for the research grew out of the data. Instead of relying on one "treatment," DBR
incorporates various iterations of instructional changes implemented by the teacher. The enactment period may consist of various design-cycles.
Phase 3: Evaluation. The final stage of DBR consisted of local and broad theory
development. The study answered the questions, "How well did specific instructional supports meet the goals of the teacher and focal students?" (local theory development) and, "How could this be adopted in the larger community?" (broad theory development).
Study Setting District Overview
The study was conducted in a large, urban school district in a Midwestern U.S. state. The district is one of the largest in the state and has more than 37,000 students preK to 12th grade (Table 3.1). Seventy-eight percent of students are students of color and 72% in the district are eligible for free and reduced price lunch (FRPL) a common measure of poverty. According to the website, the district is the most linguistically diverse in the state with over 125 languages and approximately 35% English learners (the highest number in the state). The district is also know for its support of immersion programs with seven (out of 40) elementary schools offering immersion instruction in Spanish, French, Hmong and Mandarin. The Spanish Immersion School is the oldest immersion program in the district (and also in the state) (Fortune, 2001).
The district has worked to decrease the achievement gap and increase racial equity throughout the school system (Principal, personal communication, October 2,
2014). According to the website, their racial equity policy includes specific goals for family, student and community engagement; leadership; and teaching and learning. The district has employed external services (Pacific Educational Group) to work with
principals and teachers on improving educational equity in the district. The achievement goals for 2014-2015, the year of the study, also included increasing reading achievement for all students and focusing on improving oral language production for early childhood students (Principal, personal communication, October 2, 2014).
School Overview
The school began as a magnet school in 1986 (Fortune, 2001) with primarily EHL students learning Spanish in a one-way immersion model. Over the years the percentage of SHL students has increased and many classrooms now resemble those in a two-way immersion model. However, the school does not self-identify as a two-way immersion school and often adapts instead the unique label, "urban immersion," implying that the one-way/two-way categories may not apply to this particular context (Principal, personal communication, October 2, 2014). The school allows for open enrollment and offers the district curriculum in a 90/10 Spanish immersion model. All students begin to learn in Spanish for 90% of instructional time during kindergarten and (10% in English). This percentage shifts to 70/30% (Spanish/English) by 3rd grade and 50/50% by fifth grade. English learners (EL) receive pull out instruction from an EL teacher. Some students are also pulled out for Spanish language support starting in 2nd grade (Special Education Teacher, personal communication, October 2, 2014).
The Spanish Immersion School mirrors the district in the percentage of White2 and Black students (Table 3.1). However, the school has a much larger percentage of Hispanic students (48%) and lower percentage of Asian students (2%) than the district. Additionally 23% of students in the school receive EL services and 6% of students at the school receive special education (SpEd) services. A surprising 68% of students receiving Special Education services at the school are Hispanic as compared to 10% at the state level and 15% in the district.
2 The racial labels (White, not of Hispanic origin; Black, not of Hispanic origin; Hispanic; Asian/Pacific
Islander; American Indian/Alaskan Native) are taken from the state department of education terminology. In order to maintain consistency throughout the study, the same labels are used throughout the study. Despite the problematic nature of racial categorization, it is important to this study that the racial diversity and differentiated educational outcomes are discussed.
Table 3.1
Student Demographics in the District, School, and Classroom
Student Demographic Information District* (2014 - 2015) N % Immersion School* (2014 - 2015) N % 3rd Grade Classroom** (2014-2015) N %
American Indian/Alaskan Native 692 2 8 1 0 0
Hispanic 5,274 14 347 48 10 37
Black, not of Hispanic Origin 11,458 30 163 23 8 30
Asian/Pacific Islander 11,947 32 11 2 0 0
White, not of Hispanic Origin 8,494 22 185 26 9 33
Total Student Population 37,865 100 664 100 27 100
Receiving English Language
Learning Support 13,070 35 165 23 6 22
Eligible for Free or Reduced
Price Lunch 27,379 72 403 56 -- --
Receiving Special Education Services
5,988 16 45 6 1 --
Hispanic students receiving
Special Education Services 15 68 1 --
*Source: State Department of Education (SDE) Website **Source: Classroom data supplied by teachers
There is a waitlist for enrollment at the Spanish Immersion School (Principal, personal communication, October 2, 2014). Parents at the school attend informational meetings before kindergarten to receive information about the vision and mission behind the school's immersion model. On the first day of school, parents can be seen at the school waiting for their children's buses to drop off students so they can greet their children. The fairly even mix of White, Hispanic and Black students is unique in the district and in the state overall (MDE, 2014). Since the school allows for open
enrollment, many of the students are bused in from around the city. The busses appear to be racially segregated based on the part of the city serviced. Less than 19% of the White students at the school receive FRPL while over 60% of Hispanic and Black students participate in FRPL programs (MDE, 2014).
School standardized test data. Appendix A presents cross-sectional 3rd, 4th, and
5th grade Math and Reading assessments at the state, district and school levels for the 2- 13-2014 school year. As the table shows, students in all demographics (and for most subjects and years) at the Spanish Immersion School perform better than the district average and the same or better than students in the state in the same demographic groups.
The FRPL rates at the school for Black, White and Hispanic students are generally lower than the state and district levels. Nevertheless, there is still a large achievement gap within the school in which 20 to 30% fewer Black and Hispanic students are proficient compared to White students in almost every achievement category; Black and Hispanic students do not achieve over 50% proficiency in most categories regardless of FRPL status. While this pattern is also true across the state and district, it is not surprising that the school improvement plans target eliminating the achievement gap. Appendix B presents three-year longitudinal data and confirms this trend. However, students at the Spanish Immersion School appear to be achieving academically at rates similar to or better than those in the district and state while also working towards developing bilingualism and biliteracy.
Classroom Overview
The study was conducted in one of three third grade classrooms in the Spanish Immersion School. It was recommended by the principal due to the teacher's interest in both equity and oral language proficiency. Table 3.2 shows the overall structure of the average daily schedule in the classroom. Because the study was focused on oral language proficiency, the teacher and I identified times when the students were involved in
extended periods of Spanish language interaction with their peers. Morning meeting tended to be teacher-centered and consisted mainly of large group discussion. Special classes (art, music, computers) and science class were taught by outside teachers and were often not conducted in Spanish. Writer's workshop shifted between English and Spanish, so Reading and Math classes were identified as the best times for the study. Table 3.2
Daily Schedule for 3rd Grade Immersion Classroom (2014-2015)
Schedule Time Activity
9:10 – 9:25 15 min. Breakfast
9:30 – 9:50 20 min. Morning Meeting
9:50 –10:40 50 min. Specials (PE, Music, Art, Computers)
10:40 –11:30 50 min. Writer’s Workshop (Monday, Wednesday, Friday)
Science (Tuesday, Thursday)
11:30 –12:25 55 min. Reading (Monday, Wednesday, Friday)
Writer’s Workshop (Monday, Wednesday, Friday)
12:45 – 1:15 30 min. Lunch and Bathroom Break
1:15 – 2:35 80 min. Math
2:35 – 3:50 75 min. Literacy Skills in Spanish/Health/Social Studies (Monday,
Wednesday, Friday) and English Language Arts OR
Reading (Tuesday, Thursday)
Literacy Skills in Spanish/Health/Social Studies (Tuesday, Thursday)
3:50 – 4:00 10 min. Dismissal
Adapted from Fortune, 2001. Spanish Time Spanish or English Time English Time Math games. Math (80 minutes per day) was identified as one of the most
important classes due to the testing requirements and the need for differentiated instruction. While much of the math instruction was teacher-centered and large group, there were opportunities for interaction between and among peers. The "Math Games" time occurred after the initial introduction of the math topic, but towards the beginning of each Math period. After participating in a large group discussion while sitting at the front of the room, the students would be assigned a partner and math game by the teacher. The students would then collect the materials needed to play the game (e.g., dice, cards, manipulatives). The games were meant to reinforce a target math concept. All students played the same game, although often the teacher would work with a small group of students during this time. Math Games was a time when the students had an opportunity to interact extensively with each other in Spanish as they played the games. There were no specific language objectives for this time. (Table 3.3 outlines the overall participation structures during Math class.)
