TESOL 2014, Portland, Oregon, March 28, 2014
Building Bridges: A Pre-Ninth
Grade Intervention for Low
Literacy Newcomers
Deborah Short, Bridges Evaluator
Elaine Klein, Bridges Principal Investigator
Suzanna McNamara, Bridges Curriculum Coordinator
Annie Smith, Bridges PD Coordinator
Rebecca Curinga, Bridges Researcher
Brenda Custodio, Discussant
Website: http://bridges.ws.gc.cuny.edu/
BRIDGES
 Is a project of the Center for Advanced Study in
Education (CASE) and the Research Institute for the
Study of Language in Urban Society (RISLUS), The
Graduate Center, City University of New York
 Is generously supported by grants from
The NYC Department of Education
The NYS Education Department
 The NY Community Trust
3
Outline of TESOL Colloquium
• U.S. & NYC Context – Deborah Short, Academic
Language Research & Training
• Overview of Bridges Development and
Implementation – Elaine Klein, City University of
New York
• Bridges Curriculum Development – Suzanna
McNamara, Bronx International High School
• Bridges Professional Development and Coaching –
Annie Smith, Bright Minds Educational Consulting
• Bridges Research & Evaluation – Rebecca Curinga,
City University of New York, and Deborah Short
• Discussion – Brenda Custodio, Ohio State University
4
U.S. & NYC Context
for Newcomer
Students
6
Exemplary Programs for Newcomer ELLs
at the Secondary Level (2008-2011)
• National research study by Center for Applied Linguistics
• Survey of middle and high school programs
• Online, searchable database
(www.cal.org/CALWebDB/Newcomer)
• Case studies of 10 promising programs
• Report: Helping Newcomer Students
Succeed in Secondary Schools and
Beyond
(www.cal.org/help-newcomers-succeed)
7
Funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York
Newcomer students
are found in
every state in the U.S.
8
Newcomer Students –
Definitions Vary
Newcomer ELLs lack English proficiency and
have gaps in their educational backgrounds.
They may be
• Literate newcomers
• SIFE (students with interrupted formal
education) newcomers
• Late-entrant immigrant
newcomers
First
Language
Literacy
Grade Level
Content
Knowledge
English
Literacy
Development
Literate
(full
schooling)
+
+
faster
Literate
(partial
schooling)
+
-
average
SIFE
-
-
slower at first
Late entrants can fit into any of the categories.
10
Newcomer Programs
• Specifically designed for recent immigrants—
with no or limited English proficiency and
often limited formal education
• Enrollment is for a limited time
• Most are programs within a school
• May use sheltered instruction or bilingual
approach for curriculum, instruction and
assessment
• Most programs are for students who are not
ready for regular ESL 1 classes.
11
Newcomer Program Goals
• Help students acquire beginning English
skills
• Provide some instruction in core content
areas
• Guide student acculturation to U.S. schools
• Develop or strengthen native language
literacy
12
Newcomer Database Findings
• Over 90 countries of origin and 55 native
languages are represented.
• Student size in programs ranges from 9 students
in one high school to 930 in another.
• Some programs serve mostly refugees; others,
immigrants; and others, a mix.
• 96% of programs have some SIFE students.
• Over 90% of students qualify for free/reduced
lunch.
13
SIFE: Sub-group of Emergent
Bilinguals (EBs) in NYS HSs
 Adolescent newcomers
 Limited home language (L1) literacy
 Limited academic skills
 2+ years of educational gaps = SIFE
 Presently over 15,800 SIFE in NYC high
schools: 10% of total EBs; mostly in grades 912 (NYC DOE Demographic Report, 2013)
14
What do we know about students
like these in our schools?
