english language learner achievement: a mixed …

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER ACHIEVEMENT: A MIXED-METHODS

EXAMINATION OF A SEVEN-WEEK SUMMER INTERVENTION

___________________________________

By

R. Kent Yocum

___________________________________

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School of the Creighton University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in the Department

of Interdisciplinary Leadership

_________________________________

Omaha, NE

(August 7, 2015)

Copyright 2015, R. Kent Yocum

This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no part of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author.

iii

Abstract

The mixed methods convergent transformative research study examined the alignment

between student academic achievements over time against the beliefs of English

Language Learner (ELL) teachers’ perceptions of students’ achievement after

participation in a seven-week summer intervention. Three types of archived achievement

data were analyzed: reading comprehension, English language acquisition and state

standardized assessment. The quantitative data results suggested students that participated

in the intervention made higher trend growth over time in reading comprehension and

English language acquisition assessments when compared to the control group.

Standardized assessment scores were inconclusive. The results of qualitative interviews

with ELL teachers supported the beliefs the students that participated in the intervention

had increased achievement and the intervention helped slow or stop summer learning

regression. Together these findings indicate the intervention was a tool that can be

implemented in other districts to slow summer learning regression and close the

achievement gap for ELL students with the most language need.

Keywords: English language learner (ELL), summer learning regression,

achievement gap, English language intervention, early language intervention

iv

Dedication

Dedicated to Tak

You help me be a better person

You help me realize what is really important

You make me whole

I was proud to witness you BECOME an American

v

Acknowledgements

This project would not have been possible without the love, support and

encouragement of many individuals behind the scenes being my cheerleader. In my

personal life, Tak lived the dissertation writing process as much as I did. That required a

high level of patience, problem-solving ability, a willingness to listen to endless hours of

talking out loud and sometimes just listening to the grumbling. My mom knew when to

offer advice and when to not offer an opinion. My aunt Barb encouraged, encouraged,

and encouraged. You will never know how much it meant to have you come to

commencement. You have always been one of my biggest supporters and most powerful

motivators.

My dissertation committee gave me invaluable advice and guidance. Dr. Julie

Gaddie, my dissertation chair, endless thanks for going through this with me. I wouldn’t

be done without your help. You never let me off the hook or deviate when it got tough. I

picked you for a reason and never questioned the selection. I don’t think you knew what

you were in for and I can never thank you enough for your guidance. Dr. Jeff Ehrlich, a

brilliant man committed to education with the perfect question at the perfect time. Dr.

Jennifer Moss-Breen for taking on double duty of advising and dissertation committee

member. Dr. Donna Ehrlich, she knew my dissertation before I did and stepped in last

minute. That’s dedication.

In the professional realm, I have to thank Dr. Leah Copeland, my principal

through the whole process and receptive to all the questions about the process. Laura

Lukens, Lezlie Paden, and the entire ELL department for constant support, quick

responses to specific question and access to volumes of data and resources. Dr. Michael

vi

Pragman and Cindy Hedrick: the data gurus of the world. You have amazing minds and

you both always responded with “how can I help?” when I needed data insight. Mr.

Sutton, for granting me access. Dr. Todd White, the superintendent that had the vision for

a project that broke all the traditions/rules about what summer education looked like and

could be. He lives the phrase “doing what is right for kids” and inspires me to make the

same choices. Deyrle Wallace for letting his building be used for a grand experiment.

Shelly Sanders: my mental chiropractor that helped keep my head on straight. The

Winnwood teachers—the best teachers there are! They move kids—what more could you

ask! A special thanks to Danielle Bentley, a teacher extraordinaire and you know the

special place you hold in my heart. I can’t thank enough all the ELL teachers that

willingly gave their time in order to participate in the research study. In memory of

Lynda Callan, a soul who worked tirelessly to ensure kids were protected and

championed the cause of education among immigrant children.

vii

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Mixed Methods Purpose Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Method Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Delimitations and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Summer Learning Regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

viii

Regression in the General Student Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Poverty and Regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

The “Investment Model” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Socio-Economic Status and Summer Learning Regression Outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Long-term Impact of Regression on English Language Learner Students . . . . . 20

Other Contributing Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The Achievement Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Three Views of the Achievement Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

A Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Student Tracking and the Achievement Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Influence of Positive Culture on Gaps in Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Early Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Early Intervention in Language and Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

First Grade Intervention in Language and Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Native and English Early Oral Language Intervention and Long-term Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Academic Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Time spent on Learning as a Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Assessment as a Measure of Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

ix

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Description/Rationale of Participants/Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Inclusion and/or Exclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Variables/The Researcher’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Data Analysis Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Assumptions/Quality and Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Ethical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Review of the Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Data Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Quantitative Data Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Qualitative Data Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Quantitative Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

x

Reading Comprehension – Fountas and Pinnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

2011 cohort groups: Fountas and Pinnell reading comprehension . . . . . .79




English Language Acquisition – ACCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

2011 cohort groups: English language acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88



Standardized English Language Arts Content – MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92

2011 cohort groups: English language arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93



Qualitative Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Summer Learning Regression and the Achievement Gap Theme . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Access to Educational Resources Theme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

The Academic Calendar Theme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Curriculum and Program Goal of Developing English Language Proficiency Theme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Teacher Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Teacher A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Summer learning loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100

Academic calendar and curriculum connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

Intervention impact on assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

xi

Teacher B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Eliminating summer regression by teaching forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Confluence of time and educational resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Thematic learning units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Teacher C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Summer learning regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

The calendar and servicing more students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Thematic units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Teacher D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Summer regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Instructional calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Intervention and assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Teacher E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Program goals and learning loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Trajectory of students after intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Teacher F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Reading comprehension and intervention participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Impact on other assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Curriculum connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Teacher G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Intervention impact on assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Filling educational need during the summer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Calendar and intervention time frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

xii

Teacher H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Supporting students through the summer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Intervention and assessment relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Teacher I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

The intervention goal and learning regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

The intervention and the calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

The intervention and curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

The intervention and assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Summary of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Summary of the Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127

Central Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Quantitative Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Reading comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

English language acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Standardized assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Qualitative Question. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Summer learning regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Access to resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Academic calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Intervention goals and curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

xiii

Transformative Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Implications for Action/Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 135

Implications for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Recommendations for Action/Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

xiv

List of Tables

Page

Table 2.1. Characteristics of Academic Calendar Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 3.1. Archived Assessment Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 3.2. WIDA ACCESS Language Level Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Table 4.1. 3rd Grade ELA Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) Proficiency

by Subgroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Table 4.2. 4th Grade ELA Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) Proficiency by Subgroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Table 4.3. 5th Grade ELA Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) Proficiency by Subgroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Table 4.4. Fountas and Pinnell Reading Comprehension Proficiency Level by Grade Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Table 4.5. Assessment by Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Table 4.6. Interviewee Participation in ELL Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Table 4.7. Correlation and Interpretation of R-squared Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Table 4.8. 2012 Cohort Groups: Reading Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Table 4.9. 2013 Cohort Groups: Reading Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Table 4.10. 2014 Cohort Groups: Reading Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Table 4.11. 2011 Cohort Groups: English Language Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Table 4.12. 2012 Cohort Groups: English Language Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Table 4.13. 2013 Cohort Groups: English Language Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Table 4.14. 2011 Cohort Groups: English Language Arts Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Table 4.15. 2012 Cohort Groups: English Language Arts Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Table 4.16. 2013 Cohort Groups: English Language Arts Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

xv

Table 4.17. Percentage ELL, Free and Reduced Lunch and Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Table 5.1. Reading Comprehension Growth Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

xvi

List of Figures

Page

Figure 3.1. Transformative framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 4.1. Cohort 2011: Kindergarten Fountas and Pinnell benchmark reading comprehension assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 4.2. Cohort 2011: First grade Fountas and Pinnell benchmark reading comprehension assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Figure 4.3. Cohort 2011: Second grade Fountas and Pinnell benchmark reading comprehension assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Figure 4.4. Cohort 2011: Third grade Fountas and Pinnell benchmark reading comprehension assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Running head: ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER ACHIEVEMENT: A MIXED 1 METHODS EXAMINATION OF A SEVEN-WEEK SUMMER INTERVENTION

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem

From a historical perspective, summer learning regression has been of interest to

educational researchers for more than 100 years. The first definitive research conducted

by Heyns in the 1970’s acknowledged differences in family and community resources as

a leading gauge of summer learning regression and ultimately to the academic gap

between students of students of color and their white peers (Heyns, 1987; Cooper, Nye,

Charlton, Lindsay, & Greathouse, 1996; McCombs et al., 2011). As demographics of the

student population within the United States have changed, an increased number of

students learning English as a second language are falling into the lower quartile of

family income and adding an extra layer to an already complex issue (United States

Department of Education, 2014). At the same time, the Federal government has increased

accountability measures to ensure all students are meeting grade level academic goals

(NCLB, 2002; MSIP 5, 2011).

The summer vacation break is a fertile time period to examine when discussing

programs that bridge school years and staunch summer learning regression. McCombs et

al. (2014) noted, “students who attend summer programs have better outcomes than

similar peers who do not attend these programs” (p. xv) and suggested the effects can last

as long as two years after program participation. As the numbers of English Language

Learners increase, the cycle of regression impacts larger number of students annually.

Effective academic interventions for English Language Learners are an integral part of

building language and achievement competencies. The study will examine the

effectiveness of an extended summer intervention for English Language Leaners,

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER ACHIEVEMENT: A MIXED-METHODS EXAMINATION OF A SEVEN-WEEK SUMMER INTERVENTION

2

examining academic outcomes and educator perceptions of effectiveness. As the English

Language Learner population increases, so does the need for a broader base of research

and options for educators and policy makers to make programmatic and accountability

decisions. Summer interventions can provide a valuable scaffold and access to English

and grade level content to ensure students thrive through the rest of the academic year.

Lack of English language communication skills has been treated like a cognitive issue

and “just because you don’t speak English doesn’t mean you can’t think” (Checkley,

2014, para 4). In addition to adding to the knowledge base on English Language Learner

interventions, the population sampled in the study will provide depth of diversity in the

native language of participants, age ranges of participants, and the number of years

receiving English Language Learner services, that has not been available in the past.

The literature review will examine the summer learning regression and the

connection to the cumulative of gaps in achievement, in particular, among students

learning English as a second language. Other important aspects of the dialogue involve

early interventions, trends in summer programing and accountability as a reaction to the

research base already in existence. This combination of factors has led to the study on the

longitudinal trajectory of a seven-week summer intervention for English Language

Learner students and comparing learning outcomes of participants with the perceptions of

the English Language Learner teachers.

Statement of the Problem

The United States Department of Education (2104) noted for the 2014-2015

school year, minority students will outnumber their white peers and the number of

English Language Learners (ELL) is expected to increase over the next decade. Estimates


3

suggest, Hispanic, multi-racial, and Asian/Pacific Islander students will make the largest

categorical percentage gains over the next ten years with Spanish speaking students, both

immigrant and United States born, comprising the largest segment of the English

Language Learner population (United States Department of Education, 2014).

English instruction, as part of a comprehensive academic curriculum, has the

potential to develop approximately 4.7 million second language learners (United States

Department of Education, 2013) in the public school system into literate, multilingual

employees. The alternative is students that struggle with literacy in their native language

and second language. When looking at the research, McCombs et al. (2011) identified

minority and English Language Learners as disproportionately represented among low-

income families and the “subsequent inequities in educational attainment, in which

students from the bottom quartile of the income distribution are more than twice as likely

to drop out of high school as students from the top quartile” (p. 1). The potential for

dropping out can be traced directly to summer learning regression and gaps in academic

performance (McCombs et al., 2011).

The cumulative and disproportionate rate with which summer learning regression

impacts low-income students is a leading indicator of long-term academic growth

(McCombs et al., 2014). Among English Language Learners, the United States

Department of Education (2013) recognized English Language Learner students were on

average 36 points behind their English-speaking peers on fourth national normed reading

assessments and that gap increased to 44 points by eighth grade. In many communities,

limited access to quality educational resources through the summer is a major

contributing factor (Heyns, 1987; Cooper et al., 1996; McCombs et al., 2011).


4

Beyond meeting the academic needs of English Language Learners, the research

on longitudinal growth of English Language Leaners is limited and with increasing

accountability requirements, there is a need for research that contributes to the discussion

on effective summer learning interventions for English Language Leaner students.

Current research is focused on the identifying the root causes of summer learning

regression and the gap in academic achievement between students from low-income

families, with a particular emphasis on students that speak Spanish as a primary

language.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to explore the longitudinal reading comprehension,

English language acquisition and standardized assessment outcomes of English Language

Learners that participated in a seven-week summer intervention with the perceptions of

English Language Learners teachers of the participating students. A mixed methods study

was conducted due to the application of a transformative lens and benefits of quantitative

and qualitative data during data analysis.

Mixed Methods Purpose Statement

The study investigated the longitudinal learning outcomes of a seven-week

extended summer intervention for English Language Learners through a convergent

mixed-methods research design with a transformative theoretical perspective (Creswell &

Plano Clark, 2011). A transformative theoretical perspective was used in which advocacy

(Sweetman, Badiee, & Creswell, 2010) was the overarching framework for the study.

This lens was selected due to the dual social components of language and educational

equity addressed by the study (Sweetman, Badiee, & Creswell, 2010). The study included


5

quantitative and qualitative data gathered concurrently. The quantitative data was used to

examine the affect a seven-week extended summer intervention had on longitudinal

reading comprehension, language acquisition and statewide normed assessment

performance of English Language Learners in an K – 5 elementary setting. The

qualitative data explored the perceptions of English Language Leaner teachers of students

that participated in the extended summer intervention and whose archived data was

collected in the quantitative phase (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). A mixed methods

approach was used to determine the correlation between perceptions and achievement,

while adding to the discussion on policy and instructional decisions on programing for

English Language Learners.

Research Questions

The research questions provided a focus for each phase of the study, including

driving data collection and analysis during the quantitative and qualitative phases,

merging and analyzing the two data sets as a mixed methods study and addressing the

transformative framework. All research questions were inductive and were not

considered null or directional hypothesis based on previous research. The central research

question synthesized the results of the quantitative and qualitative questions and provided

the overarching guide to research.

Central Research Question: What are the congruencies between archived English

Language Learner students’ achievement data in reading comprehension, English

language acquisition and standardized assessment and the beliefs of English Language

Learner teachers’ about student academic outcomes after students participated in a seven-

week summer intervention?


6

Additional questions were developed to guide specific aspects of the study. For

this study, the quantitative question examined student academic achievement outcomes

after participating in a summer program against the academic achievement outcomes of

students that did not participate. Treatment groups based on family selected level of

student participation in the intervention were the variable and the control group was non-

participation in the intervention among a homogeneous group of students. The qualitative

research question was used to identify themes from interview responses conducted with

English Language Learner teachers of students that participated in the summer

intervention. The theoretical and philosophical lens of the fourth question used the

synthesized data to provide policy recommendations for a growing and underserved

student population.

Quantitative Research Question: Does a seven-week summer intervention for

English Language Learners influence longitudinal growth (growth toward grade level

proficiency standards over multiple years) in reading comprehension, English language

acquisition and statewide normed assessment outcomes?

Qualitative Research Question: What were the English Language Learner

teachers’ perceptions of students’ academic outcomes after students participated in a

seven-week summer intervention?

Transformative Research Question: What educational policy considerations can

be derived from the outcomes of this research?

Method Overview

The type of study design that best suit the research was a convergent

transformative mixed methods design with predetermined research questions. Creswell


7

and Plano Clark (2011) noted, a convergent model is incorporated into transformative

design with attention to appropriate use of social justice language. This study design was

convergent transformative in the merger of quantitative and qualitative during the data

analysis phase and in the enhanced understanding of inequities in educational

interventions for English Language Learners. Mixed methods were defined as research

where the “researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research

techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study” (Ponterotto,

Mathew, & Raughley, 2004, p. 43). The language of social justice is explained as

“investigators striving to simultaneously promote human development and the common

good through addressing challenges related to both individual and distributive justice.

Social justice research includes empowerment of the individual as well as the active

confrontation of injustice and inequality in society because they affect research

participants as well as those in their systematic contexts” (Ponterotto, Mathew, &

Raughley, 2004, p. 44).

A convergent transformative mixed methods study was selected to address the

lack of research that merged qualitative and qualitative data on the topic. A mixed

methods research design brings a richness and depth to the conversation that cannot be

accomplished through empirical or qualitative data alone. A transformative-based

theoretical framework is used to advance the conversation on educational outcomes for

English Language Learners, with specific recommendations for changes based on the

research outcomes. Creswell and Clark Plano (2014) further explained, triangulation of

the qualitative and quantitative data sets provides greater validity through “mutually

corroborated” (p. 62) findings. A mixed methods study offers a completeness or


8

comprehensive explanation of results that would not be accomplished through a single

methodology.

A challenge of this research method, and in particular this study, were ethical

considerations in addressing language and culture of participants in a neutral method of

discourse. To accomplish this, many definitions and descriptions were taken from the

Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology (Clauss-Ehlers, 2010), to provide a

broadly accepted reference tool to discuss the many dimensions of cross-cultural

language experience in the context of a school setting. In addition, to overcome bias or

leading interview questions, the qualitative data questions were drafted and reviewed by

an advisory board, including English Language Learner professionals. These challenges

related to the qualitative data phase, but attrition was a potential problem during the

quantitative phase, due to the high mobility of the population studied.

Definition of Terms

This research, the educational field, and in particular English Language Learner

education, has an abundance of technical and academic jargon that is specific to this field

of study. The following terms were used operationally within this study and included:

Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for

English Language Learners (ACCESS for ELLs): “a secure large-scale

English language proficiency assessment given to Kindergarten through 12th

graders who have been identified as English Language Learners (ELLs). It is

given annually in WIDA consortium member states to monitor students' progress

in acquiring academic English” (WIDA, ACCESS for ELLs Summative


9

Assessment, para. 1). For the purposes of this research, the scope will be limited

students in kindergarten through fifth grade.

Convergent Mixed Methods: research design method that merges data collected

from the quantitative and qualitative phases during data analysis to respond to the

research questions (Creswell, 2012, Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

English Language Learners (ELL): a student whose home or first language

(L1) is a language other than English and English language acquisition is a second

language (L2) that needs to be developed along with their first language. “ELLs

are individuals whose language proficiency limits their access to education”

(Solano-Flores, 2010, p. 427). Synonyms, as they may be used in the literature

review, include: second language learners, English Learners (EL), limited English

proficient, language minority, non-English speaking.

Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System: researchers Fountas and

Pinnell developed a continuum of specific reading and comprehension

“understandings that students must be acquire to become highly effective users of

oral and written language” (Fountas & Pinnell, 2007, p. 1). The Fountas and

Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System is a common, grade level reading

comprehension assessment to measure the skills proficient readers have a specific

grade levels. After analyzing assessment results, educators have targeted skills to

use for guiding student instruction.

Intervention: any educational strategy used to improve the academic and/or

language skills of students that have not met grade level proficiency or mastery on

specified skills or instructional standards. Interventions can occur during any


10

point of a child’s academic career and can occur during the school day,

afterschool, during the summer, can be mandatory or voluntary with the intent of

improving academic or language achievement.

Language acquisition: movement toward English language proficiency in the

four language domains: reading, writing, speaking and listening, as assessed

through standardized protocols across multiple content areas aligned with grade

level academic content vocabulary.

Longitudinal learning outcomes: researcher collects data about trends and

changes in learning outcomes within the same population over a one year, two

year, three year or four year time period (Creswell, 2012).

Missouri Assessment Program (MAP): “Missouri Assessment Program

assesses students’ progress toward mastery of the Show-Me Standards which are

the educational standards in Missouri” (Missouri Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education, Grade level section, para 1). For the purposes of this

research, the assessment will include third through fifth grade English Language

Arts scores, represented as a scaled score and proficiency level.

Norm-referenced Assessment: assessments used to “measure a person’s

performance in relation to the performance of others on the same test” (p. 689)

and are reported as age or grade equivalents and as percentiles (Chang & Kim,

2010).

Reading comprehension: the full range of skills necessary to develop literacy,

including, but not limited to: letter/sound correspondence, decoding, phonemic


11

awareness, fluency, word recognition and vocabulary, and strategies for creating

understanding, using oral language skills as the foundation for literacy skills.

Transformative theoretical/philosophical lens: a methodological framework or

perspective designed “for advancing the needs of underrepresented or

marginalized populations” (p. 96) while being sensitive to the cultural and

linguistic needs of the participating population with the results impacting social

justice for the group studied (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA): a consortium of

31 states for the purpose of advancing “academic language development and

academic achievement for linguistically diverse students through high quality

standards, assessments, research, and professional development for educators”

(WIDA, Mission and the WIDA story, para. 3). WIDA designed a standardized

English language proficiency assessment of students speaking, reading, writing,

and listening skills in grade level content and social skills.

Assumptions

The first assumption was the data collected for the research was a representative

sample of the archived data from the population of English Language Learner students in

the study. In addition, there was an assumption that responses received from the English

Language Learner teachers participating in the qualitative phase accurately reflected their

professional opinions and perceptions of students’ past academic performance. Lastly,

there was an assumption that all participants answered openly and honestly to the

interview questions.


12

Delimitations and Limitations

The primary delimitation of the study is “findings are true for all people in all

times and places” (Bryant, 2004, p. 57). For the quantitative phase, the assessments

represent the archival data of students comprising the various cohort groups, the specific

assessments, and the time period of the investigation. In addition, student cohort groups

were established based on the year of program participation and does not reflect the

number of years participating the intervention. The quantitative data does not project

future trajectory for other English Language Learner students. Data collected during the

quantitative phase reflected the current perception of interview participants at that

moment in time. A limitation of this mixed methods design, in particular the qualitative

phase of the study, are human memory and individual perceptions of events that have

occurred in the past. Since some of the educators interviewed were also teachers in the

intervention, there may be an unconscious tendency to provide responses with a positive

perception.

Significance of the Study

One point of significance rests in adding to the research on intervention

effectiveness for English Language Learners from diverse linguistic and cultural

backgrounds since the majority of previous research has been conducted using Spanish-

speaking English Language Leaners. In addition, the study broadens the base of

knowledge on summer interventions for English Language Leaners. Examining

longitudinal achievement of students’ reading, language acquisition and norm-referenced

assessments after participating in a seven-week summer intervention advances the

discussions about strategies for closing the learning gaps between second language


13

learners and their peers. In addition, combining the voice of classroom practitioners with

student performance data offers alternatives for educators and policy makers that work as

advocates for student populations that tend to be marginalized by language and family

resources.

Summary

In summary, the study examined the actual educational outcomes of English

Language Learners that participated in a seven-week summer intervention with the

perceived academic outcomes from English Language Learner teachers. The central

question guided the merger and synthesis of the quantitative and qualitative data phases

to determine commonalities and trends. The research was also guided by independent

quantitative and qualitative research questions. A transformative question was used to

direct the recommendations. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship

between the learning outcomes of English Language Learners that participated in a

seven-week summer intervention and the learning trajectory after participation. In

addition, the research set out to determine the trends and commonalities between student

learning outcomes and educator perceptions of student performance.


14

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Prior to initiating the seven-week summer intervention for English Language

Learner (ELL) students, the district participating in the study noted distinct academic

trends associated with the academic achievement of English Language Leaner students.

The first trend observed was the regression of English language and reading skills in the

fall following summer break, even if students participated in a traditional summer school

program (Lukens, personal communication, January 2014). If students participated in

summer school, the summer learning break was still seven to eight weeks long. The break

in learning spanned as much as 12 weeks if the students did not attend summer school.

Lukens (personal communication, January 2014) explained, Kansas City was

designated a primary destination for refugee families. As a result, an influx of Burmese,

Iraqi and African refugee families moved into the metropolitan area within a three-year

time period, nearly doubling the districts English Language Learner population. During

that time period, observed anecdotal evidence suggested a second trend among the

English language Learner students: families had limited economic resources and access

to educational resources within the community and were hindered by a cultural and

language divide or limited access to education prior to arriving in the United States

leading to a gap in achievement between English Language Learner students and their

white peers (Lukens, personal communication, January 2014).

In addition, there was a rise in the number of preschool and kindergarten age

children that were not prepared with the English language and academic skills necessary


15

to start school (Lukens, personal communication, January 2014). Early academic and

language interventions constitute the third local observed trend.

These three locally observed trends were used as the starting point for the themes

in the literature review. Additional themes examined the trends in accountability

measures, research on instructional calendar models and assessment as a method of

gauging English Language Learners students’ academic success. Each theme will move

from the global perspective of significance on students as a whole and progress to the

themes’ specific significance on English Language Learner students. A level of

interdependence exists between the themes, not in a linear, sequential or concentric

manner, but in the fact each theme can be viewed as variable within the other.

For the purpose of this literature review, electronic databases were queried using

key words from broad themes related to the topic of academic achievement of English

Language Learners, included, but not limited to: summer learning regression or summer

learning loss, the achievement gap, early intervention, modified calendar, accountability

trends and assessment.

Summer Learning Regression

For more than 100 years, researchers have examined the question of summer

learning regression and the answers are as essential in modern education as they were a

century ago (White, 1906 as cited by McLaughlin & Smink, 2010). For the purpose of

this study, summer learning regression or summer learning loss, was defined as the loss

of learning associated with the break in formal instruction that occurs during the summer

as measured by grade level assessments from the end of one academic year to the start of

the next academic school year (Marinez-Lora & Quintana, 2010). A vast knowledge base


16

on socio-economic status and its implication on summer learning regression have been

collected (Cooper et al., 1996). A century ago, in the United States, the majority of

immigrants were of European decent and relatively homogeneous (Hobbs & Stoops,

2002). In the interim, the population of the United States has more than tripled and the

population center has shifted westward and southward to reflect the patterns of internal

migration and new waves of immigration (Hobbs & Stoops, 2002). At the start of the 20th

century, “one out of eight Americans was of a race other than white; at the end of the

century, the ratio was one out of four” (Hobbs & Stoops, 2002, p. 71), adding to the racial

and language diversity of the country. With new populations of second language learners

impacting classrooms nation-wide, a new area of study has been added to the existing

knowledge base: summer learning regression among English Language Leaners (ELL)

students. Progressing through the review of literature on summer learning regression, it

was evident how difficult it is to isolate the factors of economic status, race, ethnicity and

native language and the relationship they have with one another.

Regression in the General Student Population

Starting with the perspective of summer learning regression among all students,

the research team of Cooper et al. (1996) noted the average student lost one month of

reading and math skills as gaged on benchmark assessments at the end of the school year

in the spring to the benchmark assessments at the start of school in the fall. Among

students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, however, summer learning loss was

more pronounced. This paralleled the findings in Summer Learning and the Effects of

Learning (Heyns, 1987), that summer could be used as a temporal control for the effect

of family background and cognitive development. As such, all children learned slower


17

during the summer, but the “effects of family background and race increase substantially”

(p. 1156) the cognitive inequality and discrepancies in cognitive growth existing in every

school. Heyns (1987) findings aligned with the findings of the Sustaining Effects Study

(SES) and “examined summer learning patterns without the lens of compensatory

education” (p. 1156).

Poverty and Regression

By comparison, the reading scores of middle-class students stayed relatively

stable while the reading scores of students from low socio-economic backgrounds fell

three months behind their more affluent peers. When the data collected by the National

Center for Educational Statistics (2013) on school age children living in poverty is added,

the depth of the issue can be seen in greater detail. “In 2012, approximately 21 percent of

school-age children in the United States were in families living in poverty. The

percentage of school-age children living in poverty ranged across the United States from

11 percent in North Dakota to 32 percent in the Mississippi”…and the “percentage was

higher than it was two decades earlier in 1990” (National Center for Educational

Statistics, Children Living in Poverty section, 2013, para. 1) with much of the poverty

concentrated in the rural south, the urban core and border states aligning with the

immigration patterns that established over the last century (Hobbs & Stoops, 2002).

Poverty and equitable access to educational resources are intertwined in the realm of

public education.

The “Investment Model”

In 2005, Borman, Benson, and Overman applied Becker’s (1981) theoretical

economic research on the “investment model” to summer learning regression. The


18

investment model suggests, parents apply various amount of capital: time, money, skills

and beliefs to their children, thus impacting a child’s cognitive development. High-

poverty families, compared to middle-class families, “tend to have fewer educational

resources within their homes and communities to provide opportunities to practice

reading and to learn new literacy skills” (Borman et al., 2005, p. 132), making in-school

learning time more valuable and increasing the potential for summer learning regression.

The findings of Borman et al. (2005) support the theory that children of disadvantaged

backgrounds suffer summer learning regression at higher levels and highlights the

necessity of having access to “material resources, social and psychological capital”

(p. 146) in addition to quality summer programs to create better learning outcomes.

The “investment model” researched by Borman et al., substantiated the “faucet

theory” of access to learning resources previously identified by Entwisle, Alexander and

Olsen (2001) in their research seeking to explain academic achievement differences

between students from middle class and poor families. When school is in session,

students from differing economic backgrounds make academic gains at a similar pace.

During the school year, the school resource faucet is turned on equally for all students

and turned off during the summer months, with poor families lacking the ability to

provide the same level of learning resources as provided by the school. A misconception

noted by the Entwisle et al. (2001) team was family resources only make a significant

difference in academic progress through the summer months when family resources are

needed to fill in the gap.

When looking at the influence of socio-economic status on summer learning as

reflected in the transition from kindergarten to first grade, the research follows a similar


19

pattern (Burkam, Ready, Lee, & LoGerfo, 2004). For sociologist, the relationship

between the start of formal education and family socio-economic status are inseparable

factors in the rapid cognitive growth of young children (Burkam et al., 2004). The

research of Burkam et al. (2004) identified family socio-economic status was strongly

associated with achievement and students from higher socio-economic backgrounds

outperformed their peers and participated in a greater number of activities as the family

socio-economic status increased. In references to the social justice lens of the

transformational research question, Burkam et al. (2004) identified less than 5% of the

higher socio-economic status and 16% of the lower socio-economic status students as

non-English speaking and a combined 60% of the lower economic status students were

black or Hispanic, strongly associating home-language and race with socio-economic

status.

The disadvantage can be seen in areas as simple as the number of words spoken to

children. Reardon (as cited in O’Brien, 2014) noted affluent families spend more time

talking with their children during some of the most critical developmental years, helping

build essential vocabulary skills. Often, up to three hours per week more than lower

income families. These statistics underscored the connection between race, economic and

language status and the subsequent impact of summer learning regression. In addition,

even among the youngest school age children, the link between access to resources

outside of school is evident in academic and language progress and growth. Allington

(2012) noted a similar discrepancy among struggling readers. Struggling readers did not

read the same high volume as more proficient readers, identifying limited home and

school resources as the source for reading deficiency. Allington (2012) expressed that


20

middle-income families averaged 199 books at home and 392 books in classroom library

while lowest income families averaged 0.4 books at home and 47 book in classroom

libraries (p. 87) drawing a stark contrast in the allocation of family resources available for

students learning over the summer and how limited volume of reading can exacerbate

summer learning regression.

Socio-Economic Status and Summer Learning Regression Outside the United States

The impact of socio-economic status on summer learning is a phenomenon

observed outside the borders of the United States as well. In a study of the summer

learning effect conducted in New Zealand, the research team of Jesson, McNaughton, and

Kolose (2014) noted, after five years of compulsory primary school education, the

cumulative effect of summer accounts for “more than half of the overall differences in

literacy achievement between low and high and contribute to on-going inequity in high

school placement, dropouts and college attendance” (p. 1). Recognizing summer learning

regression leads to the question of summer learning regression and the long-term

academic trajectory of ELL students.

Long-Term Impact of Regression on English Language Learner Students

The United States Department of Education (2013) noted the growth in the

number of students receiving English Language Learner services across the United

States. During the 2002-2003 school year, approximately 4.1 million students received

additional instructional support to learn English. Less than a decade later during the

2010-2011 academic years, nearly 4.7 million second language learners received

additional language support services. In Missouri, the English Language Learner student

population increased over 60% during the same time period (National Center for


21

Educational Statistics, 2013). In addition, reading scale score data collected by the

National Association of Educational Progress (NAEP) for the Department of Education

from 2002 to 2011 showed ELL students are 36 points behind their non-English

Language Learner peers in fourth grade and the gap increased to 44 points by the time

students reach eighth grade, suggesting summer learning regression has the same impact

on English Language Learner students as economically disadvantaged youth.

The research team of Patton and Reschly (2013) examined beginning of the year

and end of the year Reading Curriculum Based Measure (R-CBM) scores of 317 students

in second through fifth grades. The team disaggregated data by ethnicity, language,

family income and special education participation. The findings indicated a significant

reading level loss for students in second and third grade across all subgroups. “Even a

small drop over the summer could require weeks or even months to recover, which

creates a lag when students start school in the fall to when they exhibit growth beyond

their previous spring level” (Patton & Reschly, 2013, p. 748). English Language Learner

students start with a deficit due to language. In addition, limited language experience

paired with the lack of opportunity to practice the emergent language can intensify

learning loss over the summer months (Borman et al., 2005).

The literature pertaining to summer learning regression suggested learning loss

has compounded negative effects in long-term academic outcomes (Entwisle et al., 2001;

Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2007b). Among English Language Learner students, the

setbacks tend to be greater in part to inadequate access to reading or other educational

resources within the community. In a report by The Education Trust (2014, June), Latino

students are the largest segment of the English Language Learner population, but perform


22

below their non-white peers. The report highlighted data from the National Association

of Educational Progress (NAEP), that “in 2013, 19% of Latino students read at advanced

or proficient level on NAEP, compared with 45% of white fourth graders” and “white

eighth-graders were over twice as likely as Latino students to be proficient or advanced in

math” (p. 6). The Education Trust further explained, that while gains are being made,

only three out of ten Latino students took advanced placement math, only four out of ten

took advanced placement science, and less than half of the high school graduates met

college readiness benchmarks on the ACT.

Research conducted by Rojas and Iglesias (2013) on language acquisition

trajectory of Spanish-speaking English Language Learner students using summer break

as one “time-varying predictor” (p. 631) noted, “contrasting patterns of change over time

resulted in trajectories with periods of discontinuous growth during the summer” (p. 631).

The research tracked primary (Spanish) and second (English) language learning

simultaneously and the outcomes noted similar growth rates in both language and

reduced growth in English during the summer.

In contrast, Kohn (2012) expressed summer regression is a result of

misrepresentation and misidentification of a number of factors and are the result of a

flawed, “traditional” education process. First, students from lower socio-economic

backgrounds demonstrated learning loss when they are compared against their more

affluent peers, rather than comparing against a similar peer group. Kohn (2012) also

suggested relationship between summer learning regression and achievement gap

research is biased due to the continued reliance on standardized assessments and

assessments that focus on factual and process-based knowledge. The traditional education


23

model is broken, as noted by Kohn (2012) and a reliance on lecture as the primary

method of instructional delivery, outdated textbooks, inconsistent alignment between

grading practices and curriculum, outmoded assessments and incongruous homework

bears the responsibility for creating summer learning regression, not the time off

associated with the break.

In general, the research suggests there is a relationship between a two-month

summer break and cognitive learning loss in many different academic content areas. The

effect of summer learning regression is compounded due to educational resource equity

in the English Language Learner students’ community and schools. Across the literature

reviewed, the ability or inability to fully access instruction due to English language

proficiency has lasting long-term implications and leads to gaps between second

language learners and their English-speaking peers.

Other Contributing Factors

One contributing factor has been access to summer school programs. Summer

school has long been either voluntary or designed as a limited remediation program with

uneven distribution and access. “Racial differences are also apparent; most studies find

that the racial group most likely to attend is white children, followed by African-

American children, with Latino children attending at lower rates” (Miller, 2007, p. 8). In

addition, the quality of summer learning experiences in and out of school, access to

educational resources within the community, family socio-economic status, and the level

of student/family engagement in learning, subject matter and age of student (Heyns,

1987; Cooper et al., 1996; Alexander et al., 2007a; Borman et al., 2005; Fairchild &

Boulay, 2002) play a role in summer learning regression.


24

A report by Miller (2007) for the Nellie Mae Educational Foundation noted that

students in all socio-economic groups learned at about the same rate through the school

year, but inequities outside of school contribute to the learning regression gap as a result

of poverty, violence and discrimination within the community. As well, unintended

institutional racism, language barriers, low teacher expectations for achievement, and

lack of same-race or same language role models account for achievement differences in

elementary students, allowing students to get further behind in the early developmental

years and leading to fewer high level education opportunities and increased dropout rates

(Miller, 2007). For English Language Learners, these factors, in addition to cultural

beliefs and language add additional complexity to the issue (Graves, 2004; Burkam et al.,

2004; Rojas & Iglesias, 2013). For English Language Learners, the consequences of

summer learning loss are often visible in the academic achievement differences among

English Language Learner students and their white peers.

The Achievement Gap

Socio-economic and second language learner status has been linked in research as

contributing factors to summer learning regression. The body of research on the

achievement gap has only recently moved beyond historic notions of socio-economic

status and ethnicity as the only factors impacting the achievement gap. More recently,

acculturation, cultural beliefs and other psychological factors of associated with

belonging and fitting into in a new culture have become factors informing the

conversation about the achievement gap among English Language Learners (Hernandez,

2010). In the literature, however, the factors of socio-economic status, second language

learning and ethnicity are difficult to isolate, so for the purpose of this research, the term


25

“achievement gap” will be referred to and defined as differences or gap in academic

achievement among minority and/or English Language Learner students in comparison to

their white, native English speaking peers using a variety of academic achievement

measures.

Three Views of the Achievement Gap

The academic achievement gap theme will be viewed from three distinct

perspectives. First, Nisbett’s (2011) research examined the historic context of intelligence

testing and current system of tracking academic performance by race as a result of No

Child Left Behind legislation. Nisbett (2011) explored existing research and systems that

have been created to eliminate the achievement gap.

Second, researcher Chambers (2009) noted poor, minority, low achieving and

second language learner students do not receive the same psychological support as their

higher achieving peers, resulting in an accepted “culture of separation” that contributes to

the achievement gap. Students that receive support services, remediation, English

language services, etc., get used to being separated from their higher performing peers

and start to believe they are not as capable and do not receive the same affirmations about

what is necessary to be a successful student.

Finally, the research of Cohen (2006) added another dimension to the

psychological thread that runs through the other two factors in the achievement gaps:

positive affirmation for low performing students. The research suggests the link between

issue of under-performance and the relationship between group-identity in an educational

setting. Group identity is a component of acculturation among English language learners

(Hernandez, 2010).


26

A Historical Perspective

Nisbett’s (2011) research focused on the historical research of IQ testing and the

race/ethnicity misconceptions that were created by this early research. He asserted the

idea of the achievement gap has been perpetuated by these misconceptions, but it is

highly probable it can be eliminated in a very short period of time, three years, with

minimal change to the status quo.

Nisbett (2011) noted early IQ testing supported the idea that Black IQ was lower

than White IQ by about 15 points and the basis for this difference is genetic. Over time,

research examined the possibility of differences in socio-economic status for the disparity

in IQ scores between races. As reported in Nisbett (2011), several studies were conducted

to determine the effect of home environment on IQ. These included Black and Multi-

ethnic children adopted by Black and White families to see if there was a difference. For

the most part, there was not a difference in IQ. Moore (as cited in Nisbett, 2011) noted

Black and Multi-ethnic children adopted by middle-class families had increased IQ,

irrespective of the race of families. One of the key findings was identifying “within each

race, prior knowledge predicted learning and reasoning, but between races, only prior

knowledge differed, not reasoning ability” (p. 93).

This evidence led to the research of political scientist James Flynn. Flynn (as cited

in Nisbett, 2011) discovered that the IQ of the developed world had increased by 18

points from the mid-twentieth century to the 2000. Flynn expressed, “Our genes could

not have changed enough over such a brief period to account for the shift. The only

plausible explanation is that it was the result of powerful environmental factors” (Nisbett,

2011, p.93). There were big gains in all subgroups, such as English Language Learner,


27

during this period as well. During that time, the environmental influences for everyone

improved, and the research by the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP,

2009) supports that academic performance for Black students has improved at higher

rates than white students during this time period. This dispels the myth of black genetic

inferiority created by early IQ tests results. In the NAEP (2009) study, the Black student

subgroup encompasses native English speaking and non-English speaking students.

In addition, Nisbett (2011) examined several programs that have been successful

in narrowing the achievement gap, in particular, Jaime Escalante’s math program in East

Los Angeles, the Achievement First Schools and KIPP, a not-for-profit school system

that focus on students in low-income and minority neighborhoods, frequently with high

immigrant and English language learner populations. Nisbett (2011) also examined

voucher systems and the limited effect they had on student performance. Stanford

University psychologist, Dweck (as cited in Nisbett, 2011) identified the reason for the

limited effect of vouchers as voucher students were not part of the dominant culture due

to ethnic, racial, language or socio-economic differences and did not feel like they fit in.

The social cognitive development research of Olson and Dweck (2008) identified that

intelligence had been viewed as a fixed, innate trait. Olson and Dweck (2008) study

proposed that achievement motivation is highly influenced by positive environmental

factors, such as positive praise of effort rather than personal characteristics and impacted

life-long perception about achievement ability in an affirmative manner in poor, minority

students.


28

Student Tracking and the Gap in Achievement

The phrase “achievement gap” is loaded with assumptions about the educational

outputs and connotations of Black and Latino students’ inability to achieve in an

academic setting (Chambers, 2009). Chambers (2009) expressed the phrase “achievement

gap” puts the emphasis on the students’ lack of performance without placing any

responsibility for the learning process on the educators. In order to change that

perception, Chambers (2009) endorsed the notion of using the expression “receivement

gap” in order to understand the disparity in school finance, “lack of quality teachers,

residential segregation, access to technology, quality pre-school preparation, and home

support” (Chambers, p. 418) for Black and Latino students as indicators of a lack of

inputs that contribute to the gap in learning.

Chambers (2009) further suggested the tracking system established by many

districts and schools, often starting in elementary school, accentuates the dominant

culture divide by normalizing student segregation through English Language Learners

(ELL) pull-out services (when students are pulled from general education classes to

receive English language remediation or interventions), reading support for struggling

readers and special programs offerings for gifted education. The “normalization of

isolation” process actively discourages assimilation due to a “label” and serves to

heighten institutional differences in classroom environments and teacher management

styles (Chambers, 2009).

In addition, Chambers (2009) conducted a case study of a high school with an

informal three-track system: the bridge group, composed of students in an alternative

educational environment in the main campus building; a high-track group (frequently


29

referred to as college prep, honors, advanced or gifted course work in high school); and a

regular-track group (general education classes that lack advanced levels of rigor, but meet

the state requirements for graduation). Over one school year, the researcher interviewed

students and recorded observational notes on a weekly basis, as well as conducted

document analysis of student handbooks, registration materials and yearbooks to

substantiate peer group associations. During analysis of the data, one particular theme

became apparent in the conversations between participants. Assimilation or lack of

assimilation was a relevant component of the achievement gap. “This theme details a

process in which some students were actively encouraged to become part of or assimilate

to the school culture through the participation in special academic programs with elite

teachers, while others were discouraged or denied participation” (Chambers, p. 422). This

assertion was substantiated through accounts detailed by students. It was noted the

normalization of separation by educational programs, such as students in English

Language Learner programs, caused students to continuously move in isolated groups

socially and the stratification accelerated throughout high school.

Chambers (2009) conclusions included: (a) test results as achievement markers

alone are not adequate indicators of academic performance; (b) students have little

influence in selecting their track and early decisions about the resources students receive

impact their view of their ability; (c) focusing on standardized test scores of students

offers a post-mortem view of achievement; and (d) the effect is compounded yearly and

creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. The conclusions align with the research of

Howard (2006) with respect to white privilege in public education and the students’

ability or decision to assimilate to with the majority culture. This research implicated the


30

reliance on standardized testing as the primary metric for gauging academic success and

normalization of segregation through specialized educational programs as the leading

reasons for identification of the achievement gap (Chambers, 2009).

Influence of Positive Culture on Gaps in Achievement for ELLs

The normalization of separation for students that receive educational support

services, such as English language support, reinforced negative impressions of the

students’ own ability and institutionalized impressions of student ability (Chambers,

2009). However, can positive social-psychological interventions aimed at eliminating

negative stereotypes reaffirm self-adequacy and close the achievement gap? Timely and

targeted self-affirmations lessen perceived negative threats from testing and raise overall

student academic performance among African American students in data collected by

Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, and Master (2006). Cohen et al. (2006) conducted “two

randomized, double-blind field experiments and a second replication with different

cohorts of students” (p. 1307). In the study, students were asked to indicate their most

important value and wrote why these values were important to them. “Based on their

official transcripts, African Americans in the affirmation condition earned higher fall-

term grades in the targeted course than did those in the control condition” (p. 1308).

Cohen et al. (2006) noted no change in European American students grades in either the

affirmation group or the control group. The average benefit for African American

students, averaged over both studies, was nearly 70% improvement (Cohen et al., 2006).

The previously poor performing students had the greatest gain in performance. The

research also showed affirmation group students performed better not only in the targeted

courses, but is all courses.


31

The research of Cohen et al. (2006) revealed several significant implications

• there is a negative cycle of poor performance associated with perceived

testing threat of failure;

• a small reduction in perceived testing threat leads to sustained performance

gains;

• small improvements have a cumulative effect; the psychological effect of

gains has a positive impact on social experiences and elimination of perceived

environmental bias; and

• with necessary resources, a brief affirmation event starts a chain reaction of

positive social-psychological changes permitting sustainable academic

growth.

Educational outcomes for English Language Learners, faced with learning

English along with grade level academic content, face a gap in achievement in

comparison to their English-speaking peers. The Migration Policy Institute (Flores,

Batalova, & Fix, 2012) conducted a research study of “Ever-ELL” students in Texas for

the purpose of examining learning trajectory. “Ever-ELL” was defined as “students who

were ever classified as English Language Learner students who entered Texas schools in

the first grade and who advanced to the 12th grade” (Flores et al., 2012) at a rate of one

grade per year or “on time” to be compared against non-English Language Learner peers.

What the team discovered for the population studied was Hispanic, Asian, and

Black students were more likely to be economically disadvantaged with over 90% of the

Hispanic student receiving free and reduced lunch (Flores et al., 2012). This is significant

since English Language Learner students scored lower than their non-English Language


32

Learner peers in reading and math, at every grade from third through eleventh, on state

mandated accountability assessments of grade level proficiency. While there are points in

the English Language Learners academic careers where they are close to closing the

academic gap, they lag their non-English Language Learner peers their entire academic

career and putting students at risk for dropping out (Flores at al., 2012). The study also

examined academic performance in reading and math based on length of time receiving

English Language Learner services.

The research demonstrated the academic trajectory of students that exited English

Language Learner services early, within three years, was higher than their non-English

Language Learner peers in both math and reading. The longer the time frame a student

received services, the lower the performance, with sporadic periods of growth and decline

across their academic career (Flores et al., 2012). In the study, race and ethnicity of

English Language learners had a high correlation to academic performance, high school

graduation, and post-high school outcomes. One notable outcome was that English

Language Learner classification does not translate to poor academic outcomes over the

entirety of an academic career.

Intervention

Educational interventions take many forms: summer school, after-school, and

during the day. They also occur for a variety of reasons, including remediation or

enrichment. However, several factors with the most impact are the quality of the

programming and intervening at the earliest possible age (Heyns, 1987; McCombs,

Augustine & Schwartz, 2010; Alexander et al., 2007a; Miller, 2007; Allington et al.,

2010) will be discussed as part of this theme.


33

High quality early educational interventions lead to better long-term academic

gains and increased cognitive development among children living in poverty, but low

income families are less likely to access educational programs for their children (The

Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013). Meeting developmental milestones are essential for

success in school and life, with below average language and cognitive skills likely to

follow a student through their academic career (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013).

Data collected by The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2013) demonstrated the level of delay

among third graders across the country: 48% of white, 14% of black, 19% of Hispanic,

and 19% of low income students meet cognitive knowledge and skills criteria in reading,

math and science by third grade. By fourth grade, 83% of black, 81% of Hispanic, 49%

of Asian/Pacific Islander, 78% of American Indian/Native American, 61% of multi-

racial, and 93% of dual-language learners score below proficient in reading (The Annie

E. Casey Foundation, 2014), demonstrating the need for early intervention in cognitive

and language skills.

Early Interventions

Data collected by the Casey Foundation (2014), as mentioned in the previous

paragraph, noted the speed in which students from low income families fell behind their

more affluent peers, emphasizing the opportune time to intervene is while the academic

gaps are smallest and students are at the youngest age possible. Poverty is a factor

limiting emergent language skills and early literacy (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) in

both native and second language acquisition. Children living in poverty and acquiring a

new language have an increased likelihood of reading difficulties and negative academic

outcomes (August & Hakuta, 1997). To increase academic preparedness in student


34

entering kindergarten, in 2002, the United States Department of Education instituted the

Early Reading First and Reading First programs, as part of the No Child Left Behind Act

of 2001, with the goals of developing centers to serve low-income families in preparing

“early language, cognitive and pre-reading skills for continued school success” (Program

Description section, para. 1) in pre-school and kindergarten age students. Entwisle and

Alexander (1998) described the importance of early intervention for pre-school students

to reach cognitive development benchmarks. In addition, the researchers noted the role

school environment plays in students achieving critical academic milestones, especially

among young students.

Early Intervention in Language and Literacy

The research team of Wilson, Dickinson and Rowe (2013) examined the language

and literacy outcomes of monolingual English speaking and non-English speaking

students from similar socio-economic backgrounds that participated in the Early Reading

First program. The Early Reading First program was established as an initiative under the

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, to provide targeted funding to support the language

development needs of low-income and non-English speaking families prior to entering

school. The program provided professional development for staff, an evidence based

literacy-focused curricula for students and materials to combat the issues of inequity in

socio-economic background, cultural differences in beliefs about education, variances in

community or school resources and home language. Wilson et al. (2013) found English

Language Learner pre-school students that participated in the program “began

kindergarten at the same level (or better) than the non-English Language Learners”

(p. 586) using the Woodcock-Johnson Letter-Word Identification skill assessment and in


35

the three cohort groups of English Language Learners, the “program produced

statistically significant effects on letter-word identification” (p. 586).

Beyond increases in letter-word identification, the Early Reading First program

demonstrated improvements in English Language Learner students’ receptive vocabulary

(aural identification), expressive vocabulary (oral vocabulary) and spelling. Only one of

the three cohorts demonstrated significant improvement in oral comprehension. Overall,

the research findings of Wilson et al. (2013) would support the notion of including pre-

kindergarten students in an extended summer program for ELL students with a high-

quality, literacy rich curriculum prior to entering kindergarten. The research revealed the

success of early intervention in pre-school, but is the impact intervention as significant

when an ELL student is a low reader in first grade?

First Grade Intervention in Language and Literacy

Wilson et al. (2013) noted evidence of significant gains with pre-school

intervention through the Early Reading First program. However, as students age, are

academic and language interventions as impactful? Kelly, Gomez-Bellange, Chen, and

Schultz (2008) examined the issues for early interventions for English Language Learner

below reading level in first grade. Using Reading Recovery®, a commonly used

intervention system, the researchers used pre and post assessments measures to track

literacy outcomes among native and non-native English speakers. The measures tracked

phonemic awareness, one of the skills necessary for early reading skills

August and Hakuta (1997) suggested early intervention is more important than

language instruction for non-English fluent students and improves overall language

proficiency. The research results from Kelly et al. (2008) indicated that first grade


36

English Language Learner students receiving early intervention “reached average reading

levels relative to their classroom peers” (p. 252). In addition, the results were consistent

with students learning English as a second language in England and New Zealand.

Researchers conducted “in England and in New Zealand reported similar rates of success

for English Language Learners as for native English speaking children” (Kelly et al., p.

240). As well, Entwisle and Alexander (1998) described pre-school through first grade as

critical for language and cognitive development as students are instructed in increasingly

larger groups as they approach intermediate levels of elementary school, coinciding with

immense changes in students’ social environment and self-perception.

Native and English Early Oral Language Intervention and Long-term Growth

Spanish is one of the dominant native languages within most school districts

(United States Department of Education, 2014). As a result, an understanding of the

connection between early oral language and reading development among Spanish-

speaking English Language Learner students and long-term academic growth is a

consideration for instructional policy decisions. Alexander et al. (2007b) noted the lasting

impact of learning regression among non-English fluent students and the need for

opportunities that neutralize the effect of limited educational resources outside of the

classroom and early instructional intervention in oral language is one potential

opportunity for educators to equalize educational outcomes. Kieffer (2012) explored this

connection between early oral language development among Spanish-speaking students

and long-term growth.

The National Early Literacy Panel (2008) identified oral language, in both first

and second languages, as one of the best predictors of reading ability as student mature.


37

Kieffer (2012) tested the oral language predictability assertion, exploring Spanish and

English language oral proficiency relationships against later reading comprehension

levels. Kieffer’s (2012) findings, controlling for socio-economic status, noted the effect

size (.20-.29) indicated a small to moderate relationship between early oral language

acquisition, in pre-school and kindergarten, and reading ability in later grades and is

comparable to native English speaking peers (p. 153). This held true for oral language

skills in native language as well as in the second language of English, but English

language expressive vocabulary had the highest correlation to success. This indicates the

need to ensure productive oral language opportunities are part of kindergarten and

preschool curriculum to cultivate oral language skills of native English speakers and

second language learners.

Trends

Nationally and locally, educators and policy makers are responding to trends in

accountability legislation and new instructional standards, increasing instructional

minutes through differentiated calendar structures, and assessment as a tool for gauging

academic achievement. Accountability has taken on new importance with measures to

ensure achievement for all students. Suzuki, Ngo, and Kuger (2010) noted the historical

context of using linguistic and cultural “disadvantage” as a method of explaining subpar

performance of English Language Learners and ethnic minority students. In addition,

English Language learner students had been excluded from accountability measures or

were not held to the same academic standards as their peers as a result of educators’

thinking about second language learners (Coltrane, 2002).


38

Accountability

Accountability for student achievement has been at the forefront of educational

policy with approval of the No Child Left Behind Act (2002), but it is not a new

discussion. The purpose of the legislation is to “ensure that all children have a fair, equal,

and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum,

proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic

assessments” (NCLB, 2002). Key features of the legislation include: common

expectations for all students, meeting the needs students in high-poverty neighborhoods,

English language learners and students with disabilities, and closing the gap between

minority students and non-minority students through the use of high quality, rigorous

assessments of the states’ design. Despite the efforts of NCLB, “during 2005-2006, 71%

of all eight grade English Language Learners who were assessed achieved below basic

levels, 24% scored at basic levels, and 4% scored at proficient levels in standardized

reading assessments” (DaSilva Iddings, 2010, p. 970). More recently, states have been

adopting the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) or a local version based on the CCSS,

as the model to increase accountability, uniformity and consistency across grade level and

content curriculum from state to state and as a curricular mandate, is largely outside of the

scope of this research and the literature review.

Missouri’s new accountability standards are Missouri School Improvement Plan 5

(MSIP 5) and include some significant changes. MSIP 5 (2011) changed two of the

accountably criteria to reflect the federal criteria, focusing efforts on academic

achievement and subgroup performance. MSIP 5 (2011) requires school districts to

demonstrate improvement over time on the state department of education assessment and


39

meet growth goals on assessments. Missouri also created a super subgroup comprised of

students qualifying for free and reduced lunch, English Language Learner students,

students with disabilities, Latino/Hispanic and Black students. In the past, if subgroup

categories were under a certain threshold, the subgroup did not have to be counted and

some students were counted under multiple subgroups. With the current accountability

measures, all students are counted once if they meet any subgroup criteria. All students

are expected to meet the same grade level performance standards, with the exception of

English Language Learner students in the United States less the one-year.

The literature on accountability dates back to the turn of the twentieth century and

as noted in NCLB (2002), closing the gap in academic performance between white and

non-white students is one of the goals.

Academic Calendar

As noted earlier in the research of Entwisle, Alexander and Olsen (2001),

examining the academic calendar relates to the analogy of education as a “faucet” that is

turned off for many students during the summer. Cooper et al. (1996) identified the

structure of the current academic calendar as a result of combining the different

community based school calendars in use before the turn of the twentieth century. School

calendars were designed to meet the needs of the community. A rural school’s academic

calendar was fashioned around harvest and planting seasons and students would attend

school for five to six months of the year. The urban school schedules during the same

time period were typically on an 11-month instructional calendar (Cooper et al., 1996).

However, shortly after the turn of the century, “the implementation of standardized grade

level curricula created pressure to also standardize the amount of time students spent in


40

school. The present nine-month calendar, under which schools are closed in summer,

emerged as the norm when 85% of Americans were involved in agriculture. Today, about

3% of Americans’ livelihood is tied to the agriculture cycle, but the school calendars

have not changed” (p. 228).

The current 180-day calendar adopted by most states and districts, for the purpose

of this discussion will be defined as the traditional school calendar. Johnson and Spradlin

(2007) noted, “the traditional 180-day school year is largely a given. Some states vary on

the exact number of days, but most are reasonably close to the 180-day gold standard,

with 29 states and the District of Columbia requiring exactly 180-days” (p. 2). Year-

round school, as defined by Johnson and Spradlin (2007), “redistributes the school days

throughout the year, eliminating a long summer vacation in lieu of shorter breaks” (p. 3).

In essence, both year-round calendar and traditional calendar models consist of 180 days

with instructional and vacation days spread at various intervals throughout the year. The

definition of extended year calendar is adding additional instructional days. Delineation

of calendar characteristics by type is detailed in table 2.1.

Table 2.1

Characteristics of Academic Calendar Types

Calendar type Number of Instructional days Length of vacation calendar days before break Traditional 180 days varied 1 long (30–60 days) Multiple short (1-2 wks) Multi-track (45/15) 180 days 45 days 15 days Multi-track (60/20) 180 days 60 days 20 days Multi-track (90/30) 180 days 90 days 30 days Extended year 210 days varied multiple short (1-2 wks)

Note. Adapted from “Year-Round Education Program Guide,” by California Department

of Education (2013).


41

The research around the success of year-round education is mixed. In one study

conducted by Bradley McMullen (2001) in a statewide evaluation of North Carolina

found student performance in year-round schools was no higher than student performance

in traditional calendar schools. “Initial analyses indicated no statistically significant

differences in either reading or mathematics achievement” (p. 72) but acknowledged that

socio-economic homogeneity of multi-track schools created differences in academic

achievement.

A longitudinal study conducted in California found single-track and multi-track

year-round calendars had significant negative impact on standardized test scores of low

socio-economic status, limited English proficient, Hispanic and Latino, and African

American students. Graves (2010) noted the “importance of understanding unintended

impacts of school programs on academic achievement of disadvantaged and minority

students” (p. 1281) and the decision for year-round school calendars should not be based

solely on combating summer regression since the total time spent outside of school

remains the same as traditional calendars. Other considerations are academic

environments, including the quality of classroom instruction and effective use of time

resources, such as interventions. “A common thread that runs through the motivation

behind each of these studies on disadvantaged student subgroups is their different

exposure to better or worse academic environments” (Graves, 2010, p. 1283). Both of

these studies acknowledge that there may not have been gains for students in year-round

schools, and factors other than the calendar structure could contribute to this result

(Graves, 2010; McMullin, 2001).


42

In respect to meeting the diverse learning needs of students, the California

Department of Education After School Division released the Quality Standards for

Expanded Learning (2014) as part of the state’s education strategic plan. In the plan,

California defines expanded learning as “before, and after school, summer, and

intersession learning programs” (p. 3) to meet all the need social and educational needs of

students through quality, student-centered, research based school and community

learning partnership. A key component is acknowledging the differentiated needs of

students and providing the opportunities with sustainable and fiscally responsible

choices.

Learning in Afterschool and Summer (n.d.) noted extended learning aligns with

recent brain research and learning goals associated with the common core and workforce

skills that will be needed in the coming years. The number of out-of-school hours

presents both challenges and opportunities (Carnegie Corporation, 1992; Learning in

After School and Summer, n.d.) for developing students into productive members of

society and overcoming the limitations of the environment in the community. In

particular, Carnegie (1992) noted young people “want more regular contact with adults

who care about and respect them” (p.11) while socializing with their peers and avoiding

loneliness.

The school can be the stabilizing factor for students, when you consider the whole

learning environment for shaping student success. The brain-based learning research of

Cave, Ludwar, and Williams (n.d.) explained the importance of acknowledging home and

community as key aspects of a students’ learning environment. More time at school

mitigates community factors.


43

Research conducted by Stanat, Becker, Baumert, Ludtke and Eckhardt (2012) in

Germany concluded that immigrant students learning German as a second language

performed significantly better in grammar, vocabulary and reading after participating in a

summer school program focusing on explicit and implicit instruction on second language

usage. The research of Cornelius and Semmel (1982) identified students with learning

disabilities regress in reading when they have extended breaks, but a five-week summer

school reading intervention help recoup the summer learning loss. Cornelius and Semmel

(1982) conclude the placement of the summer program at the beginning of the break had

greater impact than at the end of the summer. The research of Cornelius and Semmel

(1982) points to importance of interventions. The literature on the effectiveness of the

calendar structure is inconclusive, but it does highlight the need for quality educational

programs, instructional practices and effective use of time as ingredients for successful

programing with an emphasis on maximizing cumulative time spent engaged in active

learning.

Time Spent Learning as a Factor

The purpose of attending summer school is to increase the amount of time spent

involved in active learning. Miller (2007) explained “increasing the time that children

spend reading is the single most powerful strategy for improving literacy skills in

fluency, vocabulary and comprehension” (p. 9). Building programs that focus on building

relationships and developing strong racial/ethnic identities are just as important for

counteracting achievement gaps by race and language as countering income related

achievement gaps (Miller, 2007).


44

Kelly Gallagher (2009) noted some facts demonstrating the decline in the amount

of time spent on reading: less than one-third of 13 year olds are daily readers, a 14%

decline from twenty years earlier; and students age 15 to 24 spend about two hours a day

watching television, but only seven minutes a day reading. (p. 41). Educational

researcher, Richard Allington (2012) found a similar pattern for learners that are

struggling. Further noted, more time spent reading, at home or in school correlated with

higher reading scores. Increased reading volume, counted as more words, more pages or

more books or more time, resulted in better reading comprehension. Allington (2012)

explained, in the classroom with effective reading instruction, students had upwards of 60

minutes of uninterrupted reading time and summer reading programs with intensive,

expert instruction can minimize summer learning regression and gaps in achievement

while accelerating literacy. Allington (2012) further suggested summer last “eight to ten

weeks” (p. 191) for maximum effectiveness. Research conducted by the Center for

Applied Linguistics (2007) reported on the effects of increased instructional hours for

English Language Learners.

The focus of the Center for Applied Linguistics (2007) study was the relationship

between instructional hours and intensity of instruction on oral language proficiency

gains using the BEST Plus, as English language proficiency assessment tool. The results

of the study indicated, “the greater the number of instructional hours, the higher the

percentage the percentage of students who made level gains” (Young, 2007, p.1) among

students at all proficiency levels. It was also noted, intensity of instruction had the

greatest impact on student at the lowest level of proficiency (Young, 2007).


45

Assessment as a Measure of Academic Achievement

Assessment of students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds offers a

number of challenges. One challenge is test and item bias to the extent items or test are

“culturally loaded” in favor of the dominant culture or the test taker would be required to

have a minimum level of knowledge or understanding of cultural values to be successful

(Suzuki, Ngo, & Kuger, 2010). Norming is a second challenge to testing. Students from

diverse backgrounds are not represented in the norming sample in the same proportion as

the actual population being assessed (Suzuki, Ngo, & Kuger, 2010). Both of these

challenges are attributed to cultural variables of acculturation, educational background or

experience, language, and socio-economic status (Suzuki, Ngo, & Kuger, 2010). Some

researchers argue it is necessary to move beyond examining bias and moving toward

implementation of culturally competent assessment.

Culturally competent assessment, in the frame of English Language Learners,

involves using assessment tools that are designed for fluent English speaking peers.

Many testing tools rely heavily on English language ability and fluency, “as a result, the

validity of these instruments may be influenced by a child’s level of acculturation”

(Perez, Harris, Martinez, & Ridley, 2010, p. 336) and does not reflect the student’s ability

to achieve academically.

In a report by the Center for Applied Linguistics (2013) on the implementation of

the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and assessment of the standards, the report

identified the opportunities presented. One benefit identified was the “attention to

language in the content areas for all students, thus English learners may be more likely to

experience language-focused instruction” (Duguay, Massoud, Tabuku, Himmel, &


46

Sugarman, 2013, p. 17). In addition, CAL (2013) noted, English Language Learner

students can meaningfully participate in CCSS instructional activities and assessments,

with proper linguistic support and time, since missing rigorous grade level content

instruction would hinder opportunities for engagement in intellectually challenging

engagement with their English speaking peers.

Summary

The literature review examined summer learning regression, gaps in academic

achievement and early academic interventions among English Language Learner

students, based on the locally observed trends that guided the creation of the seven-week

extended summer intervention. In addition, trends in accountability, school year calendar

structure and second language learning as a factor for gauging the language and overall

academic performance of English Language Learners were reviewed. The literature

supports the cumulative effect of summer learning loss and gaps in learning achievement

between English Language Learners and their native English-speaking peers. The

research suggests early interventions can be a tool in combating summer learning

regression and filling the linguistic and cognitive skill needs of students. Schools are key

in bridging summer learning and the achievement gap by filling the educational resource

void, but only if filled with quality instruction in programs that complement and align

with learning through the rest of the year (Harris & Wallace, 2012). The literature

suggests the ideas that increased accountability standards and changes to calendar

structure are possible tools to fill the summer resource void for English Language

Learner students. The literature review leads to the examination of the learning trajectory

of English Language Learner students that have participated in a seven-week summer


47

intervention and the perceptions of academic outcomes of the English Language Learner

teachers.


48

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The intention of the study was to gain insights into the effectiveness of a seven-

week summer intervention for English Language Learners through three performance

measures (English language proficiency, reading comprehension, statewide norm

referenced assessments) and English Language Learner teacher interviews about

perceptions of student performance after participation in the intervention. The purpose of

the convergent transformative mixed methods study was to converge the students’

quantitative assessment data with interview data from English Language Learners

teachers’ about their perceptions of student academic performance to make

recommendations to educators and policy makers for an at-risk student population. In this

approach, archived student assessment data and teacher interviews triangulated the

statistical data with the humanistic data. In addition, a transformative lens was applied for

the purpose of informing policy makers and educators on anticipated outcomes of the

seven-week summer intervention to drive sustainable English language learner academic

performance.

Research Questions

The study was guided by four research questions with each question used to focus

a specific aspect of the study. As a mixed methods design, the central research question,

was answered through the analysis and synthesis of the data collected during the

quantitative and qualitative data phases. In addition, quantitative and qualitative data

collection was directed by specific research questions. There was an overarching


49

transformative framework and research question to frame the discussion and conclusion

of the study. The following is a summary the research questions used to guide the study:

Central, mixed methods research question: What were the congruencies between

archived student achievement data and the beliefs of ELL teachers about student

academic outcomes after participation in a seven-week summer intervention?

Quantitative research question: What were the multi-year academic outcomes on

reading comprehension, English language acquisition and standardized state assessments

for English Language Learners students that participated in a seven-week summer

intervention?

Qualitative research question: What were the English Language Learner

instructors’ perceptions of students’ academic outcomes after students participated in a

seven-week summer intervention?

Transformative research question: What are the educational policy

recommendations that can be derived from the research outcomes?

The research questions, in conjunction with the review of literature played a

foundational role in determining the research methodology used in the study. Roberts,

(2010) explained, blending qualitative and quantitative approaches “generally allows

greater depth of understanding and insight than what is possible using just one approach.

Plus, blending helps overcome the biases inherent in each method” (p. 142) while

complementing each other.

Method

Research around extended summer learning interventions of English Language

Learners is limited and revolves around socio-economic status and its impact on


50

academic performance (Heyns, 1987; Alexander et al., 2007a, & 2007b; Allington et al.,

2010; Cooper et al., 1996). In addition, many studies focused on either the quantitative or

qualitative side of the research equation, neglecting the complex understanding that

students are a composition of the statistical and human aspects of learning needs. As

such, a targeted study, focused on academic indicators in conjunction with teacher

perceptions would be best suited to a convergent transformative mixed methods design.

Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) noted, a convergent model is incorporated into

transformative design with attention to appropriate use of social justice language. This

study design is convergent transformative due to the extent the quantitative and

qualitative data converge and provide an enhanced understanding of inequities in

educational interventions for English Language Learners. Mixed methods are defined as

research where the “researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research

techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study” (Ponterotto,

Mathew, & Raughley, 2004, p. 43). The language of social justice is explained as

“investigators striving to simultaneously promote human development and the common

good through addressing challenges related to both individual and distributive justice.

Social justice research includes empowerment of the individual as well as the active

confrontation of injustice and inequality in society because they affect research

participants as well as those in their systematic contexts” (Ponterotto, Mathew, &

Raughley, 2004, p. 44).

A convergent transformative mixed methods study was selected to address several

research issues, including the lack of research that merges qualitative and qualitative data

on the topic. A mixed methods research design brings a richness and depth to the


51

conversation that cannot be accomplished through empirical or qualitative data alone. A

transformative-based theoretical framework is used to advance the conversation on

educational outcomes for English Language Learners, with specific recommendations for

changes based on the research outcomes. Creswell and Clark Plano (2014) further

explain, triangulation of the qualitative and quantitative data sets provides greater validity

through “mutually corroborated” (p. 62) findings. A mixed methods study offers a

completeness or comprehensive explanation of results that would not be accomplished

through a single methodology. Figure 3.1 delineates the convergent transformative

design.

Figure 3.1. Transformative framework

F

Qualitative Data Collection and

Analysis

Quantitative Data Collection

and Analysis

Compare or Relate

Convergent Transformative Design adapted from Creswell’s (2012) mixed methods design types, incorporating a convergent parallel design with the transformative framework to give equal weight to the QUAN and QUAL aspects of the research.

Interpret Data


52

Description/Rationale of Participants/Sample

Quantitative and qualitative data collection phases occurred concurrently and

answered parallel research questions from independent data sources. The quantitative and

qualitative data results were merged to respond to the central and transformative research

questions. The quantitative phase examined four years of English Language Learner

archived assessment data from reading comprehension, English language acquisition and

standardized assessments. An original instrument will be designed to record quantitative

data and included assessment scores, home language, intervention participation level,

grade-level and growth expectations for comparison. Three types of archival assessment

data were used to neutralize the instrumentation effect (Gerring, 2012). The quantitative

data collection was designed to answer: How does a seven-week summer program for

English Language Learners influence growth toward grade level proficiency standards

over multiple years in reading comprehension, language acquisition and norm referenced

achievement?

The qualitative data were collected through one-on-one interviews with a

randomized, representative population of English Language Learners teachers that

instructed the intervention participants during the regular calendar year. These

participants were chosen to “synthesize information on the topic from different levels of

participants” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 180). For example, some of the

interviewees had been instructors of the students during the intervention and some were

the instructor during the school year and had not worked with the students during the

summer intervention. In addition, the instructors interviewed had worked with student for


53

various lengths of times, ranging from up to four years to less than one year. The

questions used in the qualitative phase were reviewed with the assistance of an advisory

board, including an ELL Coordinator, Deputy Director of Elementary Education/Federal

Programs and the Director of Research, Evaluation and Accountability to eliminate

biased or leading questions. All survey questions were developed with consideration

toward the research questions of the study. All qualitative data was collected through

semi-structured, open-end, one-on-one interviews. Jacob and Furgerson (2012)

recommend an interview protocol that used these steps: create questions guided by the

qualitative research questions and the literature review, beginning to end scripting to

ensure details or questions were not omitted, open-ended questions to allow participants

to fully expound on their responses, questions started with the basics and moved to more

complicated questions as the interviewer and interviewee relationship has developed, and

additional prompts to illicit expounded upon responses. The same protocol was used for

all qualitative interviews.

The responses were collected by audio recording, transcribed and responses coded

to identify themes. In addition, the researcher collected written notes during the

interviews. The qualitative research addressed: What are the perceptions of student

academic success from the English Language Learner teachers of participants in a seven-

week extended summer program for English Language Learners?

Meta-inferences were drawn from the merged quantitative and qualitative data

sets to answer the mixed methods central research question: What are the congruencies

between archived English Language Learner student assessment data outcomes and the

beliefs of ELL teachers about students academic outcomes after participation in a seven-


54

week summer intervention? Merged data sets were used to answer the transformative

research question: What educational policy considerations can be derived from the

outcomes of the research?

Population

The quantitative population was selected with the intent to be a probabilistic

sample of English Language Learner populations across the United States. The

qualitative sample was purposefully selected as populations that have varying levels of

experience with the central phenomena of the study: participation in a seven-week

summer intervention for English Language Learners. The population researched in the

quantitative phase were K-5 elementary English Language Learner students from a large,

suburban, mid-western school district adjoining a large urban district. The population

encompassed students from diverse socio-economic, cultural, ethnic and linguistic

backgrounds. For consistency, English Language Learners students were defined as a

student whose home or first language (L1) is a language other than English and the

English language is a second language (L2) that needs to be developed along with the

students’ first language. “English Language Learners are individuals whose language

proficiency limits their access to education” (Solano-Flores, 2010, p. 427).

The qualitative phase included elementary English Language Learners teachers

from the same district population sampled during the quantitative phase of the study. The

surveyed population was drawn from a potential pool of 19 elementary teachers that work

with ELL students during the regular calendar year. English Language Learner teachers

had a high level of direct and consistent instructional interaction with English Language

Learner students during the school year, with the joint responsibility of monitoring


55


56

reading comprehension, and language acquisition assessment and measuring growth

toward overall grade level content goals.

Sample

The sample population for the quantitative study was English Language Learner

students that scored below 3.5 on the World-Class Instruction Design and Assessment

(WIDA) Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for

English Language Learners (ACCESS for ELLs) English language proficiency

assessment and were invited to participate in a summer English language intervention

program. The proficiency range were 1.0 for entering to 6.0 for bridging. WIDA

ACCESS for English Language Learners was an English language proficiency

assessment given to kindergarten through 12th graders on an annual basis to monitor

English language acquisition of grade level academic and social content in four language

domains. The assessment is used by a consortium of 34 states as part of state

accountability measures established under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (World-

Class Instruction and Design, 2014). After the initial screening, students were divided

into class groups based on grade level. Participation level was determined after the

intervention was completed. Student archival achievement data was later sorted into two

groups based on level of intervention attendance to create cohort groups. Student cohort

groups were established based on the year of program participation and does not reflect

the number of years participating the intervention. Each annual cohort group consists of

one treatment group with a seven-week summer intervention and a control group of

invited students that did not attend and received no intervention.


57

Archived reading comprehension data, English language proficiency and state

standardized assessment data were collected and analyzed for each cohort group. Table

3.1 laid out the assessment data collected by grade level. The first annual cohort group

was tracked over four years, the second annual cohort group was tracked over three years,

and the third annual cohort group was tracked over two years. The fourth annual cohort

examined end of the academic year to start of the next academic year reading

comprehension data, since it was most recent intervention session, no long-term data for

the full year was available. The tracking time period signifies and coincides with the

number of years since participation in the intervention. For example, the first cohort

participated in the intervention during the summer of 2011 and has fours years of trailing

data after intervention participation. There were approximately 350 students that were

sampled in the study.

Table 3.1

Archived Assessment Data

Assessment Purpose Grade Level Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment Reading Comprehension Kinder to Fifth System WIDA ACCESS English Proficiency Kinder to Twelfth Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) Standardized Third to Twelfth Note. Table shows the assessment and grade levels covered by the assessments.

The qualitative population sample consisted of nine English Language Learners

teachers. The potential pool of staff interviewees was 19 teachers. Consent from all

interview participants was be gained in advance. The participants were selected randomly


58

to give a balanced perspective on the outcomes. In addition, the range of time spent as an

instructor for the intervention participants varies as staff allocations change, with the

range of contact time of less than a year to a high of four years.

Inclusions and/or Exclusions

WIDA ACCESS for ELLs provides a common assessment administered to all

kindergarten through 12th grade English Language Learner students and allows a focus on

students with the most English language need. A score of 3.5 represents the middle range

between newcomer and near proficient language usage. Table 3.2 represents the language

ranges and a description of the language levels.

Table 3.2

WIDA ACCESS Language Level Ranges

Language Level Range Entering 1.0 – 1.9 Beginning 2.0 – 2.9 Developing 3.0 – 3.9 Expanding 4.0 – 4.9 Bridging 5.0 – 5.9 Reaching 6.0 Note. Adapted from World Class Design and Instruction (WIDA) resource guide: The

relationship among WIDA’s strands of model performance indicators, ELP standards,

CAN DO descriptors and performance definitions (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.wida.us/standards/RG_Performance%20Definitions.pdf.

All English Language Learner students at 3.5 or lower on the WIDA ACCESS for

English Language Learners were invited to attend with families self-selecting attendance

participation level. As students’ language skills progressed and were formally exited from

ELL program services, academic growth continued to be tracked. For instance, if a


59

student exited ELL services, student achievement continued to be tracked on all three

assessments.

Instrumentation

Due to the nature of the study, there were a variety of instruments used to collect

data. Data collected during the quantitative phase was collected using a researcher

developed tool and will include student identification codes for tracking purposes, but

does not reveal personal details of any particular students. The primary purpose of the

tool is to be able to sort, collect, and analyze the achieved reading comprehension,

English language acquisition and norm-referenced state assessments. In addition, the tool

will collect student grade level, intervention participation level, home language and other

cultural/ethnic descriptors for demographic background on the diversity of the population

sample.

The researcher used multiple performance measures in the quantitative phase of

the study. The Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment was the instrument used for

reading comprehension measurement. The reading comprehension assessment is a

criterion-referenced assessment used to measure a students’ ability to comprehend fiction

and non-fiction texts based on criteria indicative of proficient readers. The instrument

used to measure English language proficiency is the WIDA ACCESS, a criterion-

referenced assessment. The state norm-referenced assessment, Missouri Assessment

Program (MAP) is a measure of how well students did in comparison to all other students

at the same grade level.

The qualitative phase of research used random sampling of English Language

Learner teachers from the district participating in the study. The purpose of the random


60

sample was to ensure diversity in the interview participants, in terms of the teachers’

exposure to students participating in the intervention.

Variables/The Researcher’s Role

In the quantitative phase of the research, the dependent variables were scores on

reading comprehension, English language proficiency and norm-referenced state

assessments. The independent variable was the effect of the intervention on assessment

scores. There was one treatment group, students that participated in seven-week

participation. Students that participated in half of the intervention were included in this

cohort group. In addition, there was one control group of students that met the initial

participation criteria, but did not attend the intervention. The researcher did not choose

the treatment group participation level. The participation level was self-selected by

families and applied to the quantitate data during collection. The intervention and control

groups were drawn from the same homogeneous pool of invited students and that meet a

minimum threshold language ability.

A confounding variable is the effect of the regular school year instruction. After

participating in the intervention, students returned to their regular academic instruction in

21 different schools within the school district participating in the study. While the district

curriculum was uniform, the level of implementation was not within the scope of this

study. As well, variations in instructional model, ranging from pull-out to integrated

English instruction and number of English Language Learner service minutes are not

within the scope of the study. In a pull-out instructional model, English Language

Learner students leave the general education classroom to receive English language

support services for specified periods of time “and is intended to provide language


61

support in a protective environment” (Kim, McLellan, & Asbell, 2010, p. 426).

Alignment to grade level curriculum can vary. The integrated model is characterized by

inclusion with English Language Learner support staff following the English Language

Learner student into the general education classroom to assist the student with language

support. A push-in model of integration is categorized by limited collaboration or

planning between the general education teacher and the English Language Learner

teacher (New York Collective of Radical Educators, n.d.; Honigsfeld and Dove (2008)

described co-teaching integrated model as a fully collaborative model of instructional

practice with the general education practitioner and special service provider taking equal

responsibility for instructional planning and implementation and has a higher level of

grade level content alignment.

In the qualitative phase, the central phenomena were English Language Learner

teachers’ perceptions of program effectiveness in creating academic success. The

researcher’s role was to accurately document interview participants’ responses. This was

accomplished through audio-recording and transcribing responses, in addition to taking

hand-written notes. The researcher was the facilitator during the interviews and used a

predetermined list of questions to avoid influencing interview responses. However, the

semi-structured nature of the interviews allowed for the opportunity to delve deeper into

responses to specific questions. In addition, interview participants confirmed accuracy of

transcript prior to inclusion.

Data Collection Procedures

The data collection process for the qualitative phase included one-on-one

structured interviews with English Language Learner teachers of students that


62

participated in the seven-week intervention in the school or other location that was

convenient for the interviewee. The interview questions examined the teachers’

perception about effectiveness of the intervention and the perceptions of immediate and

long-range academic outcomes of the students that participated in the intervention. Each

interview was audiotaped and transcribed verbatim for data analysis. The researcher

conducted each interview using standardized protocol of open-ended questions designed

to investigate the teachers’ perceptions. In addition, interviewees were probed for

additional information, to clarify responses and to elicit elaboration upon the responses

given.

Interview participants were sent the transcript of their interview to validate and

confirm responses. The transcripts were sent via email to participants, with participants

afforded the opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the transcription and obtain final

approval for direct personal quotes, even though the identity of the participant is

anonymous.

Creswell (2012) defines the unit of analysis as “the unit (e.g., individual, family,

school, school district) the researcher uses to gather the data” (p. 630). For the purposes

of the quantitative phase of this study, the unit of analysis will be cohort groups by year

of intervention participation and grade level.

Data Analysis Plan

A linear regression analysis was used to determine the effect of participation in an

intervention on academic achievement over time. The explanatory variable is the effect of

participation, either full participation, partial participation and non-participation in the

intervention on a homogeneous group of students. For this study, the term explanatory


63

variable is used, since the variable may not be statistically independent, as a result of

variances in instruction throughout the rest of the academic year and fidelity of reading

comprehension assessment implementation, which cannot be accounted for during this

study.

The qualitative data was analyzed by going from the detailed data of the

transcribed interviews to the coded data and themes. Due to the nature of qualitative

research, Creswell (2012) explained, analyzing and collecting occurs simultaneously as

major themes are identified. However, the first step in data analysis was to conduct a

preliminary exploration to develop an overall sense of the data. Next, the data was coded

and reduced to major and minor themes in a layered qualitative analysis.

Assumptions/Quality and Verification

The qualitative data was validated through member checking. Creswell (2012)

described member checking as the process in which interview participants approve the

transcript as a fair and accurate representation of their responses. In addition, the mixed

methods design triangulated data through qualitative and quantitative sources of data.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations included protecting the identities of students under the age

of consent. During the quantitative phase of data collection, numerical identifiers were

attached to archival data sources. For the qualitative phase, all participants will be

informed the nature and purpose of the research in advance. As well, all participants are

to be identified with pseudonyms, for example, Teacher A represents teacher one of the

teachers, but does not reflect the sequence in which the teacher was interviewed.

References to specific students, by name or school of attendance were removed to protect


64

students’ identities. This was applied to references to district employees. Other ethical

considerations include ensuring the interview was conducted in a comfortable, neutral

location that had a minimum number of distractions with the researcher maintaining a

neutral stance throughout and respecting the research site.

Summary

The purpose of selecting a convergent, transformative mixed methods study was

to add a depth to the conversation about the effectiveness of a seven-week summer

intervention for English Language Learner students. A quantitative study on the

educational outcomes of the intervention contributes to the policy dialogue and effective

use or limited resources for a vulnerable population. However, the converged quantitative

student achievement data with qualitative data from educator surveys provided a fuller

picture for making policy recommendations and understanding outcomes.


65

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter was to describe and interpret the data collected in a

convergent transformative mixed methods study to determine the congruencies between

student data outcomes after participation in a seven-week summer intervention with the

ELL teachers’ perceptions of student academic performance to determine the impact of

the intervention on student academic performance. The reason for the research is to add

to the knowledge base on ELL policy and programs as more and more students from

diverse backgrounds enter the public schools. ELL students make up the fastest growing

segment of public school population in the United States and are “vastly outpacing the

growth in the overall school population” (Heritage et al., 2015, p. 1). It is imperative for

schools and communities to uncover promising techniques and programs to help bridge

the academic divide between students that speak English as a first language and second

language learners. However, all education programs produce an effect, positive or

negative, on student achievement (Hattie, 2011; Wiggins, 2012). Determining which

influences produce the highest positive effect on student achievement is the key.

In 2011, assessment scores on the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), the

state’s primary academic indicator for determining student performance and movement

toward grade level proficiency, reflected English Language Leaners scores were

substantially lower than English speaking peers (Missouri Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education, 2014). The discrepancy among ELL students and their peers, Table

4.1, Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 highlighted the need for programing to close the

achievement gap and increase ELL academic performance. In addition, grade level


66

disaggregated data showed the gap increased as the students progressed through their

academic careers. While that data reflected lower achievement in students learning

English as a second language, it by no means should be interpreted to mean ELL students

have lower capabilities as research suggested all student have the same growth rate

during the school year (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 2001; Heyns, 1978). An additional

factor noted previously, the “receivement gap” (Chambers, 2009) underscored

deficiencies in the educational structures and access to educational resources that allow

all students to achieve at the highest levels. Table 5.3 delineated third grade

disaggregated data by ethnicity on the Missouri Assessment Program Assessment (MAP),

the standardized assessment used by the state of Missouri for accountability to record

student progress toward grade level mastery of standards. This data represented students

in the district participating in the research.

Table 4.1

3rd Grade ELA Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) Proficiency by Subgroup

Subgroup 2011 2012 2013 2014 All students 42.6% 45.4% 45.5% 41.6% Asian 42.2% 44.7% 41.8% 33.4% Black 26.8% 28.0% 29.1% 20.7% Hispanic 28.3% 35.8% 59.3% 33.4% Multi-racial 43.3% 39.4% 40.8% 35.4% White 48.8% 50.7% 48.9% 48.7% ELL 16.8% 22.8% 24.3% 22.5% Note. Data represents 3rd grade disaggregated data by ethnicity for the district of interest

(Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2014).

Table 4.2 represented the disaggregated data by ethnicity for fourth grade students

for the MAP assessment.


67

Table 4.2

4th Grade ELA Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) Proficiency by Subgroup

Subgroup 2011 2012 2013 2014 All students 53.9% 49.6% 52.3% 46.6% Asian 46.2% 39.7% 52.8% 48.5% Black 42.0% 37.7% 35.1% 27.7% Hispanic 44.7% 38.1% 44.2% 47.5% Multi-racial 45.4% 50.7% 51.7% 43.1% White 58.1% 55.2% 56.9% 50.7% ELL 25.2% 26.5% 25.5% 27.1% Note. Data represents 4th grade disaggregated data by ethnicity for the district of interest


The data in table 4.3 represented the disaggregated data by ethnicity for fifth

grade students in the district that participated in the research project. The data was

collected from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for the

MAP assessment.

Table 4.3

5th Grade ELA Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) Proficiency by Subgroup

Subgroup 2011 2012 2013 2014 All students 53.6% 53.5% 48.9% 52.4% Asian 52.9% 57.2% 47.2% 44.2% Black 35.6% 36.7% 35.9% 37.3% Hispanic 44.3% 37.6% 34.4% 44.4% Multi-racial 50.8% 61.1% 45.2% 58.3% White 59.4% 59.1% 54.7% 57.5% ELL 13.3% 24.3% 11.5% 19.8% Note. Data represents 5rd grade disaggregated data by ethnicity for the district of interest



68

Review of the Methodology

A convergent transformative mixed methods study design was determined to be

the appropriate methodology to determine the effectiveness of the seven-week summer

intervention for English Language Learner students. Describing and displaying the

qualitative data collected through interviews with ELL teachers along with the

quantitative archived assessments data of the students provided an opportunity to bring

depth the to data that could not be accomplished through a single methodology. Creswell

and Plano Clark (2014) noted triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data through a

mixed methodology provides greater validity to the findings through the completeness of

the results.

All research questions were guided by the overarching transformative framework

of determining the effectiveness of the seven-week summer intervention as tool in closing

the achievement gap and staunching the summer learning regression among ELL

students. The central research question focused on the congruencies between archived

student assessment data and the beliefs of ELL teachers about student academic

performance? The quantitative research was dedicated the impact of a seven-week

summer intervention on multi-year assessment performance on reading comprehension,

English language proficiency and standardized state assessments of students that

participated in the intervention. ELL teachers’ perceptions of students’ academic

outcomes after participation in the intervention was the basis for the qualitative question.

Lastly, the transformative question addressed educational policy recommendations based

on the outcomes of the research.


69

Data Analysis Procedures

The quantitative and qualitative data collected in this study were collected

concurrently. The quantitative data included the archived assessment data assessment of

English language learner students over a multi-year period. The qualitative data consisted

of one-on-one interviews with ELL teacher of students that have participated in the

seven-week summer intervention for ELL students.

Quantitative Data Analysis Procedures

For the quantitative phase of the study, the researcher examined archived student

data from three unique assessments. The data was archived in the district data storehouse

known as Data Director. The purpose of the archived student data was to respond to the

quantitative research question: What were the multi-year academic outcomes on reading

comprehension, English language acquisition and normed state assessments for ELL

students that participated in a seven-week summer intervention? The first measure was

the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System 1 and 2, used to assess reading

comprehension. The second assessment, WIDA ACCESS, measured English language

acquisition in the language domains of speaking, listening, reading and writing within

grade level content clusters. The Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), examined

English Language Arts normed for grade level content standards proficiency. Gerring

(2012) noted using multiple types of data neutralized the instrument effect.

The first assessment data examined was the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark

Assessment System 1 and 2; a research based reading comprehension assessment

(efficacy studies can be viewed at http://www.heinemann.com/fountasandpinnell/

researchLLI.aspx) of leveled common assessments to identify the probable reading


70

behaviors of proficient readers at a specific reading level. The levels range from pre-A

for a pre-reading student to a level Z. A pre-reading student would generally include

students in the first half of the kindergarten year and ELL students that would be

considered “newcomers” or that have recently arrived in the United States. The

breakdowns of corresponding reading levels with grade level expectations are listed in

table 4.4. As well, the rate of anticipated annual growth for each grade level is shown.

Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System 1 and 2 were used for students in

kindergarten through fifth grade. The assessment was administered three times per year,

at the beginning, middle and end of the academic year. When students reach middle

school, a different reading comprehension assessment was used, so student data is limited

to elementary years exclusively.

Table 4.4

Fountas and Pinnell Reading Comprehension Proficiency Level by Grade Level

Grade Level Fall Winter Spring Expected Annual Growth Kindergarten B D 4 levels First Grade C/D G J 7 levels Second Grade I/J L/M N 4 levels Third Grade M/N P/Q R 4 levels Fourth Grade Q/R S U 3 levels Fifth Grade T/U V W 2 levels Note. Grade level reading proficiency expectations for students in the district of interest.

Kindergarten does not have a proficiency goal for the fall benchmarking period. When

two levels are listed, both levels are considered proficient for the benchmarking period.

Dual fall reading levels account for summer regression from the end of the previous

instructional year.

English language acquisition was measured through the WIDA ACCESS. The


71

domains of speaking, listening, reading and writing were assessed in grade level content

clusters. The grade level clusters are: (a) kindergarten; (b) first and second grade; (c)

third through fifth grade; (d) grades six to eight; and (e) ninth grade to 12th grade. The

content areas included the language of social skills and the language of math, science,

language arts and social sciences. Reports on the validity of the assessment can be

viewed at https://www.wida.us/assessment/access/TechReports/index.aspx. The use of a

consistent, district-wide, language acquisition assessment, ACCESS, allowed for student

data to be collected as students progressed through their academic careers. ACCESS was

administered to kindergarten through twelfth grade. Assessment data beyond elementary

were able to be included as part of the data set.

The assessment data for the third measure were the English Language Arts scaled

scores for the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP). The MAP is a state normed, grade

level content assessment for students in grade three to 12. The data is reported in two

forms, a proficiency level and scaled score. Proficiency levels, from low to high, were

below basic, basic, proficient and advanced. However, for the purpose of this research,

the scaled score provided a numeric method of tracking change over time. MAP was

administered to third grade through twelfth grade students and assessment data as

students transitioned beyond elementary were included as part of the data set. For

example, fifth grade students from the 2011 cohort, have MAP data available for fifth,

sixth, seventh and eighth grade.

The initial criteria for participation in the seven-week summer intervention was

based on students with the highest language need. The highest language need was

determined to be students that scored a 3.5 or lower composite score on the WIDA


72

ACCESS language proficiency exam. Archived assessment data was retrieved from a

data storehouse belonging to the district of interest. The time period covered included

spring 2011 through winter 2015. Some outliers, students with higher baseline scores,

were included for participation in the intervention in order to keep sibling groups intact.

Assessment data points were collected into a spreadsheet, grouped by assessment in time-

sequenced order and included the three assessments identified. Student data was then

grouped by level of intervention participation. One group participation level was invited

to participate in the intervention, but did not attend. The second group participation level

was invited to intervention and did attend the intervention.

The initial group of invited students provided a homogeneous student population

and simultaneously provided a control group, differentiated by non-participation (control)

or participation (intervention) in the seven-week summer intervention. The cohort groups

examined in the research will be identified in the following manner to distinguish the

year of participation in the intervention and level of participation:

• 2011 control cohort and 2011 intervention cohort;

• 2012 control cohort and 2012 intervention cohort;

• 2013 control cohort and 2013 intervention cohort; or

• 2014 control cohort and 2014 intervention cohort.

In addition, table 4.5 identified the assessments and the year assessment data points were

collected for each cohort group.

ACCESS is the language acquisition assessment measure used for the purposes of

this study. MAP is the state standardized assessment of English Language Arts grade

level content. Students in middle school continue to be assessed on the ACCESS and


73

MAP, so middle school scores on those assessments were included when available.

Table 4.5

Assessment by Grade

Grade Level Fountas and ACCESS MAP Pinnell Kindergarten X X (at end of 3rd grade) First Grade X X (at end of 3rd grade) Second Grade X X (at end of 3rd grade) Third Grade X X X Fourth Grade X X X Fifth Grade X X Middle School X X Note. Chart represents the grade level when assessments are given. The Fountas and

Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System 1 and 2 are used for reading comprehension.

Data was collected in a spreadsheet, creating a data grid for input for analysis.

Each cohort year was grouped into a separate spreadsheet. Next a tab was created for

each assessment and students were sorted by non-participation or participation in the

seven-week summer intervention. Fountas and Pinnell data was collected as a letter from

pre-A (A-) through Z. The letters were converted into a numeric equivalent. Pre-A was

the equivalent of one, A had the numeric value two, and so on, with Z converted to a 27.

Spot checks were conducted to ensure accuracy. The database was cleaned through a

visual inspection. In addition, a high student mobility rate required students with missing

data in years following the intervention, to be removed.

A linear regression was conducted on each cohort year and cohort assessment

using Excel. A third party conducted the linear regression and each calculation was run

three times. On outlier result, data was rechecked and the regression was conducted again

to ensure accuracy and determine if there were input errors. Student names and


74

identification numbers, as well as any other identifiers were removed for anonymity. The

only evident identifier attached to the data was grade level.

A level of reliability is built into the assessment by having a standardized testing

timeframe for all students across the district. The Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark

assessment is given in the fall (September), winter (December) and spring (May). The

statewide ACCESS administration timeline is the month of February and the statewide

administration timeline for the MAP assessment is May. In addition, all assessments have

a consistent administration protocol and script to add to the standardization of

administration and were a consistent measurement tool across the intervention time span.

Each assessment provides research on the reliability and validity of the assessment, even

though the public debate on the validity of standardized assessment continues. Each data

point represents is a single-item assessment score.

Qualitative Data Analysis Procedures

Qualitative data was collected through one-on-one interviews with teachers of

English language learner students with a purpose of responding to the qualitative research

question: What were the English language learner teachers’ beliefs of students’ academic

outcomes after students participated in a seven-week summer intervention? A total of

nine out of 19 ELL teachers were interviewed. Teachers were randomly selected and had

various levels of ELL instructional experience within the district, as well as various levels

of participation in the summer intervention. Teachers were randomly selected, providing

a maximal variation sample of teacher experiences with students that have participated in

the summer intervention (Creswell, 2012). Table 4.6 noted the years of ELL instructional

experience within the district of interest, as well and number of years of participation as


75

an instructor for the seven-week ELL summer intervention, if applicable.

Table 4.6 Interviewee Participation in ELL Intervention

Teacher Building Number ELL Intervention Number of Years ELL Teacher of Years Teacher Intervention Teacher Teacher A X 10 Teacher B X 4 X 2 Teacher C X 10 Teacher D X 9 Teacher E X 11 X 2 Teacher F X 1 X 3 Teacher G X 1 Teacher H X 3 X 3 Teacher I X 8 X 3

Note. Demographic data was collected by the researcher as part of the questioning on the

interviewees on their relationship to the program.

To provide an additional layer of anonymity to the interview participants, the

interviewees were randomly assigned a letter of the alphabet to be used as their identifier.

Interview respondents will be referred to as teacher A, teacher B, etc. and this identifier

has no relationship to the sequence in which they were interviewed. The interview

participants were randomly selected from elementary teachers of ELL students within the

participating district. At the time the interviews were conducted, 19 full-time ELL

teachers worked within the district’s elementary schools. Teachers were contacted by

email and/or by phone initially, following a scripted protocol (appendix A) ten teachers

were contacted and agreed to participate in one-on-one interviews. One initially agreed,

but acquiesced due to schedule conflicts. In all, a total of nine interviews were conducted.

The interviews were conducted in person for seven participants and two were

conducted by phone at a place and time convenient for the interviewee. Interviews were


76

semi-structured, with a set of questions (appendix B) asked to each participant, but also

allowed flexibility for a natural conversation and the ability to explore lines of

questioning at a deeper level as needed. All interviews were digitally recorded and

professionally transcribed. Prior to conducting the interview, all interview participants

reviewed the informed consent document with the researcher and the document was

given to the individual. If candidates were interviewed by phone, the same procedure was

followed and a copy of the informed consent document was sent to the participant.

After transcription, the researcher reviewed the transcripts to verify any inaudible

words or phrases and double check names of assessments and acronyms. A list of

possible unfamiliar acronyms, assessment names, or English language learner specific

vocabulary and terms were supplied to the transcriptionist. The transcriptions were

checked by the researcher due to familiarity with the content and context of the

responses. This also provided an additional level of accuracy prior to sending the

transcripts for member checking. For instance, the word math and name of the MAP

assessment were easy to misunderstand. In addition, the researcher edited out any proper

names of individuals or schools that could be used to identify the interviewee. As well,

names of students and other individuals employed by the district of interest were

removed from the text. For the purpose of the member checking, words and phrases like

“um” were left in the initial transcript, but were edited out of transcript excerpts included

in the text of the dissertation.

After the transcription and researcher verification process was completed,

transcripts were emailed to interview participants as part of the member check process.

Participants were asked to verify the content of the transcript and give approval that the


77

content accurately represented their perceptions of ELL student outcomes after

participating in the seven-week summer intervention. All participants responded in the

affirmative, acknowledged receipt of the transcript and accepted the content as

transcribed. The member checking process, or respondent validation, improved the

accuracy and validity of interview responses through the interview participant being able

to analyze and respond to the comments (Creswell, 2012; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011;

Herr & Anderson, 2015).

Once the interview participants accepted the transcripts, the researcher conducted

several readings of the transcripts to get an overall feel and to develop an understanding

of possible thematic connections that might be developed across all interviews. The

researcher created an Excel document and recorded key words and phrases from each

interview question. A row was created for each teacher and columns were created for

each question. The Excel document served as a tool for identifying and sorting words or

phrases that could be used to identify specific themes and the context under which the

subject referred to the theme. For example, the theme of summer learning loss was

referenced as a goal of the seven-week summer intervention, but was also referenced in

response to teacher perceptions about student outcomes on various assessments, which

provided a context around the response.

Results

The sequence of the results will start with the display of the quantitative results

grouped by assessment type: reading comprehension using the Fountas and Pinnell

Benchmark Assessment System 1 and 2, English language acquisition measured by the

WIDA ACCESS, and standardized state assessment of grade level English language arts


78

content assessed by the MAP. Within each assessment type, the results will be separated

by cohort group year, cohort grade level and cohort group participation level. For the

qualitative results, results were sequenced by the major themes identified from the one-

on-one ELL teacher interviews. Five broad themes were identified through the interviews

conducted with ELL teachers of the students that have participated in the seven-week

summer intervention. The themes included (a) summer learning regression and the

achievement gap, (b) lack of resources available at home or the community, (c) closing

the achievement gap, (d) the academic calendar; and (e) the curriculum and program goal

of language proficiency. The first four themes align with themes in the review of

literature. The fifth theme, curriculum, while outside the scope of the study, was

referenced with a high enough frequency to be addressed and is tied directly to the

program goal of increasing English language proficiency. In addition, a summary of

responses about student outcomes on the three assessments, reading comprehension,

English language proficiency and state standardized assessments, after participation in

the intervention in the seven-week intervention for ELLs.

Quantitative Data

The qualitative data encompassed three assessment measures: reading

comprehension, English acquisition and English language arts grade level content. A

linear regression was conducted using the data. First, a scatter plot of the data was created

for each type of assessment, each cohort grade level, and level of participation. Next, a

linear regression trend line was established. The relationship was represented by the

equation y = Mx + b. The independent variable was time and the dependent variable was


79

student assessment scores. An R-squared coefficient calculation was used to determine

the fit of the data values. Interpretation of the value is represented in table 4.7.

Table 4.7

Correlation and Interpretation of R-squared Value

Correlation Value Interpretation + 1.00 perfect upward linear relationship + 0.80 to 0.99 strong upward linear relationship + 0.60 to 0.79 moderate upward linear relationship + 0.30 to 0.59 modest upward linear relationship + 0.11 to 0.29 low upward linear relationship + 0.01 to 0.10 weak upward linear relationship 0.0 no linear relationship - 0.01 to 0.10 weak downward linear relationships - 0.11 to 0.29 low downward linear relationships - 0.30 to 0.59 modest downward linear relationships - 0.60 to 0.79 moderate downward linear relationship - 0.80 to 0.99 strong downward linear relationships -1.00 perfect downward linear relationships Note. Compiled from Muijs (2004) and Rumsey (n.d.)

Reading Comprehension – Fountas and Pinnell

Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System 1 and 2 data were used as the

assessment tool for reading comprehension. The assessment was administered in the fall,

winter and spring of each school year. Scores are recorded as letter gradients, starting

with A- for an early emergent reader to an independent reader at level Z. The

characteristics of an early emergent reader include developing letter sound

correspondence, learning some high frequency word and developing left-right text

tracking. A kindergarten student in the first months of school would be an early emergent

reader and as such, assessment for kindergarten students does not start until the winter

semester. In addition, a pre-reader would be categorized as “entering” for ELL students

and would be identified as a newcomer, or student that has recently started learning


80

English as a second language. Characteristics of a level Z reader include the ability to

process texts across a range of genres, the ability to interpret abstract texts, and process

through a heavy load of context-specific vocabulary while applying schema. For the

purpose of this research, alpha scores were converted to numeric equivalents. For

example, pre-A was the equivalent of one, A had the numeric value two, and so on, with

Z converted to a 27.

2011 cohort groups: Fountas and Pinnell reading comprehension.

Looking at the data from figure 4.1, the 2010 school year was used as the benchmark year

prior to the intervention and represents the kindergarten. The first data point for 2011 is

the fall assessment period and the student would have transitioned to first grade. Only

student data from the benchmark period through winter 2015 were included in the

analysis. The baseline mean for the 2011 kindergarten control cohort was M = 2.0 and the

baseline mean for the 2011 kindergarten intervention cohort was M = 1.07.

The final mean at the end of the intervention for the 2011 kindergarten control

cohort (n = 4) was M = 15.25, 2011 kindergarten intervention cohort (n = 14) was M =

16.21 at the end of the winter benchmark during 4th grade. The trends were a positive

1.95 for the control cohort, a positive 4.21 for the intervention cohort. Strength of

association values, R2 = 0.963 demonstrated a strong correlation for the predictability of

the intervention cohort.

Compared against the district’s grade level reading expectations at the start of first

grade, the expected reading level would C/D (numeric equivalent were 4/5) the ELL

students started on average, over half a grade lower. At the middle of 4th grade, the

current grade of the cohort groups, the grade level reading expectation is for


81

Figure 4.1. Cohort 2011: Kindergarten Fountas and Pinnell benchmark reading

comprehension assessment

students to be a level S reader. The intervention cohort remained one-year behind their

peers in reading comprehension, but with the projected growth rate, could be within a

half a year at the end of 5th grade. Students in the control group, currently at closer to one

and a half years behind their peers, would be approximately 2 years behind at the end of

5th grade.

Next, looking at the same cohort year and reading comprehension for first grade

students the R-squared values showed a higher correlation. For the 2011 first grade

control cohort the values were R2 = 0.85, the intervention cohort values were R2 = 0.81,

signifying a strong correlation of scores.

02468

101214161820222426

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year Control cohort Intervention cohort

Linear (Control cohort) Linear (Intervention cohort)


82

Figure 4.2. Cohort 2011: First grade Fountas and Pinnell benchmark reading


The starting reading comprehension mean score for first graders as they entered

second grade were M = 4.7 for the control cohort and M = 7.63 for the intervention

cohort. This puts the control group one grade level behind their peers and the group of

students that participated in the intervention at about a half-year behind grade level

expectations. At current grade level expectations, all cohort groups are at the grade level

expectations.

The second grade cohort, as it transitioned to third grade, started with an M = 9.08

for the control group of students that were invited to participate in the intervention, but

did not attend. The intervention group were M = 10.00, approximately one grade level

below their peers.

02468

101214161820222426

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year Control Cohort Intervention cohort

Linear (Control Cohort) Linear (Intervention cohort)


83

Figure 4.3. Cohort 2011: Second grade Fountas and Pinnell benchmark reading


The last reading comprehension data for this cohort group is the end of 5th grade

and as a result, there were no data points for 2014. However, at the end of 5th grade

combined cohort had a mean reading comprehension score of M = 21.44 which would

put then at the reading comprehension equivalent for starting fifth grade.

Reading comprehension data for the 2011 third grade cohort, as the group started

4th grade, showed a similar trend line as the previous grade levels. However, as a group,

the mean starting point was two years behind their peers. By the end of 5th grade, as a

combined group, continued to lag and the gap grew to over 2 years behind grade level

expectations.

02468

101214161820222426

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year Control Cohort Intervention cohort

Linear (Control Cohort) Linear (Intervention cohort)


84

Figure 4.4. Cohort 2011: Third grade Fountas and Pinnell benchmark reading


The 2011 fourth grade cohort, starting fifth grade immediately after the

intervention experience, had a mean reading comprehension starting point of M = 16.76

for the control cohort and M = 12.13 for the intervention cohort. At the end of the data

collection period, as a combined group, students moved from the middle of second grade

at the low end of the range to a collective middle of fourth grade reading comprehension

level. The reliability of the growth projections were difficult due to the small number of

participants and the limited number of data points. The fifth grade group were starting

sixth grade after the intervention, so no data was collected.

02468

10121416182022242628

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year

Control cohort Intervention cohort Linear (Intervention cohort)


85

2012 cohort groups: Fountas and Pinnell reading comprehension. The

2012 cohort had similar results. Table 4.8 showed the regression for each grade level and

high R-squared values at each grade level cohorts, with the second grade control group

the exception.

Table 4.8

2012 Cohort Groups: Reading Comprehension

Grade n Start M End M Trend Line R2

Slope Pre-Kinder Control 6 2.00 12.50 5.41 0.92 Intervention 20 2.19 12.76 5.29 0.94 Kindergarten Control 2 3.5 14.50 4.63 0.92 Intervention 29 4.11 17.59 5.51 0.96 First Control 7 8.43 17.00 3.63 0.95 Intervention 31 9.00 16.19 3.54 0.92 Second Control 2 7.00 16.00 3.81 0.40 Intervention 12 10.08 19.00 3.41 0.96 Third Control 0 Intervention 5 13.40 19.20 3.13 0.92 Fourth Control 1 16.00 21.00 4.33 Intervention 14 14.60 17.93 3.13 0.87 Note. Pre-kinder students were included in the intervention for this year; therefore

reading comprehension scores were available for this cohort year. The mean starting and

end scores provide the mean growth range for the cohort and the regression gives the

mean year over year growth. The kinder, second, third grade and fourth grade control

cohorts were small cohorts to start and attrition through mobility further reduced the size

of the cohorts. The entire cohort was small before the data was cleaned.


86

Pre-kinder students participated in the intervention prior to the start of

kindergarten and the mean for the first benchmark placed them one level below grade

level expectations. However, at the end of the data collection period, the group mean

placed slightly below second grade winter benchmark expectations, meaning the students

were above grade level goals. For the 2012 kindergarten cohort, the starting mean was on

par with grade level expectations. At the end of the data collection period, the

kindergarten-combined cohort was slightly more than 2 reading levels above the grade

level expectation.

The 2012 combined first grade cohort started one reading level below the grade

level expectation and finished one level below grade level goals. For the second grade

control group, the starting point was seven levels below their peers and finished within

two levels of their peers. At the beginning of the year, the second grade intervention

cohort started one full grade level below expectations, but was able to move within a

half-year of their peers. Comparing against grade level reading comprehension goals,

both third grade and fourth grade cohorts were over one and a-half years behind, but were

able to move within one year of the grade level goal.

2013 cohort groups: Fountas and Pinnell reading comprehension. The reading

comprehension data for the cohort 2013 (table 4.9) demonstrated students in the

kindergarten intervention cohort started below peer expectations by almost two reading

levels. At the end of the intervention, this cohort has advanced almost eight reading

levels, ending one level behind.


87

Table 4.9



Slope Kindergarten Control 0 Intervention 11 1.17 9.00 5.60 0.87 First Control 13 10.31 14.92 3.09 0.91 Intervention 45 6.65 14.48 4.38 0.88 Second Control 10 14.00 18.10 2.65 0.81 Intervention 20 10.85 16.35 3.41 0.91 Third Control 4 13.00 16.75 4.05 0.68 Intervention 11 9.64 16.82 6.31 0.15 Fourth Control 5 14.00 18.10 5.33 0.89 Intervention 5 10.85 16.35 5.48 0.99 Note. The mean starting and end scores provide a growth range for the cohort and the

regression gives the mean year over year growth. The kinder control cohort was a small

cohort to start and attrition through mobility further reduced the size of the cohorts.

The first grade control group data (table 5.9) started slightly below reading level

goals and the intervention group started close one year behind. By the end of the data

collection period, the end of second grade, both cohorts had made similar progress and

end within one reading level of the peers. The second grade cohorts followed a similar

pattern with the control group starting higher than peers and the intervention cohort

started at one grade level behind. At the end of the data collection period, both second

grade cohorts were only slightly below end of the year expectations. In both cases, the

students that participated in the intervention had higher average growth than students that

did not participate.


88

At third grade, the control cohort started 5 levels below grade level expectation

and the intervention cohort started at a reading level deficit of 10 levels, the equivalent of

mid-year in first grade. Both cohorts trended higher at a rate almost double their peers,

finishing about the same reading level as students mid-year in 3rd grade. The fifth grade

cohort followed a similar pattern and experienced a growth trend over double the

expectation of their peers. In upper elementary grades, third through fifth, due to the

complexity of texts, students’ progress through reading levels at a slower pace. During

the fourth grade year, the average student moves three levels and in fifth grade the rate

decreases to two levels.

2014 cohort groups: Fountas and Pinnell reading comprehension. The data

collected for the 2014 cohort (table 4.10) covered one academic year. The trend is harder

to identify, since the timeframe and the number of sequential data points is limited.

Starting mean for the control group is slightly below the expectation and the intervention

cohort is slightly above expectation. At the end of the year, both groups averaged about

two reading levels growth, below the grade level expectation of seven levels. In essence,

the cohorts fell behind their peers with a growth trend of approximately 2.5 points versus

the grade level growth expectation of seven levels throughout the year.

Following a similar pattern, the first grade growth trend was below the peer

expectation, but the intervention cohort experienced a higher trend growth rate. Data for

the second grade cohorts reflected a comparable configuration, with both the control

cohort and intervention cohort ended the data collection period with a wider gap between

current reality and anticipated grade level outcomes. The exception for the 2014 cohort

group was the fourth grade intervention group.


89

Table 4.10



Slope Kindergarten Control 22 3.73 5.50 2.44 0.60 Intervention 27 4.48 6.48 2.64 0.50 First Control 11 8.00 10.18 2.84 0.43 Intervention 17 7.76 10.53 3.77 0.74 Second Control 10 10.67 11.83 1.50 0.38 Intervention 9 7.30 8.30 1.68 0.40 Third Control 5 13.8 16.00 3.05 0.88 Intervention 6 9.67 11.67 2.65 0.54 Fourth Control 3 20.00 19.67 0.58 0.16 Intervention 11 14.30 18.30 5.59 0.93

Note. The mean starting and end scores provide the mean growth range for the cohort and

the regression gives the mean year over year growth. The shorter time span increased the

number of cohort members that remained and had complete data sets.

English Language Acquisition – ACCESS

WIDA Access is the measurement tool used for determining students English

language acquisition in elementary through high school. The range is from one, for a

student at the entering level to a six, bridging, for students that have reached the

maximum proficiency level equivalent to native English speakers. On average, students

are expected to move one level, or one whole point, in one academic year.

2011 cohort groups: English language acquisition. For the 2011 cohort group,

data form the initial benchmark was followed by three additional years of scores. Third


90

and fourth grade students’ scores followed into middle school and fifth grade scores into

high school were available, since the same assessment is used.

Table 4.11

2011 Cohort Groups: English Language Acquisition


Slope Kindergarten Control 3 1.27 4.33 1.04 0.96 Intervention 14 1.04 4.86 1.31 0.97 First Control 5 4.00 5.24 0.46 0.87 Intervention 9 2.44 5.18 0.95 0.86 Second Control 11 3.33 5.50 0.75 0.92 Intervention 15 1.41 4.94 1.21 0.88 Third Control 4 1.68 4.86 1.12 0.91 Intervention 9 1.90 5.53 1.29 0.86 Fourth Control 4 2.40 5.10 0.93 0.95 Intervention 4 2.03 5.35 1.08 0.92 Fifth Control 2 1.55 3.45 0.65 0.89 Intervention 5 2.03 5.35 1.08 0.92

Note. The mean starting and end scores provide the mean growth range for the cohort and

the regression gives the mean year-over-year growth.

Four control groups trended lower than one point per year: first grade (0.46),

second grade (0.75), fourth (0.93) and fifth grade (0.65). In comparison, the only grade

level that made less than one-point growth in the intervention cohort was first grade

(0.95). At the starting mean for most cohorts, one-point growth annually, would take

students 4 years to reach a language proficiency level high enough to exit ELL services

and to be considered English proficient. A student that made a 0.48 annual growth rate

would take double the time to meet proficiency.


91

2012 cohort groups: English language acquisition. A pre-kinder cohort was

added to this year and as suggested in the findings of a Dutch study, age of acquisition of

vocabulary effect “proved to be the largest in the youngest subject group” (Assink, van

Well, & Knuijt, 2003) and sited the cumulative effect of word and vocabulary usage over

time as the possible reason. In addition, the district had noticed the incoming pre-kinder

ELL students and those ELL students that did not have pre-kinder were coming in at far

lower skill levels than students.

The first item to note about the data from the 2012 cohort groups ACCESS

scores, is the frequency of “perfect” data sets. Statistician Joseph Morse, an independent

third party used to check data, noted the fit is a result of the number of data points

available for this cohort (personal conversation, June 30, 2015). In addition, several

cohort groups were lost due to mobility.

Data collected for the 2012 cohorts in English acquisition (Table 5.12) showed

higher starting language acquisition scores than the 2011 cohorts. However, as a group,

the end mean was not as high and the cohorts had lower trend lines.

In particular, both fourth grade cohorts were half of the expected growth. Among

the control cohorts, the pre-kinder and second grade groups made the expected growth

rate. First grade was the only intervention grade level that made the expected growth,

with pre-kinder and kinder slightly below.

2013 cohort groups: English language acquisition. The 2013 cohort year added

pre-kinder students during the summer intervention. The data from the 2013 cohort group

(table 4.13) had a limited number of data points across time creating a distorted

correlation between data points. This cohort year had a high starting mean. First grade,


92

second grade, third grade, fourth grade and fifth grade groups started above a 3.0, a mid-

level English acquisition score. However, the trend growth for fourth and fifth would put

them on a slow pace for reaching proficiency and delayed time frame for exiting ELL.

Table 4.12



Slope Pre-Kinder Control 8 2.49 3.69 1.20 1.00 Intervention 20 3.02 3.97 0.95 1.00 Kindergarten Control 2 2.75 4.40 0.85 0.96 Intervention 30 2.42 4.42 0.99 0.95 First Control 7 4.10 4.87 0.77 1.00 Intervention 31 4.02 5.12 1.10 1.00 Second Control 2 2.25 4.45 1.10 0.86 Intervention 12 3.09 4.80 0.85 0.88 Third Control Intervention 5 3.48 4.96 0.74 0.70 Fourth Control 2 3.35 4.10 0.42 0.25 Intervention 13 3.74 4.91 0.58 0.57 Fifth Control Intervention 3 2.80 4.97 0.85 0.96

The end mean for all groups, except the pre-kinder group, are in the 4 range. The

trend for all groups, except fifth grade is close to the one level of growth expectation per

year. These data points, starting mean and ending mean, would reflect a benchmark score

and one data point, or one-year trend.


93

Table 4.13



Slope Pre-Kinder Control 8 2.49 3.69 1.20 1.00 Intervention 20 3.02 3.97 0.95 1.00 Kindergarten Control 2 2.75 4.40 0.85 0.96 Intervention 30 2.42 4.42 0.99 0.95 First Control 15 3.28 4.32 1.04 1.00 Intervention 46 3.13 3.99 0.86 1.00 Second Control 11 3.77 4.87 1.10 1.00 Intervention 21 3.55 4.55 1.03 1.00 Third Control 4 3.83 4.08 0.25 1.00 Intervention 12 3.04 4.30 1.26 1.00 Fourth Control 6 3.90 4.63 0.73 1.00 Intervention 15 3.84 4.74 0.90 1.00 Fifth Control 1 4.70 4.90 0.20 1.00 Intervention 13 4.52 4.47 -0.05 1.00

Standardized English Language Arts Content – MAP

ELL status is highly scrutinized and in the state of Missouri, comprised one

student population that falls within the super subgroup. The super subgroups were a

category of students that have traditionally lagged the academic achievement of their

peers. Heritage et al. (2015) explained, “English language learners (ELL) group status,

unlike that of other student groups, is meant to be temporary. Federal and state policies

anticipate that ELL’s will leave this category as a result of language instruction and

academic support services that they are entitled to receive” (p. 109). The Missouri


94

Assessment Program (MAP) is a primary state level data-tracking tool to gage annual

growth for ELL students. Summative assessments, such as the MAP, provided a view of

student learning after a specific period of time. The assessment covered the content

taught to evaluate the student learning of the content. These types of assessment are

fraught with controversy and have become an inescapable part of the educational and

assessment landscape and cannot be excluded as one piece of an ELL student overall

academic picture.

Student data for the MAP assessment is presented in two ways. First, a numeric

scaled score is assigned for each assessment content area and these scores are normed

annually to provide a proficiency level. The range changes yearly. The proficiency

ranges, from lowest to highest, were below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced. For the

purpose of this study, the scaled scores was used to track student data. MAP assessments

were administered to students in grade three to twelve.

2011 cohort groups: English language arts. Looking at table 4.14, this

described the data that is included in the table. First grade students were assessment on

the MAP for the first time at the end of third grade and fourth grade, giving only two data

points and an artificial “perfect” correlation. A third grade student for example, would

have been tested for the first time and would have trailing data that includes the next

three years and into the first year of middle school. A fifth grade student would have a

similar sequence with three trailing data points into high school. Kindergarten data were

not included since the students were assessed once.


95

Table 4.14

2011 Cohort Groups: English Language Arts Content


Slope First Control 6 624.60 651.33 26.73 1.00 Intervention 8 618.13 633.13 15.00 1.00 Second Control 12 604.67 648.08 21.70 0.84 Intervention 15 618.93 660.43 20.75 0.99 Third Control 4 606.25 639.75 12.22 0.63 Intervention 8 572.44 641.63 23.57 0.94 Fourth Control 3 622.67 649.00 7.66 0.62 Intervention 8 618.00 688.25 20.60 0.83 Fifth Control 2 632.00 657.50 10.65 0.57 Intervention 4 612.50 647.00 11.22 0.96 The grade level groups tend to be smaller with the MAP assessment data than

with reading comprehension and ACCESS, in part to student language levels. ELL

students in the United States less than one calendar year were waived from the ELA

portion of the MAP assessment, but were not waived from the other assessments used in

this research.

The data for second, third, fourth, and fifth grade reflected a higher trend line for

the intervention cohort than the control cohort. In addition, the intervention grade level

cohorts stated at a lower mean score and ended the data collection period a higher mean

than the control cohorts. The first grade cohorts were the exception, with the intervention

cohort making lower trend growth than the control. As well, the end mean for the first

grade intervention cohort was lower than the control cohort.


96

2012 cohort group: English language arts. Kinder and first grade data were not

included in table 4.15 since two consecutive data points were accumulated. Student

transiency and assessment requirements caused a high attrition rate for the cohort year.

However, all groups with data available made positive growth. In comparing to the

previous cohort year, 2011, the growth was smaller.

Table 4.15 2012 Cohort Groups: English Language Arts Content

Grade n Start M End M Trend Line R2 Slope Second Control Intervention 12 649.00 667.00 9.00 0.46 Third Control Intervention 5 632.20 659.60 13.70 0.63 Fourth Control 1 639.00 665.00 13.00 0.83 Intervention 15 620.07 644.07 12.00 0.77 Fifth Control Intervention 9 649.00 667.00 9.00 0.46

2013 cohort groups: English language arts. For this cohort year, the first grade

level with two consecutive data points was third grade. With only two data points, the R-

squared values showed an unlikely high correlation. For fifth grade, the same is true with

the control cohort due to one student comprising the cohort.


97

Table 4.16

2013 Cohort Groups: English Language Arts Content


Slope Third Control 4 589.25 616.50 27.25 1.00 Intervention 11 580.83 621.27 40.44 1.00 Fourth Control 5 605.00 649.00 22.00 0.99 Intervention 5 585.50 605.75 10.12 0.51 Fifth Control 1 639.00 -16.00 1.00 Intervention 11 609.33 636.72 13.65 0.93

Qualitative Data

The primary themes discovered through the analysis of the participant interviews

and the connection to the literature review where appropriate. The participants’ responses

will follow, sequenced by individual teacher and comments by theme. The themes used

are (a) summer learning regression and the achievement gap, (b) access to educational

resources, (c) the academic calendar, and (d) program goals and the curriculum.

Summer Learning Regression and the Achievement Gap Theme

Referenced in the review of literature, summer learning regression negatively

impacted the learning of all students, but had a particularly negative effect on English

language learners’ retention of knowledge. Entwisle et al. (2001) and Heyns (1978) noted

students from all socio-economic backgrounds have remarkably similar learning growth

trajectories during the school year, but out of school time during the summer resulted in a

“faucet effect” (Entwisle et al., 2001), or turning off opportunities to learn for students

that lack access to learning resources during the summer months. In particular, the

summer after first grade was the time when learning losses started to accumulate. Over


98

the course of their elementary career, students in the study from low-SES backgrounds

gained less than one point in reading and high-SES peers gained 47 points (Entwisle et

al., 2001) when the researchers looked exclusively at assessments used to gage summer

learning patterns. While the outcomes of the Entwisle et al. (2001) research focused on

differences in socio-economic status, within the district of interest, the buildings with the

highest ELL populations also had the highest free and reduced lunch population and

highest mobility rates. The free and reduced lunch rate is a primary indicator of socio-

economic levels. Table 4.17 details the five elementary school populations with the

highest percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch, the mobility rate and the

percentage of the building receiving ELL services.

Table 4.17

Percentage ELL, Free and Reduced Lunch and Mobility

Building % ELL Free and Reduced Lunch Mobility Rate 1 26.62 77.94% 61.2% 2 20.17 77.74% 57.2% 3 13.09 74.11% 60.9% 4 13.65 72.70% 55.5% 5 16.53 70.00% 47.0% Note. Data compiled from District Free and Reduced Lunch Rankings (2015), Mobility

Trend Report (2015) and Ethnicity Report (2015).

The responses of interview participants frequently mingled the idea of summer

learning regression and the achievement gap. As such, and due to the connection between

the two concepts, summer learning regression and the achievement gap will be addressed

simultaneously, but separated out when possible. The idea of summer learning regression

was mentioned in the ELL teacher interview responses a total of 61 times, with a mean of

6.7 per respondent. Summer learning regression was mention by all participants, with


99

four references to summer learning loss being the fewest and 17 uses of the phrase as the

highest. The following phrases were a sample of the references attributed to summer

learning regression: (a) summer regression, (b) summer loss, (c) bridging the summer, (d)

stayed the same over the summer or (e) advanced (in reference to assessments conducted

in the spring and again in the fall after the intervention), (f) academic loss and (g) close

the gap.

Access to Educational Resources Theme A second theme frequently referenced in the teacher interviews was student and

family access to education or learning resources outside of the traditional school year.

The research of Entwisle et al. (2000) noted the effect of access to learning resources as a

primary cause of summer learning regression. The lack of resources was a theme

regularly references by the teachers of English language learner students, with 41 specific

mentions, with a mean 4.5, about the seven-week summer as an opportunity to provide

resources to students through the summer months. The phrases that were counted

included: (a) extra support, (b) field trips or learning experiences, (c) language support at

home or home language, (d) income gap and (e) building schema.

The responses of the educators acknowledged a number of potential causes of

summer learning regression and no matter the reason; educators believed summer

learning loss had a significant impact on the learning of ELL students. The responses also

suggested the summer intervention played a role in limiting the impact of summer

learning regression since students continued to have opportunities to learn and practice

English through the traditional vacation time. The connection between summer learning

regression and the seven-week summer intervention led to the next theme: the impact of


100

the academic calendar on student achievement.

The Academic Calendar Theme

The academic calendar was another frequent theme, in terms of structure for the

summer intervention, increasing the program to provide more language or instructional

support for all English language learner students year-round, not just for students with the

most need. General thoughts on instructional calendar included the luxury of time the

summer intervention afforded to develop concepts in more depth. Overall, the ELL

teachers’ responses favored the idea of modifying the calendar. However, the form and

structure of the calendar were not identified with consistency. In addition, the responses

suggested the modified calendar was good for ELL students, but the teachers themselves

may not be interested in working in the situation.

Curriculum and Program Goal of Developing English Language Proficiency Theme

The theme of curriculum is outside the parameters of the study, but as a frequent

response and tied to program goals of language acquisition, it was not easy to separate. In

particular, interviewees spoke to the notion of the thematic units or project-based learning

used in the summer intervention was tied to student achievement.

Within the district, the expectation is for teachers to use the Readers and Writers

Workshop model, with appropriate modification for ELL students to be able to access the

content. During the summer intervention, the workshop model continued to be the

expectation, but with the latitude to incorporate more hands on, experiential and thematic

units to full develop student language skills.

Teacher Interviews

Teacher interviews consisted of the recorded responses of the ELL teachers that


101

had students that participated in the seven-week summer intervention. The interviews are

grouped by individual and contain brief descriptions of the interview situation and

environment. As well, content for the response, such as the question the respondent was

answering, has been included to create fuller picture of the response, without interpreting

the response.

Teacher A To interview teacher A, the researcher contacted the teacher by email and a time

was selected that was mutually convenient. The interview was conducted at the work site

of the interview candidate and the first order of business was to review the informed

consent agreement. The interview transcript was recorded digitally and sent for

transcription. The researcher reviewed the transcript, removed names and other

identifiers, and changed acronyms as necessary that were not understood by the

transcriber. After this checking process, the transcript was emailed to the participant for

member checking and approval for use.

Summer learning loss. In response to a question about reading comprehension,

Teacher A commented on anecdotal differences between students that have participated

in the intervention and students that did not participate:

The students that I have sent there and have come back, what I have noticed is

that they did have better reading. They didn’t have the summer loss of reading

which was great. And some of my students who did not do well during the year,

eventually went on to get it, so that may have been, you know, helpful for them,

but they still needed that extra support through more than I could give them.

My students, I was really impressed with last year some of the data that I was


102

given after the program, that none of my students had any loss at all over the

summer. So that was a really great thing, I thought, and then that kind of kept

them going for the reading and they were excited about reading more than they

had been before.

In essence, the teacher’s perception of student success through the year hinged on the

additional support the student received through the summer and had assessment data to

further support the assertion of student success. As well, Teacher A defined the purpose

of the intervention and the association between the summer intervention in these terms:

Comparing students who, when looking at the data, comparing students who

attended the program compared to students who have not attended the program

and without remembering the exact percentages, has consistently been, the

students have, ok, the overall group of students have maintained their reading

level or grown or increased their reading level at higher percentage than the

students who did not attend summer school. That’s the piece we’ve all been

grasping this whole, that’s how we know that it works in closing the gap for our

ELL students.

An impassioned description of summer learning regression and the positive impact the

intervention has had on closing the gap for ELL students.

Academic calendar and curriculum connection. These responses reflect the

complexity and the interconnectedness of many of the issues explored in the review of

literature. The responses addressed the pace of instruction during the school year versus

the summer school. In addition, the link between the summer school curricula versus

school year curricula was covered. Teacher A explained thinking about the calendar in


103

these terms:

When I taught ELL summer school in the past the kids really had a chance to

delve into a subject area and learn a lot about it and learn the vocabulary and

really feel like they had gotten something. And they really enjoyed that. I think

that is something that I noticed as a teacher in the summer ELL program that I

thought worked really well.

The first half of the response delved into the pace of having additional instructional time

in the summer, while the second half of the response is directed specifically toward the

instructional pedagogy. Teacher A claimed:

I think that themed learning really works for kids, because when I taught ELL

summer school in the past, we had themes for the kids and so then they really had

a chance to delve into a subject area and learn a about it.

The educator also noted, student comments about the instructional activities. While the

information is relayed through a third party, it helps establish some additional context

surrounding the response. This was the student view through the teacher: The one thing I

did hear from the students was “it was more like hands-on learning, like group activities,

where you weren’t sitting down doing worksheets.” Learning in a different kind of way,

that is more helpful for them.

Intervention impact on assessment. In response to a question on standardized

assessment, the educator’s perceptions of student outcomes after participation in the

seven-week summer intervention included a belief that students made positive gains, with

the exception being a student that was having struggles in areas beyond language

acquisition. Teacher A pointed out:


104

I believe that my students increased on those assessments. All of them except one

did not and that was because the student had some other issues going on that I

don’t really think should have been included in that group because the student is

gone now. But, the rest of the kids did really well. Most of my kids were at least

proficient on the MAP test. I had really good scores last year. I was really proud

of my kiddos, so the kids that did go, I think it definitely helped them.

In all, the interviewee’s responses were thoughtful and focused on the needs of students.

As noted previously, many of the topics intertwine and could be included in multiple

categories.

Teacher B

Teacher B was interviewed at an off-campus location that was convenient for the

interviewee after the initial email contact. The research followed the same procedure of

providing informed consent, conducting the interview, transcribing the interview,

checking the interview for accuracy, member checking and approval was used.

Eliminating summer regression through teaching forward. The take of this

teacher was to combat summer learning regression by pre-teaching to the next grade,

rather than trying to catch up missed skills and language. Teacher B explained why this

summer program was beneficial for student learning:

I think that during the summer program, I was able to kind of frontload them or

prepare them for the following school year. So what I saw and for my students

who participated in it, they were more prepared for some of the concepts that they

needed to learn in the next grade level. So I would say the overall time impact

was highly positive.


105

The process of pre-teaching is used as an ELL instructional strategy for building schema

for upcoming units or days of lessons, but is not typically applied to the next grade level.

¡Colorín Colorado! (2007), a bilingual website for ELL professionals and families of

ELL students explained pre-teaching as an essential vocabulary skills necessary for

reading comprehension that can be accomplished through a variety of visual learning

clues tied to the specific English language vocabulary (2007). The concept of pre-

teaching toward the next school year guided thoughts to the confluence of time and

building context by offering student experiences the might not otherwise have access to.

Confluence of time and educational resources. Teacher B responded in a

similar manner other interview participants while answering the question about program

purpose. There was insight into the connection between access to educational resources

that could be provided to the students participating in the intervention and the impact of

additional instructional time. The response included, “they get to participate and

experience things that they wouldn’t otherwise have. We just provided them experiences

that we couldn’t during the school year and their families wouldn’t through have

otherwise during the summer. When asked about the impact of time on student learning,

Teacher B stated:

In terms of short term versus long term learning goals, I think that that’s true for

any kid, regardless of their English language abilities. Being a regular classroom

teacher and having an entire year with students versus those six weeks, I think

that with ELL, it does take a longer time, a longer amount of time for them to

acquire a new concept because language is conceptual and so I think they have to


106

be just constantly exposed to that content and to the language of that content and

the summer helps.

Thematic learning units. As with many of the teachers interviewed, Teacher B

believed the thematic units of the program helped students make connections between

their prior knowledge and new learning and maintained:

So the summer learning program is really thematic, which obviously allows for

students to make connections between their prior knowledge and something new.

So integrating just different disciplines, having a culminating experience

connected to that theme really solidified the content that they were working on.

It’s too bad the rest of the school year can’t be more thematic, like the summer

program is.

Teacher C

Teacher C was interviewed in person at the employee’s work site after school was

dismissed for the day. This teacher was initially contacted by email and subsequent

scheduling conversations were conducted by phone. All other procedures remained the

same.

Summer learning regression. When Teacher C responded to the question about

English language acquisition of students that participated in the intervention, these were

the reflections about summer learning regression:

There is a definite notice that the slide that typically occurs with our ELL students

isn’t as big. The gap isn’t as large for students that participated. The students

don’t lose their second language skills they had developed before leaving in the

summer. Which would normally happen if they didn’t have the seven-week


107

program.

The theme of summer learning regression and the direct impact on English language

acquisition skills in evident. The teacher’s perception was the students that participated in

the intervention and had the opportunity to continue language practice maintained their

skills. In addition, the impression of students’ reading comprehension scores mirrored the

perception of language acquisition and included, “assessment wise, if students didn’t

attend the intervention you would see a bigger drop in the reading level scores at the

beginning of the year than you do in the students that have the opportunity to attend the

seven-week program.” Asked about the overall success of ELL students that participated

in the intervention, the response referenced student reading comprehension scores on the

Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System 1 and 2 and articulated the

following:

I’m not sure I can answer the question fully, other than what I’ve noticed in the

Fountas and Pinnell scores, in that they don’t lose their ability to comprehend

what they’ve read because they continue to read in English and they continued to

speak to people in English throughout the summer.

The perception of student outcomes on the state standardized assessment, the MAP test,

after participation in the seven-week summer intervention followed a different trajectory

due to the composition of the student population. Either the students were to young to

participate in MAP testing or they had not meet the one-year minimum residency

requirements established by the state of Missouri to participate in the assessment.

Teacher C illustrated the point this way:


108

Honestly I don’t have an answer for that because many of our, our lowest level

learners that attended the program have not taken the standardized test yet, either

they are not old enough or they are exempt due to the length of time in the

country. So I do not have an answer to that.

The calendar and servicing more students. Questioned about the impact of

length of time for the intervention, Teacher C commented by comparing the district’s

former summer school model:

Our district’s traditional summer school model and that kind of timeframe isn’t

long enough, based on typically being Monday through Thursday and a shortened

day and only being four weeks long. The added three weeks and the opportunities

and the skills simply facilitate their language learning and academic skills that

they would normally continue. I would love to see it expanded and not simply be

for the lowest level learners, but also for the upper level learners as a way to work

on mastery and simply delving into the concepts more deeply. I would love to see

it bigger and more availability.

Thematic units. The perception of thematic units aligned with the thinking of

many other interview participants. Teacher C thought themes added value to the language

instruction and added:

I understand the program focuses on units and themes to focus on language

instruction. It involves a lot of field trips to give them schema and real life

experiences to give students background knowledge. All the experiences are tied

to the weekly themes.


109

In addition to the focus on thematic units, Teacher C responded in a manner that also

heighted the opportunity for providing educational experiences to students that might not

have them otherwise.

Teacher D Teacher D was contacted by email. The researcher followed up in person through

a conversation with the participant. This interview was conducted by phone. Prior to the

start of the interview, the participant was read the informed consent agreement. A copy of

the consent agreement was sent by district mail to the teacher. Other procedures remained

the same.

Summer regression. Summer learning regression was identified by Teacher D

when asked about the impact of length of time had on students that partook in the

intervention. Initially, the respondent did not think the length of time played a role, but

while continuing to expound upon the response realized:

I think the length of time wouldn’t necessarily play a role in the students’

achievement. But the type of program is what played a role. Their scores, on their

reading score, language acquisition scores, I think that having the seven weeks

helps so there is not summer regression.

Furthermore, Teacher D mentioned the perceived connection between access to

educational activities outside of the school year and offered this response:

I would tell her what the kids need as far if they come from a, if their family life,

if they have a poor family life, you know, then they would give those kids a little

more TLC, but I also think about giving those kids more experiences, to provide


110

them with opportunities. With learning opportunities they wouldn’t have if they

were not in summer school, if they were not in the summer learning program.

As well, the educator added views comparing the opportunities the students have during

the summer intervention and the opportunities available during the regular school year.

The teacher injected, “the summer learning program has a field trip every week to build

background. In regular education, we need to have more field trips and more project

based learning, again adding additional thinking on the perceived differences in

curriculum.

Instructional calendar. Teacher D had a dissenting opinion about modifying

instructional calendars and the impact on student success and suggested:

I don’t necessarily think we need a longer school day. I don’t necessarily think we

need to add more days to the calendar. I think need to be out in the community

more and giving our students more real world experiences.

The teacher elaborated about the hands-on learning experiences students are able to have

with science activities and personal experiences with their child.

Intervention and assessment. Asked about the impact of the intervention on

English language acquisition assessment, Teacher D indicated:

Honestly, I can only think of three students off the top of my head and I don’t

remember their scores from before and after, but if English language acquisition

in any way mirrors their achievement, I mean, in reading and writing, then I

would say it didn’t have much effect on these students. Right now maybe it

didn’t, but then I think down the line it will. If it hasn’t right now, it will later.


111

In response to student outcomes on the state standardized assessment, the MAP test, after

participation in the seven-week summer intervention, Teacher D rationalized:

I honestly don’t know, but would assume that their score either (a) stayed the

same or (b) went up a little bit. I mean, maybe those kids are still in the basic

range, but maybe they’re mid-basic rather than low basic. Or, I honestly don’t

know off the top of my head, but just, by thinking of the students, you know,

without looking at their score for almost one year, without having those right in

front of me. Like I said, I would imagine it would raise their scores a little bit at

least.

Teacher E

Teacher E was contacted by email, and follow up was conducted through text

message to schedule an interview time. The interview was conducted at an off-campus

location. The interviewee was provided with the informed consent, interviewed and

provided the occasion to member check after the transcription.

Program goals and learning loss. Teacher E explained the perception of the

correlation between program goals, language skills and summer learning regression:

That it’s to improve the English language acquisition of our students and the goal

is to, with that, is to close the gap that tends to happen during the summertime.

We leave in the spring and come back at the beginning of the school year the

following year, there’s always a learning loss. In addition to a learning loss, our

students also have—so an academic loss—but they also have a language loss if

they go home to their families and speak their native language with their families,

they lose a lot of English they’ve been developing.


112

The response explained one of the purposes of the program, responding to learning loss

for in a high need student population, and identified a potential reason for the learning

loss among ELL students. Teacher E’s response examined the connection of native

language use during the summer vacation time and the impact on student’s second

language learning. The thoughts of Teacher E elaborated on the use of English at home

during the summer months:

They also have a language loss if they go home to their families and speak their

native language with their families; they lose a lot of the English they’ve been

developing. The goal is to have them in school more time so they are continuing

to develop English in the four domains of speaking, listening, reading and writing.

In another answer, Teacher E’s response highlighted the linkage between educational

resources, curriculum and the calendar.

Trajectory of students after intervention. This response expounds on the

benefit of time a change in the calendar has on ELL student learning, addressing access to

educational resources and how these ideas impact learning regression. Teacher E noted:

It is a huge piece of what our district needs to explore, like the seven-week

program for all students. I would say the seven-week program indeed has a

positive impact. I would say, if we could afford it, or the state could afford it, or

however it works, I think other districts will look at what we are doing and see it

works. But I certainly don’t think that twelve weeks or eleven weeks or whatever

it comes down to in the summer for students who don’t go to summer school or

don’t have other learning experiences with their families, I certainly don’t think

twelve weeks is detrimental and if you look at the research they have shown.


113

Like one student, you know, in a certain income bracket, the family is in a certain

income bracket, compared to a student in a higher income bracket, they start at the

same starting block. But each year, that they go through the school year, and then

one has summer learning experiences with their family and the other one does not,

by third grade their gap is so huge, with their reading level and their vocabulary

range.

If that gap is there it is very hard to close. Another example, student A qualifies,

but for some reason doesn’t come to the summer program and student B qualifies

with the same data as students A, but student B attends the summer program. If all

the circumstances were very similar, Student B would exit ELL services would

more quickly and would advance more rapidly through the progression of the

proficiency standards.

In summary, the response addressed the end goal of ELL services; exit ELL students

once they have gained adequate English language skills to perform at a level equivalent

to their native speaking peers. In addition, identified the purpose of the study: does the

intervention have an impact on ELL student academic achievement?

Teacher F

Teacher F was contacted by email and through a follow up phone conversation an

interview time was scheduled. The interview was conducted in the participant’s office

after students were dismissed for the day. Informed consent was gained and the interview

was conducted. Next, transcription occurred and the participant gave final approval of the

content.


114

Reading comprehension and intervention participation. In response to a

question about reading comprehension outcomes, Teacher F stated the facts presented to

the staff of the ELL department:

I know in some of our ELL department meetings, we looked at graphs that

showed how the students that were in the program compared, how their reading

scores compared to students that were not in the program. I know that showed that

it did make a difference. It made a positive difference for the students that were in

the program. So essentially, students that were in the program either retained their

reading level or increased and that reflects my thoughts on how that impacts the F

and P (Fountas and Pinnell) assessment.

In the perception of this ELL teacher, reading comprehension data presented during

departmental meetings supported the teacher’s thoughts that students participating in the

summer intervention made maintained or showed growth over the summer, lessening the

summer learning gap.

Impact on other assessments. Interviewees also responded on their perception

of student outcomes on the state standardized assessment, the MAP test, after

participation in the seven-week summer intervention. Teacher F illustrated thinking this

way:

Well, so this would tie back, so I believe the program is increasing their abilities

to connect to the units of study and I believe, it’s also improving their academic

language and their social language, then, I’m also of the belief it also will increase

their standardized test scores in the MAP test.


115

The response connected language acquisition and usage to a broader range of

application, including standardized assessment. Moreover, in response to a question

about language acquisition surmised, “my perception is that certainly the program is

never going to hurt them…and you could literally see, you could really hear and see the

growth in their language skills” and ended the statement with the belief in the benefit of

the intervention.

Curriculum Connection. Teacher F echoed the thought of Teacher B for

preparing students in advance for the upcoming school year these points:

I look back at the purpose of the program, and I think, okay, these second graders

that I’m working with, as they move into their next year, these are the things they

are going to hear and need to know and they are going to have that background

knowledge. Students had more access to the curriculum and they had some

refinement to the previous units of study.

Teacher G

Teacher G was contacted twice by email and responded after the second request

for participants. The interview was conducted by phone. Informed consent was given

orally and the informed consent letter was sent by district mail. Other procedures in the

process remained the consistent for this participant as with the others.

Intervention impact on assessment. Teacher G was emphatic with a belief the

program did not impact English Language acquisition:

Through personal observation, I would say that students are able to articulate

some of the field trips they’ve gone on, they’re able to articulate some of the

experiences that they were a part of, but from a language, purely a language


116

output perspective, like I said, in the previous question, I’m not sure that I’ve

directly seen a correlation on an assessment.

Contemplation continued on the impact of the intervention upon on other

assessments and areas of student learning included these perceptions on standardized

assessment:

Well, I know that this is the first year my students, and I work primarily with third

graders in my build, this is their first exposure to the MAP test. It seems as if the

language is very, very rigorous for them this year. That the vocabulary, the

content of the story, the formatting of it on the computer was a little bit of a

learning curve for some of them in the look of the <inaudible>, the left side of the

screen, the stories were like in a sidebar. So the formatting of it is just kind of

created the perception for the students that it was a very long passage. In reality, it

was not that long, but it was the formatting of it. So, students I feel like struggled

with, you know, main ideas kind of weren’t concrete, so, I think it is very difficult

assessment for the language learner. If that first session was five questions long

and it requires a lot of stamina from the language learners especially.

Filling educational need during the summer. Teacher G did have a more

positive take on the intervention’s impact in filling the educational resource void students

may encounter during the summer. Teacher G, while responding to the purpose of the

program included, “They’re also given additional opportunities for exposure and

awareness by doing real-life field trips to places they wouldn’t usually go with their

families, to expose them to little bit more than they would be exposed to at home” and

summarized the purpose of the intervention to give students and intensive experience that


117

supplements the instruction of the school year. The intervention provided an opportunity

to “dig deeper with some of the language objectives” and was geared specifically to the

student’s current level.

Calendar and intervention time frame. Not modifying the instructional

calendar was on the mind of Teacher G and provided the following thoughts on the

impact of the intervention on reading comprehension:

I think from an idealist’s perspective; I want it to work. I’m not sure. I’m not sure

on paper how much I’ve seen that carry through with my students this year. I’ve

heard them talk about the field trips or we did this or we experienced that. I’m not

sure I see a direct carry over to their reading levels or their writing skills or their

math skills.

In addition, Teacher G voiced a strong opinion about the length of time for the

intervention. The educator articulated these thoughts:

I think overall, my perception is that the seven-week system is a little bit longer

time and a little bit more continuity maybe in carrying through some of the

learning objectives and structures that fit into their summer learning. I think, and

this is my opinion, obviously, but I think that the few students that go for both of

the sessions, if they were to go to both, that seems like that would maybe be a

little long and students would maybe tire of it easier and quicker.

The conclusion of these thoughts focused on the better training for teachers that work

with ELL students in the general education classroom and giving these teachers

additional resources to meet ELL student needs.


118

Teacher H

Teacher H responded very quickly to the first call to participate. A few

subsequent emails were exchanged to schedule and meeting and there were a few

reschedules due to last minute conflicts. The interview occurred in the classroom of the

ELL teacher and a similar process was followed with this interview as with the previous

interviews.

Supporting students through the summer. Teacher H expressed many reasons

why providing extra support through the summer intervention is important to ELL

students. Queried about the purpose of the program, Teacher H responded:

I believe the purpose is to keep the children more involved in a school on a

regular schedule and expose them to many opportunities that they wouldn’t

normally have, they wouldn’t be exposed to by their families. In addition to

keeping skills sharp that they learned during the year, so they don’t regress over

the summer, I think one of the important things was the field trips they were able

to take and also to keep the skills sharp in terms of the units of study so that they

have a better understanding of the world around them and are constantly building

background in a way they would usually do without this program.

The reply showed the interwoven relationship between all the concepts and issues

surrounding ELL student education. This interviewee further explained when asked about

the impact of the length of time for the intervention:

I mean the schedule of school; they’re getting breakfast and lunch at least. We

provide transportation and maybe some of the kids, would not have, I don’t know,

quality daycare. Families get by the best they can and this is not to sound judgey


119

or anything like that, but I think that families really appreciate knowing their

children are in a quality program for the summer instead of them trying to

scramble and try to find someone to watch their children.

In addition, support through the summer extended to expanding learning opportunities.

Teacher H mentioned:

Any extra you can give them helps. I liked the seven-week program because it

gave the students more time and more opportunities to experience more things. I

think, I definitely think the program should be seven weeks and then they do get

two weeks break before school starts again. So they get a different experience, yet

a beneficial experience. I would like year round school, not to be confused with

extended calendar, for everyone. I think it just makes sense. You don’t have big

lags in education, you keep going and to me it just makes sense.

Through multiple questions, the responses came back to the idea of meeting students’

social, academic and physical needs to make up for lags in achievement.

Intervention and assessment relationship. All interviewees were asked about

the impact of the intervention on specific assessments ELL students were taking

throughout the school year. When asked about state standardized assessment, MAP,

Teacher H described it as:

Any, any extra you give them helps. I can’t think of a specific example, but of the

students I’m thinking of that did participate in the program, I’ve been really happy

with their progress. I don’t have a specific example with state assessments that I

can recall.


120

In response to reading comprehension and the opportunities for field trips to build

schema, noted, “It certainly helps their comprehension. It certainly helps their

comprehension when you are reading about a reptile or amphibian and you can say

remember what we saw, so then the words make more sense.” A real life experience is

more impactful on reading comprehension than other visuals such as pictures or realia.

Teacher I

The interview for Teacher I was set up through an initial phone conversation and

conducted in the office of the interviewee. The same process of informed consent,

interview, transcription, member checking and approval was followed for this participant.

The intervention goal and learning regression. Teacher I, responded to the

question about the purpose and goals of the program and commented on summer learning

regression in the following manner:

So our students we invite to the program are the students with the lowest English

language proficiency and include newcomers within the previous two academic

years or are significantly low in reading or they are below basic on the state

assessment. So any of those criteria qualify a student for the program. In addition

to the fact that students typically have summer learning loss, a gap in learning that

occurs between June, July and August when they return to school. So our goal and

our purpose is to close that gap or slow it down for our students in the highest

need.

Teacher I identified one the primary indicators used by the district for initiating the

seven-week summer learning intervention for ELL students. The district had noticed the

ELL students with the most language need, were returning in the fall with some of the


121

largest learning regression.

The intervention and the calendar. Thoughts about summer learning regression

fomented into the length of time for the intervention and calendar structure. Teacher I

rationalized:

In addition to the fact everything was different, the schedule was different, the

teachers were different, I don’t think the duration of seven weeks, I think that

helps tremendously. I didn’t see, the students did not seem fatigued and have

academic fatigue at all. My perception is that, the seven-weeks, they can handle it,

they don’t get fatigued and from the data, it speaks that, it is a positive effect.

They don’t lose what they learned and in some cases even make gains.

The impression of this educator, the time was adequate and had a positive outcome for

student learning.

The intervention and curriculum. Teacher I elaborated the most on themes and

the connection to student learning and provided these details:

I think students are typically excited about summer school. I think that the

teachers overall enjoy it. I definitely think that has something to do with the

environment that’s created and the fact that there is, I think there’s something to

be said about having thematic units. I really think they are effective and I don’t

know what the pros and cons are really, really stacked for or against this type of

planning, but I, that holistic approach is very many positive outcomes as I can see

and really no negative outcomes that I can observe.

The way that this was developed or planned from the beginning, I wasn’t part of

the first year, but the idea and the research behind what is called thematic


122

learning, is a little bit different than what the students experience in the

classroom, day-to-day, throughout the regular school year. But the idea is that

you’re taking all the content areas, math English Language Arts, science, and

social studied and you are, perhaps you have one theme, for example life science.

So students are learning about life science through their ELA, science and it could

be scaled down like animals at the zoo or mammals or something like that.

So whatever the theme or topic is, it’s infused through all of those content areas at

the same time. They’re using speaking, listening, reading and writing throughout

the entire day. Intentional planning and intentional structure so that you have an

end goal in mind for what you want students to be able to produce in speech and

produce in writing.

That does not occur during the regular school year, although it would be nice if it

did because it makes all the learning in context, you know, instead of being an

isolated topic. Think about how much more you would gain if you were learning

whole themes or a whole concept throughout the entire day, but through different

lenses. It makes the most sense, but the research behind it shows that students

really retain more information that way.

The intervention and assessment. All interview participants were asked about

the impact of the intervention on student English language acquisition assessments.

Teacher I pondered the question with this thought replied, “my perception is, overall, an

overwhelming majority, that they all made gains,” but also suggested that due to when

the assessment is given during the school year, other factors in conjunction with the


123

intervention created the positive outcomes. When asked about the MAP assessment

explained:

I would say just a handful of our students that are invited are, really just a handful

of our students are below basic, which is the lowest measure and that’s the

measure and criteria we would use to invite students to qualify them. So getting

back to your question, I ascertain they make gains, but its kind of difficult to

measure, it’s apple to oranges on the assessment, but the positive, one good way

of looking at it that fewer are in the red, the below basic category.

When teachers answered questions about student outcomes on reading comprehension

after participation in the intervention, this was how Teacher I countered:

I would align it again to the F and P assessment, the reading scores so again, the

students who have attended all or part of the seven-week summer school

intervention program, a majority in the two years we have looked at, remained at

the same level or make increases in levels during the intervention.

Overall, the educator interviews provided specific details about their perception of

student outcomes after participation. In general, the perceptions seemed positive and at

the very least, would not have a negative effect.

Summary

This chapter presented a review of the study methodology and the research

questions. In addition, this chapter provided a detailed description of the data collection

procedures for the qualitative and qualitative phases of the study. Quantitative data

analysis provided the results of student achievement in four cohort groups and used three

measurement tools. The tools measure students’ assessed student reading comprehension,


124

English language acquisition and standardized assessment scores on English Language

Arts. Each cohort group was disaggregated by assessment type and grade level.

Qualitative data analysis provided the results of interviews on the perceptions of student

outcomes with ELL teachers that had students that participated in the intervention.

This mixed methods study used a linear regression to examine the quantitative

data and developed qualitative themes based the ELL teacher interviews. The quantitative

data analysis revealed early intervention had a cumulative effect; in particular, reading

comprehension intervention at the earliest age moved ELL students’ reading

comprehension scores to similar levels as their peers. Other reading comprehension

outcomes included trend lines indicating higher annual growth than expected for grade

level peers. The results from ACCESS score analysis, the English language acquisition

tool, the results suggested the intervention cohorts trended higher and the control cohorts

trended lower than the expected growth goals. MAP results are inconclusive, however,

data for the 2011 intervention cohort suggested higher trend lines at all grade levels and

students ended a higher mean.

The qualitative results suggested a common perception the intervention was

beneficial for students, with several interviewees citing assessment data, in addition to

anecdotal impressions. The primary themes included: slowing summer learning

regression, providing students with access to resources, the additional time provide

through extending the academic calendar, and the use of learning experiences that tie to

the curriculum.


125

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

English language learner (ELL) students are an increasing portion of the student

population in the United States and as noted by Heritage et al. (2015), “the number of

students who are ELLs has grown from two million to five million since 1990, vastly

outpacing the growth in the overall school population. However, in general, academic

outcomes for ELLs remain stubbornly low” (p. 1). The need for solutions to combat

summer learning regression and meet the language needs of ELL students is the purpose

of this study.

In this chapter, the conclusions, implications, and recommendations will be put

forth. The sequence of the chapter will include: first, a summary of the study; second, a

summary of the findings; and third, implications/recommendations for future research. A

recommendation for future study includes conducting research that not only features

student assessment data and qualitative data from teacher interviews, but also includes

the third aspect of student and parent perceptions of academic outcomes after

participating in the intervention.

Summary of the Study

This study was a convergent transformative mixed methods study. The

transformative framework was selected to provide the framework for improving

educational outcomes for a marginalized student population. Ponterotto et al. (2004)

explained, the social justice aspect of transformative theoretical research is to empower

the individual to confront injustice and inequality in systemic environments, such as the

educational setting. A mixed methods study was selected to optimize the quantitative and


126

qualitative data relationships between student data outcomes and educator perception of

student outcomes. A mixed methods study “mutually corroborates” the quantitative and

qualitative data sets to offer a complete and comprehensive explanation of the results

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2014).

The quantitative data collection included archived student assessment data for

reading comprehension, English acquisition and standardized English language arts

assessments. Data was collected and sorted by cohort year, assessment type, grade level

and level of participation. Scores on the ACCESS English language acquisition

assessment initially screened students for inclusion in the study. This provided a

homogeneous pool of students. Attendance was the screener used to determine if the

student was in the control group (invited to attend the intervention, but did not attend) or

intervention group (invited and attended).

Assessment data was collected for cohort year 2011 (the first year of the

intervention), 2012 (the second year of the intervention), 2013 and 2014. The

intervention was a seven-week summer intervention, with the first cohort year being a

pilot with about 80 students in attendance from 5 different elementary schools. In

subsequent years, the intervention was made available to all district elementary ELL

students with the highest language need. After data was cleaned, a linear regression was

conducted on the data sets to determine if the intervention had an impact of student

learning outcomes.

The qualitative data was collected by conducting one-to-one in person or phone

interviews with ELL teachers of the students from the intervention. Interviewees were

selected at random and included nine out of 19 elementary teachers from the district of


127

interest. The researcher used semi-structured questions to ensure a consistent questioning

format, but also allowed the flexibility to pursue ideas that needed additional context,

further explanation through a natural conversational approach. Prior to starting the

interview, each participant was provided informed consent. All interviews were recorded

digitally and immediately sent for transcription. After transcription was complete, the

researcher removed personal identifiers of the interviewees, students, or other district

employees. Each interviewee member checked the transcription and gave approval for

use.

For the data analysis, each transcript was read for initial thoughts and to develop

broad themes. Next, key words and/or phrases were recorded in a spreadsheet, grouped

by participant and question for coding purposes and subsequently analyzed for themes

across all the interviews.

The research questions used to focus the study are tied to the mixed methodology,

with one question for each aspect. Envision a funnel with quantitative and qualitative data

being added through the wide mouth of the opening. As the funnel narrows, the

quantitative and qualitative data are distilled down through the narrow opening with the

results being a response to the central question. Finally, the transformative resulted from

the mixture of all the parts into a recommendation for the betterment of ELL education.

The questions that focused the study were:

1. Central Research Question - What are the congruencies between archived

English Language Learner students’ assessment data in reading

comprehension, English language acquisition and standardized assessment


128

and the beliefs of English Language Learner teachers’ about student academic

outcomes after students participated in a seven-week summer intervention?

2. Quantitative Research Question - Does a seven-week summer intervention for

English Language Learners influence longitudinal growth (growth toward

grade level proficiency standards over multiple years) in reading

comprehension, English language acquisition and statewide normed

assessment outcomes?

3. Qualitative Research Question - What were the English Language Learner

teachers’ perceptions of students’ academic outcomes after students

participated in a seven-week summer intervention?

4. Transformative Research Question - What educational policy considerations

can be derived from the outcomes of this research?

The research questions guided every aspect of the study form the formulation of the

design and methodology, through the research of literature, collection and analysis of

data, and finally, the summarization of findings.

Summary of the Findings

Central Question

The central question is focused on the commonalities between the findings that

emerge in ELL student assessment data and ELL teacher perceptions of student

achievement after participation in the seven-week summer intervention. First, student

assessment data revealed reading comprehension growth aligned with the teacher

impressions of student outcomes after participation in the intervention. Second, teacher

impressions about student outcomes in English language acquisition on the ACCESS


129

assessment intimated that the intervention influenced student learning in a positive

manner and that thinking was borne out on the student assessment data findings. In

addition, the inconclusiveness of the MAP assessment data associates with the educators’

opinion that it was hard to determine of the intervention had an impact on the MAP

assessment.

In summary, teachers believed the intervention offered an opportunity for students

to continue learning and provide educational resources through the summer in ways

families may not be able to provide. Slowing or stopping summer learning regression was

one of the purposes of the intervention, along with closing the achievement gap. The

student data implies these opinions of student outcomes were substantiated.

Quantitative Question

The purpose of the quantitative phase of the research was to determine if the

seven-week summer intervention had an impact on the academic achievement of students

after participation in the intervention. Three types of assessments were, examined. The

Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System 1 and 2 were used to assess reading

comprehension. English language acquisition was assessed through the WIDA ACCESS

and the standardized ELA content was assessed with the Missouri Assessment Program

(MAP) annual test. These are the findings for the quantitative phase of the study for each

assessment measure. It is important to note, both the control and intervention students

were derived from a homogeneous pool of students that scored below a minimum

threshold (below a 3.5) on the WIDA ACCESS English language assessment. Families

decided to participate or not participate at the time of the intervention and the


130

differentiation into control or intervention group occurred at the at the time of the study

by the researcher, based on attendance registers.

Reading comprehension. The 2011 intervention cohort had four out of five

grade levels trend higher than the control group. The intervention cohorts’ average trend

was 5.83 levels of growth compared to an average trend growth of 3.23 levels among the

control group.

Reading comprehension for the 2012 cohorts, the intervention cohorts had higher

trend than the control for one out of the six grade level groups. The average trend for the

intervention cohorts was 4.11 levels of growth versus an average trend growth of 4.36

levels for the control group.

For the 2013 cohort groups, all intervention cohorts had higher trend lines than

control cohorts for reading comprehension. The intervention cohort trend average was

5.03 levels of growth, while the control cohorts’ average was 3.78 levels of growth.

In comparing reading comprehension trends for the 2014 cohort groups, four out

of the five grade level intervention cohorts had higher trends than the control group. The

average growth for the intervention cohorts was 3.23 levels and the control cohorts

averaged 2.08 levels of growth.

Table 5.1

Reading Comprehension Growth Trends

Cohort Years 2014 2013 2012 2011 Levels of Growth

Intervention Cohort 3.26 5.03 4.11 5.83 Control Cohort 2.08 3.78 4.36 3.23 Note. Adapted from data previously presented in Chapter Four


131

The data in table 5.1 suggests that reading comprehension growth trend rates

accelerate for students that have participated in the intervention. The farther away, the

higher the growth trend, indicating the intervention does have a positive correlation to

reading comprehension. This growth trend moves the students that participated in the

intervention closer to their peers.

English language acquisition. Students participating in the 2011 intervention

cohort realized higher trend growth than the control groups at all grade levels in English

Language acquisition. The trend average for the intervention cohort was 1.15 compared

to 0.825 for the control cohort. The goal for students is advance by one level per year

until they are able to exit ELL language services. If two students started at the same

point, the intervention student would gain 1/3 of a year toward that goal over the student

that did not participate in the intervention, in effect, adding one year more toward the

goal.

ACCESS trends for the 2012 cohorts demonstrated that three out of five of the

intervention cohorts surpassed the trend of the control cohorts. Two grade levels did not

have a comparison. Both the intervention and control cohorts reported 0.86-trend growth,

putting both slightly behind expectations.

English language acquisition trends for the 2013 cohorts showed that three out of

the seven intervention cohorts had higher trend lines that the control group. The average

trend growth for the intervention cohort was 0.84 and the control cohort experienced 0.81

trend growth. Both are slightly below the anticipated annual growth.

Overall, 12 out of 18 intervention grade level cohorts trended higher than the

control cohort peers, indicating students that participated in the intervention had a


132

positive growth outcome and have the potential to exit ELL services faster. In addition,

the data indicated students in pre-kinder, kinder and first grade had higher average trend

growth.

Standardized assessment. For students that participated in the 2011

intervention, three out of the five grade level cohorts trended higher than their control

group peers. The intervention cohort averaged 18.24 scaled score trend growth versus

15.79 scaled score trend growth for the control cohort. For the other two years, 2012, and

2013, there was not adequate data to draw conclusions. Overall, the standardized

assessment data is inconclusive.

Qualitative Question

The qualitative phase of the research was framed by the question: what were the

ELL teachers’ perceptions of student academic outcomes after English language learner

students participated in a seven-week summer intervention. In the responses from

teachers of ELL students that participated, the teachers’ interest in improving outcomes

for ELL students, whether students participated in the intervention or not, was apparent.

All questions elicited a common frame of thinking around improving students’ prospects

for academic success through enhancing the learning experience during the school year or

the intervention. But the idea of academic success proved to be very complex, tied to the

families’ financial resources and ability to expose their children to learning experiences,

provide a trip to the library for book and sometimes ensure adequate food through the

break.

However, improving the students’ opportunities offered a multi-layer approach,

including expanding leaning prospects through the summer. This concept flowed into the


133

curriculum of the intervention. While the impact of the curriculum was outside the scope

of the study, the frequency with which it came up, required it be addressed. All of these

opinions highlighted the key purpose the starting the intervention, slowing down summer

learning loss.

Summer learning regression. The responses from educators made apparent

their desire to improve summer learning regression for ELL students. Their perception

was the intervention had a positive impact on overall student achievement and reading

comprehension of the students that participated in the intervention. In terms of the impact

on standardized assessment, the MAP, the consensus was less clear, but at the very least,

it would not hurt student outcomes and over time would be a benefit. A similar line of

thinking was evident in the findings for the English language acquisition assessment,

ACCESS. In particular, teachers identified the instruction through the school year as

having the most impact on the ACCESS scores. For both MAP and ACCESS, the length

of time between the assessments, once annually, made it hard for teachers to make an

inference as to the impact of the intervention on these assessments.

Access to resources. A second thematic idea that became evident was the ability

of the intervention to provide academic as well as social support for students. A frequent

retort was that the intervention gave students the opportunity to have experiences they

might not have otherwise. As part of the intervention, students had weekly field trips that

tied to the instructional units. For example, a social studies unit was focused on pioneer

life in Missouri and the students’ field trip included visiting a working pioneer village

and wagon rides on westward leading trails, direct link between instruction, vocabulary

and experience.


134

In addition, being in school provided daily chances for students to have access to

books and reading instruction through a model similar to the traditional classroom. Not

only did instruction continue, the social network of peers encouraged many students to

attend and have the chance to maintain English through daily practice with friends and

teachers. Many teachers also described the parents’ perspective of knowing their child

was in a safe, caring environment and were going to get two meals a day.

Academic calendar. The educator interviews also identified the calendar as a

theme. Three sub-themes emerged: time to develop the curriculum and teach at a deeper

level, a time to maintain skills, and the extra time can be used to pre-teach the content of

the next grade. Looking at these three subthemes, it is noticeable the educators did not

mention the traditional approach of interventions, identify a skill deficit and teaching/re-

teach to mastery. The approach of developing a concept at a deeper level, drawing on the

schema already accessible to students, enabling students to create new information and a

different understanding of the content. The luxury of time that is not available through

the school year as educators are trying to teach the standards at a prescribed pace that

may not match student learning pace.

Skill maintenance was the second subtheme. Several teachers specifically

mentioned the idea of refining student knowledge. Again, this notion builds from a place

of using students’ schema. The third concept of pre-teaching for the upcoming year is a

valued ELL instructional strategy applied to vocabulary instruction. In this case, the

teacher is building schema across the entire school year, not just in the isolated case of a

daily lesson. All three suggestions offer perspective that can be applied to future

interventions.


135

Intervention goals and curriculum. The intervention goal, staunching summer

learning loss, was frequently tied to the curriculum. This came through the descriptions

of the activities the students were able to participate in and the ability to include project

based or thematic learning. This was hard to separate out from access to resources and the

calendar, but teachers frequently mentioned the goal of lessening summer learning

regression with the type of learning student did in the program. In reality, the pedagogy

was modeled after the district reading and writing workshop model. The only addition, in

effect, was the weekly field trip and the opportunity to carry the unit theme through all

the content area. Perception is reality, since almost all teachers interviewed, both teachers

that have taught in the intervention and those that have not been intervention instructors,

voiced the same perception about the curriculum of the intervention.

Transformative Question

The transformative aspect of the research was guided by the question: what are

the educational policy suggestions that can be derived from the results and the findings.

The responses of the teachers indicate a willingness to be proactive and advocate for ELL

students in the most need and these are the necessary agreements they advocated for.

First, the district’s responsiveness to implementing a disruptive intervention that breaks

with summer school tradition. Second, parents and students committed to participating in

a non-traditional calendar. Third, educators dedicated to student success by putting

student achievement above their own comfort. Last, an educational community

enthusiastically behind delivering transportation, food services, building maintenance,

and all other essential services necessary to run an educational enterprise. It requires risk

takers.


136

The program showed evidence, both through the teacher perceptions of student

achievement outcomes and through the assessments data for students that participated in

the assessment of being successful in creating long-term growth for ELL students. This

intervention was started during a time when state, federal and local budgets were being

cut, but the intervention moved forward to produce results that demonstrated good

stewardship of fiscal resources and a true commitment to doing what is in the best

interest of students over the comfort of adults.

Implications for Action/Recommendations for Further Research

Implications for Action

There are several implications that can be made from the findings. The first is the

importance of identifying viable and sustainable solutions that can be implemented to

counteract summer learning loss in the English language learner population, a population

already starting with a language disadvantage. With an eye toward the literature and the

impact of summer learning regression on other vulnerable student populations, can be

used in the broader educational settings.

An implication for reading comprehension is that the intervention has the ability

to close the gap in reading and the earlier the intervention, the better for improving

student learning outcomes. Based on the study findings, the intervention had a lasting and

needed impact on the learning of a group of students that is expanding population in the

public education realm. In addition, as noted previously in the research of Heritage et al.,

(2015), this student population has a legacy of lagging native English speaking peers, so

it is important to identify programs that can bridge learning through the summer and

close the achievement gap.


137

The implications of the English acquisition findings suggest that an extended

summer intervention assisted students with the process of English language acquisition.

Again, the indication is that early intervention accelerates learning and has a compounded

effect over time. The suggestion would be to provide an extended summer language

intervention to students with the most need, at the earliest age. This concept is supported

by the research of Entwisle and Alexander (1998) in that schools play a role in sustaining

and the cognitive development of students by providing early academic interventions to

students in the most need.

Recommendations for Further Research

The most immediate recommendation would be to continue data collection with

current cohorts of students and add data for the most recent round of assessments. Both

MAP and ACCESS have recent year-end data that was not included in the current

research. Additional data points for every cohort will further support/dispel trends that

have developed and substantiate trends that have limited data points. Along the same line,

implementing a similar intervention (seven weeks during the summer) with a larger

population sample, either by adding more students within the same district or in a district

with a large ELL student population would help with the attrition that occurred through

the high levels of transiency.

Another area of future research would be to include student and family

perceptions about the learning outcomes after participating in the intervention, along with

teachers’ perceptions and student assessment data. The third prong of data would add an

additional layer of support. As well, there would be a benefit to exploring families’

reasons for non-participation since there were no barriers for participation other than a


138

commitment of time. This information would provide useful insights that could be

adopted and used for planning purposes of other organizations that are implementing this

type of intervention.

Another area of research that could be pursued, but was not part of this study is

the role of curriculum in the success of students. This theme was a heavily referenced

throughout the teacher interviews.

Summary

The convergent transformative mixed methods study examined the confluence of

student data after participation in a seven-week summer intervention for English

language learners with the ELL teachers’ perceptions about students’ achievement. The

quantitative themes identified in the teacher interviews included: a perception the seven-

week summer intervention helped lessen summer learning regression through the

opportunity to continuously practice English; the seven-week intervention provided an

opportunity for students to have access to educational resources and learning

opportunities that student might not otherwise have opportunities to experience; a

perception that the extended summer gave students and teachers the time to delve more

deeply into the content of the school year and refine learning; a perception that the

curriculum with project based and theme based learning assisted in meeting the

intervention goals; and an overall impression that the intervention was effective in

increasing student achievement. The educators’ perceptions were borne out with the

student reading comprehension and English acquisition assessment findings. The findings

of the study revealed that the majority of the students that participated in the intervention


139

had higher trend lines than the control group and accelerated as the students’ progress

through their academic careers.

The recommendations for future study included continuing the study with the

current population of students to further substantiate trends. In addition, future study

should include students’ perceptions of their academic success after participation in the

intervention. From the transformative point of view, the results supported educators,

districts and policy makers implementing a quality summer learning situation that would

bridge the entire summer. The seven-week intervention fills a number of educational

needs of English language learner students and as a burgeoning student population,

educational policies need to proactively address this student population.


140

References

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2007a). Lasting consequences of the

summer learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72, 167-180. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200202

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2007b). Summer learning and its

implications: Insights from the beginning school study. New Directions for Youth

Development, 107, 11-32. doi: 10.1002/yd

Allington, R. L. (2012). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-

based programs (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Allington, R. L., McGill-Franzen, A., Camilli, G., Williams, L., Graff, J., Zeig, J.,

…Nowak, R. (2010). Addressing summer reading setback among economically

disadvantaged elementary students. Reading Psychology, 31(5), 411-427. doi:

10.1080/02702711.2010.505165

The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2013). The first eight years: Giving kids a foundation

for lifetime success. Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/resources/the-first-eight-

years-giving-kids-a-foundation-for-lifetime-success/

The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2014). Early reading proficiency in the United States.

Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/resources/early-reading-proficiency-in-the-

united-states/

Assink, E., van Well, S., & Knuijt, P. N. A. (2003). Age of acquisition effects in native

speakers and second-language learners. Memory and Cognition, 31(8), 1218-

1228. doi: 10.3758/BF03195805

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200202


141

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-

minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Research

Council Committee on Developing a Research Agenda on the Education of

Limited-English-Proficient and Bilingual Students, National Academy Press.

Becker, G. S., & Tomes, N. (1986). Human capital and the rise and fall of families.

Journal of Labor Economics, 4, 1-39. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/298118

Borman, G. D., Benson, J., & Overman, L. T. (2005). Families, schools and summer

learning. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 131-150. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/499195

Bryant, M. T. (2004). The portable dissertation advisor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Burkam, D. T., Ready, D. D., Lee, V. E., & LoGerfo, L. F. (2004). Social-class

differences in summer learning between kindergarten and first grade: Model

specification and estimation. Sociology of Education, 77, 1-31.

doi: 10.1177/003804070407700101

California Department of Education, (2014). Quality standards for expanded learning in

California: Creating and implementing a shared vision of quality. Retrieved

from http://www.afterschoolnetwork.org/sites/main/files/file-

attachments/quality_standards_for_expanded_learning_in_calfornia.pdf

California Department of Education. (2013). Year-round education program guide.

Retrieved from www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/yr/guide.asp

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/298118


142

Carnegie Corporation. (1992). Risk and opportunity in the non-school hours: Report of

the taskforce on youth development and community programs. Retrieved

from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED355007.pdf

Cave, T., Ludwar, J., & Williams, W. (n.d.). Brain-based Learning. Retrieved from

http://education.alberta.ca/apps/aisi/literature/pdfs/bbased_learning.pdf

Chambers, T. V. (2009). The “receivement gap”: School tracking policies and the fallacy

of the “achievement gap”. The Journal of Negro Education, 78, 417-431.

Checkley, K. (2014). Setting ELLs up for success. Education Update, 56(10). Retrieved

from http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/education-

update/oct14/vol56/num10/Setting-ELLs-Up-for-Success.aspx

Clauss-Ehlers, C. S. (Ed.). (2010). Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology.

York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial

achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313 (September

1), 1307-1310. doi:10.1126/science.1128317

¡Colorin Colorado!. (2007). Vocabulary development [Web post]. Retrieved from

http://www.colorincolorado.org/educators/teaching/vocabulary/

Coltrane, B., (2002). English language learners and high-stakes tests: An overview of the

issues. Center for Applied Linguistics, November 2002. Retrieved from

http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-4/high-stakes.html


143

Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S., (1996). The effects of

summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic

review. Review of Educational Research, 66, 227-268.

doi:10.3102/00346543066003227

Cornelius, P., & Semmel, M. I. (1982). Effects of summer instruction on reading

achievement regression of learning disabled students. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 15, 409-413. Retrieved from https://login.cuhsl.creighton.edu/login?

url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a2h&AN=4729671&

site=ehost-live

Creswell, (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education,

Inc.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

DaSilva Iddings, A. C. (2010) Teaching of English as a second language (TESOL). In C.

Clauss-Ehlers (Eds.), Encyclopedia of cross-cultural school psychology (pp. 66-

71). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Duguay, A., Massoud, L., Tabuku, L., Himmel, J., & Sugarman, J. (2013). Implementing

the common core for English learners: Responses to common questions. Center

for Applied Linguistics, September. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resource-

center/briefs-digests/briefs/implementing-the-common-core-for-english-learners

http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543066003227


144

The Education Trust. (2014, June 23). The state of education for Latino students.

Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/TheStateofEducation

forLatinoStudents_EdTrust_June2014.pdf

Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (n.d.). Keep the faucet flowing:

Summer learning and home environment. American Educator. Retrieved from

http://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/fall-2001/keep-faucet-flowing

Entwisle, D.R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (2005). First grade and educational

attainment by age 22: A new story. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1458-

1502. doi:10.1086/428444

Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L. (1998). Facilitating the transition to first grade: The

nature of transition and research on factors affecting it. The Elementary School

Journal, 98, 351-364. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002192

Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (2001). Keep the faucet flowing.

American Educator. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/

ae/fall2001/entwisle.cfm

Flores, S. M., Batalova, J., & Fix, M. (2012). The educational trajectories of English

language learners in Texas. Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/educational-trajectories-english-

language-learners-texas

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2007). The continuum of literacy learning grades K-2: A

guide to teaching. Portsmouth, MH: Heinemann.

Gallagher, K. (2009). Readicide: How schools are killing reading and what you can do

about it. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.


145

Gerring, J. (2012). Social science methodology: A unified framework (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Graves, J. (2010). Effects of year-round schooling on disadvantaged students and the

distribution of standardized test performance. Economics of Education Review,

30(2011), 1281-1305. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/

article/pii/S0272775711000586

Halle, T., Hair, E., Wander, L., McNamara, M.., & Chien, N. (2012). Predictors and

outcomes of early versus later English language proficiency among English

language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 1-20.

doi.org.cuhsl.creighton.edu /10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.07.004

Hardin, B. J., Sandstrom, H., & Chazan-Cohen, R. (2012). Early head start and African

American families: Impacts and mechanisms of child outcomes. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 27(1), 572-581. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.07.006

Harris, E., & Wallace, A. (2012). Year round learning: Continuity in education, across

settings and time through expanded learning opportunities (Brief No. 3).

Retrieved from Harvard Family Research Project, Harvard Graduate School of

Education website: http://www.hfrp.org/publications-resources/browse-our-

publications/year-round-learning-continuity-in-education-across-settings-and-

time-through-expanded-learning-opportunities

Hattie, J. (2011). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact for learning. [Nook

Reader version]. Retrieved from barnesandnoble.com


146

Hernandez, A. (2010). Academic achievement in minority children. In C. Clauss-Ehlers

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of cross-cultural school psychology (pp. 66-71). New York,

NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Heritage, M., Walqui, A., & Linquanti, R. (2015). English language learners and the new

standards: Developing language, content knowledge, and analytical practices in

the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation: A guide for

students and faculty (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Heyns, B. (1978). Summer learning and the effects of schooling. New York, Academic

Press, Inc.

Heyns, B. (1987). Schooling and cognitive development: Is there a season for learning.

Child Development 58(5), 1151-1160. doi: 10.2307/1130611

Hobbs, F., & Stoops, N. (2002, November). Demographic trends in the 20th century:

Census 2000 special reports. United States Department of Commerce: Economics

and Statistical Administration: United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf

Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. (2008). Co-teaching in the ESL classroom. Retrieved from

http://coteachingforells.weebly.com/uploads/8/0/6/6/8066516/2008

_dkg_article_co-teaching_copy.pdf

Howard, G. A., Banks, J. A., & Nieto, S. (2006). We can't teach what we don't know:

White teachers, multiracial schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.


147

Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, P. S. (2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting

interviews: Tips for students new to the field of qualitative research. The

Qualitative Report, 17, 1 -10. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/

EJ990034.pdf

Jesson, R., McNaughton, S., & Kolose, T. (2014). Investigating the summer learning

effect on low SES schools. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 37,

45-54.

Johnson, S. P., & Spradlin, T.E. (2007). Alternatives to the traditional school-year

calendar. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, 5(3), 1–11. Retrieved from

http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V5N3_Spring_2007_EPB.pdf

Kelly, P. R., Gomez-Bellange, F., Chen, J., & Schulz, M. M. (2008). Learner outcomes

for English Language Learner low readers in an early intervention. Teachers of

English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Journal, 42, 235-260.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264449

Kieffer, M. J. (2012). Early oral language and later reading development in Spanish-

speaking English language learners: Evidence from a nine-year longitudinal

study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33, 146-157. doi:

10.1016/j.appdev.2012.02.003

Kim, Y., McLellan, M., & Asbell, M. E. (2010). English as a second language instruction

(ESL). In C. Clauss-Ehlers (Eds.), Encyclopedia of cross-cultural school

psychology (pp. 424-427). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media,

LLC.


148

Kohn, A. (2012, July 20). Lowering the temperature on claims of summer learning loss:

Why are we so nervous about giving kids a break from school? Psychology

Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-homework-

myth/201207/lowering-the-temperature-claims-summer-learning-loss

Learning in Afterschool and Summer. (2014). Our position statement [Website].

Retrieved from http://www.learninginafterschool.org/position.htm

Lukens, L., Paden, L., Yocum, K. (2013). [ELL summer program: 2011, 2012, & 2013].

Unpublished raw data.

Marinez-Lora, A. M., & Quintana, S. M. (2010). Summer learning loss. In C. Clauss-

Ehlers (Eds.), Encyclopedia of cross-cultural school psychology (pp. 427–428).

New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

McCombs, J. S., Augustine, C. H., Schwartz, H. L., Bodilly, S. J., McInnis, B., Lichter,

D. S., Cross, A. B. (2011). Making summer count: How summer programs can

boost children’s learning. The Rand Corporation. Retrieved from

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011

/RAND_MG1120.pdf

McLaughlin, B., & Smink, J. (2010, May). Why summer learning deserves a front-row in

the education reform arena. The Johns Hopkins University New Horizons for

Learning. Retrieved from http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/Journals/

spring2010/why-summer-learning/

McMullin, B.J. (2001). A statewide evaluation of academic achievement in year-round

schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 67-74. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.cuhsl.creighton.edu/stable/27542361


149

Miller, B. M. (2007). The learning season: The untapped power of summer to advance

student achievement: Executive summary. The Nellie Mae Education Foundation.

Retrieved from http://www.nmefoundation.org/getmedia/17ce8652-b952-4706-

851b-bf8458cec62e/Learning-Season-ES?ext=.pdf

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (n.d.). Grade level

assessment. Retrieved from http://dese.mo.gov/college-career-readiness/

assessment/grade-level

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (n.d.). Raw data: 2014

district level MAP and End–of–Course (EOC) [Data file]. Retrieved from

http://mcds.dese.mo.gov/quickfacts/Pages/State-

Assessment.aspxMissouriSchoolImprovementPlan5 .

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2011). Comprehensive

guide to Missouri School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from

http://dese.mo.gov/qs/documents/MSIP-5-comprehensive-guide-3-13.pdf

Muijs, Daniel. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the national

early literacy panel. Washington, DC: National Institute of Literacy. Retrieved

from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf

Nisbett, R. E. (2011). The achievement gap: Past, present and future. Deadalus, The

Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 140, 90-100.

doi:10.1162/DAED_a_00079

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No 107-110, § 101, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).


150

New York Collective of Radical Teachers. (n.d.). A guide for educators of English

language learners. Retrieved from http://www.nycore.org/newsite/wp-

content/uploads/NYCORE-ELLteacher_handbook.pdf

O’Brien, M. (2014, October 18). Poor kids who do everything right don’t do better than

rich kids who do everything wrong. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/18/poor-kids-who-

do-everything-right-dont-do-better-than-rich-kids-who-do-everything-wrong/

Olson, K. R., & Dweck, C. S. (2008). A blueprint for social cognitive development.

Association for Psychological Science, 3, 193 – 202. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-

6924.2008.00074.x

Patton, K. L., & Reschly, A. L. (2013). Using curriculum-based measurement to examine

summer learning loss. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 738–753. doi: 10.1002/pits

Perez, B., Harris, B., Martinez, R. S., & Ridley, C. R. (2010). Culturally competent

assessment of English language learners. In C. Clauss-Ehlers (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of cross-cultural school psychology (pp. 336-338). New York, NY:

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Ponterotto, J. G., Mathew, J. T., & Raughley, B. (2013). The value of mixed methods

designs to social justice research in counseling and psychology. Journal for Social

Action in Counseling and Psychology, 3, 42–68. Retrieved from

http://www.psysr.org/jsacp/Ponterotto-V5N2-13_42-68.pdf

Roberts, C. M. (2010). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to

planning, writing, and defending your dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00074.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00074.x


151

Rojas, R., & Iglesias, A. (2013). The language growth of Spanish-speaking English

language learners. Child Development, 84(2), 630-646. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

8624.2012.01871.x

Rumsey, D. (n.d.). How to interpret a correlation coefficient r. Retrieved from

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-

coefficient-r.html

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in

young children. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy

Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/reading/

Solano-Flores, G. (2010). English Language Learners. In C. Clauss-Ehlers (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of cross-cultural school psychology (pp. 427–428). New York, NY:

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Stanat, P., Becker, M., Baumert, J., Ludtke, O., & Eckhardt, A. G. (2012). Improving

second language skills of immigrant students: A field trial study evaluating the

effects of a summer learning program. Learning and Instruction, 22, 159-170.

Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.cuhsl.creighton.edu/10.1016

/j.learninstruc.2011.10.002

Sweetman, D., Badiee, M., & Creswell, J. W. (2010). Use of the transformative

framework in mixed methods studies. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 441-454. doi:

10.1177/1077800410364610

Suzuki, L. A., Ngo, L., & Kuger, J. (2010). Assessment of culturally diverse children. In

C. Clauss-Ehlers (Eds.), Encyclopedia of cross-cultural school psychology

(pp. 124-131). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.


152

United States Department of Education. (2012, April 26). Early reading first. Retrieved

from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/earlyreading/index.html

United States Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.

(2009). National assessment of educational progress: The nation’s report card:

Trends in academic progress in reading and mathematics 2008. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2008/2009479.asp#section2


(2013). Fast facts: English language learners. National Center for Educational

Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96


(2014). English language learners. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs

/coe/indicator_cgf.asp


(2014). The condition of education: Children living in poverty. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cce.asp

Wiggins, G. (2012). What works in education: Hattie’s list of the greatest effects and why

it matters [Blog post]. January 7, 2012. Retrieved from https://grantwiggins.

wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-works-in-education-hatties-list-of-the-greatest-

effects-and-why-it-matters/

Wilson, S. J., Dickinson, D. K., Rowe, D. W. (2013). Impact of an early reading first

program on the language and literacy achievement of children from diverse

language backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Journal, 28, 578-592. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.03.006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.03.006


153

World-Class Instruction and Design. (2014). ACCESS for ELLs summative assessment.

Retrieved from https://www.wida.us/assessment/ACCESS/

World-Class Instruction and Design. (2014). Mission and the WIDA story. Retrieved

from https://www.wida.us/aboutUs/mission.aspx

World Class Instruction and Design. (n.d.). The relationship among WIDA’s strands of

model performance indicators, ELP standards, CAN DO descriptors and

performance definitions (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.wida.us/standards/RG_Performance%20Definitions.pdf

Young, S. (2007). Effects of instructional hours and intensity of instruction on NRS level

gain in listening and speaking. CAL Digest, December. Retrieved from

http://www.cal.org/resource-center/briefs-digests/digests/(offset)/30


154

Appendix A

Email/phone Invitation to Participate

Dear Potential Study Participant, My name is Kent Yocum. I am a doctoral student candidate in the Interdisciplinary Leadership program at Creighton University. I am exploring teachers’ perceptions of the academic success of English Language Learner students that have participated in a seven-week summer intervention. Your experience working with these students in conjunction with your perceptions of student performance after participation in the intervention will provide valuable insight. Participation in this anonymous study is voluntary. Phase one includes a one-on-one interview conducted by the researcher and last approximately one hour. Phase two includes a focus group to further develop themes identified during the one-on-one interviews. All responses will be confidential. Participants will have the opportunity to review transcripts of responses to verify accuracy If you are interested in participating in this important study, through one-on-one interviews, focus study group or both phases, please respond to this email to schedule a time. Thank you in advance for your participation. Respectfully, R. Kent Yocum Doctoral Candidate Creighton University [email protected] 816-960-7035


155

Appendix B

Interview Question Protocol One-on-one interview script

1. What is your relationship with the seven-week summer intervention for ELL students?

2. Describe what you believe are the purpose and/or goals of the seven-week

summer intervention.

3. Describe your perception of how the seven-week summer intervention meets the program goals.

4. What is your perception of students’ academic outcomes on English language

acquisition after participation in the intervention?

5. Describe your perception of students’ academic outcomes on reading comprehension assessments after participation in the intervention?

6. Describe your perception of students’ academic outcomes on state

standardized assessments after participation in the intervention?

7. What is your impression of the length of time of the intervention and the impact of student academic outcomes?

8. What changes would you recommend to improve student academic

outcomes?

9. What additional information would you like to add about the seven-week intervention and your perceptions of student academic outcomes?


156

Appendix C

Letter of Agreement

Dr. J Michael Pragman Director of Research, Evaluation, and Accountability

North Kansas City Schools Email:

[email protected]

Letter of Agreement February 11, 2015

To the Creighton University IRB: We are familiar with R. Kent Yocum’s research project entitled English Language Learner (ELL) Achievement: A Mixed-Methods Examination of a Seven-Week Summer Intervention. I understand North Kansas City Schools’ involvement will be…

• to allow the researcher access to the archived academic data of kindergarten through fifth grade English Language Learners that participated in a seven week summer intervention. The archived data consists of reading comprehension benchmarks (Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System), English Language acquisition annual benchmarks (WIDA ACCESS) and Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) assessment annual results from the time period starting Spring 2011 through Winter 2015. MAP scores for students that have transitioned to middle school will also be part of the data collected.

• to allow researcher the opportunity to conduct one-to-one interviews with

five to seven English Language Learner (ELL) instructional staff members. Participation will be voluntary.

• to allow the researcher the opportunity to conduct a voluntary focus group

comprised of the elementary English Language Learner teachers. Questions for the focus group will be facilitated by a neutral, third-party not part of the research team or employee of the district. Questions will be determined through responses from one-on-one interviews.

mailto:[email protected]


157

We understand that this research will be conducted following sound ethical principles, that participant involvement in this research study is strictly voluntary, and that confidentiality of participants’ research data is ensured, as described in the protocol.

In compliance with Department of Education regulation, the North Kansas City School District Board of Education is committed to maintaining a workplace and educational environment that is free from discrimination and harassment in admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs, services, activities and facilities. In accordance with law, the district strictly prohibits discrimination and harassment against employees, students or others on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, genetic information or any other characteristic protected by law. The North Kansas City School District is an equal opportunity employer.

Therefore, as a representative of North Kansas City Schools, I agree that R. Kent Yocum’s research project may be conducted at our agency, pending final IRB approval. Respectfully Submitted, Dr. J. Michael Pragman Dr. J Michael Pragman Director of Research, Evaluation, and Accountability Dept. of Academic Services & School Accountability North Kansas City Schools 2000 NE 46th Street Kansas City, MO 64116 Office 816-413-5141 Fax 816-413-5095 Cell 816-719-3138 Email [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


158

Appendix D

Participant Informed Consent

Project Title: English Language Learner Achievement: A Mixed-Methods

Examination of a Seven-Week Summer Intervention

Purpose of the Study: I am conducting a research study on the academic

achievement of students that have participated in a seven-week summer

English Language intervention for the purpose of improving educational

outcomes of ELL students and to better understand the academic

achievement of students that have participated in the intervention. The

results of the research will inform educational policy for underserved

student populations.

Methods and Procedures: I am asking you to participate in a one-on-one

interview and/or focus group about your perceptions of English Language

Learner student learning outcomes after participating in the seven-week

summer intervention.

Time to Participate: The interview will take approximately 1-hour at a location

that is convenient and comfortable for you. I will audio record the interview

to ensure accuracy and provide you will a transcript for approval. I will also

take some hand written notes. The focus group will take approximately 1-

hour at (location to be determined, such as meeting room at the public

library). The focus group will be audio-recorded and facilitated by a neutral,

third party.


159

Risks and Discomforts: There are no know risks or discomforts associated with

participation and participant identities will not be revealed. Transcripts will

be provided for your approval of accuracy and provide an opportunity to

remove any personal identifiers to ensure confidentiality.

Benefits: Information gathers will be used to inform educational policy decisions of

students learning English and create the best possible learning outcomes.

Confidentiality: Identities of participants will not be revealed. All responses will be

coded and tracked using pseudonyms. Records will be stored in a secured

electronic and/or physical location that is only accessible by the researcher.

Results will be reported in a manner to provide participants with anonymity.

Compensation: Participants will receive no monetary compensation.

Opportunity to Ask Questions: Questions or concerns about participation and

your rights can be directed to the Institutional Review Board of Creighton

University.

Freedom to Withdraw: Participation is optional and voluntary. You have the right

to withdraw your consent to participate in the research interview at any

point during the interview or focus group without adverse personal effect.

Consent: Your signature signifies consent to be interviewed and acknowledges you

have read and understand the information presented above. A copy of the

consent form will be provided for your records.


160

Appendix E

IRB Exempt Letter


161

Appendix F

Additional 2011 Cohort Graphs – ACCESS

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year

Cohort 1: Kindergarten Access

No Participation Participation

Linear (No Participation) Linear (Participation)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year

Cohort 1: First Grade Access




162

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year

Cohort 1: Second Grade Access



00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year

Cohort 1: Third Grade Access




163

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year

Cohort 1: Fourth Grade Access



00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year

Cohort 1: Fifth Grade Access




164

Appendix G

Additional 2011 Cohort Graphs - MAP

560570580590600610620630640650660

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year

Cohort 1: First Grade MAP

No Participation ParticipationLinear (No Participation) Linear (Participation)

570580590600610620630640650660670

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year

Cohort 1: Second Grade MAP




165

560570580590600610620630640650660

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year

Cohort 1: Third Grade MAP



610620630640650660670680690700

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year

Cohort 1: Fourth Grade MAP




166

600

610

620

630

640

650

660

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Aver

age

Scor

e

Year

Cohort 1: Fifth Grade MAP



english language learner achievement: a mixed …

Documents