Bridging Theory, Research, and Practice to Address

Vol. I

Bridging Theory, Research, and Practice to Address Education Dilemmas Research consultancy reports of partnerships between the educational sciences research master’s program and local schools

Projects by Students of Educational Sciences 05, Teachers and Teaching, Utrecht University Edited by Brianna L. Kennedy

Preface For their primary assignment of the research master’s course Teachers and Teaching, students partnered with local schools to address a school-based dilemma or inquiry question. Our goals were for students to learn first-hand from practitioners about the everyday realities of school; to build collaborative relationships with educators; and to develop and apply research skills in authentic contexts. The students’ assignment first required them to meet with educators at a primary or secondary school who had identified a topic relevant to their school communities. The students and educators discussed the context, dilemma, and desired outcomes. The students then had to determine whether they could best address the dilemma by conducting a rigorous review of existing research, applying research findings to the dilemma through an action or intervention and studying the consequences, or combining literature review and practice-based research strategies. Projects resulted in recommendations for each school as well as for educational practice and research. This monograph describes all five projects completed during the spring semester, 2018. Each of the sections begins with a uniform title page for each project, which is then followed by a handout created by each group to give an overview of their work. Handouts were distributed to members of the school community and other interested participants during a showcase at the end of the semester. Although these projects and recommendations specifically address current dilemmas at particular schools, we hope that they inspire further inquiry and action. I chose this assignment because I believe in the importance of collaboration between academic researchers and practicing educators in creating and sustaining school communities that fully support the development and flourishing of all of their students. To maximize its impact, academic research should be informed by, and address, the realities of teachers and students; and educational practice should be informed by relevant scholarship. Tighter links between scholarship produced both within and beyond schools have the potential to address the complex challenges facing today’s educators and students. Brianna L. Kennedy, Ph.D. Utrecht, Netherlands May, 2018 1

Acknowledgements We are grateful to all of the educators who have partnered with us in this endeavor. Although we do not name you here in order to respect your anonymity, each and every one of you has been critical to our development. We have learned a great deal from you and with you and appreciate your time, dedication, and openness. We would also like to thank Lotte Henrichs, Ada Kool, and Jelle Mak for playing key roles in helping us build collaborations; Siska van Gelderen for offering logistical support; and Jan van Tartwijk for feedback and managerial support.

2

Table of Contents 1. Teachers’ Implementation of Student-Led Inquiry at De Klaproos

4

Elementary School: Insights for Professional Development Anouk Verdonschot Lucía Chisari Samuël Velinga 2. Tracked or Detracked Bridge Classes: A Comparison between the Trekvogel Lyceum and the Duinland College Bas de Jong Jade van Rossen Lian van Vemde

10

3. Cursive and/or Manuscript Handwriting: Which to Choose and How 14 to Teach It Marja C. Erisman Julius M. Meier Sterre K. Ruitenburg 4. How to Meet the Needs of a Diverse Population of Multilingual Dutch Language Learners? Nathalie Hoekstra Dorien van Montfort Nicky de Vries

18

5. Culturally Responsive Teaching and Assessment Alex Janse Akvile Mockeviciute Hanneke Mol

22

3

Teachers’ Implementation of Student-Led Inquiry at De Klaproos Elementary School: Insights for Professional Development

Anouk Verdonschot Lucía Chisari Samuël Velinga

Abstract: De Klaproos school has been implementing a student-led inquiry project in all its clusters since 2017. The school has now finished its second cycle of inquiry. Following a request from the project´s coordinator, we engaged in a consultancy with two goals: (1) evaluating the implementation of student-led inquiry in De Klaproos, and, based on the evaluation, (2) giving recommendations for continuous improvement and teacher professional development in this area and for the school as a whole. In order to achieve our goals, we conducted teacher observations and interviews with the teachers and contrasted our findings with the most recent literature in teacher professional development on student-led inquiry. Based on our findings, we gave a series of recommendations that highlighted the positive aspects of the project´s development until now and also offered some points for improvement. In general, De Klaproos implements good collective participation among teachers, providing activities for reflection and encouraging adjustments for the particular classrooms. However, the following aspects of professional development could be improved: providing more individualized feedback for teachers, observations of experts in inquiry-based learning, developing a deeper focus on content knowledge and a better alignment between inquiry and higher order learning goals.

4

UTRECHT UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

DE KLAPROOS1 Student questioning and student-led inquiry ______________________________________________________________________________________________

By Anouk Verdonschot, Samuël Velinga and Lucía Chisari This document is the result of a 4-month collaboration between three UU Master students, the coordinator of a studentled inquiry (SLI) project at De Klaproos, and the teachers at this same school. The SLI project started in 2017 and has now traversed its second cycle. In this document, we explain our findings in helping the coordinator and teachers develop a scheme for the continuous improvement aspect of the project, from a teacher professional development perspective.

Challenge

De Klaproos initiated a SLI project which involved teachers helping students take part in a whole inquiry-cycle process. This meant for teachers to guide students while they came up with research questions, designed a plan to answer them, carried out the plan through observations, literature searchers or experiments, and presented their results (see Figure 1). Teachers were presented with the project through a study day, focus groups, informal meetings with colleagues and written documents.

Figure 1. Research cycle used during the SLI project at De Klaproos. The aim of this consultancy was twofold: (1) evaluating the implementation of SLI in De Klaproos, and, based on the evaluation, (2) giving recommendations for continuous improvement and teacher professional development in this area and for the school as a whole. In the following, the process through which we investigated the first aim is described, followed by the recommendations that were derived from that investigation.

