Instructional Strategies for Native American English Language Learners (NA-ELL) in a Reading Context Deborah Holgate Ar

1. Instructional Strategies for NativeAmerican English Language Learners (NA-ELL) in a ReadingContextDeborah HolgateArizona State University 2009

2. Presentation Plan Background Introduction Action Review of Literature Methodology Data Analysis Conclusion

3. Key Terms ELL English language learner is a student who has not obtained a proficient score on the AZELLA. NA – ELL Native American English Language learners those who are of Native American decent. ELL Task Force The ELL Task Force is charge with developing and Adopting research based models of structured English immersion (SEI) programs to be used in school District and charter schools in Arizona.

4. SEISheltered English immersion means an English language acquisition process for children in which nearly all classroom instruction is in English but with the curriculum and presentation designed for children who are learning the language.

5. ELL Proficiency LevelsPre-emergent: Non-verbal communication to express needs and wants.Emergent: Short responses of one or two words Basic: Able to contribute meaningfully in limited form.Intermediate: Appears to be fluent since they talk more rapidly.Proficient: Speak clearly and comprehensibly using standard English grammar.

6. ELDEnglish Language Development (ELD)The teaching of English language skills to student who are in the process of learning English (content of ELD emphasizes the English language itself).

7. AZELLA The Arizona English Language learner Assessment is used to determine the English language proficiency of Arizona K-12 students whose primary home language is other than English. ELP Standards Arizona K-12 English Language Proficiency standards. DSI Discreet skills inventory is a companion to the ELP standards and together they develop English.

8. IDENTIFICATION OF ELLS • The primary or home language as listed on the PHLOTE Form. • English language proficient test, Arizona English Language Assessment (AZELLA) • Enrollment into to ELD class is not proficient

9. Background Legal/Historical • Arizona Proposition 203 • House Bill 2010 • House Bill 2064 • ARS 15-756.07 • ARS 15-752

10. Three years ago: • In 2006, ELL Arizona Task Force formed • Implement an intervention in my workplace • Innovative and measurable • Me as participant and researcher • Workplace also was in need of developing their ELL Program • I saw a need assist students to develop their English language

11. Introduction ALA Class at Page Middle School (English language development class) • 14 Participant and 1 attrition 6th =2, 7th=5, 8th=6 • All Intermediate Proficiency Level • All participants were on Navajo decent • No Special Education participants • Study conducted during the entire fall semester (18 weeks)

12. Intervention

13. Review of Literature Theoretical Framework • Lev Vygotsky Social Cultural Theory Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) • Faltis & Coulter (2006) Sociocultural Theory • Lave & Wenger (1991) Situated Learning Theory

14. Research Based Literature Assessment • On-going monitoring of student progress, beginning with a baseline (Gottlieb, 2006) • Language proficiency entails contexts and interactions in and outside of school (Bachman, 1990) • With informal assessment results, the need to adjust instruction can be met (Gottlieb, 2006)

15. Research Based Literature – cont. Explicit Instruction – Reading • Explicit reading instruction proven to be very effective with ELL students (National Research Council, 1997) • Focus on the grouping of students to teach specific skills or strategies (Ortiz, 2001) • Research states that gaining the most advantage of teaching one strategy at a time, depends on the requisite level of the ELL proficiency (August & Shanahan, 2006) • Specific skills to teach are vocabulary comprehension and fluency (National Reading Panel 2000)

16. Non-Linguistic Representation • Use of graphic organizers can make text more comprehensible (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000; Hill & Flynn, 2006). • Such practice [of graphic organizers] might help develop multiple avenues for assessing content, constructing meaning, and communicating ideas (Gottlieb, 2000). • Integration of skills and strategy instruction is meant to meet both the linguistic and academic needs to ELLS (Jimenez & Gamez, 1996; Reese, Garnier, & Gallimore, 2000).

17. Social Integration • Teaching in a small group not only can contextualize students’ academic discourse, but can also incorporate dialogue strategies to jointly construct conversation (Faltis, 2000). • Acquiring language through social integration can be maximized if learning falls within a learner’s ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). • Students need to feel safe and accepted in a classroom environment (Meltzer & Hamann, 2005).

18. Research Questions • Which strategies had a positive impact on my NA-ELL students? • Which strategies effectively supported my NA-ELL students’ English language development? • What were my NA-ELL’s perceptions and opinions about using graphic organizers, learning in a small reading groups, and using small groups to socially integrate, all of which were designed to aid reading comprehension?

19. Methodology • Criteria Participants whom scored at the performance level of the AZELLA • Participants n=14 1 attrition

20. Methodology – cont. • Pre & Post Student Survey Student’ perception and opinion- To produce effective learning, teachers must know how to impact students beliefs (Marzano, 1998). Students were asked about using strategies, explicit teaching, non-linguistic representation and social integration.

21. The reading skills, character traits, is improved by learning about it in a small group. Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 • The reading skills, elements of a plot, is improved by learning about it in a small group. Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 • The reading skills, identifying the theme, is improved by learning about it in a small group. Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 • The reading skills, author’s point of view, is improved by learning about it in a small group. Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 • The reading skills, main idea/supporting details, is improved by learning about it in a small group. Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 • Using the graphic organizer, Character Map, helps you understand what you read. Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

22. Methodology – cont. • AZELLA Assessment Pre-Test administered in Sept. 2008 Post-Test administered in Dec. 2008 • Explicit Instruction – Reading Skills targeted: • Describing character traits via character maps • Evaluating the plot line • Identifying the theme • Identifying the point of view • Recognizing main idea and supporting details

23. Methodology-cont. • Non-Linguistic Representation Five different types of graphic organizers • Character Map • Plot Line • Theme • Point of View • Main Idea and Supporting Details Graphic organizers help students convey meaning, develop understanding and visually show one’s logical thinking (Gottlieb,2006).

