Action Research Plan

Capstone: Action Research ProjectSarah ChristiansonAmerican Public UniversityMay 23, 2015

1

Task #1: Formulating a Research Question

Before I conduct any research, I must formulate a research question using three steps. First, I need to identify a discrepancy somewhere in my practice. Second, I need to use starting point strategies to find a place to begin. Third, I can clarify my focus and formulate a research question. 2

Formulating a Research QuestionDiscrepancy

Research starts with a discrepancy. According to Herbert Altritchter, these discrepancies can be between planned expectations and practice, between a situation and goals or between two different peoples views of a situation (2008). In my practice I noticed that while coteaching was recommended by the district for most English Language Learners, there was insufficient training for language specialists and zero training for content area teachers.

3

Formulating a Research QuestionStarting PointStrategy #1: GAP STRATEGY (Altritcher, 2008)Directed Freewrite Tell a Critical Friend or Research Group about the Gap

Strategy #2: INDIVIDUAL BRAINSTORMING (Altritcher, 2008)How to differentiate more effectively for English Language Learners (ELLs) in a coteaching classroom?

Next, a researcher should use starter strategies to make the discrepancies explicit. I used two strategies recommended by Herbert Altritcher to find my starting point for research: the Gap Strategy and Brainstorming. Two things that I regularly practice while I teach are reflecting on paper and discussions with mentor teachers. A directed freewrite means that I write down my thoughts about a particular topic. I wrote notes about the discrepancy after reading a book about coteaching I received from the district and then discussed my notes with a mentor teacher. After I told my story, she asked me questions about my gap without making any suggestions. Then she told me about her own experience with a discrepancy, and I was also able to ask her questions. During the discussion I realized that my coteaching relationships were disorganized and instruction was more reactive then prescriptive. My coteachers and I needed to experiment with an approach to our coteaching that would more purposely differentiate for English Language Learners (ELLs). 4

This brainstorming map labels the areas that I noticed my English Language Learners needed differentiation. Not being proficient in English made reading and writing at grade level challenging. It also made some students struggle to understand videos, lectures or even academic conversations with classmates. Some of our internationals struggled to connect with the content because of cultural differences. For instance, a lesson on the American Revolution is difficult for a student whose home culture values cooperation over individualism. Schools are different in every country and two of my students had never attended school, so classroom expectations were difficult. English Language Learners need opportunities to practice spoken English and do well with cooperative learning activities. Vocabulary was a challenge for students just beginning to learn English, but it remained a problem for students who had been in the United States for longer. Even those more advanced language learners were struggling with academic vocabulary.

After brainstorming areas that our English Language Learners needed differentiation, we tried to find a way to organize these issues. One problem seemed to affect most of the others: vocabulary. This problem affected their ability to read, speak about the content, listen to others talk about the content and their writing. In addition, different ELLs needed different types of vocabulary. Some were still learning basic English words while others lacked more sophisticated academic vocabulary knowledge, especially when the academic concepts were unfamiliar in their previous cultural experiences. I decided to start looking for ways to better teach and differentiate vocabulary instruction for our students. 5

Formulating a Research QuestionClarifying FocusStrategy #1: CONVERSATION WITH COLLEAGUES (Altritcher, 2008)Discussed: How to help ELLs at all proficiency level interact with grade level material.Strategy #2: REFLECTIVE JOURNAL ENTRY (Altritcher, 2008)New focus: Tiered Content Vocabulary Instruction for English Language Learners (ELLs)

Altritcher says the starting point is a first impression that needs to be further clarified (2008). I began by conversing with colleagues about how to help ELLs at all proficiency levels interact with grade level material. The teachers were particularly worried because both the teacher and the students would be evaluated by end-of-grade tests. Next, I completed a reflective journal entry to process my conversations and brainstorming. I decided that more focused and consistent content area vocabulary instruction would help ESL students comprehend and work with the content in texts, conversation, and in their output. Specifically, I would like to try tiered content vocabulary instruction which is using the tiers or language proficiency levels that ESL students are already placed in to create two or three sets of overlapping vocabulary lists. Differentiating the vocabulary lists in this way would help students read, write, speak and listen in their content classes at the highest level of English that they are capable at the time. 6

Research QuestionDo ESL students improve on assessments in a coteaching classroom if they receive Tiered Content Vocabulary Instruction?

