title: taking science to web viewthe subsections on both benchmarks are the following 5 linguistic...

Title: English Language Development Summer School ProgramEd.D. Candidate: Sarah Garcia, California State University, Sacramento

Research Question:

To what extent does a 5-week grammar based English language development summer school program enhance students’ second language acquisition?

Sub questions

1. What teaching strategies from the program do the teachers identify as effective in helping students’ acquire English?

2. Do teachers feel the coaching and Professional Learning Communities helped them effectively teach the program?

Conceptual Framework and/or Guiding Purpose of the Study:

The population of students in American schools is rich with diversity and continues to grow in respect to the cultural and language variety of the students entering (Passel and Cohn, 2008 & Banks, 2006). According to Passel and Cohn (2008) “if current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005, and 82% of the increases will be due to immigration…” (p. i). With such a population growth, schools will see an impact of English learners (EL) (Passel and Cohn, 2008). Education Data Partnership (2011) stated that during the 2009-2010 school year 31.6% of students in California schools were considered English Learners and this number continues to grow throughout the entire nation. Educating all students, no matter their ability, education level or need to the best of the teacher and school’s abilities is essential for their individual growth and mandatory under federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) laws (California Department of Education, 2006). These laws expect that all students are proficient on the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) assessments by the year 2014 (which test ELA and math in grades 2-12), no matter the students’ ethnic group, English Language level, or special circumstances/needs. In addition to the need for growth due to NCLB, second language learners will be expected to perform, along with their native English speaking peers, at high levels of cognitive demand when California adopts the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in the coming years (Common Core State Standards, 2011).

The academic achievement gap between English Learners and their native English-speaking peers is an issue that is receiving much attention from educators since reporting of all students standardized test scores became legally required (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2011). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (2011) reported that 61% of fourth grade ELs scored below basic on state standardized tests, compared to 31% of non-ELs. The gap grew even further apart when comparing eighth grade

students’ test results; 75% of ELs scored below basic whereas only 24% of non-ELs. The fact that the achievement gap between ELs and their fluent speaking peers widens through the years substantiates the need for educational reform in respect to ensuring ELs get access to an education they connect to and learn from. Since Structured English Immersion (SEI), defined as classes “in which nearly all classroom instruction is in English but consists of a curriculum and presentation designed for children who are learning the language” (CA Department of Education, 2011), is mandatory in California it is essential ELs learn English as fluently as possible so that they can more effectively grasp the concepts in school.

English Learners make up a large percentage of the US schools, yet according to Fry (2008) only 5 states have the majority of ELs, nearly 70%; more specifically within those states the EL population generally attends many of the same schools. Fry (2008) explained that, “Students designated as ELL tend to go to public schools that have low standardized test scores” (p. i). This in turn creates an educational environment where teachers are expected to feed students information that will help raise test scores, often referred to as teaching to the test (Gibbons, 2009). This expected style of teaching “follows logically from the banking notion of consciousness that the educator’s role is to regulate the way the world enters into the students” (Freire, 2002, p. 76). This depositing of information does not support ELL in the classroom with content or with second language acquisition because they learn more effectively through an approach that utilizes strategies that connect their learning to their prior knowledge, and their new language to their native language (Gibbons, 2002). Therefore an effective ELD program would need to teach through an approach where “education is seen not as a matter of receiving information but of intelligent inquiry and thought” (Gibbons, 2002, p. 6).

The summer school program being analyzed is one that is gaining popularity amongst schools in the U.S., especially ones that have a high number of ELs. It strives to include students in their own language learning process and to push them past their current language fluency level in order to enhance their second language acquisition (Clark, 2009). It is important to collect data that illustrates whether or not the program is effectively teaching English because it is designed in a way that takes a lot of classroom instruction time. Furthermore, if it is found to be effective, it could be used as a tool to support the CCSS requirements such as, student discussion time, peer collaboration, and academic vocabulary usage. The program believes that teaching students English explicitly will move them from Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) to more Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) that is needed in schools and careers (Clark, 2009).

In addition to the classroom challenges this program can cause such as, fitting in academic content and pushing student out of their comfort zone, educators whom teach the program are required to partake in lengthy training sessions, as

well as follow-up classroom visits and coaching. Because of the ELD program’s current prevalence and it’s time commitment to schools that implement it, it is essential that educators become aware of whether or not the program will positively impact their ELs language acquisition and eventually their education.

Relevant Theoretical and Empirical Literature:

Theoretically, Noam Chomsky’s Universal Grammar (UG) and Stephen Krashen’s second language acquisition theory support the methodology of this ELD program. Chomsky’s UG theory is based on the belief that language is learned only if the learner is grammatically competent (Chomsky, 1965). The theory supports the need for learners of any language, whether it is their first or a subsequent, to become knowledgeable of the rules and pragmatics of the language before they can be considered fluent (Bavali and Sadighi, 2008). Kevin Clark’s ELD program mirrors this theory in that it is designed around the belief that students need to be taught grammatical skills and verb tense usage before they can become fluent in English.

Stephen Krashen’s second language acquisition theory, specifically his Input Hypothesis, adds to Chomsky’s UG theory the belief that students need to be pushed past their current knowledge in order to acquire language. “We acquire by understanding language that contains structure a bit beyond our current level of competence (i + 1). This is done with the help of context or extra-linguistic information” (Krashen, 2009, p. 21). This theory is relevant to Kevin Clark’s ELD program because students are expected to analyze and explain the reasoning behind all of their answers. In addition the teachers are trained in a principle the program calls ‘the push principal’ which requires them to challenge their students beyond their current language level and abilities (Clark, 2009).

The ELD program under exploration encompasses multiple methods of instruction that are all based on the grammar lesson of the week; there are also 5 instructional principles that are expected to be a part of teachers’ daily teaching routines. The methods are designed and implemented in a way that supports the belief “that there is a natural order of acquisition for second language learners” (Krashen, 2009, pg. 24). According to Krashen (2009), grammar must be taught strategically because when learning a new language grammar is acquired in a specific order. Chomsky’s UG theory also supports the belief that grammar needs to be taught systematically and in a way that children can easily learn it in a “relatively short period of time” (Bavali and Sadighi, 2008, p. 12). Kevin Clark’s ELD program has multiple strategies that are supported in both Chomsky and Krashen’s second language acquisition theories, for example the program’s most controversial teaching principle, error correction. Krashen acknowledges that, “error correction supposedly helps the learner to induce or "figure out" the right form of a rule…and alter his or her conscious mental representation of the rule” (Krashen, 2009, pg. 11). Theoretically Kevin Clark’s program is designed in line with both Chomsky and Krashen’s language acquisition theories in that it

systematically teaches grammar, it pushes students past their current knowledge level, and utilize strategies that specifically support English acquisition.

Methods of Data Collection and Analysis:

This project consisted of both qualitative and quantitative research. This mixed methods approach allowed the researcher to gain insight from statistical data as well as from teachers’ input. The qualitative data was collected using the open ended response section of the survey, then analyzed using cross-tabulation. The quantitative data was analyzed in IBM SPSS Statistics using a dependent T-chart; all data was explained using descriptive statistics.

The ELD summer school program was a 5-week, 1st grade through 11th grade set up. The district is located in Northern California and had a population of 40.6% second language learners during the 2011-2012 school year (Ca. Department of Education, Demographic unit, 2013). The students participating in this particular program were required to be at or above the Intermediate level of English fluency on the CELDT; therefore only 22% of the 40.6% were invited to participate.

Instruments:

The researcher created both the pre and post-teacher surveys (appendix 2) and was be the only to analyze them. The student benchmarks were created by Kevin Clark and his consultants, as were the answer documents. The benchmarks were given to me with no indicators of who the students were so that they were analyzed anonymously. The benchmarks were written and administered to 3 levels, 1st grade, grades 3-5, and grades 6-11; these groups as a whole. The 20 individual tests per group were chosen using convenience sampling. While analyzing the benchmarks, the researcher kept record of the points each student received in the 6 subsections as well as the overall scores on both their pre and post benchmark. Using IBM SPSS Statistics the scores were compared from the group’s pre-benchmark to their post benchmark, analyzing each subsection and the overall scores.

Timeline of Data Collection:

Teacher Surveys: Teachers took the pre-survey during the first day of training. The coaches/trainers were not in the room when the teachers were filling out the survey in order to ensure the anonymity. Teachers were asked to put their completed survey in a manila envelope. The post-survey was delivered using the same process during the last meeting (the Thursday before the summer sessions concluded). Due to this organization, 100% of the surveys were returned and completed in their entirety.

Student assessments: The program consultants administered both the pre and post benchmarks to students during the summer school program. The pre-

benchmark was delivered during the first week and the post was delivered during the final week. The coaches collected the benchmarks from the teachers for scoring. I gathered the data pertaining to the amount of points each student received overall and in each subsection for both benchmarks in order to gather a mean for the group as a whole. The subsections on both benchmarks are the following 5 linguistic categories; phonology, word count, semantics, morphology, syntax, verb tenses (1st grade however is not tested on morphology). I was able to gather data on students’ individual growth but focused on the group as a whole.

Data Analysis:

IBM SPSS Statistics was used to organize the findings and Microsoft® Word® to write the analysis of the data.

Data Source Proposed AnalysisTeacher pre-survey Cross tabulation and descriptive statisticsTeacher post-survey Cross tabulation and descriptive statisticsPre-Student Assessment IBM SPSS Statistics- Dependent t-test and

descriptive statistics (appendix 3)Post- Student Assessment IBM SPSS Statistics- Dependent t-test and

descriptive statistics (appendix 3)

Initial Analysis and Emerging Recommendations:

The summer school program under analysis focuses on teaching ELD students that are at the Intermediate stage of fluency according to the CELDT. “Simply put, the purpose of these intensive summer ELD programs is to substantially impact English Learners’ grammar accuracy and literacy profile, especially for students who seem to be “stuck” at an intermediate English level” (Clark, 2012, Guide). The curriculum is designed around grammar skills and verb tenses. The strategic organization of the lessons ensures that students are learning English through the systematic development that people tend to learn a language (Chomsky, 1965). Kevin Clark (2012) states that the reasoning behind this grammar structure is that, “English Learners frequently lack a solid understanding of the many verb tenses used in academic settings” (Guide). The students that attended this summer school program are English speakers, yet they are not considered fluent. Krashen’s language acquisition theory supports that this is a dynamic time in their language acquisition to teach them grammar rules so that they can then be conscious of how to correctly use the language and why (Krashen, 2002).

The findings from this summer school program suggest that Kevin Clark’s 5-week grammar based summer school program substantially impacts students’ second language acquisition and English grammatical skills. This finding is supported by the results of the benchmark analysis, which found growth in all areas except one

subcategory (grades 3-5 Counting Words section), where there was neither growth nor regression. The difference in overall mean growth from each group ranges from -.8.8 to-22.65, first grade having the most substantial overall growth. Of the subsections that had growth, the mean growth difference ranged from -.5 to -20. The average growth for each subsection as well as the exact mean of each subsection on both tests can be seen in the Appendix.

The teachers who are hired for this intensive summer school session must “desire to be part of a team of educators committed to addressing a critical language need among English learners” (Clark, 2012, Guide). The faculty “should first and foremost share an interest in language and language teaching” (Clark, 2012, Guide). Once teachers were hired, whether or not they had taught the program prior to the summer school session went through an intensive 2-day training. In addition they were fully supported with the use of “professional development sessions and on-going collaboration with consultant-experts” (Clark, 2012, Guide). Once a week there was professional development meetings after the students left. This gives time for trainers to support teachers and for teachers to work in the PLCs. Toward the end of the program students were assessed for growth, which lead teachers and Kevin Clark and consultants toward bettering the instruction for the regular school year and next year’s summer programs.

After coding the teachers’ responses to both their pre and post surveys the following themes were found:In response to question 1: What teaching strategies from the program do the teachers identify as effective in helping students’ acquire English?

The 5 instructional principles were identified as key to enhancing language growth. These instructional principles are:

50-50 , which requires that the students are participating verbally at least 50% of the time.

Lesson objective is posted, read, referenced and drives instruction. Students and teacher speak and write in complete sentences. Teacher corrects student errors and holds them accountable for fixing

those errors. Teachers push students past their current language level.

One teacher wrote, “The 5 principles are essential! The methods are great but without the 5 principles, they would not be as effective!”

A higher standard of performance was another theme many teachers branded as effective in helping students acquire English effectively. “The program is effective because teachers are striving for higher expectations each day, there is never a stagnant time during instruction.”

Teachers identified that pushing students past their current language level

by requiring them to identify and explain their answers was also beneficial. One teacher wrote that, “pushing students to identify how they know and pushing them to use unfamiliar words is very effective because they have to analyze their thoughts and produce them which is a difficult skill to teach.”

The following themes were identified in response to the second sub question of this study.Do teachers feel the coaching and Professional Learning Communities helped them effectively teach the program?

“Due to being coached I experienced my own rapid growth in not only the delivery of the program, but how to help student succeed quickly and efficiently as well.” Teachers explained that the coaching supported their experience in properly delivering the program, which in turn enhanced their abilities to help students acquire English fluently and rapidly. “It helped me and my students warp speed into rapid success!”

Teachers also recommended that such coaching be something that is done year round in classrooms. “This style of coaching should be done in every classroom and for every subject.” It was unanimous that teacher approved of the coaching and PLCs.

After coding the pre and post teacher surveys and analyzing their responses with the two sub questions in mind, it is clear that teachers feel the 5 instructional principles are vital to the program, that students need to be pushed out of their language comfort zone in order to acquire a new language, that requiring higher levels of thinking supports student growth and teacher assessment. In the post survey teachers also spoke highly of being coached and working in PLCs, they were very enthusiastic about the benefit of this sort of collaboration and support.

Based on the findings, the researcher recommends for districts implementing this program:

Closely monitor their ELD students throughout the school year using both teacher input and classroom grades.

Assessing both R-FEP and current ELs using an English language quiz 2-3 times a year so that there is data as to whether or not they have actually acquired the language skills.

Schools with a high population of ELs implement this grammar based ELD program throughout the entire school year to better ensure students who are still grasping the English language are given the time they need to properly acquire the language.

Suggested future research recommendations: Analyze the ELD program’s effectiveness when implemented year round. Ask the students what they think. Research would benefit by inquiring

whether the students think the program’s structure is beneficial

academically and socially. Evaluate the various leadership approaches that enhance the program’s

effectiveness. Be sure to investigate each leadership role separately as there are various levels and responsibilities.

Selected References:

Banks, J. A. (2006). Cultural Diversity and Education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (5th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Bavali, M. & Sadighi, F. (2008). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar and Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics: An Appraisal and a Compromise. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 12(1), 11-28.California Department of Education. (2006). Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for ELs in California. 1-17.

California Department of Education. (2011). Retrieved fromhttp://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ar/

California Department of Education. (2013). Language Group Data & Demographic Unit. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/lc/DistrictLC.aspx?cSelect=4870532--4870532%2D%2DDIXON+UNIFIED&cYear=2011-12.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press.

Clark, K. (2009, April). The case for structured English immersion. Educational Leadership, 66, (7), 42-46.

Clark, K. (2012). Summer Intensive ELD programs: Information Guide 2012. Clark Consulting and Training, Inc.

Common Core State Standards, California. (July, 2012). Common Core State Standards Systems implementation plan for California. California Department of Education.

Education Data Partnership. (2011) Ed-Data. Retrieved fromhttp://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/lc/NumberElState.asp?Level=State&TheYear=2010-11.

Freire, P. (2002). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc.

Fry, R. (June 26, 2008). The Role of Schools in the English Learner Achievement Gap. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/89.pdf

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners’ academic literacy and thinking: Learning in the Challenge Zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

IBM Corp. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Kim, J. & Herman, J. (2010). When to Exit ELL Students: Monitoring Subsequent Success and Failure in Mainstream Classrooms after ELLs’ Reclassification. National Center for Research and Evaluation, Los Angeles, CA.

Krashen, S.D. (2009). Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition. Los Angeles, CA: Pergamon Press Inc.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2011). Digest of Educational Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_132.asp.

Passel, J. S. & Cohn, D. (April 14, 2008). A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdf

Passel, J. S. & Cohn, D. (February 11, 2008). U.S. Population Projections: 2002-2050. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/85.pdf

Summary of Packard-CSU Ed.D. Pre-Dissertation Fellowship ReportAppendix 1

Summer school program projected timeline

Day 1 & 2Professional development

June 6th and 7th

Day 1 of classes

June 11th

Week 1-5 of classes

June 11th-July 13th

Last day for assessments

July 12th

After summer school data

analysisOctober-

December

Presentation of findings to schools administration and

Kevin Clark. January

Teacher training on how to best implement the ELD curriculum.Pre-survey administered to teachers.

Student pre-tests to begin data collection and further drive instruction.

4 hour daily classes

Thursday professional development with coaches and teachers

Student post-tests will be administered and analyzed.

Staff discussion on effectiveness of the program and Post surveys.

Analyze data from the summer school program using excel and cross tabulation. Prepare presentation for the administration and the program president.

Present finding to administration and give recommendations as to how to best teach ELD in summer school atmospheres as well as further research recommendations.

Daily: Observation of teachers in class, coaching teachers in and outside of class, support teachers with the program, and collect and analyze data to present on Thursdays during professional development meetings.


Research Timeline

March-April April 17-18 May July-August October-November

Research literature and theory behind

ELD instruction.Strategize the

summer school research timeline.

ELD program training from

program creator.

Meet with Kevin Clark and

Consultants to layout the summer school program, data collection,

teacher selection, training

curriculum, and summer school

curriculum.

Collect data throughout

summer school program.

Analyze results from summer

school program.

Completed Presentation:Date of presentation AttendeesFebruary 15, 2013 This fellowship report was presented to the

Superintendent, the superintendent’s assistant, the School Board, and other invitees of the district the research was conducted in.

March 29, 2013 The data was presented to Kevin Clark and his consultants.

*Both presentations were done utilizing a presentation board, which was made in Microsoft PowerPoint.


Teacher pre & post survey

Disclaimer: This survey is completely voluntary and anonymous; please do not write your name on it. You are not required to fill it out, yet if you choose to

you may skip any questions you do not want to answer. The information will be used to evaluate the summer school English Language Development (ELD) program and will not be used to evaluate the district’s teachers and/or their

abilities what so ever.

Directions: Please circle the answer that best represents your level of agreement with each of the following statements.

Definition of terms:Strongly agree (SA): You feel very confident about your ability pertaining to the statement. (Ex: Yes! Absolutely I am confident….)Agree (A): You are confident about you ability but have some areas pertaining to the statement you would like to strengthen. (Ex: I am confident doing…, but in this particular area I would like to work on….).Neutral (N): You are not particularly confident or unconfident with the statement (Ex: I know enough about…).Disagree (D): You do not feel confident with the statement although you have some knowledge pertaining to it (Ex: I am not confident…but I have been introduced to it).Strongly disagree (SD): You have no knowledge of the statement. (Ex: I know nothing about….).

Scale QuestionsSA A N D SD

1. I am trained in Kevin Clark’s ELD program.

SA A N D SD

2. I teach Kevin Clark’s ELD program throughout the school year.

SA A N D SD

3. I am comfortable incorporating the 5 principles into my daily routine in the classroom (i.e. complete sentences, 50/50, objectives, etc).

SA A N D SD

4. I know the 8 parts of speech and teach their specific usage to my students.

SA A N D SD

5. I know what phonology is and the reason I need to teach it to English learners.

SA A N D SD

6. I know what morphology is and the reason I need to teach it to English learners.

SA A N D 7. I know what lexicon is and the


SD reason I need to teach it to English learners.

SA A N D SD

8. I know what semantics is and the reason I need to teach it to English learners.

SA A N D SD

9. I know what syntax is and the reason I need to teach it to English learners.

SA A N D SD

10. I am confident teaching all pieces of Kevin Clark’s ELD program.

What methods from the ELD program do you feel help the students acquire English? What is it that is effective about these methods?___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Which teaching principles from the program do you think are effective in helping students acquire English? Why do you feel these particular principles are effective?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What do you think is the most effective part about his program in terms of helping students acquire English?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


What do you think is ineffective or something you disagree with about the approach this ELD program takes in teaching English to second language learners?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Do you feel having a coach throughout the summer helped you enhance your skills with the delivery of the program?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Grade 1 results:

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1overall1 25.3000 20 15.26296 3.41290overall2 47.9500 20 28.18823 6.30308

Pair 2phonology1 6.8000 20 3.45802 .77324phonology2 7.3000 20 3.74306 .83697

Pair 3words1 5.7000 20 2.92179 .65333words2 3.7000 20 3.06251 .68480

Pair 4semantics1 12.8000 20 10.84629 2.42531Semantics2 14.1500 20 11.10844 2.48392

Pair 5Syntax1 .0000 20 .00000 .00000syntax2 2.7500 20 2.19749 .49137

Pair 6verb tense1 .0000 20 .00000 .00000verbTense2 20.0000 20 11.53484 2.57927


Paired Samples Test (Grade 1)

Paired DifferencesMean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the

DifferenceLower Upper

Pair 1 overall1 - overall2 -22.65000 20.25957 4.53018 -32.13177 -13.16823Pair 2 phonology1 - phonology2 -.50000 3.77666 .84449 -2.26753 1.26753Pair 3 words1 - words2 2.00000 3.24443 .72548 .48156 3.51844Pair 4 semantics1 - Semantics2 -1.35000 8.57337 1.91706 -5.36246 2.66246Pair 5 Syntax1 - syntax2 -2.75000 2.19749 .49137 -3.77846 -1.72154Pair 6 verb tense1 - verbTense2 -20.00000 11.53484 2.57927 -25.39847 -14.60153


Grades 3-5 results:

Paired Samples StatisticsMean N Std. Deviation Std. Error

Mean



Pair 3words1 3.7000 20 2.61775 .58535words2 3.7000 20 2.05452 .45940

Pair 4semantics1 11.4000 20 4.08334 .91306Semantics2 13.3500 20 4.06882 .90981

Pair 5morphology1 3.8500 20 2.34577 .52453morphology2 3.9000 20 3.00701 .67239

Pair 6Syntax1 .6000 20 1.50088 .33561syntax2 3.3500 20 1.53125 .34240

Pair 7verb tense1 22.0000 20 12.61578 2.82097verbTense2 23.6000 20 10.21042 2.28312


Paired Samples Test (Grades 3-5)



Pair 1 overall1 - overall2 -8.80000 16.23706 3.63072 -16.39918 -1.20082Pair 2 phonology1 - phonology2 -1.15000 2.49789 .55855 -2.31905 .01905Pair 3 words1 - words2 .00000 3.35606 .75044 -1.57069 1.57069Pair 4 semantics1 - Semantics2 -1.95000 4.08431 .91328 -3.86152 -.03848

Pair 5morphology1 - morphology2

-.05000 3.11997 .69765 -1.51019 1.41019

Pair 6 Syntax1 - syntax2 -2.75000 2.02290 .45233 -3.69674 -1.80326Pair 7 verb tense1 - verbTense2 -1.60000 14.81962 3.31377 -8.53579 5.33579


Grade 6-11 results:

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean



Pair 3words1 1.8500 20 1.59852 .35744words2 2.3500 20 1.69442 .37888

Pair 4semantics1 7.6000 20 3.67638 .82206Semantics2 9.4000 20 3.29912 .73771

Pair 5morphology1 3.3000 20 4.20651 .94060morphology2 5.9500 20 4.12279 .92188

Pair 6Syntax1 6.7000 20 6.39161 1.42921syntax2 11.7000 20 5.16160 1.15417

Pair 7verb tense1 30.6500 20 19.44567 4.34818verbTense2 41.7500 20 11.84050 2.64762


Paired Samples Test (Grades 6-11)



Pair 1 overall1 - overall2 -19.70000 20.52239 4.58895 -29.30477 -10.09523Pair 2 phonology1 - phonology2 -.80000 1.60918 .35982 -1.55312 -.04688Pair 3 words1 - words2 -.50000 1.10024 .24602 -1.01493 .01493Pair 4 semantics1 - Semantics2 -1.80000 2.48363 .55536 -2.96237 -.63763

Pair 5morphology1 - morphology2

-2.65000 5.26433 1.17714 -5.11378 -.18622

Pair 6 Syntax1 - syntax2 -5.00000 5.62887 1.25865 -7.63439 -2.36561Pair 7 verb tense1 - verbTense2 -11.10000 17.82045 3.98477 -19.44023 -2.75977

title: taking science to web viewthe subsections on both benchmarks are the following 5 linguistic...

Documents