Upload
paola-causby
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Los Angeles Unified School District
Program Evaluation and Research Branch
January 9, 2009
Evaluation of ELD PracticumYear 1 Report
2006-07
Gojko Vuckovic, Ph.D., Kathy Hayes, Ph.D., & Jesus Salazar, Ph.D.
2
This report examines implementation of the ELD program in 3rd and 4th grade classrooms looking at:
Regular Into English! lessons
Enhanced Into English! Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) lessons
Introduction
3
Sample
25 randomly selected schools
School Characteristic Index (SCI) 100 randomly selected classrooms
Two Grade 3 classrooms per school
Two Grade 4 classrooms per school
4
Data collection
Two classroom observations, once per semester
If ELD was taught, two additional consecutive days were observed
Open-ended teacher interviews and administrator surveys
5
Data gathering strategies used in observations
Fieldnotes 30-minute Timeline of Classroom
Interaction Structures Observation Summary Statement Observation Summary Scale Interview Protocols Administrator Survey
6
Data reduction and analysis
Application of a coding scheme to field notes and teacher interviews
The coded data were analyzed for descriptive statistics, frequencies, and crosstabs
7
The evaluation objective # 1
To document:
The capacity of the schools to support ELD Program implementation in 3rd and 4th grade classrooms serving English learners.
8
The evaluation objective # 2
To document:
The extent and nature of ELD Program
implementation in 3rd and 4th grade classrooms serving English learners.
9
The evaluation objective # 3
To document:
The effectiveness of ELD instruction as measured by student progress on CELDT and ELA CST.
10
Capacity – Professional development
83% of teachers completed the ELD Practicum.
Of remaining 17%, 10% had ELD 5 day Institute completed, 3% were trained by EL Coordinator, and 4% had no ELD training.
Teachers found demonstration lessons to be the most beneficial aspect of the professional development.
11
Capacity – ELD materials
82% of teachers had all of the ELD materials.
18% of teachers were missing some materials such as ballparking forms, Language Logs, lesson pictures, picture cards, CDs, and student books.
74% of teachers used supplemental materials, such as realia, visuals, literature, and the internet.
12
Implementation criteria
Number of lessons taught Number of objectives met Materials used ELD strategies used Students on task (engagement) Time spent on ELD
13
Specific time ranges dedicated to ELD instruction
Average minutes per day
Classrooms
30 to 45 60
More than 45 19
Less than 30 16
No ELD taught 5
14
Time by program and level
ELD Lesson TypeTime in minutes
Implemented Not Implemented
Enhanced 39 23
Regular 35 33
Regular and Enhanced 37 n.a.
Special Cases 44 38
Average 39 26
15
3rd Grade implementation
Semester ImplementedNot
ImplementedTotals
First 43 7 50
Second 37 13 50
16
4th Grade implementation
Semester Implemented Not
ImplementedTotals
First 37 13 50
Second 40 10 50
17
General factors contributing to no or very low implementation – Second semester (23 classes)
School site issue 17
Substitute teacher (2 also school site issue)
6
Professional development (2 also school site issue)
4
18
Specific factors contributing to no or very low implementation –
Second semester
No ELD instruction of any kind was observed
2
No ELD Program materials were used 4
Teacher cited timing issues 4
Only one lesson taught over 3 days 5
Grade level or student population issues 2
Other 6
19
ELD implementation by ELD program observed - Semester 1
ELD Program Implemented Not Implemented
N % N %
Enhanced 37 86% 6 14%
Regular 21 81% 5 19%
Enhanced & Regular
9 82% 2 18%
Special Cases 13 81% 3 19%
No ELD Program 0 0% 4 100%
Total 80 80% 20 20%
20
ELD implementation by ELD program observed - Semester 2
ELD ProgramImplemented Not Implemented
N % N %
Enhanced 48 94% 3 6%
Regular 8 57% 6 43%
Enhanced & Regular
11 100% 0 0%
Special Cases 10 53% 9 47%
No ELD Program 0 0% 5 100%
Total 77 77% 23 23%
21
Definitions of “Special cases”
Implemented Regular lessons taught with TBLT framework
Not Implemented Regular lessons taught with TBLT framework Made up lessons taught with TBLT framework Teacher self-created lesson with no connection
to the IE! books
22
Use of strategies Enhanced Into English!
ELD Strategies
Semester 1 (43 classes)
Semester 2 (51 classes)
N % N %
Backward Buildup 0 0% 1 2%
Ballparking 12 28% 8 16%
Corrective Recasting 19 44% 10 20%
Pull Out and Talk/Write 38 88% 45 88%
RASP 6 14% 2 4%
Think-Pair-Share 41 95% 48 94%
Thinking Maps 42 98% 50 98%
Vocalized Reading 33 77% 35 69%
23
Use of strategies Regular Into English!
