Effects of Increased Wait-Time on the Quantity of Correct Responses from Elementary ELL - Essay Example

? Effects of Increased Wait-Time on the Quantity of Correct Responses from Elementary ELL in a room Rosary McIntyre Concordia Portland- Online Literature Review Wait-time has become a principle element in the research of elementary English Language Learners’ (ELL) teaching in the 21st century. The effects associated with increased wait-time on the quantity of correct responses to questions from elementary ELL students in a classroom have raised major concerns in the teaching profession. There has been an increase in the number of culturally and linguistically diverse students prompting education professionals to upgrade their skills and knowledge to ensure effective teaching in ELL classrooms. This has resulted in researchers and educational scholars seeking the appropriate wait-time teachers should give to ELL students. As such, ELL students pose a challenge to teachers because of their language-learning disability (Becker & Goldstein, 2011). The response that an ELL student gives to a question is determined by the level of his or her understanding of concepts and subject ideas, systematic ideas reflection, critical thinking, and content comprehension. However, effective learning for ELL learners does not solely contribute to a response given by ELL students. Wait time has a substantial positive effect on the response that an ELL student gives to a classroom question. Categories of Wait-Time Existing research (Beyondpenguins.ehe.osu.edu, 2013) classifies silence time in a classroom into eight categories including student-pause time, within-teacher presentation pause time, within-student’s response pause-time, post-teacher question time, student pause-time, post-student responsive wait time, teacher pause-time, student task-completion work-time and impact pause time. Despite the detailed wait-time classification, there has been no concrete conclusion regarding the specific wait-time required for elementary ELL students to respond to questions. Effect of Increased Wait-Time on ELL Student Responses Cooper and Irizarry (2013) identified increased wait-time to affect positively the students’ response to questions in a classroom setting. Some of the significant effects with increase in wait-time in a classroom of elementary ELL students include long answers responses to questions by students, improved student participation through volunteering more answers that are appropriate, increase in the analysis and synthesis of the context which results to students giving evidence-inference responses that are more speculative (Cooper & Irizarry, 2013). Increased wait-time contributes to improved students’ self-confidence in responding to questions, increased rate of student asking questions regarding clarity as well as higher students’ achievement. Simply by increasing wait time, especially to students who have to translate the question into their mother tongue and then critically evaluate the questions to give a response, teachers may influence the quantity of correct responses to questions (Cooper & Irizarry, 2013). According to Mohr and Mohr (2007), a teacher should allow sufficient wait time to support ELL students to switch from hearing in a foreign language into reasoning and thinking in their first language, and then giving the response to the question. Additionally, increased wait time has proved to enhance the cognitive techniques applied by a student to give responses (Bluck & Gilbertson, 2006). Relationship between Increased Wait-Time and Critical Thinking Several studies such as those conducted by Beyondpenguins.ehe.osu.edu (2013) and FEAweb (2003) indicate that teacher’s wait time is often associated with the thoughtfulness and comprehension of a student’s answer to classroom questions. Notably, teachers do not give sufficient time for students to internalize, think critically, and seek comprehensive knowledge to respond to classroom questions. Teachers who give elementary ELL students a few seconds to respond to classroom questions evoke student recall on a subject rather than critical thinking (Cruz & Thornton, 2013). In many occasions, ELL students translate the question into their first language to understand it clearly, after which they can then respond thoughtfully to a question (Huntley, 2008). However, increased wait time affects a classroom timetable because it consumes more time in giving students ample time to reflect and expansively answer a question. Increased wait time promote classroom participation and content comprehension for students (FEAweb, 2003). Wait-Time in Relation to Students’ Expectations A study by Boynton and Boynton (2005) shows that the increase in latency periods prior to choosing a student to respond is a technique to communicate high expectations for the students motivating them towards giving a response without much struggle. Adequate wait-time enables ELL student to encode received information while simultaneously discouraging guesswork and information recall (Beyondpenguins.ehe.osu.edu, 2013). To internalize a question completely, elementary ELLs should be given more time that will enable them to understand the basis of the question prompting them to give correct and detailed responses despite their language disability (Huntley, 2008). According to Boynton and Boynton (2005), giving up on a student that is struggling with a response due to language proficiency only “pulls back” the student from attempting the response with a blank stare. Moreover, teachers give less time to students that they have little confidence in them in responding to a question; hence, minimizing the chances of the student giving a correct response (Boynton & Boynton, 2005). ELL students are prone to literal recall of text that leads to poor evaluative thinking capability of the student (Becker & Goldstein, 2011). A study by Agpa.uakron.edu (2009) on the relationship between use of higher cognitive questions and increased wait time indicate that the students and teachers were able to carry out recitations at higher cognitive levels. The amount of wait-time given to a student before responding to a class question has a direct relationship with the teacher’s expectation for the student (Boynton & Boynton, 2005). The ability of a teacher to use extended wait-time in a classroom of ELL students provides positive effects such as enhanced use of supportive evidence among others; hence, the use of increased wait-time for ELL students is consistent with the goals of ELL students making it an almost intuitive strategy (Penick & Harris, 2005). Adding wait-time, especially to elementary ELL students, has a direct impact on the students’ response to questions because it provides them with adequate time for percolating a question down through the brain cells and come up with the correct response (Teachervision.fen.com, 2013). Effect of Increased Wait-Time on Mastering a Question The provision of adequate time to master a question helps ELL students to have better mastery of the content in a second language. Moreover, adequate time to complete the process of retrieving information assists a student to identify accurate information to the posed question. Adequate time to recover the stored information also plays an incredibly crucial role in improving student’s memory level (FEAweb, 2003). Apart from increasing students’ memory-level, sufficient wait-time to recover the stored information also helps learners to elaborate upon the retrieved information. The level of elaboration is specifically higher on complicated questions that require adequate and precise information and numerical figures (Becker & Goldstein, 2011). Most ELL students store elaborated information into their long-term memory thus advancing their intelligence level (Beyondpenguins.ehe.osu.edu, 2013). The elaborated information promotes increased comprehension resulting to a better understanding of new ideas and concepts. Moreover, most ELL students store memory in their first language and more time will be required to retrieve and interpolate the information into a second language (Becker & Goldstein, 2011). “Realization of increased wait-time is beneficial for moving students from receptive, semantic processing to expressive, syntactic processing of responses” (Whitsett & Hubbard, 2009, p. 44). Information processing models of the learning activity have indicated that providing adequate time for learners to understand and formulate teachers’ questions prior to giving a reply increase the quality of the answer. This requirement for increased wait time is especially pronounced with questions that require a lot of facts and accuracy for non-native students (Bluck & Gilbertson, 2006). In answering questions that require applications of external information, a learner is required to apply the retrieved facts into the current situation and identify the accuracy of the facts before responding to the question. If the questions require additional information, the learner is therefore expected to have more time to retrieved additional information from long-term memory and apply the retrieved information to the new situation (Huntley, 2008). As a result, offering additional information to a student before responding to the posed question gives a learner adequate time to search for the needed information, retrieve the information, apply the retrieved information, evaluate the information as if need be to seek for additional information (Orlich,2013). Furthermore, research by Garcia (2003) shows that increase wait-time lead to the progress of an ELL from concrete to more abstract and critical thinking and from figurative to operative cognition aspects, which enable the student to apply rich learning experiences that enhance cognitive thinking when responding to questions. Relating Language Proficiency with the Required Wait-Time for Correct Responses Correct oral response expected from ELL students depends on the oral language literacy and proficiency (Becker & Goldstein, 2011). Furthermore, Becker and Goldstein (2011) identifies literacy to be connected with teachers’ wait time to be one of o the main factors that affect the individual learning and academic progress of elementary ELL students. Increased wait-time implementation by teachers allows for low-achieving students as well as ELL students to start paying more attention to classroom proceedings thereby increasing their chances to engage in classroom discussions and minimize the “no idea” responses (Boynton & Boynton, 2005). Cruz and Thornton (2013) further recognizes that second language students have limited meta-cognitive processes of understanding new information compared to native speakers; hence, to completely understand teachers’ questions, second language students ought to be given adequate time to understand and respond to classrooms questions. Active Learning and Response Formulation According to research by educational and psycholinguistics experts, longer wait time has been associated with student improvement in active listening skills, which demonstrate that uninterrupted wait time and pauses before a response is positively interrelated to high level of cognitive activity of the student (Hativa, 2000). Increased wait-time promotes enhanced students’ participation in a classroom. Agpa.uakron.edu (2009) indicates that the use of increased wait-time by teachers in a science classroom significantly improve the quality and quantity of correct responses and achievements on higher-cognitive-level science questions. Nevertheless, wait time should be increased in reference to the cognitive level of the question and the student ability to understand the English language, and internalize information to make responses that are thoughtful and correct (Penick & Harris, 2005). Effect of Increased Time on Background Information Retrieval Increased wait-time for teacher’s results in few incidences whereby students are seen to be nervous when formulating responses after being selected to respond to a question (Huntley, 2008). Brandenburg (2008) noted that the increase of time that is given to a student to respond to a question proved to be a multi-dimensional practice. The multi-dimensional practice enables the students have adequate time to get the relationship of ideas, terminologies, and background information in reference to the posed question. Researchers such as Orlich (2013) and Hativa (200) have acknowledged that failure to give adequate time to learners reduces their memory level and understanding level. Teachers are discouraged from interrupting with the information retrieval process of a student allowing a moment of silence thereby giving opportunities for every student to retrieve declarative knowledge as well as the procedural knowledge prior to make a response (Teachervision.fen.com, 2013). In their researches on the impact of wait-time in student performance, Mohr and Mohr (2007) observed that extended wait-time increases students’ achievement and performance level. Moreover, wait time helps the student to understand the question effectively before attempting an answer (Orlich, 2013). By granting adequate time, the learners are in a position to understand the vocabularies in the question as well as the most effective terminology to improve the quality of the response and the number of correct responses from ELL students in a classroom (Orlich, 2013). Summary Based on the available information, it is clear that failing to give an ELL student adequate time to respond to a question reduces learners’ self-confidence. Self-confidence is an essential component in increasing the learners’ cognitive level. The provision of insufficient wait-time for ELL students reduces the chances of elaborated responses. Additionally, reduced teachers wait- time leads to fewer idea pathways in students’ propositional network that bring about the reduction in the level of retrieved information in future searches and ability to answer a question correctly. Teachers who do not provide adequate time for students with poor English proficiency to answer questions reduce students’ participation in class actives and contributions. Researchers have also found out that, reducing wait-time may decrease students’ commitment and willingness to answer questions (Bluck & Gilbertson, 2006). In an ELL classroom, most students will store the content and background information in their mind using their first language. Consequently, to give correct responses, the student has to translate the information from the brain into a second language, a process that will require more time before giving the response to a question orally. Collectively, it is evident that increased wait-time in an ELL classroom contributes greatly to the quantity of correct responses from the students, which are not only based on the memory recall, but also on critical thinking and evidence-based thoughts. Conclusion In concluding the above review, it is clear that both pre-service teachers and practicing teachers should give adequate wait-time to elementary ELL student in their class participation, especially in giving response to questions. Increased wait-time has been confirmed to be very relevant in all levels of learning, training, and education whereby, irrespective of the language proficiency disability, a student can give correct responses to questions posed in a classroom. Based on the available research, teachers should provide elementary ELL students more than three seconds to respond to a question. Increased memory level and understanding is achieved by teachers giving students adequate wait-time for every question posed. In addition, researchers have asserted that extending the wait-time to three or more seconds increase students’ achievement level, self-confidence, active listening, as well as their cognitive level in response to questions in a classroom. Consequently, it is upon for the researchers to conduct experiments to determine the effects of increased wait-time on the quantity of correct responses from students as well as the improvement of their cognitive levels. ELL students can only be motivated towards academic success by ensuring that teachers discourage content recall facilitating evidence-based and thoughtful responses to classroom