Mary Barbara Trube , Ed.D . Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education

1. Association for Childhood Education InternationalAnnual Conference 2008Atlanta, GeorgiaAssessment of English Immersion Teaching Practices in China: the China, Canada, United States English Immersion Collaborative (CCUEI) Program Mary Barbara Trube, Ed.D. Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education Ohio University – Chillicothe

2. Assessment of English Immersion Teaching Practices in China: the China, Canada, United States English Immersion Collaborative (CCUEI) Program Following this virtual presentation, participants will be able to do the following: • Identify the work of the CCUEI collaborative; • Recognize research based indicators for assessing the effectiveness of EI teaching practices under the domains of: • planning for instruction, • creating the classroom environment,

3. Objectives Continued • implementing teaching and learning processes, and • collaborating as a professional • Know a set of strategies and activities teachers perceive are important when implementing EI teaching in P-8 classrooms in China; and • Understand CCUEI teachers’ perceptions of their EI knowledge and skills related to the English Immersion – Teacher Evaluation & Feedback Form (EI-TEFF)

4. Objective One: Identify the work of the CCUEI collaborative

5. China, Canada, United States English Immersion (CCUEI) Collaborative CCUEI is a collaborative made up of educators from universities, colleges, schools and programs in China, Canada, and the United States under the leadership of Professor Haiyan Qiang of South China Normal University in Guangzhou, PRC.

6. Background Information about CCUEI In the early 1990s, Chinese and Canadian educators initiated an English Immersion (EI) program in Xi’an elementary schools based on the Canadian model of partial EI to teach academic content. The initiative was supported by Dr. Linda Seagle, Professor, University of British Columbia, Vancoover, Canada and Professor Haiyan Qiang and other members of the China, Canada English Immersion (CCEI) collaborative in Xi’an, Shaanxii Provence. In the early 2000s, United States professors Drs. Huang and Trube joined the collaborative’s research efforts and it was renamed CCUEI. Currently, scholars from many English-speaking countries contribute to and conduct research with the CCUEI collaborative.

7. CCUEI EI Program CCUEI EI teaching in China is based on the Canadian model which has been used for the last three decades in Canada. The model also enjoys a ten-year history of success in Xi’an, China. CCUEI also provides support through professional development, teacher and student assessments and critical reflective practice for kindergarten, elementary and secondary programs in the Xi’an area, south China area, Hong Kong and Macau. Click here for CCUEI EI Standards.

8. CCUEI English Immersion English Immersion teaching is considered among the effective innovations in foreign language education in China. As the teaching of English is part of the required curriculum in China today, EI is recognized by the Chinese Ministry of Education. EI classes teach content using spoken and written English for 20 to 50 percent of the students’ instruction in the discipline.

9. Curriculum Integration In EI programs, second language instruction is integrated with academic content areas in some kindergarten, elementary and secondary schools. Time spent in EI classes ranges from 20 % – 50% of students’ overall classroom instruction in CCUEI classrooms. Depending upon the school, English is used to teach and/or supplement language arts, visual arts, physical education, science, moral education/social studies, and math.

10. Objective Two: Recognize research based indicators for assessing the effectiveness of EI teaching practices

11. Successful experiences from the mid 1990s through the early 2000s with the English language immersion project in China led researchers and practitioners to an increasing interest in finding a systematic, data-driven support to measure the effectiveness of EI teaching practices (Huang & Trube, 2006). • The CCUEI Collaborative research agenda specifies that a teaching evaluation instrument be developed and implemented across all immersion schools and classrooms to help collect data on teaching effectiveness (Qiang, 2003). • Educators believe that such data, used scientifically, would better inform researchers of EI teachers’ needs as the basis for planning professional development activities, and for the purpose of program evaluation.

12. English Immersion – Teacher Evaluation and Feedback Form Several items motivated the development of the instrument and the assignment of domains and criteria of the English Immersion-Teacher Evaluation and Feedback Form (EI-TEFF). Items represented in question form included: (1) What factors do EI teachers consider when planning for effective instruction? (2) How does the environment support effective EI teaching and learning? (3) What factors make up effective EI instruction? (4) What is the professional role of the EI teacher? Information from Pilot Study

13. Four Questions Data used to initiate these four questions were collected from two main categories of sources. (1) The first was derived from data on the following: authentic immersion teaching, which included documentation in the form of anecdotal records; informal and formal observation and feedback sessions with teachers, observers, coaches and mentors; informal analysis of video and photographs of teaching events; and a synthesis of reports from Xi'an EI teachers about the topic of good immersion teaching. (2) The second group of data was derived from formal and research-based resources, which included a review of formal evaluation forms used in the United States.

14. EI-TEFF Collaboration Administrators, supervisors, mentors, teachers, contributors and consultants collaborated in the development of an EI Teacher Evaluation and Feedback Form (EI-TEFF). The first version of the instrument included four performance domains: Domain A. Planning and Preparation of Lesson (with nine items), Domain B. Classroom Environment (with six items), Domain C. Instruction (with fifteen items), and Domain D. Professionalism (with two items).

15. Four Domains Four domains and specific criteria under each domain were identified by CCUEI EI educators. A set of strategies and practices that identify quality EI teachers were agreed upon by the research committee of CCUEI at the 2004 Symposium in Xi’an, China.

16. EI-TEFF Pilot A pilot study, lead by a CCUEI Collaborative member, was conducted using the early version of EI-TEFF. The purpose of the pilot was two-fold: to gather input from the evaluators regarding the appropriateness of the evaluation items for evaluating EI teaching; and the appropriateness of the instrument for head teachers to use as a mentoring guide. Xi’an was used as the piloting site because it has the most immersion schools with the longest history of immersion teaching in China.

