Ch 4 literacy original

398 views

Published on

Literacy

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
398
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Page 138
  • Ch 4 literacy original

    1. 1. Ch. 4 Literacy by Genesee & Riches Ellie Gordy & Joseph Pizano
    2. 2. INTRODUCTION Literacy skills are the foundation of education and without them children cannot function in school and beyond. Chapter focuses on research studies teaching ELLs reading and writing skills. 1. 2. 3. 4. Research Reviews Four Instructional Topics Instructional Approaches Language of Instruction Family and Community Assessment
    3. 3. 1.DIRECT INSTRUCTION – THREE INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES All three instructional approaches interact with one another on a continuum. Most of the studies examined teaching methods, strategies, techniques promoting reading development of Hispanic ELLs in elementary schools. 10 Studies Teaching specific skills in reading and writing. 2. INTERACTIVE INSTRUCTION – 15 Studies Interactions with teacher, students parents using interactive strategies & skill methods. 3. PROCESS-BASED INSTRUCTION – 10 Studies Learning through induction & using written language for communication of self-expression using journals, free writing/reading, literature logs. Individual or group activity.
    4. 4. Summary of Some Direct Instruction Studies (Focused on reading not writing) 10 Studies – Hispanic ELLs – Mostly Elementary Schools Some Instructional Methods Used in Studies Keyword method for new English vocabulary enhances reading and writing (Avila & Sadoski, 1996) Brainstorming and clustering to enhance reading comprehension(Bermudez & Prater , 1990) Sheltered Instruction SIOP – language production & writing(Echevaria et al., 2003) Modeling, Monitoring, Checklist – reading comprehension (Hernandez , 1991) Auditory discrimination with sounds in English for decoding skills (Kramer, et al., 1983) Cloze Texts – comprehension of unknown words (Kucer, 1992) Some Outcome & Results Cued recall of new vocabulary(Avila & Sadoski, 1996) Comprehension & retention of stories English and Spanish (Bermudez & Prater , 1990) Writing: fluency, elaboration and organization (Echevaria et al., 2003) Evidence of transfer of skills between languages (Hernandez, 1991) Students used clozed-based strategies but did not always understand purposes of instruction (Kucer, 1992)
    5. 5. Bermudez & Prater (1990) Study Direct Instruction of Writing Performance Grades 3 & 4 Hispanic ELLs, Low SES Assessment of Fluency Elaboration & Organization of Skills TREATMENT GROUP Teacher assisted *Basal readers used *Brainstorming & clustering of ideas about stories *Paragraph written on stories *Higher scores on elaboration of ideas *No difference – writing fluency, organization & comprehension CONTROL GROUP Teacher led *Basal readers used *Discussion based on questions from reader *Paragraph written on stories *Lower score on elaboration of ideas *No difference – writing fluency, organization & comprehension
    6. 6. Summary of Some Interactive Instruction Studies 15 Studies Cited - Most Elementary Schools Hispanics, Chinese, Native American ELLs Instructional Methods Used in Some Studies Reciprocal teaching with cross age tutoring of reading comprehension (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996) Literature Circles (Martinez, et al, 2000) Shared Reading (Native Am., Hispanics) (Fayden, 1997) Reading audiotaped paired reading (Chinese ELL ) (Li & Nes, 2001) Home-repeated reading with audio model (Blume, et al, 1995) Keyword & listening preview methods (Rosseau & Tam, 1993) Measures & Results Of Some Studies Gains in pre/post tests in vocabulary (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996) Children engaged in literature reading & discussion (Martinez, et al, 2000) Examined text level reading comprehension (Fayden, 1997) Improvement on reading fluency and accuracy (Li & Nes, 2001) (Blume, et al., 1995) Keyword method more effective than preview method (Rosseau & Tam, 1993)
    7. 7. Interactive Instruction Approach Promotes reading & writing proficiency Hispanic ELLs in Elementary school Cummins ,(1984), Slavin, (1995), Tharp, (1997) Study Summary: Learners engaged in literacy activities with teachers, peers, parents Individualized guided instruction corresponds to zone of proximal development Relevant to ELL’s because of diverse sociocultural & home backgrounds of students Collaborative participation and observation of adult models Blum et al. (1995) Study Summary: Home based repeated reading with audio model Oral reading fluency with selfmonitoring All students showed improved reading fluency and accuracy over time
    8. 8. Summary of Some Process Instructional Studies Cited 10 Studies Hispanic ELLs low SES, Bilinguals, Mostly Elementary Instructional Methods Used in Studies Transitional whole language bilingual class (Kucer & Silva, 1999) Literature circles (Martinez, et al, 2000) Whole language (Kuball & Peck, 1997) Dialogue journals & literature logs to promote writing (de la Luz Reyes, 1991) Some Outcomes & Results Significant gains in reading, no gains in writing (Kucer & Silva, 1999) Students engaged in rich discussion of literature (Martinez, et al, 2000) Writings improved over 1 year in composition & graphophonemic skills (Kuball & Peck, 1997) Some ELLs attempted to write in English before they had complete control of English, and development of complex ideas & construction suffered (de la Luz Reyes, 1991)
    9. 9. Researches call for a balanced combined approach, incorporate direct and interactive instruction to promote reading/writing skills. Researchers who examined process approach literacy classes agree that exposing ELLs to literacy rich environments alone is not sufficient to promote acquisition of specific skills. Advantages for ELL’s: *Contributes to student mastery of literacy-related skills *Motives responsive reading & creative writing *Encourages voluntary reading & writing *Expands the learner’s reading & writing interest *Helps ELL’s discover their own connections to literature *Evidence of transfer of skills from L1 to L2 *Significant gains in comprehension, reading, spelling and vocabulary
