· this evaluation assesses the implementation and effectiveness of summer 1 of the limited...

31
Dallas Independent School District INTERIM EVALUATION OF THE SUMMER 2004 LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENT SUCCESS INITIATIVE REIS04-175-2 DIVISION OF EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY Mike Moses, Ed.D. General Superintendent Dallas Independent School District Mike Moses, Ed.D. General Superintendent

Upload: vominh

Post on 01-Jan-2019

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Dallas Independent School District

INTERIM EVALUATION OF THE SUMMER 2004 LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENT SUCCESS INITIATIVE

REIS04-175-2

DIVISION OF EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Mike Moses, Ed.D. General Superintendent Dallas Independent School District

Mike Moses, Ed.D.

General Superintendent

INTERIM EVALUATION OF THE SUMMER 2004 LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENT SUCCESS INITIATIVE

REIS04-175-2

Chara K. Paul

Approved Report of the Division of Evaluation and Accountability

Donna Bearden Robert L. Mendro Executive Director Assistant Superintendent Special Projects Evaluation Department of Research and Evaluation

Cecilia Oakeley Special Assistant to the Superintendent Division of Evaluation and Accountability

Dallas, Texas August 2004

Table of Contents Page

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................. 1

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION.................................................................. 2

MAJOR EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND RESULTS……………….……………………….. 3

2.1 What was the context of Project T-CALL?……………...………..…………… 3

2.2 How was the first summer of Project T-CALL implemented?…….………… 9

2.3 What were the Summer 1 Outcomes of Project T-CALL?…………………… 23

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………..……... 28

REIS04-175-2

Interim Report – Summer 2004 Evaluation of the Limited English Proficient Student Success Initiative

Project Evaluator: Chara K. Paul, Ph. D.

Abstract

This evaluation assesses the implementation and effectiveness of Summer 1 of the Limited English Proficient Student Success Initiative or, more specifically, the Teaming and Coaching for Accelerated Language Learning project (Project T-CALL). The project, funded by the Texas Education Agency, targets the needs of recent immigrant limited English proficient (LEP) students in grades six through nine across the Dallas Independent School District (DISD). The primary purpose of Project T-CALL is to ease and accelerate the development of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). Project T-CALL has three main components: curriculum development, teacher training, and instructional delivery.

Program Description

The Limited English Proficient Student Success Initiative, or more specifically, the

Teaming and Coaching for Accelerated Language Learning project (Project T-CALL), is led by the

Dallas Independent School District’s (DISD) Multi-Language Enrichment Program (M-LEP) and

targets the linguistic and academic needs of recent immigrant limited English proficient (LEP)

students in grades six through nine. The grant, funded by the Texas Education Agency (TEA),

runs from May 1, 2004 through December 31, 2005. Its overarching strategy is to design and

implement six week-long, content-based interdisciplinary lessons during summer school to

accelerate language acquisition and increase content-area academic achievement among recent

immigrant LEP students. Although Project T-CALL provides rigorous explorations of foundational

Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) from the areas of science and social studies, its

primary purpose is to ease and accelerate the development of academic language skills in all

modalities, including speaking, listening, reading, writing, and comprehension.

Project T-CALL is a multifaceted summer intervention for immigrant language learners,

including extensive training for instructors and administrators, innovative curriculum reform for

recent immigrant language learners, and interdisciplinary teaming between content and ESL

1

instructors and student interns to deliver instruction. The project runs concurrently with other

DISD summer school classes; however, the structure and curricular emphasis of Project T-CALL

differs from traditional summer school programs. The Project T-CALL Lesson Guide Book,

developed over the course of Summer 2004, is comprised entirely of ESL lessons that are

topically organized around the foundational Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) of

science and social studies. The lessons provide extended hands-on activities that integrate

single exploratory topics each week. ESL and content teachers are teamed to deliver the

interdisciplinary lessons within the Project T-CALL Lesson Guide Book. Student interns, former

LEP students who are English proficient, serve in each participating classroom as peer language

coaches, assisting the instructors and students. Concurrent with their classroom obligations, ESL

instructors participate in regular biweekly training. This training introduces instructors to teaching

strategies beneficial to LEP students, facilitates teachers’ personal reflections regarding

successes, and identifies possible areas within the Project T-CALL Lesson Guidebook in need of

revision.

The project will be implemented in a series of phases. The first phase, the subject of the

current report, occurred during Summer 2004. During phase one, the Project T-CALL Lesson

Guide Book was developed and revised based on the immediate feedback provided by biweekly

debriefings between instructors and project staff. The second phase of Project T-CALL will take

place during Summer 2005. It will incorporate any modifications that may be suggested by the

results from the project evaluation. Upon completion of these two phases, Project T-CALL will be

a self-sustaining and replicable instructional and curricular model for all future DISD training in

ESL and “sheltered” content instruction.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

This document contains context data and findings from the first summer of the Teaming

and Coaching for Accelerated Language Learning project, or Project T-CALL. A final evaluation

report will be submitted in December 2005.

2

MAJOR EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND RESULTS

2.1 What was the context of Project T-CALL?

Methodology

Student and teacher demographic data for participants of the Teaming and Coaching for

Accelerated Language Learning project was obtained from the July 2004 district database. Intern

demographic data for participants of Project T-CALL was obtained from the May 2004 district

database.

Results

Demographics of Participants

Student demographics. Tables 1 and 2 report the number of students involved in Project

T-CALL and their demographics. Six middle schools and five high schools hosted at least one

Project T-CALL classroom during Summer 2004. A total of 329 students across grades six

through eleven participated in Project T-CALL, with the majority of students (63.2%) in grade

nine.

3

Table 1

Student Enrollment in DISD Project T-CALL by School and Grade

Grade Total School 6 7 8 9 10 11 N %

Middle Schools Browne 0 2 4 0 0 0 6 1.8 Cary 0 12 24 15 0 0 51 15.5 Comstock 0 3 8 3 0 0 14 4.3 Gaston 0 0 10 2 0 0 12 3.6 Greiner 1 4 9 5 0 0 19 5.8 Rusk 0 3 15 0 0 0 18 5.5

High Schools Molina 0 0 0 44 5 0 49 14.9 North Dallas 0 0 1 30 4 2 37 11.2 Hillcrest 0 0 0 70 9 0 79 24.0 Samuell 0 0 0 24 0 0 24 7.3 Wilson 0 0 0 15 5 0 20 6.1

Total 1 24 71 208 23 2 329

More than half (52.3%) of participating Project T-CALL students were male (Table 2). Hispanics

(94.8%) made up the majority of Project T-CALL students. Blacks (3.3%), Asians (1.5%), and

Whites (0.3%) were also represented in the Project T-CALL student population. Most of the

students were economically disadvantaged (87.2%). Less than 1% of the students were

considered special education students. The overwhelming majority (96%) of students were

categorized as limited English proficient (LEP). Spanish was the predominant language spoken

by students (94.2%). Across all grades, a plurality of Project T-CALL students (95.0%) had been

in the district for fewer than three years.

4

Table 2

Demographic Characteristics of Students Participating in Project T-CALL by Grade

Grade 06 07 08 09 10 11 Total

Characteristics N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

Gender Male 1 100.0 14 58.3 38 53.5 107 51.4 11 47.8 1 50.0 172 52.3Female 0 00.0 10 41.7 33 46.5 101 48.6 12 52.2 1 50.0 157 47.7

Total 1 24 71 208 23 2 329

Ethnicity Hispanic 1 100.0 23 95.8 69 97.2 196 94.2 21 91.3 2 100.0 312 94.8Black 0 00.0 1 4.2 1 1.4 8 3.8 1 4.3 0 00.0 11 3.3Asian 0 00.0 0 00.0 1 1.4 3 1.4 1 4.3 0 00.0 5 1.5White 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 0.00 1 0.5 0 00.0 0 00.0 1 0.3

Total 1 24 71 208 23 2 329

Economic Status Disadvantaged 1 100.0 24 100.0 67 94.4 178 85.6 15 65.2 2 100.0 287 87.2Advantaged 0 00.0 0 00.0 4 5.6 30 14.4 8 34.8 0 00.0 42 12.8

Total 1 24 71 208 23 2 329

Special Education Status Non-Special Ed. 1 100.0 24 100.0 71 100.0 207 99.5 21 91.3 2 100.0 326 99.1Special Ed 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 1 0.5 2 8.7 0 00.0 3 0.9

Total 1 24 71 208 23 2 329

English Proficiency LEP 0 00.0 24 100.0 66 93.0 202 97.1 22 95.7 2 100.0 316 96.0Non-LEP 0 00.0 0 00.0 4 5.6 6 2.9 1 4.3 0 00.0 11 3.3Exited 1 100.0 0 00.0 1 1.4 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 2 0.6

Total 1 24 71 208 23 2 329

Language Spoken Most of the Time by Student Spanish 1 100.0 23 95.8 68 95.8 195 93.8 20 87.0 2 100.0 309 94.2Amharic 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 5 2.4 0 00.0 0 00.0 5 1.5Farsi 0 00.0 1 4.2 1 1.4 2 1.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 4 1.2Other 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 2 1.0 1 4.3 0 00.0 3 0.9Afro-asiatic 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 2 1.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 2 0.6English 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 2 8.7 0 00.0 2 0.6Vietnamese 0 00.0 0 00.0 1 1.4 1 0.5 0 00.0 0 00.0 2 0.6Spanish/English 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 1 0.5 0 00.0 0 00.0 1 0.3

Total 1 24 70 208 23 2 328

Years in DISD 0 years 0 00.0 2 8.3 18 25.4 72 34.6 5 21.7 0 00.0 97 29.51-2 years 0 00.0 19 79.2 47 66.2 133 63.9 16 69.6 2 100.0 217 66.03-4 years 1 100.0 3 12.5 4 5.6 1 0.5 1 4.3 0 00.0 10 3.05 years or more 0 00.0 0 00.0 2 2.8 2 1.0 1 4.3 0 00.0 5 1.5

Total 1 24 71 208 23 2 329

5

Intern demographics. A total of 18 interns participated in Project T-CALL during Summer

2004 (Table 3). Six interns were assigned to middle schools, while the remaining 11 served at

high schools. The majority of interns (9, 50%) were in the 11th grade during the 2003-2004

school year.

