Reporting - Profiling A
A. Developing a profile of students’ strengths and needs
1. Summarise the problem of student learning you focused on in this inquiry.
Limited English proficiency (LEP) is a real problem of student learning among English language learners (ELLs) in my inquiry group. This limited proficiency may be equally the same across the four language skills - listening, reading (receptive skills), speaking and writing (productive skills), though may be to different degrees in achievements of individual learners. This is a very common problem among ELLs who may know and function more proficiently in their first language (L1), and are learning English as a second language (L2). In most cases these ELLs lack two main types of skills - Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS), which is social or conversational language, and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), the academic language needed to comprehend and analyse a textbook or understand a presentation by a teacher. Research shows that depending on their age, BICS may be acquired to a functional level within the first two years of exposure to the second language, while it can take between 5 - 10 years to learn CALP before ELLs are considered competent and catch up to native speakers in academic aspects of the second language (Haynes, 2007; Cummins, 2000; ERO, 2018).
The Simple View of Reading is regarded as one of the most popular models of reading comprehension used and validated by research. Reading comprehesnion is defined in this model as having two main components to reading - decoding and language comprehension. Dymock & Nicholson (2012) refers to 'decoding' as simply the ability to pronounce words fluently while reading printed text. Farrel, Davidson, Hunter & Osenga (2010) go further to say that the meaning of decoding expands to include fast and accurate reading of familiar and unfamiliar words in both lists and connected text, that is 'efficient word recognition'. Language comprehension, on the otherhand, is simply presented as the ability to understand spoken English in an English speaking environment as well as constructing the meanings conveyed by printed words. Farrel, Davidson, Hunter & Osenga (2010) refer to linguistic comprehension, listening comprehension, and comprehension as other names used in some studies to mean language comprehension. They all defined language comprehension as as the ability to derive meaning from spoken words when they are part of sentences or other discourse. They restate what Catts, Adlof, & Weismer (2006) give as a minimum definition of language comprehension abilities, “receptive vocabulary, grammatical understanding, and discourse comprehension”.
These two components of reading comprehension, decoding and language comprehension were originally claimed to be quite separate. So both decoding and language comprehension skills are separable for both assessment and teaching, although both are required to achieve reading comprehension. However, Farrel, Davidson, Hunter & Osenga (2010) argue that recent research has modified the model so that there is now a link between language comprehension and decoding via the part of language comprehension that is vocabulary knowledge. Now the argument is, vocabulary knowledge can make it easier to become good at decoding. This has become the revised version of the Simple View of Reading Comprehension.
With that explanation of what a reading comprehension is, I chose to focus on it as the specific problem in the learning of five year 10 ELLs in my inquiry group. Their extremely low level of reading comprehension skills may be indicative of what research shows, they are two years behind the BICS of their peers and 5 - 10 years behind the CALP of the same. This is a big challenge for ELLs in my inquiry group, and to try and accelerate them to bridge the gap between their reading proficiency and that of their peers is quite an enourmous challenging task. However, the model of 'Simple View of Reading Comprehension' may be useful to limit this inquiry to some clear constructs or domains of reading comprehension which may be relateable to the context and experiences of English language learners.
The New Zealand Curriculum expects year 9 students to be at curriculum level 4 in their reading proficiency, when they enter the secondary school. By year 10, they are expected to read at curriculum level 5. These expectations are to ensure that these learners can access and meet the demands of the curriculum in all learning areas. My baseline data below would show that ELLs in my inquiry group read at levels far below these expected levels. Their STAR reading ages and PAT scale scores approximate all ELLs in my inquiry group to be reading between curriculum levels 1-2.
Limited English proficiency (LEP) is a real problem of student learning among English language learners (ELLs) in my inquiry group. This limited proficiency may be equally the same across the four language skills - listening, reading (receptive skills), speaking and writing (productive skills), though may be to different degrees in achievements of individual learners. This is a very common problem among ELLs who may know and function more proficiently in their first language (L1), and are learning English as a second language (L2). In most cases these ELLs lack two main types of skills - Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS), which is social or conversational language, and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), the academic language needed to comprehend and analyse a textbook or understand a presentation by a teacher. Research shows that depending on their age, BICS may be acquired to a functional level within the first two years of exposure to the second language, while it can take between 5 - 10 years to learn CALP before ELLs are considered competent and catch up to native speakers in academic aspects of the second language (Haynes, 2007; Cummins, 2000; ERO, 2018).
The Simple View of Reading is regarded as one of the most popular models of reading comprehension used and validated by research. Reading comprehesnion is defined in this model as having two main components to reading - decoding and language comprehension. Dymock & Nicholson (2012) refers to 'decoding' as simply the ability to pronounce words fluently while reading printed text. Farrel, Davidson, Hunter & Osenga (2010) go further to say that the meaning of decoding expands to include fast and accurate reading of familiar and unfamiliar words in both lists and connected text, that is 'efficient word recognition'. Language comprehension, on the otherhand, is simply presented as the ability to understand spoken English in an English speaking environment as well as constructing the meanings conveyed by printed words. Farrel, Davidson, Hunter & Osenga (2010) refer to linguistic comprehension, listening comprehension, and comprehension as other names used in some studies to mean language comprehension. They all defined language comprehension as as the ability to derive meaning from spoken words when they are part of sentences or other discourse. They restate what Catts, Adlof, & Weismer (2006) give as a minimum definition of language comprehension abilities, “receptive vocabulary, grammatical understanding, and discourse comprehension”.
These two components of reading comprehension, decoding and language comprehension were originally claimed to be quite separate. So both decoding and language comprehension skills are separable for both assessment and teaching, although both are required to achieve reading comprehension. However, Farrel, Davidson, Hunter & Osenga (2010) argue that recent research has modified the model so that there is now a link between language comprehension and decoding via the part of language comprehension that is vocabulary knowledge. Now the argument is, vocabulary knowledge can make it easier to become good at decoding. This has become the revised version of the Simple View of Reading Comprehension.
With that explanation of what a reading comprehension is, I chose to focus on it as the specific problem in the learning of five year 10 ELLs in my inquiry group. Their extremely low level of reading comprehension skills may be indicative of what research shows, they are two years behind the BICS of their peers and 5 - 10 years behind the CALP of the same. This is a big challenge for ELLs in my inquiry group, and to try and accelerate them to bridge the gap between their reading proficiency and that of their peers is quite an enourmous challenging task. However, the model of 'Simple View of Reading Comprehension' may be useful to limit this inquiry to some clear constructs or domains of reading comprehension which may be relateable to the context and experiences of English language learners.
The New Zealand Curriculum expects year 9 students to be at curriculum level 4 in their reading proficiency, when they enter the secondary school. By year 10, they are expected to read at curriculum level 5. These expectations are to ensure that these learners can access and meet the demands of the curriculum in all learning areas. My baseline data below would show that ELLs in my inquiry group read at levels far below these expected levels. Their STAR reading ages and PAT scale scores approximate all ELLs in my inquiry group to be reading between curriculum levels 1-2.
Literacy Learning Progression (LLP) refers to reading (and writing) as interactive tools, “that students use to engage with all the learning areas of the New Zealand Curriculum.” That means these learners need to do more than just to read (and write). They need to use their reading (and writing) skills to meet the demands of the NZ curriculum. These demands are integrated to all teaching and learning activities which develop their key competencies as well as all knowledge and skills in all learning areas. Without knowledge or confidence in their use of these interactive tools or lack thereof, these ELLs will be hindered from all effective learning, starting from language learning to all learning across all curriculum learning areas. Their learnings therefore in secondary school will be hampered, let alone their being 'ready' for any learning beyond secondary school. Again my baseline data below would show that ELLs in my inquiry group are struggling with their reading proficiency as an interactive tool to be used in their learning across all learning areas.
So with the various constructs or domains of reading comprehension - such as decoding, fluency, vocabulary knowledge, and comprehension strategies, I chose to focus vocabulary knowledge and comprehension strategies.
2. Describe how and why you first selected this problem of student learning at the beginning of your inquiry.
The question of how I selected this problem to be the focus of my inquiry relates to how much I know my learners as well as the background information I know about English language acquisition and learning. These help inform me about the problem and in selecting it to be the focus of my inquiry. I already know that ELLs in my inquiry group are migrants to New Zealand in less than 2 years ago and they were in an ESOL class last year. Their reading proficiency would therefore be 5 years or more below those of their mainstream peers. Their limited reading proficiency suggests the urgency to do interventions in their learning to read. When there is improvement or progress in this area of their English language learning, there is bound to be better impacts on their learning in all learning areas.
As a former ESOL student myself who learned English as a second language at a foreign language context before university, my personal experience has potential in influencing my viewpoint on English language teaning. I learned English mostly by reading, and I basically learned how to read by reading. I literally read any book available for me to read. So despite the very limited exposure and use of English at my physical learning context, I had unlimited exposure to English in and out of class by reading books extensively and for pleasure. I was able to acquire decoding skills, English words, fluency, form, and comprehension. This experience gave me insights into how I selected the problem of low reading comprehension among ELLs to be focus of my inquiry.
So with the various constructs or domains of reading comprehension - such as decoding, fluency, vocabulary knowledge, and comprehension strategies, I chose to focus vocabulary knowledge and comprehension strategies.
2. Describe how and why you first selected this problem of student learning at the beginning of your inquiry.
The question of how I selected this problem to be the focus of my inquiry relates to how much I know my learners as well as the background information I know about English language acquisition and learning. These help inform me about the problem and in selecting it to be the focus of my inquiry. I already know that ELLs in my inquiry group are migrants to New Zealand in less than 2 years ago and they were in an ESOL class last year. Their reading proficiency would therefore be 5 years or more below those of their mainstream peers. Their limited reading proficiency suggests the urgency to do interventions in their learning to read. When there is improvement or progress in this area of their English language learning, there is bound to be better impacts on their learning in all learning areas.
As a former ESOL student myself who learned English as a second language at a foreign language context before university, my personal experience has potential in influencing my viewpoint on English language teaning. I learned English mostly by reading, and I basically learned how to read by reading. I literally read any book available for me to read. So despite the very limited exposure and use of English at my physical learning context, I had unlimited exposure to English in and out of class by reading books extensively and for pleasure. I was able to acquire decoding skills, English words, fluency, form, and comprehension. This experience gave me insights into how I selected the problem of low reading comprehension among ELLs to be focus of my inquiry.
The question of why I chose the problem of reading proficiency to be the focus of my inquiry is in line with what ERO (2018) alludes to as their reason for focusing on reading programmes, that is, reading is a critical skill that enables children to engage with all aspects of The
New Zealand Curriculum, that reading proficiency provides a doorway into the world, and that children’s success in all learning is largely the consequence of effective literacy
teaching. In the same document, ERO quotes other writers' viewpoints about the importance of literacy and children's reading proficiency, "Becoming literate is arguably the most important goal of schooling.
The ability to read is basic to success in almost every aspect of the
school curriculum, it is a prerequisite skill for nearly all jobs, and is the
primary key to lifelong learning. Literacy determines, to a large extent,
young children’s educational and life chances and is fundamental in
achieving social justice." (Tunmer & Prochnow, 2009).
I strongly feel that because the complexity in all aspects of learning increases as these ELLs move up through the school system, the disparity will get bigger. If therefore no urgent intervention is now taken to increase the reading proficiency of these learners, it will be much harder for their language learning and learning in other content subjects when they begin L1 NCEA next year and onward. If they are more able to receive information through the receptive language skills of reading (and listening) in English language as a medium, then they will be better able in their processing and presenting language skills.
I strongly feel that because the complexity in all aspects of learning increases as these ELLs move up through the school system, the disparity will get bigger. If therefore no urgent intervention is now taken to increase the reading proficiency of these learners, it will be much harder for their language learning and learning in other content subjects when they begin L1 NCEA next year and onward. If they are more able to receive information through the receptive language skills of reading (and listening) in English language as a medium, then they will be better able in their processing and presenting language skills.
3. Describe the tools/measures/approaches you used to get a more detailed and accurate profile of students’ learning in relation to that problem. Justify why you chose these approaches and tools.
I had to use this tool because the school runs a school-wide guided independent reading or extensive reading programme called Accelerated Reader (AR) for all our year 9 and 10 students. STAR reading gives information which are needed for the implementation of AR. AR aims at getting students to engage in extensive reading using information from STAR to select and read books at the right levels for their ability.
In this inquiry, AR will be used as an intervention where ELLs will engage on extensive reading with these purposes:
- Increase learners' exposure to English language. With that exposure, they are presented with 'comprehensible input' which can help their learning of English language. Specifically, the learning of new vocabulary, meanings and knowledges, language structures, fluency
- With information from STAR to guide, learners will read books at the right levels of difficulty will help increase their comprehension skills.
- Learners will identify their comprehension ability by taking a quiz after reading each book and by identifying the average % correct of all books read at certain periods of time.
Vocabulary Tests
For ELLs to make progress in both oral and written language, each learner needs to learn new English words. Webster's Unbridged Dictionary defines vocabulary as 'the stock of words used by or known to a particular people or group of persons'. A word is a 'unit of language consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that function as a principal carrier of meaning'. This stock of words are needed for reading comprehension. It may be therefore right to assume that vocabulary is an important condition for language use and skill development, but language use is also important to develop vocabulary development. Vocabulary can be learned both incidentally through extensive reading and deliberately through intensive reading programme.
Nation (1990) divides vocabulary into 3 different groups - high frequency words, low frequency words, and specialised or academic words. High frequency words are very much needed for second language learners to comprehend spoken and written texts.
English language learner should ideally learn the most useful words first. But to decide which words most useful to teach, there is a need to consider how common they are and their relationship to the learner’s prior knowledge. To do that ELLP aligns word frequency word lists with stages of language learning. It is identified that at - Foundation stage - First 500–1000 words and other vocabulary relevant to class topics; Stage 1 - First 1000 words and a developing knowledge of the 2000 word list and other vocabulary relevant to class topics; Stage 2 - First 2000 words and a developing knowledge of the 3000 word list and other vocabulary relevant to class topics, and progressively higher, and so to other stages...
I chose to administer tests of the first 535 words, first 1000 words, and the first 2000 words with my inquiry group. The intention was to identify the percentages of words each learner knows and whether they are aligned with the ELLP stages they are in. These information will help identify the word lists these learners should focus on and the design of an appropriate vocabulary and reading programme for them.
English Language Learning Progression (ELLP)
Although the English Language Learning Progressions (ELLP) is not a measurement assessment tool itself, it helps provide a nationally consistent set of progressions for teachers to use. It identifies stages and typical patterns of progress in the language development of English language learners from years 1–13, analyses the complexity of oral and written texts, and monitors and reports on English language learners’ progress. The progressions are in multiple booklets, they are - introduction, for years 1-4, years 5-8, and years 9-13). Teachers need to know these about English language learners in order to maximise their learning of English. It will help them when choosing content, vocabulary, and tasks that are appropriate to each learner’s age, stage, and language-learning needs.
The question of how I selected this problem to be the focus of my inquiry relates to how much I know my learners as well as the background information I know about English language acquisition and learning. These help inform me about the problem and in selecting it to be the focus of my inquiry. I already know that ELLs in my inquiry group are migrants to New Zealand in less than 2 years ago and they were in an ESOL class last year. Their reading proficiency would therefore be 5 years or more below those of their mainstream peers. Their limited reading proficiency suggests the urgency to do interventions in their learning to read. When there is improvement or progress in this area of their English language learning, there is bound to be better impacts on their learning in all learning areas.
I had to use this tool because it is a national key guideline for assessment, planning, and teaching of English language learners (ELLs) in New Zealand. It is also a school requirement to use ELLP to assess ELLs twice a year for ESOL-funding application. More importantly, ELLP provides both summative and formative information on individual ELLs across the four English language skills (listening, reading, speaking, writing) which inform both the teaching and learning of English language. It provides stages (achievement levels) that each learner is at and descriptors of progress at each language skill. The analysis of oral and written texts at each stage provides useful information on text selection for teaching and learning. ELLP provides guidance on what and where to start teaching these new ELLs as they arrive in New Zealand.
Although the English Language Learning Progressions (ELLP) is not a measurement assessment tool itself, it helps provide a nationally consistent set of progressions for teachers to use. It identifies stages and typical patterns of progress in the language development of English language learners from years 1–13, analyses the complexity of oral and written texts, and monitors and reports on English language learners’ progress. The progressions are in multiple booklets, they are - introduction, for years 1-4, years 5-8, and years 9-13). Teachers need to know these about English language learners in order to maximise their learning of English. It will help them when choosing content, vocabulary, and tasks that are appropriate to each learner’s age, stage, and language-learning needs.
The question of how I selected this problem to be the focus of my inquiry relates to how much I know my learners as well as the background information I know about English language acquisition and learning. These help inform me about the problem and in selecting it to be the focus of my inquiry. I already know that ELLs in my inquiry group are migrants to New Zealand in less than 2 years ago and they were in an ESOL class last year. Their reading proficiency would therefore be 5 years or more below those of their mainstream peers. Their limited reading proficiency suggests the urgency to do interventions in their learning to read. When there is improvement or progress in this area of their English language learning, there is bound to be better impacts on their learning in all learning areas.
I had to use this tool because it is a national key guideline for assessment, planning, and teaching of English language learners (ELLs) in New Zealand. It is also a school requirement to use ELLP to assess ELLs twice a year for ESOL-funding application. More importantly, ELLP provides both summative and formative information on individual ELLs across the four English language skills (listening, reading, speaking, writing) which inform both the teaching and learning of English language. It provides stages (achievement levels) that each learner is at and descriptors of progress at each language skill. The analysis of oral and written texts at each stage provides useful information on text selection for teaching and learning. ELLP provides guidance on what and where to start teaching these new ELLs as they arrive in New Zealand.
Progressive Achievement Test (PAT)
PAT is an online standardized reading comprehension test which assesses student ability to make meaning from texts they read in years 4 - 10. It helps classroom teachers determine achievement levels of learners in reading comprehension and identifies gaps in their reading too. PAT provides standards in terms of national mean scores as well as year levels mean scores which individual learners can be measured against. The test also provides descriptions of the reading comprehension skills that are typically present at different locations on the scales, allowing for formative and summative reporting. The 'What next' strategies are provided through the analysis of items in the test and links to the assessment resource banks. These are very helpful information for designing appropriate reading programmes and text types to use.
I chose to use this tool because it is a school-wide reading comprehension test used by the college and Manaiakalani cluster schools to assess the reading ability of our students. Because PAT multiple tests reflect expected progress through the curriculum, this is relevant for my inquiry cohort because it gives an immediate picture of how my learners are achieving and progressing against the curriculum. Further, because all students’ results end up on one scale no matter which test they sit, it allows for an accurate indication on where my inquiry learners are at in relation to their peers at school and nationally. This tool is also very useful because it does not only measure the achievement levels and progress of our students, but it also provides the strengths and gaps in students’ reading which are useful formative information to guide the teaching of reading. The ‘What next’ strategies are particularly useful in offering useful teaching strategies and appropriate text types and levels for teaching reading.
STAR Reading
Star Reading is an online customised reading test which presents a snapshot of achievement at a specific point in time. The test is designed for students in year 2 through 13, also for students in year 1 who have basic reading skills. Reports from Star Reading can determine the reading level of each student and measure growth. Among many information provided, these are important indicators:
- Scaled Scores (SS) - ranges from 0 to 1400 and spans years 1–13 are useful for comparing student performance over time and across years and against a national norm;
- Reading Age (RA) - provides an estimate of the chronological age at which students typically obtain that score. Scaled scores and reading age are helpful in indicating student progress over time as a result of this independent reading;
- Domain Scores estimate a student’s mastery of each domain for the student’s year level. I find STAR domain scores very useful in indicating gaps in specific reading domains assessed by STAR which help in planning and teaching of the learners;
- Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) suggests the readability-level range from which a student should be selecting books for optimal growth in reading without frustration. When students read at the right levels of book, there's a better possibility for them to make shifts. Students can progress above or below these ZPDs as they progress through the programme.
- Average percent correct (APC) provides information on levels of comprehension, both when students take a quiz after reading each book, or the average of all quizzes on books read in a longer period of time. The ideal APC is 85-95%, which means, if a student scores within this % correct or up to 100% from a quizz after reading a book, then the next book to be borrowed must be 1 or 2 points higher than the previous ZPD. If the % correct is between 80-85%, then the next book should be the same, and if it is below 80% then a book with a lower ZPD or easier should be boorowed next. With these information from STAR, students are monitored to read books at the right levels for their ability to comprehend.
- Scaled Scores (SS) - ranges from 0 to 1400 and spans years 1–13 are useful for comparing student performance over time and across years and against a national norm;
- Reading Age (RA) - provides an estimate of the chronological age at which students typically obtain that score. Scaled scores and reading age are helpful in indicating student progress over time as a result of this independent reading;
- Domain Scores estimate a student’s mastery of each domain for the student’s year level. I find STAR domain scores very useful in indicating gaps in specific reading domains assessed by STAR which help in planning and teaching of the learners;
- Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) suggests the readability-level range from which a student should be selecting books for optimal growth in reading without frustration. When students read at the right levels of book, there's a better possibility for them to make shifts. Students can progress above or below these ZPDs as they progress through the programme.
- Average percent correct (APC) provides information on levels of comprehension, both when students take a quiz after reading each book, or the average of all quizzes on books read in a longer period of time. The ideal APC is 85-95%, which means, if a student scores within this % correct or up to 100% from a quizz after reading a book, then the next book to be borrowed must be 1 or 2 points higher than the previous ZPD. If the % correct is between 80-85%, then the next book should be the same, and if it is below 80% then a book with a lower ZPD or easier should be boorowed next. With these information from STAR, students are monitored to read books at the right levels for their ability to comprehend.
In this inquiry, AR will be used as an intervention where ELLs will engage on extensive reading with these purposes:
- Increase learners' exposure to English language. With that exposure, they are presented with 'comprehensible input' which can help their learning of English language. Specifically, the learning of new vocabulary, meanings and knowledges, language structures, fluency
- With information from STAR to guide, learners will read books at the right levels of difficulty will help increase their comprehension skills.
- Learners will identify their comprehension ability by taking a quiz after reading each book and by identifying the average % correct of all books read at certain periods of time.
Vocabulary Tests
For ELLs to make progress in both oral and written language, each learner needs to learn new English words. Webster's Unbridged Dictionary defines vocabulary as 'the stock of words used by or known to a particular people or group of persons'. A word is a 'unit of language consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that function as a principal carrier of meaning'. This stock of words are needed for reading comprehension. It may be therefore right to assume that vocabulary is an important condition for language use and skill development, but language use is also important to develop vocabulary development. Vocabulary can be learned both incidentally through extensive reading and deliberately through intensive reading programme.
Nation (1990) divides vocabulary into 3 different groups - high frequency words, low frequency words, and specialised or academic words. High frequency words are very much needed for second language learners to comprehend spoken and written texts.
English language learner should ideally learn the most useful words first. But to decide which words most useful to teach, there is a need to consider how common they are and their relationship to the learner’s prior knowledge. To do that ELLP aligns word frequency word lists with stages of language learning. It is identified that at - Foundation stage - First 500–1000 words and other vocabulary relevant to class topics; Stage 1 - First 1000 words and a developing knowledge of the 2000 word list and other vocabulary relevant to class topics; Stage 2 - First 2000 words and a developing knowledge of the 3000 word list and other vocabulary relevant to class topics, and progressively higher, and so to other stages...
I chose to administer tests of the first 535 words, first 1000 words, and the first 2000 words with my inquiry group. The intention was to identify the percentages of words each learner knows and whether they are aligned with the ELLP stages they are in. These information will help identify the word lists these learners should focus on and the design of an appropriate vocabulary and reading programme for them.
4. Summarise your key findings about the nature and extent of the student problem i.e. present your baseline student data and evidence.
English Language Learning Progression (Pre-Test)
Key Findings:
1) All the 5 ELLs in my inquiry group are at Stage 1 in their reading ability. This is equally the same with their 3 other language skills - listening, speaking, and writing.
2) At this stage 1 level, learners are only able to read texts which are short and often present ideas in a simple sequence. The texts contain simple and compound sentences with a variety of sentence beginnings but usually no more than two clauses per sentence. With vocabulary, texts use varied high-frequency words and some words that are lower frequency and topic specific and that are strongly supported by the context. With regard to layout of the texts, texts have about three sentences per page and are well supported by illustrations.
This is in contrast to the expectation of the New Zealand Literacy Progression (LLP) where, by year 9 students are required to read and write a wide range of texts in order to meet a variety of specific learning purposes across the curriculum. Increasingly, the language and forms of these texts are subject-specific. By the end of year 10, students should confidently select texts according to their reading prupose and control their rate of reading depending on the nature of the text, their purpose for reading, and the time available.
2) The graph below shows my inquiry group to have the lowest mean score among all the seven year 10 classes. That further shows their reading proficiency to be well below when compared to their peers in year 10.
3) PAT Individual Reports aim to show specific strengths
and/or weaknesses in comprehension domains tested. Out of the 8 different text types in the test, ELLs in my inquiry group did most poorly on 2 poems, an explanation text, and narrative texts. All questions in those texts were answered incorrectly by all the five learners. There were three specific reading skills tested - retrieval skills, making local inferences and global inferences. Out of the 42 questions in the test, 37 were on local inferences, 3 on global inferences, and only 2 on retrieval skills. These ELLs scored very low mainly on local inference skills, but also on global inferences and retrieval skills.
Table 2 below shows the average scale scores and reading ages of all the year 10 classes. It is used here for comparison purposes. That again shows that the lowest among all the year 10 classes at the college was my inquiry cohort - another reflection of very low reading proficiency. The highest range was TKm and second to the highest was the RCo cohort.
- Understanding author's craft
- Word knowledge and skills
- Comprehension skills and constructing meanings
- Analyzing Literary Texts
- Analyzing Argument and Evaluating Text
Key Findings:
1) The results among the ELLs in the inquiry group varied. The graph shows students 1 & 2 to be having very limited vocabulary. They scored very low in both the 535 and 1000 words tests. Students 3, 4 and 5 scored above 70% in the 535 words test, student 4 scored 100% in the 1000 words test, but they all scored less in the 2000 words test.
English Language Learning Progression (Pre-Test)
Key Findings:
1) All the 5 ELLs in my inquiry group are at Stage 1 in their reading ability. This is equally the same with their 3 other language skills - listening, speaking, and writing.
2) At this stage 1 level, learners are only able to read texts which are short and often present ideas in a simple sequence. The texts contain simple and compound sentences with a variety of sentence beginnings but usually no more than two clauses per sentence. With vocabulary, texts use varied high-frequency words and some words that are lower frequency and topic specific and that are strongly supported by the context. With regard to layout of the texts, texts have about three sentences per page and are well supported by illustrations.
This is in contrast to the expectation of the New Zealand Literacy Progression (LLP) where, by year 9 students are required to read and write a wide range of texts in order to meet a variety of specific learning purposes across the curriculum. Increasingly, the language and forms of these texts are subject-specific. By the end of year 10, students should confidently select texts according to their reading prupose and control their rate of reading depending on the nature of the text, their purpose for reading, and the time available.
PAT Reading Comprehension (Pre-Test)
Key Findings
1) The graph below shows the ELLs' reading proficiency in my inquiry group to be well below their year 10 peers at the college as well as the national norm. They are 20.6 scale scores below the national mean score and 10.3 scale scores below the year 10 mean score at the college.
2) The graph below shows my inquiry group to have the lowest mean score among all the seven year 10 classes. That further shows their reading proficiency to be well below when compared to their peers in year 10.
3) PAT Individual Reports aim to show specific strengths
and/or weaknesses in comprehension domains tested. Out of the 8 different text types in the test, ELLs in my inquiry group did most poorly on 2 poems, an explanation text, and narrative texts. All questions in those texts were answered incorrectly by all the five learners. There were three specific reading skills tested - retrieval skills, making local inferences and global inferences. Out of the 42 questions in the test, 37 were on local inferences, 3 on global inferences, and only 2 on retrieval skills. These ELLs scored very low mainly on local inference skills, but also on global inferences and retrieval skills.
STAR Reading Comprehension (Pre-Test)
Key Findings:
1) Table 1 below shows the scale scores and reading ages of ELLs in my inquiry group. Reading ages range from 6:11 - 8:04. These approximate them to be at curriculum levels 1 - 2. That is another reflection of very low reading proficiency among ELLs in my inquiry group.
1) Table 1 below shows the scale scores and reading ages of ELLs in my inquiry group. Reading ages range from 6:11 - 8:04. These approximate them to be at curriculum levels 1 - 2. That is another reflection of very low reading proficiency among ELLs in my inquiry group.
Table 1: Inquiry Group Scale Scores & Reading Ages
| ||
Students
|
Scale Scores
|
Reading Ages
(in years & months)
|
1
|
163
|
6.11
|
2
|
230
|
7.07
|
3
|
252
|
7.08
|
4
|
224
|
7.06
|
5
|
333
|
8.04
|
Table 2 below shows the average scale scores and reading ages of all the year 10 classes. It is used here for comparison purposes. That again shows that the lowest among all the year 10 classes at the college was my inquiry cohort - another reflection of very low reading proficiency. The highest range was TKm and second to the highest was the RCo cohort.
2) An analysis of the reading domains tested showns ELLs in the inquiry group to be doing poorly in the following:
- Word knowledge and skills
- Comprehension skills and constructing meanings
- Analyzing Literary Texts
- Analyzing Argument and Evaluating Text
Key Findings:
1) The results among the ELLs in the inquiry group varied. The graph shows students 1 & 2 to be having very limited vocabulary. They scored very low in both the 535 and 1000 words tests. Students 3, 4 and 5 scored above 70% in the 535 words test, student 4 scored 100% in the 1000 words test, but they all scored less in the 2000 words test.
