English Language Learners: Writing Development

1
English Language Learners Writing Development
2
Table of Contents

• Introduction
• -Statement of the Problem
• -Review of Related Literature
• -Statement of the Hypothesis
• Method
• -Participants
• -Instruments
• -Experimental Design
• -Procedure
• Statistical Analyses
• - Charts/Graphs
• - Correlation
• - Results
• Discussion
• Implications
• Threats to Internal and External Validity

3
Statement of the Problem

• Very little research has been done on English
  language learners writing development. Knowing
  how English language learners learn or transfer
  skills
• from their native language will provide teachers
  with
• the tools necessary to help enhance students
  writing development in any language.
• Guided questions are
• Is there a significant difference in the writing
  development between an English proficient and
  a Spanish proficient student in a dual classroom?
• Does the parents educational background make a
  significant difference in the childs writing
  progress?

4
Literature Review

• Researchers claim, that parents educational
• background has a positive influence in the
• childrens literacy achievement. The parents
• educational background promotes literacy
• learning because of the literacy behavior
• practice at home( Saracho, 2007 Loucks, 1992).

5
Literature Review

• Very little research has been done on English
  language learners writing development.
  Regardless the lack of research, an educator can
  use strategies that help promote reading and
  writing. Basic research is known to hold the key
  to help educators choose instructional methods
  and strategies to enhance student achievement.
  (Alvarez, and Hakuta, 1992 Gort, 2006).

6
Literature Review

• There are specific strategies and skills needed
  for the
• native speaker to convey their oral language into
  written
• language. Cooperative learning, scaffolding, peer
• revision, editing, are a few that will benefit
  students
• transform their thoughts well into the written
  form
• (Patterson, and Bums, 1994 Gort, 2006 Cummins,
• 1999 Alvarez and Hakuta, 1992).

7
Statement of the Hypothesis

• Even though, there is lack of research in
  the writing development for English language
  learners, this study will compare the writing of
  both English proficient and Spanish proficient
  students in a Two-Way program.
• Giving the teachers an insight on the
  difference between two groups within a dual
• program. At the same time realize if and how
  the parents education background may effect
• the students writing development.

8
Method

• Participants
• Students participating in this research are
  currently in a second grade Dual classroom also
  known as Two-Way Program.
• Fifteen students are from the English component.
• Fifteen students are from the Spanish component.
• Students are from a New York City Public School
  System.
• School is located in Sunset Park Section of
  Brooklyn, New York.
• Instruments
• Demographic Survey
• Confidence/Rating Scale
• General Survey
• Parent Involvement Questionnaire (Time Allotted)
• Students Educational Background Questionnaire
• Experimental Design
• Quasi-Experimental Design Nonequivalent Control
  Group Design
• Symbolic Design O X 1 O

9
Statistical Analyses Writing on Demand
(Pretest)
Writing Progress
Writing Progress
Spanish
Spanish
English
Students (15)
Students (15)

• Writing Progress Levels
• Low
• Average
• High
• Exceeding

Average 1.8 Median 2 Mode 2
Average 1.875 Median 2 Mode 2
10
Statistical Analyses Writing Unit (Post
Test)
English
Spanish
Writing Levels
Writing Levels
Students
Students

• Writing Progress Levels
• Low
• Average
• High
• Exceeding

Average 2.66666667 Median 3 Mode 2
Average 1.86666667 Median 2 Mode 2
11
Statistical AnalysesSpanish Component
Fathers Education Level (Y)
Mothers Education Level (Y)
Y 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 1 1 1 2 2
X 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2
Y 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 2
X 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2
15 Students (X) Writing (Pretest)
15 Students (X) Writing (Pretest)

• Education Levels
• Less than High School
• High School
• Some College
• College Graduate

Correlation -0.0696733 RXY -0.06 Negative
Correlation -0.07537784 RXY -0.06 Negative
12
Statistical AnalysesEnglish Component
Fathers Education Level (Y)
Mothers Education Level (Y)
Y 1 2 1 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 2
Y 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 2
X 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
X 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2
15 Students (X) Writing (Pretest)
15 Students (X) Writing (Pretest)

• Education Levels
• Less than High School
• High School
• Some College
• College Graduate

Correlation -0.22664921 RXY -0.22 Negative
Correlation 0.16081688 RXY 0.16 Negative
13
Results