Process In order to achieve our aims, we followed a four-step process. First, after having participated of a teacher focus group, informally interviewed the coordinator and inspected written project documents, we conducted four teacher observations from different clusters (cluster 1-2 to cluster 7-8) who were at distinct steps of the inquiry cycle. The observation instrument and observation protocol, and interview guide were derived from the literature on SLI provided by the coordinator. Based on these observations, we conducted semistructured interviews with these same teachers.Third, we conducted a literature search on relevant aspects for SLI and teacher professional development and contrasted the findings of this search with the issues raised by teachers in the interviews and elements found in the observations. Finally, we used this analysis to build a series of recommendations for continuous improvement for teacher professional development at De Klaproos. In the following, we describe these recommendations, which are directly linked to our findings.

1 The real name of the school was changed due to anonymity reasons.

5

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT To frame our recommendations, we used an influential study by Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman and Yoon (2001). They identified four core features of professional development that positively increased teacher knowledge and skills and resulted in changes in practice: (1) focus on content knowledge, (2) opportunities for active learning and (3) coherence with other learning activities. If these features are present, three structural features can positively affect teacher learning: (4) the form of the activity (5) collective participation of teachers from the same school, grade or subject, and (6), the duration of the activity.

1. Core features → Focus on content knowledge. To facilitate continuous improvement, it is important to not only focus on the process and delivery of student-led inquiry, but also on subject-matter content (Garet et al., 2001). Teachers of De Klaproos indicated that the connection between the SLI process and the subject content could be improved. They mentioned that they were able to teach the subject-matter adequately during the wonderment phase of the inquiry cycle, but not during the other phases. A possible solution to this could be to align the learning goals of the theme to the activities that the pupils perform during each phase of the inquiry-cycle. The school has already made a start with this. The next step would be to create more higher-order learning goals and align the instructional activities with these goals. For instructional activities to be aligned with the learning goals regarding the content, they need to be of the same level of complexity (Biggs, 1996). The content learning goals that were formulated by the school almost all concerned lowerorder cognitive skills, such as remembering and explaining concepts (Bloom, 1956). The lessons in the wonderment phase of the cycle are well-suited to address these lower-order learning goals. However, the activities in other phases of the cycle are more suitable to address higher-order learning goals, such as applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating (Bloom, 1956). Therefore, more higher order learning goals could be created for these phases. For example, the lowerorder learning goal ‘the pupils know the process from bulb/tuber to flower’ could be extended by the higher-order learning goal ‘the pupils can analyze the growth process of their own flower seed, using the concepts that they learned during the wonderment phase’. → Opportunities for active learning. Professional development that gives teachers opportunities for ‘hands-on’ work is more likely to produce enhanced knowledge and skills (Garet et al., 2001). This is what De Klaproos is already doing, for example in focus groups and during study days. The teachers were satisfied with these meetings. Therefore, we suggest to continue organizing these. The teachers also appreciated observations, but they prefer to observe or be observed by an expert over observing each other. A kindergarten teacher would like to observe an expert in SLI for young children. → Coherence. Professional development activities are more likely to be effective if they meet two conditions. First, they should be aligned with the teachers’ and schools’ professional development goals and with broader education requirements. Second, they should build on teachers’ previous professional development experiences and on broader education initiatives (Garet et al., 2001). Most structured professional development activities that are organized at De Klaproos are aimed at the group and project-level. As we observed substantial differences in the way teachers implemented student-led inquiry, we would advise to complement the school-wide goals and activities with individualized subgoals and activities. In this way, the activities are not only aligned with the goals and previous activities at the school, but also with those of the individual teachers. Goals that are embraced by the teachers have positive effects on motivation, regardless of who set the goal (Locke & Latham, 2002). Professional development activities such as observations could be aimed at the teachers own goals and plan to achieve it. By focusing in not too many goals at the same time, teachers may feel less overwhelmed (Colburn, 2000).

2. Structural features → Collective participation. It is important to maintain the collective participation nature of the professional development activities carried out at De Klaproos. There are three advantages of professional development activities that are designed for groups (Garet et al., 2001). First, collaboration enables teachers to discuss concepts, skills, and problems that arise during their professional development experiences. Second, teachers who are from the same school, department, or grade can share curriculum materials, course offerings, and assessment requirements. Third, teachers of different grades who have taught the same students can share their knowledge and insights about these students. In our interviews, the teachers expressed how they highly valued collaborating and exchanging challenges, ideas and experiences.

6

→ Form of the activities. With regard to the form of the activities at de Klaproos, they take place at regular school days, are ongoing and tied to practice. These type of activities are considered as more effective than more traditional types of activities (Garet et al., 2001). According to the interviews, the teachers appreciate this form and would like this to continue. In addition, one teacher suggested that it would be useful to receive tips of a more experienced teacher on the spot, at the moment that she is teaching, as suggested before. → Duration. The duration of professional development activities is expected to be a key feature in their success (Garet et al., 2001; Makar & Fielding-Wells, 2018; Wee, Shepardson, Fast, & Harbor, 2007). First, longer activities are more likely to provide an opportunity for in-depth discussion of content, student conceptions and misconceptions, and pedagogical strategies. Second, activities that extend over time are more likely to allow teachers to try out new practices in the classroom and obtain feedback on their teaching. At De Klaproos, the teachers had to implement all elements of SLI in a very short amount of time, with this fact leading to frustration, especially during the first cycle of implementation. A solution would be to allow teachers to make changes in their teaching gradually, and not increasing task difficulty until both the teachers and their students feel at ease (Colburn, 2000).

3. SLI and degrees of complexity The above features lead to an important aspect of the literature that could significantly enhance the continuous improvement of SLI at De Klaproos. SLI can vary in the degree of support and structure by manipulating the form, framing and scale of the activities and lesson plans. While framing the SLI activities, teachers can decide whether students will discover and create new knowledge through SLI, or corroborate knowledge they already possess. The scale can vary from a within-class activity, to an year-long project. More importantly, the mode relates to the amount of information the teachers give to students and how they can regulate SLI to support adaptivity for better learning (e.g. with beginners, teachers can help the whole class come up with one “good” research question rather than letting each student come up with their own). We invite teachers and coordinators at De Klaproos to explore these varying degrees of complexity and choose the ones best suited to their classrooms and students. These different levels of complexity could inform the goals that teachers set and the professional development activities that are organized. Diminishing the degree of complexity may seem undesirable, but in truth, the literature reminds us that there are only three requirements for student-led inquiry to take place and to lead to learning: the presence of a research question, engagement with data, and drawing conclusions and communicating these with teachers and/or peers. A description of each level of inquiry can be found in Appendix A.

7

References De Klaproos (2014). Missie en Visie. Retrieved from [link left out for anonymity reasons] De Klaproos (n.d.). Thematisch werken. Retrieved 2018, March 11 from [link left out for anonymity reasons] Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher education, 32, 347-364. doi: 10.1007/BF00138871 Bell, R.L., Smetana, L. & Binns, I (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction: Assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities. The Science Teacher, 31-33. Retrieved from:https://www.mun.ca/educ/undergrad/scied/files/bell_simplifying-inquiry_2005.pdf Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 349-377. doi:10.1080/09500690802582241 Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals: handbook I: cognitive domain. New York: D. Mckay. Brand, B. R. & Moore, S. J. (2011). Enhancing teachers’ application of inquiry-based strategies using a constructivist sociocultural professional development model. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 889-913. doi:10.1080/09500691003739374 Brown, S. L., & Melear, C. T. (2006). Investigation of secondary science teachers' beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry-based experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 938-962. doi:10.1002/tea.20110 Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science scope, 23(6), 42-44. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284045690_An_inquiry_primer Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:93.0.CO;2-2 Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945. doi:10.3102/00028312038004915 Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631-645. doi:10.1002/tea.1023 Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86, 681-718. doi:10.3102/0034654315627366 Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705 Lotter, C. R., Thompson, S., Dickenson, T. S., Smiley, W. F., Blue, G., & Rea, M. (2018). The impact of a practice-teaching professional development model on teachers’ inquiry instruction and inquiry efficacy beliefs. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 255-273. doi:10.1007/s10763-016-9779-x Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 517-534. doi:10.1080/09500690121307 Makar, K., & Fielding-Wells, J. (2018). Shifting more than the goal posts: developing classroom norms of inquiry-based learning in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30, 53-63. doi:10.1007/s13394-017-0215-5 McNew-Birren, J., & van den Kieboom, L. A. (2017). Exploring the development of core teaching practices in the context of inquiry-based science instruction: An interpretive case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 74-87. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.001 Peterson, S. M., & French, L. (2008). Supporting young children's explanations through inquiry science in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 395-408. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.01.003 Powell, K.C., & Kalina C.J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tool for an effective classroom. Education, 130, 241-250. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ871658. Spronken-Smith, R., Walker, R., Batchelor, J., O’Steen, B., & Angelo, T. (2012). Evaluating student perceptions of learning processes and intended learning outcomes under inquiry approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 57-72. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.496531 Stokhof, H. J., De Vries, B., Martens, R. L., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2017). How to guide effective student questioning: a review of teacher guidance in primary education. Review of Education, 5, 123-165. doi:10.1002/rev3.3089 Van Santen, S. (2012). Teacher Guidelines and Evaluation Tools for IBL cases in Science and Mathematics education (bachelor thesis). Retrieved from https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/292192/vanSanten_Thesis_GuidelinesEvaluationFramework.doc. Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry: Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 63-89. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9031-6 Wiki Reken- Wiskundeonderwijs Freudenthal Instituut (n.d.). Retrieved, March 11 from http://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/wiki/index.php/WOU

8

Appendix A Table 1. Classifications of SLI derived from Spronken-Smith et al. (2012) and Powell & Kalina (2009) Type and description

Scale

Mode 4 levels

Target group

Within-class activity

Primary school+ higher education

Course, lesson plan

Primary school+ higher education

Whole degree

Higher education

Confirmation inquiry, where teachers provide both a question and the answer to the question, but students are engaged with them through an activity. Teacher provides Question + Procedure + Solution

Unskilled, new with inquiry, from age 4

Structured-inquiry, where teachers provide an issue or a problem and an outline to address it. Teacher provides Question + Procedure

Unskilled, new with inquiry, from age 7

Guided-inquiry, where teachers provide questions to stimulate inquiry, but students are self-directed in terms of exploring these questions Teacher provides Question

Intermediate experience, from minimum age 7

Open-inquiry, where students formulate the questions themselves as well as going through the inquiry-cycle

Skilled, experienced students, from minimum age 11-12

Information-oriented: students perform research through already existing answers and they will acquire previously established knowledge

From minimum age 7

Discovery-oriented: students understand and experience through personal questioning, exploration and discovery in relation to new questions and lines of investigation

Skilled, experienced students, from minimum age 11-12

Framing

9

Tracked or Detracked Bridge Classes: A Comparison between the Trekvogel Lyceum and the Duinland College

Bas de Jong Jade van Rossen Lian van Vemde

Abstract: In the Netherlands, students enter a bridge class after primary school to help them transition to high school. This is either a tracked bridge class, consisting of students from the same ability level, or a detracked bridge class consisting of students from multiple ability levels. This study (N = 433) aimed to investigate the effects of tracked and detracked bridge classes on students’ GPA, mobility, well-being and perceived differentiation. Two schools in the municipality of Utrecht were compared. Multilevel analysis was used to analyze the data. Results indicated no direct effect of tracking type on GPA but a direct effect on mobility, well-being and differentiation was found. APCG (low vs. high SES) and track level (high vs. low track) were included as moderators but no different effects of (de)tracking were found for different SES and track levels. However, the drawn conclusions should be interpreted with caution. The measures used were context dependent. Therefore only preliminary conclusions can be drawn. Advice is given to both schools to improve their educational practices.

10

Hand-out Theoretical background and research questions Research on tracking or detracking students is still inconclusive. Both are found to have their own contradicting disadvantages and advantages. A short overview is given here: Advantages of tracking: ● Enhances student performance, self-esteem and well-being, especially for low ability students (e.g., Butler, 2008; Duflo, Dupas and Kremer, 2011; Figlio & Page, 2002; Kulik and Kulik, 1992) ● Allows teachers to have a focused curriculum with an appropriately paced instruction for all students in the group which will lead to maximum learning by all students (Hallinan, 1994; Hanushek & Wößmann, 2006; Rubin. 2006). Disadvantages of tracking: ● Affects students’ performance and self-esteem negatively (e.g., Oakes, 1987; Piopiunik, 2014; Van Houtte, Demanet, & Stevens, 2012), and especially that of low-ability students and students in lower tracks (Rubin, 2006) and for students with a low SES background (Sund, 2013). ● Leads to inequity in education (that is lower quality of teachers and instructional materials in the lower tracks) (Hanushek & Wößmann, 2006) Diminishes chances of lower track students to catch up on their higher achieving peers (Rubin, 2006). Advantages of detracking: ● Leads to more equal opportunities and higher performances of students (e.g.,Corbett Burris & Welner, 2005), with the most benefit for students in lower tracks ( e.g., Alvarez & Mehan, 2006). And a higher high school completion (Van Elk et al., 2011). Disadvantages of detracking: ● If not implemented in the right way and students do not receive appropriate academic and social support or teachers do not have high expectations of the students, no advantages are found (Corbett Burris, Wiley, Welner, & Murphy, 2008; Alvarez, & Mehan, 2006). ● Because of a lot of different levels in the classes teachers just teach the average level as there is not enough time to address all levels sufficiently (Hallinan, 2004). Therefore, the present study examined the following question: Which approach is better? Tracked or detracked bridge classes? More specific, the effects of tracking type were examined on: 1) student achievement, 2) student mobility, 3) student well-being and 4) student perceived differentiation of the teachers. Moreover, we assessed whether effects were different for students with a different SES or different track level. Methods This was investigated by a Multilevel Analysis: a statistical analysis that takes into account that students are in a class and school together, and therefore influence each other. Moreover, this analysis can manage variables that are measured on different levels. Because we investigated four outcome variables, we conducted four analysis.

11

Measures: - Student achievement: average grade of Dutch, Math, and English combined. Each student got an individual score. - Mobility: difference in track level at the start of year 1 and 2. Each student got an individual score. - Well-being: 6 questions from the ‘leerlingtevredenheidsonderzoek’ were used. Each question resulted in an average per class. - Differentiation: 5 questions from the ‘leerlingtevredenheidsonderzoek’ were used. Each question resulted in a average per class. Results GPA: Being in a tracked or detracked bridge class did not directly affect students achievement. Mobility: Being in a tracked or detracked bridge class did affect mobility: indicating students in detracked schools were better able to move across tracks than students in tracked schools. Well-being: Tracking type directly influenced students well-being: students in tracked schools had a higher overall well-being. Differentiation: Tracking type directly influenced students experience differentiation: students in tracked schools experienced more differentiation. SES and Track-Level: The found effects of tracking type were not different for students with a different SES or in different tracking levels. Conclusion A few conclusions can be drawn as well as an advice to both schools can be given. Trekvogel Lyceum Mobility: As our findings indicated students in tracked schools have a lower mobility rate and thus get less chances to move a track up for instance. We suggest two options: 1. Consider tracking students in bridge classes. 2. Keep tracked bridge classes, as no effect was found on GPA and better scores on well-being and differentiation, but better monitor students to see if students are provided the opportunity to move across tracks. We advise to do this by: a. Regular student-mentor conversations. And regular conversations among teachers about students’ progress. b. Closely inspect the criteria used for allowing students to move across tracks. Maybe they can be a bit less strict when it comes to grades, and depend more on students’ motivation. Or look at students’ grades of the second half year only, since by then students are completely used to high school. Duinland college Well-being: As our findings indicated that students in the tracked schools have a higher well-being than students in the detracked school, we advise to pursue higher student well-being:

12

1. Since literature suggests that especially self-esteem is being influenced by tracking/detracking we advise to focus on increasing students’ self-esteem. But before this is done, talk to students first and see if the exact cause of lower well-being can be determined as in this research only a few questions were asked that might not say all there is to say about the students well-being. 2. To increase self-esteem: Although being in a diverse group in terms of ability level, teaches students a lot, it can also make them feel insecure if one consistently scores lower than other students in the class. Therefore, we suggest to devote some time to work in ability groups. Differentiation: As our findings indicated that students in the tracked schools experience more differentiation than students in the detracked school, we advise to increase differentiation: 1. Talk to teachers and ask them how they differentiate, if they differentiate and if they feel competent enough to differentiate. Also ask teachers if they have the resources (materials) to differentiate. a. Based on answers of teachers either equip teachers with strategies to differentiate more for instance through training. b. Or make sure teachers have the resources they identified as necessary but not available for differentiation. 2. More formative assessments to monitor students continuously so teachers can adapt more easily and faster to the students’ needs. However, these recommendations should be taken with caution, because of several characteristics of the present research. Therefore, we have a more general advice to both schools: it is important to collect more data. More variables should be taken into account to be sure that differences in the four outcome variables are due to tracking instead of other variables. We also advise to compare more schools than only two. Because drawing conclusions based on that is presumptuous. Lastly, we recommend, if possible, to gather all the data on the individual level. Thereby, the statistical analyses will be more reliable.

