building bridges to academic success elaine c. klein barbara schroder annie smith professional...
TRANSCRIPT
Building Bridges to Academic Success
Elaine C. Klein
Barbara Schroder
Annie Smith
Professional Development Session on SIFE, The Center for Professional Learning,
Rochester, N.Y. December 4, 2012
A Project Of RISLUS and CASE
City University of New York
Funded By The the NYC Department of Education,
the NYS Education Department, and the New York Community
Trust
Overview of Today’s Program
The SIFE Story, Part 1: What we
know about SIFE
The SIFE Story, Part 2
The Bridges Project
Bridges Year One Outcomes
The SIFE Story,Part 1:
What We Know About SIFE
Dr. Elaine C. KleinPrincipal Investigator
Bridges to Academic Success
City University of New York
Some Essential Questions
Who are the SIFE in our story?
What make SIFE unique?
- What do the researchers tell us?
What do we take away from The SIFE
Story, Part 1?
“Students with Interrupted Formal Education”
Just who ARE SIFE?
How do they differ from other
students who come here from other
countries?
A Sub-group of “English Language Learners”
Home language is other than English
Entered the US after grade 3
2(+) years of educational gaps
2(+) years below grade level in reading
and math (LAB-R)
May be “preliterate” in the native
language (NYSEDSIFEGUIDELINES 2011)
What do you as educators
notice about SIFE vs. other
ELLs?
Signif. gaps in schooling academic deficits
Schooled in rural areas in their home countries
Low motivation for reading and academic work
Low decoding skills, i.e. can’t read at word level
Memory, language, or cognitive deficits (i.e. belong in ‘special ed’)
Non-academic goals
9
Some widely held beliefs about SIFE
What do researchers know about ELLs and SIFE in our schools?
ELLs = 11% US school population; close to 49.5 mil
Wide gap particularly at grade 8 for ELLs vs ‘others’
ELLs In NYC (NYC DOE Demographic Report 2011):
Graduation Rates: 40.3% ELLs v. 75.3% others
Drop-out Rates: 32.6% ELLs v. 16.9% others
Note: 1/3 of all dropouts occur in 9th grade (AEE 2010)
SIFE in US (Short and Boyson 2012) and in NYC (Advocates for Children
2010):
Performance on all measures is sig below other
ELLs’
Summary of Past SIFE Research
(Mostly anecdotal or qualitative/ descriptive)
Inadequate assessment
Inappropriate placement
No specialized curricular or instruction
Limited research on effectiveness of
existing program models
The New York City SIFE Studies
Klein and Martohardjono (2005-2006),
SIFE Study 1 (pilot)
Klein and Martohardjono (2006-2008),
SIFE Study 2
Background:SIFE in New York City
Highest % of SIFE enter in 8th – 10th
grades
Over 15,000 SIFE in NYC high schools
Evenly distributed among 4 boroughs
65% Spanish, many other home
languages
Anecdotally, very few reach 12th grade
14
Research Questions
How do we identify SIFE?What are the characteristics of the population?How do SIFE differ from other ELLs?
What academic competencies do SIFE bring to school in the US?What are their native or home language (“L1”) literacy skills?How extensive is their academic knowledge?
How do SIFE differ from comparative groups?What are the academic needs of SIFE and how can educators meet those needs?
15
Method, Study 1one year (2005-2006)
Participants: 12 new SIFE in 9th grade, L1 Spanish 2 urban high schools
Design
Quantitative: Oral intake questionnaire (Spanish) Reading and content area diagnostics (Spanish and
English ALLD)
Qualitative: Individual (12) case studies
16
Method, Study 218 months (2006-2008)
Participants 93 new SIFE in 9th grade, L1 Spanish 5 urban high schools 4 Comparison groups (see next slide)
Design Quantitative:
Intake and exit questionnaires (Spanish) Oral assessments of typical language development (Spanish and
English) Reading and content area diagnostics (Spanish and English)
Qualitative: Classroom observations
Native English Speaker Groups:9th and 10th Graders Community College West Indian English speakers
English Language Learner Groups: 9th-11th Grade ELLs, at same schools as SIFECommunity College Spanish-English speakers
17
Four Comparison Groups
18
Overall Results
Study 1 (pilot) and Study 2 had very similar findings, to be shown in the following slides.
