PROGRAM OUTCOME 1: KEY ASSESSMENT
Name
|
Angelita Rodriguez
|
Artifact Title
|
Cultural Research Chart
|
Program Outcome #
|
Program Outcome 1
|
Required Key Assessment
|
Artifact – Key Assessment
|
Degree Program
|
M.Ed in English as a Second Language
|
As an educator, I believe that understanding the student’s first language is beneficial to achieve success in the acquiring English as a second language. In this assignment, I was able to compare the different components of the English language with the home languages of my ELL students. This chart has helped me understand my Hispanic students who struggle in producing consonant blends. This information is beneficial for me to provide multiple opportunities for my students to practice producing the sounds with extra support such videos, phonics Ipad applications, and provide a safe environment for them to practice and make mistakes. Another important information that I learned from this chart is the cultural differences between the Spanish speakers and the native English speakers. I was not aware that Hispanic students show respects to their teachers and other adults by lowering their eyes (Mount-Cors, 2015). I can include a brief cultural introduction to my newcomer ELL students to avoid misunderstanding with their teachers and peers.
Linguistic/Cultural Research Chart
English contrasts with Spanish
|
Phonology
1. The Spanish language has five pure vowels and five diphthongs. While the English language has 12 pure vowel sound, and eight diphthong. In Spanish vowels are not important in distinguishing words, while they are important in English (Shoebottom, 1996-2013c).
2. In Spanish, the following combinations are pronounced differently: que, qui, güe, güi. Thus some Spanish speakers may have difficulty pronouncing words such as queen or quick (Colorin Colorado, 2015).
3. There are many differences between the consonants in English and Spanish. There are 15 phonemes that occur in both languages. For example, "ch" and "sh" are two different phonemes in English, while these two can be pronounced interchangeably in Spanish without changing the meaning (Frederick, 2005).
|
Morphology/Syntax (Grammar)
1. The Spanish language does not use one to one correspondence in the use of the tenses. It is hard for a Spanish speaker to learn about the progressive tenses and perfect tenses in the English language (Shoebottom, 1996-2013c).
2. Negatives in English are also a struggle for Spanish speakers. They may say things like, “I no hear him” (Shoebottom, 1996-2013c).
3. Spanish does not use quotation marks, but uses dashes instead (Shoebottom, 1996-2013c).
|
Culture of Mexico/Issues for teachers/students/parents
1. Lowering of eyes in the presence of adults to show respect for adults while it may perceive as disrespectful in the United States (Mount-Cors, 2015).
2. Men men are expected to do the manual labor, while women are expected to take care of the home (Mount-Cors, 2015).
3. Many parents may not have educational opportunities back in their homeland. Some of them are illiterate, which is a big challenge for schools and teachers (Mount-Cors, 2015).
|
English contrasts with Mandarin Chinese
|
Phonology
1. Chinese speakers use noun a lot instead of using pronouns (Chineseathome, 2015).
2. English has more vowel sounds than the Chinese language, resulting Chinese speakers having difficulty in pronouncing some words like shil/sheep, it/eat (Shoebottom, 1996-2013c).
3. Chinese speakers have difficulty in distinguishing the sounds of the letters l and r, therefore they may mispronounce words that begin with the letter l or r (Shoebottom, 1996-2013c).
|
Morphology/Syntax (Grammar)
1. Chinese language doesn't use past tense for time (Yu, 2015).
2. Chinese language doesn't have gender specific pronouns, he/she (Yu, 2015).
3. In Chinese, there aren't separate singular and plural forms for nouns (Guo, 2008).
|
Culture of China/ Issues for teachers/students/parents
1. Chinese speakers have visual thinkers, unlike English speakers who have rational thinkers (Wang, 2013).
2. Chinese young women and girls hold hands or link arms as they
walk side by side (Pavlik, 2012).
3. In China, the main teaching method is lecture or chalk talk, while the US is trying to form a learning environment where students take greater control (The Conversation, 2014).
|
English contrasts with Arabic (Syrian refugees)
|
Phonology
1. Arabic speakers have problem pronouncing the "th" consonant blend, and swapping /b/ and /p/, and the substitution of /f/ and /v/ (Shoebottom, 1996-2013c).
