Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
What Difference Does an Imposed Literacy Block Program Make on Student Achievement in Reading? A Preliminary Study
By
Alyssa Haugen
A Capstone submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts in English as a Second Language
Hamline University
St.Paul, Minnesota
September, 2010
Committee: Anne DeMuth- Primary Advisor Cynthia Lundgren- Secondary Advisor Darcie Mueller- Peer Reader
ii
Dedication
To Curtis for enduring the long process of this project, while providing the biggest support. I never would have finished without you.
To Callan and Aivyn for giving up your time with mommy so I could show you that you always need to finish what you start.
I love you
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A very special thanks to Anne Demuth for keeping me on track and believing that I could
finish the project. Thank you to Gail Jordan for pulling out the data and creating a belief
in myself. Thank you to Cynthia Lundgren for serving on the committee. Thank you to
Darcie for graciously reading through my paper. Lastly, thank you to all my family and
friends who listened to my never-ending chatter about this project.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 6
Collaboration ................................................................................................................... 6
Co-teaching ..................................................................................................................... 7
Problems with co-teaching .............................................................................................. 9
Teacher Change ............................................................................................................. 13
Literacy Block ............................................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ..................................................................................... 22
Overview ....................................................................................................................... 22
Participants and Setting ................................................................................................. 23
Setting ............................................................................................................................ 25
Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 27
Rationale ........................................................................................................................ 28
Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 30
Verification of Data ....................................................................................................... 30
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 31
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ......................................................................................... 31
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 39
Findings ......................................................................................................................... 40
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 43
Future work ................................................................................................................... 44
Implications ................................................................................................................... 45
Literacy block ................................................................................................................ 45
Collaboration ................................................................................................................. 46
Assessment .................................................................................................................... 47
Dissemination ................................................................................................................ 47
v
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 48
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 49
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Student Background Information…………………………………………...25
Table 4.1 NWEA Data Comparison grades 2-3 ………...…………………………….33
Table 4.2 NWEA Data Comparison grades 3-4……………………………………….34
Table 4.3 NWEA Data Comparison grades 4-5……………………………………… 35
Chart 4.1 NWEA MAP Comparison Line Graph grades 2-3….…………………..…. 37
Chart 4.2 NWEA MAP Comparison Line Graph grades 3-4………………………… 37
Chart 4.3 NWEA MAP Comparison Line Graph grades 4-5………………………….38
Chart5.1 NWEA MAP Average test scores for all three schools……………………...41
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
I was teaching first grade when a Somali boy joined my class. He did not speak
English, but his communication attempts and problem-solving skills were amazing. They
intrigued me. I had no experience in second language acquisition, but I knew there had to
be a method by which he was learning a complex, new language. This curiosity about
second language development continued to grow and I soon found myself as a student of
English as a second language (ESL), seeking a teaching license in this area.
Even though I was an experienced teacher, stepping into the world of ESL,
teaching students whose native language in not English, was challenging and rewarding.
ESL students come to school with a wide range of proficiency in English and varying
degrees of comfort with this new language and culture. My learning curve those first
months of ESL teaching were steep. The district I taught in had serviced ESL students
for twenty-plus years, but ESL student enrollment was increasing substantially and the
district was struggling with the changes in demographics. Despite long-term service of
English language learners (ELLs), not all teachers were sure how to best meet the needs
of this special population. Attempts to differentiate instruction didn’t seem to be enough.
Test scores revealed greater achievement gaps with each passing year. The hard
conversations about program models needed to happen.
2
There are several factors to consider when determining a good ESL program;
student population, individual needs of students, resources, staffing, family and
community support. Ultimately, the goal of every program is to provide instruction in
English skills so each student can function successfully in an academic setting (McKeon,
1987 as cited in Rennie, (1993). Many districts have relied on pull-out, small group
instruction model for their ESL students when numbers have been small. McKeon
(1987) defines pull-out model as one in which a student is taken from the mainstream
classroom to receive special instruction in ESL. Students may be from same or different
language groups. They might be grouped by grade level or by language proficiency.
Often, grouping is a result of scheduling and, as the number of students needing service
grows, so does the complexity of scheduling service. Scheduling becomes a major
problem. Classroom teachers increasingly express concern over students being pulled out
of the classroom throughout the day as they struggle to find times to introduce content
concepts when all children are in the classroom.
The pull-out method of language support has not proven to be effective in the
long-term academic achievement of English learners (Thomas & Collier, 1997;TABE,
2006). Disconnected from what was happening in the classroom, language instruction
was not meeting the needs of students in their daily academics or on their yearly
assessments. In the meanwhile, there was a shift in how services were being provided to
special education students. The collaborative approach, where the specialist comes into
the classroom and works in tandem with the classroom teachers to service special needs
3
learners, was becoming popular nationwide. This approach also began to be applied to
ESL services.
In my school, the decision was made to include ESL teachers in a collaborative
design called a literacy block. The literacy block is not new, but it was new to our
building and staff. In the literacy block each grade level team of teachers has one hour of
the day set aside that is to be used strictly for guided reading and general language arts
according to administration and teachers in that district. Whole group instruction of
vocabulary, work skills, and comprehension skills are done at different times during the
school day. This model allows for specialists such as ESL to go into the mainstream
classroom and provide service to students during that one hour without pulling the
students other times of the day. That increased the amount of support to students because
that one hour is guaranteed every day for scheduling purposes.
Collaboration is a great idea. It makes sense that teachers should work together
and towards the same goal for individual students and grade-levels as a whole. The issue
is the time to have the necessary conversations about planning, instruction, and
assessment of these common goals. And, because collaboration may require teachers to
engage in new ways of teaching and good communication skills for working with others,
there can be resistance to this type of model.
Another concern, when using a new model of teaching is the possible opposition
from staff. Collaboration is unchartered territory for many teachers and the reasons for
resistance can vary from grade level to grade level. Often time teachers are wary of
collaboration due to time constraints regarding planning. There is lack of time to plan for
4
working together, as well as no time once collaboration is in process. Understanding or
respecting one another’s teaching styles also poses problems. Traditionally, teachers
preferred to work alone; the challenges of finding time with one another to collaborate
create problems (Friend & Bursuck, 1999). The biggest challenge in the earliest stage of
the model was the general unease of other teacher wondering if they have the time to
collaborate with the ESL teacher and being comfortable that everyone is doing their job
to make the students learning the best it can be. Communication between teachers is the
key component to making literacy block model work. Collaboration is difficult and time
consuming and needs to be addressed as an ongoing effort with clear communication at
the forefront.
The literacy block proved to be largely successful in my school. Classroom
teachers were pleased with the literacy block approach for several reasons. First, students
spent more time in the mainstream classroom. Second, the support personnel that came
into the classroom provided better support for small groups and individual students.
However, there were also many concerns about the model. Without clear
expectations about the literacy block and what was to be accomplished during that hour,
there was frequent confusion about who should be doing what. Furthermore, without a
school-wide structure teachers implemented literacy block very differently, including the
amount of time devoted to guided reading. This lead to the question whether or not the
literacy block, as means of providing service to English learners, was more effective than
a regular reading class with separate ESL support.
