7202 Final - ActionResearchProjects

Report
Closing the Literacy Gap for ELLs
Which model is most effective?
¡Hola! Hello!
Ashley Martin
ED 702.22 Spring 2011
Final Presentation
TABLE OF CONTENTS









Statement of Problem - 3
Review of Literature - 4
Statement of Hypothesis - 5
Participants/Instruments - 6
Experimental Design/Threats to Validity - 7
Procedure - 8
Results - 9-13
Discussion/Implications - 14
References - 15
Statement of Problem

To instruct first-grade ELLs at PSX, the school
has implemented a side-by-side dual-language
setting that separates L1 and L2 literacy
development by classroom. For Spanishspeaking students (L1), English proficiency (L2)
is below expected levels according to ECLAS-2
results and Fountas & Pinnell reading levels.
The Great Debate
Native Language Maintenance or English Immersion

Research confirms significance of native language maintenance as
predictor of future L2 proficiency as well as a powerful tool to assist
in the transfer of literacy knowledge from one language to the next.
(Carlo et al., 2004; Culatta, Reese & Setzer, 2006; Lee & Schallert,
1997; Potowski, 2004; Quesada, 2007; Vaughn et al., 2006).

Research confirms English-only immersion models as most
effective.
– (Garcia, E., 2007; Helmsley, Holm & Dodd, 2006; Leung et al.,
2010; Rossell & Baker, 1996; Winsler et al., 2006)
States with recent policy changes: California, Arizona, Georgia,
and Massachusetts.
Statement of Hypothesis
HR¹:
Use of bilingual small-group literacy instruction in English
Classroom over an eight-week period will increase L2
proficiency of Spanish-speaking ELLs in the dual-language
program (Fountas & Pinnell)
HR²: Bilingual small-group literacy instruction in English
Classroom A will yield a greater literacy improvement for
students compared to those instructed in English Classroom B.
Participants and Instruments
Participants
- 14 students from P.S. X in Brooklyn, all with L1
Spanish and L2 English in a Dual Language Program
Pre
and Post Tests
–Fountas
& Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (K-2)
Level
Student
G Nonfiction - “Bubbles” By Christina Rodriguez
Surveys
–Self-Attitudes,
Parent
Honduras
Dominican Rep.
Behaviors, Likes and Dislikes
Surveys
–Demographics,
Attitudes, Duration
El Salvador
Guatemala
Mexico
RESEARCH DESIGN and
THREATS TO VALIDITY

Research Design: Quasi-Experimental Design
–
Nonequivalent Control Group Design
–
Symbolic Design:
Threats to Internal Validity

History

Maturation

Testing/ Pre-Test Sensitization

Instrumentation

Mortality

Differential Selection of Subjects
O X1 O
O X2 O
Threats to External Validity
oEcological: Generalizable Conditions
oPre-test Treatment
oExperimenter Effects
oSpecificity of Variables
oReactive Arrangements/ Participants Effects
oCompensatory Rivalry
oPlacebo Effect – Parent Surveys
Procedure
Pretest
administration
Small group literacy instruction
Bi-weekly/tri-weekly depending on existing
dual language rotation calendar.
Group 1 Treatment
Bilingual instruction using the following strategies:
 Preview - View - Review
Cognate Analysis/Translation to clarify
Word Study Activities
Pretest/Posttest Results
A verage
M inimum
M aximum
8 6 .5 %
4 0 .0 %
9 7 .9 %
9 1 .7 %
5 6 .5 %
1 0 0 .0 %
% C hange Group 1 Group 2
Reading
5 .2 %
3 .6 %
C omp
2 2 .9 %
1 2 .2 %
V oc ab
1 1 .6 %
-1 .8 %
A verages
M inimum
M aximum
9 0 .9 %
8 1 .3 %
9 6 .5 %
9 4 .5 %
8 7 .5 %
1 0 0 .0 %
Group 1: Spanish/English Correlation
Group 1 Spanish/English Comparison
Spanish Levels Inf luencing English Levels
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
10
10
7
9
6
9
9
8
9
7
7
5
8
10
English Reading Level (F & P)
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
B=2
C=3
9
D= 4
8
7
E= 5
6
Series1
5
Linear (Series1)
4
F=6
G=7
3
H=8
2
1
I=9
0
.903rxy
A=1
0
5
10
15
Spanish Reading Level ( F & P)
E ng. A verageSp. A verage
7 .5 7 1 4 2 8 5 7 8 .7 1 4 2 8 5 7 1
G /H
H /I
J = 10
K = 11
Group 2: Spanish/English Correlation
A=1
B=2
C=3
D= 4
Group 2 Spanish/English Comparison
E= 5
F=6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
9
10
9
9
9
9
.710rxy
9
8
8
7
7
7
8
G=7
Spanish Level Affecting English Level
English Reading Level (F &
P)
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
H=8
I=9
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
J = 10
K = 11
Series1
Linear (Series1)
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
Spanish Reading Level (F & P)
E ng. A verageSp. A verage
7 .7 1 4 2 8 5 7 1 9 .2 8 5 7 1 4 2 9
G /H
I /J
Student and Parent Surveys
1
2
 
6. I like to learn at school using my Spanish.
Me gusta aprender en escuela usando mi espa–ol
.698rxy
4
It is important for my child to continue to speak Spanish while learning English.
Es importante para mi hijo/a a continuar hablando español mientras esta aprendiendo ingles.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
1
2
3
Strongly Agree
4
•While no correlation could be found for either group,
92.8% of all responses were favorable (3 or 4)
Data Dispersion / Grade Level Expectancies
σ = 14.4
σ = 3.8
English Reading Levels
Posttest/Group 1
Posttest/Group 2
Grade Level
Equivalent
Students
Students
Kindergarten
% at
% at
Level
Level
Level D
0
0%
0
0%
Level E
1
14%
0
0%
First Grade
Level F
0
0%
0
0%
(Early Year)
Level G
2
29%
3
43%
First grade (End Level H
of Year)
Level I
2
29%
3
43%
2
29%
1
14%
Second Gradde Level J
0
0%
0
0
On Grade
Level
9
57%
9
57%
Discussion / Implications
• L1 maintenance more successful than English
Bilingual treatment
L2 only
immersion programs.
% C hange Group 1 Group 2
Reading
5 .2 %
3 .6 %
C omp
2 2 .9 %
1 2 .2 %
V oc ab
1 1 .6 %
-1 .8 %
(Carlo et al., 2004; Culatta, Reese & Setzer, 2006; Lee & Schallert, 1997;
Potowski, 2004; Quesada, 2007; Vaughn et al., 2006).
•Parent support of native language maintenance
•Polarized nature of debate and research suggests need for
more research, especially in light of recent policy changes.
References













Carlo, M.S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D., . . . White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the
vocabulary needs of English language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms [Electronic Version]. Reading Research Quarterly,
39(2) 188-215.
Combs, M. C., Evans, C., Fletcher, T., Parra, E., & Jim�nez, A. (2005). Bilingualism for the children : Implementing a dual-language
program in an English-only state. Educational Policy, 19, 701-727. doi: 10.1177/0895904805278063.
Culatta, B., Reese, M., & Setzer, L. (2006). Early literacy instruction in a dual-language (Spanish-English) kindergarten. Communication
Disorders Quarterly, 27(2), 67-82. doi: 10.1177/1525740106027002051.
Cummins, J. (1983). Bilingualism and special education: Programs and pedagogical issues. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6(4), Autumn,
373-386.
Duran, L, Roseth, C. J., & Hoffman, P. (2010). An experimental study comparing English-only and transitional bilingual education on
Spanish-speaking preschoolers’ early literacy development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 207-217. doi:
10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.10.002.
Freeman, R. (2000). Contextual challenges to dual-language education: A case study of a developing middle school program [Electronic
Version]. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 31(2), 202-229.
Garcia, E. (2007). Education comes in diverse shapes and forms for U.S. bilinguals. In J, Noel, (Ed.), Multicultural Education, 2nd ed.
138-144. New York: McGraw Hill.
Garcia, O. (2008). Bilingual education in the 21 st century. West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
Garcia, O. (2005). Positioning heritage languages in the United States [Electronic Version]. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 601605.
Helmsley, G., Holm, A., & Dodd, B. (2006). Diverse but not different: The lexical skills of two primary age bilingual groups in
comparison to monolingual peers. International Journal of Bilingualism,10(4). 453-476. doi: 10.1177/13670069060100040401.
Holloway, L. (2000, October 17). Immersion promoted as alternative to bilingual instruction. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://thenewyorktimes.com
Hornberger, N. H. (1998). Language policy, language education, language rights: Indigenous, immigrant and international perspectives
[Electronic Version]. Language in Society, 27(4), 439-458.
Johnson, D. C. (2010). The relationship between applied linguistic research and language policy for bilingual education [Electronic
Version]. Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 72-93.
References (2)












Lee, J., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of
the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context [Electronic version]. TESOL Quarterly, 31. 713-739.
Leung, C. B., Silverman, R., Nandakumar, R., Qian, X., & Hines, S. (2010). A comparison of difficulty levels of vocabulary in first grade basal
readers for preschool dual language learners and monolingual English learners [Electronic Version]. American Education Research Journal. doi:
10.3102/0002831210382890.
Palmer, D. (2010). Race, power, and equity in a multiethnic urban elementary school with a dual-language “strand” program [Electronic Version].
Anthropology and Education Quaterly, 4(1), 94-114.
Potowski, K. (2004). Student Spanish use and investment in a dual language immersion classroom: Implications for second language acquisition and
heritage language maintenance. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), Spring, 75-101.
Quesada, P. (2007). A comparative study of the writing achievement of fourth grade English language learners in a dual-language bilingual program
and a transitional bilingual program in the lower Rio Grande Valley (Texas) [Electronic Version]. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:
Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(4-A), 1310.
Ravitch, D. (1997, September 5). First teach them English. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com
Rossell, C. (2002). Dismantling bilingual education implementing English immersion: The California initiative. Public Policy Inst. of California, San
Francisco. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED467063.
Rossell, C. & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education [Electronic Version]. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(1),
7-74.
Slavin, E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational
Research, 75(2). Summer, 247-284. doi: 10.3102/00346543075002247.
Tong, V., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B., Mathes, P., & Kwok, O. M. (2008). Accelerating early academia oral English development in transitional
bilingual and structure English immersion programs. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1011-1044.
doi:
10.3102/0002831208320790.
Vaugh, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Cirino, P. T., Carlson, C. D., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., . . . Francis, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of
Spanish intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(1), 56-73. doi:
10.1177/00222194060390010601.
Winsler, A., Diaz, R., Espinoza, L., Rodriguez, J. (1999). When learning a second language does not mean losing the first: Bilingual language
development in low-income, Spanish-speaking children attending bilingual preschool [Electronic version]. Child Development, 70(2). 349-362.

similar documents