I formulated the research question: ______. This question is viable for research. It is specific and data collection is feasible within the scope of my everyday activities in the classroom. 7

Related QuestionsDo English as a Second Language (ESL) students improve on formal assessments in a coteaching Language Arts classroom if they receive tiered content vocabulary instruction?

Do English as a Second Language (ESL) students improve on informal assessments in a coteaching Language Arts classroom if they receive tiered content vocabulary instruction?

8

Task #2: Data CollectionQuantitative data from Formal Assessments

Qualitative data from Informal Assessments

Triangulation for credibility and validity (Sagor, 2011; Altritcher, 2008)

I will collect both qualitative and quantitative data. The Quantitative data is already collected in a normal classroom, but it provides an incomplete picture of student response to instruction. Generally, it is conducted on one day for a certain number of hours, and there are many effects of instruction that cannot be quantified. Quantitative data for the purposes of this study will be through informal assessments and should allow to me more deeply understand the relationship between instruction and performance.

Triangulation is a research practice in which several different sources of data are collected that lead to the same conclusion (Sagor, 2011). Both Altritcher and Sagor recommend using triangulation during data collection because triangulated corroborating evidence imparts validity to the study (Altritcher, 2008; Sagor, 2011). If several different sources all lead to the same conclusion, the conclusion seems more credibility and valid (Sagor, 2011).

9

Data TriangulationData Source 1Data Source 2Data Source 3Pre- and post-tests of grade level reading comprehensionCompare rate of growth on MAP test from previous year to current oneCompare rate of growth on ACCESS test from previous year to current oneESL Teacher observationsTicket out the doorMainstream Teacher observationsCompare Ticket out the door to Test scoresEnd of Year Student Surveys to research journalCompare End of Year Teacher Surveys to one another

FormalRelationshipInformal

This chart has three sections. In the top row I will collect existing data from formal assessment and grades. There are three main sources of formal assessment that are already taken in every Language Arts classroom. Students are given Reading Comprehension tests at the beginning and end of the school year. Some students take them multiple times during the school year for RTI as well. English as a Second Language students take the ACCESS test for English language proficiency and all students take MAP tests at the beginning, middle and end of the year to assess student growth.

In the second row I will collect informal data that will give me a better understanding of why students might have gotten the scores they received during formal assessment. There are often many factors that affect student performance. Perhaps a student was diligent all year and showed great progress on informal assessments but was sick on the day of the ACCESS test causing them to perform poorly.

The third row is the most important section as in it I look for a relationship between the data and instruction. Student and cooperating teacher perspectives after the activities and at the end of the year may also shed light on how helpful this method was for English Language Learners. Perhaps it benefits English Language Learners, but hurt another population of students in the classroom. After triangulating the data, I should be able to see patterns of student behavior, student perceptions and my own observations and how they are negative, positively or neutrally affected by tiered vocabulary instruction. 10

Organizing Formal Data in a MatrixStudent NameReading Comprehension (Pre-)Reading Comprehension (Post-)Reading Comprehension (GROWTH)MAP Test (Pre-)MAP Test(Post-)MAP Test (GROWTH)ACCESS Test(Last Year)ACCESS Test(This Year)ACCESS Test(GROWTH)

From this data it would be simple to highlight students in different colors who showed growth, lack of growth or went backwards. It would also be easy to sort by whether or not students achieved, exceeded or did not meet expected growth. This data could then be compared to the informal data.11

Organizing Informal Data through CodingCode student and teacher responses to find patterns in the data (Altritcher, 2008)

Reveal outside factors affecting student performance

Reveal unintended consequences of mode of instruction

Help determine teacher and student attitudes regarding mode of instruction

The informal data should be organized into categories. This process is called coding. For this study, I will use inductive coding. I will read through the first collected data and begin highlighting key words in relation to the research question. During a second reading, I will assign a code to each of the key ideas that I want to code (Altritcher, 2008). I would like to have my coteacher decide on the categories with me and then separately code the data. As we discuss ways that we might have differently coded the material, we should be able to avoid some of the blind spots that occur when a person researches their own practice.

