Research-based Teaching Strategies to Increase LEP/IEP Student Achievement

1
Research-based Teaching Strategies to Increase
LEP/IEP Student Achievement

• March 20, 2004
• Ann Clapper and Halee Vang

N C E O
National Center on Educational Outcomes
2
Presenters

• Ann Clapper, Ed.D. and MS in Educational
  Administration with emphasis on curriculum and
  instruction, Research Associate, Area of research
  is on impact of large scale assessments on
  teaching and learning
• Halee Vang, Ph.D. Student in Educational Policy
  and Administration, Research Assistant, Bilingual
  teacher, MA in Special Education with Emphasis on
  Migrant Education and Students from
  Linguistically diverse cultures

3

• What is the National Center on Educational
  Outcomes (NCEO)?

4

• A research center at the University of Minnesota
• Established in 1990
• Focuses on designing and building educational
  assessments and accountability systems, to
  monitor educational results for all students,
  including students with disabilities and English
  Language Learners

5
NCEO Goals

• Research
• Technical Assistance and Dissemination
• Collaboration and Other Leadership Activities

6
Target Audiences

• Students, Families, Educators
• Local Administrators, Policymakers, Urban Schools
• National Staff/Policymakers
• Researchers

7
Current Initiatives

• Universally-Designed Assessments
• Accommodations
• Large-scale Assessments
• LEP/IEP Instruction

8
Overview

• Introduce the instructional project
• Share in more details about each phase of the
  project and its findings
• Share the tool used in phase 5

9
No Child Left Behind State Assessments

• State assessments must provide for the
  participation of all students, including students
  with disabilities or limited English proficiency

10
No Child Left BehindState Assessment Systems

• State assessment systems must produce results
  disaggregated by gender, major racial and ethnic
  groups, English proficiency, migrant status, and
  disability.

11
No Child Left BehindAdequate Yearly Progress

• States must specify annual objectives to measure
  progress of schools and districts to ensure that
  all groups of students-including low-income
  students, students from major racial and ethnic
  groups, students with disabilities, and students
  with limited English proficiency-reach
  proficiency within 12 years.

12
Link to Learning

• If you said to me what is the most important
  thing about standards and testing, I would say
  the information it gives us about informing
  instruction.

13
Link to Learning

• Well I also think theres a lot of adjustment
  on the part of the ELL department, meaning the
  whole body of teachers out there where youve had
  a model that has said its OK to disappear for
  half an hour a day with this little group of
  students and do your thing. Now you really
  cannot do that without some accountability.

14
Link to Learning

• You cant pull out when youve got 50 of your
  students are ELL students, you cant pull them
  out anymore because youre pulling out half your
  class.

15
Linking to Learning

• I think the mainstream focus is also on the ELL
  learner rather than just have them be a separate
  entity and have the ELL Director worry about
  them. Now the principal of the school has to
  think, these kids are also being tested and their
  results go into the whole school results for the
  whole accountability purpose.

16
Who are the LEP/IEP students?

• Special population of Limited English Proficient
  students who also have disabilities
• Total estimate is 357,325 for 2002-2003
• The project focuses on three language groups of
  ELLs with disabilities, Spanish, Hmong, and
  Somalia

17
Why do we need to be concerned about them?
18

• They are a growing population in the US

19

• 2. Limited Language Proficient students with
  disabilities are scoring poorly on state tests
• 3. Future negative implications for everyone

20
LEP/IEP Instructional Project

• Pathways for Promoting the Success of English
  Language Learners with Disabilities in
  Standards-Based Education

21
A team of researchers working together

• Martha Thurlow, Ph.D. Director of NCEO
• Manuel Barrera, Ph.D.Lead Researcher
• Ann Clapper, Ed. D.--Researcher
• Kristi LiuProject Coordinator
• Deb AlbusResearcher
• Vitaliy ShyyanResearch Assistant
• Halee VangResearch Assistant
• Plus other additional researchers as necessary

