Designing a vocabulary intervention with the boston public schools l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 32

Designing a Vocabulary Intervention with the Boston Public Schools PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 73 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Designing a Vocabulary Intervention with the Boston Public Schools. Strategic Education Research Partnership (SERP) American Educational Research Association Claire White April 10, 2007. Plan. Research Context: pilot schools Assessment data: establishing the need

Download Presentation

Designing a Vocabulary Intervention with the Boston Public Schools

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Designing a vocabulary intervention with the boston public schools l.jpg

Designing a Vocabulary Intervention with the Boston Public Schools

Strategic Education Research Partnership

(SERP)

American Educational Research Association

Claire White

April 10, 2007


Slide2 l.jpg

Plan

  • Research Context: pilot schools

  • Assessment data: establishing the need

  • Survey data: teacher perspectives

  • Effective vocabulary instruction

  • “Word Generation” intervention

  • Pre-test results

  • Criteria for effective implementation of WG


Steps forward l.jpg

Steps Forward

Pilot WG

Organizational

Survey

Now

WG pre-test

SERP sub-group

develops WG

GRADE

data

Teacher

Survey

Fall, 2005-2006


Pilot schools demographics l.jpg

Westfield

Middle School

80 % Black

16% Hispanic

1.8 White

1.6 Asian

29% Special Education

MCAS

Reilley

Middle School

62% Black

18.1 % Hispanic

9.3% White

8.9 % Asian

25% Special Education

MCAS

Pilot Schools/Demographics


Massachusetts comprehensive assessment system mcas results 2006 ela l.jpg

Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) Results 2006 (ELA)

  • Westfield

  • Reilley


Grade data 6 th grade l.jpg

GRADE data/6th grade

  • Reilley – 6th: 4.4 (mean stanine score)

    • 29% scored at the 3rd stanine or below (more than 1 standard deviation below the national mean)

  • Westfield- – 6th: 3.6 (mean stanine score)

    • 49% scored at the 3rd stanine or below (more than 1 standard deviation below the national mean)


Pilot schools survey data l.jpg

Pilot Schools- Survey data

  • Reilley: high internal accountability;

    strong teacher responsibility for student learning, strong instructional leadership

    2. Westfield: low internal coherence and accountability; weak teacher trust of colleagues and leadership; limited responsibility for student learning and student achievement


Leadership support for teachers l.jpg

Leadership support for teachers


Leadership involvement with tracking academic progress l.jpg

Leadership involvement with tracking academic progress


Teachers share beliefs about mission l.jpg

Teachers Share Beliefs About Mission


Slide11 l.jpg

  • School profiles and assessment data confirm the need for an instructional intervention

  • The internal trust and cohesion level of individual schools provided us with context for intervention design and implementation (level of support, etc.)


Research on vocabulary shows l.jpg

Research on Vocabulary Shows…

  • Poor comprehension outcomes in middle school not necessarily a product of poor word reading but lack of vocabulary and academic language (e.g., Buly & Valencia, 2003; August & Shanahan, 2006)

  • Lack of knowledge of the middle and lower frequency “academic “words encountered in middle and secondary school texts impedes comprehension of those texts (e.g., Stahl & Nagy, 2006; Stanovich, 1986; Carlo, 2005)


Vocabulary instruction in the middle school years l.jpg

Vocabulary Instruction in the Middle School Years

  • must be based on an understanding of the interrelatedness of content-area knowledge and academic language (e.g., Graves, 2006; Scarcella, 2003; Stahl & Nagy, 2006)

  • should occur through oral, reading, and writing activities throughout the content areas

  • should allow deeper explorations of language and should be rooted in text (e.g., Beck et al. 2002)


Challenges to vocabulary instruction l.jpg

Challenges to Vocabulary Instruction

Our initial classroom observations in BPS revealed:

  • Vocabulary is not usually taught

  • Instruction is fragmented between content areas

  • Texts fail to engage adolescents


Word generation program goals l.jpg

Word GenerationProgram Goals:

  • Build the vocabulary of middle school students through repeated exposure to high frequency academic words in various contexts;

  • Promote regular use of effective instructional strategies among teachers;

  • Facilitate faculty collaboration on a school-wide effort.


Word generation program features l.jpg

Word GenerationProgram Features:

  • Focus on the Academic Word List (AWL);

  • Materials designed for flexible use across the curriculum;

  • An expectation that schools will dedicate at least 10 instructional minutes a day;

  • An opportunity for each school team to design a practical implementation plan that suits its own particular school context.


Word generation materials l.jpg

Word Generation: Materials

  • 20 weeks, each focused on a set of 5 words

  • Controversial topics include: global warming, censorship, dress codes and schools, steroids and sports, junk food and schools, the ethics of cloning, etc.

Monday

Paragraph

introduces

words

Tuesday-Thursday

Content-area

word activities

Friday

Writing with

focus words


Pre launch vocabulary assessments l.jpg

Pre-launch Vocabulary Assessments

1. Vocabulary Self-Check (VSC)

  • student gauges his/her own level of knowledge about a word (40 items= 30 WG words and 10 non-words

    2. Multiple Choice (Pre-WG)

  • 30 WG words chosen from 100 WG words to be taught over 20-week intervention

“I do not“I have “I know something “I know it well

know it”heard of it” about it” and can use it.”


Multiple choice pre wg l.jpg

Multiple Choice (Pre-WG)

Sample items

1. She indicated that she was hungry. □ a. denied

□ b. thought

□ c. showed

□. d. indeed

2. He will analyze the information. □ a. ignore

□ b. anchor□ c. remember

□ d. examine


Westfield mc means and sd by grade n 265 l.jpg

Westfield MC Means and SD by Grade (n= 265)


Westfield multiple choice scores l.jpg

Westfield: Multiple Choice Scores

  • Average Performance by Grade

    • 6th 60% correct

    • 7th 67% correct

    • 8th 72% correct

  • Total % Correct across Grades: 66%


Reilley mc means and sd by grade l.jpg

Reilley MC Means and SD by Grade


Reilley multiple choice scores l.jpg

Reilley: Multiple Choice Scores

  • Average Performance by Grade

    • 6th 63% correct

    • 7th 66% correct

    • 8th 66% correct

  • Total % Correct across Grades: 65%


Words known by fewer than 50 of students l.jpg

Words Known by Fewer than 50% of Students


Self report on the same words l.jpg

Self-report on the same words

  • interpret: up to 85% said they knew it well

  • sufficient: up to 74% said they knew it well

  • diverse: up to 86% said they knew it well


Where are we with wg l.jpg

Where are we with WG?

  • Implementing Week 12

  • Collecting and coding writing samples

  • Collecting and coding teacher feedback

  • Gauging effective implementation through various data sources


Criteria for effective implementation of wg l.jpg

Criteria for Effective Implementation of WG

  • Focus on criteria for effective implementation and outcomes at:

    • Student level

    • Teacher level

    • School level


Student level l.jpg

Student Level

  • Effective use of words in natural interactions and weekly writing paragraph

  • Improvement in content-area language and vocabulary

  • Improved performance on post assessments


Teacher level l.jpg

Teacher Level

  • Improved knowledge of effective vocabulary strategies

  • Increased responsibility for teaching content through language and language through content

  • More opportunities provided by teachers for students to use academic language

  • Productive feedback/sharing of concerns through meetings and weekly evaluations on WG materials and activities for revisions


School level l.jpg

School Level

  • Higher level of cohesion and internal accountability (cooperation across the content areas)

  • Greater involvement by principals in disseminating and overseeing intervention

  • Shared commitment by leadership, teachers and students to developing and sustaining a school-wide word culture


Next steps l.jpg

Next steps

  • Continued documentation of effective implementation (classroom observations, interviews, video-recording) and effective instructional practices and word learning

  • Post –survey?

  • Post-assessment(May/June 2007)


Thanks to l.jpg

Thanks to

  • Joanna Christodoulu- Harvard Graduate School of Education

  • Michael Kieffer- Harvard Graduate School of Education

  • Michelle Forman- Harvard Graduate School of Education

  • Jeannette Mancilla-Martinez- Harvard Graduate School of Education

  • Sarah Meacham- SERP

  • Lasse Isakson- Harvard Graduate School of Education

  • Catherine Snow- Harvard Graduate School of Education

  • Jennifer Zeuli- Harvard Graduate School of Education


  • Login