EBs in NYC (NYCDOE Report: The Class of 2012 Four-Year
Longitudinal Report and 2011-2012 Event Dropout Rates)
 4-Year Graduation Rates: 44.5% EBs vs. 68.4% EPs
 Drop-out Rates: 18.8% EBs vs. 9.2% EPs
Note: 1/3 of all dropouts occur in 9th grade (AEE,
2010)
SIFE in NYC (Advocates for Children of New York, 2010)
 Performance on all measures is significantly below
other EBs’
16
Urgent need for dramatic
interventions to better serve
these students
 Klein & Martohardjono (2006)
 August & Shanahan (2006)
 DeCapua, Smathers & Tang (2007)
 Short & Fitzsimmons (2007)
 Garrison-Fletcher, Barrera-Tobon, Fredericks, Klein,
Martohardjono, O'Neill & Raña (2008)
 Advocates for Children Report (2010)
 Short & Boyson (2012)
17
Klein & Martohardjono, 2006
In NYC study of 107 Spanish-speaking 9th grade
SIFE, researchers found that of these students
 Almost all show typical language development in L1
(oral comp, lexicon, syntax, working memory)
 All show significant delays in
 Text–level reading skills in L1 (M: gr 3.5)
 Content area knowledge in L1 (M: gr 2)
 Only 6% had 2+year gaps in prior schooling
18
Accelerating language, literacy and content
learning for emergent bilinguals with limited
home language literacy
19
The Building of Bridges
Purpose and Objectives: To prepare students for
achievement in mainstream 9th grade classes and
subsequent grades by:
 Developing academic English language skills.
 Providing a rigorous, accelerated transitional program,
focused on building background content knowledge and
academic skills.
 Developing and implementing the Bridges Curriculum,
a research-based, interdisciplinary intervention that
integrates language, literacy and academic content
across ELA, Math, SS and Science.
 Developing and implementing strong professional
development (PD) for high school content area teachers
to deliver the Bridges Curriculum and its instructional
strategies.
20
21
Theoretical and Empirical
Framework, I
Very strong relationships between
 Academic achievement and academic
literacy (Cloud et al., 2010)
 Academic literacy in L1 and L2  Transfer
of skills (Cummins, 1979, 1981, 1984; Gilbert,
Lundstrum, & Moseley, 2005; August & Shanahan, 2006)
 Strong oral language and reading comp.
((L1) Goswami 2000; (L2) Freeman & Freeman, 2009;
Cloud et al., 2010): Vocabulary (e.g. Brisbois, 1995),
Morphology (Curinga, 2014), Syntax (Martohardjono
et al., 2005; Morvay, 2009)
22
Theoretical and Empirical
Framework, II
 Centrality of language and literacy in
 schema building (P.L. Carrell, 1984, 1987)
 content teaching (Janzen, 2008)
 Homogeneous/Sheltered grouping 
accessibility of content and language (Short,
2000; Tomlinson, 2003; Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007)
 Focus on input and interaction for
foundational  text level literacy (Long, 1980;
Gass & Madden, 1985; Mackey, 1999; Gass, 2008)
23
Theoretical and Empirical
Framework, III
 Socio-cultural theory  language learning
takes place in social context with help of
scaffolding (Gibbons, 2003; Walqui, 2006)
 More school time needed for EBs,
particularly SIFE, in order to develop
academic literacy and build schema
(Cummins, 2006; Klein & Martohardjono, 2006;
Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007; Goldenberg, 2008)
24
25
Our Bridges Students
Low-literacy high school newcomers:
 Home language reading and writing
assessed from intake diagnostics =
0 - 4th grade level
Diverse backgrounds, languages and
cultures
 Oral questionnaire administered in home
language upon entry to school
25
Bridges Students and Other Emergent
Bilinguals
Bridges Students
Other EBs
Similarities:
Similarities:
• Knowledge of home
language (L1) and
culture
• Little to no
knowledge of English
(L2)
• Age-appropriate
cognitive capacity
• Knowledge of home
language (L1) and
culture
• Little to no
knowledge of English
(L2)
• Age-appropriate
cognitive capacity
27
Bridges Students and Other Emergent
Bilinguals
Bridges Students
Other EBs
Differences:
Differences:
• Cannot read or write
proficiently in L1
• Reading skills in L1 are 5
grades or more below
grade level (i.e., 9th
grader reads at 4th grade
level, max)
• Severely limited oral
academic vocabulary and
content knowledge in L1
• Can read and write in L1
• Reading skills in L1 are
grade-level appropriate
• Grade-level appropriate
oral academic vocabulary
and content knowledge in
L1
28
What makes Bridges?
Students
School
Administrators
(20 max)
Teachers
(4 subj.)
Diagnostic
Assessments
Selection for
Team
Curriculum
Bridges Team
PD & Coaching
29
Evaluation
Math
ELA
Science
Social
Studies
33
Math
Science
ELA
Social
Studies
34
Bridges Implementation
Year One (2011-12): 4 NYC High Schools, 67
students entering 9th grade
 Bridges Curriculum devel. began (ELA, SS,
Sci, Math)
 PD for Bridges teachers began
Year Two (2012-13): 3 NYC High Schools, 58
students entering 9th grade
 Bridges Curriculum development cont’
 PD for Bridges teachers; Curric. Coaching
began
35
Bridges Implementation
Year Three (2013-14): 4 NYC High Schools,
77 students entering 9th grade
 PD for NYC SIFE teachers; Curric Coaching
cont’
 Upper NYS PDs began in 3 school
districts; program planning for Bridges
next year in these districts
 New SIFE Curriculum in ELA and FLL being
developed for NYS students, to be
completed late 2015
36
Reflections
 Collaborative design process; schools must take
ownership and custom-design program
 Bridges needs strong support/buy-in from school
administrators, who provide resources for Bridges
 Necessity for Bridges teachers to be open,
flexible, willing to work with challenging students
 Team meetings are essential and teachers need
extra time to meet and collaborate; Team Leader
needs released time
 Adequate PD is essential (quantity and quality)
39
40
Accelerating language, literacy and content
learning for emergent bilinguals with limited
home language literacy
Bridges Curriculum
Development
41
42
Acceleration in Bridges
Starting Point
Goal
Learn to
Read (basic)
Read to Learn
(academic)
LITERACY
No Print
Skills
CONCEPT
S
Immediate
Context
Academic
THINKING
Concrete &
Pragmatic
Academic
Abstract
Limited participation
in academic contexts
Full participation in
academic contexts
43
A Responsive Curriculum
Bridges Students
Low Literacy in any
Language
Bridges Curriculum
Teach learning to read
Limited Academic
Concepts
Build conceptual
knowledge
Academic/ Abstract
Thinking
Develop academic
language, literacy, &
habits of mind
44
Curriculum Features that
Promote Acceleration
1. Four subjects, four units
2. Interdisciplinary thematic connections
3. Projects driven by essential questions
4. Structured unit cycle across classes
45
1. Four Subjects
• Apprentice students into
each discipline
• Build high-traction concepts relevant to K12
• Include topics from K-8 (some 9)
• All teachers integrate content, language,
and literacy
46
2. Thematic & Interdisciplinary
• Overarching theme for each of the four units
across subjects
• Key concepts and essential questions linked
across classes to promote deep conceptual
knowledge
47
Interdisciplinary Units &
Essential Questions
48
Studying a Concept through
Discipline Lenses
historians
writers
Resources
mathematicians
scientists
49
3. Culminating Projects
• Units build toward project in Week 6 of each unit
• Synthesis of unit content and language
• Integration of listening, speaking, reading, writing
• Creative response to essential question that
engage and provoke inquiry
• Student-centered and collaborative
• Requires planning, organizing, and problem
solving
• Presentation of finished product
50
Unit 3
ELA
Project
51
52
53
4. Bridges Unit Cycle
WEEK
INSTRUCTIONAL FOCUS
1
Engage, Build Background & Introduce EQ
2
Case Study 1
Experience > Oral Language > Reading
3
Presentations > Writing
4
Case Study 2
Experience > Oral Language > Reading
5
Presentations > Writing
6
Synthesis: Creative Project & Presentation
7
Claim Evidence Talking & Writing: Response to EQ
54
Interdisciplinary Academic
Skills
Social
Studies
ELA
•Describe
•Explain
•Define
•Compare & Contrast
•Cause & Effect
•Main Idea & Detail
•Summarize
•Evaluate
•Claim-Evidence
Science
55
Math
Reflections
• Building the plane as we fly it
• Challenge of integrating multiple parts
• Learning to Read – underdeveloped
• Struggle to balance basic with academic
• Limited collaboration - designing, vetting,
and norming
• Curriculum needs to provide more
guidance for teachers (what and how)
56
Next Steps
• Regular collaboration on Bridges team for
vetting, norming, and refining the vision
• Tighter alignment of the many parts within and
across units
• Make the implicit pieces more explicit (e.g.,
interdisciplinary connections across classes)
• Develop more lesson plans to guide teachers
• More focused development of Learning to Read
• Integration of more technology
57
Bridges Professional
Development
58
Participating Schools
School A
School B
School C
• ELA content
& ESL
• Social
Studies (new
teacher)
• Science
• Math
• Lang and Lit
• ELA (ESL)
• Social
Studies (new
teacher)
• Science
• Math
• Drama
• Lang and Lit
(new
teacher)
• ELA (ESL)
• Social
Studies
• Science (new
teacher)
• Math (new
teacher)
• NLA
60
PD Objectives
• Share curriculum content and goals.
• Support teachers to develop
instruction using the curriculum
which integrates the Core
Instructional Elements.
• Foster a learning community among
teachers.
61
Core Instructional Elements
• Classroom environment as resource for
learning
• Oral language development
• Home language as a resource for learning
• Development of foundational literacy
• Integration of language, literacy and content
• Academic literacy
• Critical thinking
• Digital literacy
62
Session One
3 days in August
• Introduce Core Instructional Elements
• Classroom Culture and Community
• Critical Thinking: Essential Questions
• Comprehensible Input (reading)
• Home Language as a Resource
• Overview of Curriculum
63
September and October
64
Session Two
3 hours in November
• Introduce the observation protocol
• Introduce Bridges lesson template
• Introduce the distinction between
content and language objectives
65
Research Feedback: Areas for
Development
• Vocabulary instruction: recording and
interacting with words
• Content and language objectives
• Modeling of learning strategies
• Hands on practice with interaction
and elaboration
66
Moving Instruction Forward
• Focus PD on targeted topics given the
feedback from researchers and
coaches;
• Implement onsite coaching with clear
plan and protocols.
67
Session Three
2 hours in January
• Introduce onsite coaching
• Review content and language
objectives
• Share techniques to introduce
vocabulary
• Raise word awareness/play
68
Coaching Design
• Align all onsite training to training objectives.
• Following group PD sessions, all training
should align with and support content of
recent training.
• Use the lesson template to analyze and track
teacher progress.
• Provide teachers with timely feedback.
• Document training visits with teachers so that
we can both analyze teacher progress and
evaluate our own effectiveness.
69
Coaching Methods
• Model a method or a lesson and
debrief following the class.
• Co-plan a lesson, observe lesson and
debrief lesson with teacher.
• Cultivate opportunities for intervisitation.
71
Coaching Cycle
• Coach schedules a visit.
• Teacher and coach discuss topic and content of
lesson.
• Teacher shares lesson with coach (24 hours).
• Coach provides feedback (8 hours) before class.
• Coach observes the class.
• Debrief to reflect on the lesson as soon as
possible after it is taught.
• Coach provides teacher with written feedback
that includes next steps.
72
Reflection on PD
Establish shared instructional principles:
• Norm (through classroom
observation);
• Establish systems to ensure that work
on curriculum, PD and coaching are
integrated;
Balance presentation of methods and
opportunities for teacher application.
73
Reflections on Coaching
• Develop clear objectives for coaching and reflect
on progress;
• Set coaching goals with each teacher to
individualize approach;
• Ensure that teachers have adequate time with
the coach to foster development and
opportunity to act on feedback;
• Embed systems to support coherence and
shared understanding about curriculum and
instruction;
• Integrate collaborative opportunities for
teachers.
74
Moving Forward: 2013-14
• Provide teachers with planning year and more
training ‘up front’.
• Provide regular full day PD that highlights
methods using curriculum (every 6 weeks).
• Capture methods on video and use to develop
webinars;
• Provide sessions for administrators around
program design and instruction;
• Foster opportunities for inter-visitation within
and across schools.
75
Accelerating language, literacy and content
learning for emergent bilinguals with limited
home language literacy
76
Bridges
Year 2 Evaluation
77
Year 2 Evaluation Context
• 3 High Schools in NYC, 1 in Queens, 2 in
the Bronx (all in second year of
implementation)
• 13 Teachers in the Bridges program (social
studies, ELA/ESL, science, and math)
• 58 Students (although numbers varied
throughout the year)
78
Year 2 Evaluation
• Schools A & B: Specialized school with interdisciplinary, language through content approach. 9th
graders are all ELL. Separate classes for ESL instruction
are not usually offered. Periods last 1 hour.
- Bridges students on one team
- Have additional language and literacy course
• School C: typical high school with bilingual approach.
9th graders are ELLs and EOs. ELLs take an ESL class.
Periods last 45 min.
- Bridges students have 3 periods of English language
development (incl. Bridges ELA and ESL)
- Have native language arts classes too (Spanish,
Bangla)
79
Data Collection
Students:
• Background and demographic info (via interviews)
• Literacy assessments, pre- v. post-tests
• Writing samples, pre- v. post-tests
• Attendance
• Academic achievement (grades, standardized tests)
Teachers:
• Background and professional experience
• Observations (using a modified SIOP protocol)
• Interviews
80
Year 2 Students (N=58)
Student Gender
Female
22
Male
36
13-14 years old
18
17-18 years old
8
15-16 years old
32
Age
Home Language
Spanish
31
Wolof
4
Bangla
9
Other languages
10
Arabic
4
Native Country
Dominican Republic
19
African countries
13
Bangladesh
9
Central American countries
11
Yemen
4
USA/Puerto Rico
2
81
Year 2 Students (N=58)
SI FE Status
Yes
24
No
34
No gap
29
Less than 2 years
9
Never in school
2
Unknown length
3
2 or more years
7
No information
8
No literacy
12
Grs. 4-5
17
Gr. 3 or less
18
No information
11
No numeracy
16
Gr. 3
1
Grs. 1 or 2
37
No information
4
Gaps in Schooling
Home Language Reading Level
M ath Level
English Literacy Level (LAB-R score results)
Beginner
28
Advanced
2
Intermediate
23
No information
5
82
Year 2 Teachers
Teacher Gender
Female
7
Male
6
6
Other than English
7
Math
3
Science
3
Social Studies
3
ELA/ESL
4
4
2nd year
9
1-2 years
1
6-9 years
4
3-5 years
4
10+ years
4
1-2 years
1
5+ years
5
3-5 years
7
5+ years
2
Home Language
English
Subjects Taught
Bridges Teaching Experience
1st year
Teaching Experience
ELL Teaching Experience
SI FE Teaching Experience
1-2 years
6
3-5 years
5
83
Purposes of the Observations
• To record what is happening in Bridges
classrooms:
• Extent to which teachers implement the
Bridges curriculum & instructional practices
• To compare outcomes from pre-PD and
post-PD
• To inform future decisions:
• Curriculum & observation protocol revisions
• PD sessions (data-driven objectives)
84
Bridges SIOP Observation Protocol
Structure of the Protocol:
• 5-point rating scale
• 9 categories include: Learning Environment,
Lesson Preparation, Building Background,
Comprehensible Input, Learning Processes,
Interaction, Practice & Application, Lesson
Delivery, Review & Assessment
Sample Protocol Items Unique to Bridges:
• Classroom setting organized for literacy
• Basic literacy skills emphasized
85
Inter-rater Reliability training of observers
Teacher Observation Results
All Teachers
Schools
School A
School B
School C
Subjects
ELA
Math
Science
Global Studies
Fall
Percentage Score
53.8
Spring
Percentage Score
57.9
61.7
56.9
42.8
68.9
60.2
45.3
61.6
36.4
42.2
75.1
61.8
53.4
48.6
66.4
86
English Early Literacy LENS
English Early Literacy Data Collection:
• Pre-test (Nov 2012)
• Post-test (May 2013)
Structure of the Early Literacy LENS:
• Sounds and Letters
• Sound discrimination
• Sound-letter correspondence
• Early Reading
• Word reading
• Sentence matching to pictures
• Sentence prediction
87
Student English Early Literacy
Pre/Post Overall Results
Pre Mean
% correct
Post Mean
% correct
t
Sig.
English Early Literacy LENS (N=43)
All Total
65.3
76.7
5.01
.000
Sounds &
Letters
70.9
81.4
4.49
.000
Early Reading
55.0
67.8
3.96
.000
88
Student English Early Literacy
Pre/Post School Results
Pre Mean
% correct
Post Mean
% correct
Mean
Growth
English Early Literacy LENS
School A
67.6
78.0
10.4
School B
68.9
72.3
3.4
School C
57.1
79.7
22.6
89
Reading Comprehension LENS
Reading Comp. LENS Data Collection:
• Post-test (June 2013)
Structure of the Reading Comprehension LENS:
•
•
•
•
•
Researcher-constructed, based on NYS CCLS
Grades 2-6
Reading passages with 4-5 m/c questions
Balanced fiction and non-fiction
Initial understanding and interpretation items
90
Student English Reading Comp.
LENS Post Results
Post Mean
% correct
SD
English Reading Comp. LENS (N=46)
All Total
39.3
11.4
Initial Understanding
44.3
13.9
Interpretation
35.8
12.0
91
Student English Reading Comp.
LENS Post School Results
N
Mean %
Correct
SD
English Reading Comp. LENS
School A
16
35.1
12.4
School B
20
41.4
11.3
School C
10
41.8
8.6
92
Student English Reading Comp.
Grade Level Access Results
6th Grade
6
5th Grade
5
4th Grade
8
3rd Grade
14
2nd Grade
7
Below 2nd Grade
6
0
5
10
15
20
93
English Writing
Data Collection
• Pre-test (Nov 2012)
• Post-test (June 2013)
Writing Assessment
• Same/different task
• school or neighborhood in home country and US
• 7-point rating scale
• Adapted from 6+1 Traits Beginning Writer Rubric
Pre-writing sample, Bangla HL
94
English Writing Pre-Post
Samples
Pre-writing sample, Spanish HL
Post-writing sample, Spanish HL
95
Student English Writing
Pre/Post Overall Results
Pre
Mean score
English Writing (N=33)
1.3
All Total
1.5
Ideas
1.1
Organization
1.3
Voice
0.9
Word Choice
1.3
Fluency
1.4
Conventions
1.3
Presentation
Post
Mean score
t
Sig.
2.1
-7.27
.000
2.6
-5.40
.000
2.0
-6.12
.000
1.9
-3.69
.001
2.1
-7.86
.000
2.0
-5.10
.000
2.3
-6.52
.000
2.1
-6.51
.000
96
Student English Writing
Pre/Post School Results
Pre
Mean Score
Post
Mean Score
Mean
Growth
English Writing Overall
School A
1.3
2.1
0.8
School B
1.3
2.3
1.0
School C
1.0
1.8
0.8
97
Student English Pre/Post
Writing Level Results
0
low intermediate
2
1
high beginner
9
13
mid beginner
15
12
low beginner
6
7
only HL literacy
1
0
5
Pre-writing
10
Post-writing
15
20
98
Student Attendance
Bridges %
present
9th grade %
present
86.3
84.6
School A
84.7
87.8
School B
85.2
88.9
School C
90.7
77.1
All Bridges
99
Conclusions
• The Bridges Curriculum met the students at their
educational level and advanced their learning.
• Units integrated academic literacy and basic content
learning with critical thinking and project-based
learning but needs more basic English instruction.
• All four language skills were practiced daily.
• Students’ home language and cultures were respected
and valued. They learned about U.S. schools/culture.
• Students made significant gains in English reading and
writing.
• The PD needs to align more with the curriculum and
instructional vision.
100
Website: http://bridges.ws.gc.cuny.edu/
Accelerating language, literacy and content
learning for emergent bilinguals with limited
home language literacy
101