13

Cursive and/or Manuscript Handwriting: Which to Choose and How to Teach It

Marja C. Erisman Julius M. Meier Sterre K. Ruitenburg

Abstract: Dilemma: This Research Consultancy Project aimed to address the following dilemma: Should primary school children learn cursive handwriting, manuscript handwriting, or both? And if using cursive handwriting is preferred, under what conditions should teachers nonetheless switch to manuscript handwriting when teaching children with insufficiently developed fine motor skills? Location: This dilemma was put forward by two practitioners from a primary school located in Western Utrecht, the Netherlands, that serves approximately 450 students, mostly from White, middle class backgrounds. Method: A traditional review was carried out, covering the period 2008-2018. Included studies (n = 21) investigated the effect on children’s development of (a) the type of written letters that children in mainstream preschool and primary school are explicitly taught by their teachers to make and/or (b) the type of training used to teach cursive and/or manuscript letters in these school settings. Findings: It was found that, first, which handwriting format(s) to choose is dependent on the desired educational outcomes of handwriting instruction (e.g., if one aims at higher handwriting speed, choose cursive). Second, it was found that for handwriting instruction to be effective, one needs to (a) take children’s developmental readiness into account, (b) enhance children’s motivation, (c) maximize practice time, (d) use multisensory strategies, (e) model letter formation, provide verbal cues, and let children copy, (f) provide frequent feedback, and (g) adapt instruction to students’ progress. Recommendations: It is recommended that the school-based team decides which handwriting format(s) they want to teach in the future based on the desired educational outcomes. Besides that, it is recommended that the team members reflect on and, if needed, adjust current handwriting instruction practices using the literaturebased “lessons” about effective handwriting instruction. For each lesson, concrete examples are provided.

14

This Research Consultancy Project aimed to address the following dilemma: Should primary school children learn cursive handwriting, manuscript handwriting, or both? And if using cursive handwriting is preferred, under what conditions should teachers nonetheless switch to manuscript handwriting when teaching children with insufficiently developed fine motor skills? This dilemma was put forward by two practitioners from a primary school located in Western Utrecht, the Netherlands, that serves approximately 450 students, mostly from White, middle class backgrounds. A traditional review was carried out, covering the period 2008-2018. Included studies (n = 21) investigated the effect on children’s development of (a) the type of written letters that children in mainstream preschool and primary school are explicitly taught by their teachers to make and/or (b) the type of training used to teach cursive and/or manuscript letters in these school settings. Based on the reviewed articles, the following five questions were answered: 1. Why is teaching handwriting still important? Despite the increasing use of tablets and computers in students’ everyday-lives, acquiring a fluent and legible handwriting style is still both a desirable educational end in itself and a requirement for other outcomes. First, it is important to develop sufficient handwriting skills because assignments in school are still mostly done by hand. Children who write slowly or illegible will perform worse in these assignments. Moreover, more fluent handwriting skills are also related to better text composition and higher self-efficacy beliefs about writing. 2. What hinders the direct comparison of manuscript and cursive handwriting? For several years, ongoing debates comparing different handwriting styles provoked several trends suggesting (a) teaching both cursive and manuscript, (b) teaching cursive over manuscript, or (c) teaching manuscript over cursive. Until now, the question which handwriting style should be preferred, has not been answered, due to the difficulty to compare both handwriting styles. This comparison can only be made if factors that influence the instruction of handwriting are consistent between the two groups (i.e. a group that writes in manuscript and a group that writes in cursive) that are compared. However, it is hard to find two matching groups that only differ in handwriting style that is taught. 3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of manuscript and cursive handwriting? The findings with regard to the third question are summarized in the upper part of the flowchart on the next page. This flowchart shows how one or more handwriting formats can be chosen dependent on the desired educational outcomes of handwriting instruction (e.g., if one aims at higher handwriting speed, choose cursive). 4. Which to choose: manuscript or cursive handwriting? Choosing manuscript handwriting, cursive handwriting, or both depends on which outcome (e.g. handwriting legibility) you as a teacher or practitioner want to reach. However, research shows that, apart from which handwriting style to choose, high-quality, automated handwriting is highly dependent on effective handwriting instruction. 5. What does adequate handwriting instruction look like? The conclusions with regard to the fifth question are summarized in the lower part of the flowchart on the next page. This flowchart shows that for handwriting instruction to be effective, one needs to (a) take children’s developmental readiness into account, (b) enhance children’s motivation, (c) maximize practice time, (d) use multisensory strategies, (e) model letter formation, provide verbal cues, and let children copy, (f) provide frequent feedback, and (g) adapt instruction to students’ progress. In order to ease implementation of these eight literature-based lessons, sixteen ideas are presented. Concrete examples of these ideas (1a to 7b) can be found on the fourth page. 15

16

1a: With his/her back turned to the class, the teacher draws the letter in the air with his/her arm and asks the children to repeat this movement, first with eyes open, then with eyes shut. Main source(s): Bara & Bonneton-Botté, 2018, p. 197 1b: The teacher places a drawn letter on the ground and asks each child to walk along its outline, first with their eyes open, then with their eyes shut and guided by another pupil. Main source(s): Bara & Bonneton-Botté, 2018, p. 197 1c: The teacher asks the children to copy a short paragraph and scores the numbers of correctly copied, legible letters produced at 30, 60, and 90 seconds. Only when the majority of children perform above a to-be-discussed threshold, the new handwriting format is introduced. (For children who do not perform above this threshold yet: see question 7.) Main source(s): Wolf et al., 2017, p. 305 2a: The teacher provides effective practice strategies to foster competence (see questions 3-8). Besides that, the teacher provides opportunities for shared activity to foster relatedness. Finally, the teacher provides freedom of choice regarding children’s writing personas and writing topics to foster autonomy. Main source(s): Hoy et al., 2011, p. 22 2b: Directly at the start of spelling and reading activities, the teacher shortly reviews how to handwrite letters, words, or sentences central to those spelling and reading activities. Main source(s): Wolf et al., 2017, p. 303 3a: The teacher assigns homework to the children in order to let them practice their handwriting at home. Main source(s): Hoy et al., 2011, pp. 22-23 3b: The teacher incorporates handwriting in the rubric (s)he uses to grade students’ written work. Besides that, the teacher incorporates handwriting in the rubric students use to give feedback on the written work of their peers. Main source(s): n/a 3c: The teacher provides continuing handwriting instruction after the fourth grade (group 6). This continuing handwriting instruction does not have to be intensive. It can take the form of periodic “warmups” before children engage in more challenging, authentic writing tasks (e.g., autobiographical writing). Main source(s): Alstad et al., 2015, pp. 227-228

