Capítulo VII. Comprobación Cuantitativa
Gráfica 10. Distribución de las subcategorías de incremento Participativo de la VI
Introduction
With over 78% of third through fifth grade English language learners failing to meet proficiency standards in Alphabet School District (pseudonym) on the Smarter Balanced Assessment and over 90% failing to meet proficiency standards at XYZ Elementary School (pseudonym) (OSPI, 2018), there is a need for different instructional practices to help increase reading proficiency scores. With less students to teach, small group instruction increases student engagement for English language learners by lowering the affective filter and provides
comprehensible input through targeted vocabulary instruction to meet their needs (Brooks & Thurston, 2010; Hollo & Hirn, 2015). The purpose of this project was to develop a journal article which highlights the differences and benefits of using heterogeneous and homogeneous small reading group instruction with English language learners in grades three through five in the general education classroom.
Summary of Main Points
The journal article developed for this project discusses how educators can implement small group instruction in reading in order to help English language learners. A description of small group instruction and heterogeneous and homogeneous groupings for instruction is
included in the article. Highlighted in the article is how the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 mandates challenging academic standards for all students, thus it is the teacher’s responsibility to
help students meet these standards. To further the discussion on needing to prepare all students to meet the standards, a description of the benefits of heterogeneous and homogeneous groupings is included.
The article was prepared for the Kappa Delta Pi Record. This international education journal accepts submissions about topics such as differentiated instruction, English language learners, student assessment, urban and rural education, and evidence-based instructional methods. The Kappa Delta Pi Record requests articles with research that is accessible and applicable. The article for this project was developed under the guidelines for Research Reports, classroom applications of recent research, in the Kappa Delta Pi Record and discusses English language learners.
The journal article was written for an audience of pre-service teachers, teachers, and other educators teaching reading to English language learners. Because of this intended audience, the article only discusses small group formats for reading instruction. Those looking to use this article to guide instructional decisions in the classroom will need to do further research into what to teach in the small reading groups. The article highlights the benefits of heterogeneous and homogeneous groupings for reading instruction, preparing educators for making decisions about providing reading instruction.
Conclusions
Research about how English language learners best learn to read, heterogeneous and homogeneous groups, and the benefits of small group instruction has concluded ELL students learn better in small groups (Brooks & Thurston, 2010; Martinez et al., 2014; Ross & Begeny, 2011). The small group setting provides a comfortable environment for ELL students to learn and improve their language and reading proficiency (Kendall, 2006). When participating in small group instruction, these students’ needs are addressed as the teacher has fewer students to
provide feedback. Small groups allow for the teacher to adjust instruction to meet the needs of the students, whether this includes differentiating or scaffolding instruction. Teachers can easily
identify the skill deficits and address these through teacher modeling (Baker et al., 2016; Fisher & Frey, 2016).
Not only does small group instruction in general help ELL students learn, but
heterogeneous groups provide more opportunities for students to progress than homogeneous groups (Tomlinson, 2015). Heterogeneous groupings encourage the teacher to challenge all students instead of only some students. With multiple abilities in the same group, the teacher has to provide instruction for all levels meaning the lower-ability students get challenged with harder skills. This also encourages the teacher to scaffold through instruction and modeling instead of through reading materials (Fisher & Frey, 2016; Tomlinson, 2015). Compared to homogeneous grouping, heterogeneous groups provide more opportunities for English language learners to have authentic language practice and develop English language proficiency. With more fluent English speakers in the group, the less proficient students can hear how English should sound (Brooks & Thurston, 2010; Martinez et al., 2014). Though there are benefits to both
heterogeneous and homogeneous small reading groups, students progress more in heterogeneous groups as studies suggested (Bauer et al., 2010; Coakley-Fields, 2018).
The research and completed journal article suggest more research can be done on the impacts of heterogeneous and homogeneous small reading groups on not only English language learners, but students in general. It is suggested small groups may increase reading performance for all students and also increase performance in other content areas. It is recommended pre- service, teachers, and other educators use this project to inform instruction.
Recommendations
The journal article is recommended for use by pre-service teachers, current classroom teachers, English language learner specialists, and any educator working with and teaching
reading to English language learners. All educators working with English language learners should read this article to help gain an understanding of how English language learners learn in small groups. They also may use this article to learn how to use heterogeneous and homogeneous small group instruction and why.
Additionally, it is recommended for educators to use this project as a resource for planning for reading instruction. Educators should take into consideration how and when to use the small reading group formats discussed in the article to fit the needs of the students in their classrooms. It is recommended teachers try using the heterogeneous and homogeneous small reading group formats and observe if there is an increase in student reading proficiency. Furthermore, the article should be shared with paraprofessionals who pull students for small group instruction in order to inform them on the benefits of each instructional grouping.
Finally, recommendations include educators reading the articles listed in the resource section in order to become familiar with the research used to develop the article. This may help those using the article gain an additional understanding of how and why small groups may increase reading proficiency with English language learners. It also may cause educators to find additional topics to explore related to the discussion in the journal article.
Future Issues to be Explored
The discussion about heterogeneous and homogeneous small reading group instruction in the journal article in this project leads to another issue to be explored. The project highlighted how heterogeneous and homogeneous groupings for reading instruction may increase reading proficiency scores for English language learners in grades three through five in the general education classroom. Since these small group formats may increase reading performance, research could be completed on whether heterogeneous and homogeneous small groups increase
student proficiency in other content areas. Similarly, whether small group instruction increases performance in other grade levels can be explored as well.
References
Ardoin, S. P., Williams, J. C., Christ, T. J., Klubnik, C., & Wellborn, C. (2010). Examining readability estimates' predictions of students' oral reading rate: Spache, Lexile, and Forcast. School Psychology Review, 39(2), 277-285.
Avalos, M. A., Plasencia, A., Chavez, C., & Rascón, J. (2007). Modified guided reading: Gateway to English as a second language and literacy learning. Reading Teacher, 61(4), 318-329.
Baker, D. L., Burns, D., Kame'enui, E. J., Smolkowski, K., & Baker, S. K. (2016). Does supplemental instruction support the transition from Spanish to English reading instruction for first-grade English learners at risk of reading difficulties?. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(4), 226-239.
Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., & ... National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance., (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school. IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2014-4012. What Works Clearinghouse,
Bauer, E. B., Manyak, P. C., & Cook, C. (2010). Supporting content learning for English learners. Reading Teacher, 63(5), 430-432.
Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: the case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608-645. Bonfiglio, C. M., Daly III, E. J., Persampieri, M., & Andersen, M. (2006). An experimental
analysis of the effects of reading interventions in a small group reading instruction context. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15(2), 92-108.
Brooks, K., & Thurston, L. P. (2010). English language learner academic engagement and instructional grouping configurations. American Secondary Education, 39(1), 45-60. Cervetti, G. N., & Hiebert, E. H. (2015). The sixth pillar of reading instruction. Reading
Teacher, 68(7), 548-551.
Coakley-Fields, M. R. (2018). Markers of an "Inclusive" reading classroom: Peers facilitating inclusion at the margins of a fourth-grade reading workshop. Reading Horizons, 57(1), 15-31.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2018). corestandards.org. Retrieved 3 May 2018.
Cooper, J. L., MacGregor, J., Smith, K. A., & Robinson, P. (2000). Implementing small-group instruction: Insights from successful practitioners. New Directions For Teaching & Learning, 2000(81), 63.
Dalton, B. (2013). Engaging children in close reading: Multimodal commentaries and illustration remix. Reading Teacher, 66(8), 642-649.
Elpa21. (2018). Elpa21.org. Retrieved 6 July 2018, from http://www.elpa21.org/
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2010). Identifying instructional moves during guided learning. Reading Teacher, 64(2), 84-95.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Contingency teaching during close reading. Reading Teacher, 68(4), 277-286.
Fisher, D. d., & Frey, N. n. (2014). Scaffolded reading instruction of content-area texts. Reading Teacher, 67(5), 347-351.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2016). Systems for teaching complex texts. Reading Teacher, 69(4), 403-412.
Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 16(4), 203.
Gerber, M., Jimenez, T., Leafstedt, J., Villaruz, J., Richards, C., & English, J. (2004). English reading effects of small-group intensive intervention in Spanish for K–1 English
learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 19(4), 239-251. Glasswell, K., & Ford, M. P. (2010). Teaching flexibly with leveled texts: More power for
your reading block. Reading Teacher, 64(1), 57-60.
Goodwin, A. a., & Jiménez, R. r. (2016). Translate. Reading Teacher, 69(6), 621-625.
