WTS 3 page 1 of 33

Closing the Achievement Gap

Cody Meyers

Saint Marys University of Minnesota

Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs

Portfolio Entry for Wisconsin Teacher Standard 3

EDUW-699B Independent Study: Closing the Achievement Gap

Dr. James Sauter

April 14, 2017

 WTS 3 page 2 of 33

Selected Wisconsin Teacher Standard Descriptors

Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 3: Teachers understand that children learn

differently.

The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and the

barriers that impede learning and can adapt instruction to meet the diverse needs of pupils,

including those with disabilities and exceptionalities.

Knowledge. The teacher understands how students learning is influenced by individual

experiences, talents, and prior learning, as well as language, culture, family and community

values.

Dispositions. The teacher believes that all children can learn at high levels and persists

in helping all children achieve success.

Performances. The teacher identifies and designs instruction appropriate to students'

stages of development, learning styles, strengths, and needs.

Danielson Domains

Danielson Domain 1: Planning and Preparation

Component 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy

Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students

Component 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources

Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction

Danielson Domain 3: Instruction

Component 3a: Communicating with Students

Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning

Component 3d: Using Assessment in Instruction

 WTS 3 page 3 of 33

National Board Core Propositions

Proposition 1: Teachers are Committed to Students and Their Learning

Proposition 2: Teachers Know the Subjects They Teach and How to Teach Those

Subjects to Students.

Proposition 4: Teachers Think Systematically about Their Practice and Learn from

Experience.
 WTS 3 page 4 of 33

Pre-assessments

Self-assessment of Instruction Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)

Within this investigation, Wisconsin Teaching Standard (WTS) 3 will be demonstrated

through the identification of barriers that impede learning and the adaption of instruction to

ensure that different learning styles among English Language Learner (ELL) students are

addressed in class. Throughout my career, I have helped students work to overcome a variety of

linguistic challenges. However, I continue to look for new ways to improve instructional

outcomes for students of diverse personal, cultural, and academic backgrounds, thus exhibiting

the WTS 3 knowledge descriptor. Sharpening my professional skills and finding new ways to

support student learning aligns with the WTS 3 disposition descriptor by supporting my belief

that all students can achieve high levels of success.

Before working with ELL students, formal and informal data analysis and observations

are critical to determine each learners specific language needs. When these needs are identified,

an educator can provide more comprehensible input, thus improving instruction. I consistently

demonstrate the WTS 3 performance descriptor by identifying and designing instructional

activities to meet my students specific language and learning needs. In summary, the WTS 3

descriptors are evidenced throughout the process of identifying barriers to academic

achievement, researching instructional strategies, implementing them, and reflecting on their

overall effectiveness. Prior to this research, I feel like I was able to identify some appropriate

instructional activities, but I wasnt looking as closely at student data to determine specific

barriers to student achievement. Overall, I would say that my ability in these areas was

competent, but had some room to expand to better serve students.

 WTS 3 page 5 of 33

Assessment of Student Performance and Assessment of Learning Environment While

Learning Targeted Objective(s)

Prior to this investigation, I evaluated current student performance as well as the learning

environment. This is my second year teaching eighth grade ELL students at Holmen Middle

School (HMS), which is comprised of about 900 6-8th grade students; the largest three ethnicities

are Caucasian (88.6%), Asian (6.2%), and African American (1.6%). Additionally, a little over

3% of HMS students were identified as limited-English proficient (LEP). Beyond language

difficulties, about 13% of students have been identified to have a learning disability. Finally,

over a quarter of HMS students are identified as socioeconomically-disadvantaged. While the

Holmen community can financially support tremendous programming options for its student

body, the challenges for disadvantaged learners persist. Although HMS has made great strides

toward decreasing the achievement gap, the 2015-2016 building report card score of 80.1 out of

100 represents continued academic disproportionality (ARTIFACT A).

Although an achievement gap still exists at HMS, the building has worked tirelessly to

decrease disparities in performance. One such effort to reduce the achievement gap has been

through the funding of a robust ELL program. While there are about 11 different languages

represented in the district, Hmong is the most prominent first language among district ELL

students. In total, there are about 160 language learners served by 12 ELL teachers. In the middle

school, there are 25 ELL students served by two language specialists. By maintaining a low

pupil-teacher ratio, the students receive more personalized instruction to meet their learning

needs. This low ratio benefits the eighth-grade ELL class, which is comprised of two Hmong

students and one African American student of Ethiopian decent. All three students have attained

a level four language proficiency as measured by the ACCESS for ELLs assessment. This
 WTS 3 page 6 of 33

represents an intermediate to advanced level of English competency. Based on testing data and

classroom observation, these students show strong speaking and listening abilities, but still

exhibit the need to grow in their reading and writing skills. To improve in these areas, it was

determined that the eighth-grade ELL student needs would be met through both co-teaching in

their core classes and a pull-out language intervention period.

While serving the eighth-grade ELL students, I have developed an intensive curriculum

filled with dynamic lessons plans based on several essential Common Core State Standards

(Artifact M). In the pull-out intervention period, I work with them in a small group setting to

strengthen their language abilities. By bolstering their speaking, reading, writing, and listening

skills, the students will achieve greater success in their core classes. Daily, I am able to monitor

any skill transfer as I also co-teach in their English language arts, math, and science classes. In

total, each of these 60-minute core classes are comprised of about 27-30 students. The teachers

of each core have previous experience working with the ELL population and are willing and able

to make appropriate accommodations. My role allows me to assist my co-teachers in planning

units, developing instructional materials and ensuring that lesson content is comprehensible all

students.

While this system seems to have helped support ELL student achievement overall, the

language learners have displayed signs of struggle in science class. Aside from lower assessment

scores, I have also observed that the ELL students are less likely to participate in whole group

discussions and small group activities. In addition to academic discussions, the class consists of

many reading assignments, lectures, projects, and hands-on laboratory experiments. During each

unit of instruction, there are formative assessments, summative quizzes, and a comprehensive

post-test. Within these learning activities and assessments, however, there is a tremendous
 WTS 3 page 7 of 33

amount of specific and technical vocabulary that appears to have created a linguistic barrier for

the ELL students. Additionally, many of the key terms encountered in science class are

composed of Greek and Latin roots and affixes. The morphological challenges posed by these

terms may be one of the principal hurdles for the ELL students as supported by Pacheco and

Goodwin (2013), who claimed that academic difficulties experienced by students in middle

school are often the result of increased word complexity (p.542).

With Pacheco and Goodwins assertion in mind, a brief analysis of prior assessment data

reveals that the language limitations of HMS ELL students may be creating disadvantages for

them during instruction and assessment in science class (ARTIFACT B). In several post-

assessments, the ELL students appear to be underperforming. The disproportionality in average

scores between ELL and non-ELL populations reveals signs of an achievement gap in the

science class. With such a small ELL sample-size, it is difficult to ascertain the exact cause, but

it is probable that the perceived achievement gap may be linked to academic vocabulary

difficulties. Thus, my student learning objective for this investigation will be that my ELL

students learn and apply strategies to decode and use complex science words found within the

current unit of study. Ideally, this objective will address the achievement gap by providing

students with the skills to increase vocabulary acquisition, thus gaining a deeper understanding

of the curriculum and obtaining assessment scores more comparable with non-ELLs.

Assessment Conclusion and Essential Question to Guide Research

The self-assessment, comparison of student performance, and learning environment

analysis together show that the ELL students need an additional tier of support. While both the

language intervention period and co-teaching support have advanced their linguistic skills, it is

perplexing that the language learners continue to underperform when compared to non-ELLs. To
 WTS 3 page 8 of 33

better understand the challenges faced by learners of diverse backgrounds, I will begin by

exploring the history and evolution of the achievement gap throughout American history. With a

greater depth of knowledge surrounding the historic disparities in education, I will be able to

research and implement appropriate strategies to better assist students in decoding and using

complex science terms. These strategies will be center on the use of Greek and Latin affixes and

roots to develop stronger academic vocabulary comprehension. Therefore, my essential question

to guide this research is, How does knowledge of Greek and Latin affixes and roots impact ELL

student achievement when compared to non-ELL peers in science class?

Research Summary

From the arrival of the first Europeans to the age of westward expansion, waves of people

have immigrated to the Americas in search of better lives. Historically, striking a new beginning

in the New World had always been accompanied by incredible challenges. However, many

newcomers felt encouraged by the belief that no-matter how difficult the situation, they could

always improve their future through hard work. This concept endured throughout American

history and evolved into the commonly-held belief that an individual could reach success by the

sweat of his or her brow. Over time, however, disparities between the newly settled ethnic and

racial groups began to surface. As a result, many Americans began to question the long-standing

ideology that people could simply pull themselves up by their bootstraps to overcome and

conquer adversity. A notable adversary of this long-held notion was Dr. Martin Luther King,

who stood up against the social injustices faced by African-Americans. Using the bootstrap

ideology, King protested Americas neglect toward the divisive inequalities faced by

disadvantaged groups: Its all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is a
 WTS 3 page 9 of 33

cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps (King,

para. 25).

While Kings battle helped usher in a new era of social justice and led to the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, racial inequalities in education continued to persist. One reason for this may have

been that prior to the Civil Rights Act, the United States educational system had been guided by

a separate, but equal Supreme Court ruling in 1896 (Rothstein, p. 1). This law permitted states

and their school systems to assign specific schools for either white or black students. Many

times, the schools serving black populations were underfunded and exposed students to adverse

learning environments (Rothstein, 2014). Per the Center for Education and Policy Analysis

(CEPA), the impact of racial and ethnic inequality continued to grow significantly up until the

Supreme Court decision regarding Brown v. Board in 1954: racial segregation of schools was

deemed unconstitutional (CEPA, n.d). While this court ruling allowed students of color to attend

previously white-only institutions, there was minimal progress in addressing the learning gaps

produced by centuries of segregation (CEPA, n.d). Supporting this assertion, Rothstein (2014)

stated that simply having access to equal resources was insufficient as disadvantaged students

need more resources than middle-class white students (p. 1).

While conditions were slowly improving for students of color, the Civil Rights Act of

1964 came to the forefront in the battle for equality in education. This act has been extremely

important, especially for students with diverse language backgrounds. As indicated by the United

States Department of Education (USDE), one of the most notable court cases that addresses the

achievement gap was the landmark case, Lau v. Nichols in 1974, which was a suit brought about

by non-English speaking Chinese students against the San Francisco Unified School District

(USDE, 2015). The students accused the school district of providing unequal access to
 WTS 3 page 10 of 33

educational opportunities due to the lack of supplemental English instruction for language

learners.

While the lower courts initially sided with the school district, the lawsuit made its way to

the Supreme Court. Here, the justices ultimately ruled in favor of the students stating,

students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful

education (USDE, para. 4). Having rendered a decision, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

referenced Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, declaring that it is the responsibility of the

school district to take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its

instructional program[s] to [English Language Learner] students (USDE, para.5). Despite the

Supreme Court ruling, this case shows how Americas supposedly desegregated educational

system had continued to promote the persistence of an achievement gap by simply providing

learners with the physically similar facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum (USDE,

para. 4). The ruling, however, mandated Americas schools to go beyond simply offering equal

resources and to provide meaningful instruction based on students linguistic needs. Ultimately,

this decision has served to help protect language learners from being funneled onto a permanent

track toward lower achievement.

This historical analysis of the United States evolving educational landscape confirms a

statement made by Dr. Sharroky Hollie, expert on culturally responsive teaching practices,

There has always been an achievement gap (S. Hollie, personal communication, October 5,

2016). Despite all the political reforms made over the past century or so, the system continues to

lag in addressing the achievement gap. However, before delving further into the topic of

disproportionality in academic success, one must develop a solid understanding of what the

achievement gap is, why it exists, and its reoccurring patterns in todays educational context.
 WTS 3 page 11 of 33

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), an achievement gap is

a statistically significant difference in academic attainment between two distinguishable

groups of learners that can be based on race, ethnicity, language proficiency, learning

disabilities, sex, or family income-status (NCES, para. 1). Essentially, this list refers to the

students who have not assimilated or been permitted to assimilate into the school system or

society in general. The challenges faced by these groups of students are many times uncovered

when analyzing several factors that may include: standardized test performances, participation in

advanced placement courses, post-secondary enrollment, high school and college graduation

rates, and employment (National Education Association, 2015).

To track and study the achievement gap, the NCES has focused a great deal of emphasis

on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) testing scores. NCES uses NAEP

scores to identify gaps and create data trends to better understand why they exist and how they

evolve over time (NCES, 2011). The NAEP exam produces the Nations Report Card, which

offers an objective evaluation of American students math and reading abilities. This is one data

point that can illuminate possible academic achievement gaps. While test data may have offer

some value, one must consider several factors that could contribute to the development of

academic disproportionality. Hollie alluded to this point as he warned, Its not just an

achievement fact, folks. It goes beyond that (S. Hollie, personal communication, October 5,

2016). The NCES (2011) supported Hollies assertion stating that one must look at a wide range

of elements such as demographic, population, and policy factors within a school, district, or

state (NCES, para. 3).

While political movements have helped improve the educational landscape for many

minorities, there are still overarching factors that have had a debilitating effect on educational
 WTS 3 page 12 of 33

achievement for diverse learners. The first of these circumstances deals with socio-economic

status. The CEPA (n.d.) found that racial achievement gaps were strongly correlated with

disparities in family income, rates of poverty and unemployment, and parent level of education

(para. 15). The impact of socio-economics on Americas students is paramount as the National

Education Association (NEA) (2016) reported that 15.5 million children live in poverty (NEA,

p.1). This is pertinent to the state of Wisconsin as the CEPA stated that socio-economic disparity

between white and black residents is very high (CEPA, para. 17). In 2013, this socio-economic

gap appeared to correlate quite strongly with the difference in NAEP reading scores between

black and white students (Artifact C).

In addition to economic barriers to academic success, there are geographic constructs that

may restrict the achievement of diverse learners. While anti-segregation laws were intended to

create an equal playing field for all United States citizens, there are still hidden aspects of

segregation in present-day society that can negatively influence academic achievement.

Concerning African-American children, Rothstein (2014) declared that they are increasingly

racially and socio-economically isolated (p. 2). For example, students of African-American

descent attend schools in which only about 29% of their peers are white (Rothstein, 2014). What

this shows is that the continued segregation within many American communities may still be a

predictor of student academic success. In many cases, students of color grow up in poorer

neighborhoods where there is limited tax funding to support academics (Rothstein, 2014). Thus,

these students are left with lower quality educational opportunities.

Lower academic achievement could also be attributed to increased health challenges

associated with living in segregated neighborhoods. Both Rothstein (2014) and the NEA (2016)

contend that poorer neighborhoods often lack easily-accessible routine health care providers and
 WTS 3 page 13 of 33

tend to be comprised of older buildings that pose elevated risks leading to lead poisoning and

asthma. One can safely assume that increased illness could lead to excessive absenteeism, thus

resulting in lost instruction time. In fact, the NEA (2016) found that economically-disadvantaged

students lose 30 percent more days of school compared to those from well-off families (p.3).

In summary, education policy surrounding the achievement gap remains inextricably linked to

housing policy as neighborhood segregation and its negative educational impacts continue to

exist in the United States.

Another factor that must be addressed regarding todays achievement gap points directly

back at the United States education system and the spiraling effect of injustice caused for

numerous generations of disadvantaged students. Essentially, many of those who have been

overlooked or ignored by Americas education system now have lower overall educational

attainment. When these students grow up and become parents, their children are then faced with

the compounding effects of a school system struggling to meet their learning needs and a limited

capacity for home academic support (Rothstein, 2014). This crippling cycle has proved

detrimental to the combined effort of schools and parents to prepare students academically.

Another result, as stated by NEA (2016), has been the development of a 30-million word

deficit (p. 2). The disparity in richness of language used by parents whom are professionals

compared to those who are working-class creates an instant learning gap beginning with early

language development. Henceforth, from the first moment they walk into a public school, many

children with limited vocabulary are faced with an immediate and serious disadvantage.

Finally, from a student perspective, it appears that Americas educational institutions

have not made the changes necessary to diminish the existence of the achievement gap. When

surveying disadvantaged students, Haycock (2011) found that many participants believed their
 WTS 3 page 14 of 33

teachers did not know their subject area or that they tended to set extremely low expectations

(para. 11). The student feedback supports Haycocks assertion that the current system takes

students who have less to begin with and systematically gives them less in school (Haycock,

para. 13). The concern over limited teacher effectiveness gives rise to the question of whether the

system has yet again failed its disadvantaged students. Luster (2012) shifts the focus onto teacher

preparation programs stating that the achievement gap has increased because educators are

underprepared to make content comprehensible for ELLs or teach content-area literacy (p.1).

The resulting impact is that many language learners remain long-term ELLs that continue to

struggle in school and throughout their lives (Luster, p. 1).

While there are many contributing factors associated with the achievement gap, it

becomes apparent that this issue continues to impact schools across the United States. With

regard specifically to Wisconsin, achievement gaps have been identified in an analysis of Badger

exams. There was a clear gap regarding proficient or above scores between white students and

those of color. According to Godar (2016), proficient scores in ELA where obtained by 58% of

whites compared to only 21% of blacks (para. 4). Similarly, 51% of whites achieved proficient

rankings in math compared to 12% of black students (Godar, para.4). These startling patterns

extend beyond skin color as ELL, economically-disadvantaged, and disabled students also

performed at far lower rates than their classmates (Godar, 2016). The Wisconsin Department of

Instructions (WDPI) state superintendent, Tony Evers, voiced his concern with Wisconsins on-

going struggle with disproportionate academic success rates stating, These achievement gaps

are most troubling (Godar, para. 6).

While Wisconsin works to improve instruction for its disadvantaged students, the

challenge to meet language learners needs will increase as the states ELL population continues
 WTS 3 page 15 of 33

to expand. Per the NCES (2015) and the WDPI (2015), Wisconsins ELL student population has

grown from about 26,000 in 2003 to about 50,000 in 2014. This increase represents a growth rate

of about 92% over the course of 11 years! The diversity among native languages spoken by

Wisconsin students is also growing as the WDPI has identified 137 unique languages. Of these

languages, Spanish remains the most common, followed by Hmong (WDPI, 2015).

While difficult to find state-wide statistics specific to Hmong students, the Metropolitan

Madison School District (MMSD) has compiled extremely valuable data, providing an accurate

statistical representation its Hmong student academic achievement. In a data analysis by Vue

(2016), the researcher stated that of the 841 Hmong students attending MMSD during the 2014-

2015 school year, 80% received free or reduced-price lunches, and 91% were identified as ELL.

Going beyond the demographic-related statistics, the investigation revealed key academic

attainment data based on district MAP testing results. Vue (2016) found that 85% of Hmong

students read below grade level while 69% performed below grade expectations in math. In the

MMSD report for the 2015-2016 school year, both Hmong and Hmong ELL students achieved

lower MAP reading and math scores compared to other district students (Artifact D). While these

statistics paint a picture of what the achievement gap looks like in Madison, one may anticipate

similar findings in the Holmen School District.

Research Implications

Based on the research, Wisconsin appears to have a growing achievement gap, which

must be addressed. While a large-scale approach to resolving general societal inequities remains

a critical element to decreasing the achievement gap in education, the scope of this paper will

focus solely on classroom-based strategies to address the needs of HMS eighth-grade ELL

students. When determining the appropriateness of instructional strategies, one must consider the
 WTS 3 page 16 of 33

students current abilities and what they need to be able to do. This assertion is supported by

Professional Learning Community guru, Mike Mattos, who stated, For skill interventions, you

must get down to by student, by standard (M. Mattos, personal communication, October 6,

2016).

Following the advice provided by Mattos, I have decided to focus in on a specific area of

difficulty for my learners. Currently, my ELL students struggle to decipher and use Greek and

Latin roots and affixes. Having this skill would likely help them to achieve higher levels of

success in science class. Therefore, I will focus on addressing Common Core State Standard for

ELA-Literacy L.8.4.B. This standard states that students will be able to use common, grade-

appropriate Greek or Latin affixes and roots as clues to the meaning of a word.

With a focus on this standard, I have explored several strategies surrounding affix and

root-word instruction and practice opportunities. Pacheco and Goodwin (2013) and Hollie (2012)

concurred that knowledge of root words and affixes can help students better determine word

meaning, while also supporting reading comprehension and spelling. The first strategy, called

parts-to-whole, is designed to instruct students on how to determine the overall meaning of

complex terminology through chunking larger words into smaller meaningful units (Pacheco

& Goodwin, p.548). This can be accomplished through first developing a set of notecards that

display common roots and affixes. The students will use these notecards to practice pulling

larger words apart and forming new ones. Another strategy, called Wacky Word Chain,

involves the application of word part knowledge to build and define nonsense words by adding

and removing prefixes and suffixes to base-words (Pacheco & Goodwin, p.548). Finally,

Pacheco and Goodwin (2013) urged educators to teach students how to pre-read texts and

identify morphologically complex words (p. 549). To develop this skill, Pacheco and Goodwin
 WTS 3 page 17 of 33

(2013) promoted the Word Whittle strategy where students combine text evidence, word part

meanings, and prior knowledge to formulate a deeper understanding of difficult terms. The

implementation of these strategies will address the essential research question, How will

knowledge of Greek and Latin affixes and roots impact ELL student achievement when

compared to their non-ELL peers in science class?

Research-based Action Plan

Action Plan Summary Outline

1. Gather data from prior science summative assessments.

2. Compare ELL student scores with non-ELL student score averages.

3. Identify common prefixes, root words, and suffixes from upcoming science unit.

4. Complete pre-assessment on identified science unit vocabulary.

5. Create and use flashcards to teach students how to determine meaning of larger

complex words via the parts-to-whole strategy.

6. Identify vocabulary words and affixes for students to complete the Wacky Word

Chain strategy.

7. Identify reading selection to have students practice the pre-reading and Word

Whittle strategies to develop deeper understanding of complex science words.

8. Provide students with practice time to use the strategies in science class.

9. Record classroom observations of student performance and participation.

10. Conduct post-assessment on originally identified words from science unit.

10. Analyze data from both pre- and post-assessments to determine effectiveness of

Greek and Latin root and affix strategies to learn science vocabulary.
 WTS 3 page 18 of 33

11. Compare ELL and non-ELL summative data to evaluate effectiveness of word part

strategies on closing the achievement gap in eighth grade science.

Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)

1. Standardized goal: Students will be able to use common, grade-appropriate Greek or

Latin affixes and roots as clues to the meaning of a word (CCSS ELA Literacy Standard,

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2016).

2. Targeted learning objective: same

Task(s) and Essential Proficiency Criteria for Targeted Learning Objective(s)

1. Task: ELL students will demonstrate improved individual assessment scores

when compared to the average for non-ELL students in eighth-grade science class.

2. Criteria that Prove Proficiency in Meeting Targeted Learning Objective(s)

a. Students will successfully achieve the objective by producing assessment

scores that are either at benchmark (74%), or equal to or higher than their

non-ELL counterparts.

Method(s) to Assess Progress of Proficiency for Targeted Learning Objective(s)

1. ELL students will be observed in science class, and a record will be kept of any

observed transfer of skills with regard to Greek and Latin roots and affixes.

2. Students will complete the same eighth grade science summative assessments as

their non-ELL peers. The non-ELL student scores will be averaged and compared

to each individual ELL students scores to determine if the strategies successfully

decreased the achievement gap for each ELL student.

Post-assessments

Instructional Insights Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)

 WTS 3 page 19 of 33

Throughout this experience, I have grown tremendously as an educator. By researching

the history behind the development of achievement gaps, I have gained a greater insight into the

wide array of challenges faced by disadvantaged students. Having this knowledge, I feel a

greater impulse to go the extra distance to meet my students specific learning needs. Having

recognized the disparities between ELL and non-ELL students scores on a number of eighth

grade science tests, I have identified the presence of an achievement gap within the classroom.

As a result, I began to reflect on my own practice and on how these students were being served

in both the intervention period and in their core content classes.

To overcome this gap, I attempted to meet the specific needs of my ELL students by

exploring different strategies designed to improve vocabulary acquisition. The focus of these

strategies centered on developing an awareness of word parts. Additionally, they stressed the

application of Greek and Latin affix and root word knowledge to identify difficult terms and

decode them. This skill provided the ELL students with a tool to decipher complex scientific

terms, thus gaining a deeper understanding of the science curriculum. Through providing

additional instruction on meaning and application of affixes and roots, my hope was for the ELL

students class participation and summative scores to increase.

With this goal in mind, my approach to providing support for ELL students in science

class began to transform. In prior units, I would have supported my language learners by

providing them with visual support, example sentences, and sentence frames to help them begin

to use new vocabulary terms. I would have accomplished this through pre-teaching or re-

teaching activities. While this strategy has been somewhat successful for one ELL student over

several summative evaluations, there were two students who continued to struggle. Therefore, I

began to implement strategies to help all three students to become better word detectives.
 WTS 3 page 20 of 33

Therefore, my goal shifted from ensuring that students understood the key terms to making sure

students developed a new strategy to independently figure out word meanings. The students and

I all had to step outside of our comfort zones to take on this new type of learning. Now, to

determine the effectiveness of the strategies used, the conversation must shift toward analyzing

the student learning outcomes.

Comparison of Student Performance Related to Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)

Based on the post-data, I believe the word part strategies were effective in helping the

students reach higher achievement in science class (Artifact E). As the students continued to

learn about the different word part meanings and how to identify and apply them in learning

activities, they gained a deeper understanding of the course content. This deeper understanding

and the ability to apply learned vocabulary is clear and evident in the unit summative

assessments. With each assessment, the students needed to apply vocabulary comprehension to

both understand and respond to questions. In a comparative data analysis of science summative

scores, the language learners achievement slowly increased throughout the unit and even

surpassed that of their non-ELL peers on the post-assessment. Ultimately, the achievement gap

appears to have been reversed as the average ELL score exceeded that of the non-ELL group by

8 percentage points.

The increasing scores represent a stronger understanding and ability to participate in

classroom learning. One specific assessment which highlighted increased success by the ELL

students was the Punnett Square quiz (Artifact F). While the scores showed higher achievement,

I also observed that students were more willing to participate in both whole group and small

group activities dealing with Punnett Squares. This proves contrary to previous classroom

observations where these students were less vocal in group work and less willing to volunteer
 WTS 3 page 21 of 33

responses in whole group. Students continued to demonstrate mastery of science terminology

based on the vocabulary pre- and post-tests data. Compared to the first attempt, there was vast

improvement in their scores when they retook the assessment at the end of the unit (Artifact G).

Finally, the students efforts throughout the entire unit culminated in outstanding scores on their

unit post assessment. On this assessment, there were several areas where students correctly

applied their vocabulary knowledge to understand and respond to questions (Artifact H).

Comparison of Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Objective(s)

Not only did these strategies empower students in their own learning of vocabulary terms,

but they also positively impacted the classroom environment. As students explored with word

parts, the classroom took on a much more collaborative vibe. This was especially true during the

parts-to-whole strategy where students worked together to form complex words out of affix

and root flashcards (Artifact I). Additionally, the Word Whittle strategy provided students with

the chance to team up to take key words from a science text and dig down to their core meanings

(Artifact J). Finally, the classroom became more responsive to my students need to express their

creativity through the Wacky Word Chain strategy. In this task, students freely experimented

with word parts to create their own words as well as use wacky colors and shapes to display their

learning (Artifact K). All in all, the word part strategies added elements of exploration, creativity

and discovery to the classroom environment where students were highly engaged and motivated

to achieve greater levels of success.

Reflection of Entire Learning Process

What Worked and Why

1. The parts-to-whole strategy worked well because students could readily assemble and

disassemble words as they rearranged the flashcards. Additionally, providing the tangible
 WTS 3 page 22 of 33

flashcard manipulatives allowed students to quickly discuss, change, and negotiate word

meanings. While HMS is fortunate to provide all students with Chromebooks, learners seem to

appreciate and become highly engaged in non-digital activities.

2. The daily affix and root word warm-ups were effective ways to help students transition

from their comfort zones and enter an unfamiliar context of vocabulary practice (Artifact L). In

addition to the collaborative nature of the activity, the students also felt extremely engaged due

to the familiar cultural music added into the Google slide. Rather than working against a timer,

students know they have a song that lasts for about three-minutes before having to discuss the

activity. The initial class warm-up activities were essential in helping to build students comfort

levels while working with word parts.

What Did Not Work and Why

1. The pre-reading strategy to identify complex words was difficult for students as they

encountered several complex words in each paragraph. As ELL students vary in English

proficiency, some will likely struggle to focus in on the key science terms. This is due to the fact

that some face challenges to comprehend even basic language. Although having students identify

their own words provides a more authentic experience, I had to highlight specific science terms

to save time during class.

2. While the Word Whittle strategy helped students to think deeper about complex

words, it took much longer than I had planned. Rather than having an individual complete the

activity for several words, a more effective use of time would involve completing the activity in

jigsaw fashion where each student completes the activity for a different word and then shares his

or her information to the whole group.

My Next Steps
 WTS 3 page 23 of 33

1. Continue to explore and incorporate instruction of Greek and Latin roots and affixes to

help build students independent decoding and word part application skills.

2. Share strategies with English language arts teachers who are also working on

vocabulary development skills as part of their annual Student Learning Objective (SLO).
 WTS 3 page 24 of 33

References

Center for Education Policy Analysis. (n.d.). Racial and ethnic achievement gaps. Retrieved

March 05, 2017, from http://cepa.stanford.edu/educational-opportunity-monitoring-

project/achievement-gaps/race/

Godar, B. (2016). Racial disparities persist in new statewide exam results. AP Regional State

Report Wisconsin.

Haycock, K. (2011). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58, 6-11. Retrieved

March 05, 2017 from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-

leadership/mar01/vol58/num06/Closing-the-Achievement-Gap.aspx

Hollie, S. (2012). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning: Classroom

practices for student success. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education.

King, M. L., Jr. (1968). Remaining awake through a great revolution. The Martin Luther King,

Jr. Research and Education Institute. Retrieved March 05, 2017 from

http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_remaining_awak

e_through_a_great_revolution.1.html

Luster, J. (2012). Using state assessments for teaching English language learners. Research In

Higher Education Journal, 18, 1-10.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). NAEP achievement gaps: Understanding gaps.

Retrieved March 05, 2017, from

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/understand_gaps.aspx

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Number and percentage of public school

students participating in programs for English language learners, by state: Selected years,
 WTS 3 page 25 of 33

2003-2013-14. Retrieved March 05, 2017, from

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_204.20.asp

National Education Association. (2015). Students affected by achievement gaps. Retrieved

March 05, 2017, from http://www.nea.org/home/20380.htm

National Education Association. (2016). Backgrounder: Students from poverty.

doi:20029.5/16.MF. Retrieved March 05, 2017 from

http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/Backgrounder_Students%20from%20poverty_online.pdf

Pacheco, M. B., & Goodwin, A. P. (2013). Putting two and two together: Middle school students'

morphological problem-solving strategies for unknown words. Journal of Adolescent &

Adult Literacy, 56(7), 541-553. doi:10.1002/JAAL.181

Rothstein, R. (2014). Brown v. Board at 60: Why have we been so disappointed? What have we

learned?. Economic Policy Institute, 1-8.

US Department of Education. (2015). Developing ELL programs: Lau v. Nichols. Retrieved

March 05, 2017, from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/lau.html

Vue, M.Z. (2016). Closing achievement gap for Hmong students should be a priority. Madison

Magazine. Retrieved March 05, 2017 from http://www.channel3000.com/madison-

magazine/city-life/closing-achievement-gap-for-hmong-students-should-be-a-

priority/155837364

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2015). Report on the status of bilingual-bicultural

education programs in Wisconsin, chapter 115, subchapter vii, s. 115.996, Wis. Stats.

Retrieved on March 05, 2017 from https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/english-

learners/pdf/2013-14-legislator-report.pdf
 WTS 3 page 26 of 33

Artifact A: 2015-2016 Holmen Middle School Report Card

This artifact reveals the statistics generated by the state testing data regarding Holmen Middle
Schools performance in a variety of areas. As indicated by the state, the school has made strides
toward closing the achievement gap, but a disparity remains.

Artifact B: Pre-comparison of Science Class Assessment Data

This artifact serves as a baseline to analyze science summative assessment data trends and begins
comparing performance levels between ELL and non-ELL students. As indicated by the table
below, the combined ELL student scores consistently demonstrate significantly lower levels of
achievement on unit exams. While there are two individuals who consistently achieve lower
scores, the higher performing student has been near the class-average. However, this individual
has not demonstrated any significant level of achievement beyond the non-ELL average.

Pre-Strategy Implementation Atom History Chemistry Electricity Magnetism

Test Test Test Test
G.X. 8.5 5.6 8.6 8.6
A.V. 6.9 7 6.1 7.1
H.S. 8.2 2.3 6.8 5.2
ELL Group Average 7.8 4.9 7.1 6.9
Non-ELL Class Average 8.3 7.3 8.5 8.5
 WTS 3 page 27 of 33

Artifact C: NAEP Reading Score Achievement Gap (Black-White)

This artifact depicts the stark reality of the American achievement gap. The image clearly reveals
that Wisconsin had one of the highest statistically significant reading achievement gaps in the
United States in 2013.

Artifact D: Achievement Gap Data from Madison Metropolitan School District

This artifact clearly depicts an achievement gap between 3rd-8th grade Hmong and non-Hmong
students in both reading and math skill attainment.
 WTS 3 page 28 of 33

Artifact E: Post- comparison of Science Class Assessment Data

This artifact presents the assessment data collected after the implementation of the word part
strategies. As students continued to work with the word parts, they were able to more readily
apply them leading to higher test scores. The achievement gap decreased with each assessment.

Post-Strategy Vocabulary Punnett Genetics

Implementation Quiz Square Quiz Test
G.X. 9 8.9 9.8
A.V. 6.5 7.2 9.3
H.S. 6 9.4 9.5
ELL Group Average 7.2 8.5 9.5
Non-ELL Class Average 8.6 8.8 8.7

Artifact F: Post-Strategy Punnett Square Quiz Skill Demonstration

This artifact shows application of word part knowledge to decode vocabulary encountered on the
Punnett Square quiz. All three students demonstrated strong skill transfer on this assessment.

Student 1: dominant, recessive, genotype, phenotype, and heterozygous

Student 2: dominant, recessive, and genotypes

 WTS 3 page 29 of 33

Student 3: dominant, recessive, hybrid, purebred, genotype, and phenotype

Artifact G: Comparison of Vocabulary Pre- and Post-test Data

This artifact displays both initial and final vocabulary comprehension of the ELL students. Over
the course of the unit, there was vast improvement, which likely helped them to reach higher
achievement on other summative assessments.

Genetics Vocabulary (24 key terms) Pre-test Post-test

G.X. 3/24 21/24
A.V. 1/24 14/24
H.S. 1/24 12/24

Artifact H: Post-Strategy Unit Exam Skill Demonstration

This artifact shows evidence of student application of vocabulary study, thus supporting the
effectiveness of the strategies used in class. Each student was able to apply strategies in a variety
of areas of the exam.

Student 1: dominant, trait, recessive, pedigree, and heterozygous

 WTS 3 page 30 of 33

Student 2: chromosomes, mitosis, meiosis, and gamet[e]s

Student 3: nucleus, DNA, chromosome, and gene

Artifact I: Parts-to-Whole Strategy in Action

This artifact provides visual evidence of a collaborative classroom environment. In the

photograph, students explore the use of word parts to build, disassemble, and rearrange affixes
and root words to develop a deeper understanding of science terminology.
 WTS 3 page 31 of 33

Artifact J: Word-Whittle Strategy Student Example

This artifact shows how the Word Whittle strategy can help students to develop a deeper
understanding of key terms based on textual clues (outer zone), word part knowledge (middle
zone), and prior experience (innermost zone).

Artifact K: Wacky Word Chain Strategy Student Example

This artifact demonstrates student creativity in the construction of a nonsensical word through
applying word part knowledge. There is also some artistic appeal of the activity as the student
designed a colorful assortment of borders to create the word chain.
 WTS 3 page 32 of 33

Artifact L: Classroom Warm-Up Activity Example

This artifact shows a typical Google Slides warm-up activity where students are exposed to an
activity that activates prior knowledge or helps to build background on an upcoming objective.
The students were highly engaged in this word construction activity not only due to the inherit
collaborative nature of the task, but also due to the culturally responsive music selection that
played in the background as they completed the task.

Artifact M: Example Lesson Plan from ESL Writing Curriculum

This artifact demonstrates a typical lesson developed to enhance student vocabulary knowledge
to improve writing abilities. This dynamic lesson includes elements of cultural responsiveness,
collaboration, technology use, physical movement, higher level thinking, assessment, and self-
reflection.

Date: 12/13/2016
Grade: 8th
Class: ESL Writing
Unit: Expanding Vocabulary (Day 4 of 5)
Teacher: Mr. Meyers
Long Term Goal: SWBAT write arguments focused on discipline-specific content.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.6-8.1
Todays Objective: SWBAT use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to
inform about or explain the topic. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.6-8.2.D
Todays Objective in Student Lingo: SWBAT use new/exact words to replace
common/everyday language. (Replace said with more descriptive vocabulary terms)
Materials: notecards with said synonyms, partner activity sheet, exit slips,
Chromebooks
 WTS 3 page 33 of 33

Steps:
A) Warm-up (Idiom Exercise)
1) Students will enter classroom and begin completing warm-up activity in
notebook.
2) I will give a brief overview to clear up any questions regarding todays
idiom.
3) Students will finish writing their own sentence.
4) Give 1, Get 1 Students will greet another classmate in culturally
acceptable way and share 1 piece of cultural info to begin the business of
sharing his/her idiom.
5) I will collect the notebooks upon completion of the activity.
B) Review Previously Taught Vocabulary
1) I will announce the days learning objective.
2) As a whole group, we will review the terms orally and through Total
Physical Response. Students may use visual aid from previous class if
they feel they need it.
3) I will pass out a notecard with 1 word on it to each student and instruct
them that they need to organize themselves in a line based on how their
word sounds when said with emotion. Each will say his/her word and will
readjust their position in line as necessary until all agree. Next, well
discuss the importance of context when using these new words to replace
said.
C) Partner Practice
1) I will explain the activity and monitor as students collaborate in pairs
2) If finished with activity, students can use Thesaurus.com on their
Chromebooks to add words to their google doc, My Personal Thesaurus.
3) As a whole group, well discuss the correct answers to the sheet.
D) Exit Slip
1) I will pass out, explain, and collect exit slips when students finish.
E) Group Debriefing
1) Reflect on lesson objective, what learned/observed, likes/dislikes about
lesson, etc