Research Based Strategies - How They Support Academic Language Development for English Language

Learners

Introduction

Problem/Statement:

Through this research I am eager to learn about how the English Language can be developed in English

Learners through the use of narrative input charts and joint construction. Through implementation, active

research of the benefits of these research-based strategies, and analysis of the data I will then be able to develop

lessons to better support my first grade English Learners in accessing grade level content.

Context/Setting:

I teach at a title one school where the population is 67% English Language Learners with 82% of those

English Learners being newcomers. The majority of the English Learner population are refugees from

Afghanistan. Because of working with this population, I am trained in Project GLAD and WestEd and integrate

these strategies throughout all core content areas. WestEd provides keystones pedagogies that are essential to

supporting English Learners in accessing grade level academic content. WestEd provides a Teaching and

Learning Cycle that contains research-based strategies from speaking and listening to guided writing and

independent writing. Project GLAD is a model of sheltered English instruction that school districts seek out to

prepare their teachers for teaching English learners. The curriculum that my school district has adopted is

difficult for learners to access without supplementing strategies and culturally responsive materials/mentor

texts.

Methods/Project Overview

Information About Intervention and Data Analysis:

Round 1:

For round 1, the intervention I put in place was the narrative input chart. My rationale for doing this

strategy was to support the retell of a mentor text and the vocabulary that went with it. Before this intervention

the vocabulary was pre-taught using a prediction/context clues chart. Also, the story had been read all the way

through prior to the narrative input chart. My research showed that this strategy helped support the students with
their writing by first focusing on the oral retell part. Being able to express details orally is the first step to being

able to write the details.

Data from round 1 was collected in the form of observation notes. Through observation, I observed

student turn and talks when it came to placing the vocabulary that corresponds to the pictures from the story on

the chart. During the turn and talks I noted who was able to use the correct vocabulary word for that particular

picture. The words included: problem, repair, printer, computer, calm, character, and narrator.

For the observation notes I used the coding strategy to find common trends of student vocabulary use or

lack of vocabulary use. I created a table to represent the students’ native language and their ability to produce

the academic vocabulary that corresponded to the mentor text. In addition, I included the codes that were

highlighted from the observation notes. The observation notes were taken during their turn and talk with their

partners prior to each share out and placement of a vocabulary word on the narrative input chart. The codes

included: Chart (referred to vocabulary chart), Brain (student recall from prior knowledge or learned

vocabulary), Parrot (mimicked partner), N/C (no comment; omission of word).

Round 2:

For round 2, the intervention that I put in place was a WestEd research-based strategy called joint

construction. Joint construction is where the students do the talking and the teacher holds the pen providing

some prompting and guidance. The teacher writes on an anchor chart. This strategy models for the students how

to write a paragraph. The students were expected to use a topic sentence, transition words, explicitly taught

vocabulary words and in this case, state the three problems from the story. I chose this strategy because I have a

significant amount of EL students in addition to native English-speaking students who are not on grade level.

This is a successful strategy that supports students with their independent writing. This strategy also fits in the I

do, We do, You do gradual release of responsibility model. This strategy would fall in the “We do” stage of said

model.

For round 2, data that was collected was in the form of student surveys. In addition, I collected the

students independent writing, as well as observation notes on how many times the students referred to the
narrative input chart and joint construction to support the independent writing. I also took observation notes on

student turn and talks.

For qualitative data, I took the students responses from their turn and talks and coded them. The codes I

came up with were: brain, chart, parrot, and no comment. I took notes during each turn and talk on a different

set of partners for each time they participated in at turn and talk. For quantitative data, I took the students

English level Proficiency scores (if they were Els), oral language, writing score based on a rubric, use of

academic vocabulary words, recall of events, on-task behaviors score during lessons, use of sentence stems,

motivation level, turn and talk engagement, and use of transition words. Another form of quantitative data I

chose to implement was an oral student survey. This survey was based on the strategies used and how they

helped the students with their writing in addition to how engaged the students felt they were during these

activities. The questions for the oral survey were written on the white board as well as a visual showing a hand

holding up a 1, 2, or 3. I asked the students to hold up a 1, 2, or 3 to represent their answers for the question. In

the visual of the hand there was an explanation for what each number meant. Holding up one finger represented

not at all, two fingers represented a little bit or most of the time, and three fingers represented a lot or the whole

time.

Round 3:

For round 3, the intervention that I put in place was an adapted version of the narrative input chart that

was done in round 1. The reason that I had to adapt the strategy was due to school closures. Because of school

closures, teaching and learning has been transitioned to a virtual distance learning format. In order for this

strategy to take place in an asynchronous way I created a google slide with the four images of the story as the

background. From their I included audio icons that when clicked the students could hear my voice retelling the

story. In the middle of the google slide were the four vocabulary words taught in a previous lesson. The students

were then instructed to click and drag the words to an image from the story that corresponded to the vocabulary

word.
 Data collected for round 3 was in the form of student work through an online platform, Google

Classroom. This intervention was given in an asynchronous format that way students could submit at their own

pace.

For round 3 data analysis strategies, I used the coding strategy based on their student work. I have

created a table that reflects the codes that I came up with after reviewing their student work. Due to school

closures I had to adapt this strategy from being delivered through direct instruction to an asynchronous format.

