ELL+Case+Study+Parts+1+&+2

||
 * Part 3 ||  Part 4  ||  Partner - School Data  ||  National Data  ||  ELL Case Study Interviews

__Part 1: Topic and Research__ For my case study, I chose to research English Language Learners at my partner school, Adams City Middle School. I wanted to focus on ELLs because there are many students who are classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP) in each of the Seventh Grade classes that I am a Teacher Candidate for, and I wanted to better understand how the students are able to keep up in school and where they might fall behind. My guiding questions focused on how teachers provided differentiated learning to ELLs and how ELLs struggle and succeed at Adams City Middle School. After looking at the collected data, I saw a pattern where ELL students performed/felt most comfortable in certain classes over another in regards to how they learn best. The best indicator from the data seemed to come from the student observations, where the success of the ELL was due to the type of teacher and whether or not differentiated instruction was provided. As a teacher, it is important to remind oneself that there are multiple intelligences, where there are "eight different ways of learning and thinking - and that each person has relative strengths and limitations among these" (Heacox, 2002, pg. 22). This can aid teachers greatly in the process of providing differentiating coursework, and even aid/engage students who do not need differentiation in the classroom.

In regards to the school climate, Adams City Middle School is a diverse and yet unique school. The school classifies English Language Learners as English Language Development, and place them into different levels (1-5) that match up according to NEPS and LEPS. There are currently three ELD specialists, and one who is part-time at the school. At the beginning of the school year, there were five students who were classified as non-English proficient, and within a six week time frame, that number has jumped to over ten students classified as NEP (interview, principal Skrobela). Right now this is creating stress on the Literacy Department as they now have to re-organize courses and notify teachers of those students who are NEPS in order to provide them the best education possible. At a national level, the number of students from the elementary to secondary level who spoke a "language other than English at home rose from 4.7 to 11.2 million between 1980 and 2009" ([|IES]). As for the demographics of the nation, Latinos make up around "12.4 million in the country’s elementary, middle and high schools" ([|White House]), just over 20% of the student population in the United States. Part of the White House's Winning The Future legislation includes ways to improve low performing schools, how to engage the community in public education, to create more engagement in the classroom, and to reform No Child Left Behind. As we get closer and closer to 2014, the White House Administration has realized that meeting the 100% Literacy goal of No Child Left Behind is not feasible. The Administration wants to focus on how to "support innovation in states and districts through additional competitive grant funding and improved technical assistance and support" ([|Winning The Future]) in order to aid high-need students and create an effective learning environment for all.

__Part 2: Patterns Emerging From Data Sets__ In order to properly assess the data gathered for studying English Language Learners, I studied it two different ways. First I compared the data of students A and B together; they had similar data gathered and similar experiences with their observations. Secondly, I compared students C and D to one another, as I was only given observations on them and no work samples or norm-referenced State level data. Some rather telling data was when observing student A in different styles of teaching. When in his algebra class with a substitute, student A tried to act out by not sitting in his assigned seat and constantly chatted to the students around him ([|Student Observation 2.docx]). After receiving a verbal reprimand from the substitute, student A immediately got out his work and began to work with others on the assigned task. The substitute had little-to-no control over the class, and eventually Student A got off task due to others distracting him. The same occurred with Student B in her science class. Student B, while diligent in her work, remained “chatty” & distracted, but continued to copy what the teacher was doing on overhead" ([|Observation Notes 1.docx]).

The similar issue to notice here is that the students know how to "play school" when necessary. Otherwise, they use their class time to socialize. Granted, student B has no issue with asking the teacher for help, as opposed to student A who is a bit more reserved with his work and speaking out loud. This is where the largest difference can be noted. Student B, while partially proficient on all CSAP scores, has a partially proficient MAP Reading score, and seems much more vocal with her friends and classmates. Student A is however proficient in most of his CSAP scores, is proficient in his MAP Reading score, and is much more reserved in class and with friends, except for a few instances. This to me is a perfect of example of Gardner's Eight Intelligences taking place with each student. Student A relies on verbal/linguistic and bodily/kinsethetic intelligences (Interview) in being able to fully absorb the transfer of knowledge, while Student B relies on verbal/linguistic and interpersonal intelligences [|Observation Notes 1.docx].When students are asked to learn in a certain way, "that calls on more than one way of thinking; a project or product often requires more than one kind of intelligence to complete" (Heacox, 2002, pg. 23). If different kinds of intelligence aren't encouraged by the teacher for students to learn in the classroom, the students can easily be left behind or not be as engaged in the subject matter than other students. For example, in student A's humanities course, he was mostly quiet as the teacher went through direct instruction. However, when it was time for student-led work, student A became thoroughly engaged and even asked the teacher to clarify what the word, "domesticate" meant after discussing the word with his group members [|Student Observation 5.docx]. The rest of the lesson consisted of the teacher stating each new vocabulary word, pronouncing it via emphasizing each syllable, used the word in a sentence, and then provided and example via acting the word out with students. The level of involvement for student A as well as the rest of the class was 100% engagement, as students now had verbal, visual and bodily intelligences used in the classroom by the teacher. Later on in the week, I interviewed student A and asked what his preferred learning styles were. The student preferred "having an example to look at, having things repeated out loud, and written somewhere on the board" so that the he could easily follow along with what the teacher was saying. In this case, ELD and Humanities are student A's favorite courses because both teachers emphasize multiple ways of learning.

