1

Primary Language Matters: Is There a Link Between Primary Language Proficiency and English Language Learners’ Academic Achievement?

Nury RodriguezEducation 7202: Seminar in Applied Theory and Research II

Fall 2010

2

Table of Contents

IntroductionStatement of Problem (Slide 3)Review of Related Literature (Slides 4-5)Research Hypothesis (Slide 6)

MethodParticipants (Slide 7)Instruments (Slide 8)Experimental Design (Slide 9)Procedure (Slide 10)

Results (Slides 11-15)Discussion (Slide 16)Implications (Slide 17)References (Slide 18)

3

Some English language learners are failing to meet the academic standards. Meanwhile, the debate continues of whether students who are learning English as a second language should be taught using their primary language or in an English only classroom. Some schools have adopted the transitional bilingual programs to help these children, but these transitional bilingual programs provide minimal primary language intervention. However, Cummins’ (1979) developmental interdependence hypothesis asserts that the “development of competence in a second language is partially a function of the type of competence already developed in the first language at the time when intensive exposure to the second language begins” (as cited in Lenters, 2004, p. 329). This action research will attempt to find out: What are the effects of a transitional bilingual intervention on literacy development? Is there a positive correlation between students’ primary language proficiency and target language reading development?

Statement of the Problem

4

Review of Related Literature

Pro ConJim Cummins Interdependence Principle suggests that L1 can facilitate the learning of L2 (as cited in Sparks, 2009, p. 205).

Keith Baker (1998) claims that the structured English immersion program is the best method to teach ELLs.

Cummins (1984) made a distinction between Basic Interpersonal Skills (BICS), and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) (as cited in Coleman & Goldenberg, 2009). He argues that it takes one to two years for second language learners to acquire BICS, and five years of target language exposure to develop CALP (as cited in, Garcia & C. Baker, 2007).

Structured English Immersion programs “mainstream their students in two to three years, compared to the five to eight years called for by a full bilingual education program” (Baker, 1998, p. 202).

Cummins’ (1979) Interdependence Hypothesis asserts that the “development of competence in a second language is partially a function of the type of competence already developed in the first language at the time when intensive exposure to the second language begins” (as cited in Lenters, 2004, p. 329). The Threshold Hypothesis suggests that the level of proficiency in L2 is dependent on the level of competence in L1 (C. Baker, 2006).

The Threshold Hypothesis resorts to the use of “semi-lingualism” or “limited bilingualism” as the reason for children’s low academic achievement (Macswan, 2009, para. 8).

Theorists & Practitioners

5

Review of Related Literature

Cross-linguistic Transfer Cross-linguistic transfer helps transfer knowledge of oral and literacy skills of primary language to the second language, and using the native language does not obstruct the second language development (Tong, Lara-Alecio, Irby, Mathes, & Kwok, 2008).

Students’ primary language proficiency at elementary level dictates the level of English proficiency and academic achievement in upper grades (Sparks et al., 2009).

Lee and Lemonnier Schallert’(‘s) (1997) study with Korean middle school and high school students, examined the threshold hypothesis, and it revealed that level of L1 proficiency helps in the reading development of L2, so the level of L1 proficiency determines the reading ability of L2. However, in order to transfer these skills to L2 the students must have some knowledge of L2 in order for this cross-linguistic transfer to occur.

Gort (2006) explains that “knowledge gained in one language serves as a foundation and facilitates learning in the second language,” and an example of how bilinguals do this transfer of knowledge from the first language to the second language is by ways of code switching (p. 326).

Bialystok, Luk, & Kwan (2005) have explained that “bilinguals transferred literacy skills across languages only when both languages were written in the same system” (p. 43).

6

Statement of the Hypothesis

HR1: Implementing a transitional bilingual Education program with nine first grade English language learners with average to high Spanish language proficiency will yield greater reading progress than the nine first grade English language learners with low Spanish language proficiency, for 40 minutes five times per week over an eight-week period at PSX in Brooklyn, NY.

MethodParticipants Total population of 18 first grade Latino students at PSX in Brooklyn, New York

56% or 10 students are girls 44% or 8 students are boys

Other Participants Parents of participating students Teachers and Administration

Racial breakdown of PSX in Brooklyn, New York PSX student population consists of 1,125 students with ethnic make up of 1

percent African American, 63 percent Hispanic or Latino, Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 7 percent White

Limited English proficient (LEP) students are 41 percent (441 students) of the student population at PSX

Method:

Instruments Consent Forms Administered to: Parent Assistant Principal Teacher

Likert Scale Surveys Administered to: Students Parents

Assessments: Primary Language Assessment Reading Assessmentso Pretest Developmental Reading Assessmento Posttest Developmental Reading Assessment

Research Design

Quasi Experimental: Nonequivalent Control Group Design

Two groups: Designated treatment group (X1) and control group (X2) are pretested, exposed to a treatment (X), and posttested (O).

Groups are not randomly assigned.

Symbolic Design: O X1 O O X2 O

Procedure

This Action Research was conducted from May 2010 to June 2010: Consent form were distributed and collected from Assistant

Principal, teacher, and students, May 2010. Surveys were distributed to and collected from students and

parents, May 2010. Pretest administered September 2010. Posttest administered May 2010. Post Surveys administered June 2010.

Results:Quasi Experimental: Nonequivalent Control Group Design/ Printed Language Concepts and Reading Comprehension Pretest and Posttest Scores/Group 1 & Group 2

Pretest/Printed Language Concepts

Posttest/Reading Comprehension

Student Group 1 Group 2 Group 1

Group 2

1 100% 3 67% 2 53% 14 64% 12

2 55% 1 100% 2 50% 8 61% 14

3 100% 3 100% 3 71% 16 39% 8

4 100% 3 66% 1 68% 14 32% 6

5 100% 3 100% 2 57% 16 64% 14

6 100% 3 89% 3 61% 16 39% 12

7 89% 2 89% 2 61% 12 71% 10

8 89% 2 100% 2 75% 12 64% 12

9 100% 3 44% A 68% 18 43% 8

Average 93% 84% 63% 53%

Reading Ability Level Pretest

Group 1PretestGroup 2

Reading Ability Level

PosttestGroup 1

PosttestGroup 2

Level A 0 1 Level 6 0 1

Level 1 1 1 Level 8 1 2

Level 2 2 5 Level 10 0 1

Level 3 6 2 Level 12 2 3

Level 14 2 2

Level 16 3 0

Level 18 1 0 Pretest

/Gro

up1

(Leve

ls A-1-3)

Pretest

/Gro

up2

(Leve

ls A-1-3)

Posttest

/Gro

up1

(Leve

ls 6-18)

Posttest

/Gro

up2

(Leve

ls 6-18)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

00.1 0.1

0.30.3

0.600000000000001

0.2

0.4

0.600000000000001

0.2

0.600000000000001

0.2

Reading Levels: Pretest and Post test

HighAverageLow

Perc

enta

ge

Pretest Posttest0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Average: Pretest and Posttest Scores

Group 1Group 2

Aver

age

Test

Sco

res

Results:Correlation of Students Primary Language Attitudes and Posttest English Reading Assessment scores.Likert Scale Post Survey Question #2:

Correlation Coefficient (rxy)=--0.22

Correlation Coefficient (rxy)=0.29

I like to use Spanish to speak with my family.

1

No

2

Yes

Posttest/Reading Comprehension Scores

Student Group 1

Student Survey

Responses Group 2

Student Survey

Responses

1 53% 2 64% 2

2 50% 2 61% 2

3 71% 1 39% 1

4 68% 2 32% 2

5 57% 2 64% 1

6 61% 2 39% 1

7 61% 1 71% 2

8 75% 2 64% 2

9 68% 2 43% 2

Average 63% 53%

0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.20%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Correlation of Student Primary Language Attitude and Posttest Scores/Group 1

y

Linear (y)

Student Survey Responses

Engl

ish R

eadi

ng C

ompr

ehen

sion

Asse

ssm

ent

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Correlation of Student Primary Language Attitute and Posttest Scores/Group 1

Series1

Linear (Series1)

Student Survey ResponsesEngl

ish R

eadi

ng C

ompr

ehen

sion

Asse

ssm

ent

Correlation of Students Primary Language Proficiency and Posttest DRA2 Reading Levels

Primary Language Proficiency Versus Performance on

Posttest DRA2 Reading Levels

Student

Group 1Primary

Language Proficiency

Reading Level

Group 2Primary

Language Proficiency

Reading Level

1 80% 14 60% 12

2 70% 8 60% 14

3 80% 16 50% 8

4 70% 14 30% 6

5 70% 16 40% 14

6 80% 16 60% 12

7 70% 12 40% 10

8 80% 12 50% 12

9 90% 18 60% 8

Results:

Correlation Coefficient (rxy)=0.65. The line of best fit show a fair positive correlation between students primary language proficiency and posttest English reading levels. Therefore, if primary language proficiency is high, students reading levels are high.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%0

5

10

15

20

Students Performance on L1 Proficiency Assessment Versus Performance on English

Reading Assessment Levels

Primary Language Proficiency

Postt

est

Read

ing

Leve

l

Results: Data Analysis Quasi Experimental: Nonequivalent Control Group Design

Pretest/Group 1 Pretest/Group 2

Grade Level Equivalent

DRA2 Reading Levels

Students % Level

Students

% Level

Kindergarten Readiness

Level A 0 0 1 11%Level 1 1 11% 1 11%

Kindergarten-First Grade

(Pre-primer)

Level 2 2 22% 5 56%Level 3 6 67% 2 22%

Total 9 100% 9 100%

Posttest/Group 1 Posttest/Group 2Grade Level Equivalent

DRA2 Reading Levels

Students % Level

Students % Level

Level 6 0 0 1 11%Level 8 1 11% 2 22%

First GradePrimer)

Level 10 0 0 1 11%Level 12 2 22% 3 33%

First grade Level 14 2 22% 2 22%Level 16 3 33% 0 0

Second Grade

Level 18 1 11% 0 0

Total Students 9 100% 9 100%

Pretest and Posttest Reading Engagement, Fluency, and Comprehension Scores

Pretest Posttest Student Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2

1 92% 71% 65% 59%2 60% 85% 56% 66%3 82% 89% 73% 48%4 85% 74% 66% 36%5 85% 82% 60% 70%6 89% 85% 60% 51%7 82% 78% 70% 63%8 85% 93% 75% 65%9 89% 56% 75% 58%

Pretest Posttest0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Averages: Pretest and Posttest Reading En-gagement, Fluency and Comprehension Scores

Group 1Group 2

Aver

age

Scor

es

  Pretest Posttest

Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2

Mean 83% 79% 67% 57%

Median 85% 82% 66% 59%

Mode 85% 85% 68% N/A

Results: Data Analysis Quasi Experimental: Nonequivalent Control Group Design

The data for Group 1 indicate that after Transitional Bilingual Education, and high levels of primary language proficiency (treatments) students are at higher reading level compared to Group 2 reading levels.

11% of the students are reading significantly below grade level. 22% of the students are reading below grade level. 55% of the students are reading on grade level. 11% of the students are reading above grade level.

The data for Group 2 indicate that after Transitional Bilingual education, and low levels of primary language proficiency (treatments) students are at lower reading levels compared to Group 1 reading levels.

33% of the students are reading significantly below grade level. 45% of the students are below first grade level. 22% of the students are on grade level.

DiscussionThis action research appears to support the hypothesis that a transitional bilingual Education program with nine first grade English language learners with high to average Spanish language proficiency to some extend achieved higher reading progress compared to English language learners with lower primary language skills.

There is a correlation between reading performance and primary language proficiency as demonstrated by the higher reading levels of those student with high to moderate primary language proficiency.

In line with Cummins interdependence hypothesis “instruction in primary language is effective in promoting proficiency in primary language, transfer of this proficiency to the target language will occur provided there is adequate exposure to target language.” (as cited in Garcia and Baker, 2007, p. 112.) This demonstrates the use of primary language intervention and students’ native language proficiency may increase students’ reading progress in English.

Implications

The results of this action research show that primary language proficiency in a bilingual setting may be a predictor for second language acquisition. However, there are other factors to consider:

Longitudinal study is needed Larger sample size Transitional Bilingual Program/ESL

Strategies Other factors

Threats to Internal Validity

Threats to Internal Validity Threats to External Validity History Maturation Testing – Pretest

Sensitization Instrumentation Mortality Statistical Regression Differential Selection of

Subjects Selection-Maturation

Interaction

 Ecological Validity Generalizable Conditions Pretest Selection Specificity of Variables Multiple Treatments Treatment Diffusion Experimenter Effects Reactive

Arrangements/Participants Effects

19

  References Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions, and Practice. Review of Research in

Education, 19, 3-49. doi: 10.3102/0091732X019001003Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Baker, K. (1998). Structured English Immersion: Breakthrough in Teaching Limited- English- Proficient Students. Phi

Delta Kappan, 80(3), 199-204. Retrieved from Eric database.  Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, Biliteracy, and Learning to Read: Interactions Among anguages and Writing Systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(1), 43-61. Retrieved from ERIC database. Coleman, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). What Does Research Say about Effective Practices for English Learners? Introduction and Part I: Oral Language Proficiency. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(1), 10-16. Retrieved from ERIC database.Duran, R. P. (2008). Assessing English-Language Learners’ Achievement. Review of Research in Education, 32, 92- 327.

doi: 10.3102/0091732X07309372Garcia, O., & Baker, C. (Eds.). (2007). Bilingual Education An Introductory Reader. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English Language Learners: What the Research Does—and Does not say. American Educator, 32(2), 8-44. Retrieved from

http://archive.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer08/goldenberg.pdf.Gort, M. (2006). Strategic codeswitching, interliteracy, and other phenomena of emergent bilingual writing: Lessons from

first grade dual language classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6, 323-354. doi: 10.1177/1468798406069796 Heredia, R. R., & Altarriba, J. (2001). Bilingual Language Mixing: Why Do Bilinguals Code-Switch? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(5), 164-168. Retrieved from JSTOR database.Honigsfeld, A. (2009). ELL Programs: Not "One Size Fits All." Kappa Delta Pi Record, 45(4), 166-171. Retrieved from

ERIC database.

20

Hughes, C. E., Shaunessy, E. S., Brice, A. R., Ratliff, M. A., & McHatton, P. A. (2006). Code Switching among Bilingual and Limited English Proficient Students: Possible Indicators of Giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(1), 7-28. Retrieved from ERIC database.Leafstedt, J. M., & Gerber, M. M. (2005). Crossover of Phonological Processing Skills: A Study of Spanish-Speaking Students in Two Instructional Settings. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 226-235. doi: 10.1177/07419325050260040501Lee, J. W., & Lemonnier Schallert, D. (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. TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), 713-739. Retrieved from JSTOR database. Lenters, K. (2004). No Half Measures: Reading Instruction for Young Second Language Learners. Reading Teacher, 58(4), 328-336. Retrieved from ERIC database. Macswan, J. (2000). The Threshold Hypothesis, Semilingualism, and Other Contributions to a Deficit View of Linguistic Minorities. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 3-45. doi:10.1177/0739986300221001Martinez-Roldan, C. M., & Sayer, P. (2006). Reading through linguistic borderlands: Latino students’ transactions with narrative texts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6, 293-322. doi: 10.1177/1468798406069799Miller, P., & Endo, H. (2004). Understanding and Meeting the Needs of ESL Students. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(10), 786-791. Retrieved from ERIC database.Mora, J. K. (2000). Staying the Course in Times of Change: Preparing Teachers for Language Minority Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 345-357. doi:10.1177/0022487100051005003New York State Department of Education. (2008-09). The New York State School Report Card: District Summary Reports. Retrieved from New York City Department of Education Web site: https:www.nystart.gov Ochoa, S., & Rhodes, R. (2005). Assisting Parents of Bilingual Students to Achieve Equity in Public Schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16 (1-2), 75-94. Retrieved from ERIC database.O’Connor-Petruso, S. A. (2010). Descriptive statistics and threats to validity [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from Brooklyn College Blackboard Web site: https://bbhosted.cuny.edu/Reese, L., Goldenberg, C., & Saunders, W. (2006). Variations in Reading Achievement among Spanish-Speaking Children in Different Language Programs: Explanations and Confounds. Elementary School Journal, 106(4), 363-385. Retrieved from ERIC database. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2005). The Big Picture: A Meta-Analysis of Program Effectiveness Research on English Language Learners. Educational Policy, 19, 572-594. doi: 10.1177/0895904805278067

21

Rossell, C. H., & Baker, K. (1996). The Educational Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(1), 7-74. Retrieved from Eric database.

Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-Term Crosslinguistic Transfer of Skills from L1 to L2. Language Learning, 59(1), 203-243. Retrieved from ERIC database. Tong, F., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B., Mathes, P., & Kwok, O. (2008). Accelerating Early Academic Oral English evelopment in Transitional Bilingual and Structured English Immersion Programs. American Educational Research, 45, 1011-1044. doi: 10.3102/0002831208320790 Verdugo, R., & Flores, B. (2007). English-Language Learners: Key Issues. Education and Urban Society, 39, 167-

193. doi: 10.1177/0013124506294852Wiley, T G., & Wright, W. E. (2004). Against the Undertow: Language-Minority Education Policy and Politics in the "Age of Accountability." Educational Policy, 18, 142-168. doi: 10.1177/0895904803260030