was used for the purposes of this
study for collecting qualitative data on the implementation of the core
100
curriculum for English-language development. The interview guide consisted of
the following questions:
1. How are Avenues and Language, Literacy, and Vocabulary
implemented at Aviles Elementary?
2. What are the strengths of Avenues?
3. What are the weaknesses of Avenues?
4. What are the strengths of Language, Literacy, and Vocabulary?
5. What are the weaknesses of Language, Literacy, and Vocabulary?
6. Does the English-language development program affect students’
motivation for learning?
7. Does the English-language development program affect teacher
expectations for student achievement?
8. Does the English-language development curriculum address the
English-Language Arts curriculum that is not addressed by the Open
Court Reading Program?
9. How do you think that the English-language development curriculum
is working for the intermediate students at Aviles Elementary?
Procedure
The purpose for interviewing people is to “find out those things we
cannot directly observe” (Patton, 2002, p. 340). Since we cannot observe
101
peoples’ feelings, thoughts, intentions, or behaviors that took place at another
point in time, we have to askquestions about those things (Patton, 2002, p. 341).
For this study, in the role of the researcher, I interviewed staff at the
experimental school, Aviles Elementary, in order to obtain information
regarding their feelings, thoughts, and opinions about the multiple interventions
related to implementation of the core curriculum for English-language
development, instructional strategies to access to the core curriculum, and
professional development.
The implementation of the core curriculum for English-language
development was delayed by the late start in ordering materials for the
intermediate grade levels through the district office and teachers only had a four-
month implementation period during the 2006-2007 school year. As a result,
teachers were interviewed during a period of two school months, May and June
2007. The interviews ranged from 20 to 30 minutes and focused on the four
intermediate grade-level staff members who provided English-language
development instruction to English-language learners at the intermediate grade
levels, in addition to the bilingual resource teacher, and the two site
administrators at Aviles Elementary, the experimental school. All interviews
conducted were recorded in a handwritten, note-taking format to maintain an
unobtrusive quality.
102
Instrumentation: Observations
Observations were the third source of data collection for this study.
Patton (2002) elaborates on the advantages of observations as a form of data
collection:
1. Direct observations help the inquirer better understand and capture
the context of the setting enabling a more holistic perspective.
2. It provides the inquirer with firsthand experience in a setting with
less need to rely on prior conceptualizations.
3. The inquirer has the opportunity to see things that may routinely
escape awareness among the people in the setting.
4. The inquirer has the chance to learn things that people would be
unwilling to talk about in an interview.
5. The inquirer has the opportunity to move beyond the selective
perceptions of others.
6. The inquirer is able to draw on personal knowledge during the
formal interpretation stage of analysis (pp. 262-264).
The observations focused on the fidelity and consistency of
implementation of the multiple interventions throughout the intermediate
classrooms at Aviles Elementary. The observations also included the
teacher/student actions and interactions during the observations of the multiple
interventions.
103
Procedure
The observations of the implementation of the multiple interventions
were conducted in the intermediate classrooms, Grades 4-6, during the
instructional day at Aviles Elementary, from October 2006, through May 2007.
Observations ranged from 30 to 45 minutes in duration. School personnel and
students, including the classroom environment were examined. Information
from the observation was recorded utilizing a hand-written, note-taking method
to maintain an unobtrusive observation method by the researcher. A non-
participant role by the researcher was maintained during the observations.
Instrumentation: Document and Materials Analysis
Documents and material analysis form the basis of the final form of data
collection for this study. In his work, Patton (2002), highlights the work of Gale
Miller (1997) who explains that “Texts are one aspect of the sense-making
activities through which we reconstruct, sustain, contest, and change our senses
of social reality. They are socially constructed realities that warrant study in
their own right” (Miller, 1997, p. 77).
The documents and materials analyzed in this study included school
district directives in the form of memorandums, policies, and guidelines.
Additionally, other documents such as training materials, instructional manuals
and curriculum materials were also included.
104
Procedure
The document and materials analysis was conducted through a review of
documents, policies and guidelines for providing instruction to English-language
learners within the school district. The document and materials analysis
provided an understanding of the qualitative data collected from the interviews
and observations as part of this study.
Formative Analysis
A summative analysis of this study was done utilizing Creswell’s (2003)
generic six step process:
1. Organize and prepare the data for analysis which involves
transcribing interviews, field notes, and reviewing documents.
2. Read through all the data in order to obtain a general sense of the
information and to reflect on its overall meaning.
3. Begin detailed analysis with a coding process—organizing the
material into chunks or categories.
4. Use the coding process from Step 3 to organize the categories into
themes for analysis and look for connections between the themes.
105
5. Define how the themes will be represented in the qualitative
narrative.
6. Formulate an interpretation or meaning of the data (Creswell, 2003).
Summative Analysis
The purpose of an intervention study is the determination of statistical
significance through quantitative analysis. STAR data for the CST was
collected through the CDE website and used in the analysis of both the
independent pre-post groups design and a nonequivalent comparison group
design.
The pre-post design was used to analyze the change at the experimental
school, Aviles, from pre intervention (2006) to post intervention (2007). The
following statistics were used for each dependent variable, outlined above: (a)
an independent groups t-test to assess statistical significance of the change; (b)
Cohen’s d to assess practical significance; and (c) percentage gain to assess
practical significance per the NCLB.
The nonequivalent comparison group design included an experimental
group (Aviles Elementary) and one comparison group (Gonzalez Elementary)
that was not randomly assigned. Both the experimental and the comparison
groups were compared on the post-test design. The treatment of multiple
interventions was administered only to the experimental group, Aviles
106
Elementary. Aviles Elementary has utilized two different state-adopted English-
language development programs, Moving Into English in Grades K-3, and
Avenues in Grades 4-6, and a comparison was made to the comparison group
school, Gonzalez Elementary that incorporates ELD strategies across the
curriculum in place of utilizing a state-adopted curriculum for English-language
development.
107
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The summative evaluation portion of the study incorporated three
dependent variables and both a pre-post independent groups design and a
nonequivalent comparison group design using a higher performing similar
school. The nonequivalent comparison group design was used for comparing
the post-test results of English Learners in Grades 2 through 6 at Aviles
Elementary (experimental group) and Gonzalez Elementary (comparison group).
The three dependent variables were: CST-ELA 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 performance band scores were coded as follows: 0 = Far Below Basic 1 =
Below Basic; 2 = Basic; 3 = Proficient; 4 = Advanced.
Pre/Post Independent Groups Design
This design was used to analyze the change at the experimental school
(Aviles Elementary) from 2005-06 (pre-intervention) to 2006-07 (post-
intervention). The following statistics were used for the CST-ELA performance
band scores: (a) an independent groups t-test to assess the statistical
significance of the change (criterion for statistical significance = p < .15), (b)
108
Cohen’s d to assess practical significance (criterion for practical significance =
d > .20), (c) raw change from 2006 to 2007 to assess practical significance
(criterion for practical significance = 10% improvement), and, (d) percentage
change to assess practical significance (criterion for practical significance = 10%
improvement).
Nonequivalent Comparison Group Design
This design included an experimental group and one comparison group
that was not randomly assigned. Rather, the comparison group school was
selected because of similarities based on ethnic/racial composition,
socioeconomic status, English learners, and comparable student populations.
The experimental and comparison groups were compared on the post-test CST-
ELA data. The treatment was administered only to the experimental group. The
treatment was the state-adopted English language development program for
second and third grade students and the English language development standards
for the fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students; the Open Court Reading Program,
and a standards-based approach to weekly formative assessments. The
statistical analysis for the experimental versus comparison group contrast was
descriptive rather than inferential and focused on State and Federal
accountability.
109
Pre/Post Independent Groups Results
Table 5 shows the pre-post statistical test findings (p < .15) for the
experimental school (Grades 2 through 6) and the school’s three significant
subgroups: Hispanic or Latino (H/L), Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SD)
and English Learners (EL).
Table 5
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
Prob.
School 342 335 1.59 1.76 .17* -1.96 .051
Grade 2 61 78 1.66 2.08 .42* -2.22 .028
Grade 3 67 57 1.66 1.32 -.34* 1.71 .090
Grade 4 76 55 1.63 2.27 .64* -3.42 .001
Grade 5 71 83 1.46 1.49 .03 -.18 .856
Grade 6 67 62 1.57 1.65 .08 -.45 .654
H/L 203 213 1.54 1.75 .21* -2.07 .039
SD 340 334 1.59 1.76 .17* -2.01 .045
EL 191 188 1.58 1.78 .20* -1.95 .052
* = p < .150
The row one results shown in Table 5 indicate that overall in the
experimental school there was a significant increase in the CST-ELA
performance bands from 2006 to 2007, t (670.54) = .051, p < .150. Statistically
110
significant results (p < .150) were found for six subgroups. For students in the
4
th
grade, the observed gain from 2006 to 2007 was .64 (more than one-half of a
performance band), t (119) = -3.42, p = .001. The gain for students in the 2
nd
grade, although smaller (.42), was also statistically significant, t (131) = -2.22, p
= .028. Disaggregation of the data on the basis of ethnicity and language
classification indicates positive findings for the Hispanic/Latino and English
Learners subgroups that are higher than the school-wide gains. There was a
significant decline in achievement in Grade 3.
Because statistical significance is highly dependent on sample size and
very large differences on a practical level can be statistically insignificant, the
practical significance of each difference was assessed in three ways: raw change
from 2006 to 2007, effect size (Cohen’s d), and percentage change. The raw
change is the post-test score minus the pre-test score. Effect size was computed
using the ratio of the change from 2006 to 2007 to the pre-test standard
deviation. Percentage change was assessed using the ratio of the change from
2006 to 2007 to the pre-test mean. Results are shown in Table 6.
One finding in Table 6 is that all of the pretest means are between 1 and
2. In 2006, the majority of the students assessed in the experimental elementary
school were performing between at and below the Basic level in English-
Language Arts. In Grades 2 through 6 of the experimental school, 16.2% of the
students were performing at Far Below Basic, 30.6% were at Below Basis,
111
33.6% at the Basic level, 16.4% at the Proficient level, and 3.2% of the students
were at the Advanced level on the CST-ELA pretest.
Table 6
Pre- versus Post-Intervention CST-ELA Performance Band Differences:
Practical Significance
Grouping
Pre M
Pre SD
Pre-Post
Change
Effect
Size
Percent
Change
School 1.59 1.04 +.17 .16 .11*
Grade 2 1.66 1.09 +.42 .39* .25*
Grade 3 1.66 1.11 -.34 -.31* -.20*
Grade 4 1.63 1.08 +.64 .59* .39*
Grade 5 1.46 1.00 +.03 .03 .02
Grade 6 1.57 .94 +.08 .09 .05
H/L 1.54 1.04 +.21 .20* .14*
SD 1.59 1.04 +.17 .16 .11*
EL 1.58 .95 +.20 .21* .13*
* = effect size > .20 and % change > .10.
Table 6 also displays the practical significance for each of the targeted
groups. Practical significance was examined in three ways:
Raw Change. In two instances, the degree of improvement from 2006 to
2007 was substantial. The most substantial observed gain from 2006 to 2007
was among the fourth grade students at .64 (more than one-half of a
112
performance band). Among the second grade students, the observed gain from
2006 to 2007 was .42 (almost one-half of a performance band).
Effect Size. Three groups exceed the pre-study standard of .20,
specifically, 2
nd
grade students (.39), 4
th
grade students (.59), and English
Learners (.21). The effect size of the 4
th
grade students was greater than one-
half of a standard deviation.
Percent Change. Another way to assess practical significance is to
examine the percentage change in the performance band scores from pre-test
(2006) to post-test (2007). The preset standard for practical significance was
10%. The last column in Table 6 shows that there was a 10% increase from
2006 to 2007 in the school as well as in five subgroups: Grade 2, Grade 4,
Hispanic/Latino, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, and English Learners. The
gains for the 2
nd
grade students (25%) and 4
th
grade students (39%) are
noteworthy but need to be interpreted keeping in mind that the pre-test
performance band scores were low. The pre/post-results are summarized in
Tables 7 and 8.
Tables 7 and 8 summarize the pre-post results for two additional indices:
Percentage of the students who scored Basic and above and the percentage of
the students who scored Proficient and above (per the NCLB). The reason that
the percentage of students scoring Basic and above was added, in addition to the
NCLB requirement, was that in this context—an urban school with a significant
113
number of EL students—it is possible that the 2014 No Child Left Behind goal
of 100% Basic and above becomes a more pragmatic target for 2014.
Table 7
Pre- versus Post-Intervention CST-ELA Percent Basic and Above
Percent Basic and Above
Grouping
Pre (2006)
Post (2007)
Pre-Post
Change
Percent
Change
School .53 .58 +.05 .09
Grade 2 .48 .66 +.18* .38*
Grade 3 .51 .44 -.07 -.14*
Grade 4 .57 .76 +.19* .33*
Grade 5 .51 .49 -.02 -.04
Grade 6 .59 .55 -.04 -.07
H/L .49 .58 +.09 .18*
SD .53 .58 +.05 .09
EL .52 .59 +.07 .13*
* = % change > .10.
Table 8
Pre- versus Post-Intervention CST-ELA Percent Proficient and Above
Percent Proficient and Above
Grouping
Pre (2006)
Post (2007)
Pre-Post
Change
Perceent
Change
School .20 .27 +.07 .35*
Grade 2 .28 .38 +.10* .36*
Grade 3 .22 .16 -.06 -.27*
Grade 4 .23 .36 +.13* .57*
Grade 5 .14 .14 .00 .00
Grade 6 .11 .23 +.12* 1.09*
H/L .17 .25 +.08 .47*
SD .20 .27 +.07 .35*
EL .19 .28 +.09 .47*
* = % change > .10.
114
The findings in Tables 7 and 8 mirror those reported in Tables 5 and 6.
That is, practically significant growth in CST-ELA performance occurred in
Grades 2 and 4 and in the Hispanic/Latino and English Learners subgroups and
the socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroup. Tables 7 and 8 also illustrate
the decline in achievement in Grade 3 (-14% change) for students achieving
Basic and above and a -27% change in students achieving Proficient and above
on the CST-ELA. In Tables 1 through 4 a pattern emerges that illustrates both
the statistical significance (p < .15) and practical significance (% change > .10)
for the 2
nd
and 4
th
grades, and the Hispanic or Latino and English Learner
subgroups. In addition, Tables 5 through 8 also highlight the statistical and
practical significance for the decline in the achievement of the 3
rd
grade
students. Although several of the changes were in the 40% improvement range
(Tables 7 and 8), the results have to be qualified to the extent that the pretest
rates were generally in the 10% to 20% range and thus similar changes in the
coming year will yield appreciably lower percentage increases.
A final measure used in this study is the California English Language
Development Test (CELDT) which is a test of English Language Proficiency
required in California public schools each year for English learners. The test,
which is aligned with the English Language Development standards and
115
approved by the State Board of Education, measures a student’s proficiency of
English language skills in four areas: (a) listening, (b) speaking, (c) reading, and
(d) writing. The CELDT scores define five levels of performance on the test.
The proficiency levels are (a) beginning, (b) early intermediate, (c) intermediate,
(d) early advanced, and (e) advanced. Students in Kindergarten and 1
st
Grade
receive an overall score for listening and speaking while students in Grades 2-12
receive an overall score that incorporates listening, speaking, reading and
writing, as well as a comprehension score for listening and reading. Table 9
depicts the overall performance levels for the CELDT assessment for 2006
and 2007.
Table 9
CELDT Assessment Results – Overall Performance Levels, 2006 and 2007
Year
Total
N
Advanced
N %
Early
Advanced
N %
Intermediate
N %
Early
Intermediate
N %
Beginning
N %
2006 233 31 .13 78 .335 78 .335 34 .15 12 .05
2007 225 18 .08 63 .28 101 .45 31 .14 12 .05
Table 9 illustrates that a higher percentage of English Learners achieved
intermediate proficiency on the CELDT assessment in 2007 (45%) than in 2006
(33.5%). In addition, a higher percentage of English learners achieved early
advanced and advanced proficiencies in 2006 than in 2007. The data also show
116
that English learners achieving the beginning and early intermediate levels of
English proficiency in 2006 and 2007 are comparable. Finally, there were fewer
students achieving the Advanced level of English proficiency in 2007 than in
2006 with 8% and 13%, respectively.
CELDT Form F results, administered in 2006-07, are reported using a
new common scale which allows year-to-year comparisons to be made in the
future. Prior to the 2006-07 CELDT administration, the year-to-year
comparisons were not possible. A note of caution is that the summary results
for Form F are not comparable with the CELDT results of any previous years
(Forms A – E) so the 2006 and 2007 results cannot be compared.
Comparison School Results
The design of this study incorporated the use of a comparison school,
Gonzalez Elementary School. This school was selected from the similar schools
list of the 2005-06 Accountability Progress Reporting (APR) for the
experimental school, Aviles Elementary, from the CDE (California Department
of Education (2006b), revised February 8, 2007, for schools with similar
demographics. The experimental school and Gonzalez Elementary, the
comparison school, share similar demographics, namely, Hispanic or Latino,
socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English Learners subgroups. In the
2005-2006 school year, English learners as a cohort group were comparable in
117
numbers (comparison school = 183 English learners; experimental school = 179
English learners for students tested in Grades 2 through 6). Additionally, 26.8%
of the English learners in Grades 2 through 6 in the comparison school achieved
grade level proficiency on the 2006 CST-ELA whereas only 19.0% of English
learners in the experimental school achieved grade-level proficiency on the same
assessment, falling short of the state target of 24.4% by 5.4%.
Table 10 shows the comparison between the experimental and
comparison schools for the state accountability of API in the 2006 and 2007
school years. Table 11 depicts the subgroup API for the experimental and the
comparison schools for the Hispanic or Latino, Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged, and English Learners subgroups. The API scores range from a
low of 200 to a high of 1,000 and every school is expected to achieve an API
score of at least 800 by 2014.
Table 10 illustrates an overall improvement in API school wide for the
experimental school (113%) over the comparison school. Table 11, on the other
hand, illustrates a significant gain in API for the Hispanic or Latino subgroup of
the experimental school (26 API points) over the comparison school (9 API
points). Tables 10 and 11 demonstrate that while both the experimental and the
comparison schools made API gains between 2006 and 2007, the experimental
school outperformed the comparison school school-wide in the Hispanic or
Latino, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, and English Learners subgroups.
118
Table 12 provides information for the experimental and comparison
schools on the federal accountability measure known as Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) which originated from the accountability system under No
Child Left Behind.
Table 10
API School Wide Comparison, 2006 and 2007
School API 2006 API 2007 Gain
Experimental School 677 694 +17
Comparison School 727 735 +8
Table 11
API Subgroups Comparison, 2006 and 2007
Subgroup Experimental School Comparison School
2006 2007 Gain 2006 2007 Gain
Hispanic or Latino 668 694 +26 735 744 +9
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
677 694 +17 722 735 +13
English Learners 700 717 +17 726 741 +15
119
Table 12
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 26.8% 33.6%
Hispanic or Latino 24.9% 35.2%
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
26.8% 34.4%
English Learners 28.2% 34.1%
AYP focuses on the achievement of numerically significant subgroups of
students within schools. The primary measure of success is the achievement of
a specific, and gradually increasing, percentage of students in each subgroup
scoring Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Tests in English-
Language Arts and Mathematics. In addition, schools are accountable for
testing 95% of students within each subgroup with sanctions applied for failure
to do so. Escalating consequences ensue for schools and districts that fail to
make their AYP for two consecutive years within a process known as Program
Improvement (EdSource, 2005, p. 3).
The AYP target for percent proficient for 2007 is 24.4% in English-
Language Arts. Table 12 shows that both the experimental and the comparison
schools surpassed the AYP target of 24.4%. When comparing the two schools,
120
however, the comparison school did exceptionally well considering that the
AYP target for 2008 increases to 35.2% in English-Language Arts. The English
Learners subgroup at the experimental school achieved the highest rate of 28.2%
in comparison to the other groups, whereas in the comparison school, the
Hispanic or Latino subgroup achieved the highest rate of 35.2%. The Hispanic
or Latino subgroup at the comparison school achieved the federal target and the
AYP data indicate that they were well on their way to achieving the federal
target in English-Language Arts in 2008. The English Learners, with 28.2% at
or above Proficient in English-Language Arts (2007), was the subgroup closest
to achieving the AYP target of 35.2% for 2008 at the experimental school.
121
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overview
The preceding chapters in this study provided the rationale and
methodology of the researcher’s intent for the evaluation of the multiple
interventions, specifically, (a) implementation of the core curriculum for English
learners in English-language development, (b) instructional strategies to access
the core curriculum, and (c) professional development and its impact on the
achievement of English learners at the experimental school, Aviles Elementary.
This chapter concludes the study by elaborating on the implications of the
quantitative findings, illuminating conclusions drawn from the qualitative data
gathered in this study, providing recommendations for the site studied, and
reflecting on further study.
Purpose and Method
The purpose of the study was to examine the impact of the multiple
interventions (positive, negative or neutral) on the achievement of English-
language learners at Aviles Elementary. The multiple interventions included (a)
implementation of the core curriculum in English-language development for
English learners, (b) instructional strategies to access the core curriculum, and
122
(c) professional development. The percentage of change in performance bands
of the California Standards Test (CST) for English-Language Arts from pre-
intervention (2006) to post-intervention (2007) were analyzed by grade level and
by subgroups for all students in the experimental school, Aviles Elementary. A
mixed-methods approach for the collection of data was used to provide evidence
for summative and formative purposes. Summative data were collected to
determine the effectiveness of the interventions on three dependent variables (a)
percent proficient and above on English-Language Arts as measured by the
CST, (b) percent basic and above on English-Language Arts as measured by the
CST, and (c) proficiency band scores on English-Language Arts as measured by
the CST.
Participants in the study consisted of the student population (486) in
Grades K through 6 as well as selected subgroups, including English-language
learners, at Aviles Elementary School, a K-6 traditional school in an urban
setting. Approximately 283 students were identified as English-language
learners (ELL) and participated in the multiple interventions mentioned above.
An additional group of participants comprised the staff at Aviles
Elementary School. During the study, there were 27 certificated staff consisting
of 21 classroom teachers (k-6), two special-day class teachers at the intermediate
grade levels (4-6), two preparation teachers (art and physical education), and
two administrators. The participants in the study agreed to share their beliefs
123
regarding the multiple interventions and how this impacted student academic
achievement at Aviles Elementary. Not all certificated staff members were
interviewed. The purpose of including adult participants in this study was to
gather information regarding implementation and effect. Once the data gathered
from the participants became similar and repetitive, sampling from these
participants ceased to continue. Results of the qualitative data gathered are
discussed in the findings sections concerning the experimental school, Aviles
Elementary, as well as the findings sections from the interaction between
Gonzalez Elementary, the comparison school. A total of 10 interviews and 7
observations were conducted at Aviles Elementary.
Summary of Findings—Aviles Elementary School
The following section provides evidence in answering the overarching
research question that guided the summative process: Do the interventions in
place, specifically, fidelity to the implementation of the core curriculum for
English-language development, instructional strategies to access the core
curriculum, and professional development, have an effect on the academic
achievement of English-language learners as measured by the CST? The depth
of impact that the multiple interventions had on the academic achievement of all
students at Aviles Elementary was positive overall. The Academic Performance
Index (API) score of the entire school from pre-intervention (2006) to post-
124
intervention (2007) increased from a base of 677 to 694, respectively. This was
an increase of 17 API points. On the surface, the multiple interventions
provided a positive outcome for the students at Aviles Elementary.
Statistical Significance
In reviewing the findings for statistical significance (Table 5) at the
experimental school, Aviles Elementary, positive changes were made in six
categories of the subgroups: (a) school-wide, (b) second grade, (c) fourth grade,
(d) Hispanic or Latino, (e) socio-economically disadvantaged and (f) English
Learners. The pre-post changes in the means and the increases apparent in the
six categories can be attributed in part to the reason that Aviles Elementary met
the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) criteria and exceeded its API growth
target.
Table 5 reflects a significant increase in the CST-ELA performance band
scores in the experimental school subgroups from pre-intervention (2006) to
post-intervention (2007). Additionally, positive results were found for six of the
nine categories (school-wide, 2
nd
grade, 4
th
grade, and the Hispanic or Latino,
socio-economically disadvantaged and English learners). Disaggregation of the
data on the basis of ethnicity and language classification indicate positive
findings for the Hispanic or Latino and English-learners subgroups that are
higher than the school-wide gains. Table 5 also indicates a significant decline in
125
achievement for the 3
rd
grade students. The decrease in student achievement for
the 3
rd
grade students may be attributed, in part, to the lack of consistency in
teacher preparation, planning, and articulation. The majority of the 3
rd
grade
teachers did not take advantage of, nor embrace, the collaborative structures and
support systems available to them on-site or within the district for
improving/enhancing instructional effectiveness. The collaborative structures
and support systems included grade-level articulation and planning meetings,
professional development (on-site and off-site), as well as assistance and support
from the training specialist and site administrators. In addition, professional
differences and conflicting belief systems existed regarding what the students,
particularly English language learners, could or could not achieve. There was an
evident lack of grade-level cohesiveness among the 3
rd
grade teachers and they
did not envision, nor conduct, themselves as a team. Further, there was a lack of
consistency in the implementation and monitoring of the English language
development program for English learners by the site administrators. Finally,
there may have been other extraneous factors that could account for the decline
in student achievement at the 3
rd
grade level. Consistent in the findings,
reflected in Tables 5 through 8, is the positive growth for 2
nd
grade, 4
th
grade,
and the Hispanic or Latino and English-learners subgroups.