questions. A substantial number of teachers do not take into consideration that a non-native student will require more time to translate the question into the first language to enable them formulate an a thoughtful and correct response. To achieve the best outcome in learning institutions, particularly in ELL classrooms, educators and students alike should understand the significance of wait-time in their discussion and discourse, which will boost their quantity of critical and thoughtful responses to content tests and questions. References *Agpa.uakron.edu (2009). Wait time. [online] Retrieved from http://www.agpa.uakron.edu/p16/btp.php?id=wait-time. *Becker, H., & Goldstein, S. (2011). English language learners and special education: A resource handbook. [e-book] London: CAPELL. pp. 5-29. Available through: Connecticut State Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/curriculum/bilingual/CAPELL_SPED_resource_guide.pdf *Beyondpenguins.ehe.osu.edu (2013). Questioning techniques: Research-based strategies for teachers — energy and the polar environment — beyond penguins and polar bears. [online] Retrieved from: http://beyondpenguins.ehe.osu.edu/issue/energy-and-the-polar-environment/questioning-techniques-research-based-strategies-for-teachers *Bluck, J., & Gilbertson, D. (2006). Improving responsiveness to intervention for English-language learners: A comparison of instructional pace on letter naming rates. Journals of Behavioural Education, 20 (15), 131–147. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.cu-portland.edu/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=25&sid=0cd88edb-c990-4744-b5f3-2328f277824d%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=EJ748147 *Boynton, M. and Boynton, C. (2005). The educator's guide to preventing and solving discipline problems. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Brandenburg, R., (2008). Powerful pedagogy. New York, NY: Springer. *Cooper, J., & Irizarry, J. (2013). Classroom teaching skills. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. *Cruz, B., & Thornton, S. (2013). Teaching social studies to English language learners. New York, NY: Routledge. *FEAweb (2003). Time-on-Task: A Teaching Strategy that Accelerates Learning. [online] Retrieved from: http://feaweb.org/time-on-task-a-teaching-strategy-that-accelerates-learning *Hativa, N. (2000). Teaching for effective learning in higher education. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. * Garcia, G. eds. (2003). English learners: reaching the highest level of English literacy. Kindle ed. New York: International Reading Association, pp. 125-152. *Huntley, B. (2008). Effects of post-solicitation wait time on verbal participation of English language learners. University of North Carolina: Charlotte. *Mohr, K.J., & Mohr, E.S. (2007, February). Extending English-Language Learners' Classroom Interactions Using the Response Protocol. The Reading Teacher, 60(5), 440-450 *Orlich, D. (2013). Teaching strategies. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. *Penick, J., & Harris, R. (2005). Teaching with purpose. Arlington, VA.: NSTA Press. *Teachervision.fen.com (2013). Your secret weapon: Wait time (Professional Development Teaching Advice, Grades K-12) - TeacherVision.com. [online] Retrieved from http://www.teachervision.fen.com/teaching-methods/new-teacher/48446.html *Whitsett, G., & Hubbard, J. (2009). Supporting English language learners in the elementary and secondary classrooms: How to get started. SRATE Journal, 18 (2), pp. 41-47. Retrieved from http://apbrwww5.apsu.edu/SRATE/JournalEditions/182/Whitsett.pdf Action Research Paper Documentation Form ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT Name: Rosary McIntyre Title of Project: What are the effects of increased wait-time on the quantity of correct responses from elementary ELL students in a classroom? Date Completed: IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME: Number of weeks: One week TIMELINE of ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT: Start Date: August 5, 2013 End Date: August 9, 2013 AREA OF FOCUS: What is your chosen area of focus? Why did you choose this area? How does it directly impact you? The chosen area of focus is the amount of “wait-time” provided by a teacher to ELL students in answering questions in the classroom. Additionally, the research is focused in unleashing the effects of extending "wait time" for ESL/ELL students owing to the fact that there are many such students attending schools. The research topic was chosen because of the interest to determine the positive effect of “wait time” as soon as this concept was first introduced early in EDCI 528. Through self-examination of the teaching behavior and practices, the realization of not allowing sufficient wait time to students to give responses motivated this research. Consequently, the change in the teaching strategies in the classroom had to be prompted to allow students more wait-time, which lead to improvement in the quantity of correct responses from students, especially in ELL classrooms. Increased wait-time practice was applied in all areas of the classroom, talking circle, small group projects, and full class lectures. There was an immense improvement in the number of correct responses, participation, and the engagement levels of students after effecting increased wait-time practice the classroom. "Wait time" is one of several tools and techniques learned in EDCI 528 course that every teacher should adapt in the effort to create a more inclusive and equitable classroom-learning environment focused on long-term memory rather than recall of information. The endeavor to develop unremittingly as a teacher should focus on commitment to improving in a manner that insures each student in a classroom learns and develops to full potential towards high achievements. In conclusion, implementing increased "wait-time" into teaching strategies can be an important step in increasing the quantity of correct and thoughtful responses from ELL students. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the effects of increased wait-time on the quantity of correct responses from elementary ELL students in a classroom? DEMOGRAPHICS DEMOGRAPHIC DATA: Where/What is the research site? Who is directly involved? What statistics will give a clear understanding of the context and culture of the research site? (Do not use name as an identifier.) Provide references for sources used. The research site is an after school/summer community learning center in the Midwest. There are approximately 55 students enrolled in the center, however, only two ELL students will be engaged in the research. The research projects directly involves the community learning center director, a teaching colleague, and 2 fifth grades ELL male students enrolled in the center's summer learning program. The interview from the two ELL students will provide clear information on their cultural, demographic, and social background in addition to information about their level of English proficiency. One of the students is a Liberian and the other one a Chinese. Having known their country of origin and changes, which they had to adapt in reference to the new Midwest environment, gives an overview of the research site culture. TARGET GROUP: Who are the students you are trying to impact? (Do not use names - you must use another identifier.) How do you think this strategy or content focus will benefit the target group? The target group being impacted by the research is of 5th Grade elementary ELL school students, whereby the research will only use two of the students. The two students are both males from different backgrounds one being from the Chinese culture and the other from Liberia. Additionally, the two male students have a poor English proficiency and are currently enrolled in an English Learning program in the Midwest community-learning center. The strategy/focus of increased "wait time" will benefit the target group by increasing the quantity of correct responses and improving quality of responses to questions asked in a classroom, which will promote the development of cognitive thinking, increasing self- confidence, and in general improve the learning environment of ELL students regardless of their poor English proficiency. Owing to the fact that ESL/ELL students take more time to complete cognitive activities related to responding to a question (such as translation to their first language), increased wait time may benefit them in a disproportionally positive manner as compared to general students. Extended wait time could create a greater level of equity related to question answering for ESL/ELL students. BASELINE DATA: What are the baseline data that support your choice for this area of focus? What patterns or trends do you see in the data? What is your proof that an issue exists in this focus area? (NOTE: You may not depend solely on Standardized Test Scores.) Most teachers gives students 1-3 seconds to respond to a question before moving to a next question or ask another student to attempt similar question (Bluck & Gilbertson, 2006). Interestingly, majority of teachers do not take into consideration that ELL students require more wait-time in formulating a response compared to a regular student whose first language is English. Worse still, is when ELL students are in an inclusive classroom whereby the teacher will not have the notion that every student need varying wait-time in reference to cognitive levels and English language proficiency in a classroom. The consensus patterns of most teachers, who have practiced increased wait time of more than 3 seconds, indicate a considerable improvement in the quantity and thoughtfulness of answers along with other beneficial behavior by both the student and the teacher (Mohr & Mohr, 2007). Surprisingly, teachers that apply increased wait-time in an ELL classroom yields 50%+ increase in correct responses from students compared to teachers who only give students less than 3 seconds to respond to questions. This baseline data suggests that ELL students along with almost all students would benefit from increased wait-time as well as increasing the quantity of correct responses that a teacher receives from students irrespective of their diversified linguistic backgrounds. From observation, school teachers give lower grades on standardized test scores for ELL students compared to native students, which suggest that there exist the lack of sufficient time for the ELL students to translate the tests into their first language making it difficult for them to come up with thoughtful and correct responses to the questions. Obviously, depending only on standardize test scores in an inclusive classroom is unfair whereby accommodations such as increased wait-time for ELL students is not effected. ELL students’ low engagement and unwillingness to respond to questions is associated with teachers not giving them adequate time to comprehend the questions in their first language and formulate a response in English, a proof enough to intervene into wait-time allowed to ELL students to give responses. ELL students require more time to implement cognitive question answering strategies and functions such as translation compared to regular students. Additionally, it is certain that ELL students would benefit greatly from an increase in wait-time, which if sufficient to promote equal chances of correct responses from ELL students with regular students when answering class questions. In other words, does the extra time help ELL students’ more than regular students? Alternatively, does the lack of sufficient wait-time typically provided by teachers to answer questions discourage ELL students from giving correct responses? Consequently, a relationship exists between the quantity of correct response from ELL students and the wait allowed for the questions. The research seeks to determine the trend of this relationship. ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: What is your plan to implement the strategy or content knowledge? How did you collaborate with other staff involved with this issue? The research implementation focus on involving two 5th grade ELL students, who are both males, from an ELL elementary institution. Center director will provide the research team with a room. A teacher with little knowledge of the research will ask questions in a planned schedule as explained below. The research strategy will include test questions as well as questioners. The test questions will be of 5th grade that will be read to the students by the teacher. The research will conduct two questionnaires after the test, one for the two students, and one for the teacher asking the questions. Test Questions Schedule for session#1 and session #2 The 50 test questions will be divided into two groups of 25 questions with an equal number of questions from each subject area, Math, English, Biology, and Science in each group. A coin flip will be used to decide which group is selected as group A. On the first day the teacher will read the 25 questions from group A to the students allowing normal wait time of 3 seconds marking the end of session one. On the second day the teacher will read the 25 questions from group B to the students implementing "wait-time" and allowing more than 3 seconds (increased wait time) for the students to respond. The teacher will be instructed to use hand signs to show the time of wait-time allowed. Questionnaire schedule The researcher, on the third day, the researcher will conduct the students and teacher questionnaire and the researcher. The teacher will be the first to be asked the questionnaire as from 9:00 am to 10: am on the fifth day. The researcher will then shift to the 5th grade students’ questionnaire that will be administered to every student at different time. The Chinese student will be the first one to be questioned as from 11:30am -12:000 pm and then the Liberian student will follow as from 12:10-12:40 p.m. Moreover, the implementation plan will apply four techniques to collect data for analysis. The first technique for the implementation plan will be gathering data obtained from the test that will be used to show the effect of increased wait-time on students. The test will have distributed 5th grade questions of different subjects including mathematics, Biology, English and Science. This test will have questions that require different cognitive levels. The researcher will then record the number of correct and incorrect responses from each of the ELL students, as recorded by the teacher reading out the questions. The test result will provide analysis on correct answers prior to increasing wait-time and after when the wait-time is increased depending on the cognitive level of the questions. Secondly, the researcher will conduct an interview that will be transformed into a percentile pie chart to indicate how normal wait-time (session #1) and increased wait-time (session #2) affects the quantity of correct responses from the two ELL students. The two students will be requested to select between session #1 and session #2, which provided sufficient time for critical thinking in giving correct responses. The researcher will tally the interview responses to see the change in the trend of correct responses given by students. The two sessions will be formulated into a chart that will indicate the effect on the quantity of correct responses after increased wait-time is implemented. The third data collection technique will be a teacher’s tally on the number of correct response from the student. The quantity of correct responses after increasing wait-time will be tabulated in a table against a table that will be indicating the number of correct responses prior to increased wait-time. The table will be then analyzed used mathematical formulae to determine to determine the effect on correct responses after the implementation of increased wait-time. Lastly, the final data source will be an assessment of the responses given by the students. The researcher will assess every response given by the students in comparison with the wait-time allowed for every question. This will also include behavior assessment on the willingness of a student to give a response that directly affects the nature of