Download slides and handout: educationnorthwest.org/aera14 · Download slides and handout: ......

Download slides and handout: educationnorthwest.org/aera14

© 2014 Education Northwest

Patterns in the Implementation of Instruction To Support English Learners in

the Mainstream Classroom The Example of Project GLAD®

April 4, 2014 American Evaluation Research Association Annual Meeting

Theresa Deussen, Kari Nelsestuen, Elizabeth Autio

Content and Language

Project GLAD® components

Component # Strategies Purpose Readiness and motivation

7 Establish behavior norms Build student interest

Input 6 Teach content using oral and visual strategies

Guided oral practice

9 Repeated exposure to vocabulary Practice complex sentences

Reading and writing

11 Support reading of grade-level text Scaffold writing

What Does Project GLAD® Look Like in the Classrooms?

Measuring implementation

Some programs Project GLAD®

Many strategies

Adaptable

Flexible

Teacher judgment

No set implementation guidelines

Frequency and Fidelity

10

Treatment Control Used

Project GLAD Used

Project GLAD Used something

similar Year 1 97% 5% 9%

Project GLAD ® was used in treatment classrooms, but rarely in control classrooms

Frequency and fidelity of implementation varied among teachers

Mean Range Mean number of strategies/week 12.5 0-22 Average fidelity rating 69% 19%-100%

Reading and writing strategies were used less frequently than expected

Expected frequency

Reported frequency

Difference

Readiness/motivation 19% 24% +5 Guided oral practice 17% 17% 0 Input 25% 32% +7 Reading and writing 30% 18% -12

Implementation supports

Training Coaching Collaboration Buy-in

Implementation challenges

Preparation time Class time

Confidence Materials

Match with students

Factors affecting implementation Does it make it easy for teachers to implement?

Yes No Ongoing X Collective participation X X Explicit protocols for team work X Focus on solutions, not activities X Coherence X X

So What?

Measure ELs Non-ELs Vocabulary .21~ .04 Comprehension .24~ .04 Writing: Ideas .32* .21~ Writing: Organization .27~ .13

Year 1 outcomes

Outcomes in science, other aspects of writing, and most outcomes for non-ELs were not significant

? Is higher implementation related to higher outcomes?

? What would increase literacy effects?

? Is universally high implementation possible?

? What supports would it take?

For more information http://projectgladstudy.educationnorthwest.org

Theresa.Deussen@educationnorthwest.org

Thanks to our funders The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A100583

to Education Northwest. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S.

Department of Education.