University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

(USC Thesis Other)

The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE EFFECT OF A LANGUAGE ARTS INTERVENTION ON THE
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

by

William Martin Mannion

__________________________________________________________________________

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

December 2009

Copyright 2009 William Martin Mannion
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is with deepest appreciation for the collective effort and collaboration of
many friends and colleagues that has allowed me to complete this research project
and culminate my doctoral program. Without your support, guidance and friendship,
it would simply have been impossible.
A special thank you is given to my dissertation committee, Drs. Hocevar,
Brown and Yee. Their professional critique, guidance and patience have been
invaluable.
I would like to personally thank the members of my 2007 cohort who
contributed to my success, especially, Dr. Virginia Yee and Dr. Jill Manning. Our
professional collaboration and friendship have enhanced my university experience. I
leave you with very fond memories and best wishes for your future success.
I would also like to thank my editor, Shantanu DuttaAhmed, whose patience,
expert judgment and perseverance made the completion of my dissertation possible.
Finally, words cannot adequately express the gratitude I feel for my good
fortune in having Dr. Dennis Hocevar as my committee chair person. He guided me
through every aspect of this research and provided me with everything I needed to
finish the job.
The Ed.D. program at the Rossier School of Education was everything I had
hoped it would be and more. My time at the University of Southern California has
iii
been among the most rewarding of my life, and certainly the pinnacle of my
academic career. It is an honor to have been associated with USC and RSOE.
FIGHT ON!
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................v
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................vi
Chapter 1: THE PROBLEM ................................................................................1
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 21

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY........................................................................... 45

Chapter 4: RESULTS ........................................................................................ 55

Chapter 5: DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 58

REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 68

v
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Grant High School Ethnic Populations .....................................................4

1.2 Students’ California Standardized Test (CST) Scores According to Gradeand
Proficiency Level 2004/2005....................................................................6

1.3 Students’ California English Language Development
Test (CELDT) Scores According to Grade and Proficiency
Level........................................................................................................6

3.1. CST Scores According to Grade and Proficiency Level …………...…….49

3.2. CELDT Scores According to Grade Level and Proficiency Level…….…49

3.3. Scaled Scores and Proficiency Bands in English Language Arts…………52

4.1 Grade 9 to 10 Growth Scores……………………………………..............56

4.2. Grade 10 to 11 Growth Scores.............................................................. ..56

4.3. Grade 9 to 10 Growth Scores (Exp vs. Control)...................................... 57

4.4. Grade 10 to 11 Growth Scores (Exp vs. Control)………………………..57

vi

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of a standards-based
intervention, Explicit Direct Instruction, on the academic achievement of English
Language Learners on the English Language Arts portion of the California Standards
Test (CST). The Explicit Direction Instruction treatment was administered in an
experimental school and pre and post intervention measures were used to access
growth in the experimental school. A quasi-experimental design using a similar
school as a comparison also was used.
Participants in this study consisted of approximately 736 English Language
Learner students (ELL) enrolled in grades 9-12 at a single high school. The Explicit
Direct Instruction intervention began in September and continued through June. The
primary student outcome, student performance on the English Language Arts section
of the California Standards Test, was measured in June. The growth analysis was
limited to 9
th
to 10
th
grade and 10
th
to 11
th
grade transitions.
In the experimental school, improvement was noted in the English Language
Arts section of the CST that ranged from .31 (9
th
to 10
th
grade) to .20 (from 10
th
to
11
th
grade) as interpreted through z values and compared with state-wide ELL
scores. Quantitative findings regarding the comparison of the experimental school in
conjunction to the comparison group school showed no statistical significance.
The analysis of normative scores suggests that the ELL students made
substantial progress when compared to expected progress as per the ELL students in
vii
California. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the
experimental school and a nearby similar school. A reasonable conclusion is that the
district itself was doing something right.

1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM

Introduction

Background of the Problem of Practice

It has become increasingly clear that many of America’s kids are struggling
academically. A large percentage of today’s students are English Language Learners
whose populations are increasing exponentially in our public schools. It is not
surprising that something dramatic needs to be done as soon as possible to ensure
that public education truly is for all students.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as the
nation’s first contemporary mandate of educational accountability, had crystallized
the prevalent attitudes of the era which collectively derided the state of education, for
a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education for all
students. The most recent iteration of the ESEA, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB and Public Law 107-110) is an attempt to enhance educational improvement
through prescribed levels of accountability. Part and parcel to ESEA and NCLB is
the standards-based educational reform movement (SBE), which synthesizes state
mandated grade-level academic content standards; grade-level appropriate
instruction; and standardizes assessments of accountability for students, teachers, and
school districts.
2
Public Law 107-110 prescribes for a set of common expectations in order to
measure academic proficiency (p. 1440). NCLB is the guiding force behind
standards-based educational reform in order to align “common expectations” with
instructional practices. Lachat (2004) describes Taylor’s (1994) academic concepts
of standards-based instruction as:
assumptions: that educators can define standards for what is most important
for students to know and be able to do in today’s society; that most students
will be able to achieve the standards; that student performance may differ in
demonstrating proficiency but will still reflect the defined standards; and that
standards will allow for fair and consistent assessment of diverse student
performances (p. 3)

Following the Public School Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA), the movement in
California public education was for a stronger alignment between instruction and
curriculum and assessment, based upon statewide academic content standards. Many
students have succeeded remarkably while some have not. Of those students who
have not, many are English language learners.
Lachat (2004) offers that the advent of standards-based educational reform
will give students and teachers a “common and transparent” set of goals to reach.
These goals must be extended to include those students who have limited English
proficiency and who require additional resources, facilities, and specially trained
personnel in order to make the dream of NCLB a reality for all.
Contextual Background of the Study
The complexion of public education in the United States is changing.
Population demographics are on the move as immigrants from around the world are
3
making their home in this country. Nowhere is this more evident than in California,
where one in four students is an English language learner (ELL). In California,
because of the diversity of the state’s population, the academic achievement of
English language learners (ELL) plays a large role in the attainment of academic
proficiency (Yee, 2007).
The Winslow Unified School District (WUSD) consists of approximately
33,000 students. The most significant student population is Hispanic with
approximately 15,000 students. Spanish speakers comprise 95.9% of all ELL
students. All other language groups represent less than 1.0% of the total ELL
population. A lack of overall English language proficiency appears to exacerbate the
problem of low student achievement as evidenced by the overall Academic
Performance Index (API) of the WUSD. At 666, the API score is seriously below the
statewide target of 800.
Grant High School is located in the western portion of the City of Winslow.
The bordering area consists of low-income, high-density population neighborhoods,
and single-family homes of primarily Hispanic people. It is a traditional track school
with grades 9-12 and a student population of approximately 1,200 students.
The ethnic breakdown of the school is shown in Table 1.

4
Table 1.1: Grant High School Ethnic Student Population
Ethnicity Percentage
African American 6%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 0%
Asian 1%
Filipino 1%
Hispanic or Latino 90%
Pacific Islander 0%
White (Not Hispanic) 1%
Total 100%

The ELL student population at Grant High School is approximately 48%, or
736 students. Seventy-five percent of the students in this population are
characterized as socio-economically disadvantaged and participate in the school
district’s free and reduced-price lunch program.
The staff of Grant High School consists of 75 certificated staff, which
includes 63 full-time teachers, 4 certificated administrators, and instructional support
staff. Additional staff members include teacher specialists, program coordinators,
visual and performing arts itinerant teachers, categorical funds coordinator, grade-
level academic counselors and academic deans. The certificated staff at Grant High
School is compliant with NCLB requirements as “highly-qualified.” They are either
5
fully credentialed and/or have evidence of subject matter knowledge and competency
in their teaching field, per state examination and/or college course work.
As an Instructional Services administrator with the WUSD, my primary
responsibilities are to diagnose, design, and deliver instructional strategies, which
engage all students regardless of their proficiency levels. I am deeply concerned with
the lack of academic achievement of our ELL students, as well as those who are
from social-economically disadvantaged (SED) homes and neighborhoods. I have
chosen to focus on a comprehensive, grade 9-12 high school in the WUSD in order
to examine the influence and effect (positive, negative, or neutral) of a standards-
based instructional intervention, Explicit Direct Instruction (DataWorks), on the
academic achievement of ELL students in English-Language Arts at Grant High
School.
Statement of the Problem of Practice
Grant High School has an API score that falls significantly below the
statewide mandate of 800. According to the data presented by the California
Department of Education (CDE) for the 2005/2006 academic school year, Grant’s
API score was 611. Additionally, the CST scores for the ELL populations at Grant
(48% of the student population) reflect very little change from the previous year’s
Academic Yearly Performance Index (AYP) in the area of English-language arts.

6
Table 1.2: Students’ California Standards Test (CST) Scores According to Grade
and Proficiency Level 2004/2005

CST
ELA
FBB BB B P A
% ELL
student
Proficient and
Above
9
th
14 25 36 17 8 9
10
th
15 26 39 15 4 4
11th 14 19 35 28 5 7

A review of the data in Table 2 suggests strongly that the Grant ELL student
is failing to achieve at the same rate as his/her English-only student counterpart. At
the ninth grade, only 9% of the ELL students are at the proficient and above
category, as opposed to 25% of the non-ELL student population. This trend deepens
in subsequent grades with 4% and 7% proficient and above in 10
th
and 11
th
grades,
respectively. These data are in stark contrast to the 19% and 32% proficient and
above levels of non-ELL students at Grant High School.
Table 1.3: Students’ California English Language Development Test (CELDT)
Scores According to Grade and Proficiency Level 2004/2005

CELDT
Level
Beginning Early
Intermediate
Intermediate Early
Advanced
Advanced
9
th
3 4 30 46 16
10
th
3 8 30 41 18
11th 1 5 26 43 26
12
th
2 5 19 34 41

