Which is a better solution for our non-English speaking

students?

1Susana PintoSpring 2010

2

Statement of the Problem

• There is a lot of controversy over which method of instruction is better for English Language Learners (ELL) with regards to Literacy.

• Should schools use the immersion programs where a students native language plays little or no role or should they use bilingual literacy education where instruction is given in the native tongue?

• This study is intended to see which is a better solution.

3

Review of Literature PROS CONS

• Teachers need to help learners identify skills that can help facilitate their learning (Reyes, 2007).

• Use Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory to achieve best results (Gardner, 1983).

• Students must possess both skill and will to read (Wei, 2007).

• Provide learners with new experiences to generate new ideas (Reyes, 2007).

• To non-English speaking students series texts with pictures is important (Avalos, 2007).

• Leave politics out of the classroom (Mitchell, 2005).

• Attention needs to be paid to the professional development (Fitzgerald, 2000)

• Maybe the focus should be on the quality of the education and not the instruction (Shin, 2008).

• Racist and against basic freedoms (Mora, 2007).

4

Making Our Own Reading Camp• Increase the learners’ self-

esteem

• Have interesting and manageable reading materials (Balakrishnan, Hashim, 2006).

• Create awareness by showing them strategies they can use (Balakrishnan, Hashim, 2006).

• Develop good reading habits.

• Find on-line technology that will help with this literacy dilemma (Balakrishnan, Hashim, 2006). 5

Statement of the Hypothesis

• HR1 - Implementing an intensive language learning instructional environment with English language learners and ESL students over a six week period will increase their reading skills more so than the group that is being taught in a bi-lingual environment.

6

• MethodsParticipants• Two 2nd grade classrooms in 2 schools (PS X

and PS Y) located in the Bronx.• They are all Spanish speaking immigrant

students.• The area that they live in is known to be a

low economic area.• There are 4 boys and 3 girls between the

ages of 7-9. 7

Methods

Instruments• Consent letters to the principal and parents• Survey for students• Survey for parents • Pre-test• Post-test• Computers with internet access• Library reading books

8

Research Design

• Nonequivalent Control Group Design:Two groups are pretested, exposed to a treatment (x), and post tested (o).

• Symbolic design: – O X1 O– O X2 O

9

Threats to Internal ValidityHistory: During allotted time there may be

distractions, i.e. weather, phone in classroom, fire drills, etc.

Maturation: Students over time may lose interest or may be embarrassed to be in the group and not pay attention.

Testing/Pre-test Sensitization: Students can expect what will be on the post-test since there will be a pre-test to asses the students.

Instrumentation: Students might get bored of taking the surveys or parents might not fully understand what is being asked.

Mortality: Students might be absent or move away.

Differential Selection of Subjects: Each group is in a different school. One group will be given material in their native language and the other group will only be given English material.

Threats to External Validity• Ecological Validity: The results of this

study can be generalized with other students that are facing the same language barrier.

• Selection Treatment Interaction: Students were not randomly selected. Both groups were selected because they are learning to read the English language.

• Multiple Treatment: The researcher is using two treatments, immersion / bilingual lesson plans.

• Experimenter Effects: Researcher does present a threat due to the fact that they have a personal connection with the topic.

• Reactive Arrangements/Participants Effects: This could possibly be a threat to the study because since this is new for the students they will do better than on ordinary circumstances, i.e. Novelty Effect.

10

Procedure• March 2010 – Consent letters were given to

parents.

• Late March 2010 – Student and parent surveys were completed and collected.

• Late March 2010 – Pre-test was administered to the 7 students.

• Mini – Project was handed out for students to do during spring break. It was a list of sight words for them to cut out and use as flash cards.

11

Procedure• Researcher met with the two groups twice a week for

approximately a half hour – Group A with 3 students was the English Only group. Group B with the 4 students was the Bilingual group.

• Some days were spent reading stories and then testing comprehension skills, others were spent on the computer doing interactive reading games.

• Students also completed fun activities like crossword puzzles or used the half hour just to hold a conversation.

• During the last week the post-test was administered. 12

Results Pre-test & Parent Survey

For my comparison data I used a survey question that was given to parents:• How often do you read to your child in English?• Possible Answers• 1 never read to my child in English.• 2 I read to my child once a week in English.• 3 I read to my child twice a week in English.• 4 I read to my child 3 times or more in English.

13

Parents Survey

Results for question

Student score on pre-test

# 1 1 - I never read to my child in English

50% - student # 1

# 2 1 - I never read to my child in English

60% - student # 2

# 3 1 - I never read to my child in English

50% - student # 3

# 4 4 – I read to my child 3 times or more

100% - Student # 4

# 5 2 – I read to my child once a week

75% -student # 5

# 6 4 – I read to my child 3 times or more

90% - student # 6

# 7 1 - I never read to my child in English

65% - student # 7

• Results

Pre-test Scores & Parent Survey Answer

14

Pre-test & Parental Survey ResultsDo parents reading to their child in English help

literacy skills?

15

0 1 2 3 4 5

50%

60%

100%

50%

75%

90%

65%

test scores

PARENT RESPONSES FROM SURVEY

16

From the previous Bar Graph we can see that the more a parent reads to their child in English the higher the pre-test score is. This is a good indication that immersing the student in English language has higher benefits than bi-lingual instruction.

Also, our correlation chart shows a high positive correlation. The Rxy is 0.94.

Pre-test Data Analysis & Correlation

Results Continued

** The scores in green were the English only group

AVERAGE OF PRE-TEST** English only group -

average of pre-test – 80%

** Bi-lingual group – average of pre-test – 65%

Pre-testScore

100% 90% 50% 60% 75% 50% 75%

Post-test Score

100% 100% 60% 80% 90% 70% 100%

17

AVERAGE OF POST-TEST

** English only group – average of post-test – 86.66%

** Bi-lingual group – average of post-test – 85%

*** Greatest gain was by Bi-lingual group. Scores were 20% higher.

Results Continued

Student Answer1 22 23 14 45 26 37 2

18

• Researcher used an assessment question to poll students and analyzed the post-test scores.

• I do my work well even though everything is in English.

1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Strongly disagree 4. disagree

Our chart shows a negative relation and no correlation between the two. The Rxy is -0.02.

Discussion

• Even though the initial study began in favor of immersing a student in English, further data analysis suggested that a child does better in literacy when assisted in their native language.

• Also, as per the literature review maybe the basis of the study shouldn’t be which method is better, but finding new ways for teachers and staff to help identify new skills for literacy and ELL/ESL children.

19

Implications

• Study suggests:

- More research needs to be completed.- Larger sample size is needed- Study needs to be over a longer period of time

20