Building Bridges: A Pre-Ninth Grade Intervention for Low Literacy Newcomers Deborah Short, Bridges...
-
Upload
maximilian-cooper -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of Building Bridges: A Pre-Ninth Grade Intervention for Low Literacy Newcomers Deborah Short, Bridges...
Building Bridges: A Pre-Ninth Grade Intervention for Low
Literacy NewcomersDeborah Short, Bridges EvaluatorElaine Klein, Bridges Principal InvestigatorSuzanna McNamara, Bridges Curriculum CoordinatorAnnie Smith, Bridges PD CoordinatorRebecca Curinga, Bridges ResearcherBrenda Custodio, Discussant
TESOL 2014, Portland, Oregon, March 28, 2014
Website: http://bridges.ws.gc.cuny.edu/
BRIDGES Is a project of the Center for Advanced Study in
Education (CASE) and the Research Institute for the Study of Language in Urban Society (RISLUS), The Graduate Center, City University of New York
Is generously supported by grants from The NYC Department of EducationThe NYS Education Department The NY Community Trust
3
4
Outline of TESOL Colloquium• U.S. & NYC Context – Deborah Short, Academic
Language Research & Training• Overview of Bridges Development and
Implementation – Elaine Klein, City University of New York
• Bridges Curriculum Development – Suzanna McNamara, Bronx International High School
• Bridges Professional Development and Coaching – Annie Smith, Bright Minds Educational Consulting
• Bridges Research & Evaluation – Rebecca Curinga, City University of New York, and Deborah Short
• Discussion – Brenda Custodio, Ohio State University
U.S. & NYC Context for Newcomer
Students
6
Exemplary Programs for Newcomer ELLs at the Secondary Level (2008-2011)
National research study by Center for Applied LinguisticsSurvey of middle and high school programs
Online, searchable database (www.cal.org/CALWebDB/Newcomer) Case studies of 10 promising programsReport: Helping Newcomer Students
Succeed in Secondary Schools and Beyond
(www.cal.org/help-newcomers-succeed)
Funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York
7
Newcomer students
are found in every state in the U.S. 8
Newcomer Students – Definitions Vary
Newcomer ELLs lack English proficiency and have gaps in their educational backgrounds. They may be• Literate newcomers• SIFE (students with interrupted formal
education) newcomers• Late-entrant immigrant
newcomers
10
First Language Literacy
Grade Level Content Knowledge
English Literacy Development
Literate(full schooling)
+ + faster
Literate(partial schooling)
+ - average
SIFE - - slower at first
Late entrants can fit into any of the categories.
Newcomer Programs
Specifically designed for recent immigrants—with no or limited English proficiency and often
limited formal educationEnrollment is for a limited time
Most are programs within a schoolMay use sheltered instruction or bilingual approach for curriculum, instruction and
assessmentMost programs are for students who are not
ready for regular ESL 1 classes. 11
Newcomer Program Goals
• Help students acquire beginning English skills
• Provide some instruction in core content areas
• Guide student acculturation to U.S. schools• Develop or strengthen native language
literacy
12
Newcomer Database Findings
• Over 90 countries of origin and 55 native languages are represented.
• Student size in programs ranges from 9 students in one high school to 930 in another.
• Some programs serve mostly refugees; others, immigrants; and others, a mix.
• 96% of programs have some SIFE students.• Over 90% of students qualify for free/reduced
lunch.13
SIFE: Sub-group of Emergent Bilinguals (EBs) in NYS HSs
Adolescent newcomers Limited home language (L1) literacy Limited academic skills 2+ years of educational gaps = SIFE Presently over 15,800 SIFE in NYC high
schools: 10% of total EBs; mostly in grades 9-12 (NYC DOE Demographic Report, 2013) 14
What do we know about students like these in our schools?
