Walden University

College of Education

This is to certify that the doctoral study by

Rachelle Ysquierdo

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by
the review committee have been made.

Review Committee
Dr. Jose Otaola, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty
Dr. Celeste Stansberry, Committee Member, Education Faculty
Dr. Barbara Lopez Avila, University Reviewer, Education Faculty

Chief Academic Officer

Eric Riedel, Ph.D.

Walden University
2018
 Abstract

The Effects of Computer-Assisted Language Learning on English Language Proficiency

by

Rachelle Ysquierdo

MS, University of Houston, 2004

BS, University of Houston, 1999

Project Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Walden University

November 2018
 Abstract

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 requires high standards, but academic

achievement among English Language Learners (ELL) falls below that of their peers in

Texas. These students’ lower academic achievement may lead to their dropping out of

high school, not going to college, or being underemployed, a problem that led to this

study. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether computer-assisted language

learning (CALL) helps ELLs improve their English language proficiency compared to

traditional learning approaches. Levy’s theoretical framework on the implementation of

CALL guided this study. A nonequivalent, pretest-and-posttest design was used to

examine mean differences in the increase in proficiency level from the beginning to the

end of the year on the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System

(TELPAS) of ELLS in Grades 3–5 who participated in CALL and of those who did not

participate. The sample consisted of 106 English language learners in Grades 3–5: 57

students in the treatment group and 49 in the comparison group. A one-way analysis of

variance was conducted to compare language proficiency between the treatment and

comparison groups. Results revealed no significant difference in the mean increase in

proficiency levels of English language learners between the treatment and comparison

groups. Additional analyses of TELPAS subdomains (reading, speaking, listening, and

writing) indicated CALL was effective on reading only. Based on the findings, a project

study on professional development was designed to focus on instructional strategies to

support CALL. This project may lead to social change among administrators and teachers

in the methods and strategies they use in the classroom to support CALL and as they

work collaboratively to improve language proficiency among English language learners.

The Effects of Computer-Assisted Language Learning on English Language Proficiency

by

Rachelle Ysquierdo

MS, University of Houston, 2004

BS, University of Houston, 1999

Project Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Walden University

November 2018




ProQuest Number: 10980830




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 10980830

Published by ProQuest LLC (2018 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 Dedication

My research is dedicated to my husband, my daughters, my son, and all my

family. I also want to thank all the educators I have worked with and will work with in

the future. It is for you that I have worked so hard to have the best education possible that

will make a difference in the lives of others. I hope that the work I do will make a

difference in your lives as we touch others in this world.

 Acknowledgments

I owe thanks for the success of the project to my creator, family, and friends who

have supported me through this process. My husband has been a great help to me, by

watching our children and keeping them busy as I worked countless hours on my paper.

My husband has inspired me to accomplish my dreams, and he pushed me to the very

end. He supported me and celebrated the small successes. I appreciate his help and

support. I could not have gotten this far without him! Lastly, I thank the Lord God; there

have been several times when I did not think I could finish this. I would go to the Lord,

and He gave me strength and peace with the feeling that I can do all things through Him.

Thank you!
 Table of Contents

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v

Section 1: The Problem ........................................................................................................1

Local Problem ................................................................................................................1

Rationale ........................................................................................................................5

Definition of Terms........................................................................................................7

Significance of the Study ...............................................................................................8

Research Question and Hypotheses ...............................................................................9

Review of the Literature ..............................................................................................10

Theoretical Foundation ......................................................................................... 11

Standards That Affect English Language Learners .............................................. 12

The TELPAS ......................................................................................................... 13

Reading Fluency ................................................................................................... 14

Language Development ........................................................................................ 15

CALL .................................................................................................................... 16

CALL as an Intervention ...................................................................................... 19

Individualized Instruction ..................................................................................... 20

Tracking Student Progress .................................................................................... 21

Implications..................................................................................................................21

Summary ......................................................................................................................22

Section 2: The Methodology..............................................................................................24

Research Design and Approach ...................................................................................25

Justification ........................................................................................................... 26

i
 Design ................................................................................................................... 28

Setting and Sample ......................................................................................................29

Setting ................................................................................................................... 29

Population ............................................................................................................. 29

Sampling Strategy ................................................................................................. 30

Sample Size........................................................................................................... 31

Eligibility Criteria of Participants ......................................................................... 33

Recruitment ........................................................................................................... 33

Characteristics of the Sample................................................................................ 33

Instrumentation and Materials .....................................................................................34

Concepts Measured by Instrument........................................................................ 35

Calculation of Scores ............................................................................................ 35

Reliability and Validity ......................................................................................... 37

Archival Data Access and Analysis .............................................................................38

Data Access Processes .......................................................................................... 38

Nature of Scale for Variables ................................................................................ 38

Analysis Utilized ................................................................................................... 39

Assumptions, Limitations, Scope, and Delimitations ..................................................40

Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 40

Limitations ............................................................................................................ 41

Scope and Delimitation ......................................................................................... 41

Protection of Participants’ Rights ................................................................................42

Data Analysis Results ..................................................................................................43

ii
 Final Sample ......................................................................................................... 44

Composite Score Analysis by Group .................................................................... 45

Composite Score Analysis Between Groups ........................................................ 47

Further Analysis by TELPAS Domain ................................................................. 50

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................52

Section 3: The Project ........................................................................................................55

Overview ......................................................................................................................55

Description ............................................................................................................ 56

Goals ..................................................................................................................... 58

Rationale ......................................................................................................................59

Review of the Literature ..............................................................................................61

Appropriateness of Professional Development Approach .................................... 61

Theory and Research Supporting the Project........................................................ 62

The SIOP Model ................................................................................................... 68

Project Description.......................................................................................................73

Potential Resources and Existing Supports........................................................... 73

Potential Barriers .................................................................................................. 74

Proposal for Implementation and Timetable......................................................... 75

Roles and Responsibilities of Student and Others ................................................ 75

Project Evaluation Plan ................................................................................................76

Project Implications .....................................................................................................77

Local Community ................................................................................................. 77

Far-Reaching Implications for Social Change ...................................................... 78

iii
 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................79

Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions .............................................................................81

Project Strengths and Limitations ................................................................................82

Strengths ............................................................................................................... 82

Limitations ............................................................................................................ 83

Recommendations for Alternative Approaches .................................................... 84

Scholarship, Project Development, and Leadership and Change ................................85

Scholarship ............................................................................................................ 85

Project Development and Evaluation.................................................................... 89

Leadership and Change ......................................................................................... 90

Reflections on the Importance of the Work .................................................................91

Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research .................................92

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................93

References ..........................................................................................................................95

Appendix: Professional Development .............................................................................112

iv
 List of Tables

Table 1. Example of Composite Rating on the Texas English Language Proficiency

Assessment System ................................................................................................... 36

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Pre- and Posttest Language-Proficiency Composite

Scores, Treatment and Comparison Groups ............................................................. 47

Table 3. Difference Between Pre- and Posttest Language-Proficiency Composite

Scores, Treatment and Comparison Groups ............................................................. 48

Table 4. Number and Percentage of Students Showing Increase, Decrease, or No

Change in Composite Score on the Texas English Language Proficiency
Assessment System ................................................................................................... 48

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Pre- and Posttest TELPAS Scores, Treatment and
Comparison Groups, by Domain .............................................................................. 51

v
 1
Section 1: The Problem

Academic achievement among English language learners has been below that of

their peers on the state assessments in Texas (Murphey, 2014). In this study, I explored

the effectiveness of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) as a supplemental

resource to assist in increasing language proficiency for English language learners, thus

increasing their academic success. Using a quantitative, nonequivalent, pretest-and-

posttest design that involved a treatment group and a comparison group of students in

Grades 3–5, I analyzed and synthesized the archival data accessed. Group 1, the treatment

group, took part in a CALL program during Grades 3–5. Group 2, the comparison group,

did not participate in CALL. In the district, some elementary schools had implemented

CALL, and some had not, thereby providing an archival data source for treatment and

comparison groups. I analyzed archival Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment

System (TELPAS) data from state assessments to help determine if CALL made a

difference in language proficiency for English language learners.

Local Problem

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 required high standards for all

students, including English language learners (Council of Chief State School Officers,

2016). In the local study district, English language learners include students who are first-

generation Mexican Americans and speak Spanish as well as students who emigrated

from Mexico recently and now live in Texas. Most English language learners are not

encouraged by their parents to speak English at home, which does not help their English

language proficiency (Niehaus & Adelson, 2014).

 2
N. Li (2013) reported a rapid growth in the number of U.S. English language

learners demonstrating inadequate academic reading levels in English. In addition,

English language learners have fallen behind their native-English-speaking peers and

experience academic gaps in national and state assessments (N. Li, 2013). In a local

school district, administrators stated they have seen English language learners struggle

academically. One principal stated, “The lowest performing students are the English

language learner students; this could be the lack of language proficiency.” Principals

stated that English language learners also struggle because teachers lack an understanding

of the strategies that help English language learners in the classroom. In addition to low

English proficiency, English language learners often face other academic barriers, such as

coming from low-income families and having parents who do not speak English.

However, legislators expect these students to become proficient in English, still meet the

same challenges as native-English-speaking students, and perform at the same

achievement level as their peers on state assessments (Hopkins, Thompson, Linquanti,

Hakuta, & August, 2013). Obviously, this is a heavy burden for English language

learners and their instructors (Abedi, 2014; Abedi & Gándara, 2006; Abedi & Herman,

2010).

Although English language learners may acquire basic interpersonal

communicative skills in English, they often do not have the cognitive academic language

proficiency (CALP) that relates to the overall academic skills English language learners

need to be successful in school (Cummins, 1979). For example, the State of Texas

Assessment of Academic Readiness (trademarked as STAAR) scores in reading

 3
proficiency indicated that English language learners performed 20–30% below native

English speakers, with little improvement each year (Abedi & Dietel, 2004; Koo, Becker,

& Kim, 2014). Although the percentage of English language learners in the South Texas

school district is relatively small (17%), these English language learners have

experienced little academic growth (Texas Education Agency, 2014). English language

learners in the district have fallen 20% below the state average on the reading assessment,

which was also 10% below the average for native-English-speaking students in the

district (Texas Education Agency, 2014). Educators are concerned with English language

learners’ lack of academic success.

To determine whether CALL used as a supplemental resource can help English

language learners learn English, two elementary schools served as my study sites to

gather data on English language proficiency levels. The elementary schools chosen for

the study have a high percentage of English language learners among the student

population. Also, English language learners participating in the study were in the

bilingual or English as a Second Language (ESL) program and performed below average

on the March 2016 TELPAS. Each year, English language learners are tested on their

English language proficiency using the TELPAS (Texas Education Agency, 2016c).

Educators and curriculum designers use TELPAS results to help design instruction that

will address the student’s linguistic and academic needs. For students to exit from a

bilingual/ESL program at elementary schools, they must perform at the advanced high

level on each of the language domains, demonstrating the same academic language
 4
proficiency as their native-English-speaking peers (Hopkins et al., 2013). Students also

must pass the reading and writing state assessments.

English language learners entering elementary schools are tested with

standardized assessments to determine if they meet criteria for bilingual/ESL services.

English language learners who score limited in English language proficiency are placed

in a bilingual class and continue in a bilingual program until they have exited the

program. English language learners are administered the TELPAS each school year to

provide an English proficiency level rating to determine if the students are eligible to exit

from the bilingual/ESL program. English language learners who meet the criteria for the

bilingual/ESL program and stay in the program for numerous years tend to struggle with

reaching English language proficiency, which causes many English language learners to

be academically unsuccessful in the classroom (Hopkins et al., 2013).

Various factors prevent the academic success of English language learners,

including having parents who do not speak English at home, miscommunication between

teachers and Spanish-speaking parents, and the lack of education among parents of

English language learners, causing a disconnect between the school and home (Calderon,

Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011). Parents of English language learners seek involvement in their

child’s education, but their level of education, lack of English proficiency, and

socioeconomic status often prove to be a barrier to student achievement (Abedi & Dietel,

2004). Teachers, administrators, and families need to work together to promote social,

cultural, linguistic, and academic achievement in English language learners (Flecha &

Soler, 2013). The lack of collaboration between the school and home causes low
 5
performance or slow improvement in students’ academic performance (Calderon et al.,

2011).

In this study, I focused specifically on a single factor in teaching English language

learners: the use of CALL. This study determined whether CALL was associated with

increases in the English language learners’ English language proficiency based on pre-

and postscores on the TELPAS. I measured for any significant difference in the change in

TELPAS scores representing English proficiency levels between English language

learners who participated in CALL (James, 2014) and those who did not. Evidence from

the investigation may provide school administrators, teachers, and parents of English

language learners with a better understanding of language proficiency factors and ways

CALL can assist English language learners academically.

I examined the results of CALL at two elementary schools in a small Texas

district. One school utilized a CALL program called Imagine Learning to build on student

language proficiency; the other school did not use a CALL program for English language

learners. The participants in the study were English language learners in Grades 3–5 in

bilingual programs who scored below the advanced high level on the TELPAS

assessment in March 2016. In this study, I hoped to determine whether the use of CALL

impacted English language learner language proficiency.

Rationale

To ensure that all students, including English language learners, demonstrate

academic progress, school districts submit yearly progress to the state. The ESSA

requires long-term goals from schools that measure progress for an increase in the
 6
percentage of English language learners achieving English proficiency (Council of Chief

State School Officers, 2016). Federal legislators have called for states to assess English

language learners each school year in language proficiency in Grades 3–8 and one time in

high school. In 2014, Texas added English language learner language proficiency as part

of the STAAR accountability system. Texas education stakeholders utilize student

growth in TELPAS proficiency levels as a factor in determining whether students have

been successful in state assessments. TELPAS is intended to determine whether English

language learners are making steady progress in acquiring the English proficiency

necessary for students to engage in meaningful, grade-appropriate content instruction

(Texas Education Agency, 2017).

Even with high expectations from state and federal governments, English

language learners have continued to fall below state standards. Administrators need to

provide effective strategies for English language learners. To understand how to assist

English language learners, educators need to collaborate on strategies that contribute to

academic success. At some elementary schools in the study district, administrators

implemented Imagine Learning, a CALL reading program, in hopes of improving English

language learner achievement. By examining the use of CALL and its effects on student

achievement, I attempted to determine whether CALL was associated with the

educational success of English language learners.

 7
Definition of Terms

To offer an understanding of the terms related to English language development,

and to provide a framework for this study, I defined relevant terms. Terms are presented

alphabetically.

Academic language is the language students need to do school work, including

vocabulary, grammar, and specific content (Haynes & Zacarian, 2010).

Cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) is the formal academic

language learning that students need to become successful academically (Cummins,

1979).

Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) is an approach to language

teaching and learning for English language learners with the use of a computer for

presentation, reinforcement, and assessment of materials to be learned (Levy, 1997).

English language learners are students learning the English language in addition

to their native language (National Council of Teachers of English, 2008).

Language acquisition describes the processes through which people acquire and

comprehend language to form words and sentences that help people to communicate

(Robertson & Ford, n.d.).

Language proficiency, or linguistic proficiency, means an individual can speak or

perform in a language (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2012).

Limited English proficiency is when English language learners lack sufficient

mastery of English needed to be successful in an English language classroom (National

Council of Teachers of English, 2008).

 8
Native English speakers are people who learn English in early childhood and use

English as their primary means of communication (National Council of Teachers of

English, 2008).

Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) is a yearly

assessment for students based on English language proficiency level descriptors and state

standards (Texas Education Agency, 2016b).

Significance of the Study

In this study, I sought to provide research-based evidence on whether CALL helps

English language learners to improve their English language proficiency. I investigated a

strategy used in elementary schools to increase English language proficiency in English

language learners, in this case predominantly Spanish speakers. Educators and school and

district administrations may use results from this study on the use of computer-assisted

instruction to increase students’ English proficiency to help English language learners

become academically successful (DuBois, Volpe, & Hemphill, 2014). Teachers can

download online reports from CALL systems and use data to determine student

proficiency levels. Teachers also may use CALL to reinforce literacy skills learned in the

classroom and to build on language proficiency skills such as listening, speaking,

reading, and writing (Texas Education Agency, 2017). Further, providing parents with

information in their home language about the school system and the ability to review

CALL progress reports for English language learners can facilitate parent and school

collaboration to ensure student success. I present the study data so administrators can
 9
apply the data from the study to determine whether CALL is a useful strategy with

elementary English language learners.

Research Question and Hypotheses

English language learners have performed at a lower level than native English

speakers have on state assessments in one South Texas school district (Abedi & Dietel,

2004). Some elementary schools in the district adopted the use of CALL to help increase

the proficiency levels among English language learners; however, educators have

wondered if the CALL program best meets the needs of all students. The effectiveness of

the program had not been evaluated. The following research question (RQ) and related

hypotheses guided the direction of the study.

RQ: Is there a difference between the mean increase in proficiency level on the

TELPAS of English language learners in Grades 3–5 who participated in CALL and that

of those who did not participate?

Ha: English language learners in Grades 3–5 who participated in the CALL

program will show a statistically significantly higher increase in mean proficiency level

on the TELPAS when compared to the mean increase for English language learners in

Grades 3–5 who did not participate in the CALL program.

H0: English language learners in Grades 3–5 who participated in the CALL

program will not show a statistically significantly different increase in mean proficiency

level on the TELPAS when compared to the mean increase for English language learners

in Grades 3–5 who did not participate in the CALL program.

 10
Review of the Literature

Throughout the years, technology has advanced and impacted educational

delivery. In the 1960s and 1970s, English language learning computer labs were used in

educational institutes (Davies, Rendall, Walker, & Hewer, 2012; Fotos & Browne, 2004).

The language labs were small, with cassette deck, microphone, and headphones (Levy &

Stockwell, 2006). This type of method helped students learn a second language quickly

(Warschauer & Healey, 1998). Students participated in drills focused on decoding and

language skills (Davies et al., 2012). With the advancement of computer technology,

CALL has become popular in language learning. Through the use of CALL, the

interaction among the students and teachers is reduced, however, CALL has progressed

to computer software that focuses on vocabulary, grammar, and reading skills (Davies et

al., 2012; Levy, 1997). With the rapid growth in technology and the English language

learner population, the benefits of CALL are promising (Davies et al., 2012).

When searching for the literature, I used various resources such as Google

Scholar and the Walden library to gather articles and information from previous studies. I

also consulted the Texas Education Agency website to gather information on the state

assessment, TELPAS. When reviewing literature, I focused on studies that contained

information on English language instruction through CALL. Search terms included CALL

for English language learner students, computer-assisted language learning, technology

and second language learners, literacy in bilingual students, Levy on computer-assisted

language learning, language acquisition, language learning strategies, English language

learners, Cummins, Levy, basic interpersonal communicative skills, and cognitive

 11
academic language proficiency. Resources were limited on Spanish-speaking bilingual

students and on Levy’s theoretical framework. Because articles related to Levy’s

framework were limited, some of the resources were older than 5 years old.

Theoretical Foundation

To serve as a lens through which to view the study’s problem, I chose the

theoretical framework of Levy’s (1997) approach to using CALL to teach language skills

and support academic achievement. Levy’s (2009) approach uses technology as a tool to

help increase language proficiency in second language learners. Levy (2009) used a

modular approach to language and skills, providing a structure for the use of technology.

By using a modular approach, educators created specific goals for learning and using

technology, which led to a focus on the instructional method teachers used when

introducing language rather than a focus on how educators and students used technology

(Levy, 2009). Levy (1997) analyzed and reviewed instructional strategies that

incorporated a tutor-tool framework. Levy’s (2009) approach addressed the way all

students learn, including English language learners. In addition, the subsequent research

and application of Levy’s theory offered guidance on the use of technology and how it

assisted in increasing language proficiency.

Although Levy published limited studies on his theory of CALL, he worked with

researchers to understand the use of CALL to build on language acquisition for second

language learners. Levy’s (2007) research focused on using and improving new

technologies targeting language learning. Levy and Stockwell (2006) worked collectively

to gain a better understanding of CALL, describing it as a “heavily dependent on context”

 12
program used for language learning (p. 12). In the CALL approach, the program instantly

evaluates responses of second language learners and provides feedback (Levy &

Stockwell, 2006). Additional researchers have used the CALL framework with different

approaches. For instance, Chapelle (2001) based her research on the approach to second

language acquisition, whereas Hubbard (2004) focused on the methodology for

evaluation.