126
Practical Significance
Second-grade findings reflect the second largest mean difference of +.42
(almost one-half of a performance band) which reflects a consistent positive
change (25%) in moving second-grade students towards the “proficient” and
“advanced” performance bands. Percentages of students at the “far below basic”
and “below basic” performance bands decreased. Data for the pre-intervention
year (2006) reveal that 11% of second-grade students scored “far below basic”
and 6% scored “far below basic” in the post-intervention (2007) year, reflecting
a decrease of 4%. An even greater decrease in the percentage of students
scoring at the “below basic” performance band (12%) was demonstrated by the
second-grade students from 2006 (43%) to 2007 (31%).
Overall, the fourth-grade findings demonstrate the largest mean change
of +.64 (more than one-half of a performance band). In comparing the data for
2006 and 2007, the percentage of fourth-grade students performing at the “far
below basic” level decreased by 16% and the “below basic” level decreased by
3%. The “basic” level increased by 6%, and the “advanced” level increased by
13%. These data demonstrate that fourth-grade students were moving towards
higher levels of proficiency.
The data for the third-grade students illustrate a mean change of -.34
(one-third of a performance band) from the pre-intervention (2006) to the post-
intervention (2007) years on the CST-ELA. Of significance, however, is the
127
increase in the percentage of third-grade students who achieved “far below
basic” from the pre-intervention (2006) at 11% to the post-intervention (2007)
year at 25%, resulting in a greater number of students who had the opportunity
for improvement, as required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
The fifth-grade students also demonstrated an increase in the percentage
of students achieving “far below basic” from 11% (2006) to 17% (2007), an
overall increase of 6%.
Data for the sixth-grade students illustrate a decrease in the percentage of
students achieving “far below basic” from the pre-intervention (2006) at 15% to
the post-intervention (2007) year at 7%, a difference of 8%.
The California English Language Development Test (CELDT), a yearly
measure of English-language proficiency in California schools for English
learners, was used to assess students’ proficiency in English-language skills in
(a) listening, (b) speaking, (c) reading, and (d) writing. The CELDT scores
define five levels of performance on the test as (a) beginning, (b) early
intermediate, (c) intermediate, (d) early advanced, and (e) advanced. The
students in kindergarten and 1
st
grades receive an overall score for listening and
speaking while students in grades 2 through 12 receive an overall score that is
comprised of listening, speaking, reading and writing, as well as a
comprehension score for listening and reading. The CELDT Form F results,
administered in 2006-07, are reported using a new common scale which allows
128
for year-to-year comparisons to be made in the future. Prior to the 2006-07
school year, year-to-year comparisons for the CELDT were not possible.
Data for the 2005-06 CELDT test provide information on English-
proficiency levels for English learners at the experimental school, Aviles
Elementary. The findings revealed that for the 233 English learners assessed in
2005-06, 13% scored “advanced,” 33.5% scored “early advanced,” 33.5%
scored “intermediate,” 15% scored “early intermediate,” and 5% scored
“beginning.” Data for the 2006-07 CELDT administration reflect that the
number of English learners assessed decreased from 233 students for the pre-
intervention (2006) to 225 students for the post-intervention (2007) year.
During 2006-07, English learners achieved outcomes whereby 8%
scored “advanced,” 28% scored “early advanced,” 45% scored “intermediate,”
14% scored “early intermediate,” and 5% scored “beginning.” An important
feature of the results for the pre-intervention (2006) and the post-intervention
(2007) years is that in both years the results for the majority of the English
learners fell within the “early advanced” and “intermediate” proficiency bands.
In addition, there were fewer students achieving the “advanced” level of
English-language proficiency in 2007 than in 2006 with 8% and 13%,
respectively.
In conjunction with the quantitative findings discussed above, it is
important to note the qualitative findings for the experimental school, Aviles
129
Elementary. The findings provide data in answering the formative research
questions:
1. How did teachers react to the multiple interventions?
2. Did teachers’ self-efficacy and attitude change as a result of the
multiple interventions?
3. How did teacher behavior in the classroom change as a result of the
interventions?
Three levels of data collection based on the Kirkpatrick and Kirpatrick (2006)
model were utilized for the collection of qualitative data that consisted of
interviews and participant and non-participant observations.
Interviews
The general interview guide approach was used for the purposes of this
study to collect qualitative data on the implementation of the core curriculum for
English-language development. The questions have been grouped into four
categories, namely, (a) program implementation, (b) identification of program
strengths and weaknesses, (c) student motivation for learning and teacher
expectations, and (d) English language development (ELD) and English-
Language Arts (ELA) curriculum alignment.
Category 1: Program Implementation consisted of the following
question: How are Avenues and Language, Literacy, and Vocabulary!
implemented at Aviles Elementary?
130
This question required the intermediate grade-level teachers (grades 4-6)
to provide evidence of consistency in providing daily instruction (30 minutes per
day) for English learners in English-language development utilizing the core
curriculum of Avenues and Language, Literacy, and Vocabulary! It also
required the intermediate-grade-level teachers to reconfigure students for daily
instruction based on their English proficiency levels as measured by the CELDT
assessment. In addition, teachers at the intermediate grade levels were now
planning collaboratively within their grade levels to provide targeted instruction
to their English learners which was evidenced by lesson plans and grade-level
meeting agendas and notes.
Prior to the implementation of the core curriculum for English-language
development in February 2007, there was evidence of inconsistency in
instructional planning, instructional delivery with little or no differentiation, and
lack of grouping students for instruction in English-language development based
on their English-language proficiency levels. When English language
instruction was provided, teachers at the intermediate grade levels maintained a
“one-size-fits all” mentality by attempting to address all proficiency levels at
one time.
The second category of interview questions focused on program
strengths and weaknesses
Category 2: Identification of Program Strengths and Weaknesses
131
1. What are the strengths of Avenues?
2. What are the weaknesses of Avenues?
3. What are the strengths of Language, Literacy, and Vocabulary!?
4. What are the weaknesses of Language, Literacy, and Vocabulary!?
By using the core curriculum consistently and on a daily basis, teachers worked
collaboratively to plan instruction to meet students’ language needs. Teachers
noted that the core curriculum, Avenues, was aligned to the ELD and ELA
standards and had recommendations for variations within the teacher’s manual
regarding instruction based on students’ English-language proficiency levels. In
addition, the student materials were challenging and emphasized higher-order
thinking skills. Teachers also had access to a website for additional teacher
resources to support planning, instructional delivery and student resources
including a variety of graphic organizers, visuals, and other materials. The
Language, Literacy and Vocabulary! curriculum materials were provided to
support and strengthen students’ vocabulary development and writing, which
they felt were not adequately addressed in the Avenues curriculum. During the
initial implementation of the core curriculum, teachers felt overwhelmed by
having to use two curriculums to provide instruction in English-language
development due to lack of experience in use.
The third category of interview questions focused on students’
motivation for learning and teachers’ expectations for student achievement.
132
Category 3: Student Motivation for Learning and Teacher Expectations
1. Does the English-language development program affect students’
motivation for learning?
2. Does the English-language development program affect teacher
expectations for student achievement?
The teachers interviewed felt that the ELD program did affect students’
motivation for learning because they were grouped for instruction based on their
English-language proficiency levels. The groupings were flexible enough so
that students could advance to a higher (and sometimes lower) group based on
their progress. Students seemed to enjoy the new curriculum and the use of
technology to support instruction. Teachers also reported that students looked
forward to ELD time.
With the adoption and implementation of a core curriculum for English-
language development, teacher self-efficacy increased. Teachers became active
participants in working collaboratively to plan ELD instruction, monitor, review
student progress and data, and share ideas for increasing student achievement.
Teachers also began to see improved achievement in English-language arts
because of the alignment of the curriculum to ELD and ELA standards and
many times the concepts of the ELD curriculum aligned with the concepts being
taught in the ELA curriculum (Open Court Reading Program).
133
The fourth category of interview questions dealt with the curriculum
alignment between the ELD and ELA programs.
Category 4: ELD and ELA Curriculum Alignment
1. Does the English-language development curriculum address the
English-language arts curriculum that is not addressed by the Open
Court Reading Program?
2. How do you think that the English-language development curriculum
is working for the intermediate students at Aviles Elementary?
Teachers interviewed felt that the ELD curriculum did address some of
the ELA curriculum that was not addressed by the Open Court Reading
Program. They also felt that the ELD program also reinforced the ELA
curriculum. Since implementation of the new curriculum was relatively late in
the school year (February 2007), teachers felt that they needed more experience
and time in reviewing and comparing the two curriculums. Teachers also voiced
that even though the ELD program was relatively new, it was working well and
they were most appreciative of the fact that they now had a curriculum they
could use to develop English learners’ language skills instead of being left to
their own devices for program development.
134
Observations
Regularly scheduled observations of the multiple interventions for this
study were conducted in the intermediate classrooms, grades 4-6, during the
instructional day at Aviles Elementary, from October 2006, through May 2007.
The observations ranged from 30 to 45 minutes in duration in order to obtain a
more global view of implementation of the core curriculum for ELD and
instructional strategies used to access the core curriculum for English learners.
Information from the observations were recorded by utilizing a hand-written,
note-taking method to maintain an unobtrusive observation method by the
researcher. A non-participant role by the researcher was maintained during the
observations.
The researcher noted that the intermediate teachers had embraced the
maintenance of fidelity to the core curriculum for English-language
development. Fidelity to the implementation of the core curriculum for the
required minutes per day (30 minutes) enabled teachers and students to
experience the program as it was intended. Dedicated time to the intended
curriculum actualizes the school-level factor of a “guaranteed and viable
curriculum” (Marzano, 2003, p. 22). Teachers utilized direct instruction to
develop students’ understanding of language-development concepts, provided
opportunities for teacher/student and student/student interactions, monitoring
student progress and providing feedback. The goal for ELD was to maximize
135
student involvement through the use of a variety of student engagement
strategies such as non-verbal cues, choral response, think-pair-share, and
whiteboards.
Summary of Findings—Aviles Elementary School
and Gonzalez Elementary School
The findings of this study provide information on the interactions and
effects of the experimental school, Aviles Elementary, with the comparison
school, Gonzalez Elementary, at three levels: (a) The school-wide comparison
for the Academic Performance Index, (b) the subgroups comparison for the
Academic Performance Index, and (c) the comparison of four categories
(school-wide, Hispanic or Latino, socio-economically disadvantaged, and
English learners) for the Adequate Yearly Progress for the experimental and the
comparison schools, a requirement of NCLB.
Both the experimental and the comparison schools demonstrated
improvement in their school-wide API. Nonetheless, the API for Aviles
Elementary, the experimental school, was higher than Gonzalez Elementary, the
comparison school, by 9 API points, depicted in Table 10.
In reviewing the data for the numerically significant subgroups for the
experimental and the comparison school in Table 11, all the subgroups
(Hispanic or Latino, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English Learners) in
136
both schools achieved gains in API between 2006 and 2007. The English-
learners subgroup outperformed the Hispanic or Latino and socioeconomically
disadvantaged subgroups at the experimental school, Aviles Elementary. The
Hispanic or Latino subgroup outperformed the socioeconomically disadvantaged
and the English-learners subgroups at the comparison school, Gonzalez
Elementary. When comparing the overall gains in API for the subgroups, the
experimental school demonstrated higher gains than the comparison school in all
the categories studied, specifically, school-wide, socioeconomically
disadvantaged, and the Hispanic or Latino, and English-learners subgroups.
During 2007, the results of the federal accountability measure (Adequate
Yearly Progress) under NCLB contained in Table 12, demonstrate the
percentage of students “at or above proficient” for both the experimental and the
comparison schools. In 2007, the NCLB requirement for percent “at or above
proficient” was 24.4% in English-language arts. Both the experimental and the
comparison schools exceeded the target for all of the categories and subgroups
studied with the comparison school, Gonzalez Elementary, achieving
proficiency at higher levels than the experimental school, Aviles Elementary.
The disaggregated data reveal the English learners of the experimental school
closest to the English learners of the comparison school than any other category
or subgroup with a 5.9% difference in percentage of students “at or above
proficient.” The highest difference in the percentage of students “at or above
137
proficient” was noted between the Hispanic or Latino subgroups of the two
schools, a difference of 10.3%. In addition, the English-learners subgroup at the
experimental school achieved the highest percentage of 28.2% for students “at
or above proficient” in comparison to the other groups; whereas in the
comparison school, the Hispanic or Latino subgroup achieved the highest
percentage of 35.2% for students “at or above proficient.” At the experimental
school, the English-learners subgroup is closest to achieving the AYP target of
35.2% (NCLB requirement for 2008).
Implications
During the course of this study, changes in the academic achievement of
students at Aviles Elementary (experimental school) were made and noted. The
second and fourth grades experienced the largest mean change and also had the
greatest percentage change (36% and 57%, respectively) in “percent proficient
and above” on the CST-ELA for the pre- (2006) versus post-intervention (2007).
Additionally, the Hispanic or Latino and the English-learners subgroups also
fared exceptionally well with each attaining the outcome of 47% change for
“proficient and above” from pre- to post-intervention. The pre-study standard
used for percentage change was > .10, but a caveat is that the percentage
changes that occurred, however, could not be assessed through statistical
analysis. The administrators, principal, and assistant principal were able to
138
observe first-hand the interplay of several factors that I felt contributed to Aviles
Elementary meeting the state and federal accountability requirements of NCLB
for the first time in 5 years. First, teachers and support staff exemplified a sense
of urgency that supported all of the other factors that I felt were instrumental in
bringing about change.
The majority of changes that have continued to evolve during the 10
years of my tenure at Aviles Elementary continue to be the subject of many
professional educational journals and books. Most notably, through his work,
Marzano (2003) brought forth 35 years of research and illuminated three general
factors that influence student academic achievement, namely, school-, teacher-,
and student-level factors. It has been my experience that the three factors are
most effective when they are acknowledged, when they become part
professional discourse and action, and become the focus for engaging in
substantive change at the school level. These three factors are essential
elements of the Aviles Elementary school community, and are continually
monitored and evaluated for effectiveness. While the student achievement at the
school is not where it can be, we continue to work collaboratively to plan,
provide instruction that is focused on helping our students achieve the grade
level content standards, and develop a community of continuous learning at all
levels (students, staff, and parents).
139
Implications for Implementation of the Core Curriculum
for English Learners in ELD
The decision of the district to provide a curriculum for English learners
in English-language development was a turning point for students’ instructional
consistency and enabled the teachers to provide a “guaranteed and viable
curriculum” (Marzano, 2003, p. 22). The state-adopted curriculum for the
fourth through sixth grade students arrived relatively late (February 2007)
during the time of this study, and it was a welcome relief to the teachers at
Aviles Elementary who had been trying to develop their own curriculum,
utilizing the ELD-ELA standards along with the OCR English Learner Support
Guide, as well as their own levels of expertise. Up until this point in time, there
was a lack of consistency in the use of the weekly grade-level planning time to
strategically and explicitly plan instruction for ELD during the Workshop time,
as reflected in their grade-level planning agendas and notes. In addition,
classroom teachers stated that there were occasions when they did not provide
the required 30-minutes of daily ELD instruction due to lack of planning.
Classroom observations by the principal, assistant principal, and training
specialist provided insight into the teacher-student interaction during Workshop
time which was not necessarily focused on addressing the English language
needs of English learners through the use of the English Learner Support Guide.
Administrators also did not spend an adequate amount of time on assisting and
140
monitoring program implementation for English-language development
instruction for English learners in the fourth through sixth grades.
The implementation of the new curriculum provided teachers with a
means to focus on building students’ English language capacity based on their
English-proficiency levels. A paradigm shift occurred when the fourth through
sixth grade teachers abandoned the practice of providing instruction for their
English learners at all proficiency levels under one roof. As a result, teachers
worked collaboratively to plan for instruction, they grouped the students based
on their English-proficiency levels (according to the CELDT assessment
results), provided daily instruction in ELD maintaining flexible groupings, and
monitored student progress.
Implications for Instructional Strategies to Access
the Core Curriculum
The use of research-based strategies was promoted by the district as a
means of providing English learners with access to the core curriculum. The
specific research-based strategies that were recommended by the district to be
used by teachers to make meaning more explicit for English learners in
developing comprehension were known as the three key strategies. The three
key strategies focused on prioritizing vocabulary, utilizing visuals, and
facilitating interactions. At the intermediate grade levels (grades 4-6), the OCR
141
English Learners Support Guide supported the use of these three strategies for
developing comprehension. The guide also provided differentiated
comprehension questions to be used by teachers to check English learners’
understanding of the reading and for assessing their comprehension. The
questions were developed to be used with students based on their English-
proficiency levels (beginning/early intermediate, intermediate and early
advanced/advanced levels).
Initially, in 2005-06, implementation and use of the OCR English
Learner Support Guide was inconsistent and weak. Observations by the
principal, assistant principal, and training specialist of English-language
development instruction provided information on the intermediate teachers’ use
of the OCR English Learner Support Guide that ranged from non-use to
mechanical based on the Levels of Use of the Innovation (Hall & Hord, 2006).
Grade-level planning agendas and teacher lesson plans also reflected the
inconsistency in utilization of the OCR English Learner Support Guide to
provide instruction to English learners based on their language needs for
English-language development.
The adoption of a core curriculum for English-language development
during 2006-07 enabled the intermediate teachers at Aviles Elementary to make
a shift from non-use and mechanical progressing to routine and refinement (Hall
& Hord, 2006). That is, teachers were working collaboratively to design lessons
142
and providing instruction in English-language development based on students’
English-language proficiency levels. In addition, students were grouped by
English-proficiency levels (based on the CELDT assessment results) for
instruction in English-language development. Student progress was monitored
and evaluated on a regular basis with the principal and assistant principal
providing support and encouragement through attendance at grade-level
planning meetings and a focus on regular classroom observations during
English-language development instruction with timely, constructive feedback.
Implications for Professional Development
Professional development for supporting English-language learners was
coordinated through the Division of Instruction and Learning within the district.
During 2005-06, professional development focused on meeting the needs of
English learners at all levels was sparse due primarily to a district-wide
reorganization effort. At Aviles Elementary, there was a need to focus on the
achievement of English learners due to the high number of English learners who
were not achieving grade-level standards, as measured by the CST, in English-
Language Arts, for the last 5 years.
We were designated a program improvement school for not making
adequate yearly progress for 5 years and we struggled to meet the accountability
demands of NCLB, which created a heightened sense of urgency among the
143
staff and the willingness to do whatever it took to improve student achievement
at Aviles Elementary. This enabled this researcher, as instructional leader, to
guide the staff through a process of inquiry regarding the things that were
working well and not working well in the areas of teacher instruction and
student learning emphasizing open and honest dialogue at academic
conferences, curriculum meetings, and grade-level meetings. Through this
process, teachers were able to recognize that they needed to examine how they
were providing instruction and its effect on student achievement. As a result of
the school’s program improvement status, year 3, in 2005-06, Aviles Elementary
was afforded the opportunity to select the services of an outside expert in 2006-
07.
The district contracted with Action Learning Systems, Inc., to provide
professional development for school administrators and central office personnel
providing instructional support and services to the schools. The teachers and
administrators at Aviles Elementary made the decision to work with consultants
from Action Learning Systems, Inc. In addition, the teaching staff realized that
there was a knowledge gap in providing instruction to English learners, as
evidenced by CST data over a 5 year period (2001-2006). Subsequently, they
willingly made three commitments regarding professional development, namely,
(a) to focus professional development on improving teacher knowledge and
skills, and developing and refining instructional practices; (b) to participate in
144
professional development that focuses on improving student learning and
achievement for all students, particularly English learners; and (c) to participate
in professional development on a school-wide basis (K-6) for continuous
improvement. In addition, the site administrators made the commitment to
support teachers in their new paradigm and participated with them in the
professional development for the school.
Elmore (2007) explains that the consensus view of professional
development “should embody a clear model of adult learning that is explained to
those who participate” (pp. 95-6). In addition,
Those who engage in professional development should be willing to say
explicitly what new knowledge and skill educators will learn as a
consequence of their participation, how this new knowledge and skill
will be manifested in their professional practice, and what specific
activities will lead to this learning. (p. 96)
Elmore (2007) further states that in the consensus view, professional
development should be designed to develop the capacity of teachers to work
collaboratively on problems of practice within their own schools as well as
practitioners in other settings, “as much as to support the knowledge and skill
development of individual teachers” (p. 96). Finally, Elmore (2007) emphasizes
that the essential purpose of professional development should be “the
improvement of schools and school systems, not just the improvement of
individuals who work in them” (p. 96).
145
Site-based Recommendations
In spite of the limited scope of this study, implementing the multiple
interventions focused on improving the learning and achievement of English
learners at Aviles Elementary, in order to meet the accountability demands of
NCLB. This resulted in two grade levels (2
nd
and 4
th
) and two subgroups
(Hispanic or Latino and English Learners) making positive significant statistical
change (p < .15), as well as significant practical change (effect size > .20;
percent change > .10). The school-wide focus of improving the learning and
achievement of English-language learners in English-Language Arts was
supported by targeted professional development opportunities for teachers and
administrators. The qualitative results demonstrated renewed consistency of
grade-level teams in collaborative structures for planning, problem-solving, and
decision-making with the goal of improving instruction for student learning.
The collaborative structures also enabled teachers to brainstorm, share ideas, and
provide peer assistance in a non-threatening way when needed. Everyone
involved in educating students developed a heightened sense of urgency and a
commitment to doing whatever it takes to make a difference for student
learning.
The results of this study provide a baseline source of both quantitative
and qualitative information for the continuance of the interventions for
improvement at all levels. According to Elmore (2007):
146
The practice of improvement at the individual and organizational levels
involves mastery in several domains: knowledge and skill, incentives,
and resources and capacity. The knowledge and skill domain asks what
people need to know in order to improve the quality and effectiveness of
their practice, and under what conditions they are most likely to learn it.
The incentives domain asks what kinds of encouragements and rewards
people should receive for acquiring this knowledge and using it to
enhance performance and support improvement. The resources and
capacity domain asks what level of material support and what kinds of
capacities—organizational and individual—the system needs to ensure
that professional development leads to large-scale improvement. (pp.
105-106)
The action methods of Clark and Estes (2002) and Marzano (2003)
helped the researcher in this study to determine the causes of the performance
gap at Aviles Elementary and develop and implement actions for improvement.
Clark and Estes (2002) provided a process for analyzing “the cause of the gaps
between current and desired performance” (p. 22) and assert “the gap between
desired and actual performance must be assessed and closed if organizational
goals are to be achieved” (p. 22). The big three causes presented by Clark and
Estes (2002) in their work were knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational barriers. The focus of the study at Aviles Elementary was on
identifying the performance gaps. An understanding of the performance gap
was needed in order to be able to measure how well the students were
performing relative to the identified interventions: (a) implementation of the
core curriculum for English-language development, (b) instructional strategies
for accessing the core curriculum in English-language instruction for English
learners, and (c) professional development for developing and deepening the
147
knowledge base for teachers in order to be able to assist English learners at the
various levels of English-language proficiency in accessing the core curriculum
in English-Language Arts. The process for identifying performance gaps was
beneficial to the school community and facilitated an examination of the
school-, teacher-, and student-level factors affecting student achievement
(Marzano, 2003). It is recommended that Aviles Elementary continue to utilize
the action method developed by Clark and Estes (2002) in conjunction with the
work of Marzano (2003) and others in the gap analysis process.
Additionally, it is recommended that the staff continue to develop as a
community of learners in order to sustain and strengthen school improvement
efforts. According to DuFour and Eaker (1998) “the most promising strategy
for sustained, substantive school improvement is developing the ability of
school personnel to function as professional learning communities” (p. xi).
Dufour and Eaker (1998) further explain that in a professional learning
community, “educators create an environment that fosters mutual cooperation,
emotional support, and personal growth as they work together to achieve what
they cannot accomplish alone” (p. xii). Improvement and reform is a
collaborative effort and one that needs to continue in order to improve teaching
and learning at Aviles Elementary.
Finally, it is recommended that the administrators and staff work in
tandem to develop and participate in best practice professional development
148
opportunities that will be continuous and ongoing focused on improving
administrators’ and teachers’ knowledge and skills for improved student
learning and achievement (Elmore, 2007).
This study focused on the impact of the multiple interventions in raising
the academic achievement of English learners in English-language arts as
evidenced by the CST-ELA. English learners as a subgroup experienced a mean
difference that was statistically and practically significant. It is important to
note that the CELDT assessment, administered annually to English learners, is
only a measure of student progress in listening, speaking, reading, and writing
and not a measure of academic achievement and, therefore, cannot be equated
with the CST.
Further study and collaboration needs to be accomplished in order to
develop a school-wide intervention model for all students in English- and
Spanish-language arts. The goal of this intervention will be to provide targeted
instruction (k-6) for a specified amount of time per day, 4 days per week, in
order to reduce class size, maximize teacher/student interactions, and
student/student interactions for improved student learning and academic
achievement.
Research by Marzano (2003) asserts that the teacher is the single most
important factor affecting student learning. In addition, there is wide variation
in teacher effectiveness. “The . . . implication of this finding is that seemingly
149
more can be done to improve education by improving the effectiveness of
teachers than by any other single factor” (p. 72). Administrators need to
continue the work of providing opportunities for building teachers’ instructional
capacity and monitoring instructional delivery and student learning for
effectiveness.
Finally, administrators at Aviles Elementary need to develop their
capacity for leadership based on first-order and second-order change—factors
that underlie the 21 responsibilities of school leadership outlined in the research
of Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2005). Leadership for first-order change
focuses on managing the daily life of a school and is considered “incremental
change” (p. 66). Second-order change is a departure from the expected, both in
defining a problem and in finding a solution and is considered “deep change.”
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) distinguish between the two by stating
that:
Incremental change fine-tunes the system through a series of small steps
that do not depart radically from the past. Deep change alters the system
in fundamental ways, offering a dramatic shift in direction, and requiring
new ways of thinking and acting. (p. 66)
Limitations
Caution is exercised in the generalization of the results of this study. An
internal limitation is the use of a pre-post nonequivalent comparison group
design. Although the results are positive overall, there were many extraneous
150
factors not addressed that may have influenced the outcome of the effects of this
study. One factor, sampling variability, can hinder the true measure of the
amount of change exhibited by each grade level and subgroup. Student mobility
also plays a significant role in a pre-post nonequivalent comparison group
design. In addition, the nonequivalent comparison group design included a
comparison school that was not randomly assigned. Finally, another limitation
of internal validity was the contrast of the experimental school to the
comparison school because of variances in student demographics and many
other unobservable factors.
