Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Los Angeles Unified School District Program Evaluation and Research Branch January 9, 2009 Evaluation of ELD Practicum Year 1 Report 2006-07 Gojko Vuckovic,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Los Angeles Unified School District Program Evaluation and Research Branch January 9, 2009 Evaluation of ELD Practicum Year 1 Report 2006-07 Gojko Vuckovic,"— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Los Angeles Unified School District Program Evaluation and Research Branch January 9, 2009 Evaluation of ELD Practicum Year 1 Report Gojko Vuckovic, Ph.D., Kathy Hayes, Ph.D., & Jesus Salazar, Ph.D.

2 2 This report examines implementation of the ELD program in 3 rd and 4 th grade classrooms looking at:  Regular Into English! lessons  Enhanced Into English! Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) lessons Introduction

3 3 Sample  25 randomly selected schools  School Characteristic Index (SCI)  100 randomly selected classrooms  Two Grade 3 classrooms per school  Two Grade 4 classrooms per school

4 4 Data collection  Two classroom observations, once per semester  If ELD was taught, two additional consecutive days were observed  Open-ended teacher interviews and administrator surveys

5 5 Data gathering strategies used in observations  Fieldnotes  30-minute Timeline of Classroom Interaction Structures  Observation Summary Statement  Observation Summary Scale  Interview Protocols  Administrator Survey

6 6 Data reduction and analysis  Application of a coding scheme to field notes and teacher interviews  The coded data were analyzed for descriptive statistics, frequencies, and crosstabs

7 7 The evaluation objective # 1 To document: The capacity of the schools to support ELD Program implementation in 3 rd and 4 th grade classrooms serving English learners.

8 8 The evaluation objective # 2 To document: The extent and nature of ELD Program implementation in 3 rd and 4 th grade classrooms serving English learners.

9 9 The evaluation objective # 3 To document: The effectiveness of ELD instruction as measured by student progress on CELDT and ELA CST.

10 10 Capacity – Professional development  83% of teachers completed the ELD Practicum.  Of remaining 17%, 10% had ELD 5 day Institute completed, 3% were trained by EL Coordinator, and 4% had no ELD training.  Teachers found demonstration lessons to be the most beneficial aspect of the professional development.

11 11 Capacity – ELD materials  82% of teachers had all of the ELD materials.  18% of teachers were missing some materials such as ballparking forms, Language Logs, lesson pictures, picture cards, CDs, and student books.  74% of teachers used supplemental materials, such as realia, visuals, literature, and the internet.

12 12 Implementation criteria  Number of lessons taught  Number of objectives met  Materials used  ELD strategies used  Students on task (engagement)  Time spent on ELD

13 13 Specific time ranges dedicated to ELD instruction Average minutes per day Classrooms 30 to 4560 More than 4519 Less than 3016 No ELD taught5

14 14 Time by program and level ELD Lesson Type Time in minutes ImplementedNot Implemented Enhanced3923 Regular3533 Regular and Enhanced37n.a. Special Cases4438 Average3926

15 15 3 rd Grade implementation SemesterImplemented Not Implemented Totals First43750 Second371350

16 16 4 th Grade implementation SemesterImplemented Not Implemented Totals First Second401050

17 17 General factors contributing to no or very low implementation – Second semester (23 classes) School site issue17 Substitute teacher (2 also school site issue) 6 Professional development (2 also school site issue) 4

18 18 Specific factors contributing to no or very low implementation – Second semester No ELD instruction of any kind was observed 2 No ELD Program materials were used4 Teacher cited timing issues4 Only one lesson taught over 3 days5 Grade level or student population issues2 Other6

19 19 ELD implementation by ELD program observed - Semester 1 ELD Program ImplementedNot Implemented N%N% Enhanced3786%614% Regular2181%519% Enhanced & Regular 982%218% Special Cases1381%319% No ELD Program00%4100% Total8080%2020%

20 20 ELD implementation by ELD program observed - Semester 2 ELD Program ImplementedNot Implemented N%N% Enhanced4894%36% Regular857%643% Enhanced & Regular 11100%00% Special Cases1053%947% No ELD Program00%5100% Total7777%2323%

21 21 Definitions of “Special cases” Implemented  Regular lessons taught with TBLT framework Not Implemented  Regular lessons taught with TBLT framework  Made up lessons taught with TBLT framework  Teacher self-created lesson with no connection to the IE! books

