English Learners

English Learners must take the screener assessment in order to qualify for English language services. This was the first year that the screener was implemented for kindergarten through 12th grade. English Learners must also take the summative assessment in February every year until they exit the English Language program. English Learners exit the program once they have reached proficiency scores of fours and fives in the four domains of language: reading, writing, listening, and speaking. This year, in my building, there were six returning English Learners and four entering English Learners that were emerging overall as well as in their speaking proficiency. What this meant for me was that many English Learners were not showing much growth in their speaking proficiency, which is why I focused on improving speaking proficiency and oral production. Three of the ten emerging English Learners had dual services with special education and were not part of my study because they did not receive as much direct instruction or strategies due to their other needs.

The data I collected from these seven students showed that they scored ones on their speaking proficiency for the English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA) for the 21st Century summative or screener assessment, which indicated that they were emergent learners. In order to score as emerging on their English proficiency, students had to score all ones and twos out of a five point scale for performance levels in the four domains of language: reading, writing, listening, and speaking. A proficiency status of emerging indicated that students qualified for an English program at the beginning level of English language acquisition. A proficiency score of three indicated progressing and that the student qualified for an English program and a proficiency score of four or five indicated proficiency and that the student could exit a program. A level one speaking proficiency score was consequential because it meant that students were working on responding to short conversations and questions, describing objects, communicating simple information about a topic, and expressing their opinions.

I implemented five open ended questions each week in which I observed and recorded anecdotal notes over in a conversation log. My seven students all had a difficult time holding conversations, answering open ended questions, implementing a wide variety of vocabulary, using correct grammar and syntax, connecting ideas, and using correct pronunciation. Based on the difficulties that my students had, I adjusted my instruction in order to help students build the skills and strategies that they needed in order to hold conversation, answer questions, discuss topics, connect their ideas, and use correct grammar, syntax, and pronunciation more successfully. This was salient because these skills were needed in basic communication, not to mention academic grade level conversations.

I created a Speaking Benchmark Assessment to measure students’ beginning oral language levels and to track growth. I used this assessment to measure how students were progressing with their oral language in six different categories. The six categories that I measured were vocabulary, grammar, syntax, strategies, organization, and pronunciation. They were measured on a four point scale that aligned with the proficiency levels. Furthermore, a score of a one or two was emerging, a score of three was progressing and a score of four was proficient. The data I collected from this assessment showed that 86% of them were emerging with vocabulary. Critically, students did not have a large vocabulary and they were not able to communicate about a wide range of grade level topics. About 57% of the students were emerging with grammar and 43% of them were progressing. More importantly, for me, most students had recurring errors such as over generalizing the rules. As for syntax, 100% of my students were not able to correctly form a question. They all communicated using few words and occasionally they formed simple sentences. The information from syntax showed me that my students were not able to ask for help or for clarification when they did not understand. Also, forming questions correctly was extremely difficult and my students needed help to build and make more complex and compound sentences. When it came to strategies, 100% of my students were emerging. They used memorized or familiar phrases, their first language for support, and they frequently repeated phrases. Ultimately, this suggested that they did not have any other strategies to utilize when communicating. Therefore, if they did not have the vocabulary that they needed, they simply stopped talking. My students did not know how to use examples, circumlocution, opposites, or comments to express themselves. Due to their lack of strategies to use when they did not know the words, they ended up not talking and they gave up trying to communicate or express themselves. This was important to me because I wanted my students to be able to communicate to the best of their abilities by utilizing different strategies when their vocabulary failed them. When it came to organization, 100% of my students were emerging. My students were not yet able to connect ideas with a variety of conjunctions. All of my students used common conjunctions such as “and” and “then.” To me, the lack of variety with conjunctions, meant that my students did not know how to transition and connect their ideas, which limited them from sharing more information. Lastly, 57% of my students were emerging with pronunciation because sometimes their pronunciation errors interfered with their communication. If students were not using the correct pronunciation they were also not able to stretch and spell words correctly in their writing. Also due to lack of pronunciation, students were not able to sound out and blend words together when reading. Pronunciation and phonics are the foundations of reading and writing. As my students transitioned and developed their reading and writing skills they struggled because they did not have the foundation of correct pronunciation when communicating through oral language.

