NABE NABE 2005 2005 AN EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL AN EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR EDUCATORS DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR EDUCATORS OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS & OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS & LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ACROSS LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ACROSS GRADES AND CONTENT AREAS—AN GRADES AND CONTENT AREAS—AN OBSERVATION CHECKLIST TO OBSERVATION CHECKLIST TO INCREASE TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS INCREASE TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS
30
Embed
NABE 2005 AN EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR EDUCATORS OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS & LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ACROSS GRADES AND CONTENT AREAS—AN.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
NABENABE 20052005
AN EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL AN EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR
EDUCATORS OF SECOND EDUCATORS OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS & LANGUAGE LEARNERS &
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ACROSS LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ACROSS GRADES AND CONTENT AREAS—GRADES AND CONTENT AREAS—AN OBSERVATION CHECKLIST TO AN OBSERVATION CHECKLIST TO
• Build a team plan to be monitored Build a team plan to be monitored through the 40 hours of meetings at through the 40 hours of meetings at the school sitesthe school sites
Professional development Professional development institute model:institute model:
• Keynote speaker each am (krashen, Keynote speaker each am (krashen, fillmore, kenfield, etc.)fillmore, kenfield, etc.)
• Three two hour sessions on strategies Three two hour sessions on strategies (Monday=standards, (Monday=standards, Tuesday=assessment, Wednesday, Tuesday=assessment, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday=eld/sdaie strategies)Thursday, Friday=eld/sdaie strategies)
• One hour team planning block at the end One hour team planning block at the end of each day to review sessions attendedof each day to review sessions attended
Model (continued):Model (continued):
• Teams planned how they would Teams planned how they would implement strategies learned back at implement strategies learned back at their school site (each member their school site (each member attended different sessions) each dayattended different sessions) each day
• Teams shared their plans at the end Teams shared their plans at the end of the weekof the week
• Teams also received training on how Teams also received training on how to edit videos on apple “i-books”to edit videos on apple “i-books”
Requirements:Requirements:
• Each participant would produce a Each participant would produce a “best practice” video based on an “best practice” video based on an instructional strategy learned at the instructional strategy learned at the institute (reflection piece)institute (reflection piece)
• They then edited their videos and we They then edited their videos and we posted them to the website: posted them to the website: www.projecttnt.comwww.projecttnt.com
The study:The study:
• Three schools who attended with full Three schools who attended with full teams were selected (“intervention” teams were selected (“intervention” schools)schools)
• Three “like” schools were selected Three “like” schools were selected where no one from the school where no one from the school attended the institutesattended the institutes
• State mean percentile growth scores State mean percentile growth scores were comparedwere compared
the study (continued):the study (continued):
• Mean percentile growth scores on the Mean percentile growth scores on the sat9 (Ca state achievement test) for sat9 (Ca state achievement test) for English learners (in all subject areas) English learners (in all subject areas) were compared across the three were compared across the three groups to determine if there was a groups to determine if there was a significant difference between the significant difference between the state average scores, the “like” state average scores, the “like” schools and the “intervention” schoolsschools and the “intervention” schools
findings:findings:• High significant difference between High significant difference between
the elementary and middle school the elementary and middle school scores (“intervention” vs. “like” and scores (“intervention” vs. “like” and “intervention” vs. state)“intervention” vs. state)
• No significant difference between the No significant difference between the high school scores (still scored higher, high school scores (still scored higher, but larger population to deal with and but larger population to deal with and smaller ratio of attending participants smaller ratio of attending participants to larger # of students served)to larger # of students served)
STATE MEAN SCORE 2000
Intervention School EL 00
SCORESTATE MEAN SCORE 2002
Intervention School EL 02
SCORE
2 YEAR GROWT
H STATE
2 YEAR GROWTH
INTERVENTION SCHOOLS
High School Reading (9-11)
11 9 11 11 0 2
High School Math
30 25 30 28 0 3
High school Language
19 18 20 20 1 2
