Compacting in ESL Online Classes: An Action Research
Scott Stewart M.Ed.
May 19, 2022.
Introduction
As a teacher at an international school in China, I face many obstacles concerning gifted education and higher-level learners. Currently, we do not have procedures for testing for gifted students and our curriculum is not designed for accelerated learners or learners that have advanced English, gifted or not. All workbooks must be filled out by all students and the government sends staff to check the workbooks every semester. This means that any activities or projects that I assign to advanced students is merely viewed as more work, not an alternative to the normal assignments. But as Covid-19 cases rose in the last few months, we were forced back into online classes. We were notified over the Spring Festival holiday, so some students do not even have their textbooks. The school provided digital textbooks, of course, but this mean that we do not need to worry about workbooks being check. This led to me try and implement compacting for Unit 7 in my class.
Compacting is a method that is very useful for gifted or higher-level students because it allows them to take a pretest and test out of areas where they already possess mastery. Instead of doing assignments that are not challenging, they get presented with choices of extension activities, which, if designed properly, are more engaging and useful to the students. These students would not have to attend regular classes and just have brief meetings to discuss their projects before turning them in. I implemented compacting in Unit 7 and compared the results to Unit 6, both units were taught fully online, but Unit 6 was not compacted.
Background information
The participants of my study will only be Grade 5 Class 5D students attending an international primary school in Shanghai, China. The students have two homeroom teachers, a Chinese teacher and a foreign teacher. I am the homework teacher for 5D. I have been teaching in China for 15 years. I have a bachelors in literature, a TEFL, a U.S. teaching license, and I am currently studying for my M.Ed. All students are between 10 and 13 years old. There are 9 girls and 16 boys, 25 students in total. All students are of Chinese nationality. Assuming the cost of tuition is a factor, students should all come from middle to high income families. There are not any specific records of income available. 60% of Grade 5 students are boarders (15), meaning that they live on campus Monday-Friday. But as of now, all students are studying online. There are no diagnosed students with learning abilities in Grade 5 Class 5D and there are not any methods available for discerning gender identity or sexual orientation at this grade or in this culture.
Statement of the Problem
My research action plan looked into the effects of compacting for gifted and advanced learning in online, ESL classes. Compacting is essentially testing out of areas that students already possess a high level of mastery and instead, using that class time to work on more advanced activities that require higher thinking skills, challenge the student, and still meet the school standards and learning objectives. All students being ELL learners presents unique problems when discerning giftedness or accelerated learners. The student’s English level may not be a true indicator. Some students have parents that are fluent in English and can help them study at home. Some students have spent time in English speaking countries, from living there for years or language camps in the summer. Some students take outside English training classes on the weekends.
Review of the Literature
Differentiation is vital for the gifted student and curriculum compacting is one method of achieving differentiation in the classroom. Students do not thrive in environments where they feel they are waiting on others to catch up or when they have already mastered the material but are forced to follow the normal pace of the class. “Differentiated teaching is responsive teaching” (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003, p.2). This means that the teacher responds to the individual needs of the students. This is especially important for gifted students and ELL students. Giving the same material to a student reading at a fifth-grade level and one reading at a first-grade level is not the best approach and is not meeting the needs of individual students. Gifted students possess a wide range of abilities, characteristics, and backgrounds. “All of these factors—gender, culture, personal interests, ability, experience, and intelligence preference—shape each student to be both like and unlike every other student in the class” (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003, p.4). Tomlinson & Eidson (2003) covered a wide range of topics that are necessary for teachers to know to successfully differentiate in the classroom and stated, “it’s clear that planning for differentiated instruction must involve careful consideration of student characteristics, curricular elements, and instructional strategies” (p.9).
As previously stated, curriculum compacting falls in the realm of differentiation. There are many strategies that educators need to be familiar with in order to differentiate successfully. Dr. Diane Heacox, in Making Differentiation a Habit, gave a comprehensive list of strategies for teachers to employ (Ed.D., 2017). She wrote that differentiation could occur in content, process, and product (Ed.D., 2017). Tiered assignments are beneficial for gifted learners and teachers should develop advanced standards to challenge and motivate gifted students (Ed.D., 2017).
Not all schools have the resources to open a gifted program where the students take classes with other gifted students and are taught by a teacher trained and certified in gifted education. Many schools find it difficult to implement “pull out” classes. These classes simply have the students leave for a couple of classes per week and meet with gifted students and a (hopefully) qualified teacher. Hanover Research (2017) offered a possible solution in a report and stated, “curriculum compacting is a method of in-class differentiation for gifted students, such that they can remain in mainstream classes with grade-level peers while maintaining a more rigorous workload to match their skills”. It goes on to offer charts of empirical evidence for the benefits of compacting for gifted students.
Compacting is a form if differentiation that follows the idea that each student should study materials at or above their current level. Each students learns differently and at their own pace. Where compacting comes in is the students get to pretest and eliminate all the materials which they have already mastered, and they can toss those parts of the curriculum away without suffering academically because the teacher has already noted their mastery (M.S. & Ph.D., 2018). Chapter two of Teaching Gifted Kids in Today’s Classroom offers a blueprint for initiating a compacting program in your classroom (M.S. & Ph.D., 2018). The forms, charts, strategies, scenarios, and step-by-step breakdown of what compacting it, how it works, and how to implement it is beneficial for new teachers trying to get a grasp on how to handle gifted students without an abundance of resources.
“Curriculum compacting enables teachers to streamline the regular curriculum, ensure students’ mastery of basic skills, and provide time for challenging and interesting enrichment and/or acceleration activities” (Ed.D. & Ed.D., 2013, p.25). There are many benefits of compacting that include more challenging material for the gifted student, an increase in motivation, and more independence (Ed.D. & Ed.D., 2013). There are many options for teacher struggling to find the correct materials needed to challenge and engage gifted learners. Creating learning centers in and out of the classroom, online activities and projects, moving forward in the curriculum to find more demanding content, and allowing students to meet and work with mentors are a few avenues that teachers might want to pursue to achieve successful compacting (Ed.D. & Ed.D., 2013).
Research Question
How will implementing compacting into an online, ELL English class affect student attitude and performance?
Research Design
I used both qualitative and quantitative data collection. Students were surveyed before and after about their feeling/satisfaction/motivation towards online classes. In between, I gave weekly assessment tests and the students that received 80% or above were given extension activities and were not responsible for attending the regular class but did attend a separate class so that regular classes had fewer students and I could give each student more direct instruction.
I used a survey for Unit 6 prior to starting Unit 7 and then resent the survey, with minor adjustments, for unit 7. I also compared the Unit 7 exam grade to the Unit 6 exam grade. The surveys are my qualitative portion of the research, and the grades are the quantitative. This took approximately four weeks, or the length of Unit 7, which, generally, is one month per unit. Students pretested every Friday and the results and extension exercises were presented on the following Monday. The surveys were sent online and turned in and averaged before and after assessment and compacting. Both exams were given in the exact manner, online and timed.
Data Collection
I presented the students with a survey just before the Unit 6 exam about their feelings concerning the exam and the activities/lesson in Unit 6. After the exam, I presented the students with pretests for Unit 7. After weekly compacting for Unit 7, the students took the survey about their feelings concerning the exam and the activities and lesson in Unit 7. They then took the Unit 7 exam. I analyzed and compared the data of the two surveys and averaged and compared the scores of Units 6 and 7 exams. Both surveys (Unit 6 and Unit 7) contained essentially the same questions about the lessons and activities. I calculated all positive responses together (Very Satisfied/Satisfied), all negative responses together (Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied) and calculated neutral answers (Neither) separately. The wording for the positive, negative, and neutral responses changed, but they still fell into the three categories.
Data Analysis
The data from the surveys covers their personal feelings towards the lessons and activities from Unit 6 and 7. Figures 1-10 show the changes from Unit 6 to Unit 7 for each question. Unit 6 was taught in the regular fashion, but I compacted for Unit 7. The students answered questions about assignment choices and preparedness for the exam. Each survey was given at the completion of the unit pages but before the test. The average for Unit 6 was 82.32% and the average for Unit 7 was 86.6%, a rise of 4.28% (Figure 11).
Students prefer compacting to not compacting, overall. The surveys showed a clear increase in the amount of Effective/Very Effective over Not So Effective/Not At All Effective (and other questions of those types). Although there were increases across the board, the results were not overwhelming. Also, the test rose only 4.28% from Unit 6 (not compacted) to Unit 7 (compacted). Now, while this is not a significant increase, it did see a change in the trend of grades dropping since we have been online. Homework grades (and quizzes/tests) have been dropping the longer the students are in lockdown and taking online classes. The longer we stay online, the worse the grades. This 4% would not have been significant in a normal setting but it not only shows a rise in test scores but the reversal of a trend.
Implications
The students clearly preferred choosing the activities after they showed mastery of the topic. In all questions, positivity rose. This research project implies that, with proper scheduling and implementation, compacting can work for ELL students and also in an online setting. There is also the implication that our school should look more into methods to identify gifted students and address higher-level students.
This action research should be repeated by other teachers in other grades and the result analyzed. Regardless of the outcome, leaders and administration should begin having discussions about identifying gifted students and meeting the needs of gifted students and more advanced students. There should be discussions about providing appropriate activities and projects while following government guidelines. Administration and staff should also consider which routes to take when it come to professional development. No matter the plan of action, teachers will need training to meet the needs of accelerated learners and gifted students.
References
Ed.D., H. D. (2017). Making Differentiation a Habit: How to Ensure Success in Academically Diverse Classrooms (Free Spirit ProfessionalTM) (second edition, book with digital content ed.). Free Spirit Publishing.
Ed.D., H. D., & Ed.D., R. C. M. (2013). Differentiation for Gifted Learners: Going Beyond the Basics (Book with Digital Content ed.). Free Spirit Publishing.
Hanover Research. (2017, March). Best Practices in Gifted Programming: Prepared for Arlington Public Schools. https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Best-Practices-in-Gifted-Programming-Arlington-Public-Schools.pdf
M.S., W. S., & Ph.D., B. D. (2018). Teaching Gifted Kids in Today’s Classroom: Strategies and Techniques Every Teacher Can Use (Free Spirit ProfessionalTM) (fourth edition, book with digital content ed.). Free Spirit Publishing.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Eidson, C. C. (2003). Differentiation in Practice: A Resource Guide for Differentiating Curriculum, Grades K-5 (Annotated ed.). ASCD.
Appendix of Graphs – Figures 1-11
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11