Hollo, A., & Hirn, R. G. (2015). Teacher and student behaviors in the contexts of grade-level and instructional grouping. Preventing School Failure, 59(1), 30-39.
Jones, C. D., & Henriksen, B. M. (2013). Skills-focused small group literacy instruction in the first grade: An inquiry and insights. Journal of Reading Education, 38(2), 25-30. Jones, S. H., & Putney, L. G. (2016). We learned each other and then we taught each other: A
retrospective case study of collective classroom efficacy. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 10(4), 231-246.
Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 4712-15.
Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Wills, H., Longstaff, J., & ... Walton, C. (2007). Use of evidence-based small-group reading instruction for English language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-tier intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 153-168.
Kendall, J. (2006). Small-group instruction for English language learners. Principal Leadership: High School Edition, 6(6), 28-31.
Kracl, C. L. (2012). Mangaging small-group instruction through the implementation of literacy work stations. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach / Tarptautinis Psichologijos Zurnalas: Biopsichosocialinis Poziuris, (10), 27-46.
Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered education and constructivism: Challenges, concerns, and clarity for teachers. Clearing House, 89(3), 97-105.
Ledford, J., & Wehby, J. (2015). Teaching children with autism in small groups with students who are at-risk for academic problems: Effects on academic and social behaviors. Journal Of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 45(6), 1624-1635.
Lin, G. C. (2008). Pedagogies proving Krashen's theory of affective filter. Online Submission, 113-131.
Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P. T., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Determing English language learners response to intervention: Questions and some answers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 185-195.
Lombardi, D., & Behrman, E. H. (2016). Balanced literacy and the underperforming English language learner in high school. Reading Improvement, 53(4), 165-174.
Magdalena, S. M. (2016). Cooperative learning, social competence and self concept in primary school students`- pilot study. Romanian Journal of Experimental Applied Psychology, 7372-376.
Martinez, G. (2011). Literacy success: Fifty students from areas throughout the United States share their stories. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(3), 221-231.
Martínez, R. S., Harris, B., & McClain, M. B. (2014). Practices that promote English reading for English learners (Els). Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 24(2), 128-148.
Marshall, K. (2016). Rethinking differentiation--using teachers' time most effectively. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(1), 8-13.
McMinn, J. (2010). Literacy growth for every child: Differentiated small-group instruction K--6. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 26(3), 378-379.
Musti-Rao, S., & Cartledge, G. (2007). Delivering what urban readers need. Educational Leadership, 65(2), 56-61.
NAEP Report Cards - Home . (2018). Nationsreportcard.gov. Retrieved 3 March 2018, from
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home page, a part of the U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Nces.ed.gov. Retrieved 3 March 2018, from https://nces.ed.gov/ Oxley, D. (1994). Organizing schools into small units: Alternatives to homogeneous grouping.
Phi Delta Kappan, 75(7), 521.
Rashotte, C. A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). The effectiveness of a group reading instruction program with poor readers in multiple grades. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(2), 119-134.
Ross, S. G., & Begeny, J. C. (2011). Improving Latino, English language learners' reading fluency: The effects of small-group and one-on-one intervention. Psychology In The Schools, 48(6), 604-618.
Rubin, B. C. (2006). This issue. Theory into Practice, 45(1), 1-3. Shanker, A. (1993). The debate on grouping. New Republic, 208(8), 43.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2018). Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium. Retrieved 3 March 2018, from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/
Tomlinson, C. (2015). Teaching for excellence in academically diverse classrooms. Society, 52(3), 203-209.
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Ed.gov. Retrieved 3 March 2018, from https://www.ed.gov/
Washington State Report Card. (2018). Reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us. Retrieved 3 March 2018,
from http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us
Wyatt, T., & Chapman-DeSousa, B. (2017). Teaching as interaction: Challenges in transitioning teachers' instruction to small groups. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(1), 61-70. Zakariya, S. B. (2015). The third-grade deadline. American School Board Journal, 202(3),
Appendix A JOURNAL ARTICLE
Small Reading Group Formats for English Language Learners
Word Count (including references): 1,719 Journal Name: Kappa Delta Pi Record Department: Research Reports
Topic: English Language Learners
Author: Emily Peters
Author Biography (38 words): Emily Peters is currently a teacher in Washington State. She teaches a 4th and 5th grade combination class. Emily is interested in researching new instructional practices to help the increasing population of English language learners in her district.