Standards That Affect English Language Learners

State and federal accountability systems require English language learners to gain

English language proficiency and become academically successful in all content areas of

the school. English language learners must achieve proficiency in two categories of

language for education in the school. One category is academic language, or CALP, to

understand the core content classes such as reading, math, science, and social studies

(Alvarez-Marinelle et al., 2014). Another is the more basic, social type of English

language needed for social and intercultural understanding in the classroom (Fenner &

Segota, n.d.; Nugent & Catalano, 2015). Each state in the United States has mandated

English language proficiency standards based on the ESSA (Council of Chief State

School Officers, 2016; Fenner & Segota, n.d.).

To meet the state standards, schools need to accurately identify English language

learners when they enter school and understand language proficiency in the students’

home language in addition to English. States have developed protocols for schools to

determine if English language learners are proficient in English when they enter school.

English language learners obtain support services that assist them in the English language
 13
development process, and educators assess each student every year to determine if

students meet the state’s criteria for proficiency in English (N. Li, 2013). State laws have

established the way school districts implement classroom instruction and support for

English language learners.

Instruction for English language learners varies depending on student needs in the

study district, a small district in South Texas. For example, students may receive

bilingual instruction, dual language instruction, structured sheltered instruction, or total

English immersion before entering the general education classrooms, where an ESL

teacher supports instruction. Educators must identify English language learners

accurately to place them appropriately and provide the proper language support. Even

when educators have recognized these English language learners and placed them in

supportive learning environments, the students sometimes have transitioned out of

bilingual services before being ready. Educators use the TELPAS to prevent premature

exit from bilingual/ESL programs.

The TELPAS

Students need English language proficiency to engage in meaningful, grade-

appropriate, content instruction (Texas Education Agency, 2017). Each year, schools test

English language learners on their language proficiency using the TELPAS, which is

designed to aid English language learners in making progress in learning the English

language. The TELPAS assesses English language learners in kindergarten through

Grade 12 on language proficiency in four domains: listening, speaking, reading, and

writing. ESL classroom teachers who are trained in TELPAS rating score the assessment
 14
holistically, except for the reading assessment, which consists of the student reading

passages and completing multiple-choice questions (Powers, Williams, Keng, & Starr,

2014). The school district administers the TELPAS reading assessment online in Grades

2–12. Educators use the TELPAS results to determine instructional strategies and plan

interventions that address each student’s language and academic needs (Powers et al.,

2014). For students to exit from a bilingual/ESL program, they must score advanced high

on each of the language domains, demonstrating the same academic language proficiency

as their native-English-speaking peers.

Educators test English language learners entering elementary school with a

standardized assessment to determine whether they qualify for bilingual/ESL services. If

deficits are indicated, school administrators place English language learners in bilingual

classes; these English language learners continue in bilingual classes until they exit from

the program, determined by yearly TELPAS scores. English language learners who

qualify for the bilingual/ESL program tend to struggle with academic success in the

classroom as they continue to move into the upper elementary grades, which causes some

students not to reach the language proficiency level needed to exit from the bilingual/ESL

program (Texas Education Agency, 2017). Educators who understand the language

development of English language learners can help students advance and become

successful.

Reading Fluency

English language learners who have difficulty with oral reading also have

difficulty understanding what they are reading (James, 2014). As students become fluent
 15
in their reading and build new vocabulary, they begin to feel self-assured in what they are

reading (James, 2014). To become proficient in reading, students need to strengthen their

decoding skills to build on reading fluency (James, 2014). As they learn decoding skills,

English language learners become successful in building on their oral reading fluency

(Melby-Lerva & Lerva, 2014; Pretorius & Spaull, 2016).

CALL can be an essential component of reading instruction by providing

structured reading activities with immediate feedback (Schechter, Macaruso, Kazakoff, &

Brooke, 2015). CALL can build on students’ phonological awareness skills to help

students with letter recognition and sounds (Pey, Min, & Wah, 2014; Schechter et al.,

2015). James (2014) stated that to become a confident reader, a student must become

fluent; the student must develop decoding skills by concentrating on making sense of the

words. Melby-Lerva and Lerva (2014) indicated that when students master vocabulary

skills, they are more successful in reading comprehension.

Language Development

Researchers using national data consistently have identified an educational gap

between the reading performance of native English speakers and English language

learners (Calderon et al., 2011; Murphey, 2014). Students who learn to read in their first

language learn over 5,000 words before they begin to read in school (Ramírez-Esparza,

García-Sierra, & Kaul, 2017); however, students learning to read in a second language

may struggle with a lack of skills to learn English words. English language learners

experience slower vocabulary development, which provides them with limited English

vocabulary and poor comprehension (Hoff, Welsh, Place, & Ribot, 2014; Murphey,
 16
2014). When individuals learn new vocabulary, they attach meaning to the words they

already know. Learning new vocabulary helps students build word knowledge that aids in

educational success (Bailey & Huang, 2011).

The English vocabulary has three categories in which students learn as they enter

school (Bailey & Heritage, 2008; Bailey & Huang, 2011): academic vocabulary (i.e.,

words that occur in educational content), context-specific vocabulary (i.e., common,

everyday words students use with different meanings), and specialized academic

vocabulary (i.e., words specific to content, such as the term across genre in language

arts). English language learners are typically more comfortable using everyday

vocabulary but find it difficult to understand context when exposed to academic

vocabulary. Building basic vocabulary knowledge is vital to language development in

English (Naraghizadeh & Barimani, 2013). Teachers must understand best practices for

academic language development in English language learners (N. Li, 2013). As identified

by the research, CALL helps students to increase vocabulary, fluency, and

comprehension that build English proficiency.

CALL

Baker (2006) proposed that basic interpersonal communicative skills increase

fluency in a second language. Baker described these communicative skills as social,

conversational language used for oral communication, whereas CALP is the use of

language in de-contextualized academic situations. Students may demonstrate basic

interpersonal communicative skills, but those skills do not transfer to their academic

ability (Cummins, 1979). Cummins (1979) found that CALP is used in formal academic
 17
learning and is different from academic achievement. When English language learners

possess CALP, they understand the academic concepts and skills needed to learn a

language (Golonka, Bowles, Frank, Richardson, & Freynik, 2014). Comprehending the

meaning of CALP is essential to understand how CALL can benefit English language

learners.

CALL programs have helped English language learners increase the reading

fluency and comprehension that build English proficiency (Naraghizadeh & Barimani,

2013). James (2014) argued that CALL programs improved the academic achievement of

at-risk students; however, James mentioned that CALL should not replace classroom

instruction but instead blend with literacy and learning activities. Teaching literacy

strategies along with implementing CALL to English language learners can foster reading

and the development of language skills as students utilize phonemic awareness, phonics,

fluency vocabulary, and reading comprehension to attain higher language proficiency

levels (James, 2014). Providing the students with learning strategies that contribute to

CALL implementation can contribute to successful literacy development (Mahdi, 2013).

With CALL building CALP, the program also provides the foundation for academic

achievement (Afshari, Ghavifekr, Siraj, & Jing, 2013). In this way, CALL helps build

CALP by providing immediate feedback, so students do not continue to practice the

wrong skills. Moreover, the computer program allows students to work at their pace for

mastery of academic literacy skills (Nomass, 2013). CALL engages students in what they

are learning and provides students with the opportunities to build on their CALP and

communication skills (Levy, 2009; J. Li, Snow, Jiang, & Edwards, 2014). With the
 18
struggles English language learners often experience with language proficiency,

administrators, teachers, and parents can benefit by finding ways to assist English

language learners to become successful academically.

Technology in education has continued to evolve, especially with the use of

computers and software programs (Naraghizadeh & Barimani, 2013). CALL has grown

in popularity throughout schools; teachers use the program through integrated instruction

to help students build on what they are learning in the classroom (Hubbard, 2013). The

program assists with teaching students new languages and providing academic success.

Naraghizadeh and Barimani (2013) suggested integrated technology produced academic

success and enhanced learning of vocabulary. CALL enhanced the curriculum and

allowed English language learners to think at a higher level (Alvarez-Marinelle et al.,

2014).

However, studies are limited on the effects of CALL for English language

learners who are Spanish speakers. Jafarian, Soori, and Kafipour (2012) found English

language learners benefited from CALL, but teachers’ use of strategies recommended by

CALL determined if English language learners increased in reading proficiency levels.

Utilizing small groups and individualized implementation of CALL had an effect on the

success of English language learners by providing them with intensive instruction

focusing on vocabulary, literacy skills, and language acquisition that build on English

language proficiency (Levy, 2009).

Research has shown how CALL impacts listening and reading capabilities among

English language learners. The studies did not specify a demographic of students other
 19
than English language learners. CALL accelerated language skills and developed

language growth using supplemental instruction along with teacher instruction (Sorenson,

2015). English language learners using CALL benefited from using visual and voice

inputs that enhanced their learning and helped develop listening and reading skills

(Nomass, 2013). James (2014) stated that a supplemental CALL program increased

literacy skills better than instruction utilizing worksheets. CALL enhanced reading skills

and improved literacy skills among English language learners while allowing students to

work at their pace (James, 2014; Nomass, 2013). Students participating in CALL became

motivated and engaged in their learning as they worked on various activities (Wang &

Liao, 2017). With national standards and expectations for English language learners to

become academically successful, the CALL approach has provided a measure of success

for English language learners in academic achievement (Sorenson, 2015). With language

and state standards being a focus in the Texas schools, CALL programs offer resources

that may contribute to student success.

CALL as an Intervention

In the past, CALL was administered outside the classroom and consisted of

software uploaded onto a computer using a floppy disk, CD, or video disk (Levy, 2015).

Teachers monitored the instruction provided to the students. As technology has advanced,

CALL has moved to a downloaded or online program where students work independently

(Grgurović, Chapelle, & Shelley, 2013). CALL is used as a resource in addition to

classroom instruction, and teachers have access to the information online. As students

develop their language skills, teachers easily can track student progress to ensure students
 20
are successful (Levy & Kennedy, 2010). CALL has shown to be effective in improving

English language learners’ reading and vocabulary skills, as students are able to work

independently to self-correct their work when they are unsuccessful (Kyle, Kujala,

Richardson, Lyytinen, & Goswami, 2013). Teachers can set levels or skills for students

until they are successful (Levy & Kennedy, 2010). The advantage of having a CALL

program as an intervention is administrators have the option of discontinuing or renewing

the program (Levy, 2015). When CALL is used as an intervention, students receive

additional time during the day to participate in CALL. Using this type of intervention,

English language learners still receive classroom instruction but receive additional

support via CALL.

Individualized Instruction

As noted, CALL can provide individualized instruction, allowing students to

receive immediate feedback and work at their pace. Using CALL in the classroom allows

students to be in control of their learning (Bhatti, 2013). Individualized instruction

provides self-paced, independent practice in vocabulary and reading skills (Lee,

Waxman, Wu, Michko, & Lin, 2013). CALL provides practice in rhyming, sounding, and

blending words as well as relating the sounds to print concepts (Schechter et al., 2015). If

students do not succeed in a task, students repeat the work and gain a better

understanding of the skills (Ma, Adesope, Nesbit, & Liu, 2014). Students can take a

teacher-administered assessment to determine the appropriate level of work that

challenges students to become successful (Ciampa, 2014; Yeh, 2010).

 21
Tracking Student Progress

CALL provides teachers and students the ability to track progress, which benefits

both. Teachers can monitor and analyze student progress in each task. Use of a CALL

system can provide the teacher with immediate feedback about student learning (Z. Li &

Hegelheimer, 2013). CALL allows teachers to determine students’ ability to continue or

their need to repeat material (James, 2014). Teachers then can use CALL to provide

additional practice in reading and implement individual instruction tailored to each

student’s individual needs.

CALL provides not only monitoring benefits to teachers but also immediate

feedback to learners. CALL provides immediate feedback without being judgmental and

allows the student to self-correct while learning a new language (Suvorov &

Hegelheimer, 2014; Yeh, 2010). The program allows students to discover new language

skills while they learn new content, providing students of different ages the opportunity

to work independently. James (2014) reported students who participated in CALL were

able to build on their literacy skills and become successful in reading fluency and

comprehension. James concluded CALL was a contributing factor in students’ academic

success.

Implications

The implementation of CALL can have a positive impact on English language

learner scores on state assessments (Cheung & Slavin, 2005), which is why the CALL

program was implemented in some elementary schools in a South Texas school district.

An evaluation of the data would determine if there were an increase in TELPAS

 22
proficiency levels and test scores with the use of CALL intervention strategies among

English language learners. I anticipated the evidence from the investigation of CALL

would be of interest to school administrators, teachers, and parents. Findings might

impact strategies used to help English language learners build their vocabulary and

literacy skills to increase their language proficiency and contribute to academic success.

Summary

To meet the new provisions of the ESSA (2015), teachers and school

administrators have recognized the need to support English language learners in

academic English language proficiency. Researchers need to understand how English

language learners gain proficiency and which strategies provide the groundwork toward

language proficiency (Ramírez-Esparza, García-Sierra, & Kaul, 2017). Based on the

academic gaps in reading and performance between English language learners and native

English speakers, education professionals seek strategies to provide support for English

language learners. Educators implement the yearly TELPAS to determine if English

language learners made progress each year on language proficiency. CALL can assist

with teaching English language learners English and increasing reading proficiency

levels. Using CALL, students receive immediate feedback and one-on-one instruction

that builds on long-term recall of vocabulary and provides the learning tools to aid in the

development of language skills to build on language proficiency.

In Section 2, I will present a description of the research design and approach to

data access and analysis. The section will include an outline of data access and analysis. I
 23
will refer to the assumptions, limitations, scope, and delimitations related to the study.

Finally, I will address protection of the study participants’ rights.

In Section 3, I will present the findings with the description and goals, rationale,

and review of the literature. I also will describe the implementation, potential barriers,

proposal for implementation and timetable, roles and responsibilities, project evaluation,

and implications of social change.

In Section 4, I will discuss the project strengths and recommendations for

remediation of limitations. I will discuss what I learned about the scholarship, the project

development, leadership and change, myself as a scholar, self as a practitioner, and self as

a project developer. I will address the potential impact on social change, implications,

applications, and directions for future research.

 24
Section 2: The Methodology

This section contains a description of the quantitative method and procedures

used to access and analyze archival data for this study. The rationale for the use of a

quantitative method was that TELPAS scores did not show an overall significant

difference in language proficiency for students at the campus utilizing CALL to support

language proficiency when compared to students at a campus not using CALL. TELPAS

rates student proficiency level in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, and in order to

support CALL, professional development that provides strategies in all domains of

TELPAS could help improve impact on student language proficiency when using CALL.

The professional development project will address the problem of CALL not providing a

significant increase in language proficiency on the posttest TELPAS assessment

compared to a group of students not using CALL.

The purpose of this research was to investigate whether CALL helps English

language learners to improve their English language proficiency. I used the quantitative

approach and sampling to determine if CALL helped increase language proficiency

among English language learners in Grades 3–5 in the study district. The analysis

compared two groups of English language learners in Grades 3–5, with one group using

CALL and the other acting as a comparison group by not using CALL. Student test score

data were archival, using two schools in the same district, only one of which had

implemented CALL. This comparison determined whether CALL helped students to

improve their language proficiency. I conducted the comparison to determine and

recommend support structures for English language learners to improve English language
 25
proficiency. I will share the data analysis and results from this study with the institution’s

leadership team for use in decisions regarding implementation to increase student English

proficiency and academic success.

Research Design and Approach

The quantitative research design for this study was a nonequivalent, pretest-and-

posttest design with a measurement of outcomes for a treatment group and a comparison

group (Creswell, 2012; Rovai, Baker, & Ponton, 2014). The two groups were English

language learners who attended two elementary schools in a South Texas school district.

The groups were similar with regard to demographics although not comparable when

comparing TELPAS pretest scores. The treatment group used CALL, and the comparison

group did not use CALL (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010). The groups selected

were not similar in the number of students who participated in the bilingual/ESL

program; the campus participating in CALL had a higher number of English language

learners who had not exited from the bilingual/ESL program in Grades 3–5. The English

language learners had not developed a strong language proficiency and needed additional

support, such as a CALL program, to assist in building their language proficiency. The

students at the treatment school had a lower language proficiency level based on

TELPAS scores when compared to the school not participating in CALL. Although the

groups were not similar in the number of students who participated in the bilingual/ESL

program, the English language learners were similar in demographics, and both schools

had students in Grades 3–5 in the bilingual program. The archival TELPAS data from the

group of students who participated in CALL were compared to TELPAS scores for the
 26
group of students not involved in CALL. The comparison determined if participation in

CALL significantly impacted improvement in English language proficiency among

English language learners.

Justification

This nonequivalent, pretest-and-posttest design allowed comparison of the

increase in English language proficiency of two groups of students to determine whether

CALL contributed to language proficiency. I chose the two groups from two comparable

schools in the study district. The participants were not selected at random, and therefore

the sampling was not considered equivalent (Rovai et al., 2014). However, the selected

groups were as similar as possible, given that the assignment groups were not controlled

and archival data were used. The groups were different in the level of language

proficiency prior to the study (i.e., pretest TELPAS scores). At the treatment campus,

additional intervention via CALL was provided to the English language learners, whereas

the students who attended the comparison school only participated in classroom

instruction and did not receive additional support to assist in increasing language

proficiency.

The TELPAS was administered March 2016 and March 2017 to the student

groups whose data were used in the study. I collected archival TELPAS scores indicating

English proficiency levels. I analyzed TELPAS data for students who did not participate

in CALL and determined if there was a difference in the change in their proficiency level

compared to that of the students who did participate in CALL. As noted, the number of

students in the bilingual/ESL program was higher at the treatment school than at the
 27
comparison school. In addition, the students who attended the treatment school had lower

TELPAS pretest scores than those at the comparison school.

I used the quantitative design to compare the impact of one variable (use of

CALL) on another (student test scores showing language proficiency). I chose a

quantitative design over a qualitative design because quantitative research allows for

testing of a hypothesis (Lodico et al., 2010). The quantitative design represented

variables that were not controlled and only observed, and each of the variables was

clearly defined. This study would not fit a qualitative design; a qualitative study involves

a deeper understanding of a specific phenomenon (Creswell, 2012). In the quantitative

research, I analyzed data to determine if there was a statistical difference in change in

English proficiency levels (based on TELPAS scores) between those students who

participated in CALL and those who did not.

Under the quantitative umbrella, the experimental design includes an intervention,

control group, and randomized participants in the groups (Rovai et al., 2014). I chose to

use the quasi-experimental design instead of a true experimental design because, in a true

experimental design, the factors in the study are controlled and the participants are

randomly assigned to either the treatment or the comparison group. In a quasi-

experimental design, an intervention is implemented and the sample is not randomized

(Rovai et al., 2014). The students could not be randomly selected but were similar in

demographics; thus, I used the quasi-experimental design as the method of study. The

study involved a comparison between English language learners from one elementary and

another elementary. I reviewed the data to determine if there was a significant difference
 28
in change of proficiency level scores pre- to posttest between students who used CALL

and those who did not participate in CALL. The quantitative design I used was a quasi-

experimental design using archival pre- and posttest data (Drummond & Murphy-Reyes,

2018).

Design

I used the quantitative quasi-experimental design to identify whether CALL

contributed to the language proficiency of English language learners. This research study

focused on English language learner improvement in language proficiency related to

CALL strategies. The district includes 15 elementary schools, and I used convenience

sampling to select two elementary schools to participate in the study. The schools were

similar, with one campus implementing CALL and one not using CALL. One of the

chosen schools implemented Imagine Learning, a CALL reading program, to build on

student language proficiency. Schools in the district that have implemented Imagine

Learning provide 45 minutes of time each day for computer-assisted intervention.

Students receive CALL during intervention time as pull-out instruction using the school’s

computer lab. The students work independently on the computer, which allows students

to work at their pace. The other chosen school did not implement a CALL program.

English language learners who do not participate in CALL receive classroom instruction.

I selected a convenience sample of students, including all students in Grades 3–5 at the

two elementary schools in the bilingual/ESL program during the 2016–2017 school year.

English language learners take the TELPAS assessment each school year, and thus the

archival March 2016 (pretest) and March 2017 (posttest) TELPAS scores were available
 29
to review. I compared the students’ results from the TELPAS assessment to determine

any statistically significant increase in language proficiency levels.

Setting and Sample

Setting

The South Texas district has 15 elementary schools that provide the bilingual/ESL

program to English language learners. I selected two out of the 15 elementary schools to

participate in this study. One school had implemented the CALL program, Imagine

Learning; the other school had not implemented a CALL program for English language

learners. The two schools involved in the study had approximately 750 students and

served bilingual and mainstream students in kindergarten through fifth grade. At each of

the schools, the English language learners performed lower than their peers on the

TELPAS. The students from the treatment school had lower academic scores when

compared to the students from the comparison school. Therefore, the students from the

treatment school utilized CALL to assist in increasing their language proficiency and

thereby increase their academic scores. The elementary schools provided bilingual/ESL

support to English language learners and implemented the TELPAS assessment yearly.

Population

The population used for this study was from a South Texas school district of

22,000 students. The district student population at the time of the study was 62%

Hispanic, 25% African American, and 8% European American. Further, 72% of the

students were economically disadvantaged. This school district had an English language

learner population of 13%. A population of 132 English language learners in Grades 3–5
 30
who spoke Spanish attended the two elementary schools for the academic year 2016–

2017. Participating schools were Title I schools, with more than 40% of the students

being economically disadvantaged (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Following

Institutional Review Board approval, I obtained archival data in the form of TELPAS

scores.

Sampling Strategy

The sampling used in this study was a homogeneous sampling of English

language learners who participated in a bilingual program. The participants for this

sample were 106 English language learners in Grades 3–5 who spoke Spanish and

received bilingual/ESL services at the two elementary schools of the study. The treatment

group and comparison group were comparable in demographics, with both campuses

having 84% of students identified as economically disadvantaged and 25% of students of

limited English proficiency. The campuses both had English language learners who

struggled academically. In addition, the two campuses provided a bilingual/ESL program

in Grades 3–5. The students in the study received a composite TELPAS score in 2016 of

less than 3.5, representing less than advanced high proficiency in English. The

comparison group had more students who scored an advanced high (3.5–4.0) on the

pretest TELPAS than the treatment group, which reduced the number of comparison-

group students participating in the study. The sample size consisted of 57 students in the

treatment group and 49 in the comparison group. The exact number of students

participating in the study depended on the number of students who received a pretest and
 31
posttest TELPAS composite score and received an advanced high score (3.5–4.0) on the

pretest TELPAS composite score.

Sample Size

Using G*Power, a priori and post hoc analyses were conducted to determine the

sample size with a power of test at least 80% and an alpha of .05 with a medium effect

size of .50 to .60. A medium effect size is d = .50 (Cohen, 1988) and was appropriate for

this study (Buchner, Erdfelder, Faul, & Lang, 2017). Per the G*Power manual (Buchner

et al., 2017), I ran an a priori test for a one-tailed t test between two groups with

independent means with an effect size of .5, alpha of .05, and power of .80; results

indicated a minimum sample size of 102 (51 in each group) was needed for this study.

The post hoc test with the same parameters run with the two group sizes of 49 and 57

yielded a power of 81.7%. With this calculated sample size, G*Power determined an 82%

probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis of no difference between the

TELPAS composite scores for the English language learners.

Staff at the treatment school utilized TELPAS scores to determine if students

needed additional language support. Students from the treatment school participated in

CALL during intervention time to help increase their language proficiency. The treatment

campus had more bilingual/ESL students and students had lower pretest TELPAS scores

when compared to the students in the comparison school. The comparison school had

more students with an advanced high TELPAS score on the pretest, which eliminated

data from those students from use in the study. This greater number of proficient
 32
TELPAS scores at the comparison school reduced of the number of students who met

inclusion criteria.

Data were only used for students with both pre- and posttest archival scores. I did

not have any reason to think that missing data were not missing completely at random

(Little & Rubin, 1987). The missing data would consist of students not having a pre- or

posttest TELPAS assessment due to enrolling late and not attending the school the

previous school year or students with an advanced high (3.5–4.0) language proficiency

level on the pretest TELPAS composite score. To compensate for this possible missing

data in the dependent variable, larger groups were necessary. The original sample size

was 132. As data were missing for some students, 106 qualified to participate in the

study. With this purpose in mind, archival data were accessed for students in Grades 3–5

to achieve a total sample size of 106 students.

The ideal situation would have been not mixing students from two different

campuses. In this case, the district is an early-exit district, where most students exit from

the bilingual/ESL program in second or third grade. Students in Grades 3–5 typically

struggle to exit from the bilingual/ESL program because they have not built their

language proficiency. At most campuses in the study district, 20–40 bilingual students

remain in the bilingual program in Grades 3–5. Due to this circumstance, the only way to

increase the sample size was to add sample students from two similar campuses within

the same population, which was the solution taken in this case. As described earlier, the

campuses that participated in the study were similar in demographics, with 84% of

students identified as economically disadvantaged and 25% of limited English

 33
proficiency. The campuses had similar numbers of students who participated in the

bilingual/ESL program, with 68 students at the treatment campus and 64 students at the

comparison campus. The students in Grades 3–5 at the two campuses demonstrated lower

state assessment scores when compared to other students in Grades 3–5 in the district.

Eligibility Criteria of Participants

A total of 106 English language learners in Grades 3–5 met inclusion criteria for

the study; these students spoke Spanish as a native language and had participated in the

bilingual/ESL program at the study elementary schools. Students in the sample had

TELPAS scores from both 2016 and 2017 for comparison. Data from students who began

school at the beginning of the year and withdrew during the school year were considered

as incomplete or missing data. Although results were analyzed in aggregate, data were

only used for students with both pre- and posttest archival scores.

Recruitment

The district I used to conduct my study has several campuses with similar

demographics. I selected two elementary schools out of 15 schools to participate in the

study. One school implemented the CALL program, Imagine Learning. Schools involved

in the study had a bilingual/ESL program with more than 30 English language learners. I

used TELPAS data from 106 students from two elementary schools in the study.

Characteristics of the Sample

Data from the South Texas district consisted of TELPAS scores for 132 students,

68 who participated in CALL on Campus 1 and 64 who did not participate in CALL on

Campus 2. The campuses selected were similar in demographics and had students in
 34
Grades 3–5 in the bilingual/ESL program. In the treatment group, out of 68 bilingual/ESL

students who took part in the CALL program, 57 students were eligible to participate in

the study. Seven students scored advanced high on the TELPAS, and four students did

not have 2016 or 2017 TELPAS data. Of the 64 students who were bilingual/ESL

students in Grades 3–5 at the comparison school that did not provide CALL, 49 students

participated in the study in the comparison group. Ten students scored advanced high on

the TELPAS, and five students did not have 2016 or 2017 TELPAS data and therefore

were not eligible to participate in the study. There were 106 participants whose TELPAS

data met the criteria for participation, 57 in the treatment group and 49 in the comparison

group. The number of students participating in the study was less than the desired sample

of 62 students per group required for a .05 alpha, so the results of the study had a loss of

power. Because of this loss of power, CALL results were not conclusive.

Instrumentation and Materials

The data consisted of TELPAS composite scores for the students in the selected

elementary schools. I accessed archival data from the TELPAS composite scores for

speaking, reading, listening, and writing for English language learners from the prior

school year (March 2016) and the posttest TELPAS results for the current school year

(March 2017). The TELPAS composite scores were used to determine any significant

difference in language proficiency between pre- and posttest among those students who

participated in CALL and those who did not participate in the CALL.
 35
Concepts Measured by Instrument

The TELPAS measures student English language proficiency in four areas:

speaking, reading, listening, and writing. TELPAS scores are used to determine whether

students have achieved proficiency to exit the bilingual/ESL program. The reading and

listening scores are combined, as described below, to provide a comprehension score

(Texas Education Agency, 2016c). The composite language proficiency score was

derived from all four domains.

English language learners take the TELPAS assessment annually in the spring

semester each year. The TELPAS assessments rate English language learners on reading

through a multiple-choice test for students in Grade 2–12. The students take the reading

assessment online with trained testing administrators. The teacher and second rater give

holistic ratings to students in kindergarten through Grade 12 in listening, speaking, and

writing. The TELPAS measures the progress of language development in English

language learners in listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The English language

learner student receives a composite score based on the holistic rating and reading score.

The scores are combined to determine the composite score for each student. District staff

review the scores before the end of the school year.

Calculation of Scores

Texas education leaders provide the district with a TELPAS comprehension and

composite score for determining if English language learners are making progress on

English language proficiency each year. To determine the comprehension score, the

proficiency ratings from listening and reading are combined. The ratings of beginning,
 36
intermediate, advanced, and advanced high are converted to numerical scores of 1, 2, 3,

and 4, respectively. The reading and listening scores are averaged together to create the

comprehension score (Texas Education Agency, 2016c). To determine the composite

language proficiency score, the proficiency rating from each of the language domains is

converted from beginning to advanced high to numerical scores of 1–4. The scores are

weighted and added together to create the composite score. As shown in Table 1, the

listening and speaking scores have a weight of 1, compared to a weight of 3 for writing

and 5 for reading.

The composite score is then changed to a composite rating (Texas Education

Agency, 2016c). The holistic rating (beginning, intermediate, advanced, advanced high)

is converted into a numerical score (1–4) in listening, speaking, reading and writing. The

numerical scores are multiplied with the weight scores and then added together to get the

composite score, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Example of Composite Rating on the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment

System

2016 Weight Student Student Multiply by Composite

composite of the holistic converted appropriate Composite rating
rating scores rating score weight rating values
Listening 0.10 Advanced 3 3 x .10 Beginning 1.0–1.4
Speaking 0.10 Intermediate 2 2 x .10 Intermediate 1.5–2.4
Reading 0.50 Intermediate 2 2 x .50 Advanced 2.5–3.4
Writing 0.30 Advanced 3 3 x .30 Advanced high 3.5–4.0
Composite (3 × .10) + (2 × .10) + (2 × .50) + (2 × .30) = 2.4 Intermediate = 2.4
score
 37
Reliability and Validity

The TELPAS is administered to each English language learner student annually.

Trained testing administrators administer the TELPAS, monitored by the campus testing

coordinator. Administrators have to sign an oath after training indicating they will follow

state guidelines (Texas Education Agency, 2016c).

To determine interrater reliability on the TELPAS, teachers are trained on how to

use the rating rubrics and the proficiency level descriptors that correlate with the English

language proficiency standards. The ratings are determined by classroom observations

and student written work. On the writing portion of the assessment, the testing

administrator has a second rater to review the writing collections (Texas Education

Agency, 2016b). Trained qualified raters collaborate to determine the ratings of students

who are between two proficiency levels. Teachers who do not pass the training are

considered nonqualified raters. For interrater reliability, a nonqualified rater works under

the supervision of a qualified rater who signs and certifies the students’ ratings. Through

this process, the reliability and validity are consistent with the evaluation of the TELPAS

holistic ratings (Texas Education Agency, 2016b).

District staff receive the TELPAS reports with the individual scores from the

Texas Department of Education. Districts can receive additional scores by contacting the

TELPAS Management System. The reports furnished by the state are considered

confidential reports.

Researchers used the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 to calculate the reliability

estimates for TELPAS (Texas Education Agency, 2016a). For the Spring 2016 TELPAS
 38
reading tests, internal consistency showed excellent reliability, ranging from .92 to .93

(Texas Education Agency, 2016a). For each subgroup of items (beginning, intermediate,

advanced, and advanced high), reliability statistics ranged from .74 to .87. Classification

accuracy for 2016 Grade 4–5 assessments was deemed at 82%; for Grade 3 it was 81.3%

(Texas Education Agency, 2016a).

Archival Data Access and Analysis

Data Access Processes

The TELPAS scores of English language learners are kept on file by the district

testing coordinator at the district. Each campus testing coordinator has a record of grade-

level TELPAS scores and individual scores for students who attended the school.

TELPAS scores were provided in an electronic format to the district, and individual

reports were sent to the district to be distributed to students. Each student received a

cumulative numerical composite score, as shown in the example in Table 1. The scores

used for the research consisted of the numerical scores for each composite rating. A copy

of archival data was accessed from 2016 and 2017. Upon Institutional Review Board

approval, the administrators at the two research sites accessed Grades 3–5 TELPAS

scores.

Nature of Scale for Variables

Assignment to condition is the independent categorical variable. In this case, there

were two conditions (e.g., students receiving CALL and students not receiving CALL).

Language proficiency score on the TELPAS was the dependent variable and on an

interval scale. I compared TELPAS composite results to determine if students using

 39
CALL increased their language proficiency more than students who did not use CALL. I

compared TELPAS composite scores with analysis of variance (ANOVA). Following

tests for normality and homogeneity of variances, if there were a significant difference

between the scores from pretest to posttest between groups, results would suggest CALL

had a positive impact. According to the Texas Education Agency (2016a), TELPAS

results provide a vertical scale score: “A vertical scale allows for the direct comparison of

students’ scores across grade levels in a particular subject. Student increases in vertical

scale scores provide information about the student’s year-to-year growth” (p. 14). The

change in composite score was used to compare language proficiency scores.

Analysis Utilized

I used ANOVA to compare student change in language proficiency by reviewing

the change in composite score in the comparison and treatment groups from pretest to

posttest. A priori power analysis was conducted using the software package, G*Power

(Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2013). The sample size of 106 students was analyzed

using G*Power analysis for a one-way ANOVA with two groups. Two analysis groups

were used in the study with a sample size of 106 students. The alpha of .05, a power test

at 80%, and a medium effect size (.50) were used. The effect size convention

recommendations are small (d = .20), medium (d = .50), and large (d = .80; Cohen,

1988). There was an 80% probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis of no

difference between the TELPAS composite scores for the English language learners with

the desired sample of 62 students per group. The research sample of 57 students in the

treatment group and 49 students in the comparison group was selected from the
 40
ESL/bilingual population from each elementary school. I attempted to accept as many

English language learners as possible, to provide an adequate effect size. Posthoc analysis

using G*Power yielded power of 81.7%. The sample had the characteristics of a

convenience sample because the sample consisted of English language learners who

participated in the ESL/bilingual program.

I calculated the increase in student composite scores for each group by subtracting

posttest (2017) TELPAS scores from pretest (2016) TELPAS scores. I compared the

change in student scores between the comparison group and the treatment group to

determine if the difference was statistically significant at p < .05. Statistically

significantly higher increases in scores among students in the treatment group would

suggest the CALL positively impacted English language learner achievement compared

to the control condition at the comparison school. Following Institutional Review Board

approval, archival student data were accessed.

Assumptions, Limitations, Scope, and Delimitations

Assumptions

The following assumptions were essential to this study. I assumed that the data

from the archival TELPAS data provided in this study were accurate. I assumed that both

the treatment group and comparison group selected to participate in the study would be

equivalent because they were chosen from the same type of population, but students from

each campus selected to participate in the study had various levels of language

proficiency. The treatment group had more students with low TELPAS scores on their

pretest and needing additional language proficiency support; these students received
 41
CALL. The treatment group also had more bilingual/ESL students in the program in

Grades 3–5 than the comparison group. The students who participated in the comparison

group had higher TELPAS scores on the pretest, causing the numbers of students in the

treatment and comparison group to be not equivalent.

Limitations

The generalization of the results of this study to other samples is limited because

the population only represents English language learners in Grades 3–5 at two elementary

schools studied. An additional limitation was that this study consisted of data from only

English language learners in Grades 3–5; there was no comparison of how students from

other grade levels performed on CALL. The results of this study pertain to only English

language learners in Grades 3–5 and did not apply to students from other grade levels. A

concern in regards to the implementation of CALL is the nonarticulated strategies

between CALL and classroom instruction, which could affect the overall domains on the

posttest TELPAS scores. If results showed statistical significance, other factors such as

exposture to extra vocabulary skills using phonological awareness, phonics, and oral

language skills could be used with the students to help increase their proficiency levels.

Finally, additional resources could be used as a supplement when using CALL to increase

the fidelity of the CALL implementation.

Scope and Delimitation

The study was limited to English language learners enrolled in a bilingual/ESL

program at each of the elementary campuses. Also, only two elementary campuses were
 42
studied to determine if CALL provided a significant difference in proficiency levels

based on the data from TELPAS.

The study was delimited to all students who participated in the CALL program.

The program used was Imagine Learning, so results cannot be generalized to other CALL

programs. Teachers and school administrators developed class lists. Some English

language learners did not participate in CALL. This study took place in one particular

academic school year. The data yielded in this study were not generalizable to other

years. An additional delimitation of this study was the use of archival data from the

TELPAS assessment rather than the collection of other data such as the state reading,

math, and science assessments.

Protection of Participants’ Rights

Following the district administrator’s agreement for me to conduct the study, I

gained access to archival data indicating TELPAS scores for English language learners in

Grades 3–5. The data were stored in a secure location in my home while I reviewed the

data and conducted the study. No description of the school or names of the students were

included in the findings. I have not identified the research site or its teachers, students, or

administrators. At the end of the research, the data will be stored for 5 years in my

personal archives and then destroyed. By keeping the participants’ identities confidential,

I am protecting the confidentiality of teachers, students, and administrators at the research

sites.

Raw data and tables accessed from the South Texas school district were

examined. The data the district provided were de-identified without student names for
 43
student confidentiality. Each student was labeled with a number for data collection. The

data were reviewed in aggregate.

Data Analysis Results

I analyzed the data to determine the effectiveness of the CALL program Imagine

Learning to improve language proficiency in English language learners. Based on the

theoretical framework of Levy’s (1997) method, I analyzed the data collected from the

study district to determine if the use of CALL to teach language skills was associated

with increased language proficiency in English language learners in Grades 3–5 by

comparing the language proficiency of students who received CALL to that of students

who did not receive CALL. The campus that received CALL was the treatment group,

and students who did not receive CALL attended the comparison school.

Archival data from the South Texas district consisted of TELPAS scores for 106

students, 57 who participated in CALL on the treatment campus and 49 who did not

participate in CALL on the comparison campus. The campuses selected were similar in

demographics and had students in Grades 3–5 in the bilingual/ESL program. The district

contact person for the CALL program, Imagine Learning, worked on determining which

campuses had bilingual/ESL students who participated in CALL and were similar in

demographics to the campus that had bilingual/ESL students and did not participate in

CALL. The district matched the students who participated in CALL with their TELPAS

data scores using their student ID number. Once the schools and the students who would

participate in the study were established, the district testing coordinator collected the

TELPAS data. The TELPAS data were then provided in a Microsoft Excel format.
 44
The data were separated by campus and then by grade level. I eliminated all the

data from students with an advanced high pretest TELPAS score (3.5–4.0) and then

eliminated the data of students who did not have both a pretest and posttest. This process

reduced the overall number of students whose data were used in the study. Once all the

unusable data were removed, I compared pre- and posttest data from the TELPAS

assessment for 2016 and 2017. The data were coded in different colors for scores

representing levels of beginner, intermediate, advanced, and advanced high to better

determine the number of students in each domain. The data were then reviewed to

determine the difference between the pretest and posttest composite score and whether

the difference was significant in the composite score and for each individual TELPAS

domain of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. The TELPAS assessment was given

to the students at the end of the 2016 school year as the pretest. The posttest was the

TELPAS given at the end of the 2017 school year. The TELPAS assessment was given to

all English language learners in Grades 3–5 to determine language proficiency. Once I

reviewed all the data, I analyzed the data using ANOVA.

Final Sample

In the treatment group, out of 68 bilingual/ESL students who took part in the

CALL program, 57 students met inclusion criteria for the study. Students who had a

TELPAS score of advanced high (3.5–4.0) were excluded from the study. Students with

an advanced high TELPAS score have a language proficiency comparable to a student

who is not considered an English language learner. Students with a TELPAS score of 3.4

and below in reading, writing, listening, and speaking were included in the study. Seven
 45
of the students had a composite score of 3.5 or above in 2016 and were not included in

the study. Four students did not have TELPAS data from either the pretest 2016 TELPAS

or posttest 2017 TELPAS and thus could not provide complete data to compare. Students

who did not have a TELPAS score for the pre- or posttest were excluded from the study.

Of the 64 students who were bilingual/ESL students in Grades 3–5 at the

comparison school that did not provide CALL, 49 students met inclusion criteria. Ten

students at the comparison school scored a 3.5 or higher on the composite score and were

not eligible for inclusion in the study. Five students did not have data from either pretest

2016 TELPAS or posttest 2017 TELPAS, and thus the scores were not calculated in the

study, as they could not be compared.