22
Project Purpose

• To investigate ways that English Language
  Learners with disabilities can participate
  meaningfully in, and benefit from,
  standards-based instruction
• To promote effective practice for successful
  participation of ELL students with disabilities
  by improving the alignment of instructional
  interventions for these students

23
Main Project Research Questions

• What instructional practices do educators
  (ESL/Bilingual education teachers, special
  education teachers and general teachers), ELLs
  with disabilities and their parents, recommend
  for delivering grade-level, standards-based
  instruction to ELLs with disabilities in general
  settings?
• What are the effects of recommended instructional
  practices on the performance of ELLs with
  disabilities in general education settings?

24
LEP/IEP Instructional Project Study Components

• ? Phase 1 Analyze statewide assessment data for
  ELLs with disabilities
• ? Phase 2 Conduct focused brainstorming
  sessions with groups of teachers to determine
  recommended teaching strategies the most
• ? Phase 3 Conduct parent group interviews to
  gain their perceptions on recommended strategies
• ? Phase 4 Conduct focused groups with ELLs with
  disabilities to learn their perceptions
• ? Phase 5 Implement single-case studies of
  recommended strategies in classrooms

25
Phase 1

• Analyze Minnesota statewide assessment data for
  ELLs with disabilities

26
How?

• Examined two state math and reading tests
• Minnesotas Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs)
  1999-2000
• Minnesota Basic Standards Tests (MBSTs) 2000-2001

27
Findings of 2 state tests

• The majority of LEP students with disabilities
  performed at the lowest level for both math and
  reading, and in many cases, many fail them

28
Phase 1 Results Confirmed

• The need for this study to continue

29
Phase 2

• Conduct focused brainstorming sessions with
  groups of teachers to determine the recommended
  teaching strategies used the most

30
Phase 2

• Focuses on the identification of appropriate
  instructional strategies for ELLs with
  disabilities using educators who are currently
  working with these students as a resource
• Uses the Multi Attribute Consensus Building
  Process (MACB) to enable teachers to more
  objectively and neutrally generate and evaluate
  ideas about instructional strategies they used in
  educating ELLs with disabilities

31
Data Collection Sites

• Within Minnesotas school districts
• Gathered data only from schools with sufficient
  number of ELLs with disabilities
• Predominately suburban schools (3 urban14
  educators and 5 suburban28 educators)

32
Participants

• Educators have taught 5-9 graders who are ELLs or
  special education students
• Included ESL/Bilingual and special education
  teachers
• Small groups of 4-7 teachers were formed

33
Definition of a strategy

• A purposeful activity to engage learners in
  acquiring new behaviors or knowledge. To be
  useful for our purposes, an instructional
  strategy should have clearly defined steps or a
  clear description of what the teacher does.

34
Two Stages in Phase 2

• Stage one
• Staff researched the literature and selected five
  recommended instructional strategies as a
  starting point for teacher to discuss and
  generate additional strategies they would
  recommend

35
Initial Glossary

• At first, initial glossary was provided about the
  selected strategies from the literature
• Later, the teachers generated additional
  strategies that they have used which were added
  to the list
• Participants were asked to weight all of the
  strategies by content areas such as math,
  science, or reading
• Had them do survey about feasibility and use of
  strategies

36
Stage two

• 42 educators followed the process of weighting
  and discussing the strategies and answering
  surveys about the strategies feasibility and use
  as described in stage one

37
Results of Phase 2
38
Reading Strategies

• 28 strategies were weighted and the top five
  were
• Direct teaching of vocabulary
• Teaching pre-, during-, post-reading strategies
• Fluency building, high frequency words
• Chunking and questioning aloud
• Relating to student experiences

39
Math Strategies

• 20 strategies were weighted and top five were
• Tactile, concrete experiences of math
• Daily re-looping of previously learned materials
• Problem solving instruction and task analysis
  strategies
• Teacher think-aloud
• Student think-aloud