2. Arabic is consonant heavy with 2-consonant cluster words, while English has many 3-4 consonant clusters words. This makes Arabic speakers struggle with words with 3 or more consonant clusters. For example, they may pronounce the word "split" as "spilit" (Howard, n.d.).
3. In Arabic there are28 Alphabetical letters three of them are vowels, and 29 pronounced letters
the 29th is in red (Hamad, 2014).
|
Morphology/Syntax (Grammar)
1. Arabic language differentiates between male and female in pronouns, verbs, words, and sentence structure. Pronouns like “they” and “you” have specifications for male and female, singular and plural.
2. There is not a single rule for the arrangement of the subject and verb in the Arabic language (Hughes, 2013).
3. Arabic doesn’t use uppercase and lowercase (Shoebottom, 1996-2013a)
|
Culture of Syria
1. The country is Sunni Muslim, this creates a strong feeling of cultural unity.
2. Education was widely accessible in Syria before 2011 (Argo, 2015).
3. Syrians value the need for quality education and intellectual development. Many parents are supportive of their children’s education for social progress.
|
References
Argo, V. (2015). Syrian children and the battle for education. Retrieved from
Chinese at Home. (2015). Five major differences between Chinese and English
languages - grammar. Retrieved from
Colorin Colorado. (2015). Capitalizing on Similarities and Differences between Spanish
and English. Retrieved from
http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/capitalizing-similarities-and-differences- between-spanish-and-english
Frederick, M. (2005). Common articulation variations between English and Spanish.
Hamad, M. (2014). Contrastive linguistic English phonology vs. Arabic
Phonology. Retrieved from
Howard, D. (n.d). How Is Arabic different from English? Retrieved from
Hughes, E. (2013). A linguistic comparison: Arabic and English. Retrieved from
Guo, P. (2008). Common English mistakes made by native Chinese speakers.
Retrieved from
Mount-Cors, M. (2008). Bridging the differences: Cultural background of Mexican
students entering U.S. schools. Retrieved from
Pavlik, A. (2012). Teaching English language learners from China. Retrieved from
Shoebottom, P. (2015). The differences between English and Chinese. Retrieved from
Shoebottom, P. (2015). The differences between English and Spanish. Retrieved from
The Conversation. (2014). ‘Chalk and talk’ teaching might be the best way after all.
Retrieved from
Wang, Y. (2013). Differences of English and Chinese as Written Languages and
Strategies in English Writing Teaching. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 647-652, April 2013
Yu, B. (2011). Issues of English learning for Chinese-speaking children. Retrieved
PROGRAM OUTCOME 2: KEY ASSESSMENT 1
|
Name
|
Angelita
Rodriguez
|
|
Artifact
Title
|
Gathering
and Analyzing Data
|
|
Program
Outcome #
|
Program
Outcome 2
|
|
Required
Key Assessment
|
Key
Assessment 1
|
|
Degree
Program
|
M.Ed
in English as a Second Language
|
This assignment shows the strengths and weaknesses of our third to fifth grades students at Esther Jackson Elementary School, Fulton County, Georgia. The assessment used was Criterion-Reference Competence Tests (CRCT) which was administered in 2013-2014. These are sets of tests administered at public schools in the state of Georgia that are designed to test the knowledge of third to eighth graders. In 2015, the state renamed the test to Georgia Milestones with some revisions on test types. The new test was designed to provide information how the students are mastering the state-adopted common core standards in mathematics, language arts, science and social studies. Our third to fifth grade students showed strength in the area of reading. The table below shows ninety percent of all students in grades 3-5 met or exceeded expectations in total reading. 91% of students in grade 3, 92% percent of students in grade 4, and 87% of students in grade 5 met or exceeded expectations. The standards include key ideas and details, craft and structure, integration of knowledge and ideas, range of reading and level of text complexity and reading foundational for both informational and literacy comprehension (Esther Jackson Elementary School, 2016).
Part 1:
How does your state measure student achievement? What assessments does it use?