Table 3

Number of Interns Participating in Project T-CALL by Grade and School

Grade Total School 9 10 11 12 N %

Middle School Browne 0 1 0 0 1 5.6 Cary 0 1 0 0 1 5.6 Comstock 0 0 1 0 1 5.6 Gaston 0 0 0 1 1 5.6 Greiner 0 0 1 0 1 5.6 Rusk 0 0 1 0 1 5.6

High School Hillcrest 1 0 2 0 3 16.7 Molina 0 1 2 0 3 16.7 North Dallas 0 1 1 0 2 11.1 Samuell 1 1 0 0 2 11.1 Wilson 0 0 1 0 1 5.6

Total 2 6 9 1 18

The overwhelming majority of student interns (16, 88.9%) was female (Table 4). Interns were

primarily Hispanic (17, 94.4%) and economically disadvantaged (14, 77.8%). Over half (10,

55.6%) had exited the Limited English Proficient program. Spanish was the predominant

language spoken among interns (14, 77.8%). The majority of Project T-CALL interns (13, 72.2%)

had been in the district for five or more years.

6

Table 4

Demographic Characteristics of Project T-CALL Interns by Grade

Grade 9 10 11 12 Total

Characteristic N % N % N % N % N %

Gender Female 1 50.0 6 100.0 8 88.9 1 100.0 16 88.9Male 1 50.0 0 00.0 1 11.1 0 00.0 2 11.1

Total 2 6 9 18

Ethnicity Hispanic 1 50.0 6 100.0 9 100.0 1 100.0 17 94.4White 1 50.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 1 5.6

Total 2 6 9 1 18

Economic Status Advantaged 1 50.0 3 50.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 4 22.2Disadvantaged 1 50.0 3 50.0 9 100.0 1 100.0 14 77.8

Total 2 6 9 1 18

English Proficiency Non-LEP 1 50.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 1 5.6LEP 0 00.0 2 33.3 4 44.4 1 100.0 7 38.9Exited 1 50.0 4 66.7 5 55.6 0 00.0 10 55.6

Total 2 6 9 1 18

Language Most Often Spoken by Student English 1 50.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 1 5.6French 1 50.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 1 5.6Spanish 0 00.0 6 100.0 7 77.8 1 100.0 14 77.8English/Spanish 0 00.0 0 00.0 2 22.2 0 00.0 2 11.1

Total 2 6 9 1 18

Years in DISD 1-2 years 1 50.0 0 00.0 1 11.1 0 00.0 2 11.13-4 years 1 50.0 1 16.7 0 00.0 1 100.0 3 16.75 or more years 0 00.0 5 83.3 8 88.9 0 00.0 13 72.2

Total 2 6 9 1 18

7

Teacher demographics. Project T-CALL employed 43 teachers during Summer 2004.

This total included 12 science teachers, 9 social studies teachers, and 22 ESL teachers. Two

ESL instructors also taught social studies in order to compensate for the lower number of social

studies instructors involved in the project. The majority of teachers was female (65.1%).

Teachers were primarily Black (39.5%), White (34.9%) and Hispanic (20.9%). Across all grades

a plurality of teachers (76.7%) had five years of experience or less. Approximately one-sixth

(16.3%) of the teachers were certified through alternative certification. The majority of teachers

(65.1%) had their bachelor’s degrees, while 23.2% had earned graduate degrees.

Table 5

Demographic Characteristics of Project T-CALL Teachers by Subject Taught

Subject Characteristics Science Social Studies ESL Total

N % N % N % N %

Gender Female 8 66.7 6 66.7 14 63.6 28 65.1 Male 4 33.3 3 33.3 8 36.4 15 34.9

Ethnicity Black 7 58.3 3 33.3 7 31.8 17 39.5 White 2 16.7 4 44.4 9 40.9 15 34.9 Hispanic 2 16.7 2 22.2 5 22.7 9 20.9 Pacific Islander 1 8.3 0 00.0 1 4.5 2 4.7

DISD Experience 0 years 2 16.7 2 22.2 4 18.2 8 18.6 1-5 years 6 50.0 5 55.6 14 63.6 25 58.1 6-10 years 4 33.3 2 22.2 3 13.6 9 20.9 11-15 years 0 00.0 0 00.0 1 4.5 1 2.3

Alternative Certification Non-AC 11 91.7 8 88.9 17 77.3 36 83.7 AC 1 8.3 1 11.1 5 22.7 7 16.3

Highest Degree Earned Bachelor’s 10 83.3 5 55.6 13 59.1 28 65.1 Master’s 2 16.7 2 22.2 5 22.7 9 20.9 Doctorate 0 00.0 0 00.0 1 4.5 1 2.3 Unspecified 0 00.0 2 22.2 3 13.6 5 11.6

Total 12 9 22 43

8

2.2 How was the first summer of Project T-CALL implemented?

Methodology

A combination of interviews with the program manager and staff, surveys of participating

Project T-CALL students, observations of Project T-CALL classrooms and reflection meetings,

and intern and teacher focus groups was used to collect program implementation data.

Results

Program Structure

Project T-CALL was administered through the district’s Multi-Language Enrichment

Program (M-LEP). The Director of ESL and Bilingual Programs (K-12) served as the Project T-

CALL Grant Project Manager, overseeing all operations. A Lead Coach Planner assisted the

Grant Project Manager in administering daily operations, including project timeframe monitoring,

the coordination of meetings and project personnel, and communication between all participants.