40
Science Strategies

• 23 strategies were weighted and top five are
• Hands-on, active participation
• Using visuals
• Using pictures to demonstrate steps
• Using pre-reading strategies in content areas
• Modeling/teacher demonstration

41
Results of phase 2

• Most feasible and use
• Reading strategyteaching pre, during, and post
  reading strategies
• Math strategy tie between adjusted speech and
  daily re-looping of previously learned materials
• Science strategyvisuals

42
What do the findings in phase 2 indicate?

• This study provides valuable information about
  current teachers thinking about strategy use
  with this special population of ELLs with
  disability, and the influence that shape their
  decisions

43
Phase 3

• Conduct parent group interviews to gain their
  perceptions on recommended strategies

44
Reminder Study focuses on three language groups
Hmong, Spanish, Somalia.

• For phase 3, the example of how the study was
  conducted, processes used, and findings will be
  with the Hmong language group.

45
Participants

• A total of 6 interviews
• Interviews lasted 40-60 minutes
• Five interviews took place in the parents homes
  and one at a community center
• Had children with various disabilities such as
  physical and multiple disabilities, ADHD, etc.
• All are Hmong parents

46
Phase 3

• Interview preparation process
• Developed culturally and linguistically
  appropriate interview format
• Had interviews reviewed by cultural advisory
  panel
• Collaborated with parent advocacy organization
  for recruitment of parent participants
• Employed bilingual interviewers from language
  community

47
Interview Preparation Process

• Held informal dinner meetings with advocacy
  organization prior to the interviews to inform
  and meet parents
• Interviewed parents in the place of their own
  choosingprovided transportation and childcare
  when needed
• Allowed parents to choose language of interview
• Emphasized parents were experts on their children
  and are partners in helping us

48
During the Interview

• We asked the parents to describe
• Their family and home life
• Their childs school life
• Their own perceptions about the schools where the
  children attend
• Their own perceptions about the child and the
  community environment

49
During the Interview

• Had parents listen to the sample reading and
  descriptions of activities the teacher will use
  to teach the hypothetical child
• Asked questions using the hypothetical child what
  they thought if the child was taught in English
  and then in Hmong
• Then we asked the parents to comment on their own
  children if their child was taught in English and
  then Hmong

50
Sample of activities described

• The teacher decided to help her improve her
  reading in English by doing the following
  activities
• Before reading
• Have Mai read from a book other students are
  reading to see what words she can read and what
  words she needs to learn.
• Gave Mai a story outline and review the story
  with her.
• During reading
• Explain the kind of story it is and show how the
  story looks.
• Show Mai how to read the words.
• After reading
• The teacher helps students make a story map
  including key ideas in the story.
• Teaches students like Mai how to study key words
  and ideas about the story.

51
Sample Questions

• Questions about hypothetical child
• What do you think about the teacher using English
  to teach the child how to read?
• How well do you think the before learning
  activities will work for Mai? Really great, okay,
  not so well? What else should the teacher do?
  (Repeat same questions for the during and after
  learning activities.)

52
Sample Questions Cont.

• Questions about the parents child
• What do you think about the teacher using English
  to teach your child how to read?
• What do you think about the teacher using Hmong
  to teach your child?
• How well do you think the during learning
  activities will work for your child? (Repeat same
  questions for the before and after activities.)

53

• What did the Hmong parents say?

54

• What do you think about the teacher using English
  to teach the child how to read?
• All of the parents responded that using English
  is good

55

• How well do you think the activities the teacher
  used before reading will work?
• All of the respondents agreed that the learning
  activities will work great

56

• What do you think about the teacher using Hmong
  to teach the child how to read?
• Most of the parents are reluctant about the
  teacher using only Hmong to teach the child.
  They prefer that both English and Hmong are used
  instead of just Hmong.

57
Is there anything else you would like to share
with us about your child at school?

• My childs learning seems to be improving.
• Its not okay to plan my childs IEP without me.
• The teacher said my child understands work but
  wont do it. Teacher should make my child do
  work.
• My child talks a lot, teacher should remind her
  to stop talking and do work.

58

• I want the teachers to help my child read more
  than anything else, so that she will remember
  things better. Even if one does not think as
  well as another, the one that can read is one
  that will go further in Education. --Non-English
  speaking parent

59
Phase 3 Results indicated

• The voices of Hmong parents have never been heard
  before nor have they been successful sought out.
• Hmong parents do share the same concerns about
  their childrens education as mainstream parents
  despite cultural and linguistic barriers.
• Hmong parents are in tune and aware of the
  struggles of seeking an equitable education for
  their children with disabilities.
• Most importantly, they care deeply for their
  childrens education despite their childrens
  disabilities and desire to work with educators to
  improve their childrens life chances.

60
Phase 4

• Conduct small focused group sessions with ELLs
  with disabilities to learn their perceptions

61
Phase 4 continues

• Focused brainstorming sessions consist
• Small groups of 4-7 ELLs with disabilities
• Last about two hours
• Take place in the same school building
• Students who participated in study are given a
  gift certificate of 20 each
• Staff who assisted with study are also given some
  gift certificates in same amounts

62

• Focused brainstorming sessions are conducted for
  the purpose of getting input from the ELLs with
  disabilities on teaching strategies that they use
  when teaching grade level content to them

63
Phase 4

• Currently, we have conducted two focused groups
  and are continuing to schedule more study groups
  with ELLs with disabilities

64
Phase 5

• Implement single-case studies of recommended
  strategies in classrooms

65
Phase 5

• Where are we in the process?

66
Phase 5

• The team of researchers got together and decided
  through group consensus how to best go about
  selecting the best strategies that could be
  operationalized for implementation.
• So far, 3 math strategies and 3 reading
  strategies have been selected and they are being
  operationalized based on the literature.

67
Six Strategies

• Math
• Problem Solving
• Teacher Think Aloud
• Student Developed Glossary
• Reading
• Chunking and Questioning
• Graphic Organizers
• Reciprocal Teaching

68
Next

• Meeting to clearly define those six strategies
  and begin identifying the possible schools for
  teachers to implement those strategies
• Making decisions about which school districts
  would be most feasible in implementing those
  strategies without difficult bureaucracy

69
Innovation ConfigurationDefinition

• A description of how a program, practice or
  innovation looks in actual practice

70
Innovation ConfigurationElements

• Component
• Role
• Levels
• Variations

71
Project Summary

• Phase 1 Analyzed statewide assessment data for
  ELLs with disabilities and found that they scored
  lowest of all students, indicating the need for
  this study to continue.
• Phase 2 Conducted focused brainstorming
  sessions with groups of teachers to determine
  recommended teaching strategies most preferred
  and used, and created a list of strategies for
  three content areas, math, science and reading.

72
Project Summary

• Phase 3 Conducted parent group interviews to
  gain their perceptions on recommended strategies
  and found that parents thought the strategies
  used in the study of phase 3 would work well in
  teaching their children. This finding reveals
  that ELL parents have a lot to say about the
  education of their children and want to share
  them.

73
Project Summary

• Phase 4 Conduct focused groups with ELLs with
  disabilities to learn their perceptions. This
  phase of study is on-going.
• Phase 5 Implement single-case studies of
  recommended strategies in classrooms and this
  phase is still in the planning stage.

74
Educators face some challenges in trying to
educate ELLs with disabilities

• Involving and communicating with parents
• Disconnect between teachers and parents
• Low performance of students
• Low expectations for students with disabilities

75
This project attempts to

• Close the disconnect between parents and teachers
  with the strategies learned
• Encourage educators to examine their roles and
  determine what they can do to improve the
  education of ELLs with disabilities
• Identify effective instructional strategies to
  improve the outcomes for ELLs with disabilities