Bridging the Gap for SIFE

Dr. Elaine C. Klein and Dr. Gita Martohardjono

Research Institute for the Study of Language in Urban Society (RISLUS), CUNY Graduate Center

Email: slal@gc.cuny.edu

March 11, 2008

2

Who are SIFE?

Subgroup of English Language Learners (ELLs)

Recent arrivals to the US Low literacy Gaps in prior schooling (2 yrs +)

3

Some Facts about ‘SIFE’

Schools struggling to identify SIFE

Schools struggling to meet SIFE needs

SIFE graduation rates far lower than those of other ELLs

4

Some Facts about ‘SIFE’ in NYC Schools*

Approximately 15,000 “new” and existing SIFE comprise 11% of ELL population

Highest % of new SIFE enter 8th, 9th and 10th grades: Approximately 4700 in 2006-7.

SIFE evenly distributed in 4 boroughs 59% of SIFE: Spanish native language

*Bilingual Education Student Information Survey (BESIS) 2006-2007: NYC DOE Office of English Language Learners. 2007.

SIFE-Related Research

6

Short, Boyson, & Coltrane (2003)

Examined selected “newcomer” programs nation-wide to “identify, document, analyze … effective program approaches to literacy development and assessment.”

7

Short et al. Conclusions

“Many programs find that [the assessment instruments they use for SIFE] are inadequate…, particularly for those with no literacy skills in English.”

“…A relatively new and unresearched program option, … we have much more to learn about the most effective ways to deliver instruction…” [to SIFE].

8

“adequate assessments are essential for gauging individual strengths and weaknesses…”

August & Shanahan (2006)

“[Develop] new and improved assessments of the adolescent ELLs’ native language abilities, English language development and content knowledge learning.”

Short & Fitzsimmons (2007)

Additional Studies

9

Previous Research: SUMMARY

Inadequate Assessment Inadequate Placement Inadequate Instruction

The SIFE Research Project

Phase I: 2005-2006

Phase II: 2006-2008

11

Overall Goals

Characterize SIFE backgrounds Assess SIFE academic competencies Observe SIFE instructional settings Track SIFE academic progress Determine SIFE needs for HS graduation Develop “pathway programs” to college Make instructional recommendations

12

Our Research Questions How do we identify SIFE?

What are the characteristics of this population? How do SIFE differ from other ELLs?

What academic competencies do SIFE bring to school in the US? What are their native language (NL) literacy

skills? What is their academic knowledge?

What are the academic needs of SIFE?

The SIFE Project: Phase IReview

14

Overview of MethodParticipants: 12 new SIFE in 9th grade 2 high schools Native language: Spanish

Materials: Batería III Woodcock Muñoz : Individual Assessment of Literacy

and Content Knowledge Questionnaire Classroom Observations

Methods: Individual case studies Group data

15

Phase I: Summary of Results

Average Reading comprehension: 3rd gradeAverage Math: 3rd – 4th gradeAverage Science and Social Science:

1st – 2nd gradeSome students have no gaps in schoolingStudents respond better in sheltered classes

16

Phase I: Conclusions

SIFE differ from other ELLs In addition to mastery of English, SIFE need foundational skills in their native language to take them to grade level:

Reading skills Content area knowledge

17

Phase I: Recommendations

Use SIFE diagnostics system-wide Include “gaps in NL foundational skills” Increase native language support Provide intensive ESL from beginning Use sheltered classes

The SIFE Project: Phase IIIn Progress

19

Current Research Plan18 month Longitudinal Study

Participants: 103 students identified as SIFE 9th and 10th grade Native language: Spanish

Schools: 5 NYC high schools Varying types of programs and instruction

20

Data Collection

Quantitative: Intake and exit questionnaire (Spanish) Versant (Oral Spanish and English) Basic Syntax Comprehension (Spanish and English

typical language development) Diagnostics (Spanish and English reading and content) Benchmark comparisons (State and city-mandated tests)

Qualitative: Classroom observations Teacher and student interviews Student work samples

21

Oral QuestionnaireIntake Personal and Language Information Family and Home Background Education History Language and Literacy Practices Transition to School in US

Exit Experience in School

22

Questionnaire Results: Gaps in Schooling

67%

27%

6%

No gaps 2 years or less More Than 2 yearsYears of Gaps in Schooling

Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

s

23

Questionnaire Results: Goals and Aspirations

6%

33%

61%

Social Non-Professional Professional

Type of goal

Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

s

24

Other Questionnaire Results

Most are from the Dominican Republic, Mexico or Honduras.

Most live in the U.S. with only one parent and have family members in their country of origin.

Most report high school as highest level of education among family members in U.S.

Language, Literacy and Content

26

Oral Language: Versant

Measures Vocabulary Sentence Mastery Fluency

Examples: repetition of sentences, story recall, answering questions

27

72%

79%80%

84%

Sentence Mastery Vocabulary Fluency Pronunciation

Mea

n Pe

rcen

t Cor

rect

Versant Results by Component

Overall Mean % Correct = 79, SD = 16

28

Basic Syntax Comprehension

Sentence: The bear tells the monkey to dance, and he does. Oración: El oso le ordena al mono bailar, y así lo hace.

