©2016 LoTi
The Support Gap: Supporting and Developing Teaching and Learning for English as a Second Language Instructional Leadership Support and Development
Desirée Marks-Arias, Ph.D. Christopher Moersch, Ed.D.
The Support Gap:
2
Supporting and Developing Teaching and Learning for English as a Second Language To what extent are we positioning ESL (English as a Second Language) students to become college and career ready? According to the Alliance for Effective Schools, “About 63 percent of the 46.8 million job openings created by 2018 will require workers with at least some college education….” Traditional approaches to pedagogy often leave the ESL population underserved in preparation of post-secondary pursuits. As Stewart (2012) notes, The students are learning more English outside of school than in their full day of English-only classes. Test preparation and traditional curriculum are not facilitating their English acquisition. Nor are the mainstream classes they attend with no language support such as math, history, science, and health . . . [T]hey are scared to be wrong so they speak very little, if at all, in English. Conventional curricula for the most part, leave a void in terms of the skills and expertise that ESL students must acquire to succeed in work and life. These life skills are best encapsulated by Partnership for the 21st Century Framework and include: • Learning and Innovation Skills (The Four C’s: Critical thinking, Communication, Collaboration, and Creativity) • Life and Career Skills • Information, Media, and Technological Skills Beyond analyzing traditional achievement gaps between student groups including those who receive program services such as ESL, Special Education (SPED), and Gifted and Talented (GT), it is pivotal that equal attention be given to curricular and instructional gaps as they relate to (1) the integration of 21st Century Skills into core subjects and (2) pedagogical approaches that emphasize collaborative learning, technology proficiency, and problem-solving. Identifying appropriate methods and strategies to narrow and eliminate such gaps requires a fundamental shift in our existing paradigm—observing achievement and instructional gaps not as indicators of student deficiency but rather as opportunities for supporting and developing student learning and success—addressing “support gaps.” In essence, by evaluating support gaps, we can determine the effort and resources necessary for teaching, learning, and academic mastery. Emphasizing support gaps enables school leaders to target efforts toward allocating resources that will maximize academic potential for all ESL students and, thereby, promote their successful role in society as multicultural and multilingual critical thinkers who possess the necessary linguistic and technological literacy skills. However, it requires a collaborative effort among all key stakeholders including parents, teachers, administrators, and consultants to determine learner needs and interests, observation and evaluation of instructional design and impact, professional learning, and data analysis specific to supporting and developing ESL learners.
Achievement and Accountability
Performance and progress for ESL are reported through varied sources. Statewide reports such as the Performance Based Monitoring Analysis System (PBMAS) in Texas provides a comprehensive analysis on overall district performance and program effectiveness. Within the PBMAS, there are ten indicators directly linked to bilingual and ESL programs and are assigned performance indicators that describe how well individual districts serve and support students enrolled in special programs. Moreover, data cut points are much higher than those found in other more widely reported accountability measures. According to the 2015 PBMAS report, students in ESL programs are overall not performing at current accountability measures and, as such, demonstrate that program effectiveness is not meeting expectations. We propose that by addressing the support gaps for ESL students, we can improve the performance levels for ESL students and ultimately, significantly impact overall district academic achievement and potential.
The Support Gap:
3
Supporting and Developing Teaching and Learning for English as a Second Language
ESL Support Pillars
Identifying support gaps for students and staff is a critical process for maximizing the learning potential for ESL students. While conventional achievement analysis highlights deficiencies in learning for student groups, such approaches do not pinpoint the instructional needs reflective of 21st Century teaching and learning. The ESL Support Pillars provide a basis for determining academic, instructional, and technology needs and resources that best differentiate the level of teaching, learning, and performance monitoring of instruction vital to ESL students. In Figure 1, state achievement data for students in ESL Grades 3-8 is compared to cut off points for 2015 PBMAS (Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System). This comparison includes performance levels by which districts and program effectiveness are evaluated. Performance levels illustrated are the published ranges specifically for this group and content area. For example, on the Math STAAR assessment, 59% of students in ESL grades 3-8 met performance standards for 2015 which represents a PBMAS Performance Level 2. This data suggests that overall, Math and Reading are at a PBMAS Performance Level 2 while Science, Social Studies, and Writing are each at a PBMAS Performance Level 3. More information regarding specific cut points and analysis for PBMAS reporting can be found on the Texas Education Agency internet site (http://tea.tx.gov/pbm/PBMASManuals.aspx).
Support Gap
Figure 1 — Pillar 1: Student Achievement
PL0 PL1 PL2
PL3
59%
81%
56%
77%
54%
72%
53%
78%
43%
78%
English Language Learner (ELL) sub-group populations have historically scored lower than non-ELL populations in English language-intensive subjects such as reading, writing, and science, and to a lesser extent in math where language has less impact on test item computation. Given the data in Figure 1, what conclusions might be inferred from the state passing rates representing the first ESL Support Pillar, Student Achievement? As expected non-ELL students performed significantly higher in all subject areas compared to their ELL counterparts.
The Support Gap:
4
Supporting and Developing Teaching and Learning for English as a Second Language Yet, what assumptions can we make related to student interactions in the classroom that could potentially impact the results beyond the obvious language barrier? For example, 1. Is there a difference in the predominant level of student cognition in ESL versus non-ESL classrooms based on either Bloom’s Taxonomy or Webb’s Depth of Knowledge? 2. Is there a difference in the predominant level of student engagement in ESL versus non-ESL classrooms involving peer collaboration and problem-solving? 3. To what extent are students in ESL classrooms given opportunities to make real-world connections versus non-ESL classrooms? 4. To what extent is technology being used by ESL students versus non-ESL students? The above questions serve as the basis for the acronym, H.E.A.T., which represents Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic connections, and Technology Use and signifies student output aligned to 21st Century skills and themes. Appendix A includes the H.E.A.T. Rubric which serves as the second ELL Support Pillar, Student H.E.A.T. Student H.E.A.T. research has documented the positive relationship among the four constructs representing H.E.A.T. (i.e., Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic connections, Technology use) and student academic achievement (Moersch, 2014).
Support Gap
Figure 2 — Pillar 2: H.E.A.T. Levels
Figure 2 provides a comparison between four 6th grade classrooms—two ESL and two non-ESL classrooms based on 28 classroom walkthrough visitations (LoTi Connection, 2016). A cursory glance of the data reveals that in the non-ESL classroom, students were learning predominantly at the Strategic Thinking level of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge versus the Skill/Concept level in the ESL classrooms. The same holds true for the level of student engagement. In the ESL classroom, students were predominantly reporting back information to their teacher whereas in the non-ESL classrooms, students were collaborating to solve teacher-directed problems with options.
The Support Gap:
5
Supporting and Developing Teaching and Learning for English as a Second Language
Support Gap
Figure 3 — Pillar 3: LoTi Levels
2% 1%
25% 12%
58% 26%
15% 43%
0% 13%
0% 4%
0% 1%
The third ESL Support Pillar referred to as LoTi represents Levels of Teaching Innovation and signifies Teacher Input in terms of how teachers plan, implement, and evaluate student learning experiences. The results of the same 28 walkthroughs investigating LoTi Levels is included in Figure 3 (LoTi Connection, 2016). Based on the data, 61% of the classroom walkthoughs in the non-ESL classrooms were at a LoTi 3 or above; whereas the predominant LoTi Level in the ESL classrooms (58%) was at a LoTi 2. At a LoTi 2 (Exploration), the instructional focus emphasizes content understanding and supports mastery learning and direct instruction. Student learning focuses on lower levels of cognitive processing (e.g., Bloom Levels - remembering, understanding, applying; Webb’s Levels – recall & reproduction, working with skills & concepts). Digital resources are used by students for extension activities, enrichment exercises, or information gathering assignments that reinforce lower cognitive skill development relating to the content under investigation. At a Level 3 (Infusion), the instructional focus emphasizes student higher order thinking (e.g., Bloom Levels— analyzing, evaluating, creating; Webb’s Levels—short-term strategic thinking) and teacher-directed problems. Though specific learning activities may lack authenticity, the instructional emphasis is, nonetheless, placed on higher levels of cognitive processing and in-depth treatment of the content using a variety of thinking skill strategies (e.g., problemsolving, decision-making). The concept attainment, inductive thinking, and scientific inquiry models of teaching are the norm and guide the types of products generated by students. Digital resources are used by students and/or the teacher to execute teacher-directed tasks that emphasize higher levels of student cognitive processing relating to the content under investigation.
The Support Gap:
6
Supporting and Developing Teaching and Learning for English as a Second Language Does quality instruction impact student achievement? The research community overwhelmingly supports this notion as does the limited data samples used in Tables 1-3. It should be noted, however, that the overall effect size on ESL populations is impacted by a host of variables unique to ESL learners such as existing English proficiency levels, inconsistent ESL classifications, lower reliability of test items, and unequal resources and limited instructional support available to ESL learners.
A Matrix for ESL Support and Development
The development and support of campus leadership is pivotal to full scale implementation of the ESL Support Pillars. Figure 4 outlines the key leadership responsibilities. Figure 4 — Key ESL Support and Development Responsibility
Activity
Rationale
ESL Staff/Campus Leadership
Complete LoTi Digital Age Survey to ascertain professional development needs of ELL staff members at participating campuses.
Enables ESL staff to create an individualized professional development plan aligned to 21st Century Skills and H.E.A.T. Reveals needs for ESL staff professional development relating to 21st Century Teaching and Learning.
