Grade-Level Differences in the Effects of a Cognate-Based Vocabulary Intervention for Middle School Students

Transcription

1 Grade-Level Differences in the Effects of a Cognate-Based Vocabulary Intervention for Middle School Students Liz Howard University of Connecticut Igone Arteagoitia Center for Applied Linguistics

2 The Key Issue The reading performance of English language learners (ELLs) and Hispanics is extremely low. Results from the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that: 74% of 8 th grade ELLs scored below the basic level in reading 39% of 8 th grade Hispanics scored below the basic level in reading

3 Why Focus on Vocabulary/Cognates? Research on the acquisition of reading skills has shown that there is a strong relationship between knowledge of vocabulary and ability to comprehend a text. Explicit vocabulary instruction has been associated with improved comprehension. One of the instructional strategies that has been found to be especially valuable for Spanish-speaking students is their knowledge of cognate words, which account for from a third to as much as half of the active vocabulary of an average educated English speaker.

4 Study Overview Goal: To develop and test the effects of a cognatebased intervention for middle school students Phase 1: Development ( ) Worked with 4 veteran teachers in 1 middle school to develop curriculum Field tested the vocabulary measure in 1 middle school in an urban district with a high density of native Spanish speakers Phase 2: Piloting ( ) Implemented the pilot version of the curriculum in the same middle school where field-testing took place during the development phase Intervention delivered by trained research assistants 1 per approach Phase 3: Taking the intervention to scale ( ) Conducting a quasi-experimental study in 3 urban middle schools and a bilingual case study in 1 K-8 dual language program Teachers are delivering the intervention

5 Two Approaches to the Intervention Monolingual English High quality, research-based approach building on existing practices that have been shown to be effective Focusing on general academic vocabulary in English the fact that all words are cognates is not made explicit to students; however, if students discover cognate connections on their own, they are told that they are correct. Cross-linguistic High quality, research-based approach building on existing practices that have been shown to be effective Focusing on general academic vocabulary in English the fact that all words are cognates is made very explicit, and connections are continuously made across English and Spanish with regard to target words and their constituent parts (i.e. roots and affixes)

6 Words in Motion Curricular Framework Responsive Teaching Sheltered Instruction Vocabulary

7 Vocabulary (Graves, 2006) Teaching individual words Teaching word-learning strategies Fostering wordconsciousness Providing rich and varied language experiences 10 words/unit Morphemic analysis Word wall Multiple contexts General Academic Vocabulary Contextual analysis Cross-lx: cognates Music and Video Reading, writing, speaking, listening

8 Sheltered Instruction Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) approach to effective instruction for linguistically and culturally diverse learners developed by Deborah Short, Jana Echevarria and Mary Ellen Vogt ( Building background Including language objectives as well as content objectives Incorporating multimedia and enhancing use of visual images and realia Increasing the use of cooperative structures Teaching strategies for word learning For the cross-linguistic group, making explicit connections to the native language

9 Responsive Teaching Culturally Responsive Teaching (Gay, 2000; Rendón, 2009) Using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them (p. 29). Learning, Doing, and Being (Adele Diamond) Make learning active and interactive to promote executive function of the brain inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility Incorporate music, drama, and physical activity

10 Summary of Pilot Interventions 10 target words, 2 affixes, and 2 roots per unit all words are cognates that can be classified as general academic vocabulary. Initial Delivery: 1 unit every 3 weeks = 6, 50-minute class periods (2 per week) plus daily sentence starters sponge activity on off days Day 1: building background and introducing the passage and the vocabulary Day 2: deepening word knowledge Day 3: using words in oral language and writing Day 4: word study, part 1: roots Day 5: word study, part 2: affixes Day 6: review and quiz A total of 5 units were implemented with 6 th and 7 th graders, while only 3 units were implemented with 8 th graders.

11 English Vocabulary Test, Pilot Version Purpose: to measure change on taught cognates, nontaught cognates, and non-taught other words Format: whole-group administered multiple choice Number of items: 74, only 11 of which were taught Reliability: α =.90 Criterion validity: correlations with Gates-MacGinitie vocabulary assessment ranged from.70 to.73. Administration: pre-test; post 1 (all 3 grades); post 2 (6 th and 7 th only)

12 English Vocabulary Test Example 1. He encountered a difficult situation. O found O feared O imagined O expected 2. I am profoundly aware of the situation. O extremely O fortunately O probably O hardly 3. Try to convey your ideas in a simple way. O develop O draft O connect O express

13 Research Questions 1. Relative to each other and to no treatment, what are the effects of a cross-linguistic vocabulary intervention and a monolingual English vocabulary intervention on the development of English vocabulary skills among middle school students? 2. Are there differences in the effects across grades 6, 7, and 8?

14 Pilot Sample 346 students (two thirds native Spanish speakers) in grades 6-8 in 1 urban middle school. Three conditions: Cross-linguistic (6 classes) Monolingual English (6 classes) Control (9 classes)

15 Pre-Post 1 Mean Comparisons (monolingual) Grade N Mean (n=74) SD 6 27 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Effect size (Cohen s d)

16 Pre-Post 1 Mean Comparisons (cross-linguistic) Grade N Mean (n=74) SD 6 29 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Effect size (Cohen s d)

17 Pre-Post 1 Mean Comparisons (control) Grade N Mean (n=74) SD 6 43 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Effect size (Cohen s d)

18 Findings, Research Question 1 Within each grade level, the effects of the intervention were variable and not always significant Grade 6 monolingual:.71 cross-linguistic:.20 control:.59 Grade 7 monolingual:.55 cross-linguistic:.40 control:.09 Grade 8 monolingual:.15 cross-linguistic: -.03 control:.07

19 Findings, Research Question 2 Within each condition, the effects of the intervention were variable across grade levels monolingual Grade 6:.71 Grade 7:.55 Grade 8:.15 cross-linguistic Grade 6:.20 Grade 7:.40 Grade 8: -.03 control Grade 6:.59 Grade 7:.09 Grade 8:.07

20 Discussion Across all grade levels, the students in the monolingual condition outperformed students in the cross-linguistic condition. This is surprising given the high degree of similarity across the two approaches, and the large population of native Spanish speakers in the sample. Across all conditions, the 8 th graders did not show any change in vocabulary knowledge.

21 Limitations There were a lot of modifications made to the curriculum in an ongoing way throughout the pilot phase. The curriculum was finalized after the pilot phase and has been stable throughout the current year of implementation The findings do not reflect the impact of the full intervention only three units were delivered to all 3 grade levels All students this year are receiving the full, 6-unit intervention Less than 15% of the items on the measure were taught words Half of the items on the final measure are taught words

22 For Further Information Elizabeth Howard Igone Arteagoitia This powerpoint presentation can be accessed at

23 Acknowledgements This project effort was supported by Grant Number R305A from the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Institute of Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education.