The Lead Training Coach organized and delivered Project T-CALL teacher training and reflection

meetings. Due to the late inception of the grant, the Lead Training Coach was appointed several

weeks after the start of the Project T-CALL Summer School. Additionally, ESL and content

teachers were paired to deliver all aspects of the Project T-CALL Lesson Guidebook, which was

concurrently developed by several of the participating teachers. Student interns were embedded

in each participating classroom to assist the instructors and the participating students. Student

interns received $7.50 an hour as compensation for their services. Interns were selected on the

basis of their demonstrated maturity, leadership potential, academic success in science and

social studies, and overall English proficiency.

During Summer 2004, Project T-CALL consisted of three components that occurred

simultaneously: training, curriculum development, and instructional delivery.

Curriculum development. Several of the Project T-CALL teachers were selected to

develop the lessons in the Project T-CALL Lesson Guidebook. The Guidebook is composed

entirely of ESL lessons that are topically organized around the foundational TEKS of science and

social studies. Separate science lesson plans were developed for middle and high school

9

students. With social studies, however, the same lesson plans were used for middle and high

school students. These lesson plans will be compiled and bound for use by next summer’s

Project T-CALL summer school.

The high school and middle school science lesson plans were based upon the Life

Science Full Option Science System (FOSS) kit. FOSS, developed at the Lawrence Hall of

Science at the University of California at Berkeley, is a research-based science curriculum for

students in kindergarten through grade eight. FOSS seeks to obtain at three important goals:

scientific literacy, instructional efficiency, and systemic reform. FOSS helps to develop basic

skills within the context of learning science through student readings, science journals, student

projects, and use of mathematics to quantify and communicate results of investigations and

experiments.

The social studies curriculum was based upon the fifth grade History Alive! program.

History Alive!, a product of the Teachers’ Curriculum Institute (TCI), is a theory- and standard-

based active instructional program, tapping Gardner’s seven intelligences (verbal-linguistic,

logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, body-kinesthetic, musical-rhythmic, interpersonal, and

intrapersonal). The program contains interactive activities that allow students to remember

important details about history and to see connections between history and their own lives. Since

TCI programs are based on high level concepts and historical information, they can be used for

most grade levels with modifications.

Reflection meetings. There were 12 reflection meetings over the course of the Summer

2004 Project T-CALL. Reflections occurred in the afternoons after instructional delivery on

Tuesdays and Thursdays. Reflection meetings allowed English as a Second Language (ESL)

and content-area teachers to practice and reflect upon their experiences with interdisciplinary

teaming and content-based ESL instruction. Reflection meetings typically contained four

components: reflection questions, presentation of teacher strategies, teacher sharing, and

bounce forward. Reflection questions were given to the participants as they entered the reflection

meeting. These questions were designed to focus participants on the selected teaching strategy

10

to be presented during the meeting and activate prior knowledge. Effective teaching strategies

for use with ESL students were explored from Marzano, Pickering and Pollock’s Classroom

Instruction that Works: Research-based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement, its

accompanying workbook, as well as other resources identified by the Lead Training Coach, an

experienced ESL teacher. Participating ESL and content teachers were also given the

opportunity to share instructional techniques used during Project T-CALL that had been

successful with ESL learners. The reflection meetings typically ended with bounce forward,

which consisted of questions designed to prepare the teachers for the next reflection meeting.

Videos of successful Project T-CALL lessons and teachers were periodically viewed and

discussed by teachers during reflections.

Instructional delivery. Eleven campuses, 5 high school and 6 middle schools, were

selected to host Project T-CALL classrooms. The schools providing venues for Project T-CALL

were chosen based on two criteria: attendance zones collectively served the highest number of

new immigrant students within DISD in grades six through nine, and immigrant students living

outside chosen zones had a minimum distance to travel to their closest campus. The number of

sections per campus was determined to accommodate a preferred limit of 15 students per class.

All students were integrated into mixed age group classes. Students in middle school Project T-

CALL classrooms ranged between sixth and ninth grade. Students in high school classrooms

ranged between eighth and eleventh grade. ESL instructors across the district as well as the

DISD Intake Center identified eligible immigrant students in grades six through nine during May

2004.

Project T-CALL classes were conducted during similar time frames as regular summer

classes. Project T-CALL ran from Monday through Thursday for a total of six weeks. For middle

school, the day started at 7:30 a.m. and lasted until 12:30 p.m. For high school, instruction began

at 8:30 a.m. and ended at 1:15 p.m.

Individual campuses determined the structure of Project T-CALL classes. Some

campuses divided the instructional day between social studies and science, the two content

11

areas; others rotated the two subjects on a daily basis, with science being taught on one day and

social studies the next. The decision was primarily based upon the availability of content

teachers, with some campuses having to share content teachers.

ESL teachers were paired with social studies and science teachers to team-teach the

lessons in the Project T-CALL Guide Book. Content and ESL teachers shared the instructional

load, providing assistance and instruction in their respective area of expertise to Project T-CALL

students. ESL teachers worked collaboratively with the content teachers, interweaving ESL

lessons within content-based instruction. Few teachers had difficulty in making the transition from

traditional, independent teaching to collaborative, interdisciplinary teaching.

