NABENABE 20052005

AN EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL AN EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR

EDUCATORS OF SECOND EDUCATORS OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS & LANGUAGE LEARNERS &

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ACROSS LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ACROSS GRADES AND CONTENT AREAS—GRADES AND CONTENT AREAS—AN OBSERVATION CHECKLIST TO AN OBSERVATION CHECKLIST TO

INCREASE TEACHER INCREASE TEACHER EFFECTIVENESSEFFECTIVENESS

AN EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL AN EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR

EDUCATORS OF SECOND LANGUAGE EDUCATORS OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERSLEARNERS

• ELDPI (English Language Professional ELDPI (English Language Professional Development Institutes)Development Institutes)

• CA state grant (2000-2003)CA state grant (2000-2003)

• Participants: teachers, administrators, Participants: teachers, administrators, coaches, paraprofessionalscoaches, paraprofessionals

• Grades 4-12Grades 4-12

• 40 hour summer institute, 40 hours follow-40 hour summer institute, 40 hours follow-up sessions, 40 hours of meetingsup sessions, 40 hours of meetings

Focus:Focus:

• Improve sdaie and eld teaching Improve sdaie and eld teaching strategies across content areasstrategies across content areas

• Emphasize academic languageEmphasize academic language

• Use assessment to inform curriculumUse assessment to inform curriculum

• Use technology to showcase “best Use technology to showcase “best practices” & for online peer coachingpractices” & for online peer coaching

• Build parent/community partnershipsBuild parent/community partnerships

Focus (continued):Focus (continued):

• Build a team plan to be monitored Build a team plan to be monitored through the 40 hours of meetings at through the 40 hours of meetings at the school sitesthe school sites

Professional development Professional development institute model:institute model:

• Keynote speaker each am (krashen, Keynote speaker each am (krashen, fillmore, kenfield, etc.)fillmore, kenfield, etc.)

• Three two hour sessions on strategies Three two hour sessions on strategies (Monday=standards, (Monday=standards, Tuesday=assessment, Wednesday, Tuesday=assessment, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday=eld/sdaie strategies)Thursday, Friday=eld/sdaie strategies)

• One hour team planning block at the end One hour team planning block at the end of each day to review sessions attendedof each day to review sessions attended

Model (continued):Model (continued):

• Teams planned how they would Teams planned how they would implement strategies learned back at implement strategies learned back at their school site (each member their school site (each member attended different sessions) each dayattended different sessions) each day

• Teams shared their plans at the end Teams shared their plans at the end of the weekof the week

• Teams also received training on how Teams also received training on how to edit videos on apple “i-books”to edit videos on apple “i-books”

Requirements:Requirements:

• Each participant would produce a Each participant would produce a “best practice” video based on an “best practice” video based on an instructional strategy learned at the instructional strategy learned at the institute (reflection piece)institute (reflection piece)

• They then edited their videos and we They then edited their videos and we posted them to the website: posted them to the website: www.projecttnt.comwww.projecttnt.com

The study:The study:

• Three schools who attended with full Three schools who attended with full teams were selected (“intervention” teams were selected (“intervention” schools)schools)

• Three “like” schools were selected Three “like” schools were selected where no one from the school where no one from the school attended the institutesattended the institutes

• State mean percentile growth scores State mean percentile growth scores were comparedwere compared

the study (continued):the study (continued):

• Mean percentile growth scores on the Mean percentile growth scores on the sat9 (Ca state achievement test) for sat9 (Ca state achievement test) for English learners (in all subject areas) English learners (in all subject areas) were compared across the three were compared across the three groups to determine if there was a groups to determine if there was a significant difference between the significant difference between the state average scores, the “like” state average scores, the “like” schools and the “intervention” schoolsschools and the “intervention” schools

findings:findings:• High significant difference between High significant difference between

the elementary and middle school the elementary and middle school scores (“intervention” vs. “like” and scores (“intervention” vs. “like” and “intervention” vs. state)“intervention” vs. state)

• No significant difference between the No significant difference between the high school scores (still scored higher, high school scores (still scored higher, but larger population to deal with and but larger population to deal with and smaller ratio of attending participants smaller ratio of attending participants to larger # of students served)to larger # of students served)

STATE MEAN SCORE 2000

Intervention School EL 00

SCORESTATE MEAN SCORE 2002

Intervention School EL 02

SCORE

2 YEAR GROWT

H STATE

2 YEAR GROWTH

INTERVENTION SCHOOLS

High School Reading (9-11)