the response, either correct or incorrect. Additionally, the researcher will analyze the effect of increased wait-time on a student’s cognitive level in responding to various questions. The collaborative research team provided all the resources and services required to make the experiment realistic. The Center director offered a suitable room for the experiment while the teacher asked the questions, following the instructions provided. The researcher gave the teacher clear instructions when reading out the questions including wait-time for each session as explained above. PROCEDURES & MEASURES: What are the steps you will follow? How will you measure student progress? The research experiment will be conducted in two sessions, session #1 and session #2. During the first session of two days, ELL students will be asked the 25questions selected by the teacher randomly from a list of 5th grade questions of different cognitive levels that are attached on the appendix. The experiment will commence on Monday morning after the center director has allocated the research team a suitable room. Both sessions will be starting at 9:00am to 12:00 pm, which will be marking the end of experiment day. Both sessions will be video recorded for detailed analysis. The two students will be of the same 5th grade level with approximately equal levels of English proficiency for accurate data collection during the experiment. Session #1 procedure The teacher will be handed with group A questions by the researcher that will consist of 25 questions, 5 from mathematics, 5 English questions, and 15 science questions. The teacher will not be given prior instructions on the wait-time required whereby normal wait-time for most teachers will apply. The teacher will ask the questions independently allowing normal wait-time before choosing either the chines or Liberian student to respond. Teacher will be required to tabulate the responses from each student. Session #2 procedure The researcher will provide group B questions to the teacher, which will be divided equally to portions of 25 questions each, 4 English questions, 5 mathematics questions and 16 science questions. This time, the teacher will be instructed to allow more than 3 second wait-time before choosing either the chines or Liberian student to give a response. The teacher will ask the questions following the wait-time instruction within the session allowed time. Teacher will be required to tabulate the nature responses from each of the two students, either correct or incorrect. Measuring the two students’ progress The success of the research experiment is potentially on the 50 5th grade test questions that will be asked to the two male ELL students. Consequently, to ensure that the experiment is a success, the two students’ progress will be closely measured using the numerical data of session #1 in comparison to the first day of session #2. The 5th grade questions for the research structured are set to a standard that will see the student achievement be approximately 40-60% with normal wait-time; hence, after the first session, the percentage of correct responses will be calculate for the two students and then the mean score. To measure the students’ progress, the first 25 responses asked in day one of session #1 will be compared with first day of session# 2. For overall measure of students’ progress, mean correct responses from session #1 will be compared against the mean of correct responses from session #2. Potential occurrences and risks A potential problem for the research would be if the questions are too easy and the students answer 80%+ correctly. Then there would be a very narrow enhance for improvement on the students’ progress. Another problem would be if the questions are too hard and both students only answer 10% or less correctly. This situation might produce biased results. For example, if in the reference session #1 only five questions out of 50 are answered correctly, it would then only take 7 correct answers in the "wait time" second session to suggest a 40% improvement students’ progress.  Another risk to the success of the reference session would be the presence of one of the student increased English proficiency level than the other one. The English advanced students will be capable of answering more or even score 90%, when the other student might only be able to answer 50%. This student(s) would need to be dropped from the research group and the reference session would need to be repeated.   . DATA COLLECTION: What data will be collected? How often? What tools will be used? Copies of tools will go in appendixes. Numerical data, session#1/session#2/no difference, and yes/no data will be collected using the following tools attached in the appendix. The data will be collected for each experiment session and complied at the end of every experiment day. a) 50 5th grade questions divided into two equal portions of 25 questions each b) 5th Grade student test results table as per student c) Teacher Tally worksheet that will indicate the quantity of correct responses from the two students, which the researcher will use to determine the effect of increased wait-time on the quantity of correct answers. d) Interview Questionnaires that will be used to correct individual opinions on both of the session for the teacher as well as the two students. e) Teacher response assessment in comparison with wait-time given that will show the relationship of time allowed to the status of the response, whether correct or incorrect. Numerical data will be collected from both the reference session #1 and session #2 will be used to formulate a statistical representation of correct responses compared to incorrect responses for both normal wait-time and increased wait-time allowed in the experiment. Mean of correct responses from each session will be calculated as follows; Mean value of each session= The session#1/sessin#2/no difference data from the two interviewed ELL students will be used to analyze personal view on the effect on the quantity of correct responses after increased wait-time is implemented. Additionally, the yes/no data from a questionnaire for the teacher asking the questions will provide the behavioral analysis of students in the willingness to give correct responses for the questions after wait-time was increased. Numerical data from the assessment of the responses given by the students by the researcher will be used to analyze the effect of increased wait-time on a student’s cognitive level in responding to various questions. The details of the data collection tools and the results of the five data collection tools will be included in the Appendix. IMPLEMENTATION: (Describe the actual implementation of your plan.) Week 1: Monday Meeting with the two ELL students, one from Liberia, and the other one from China Available in the pre-project meeting was a teacher, two 5th grade ELL students and the center director. Coin tossed to determine the group of questions to be used for day 1 and day 2. The tossed coin resulted in the head up indicating that group A questions were to be asked by the teacher on experiment day #1. Tuesday The teacher handed with the test questions (group A)to be read to students. Results recorded on the data tools Observation notes recorded Wednesday The teacher handed with the test questions (group A) to be read to students. Results recorded on the data tools Observation notes recorded Organized the tabulated results for both Session #1 and session#2 for analysis Thursday Administered a questionnaire to the two 5th grade male ELL students Questionnaire responses recorded Friday Administered a questionnaire to the teacher asking the test questions Questionnaire responses recorded Organized all data and completed the observations notes. DOCUMENTATION OF ADJUSTMENTS: How did the plan change during the course of the Action Research timeline? What prompted the change? What were the effects of the changes? The researcher administered the action plan as it was prescribed accommodating several adaptions and changes during the actual implementation process. The first major adjustment made by the researcher was to reschedule Monday to be a day to finalize all preparations for the actual implementation of the action plan. Prior plans had indicated that the first group of questions was to be administered on Monday, which the researcher opted to reschedule to Tuesday giving way to a rehearsal by the teacher questioning the questions. Additionally, the teacher was provided adequate information by the researcher on the research to enhance accurate results whereby the teacher was supposed to practice giving a wait time of less than 3 second I the first session. The reason why the researcher decide to change the original plan is because the teacher, without prior explanation of the research, would give students wait-time more than 3 seconds in the first session that would have compromised accuracy of the results. Another adaptation made by the researcher was to record each question against the allowed wait-time owing to the fact that the study sessions were considerably short. This would rather give a clear correlation of the amount of time allowed for questions asked in session #1with the quantity of correct responses from each ELL student. The same process was repeated on session #2. ANALYSIS & REPORTING REPORTING RESULTS: What are your results and how will you share them? How does the baseline data compare to the ending data? What is the story told by your data? The results obtained from the experiment indicated clearly that the implementation of increased wait-time had a substantial effect on the quantity of correct responses from elementary ELL students in a classroom. Observation note recorded by the researcher evidenced the significance of increased wait-time on the ability of a student to comprehend questions critically prior to giving a response that lead to increased correct responses. Analysis At the end of the first session, the Liberian student responded correctly 4 questions while the wrong responses were 9. The Chinese student answered 3 questions correctly and 9 questions wrong. Consequently, the mean of correct responses from the two students is: ………………..(i) mean correct responses for session #1 The mean percentage of correct answers from the two 5th grade ELL students for session #1 was; At the end of the second session, Liberian students responded correctly to 5 questions. On the other hand, the Chinese responded correctly to 7 questions. The mean of correct responses is thereby: …………………(ii) mean correct responses for session #2 The mean percentage of correct responses from the two 5th grade ELL students for session #2 was; The meant percentage increase of correct response from the two 5th grade students was; The results for session#2, which was conducted with the implementation of increased wait-time of more than 3 seconds, showed an increase on the quantity of correct responses from both the Chinese and the Liberian 5th grade students. The percentage of correct responses for session #1 was poor yielding 14% as compared to the results of session #2 that was 24%. There was a mean percentage increase of correct responses of 7% on the implementation of increase wait-time. The questionnaire responses from both the Chinese student and the Liberian student indicate that there was an increase in the willingness to respond to questions correctly as well as comprehension of the questions. The data trend from the results indicates that there is a substantial effect of increased-wait time on the quantity of correct Reponses given by ELL students. The data also supports that students are able to evaluate their responses critically prior to delivering them to the teacher that eventually increase the number of correctly answered questions. However, the implementation of increased in wait-time did not eradicate wrong responses completely owing to the fact that other aspects such as background information of the subjects were not handled extensively. The researcher will transform the results of correct responses from session #1 and session # 2 to a pie chart that will be easy to share with colleagues and professionals interested in the results the effect of incased wait-time on quantity of correct responses, The effect of increased wait-time on the quantity of correct responses meet the researcher expectations. Infact, the results was more than the expected. Additionally, the strong outcome there was an immediate and strong result in increasing wait-time for The Ell students. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE: How will the results impact your teaching in the future? How did the project inform your decision-making as a professional? The researcher plans to use the information from the research to increase the wait-time allowed for students to respond to questions in future classes, especially in ELL classes. Having recognized the effect of increased wait-time on quantity of correct responses, the researcher intends to ensure that the use of hand signal are used to give an indication to students the amount of wait-time allowed for each question rather than just keeping quiet, a situation that most teachers find it challenging. Currently, most teachers are not providing sufficient wait-time to their students, with only a few from ELL institutions who understand the challenges faced by an ELL student in formulating responses in English. Implementing increased wait-time for all students is the focus of the researcher in future. The hoped strong results indicated an improvement in the quantity of correct responses from ELL students after the implementation increased wait-time. Individually, the researcher aims to increase wait-time for ELL students regardless of the pre-planned schedule. Implementing increased wait-time on students with poor English proficiency targets high expectations for all students, which professional have to choose rather than focusing entirely on delivering background information to students that is focused on increasing the quantity of correct and thoughtful responses as well as positive attitudes towards classroom questions. CONCLUSIONS: Did this study improve student performance? Explain. Did this study improve your skills as a teacher? Explain. The action research project was focused in determining the effect of increased wait-time on the quantity of correct responses from ELL students. The research had a desire to obtain a 50% improvement on the quantity of correct responses from ELL students. The subjected students, two 5th grade ELL students, who were subjected to the study, are prone to withdraw from giving responses because of their poor English proficiency. At the end of the study, the results indicate a considerable improvement by the students’ willingness to answer classroom questions as well as giving correct responses. Frequently, most students gain more self –confidence in cases that they are able to give correct responses, which is facilitated by increased wait-time. It was evident that from the research, the Chinese and Liberian student were more involved in the learning process on the session with increased wait-time compared to the session with normal wait –time of less than three seconds. The positive effect on the attitude of ELL students towards questions as well as the time they are given to comprehend the questions critically eventually improves their ability to give correct responses irrespective of language difficulties. Consequently, it is evident that the study had a direct impact in the improvement of the students’ performance. The study meet the researchers expectations; hence, an improvement in the researchers teaching skills. The results of a notable and immediate improvement on the quantity of correct responses from the ELL students as a result of increased wait-time contribute enhanced the researchers strategies in providing education focused on facts and critical thinking rather than short-term memory for the students. Providing students, especially ELL students with sufficient wait-time is a skill that the researcher established to be beneficial in increasing the quantity of correct responses as well as improved classroom participation regardless of language difficulties. Implementation of the study has improved the researcher’s capability to ensure that students are allowed sufficient time prior to responding to questions. Additionally, the researcher questionnaire analysis was able to improve the manner in which wait-time is supposed to be specified with the use of non-verbal communication such as the use of hand signs to avid interrupting the students thinking process. Furthermore, the researcher was able to learn that different questions have differing cognitive levels and it is upon the teacher to evaluate the cognitive level of a particular question and allow the appropriate wait-time before picking a student to respond. REFERENCES: Mohr, K.J., & Mohr, E.S. (2007, February). Extending English-Language Learners' Classroom Interactions Using the Response Protocol. The Reading Teacher, 60(5), 440-450 Bluck, J., & Gilbertson, D. (2006). Improving responsiveness to intervention for English-language learners: A comparison of instructional pace on letter naming rates. Journals of Behavioural Education, 20 (15), 131–147. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.cu-portland.edu/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=25&sid=0cd88edb-c990-4744-b5f3-2328f277824d%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=EJ748147 PERSONAL REFLECTIONS: The study on the effect of increase wait-time on the quantity of correct responses has enhanced my teaching skills in terms of quality questioning techniques as well as one of the technique I should apply to improve students’ class participation regardless of their language disabilities. The study has also enhanced my ability to work as a team to achieve the desired outcome. The result obtained was through a collaborative team with which I would have not undertaken on my own reminding me on the significance of teamwork. Appendix A: Research Tools (Five Data Gathering Instrument a) Test Questions Group A 5th grade test questions with normal wait-time allowed Subject No. Question Answer Math 1. 1400?(25?14)= The sequence should be manipulated to (1400?14)?25=4 2. Raymond is to start a tour in Africa at 6:00 am on April 14th. The tour ends after the clock turns around 40 times. What date and time will Raymond have completed the tour? 10:00 pm on April 15th N.B: 1 clock round is equal to 1 hour 3. A supermarket has 81 customers in 9 lines. If every line has the same number of customers, how many customers are in each line? 81?9=9 customers 4. James has a date with Gabriella scheduled at a nearby hotel at 10:45 p.m. If the current time is 7:45 p.m., how much time does James have before meeting Gabriella? 3 hours 5. The rectangle shown represents a land in the scale of 1 m rep 1km. The width of the rectangle is 12 m and length is 28 m. What is the area of the piece of land? Area=L*W =28*12=336 square meters Area of land is 336 square kilometers. Science 6. A part of a cell allows nutrients and other material to enter and leave a cell. What is the name of this part? Cell membrane 7. What separates living things from the nonliving thing? Living things have all 5 MR. RUG features. 8. Give two examples of inherited trait. Nose shape Bent little finger Chin cleft Eye color Tongue rolling Mid-digital hair Hand clasping 9. Name the basic unit of all living organisms. Cells 10. The outermost structure in a plant cell is known as_____ Cell wall 11. Which of the following groups consists of members from the same kingdom? a) Cat, frog, and spider b) Grass, maize, whale c) Mold, mango tree, fungi d) Fern, rose bush, and corn plant d) Fern, rose bush, and corn plant 12. What is the significance of chlorophyll in plants? To enable photosynthesis to take place for the plant to make their own food that is sugar. 13. Where is pollen stored in a flower? State its function Pollen is stored on the stamen of a flower, which are little hammer-looking structures that stick out of flowers. Pollen function is to carry the sperm cells. 14. What are the contents of a seed? Seed coat, Embryo, and stored food 15. From the following, what are the two products of photosynthesis? a) Sugar and carbon dioxide b) Sugar and oxygen c) Sugar and carbon dioxide d) Water and sugar Sugar and oxygen 16. Which process occurs in single-celled organisms to reproduce other cells? Cell division 17. Conifers are the oldest and largest tress on earth, true or false. True 18. Which of the following are the main purposes of plant roots? a) Help prevent soil erosion b) Absorb water and minerals from the soil c) Collect sunlight d) Support the plant e) Make food for the plant a) Help prevent soil erosion b) Absorb water and mineral from the soil c) Support the plant 19. Which body system breaks food into nutrients useful to the body? The digestive system 20. Which body organ removes cell waste from the blood? The kidney English 21. Which is a quantifier in the following sentence? The man married seven black women Seven 22. Which of the following words is an antonym for annoyed? a) Encouraged b) Amused c) Worried d) Disturbed Amused 23. Which of these words is a synonym for remark? a) Benefit b) Comment c) Attempt d) Decision Comment 24. Read the following sentence The school gives out donated uniforms to students from low-income families. What is the meaning of the root don in the word donated Give 25. Jane, a student at California community school found a book in the library known as Bacteria Entomology. In which part of the book would Jane find titles of other books about bacteria? The Bibliography Group B 5th grade test questions with increased wait-time allowed (>3seconds) Math 26. Mary resides on the 9th floor of a residential building. In between two floors, there are 36 stairs. Mary has to climb to the 9th floor from the 1st floor. How many floors will many have to climb to reach to her room in the 9th floor? 8?36= 288 stairs 27. Study the sequence and fill in the blank spaces a) 45,30,18,9,_,0 b) 2,5,11,23,47,_,_ a) 3 Differences are in the form, 15, 12,9,6,3 b) 95,191 Differences are in the form: 3,6,12,24,48,96 28. A classroom consists of 44 students. Every student takes part in at least one of the two sport games offered. The two sports include handball and soccer. 32 students play soccer. How many students plays handball? 44-32=12 Students 29. A box has 4 faces. A manufacturer has to paint 3 faces of each box. If the manufacturer is to pack 100 boxes, how many box faces will be painted? 3?100=300 box faces 30. John, James, and Patrick went to a farm to pick apples. John picked 1/3 of what James picked. On the other hand, James picked four times as many as those of Patrick. Patrick picked 27 apples. How many did James and john each pick? John =27?4=108 apples James=1/3 of108=36 apples Science (General) 31. Which property of salt does make it significant in making ice cream? Salt lowers the freezing point of water 32. For a light bulb to light, electric current flows through the metal filament whereby electrical energy is converted to___. Heat an d light energy 33. What is the significance of Decomposers in the food chain? They break down the dead organisms and recycle nutrients back to the soil 34. What is the best definition of “weathering “of rocks? The Breakdown of rocks, which lead to decrease in their size 35. What is the type of change that occurs at molecular level when ice melts? Physical change 36. In reference to the Nitrogen cycle,: what is the main source that fixes nitrogen , which enables plants to utilize it The main source is the nitrogen fixing bacteria in the soil. 37. Wood is an example of _____resource. Renewable 38. How many phases does the moon have and what causes the phases? The moon has 8 phases that are caused by its changing position with respect to the sun. 39. In which atmosphere layer does the ozone layer of the earth lie? The Stratosphere. 40. Ozone layer is considered harmful but also useful. Why is ozone layer helpful to the earth? Ozone layer is useful to the earth because it absorbs harmful ultra-violet rays in the atmosphere. This helps prevent sunburn on earth. 41. A tsunami is considered a rapid change of the earth. How can you define rapid changes? Rapid changes are changes of the earth’s surface that happen in a relatively quick manner. 