effective science teaching for english language learners ... · pdf filefor english language...
TRANSCRIPT
ESTELLEffective Science Teaching for English Language Learners:for English Language Learners: A Pre-Service Teacher Professional Development Research Project Across Four Universities in CaliforniaProject Across Four Universities in California
Trish Stoddart, PIM B C PIMarco Bravo, Co-PI
Jorge L. Solís, Post Doc
NSF Annual MeetingNSF Annual Meeting
Background 4-year National Science Foundation DRK-12 Full Research &
Development Grant Aim is to develop a model teacher education program to
improve pre-service elementary grade teachers’ ability to teach i t E li h L L (ELL )science to English Language Learners (ELLs)
Analyze the impact of the ESTELL teacher education program on pre service and novice teachers’ knowledge beliefs andon pre-service and novice teachers knowledge, beliefs and practice.
Collaboration between the University of California Santa Cruz Collaboration between the University of California, Santa Cruz, San Diego State University, San Francisco State University and San Jose State University
ESTELL Research and Development Team
UCSC T i h St dd t J Sh Ed d UCSC: Trish Stoddart, Jerome Shaw, Eduardo Mosqueda, Jorge Solís
SFSU: Marco Bravo, Isabel Quita, Mina Kim SDSU: Alberto Rodriguez Cathy Zozakiewicz SDSU: Alberto Rodriguez, Cathy Zozakiewicz,
Meredith Houle SJSU: Andrea Whittaker, Alie Victorine
Senior Project Advisor: Professor Okhee Lee, U i i f Mi iUniversity of Miami
Increases in the ELL Population
By 2010 40% of school age children will be English language learners
In 2000 68% of ELL were concentrated in 6 %states--CA, TX, NM, NY, FL, IL
Rapid growth in ELLs across the U S Rapid growth in ELLs across the U.S.
Growth of ELL Population 1995-2006Growth of ELL Population 1995 200670
60
57%57%
40
50
Cha
nge
Cha
nge
30ELLNon-ELL
Perc
enta
ge
Perc
enta
ge
10
20
0�“95-6” “96-7” “97-8” “98-9” � “99-00” “00-1” “01-2” “02-3” “03-4” “04-5” � “05-6”
3.6%3.6%
-10
National Clearinghouse for English Language AcquisitionNational Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition
Percent ELL Enrollment GrowthPercent ELL Enrollment Growth(1992-2005)
200%+ 100%-200% 50%-100% <50%
( )
Nevada Oregon N. Dakota CaliforniaK Wi i S D k t N M iKansas Wisconsin S. Dakota New MexicoNebraska Indiana TexasN. Carolina IdahoArkansas S. CarolinaAlabama TennesseeGeorgia WashingtonGeorgia WashingtonIowa
ELL A hiELL Achievement
For over 30 years, achievement of ELLs has lagged behind that of native English speakers on national assessments--NAEP, NELLS, ACT, SAT, AP (Rodriguez, 2004)
Significant gaps in science achievement for ELLs hi h i f 4th t 8th d (NAEPwhich increase from 4th to 8th grade (NAEP,
2006)
4th grade NAEP Science Scores4th grade NAEP Science Scores
** **
****
8th grade NAEP Science Scores8th grade NAEP Science Scores
**
**
Causes of ELL ScienceCauses of ELL ScienceUnderachievement
A ti i th t ELL d t l Assumption is that ELLs need to learn English before they learn academic subjects, lik ilike science
Many ELLs do not have access to rigorous y gscience instruction
Consequences: ELLs fall further and further Consequences: ELLs fall further and further behind
iTeacher Expertise
Teachers receive limited education on how to teach ELL (Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly & Driscoll, 2005)
Majority of teachers do not feel well prepared to Majority of teachers do not feel well prepared to teach science to ELLs (Lee & Luykx, 2004; R d i & Kit h 2005)Rodriguez & Kitchen, 2005)
Q lit & Q tit fQuality & Quantity of Professional DevelopmentProfessional Development(Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005)
S lS lSampleSample• 5399 ELL • 5399 ELL TeachersTeachers (survey)(survey)• Average 10 yrs. teaching ELLs• Average 10 yrs. teaching ELLs• Representative sample of CA teaching force• Representative sample of CA teaching force
Quality of PD: Focus Group participants:Quality of PD: Focus Group participants:
“EL students was an afterthought on the part of “EL students was an afterthought on the part of the PD developers and clearly not their area of the PD developers and clearly not their area of
i ”i ”expertise”expertise”
“In“In--service was not tied to what I do in my service was not tied to what I do in my l ith i l ”l ith i l ”classroom with my curriculum”classroom with my curriculum”
CSU Survey of Beginning TeachersCSU Survey of Beginning Teachers(CSU Office of the Chancellor, 2006)
ESTELL FRAMEWORKESTELL FRAMEWORK
Science & Language Science & Language CREDECREDEIntegration ResearchIntegration Research ResearchResearch
ESTELLESTELL
ESTELL Instructional Practices
1. Facilitating Collaborative Scientific Inquiry2. Using Literacy in Science3 Scaffolding Language in Science3. Scaffolding Language in Science4. Contextualizing Science Activity5. Developing Scientific Reasoning6 Promoting Science Talk6. Promoting Science Talk
S i i d ’ i i l h llScientists don’t sit in lecture halls
Instead, scientists work collaboratively in small groups (CI) and discuss/defend their ideas (ST). They engage in challenging research (SR) that y g g g g ( )helps us better understand how the world works (CTX) They communicate using specific(CTX). They communicate using specific technical vocabulary and writing (LL) .
Focus on Pre-Service Teacher Education
Prior research & development have focused on experienced K-6 teachers
Limited emphasis in pre-service teacher education on integration of language & scienceeducation on integration of language & science
Lack of coherence in course work & practicum
InterventionInterventionTh ESTELL t h d ti h th iThe ESTELL teacher education program has three main components: (1) 15 week Science Methods Course with infused ESTELL
pedagogy (2) teaching practicum with coaching and support in the ESTELL
pedagogy by teacher supervisors and cooperating teachers who d l ESTELL dmodel ESTELL pedagogy
(3) coaching and support for ESTELL pedagogy in the first two f t hiyears of teaching.
ESTELL Science Methods CourseESTELL Science Methods Course and Professional Development
Personal learning of science content through ESTELL dESTELL pedagogy
Study of research and practice of ESTELL through di di i d b i f lreading, discussion and observation of classroom
videosA l i f i i l d d lAnalysis of science curriculum and development of lesson plansT hi ESTELL lTeaching an ESTELL lesson
Reflection, critique and revision.
Science methods instructors and professional developers model ESTELL practicesESTELL practices In each session of the course the five ESTELL teaching In each session of the course the five ESTELL teaching
practices are used
Student and cooperating teachers engage in language and literacy activities, use contextualized exemplars, work in collaborative groups and the science methods instructor will use instructional conversation to challenge students to think in complex waysthink in complex ways.
Comparison of Traditional p& ESTELL Science Methods Course
Traditional ESTELL
Lecture Format Interactive & Hands on
Self-contained science Cross-disciplinary
Science pedagogy Synergistic & Diversity Pedagogy
Disconnected b/w credential course work & clinical
Parallel instructional goals in clinical practicum &
practicump
course work
Cooperating Teacher Professional Development
ESTELL trained Cooperating Teachers provide coaching & support to ESTELL experimentalcoaching & support to ESTELL experimental Pre-Service teachersE h ti t h i 4 d f Each cooperating teacher receives 4 days of professional development by ESTELL
f i l d l h ESTELL iprofessional developer on the ESTELL practices & mentoring framework Cooperating teachers are trained in using the ESTELL
observation tool to provide feedback
Research Questions Are there significant differences b/w the beliefs and practices of
novice teachers who participate in the ESTELL pre-service teacher d ti h d t b i i t h heducation program when compared to beginning teachers who are
not trained in the ESTELL model?
Is the use of ESTELL teaching practices by ESTELL teacher education program graduates associated with higher 3rd-5th gradeeducation program graduates associated with higher 3 5 grade student science, language and literacy learning.
What is the impact of the ESTELL program on the beliefs and practices of the participating science methods faculty, teacher supervisors and cooperating teachers?
