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 there’s a lot of adjustment on the part of the ELL department, meaning the whole body of teachers out there where you’ve had a model that has said it’s 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 can’t pull out when you’ve got 50% of your students are ELL students, you can’t pull them out anymore because you’re 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 Liu—Project Coordinator • Deb Albus—Researcher • Vitaliy Shyyan—Research Assistant • Halee Vang—Research 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: • Minnesota’s 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 Minnesota’s school districts • Gathered data only from schools with sufficient number of ELLs with disabilities • Predominately suburban schools (3 urban—14 educators and 5 suburban—28 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 strategy—teaching pre, during, and post reading strategies • Math strategy –tie between adjusted speech and daily re-looping of previously learned materials • Science strategy—visuals

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 choosing—provided 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 child’s 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 teacherhelps 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.