11 9 11 11 0 2

High School Math

30 25 30 28 0 3

High school Language

19 18 20 20 1 2

High School Science

23 20 23 23 0 3

High School Social Science

24 23 24 23 0 0

Middle School Reading (6-8)

17 15 19 48 2 33

Middle School Math

28 21 32 53 4 32

Middle School Language

24 21 27 50 3 29

Middle School Spelling

18 14 21 51 3 37

Elementary School Grade 2

33 31 40 40 7 9

Elementary School Grade 3

31 17 38 40 7 23

Elementary School Grade 4

25 18 32 44 7 26

Elementary School Grade 5

23 14 28 22 5 8

Like Schools MEAN SCORE

2000

Intervention School EL 00

SCORE

Like Schools MEAN

SCORE 2002

Intervention School EL 02

SCORE

2 YEAR GROWTH

LIKE SCHOOLS

2 YEAR GROWTH

INTERVENTION SCHOOLS

           

High School Reading (9-11)

6 9 6 11 0 2

High School Math

19 25 19 28 0 3

High school Language

12 18 14 20 2 2

High School Science

17 20 17 23 0 3

High School Social Science

19 23 18 23 -1 0

           

Middle School Reading (6-8)

18 15 16 48 -2 33

Middle School Math

27 21 23 53 -4 32

Middle School Language

27 21 24 50 -3 29

Middle School Spelling

16 14 16 51 0 37

           

Elementary School Grade 2

16 31 27 40 11 9

Elementary School Grade 3

25 17 37 40 12 23

Elementary School Grade 4

16 18 21 44 5 26

Elementary School Grade 5

17 14 19 22 2 8

Figure 1. State vs Intervention English Learners Percentile Growth Scores on the SAT9 2000-2002 Elementary School

State Percentile Mean Growth Scores

Intervention School Percentile Mean Growth

Scores

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Grade Level

Per

cent

ile M

ean

Gro

wth

Sco

res

Figure 2. Like vs Intervention English Learners Percentile Scores on the SAT9 2000-2002 Elementary School

Like Schools Percentile Mean Growth Scores

Intervention Schools Percentile Mean Growth

Scores

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Grade Level

Per

cent

ile M

ean

Gro

wth

Sco

res

Figure 3. State vs Intervention English Learners % Growth Scores on the SAT9 2000-2002 Middle School

State Percentile Mean Growth

Intervention Schools Percentile Mean Growth

Scores

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Reading Language Math Spelling

Subject Area

Per

cent

ile M

ean

Gro

wth

Sco

res

Figure 4 . Like vs Intervention English Learner Percentile Growth Scores SAT9 2000-2002 Middle School

Like Schools Percentile Mean Growth Scores

Intervention Schools Percentile Mean Growth

Scores

-15

-5

5

15

25

35

45

Reading Math Language Spelling

Subject Areas

Per

cent

ile M

ean

Gro

wth

Sco

res

Figure 5 . State vs Intervention English Learners % Growth Scores on the SAT 9 2000-2002 High School

State Percentile Mean Growth Scores

Intervention School Percentile Mean Growth

Scores

0

5

10

15

Reading Language Science Math Social Science

Subject Area

Per

cent

ile M

ean

Gro

wth

Sco

res

Figure 6. Like vs Intervention English Learners Percentile Scores on the SAT9 2000-2002 High School

Intervention Schools Percentile Mean Growth

ScoresLike Schools Percentile Mean

Growth Scores0

5

10

15

Reading Math Language Science Social Science

Subject Areas

Per

cent

ile M

ean

Gro

wth

Sco

res

English Learners at schools English Learners at schools where teams attended the where teams attended the

institutes scored higher on the institutes scored higher on the average than similar schools average than similar schools

and the state average.and the state average.

Outcome:Outcome:• AN OBSERVATION CHECKLIST TO AN OBSERVATION CHECKLIST TO

INCREASE TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS INCREASE TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS evolved from the institutes to assist evolved from the institutes to assist teachers in reflecting on their teachers in reflecting on their lessons.lessons.

• It is a list of instructional strategies It is a list of instructional strategies which should be used to enhance which should be used to enhance instruction for all students, instruction for all students, especially English learners.especially English learners.

• Not all components, however, would Not all components, however, would be used at the same time.be used at the same time.

