Action Research Brief

Developing English Oral and Written Academic Language

Geraldine Rector
June 24, 2023

Sacramento State University

In Fulfillment of the Master of Arts in Curriculum and Instruction

0
 INTRODUCTION

Research Focus: The purpose for this study was to gauge whether the implementation of seven

rigorous oral and written activities with varying levels of social interaction in my 2nd grade

classroom would support my students’ competence in the use of English academic language

(Kirkland et al., 2005). My question was, 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 Self-Recordings, and Friday

Fluency Checks? I sought to specifically improve my students’ proficiency in CALP, Cognitive

Academic Language Proficiency, so as to receive more elaborate answers as opposed to one-

worded oral or written responses to my inquiries.

Context/Setting: This study was conducted within a 2nd grade, general education classroom with

22 second grade students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds at a Title I, K-8th grade

school in the greater Sacramento area. In this class, 55% (12 out of 22) were English language

learners who spoke Spanish, Russian, and Hmong languages. The average median household

income of the school’s district is $65,847 with the cost of living being 15% higher than the

national average. My priority was on the collective improvement of my students’ use of English

oral and written academic language.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Round 1:

Innovations/Interventions: Intervention activities in Round 1 were Daily Partner-Reading

Practice, Daily Partner Spell-Check, Partner Writing Reflections, Daily Math Team Task, and
Team-Building Tuesday Challenge. These five activities offered authentic moments for students

to engage in oral conversations and written tasks as they collaborated with each other (Kirkland

et al., 2005). They were specifically designed to build students’ use of English oral and written

academic language.

In the Daily Partner-Reading Practice activity, students were strategically paired (high

reader with a low reader) and were given 10 minutes daily to read second grade reading passages

out loud with their partners. Students were taught to sit side by side or across from their reading

partner, take turns reading a paragraph from the passage out loud, track the words and decode

together if necessary, and to listen carefully for mistakes. Paired readers were also tasked with

writing different endings to their stories to allow for more practice using academic vocabulary in

conversation and in written text.

The Partner Spell-Check exercise was incorporated to have the children specifically

practice spelling grade level vocabulary words on vertical wipebooks and to use each spelling

word in a sentence. This gave the children the opportunity to write sentences and to orally

discuss what those sentences would look like following all grammar rules of using capital letters

appropriately with the correct punctuation, grammar, and spelling when writing.

In Partner Writing Reflections, students wrote a paragraph in response to a writing

prompt and then each student used an Editor’s Checklist to check their own writing as well as a

Peer Editor’s Checklist to evaluate their partner’s written paragraphs. The Editor’s Checklist

form was used to determine whether or not each student’s writing met the set criteria for

grammar guidelines. The purpose of this activity was to build students’ oral and written

academic language since they would write, reflect, and give each other oral feedback on their

checklists, therefore, they would use academic vocabulary as they critiqued each other’s writing.
 The Daily Math Team Task activity required students to work collaboratively with a

random partner to solve Math word problems by writing equations and drawing pictures to

demonstrate their understanding. Similarly, to Daily Partner Spell-Check, the children stood at

vertical wipebooks and engaged in oral and written academic language use. An extended

learning activity that I tacked on at the end of the week for this was to have children create their

own word problems for each other to solve.

Our Team-Building Tuesday Challenge involved a rigorous 5-minute challenge with a

timer on display and a task challenge using domino tiles. The challenges would vary week to

week each Tuesday. For this activity, the children completed the challenges with their table

teams of 3 to 4 students and 1 bag of dominos. The simple challenge of creating a chain reaction

with their domino tiles engaged the children in conversations as they assigned roles and

discussed how they would complete the task within the time limit.

Data: For this Round, I collected data from observation notes on student participation (how they

transitioned into this activity) and engagement (were they on task or did they have to be

redirected to the task at hand). I also collected data from a speaking rubric and the editor’s

checklist.

Data Analysis Methods: My qualitative data analysis for this Round was taken from my

observation notes where I put a checkmark next to a student’s name to indicate whether they

participated, stayed engaged, and used English oral or written academic language. A dash (-)

next to a student’s name meant that they did not show me participation or engagement. I also

analyzed data taken from their Editor’s Checklist and the Speaking Rubric by charting their

percentages for meeting the criteria noted on both.

Round 1 Findings: My observations suggest that students enjoyed reading together, testing

themselves on their memory of spelling words, deliberating on the structure of a complete

sentence, talking about solutions to Math problems, and exchanging their ideas on Math

solutions. I saw that only 18%, 4 out of 22 students, met the Speaking Rubric criteria of using the

appropriate volume, clarity and expression when speaking and 45%, 10 out of 22 students, met

the Editor’s Checklist criteria of using capital letters appropriately with the correct punctuation,

grammar, and spelling when writing. This information showed me that 82% (18 of my students)

need rigorous activities implemented to build their oral academic language and 55% (12 of my

students) need rigorous activities implemented to build their written academic language. This

data showed me the need for these activities in my classroom.

Connections: My findings that 82% need an increase in their oral academic language and 55%

need an increase in their written academic language indicated that I need to continue to feed

engaging activities to my scholars. In order for me to see student improvement in oral and

written academic language, I will continue with Daily Partner-Reading Practice, Partner Spell-

Check, Partner Writing Reflections, Daily Math Team Tasks, Team-Building Challenge and I

will add in Mid-Week Fluency Self-Recording and the Friday Fluency Check activities so that my

students will continue to build their oral and written academic language.

Round 2

Innovations/Interventions: My objectives in Round 2 were to continue with the five previous

intervention activities of Daily Partner-Reading Practice, Partner Spell-Check, Partner Writing

Reflections, Daily Math Team Tasks, and Team-Building Tuesday Challenge and then to

introduce two new learning experiences—Mid-Week Fluency Self-Recording, and Friday

Fluency Check as strategies to provide students with feedback on their academic language use.
For the first 5 activities, students would gain another week of practice in its implementation.

Again, all of these activities were specifically designed to build students’ use of English oral and

written academic language.

The Mid-Week Fluency Self-Recording activity had children recording themselves on

their Chromebook as they read a passage in the middle of the week on Wednesday. They were

instructed to listen to their recordings, edit as needed, and set their reading goals for the next

recording. Their reading partners used a timer to time their readings and noted their partner’s

number of errors. Reading partners evaluated their recordings together before submitting it to me

via their Class Dojo Portfolio. Listening and critiquing their recordings supported their academic

language use because they were able to plan for improvement (Kirkland et.al., 2005).

Another intervention tool implemented in this Round was Friday Fluency Check. This

was a one-to-one fluency assessment that was given on Friday during Partner-Reading Practice

time. I called students one at a time and had each child read a 2nd grade reading passage to me

and timed these readings to check their levels of accuracy. Our reading fluency goal and criteria

is 0-2 errors and to read under 2 minutes. The repetitive practice of reading at-grade level

passages out loud supports students’ academic language use (Kirkland et.al., 2005).

Data: For this Round, I collected data from my observation notes, student recordings, fluency

assessment forms, speaking rubric and editor’s checklist.

Data Analysis Methods: I analyzed data taken from my observation notes during all seven

activities and listened to all student submissions for our Mid-Week Self-Recording via Class

Dojo. As I listened to each recording, I noted down the time each passage was read and the

number of errors for each student. I also looked at each student’s fluency assessment form to see
who met the criteria for reading under 2 minutes with 0-2 errors. As I analyzed student work, I

looked specifically for the listed criteria in Editor’s Checklist and whether or not criteria was met

for the Speaking Rubric.

Round 2 Findings: My observations in Round 2 were that my students improved in their spoken

conversations with each other and in their written text. I saw collaborative conversations among

my students as they deliberated on sentences and mathematical two-step word problems, made

complex decisions, and self-corrected themselves and their partners. I heard, “We need to add

this together and subtract from that” from two students who were solving a Math problem. I also

heard, “Oh, we have to do two steps!” and “I think step one is 17+5=22 and step two is 32-

22=10. What do you think?” as they worked collaboratively to solve problems.

The graph below shows a higher level of growth in my student’s written academic

language as opposed to their oral academic language from Round 1 to 2. I saw that we stayed at

18% when meeting the Speaking Rubric criteria of using the appropriate volume, clarity and

expression when speaking and we moved from 45% to 82% of my students using capital letters

appropriately with the correct punctuation, grammar, and spelling from the Editor’s Checklist

criteria. I think that the lack of growth in oral academic language use comes from the

unfamiliarity of the oral language activities that I implemented. Students are used to SSR

(Sustained Silent Reading) in which they read on their own for a set time, however, my Daily

Partner-Reading Practice required students to speak out loud with each other in a classroom

setting.
 Overall Results of Student Improvement in
Academic Language Skill
160
120
80
40
0

Round 1 Round 2

Connections: These findings informed my next Round in that it showed me that I was on the

correct path towards building students’ use of English oral and written academic language. I will

continue with all seven intervention activities in which students talk, discuss, problem solve,

write, and share their thoughts since they are authentic learning experiences that promote the

development of English academic language (Kirkland et.al., 2005).

Round 3

Innovations/Interventions: I planned for 2 weeks of research practice for this Round to give my

students ample practice time. This extended time frame provided more time for students to

complete well-structured daily activities that had them speaking and writing. This supported their

academic language development (Coleman and Goldenberg, 2009). All seven intervention

activities—Daily Partner-Reading Practice, Partner Spell-Check, Partner Writing Reflections,

Daily Math Team Tasks, Team-Building Challenge, Mid-Week Fluency Self-Recording, Friday

Fluency Check—were used in this Round.

Data: For Round 3, I again collected data from my observation notes, student recordings,

fluency assessment forms, speaking rubric and editor’s checklist.