Student interns were embedded in each of the Project T-CALL Classrooms to serve as

instructional assistants and translators. These bilingual interns were former LEP secondary

students who are English proficient. Interns were required to be present during all classroom

instruction. On campuses hosting more than one section of Project T-CALL, interns rotated

between classrooms.

12

Student Satisfaction Survey Results

The Student Satisfaction Survey was analyzed for those students participating in Project

T-Call. Overall, a total of 225 students (67.2%) from all schools (5 high schools, 6 middle

schools) responded to the survey. Of those students reporting their grade, 10 were in seventh

grade, 45 in eighth, 25 in ninth, and 85 in tenth. The largest percentage of Project T-CALL

students had been in the United States (85, 37.8%) and enrolled in DISD (96, 42.7%). between 6

and 11 months.

The overwhelming majority of students (81.3%) who responded to the survey attended

Project T-CALL to improve their language skills (Table 6). Few participated in Project T-CALL for

other reasons (10.2%).

Table 6

Reason for Participating in Project T-CALL

Reason N % To improve language skills 183 81.3 To study science 5 2.2 To study social studies 4 1.8 Required by parents 4 1.8 Thought it would be fun 1 0.4 To become acquainted with school district 1 0.4 Other 8 3.6 Multiple responses 19 8.4

Total 225

13

Overall, Project T-CALL met participating students’ expectations, in that, the program provided

students with what they wanted (Table 7). Over 70% (177) of students responding to the survey

felt that Project T-CALL met their expectations. After participating in Project T-CALL, the majority

of students (200, 88.9%) felt more confident about the 2004-2005 school year. Most of the

students (204, 90.7%) would recommend Project T-CALL to their friends. The top reason cited

by the students for recommending Project T-CALL to friends was learning in general (70

responses out of 228; 29.4%) and, more specifically, learning English (38 responses out of 228;

16.0%). The top reason cited by students who would not recommend Project T-CALL to their

friends was that the program was not interesting (6 responses out of 10; 60%).

Table 7

Student Satisfaction with Project T-CALL

Yes No Unsure N % N % N %

Did summer school provide you with what you wanted? 177 79.4 27 12.1 19 8.5

Do you feel more confident about school next year? 200 89.7 2 0.9 21 9.4

Would you recommend this summer school to your friends? 204 91.5 10 4.5 9 4.0

14

Overall, the overwhelming majority of students felt they were treated fairly by teachers and interns

(Tables 8 and 9). Over 80% of students said they were always treated respectfully by both

teachers and interns.

Table 8

Respectful Treatment of Students by Summer School Teachers as Reported by Students

School Always Usually Sometimes Never

No Response Total

Middle Schools Browne N 6 0 0 0 0 6 % 106.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 Cary N 23 0 3 1 0 27 % 85.2 00.0 11.1 3.7 00.0 Comstock N 12 0 1 0 0 13 % 92.3 00.0 7.7 00.0 00.0 Gaston N 10 1 1 0 0 12 % 83.3 8.3 8.3 00.0 00.0 Greiner N 14 0 0 0 0 14 % 100.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 Rusk N 14 0 0 0 1 15 % 93.3 00.0 00.0 00.0 6.7

High Schools Hillcrest N 60 3 3 0 1 67 % 89.6 4.5 4.5 00.0 1.5 Molina N 17 2 2 0 0 21 % 81.0 9.5 9.5 00.0 00.0 North Dallas N 16 0 2 0 0 18 % 88.9 00.0 14.3 00.0 00.0 Samuell N 13 3 2 0 0 18 % 72.2 16.7 11.1 00.0 00.0 Wilson N 11 0 1 0 2 14 % 78.6 7.1 14.3 00.0 00.0

Total 196 9 15 1 4 225 87.1 4.0 6.7 0.4 1.8

15

Table 9

Respectful Treatment of Students by Summer School Interns as Reported by Students

School

Always Usually Sometimes Never No

Response Total

Middle Browne N 6 0 0 0 0 6 % 100.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 Cary N 20 3 4 0 0 27 % 74.1 11.1 14.8 00.0 00.0 Comstock N 11 0 2 0 0 13 % 84.6 00.0 15.4 00.0 00.0 Gaston N 8 1 2 1 0 12 % 66.7 8.3 16.7 8.3 00.0 Greiner N 12 1 1 0 0 14 % 85.7 7.1 7.1 00.0 00.0 Rusk N 15 0 0 0 0 15 % 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0

High Schools Hillcrest N 59 6 2 0 0 67 % 88.1 9.0 3.0 00.0 00.0 Molina N 19 1 0 0 1 21 % 90.5 4.8 00.0 00.0 4.8 North Dallas N 16 1 1 0 0 18 % 88.9 5.6 5.6 00.0 00.0 Samuell N 13 3 1 1 0 18 % 72.2 16.7 5.6 5.6 00.0 Wilson N 10 2 2 0 0 14 % 71.4 14.3 14.3 00.0 00.0

Total 189 18 15 2 1 225 84.0 8.0 6.7 0.9 0.4

According to the students, the best part of this year’s Project T-CALL was learning in

general and, more specifically, learning English and studying about science and social studies. A

total of 116 responses fell into this category, with 18 referring to learning in general, 11 to

coursework, 28 to English, 26 to science, and 33 to social studies. The hands-on activities and

group projects were also popular among the students, with 25 responses referring to hands-on

activities and 14 to group projects.