19
A Striking Result
After the same length of stay in school (1 ½ years) and similar ESL instruction (sometimes in the same classrooms) ...
SIFE show considerable delaysin English (“L2”) reading development when compared to other ELLs
20
Comparison of English (L2) Reading:ELLs vs. SIFE
21
Academic Literacy in English
On average, SIFE are:
4 years behind ELLs in vocabulary 3 years behind ELLs in reading
comprehension
WHY THIS DELAY?
SIFE Backgrounds?
SIFE Attitudes?
SIFE Goals?
23
SIFE Backgrounds
Most are from the Dominican Republic, Mexico or Honduras.
No differences between those from urban vs. rural schools.
Most live in the U.S. with only one parent and have family members in their country of origin.
Most report high school as highest level of education among family members in U.S.
24
SIFE Attitudes Strong motivation for school success (“I will graduate!”)
Positive attitudes towards education in Spanish and English. (“It is important to continue to study in Spanish!” “It is important to learn English!”)
High levels of self-efficacy (“I can do it!”)
Strong expectations that their education will contribute to future success in a job or at college (“My education here will help me do well in the future!”)
25
26
Goals and Aspirations
Gaps in Prior Schooling?
27
28
Gaps in Schooling
Language Delays ?
Memory Deficits?
29
Oral Language and Listening Comprehension in L1
Oral Language:Fluent, smooth, intelligible speech; controls appropriate language structure for speaking about complex material.
Listening comprehension (understanding of simple and complex sentences)Within the range of typically-developing native speakers
Working memory (WM): Within normal range
30
Typical language development and average working memory
Limited Native/Home Language Literacy?
31
32
Basic Literacy in Home Language
First Grade•Phonological & Orthographic Awareness•Word Reading•Simple Sentence Comprehension
Mean % Correct = 96, SD = 4.5
High basic literacy in Spanish
33
Academic Literacy in Home Language
Reading Vocabulary:Mean Grade Level 5
Reading Comprehension:Mean Grade Level 3.5
34
Comparison between Reading Skills in the Home Language
Native English HS Peers vs. SIFE
35
Reading Vocabulary – Reading Comprehension Relationship
There is a significant positive correlation between reading
vocabulary and reading comprehension
r = .578, p < .001
36
The Transfer of Skills
Research strongly indicates a transfer of skills from the home language to English:
The higher the literacy skills in the L1, the higher they are likely to be in the new language.
37
Comparison of English (L2) Reading:ELLs vs. SIFE
Some other findings among our SIFE group
Academic performance in subject areas (tested in Spanish):
Math: Majority at/below grade 3
Science: Majority at/below grade 4
Social Science: Majority at/below grade 4
38
Some other findings among our SIFE group, con’t
Academic literacy gains in one year:1.5 grade levels in Spanish reading vocabulary
1.7 grade levels in Spanish reading comprehension
1 grade level in Spanish math
39
SIFE Story, Part 1: The Take Away
Conclusions
and
Recommendations
41
The NYC SIFE Studies show that:
Most SIFE have typical language development and average working memories
Most SIFE are motivated and have high goals
Many SIFE have no gaps in schoolingMost SIFE have word-level reading skills in the native language
The NYC SIFE Studies also show that:
Unlike other ELLs, SIFE show serious delays in higher level reading skills and academic knowledge in the L1
After 1 – 1 ½ years in school here, SIFE show some gains in L1 math and
literacy skills SIFE show fewer gains in L2 literacy,
when compared to other groups
Short and Boyson (2012:4)
“Those with disrupted or weak educational backgrounds and below-grade-level literacy in their own native language—are most at risk of educational failure because they have to learn English and overcome educational gaps in their knowledge base before studying the required content courses for high school graduation.”