Small Group Formats for English Language Learners
Teachers have an obligation to meet the needs of the increasingly diverse student
population in the 21st century classroom. In the 2014-2015 school year, 9.4% of students in U.S. classrooms identified as English language learners (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). Statistics reveal these students struggle to perform compared to their native-English speaking peers. Over 80% of grades three through five English language learners in Washington State alone fail to meet reading proficiency standards on the Smarter Balanced Assessment (OSPI, 2018). Yet, it is the teachers’ responsibility to prepare all students to meet the challenging
standards as outlined by the Common Core State Standards and required by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2018; U.S. Department of Education, 2018).
The current instructional practice of whole group reading instruction popularly used across classrooms today is failing to prepare English language learners with the skills to be college and career ready. English language learners struggle more than their peers due to the need to learn both academic and social language. These students require additional language practice through authentic interactions, opportunities to use language in context, in order to succeed academically (Brooks & Thurston, 2010; Martinez et al., 2014). With the CCSS focus on students being able to close read by developing background knowledge and vocabulary skills, students will be able to read to learn new knowledge. Topic familiarity and understanding
language helps English language learners read more fluently (Cervetti & Hiebert, 2015). Due to the percentage of students failing to meet reading proficiency with current instructional practices, research suggests English language learners will learn better through small group instruction (Brooks & Thurston, 2010; Martinez et al., 2014; Ross & Begeny, 2011).
Small Group Instruction
Providing small group instruction for English language learners encourages student participation, targeted skill practice, and opportunities for teacher feedback. With fewer students in the group, students have more opportunities for authentic language practice which lowers their affective filter. The affective filter is the emotional barrier to learning. According to Krashen’s
second language acquisition theory, students will not perform when they perceive they may fail. With more practice and fewer peers to speak in front of, the affective filter is lowered (Kendall, 2006; Lin, 2008).
Further noted, small groups allow for targeted skill practice as there are less students and needs for the teacher to meet during instruction. Due to being able to work with fewer students, small groups encourage differentiated and scaffolded instruction. Teachers can adjust their instruction to meet the needs of the students in the group and then use modeling to help the students reach the targeted skill (Fisher & Frey, 2016; Tomlinson, 2015). Modeling a skill in small group instruction helps English language learners to hear and visualize the skill which further helps them make the connection between the instructions and the task required.
Additionally, instructional intensity increases with small group instruction as teachers can see which students are struggling and immediately respond (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001).
Teachers can challenge English language learners, as required by the ESSA of 2015, with complex reading passages due to the teacher being able to respond to the students’ struggles through prompt feedback, modeling and thinking aloud when completing the skill (Fisher & Frey, 2016). Likewise, as teachers differentiate, or adjust, their instruction to meet their
students’ needs, each instructional small group can work on a different pillar of reading essential to producing fluent readers (Baker et al., 2016). One group may work on phonics while another
group of students work on comprehension. To aid English language learners in learning to read with proficiency; Baker et al. (2016) noted effective small reading group instruction needs to include “explicit instruction in core reading competencies, controlling for task difficulty through
systematic scaffolding, teaching students in small groups of four to six, teacher modeling, and providing ongoing and systematic feedback” (p. 226). Due to fewer students in small group instruction, teachers can identify the barrier to the students’ reading progress as they can monitor
the English language learners’ abilities to accurately distinguish between a language barrier or a skill deficit (Kendall, 2006; Ross & Begeny, 2011). Small groups allow for teachers to
differentiate and scaffold instruction to meet learners’ needs; however, teachers need to carefully
plan how to group students for small group instruction for maximum learning opportunities.
Heterogeneous Grouping
Heterogeneous, or mixed-ability, small groups promote language development with English language learners as they have the opportunity to hear oral language from peers with higher levels of proficiency. Mixed-ability groups further challenge students to become resources for their peers and challenge the teacher to become the scaffold instead of using a resource as a scaffold. This small group structure builds 21st century skills including collaboration, cultural diversity, and problem solving as it teaches students to work with a diverse peer group and recognize how every student has a strength to contribute to the learning group (Baker et al., 2014, Fisher & Frey, 2014; Tomlinson, 2015).
Heterogeneous grouping has many benefits for English language learners including the following:
• Only 3 - 7 students per group. Fewer students lowers the affective filter for
• Flexible groups. Varying abilities and mixing students based on needed skill