You are on page 1of 33

Running head: STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 1

Examining Student Academic Growth in English Language Development through the


Implementation of Structured English Immersion


Stephanie Argueta
University of St. Thomas




Research Professor: Mike Papadimitriou, Ed.D.
May, 2014
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 2

Table of Contents
Abstract 3
Chapter 1: Introduction 4
Description of Problem 4
Variables and Population of Interest 4
Self-Reflection 6
Hypothesis 8
Justification 8
Chapter 2: Literature Review 10
Allocated Time for ELD 10
SEI Programs 14
Academic Content 16
Science and SEI model 17
Conclusion 18
Chapter 3: Method 20
Participants 20
Measures 20
Design 21
Procedure 21
Data Analysis Plan 22
References 23












STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 3

Abstract
A quantitative, pretest, posttest design was used to assess the effectiveness of an English
Language Development Program on the language acquisition of third grade students. Through
the implementation of weekly language lessons and language strategies developed by the
program, the study analyzed the overall student growth in language acquisition. This study used
a structured English immersion model in the classroom in order to meet the linguistical needs of
the students Clark (2009). The data did not support the hypothesis. The results did not show a
significant difference in the students growth in English language development.















STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 4


Chapter 1
Introduction
Description of Problem
Districts develop their own standards of English Language Development classes, also
referred to as ELD classes. ELD teachers often teach students in both English and Spanish and
the amount of instruction in either language is not balanced and often left up to the discretion of
the teacher (Clark, 2009). According to Clark (2009), teachers use instructional methods that
treat English as a foreign language (p. 45) clearly causing confusion for students, and the
teachers not knowing how much support should be given to their students in their native
language . According to the Sonoma County Office of Education (2009), English Language
Learners, also known as ELLs, do not make adequate progress and reach an intermediate level of
English, thus making it difficult for the teachers to help them achieve academically (p. 1).
Instead, they lag in their ability to apply the rules, structures, and specialized vocabularies of
English necessary for grade level academic coursework; and their writing typically features an
array of structural errors (Clark, p.43, 2009). In fact, according to Clark (2009), students are
not taught English but rather in English (p.43) and are expected to perform at the level of their
peers in content areas, even though they lack the English development needed for success.
Variables and Population of Interest
Last year Sheldon ISD adopted an English Language Development program for all ELLs
through Clark consultants. The program was designed to educate ELLs through Structured
English Immersion, also known as SEI. All teachers received training and continued to be
coached and supported through the school year by consultants of the new ELD program.
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 5

Interestingly, studies at George Washington Elementary school in Madera, California show that
after a year of implementing the SEI program, English development and related growth rates
increased tremendously and exceeded prescribed growth requirements (Clark, 2009). The goal of
Californias program was to teach students from kindergarten through high school the grammar
skills of English. Furthermore, the teachers attempt to increase students levels of English
through grammar focused lessons that were centered on the students English level ability.
Teachers from first through fifth at Sheldon Elementary educated their students using the
SEI program. Students in both bilingual and monolingual classrooms applied the program skills
in their classrooms. Last year, second grade classrooms were divided into two groups based on
their English language ability, as advised by the program consultants. The monolingual students
were placed in the academic classrooms and the bilingual students were placed in foundational
classrooms. Lessons were geared to meet the students English language ability. Academic
students received ELD instruction for one hour, as opposed to foundational students who
received ELD instruction for two hours. Students were also assessed through three benchmarks
to test their student academic growth in the English language based on the lessons and language
skill practices they were exposed to.
In order to better meet the needs of the students, this year all of the bilingual third graders
have been placed in an academic classroom. Their ELD instruction was reduced to one hour. The
students were evaluated through three benchmarks to determine any English language progress. I
used the data from last year and this years benchmarks to further examine the student academic
growth in the English language. In order to acquire accurate results I was the only teacher
grading each benchmark, as opposed to last year when two other teachers assessed and graded
the students ELD benchmarks.
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 6

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of an English Language
Development Program on the language acquisition of third grade students. Specifically,
academic students receiving instruction in the program were assessed using district benchmarks
as pretests and posttests. These scores were analyzed for significant differences. The
participants in this study were third grade bilingual students in a Title I public school. Student
achievement ranged from high to below passing standards. All students who participated in the
study were ELLs and participated two years in ELD classrooms. One student received Special
Education services and had been identified as an autistic high functioning student. The structured
time set aside in which the ELD instruction took place occurred during the Language Arts and
Reading block. The block was 3 hours long. About 1 hour was devoted to ELD instruction.
Self-Reflection
As years have passed, specific grammar instruction in the language arts classroom has
been narrowed down to a ten to fifteen minute time period focused on word study such as root
words, prefixes, suffixes, homophones, homographs, idioms and other similar topics. Most
students are not taught the parts of speech or basic grammatical rules in order to form complete
and sometimes even complex sentences. As a teacher new to the district and ELD program, I was
surprised by the specific grammar skills that I had either never been taught or somehow no
longer remembered. More surprisingly, I could not even recall teaching any of my previous
bilingual students specific grammar skills that focused on sentence structure. I could not believe
how something so simple hand not occurred to me or even to the coaches who prepared the
scope and sequence at any of my three previous school districts. It seemed as though the focus
was entirely on the content area and not the students English language abilities. Furthermore,
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 7

students were not being taught the grammatical skills needed to continue their language
development after middle school.
Each time I changed districts, I wondered why there was not a consistent bilingual
program in place. Clark (2009) states conflicting ideologies, competing academic theories and
multiple metrics for comparing different approaches have rendered many schools , districts and
educators paralyzed by confusion (Clark, p. 43, 2009). As a new teacher in Sheldon, I was
informed that the district had adopted a new ELD program and was astonished to hear that all of
the instruction was going to be given to the students in English. After attending the first ELD
training in Sheldon ISD, I was further informed that students would only receive a total of
eighteen minutes per day to front load or review unfamiliar terms in Spanish. Kevin Clark the
president of Clark consultants explained that new the ELD program was in accordance with the
law in our training (Castaeda v. Pickard. 1981). Furthermore all teachers received an ELD
guide book and an outlined scope and sequence to the English language instruction for both
academic and foundational groups.
Despite the districts continuous efforts to inform parents of the ELD program, parents
still felt unsatisfied with the program and felt that it was not in accordance with the law.
However, since the program is only in its second year in the district, the parents have not been
able to see the student academic growth in English language development. As time progresses,
the hope is that these benefits will become apparent. I personally think that this program has
helped my students tremendously with writing and the ability to understand some of the content
we cover. They seem to benefit greatly from familiarity with the English language and sentence
structures. As the years progress, the students should become stronger English language users as
they continue developing their English grammatical skill through the ELD program.
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 8

Hypothesis
Based on the end of the year ELD benchmarks last year, I predicted that the student
academic growth in the English language would continue to improve. Specifically, the utilization
of an English Language Development Program would produce significant differences in the
pretest and posttest benchmark scores of academic third grade students at Sheldon Elementary.
Clark (2009) advocates that an essential part of developing the English language is a continued
focus on the grammar rules and structure to construct sentences in everyday situations. I
continued to modify instruction using the language skill, verb tense studies, and sentence
structure activities to help the students reach their potential English skills. Hopefully, this
approach will have an impact.
Justification
This study could serve as a tool to show the academic growth in English language among
the third grade bilingual students and help calm the concerns and doubts parents have about the
ELD program. If the parents were made aware of the academic growth their children, they may
reconsider their negative feelings towards the program and come to the realizations of the long
term goal. I personally would like to see proof that this program is effective and is improving the
English language development of my students. I also would like to see that this program is
functional compared to other district programs that have not been consistent throughout their
district.
This design was a pretest-posttest control group design. The students tested were third
grade bilingual students from a low social economic campus. The groups of students were
assessed with the ELD benchmark pretest at a foundational level. This year all of the students
were given academic instruction as opposed to last years foundational instruction. Modifications
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 9

were made for each group depending on their specific need. Then both groups were assessed
with the end of the year academic ELD benchmark as posttest to determine the growth they made
in one year.






































STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 10




Chapter 2

Literature Review
Teachers are responsible for educating their students on the content and concepts needed
to help students meet academic achievement on state mandated tests. Second language learners
often times struggle to acquire the academic language needed to succeed in upper elementary and
secondary grades. Most often, lessons consist of content being taught instead of the development
of the English language. Students are not given time to develop the English language in order to
successfully understand the concepts they are being taught.
The following literature review will discuss strategies used to help second language
learners develop the English language through a variety of methods and skills. The literature
review will also examine the importance of proper teacher preparation and ongoing professional
development when working with ELL students. One of the studies will examine an SEI program
and additional research will provide a better understanding of what an SEI program should
entail. Finally a second study incorporating a Science SEI program will be examined.
Allocated Time for ELD
The first section in this chapter will discuss the importance of establishing a separate
block for English language development. Students need time for language acquisition. The
amount of time teaching content in the school day must be decreased to provide the specific time
need for language acquisition. Most would agree that this time should be shared during the
students reading and language arts instruction. Therefore, it is wise to examine a study where a
separate instructional block was created for the development of oral English language.
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 11

Oral English Language Development. It is unclear if integrating ELD into reading and
language arts instruction is beneficial for students or whether teaching it separately improves the
students oral English language development and literary scores (Carlson, Foorman, & Saunders,
2006). The study being examined observed 85 kindergarten students with different variables. The
first was whether ELD was a separate instructional block and the second was whether the
program was labeled as an English immersion or bilingual class (Carlson et al., 2006).
In order to determine the effects a separate block may have on ELLs, a number of schools
and variety of programs were tested. The students were enrolled in the following programs: (a)
English immersion, (b) transitional bilingual, (c) two-way, and (d) dual language. Student
English and Spanish oral language were measured with the Woodcock Language Proficiency
Battery-Revised, which took about 45-90 minutes to complete (Carlson et al., 2006). According
to Carlson et al. (2009), the research assistants were the only examiners of the exam. All
assistants had to attend an extensive training that consisted of five hours and a re-enactment of
the exam as an assessment. The data was analyzed using classroom observations and student
achievement.
As expected, the bilingual students learned more Spanish letter names than those in and
English immersion class. The English immersion students learned more English sounds than the
student in the bilingual classes. The students within the ELD block and in an English immersi on
class scored much higher on their English oral language (Carlson et al., 2006). Carlson et al.
(2006) determined that the separate ELD block should focus on the the structure of language
and the decontextualized register of academic language such as encoding (p. 197). Clark
supports the importance of allotting for sufficient English language instruction and teaching it
directly and explicitly (Sonoma County Office of Education, 2009, p. 2).
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 12

The multiple students and variety of programs used in this study could be seen as
strength. This helps to validate the study considering the extent of data that was collected. A
limitation could be that the research only tested one district in a particular area. The researchers
could have tested other districts with similar programs in different areas to strengthen the
validity.
Preparing for ELLs Using Conversational Text. Not all teachers are prepared to work
with ELL students. Some teachers would benefit from programs of preparation that would
improve the teachers ability to work with these students. According to Nieto (2012), it is
imperative for a teacher to create an environment that is conducive to the students learning. A
teacher who cannot relate to students finds it harder to make meaningful connections and teach
them well (Nieto, 2012, p. 32). Nieto states that building relationships among the teacher and
students is the key in helping the students to feel comfortable in their learning environment and
open to asking question for understanding. In the next study, the teacher builds a relationship
using conversational text to gain students trust and improve the students proficiency.
According to Iddings, Risko & Rampula (2009) students are often placed in classrooms
with teachers who lack the confidence and ability to support ELLs. Furthermore, teachers may
not be able to relate to students cultural and linguistic backgrounds, which could be detrimental
to helping students understand text and relate text ideas to personal experiences (Iddings et al.,
2009).
Many districts now require teachers to become ESL or English as a Second Language
certified in order to become better prepared to instruct ELL students. In the Idding et al. (2009)
study, the monolingual teacher involved did not have formal training and the ELL students
involved were at a beginning level in English. The research method used established a system of
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 13

communication in the classroom and analyzed the interactions amongst the students and the
teacher (Idding et at., 2009). The teacher used a pre-selected text to help foster student
discussion over interactions people may have with one another and to provide meaningful text
conversations (Idding et al., 2009). Before reading the text, the teacher introduced vocabulary
while referring to pictures in the book. The teacher then built on the words and phrases the
students used to help them feel a part of the discussion. During the reading, the teacher restated
the phrases the students used and modeled the correct English usage. The teacher also asked
questions to help with clarity (Idding et al., 2009). Furthermore, the teacher assisted the students
in focusing on the text concepts of the story while confirming and restating their knowledge of
the story (Idding et al., 2009). The teacher created a shared learning environment allowing the
comfort level of the students to increase and actively become part of the discussion.
The students relied upon one another for clearing misunderstandings and clarity. One of
the students took on the role as a mediator and translated in her first language in order to help
another student receive a better understanding of the story (Idding et al., 2009). In translating, the
student made a question relevant to the other student by stating how he would feel versus how
the character would feel in the situation. The students were able to elaborate on their own
knowledge through the discussion they had amongst each other and the teacher (Idding et al.,
2009).
This study did not serve in helping the reader with a specific ELD form of instruction but
rather to prove that patterns of interaction can facilitate learning for ELL students (Idding et al.,
2009). The students in the study exhibited an expansion of their linguistic skills, of their
knowledge about text, and their understandings of the central concepts in the story which
helped them achieve higher levels of competence (Idding et al., 2009, p. 59). Although the
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 14

teacher was not ESL certified or trained to work with the ELL students in his class, he used his
pedagogical knowledge as an experienced teacher in order to meet the needs of his the ELL
students while interacting with them through a conversational text (Idding et al., 2009, p. 60).
Planning for ELD instruction. Although there are multiple factors that play a key role
in students language acquisition, one of the most important factors is the teachers ability to
educate and foster the students achievable language development. Carlson, Foorman and
Saunders (2006) agree with the importance of teachers becoming well trained in implementing
decontextualized skills during ELD instruction. The teacher should be well trained in using skills
that can help build the students language acquisition. Clark and Cameron (2010) developed a
guide to help teachers focus on five aspects of the English language. The five elements that are
outlined are: (a) phonology, (b) morphology, (c) syntax, (d) lexicon, and (e) semantics (also
referred to as the five-point linguistic star). The guide illustrates how to use these elements to
better instruct students by choosing lessons to meet the linguistical needs of the students while
minimizing the planning time it takes the teacher. Furthermore, teaching templates, concept
charts, and notes over sentence structures are provided to aid the teachers in lesson planning.
Teachers have found the guide to be helpful in directing them on the focus of their instruction.
According to Sonoma County Office of Education (2009) clarity and structure of the model are
being praised by educators who recognize the importance of providing efficient and effective
language instruction to English learners (p.8). Furthermore, the Sonoma County Office of
Education created a series of briefs describing a variety of effective ways to help ELL learners.
SEI Programs
Some controversy exists in relation to SEI programs being harmful to students by placing
them in a sink or float learning environment. Adams and Jones (2006) state that ELL students
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 15

are forced to learn English and swim or sink if they fail to acquire the language. Clark
(2009) states that SEI programs are frequently confused with submersion, the process of placing
ELLs in regular classrooms that feature little or no instruction modifications and minimal
instruction in the actual mechanics of English (p. 44). This is contrary to Clarks ELD program
that requires modifications be made to the lessons based on the students language acquisition.
In Support of SEI Programs. Barker (1998) argues that other researchers such as J.
David Ramirez have modeled effective SEI programs. According to Barker (1998), an SEI
program can be defined as one in which English is used and taught at a level appropriate to the
class of English learners and the teacher objective is to maximize instruction in English and
used English for 70% to 90% (p. 200) of the time spent in the classroom.
Furthermore, Barker (1998) mentions that those who do develop SEI programs get much
criticism from advocates of bilingual education, community members, and federal education
organizations. He also affirms that students have the ability to learn the English language but two
factors can deter them from their capability. The first is speaking too much of the students
native language in the classroom and the other is not recognizing how difficult it is for the
students to learn the content and the English language at the same time (Barker, 1998).
According to Barker, an SEI program does not necessarily mean that class consists of all
English, but less Spanish is spoken in such. Furthermore, Barker (1998), goes on to state that
others may create an argument over how difficult it is for ELL students to learn English in an
SEI program, but many studies such as the Canadian Immersion program and researchers such as
Lambert and Tucker have proven an SEI program to be just as effective.
Effects of an SEI Program. One example of an SEI program benefiting students is
provided in a study conducted by Bali (2001) that compared student data before and after
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 16