A limitation of external validity of this study was the use of the CST as a
measure of student achievement for English-language learners, particularly
students at the beginning levels of English-language proficiency. Lachat (2004)
asserts that “a major issue for states is the readiness of English-language learners
to take the state assessment because tests administered in English to those
students can be more of an assessment of their English ability than their content
knowledge” (p. 54). Although their inclusion in state assessments is beneficial
from an accountability perspective, it is not clear whether English learners’
inclusion in high-stakes assessments is beneficial if the assessments are not
appropriate, valid, or reliable (Lachat, 2004).
An additional limitation of external validity of this study is the lack of
disaggregated data for English learners and other subgroups on the CST. The
151
California Department of Education (CDE) only provides subgroup data for
“percent proficient and above.” There is a need to provide subgroup data that is
disaggregated for the remaining performance bands (basic, below basic, and far
below basic) in order to obtain a more accurate picture of English-learners’
performance on the CST. The lack of readily available data from CDE required
the researcher to manually disaggregate the data in order to determine if the
multiple interventions made a difference for English learners at the lower
performance bands.
The multiple interventions described in this study also posed a concern
for external validity because of the inability to assess which intervention had the
most effect on student achievement. A critical aspect of the multiple
interventions was the introduction and implementation of the new English-
language development curriculum (Avenues and Language, Literacy and
Vocabulary!) for English learners at the intermediate grade levels (4-6). It is
important to note that the materials were not received nor implemented until the
latter part of this study (February 2007) and academic growth cannot be
determined in only 4 months of implementation.
Conclusions
Focusing multiple interventions on raising the academic achievement of
English learners was a paradigm shift for the staff at Aviles Elementary which
152
demonstrated positive results for specific grade levels and subgroups of
students. In addition, the teachers and administrators were able to build their
instructional and leadership capacity for improving student achievement through
research-based professional development opportunities as well as other
collaborative structures. The most successful professional development
opportunities that transcended to teacher classroom practice and refinement
were those in which there were at least 95% participation by staff members
school-wide such as A Focused Approach to Frontloading English Language
Instruction for Open Court Reading, k-6, and on-site professional development
opportunities based on teacher and student needs in language arts, as determined
by teachers, grade level teams, and administrators.
The results of the findings illuminate the overall impact of the multiple
interventions on the achievement of English learners at Aviles Elementary. The
qualitative findings illustrate the commitment and determination of the staff to
doing whatever it takes to raise the achievement of all students, particularly
English learners, and for the first time, greater numbers of English learners are
experiencing academic success that heretofore had not been the case.
153
SELECTED REFERENCES
Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners:
Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(4),
4-14. Retrieved September 17, 2007, from http://edr.sagepub.com.
Asher, J. (1997). Learning another language through actions: The complete
teacher’s guide. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Publications.
August D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006a). Executive Summary: Developing
literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy
Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved September 25, 2007, from
http://www.cal.org/projects/archive/natlitpanel.html.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006b. Developing literacy in second-
language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language—
minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Barr, R. D., & Parrett, W. H. (2003). Saving our students, saving our schools:
Fifty proven strategies for revitalizing at-risk students and low-
performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Barr, R. D., & Parrett, W. H. (2007). The kids left behind: Catching up the
underachieving children of poverty. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
California Department of Education. (2002). 2002 base adequate yearly
progress report. Retrieved March 17, 2006, from
http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/AYP/2003AYP_Sch.
California Department of Education. (2003). 2003 adequate yearly progress
phase 1 report. Retrieved March 17, 2006, from
http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/AYP/2003AYP_Sch_pl.
California Department of Education. (2004). 2004 accountability progress
report. Retrieved March 17, 2006, from
http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/API/2004API_Progress_sch2.
California Department of Education. (2005a). 2005 accountability progress
report. Retrieved March 17, 2006, from
http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/APR/2005APR_Sch_AYP_Report.
154
California Department of Education. (2005b). Similar schools report: 2005
Academic Performance Index base report. Retrieved March 5, 2007,
from
http://api.cde.ca.gov/APIBase2006/2005BaseSchSS.aspx?allcds=346743
96033955.
California Department of Education. (2006a). 2006 adequate yearly progress
report. Retrieved October 5, 2006, from
http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/APIBase2006/2006APR_Sch_AYP_Report
.
California Department of Education. (2006b). School report—API growth and
targets met: Academic Performance Index growth report. Retrieved
March 30, 2007, from
http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/APIBase2006/2006GrowthSch.aspx?allcds=34674
396033955.
California Department of Education. (2006c). School demographic
characteristics: 2006 Academic Performance Index growth report.
Retrieved February 14, 2007, from
http://api.cde.ca.gov/APIBase2006/2006Grth_SchDem.aspx?allcds=34-
67439-6033955.
California Department of Education. (2006-07). School Report—API growth
and targets met: 2007 growth Academic Performance Index report.
Retrieved November 23, 2007, from
http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/AcntRpt2007/2007GrowthSch.aspx?allcds=
34674056033468.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to
selecting the right performance solutions. Atlanta: CEP Press.
Cobb, C. (2004, December). Improving adequate yearly progress for English-
language learners. (ED-01-CO-0011). Naperville, IL: Learning Point
Associates. Retrieved August 30, 2007, from
http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/literacy/aypell.pdf.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M.,
Weinfield, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational
opportunity. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare.
155
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2002). Making valid and reliable
decisions in determining adequate yearly progress. Washington, DC:
Author.
Covington, M. V. (1983). Motivation cognitions. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson,
& H. W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom
(pp. 139-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work:
Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Solution Tree.
Dutro, S., & Adams, M. (2005a). A focused approach to frontloading English
language instruction. [Teacher’s Handbook]. California Reading and
Literature Project: Santa Cruz, CA: University of California.
Dutro, S., & Adams, M. (2005b). English learner support guide. Columbus,
OH: Science Research Associates/McGraw-Hill.
Echevarría, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2008). Making content
comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model (3
rd
ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
EdSource. (2005, July). The state’s official measures of school performance: A
guide for Californians. Mountain View, CA: Author.
Education Market Research Corner Archives. (2004, December). ELL market:
National market overview. The complete K-12 newsletter. Rockaway
Park, NY: Education Market Research. Retrieved January 29, 2008,
from http://www.ed-
market.com/r_c_archives/display_article.php?article_id=74.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement:
The imperative for professional development in education. Washington,
D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. F. (2007). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and
performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
156
Freeman Y. S., Freeman, D. E., & Mercuri, S. P. (2002). Closing the
achievement gap: How to reach limited-formal-schooling and long-term
English learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gilman-Ponce, S., & Rico, H. (Eds.). (2002). Sacramento City Unified School
District master plan and procedural handbook for English learner
programs. Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Unified School District.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles,
and potholes (2
nd
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Harter, S. (1980). The perceived competence scale for children. Child
Development, 51, 218-235.
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.
Hill, J. D., & Flynn, K. M. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with
English-language learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Huzar, H. (1973). The effects of an English-Spanish primary grade reading
program on second and third grade students. Unpublished master’s
thesis. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
Jepsen, C., & de Alth, S. (2005). English learners in California schools.
(PE1128.A2J465 2005). San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of
California. Retrieved September 7, 2007, from
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_405CJR.pdf.
Kagan, S. (1995). We can talk: Cooperative learning in the elementary ESL
classroom. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (ERIC
document Reproduction Service No ED 382 035).
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs
(3
rd
ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language
acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lachat, M. A. (2004). Standards-based instruction and assessment for English-
language learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
157
Maldonado, J. A. (1994). Bilingual special education: Specific learning
disabilities in language and reading. Journal of Education Issues of
Language Minority Students, 14, 127-147.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into
action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction
that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student
achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that
works: From research to results. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research
for Education and Learning.
Miller, G. (1997). Contextualizing texts: Studying organizational texts. In G.
Miller & R. Dingwall (Eds.), Context and methods in qualitative
research (pp. 77-91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of
the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-
based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
No Child Left Behind Act (2002). 20 U.S.C. §6301.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Plante, A. J. (1976). A study of effectiveness of the Connecticut “Pairing”
model bilingual/bicultural education. Hamden, CT: Connecticut Staff
Development Cooperative.
Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. (1999). SBX1 Section 1, Chapter
6.1, Part 28 of the Education Code. Retrieved January 7, 2006, from
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub99-00/bill/sen/sb_0001-
0050/sbx1_1_bill_19990405_ch.