    10. 10. Summary of Some Studies on Language of Instruction 14 Studies Cited – Cherokee & Hispanic ELLs Comparative Studies of ELLs receiving instruction in primary grades in only English to that of ELLs in their L1 and English. Studies compare ELLs in bilingual programs to that of native English speakers to see if ELLs achieve parity with native English speakers. Majority of studies used standardized tests. Research assessed the impact of instruction through the L1 vs. instruction through English alone.
    11. 11. Language of Instruction Studies 14 Studies Cited Cherokee, Hispanic ELLs, Low SES, Elementary Similar Results in Studies Some ELLs have challenges of acquiring societal language for academic skills & knowledge and adapting to new environments. ELLs receiving bilingual instruction demonstrated superior reading performance after many years in program. L2 reading acquisition is facilitated if instruction is provided in the L1 to transfer skills in reading and writing. Howard et al (2004) Longitudinal Study *Hispanic ELLs and English L1 students in two-way immersion from grades 3 to 5 *ELLs received initial reading in Spanish *Results – found that both ELLs and English L1 students improved significantly in English reading and writing from grades 3 to 5.
    12. 12. Home Factors Home Factors Include: SES Home Language Books At Home Home Literacy Practice Parent's Values and Aspirations Home-Base Factors (schoolinitiated intervention)
    13. 13. Overview Relevance "...ELLs are at-risk for reading failure or difficulty because of their lack of exposure to or engagement in literacy outside school." (page 131) Provide resources for literacy development by involving the community and parents. Variables SES: Free-Lunch Eligibility Home Literacy Practices and Resources: Literacy Skills of Parent Availability and Use of Books
    14. 14. SES and Literacy Development Kennedy and Parker (1994) Buriel and Cardoza (1988) Study: Grade 8 Asian and Mexican American ELLs Reese et al. (2000) Study: Grade 7 Latino students Findings:"...significant correlation between SES and the standardized reading test scores for middle-school ELLs" (page 132) Study: Grade 9 1st and 2nd generation Mexican American ELLs Findings: SES does not impact English reading and vocabulary test scores. Rather personal aspirations better indicated test results for 1st and 2nd generation ELLs.
    15. 15. Home Related Factors and Literacy Development Pucci and Ulanoff (1998) Students: Grade 4 Hispanic Findings: proficient ELL readers had (1) more books at home, (2) enjoyed reading more, and (3) felt more proficient in L2 than their less proficient counterparts. Blum et al. (1995) Home-Based Literacy Practices Blum et al. (1995) Study: Sent home audio recordings with Grade 1 students to support reading at home. Findings: Based on observation, but intervention was beneficial.
    16. 16. L1 Use at Home and Literacy Development Hansen (1989) Study: Grade 2 and Grade 5 students some Spanishdominant homes Findings: ELLs who used more English at home and at school performed better on English reading assessments than those who used English less often. Kennedy and Parker (1994) Findings: L1 and L2 significance depends on the student's cultural background and type of outcome measured. Home language use has a much stronger relationship to standardized tests than to course grades. Mexican American ELLs: English at home was not a significant predictor for English course grades or standardized test. Asian American ELLs: English at home was not significant for English course grades, but was for standardized test.
    17. 17. Other Factors •Immigration history (Buriel and Cardoza, 1988) •Number of years parents lived in the U.S. (Reese et al., 2000; Duran and Weffer, 1992; Ima and Rumbaut, 1989) •Literacy practices in L1 (Reese et al., 2000)
    18. 18. Assessments "...a standardized test of mathematics or science administered in English to ELLs is just as much about the student's language proficiency as it is about his/her knowledge of mathematics or science." (Page 137) Only ten empirical studies referenced assessment issues.
    19. 19. Assessments Miramontes, 1987 Study: observed miscues of low and high Native-Spanish speaking students and compared them to native English Speakers. Findings: Testing ELLs reading in both languages is a better assessment.(supported by Umbel et al, 1992) Garcia, 1991; Ima and Rumbaut, 1989 Stress diversity in assessments. Accounting for student's cultural backgrounds.
    20. 20. Assessment Observations 1. Asses in both languages 2. Use multiple sources of information when assessing 3. Dynamic assessments tailored to the student 4. Comprehensive profiling of reading and language development
    21. 21. Conclusion Combination of direct and interactive instruction is most effective. Results for the process approach are mixed since it does not include direct-skill instruction. Need for comprehensive curriculum (5 Standards of Effective Pedagogy and SIOP) Early use of L1 does not impede L2 literacy development. (both at home and in school)
    22. 22. Conclusion Continued ELLs who begin school with high levels of English proficiency achieve higher in English literacy. Enriched literacy (either L1 or L2), in the home, during preschool years results in higher literacy achievement in L2 literacy. English proficiency when entering school impacts literacy development for families with longer U.S. residency. Personal aspirations and other factors play an important role amongst 1st and 2nd generation immigrants.
    23. 23. Conclusion Continued English oral proficiency is more important in ELLs who speak an Asian language than Spanish-speaking ELLs. Parents and schools need to play a greater role in promoting literacy in the home (especially during preschool years). More research is needed for home-based interventions.

    ×