Literacy Squared® Technical Report: Adams 14, 2016-2017 Author Sandra Butvilofsky, Ph.D. Principal Investigator Sandra Butvilofsky, Ph.D. University of Colorado Boulder School of Education BUENO Center for Multicultural Education UCB 247 Boulder, CO 80309-0247 303-492-0147 303-492-2883 (fax) sandra.butvilofsky@colorado.edu Research Team Caitlin Fine, M.A. & M.Ed. Deena Gumina Patricia Holt, M.A. Maria de los Ángeles Osorio de la Rosa Ofelia Schepers, Ph.D. Elizabeth Silva, M.A. Jody Slavick, M.A. 2 Literacy Squared® Technical Report: Adams 14, 2016-2017 Author Sandra Butvilofsky, Ph.D. ©2017: Butvilofsky 3 Table of Contents Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 4 Overview of the Report ................................................................................................................... 5 Literacy Squared ......................................................................................................................... 5 Description of the Participants ........................................................................................................ 6 Schools ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Students ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Teachers ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Professional Development .............................................................................................................. 8 Fidelity of Implementation ........................................................................................................... 12 Data Sources and Analysis........................................................................................................ 13 Students’ Biliteracy Outcomes ..................................................................................................... 15 Data Sources and Methods of Data Collection ......................................................................... 16 Methods of Analysis ................................................................................................................. 19 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 20 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 31 References ..................................................................................................................................... 33 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 37 4 Table of Tables Table 1. Adams 14 School Demographics, 2016-2017 .................................................................. 7 Table 2. Literacy Squared at Adams 14 Teacher Demographics, 2016-2017 ................................ 8 Table 3. Literacy Squared Professional Development Log, Adams 14, 2016-2017....................... 9 Table 4. Literacy Squared On-site Support Log, Adams 14, 2015-16 ......................................... 10 Table 5. Teachers’ Adherence to Measures of Implementation, 2016-2017 ................................ 13 Table 6. Daily Language Allocations for Paired Literacy Instruction .......................................... 14 Table 7. EDL2/DRA2 Levels by Grade Level.............................................................................. 18 Table 8. Cohort 1 Students' SSLP (Spanish) Listening and Speaking Proficiency Levels, Comparison of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, in Percentages .................................................. 20 Table 9. Cohort 1 Students' SELP (English) Listening and Speaking Proficiency Levels, Comparison of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, in Percentages .................................................. 21 Table 10. Cohort 2 Students' SSLP (Spanish) Listening and Speaking Proficiency Levels, Comparison of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, in Percentages .................................................. 21 Table 11. Cohort 2 Students' SELP (English) Listening and Speaking Proficiency Levels, Comparison of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, in Percentages .................................................. 22 Table 12. Cohort 1 Students’ Biliterate Writing Outcomes, Spring 2016 - Spring 2017 ............. 23 Table 13. Cohort 2 Students’ Biliterate Writing Outcomes, Spring 2016 - Spring 2017 ............. 24 Table 14. Cohort 1 Students’ Mean EDL2/DRA2 Spring Reading Scores, Spring 2016 & 2017 25 Table 15. Cohort 2 Students’ Mean EDL2 and DRA2 Spring Reading Scores, Spring 2016 and 2017....................................................................................................................................... 26 Table 16. Cohort 1 Students’ ACCESS 2.0 English Language Proficiency Levels, 2016 and 2017 ............................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 17. Cohort 2 Students’ ACCESS 2.0 English Language Proficiency Levels, 2016 and 2017 ............................................................................................................................................... 27 5 Technical Report Overview of the Report This technical report provides detailed information of all professional development activities and students’ biliteracy outcomes for Year 2, 2016-2017, of a three-year project between Adams 14 School District and Literacy Squared at the BUENO Center at the University of Colorado Boulder. This collaborative project is designed to deliver professional development to classroom teachers so that they can implement biliteracy/paired literacy instruction in kindergarten through third grade classrooms in a district where bilingual education had been absent. Paired literacy instruction is a holistic approach to teaching reading and writing in which students learn to read and write in two languages (in this case, Spanish and English) simultaneously beginning in kindergarten (Escamilla, et al., 2014). Paired literacy practices are not duplicative, and do not involve concurrent translation. The research design includes a longitudinal study that will examine growth in cohort students’ reading and writing outcomes in both languages across three years. Literacy Squared The partnership between Literacy Squared and the Adams 14 School District initiated during the 2015-2016 school year. This report details the second year of a three-year (20152018) partnership to implement paired literacy instruction in classrooms that encompass the four main Literacy Squared components. These four main components are as follows: 1. A three-year research project with data collection and analysis 2. Professional development for teachers 3. Refined assessment and appropriate interpretative practices for emerging bilingual students by using: 6 • Reading, writing, and oral language assessments in two languages • Holistic bilingual frameworks to interpret emerging bilingual students’ biliteracy development 4. Implementation of a comprehensive biliteracy instructional model with a focus on productive (speaking and writing), receptive (reading and listening), and analytic (metalinguistic) language skills in grades K-5 that includes: • Spanish literacy • Explicit cross-language connections between Spanish and English • Literacy-based English language development (ELD) Description of the Participants Adams 14 School District has a student population that is approximately 83% Latino, 56% are identified as English language learners, and 84% qualify for free and reduced price lunch. Prior to 2009, bilingual and native language programs were offered to emerging bilingual learners. From 2009-2014, Adams 14 implemented an all-English alternative model of instruction utilizing an “English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)” model. In 2010 a complaint alleging “instances of discrimination against students, parents and staff on the basis of national origin (Hispanic)” (Romine, 2014) was filed with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). OCR conducted a thorough investigation from 2008 to 2012 and found that the school district, through its English-only policies, created a hostile setting for the Latino students, families, and teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). The district with OCR reached a settlement to resolve the violations in 2014. Adams 14 reinstated a limited form of bilingual education at four elementary schools in 2015-2016. The district entered into a partnership with Literacy Squared through the BUENO 7 Center, which is a research-based and tested project developed for emerging bilingual learners with the goal of developing biliteracy in Spanish-English elementary age students (Escamilla, et. al, 2014). Schools The same four elementary schools participated in the second year of this research project: Dupont, Hanson, Kemp, and Monaco Elementary Schools. Table 1 provides demographic information for students attending the four schools, as well as for the Adams 14 School District. Table 1. Adams 14 School Demographics, 2016-2017 School Adams 14 (K-12) Dupont Hanson Kemp Monaco Enrollment 7,467 589 416 569 449 % Latino 83 84 88 86 78 % White 12 12 9 11 16 % ELL 56 67 40 58 55 %FRL 84 88 82 86 86 As in the first year of implementation, the only part of the instructional day delivered in Spanish was during Spanish literacy instruction, essentially a two-hour block of time. Teachers may have implemented Spanish instruction in other parts of the day, but it was not the official language policy of participating schools/classrooms. Students A total of 145 students participated in the Literacy Squared Project in both the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 academic years. For the purposes of documenting participants’ biliteracy development across time, we are collecting data on two cohort groups that have complete data sets for all years of the project. Thus, the number of students who had complete data sets decreased by 25 from Year 1 to Year 2. 8 Teachers There were eight participating Literacy Squared teachers at the four schools, one first grade and one second grade teacher at each school. Table 2 has all demographic information for the participating teachers. Sixty-two percent of the teachers in the research project have at least six or more years of experience. More than half of them have a Master’s degree in education; and half of them hold an endorsement in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Education or English as a Second Language (ESL). Table 2. Literacy Squared at Adams 14 Teacher Demographics, 2016-2017 Total Number (8) Percent Female Male 7 1 88 12 Latino White Other 4 3 1 50 38 12 0-5 years 6-10 More than 10 3 1 4 6 4 38 12 50 75 50 Sex Race/Ethnicity Teaching Experience Master’s Degree CLD/ESL Endorsement Professional Development One of the four main components of Literacy Squared is professional development for teachers and leaders, which is focused on the theoretical and pedagogical elements of the Literacy Squared Biliteracy Framework. Professional development sessions during the 20162017 school year were led by members of the Literacy Squared research team and included: whole-group sessions, on-site support with teachers, and learning labs. There were six whole group professional development sessions for participating teachers, coaches, and administrators, as well as two learning labs. On July 27, we ran two concurrent sessions, one for new teachers to 9 the project, and another for experienced project teachers. Table 3 provides an overview of the professional development activities, topics covered, and the number of participants in attendance in Year 2. The Adams 14 school district adopted the Benchmark Advance and Adelante Literacy Curriculum in 2016, and thus the focus of many of the professional development sessions delivered by the Literacy Squared team, was on how to apply the Holistic Biliteracy Framework to the new literacy curriculum, and provide biliteracy instruction. Table 3. Literacy Squared Professional Development Log, Adams 14, 2016-2017 Date/Time July 27 8:30 am-3:30 pm July 27 8:30 am-3:30 pm July 28 8:30 am-3:30 pm September 20 9 am-12 pm September 30 8:40-11:40 am October 28 8:30 am-3:30 pm February 16 9 am-12 pm Description of PD Session Professional Development • New teachers: Orientation and TheDictado (Sparrow & Schepers) Professional Development • Experienced Teachers: Literacy Squared and Adelante/Advance Benchmark Curriculum (Butvilofsky & Nguyen-Le) Professional Development • Oracy (Butvilofsky, Nguyen-Le, & Slavick) • Literacy Squared Framework and Benchmark Adelante/Advance Curriculum (Butvilofsky & Nguyen-Le) Learning Lab, Kemp Elementary (Butvilofsky & Fine) • Observe 2 teachers; facilitate discussion Professional Development • Focus on Literacy Squared Framework and Reading Strategy/Skills Instruction (Butvilofsky, Slavick, & Fine) Professional Development • Literacy Squared Writing Rubric (Butvilofsky, Schepers, & Osorio) • Appling Shared Writing Approach to Adelante/Advance Benchmark Curriculum (Butvilofsky) Learning Lab, Monaco Elementary Focus on Oracy and Reading (Butvilofsky & Silva) • Observe 2 teachers; facilitate discussion Attendees Principals, Coaches, Teachers = 18 Principals and teachers = 10 Principals, Coaches, Teachers = 20 Principals, Coaches, Teachers = 15 Coaches, Teachers = 23 Coaches, Teachers = 28 1 Principal and 3 Teachers 10 March 15 4:30-7:30 Professional Development • Literacy Squared Reading Pedagogical Approaches and the Adelante/Advance Curriculum: Teacher-led Small Group, Modeled, Shared, Collaborative (Butvilofsky, Gumina, Fine, Silva, & Slavick) Principals, Coaches, Teachers = 17 Learning labs provide professional learning for teachers as they observe their colleagues implement various aspects of the Literacy Squared model. This year’s focus for the learning labs was for demonstrating teachers to implement oracy instruction within the Benchmark curriculum materials. With the demonstrating teachers and the Literacy Squared lead, participants spent their time pre-briefing the specific strategy to be observed; observing instruction in the classroom; and then debriefing their observations and reflecting on the implementation for their own classroom practice. Various members of the Literacy Squared research team provided on-site support to Adams 14 teachers and administrators. Over 120 hours of on-site support were provided to participating teachers (this level of support was beyond the agreement in the original contract signed by both parties). The research team assisted teachers by modeling, planning, and observing Literacy Squared lessons to ensure teachers had a working knowledge of the various instructional components of Literacy Squared. Table 4 is a log of the activities provided. Table 4. Literacy Squared On-site Support Log, Adams 14, 2015-16 Date Time School Teacher/s nd Topic covered 10/3/16 8-9 Hanson 2 grade Met with teacher and reviewed Lotta Lara strategy 10/12/16 12:005:00 Hanson K-2nd grades Met with each teacher to discuss Dictados and Pair Literacy Planning 10/13/16 8:009:00 Hanson 2nd grade Lotta Lara Planning 10/14/16 9:302:30 Monaco K-1st grade Observed Spanish literacy and ELD, met to plan and discuss differentiation in ELD 11 10/19/16 10-1:30 Kemp K-2nd grades 10/19/16 12:301:30 12:303:00 3:00 Hanson Liz Balderas Monaco Macias Hanson K-2nd grades 9:00 am3:00 pm 