Fifty-nine students did not find anything difficult about this year’s Project T-CALL. Of the

remaining students, 48 found using the English language to be the most difficult part of Project T-

CALL. Fifty-five responses referred to the difficulty of the coursework, including the exams:

16

• Thirteen responses referred to the difficulty of the exams;

• Thirteen referred to science being the most difficult part of Project T-CALL;

• Fourteen referred to social studies being the most difficult part of Project T-CALL;

and,

• Fifteen referred to the difficulty of the coursework in general.

The schedule was also considered a difficulty among students; 37 responses pertained to the

schedule. Of the 37 responses, 31 referred to the early schedule.

The top suggestion for improving Project T-CALL was scheduling. Sixty responses

indicated this as a suggestion for improvement. Students suggested starting later or finishing

earlier in the school day, having longer or more frequent breaks, and rotating between subjects

every day. Eight students thought Project T-CALL should include additional subjects, such as

mathematics, athletics or English. Twenty-four students suggested improvements to current

course offerings, including field trips and additional science experiments. Three respondents

experienced difficulty understanding the course content due to their level of English proficiency,

suggesting the need to differentiate among students based on their language ability. Other

suggestions for improvement pertained to the logistics of summer school, with students

requesting transportation (4 responses), larger and cleaner school facilities (17 responses), lunch

and better snacks in the cafeteria (7 responses).

Focus Group Results for Interns and Teachers Focus group results for interns. Fifteen of the eighteen student interns were in

attendance at the Focus Group Session on July 13, 2004. Of the eight who were not born in the

United States, three did not speak English upon entering the country, while the remaining five

were limited in their English-speaking abilities.

The student interns learned about Project T-CALL through their teachers. All said they

enjoyed the experience and would like to intern again next year. They described performing a

variety of tasks, including making copies, planning lessons with the ESL and content teachers,

translating, assisting with small groups, teaching lessons, and rotating from classroom to

classroom. The interns said the interaction with students was what they enjoyed most about their

17

role. The hardest days for the interns occurred when students were not interested in the subject

matter or were asked to write paragraphs or essays, since some students had difficulty with

English vocabulary.

Interns learned about LEP students, ESL teachers, instructional techniques, and the

power they have as one individual in making a difference in the lives of others. They acquired an

understanding of the difficulties of ESL teachers in teaching English and LEP students in learning

to speak English in conjunction with acquiring academic content. Interns described the qualities

of an effective educator: positive attitude, motivated, respectful to students, knowledgeable of

every student’s needs and level of understanding, excited about subject matter, and confidence in

their students’ abilities. As a result of this understanding, student interns said they were more

appreciative of their own educational experiences, vowing to use their time within the classroom

more productively.

Two questions were addressed in both the student and teacher focus groups:

1. What did you like about Project T-CALL?

2. How could Project T-CALL be improved for next summer?

18

The responses provided by the student interns to Question 1 are grouped by categories

in Table 10.

Table 10

What Interns Liked About Project T-CALL

Category Responses Curriculum Favorite class was science Helping with labs Fun activities (games), hands-on activities Demonstrations/acting

Communication Hand movements, physical movements to help explain vocabulary

Students Helping students figure out words (translation) Seeing academic growth by students Students had confidence to ask student intern Acquiring an understanding/appreciation of students’ backgrounds Interaction with students

Responsibility Allowed to teach a lesson Feeling of responsibility by being an intern, importance Helping other people, namely teachers and students

Teachers Team approach: ESL teacher, content teacher(s), and intern Motivation of teacher(s) Background of teacher, similar to students Sharing of personal experiences by teacher

Budget Provision of school supplies

The main concern expressed by student interns was the language diversity among

students in each class. Some students could understand the content better than others. Others

could not understand at all due to their limited English proficiency. Given the wide differences

among students, the interns recommended having different classes for varying levels of student

knowledge and English proficiency so that instruction could better meet individual needs.

A second concern was the need for additional training and development. Interns

recommended three types of training: orientation, reflections, and teacher meetings. Orientation

should introduce interns to the program and its purposes, the characteristics of the student

population to be served, and the curriculum. Interns wanted to receive sample lesson plans so as

to familiarize themselves with the content. They wanted to meet their assigned content and ESL

teachers ahead of time, and also wanted to meet and exchange contact information with other

interns. Reflections and teacher meetings should occur more frequently for student interns,

19

perhaps once per week. Reflections allowed interns to share successful instructional strategies

and learn from one another in order to be more effective in their work with students. Meetings

with the ESL and content teachers allowed the interns to become familiar with lessons and have

input into the structure of lessons. In addition, the meetings would help to define the role of the

interns as instructional assistants.

Focus group results for teachers. The responses provided by the teachers to Questions

1 and 2 are grouped by categories in Tables 11 and 12, respectively.

