Effective Strategies for Improving Writing Skills of Elementary English Language Learners
Yüklə 0,51 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Score (TIER C)* Pre-instruction Writing Sample Score** Post-Instruction
- Not enrolled in USA 2.8 0 2 Group 2 (Control Group)
- 1=does not meet standards 2=meets standards 3=exceeds standards
- SEM 0.095 0.206 N 4 6
- Group Group One Group Two
- Limitations of the Research 23
- Discussions
|
Group 1 (Experimental Group)
Student 1 st Grade ACCESS Writing Score (TIER B)* 2 nd Grade ACCESS Writing Score (TIER C)* Pre-instruction Writing Sample Score** Post-Instruction Writing Sample Score A 3.3 3.0 1 2 B 3.2 3.7 1 2 C 3.2 3.4 2 3 D 3.6 3.3 1 2 E Not enrolled in USA 2.8 0 2 Group 2 (Control Group) Student 1 st Grade ACCESS Writing Score (TIER B) 2 nd Grade ACCESS Writing score (TIERC) Pre-Instruction Writing Sample Score Post-Instruction Writing Sample Score F 2.6 3.0 1 1 G 3.8 3.4 2 3 H 2.7 3.3 1 2 I 2.7 2.8 1 1 J 2.8 2.9 1 2 K 3.5 3.1 1 2 *ACCESS scores can range from 1.0-6.0 with 6.0 being the highest. There are also 3 tiers of the test A, B, and C. Tier C is the highest level of the test and is given to students who are proficient in English and have potential to exit the program in the near feature. ** Number scores from 1-3 are given in second grade for all academic areas. 1=does not meet standards 2=meets standards 3=exceeds standards 19
T-Tests using Baseline Data (Group 1= Experimental Group, Group 2= Control Group) A t test compares the means of two groups. Moreover, the t test compares one variable between the two groups. In this case, I used two t tests to compare growth with ACCESS scores and actual writing samples for both the experimental and control groups. The first two t tests below display the results for pre-instruction data and first grade ACCESS scores. The final two represent post-instruction data and second grade ACCESS scores. T-Test for Pre-Instruction Writing Sample Group Group One Group Two Mean 1.00 1.20 SD 0.71 0.45 SEM 0.32 0.20 N 5 5 (The above results are not considered statistically significant.)
(The above results are not considered statistically significant. Both groups were tested on Tier B.)
Mean 2.20 1.80 SD
0.45 0.84
SEM 0.20 0.37
N 5
5 (The above results are not considered statistically significant.) T-Test ACCESS Scores (Second Grade) Group Group One Group Two Mean 3.240 3.080
20
SD 0.351 0.259
SEM 0.157 0.116
N 5
5 (The above results are not considered statistically significant. Both groups were tested on Tier C with the exception of the newcomer from Group 1.)
The qualitative data gathered in the form of student/teacher surveys was very beneficial for the initial process for planning purposes, especially from the teachers’ point of view. However, I will start with the student information. As shown in the Appendix, students were given a survey to complete regarding how they felt about writing and what they thought they needed help with. Nine out of the ten students felt excited/happy about writing and considered themselves good writers. Only one student said he was a bad writer and that was due to his handwriting skills. (One student was new to the United States so I did not ask him to complete 0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 3.5
Access Test Writing Samples Group 1 Group 2
21
the survey.) When asked what they thought they needed help with, four students requested assistance in writing complete sentences whereas the rest wrote “I don’t know” or “learn more”. The end of the year student surveys yielded the same results with ten out of eleven students rating themselves as good writers. However, it was a different student who did not feel confident about writing. Student “I” had a lot of family issues throughout the year and did not make much progress across the board. He lost a lot of confidence, generally speaking. Two students responded that the reason they were good writers was because they read what they wrote (a practice we frequently discussed), four indicated that their grades were better, two did not know, and one wrote because he was smart. For the last question which inquires as to what they still needed help with, they were well versed using the terms that were taught throughout the year. Four students listed organization, three wrote capitalization, two mentioned complete sentences, one did not know and my newcomer wanted to learn more English words. The teacher surveys indicated that writing was a part of their everyday routine. Each one agreed from their past experiences, that they were aware that ESL students fall behind academically in the area of writing. When asked to pinpoint problem areas, four out of five teachers mentioned vocabulary, expression of ideas, and complete sentences. One teacher indicated that lack of prior knowledge was a hindrance for English learners. Techniques they had previously used included small group instruction, building real life connections, peer conferencing, teacher modeling, and student friendly rubrics. Everyone was willing to be on the “team”, but I chose to only collaborate with the teachers I was co-teaching with. At the year’s end, I met with the team which is discussed below therefore I did not give a survey to the rest of the second grade teachers.
22
From the data, it is clear that for the most part, both groups improved. The experimental group improved slightly more than the control group, especially in the writing samples. Everyone, including the newcomer, met the standards at the end of the year and also showed improvement on the ACCESS test. The control group was not as successful but three out of the six met the standards at the end of the year. However, each showed gains on the ACCESS test albeit slight for some. As far as the qualitative student data is concerned, I believe it was lofty of me to think that in second grade, students can effectively self-evaluate. For the most part, they believe they are great at everything even if they are not, so they definitely find it hard to pinpoint what they have trouble with especially at the beginning of the school year. It was much easier for them at the end of the year because the subject was fresh on their minds. We had conferenced with them so consistently that they were aware of their shortcomings and for that matter, their strengths. Upon reflection, I wish I would have included strengths on the survey, instead I focused on weaknesses.
The project proved that the techniques implemented with the experimental group were, in fact, successful thus effective because the students’ writing skills did improve. There still exist weaknesses in the area of complete sentences and expression of ideas for a few students. These students need additional explicit instruction with writing complete sentences rather than run-on sentences. As far as expression is concerned, the students who struggle in this area have lower English proficiency levels so the weakness is expected. Overall, the goals were met and problem areas addressed. Limitations of the Research 23
As with any research, there are outside variables to consider. In this particular project, the classroom teacher of the experimental group was out on maternity leave the last two months of school. The supply teacher was more than adequate yet it was very difficult to remain in the same rhythm and routine as before. Furthermore, she had very little experience teaching writing and we had opposing views as to how much to assist the children. I include this information as I expected most of the experimental group to score higher on the post-instruction writing sample. Another factor to consider is the proficiency levels of the two groups. Aside from the newcomer, the experimental group consisted of students who were more proficient in English than the control group, which in my mind put them at an unfair advantage when comparing growth. Additionally, the classroom teacher for the control group did not provide any writing instruction on the days that I was absent or testing new students. She also did not meet with students about their writing outside of our ESOL segment which was not the case for the experimental group. The classroom teacher of the experimental group continued the writing block for an additional twenty minutes past our ESOL segment each day, giving the group more time and assistance. Discussions Going forward, the action research will continue. Although I will not be teaching with either one of the teachers from this project due to scheduling and other school related conflicts, I will continue to implement the techniques used with the experimental group. Ideally, the continued research would be more successful if I could teach with the same classroom teacher using what we know from the previous year, supplementing as indicated from the year-end results, and utilizing the new information we would receive from the pre-instruction writing sample gathered in the fall. In the future, I would also like to use two groups that are similar in English proficiency levels if at all possible to eliminate any unfair advantages. My plan is to
24
continue the research project so that I am always aware of the needs of my students as well as recent research-based strategies in writing to implement with my ESL students. References: Abella, R. (1992). Achievement tests and elementary esol exit criteria: An evaluation. Educational
Baradaran, A., & Sarfarazi, B. (2011). The impact of scaffolding on the Iranian EFL learners' english academic writing. Australian Journal Of Basic & Applied Sciences, 5(12), 2265-2273. Beavan, M. (1977). Individualized goal setting, self-evaluation, and peer evaluation. In C.R. Cooper & L. Odell. Evaluating Writing 135-156. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Berman, R. & Cheng, L. (2010). English academic language skills: perceived difficulties by undergraduate and graduate students, and their academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Applied
Bialystok, E. and Ryan, E. (1985). A metacognitive framework for the development of first and second language skills. Metacognition, Cognition, and Human Performance 1, (107-252). Bitchener, J., Cameron, D., & Young S. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14 (3), 191-205. Bloem, P. (2004) Correspondence journals: Talk that matters. The Reading Teacher 58(1), 54-62. Cavanaugh, M.P. (1996). History of teaching english as a second language. The English Journal Vol. 85, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 40-44. Chohan, S. (2011). Any Letter for me? Relationships between an elementary school letter writing program and student attitudes, literacy achievement, and friendship culture. Early Childhood
Elias, H., Akmaliah, Z. L. P., & Mahyuddin, R. (2005). Competencies needed by teachers. Implications for best teaching practices. Universiti Putra Malaysia Press. Malaysia. Selangor. Serdang. Evans, S. (2008). Reading reaction journals in EAP courses. ELT Journal, 62, 240-247. Fagan, B. (2003). Scaffolds to help ELL readers. Voices from the Middle, 11(1), 38-42. Feiler, A.& Logan, E. (2007). The literacy early action project (LEAP): Exploring factors underpinning progress with literacy for a child in his first year of school. British Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 162-169. Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language reading instruction in the United States: A research review. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 115-152. Fu-lan, L. (2006). Using Computer-mediated-communication to Overcome the Anxiety in ESL Writing. US- China Foreign Language, 4(11), 97-101 Gagné, N., & Parks, S. (2013). Cooperative learning tasks in a grade 6 intensive ESL class: Role of scaffolding. Language Teaching Research, 17(2), 188-209. Ghandoura, W. A. (2012). A qualitative study of ESL college students' attitudes about computer-assisted writing classes. English Language Teaching, 5(4), 57-64. Han, J. W., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (1999). Come Join the Literacy Club: One Chinese ESL child's literacy experience in a 1st-grade classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 13(2), 144. Hyland, F. (2000). Teacher management of writing workshops: Two case studies. Canadian Modern
Ismail, S. A. A. (2011). Exploring students' perceptions of ESL writing. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 73-83. Ismail, S., Al-Awidi, H., & Almekhlafi, A. (2012). Employing reading and writing computer-based 25
instruction in english as a second language in elementary schools. International Journal of Business & Social Science, 3(12), 265-274. Jones, C. D., Reutzel, D. R., & Fargo, J. D. (2010). Comparing two methods of writing instruction: Effects on kindergarten students' reading skills. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(5), 327-341. Kasapaglu-akyol, P. (2010).Using educational technology tools to improve language and communication skills of ESL students. Novitas-Royal (Research on Youth and Language) 4 (2), 225-241. Kasper, L. F., & Petrello, B. A. (1998). Responding to ESL Student Writing: The Value of a Nonjudgmental Approach. Community Review, 16178. Lee, H. (2012). The reading response e-journal: An alternative way to engage low-achieving EFL students. Language Teaching Research, 17 (1), 111-131. MacGowan-Gilhooly, a. (1991) Fluency before correctness: a whole-language experiment in College ESL. College ESL, 1, 37-47. Nesamalar, C., Saratha, S. & Teh, S. (2001). ELT Methodology: Principles and Practice. Selangor: Penerbit Fajar Bakti. Pour-Mohammadi, M., Zainol Abidin, M., & Cheong Lai, F. (2012). The effect of process writing practice on the writing quality of form one students: A Case Study. Asian Social Science, 8(3), 88-99. Read, S. (2010). A model for scaffolding writing instruction: IMSCI. Reading Teacher, 64(1), 47-52. doi:10.1598/RT.64.1.5 Shaughnessy, M.P. (1988). Diving in: An introduction to basic writing. In G. Tate & E.P.J. Corbett. The Writing Teacher’s Sourcebook 297-302. New York: Oxford. Stahl, S. (1985). To teach a word well: A framework for vocabulary instruction. Reading World, 24 (913), 16-27. Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159. Thomas, J. (1993). Countering the ‘I can’t write English’ syndrome. TESOL Journal, 2 12-15. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Condition
Watts-Taffe, S., & Truscott, D. (2000). Using what we know about language and literacy development for ESL students in the mainstream classroom. Language Arts 77(3) 258-264. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume I. Problems of general psychology. R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton, Eds. New York: Plenum. Webb, S. A. (2009). The effects of pre-learning vocabulary on reading comprehension and writing. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(3), 441-470. WIDA Consortium (2012). Amplification of the English Language Development Standards, Kindergarten through Grade 12. Madison, WI: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Retrieved July 9, 2013 from: http://www.wida.us/resources/ Wong Mei Ha, H. and Storey, P. (2006). Knowing and doing in the ESL writing class. Language Awareness 15(4) 283-300 Yüklə 0,51 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|