Campus Leadership/LoTi Consultant
Develop Next Steps plan for campus focusing on ESL SMART Goals and deliverables for the following indicators: LoTi (Levels of Teaching Innovation), H.E.A.T. (Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic connections, Technology use), and STAAR test results.
Allows for the creation of a 40 week step-by-step action plan that addresses the three targeted ESL goals - ESL Support Pillars 1-3.
LoTi Consultants
Provide leadership training on classroom walkthroughs with emphasis on the key H.E.A.T. lookfors.
Ensures a high level of inter-rater reliability relating to the H.E.A.T. walkthrough protocol in ELL classrooms - ESL Support Pillar 2.
LoTi Consultants
Provide monthly review and feedback of all ESL staff members’ LoTi levels at the building level.
Minimizes support gap in ESL staff LoTi Levels and students’ level of H.E.A.T. (Higher order thinking, engaged learning, Authentic connections, Technology use) - ESL Support Pillars 2 & 3.
LoTi Consultants
Provide quarterly review and feedback of all benchmark/ formative assessments impacting ESL learners.
Ensures interventions are in place that address ELL student achievement - ESL Support Pillar 1.
Addressing ESL Support Pillars 1-3 provides stakeholders with a systems approach for determining learner and staff needs, utilizing a quality, research based framework for instructional design and delivery, conducting progress evaluation, and institutionalizing observation and feedback cycles into the ESL curriculum.
The Support Gap:
Supporting and Developing Teaching and Learning for English as a Second Language
Bibliography
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2016). College and career readiness. Retrieved from http://all4ed.org/ issues/college-career-readiness/ LoTi Connection. (2016). H.E.A.T. walkthrough visitation summary: Washington middle school. Carlsbad, CA: Christopher Moersch. Moersch, C.M. (2014). Improving Achievement with Digital Age Best Practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Moersch, C.M. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(3), pp. 40-42. Retrieved from http:// loticonnection.cachefly.net/global_documents/1995_11NOV_LoTiFramework.pdf Obrien, A. (2013, April 30). English learners and 21st-century literacy. [Edutopia]. Retrieved from http:// www.edutopia.org/blog/english-learners-twenty-first-century-learning P21 Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2009). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework Texas Education Agency. (2015). Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System Manual. Retrieved from http://tea.texas.gov/pbm/PBMASManuals.aspx
7
About the Authors Dr. Desirée Marks-Arias
Dr. Christopher Moersch
Dr. Desirée MarksArias, an advocate for all students, is committed to the design and delivery of instruction that will serve the needs and interests of all learners. Passionate about innovation and achievement for teaching and learning, she is focused on maximizing performance and academic potential for English Language Learners. Dr. Marks-Arias is an educator who has served as a teacher, principal, and central administrator with expertise in instructional leadership and development, school improvement, strategic planning, and reflective coaching. In her most recent role as Assistant Superintendent in the Dallas Independent School District, she developed and led systems and processes emphasizing strategic support and achievement for a division of 43 campuses which resulted in 90% of schools meeting or exceeding standards with over half of them earning distinctions on the state assessment.
Dr. Chris Moersch is passionate about creating learning environments utilizing Digital Age Best Practices to promote academic success. As the author of the LoTi® and H.E.A.T.® Frameworks, he is an expert in the field of digital learning, school improvement, and using data to drive instructional practices. Dr. Moersch has over 25 years of experience in the areas of curriculum development, program evaluation, and technology integration practices. His specialization includes implementing school improvement initiatives, creating 21st Century learning environments, and facilitating organizational change. His latest book, Improving Student Achievement with Digital Age Best Practices available from Corwin Press, highlights how implementing twenty-first century-based best practices can elevate student achievement and teacher innovation among low SES populations.
Notable accomplishments and recognition for her work and commitment to education include the DISD Superintendent’s Award of Commendation; TMEA Distinguished Educator Award; Education Policy Summit participant—28th Congressional District in Washington, D.C.; Cooperative Superintendency Fellow at UT Austin; and recipient of the Teachers, Leaders and Explorers Award of Excellence from the Aerospace Education Foundation. Dr. Marks-Arias earned her doctorate in Education Policy at the University of Texas, Austin.
Dr. Moersch’s LoTi (Levels of Teaching Innovation) Framework is currently used worldwide to assess effective digital learning practices and has been the topic for action research in over 300 doctoral dissertations and 500 publications over the past 20 years. His primary work targets ways of leveraging existing resources to elevate student academic progress among historically lowachieving, at-risk populations. Dr. Moersch earned his doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Southern California.
Turning Up the H.E.A.T.®
©2015 LoTi
Higher order thinking • Engaged learning • Authentic connections • Technology use