42. What name is given to the outermost layer of the atmosphere? a) Troposphere b) Mesosphere c) Thermosphere d) Exosphere e) Stratosphere Exosphere 43. Which of the following measurement tools is used to determine the volume of a liquid? a) Graduated cylinder b) Barometer c) Test tube d) Thermometer Graduated cylinder 44. In reference to heat energy, in which way is condensation and evaporation similar? Both are caused by changes in heats energy 45. A pan is being heated on a gas cooker. Which prices causes the metal handle of the pan to also become hot? Conduction 46. Rose lives in the Southern hemisphere. What is the season that she is most likely to experience in the month of august? Winter English 47. What are conjunctions used for in a sentence? Conjunctions are used to merge two or one sentences to make one whole sentence. 48. Fill in the blank with the appropriate article Jackson was found in possession of_____ dangerous weapon by _____police. A, the 49. What are Idioms? Idioms are expressions that mean something else other than the actual meaning. 50. Identify the possessive pronoun/s in the following sentence. The cars they used to travel with to New York was theirs. They, Theirs b) 5th Grade student test results table Chinese student Question No. Session # 1 Allowed wait-time=3 Seconds Session #2 Allowed wait time differs in reference with the cognitive level of question Teacher uses hand signs to show wait-time allowed Correct Response Incorrect response Correct Response Incorrect response 1. 2. 3. Liberian student Question No. Session # 1 Allowed wait-time=3 Seconds Session #2 Allowed wait time differs in reference with the cognitive level of question Teacher uses hand signs to show wait-time allowed Correct Response Incorrect response Correct Response Incorrect response 1. 2. 3. Mean quantity of correct responses for session 1= Mean quantity of correct responses for session 1= N:B. Mean value of correct responses for each session= c) Teacher Tally worksheet Total number of test questions Session #1 Quantity of correct responses Session #2 quantity of correct responses Effect of increased wait-time Increase in correct responses= session #2 correct responses-session #1 correct responses Percentage increase in correct responses 50 N.B: Percentage increase in correct responses= d) Interview Questionnaires Student Questionnaire Question Response Session #1 Session #2 No difference In which session do you feel that you were capable of giving answers that are more correct? Which session was more interesting? In which session did you feel like not giving a response at all? In which session do you feel you answered more questions correctly? In which session did you pay more attention to the learning process? In which session do you think you comprehended more facts based information? In which session did you have more interest in responding to questions? In which session did you give evidence-based responses rather based on recall? Teachers Questionnaire Question Response Additional Remarks/Observations yes no Did you note any incidences of speculative responses from the students? Did you observe any differences in the readiness of students to answer questions? Did you see any differences in the willingness of students to answer questions? Was there any change in the length and detail of the answers provided by the students? Was there any change in the level of language used by the students? Did you see any difference in the level of engagement of the students? Was there any change in the attitude of the students? Did you, as a teacher, experience any changes or differences in your attitude and/or level of engagement? Did you identify any change on the students’ self-confidence level when they are giving responses? Did the students look afraid to give responses once they were pin pointed to give responses? Did you note any change on the students’ rate of asking counter questions? e) Teacher response assessment in comparison with wait-time given Session #1 & #2 Question no. Wait-time allowed Session #1 Session #2 1. 2. 3. 4. Appendix B: Results Students score 1st session Correct responses 1st session Correct responses 2nd session Correct responses 2nd session incorrect responses Chinese student 3 9 7 6 Liberian student 4 9 5 7 Total correct answers Session # 1 7 Session #2 12 f) Interview Questionnaires Student Questionnaire – Liberian Student Question Response Session #1 Session #2 No difference In which session do you feel that you were capable of giving answers that are more correct? X Which session was more interesting? X In which session did you feel like not giving a response at all? X In which session do you feel you answered more questions correctly? X In which session did you pay more attention to the learning process? X In which session do you think you comprehended more facts based information? X In which session did you have more interest in responding to questions? X In which session did you give evidence-based responses rather based on recall? X a) Interview Questionnaires Student Questionnaire – Chinese Student Question Response Session #1 Session #2 No difference In which session do you feel that you were capable of giving answers that are more correct? X Which session was more interesting? X In which session did you feel like not giving a response at all? X In which session do you feel you answered more questions correctly? X In which session did you pay more attention to the learning process? X In which session do you think you comprehended more facts based information? X In which session did you have more interest in responding to questions? X In which session did you give evidence-based responses rather based on recall? X Teachers Questionnaire- Question Response Additional Remarks/Observations yes no Did you note any incidences of speculative responses from the students? X Multiple choice questions were simpler to respond Did you observe any differences in the readiness of students to answer questions? X Science question posed a great challenge Did you see any differences in the willingness of students to answer questions? X Some of the questions were challenging minimizing the students willingness to respond Was there any change in the length and detail of the answers provided by the students? X Was there any change in the level of language used by the students? X Did you see any difference in the level of engagement of the students? X Was there any change in the attitude of the students? X Did you, as a teacher, experience any changes or differences in your attitude and/or level of engagement? X Did you identify any change on the students’ self-confidence level when they are giving responses? X Did the students look afraid to give responses once they were pin pointed to give responses? X Did you note any change on the students’ rate of asking counter questions? X Teachers Questionnaire- RESEARCHER- Question Response Additional Remarks/Observations yes no Did you note any incidences of speculative responses from the students? X Generally, being able to repeat and explain the question could have improved the responses Did you observe any differences in the readiness of students to answer questions? X Did you see any differences in the willingness of students to answer questions? X Was there any change in the length and detail of the answers provided by the students? X IN SESSION 2 Was there any change in the level of language used by the students? X Did you see any difference in the level of engagement of the students? X Was there any change in the attitude of the students? X Did you, as a teacher, experience any changes or differences in your attitude and/or level of engagement? X Did you identify any change on the students’ self-confidence level when they are giving responses? X Did the students look afraid to give responses once they were pin pointed to give responses? X Did you note any change on the students’ rate of asking counter questions? X Results assessment in relation to wait time allowed Question Wait-time Session #1 Session#2 1. 2.0 5.2 2. 2.9 6.4 3. 2 Read More