Reading class. Teachers also identified Reading (55 to 75 minutes per day) as an
important subject for third grade students. The Special Education Teacher (personal communication, October 2, 2015) called Reading, "the basis of everything." At the beginning of this class, students would meet at the front of the room and the teacher would read a book aloud or conduct a shared reading activity with a big book.
Afterwards, he would talk about a reading skill and facilitate a large group discussion about the targeted skill. Then, students would move to a different part of the room and work with a small group or a partner on a reading task. During this time, the students interacted with their peers in small groups or pairs. Students were directed to participate in a variety of activities, and the grade level team was experimenting with specific peer-
directed learning strategies that could be implemented during this time (Saenz, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005; Palincsar, Collins, Marano, Magnusson, 2000). In general, students would work with a partner or a small group of students to collaboratively read a leveled text and answer questions related to the reading. (Table 3.3 outlines the overall participation formats for Reading class.)
Table 3.3
Participation Structures for Math and Reading
Routine Teacher Practice Student Practice Approx
Time MATH
Students sit in the front of the room in rows. Teacher introduces the topic and assign certain students to review session (Spanish)
Teacher presents the math game and answers questions
Students listen and ask questions
when called upon 5 to 10 minutes
Students play math games
with a partner OR Teacher supervises the game and provides
individual feedback.
Students work with a partner to play a math game intended to reinforce key concepts
30 to 40 minutes Students work with a small
group with the classroom teacher
Teacher presents a topic targeted at the students' small group needs
Students listen and interact with the
teacher when asked 30 to 40 minutes
Students sit in the front in rows to practice new problems
Teacher presents information and facilitates the discussion
Students listen and participate individually when called upon; certain students answer problems on the white board, occasional turn & talks are performed
10 to 20 minutes
Students work individually on their math notebook problems while the classroom teachers and support teacher circulate around the room
Teacher interacts with individually students on an as-needed basis
Students work silently or interact
with the teacher 10 to 20 minutes
Students sit in the front of the room in rows to review the topic
Teacher facilitates a review of the learning target
Students share their answers on the
board or with a partner 10 to 20 minutes
READING Students sit in the front of
the room in rows. The teacher introduces the topic
Teacher presents information, models reading skills and facilitates the discussion
Students listen participate individually when called upon, occasional turn & talks
10 to 20 minutes Students work in leveled
groups on tasks OR Teacher circulates, supervises and provides
individual feedback
Students work with each other to read and answer questions in their reading notebooks
30 to 40 minutes Students read individually
OR Teacher provides individual feedback Students read quietly and occasionally talk with a neighbor 30 to 40 minutes
Students do guided reading with a small group with the classroom teacher or a support teacher
Teacher presents a topic targeted at the students' small group needs
Students listen and interact with the
teacher when asked 30 to 40 minutes
the room in a circle to share
and transition information and facilitates the discussion individually when called upon, occasional turn & talks performed minutes
Research Participants Principal and Support Teachers
Secondary participants in the study included the support teachers and the
principal. In order to have an understanding of what the school expectations were for oral language proficiency and differentiation, I interviewed the principal of the school and four other teachers who worked in that particular classroom. Because these adults were in and out of the room throughout the study, it was important to include their thoughts regarding language-focused differentiated instruction. (Appendix C includes the dates and questions of each interview.) The four teachers included the special education teacher, the English learners teacher, the Spanish support teacher, and the curriculum coach for the school.
