Summarise evidence about key shifts in the problem of student learning.
In my previous blog I summarized and showed evidence of key changes in my teaching as a result of the intervention. Those changes were mainly in the areas of - extensive reading, intensive reading, and motivation and visioning. In this blog I will summarize and show evidence of key shifts in the reading comprehension ability as well as motivation and attitude of my inquiry learners toward English learning and reading.
There will be both quantitative and qualitative evidence.
Table 1 below shows a quantitative evaluation of shifts in student reading achievement among my inquiry group, norm, and a comparison group (which is the overall year 10 average).
At the beginning of the year my learners’ on average had a score of 59.1 which was well below the norm. At the end of the year my students’ on average had a score of 62.6 which was still well below. On average, my inquiry students gained 3.5 points whereas students in the norm made 9.5 points and students in the comparison group (yr10) made 2.2 points. Overall I conclude that my students made progress but was less than expected progress.
Table 2 below shows the pre-post intervention PAT results for all year 10 classes including the inquiry group.
When comparing my inquiry learners to all the other six year 10 classes on average they still had the lowest score at the beginning of the year. At the end of the year my inquiry students gained points which were second to the highest gains in all the year 10 cohorts (class 5). I therefore conclude that my inquiry learners still have the lowest score among all the year 10 cohorts, but they made more progress than 5 of those year 10 classes.
Table 3 below shows the pre-post intervention STAR results for all year 10 classes including my inquiry group.
The STAR reading results present a very similar picture to the ones presented by the PAT reading results. At the beginning of the year my inquiry learners on average had the lowest scaled score and reading ageamong all year 10 cohorts. At the end of the year they still had the lowest of the same but they made the second to the highest growth in their reading ability among the year 10 cohorts.
Table 4 below shows the pre-post intervention quantitative STAR results of learners in my inquiry group.
The results show increases in the scale scores and reading ages of 4 learners of my inquiry group at the end of the year. The highest was a growth by 1 year and 6 months and the lowest was 6 months. One learner (student 2) did not make a shift or progress but a drop by six months.
Student 2 had the shortest time since migration to New Zealand so his exposure to English input in this English speaking background is shorter than the other 4 learners. Regarding practicing the 3 best practices of accelerated reader, student 2 was the least to adhere to those practices. He only read 12 books in six months, with an average of 1 minute engaged readng time per day, and the lowest and below the average percent correct (APC). That reflects hsi comprehension level.
Table 5 below shows the pre-post intervention quantitative scores on reading comprehension domains by STAR reading assessment.
Table 6 below shows the pre-post intervention assessment of 2000 frequency words of my inquiry group.
I decided to do an assessment only on 2000 frequency words to show my inquiry learners' progress or not on their vocabulary developemnt. Students 3, 4, and 5 scored from 70% - 100% in 1000 frequency test before the intervention.
The four learners who did the assessment made good progress in their learning of English vocabulary after the intervention. Student 3 made a progress of 36.3%, student 4 of 26.3%, student 2 of 23.3%, and student 5 the lowest of only 6.3%.
Table 7 below shows the pre-post intervention English Language Learning Progression (ELLP) reading assessment of my inquiry group.
At the beginning of the year, my inquiry learners were at ELLP stage one in reading. At the end of the year four learners progressed to stage 2 while one learner (student 2) remained at stage 2 reading.
ELLP stage 2 texts include the following aspects and features:
Topic development - Topics are developed in more depth and assume more background knowledge; Text types are more varied: they may be reports, arguments, procedures, explanations, recounts or mixtures of these.
Language strucures - Texts contain simple, compound, and some complex
sentences. Sentences are sometimes expanded with prepositional phrases or
other structures.
Vocabulary - Texts use varied high-frequency words and some words that are
lower frequency and topic-specific or technical, and that should be clear from
the context.
Layout - Texts have several sentences or short paragraphs per page and may
be supported by illustrations.
The table below presents qualitative data on
attitudess, interests, and motivations of my inquiry
learners toward reading. The learners were also to
rate themselves as readers at the beginning and end
of the year.
The table below presents qualitative data on the
movitation and attitude of inquiry learners toward
their learning of English before and after the
'Visioning My Future' workshop.
Kia ora Mele
ReplyDeleteThank you for providing this comprehensive evaluation of your 2019 inquiry project and for consistently blogging about your journey throughout the year. You have developed a great source of data and also a great resource for other teachers to refer to. All the best with your 2020 inquiry.
Hana