5
As a result, this lead to my research question does implementation of a literacy
block without professional development lead to an increase in student academic
achievement as measured by NWEA MAP test scores? There is little to no data or
research surrounding literacy block as a scheduling and teaching strategy. Analyzing
data from NWEA MAP scores will allow for this preliminary study to create
opportunities for more research in the areas of literacy block scheduling. ELL
populations are increasing across the state and nation and it is important that research be
conducted with these learners in mind.
In chapter two I review literature that is important to the nature of the study. This
literature provides background on collaboration, co-teaching, teacher change, and literacy
block. I explore the definitions of working together and the difficulty of changing
teacher practice. Chapter three introduces qualitative paradigm and describes the
numerical analysis of NWEA MAP scores of students in three different literacy models:
literacy block, intermittent literacy block, and no literacy block. Chapter four presents
the results, which shows consistent academic growth by students regardless of the
literacy model. Chapter five discusses findings of the study. Suggestions for future
research are presented at the end of this chapter.
6
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Collaboration Educational collaboration has many meanings, but authors tend to agree that
collaboration is working together n a relationship that will be both beneficial and
supportive. Collaboration is the interaction between teachers who share in decision
making while working toward a common goal. The term collaboration is used to
describe the interactions between teachers versus the actual action of co-teaching content.
Collaboration is a communication tool that helps create consistency between grade level
teachers and specialists (Friend & Cook, 2000).
There are many characteristics of collaboration that are necessary for providing
high quality service. According to Bean, Grumet, & Bulazo (1999), the benefits of a
collaborative model support both teachers and students. To begin with, there are two
teachers in the room reducing teacher-student ratios, helping meet student needs better;
collaboration supports the flow of new ideas between teachers about instruction and
classroom management; while having another peer in the room to share the collaborative
experience with. However, collaboration is a learned process and requires a change in
how teachers have traditionally viewed their roles in the classroom.
Gately (2005), identifies three stages of collaboration. In the beginning stage it is
7
important that the roles of the educators are clarified. This helps ease discomfort in
collaborating, helps teachers develop an appreciation for collaboration, and clarifies
expectations. Professional development should be provided to support communication
skills that can lead to openness between teachers and conversations about planning.
Once communication parameters have been established, the compromising stage
begins. There may be talk of changing plans and making modifications. Teachers are
more comfortable and trusting of each other. As the relationship grows, teachers begin to
share lesson plans, strategies, and classroom information.
The final stage is true collaboration. At this stage, communication is open and
humor is a large part of the interaction. Teachers readily exchange information and clear
rapport and trust between colleagues. Collaborative relationships result in an
environment that is supportive of both teachers and students. This level of trust can bring
teachers to the next level of collaboration, which is co-teaching.
Co-teaching Co-teaching is a type of teaming among teachers who deliver both direct and
indirect instruction to students while being in the classroom together at the same time.
(Friend & Cook, 2000). Gately (2005), describes co-teaching as a way of effectively
delivering instruction to students with unique needs in a general education classroom.
Dieker & Murawski (2003) as cited in Bouck, described co-teaching as two or more
teachers who are equal in status located in the classroom together, working together, and
providing instruction (2007). The list of definitions for co-teaching is extensive, but the
common thread appears to be that there are two teachers working with a mixed
8
population of students, striving to provide the best possible instruction. Co-teachers are
peers and have the same status within the school so they can be partners in the
educational process of the students (Friend & Cook, 2000). One of the main differences
between co-teaching and collaboration is that co-teachers are both credentialed,
professionals. They have the same status. In collaboration, teachers may be
communication with other teachers, but they may also be talking with teacher aides,
parents, or volunteers.
All too often the idea of co-teaching is muddled and takes on the meaning of two
teachers in the same room at the same time. There has to be a cohesive, collaborative
effort on the part of the co-teachers in order for best practice to be achieved. There are
many reasons for co-teaching model, the first being to meet the needs of students with
diverse learning needs. Other students also benefit greatly from the co-teaching method
of teaching in that they receive more individualized instruction and have opportunities for
alternative assignments, small group lessons, and extra instructional time that might not
be received in a classroom that is not co-taught (Friend & Cook, 2000).
The second reason for co-teaching is it leads to a curriculum that is more
contextualized and streamlined. It also enhances the amount of time students are engaged
with the curriculum (Friend & Cook, 2000). Co-teaching provides a benefit to students
that cannot be provided in the one teacher teaches all, type classroom. Using the
resources within the school, which most importantly includes fellow staff members, truly
creates a school climate of collaboration.
9
Finally, co-teaching reduces the stigma students may face exiting their classroom
for their supplemental services. Co-teaching increases the opportunities for students to
take other classes as electives so they are not missing out on any of those specialized
courses such as science, music, or art. Co-teaching provides more opportunities for the
students to socialize with peers (Friend & Cook, 2000).
Problems with co-teaching
What do teachers need to focus on in order for the model to be most effective?
This is an important piece to include because as educators we are being asked to
implement these strategies and they will have a direct impact on the students.
There are a number of issues that arise when co-teaching is implemented. There
needs to be a willingness and capability of the teachers to collaborate, which includes
teacher choice in co-teaching versus administrative directive (Bouck, 2007). There also
needs to be proper planning time allowed for the teachers. For co-teaching to be most
effective it needs to have a heterogeneous mix of students. Also important to note from
Gately (2005), is that co-teaching is not easily attainable because of the following factors:
lack of professional development, poorly defined roles for the teachers, no clear
expectations for how the teachers should be implementing the model, and frustration with
how the model is finally implemented (Cook and Friend 1998 as cited in Gately, 2005).
Another important aspect to consider in co-teaching are the different roles the
teachers take on in the classroom, but also how those choices impact their teaching
partners (Bouck, 2007). It is essential for the teachers to have a strong, respectful
relationship. Without this the outcomes will not be as successful. The success of team
10
teaching relies on the interpersonal skills of the teachers who are partnering. They need
to have willingness to compromise and have positive attitudes toward collaboration
(Carless, 2006). There needs to be discussion among teachers about what co-teaching
will create, both positively and negatively for the teachers and the students (Bouck,
2007). Co-Teachers should communicate how to deliver instruction so that both teachers
are working with all the students while addressing the needs of all students (Friend, as
cited in Bouck, 2007). This seems to sum up our ultimate goal when trying to both
collaborate and co-teach. While collaboration is the planning of the teaching and co-
teaching is the physical act of two teachers teaching. We want the students, as well as
teachers, to have a relationship that is cohesive and respectful in nature, while providing
the best possible outcome for the students.
This section will discuss some of the research that discusses teacher feelings in
regards to collaboration. Many of the studies used for this research have been drawn
from literature of collaboration and teacher’s feelings toward collaboration, or student
outcomes in special education. Very little research has focused on the feelings and
experiences of the students, so in the next section I will discuss articles that share some
similarity to this study from the student’s point of view. I will then discuss literature that
pertains to teacher’s points of view.