7
English Language Learners, as defined by the California Department of
Education (CDE), and as determined by the Home Language Survey (HLS) are
students who haven’t acquired proficiency in English. The California English
Language Development Test (CELDT) is a required state test for English language
proficiency. It is mandated for students whose primary language is other than
English, as determined by the home language survey form. This survey is distributed
to all students during school registration. The CELDT determines appropriate
placement within second-language based instructional programs at each school. In
theory, this placement is designed to provide scaffolded classroom instruction to
meet the specific needs of the ELL student.
An examination of the data displayed in Table 3 reveals that the majority of
the ELL students at Grant High School have attained a proficiency level of Early
Advanced (EA) or Advanced (A) on the CELDT test (approximately 64%). This
level of language proficiency seems to be counterintuitive to the lack of academic
achievement in English Language Arts of ELL students, as reported on the CSTs.
This condition creates a challenge therefore, to interpret the low CST scores of ELL
students, when their CELDT levels are suggesting that they are in the process of
acquiring proficiency in English. These students, their unique challenges, and their
continued lack of academic achievement on the ELA portion of the CST are the
focus of this study.
If the Winslow Unified School District is to successfully attain the statewide
API goal of 800 and meet the ELA AYP for its significant sub-group that comprises
8
the majority of ELL students, it must demonstrate academic achievement and
mastery of standards to the same degree and level as their English-only student
counterparts. Due to the large numbers of ELL students throughout the district, the
goal of 800 will not be possible without improved ELL student achievement. The
task then is to bring all students to the level of proficiency as stipulated in the
requirements of NCLB. The student achievement data are alarming when it comes to
the levels of proficiency of the ELL students compared with those of their fellow
students. The fact that ELL students at Grant High School are failing to attain
proficiency in English-language Arts, as manifested by the California Standards Test
(CST) scores is the starting point of this investigation. The ELL student plays a
significant role in the success and the failure of all schools in meeting their API and
AYP goals. If nothing is changed, there is no reason to believe that this trend will be
abated.
Intervention
The importance of connecting the ELL student population to sound, research-
based instructional strategies which “fill” the gaps of their conceptual foundation is
paramount if we are to free these students from a generational cycle of academic
failure. Entire communities continue to experience the anguish of the cycle and many
have come to accept their lack of success as inevitable, however, an ever growing
body of literature
shows that standards-based-education (SBE) can increase achievement especially for
the ELL and other high risk students (Lachat, 2004, Marzano 2003 and Zmuda
9
2001). The challenge for educators is to discover the best way to apply known
instructional best practices in a manner that is engaging, enlightening, and
motivating for all students towards success. The elements of engaged and
enlightened learning, which have traditionally benefited only the elite of our society,
must be the mantle upon which learning, and the success it brings, is pinned. No
longer can we tolerate a quality education only for the “best and brightest” students.
Schools must require that each student in every classroom and in every school be
taught by and learn from the “best and the brightest” teachers.
The staff of Grant High School has recognized that student achievement
within the ELL population has been problematic for that particular sub-group, as
well as the overall school population for a long time. In order to enhance student
learning, especially that of the ELL population and at the direction of the school
district, the staff of Grant High School has agreed to be trained by the DataWorks
staff in order to fully implement Explicit Direct Instruction as an academic
intervention.
Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI) from DataWorks, Inc. is a teacher-centered
training model that emphasizes standards-based, direct instruction. With EDI, all
students are systematically taught grade-level, standards-based content. A key
component of EDI is the use of concrete learning objectives that tie together lessons,
assignments and grade-level standards. In EDI, teachers are taught to develop
standards-based lessons that can be teacher-originated or textbook derived (Hocevar,
n.d.)
10
Other core components, which are inherent in the DataWorks approach to
direct instruction are:
• “Challenging and engaging instruction”
• “Authentic learning tasks”
• “Connecting content material to students’ lives and experiences”
• “Deeper examination of student work”
• “Increased focus on literacy and the language demands of content-based
learning”

(DataWorks, Inc. 2004)

The ultimate goal for EDI is for all students to be successfully taught through
grade-level activities at all times. This is accomplished through a process known as
“Curriculum Calibration,” and a three-phase Targeted Improvement Model
Implementation (TIMI).
Curriculum Calibration is the collection and analysis of student work to
measure the percentage of alignment of assignments to grade-level state standards,
i.e. the percent of assignments on grade-level. Curriculum calibration addresses the
following common sense assumptions:
• “Grade-level instruction provides equal opportunity for all students to
learn”
• “Students cannot learn what they are not taught”
• “Students perform no higher than the assignments given”
• “Students learn more when taught at a higher level than at a lower level”
• “State tests assess grade-level content”

(DataWorks, Inc. 2004)

11
Targeted Improvement Model Implementation (TIMI). TIMI is implemented
through the following three phases:

1. Phase I-Baseline data collection-The process through which the student
achievement and school practices data are gathered (curriculum calibration and
school-wide instructional practices survey-SWIPS)
2. Phase II-Training-The training regiment for administrators, leadership
teams, teachers, and then grade level teams.
3. Phase III-Implementation Support and Monitoring-DataWorks
representatives work with the school-site leadership team, teachers and
administrators to ensure comprehensive understanding of the components and
structure of TIMI and reports are generated and explained. These reports represent
the results of the training and areas necessitating remediation or modification.
Purpose of Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study will be to determine the effectiveness of Explicit
Direct Instruction, a highly structured and prescribed method of lesson design and
delivery, which emphasizes an evidence-based approach to standards-based
education (SBE) in enhancing English language arts achievement. The focus of the
study is the English Language Learner (ELL) student population at a comprehensive,
grade 9-12 high school in the Winslow Unified School District.
The design of this study is summative in nature. Summative research is
indicated in order to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention, in this case, EDI, a
lesson design and delivery program. The research goal is to determine the impact of
12
the intervention program on the academic achievement of ELL students in the
English language arts, as measured by the California Standards Tests (CST). The
research questions are:
1) During the ninth to tenth and tenth to eleventh grade level transitions, are
the ELL students at Grant High School progressing on the CST ELA as
expected during the DataWorks EDI intervention?

2) Is there a difference in the ELL CST performance at Grant High School
versus a similar sample of students at a comparison school in which there is
no EDI intervention?

Problem Analysis / Interpretation
The lack of adequate academic achievement by the ELL students at Grant
High School is vividly demonstrated by their CST scores. This achievement gap
contributes significantly to the overall lack of success by the school to reach the state
and district goals for student achievement. The fact that ELL students at Grant High
School are failing to attain acceptable standardized test scores provides this
researcher the impetus to examine a highly prescriptive modality of instruction,
analyze appropriate student achievement data, and provide statistical information as
to the efficacy of a direct instruction intervention. In the following section the
causes of the achievement gap will be discussed.
According to Lachat (2004), students will learn best when their environment
contains structures and methods to alter the processes of learning and teaching. She
further states that the alteration of teacher proficiency, effective school programs,
necessary educational resources and skilled personnel are critically necessary to
provide the education our ELL students require. Fortunately, Robert Marzano
13
(2003) provides a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the study as he describes
the instructional practices and strategies that can be implemented in the classroom to
deliver immediate positive results, especially for the ELL student. Three decades of
educational research and synthesis of thousands of research articles and case studies
are the basis for the Marzano foundation. Following Marzano, the three components
utilized in framing this study are the school-level, teacher-level, and student-level
factors that explain why Grant High School is an underperforming school.
School-Level Factors. The identification of responsibility for the
enhancement of instructional practices and student academic achievement lies with
the school. There are many school level factors that contribute to teacher efficacy
and to student learning at Grant High School. One of the most significant factors is
that of “opportunity to learn” (Marzano, 2003). “Opportunity to learn (OTL) has the
strongest relationship with student achievement of all school-level factors” (p. 22).
Simply put, if ELL students are never given the opportunity to learn, how will it be
possible for them to approach the learning levels of their non-ELL peers? Marzano
points out that “teachers commonly make independent and idiosyncratic decisions
regarding what should be covered” (p. 23). The low test scores at Grant suggest that
students are not receiving the type of instruction that the state and school district
require.
In order to effectively motivate the instructional staff, as well as direct and
guide, school-site administrators must know the curricula, the subject-matter content
standards and the performance expectations of every grade level. This is especially
14
true at schools that have traditionally underperformed. At Grant High School, site
administrators and teachers alike have contributed to the lack of student achievement
through their lack of understanding of what needed to be done for the ELL student.
Marzano’s “opportunity to learn” concept occurs in three distinct phases:
First, the “intended curriculum” which is the CA subject-matter standards. Next, the
“implemented curriculum” which is the information, material, and resources
delivered by the teacher to the students. Finally, the “attained curriculum” is what the
students have acquired and learned as a result of the “implemented curriculum” (p.
23).
Winslow Unified School District has attempted to interpret the CA content
standards as they relate to the district instructional materials. In order to maximize
instruction, “pacing guides” have been developed to assist the classroom teacher
with identifying and incorporating the standards into academic lessons. This has not
been a natural process for teachers who have traditionally taught subject-matter
content sequentially according to the textbook. In the past, teachers who have been
able to “work through the text” by the end of the year have considered themselves
“successful.” Very little consideration had been given to concept and skill mastery.
Those students who could learn did, and those who could not, did not. According to
Marzano (2003), learning occurs when students have a clear expectation of what it is
they are supposed to be learning and are given sufficient time to learn it. Marzano
calls this a “guaranteed and viable curriculum” (p. 15).
15
It is critical to the implementation of a “guaranteed and viable curriculum”
that teachers take the time required to allow students to master specific skills and
standards instead of going simply going through the textbook. It is equally important
for teachers to understand the challenges of the individual student in order to
prescribe specific learning interventions to meet their needs. A one-size-fits-all
approach to learning does not work, especially for ELL students.
Another school-level factor that impacts student learning is that of unclear
academic goals and expectations, and a failure to provide immediate and specific
feedback to students regarding their performance. Marzano (2003) says that the
necessity of establishing concise, clear, comprehensible goals for students is critical
for them to engage in “common expectations” (pp. 35-38). Grant High School has
been underperforming for years. Exhaustive meetings surrounding the CST scores
have been conducted to reform the collective school effort and to develop action
plans for student achievement. This type of examination is important but too
infrequent to allow for instructional changes to occur in a timely manner throughout
the year. Student needs must be paramount. Marzano (2003) prescribes to the
establishment of an assessment system that provides teachers and administrators with
“specific information and skills at least every nine weeks” (p. 39).
Marzano’s (2003) research strongly suggests that there is a qualitative
difference between the notions of “collegiality” and “congeniality,” and their
respective impact on student achievement. He clearly states that “the more friendship
interactions, the lower students’ academic achievement” (p. 61). At Grant High
16
School, most of the teacher relationships are centered on coincidence of schedule
(supervision, lunch, related non-teaching duties). The nature of this interaction
doesn’t easily lend itself to critical dialogue involving student achievement,
curriculum, assessment and pedagogy. There is also an apparently inherent
reluctance on the part of teachers to reveal their students’ scores for fear of exposing
themselves to other teachers, and thus face possible criticism. This perpetuates the
notion that teachers work independently and not as part of a collective of
professionals working together.
Teacher-Level Factors. The importance of teacher quality and skill level
cannot be over emphasized, particular as they relate to the ELL student. Ineffective
teaching is at the heart of the lack of student achievement condition. Teachers have
the power to uplift students as well as the power to turn them off to the classroom
environment and intellectual pursuits. Marzano (2003) cites a study by Ferguson and
Womack (1993) during which teachers were instructed on effective pedagogical
practices instead of subject matter alone. The findings of the study indicated that the
teachers who focused on pedagogy positively impacted their teaching performance in
the classroom, more so than their counterparts. This finding is important because of
its identification of a concrete way to turn things around for all students in the
classroom. “…improving human (teacher) performance is the highest leverage
activity available to a company (school)” (Clark and Estes, 2002, p. 4). Along the
same lines, Marzano (2003) stresses that the most important factor affecting student
learning is the teacher” (p. 72).
17
The CST/CELDT data for the ELL students at Grant reflect the overall lack
of effectiveness of the instructional program through year after year of deficient
achievement. ELL students at Grant have not been achieving at the same level as
their non-English speaking/reading peers for decades. In spite of this, teachers
continue to teach to the same 19
th
century teaching model that emphasizes whole
group instruction, memorization of facts and concepts, and the depersonalization of
the academic learning experience.
Effective classroom curriculum design is another critical teacher-level factor
that has contributed to the lack of ELL achievement at Grant High School. “Clearly
teachers who are not familiar with the content they teach, who cannot plan effective
learning experiences, and who are unable to deliver effective instruction are a huge
obstacle to student achievement” (Manning, 2007). At Grant, the difficulty that
teachers have in designing and delivering effective lessons, leaps out to even the
most casual observer. There is a basic lack of factual and procedural information
among teachers that inhibits student learning and achievement. When teachers are
not confident in designing and delivering standards-based lessons, or they are
unmotivated to do so, they rely on the textbook. A very strong selling point for the
implementation of EDI at Grant High School was the prescriptive formula that
delivered individual standards to teachers packaged and ready to be delivered to
students. However, the effective delivery of the program requires teacher
competence with the standards, and a high degree of collaboration and planning with
other teachers. Marzano (2003) states that “Regardless of the direction provided by
18
the school (or district) individual teachers still need to make decisions regarding
curricular design at the classroom level given the unique characteristics of their
students” (p. 106).
In conclusion, it appears that many teachers at Grant High School are
unwilling or unable to effectively participate in the professional practices regarding
lesson design, instructional delivery, and assessment analyses. Instead, they spend
their instructional time going page to page in the textbook and at the copy machine
making handouts. Direct instruction is a possible solution to this problem.
Student-Level Factors. Grant High School is situated in a low socio-
economic neighborhood where money is tight, crime is rampant, and there has
traditionally been very little formal education of its inhabitants. There is an axiom
among educators which purports that students who come from good neighborhoods
do well in school. Students from tough neighborhoods better find a job and go to
work. This aptly describes the social dynamics of Grant High School. Although there
exists an abundance of data which dispute the inevitability of this SES paradigm, the
truth is that success begets success. The rich get richer, while those who are not
fortunate enough to have experienced abundant resources and an intellectually
stimulating formative childhood are competing to play on a field which is far from
level. This is true for many of Grant’s ELL students.
Marzano (2003) describes three variables that contribute to the success or
failure of our students. After comparing the literature relative to student-level factors
across the researchers (Bloom, 1976; Walberg, 1980; Fraser et al., 1987; Marzano,
19
2000) he determined that the following three factors were critical 1) home
environment, 2) cultural orientations and prior knowledge, and 3) motivation.
A common lament among ELL teachers, including the teachers at Grant High
School, is that they don’t really believe that “all children can learn.” Instead, they
believe that the circumstances of the home environment of their students have a
deeper impact on the student than the teacher impact in the classroom.
Secondly, the cultural orientations of the community are obstacles to a
cooperative effort between the school and home. Many of the Grant parents do not
speak English, do not have jobs, have little formal education, and have no genuine
way to communicate concerns with the school. This is interpreted by many teachers
to mean that the parents have no interest in their child’s education. The reality is
often that parents’ have given up control of their own child’s education to the
teachers of the school who presumably know much better than they how to educate
children.
Lastly, the lack of motivation to succeed among ELL students can be
crippling. Very clearly, if one has never achieved academic success, has the belief
that they never will achieve academic success, and isn’t inherently motivated to
learn, they are probably not going to be high academic achievers. In fact, the
tautology of their circumstance is condemning them to a conditioned failure.
Grant High School has shown a deficiency in providing an adequate home-
school connection that might resonate with the ELL student and family. This lack of
connectivity has contributed to lack of academic success and a lack of motivation of
20
this special population. Unfortunately, the accountability requirements of NCLB are
relentless, and school districts are fast approaching the “deadline” (2014) for
proficiency for all students, including the ELL student. The issues of school, teacher,
and student factors must be adequately and appropriately addressed if we are to find
ourselves within NCLB compliance when the bell tolls.
Summary and Organization of the Remaining Chapters of this Dissertation
This research study is an evaluation of a program intervention in English
Language Arts for ELL students at a typical urban high school. The study focuses on
a specific high school student population to determine the effectiveness of an
intervention, EDI, and it may be possible to apply the findings of the study to ELL
student populations in general. A critical component of any instructional program,
especially ones that are trying to make the “academic connection” with ELL
students, is “direct instruction.” The literature review in chapter two contains
comprehensive information and research into the efficacy of “direct instruction” on
ELL student populations. Chapter three includes the design summary, intervention,
participants and setting, instrumentation, and the limitations of the study. Results are
presented in chapter four. A discussion and recommendations are presented in
chapter five.

21
CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

The purpose of this literature review is to examine relevant studies and
research which identify, describe, and suggest solutions to the wide array of issues,
obstacles, and components that contribute to the academic achievement of English
Language Learners (ELL) in public high schools. It is paramount within this review
of literature that we examine the strategies of direct instruction which most
effectively impact the ELL student. Among these strategies is the contextualization
of the classroom instruction based upon the culture, language, and shared values of
the community in which the instruction occurs. By understanding the complexities of
appropriate instructional strategy implementation, we are better able to meet the
moral imperative of the No Child Left Behind legislation.
This literature review will include the identification of educational research
and studies which focus upon the ELL student and school achievement. Next, an
analysis of direct instruction and its impact on student achievement, especially that
of the ELL student will be examined. Thirdly, a discussion of research of the impact
of poverty on the ELL student, as well as an examination of the school site and
environmental factors that affect student achievement will also be examined. Studies
and research will be provided relative to student achievement on the California
Standardized Tests (CST). This research will be incorporated throughout this study.
22
Complicit with student achievement on the CST, the nature of the students’ readiness
to learn in English, as demonstrated by their performance on the California English
Language Development Test (CELDT) will also be examined.
Additionally, no examination of the ELL’s learning and achieving experience
would be complete without inquiry into the socio-economic status, culture and
community values of the examined student population. A summary review of the
most critical studies and research will be provided to illuminate of the significance of
future educational research and to continue the identification of effective
instructional strategies and their impact on learning and achievement of the ELL
student.
An abundance of instructional programs and strategies are prevalent within
contemporary educational research. These programs and strategies have been the
focus of considerable examination relative to their individual and synergistic role as
integral components of effective instruction. They serve as the foundation for this
study: Learner styles and diverse students, the contextualization of instruction, direct
instruction, studies of language arts, standards-based curricula, change in the teacher
curriculum, classroom pedagogy, and classroom assessment are all vital components
of this examination.
The adoption of a national comprehensive and uniform system of
standardized assessment for public education, that treats all students the same, a “one
size fits all” approach, has highlighted the embedded inconsistencies of the ELL
learning condition. It brings into question the appropriateness of using measurements
23
which were designed for a specific population of students who had already acquired
language proficiency. The primary issue is that of the validity with which
interventions have been implemented in the limited English student population
(Butler & Stevens, 2001). Additionally, the implementation of standardized language
assessments which emphasize the growing disparity between the ELL student and
the English proficient student requires the teacher of ELL students to reflect upon the
nature and quality of the assessment. These assessments serve to consistently
delineate the demarcation between the “haves and the have-nots.” In fact, many
educational researchers believe that what is being measured is not academic
knowledge of subject matter, but the ELL students’ ability to acquire language
(Abedi, Leon, and Mirocha, 2005). In order to effectively assess the efficacy of
standardized assessments, a more appropriate focus would be to evaluate the inherent
opportunities to learn which occur in the ELL classroom (Bailey, 2005; Butler &
Castellon-Wellington; Marzano, 2003).
ELL Students and Achievement
In California, the CST is given annually and is required of all students, including
all significant sub groups. The utilization of the CST requires that each school,
district, and local educational agency (LEA) achieves the prescribed level of
proficiency mandated by the adequate yearly progress (AYP) formulae. The
statistical achievement goals for the academic year 2004-2005 were 23.0% proficient
and above in English language arts, and 23.7% proficient and above in mathematics,
as per state policy. Data are also analyzed to determine the overall achievement level
24
of students, school-wide, and are reflected in a statistic known as the academic
progress index (API).
A strict requirement of the AYP achievement goal is that 95% of all the
students in the schools' "significant subgroup population" must participate in the
CST (CDE, 2005, p.1). These include Title I, English Language Learner, and Special
Education students. A significant subgroup is one in which there are at least 100
students. These students must be enrolled on the first day of testing and account for
at least 100 test scores (California Department of Education, 2005). The “significant
sub-groups” are held to the same achievement expectancy as their English Only
(EO), non-Title I, and general education peers. Due to the generational failure of this
subgroup to realize “satisfactory” achievement on standardized tests, there can be no
realistic expectation that this group will suddenly perform at a level that is the
equivalent of their English Only (EO) secondary school peers.
The measure of an assessment's validity is directly connected to its ability to
quantify and analyze the collective scores of specific groups of students, from year to
year, as with the CST. The inherent inadequacy of the standardized assessment used
by the state of California is the assumption that the same ELL student populations
are being examined from each year's data. The fact is that sometimes the two
populations which are being examined have very little in common. Much of this
involves the manner in which ELL student populations are re-designated to fully-
English proficient, via the California English Language Development Test (CELDT).
Each ELL student is tested annually in order to determine their annual language
25
progress. Presumably, the longer an ELL student is in an ELL program the more
proficient they will become. The CELDT proficiency bands are: Beginning, Early
Intermediate, Intermediate, Early Advanced, and Advanced. There is an expectation
that students will show development of at least one proficiency band each year.
When they have progressed to the Advanced band they are then eligible to be re-
designated fully-English proficient (RFEP). When an ELL student has been re-
designated they are removed from the ELL population into the general population.
Consequently, their CST achievement scores are also removed from the ELL scores.
The result of this is that the lowest proficient ELL students are the ones who remain
in the ELL populations. (The API/AYP formulae factorization allows for the scores
of RFEP students to remain in the ELL population for a period not to exceed 2
years). Obviously, the elimination of higher test scores results in the further
characterization of ELL students and their lack of progress as deficient.
A significant component of the identification and characterization of the ELL
population has been prominent in the research of Abedi (2004). His understanding
has been that what characterizes the ELL student has been anything but consistent
from state to state, district to district, and school to school. According to the NCLB
legislation an ELL student is: (a) 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-only classrooms (Abedi, 2004, p. 4).
26
According to Kline, Kuklis and Zmuda (2000) the effect of enhanced
expectations for the academic achievement of all students has been one of the most
consistent findings in contemporary educational literature. The notion of "high
expectations" as a common denominator and motivating factor in student
achievement cannot be over emphasized.
Additionally, ethnic minorities, especially the Latino/a student, succeed best
when their teachers believe that their students are competent and capable of
performing high academic work. The research also shows that when teachers believe
it is their responsibility to challenge, motivate and provide an intellectually rigorous
curriculum, students achieved to a degree approaching equivalence with their
English-Only (EO) counterparts. Research supports that students achieve best when
they are held to the same high quality academic standards as their peers providing
they have equal access to all learning opportunities. According to Marzano,
“Opportunity to learn (OTL) has the strongest relationship with student achievement
of all school factors…”(p.83).
Further, when there is a core group belief that “students learn best when the
purpose of their learning and the expectations for them are clear. They don’t have to
guess what they are supposed to learn or how well they are expected to learn it
(Marzano, 2003, p. 35.” “Achievement scores in classes where clear learning goals
were exhibited were 0.55 standard deviations higher than the achievement scores for
classes where clear learning goals were not established.” (p. 82).The challenge at the
school site for prescribing effective instructional strategies which meet the needs of
27
the ELL student becomes firmly entrenched within the climate, the culture and the
pedagogical practices which direct student learning. It is within this environment that
Kline, Kuklis and Zmuda (2004) address the “transformational” factors that impact
all student learning, but particularly that of the English Language Learner. Kline, et
al, refer to the work of Linda Darling-Hammond (1997) to illuminate the principle
that effective and meaningful change must occur at the site level, and be responsive
to the individual and specific needs of the “local context.” Additionally, it is the
responsibility of the site personnel to identify the manner in which they will
implement and sustain a systemic approach to a “continuous improvement effort”
and collectively agree upon the challenge, the possibilities, and the worthiness of the
endeavor to transform the curricula and practice.
Abedi, Leon, and Mirocha (2005) report that ELL students traditionally
achieve at a level lower than their EO counterparts across the entire curriculum.
Additionally, educational research clearly identifies that academic content areas
which require advanced proficiency in English, contributes to the widening
performance gap between the ELL and EO students. Abedi et al. (2005) identify
these language proficiency challenges as "language load" (p.2). Recent CST data
clearly show that ELL student achievement in mathematics, particularly at the
primary level, appears to have minimal impact when considered for language
proficiency. However, as the mathematics concepts become more complicated,
requiring greater language ability, the student achievement scores for the ELL
student plummet.
28
The research of Abedi et al. (2005) focused upon two school sites, one site
included data from a large public school district for the 1998-1999 academic school
year. The examination was of reading and mathematics scores, as reported by the
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). The examination also included student
demographic information such as race, age, gender, and amount of time spent in a
bilingual education program. The comparative site included data from students who
were enrolled in a public school environment during the academic school year
ending in 1997-1998. These data contained scores from the Stanford Achievement
Test, (Stanford 9). Supplementary data included ELL status, level of parent
education, race, gender, and participation in the federal free and reduced-price meal
program. The conclusions from this study were consistent with the vast body of
research into similar student achievement. They revealed that students' academic
achievement on standardized examinations was contingent upon their level of
English language proficiency. The long-term implication of the study is that as the
requirement for English language proficiency increases, due to academic and higher
order conceptualization, the wider the achievement gap becomes between the ELL
and the EO student. In other words, the "language load" increases (Abedi et al.,
2005).
Butler and Castellon-Wellington (2005) agree in their studies that ELL
students achieve at a significantly lower level in all content areas as their EO
counterparts. This reinforces the "language load" theory postulated by Abedi et al.
(2005). Butler and Castellon-Wellington’s research involved 778 third grade students
29
and 184 eleventh grade students, all of whom participated in standardized
assessments on the Stanford 9 and the Reading/Writing Component of the Language
Assessment Scales (LAS). Their findings were consistent with previous research.
The most significant indicator of student achievement was English language
proficiency. The EO students continued to make progress, while the ELL peers
continued to slide. Butler and Castellon-Wellington (2005) also report that a major
contributor for the ELL student’s failure to achieve, in addition to English language
proficiency was the lack of opportunity to learn (OTL), consistent with the research
of Marzano (2003).
It has become increasingly obvious that the use of standardized assessments
as a measure of genuine student achievement is deeply flawed. In fact, the validity
of the assessment itself is called into question, when a population of ELL students is
mandated to perform on an examination which by definition precludes their
opportunity to succeed (Butler and Stevens, 2001). Further, when an assessment that
has been designed for one population and is administered to a dissimilar population,
any results it purports to measure in the area of academic content knowledge are
highly suspect. It also fails to identify the curriculum areas in which the other
population needs assistance the most. The results of the standardized assessments
will only quantify the "language load" the student has. It does not measure the level
of academic content knowledge that a student might possess (Abedi et al. 2005).
Finally, the "opportunity to learn" of ELL students must be emphasized when
attempting to identify the content knowledge of the ELL student as measured by
30
standardized tests and academic progress (Bailey, 2005; Butler and Castellon-
Wellington, 2005; Marzano, 2003).
Direct Instruction and Student Achievement

The advent of standards-based education, in the wake of The No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, (NCLB), has changed the face of education throughout the
United States. The state and local response to this legislation has reached critical
mass in California and has necessitated the implementation of instructional practices
that lend themselves to the quantification of learning and achievement in the ELL
student population.
It is a recognized fact that lower socio-economic status (SES) groups, many
of whom are ethnic minorities, have failed to achieve, academically, to the same
degree as the higher SES populations (Mehan, Hubbard and Villanueva, 1994). In
order to increase the achievement of these populations, the manner in which minority
students learn best has been examined and analyzed by and proposed instructional
remedies have been suggested by many scholars (Lachat, 2004; Marzano,2003;
Abedi, 2001) .
An important perspective concerning the body of literature on this subject
also refers to the contextualization of instruction. The contextualization of instruction
refers to the responsiveness of the teacher to the culture and the community in which
the students live. Some researchers propose the implementation of a "universal"
method of instruction which proclaims that "good teaching is good for all students"
(Tharp and Gallimore, 1988; Hilliard, 1992).
31
Numerous educational researchers have investigated the most effective
instructional delivery for students who are at high-academic-risk and direct
instruction is at the top of the list for demonstrating a significant affect on student
learning.
Explicit Direct Instruction is one instructional program that emphasizes the
implementation of strategies which deliver a grade-level appropriate standards-based
curriculum in a manner which de-mystifies the learning process through a series of
redundancies that reinforce student learning. It proposes to systematize pedagogy,
ensure teacher awareness of student conceptual understanding, and assist the faculty
with the calibration of standards and instructional strategies (Dataworks Educational
Research, 2005). The premise of EDI is that the classroom teacher is the most
important factor in student learning and achievement. Student learning is dependent
upon the teachers’ ability to utilize effective and efficient strategies, well-designed
lessons, and pedagogy which incorporates differentiated instruction, Specially
Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE), and cognitive strategies that
improve student information retention and accelerated learning.
Among the strategies which are designed to maximize the achievement of
academic “excellence” is the alignment of core values with specific conditions that
define the school site experience. A generalized core value of academic equity
relative to learning opportunities and high-quality standards is consistent with the
educational research of Marzano (2003) and Abedi (2001).
32
The philosophy and principles of direct instruction minimize the degree of
control that learning styles have on an individual's achievement, and instead focus
upon a prescribed presentation and delivery of essential standards to students. This
practice underscores a "behaviorist" component to the direct instruction philosophy.
Although the direct instruction teacher engages students according to a multi-cultural
perspective, the contextualization of cultural communication styles are not
incorporated into the lesson. The practices of direct instruction involve a systematic,
redundant presentation of prescribed lessons that contain the essential learning of the
curriculum. Direct instruction lessons contain tightly focused and clearly defined,
measurable learning objectives, which are intensively directed by the teacher. A
direct instruction teacher employs a variety of instructional strategies but relies
primarily on small, flexible groupings of students with similar skills and proficiency
(DataWorks Educational Research, 2005).
A central belief of the proponents of direct instruction, is that all children can
achieve grade level mastery. When they do not achieve, it is the teaching which is to
blame and must be analyzed. Consequently, direct instruction practitioners have
identified the needs of special populations of students, i.e. ELL, Special Education,
Title I, as those who will benefit most from its pedagogical practice.
English Language Learners and Poverty
Approximately 25% of the student population of California public schools
are designated English Language Learners. A significant number of these ELL
students also fall within the category of socio-economically disadvantaged (Title I),
33
as determined through the self-reporting application for free and reduced meals at the
individual school sites. In the Winslow Unified School District, ELL students
represent approximately 76% of the student population. The overwhelming majority
of ELL students are also Title I students. Any attempt to construct an intervention to
mitigate and enhance the achievement of the ELL population must by necessity,
address the implications of poverty and its effects on the student population. Because
of the compelling issues of the deficiency in student achievement by the ELL and
Title I populations, the Winslow Unified School District has conducted a
comprehensive search to discover the instructional intervention program which has
the best chance of overcoming the barriers of learning for these students. The
research on EDI indicates that it might be helpful in overcoming the barriers to
learning which these students experience.
Continuing with the identification of relevant characteristics which contribute
to low student achievement in ELL and Title I students, Clark and Estes (2002) cite
that culture and personal differences in effectiveness beliefs play a significant role in
the motivation of people to perform, envision goals and procedures through which to
achieve those goals. They state, “…there are cultural and personal differences
influencing people’s beliefs about what makes them effective. These differences
sometimes produce diametrically opposed motivational styles for different groups, so
that what motivates one person or group might be neutral, or even negative, for
another” (p. 83).
34
According to Marzano (2001) student level factors account for about 80
percent of the variance in student achievement, the schools themselves accounting
for only 20 percent. A part of the solution for the enhancement of student
achievement for many of our children is to identify and address the specific
circumstances in their background characteristics which will inform instruction and
lead to meaningful decisions concerning students’ academic achievement.
These findings are consistent throughout contemporary educational literature
and are echoed by Mary Ann Lachat (2004). English Language Learners are spread
across the spectrum of the public school population. Any attempt to generalize them
as a single population, minimizes their educational needs and the opportunity to
identify the specific characteristics of culture, values, and language necessary for
their intellectual and academic development. She reports that standards-based
assessments have been implemented to motivate students towards higher academic
achievement and that they are the motivating force behind the demand that all
students, authentically acquire levels of academic proficiency regardless of their
level of English language proficiency (Lachat, 2004).
Augmenting the problem of student achievement is that for many of our
children in public schools, their educational experience is one of pain, humiliation
and degradation. This condition, relative to poverty, is best reflected in two models
of socio-economic disadvantage: (1) generational poverty and (2) situational poverty.
Payne (2005) describes generational poverty as people who have been in poverty
(without sufficient resources) for at least two generations. This pattern is exacerbated
35
sooner than two generations if family members live with others who are
experiencing generational poverty. Situational poverty, on the other hand, is defined
as the lack of resources due to a particular event (i.e., a death, chronic illness,
divorce, etc.) These conditions of poverty have their own culture, hidden rules, and
belief systems (p. 47), and as such contribute heavily to the education experiences of
our public school students. According to Payne some of the conditions reported by
school officials concerning children who live in poverty are students who are
disorganized, lose papers, fail to obtain parental signatures on permission slips, etc.
(1) students display physical or emotional aggressiveness
(2) students refuse to do, or complete homework assignments
(3) students have trouble beginning assignments (have no procedural self-
talk)
(4) students have difficulty monitoring their own behavior
(5) students appear to be impervious to any type of discipline. (Payne,1996
p.60)
School Site Factors and Student Achievement
According to Marzano (2005), the effectiveness of a school most certainly
has a significant effect on student academic success. In previous work, Marzano
(2003) expanded upon the findings of the Coleman Report (1966), in which Coleman
posited that schools are only able to affect about ten percent of a student's academic
success. Marzano (2003) strongly refutes the Coleman findings. Marzano's findings,
according to his synthesis of the ten most prominent contemporary studies suggest
36
that schools are actually able to control approximately 20 percent of a student's
academic success. Marzano (2003) emphasizes the Rosenthal and Rubin research
(1982) that showed if a school did all that was necessary to contribute to the full 20
percent of a student's academic success that effort would reflect a positive gain in
students' pass rate of approximately 44 percent. The expected pass rate for these
students, without the instructional intervention, would have been approximately 50
percent. Statistically, this translates to a pass rate of 72 percent for the effective
school and a pass rate of 28 percent for the ineffective school.
The significance of Marzano's meta-analyses is that schools which implement
"effective" instruction within an "effective environment," have a significantly
positive impact on students' success. This translates, concretely, to
the instruction of all students, but especially ELL students, whether they reside in an
effective environment, or not.
Schools must be the instructional advocate for their students' success.
Marzano reports that schools must establish "concrete goals for curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices within the school" (Marzano, 2005, p. 50). The
National Research Council (NRC) (2001) concurs that clearly established and
conveyed goals is the foundation upon which student learning and academic
achievement must be built. Additionally, it is not the sole responsibility of the
classroom teacher to "deliver" our students to academic success; it is the role of
every single employee of the school to contribute to the collective effort of moving
37
our children forward. Individually our ability to change is limited; collaboratively
"miracles" become possible.
Additional research supports the findings of Marzano, Rosenthal and Rubin,
and the National Research Council. The challenge at the school site for prescribing
effective instructional strategies which meet the needs of the ELL student becomes
firmly entrenched within the climate, the culture and the pedagogical practices which
direct student learning. It is within this environment that Kline, Kuklis and Zmuda
(2004) address the “transformational” factors which impact all students’ learning, but
particularly that of the English Language Learner. Kline, et al, refer to the work of
Darling-Hammond (1997) to illuminate the principle that effective and meaningful
change must occur at the site level, and be responsive to the individual and specific
needs of the “local context.” Additionally, it is the responsibility of the site personnel
to identify the manner in which they will install and sustain a systemic approach to a
“continuous improvement effort” and collectively agree upon the challenge, the
possibilities, and the worthiness of the endeavor to transform the curricula and
practice.
It is imperative that well-defined and explicit goals are conveyed to all
students, including ELL students, in order for those goals to enhance academic
achievement. However, it is essential that schools be concise and transparent
concerning the path they are following when they articulate how students will
accomplish these academic goals. Clark and Estes (2002), report that diverse beliefs
and values among diverse groups give rise to varying reactions and interpretations.
38
The assumption that improving student achievement is a common goal can result in
the inconsistent actions in relaying the message, thus requiring specificity and
concreteness in conveying that goal (p. 84). According to Zmuda, Kuklis, and Kline
(2004), the responsibility of understanding the direction of the school, and the
manner in which it will address the issues of improving academic achievement
among all students, is the role for all school-based personnel. Only fidelity to the
collaborative effort will result in the type of commitment that fosters a "continuous
improvement journey" (p. 20).
According to Lachat (2004), Marzano (2003 and 2005), and Zmuda et al.
(2004), high expectations for high academic achievement is one of the most
significant factors that schools can control. The act of conveying high expectations,
to the learning community and developing lessons that incorporate those high
expectations tends to create challenging and engaging learning experiences (LaChat,
2004). Marzano (2003) believes that "high expectations for students are a
cornerstone of the school effectiveness research" (p. 36). The quality of a school's
effectiveness will be determined by the degree to which these concepts of high
expectations are interwoven in every classroom and effectively implemented into a
coherent plan of action. Consequently, high expectations become part of the core
belief of the learning community. Zmuda et al. (2004) proclaim "the purpose of
every school is to optimize student achievement" (p. 57). This additionally mandates
that all members of the school team collaborate in this challenge. Only then will the
dream for universal academic achievement be realized for students. These academic
39
goals, especially for ELL students must be transmitted directly from teachers to
students (Marzano, 2003).
Every school environment contains a complicated network of interacting
components that constantly impact each other over time and operate toward a
common goal (Senge, 1994). Senge explains personnel in such an environment
are inclined to define their own role depending upon their values and perceptions of
those they serve. Without clear and shared focus and a mutual understanding as to
the generalized “purpose” of school, it becomes difficult to gauge one’s own
performance, as well as the collaborative needs of others (Senge, 2000).
If the goal of every public school is to enhance student achievement to the
individual students' optimal capacity, then student achievement can best be described
by the group’s core values. The primary task for any organization or group becomes,
out of necessity, to identify and build commonality between goals and individuals.
This dynamic interaction requires the highest commitment to the common goals and
beliefs, and must be the focal point of any conversation concerning the realization of
the group goals. This is an on-going and reflective process that determines the
construction and maintenance of professional integrity and competence (Senge,
2000).
As the condition of the English Language Learner is further addressed within
our school systems, and at every school site impacted by the ELL learning
experience, the development of an action plan with which to address these “learning
issues” becomes critical. The “essential question,” according to Kline, Kuklis and
40
Zmuda, thus becomes “How do we make it happen” (p. 140). The principles for the
development of this action plan are:
1. Staff development must promote collective autonomy by embracing
teaching as a distributed quality of the school.
2. Planning must provide the clear, concise direction necessary for
systemic change while remaining flexible enough to accommodate
the “non-rational” life in schools.
3. Staff development must reflect the predictable stages of teacher
concern about the complexities of moving from new learning to
systemic consequences.

Conclusion
Knowledge Factors
In order to determine the needs of the ELL student, one must first address the
condition of knowledge that exists within that student. This would include answers
to questions such as: How familiar are they with the requisite academic vocabulary?
What academic skills do they already possess? How familiar are they with the
critical academic content? Do they understand the context and processes of the
learning objective? These are the issues which when properly identified and
addressed engage the student learner in a meaningful and comprehensive manner.
The literature is replete with research (Abedi, Clark and Estes, Marzano, Lachat,
Zmuda) that correlates enhanced student achievement with the dynamic engagement
41
of students, especially the ELL student, using instruments and techniques which
address this factor.
Motivational Factors
Motivation according to Clark and Estes (2002) can best be described as
those influences which cause students to work towards a goal, continue to work at it
until it is achieved and the amount of mental effort that students are willing to invest
in order to accomplish it (p. 44). This complex psychological component of learning
requires classroom practitioners who are specialists in the identification of the unique
motivation factors that students identify with. Another critical aspect is the
implementation of strategies and techniques which promulgate learning by making
the motivational connection.
Organizational Factors
The processes which influence the manner in which our students are taught,
i.e. instructional resources, classroom or school facilities, events or requirements
which interrupt daily lessons, district-mandated and prescribed lessons and other
procedures which interfere with classroom instruction can be classified as
organizational barriers. Many of the organizational barriers that occur in education
are the result of work processes that are misaligned with instructional strategies or
organizational structure (Clark and Estes, 2002, p. 44). These barriers play an
important role in determining the effectiveness of classroom instruction because of
their impact on teacher skills leading to student failure to achieve at a proficient
42
level. No effective instructional program will fail to acknowledge and mitigate, to
the extent possible, the impact of the organizational barriers to student achievement.
Student-Level Factors
Home environment, background knowledge, and student motivation are
identified as the three main student-level factors critical to student achievement
(Marzano, 2003). These factors are readily visible in classrooms across the land.
They are especially significant to students in classrooms where the impact of these
factors effectively block a student's ability to focus and engage in academic learning.
Additional factors which also play a significant role in student achievement include
poverty, violence, low parental-expectations, and self-fulfilling beliefs concerning an
inability to succeed in the academic environment.
Knowledge, motivation, organization and student factors contribute to the
success or failure of each student. If our schools, teachers, and communities have
authentically dedicated themselves to the core value that "all children can learn," it is
time to decipher and implement the most meaningful, insightful, and focused
instructional strategies and techniques which truly lead to student achievement and
the personal intellectual and academic development of each student learner.
Direct Instruction (DI) is the model for teaching that incorporates carefully
structured and well-developed instructional lessons that target students at their
unique proficiency levels and delivers incremental, highly-focused, and
comprehensible learning objectives in a clear and comprehensible manner. It is the
43
basis for much of the targeted instruction for not only ELL students, but all students
who are failing to achieve to proficiency across the curriculum.
Over the years, DI has taken many forms, most instrumentally that of
Madeline Hunter and the multi-step lesson plan. These steps included the
anticipatory set, direct instruction, guided practice, independent practice, and
checking for understanding after each step. It was Hunter's belief that effective
teaching which integrated clear and understandable components of teaching was the
best way to improve and accelerate student learning. The belief that all children can
learn is at the core of teaching values. The idea that they must be taught in a manner
which is comprehensible to them requires a prioritization of teaching practices that
de-emphasizes teacher creativity and autonomy and emphasizes carefully prescribed
instructional practices (National Institute for Direct Instruction-Online citation).
Benjamin Bloom (1954, 1976) proposed that a learner's cognitive processes
and development was closely aligned with their attitudes concerning socio-cultural
values and beliefs, as well as the myriad pressures within their personal environment.
Individuals decipher their learning through their unique perspective of reality
(Gregore,1979). The learning cycle has its foundation in an individual's bias towards
a combination of "learning schemes" (Kolb, 1984). The glue that adheres these
concepts to one another is the idea that learning is a give-and-take process. Not
merely the "one-way transmission" of information from teacher to student. Teachers
who understand this process become more intimately involved with their students in
order to find out what is of most significance to the learner. The "master teacher" is
44
one who translates information, concepts, and context to the student in a manner
uniquely comprehensible to them.
Therefore, the task for the contemporary educator becomes one of delivering
the most insightful and effective instructional program which is responsive to the
unique needs of the individual students and which engenders, rather than squanders,
the strengths of each student learner. Secondarily, the design of an authentic and
meaningful assessment which measures student learning and accounts for the
uniqueness of each student, identifies strengths and weaknesses, and provides a
pedagogical blueprint for future learning is essential to the success of our collective
endeavor. We can choose to correct the inadequacies of our present system, or we
can lament the great misfortune of finding our students caught between the Cilus and
Charybdis.

45
CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study will be to determine the effectiveness of Explicit
Direct Instruction, a highly structured and prescribed method of lesson design and
delivery that emphasizes an evidence-based approach to standards-based education
(SBE) in enhancing English Language Arts. The focus of the study is the English
Language Learners (ELL) students at a grade 9-12 comprehensive high school in the
Winslow Unified School District.
The design of this study is summative in nature. Summative research is
indicated in order to determine the effectiveness of Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI)
the lesson design and delivery program. The research goal is to determine the impact
of the intervention program on the academic achievement of ELL students in the area
of English Language Arts, as measured by the California Standards Tests. The
research questions are:

1) During the ninth to tenth and tenth to eleventh grade transitions, are the
ELL students at Grant High School progressing on the CST ELA as expected
during the DataWorks EDI intervention?

2) Is there a difference in the ELL CST performance at Grant High School
versus a similar sample of students at a comparison school in which there is
no EDI intervention?

Design Summary
This research study will apply a pre-post, quasi-experimental, nonequivalent
control group design. A distinguishing characteristic of quasi-experiments is that
46
they do not use a random assignment to analyze comparisons from which changes
are inferred. Instead, the comparisons depend on a nonequivalent control group that
may be different in many ways from the group that receives the intervention. In the
present study, two high school populations were compared to each other and
measures of achievement were collected from state archives in the 2005 and 2006
school years.
For research question #1, a pre-post design is used. The experimental group
consists of Grant High School ELL students receiving the Explicit Direct Instruction
intervention during the 2005-06 school year. The 2004-05 archival state data served
as the statistical unit of analysis and comparison. Students who were not at Grant
High in the 2004-05 year were not used in this analysis. Thus, the 9
th
grade scores in
2005-2006 and the 12
th
grade scores from 2004-2005 in 2005-06 were not analyzed.
The scientific notation for the pre-post design is shown below:

O (pre) X O (post)
Pre-test observation: 2004-2005 CST Scores (ELA)
Treatment (X): Explicit Direct Instruction intervention
Post-test observation: 2005-2006 CST Scores (ELA)

To make scores comparable for the 9
th
to 10
th
grade level transition, the raw
2005 CST scores were converted to standard scores by subtracting the 2005 state
mean for 9
th
grade ELL students and dividing by state standard deviation. A similar
47
conversion was performed for the 11
th
to 12
th
grade transition. The 2006 data were
handled in an identical manner. Thus, CST data are converted into a statistical unit
of measurement known as a z-score. The z-score is the number of standard
deviations above or below the state mean. After determining where on a “normal
curve” a score may be observed, generalizations may be made as to its statistical
significance and more importantly effect size. The scientific notation for the pre-post
design is shown below:
For research question number two, the following design was used to assess
the impact of EDI on student achievement as measured by the grade 9-11 STAR
scaled scores:
O (2005) X O (2006)
O (2005) O (2006)
Pre-test observation (Covariate): 2004-2005 California Standards Tests
(ELA)
Treatment (X): Explicit Direct Instruction intervention program
Post-test observation: 2005-2006 California Standards Tests (ELA)
The difference in the posttest means, adjusted for the pretest means, will be used to
test research question number #2.
Participants and Setting
Participants in this study consisted of the English Language Learner
48
Students’ from the 9
th
– 11
th
grades at Grant High School and the 9
th
– 11
th
grade
students from Jefferson High School, in the Winslow Unified School District, who
participated in the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 CST/STAR examinations.
Grant High School is located in the western portion of the city of Winslow.
The bordering area consists of low-income, high-density population neighborhoods,
and single-family homes of primarily Hispanic people. It is a traditional track school
with grades 9-12 and a student population of approximately 1,200 students. Ninety
percent of the students at Grant are Hispanic and the 2004-2005 API was 611.
Jefferson High School is located in the northern portion of the City of
Winslow. The bordering area consists of low-income, high-density population
neighborhoods, and single and multiple-family homes of African-American and
Hispanic people. It is a traditional track school with grades 9-12 and a student
population of approximately 1,324. The 2004-2005 API for Jefferson High School
was 622. The student body is 77% Hispanic and 14% African American. The ELL
student population at Jefferson comprises 40% of the students and 63% of the
Jefferson High School students have qualified for and participate in the school
district’s free and reduced-price lunch program.
Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show the CST and CELDT proficiency levels for both
Grant and Jefferson. These two tables suggest that the two schools were highly
similar both in terms of performance on the CST in ELA and English language
proficiency rates and provide evidence the two schools were similar prior to the
introduction of EDI in Grant.
49

Table 3.1: CST Scores According to Grade and Proficiency Level
2004-2005 School -Year

Grant Jefferson

CST
ELA
% ELL student
Proficient and
Above
% ELL student
Proficient and
Above
9
th
9% 6%
10
th
4% 6%
11th 7% 6%

Table 3.2: CELDT Scores According to Grade and Proficiency Level
2004-2005 School Year

Grade Level Proficiency
Rate
Grant
Proficiency
Rate
Jefferson
9
th
62% 54%
10
th
59% 58%
11th 52% 73%
12
th
47% 66%

Instrumentation and Procedures: Language Proficiency

Criterion sampling was used for all students who met specific criterion:
English Language Learners students who attended Grant High School and who were
taught the specific EDI lesson design and delivery model by a teacher trained in the
EDI method by DataWorks. Additionally, the California English Language
Development Test (CELDT) was examined to determine the English language
50
proficiency level of each of the students in the sample. These proficiency levels are
reported in the following performance bands: Beginning, Early Intermediate,
Intermediate, Early Advanced, and Advanced (All participants in this research were
at, or below the Early Advanced performance level). Section IV of the
Reclassification of English Learners to Fluent English Proficient information
retrieved from the CDE website (www.CDE.CA.gov) on 7/16/07, revealed the
following information about CELDT: The State Board of Education (SBE) has
established four reclassification criteria, based on Education Code Section 313(d),
for school districts to use in reclassifying students from English leaner to fluent
English proficient. The Guidelines for Reclassification of English Learners describes
these four reclassification criteria. The first criterion is an assessment of English
language proficiency, which in California is the CELDT. The CELDT is the primary
criterion in the assessment of English language proficiency. Students who are being
considered for reclassification have proficiency levels which are identified as early
advanced or higher and:
• Listening and speaking is intermediate or higher
• Reading is intermediate or higher
• Writing is intermediate or higher
Those students whose overall proficiency level is in the upper end of the
intermediate level also may be considered for reclassification if additional measures
determine the likelihood that a student is proficient in English. In this study, only the
data for non-reclassified students were analyzed.

51
Instrumentation and Procedures: Achievement
The research questions will be analyzed based upon ELL student
achievement on proficiency examinations of the California Standards Test (CST) in
English Language Arts. The CST is a part of the California Statewide Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program. The data gathered through these examinations were
compared and were utilized to gauge the effectiveness of the academic intervention
program, EDI. Individual student and group results for the CST (and the CAPA,
which is not being analyzed in this study), are reported using scaled scores and the
five performance levels adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE).
Performance levels are defined as shown in Table 3.3. Performance levels establish
the points at which students have demonstrated sufficient knowledge and skills to be
regarded as performing at a particular achievement level. The scale score range for
each performance level by grade and subject area does not change from year to year.
The number or percent of questions that students must answer currently to score at
each performance level may change slightly from year to year due to differences in
the difficulty levels of the tests. Scaled scores are used to adjust for these changes
and to equate the tests between years. The SBE set the minimum scaled score of
“350” as proficient for all California students for the CST. All California students are
required to take the CST in grades two through eleven. The ELA CST for grades
four through eleven, consists of 75 multiple-choice questions with an additional 6
field-test questions.

52
Table 3.3: Scaled Scores and Proficiency Bands in English-Language Arts
Grade Far Below
Basic
Below
Basic
Basic Proficient Advanced
9 150-264 265-299 300-349 350-396 397-600
10 150-262 263-299 300-349 350-396 397-600
11 150-258 259-299 300-349 350-395 396-600

Intervention
Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI) is a teacher-centered lesson design and
delivery model in which all students are taught grade-level concepts and learning
objectives using a standards-based structure within an explicit delivery method. The
precursor to the implementation of EDI is Curriculum Calibration, which is the
collection and analysis of student work to measure the percentage of alignment of
assignments to grade level state standards. During the Curriculum Calibration
process DataWorks collects student work samples from the classes of each EDI
trained teacher. Each teacher selects three students (one low, one medium, and one
high performing) and collects all the students’ work for one week. That work is sent
directly to DataWorks to analyze. DataWorks then provides reports that indicate the
following:
• Alignment to grade-level
• Breadth of coverage of strands
• Source of work (teacher prepared, textbook, commercial worksheet, etc.)
• Type of work (homework, test, guided practice, etc.)
As part of the Curriculum Calibration process, DataWorks representatives conduct a
two to three hour after school presentation to the school staff which includes the
53
results, calibration of samples, and an introduction to practices to teach the standards
to all students.
The school administration of Grant High School, at the direction of the
PUSD, has undertaken the task of providing each of their teachers with the complete
DataWorks Curriculum Calibration training. Additionally, each administrator has
participated in the initial and subsequent training regimens, as prescribed by
DataWorks. Classroom and instructional times have been modified and adapted to
accommodate the EDI schedules, and 13 Grant High Schools teachers have recently
(2005-2006) been “certified” by DataWorks as EDI teachers. The school site
administrative directive is that all teachers will implement the full and complete
instructional methodologies of EDI, with fidelity. To that end, the school
administrators and representatives from DataWorks continue to monitor the specific
processes related to the program, including observation in terms of school wide
instructional practices surveys (SWIPS) and on-going curriculum calibration, as
necessary.
Instrumentation and Procedures: Summary and Limitations
The quantitative data examined and utilized during this research included
California Standardized Test (CST) and the Statewide Testing and Reporting
(STAR) data, in English Language Arts for grades 9 – 11 for English Language
Learners, as identified and categorized through statewide reporting procedures.
Additionally the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) data were
utilized to inform and validate the categorization of students as English Language
54
Learners. These data served the basis for the summative evaluation of the Explicit
Direct Instruction (EDI) implemented at Grant High in the 2005-06 academic year.
The dependent groups and independent groups t-test will be utilized to determine the
statistical and practical significance of the collected data. The primary dependent
variables are the raw CST scores in ELA, and grade level growth scores in ELA.
Limitations of the Study.
In order to draw inferences based upon the impact of this intervention
(EDI/DataWorks), the issues of internal and external validity must be addressed.
Internal validity concerns confounding factors that might make it difficult to
accurately measure the impact of an intervention. In this study the internal validity
issues for the pre versus post design are student history and experience, maturation
of the student over time, changes in instrumentation, and the effect of testing and
retesting on student achievement. For the nonequivalent control group design,
because the design lacks randomization, the selection bias of experimental and
control groups contributes to its lack of internal validity.
External validity issues have to do with the generalizability of the research
inferences. In this study the external validity threats are: a. the population being
studied, b. the impact of the setting and environment, c. the implementation of the
intervention, d. the validity of the measurements, and e. experimenter bias.

55

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

Pre-post Design

Research question #1 was “During the ninth to tenth and tenth to eleventh
grade transitions, are the ELL students at Grant High School progressing on the CST
ELA as expected during the DataWorks EDI intervention?” “As expected” was
defined as compared to the mean performance of all ELL students in the State of
California for a particular grade level transition. Standard scores for the 9
th
to 10
th

grade transition are shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. To make scores comparable for the
9
th
to 10
th
grade level transition, the raw 2005 CST scores were converted to standard
scores by subtracting the 2005 state mean for 9
th
grade ELL students and dividing by
state standard deviation. A similar conversion was performed for the 11
th
to 12
th

grade transition. The 2006 data were handled in an identical manner. Thus, CST
data are converted into a statistical unit of measurement known as a z-score. The z-
score is the number of standard deviations above or below the state mean. After
determining where on a “normal curve” a score may be observed, generalizations
may be made as to its statistical significance and more importantly effect size.
At Grant, the average student gained .31 of a standard deviation from ninth to
tenth grade and .20 (rounded) of a standard deviation in the 10
th
to 11
th
grade
transition. These gains were tested against a null hypothesis of zero by a dependent
groups t-test and both were significant, t (227) = 6.10, p. = .001 for the 9
th
to 10
th

56
transition and t (176) = 3.65, p. = .001 for the tenth to eleventh grade transition.
These results suggest that DataWorks, EDI was effective in that the ELL’s at Grant
did better than the average ELL in the state. Although the gain from 9
th
to 10
th
was
greater than the gain from 10
th
to 11
th
, it is possible that this difference could be
attributed to sampling error.

Table 4.1: Grade 9 to 10 Growth Scores

N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
t p =
228 .3141 .78930 .05227 6.10 .001

Table 4.2: Grade 10 to11 Growth Scores

N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
t p =
178 .1983 .72415 .05428 3.65 .001

Research question #2 is: “Is there a difference in the ELL CST performance at
Grant High School and a similar sample of students in a comparison school in which
there was no EDI intervention?” The CST means are given in Table 4.3 and 4.4. The
results were analyzed using an independent group t-test. Although the gains at
Jefferson High School appear to be larger than the gains a Grant High School, these
results can be attributed to sampling error for both the 9
th
to 10
th
grade transition, t
(404) = -.785,
p. = .433 and the 10
th
to 11
th
grade transition, t(337) = 1.80, p. = 073.
57
Table 4.3: Grade 9 to 10 Growth Scores (EXP vs. Control)

school N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
exper
228 .3141 .78930 .05227
growth9
comp
178 .3762 .79362 .05948

Table 4.4: Grade 10 to 11 Growth Scores (EXP vs. Control)

school N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
exper
178 .1983 .72415 .05428
growth10
comp
161 .3434 .76349 .06017

58
CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overview

The preceding chapters of this study have provided the rationale and pathway
for the researcher’s intent for the evaluation of a standards based intervention,
Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI), and its impact on the English Language Learners at
Grant High School. This chapter concludes the study by illuminating the
implications of the quantitative data, offering recommendations for the site studied
and for further study.

Summary of Findings

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact (positive, negative or
neutral) of a standard- based intervention, EDI, on the English-Language Arts
achievement of ELL students at Grant High School. Summative data were collected
to determine the effectiveness of the intervention. The change in scaled scores from
the CST in English-language arts, from pre-intervention (2005) to post-intervention
(2006) were analyzed by grade level, 9
th
to 10
th
transition, and 10
th
to 11
th
transition,
for ELL students in the experimental school, Grant High School. Additionally, the
main effects and interactions between the Grant High School, and the control group,
Jefferson High School, were analyzed for the same grade levels over the same two-
year period 2005 and 2006.
59
Participants in this study consisted of the ELL student population (736
students) at Grant High School, a traditional calendar high school containing grades
nine through twelve. The ELL student population received the school-wide
standards-based intervention program, Explicit Direct Instruction.
Summary of Findings – Grant High School
The following section provides evidence in response to the overarching
research questions that directed this study: (1) During the ninth to tenth and tenth to
eleventh grade transitions, are the ELL students at Grant High School progressing on
the CST ELA scores as expected during the EDI intervention? (2) Is there a
difference in the ELL CST performance at Grant High School versus a similar
sample of students at a comparison school in which there is no EDI intervention?
The depth of the impact of the EDI intervention was positive overall, as evidenced
by the gains in standard scores for the 9
th
to 10
th
transition (.31 standard deviation)
and from 10
th
to 11
th
grade (.20 standard deviation). These gains suggest that EDI
was effective in that the ELL students at Grant did better than the average ELL
student in the state.

Implications

When analyzing the overall results, the ELL students at Grant High School
experienced positive academic changes in ELA scores at all grade levels. The
practical significance of these changes is an indicator that ELL students are moving
closer to academic proficiency. The positive results may be attributed to the
60
implementation of Explicit Direct Instruction, but given that there are numerous
threats to internal validity in a pre-post design, proof of causality cannot be inferred.

Implications for the Role of Standards-Based Education and Direct Instruction
The utilization of EDI, a standards-based intervention, yielded positive
practical outcomes for Grant High School students. This has been particularly
impactful for the ELL student as higher achievement was demonstrated on the CST
examinations in English Language Arts during the comparative years. The creation
of an environment that uses a systematic method of instruction in the classroom has
provided the students with opportunities to learn and comprehend in a methodical
and redundant manner. Clear expectations and measurable goals are the key to a
classroom where academic achievement is paramount (Marzano, 2003).
The philosophy and principles contained within direct instruction emphasize
that less focus should be on an individual’s learning style. Instead, a greater focus
should be on the prescribed presentation and delivery of academic content standards
to students. The strategies for direct instruction involved a systematic and repetitive
delivery of prescribed lessons that contain the essential learning objectives of the
curriculum. Direct instruction lessons are built around tightly focused and clearly
defined, measurable learning objectives. A direct instruction teacher relies on small
clusters of students with similar skills and proficiency (Kozloff, LaNunziata,
Cowardin and Besseliu 2000). A core belief of direct instruction teachers is that all
children can realize grade level proficiency. When they fail to achieve, it is the
61
teaching that is responsible, and must be scrutinized (Kozloff et. al., 2000).
Consequently, direct instruction advocates focus on the needs of special groups of
students, including ELL students, as those who will benefit the most from its
instructional principles.
These conclusions are supported by the findings of this study. The training of
WUSD teachers in the design and delivery of direct instruction lessons has been at
the forefront of professional development in the district for several years. The
commonalities between the experimental and the control groups in this study are the
consistent applications of direct instruction principles and the uniform training of all
district teachers.
Research question #2 asks the following: Is there a difference in the ELL
CST performance at Grant High School versus a similar sample of students at a
comparison school in which there is no EDI intervention? The data do not support
the position that implementing EDI caused an increase in ELL student achievement
at Grant High School compared to a non-EDI school. In fact, the ELL student levels
of “proficient and above” were approximately the same for both schools.
Site-Based Recommendations

The implementation of EDI at Grant High School was a school-wide
mandatory intervention program. Teachers were required to teach using the EDI
strategies, to be observed and critiqued by EDI trainers, and to have their student
achievement data (benchmarks and end-of-unit tests) gathered for analysis by
DataWorks. The analyses provided the teacher with the student proficiency and
62
achievement information necessary to continue the development and delivery of
lessons that focused instruction based on acquired skill level. The stability of the EDI
classroom includes a “sameness” of the learning tasks that leads to enhanced student
achievement (Marzano 2005, p. 112).
Fidelity to the core concepts of any intervention program is critical to the
maximization of the achievement potential of that program. The same is true for
Explicit Direct Instruction. Teachers, who are consistent with the applications and
strategies of the program, may expect student achievement to increase. Teachers who
fail to fully implement all components of the program are short-changing their
students and may not realize the gains expected from full implementation
(DataWorks, 2005). Fidelity to any instructional program is dependent upon teacher
skill in delivering the intervention as prescribed. In order to maximize the possibility
that teachers will implement the intervention as designed, teachers must receive on-
going in-service training that allows them to maintain their instructional skill level in
EDI.
Additionally, the importance of the home to school connection cannot be
overemphasized. As parents and families (guardians) become more confident in
assisting their children with assignments and homework, factors which have
chronically impeded underperforming groups, i.e. lack of motivation, cultural and
linguistic differences are overcome (Marzano, 2003). This home to school
connection is enhanced and traditional barriers are broken down through regular
parent/teacher conferences and workshops, school newsletters, publications and
63
emails as well as telephonic bulletin recordings that are sent throughout the
community.
Finally, it is recommended that the staff of Grant High School “benchmark”
the progress of the Winslow High Schools ELL students during their 9
th
to 10
th
grade
transition. The data clearly reflect that the main effect of grade at the 9
th
to 10
th
grade
level was statistically significant for Jefferson High School ELL students. Even
without the intervention of EDI, they out-gained their Grant High School
counterparts at this transitional grade level.
Some other considerations for Grant should be administrative and teacher
visits to Jefferson High School to see, firsthand, what is taking place, and to establish
an achievement goal for Grant ELL students that would help their students catch up
to Jefferson.
California Department of Education Recommendation
The lack of disaggregated data for ELL students, as reported by the CDE, is
limiting on the ability of the researcher to fully analyze the individual CST
proficiency bands of the ELL student. The CDE presently reports only “% Proficient
and Above” data for ELL students. Non-ELL students’ proficiency levels are
reported on the full-spectrum of performance bands; “far below basic,” “below
basic,” “basic,” “proficient,” and “advanced.” These missing data would enhance the
researcher’s ability to render informed data-driven decisions and recommendations
for improving ELL student achievement. Finally, the examination of grade-level
transitional growth scores, i.e. 9
th
to 10
th
and 10
th
to 11
th
, is recommended in order to
64
obtain a more complete picture of ELL student achievement as they progress from
grade to grade.

Recommendations for Further Study

This research focused on examining the impact of a standards-based
intervention, Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI), on the academic achievement of ELL
students in English Language Arts. The examination was accomplished through the
utilization of two measurements; the California Standards Tests (CST), and the
California English Language Development Test (CELDT).
The nature of the CST is that a higher level of linguistic cognitive ability in
English, generally results in increased performance on the test. There is, therefore, a
potential contradiction between what is being measured; academic content
knowledge, or English language proficiency. Further investigation is required for a
more complete understanding of academic content knowledge in ELL students.
The CELDT examination is administered based upon the parental/guardian
response to the home language survey during student registration. An indication that
any language other than English is spoken at home triggers the administration of the
CELDT. The CELDT only measures a student’s proficiency in English in the areas
of listening, speaking, reading and writing. It does not measure academic content
knowledge, and is therefore, suspect as an indicator of potential academic
achievement. Furthermore, there is evidence that standardized assessments only
65
measure the level of “language load” that an ELL student is capable of compared to
their actual academic content knowledge (Abedi, Leon, and Mirocha, 2005, p. 2).
Additional research is recommended in order to determine the most authentic
and informative way to measure academic proficiency in ELL students. No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) guidelines measure achievement based upon 5 bands of
proficiency, “far below basic,” “below basic,” “basic,” “proficient,” and “advanced.”
The category of ‘basic” presently represents student achievement that is below grade
level proficient. Present day research is being conducted to evaluate the realignment
of the proficiency bands to include the “basic” category as grade-level.
Finally, because the teacher is a school’s most controllable and significant
factor concerning academic achievement, the effect of teacher effectiveness demands
additional study. Research indicates that the single most significant factor in how
well a student learns is how well a teacher teaches (Marzano, 2003). There is as wide
a variation in teaching ability, as there are teachers. “The implication of this finding
is that seemingly more can be done to enhance education by improving the
effectiveness of teachers than by any other single factor” (p. 72). The ability of the
teacher to deliver a lesson that is impactful and engaging for each student can be a
significant factor for student achievement. Research and discourse into the
relationship between teacher performance and student achievement is at the forefront
of educational reform particularly as it relates to authentic means of measuring
teacher performance.

66

Conclusion

The analysis of the scaled scores suggests that the ELL students made
substantial progress when compared to expected progress as per the ELL students in
California. However, there was no statistically significant difference between Grant
and Winslow High Schools. A reasonable conclusion is that the district itself was
doing something right.
The WUSD, due to its long-term lack of student achievement under NCLB,
has found itself in “program improvement” status for many years. The consequence
of this status has been for the California Department of Education (CDE) to require
the leadership of the district to initiate comprehensive measures to enhance student
learning. One of the measures, implemented district-wide, has been direct
instruction. The teachers and administrators of the WUSD have been trained
extensively to examine and analyze student achievement data through the use of
benchmarks, CST scores, and CELDT proficiency levels. Additionally, teacher
specialists, at both the district and site levels, regularly conduct professional
development workshops at each school site in an attempt to positively impact
classroom teachers and their instructional strategies. These strategies have included
targeting instruction for specific groups of students, including ELL students,
developing enhanced teacher collaborative skills and allowing additional time to
engage in pedagogical discourse. The WUSD professional development team has
also been responsible for training certificated staffs on how to tighten the focus
67
between curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Finally, implementation of a
district-wide standards-based report card at every grade level and every school has
provided a common measure for standards proficiency and has engendered the
examination and teaching of individual learning objectives contained within the
academic content standards.
No doubt, the results of the findings of this study reflect an approach to
student learning that utilizes multiple strategies to meet the needs of all students
rather than a single intervention. However, Explicit Direct Instruction has proven
itself to be worthy of the effort and expense as education seeks the key to open the
door of understanding and achievement for all students.
68

REFERENCES

Abedi, J. (2004). Inclusion of students with limited English proficiency in NAEP:
Classification and measurement issues (CSE Report 629). Los Angeles, CA:
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
(CRESST), Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE), Graduate School of
Education and Information Studies (GSEIS), University of California, Los
Angeles.

Abedi, J. (2004, January/February). The No Child Left Behind Act and English
language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational
Researcher 33(1), 4-14.

Abedi, J., Bailey, A., Butler, F., Castellon-Wellington, M., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J.
(2005). The validity of administering large-scale content assessments to
English language learners: An investigation from three perspectives (CSE
Report 663). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), Center for the Study of
Evaluation (CSE), Graduate School of Education and Information Studies
(GSEIS), University of California, Los Angeles.

Buly, M.R. & Valencia, S. (2003, April). Meeting the needs of failing readers:
Cautions and considerations for state policy (Document O-03-1). Seattle,
WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy.

Butler, F.A. & Stevens, R. (2001). Standardized assessments of the content
Knowledge of English language learners K – 12: Current trends and
dilemmas. Language Testing 2001, 18 (4) 409-427.

California Department of Education (2006). School Report - API Growth and
Targets Met. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from
http://api.cde.ca.gov/APIBase2006/2006GrowthSch.aspx?allcds=196473360
18550.

Clark, R.E. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting
the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979), Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis
issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin Company.

69
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: a blueprint for creating schools
that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Press.

Dataworks Educational Research Inc. (2005) Fowler, CA. training materials

EdSource (2005, June). The state’s official measures of school performance.
Mountain View, CA: EdSource, Inc.

Gallimore, R. and Tharp, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life, teaching, learning
and schooling in social context. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Howell, D. (2004). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences, (5
th
Ed.)
Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning Inc., Brooks/Cole.

Lachat, M.A. (2004). Standards-based instruction and assessment for English
language learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lauer, P.A., Snow, D., Martin-Glenn, M., Van Buhler, R.J., Stoutemyer, K. & Snow-
Renner, R. (2005). The influence of standards on K – 12 teaching and student
learning: A research synthesis. Regional Educational Laboratory (Contract
#ED-01-CO-0006). McREL.

Manning, J.M. (2007). Alternatives for achievement: a mathematics intervention for
english learners. Doctoral dissertation. Los Angeles, CA: University of
Southern California.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
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. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Mehan, H., Hubbard, L., & Villanueva, I. (1994). Forming academic identities
Accommodation without assimilation among involuntary minorities.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 25(2), 91-117.

70
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Paul, T., Swanson, S., Zhang, W., & Hehenberger, L. (1997). Learning information
system effects on reading, language arts, math, science, and social studies.
Madison, WI: Institute for Academic Excellence, Inc. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 421 686).

Payne, R. (2005). A Framework for understanding poverty. (4
th
rev. ed.). Highlands,
TX: aha! Process, Inc.

Reeves, D. (2004). Making standards work: How to implement standards-based
assessments in the classroom, school, and district. Advanced Learning
Press, Englewood, CO.

Schmoker, M. & Marzano, R.J. (1999). Realizing the promise of standards-based
education. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 17-21.

Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York, NY. Bantam Doubleday Publishing Group.

United States Code (2002). Public Law 107-110, The No Child Left Behind Act of
2001.

Yee, V.N. (2007) An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on
the academic achievement of english language learners. Doctoral
dissertation. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.

Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture
of continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of a standards-based intervention, Explicit Direct Instruction, on the academic achievement of English Language Learners on the English Language Arts portion of the California Standards Test (CST). The Explicit Direction Instruction treatment was administered in an experimental school and pre and post intervention measures were used to access growth in the experimental school. A quasi-experimental design using a similar school as a comparison also was used.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

The impact of restructuring the language arts intervention program and its effect on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

An evaluation of the impact of direct instruction intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Alternatives for achievement: a mathematics intervention for English learners

PDF

The block schedule and the English language learners: impact on academic performance and graduation rate at Oxbow High School

PDF

English learners' performance on the California Standards Test at Aviles Elementary

PDF

Examining the effectiveness of the intervention programs for English learners at MFC intermediate school

PDF

The effectiveness of the cycle of inquiry on middle school English-learners in English-language arts

PDF

The implementation of studio intervention at a medical magnet high 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

Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school

PDF

The effect of site support teams on student achievement in seven northern California schools

PDF

An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of algebra students

PDF

The impact of professional learning communities and block scheduling on English language learner students at Oak Point Middle School

PDF

Closing the science achievement gap for ninth grade English learners through standards- and inquiry-based science instruction

PDF

Comparative evaluation of English learner student achievement in inner city urban schools

PDF

An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district

PDF

The implementation of strategies to minimize the achievement gap for African-American, Latino, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students

PDF

The effects of open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction on the test performance of English language learners (ELLS) and re-designated fluent English proficient students ...

Asset Metadata

Creator Mannion, William Martin (author)

Core Title The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/22/2009

Defense Date 09/03/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Academic Achievement,English language learners,interventions,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), Brown, Richard Sherdon (committee member), Yee, Virginia (committee member)

Creator Email wmannion@gmail.com,wmannion@wcusd.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2608

Unique identifier UC1440959

Identifier etd-Mannion-3291 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-252418 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2608 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Mannion-3291.pdf

Dmrecord 252418

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mannion, William Martin

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