There were 106 participants whose TELPAS data met the inclusion criteria for

participation, 57 in the treatment group and 49 in the comparison group. The number of

students participating in the study was less than the desired sample of 62 students per

group, which resulted in decreased power and increased risk for type II error or the ability

to detect a significant difference between the two groups when a difference is exists.

Composite Score Analysis by Group

First, I conducted tests for normality. A Shapiro-Wilk test (Razali & Wah, 2011;

Shapiro & Wilk, 1965) and a visual inspection of each group’s histograms, normal Q-Q

plots, and box plots showed that the overall language proficiency composite scores were

not normally distributed in either group. I tested for skewness and kurtosis (Cramer,

1998; Cramer & Howitt, 2004; Doane & Seward, 2011). The test showed a skewness of -

.488 (SE = .316) and a kurtosis of -.299 (SE = .623) for those participating in CALL and
 46
a skewness of -.209 (SE = .340) and a kurtosis of -.455 (SE = .668) for those not

participating in CALL. Since testing for normality revealed nonnormally distributed

results, I used a nonparametric Levene’s test to verify the equality of variance in the

samples, or homogeneity of variance (Nordstokke & Zumbo, 2010; Nordstokke, Zumbo,

Cairns, & Saklofske, 2011). The Levene’s statistic for the test of homogeneity of

variances was .003, p = .954.

I conducted an analysis to determine if the composite score for the pretest and

posttest for both the treatment school and comparison school increased. I wanted to

determine which campus had a significant increase in the TELPAS scores when

comparing the pretest and posttest. Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for the pre- and

posttests for both treatment and comparison groups. I conducted a one-way ANOVA

within each group to determine whether the change from mean pretest TELPAS score in

2016 to posttest in 2017 was statistically significant. Results of the ANOVA indicated a

significant effect for the treatment group, F = 19.51721, p = .00002. The results indicated

that the students in the treatment group showed a statistically significant increase in

scores from pre- to posttest. Similarly, the results of the ANOVA indicated a significant

effect for the comparison group, F = 14.81145, p = .00021. The results indicated that

students who did not participate in CALL also showed a significant increase in language

proficiency, as measured by TELPAS scores. The students at the treatment school

participated in CALL, and the comparison-school students participated in classroom

instruction. The means and standard deviations for the composite scores are in Table 2.
 47
Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Pre- and Posttest Language-Proficiency Composite Scores,

Treatment and Comparison Groups

Pretest: 2016 TELPAS Posttest: 2017 TELPAS

Scores Grades 2–4 Scores Grades 3–5
Mean
Group N M SD M SD increase
Treatment 57 2.668 0.557 3.133 0.567 0.465***
Comparison 49 2.337 0.573 2.847 0.730 0.510***
Note. TELPAS = Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System. Scores on a
scale of 1–4, with 4 representing advanced high proficiency.
***p < .001.

Composite Score Analysis Between Groups

I conducted a one-way ANOVA on the change in scores from pretest to posttest

between treatment and comparison groups. I took the composite scores from both the

treatment and the comparison group to determine the difference between the pretest and

posttest scores. I then conducted an analysis on the difference between the scores for both

the treatment group and comparison group. Table 3 shows descriptive statistics for the

change for the pre- and posttests for both treatment and comparison groups. I compared

the scores between each group to determine whether the increase between the pretest and

posttest was significantly different between the treatment and comparison schools. The

mean change between the posttest TELPAS score 2017 and pretest TELPAS score 2016

was analyzed. The difference in the change in scores from pretest to posttest was not

significant between treatment and comparison groups, F = 0.0108, p = .917428. The

mean and standard deviations for the difference in composite scores are in Table 3.
 48
Table 3

Difference Between Pre- and Posttest Language-Proficiency

Composite Scores, Treatment and Comparison Groups

Change in composite score

Group N M SD
Treatment 57 0.4789 0.5573
Comparison 49 0.4673 0.5907

When comparing the treatment group and the comparison group, both groups

showed a statistically significant increase in the language-proficiency composite score on

the 2017 posttest, compared to the 2016 pretest. Both groups had a similar number of

students who did not make any progress and a small group of students who regressed in

their composite score when comparing 2016 and 2017 TELPAS scores. The number of

students in each group whose scores increased, decreased, or stayed the same is shown in

Table 4. For the treatment group, 28 students (49.1%) increased their score by 0.5 or

more points; for the comparison group, 26 students (53.1%) increased their score by 0.5

or more points.

Table 4

Number and Percentage of Students Showing Increase, Decrease, or No Change in

Composite Score on the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System

Increased score Score unchanged Decreased score

Group N n % n % n %
Treatment 57 43 75.4 6 10.5 5 8.8
Comparison 49 36 73.5 5 10.2 8 16.3
 49
I compared the pretest means to see if they were significantly different between

groups. Pretest means were significantly lower among the treatment group than the

comparison group, F = 9.114, p = .00319 (see Table 2). This initial difference might have

impacted the study findings. A possible reason for the selection-regression threat was that

the treatment group was at a disadvantage; the treatment school had students with lower

TELPAS scores on the pretest. This outcome pattern may exist in studies in which the

CALL program was used without teachers providing additional support in the classroom.

CALL programs such as Imagine Learning are designed to help address reading skills

and assist in increasing language proficiencies among English language learners

receiving support from the teacher in the classroom (Heller & Carter, 2015). For instance,

educational programs that allow for student collaboration and student interaction have

been designed to help students with limited language skills and performing poorly

academically when compared to their peers (James, 2014). Most English language

learners are performing poorly before entering the bilingual/ESL program (Sanchez,

2017). Prior differences between the groups might have affected the outcome of the

study.

The comparison group showed a slightly higher increase from pre- to posttest but

also began with a statistically significantly lower mean score on the pretest. More

students in the treatment group had language proficiency composite scores lower than

advanced high (3.5–4.0) when compared to the comparison group, causing the number of

students participating in the study to be larger for the treatment group than the
 50
comparison group. Further analysis was conducted on each domain on the TELPAS:

listening, reading, writing, and speaking.

Further Analysis by TELPAS Domain

To gain a better understanding of how CALL impacted student language

proficiency, I conducted an analysis for each of the TELPAS domains. The TELPAS

assessed four domains in English: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. The

composite score tested above combined those four domains. The treatment campus at the

study district used CALL as an intervention to assist students in increasing their language

proficiency. The CALL program focused on reading by utilizing phonemic and

vocabulary skills that build on language skills. Results of the analysis of each domain for

both treatment and comparison groups are shown in Table 5.

 51
Table 5

Descriptive Statistics for Pre- and Posttest TELPAS Scores, Treatment and Comparison
Groups, by Domain

Pretest: 2016 TELPAS Posttest: 2017 TELPAS

scores Grades 2–4 scores Grades 3–5
Domain and Mean
group M SD M SD increase
Reading
Treatment 2.40 0.73 2.96 0.80 0.561***
Comparison 2.04 0.71 2.45 0.87 0.408*
Writing
Treatment 2.61 0.62 2.96 0.71 0.351**
Comparison 2.43 0.65 3.14 0.79 0.714***
Speaking
Treatment 3.21 0.73 3.70 0.57 0.4491***
Comparison 2.80 1.03 3.35 0.83 0.551**
Listening
Treatment 3.61 0.70 3.91 0.29 0.298**
Comparison 3.02 0.91 3.45 0.74 0.429*
Note. Treatment N = 57; comparison N = 49. TELPAS = Texas English Language
Proficiency Assessment System. Scores on a scale of 1–4, with 4 representing advanced
high proficiency.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

For reading, speaking, and listening, the comparison group showed a statistically

significantly lower pretest score than the treatment group. The between-group change in

score was not statistically significant for any of the individual domains. Notably, the

treatment group showed more of an increase than the comparison group in reading, the

only domain with that result. Domain-specific findings suggested that CALL helped the

treatment group but only in reading, the focus of the program. In addition, the analysis
 52
suggested teachers using CALL were not emphasizing the areas of writing, listening, and

speaking to assist students to become proficient in English. To aid students in all

language domains, teachers may use instructional strategies that allow for student

collaboration and interaction along with the use of CALL (James, 2014). For successful

integration of CALL, teachers need to be trained on how to implement CALL and how

classroom instruction can support CALL to increase language proficiency (Mahdi, 2013).

If use of CALL is to continue, the results supported providing additional staff

development to teachers to provide additional strategies in writing, speaking, and

listening to English to support lower performing English language learners. The staff

development should be implemented using CALL and other applications to ensure proper

CALL implementation for language learning. Furthermore, teachers should be familiar

with the latest trends on how to teach English language learners (Mahdi, 2013).

Conclusion

In the second section, I discussed how I used quantitative research to compare two

groups of English language learners using a nonequivalent-group, pretest-and-posttest

design. I analyzed measures of the TELPAS outcome from students using CALL and a

comparison group not using CALL to determine whether CALL contributed to the

academic success of English language learners. I analyzed scores from 106 English

language learners from two elementary schools. The sample consisted of English

language learners in Grades 3–5 who had a TELPAS composite score lower than 3.5

(advanced high) on the 2016 TELPAS, as a higher score would lead to an exit from the

bilingual/ESL program. I analyzed TELPAS assessment scores to determine if there were

 53
a significant difference in change in proficiency levels of English language learners

between the treatment and comparison groups. After I received Institutional Review

Board approval, I contacted the administrator responsible for Grades 3–5 CALL program

Imagine Learning and TELPAS scores. Participants of the study were anonymous, and

the school names were not included in the research.

Results indicated no statistically significant difference in language-proficiency

score increase between students who participated in CALL and those who did not

participate in CALL, and therefore results did not support the hypothesis. In addition, due

to the loss of power, the study of CALL was not conclusive, as the sample size was less

than expected. The results indicated that English language learners who participated in

the CALL under study, Imagine Learning, did not perform better than the comparison

group. Previous research (e.g., James, 2014; Naraghizadeh & Barimani, 2003; J. Li et al.,

2014) showed CALL helps improve language proficiency. In this study, CALL did

improve students’ proficiency statistically significantly (see Tables 2 and 5). However,

students receiving classroom instruction without CALL also showed statistically

significant improvement.

One possible cause is the deficient application of CALL in the classroom and the

nonarticulated strategies between CALL and classroom. CALL only helps with reading,

whereas the TELPAS domains include writing, listening, and speaking assessments of

proficiency. Hence, if CALL is to be used to improve student reading skills, teachers

need to learn instructional strategies in the classroom to support CALL in writing,

listening, and speaking, the other domains on the TELPAS. Thus, I proposed creating
 54
professional development for teachers on how to use and apply additional strategies to

support CALL or other reading programs and how to articulate them inside the classroom

teaching. Future queries about the effectiveness of CALL and its impact on language

proficiency should evaluate data for a longer period to determine any significant growth

in language proficiency when utilizing CALL. Additionally, classroom strategies in

combination with the program Imagine Learning should be investigated. Section 3

describes the project used to address the research questions and discusses findings.
 55
Section 3: The Project

Overview

Results of this study showed that the use of CALL did not increase English

language learners’ proficiency on the TELPAS as compared with that of a comparison

group not using CALL. CALL helps students with reading English but does not address

writing, speaking, and listening skills, which are assessed by the TELPAS. The CALL

program, Imagine Learning, is designed to assist English language learners with

vocabulary development, including academic language. Students should receive engaging

activities that allow for differentiation among the English language learners (Cassady,

Smith, & Thomas, 2017). To implement CALL effectively, teachers need to recognize

the learning needs of the individual students, make careful consideration when utilizing

technology, review the content offered to the student, and develop effective techniques to

assist in CALL implementation (Mahdi, 2013). This project was intended to assist

teachers and administrators in supplementing CALL use with classroom strategies to

increase student language proficiency in all areas, assisting in academic performance

(Mahdi, 2013). Longberg (2012) found that when CALL literacy intervention is

implemented to support language and literacy acquisition of English language learners,

multiple literacy strategies that involve student interaction and collaboration should be

implemented along with CALL to help support students. Therefore, resources for

teachers can supplement the use of CALL in all TELPAS domains to increase language

proficiency; previous research suggested that CALL could be effective when

implemented with additional resources (Bailey & Carroll, 2015; Longberg, 2012).
 56
The results of this study indicated that English language learners who participated

in CALL continued to struggle to increase their language proficiency. One possible cause

is the inadequate implementation of CALL in the classroom and the nonarticulated

strategies between CALL and classroom and between CALL and the domains of the

TELPAS. Providing English language learners with the opportunity to have

conversations with academic vocabulary and to practice listening comprehension through

conversations assists students in building language proficiency (Cassady et al., 2017).

Therefore, I created professional development for teachers on how to use and apply

CALL strategies and how to implement effective strategies in the classroom to address

the TELPAS domains of writing, listening, and speaking English. Professional

development will provide teachers with ways to implement classroom strategies that

support CALL or other reading programs as an intervention to educate English language

learners. In this section, I provide details of the project and discuss my goals and

rationale for developing this professional development training.

Description

I investigated the results of using CALL to improve proficiency levels in English

language learners. Results suggested use of CALL without additional classroom

strategies was not sufficient to help increase student scores on all the domains of the

TELPAS. A 3-day professional development training will be implemented. This project

will provide teachers, including administrators, with a learning opportunity to increase

student proficiency in speaking, writing, and listening in English by offering teachers

 57
strategies to engage students in discussions, writing, and critical thinking for academic

success.

The professional development will consist of 3 full days of training that will

highlight strategies to assist teachers in the implementation of best classroom practices

that support CALL in all domains of the TELPAS that lead to language proficiency. This

3-day professional development will consist of 6 hours of training each day. Teachers

will learn how to read TELPAS data to help them understand student proficiency levels

before school begins and how to incorporate listening, speaking, and writing strategies to

support CALL.

On Day 1 of training, the focus will be to analyze students’ end-of-the-year

TELPAS data to give teachers an understanding of language proficiency levels and

provide strategies to support classroom use of CALL to increase student language

proficiency. Teachers will learn the history of CALL and how previous research

suggested that it contributes to language proficiency for second language learners.

Teachers will receive a copy of students’ TELPAS data to review and interpret. The

participants will utilize the data to make connections with TELPAS and CALL and how

teachers can support their students. Discussions throughout the training will engage

teachers in the learning experience.

On Day 2 of training, teachers will learn about the sheltered instruction

observation protocol (SIOP) that addresses background knowledge and comprehensible

input strategies (Echevarría, Vogt, & Short, 2013; Kareval & Echevarría, 2013). The

teachers will have meaningful discussions and opportunities to write.

 58
On Day 3 of training, the teachers will learn strategies using CALL to increase

student language proficiency in listening, speaking, and writing. At the end of each

training session, teachers will evaluate the professional development and provide input on

how to improve the trainings. The participants will receive a 1-hour lunch break and six

10-minute breaks each day. Teachers will engage in cooperative learning activities,

PowerPoint presentations, and dialogue. Participants will conclude the training with an

in-depth discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of using CALL in the classroom

as a resource.

Goals

Currently, English language learners struggle to perform at the same level as their

peers. Teachers have noted that they need additional resources to help support English

language learners in the classroom. English language learners at the site have shown a

lack of self-confidence in learning a new language. CALL was implemented at the study

district to build on reading fluency and comprehension and assist with language

proficiency. Based on my findings from reviewing the language proficiency of the

English language learners, students using CALL on the study campuses showed no

significantly greater increase in overall language proficiency than students not using

CALL. The difference between using CALL and not using CALL could become greater

when supplemental resources are used with CALL (Grgurović et al., 2013). On the study

campus, CALL is currently being used as an intervention aside from classroom

instruction. Teachers need to have an understanding of how to meet the needs of English

language learners. The project for this study was to determine if CALL contributed to
 59
language proficiency among English language learners in a school district in South

Texas, since English language learners had fallen below their peers on academic

achievement (Murphey, 2014).

Therefore, this professional development will provide teachers with strategies to

engage students in the activities and address the needs of English language learners in the

classroom. Teachers will understand the purpose of CALL and how to analyze and use

the data in the classroom for instruction, and they will determine what lessons impact

student language proficiency. Because of the professional development, teachers will

learn how to implement various strategies to increase overall language proficiency.

Rationale

The CALL program selected was implemented in a South Texas school district to

English language learners. The district has used the program for several years and pays

for the program for schools with a large number of bilingual students. The teachers like

the program because they are able to track student progress. The TELPAS scores did not

show an overall significant difference in language proficiency for students at the campus

utilizing CALL to support language proficiency when compared to students at a campus

not using CALL. CALL only appeared to help with the reading domain of TELPAS. The

professional development project will address the problem of CALL not providing a

significant difference in language proficiency on the posttest TELPAS assessment.

TELPAS measures listening, speaking, reading, and writing to increase language

proficiency, whereas CALL focuses on the reading component on TELPAS to build on

phonemic awareness, decoding, concept to print, vocabulary, fluency, and

 60
comprehension. Therefore, the staff development will address the listening, speaking, and

writing domains to support English language learners. By providing support in listening,

speaking and writing, all components of the TELPAS domains will be addressed to assist

in improving language proficiency among English language learners.

I chose to do the staff development on listening, speaking, and writing to address

the needs of the students in the TELPAS domains that are not addressed when students

utilize CALL as a supplemental resource. Providing the teachers with staff development

in listening, speaking, and writing will support reading in all of the language domains on

TELPAS. Listening, speaking, and writing can be subjective when measuring these

components on TELPAS. Providing teachers with staff development on how to increase

student participation in the classroom will allow students to listen and speak to other

students and build on language proficiency (Hill & Miller, 2013).

This project could enhance how teachers address the needs of English language

learners and thus increase language proficiency. Because of this training, educators will

gain knowledge on the implementation of CALL and how specific strategies can support

English language learners. The training will address strategies that focus on speaking,

listening, and writing for English language learners, whereas CALL does not, focusing

only on reading. The information the staff will receive can contribute to improving

student language proficiency and academic success. The participants will engage in

discussions on how to support English language learners and strategies to support CALL

and increase language proficiency in each domain of the TELPAS.

 61
Review of the Literature

Appropriateness of Professional Development Approach

In this literature review, I determined professional development as the best

approach to disseminate information based on the findings from the quantitative study on

the success of CALL to increase language proficiency. The center of the study was to

determine if use of CALL resulted in an increase in the language proficiency among

English language learners from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. CALL is

utilized in isolation rather than in combination with classroom instruction, which could

have contributed to lack of a significant difference between the treatment and comparison

groups. For this reason, professional development will provide teachers will additional

resources and instructional strategies needed to support CALL and contribute to

increasing language proficiency. I highlighted Levy’s (2009) theory on CALL to support

professional development as an appropriate method. I researched topics such as ways to

increase language proficiency, CALL, sheltered instruction, the SIOP model, background

knowledge, and instruction for English language learners as a framework for this

professional development.

I used the following databases to locate references for the literature review:

Google Scholar, Education Research Complete, ProQuest, and the Walden University

library. I focused on studies that contained information on English language learner

strategies that support CALL. Search terms included CALL for English language learner

students, SIOP strategies, SIOP model, computer-assisted language learning with

instructional resources, writing strategies for ELL students, listening and speaking
 62
strategies for ELL students, literacy strategies for bilingual students, CALL affects

literacy, and English language learning strategies.

Professional development is an appropriate project to increase teachers’

instructional knowledge of language proficiency with the use of CALL and instructional

strategies. Second language learners learn in a variety of ways to build on language

proficiency. This staff development will provide teachers with strategies they can take

back to the classroom to support CALL. Providing the teachers with understanding and

strategies of how to incorporate opportunities for students to use listening, speaking and

writing skills will help students achieve language proficiency. Teacher also will gain an

understanding of the SIOP strategies that provide teachers with ways to engage students

in the learning process. The literature review includes evidence supporting professional

development as the framework for this project. The design of the professional

development focuses on strategies that will support CALL to increase language

proficiency and academic success among English language learners.

Theory and Research Supporting the Project

This research study explored CALL and its impact on English language learners

in Grades 3–5. The data collected for the study were the language proficiency scores on

the pretest 2016 TELPAS and the 2017 posttest TELPAS assessment. English language

learners take the TELPAS each year to monitor the progress of their language

proficiency. In this study, I compared two campuses, one that implemented CALL and

one that did not implement CALL. Students on the study campus that implemented

CALL participated in the CALL program, Imagine Learning. CALL is an intervention

 63
designed to accelerate students’ language proficiency (Bailey & Carroll, 2015). Students

receiving CALL as an intervention use a computer to read passages and participate in oral

reading fluency with some graphs. CALL monitors student progress and provides

baseline scores on the student’s reading fluency (Barber, 2015).

Bilingual/ESL teachers are trained to understand how linguistic and cultural

norms are provided to English language learners; this helps them to address both the new

and old languages students are learning (Chun, Smith, & Kern, 2016). The data in my

study led me to conclude other resources are needed to support CALL and increase

language proficiency among English language learners. CALL is designed to increase

reading fluency and comprehension that build English proficiency (Lin, 2014); thus,

other resources need to be provided to increase listening, speaking, and writing skills that

affect the overall TELPAS domains. Z. Li and Hegelheimer (2013) as well as James

(2014) mentioned that CALL should not replace instruction in the classroom, which

means teachers need to be trained on how to implement instructional strategies to engage

students in talking, listening, and writing to support the CALL reading-based

intervention. CALL creates limited interaction among students (L. Hsu, 2013; Levy,

1997). Providing teachers with additional strategies may engage students in the learning

by speaking, listening, and writing what they are learning. By implementing the staff

development strategies, students will begin to increase language proficiency that affects

the domains of TELPAS.

How CALL affects literacy. This study focused on Levy’s (1997, 2009)

approach to using CALL to teach language skills that support academic achievement.
 64
This theoretical framework uses technology to increase language proficiency for second

language learners. CALL is a tutor-like approach where students work independently on

literacy skills to build on their language (Levy, 2009). The TELPAS assessments are

designed to monitor student progress yearly in the English language in four domains:

listening, speaking, reading, and writing. As TELPAS is used to determine language

proficiency, other domains (listening, speaking, and writing) need to be addressed to

increase language proficiency.

Helping English language learners develop language proficiency is a priority. To

better understand academic language, students must develop their basic interpersonal

communicative skills and CALP (Cummins, 1979). Basic interpersonal communicative

skills allow students to communicate in a social setting. CALP provides the students with

the academic language and cognitive skills needed to be successful in the classroom.

Training teachers and providing students with the opportunity to engage in lessons that

consist of problem-solving, interpreting meaning, evaluating evidence, and working

collaboratively will contribute to CALP (Cummins, 1979; Sabzian & Gilakjani, 2013).

Research has shown that when implementing CALL with English language

learners, students also should be exposed to various strategies that support CALL

(Longberg, 2012). The results from the study show that CALL targeted reading skills of

English language learners. To implement CALL effectively, teachers have to determine

the needs of their students, review classroom strategies, and use additional resources in

addition to CALL implementation (Cassady et al., 2017). CALL can be effective if

teachers of English language learners support students by providing a variety of strategies

 65
in language proficiency (Cassady et al., 2017). Intervention resources for English

language learners who do not demonstrate language proficiency should include activities

that are aligned with the state standards and link to CALL with targeted skill areas

(Heller & Carter, 2015).

The CALL program used in this study was Imagine Learning, which focuses on

reading that builds on the literacy skills of English language learners. Students who

participate in CALL strengthen their decoding skills and build on their oral reading

(Heller & Carter, 2015). Vocabulary is the key element of comprehension when reading.

Vocabulary words need to be selected for specific questions and lessons (Heller & Cater,

2015). By providing students with activities specific to the words introduced in the

lesson, students will have a better understanding of what they will be reading. Using

vocabulary has shifted from memorization to students becoming familiar with the words

and how they are used in context (Van der Kleij, Feskens, & Eggen, 2015). Whereas

students use CALL to master vocabulary and reading skills, strategies that focus on

listening, speaking, and writing in the classroom can assist in increasing the proficiency

levels in the other domains of TELPAS. To do this, teachers need to implement listening,

speaking, and writing strategies in the classroom. By providing strategies in combination

with CALL, students will become more successful academically (C. K. Hsu, Hwang, &

Chang, 2013; James, 2014).

Listening, speaking, and writing. When CALL is implemented as an

intervention, listening, speaking and writing are not a focus of instruction. Because

CALL’s focus was reading and building language, the three areas of listening, speaking,
 66
and writing were not addressed fully during the intervention time. Students participating

in CALL do not have an opportunity to speak with each other or work with each other, as

it is a computer-based program that works with only vocabulary and literacy skills that

build on language acquisition. To get a better idea of how to support English language

learners as they work on CALL, I will go deeper into the benefits of implementing

listening, speaking, and writing skills to engage students and support CALL. Through the

implementation of these strategies, students may increase their overall language

proficiency. For English language learners, exposure to literacy activities that focus on

listening, speaking, and writing allows students to practice language acquisition that

builds on language skills (Echevarría et al., 2013).

Listening allows English language learners to comprehend what is being said

during the intervention (Richards, 2015). When CALL is being utilized, it is important

that students listen to the speaking accent, word pronunciation, and grammar (Kim,

2014). Listening is an important step for learning a second language (Nomass, 2013).

Utilizing CALL supports reading and may help improve listening skills; listening can be

improved by having students talk to each other (Kim, 2014). When students have the

opportunity to work collaboratively and listen, students also are more engaged in the

lesson and become academically successful (Motley, 2016).

When students are using CALL, students have an opportunity to listen throughout

the intervention but do not have the opportunity to speak. Students need the opportunity

to speak with each other to build on their language skills (Bunch, 2013; Echevarría et al.,

2013). If teachers group students with the same proficiency level, speakers and listeners
 67
can communicate better. Students begin to have meaningful conversations when they

work collaboratively with someone who has the same proficiency level. Providing the

students with sentence stems can help generate talking among the groups (Goldenberg,

2013). In addition, when teachers have students work collaboratively, with or without the

same proficiency level, students begin to increase language proficiency and have

meaningful discussions (Lys, 2013). Teachers can find activities that get the students to

work collaboratively and talk during the day. This interaction gives English language

learners the opportunity to become proficient in the new language.

Writing plays a role in the language development of English language learners.

When CALL is utilized, students are engaged in building reading skills and do not have

an opportunity to build on their writing skills. Listening is the often the first skill to

develop, following by speaking and reading; finally, writing develops as students begin to

express their ideas (Lys, 2013). Teachers struggle with teaching writing in the classroom,

as many English language learners have trouble putting their ideas on paper (Robertson

& Ford, n.d.). Students should be exposed to both formal and informal writing in all

content areas. When students are beginning to learn the structure of writing, providing

students with writing frames or templates should guide students as they write sentences

and brief paragraphs (Robertson & Ford, n.d.). By using graph organizers or sentence

stems, teachers can provide students with the support they need to begin thinking about

their writing (Motley, 2016). Students are not exposed to graphic organizers and formal

and informal writing while using CALL. With CALL, teachers lack the ability to

determine what type of writing the students will be exposed to during intervention time.
 68
The more support teachers can provide to students, the more successful students will

become in their writing (Motley, 2016).

To support CALL and build on language proficiency in reading, listening,

speaking, and writing, strategies can work together in the classroom that build on each of

the language proficiency domains on TELPAS that support CALL. One of the strategies

that bring the domains together is sheltered instruction. The professional development

will focus on the SIOP model to build on each of the language proficiencies that support

CALL and the overall increase in language proficiency.

The SIOP Model

The SIOP framework is a comprehensive academic intervention for students who

need to increase academic language proficiency. This framework can bridge this gap

between teachers and English language learners by fully supporting content instruction

while utilizing language strategies that incorporate reading, writing, speaking, and

listening (Echevarría et al., 2013; Vogt & Echevarría, 2015). Over the years, researchers

have shown that the SIOP model contributed to student success in learning grade-level

content while developing English language skills (Song, 2016). Students who utilize

CALL are exposed to self-directed learning that focuses on individual needs, learning

styles, or preferences (Son, 2014). The SIOP model focuses on grade-level content and

language objectives of the lesson provided to English language learners (Colorín

Colorado, n.d.; Echevarría et al., 2013). SIOP brings all the of the elements from

TELPAS into everyday instruction.

 69
Learning objectives. The learning objectives teachers use to guide their

instruction when teaching English language learners are the English Language

Proficiency Standards. To build on academic language, lessons should be drawn from

these standards (Kibler, Walqui, & Bunch, 2015). When students use CALL, the

standards are not a focus, and instruction is based on reading language skills. By

implementing SIOP strategies, teachers can facilitate students’ learning with CALL

(Echevarría et al., 2013). Teachers should be familiar with the English Language

Proficiency Standards and have a clear understanding of the objectives; this will assist in

lessons becoming more meaningful and allow for students to be engaged and involved in

the lesson. The English Language Proficiency Standards can be found in most district

curricula or can be located through the State of Texas website. The English Language

Proficiency Standards are described in the Texas Education Code (2017) section 74.4.

Building background knowledge. To build on CALL and support the other

domains of TELPAS to increase language proficiency, teachers must build on

background knowledge of the students. Building on background knowledge draws links

to what students already know and prepares them for what will be taught. Building on

background knowledge helps students to understand any new vocabulary to be learned

(Echevarría et al., 2013; J. Li, Cummins, & Deng, 2017). To build on background

knowledge, teachers can bring in past or present experiences while utilizing vocabulary

words that will be a focus of the lesson. Students with prior knowledge about a topic can

recall and elaborate aspects of the topic, allowing the students to build schema (Frost,

Siegelman, Narkiss, & Afek, 2013). Students can build schema when background
 70
knowledge has been established (Frost et al., 2013). However, teachers must be culturally

aware to determine students’ prior knowledge. Students from culturally diverse

backgrounds struggle to comprehend text or concepts because the schema of the text or

what is being taught may not match the schema of their cultural background (Echevarría

et al., 2013).

Comprehensible input. Comprehensible input means the language is received

and understood by the listener even though the student does not understand all of the

words or structures (Echevarría et al., 2013; Goldenberg, 2013). Students receive

comprehensible input while using CALL when words and sentences structures are

provided during the lesson. Students receive the information to build on their language

but may not always understand the language provided in the lesson. To support CALL,

teachers can create lessons using vocabulary that the students understand. Teachers also

can create shorter sentences with simpler syntax, pause between phrases, stress high-

frequency vocabulary words, provide directions orally and written, and model student

expectations (Frost et al., 2013). Teachers can provide an opportunity for guided practice

and hands-on practice. Teachers can utilize visual aids to support what is being learned

(Echevarría et al., 2013). Echevarría et al. (2013) stated that teachers need to explain

academic tasks clearly to ensure students accomplish the task successfully. When

utilizing CALL, exposing the students to various vocabulary words and sentence stems

before the lesson will assist the students in becoming successful.

Strategies. During the implementation of CALL, teachers can utilize classroom

strategies to engage students in the lesson. Teachers can bring back to the classroom what
 71
the students are learning while using CALL and provide clear instructional expectations

and implement questioning strategies that involve higher order thinking such as critical

thinking skills, predicting, problem solving, summarizing, evaluating, organizing, and

self-monitoring (Goldenberg, 2013). The teacher can scaffold the instruction (verbal,

procedural, and instructional) to offer students the support needed to make progress in

their language development (Echevarría et al., 2013). Teachers also can provide an

opportunity for students to practice what they have learned as well as time to work

independently. A strategy teachers can use is graphic organizers that assist visual learners

(Praveen & Rajan, 2013). In addition, students can use the talk, read, talk, write strategy,

which allows students to engage in discussion, read, discuss what they have written, and

then put their thoughts on paper (Motley, 2016). As students utilize CALL, teachers can

provide students with graphic organizers and other strategies that support the learning

during their intervention time. By utilizing various strategies, teachers can engage

students in language learning.

Interaction. One of the strategies CALL does not have is the opportunity for

students to interact with each other during intervention time. The teacher can group

students and provide them with opportunities to interact with their peers as they work

collaboratively (Blasco-Arcas, Buil, Hernández-Ortega, & Sese, 2013). Students can

work cooperatively on projects that allow for discussion (Goldenberg, 2013). Using

various strategies encourages students to interact and have meaningful conversations

(Echevarría et al., 2013). Allowing students to interact will reduce teacher talk and

encourage talk from the students.

 72
Practice and application. CALL provides the students the opportunity to

practice and apply what they are learning in the computer-based program, Imagine

Learning. Students may use the program to practice the strategies they have learned in

vocabulary and reading lessons (Echevarría et al., 2013). In this component of the SIOP

model, students need the opportunity to utilize hands-on activities and manipulatives

(Echevarría et al., 2013). Teachers can plan lessons relevant to the English Language

Proficiency Standards and provide students the opportunity to practice what they have

learned (Keengwe, Onchwari, & Agamba, 2014) as reading, writing, listening, and

speaking is integrated with the lessons.

English language learners continue to struggle in public schools with meeting

academic standards (Colorín Colorado, n.d.; Merriott, 2017). Providing students with the

opportunity to use CALL and additional strategies that support CALL can help English

language learners be successful. Teachers need to provide English language learners with

high expectations that support the vocabulary and reading skills CALL provides to the

students. Teachers need to be specific in their instruction and ensure they are

implementing the English Language Proficiency Standards that support all language

domains of TELPAS. As teachers utilize CALL and the various strategies that allow

students to become immersed in the learning, students will begin to understand the

content they are being taught, can build on their language, and can become academically

successful (Merriott, 2017).

 73
Project Description

The next step in implementing the project will be to make contact with district

personnel to determine the staff development days. I will work with the administration

and the curriculum department on determining 3 days during the school year to provide

staff development. The training will take place on district staff development days during

the school day or on a designated Saturday professional development day. The training

days will consist of 3 days of training that allow teachers to go back to their classroom to

implement strategies learned. I will determine the training based on what facilities the

district has available. I will ask campus administrators to recruit teachers to attend the

training that supports increasing English language learners’ language proficiency.

I will work collaboratively with the curriculum department one week prior to the

staff development to go over the PowerPoints and materials used for the 3-day training. I

will discuss with the department how the professional development can support teachers

in the classroom when utilizing CALL. The curriculum department will be asked to pull

TELPAS data for teachers who are attending the training. The TELPAS data will be

utilized during the staff development. I will follow up with the department a couple of

days prior to the training to ensure everything is ready for the training.

Potential Resources and Existing Supports

The proposed professional development training will be used as a guide to assist

teachers who work with English language learners to meet the needs of each student and

increase each student’s language proficiency. The specific resources needed for the 3-day

training will be a location that can hold more than 50 participants. Space will be set up to
 74
allow teachers to work collaboratively in groups and an area for teachers to walk around

to allow for space for the activities in the presentation. A PowerPoint presentation will be

used as a visual for teachers. I will work with district personnel to determine funds to

provide materials and resources to implement activities from the presentation. During the

3-day professional development training, participants will receive a copy of the

presentation, chart paper, sentence strips, graphic organizers, and various resources to

take back to the classroom. The resources that need to be copied will require paper, ink,

and access to a copy machine. During the staff development, I will prepare a sign-in

sheet, set up technology, and ensure all the participants have the all the necessary

materials to participate in the learning. The material for the professional development is

included as the appendix.

Potential Barriers

The potential barrier that may impact the effectiveness of the 3-day professional

development is the willingness of the teachers to implement the information in the

classroom. Some teachers may be concerned with the correlation between the training

and CALL. Teachers will be provided with various strategies throughout the year, and

teachers may look at this professional development as just another training. To decrease

the potential barrier, I plan to provide the teachers with an understanding of the history of

CALL and how CALL supports literacy and can increase the language proficiency among

English language learners. I also will provide hands-on activities to implement during the

3-day staff development that teachers easily can take back to the classroom.
 75
Proposal for Implementation and Timetable

The 3-day professional development will take place throughout the school year.

Each staff development day will consist of 6 hours of training with two 10-minute breaks

and a 1-hour lunch break. The training will take place during the school year to give

teachers an opportunity to review the previous year’s TELPAS data and take knowledge

back to the classroom to determine ways teachers can support English language learners

in the classroom while using CALL as an intervention. Presenting the information to

administrators and teachers will give the teachers new insight into planning for the school

year.

Roles and Responsibilities of Student and Others

My role and responsibility for this 3-day staff development will include ensuring

that space is available to present the training. I will work collaboratively with the district

to reserve a location with a capacity of 50 or more participants. Space will need to be

large enough for staff to move around and work collaboratively. I will be responsible for

setting up and organizing the tables to allow for the participants to work collaboratively. I

will be responsible for creating a sign-in sheet and making copies of the presentation,

enough for each participant. I also will be responsible for gathering materials for the

training. I will present to the participants, including providing hands-on activities and

collaboration. The administrators at the campus level will be responsible for inviting the

participants to the training and ensuring they are present. All the participants will be

responsible for attending the 3-day training and for being engaged in the training to

enhance language learning in the classroom.

 76
Project Evaluation Plan

The purpose of the 3 days of professional development is to provide 50 or more

teachers with classroom strategies that will support and supplement CALL and increase

language proficiency among English language learners. The goal of the professional

development is to assist teachers in providing the support English language learners need

to increase their language proficiency in the classroom by using CALL and using

additional classroom strategies that will lead to academic success. A professional

development formative evaluation and midyear and end-of-year survey will be provided

at the end of each staff development day to determine the effectiveness of the training.

The goal of the formative evaluation and surveys is to determine if providing the

information on CALL and instructional strategies that support English language learners

has a positive outcome to the participants, if the hands-on activities were appropriate, and

if the information provided will be utilized in the classroom. The evaluation will provide

feedback that will identify possible changes that can assist teachers in future training. The

evaluation is included as part of the appendix.

The participants will complete the formative evaluation at the end of Day 1 and

Day 2 of training. The information will be reviewed at the end of each training day to

determine if any changes need to occur for the next training day. If the feedback indicates

changes are needed, I will make changes to the presentation to ensure Day 2 and Day 3 of

staff development are successful. At the end of Day 3 of professional development, an

additional formative evaluation will be provided to determine whether any additional

changes should be made to the staff development. In addition to the formative evaluation
 77
at the end of each day of professional development, a survey will be provided to the

teachers who participated in the training at midyear and at the end of the year to

determine if implementing the classroom strategies with the implementation of CALL

has contributed in increasing student language proficiency. I will use the results of each

evaluation and survey to determine if additional changes need to be made for future

professional development. I also will use the information to determine if teachers will

utilize the information in the classroom to support CALL. District and campus

administrators may use the evaluation and survey information to determine if additional

training needs to be provided to the teachers to increase their knowledge on how to

support English language learners on how to increase language proficiency.

Project Implications

Local Community

This project likely will have a positive impact on classroom instruction by

providing professional development that will support CALL and build on autonomy. The

training will provide teachers with engaging strategies that increase learners’ motivation

through various teaching methods that increase language proficiency (Mutlu & Eroz-

Tuga, 2013). The 3-day professional development will give teachers instructional

strategies that will support CALL in a south Texas school district. The local problem in

the study district includes students who struggle academically due to a lack of English

support in the home and failure to increase their language proficiency in school. Students

utilize CALL as an intervention to increase their English language proficiency. The

purpose of this study was to determine if CALL significantly increased language

 78
proficiency among English language learners in Grades 3–5. Based on the data provided,

students who used CALL and did not use CALL increased language proficiency

significantly. No significant difference was found in proficiency between students on the

campus implementing CALL and the campus not implementing CALL. Students using

CALL showed greater increase on TELPAS scores in reading only, although it was not

statistically significant. If teachers or administrators choose to use CALL, the

professional development will give the teachers resources they can use in the classroom

to support and supplement CALL and increase student language proficiency. Helping

teachers understand how to utilize strategies for listening, speaking, and writing that

support the reading elements of CALL can help students increase their language

proficiency in each of the TELPAS domains. Participants in the training will learn how to

support English language learners in the TELPAS domains of listening, speaking,

writing, and reading. The participants can utilize the resources in the classroom to

facilitate increasing English language proficiency among English language learners.

Alternatively, if district leadership decides based on this study’s findings to

discontinue use of CALL, the professional development can be adapted accordingly.

Instruction on all four domains of TELPAS is emphasized in the professional

development. The professional development includes collaboration among teachers for

idea sharing as well as instruction on analyzing TELPAS results.