Data Analysis Methods: Data was analyzed from my observation notes during all seven

activities. I listened to student recordings, assessed each individual student and charted the

results from the fluency assessment forms for all three Rounds to see who met the criteria. I also

compared data and looked at student results from Rounds 1 to 3 taken from the Editor’s

Checklist and looked at results from the Speaking Rubric to see who used the appropriate

volume, clarity, expression, eye contact with the audience, body gestures and language as they

conversed with each other. I used a chart to analyze these results.

Round 3 Findings: After a four week time span using seven well-structured tasks, I found some

growth from my collected data in my students’ English oral academic language use with the

Speaking Rubric criteria of appropriate volume, clarity and expression when speaking, and that

we went from 18% (4 out of 22 students) to 64% (14 out of 22 students). I also found significant

growth from data collected in my students’ English written academic language use with the

Editor’s Checklist criteria for using capital letters appropriately with the correct punctuation,

grammar, and spelling and that we went from 45% (10 out of 22 students) to 91% (20 out of 22

students).

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

Synthesis of Findings: I found that with the implementation of these seven activities, my

student’s improved significantly in English oral and written academic language use. I looked at

my notes and saw a gradual incline towards improvement. I created charts to analyze student

data from my Friday Fluency Checks, Speaking Rubric, and the Editor’s Checklist. With these

charts, I was able to see my students’ growth from Rounds 1 to 3 in oral and written academic

language use.
 The chart below shows data taken from my Friday Fluency Checks for three different

Fridays. A fluency check assesses a child’s reading accuracy and speed. Children are reading out

loud with academic language in their Daily Partner-Reading Practice, an authentic learning

experience that promotes the development of English oral academic language use (Kirkland

et.al., 2005). I see evidence of growth in their English oral academic language from Round 1 to

Round 3 in their reading speed and accuracy.

The percent of students who read with 0-2 errors (reading accuracy) grew from 45% (only 10

out of 22 students met the criteria) to 82% (18 out of 22 students met the criteria). The percent of

students who read under 2 minutes (comprehensible speed) grew from 45% (only 10 out of 22

students met the criteria) to 73% (16 out of 22 met the criteria). So, my students’ use of English

oral academic language improved greatly when they were provided with the Daily Partner

Reading Practice and Mid-Week Self Recording activities. I believe that this practice has merit

and should be continued.

Friday Fluency Checks

Accuracy Speed
% of students who read with 0-2 % of students who exceeded 0-2 % of students who read under 2 % of students who did not read
errors errors minutes under 2 minutes

2/17/23 3/3/23 3/10/23 2/17/23 3/3/23 3/10/23 2/17/23 3/3/23 3/10/23 2/17/23 3/3/23 3/10/23

45% 77% 82% 55% 23% 18% 45% 68% 73% 55% 32% 27%
*10 out *17 out *18 out *12 out *5 out *4 out of *10 out *15 out *16 out *12 out *7 out *6 out of
of 22 of 22 of 22 of 22 did of 22 22 did of 22 of 22 of 22 of 22 of 22 22 did
met the met met the not did not not met the met met the did not did not not meet
criteria) the criteria meet the meet meet the criteria) the criteria meet meet the
criteria criteria the criteria criteria the the criteria
criteria criteria criteria

The chart below shows data collected with a Speaking Rubric during Team Building

Tuesday Challenges and Math Team Tasks. I found that all 22 of my students improved in their
 English oral academic language. I heard better responses to my questions as they interacted with

each other, for example, I asked, “How did you arrive at that conclusion?” One team responded

with, “We know it is a two-step word problem but decided to subtract both the 15 and 7 from 32

to get 10 because we could do it in one equation.” By Round 3, 10 of my students moved from

“developing” to “secure” and 64% of my students were able to use the appropriate volume,

clarity, expression, eye contact with the audience, body gestures and language. Again, these

findings show a great improvement in my students’ use of the English oral academic language.

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

The Editor’s Checklist tool was used as a scoring guide to evaluate my students’ performance

in writing sentences and to determine what areas they needed help in. To show an improvement

in writing, my students needed to write sentences that showed they used capital letters,

punctuation, grammar, and spelling correctly. As shown below, I had a 46% increase in using

capital letters appropriately, a 55% increase in using the correct punctuation when writing, a 37%

increase in using the correct grammar and spelling, a 64% increase in writing in sequential order,

and an 18% increase in drawing a picture to match their writing pieces.

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)

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

My overall findings for this research study is shown in the bar graph below. My students

improved with the introduced dependent variables from all 7 activities. The significant growth as

evidenced in the chart below was in their Written Academic Language although there was growth

in their Oral Academic Language. The implications of this research study have impacted my

teaching. I will now strategically plan effective practices for my English learners and English

only learners (Coleman et al., 2009). I feel that I met my goal on the collective improvement of

my students’ use of English oral and written academic language.

Overall Results of Student Improvement in

Academic Language Skill
200
100
0

Round 1 Round 2 Round 3

 REFERENCES

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

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