Transcript ACT-ESL Post Seminar

Assisting, Collaborating,
and Training ESL
Content Teachers (ACT-ESL)
Post-Seminar
Thursday, April 22, 2010, 3:30-6:30 pm
Meadowbrook High School
1
Teaching Demonstration
English:
Eileen Rowe, Wendy Kump, Shermelle
Biffle
Science:
Alex Addison, Janine D’Elia, Helena
Ispas
Math:
Kathy Mann, Stephanie Burton, Sandra
Judge-Harden
Social Studies:
Mark Dillon, Stephanie Burr, Carol Cook
2
Project Implementation
English:
Amy Owens (Elizabeth Davis MS)
Carolyn King Schmitt (James River HS)
Shermelle Biffle & Ashby McNeil (Falling
Creek MS)
Social Studies:
Stephanie Burr (James River HS)
Angelique Clarke (Meadowbrook High School)
Science:
Helena Ispas (Carver MS)
Janine D’Elia (Salem Church MS)
3
Conference Presentations
•VATESOL
–Kim Norvell (Meadowbrook)
•Virginia Association of Science Teachers (VAST)
–Peggy Stevens (ACT-ESL T.A.)
–Allyson Midgeley (Clover Hill HS)
–Susan Stubbs (Chester MS)
–Laurie Morgan (Salem MS)
•WATESOL
–Peggy Stevens (ACT-ESL T.A.)
–Laurie Morgan (Salem MS)
4
Workshops
Amy Owens
English
Elizabeth Davis MS
3/23/10
Carolyn Schmitt
English
James River HS
4/19/10
5
ELL Student SOL Scores at a HS
NON trained teachers
Subject
Number
Mean
ACT-ESL trained teachers (n=13)
SD
of Students
Number
Mean
SD
464.20
50.51
of Students
429.88
44.15
**SS
26
74
Science
96
English
41
424.56
40.16
1
449.00
*Math
104
419.73
43.04
30
439.27
0
29.52
6
ELL Student SOL Scores at a HS
ELL Student SOL Scores at a MS
NON-trained teachers
Subject
Number
Mean
ACT-ESL trained teachers (n=7)
SD
of students
No. of
Mean
SD
Students
SS
59
438.78
77.74
6
432.83
59.42
Science
21
412.38
38.9
10
437.70
61.79
English
118
429.22
59.61
11
444.27
44.11
Math
140
443.36
81.17
21
447.52
85.2
8
ELL Student SOL Scores at a MS
Observation Data: Strengths
(above 3.5 out of 4.0)
8. Links explicitly made between past
learning and new learning concepts
11.Clear explanation of academic tasks
23. Content objectives clearly supported by
lesson delivery
26. Pacing of the lesson appropriate to the
students’ ability level
10
Observation Data: Weaknesses
(below 3.0 out of 4.0)
1. Content objectives clearly defined, displayed,
and reviewed with students.
2. Language objectives clearly defined,
displayed, and reviewed with students.
7. Concepts explicitly linked to students’
background experiences.
27. Comprehensive review of key vocabulary.
28. Comprehensive review of key content
concepts.
11
Significant Growth
4
3.6
3.4
3.51 3.45
3.5
3.16
3
3.56
3.4
3.39
3.26
3.19
3.02
3.1
3
3.04
Obs. 1
Obs. 3
2.79
2.5
2.49
2
12
14
15
16
17
20
21
30
12
Significant Growth
12. Uses a variety of techniques to make content concepts
clear (modeling, visuals, hands-on activities,
demonstrations, gestures, body languages)
14. Consistent use of scaffolding techniques throughout
lesson, assisting and supporting student understanding,
such as “thinking-alouds”
15. Uses a variety of question types, including those that
promote higher-order thinking skills throughout lesson (e.g.
literal, analytical, and interpretive questions.)
16. Frequent opportunities for interaction
13
Significant Growth
17. Grouping configurations support language and content
objectives of the lesson.
20. Provides hands-on materials and/or manipulatives for
students to practice new content knowledge.
21. Provides activities for students to apply content and
language knowledge in the classroom.
30. Conducts assessment of students comprehension and
learning all lesson objectives (e.g., spot checking, group
responses) throughout the lesson.
14