Far-Reaching Implications for Social Change

This project has the potential to influence the educational community in a South

Texas school district. English language learners have demonstrated inadequate reading
 79
levels, and in the surrounding district English language learners have lagged behind

academically. English language learners have struggled to understand English. This staff

development will help educators gain methods and strategies that support and supplement

CALL and can be implemented in the classroom to meet the needs of English language

learners. Many teachers are new to the profession or have not been trained on how to

work with English language learners; these teachers, as well as more experienced

teachers, will learn how to incorporate strategies that allow English language learners to

engage in meaningful learning to increase their language proficiency. When CALL is

used as an intervention, some teachers provide the intervention in isolation, thinking that

students will make progress in their language proficiency without further language

support. Teachers need strategies to help them support and supplement CALL. At the

conclusion of my project, administrators and teachers will gain strategies to engage

students in the learning process to support CALL in the TELPAS areas of listening,

speaking, and writing. The training will be a tool to support educators in using the CALL

program in language proficiency. Surrounding districts can utilize the literacy

components as a tool to increase language proficiency and support CALL.

Conclusion

In this section, I provided detailed information about the 3-day professional

development training to teachers. A literature review supporting the staff development

and strategies teachers can use in the classroom was included. The goal of the project is

to provide teachers with strategies and resources they can take back to the classroom that

supports English language learners while using CALL. The training will consist of the
 80
PowerPoint presentation shown in the appendix and hands-on activities that allow for

teacher collaboration. Based on the data collected, CALL did not have a significant

impact on English language learners’ TELPAS scores compared to a comparison group.

As CALL focuses on the reading portion of the TELPAS assessment, the staff

development is to provide resources to teachers that focus on the other domains of

TELPAS. Implementing listening, speaking, and writing strategies will supplement and

support the reading focus of CALL and likely have a greater impact on overall TELPAS

composite score. After implementing the professional development, the district may

utilize the strategies and see an increase in the language proficiency of English language

learners. Students may become motivated to learn through engaging activities. Section 4

provides a reflection, strengths, and limitations of the study, the development and

evaluation of the project, and the conclusion of the study. The section concludes with the

implications and possible research results of this study.

 81
Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions

The professional development in this project will provide educators with

strategies for English language learners to support CALL by emphasizing listening,

speaking, and writing skills (Nomass, 2013). By supporting and supplementing CALL,

the strategies will assist in increasing the language proficiency among English language

learners and increase their overall composite score on TELPAS. The training is to

provide strategies to meet the needs of English language learners by increasing language

proficiency that contributes to academic success. Students were administered the

TELPAS in 2016 as the pretest before participating in CALL. The students participated in

CALL during the 2016-2017 school year and were then administered the 2017 TELPAS

assessment. I compared the data from the study campus participating in CALL to the data

from the campus that did not participate in CALL to determine any significant

differences in language proficiency based on the TELPAS assessments. The quantitative

data revealed no significant difference in increase on TELPAS score between the study

campus that implemented CALL and the campus that did not implement CALL.

CALL focuses on the reading portion of the domains from the TELPAS

assessment. Reading was the only portion of the TELPAS in which the treatment group

showed greater gains than the comparison group (albeit not statistically significantly).

Therefore, teachers will learn strategies related to listening, speaking, and writing English

to support CALL and increase students’ language proficiency. My goal for this project is

to provide teachers with resources that will help teachers implement strategies in the

classroom to increase English language learners’ language proficiency. The teachers will
 82
be able to review TELPAS data for each student and determine the strategies that will

best meet the needs of the students. The strategies provided will support CALL and the

overall language proficiency in reading, writing, listening, and speaking. The project of

the study will consist of 3-day professional development for teachers who work with

English language learners, including administrators in the two schools participating in the

study. After the trainings, administrators can utilize the information from the training and

bring it back to the campus for additional professional development to build capacity

among the teachers. Administrators can utilize the information to ensure that students

make progress throughout the school year by ensuring professional growth among the

teachers through meaningful discussions during professional learning communities.

During professional learning communities, the administrators will be able to use the data

to determine the needs of the campus and determine whether what they have learned is

contributing to the implementation of CALL and assisting with language proficiency.

My hope is that teachers and administrators will utilize the information provided

to take back to the campus for classroom implementation that will support CALL. In this

section, I self-analyze as a scholar, a practitioner, and a project developer. I also provide

information on the study’s implications, applications, directions for future research, and

the potential for social change.

Project Strengths and Limitations

Strengths

The strengths of this project are gaining the information from the data to

determine how to meet the needs of English language learners. CALL can build on
 83
reading literacy, whereas additional strategies can build on speaking, listening, and

writing skills students need to increase their language proficiency. Educators at the

campus that has implemented CALL will have the opportunity to utilize additional

resources to support CALL and increase language proficiency among English language

learners (Golonka et al., 2014). The strategies will provide the teachers with tools to

engage students in the lesson (Mutlu & Eroz-Tuga, 2013). Although English language

learners were a focus of this study, the 3-day professional development will provide

instructional strategies that can be used with all students. Finally, the 3-day training

allows the educators to work collaboratively and receive hands-on activities that can be

taken back to the classroom. Teachers can work on developing a plan that focuses on

increasing the language proficiency among English language learners by supporting and

supplementing CALL for the upcoming school year.

Limitations

The project may include a limited number of staff being trained: only teachers

who work with English language learners and who implemented CALL on their campus

may participate in the training. Teachers from other campuses who teach non-English

language learners and who do not implement CALL may not feel the training will be

beneficial and relate to what they are doing in the classroom. An additional limitation

may be a lack of focus on reading strategies in the professional development for the

schools that implement CALL. To gain a better scope of the TELPAS domains (listening,

speaking, reading, and writing) and how to increase the overall language proficiency
 84
among English language learners, it may be beneficial for reading to be implemented in

the training.

Recommendations for Alternative Approaches

No significant increase in language proficiency was found between students who

participated in CALL and those who did not participate in CALL. Thus, including

additional schools to participate in the study would increase the number of students

providing data to determine whether CALL is beneficial for English language learners. In

addition, the district can provide training on how to utilize CALL as an intervention and

ways teachers can track their student data to ensure that students are making progress.

Teachers can utilize a tracking system to monitor each TELPAS language-proficiency

domain to determine how students are progressing in their language proficiency.

Additional professional development on how CALL can be used as an effective

intervention could demonstrate CALL strategies teachers can use to focus on student

progress. Teacher training on how to monitor student progress and track student language

proficiency will help teachers determine how CALL can be beneficial when combined

with classroom strategies. Furthermore, professional development that includes all

teachers, not only teachers who teach English language learners, would provide a better

scope for determining whether classroom strategies provided to teachers support the

listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills assessed by the TELPAS. For the

campuses implementing CALL, the training can be utilized as a resource and support.

Administrators could provide teachers with an incentive for attending the training

even if they are not part of a campus implementing CALL. They will be able to see the
 85
benefits of providing engaging activities to support the TELPAS domains of listening,

speaking, reading, and writing. Alternatively, administrators may discontinue use of

Imagine Learning based on the findings of this study. In that instance, the professional

development could be modified to focus less on supplementing CALL and more on the

strategies to address all areas of the TELPAS.

Scholarship, Project Development, and Leadership and Change

Scholarship

Through this period, I have grown in understanding the process of articulating

what the problem of my study would be and determining a plan to collect the data from

the study district. Since Imagine Learning, a CALL program, was implemented in the

study district, I wanted to determine if it increased students’ language proficiency. I

learned how to read, analyze, and interpret the data collected from the study. Collecting

and analyzing the data were my areas of weakness, and I had to learn much regarding

data interpretation. This study and project have enhanced my knowledge as a practitioner

and educator and given me an in-depth understanding of how to engage English language

learners in the learning process.

I will be able to use the information as an administrator by sharing strategies to

support English language learners academically as well as ways to support teachers in the

classroom. This study has given me a better understanding of how to use CALL to

support English language learners in the classroom. The study can benefit the district by

providing administrators and educators an understanding of how to supplement CALL

and use it more effectively to increase English language learners’ language proficiency. I
 86
also have gained an understanding of the possible biases that can occur without

protecting the confidentiality of the students, teachers, and campuses participating in the

study. As a researcher, I have realized the importance of staying informed about CALL

programs implemented in the schools and have learned how they can benefit students

when implemented with fidelity. I also have realized the importance of continuing to stay

abreast of current issues occurring in education and how they affect students

academically. I believe my work at Walden University has helped me to develop skills

that will provide me with lifelong learning that I can value as I continue my career in

education.

Analysis of self as scholar. As a scholar, I learned the techniques needed to

become a writer and a researcher. This journey has not been easy. I have gained insight

into the thought process and planning process of a writer. I struggled with getting my

words on paper for the study; I had to wrap my mind around the idea of what I wanted to

do for my study. I knew I wanted to look at CALL and whether it benefited English

language learners. At the time, I worked for a school that had predominately English

language learners, and we had implemented CALL; I could see some progress in

language proficiency and wanted to see if there was an increase in language proficiency

when compared to another campus that did not use CALL. I worked collaboratively with

my chairperson to determine what I wanted to research and determined that focusing on

language proficiency was the best strategy. We determined that TELPAS would become

the pretest and posttest assessment to measure student progress.

 87
The journey with writing was difficult. I did not write in a scholarly manner, and I

had to take additional writing courses to help me improve my writing. Through the

process, I have learned to look at my writing differently. I began to organize my thoughts

as a scholar and read many articles, books, and dissertations. Learning to understand the

process had taken me to a different level when writing that created a deeper

understanding of the problem and the solution of my study.

Analysis of self as practitioner. Through this process of being a practitioner, I

have gained knowledge of how to become a better administrator and instructional leader

looking to serve all students. When I set my goals for the campus, I identify the problem,

determine what needs to occur to solve the problem, determine the challenges, and

determine the research-based instruction needed to solve the problem. Providing effective

research is essential when developing or choosing strategies that will impact learning in

the classroom. I plan to present administrators and teachers valid and credible

information they can use in the classroom. As a researcher, I need to make sure that I

analyze reliable information that consists of peer-reviewed articles, case studies, books,

and journals that can be used as a resource for teachers to refer to during the training

process. As a practitioner who accepts the role of a researcher when I encounter a

problem or challenge, I must review the information so that I can build capacity among

the learners. Through this process, I received ongoing feedback from my chairperson and

second chair to guide me through the process of the research and the project. As I

continue to work as a researcher, I will continue to make decisions and problem solve by

reviewing research-based information that improves on teaching and learning. I will ask
 88
the right questions and will give teachers the tools necessary to make research-based

decisions to improve teaching and learning.

Analysis of self as project developer. As a project developer, I have developed

an understanding of how to implement a project that will enhance the learning of others. I

determined the need for increasing instructional strategies that support CALL and

enhanced strategies for teachers and administrators. By utilizing the research collected

from the study and reviewing the data, I was able to identify the best type of staff

development that needs to be implemented to meet the needs of the students. The study

will help administrators implement CALL and will help curriculum coaches and

specialists to determine the skills needed to meet all the domains on the yearly TELPAS

assessment. The professional development will allow the participants to become engaged

in the learning and take back strategies to the classroom for immediate implementation.

Because the project was based on research and data analysis, it gave me a better

perspective of what type of staff development needed to be implemented to support all of

the domains on the TELPAS. Students who participated in CALL had some increase in

language proficiency but needed to have support in the other domains of listening,

speaking, and writing. When developing the problem of practice, I used classroom room

observations and conducted instructional rounds to determine the focus for staff

development. As I reflect on past professional development, I need to ensure I am using

reliable data and not just focus on classroom observations to ensure I am providing the

best staff development to the staff. During this time of developing the staff development,

I realized how important it was to have staff involved and to talk to ensure they are
 89
getting the most from the staff development. I will continue to review the problem and

attempt to utilize research as I move forward in developing staff development in the

future.

Project Development and Evaluation

During the development of this project, I gained a better understanding of CALL

and how the program works to help students increase language proficiency.

Understanding how students receive immediate feedback through CALL and the focus on

literacy skills has helped me to understand how I can meet the needs of English language

learners. This project was developed to address a South Texas district problem of English

language learners consistently performing at a lower rate than their peers. The initial

research was designed to determine whether CALL assisted in increasing the language

proficiency among English language learners, measured by TELPAS scores. After

reviewing the pretest and posttest TELPAS data from both campuses that participated in

the analysis, the evidence suggested additional resources such as listening, speaking, and

writing strategies were needed to support CALL to increase the overall language

proficiency. Providing staff development can assist teachers in supporting student

learning in all areas of TELPAS to supplement the literacy component of CALL. The

goal of my project is to provide teachers with strategies that focus on listening, speaking,

and writing skills. The strategies will engage students in lessons and give the students an

opportunity to talk to each other as well as practice listening, speaking, and writing

English. I designed a formative assessment to evaluate the project and determine areas for

improvement. I also designed a mid-ear and end-of-year survey to determine if teachers

 90
are implementing the strategies provided at the training. The evaluation will be

anonymous and will focus on the effectiveness of the staff development information

presented. The information that I gain each day of the evaluation will enable me to

monitor and adjust the staff development over the 3-day training sessions. The

information on Day 3 of training will help me to determine future implementation. The

midyear and end-of-year surveys will assist in determining whether the strategies

provided during the professional development were effective in increasing language

proficiency and contributing to effective use of CALL.

Leadership and Change

During this process, I had an opportunity to reflect and determine where I have

grown and where I need to make some changes. I have learned so much as an

instructional leader, including how to utilize TELPAS data to determine the needs of

English language learners and provide staff development to support teachers. My district

currently is not implementing CALL, but the information that I have gained from doing

my research in the neighboring district has helped me look at language proficiency

differently and determine strategies that will help teachers become successful with

English language learners. CALL can provide academic success when implemented with

other strategies that support all areas of language proficiency. By taking the information

from my project and presenting the information in the research district, I can provide

teachers with new knowledge and resources that can assist students in increasing their

language proficiency. As an instructional leader, I will prepare the training with a

presentation by planning everything and listing the items that need to be completed
 91
before the presentation. I will begin by reviewing the purpose of the training and utilizing

the theoretical framework as a guide to my implementation. Researching Levy’s (2007,

2009) theory of CALL helped me put the professional development in a perspective that

should achieve the desired outcome. As I develop the training in the future, I will keep

the desired outcome in mind and work to allow it to facilitate the professional learning.

Reflections on the Importance of the Work

The project had a great impact on what I do professionally. I utilized the data to

determine how the information can benefit English language learners. The research

demonstrated English language learners could increase language proficiency through the

use of CALL. However, the data also showed that students could increase language

proficiency without CALL. Further, not all students made an increase in the language

proficiency through the use of CALL, particularly in the components of TELPAS CALL

does not address: listening, speaking, and writing. The problem addressed in the study

district was to provide staff development that will support CALL by providing teachers

with strategies that will assist in increasing student language proficiency in listening,

speaking, and writing. This problem is occurring in a South Texas district and other

districts that implement CALL. My project provides information that focuses on the

listening, speaking, and writing sections of the TELPAS to help increase the language

proficiency among students who use CALL. The strategies provided to the teachers will

engage students in the lessons. The staff development will help teachers take ownership

in reviewing student TELPAS data to determine the needs of the students. Teachers can

review how to utilize CALL in the classroom and how it can benefit English language
 92
learners as a supplemental resource. When teachers at the study district utilize the

information from the project to take back to the classroom, they may transform the way

they teach. The staff development will allow the teachers enhance their skills to benefit

English language learners. This study may lead to social change among administrators,

teachers, parents, and students as they work collaboratively to determine the strategies

that support CALL and increase language proficiency among English language learners.

Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research

The project that I plan to implement in a South Texas district will consist of 3-day

training. Although I conducted my study on two schools with English language learners

in the district, it would be ideal to include additional teachers from other campuses to

participate in the training to build on the capacity in the district and the schools that

implement CALL (Sabzian & Gilakjani, 2013). The professional development should be

beneficial at increasing the language proficiency among English language learners

(Sabzian & Gilakjani, 2013). CALL only focuses on reading, so further emphasis on

teaching English language learners to listen, write, and speak in English is likely to help.

Various strategies exist to assist English language learners in language proficiency, but

the strategies that support CALL can provide specific benefits related to overall language

proficiency of English language learners as measured by TELPAS yearly (Kareval &

Echevarría, 2013). Ongoing professional development among teachers who teach English

language learners can increase the level of instruction and thus increase language

proficiency among English language learners. As educators monitor their students’

 93
language proficiency, teachers can determine additional strategies to increase the overall

language proficiency of English language learners.

In the future, understanding the research on how to utilize CALL and the

instructional strategies that support CALL in reading, writing, listening and speaking can

provide teachers the resources needed to ensure English language learners increase the

language proficiency that contributes to academic success. Providing teachers trainings in

in other districts that implement CALL can increase the capacity among English language

learners on a broader scale.

Conclusion

Section 4 is a reflection of my study, project, and conclusion made from the

implementation of this study. I examined the strengths and limitations of the project as

well as the implications for further research. I provided an analysis of myself as a scholar,

practitioner, and a project developer. I utilized the pretest and posttest TELPAS data to

determine if CALL increased language proficiency among English language learners.

The results from the study showed no significant difference in increase in language

proficiency between students who participated in CALL and a comparison group who did

not. Student participating in CALL showed a greater increase than the comparison group

only in reading. The data suggest that CALL focuses on reading and thus not on all

TELPAS domains. Therefore, staff development can assist in increasing students’ skills

in the listening, speaking, and writing domains that build on language proficiency and are

tested annually using the TELPAS. To address the domains that support CALL and the

overall language proficiency among English language learners, I created a 3-day

 94
professional development to provide to administrators and teachers with strategies they

can take back to the classroom to engage students. District administrators will be

informed of the data and how they can support English language learners to increase

language proficiency and thus academic success. The administrators and teachers will

complete an evaluation and survey of the training and provide input that I can use to

make changes where needed. Although the project specifically addresses strategies for

English language learners, it can be used for teachers of all students. I hope to utilize the

information I have learned through this process to improve the language proficiency

among English language learners so they can become academically successful.

 95
References

Abedi, J. (2014). The use of computer technology in designing appropriate test

accommodations for English language learners. Applied Measurement in

Education, 27, 261-272. doi:10.1080/08957347.2014.944310

Abedi, J., & Dietel, R. (2004). Challenges in the No Child Left Behind Act for English

language learners. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(10), 782-785. doi:10.1177

/003172170408501015

Abedi, J., & Gándara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup

in large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 36-46. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006

.00077.x

Abedi, J., & Herman, J. (2010). Assessing English language learners’ opportunity to learn

mathematics: Issues and limitations. Teachers College Record, 112, 723-746.

Afshari, M., Ghavifekr, S., Siraj, S., & Jing, D. (2014). Students’ attitudes towards

computer-assisted language learning. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences,

103, 852-859. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.407

Alvarez-Marinelle, H., Blano, M., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B., Tong, F., Stanley, K., & Fan,

Y. (2014). Computer assisted English language learning in Costa Rican

elementary schools: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 29(1), 103-126. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.903977

 96
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL proficiency

guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public

/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf

Bailey, A. L., & Carroll, P. E. (2015). Assessment of English language learners in the era

of new academic content standards. Review of Research in Education, 39, 253-

294. doi:10.3102/0091732X14556074

Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, M. (2008). Formative assessment for literacy, Grades K–6:

Building reading and academic language skills across the curriculum. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Bailey, A. L., & Huang, B. H. (2011). Do current English language development/

proficiency standards reflect the English needed for success in school? Language

Testing, 28, 343-365. doi:10.1177/0265532211404187

Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Buffalo,

NY: Multilingual Matters.

Barber, M. (2015). The effects of a computer-assisted and culturally relevant repeated

reading intervention on the oral reading fluency of first grade English language

learners who are at-risk for reading failure (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/

Bhatti, T. M. (2013). Teaching reading through computer-assisted language learning.

TESL-EJ, 17(2). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org

Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, J. (2013). Using clickers in

class: The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in

 97
learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102-110. doi:10.1016/j

.compedu.2012.10.019

Buchner, A., Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Lang, A.-G. (2017). G*Power 3.1 manual.

Düsseldorf, Germany: Heinrich Heine Universitat Düsseldorf. Retrieved from

http://www.gpower.hhu.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Fakultaeten/Mathematisch

-Naturwissenschaftliche_Fakultaet/Psychologie/AAP/gpower/GPowerManual.pdf

Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers

for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education,

37, 298-341. doi:10.3102/0091732X12461772

Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English

learners. Future of Children, 29(1), 103-127. doi:10.1353/foc.2011.0007

Cassady, J. C., Smith, L. L., & Thomas, C. L. (2018). Supporting emergent literacy for

English language learners with computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Research

in Reading, 41, 350-369. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12110

Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language: Acquisition

foundation for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2005). Effective reading programs for English language

learners and other language-minority students. Bilingual Research Journal, 29,

241-267. doi:10.1080/15235882.2005.10162835

Chun, D., Smith, B., & Kern, R. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching,

and language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 64-80. doi:10.1111
 98
/modl.12302

Ciampa, K. (2014). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82-96. doi:10.1111/jcal.12036

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Academic Press.