158
Rea, D. M., & Mercuri, S. P. (2006). Research-based strategies for English-
language learners: How to reach goals and meet standards, K-8.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Schifini, A., Short, D., & Tinajero, J. V. (2002). High point: Success in
language, literature, and content. Carmel, CA: Hampton-Brown.
Schifini, A., Short, D. J., Tinajero, J. V., García, E., García, E. E., Hamayan, E.,
& Kratky, L. (2004). Avenues: Success in language, literacy, and
content. Carmel, CA: Hampton-Brown.
United States Department of Education. (1994). Public Law 103-382, 20 USC
8001. Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 adopted October 20,
1994. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/toc.html
United States Department of Education (2002). Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat.
1425. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved January 30, 2007,
from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/esea02/index.html.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership:
What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on
student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning.
Zehler, A. (1994, Summer). Working with English-language learners:
Strategies for elementary and middle school teachers. National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education Program Information Guide
Series (No. 19). Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University.
APPENDIX A
AVILES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Fourth Grade Fifth Grade Sixth Grade
Name CST-ELA
2005 &
2006
EPALL
2005 -
2006
EPALL
2006 -
2007
Name CST-
ELA
2005 &
2006
EPALL
2005 -
2006
EPALL
2006 -
2007
Name CST-
ELA
2005 &
2006
EPAL
L
2005 -
2006
EPALL
2006 -
2007
L.J.T. 1-1 2 5 S.A. 1-1 5 8 *A.G. 1-1 7 5
*D.C. 1-1 6 6 A.M. 1-1 5 4 *A.A. 2-2 9 8
J.B.R. 1-1 1 2 J.M. 1-1 5 6 *M.A. 2-2 8 6
*F.A. 2-2 7 7 A.V. 1-1 - - *A.V. 2-2 8 8
*M.A. 2-2 6 6 M.A. 2-2 6 7 *L.A. 3-3 10 10
A.A. 2-2 3 5 M.M-S. 2-2 6 10 *G.G. 3-3 10 9
*M.S. 2-2 5 5 T.P. 2-2 5 6 *E.L. 3-3 10 9
J.T. 2-2 4 7 L.L. 3-3 8 7 *D.L. 3-3 9 7
S.V. 2-2 5 6 R.L. 3-3 9 6 *N.P. 3-3 8 9
P.D.X. 2-2 5 6 J.H. 3-3 8 9 *J.R. 3-3 10 9
J.L.F. 3-3 5 7 *A.S. 3-3 8 8 M.S. 3-3 9 10
*C.L. 3-3 7 7 *Y.T. 3-3 9 9
*S.R. 3-3 7 7
K.R. 3-3 6 7
*J.T. 3-3 8 8
M.T. 3-3 6 8
T.V. 3-3 6 9
17 students 11 students 12 students
Note: English learners in the fourth, fifth and sixth grades who have remained within the same CST performance band in English-Language Arts
for two consecutive school years, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006.
* Denotes students who did not advance by at least one level on the CELDT assessment from 2005-2007.
159
160
APPENDIX B
WALK THROUGH OBSERVATION FORM
Content
1. State the skill the teacher performed
(A statement that the teacher performed a certain skill.)
2. Scripted Evidence
(Cite specific evidence to support the skill you observed—either a direct
quote of what the teacher said or a description of what the teacher did.)
3. Impact on Students
(A statement of what the teacher behavior accomplished for the
students.)
4. Judgment
(A sentence or phrase that tells the reader (teacher) what the writer
(observer) thought of the behavior; reinforce the skill.)
Teacher Observed Grade Observation Date
Principal/Assistant Principal/Training Specialist Feedback Date
(Note: The italicized text does not appear on the walk-through observation form. It is
provided for clarification.)
161
APPENDIX C
CHARACTERISTICS OF DIRECT INSTRUCTION
Characteristics
Evidence
Knowledge objectives are clearly and
explicitly stated for every exercise for
both teacher and students
Chart paper
Bulleting objectives
Completed projects
Completed organizers
Student-friendly language
There is continuous and intensive
interaction and communication
between teacher and students
Choral response
Pair-share
Checking for understanding
Thumbs-up
Whiteboards
Proximity to students
I say, you say
Instructional communication is
predetermined
Consistent cueing systems
Wait time
During the structured/scripted
dialogue, teacher wordings and
demonstrations are unambiguous
Clear and consistent academic
language
Avoiding synonyms for concepts
Hand signals
Presentation signals
Voice inflection
Students participate in a sequence of
short, quick-paced interactive
exercises
Call and response
Thinking protocols
Blending routines
Timers
Teacher reinforces student learning
with explicit procedures
Identifying specific behaviors
Group reinforcement to recognize
achievement
Students receive immediate correctives
and feedback from teacher
Motor errors
Memory errors
Discrimination errors
Process errors
Throughout the lesson, there is a high
level of intensity and a high level of
orientation for success
Pacing and chunking information
Ending with success
162
APPENDIX D
DIRECT INSTRUCTION CHECKLIST
Aviles Elementary School
Date: _________________ Time: ___________________
Grade Level: ____________ Teacher:___________________
Components of Faithful
Implementation
Evident
Not
Evident
N/A
Evidence/
Comment
Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment
• Standards-based objective
(content and student proving
behavior) are explicitly stated
and clarified during the lesson
• All students have, and use, the
most recent state-adopted
instructional program
• Instructional sequence is
evident (from lesson plans,
posted work, and explicit
instruction) and provides
students access to content and
level of cognition of grade-level
standards
• Lesson uses direct instruction as
an explicit delivery strategy to
teach the standards-based
objective
163
Appendix D (continued)
Components of Faithful
Implementation
Evident
Not
Evident
N/A
Evidence/
Comment
Research-Based Instructional Strategy
Lesson demonstrates key features:
• Immediate use of Direct
Instruction Correctives: Motor,
Memory, Discrimination, and
Process
• Lesson delivery includes high
level of teacher/student
interaction that includes limited,
predetermined cues, and
intensive interaction (students
clearly know how class, pairs,
and individuals will be cued)
• Lesson demonstrates evidence
of multiple checks for
understanding and feedback
• Individual, pair, gestures, and
choral response
Choral: Pair: Gestures:
Individual:
• Consistent format demonstrated
by appropriate chunking of
content to move students from
guided practice to independent
thinking
• Lesson was appropriately
scaffolded to provide access to
standards-based objective for all
students
• Closure demonstrates progress
towards mastery of standards-
based objective
Commendations: Recommendations
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to describe, analyze and develop solutions for the performance gap for English-language learners at Aviles Elementary who had not achieved grade-level proficiency on the English-Language Arts portion of the California Standards Test (CST). Multiple interventions were developed and implemented to improve the academic achievement of all students, especially English-language learners, on the CST-ELA. The theoretical framework focused on performance improvement research (Barr & Parrett, 2007
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Examining the effectiveness of teacher training on the improvement of California standardized test scores at Eva B. Elementary School
PDF
The impact of restructuring the language arts intervention program and its effect on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Raising student achievement on the California Standards Test and California High School Exit Exam at the Phoenix Arts Charter School
PDF
Raising student achievement at Eberman Elementary School with effective teaching strategies
PDF
The implementation of strategies to minimize the achievement gap for African-American, Latino, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students
PDF
The effectiveness of the cycle of inquiry on middle school English-learners in English-language arts
PDF
Evaluation of the progress of elementary English learners at Daisyville Unified School District
PDF
The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Alternatives for achievement: a mathematics intervention for English learners
PDF
Examining the effectiveness of the intervention programs for English learners at MFC intermediate school
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
An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district
PDF
Closing the achievement gap in a high performing elementary school
PDF
Closing the science achievement gap for ninth grade English learners through standards- and inquiry-based science instruction
PDF
The block schedule and the English language learners: impact on academic performance and graduation rate at Oxbow High School
PDF
An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school
PDF
Closing the achievement gap: successful practices at a middle school -- a case study
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of direct instruction intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Quantifying student growth: analysis of the validity of applying growth modeling to the California Standards Test
Asset Metadata
Creator
Greeson, Mary Linda Alvarez
(author)
Core Title
English learners' performance on the California Standards Test at Aviles Elementary
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/08/2008
Defense Date
02/21/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
English learners,OAI-PMH Harvest
Place Name
California
(states),
educational facilities: Aviles Elementary
(geographic subject),
Los Angeles
(city or populated place),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Advisor
Hocevar, Dennis (
committee chair
), Hexom, Denise (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (
committee member
)
Creator Email
marygr1122@aol.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1090
Unique identifier
UC1248705
Identifier
etd-Greeson-20080408 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-54113 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1090 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Greeson-20080408.pdf
Dmrecord
54113
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Greeson, Mary Linda Alvarez
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
English learners