There are several ways that this informal data will improve data analysis when compared to formal data. 1, 2, 3 (above)12

Task #3: Literature ReviewELLs are growing in the United States (Institute of Education Statistics, 2014).

The current trend is towards inclusion of the growing number of English as a Second Language students into mainstream classes (Honigsfeld, 2010).

Coteaching is defined as two certified teachers one general educator and one special educator share responsibility for planning, delivering, and evaluating instruction for a diverse group of students (Kloo, 2008, p. 13).

Collaboration is tricky, but organization and clearly defined roles for both teachers are key elements to successful collaboration (Kloo, 2008, McClure, 2010).

Idea comes from special education research on inclusiveness (Honigsfeld, 2010; Kloo, 2008)Very little has actually been done in the field of second language instruction, especially in the United States (McClure, 2010). Collaboration Problems: planning, administrative support, teacher inclination/personality

13

Literature ReviewResearch shows that integrating language and content instruction is more effective than language instruction alone (Al Qadi, 2008; Bigelow, 2006; Brown, 2007; Creese, 2010; Genesee, 1994; Honigsfeld, 2010; McCallum, 2013).

Content-Based Instruction (CBI) does not impede learning for native speakers in the classroom (Genesee, 1994).

Improving content area vocabulary instruction for English Language Learners (ELLs) is a research-based instructional method (Beck, 2008).

CBI has been proven successful in many different research studies and has become more and more widely accepted. Coteaching is a unique way to combine content and language objectives with two experts working together in one room. 14

PublicationSchool Faculty Meeting

District-wide ESL Meeting

Written Forum or Publication

Possible ResultsSuccess!Conduct study again to widen scope of studyRecommend to other teachersFailure!Scrap the programBegin again at the Starting PointChoose another MethodSomething in BetweenReflect on the DiscrepancyChoose a new Method and begin research again

ReferencesAl Qadi, H. (2008) Language across the curriculum and empowering limited English proficient (LEP) students: A language integrated approach in teaching content area classes. Journal of English as an International Language, 3189-200.Altricher H., Felder A, Posch P, & Somekh B. (2008). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to action research across the professions. 2nd ed. Kindle ed. Routledge: New York. Beck I., McKowan M., & Kucan L. (2008). Choosing which words to teach: Three tier models of vocabulary instruction. Retrieved from https://www.aea267.k12.ia.us/system/assets/uploads/files/76/which_words_to_teach.pdfBigelow M., Ranney S., & Dahlman A. (2006). Keeping the language focus in content-based ESL instruction through proactive curriculum-planning. TESL Canada Journal, 24(1), 40-58.

Brown, H. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. Pearson Education, Inc., White Plains, NY. Creese, A. (2010). Content-focused classrooms and learning english: How teachers collaborate. Theory into Practice, 49(2), 99-105.Genesee, F. (1994) Integrating Language and Content: Lessons from Immersion. Educational Practice Reports. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/principles/Genesee1994/genesee1994.pdfHonigsfeld, A. & Dove, M. (2007). Co-teaching in the ESL classroom. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 74(2), 8-14. Institute of Education Statistics. (2014). Fast facts: English language learners. National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96

Kloo, A., & Zigmond, N. (2008).Coteaching revisited: Redrawing the blueprint.Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 12-20.McCallum, M. & Miller, J. (2013). Supporting english as an additional language students in science: Integrating content and language. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 59(2), 37-42.Mcclure, G. & Cahnmann-Taylor, M. (2010).Pushing back against push-in: ESOL teacher resistance and the complexities of coteaching.TESOL Journal: 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.tesolmedia.com/docs/TJ/firstissue/09_TJ_McClureCahnmannTaylor.pdfSagor R. (2011). The Action Research Guidebook: A Four-Stage Process for Educators and School Teams. Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA.