ROUND 3 DATA ANALYSIS MEMO

Geraldine Rector
April 30, 2023 (Revised)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH QUESTION
My action research study will address the following question:
• What happens to students' use of English oral and written academic language in a
classroom setting when provided with activities such as Daily Partner-Reading
Practice, Daily Partner Spell-Check, Partner Writing Reflections, Daily Math Team
Tasks, Team-Building Tuesday Challenges, Mid-Week Fluency Self-Recordings, and
Friday Fluency Checks?

INTERVENTION/INNOVATION
My interventions in Round 3 were the following:
• Daily Partner-Reading Practice: My students read a 2nd grade level reading passage for
10 minutes daily with a partner and then extended this activity by writing a different
ending to their stories. This intervention was implemented to build their English oral
and written academic language.

Daily Partner-Reading Practice Photos:

• Daily Partner Spell-Check: My students took turns spelling academic vocabulary at our
vertical wipe books and worked together to write grammatically correct sentences for
each spelling word. This intervention was implemented to build their English oral and
written academic language.
• Partner Writing Reflections: Students wrote a paragraph in response to a writing
prompt, checked their writing with an Editor’s Checklist, evaluated their partner’s
written paragraphs with a Peer Editor’s Checklist to ensure the written paragraphs met
our writing criteria, and gave each other oral and written feedback. This intervention
was implemented to build their English oral and written academic language.

Sample Student Writing Prompt: Sample Editor’s Checklist:

 • Daily Math Team Tasks: Math teams of 2 to 3 students shared their Math ideas and
wrote equations to solve their Math word problems at our vertical wipe books. Students
were also tasked with labeling their answers (stating what each number stood for). This
intervention was implemented to build their English oral and written academic
language.

Daily Math Team Task Photos:

• Team-Building Tuesday Challenges: Teams of 4-6 students participated in a team

building challenge where they explored Math by using domino tiles to complete a task
challenge under 5 minutes. This intervention was implemented to build their English
oral academic language.

Team-Building Tuesday Challenge Photos:

• Mid-Week Fluency Self-Recordings: Students recorded themselves reading a passage on

their chromebooks, listened and redid their recordings when necessary, and set their
reading goals for the next recording while their daily reading partners timed their
reading and noted down errors. Reading partners then evaluated their recordings
together prior to submission. This intervention was implemented to build their English
oral academic language.
• Friday Fluency Checks: I pulled individual students during Partner-Reading Practice
time on Friday to assess each student’s fluency progress. Students read a passage to me
while I timed their readings and noted down errors to check their fluency level in speed
and accuracy. Our reading fluency goal and criteria is 0-2 errors and to read under 2
minutes.

DATA COLLECTED
• Observation Notes
• Speaking Rubric
 • Editor’s Checklists

DATA ANALYSIS
Qualitative Data Analysis: I analyzed data taken from my observation notes by comparing
student behavior from Rounds 1 to 3 in all seven activities to gauge their growth in English oral
and written academic language use. In order for me to analyze the data from all three rounds, I
charted their percentage results for comparison from the Speaking Rubric, student recordings
taken from the Mid-Week Fluency Self-Recordings, and the Friday Fluency Checks to see if
there were any changes, or any growth in students’ use of English oral academic language. I
also analyzed data from Rounds 1 to 3 taken from the Editor’s Checklist by comparing
percentage results for all three rounds to gauge changes or growth in students’ use of English
written academic language.

FINDINGS
I used the Speaking Rubric in all three Rounds to see if students improved overall after using
specific intervention activities designed to increase their use of English oral academic language.
Category 1 was to gauge whether or not students used the appropriate volume, clarity, and
expression when using English oral academic language. We went from 18% (4 students only) to
64% (14 students) with a 46% increase in this category. Category 2 was to gauge whether or not
students made the appropriate eye contact with the audience. We went from 18% (4 students
only) to 64% (14 students) with a 46% increase in this category. Category 3 was to gauge
whether or not students used the appropriate body gestures and language when speaking. Again,
we went from 18% (4 students only) to 64% (14 students) with a 46% increase in this category.
This showed me that my seven strategically planned intervention activities did increase my
students’ use of English academic language. I did see an improvement and I think that these
activities benefited my students’ English oral and written academic language use development.

SPEAKING RUBRIC
Categories 1-Never (Beginning) 2-Sometimes (Developing) 3-Always (Secure)
Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Student used appropriate 23% 59% 82% 36% 18% 18% 64%
volume, clarity, and ------ ------
expression. 5 13 18 8 4 4 14
Students students students students students students students
Student made 23% 59% 82% 36% 18% 18% 64%
appropriate eye contact ------ ------
with the audience. 5 13 18 8 4 4 14
students students students students students students students
Student used appropriate 23% 59% 82% 36% 18% 18% 64%
body gestures and ------ ------
language. 5 13 18 8 4 4 14
students students students students students students students

When writing, 91% (20 students) used capital letters appropriately, 100% (22 students) used
the correct punctuation, 82% (18 students) used correct grammar and spelling, 82% (18 students)
used sequential order in their writing, and 100% (22 students) drew a picture that matched their
writing piece. I see a substantial amount of growth in students’ written academic language use.
These results are shown in the Editor’s Checklist table below.
 Editor’s Checklist Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Students used capital letters appropriately. 45% 82% 91%
(10 students) (18 students) (20 students)
Students used the correct punctuation. 45% 100% 100%
(10 students) (22 students) (22 students)
Students used correct grammar and spelling. 45% 55% 82%
(10 students) (12 students) (18 students)
Students used sequential order in their 36% 82% 100%
writing. (8 students) (18 students) (22 students)
Students’ picture matched their writing 82% 100% 100%
piece. (18 students) (22 students) (22 students)

Overall, my students now have a markedly improved speech with complete sentences as
opposed to one to two-word responses as well as an improved comprehension, grammar, and
pronunciation in their speech. E.g., when asked “What is your emotional temperature for today?”
my Russian student now responds with “My emotional temperature for today is green because I
am alert and ready to learn” whereas previously, he did not respond at all. I observed my
students reading with their partners and I felt they read more confidently. I did not hear any more
stuttering and haltingly-said sentences. I observed students decoding more rapidly for a smaller
list of unknown words.
I totaled the average of percentages for overall student improvement in Oral (Table 2) and
Written (Table 3) Academic Language Skills. The calculations came out to: Oral - Round 1-
18%, Round 2- 18%, and Round 3- 64%; Written - Round 1- 50%, Round 2- 84%, and Round 3-
94%. This is reflected in the Bar Graph shown below. As evidenced in the bar graph below, my
overall findings were that my students improved with the introduced dependent variables from
the 7 activities but they benefited significantly in their Written Academic Skills as opposed to
their Oral Academic Skills. I feel that this research was successful in that it showed me the need
for authentic learning experiences that promote the development of English academic language
(Kirkland et.al., 2005). My students grew in their level of competence when using English oral
and written academic language.
 Overall Results of Student Improvement in
Academic Language Skill
250

200

150

100

50

0
Percentage of Student Percentage of Student Total Student Improvement
Improvement in Oral Academic Improvement in Written Academic
Language Language

Round 1 Round 2 Round 3

LITERATURE CONNECTIONS
Kirkland, L.D., & Patterson, J. (2005). Developing Oral Language in Primary Classrooms. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 32, 391–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-005-0009-3

This article provided me with a focus to plan and implement structured activities for my
students to use academic language in collaborative conversations. Activities in which students
talk, discuss, problem solve, and share their thoughts are authentic learning experiences that
promote the development of English academic language.
Coleman, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). What Does Research Say about Effective Practices for
English Learners? Introduction and Part I: Oral Language Proficiency. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 46 (1), 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2009.10516683

I found this article to be a valuable resource as I looked at effective practices for English
learners. I also found the strategies to be insightful when planning for my English only learners
as well. Students benefit from clear goals, objectives, and well-structured daily activities.