The state of Georgia administers a yearly standardized criterion-referenced assessment called CRCT (Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests) which is now renamed as the Georgia Milestones Assessment System (Georgia Milestones). The assessment measures how well students have mastered the skills that are outlined in the state-adopted standards in the following content areas; math, science, language arts, and social studies. The Georgia Milestone Assessment include constructed-response items in both math and language arts content areas. At every grade level there is also a writing component in response to passages read by the students. The result of the state assessment is used to inform students with their critical information on their achievement and readiness for the next grade level standards. The assessment will also benefit the teachers, parents, staff and administrators on planning for district improvement and helps increase the school’s accountability system. Norm-referenced items in all content areas are also included in order to provide national comparison (Georgia Department of Education, 2015). Each district can choose a testing window within the allowed testing time frame. Students in third to eighth grades will take this assessment at the end of the year which falls on the second through third week of April this year.
What types of data are available to you through your school’s State Report Card? What content areas are addressed?
Table A: Third-Fifth Students Table B. Third Grade Students: social studies
The data on CRCT assessment for students in third to fifth grades is available to the teachers and administrators from our school report card. We have the results for all students group on Table A, and third grade level results in Table B. We can also access and compare the results of the different grade levels by going to this site called greatschools.org (Great Schools, 2016). Looking at the table from our school report card (Esther Jackson Elementary, 2015), our students showed growth in showing mastery of the content standards such as social studies, science, math, reading and English language arts from 2011-2014. For example, in social studies about 62% of our students meets or exceeds standards expectations in 2011, around 68% in 2012, 80% in 2013 and 68% in 2014. Social studies and science content standards showed almost similar results showing slight increase of students who are meeting or exceeding the standards. These two content standards are also with the lowest percentage of students are showing mastery. The information that we get from the state standardized assessments informed us about the content standards that we need to give close attention or priority. In the classroom environment, the teachers collaborate on planning instruction across the curriculum.
How do subgroups perform within the overall school? What percentage/number make up these subgroups?
Although there is an evident growth for some subgroups of students in the last three years, particularly students with disabilities (SWD), there is still a performance gap in getting all students to meet expected state performance targets. The charts below show how each subgroup has performed on reaching CRCT subgroup and state performance targets.
Green = Met both subgroup and state performance targets
Yellow = Met subgroup performance target, but not state performance target
Red = neither subgroup nor state performance targets met
The data also shows that students with disabilities (SWD) are the lowest performing subgoup in our school community. The students with disabilities is 12% of this year’s population, Hispanic is 53%, African American 21%, White 23%, and Asian .01%. The table below is our school’s current enrollment data for the school year 2015-2016. There is a larger performance gap between EJ and FCS for percent Exceeding Standards versus Meets Expectations in all categories in CRCT. Source: CRCT, 2011 – 2014 (Esther Jackson Elementary, 2015). We are a FOCUS school because of performance gap in Special Ed students versus regular students. I was not able to find the information for our school’s enrollment data to represent the percentage of subgroup performance in 2011-2013.
Total Student Population
|
564
|
||||||
Gender
|
Male: 278
|
Female: 286
|
|||||
Race/Ethnicity
|
African/American: 121
|
Hispanic:
301
|
White: 132
|
Asian:
10
|
Other
|
||
Socioeconomic Status
|
Free/Reduced Lunch: 65
|
||||||
Language
|
English: 253
|
Spanish: 301
|
Other: 10
|
||||
Ability
|
Regular Education:
460
|
Special Education:
70
|
Gifted/Talented
Education: 34
|
||||
How are students performing in different content areas?
Using the same table above, the data shows that our students showed slight growth in different content areas in the last four years. The data also indicates that our students performed the lowest in social studies and science for four consecutive years. The performance gaps among different subgroups can also be the cause of this low results in the two content standards. Black and Hispanic students consistently perform lower than white students in all content areas. Many of our students are currently reading below grade level. Using our reading assessment in Fountas and Pinnell, we found out that 30% of our students are below grade levels in their reading proficiency. In all content areas, students are required to read. Math score is decreasing for all grade levels. On average Black students perform 17 percentage points and Hispanic students perform 16 lower than white students. The school as a professional learning community has taken proactive steps in implementing strategies that would help our students achieve success in this standardized assessment. Teachers are provided with professional development training on guided reading and teaching number sense for mathematics. Reading is such an important skill for students to do well in the standardized assessments.
As a teacher, how can you use this information to plan instruction and assessment?