Principal. The principle, Helen3 identified oral language proficiency as a district- wide goal, especially as it relates to reading and writing. She mentioned that most students could decode Spanish at a higher level than they could comprehend. She highlighted the importance of students being able to, "maintain complex sentence structures in your short-term working memory in order to understand them for the comprehension piece of reading ... it's not about teaching vocabulary ... It's really about working on complex sentence structure, and making kids able to have increasingly longer and more complex structures in their—under control" (Principal Interview, Oct. 2, 2014). The strategies for promoting oral language development mentioned were modeling, rehearsing, and whole group instruction. While there was no clear school-wide plan for meeting this goal, Helen mentioned that she hoped that language was becoming more complex as students progressed through school. Assessment data on Spanish oral
language proficiency was collected from students at the beginning and end of each grade level. When asked about specific language goals for SHL students, the principal
suggested that SHL students come in with a lack of academic language. "A lot of them come in with a high level of oral fluency, a Native-speaker perspective, but not
3 All names in the study are pseudonyms and every effort was made to maintain the participants'
necessarily a lot of academic language ... the majority of our native Spanish speakers don't have a lot of academic Spanish support at home necessarily" (Principal Interview, Oct. 2, 2014). She suggested that SHL students needed appropriate resources at their proficiency level and support for English language development. EHL students, who lacked academic English and Spanish were not mentioned initially, but when questioned, Helen mentioned the importance of relationship building, culturally relevant pedagogy and helping students to see themselves as learners.
Special education teacher. Johanna the special education teacher, described her
concern with the changing school demographics and teachers' lack of interest in
differentiating instruction based on these changes. "I think the demographic of the school has changed and the expectation that these are going to be blond haired, blue eyed, smart kids coming in and that's not what we're getting anymore and teachers don't know how to differentiate for these kids. They're like, "Why are they here? Why are they in this
school?"" (Special Education Teacher Interview, Oct. 2, 2014). While differentiation was identified as a major need, few specific adaptations were identified. Johanna mentioned "Razz Kids," an online literacy support program, and teacher collaboration as good strategies for differentiation.
English learners teacher. Maddie, the EL teacher, talked about the importance of
oral language development. She explained that her work with students begins in November of Grade 2 when all students begin to receive some content instruction in English. She mentioned that she used to work on Spanish oral language and literacy skills as a way to promote linguistic transfer for SHL students. She mentioned that over the years she had seen that SHL students with strong home language skills did very well in acquiring English and students without strong oral Spanish skills struggled with both languages. However, she felt that she did not currently have time for Spanish language support and focused instead on developing only English proficiency for her students. She worked mainly with small pullout groups (meaning that students are removed from the classroom) and had students sort words to develop vocabulary knowledge with word families that are dissimilar from Spanish. Examples included word families with long and short vowels. Molly expressed her concern for students who, "don't really have a
would be able to work with these students more in the classroom. The existance of "non- nons" or "semilinguals" (Skutnab-Kangas, 1981) has been widely critiqued (de Jong, 2011; Escamilla, et al., 2010) and researchers have pointed out that there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the existence of "semilingual" students (MacSwan, 2005; Ovando, et al., 2006; Paulston, 1982). Emergent bilingual students have been shown to have creative combinations of language features that allow bilingual children to meet their commuicative needs. However, school administrators and teachers often
misunderstand this diversity of bilingual language skills and compare them to a
monolingual norm. According to Beeman and Urow (2013) this monolingual bias, "has led educators to look at bilingual education as a set of either/or issues: students are dominant in either Spanish or English" (p. 8-9). The authors go on to argue that, "we should be careful about how we characterize children's langauge use and consider whether it is appropriate to make pedagogical decisions based on the notion of a
dominant language" (p. 9). Nevertheless, many teachers at this school conceptualized the language of the simultaneous bilingual students (children who acquire two language before the age of 5) using deficit labels.
Spanish support teacher. Rosa, the Spanish support teacher, worked with EHL
and SHL students struggling with Spanish reading. She mentioned that her SHL students most likely had a processing problem or their parents weren't able to support their
children's learning. "The parents are working two or three jobs and they try. They do try but sometimes they don't have anybody that will help them get to work ... but we are all doing the best we can, right. It's public schooling" (Spanish Support Teacher Interview, Oct. 3, 2014). The EHL students struggling with Spanish reading were believed to be missing strategies, to not care, or to have family problems that carried over to school. In describing a particular Black EHL student, Rosa explained that, "[S]he can do it but she just doesn't care. She prefers just to joke around ... there is a family problem but I don't know what it is but her Spanish, she has so many discipline problems. The discipline had gotten in the way of her learning ever since first grade" (Spanish Support Teacher
Interview, Oct. 3, 2014). Rosa also mentioned that often EHL students guessed at words based on the first letter and that it may be a compensation strategy related to the