Case Study Part 1 - CLDE 5030
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Colorado, Denver *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
5030
Subject
Health Science
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by marisol321
1
Case Study Part I, Session 5
Student ID #195659
Jennifer Marisol Tayler
School of Education and Human Development (SEHD), University of Colorado Denver
CLDE 5030 580
Oakley Schilling and Patrick Kilcullen
15 September 2021
2
Many high school teachers feel uncomfortable with, ill-equipped, and generally
unprepared to adequately support the ever-increasing number of multi-lingual students in their
classrooms. The purpose of this case study is to review English learners in order to select one
student for a case study. It has been my experience as a main-stream, high school English
Lange Arts teacher, that students cannot be quantified or accurately described by a series of
numbers. Although I am using primarily numbers and limited qualifiers to initially describe
this student, as I get to know them better, I will be able to try different methods of scaffolding
and initiating new techniques. My goal in selecting this student is to try to get to know this
student better and to provide a stronger culturally and linguistically diverse education for this
students and my other multilingual students.
Scores from ACCESS, iReady, CMAS, and PSAT testing may give teachers insight into
a student’s abilities, and – like their GPA - but does not provide a full or accurate picture of
what a student can do, their strengths, struggles, and character. Selecting a student after having
had only eight classes (or less) with students who are mostly one of more than thirty in a class
doesn’t allow much time to get to know a student personally or to form an accurate
understanding of one teen among so many. Given the limitations of strictly using the numbers, I reviewed several students. I was
able to find one student who was especially interesting for the purposes of a case study. I will
refer to this student as JJM. JJM has consistently high ACCESS scores compared to their peers,
especially in listening. JJM’s lowest ACCESS score average is in speaking, which is
unexpected given how high their listening skills are; I would expect a stronger correlation
between speaking and listening language skills.
3
JJM is also not making consistent growth and progress, according to their ACCESS
scores. 2018 and 2019 CMAS scores indicate a decrease in skills. iReady scores for this student
increased or were flat every year from 2016-2020 except in 2018, when their ELA score dropped
from Level 3 to Level 1, but returned to Level 4 in 2019, and Level 5 in 2020. PARCC scores
from 2015-2017 were partially proficient in ELA, but their PSAT in spring of 2021 for Evidence
Based reading and Writing placed them in the 25
th
percentile with an EBRW score of 380.
According to the Colorado Department of Education (2021), the mean score in 2021 for high
school freshmen was 462, which is slightly higher than the 59
th
percentile. Unfortunately, school
and state specific data are not yet available at the time of this writing; in the future I will do a
more specific comparative analysis between JJM’s peers and classmates at Frederick High
School and in the SVVSD district.
JJM is also appealing as a case study student because this student has been in SVVSD
district several consecutive years, and there is more information available for them than many of
my other students. I do not have GPA’s for previous years, but JJM’s GPA for last year was
low: 0.889. The reason I am most interested in studying through a case study is that JJM during
my few and limited one-on-one conversations with JJM he seems smart, capable, and their test
scores show they have at least a good, foundational, functional level of English acquisition, but
his grades show that he is struggling. I want to see how various CLDE techniques can be
leveraged to make a developmental growth not only in skills but in practical application of skills
and academic success. JJM seems like one of the very common type of student who I believe is in need of just a
little more support to really push his academic and skills growth. I see so many students like
JJM who have the advantage of being emerging bilinguals or multi-lingual students, who seem to
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
possess all the tool necessary to make the leap to consistent academic success, who could test out
of the CLDE system, but who aren’t and don’t. If I can learn some techniques to help me be a
better teacher and develop a stronger scaffolding and instructional paradigm or pedagogy for this
one student, I will be a better teacher for all my students.