The table was similar to the one presented in round 1 with some adaptations. The codes for this round included:

C (completed), T (turned in, but not completed), and N/A (no attempt).

Results/Project Findings:

Round 1:

For round one I collected qualitative data. The qualitative data showed me that this intervention, in

addition to the vocabulary being pre-taught, is helpful for students to build their oral language. In addition to the

chart, student turn and talks allowed for students to practice and learn from their peers before sharing out to the

class. I was able to recognize that it was completely appropriate for students to copy what their partner said

based on their English language proficiency. My findings were represented in a table and showed each of the

student’s ability to produce academic oral language with or without supports. The codes used reflected the

supports that helped them produce the academic language for this activity.

Initially I planned to do 4 rounds with two different strategies. Due to school closures I was able to do

the 3rd round with modifications and unable to do the 4th round altogether. The analysis of this data would

inform me to continue the intervention as planned. However, due to my focus group, I would plan to have them

paired together and sitting in the first two rows. Collecting observation notes with the students spread out during

turn and talks was slightly more difficult.

Round 2:

Round 2 data was collected for both qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative data reflected whether

the students accessed their resources to support their turn and talks, used their memory to recall information and

prior knowledge, mimicked their partners, or had no comments at all. Depending on the strategy they used, it
informed me of where they are at with their acquisition of academic vocabulary and their level at which they

use oral language. This data was represented through a table that had Partner A as the first student listed under

“Partners:” and partner B is the second student listed under “Partners:”. Example: Student 1 = Partner A and

Student 2 = Partner B. Codes: Chart = referred to chart, Brain = used recall and memory of prior/knew learning,

Parrot = mimicked what their partner said, and N/C = no comment at just listening to the oral language being

spoken to them. Through my research I noticed that these codes represented where the students were in their

speaking and listening skills. I also learned that just because a student had no comment did not mean they were

not learning. Also, the students who used mimicking as a tool were simply at that stage, which supported their

oral language development.

The quantitative data showed how the students were able to use oral language and then take that to their

independent writing. The second table reflected their oral language use during the narrative input chart. The

students were able to use the narrative input chart, vocabulary wall and sentence frames for support due to the

first-grade standard stating that students will be able to write a five sentence paragraph with support. Students

with an English Level proficiency were able to copy from the joint construction although this was still a

challenge as far as keeping up with where they were in their writing.

The quantitative data from the student survey shows how the students felt about the strategies. This

informed me on their level of engagement with each strategy as well as if they felt the strategies and charts

supported their independent writing. The students enjoy being able to share out their ideas and especially enjoy

being chosen to put the pictures and vocab words on the narrative input chart.

Due to school closures, my strategy for round 3, which is the same strategy from round 1, has been

adapted for distance learning in an asynchronous format. Data collection for round 3 will be different from

round 1. The only data that I will be collecting is student work.

Round 3:

Initially I had planned to do four rounds to allow me to research the two interventions for two different

stories. Due to school closures I had to modify round 3 and forgo round 4. In order to adapt my round 3

intervention for distance learning in an asynchronous format I had to be creative. I was able to create a google
slide that was similar to how the intervention was taught in the classroom. I collected qualitative data for this

round. The qualitative data allowed for me to see if the students were able to complete the assignment, turn in

the assignment without completing it, or if they did not attempt to turn it in at all. Considering the population of

my class and the fact that they are in first grade I expected a low turn in rate. Upon reflecting on the data, this

showed me who had more skills with using a computer or if they had someone in their home who is able to help

them with their work. To assist with the understanding of how to complete and turn in this assignment, I

included a video of myself completing and turning in the assignment in addition to written instructions. Based

on my knowledge of my students and their capabilities as well as their home lives I gave full credit to those who

completed the assignment and those who were able to successfully turn in the assignment even if it was

incomplete. I decided to give full credit to those who were able to turn in the assignment without completion

because they attempted to do the assignment. For those who were able to complete the assignment, this showed

me that they were able to grasp the vocabulary that was pre-taught and apply them to the correct pictures. My

findings showed me that although this strategy was adapted for online learning, it was still successful for those

who had the computer skills.

Discussion/Conclusion:

Upon reflection I found that the strategies I chose were highly beneficial to not only my English

Language Learner students, but my native speaking students as well. Both strategies promote academic

discourse and are accessible to all learners. Also, I found that the strategies allowed for my EL’s and students

without an academic register to engage in discourse without putting up an affective filter. The charts that go

with the strategies are visual and lend themselves to be accessible by all learners no matter their academic level.

In addition, the multiple encounters with the mentor text through strategies used for this research and strategies

that were not, leveled the playing field for all of the students. Through a student survey it was evident that the

students were engaged with the strategies. Throughout my research I was able to see how effective strategies are

in allowing all learners to access grade level content in a way that speaks to their learning abilities. In

comparison, I can imagine if I had just read the story to them and from there expected them to go straight to
writing how different the turnout would have been and how little of an understanding my students would have

had with the given content.

Citations

Torres, M., Carpenter, Andrew N., & Shaw, Melanie. (2015). The Effects of Explicit Vocabulary
Instruction on the Vocabulary Development of English Language Learners in Kindergarten, ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses.