During the seven weeks of research I would have implemented lessons 31 through 50 of the Language for Learning intervention. Students would have been assessed using a pre and post test comparison for two units. In lessons 31 through 50 students would have learned a variety of different things. Based on the scope and sequence from the intervention, these lessons covered: actions, descriptions of objects, information and background knowledge, instructional words, and problem solving concepts, strategies, and applications.

I chose to implement this intervention because I learned from my literature review that direct instruction has many benefits for emerging learners. First of all, direct instruction provides comprehensible input. This is due to the theorist, Vygotsky, and his “i+1” theory. This theory states that you take the information that students know and then you add a little more so that they understand almost everything, and the students will be able to infer and figure out the pieces that they do not understand.

This intervention also used pictures to teach new vocabulary. According to my literature review, using visuals helps emerging students retain the vocabulary because they have pictures to associate with the term. Language for Learning also used a lot of repetition from the teacher and peers and explicit corrective feedback. For example, if I showed a picture of a window and my student responded with the wrong word I would stop and say, “no, this is a window. Say it with me, this is a window. Now say it by yourself.”

Besides the components that were already imbedded in the intervention, I also implemented games such as Bingo, Memory, and Spot it using the vocabulary that they were learning. Each game would have involved pictures of the items and each game focused on a different piece of language acquisition. Bingo focused on comprehensible input because the teacher said the words and then the students had to comprehend the word by finding the picture that matched. Memory at the emerging level focused on transferring the words to items that were similar but not exactly the same. For example, the memory game had two different houses that matched. This helped students to associate the word with all houses and not just the house that was shown in the intervention. Lastly, Spot it focused on oral production and saying the words. Students found the picture that matched, said the word, and then played their card. This game worked really well because students held each other accountable. The games were implemented on makeup days, when students finished a lesson early, and on assessment days.

The external stakeholders I collaborated with included my CADRE associate, my EL director, my EL undergraduate professor, and my capstone professor. Each of these people played a great role in supporting my research. My associate helped me to collect, record, and analyze data. My EL director helped me narrow down my area of focus to oral production. My EL undergraduate professor supported my research through knowledge and my literature review. She was also able to report on direct instruction among emergent learners and offer insight about strategies that could be successful with my students. Lastly, my capstone professor helped me organize every piece of my research. She helped me step by step through the process, offered me feedback, gave me the opportunity to talk through my ideas, and guided me towards the research I wanted to conduct.