Table 11

What Teachers Liked About Project T-CALL

Category Responses Curriculum, Content Building academic vocabulary Balance between English and content History Alive! Enrichment rather than remediation Opportunity to be exposed to content FOSS kits

Curriculum, Activities Involvement of students with materials Hands-on activities and time to do them

Students Students Class size Eager to learn English Being able to teach without discipline problems

Student Interns Bilingual interns Active teaching by interns Collaboration (lesson planning across interns and with interns)

Teaming of Teachers Pairing content teachers with ELI teachers Co-teacher informally assessed students, helped to clarify Having a team approach Support to call if needed Collaboration (lesson planning across content) Team teaching done well

Reflection Meetings Learning ESL/ELI strategies Reflection sessions Learned new strategies

Budget Having supplies for students Class size Free for students

Project Staff Excellent and accessible supervisors

Atmosphere Atmosphere conducive to learning

20

Table 12

Teachers’ Suggestions for Improving Project T-CALL

Category Responses Orientation and Training Meet interns ahead of time Orientation—Start with what we learned Protocol, structure, timeline (in terms of organization) Training for interns, teachers Meet in content areas Reflection only once per week Lesson plans available from beginning

Curriculum Alignment Levels/Differentiation in content and English Ensure classes across schools are aligned, more consistent

Curriculum, General Analyze curriculum (for improvement) Add to curriculum (i.e., math, life choices, technology) Field trips Partner with Dallas Public Library

Curriculum, Language Add third class, maybe English Vocabulary list for each content area More time on language learning

Curriculum, Science Different curriculum for science, one that integrates with what students learn in high school

Curriculum, Social Studies Cover less content, especially in Social Studies

Time Frame Shorter time frame, length of summer school, blocks of time

Selection of Interns Intern for each class, more interns Guidelines for selection of interns Interns—harder to get position Select interns from this year’s students

Assessment of Students Goal setting with students Study of TEKS not mastered, focus on these Ways to measure growth for students (pre- and post-testing)

Selection Student selection based on language ability (placement of students) Recruit students from ELI teachers

Selection of Teachers Enough teachers to cover Consideration of assignment, especially if assigned two schools

Protocol Transportation, school buses Charge for course

Marketing Marketing—be clear on program goals Clear communication with principals and parents Add incentives for students

On-going support M-LEP Science/Social Studies specialist to go to classes during year On-going support for students (i.e., continue to meet together) Staff development in M-LEP Science and Social Studies Common planning times for teachers

21

Comparison of results for interns and teachers. Student interns and teachers liked

several of the same things about Project T-CALL. Both, for example, liked the concept of team

teaching, pairing Social Studies and Science teachers with ESL teachers and student interns.

This team approach provided new learning experiences for all, especially interns who had the

opportunity to teach. Interns and teachers enjoyed the hands-on activities that were in the

Project T-CALL Lesson Guidebook and appreciated that the supplies needed to conduct the

activities were provided. Both interns and teachers liked the eagerness of the students to learn.

Training was the major concern shared by both teachers and student interns. Interns and

teachers suggested two ways to improve training:

1. Allow student interns and teachers to meet one another prior to the start of summer

school.

2. Provide student interns and teachers with a program description, operating procedures,

and all lesson plans prior to the start of summer school.

The diversity in students’ language abilities was also a concern for both teachers and interns.

Some students spoke English fluently, while others struggled to learn English and master content.

Teachers and interns recommended differentiating students based on their language ability,

perhaps having separate classes.

22

Project T-CALL Budget The grant provides $425,000.00 to DISD for the entire length of Project T-CALL,

spanning from May 1, 2004 to December 21, 2005 (Table 13). Summer 2004 expenditures

totaled $116,844.18, with the majority of monies directed toward payroll costs (58.7%).

Table 13

Budget and Expenditures of Project T-CALL

Use of Funds Budgeted Expended (as of

8/31/04)

Percent Spent

Payroll Costs (Extra Duty Pay) $277,360 $68,598 24.7Professional and Contracted Services

Professional/Consulting Services 19,000 3,864 20.3Evaluation Services 21,250 0 00.0Printing 10,000 0 00.0Professional and Contracted Services Total 50,250 3,864 7.7

Supplies and Materials General Supplies/Materials 25,890 8,521 32.9Textbooks/Reading Materials 70,000 35,755 51.1

Supplies and Materials Total 95,890 44,276 46.2

Other Operating Costs (In-State Travel) 1,500 106 14.1Grand Total $425,000 $116,844 27.5

2.3 What were the Summer 1 Outcomes of the Teaming and Coaching for Accelerated Language Learning project?

Methodology

Information regarding accomplishments of the Teaming and Coaching for Accelerated

Language Learning project was collected from documentation provided by project staff and from

meeting notes and informal observations and interviews conducted by the evaluator. Data were

sorted and analyzed by the evaluator. Attendance data for teachers and students were obtained

from documentation provided by DISD Project T-CALL staff.

23

Results

Summer 2004 Project T-CALL Accomplishments

Accomplishments of the Teaming and Coaching for Accelerated Language Learning

Project during Summer 2004 are listed below.

• Development and refinement of Project T-CALL Lesson Guidebook, containing six

week-long social studies and science lessons and totaling over 100 instructional

hours;

• Training of content and ESL teachers on curriculum and instructional strategies

useful for LEP students;

• Establishment of Project T-CALL classrooms on 11 campuses; and

• Instructing over 300 recent immigrant LEP students using the Project T-CALL Lesson

Guidebook and an interdisciplinary team approach.

Attendance Data for Students and Teachers

Attendance data for students. No attendance data were received for students at

Woodrow Wilson High School (Table 14). Twelve students participating in Project T-CALL at

Hillcrest High School did not have attendance data. Although all students had attendance data at

Molina, three students dropped, two reportedly moved, and one entered Project T-CALL summer

school late. Over 70% of the students with attendance data attended 90% or more of summer

school.

24

Table 14

Summer School Attendance for Students Participating in Project T-CALL by School

≥90% <90% Dropped No Data Schools N N % N % N % N %

Middle Schools Browne 6 6 100.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 Cary 54 34 63.0 20 37.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 Comstock 14 11 78.6 3 21.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 Gaston 12 12 100.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 Greiner 19 5 26.3 14 73.7 0 00.0 0 00.0 Rusk 18 18 100.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0

High Schools Molina 51 30 58.8 18 35.3 3 5.9 0 00.0North Dallas 37 31 83.8 6 16.2 0 00.0 0 00.0Hillcrest 80 50 63.0 18 23.0 0 00.0 12 15.0Samuell 24 23 95.8 1 4.2 0 00.0 0 00.0Wilson 20 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 20 100.0

Total 335 220 65.7 80 23.9 3 0.9 32 9.6

25

Average daily attendance was high across all schools, with the mean daily attendance lowest for

Greiner (19.5 days) and highest for Rusk (24 days).

Table 15

Average Number of Days in Attendance by Students Participating in Project T-CALL by School and Attendance Rate

≥90% <90% Total School N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

Middle School Browne 6 23.7 0.5 0 6 23.7 0.5 Cary 34 23.4 0.8 20 15.5 5.6 54 20.5 5.2 Comstock 11 23.1 0.7 3 20.7 0.6 14 22.6 1.2 Gaston 12 23.6 0.8 0 12 23.6 0.8 Greiner 5 22.2 0.4 14 18.6 2.5 19 19.5 2.7 Rusk 18 24.0 0.0 0 18 24 0.0

High School Molina 30 23.1 0.8 18 17.0 4.5 48 20.8 4.1 North Dallas 31 23.4 0.8 6 20.0 1.5 37 22.8 1.6 Hillcrest 50 23.1 0.8 18 18.8 3.6 68 22.0 2.7 Samuell 23 23.6 0.7 1 21.0 24 23.5 0.8 Wilson 0 0 0

Total 220 23.3 0.8 80 17.7 4.3 300 21.8 3.4 Note. Total number of days of summer school=24. Means are not reported for Woodrow Wilson because attendance data were not received.

Attendance data for teachers. Teachers taught in the mornings four days per week,

totaling 24 days. The average number of days in attendance during summer school by all

teachers was 20.4 days, with ESL teachers (21.6 days) having the highest average daily

attendance. Reflection meetings were held two afternoons per week, totaling 12 meetings.

Reflection meetings allowed teachers time to collectively debrief, plan and discuss teaching

strategies. ELI teachers were required to attend; attendance by content teachers was

encouraged but optional. Average attendance at the reflection meetings was relatively high for all

teachers, with the mean attendance lowest for social studies teachers (7.1 meetings) and highest

for science teachers (8.5 meetings).

26

Table 16

Average Number of Days in Attendance during Project T-CALL Summer School and at Reflection Meetings by Attendance Rates

≥90% <90% Total Subject N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

Project T-CALL Summer School Science 6 23.7 0.8 6 15.8 5.4 12 19.8 5.5 Social Studies 3 23.0 1.0 6 16.3 6.7 9 18.6 6.3 ELI 14 23.9 0.3 8 17.5 4.6 22 21.6 4.1

Total 23 23.7 0.6 20 16.7 5.3 43 20.4 5.1

Reflection Meetings Science 4 11.8 0.5 8 6.9 3.6 12 8.5 3.7 Social Studies 1 11.0 8 6.6 3.1 9 7.1 3.2 ELI 8 11.5 0.5 14 5.7 2.6 22 7.8 3.5

Total 13 11.5 0.5 30 6.3 3.0 43 7.9 3.5

Achievement Outcome Measures

No acceptable data were available to measure students’ and interns’ academic

achievement. No pre- or post-test was given. The achievement measures that were available

were given eight weeks after the end of the program, thus allowing confounding variables (i.e.,

quality of instruction received after summer school) to influence achievement test scores. At the

focus group meeting, teachers recommended that Summer 2005 Project T-CALL students be

tested immediately before and after Project T-CALL summer school, so that teachers are aware

of their students’ academic needs and program effects on students and interns are identified.

27

28

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The Limited English Proficient Student Success Initiative, or more specifically, the

Teaming and Coaching for Accelerated Language Learning project (Project T-CALL), is a

summer school project, spanning two summers. Three main activities occurred during Summer

2004 of Project T-CALL: development and refinement of the Project T-CALL Guidebook,

containing six week-long lessons totaling over one hundred instructional hours; intensive training

of participating ESL and content teachers on the use of the guidebook; and teaming of ESL and

content teachers and bilingual student interns in the delivery of the guidebook. Summer 2005 will

include further refinement of the Project T-CALL Lesson Guidebook as it is implemented and

reflected upon by ESL and content teachers. After Summer 2005, Project T-CALL will no longer

be a project but will be a self-sustaining and replicable instructional and curricular model for all

future DISD training in ESL and “sheltered” content instruction.