Colorín Colorado. (n.d.). How to develop a lesson plan that includes ELLs. Retrieved

from http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/how-develop-lesson-plan-includes

-ells

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2016). Major provisions of Every Student

Succeeds Act (ESSA) related to the education of English learners. Retrieved from

https://www.ccsso.org/

Cramer, D. (1998). Fundamental statistics for social research. London, England:

Routledge.

Cramer, D., & Howitt, D. (2004). The Sage dictionary of statistics. London, England:

Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic

interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working

Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121-129.

 99
Davies, G., Rendall, H., Walker, R., & Hewer, S. (2012). ICT4LT Module 1.4:

Introduction to computer assisted language learning (CALL). Retrieved from

http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_mod1-4.htm

Doane, D. P., & Seward, L. E. (2011). Measuring skewness: A forgotten statistic?.

Journal of Statistics Education, 19(2), 1-18. doi:10.1080/10691898.2011

.11889611

DuBois, M. R., Volpe, R. J., & Hemphill, E. M. (2014). A randomized trial of a computer

assisted tutoring program targeting letter-sound expression. School Psychology

Review, 43, 210-221.

Drummond, K. E., & Murphy-Reyes, A. (2018). Nutrition research: Concepts and

applications. Retrieved from http://samples.jbpub.com/9781284101539

/9781284101539_CH06_Drummond.pdf

Echevarría, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2013). Making content comprehensible for

English learners: The SIOP model (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95 (2015).

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2013). G*Power (Version 3.1.7)

[Computer software]. Duesseldorf, Germany: Universität Kiel. Retrieved from

http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3/download-and

-register

Fenner, D. S., & Segota, J. (n.d.). Standards that impact English language learners.

Retrieved from http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/standards-impact-english

-language-learners
 100
Flecha, R., & Soler, M. (2013). Turning difficulties into possibilities: Engaging Roma

families and students in school through dialogic learning. Cambridge Journal of

Education, 43, 451-465. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.819068

Fotos, S., & Browne, C. (Eds.). (2004). New perspectives on CALL for second language

classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://aeon.wordengine

.jp/research/pdf/Development_CALL.pdf

Frost, R., Siegelman, N., Narkiss, A., & Afek, L. (2013). What predicts successful

literacy acquisition in a second language? Psychological Science, 24, 1243-1252.

doi:10.1177/0956797612472207

Goldenberg, C. (2013, Summer).Unlocking the research on English learners: What we

know—and don’t yet know—about effective instruction. American Educator,

37(2), 4-11, 38.

Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014)

Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and

their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105. doi:10

.1080/09588221.2012.700315.

Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of

effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning.

ReCALL, 25, 165-198. doi:10.1017/S0958344013000013

Haynes, J., & Zacarian, D. (2010). Teaching English language learners across the

content areas. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.
 101
Heller, M., & Carter, N. (2015). Mid-West Elementary School regression discontinuity

research report. Provo, UT: Imagine Learning. Retrieved from http://www

.imaginelearning.com/sites/institutional/files/2018-01/7%2025%202015_Mid

-west%20Elementary%20School.pdf

Hill, J. D., & Miller, K. B. (2013). Classroom instruction that works with English

language learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Hoff, E., Welsh, S., Place, S., & Ribot, K. (2014). Properties of dual language input that

shape bilingual development and properties of environments that shape dual

language input. Input and Experience in Bilingual Development, 13, 119-140.

doi:10.1075/tilar.13.07hof

Hopkins, M., Thompson, K. D., Linquanti, R., Hakuta, K., & August, D. (2013). Fully

accounting for English learner performance: A key issue in ESEA reauthorization.

Educational Researcher, 42, 101-108. doi:10.3102/0013189X12471426

Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. K. (2013). A personalized recommendation-based

mobile learning approach to improving the reading performance of EFL students.

Computers & Education, 63, 327-336. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.004

Hsu, L. (2013). English as a foreign language learners’ perception of mobile assisted

language learning: A cross-national study. Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 26, 197-213. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.649485

 102
Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Browne

(Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 45-68).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hubbard, P. (2013). Making a case for learner training in technology enhanced language

learning environments. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 163-178. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/calicojournal.30.2.163

Jafarian, K., Soori, A., & Kafipour, R. (2012). The effect of computer-assisted language

learning (CALL) on EFL high school students’ writing achievement. European

Journal of Social Science, 27, 138-148.

James, L. (2014). The integration of a computer based early reading program to increase

English language learners’ literacy skills. Teaching English With Technology,

14(1), 9-22.

Kareva1, V., & Echevarría, J. (2013). Using the SIOP model for effective content

teaching with second and foreign language learners. Journal of Education and

Training Studies, 1, 239-246. doi:10.11114/jets.v1i2.173

Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., Agamba, J. (2014). Promoting effective e-learning practices

through the constructivist pedagogy. Educational Informational Technology, 19,

887-898. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/159190/

Kibler, A. K., Walqui, A., & Bunch, G. C. (2015). Transformational opportunities:

Language and literacy instruction for English language learners in the Common

Core era in the United States. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 9-35. doi:10.1002/tesj.133

Kim, S. (2014). Developing autonomous learning for oral proficiency using digital
 103
storytelling. Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 20–35. Retrieved from

http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/action1.pdf

Koo, J., Becker, B. J., & Kim, Y. S. (2014). Examining differential item functioning

trends for English language learners in a reading test: A meta-analytical approach.

Language Testing, 31(1) 89-109. doi:10.1177/0265532213496097

Kyle, F. E., Kujala, J., Richardson, U., Lyytinen, H., & Goswami, U. (2013). Assessing

the effectiveness of two theoretically motivated computer assisted reading

interventions in the United Kingdom: GG Rime and GG Phoneme. Reading

Research Quarterly, 48(1), 61-76. doi:10.1002/rrq.038

Lee, Y. H., Waxman, H., Wu, J.-Y., Michko, G., & Lin, G. (2013). Revisit the effect of

teaching and learning with technology. Journal of Educational Technology &

Society, 16(1), 133-146. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org

/a8f9/93e3c3f9225a2a690f1bf6f335aeea014fb4.pdf

Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization.

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Levy, M. (2007). Culture, culture learning and new technologies towards a pedagogical

framework. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 104-127. Retrieved from

http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/levy/

Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern

Language Journal, 93, 769-782. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00972.x

 104
Levy, M. (2015). The role of qualitative approaches to research in CALL contexts:

Closing in on the learner’s experience. CALICO Journal, 32, 554-568. doi:10

.1558/cj.v32i3.26620

Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2010). Materials development in three Italian CALL projects:

Seeking an optimal mix between in-class and out-of-class learning. CALICO

Journal, 27, 529-539. doi:10.11139/cj.27.3.529-539

Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimension: Options and issues in computer-

assisted language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.

Li, J., Cummins, J., & Deng, Q. (2017). The effectiveness of texting to enhance academic

vocabulary learning: English language learners’ perspective. Computer Assisted

Language Learning, 30, 816-843. doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1366923

Li, J., Snow, C., Jiang, J., & Edwards, N. (2014). Technology use and self-perceptions of

English language skills among urban adolescents. Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 28, 450-478. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.881387

Li, N. (2013). Seeking best practices and meeting the needs of the English language

learners: Using second language theories and integrating technology in teaching.

Journal of International Education Research, 9, 217-222. Retrieved from

https://www.learntechlib.org/p/131719/

Li, Z., & Hegelheimer, V. (2013). Mobile-assisted grammar exercises: Effects on self-

editing in L2 writing. Language Learning & Technology, 17, 135-156. Retrieved

from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2013/lihegelheimer.pdf

Lin, C. (2014). Learning English reading in a mobile-assisted extensive reading program.

 105
Computers & Education, 78, 48-59. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect

.com/science/article/pii/S0360131514001171

Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York,

NY: Wiley.

Lodico, M., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research.

San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Longberg, P. O. (2012). Evaluation of Imagine Learning English, a computer-assisted

instruction of language and literacy for kindergarten students (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=195742

Lys, F. (2013). The development of advanced learner oral proficiency using iPads.

Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 94-116. Retrieved from http://llt.msu

.edu/issues/october2013/lys.pdf

Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and

learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106,

901-919. doi:10.1037/a0037123

Mahdi, H. S. (2013). Issues of computer assisted language learning normalization in EFL

contexts. International Journal of Linguistics, 5, 191-203.

doi:10.5296/ijl.v5i1.3305

Melby-Lerva, M., & Lerva, A. (2014). Reading comprehension and its underlying

components in second-language learners: A meta-analysis of studies comparing

first- and second-language learners. American Psychological Association, 140,

409-433. doi:10.1037/a0033890
 106
Merriott, S. (2017). The effectiveness of an English language learner center for

elementary students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.bakeru

.edu/images/pdf/SOE/EdD_Theses/MerriottStephanie.pdf

Motley, N. (2016). Talk read talk write. Irving, TX: Seidlitz Education.

Murphey, D. (2014, December). The academic achievement of English language learners:

Data for the U.S. and each of the states. Child Trends. Retrieved from

https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2014

-62AcademicAchievementEnglish.pdf

Mutlu, A., & Eroz-Tuga, B. (2013). The role of computer assisted language learning

(CALL) in promoting learner autonomy. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasion Journal

of Education Research, 51, 107-122. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ1059921)

Naraghizadeh, M., & Barimani, S. (2013). The effects of CALL on the vocabulary

learning of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 3(8),

1-12.

National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). English language learners: A policy

research brief produced by the National Council of Teachers of English.

Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources

/PolicyResearch/ELLResearchBrief.pdf

Niehaus, K., & Adelson, J. L. (2014). School support, parental involvement, and

academic and social-emotional outcomes for English language learners. American

Educational Research Journal, 51, 810-844. doi:10.3102

/0002831214531323
 107
Nomass, B. B. (2013). The impact of using technology in teaching English as a second

language. English Language and Literature Studies, 3(1), 111-116. doi:10.5539

/ells.v3n1p111

Nordstokke, D. W., & Zumbo, B. D. (2010). A new nonparametic Levene test for equal

variances. Psicologica, 31, 401-430. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ896133)

Nordstokke, D. W., Zumbo, B. D., Cairns, S. L., & Saklofske, D. H. (2011). The

operating characteristics of the nonparametic Levene test for equal variances with

assessment and evaluation data. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,

16(5). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v16n5.pdf

Nugent, K., & Catalano, T. (2015). Critical cultural awareness in the foreign language

classroom. NECTFL Review, 75, 15-30. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl

.edu/teachlearnfacpub/194

Pey, K. C., Min, L. H., & Wah, L. L. (2014). Relationship between oral reading fluency

and reading comprehension among ESL students. Journal of Language Studies,

14(3), 9-13. doi:10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403-02

Praveen, S. D., & Rajan, P. (2013). Using graphic organizers to improve reading

comprehension skills for the middle school ESL students. English Language

Teaching, 6, 155-170. doi:10.5539/elt.v6n2p155

Pretorius, E. J., & Spaull, N. (2016). Exploring relationships between oral reading

fluency and reading comprehension amongst English second language readers in

South Africa. Reading and Writing, 29, 1449-1471. doi:10.1007/s11145-016

-9645-9
 108
Powers, S., Williams, N., Keng, L., & Starr, L. (2014). An example of evidence-based

standard setting for an English language proficiency test. Retrieved from

https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global

/Files/efficacy-and-research/schools/07_An-Example-of-EBSS-for-an-ELP

-Assessment_v2.pdf

Ramírez-Esparza, N., García-Sierra, A., & Kuhl, P. K. (2017). The impact of early social

interactions on later language development in Spanish–English bilingual infants.

Child Development, 88, 1216-1234. Retrieved from http://ilabs.uw.edu/sites

/default/files/2017%20Ramirez-Esparza_etal_ChildDev.pdf

Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kologorov-

Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling test. Journal of Statistical Modeling

and Analytics, 2(1), 21-33. Retrieved from http://www.de.ufpb.br/~ulisses

/disciplinas/normality_tests_comparison.pdf

Richards, J. C. (2015). The changing face of language learning: Learning beyond the

classroom. RELC Journal, 46(1), 5-22. doi:10.1177/0033688214561621

Robertson, K., & Ford, K. (n.d.). Language acquisition: An overview. Retrieved from

http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/language-acquisition-overview

Rovai, A. P., Baker, J. D., & Ponton, M. K. (2014). Social science research design and

statistics: A practitioner’s guide to research methods and IMB and SPCC

analysis. Chesapeake, VA: Watertree Press.

Sabzian, F., & Gilakjani, A. P. (2013). Teachers’ attitudes about computer technology

training, professional development, integration, experience, anxiety, and literacy

 109
in English language teaching and learning. International Journal of Applied

Science and Technology, 3(1), 76-75. Retrieved from http://ijastnet.com/journals

/Vol_3_No_1_January_2013/9.pdf

Sanchez, C. (2017). English language learners: How your state is doing. Retrieved from

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/02/23/512451228/5-million-english

-language-learners-a-vast-pool-of-talent-at-risk

Schechter, R., Macaruso, P., Kazakoff, E. R., & Brooke, E. (2015). Exploration of a

blended learning approach to reading instruction for low SES students in early

elementary grades. Computers in the Schools, 32, 183-200. doi:10.1080/07380569

.2015.1100652

Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality

(complete samples). Biometrika, 52, 591-611. doi:10.2307/2333709

Son, J. (2014). Computer-assisted language learning: Learners, teachers, and tools.

Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars. Retrieved from http://www

.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/61801

Song, K. H. (2016). Systematic professional development training and its impact on

teachers’ attitudes toward ELLs: SIOP and guided coaching. TESOL Journal, 7,

767-799. doi:10.1002/tesj.240

Sorenson, S. (2015). The impact of computer assisted language learning on language

proficiency (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.hamline.edu

/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=hse_all
 110
Suvorov, R., & Hegelheimer, V. (2013). ComputerǦassisted language testing. In A. J.

Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (Chapter 36). Hoboken,

NJ: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla083

Texas Education Agency. (2014). 2013–2014 Texas academic performance report.

Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/

Texas Education Agency. (2016a). Technical digest 2015–2016: Texas English Language

Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS). Retrieved from http://tea.texas.gov

/Student_Testing_and_Accountability/Testing/Student_Assessment_Overview

/Technical_Digest_2015-2016/

Texas Education Agency. (2016b). TELPAS: Texas English Language Proficiency

Assessment System rater manual Grades K–12. Retrieved from http://tea.texas

.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=25769824784

Texas Education Agency. (2016c). Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment

System (TELPAS). Retrieved from http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment

/interpguide/

Texas Education Agency. (2017). Educator guide to TELPAS Grades K–12. Retrieved

from https://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/ell/telpas/

Texas Education Code, §74.4 English Language Proficiency Standards (2017). Retrieved

from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter074/ch074a.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Programs: Improving basic programs operated

by local educational agencies (Title I, Part A). Retrieved from http://www2.ed

.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
 111
Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of

feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning

outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85, 475–511. doi:10

.3102/0034654314564881

Vogt, M. E. & Echevarría, J. (2015). Reaching English learners: Aligning the ELA/ELD

framework with SIOP. The California Reader, 49(1), 23-33. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jana_Echevarria/publication/283420759

_THE_CALIFORNIA_READER/links/5637941f08ae1740c93b1be8/THE

-CALIFORNIA-READER.pdf

Wang, Y.-H., & Liao, H.-C. (2017). Learning performance enhancement using computer-

assisted language learning by collaborative learning groups. Symmetry, 9(8), 141-

157. Retrieved from http://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/9/8/141/pdf

Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview.

Language Teaching, 31, 57-71. doi:10.1017/S0261444800012970

Yeh, S. (2010). Understanding and addressing the achievement gap through

individualized instruction and formative assessment. Assessment in Education:

Principles, Policy & Practice, 17, 169-182. doi:10.1080/09695941003694466

 112
Appendix: Professional Development

This project is intended to assist teachers including administrators in utilizing

CALL along with classroom strategies to increase student language proficiency. The

professional development will help teachers understand CALL and how it can support

second language learners. Based on the data, there is a need to address barriers in the

TELPAS domains of listening, speaking, and writing to support CALL.

Background

A quantitative study was conducted to determine if CALL contributed to language

proficiency in English language learners. Two campuses in a south Texas school district

were compared, one that implemented CALL and the other that did not implement

CALL. The students who participated in the study were in Grades 3–5 and were in the

bilingual/ESL program. The students participated in CALL as an intervention aside from

classroom instruction. The pretest was the 2016 TELPAS. The students participated in

CALL in the school the 2016–2017 school year. The 2017 TELPAS was used as a

posttest to determine if there was a significant difference in the overall language

proficiency increase between the two groups of students: those who participated in CALL

and those who did not. The findings indicated that there was not a significant difference

in the overall composite score increase between the two groups. The TELPAS composite

score includes reading, listening, speaking, and writing skills. CALL focuses on reading

skills and vocabulary, and thus to increase the overall language proficiency among ELL

students, professional development that addresses listening, speaking, and writing could
 113
assist in building on language proficiency that improves in the overall academic

performance for ELLs.

Target Audience

This training will focus on elementary school teachers in a South Texas school

district who implement CALL on their campus. The teachers who participate in this

training will teach ELL students in Grades 3–5. The teachers will have students who

participate in CALL as a supplemental resource to increase English literacy skills. This

professional development will focus on how to implement strategies in the classroom that

CALL does not support. The teachers who participate in the training will become aware

of how the strategies that focus on listening, speaking, and writing can support an overall

increase in language proficiency. The training will assist teachers in meeting the needs of

English language learners.

Rationale for Professional Development

This project will be professional development that will help teachers understand

CALL and learn additional strategies along with CALL to assist in increasing language

proficiency. The TELPAS data demonstrated no overall significant difference in

language proficiency increase between the group of students using CALL and the group

not using CALL. Both groups showed a significant increase on the 2017 TELPAS

composite score compared to the 2016 TELPAS score. The group using CALL showed a

greater increase only on the reading domain of TELPAS. The professional development

project addresses language proficiency levels that CALL does not address. TELPAS

measures listening, speaking, reading, and writing proficiency levels.

 114
The staff development will create an awareness among the participants of the

importance of addressing listening, speaking, writing skills along with CALL strategies

to meet the need of ELL students. By utilizing various strategies along with CALL,

students can develop their language skills. During the staff development, teachers will

have the opportunity to work collaboratively, share ideas, and participate in hands-on

activities. The participants will engage in discussions on how to support English language

learners that can contribute to increasing language proficiency on each domain of the

TELPAS.

Goals and Objectives of Professional Development

A 3-day training is planned for future professional development in a South Texas

school district. The sessions will be 6 hours long. I will work collaboratively with the

district curriculum department to determine the location and days the training will take

place. The training room will allow for 50 or more participants and will require a laptop,

Internet connection, and tables so that teachers can work collaboratively. Teachers will

explore TELPAS data and how to implement strategies that focus in on listening,

speaking, and writing to support CALL.

On Day 1 of training, the focus will be to analyze data and provide strategies to

assist teachers in understanding how CALL can support TELPAS language proficiency.

Teachers will begin to understand the history of CALL and how it contributes to

language proficiency for second language learners. Teachers will receive a copy of

TELPAS data to review and interpret. The participants will utilize the data to make a
 115
connection with TELPAS and CALL and how they can support their students.

Discussions throughout the training will engage teachers in the learning experience.

On Day 2 of training, the focus will be teachers learning sheltered instruction

observation protocol (SIOP; Echevarría, Vogt, & Short, 2013) that addresses background

knowledge and comprehensible input strategies. The teachers will have meaningful

discussions and opportunities to write. On Day 3 of training, the teachers will learn

strategies that will increase language proficiency in listening, speaking, and writing.

At the end of each training session, teachers will participate in evaluating the

professional development and provide input on how to improve the training. The

participants will receive a 1-hour lunch break and six 10-minute breaks each day.

Teachers will engage in cooperative learning activities, PowerPoint presentations, and

dialogue. Participants will conclude the training with an in-depth discussion of the

advantages and disadvantages of using CALL in the classroom as a resource.

