CoL: Evaluation Of My Intervention After The First Year

This Evaluation looks at the different parts of our inquiry into creating a culturally responsive intensive oral language programme across the Junior School. It reflects on the three hypotheses developed at the beginning of this inquiry. 

Utilising the student's strengths in their first language, working in bilingual and multilingual ways, creating Talanoa, and working in partnership with families will help build students English language and literacy.

Developing oral language through short high-interest topics and real-life experiences, with a focus on intensive oral language acquisition, will create an environment of language in abundance.

A collaborative inquiry across the junior school (Years 1-3) will grow professional capital across the school. The shared inquiry will allow all students across the junior school to benefit from the effectiveness of changed practice and allow teachers to learn from and with each other. It will hopefully also enable an effective changed practice to become sustainable.

Student Voice

Student voice shows that there has been a shift in students feeling comfortable using their first language at school and that the target students see their heritage language as a way to communicate effectively with their peers and family and value themselves as experts when it comes to teaching their teachers their first language. Whereas previously the target students said that they just spoke their first language at home and with friends. They also see changes in my teaching practice such as collaborative learning opportunities, turn taking when talking and using language acquisition activities as ways in which they learn best.

Comparison of student voice survey Term 1-4 

Pasifika Early Intervention Programme (PELP)

After one Term of the Pasifika Early Literacy Programme (PELP) our Target Students made significant progress in the number of words spoken during the PELP oral language assessment, with the exception of Student 3 who already had a higher English oral language level than the other students. Student 4 didn't speak their heritage language at home which accounts for there low level of heritage language pre and post intervention.

This data shows the increase of students confidence speaking their first language at school alongside the increased acquisition of English within that one term.

The above graph shows the average amount of words spoken during the Pasifika Early Literacy Programme language test pre PELP intervention and post intervention (one school term).

The graph indicates that on average Junior students increased their oral language after one term of PELP. During this time we changed our teaching practice to incorporate students first language into our teaching programmes, encouraged students to use their first language, used dual language books in class and at home, and connected with families about the importance of students using and learning their first language.

The graph also shows that those students who were also in the Target Group, participating in small group oral language acquisition activities  (Dr Jannie Van Hees) went from having a below average oral language level below level to an above average level. These students participated in all Dr Van Hees modelling sessions and classroom sessions lead by the teachers exploring hands on oral language activities, insisting on use of new oral language, picture talk and shared writing sessions using new vocabulary. This shift is far greater than those students not participating in the programme.

It is therefore my conclusion that although we would probably see shift in students oral language through the use of PELP alone we see a far greater shift when we combine this programme with the teaching strategies that make up the Oral Language Intervention Programme designed by Dr Jannie Van Hees.

Combilist Data

The Combilist was used to measure language development factors of all students within my class.
Factors important in language development are rated below using the scale Yes/Sometimes/No.

C1-2 indicates willingness to communicate
C3-4 indicates communication with teacher/adults
C5-9 indicates participation in discourse
C10-13 indicates contribution to the discussion or discourse
C14-16 indicates benefits from feedback

Areas that target students made the most gains where: 

C2 Keen to express meaningfully and well.

C4 Expresses responses as clearly as he/she can.

C5 Takes the opportunity to speak.

C8 Gives elaborate responses to open-ended questions from the teacher/adult

C9 Reacts and responds spontaneously and on own initiative to teacher.

C12 Thinks before he/she speaks so as to express at a higher cognitive level.

C14 Continues his/her meaning and intentions, and picks up and uses teacher examples and models later.

Areas for continued development are:

C10 Sustains expression of his/her meaning, ideas and intentions.

C15 Meanings and ideas logically developed and expressed.

The rest of the class still struggle with giving elaborate responses and thinking before they speak to express at a higher cognitive level. The gains the target group made in this areas I feel is reflective of my change in practice, pushing students to use more words, new vocabulary, modelling responses and to think before they speak. The graphs show that those students that were 'No' in many categories all shifted to 'Sometimes'. This was not the case for many of the other students within the class that made comparatively little gain in these areas.

These results show that Dr Jannie Van Hees programme does have a substantial impact on oral language acquisition and using Dr Van Hees teaching strategies across the Junior school would benefit all students.

Transference Into Reading

The below graphs show the little progress students made within their first year at school (40 weeks). The graph also shows the progress that was made during the last 20 weeks of which these interventions took place. Although three of the students are working well below the expected level, all have made progress. However, it is hard to say whether this progress would have been made due to changed oral language programme or whether it is due to the normal classroom reading programme.  

Student 1

Student 2

Student 3

Student 4

Collaborative Inquiry Into Changed Practice Across The Junior School

The collaborative nature of this inquiry is harder to evaluate however a survey completed by the Junior teachers showed that they all had a clear understanding of the 'why' behind the change in practice and held a shared vision. As a team, we have undertaken a vast amount of PLD this year with DR Jannie Van Hees, the Pasifika Early Literacy Programme and ENGAGE, and shared our new learning with the rest of the school Staff meeting slide deck. 

We soon realised that creating changed practice across the Junior school would take longer than anticipated and extended the length of the inquiry from 1 year to 2 years, dedicating the first year to professional development and exploring changes in teaching practice. Teachers were at differing stages of uptake of this new learning due to two teachers being beginning teachers and experiencing all the new learning that comes with teaching your first class. What was important to me was the openness all teachers had to the PLD and that all teachers tried some of the teaching strategies learned.

We began collecting data on all junior students but then realised that it would be more significant to focus on a target group that would participate in all small group intensive oral language activities  (Dr Van Hees), PELP and ENGAGE taught by me. Next year as we all implement the new learning we will take data across the Junior School.

During the second year,  the aim is for all Junior teachers to fully implement the changes to practice, creating a Junior curriculum that focuses on a culturally responsive intensive oral language acquisition programme.

The Introduction Of ENGAGE

One of the factors that became apparent throughout the inquiry was the impact students low levels of regulation had on students ability to uptake new oral language. 

ENGAGE seemed to be the missing piece and when offered the opportunity to participate in the programme starting Term 4 we as a team jumped at the chance. 

It is hoped that through the games based programme students will develop self-regulation skills that will help them to uptake new learning. 

Data will be used from this programme to support our inquiry moving into its second year. 

Comparison of Student Voice Responses Term 1-Term 4

In order to get a deeper understanding of how students perceived both themselves as learners and the effectiveness of my teaching practice. I conducted a student voice survey in Term 1 and Term 4.

Term 1 Responses	Term 2 Responses	Reflection
I am good at reading/ writing - yes/sometimes/no?
S3- ”Sometimes I don’t do well because I'm tired.” S1-” I’m good I write on the word.” S4 - "I write my sister’s names.” S1- “I can write it good, my pirate one. I could write so many words.” S4- “I need the word card.”	S4- "No I don't write properly and then I fix it. My sister helps me.  S1- "Yes I'm good. I know all the words." S4- "Yes I sound out the words." S2- "No I suck, I don't know how to spell ...my family say it."	This tells me that some of my target students have low self-esteem when it comes to writing. This is something I need to address within my teaching moving forward.
When I can't do something it is easy to ask my teacher for help- yes/sometimes/no?
S1- “Ask 3 people before the teacher, ask your friend then you go ask the teacher.” “Ask your friend (repeated by all 4)”	S1- "No you have to ask 3 people before you."	Is my classroom management system of students asking 3 peers for help before approaching the teacher while she is taking a small group impacting them feeling they are able to gain the help they needed at other times of the day? I will need to explore this further as it is interesting they gave the same response twice.
My teacher listens to my ideas - yes/sometimes/no?
S2- “Everyone always talking, she picks the people who are listening, who get to talking.”	S4- “Yes” S1- “Yes: S2- "No, you don't listen during mat time."	This child constantly calls out during mat time and talks over other students. Interesting to see that he feels like he isn't being listened to.  How can I address this issue so that he feels that he has a voice and that he is listened to?
Do you feel okay to talk in your own language at school? Why or why not?
S2- “No I want to practice my language at home, I have to learn it from my mum. It is hard to write in Tongan. I would like to talk more in Tongan at school.” S1-"No because people are Maori. People keep saying Maori to me.” S3- “I speak Samoan with my friends.”	S2- “Yes, so teachers can speak in Tongan. She (pointing to me and laughing to his friends) is a bit good. The Tongan kids are her teachers.” S1- “I like to talk, yes. All the Tongan students can listen and my Dad.” It’s cool speaking at school. When I speak to H (a Tongan girl from the class) she talks to me in Tongan. We play together.	This was a significant shift in students responses from not feeling like they could speak their first language at school to feeling comfortable speaking it. They talk of teaching their teachers and of being able to communicate with friends and family. These responses show the success of having a more culturally responsive classroom and using PELP to change teacher practice.
What do you want your teachers to know about you and how you learn best?
S2- “Tell my teacher about at writing, about pirates” S4- “I like maths, soccer, cooking.” S3- "Bikes” S1- "I like to cut coconuts.”	S2- :I can go outside and speak in Tongan.” S4- “We both take turns to talk”. S3- I work with my buddy- say the sentence and write it.” S1- I like the Tongan game putting the words with the pictures. I do it at home.”	This time students could articulate the emphasis they put on working collaboratively as well as the importance of learning in their first language. S1 is referring to a sequencing game whereby they had to sequence the pictures from a dual language book and match it to the text. This was an activity they got to take home to do with their families.

This data shows the areas I still need to work on, evident within the responses to the first three questions. These will help to guide changes to my teaching practice moving forward from here.

• developing students self efficacy in writing.
• ensuring all students can gain the help they need from me when they need it, being clearer about using terms like 'see 3 before me' during small group teaching, so that they don't interpret that as being all times of the day. 
• finding ways to ensure that all students are listened to while at the same time helping them develop turn taking while speaking. 

This data shows strengths in the areas of

• creating a culturally responsive learning environment whereby students feel confident using their first language.
• the use of collaborative learning, students taking turns to speak and students working with buddies. 
• The use of resources that encourage literacy in students first language, and the power of having these resources available to go home with the students for home learning with families.

These three areas I see as evidence of the effectiveness of changed practice moving from relatively non-culturally responsive teaching practice to a creating a culturally responsive classroom that embraces the use of student's first languages so they can learn in their first language and make connections between their first language and English. Collaborative learning and students turn-taking when talking are mentioned as ways students learn best, therefore me changing my practice to incorporate these aspects into my teaching has had a positive influence on student learning.