EBs in NYC (NYCDOE Report: The Class of 2012 Four-Year Longitudinal Report and 2011-2012 Event Dropout Rates) 4-Year Graduation Rates: 44.5% EBs vs. 68.4% EPs Drop-out Rates: 18.8% EBs vs. 9.2% EPsNote: 1/3 of all dropouts occur in 9th grade (AEE,
2010)
SIFE in NYC (Advocates for Children of New York, 2010)
Performance on all measures is significantly below other EBs’ 16
Urgent need for dramatic interventions to better serve
these students Klein & Martohardjono (2006) August & Shanahan (2006) DeCapua, Smathers & Tang (2007) Short & Fitzsimmons (2007) Garrison-Fletcher, Barrera-Tobon, Fredericks, Klein,
Martohardjono, O'Neill & Raña (2008) Advocates for Children Report (2010) Short & Boyson (2012)
17
Klein & Martohardjono, 2006In NYC study of 107 Spanish-speaking 9th grade SIFE, researchers found that of these students Almost all show typical language development in L1
(oral comp, lexicon, syntax, working memory) All show significant delays in
Text–level reading skills in L1 (M: gr 3.5) Content area knowledge in L1 (M: gr 2)
Only 6% had 2+year gaps in prior schooling
18
Accelerating language, literacy and content learning for emergent
bilinguals with limited home language literacy
19
The Building of BridgesPurpose and Objectives: To prepare students for achievement in mainstream 9th grade classes and subsequent grades by: Developing academic English language skills. Providing a rigorous, accelerated transitional program,
focused on building background content knowledge and academic skills.
Developing and implementing the Bridges Curriculum, a research-based, interdisciplinary intervention that integrates language, literacy and academic content across ELA, Math, SS and Science.
Developing and implementing strong professional development (PD) for high school content area teachers to deliver the Bridges Curriculum and its instructional strategies.
20
21
Theoretical and Empirical Framework, I
Very strong relationships between Academic achievement and academic literacy
(Cloud et al., 2010)
Academic literacy in L1 and L2 Transfer of skills (Cummins, 1979, 1981, 1984; Gilbert, Lundstrum, & Moseley, 2005; August & Shanahan, 2006)
Strong oral language and reading comp. ((L1) Goswami 2000; (L2) Freeman & Freeman, 2009; Cloud et al., 2010): Vocabulary (e.g. Brisbois, 1995), Morphology (Curinga, 2014), Syntax (Martohardjono et al., 2005; Morvay, 2009)
22
Theoretical and Empirical Framework, II
Centrality of language and literacy in schema building (P.L. Carrell, 1984, 1987) content teaching (Janzen, 2008)
Homogeneous/Sheltered grouping accessibility of content and language (Short, 2000; Tomlinson, 2003; Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007)
Focus on input and interaction for foundational text level literacy (Long, 1980; Gass & Madden, 1985; Mackey, 1999; Gass, 2008)
23
Theoretical and Empirical Framework, III
Socio-cultural theory language learning takes place in social context with help of scaffolding (Gibbons, 2003; Walqui, 2006)
More school time needed for EBs, particularly SIFE, in order to develop academic literacy and build schema (Cummins, 2006; Klein & Martohardjono, 2006; Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007; Goldenberg, 2008)
24
25
Our Bridges StudentsLow-literacy high school newcomers:
Home language reading and writing assessed from intake diagnostics =
0 - 4th grade levelDiverse backgrounds, languages and
cultures Oral questionnaire administered in home
language upon entry to school
25
27
Bridges Students and Other Emergent Bilinguals
Bridges StudentsSimilarities:• Knowledge of home
language (L1) and culture
• Little to no knowledge of English (L2)
• Age-appropriate cognitive capacity
Other EBsSimilarities:• Knowledge of home
language (L1) and culture
• Little to no knowledge of English
(L2)• Age-appropriate
cognitive capacity
28
Bridges Students and Other Emergent Bilinguals
Bridges StudentsDifferences:• Cannot read or write
proficiently in L1• Reading skills in L1 are 5
grades or more below grade level (i.e., 9th grader reads at 4th grade level, max)
• Severely limited oral academic vocabulary and content knowledge in L1
Other EBsDifferences:• Can read and write in L1
• Reading skills in L1 are grade-level appropriate
• Grade-level appropriate oral academic vocabulary and content knowledge in L1
What makes Bridges?
29
School Administrators
Students(20 max)
Diagnostic Assessments
Teachers(4 subj.)
