Transcript Document 7476594

Interventions to Improve
Outcomes for English
Language Learners
Principal Investigator: Jorge Gonzalez
Co-Principal Investigators:
Sharolyn D. Pollard-Durodola
Deborah Simmons
Texas A&M University
Texas A&M University, Department of Educational Psychology
Institute of Education Sciences 2008 Research Conference, Washington, DC, June 10-12, 2008
Acknowledgements
Leslie Simmons, Project Coordinator
Kim Williams, Project Specialist
Graduate Students
Morgan Sowell Matt Davis
Sophia Tani-Prado Vivina Rivera
Alicia Darensbourg
Education Problem
• A meta-analysis of vocabulary instruction shows a
strong effect (ES = .97) for taught vocabulary (Stahl &
Fairbanks, 2006)
• Providing “rich” instruction of vocabulary positively
impacts comprehension of texts containing taught
words, especially for ELL (Pressley & Fingeret, 2007).
• Vocabulary is one of the best predictors of reading
comprehension for English & ELL (Proctor et al., 2005).
• Despite improvements there remains a significant
vocabulary gap between children whose primary
language is English and children who are English
language learners (NAEP, 2007).
Summary of Vocabulary
Research with ELLs
• August & Snow (2007) identified only 7
experimental and quasi-experimental
studies targeting vocabulary involving
ELLs at the elementary level.
• Majority of interventions focused on
teaching vocabulary in the context of
book reading.
• None involved preschool children.
Research Questions
1)
What is the effect of the WORLD preschool sharedbook reading program on standardized measures of
receptive and expressive vocabulary?
2) What is the effect of the WORLD preschool sharedreading program on researcher-developed
measures of receptive and expressive vocabulary?
Design Principles to Accelerate
Vocabulary and Concept Development
1. Big Ideas: Identify critical concepts based on state and
national standards.
2. Teach: High priority vocabulary directly.
3. Strategic Integration: Combine inside the book and
outside the book opportunities.
4. Range of Examples: Communicate critical attributes of
concepts.
5. Cumulative Review: Teach words in instructional cycles
for entire theme.
6. Scaffolding: Task difficulty in priority skills result in high
levels of success.
Intervention Building Blocks
Lexical Sets
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Sequencing
Concepts
What air can
do
Books
Narrative
Topics Water
Themes
Standards
liquid, frozen, snow, garden, plant, leaf
Light
Nature
Air
Retell
cal
Sets
How plants
help people
Associations
Where
animals live
Informational
Seasons
Plants Animals
Our
Body
Living Things
Pre-K Guidelines: Science, Vocabulary,
Listening Comprehension
Participants
Demographics
Intervention
Comparison
(N=89)
(N=68)
Gender
Female
47
39
Male
42
29
Ethnicity
African American
37
33
9
3
Hispanic/Latino
28
18
Caucasian
14
14
1
0
Asian
Other
School District
χ2 (or t)
p-value
.32
.57
3.66
.45
5.31
.07
Bryan Head Start
12
12
Bryan ISD
24
28
College Station ISD
53
28
Bilingual status
22.5%
5.9%
8.19
.006
Special Education
10.1%
5.9%
.91
.34
2.28
.024
status
Age
Mean (SD)
4.48 (.30)
4.59 (.32)
Measures
• Pre-testing (August, 2006)
• Post-testing (December, 2006).
Standardized
• Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III
• Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test
Researcher-Developed Vocabulary Measures
• Receptive Vocabulary Test (RDRVT)
• Expressive Picture Vocabulary Test (RDEPVT)
Procedures
• Treatment Group
•
Treatment teachers used the shared-book
reading intervention for 12 weeks, 15-20
minutes per day, 5 days per week in groups of
8-10 preschoolers.
• Comparison Group
•
Comparison teachers engaged in “practice-asusual” classroom activities around books.
Data Analysis: ANCOVA Model
Pretest and Demographic Covariates
Level-1 (student-level) model:
Posttestij = β0j + β1j Pretestij + β2j Genderij + β3j Ageij + β4j English
language Learner Statusij + β5j African_Americanij + β6j Asianij +
β7j Hispanicij + β8j Special_Edij + eij
Level-2 (group-level) model:
β0j = γ00 + γ01 Interventionj + γ02 School District Aj + γ03 School
District Bj + γ04 Years_of_Experiencej + U0j
Results
Standardized test scores
Pretest
Intervention
Measure
M
SD
Posttest
Comparison
M
SD
Intervention
χ2 (or t) p-value
M
SD
Comparison
M
SD
χ2 (or t)
p-value
Receptive
PPVT-III
82.57
13.29
81.65
13.16
.43
.67
88.79 12.85
86.75 14.16
.94
.35
RDRPVT
15.22
3.47
15.31
3.72
.15
.88
21.62
16.75
3.44
9.57
< .001*
2.93
Expressive
EOWPWT
80.53
11.09
80.09
12.63
.23
.82
84.54 10.31
83.16 12.19
.77
.45
RDEPVT
23.64
6.75
22.74
7.69
.78
.44
34.70
27.37
6.70
< .001*
6.57
7.06
Note: RDRPVT- Researcher Developed Receptive Picture Vocabulary Test, RDEPVT- R. D. Expressive Picture Vocabulary Test
Effect Size
Effect Size (δT)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
PPVT-III
EOWPVT
Standardized Measures
RDRVPT
RDEPVT
Researcher Developed
Adjusted Mean MANCOVA
Non-ELL
ELL
RDRPVT
RDEPVT
RDRPVT
RDEPVT
M
M
M
M
SE
SE
SE
SE
Group
Intervention 21.4 .30
34.1 .60
22.5 .55
36.0 1.13
Control
27.5 .63
18.4 1.24
29.5 2.54
P=.895
16.6 .31
Bar Graphs
RDRPVT Post
RDEPVTPost
25
25
20
20
15
Eng
ELL
10
5
15
Eng
ELL
10
5
0
Control
Intervention
0
Control
Intervention
Results
• No significant effect for standardized receptive and
expressive vocabulary after controlling pre-test,
demographic, school and year’s teaching.
• Significant effect for researcher developed measures
of receptive and expressive vocabulary.
• No interaction effect between treatment and other
variables (e.g., entry level vocabulary, ethnicity, ELL
status) on standardized or researcher developed
measures.
Discussion
•
•
•
•
Moderate to strong positive effects on researcher
developed measures of vocabulary.
No statistically significant effects detected on
standardized measures of vocabulary.
No interaction effect, intervention effective
regardless of ethnicity, ELL, SPED and entry level
vocabulary
On average, all children benefited from the
theme-based vocabulary intervention (target
words integrated with high priority science
content) without differential effect based on
student characteristics.
Implications
• Thematically organized shared book
reading with explicit vocabulary
instruction and practice can significantly
enhance growth on curriculum specific
vocabulary.
• Future research is needed to provide
clearer guidance on the effectiveness of
specific instructional components of the
shared book reading practice.