ESTELL Research Design
Experimental Design: Compare groups of novice teachers in the traditional program and ESTELLteachers in the traditional program and ESTELL program
Longitudinal Design: Follow novice teachersLongitudinal Design: Follow novice teachers through pre-service program into the first year of teachingteaching
Three phases of implementationF fid li f i l iFocus on fidelity of program implementation
Cross-site analysis
Research DesignYear 1
2008-09Year 2
2009-10Year 3
2010-11Year 4
2011-12
BaselineBaselinePSP FYT
Phase #1PSP FYTControlControlPSP FYTPSP FYT
ControlControl
TreatmentTreatment
Phase #2PSP FYT
PSPPSP: Pre: Pre--Service ProgramService ProgramFYTFYT: First Year Teaching: First Year Teaching ControlControlPSP FYT
PSP FYT
FYTFYT: First Year Teaching: First Year Teaching ControlControl
TreatmentTreatment
Instruments
ESTELL Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs SurveyESTELL Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs Survey ESTELL Classroom Observation Rubric
C ti T h S Cooperating Teacher Survey Faculty Interview
Based on the ESTELL instructional practicesBased on the ESTELL instructional practices
Ali f DAlignment of Data onTeaching Beliefs and PracticesTeaching Beliefs and Practices Instrument development guided by six common p g y
ESTELL constructs
Beliefs: Survey items balanced and comprehensive
Practices: Observational domains focus on particular & explicit exchanges
Teacher Survey:Teacher Survey: Meas ring Kno ledgeMeasuring Knowledge
d B li fand Beliefs
ESTELL Teacher Survey
Demographics Demographics Educational background 72 Likert Scale items on 6 ESTELL instructional
practicesp Self report on science teaching practices
Novice Teacher SurveyNovice Teacher Survey
20 To promote effective20. To promote effective science learning the teacher should:
Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Disagree
f. build on the knowledge that students bring from their
15e Provide your opinions
students bring from their homes and communities.
15e. Provide your opinions about each of these statements:
Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Disagree
e. English Learners need to be proficient in the English language reading and writing before being taught science.
Teacher Survey ReliabilityTeacher Survey Reliability
ESTELL Pedagogy Cronbach’s Alpha
Facilitating Collaborative Inquiry 0.762
Promoting Science Talk 0.822
Scaffolding Language & Literacy in Science Activity 0.868
Contextualizing Science 0.732
Promoting Complex Thinking 0.707
Classroom Observation Rubric:Classroom Observation Rubric: Measuring Instructional PracticeMeasuring Instructional Practice
Classroom Observation Rubric
Live classroom observations by trained ESTELL observer
Pre- and post-observation debriefp Student teachers observed during student
teaching and first year of teachingteaching and first year of teaching Focus on implementation of ESTELL pedagogy
Classroom Observation Instrument: E-DAISI
• 6 ESTELL Domains• 4-point scoring scale (0-3)
S hi i h d i 15• Score teaching in each domain every 15 minutes
• Each participant observed 2 times
Ob i R b iObservation RubricII. PROMOTING SCIENCE TALK
0
Not Present
1
Introducing
2
Implementing
3
Elaboratingg p g g(3). ACADEMIC SCIENCE DISCOURSE A. T does not use or draws attention to science discourse patterns such as: ways of providing evidence, making explanations expressing judgments
A. T uses but does not explain science discourse patterns such as: ways of providing evidence, making explanations expressing judgments
A. T explicitly models but does not give feedback on student use of science discourse patterns such as: ways of providing evidence making
A. T explicitly models, guides, and provides feedback on student use of discourse patterns such as: ways of providing evidence makingexplanations, expressing judgments
or proposing methods of inquiry. explanations, expressing judgments or proposing methods of inquiry.
ways of providing evidence, making explanations, expressing judgments or proposing methods of inquiry.
providing evidence, making explanations, expressing judgments or proposing methods of inquiry.
(4). INSTRUCTIONAL CONVERSATION A. T uses no questions.