17. EI-TEFF Method The pilot study was conducted in eight elementary schools in Xi’an during October and November of 2005. A total of 34 teachers were observed and evaluated with 58 forms completed (five teachers in two schools received multiple evaluations for the same class they taught). In seven out of eight participating schools, the evaluations were done by peer immersion teachers in the same school. In only one school, the form was filled out by the immersion head teacher or mentor teacher. The completed forms were sealed and sent to the authors of this paper for anonymous analysis. No individual names, neither for the evaluator nor the teacher, were revealed in the analysis process.

18. Quantitative Data Each completed form was coded with an identification number for the teacher and the school. The text rating for each evaluation item was translated into a numerical value: Unsatisfactory = 1, Basic = 2, Proficient = 3. The numerical rating was then keyed into a Microsoft Excel file, in order for the raw data to be run by each teacher performance domain, by school, by individual teacher or head teacher, by evaluator, or by each evaluation item, as needed for analysis.

19. Study Results Quantitative data analysis Each completed form was coded with an identification number for the teacher and the school. The text rating for each evaluation item was translated into a numerical value: Unsatisfactory = 1, Basic = 2, Proficient = 3. The numerical rating was then keyed into a Microsoft Excel file, in order for the raw data to be run by each teacher performance domain, by school, by individual teacher or head teacher, by evaluator, or by each evaluation item, as needed for analysis. Click here to see Huang & Trube to the CCUEI 2006 Symposium

20. Study Results Qualitative Data Analysis While observing in EI classrooms, the stages of second language acquisition are apparant. Teachers are sensitive to students emerging knowledge and skills. Very careful attention is paid to children's motivation for learning. Teachers’ Self-evaluation from Pilot.

21. EI-TEFF Domain A: Lesson Preparation A.1 The teacher has a written lesson plan meeting English Immersion teaching requirements. • A.2 The teacher is familiar with relevant aspects of students' background knowledge and experiences • A.3 The teacher plans learning goals and objectives, including English language objectives in the content area according to student needs • A.4 The teacher plans lesson that connects to previous learning, current content and content of future learning • A.5 The teacher plans theme-and/or project-based methods and activities according to lesson goals and objectives • A.6 The teacher creates or selects appropriate instructional materials and resources, including technology, according to lesson goals and objectives • A.7 The teacher creates or selects evaluation strategies that are appropriate for the students and that are aligned with the objectives and goals of the lesson.

22. EI-TEFF Domain B: Classroom Environment • B.1 The teacher builds a good relationship with students, and creates a fair and non-threatening classroom that encourages participation. • B.2 The teacher establishes and maintains consistent classroom and instructional reoutines and procedures. • B.3 The teacher establishes and maintains consistent rules of conduct for student behavior and clearly communicates expectations. • B.4 The teacher creates a rich English language environment by displaying words, phrases, written text, visuals and real objects throughout the classroom.

23. EI-TEFF Domain C: Instruction • C.1 The teacher clearly communicates content-learning goals and objectives to students. • C.2 The teacher clearly communicates expectations of English language use in the content area to students. • C.3 The teacher models accurate use of language, articulates and enunciates clearly. • C.4 The teacher uses different modes of language expression to help students understand the content of learning (body language, facial expressions, gestures, vocalizing, intonations).

24. EI-TEFF Domain C Continued • C.5 The teacher uses a variety of activities to involve students in the learning process (small group, cooperative learning, role plays, simulations, dramas, presentations). • C.6 The teacher uses questioning and responding methods to enhance student enthusiasm for engaging in higher-order thinking skills and using English language. • C.7 The teacher uses class time effectively, maintains the flow of the lesson and adjusts learning activities as the situation demands. • C.8 The teacher monitors learning of all students by frequently checking for understanding and providing feedback before, during the after instruction.

25. EI-TEFF Domain D Professional Demeanor • D.1 The teacher is well prepared in the content area of teaching. • D.2 The teacher is well prepared in the English language for teaching in the content area. • D.3 The teacher is positive, enthusiastic and accepts constructive feedback. • D.4 The teacher establishes and maintains good professional relationships with other teachers to share teaching insights and coordinate learning activities for students. • D.5 The teacher reflects on the lesson, identifies and actively participates in professional development activities to improve teaching.

26. Professional Development

27. CCUEI offers Professional Development for EI Teachers ***Double Click to view Professional Development PowerPoint

28. References Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 1 -50). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center. Enright, D.D., & McCloskey, M.L. (1989). Integrating English: Developing English language and literacy in the multilingual classroom. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of Immersion and bilingual education. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. Genesee, F., Holobow, N., Lambert, W.E., Cleghorn, A., & Walling, R. (1985). The linguistic and academic development of English-speaking children in French schools: Grade 4 outcomes. Canadian Modem Language Review, 41, 669-685. Harley, B. (1993). Instnuctional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245-260. Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1994). An innovative program for primary ESL in Quebec. TESOL Quarterly, 28, (pp. 563-580). Lindholm, K. (1990). Bilingual immersion education: Criteria for program development. In A. Padilla, H. Fairchild, & C. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingual education: Issues and strategies (pp.91 -105). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students' sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263-287. Short, D. (1991). How to integrate language and content instruction: a training manual. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Short, D. (1994). Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating language, culture, and social studies. TESOL Quarterly, 28, (pp. 581-608).

29. For information please contact: Mary Barbara Trube, Ed.D. Associate Professor Ohio University – Chillicothe trube@ohio.edu