Action Research Brief:

Learning to Read and Write in a Virtual and Hybrid Setting: A Focus on English Learners

Chelsea Davis

June 20, 2021

Sacramento State University,

in fulfillment of the Master of Arts in Curriculum and Instruction

Introduction

Throughout my four years teaching 1st grade there has always been a significant academic

difference from students who are English Learners and those who are not English Learners. I notice each

school year that my English Learner Students struggle with reading and writing above all other academic

subjects. My goal during the 2020-2021 school year was to enhance the reading and writing skills of my

English Learner Students by implementing new reading and writing tools in both the Distance Learning

and Hybrid Learning model.

Context

I am a fourth-year first grade teacher at a PK-8th Grade School in the Twin Rivers Unified School

District. Our school serves just under six-hundred students in which 89% of them are socioeconomically

disadvantaged. Fifty percent of our school’s population are Hispanic or Latino with 25% of them being

English Learners. According to our 2018/19 SARC report, our students scored 29% proficient for English

Language Arts and Literacy and scored 21% proficient for Math. All of our students in the Twin Rivers

Unified School District receive free breakfast, lunch, and after-school snacks because we serve a large

low-income population across all our schools.

In my current classroom I have twenty students. Of those twenty students, ten of them are English

Learners. So, 50% of my class are considered English Learners. With learning being Virtual/Hybrid, I had

noticed that this particular group of students were struggling academically. In previous years, EL students

received sheltered instruction and they were learning hands-on how to communicate and learn in the

traditional classroom setting. This year, my EL students did not receive the same type of hands-on

learning due to a distance only and Hybrid model.

I supported student learning by incorporating small group intervention on a weekly basis. I took

the data collected and formed differentiated instruction for this group of students. Knowing that some of

my English Learners would be learning 100% virtually and others would be learning in a hybrid model, I

grouped my students according to their learning model. I focused on implementing reading (Round One)

and writing (Rounds One through Three) as my main focus for this group of students. I believe that these

interventions significantly increased my EL student’s ability to read and write in a general classroom

setting.
Research Question:

What happens to the reading and writing skills of English Learners when they are provided with research

leveraged support in a virtual and hybrid classroom setting?

Research Design Round One: Interventions

In Round One, my main focus was on improving English Learner’s reading and writing skills.

During Round One, my students were learning 100% virtually and all interventions were done via Zoom.

For my Round One interventions my students were placed into two small groups based on their reading

and writing level. The data I used to place students were from various studies done including ELPAC

scores, BPST scores, and i-ready diagnostic scores. My students were strategically placed into small

groups where they received specialized reading and writing support. One group included EL students

who were learning basic auditory and speaking skills, while the other group was at a higher skill set level

and worked on reading skills and reading comprehension skills. These groups both started out with basic

concepts, such as understanding vowel sounds, letter recognition and kindergarten sight words. As the

students were able to achieve their first goal of recognizing alphabet letters, such as vowels, and they can

look at a letter and identify it’s specific short sound and long sound, we moved onto the next steps which

was to segment and blend CVC words. I knew it was important to focus on the student’s letters/letter

sounds prior to writing. As Vaughn states,“English language learners, …,learn to read through

phonological recoding and spelling-sound patterns” (Lopez, 2004; Signorini, 1997; Trei-man,1984). My

students needed to get the fundamentals of reading down before they could begin writing in Round One.

During small group instruction my students were introduced to writing toward the end of Round One. In

Kindergarten, my students lost a third of the school year due to COVID-19 and school closures. The last

trimester of Kindergarten is when students begin learning the rules of writing, how to form sentences, and

they practice writing complete sentences. When my students came to me in 1st grade, they had done little

to no writing. In Round One, we focused on understanding what a sentence is, what a sentence consists

of, and the rules of writing. It was vital to establish the fundamentals of writing before they began writing

on a given topic.
Data and Data Analysis Methods:

The data collected in Round One were student writing samples, student interviews, and BPST

scores. I collected BPST scores to see if the students were able to identify each letter and it’s sound, along

with digraphs and CVC words. I conducted student interviews after a writing lesson to see how my

students felt regarding the writing tools that were presented to them. I collected writing samples so that I

could analyze student work after a writing lesson and to give feedback to my students.

Round One Findings and Connections:

In Round One I found that implementing small group interventions into our weekly Zoom lessons

were beneficial because my students were grasping their letter sounds and segment and blending skills. It

was apparent to me that my students were able to identify consonant and vowel sounds quickly, which led

us to working on more difficult material such as reading CVC words and words with digraphs. I focused

mostly on reading and briefly introduced writing in Round One. My students had the opportunity to

become more vocal and speak with me and their classmates during interventions. In Round One I had the

research question: What happens to the reading and writing skills of English Learners when they are

provided with research leveraged support in a virtual and hybrid classroom setting? I was able to note that

my English Learners developed more confidence in reading as we kept practicing our letter blending

skills to form words. I noticed that my English Learners were becoming more verbal and willing to talk

and communicate via Zoom. I had students who would not “unmute” and would not communicate aside

from a head nod or a thumbs up. By the end of Round One, I noticed that I had more EL students

volunteering to read words on the screen, give me an answer in front of their other classmates, and had

self confidence when reading. I noted that my students were newly introduced to the writer’s checklist

and were getting used to using it. One of the “rules” on the checklist was, “If I don’t know how to spell a

word, I sound it out!”. I would say that my EL students started out with having the most success here and

not with the other three rules in Round One. I believe this is because we focused on letter sounds and

segment and blending letters together to form words. This was my turning point and when I decided to

keep my focus on writing for Round Two.

 I analyzed student writing samples for my qualitative data. The graph below represents my ten EL

students and if they do or do not meet the criteria from the Writer’s Checklist. The score criteria is broken

down into four parts/points. Five students scored a one which implies that they met one criteria from the

Writer’s Checklist. Four students scored a two which implies that they met two criteria from the Writer’s

Checklist. Finally, one student scored a three which implies that student met three criteria from the

Writer’s Checklist. This information guided me towards Round Two, where I would turn my focus to

enhancing my student’s writing skills.

Round One: Writing

3
2
1
0
AV OS ACNM TS AM EL SD KH EB

Research Design Round 2: Interventions

For Round Two, I shifted my intervention from focusing mostly on reading skills, to focusing on

enhancing writing skills. My English Learner Students are continuing to receive phonics lessons on a

daily basis. I felt it was time to shift my focus to writing skills since my students showed me that they

were ready to take on writing during small group interventions. My small groups had changed due to

moving to a Hybrid learning model. I had three groups. Group A, Group B, and Group C. Group A (in

person/hybrid) consisted of three EL students, Group B (in person/hybrid) consisted of four EL students,

and Group C (Online only) consisted of three EL students.

During interventions, the students were presented with a given topic. For example, one topic we

learned about was the cycle of a chick hatching. We had a lesson about chicks; what type of animal is a

chick, how are they born, what do they look like when they’re born? At the end of the lesson I projected a

large image of a chick hatching. I asked my students, “What do you think is happening in this picture?”

My students had 2 minutes to brainstorm and come up with their interpretation of the image. We reflected

and talked amongst each other about what they think is happening in the photo. After brainstorming, the
students had the opportunity to come up with a word bank. The word bank gave the students the

opportunity to be effective writers. It gave them the chance to use academic language and have the

confidence to use words that they may not know how to spell independently. Once these steps were

completed, I model wrote for the students using their word bank. We went over the Writer’s Checklist

which included: Starting each sentence with a capital letter, using “finger spaces” between each word,

sounding out words (if they are not in the word bank), and using the correct punctuation. Students were

ready to write independently and were given roughly 20-30 minutes to independently write about the

topic while using the writing tools given to them. As the students were completing their writing tasks,

they would bring me their writing sample and read it to me. I would give feedback regarding their work,

for instance, “I see that you explained what happens when a chick is born! Do you remember what we do

at the beginning of each sentence?”. Opposed to telling my students what they were missing or what was

incorrect, I would guide them toward finding their own mistakes and having them use the tools (Writer’s

Checklist) to help them succeed.

Data Collected and Data Analysis methods:

The data collected in Round Two were student writing samples, student interviews, and field

notes. I collected student writing samples to analyze student growth in writing from Round One to Round

Two. I conducted student interviews to see how my students felt during writing lessons. I presented the

following questions to each student: “How did you feel writing all by yourself?” and “How did you feel

sharing your writing with your partner?”. After conducting student interviews, I took field notes and

observation of each student. I noted how they felt and what they accomplished with their writing skills in

Round Two.

Round 2 Findings and Connections:

By the end of Round Two, my students had become stronger writers. My students developed

more confidence while writing because they were a part of the lesson opposed to just listening to the

lesson. When the topic was taught and the students were gathering their thoughts, they put together a

“word bank” that was projected on Zoom or written out on the whiteboard in the classroom. I noticed by

having this resource, the students were able to feel confident while writing. When I had my student

interviews, they expressed that they felt “good” or “great” during writing because they could use the word
bank and at any time during the lesson, they could ask me to add a word to it. The reason for

implementing a word bank was because my students were struggling with “big” words. Going back to the

Writer’s Checklist, one of the rules said, “If you don’t know how to spell a word, sound it out!”. This rule

was a part of the Writer’s Checklist because phonetic spelling is appropriate for 1st grade. However, there

would be words that my students wanted to spell and felt they could not “sound out”. These were words

such as: hatching, eggs, and chicks. Once my students were able to use the word bank and follow their

Writer’s Checklist, I noticed my students had more confidence and improved writing. This helped me

form my decisions for Round Three. I was able to carry this knowledge and develop lesson plans that

would piggyback off of Round Two’s findings. In Round Two my research question was, “What happens

to the reading and writing skills of English Learners when they are provided with research leveraged

support in a virtual and hybrid classroom setting?” My findings were that my students had more

confidence when writing, their understanding of the material enhanced, and they were able to use their

understanding of a word bank and Writer’s Checklist along with their prior knowledge of word blending

skills, to write on a given topic successfully.

The findings from Round Two suggest that the majority of my EL students had a basic

understanding how to utilize the writing tools that were taught to them during small groups. The data

showed that some students feel confident during writing and understand the tasks that are being presented

to them. There were a few students who did not want to reflect or share their writing with other students. I

believe this was because they did not feel confident during the writing process and needed more practice

writing and speaking to their peers. Overall, my EL students had more success than not during Round

Two.

The quantitative data suggested that my students had achieved the basic writing skills. However,

they needed additional intervention with punctuation and when to use upper and lower case letters. I had

confidence that these students would be able to master punctuation and when to user upper case versus

lower case letters in Round Three, especially because they began receiving their intervention in-person

and not online.

 I analyzed student writing samples for my qualitative data. My students learned how to utilize a

Writer’s Checklist while writing. The graph below represents my ten EL students and if they did or did

not meet standard. The score criteria is broken down into four parts/points. Two students scored a 1, two

students scored a 2, five students scored a 3, and one student scored a 4. That data suggests that 80% of

my EL students showed growth from Round One to Round Two. The data is important because it also

shows me that although there was growth in writing, there was still much work to be done in Round Three

for all ten EL students to meet all 4 components of the Writer’s Checklist while writing.

Round One Round 2

4
3
2
1
0
AV OS ACNM TS AM EL SD KH EB

Research Design Round 3: Interventions

In Round Three I kept my focus on the writing skills of my English Learners. My students had

been working on writing for five months by this point and I felt it was time to challenge their writing

skills. My small groups stayed the same from Round Two. I continued to have three groups. Group A,

Group B, and Group C. Group A(in person/hybrid) consisted of three EL students, Group B (in person/

hybrid) consisted of four EL students, and Group C (Online only) consisted of three EL students.

In Round Three I introduced Opinion Writing. I taught a thirty-minute lesson on “What is an

opinion?”. We discussed opinions versus facts and played an opinion versus facts game before our writing

lesson. I showed my students a picture of pepperoni pizza. I proposed the question, “Do you like

pepperoni on your pizza?”. Each student had to come up with their opinion, whether or not they like

pepperoni pizza. Then we had to come up with two reasons why that was our opinion. My students were

able to speak amongst each other in person and in breakout rooms for my virtual students. I grouped them
into pairs and triads and they had to 1) Tell their partner(s) their opinion on pepperoni pizza and 2) give

two reasons why that was their opinion. When their time was up we had a whole group discussion and

talked about all of our different opinions regarding pepperoni pizza. The next step was developing a word

bank. The students thought of key words they wanted to use in their writing. If they chose to, they raised

their hands and told me a word they want on the board. Here is the list of words they came up with:

pepperoni, pizza, crust, cheese, bread, dough, sauce, spicy, and favorite. Once their word bank was

complete, I did a model write on the board. I used the Writer’s Checklist and the word bank on the board.

As I wrote, I asked aloud “What do I start with?…” then I got a choral response, “A capital letter!”,

“When I write a new word I use a….”, then I got a choral response, “Finger Space!”, and, “When I am

done writing my sentence I put a….”, then I got a choral response, “Period!”. Once my example was

complete, we read it all together and I left it on the board for the students to refer back to it when they

were working on their independent writing. At this point, the students were ready to begin their writing.

They were given roughly 30 minutes to independently write about the topic while using the writing tools

given to them. I walked around the room giving feedback and input as students navigated a Writer’s

Checklist and word bank to opinion write. Once the students completed their writing, I would have them

read me what they wrote. We would go down the Writer’s Checklist and I would make sure each student

could check off all four categories. Finally, I had my students share with a peer. One student read their

opinion writing to a partner, then the next partner shared their opinion writing. The students had the

opportunity to use the writing tools presented to them to be successful writers. They also had the

opportunity to verbally share with their peers, receive feedback from their peers and share their feedback

as well.

Data and Data Analysis methods:

The data collected in Round Three were student writing samples, student interviews, and field

notes. I collected student writing samples to analyze student growth in writing from Round Two to Round

Three. I conducted student interviews to see how my students felt during writing lessons. I presented the

following questions to each student: “How did you feel about opinion writing?” and “How did you feel

sharing your opinion with your partner?”. After conducting student interviews, I took field notes and
observation of each student. I noted how they felt and what they accomplished with their writing skills in

Round Three.

Round 3 Findings and Connections:

In Round Three I found that my students were able to connect what they had learned in Rounds

One, Two, and Three to become stronger and more confident writers. From working on letter sound

recognition, to forming words, then forming sentences using a word bank and a Writer’s Checklist, my

students were able to have success in writing.

In Round Three my research question was, “What happens to the reading and writing skills of

English Learners when they are provided with research leveraged support in a virtual and hybrid

classroom setting?” I noticed that my students continued to gain confidence in writing by Round Three.

My students understood how to utilize the writing resources taught to them each time we did writing on a

weekly basis. They were very comfortable with the writer’s checklist, so much that they would recite it to

me before I would go over it during a lesson. My students were open to having a conversation about

writing and sharing their writing sample at the end of a lesson with their teacher and peers. I noticed my

students had gained a significant amount of confidence when I conducted my student interviews. My

students expressed that, “It was fun” to share their opinion writing with their peers, other students said “it

was good” and “I liked talking to my partner” when asked how they felt about sharing their opinion

writing with their classmates. I believe my students had gained confidence due to the fact that we were

writing in the classroom and we were able to share in-person and have real conversations face-to-face

opposed to a virtual classroom setting.

In Round Three I noticed that the majority of my students had a good understanding of the

material and how to utilize the writing resources presented to them during writing lessons. In this round

my students were presented with a new style of writing. We shifted from sequence writing to Opinion

writing in Round 3. I had collected student interviews and presented the question, “How do you feel about

opinion writing?” Out of ten students, nine of them had positive feedback and felt “good” or “great” about

opinion writing. One student had negative feedback regarding opinion writing. When I asked this student

why she felt the way she did, she told me she was not happy because she did not like the topic we were

writing on. By Round Three, all my students were able to get one or more sentences written on their
paper. This was important because I had multiple students who exclusively drew pictures and did not

write any words in Round One. This data suggests that all ten of my English Language students were able

to enhance their writing skills and utilize their Writer’s Checklist, word bank, and word blending skills

when writing.

I analyzed student writing samples for my qualitative data. The graph below represents my ten EL

students and if they do or do not meet standard. The score criteria is broken down into four parts/points. I

analyzed my students writing samples and gave them a score out of 4 points. One student scored a 1, One

student scored a 2, four students scored a 3, and four students scored a 4. This data suggests that 50% of

my EL students showed growth from Round Two to Round Three. Overall, nine students showed positive

growth from the Round One to Round Three.

Round One Round 2 Round 3

4
3
2
1
0
AV OS AC NM TS AM EL SD KH EB

Synthesis of Findings:

My overall goal for this action research was to find the right tools to enhance the reading and

writing skills of my English Learners in a hybrid and virtual learning model. My overall findings were

that my English Learner students developed an understanding for basic writing skills through the use of

specific supports and my students gained an increase in confidence for writing throughout all three

rounds. The supports that helped my English Learner students developed an understanding for basic

writing skills were a writer’s checklist, student-created word banks, and their developed decoding reading

skills.
 I noticed through each round that my students were gaining more and more confidence in their

writing capabilities as well as their willingness to verbally share their work with their teacher and peers.

This was an ongoing pattern that emerged through each round. I found that my EL students had begun to

verbalize more once we shifted from a virtual-only learning platform to a hybrid learning platform. Once

we were face-to-face in the classroom my students were willing to share and communicate better and their

writing capabilities were increasing. They were asking more questions, answering questions, and reading

their writing prompts to their teacher and classmates when asked to do so. I noticed that by introducing

specific supports and continuing to use the same supports through all three rounds, my students were able

to utilize the tools taught to them which furthered their confidence during writing.

Visual:
Conclusion:

The findings from this research was the importance of small group instruction that was geared

toward the specific needs of students, and in this case, English Learner students. In this study, I focused

my teachings on reading and writing because I know that EL students face difficulties with these subjects.

This school year brought unique circumstances because 100% of my students learned virtually for 7

months of the school year and they learned in a hybrid model for 2 months of this school year. I knew that

I needed to keep my focus on reading and writing in small groups because my EL students needed the

differentiated instruction. By the end of Round Three, I saw significant improvement with all my English

Learner students in reading and writing. Alongside their academics, I saw huge improvements with their

oral development and communication skills. I was able to connect what I was teaching to the literature I

was reading by forming small groups and teaching phonological awareness throughout all three rounds.

Although in Round Two and Three I kept my focus on my EL student’s writing skills, their phonological

skills were being used to enhance those writing skills. As I move forward as an educator, I am going to

continue to focus on my English Learner students and their specific needs, especially in reading and

writing. I know the importance of differentiated instruction and small group interventions for EL students.

I am going to continue to implement reading and writing skills into my small groups as the next round of

students enter through my classrooms doors in the coming years.

Literature Connections:

Cárdenas-Hagan, E., Carlson, C. D., & Pollard-Durodola, S. D. (2007). The cross-linguistic transfer of

early literacy skills: the role of initial L1 and L2 skills and language of instruction. Language, speech, and

hearing services in schools, 38(3), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2007/026).

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-Durodola, S., ... & Francis,

D. (2006). Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for

reading problems. The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 153-180.