Selection for Team
Bridges Team
Curriculum
PD & Coaching
Evaluation
Math ELA
Science
Social Studies
33
Math ELA
ScienceSocial Studies
34
Bridges ImplementationYear One (2011-12): 4 NYC High Schools, 67 students entering 9th grade
Bridges Curriculum devel. began (ELA, SS, Sci, Math)
PD for Bridges teachers began
Year Two (2012-13): 3 NYC High Schools, 58 students entering 9th grade
Bridges Curriculum development cont’ PD for Bridges teachers; Curric. Coaching
began 35
Bridges ImplementationYear Three (2013-14): 4 NYC High Schools, 77 students entering 9th grade
PD for NYC SIFE teachers; Curric Coaching cont’
Upper NYS PDs began in 3 school districts; program planning for Bridges next year in these districts New SIFE Curriculum in ELA and FLL being
developed for NYS students, to be completed late 2015
36
39
Reflections Collaborative design process; schools must take
ownership and custom-design program Bridges needs strong support/buy-in from school
administrators, who provide resources for Bridges Necessity for Bridges teachers to be open,
flexible, willing to work with challenging students Team meetings are essential and teachers need
extra time to meet and collaborate; Team Leader needs released time
Adequate PD is essential (quantity and quality)
40
Accelerating language, literacy and content learning for emergent
bilinguals with limited home language literacy
Bridges Curriculum Development
41
42
Acceleration in Bridges
43
Learn to Read (basic)
Read to Learn (academic)
Immediate Context
Academic
No Print Skills
Concrete & Pragmatic
AcademicAbstract
LITERACY
CONCEPTS
THINKING
Starting Point Goal
Limited participation in academic contexts
Full participation in academic contexts
A Responsive Curriculum
Bridges StudentsLow Literacy in any Language
Limited Academic Concepts
Academic/ Abstract Thinking
Bridges CurriculumTeach learning to read
Build conceptualknowledge
Develop academic language, literacy, & habits of mind
44
Curriculum Features that Promote Acceleration
1. Four subjects, four units
2. Interdisciplinary thematic connections
3. Projects driven by essential questions
4. Structured unit cycle across classes
45
1. Four Subjects
• Apprentice students into each discipline
• Build high-traction concepts relevant to K-12
• Include topics from K-8 (some 9)• All teachers integrate content, language,
and literacy
46
2. Thematic & Interdisciplinary• Overarching theme for each of the four units
across subjects
• Key concepts and essential questions linked across classes to promote deep conceptual knowledge
47
Interdisciplinary Units & Essential Questions
48
Studying a Concept through Discipline Lenses
Resources
49
3. Culminating Projects• Units build toward project in Week 6 of each unit
• Synthesis of unit content and language
• Integration of listening, speaking, reading, writing
• Creative response to essential question that engage and provoke inquiry
• Student-centered and collaborative
• Requires planning, organizing, and problem solving
• Presentation of finished product50
Unit 3 ELA Project
51
52
53
4. Bridges Unit Cycle
54
WEEK INSTRUCTIONAL FOCUS
1 Engage, Build Background & Introduce EQ
2 Case Study 1Experience > Oral Language > Reading
3 Presentations > Writing
4 Case Study 2Experience > Oral Language > Reading
5 Presentations > Writing
6 Synthesis: Creative Project & Presentation
7 Claim Evidence Talking & Writing: Response to EQ
Interdisciplinary Academic Skills
55
• Describe• Explain• Define• Compare &
Contrast• Cause & Effect• Main Idea & Detail• Summarize• Evaluate• Claim-Evidence
Reflections• Building the plane as we fly it• Challenge of integrating multiple parts • Learning to Read – underdeveloped• Struggle to balance basic with academic• Limited collaboration - designing, vetting,
and norming• Curriculum needs to provide more
guidance for teachers (what and how)56
Next Steps• Regular collaboration on Bridges team for
vetting, norming, and refining the vision
• Tighter alignment of the many parts within and across units
• Make the implicit pieces more explicit (e.g., interdisciplinary connections across classes)
• Develop more lesson plans to guide teachers
• More focused development of Learning to Read
• Integration of more technology57
Bridges Professional Development
58
Participating Schools
School A• ELA content
& ESL• Social Studies
(new teacher)
• Science• Math• Lang and Lit
School B• ELA (ESL)• Social Studies
(new teacher)
• Science• Math • Drama• Lang and Lit
(new teacher)
School C• ELA (ESL)• Social Studies• Science (new
teacher)• Math (new
teacher)• NLA
60
PD Objectives• Share curriculum content and goals.• Support teachers to develop
instruction using the curriculum which integrates the Core Instructional Elements.
• Foster a learning community among teachers.
61
Core Instructional Elements
62
• Classroom environment as resource for learning
• Oral language development • Home language as a resource for learning• Development of foundational literacy• Integration of language, literacy and content• Academic literacy• Critical thinking• Digital literacy
Session One3 days in August
• Introduce Core Instructional Elements
• Classroom Culture and Community
• Critical Thinking: Essential Questions
• Comprehensible Input (reading)
• Home Language as a Resource
• Overview of Curriculum
63
September and October
64
Session Two3 hours in November
• Introduce the observation protocol• Introduce Bridges lesson template
• Introduce the distinction between content and language objectives
65
Research Feedback: Areas for Development
• Vocabulary instruction: recording and interacting with words
• Content and language objectives• Modeling of learning strategies• Hands on practice with interaction
and elaboration66
Moving Instruction Forward
• Focus PD on targeted topics given the feedback from researchers and coaches;
• Implement onsite coaching with clear plan and protocols.
67
Session Three2 hours in January
68
• Introduce onsite coaching• Review content and language
objectives• Share techniques to introduce
vocabulary• Raise word awareness/play
69
Coaching Design• Align all onsite training to training objectives.• Following group PD sessions, all training
should align with and support content of recent training.
• Use the lesson template to analyze and track teacher progress.
• Provide teachers with timely feedback.• Document training visits with teachers so
that we can both analyze teacher progress and evaluate our own effectiveness.
Coaching Methods
• Model a method or a lesson and debrief following the class.
• Co-plan a lesson, observe lesson and debrief lesson with teacher.
• Cultivate opportunities for inter-visitation.
71
Coaching Cycle• Coach schedules a visit.• Teacher and coach discuss topic and content of
lesson. • Teacher shares lesson with coach (24 hours).• Coach provides feedback (8 hours) before class.• Coach observes the class.• Debrief to reflect on the lesson as soon as
possible after it is taught. • Coach provides teacher with written feedback
that includes next steps. 72
Reflection on PD
Establish shared instructional principles:• Norm (through classroom observation);• Establish systems to ensure that work
on curriculum, PD and coaching are integrated;
Balance presentation of methods and opportunities for teacher application.
73
Reflections on Coaching• Develop clear objectives for coaching and reflect
on progress;
• Set coaching goals with each teacher to individualize approach;
• Ensure that teachers have adequate time with the coach to foster development and opportunity to act on feedback;
• Embed systems to support coherence and shared understanding about curriculum and instruction;
• Integrate collaborative opportunities for teachers.
74
Moving Forward: 2013-14• Provide teachers with planning year and more
training ‘up front’.
• Provide regular full day PD that highlights methods using curriculum (every 6 weeks).
• Capture methods on video and use to develop webinars;
• Provide sessions for administrators around program design and instruction;
• Foster opportunities for inter-visitation within and across schools. 75
Accelerating language, literacy and content learning for emergent
bilinguals with limited home language literacy
76
Bridges Year 2 Evaluation
77
Year 2 Evaluation Context
• 3 High Schools in NYC, 1 in Queens, 2 in the Bronx (all in second year of implementation)
• 13 Teachers in the Bridges program (social studies, ELA/ESL, science, and math)
• 58 Students (although numbers varied throughout the year)
78
Year 2 Evaluation• Schools A & B: Specialized school with inter-
disciplinary, language through content approach. 9th graders are all ELL. Separate classes for ESL instruction are not usually offered. Periods last 1 hour.- Bridges students on one team- Have additional language and literacy course
• School C: typical high school with bilingual approach. 9th graders are ELLs and EOs. ELLs take an ESL class. Periods last 45 min.- Bridges students have 3 periods of English language development (incl. Bridges ELA and ESL)- Have native language arts classes too (Spanish, Bangla)
79
Data CollectionStudents:• Background and demographic info (via interviews) • Literacy assessments, pre- v. post-tests• Writing samples, pre- v. post-tests• Attendance• Academic achievement (grades, standardized tests)
Teachers:• Background and professional experience• Observations (using a modified SIOP protocol)• Interviews
80
Year 2 Students (N=58)
81
Year 2 Students (N=58)
82
Year 2 Teachers
83
• To record what is happening in Bridges classrooms:• Extent to which teachers implement the
Bridges curriculum & instructional practices• To compare outcomes from pre-PD and
post-PD• To inform future decisions:
• Curriculum & observation protocol revisions • PD sessions (data-driven objectives)
Purposes of the Observations
84
Bridges SIOP Observation Protocol
85
Structure of the Protocol:• 5-point rating scale• 9 categories include: Learning Environment,
Lesson Preparation, Building Background, Comprehensible Input, Learning Processes, Interaction, Practice & Application, Lesson Delivery, Review & Assessment
Sample Protocol Items Unique to Bridges:• Classroom setting organized for literacy• Basic literacy skills emphasized
Inter-rater Reliability training of observers
Teacher Observation Results
86
English Early Literacy LENS
English Early Literacy Data Collection:• Pre-test (Nov 2012)• Post-test (May 2013)Structure of the Early Literacy LENS: • Sounds and Letters
• Sound discrimination • Sound-letter correspondence
• Early Reading • Word reading• Sentence matching to pictures• Sentence prediction
87
Student English Early LiteracyPre/Post Overall Results Pre Mean
% correctPost Mean % correct
t Sig.
English Early Literacy LENS (N=43)
All Total 65.3 76.7 5.01 .000
Sounds & Letters 70.9 81.4 4.49 .000
Early Reading 55.0 67.8 3.96 .000
88
Student English Early LiteracyPre/Post School Results Pre Mean
% correctPost Mean% correct
Mean Growth
English Early Literacy LENS
School A 67.6 78.0 10.4
School B 68.9 72.3 3.4
School C 57.1 79.7 22.6
89
Reading Comprehension LENS
Reading Comp. LENS Data Collection:• Post-test (June 2013)
Structure of the Reading Comprehension LENS: • Researcher-constructed, based on NYS CCLS• Grades 2-6• Reading passages with 4-5 m/c questions• Balanced fiction and non-fiction• Initial understanding and interpretation items
90
Student English Reading Comp. LENS Post Results Post Mean
% correctSD
English Reading Comp. LENS (N=46)
All Total 39.3 11.4
Initial Understanding 44.3 13.9
Interpretation 35.8 12.0
91
Student English Reading Comp. LENS Post School Results
92
N Mean % Correct
SD
English Reading Comp. LENS
School A 16 35.1 12.4
School B 20 41.4 11.3
School C 10 41.8 8.6
Student English Reading Comp. Grade Level Access Results
Below 2nd Grade
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
6th Grade
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
6
7
14
8
5
6
93
English Writing
Pre-writing sample, Bangla HL
94
Data Collection• Pre-test (Nov 2012)• Post-test (June 2013)
Writing Assessment• Same/different task
• school or neighborhood in home country and US• 7-point rating scale• Adapted from 6+1 Traits Beginning Writer Rubric
English Writing Pre-Post SamplesPre-writing sample, Spanish HL Post-writing sample, Spanish HL
95
Student English WritingPre/Post Overall Results
96
Pre Mean score
PostMean score
t Sig.
English Writing (N=33)All Total 1.3 2.1 -7.27 .000
Ideas 1.5 2.6 -5.40 .000
Organization 1.1 2.0 -6.12 .000
Voice 1.3 1.9 -3.69 .001
Word Choice 0.9 2.1 -7.86 .000
Fluency 1.3 2.0 -5.10 .000
Conventions 1.4 2.3 -6.52 .000
Presentation 1.3 2.1 -6.51 .000
Student English WritingPre/Post School Results
PreMean Score
PostMean Score
Mean Growth
English Writing Overall
School A 1.3 2.1 0.8
School B 1.3 2.3 1.0
School C 1.0 1.8 0.8
97
Student English Pre/Post Writing Level Results
only HL literacy
low beginner
mid beginner
high beginner
low intermediate
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1
6
15
9
2
7
12
13
1
0
Pre-writing Post-writing 98
Student Attendance
Bridges % present
9th grade % present
All Bridges 86.3 84.6
School A 84.7 87.8
School B 85.2 88.9
School C 90.7 77.1
99
100
Conclusions• The Bridges Curriculum met the students at their
educational level and advanced their learning. • Units integrated academic literacy and basic content
learning with critical thinking and project-based learning but needs more basic English instruction.
• All four language skills were practiced daily. • Students’ home language and cultures were respected
and valued. They learned about U.S. schools/culture.• Students made significant gains in English reading and
writing.• The PD needs to align more with the curriculum and
instructional vision.
Accelerating language, literacy and content learning for emergent
bilinguals with limited home language literacy
101
Website: http://bridges.ws.gc.cuny.edu/