***

I created an assessment to measure their proficiency because there were few data points to assess language formatively. We were only looking at students’ language proficiency once a year. Other data assessments such as the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessed students three times a year. As an educator I am supposed to use student assessments and data points to adjust and reflect on my instruction. I was only adjusting my instruction based on one assessment that was given annually. This was not enough and my students deserved more informed instruction from me as their educator. My project was necessary because students should be assessed a few times throughout the year to see the aspects of language with which they are still struggling. There was not a way of assessing a student’s oral language throughout the year in our building. Reading could be measured throughout the year with the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) scores and writing could be measured with district assessments. Listening was another area that did not have an assessment that measured it throughout the year. I focused on speaking instead of listening because I thought that listening would improve with speaking, but speaking would not necessarily improve with listening.

All seven students worked on Rosetta Stone and completed lessons with a focus on listening and speaking skills. I used a progress tracking document to measure students’ progress and completion. The progress tracking document showed me the amount of time a student spent training, the lessons that a student completed, attempted, and did not start, as well as the scores of the individual lessons, their overall score for the program, and their scores at the end of each unit. The progress tracking document was key because students who spent more time working on the program and completed more lessons had better language skills. I was able to use the amount of time a student spent and their lesson completion from Rosetta Stone to show their progress throughout the year.

At my elementary school there was a total of 386 students. We had 68 active English Learners. Out of those 68 English Learners, 40 of them were in kindergarten, first, and second grade. Out of these 40 students, 25% of them were emerging on their language proficiency. This was significant because 59% of our active English Learners were in kindergarten through second grade and 43% of the active students in third through sixth grade were not proficient in speaking English. Undoubtedly, speaking proficiency was something that many of our English Learners needed. For my capstone project, I focused on seven of ten emerging English Learners in kindergarten through second grade. There were two second graders, two first graders, and three kindergarteners which were represented in my study. I met with these students several times a day. Some groups were formed across grade levels based on student needs and some groups were focused on a specific grade level. Diverse groupings were important because some groups’ language was focused on academic language and geared towards a specific grade level, while other groups’ language was basic communication which could be utilized across grade levels. However, I never saw all seven students at the same time. These students were scored as emerging based on their previous English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA) for the 21st Century summative or screener assessment results.

Another data piece that showed a need for growth in the students’ English speaking proficiency was the Language for Learning Placement test. The placement test showed that all seven students scored to be placed in the Language for Learning program. All seven students scored to start in Book A between lessons one and eleven. The program had a total of four books and 150 lessons. The placement test showed that my seven emerging students were at the beginning of language development because they scored to start within the first 8% of the program.

***

This was important because if children did not understand oral language, they were most likely not going to understand written language. Therefore, in order for my students to be successful in school they needed to build their oral language production and comprehension so that later, they could succeed with written language. The Language for Learning program focused on concepts and skills that were organized into the following six groups: basic actions, descriptions of objects, information and background knowledge, instructional words and problem-solving concepts, classification, and problem-solving strategies and applications. These concepts and skills were important because most children obtain these concepts and skills before coming to kindergarten. For English Learners, basic language instruction must occur at school. With this direct instruction program students were assessed after every ten lessons and there were a total of fifteen assessments. Students were assessed with an individual score sheet, which indicated the percent for correct responses. The goal was that students reach 90% correct or more. If students scored less than 90% correct, they required extra help before moving forward. Students were also assessed with an individual profile chart, which indicated how well a student understood and applied specific concepts and skills. If a student missed one or more items in a given part, the teacher could conclude specifically where each student needed help.