Mean % Correct = 89, SD = 12

29

Literacy and Content Diagnostic

Cumulative assessment from 1st to 7th grade Basic literacy

Word level reading Literacy

Language, vocabulary and reading comprehension Math

Procedures and problem solving Science and Social Science

NOTE: Items carefully selected for appropriateness

30

Basic Literacy Results

First Grade Phonological & Orthographic Awareness Word Reading Simple Sentence Comprehension

Mean % Correct = 96, SD = 4.5

31

Language Components

Language Mechanics Capitalization Usage Punctuation

Language Expression Sentence Structure Prewriting Content and Organization

32

Language Example

Grade level 4: Language mechanics - usage

33

Results: Language

Language: Percentage of Students Scoring at Each Grade Level

60%

6%

34%

< Grade 3

Grade 3

Grade 4

34

Reading Vocabulary

Synonyms - recognize a synonym for a printed word

Multiple-meaning words - determine the meaning of words with multiple meanings in a given context

Context Clues - use context clues to assign meaning to an unknown word

35

Reading Vocabulary Example

Grade 4: Context Clues

36

Results: Reading Vocabulary

Vocabulary: Percentage of Students Scoring at Each Grade Level

17%

27%

18%

8%

9%

21% < Grade 3

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

37

Reading Comprehension Basic Understanding:

Recall factual information Identify relevance

Thinking Skills (Inferencing): Analysis and synthesis Classification and sequencing Comparison and contrast Cause and effect, fact and opinion, implied relevance Conclusions, predictions, and hypotheses

38

Reading Comprehension: Excerpt from 5th Grade Passage

39

Reading Comprehension Example

Grade Level 5: Thinking Skills

40

Results: Reading Comprehension

Reading Comprehension: Percentage of Students Scoring at Each Grade Level

6%

36%

11%

42%

5%< Grade 2

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

41

Reading Vocabulary – Reading Comprehension Relationship

significant positive correlation between reading vocabulary and reading comprehension

r = .578, p < .001

42

Results: Content Areas

43

Results: Math

Math: Percentage of Students Scoring at Each Grade Level

44%

25%

9%

23%

< grade 3

grade 3

grade 4

grade 5

44

Results: Science

Science: Percentage of Students Scoring at Each Grade Level

42%

20%

12%

12%< grade 4

grade 4

grade 5

grade 6

45

Results: Social Science

Social Science: Percentage of Students Scoring at Each Grade Level

20%

16%

34%

16%

< grade 4

grade 4

grade 5

grade 6

46

Summary of Diagnostics

LITERACY Students seem to have word level reading

skills BUT are not at grade level in higher level

reading skills: Typical reading vocabulary level: 5th – 7th grade Typical reading comprehension level: 3rd grade

47

Summary of Diagnostics

CONTENT Students Lack Academic Content

Knowledge Typical math level: 3rd grade and below Typical science level: below lowest grade tested Typical social science: below lowest grade tested

48

Correlation between length of gap and total score

49

Range of Performance for Students with No Gap in Schooling

50

Comparison Groups

Native English Speaker Groups: 9th and 10th Graders Community College West Indian English and AAVE

speakers

Regular ELLs Group: 9th-12th Graders

Spanish-English Bilingual Group: “Pathway Program” in a Community College

51

Literacy in Native LanguageAverage Grade Level Score on Reading

Comprehension Assessment

0123456789

10

High School Native EnglishSpeakers

SIFE

Gra

de L

evel

52

Conclusions

Academic abilities of students identified as SIFE in NYC range from 2nd to 5th grade (at least 4 grades below grade level in native language reading and content knowledge)

53

How to Bridge the Gap?

• Use unified and systematic SIFE diagnostics across NYC schools–Academic Literacy and Language

Diagnostic (ALLD)• Use assessment information to inform

instructional programs

54

How to Bridge the Gap?

Using ALLD scores comparatively:

Average SIFE Performance Across All SchoolsVocabulary Reading Comprehension Math

Grade 5 Grade 3 Grade 3

Average SIFE Performance in Your SchoolVocabulary Reading Comprehension Math

Grade 7 Grade 5 Grade 3

Performance of SIFE Student XVocabulary Reading Comprehension Math

Grade 7 Grade 6 Grade 4

55

How to Bridge the Gap?

Use assessment information to build student competency profile

• Reading Comprehension (Grade 6)– Basic Understanding HIGH– Strategies HIGH– Interpretation MED– Critical Analysis LOW

56

How to Bridge the Gap?PROGRAMMATIC SOLUTIONS Increase native language support Intensive ESL instruction from beginning Transitional Program

Two extra years Rigorous curriculum with technological support Focus on foundational skills

Intensive academic literacy instruction Content knowledge taught in native language

THANK YOU!

58

Acknowledgements

Participating schools and SIFE liaisons

Participating community colleges All participants and teachers RISLUS Research Team

59

Current Plans Compare SIFE progress under different

instructional conditions Identify best practices Make recommendations for

programming and instruction Transadaptation of SIFE diagnostics

into Haitian-Creole, French, Chinese, Urdu, Bengali and Russian

The SIFE Research TeamProject Coordinators:

Michele de Goeas-Malone & Leigh Garrison-Fletcher

Research Assistants: Carolina Barrera-Tobón, Xuân-Nga Cao-Kam, Rebecca Curinga, Teresa Fredericks, Katie Hawkland, Ingrid Heidrick, Rocio Raña Risso, Cynthia Ribadeneira, Edmund O’Neill, Olga Ward

61

Math ExampleGrade Level 5

62

Science ExampleGrade Level 4