Last, I will discuss literature that focuses on studies of special education and
collaboration. The next section will provide the reasoning for my research question and
the need for further research to investigate the question: does implementation of a literacy
11
block without professional development lead to an increase in student academic
achievement as measured by NWEA MAP test scores?
There is a need for research in the area of English Language Learners and their
feelings and perceptions in regards to collaborative teaching, as well as how the teachers
feel about an imposed model of collaborative teaching. Students may not know the
terminology of collaboration, but they understand that they are seeing more than one
teacher every day for their learning. Teachers are expected to collaborate with numerous
other professionals and create outcomes that are positive and successful. Addressing
concerns and working together to address those concerns has been happening for the past
30 years (Santangelo, 2009). There is an increasing amount of such research with adult
learners, even university level students, but the fact remains there is little known research
on the younger populations of English Language Learners. Many of the problems with
incorporating the collaborative model of teaching within the mainstream classroom lies in
the lack of knowledge both of the collaborative model, but also of the reactions of the
younger students.
Schools are moving toward a more collaborative approach to teaching ELLs, but
without the proper training and background to do so. There needs to be opportunities for
mainstream teachers to reflect on issues involving ELLs. There are many issues that
arise from working with ELLs that don’t arise with mainstream students (Clair, 1995).
Honigsfeld & Dove, conclude that there can be an effective support in co-teaching by
accommodating ELLs through inclusive practices (2008).
12
A major struggle for ESL teachers is the delicate balance between advocating for
their students and how to be diplomatic when collaborating with their mainstream teacher
peers. Part of this difficulty is offering suggestions that are helpful and not seen as
mandatory for the student (Nordmeyer, 2008). It is on constant mention that ESL
teachers struggle with their role within the school community, but with the understanding
of mainstream teachers, the implementation of collaborative and co-teaching models, can
be successful in providing positive outcomes for the learners. In order for this to be done
however, certain things need to happen. All teachers need to understand the impact of
language in their classes and how they can support Ell’s subject mastery by using English
in intentional ways (Nordmeyer, 2008). Elementary teachers, as well as secondary
teachers are responsible for the success of students in the mainstream classroom and they
need to teach the curriculum in ways that make it understandable and accessible for
English language learners (2008). The recurring theme for creating a collaborative model
that will best benefit ELLs is for both the mainstream and ESL teacher to have a common
understanding of how ELLs learn best. Collaboration between mainstream and ESL
teachers helps to ensure that ELLs have access to the curriculum of the mainstream as
well as the language instruction. This helps ELLs to develop socially, stay in school, and
enhance their academics (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2008). When teachers have professional
relationships and they can share the views of how ELLs fit within the community of
school, collaboration can support ELLs through lessons that have appropriate objectives
both language and content (Nordmeyer 2008). Also of mention is the fact that teachers
13
need skills in co-teaching AND collaboration which includes being able to take on
different instructional roles (2008).
In summary, both mainstream and ESL teachers need to have a common
understanding of each other’s strengths and weaknesses in order to be able to collaborate
and provide a teaching model that will benefit all students. The ultimate goal of the
collaborative model is to have seamless classrooms that run smoothly and effectively.
Teacher Change
This section will highlight some main points on teacher change and how it affects
this research study. Hargreaves says that elementary schools have two central principles
that are the foundation of the system. Those two principles are care and control.
Characteristics of care that define elementary schools are those of home, family, and
community (1996). Elementary teacher candidates typically have had more experience
working with school-aged children and often make it known that they are entering the
field with children as their main reason for doing so, while secondary teachers enter the
field due to interest in the subject matter (1996). This information or background is
essential in knowing why teachers are central to the elementary system, as they are the
major influence on our students.
One change that is taking place for elementary teachers is the need to let go of the
my children, my classroom mentality. Due to the continuing need and demand for
collaboration and co-teaching this idea toward attitude and control is moving in a more
collaborative direction. The diversity in our schools is forcing teachers and students alike
to become more knowledgeable in a specific area and relying more heavily on subject-
14
specialists, versus the mainstream teacher overseeing all areas of learning Due to this
happening, students are gaining access to more specialist teachers such as ESL, but also
the teachers are involved in much more coordination among themselves to ensure that the
students are receiving all the services needed. Schools are operating with specialist
teachers such as ESL working in a collaborative manner with mainstream classroom
teachers in order to provide curriculum that fits their needs (Hargreaves, 1996).
Santangelo, (2009), conducted a two-year study on collaborative problem-solving.
The districts goal was to re-evaluate the number of special education referrals. The study
took place in an elementary school with teachers as the participants.
During the first year of the study the perceptions of the process were very good
and collaboration between all the professionals was indeed enhanced. However, once
year two began the positive results were not sustained. This was mainly due to lack of
support from the school district. The common goal of eliminating referrals to special
education, as well as reducing student problems and strengthening teachers’ ability to
contribute successfully are ideally what the district was hoping to achieve with this model
of collaborative problem solving. In order for this model of collaborative problem
solving to be effective and successful there are a few key components that have to
happen. The participants in the study have to feel that the main goal is to prevent special
education referrals. They also need to feel as though their collaborative role is important
and taken seriously. The actions of the administrator in the building plays a role in the
success of collaborative problem solving and finally student outcomes are much more
positive when the collaborative model is done systematically and with integrity.
15
Unfortunately, there is less research that has focused on sustaining this collaborative
problem solving model.
Sustaining the collaborative problem solving model took systematic training that
was designed to meet the needs of each individual team member, appreciation from
fellow team members regarding their contributions and skills, a rotating system of
general education teachers involved in the project, and finally a system of tracking the
efforts of the team. The results of the study from the elementary level were favorable in
the first year, but not in the second.
Santangelo attributed the success at the elementary level to four major factors.
Those factors included support from the administrative level on a consistent basis, as well
as from the principals which entailed allotting time and resources to staff for
collaborating. Third the participants of the study were given relevant training pertaining
to the collaborative problem solving model. The problem solving model was consistently
revised according to the concerns of the participants which attests to the longevity of the
study (2009).
In conclusion, there is still much research to be conducted concerning the
collaborative problem solving model and the processes and relationships that develop
from the model. Research that was done previously on collaborative problem solving
was done mainly on the perceptions and experiences of mainstream teachers and
administrators. This leaves a large gap of information both on how students received the
model, but also how other specialists such as English language teachers would receive
16
and implement the model (2009). The literacy block is one type of model that classroom
teachers and specialists do together. The next section discusses the literacy block.