Proposition 227. According to Bali (2001), Proposition 227 dismantled the bilingual programs in
public schools in California in order to substitute them with early English acquisition programs.
Bali studied data from a southern California school district before Proposition 227. She studied
the academic performance of limited English proficient or LEP students in reading and math in
bilingual programs in 1998 and not in bilingual programs in 1999 (Bali, 2001). The study
examined if student academic performance suffered or improved due to the changes due to
Proposition 227. After Proposition 227, LEP students who were in bilingual classrooms were
placed in all English classes and given modifications to support their needs (Bali, 2001). Test
scores of the students before and after the reform were evaluated and all students were tested in
English.
Bali surveyed students who were tested both years and attended the same school district
in 1998 and 1999. The student performance was measured by test scores and students were
grouped by three categories: individual, group, and school (Bail, 2001). Individual classifications
were based on the students proficiency in English. Group classifications were based on race and
economic status. School classifications were based on class size, percent of certified teachers,
magnet or non in the district, and Hispanic teacher ratios (Bali, 2001). Scores of LEP student in
bilingual and monolingual classes before and after Proposition 227 were analyzed.
Many of the LEP students who were in bilingual classes were placed in SEI classrooms.
Bali concluded that the LEP students academic performance in reading was equivalent to those
who were not LEP students. Furthermore, the LEP students scored higher in math than their
peers who were not LEP students (Bali, 2001). Bilingual LEP students were able to become
academically equal to their peers who were not LEP and in bilingual classes within one years
time. The SEI program had a positive effect on the students and proved to be successful.
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 17

Academic Content
ELL students often have a difficult time learning the academic content when they have
not yet acquired the language acquisition it takes to understand the content (Barker, 1998). This
is especially difficult when the student is tested in a content area he or she has does not
understand such as Science. According to Gmez and Jimenez-Silva (2010) some teachers are
not confident in relying on SEI methods to aid students in acquiring the content. As SEI
programs are developing in school districts, teachers are being trained in SEI so that all teachers
are held accountable for educating ELL students (Gmez and Jimenez-Silva, 2010).
Science and SEI Model
States such as California, Arizona, and Florida are required to teach language in addition
to the content area. Since science requires hands-on activities, it lends itself to an encouraging
learning environment for ELL students. Science teachers use a mode continuum strategy to teach
language and Science. This strategy guides student into speaking and writing about science
(Gmez & Jimenez-Silva, 2010).
There are four phases in the mode continuum. The first phase students are placed in a
group and given a specific topic to test an experiment on. Teachers may have a variety of
experiments pertaining to one specific topic. In order to guide the students through the
experiment, teachers provide written and picture form of instructions (Gmez & Jimenez-Silva,
2010). Students have to rely on vocabulary and prior knowledge while actively participating in
experiments. The students are also informed that they will have to later experiments to their
peers verbally. In phase two, academic vocabulary is introduced in verbal and written forms.
Additionally, the teacher visits with each group and reinforces science concepts and vocabulary
by modeling correct use of the vocabulary (Gmez & Jimenez-Silva, 2010).
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 18

The third phase is student reporting with teacher facilitation. The student makes a
statement describing the experiment. The teacher then prompts the student by restating t he
missing vocabulary, thus providing the student with the academic vocabulary needed to explain
the experiment (Gmez & Jimenez-Silva, 2010). This approach helps the student prepare for the
final phase in the mode continuum. The final phase is journal writing. The teacher asks students
a general question prompting them to write using the new academic vocabulary (Gmez &
Jimenez-Silva, 2010).
This study utilized six different experiments on gravity. A total of 20 students were
involved in the study and half were ELLs. All four phases were completed. The teacher kept
individual and class profiles of the students in order to better prepare future lessons to meet
student needs (Gmez and Jimenez-Silva, 2010). According to Gmez and Jimenez-Silva (2010),
teachers should provide a variety of assessments to determine if the ELL students understood the
content objectives. Furthermore, teachers should use formative and summative assessments. The
summative assessments should be given after the unit of study and the formative assessments
should occur during the process of the experiment in an informal manner.
In conclusion, instruction should have multiple components and offer students the
opportunity to speak, read, write, and listen to English (Gmez & Jimenez-Silva, 2010). Hands-
on learning activities are required to foster the learning environment. The teacher must be given
a method to follow to help assist students in the language acquisition.
Conclusion
The articles provide the reader with knowledge of multiple methods to use when teaching
ELLs. Furthermore it establishes the importance of using specific strategies during ELD in order
to foster a learning environment that will best fit the needs of the students. The research in this
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 19