As a teacher, the information that we have on our school report card is very critical in planning my instructions. Although, I only teach English language Arts for ELL students, I can collaborate with the grade level teachers in order to connect my lessons to their social studies and science instruction. It is important that there is alignment in our standards and with other content areas in order to maximize our time. I can use some vocabulary words that they are introducing in the classroom to introduce English concepts and ideas. In introducing the writing standards, I can ask my ELL students to write a letter to a historical figure that they are learning in their social studies class. For example, last month they were learning about the former US president Jimmy Carter who is a native of Georgia. I was able to connect my language arts lesson in letter writing by asking my students to write a letter to Jimmy Carter about being a leader of the country and how he showed some of the character traits as a president. The classroom teachers were surprised when my students came back to the classroom showing them about their letter to Jimmy Carter. With collaboration students are able to build connections therefore increasing their background knowledge and skills. According to Jacobs (1989), students' learning skills would be enhanced by integrating content areas across curriculum.
Part 2: Examining State Report Cards Over Time
How have your students performed overall on state tests over the past three years? Cite data evidence.
Over the past the years, our students have showed performance growth in all content areas that are included in the Georgia Milestones. The table above showed that students have increased in their performance for social studies since 2011. The score in 2011 was 62% which continued to move up closer to 80% in 2014. In science, the students also showed growth over the past three years. Our school report card showd four years result which also showed growth from 68% to almost 80% in 2014. In math, students started over 80% which actually showed a slight declined for the next three conscutive years. This slight decrease was also addressed in our school’s improvement plan on how to align math standards in the classroom instructions and working with students who needed intervention or supports. For reading content, our students showed the highest score over the last three years. In 2011, students scored around 83% then continued to increased above 90% in 2014. The reading standard in area of strength for many of our students. For English language arts, our students scored above 80% in 2011 which showed a slight increase in the following year. However, it went back down in 2013, and showed increase in 2014.
How have subgroups performed over time? Cite data evidence.
Green = Met both subgroup and state performance targets
Yellow = Met subgroup performance target, but not state performance target
Red = neither subgroup nor state performance targets met
Over the last three years, different subgroups showed different performance in the different content areas. For CRCT mathematics, the lowest performing subgroup is the SWD (Students with disability). Since 2012, this particular group did not meet the state performance standards. The same result for the English Language Learners group, over the past three years the group also did not meet the state standard. For Black subgroup, students’ scores showed met subgroup target, but not performance target. Another subgroup which is the Hispanic group also did not meet the state standards for three consecutive years. The results in English language arts and reading almost showed the same scores for all subgroups with slight increase in reading for economically disadvantaged subgroup. White subgroup consistently meet or exceed the state standards over the last three years for the three content areas, math, reading and language arts. The white subgroup showed slight decrease in reading in 2013. The only subgroup who consistently showed mastery of the skills is the white subgroup. The data showed that our school needs to continue to work harder to close the gap among the different subgroups.
How have students performed in different content areas over time? Cite data evidence.
Over time the students have showed an increase in their performance in the state assessment in four subject areas, language arts, readings, science, and social studies. The only content area where student showed decrease in performance in marth. However, the overall score of our school indicated that the students performance for CRCT is on a positive curve. The table above showed that science is the lowest performance among all the content areas. SWD (Students with Disabilities) are the lowest performing subgroup at EJ. We are a FOCUS school because of performance gap in Special Ed students versus regular students. Math scores overall are decreasing for ALL student (Esther Jackson, 2015). There is a larger performance gap between EJ and FCS for percent Exceeding Standards versus Meets Expectations in all categories in CRCT.
Part 3: Data Analysis of My School’s State Report Card
Identify an area of instructional need in your content area (or the content area you have selected) and a student subgroup as evidenced in your school’s State Report Card.
Based on our school’s report card, I can see an instructional need in science for my Englis Language Learners. They have shown low scores in science three consecutive years.
Cite the supporting data from the State Report Card for the identified area of instructional need.
Our students scored lowest in science, therefore this content area need closer attention among all the teachers and school administrators.
Reference:
Esther Jackson Elementary School. (2016). School plan. Retrieved from
Georgia Department of Education. (2015). Georgia milestones assessment system.
Retrieved from http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Pages/Georgia-Milestones-Assessment-System.aspx
Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum. Retrieved from.
No comments:
Post a Comment