Learning Outcomes

The study yielded the results of using CALL as a means to improve proficiency

levels in ELLs. CALL was implemented in the study district to build on reading fluency

and comprehension and assist with language proficiency. The training will provide

teachers with strategies to engage students in the activities and address the needs of ELL

students in the classroom. At the conclusion of the professional development, teachers

will be knowledgeable of CALL and how CALL supports TELPAS. Teachers also will

be aware of the limitations of CALL and how to provide supplemental instruction.

Teachers will understand TELPAS and how they can support ELL students. Teachers
 116
will become knowledgeable of instructional strategies that support reading, listening,

speaking, and writing. Teachers also will understand how to utilize CALL with classroom

strategies and how the strategies can improve the overall language proficiency among

ELL students.
 117
Advancing Proficiency Levels as Reported on TELPAS: Day 1

Day 1 Agenda
8:00–8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast and sign-in

8:30–9:00 a.m. Welcome/Ice Breaker Activity

When the music begins, teachers start walking when the music
stops, high five the person next to you. Tell the person two
truths and one lie. You will then determine which one was the
lie. The next partner will then do the same. Once everyone has
shared with each other, as the group who would like to share.

9:30–10:00 a.m. Overview of the Research Project -

Review the research project with the participants and discuss
the findings from the research to give teachers an understanding
of the purpose of the training. The following will be discussed:
x Research Problem
x Describe the type of research
x Research Question
x Inform the number of participants who participated in
the study
x Provide the outcome
x Results of the outcome that triggered a Professional
Development

10:00–10:10 a.m. Objectives -

I will learn to analyze data and provide strategies that will
increase language proficiency. Determine how CALL can
support TELPAS language proficiency.

Language Objective –
I will internalize new basic and academic language by using and
reusing it in meaningful ways in speaking, listening, and writing
activities that build concept and language attainment.

10:10–10:45 a.m. Review the history of CALL.

Gallery Walk Activity –

Have chart paper posted around the room. Have teachers count
off by seven. Have the questions up for teachers to answer as a
group. Provide 3–5 minutes for each group to answer.
x What are the advantages of CALL?
 118
x What are the disadvantages of CALL?
x Are you supporting CALL in the classroom? If so,
how?
x What can you do to support CALL in the classroom?
x Have you seen students make progress in their language
proficiency using CALL? If so, in which language
domain?
x How do you determine if your students have made
progress in their language proficiency?
x How can CALL support TELPAS?
10:45–10:55 a.m. Break

10:55–11:30 a.m. After Gallery Walk –

Teachers will discuss what they learned from the Gallery Walk.
I will explain to the participants how TELPAS can support
CALL (refer to the slide).

11:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Advancing proficiency levels as reported on TELPAS

Each year students must advance one proficiency level on the
TELPAS composite score.
x Review the TELPAS descriptors
x Determine key words in each descriptor
x Discuss as a table what strategies you think you will
need to implement to move student to the next domain
x Review how teachers can track language proficiency
during the school year through a sample tracking form.
12:001:00 p.m. Lunch

1:00–2:00 p.m. Review TELPAS Data

Each teacher will get a copy of his or her homeroom TELPAS
data. Teachers will chart out how many students are at
beginning, intermediate, advanced, and advanced high on
TELPAS.

Teachers will discuss the following questions at their table.

Teachers will write their answers on chart paper to share as a
whole group. Teachers can use visuals, list, charts, etc. to
answer the questions on their chart paper.
x As a group, how many students are at beginning,
intermediate, advanced, and advanced high?
 119
x How can you support your students to ensure they
increase one proficiency level each year?
x What strategies do you need to implement to insure
students are making progress in each domain?
x What does instruction look like to increase the domains
in the following?
o Reading
o Listening
o Speaking
o Writing
Once activity is completed, the whole group will discuss and
determine if there are any similarities.
*The teachers will review their data at the beginning of the year
to determine if there is any progress after CALL has been
implemented with additional resources.

2:00–2:10 p.m. Break

2:10–2:45 p.m. Reading and CALL

Review with the teachers and administrator how CALL is
implemented and the focus on reading and vocabulary.

Supporting CALL
How can we support listening, speaking, and writing in addition
to CALL? As a table, discuss how implementing strategies in
listening, speaking, and writing can support CALL and
language proficiency overall. Discuss advantages of
implementing strategies in the classroom to get students
engaged.

Campus Connection
Have teachers reflect on the questions provided:
x How will you utilize the TELPAS data when you return
to the classroom?
x How will you monitor student progress in language
proficiency?
x Does this information make you look at language
proficiency differently?
x Can CALL be a benefit to increasing language
proficiency?
 120
*Inform the teachers that over the next 2 days, they will be
learning different strategies that will help support CALL and
increase language proficiency overall.
2:45–3:00 p.m. Reflect and Conclude
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
 139
Staff Development Evaluation

Day 1

Survey for Educators and School Leaders

Check one: Educator □ School Leader □

Please respond to each item by circling the number which best describes your opinion
(5 = excellent; 1 = poor)

Excellent Average Poor

Participant Satisfaction
1. The staff development was well organized. 5 4 3 2 1
2. The objective of the staff development was 5 4 3 2 1
stated clearly.
3. The activities were relevant to the objective. 5 4 3 2 1
4. The materials and resources were ready and 5 4 3 2 1
available to participants.
5. The trainer’s overall presentation 5 4 3 2 1

Impact on Educational Practice

6. The training provides the participants the 5 4 3 2 1
content knowledge for the classroom.
7. The training provides educators the skills 5 4 3 2 1
they need for effective implementation.
8. The training provides educators with 5 4 3 2 1
effective skills needed to analyze data that
guide instruction.
9. The training provides educators the 5 4 3 2 1
opportunity to work collaboratively and
engage in discussions.
10. The training provides participants the 5 4 3 2 1
opportunity to think critically to understand
the presented content.
11. The training provides the participants the 5 4 3 2 1
opportunity to self-reflect and grow
professionally.

Comments:
 140
English Language Learner Classroom Strategies: Day 2

Day 2- Agenda
8:00–8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast and sign-in
8:30–9:15 a.m. Welcome/Ice Breaker Activity
Teachers will be given a piece a paper. They have 4 minutes to
write down four things they do to support English language
learners in the classroom. They then will stand up and walk
around the room to music. One the music stops, the teacher will
share his or her idea with the person next to him or her. The
teachers will do this several times until all ideas are shared.
9:15–9:30 a.m. Review Day 1 Learning
Discuss what was learned on Day 1.
How has looking at TELPAS data helped when implementing
CALL?
As teachers go through the strategies today, determine how the
strategies support CALL.
9:30–9:45 a.m. Objectives –
I will learn sheltered strategies for making content
comprehensible for students that will increase language
proficiency in listening, speaking, and writing that supports
CALL.
Language Objective –
I will discuss different strategies with my group using complete
sentences and appropriate English. I will reflect on my
understanding of the lesson by writing in complete sentences.
9:45–10:30 a.m. Language Acquisition
Classroom instruction that effectively integrates second-
language acquisition. Discuss with the teachers how effective
content instruction can help language acquisition.
Have teachers complete the sentence, “I focus on building
language in my classroom because…” Discuss as a whole group
teacher’s responses.
Discuss with the teachers the importance of building
comprehensible input. Give some examples, such as visuals,
 141
graphic organizers, giving students the opportunity to
collaborate and talk.
Strategy 1: Three-Part Go
Provide the teachers with an example of a strategy they can use
in the classroom.
Give the teachers several different words and a sentence stem.
Have the teachers use the words and place them in the sentence
stem correctly. Give the teachers 3–5 minutes to complete this
activity.
Discuss how they can use this strategy in the classroom. Have
the teachers complete the sentence stem: “I can use Three-Part
Go in my class to …”
10:30–10:40 a.m. Break
10:40 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Building Background Knowledge
Inform teachers of the importance of building background
knowledge among the student.
Activity – Prediction Guide
Give the same text for each table. Have the teachers skim
through the text and write at least 10 statements from what they
skimmed. Discuss their findings before reading the complete
text. Have the teacher read the text and discuss.
As a group, discuss the findings from skimming.
After reading the text, discuss as a group the following
questions:
x How did skimming the text help you understand the text?
x How does building your background knowledge help with
comprehension?
Activity – Scavenger Hunt
Provide the teachers with three things to look up online that
would help your group have better understand the text presented
to them.
Discuss as a whole group the following questions:
x How did looking up the three things help you build
background knowledge?
x If you did not look up the three things, would have known
what the text was going to be about?
 142
Have the teachers complete the sentence stem, “I can build
background knowledge in my class to…”

12:00–1:00 p.m. Lunch

1:00–2:00 p.m. Strategy 2 – Concept Mapping
Describe concept mapping is and how teachers can use it in the
classroom.
Give the teachers different pictures and ask them to determine a
word that describes what is happening in the picture. Once the
teachers have completed this task, give the teacher different text
and have, them read the text and match the pictures with the
text. Discuss teacher’s findings.
Have the teachers complete the sentence stem: “I can use
concept maps in my class to…”

Building Vocabulary
To build vocabulary, we must explicitly teach vocabulary. As
teachers build on vocabulary, the need to keep in mind the
following questions when building their lessons.
x What words will you focus on each lesson?
x What activities have you selected to teach vocabulary?
x How will you assess if students are learning the
vocabulary words throughout the unit?
x Does your vocabulary lesson go beyond making notes
and writing definitions?
Have the teachers complete the sentence stem; I can build on
vocabulary in my class by…

2:00–2:10 p.m. Break

2:10–2:45 p.m. Strategy 3 – Lingo Bingo
Discuss with the teachers the importance of building on the
vocabulary. Determine key vocabulary from the unit. The
teachers create a grid to place the words on the grid. Have the
teachers read the definitions from the text. If they get the work
correct, they move on to the next word. The teachers continue
until you have two or three winners.
x Have students create a 9-square grid
 143
x Have students select nine words from your list
x Read the definition from the dictionary (text)
x Scaffold the definition
x Scaffold the definition again
x Continue until you have two or three winners
Have the teachers complete the sentence stem: “I can use Lingo
Bingo in my class to…”
Review the To Do List
x Make sure you know your students’ language proficiency
levels
x Be aware of the instructional accommodations for your
English language learners
x Incorporate the strategies that were discussed today into
your lesson plans by asking:
x How will I make this content comprehensible to my
students?
x How will I build background for this lesson?
x How will I preview/review vocabulary?
Have the teachers complete the sentence stem, “Today I learned
______. I plan to _______________.”

2:45–3:00 p.m. Reflect and Conclude

144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
 164
Staff Development Evaluation

Day 2

Survey for Educators and School Leaders

Check one: Educator □ School Leader □

Please respond to each item by circling the number which best describes your opinion
(5 = excellent; 1 = poor)

Excellent Average Poor

Participant Satisfaction
1. The staff development was well organized. 5 4 3 2 1
2. The objective of the staff development was 5 4 3 2 1
stated clearly.
3. The activities were relevant to the objective. 5 4 3 2 1
4. The materials and resources were ready and 5 4 3 2 1
available to participants.
5. The trainer’s overall presentation 5 4 3 2 1

Impact on Educational Practice

6. The training provides the participants the 5 4 3 2 1
content knowledge for the classroom.
7. The training provides educators the skills 5 4 3 2 1
they need for effective implementation.
8. The training provides educators with 5 4 3 2 1
effective skills needed to analyze data that
guide instruction.
9. The training provides educators the 5 4 3 2 1
opportunity to work collaboratively and
engage in discussions.
10. The training provides participants the 5 4 3 2 1
opportunity to think critically to understand
the presented content.
11. The training provides the participants the 5 4 3 2 1
opportunity to self-reflect and grow
professionally.

Comments:
 165
Talk, Read, Talk, Write Strategies: Day 3

Day 3 Agenda
8:00–8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast and sign-in
8:30–9:15 a.m. Welcome/Ice Breaker Activity
I will build a small figure or building with building blocks and
hide it from the group. I will divide the teachers into small
teams of four. Each team will receive building blocks. One
member of each team will look at the figure at the same time for
10 seconds. Team members must memorize the figure before
returning to their team. After they return to their teams, the
teams have 25 seconds to teach their teams about how to build
the figure. After one minute, another member of each team can
come up for a “sneak a peek.”
The game will continue until one of the teams successfully
duplicates the original sculpture. This game will teach
participants how to communicate effectively and problem solve
as a group.
9:15–9:30 a.m. Review Day 2 Learning
Review what been learned in the last two sessions. Have the
teachers discuss at their table how they can implement the
strategies they have learned. Ask teachers to share.
x Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)
History
x How TELPAS Supports CALL
x Advancing Proficiency Levels
x Learned Sheltered Strategies That Support English
Language Learners
x Three-Part Go
x Building on Background Knowledge
o Prediction Guide
o Carousel Walk
o Scavenger Hunt
x Concept Mapping
x Lingo Bingo

9:30–9:45 a.m. Objectives –

I will learn strategies that will increase language proficiency in
listening, speaking, and writing that supports CALL.
 166

Language Objectives -
I will discuss different strategies with my group using complete
sentences and appropriate English. I will reflect on my
understanding of the lesson by writing in complete sentences.

9:45–10:30 a.m. Peer Review and Cooperative Learning Strategies

Review the cooperative learning strategies. Model to the
teachers what it will look like in the classroom.
Read a selected text to the teachers. Have the teachers to
discuss as a table what was read to them by answering questions
provided. Share what was discussed with each other.
Campus Connection
As a group, discuss the following questions.
x When can you implement this type of strategy?
x Have you used the strategy, if so how often?
x Why is it important to use this strategy in the
classroom?

Talk, Read, Talk, Write Strategy

Discuss with the teachers what Talk, Read, Talk, Write is and
how it can be implemented in the classroom. Inform the
teachers the goals of Talk, Read, Talk, Write.
Discuss as a group the following questions.
x Just from what you know about Talk Read Talk Write,
how can this strategy support CALL?
x How can this strategy increase language proficiency
among ELL students?

Reflect as a whole group.

10:30–10:40 a.m. Break

10:40 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Talk #1 Strategy
Talk #1 gets students talking. Discuss what Talk #1 is and what
it is not.
Show a picture that relates to the text to the teachers. The
teachers must write down all they know about the picture.
Discuss what they see in the picture. Have the teachers then
 167
read the text and discuss with their group why the picture is
important.
Discuss as a whole group. Discuss the activities we have done
during the sessions that allowed students to talk.
Campus Connection
x What questions do you have about starting your class
with student talk?
x How can you tackle challenges that might arise during
student talk?
x With a partner, write twor or three challenging
questions for an upcoming unit.

Reading Strategy:
By talking first before reading, it builds on background
knowledge.

Pay Attention to List (PAT List):

Provide the teachers with a text. Give the teachers 5 minutes to
read the test. Have the teachers write a list of important text.
Discuss what the teachers have written to see if there was some
consistency.
By using the list, does it help you to remember what you read?
Campus Connection
x As a team, how do you plan to have students read in
class?
x What adjustments need to made to ensure all students
participate in reading the text?
x With a partner, write down an upcoming lesson into
written form for students to read.

12:00–1:00 p.m. Lunch

1:00–2:00 p.m. Talk #2 Strategy
Talk #2 provides an opportunity for the students to reflect on
what was read and to determine if they are on the right track.
Teachers will complete the “Envelope Please!” activity.
 168
Envelope Please!
The teacher creates a conversation starter from a piece of text.
The teacher hands one envelope per group and lets the group
discuss the answer. The envelope contains more than one
discussion question, and there is a different question per group.
Campus Connection
x The teachers will work as a team to discuss the
following questions.
x What is the value of having students talk with each
other after reading and before writing?
x With a partner, write one to three discussion questions
for an upcoming lesson.

2:00–2:10 p.m. Break

2:10–2:45 p.m. Talk, Write Strategy
Inform teachers how writing is the last domain that develops
among ELL students. Let teachers know that students benefit
from talking before writing.

Writing Activity
x Answer and discuss the following questions from the
text with your group.
x After discussing (5–6 min), write a paragraph about the
text.
x Provide a sentence stem for the English language
learners, but have students provide details to their
writing to explain what occurred in the text.

Writing Windows
Provide the teachers with a picture. Give them 5–10 minutes to
write about the picture.
Discuss after everyone has finished writing.
x How can students benefit from the writing strategy?
x How does this strategy support CALL?
Campus Connection
x What is the value of having students talk with each
other after reading and before writing?
 169
x With a partner, write one to three discussion
questions for an upcoming lesson.

Group Discussion
Review the strategies that were provided in the 3-day sessions.
Discuss the overview of strategies that support CALL

2:45–3:00 p.m. Reflect and Conclude

170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
 185
Staff Development Evaluation

Day 3

Survey for Educators and School Leaders

Check one: Educator □ School Leader □

Please respond to each item by circling the number which best describes your opinion
(5 = excellent; 1 = poor)

Excellent Average Poor

Participant Satisfaction
1. The staff development was well organized. 5 4 3 2 1
2. The objective of the staff development was 5 4 3 2 1
stated clearly.
3. The activities were relevant to the objective. 5 4 3 2 1
4. The materials and resources were ready and 5 4 3 2 1
available to participants.
5. The trainer’s overall presentation 5 4 3 2 1

Impact on Educational Practice

6. The training provides the participants the 5 4 3 2 1
content knowledge for the classroom.
7. The training provides educators the skills 5 4 3 2 1
they need for effective implementation.
8. The training provides educators with 5 4 3 2 1
effective skills needed to analyze data that
guide instruction.
9. The training provides educators the 5 4 3 2 1
opportunity to work collaboratively and
engage in discussions.
10. The training provides the participants the 5 4 3 2 1
opportunity to think critically to understand
the presented content.
11. The training provides the participants the 5 4 3 2 1
opportunity to self-reflect and grow
professionally.
 186
Please take a few moments to respond to the following questions. Your answers will
greatly assist us in determining how to improve staff development trainings.

12. How does this workshop help meet the needs of struggling students and provide
information to support in their academic achievement?

13. How will this training assist in planning your instruction for the classroom?

14. Did this training help change the way to implement instruction in the classroom?

15. What part of the training do feel was most important to you as you return to the
classroom?

16. What recommendation do you have to improve this training?

Additional Comments:
 187
How to Support Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Midyear Survey

Participants of the Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) training are asked to
participate in this survey. This survey will provide insights on the professional development and
if the information was taken back to the classroom. Please take 5–10 minutes to complete this
survey.

School : ___________________________ Neither

Agree
Teacher: ___________________________
Strongly Nor Strongly
Date: ___________________________ Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree

1. I utilized the TELPAS data to help determine

student’s needs.
2. The professional development activities
increased my capacity to use data to improve
my classroom instruction.
3. The activities from the presentation were used
in combination with CALL.
4. The information provided from the
professional development deepened my
understanding of the presented material.
5. The opportunities from the professional
development provided activities that allow for
student collaboration that contributes to the
increase of students’ language proficiency.
6. The activities presented were relevant to what I
do in the classroom.
7. The professional development advanced my
understanding of how to engage the students
with classroom strategies while implementing
CALL.
8. Since the professional development I have used the following strategies:

9. Since the professional development I have/have not seen an increase in language proficiency
among my students (explain):

Comments:
 188
How to Support Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

End-of-Year Survey

Participants of the Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) training are asked to

participate in this survey. This survey will provide insights on the effects of the professional
development when implementing the strategies year long. Please take 5–10 minutes to complete
this survey.

School : ____________________________ Neither

Agree
Teacher: ____________________________
Strongly Nor Strongly
Date: ____________________________ Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree

1. I utilized the TELPAS data throughout the

school year to help determine the needs of the
students.
2. The professional development activities
increased my capacity to use data to improve
my classroom instruction throughout the school
year.
3. The activities from the presentation were used
in combination with CALL during the school
year.
4. The information provided from the professional
development deepen my understanding of how
to use classroom strategies to support CALL.
5. The opportunities from the professional
development provided activities that allow for
student collaboration during the year and
contributed to an increase in student language
proficiency based on end-of-the-year TELPAS.
6. The staff development provided several times
during the year gave an understanding on how
to implement the strategies that will support
CALL.
7. The staff development spread out during the
year assisted in understanding how to use the
strategies that will support CALL.
8. I consistently used the following strategies:

9. Student language proficiency among the ELL students increased/did not increase with the
combination of classroom strategies and the use of CALL (explain):
Comments: