Closing the Literacy Gap for ELLs

Which model is most effective?

Ashley MartinED 702.22 Spring 2011Midterm Presentation

¡Hola! Hello!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Research Design Threats to Internal Validity Threats to External Validity Proposed Data Pre-Test/ Post-Test Results Proposed Data Analysis and Correlation Parent and Student Surveys References

RESEARCH DESIGN

Research Design: Quasi-Experimental Design– Nonequivalent Control Group Design

Two groups:– Symbolic Design: O X1 O

O X2 O – (O) Pre-test, (X1) Treatment for Group 1, (X2) Treatment for Group

2, (O) Post-test Two groups of students at risk for limited English literacy achievement

will be pre-tested, with Group 1 being exposed to a treatment (bilingual small group literacy instruction) and then post-tested.

Individual selection will not be random. Participants are in existing classroom groups according to the Dual Language 50/50 model. Group assignment, however, WILL be random.

THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY

History Maturation Testing/ Pre-Test Sensitization Instrumentation Mortality Differential Selection of Subjects

THREATS TO EXTERNAL VALIDITY

o Ecological: This particular Dual Language Model is not present in all schools serving ELLs.

o Generalizable Conditionso Pre-test Treatment o Experimenter Effectso Specificity of Variableso Reactive Arrangements/ Participants Effects

o Compensatory Rivalryo Placebo Effect – Parent Surveys

PROPOSED DATA

Pre and Post Tests– Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (K-2)

Level G Nonfiction - “Bubbles” By Christina Rodriguez

Student Surveys– Self-Attitudes, Behaviors, Likes and Dislikes

Parent Surveys– Demographics, Attitudes, Duration

PRE-TEST/ POST-TEST RESULTS

  March April May

  Pretest Posttest Actual

Student 1 65 88 F

Student 2 92 100 I

Student 3 90 97 H

Student 4 84 90 G

Student 5 55 75 E

Student 6 99 100 I

Student 7 96 96 H

Student 8 83 92 H

Group 1 Pre and Post Level G

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Stud

ent 1

Stud

ent 2

Stud

ent 3

Stud

ent 4

Stud

ent 5

Stud

ent 6

Stud

ent 7

Stud

ent 8

Students

Readin

g A

ccu

racy in

Perc

en

tages

March PretestApril Posttest

Group 1 – Exposed to a Treatment

PROJECTED SURVEY RESULTS/ ANALYSIS A = 1

B = 2

C = 3

D= 4

E= 5

F = 6

G = 7

H = 8

I = 9

J = 10

K = 11

Student 1 6 6

Student 2 10 9

Student 3 10 8

Student 4 9 8

Student 5 8 5

Student 6 10 9

Student 7 10 8

Student 8 11 8

Group 1 Spanish/English Comparison

Spanish Levels I nfluencing English Levels

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 5 10 15

Spanish Reading Level ( F & P)

En

glish

Readin

g L

evel (F

& P

)Series1) Linear(Series1

.75rxy

Student SurveySample Questions

Student SurveyStudent Number: _____Group: Mets Yankees

Circle your answer for YES or NO .

Escribe un círculo para tu respuesta de SI or NO .

1. I like to read books in Spanish.Me gusta leer libros en español.

1

2

2. I like to be read to in Spanish.Me gusta para escuchar a libros en español.

1

2

Parent SurveySample Questions

1. It is important for my child to speak and learn in Spanish. Es importante para mi hijo/a a hablar y aprender en español.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4

7. I speak to my child in Spanish. / Hablo con mi hijo/a en español.

0 – 1 days per week

0 – 1 días por semana

2– 3 days per week

2 – 3 días por semana

4-5 days per week

4-5 días por semana

6-7 days per week

6-7 días por semana

Attitudes/Behaviors

Duration

REFERENCES

O’Connor-Petruso, S. (2010). Descriptive Statistics Threats to Validity [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://bbhosted.cuny.edu/webapps/portal/

Fountas, I. C. & Pinnell, G. S. (2008). Benchmark assessment system. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.