High School Science
23 20 23 23 0 3
High School Social Science
24 23 24 23 0 0
Middle School Reading (6-8)
17 15 19 48 2 33
Middle School Math
28 21 32 53 4 32
Middle School Language
24 21 27 50 3 29
Middle School Spelling
18 14 21 51 3 37
Elementary School Grade 2
33 31 40 40 7 9
Elementary School Grade 3
31 17 38 40 7 23
Elementary School Grade 4
25 18 32 44 7 26
Elementary School Grade 5
23 14 28 22 5 8
Like Schools MEAN SCORE
2000
Intervention School EL 00
SCORE
Like Schools MEAN
SCORE 2002
Intervention School EL 02
SCORE
2 YEAR GROWTH
LIKE SCHOOLS
2 YEAR GROWTH
INTERVENTION SCHOOLS
High School Reading (9-11)
6 9 6 11 0 2
High School Math
19 25 19 28 0 3
High school Language
12 18 14 20 2 2
High School Science
17 20 17 23 0 3
High School Social Science
19 23 18 23 -1 0
Middle School Reading (6-8)
18 15 16 48 -2 33
Middle School Math
27 21 23 53 -4 32
Middle School Language
27 21 24 50 -3 29
Middle School Spelling
16 14 16 51 0 37
Elementary School Grade 2
16 31 27 40 11 9
Elementary School Grade 3
25 17 37 40 12 23
Elementary School Grade 4
16 18 21 44 5 26
Elementary School Grade 5
17 14 19 22 2 8
Figure 1. State vs Intervention English Learners Percentile Growth Scores on the SAT9 2000-2002 Elementary School
State Percentile Mean Growth Scores
Intervention School Percentile Mean Growth
Scores
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Grade Level
Per
cent
ile M
ean
Gro
wth
Sco
res
Figure 2. Like vs Intervention English Learners Percentile Scores on the SAT9 2000-2002 Elementary School
Like Schools Percentile Mean Growth Scores
Intervention Schools Percentile Mean Growth
Scores
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Grade Level
Per
cent
ile M
ean
Gro
wth
Sco
res
Figure 3. State vs Intervention English Learners % Growth Scores on the SAT9 2000-2002 Middle School
State Percentile Mean Growth
Intervention Schools Percentile Mean Growth
Scores
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Reading Language Math Spelling
Subject Area
Per
cent
ile M
ean
Gro
wth
Sco
res
Figure 4 . Like vs Intervention English Learner Percentile Growth Scores SAT9 2000-2002 Middle School
Like Schools Percentile Mean Growth Scores
Intervention Schools Percentile Mean Growth
Scores
-15
-5
5
15
25
35
45
Reading Math Language Spelling
Subject Areas
Per
cent
ile M
ean
Gro
wth
Sco
res
Figure 5 . State vs Intervention English Learners % Growth Scores on the SAT 9 2000-2002 High School
State Percentile Mean Growth Scores
Intervention School Percentile Mean Growth
Scores
0
5
10
15
Reading Language Science Math Social Science
Subject Area
Per
cent
ile M
ean
Gro
wth
Sco
res
Figure 6. Like vs Intervention English Learners Percentile Scores on the SAT9 2000-2002 High School
Intervention Schools Percentile Mean Growth
ScoresLike Schools Percentile Mean
Growth Scores0
5
10
15
Reading Math Language Science Social Science
Subject Areas
Per
cent
ile M
ean
Gro
wth
Sco
res
English Learners at schools English Learners at schools where teams attended the where teams attended the
institutes scored higher on the institutes scored higher on the average than similar schools average than similar schools
and the state average.and the state average.
Outcome:Outcome:• AN OBSERVATION CHECKLIST TO AN OBSERVATION CHECKLIST TO
INCREASE TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS INCREASE TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS evolved from the institutes to assist evolved from the institutes to assist teachers in reflecting on their teachers in reflecting on their lessons.lessons.
• It is a list of instructional strategies It is a list of instructional strategies which should be used to enhance which should be used to enhance instruction for all students, instruction for all students, especially English learners.especially English learners.
• Not all components, however, would Not all components, however, would be used at the same time.be used at the same time.
√√ ELD/ELA STRATEGY EVIDENCE √√ CONTENT AREA STRATEGY
EVIDENCE
Punctuation/Syntax/Grammar Content Area Reading (not text book)
Vocabulary Development Text Analysis
Reading for Fluency Content Area Writing
Integrated Reading & Writing Primary Language Support
√√ ALL SUBJECT AREAS EVIDENCE √√ ALL SUBJECT AREAS EVIDENCE
Anticipatory Set High Expectations
Clear Purpose Established for Learning the Skill
Multiple Exposures to New Vocabulary
Performance Objectives/Standards Posted
Intensive Vocabulary Development
Appropriate Modeling Prediction
Guided Practice Context Clues Stressed
Accessing Prior Knowledge Graphic Organizers
Scaffolding Questioning Strategies
Predictable Class Routines Corrective Feedback
Use of Realia Differentiated Instruction
Visual Aids Alternative Assessments
Cooperative Grouping All Students Actively Engaged
Social Discourse Encouraged Lessons are “Into, Through & Beyond”
Formal & Informal Speaking Checking For Understanding (Ongoing)
Student Interaction Assessment Informs Curriculum
LITERACY/ACADEMIC LANGUAGE OBSERVATION PROTOCOL FOR EVALUATION AND SELF-REFLECTION:LITERACY/ACADEMIC LANGUAGE OBSERVATION PROTOCOL FOR EVALUATION AND SELF-REFLECTION:NAME_______________________________ DATE____________ NAME_______________________________ DATE____________ SUBJECT/GRADE_________________________________SUBJECT/GRADE_________________________________