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/