Literacy Block
A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) as
cited in Gullatt, (2006), identified that a main concern in education related to how
effectively time in the classroom was being used in American classrooms. That report
kicked off a myriad of ideas from various leaders as to what the solution was to best
educate our nation’s learners. The goals of alternative scheduling ranged from increased
focus on fewer subject areas, providing more electives and AP courses for students, and
improving school safety (Gullatt, 2006). There have been a variety of methods used to
measure outcomes pertaining to schedule changes with mixed results (2006). There have
been many variations to scheduling through the years, but take note these variations
happen in secondary schools, not elementary. Another study done by Veal & Flinders
(2001), described block scheduling as an increasingly popular option for schools and
districts, but it was often implemented without any knowledge or background to
understand the implications it might have on teachers and their learners. The study goes
on to say that those in favor of block scheduling typically want block scheduling to
provide more uninterrupted class teaching time while limiting the number of teachers
students come in contact with (2001).
According to Canady & Rettig (1996), block scheduling is becoming popular as a
method of instructional change in many of our nation’s schools. Changes in school
schedule are now a major part of school reform; however they are not the main factor in
17
student learning. The mechanical changes that come with changing schedule alone are
not what impact students most, but what teachers do with those students. The authors go
on to say that for schools to reach the full potential of what block scheduling has to offer
they must provide training and development for their teachers that helps them to engage
their learners (1996).
Hill & Crevola (1999) conducted a study in Australia with a literacy block period
at the heart of the project. The literacy block was a two-hour time span, with elementary-
aged, at-risk learners. The aim of the project was to evaluate a school-wide approach to
teaching literacy while developing an approach system-wide that would enhance students
early years of literacy learning years ages 5-8. Keeping that goal in mind required
analysis of research pertaining to teacher effectiveness and learning effectiveness.
The main factors of effective teaching according to Hill & Crevola, are having
high expectations for student achievement, amount of time student engages in the
learning, and teaching that is focused on maximizing student learning development.
Taking those characteristics and adding them to a schedule that will operate effectively
determined a whole-school design. Using a set amount of time to teach is not a new
concept for the Australian schools and they have used literacy block for many years,
however using a design approach or the terminology is new (1999). There are nine
components of collaboration that went into the design approach in order to implement the
literacy practices of this particular study. That number of components alone shows that
implementing literacy block without teacher development may not create the desired
results and requires careful planning.
18
Central to the Australian study was the belief that teachers and students can
achieve high standards if given the opportunity to do so and with the right support. This
also includes teacher effectiveness given staff development and time necessary to provide
continuous classroom improvement (Hill & Crevola, 1999). Another difference in the
implementation of this program were the standards and targets that were created with
appropriate documentation to do so. Specific goals were written to maintain momentum
in learning and achieving. The literacy block timeframe for this study was broken into
pieces and each piece of time was used for a specific purpose. Important to note here is
the explicitness of planning the literacy block (1999).
Teachers formed into teams and provided opportunities both on and off-site to
participate in staff development activities. Effectiveness of time, staffing concerns, and
allocated resources were also main points of planning in order to establish routines within
the block (Hill & Crevola, 1999).
The outcome of the research concluded that when schools develop a systematic
approach, positive results can be reached. Most important to note is that positive results
were not achieved through new methods or techniques of teaching, but rather through the
methodical learning outcomes developed by the school through the use of time and
scheduling (Hill & Crevola, 1999). Some of the main components to this program are
evident in other programs such as a dedicated time for literacy (as in the study at hand)
and focus on data driven instruction at the beginning and end of year (also present in this
study), but the main difference is the literacy block used for this study did not have on-
19
going professional development for its participants, nor did it have development for its
administrators.
The district of focus in this study choose to give each grade level a one-hour
block of time to provide guided reading and literacy-based activities to the students. As
was stated above, a successful literacy block must include ample planning opportunities
with clear goals in mind. There must be professional development for staff and
administrators in order to create a cohesive teaching approach. Within this hour students
who received services such as ESL would be pulled out of the classroom to minimize
mainstream classroom interruptions. This is a main difference between the district’s
vision in which this research study is based and the more known block scheduling model.
The district used in the study implemented the literacy block without the teacher and
student development needed.
The main differences between the literacy block pertaining to this study and block
scheduling is the purpose it was meant to serve. In a block schedule, according to
Canady & Rettig (1996), the main focus is to give students more uninterrupted time, as
well as reduce number of students teachers must prepare for, and provide teachers with
blocks of time to actively engage students. The literacy block was meant to reduce
interruptions and provide smaller- group learning. This meant that students were actually
exposed to more teachers rather than less.
There has been significant research done on the effects of schedule changes in a
secondary setting, but again there is a large gap pertaining to scheduling models in the
elementary grades especially pertaining to impact on English language learners.
20
Conclusion
There is very little literature on literacy block scheduling and even less that
pertains to a scheduling framework impacting English language learner test scores, which
is why it is important to conduct a study that will shed light on this question. This is
especially true of U.S. research. There have been more studies conducted in schools in
Australia, but those studies focused on secondary grades in a block scheduling format,
versus a literacy block as is discussed in this study.
In conclusion, there is very little evidence showing that scores are improving
solely by using the literacy block scheduling framework as a way of teaching. There
needs to be more research done with elementary aged ELLs. It is valuable information to
us as educators to not only look at raw data in test scores, but also to understand the
emotions of the students and how this might impact their success as learners in their
environment. This study will provide data on English language learner test scores over a
two-year time period while a literacy block scheduling framework was in place for some
students.
The next chapter will discuss the methodology used for the study. Included will
be an explanation of data collection methods, as well as an explanation of how the data
was recorded and published.
21
22
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This study is designed to explore results of using a literacy block model of
teaching on student test scores. This study is a quantitative study that looks at test scores
over the span of two years. According to Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA)
test scores, what literacy and language development has occurred for elementary ELLs as
a result of a literacy block program? I want to know if the trend in student data shows
improved scores and what those scores will mean for future planning of collaborative
ESL service.
Overview First I will describe my research paradigm. Secondly, I will talk about how
I will collect my data. Then I will discuss the procedures used in the study and how I
analyze that data. Next I will talk about how the study is valid, reliable, and dependable.
Last, I will conclude with the ethics of the study.
This study is a quantitative study. A quantitative study is based on research
design in which there is a hypothesis and data and numerical analysis done following the
hypothesis (Mackey & Gass 2005). Main components to quantitative studies are that
they are oriented around outcomes and verification of the data. They involve controlled
23
measurement of data, and are reliable. Quantitative research can be generalized to other
studies and is objective in nature due to looking only at data (2005).
I chose to conduct a quantitative study because test scores are a driving force of
instruction. What better measure than test scores to determine whether or not a literacy
block scheduling framework is improving ESL test scores. As the researcher I am
attempting to find a relationship within the variables of the data and the depth of the
relationship between the two (Mackey & Gass 2005). Specifically in this study I am
looking for a relationship between the literacy block scheduling framework and student
test scores.
Participants and Setting
The test scores used in the study are from second, third, fourth and fifth grade
English language learners. One group of students has participated in the literacy block
framework, one group has not, and one group participated intermittently. There are both
male and female participants, none of whom have English as their native language.