ELD StrategiesSemester 1 (26 classes) Semester 2 (14 classes)
N % N %
Audio 14 54% 7 50%
Chant 11 42% 4 29%
Choral Reading 15 58% 6 43%
Collaborative Reading 1 4% 1 7%
Demonstrating 14 54% 12 86%
Echo Reading 4 15% 1 7%
Games 2 8% 1 7%
Graphs/Charts 16 62% 8 57%
Prior Knowledge 11 42% 7 50%
Realia 9 35% 2 14%
Think-Pair-Share 17 65% 7 50%
TPR 6 23% 2 14%
Visual/Illustrations 23 88% 13 93%
24
Effectiveness of ELD instructionCELDT
Grade Implemented Not Implemented
Gain N Gain N
3rd grade .03 361 -.19 112
4th grade .25 483 -.02 124
25
Effectiveness of ELD instructionELA CST
Grade Implemented Not Implemented
Gain N Gain N
3rd grade .00 379 -.32 118
4th grade -.06 505 -.35 118
26
Effect sizes
Grade ELA CSTImpl. vs Not Impl.
CELDTImpl. vs Not Impl.
3rd grade .32 .22
4th grade .29 .27
27
10 classes in which ELD levels 4 & 5 significantly outperformed lover
ELD levels
Differentiation
Classroom
# 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10
Suggested number 8 1 6 7 6 3 4 6 6 4
Completed number 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
28
10 classes - Differentiation practices not or rarely used
Questioning techniques based on ELD level Mapping Discussion prompts Activity options by level Different grouping for reading Generating different student responses by
facilitating simple, elaborate and complex sentences (some observed)
29
10 classes – Quality of teaching and learning analysis
Learning environment typically not student centered
No extra oral opportunities when needed Vocabulary needed for better understanding not
covered No assessment practices Rarely accessed prior knowledge No evidence of listening to students to inform
teaching
30
15 high performing classrooms
Classroom and implementation level (I*, NI**)
Grade
ELD Levels
Num. of ELs
CST ELA
Gains
CELDTGains
Classroom # 1(I) 3 1,2,3,4,5 17 .66 .31
Classroom # 2(I) 3 1,2,3,4,5 11 .37 .44
Classroom # 3(I) 4 1,2,3,4,5 17 .38 .76
Classroom # 4(I) 4 1,2,3,4,5 23 .56 .09
Classroom # 5(I) 3 3,4,5 6 .42 .25
Classroom # 6(I) 3 1,2,3,4,5 12 .65 .23
Classroom # 7(I) 3 3,4,5 6 .50 .70
Classroom # 8(I) 4 3,4,5 12 .61 .17
Classroom # 9(I) 4 1,2,3,4,5 13 .60 .28
Classroom # 10(NI) 4 1,2,3,4,5 25 .30 .41
Classroom # 11(NI) 3 1,2,3 11 .53 .33
Classroom # 12(I) 3 4,5 5 1.40 .26
Classroom #13(I) 4 4,5 16 .44 .71
Classroom # 14(I) 4 4,5 13 .85 .27
Classroom # 15(I) 3 4,5 4 .48 .39
31
15 classes - Quality of teaching and learning analysis
Lessons student centered Topics relevant to the students’ lives, needs and
interests Pacing plan adapted to meet the needs of the
students Extra oral opportunities provided Vocabulary in context taught Prior knowledge accessed Evidence of listening to the students
32
Recommendations
Implementation of the ELD program had a positive effect on student performance
LD superintendants and directors of school services should plan for the professional development of school administrators and monitor the capacity of schools to implement and support the ELD program.
33
Recommendations (continued)
Principals and assistant principals in partnership with school site leadership bodies should develop detailed plans for the implementation of the ELD program, provide necessary support, and closely monitor program implementation in each classroom with English learners.
They must pay regular visits to the classrooms, observe instructional practices, and provide directions.
34
Recommendations (continued)
Principals and assistant principals should take responsibility for their own personal development and training in ELD programs and practices, as well as the PD of school staff and teachers.
The Language Acquisition Branch should find ways to strengthen the professional development design, curriculum, and the way the program is implemented in order to address the needs of students at lower ELD levels.
35
Recommendations (continued)
The Local Districts in partnership with the Language Acquisition Branch should continue providing PD opportunities for teachers and administrators.
The Language Acquisition Branch should provide additional training in core differentiation practices.
Principals, local district superintendents and directors of school services should take a lead in creating conditions to ensure that there are no more then two consecutive ELD levels per class.
36
Recommendations (continued)
Additional steps should be made by the Division of Professional Development and Leadership and the Language Acquisition Branch to incorporate high quality teaching strategies across all core content professional developments in our District.
www.lausd.net/lausd/offices/perb