• The results from the pretest prior to the
  treatment demonstrated that the English language
  learners from both the English and
• Spanish component were basically at the same
  levels of development in their writing. Students
  were measured by a rubric
• geared to focus on specific elements in their
  writing. It was mostly focused on syntax and
  conventions. The rubric represented
• Its levels from one to four, one being the
  lowest, two average, three high and four
  exceeding. According to the data (bar graphs)
• for both groups demonstrated that the majority
  of students were at level 2, which indicates to
  be in an average level according to
• the rubric.
• The scatter plot represented the relationship
  between parents educational background with the
  writing progress of both
• groups. According to the data there was a minimal
  correlation (rxy -0.06, -0.07, -0.22, 0.16 ).
  Using the demographic survey one
• of the questions asked about the mother and the
  fathers educational background. When analyzing
  the demographic survey,
• there was a clear indication that with both
  groups the mothers had higher education than the
  fathers. Even with this
• information it still didnt make a difference. It
  was clearly noted that the parents educational
  background had absolutely no
• direct effect to the students writing
  development.
• The results of this research indicate there was
  a slight increase in the writing progress of the
  English component and at the same
• time there was no correlation between the
  parents education and the students writing
  progress.

14
Discussion

• According to the results, the data does
  not reflect a direct correlation between the
  students writing progress and their
• parents educational background. Saracho (2007),
  claimed that there was a significant tie between
  the students writing
• development and their parents education. The
  researcher claimed the higher the education the
  parents had, the more it would
• promote the childs literacy learning. The
  research clearly indicates otherwise. The data
  simply noted that the effect was minimal.
• Many of the lessons prepared were geared
  for English language learners. Scaffolding tools
  like thinking maps , graphic
• organizers, visuals, cooperative learning,
  modeling, shared writing and conferencing were
  all part of the unit of writing. It became
• a great asset to use with the English language
  learners. Even connecting some the lessons with
  their own past experiences and
• their cultural background provided a connection
  to work with their new writing piece, especially
  when they used text-to-self
• connections.
• Theorist Lev Vygotsky, and Jerome Bruner
  have emphasized cognitive development as closely
  acquainted to the brains
• construction of knowledge within a social
  context. Both theorist agree that the process of
  constructing knowledge of the world is
• not in isolation. They also agree that past
  experiences, culture and language play a central
  role in mental development . They also
• agree on the same instructional practices
  modeling, cooperative learning, and scaffolding
  are practices that are significant when
• Working with any student especially with English
  language learners.
• The action research that was used to
  compare the writing development of two groups ,
  one Spanish proficient group and the
• other a English proficient clearly states that
  the students regardless if they were English or
  Spanish proficient they were
• transferring their first language skills to the
  second language. It is just like Cummins and
  Krashnen (1999) state that the bilingual
• education builds a solid foundation in the
  students native language preparing the native
  speaker to learn English whether it is
• speaking, reading or writing. Also developing
  literacy in two languages entails linguistic and
  cognitive advantages for bilingual

15
Implications

• As the research concluded and the data
  was analyzed, it became clear the results
  indicated a slight increase in the writing of
• the students in the English component. After
  evaluating the students writing, it was evident
  that the threats of internal and
• external validity during the research certainly
  effected the results of the data for the students
  in the Spanish component. Several
• threats came into play with the Spanish component
  group. Scheduling was a big issue when it came to
  working with the Spanish
• group. Several unscheduled meetings came up,
  spring break for some students were extended and
  finally the cancelling of the
• dual after school program because of funds. All
  these reasons may seem unimportant, but educators
  that work with English
• language learners understand that students need
  consistency and time for taking in strategies and
  putting them into practice.
• The majority of the English components
  results in the post-test did reflect a slight
  increase from their pretest and from the
• Spanish component. The reason seem to be obvious.
  These students had more exposure and time to put
  into practice the
• strategies and skills presented for this writing
  unit. There were evidence of editing in their
  writing piece, meaning they had the
• Flexibility and the time to go back to their
  writing to revise and edit their work.
• There were fundamental flaws in the
  action research for the Spanish group because of
  lack of time the group met. It was not
• the students fault, but it did effect the
  outcome. It seems to be obvious according to the
  data that if the time allotted was
• distributed equally, the results may have been
  about the same as the English group.
• After closely evaluating the writing
  post-test, it was for certain that more research
  is needed in the writing progress of the
• English language learners. One thing is for
  certain, time is a significant part of this type
  of research. Writing is not a simple task,
• especially for an English language learners who
  are trying to combine new knowledge with the old
  and then transfer their oral
• language skills from the first language to the
  second language, well into the written form
  (Patterson and Bums, 1994). Keeping
• In mind that to become proficient in any language
  it may take up to seven to eight years (Mitchell,
  Destino, Karam, and Muniz,

16
Threats to Validity

• INTERNAL
  English Component Spanish
  Component
• History
  
  -
• Maturation
  
  -
• Testing
  
  
• Instrumentation
  
  -
• Regression
  
  -
• Selection
  
  -
• Mortality
  
  -
•  
• EXTERNAL
•  
• Pretest X Interaction
  
  
• Multiple X Interference
  -
  -
• SYMBOLS
• Factor Controlled
• - Factor not Controlled