24. Methodology – cont. • Field Notes Began during the 2nd week and throughout the study. • Social Integration Dialogue Techniques • Orienting • Informing • Concluding Social Integration Logs

25. Results AZELLA Assessment Probability Value and Effect Sizes for each Grade Grade N Test Mean SD M2-M1 p d 6 3 Pretest 655.67 2.31 39.00 *0.09 1.78 Posttest 694.67 23.25 7 3 Pretest 671.00 13.86 19.00 0.17 1.21 Posttest 690.00 1.73 8 6 Pretest 666.33 13.20 12.50 *0.06 0.97 Posttest 678.83 20.00 6, 7 & 8 12 Pretest 664.83 12.23 20.75 *0.002 1.13 Posttest 685.58 18.23 *Statistically significant at p < 0.10 level

26. Survey Results Factor Analysis for Survey Instrument – Cronbach’s alpha ConstructSectionAlpha for Study Questions 6-10 Use of graphic organizer to 0.460 aid reading comprehension Questions 1-5; Learning in small reading groups 0.817 17-18 Questions 11-15 Using small groups to social 0.790 integrate

27. Survey Results – cont. Pass out Survey Instrument Result

28. Student Interview Results • 11 of 13 participants interviewed • 12 open – ended questions • 4 Targeted areas: reading, graphic organizers, social learning groups and overall opinions • Guided reading lessons had a positive influence on them, helped with their English development and with understanding what they were reading

29. Student Interviews – cont. • Graphic organizers had a positive influence on them, as for English development they felt it was more for reading, and graphic organizers did help them understand their reading. • Social learning groups had a positive influence on them, helped with their English development and with understanding what they were reading.

30. Student Interviews – cont. • Three Overall Questions Asked: • The social learning groups was most important in helping to develop their English. • The graphic organizer were least important in the development of the English. • The participants believed that the social learning groups may help their peers, mostly Native American, develop their English.

31. Non-Linguistic Representation Results • 13 of 13 participants • 4 Character Maps • 3 Plot Lines • 3 Identifying Themes • 3 Point of Views • 3 Main Idea and Supporting Details • Fiction and Non-Fiction materials used

32. Non-Linguistic Representation –cont. Character Map: • 4 Fiction stories used • Map used to aid in describing the characters’ background, traits, and feelings • 3 stories used personification to depict their characters

33. Non-Linguistic Representation –cont. • Background – Participants inclined to describe the background based on how the characters were presented in the story. • Theme • Graphic organizer showed how the participants grasped the description of the character and they used this understanding to complete it one.

34. Non-Linguistic Representation –cont. • Traits – Participants tended to list nouns to describe the character’s traits. This was apparent when the author wasn’t explicit in describing the character. • Number of responses and percentages were low • Unable to select appropriate words

35. Non-Linguistic Representation –cont. • Wants/Needs – Participants clearly grasped what the characters wants/need were in the story. • Feels – Participants knew the characters well enough to know how he/she was feeling throughout the story.

36. Non-Linguistic Representation –cont. • Plot Line – • 3 Fiction stories • Used to evaluate the sequencing of events and to identify conflict and resolution Findings: 1) Participants were able to identify the beginning and ending events for all three Stories; 2) Participants were not able to identify all three resolutions.

37. Non-Linguistic Representation –cont. Theme – • 3 Fiction stories • Participants had to identify the theme and events that supported their selection. Findings: One story had been correctly identified with a theme and supporting details; however, they did not identify the theme with the other two stories.

38. Non-Linguistic Representation –cont. Point of View – • 3 Fiction stories • Participants were to identify the point of view, write two clue used for point of view and write a statement from the story to support it. Findings: The graphic organizer was not able to assist participants in answering the questions, “What is the author’s point of view?” But they were able to identify the clue words and write a statement to support it.

39. Non-Linguistic Representation –cont. Main Idea and Supporting Details – • 1 Fiction and 2 Non-fiction stories • Used to assist students in identifying the main idea and supporting details for a story or passage. Findings: Participants comprehended the story well enough to use the graphic organizer in assisting them in locating the main idea and supporting details.

40. Overall Findings • Overall – One strategy proven to be effective with NA-ELLS is the use of the social integration. • Research Question #1 Which strategies can have positive impact on NA-ELL students? The majority of participants believed that the social learning groups had a positive influence on them, and they felt good about using them to develop their comprehension.

41. Conclusion – cont. • Research Question #2 Which strategy can effectively support NA-ELL students’ English language development? According to the student interviews the social learning groups were indentified as the most important strategy.

42. Conclusion – cont. • Research Questions #3 What are NA-ELL perception and opinions about using graphic organizers to aid reading comprehension, learning in small groups, and using small groups to socially integrate? • Graphic organizers did not have a positive influence on them. • Agree that learning in small readings groups had a positive influence on them. • Participants agree that using small groups to socially integrate was a positive experience for them.

43. Limitations • Sample size • My involvement as a observer-researcher and teacher • Time constraints • New students arriving and students exiting

44. Conclusion • Social integration is a critical piece to the curriculum of developing English for the NA-ELL and should be taught in a systematic way. • The use of graphic organizers with NA-ELLs needs to be further developed. • Students need more time and practice in drawing logical conclusions about their storyline and this may need to include higher level thinking skills. • It is recommended that all teachers take the time to ask NA-ELLs which strategies they find most useful in how they learn.