A. T uses mostlyclosed questions (yes/no, known-information, pre-specified) may involve non-science topics.
A. T uses some open-ended questions (indefinite, investigatory, & legitimate) to generate brief elaborated Ss talk on science topics.
A. T uses mostly open-ended questions (indefinite, investigatory, & legitimate) to generate Ss talk on science topics.
OR
AND
AND
AND
B. T does not follow-up on Ss responses.
B. T gives limited to no follow-up on Ss science talk; T talk is mostly repetitive orcorrective ofSs talk.
B. T follows-up on Ss science talk by connecting Ss talk (revoicing); T follow-up may correct, reject, or
B. T and Ss follow-up on science talk by connecting science talk (revoicing); T &Ss follow-up may p
p y , j ,
accept Ss talk.
( g); p ycorrect, reject, or accept talk.
Pre-Service & First Year Teacher Data Collection
Pre-Service Pre/Post Clinical First Year Teacher Program Practicum Teaching
Survey x x x
Interview x x
Classroom Ob ti x xObservation x x
Fidelity of Implementation Observations of control & experimental science
th dmethods courses ESTELL observation rubric Three observations for each instructor Annual semi-structured interview with scienceAnnual semi structured interview with science
methods instructors Cooperating teacher survey Cooperating teacher survey
Science Methods Course Fidelity ofScience Methods Course Fidelity of Implementation
Science Methods Instructors (n=4)
Implementation I
Implementation II( )
Interview 1 1
Science Methods Observation 3 3Observation
Debrief 3 3
Fidelity of Implementation
Analyze fidelity of implementation across sites and science methods instructors
Analyze the relationship b/w fidelity of i l t ti d i d iimplementation and pre-service and novice teacher beliefs & practices
Fidelity of implementation will be used to refine Fidelity of implementation will be used to refine the teacher education program
Cooperating Teacher Surveyp g y19. How would you rate your y yconfidence and comfort level as a mentor to student teachers?
Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Disagree
a. A feel very confident in my role as a mentor teacher
20. The most effective way a mentor teacher can consult with a student teacher is through:
Brief comments during a lesson Extended conversation During prep times or after school Brief comments directly a lesson Reflective dialogue after observing a lesson
21. List three or more types of knowledge or skills that you feel 21. List three or more types of knowledge or skills that you feel beginning teachers most need?_____________________________beginning teachers most need?_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Baseline Findings & Pilot Study
ESTELL BASELINEESTELL BASELINE
Baseline Research on Un-restructured Program
Collected pre/post survey & observation data on pre-service teachers in traditional teacherpre service teachers in traditional teacher education programs at all three sitesTh l i t ti f U S i The sample is representative of U.S. pre-service teacher demographics Predominantly white and female
Limited focus on ELLs (1 course)( ) Lack of coherence across components
Baseline Control Sample
Size 204G d 11% M lGender 11% Male
88% FemaleEthnicity/Race 62% White/Non HispanicEthnicity/Race 62% White/Non-Hispanic
13% Latino/a13% Asian12% Other5% Multiracial
Age 60% 20-2522% 26-3012% 31-3512% 31 3512% 40+
Baseline/Control Pre-Service Teacher ESTELL Beliefs in ScienceScience
N Pre Std. Post Std DeviationN Pre Deviation Post Std. Deviation
Collaborative Inquiry 204 3.11 .27849 2.99 .29219
Science Talk 204 3 09 25713 3 14 27798Science Talk 204 3.09 .25713 3.14 .27798
Contextualization 204 3.30 .29885 3.29 .33207
Language & Literacy 204 3.13 .20966 3.15 .27011
S i tifi R i 204 3 08 26089 3 09 34003Scientific Reasoning 204 3.08 .26089 3.09 .34003
Baseline/Control Pre-Service TeacherBaseline/Control Pre Service Teacher ESTELL Practices in Science
N Mi i M i M Std.N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Collaborative Inquiry 52 .67 2.50 1.58 .40949Literacy 53 50 2 50 1 15 45850Literacy 53 .50 2.50 1.15 .45850Language 53 .50 2.50 1.36 .45044Contextualization 53 .00 1.75 .489 .41628Science Reasoning 50 .00 2.50 1.28 .60473Science Talk 52 .17 2.50 1.36 .49804
Correlation of Pre-Service Teacher Beliefs & Practices
Pre-Service Teacher ESTELL Beliefs
ctic
es Pre Post
-0.72 -0.189 Collaborative Inquiry
her P
ra
-0.229 -0.123 Literacy
ce T
eac
-0.251 -0.17 Language
-0.136 -0.44 Contextualization
e-Se
rvic 0.136 0.44 Contextualization
.597** .538** Science Talk
Pre
-.288 .220 Science Reasoning
Baseline Control Findings
Demographics of Pre-service teacher education sample in un-restructured programs is typical ofsample in un restructured programs is typical of teacher education students nationallySt d t t ith f i l t diti l i f Students enter with fairly traditional views of pedagogy. These views do not change i ifi l h f h hsignificantly over the course of the teacher
education program Practices with ESTELL pedagogy equally limited Weak relationship b/w beliefs & practices Weak relationship b/w beliefs & practices
Preliminary Pilot Study FindingsPreliminary Pilot Study Findings
Pilot Study Contexty
Sample 102Sample 102
Gender 16 Male86 Female86 Female
Ethnicity/Race 41 White/Non-Hispanic 37Hispanic/Non White37Hispanic/Non-White6 Asian/Asian-American13 Other13 Other5 Multiracial
Home Geographic 44 SuburbanHome GeographicLocation
44 Suburban25 Urban22 Rural11 Other
Data Analysis
Comparison of control & experimental group pre/post beliefspre/post beliefs
C f & Comparison of control & experimental grouppracticep
Teacher beliefs
Pre/post beliefs on the ESTELL categories showed significant differences betweenshowed significant differences between groups on Language & Literacy, & ContextualizationContextualization
No significant differences between groups in th th t ithe other categories
Pilot Findings: Pre-Service Teacher Beliefs Toward Science & Diversity Education Integrationy g
Language/Literacy Integration in Scienceg g y gN Mean Std.
DeviationP-Value
PREExperimental 64 3.06 .25329
p<.01Control 44 3.04 .20153
POST
Experimental 64 3.21 .21866
p< 001p<.001Control 45 2.79 .22253
Pilot Findings: Pre-Service Teacher Beliefs Toward Science & Diversity Education Integrationy g
Contextualizing Science InstructiongN Mean Std.
DeviationP-Value
PRE
Experimental 60 3.97 .366
p > 05p > .05Control 20 3.84 .360
POST
Experimental 60 4.01 .411
p > .05 Control 20 3.99 .381
Teacher Practices
Comparison of control & experimental group scores on the ESTELL observation rubric yieldedscores on the ESTELL observation rubric yielded significant differences between the groups on: Contextualization Contextualization Science Talk
S i R i Science Reasoning Contextualization was the most difficult for both
groups to implement
Pilot Findings: P S i T h ESTELL P tiPre-Service Teacher ESTELL Practices
ESTELL PracticesControl Treatment
N Mean S D N Mean S DN Mean S.D. N Mean S.D.
Collaborative Inquiry 28 1.738 0.472 30 1.739 0.344
Language & Literacy 28 1.167 0.550 30 1.306 0.726
*Science Talk 28 1.409 0.589 30 1.626 0.415
*Contextualization 28 0.619 0.503 30 1.006 0.578
*Science Reasoning 28 1.016 0.510 30 1.520 0.627Science Reasoning
Analyses to Come
Gauge the efficacy of the ESTELL model in Pre-Service Teacher Education through multipleService Teacher Education through multiple analyses Control vs Experimental Groups Control vs. Experimental Groups Cross-Site comparisons
C i f i l i Comparison across stages of implementation Relationship between fidelity of implementation and
i ll i hPre-Service as well as Novice teacher outcomes
Case Studies of Student Achievement
30 case studies of 3rd-5th grade student achievement in classrooms of ESTELLachievement in classrooms of ESTELL second year teachersAll teachers will teach the same 4 week unit All teachers will teach the same 4 week unit
Pre- and post-assessment of student science, language and literacy learning
Analysis of the relationship between fidelity Analysis of the relationship between fidelity of implementation and student learning