Back to Inspiration
|
|
How does infusing art and engineering into Language Arts
|
Design Process
Support and Next Steps
|
Academic Research Poster
Background and Need
In the Fall of 2017, the National Center for Education Statistics published that five million English Language Learners (ELLs) were enrolled in public K-12 schools in the United States. Five million ELLs in the United States was 10.1% of the national enrollment at that time. By contrast, California has 19.2% of students were English Language Learners which was the highest percentage in the nation. Texas followed closely at 18% and Nevada with 17.1% (National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2017). The data from the 2019-2020 school year for the district studied in this research had 46.3% of its students identified as ELLs (DataQuest, 2020).
Students who are identified as English Language Learners (ELLs) in California are assessed using an evaluation entitled the English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPAC) (California Department of Education, 2019) to measure progress with learning English. The ELPAC is sectioned into four domains to measure language progress: listening, speaking, reading and writing. Scores in each domain are ranked using a four tiered system.
Looking at 2018-2019 ELPAC data for first graders, specifically focused on the SPEAKING section of the assessment:
State = 49.68% scored in the lower ranges (levels 1 or 2)
District featured in my research = 40.12% scored in levels 1 or 2
School featured in my research = 95.24% scored in levels 1 or 2
This meant that only 4.76% of the ELLs were making significant progress towards becoming proficient in speaking English at the school of study.
It is clear from the national and statewide data that the English Language Arts (ELA) curricula and methods for supporting ELLs must be modified to support closing the gaps in performance for these students. Marino (2018) found that the achievement gap could be significantly reduced when art education was specifically focused on the needs of English Language Learners. The research also suggested that combining inquiry-based instruction with direct and explicit vocabulary teaching could increase the English Language Learners’ performance in academic language (Kanner, 2020). Additionally, research on the brain suggested that the brain was constantly fostering new neural pathways and that learning was strengthened when the neurons were activated in multiple areas of the brain (Wolfe, 2014).
Would the infusion of arts and/or engineering design activities into standard English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum delivery yield higher percentages of ELL students who demonstrated adequate progress towards being classified as a fluent English speaker, reader and writer, due to the activation of multiple parts of the brain and multiple methods for learning?
Students who are identified as English Language Learners (ELLs) in California are assessed using an evaluation entitled the English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPAC) (California Department of Education, 2019) to measure progress with learning English. The ELPAC is sectioned into four domains to measure language progress: listening, speaking, reading and writing. Scores in each domain are ranked using a four tiered system.
- Level one: Beginning to Develop, the lowest performance level.
- Level two: Somewhat Developed.
- Level three: Moderately Developed.
- Level four, Well Developed.
Looking at 2018-2019 ELPAC data for first graders, specifically focused on the SPEAKING section of the assessment:
State = 49.68% scored in the lower ranges (levels 1 or 2)
District featured in my research = 40.12% scored in levels 1 or 2
School featured in my research = 95.24% scored in levels 1 or 2
This meant that only 4.76% of the ELLs were making significant progress towards becoming proficient in speaking English at the school of study.
It is clear from the national and statewide data that the English Language Arts (ELA) curricula and methods for supporting ELLs must be modified to support closing the gaps in performance for these students. Marino (2018) found that the achievement gap could be significantly reduced when art education was specifically focused on the needs of English Language Learners. The research also suggested that combining inquiry-based instruction with direct and explicit vocabulary teaching could increase the English Language Learners’ performance in academic language (Kanner, 2020). Additionally, research on the brain suggested that the brain was constantly fostering new neural pathways and that learning was strengthened when the neurons were activated in multiple areas of the brain (Wolfe, 2014).
Would the infusion of arts and/or engineering design activities into standard English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum delivery yield higher percentages of ELL students who demonstrated adequate progress towards being classified as a fluent English speaker, reader and writer, due to the activation of multiple parts of the brain and multiple methods for learning?
Research Plan
Two data cycles were conducted over the course of a semester (three months).
A data cycle consisted of collecting student responses about a prompt or specific vocabulary as a "pre" and "post".
"Pre" used only the district issued curriculum.
Student responses were recorded using Seesaw.
Data was analyzed and recorded.
"Post" students received infused learning using art and engineering.
Students were asked to respond to the same prompts as the "pre".
Data was analyzed and recorded.
Then both data sets were analyzed.
The first data cycle was on the topic of learning from informational text about birds.
The second data cycle was from a fictional text about a rainy day.
A data cycle consisted of collecting student responses about a prompt or specific vocabulary as a "pre" and "post".
"Pre" used only the district issued curriculum.
Student responses were recorded using Seesaw.
Data was analyzed and recorded.
"Post" students received infused learning using art and engineering.
Students were asked to respond to the same prompts as the "pre".
Data was analyzed and recorded.
Then both data sets were analyzed.
The first data cycle was on the topic of learning from informational text about birds.
The second data cycle was from a fictional text about a rainy day.