4a: The teacher encourages the children to pay attention to visual cues by looking at letters. Besides that, the teacher encourages the children to attend to auditory cues by listening to letter names or sounds as pronounced by the teacher. Finally, the teacher encourages the children to pay attention to kinaesthetic cues by exploring raised foam letters and/or tracing concave letter with their index finger. Main source(s): Wolf et al., 2017, p. 301; Bara & Gentaz, 2011, p. 752 5a: The teacher writes a letter or word on the board, so that every child can see his/her handwriting movements. Main source(s): Gerde et al., 2015, pp. 38-39 5b: The teacher describes the letter shape(s) in words. Main source(s): Gerde et al., 2015, pp. 38-39 5c: The teacher asks the children to copy the letter or word. When children’s knowledge of letter shapes and their ability to write in smaller size are sufficiently developed, the teacher asks them to increase speed and to write between lines when copying. The goal of such copying activities is to foster continuous movement, not to increase handwriting speed per se. Main source(s): Chartrel & Vinter, 2008, pp. 545-546 6a: The teacher, maybe assisted by a paid or voluntary assistant, corrects errors, encourages self-evaluation, and praises students’ efforts while children are practicing their handwriting. If handwriting homework is being assigned (see example 8), the teacher asks children’s parents to provide frequent feedback while their child is practicing his/her handwriting. Main source(s): Case-Smith et al., 2011, p. 673 7a: Based on a weekly review of students’ handwriting samples, the teacher selects class-wide instructional strategies (see questions 2-6 and 8). Main source(s): Case-Smith et al., 2012, p. 399 7b: The teacher selects adaptations for individual students based on a weekly review of students’ handwriting samples. These individual adaptations are focused on either handwriting itself (e.g., providing pencil grips) or behaviour (e.g., requesting students to hold weights in their laps). If these adaptations turn out to be still insufficient to reverse the problems of some struggling handwriters, the teacher continues explicit handwriting instruction. Besides that, the teacher provides accommodations, such as allowing students more time or the use of a laptop to complete written work. Main source(s): Case-Smith et al., 2012, p. 399; Alstad et al., 2015, p. 228.

17

How to Meet the Needs of a Diverse Population of Multilingual Dutch Language Learners?

Nathalie Hoekstra Dorien van Montfort Nicky de Vries

Abstract: Springboard, a primary school in the Netherlands, provides instruction in both English and Dutch to students (i.e., aged 4-7) with a diverse set of language backgrounds. Regarding this multilingual context, the school raised the question how to provide instruction that meets all students’ needs with respect to Dutch language learning. Students’ proficiency in Dutch word structure, passive vocabulary and active vocabulary was examined using the CELF Preschool 2NL test. A data wall, based on the CELF results, was used as starting point for a practitioner-based literature review. The review investigated how teachers can promote Dutch word structure, passive and active vocabulary in Dutch second language (DSL) learners who score (very) poor compared to monolingual peers. In addition, the use of students’ first language and ability grouping were examined explicitly as part of this main question. The review led to recommendations for effective strategies and/or guidelines in seven domains of effective DSL teaching: prerequisites, content, input, output and feedback, interaction and collaborative learning, didactic strategies, and learning tools.

18

How to meet the needs of a diverse population of multilingual Dutch language learners? Springboard is a bilingual Dutch and English primary school in The Netherlands. The students’ cultural backgrounds are very diverse (e.g., French, Russian, Spanish, Dutch), but almost all of them are from a high socio-economic background. The school provides instruction fifty percent of the time in English and fifty percent in Dutch. As a result of their cultural backgrounds, the students bring an array of languages to the school and have varying levels of Dutch proficiency. Therefore, the school has raised the question how to provide instruction that meets all students’ needs with respect to Dutch language learning. Springboard has assessed the kindergarten and grade 1 students’ proficiency in word structure, passive vocabulary, and active vocabulary using a part of the Clinical Evaluation Language Fundamentals Preschool-test for Dutch language (CELF Preschool 2NL). We analysed students’ data and visualised these data on a datawall at the school. We discussed potential research questions with the school team and eventually decided to address the following questions: 1) How can Dutch word structure, passive vocabulary, and active vocabulary be promoted in Dutch second language learners who score (very) poorly? 2) Can students’ vocabulary in their first languages be used in the process of learning Dutch active vocabulary, and if so, how? 3) What is known about ability grouping regarding Dutch language development in a multilingual context? In our research consultancy report, we used these questions to write a practitioner based literature review, in order to formulate specific recommendations for the school. We searched for practitioner based literature, analysed and synthesised it based on seven domains of language development on which language interventions could be performed1. Finally, we formulated specific recommendations to provide the school with tools to address their students’ needs regarding Dutch second language learning. Recommendations In the following section, recommendations based on the seven domains discussed in the practitioner based review are listed. Note that these recommendations are not exhaustive, but for usability of this document we list the most relevant ones (max. five per domain). Some of these recommendations are already applied at Springboard, but we have included them to stay aware of them.

Content -

-

-

“What words should you teach?” Use a Dutch glossary which is designed for teaching Dutch second language learners, which contains a structure ranging from words for self-reliance, and then words about activities and subjects in the school. An example of such a glossary is the duizend-en-één-woordenlijst http://www.ensib.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/03/allereerste-woorden.pdf The words from this glossary can also be used within the themes of IPC. Determine in which phases your students are at the beginning of the school year by testing students’ word knowledge of 10 words (i.e., 5 active and 5 passive) from each phase from the glossary. Start with the least complex phase and proceed by assessing subsequent phases until the students are not able to provide correct answers anymore. Test students’ word knowledge throughout the school year in the same manner. Test students who are in the same phase once every three weeks (one phase per week) and re-assign students to the next phase if they master a phase. Use this information to decide which words to teach next. Integrate these words in your regular lessons.

19

Input -

“What language should you use?” Adapt your language to your students. When your student has a low level of Dutch proficiency: speak slower; use short sentences, but avoid telegram-style; use words that are just above the students’ current level; use gestures; and speak about what you do (i.e., when you switch off the light, say: I switch off the light). Keep adjusting your language according to the progress a student makes. A more elaborate description of the language you should use can be found in Taallijn NT2 https://www.augeo.nl/Demo/Promo%20Cursus%20Vluchtelingenjongeren/Taallijn_NT2.pdf (pp 7-11).

Output & feedback -

-

“How can you respond to students’ language use?” Learn about the structure of students’ first languages in order to understand their mistakes. For example, find out whether a students’ first language uses articles to understand why a student never uses articles. This website that shows the structure of over 60 languages may be of help: http://meertaligheidentaalstoornissenvu.wikispaces.com/Informatie%20per%20taal Provide feedback based on students’ output and aimed at learning: for example by approving a student’s speech (“Good!”), by expanding (child: “Scissors”, teacher: “Indeed, those are scissors”), or by asking for clarification (“What do you mean with that?”).

Interaction & collaboration -

-

“How can you promote Dutch second language learning through interaction and collaborative learning?” Stimulate speaking as follows: 1) Facilitate participation in group discussions (e.g., by asking questions to students who have difficulties participating); 2) Stimulate students to ask for help or clarification when they do not understand something; 3) Get to know your students (e.g., by visiting their homes to receive information about their home situation2) and use this information in your lessons (e.g., when a parent is a shopkeeper, create a shop-corner in class and have kids role-playing in it to stimulate speech); and 4) Make sure that your students know it is okay to make mistakes. Stimulate collaboration among students of different levels by assigning them to the same task and provide them with a shared goal. Pay extra attention to low language level students in small groups by addressing their specific language needs (e.g., by pre- and re-teaching content that you discuss with the whole class).

Didactic strategies -

-

-

“Which teaching strategies can you use to stimulate Dutch second language learning?” Use the language sensibilisation strategy: 1) Select a topic; 2) Select an inquiry-based activity, such as working with the sand table; 3) Bring different languages into the activity, such as discussing the word sand in students’ first languages and Dutch. For more examples, see: https://www.marnixacademie.nl/Portals/0/OpenContent/Gielen%20ea%20%20Talen%20sensibilisering.pdf. You can use the checklist in the attachment of this article to evaluate your use of the language sensibilisation strategy in your daily practices. Use Total Physical Response (TPR) in your Dutch lessons (this is already used in English lessons): 1) Articulate the exercise and perform it; 2) Have the group repeat what you did; and 3) Have a student perform it alone. An example activity is Simon says. Read aloud interactively: 1) Select books for the appropriate language level; 2) Read them aloud, preferably in small groups; 3) Stimulate the students to speak; and 4) If the book is too difficult, adjust your language (see “What language should you use?”)

20

-

Use the viertakt for vocabulary lessons: 1) Select appropriate words based on your students’ level (see “What words should you teach?”); 2) Portray the words (i.e., through role play or showing an object), explain the words, and expand them to other words in the cluster or words that your students already know; 3) Repeat the words at least seven times in different contexts/activities; and 4) Check whether the students know the words

Learning tools -

Which type of written or visual materials can you use for Dutch language instructions? Use ICT to include multimedia and interactive approaches, such as animated picture books and language games. - Gynzy has a lot of language games to offer: http://www.gynzy.com/ - Free animated picture books can be found on: http://www.leesmevoor.nl/index.htm

Advice for Implementation of Recommendations It is probably not possible and not feasible to implement all recommendations outlined above at once. Therefore, we suggest the following steps for implementation (steps are based on literature on effective professional development3, 4): 1. Discuss with the school team which domain (i.e., which question) is most valuable to implement first and select that domain to start with. 2. Focus on one domain for a month. Start by discussing the domain with the school team. One team member may be assigned as an expert, who provides the other team members with necessary information about the domain. Also, brainstorm together about possible activities in class to focus on the central domain. 3. Practice with the domain in your class individually. 4. After two weeks, get together in communities of practice (e.g., with two or three teachers) and discuss your progress and problems you have encountered (both on class and individual level). You can complement your discussion with video material you made while practicing. Provide each other with tips and tops. 5. Practice again with the domain and use the tips and tops from the community of practice meeting. 6. Get back together with the school team and evaluate the use of the domain in class. After that, start with a new domain. Throughout the implementation process and after that, stay up-to-date about recent research by reading practitioner journals, such as Didaktief and Jeugd, School en Wereld (JSW), or through websites, such as http://www.wij-leren.nl/ and http://www.slo.nl/

References 1. 2. 3.

4.

Emmelot, Y., & Van Schooten, E. (2006). Effectieve maatregelen ter bestrijding van taalachterstanden in het primair onderwijs. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut. Moll, L. С., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for Teaching; Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31, 132-141. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915945. doi:10.3102/00028312038004915 Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81, 376-407. doi:10.3102/0034654311413609

21

Culturally Responsive Teaching and Assessment

Alex Janse Akvile Mockeviciute Hanneke Mol

Abstract: The aim of this consultancy project was to help a teacher working at an international school in the Netherlands to improve the cultural responsiveness of her teaching. Using the Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol (CRIOP) six classes were observed. Together with the teacher, assessment was identified as the main area to work on. Therefore, several assignments and rubrics were analyzed to identify ways in which they could be fairer for students of different cultural backgrounds. Based on this analysis, the researchers recommended that the teacher be more explicit about learning goals, create more space for multiple perspectives and work forms, and make the assessment criteria more specific. Practical suggestions were made to help the teacher achieve these aims.

22

This consultancy project in an international school focused mainly on the improvement of assessment practices, as requested by one teacher. The Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol (CRIOP; Powell, Cantrell, & Rightmyer, 2013) was used throughout the process for collecting the observational data and to get a grasp on what teacher’s behaviours might be considered culturally responsive. Based on the classroom observations and literature on culturally responsive instruction we drew a few recommendations regarding an improvement of assessment practices to make them more culturally responsive. These recommendations are going to be described below in relation to the CRIOP. A slightly adapted version of the CRIOP can be found in the remainder of this handout for the practitioners to be able to implement it in their everyday practices. It is important to note that even though these recommendations were developed for a culturally diverse classroom, some of the same principles could be applied to a culturally homogenous classroom with the goal of improving assessment practices in general. Recommendations are divided into two parts, the first one being related to the development of assessment tools and the second one being related to rubrics and their development. Development of assessment tools With regards to the development of assessment tools, we recommend to always indicate specific learning goals which would identify the core goal to reach for students. Having learning goals clearly stated could aid at the evaluation of students’ final products meaning that if a student satisfies the expectation of the assignment based on the learning goal, he or she has done the work well. Furthermore, keeping learning goals clear might also aid at introducing different forms of assessment. According to the CRIOP fourth dimension on assessment, students should have an opportunity of displaying their learning in various ways (Powell, Cantrell, & Rightmyer, 2013), such as drawing, rapping or making a movie. The evaluation of students’ final product would then be based solely on the learning goal and whether they met it. Assessment could furthermore be eased by asking students to accompany their artistic work with a short description to guide the interpretation and to make the process behind the product clear. Development of rubrics With regards to the development of rubrics, we recommend to make them clearer by including specific examples of what is expected. For example, such words as “appropriate” and “relevant” could be avoided because they are ambiguous and could rather be replaced by specific behaviours which can be observed. For instance, if students have to learn to explain causes for poverty, the criteria could refer to how many causes they describe, whether they compare different causes, etc. Giving specific examples and discussing them with students increase their understanding of what is expected. Moreover, students could better understand how they are evaluated by involving them more in the assessment procedure, as also suggested in the CRIOP fourth dimension fifth indicator. It could be done by letting students come up with descriptions of criteria (e.g., describing when an argument is valid) or examples of criteria (e.g., an example of relevant information). Students could also be allowed to evaluate their own or other’s work as a type of formative assessment based on rubrics. 23

Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol 4 = The classroom was CONSISTENTLY CHARACTERIZED by culturally responsive features 3 = The classroom was OFTEN CHARACTERIZED by culturally responsive features 2 = The classroom was OCCASIONALLY CHARACTERIZED by culturally responsive features 1 = The classroom was RARELY CHARACTERIZED by culturally responsive features 0 = The classroom was NEVER CHARACTERIZED by culturally responsive features

I. CARE: CLASSROOM CARING AND TEACHER DISPOSITIONS CRI Indicator

Score

1. The teacher demonstrates an ethic of care (e.g., equitable relationships, bonding) 2. The teacher communicates high expectations for all students 3. The teacher creates a learning atmosphere in which students and teachers feel respect toward one another 4. The teacher encourages student empathy and care toward one another Average

II. CLIM: CLASSROOM CLIMATE/PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT CRI Indicator

Score

1. The physical surroundings of the classroom reflect an appreciation for diversity 2. Peer collaboration is the norm 3. The physical space supports collaborative work 4. Students work together productively Average

III. FAM: FAMILY COLLABORATION CRI Indicator

Score

1. The teacher establishes genuine partnerships (equitable relationships) with parents/caregivers 2. The teacher uses parent expertise to support student learning and welcomes parents/caregivers in the classroom 3. The teacher reaches out to meet parents in positive, non-traditional ways Average

IV. ASMT: ASSESSMENT PRACTICES CRI Indicator

Score

1. Formative assessment practices are used that provide information throughout the lesson on specified learning targets 2. Students are able to demonstrate their learning in a variety of ways 3. Formative assessment practices are used that provide information on the learning of every student 4. Teacher sets high standards and students understand the criteria by which they are being assessed 5. Students have opportunities for self-assessment 6. Assessment practices promote the achievement of the group, and not just individuals Average

24

V. CURR: CURRICULUM/PLANNED EXPERIENCES CRI Indicator

Score

1. The curriculum and planned learning experiences use the knowledge and experience of students 2. The curriculum and planned experiences integrate and provide opportunities for the expression of diverse perspectives 3. The curriculum and planned learning experiences provide opportunities for the inclusion of issues important to the classroom, school and community Average

VI. INSTR: PEDAGOGY/INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES CRI Indicator

Score

1. Instruction is contextualized in students’ lives and experiences 2. The teacher learns with students 3. The teacher allows students to collaborate with one another 4. Students engage in active, hands-on learning tasks 5. The teacher gives students choices based on their experiences, values, needs, and strengths 6. The teacher balances instruction using both explicit teaching and meaningful application Average

VI. DIS: DISCOURSE/INSTRUCTIONAL CONVERSATION CRI Indicator

Score

1. The teacher encourages and responds positively to children’s use of native language/dialect and culturally-specific discourse styles 2. The teacher shares control of classroom discourse with students and builds upon and expands upon student talk in an authentic way 3. The teacher promotes student engagement through culturally responsive discourse practices 4. The teacher promotes equitable discourse practices 5. The teacher provides structures that promote student collaborative talk 6. The teacher provides opportunities for students to develop linguistic competence Average VIII. PERSP: SOCIOPOLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS/MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES CRI Indicator

Score

1. Students are allowed to question the way things are 2. Students take action on real world problems 3. The teacher fosters an understanding of differing points of view 4. The teacher actively deconstructs negative stereotypes in instructional materials and other texts Average Source: Stephens, A.N. (2012). The development of culturally responsive literacy practices in the classrooms of three teachers (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer= https://scholar.google.nl/&httpsredir=1&article=2188&context=theses

25