chapter has shown the reader the positive effects of using these strategies when educating their
ELLs.
In this chapter the reader is also given valuable reasons as to why the ELD teacher needs
the proper training in order to be well prepared for teaching the ELL students in his or her
classroom. When the teacher receives the appropriate training the level of language acquisition
of the student is likely to increase.
The studies provided also analyzed SEI programs and methods used in the program to
meet the needs of their ELLs. Furthermore the studies reiterate the difference between a SEI
program and submersion program. This chapter also discusses how SEI programs have changed
and developed since the first programs were established.













STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 20

Chapter 3
Method
Participants
The participants for this study were third grade Language Arts students in a Title I public
school. The average age of the students was between eight to nine years old. All students were
Hispanic males and females. There were a total of 49 participants. The participants were selected
for this study because they were enrolled in the Foundational ELD (English Language
Development) class for the 2012-2013 school year. Specifically, both academic and foundational
students receiving instruction in the program were assessed using district benchmarks as pretests
and posttests. Furthermore, the students were specifically placed at the end of last year in the
Academic ELD classes for the 2013-2014 school year. All students were exposed to the ELD
lessons the previous year and were familiar with the strategies used during the lessons for
increasing their language acquisition.
Measures
During the implementation process the teacher monitored the student growth through
review of student structured sentences in journals, one on one, small or whole group discussions,
and ELD district benchmark assessments. The primary data source for the study was pretest and
posttest benchmark scores. Journal entries were reviewed to determine if the students were able
to use the sentence formulas independently to create their own complete and even complex
sentences. ELD district benchmark assessments were analyzed to determine student growth in
their language acquisition within a years time.


STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 21

Design
This quantitative study utilized a pretest-posttest design to examine the language
acquisition of the third grade students, both academic and foundational, after exposure to ELD
lessons within a years time. All students received foundational ELD lessons the previous year
due to fact that the program was newly adopted in the district. In the present study year, all
students received academic ELD lessons due to student familiarity with the foundation lessons.
The students language acquisition was not being challenged with the ELD lessons during the
second year of the program. Although the two (i.e., academic and foundational) groups of
students received the same academic ELD lessons, some modifications for each group was made.
Modifications include shorter and less complex sentence structures, and additional small group
time with the teacher. The researcher chose this design because it was the best way to determine
student growth in language acquisition.
There was a threat to validity in this research model. The pretests were graded by three
different teachers the previous year. Only half of the participants in the study this year were
graded by the same teacher both years. That same teacher was the only one grading the posttest
which helped with the validity and consistency. This study was simply an attempt to assess
student improvement and program effectiveness for all participants.
Procedure
The instructor was a graduate student at the University of St. Thomas and one of three
Language Arts/ELD teachers in the third grade at the assigned school. She worked with all the
students in the study as their only Language Arts/ ELD teacher. She worked with half of the
participants in the study the previous year. The ELD program was adopted by the district the
previous year and all students were exposed to the different techniques used during the ELD
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 22

period. This exposure played a key role in teaching the students the expectations during the ELD
period such as always speaking and asking questions in complete sentences. Furthermore, the
students were knowledgeable of the expectations before, during and after each language lesson.
After each week, the instructor evaluated each students level of language acquisition and
focus on ways to drive students to reach higher levels of language acquisitions during the
lessons. The instructor also determined what parts of the five aspects of language the
participants needed more help with during the ELD period.
The ELD district benchmark assessments were given to all students during different times
throughout the year. All students took the ELD district benchmark assessments after months of
reinforcement of language strategies used to improve the level of student language acquisition.
Data Analysis Plan
Data was collected in the form of ELD district benchmark assessments. The ELD district
benchmark assessment was divided into the five language aspects. Each of the parts was
analyzed to determine what areas showed the most and least student growth. The grades of all
participants were charted to show changes in student progress. Data was examined statistically to
determine significant changes in the students language acquisition.







STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 23

Chapter 4
Results
The students used in the study received multiple ELD lessons and received an hour of
instruction daily. All students were given a district ELD benchmark every two to three months
for a total of three benchmark tests throughout each year. The third benchmark in each year was
used as the pretest and posttest and was the most comparable. The third benchmarks were
represented as Pretest and Posttest in the data analysis.
At the beginning of the year the students were excited about daily lessons and routines.
Soon after the first month, the students began to grow restless of the routines and needed to be
intrigued to hold their attention. A ticket reward system was created to encourage students to use
the strategies they were taught during the instructional period. The reward system increased
student participations in students who did not regularly volunteer to answer questions. It also
motivated the students to form longer well written sentences and change the order of the words
to create complex sentences. The reward system improved the students behavior and ability to
use the strategies they had learned.
The exact ELD district benchmark is given to both second and third grade. A new
benchmark was created this year to determine the students ELD aptitude. The components of
the benchmark were the same, but the writing portion of the benchmark had a higher level of
difficulty. Last years benchmark only required the students to write four sentences about four
pictures that were arranged in order. The purpose of written portion was to test the students
ability to write a paragraph that flowed. This years test required the student to not only write
four sentences that flowed but also use the same verb tense throughout. Furthermore, the
students sentences had to be longer and more complex. The written portion alone was worth
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 24

twenty eight points of the students grade. Points were deducted from the students score for
changes in verb tense, word redundancy, structure redundancy, omitted words, inserted words,
and wrong word or grammar structure. Capitalization and punctuation errors were not a factor.
Students who were not strong in writing, scored lower than their peers due to value of points in
the written portion.
After analyzing the data, the paired samples t tests revealed that there was not a statistical
significant difference t = 0.5728 (df=48). The two-tailed P value equals 0.5694. The mean of P1
was 88.02 and P2 was 88.67. The mean of P1 minus P2 equaled -0.65 (Appendix A). Many of
the pretest scores were between two to four points higher or lower than the posttest. Twenty-five
out of the forty-nine students scored lower on their posttest than they did on their pretest.
(Appendix B) Since the program was so new to the district this could have been a factor that led
to the non statistical difference.











STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 25

Chapter 5
Discussion
The data collected from this study indicated that there was no statistical significant
difference between the students pretest and posttest scores. The hypothesis that the student
academic growth in the English language would continue to improve was not supported by the
data. The utilization of an English Language Development Program did not produce significant
differences in the pretest and posttest scores. Other factors should be considered when
determining the possible reasons for the studys results.
The findings may have been related to uncontrollable variables such as the districts
unfamiliarity with the program. The program is in its second phase and year in the district. The
ELD district benchmarks changed and will continue to change until the district establishes which
test they will use for future ELD learners. After each benchmark the test were analyzed to
determine what needed to change to challenge the students ELD aptitude. Additionally, the
change in the test difficulty level in writing could have been considered an uncontrollable
variable. Other factors such as grading scales could have also been a factor that hindered the
results of the pretest and posttest scores. The writing component of the posttest was different and
the value of the points a student received on the test impacted them significant on their overall
average. Nonetheless both test had the five elements of phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon,
and semantics, making them equally comparable.
Strengths and Limitations
This studys consistent evaluator, rating system, ELD methods and lessons could be
considered a strength. The posttest evaluator was identical in the entire forty-nine assessments.
No other evaluator analyzed the ELD benchmarks. The exact scoring system was used to analyze
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 26

all assessments and was consistent throughout every part of the test. Furthermore, the ELD
methods and lessons taught to the students to prepare them for the ELD benchmark were
consistent with all forty-nine participants. This consistency contributed to the studys posttest
accuracy and preciseness.
This study could be considered unique by its design of limited research in the district due
to the recently adopted program. Insufficient research from the previous year did not provide
enough information to compare the data. Although the program adopted by the district was
incorporated in 1994, the programs consultants could not provide research comparable to the
Sheldon district. Other studies from a variety of school districts across the country since 1989
were analyzed and used in the studys research. Some of the research could be considered out
dated due to the changes in school trends, systems, and development of policies and laws.
Other factors that could be considered to the limitations of the study were the extraneous
variables and limitation of time. As previously mentioned uncontrollable variables such as the
changes in the pretest and posttest assessments and scoring rubrics varied due to the districts
need to challenge the students ELD aptitude. Additionally, had the researcher had more time to
analyze other ELD benchmarks in the years to come, the results could have been proven to be
significant. Furthermore, the research could have proven an academic growth in the English
language development of the students. Finally another obvious limitation could have been the
number of participants used in the study. The study only analyzed participants from one school
in the district as opposed to all five elementary schools in the district. Furthermore, the study
only focused on one grade level as opposed to all five grade levels who were also receiving the
same ELD methods and lesson.

STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 27

Recommendations and Action Plan
Future studies should consider utilizing other participants in the study from different
grade levels. Additionally other schools in the district could also be considered in the study to
help add to the research validity and accuracy. Furthermore, a longer treatment period beyond on
years time should be considered to attain a significant growth in the students English language
development. Another recommendation would be a consistent accumulation of results and data
in the district to further analyze in future studies.
In my role as an ELD educator, I found the findings of this study to assist me in leadi ng
me in a direction to further educate my students in their ELD lessons. Furthermore, I intend to
further facilitate the students writing abilities and understanding of all of the components of the
assessment. I plan to share my findings with my third grade ELD colleagues as well as other
ELD teachers at my campus and in my district. Moreover, I would recommend that they provide
their students with more writing opportunities and methods in helping their students get a better
understanding of the components.
In consideration of extending the research, I would recommend utilizing participants in
fourth or fifth grade due to their stronger ELD skills that they may have acquired due to their age
and back ground knowledge. I would like to examine their difficulty levels and the reasons for
those weaknesses so that we may target them early on in the lower grade levels. Furthermore, I
would like to gain a better understanding of what would help the students grow in the English
language development.
As research in ELD continues, the academic growth in the students English language
may have a significant difference. The next direction the district intends to move in is
incorporating ELD into the content areas so that the two are correlated. The district has begun to
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 28

offer professional development to the teachers in the district to educate them on how to
incorporate ELD into their Reading block. Since the program is fairly new to the district, the
teachers learn more and more about its methods and lesson each year. It will be interesting to see
how ELD will help our students in the future in content areas and further their English language
development.


















STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 29

References
Adams, M., & Jones, K. M. (2006). Unmasking the myths of structured English immersion: Why
we still need bilingual educators, native language instruction, and incorporation of home
culture. Radical Teacher, (75), 16-21.
Baker, K. (1998). Structured English immersion: Breakthrough in teaching limited-english-
proficient students. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(3), 199-204.
Bali, V. A. (2001) Sink or Swim: What Happened to California's Bilingual Students after
Proposition 227? State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 1(3), 295-317.
Castaneda v. Pickard. 1981. 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).
Clark, K., & Cameron, J. (2010) The Painless, Plan-less Grammar Guide. Clovis, CA:
Innovative Grammar.
Clark, K. (2009). The case for structured English immersion. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 42-
46.
Gmez, C. L., & Jimenez-Silva, M. (2010). From speaking to writing in the structured english
immersion science classroom. Science Scope, 34(1), 52-56.
Iddings, A. C. D., Risko, V. J., & Rampulla, M. P. (2009). When you don't speak their language:
Guiding english-language learners through conversations about text. Reading Teacher,
63(1), 52-61.
K. Clark (personal communication, October, 21, 2013)
STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 30

Nieto, S., Rivera, M., Quiones, S., & Irizarry, J. (2012). Conclusion and recommendations.
AMAE Journal, 6(3), 32-43.
S. Gedney (personal communication, October 24, 2013)
Saunders, W. M., Foorman, B. R., & Carlson, C. D. (2006). Is a separate block of time for oral
english language development in programs for english learners needed? Elementary
School Journal, 107(2), 181-198.
Sonoma County Office of Education. (2009, September). Structuring language instruction to
advance stalled English learners. Santa Rosa, CA: Patty Dineen and Suzanne Gedney















STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 31

Appendix
Appendix A Table 1: Data Analysis
Appendix B Table 2: ELD Benchmark Scores




















STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 32

Appendix A
Table 1
Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Bilingual Group at English Language
Development Pretest and Posttest
Group Pretest Posttest
M SD M SD
Bilingual 88.02 7.40 88.67 6.66



















STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH 33

Appendix B
Table 2


ELD Benchmark scores from pretest to posttest for Students 01 through Students 49 for Bilingual
group.

You might also like