44
Recommendations
Identification and Placement: Use systematic diagnostics district-wide, in the home language when possible Change focus from “English language learners” to “emergent bilinguals” (O. Garcia 2009) Do not limit SIFE identification criteria to students with “gaps in schooling”
Students in greatest need are those with limited literacy in the home language
45
S’more Recommendations
Programs and Instruction:
We propose at least one extra year of schooling, i.e. a
transitional year before 9th grade, with: A specialized, rigorous, accelerated curriculum Sheltered classes, with high degree of differentiation
Strong home language support, whenever possible
Intensive English from the beginning Focus on foundational and text-level academic literacy
Focus on building background world knowledge supported by the native
language
Specially trained teachers to deliver instruction (strong PD and
curriculum coaching elements to program)
Urgent need for dramatic interventions to better serve these students
Klein & Martohardjono (2006) August & Shanahan (2006) DeCapua, Smathers & Tang (2007) Short & Fitzsimmons (2007) Garrison-Fletcher, Barrera-Tobon, Fredericks, Klein,
Martohardjono, O'Neill & Raña (2008) Advocates for Children (AFC) Report (2010) Short & Boyson (2012)
The SIFE Story,Part 2: The Bridges Project(Research and Development Phase)
Annie [email protected]
Director; Bright Minds Educational Consulting
The Building of Bridges
OBJECTIVES: Develop, pilot and document an intervention in
English, Math, SS and Science, using a research-based theoretical framework.
Provide students with a transitional year that prepares them to participate and engage with 9th grade curriculum.
Evaluate and track the academic growth of Bridges students
Some Guiding Principles
Strong correlations between: Academic Achievement and Academic
Literacy (e.g Cloud et al. 2010)
Academic Literacy in L1 and L2 (e.g. Cummins
1981; August & Shanahan 2006)
Reading Comprehension and Oral Academic Language (e.g. Freeman & Freeman 2009; Cloud et al. 2010)
Guiding Principles, cont.
Centrality of language and literacy in content teaching (Jantzen 2008)
Homogenous/sheltered grouping accessibility of content and language
(Short 2007; Tomlinson 2003; Short & Fitzsimmons 2007)
More time needed for ELLs, esp. SIFE, than others to develop academic literacy (e.g. Cummins 2006; Short & Fitzsimmons 2007; Goldenberg 2008)
‘Cracks in the Foundation’:distinguishing features
Low literacy in home language
Limited world (background) knowledge
Challenged to interpret abstract information (maps, graphs)
Bridges Curriculum Considerations:
Build basic literacy skills so that students are ready to ‘read to learn’;
Engage students in rich interdisciplinary units;
Foster Academic Habits of Mind – with considered attention to moving from the concrete to the abstract.
The Bridges Curriculum
Four units each in Math, English, Social Studies and Science that integrate language, literacy and subject area-content
Project – based units driven by essential questions that engage and provoke inquiry
Strong interdisciplinary connections among the units to promote deep conceptual knowledge
The Bridges Curriculum Continued
Each Unit in Every Discipline (e.g. social studies, science, ELA):
Builds and engages native language as a resource for learning and deepening literacy in L1 and L2;
Focuses attention on phonics and fluency as well as critical thinking;
Emphasizes classroom routines and strategies that promote strong academic habits;
Builds towards a final project with articulated outcomes and objectives in all four language domains;
Aligns to common core and language development standards.
The Bridges Curriculum: drawing it together
Work in groups of 2 or 3Sort the words in the envelope into disciplinary categories.
What do you notice? What relationships do you notice between these words?
What did you notice about the process of making choices?
Interdisciplinary Relevance
Now, consider one concept you struggled to place. Why?
Choose a concept that was obvious. Why?
Could it be elsewhere?Is there a thread? Are there concepts across lists that seem to be related or have some connection? Discuss.
Interdisciplinary Focus
In your folder you will see an overview of the year’s curriculum.
Characterization: a closer look at disciplinary thinking in the SIFE classroom
With a partner, look at the image.
What do you notice? Describe what you see?
What can you say about him/her? What does
s/he FEEL/THINK/WANT? How do you know?
What kind of person is s/he?
REFLECTION
What did I do? (Teacher)
What did you do? (Student)
Why might this activity (series of tasks) be valuable for SIFE students? Reflect on your own experience as you engaged with the task.
61
63
The Professional Development: putting it all together
Techniques to support students to draw on home language literacy to support comprehension;
Techniques to integrate language and content in the classroom;
Strategies to support vocabulary development; Routines to cultivate disciplinary habits of mind and
academic literacy; Routines to support school literacy; Strategies to foster oral language development; Routines to promote meta-cognition
Bridges Structure: Non- Negotiables
Strong administrative buy-in and support Interdisciplinary team of teachers with team leader Weekly meeting time for team collaboration Series of intake interviews and assessments to identify
qualifying students
Language and literacy – rich sheltered classes: integrated into the school
Targeted teacher PD (methods + curriculum) and curriculum coaching
Participation in program documentation and evaluation.
Bridges Structure: recommendations First period home language literacy or targeted literacy
development Home Language support in classroom Community Outreach – parent
involvement/alliance/teacher meetings Drama/Art/Music and Health and Safety classes Extended School Activities (Saturdays, after-school and
vacation) Peer to peer support Excursions and field trips
AFTER OUR FIRST (PILOT) YEAR OF DEVELOPING AND
IMPLEMENTING BRIDGES, HERE ARE SOME OUTCOMES.
The Bridges Project:Year One Outcomes
Participants(2011-2012)
Schools: 4 NYC high schools (Bx, Q, M)
Students: N=67
entering 9th grade
11 L1s (e.g. Spanish, Bengali, Arabic, Fula)
recently arrived in US (< 1.5 years)
L1 reading: (≤ 4th grade)
Staff: 19 teachers (Eng, SS, Sci, Math, NLA), 4-5 on
a Bridges team in each school
Home Language Literacy
Bridges students were limited to those incoming SIFE with lowest home language literacy: from completely preliterate (12%) to 4th grade reading level, with mean grade level Span. reading comprehension at 3rd grade (lower than the SIFE in the NYC SIFE Studies).
Mariama
Mariama is 15 years old, from Mali, preparing to enter 9th grade. She arrived in October, 2011, speaking Bambara as her first language, along with basic conversational French. Upon arrival, she did not speak or understand any English and was unable to read or write in any language, having had no formal school experience at all. Mariama spent much of October and November silent, with her bag on her lap, needing frequent prompting to take out a pencil or open her notebook. She often looked sad and lost.
Carlos
Carlos, 15 years old, arrived in the US in Sept 2011 from the Dominican Republic, preparing to enter 9th grade. He speaks Spanish and knew no English upon his arrival. When tested, his Spanish writing was slow and labored, with barely legible sentences, and his Spanish reading comprehension was at the 3rd grade level. He appears to become easily frustrated when faced with any challenges, especially academic ones.
Student Outcomes
Attendance
For the year, Bridges students were present on average 93% of the time.
This rate is significantly higher than the overall attendance rate for students in the four schools in 2011-2012, of 82.3%.*
*School data from 2011-2012 School Progress Reports
Academic Progress
75% of Bridges students who were enrolled for the whole year passed* all of their core academic classes (English, Math, Social Studies, Science, and in some cases Spanish).
*’Passing’ students were evaluated by teachers as having made satisfactory academic progress as indicated by a ‘P’ or a grade of 65 or higher.
English Reading Comprehension October and May
0 2 3 40
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
28
63
7
2
October
Grade Level
Per
cen
t o
f 54
stu
den
ts
0 2 3 40
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
61
33
7
May
Grade Level
Per
cen
t o
f 48
stu
den
ts
Increase in English Comprehension, October - May
71% of students showed at least mild gains in English comprehension.
49% improved 1 – 3 grade levels.
Teacher Reflections
“I heard many of my students' voices for the first time, … saw their personalities show where before there was only silence and shyness…[T]here are other benefits involving language and performance, but I truly believe that by creating this environment in which they feel they can succeed has been the greatest benefit to our Bridges students.” (English teacher)
Teacher Reflections
“Bridges students…previously in regular classes …are showing increased engagement, a more positive attitude towards school, … spending more of their time in class working on activities that are accessible to them and appropriate for their level.”
(Math teacher)
Teacher Reflections
“[LZ] … struggled a lot in her regular class and showed signs of shutting down because of her frustration. Teachers said …they never saw her smile the way she smiles in the Bridges class. This is because we presented her with material that she could work with.” (Science teacher)
Teacher Reflections
“...[S]tudents in the Bridges class will ... come into 9th grade with the requisite knowledge and skills to give them a much better opportunity to be proficient or even high performing in all outcomes. This will also set them up for much more success in later grades…In years past it would be very common for SIFE students to lose interest in school because they were not able to meet basic expectations... Having all of these students in one class makes it a safer space to make mistakes and learn together...” (Math teacher)
Teacher Reflections
“At the beginning of the school year, it was very difficult to get [Bridges students] to understand what the classroom setting is, specifically pertaining to behavior, creating school habits etc. I feel that they have made tremendous progress in that aspect.”
(Math teacher)
Teacher Reflections
“In past years the lowest SIFE group has been really overwhelmed and made little to no progress unless pulled out into small groups. Everyone in this [Bridges] class has made huge gains...”
(Science teacher)
Teacher Reflections
“We ... discussed [at team meeting] the remarkable improvement in some students, notably BH who had 52 absences in prior year, but now comes to school every day.”
(Team Leader)
Mariama
Mariama is 15 years old, from Mali, preparing to enter 9th grade. She arrived in October, 2011, speaking Bambara as her first language, along with basic conversational French. Upon arrival, she did not speak or understand any English and was unable to read or write in any language, having had no formal school experience at all. Mariama spent much of October and November silent, with her bag on her lap, needing frequent prompting to take out a pencil or open her notebook. She often looked sad and lost.
Mariama at the end of the school year
“Mariama smiles a lot now. She is very eager to learn English, fearless in her efforts in both speaking and writing. She can also now read and write much of what she can say in English. She has recently become the "teacher" in her reading group, comprised of the four students in class with no formal school experience. She helps others track print and helps explain text meaning. She takes pride in this role, in her growth, her identity as a student, and her excellent attendance.”
Carlos
Carlos, 15 years old, arrived in the US in Sept 2011 from the Dominican Republic, preparing to enter 9th grade. He speaks Spanish and knew no English upon his arrival. When tested, his Spanish writing was slow and labored, with barely legible sentences, and his Spanish reading comprehension was at the 3rd grade level. He appears to become easily frustrated when faced with any challenges, especially academic ones.
Carlos at the end of the school year
“Carlos is learning very quickly, his oral English vocabulary expanding daily. He is able to learn new words easily and apply them in discussions. Carlos is eager to raise his hand and take risks in English, while comfortably using Spanish in class as well. Recently in Social Studies , he read and understood a short paragraph in English about traditions. Explaining the paragraph to others in his group, he knew the meanings of nearly all of the words. While he loves learning new ideas and skills and demonstrating what he knows, Carlos still becomes frustrated when something is beyond his reach. Therefore, his teachers are all in agreement that he most likely would have “shut down” in a “regular” 9th grade class, while he is absolutely thriving in Bridges. We expect that he will be successful academically if he continues at his present rate.” •
Thank You!
Bridges students and teachers!Principals and administrators at participating schools
New York City Dept. of EducationNew York Community TrustThe City University of New YorkNew York State Dept. of Education
Your Questions?
Working Lunch
1. How are the SIFE in your schools similar to and different from those in our Bridges classes?
2. What are your schools doing to meet the needs of these students?
3. What more is needed?
4. What are your ideas to further address the needs of these students?