22 22 Use of strategies Enhanced Into English! ELD Strategies Semester 1 (43 classes) Semester 2 (51 classes) N % Backward Buildup 00%12% Ballparking1228%816% Corrective Recasting1944%1020% Pull Out and Talk/Write3888%4588% RASP614%24% Think-Pair-Share4195%4894% Thinking Maps4298%5098% Vocalized Reading3377%3569%

23 23 Use of strategies Regular Into English! ELD Strategies Semester 1 ( 26 classes) Semester 2 ( 14 classes) N% N% Audio1454%750% Chant1142%429% Choral Reading1558%643% Collaborative Reading14%17% Demonstrating1454%1286% Echo Reading415%17% Games28%17% Graphs/Charts1662%857% Prior Knowledge1142%750% Realia935%214% Think-Pair-Share1765%750% TPR623%214% Visual/Illustrations2388%1393%

24 24 Effectiveness of ELD instruction CELDT GradeImplementedNot Implemented GainN N 3 rd grade th grade

25 25 Effectiveness of ELD instruction ELA CST GradeImplementedNot Implemented GainN N 3 rd grade th grade

26 26 Effect sizes GradeELA CST Impl. vs Not Impl. CELDT Impl. vs Not Impl. 3rd grade th grade.29.27

27 27 10 classes in which ELD levels 4 & 5 significantly outperformed lover ELD levels Differentia tion Classroom # 1# 2# 3# 4# 5# 6# 7# 8# 9# 10 Suggested number Completed number

28 28 10 classes - Differentiation practices not or rarely used  Questioning techniques based on ELD level  Mapping  Discussion prompts  Activity options by level  Different grouping for reading  Generating different student responses by facilitating simple, elaborate and complex sentences (some observed)

29 29 10 classes – Quality of teaching and learning analysis  Learning environment typically not student centered  No extra oral opportunities when needed  Vocabulary needed for better understanding not covered  No assessment practices  Rarely accessed prior knowledge  No evidence of listening to students to inform teaching

30 30 15 high performing classrooms Classroom and implementation level (I*, NI**) Gra de ELD Levels Num. of ELs CST ELA Gains CELDT Gains Classroom # 1(I)31,2,3,4, Classroom # 2(I)31,2,3,4, Classroom # 3(I)41,2,3,4, Classroom # 4(I)41,2,3,4, Classroom # 5(I)33,4, Classroom # 6(I)31,2,3,4, Classroom # 7(I)33,4, Classroom # 8(I)43,4, Classroom # 9(I)41,2,3,4, Classroom # 10(NI)41,2,3,4, Classroom # 11(NI)31,2, Classroom # 12(I)34, Classroom #13(I)44, Classroom # 14(I)44, Classroom # 15(I)34,

31 31 15 classes - Quality of teaching and learning analysis  Lessons student centered  Topics relevant to the students’ lives, needs and interests  Pacing plan adapted to meet the needs of the students  Extra oral opportunities provided  Vocabulary in context taught  Prior knowledge accessed  Evidence of listening to the students

32 32 Recommendations  Implementation of the ELD program had a positive effect on student performance  LD superintendants and directors of school services should plan for the professional development of school administrators and monitor the capacity of schools to implement and support the ELD program.

33 33 Recommendations (continued)  Principals and assistant principals in partnership with school site leadership bodies should develop detailed plans for the implementation of the ELD program, provide necessary support, and closely monitor program implementation in each classroom with English learners.  They must pay regular visits to the classrooms, observe instructional practices, and provide directions.

34 34 Recommendations (continued)  Principals and assistant principals should take responsibility for their own personal development and training in ELD programs and practices, as well as the PD of school staff and teachers.  The Language Acquisition Branch should find ways to strengthen the professional development design, curriculum, and the way the program is implemented in order to address the needs of students at lower ELD levels.

35 35 Recommendations (continued)  The Local Districts in partnership with the Language Acquisition Branch should continue providing PD opportunities for teachers and administrators.  The Language Acquisition Branch should provide additional training in core differentiation practices.  Principals, local district superintendents and directors of school services should take a lead in creating conditions to ensure that there are no more then two consecutive ELD levels per class.

36 36 Recommendations (continued)  Additional steps should be made by the Division of Professional Development and Leadership and the Language Acquisition Branch to incorporate high quality teaching strategies across all core content professional developments in our District.

37


Download ppt "1 Los Angeles Unified School District Program Evaluation and Research Branch January 9, 2009 Evaluation of ELD Practicum Year 1 Report 2006-07 Gojko Vuckovic,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google