√√ ELD/ELA STRATEGY EVIDENCE √√ CONTENT AREA STRATEGY

EVIDENCE

Punctuation/Syntax/Grammar Content Area Reading (not text book)

Vocabulary Development Text Analysis

Reading for Fluency Content Area Writing

Integrated Reading & Writing Primary Language Support

√√ ALL SUBJECT AREAS EVIDENCE √√ ALL SUBJECT AREAS EVIDENCE

Anticipatory Set High Expectations

Clear Purpose Established for Learning the Skill

Multiple Exposures to New Vocabulary

Performance Objectives/Standards Posted

Intensive Vocabulary Development

Appropriate Modeling Prediction

Guided Practice Context Clues Stressed

Accessing Prior Knowledge Graphic Organizers

Scaffolding Questioning Strategies

Predictable Class Routines Corrective Feedback

Use of Realia Differentiated Instruction

Visual Aids Alternative Assessments

Cooperative Grouping All Students Actively Engaged

Social Discourse Encouraged Lessons are “Into, Through & Beyond”

Formal & Informal Speaking Checking For Understanding (Ongoing)

Student Interaction Assessment Informs Curriculum

LITERACY/ACADEMIC LANGUAGE OBSERVATION PROTOCOL FOR EVALUATION AND SELF-REFLECTION:LITERACY/ACADEMIC LANGUAGE OBSERVATION PROTOCOL FOR EVALUATION AND SELF-REFLECTION:NAME_______________________________ DATE____________ NAME_______________________________ DATE____________ SUBJECT/GRADE_________________________________SUBJECT/GRADE_________________________________

√√+ (Observed & Effective), √ (Observed), √- (Not Observed, but could be inserted in the lesson), N (Not observed, but could be evident in another lesson)+ (Observed & Effective), √ (Observed), √- (Not Observed, but could be inserted in the lesson), N (Not observed, but could be evident in another lesson)©Dr. D. L. Cook Hirai, California State University, Bakersfield, 2004©Dr. D. L. Cook Hirai, California State University, Bakersfield, 2004

LITERACY/ACADEMIC LANGUAGE OBSERVATION LITERACY/ACADEMIC LANGUAGE OBSERVATION PROTOCOL FOR EVALUATION AND SELF-PROTOCOL FOR EVALUATION AND SELF-

REFLECTION:REFLECTION:NAME_______________________ DATE____________ NAME_______________________ DATE____________

SUBJECT/GRADE__________________________SUBJECT/GRADE__________________________

√√+ (Observed & Effective),+ (Observed & Effective), √ √ (Observed),(Observed),

√ √- (Not Observed, but could be inserted in the - (Not Observed, but could be inserted in the lesson), lesson),

N (Not observed, but could be evident in another N (Not observed, but could be evident in another lesson)lesson)

©Dr. D. L. Cook Hirai, California State University, ©Dr. D. L. Cook Hirai, California State University, Bakersfield, 2004Bakersfield, 2004

√√ ELD/ELA STRATEGY EVIDENCE

Punctuation/Syntax/Grammar

Vocabulary Development

Reading for Fluency

Integrated Reading & Writing

√√ CONTENT AREA STRATEGY EVIDENCE

Content Area Reading (not text book)

Text Analysis

Content Area Writing

Primary Language Support

√√ ALL SUBJECT AREAS EVIDENCE

Anticipatory Set

Clear Purpose Established for Learning the Skill

Performance Objectives/Standards Posted

Appropriate Modeling

Guided Practice

Accessing Prior Knowledge

Scaffolding

Predictable Class Routines

Use of Realia

Visual Aids

Cooperative Grouping

Social Discourse Encouraged

Formal & Informal Speaking

Student Interaction

√√ ALL SUBJECT AREAS EVIDENCE

High Expectations

Multiple Exposures to New Vocabulary

Intensive Vocabulary Development

Prediction

Context Clues Stressed

Context Clues Stressed

Graphic Organizers

Questioning Strategies

Corrective Feedback

Differentiated Instruction

Alternative Assessments

All Students Actively Engaged

Lessons are “Into, Through & Beyond”

Checking For Understanding (Ongoing)

Assessment Informs Curriculum

Now, let’s try it out as we Now, let’s try it out as we observe two teachers in observe two teachers in

action…………..action…………..

Thank you for your attention!!!!Thank you for your attention!!!!

California state university, bakersfieldCalifornia state university, bakersfield

dr. debra cook dr. debra cook hiraihirai

dhirai@csub.edudhirai@csub.edu

Dr. irene borregoDr. irene borrego

iborrego@csub.eduiborrego@csub.edu