The location of the study is an elementary school in a suburban district in the
upper Midwest. There are approximately 400 students in the elementary school with this
being the smallest elementary in the district. The district has had ELLs in its schools for
the past 25 years; however the most growth to the program has come in the last five
years. Each year since the 2007-2008 school year there has been a steady 30 percent
increase in the number of English Language Learners we are teaching. The ESL program
in this district operates with three out of the five elementary schools serving as hubs for
the ESL program. If a student is within a boundary of an elementary school that is not
24
one of these hubs they are then bussed to the nearest school that can provide ESL services
to the student. The middle and high school provide ESL service to students if they have
not exited the program by the end of their elementary schooling.
The language proficiencies of the students vary. Language proficiency is
described differently depending on the program. Student’s proficiency levels range from
non-speakers new to country to students who are on monitor status and not receiving
direct language help. The majority of the students fall into the level 2 and 3 range
meaning they are transitional language learners. There is one ESL student who is literate
in her native language of Spanish. The other students speak their native language, but are
not literate in their L1. Subtractive bilingualism is an increasing issue for the students. It
means that the acquisition of the majority language takes over while the native language
is lost. This can contribute to cultural sensitivities, as well as create academic difficulties
(Oregon Department of Education 2007). This is an increasing issue for our students.
They have few peers in our district to converse with in their L1’s therefore losing the
capability to speak their native languages fluently. Our students typically converse with
their parents and families at home in their L1, but most times the parental unit in the
home is not literate in the native language either.
Table 3.1 lists all students whose data was analyzed for the study. Grade level in
year one means the grade level of the first year they participated in the NWEA MAP test
in the fall of that school year. Grade level year two indicates the second year test scores
were analyzed for the study. The last column in the table indicates if the student
participated in the literacy block scheduling framework.
25
Table 3.1. Background information for each student: letter = School, number = student
A.1 2 3 y A.2 3 4 y A.3 3 4 y A.4 3 4 y A.5 3 4 y A.6 4 5 y B.1 2 2 n B.2 2 2 n B.3 2 2 n B.4 2 3 n B.5 2 5 n B.6 2 5 n C.1 2 3 y C.2 2 3 y C.3 3 4 y C.4 3 4 y C.5 3 4 y C.6 3 4 y C.7 4 5 y C.8 4 5 y School/Student Student Grade: YR 1 Student Grade: YR 2 Literacy Block
Setting According to the Minnesota Department of Education website
(http://education.state.mn.us/mde/index.html), the district has a 2% limited English
proficient population, 13% special education, and 13% free and reduced lunch
population. The elementary school at the heart of the study (school A) is 7% limited
English proficient, 15% special education, and 31% free and reduced lunch. This data
was retrieved for the 2008-2009 school year and since then all sub-groups have increased.
26
The literacy block framework was brainstormed by a number of professionals in
the district and specifically to school A due to having the largest number of limited
English proficient students, as well as high numbers of special education and Title 1
students in the district. The format for the literacy block was set up so each grade level
1-5 had one hour of uninterrupted time to do guided reading with their students.
Kindergarten had thirty minutes of uninterrupted time. Not only did the framework stem
from the numbers of high-need students, but also from the numerous interruptions during
the school day. The teachers and students were discouraged over the number of times
they were pulled out of the classroom, missing crucial learning time. The literacy block
scheduling framework was introduced with the idea that by pooling teacher resources
during each hour allotted to each grade level; small group sizes would be constructed
leading to richer learning opportunities.
Teachers of ESL, Title 1, special education, and reading specialists, were now all
encouraged to provide learning services to their caseloads of students during this literacy
block time period. The teachers that taught within these programs were then pooled
together to take groups of students. For example, during the fourth grade hour each
classroom teacher would switch students during the hour based on guided reading ability
levels. They would then use paraprofessionals who were assigned to students or grade
level and give them small groups to lead as well. The specialists such as the ESL teacher,
would then take those students during this time as well, as did Title 1, reading specialists,
and special education teachers.
27
The materials that were used during the literacy block time period were the
district curriculum materials. Leveled guided reading books were the main component of
instruction. Each specialist had a variation of the curriculum with the exception of the
district reading initiative. The ESL materials used were designed with L2 learners in
mind, as were Title1 materials, and special education curricula as well. The scope and
sequence of the materials were aligned so students who were pulled out of their
classrooms were not missing curriculum, but receiving it from a different teacher.
Teachers would provide independent activities alongside guided reading groups, all of
which were based around the guided reading book and skills taught within the current
unit.
The literacy block introduced small group learning to all students in the school.
Student’s who may not have ever had exposure to different teachers or styles of teaching,
were now provided with various opportunities to have a small-group setting with
someone other than their classroom teacher.
Data Collection
Data collection occurred by looking closely at Northwest evaluation association’s
MAP (measures of academic progress) test scores. The NWEA tests are research-based
and aligned to state testing standards. The test is taken twice a year via the computer.
According to Northwest Evaluation Association (www.nwea.org), there have been scale
alignment studies done to link the Rasch Unit (RIT) scale to proficiency levels of state
assessments. Each study identified the RIT score, which was designed through using the
performance of individual examinees on individual items that corresponds to proficiency
28
levels of various subjects which include reading and math. Characteristics of the RIT
scale are that is used as an achievement scale, it is accurate, it has equal intervals, it helps
to measure growth over time, and the meaning does not change regardless of student
grade or age. Each student’s grade growth corresponds to the state standards and NWEA
proficiency levels RIT scores.
Rationale The trend in testing has moved to using interim tests that can guide instruction.
According to Woodfield (2003), computer-based testing can improve student learning, as
well as give parents, businesses and administrators achievement predictors in a timely
manner. Online testing provides an effective way to monitor, measure and gauge student
growth consistently. The MAP (measures of academic progress) was developed by
NWEA. This non-profit entity developed the MAP to help school districts nationwide
meet the needs of their students by measuring their progress. MAP tests are
administered by a qualified person within the school district and designed to measure
individual student growth within the classroom, school, and district (2003).
There are many advantages to using the MAP test. The main areas that the MAP
test differs from other testing measures are that it measures individual student
achievement, challenges 97-99 % of students including those students who qualify for
special education, provides data that can be used to compare and analyze other areas of
learning, and engages stakeholders more closely in the process of education (Woodfield,
2003). The MAP test is referenced on the RIT scale, which is yet another main
difference in comparison to other tests. The RIT scale allows the test to distinguish
29
specific areas of learning or subject matter and shows how the student ranks in
comparison to their peers, as well as their growth from test to test (2003).
The MAP test is given fall and spring. This allows teachers the ability monitor
their progress at the optimal time in order to individualize instruction accordingly.
Educators are able to look at scores immediately following the completion of the test and
determine what needs to be done with the student and or the curriculum. The spring test
then measures how well those adjustments worked (Woodfield, 2003). The differentiation
of students that occurs based on MAP scores can be attributed to the fact that the test is
designed to adapt and measure individual student learning levels. Depending on how the
student responds to the first several test items, the questions may get increasingly more
difficult or easier. Each student gets the same number of questions, but the questions
vary (2003). According to Bracey (2007), the MAP test has some gaps in determining
the level of proficiency across various states that use the test. MAP test items are placed
on the RIT scale which allows us to compare test scores across states. However the
difficulty with doing so is that the cut score for each state differs, as do the questions on
the test. The state cut scores are so different in fact that they do not allow states to
compare scores as previously thought (2007). MAP testing is a measure that gives
teachers the ability to see a measurement of growth in their students. There are
advantages and disadvantages to using the MAP test, but for the purpose of this
preliminary study the MAP test shows consistent data over a two-year time span.
The role of the researcher is to look closely at data and determine a relationship
within the variables of the data (Mackey & Gass 2005). The method of quantitative
30
research used for this study will be associational research. Associational research is
concerned only with co-occurrence of the variables not causations. The goal of using this
type of research is to determine the relationship and strength between the variables, if
any.
Procedure
The data for this study was collected in the month of May 2010. Using the
database Campus Learning and Assessment Data Gateway I was able to access student
test scores for all past tests taken. The NWEA MAP test gives immediate scores to both
student and teacher upon completion of the test.
Verification of Data
To ensure that my data is valid I will look at face validity and internal validity
very closely. Face validity as described by Mackey & Gass, (2005) refers to the
instrument used and how well that instrument can convince others the content of the
study is valid. Internal validity refers to ability for the results of the study to function as a
key factor in the research. Are the dependent and independent variables related? The
researcher is responsible for ruling out any other factors that would determine same
results (2005). In a quantitative study it is important that the study is described in a way
that will allow a clear picture of what the study is proposing to do, as well as a clear
picture of its outcomes and conclusions.
Ethics
I will take every step possible to guarantee anonymity to all participants before,
during, and after the data collection. Through Hamline University I submitted a Human
31
Subjects Research Proposal. I received permission from the school district to perform the
research. I received permission to conduct this study from the school’s principal, vice
principal, and the director of testing and assessment.
Conclusion
This preliminary quantitative study looks at data from the NWEA MAP tests for
ELLs from three different schools within the same district. Each school had a different
literacy block model and the data analyzed shows patterns from that data.
Chapter four will report the findings of the study, as well as give a detailed
description of how the results of the study were analyzed. Chapter five will discuss
further opportunities for research and implications of that research.
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
32
The relationship of the literacy block scheduling framework to student outcomes
on NWEA MAP testing was determined by looking closely at English language learner
map testing data over a two year time span. Looking at this data will provide information
that will help answer the research question for the study: Does implementation of a
literacy block without professional development lead to an increase in student academic
achievement as measured bi-annually by using NWEA MAP scores? Data from three
different schools are analyzed in the following tables. Each school had a different
approach to literacy block: School A used literacy block for all grade levels k-5 for two
consecutive years; School B did not use literacy block scheduling framework at all;
School C used literacy block in some grade levels, but not others.
Table 4.1 describes the data of the NWEA MAP scores for two consecutive
school years comparing only second and third grade students. In the first left-hand
column students are listed and identified by school name listed first and student listed
second. Scores are listed for Fall, Winter, and Spring testing periods. Not all students
took the test in the winter, but if they did their scores are reported in the table. The
number of points gained or lost from the fall testing period to the spring testing period
were calculated and listed in a separate column. Testing year 1 is listed first, followed by
testing year 2.
Testing year two is set up in the same format as test year 1. Test scores for fall,
winter, spring, are listed with the cumulative total points gained or lost from the Fall to
the Spring testing period are calculated and listed in the last column. Positive gains are
33
marked with a plus sign and the number of points gained. Negative gains are marked
with a minus symbol followed by the number of points lost over the year.
Table 4.1. Comparison of NWEA MAP data: Second- third grade students, fall, winter, spring of year 1 and year 2 Year 1
Year 2
Grade 2 Grade 3 Fall Winter Spring Subtotal Fall Winter Spring Total A.1 160 174 186 +26 184 196 190 +30 B.1 159 N/S 186 +27 184 N/S 195 +36 C.1 139 153 166 +27 163 172 182 +43 C.2 160 N/S 172 +12 190 N/S 196 +36 50% RIT
178 184 190 192 196 200
The data for table 4.1 compares scores of all three schools second graders.
Student A.1 shows that the student made a total gain of thirty points over a two year
time span. The first year shows gains for all three testing periods. The second year
shows that there was a slight dip in performance over the summer months and is
indicated by a two point lower score in fall of the second test year. The student made
gains of six points total throughout the second year, but the gains were not as large as the
first testing year. Student B.1 was only tested in the fall and spring of both years. Gains
were made both years with the larger gain at the end of the first year of twenty-seven
points. There was a two point loss over the summer months for student B.1. Student C.1
also made gains from fall to spring of the first and second year, with a dip in score over
the summer months. There was a three point loss for student C.1 between spring of test
year one and fall of test year two. Student C.2 also had positive gains both testing years.
34
What is most interesting to note with student C.2 is that the fall score in the second year
was much higher than the spring score in the first year indicating no slump in skills over
the summer months.
Table 4.2 Comparison of NWEA MAP data: Third- fourth grade students, fall, winter, spring of year 1 and year 2: third and fourth grade students Year 1 Year 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Fall Winter Spring Subtotal Fall Winter Spring Total A.2 163 177 170 +7 186 186 183 +20 A.3 175 187 200 +25 200 204 214 +39 A.4 175 187 188 +13 197 194 204 +29 A.5 N/S N/S 156 0 155 168 175 +19 B.2 176 N/S 186 +10 197 N/S 205 +29 B.3 159 N/S 186 +27 176 N/S 184 +25 C.3 150 164 162 +12 185 178 183 +33 C.4 177 197 203 +26 195 N/S 207 +30 C.5 N/S 190 189 -1 203 N/S 207 +17 C.6 174 181 192 +18 184 185 192 +18 50% RIT
192 196 200 201 204 207
The data for table 4.2 also shows a positive gain in student test scores. Three of
the four students from school A had positive gains on their NWEA MAP tests at the end
of year one and two. Student A.2 did not have a gain at the end of the second year, but
did have a gain at the end of the first year. Of the four students analyzed from school A,
only student A.5 had a lower score from the spring of year one to the fall of year two.
School B did not participate in the literacy block scheduling framework. Both
students showed gains over the two-year testing period and neither student took the test
35
during the winter test period. Student B.2 showed gains between the spring of year one
and the fall of year two and student B.3 showed a loss of ten points during that same
period.
The data for school C is shows that overall gains were made by all four students at
some point during the two-year period analyzed. Year one showed gains by three of the
four students, with student C.3 losing one point from winter test of year one to the spring
of year one . That same student gained four points in the second year of testing that was
analyzed. Two students from school C showed increase between end of year one and
beginning of year two, while two students showed a loss of growth during that same time.