12:303:30 7:309:00 12:303:00 12:551:40 1:403:40 9:303:30 Dupont K-2nd grades Kemp K-2nd grades Met with the three teachers after the PD to discuss next steps; also discussed Dictado modifications for specific students Observed in all the classrooms to get to know all of the students and teachers. Tried to observe literacy in all of them and was able to see guided reading as well. Went over Unit 5 Outlines Dupont Monaco K-2nd grades & Coach K-2nd grades Meeting with all of the teachers and the reading coach Went over Unit 5 Outlines Hanson 2nd grade Meeting canceled, Unit 3 planning Hanson K-2nd grades Dupont K-2nd grades 12:301:30 Dupont 1st grade Discussed Unit 4 planning; planned some things together (Lotta Lara) with 1st -2nd Observed biliteracy and small group instruction. Went back for their plan times to debrief. Provided modeling of modeled/shared writing over the course of the week. Kemp K-2nd grades Dupont 1st grade Meeting with teachers to discuss station ideas that align with Literacy Squared Modeled a lesson Collaborative Writing Hanson kinder Planned for the Unit Hanson Kinder Unit 6 planning - Gradual Writing Process 2/3/17 11:303:30 12:502:15 1:403:40 1:405:00 12-3:30 Monaco K-2nd grades 2/6/17 11-3:30 Kemp K-2nd grades 2/7/17 9:2010:20 3:305:00 Hanson kinder k-graded writing samples and went through unit 7; 1st-discussed reader's theater and planned learning lab; 2nd -planned learning lab k-did a dictado training and discussion; 1stobserved stations and small groups, gave feedback; 2nd-discussed scheduling, planned a lotta lara Modeling -Modeled Writing Hanson kinder Unit Planning 10/20/16 10/28/16 11/3/16 11/8/16 11/09/16 11/14/16 11/16/16 11/17/16 12/13 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, 1/9, 1/10, 1/11 1/11/17 1/18/17 2/2/17 2/2/17 2/8/17 Observed Dictado/Spanish Literacy, met and planned with teachers and biliteracy coach Discussed goals of Lit2 and Benchmark Observed Dictado/ELD/Planned 12 2/9/17 12:303:45 Monaco 1st and 2nd grades 2/10/17 9:2010:20 3:305:00 11:30 3:30 Hanson kinder Support/Planning for Learning Labs. Cotaught with 1st grade teacher - Think-DrawWrite Modeled Collaborative Writing Hanson kinder Unit Planning Monaco 1st and 2nd grades 1- 3:30 8:302:00 9:30 3:30 Monaco Monaco 1st and 2nd grades 1st and 2nd grades Monaco K-2nd grades 3:004:30 9:301:00 9:0012:30 Central Office Kemp Dr. Cano Support/Planning for Learning Labs, Cotaught with 2nd grade teacher a shared reading with main idea discussion, Planning/support for learning labs Planning and support for shared reading/learning labs K - Looked through the writing and discussed writing objectives. 1st - Looked through unit 7 and selected the reading objectives. 2nd - Unit 7, Selected the readings and created a Lotta Lara lesson. Planning for 2017-2018 Dupont K-2nd grades 3/20/17 9:303:30 Monaco 1st and 2nd grades 4/10-4/12 12-2:00 Dupont 2nd grade and Coach 2/13/17 2/13/17 2/14/17 2/15/17 2/25/17 3/15/17 3/20/17 3/20/17 K-2nd grades Model Dictado (Kinder and 1st), Observe Literacy and Debrief (2nd) 9:15-10 Observed ELD in 2nd grade classroom; 10-10:45 planned with kinder teachers; 10:45-11:20 Debrief observation with Arturo, made plan to work on writing; 11:45-12:15; 12:00-12:30 planned collaborative writing with Nancy Observed ELD in 2nd, Observed dictado, Met and planned with 1st and 2nd. For first grade planned collaborative reading/writing . For 2nd began book selection, outline writing work, created modeled writing for unit 9 Planned; Provided modeling and co-teaching of Spanish writing approaches; Debriefed lessons Fidelity of Implementation Examining fidelity of implementation is a critical aspect of the Literacy Squared model. “Fidelity of implementation” represents the degree to which teachers and program providers implement programs as intended by program developers (Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003; Mowbray, Holter, Teague, & Bybee, 2003; Ruiz-Primo, 2006). The Literacy Squared research model provides school leaders and teachers various parameters to ensure the 13 program model is implemented as intended. The specific parameters are explicated through professional development sessions and on-site support. Specific expectations for teachers implementing Literacy Squared were set forth in the Roles and Responsibilities (Appendix A) which were presented to participants at the first professional development session held in July. Data Sources and Analysis Various data sources were used to ensure teachers were implementing certain aspects of Literacy Squared as intended. The following sections detail the data sources collected and includes an analysis of adherence from all research teachers: Literacy Squared instructional component daily schedules; attendance at PD sessions; the Literacy Squared research team’s observations of teachers’ instruction; and students’ Dictado notebooks. Table 5 illustrates participating teachers’ adherence to the measures of implementation. Table 5. Teachers’ Adherence to Measures of Implementation, 2016-2017 School Grade Dupont Dupont Hanson Hanson Kemp Kemp Monaco Monaco 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Paired Literacy Schedules 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PD Attendance (7 sessions) Observati ons #Spanish Dictados #English Dictados 6 5 6 5 5 6 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 7 13 14 15 12 15 14 11 7 13 13 15 13 15 11 Paired literacy schedules. Paired literacy schedules were collected to ascertain whether teachers were scheduling the required amounts of time for Spanish literacy and literacy-based ELD into their daily instruction. The recommended time allocations from Literacy Squared are outlined in Table 6. All eight classrooms adhered to the minimum time allocations for paired literacy instruction. 14 Table 6. Daily Language Allocations for Paired Literacy Instruction Grade Spanish Literacy Literacy-based ELD (Minimum) (Minimum) K 2 hours 45 minutes 1 2 hours 1 hour 2 2 hours 1 hour Attendance at professional development sessions. Attendance was taken at all eight PD sessions offered. While there were eight sessions, each teacher should have only attended seven sessions. In Year 2, not one of the participating teachers attended all of the professional development sessions, this was mostly due to the low attendance at the learning lab on February 2, on which there was a national walk-out to protesting immigration policies. Because of this event, there were not enough substitute teachers to cover research teachers’ attendance. Three teachers attended six of the seven sessions, and one teacher only attended three of the sessions. Observations. The purpose of classroom observations is to understand how instruction in classrooms is aligned with Literacy Squared implementation, as well as to assess future advancement in professional development goals. Members from the Literacy Squared research team observed all participating Adams 14 teachers formally at least one time during the school year. Researchers spent at least 30 minutes observing TheDictado strategy or paired literacy instruction in each classroom. Dictado notebooks. All teachers were required to use TheDictado as a writing method to refine students’ language arts’ skills. TheDictado is a method to teach language arts’ conventions in an integrated way. It aims to help students develop both Spanish and English language arts, and ultimately build metalinguistic skills between and across languages. It is widely used in Central and South America and was adapted for students in U.S. contexts (see Escamilla, 15 Geisler, Hopewell, Sparrow, & Butvilofsky, 2009). Participating teachers are directed to implement TheDictado three days a week for 15-20 minutes a day, rotating weekly between Spanish and English. In kindergarten, teachers implement TheDictado five times during the week. The total number of Dictados to be completed was as follows: • Grades 1-2: Complete at least 12 Spanish and 12 English Dictados • Kindergarten: Complete at least 8 Spanish and 8 English Dictados To assess fidelity to TheDictado at year’s end, teachers were asked to submit a Dictado notebook from an average ability student. From these notebooks, the number of Dictados was counted to ascertain the minimum expectations. As seen in Table 5, all but one teacher met the minimum number of Dictados in the second year of the project. In addition to counting the number of Dictados given, the quality of them was also assessed, and feedback given to teachers in order to improve the potential to teach biliterate writing skills. Students’ Biliteracy Outcomes An important component of Literacy Squared involves examining the biliterate development of emerging bilingual students as they participate in paired literacy instruction. The analysis of emerging bilingual students’ Spanish and English reading, writing, and language development contributes to our on-going understanding of reading and writing biliterate trajectories. A unique aspect of this study is that we also collected speaking and listening data in both Spanish and English. The research questions guiding the study in 2016-2017 were primarily aimed at assessing participating students’ biliterate growth from Year 1 to Year 2 and are as follows: 1. What were emerging bilingual students’ Spanish and English listening and speaking proficiency levels in 2015 and in 2016 as measured by the SSLP and SELP? 16 2. What gains were made by emerging bilingual students’ in Spanish and English writing as measured by the Literacy Squared® Writing Rubric from spring 2016 to spring 2017? 3. What gains were made by emerging bilingual students’ in Spanish and English reading as measured by the EDL2 and DRA2 from spring 2016 to spring 2017? 4. What were emerging bilingual students’ ACCESS proficiency levels in 2016 and 2017? Data Sources and Methods of Data Collection Receptive and productive language skills were measured with both informal and formal instruments to answer the research questions. All assessments were used to document trends and patterns of development between and across languages that are distinctive to emerging bilingual children and to inform instruction. Stanford Spanish Language Proficiency (SSLP) assessment/ Stanford English Language Proficiency (SELP) assessment. The SELP is a standards-based assessment of English language proficiency for non-native speakers of English in PreK, kindergarten, and Grades 1 through 12. The assessment aids in determining students’ English language levels in four domains: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The SSLP is a parallel transadaptation (a blend between translation and adaptation) of the SELP test and was created to measure the Spanish language levels of students (Pearson, 2011). In both languages, the assessment uses the following performance levels to describe language proficiency within the four domains: Preemergent, Emergent, Basic, Intermediate, Proficient. For the purposes of assessing participating students’ Spanish and English language proficiency, we only used the Listening and Speaking portions of the assessments. Members of 17 the research team assessed students in both languages between November 2016 and January 2017. The Literacy Squared® Writing Rubric. Three pairs of Spanish and English writing samples were collected from all students in August, January, and May of the 2016- 2017 school year. The three pairs of Spanish and English writing prompts given throughout the year elicited three writing genres: informative/explanatory, opinion, and narrative (see Appendix B for prompts). The Spanish prompt was administered one to two weeks prior to the English prompt. Classroom teachers administered the prompts and students were given 30 minutes to respond to each prompt. Writing samples were carefully evaluated by teachers and research members using the Literacy Squared® Writing Rubric, a researcher-designed rubric purposefully developed to compare and contrast students’ writing trajectories in Spanish and English throughout the elementary grades (see Appendix C). The rubric requires a quantitative evaluation of three constructs with a total of 21 points: content (0-10), knowledge of structural elements (0-5), and spelling (0-6). The rubric has been determined to have a high rate of inter-rater reliability (Butvilofsky & Sparrow, 2012). The Evaluación del Desarollo de Lectura 2 (EDL2) and the Developmental Reading Assessment 2 (DRA2). Informal reading assessments included the Spanish language EDL2 (Celebration Press, 2007a) and the English language DRA2 (Celebration Press, 2007b). We identified these measures because they are available in both Spanish and English. Together they provide information to examine students’ reading trajectories toward biliteracy. Scores on the EDL2 range from level A through level 60 and scores on the DRA2 range from level A through level 80. The EDL2 and DRA2 have been studied and determined to be valid and reliable 18 measures of reading in Spanish and English (Pearson Education, 2009). The research team administered the inventories individually in the spring of 2016 to first and second grade students. While the monolingual grade level benchmark is traditionally viewed as one specific level, the biliterate benchmark by grade level (see Table 7) provides a range of levels for attaining biliterate grade level proficiency in Spanish and English (Escamilla et al., 2014). In Literacy Squared, we recognize that the acquisition of literacy in two languages may result in pacing that differs from that expected in monolingual settings; therefore, we acknowledge through our framework that students on a normal trajectory may fall within a range of levels in either language. For example, in a monolingual context, a second-grade student is expected to be reading at a Level 28 at the end of second grade; however, within Literacy Squared, we recognize that because a child is developing literacy in both Spanish and English, the grade level benchmark would include a range of levels. In Spanish, we would expect second grade students to be reading between levels 18 and 28, while in English they would be reading between levels 12 and 16. Table 7. Biliterate Benchmarks by Grade Level Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 EDL2 Level (Spanish) 3-4 12-16 18-28 30-38 40 50+ DRA2 Level (English) A-2 8-10 12-16 18-28 30-38 40+ ACCESS for ELLs Online 2.0 (Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State to State for English Language Learners). ACCESS is a required assessment for all students identified as English language learners in order to assess and monitor English 19 language proficiency in four language domains (Speaking, Listening, Reading, and Writing) on a yearly basis based upon the five WIDA English Language Proficiency Standards. ACCESS scores are reported as both scale scores and proficiency level scores for all domains. We utilized student’s Overall Proficiency Level scores in this report. Six levels of English language proficiency are identified from beginning to the highest level: Entering, Emerging, Developing, Expanding, Bridging, and Advanced. ACCESS 2.0 Online was given in both years of the study. ACCESS 2.0 is an online adaptive test that automatically determines the appropriate testing tier for students. Since this is a required federal/state assessment, school personnel administer it in January of every year. Methods of Analysis In order to analyze students’ achievement over the span of the three-year research project, we placed students in two cohort groups. Cohort 1 students will be followed from kindergarten through second grade, and Cohort 2 students will be followed from first through third grade. We only included students with complete data sets from Year 1 and 2 in our analyses. To document research results and address the four research questions, various statistical tools were used. To answer Research Questions 1 and 4, frequency distributions were used to determine the percentage of students at each proficiency level for Listening and Speaking on the SSLP/SELP assessments and for overall English language proficiency on the ACCESS assessment. For Research Questions 2 and 3 we compiled descriptive statistics to show grade level and classroom level outcomes in Spanish and English writing and reading for all students with complete data sets for both 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. 20 Results Research Question 1. Research Question 1 examined students’ listening and speaking skills in Spanish and English as measured by the Stanford Language Proficiency assessments. Aggregate results demonstrate that the majority (60%+) of Cohort 1 students are within the proficient range for speaking and listening in both languages. This trend is consistent amongst the four schools (see Tables 8 and 9). Across schools, we see that there is less than 11% of Cohort 1 students that are below the Intermediate level of proficiency in speaking and listening for both Spanish and English as measured by the SSLP and SELP. Table 8. Cohort 1 Students' SSLP (Spanish) Listening and Speaking Proficiency Levels, Comparison of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, in Percentages Pre-Emergent Aggregate Listening Speaking Dupont Listening Speaking Hanson Listening Speaking Kemp Listening Speaking Monaco Listening Speaking n 64 Emergent 2015 2016 Basic 2015 2016 Intermediate 2015 2016 Proficient 2015 2016 2015 2016 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 20 45 0 5 52 13 37 31 28 20 63 64 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 33 28 0 11 50 11 50 28 17 33 50 61 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 21 64 0 7 57 0 64 29 22 0 36 64 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 5 53 0 0 63 16 26 42 32 21 74 58 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 23 38 0 0 31 23 8 23 46 24 92 77 18 14 19 13 21 Table 9. Cohort 1 Students' SELP (English) Listening and Speaking Proficiency Levels, Comparison of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, in Percentages Pre-Emergent Aggregate Listening Speaking Dupont Listening Speaking Hanson Listening Speaking Kemp Listening Speaking Monaco Listening Speaking n 64 Emergent 2015 2016 Basic 2015 2016 Intermediate 2015 2016 Proficient 2015 2016 2015 2016 0 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 11 50 2 3 47 30 34 28 42 9 64 69 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 11 39 0 0 67 33 44 11 22 0 56 89 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 14 64 7 0 50 29 29 57 36 0 64 43 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 48 0 5 31 26 26 42 53 21 74 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 8 38 31 38 0 62 15 62 92 18 14 19 13 Table 10. Cohort 2 Students' SSLP (Spanish) Listening and Speaking Proficiency Levels, Comparison of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, in Percentages Pre-Emergent Aggregate Listening Speaking Dupont Listening Speaking Hanson Listening Speaking Kemp Listening Speaking Monaco Listening Speaking Emergent 2015 2016 Basic 2015 2016 Intermediate 2015 2016 Proficient 2015 2016 n 2015 2016 42 61 19 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 5 15 0 10 55 42 43 39 40 36 57 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 26 0 5 58 47 47 53 37 27 53 42 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 56 67 44 33 22 33 56 0 0 n/a 0 0 5 n/a 0 5 16 n/a 21 69 26 n/a 32 26 53 n/a 47 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 7 0 7 43 50 21 29 50 36 79 64 9 19 14 22 Table 11. Cohort 2 Students' SELP (English) Listening and Speaking Proficiency Levels, Comparison of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, in Percentages Pre-Emergent Aggregate Listening Speaking Dupont Listening Speaking Hanson Listening Speaking Kemp Listening Speaking Monaco Listening Speaking Emergent 2015 2016 Basic 2015 2016 Intermediate 2015 2016 Proficient 2015 2016 n 2015 2016 42 61 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15 0 2 50 44 17 23 48 39 83 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 47 58 16 32 53 32 84 68 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9 11 22 0 9 22 45 11 33 67 33 89 67 0 5 n/a 0 0 0 n/a 0 5 16 n/a 5 63 32 n/a 21 32 47 n/a 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 71 43 21 7 29 43 79 93 9 19 14 Cohort 2 students made gains from 2015 to 2016 in both their Spanish and English listening and speaking as measured by the SSLP and the SELP (see Tables 10 and 11). It is important to note that we do not have English listening scores for students at Kemp, as they were given the incorrect test form. The majority of Cohort 2 students are at the proficient level for speaking and listening in both languages. Research Question 2. The second research question examined students’ writing outcomes in Spanish and English as measured by the Literacy Squared Writing Rubric from spring 2016 through spring 2017. Students produced three pairs of Spanish and English writing prompts in 2016-2017. Cohort 1 student results are displayed in Table 12 and Cohort 2 student outcomes are in Table 13. 23 Table 12. Cohort 1 Students’ Biliterate Writing Outcomes, Spring 2016 - Spring 2017 n 65 Aggregate Spring ‘16 Fall ‘16 Winter ‘17 Spring ‘17 Dupont 18 Spring ‘16 Fall ‘16 Winter ‘17 Spring ‘17 Hanson 14 Spring ‘16 Fall ‘16 Winter ‘17 Spring ‘17 Kemp 18 Spring ‘16 Fall ‘16 Winter ‘17 Spring ‘17 Monaco 15 Spring ‘16 Fall ‘16 Winter ‘17 Spring ‘17 Spanish English SE Spell Overall SD Content SE Spell Overall SD 3.8 3.2 4.4 4.8 1.3 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.8 2.8 3.5 3.7 7.9 7.5 9.4 10.5 3.7 4.1 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.4 4.1 4.9 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.2 2.3 2.3 3.1 3.2 7.4 7.2 8.8 10 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.2 3.5 4.8 4.8 1.4 1.7 1.7 2.4 2.8 3.4 3.7 3.6 8.4 8.6 10.2 10.8 3.6 3.9 4 4.5 4.2 3.6 4.4 4.5 1.7 1.5 1.8 2.7 2.6 2.2 3 3.4 8.4 7.3 9.2 10.6 2.8 3.5 3.9 4.2 2.4 2.2 3.6 4.1 1 1.2 1.1 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.4 3 5.1 5.3 7.1 8.9 4.5 4.1 4.3 4.9 2.1 2.5 3.4 3.9 1.3 1.6 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 4.9 5.9 6.6 7.8 3.5 3.5 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.6 5.1 1.4 1.9 1.5 2.2 2.8 3.8 3.9 4 8.4 9.8 10.1 11.3 3.1 2.4 2.5 2.8 3.9 4.1 4.4 5 1.3 1.7 1.6 2.3 2.2 3 3.6 3.6 7.5 9.8 9.6 10.9 3.0 2.4 2.1 2 4.1 2.7 4.4 5 1.5 1.1 1.7 1.9 3.6 1.8 3.9 4 9.1 5.6 9.9 10.9 2.1 4.3 1.9 1.2 4.1 3.4 4.0 4.8 1.5 1.1 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.2 3.4 3.3 8.1 6.7 9.2 10.2 2.5 3.6 2 2.2 Content Overall, Cohort 1 students performed comparably across languages from spring 2016 to spring 2017 and they made gains in all areas of the writing rubric (see Table 12). In order to interpret how children were progressing in their writing development, it is helpful to look at the independent constructs: content, structural elements, and spelling. When doing so, we can see that at the end of kindergarten (spring 2016), students were able to express at least two complete ideas in writing (content); use beginning and/or ending punctuation, although not accurately (structural elements); and demonstrate an emerging knowledge of common spelling patterns 24 (spelling). By the end of first grade, in general Cohort 1 students were able to express a main idea and related details (content); use one form of punctuation accurately (structural elements); and spell the majority of high frequency words accurately. Aggregate overall Spanish and English scores increased by 2.5 points from spring 2016 to spring 2017 and the increase was in content. The trends described above holds true for most schools. Table 13. Cohort 2 Students’ Biliterate Writing Outcomes, Spring 2016 - Spring 2017 Aggregate Spring ‘16 Fall ‘16 Winter ‘17 Spring ‘17 Dupont Spring ‘16 Fall ‘16 Winter ‘17 Spring ‘17 Hanson Spring ‘16 Fall ‘16 Winter ‘17 Spring ‘17 Kemp Spring ‘16 Fall ‘16 Winter ‘17 Spring ‘17 Monaco Spring ‘16 Fall ‘16 Winter ‘17 Spring ‘17 n 67 Spanish English SE Spell Overall SD Content SE Spell Overall SD 4.8 4.5 4.7 5.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 2 3.1 3.2 3.7 3.6 9.4 9.2 10.1 10.7 3.2 2.7 3 3 4.7 4.4 4.9 4.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 2 2.9 2.8 3.4 3.5 9.4 9.2 9.9 10.4 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.9 5.3 4.3 4.2 4.4 1.8 1.2 2 1.6 3.2 2.9 3.3 2.8 10.2 8.5 9.5 8.7 3.5 3 4 4 4.9 3.8 4.2 4.1 2.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 3.0 2.4 2.9 2.4 10.3 7.7 8.7 8.2 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.9 4.4 4.6 5.1 5.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 2.5 3.5 3.8 4.2 4 9.3 10 10.9 11.9 3.1 2.8 3.5 3.2 4.4 4.4 5.5 5.2 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.2 3.1 3 3.6 3.9 9 9.1 10.9 11.4 3.9 4.1 3.5 2.7 4.7 4.1 4.7 5.3 1.3 1.7 1.5 2.3 2.7 2.8 3.5 3.7 8.8 8.6 9.8 11.3 3 3.1 2.7 2.2 4.7 4.3 4.9 5.3 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.2 2.6 3 3.8 3.7 8.8 9 10.4 11.3 2.6 2.1 1.9 2 4.5 4.9 4.9 5.3 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.9 3.3 2.9 3.8 3.9 9.3 10 10.3 11.1 3.2 1.7 1.6 1.7 4.6 4.9 4.9 5 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.9 3.1 2.9 3.4 3.9 9.4 9.6 9.9 10.8 2.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 Content 17 13 19 18 Table 13 displays Cohort 2 student’s biliterate writing outcomes. Cohort 2 students’ aggregate overall writing skills in Spanish and English were comparable and a similar trend 25 holds true at the school level. Aggregate gains were small, essentially one point overall. However, at the school level, we see Hanson and Kemp Cohort 2 students make almost a 3 point gain from spring 2016 to spring 2017 in Spanish and English. Research Question 3. Research Question 3 examined emerging bilingual students’ outcomes in Spanish and English reading as measured by the EDL2 and DRA2 in spring 2016 and spring 2017. In general, both cohort groups are not with the biliterate benchmark by grade level (see Table 7). However, it is important to note the growth children made across years and to consider their biliterate reading development. Table 14. Cohort 1 Students’ Mean EDL2/DRA2 Spring Reading Scores, Spring 2016 & 2017 K 1 EDL2 DRA2 n Mean SD Mean SD 2016 2017 67 1.7 9.8 2 6.4 1.5 8 2 5.4 2016 2017 21 2.1 11.5 2.1 6.6 1.2 8.4 1.1 5.3 2016 2017 14 .9 6.5 1.7 5.9 .6 4.4 .6 3.7 2016 2017 17 1.4 10.4 1.2 5.4 1.5 9.9 1.2 5.2 2016 2017 15 2.3 9.7 2.5 6.7 2.8 8.7 3.5 6 Aggregate Dupont Hanson Kemp Monaco The mean reading level for all Cohort 1 students at the end of kindergarten was between Level 0 and 2 in both Spanish and English as illustrated in Table 14. This level of reading represents what a typical kindergartner might be doing mid-year. Thus, Cohort 1 entered first grade, reading at a mid-kindergarten level in both languages. At the end of Year 2, Cohort 1 students’ mean reading level in Spanish was a 10 and an 8 in English; this is more than a year’s 26 growth. These levels are comparable across languages demonstrating that children are becoming biliterate readers. Table 15. Cohort 2 Students’ Mean EDL2 and DRA2 Spring Reading Scores, Spring 2016 and 2017 EDL2 DRA2 n Mean SD Mean SD 70 4.1 15 3.9 7.5 4.1 14.1 4.6 8.1 2.9 14.3 2.4 8.2 2.2 13.3 2.2 8.7 4.9 15.9 4.6 7.6 6.5 15.5 6.9 10.1 4.6 14.5 3.8 7.1 5.9 17.2 4.8 7.7 4.5 15.7 4.6 7.6 3.1 11.3 3.6 6 Aggregate 2016 2017 Dupont 20 2016 2017 Hanson 11 2016 2017 Kemp 18 2016 2017 Monaco 21 2016 2017 The aggregate reading levels in Spanish and English for Cohort 2 at the end of their first grade year was a Level 4 as measured by the EDL2 and DRA2 (see Table 15). At the end of second grade, their average reading for Spanish reading was a Level 15 and a Level 14 in English. From spring 2016 to spring 2017, Cohort 2 made a full year’s growth in both their Spanish and English reading. While it is quite remarkable for students to make a year’s growth in both languages, they are not within the second grade biliterate benchmark by grade level. Research Question 4. Research Question 4 examined student outcomes on the ACCESS 2.0 from 2016 and 2017 for participating students. It is important to note that WIDA, the creators of the ACCESS, raised the bar for language proficiency with the 2017 version. In other words, students need to showcase higher language skills in 2016-2017 to achieve the same proficiency 27 level scores. As a result, some students’ scores may have gone down, thus not demonstrating growth from 2016 to 2017. As noted in Table 16, 71% of Cohort 1 students scored within the Entering level of English language proficiency as measured by ACCESS in 2016. However, in 2017, we see 67% of the students in Cohort 1 were at the Developing stage of English language proficiency and 10% were at the Expanding level. In one year, 60% of Cohort 1 students moved up two levels in their English language proficiency. Table 16. Cohort 1 Students’ ACCESS 2.0 English Language Proficiency Levels, 2016 and 2017 School n Aggregate Dupont Hanson Kemp Monaco 68 21 14 18 15 Entering 2016 2017 71 7 86 10 86 14 44 6 67 0 Emerging 2016 2017 10 16 10 14 14 29 11 6 20 20 Developing 2016 2017 13 67 4 71 0 50 33 72 7 60 Expanding 2016 2017 2 10 0 5 0 7 6 17 0 13 Bridging 2016 2017 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Cohort 2 students’ rates of proficiency are detailed in Table 17. For their first year in the program, the majority of Cohort 2 students fell within the Emerging and Developing levels of English language proficiency. In 2017, we see about the same percentage of students in these levels. The lack of growth might be attributed to the change in cut scores that occurred in 2017. Table 17. Cohort 2 Students’ ACCESS 2.0 English Language Proficiency Levels, 2016 and 2017 School n Aggregate Dupont Hanson Kemp Monaco 76 20 10 21 19 Entering 2016 2017 4 9 10 30 0 0 5 5 0 0 Emerging 2016 2017 34 41 50 40 30 30 29 52 26 42 Developing 2016 2017 33 32 25 30 40 40 52 38 26 32 Expanding 2016 2017 0 0 14 0 20 30 10 0 15 5 Bridging 2016 2017 13 5 0 0 10 0 0 0 5 0 28 Implications and Recommendations Literacy Squared was created to provide a high quality biliteracy model for emerging bilingual students in U.S. schools. We are pleased with the partnership that began in 2015-2016 between Adams 14 and Literacy Squared to implement a biliteracy program after Adams 14 did not have bilingual services for five years. Implementing high quality, research-based practices in schools takes time, patience, and a high level of professional development – all aspects we are aiming to achieve in Adams 14. We are fortunate that we have the opportunity and the willingness from many administrators and teachers to do this important work. As we continue our collaboration, we are cognizant of the work we still need to do to ensure all students are reaching their biliterate and bilingual potential. In what follows, we provide a discussion of implications and recommendations derived from the findings reported in this technical report. We plan to continue providing professional development to deepen teachers’ understanding of how to incorporate the Literacy Squared framework into their biliteracy instruction. In Year 2, we met our obligation in providing eight professional development sessions, along with 120 hours of on-site support. To ensure fidelity of implementation, it is imperative that all teachers, especially research classroom teachers attend all professional development session so that they can be current in their understanding of the program and how to implement the different components of the model. Acknowledging that the Literacy Squared PD sessions will be offered outside of teachers’ work days in 2017-2018 we will need to ensure administrators and teachers are aware of the dates and times of all sessions well ahead of time. The Literacy Squared project director will work more closely with Adams 14 administrators to make sure this happens. While we provided over 120 hours of on-site support to teachers and other related personnel, we cannot guarantee that level of support in 2017-2018, as we cannot 29 commit so many resources to one district. As such, we hope that we can encourage administrators and coaches to attend our professional development sessions, so that they can more directly support the Literacy Squared teachers. We also hope that with teachers’ first year’s exposure to the new Benchmark Adelante/Advance curriculum, that they become more adept at planning biliteracy instruction with those materials. It will also be important for all third-grade teachers next year, attend all professional development sessions as they will be new to the program. Overall, participating children made positive gains in their bilingual/biliterate development as measured by the bilingual language, reading, and writing assessments used. What is unique to the children in Adams 14 is that despite their “lack” of Spanish literacy instruction prior to 2015-2016, both cohort groups were able to develop comparable reading and writing skills in both Spanish and English by the end of the school year. Cohorts 1 and 2 demonstrated a year’s worth of growth in Spanish and English reading from spring 2016 to spring 2017. While both cohort groups have made gains in their biliteracy growth in the two years of their participation, it is noteworthy to see the progress Cohort 1 has made. As such, we would like to remark on the differences between the achievement of Cohort 1 in comparison to that of Cohort 2. As documented in this report, in the 2015-2016 school year, Cohort 1 began their biliteracy instruction in kindergarten, while Cohort 2 began biliteracy in first grade (note: Cohort 2 students were in English-only classrooms for kindergarten). The difference we want to emphasize here is consistent with our findings from other research sites: when children begin Literacy Squared in kindergarten, their biliterate abilities are accelerated in contrast to students that start later in their school progression (Hopewell, Butvilofsky, & Escamilla, 2016; Soltero- 30 González, Sparrow, Butvilofsky, Escamilla, & Hopewell, 2016). When comparing the English language proficiency outcomes for both cohort groups in first grade, (Cohort 1 in 2017 and Cohort 2 in 2016) we see that with one year of biliteracy instruction, 69% of the Cohort 1 students scored within the proficient range on the SELP compared to 39% of Cohort 2 in first grade; and on the ACCESS, 77% of Cohort 1 was within the Developing/Expanding level of proficiency as compared to only 32% of Cohort 2 students in first grade. By comparing how the cohort groups performed in first grade on just their English language development, we can see that starting biliteracy instruction in kindergarten aided these students in accelerating their English language proficiency. In other words, biliteracy instruction did not delay their English language development. We continue to see this trend when comparing the two cohort groups’ writing and reading outcomes. At the end of their first grade years, Cohort 1 had an average overall writing score of 10.5 in Spanish and a 10 in English, compared to Cohort 2 students that averaged 9.4 in Spanish and English at the end of first grade. The difference in Spanish scores is one point and ½ point in English. The differences between groups is most remarkable based on the EDL2 and DRA2 scores at the end of their first grade year. Cohort 1 ended their first grade year with an average Spanish reading Level of 10 and a Level 8 in English; while Cohort 2 ended their first grade year with an average Spanish and English reading level of 4. Again, it is important to reiterate that Cohort 1 received biliteracy instruction in kindergarten and Cohort 2 received English-only instruction in kindergarten. The difference in performance between groups provides evidence of the importance of beginning biliteracy instruction in kindergarten and sustaining it throughout children’s school careers. It is important to note, that in addition to not receiving biliteracy instruction in kindergarten, as Cohort 2 students progress in their biliteracy classrooms, they always have a teacher that is new to the biliteracy model. As a result, we intend 31 to provide more in-depth support to the third grade teachers working with Cohort 2 students in the 2017-2018 year. In addition to continuing to provide professional development, we have the following recommendations for improving biliteracy/paired literacy instruction are as follows: • Ensure instruction in reading, writing, oracy, and metalanguage occur daily in both Spanish literacy and literacy-based ELD for the minimum time required. o Writing instruction needs to include a focus on idea development, via demonstrating how to compose more complex and varied sentences, as well organizing ideas with a clear introduction and conclusion. If this focus is established, students will be able to score higher on the content aspect of the Literacy Squared Writing Rubric. • Continue to provide time for teachers to collaborate through grade-level planning and Learning Labs. o The biliteracy teachers in Adams 14 are experienced at teaching, they need time and space to organize their biliteracy units so that children can accelerate their biliteracy development. • Continue implementing TheDictado and Lotta Lara lessons with explicit attention to metalanguage, comprehension, and oracy instruction. Conclusion It is an honor for us to partner with Adams 14 in bringing bilingual/biliteracy instruction back to emerging bilingual learners’ and families. We recognize it takes time for a biliteracy program to be implemented after its eradication and we look forward to engaging dialogues that will improve our emerging bilingual learners’ bilingual and biliterate development. We are excited about the promise of this project, as we have observed positive outcomes in classrooms 32 that have implemented with high levels of fidelity, and we look forward to continued collaboration in 2017-2018. 33 References Butvilofsky, S., & Sparrow, W. (2012). Training teachers to evaluate emerging bilingual students’ biliterate writing. Language and Education, 1, 1-21. Celebration Press. (2007a). Evaluación del desarrollo de la lectura. Parsipanny, NJ: Celebration Press. Celebration Press. (2007b). Developmental Reading Assessment. Parsipanny, NJ: Celebration Press. Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18, 237-256. Escamilla, K., Geisler, D., Hopewell, S., Sparrow, W., & Butvilofsky, S. (2009). Using writing to make cross-language connections from Spanish to English. In C. Rodriguez (Ed.), Achieving literacy success with English language learners, (pgs. 141-156). Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America. Escamilla, K., Hopewell, S., Butvilofsky, S., Sparrow, W., Ruiz-Figueroa, O., Soltero-González, L., & Escamilla, M. (2014). Biliteracy from the Start: Literacy Squared in Action. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing. Hopewell, S., Butvilofsky, S., & Escamilla, K. (2016). Complimenting the Common Core with holistic biliteracy. Journal of Education, 196(2), 89-100. Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 315340. Pearson Education. (2009). DRA2 K-8 Technical Manual: Developmental Reading Assessment. 34 Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson. Retrieved at http://s7ondemand7.scene7.com/s7ondemand/brochure/flash_brochure.jsp?company=Pea rsonEducation&sku=DRA2_TechMan&vc=instanceName=Pearson&config=DRA2_Tec hMan&zoomwidth=975&zoomheight=750 Pearson, Inc. (2011). Stanford English Language Proficiency Test and Stanford Spanish Language Proficiency Test: Technical Manual. Romine, J. A. (2014). OCR Complaint No. 08-10-1112-D Adams County 14 School District. United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/08101112a.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/08101112-a.pdf Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2006, February). A multi-method and multi-source approach for studying fidelity of implementation (CSE Report 677). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Soltero-González, L., Sparrow, W., Butvilofsky, S., Escamilla, K., & Hopewell, S. (2016). Effects of a paired literacy program on emerging bilingual children’s biliteracy outcomes in third grade. Journal of Literacy Research, 48(1), 80-104. 35 Appendix A Literacy Squared® Adams 14 Teacher Roles and Responsibilities 2016-2017 • Implement the mandatory components (Spanish literacy, cross-language connections, and literacy-based ELD) and maintain minimum time allocations: Daily Language Allocations for Paired Literacy Instruction Grade K 1 Spanish Literacy (Minimum) 2 hours 2 hours Literacy-Based ELD (Minimum) 45 minutes 1 hour o Mandatory Literacy Squared Strategies for 2015-16: Implement Lotta Lara at least every three weeks; Implement the Dictado weekly, alternating by language; and Oracy component in each literacy lesson • Implement theDictado and submit 6 selected student notebooks - Grades 1: complete at least 12 Spanish and 12 English Dictados; Kinder: at least 8 Spanish and 8 English • Choose materials and plan instruction in ways that are consistent with and support Literacy Squared approaches and strategies • Collect writing sample assessments in the specified dates and assist in scoring them • Attend and honor the time of all professional development sessions • Open classrooms/schools to Literacy Squared staff and visitors • Respond to all communication (e.g. emails) in a timely manner Research Teachers • Collaborate with researchers and other teachers on an ongoing basis according to the calendar of activities for 2016-2017 • Participate in minimum of two Learning Labs led by Literacy Squared researchers • Help coordinate the administration of EDL2/DRA2 and SSLP/SELP by the research team • Permit lessons to be videotaped • Participate in a minimum of 2 informal interviews with the research team • Submit student Dictado notebooks (up to three) at the end of the school year 36 Appendix B Date Sept. 2016 Jan. 2017 May 2017 2016-2017 Student Writing Prompts Grade Spanish Prompt English Prompt 1 Dibújate a tí mismo. Describe cómo Draw a picture of someone in your eres y algo que te gusta hacer. (Draw a family. Describe that person and the picture of yourself. Describe yourself things you do together. and what you like to do.) 2 Piensa en un día especial que has Think about a special person. Describe tenido. Explica porque fue tan that person and explain why that especial. (Think about a special day person is special. that you have had. Write an essay telling why it was so special.) 1 Dibuja el animal que más te gusta. Draw a picture of your favorite toy. Escríbenos porqué te gusta más. Write about why it is your favorite. (Draw a picture of your favorite animal. Write about why it is your favorite.) 2 ¿Prefieres jugar adentro o afuera? Which pet would you prefer, a cat or a Escríbenos porqué te gusta más. dog? Write about why you would prefer that pet. 1 Haz un dibujo de tu cuento favorito. Draw and write about what you did Escribe de qué se trata de principio a last Sunday. fin. (Draw a picture of your favorite story. Write about the story from beginning to end.) 2 Piensa acerca de una ocasión cuando Think about a time when you felt you sentiste miedo. Escribe acerca de eso. were treated unfairly. Write about it. (Think about a time when you felt scared about something. Write about it.) 37 Appendix C • !!!!!!!!!!! Rater!ID:! ! ___________! Student!ID:! ! ____________ Literacy!Squared®!Writing!Rubric:!Grades!K,!1,!2,!3,!4!&!5! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!(Circle$Grade)$ ! SPANISH! SCORE! 10! 9! 8! 7! 6! 5! 4! 3! 2! 1! 0! 5! 4! 3! 2! 1! 0! CONTENT! Focused!composition,!conveys!emotion!or!uses!figurative!language,!is! engaging!to!the!reader;!clearly!addresses!the!prompt;!book!language! Organization!of!composition!includes!effective!transitions!&!vivid!examples! Writing!includes!complex!sentence!structures!and!has!a!discernable,! consistent!structure! Sense!of!completeness!–!Clear!introduction!and!clear!conclusion! Includes!descriptive!language!(use!of!adjectives,!adverbs!at!the!word!level)! or!varied!sentence!structures! Main!idea!discernable!with!supporting!details,!or!main!idea!can!be!inferred! or!stated!explicitly,!or!repetitive!vocabulary:!may!include!unrelated!ideas! Two!ideas–!I$like$my$bike$and/because$it$is$blue! One!idea!expressed!through!a!subject!&!predicate,!subject!may!be!implied! (I$like$my$bike,$amo,$or$run)$! Label(s),!list!of!words.!May!communicate!an!idea!w/o!subject!&!predicate! Prewriting:!Picture!only,!not!readable,!or!written!in!a!language!other!than! the!prompt! The!student!did!not!prepare!a!sample! STRUCTURAL!ELEMENTS! MultiDparagraph!composition!with!accurate!punctuation!and!capitalization! Controls!most!structural!elements!and!includes!paragraphing! Controls!beginning!and!ending!punctuation!in!ways!that!make!sense!and!is! attempting!additional!structural!elements!(commas,!question!marks,! guiones,!apostrophes,!ellipses,!parentheses,!hyphens,!and!indentation)!! Uses!one!or!more!of!the!structural!elements!correctly! Uses!one!or!more!of!the!structural!elements!incorrectly! Structural!elements!not!evident! Not!to!prompt! (Circle)$$ Span!!!! !!!!Eng! ENGLISH! SCORE! 10! 9! 8! 7! 6! 5! 4! 3! 2! 1! 0! 5! 4! 3! 2! 1! 0! SPELLING! 6! 5! 4! 3! 2! 1! 0! ! Accurate!spelling! Most!words!are!spelled!conventionally! Majority!of!HFWs!are!correct!and!child!is!approximating!standardization!in! errors! Most!words!are!not!spelled!conventionally!but!demonstrates!an!emerging! knowledge!of!common!spelling!patterns! Represents!most!sounds!in!words!and!most!high!frequency!words!are! spelled!incorrectly! Represents!some!sounds!in!words! Message!is!not!discernable! 6! 5! 4! 3! 2! 1! 0!