5
Colorado Department of Education. (2021). Spring 2021 State Assessment Results:
Interpretation
Considerations
.
https://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/2021_psat_sat_statesummary achievementresults
6
Student Initials or Pseudonym
Listening
Speaking
Reading
Writing
Change from
previous data
Is the data for this student consistent / reliable? Explain
SRJ
2017 = 3.9
2018 = 3.5
2019 = 2.3
2020 = 2.8
2021 = 4.5
2017 = 1.6
2018 = 1.8
2019 = 1.7
2020 = 1.9
2021 = 1.9
2017 = 3.9
2018 = 1.7
2019 = 1.7
2020 = 2.2
2021 = 1.9
2017 = 1.7
2018 = 1.8
2019 = 1.9
2020 = 3.4
2021 = 3.9
Overall score
2020 = 337
2021 = 358 +21
11
th
grade – 2.226 GPA
2018 CMAS did not meet
2019 CMAS did not meet
iReady reading Level 2
PSAT score = 10%ile
SVE
2020 = 3.1
2021 = 2.9
2020 = 1.7
2021 = 1.7
2020 = 1.5
2021 = 2.1
2020 = 1.8
2021 = 2.3
2020=281
2021=317
+36
10
th
grade – 2.8 GPA
Newcomer-level English, surprisingly high scores. 2.8 GPA 2.8, kinder level reading. Actively avoids saying, reading,
writing – doing anything in English.
GBN
2013 = 3.9
2014 = 5.0
2015 = 4.4
2016 = 5.6
2017 = 6.0
2018 = 6.0
2019 = 6.0
2020 = 6.0
2021 = 4.4
2013 = 2.6
2014 = 5.2
2015 = 2.7
2016 = 3.3
2017 = 3.3
2018 = 3.8
2019 = 3.6
2020 = 3.6
2021 = 3.6
2013 = 3.5
2014 = 4.1
2015 = 3.4
2016 = 3.3
2017 = 3.3
2018 = 2.9
2019 = 2.8
2020 = 6.0
2021 = 3.8
2013 = 2.5
2014 = 3.1
2015 = 2.9
2016 = 4.9
2017 = 4.5
2018 = 3.8
2019 = 3.7
2020 = 4.2
2021 = 4.0
2020=405
2021=384
-21
10
th
grade – 0.714 GPA
Scores are high, but not making big forward progress, and inconsistent growth. 2018 CMAS, partially proficient
2019 CMAS did not meet
2020 iReady – Level 4
OKY
2016 = 4.0
2017 = 3.2
2018 = 3.2
2019 = 4.0
2020 = 5.2
2016 = 1.5
2017 = 2.2
2018 = 2.4
2019 = 3.2
2020 = 3.1
2016 = 1.9
2017 = 2.4
2018 = 3.0
2019 = 2.0
2020 = 6.0
2016 = 1.0
2017 = 1.7
2018 = 3.3
2019 = 2.1
2020 = 3.0
2020=377
2021=382
+5
11
th
grade – 4.065 GPA
2018 CMAS did not meet
2019 CMAS did not meet
2020 iReady – Level 4 (but consistent growth)
2020 PSAT – 10
th
%ile
JJM
2013 = 5.0
2014 = 6.0
2015 = 6.0
2016 = 5.6
2017 = 6.0
2013 = 6.0
2014 = 2.8
2015 = 3.5
2016 = 3.3
2017 = 1.8
2013 = 5.0
2014 = 5.7
2015 = 5.9
2016 = 5.8
2017 = 3.3
2013 = 2.7
2014 = 3.0
2015 = 4.9
2016 = 4.4
2017 = 3.6
2020=401
2021=392
-9
10
th
grade - .889 GPA
Scores are high, but not making big forward progress, and inconsistent growth.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
7
2018 = 5.8
2019 = 6.0
2020 = 6.0
2021 = 6.0
2018 = 3.1
2019 = 2.8
2020 = 4.1
2021 = 3.4
2018 = 2.8
2019 = 3.2
2020 = 6.0
2021 = 2.8
2018 = 3.9
2019 = 4.0
2020 = 3.6
2021 = 4.3
2018 CMAS (ELA) approaching
2019 CMAS (ELA) partially met
2020 iReady – Level 5