Table 4.3 Comparison of NWEA MAP data: fourth and fifth grade students, fall, winter, spring of year 1 and 2
Year 1 Year 2 Grade 4 Grade 5
Fall Winter Spring Subtotal Fall Winter Spring Total A.6 176 181 185 +9 193 181 185 +9 C.7 193 212 +19 211 N/S 209 -3 50% RIT
201 204 207 208 210 212
Table 4.3 compares two students. Student A.6 had literacy block for both years
consecutively, although the model looked slightly different each year. Student C.5 had
literacy block intermittently both years. The end of year one shows both students made
substantial gains and generally carried those scores to the fall testing period of year two.
However the data shows that by the spring testing period of year two a distinct drop was
evident. Student A.6 lost eight points, while student C.7 lost two points. It’s important to
36
note however, that there was gain made from the beginning of the test period analyzed to
the end of the period examined. In fact, student A.6 gained nine points and student C.7
gained 16 points.
Overall students from all three schools, A, B, and C made positive gains over a
two year testing period taking the NWEA MAP tests. Sixteen student test scores were
analyzed with comparison of scores made between grade level 2-3, 3-4, and 4-5.
In conclusion, the results after analyzing the NWEA MAP data on sixteen English
language learners showed that the preliminary study that aimed to answer the research
question of whether or not implementation of a literacy block without teacher
development led to an increase in student academic achievement as measured bi-annually
by using NWEA MAP scores is inconclusive. As seen in the data, the literacy block
framework did not have a direct impact on test scores.
Chart 4.1 NWEA MAP score comparisons of student’s grades 2-3
37
Numbers: RIT scale score
Chart 4.2 NWEA MAP score comparison of student’s grades 3-4.
Numbers: RIT scale score
0
50
100
150
50
100
150
200
250
38
Formatted: Font: Italic
Chart 4.3 NWEA MAP score comparisons of student’s grade 4-5
Numbers: RIT scale score
0
50
100
150
50
100
150
200
250
39
The results of the study show that gains were made by all students according the
NWEA MAP scores. Overall, there was a positive gain in scores from fall to spring of
both years one and two. There was a slight plateau or even dip from the spring of test
year one to the fall of test year two, however it was minimal. Chapter five will discuss
the results in greater detail including findings, limitations, future work and research, as
well as implications of the study.
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
My interest in the effectiveness of a literacy block scheduling framework as
measured by student test scores led to this preliminary study. I wanted to know if
implementation of a literacy block without teacher development leads to an increase in
ELL student academic achievement as measured by the bi-annual NWEA MAP test
scores. Collecting data from students in three different school settings all of which had a
different literacy block model, allowed me to tabulate data and determine if a correlation
existed between an increase in NWEA MAP test scores and literacy block. Scores from
fall and spring testing periods were looked at over a two year time period for ELLs who
40
were part of a literacy block, as well as those who were not part of a literacy block
scheduling framework. Students in grades 2-5 take the MAP test but for the purpose of
this study, only ELL students who were involved in the literacy block for two
consecutive years had their scores analyzed.
Findings
The scores indicate that there is a positive trajectory in test scores across a two-
year time period for all groups of students. Students were compared according to grade
level at the beginning of the two year testing period and end of the period. All three
groups of students showed gains in NWEA MAP scores over a two year period even
though School A had literacy block for two consecutive years. School B had no literacy
block and school C had literacy block intermittently. There was an upward trend in the
scores, but the trend was mild for all three groups compared. Also important to note is
the plateau or slight drop in scores between the testing years, which was the summer
months between spring of first year and fall of second year of testing. Chart 4.1 shows
that three of the four students plateaued through the summer months, but made gains
from winter to spring of the second year. Chart 4.2 shows significant growth from spring
to fall of year one and again fall to spring year two. The range of gain went from 3 points
to more than ten points. Also important is the grade level of the test seems to have an
impact on the amount of growth. The largest sample of students had positive gains over
the two year testing period, although the gains were not as large.
The data indicates that English language learners make gains on the MAP test
with or without the literacy block scheduling framework as part of their school day. This
41
Formatted: Font:
finding is not surprising, yet implies that there are many variables to increasing student
test scores.
Chart 5.1 NWEA MAP average test scores for School A, B, and C year 1 and two.
50
100
150
200
42
Formatted: Font:
Numbers: RIT scale score
Chart 5.1 shows that when each school was compared by average scores the gains
were made at a steady pace for all three schools. This information is consistent with our
other charts showing steady growth for all three schools when grade levels were
compared. Average scores for school A showed that the increase across year one and two
was minimal. School B showed similar results, and school C showed a larger gain from
winter of year one to fall of year two, however due to the lack of participants taking the
winter version one of the NWEA MAP the scores dropped significantly. The scores
increased at the end of year two as chart 5.1 shows.
The data of the study tells a similar story to that of the research. Canady & Rettig
(1996) stated that scheduling change is not the main factor in student learning, but what
the teacher does with the students makes the difference. They also argue that training and
0
50
100
150
43
development for teachers is essential to block scheduling success (1996). A study done
by Hill & Crevola (1999) also reiterates the necessity for teacher development and
training to make necessary changes when using a literacy block scheduling framework,
which brings the main research question into focus. Does implementation of a literacy
block without professional development lead to an increase in student academic
achievement as measured bi-annually by using NWEA MAP scores? The answer to that
question is no. The data shows that literacy block without professional development does
not lead to an increase in student academic achievement as measured bi-annually by
using NWEA MAP scores.
Limitations
This study had a number of limitations that made it difficult to pinpoint the exact
cause of generally rising test scores. First, the number of students was small. The
number of English language learners in the district is small, and that number of
participants is even smaller if only students who are not new to the country are selected.
MAP tests are not given to new to country students due to their lack of English language
experience. If the study had been done school-wide on student’s grades four and five
who had been part of the literacy block scheduling for two consecutive years, the data
may have shown a different pattern.
Secondly, I have noticed that the MAP test is extremely difficult for ELLs. The
reading MAP test is a measure of their reading skills, so for an English learner learning to
read is the first skill set that is necessary. The test however, may not truly measure their
language skills because their oral language is usually more developed. According to the
44
NWEA website (http://www.nwea.org/products-services/computer-based-adaptive-
assessments), the MAP test is available only with a Spanish audio version for the math
test. In other words, ELL students are not able to access the test in their native language
and the rules of test do not allow reading the test aloud to them.
Another limitation to the study was that the literacy block framework was
different in each school and at each grade level. Out of the three schools’ data that were
analyzed, only two of the three schools had a literacy block framework. As the data
showed, the scores of students who did not have the literacy block increased as well.
Within each literacy block hour, the grade level model varied greatly. For
example, third grade may have had smaller groups to work with during that hour than say
fourth grade. Was it small group learning that lent itself to increased MAP scores, or was
it the literacy block experience? While the literacy block hour is taking place students
are receiving a myriad of services, including ESL; the specialized learning that took place
may also be a contributing factor to increased MAP scores.
The final limitation to the study is the gap in research pertaining to literacy block
as it was used for this preliminary study. Literacy block is not a method of teaching,
rather a way to schedule literacy based activities in the classroom. The lack of research
in the area proves difficult to support the research question and therefore needs further
development.
