English Language Learners: Writing Development

1. English Language Learners: Writing Development

2. Table of Contents • Introduction -Statement of the Problem -Review of Related Literature -Statement of the Hypothesis • Method -Participants -Instruments -Experimental Design -Procedure • Statistical Analyses - Charts/Graphs - Correlation - Results • Discussion • Implications • Threats to Internal and External Validity

3. Statement of the Problem • Very little research has been done on English language learner’s writing development. Knowing how English language learners learn or transfer skills • from their native language will provide teachers with • the tools necessary to help enhance student’s writing development in any language. • Guided questions are: • Is there a significant difference in the writing development between an English proficient and a Spanish proficient student in a dual classroom? • Does the parent’s educational background make a significant difference in the child’s writing progress?

4. Literature Review Researchers claim, that parent’s educational background has a positive influence in the children’s literacy achievement. The parent’s educational background promotes literacy learning because of the literacy behavior practice at home( Saracho, 2007; Loucks, 1992).

5. Literature Review • Very little research has been done on English language learner’s writing development. Regardless the lack of research, an educator can use strategies that help promote reading and writing. Basic research is known to hold the key to help educators choose instructional methods and strategies to enhance student achievement. (Alvarez, and Hakuta, 1992; Gort, 2006).

6. Literature Review There are specific strategies and skills needed for the native speaker to convey their oral language into written language. Cooperative learning, scaffolding, peer revision, editing, are a few that will benefit students transform their thoughts well into the written form (Patterson, and Bums, 1994; Gort, 2006; Cummins, 1999; Alvarez and Hakuta, 1992).

7. Statement of the Hypothesis Even though, there is lack of research in the writing development for English language learners, this study will compare the writing of both English proficient and Spanish proficient students in a Two-Way program. Giving the teachers an insight on the difference between two groups within a dual program. At the same time realize if and how the parent’s education background may effect the student’s writing development.

8. Method Participants: Students participating in this research are currently in a second grade Dual classroom also known as Two-Way Program. • Fifteen students are from the English component. • Fifteen students are from the Spanish component. • Students are from a New York City Public School System. • School is located in Sunset Park Section of Brooklyn, New York. Instruments: • Demographic Survey • Confidence/Rating Scale • General Survey • Parent Involvement Questionnaire (Time Allotted) • Student’s Educational Background Questionnaire Experimental Design: Quasi-Experimental Design: Nonequivalent Control Group Design • Symbolic Design: O X 1 O O X2 O Procedure: • Two groups Spanish and English proficient students pretested (Writing on Demand). • Both groups are exposed to a treatment. • Both groups are post-tested with the writing unit (Writing About Reading).

9. Statistical Analyses Writing on Demand (Pretest) Writing Progress Writing Progress Spanish Spanish English Students (15) Students (15) • Writing Progress Levels: • Low • Average • High • Exceeding Average 1.8 Median 2 Mode 2 Average 1.875 Median 2 Mode 2

10. Statistical Analyses Writing Unit (Post Test) English Spanish Writing Levels Writing Levels Students Students • Writing Progress Levels: • Low • Average • High • Exceeding Average 2.66666667 Median 3 Mode 2 Average 1.86666667 Median 2 Mode 2

11. Statistical AnalysesSpanish Component Father’s Education Level (Y) Mother’s Education Level (Y) Y 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 1 1 1 2 2 X 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 Y 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 X 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 15 Students (X) Writing (Pretest) 15 Students (X) Writing (Pretest) • Education Levels: • Less than High School • High School • Some College • College Graduate Correlation -0.0696733 RXY= -0.06 Negative Correlation -0.07537784 RXY= -0.06 Negative

12. Statistical AnalysesEnglish Component Father’s Education Level (Y) Mother’s Education Level (Y) Y 1 2 1 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 2 X 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 Y 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 X 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 15 Students (X) Writing (Pretest) 15 Students (X) Writing (Pretest) • Education Levels: • Less than High School • High School • Some College • College Graduate Correlation -0.22664921 RXY= -0.22 Negative Correlation 0.16081688 RXY= 0.16 Negative

13. Results The results from the pretest prior to the treatment demonstrated that the English language learners from both the English and Spanish component were basically at the same levels of development in their writing. Students were measured by a rubric geared to focus on specific elements in their writing. It was mostly focused on syntax and conventions. The rubric represented Its levels from one to four, one being the lowest, two average, three high and four exceeding. According to the data (bar graphs) for both groups demonstrated that the majority of students were at level 2, which indicates to be in an average level according to the rubric. The scatter plot represented the relationship between parent’s educational background with the writing progress of both groups. According to the data there was a minimal correlation (rxy: -0.06, -0.07, -0.22, 0.16 ). Using the demographic survey one of the questions asked about the mother and the father‘s educational background. When analyzing the demographic survey, there was a clear indication that with both groups the mothers had higher education than the fathers. Even with this information it still didn’t make a difference. It was clearly noted that the parent’s educational background had absolutely no direct effect to the student’s writing development. The results of this research indicate there was a slight increase in the writing progress of the English component and at the same time there was no correlation between the parent’s education and the student’s writing progress.

14. Discussion According to the results, the data does not reflect a direct correlation between the student’s writing progress and their parent’s educational background. Saracho (2007), claimed that there was a significant tie between the student’s writing development and their parent’s education. The researcher claimed the higher the education the parents had, the more it would promote the child’s literacy learning. The research clearly indicates otherwise. The data simply noted that the effect was minimal. Many of the lessons prepared were geared for English language learners. Scaffolding tools like thinking maps , graphic organizers, visuals, cooperative learning, modeling, shared writing and conferencing were all part of the unit of writing. It became a great asset to use with the English language learners. Even connecting some the lessons with their own past experiences and their cultural background provided a connection to work with their new writing piece, especially when they used text-to-self connections. Theorist Lev Vygotsky, and Jerome Bruner have emphasized cognitive development as closely acquainted to the brain’s construction of knowledge within a social context. Both theorist agree that the process of constructing knowledge of the world is not in isolation. They also agree that past experiences, culture and language play a central role in mental development . They also agree on the same instructional practices modeling, cooperative learning, and scaffolding are practices that are significant when Working with any student especially with English language learners. The action research that was used to compare the writing development of two groups , one Spanish proficient group and the other a English proficient clearly states that the students regardless if they were English or Spanish proficient they were transferring their first language skills to the second language. It is just like Cummins and Krashnen (1999) state that the bilingual education builds a solid foundation in the student’s native language preparing the native speaker to learn English whether it is speaking, reading or writing. Also developing literacy in two languages entails linguistic and cognitive advantages for bilingual students.

15. Implications As the research concluded and the data was analyzed, it became clear the results indicated a slight increase in the writing of the students in the English component. After evaluating the student’s writing, it was evident that the threats of internal and external validity during the research certainly effected the results of the data for the students in the Spanish component. Several threats came into play with the Spanish component group. Scheduling was a big issue when it came to working with the Spanish group. Several unscheduled meetings came up, spring break for some students were extended and finally the cancelling of the dual after school program because of funds. All these reasons may seem unimportant, but educators that work with English language learners understand that students need consistency and time for taking in strategies and putting them into practice. The majority of the English component’s results in the post-test did reflect a slight increase from their pretest and from the Spanish component. The reason seem to be obvious. These students had more exposure and time to put into practice the strategies and skills presented for this writing unit. There were evidence of editing in their writing piece, meaning they had the Flexibility and the time to go back to their writing to revise and edit their work. There were fundamental flaws in the action research for the Spanish group because of lack of time the group met. It was not the student’s fault, but it did effect the outcome. It seems to be obvious according to the data that if the time allotted was distributed equally, the results may have been about the same as the English group. After closely evaluating the writing post-test, it was for certain that more research is needed in the writing progress of the English language learners. One thing is for certain, time is a significant part of this type of research. Writing is not a simple task, especially for an English language learners who are trying to combine new knowledge with the old and then transfer their oral language skills from the first language to the second language, well into the written form (Patterson and Bums, 1994). Keeping In mind that to become proficient in any language it may take up to seven to eight years (Mitchell, Destino, Karam, and Muniz, 1999).

16. Threats to Validity INTERNAL: English Component Spanish Component • History + - • Maturation + - • Testing + + • Instrumentation + - • Regression + - • Selection + - • Mortality + - EXTERNAL: • Pretest X Interaction + + • Multiple X Interference - - SYMBOLS: • + Factor Controlled • - Factor not Controlled