When taking a closer look at students C and D, there are some similar and different observations in terms of their engagement in each class and how they react to their peers. As there is only observation data on these students, based off of their observations, it seems that student C may be at a lower LEP level than student D in regards to their engagement in the classroom. Granted, I feel that most of the differences in students C and D are due to the amount of Direct Instruction in their courses. In regards to student C, much of the "I do, we do" left the student confused and frustrated, as it seems that the teacher may have gone too quickly in his/her instruction ([|A.C. Observation 1.docx].) Student C gave a 'thumbs up' that he was o.k. with the text used, and yet ended up highlighting every word in the document and did not know how to properly annotate readings [|(A.C. Observation 1.docx]). Student D seemed to be going through the motions of 'playing school', where she "copied the objective (at beginning of class), but made no attempt at the IN, even after it was read out loud and described" ([|E.R. Observation 2.docx]), as well as paying no attention to her fellow students so as to seem focused. The Teacher Candidate in the classroom noticed this and remedied to fix the situation, but to no avail. Student D however acted completely opposite in her ELD class, where she was engaged with her classmates, but not the teacher. The student was off-task and "passed notes back and forth with the girl behind her by writing in a notebook and pretending it was class related" [|(E.R. Observation 1.docx]). Student D continued to act out, and eventually lost all "ten behavior points allotted to each student" [|E.R. Observation 1.docx]), even though the student had made sure to copy down all of the things the teacher had written down during Direct Instruction.

The main similarity again is that the students know how to "play school" incredibly well; they know when to behave properly, and they know when and with who that they can act out on. This is due to the fact that not all teachers seem to remember the fact that many students at Adams City Middle Schools are English Language Learners, and that if a teacher's instruction is too quick, wordy, or provides little-to-no visual interaction creates a disadvantage; English Language Learners become lost and frustrated as they try to stay ahead. These students even reach out to their peers when they realize they're behind, and in some cases, as seen with student D, easily recognizes students who are non-English proficient and aids them in their learning ([|E.R. Observation 3.docx]). The fact that students are more cognizant of one another in terms of their learning and understanding level is a telling piece of information for teachers. Students understand the struggle of those who may be at a low-level of English language development, and strive to help one another out, whether it be teaching them English or conversing in Spanish to get the idea across and then reverting back to English so that the English Language Learner can gain a better grasp on the situation. The other main issue to consider with English Language Learners is the amount of Direct Instruction seen in classrooms. Direct Instruction is "highly teacher-directed and is among the most commonly used' ([|Saskatoon Public Schools]) and while necessary in terms of the creation of skills and transfer of knowledge, it is considered to be low on Bloom's Taxonomy, where the learning is merely at a transmissive stage. There are very few instances of Indirect Instruction at Adams City Middle School, and I think that may be the most telling part of the data gathered from each student. Regardless of what grade level, the students know how to perform the "I do, we do" of whatever they're learning, but when it comes to the "you do" of the activity is when things start to fall apart. The students wait for the teacher to aid them in their learning, when the lesson should "involve meeting a challenge for thought (Wiggins, 2005, pg. 39), where one is able to explain the why, or rather demonstrate a successful transfer of knowledge.

__**Reference List**__ //Fast Facts.// Retrieved September 30, 2011 from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96.

Heacox, D. (2002). //Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom//. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit

//Improving Latino Education To Win The Future//. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/improving-latino-education-win-future

//Instructional Strategies Online//. Retrieved October 4, 2011 from http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/de/pd/instr/index.html.

 Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). //Understanding by design//. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

 //Winning The Future: Improving Education For The Latino Community//. Retrieved from October 2, 2011 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/WinningTheFutureImprovingLatinoEducation.pdf