Future work
Future work in the area of literacy block and the role it plays in learning are
essential to creating a successful learning environment for ELLs. There are large gaps in
45
specific research tied to literacy block and its implications for student learning. I want to
build on the understanding that using a specific schedule to determine services for
students is not always best practice, even though small group sizes are created, giving
students an opportunity to flex their abilities in a small-group setting. Class sizes are
increasing nationwide so it is vital to be creative with the opportunities provided to
students.
Having had exposure to using the literacy block scheduling model as an ESL
teacher for three years it will be extremely beneficial for me to take that information to
the new district. That information will allow me to present the positive and negative
aspects of the scheduling model, while showing the data proves positive gains are made
with or without literacy block in place. Essential information for the district should
include professional development for teachers and administrators as a main component
prior to implementing the literacy block schedule. That said this study allows me to
present the many variables that play a part in the learning process.
Implications
This study leads me to question the importance of a literacy block schedule and
how it is used. More extensive research needs to be done with the literacy block
scheduling at the forefront, and more importantly research with English language
learners. Research pertaining to teacher performance within the literacy block is yet
another area that needs more extensive research.
Literacy block The literacy block as discussed in this study refers to a scheduling framework that
was used to minimize the number of classroom interruptions felt by mainstream,
46
classroom teachers and students during the school day. There were no professional
development opportunities available prior to its implementation as was suggested by Hill
& Crevola (1999), in the literature review. Also important to note is that literacy block
scheduling has not been tied directly to improved test scores in the elementary grades and
specifically has not been tied to ELLs. In fact according to Gulatt, the mixed results in
using literacy block have had not strong connection to any assessment or the block itself
(2006). These results are attached to high school students as well, again reminding us of
the gap in research for English language learners.
Collaboration Collaboration among staff is a key component to making the literacy block
scheduling model operate smoothly. Friend & Cook describe collaboration not as a
method of teaching rather a form of interacting (2000). There are significant benefits to
collaboration especially when we consider the amount of planning that must go into a
literacy block to create an atmosphere of learning. According to Bean, Grumet, and
Bulazo (1999), the following are benefits to using a collaborative model both for teachers
and students: two teachers in the room reduce ratios which help to meet student needs;
new ideas flow from the teachers about instruction and classroom management; and
teachers have another peer in the room to share the collaborative experience with. All of
these factors were present in the literacy block scheduling model discussed here and as
the data showed test scores improved. However, all three schools whose data was
analyzed had an increase in NWEA MAP scores despite the fact that only two schools
had a legitimate literacy block scheduling model.
47
Assessment Assessment of the literacy block model was based solely on NWEA MAP scores
from three schools which had Ell’s scores to analyze. Two year’s worth of data was
analyzed in order to determine patterns and trends. The NWEA MAP tests are valid and
reliable tests used by many states nationwide. According to Northwest Evaluation
Association (http://www.nwea.org/our-research), state standards are a pre-requisite to
determining RIT scale scores for students by grade level. Core beliefs of the NWEA
system are based on continuous growth through school and community, while fostering
critical thinking skills (2010).
Dissemination
I plan to use this research in my current district by presenting the information to
administration and encouraging them to consider all options of scheduling. Literacy
block allows for small-group learning and less pull-out time from classrooms, however
there are ramifications to that as well. Students may not have as much time with their
classroom teachers and peers and may miss out on important social and academic
opportunities. There are other factors to consider as well. Unprepared teachers and lack
of staff development are two such areas that need further development before a literacy
block schedule can be put into place. It is also important to define the amount and types
of resources that will be used before allocating them to a certain teacher or grade level.
All of these considerations must be analyzed before a literacy block schedule is
implemented.
48
Conclusion
The research for this preliminary study aimed to answer the question of whether
the implementation of a literacy block without teacher development lead to an increase in
student academic achievement as measure by the NWEA MAP test scores. Scores from
three schools, all of which had a varying degree of literacy block involvement were
analyzed.
The data showed that with or without a literacy block scheduling framework
English language learner test scores increased over a two year time span. The
information gained from this study can be used to further research the effects of the
literacy block scheduling framework on English language learners MAP scores and
further guide their instruction to meet each students’ individual needs.
49
REFERENCES
Bean, R.M., Grumet, J.V. & Bulazo, J. (1999). Learning from each other; collaboration between classroom teachers and reading specialist interns. Reading Research and Instruction the Journal of the College Reading Association, 38(4), 273-287.
Bouck, E. (2007). Co-teaching...not just a textbook term: Implications for practice. Preventing School Failure, 51(2), 46-51.
Bracey. G., (2007) The proficiency illusion. PHI Delta Kappan, December.
Canady, R.L., & Rettig, M. D., (1996). Teaching in the block: strategies for engaging active learners. New York, NY: Eye on Education Inc.
Carless, D., (2006). Collaborative EFL teaching in primary schools. ELT Journal, 60(4), 328-335.
Clair, N., (1995). Mainstream classroom teachers and ESL students. TESOL Quarterly 29(1) 189-196.
Friend, M. (2007). The co-teaching partnership. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 48-52.
Friend, M., & Bursuck,W.D., (1999). Including students with special needs a practical guide for classroom teachers. (2nd
Gullat,D., (2007)
. Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
The Educational Forum, Volume 71, Issue 3 , pages 211 – 220.
Gately, S. E. (2005). Two are better than one. Principal Leadership, 5(9), 36-41.
Hargreaves, A. Earl, L., and Ryan J. (1996). Schooling for change. Reinventing education for early adolescents. London, UK: The Falmer Press.
Hill, P.W., & Crevola C.A. (1999). Key features of a whole-school, design approach to literacy teaching in schools. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 4(3) 5-11.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. (2008). Co-teaching in the ESL classroom. Delta Kappa Gamma, 74(2), 8-14.
Mackey, A., and Gass., S. M. (2005). Second language research methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McKeon, D., (1987). Different types of ESL programs. ERIC Digest. Washington, D.C. : Eric Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
50
Nordmeyer, J. (2008). Delicate balance. J Staff, 29(1), 34-40.
http://www.ode.state.or.us/
Rennie, J. (1993). ESL and Bilingual Program Models. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. Digest based on an article in (August, 1993) Streamlined Seminar 12(1). National Association of Elementary School Principals.
Santangelo, Tanya. (2009). Collaborative problem solving effectively implemented, but not sustained: a case for aligning the sun, moon, and the stars. Exceptional Children, 75(2), 185-209.
Texas Association for Bilingual Education (2006). An action plan for providing effective linguistic and academic instruction for English language learners in Texas. TABE Executive Board.
Veal, W.R., & Flinders, D. J., (2001) How block scheduling reform effects classroom practice. The High School Journal 84(4) 21-31.
Volonino, V., & Zigmond, N. (2007). Promoting Research-based practices through inclusion?. Theory Into Practice, 46(4), 291-300.
Woodfield, K.,& Lewis, J., (2003). Getting on board with online testing. T H E Journal, 30(6).
